Loading summary
Transcript57 lines
- [00:07]
A
Welcome to Talking Feds. One on one deep dive discussions with national figures about the most fascinating and consequential issues defining our culture and shaping our lives. I'm your host, Harry Littman. We're often seized by the feeling that we are living in times of unprecedented danger to democracy and democratic rule. And, and yet opponents of that view, who I think are fewer and fewer point out that there's always been a bare knuckles aspect to politics and some very ruthless actors. I'm really pleased to welcome today one of the most brilliant critics of and participants in the working of the nation's politics in my lifetime, former Representative Barney Frank. Barney Frank's a legendary congressman from Massachusetts. He served in the house for 32 years from 1981 to 2013. He was the leader on a wide range of causes, especially in fighting discrimination. And he helped overhaul the US banking system after the 2008 crash with the Dodd Frank Act. We made history when he married his longtime partner and became the first sitting U.S. representative in a same sex marriage was. Since leaving politics, Frank has been a TV news contributor, a political columnist, a public speaker, and he's published a great memoir, A Life in Politics from the Great Society to Same Sex Marriage. All your constituents famously called you Barney before anyone was on a first name basis. So I hope I can do the same.
- [01:47]
B
Of course.
- [01:48]
A
All right, well, Barney, thank you. And let's start with the present day and the overall question of how Trump's tenure compares with those of his predecessors. You know, just the last few days he's talked about paying himself $230 million from the DOJ. He's got this generated video of himself pooping on US cities from a fighter jet. He had to withdraw a nominee because the official texted colleagues about his Nazi streak. These are the last couple days and they hardly count as scandals, but I think it's safe to say I wanted to start here that a decade ago they would have been bombshells for the younger listeners. What do you think used to pass for an outrage or a scandal when you were in Washington? And how has that changed in the current day?
- [02:42]
B
Well, I have a long term and a short term argument that one long term, and I have a book that it's going to be out next year, well before the election. And my argument is, frankly, I blame liberals, mainstream liberals, including say two presidents who I greatly admired in general, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, because for too long we kind of got scared out of dealing with inequality, the success of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher. So that scared liberals and we said okay, let's just grow. But we will not worry about inequality. Unfortunately, given changes in the economy, in the world and technology and trade, et cetera, beginning in the 80s of last century, inequality was growing rapidly. Finally, as a reaction to the crash of 2008, which you mentioned in your very generous introduction of me, the public reacted and they got very angry. And the mainstream still didn't see that and kept pushing for things that were exacerbating the disparity, particularly in the area of international trade, which is a good thing in that it helps overall with the economies, but has a negative aspect in that in developed economies, it causes an exacerbation of inequality. So the right answer is to go ahead with trade, but to compensate the people who lose it. What happened was that neither of our presidents, Obama or Clinton, was willing to take that chance. So anyway, that got people angry. I think we got better. The mainstream finally listened to some of us who were saying, look, you got a block, you got to deal with inequality. And under Biden, the Democrats began to deal with inequality. And the deal with the Biden legislative program was very good in that regard. Unfortunately, at that point, the most militants of the left on our side decided, okay, we won this fight. We're winning the fight on inequality. Now we have to take on these other issues of fairness. And they began an agenda addressing an agenda that pushed social change too far. In many cases, they attacked issues that should have been attacked, but in ways that neglected public opinion and I think further alienated people. So that's the long term that put a lot of Americans in a mood. They were so alienated from what was going on, the liberal Democratic ethos, that they became very tolerant. I cite in the book three political figures who are forerunners of this. Former Governor Huey Long of Louisiana, former Congressman Adam Clayton Powell of Harlem in New York, and the former mayor of Boston Days, Michael Curley. All three of them committed outrageous acts during their careers, but were rewarded by re election and power because the people they were appealing to felt so abused by the system that the fact that they were also abusing the system, if anything, helped them. And I think that's the thing. People are so angry that Trump as a symbol of rejection of these norms, was very strong. And then in the short term, and this is particularly extraordinary, the result of that was that people who vote in Republican primaries in particular, became so angry and saw Trump as such a symbol. Well, I'll tell you what's unprecedented in American history, the degree of control that Donald Trump has over the Republican Party. It's unparalleled. Let me give you two quick examples and I'll open up again. But in 1936, Frank and Roosevelt won an overwhelming victory for re election, the biggest in history up till then. One that's still one of the biggest. He carried every state but Maine and Vermont. The very next year, 1937 or right after his election, he tried to get conservative Democrats in Congress to vote with him and threatened and ran primary candidates against them in 1938 if they didn't behave the way he wanted them to. His campaigns were an utter failure. He lost all but one of his efforts. Contrast that to Donald Trump. If you have taken a stance against any significant part of Donald Trump's agenda, he's very like, and you're a member of Congress, House or Senate, Trump's likely to have driven you out. The greatest contrast I can think of in political terms is between Franklin Roosevelt's inability to to get party discipline in 1937, 38 and the complete allegiance of the Republican Party to Trump. So it's a two term result. It fit two factor things. First, the enormous anger among white working class, non college educated men in particular. And two, the extent to which Trump has understood that and as madam felt the embodiment of the opposition to that and won this total control.
- [08:42]
A
Wow. Quite a lot there and thank you. I have I guess a compound question follow up and maybe it's more like two questions. So the first is just to put a period or maybe exclamation point on it. So I think the suggestion you're making is that the growth of MAGA is actually generated by the inattention to inequality.
- [09:03]
B
Or Harry, let me answer that one. The first two words of my book are my effort to give you the plural of mea culpa. I said this book is an effort to undo the damage done ironically by people most opposed to populism.
- [09:20]
A
Yeah. And this was unfortunate use of terms when it leaked, politically speaking. But it sounds to me like the basic analysis of Hillary Clinton about the deplorables has some purchase here with.
- [09:34]
B
You cite that we are very much in sync. I cite that. Well as an example of that. What happened was, and she's an example of people who. There's been an argument and a lot of economists who are deeply attached to the free market system have rejected the notion or they finally had to give up on that, that inequality was an issue because they feared that the remedy of that would damage reverence for markets. And so what they argued was no, it's these social Prejudices. And you're exactly right. Hillary Clinton's condemnation of her opposition as the basket of deplorables reflected the view that, no, it wasn't economics, it was prejudice that generated it. My argument is that, no, it was economic at first. The problem with the president, the prejudice element kicked in when we were starting to deal with inequality and consequently our left felt free to go after other issues. And in general, they picked targets that should have been attacked, but not with the extremity and absolutism that they did. So it's a two step thing. And you're exactly right. Hillary, quote was an example of that.
- [10:55]
A
Well, and actually that leads to my second question because it strikes me that you've called these problems of fairness, but it's pretty striking. Just yesterday you have a nominee actually have to withdraw. A rare loss for Trump in confirming his picks because of these really, I mean, the kinds of racist and general prejudice comments, you know, you wouldn't think it feels to me one wouldn't have made in a group setting, you know, 10, 15 years ago. And just one of the big features of Trump has been they frame it in terms of policy opposition to dei, but really I think it laps pretty strongly into an open disdain toward diversity. African Americans, gay Americans, trans Americans.
- [11:45]
B
Oh, no question.
- [11:47]
A
And so, yeah, I wonder what you make of it that the pushback from what you've described as maybe an overly ambitious agenda on fairness has been, you know, our current straits in the country on these issues is pretty damn woeful and quite a backslide, don't you think?
- [12:06]
B
Well, here's the deal, I think, yes, but first, world Trump. I am now politically encouraged by Trump increasingly being out of control. In fact, in my book, I have a little box which I entitle Laughing over Spilt milk. And I address the moral dilemma. What do you do when someone you think is a terrible political leader does things that cause harm to the country and politically damages himself, but also damages the country? And my answer is morally. If you had the ability to stop him from doing those things, you would be obligated to do it. But where you try to stop him and can't you allow him to be happy that he did it? That is, you can take comfort from the fact that it's going to have a political backlash, which you believe.
- [13:09]
A
I mean, it almost sounds, I know you're very thoughtful about these things. I don't mean to be too pointy headed, but sounds kind of Hegelian. I mean, you think that this strong push on his side will see a contrary reaction.
- [13:23]
B
You know, I've never been able to get comfortable with Hagelman in. No, I don't think it's just, et cetera, hypothesis, et cetera. No, I think it's because it starts. They're independent movements. What happened was I think we had on our left and we have on our left, and I've been with the left on many of these issues. I was a critic of the inability to deal with inequality. I voted against nafta. I was against the trade agenda. I was against letting China into the World Trade Organization. So I agree with those like Bernie Sanders, who were critical of the absence of an addressing of inequality. On the other hand, what happened was when we finally won that battle, and the sign of that was when Hillary Clinton in 2016 had to abandon support for the Trans Pacific Trade Agreement. That was going in the wrong direction in terms of inequality. So by the late teens, Democrats were better on this issue. But the left, who I had been allied with the more militant left on the economic issue, then decided that this was an opportunity to push another agenda about race and identity and sexuality. And there they, as I said, I believe they went too far. So they, in effect, gave Trump some license to go further. Because they went further. I do now believe that Trump is getting so unrestrained and his obvious total focus on his own self interest and revenge, they're paying a price for that. So I think we're getting better, but we still have got that. The mainstream has got to do two things. Yes, we have to keep pressing, diminish economic inequality, but we have to also differentiate ourselves from both alienating things like defund the police or there's no such thing as men or women. Those go way too far. And here's the problem. The norm has been, well, you don't fight with each other. But the mainstream Democrats have been too reluctant to do or to have what, remember Bill Clinton and the sister soldier moment? Not enough. We're willing to say no, defund the police. That's crazy. In fact, even the minority groups want more police. So that's what my message now is. We have to fight that. But unfortunately, it gave Trump more political running room, because I was at a early subcommittee meeting on the Legal Services program in my first year in Congress, and a very wise, thoughtful, conservative Republican of the type we no longer are able to sustain in Congress. We were having a debate about something, and at one point he said his name was Taylor Caldwell. He said, well, I guess I've got to give up my crazies are worse than your crazies.
- [16:54]
A
Well, let me ask. So I want to move in that direction, especially because you've been thinking about it so much with the book. But before I do, you got to Congress in 1981 and feels to me as a, as a Democrat, that from around that time with Reagan and then with W, there's been a lot of sense of the sky is falling, etc. So it feels to. Well, who cares how it feels to me. Do you think that we are really staring down the end of the American experiment in a way that's just qualitatively different from anything we've experienced as a country over the last 45 years?
- [17:38]
B
I believe, frankly, you know, there's this nonsense about him running for a third term. I wish he would. I think we would beat him bad. I think he, and he understands that he's not a candidate. He's done very little to enhance his political standing. He's intensified his support, but he has, in my judgment, no way expanded it. I think he's diminishing it. I would have been afraid of that if the Democrats, the mainstream liberals, had remained indifferent to inequality. I think as long as we continue to fight economics and we're doing that now, what's the main Democratic issue right now, it's health care for low and low middle income people. That's exactly where we should be and we win on that argument. So if we accentuate that. But on the other hand, in the old song, eliminate the negative. If we can continue to press on economic fairness and at the same time differentiate the mainstream of the left from the extremism of no funding of the police and there's no such thing as men or women, then I think we win, we come back into power. I don't think permanent damage is being done with one thing that has made me, however, lately, a little more nervous. The most disappointing aspect of all these last few years is the Supreme Court, the cravenness of this majority and the acceptance of this extreme theory that the president does everything he wants and he can't restrain him. That could be damaging long term.
- [19:23]
A
I mean, I'll just say we're at the really apotheosis of that as you and I speak, Barney, because they've got this case up on their shadow docket where they could greenlight Trump to send out troops based on total fictions in the statute he's employing. And to me, I'm scared to death that he could use that emergency powers to make all kinds of mischief, especially with the election.
- [19:52]
B
All right. I agree with you up to the last sentence.
- [19:56]
A
Well, the last sentence here I'm scared ever to argue with you. I did it a little bit the first time we met and you cut my head off. But you know, there's a lot of little ways he can do it. We saw him try to do it illegally four years ago. But if he posts a National Guard at every precinct or grabs hold of data and then mischaracterizes it and the like, you know, there are concrete things in the battle plan of Project 2025 that do worry me.
- [20:26]
B
I agree. Although I say even this court, remember in 20 he tries, I don't know how many court cases to overturn elections.
- [20:36]
A
Right. Lost 60 or 61. Right.
- [20:38]
B
Yeah. And it's success rate was like half of 1%. And even with this current Supreme Court pretty much the same in numbers, he couldn't win any of those blatant efforts to overturn an election other than that. Yeah. I mean this court, it's a two step thing. First of all, they say he has the power to do anything he wants in certain conditions. And then they say, oh and by the way, he is the sole judge of, of whether or not we have achieved those conditions. So yes, they totally freed him up to do these things. But except blatantly overturn election. And again, here's the deal. So far this year we've had some special elections. They haven't done very well. Obviously we're going to know in a couple of weeks about New Jersey and Virginia. But yeah, I guess that's my difference. He will do a lot of harm. But I do not see even this supine Supreme Court. At least not anybody but Alito and Thomas letting him get away with blatant election rigging. And that's the lesson. In 2020 he was wildly unsuccessful even with the makeup of a court. Very like today in overturning elections from your mouth.
- [22:00]
A
And I'll just underscore that it's the second point that you've raised that I've had my eye on for a while and that is really teed up I think right now for the court. The idea that he's the one who.
- [22:11]
B
Gets to choose last point. And that is there's a backfire. Some of his efforts to rig the election have backfired. You put a National Guard person at every polling place and you increase the turnout from the left. And I felt very good. I participated Saturday up here in Ogunquin in a no Kings Day standout. And I think the opposition is ready. And no I don't think a National Guard symbolically is going to deter voters. I think it's going to incentivize them.
- [22:49]
A
I hear you. And again from your mouth. Okay. So much of the book is about a constructive look at what the Dems need to do because there is a lot of teeth gnashing these days about the Dems relative ineffectualness. You've talked to us, I think, about the general program in the book. Let me just ask you about current leadership. People are tepid about Schumer and Jefferies in the sort of state we're in. Would you like to see new leaders and if not, would you like to see dramatic change in their game plans.
- [23:27]
B
In the first place? I quote Chip o' Neill one day talking up on the lots of books out at the House. He didn't realize nobody in here didn't get more votes than anybody else in the last election. So this model that some people have, that this wise and benevolent public is somehow systemically misrepresented by this corrupt elected officials is ridiculous. In fact, no, I don't blame the leaders. Secondly, oh, the Democrats are an ineffective opposition. Name me the last time that the party out of power had a coherent message. There's nobody to give a coherent message. Of course there's not. That's different than England where you have an official opposition and you have a leader. So no, I don't know. I ask people what is it that you want Schumer and Jeffries to be doing that they're not doing and they don't get answers. There is this assumption, implicit assumption, there must be a better way. But tell me what it is. No, I think, in fact, given the unanimity of the Republicans, what's interesting is that, and it's again, this backfire effect the unanimity of the Republicans has produced over the last few years a Democratic Party that's much more unified than it's ever been in our history. So no, I think again people have to tell me what is it they want Schumer and Jeffries to be doing and who do they think can break down Dean methods? I think in fact what you have is a great degree of unity on the right message. Medical care, making medical care more affordable. You have a longer term turnaround time on housing, but I think this unity of the Democrats on economic fairness as shown by the health care issue is the right thing. I haven't seen what the alternative. I'm not interested in people telling me, oh, there must be a better way. I want to Know what is the better way? And if you can't tell me, then I guess every new one.
- [25:47]
A
Fair enough. And going over to the other side of the aisle, Barney, I mean, you could say the most pernicious or damaging aspect of the whole many months has been the complete supine quality of Republicans just laying down. Just yesterday, you know, Thune comes out and says, we're not gonna confirm your nominee. A teeny bit of daylight, but do you have any sense, you know, you've mentioned that Trump, and I think it's right, is more onto his own kind of agenda. What do you see happening, if anything, for the Republicans to, you know, put some daylight and begin to emerge as anything other than a, you know, complete set of, you know, sycophants to Trump?
- [26:36]
B
Depends on the voters. Once again, first of all, the sycophancy of the Republicans, I blame on the voters who vote in Republican primaries and the Republicans who don't vote in the primary. That is what caused this lack of any independence whatsoever. I mean, there's very little difference between the Chinese parliament and the Republicans in Congress literally in terms of reacting to leadership. I mean, that quite right. And that's because the voters will enforce that in China. It's less attractive way. But the second thing is this. This is the question for the voters in general, what happens in November this year? The answer to your question, I believe, is will there be daylight? It depends on how the Republicans who have been so obedient do in this election. If the Republicans retain control and very few Republican incumbents are defeated, then that will be that they will continue this way. If a lot of Republicans, more than usual incumbents are defeated, then you will see them break. The issue right now is a lot of Republicans know that some of his agenda is unpopular. But. But the Republicans are overwhelmingly more afraid of losing in a primary than losing in the general election. And until that fear becomes at least equalized, you will see this dominance by Trump.
- [28:11]
A
Yeah, so many, it's hard for us to appreciate, but so many are from states where whatever happens, they're not going to elect a Democratic center. So it really is his sort of secret power to just anoint some MAGA type to try to bring a disloyal Republican Democrat.
- [28:31]
B
If the Democrats win, if the Democrats were to win, you know, we have a great candidate, great Senator Sherrod Brown in Ohio. If the Democrats win in Maine, in North Carolina and Ohio and one or two other places, and the Democrats pick up 15 or 20 House seats and get a workable majority, that will that will. Well, there's a story they tell about France and Britain in the 18th century where the British execute a sailor for some trivial offense. And they say, well, why would they go to such an extreme for such a small offense? And the answer to the fence, which I forget was, well, it's to encourage the others. You make an example of one, if 15 or 20 Republicans lose who weren't expected to. Yeah, that'll, that'll give the rest some courage. I take it back. It won't give them courage. It'll make them start to be afraid of the final election. Look, there's always that tension between primaries and finals. I wouldn't be in Congress today if it didn't exist. I ran in 1982 in a redistricting that was aimed to hurt me, help my Republican opponents.
- [29:51]
A
Yeah, you were, you were elected in 81, so you're an incumbent here now.
- [29:54]
B
Yeah, yeah, I was elected in 80s, thrown together with another incumbent in 82. Everybody, including me, expected me to lose. But then Reagan came up with this extreme agenda. And my opponent, Margaret Heckler, knew that the Reagan agenda was unpopular in our district as a whole. But she also knew that if she didn't vote with him, she'd lose the primary. So she voted with him and I ran against his agenda and got reelected. So that's the mechanism the voters have got to first reward or they've got to put some fear into Republicans that they will lose general elections if they just are totally obedient to him. And as Ray said, until the fear of losing a general election among Republicans is at least as great as the fear of losing a primary.
- [30:48]
A
Yeah. Hey, this gives me a chance to drop a name that nobody will know but is beloved by you and me. So I'm happy to do it. Nick Fish helping out in 1982, the late great Nick Fish. Hey, you mentioned Barney, the Mikey Sherrill election and you know, the two governor's races coming up and you're, we're, you know, going to be following them. What do you see as the results? You know, do you see these as bellwethers or more or less each a one off? What, what, what's your sense of the national potential importance of these two races?
- [31:26]
B
As usual, the interpretation will be. They are important in themselves and the interpretation will make them even more important. By the way, want to chime in on Nick Fish? I worked with Nick's father, Hamfish. His father was one of the Republicans who voted to impeach Nixon. Ham Fish. He was a. He was One of the last of the Republican benches that served in Congress.
- [31:52]
A
And you mentioned Roosevelt, didn't you? I think in 1937 it was so and so, so and so. And Fish, Ham Fish's father, Nick Scott, grandfather, who was opposed to the progressive agenda.
- [32:03]
B
Right, Absolutely. Martin. Martin and Fisher.
- [32:08]
A
Exactly.
- [32:08]
B
Yeah. Much of the congressional seat I now hold was occupied by Joe Martin.
- [32:13]
A
There you go.
- [32:13]
B
Southeastern Massachusetts. The woman I beat in the final in 82 had beaten him in a primary in 66 because he was too old. That was a problem even then. But to go back on the question we were just talking about about the current situation, if the Democrats win both elections, it will be confirmation that we're doing well. Let me say if Democrats lose either election, that will be very good for Trump. I think the expectation is that the Democrats win both. Of course, New Jersey and Virginia in particular. This isn't a state where the harm Trump has inflicted on people has been really concentrated because of the number of federal employees who work in Northern Virginia. And if he can carry Virginia despite that and despite that weak candidate, we're in trouble. By the way, that explains also that it reinforces my view about our left. There's a Democrat who got nominated for attorney general who said terrible extremist things and is being supported for that and defended, and he hurts the whole Democratic ticket. He's an example of the irresponsible left wing enthusiasm that gets us in trouble. But I would say if the Democrats win both, that's confirmation and among other things, by the way, it allays your fear about him interfering with elections. You know, you don't want to lose to the two big elections of the year. If the Democrats can't win both of those, I will be very discouraged. Talking Feds is supported by the Brennan center for Justice. In this new political era, the Brennan center will do what they do, defend the Constitution and the rule of law. They're prepared to fight against presidential overreach and will continue advocating for reforms to resist weaponized government, stop billionaires from corrupting our elections and ensure every eligible American has the freedom to vote. Stay informed by visiting BrennanCenter.org let's move.
- [34:29]
A
To another cross cutting electoral issue that you because you just talked about Massachusetts, which is age. So right now in your state, Seth Moulton's challenging Senator Ed Markey, who turns 80 next year. Moulton's making his age a pretty big deal. And there are a lot of Democrats in the house over 75. I don't know how to compare it with past eras, but are The Dems just kind of long in the tooth and is it a sort of national problem?
- [34:59]
B
No, it's not any worse for the Democrats than the Republicans. You know, Mitch McConnell was clearly deteriorated.
- [35:08]
A
Right.
- [35:09]
B
You have Chuck Grassley. No, I, I think it's a. There is a yes, people should retire. I mean, the best thing I can say about that is that I retired two months before my 73rd birthday.
- [35:21]
A
Right.
- [35:22]
B
I didn't want to say. I don't said I wasn't going to stay past 75. And the way it worked out I went actually a couple years earlier, I'd say in general, it is a good idea for people to get out, although it's an individual situation. I was 70 when we did Dodge Frank and Chris was 66. If I'd gotten out, I was there 32 years. If I'd gotten out after 20 years, I don't know what would have happened. But age is a legitimate issue, but it shouldn't be the number. It should be examining the individual, how are they functioning? And there are currently people who are there. On the other hand, let me say I am giving an award in November on behalf of the parents and friends of legends engaged to Maxine Waters, who succeeded me as chair of the committee. Max is a year older than me and she's in great shape. People may have problem with her. I think she's great, but I wouldn't tell her to retire, even though I guess max is like 86 or 87. So it's an individual situation.
- [36:35]
A
Hey, Barney, people mainly associate you, I think, who know just a little with your stances on civil liberties. But you've been, you were really sage and, you know, central figure on economics. Dodd Frank act being the best example. I just did want to serve up. We've covered it sporadically over the course of this discussion. But what do you make of, well, Trump's economic moves? The end runs around Congress, the tariffs, the undermining of the Fed in particular and wanting to strip it of independence. And then, you know, your sense of, to the extent as a minority party they've been able to advance it. Whether the Dems are contrasting themselves well and adequately on economic policy.
- [37:26]
B
Yes. And I think redistribution, higher taxes, I wish that had more support from the public. It drives me crazy that people are against the inheritance tax, which is the most progressive thing that we have and affects only a few very rich people. On the other end, I think he's finally now focused on the Democrats versus the Republicans, on restoring the subsidies for health care that Joe Biden led to be included. And by the way, you notice the Republicans on this, they aren't arguing it substantively. They're not saying that the subsidies should stay away. They're now arguing, well, don't mix that up with opening the with hope, wanting the government. So, yeah, I think this focus on health care is excellent. I do have one great regret. My greatest regret, my greatest disappointment with my fellow Democrats was for years I was trying to get more money into building affordable housing. And we've finally gotten recognition of that and that's encouraging. Going forward, I think we'll be in good shape. But we've had a big deficit and affordable housing go forward. But I think this focus on economic unfairness as it manifests itself in health care is a very good issue substantively and politically. And we are clearly, we've latched onto that in a good way.
- [38:57]
A
I'm out here in California and affordable housing is man, it's everything. You know, we're almost out of time. It's been a really delightful conversation. Thank you so much. I did want to just serve up to you a we should have such problems kind of question. But let's say that your possible rosy outlook of 15, 20 seats in the House and a few Senate seats breaking right happens and the Democrats retake Congress or lease the House. What would you say is the first thing they need to do?
- [39:32]
B
I say this in my book. I would raise taxes on people with individual income over $300,000 by whatever level you would need to reduce the Medicare eligibility age to 60. I think health care continues to be a terrible problem, especially you have the people, non college educated people who've been working and you know, we've seen a shift away with the demise of unions, et cetera, from good retirement benefits. I think reducing the medical age, the Medicare eligibility age to 60 would have an enormous positive social effect, economic effect. By the way, it would help private insurance. When you move down to 60, you give healthier people in Medicare and take sick of people out of the private insurance situation. But that would be the number one thing. My number two would be to put some federal money back into the construction of housing. And that won't pay off as quickly, but it will within a couple years.
- [40:45]
A
Barney Frank, thank you so much. We've mentioned the book a few times. Can you tell us the title, the expected publication date and the like and when we can all and where we can all find find it?
- [40:55]
B
Well, it's going to be published next year. The title is basically what the Left Did Wrong and how to fix it.
- [41:02]
A
Okay, and do we know when you know? Early in the year, later in the year? I know these are vagaries that are hard to control.
- [41:10]
B
Yeah, and if it's glad it's my fault. I've had some health issues, but I console myself with noting that most people my age are dead, so I don't feel all that unfairly treated.
- [41:24]
A
We wish you Maxine Waters longevity and then some, and we'll all be looking for the book. Hopefully when it comes out, maybe you can come back and we can talk about it. Thank you so much for being here today.
- [41:37]
B
It's a good session. I appreciate it. Thank you.
- [41:42]
A
Thank you for tuning in to One on One, a weekly conversation series from Talking From Feds. If you like what you've heard, please tell a friend to subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts or wherever they get their podcasts. And please take a moment to rate and review the show. You can also subscribe to us on YouTube, where we are posting full episodes and daily updates on Top legal stories. Check us out on substack harrylitman.substack.com where we're posting two or three bulletins a week breaking down the various threats to constitutional norms and the rule of law. And Talking Feds has joined forces with the Contrarian. I'm a founding contributor to this new media venture, committed to reviving the diversity of opinion that feels increasingly rare in today's news landscape, where legacy media seems to be tacking toward Trump for business reasons rather than editorial ones. Rest assured, we're still the same scrappy independent podcast you've come to know and trust just now, linked up with an ambitious and vital project designed for this pivotal moment in our nation's legal and political discourse. Find out more@contrarian.substack.com thanks for tuning in. And don't worry, as long as you need answers, the Feds will keep talking. Talking Feds is produced by Luke Cregan and Katie Upshaw, associate producer Becca Haveian, sound Engineering by Matt McCardell, Rosie Don Griffin, David Lieberman, Hansa Mahadranathan, Emma Maynard and Hallie Necker are our contributing writers. Production assistants by Akshaj Turbailu and Sebastian Navarro. Our music, as ever, is by the amazing Philip Glass. Talking Feds is a production of Deledo llc. I'm Harry Littman. Talk to you later.