8/7/26 Panel

haze on the metal, the corn is as high as an elephant. are standing like statues oh the cattle are standing like statues they don't turn their heads as they see me Oh, good morning. Welcome to the roundtable. It is a beautiful morning. Oh, what a beautiful morning. And it certainly is a beautiful morning. We thank you all for being here. It's going to be a good show. It's going to be a good show. It's hot, hot, hot outside. We have a minor amount of some pretty good air conditioning here in this building and paint fumes. So I'm thinking we'll just be at a good temperature. relieved and just a little bit high. Don't forget the microplastics from the new carpet. That's tomorrow. Really, really, really. Good morning all. Welcome. It is lovely to have you all here. We thank you for being with us. It is a Friday. No one, no one can be upset about that. Can they? We have a wonderful group with us. Let me introduce them to you and we will get started. We have a lot to talk about, a lot going on, and we'll try to make sense of it. Laurel Elder is here, professor of political science at Hartwick College in Oneonta, who studies gender in politics, women, political candidates, women voters, and women in elected office. Good morning, Laurel Elder. How are you? I'm doing well. I'm excited to be here with your great panel. And, yeah, I'm just sort of surprised that it's August already. And I think... That means the semester is going to start soon. And I think I speak for all college professors across America when I say, oh, my God, I'm not ready yet. Well, that's right, because it's usually September is when things start, late September, late August or late September. And then, but August 1st is the time that most, and I'm just an adjunct, but you are like, oh, I should probably start working on my syllabus. 100%. That's right, right? So, I mean, I'm sure I'll get it done. So if there's any Hartwick students or families in the audience, don't worry. I'm going to get it all done. I'm going to be ready. It's going to be a great semester. I always love teaching when there's elections going on because I teach about elections. So it makes it exciting to be teaching about it while it's unfolding. So it will be a great semester. It just is a little bit of a shock that the summer is over already. Disaster in real time. Judith Eng is a professor at Bennington.

College. She is the president of Beyond Plastics and former EPA Regional Administrator. She is the co-author of the new book, The Problem with Plastic. Good morning. How are you? I'm good. It's great to meet Laurel and excited to be on the panel with you. And of course, my old friend Aaron, who you'll hear from. Just a quick pitch about my book. I'll be in Hudson tomorrow evening at 7 p.m. at the Spotty Dog Book and Al. so you can have an ale and listen to an interview about the book live. Just show up, no pre-registration. And then Friday, September 4th at 4.30, I'll be at the Lake Placid Public Library. And September 17th, 6 p.m., I'll be at Northshire Books. So come on out and say hello. That sounds wonderful. Very cool. We also welcome Aaron Pissidy to the program, Sienna University professor of economics. Good morning. Aaron, how are you? Good morning. I'm doing well. It's like everybody else dealing with August and the dirty little secret about academics, which we tell our students not to do is that we procrastinate as well. So it's time. Yeah, it's time. It's that time. Well, it's time for us to get underway as well, and we do so this morning with a far-ranging list of topics or, you know, sort of. And we welcome you. Panel at wamc.org, panel at wamc.org. Panel at wmc.org. Let's start with a jobs report. The U.S. unexpectedly lost 23,000 jobs is the headline that is on the CNN monitor as I speak. Aaron, what do I make of this? I think when people and journalists and economists use the term unexpected, they're being a little disingenuous. Because with all that has been going on since Trump took office with Liberation Day and the tariffs, with the deportations, with the budget-busting or the deficit-busting budget bill, the war in Iran, its effect on energy prices. The surprise is that the job market remained so strong for so long. So to me, this isn't surprising at all. I know the consensus forecast was for a small positive gain, but I think a lot of economists have been expecting to see... stalling or even negative job growth. So the U.S. economy lost 23,000 jobs in July, which is not a large amount, but it continues essentially a four-month trend where jobs have been falling from the mid-100,000s now into negative territory. The unemployment rate dropped from 4.2% to 4.1%. But that is not necessarily a good thing because the reason the unemployment rate fell is because fewer workers were looking for jobs. The labor force participation rate fell, so you have workers who were removing themselves from activity in the labor market. And then the biggest story, I think, in this report is that what we've seen now for at least two months is that...

Wages have growth, wage growth in the U.S. economy has been slowing since January. But there have been two months now where wage growth is now less than inflation, meaning workers, wages aren't rising to keep up with the rising cost of living. So whether it's the price increasing effect of the tariffs or now energy. and food prices due to the war in Iran, what we're seeing is exactly what a lot of economists have expected, which is slowing job growth, slowing wage growth, and that's not terribly surprising. So when you read the New York Times article or the Wall Street Journal or CNN and they say, oh, it's a surprising decrease in jobs, I don't think it's surprising. I think it's entirely predictable. And within that report, there are two really alarming signs is that even though the headline unemployment rate is 4.1%, the broader measure of underemployment, which includes unemployed workers, workers who are working part-time but want full-time work, and then workers who have dropped out of the labor force. is at 7.9%. So that's about 1 and 12 workers are either not working or working fewer hours than they would expect. And of those who are unemployed, about a quarter of them have been unemployed for 27 weeks or more. So we've got a job market that is just flashing a red light where it's just saying, if you're unemployed, it's very unlikely that you find a job. quickly after you lose your job. So the long-term unemployment and the elevated level of under-employment are very, very, very worrisome. And then buried in that report is a downward revision of previous job growth, which again, to me, is not surprising. So... This report continues a trend that we've seen really since Liberation Day, which was April 2025, which is slowing job growth. It's largely a self-inflicted wound by the Trump administration onto the American public where all of this is policy-induced. This is not, economic expansions don't die of old age. They die because usually there's some external event like COVID or some policy-induced. event like tariffs and starting an ill-conceived war that caused the economy to start slowing. So this is entirely predictable and it's one in which, like I said, is self-inflicted and it's kind of remarkable that when you see Scott Bessent and Trump talking about... No, it's not bad. It's actually great. You can't talk people out of the fact that their grocery bills are going up, that they're paying more for gas, that job opportunities are drying up and just say, well, the affordability crisis is actually a hoax. Wages are actually really great for middle class workers. I mean, those are just lies. And you can only get away with lies so much until people realize that it's clashing with their actual lived experience.

Laurel. Yeah, I'll just build on, that was really, really interesting, insightful analysis. I was just going to build on one of the last points Aaron made just to say that, you know, we'll see how the Trump administration, you know, tries to explain these statistics to the public. But yesterday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was out there just saying, like, the economy is doing great. He said the case-shaped economy is over. He said low-income workers are beginning to see stronger wage gains. And Americans are soon going to feel more relief from last year's tax cuts. But the problem is inflation is still, what, like 3.7%. Gas prices have risen because of the Iran war. Consumer spending is a little wobbly. And now we have as air. Aaron was just talking about real clear evidence of a weakening labor market. So even if the stock market is doing well and unemployment is historically, you know, not that high, the problem is that Americans do not feel good about the economy right now. Their actual experience day-to-day is not a positive one. public opinion survey polls bear this out. And this is all before this latest jobs report. But I think Gallup found that only 22% of Americans rated the economy as excellent or good. 67% said it was getting worse. And 60% of Americans said Trump's economic policies had made the economy worse, which is an increase from 52% in January. And what I think is really interesting. In some ways, it's no surprise that Democrats, like half the population would say the economy is not doing well because political science scholarship has shown that actually partisanship. shapes people's views of the economy. There's these really fascinating studies that are done that like, you know, during the Biden administration, Republicans will be like, the economy is horrible. It's horrible. And then Trump becomes president. And like literally two days later, Republicans are like, the economy is doing great. And that just, I mean, it's the same in reverse for Democrats. So no difference there. The point is that partisanship. shapes our views of the economy. So what's really interesting to me in the poll numbers is the fact that there is still a minority but growing number of Republicans who are saying they're unhappy with the economy and unhappy with Trump's leadership of the economy. That is really news to me because as we know, Republicans have stuck through with Trump through. Everything, like everything. And now we're starting to see some Republicans saying, you know what, we're not comfortable or confident in his handling of the economy.

Do you to think? Well, I would have liked to be in the room when Speaker Mike Johnson read these headlines this morning because this is not good timing for House and Senate Republicans going into the midterms, you know, which is 90 days away or something like that. You know, this comes while so many Americans are being kicked off their health coverage. It's coming when SNAP is being cut. So you hear from food pantries and soup kitchens and food banks of increased demand. The rent is too damn high. You know, this is not happening in isolation. And people are really suffering. living paycheck to paycheck. People are staying in jobs they may not like because they're afraid that they won't get a job again. I mean, the number you read Joe, the number of people or Aaron, the number of people who lose their jobs and then can't get a new job is like over five months, six months. Yeah, six months. Six months. Six months. How do you live that long if you're living if you're living paycheck to paycheck? So, I mean, this is a really serious economic situation. President Trump and Scott Bessent, however you say that dude's name. I believe it is Scott Bessent. They, you know, they're almost a caricature of themselves. They go to two things. One is next quarter, next year. You know, it's coming. Just be patient. And the other thing that President Trump keeps saying is essentially the rich are getting richer. So relax. He says, look at your 401K. Well, most Americans are not in the stock market. So I think this spells real trouble for the Republicans because while we've all gotten used to Trump lying all the time about everything, when you're at the gas station or the supermarket. Or you get like a shocking health care bill of procedures that used to be covered and they're no longer covered. You just don't buy the lies anymore. Final point is that's why. This debate within the Democratic Party about the Progressive Wing or DSA members is just so ridiculous and tired. You know, people like Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, who just won the Michigan primary, is mostly talking about... economic inequality. Mayors are on Zohran Mamdani, who went up against the political establishment. The guy formerly known as Andrew Cuomo, now in the dustbin of history, thank God. You know, the special interests spent a lot of money trying to defeat these guys. And these guys...

Zohran Mamdani won in New York because he talked about rent. He talked about mass transit. He talked a little bit about climate change. And, you know, Abdul El-Sayed has a long road ahead, you know, under three months to win the general. But I think it's smart for the Democratic Party to have the supposed big tent. and really embrace some of these messages from progressive Democrats and not have James Carvel, you know, just having core meltdowns on CNN about how these progressive Dems are not going to win. Carvel should talk more about how you get them to win and how the focus needs to be on Trump and not DSA. I have to say they are meltdown. Yes. Yeah. Yes. The, yeah, so to the politics of this, I mean, it's very clear what's happening economically, right? Wage growth isn't keeping up with inflation, consumer confidence, business sentiment, or at all-time lows. But the political ramifications of this, the Democrats are being handed the midterms on a silver Graham Platner. Don't screw it up. This is so easy. And, you know, when. There's this infighting like, oh, there's the Democratic Socialists and then the, you know, the corporate Democrats. The labeling of Democratic Socialists as being, you know, progressive or radical seems to me very ill-founded because a lot of what they're proposing, like affordable housing in New York City, a higher minimum wage or a living wage, expansion of health care subsidies. These are not radical ideas. Nobody's talking about nationalizing. food production. Nobody's talking about nationalizing the airline industry. That's a radical economic policy. What progressive Democrats are talking about are ideas that are remarkably, policies that are remarkably popular with American voters. And that's born out in all of the polls and everything. So to me, that's kind of a red herring. We will continue our conversation. We have much more to discuss in this issue and others, and we will do so after our news break. We welcome your letters panel at wamc.org panel at wamc.org. And we'll continue after this break from the BBC. Somebody need me too much. Somebody know me too well. Somebody pull me up short and put me through hell and give me support for being alive.

Today's panel music is from the singer and actor Norm Lewis. He's known for his career on stage appearing in several Broadway shows and off Broadway. He will be performing as part of the Seth Redetsky concert hosted by the Berkshire Theater Group in Williamstown. And that takes place this weekend. And we'll be hearing music throughout the... Our program, you can see the playlist at wamc.org. WAMC.org. All right. Let's go to more on this. And as far as Aaron, I'm interested, well, let me throw this in because it came up a couple of times. We have a story on the docket today. that is about this real concern about whether the Democrats can indeed flip the House. And that seemed to be a no-brainer at one point, and now it doesn't seem to be as much. And I'm curious as to given what all of you are saying, especially with this economic news. How did we get from where we were to where we are in the structure for both Democrats and Republicans? Trump. I mean, I think this is a referendum on Trump this November. And while it's looking more positive for Democrats taking majority in both the House and the Senate, no one should assume that. No one should rest on their laurels. And certainly we need to be alert to the... so-called Department of Justice and the FBI interfering with voting. You know, it's really interesting. I'm watching much less evening news these days because I just have such a, it's harder to compartmentalize the world and your life. And if your life is moderately okay and then you moderately emphasis and then you watch the news and you're like in deep, deep depression. But Joe, I watch on Thursday nights to get ready for this show. And, all right, I don't watch really closely. I multitask. But yesterday I saw Representative Morelli from Rochester, a Democrat who's very involved in reelecting Democrats, being interviewed in saying. Remember, elections are run by the states. The Board of Elections know what they're doing. I'm really confident we're going to have free and fair elections. Don't worry, everyone. I'm like, what? And then Stacey Abrams is on another channel, an hour later, reciting all of the ways that the Trump administration is trying to kick people off voter rolls, close accessible polling places.

real data. Now, Stacey Abrams is not in charge of getting Democrats elected in the House. The Congress member is. And so I'm still very, very worried that the notion of stealing the election and another January 6th violent insurrection repeat may be upon us. So just people should not sleep on this. I agree. I understand, too. We have had, although I think it's a fair point because we've had election officials from New York counties on our panel who have said, look, they're doing what they're doing, but we're working really, really hard to do whatever we can to within our county, within our... within our kingdom to make sure that this doesn't happen. Adorable. Well, I mean, okay, but I mean, I take them at the word that they are doing everything they can. They are, but there was just reporting that many election officials are MAGA related, proud boy related, not in New York, in swing states. So, yeah, I mean, I'm sure New York election officials are taking their responsibility very seriously, but that's not the reality in many states. So this article in the Washington Post, Democrats are favored to flip the House, but Republicans could still save their majority under the right conditions. Historically, midterm elections are a referendum on the party that holds the White House, which voters are prone to punish. This year, the Democratic Party is well positioned to win a House majority, buoyed by voters dissatisfaction with President Donald Trump and the war in Iran that he started. But Trump's party could defy conventional wisdom and still eke out. a win. According to election analysts here is how they say that could happen. Voters aren't angry enough to vote blue. Registered voters support Democrats over Republicans in Congress by five percentage points. According to the Washington Post, generic ballot polls that ask preferences for parties rather than individuals. But polls also show the Democratic brand is badly bruised. Also, a redrawn map protects a GOP majority. And also the money. Big money is saving vulnerable. Republicans in many areas. And finally, in past elections, Republicans lost competitive congressional races after more hardwined conservatives emerge from primaries. Now Democrats have a similar problem. Weak candidates are losing winnable races. I mean, I will say once again, as a political scientist, a lot of times...

There's political science forecasting models, and the interesting thing about them about what's going to happen in elections is they have no variables in them for the actual candidates themselves. Or policy, actually. The models are totally built on... presidential approval ratings and the actual economic indicators in people's perceptions of the economy. And those models, I mean, they don't turn out as accurate in midterm elections as in presidential, but they're still pretty accurate. And the fundamentals of this election are very much pointing towards democratic victories because President Trump's approval rating is so low, maybe 36, 35 percent, and because Americans are not happy with that. economy as we were just talking about. But there's one other factor that I think is really interesting as well. And it sort of explains one of the contradictions, if you will, that's in the article that you just talked about, Joe, which is the concept of negative partisanship. So what we found and I mean what political scientists have shown is that. I mean, Americans are quite partisan. They have a psychological attachment to one of the two parties. A lot of people don't like to admit that they do. But if you, you know, when asked, you know, who do you feel closer towards Republicans or Democrats? Most Americans will say they lean closer to one party than the other. And they almost always vote for that party. So they might say I'm independent, but they are actually pretty partisan. Now, the negative partisanship. Peace comes in because a lot of Americans are not super happy with their party. So a lot of Democrats are like, huh, Democratic Party, not so thrilled with it right now. But what they do feel passionate about is. is hating the Republican Party and thinking that America will be in dire straits if Republicans get elected. And that's what's going to motivate people to go to the polls. And that's what's going to motivate Democrats to vote for Democrats, whether they're progressives or moderates or whatever else is going on, even if they're not the best candidate. So I think once you really sort of grasp this idea of negative partisanship, it explains so much about American politics. No, people don't love their own party, but they really have come to hate the other party and that motivates them. Aaron. Like I said before, the Democrats are being handed a lot of issues on a silver Graham Platner. But I still think there are. So you have the Democrats who are going to vote Democrat. You've got the MAGA base that's going to vote Republican. And then you have the swing voters in the middle, which is what the election's about. And even though they might have a negative view of Trump and what he's doing, they still might find some allegiance to the Republican Party and just say, oh, I don't know if I like, you know.

the branding of Progressive Democrats as Democratic Socialists, as soon as you throw the word socialist into the mix, it can scare a lot of people. But I was just looking at, not that this is a remarkably accurate predictor, but the Kalshi odds as of right now that for the House, there's an 84% chance according to the betting money that... Democrats take the House and a 53% chance that Republicans hold on to the Senate. So the Senate's pretty close. But it seems like looking at the graph over time, it seems like the likelihood of the Democrats winning, according to Kalshi, is increasing. So that gap is growing. But want me to do my impression of a talk show host? Sure. But we're only in the first week of August. Sure. A lot can happen. You're right. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Sean Hannity. Yeah, thanks. Laura was pointing out these prediction models have a lot of variables in them, none of which are the candidates. One thing that is a very good predictor of who wins an election is. The change in the unemployment rate. So it doesn't matter if the unemployment rate is lower high. What matters is in the few months leading up to an election, if the unemployment rate is going down, it increases the likelihood that incumbent stay in power. If the unemployment rate is going up, it decreases the likelihood that incumbent stay in power. So to a certain extent, you're right. There is three more months and... voters have fairly short memories in terms of this. Many of them, and that's not a bad thing. Perhaps many of them are open-minded and thinking about, you know, well, you know, how does my interest dovetail with what these candidates are proposing and so on. So it does seem likely, not just because Kalshi says so, that because of how the job market's been going, just the quagmire in Iran. the financial impact of the tariffs, that's not going to abate any time in the next three months. Like, those things are here to stay. Even if they don't, you know, go up wildly or go down wildly, people are, that accumulation of higher $4 gas, the accumulation of groceries that are 10% higher, people are going to start feeling that. And the more months that go on where they're experiencing that, I think the more likely they will have, um, they were more likely to be voting against the incumbent party. We'll take a break. We'll continue our conversation. We welcome you. Panel at wamc.org. Panel at wamc.org. We'll continue the conversation right after this.

of a far-off place where a hero's welcome would be waiting for me where the crowds will cheer when they see my face and a voice keeps saying this is where i'm meant to be i'll be there someday I will find Once again, Norm Lewis at the 62 Center for Theater and Dance in Williamstown, Massachusetts, tomorrow night at 7 p.m. And you can find out more information by going actually to the Berkshire Theater Group. And that is where you can find out about ticketing for that event and more information. All right, let's go on to the letters and see what people have to say about this because I'm sure. You have things to say. Kerry writes, to my mind, the likeliest and scariest scenario for this November is that Speaker Mike Johnson will not seat, quote unquote, two or three new Democratic representatives arguing there was fraud in their elections. The Constitution, I believe, lets the Speaker certify all reps and quote unquote seat them so only one man could throw this election into chaos. to Mike Johnson and Trump, because Johnson will do what Trump tells him to do. There we, there we go. Then. Panel, I wonder what your thoughts are about the 2026 and 28 implications of the infighting on the left. It seems Democrats are increasingly the educated party, yet they struggle to forge a consensus around a single candidate, frequently risking split votes. I mentioned this the other day, but as long as I have been alive. I have heard of the Democratic Circular Firing Squad. So this is the latest of that. With a recent surge of energy for Democratic Socialist candidates, I wonder if we will see a repeat of the fractured voting dynamics we witnessed in 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. What can the Democratic Party do to bring back dissatisfied voters? Ben says, please tell me, panel.

There's a lot. And you can start with some meat and potato issues like wage support policies. I think that's probably the main thing that most Americans want to see is their incomes going up at a rate that allows them to live a dignified standard of living free of government assistance. So that could be anything from costlessly changing regulations like making it easier for workers to unionize. imposing penalties on firms that interfere with unionization drives. You could increase the minimum wage to a living wage. You could have... I mean, you could go even further where you have job guarantee programs where the government offers either training or employment to unemployed workers. You could subsidize higher education, which includes not just traditional college, but also trade and vocational programs, so that people don't feel priced out of gaining the skills they need. These are very easy and unobjectionable. There's nothing radical about these. When was the last time you heard Democrats talking about, you know, we need to strengthen the union movement and actually having concrete ways of doing it? Say what you want about Biden. He stood on a picket line with the UAW workers. That took a lot of guts, but we need to see that continue. So that's one possibility among many. I don't think the Democratic Party really exists anymore. At the national level, I think they're in debt or they've hardly any money compared to the centralized Republican apparatus. I think Democrats win when they have strong candidates who speak to the issues that people actually care about. So it's all about the candidates. And what's unfortunate is... Like when you're running for a local office, you have to reinvent the wheel every time. There's not much of a Democratic Party infrastructure to speak of. And I think this tension between progressives or DSA versus other parts of the Democratic Party, I think some of it is contrived because a lot of the mainstream moderate Democrats... are, you know, lobbyists and consultants for special interests, and they are just articulating what's in their economic interest. But, you know, I don't think we have much of a two-party system left. You have Trump. He is the Republican Party, like it or not. There's no room for moderate Republicans in the Republican Party. And then Democrats are on their own, like putting their own... door-to-door canvassing operations together. They can now do more online fundraising, so they're not so dependent on fat cats writing big checks. In New York, there's some public campaign financing where small donations are matched. So, you know, it's...

it's really up to the candidates to win. And then the question is, how do you govern? So when you have such, you know, different perspectives, that's when you really need cooperation. And I think that's where it's worth looking at Bernie Sanders. I mean, Bernie doesn't pass a lot of bills. He shapes the public narrative on so many crucial issues. And you don't see Bernie like openly fighting publicly with Chuck Schumer. He's kind of, he's found his lane after all of these years. And he is supporting and mentoring a whole new generation of Democrats who are basically articulating what Bernie has been saying for 25, 30 years. Yeah, I mean, I would say that right now, the force that's unifying Democrats is just anger at Trump. And that is, it's enough to help propel them, I think, to a lot of victories in 2026. And we were talking about, you know, what's going to happen in the midterm elections. And there are Republicans right now we're talking about who are dissatisfied with Trump because of his, you know, his handling of the economy. And for some other policy reasons too. And I don't see any of those Republicans voting for Democrats. I mean, the news media always finds like the 10 Americans who actually like voted Biden one election and then Trump the next election. There's very, very few Americans who actually flip flop. different parties. Really too few to make a difference. But the key thing in the midterm election is going to be turnout, who actually goes out to vote. We know in presidential elections turnouts around 60 percent recently. But in the midterm election, it's much lower, maybe 35 or 40 percent. So the question is who's going to turn out and vote? And what I see right now is that Republicans who feel not great about Donald Trump. It's not that they're going to go out and vote for a Democrat. They're just not going to vote because they feel conflicted about it. Now, 2028 is more challenging because... Most likely, Trump won't be on the ballot, even though he has those Trump-2020 hats that people seem to enjoy. And if Democrats do take back one or both of the houses of Congress, they are now sort of responsible for what's going on if the economy's not doing well. So I think the key there is just as my co-panelist said, it's candidates. And the key, I think, is to find a candidate who speaks to both the progressive and the moderate wings. who you can't categorize with either of those terms. I think to some extent Obama was like that. People thought of them as progressive, but he was really pretty moderate. And then, I don't know, maybe a candidate, I mean, he's still so young, John Offsoff, but like it's really hard to say, is he progressive? Is he moderate? He's sort of in a different dimension in some ways. James Talarico, if he could end up winning in Texas, might have the same kind of appeal. But I think that is what Democrats will need.

to do in 2028. There has to be a certain political maturation, doesn't there? Well, I mean, I think when Obama ran, he was young, right? Was he like 50 or something like that? And he hadn't been, he'd only been in the Senate two years. And so I think people were like, wait, you need more experience. But then on the other hand, the longer you're in the Senate. the longer you have this very complex legislative, you know, record of voting for things that you, you know, what was John Kerry? I voted for it before I voted against it, you know. And so I think there's something to be said for like. And Trump has lowered the bar. Oh, I mean, like, would you hire Trump to be your school superintendent or your principal or your company president? No, he'd be bounced out on, on, you know, ethics charges. So I think with Trump having one with not exactly skilled experience, anything goes. Anything goes. And then still, Americans still seem very hungry, very interested in. something other than the usual politician. So in many ways, I think less years in the Senate might be better. All right. Let's take a break. And we are going to come back. We have many more stories to discuss. We welcome your letters. Panel at wamc.org. Panel at wamc.org. We will do all of that after a short break and news with Ray Graf.

as high as an elephant's eye and it looks like it's climbing clear up to the sky Good morning. It's still a beautiful morning. In case you were wondering, last hour, beautiful morning. It's still a beautiful morning. I want you to know that. Also, I want you to know that right now, we are going to talk about Todd Blanche. And right now, we're going to talk about the likelihood of that vote moving forward. So all eyes are on Bill Cassidy. All eyes on this studio are on Aaron, who is busy bringing this up on Kalshi, to see where the markets are so we can get a bit of an idea. Okay. It's too soon, though. I'm trying to figure this out in real time because I don't. I don't have an account on Calci. I don't bet on Calci, but I do look at it as a way to kind of pull collective wisdom. Just tell us. Go ahead. Well, let's put our money together now. Come on. Let's go. All the money goes into the lockbox. Go ahead. Who is ready for the least satisfying answer ever. Okay. So the forecast is that the forecast is 49 and a half senators will vote to confirm. Oh, good. Now, there is an 80% chance that more than 49. By the way, I think it's most scary that there really is a half a second. Yes, no, I know. That's Mitch McConnell. Right, yeah. I know. So, there's an 80% chance that 49 or more vote to confirm, but only a 22% chance that 50 or more vote to confirm. So it's still... So we don't know. So we don't know. But here's the thing, though, is in the past six hours, it has dropped precipitously from well over 50 down to... Well, was that after Lisa Murkowski came out and said that she let's vote for it. So sorry, I wish I had something more interesting to say, but it's... The answer is none of us, no, not even in the betting markets. There's one person who knows, and he's probably putting a bet on Kalshi right now. Well, that's right. Well, no, that's George Santos's job. Okay, so now we look at this and say, all right, so let's bring this back to...

Pam Bondi threw Todd Blanche under the bus on the Epstein files. Whenever she was in Congress and was asked about Epstein, she would say, oh, you have to talk to Todd Blanche. He handled that. So like a truly sad moment in the history of an otherwise distinguished agency. And I just want to throw in one other factor. So Bill Cassidy lost his primary to a Trump-backed candidate. He's a medical doctor. He voted in favor of Robert F. Kennedy Jr..'s nomination because I think he got snookered when Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. said he would do certain things and now he's doing the other. So a lot with Bill Cassidy will come down to... What's next for him in life? If he's planning to be a K Street lobbyist or something like that, you will see him voting yes. If he just wants to sit on the porch and go fishing and get reacquainted with his family, you might see him vote no. But there is a... Reacquainted. Yeah. There is a wild card. Luke, I am your father. Who are these little blonde kids running around? Senator, they are your grandchildren. They were born in the last five years. I don't know. I shouldn't have said that. Maybe he's just a fine human. Probably not. But I'm trying. But here's the wild card. How about get this on Cashie. How about Bill Cassidy announce he's voting no? No. And then John Fetterman votes, yes. Plausible. And plausible and plausible. And we've seen, and I know I said this the other day on the show and I know I got a couple letters about it and I apologize. But I believe it's true. So it's, I think it's odd. I know it's not the most important political issue we're going to discuss. I think it's odd that we've seen John Fetterman on all the talk shows and we've seen them trotted out so much over the last week. And in each appearance, he was wearing a suit. Hmm. Not on John Stewart, though. He had the hoodie on Stewart. Oh, but that was a podcast. Podcast. I know on the broadcast interviews, he's wearing a suit. Oh, that says something. I think the best John Fetterman interview was with John Stewart because John Stewart is a good interviewer, and John Fetterman couldn't get beyond the soundbite. Just such an irresponsible elected official. So, and I think Aaron's still checking as we speak. Is that what you're doing, Aaron? Yeah. Well, my scenario is a little off, so they probably are not taking bets on John Fetterman.

I was just going to say, like, you asked Joe how we got here in terms of the Todd Blanche nomination. And I would just say that it in many ways, I think it encapsulates. I'm currently reading regime change by, I think along with half of America, by Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan. And their whole point is that. Trump 2.0 is very, very different than Trump 1.0. And I mean, a big, big reason is the people that he's chosen to be his top advisors and his cabinet members. And just the absolute loyalty, loyalty being the top. And in some cases, like the only characteristic that they're being selected. And we see this with the... Todd Blanche being his personal lawyer. And now he is the person. I mean, whether he gets confirmed or not, he is the attorney general. And he's going to probably continue to be the attorney general because he'll just continue in acting capacity. So in some ways, this whole vote matters perhaps less than we might think it is. But it's just, and I just think this explains so much about the Trump administration. He's surrounded by people who are so loyal to him. Nobody will say. things that he doesn't want to hear and hence this explains so many of the decisions the really you know in some cases, bad decisions that have been made. I mean, presidential scholars all study decision-making. And when you have to make really complicated hard decisions, which are the ones that presidents have to make, to have a whole bunch of people around you who will not say anything you don't want to hear, it leads to problematic decision-making. Erin. I bet he gets confirmed. That's what my gut tells me. There have been so many moments of false hope about, you know, Republicans, you know, perhaps forming some or coalescing around something we're like, we can't go this far, right? You know, with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., okay, fine, whatever. But, you know, this, what we're talking about here at the Department of Justice is foundational. So, um. I bet. Yeah, I have no idea what Bill Cassidy is going to do, but my gut, which is very, my gut is not very scientific, says, yeah, he'll probably be confirmed. Is it mean to say that, you know, I believe the votes for... Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski when I see them? No, I think they are really locked in. I mean, Susan Collins has no choice, and she came out a few days ago. And I listened to a couple Lisa Murkowski interviews, very thoughtful. I mean, she has... Well, she is thoughtful. She told a story that she was on a flight from Seattle to Washington, D.C. and the flight attendant...

gave her a note and said, there's a woman on the plane who wants to talk to you because she's a victim of Epstein and will you meet with her? And Lisa Murkowski said yes and set up a meeting. And she. wanted to hear about the women's meeting with Todd Blanche, which apparently, in talk about height of arrogance, Todd Blanche was very dismissive. I think only spent 10 minutes with these women who have been working on their situations with Epstein for decades. And she really, you know, she's really very concerned about that. She's also concerned about... the slush fund agreement not being real. Like it's, you know, they're just going to blow right by there. I mean, Thom Tillis and John Cornyn really folded. If you have a serious negotiation, you don't want those two guys negotiating for you. So we'll see. And you're right. It's almost symbolic because they'll keep Todd Blanche in there as acting. But it'd be a very bad vibe. I'm all about vibes these days, political vibes. And remember last night, George Santos Jr., known as Representative Andy Ogles, lost his race. Trump really went all in on him. And I don't know. Anything could happen. And if... Even if it's delayed. I mean, I think they're delaying the August recess to try to get this vote done. So I think they're on the ropes. So you probably have lots of furious phone calls going from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other this morning. And we'll see. We're still waiting to hear if Bill Cassidy will make a decision here within the next. I think they're expecting it to happen soon. Let's see. Words matter. Thank you to Judith and Aaron. Democrats are their own worst enemy when it comes to marketing themselves and the corporate media is worse. They need to stop with far left and radical progressives and all the other subtly subversive labels they use to try and tame anyone who's not quote-unquote mainstream. What Abdul El-Sayed is proposing is not radical, thanks for calling it out. That from Tom. Then we go to Stephen. Aaron saying that Todd Blanche will be the new AG is cynical. And I completely agree with them. That's right. That's not where I thought that was going. No, me either, actually. There are many, many, many, many good reasons that Todd Blanche should not be Attorney General. I don't understand why everyone is focused on only one issue, which is the slash fund.

And Epstein. And, like, he's Janine Piro's boss. So Janine Piro keeps bringing these unfounded cases, including the Olympiad, who just put his finger in the water of the reflecting pool. That, of course, was dismissed. But, you know, all of Janine Piro's failures in court, that also goes at the doorstep of Todd Blanche because the U.S. attorneys report to the AG. I mean, We would need a two-hour show to go through all of Todd Blanche's problems. Well, one is enough for today, but thank you for that. All right. We will hopefully bring you more information on this as the morning unfolds. We have 40 minutes left in our program, so we'll see if a decision is made. And then even with that decision, if we have kind of a firm idea of what is going to happen. All right, so let's go to other stuff. And I would like to go to birthright citizenship again. So you know that the Supreme Court has ruled on this, and it was against the president and what he wanted. And now the president is trying a new tack against birthright citizenship. He took another stab at redistricting automatic citizenship for people born in the United States after the Supreme Court rejected his earlier attempt. In two executive orders signed yesterday, Trump reached for different legal maneuvers to test the limits of the 14th Amendment to guarantee a birthright citizenship. The first order said children would be ineligible if born to, quote, alien enemies. members of foreign terrorist organizations or foreign lobbyists. The second order said children of people who fraudulently request tourist visas for the purpose of giving birth in the U.S. would not become citizens. This is from reporting from the Washington Post. Trump harshly criticized the Supreme Court's June decision, reaffirming that the 14th Amendment grand citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil, including the children of undocumented immigrants, striking down his executive order from the first day of his second term. The new order marked a fresh effort to overcome that setback and deliver on a campaign promise by expanding the categories of people with the administration. argues fall outside the constitutional guarantee. Constitutional scholars broadly agree that the president lacks the authority to eliminate birthright citizenship unilaterally. There is a photo on the connected with the story from the Washington Post. of President Trump sitting at his desk with Stephen Miller with his fingers touching as just in that, I don't know, say, other than evil way, but it doesn't mean that it is evil. It just sort of looks that way. But I think that photo says quite a bit, doesn't it? Good shot. Yeah. Yeah, the meanness and the evil is the point.

for a lot of these policies. All right, who would like to start us off on birthright citizenship? I mean, I'm happy to. I was just, when the news broke yesterday evening or at first I was like a little surprised because I was like, wait, didn't we just resolve this issue like five weeks ago, the Supreme Court, you know, that has a majority of conservatives on it, majority of members who've been appointed by Republicans decided that, Yes, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution protects birthright citizenship. But then, you know, I was a little surprised, but then when you think about it, one is that Trump doesn't like to lose, and he made that pretty clear in his comments about this. He was just like it was a bad decision. We're not going to end with that decision. We're going to take a new approach. Immigration, cracking down on immigration and birthright citizenship is actually an issue he is genuinely passionate about. He has been for a long time. I mean, we all remember when he first announced he was running for president in 2015. He made like really negative comments about immigrants and that was a hallmark of his campaign. And that relates to my third point, which is that, I mean, I do think. This, he sees this as to his advantage electorally. There are people in his coalition supporters who are very animated by this anti-immigrant sentiment. And the idea of like birth tourism is really not popular among Americans overall, but especially this base. And so, you know, we just talked about the economic numbers. He does, he knows his parties in trouble. You certainly, you know. I don't want to talk about this month's unemployment report. So talking about how you are protecting American citizens, you know, in his mind, protecting American citizenship, I think he thinks this is a better way to focus attention. This is red meat to his base to distract, as you say, from the real issues of the day. I think this is also, you know, a letter writer said we were not talking enough about the inadequacies of Todd Blanche. This is, if you had like a real independent attorney general, she or he would have said, no, don't do these executive orders. You lost. in the Supreme Court. And yet you're narrowing it a bit, but the world does not revolve around Stephen Miller. You tried, you lost in court, but we don't have an independent AG who represents the people. We have Trump's personal lawyer. And this pairs with... You know, these images of young children being held in ice jails around the country. The Trump administration recently said they're not entitled to lawyers when they show up in immigration courts or these photos of these like little girls in dresses.

age three representing themselves. There's a report that at the Dilley jail that ICE runs in Texas, there's a two-month-old baby being held. And so this is all on brand for Stephen Miller and Maggie Haberman's book, which I can't bring myself to buy or read. But I hear excerpts. Haberman says Trump spends about 70% of his mental energy on the ballroom, the reflecting pool, like trying to remake the physical images of Washington, D.C., which is kind of a disaster, but makes me feel better. Like, let him mess that all up. You can take the gold off of the statues after he's gone. But I think the danger is then the Stephen Millers of the world and the Pete Hegseth and the Robert F. Kennedy Jr. get to run amok. And this is, you know, this is classic Stephen Miller. And I also want to caution people that if the Democrats do win, both houses in the midterms. Yeah, there'll be investigations, but Stephen Miller is still in the White House, and Pete Hegseth still has access to bombs, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. will still be giving very bad health advice. So the power of the executive is huge, and we are not out of the woods, even if there's a change in the Congress in January. Just back real quick to what we were talking about earlier, but Senator Bill Cassidy said on X just a moment ago that he will make his, announce his decision on how he will vote at 1040 on the Senate floor. So we have about 10 minutes on that. We have a break in the meantime, and then we'll come back, and then, you know, it's politician time, so 1040 could be. Thursday, but we'll see. And we'll bring you up to date on that and we'll continue our conversation. We welcome you panel at wamc.org, panel at wamc.org, panel at wamc.org, and we will continue our conversation after this short break.

me I'm as helpless as a kitten up a tree. Oh, helpless as a kitten. Oh, helpless as a kitten. Anyone feel that way today? Okay. Good morning. What does that mean? I don't know. Helpless as a kitten up a tree. Pretty helpless. Good morning. Welcome back to the roundtable and to our panel discussion, Laurel Elder, Judith Ang, and Aaron Piscity with us this morning. We welcome you. Panel at wamc.org. Panel at wamc.org. Two quick things. Self-promotion, if you don't mind. One is that tomorrow night in New Marlboro, Massachusetts, the New Marlboro. New Marlboro Meeting House, and by tomorrow night I will learn how to pronounce it. I'm going to be talking to the historian David Nassau about his new book, The Wounded Generation, and it is going to explore the impact of World War II on the soldiers who fought in it. It is a magnificent book by a magnificent historian, and the subtitle was Coming Home After World War II. And it's a, they do incredible events of the new Marlboro Meeting House. And I'll be hosting the conversation with David Nassau. And you can find out information by going to the new Marlboro Meeting House website and going on Eventbrite and find out more. It's at 4.30 tomorrow afternoon. So. You can go to that and then hop over to Hudson at 7 for the problem with plastics. You can do both. You can do both. Yeah. Just don't speed. What I've learned is that there's three million events happening between the hours of four and nine tomorrow. Yeah. So, and. Having been invited to most of them, I don't know what I. How you get them all in? You would come to mine. Well, of course I would. Of course I would. But you're not. You're going to Massachusetts. Well, no. Well, that's true. But I also, this has been in the works for like a year. Wow. It sounds great. But then I also know that like Heather Cox Richardson is at Tanglewood? Shh. Stop with everything going on. There's a lot going on. There's a lot going on. Well, those events are sold out. So we want to sell out our event, too, and both of our events. Mine is free. Mine is not. But David Nassau at the New Marlboro Meeting House, and you can find out more. So thank you very much about that. Also, the newsletter. I have a newsletter out. Oh, I love it. It's called So, and it is, it comes out on Mondays. So if you want to get Monday's edition, go with subscribe. And all you have to do is go to wAMC.org. WAMC.

and there is a link there to have you sign up for the newsletter and if you do it today or over the weekend you'll be sure to get edition number three the third edition of the of the newsletter and I finished it up last night and I looked at it and You know, I think it may be the third best one I've done. Number two is good. Let's put it in the top three at least. Yeah, it's in the top three. I'd say. It's pretty good. All right. So that's where we are. Still waiting for Bill Cassidy. We'll find out about that. And... Let's see what else. Can I say one thing about birthright citizenship? Yeah, please. Oh, that's right. I apologize. Well, that's right. There's another aspect to this in addition to the legality of this and just an enormous waste of resources is that economists view immigration as a net positive to the economy as a whole. Obviously, immigration in border towns where you have the direct displacement of American workers with foreign-born workers. Those are legitimate issues, and those can be dealt with in a rational way that doesn't involve a blanket, you know, rescinding of birthright citizenship. But the U.S. economy faces some headwinds that are important for long-run growth, and that is a slowing population rate, decreasing productivity, and... Immigration solves both of those issues, is that we can import workers to help produce the things we need. Immigrants are also job creators, anybody who's been to a foreign-owned restaurant or business or hospital or the people who do all of the programming for the software that we use. There's a lot of high-skilled immigrants that make this country and its people far wealthier and improve their standard of living than would otherwise be the case. So this is another instance of doing something that is intentionally harmful to the majority of the population to advance an ideological cause that the base just eats up. And I fundamentally believe that this is just a... The others are a great way to distract blame from the oligarchs that are ruling the country, the corruption, the self-dealing that's happening in the administration. So you take, I mean, they are the others that are doing the harm is the Elon Musk's and Jeff Bezos and whoever, and then the nameless people who were involved in this corruption. But. To divert people's eyes from that, it's much easier to focus on brown people, women, and anybody who's not part of that inner oligarchic clique.

Yeah, I mean, I would just say I think that's right. I think this is designed to be a symbolic issue about like who counts as an American, who actually belongs in America just along the lines that Aaron said. Because when you look at the two executive orders and, you know, even if they were to go into a fact, which it sounds like they're going to be challenged and it sounds like it's very likely that they're unconstitutional for a couple reasons. But like the, I think the post. story that we read, notes that fewer than 10,000 babies were born in the United States in 2024 to people with foreign addresses. So, and that's out of 3.6 million births, so tiny percentage. And then in a New York Times article, they cited some Penn State research that said that births to tourists are less than 0.3% of all U.S. births in any given year. So we're talking about a really tiny percent of babies. born in the U.S. that this would apply to, even if it went into effect. But like, as Aaron said, that's not really the point. The point is to generate this conversation about who really gets to be, who counts as a true American. And it's just amazing how anti-immigrant Trump is personally. I mean, you really, you hear. Visceral hatred. You hear that. And yet two of his three wives are immigrants. But I guess they're. They're blonde, very white immigrants. So he puts that in a different category. Another way of looking at this is just a way to impart fear and to scare people from immigrating into the U.S. And that is happening. Especially with students. And this is just doubling down. It's like, yeah, the Supreme Court might have ruled that birthright citizenship stands, but we're still on the lookout. So beware. All right, realizing that we are waiting for this announcement by Bill Cassidy, we'll go into another subject here. And that is the canceling of wind leases. And the Trump administration is going to pay a German firm 1.2. billion dollars to cancel wind leases. It was the fifth such deal struck by the administration to get companies to drop offshore wind projects. Under the agreement, R.W.E will voluntarily surrender three leases it owned for wind farms in federal waters. Those projects were in the early stages of development and had little chance of moving forward under the Trump administration, which has halted all federal permitting for offshore wind. This is a huge mistake. You know, Trump talks about, they used to talk about energy independence. Now the Trump administration talks about energy dominance, a very macho phrase. And what this really is about is how cozy Trump in his administration is with fossil fuel companies. You know, Exxon, Shell, Chevron, don't own and operate wind.

These are other companies. And it's just like such a ridiculous position to take to cancel these leases. Renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels these days. So if you want utility rates to go down, you should be building more wind. The states that have the most wind are Texas, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Illinois. In Texas, they are providing 27% of the nation's wind. And if you want to be energy independent in Iowa, 63% of their total energy comes from wind. So these are just gifts to the fossil fuel industry. And I remember... during the campaign when Trump gathered a bunch of the fossil fuel executives at Marilago and said, raise a billion dollars and I'll do anything you want. And he's doing anything they want. And it's ironic that this is announced during one of the hottest summers on record. with wildfire smoke, and it's not just forests that are burning. You look at Spokane, Washington this week, entire neighborhoods. Hundreds of homes are burning, burning plastic siding and plastic building materials. And drought. Puerto Rico's run out of water. I don't know if you've been following this. Yes. State of emergency in Puerto Rico because of a lack of drinking water. May I just jump in real quick on that? There's a kind of a half and a half thing going on there. Half the island will go on. on the system and then and then it goes to the other half. I just, I was reading that last night and think to myself, how does that work? Not well. I mean, I was the federal regulator who had Puerto Rico and their drinking water system is really challenging in the best of circumstances. So the fact that they can turn the infrastructure on and off, it's very old. It's a. public utility called Prasa. It's not well run. When we were at EPA, we really struggled with drinking water oversight in Puerto Rico. And, you know, if you don't have drinking water, you can't live as a society. So drought, record heat, wildfires, and we're canceling wind projects. It doesn't make any sense. So go on. I interrupted you. Okay, all right. We should note that Senator Bill Cassidy is on the floor. He is speaking at this moment. And as soon as we understand as to what he is saying, then we will pass that on to you. We are going to take a break. We'll come right back. And we'll do that right after this. With order and...

are the sentinels, silent and sure, keeping watch in the night. Keeping watch in the night. You know your place in the sky. You hold your course and your aim, and each in your season returns and returns, and is always the same. And if you fall as Lucifer fell, you fall in flames. And so it must be, for so it is written. On the doorway to paradise, that those who falter and those who fall must per. may see him save behind bars.

Good morning. Welcome back to the Roundtable. Again, Norm Lewis, who is going to be in Williamstown, Massachusetts, tomorrow night on the campus of Williams College. You can find out tickets from the Berkshire Theater Group and berkshire Theatre Group.org for more information, and that is tomorrow night. And we thank you very much. for being with us this morning. We are still waiting for Bill Cassidy. He is speaking now, and there are a lot of words that give you an idea that it will either be a yes or a no. There's enough there to give you an idea that maybe it will be a yes or a no. So we're still waiting for this. Now he's quoting Bill Barr. That's a bad sign. Yeah, there was a lot of negative stuff in there. And then now, well, we'll see. There you go. So we have a radio show to do, so I won't take up your time and watch television while you're listening to the radio. So. Did anyone else want to mention anything on the Windsor? I do. Oh, good. This is something Judith and I have been saying for, I mean, almost 10 years, almost a decade at this point, which is that. So, yes, there's the... There are the climate effects, and I'm just going to move away from those and abstract from those. But the economic effects of these are substantial is that renewable energy is the growth industry for the 21st century. The country that can build an infrastructure based on renewables will be... the economic superpower of the 21st century and likely beyond. And right now that country is China. As far as it might be wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong. But in terms of China's like state sponsored subsidies and investment in big solar farms and whatnot. And what we have is rising electricity bills, rising food costs, rising energy bills. And now. the democratically elected government is paying companies to stop doing things that will lower your electricity bills. Let that sink in in terms of who our president and his administration is working for. And fewer jobs. Right. Oh, yes, right. And there's the employment effect, too, is that? Real quick to know that Bill Cassidy said that he will vote for Mr. Todd Blanche for attorney.

And the, again, I was just reading the close captioning, but the point that he seemed to be making is that he did not know, while he didn't think he was at all perfect for the job, he also didn't know what was going to come after and thinking that this would be better than perhaps who would be named next. But. That's a stretch. Well, yes. So there we go. We have that answer. Anyone else on... And then back to win. And then back to win. I actually see a lot of parallels between this issue and then the birthright citizenship that we're just talking about, which is this is a long-held, like Trump has not liked wind. energy for a long time he's spoken about it and he tried to stop these wind farms through other tactics stopped in the courts so now he's trying something new and once again he's surrounded by you know really you know loyalists who are nobody's i don't know if anyone's saying to him like this is a bad idea you shouldn't keep going after wind farms but it would not surprise me if if they're not um so i mean trump has said various things i mean about wind energy in particular. Amy, he said it's unreliable, it's inefficient, which is, as we talked about, it's gotten a lot cheaper. But also, he spends a lot of time just talking about the aesthetics of wind farms. You know, he says they're ugly. They ruin landscapes. They kill birds. They hurt tourism. They reduce property values. And, like, he's had these same arguments for, like, a long, long time. And I will just say that it is. I mean, it's kind of an obvious point. It's very unusual for our president's aesthetic preferences to become such a visible part of national energy policy. And the other thing I wanted to say is just it builds on things that both Judith and Aaron said. There was a, people may have heard this, an interview with Ezra Klein. He was interviewing Bill McKibben, well-known environmental writer and activist, of course. And what surprised me is that Bill McKibbin was actually pretty optimistic. Usually conversations about, you know, climate change and the world's environment are not optimistic. But he basically said, just as my co-panelists have, that renewable energy is basically become a good... business investment at this point. And so, I mean, Trump can make these decisions. It might slow down the adoption a little bit in the U.S., but it is happening worldwide. It's going to happen in the United States because it's not just about protecting the environment anymore. It's just a really good business decision. It's also a good national security decision for the U.S. and other countries, so they don't have to be dependent on oil coming through the Strait of Hormuz or, you know, or any kind of global. conflict that's going on. So it does. He made it seem like it's happening. We're moving towards renewables. And so I thought that was a optimistic take on all this. I was in Westford, just a personal anecdote. I went to visit my step cousins-in-law in West Virginia a couple weeks ago. And you drive through West Virginia and you just see these windmills on top of the mountains.

It changes your view of the landscape. But then you see mountains that have been strip mind. And, I mean, that's just a mar on the landscape. And, you know, you can hide them or, you know, whatever. And windmills jut out of the ground. But to your point about states that we're doing this, West Virginia is a small player just because it's a small state. But they have the advantage of altitude. And... You know, that just, again, from a very narrow economic point of view, ignoring the very real impact of climate change and what renewables can do for that, is that, you know, all of these unemployed coal miners, which was dangerous, dirty work, but culturally important to the state, that can be replaced with the modern equivalent, which is, you know, the... wind turbine maintenance, installation, repairs, and all of the downstream jobs that come with that. I mean, this is a net gain for, you know, states that are struggling with antiquated technologies and antiquated industries, some of which have been offshoreed, some of which are, you know, have been automated. There are enormous opportunities for federal subsidies to create jobs, to create middle class prosperity. That goes back to what a letter writer said of, well, what policies could we use to, or Democrats could run on, okay, subsidies for infrastructure investment in clean energy. Yeah, most of the federal subsidies go to fossil fuel extraction. and drilling and spilling on public lands. I mean, that's the other part of this, is so many public land resources are now open to fossil fuel development. I mean, the... If you were to look at the overall Trump energy policy, it's opposite day. They're doing everything wrong. And the states are getting bogged down in this. I mean, New York only has 3,000 megawatts of wind at 34 facilities. And when President Trump first threatened to cancel offshore wind in New York and Connecticut and New Jersey, the Connecticut and New Jersey AGs went right to court and won on the lease. But in New York, Governor Kathy Hochul cut a deal with the president trying to save offshore wind, but in exchange, reversing environmental permit decisions on fossil fuel power plants and pipelines. I mean, that was played terribly. And then in the state budget, she relaxed the requirements of the 2019 state climate loss. So the Trump... anti-environmental, anti-economic growth policies in the energy sector is trickling down to New York and other states.

We are out of time. My thanks to everyone for being with us this morning. A lot. Got a little news out of the day and talked about a lot of stuff. Breaking news that was coming as well. I thank all of you for being here. Aaron Pissiti, Earl Elder, Judah, thank. Thank you very much. Wonderful to have you here. Have a beautiful weekend. We'll continue with our third hour of the roundtable coming up next.