The Young Turks - Scale Back Better

Episode Date: August 8, 2022

The Climate, Tax, and Health care package passes in the Senate. The GOP has blocked price caps on insulin. Krysten Sinema is backing republicans and their crazy conservative agenda. Conservatives think out of the box and want mothers considering abortion to drop them off in a box. Host: Ana Kasparian *** The largest online progressive news show in the world. Hosted by Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian. LIVE weekdays 6-8 pm ET. Help support our mission and get perks. Membership protects TYT's independence from corporate ownership and allows us to provide free live shows that speak truth to power for people around the world. See Perks: ▶ https://www.youtube.com/TheYoungTurks/join SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ http://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks TWITTER: ☞ http://www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM: ☞ http://www.instagram.com/TheYoungTurks TWITCH: ☞ http://www.twitch.com/tyt 👕 Merch: http://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA #TYT #TheYoungTurks #BreakingNews Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Welcome to TYT. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian, as you can probably already see, Jank Yugar is still out, but he will be back tomorrow. Today I will be doing a solo first hour because there is a lot of dense policy to get into, and it would be best to just kind of give you the details of what transpired. over the weekend with the Senate passing the so called inflation reduction act,

even though it has nothing to do with inflation, but we'll discuss it later. And then in the second hour, I'll be joined by Wozni Lombre to talk about some other news today, including some updates in regard to the Ahmaud Arbery case, the individuals who shot and killed him, turns out that there are further consequences for their actions. And I want to share that story and more with you. in the second hour. I'm very excited to interview the council, meaning the attorney for the Sandy Hook family in the trial that we've been covering the defamation trial against Alex Jones. His name is Mark Bankston. He is awesome. And I can't wait to talk to him, not only about that

trial, but also the ramifications of the outcome of the trial. So we'll discuss that and more, by the way, including Alex Jones and his little scheme to declare bankruptcy, probably to skirt any, you know, financial liability as a result of the, you know, compensatory and punitive damages that were determined by the jury in that trial. We'll get into all those details. I'm really excited to, you know, get in the weeds of all of that. But before we do any of that, I just want to encourage you to like and share the stream. We want to get the message out. We want to get more eyeballs on the program. It's a really easy way to help support the show. You can also become a member by going to t-y-t.com slash join, or if you're watching us on YouTube, just click on that join button.

It'll not only help support the show, but you'll have access to members-only, exclusive members-only content. Today, Waz will be joining me for the bonus episode, and we have a very fun story to share with you, so don't miss it. All right, well, why don't we get into the nitty-gritty of the Inflation Reduction Act? We're going to divvy this up into three separate segments. The first one pertains to the climate provisions in the bill. Some good, some bad, let's get into it. Over the weekend, the Senate managed to pass the so-called inflation reduction act, which includes provisions pertaining to climate change, also some provisions pertaining to tax increases

for corporations and the ultra-wealthy, and there are provisions in there in regard to health insurance and health care in America. For the purposes of this portion of the story, I want to focus on the climate provisions, what the legislation means, and what is likely to happen after the House passes its version of this legislation. Now, let me begin with the good, okay? For some of the people who are incredibly sensitive to any criticism or critique toward the Democratic Party, let's do the sandwich method, okay? I'll ease you into the information you need to know by starting off with the positives in this legislation. So according to what we know so far in regard to what the Senate has passed in this bill,

the bill would invest nearly $400 billion over 10 years in the tax credits aimed at steering consumers to electric vehicles and prodding electric utilities toward renewable energy sources like wind or solar. That is good. What I particularly like about that is that there is money allocated specifically for ordinary Americans. So they have some subsidies. They get some support from the federal government when it comes to purchasing electric vehicles. There is a mineral shortage that is incredibly necessary for the batteries of electric vehicles. That is expected to drive up the costs of these vehicles in the next few years. And it is incredibly important that the federal government offers support to ordinary Americans. So they're not

left trying to figure out what to do when there's all this pressure to purchase cars that are much better for the environment. Now the tax credits do include $30 billion to speed the production of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, and critical minerals processing. 10 billion to build facilities to manufacture things like electric vehicles and solar panels. And there's also $500 million through the Defense Production Act for heat pumps and critical minerals processing. So there's money allocated for the manufacturing of these products. There's money allocated for ordinary Americans to be able to purchase electric vehicles. So far, so good.

Let me give you more. Energy experts, this is the part that I want you to be careful with, okay? This is what the New York Times reports, but it's not just the New York Times. Every single publication uses the same wording. Energy experts said the measure would help the United States cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40% below 200, below 2005 levels by the end of this decade. Okay, so let's pause right there. Who are the energy experts? And can we please see that analysis? I have yet to see any analysis. I have yet to read a single report that specifies who these supposed energy experts are.

are they energy experts who work for oil and gas lobbies? Are they energy experts who focus on renewable energies? What kind of analysis have they done? What kind of methodology are we talking about? Everyone just kind of taking what these reports say at face value without any specificity. That's a small issue I have here. But I do think it's incredibly important for the media to be specific about what they're referring to when they just vaguely say energy experts. But let me continue, far more will be needed to help keep the planet from warming to dangerously high global temperatures, scientists said, which scientists? Again, I mean, we need to be specific, but Democrats considered it a momentous first step after decades of inaction. So again, there are positive elements to the climate portion of this bill. But what I am concerned about is whether those positive investments in renewable energies,

will be negatively mitigated by the handouts that will be given to fossil fuel companies. So now we get into some of the negative components. And what you'll hear from some of these Democrats who have given into these ridiculous concessions is that, well, we needed to get Joe Manchin on board. So we had to do all these favors for fossil fuel companies. Okay, I would argue that Joe Manchin is actually incredibly weak, has very thin skin. And if you're willing to use the bully pulpit, if you're willing to apply pressure, if you're willing to rally for a much more robust renewable energy bill in his state that would

actually provide jobs and benefits in his state, he might actually provide concessions for Democrats, not the other way around, but they didn't play that game. So nonetheless, here's what we know so far. So the bill would also force oil and gas companies to pay fees as high as $1,500 a ton to address excess leaks of methane. So far, this is good. It's a powerful greenhouse gas, as we all know. And it would undo a 10-year moratorium on offshore wind leasing established by President Donald Trump. So far, that's good.

I have no problem with that whatsoever. But, you know, one great way of preventing methane leaks is to, you know, maybe start winding down on fracking for natural gas, which typically leads to methane leaks. But that is not what's going to be happening in the future. Based on the wording of this legislation, there could actually be an expansion of fracking for natural gas. So let's get into that. What does that mean? Democrats agreed to a number of fossil fuel and drilling provisions as concessions to Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a holdout from a conservative state that is heavily dependent on coal and gas. Now, there are other concessions that they made. For instance,

the measure would assure new oil drilling leases in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska's Cook Inlet. It would expand tax credits for carbon capture technology, which is mostly garbage. This is a PR mechanism that's used to convince Americans that it's okay to continue using dirty fossil fuels because we'll do carbon capture. It would mandate that. the Interior Department continue to hold auctions for fossil fuel leases if it plans to approve new wind or solar projects on federal land. So do you understand how that works? The timing is important. So before you could even consider new projects for winds and solar on federal land,

you have to first provide new leases for oil and gas drilling. That comes first. That's number one. I think that's a bit of a problem. And I have not seen any sound analysis showing what kind of impact that'll have on the positive components of the climate provisions in this bill. Everyone's just kind of saying, oh, but you know, even with all these negative provisions, it's okay because it's a net positive. Is it?

Where's the analysis that shows that? I would like to see it. I don't just want to take what corporate media says at face value, but I'll continue. The legislation includes components that are helpful to our business, said Rich Walsh of Valero. He said this during a fossil, during the fossil field giant's earnings call. And I've, by the way, shared this with. you before. I've shared that quote with you in our prior coverage of this bill. And the reason why I do it is because if you have CEOs, a fossil fuel company say, this

is tight, we like this. Maybe we need to reconsider whether or not this is a bill that goes far enough in getting us where we need to be in cutting, you know, carbon emissions. I'm just putting that out there. In fact, Kathleen, Gama, who's who's the president of Western Energy Alliance, says this, the bill, this bill forces them not to neglect oil and natural gas. So like the idea of responding to the climate emergency appropriately by expanding oil and natural gas drilling in the country just seems strange to me. I feel like journalists should be asking more questions about that. But I haven't seen the right questions being asked, I've just seen reporters take what, you know, the Senate is saying at face value.

They vaguely mention that energy experts say, this is great, it's going to cut carbon emissions by 40%, which, by the way, is still not where Biden said he wanted to be. He wanted to cut carbon emissions by 50%. But nonetheless, they just take what the Senate says at face value, and they roll with it. Now, one other thing that Mansion did receive as, a concession here is a 304 mile gas pipeline that actually runs through his state. This was a huge priority for him, mostly because his, you know, corporate donors have made it a major priority of his. And I'll give you the numbers in just a moment. But, you know, this is the pipeline that we've talked about before. It runs through West Virginia to through

the Appalachian Mountains. It would transport Appalachian shale gas. 300 miles from West Virginia to Virginia. It's interesting because there are citizens in Virginia who are outraged by this because work on this project had already begun. There were all sorts of environmental concerns, especially concerns in regard to contaminating drinking water in the area. And there have been people living in West Virginia who spoke to the press who were like, great that they had all these closed door negotiations and conversations.

We weren't privy to those negotiations. We were not spoken to at all about these negotiations, and this is a pipeline that's going to negatively affect us, but it doesn't seem like anyone in the Senate seems to care about that. Now, why is this a priority for Joe Manchin? You just follow the money. It's so easy. You don't have to be a genius to be a decent journalist, okay?

I'm not a genius at all. I just understand how incentives and disincentives work. In this case, the incentive is money for Joe Manchin. both personally through his personal financial investments in fossil fuel companies and coal. And also when it comes to his own political campaigning, let's get to those numbers. So natural gas pipeline companies have dramatically, dramatically increased contributions to Mansion from just $20,000 in 2020 to more than $331,000 so far this election cycle. Manchin has been by far Congress's largest recipient of money from natural gas pipeline companies this cycle, raising three times as much from the industry than any other lawmaker.

Gee, I wonder if that might have an impact on how politicians behave or what politicians fight for when it comes to this kind of legislation. Now again, I think this pipeline is a disaster. I would prefer that it is not included in this legislation. However, if it is a small concession relative to the positive climate provisions in the bill, great. But I'm not convinced because there hasn't been a single journalist who has shown us that analysis yet. And I'm not going to just take what the Senate says at face value. More, because Mansion is not the only one taking bribes from fossil fuel companies. I think this is very relevant.

Because when we talk about concessions to Mansion, it's always framed as, well, these Democrats, what can they do? What can they do? They really wanted to ensure that there was no expansion for drilling for natural gas and oil. But what could they do? Except it seems like they like to lean on Mansion as the heel. What do I mean by that? Well, let's get to Chuck Schumer here, who's, of course, Senate Majority Leader.

Next Era Energy, a utility giant and stakeholder in the Mountain Valley Pipeline, is a top donor to both Mansion and Senator Chuck Schumer, who negotiated the pipeline side deal with Mansion. Schumer has received more than $281,000 from Next Era this election cycle. I'm sure that had absolutely no impact on Schumer's decision to just cave, And, you know, give all these concessions to Mansion. I'm sure, you know, Manchin really had to twist his arm, right? Or maybe Manchin didn't really have to twist his arm.

Maybe Manchin was a convenient excuse. Maybe we need to follow the money. Maybe the reporting needs to reflect what's really taking place here with money influencing the behavior of our politicians to essentially work against us, ordinary Americans, and work in favor of fossil fuel companies. But again, I'm going to hold out hope that maybe, just maybe, that even with all these negative climate provisions in the bill, the positive climate provisions will outweigh the negative.

Maybe. But I'm not convinced yet because, again, we haven't seen the evidence. We haven't seen the analysis. We don't know what the methodology is. And we certainly don't know who these energy experts are. But we'll wait and see. And in the meantime, people can get angry at me for just merely mentioning the negative provisions, but they exist whether you like it or not.

All right, well, let's move on to the health care component here, because in this case, pro-life Republicans really seem to hate helping people with diabetes live in this country. The so called Inflation Reduction Act, which passed in the Senate over the weekend, includes provisions that make some, not all, some prescription drugs more affordable for Americans on Medicare. care. But price caps on insulin were defeated for Americans who rely on private insurance. And the reason why that happened is because, well, Republicans blocked it. The same Republicans, by the way, who purport to be pro-life. The same Republicans who seem to think that it's okay to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, force a woman, or in some cases a girl, to go through childbirth against her will. They think that they're pro-life. Except if you have diabetes and you can't

afford your insulin, oh, they'll abandon you, knowing full well that you might die because you can't afford the insulin you need to survive. So let's get into the details. How did this happen? How was it defeated? Well, this is how the provision would work. Now, Medicare, as the bill is written today, we'll negotiate, we'll be able to negotiate the prices for 10 prescription drugs. Not today, not tomorrow, not next year, but starting in 2026. So in 2026, wow, Medicare can finally start negotiating prices for 10 prescription drugs. Now after 2026, the list can include more drugs in following years. But that part of this legislation is incredibly vague. I don't know what that means. Does that mean it can expand to 10 more drugs? One more drug. What are the

numbers here? That's, as we know right now, very unclear. But there are some out-of-pocket price caps in the bill for the nation's seniors. That is a positive component of this legislation. For instance, the package would cap out-of-pocket costs that seniors pay annually for prescription drugs at $2,000 and would ensure that seniors have access to free vaccines. Overall, that's pretty good, but I also want you to consider that our nation's seniors are usually on fixed incomes. So $2,000 is still a lot of money, but I'm in favor of price caps, out-of-pocket price caps, especially with the incredible greed that we see from these pharmaceutical companies. Now, the package would also extend subsidies to help Americans

afford private insurance offered through the Affordable Care Act marketplace. Now, these subsidies were in place, they were set to expire, thanks to this legislation, they will be extended. That is also good, okay? But here's what the so-called pro-life Republican senators did. Now, Democrats wanted a price cap on insulin for everyone, okay, including those who rely on private insurance. Republicans are like, nah, no, we're not about that. They decided to keep that provision intact for Medicare recipients, but if you are reliant on private insurance, the price cap didn't make it, okay? Despite an adverse ruling from the chambers parliamentarian, who by the way, could have easily been overruled by Kamala Harris as the Senate president,

Democrats opted to keep the full price cap provision in the bill anyway. Democrats would have needed 60 votes. Their entire caucus plus the support of 10 GOP members to beat back that challenge, they came up short. Okay, so let me decode that for you a little bit, right? So the Senate parliamentarian weighs in whenever the Senate tries to pass something through reconciliation, meaning pass something without the legislative filibuster, pass something with a simple majority of 51 senators rather than having to pass something with 60 senators. Parliamentarian jumps in and says, you can't do the price cap for insulin. Hey, we know you probably hit play to escape your business banking, not think about it. But what if we told you there was a way to

skip over the pressures of banking? By matching with a TD small business account manager, you can get the proactive business banking advice and support your business needs. Ready to press play? get up to $2,700 when you open select small business banking products. Yep, that's $2,700 to turn up your business. Visit TD.com slash small business match to learn more. Conditions apply. For, you know, people who rely on private insurance, because that doesn't impact the federal budget.

You can only pass things through reconciliation if it has an impact on the federal budget. Well, look, again, Kamala Harris, as the Senate president, can jump in and be like, overruled. I'm just going to disregard with the parliamentarian says she has the right to do that. They didn't do that. Instead, they tried to pass it with the 60 votes necessary to pass that provision. And guess what? It didn't pass. Of course it didn't pass. So Republicans did vote against it. I do want to note some Republicans did support the price cap in the 5743 vote for the measure, but not enough joined Democrats in support of it to meet the threshold for passage. you do need 60 senators if you're going to try to pass this through a non-reconciliation way.

Okay, so you don't have enough Republicans. I think Democrats saw that coming. And so let's talk about the impact this is going to have on Americans, okay? Diabetes affects a lot of Americans, one in 10 to be exact, taking a serious toll on both quality of life and personal finances for many, according to the CDC, people with diagnosed diabetes have more than twice the average medical costs than those without diabetes. When comparing the United States to countries around the world, the cost of insulin in the United States is eight times higher than the combined average of their high income nations.

And so since it's so unaffordable in America, what do diabetes patients end up doing? Well, according to Charity RX, they did a survey and they found out that 79% say that insulin has posed a financial difficulty for them personally or for those in their care. Four and five have taken on credit card debt to afford insulin. $9,000 is the average amount of debt people have taken on to cover insulin costs. And in an effort to lower costs, 62% have skipped and or adjusted the dosage of insulin injections for themselves or as a caregiver for someone else to cut down on costs. You could die. Let's just keep it real. You're messing around with dosage because you can't afford the medication. You can't afford the insulin. You're putting your life at risk. And it's not because these patients want to do it. It's because we have a broken system that is constantly protected by corrupt politicians in Congress. In this case, in the Senate. So what I found fascinating was that Republican Senator Joni Ernst just recently in 2020 gave a speech indicating that she knows full well how

damaging the unaffordable price of insulin is to Americans across this country. She knows it. She's one of the senators who voted against the provision that would have capped the price of insulin to $35 for private insurance recipients, right? So let's watch that speech. This is what she said in 2020. The skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs has become a matter of life and death for so many. We've heard the heartbreaking stories of individuals who could not afford their insulin, were forced to ration and skip doses, and as a result, they lost their lives. I remember quite vividly a conversation I had with an Iowa mother explaining how she lost her son, who as a young man was rationing his insulin because he could not

afford to do more. There she is. She knows what's going on. Yet she had the audacity. She had the goal to vote against the provision that would have capped insulin prices to $35 for people who have

private insurance. And by the way, even if that provision had passed, it still wouldn't have been enough. Because what about the tens of millions of Americans who don't have insurance at all? We just leave them alone and allow them to die because they can't afford the medication they need to survive in one of the richest countries in the world. Is that what we do?

Yeah, that's what we do. Joni Ernst, along with all the other Republican lawmakers who voted against this, are just flat out disgusting corrupt monsters. They don't care about their constituents. They don't care about doing anything other than using their position of power to do what? To enrich themselves. They'll give the floor speeches to make it seem as though they're empathetic to the plight of Americans across the country. But at the end of the day, when push comes to shove, when they have the opportunity to do the right thing, they never cast the right vote to do right by their own constituents. That's who Joni Ernst is.

That's who all those other Republicans who voted down that provision are. They don't care. They'll try to piggyback off of a populist environment in this country and pretend like they understand the genuine concerns of Americans, the genuine economic realities that Americans are facing today. But at the end of the day, all it really is is PR for themselves. Actions speak louder than words. They've shown us through their actions.

They don't actually care about what Americans are facing in this country, especially when it comes to the cost of pharmaceutical drugs. Finally, I wanted to give some props to Bernie Sanders because he fought as hard as he could to include amendments in this legislation that would have yielded a much better result, much better bill. Sanders offered amendments that would have removed oil and gas handouts from the reconciliation bill. He added dental hearing and vision coverage to Medicare, established a civilian conservation

Corps. He strengthened the measures, drug price provisions, revived the expanded child tax credit, and hiked the corporate tax rate. These are all proposed amendments from Senator Sanders. And what happened? The Vermont Senator was the lone yes vote on all, on all, but one of his amendments. Senators Raphael Warnock and John Ossoff supported the proposal to expand Medicare. That's nice. It's not nice that only two Democratic senators signed on for that. And when it came to all the other amendments, Bernie Sanders was the only one. In fact, here's Warren Gunnell's tweet that helps you visualize that. Our amendments cut Medicare drug prices by 50%.

One senator voted in favor, as you can imagine, that's Bernie Sanders. Expand Medicare, as I mentioned, three senators voted in favor of that. Civilian Climate Corps, one senator, Bernie Sanders, voted in favor of that. extended child tax credit, which Democrats were bragging, had cut child poverty by 50%. They all voted no on extending that child tax credit. Bernie Sanders was the only one who voted yes. And when it comes to striking fossil fuel provisions in the bill, again, Bernie Sanders was the only Democratic senator who voted yes. So while we have all this negative coverage of corporate Democrats like Mansion and Cinema, understand that they're really the two that have no problems serving as the heel or the heels.

There are a bunch of other corporate Democrats who are too cowardly to be as vociferous as Mansion and Cinema are. But they exist. So you get rid of Mansion and Cinema and another corporate Democrat will take their place. Because at the end of the day, that corporate cash means more to them than doing right by their own. constituents. All right, we got to take a quick break. When we come back, we'll get into the Kirsten Cinema Tax Increases portion of this bill. Don't miss that. We've got that and more coming right up. Welcome back to the show. I'm Anna Casparian, and I just want to give a shout out to all the people behind the scenes that make the show possible because I don't do it alone. Obviously, we've got wonderful producers, graphics team, video editors. And if you're watching the show right now and thinking to yourself, wow, that lighting, it looks really good. It's because Edwin Humania has been tinkering with it and is making sure that we have the best production values and the best lighting in news.

So thank you to Edwin for that. Well, why don't we get to our next story because Kirsten Cinema did exactly what I expected her to do. Find someone who loves you the way Kirsten Cinema loves the private equity, private equity and venture capital. You know, she fought really hard for that carried interest tax loophole. That's right, we have learned that over the weekend, Senator Kirsten Cinema, who is handsomely, handsomely paid by private equity firms and corporations, did what she could to ensure

that some of the tax provisions that would, you know, just modestly get private equity firms and corporations to pay a modest minimum tax. She gutted that. She gutted it, and I'll tell you exactly how she did it. And it's something that was so incredibly predictable. In fact, I predicted it on July 28th. And we'll get to that prediction in just a second, but first a few details. The tax proposals were shaped, as the New York Times reports, by Senator Sinema, Democrat of Arizona, who resisted her party's push to increase tax rates on the country's wealthiest corporations and individuals.

Now, while Democrats, by the way, promised to stick together and avoid voting along with Republicans and their amendments, cinema decided to break that promise because who cares, right? I mean, she gets to do whatever she wants. And no matter what, she gets rewarded for it, both by the press and by her fellow Democrats in the Senate. Cinema on Sunday backed a Republican amendment to shield businesses that rely on capital investment from private equity groups from the 15% corporate minimum tax that Senate majority leader Charles Schumer included in the Inflation Reduction Act. All right, let's pause for a second.

15% minimum tax. Because right now we have corporations who pay nothing in taxes, federal taxes. We have corporations who get tax refunds at the end of the year. Corporations that are incredibly successful bring in billions of dollars a year, they end up paying nothing in taxes. So this provision, as it was originally written, was already honestly, weak sauce. It's like, can you guys please pay like just 15%. Now, if you're a working American and you're getting your pay stuff, I want you to look at your pay stuff. I want you

to take a look at what your tax bracket is because I guarantee you, you're probably paying more percentage wise in federal taxes than the wealthiest people in this country. And if this provision had passed, you still probably would have been paying more percentage wise in federal taxes than the wealthiest people in this country. We couldn't even get a modest tax increase. So the amendment, the amendment was sponsored by Senate Republican whip John Thune. Yeah, that's who Cinemas rubbing shoulders with, who says the 15% corporate minimum tax would raise taxes on businesses with less than a billion dollars in profits because it would applied to private equity groups that have partnership interests in those businesses.

Those poor companies, what if they're bringing in less than a billion dollars in revenue a year? Then we're going to make them pay a minimum 15% tax. We can't have that. That would be unfair. Obviously, it wouldn't be unfair. And so, yeah, cinema went along with this and decided to help Republicans gut the tax provisions that were already weak-sossed to begin with. And on July 28th, who predicted that this would happen? Let's watch. The bill, the new bill, will include $739 billion in new revenue through a 15% corporate minimum tax, which, and I'm adding this part for myself, will be stripped out or stripped down by Kirsten Cinema because she has not weighed in yet. And I want to be clear that Kirsten

cinema has been the most vociferous against any type of wealth tax hike, corporate tax hike, tax hikes in general. She has been against it, she's been vocal about it and she hasn't weighed in yet. So the idea that this is gonna pass with some increase in taxes for corporations is laughable to me and if I'm proven wrong, I will be elated to come on air and tell you that I'm proven wrong. But But that's my prediction. Now, I haven't been proven wrong. I've been proven correct because it's not difficult to make these predictions given

the incentives and disincentives. We talk about this all the time. You can think whatever you want to think about cinema, okay? I'm not interested in a conversation about how she's a bad person or a good person. I am interested in a conversation about having to deal with a system. that governs with the incentives in the wrong place, meaning the incentives are corporate cash being funneled to the campaigns of our politicians, both on the left and the right. So the incentives push these politicians to do the wrong thing, not the right thing. And in this

case, you have an incredibly modest tax hike being stripped down from this bill, the Senate version of this bill. So to avoid the rate increase, Cinema opposed, what did Democrats do? Democrats instead settled on a far more complex change to the tax code. A new 15% corporate minimum tax on the profits companies report to shareholders. It would apply to companies that report more than $1 billion in annual income on their financial statements, but that are also able to use credits, deductions, and other tax treatments, meaning loopholes, to lower their effective tax rates. Do you get what's going on here? It's like, okay, don't worry, we are going to implement this minimum tax, but we're going

to do it with all these loopholes baked in so they can skirt the 15% minimum tax. That's what this is. That's what's going on. She also forced the removal of a proposal supported by Democrats and Republicans, by the way, that would have narrowed a tax break used by both hedge fund and private equity industries to secure lower tax rates than their entry level employees. So there are even Republicans who wanted to do something about that. And cinema's like, nope, nope, don't you see how much money I'm taking from private equity firms?

What do you do? You think I'm going to go for this? No, not going to go for this. Now let's follow the money, let's follow the money, it's easy, it's not difficult, I'm not a genius, okay? The journalists out there who purport to be geniuses, for some reason have a difficult time following the money. So let's follow the money, financial times, which actually, you know, in the grand scheme of things, does decent reporting. Gives us the numbers when it comes to cinema's campaign contributions from the financial industry. In fact, according to the federal election commission filings, cinema has received more than half a million dollars in campaign donation.

from private equity group executives in this election cycle alone. One election cycle alone representing about 10% of her fundraising from individual donors. This includes individual donations totaling $54,900 from executives at KKR, 35,000 from Carlisle, 27,300 from Apollo, 24,500 from Crow Holdings Capital, and 23,300 from Crow Holdings Capital, and 23,300. from Riverside Partners. And despite cinema, looking out for billionaires and serving as an obstructionist to her own party's policy goals, the media did decide to reward her. I think that's relevant here with this headline.

Here's the Associated Press. Senator Joe Manchin sealed the deal, reviving President Joe Biden's big economic health care and climate bill, but it was another Democratic senator. Kirsten Cinema of Arizona, who intently, quietly, and deliberately shaped the final product. Aren't they heroes, everyone? The two obstructionists in the Senate who have blocked every important provision, including universal child care, extended child tax credits, free community and public college, money to help with elder care. All of those provisions gone.

gone. But the people who block those provisions, the people who stripped that original bill of everything that would have actually helped ordinary people, those politicians are heroes according to the corporate press. That is the game that we see play out over and over again. And finally, again, the focus always tends to be on cinema and mansion because they are the most vocal against the provisions that the vast majority of Americans want. But the money influences others in the Senate, including Senate leadership, like Chuck Schumer. So let's just go to Graphic 8 here. Executives at groups, including Blackstone, KKR, and Lazard, have also collectively donated 1.28 million to New York Senator Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the Senate, representing about 4.4% of his fundraising from individual donors this cycle alone.

This is how the game is played. It's not about good or bad. It's about incentives and disincentives. And, you know, people like to belong to tribes. If you vote as a Democrat, you want to protect the Democratic Party at all costs. But consider what the costs are. Because when you provide cover for this kind of corruption, you're going to constantly get screwed over. And that is what we're seeing right now when it comes to the climate provisions, when it comes to the health care provisions.

and certainly when it comes to incredibly modest tax hikes for the wealthiest people in this country. Ordinary working Americans who are just scraping by shouldn't have to pay a higher percentage of their income in federal taxes than the wealthiest people in this country do. I don't know, maybe that's a super radical idea, but that's where I stand. We got to take a break. When we come back, we've got more news for you. We're going to switch gears and talk about other things happening in the country. including baby drop boxes that are now being implemented across the country because women are

being forced into pregnancy and childbirth. We'll be right back. to TYT, I'm Anna Casparian, and we've got a lot more news to get to. So why don't we talk a little bit about what has just transpired in the state of Indiana? Indiana is unfortunately the latest state to pass a near total abortion ban and the first state to do so after the reversal of Roe in the Supreme Court. Now, Indiana is one of the few red states that actually did not have a trigger law. that would immediately come into effect as soon as the Supreme Court reversed row. But it didn't matter because the state lawmakers immediately got to work and decided to draft

legislation, which unfortunately passed. And this will have major ramifications not just for the women living in that state. It'll have major ramifications for other women in other states who were relying on Indiana to get the abortion care they needed. Now, the Republican-dominated state Senate approved the legislation 28 to 19 in a vote that came just hours after it passed Indiana's lower chamber. The bill, which will go into effect soon on September 15th, allows abortion only in cases of rape, incest, lethal, fetal abnormality, or when the procedure is necessary to prevent severe health risks or death. But it's never enough for the religious zealots in this country. I want to be clear about that. Because apparently this draconian legislation wasn't draconian enough for the religious zealots

and theocratic authoritarians in America. In a statement, anti-abortion group, Indiana Right to Life, opposed the exceptions and said the new law did not go far enough in cutting abortion access. So if the mother's life is at risk as a result of the pregnancy, let her die. That's how pro-life they are. These exceptions, unacceptable. These people, the fact that they have a stranglehold on red states in this country is so incredibly depressing, especially when it's abundantly clear that they don't care about life at all.

The idea that an exception would be made for a woman who, who might die as a result of a pregnancy complication. Like, they think it's crazy, that's unacceptable. That's how pro-life they are. So again, this will impact women and girls in the state of Indiana, of course, but there were women in neighboring states that were relying on Indiana to get the reproductive care and abortion care they needed. In fact, not too long ago, a story involving a 10-year-old race.

rape victim who became pregnant was all over the headlines. And this girl had to travel from Ohio to Indiana in order to get an abortion. If she was dealing with a similar issue in September of this year, she would not be able to go to Indiana. Her family would not be able to take her to the state of Indiana to get the abortion she needed as a 10-year-old girl who was impregnated by her rapist. So what happens now? Because fact of the fact of the woman. of the matter is, women are gonna be forced to go through a pregnancy they don't want. Months and months of a pregnancy that changes their body, that puts them through a lot physically and emotionally. Then they have to go through childbirth, hours and hours of labor,

potentially a C-section where their abdomen is cut open and the baby is taken out that way, possibly a vaginal birth that's certainly traumatic when you want the baby, but also incredibly traumatic when you don't want the baby. But what happens if, let's say, women don't have the means to support the baby that they were forced to have? Is the state of Indiana doing anything about that? Is there any type of social program, any type of support that's being offered to these women who will now be forced to carry a pregnancy to term and forced to give birth to a baby they don't want. Is there anything there? Especially in a country, by the way, that has an incredibly broken health care system.

Is there any financial support? No. There's no discussion about that. But don't worry, there is discussion about baby drop boxes. Because who doesn't want to treat babies as if they're an Amazon return, right? Super pro-life. So let's discuss that a little bit. Indiana has so-called safe haven boxes, okay? They're at fire stations where women can surrender their babies anonymously. So that is the support system that is now sprouting up in response to these draconian laws in red states. All 50 states have safe haven laws meant to protect surrendering mothers from clinical charges, or criminal charges. The first known as the baby Moses law was passed in Texas

in 1999 after a number of women abandoned infants in trash cans or dumpsters. But what began as a way to prevent the most extreme cases of child abuse has become a broader phenomenon supported especially among the religious right, of course, which heavily promotes adoption as an alternative to abortion. I should note, we already have a huge adoption crisis in America. We have about, let's see, what are the numbers again? Oh yeah, as of 2020, 407,493 children in foster care, and approximately 117,000 children waiting to be adopted. So it's not like there's a shortage of kids who need to be adopted, but it's okay. The right wing would like you to completely ignore that and pretend as though adoption is the

best option if you find yourself with an unwanted pregnancy, even an unwanted pregnancy as a result of rape, by the way. So the adoptions themselves could also be probably, You should know about that, with women potentially unaware that they are terminating parental rights and children left with little information about their origins. If a parent is using a safe haven, there's been a crisis and the system has already in some way failed, said Ryan Hanlon, president of the National Council for Adoption. So there are other issues with the safe haven adoption method, because again, does the woman or girl who is giving up the baby know that she is giving up all rights to that child? What if she changes her mind? How does that all work out? In recent years, there have been over 100,000 domestic adoptions annually and more than 600,000 abortions. Studies show that the vast majority of women denied abortions are uninterested in adoption and end up going on to raise their children. With no support, by the way, from the individuals who force them to have the children in the first place.

And when I say no support, I mean no financial support, child care is outrageously expensive. I don't know how they're expected to go to work and provide a living for the baby they were forced to have when they don't have the option of child care because it's astronomically expensive. But nonetheless, there's no one in state government focusing on that. They're focusing on baby drop boxes instead. Monica Kelsey, by the way, is the right wing founder of Safe Haven Baby Boxes. She learned about the use of these drop boxes when she was traveling and learned about how they were using these in medieval Europe. She's like, yo, medieval Europe, they knew what they were doing. Let's bring it back to the United States.

Great, that's awesome. In, to use one of Monica Kelsey's boxes, a parent pulls open a metal drawer to reveal a temperature controlled hospital bassinet. Once the baby is inside and the drawer is closed, it locks automatically. The parent cannot reopen it. An alarm is triggered and the facility staff can access the bassinet. The box also sends out a 911 call. According to Kelsey, she says that the baby is tended to within two minutes. But she is the person who founded this whole baby box situation. So I would take her statement with a grain of salt. I don't know if that's actually true. So far, I haven't read any reports indicating that the babies that have been given up in

this way have suffered any type of physical consequence. They seem to be okay. But there are other issues. Is this infant being surrendered without coercion? Is this a parent who is in a bad spot and could benefit from some time and a discussion in a warm handoff experience to make their decision? That's Micah Orlis. He's the director of a safe surrender clinic at Children's Hospital, Los Angeles. In fact, Dr. Orlis of the Los Angeles Safe Haven Clinic, perform psychological and developmental evaluations on some 15 such babies annually, often allowing them, following them through their toddler years. His research found that more than half of these children have health or developmental issues

often stemming from inadequate prenatal care. So I just want to focus on that for a second. No discussion about ensuring these women, and in some cases girls, I hate to say it, get the adequate prenatal care they need if they're forced to have these babies. There's no discussion about a social safety net to ensure that they have the economic stability necessary to take on the massive financial burden of having a baby. There's even little discussion. I haven't seen anything in terms of state legislation to discuss, you know, funding for adoption

services. Because if you look at red states and what their foster care system looks like, what their adoption system looks like, it's a mess. So it's almost as if they don't really care about the baby's life. Because if the baby is given up by the mother and the baby is just put into the system and the system is underfunded, undervalued, what happens to that baby? Does that baby's life actually matter to the individuals who are implementing these draconian laws on a state level? It doesn't really seem like it. It seems like the religious beliefs, along with this need to punish and control women, is what's taking priority. That's what's at top of mind for these Republican lawmakers who pass these laws. And if Democrats don't call them out on it more

effectively in their campaigning, they're honestly the most incompetent politicians imaginable. Because what they're doing here, what Republican lawmakers are doing here, both on a federal and state level, is incredibly unpopular. We just saw that play out with a ballot initiative in Kansas. Kansas's state constitution states that women have the constitutional right to abortions in that state. When right wingers tried to pass an amendment, that would strip the state constitution of that right. The voters in Kansas, a red state, overwhelmingly turned that amendment down. This is unpopular.

People don't want the government getting in between them and their doctors and their health care decisions. So it's a layup for Democrats. I'd like to see more of a fight from Democratic lawmakers. Unfortunately, I haven't really seen much of that fight. But this is what they're up to. You don't have the money, you don't have the support, you don't have what you need to raise a child that you're forced to have. Don't worry, just put them in a drop box.

It'll be okay. It's pretty sick. All right, we got to take a break when we come back. Wozni Lombrey joins me for second hour stories, including an update on the father and son who murdered Ahmad Arbery. Their sentence today is pretty great. We've got that and more coming right up. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks, support our work, listen to ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com at apple.combe. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.