The Young Turks - Screwing Average Joe

Episode Date: April 27, 2023

Episode summary: Mortgage fees are changing for homebuyers next month. Here's what you should know. Clarence Thomas' billionaire friend did have business before the Supreme Court. "Green colonialism": Indigenous world leaders warn over the west’s climate strategy. Global military spending hits an all-time high of $2.24 trillion. Penn ER ordered to closed strains community and healthcare system. HOSTS: Ana Kasparian (@AnaKasparian) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com 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. Woo! It's up! Welcome to TYT. I'm your host Anna Casparian on this lovely spring day. It is hot in L.A. At least in the San Fernando Valley, not so much in the area our studio is located in.

But nonetheless, super happy to be here with you all today. I'm excited for the deep dive I'm about to do because no one in really corporate media or left wing media has been talking about this issue, having to do with new fees associated with mortgages. It's going to have a big impact on people who have good credit, believe it or not. So we're going to talk about that, do a deep dive. Later in the show, we will also talk about indigenous leaders across the globe. who are very much concerned with how the West is responding to the climate emergency. They feel that the West solutions to the climate emergency is actually a detriment to these indigenous communities. And I think it's important to give them a voice and talk about what

their concerns are. We're also going to discuss how private equity has led to the shutdown of multiple hospitals, not just across the country, but in particular in states like Pennsylvania. So we'll talk about that and the lack of really any regulations to prevent the private equity greed and destroying the much needed hospitals in these communities. As always, just want to encourage you guys to like and share the stream. The show is obviously very different on Wednesdays. There's all sorts of timely Trump-related news, headline news. We're going to do basically none of that in the first hour. But don't worry, John Heiderola will be joining me in the second hour to talk about some of that stuff.

t-y-t.com slash join to become a member to help support the work we do. And like and share the stream, as I said already, to help support the show. All right, without further ado, let's get to our deep dive of the day. New federal rule is going to make it more expensive to buy a home, not because you make more money, but simply if you have good credit. Comes at a time when mortgage rates are already above 6%. Yeah, you just heard that correctly. Believe it or not, a new rule that was decided unilaterally by the Biden administration

penalizes homebuyers who have higher credit scores and pay larger down payments. The stated objective is allegedly equity in the housing market by charging less risky borrowers higher fees that would theoretically subsidize riskier borrowers who have lower credit scores and smaller down payments. The new policy has to do with something known as loan level price adjustments or LLPAs, which are imposed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two entities that guarantee the vast majority of new mortgages. LLPAs are fees that get tacked onto mortgages and they vary among borrowers. Traditionally, the fees are calculated based on credit scores and the size of the borrower's down payment. But Biden is changing all of that.

Understand what's going on. You need to familiarize yourself with the term called loan level price adjustments. He's were introduced 15 years ago after the mortgage crisis to compensate for the risks of lending money. Basically, this allowed lenders to charge fees based on the likelihood that someone was not going to pay back their loan. Generally, the lower the credit score, the higher the risk the borrower is, and the higher the score, the lower the risk. Seems common sense, right? Well, in January of this year, new changes were put in place that would level the playing field between good credit and bad credit.

And starting May 1st, the biggest benefits would go to those with bad credit. Of course, this inevitably winds up getting spun around as Biden redistributing high-risk loan costs to homeowners with good credit, which is kind of true, but it's not the entire picture. Just to show you a before and after, if you have a 640 credit score and put 25% down, you'd previously have to pay a fee of 2.75%. Now that same borrower will only have to pay a 1.5% fee. On the other hand, if you have a 750 credit score and put 25% down, you used to be charged to 0.25% fee, and now you're going to have to pay a 0.375% fee unless your credit score is above 780, in which case everything stays the same. Yeah, that sounds like a real.

aggressive tax that punishes people with good credit, and I just don't get it. So to recap, under the old traditional lending model, home buyers with high credit scores and larger down payments paid less in fees because someone with good credit is less likely to default on their mortgage. Higher down payments also translate to lower monthly mortgage payments, which reduces the monthly housing costs for the borrower. That also makes it less likely that the borrower will default on the loan. On the other end, borrowers with lower credit ratings and smaller down payments pay higher fees or paid higher fees because they're riskier to lend to. They have a higher likelihood of defaulting on the loan and lenders charge those higher

fees to those borrowers to essentially hedge their bet. But under Biden's new rules, that all changes, and I think it's critical to give you some specific examples of just how costly this can be for those with good credit. Before we get to that, I'll start with the theoretical good news for people who could benefit from this. According to Mortgage News Daily, the effective penalty for having a credit score under 680 is now smaller than it was. If you have a score of, let's say 659 and are borrowing 75% of the home's value, you'll pay a fee equal to 1.5% of the loan balance, whereas you'd pay no fee if you had a 780 plus credit score. Before these changes, you would have paid a 2.75% fee. Hmm, all right. Well, let's give you another example. Let's say

on a $300,000 home loan, that savings and fees would amount to nearly $4,000, pretty good. But that lower fee is made possible because borrowers with scores ranging from 680 to 780 will see a spike in their mortgage costs. In fact, applicants who saved for a 15 to 20% down payment will experience the biggest increase in fees. Just take a look at this chart to see how things have changed under the new Biden rules. Okay, so the green and yellow cells represent the borrowers who will see a decrease in their fees. And just notice how the greenest cells are shown in areas where the buyer has a lower credit score and, of course, a smaller down payment. Orange and red cells represent where mortgages will be more

expensive due to increased fees, meaning those with higher credit scores and bigger down payments. For example, a buyer with a 620 FICO credit score and a 5% down payment gets a 1.75% fee discount. And that's pretty significant. It's a significant decrease from the old fee rate of 3.5% for that bracket. But again, that comes at a price, a home buyer with a 740 FICO score and a 15 to 20% down payment will face a 1% surcharge compared to the old fee of just zero. 0.250%. Now, the fees can be front loaded as a lump sum that's included in the closing costs, or the borrower can bake the fees into their monthly mortgage payment throughout the lifetime of their loan. And if you think the fees are negligible, you'd be mistaken.

According to David Stevens, who served as Obama's Federal Housing Administration Commissioner, the costs are freaking significant on the lowest. end, monthly payments will rise by about $40 if the borrower with good credit is purchasing a $400,000 home at a 6% interest rate. By the way, interest rates are above 6% at this point. We're just giving you the 6% interest rate for example's sake. Now, over the lifetime of that loan, the additional cost to subsidize Americans with bad credit amounts to $14,400 for the borrower. Again, that's on the low end of the fee increases. If you live in a big city like Los Angeles, you'd be hard pressed to find a home at $400,000 or even below $750,000. So you'd

obviously pay more than $40 a month in fees. So for example, on an $800,000 home, the borrower with good credit would pay nearly $30,000 in additional fees throughout the lifetime of that 30-year fixed mortgage. Look, there are several issues with this new Biden rule. For one, it's being marketed as some sort of tax the rich policy that makes it seem like the new system redistributes wealth from fabulously wealthy tax dodgers in order to make home buying within reach for more Americans. But those with credit scores above 780 for some reason won't be charged additional fees. And do the fee decreases for those with bad credit make all the difference in making housing more affordable?

The answer to that is no. As you could see, borrowers in the middle wind up paying 0.75% more than before will borrowers in the lowest credit tier see a marginal savings. Now, don't get the wrong idea because people with bad credit still end up paying more in fees than people with good credit, but people with good credit now get less benefit than they did before and people with bad credit end up seeing a slight savings. It's kind of like, in really simple terms, if the house is $100, a person with good credit would pay a dollar instead of paying $0.25, and a person with bad credit would

pay $2.85 instead of paying $3.25. Honestly, this just looks like the Biden administration is doing the banking industry a solid by green lighting more fees under this facade of housing affordability. Even David Stevens, again, the guy who worked for the Obama administration, thinks this is a bad idea and argues that it's unlikely to work in helping people afford Holmes. Scott Boldens here, former chair of the Democratic Party in D.C. I get the idea of the campaign promise to get the rich to pay their fair share. But aren't there going to be a lot of folks in the middle class who have just been responsible and have good credit who are going to

also be caught up in this? Yeah, it's like a penalty for a good credit and putting a high down payment. If you want to make an income tested fine, how are you making a credit score tested. I just don't get it. By the way, Stevens also says that this confusing approach won't work and more importantly couldn't come at a worse time for an industry struggling to get back

on its feet after these past 12 months. To do this at the onset of the spring market is almost offensive to the market consumers and lenders. He's right. For one, the credit rating metric being used to calculate new fees, say little about the income or wealth of those borrowers getting hit

hardest by the changes. Look, having a higher credit score doesn't mean that someone's rich. It just means that they manage to pay their bills on time. It also means that they have a decent debt to credit ratio, meaning that their available credit is greater than their outstanding financial liabilities. A borrower with good credit could be a teacher making $60,000 a who pays off their credit card in full each month. Does that person really need to pay higher mortgage fees to subsidize riskier borrowers? Income isn't even factored into credit scores. As John Yolsheimer, who used to work for FICO and Equifax, notes,

income isn't considered in credit scoring systems. Wow, really? So our wages and salaries aren't weighed in at all? income isn't even on your credit reports, so it cannot be considered in credit scores because credit scores only consider what's on your credit reports. In fact, no wealth metrics are factored into your credit scores. So this really isn't about redistributing wealth from billionaires to the poor. This actually pits working Americans against one another and deepens resentment and division. I think we've had enough of that. By the way, Stevens was also subtly touching on something I'm extremely worried about. The new fee structure encourages underwriters to engage

in riskier lending at a time of outrageously inflated housing prices and high interest rates. And I'm old enough to remember the outcome of George W. Bush's administration pushing policies with similar objectives. It culminated in a housing market collapse in 2008. Back in December of 2008, the New York Times blamed Bush's housing policies for the crash. I'm going to read a few excerpts from their reporting at the time. They wrote that Bush pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition

to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low income lending. Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Bush persuaded Congress to spend as much as $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs. By the way, Biden isn't even doing that. And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government-insured mortgages with no money down. The lenders doled out loans to risky borrowers, packaged up these toxic mortgages into securities

that were traded in the stock market, and then proceeded to bet against them because the banks were fully aware of the high likelihood of defaults. Not only did the bank's profit from shorting mortgage-back securities, they also took ownership of foreclosed homes. Now, is Biden setting the stage for a repeat of that mess, whether wittingly or unwittingly, he's certainly increasing the likelihood. Let's take a look at an example, comparing two mortgages on a $400,000 home with the same 6.5% interest rate in California. These calculations include property taxes, which are actually relatively low in the golden state. Now, take a look at this graph. The first example, or this screen grab, the first example features a borrower who put 20% down

and finance the rest. Because of the larger down payment, this borrower was able to secure a $2,526 monthly payment through a 30-year fixed loan. So now let's compare that with someone who pays a far smaller 5% down payment. If you look at that, their monthly payment is obviously more of a burden because it shoots up more than $500 a month to $364, and that's assuming the borrower scored the same interest rate as the person who paid a 20% down payment. And in reality, someone with a lower credit score and smaller down payment would get charged a higher interest rate, meaning that their monthly financial burden would actually be more overwhelming as a result. And however much they didn't contribute toward a down payment would

need to be financed. That also benefits banks through interest rates. They would have to pay more in interest as a result of having to finance a larger amount. Now encouraging lending to riskier borrowers at a time of astronomical home prices and high interest rates increases the chances of another wave of foreclosures. Cash buyers who tend to be institutional investors salivate over that type of housing market crash because they get to swoop in and purchase homes at a discount. And while the liberal pro-Biden pro-media echo chamber has mostly ignored covering this new rule, I made sure to do the appropriate research and make sure that I got the story right.

Right now, the right wing is using this story for their own political purposes. But we shouldn't care about that. What we should care about is how Biden's policies are impacting ordinary people who are already struggling to buy homes. And look, I just, I don't get any of this either, right? Because it's not about looking at income. It's not about looking at wealth. Biden made a decision to focus on credit scores, again, that does not at all factor income.

Biden has done nothing to make the price of housing more affordable. Low supply is a huge reason why homes are expensive. Biden hasn't adequately addressed that at all. And while we haven't built more housing to drive down the costs of homes, Biden also hasn't improved economic conditions like wages that would make home buying easier for Americans, you know, maybe addressing root causes rather than implement. implementing regressive fees is a better approach. Biden hasn't done a damn thing to regulate, or in my opinion, he should ban institutional

or foreign investors from snatching up the limited supply of homes on the market, which again also drives up prices. But I don't know, maybe that's the point. He's not only pitting middle class and working class Americans against each other, considering the burdensome cost of owning a home, he's also setting risky borrowers up for failure. And I don't understand why he wants to do this. Now, I think there's a reason why liberal corporate media has stayed away from this story. It's not exactly politically beneficial to tell people who worked really hard to keep their credit scores up, that they will be punished for that

in order to subsidize the loans of riskier borrowers, the right wing uses it for political purposes, but I'm sharing the facts with you because this is exactly what mainstream Democrats do whenever there is a crisis having to do with the economy. There's like a little bit of change around the edges. They market the change as if it's going to benefit low income individuals or minorities who have been locked out of the housing market. But at the end of the day, they don't actually do that at all, even if the people who stand to benefit from this policy see a slight decrease in the fees that they have to pay for their mortgages, their mortgages are still going to be super expensive because housing is super

expensive. We need to do something about that. And the resentment that this is going to lead to Isn't exactly helpful in the country, especially with the climate that we're currently dealing with, the anger that Americans are facing. This is just more fodder for the destructive and divisive rhetoric that we hear from the right wing. Why would the Biden administration give that to them? You want to make housing affordable, then make housing affordable. Don't punish people who, despite all of the challenges that we're facing in this economy, manage to keep their credit. credit scores up. Just because you got a good credit score doesn't mean you're rich. And I don't think those people should be punished with paying higher fees. We got to take a quick break.

On July 18th, get exciting. This is big. For the summer's biggest adventure. I think I just smurf my pants. That's a little too excited. Sorry. Smurfs. Only dinner's July 18th. When we come back, we've got more news for you, including hospital closures in Pennsylvania, thanks to the involvement of private equity firms. That and more coming right up. about the last story we covered, taking a right wing perspective, people who have lower credit scores pay far more in fees and interest across the board. As a progressive, we should be willing to spread the cost to be more fair. I disagree. I do not agree with spreading the cost

to individuals who might not be rich at all, who might have done everything right, working class individuals who scrounged up and saved for that larger down payment, who worked hard to ensure that they didn't live outside their means and they paid their bills on time to make sure that they had a high credit score. Why are we going to punish them? That makes no sense. When we talk about redistributing wealth, we're talking about incredibly wealthy people who skirted taxes, who game the system to their advantage, and who are hoarding the wealth for themselves. Why are we not discussing redistributing wealth when it comes to those individuals and instead focusing on a small sliver of individuals in the housing market who might not be rich at all

and just for some reason are now being penalized for having higher credit scores? I disagree with that whatsoever completely. I don't think that's a right wing talking point. Just because I disagree with what Democrats are doing doesn't mean I'm coming at it from a right wing perspective, okay? That take, I think, is pretty insane. But Shelby writes in and says, I've worked so hard to fix my credit score, we should punish her. Everybody, who wants to punish Shelby? Shelby sounds terrible. We should, we should slap her with more fees. I'm kidding, Shelby. I'm being sarcastic. It finally hits 779 today enough to screw me under this plan.

I don't want to screw you, Shelby. I don't think that you should be the focus or the target of redistributing here. But anyway, with that said, let's move on to another story that is outrageous to say the least, and it has big impacts on local communities across the country. Hospital closures due to private equity greed. So in one of the area's largest hospitals, Delaware County Memorial shut its doors for good. McCanns took it personally. A lot of nurses, I know, PA's physicians, it's their life calling. It's really what they wanted to do. And then just to be betrayed. like this. You feel portrayed? Yeah, absolutely, I do. The collapse of hospitals providing essential care to ailing Americans continues to be a major

problem in the United States. Last fall's closure of Delaware County Memorial Hospital had huge consequences for its local community, which once relied on its services and no longer can do so. And much like the fall of other successful companies, private equity is behind the hospital's closure. See, in 2016, a Los Angeles-based company known as Prospect Medical Holdings purchased Delaware County Memorial Hospital through private equity investors and promised to expand care. But the hospital ended up shutting down last November with prospect medical holdings blaming high labor and supply costs as the main reason for shuttering the facility. But that's not what really happened. And Prospect's claims should not be taken at face value.

In 2018, Prospect Medical's owners took out a $1.12 billion loan and paid themselves a $457 million dividend. Sam Lee, the CEO of Prospect Medical, took home about 90 million. You found a way to navigate you making money and leaving those people in the lurch. That's what they did. It's criminal. Morally, ethically, it should be legally. But it is legal. And Prospect Medical then paid off the loan by selling off the land and buildings of most of their hospitals to a Birmingham, Alabama firm called Medical Properties Trust.

Just put simply, they bought the real estate out of Prospect and leased it back to Prospect. Rob Simone, an analyst at a Connecticut-based investment research firm, says medical properties trust is where private equity investors turn their hospital real estate holdings. into cash. The publicly traded company has built a portfolio of nearly 200 U.S. hospitals, often in low income communities. Prospect medical must pay $35 million a year in rent, money that comes out of hospital operations to medical properties trust. $35 million in rent. Shee, I wonder if that has something to do with the hospital closure. In other words, it's not the high labor costs that shut down the hospital.

It was the astronomical rent that needed to be paid after Prospect Medical decided to sell off the hospital's land, only to lease it back later. Of course, executives paid themselves handsomely with the loans they took out. Prospect Medical CEO Sam Lee was no exception. Now Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neroonha's office confirmed that Prospect Medical CEO, his personal share of the $457 million dividend was $90 million. And this has caused massive problems for the community. And patients in need of emergency medical care are now basically screwed. Veteran paramedic Jim McCanns said the impact of the closure had rippled beyond the nearly

85,000 residents the hospital once served. He said nearby emergency rooms are slammed and he shared data showing his department's call volume is up about 25% this year because it is covering more territory. His team of 16 medics now has to spend more time taking patients to hospitals farther away. In fact, we do have a particularly horrifying example of what patients in the community are now dealing with. In January, two shooting victims arrived at the closed ER. Leave room for an ambulance. 911 audio obtained by CBS News revealed they had to be taken by ambulance to Lankanao Medical Center nearly five miles away. McCann said nearby ERs are slammed, and his call volume is up about 25% because he is covering more territory.

His team of 16 medics now needs to spend more time taking patients to hospitals farther away. does this end up leaving the people of this community? They're stranded for health care. It did hurt them. It's going to continue to hurt them. It's going to cost some of them their lives. And that's just one example. EMS is taking longer, getting to where they have to be, getting to offload their patient, and then longer getting back into their district. So all that is, all that is compounding the problem, McCann said. And what's even more damning is how widespread this practice is, and just how many hospitals have been acquired through private equity investments.

Of the 20 hospitals owned by Prospect Medical, five have already closed. Not only does this harm patients, it also harms the workers and medical professionals at these facilities. This spring, it was announced that Prospect Medical Holdings would be laying off 4% of its employees across multiple facilities in Pennsylvania alone. In a statement, the Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses and Allied Professionals said that Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc., the California-based for-profit owner of Crozier Health, has for years appeared more concerned with generating profits for its hedge fund owners on the opposite. coast than serving the sick and vulnerable in Delaware County and those who care for them. And I totally agree with that statement. They're 100% right. So what happens next? Well, yet another hospital owned by Medical Properties Trust will shut down. But this time the

community impacted won't be in Pennsylvania. It'll be in Texas because this is a nationwide issue. Texas Vista Medical Center in San Antonio will close its doors on May 1st, leaving more than 800 employees without a job, and roughly half a million people in the surrounding community with just one remaining full service hospital, totaling just 110 beds. Stewart Healthcare purchased Texas Vista six years ago with the help of private equity investors, of course, and at the same time, medical properties trust purchased the land and the buildings on the hospital's campus. Stewart agreed to pay $5 million in rent annually to the trust.

I mean, it's just, it really is mind-blowing how little this system gives a damn about human lives. But Stewart Health claims that rent has nothing to do with this, right? They're blaming patients instead for the closure, patients. Stewart said it was closing the hospital due to financial challenges related to the realities of serving a high needs patient population that is frequently unable to pay for care. Roughly 25% of patients don't pay for health care services received at the hospital. And look, I don't want to minimize that, right? The fact that tens of millions of Americans still do not have health care coverage is indeed a tragedy.

and yet another sign of America's broken institutions. But to blame the failure of these hospitals on the patients while downplaying private equity greed is ridiculous. And what we need isn't tinkering around the edges. We need federal regulations that prevent these private equity practices nationwide. And if you're wondering, well, what are the lawmakers in Pennsylvania doing, right? Pennsylvania is hit pretty hard by this private equity greed and these hospital closures. So the bill that they've proposed, the state lawmakers in Pennsylvania, would just increase the amount of time that hospitals would need to give notice before a hospital's closure takes place. So it would go from about 90 days to 180 days, which is great.

We'll have a little more, you know, a little more time to grieve the loss of a hospital closure. Like, how is that going to change anything? The hospital is going to close. You need to have a solution. You need to have a replacement. You have to have a place for these patients to go. Just giving people earlier notice about a hospital's closure, doesn't. exactly fix the problem. But those are the big ideas coming from the state legislature in

Pennsylvania, which is just abysmal, shameful, and not adequate in addressing this serious problem. But again, I think this is an issue that needs to be addressed on a federal level. When it comes to essential services, when it comes to something as important as keeping hospitals open, you need to make sure that the profit motive behind these private equity investors does it serve as a detriment to that hospital, to these hospitals? Right now they are, and we do not have the proper regulations to mitigate these risks. We just let the greed fly, and we have these hospitals shut down with local communities suffering the consequences. It's absolutely disgusting.

All right, I wanted to switch gears a little bit and talk about another story. having to do with something I mentioned on the show earlier. And it's how indigenous communities are feeling about the West's response to the climate emergency. Indigenous leaders worldwide are now raising the alarm over how the Western world is responding to the climate emergency. And to be honest, their critique here isn't that the West isn't doing enough, although I'm sure they would have that critique. Their concern is how the response to the climate emergency actually puts indigenous communities,

not just here in the United States, but across the world at a significant disadvantage. And they feel that they are not part of the conversation. So during last week's annual UN summit, hundreds of indigenous chiefs, presidents, chairman, and delegates gathered at the 22nd United Nations permanent forum on indigenous issues. And I was really happy to see that they addressed the response to the climate emergency. And they expressed concerns over the exploitation of indigenous territories for the resources, needed to transition from, let's say, gas-powered vehicles to... The new BMO-V-I-Porter MasterCard is your ticket to more.

More perks, more points, more flights, more of all the things you want in a travel rewards card, and then some. Get your ticket to more with the new BMO ViPorter MasterCard and get up to $2,400 in value in your first 13 months. Terms and conditions apply. Visit bemo.com slash the iPorter to learn more. Electric vehicles. So the Guardian reported on this.

I'm going to read some of the relevant excerpts for you. They write that the longtime advocacy group, cultural survival in partnership with other organizations, highlighted how mining for minerals such as nickel, lithium, cobalt, and copper, the resources needed to support products like electric car batteries, are presenting conflicts in tribal communities. in the United States and around the world.

In fact, while this might not have much to do with indigenous communities, part of the reason why the United States was pushing for that coup in Bolivia is because having a right-wing leader, a right-wing government in charge, would open up U.S. business interest to possible lithium mining in the country. Now, luckily, the people of Bolivia stood up and reversed. the outcome of that pretty gross coup, but I do worry about some of the geopolitical ramifications of having to mine for the, for the minerals and the, you know, the lithium necessary for these EV batteries. And by the way, like I said, this isn't just an issue

here in the United States, right? So environmental projects that require minerals or wind power are usurping the rights of indigenous people, according to this report, from the American Southwest to the Arctic, to the Serengeti in Africa. So Brian Mason, chairman of the Shoshone Paiute tribe in the Duck Valley Indian Reservation in Nevada, said that the 70 or so lithium mining applications targeting the lands there have come without free, prior or informed consent, what is considered the cornerstone of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. And he also described the lithium extraction efforts as being on a fast track to supply the Biden administration's net zero strategy to create

a domestic supply of EVs. He says, quote, it's kind of just being rammed down our throats, he said, at the cost of indigenous peoples once again. The Guardian also reports that Gunn Britt Redder of the Sammy Council says that green colonialism, and that's what they're labeling this as, is driving harmful projects like the Fosone or Fosan, I should say, Fosan onshore wind farm, which was built despite a Supreme Court ruling in Norway in defense of Sammy reindeer herding grounds. They just built the, they built the wind farm anyway, despite the ruling, which sounds strange, and I feel like there should probably be some enforcement mechanism to ensure

that what the court's rule is actually implemented. But Gunbred Rutter also says this. They look to us to carry the heaviest burden, and it's a disproportionate part of the burden. We need to reduce CO2 emissions globally, and we need to seek, alternative energy sources, but we also need to protect the indigenous cultures because we are the guardians of nature, which is part of the solution. And I agree with Gunn-Brit-Retter on that. They should absolutely be part of the conversation. But taking a step back and looking at the

bigger picture, I do feel a little bit of concern about the lack of analysis in regard to the downsides of electric vehicles. I mean, I feel like the way that it's been framed, really downplay some of the economic, not economic, environmental burdens, also some of the economic burdens for ordinary people who might not have the money to buy some of these expensive vehicles once we make a transition to electric vehicles. And I do worry about what this is doing to communities where the mining takes place or where the wind farms are built. Are the residents of those communities part of the conversation. What's being done to properly compensate them for any of the harm or damage that might be done

to their communities? These are difficult questions. Every issue we talk about on the show, including solutions to the climate emergency, are complex, there are gradations, nothing is good and bad, black and white, there are costs, there are benefits, these are things that we need to weigh. And what I can't stand is the insanely simplistic way these stories get covered in the news. It's either you're a good guy who supports electric vehicles or you're a bad guy who's against them. But there are plenty of good people, including members of these indigenous communities,

who see some significant downsides, and I think we should listen to their concerns here. Does it make you someone who wants to minimize climate change or avoid responding to the climate emergency just means that we need to find solutions by bringing everyone to the table, especially those who stand to suffer some of the consequences of these new projects. Anyway, we got to take a quick break. When we come back, we'll talk about the insane amount of money you personally spent on defense contractors last year. What's up, everyone, welcome back to the show.

I'm going to read a few more comments from our super chat section, and then we'll get to this story about how much we're spending personally on defense contractors. Sir, ruin of house roundhead writes in and says, I'm an independent, and I'm an independent, and I plan on voting for Democrats for the foreseeable future due to the overturning of Roe v. Wade and mass shootings. First of all, thank you for caring about the overturning of Roe v. Wade, especially as Sir Ruin of House Roundhead, I'm assuming you're a man. It just feels like that terrible stripping of women's reproductive rights is, it went from

being a priority, like something that people were fired up about and all of a sudden that's kind of taken a backseat and it's infuriating. But the rest of the comment is, I believe other independents will join me and Republicans like Trump won't stand a chance. We'll see how it plays out. Berica E says credit scores are inherently racially inadequate and not a true measurement of likelihood of default. It's the only measure we've got though, but I hear you. The credit rating system, the credit score system is deeply flawed. And it is insane how easily your credit score can change based on one late payment. So I do agree with you on that. But even though it's not necessarily like a foolproof metric for determining whether or not someone is going

to default, it really is the only metric we have because it provides a history of payments. So if you're late on payments, if you have a low credit score as a result of that, lenders take that into account when they make decisions about the fees they charge or the interest rates they charge. Stoned crab, Angie says, I'm very shy and sweet and soft. I'm always drawn to strong personalities because I know that people like Anna can and will stand up to people I'm intimidated by. Thank you for saying that's super sweet. All right, well, I definitely want to stand up to what's happening here. And it has to do with how our resources are being spent on private defense contractors.

So let's talk about it. A disturbing new report shows just how much money Americans unwittingly handed over to military contractors through their tax dollars in 2022 alone. So not only did this report show how much money we're spending on defense, it also compared it to how little money we're spending on various social services that would materially improve our lives. So let's get right to it. The Institute for Policy Studies National Priorities Project found that on average American taxpayers contributed $1,087 to Pentagon contractors compared to with just $270 for K through 12 education. The top military contractor, Lockheed Martin, received $106 from the average taxpayer,

while just $6 went to funding renewable energy. Okay, let's pause for a second. I love the way they did this study, because it's hard to really personalize giant sums of money that the federal government funnels over to defense, right? We'll talk about the nearly, or at this point, over $800 billion that is allocated for the Pentagon every year. But how does that affect you personally? How does each individual American, or how much does each individual American spend toward

these private defense contractors? And on average, it's over $1,000 in just one year. So, by the way, it's not the only disturbing finding in this report. The average taxpayer paid $74 for nuclear weapons and just $43 for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which I'm sure some of our Republican viewers have no problem with. I have a major problem with us prioritizing nuclear weapons over, you know, bolstering institutions that have to do with decisions about our health. But let me continue.

In addition to that, if you paid taxes for 2022, you likely paid $298 for the top five military contractors versus just $19 for mental health and substance abuse. Let's not forget the fact that we're still dealing with a drug and overdose epidemic in this country. I mean, close to 100,000 people are now dying every year thanks to drug overdoses. But I mean, God forbid, we appropriately fund the services necessary to help those who are struggling with substance abuse. We're not done yet, there's more. So in 2022, taxpayers on average paid $70 for deportations and border patrol and just $19

for refugee assistance. I mean, are you guys really surprised by any of this? I guess I'm not surprised by it, but it's still so incredibly infuriating. And again, when you personalize it like this, when you assign a dollar amount and then compare it to how little we're spending on the services that we so desperately need, it's just so maddening. And finally, give you another example. Last year, the average taxpayer spent $20 for federal prisons, but just $11 for anti-homelessness programs.

So in this larger breakdown, you can see that the only thing we gave more tax dollars to, and this is a good thing, is Medicare and health overall at $27.1 for every dollar. So you see this visual, it's kind of divvying up a dollar based on what we're prioritizing in our spending. Pentagon, of course, is massive at 17.8 cents on the dollar. Then you've got interest on our debt, which I'm actually starting to get more and more concerned about. We are spending a pretty significant portion of our resources every year on just servicing the debt that we So that's 12.9 cents for every dollar. And it is a problem. We spent 5.4 cents on every dollar for veterans, 2.5 cents for housing and community, so on and so forth. You get the point. What we tend to prioritize is funneling money from the taxpayer to a small number of private

military contractors and those contractors certainly spend a quite, certainly spend quite a bit of money on campaign donations and every election cycle. And as a result of that, they just have more of a voice than ordinary people do. I mean, you do have teachers unions. You do have some folks who engage politically and either do endorsements or fund politicians themselves. But those unions really cannot compete with defense contractors. And I think that we're seeing the outcome of that system in these numbers as we speak. And in 2022, global military spending also hit a all-time high, right? So it's not just the United States, we're seeing a pretty significant increase in military spending worldwide, which is concerning.

there just seems to be this push toward war between the United States and China, really worried about that. There's all sorts of military exercises happening near China with the United States and its allies. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's annual report showed a 3.7% overall increase in worldwide military expenditures to $2.24 trillion in 2020, including a 13% rise in Europe, the continent's sharpest increase in three decades, and that's of course, amid Russia's war on Ukraine. But the United States, of course, beats everybody and has for quite some time now. The United States remained by far the world's biggest military spender, with its $877 in expenditures accounting for 39% of the global total in 2022. The U.S., which is also

the world's biggest arms exporter, China and Russia together accounted for 56% of the global total. And finally, just one more visual to give you guys. Let's take a look at this pie chart because it shows you the share of the world military expenditure of the 15 countries with the highest spending in 2022. And the largest chunk by far is the United States. It really helps you see how much more money we are spending on our military relative to all these other countries, including, you know, you've got Israel. You know, the second largest is, let's see, China. So the second largest is China, but still China is at 13%, whereas the United States is at 39%. So this is how the system works. Money in politics means that, that,

Corporate interests have a larger voice, a louder voice than ordinary voters. And so while voting is still important, I don't want to minimize that. If you've got defense contractors throw in millions of dollars, tens of millions of dollars, in some case hundreds of millions of dollars at these elections, at these politicians, politicians are going to listen to them and what they want. And that is part of the reason why there is so much waste in the Pentagon. That is why they have failed, not one, not two, not three, but five consecutive audits. They don't know how to account for 61% of their assets.

It's just a money-sucking machine. And it feels like there's nothing we can do about it. But what we could do about it is change the system and demand that we have publicly financed elections. So no corporation, no moneyed interest have a louder voice than ordinary Americans who take part in our democratic process. That does it for the first hour. We're going to take a quick break. When we come back, John Iderola will join me for some good news in regard to unionized Amazon drivers. Don't miss it.

We'll be right back. 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.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.