The Young Turks - Storms Are Brewing

Episode Date: July 20, 2023

Biden announces new rules to tackle big corporate consolidation. How one U.S. drugmaker contributed to the escalating drug shortage crisis. Amid record-breaking heat, Republicans are introducing legislation to block any president from declaring a climate emergency. Fossil fuel donors funneled more than $5 million to the bill sponsors, and some of the lawmakers are oil/gas investors. Veterans quit DeSantis’ Florida State Guard over militia-like training. 16-year-old dies in accident at Mar-Jac Poultry plant. HOST: 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. One of the hardest parts of getting older is feeling like something's off in your body, but not knowing exactly what. It's not just aging. It's often your hormones, too.

When they fall out of balance, everything feels off. But here's the good news. This doesn't have to be the story of your next chapter. hormone harmony by Happy Mammoth is an herbal formula made with science-backed ingredients designed to fine-tune your hormones by balancing estrogen, testosterone, progesterone, and even stress hormones like cortisol. It helps with common issues such as hot flashes, poor sleep, low energy, bloating, and more. With over 40,000 reviews and a bottle sold every 24 seconds, the results speak for themselves.

A survey found 86% of women lost weight, 77% saw an improved mood, and 100% felt like themselves again. Start your next chapter feeling balanced and in control. For a limited time, get 15% off your entire first order at happy mammoth.com with code next chapter at checkout. Visit happy mammoth.com today and get your old self back naturally. Welcome to TY, I'm your host Anna Kasparean, and we should just get started, beginning with the Biden administration doing something good, especially as it pertains to antitrust and big corporate mergers. The Federal Trade Commission of the Department of Justice's antitrust division, releasing long-awaited drafts now on guidelines to how they plan to enforce merger law.

The guidelines outline 13 principles like mergers should not significantly increase concentration in highly concentrated markets, and mergers should not eliminate substantial competition between firms. In a move that will definitely spark a long battle between big business and the White House, the Biden administration has rolled out new guidelines declaring when the federal government will step in to challenge corporate mergers. The new guidelines spearheaded by FTC chair Lena Khan and assistant attorney general Jonathan Cantor aimed to modernize how federal agencies review acquisitions with the aim of

reducing anti-competitive behavior in the corporate sector. The new guidelines could help prevent corporate consolidation, which, of course, puts the economy and American workers at a significant disadvantage. More on that later. But first, the details, including how this all began in the first place. Now, within months of his inauguration, Biden issued an executive order on competition policy that called for the rewrite of the merger guidelines that has since informed policy changes at nearly every federal agency. Around the same time, Biden's FTC voted to throw

out Trump-era antitrust guidelines, citing how flawed it was. Today, we got a sense of what those guidelines will be replaced with. The rules will impact both vertical mergers, which involve transactions between two businesses that are in different parts of the supply chain in an industry, and horizontal mergers, which involve similar companies that are competing in a similar part of the market. The new guidelines are outlined in a 13 point list that will be used to evaluate whether a merger should be blocked. And honestly, if you ask me, they make a lot of sense.

For example, mergers should not significantly increase concentration in highly concentrated markets. Mergers should not eliminate substantial competition between firms. Mergers should not eliminate a potential entrant in a concentrated market. Mergers should not substantially lessen competition by creating a firm that controls products or services that its rivals may use to compete. Notice the main point here to increase competition. That is a good thing, right? They also note that mergers should essentially ensure that there is enough competition. Merger should not entrench or extend a dominant position.

Mergers should not further a trend toward concentration. When a merger is part of a series of multiple acquisitions, the agencies may examine the whole series. So based on what I'm seeing here, makes a lot of sense, sounds like good news, you want competition in our economy. And here's more on the guidelines from Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Cantor. We're trying to understand the extent to which the merger will risk threatening competition. And so what courts have said over a century is that if it reduces substantial competition between competitors, or if it tends to create a monopoly by entrenching monopoly power, or building a moat around a firm that already has monopoly power, or increases a trend toward

concentration so that the only way to compete is to be massive, then those are exactly the the kinds of mergers that can violate the Clayton Act and be subject to legal scrutiny. So look, we're getting a little clarity here. That's a good thing, a little transparency in regard to what the DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission plan to focus on when it comes to potentially blocking certain mergers and acquisitions. And again, if the point is to compete competition, these guidelines, as they stand today, make a lot of sense. And according to FTC Chair Lena Khan, they're also rooted in precedent. So these guidelines reflect the law.

If you look through the document, you'll see a lot of footnotes to appellate court decisions, to Supreme Court decisions. We read through every litigated merger decision that resulted in a decision from the federal court of appeals or the Supreme Court. And so this document is designed to make sure that everybody is on notice about what the state of the law is. And we'll be rely right now we put out this draft guidelines where we'll be collecting public comment from 60 days.

We're very eager for public input. And look, in reading the details about these new guidelines, what really stands out is how the Biden administration wants to reverse Reagan-era policies that really paved the way for corporate consolidation. Antitrust enforcement agencies in the Reagan administration adopted a lax review standard that encouraged mergers and acquisitions and looked favorably on monopolies for promoting market efficiency. This standard gained bipartisan acceptance and has dominated antitrust enforcement ever since. Much to our detriment. Now here's more on what that meant for ordinary people over the last 40 years. In the 1980s, it became easier to make money buying and merging companies than actually like running them profitably. The merger of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, maker of Winston Cigarettes and Nabisco, which gave us Oreos,

not only created a cancer and heart disease dream team, it also generated nearly $1 billion for the lawyers and bankers who put the deal together. But if you were like most of us in the 80s, watching Dallas and Dynasty, working at your regular job, inexplicably having a carpeted bathroom, then you probably didn't share in that abundance. The 80s saw rising economic inequality, although not nearly as dramatic as we see today. By the mid-1990s, the richest 1% controlled 40% of the nation's wealth, doubled the share from 20 years before.

People really did have rugs and not rugs, but like carpet in the bathroom. Just the 80s were wild, man. Anyway, reversing some of those failed anti-competitive rules in favor of corporations would be great, to say the least. Competition obviously gives both consumers and workers more options. If the market is dominated by one or a handful of companies, there's less pressure for big business to innovate, to provide a better product, better customer servers, service or compete for workers with better pay and benefits packages. Look, just look at the recent actions the federal government took in regard to consolidation in the food industry.

So the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced Wednesday that it has entered into a partnership with the attorneys general of 32 states and the District of Columbia to target anti-competitive behavior in food markets. The partnership would allow corporation, or I should say cooperation. So the partnership would allow cooperation in competition lawsuits that seek to reduce food prices, combat price gouging, increase food access, and thwart anti-competitive behavior that threatens food supply chains. Finally, I want to focus on the very sixth point on the list of antitrust guidelines, because

it has to do with the story we've been covering here at TYT. So it notes that vertical mergers should not create market structures that foreclose competition. One of the contested vertical mergers that has earned FTC Chair Lena Khan, the ire of corporate America, is Microsoft's attempt to buy Activision Blizzard. Now Microsoft, which makes Xbox consoles, has proposed to spend a whopping $68.7 billion to buy Activision Blizzard, which creates the game. games. That would mean more consolidation under Microsoft in the gaming industry, and the FTC decided to challenge the deal. But just last week, a federal court declined to grant the agency's request to stop the merger. And the FTC is now appealing the court's decision. We'll fill you all in as that story develops. Anyway, the corporate press is handling this news, well, poorly.

Perhaps they should have given themselves just a tiny bit of time to balance their sodium levels before spouting off on air. But they didn't. And Lena Khan agreed to appear on CNBC's squawk box to answer questions about the new antitrust guidelines. I just want to focus on the questions being asked during this interview. You know, I want to reference a letter from what was, what was then the outgoing commissioner, Christine Wilson. She was very critical of you and of the, what she said was the dissatisfaction amongst the staff. You lost in the U.S. court, why not drop the action from there? Why seeking appeal?

Why are you continuing to follow, for example, along with the ALJ proceeding? She says, your leadership has led to the departures of many experienced personnel, causing a notable brain drain. There was a lot of back and forth that would appear, based on a freedom of information request between the FTC and the CMA involving Microsoft and Activision, seems somewhat unusual. How much does what they do figure into what and how you think about what you do? Why was there need at all to talk to the CMA about Activision and Microsoft? And goes on to say pains are to observe the tarnishing of the FTC's reputation and the diminution

of its efficacy. Hey, here's a letter from former members of your staff who think you're a piece of garbage. How do you respond? Look, in all seriousness, I actually don't mind the tough questions. However, it would be nice to watch hedge fund managers and corporate executives get grilled the same way federal regulators do when they appear on CNBC. Now, the guidelines will enter a 60-day public comment phase, and they are, you know, very much likely to go through some changes as a result of that process. There's more, though, that the Biden administration should get a little bit of credit for. Believe it or not, I'm being positive toward the Biden administration, but credit

where credit is due. For instance, back in March, housing and urban development secretary, Marsha Fudge, began cracking down on hidden and excessive fees, including rental application fees and hidden charges for things like trash collection and other services that renters usually presume is already baked into their rent. As a result, digital real estate platforms like Zillow, apartments.com and affordable housing.com will now include these often hidden fees when they list prices on rental properties. So again, credit where credit is due. When the Biden administration makes good decisions or imprints really strong individuals like Lena Khan to do the job that previous administrations were unwilling to do, I'm going to give them credit. And there's

nothing more important at the moment than ensuring that there is competition in our economy. that there's less consolidation. And what I would like to see is in the future, maybe, you know, breaking up some of these major corporations that were able to do some of the consolidation that has led to a lack of options, a lack of, you know, various places for workers to work in as a result of Reagan's policies that have been implemented over the last, you know, four decades. So we'll see how this all develops.

We'll see what happens after the, you know, 60-day comment period. But I do love that despite all this pressure from corporate-backed politicians, Lena Khan refuses to concede to them. She keeps fighting. And I'm glad that she's appealing that federal court's ruling on the Microsoft Activision Blizzard merger. We'll see how that plays out as well. For now, though, why don't we move on to some more news, including pretty serious problem that we're dealing with in the country having to do with drugs.

Carrie Shirkinski is battling stage three ovarian cancer. And due to a drug shortage, her fight is even more painful. At her last chemotherapy treatment, the Florida clinic ran out of the drugs she needed. She says she was sent home. Why didn't anybody tell me this? The United States has been grappling with a serious nationwide drug shortage. Last May, nearly 300 medications were in short supply, including critical care drugs used to treat cancer. And not only are we dealing with the worst drug shortage in over a decade, these shortages are taken.

longer to resolve. Experts say the majority of the shortages are linked to problems in the generic drug market, which accounts for 90% of all drugs in the US. Data presented at a Senate some committee hearing in March found drug shortages increased by nearly 30% between 2021 and 2022. The average shortage lasted a year and a half,

which for somebody counting on those drugs is potentially a lifetime. Now the category of drugs that are currently experiencing shortages are pretty broad. So what gives? Why are patients who are suffering from literal cancer being told by their doctors and pharmacists that they simply don't have the drugs necessary to treat them properly? Are we supposed to be some beacon of free market capitalism that produces endless options for consumers and patients? Now, if you think that we're just dealing with a small and temporary hiccup in our supply chains

due to COVID, like I did, you'd be wrong. This nonsense has been going on forever. The reality is any generic drug that requires something known as sterile processing is complicated and expensive to produce. That translates to smaller profit margins because, of course, generic drugs are sold at steep discounts compared to the name brand versions. And as we all know, when manufacturing decisions are left to private companies that need to turn a profit, the real losers are the patients.

Currently 14 oncology drugs are on the FDA drug shortage list. We have a whole team that's working night and day with the industry. FDA Commissioner Robert Caliph says drug shortages are getting worse because generic versions of the medicines have become so inexpensive to consumers. Producing them is no longer profitable for manufacturers. So many have stopped. I like the framing there. I mean, the generic drugs have just become too inexpensive for the consumers.

Great framing. Okay, we'll get to possible solutions in a minute. But let me tell you some more details about this issue. Look, it's one of the reasons why we here in the United States tend to import drugs and even medical products from abroad instead of producing them here in America. But look, relying on lower paid workers in other countries to produce the drugs we need, clearly has its own vulnerabilities. Specific example recently was IV contrast materials, which is what is used to do radiologic

studies. And one factory went down during COVID that was based in China, and that overnight cut the supply of this particular product in half, essentially meaning that half of the hospitals in the country, including veterans hospitals, did not have access to the necessary material to perform to perform basic radiologic tests. And as I mentioned earlier, this problem isn't new, and it's not like we haven't been here before. Americans were dealing with a dire prescription drug shortage a decade ago. And in 2014, the government accountability office issued a report

detailing the frequent cost and quality related problems that kept screwing with the production of life-saving medicines. Sterile injectable drugs and generic drugs generally are very, very low margin drugs. It's a very, very small profit margin. So sometimes what happens is, you know, a line goes down, something breaks, something breaks down. And a company, a producer looks at the margins and looks at the economics and says, well, you know, it's not really worth with the margins we're getting on this drug continuing the line, putting the money in to fix it. So in effect, they let it go into shortage. and even if people need it, even if it's a critical drug, say, for example, the nitroglycerin

and heart surgeries, it's just not, they don't produce it. Isn't it incredible that we're dealing with the exact same shortage of sterile injectable drugs today? In over a decade, the federal government has done virtually nothing to mitigate this issue. Back in May, the House Energy and Commerce Oversight Subcommittee held a hearing with FDA Commissioner Robert Caliph. Caliph offered expert testimony. on something Congress would be totally ignorant about had he not uttered this revelation. We have got to fix the core economics if we are going to get the situation fixed. Wow. Groundbreaking. I'm glad Congress is aware of the issue now. So what, if anything,

is the government doing in response to this insane crisis? Surprisingly, lawmakers are, you know, having a tough time doing their job. And by surprisingly, I mean the opposite. Totally unsurprising. Look, back in June, political reported on the ongoing gridlock that's standing in the way of legislation meant to resolve drugs shortages, which is infuriating when one considers that there are as many as 14 different kinds of cancer-related drugs in short supply. I wish there was a little more attention on stories like this, by the way. You know, I get it. I get that we're all obsessed with identity politics in the culture war, but there are people, literal cancer patients who can't get their hands on cancer

medication, but let's all get involved with, you know, little drama stories that are taking place right now with streamers or whatever it is. It's so infuriating. But anyway, times of the essence and literal lives are on the line. While the FDA cannot force a manufacturer to make a drug, or even compel companies to notify the agency of surges and demand that they can't keep up with, The agency has decided to implement another solution. Most recently, the FDA announced that it was going to allow a Chinese manufacturer to import one of the chemotherapy drugs that's been in shortage into the U.S. That drug has not been approved for use in the U.S., but in this case, they're going to allow an exception. They're looking at the possibility of doing that with some other drugs.

A lot of us are accustomed to taking a lot of generics for a lot of things. But you're talking about cancer treatments and antibiotics. Are there generic bridges or temporary solutions for people who need those types of medications? So in this case, we've seen a lot of cancer doctors are saying that they have been looking to alternatives, but in some cases they truly have been delaying care. And they say it could result in worse outcomes for patients. So they had to make this exception in order to start to improve the supply. we're going to import drugs from China that haven't been tested or approved by regulators in the

U.S. And it's weird to hear the hawkish rhetoric toward China from the Biden administration while we continue to lean on them for our life-saving medication. And look, even if you're not worried about the safety of these imported drugs, you should be concerned that all that has happened so far is the placement of the tiniest possible band-aid on this broken system. This This does nothing to prevent or mitigate drug shortages from occurring over and over again. Since the profit motive seems to be at the heart of this issue, maybe the federal government, maybe the federal government should step in and produce these generic drugs? Or what about subsidizing drug makers so they're, you know, incentivized to manufacture the

drugs we need to survive? For its part, all we've heard from the Biden White House is concerned about China's dominance. A senior White House official said that lawmakers have raised concerns about Chinese dominance in this space and what that means for American interests when asked whether there is legislative appetite to subsidize generic manufacturing. Okay, so what exactly are they going to do then? There obviously is no legislative appetite to do anything other than, well, whatever the hell this is. Mr. Allen, did you or did you not decriminalize public urination in Washington, D.C. Did you lead the charge to do so? No, the revised criminal code left that as a criminal charge.

Did you lead the charge to decriminalize public urination in Washington, D.C.? No, ma'am. Did you ever vote in favor of decriminalizing public urination in Washington, D.C.? The revised criminal code that was passed by the council kept it as a criminal. offense. Did you, and you support this? Criminal. I voted for it, yeah. You voted to keep it as a criminal offense. That's correct. The full council did. We have records that show that you were in favor of removing that criminal offense and allowing public urination. No. The, is that something that you intend to pursue in the future? No. The legislation that you're referring to that came

from a criminal code reform commission changed public urination from a criminal to a civil offense. The council then changed that to maintain it as a criminal offense at the request of the mayor. Thank you, I yield. Yeah, I'd be concerned about other countries dominating us. And countries like China will continue to dominate as long as our federal government refuses to invest in its people while prioritizing the financial interests of drug manufacturers. Allowing market forces to drive decisions about health care and pharmaceutical drugs clearly doesn't breed more options. for patients. And no amount of, you know, showing admiration for free market capitalism can erase the damage being done to ordinary people who can't even access the cancer drugs

they need to stay alive. All right, we got to take a break. When we come back, we've got more news for you, including, well, there's a lot more going on in the economy that I want to share with you. I also want to talk a little bit about how Ron DeSantis' plan to implement a state guard has kind of flopped with tons of people quitting. We'll tell you why when we come back. Welcome back to TYT. I'm your host, Anna Casparian. As always, you can help support the show by liking the stream. That'll help get the word out about TYT. You can also become a member by going to tYT.com slash join. Or if you're watching us on YouTube, just click on that join button and you can become a member that way. Your support of the show helps to not only keep us afloat, but it helps us remain independent.

It allows free thought, free will. Everything that I love about. working here and I would not be able to do this without you. So thank you so much for your support. With that said, let's move on to our next story. In just the last two months, three of the nation's largest home insurance companies have decided that they will no longer offer health and, well, no, sorry, let's start that again. Let's start that completely again. Let's go at the very beginning. All right. So in just in just the last two months, three of the nation's largest home insurance companies announced plans to severely limit their business in California, citing the rising costs of climate-fueled fires in the state.

One of those insurers is state farm, which provides coverage for more homeowners in California than any other company. So imagine the panic Californians felt when they heard their insurer will no longer offer coverage in the entire state. The company said that while it recognized the work of California officials to reduce losses from wildfires, it had to stop writing new policies to improve the company's financial strength. Now, the problem with wildfires in California is that over the last few decades, they've been occurring more often and with more severity. Sometimes the fires are sparked by old faulty equipment that private utility companies decided against upgrading. After all, why spend money to improve nearly century old equipment when PG&E can maximize its profits and get bailed out by the state's taxpayers when lawsuits bankrupt them?

But longer climate fuel droughts have led to drier conditions in California, turning the state into a tinderbox. One of the worst fire seasons in the state occurred in 2017 when a series of blazes killed 47 people. The fires also burned more than 1.5 million acres of land and destroyed or damaged more than 10,000 structures. Adding insult to injury, the disaster led to homeowners losing their insurance policies entirely because insurers were no longer willing to cover homes in vulnerable areas. Now, more companies keep slashing their policies. This means that if and when disaster strikes, homeowners will have a much harder time, either rebuilding or relocating. Now, if the ongoing climate crisis doesn't concern you, if you're not worried about it at all,

maybe the corporate greed evident in this debacle will. Turns out the very insurance companies that are refusing to provide coverage to homeowners due to the mounting costs of climate-related mayhem have, you know, you know, invested heavily in the fossil fuel industry. After reviewing data from state regulators, the lever reported that the three groups planning to limit or cease new business in California, that includes farmers insurance group, state farm, and all state, also hold nearly $40 billion in fossil fuel investments. Not only are these companies heavily invested in the very drivers of the climate emergency,

The capital they've used for these investments can be risky and also tend to rob consumers of the resources they should be getting in insurance payouts. Contrary to industry warnings, a new analysis from the New York Federal Reserve finds that the largest property insurers have sufficient capital to cover estimated losses from climate-related catastrophes, but that their portfolio holdings in oil and gas pose additional financial risks. And instead of considering how their investments have contributed to the climate crisis, the industry is pushing for deregulation to, you know, free up their ability to engage an even more profit maximizing business practices. The lever notes that insurers have offered

an ultimatum. In order to continue writing homeowner policies, insurers and their lobbying groups are now demanding that regulators relax California's laws protecting consumers from price gouging. Now, let's go back a little bit, because about 35 years ago, voters in California passed something called Proposition 103, which required insurers to seek approval from state regulators before raising insurance rates for consumers. The proposition also allowed consumers to challenge the reasons cited for the proposed price hikes. Now, obviously, insurance companies absolutely hated the passage of this proposition. In a public hearing just last Thursday, all state representatives made the ultimatum explicit telling regulators that their presence in the state

depends on being permitted to pass more costs onto consumers and use black box risk models currently disallowed under rate transparency rules. But I'd venture to say that these regulations are especially important at the moment, because they allow us to challenge. their current business decisions, and more importantly, their investments. If these companies played a role in the climate emergency, are we really okay with them turning around and harming ordinary people further by pulling the rug out from underneath them or by increasing their premiums? And these insurance companies don't just invest money in fossil fuel projects. They actually serve as gatekeepers because their coverage is required

for large scale oil and gas projects to proceed. According to Carly Fabian, who's an insurance policy advocate for public citizen, insurers could have started phasing out fossil fuel coverage decades ago. Instead, they're backing away from homeowners while continuing to support new oil and gas projects. Last month, the U.S. Senate Budget Committee launched an investigation into this issue, asking seven insurers to disclose how they invest and underwrite fossil fuels. But the insurance industry is mostly regulated on a state-by-state basis.

And California isn't the only state where the climate crisis is quickly morphing into a serious financial burden for Americans. In fact, it's likely that the golden state is beginning to see the early signs of a problem Floridians have already been riddled with. While the state has always had hurricanes, in recent years they've become more frequent and severe. And much like the severity of fires in California, the increasing severity of hurricanes in Florida has been tied to the climate emergency. Over the years, Floridians have found it increasingly difficult to find storm coverage because big insurers have just left the state entirely.

Farmers insurance also plans to cancel about a third of its homeowner policies in the Sunshine State, where consumers are already paying nearly triple the average rate nationwide. Now they're being told that their premiums are expected to increase by another 40% this year. And that's despite the passage of a raft of the insurance industry's preferred measures by the Florida legislature in the last year, including a law that will make it harder for homeowners to sue insurers that wrongfully delay, deny, or underpay claims. Now, while the industry has blamed frivolous lawsuits as the culprit of rising costs in Florida, autopsies of bankrupt insurers have pointed to bloated executive payouts as a key issue.

Homeowners in Fort Myers, for instance, haven't even been able to rebuild after the hurricane. Hurricane Ian, which destroyed their homes last year. Left with no choice, many of them are selling their plots of land to corporate and all cash buyers, making matters worse, the smaller private insurers that remain are struggling to stay afloat. So the state government came up with a solution that worked until it didn't. Florida established a complicated system, a market based on small insurance companies backed up by citizens property insurance corporation, a state mandated company that would provide windstorm coverage for homeowners who couldn't find private insurance. But then came Hurricane Irma.

That category four storm made landfall in the Florida Keys and moved up the coast. Irma was the first in a series of storms that devastated parts of the state. Here's some of Irma's aftermath. That's our first real view of the destruction, the devastation left behind by Hurricane Irma. And you're absolutely right. You pointed out that Irma came right over Naples, wind gusts of 142 miles per hour. And just look at the damage left behind. Some of the roofing here at this apartment building has come crashing down onto these cars.

This is just some of the damage. And of course, we also know there was significant flooding. They had been a warning of a storm surge of 10 to 15 feet. There was a surge, but not quite that much. They are dealing with flooding in the streets. But if you look behind me here, you can see the trees came down, the fencing came down, and state emergency management officials say they truly do not have the scope of the damage until they can get out. Now, believe it or not, that hurricane could have been worse, much worse.

It actually didn't cause a great deal of damage, but as I mentioned earlier, Irma was the first in a series of storms, including Hurricane Ian just last October. Rescuers struggled to reach people stranded by the floodwaters that Ian left behind after raking the state overnight. Are you guys okay? By midday, more than 500 people had been rescued in hardest hit Southwest Florida. The efforts are hampered by flooded roads and damaged bridges. This is what's left of the only connection between Sanabelle and Captiva Islands and Florida's Gulf Coast. In Naples, docks floated down the Gordon River and buildings were completely submerged. Boats now sit between buildings in Fort Myers near where Ian made landfall.

Some parts of the city were under three or four feet of water turning homes into islands and causing severe damage. Insurers weren't just dealing with one bad year of claims that they could eventually recover from. They were confronted 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. With several back-to-back years of costly storms. Since Hurricane Irma, almost every year has. included terrible storms, making it impossible for insurers to build their reserves, allegedly. Now, as a result, more Floridians left the private market for citizens, which has become the state's largest insurance provider. But it has its limitations. Citizens won't cover homes with a replacement cost of more than $700,000 or $1 million in Miami-Dade County and the Florida Keys. That leaves those homeowners with no choice but private coverage, and

in parts of the state, that coverage is getting harder to find. Mark Friedlander, a spokesperson for Insurance Information Institute, details how severe this problem is, saying that over the past 18 months in Florida, 15 home insurers have placed moratoriums on writing new business. Four carriers have announced plans to voluntarily withdraw from the market, and seven companies have been declared insolvent. Currently, there are 18 Florida residential insurers on the state regulators watch list due to concerns over their financial health.

A model similar to Florida's has been implemented federally for flood insurance coverage. Back in 1968, Congress enacted the National Flood Insurance Program after private insurers refused to provide coverage for flooding and left homeowners with no options. For decades, the federal program worked as intended. But things changed as storms became more severe, resulting in growing and costlier losses. In recent years, homeowners have been slapped with higher rates. In 2021, FEMA, which runs the program, began setting rates equal to the actual flood risk-facing homeowners, an effort to better communicate the true danger facing different properties

and also to staunch the losses for the government. Now, the current cost of flood insurance for single family homes nationwide is $888 a year, according to FEMA. Under the new risk-based pricing, the average could cost about $1,808. Carolyn Koski, who serves as the Associate Vice President for Economics and Policy at the Environmental Defense Fund, argues that government mandated programs like the federal flood insurance plan we're meant to be a workaround to the failures of the private market. But as climate shocks get worse, she worries that we're now at a point where that's starting

to crack. And I think she's right. Kowski urges policymakers to find ways to reduce the risk people face by imposing more regulations, including tougher building standards in vulnerable areas, of course. And to be sure, every area at this point seems pretty vulnerable. And maybe if the cost of building in vulnerable parts of the country is too expensive, these regulations could serve as a deterrent for development. Who knows? What I do know is that ordinary people shouldn't be suffering financially while the very fossil fuel companies that played the largest role in destroying the planet get to, you know, pocket the riches from their lucrative carbon-emitting businesses. Same goes for the insurers that have heavily invested in the fossil fuel industry,

the same insurers that are now refusing to provide coverage to homeowners in California and Florida. Unfortunately, the man who serves as the head of the federal flood insurance program appears to disagree, saying that properties located in high risk area should plan and expect to pay for that risk. Okay, but I'd argue that the federal government, which has provided cover for the very fossil fuel companies that have driven us into the climate crisis should pay the price. Companies like BP knew about the damage they were doing to the planet decades before the general public even became aware of it. But they continued drilling, of course. Much like other fossil fuel companies, they've profited handsomely from extracting climate warming

natural resources. And while they've privatized those gains, our federal government has ensured that the losses are socialized. The onus to respond to climate change and suffer the financial costs associated with it constantly falls on our shoulders, whether it be through government resources or us as individuals having to pay for it out of our own pockets. Tom Coringham, a research economist with Scripps, the Scripps Institute of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, suggests that policymakers seriously consider buying properties that are at greatest risk or otherwise moving residents out of the most dangerous

communities. He rightly points out that we can't just rely on the free market to store things out. Well, when it comes to producing energy, the free market got us into this climate mess in the first place, and funding for any solutions should come from the oil, coal, and natural gas companies. And in the meantime, we do need to rely on nuclear energy if we need a clean energy source to close the gap that's left behind from these fossil fuel companies. We got to take a break. We've got more to get to when we return. Don't miss it. Welcome back to TYT. I'm your host Anna Kasparian, and we have an update on one of Ron DeSantis' latest stunts out of Florida. Let's talk about it. Looks like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis's latest stunt to reestablish the Florida State Guard has been a flop so far, with more than 20% of recruits quitting and much of the leadership.

joining them. Look, to fully understand why, let's revisit what Florida State Guard is and why DeSantis wanted to establish something that was disbanded in 1947. DeSantis was allegedly frustrated that his state wasn't getting enough of a law enforcement handout from the federal government. After complaining that Washington had failed to provide adequate staffing for Florida's National Guard, he announced that for the first time in 75 years, he was actually. activating the state guard to close the gap. DeSantis' original vision for this program went as follows. He proposed bringing back the World War II era force to supplement the overworked and understaffed Florida National Guard. Although some Democrats were critical of handing DeSantis more power, state lawmakers last year gave the governor twice the volunteers that he requested, 400 members and a $10 million.

budget. All right, so let's pause for a second. Let's let's be good faith here. Let's actually talk about the reality and context. It is important to note that other states have similar programs with the power to create defense forces separate from the National Guard. It's just that the way that they've implemented it, very, very different. Now, DeSantis' plan to reestablish the civilian force would become the 23rd active state guard in the country, joining California, Texas and New York. And on its face, there is nothing wrong with forming a state guard, considering it's supposed to consist of volunteers who would respond to disasters like hurricanes and other emergencies.

But the volunteers in Florida argue that's not what they were being utilized for. And some of the volunteers who signed up for the program believe the group has become too militarized and abusive. In March, state lawmakers and the governor revealed that they wanted to assign the state guard $89 million to buy boats, planes, and helicopters. They wanted a specialized unit within the guard to have police powers and the ability to carry weapons. And they wanted to boost the state guard to 1,500 members. Instead of being activated only during emergencies within Florida, they could be sent to any state to pretend. and defend the people of Florida from threats to public safety.

Yeah, so other states don't do it this way. The Guard was shaping up to be more like a state militia, acting as another law enforcement agency that's controlled specifically by the governor himself. The same guy, by the way, who's currently campaigning for president. In a statement, Major General John D. Haas, who's overseeing the State Guard, said it was a military organization that will be used not just for emergencies, but for aiding law enforcement with riots and illegal immigration. What was supposed to be a civilian disaster response organization has become heavily militarized.

The volunteers were soon required to participate in marching drills, military-style training sessions on weapons, and they even received training on hand-to-hand combat. One of the recruits described the training as more like a military fantasy camp than the practical instruction expected in topics such as, you know, how to respond to hurricanes. Sounds more like a proud boy's fantasy camp than anything else, except taxpayers in the state happen to be funding it. The volunteers said the training seemed poorly structured with an inordinate amount of time spent and one of them described it marching in fields. Some of the men said that as veterans with years of experience in the military, they were offended when they were yelled at by junior instructors acting like drill sergeants who disregarded their previous ranks. I'm gonna pause for a second. I get that they want their previous ranks to be

respected. But you got like you gotta let it go, bro. But they have issues with just how the younger individuals who were training them, were treating them. One former Marine captain, for instance, who had retired from the military with a disability and later joined the State Guard, clashed with instructors during the initial boot camp last month. In an assault complaint filed with the Clay County Sheriff's Office, the man said he was accused by the State Guard commander of being the leader of the group that had been criticizing the organization and its leadership. He was then forcibly pushed into a van against his objections and driven to the command post where he was fired and escorted off the base, according to the complaint.

Another volunteer, a retired 30-year Marine, witnessed the incident and gave a statement to the police, saying the sergeant acted rather harshly and that they told the alleged victim that, quote, they didn't care he was a retired U.S. Marine Corps captain and that he was only a recruit. And to be crystal clear, this is again unlike other state guards. While nearly half of states have volunteer state guards, usually with military structures, few if any appear to have equivalent powers. Texas, for example, has deployed its state guard to the U.S. Mexico border, but its members are not allowed to carry guns or make arrests. They also aren't supplied with aircrafts.

And so far, at least 20% of the 150 people initially accepted into the program have dropped out or were dismissed. And most of the original leadership that was appointed to the program also decided to bounce. Of the nine original State Guard recruiters and commanders who spent months recruiting for the organization, fewer than a third of them remain. So safe to say that like much of Ron DeSantis' weird publicity stunts and political stunts, this one was a flop and the state unfortunately spent tens of millions of dollars on it just to see it fail. All right, there's one more story we got to do before we bring John in for the second hour.

This one is difficult, but I am really proud of my team for staying focused on stories like the one I'm about to share with you because child labor laws are being loosened in various states across the country, and there are serious ramifications to that. Last Friday, a tragic workplace accident claimed the life of a 16-year-old immigrant named Duvonne Perez. The teenager was far too young to be working at the Marzak poultry processing plant where he died. But child labor violations like this are only becoming more common in America. Before we get to that, here are the heartbreaking details of what happened to Perez. The processing plant was located in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. Federal law makes it very clear that minors are forbidden from working in meat or poultry plants.

The Fair Labor Standards Act, for instance, specifically lists sanitation of meat and poultry plant equipment as a hazardous activity off limits to underage workers. And we don't know exactly when Perez, who immigrated from Guatemala to Mississippi six years ago, started working at this poultry plant. However, the company did admit that Perez was the employee and stated that he was conducting sanitation operations when the accident happened. So in other words, breaking the law. The company was breaking the law by having a 16-year-old work as the sanitation worker in this poultry plant. So a worker who was on duty at the time of the accident spoke of hearing the boy screaming for help,

but it was already too late. Two times he began to scream, help, help, the worker said. I knew he had died, the worker added. Here's what one of Perez's family members told NBC News. We're very sad, said the relative, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they face a pending immigration issue. He was generous, smiley, and very fun and very responsible at work. Now Marzac poultry is now under two investigations, one by the occupational safety and health administration, OSHA, and one by the wage and hour division of the Department

of Labor. And this is not the first time Marzac poultry has been investigated for workplace safety issues, including Perez's death, the company has had three deaths and one amputation in the past three years. OSHA previously cited them in 2020 and 2021 for four safety violations in three separate incidents totaling, wow, get a load of this, $52,355 in initial penalties. I'm sure that really broke the bank for them, right? Which is why they proceeded to break labor laws after the fact. Debbie Berkowitz, former OSHA official from the Obama administration, said the company has a

horrible safety record and previously fought to prevent OSHA from looking for safety violations after previous serious injuries. And last month, NBC News reported that the Biden administration has launched a federal investigation into Guatemalan child laborers, including those working in meatpacking and produce firms. That's a good start, but we need to demand even more from our elected officials to stop the rise of child labor. Child labor violations in the U.S. are up 283 percent since 2015, according to a recent report by the Department of Labor. Those findings come as more than a dozen legislatures pass laws to loosen child labor restrictions in their states.

Many of those changes to state laws were bankrolled, by the way, by these right-wing organizations like the Foundation for Government Accountability. The FGA is funded by a broad swath of ultra-conservative and Republican donors, such as the Ed Yulin Family Foundation and 85 Fund, a nonprofit connected to political operative Leonard Leo, who have similarly supported other conservative policy groups. The FGA has called for reforming home-based business laws, fast-tracking permitting processes, cutting social safety nets, and creating other incentives to work, including youth employment with little to no oversight from the government. In other words, the right wing is trying to loosen child labor laws for the same reason that they're trying to keep your wages down and privatize your social security. It's all about the money.

It's all about loosening regulations in order to exploit workers, in this case, literal children from Guatemala. Is this really the country we want to live in? Are these the issues that we're willing to sit back and allow to play out over and over and over again? And it is incredible that this was covered by local news, it's covered by us here at TYT. Who else is covering it on a national level? Who else is raising concern, genuine concern about what we are doing to literal kids in this country? 16 year old kid just died in a poultry plant in Mississippi.

Who cares? No attention, no concern, and as we speak, more states are trying to loosen child labor laws. Maybe a little bit of concern about these issues, just a little bit. But no, we can't be bothered. can't be bothered. I don't know if you heard, but Matt Gates and his wife went to the premiere of the Barbie movie. Maybe we should focus on that. Super important, right? Anyway, we got to take a break. John Ida Rolla joins me for the second hour for more nonsense in the news today. 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. slash t yt i'm your host jank huger and i'll see you soon