Al Franken, Sen. Chris Murphy & Jeff Stein

we have former United States Senator Al Franken. Welcome to Fast Politics. Al Franken, Thank you. Now we just talk real fast. Yeah, we really Well, the hope is that people are listening to this on ten thousand speed and so they can barely understand what we're saying. Okay, well we're gonna talk really fast, So slow it down, everybody that's right, listen to us on point five. Actually listen. When I listened to podcasts, I always listen to them at one point seven five because I feel like I'm

getting so much done. Well, you know, it's funny. I am a kind of a slow talker. I really am. It's just the way I am, and so I me I did um an interview with Walter Mondale on my podcast Wonderful Wonderful Man. But you know, Walter talk pretty slow too, and so I and I'm a slow talker. So I I did listen to us at the thing at one point five or something and it was perfect, right, Well, there you go. So that's the suggestion. Definitely listen to

this at one point five. So I wanted to talk to you about the gift that keeps on giving the Kevin McCarthy Congress, or the gift that keeps on scaring the ship out of us. Well, that is also true. I mean that is I think the knife's edge about all of this. We know it's bad for democracys. In the early midterms when there were some Democrats who supported these fringe MAGA candidates, and I always felt like it was really a dangerous game that I didn't think was

worth taking the chance. Oh you're you're saying trying to get them nominated in the primaries, you know, candidates like Carrie Lake and Don Baldock. I mean, thank god those guys didn't win. And I think this is the same situation.

There is damage being done by this, even if it ultimately undermines Republicans, the ones that lost, the really extreme candidates that loss that I guess I didn't like the strategy of let's take as supporting the worst of them, and maybe it worked once or twice, but that's just to me advertising the worst, and I think it influences people badly. I just think you I hated that strategy and and I haven't looked at it has did it work?

Did it work anywhere? It ultimately worked? But again, you can't calculate how much giving a carry Lake a larger platform could theoretically undermine democracy in the long game. And I mean, you've got carried like now. I mean, I think one of the really interesting things about MAGA is that they continue to promote the people who have all lost horribly. Okay, well, I think the ones that lost really are the ones that in especially heartening was And

I have a pack. I have a pack called mid West Values Pack, which I've had since two thousand five, that support Democrats and we put a lot of money into the Secretaries of State races. And wife said this the day after the election. She said, the American people said stop it, stop it, stop this chaos, and stop this denial, and I think the MAGA bases the MAGA base, and they're going to vote for those people. But to me, what people are staring at, what they're looking at is

the MAGA crazy. Is that McCarthy has put on these committees that are people gonna be looking at and going like, no, no, we don't want this, We want you to figure out how to actually govern. Yeah. I mean it doesn't seem like policy is at all interesting to any of these people. No, No, what's interesting to them is getting on TV and raising

money doing that and also disrupting. And of course you mentioned the dead ceiling or did you or maybe yeah, well I want to talk about the dead ceiling because it's so sexy. Well no, I'm just kidding, but it is it. It actually is a big fucking problem. Excuse my friend. It's the scariest problem. And I think your listeners know what we're talking about. Of course, and this

happened when I was there in two thousand eleven. They held the gun to her head and we actually negotiated with them, and I think that was a mistake because every time once you do that, they say, oh, I see. Every time we get to the death ceiling, and this is money we've already spent. Right The way that McCarthy talks about it on the news is very disingenuous. There was a time to negotiate it, and it's not now.

This is in saying because we came close in two thousand and eleven, as you may recall, really went to the eleventh hour and we didn't go over the cliff, but we came close enough that our bonds are downgraded by standards and poor and cost Americans billions and billions of dollars. These guys, the people who leveraged their votes to be able to hold McCarthy hostage, they're the ones that would go over the cliff. I thought McConnell was very smart when he said, don't look at me, He

pointed to the house. They're the ones that are going to have to negotiate. And I think the American people are looking at these guys and going there crazy. I think this crisis comes up around June, is what I keep hearing. June July. They don't totally know when it does. I think they'll have been a drumbeat up to it, where McCarthy is going to have to reach out to reasonable and there must be what a third on their caucus. This is the thing I wanted to actually bring up

to you, and I wanted to reach you. This is Aaron Blake from the Washington Post had a piece, and I think this is such an important data point. He said, the Freedom Caucuses twenty percent of the House GOP, but they will be thirty eight percent of the oversight, percent of judiciary of this of the Select COVID Panel, whatever that is where they try to put Dr Faucci in jail, and of a panel on quote unquote weaponizing of the government. And again I think the American people are looking at

this going like, that's not what we want. Of Americans are vaccinated. The people dying of COVID, A large percentage of them are Republicans. There's an interesting stat which is of the fifteen states where the highest percentage of people who died were Republicans, fourteen voted for Trump of those states and the fifteenth of Georgia. And I'm kind of think that like eleven thousand, seven d eighty Republican Georgians died like the month before the election in two thousand twenty, right.

I mean, I have always asked this question to guests on this podcast, and I never get the answer that is definitive because I don't think people really know. But the question is, like, so many people in this country have been affected by COVID, right, you know, we have more than a million people in this country died of COVID. Then we have people with long COVID, then we have

people who have relatives who have died of COVID. I mean, it's such a large quantity that in my mind, I mean, if you think of millions of people in this country have been touched by this virus that the Republican Party said was nothing and not to worry about. I think what they're now going to say is that Fauci caused that.

That they're going to be going a gain of function, right, right, and so, which is a thing it's not related to causing the virus, though they're gonna say it actually did cause it, which is it's a technology to change viruses, to study them to see how to eradicate them if they morph into more dangerous ones. And then the dangerous one got out of the lab. And that's going to be their story that they're giving. And I hope they call Faucci, Faucci. I think Americans who aren't Maga really

trust Faucci and trust science. You know, it does seem to me what we saw in these midrums, and we were just talking about this was there was. It's certainly in purple states, a real rejection of the stupid. I mean, Michigan is a great example, like those three women won by a lot. But even Wisconsin, Wisconsin is is very tight, very down the middle state and jerrymandered up the wazoo.

There was some Kennedy School study that basically compared democracy in Wisconsin into the Congo because they're jerrymander so badly that for Democrats to get even in the state legislature, they have to win by like ten points if you look at a statewide race like the governor and the governor one by four points by being boring. He said, wow,

is he boring? He boy, he accomplished that. Remember he hosted at Wisconsin, hosted the virtual convention, and I remember he gave like a welcoming thing, and I went like, holy mackerel. But he's a great guy. And Ben Wickler, I don't know if you know Ben, he's been on this podcast he's amazing. Ben worked with the lies and Lyne liars who tell them when he was a student at Harvard. And uh is now the chairman of the

Democratic Party in Wisconsin. And they have a big, big election coming up in April for the Supreme Court because this will decide majority on the Supreme Court in Wisconsin, and they can undo a lot of what was started to be done back in you know, after two thousand

and ten. What happened two thousand ten in Michigan is an interesting story because in two thousand and ten, we had passed the A C A. Right, the A C A was amazingly unpopular because a lot of it was about lying about what it was, you know, down panels that you know, I'm gonna pull pull the plug on Grandma, you know, and and people didn't know what it was. And we lost. We we lost on the A C A until two thousand eighteen. We lost, we lost, and and when we won in two thousand eighteen big time,

because they tried to repeal it. And then when they did that, people saw what it was and people realize, oh my god, free healthcare. Well, this is this is guarantee that you know that I'm not going to be rejected because I have a pre existing condition, and when Republicans tried to they didn't guarantee that, and people actually got to see what it was when it was almost taken away. But until then we just kept losing on it, and and we lost big on in two thousand tens

it passed and they were lying about it. People didn't know what it was. They just were buying the lies. And so there are states like Wisconsin, in Ohio and Pennsylvania and Michigan that all went very red in those elections and the state legislatures. Look over and the fact that now Michigan has a state legislature that is run that is that is all blue and as well and the women, you know, the Secretary of State and the attorney general and the governor are all all women. That

is a a huge, huge transformation. But we still have in Wisconsin and in Ohio states that are just been jerrymandered so badly that it's impossible for Republicans to be to lose the state legislature. I wanted to ask you because we're talking about state parties, and that I have

quite a bee in my bonnet about this. During these mid terms, we saw Democrats really overperformed, really killed it, with the exception of two states Florida, which, by the way, I had been hearing what a shit show it was there, and New York State. I mean, what the funk man? I blame the Jews. This is funny because we're both Jewish. That's why it's funny, folks. Do you see we're kidding?

Comedy plus yes, continue New York. That's a heartbreak because what happened in New York was Democrats wrote a map and it was like one Democrat who wrote this map that was so extreme. It was jerrymandered for us, right, and as they do in the states I'm talking about Ohio, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. It's Republicans do everywhere. Yeah, and then we

were doing it. It was so partisan the way it was drawn that the New York State Supreme Court said no, which is a pretty conservative state court thanks to Andrew Cuomo. But continue, yes, Well, what they did was they probably drew some pretty you know, close to what you would do is fair. And then we kept we lost a number of seats. We could control the House if it weren't for California and New York and but part of

the New York I had my judiciary council. Josh Riley ran in New York nineteen and he ran ahead of Hoco by like six points and lost by one. Blossie kind of mentioned this in some sort of a peak that New York governor may have cost us the house because you know, and Josh was, I hope he runs again because he's he was my judiciary council. They ran ads, and this is when I trace like where we started to lose our democracy. Citizens United is a big part

of this. And there's so much money run against him in ads that were about crime, and he was my judiciary council, and they kept basically saying he wants to defund the police. When I was in judiciary and he was my counsel, we funded the police. We did something called you know what crisis intervention training is, right, what christis.

Intervention training is basically training cops to recognize when they're in a situation that's fueled by either mental health problems or drugs or something like that, and how to defuse situations, de escalate. And this money had expired and we I and I didn't a bipartisan way with corn and we got lots of funding for Christ's intervention training and also

for bulletproof vest. This is what I did. And they kept running these ads, which is Judge Riley and his his allies want to defund the police and then well he didn't, but his allies suppose whoever they are, and then they would roll this rolling super over him defund The police would be over his face and they would darken his face and they would slow down some video of him to make him look sinister. And this is like the least sinister person in the world, heart of goal.

He's from the district, grew up in the district. He uh, maybe the purest guy I know. And they but there's tons and tons of this dark money. Of course, we tried to have at least have disclosure of dark money, and Republicans fought that this you know, that's when we that's part of what sent us down this this road that in Shelby County and all that stuff of our democracy being under under threat, and of course what McConnell did on the Supreme Court. Right. Thank you so much,

Al Franken for joining us. I hope you'll come back absolutely. Molly, thank you Chris Murphy is the junior Senator from Connecticut. Welcome to Fast Politics, Senator Chris Murphy, thank you so much for having me. We're delighted. You know, we've just had two mass shootings in rapid succession. You have been really on the front lines of trying to legislate. Where are we I mean, first of all, we're in this place where the country pays attention to the epidemic of

gun violence only when there are mass shootings. I know we belabor this point, but it bears repeating that every single day we're losing a hundred and ten plus people to gun violence. Most of those are suicides, homicides, accidental shootings. These mass shootings are awful, but that's not the actual story of what's happening in this country at large. Where are we? Were in a race? Um, we are passing more anti gun violence legislation than ever states surpassing laws.

We passed the first federal law of substance in thirty years. But we're in a race against a flood of guns into our communities. You know, in ten years ago, eight thousand guns were sold on an annual basis. Today that numbers twenty thousand guns, and so there is just a ubiquity of firear in our communities today such that ordinary disputes and beeps between kids are turning into gunfights. People whose brains are breaking have easy access to weapons. Uh,

And that's our issue right now. The laws are getting better in most places, but the number of firearms out there is devastatingly high, and that's really driving the higher rates of gun violence, I think, as much as anything else. So how can you get rid of all the guns or at least, you know, decrease the number of gun sales.

I mean, if that's the issue, well, I was, and I think there's a very broad conversation that we should have in this country about the sort of fetish around guns that exists and whether or not we're comfortable as a nation being, you know, so cavalier about our relationship with weapons, whether we're comfortable continuing to romanticize firearms. But we also know that laws, you make a difference, even

with all of these weapons in circulation. So Connecticut, you know, has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Let's take a state like Florida, some of the loosest. Conneidica has a gun violence rate that's four hundred percent lower, maybe lower than Florida. That's stunning. Even with the loose

national laws. What we know is that if you're just a little bit more careful about who can get their hands on a gun, if you stop the assault weapons from being sold in your gun stores, you can save a lot of lives. So you know, to me, it's just an invitation to continue to change the laws. It's not going to take all those guns out of circulation.

But a lot of these crimes, especially the mass crimes, are committed by people who bought the guns, you know, within a couple of weeks, a couple of months of the crime. So if you're if you stop selling them to the wrong people, you actually can stop a lot, not all, but a lot of these um of the shootings, there's a lot of evidence and especially with a lot of these shootings that there's a domestic violence component. And I mean we see this again and again and again

with women, you know. I mean even there was some recently a case, you know where this guy murdered his whole family. I mean, this is something we see a lot. I mean, is there any way to connect any of this gun legislation to preventing domestic violence. You know, what we know is that if you have a gun in your house, you are five to ten times more likely to be the victim of a domestic violence murder. And we really started to address this problem finally last year.

So in the gun safety bill that we passed in the summer of two two, again the first substantial gun safety bill that passed Congress in thirty years, we closed something called the boyfriend loophole. There is a big loophole in the background checks law. It basically allowed for domestic abusers who committed misdemeanors um not felonies, misdemeanors to continue to own their guns and buy new guns. The problem is many serious domestic violence crimes that really are felonies

are pled down to misdemeans. So there are just tens of thousands of men out there who have committed vicious acts of domestic violence, who can buy guns and who can keep their guns. That is over so all across the country. Those people are being dispossessed of their guns. Now, that's going to take a while for law enforcement to go through that process, but it will be the most substantial thing we've done to try to depress the rates

of gun violence connected to domestic violence. Do you think there's a chance for an assault weapon VAN or something to that effect ever being you know, passed on a federal level or now. I don't think there's a chance. I think it's a certainty. I see, um, the anti gun violence movement, as you know, one of the great social change movements of this country's history, not unlike the civil rights movement of the marriage equality movement. We have

really only been in existence for ten years, right. We really are a creature of Sandy Hook, And in those ten years we've made pretty substantial progress. We are now more powerful than the gun lobby, and so I think we're on a trajectory through which we will ultimately get universal background checks and a ban on assault weapons. It might take another five to ten years to get there, but I just think the American public have made up their mind that the current laws don't work. I think

the gun lobby is decreasing rapidly in its impact. I think our movement is growing stronger, and ultimately, I think democracy gets its way when seventy eight percent of Americans have made up their minds. So is it in the next two years. Probably not, but I just think we're on a path to get things like an assault weapons

ban back on the books. So I want to ask you this mid term election was sort of I found it very comforting, and I thought that a lot of voting that happened was people in swing states rejecting trumps Um and the extremism. You are. In the Senate, there are some really wacky, trumpy senators who have come in. I mean they've come from very red states. A lot of the really scary ones did not get elected from

the swing states. But there are still I mean, you still have to work with people that, I mean whether or not they believe the stuff they've said, some pretty appalling stuff when they were running for office. How do you do that? Yeah, the Senate is very different than the House right now because you have fewer of these wackos in the Senate than in the House. But the problem is the Republican Party isn't really sending dealmakers compromise

makers to the Senate any longer. And so if you look at the last couple of classes of new Republicans editors, they are filled largely with people that were endorsed by Donald Trump, people that are on the most extreme wing of the party. Now you still have a sort of legacy Republican senators that want to do deals, and some Republican senators who kind of hadn't been interested in deals in the past are more interested in them now because

they don't want that crazy wing to take over. So we still have the opportunity to legislate in the Senate. And the good news is that, you know, somebody liked John Cornyn or Tom Tillois who maybe ten years ago or five years ago, you know, weren't part of a lot of these bipartisan groups working on compromises to big issues like guns and immigration, are now more interested in doing that because they really are, you know, worried that the you know, more recalcitran, more extreme wing of the

party is taking over. So there's been an interesting reaction from some Republicans to this phenomenon of Trump endorsed candidates taking over. It's an amazing thing because you know, they they can't win, right, I mean, they're very unpopular. It's just that you have this primary system where you get these zalads who then can't win in a general, which, by the way, I'm not complaining, but I mean the people, you know, you do have this intractable situation. Yeah, and listen,

none of it's good for our country. You know, We've got to find a way such that people who want government to work are rewarded. I mean, it's this interesting phenomenon in which in in our party, you know, our primary voters, you know, are still interested in pragmatists, right, I mean, Joe Biden ran as a pragmatist. There were candidates way to the left, candidates much more ideologically strident than him, and our party decided that we want to

send somebody to Washington's gonna work with Republicans. Republican primary voters seem to the opposite right. I mean, they have no interest in electing or nominating candidates that are gonna work with Democrats. And it's a by product of the Republican Party, you know, becoming devoid of ideas. You know, over the last twenty years in my sort of political lifetime, I've seen the Republican Party go from a party of bad ideas to a party of no ideas other than

the destruction of government. Right, that's sort of the only idea that's left in the Republican Party is just kill government, just strip it down to its bare bones. And the result of that is that the only candidates that can win their primaries are the candidates that are literally running for office in order to destroy government from within. Yes, agreed, So I want to talk to you about you went

to the Southern border. I feel like every time I say the word southern border, I don't even want to say the word Southern border because I feel like it's we're going into a Fox News talking point, right, I mean, for them. But I do want to say that in my mind, we have this very tight labor market. Everyone wants people to come and work. We have this immigration crisis is because of Republicans inability to legislate and to make a deal. But what did you see there when

you went there? Talk to me about it so well? I mean, I think there's just quickly like two sides to this. Right. There's that side you identified, which is the economic and moral imperative for America to continue it's

generous immigration policy, the economic comparative type labor market. Economic greatness historically in this country dependent on bringing smart people, industrious people to hear from everywhere and then there's the moral imperative, which is that the genius of this nation is our sort of multi ethnic, multi religious, multi racial legacy, and let's continue that because that's a great part of America.

But the flip side of it is that in a multi ethnic nation, in a nation that's a melting pot, right, that is, it is sort of just made for conflict, made for tension. And so what are the ways to sort of keep our cohesion is to be clear about what the pathways are to become part of our nation, to become part of the club. And when it becomes really confusing as to what those pathways are and they just don't look just and fair any longer, it kind of tears apart at a country that is already a

little difficult to stitch together. And so I do think it makes sense to sort of acknowledge that the current system is not working and fix it. And I think that's good for American cohesion. I think it's also good

for the economy. And so what I see, you know, a just way more people coming across the border than we've seen in a long time, in a different way, you know, folks not trying to sneak across as much as they are now just crossing the border, waiting for border patrol to come and find them and applying for asylum, knowing that that asylum process is going to take four to five six years, So even if they don't qualify, they get four or five six years of working in

the United States and sending money back home. That doesn't feel fair to many Americans. But then also a crazy new diversity of geography, meaning in Yuma, Arizona, next seconds of the sixth most frequent crossers, there were Russians showing up at the Arizona border and Mexicans. Right now, I had no idea number one. And also, don't Republicans love Russians? Well, and we're not exactly you know, sure who all these Russians are, but yes they do. But there's there's Becky's,

there's Indians. It just shows you sort of how unstable the world is that people are willing to come here through that pathway from all over. But it also means the job of the border patrol and the immigration this is a lot harder right now, and so you've just got to find a way to sort of manage these more diverse and bigger flows in a better way. That probably means processing these asylum cases a lot faster, which means more resources, which is something Republicans don't tend to

be interested in. But that's, you know, one of the clear takeaways. They want to spend money on the southern border, but they don't really want to spend money on processing and having staffing. They're right, they want to spend it on like a wall with lots of spikes. Yeah, and like the wall with spikes doesn't work. I mean, it's just you know, I mean, we we went down to the border, and you know, we saw the places where you go around and over and under and through and um.

And the fact of the matter is, so long as we have an asylum process, everybody who being persecuted or has a fear for their life from the country that they're coming from as a right to apply for asylum in the United States, no matter if there's a wall or not. And so unless Republicans are proposing to end our asylum wall, which some are but most aren't, then you're still going to have these huge numbers presenting themselves at the border because they have the right to show

up to a portive entry. The gap in the wall and say I want to apply for asylum. So the wall just doesn't matter any longer because it's not necessarily people sneaking into the country. It's people showing up and turning themselves over to border patrol and applying for asylum. So you've just got to figure out how to reform the asylum process. That's the biggest problem. And there's no appetite on the Republican side to do that whatsoever. Well, maybe there is, there's some of the Senate. Let me

say there's not. They may not be appetite in the House, but there may be appetite in the Senate because you know, what you're talking about is trying to move these asylum cases through the system faster. And so for Republicans they like that because it is true that some of the people who are waiting for the asylum claim for four or five years end up staying in the country beyond

their legal ability. But for us, it also is better to just have these claims, you know, litigated faster, so that people know, you know, earlier, whether they are approved, and you know, then they can actually stay in the country legally work instead of retreat into the shadows it's such an impossible situation. I really appreciate you coming on. I have one last question. You're running for re election. I am running for re election. I'm not doing like

a big splash the announcement or anything. I love this job, and you know, luckily, I think I'm getting better at it as time it was on. This will be your third term, right, it will be my third term, and you know, I feel really lucky to have the job, and I'll feel really lucky if people give me a shot to do it for another six years. Your crew is kind of Brian Schotts, right, I mean, like bigger than Brian shots. I mean, he's not like he's not enough to meet a fulfilling life for the Senate. So

I feel like him and Corey book Are are your squad. Yeah, Booker and Heinrich and Jilla Brand, those are kind of the crew that you know, we came in around the same time together and have spent a lot of time over the over the years. Yeah. Over the last year though, I have spent you know, probably more time with John Corny and Tom Taillis and Kirsten Cinema between the gun Bill and the trips to the boarder than I have with Brian and Cory and Martin. But yes, sort of

my original you know friends sets. When I need to move a couch, you know that I can't carry alone, I'm calling Brian Corey. Thank you so much for joining us. Chris Murphy thanks. I know you, our dear listeners are very busy and you don't have time to sort through the hundreds of pieces of pundentry tweak. This is why every week I put together a newsletter of my five favorite articles on politics. If you enjoy the podcast, you

will love having this in your inbox every Friday. So sign up at Fast Politics pod dot com and click the tab to join our mailing list. That's Fast politics pod dot com. Jeff Stein is the White House economics reporter for the Washington Post. Welcome back to Fast Politics, Jeff Steint. It's let's talk about the Giant quech. Everybody loves to talk about the Giant coin. It's on everyone's mind. It's a great story because it's an amazing story. Give

us the backstory. Its debt ceiling giant coin. But give us the backstory, please. The story of the coin goes back to eleven, when the Obama administration first had this sort of major crisis with House Republicans over raising the debt limit. It was a very different political context than we're in now, but essentially, the Republicans, having swept Congress in we're demanding major concessions from the Oban administration's cuts to Social Security and Medicare that the Aboma administration did

did entertain. And so it gave rise to this question of, you know, the US has a limit on what it can borrow, and so people were all over the place brainstorming how does the Obama administration how could they theoretically get around this question of needing Congress to approve an increase in what the U. S Government is statutorially allowed to borrow without you know, giving into Republicans demands that a lot of you know, economists and Democrats hate and

think are really that for for millions of people? And so Carlos Mucha is the verified originator of this idea. He's an attorney and believe in New York City, and he came up with this idea that essentially the US government Congress approved in the in and the two thousand's a law that allows the US Treasury to basically meant novelty coins and recoup a profit from the novelty coins. I think we should take a step back from our involvement with novelty coins to talk a little bit about

the dead ceiling. So we we officially hit it this week or last. We officially hit it last Thursday. But because of extraordinary measures, Jannet Yellen can keep this whole fiasco a k a. The United States government going until June, when we will have an economic showdown to end all economic showdowns, which will involve jacket lest Jim Jordan jumping up and down obviously explain to our listeners why the dead ceiling is a made up thing. So Congress has

passed two laws that seem completely contradictory. On the one hand, they've said to the administration, to the executive branch, you have to spend on these things, right whatever, you know, all the things that the government spent the trillan's fortunately dollars a year that we spend money on. And then simultaneously Congress has said you can only borrow up to a certain amount. In this case, it's about thirty one

trillion dollars. And so the math of the first part of this right, what Congress has told the administration it can borrow and spend. What it's required to borrow and spend is in excess of what it is also telling the administration that it is actually allowed to borrow against

its borrowing limits. So this is the core of the conflict where we've had we had this impass where it's impossible for the administration to simultaneously maintain all of the spending and revenue that you know, and and tax collection that Comress has told it to do, and also at the same time not borrow an access of what Congress has told it that it can borrow an excess of.

And so what the administration is doing now, as you mentioned Jenny Yellens, has started extraordinary measures which essentially allow them to do some sort of just basically playing around with money, moving funds around to prevent us from going above that borrowing limit there. You know, they're they're sort of technical things that including you know, not reinvesting a retirement fund for federal employees. Once the crisis passed, that

will be made whole. But the upshot is that we're kind of moving money around to maintain all of the

funding obligations withoutgoing about the borrowing limit. So we we've already hit the maximum amount we can borrow, and so you know, if we get any closer, um, you know it, once we exhaust these extra maring measures that allow us to move money around, then we're going to be at a real crisis point where the government is going to be saying, we have millions of payment requests coming in, but we cannot borrow any more money because Congress has

told us we can't legally. Yeah, it's an amazing, amazing thing. I want you to explain to our listeners why the Republican way of explaining the debt ceiling is so disingenuous. You know what the Republicans would say is, you know, they are using the threat of the of the debt limit to you know, bringing in what they see as this catastrophic problem in America and you know in the American government, which is that we have. You know, there

are thirty one trillion dollar debt. What the problem with that is is that, as you're alluding to, all of this spending has already been approved by Congress, including an eight trillion dollar run up of the debt under President Trump, which was the largest under any president in American history. One thing that I think really gets missed from this discussion that is really important to emphasize is that Republicans

are playing games with this debt limit. They're they're risking the possibility that we default in our obligations for the first time in US history and cause a market collapse. And and what Jane Allen said would quote undoubtedly be a recession, right, and it did in eleven There's historical precedents for this. I mean, it didn't cause a recession, but it caused the market to crash and billions of

dollars to be lost. Yeah, we know that there are real risks here at a minimum, And I just think it's a really important thing to communicate is Republicans are saying, over and over look, we need a way to force a conversation. They say, you know, the Republicans say, we agree that the debt limit needs to be raised, but we just want to use this opportunity that it creates to have a force a discussion about reigning and spending.

And what I what I think a lot of people would say is that you know what, I think what gets mistialized that that there is an opportunity to do that. It's called the government appropriations, and you have had shutdowns of the federal government that you know, our your listeners will be from emiliar with when the Parks Services closes.

And there's issues with T s A. And it's a real problem, and it's a real thing, but it's not the existential threat to the American economy that this threat represents. And so for Republicans to say we need to use the debt limit to do this, I would ask them, and we were trying to understand, why don't you just use the annual process of deciding funding for the federal government for that exact purposes. You can force the conversation and you're not risking a global recession as part of it.

I mean, I also think that it's really disingenuous because Republicans agreed to these nonfunded tax cuts under Trump, and they in fact agreed to the debt seal raising the dead ceiling twice under Trump. Yeah, I mean, there is no doubt that Republicans have had a hand in running up the debt, and there's no doubt that Democrats have had a had a major hand in that too. I mean, I think the interesting question here is like, to what extent our Republicans right at our debt is out of control?

And I think you find, you know, even on the left, kind of mixed responses to that. You know, the borrowing has come down, you know, since the height of COVID, but that you know, the administration is trying to claim credit. Look, the federal deficit came down from three trillion to one trillion under Biden. I kind of look askance at that little bit. I mean, we had a generational COVID crisis where every country in the world ran up on the

president of deficits that have since come down. And for the buying administration to tow deficit savings as a result

of that is I think a little suspect. I also think, you know, a lot of economists would tell you that the rhetoric that this can solely be solved from tax increases on the rich may may not quite be true in Scandinavia, where they have much much higher revenue as a percent of GDP and a much more robust welfare system and a much more people would say adequate um protections for the elderly and the sick and people without healthcare it's not a dystopia. They they also have broader

based taxes, which is obviously not dystopia. But it's not just higher taxes on the rich. It's higher taxes on the upper middle class in the middle class as well. And we have the country have been reticent to go there. But that's probably if we're going to actually maintain higher spending levels where we need to start thinking about going. If we want to look more like Scandinavia. Yeah, good luck.

In my mind, I theoretically agree, but I think it's going to be hard to convince anyone in either party to get excited about that. But one of the things that I think is really interesting here is that during Clinton we were not adding to the dead. There was a period in American history where we weren't adding to

the dead, and that was Glinton. That's true. I mean, I think Republicans would say only to take the Republican signs, But what they would say is that the deficit reduction measures that were achieved under Clinton were the results of gingrich sweep of Congress, after which Clinton was sort of in a position where he had to They would say, at least east make these deals with Republicans that cut spending substantially while in exchange for for raising taxes in

the nineties six and nine budget deals. But it is true. I mean, you're right, like the last president to balance the books was a Democrat, and Bush ran up enormous debts in pursuit of um not just the Iraq War, in the war in Afghanistan, but massive new spending measures through Medicare Part D and enormous tax cuts under Bush as well, although again most of those were extended by

the Obama administration, which also ran up. When we talked to the Biden people, I think they would say that they see an opportunity to reclaim that sort of Clintonian model of responsible governance, and they are very eager to be like, we want to bring down the deficit. There are people on the left who say this is not important, this is not a fight worth having. That is not the view, at least a stated view of the Biden

White House. They agree that that the debt is a problem that they wanted to be reduced and brought under control. The problem is, I think that they'll face, is that much, you know, completely unlike the nineties, there's just zero belief that Republicans will be willing to go along with anything that would involve, you know, any sort of higher taxes. Not that Inglich was a big tax hiker, but that and you know, frankly that that you know, the party's

mood has shifted on spending. I mean, I think a lot of people look at what Clinton did to balance the books in the nineties, in particular cutting welfare, and say this was an enormous disaster that has really increased poverty, child poverty. You know, poor black mothers have suffered tremendously as a results of some of the deals that Clinton cut and this Biden White House I think, for a lot of good reasons is saying we don't We're not really willing to pay that price for the mantle of

fiscal responsibility. Yeah, I mean also fisical. I mean I tend I'm kind of of the school that a lot of this is bullshit anyway, and that you know, we should I mean, I just think it's better to help people. But that's my own personal belief. I just am curious. I think the thing that makes me feel like we are heading towards imminent disaster with this dead ceiling crisis, which is everywhere. Is that it just seems like Kevin McCarthy cannot He can barely get things he found equivocally

wants done. How is he going to be able to get something like this past when he's already made deals saying he won't. God, Molly, I welcome to my world. I'm telling you this is This is the question that is consuming all of Washington, d C. And you've articulated perfectly the like impossibility of seeing how this gets resolved in a way that isn't catastrophic. Yeah, no, you're I People like ask me, like, hey, so, like what happens

with this? And I'm like, I have no idea, Like it seems very just iCal um for me to like the White House cannot give in to major spending cuts after not only like winning the presidency, but but you know, like it's doing really well last year expanding the Senate. They're not going to turn around and and say, oh, yeah, thanks for reelecting us UM and expanding our Senate margin. Now we're going to agree to cut source security Medicare's

just not going to happen, and frankly they shouldn't. I mean to your point, like, once you accept that the White House isn't going to give into anything that McCarthy can take back as a victory. The question becomes, do you think Kevin McCarthy is the kind of person that will put the US economy and the fate of millions of jobs over his own personal political anhibition that he

spent decades working for. It's like, you know, the Michael Scott meme where he's like kind of like sucking his face in, Like it just seems like, I mean, I shouldn't laugh, because people will suffer because of this, But it seems inevitable all that this, we are just spiraling towards disaster. I mean, and I think even if Kevin McCarthy were a sort of very moral and upstanding person who cared only about the public good, I do not

think he is that. But if he were, that he's still too incompetent to be able to get I mean, what we saw with his speakership bid was that he actually does not have the votes. So I mean, I just think that either way this ends in disaster. Yeah, I mean, I don't think he's going to go to Nancy Pelosi for advice on how to manage and cacus it just seems like we're in a in a death spiral.

What I would say is that there's been a lot of talk recently about what kind of non substantive concessions the White House might be able to offer McCarthy to say, let's start a commission. It might not have any power, but then you know, you can say that there's a reigning in spending commission that um, we got out of the debt limit fight. And I am very skeptical. We've already talked to the House Freedom Caucus and other conservatives

who say, you know, we're not stupid. We can see through that potential outcome, you know, but we'll we'll just interpret that. I mean, they're sort of stupid, but they're not stupid in that way. Yeah, they I think they would be able to, you know, not have the will

pulled over. I think they'll understand if McCarthy reaches a deal that's purely pro forma, and so then that leads us back to like one of the unilateral options for the White House if they can't negotiate and McCarthy can't give them anything that that he can self of his own caucus. And what I've been convinced of talking to people, you know at the White House and the last week or so is that the unilateral options are really dad

And I know this gets a little technical. Um, I know this gets a little technical, but the the issue here is that any of the unilateral options, be it invoking the fourteenth Amendment to just declare the debt let law unconstitutional um or you know, minting the giant coin, either one could lead to a really severe outcome, which

is that that Treasury auctions. Right the process by which the government issues bonds to raise money for its obligations and then investors come and then bid on that on those bonds, right Like, That's that's how the US government funds its obligations there, you know, balances its books essentially about raising money. The cost of that could be much more expensive if all of a sudden investors are saying,

holy holy cow. The risk premium of this is enormous because there's a chance the Supreme Court will invalidate these bonds. Because the Republicans on the on the Supreme Court Supreme Court are very partisan, could say that they're bad and so that could lead the cost of borrowing to jump by hundreds of billions of dollars that the government will be spending hundreds of billions of dollars more on each

of these auctions. And that's a very scary outcome because then all of a sudden, huge portions of the out of the government will be going solely to paying off these really high premiums on the debt. I appreciate you so much. It sounds like there's no possible good outcome. You will will definitely have to have you back to talk about all of this as it continues on towards the cliff in June. Be back at any time, I think so much. Molly John Fast whoever you are, No

Jesse Cannon, I'm just kidding, Jesse Cannon. You know the best part about the Trump administration the incompetence. It's like the thing that saved us. So, yes, the incompetence is the best thing in the Trump administration. It's probably the only good thing. I'm gonna check the box on the right for that one. Yeah, I think that's a fair assessment. Today we learned that A. G. Bill bar pressed Durham. You'll remember Durham as the guy with the enormous mustache

to find flaws in the Russia investigation. And then this is a line from This is New York Times scoop. Mr Barr sought to recast the scrutiny of the Trump campaign's myriad of murky if murky links to Russia, as unjustified and itself a crime. So Bill bar was working behind the scenes to do what Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity we're doing in front of the scenes. And for that that is our moment of buckery, well deserved. That's

it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday, Wednesday and Friday to your the best minds and politics makes sense of all this chaos. If you enjoyed what you've heard, please send it to a friend and keep the conversation going. And again, thanks for listening.