A Bazooka to Kill an Ant. Lanhee Chen talks to A&G

and comment. And I agree with pundits who say the Republicans did a terrible job of standing up for the other side, explaining to you know, people, what's in the dang thing and why they should be against it. I think because a lot of them didn't understand what was in it, or they they realized, Hey, the polling shows people want check. So we're just gonna focus on that, which is only a tiny portion of the two trillion

dollar thing that got signed into law yesterday. It's law, now, it's over, and UM, I'm just very unhappy about the whole thing. I wonder, I wonder if people are gonna come to know what's in it. One of the biggest remakes of our welfare system in our nation's history. The whole tying work to welfare that Bill Clinton ushered in and Joe Biden voted for is now over. We're remaking a lot of a lot a lot of the way

we look at society, and nobody's paying any attention. Well, I have a number of things to say, but first let's introduce our beloved guest, lawn Chen David and Diane Stephie, fellow in American Public Policy Studies at the Hoover Institution and the Director of Domestic Policy Studies at Stanford University lan He. How are you, sir? Good morning, gentlemen. We understand you've got any vicious argument with somebody on cable news this morning. I don't know about a racist argument.

I just, uh, you know, gently reminded the host of the audience that you know, you've got one point nine trillion dollars in spending, very little conversation about what's in the bill, a constant effort to frame this as, you know, some kind of bill that's really targeted to those in need, when in fact what it is is a It's one of the largest pieces of spending in American history. Uh. For a bunch of really what are progressive wish list items disguised as a COVID release package. I mean, that's

that's what it is. I think people would be a little bit less upset about it if if folks just leveled with us every once in a while and told us that, you know, actually this is the vehicle we want to be used to pass a bunch of policy, we wouldn't have been able to pass other one. Un that's really what this is about. I heard one pundit say that this bill is adjusted for inflation larger than all of the spending of the New Deal during the

Great Depression. Have you heard that I have? And let's not forget guys, this comes on top of four trillion dollars spending we put it in the economy last year. So you've got, you know, another fifty percent on top of the four trillion that we did last year. So you know, I just I don't even know where to go with this anymore. We know immune to it. You were just immune to it. You know, nobody really cares. And all you hear is people out there saying, yeah,

spend the money, spend the money. People need to spend the money. Well we were. So it's funny your emotions seem to be similar to ours, where it's just like I don't even know where to go now. I mean, if you can, if you can pass through into law one of the biggest spending bonanzas in our nation's history, and it just hardly gets any discussion at all. The sort of things like that, that welfare thing that I

was just talking about. That's the sort of policy that you would think takes months, if not years to debate in Congress and on cable news in an op ed pieces for it to pass, and it's happened, and nobody even knows it's even in there. Well. Two things. One, even during the height of the recession back in two thousand nine, Congress still debated what the recovery package should look like for months. Uh, this thing was done in

a matter of weeks, maybe not even that. The second thing is, I don't think anybody would have any problem at all if you came forward and said, look, we want to do a package tailored at people who are still suffering because of COVID, whether because they've had COVID or they've gotten caught in one of these lockdowns or they've lost a small business. I'm totally fine with targeted

assistance that looks at people who really needed it. But they went and they created essentially a giveaway program for people making up to a hundred and sixty thousand dollars a year. Now, tell me how that makes any sense at all. If you had said to me, look, we're going to do a package that's targeted at the lower income distribution and really make sure that people who are unemployed get back on their feet, totally fine, and I think you would have gotten thirty Republican votes for that

at least, maybe more. But when you go out and you basically take out of bazooka to kill an aunt, this is why people get worked up about it, because it's it's not reasonable. What we're doing is simply not reasonable, and it's being disguised as relief, which I think is the most difficult thing of all in all of this, right, the painful part to me is that what you're saying is is clearly true, but most of America has no

idea it is happening. You know, they have used the COVID as an excuse to pat to reform American society and the relationship between the people and the government financially, and they know exactly what they're doing. And I just think the Republican messaging is so bad, so floundering. And part of it is that, you know, Trump sucked so much of the oxygen out of the room. But you've got Kevin McCarthy, who's he seems like a nice enough guy,

but he's just mediocre. You've got Mitch McConnell, who doesn't look like the brave conservative leader who's gonna take us into the future. It looks like the guy who's gonna cremate my aunt. I mean, just who are who are the exciting leaders? Well, you know, I think, um, I

think there's a couple of things here. First of all, I think you guys are you make a very good observation about Trump, and that is that because Trump was the center of attention and he did suck so much of the oxygen out of the room, there really was for the last couple of years it was really kind

of Trump or are you against Trump? And we really didn't take the time to develop during that during that period a sort of certainly on the fiscal conservative side, we didn't develop a a real bench of people as well as a set of arguments that could resonate with the American people. And I think that's a problem also because there was some hypocrisy over the last couple of years. A most Republicans to you, and all these Republicans stepping up ready to spend money because Trump was president, and

and and that quite simply. You know, people look at that now and even people who are skeptical about this one point nine trillion dollar bill say, well, where were you guys, you know, two years ago when Trump was president? And you know what, they would be right to level that argument, because I do think the hypocrisy is what bothers people. It's it's not so much that the idea

that you're going to stand up for fiscal conservatism. It's the idea that you only stand up for fiscal conservatism what it's politically compete, and that I think is a big problem. Wind Chan of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University on the line. Mitch McConnell made the point on the floor the other day that that four trillion dollars that we spent last year, uh in four different bills, all got like eighty votes in the Senate nine votes in the Senate and in the House. I mean they were

way bipartisan. So I just find that interesting on its face. But as some of this complaining, like, um, you know, I'm one, I'm the losing coach here in the n C Double A tournament, and I'm complaining that and the other team every time they got the ball, they ran down to the other end faster than us and put it in the basket every time. We're just mad that they are better at us and beat us. I mean, the other side's got the votes, they had the chance

to ram it through. Would I be unhappy if my wish list got rammed through on fifty votes while nobody was paying any attention. I got all the immigration stuff and Social Security reform and all the things that my wish list all got through. Would I be unhappy about that? Probably not. Yeah. Look, they didn't do anything illegal, right, I mean, they did exactly They did exactly what they

had to do. They used the procedures and processes available to them because they have a majority in the House, a majority in the Senate, a functioning majority Senate, and they have the presidency. Right, So what does that tell us? That tells us that elections have consequences, and we've talked

about this before, guys, I mean it is. It is absolutely true that there are policy implications and ramifications to every election, and you're seeing it now, and so you know, they didn't do anything on toward They did exactly what probably politically one would have told them to do. Of course, you would have hoped that they could have gone together with Republicans on this, because everybody loves it, as I've

noted earlier, at some level, to give away money. I am sure if they came back and said, look, we'll do a trillion dollar package. We won't do this, giveaway the multi employer unions, we won't do this, giveaway a three dollars to states in local governments who largely don't need it. The Republicans with us, that's fine, Well, let's you have your fourteen hundred dollar checks. Even if you want to give it to people who are making almost

two hundred grand a year, that's fine. Republicans probably would have caved on that, but they didn't even bother right that. The Democrats just said, look, we have the votes, we have the political tail with at our back. We're going to do whatever we want to do, and they used the properties of their advantage, and you know, more power to them. So we just have a couple of minutes

left on here. I accidentally kind of watched the entire speech by President Biden last night, and it was alternately it was like you know, day old room temperature oatmeal, interrupted by like biting down on a rock every minute and a half, like excruciating pain, interrupting them, boredom and distaste. Did you happen to watch that? I did? I did. I mean, it's you know, this is this is who this is Joe Biden, right, I mean it's the same kind of speech he's given, uh, you know, every other

time that he's been president. It's the same speech he gave, you know when he did set piece speeches during the campaign. It's kind of what we've come to know and expect from him. Yeah. It was just heap and helpings of mother love, which I don't need from the federal government, interrupted by half truth and lies about opening up the schools.

And then the long and short of it was, if you follow all the rules and you wear the masks in the resident you can have three people over on July of the fourth and I'm thinking the ten of Rangers are gonna have a full stadium in two weeks, and you're telling me I can invite a couple of friends on July the fourth. F you, Well, I'm living

my life. God, I hated it. Well, this is this is the whole thing that bugged me about about the entire kind of public health establishment is day you know, they're giving this guidance, which is it's guidance that feels about like six months old, right, and people at that point, what do you expect people to do? It gives people realistic guidance. If they've been vaccinated and they're hanging out with a bunch of other people who have been vaccinated, then it seems to me that they can pretty much

do life as normal. They shouldn't be subject to all of these rules and restrictions. And in California we see the extreme form of that. Right. It's it's the it's the guilty and the shaming if you don't wear a mask everywhere you go inside, even if you're hanging out with like people that are in your family that have

well been vaccinated. So you know, this is something I think that's one of those things where public health professionals really have gotten this one wrong, and unfortunately their guidance hasn't been helpful in many cases. And of course the mainstream media just praised the speeches as somewhere between Churchill and the Gettysburg address made me want to vomit. Lani Chen of the Hoover Institution Stanford University, were always grateful

for your perspective on he thanks, thank you. Great to talk. I've never heard him because he's a he's one of those people that's just kind of always optimistic and looking forward. I've never heard him so down about something. Is that two trillion dollar bill pasant with nobody paying any attention or caring what's in it? He does you know if you're a policy guy like him, I mean, he's the sort of guy that sits there with his sleeves rolled up late into the night crafting policy for candidates and

stuff like that. When you find out that, oh no, all we needed to do is have the majority, and we could have done anything we wanted, just written in, you know, make things great and ram it through. Um. That's all you needed, no complicated arguments. I want to frame this moment in American political history. We need to take a break. But when I come back, I am going to frame it. It's going to include a reference to Hitler, but it will not be a cheap and

tawdry reference to Hitler. It will be solid. Did you say, Mitch McConnell looks like the guy who's gonna cremate your aunt. He seems like an undertaker. He doesn't. It's like and his manners that of a which short of Urn would miss contain your beloved ranch remain. I mean that's his manner. I realize he's a genius a strategy in the Senator whatever, but in terms of like bringing people to conservatism and

rallying them and getting gong. Oh no, forget it, please, I'll take the Urn in the middle a