The Young Turks - Wrestling With Pigs

Episode Date: November 21, 2024

Visa and Mastercard executives faced scrutiny in a Senate hearing over their dominance in card payments and high swipe fees. Trump allies are considering changes to Medicaid and food stamps as part of tax legislation. The Teamsters president is advocating for Rep. Chavez-DeRemer to be named Labor Secretary, while Trump has selected former wrestling executive Linda McMahon as his pick for Education Secretary." HOST: Ana Kasparian (@anakasparian) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞  https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK  ☞   https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER  ☞       https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM  ☞  https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK  ☞          https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕MERCH  ☞      https:/www.shoptyt.com 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. Live from the Polymarket Studio in L.A. It's the Young Turks. What's up, TYT fam? You're watching TYT, and I'm your host, Anna Kasparian, on another solo Wednesday, first hour where we will be talking about some fascinating. bipartisan moves happening in the Senate, these are the types of developments that really do bring a little bit of joy into my life because there are some areas where I think, you know,

some of the more populist-minded Republicans could definitely join forces with people like Bernie Sanders to, you know, maybe stop credit card companies from screwing us all over with insanely high interest rates. So we're going to start off with that as the first story in the hour. take a little bit of a break from, you know, the aftermath of the presidential election. But don't worry, we are definitely going to dive into the aftermath of the presidential election. Donald Trump has made more appointments, more picks for his administration. And so we'll talk about the upsides and downsides of one of the individuals that he is planning on getting confirmed in the Senate. I also want to talk a little bit about what the Republican Party is talking about behind the scenes.

in regard to cutting spending in order to justify the tax cuts that they intend to extend. So that's a really important story. We'll talk about that. And then, you know, I really find what could possibly happen with Trump's labor secretary, fascinating as well. And if all goes as planned, or if things go the way that I hope they go, it could teach us a lesson about how to basically maneuver and work within a situation where Republicans have complete control in order to get at least some of what we want. And so we'll get to that later in the first hour. As always, John Iderola will join me for the second hour of the show,

so stick around for that as well. And if you're interested in helping spread the word of TYT, you should like the stream, share the stream, or become a member by going to t.yt.com slash join. You can also smash that join button on YouTube if you're watching. If you're watching us on YouTube. All right, well, without further ado, let's get to our first story. Visa and MasterCard are effectively monopolies. They control 80% of the market. Certainly part of the-80% of the market. This is classic, classic monopolistic behavior.

And yet your testimony here today is you don't want any competition. Yesterday, Republican Senator Josh Hawley went on an absolute tirade against Visa and MasterCard for what he himself described, and you heard it in that video, as monopolistic behavior. Now, look, before we show you more of his incredible rant, and I do give him credit for actually, you know, doing more than just talking the talk. I mean, he's really holding these credit card companies feet to the fire. I do want to give you some more context so you understand what this is all about. So yesterday, the Senate held a hearing on competition in the credit card industry. And one huge focus of that hearing was basically how much these companies are charging when it comes to swipe fees.

And when it comes to those swipe fees, don't think that it's just the merchant or the retailer that you're shopping at. Those costs do end up getting passed down to you, the consumer. And if you're not familiar with those swipe fees or how disastrous they really are, here's a good video explainer just to catch you up. When you use your credit card, the transaction runs through a source processing system through the credit cards network to your cards bank. and there are fees throughout these steps. The processing system's fee is generally fairly low,

around one-tenth of a percent of the total purchase. There's a large market the merchant can choose from, which can keep this cost down. Then there's the credit card's network fee, around a quarter of a percent. And the largest fee of this system also happens here, the interchange fee. It's usually around 2 to 3 percent.

It's set by the card networks, but it's paid to your bank that issued your credit card. You get rewards for every purchase. Everything. Essentially, that fee helps to fund the rewards that we all get when we use our credit cards. Merchants, paid banks and other credit card issuers interchange fees, set by Visa and MasterCard, roughly $55 billion just last year. Interchange fees vary by card. Generally, a higher rewards card will come with a higher interchange fee.

And businesses have little control over this. They can't choose to not accept a high rewards card because of the fees. If they want to accept any of a network's credit cards, they have to accept all of that network's credit cards. So this is the reason why Holly is accusing Visa and MasterCard of basically running this monopolistic game, right? Because the retailers, the businesses that take credit cards don't really have any options in regard to working with other processes or other services that might have lower fees. because Visa and MasterCard will essentially find a way to retaliate and make sure that they have less options. So Visa and MasterCard have this vice grip on the credit card market. That's important to know.

And here's how Senators, Dick Durbin, who's a Democrat, and Roger Marshall, who's a Republican, explain how much money Visa and MasterCard make and how much it's actually costing you the consumer. Take a look. in 2023 alone visa and master card charge merchants more than a hundred billion dollars in credit card fees mostly in the form of interchange fees the average american family spends over 1100 dollars annually on swipe fees 1100 dollars in the united states swipe fees are over nine times higher than in the u four times higher than china and twice that of canada last year alone the retailers paid over 170 billion dollars in swipe fees. For small businesses, these fees are second only to labor cost, often exceeding utilities or even health care expenses for their employees. Brough, like that's crazy. That is crazy that it costs the employers more than what it costs to provide health care to their employees. That's insane. Okay, so Durbin and Marshall are

taking some action. Durbin and Marshall have co-sponsored the bipartisan credit card competition. Act, which takes aim at Visa and MasterCard's market dominance by requiring banks with more than $100 billion in assets to offer at least one other payment network on their cards besides Visa and MasterCard. Essentially, what they're trying to do is give people more options. And the only way that these fees will come down is if there's more options for consumers and retailers, in this case, we're talking about the retailers. talking about a different payment network that might actually offer lower fees,

thus introducing competition into this market. Now, with all that in all that in mind, Let's go back to Josh Hawley and listen to his full rant, which I do think is worth listening to. Visa and MasterCard are effectively monopolies. They control 80% of the market. Certainly part of the-80% of the market. I'm just having a hard time understanding, Mr. Sheedy and Mr. Patrick. You have a business model.

You're making over 50% profit margin. You are able to give the shaft to small businesses. Estimated cost to Missouri businesses from these fees is one and a half billion dollars. That's with a B billion dollars a year, a year. Why aren't all of these businesses running away from this model? Because they don't have a choice because you control so much of the market. This is classic, classic monopolistic behavior. And yet your testimony here today is you don't want any competition.

You have 80% of the market, but you don't want any more competition. I just, I'm having it a hard time finding that position. defensible, let alone sympathetic. I mean, it's unbelievable the amount of money that you're making. What's also unbelievable is the fact that what you just heard came out of the mouth of a Republican lawmaker. And I want to just spend a minute or two focusing on that because, you know, look, historically in this country, Republicans have been in the pocket of financial institutions, of big banks increasingly and unfortunately over the last few decades,

the same has been the case with Democratic lawmakers. And, you know, the residual benefits of the FDR era was something that they were able to enjoy for a long time. But I think that that polish is really starting to fade away when it comes to the Democratic Party, which is why, you know, in the outcome of the 2024 presidential election, you have more and more voters really leaving the Democratic Party. and specifically stating that they feel Democrats have abandoned the working class. Now, look, I don't know what really motivates Josh Hawley, and I don't care.

I've seen him speak out against this type of grift, this type of abuse from financial institutions, consistently enough to be willing to take what he's saying at face value, that he actually wants to do something about this. And when you see a Republican or someone from the opposing political party, advocate for things that you want, you should provide positive reinforcement for that and not go after Democrats who are willing to work together with individuals

like Josh Hawley in order to accomplish this very specific goal. So you can definitely oppose Josh Hawley on a whole host of other things, and I certainly do. But when it comes to this issue, if he's willing to work with someone like Bernie Sanders, we should applaud that. We should be happy about that.

Because ultimately, what we want more than anything isn't to protect our own tribe and never work with the other tribe because they're bad guys. We want to accomplish policy goals. And there are some areas in which, even in a Trump administration, I think that we would be able to, as long as there's like negotiation and working together in good faith, to accomplish some of these policies. And I think this is a good example of one. So speaking of Holly, he actually has found himself in a fascinating and unusual policy alliance with both Donald Trump and Senator Bernie Sanders. So on the campaign trail, Trump had stated that he would temporarily cap credit card interest rates at around 10%. I mean, 10% is already pretty high, right? But they're actually

very, very, like they're much higher than 10% right now. So capping the interest rates for credit cards, I think is a fascinating idea. And I totally support it, especially at a time. when consumer debt in America as at an all-time low, all-time high. It's just crushing American families across the country. So last week, Bernie Sanders reminded Trump of his promise, and here's what he tweeted. He wrote, I look forward to working with the Trump administration on fulfilling his promise to cap credit card interest rates at 10%. We cannot continue to allow big banks to make record profits by ripping off Americans by charging them, 20 to 30% interest rates, that is usury.

And guess what? Josh Holly jumped in on the conversation, responding with an anti-usory bill capping outrageous credit card rates ought to be a top priority of the next Congress. So look, leftists want to know why did Bernie Sanders change the entirety of his political identity just because, you know, he got a little bit of positive attention from Donald Trump? How did that? Why is he doing? I'm kidding. That's a stupid argument to make. That's what a dumb person would say. If you see an opportunity to actually accomplish something on behalf of the American people, you should go for it. Full speed ahead. He also brought up the issue of massive credit card debt during this hearing. Let's take a look. Either you know how much debt is owed on your networks, Ms. Kirkpatrick? We're not the bank, so we don't have visibility into that information. We also don't generate revenue from interchange.

Okay, you have no idea. Mr. Cedi, do you know? I don't know. Well, let me help you out. Let's have a look. It's $1.17 trillion. $1.17 trillion is what consumers now owe on your credit card networks. So either you know what the average interest rate is on your networks. Mr. Kirkpatrick.

Senator, we're not the bank. We don't set the interchange. I know. We don't set the rates. And you know, do you know what it is? This is your business model. We don't collect revenue from interest rates. Do you know?

I don't, Senator. I mean, do either of you read the newspaper? Forbes magazine just estimated last week that the average, average credit card APR in your networks is 28.75% average. Did she just say we don't collect revenue from interest rates? Like, where does that money go? It just disappears, like in thin air? What? Okay, anyway, but I love the fact that he's holding their feet to the fire. He deserves credit for that. And typically, I would have some pretty salty commentary about, oh, look, another congressional hearing. Ooh, and more theater, more theater. But we just had the election. Okay, this isn't theater. I think that this is actually something that Holly cares about. He has talked about it consistently. And so this could be a really good opportunity for like-minded Democrats on this specific issue. Again, to push for legislation and pass legislation to cap the interest rates for credit cards,

to do something about the monopolistic system when it comes to credit card swipes and the payment processing. So we'll see what happens. But I'm just really wanting to share this with you all because I do think that there could be opportunities to accomplish something on behalf of Americans, especially at a time when it feels like deregulation has crushed Americans, crushed their personal finances, and certainly led to a system where people are just crippled with insane amounts of debt. So we'll definitely stay on the story and give you guys updates as it develops. But for now, let's move on and talk a little bit about what I'm very concerned about in regard to the Republican Party and what they're planning to do to our social safety net, or what remains of our social safety net.

Extending Donald Trump's 2017 tax cuts comes at a hefty price, but it is something he intends to do, and certainly with the help of Republicans who now have control of both chambers of Congress. So the president elects economic advisors, along with some congressional Republicans, are basically planning these massive cuts to federal safety net programs that could negatively impact as many as 70 million low-income Americans. So that includes programs like Medicaid, food stamps, and more. So this was an important piece written by the Washington Post. I really want to give the journalists over at the Washington Post a lot of credit for diving into this because when you hear about how the Trump administration wants to cut two trillion

dollars in spending, okay, well, where is that money going to come from? Where are you going to cut in order to save? Well, major portions of Trump's 2017 tax bill are set to expire at the end of next year. And extending those provisions, as Trump has proposed, would add more than $4 trillion to the already soaring national debt over the next decade, according to congressional bookkeepers. So I want to be clear about what part of Trump's tax cuts he's looking to extend. The tax cuts that he already implemented for the corporations, right? He took the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% did not get rid of the corporate tax loopholes, which means that with deductions in mind, you know, the effective tax rate for corporations is much lower. Okay, that's how you

have companies that are very lucrative, very profitable like Amazon, not having to pay a single dollar in federal taxes. Okay, so I think that the corporate tax rate part of his tax bill has been disastrous and has definitely led to a situation where the have-nots are expected to pay more in federal taxes than insanely rich, well-performing corporations. But that's also the part of Trump's tax bill that is permanent. The part that is not permanent is in regard to personal income taxes, right? And so that is set to expire, and Trump is looking to extend those tax cuts. And those tax cuts, yes, disproportionately helped the rich in the country, but there were also middle class and low-income Americans who benefited from that as well, just not to the same extent as wealthy Americans.

Now, just to give you guys all a reminder, this nation, much like American consumers, is absolutely drowning in debt. The debt exceeds $36 trillion. That's a lot of money. And so the Washington Post spoke with seven people who are familiar with the talks that Donald Trump is having and Republicans are having in regard to finding areas to save in order to justify the massive loss of revenue the federal government is going to experience if we extend those tax cuts for personal income. And so what they're thinking about are things like work requirements to qualify for federal programs. The first Trump administration allowed 13 GOP-led states to add work requirements to their Medicaid programs. The requirements only took full effect in one state, though, in Arkansas for a five-month-old.

period when about 18,000 people were dropped from the program, the Medicaid program in Arkansas. So, you know, when the work requirement was when 13 Republican-led states tried to implement the work requirement, they were taken to court, and in the end, only Arkansas was able to implement that program. But look at that. I mean, 18,000 people got dropped from the state's Medicaid. I just think that health care should be provided. for everyone. Health care to me is not something that like people are trying to defraud the system to get. And this idea that like, oh, these lazy bums, you know, they don't deserve health coverage and the ability to go to the doctor without, you know, bills breaking them. It's just unnecessarily

cruel. But they've also thought about possibly implementing spending caps to these federal safety net programs. So the House Budget Committee Chairman Jody Arrington, who's a Republican from Texas, told reporters on Wednesday, last Wednesday that a responsible and reasonable work requirement for Medicaid benefits resembling the one that already exists for food stamps could yield about $100 billion in savings. I also want to just note that it actually ends up costing the system quite a bit in order to implement work requirements because you would need to have a system in place to make sure that people are working in order to qualify, right? So you'd have to hire more

personnel. It actually ends up becoming a far more expensive system by implementing these work requirements. And oftentimes, the way of showing that you're at least looking for work or are working, but are just so low income. Okay, your boss is paying you so little that you can't even qualify or you can't even pay your own bills working full time. Like, if they, you know, want to prove that they're working but aren't making enough money, for some people, right, that would require them to go online. The system might be confusing. They might run into problems.

And so there's a barrier there when it comes to just simply proving that you're working so you can qualify for something that you desperately need like healthcare. And I just think it's unnecessary. So he also said another $160 billion in reduced costs could come from checking Medicaid eligibility more than once a year. Okay, so this is really what we want to spend resources on? I mean, every single year ensuring that people deserve health care and that they're proving that they're working enough to qualify for Medicaid.

Remember, Medicaid is for severely low-income individuals. In fact, I think there are low-income individuals who should qualify for Medicaid, who don't qualify for Medicaid, because they're allegedly making too much money, which is insane. But look, this whole fragmented healthcare system is so broken. It's awful in so many different ways. And we do spend way too much on health care in this country. Part of the reason why we spend way too much on health care in this country is because we allow pharmaceutical companies to rip us off. Rip us off on a personal level if you're just a private citizen who has private health insurance. And also on a governmental scale, because you have

Medicare and Medicaid, you know, buying the same pharmaceutical drugs on behalf of the Americans that are covered by these plans and they're not able to negotiate the prices of these drugs. I'm not talking about cost like setting. I'm not talking about the government coming in and saying we are going to set the price for these drugs at, you know, $20 per bottle. That's not what we want. That's not what we're even saying. They're not able to negotiate for lower prices. thus allowing the pharmaceutical companies to rip off Americans, to rip off the Medicare system, which is funded by us, the taxpayers. And I just find it so fascinating that Republicans who have voted down bills

that would allow for the Medicare system to negotiate drug prices are now looking to point fingers at the most vulnerable low-income Americans in the country and essentially paint them as bombs who are unworthy of health insurance or health coverage. It really does irritate me beyond words. So as far as food stamps go, Republicans want to strip the supplemental nutrition assistance program, also known as SNAP, of presidential authority. So you might not know about this. I actually was unfamiliar with it as well.

But presidential authority essentially allows the White House to unilaterally increase benefits offered to individuals who qualify for SNAP. And so Republicans want to do away with that. Right now, SNAP benefits also increase automatically to adjust for inflation. And some of the Republicans engaging in these conversations are considering doing away with that as well, which is just so insane because think about how much inflation has impacted grocery prices. So if food stamps don't adjust for inflation, well, then the minuscule amount of money that low-income Americans get as food stamps or SNAPs or SNAPA, are going to be worth even less.

They're going to be unable to buy even like basic things that they might need in order to feed their families. And by the way, the other thing I just want to note about these programs, I think in the mind of some of these Republicans, you know, in their minds, they're punishing lazy Americans who just want to live off, you know, government cheese. And even if you buy into that, which I really hope you don't. But even if you do, let's say we take that at face value and actually believe it. I don't, but let's just say we do for argument's sake.

Do their kids deserve to suffer? Are we okay with kids going hungry? And why is this the priority when it comes to cutting spending? I mean, there's a lot of government waste. I'm not necessarily against taking a good, hard look at government bureaucracy and questioning, Hey, are there some areas here where we can actually save money? Are there unnecessary things going on? Are we giving out unnecessary contracts or doing things in a way that's less efficient with taxpayer money?

I think that's a totally fine thing to look into. But rather than, I don't know, considering the fact that our military budget is bloated specifically because of the defense contractors, specifically because of government waste. I mean, the Pentagon has now failed seven audits in a row. They have failed seven audits in a row. Don't you think that maybe that's the first place you should look? But see, the reason why Republicans aren't looking there is because of, in my opinion, they're donors.

Their donors don't want them to look there. There's no lobbying group for low-income Americans in order to ensure that they're getting snap benefits. There's no big snap showing up to a congressional office and, you know, engaging in bribes on behalf of low-income Americans. That's just not happening. And so money does talk. And I do think that lobbying is what takes the minds of these Republican lawmakers off of where the real government waste is. And instead, they're hyper-focused on the most vulnerable people who unfortunately do not have these powerful lobbying groups representing them and bribing politicians on their behalf.

Now, in addition to spending cuts, Republicans are also considering repurposing clean energy funds allocated by Democrats. Trump is also saying that the federal government will raise revenue from tariffs. I want to just briefly focus on this for a second, because this is important. Look, I don't think that targeted tariffs are necessarily a bad thing. And in fact, as I've said multiple times on the show, Donald Trump's specific targeted tariffs on China were expanded under the Biden administration. Okay, so in some cases, tariffs make sense.

But what Trump is planning to do here is implement widespread tariffs, which of course increases prices for consumers because the companies who are importing items that have been manufactured abroad or made abroad, when they import them, that's when you pay the tariff. The tariff is a tax that is paid to the federal government. So yes, that will raise revenue for the federal government. But do you think that the corporations who are paying those tariffs to the federal government are just going to eat those costs and not pass them down to consumers? Of course they're going to pass them down to consumers.

Of course. So what this is essentially going to do is it's going to redistribute wealth from low-income Americans to these corporations, to these top earners. How is that going to happen? Well, remember, Trump is looking to cut taxes, and those taxes or those tax cuts are disproportionately going to help the wealthiest Americans. At the same time, due to that loss of federal revenue, Trump is planning to make up for that through the tariffs that he's going to implement. The cost of those tariffs will then be passed down to American consumers, and obviously those costs are going to be a much bigger burden for low-income Americans. So look, it really depends on how he implements these tariffs, but if he thinks that he can cut taxes on the rich and make up for the loss of revenue by essentially implementing widespread tariffs, that is going to be a disaster for average working class Americans.

And I'm very concerned about that. And one GOP tax advisor told the post, I don't think that passing just an extension of tax cuts that shows on paper an increase in the deficit is going to be challenging. But the other side of the coin is you start to add things to reduce the deficit, and that gets politically more challenging. And so what this GOP tax advisor is getting at is, look, if you're going to cut social safety net programs in order to justify cuts on taxes for the rich, and then on top of that, you're going to make up for the lost revenue by implementing widespread tariffs that are going to lead to higher prices and inflation for ordinary American consumers. there's going to be political hell to pay. And I think he's right about that. Now, other ways the GOP could cut spending, but are unwilling to do so because of their precious donors, as I mentioned, cut the bloat in the military due to contracts with defense contractors. Stop spending, stop sending money to wars abroad. I know that some people get touchy about that, whether you're an Israel supporter or if you think that we're going to save Ukraine. But nonetheless, we spend so much money on wars abroad. And I think we really need to re-evaluate what our priorities are. And finally, if you're worried about health care spending, please, for the love of God, allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices, all drug prices with pharmaceutical companies.

Something tells me that's not going to happen. And I do think it's telling that when it comes to these lawmakers, the first place they look to cut spending are programs that disproportionately help the most vulnerable Americans among us. All right, we got to take a break when we come back. We've got more news for you, including, well, who is being suggested as Donald Trump's labor secretary. That story's got some twists and turns. Don't miss it. Welcome back to the show, everyone.

E. Higgins in our member section says, definitely retiring in another country, this one is circling the drain. Well, Higgins, you should stick around because we have a story in the second hour today about how Italy is trying to lure Americans. And as much as I love Italy, I love this country. Like I do. I love America. I love Americans. I'm just, I want to make the country better. I know that I can't do that single-handedly or unilaterally, but let's fix this country. This is a wonderful place, and I still believe in it. But I hear what you're saying, although Italy is based.

Okay, really, really based. I love Italy so much. Anyway, all right, let's get to a fascinating story. If this works out in the way that I'm hoping, it's a big win for Sean O'Brien, who, of course, has been chastised by the left for, being willing to, you know, be a little more friendly to the Republican Party. So without further ado, let's get to the details. Mr. President, any reaction to the Teamsters decision not to endorse?

No, they were. It's a great honor. They're not going to endorse the Democrats. That's a big thing. And this is the first time and I guess 50, 60 years that's happened. Democrats automatically have the Teamsters. They took a vote and I guess I was at 60 percent or more. And that's a great honor. I mean, it's really, I've had a lot of Teamsters work for me, a lot of the concrete trucks and built all these buildings that you see in New York City, the Teamsters. Well, back in September, Donald Trump stated it was an honor, an absolute honor, that the Teamsters broke their long tradition of endorsing the Democratic candidate for president and instead chose not to endorse anyone in the 2024 presidential race. And now the president-elect could reward the Teamsters by essentially choosing a labor secretary that Teamsters president, Sean O'Brien, favors. Now, I want to be clear, no promises have been made, okay? But if this works out in the way that Sean O'Brien is hoping for, I think that this story is a case study, a lesson in political maneuvering and what you can do to win, even in the favor.

of a Republican administration. So with that in mind, O'Brien is in talks with Trump about appointing former Republican congresswoman Lori Chavez, Duremer, from Oregon. So although she's a Republican, she was one of only three GOP Congress people, three people in her party overall to co-sponsor the Pro Act,

which would increase penalties for violating workers' rights. It would also prohibit captive audience meetings, and it would also facilitate initial collective bargaining agreements. And she's very pro-labor. Okay, this isn't like a one-time thing she did to appear a little more moderate. She has a long history of supporting unions, supporting workers and labor, and so I'm kind of excited to see how this plays out. So she also stood alone as the only Republican to vote against the small business before

bureaucrats act, and that would have increased the amount of revenue necessary for the NLRB to even get involved in a labor dispute by 10. Okay, so I love the fact that she voted against that. And her father was actually a teamster. So maybe that's where she feels some commitment to union workers. And she's courted union support in the past. She also co-sponsored bills supported by pilot and flight attendant unions and railroad unions, as well as a bill to allow workers to receive tax deductions for union dues. And she has written or signed onto several letters supporting unions in their negotiations, urging the port of Portland to end restrictions on picketing at the Portland airport and asking for increased funding for the National Labor

Relations Board. Now, she has been criticized as well. I think the criticism is not that great considering, you know, all the winds that she has piled up in regard to, you know, not just talking to talk, but walking the walk when it comes to protecting labor and wanting to have, you know, more safeguards to protect workers from, you know, union busting and other exploitative activities. So Oregon Capital Chronicle writes that when her fellow Republicans on the health, employment, labor, and pension subcommittee held a series of union bashing meetings over the past year. She actually didn't show up and join Democrats or Democratic representatives and speaking up for unions. But here are what the meetings were about

specifically. So one of them was titled NLRB overreach, trampling on workers' rights and fostering unfairness. Another was big labor lies. exposing union tactics to undermine free and fair elections. And another was titled, Protecting Workers and Small Businesses from Biden's attack on worker free choice and economic growth. So she didn't go to these hearings, but I'm less worried about that. I'm way more worried about how she votes and what kind of bills she co-sponsored.

And when it comes to the issue of labor, she's actually been really good in the bills that she's co-sponsored and the votes that she has taken, the fact that she would was one of only three Republicans who voted in favor of the pro act, I think shows that she's serious about wanting to increase labor rights in this country. And so now let's go back to Sean O'Brien and the whole political debacle that ensued following his decision to speak at the Republican National Convention. He was given a prime time speaking role on the first night of the Republican National Convention. And his speech, in my opinion, was fantastic. I found It found it to be fantastic then. I still find it fantastic. People were really upset because you're not supposed to celebrate anything that happens at the Republican National Convention. I do not subscribe to that. And I especially don't subscribe to that now that I consider myself unaligned with either political party. Okay, Democrats talk a lot of stuff about how they're going to look out for workers. But I'm kind of tired of all the deal making that actually goes on with financial institutions and other corporations.

you know, on behalf of their, you know, donors. But if you see something good happening on the right, why not celebrated? I thought that speech was great. And it's not like Sean O'Brien was standing there saying glowing things about the Republican Party. He was talking about corporate greed. He was spreading a message in a typically hostile environment about things that American voters, generally speaking, need to hear. And if they've already heard it, feel relieved to hear on such a big stage, on such a big stage,

on such a big night. And so he got a lot of hate for that. He also got a lot of hate after the Teamsters refused to endorse either candidate in this presidential election. But I think that the leadership of the union made that decision after noticing that the majority of the actual workers,

the actual Teamsters, supported Donald Trump over Kamala Harris. So I don't know. I don't know how it would feel if let's say it's the 2016 presidential election let's say I'm in a union, and the union leadership decides to endorse Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. I mean, I can't imagine that ever happening, but imagine if that happened. And the majority of the actual workers who have joined the union overwhelmingly support Bernie Sanders.

Like, I'd be pretty upset to see the endorsement for Hillary Clinton. So just something to consider when it comes to the rationale behind not endorsing a presidential candidate. But look, Donald Trump is very transactional. And so favor for a favor, he seems to be in favor of that kind of treatment or that kind of method of doing things. And so O'Brien refusing to endorse Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, just not endorsing either candidate, could actually give him some leverage here in ensuring that someone who's far more, you know, far more in favor of protecting labor. gets that secretary seat or secretary role. And so we don't know yet. I just want to say that this is something that is developing

and there is some likelihood that someone who, yes, is a Republican, but is in favor of protecting workers, could get that role. And if that happens, that could mean that some of this political maneuvering was successful. And sometimes, guys, political maneuvering is more important than purity. If you catch my drift. We got to be smarter.

We got to be scrappier. We got to stop being so goddamn judgmental. If we find other ways of winning, other ways of protecting workers, which should be our number one priority, we should go for it. And I hope Sean O'Brien gets what he wants. He's gotten a lot of hate. But if he actually gets a pro-labor secretary in that position under the Trump administration, that would be a major win. All right, let's take a break when we come back. We've got more news for you,

including let's talk a little bit about the labor secretary that Donald Trump wants to put in charge. Donald Trump said that he wanted to do away with the education department, which is strange considering the fact that he just appointed an education secretary. Let's get into it. I first met Donald Trump when I was the CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment. For fun, he became part of some of the most compelling and highest rated storylines in the company history. And when he became president, I was honored to serve in his cabinet running the small business administration. Well, and now Linda McMahon, the woman you just heard from, will very likely serve as the Department of Education Secretary under the Trump administration.

Trump has chosen her to lead in that role. And while she very likely holds all sorts of beliefs and political views that the left is against, that I myself am against. A deep dive into her past shows that she's a bit of a mixed bag. And more importantly, she's not Betsy DeVos. Okay, I say that because Betsy DeVos was in fact an ideologue. Betsy DeVos ran with a bunch of bad dudes. And I'm not kidding about that. She was a huge fan of for-profit colleges, including for-profit colleges, that were proved. to defraud students. Okay, she essentially decided to unwind or reverse some of the efforts that the Obama

administration made in order to protect Americans from these predatory for-profit colleges, which typically provide, if you finish their programs, an unaccredited degree that means nothing. But they tend to saddle their students with an insane amount of debt that's funded by the federal government, right? These are federal loans that we're talking about. The majority of their revenue came from the federal government in the form of student loans that were issued to their students, and their degrees meant absolutely nothing. Okay, unaccredited institutions. In their recruiting practices, they would also lie to students about what kind of gainful employment they can expect with the degrees that they were going to earn. I mean, just absolutely lowest of the

low business model and Betsy DeVos invited them to be part of the education department under the Trump administration. So the fact that the new education secretary isn't going to be Betsy DeVos is already a win, okay? But she's also not an ideologue, right? So Linda McMahon, not some ideologue, you know, doesn't have these like hardcore views on dismantling the education system. So that's also good news. But there are some downsides as well, obviously, which we'll talk about in just a minute. Now, before we get to that, I was very curious to see how Randy Wine Garden felt about this pick. And so I went on the American Federation of Teachers website and was happy to see that there was a statement from Randy Wine Garden.

And so if you're unfamiliar, Wine Garden is the president of the American Federation of Teachers. And here's what she wrote. We are pleased that Linda McMahon wanted to teach in her early life and that her work on the Connecticut State Board of Education led to her interest and literacy and building career pathways. We will try to work with anyone who puts the aspirations of our students, families, and communities first. We look forward to learning more about Linda McMahon. And if she is confirmed, we will reach out to her as we did with Betsy DeVos at the beginning of her tenure. We hope Donald Trump means it when he says he wants to focus on project-based instruction, career and technical education and apprenticeships.

This will improve education and job options, making schools more relevant and engaging for young people. Now, to be clear, you know, Linda McMahon doesn't really have a lot of experience or much of a history working in education. But that might actually be a good thing since, again, she's clearly not an ideologue in this area. And Trump's former education secretary, Betsy DeVos, absolutely was. And, you know, one of Trump's stated goals is to essentially empower states to take more control over, you know, public education and things like that. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. We kind of have to wait and see how that's played out or going to play out. But let's let's get to some more details about her experience in education. So, yes, her husband, you know, started, you know, this wrestling empire. And so she was part of that for a while.

She served as an executive in that arena. But before that, she actually did have some experience, you know, in politics and specifically in education. So she was appointed to the state board of education by Governor Jody Rell in January of 2009. The state Senate in Connecticut actually approved her nomination by a vote of 34 to 1. And so that was the state Senate. The House approved her 96 to 45. But she actually did have to resign from this board a little over a year after serving within it because she decided to run for Senate. And while she's running for, you know, Senate, a Senate seat in the state of Connecticut, she's asking for campaign donations.

And it was determined that state law prevented her from serving in this education board while soliciting donations as she was running for the Senate. So she had to step down after a little over a year. Prior to that, she launched the Get Real program to deliver positive messages about education to young people. And the program encouraged literacy through public service announcements, posters, and bookmarks, like featuring wrestling superstars. And it apparently was successful. The American Library Association noted that the WWF's Know Your Role poster was the highest selling poster for two straight months. She also served on the board of the close, close up foundation, which is a nonprofit that offers youth field trips to Washington, D.C.

So honestly, that was the extent of her experience in education. Not a lot. So I want to be clear about that. But she did also serve in Trump's first term. And so she supported Donald Trump's presidential aspirations from the very beginning. And that was rewarded with a role in his first term. In 2016, McMahon donated $6 million to the pro-Trump rebuilding America Now PAC, Super PAC. And between 2015 and 2016, she contributed a total $1.2 million to future 45, which is another super PAC that funded anti-Bernie Sanders advertisements. She is not anywhere near Bernie Sanders when it comes to economic policy. And I want to be clear about that. She favors tax cuts. And she did not like Bernie, did not like what he espoused.

So something to keep in mind. She also previously served in the the Trump White House as the administrator of the small business administration. She was approved by the Senate 81 to 19. So she didn't have much difficulty getting confirmed. And I was curious how she performed in that role, especially because, you know, I see some of these appointments as rewards for donating to Donald Trump's campaign, right? And so I was like, how good was she get this job. So I came across a piece that was written by the Washington Post after she served in that role for a year. They just kind of did an evaluation of how she was performing, and here's what they wrote. The agency is on track to back more than $30 billion in loans, which she says

has helped create more than $650,000 jobs included in the number are $500 million in loans given to women entrepreneurs. Growth in some of its programs, like its 7A loans, where small businesses can borrow up to $5 million to purchase machinery, furniture, fixtures, supplies, and other materials has exceeded 20% this past quarter as compared to the same period last year. So, you know, she was, through her role as the leader of this government agency, she ensured that small businesses got a little more support in terms of the capital necessary to stay afloat, to expand. And they also write that the agency has come a long way since 2005's Hurricane Katrina disaster when many were critical of the government's slow response times.

After last year's storms hit, McMahon turned parts of their offices into an emergency call center and brought on more than 3,000 additional people to handle the added workload. And so she was actually pretty effective in that role. I don't know how effective she would be as education secretary, especially considering the lack of experience. Now, she ended up stepping down from her role as the small business administration administrator in March of 2019 to essentially work on Donald Trump's re-election campaign. And at that time, she was named the chairwoman of the America First Action Super PAC.

So I do think that, you know, Trump is putting people who are very supportive of him, you know, throughout his political career in these roles. So it goes back to what I've said about Trump before. He's very transactional. So you do him a favor. He'll probably look out for you to some extent. And we're seeing that play out in some of these appointments. Now, back in 2009, McMahon left World Wrestling Entertainment to run for Senate seats. She ran for the first Senate seat in Connecticut. and she campaigned on lower taxes, fiscal conservatism, and job creation. She ran as a moderate, though. So she noted that she's pro-choice, while also opposing partial birth abortion and also federal funding for abortions overall. The Hatch Act is still there, right?

So even Joe Biden has said he's in favor of the Hatch Act and preventing federal funds from funding abortions. But she did lose to the Democrat in the general Richard Blumenthal. And then later she ran for the other Senate seat out of Connecticut. She was the Republican nominee. This is in 2012, but she lost to Chris Murphy. So that's just like a rundown of who she is, what she represents. I think that she's going to be better than Betsy DeVos,

specifically because she's not in bed with these for-profit colleges. And I don't know how she's going to carry out this role. We'll definitely keep an eye on her. But I think out of all the different people who have been appointed by Donald Trump, she's very likely going to breeze through confirmation. And we'll see how she does in this role. We'll definitely keep an eye on it and cover anything she might do, whether it's good or bad.

So buckle up, brace for impact. For now, though, let's take a break. When we come back, John Iderola will join us for the second hour. Don't miss it. I'm going to do. B. B. B.

POMPEO