Loading summary
Transcript23 lines
- [00:00]
Podcast Advertiser
The to do list doesn't stop, and neither does the pressure to keep up with it if you've been running on fumes. Growtherapy makes it easier to find care that's covered by insurance and actually built around you. Whether it's your first time in therapy or your 50th. Grow makes it easier to find a therapist who fits you, not the other way around. You can search by what matters like insurance, specialty, identity or availability and get started in as little as two days. And if something comes up, you can Cancel up to 24 hours in advance at no cost. Grow Grow helps you find therapy on your time. Whatever challenges you're facing, Grow Therapy is here to help. Grow accepts over 100 insurance plans. Sessions average about $21 with insurance and some pay as little as $0 depending on their plan. Visit growtherapy.com acast today to get started. That's growtherapy.com acast growtherapy.com acast availability and coverage vary by state and insurance plan.
- [01:02]
Progressive Insurance Advertiser
You're listening to this podcast, so I know you've got a curious mind. Here's a helpful fact you might not know yet. Drivers who switch and save with Progressive save over $900 on average. Pop over to progressive.com, answer some questions and you'll get a quick quote with discounts that are easy to come by. In fact, 99% of their auto customers earn at least one discount. Visit progressive.com and see if you can enjoy a little cash back. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates national average 12 month savings by $946 by new customers surveyed who saved with Progressive between June 2024 and May 2025. Potential savings will vary.
- [01:39]
Podcast Advertiser
48 million people in the United States are adolescents between the ages of 14 and 24. They're working, parenting, leading, sometimes all at once.
- [01:50]
Will Kaback
I'm balancing work and being a mom at the same time, and I'm still on track to graduate with my Bachelor's next year.
- [01:58]
Podcast Advertiser
So what do today's young people need to truly thrive? Tune in to good things from Lemonada Media to hear the six part Thrive series. From executive producer Isaac Saul.
- [02:16]
Isaac Saul
This is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, good afternoon and good evening and welcome to the Dangle Podcast, a place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host Isaac Sul, and on today's episode we're going to be talking about the Virginia State Supreme Court's ruling they threw out a Democratic gerrymander last week. We're going to talk about the national implications, the ruling itself, share some views from the left and the right, and then of course, my take on We've also got a staff concurrence and a staff dissent today, so you're gonna hear from Ari and Audrey as well. Before we jump in though, I wanna give you a quick reminder that on Friday I did a big kind of mega response piece. We got a lot of email comments, social media attention for my piece on President Donald Trump's alleged corruption and self dealing. Some of what I've been observing since he came into office and I tried to address it all head on. So I did a huge newsletter and podcast on Friday where I quoted and responded to a lot of the feedback that we got. I think it came out pretty good. It's an interesting show for sure and I encourage you to go back just a little bit in your episode feed to check it out if you're interested. All right. With that, I am going to pass it over to Will K back who's hosting the pod today and I'll be back for my take.
- [03:59]
Will Kaback
Thanks, Isaac. All right, let's get into today's quick hits. Number one, President Donald Trump rejected Iran's response to a U.S. proposal to end the war between the countries, calling it, quote, totally unacceptable. Number two, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention activated its Level 3 response, the agency's lowest level of emergency activation, following the hantavirus outbreak on a cruise ship during a level three response. CDC experts on the virus lead the effort to monitor the outbreak with their staff and potential assistance from the Emergency activation center. Number three, the Labor Department announced that the US economy added 115,000 jobs in April, while the unemployment rate remained at 4.3%. The monthly jobs total was lower than March's but higher than the 55,000 jobs predicted by analysts polled by the Wall Street Journal. Number four, Russian President Vladimir Putin told reporters he thinks the Ukraine war is coming to an end, adding that he was open to discussing new security deals for Europe. The comments followed Russia's annual Victory Day parade celebrating the Soviet Union's victory over Nazi Germany, which was scaled back this year. And finally, number five, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in an interview that he wants to, quote, draw down to zero US financial support over the next 10 years. We have some breaking news in the nationwide redistricting battle. The Virginia Supreme Court just struck down a voter approved Democratic congressional redistricting plan in that state. It's a big setback for the party
- [05:47]
Ari Weitzman
that's looking to try to get an
- [05:48]
Will Kaback
edge in this year's midterm elections. So President Donald Trump quick to weigh in, plant the flag on this one True Social post calling it a huge win for the Republican Party and America in Virginia On Friday, the Supreme Court of Virginia struck down a redistricting measure recently passed by voters that would have allowed the legislature to adopt a new congressional map designed to give Virginia Democrats a 10 to 1 advantage in the U.S. house. In a 4:3 decision, the court found that the process of putting the measure on the ballot violated the state constitution, affirming a county judge's earlier ruling. The decision will keep the current map, under which Democrats have a 6 to 5 advantage, in place for the 2026 midterms, though state Democrats said they will appeal to the U.S. supreme Court. On April 21, Virginians voted 51.5% to 48.5% to approve a constitutional amendment creating a one time exception to the state's redistricting system to allow it to redraw its congressional map. The new map would have been in place for the 2026 and 2028 elections, but the amendment stipulated that the state would revert to its standard process of redistricting via a bipartisan commission and court review at the start of the2030s. In the Supreme Court of Virginia's ruling, the majority wrote that the amendment violated Article 12, Section 1 of the state constitution, which requires the state's General assembly to quote, twice vote in favor of a proposed amendment at two separate legislative sessions with an intervening election of the House of Deleg Delegates, end quote. In this case, the General assembly first voted to propose the amendment on October 31, 2025, roughly five weeks after early voting had begun for Virginia's House of Delegates election. Therefore, the Court held the amendment did not meet the quote intervening general election requirement as roughly 1.3 million voters had cast their ballots. Without having an opportunity to evaluate lawmakers stance on the amendment. The dissenting justices argued that the state constitution defines an election as a single day Election Day, and since the General assembly voted to propose the redistricting amendment before that day, Article 12, Section 1 was not violated. After the ruling on Friday, House Speaker Don Scott and Attorney General Jay Jones, both Democrats, filed a motion asking the state Supreme Court to pause implementation of its ruling while they appealed to the US Supreme Court. If Democrats appeal fails, the party would be positioned to only gain up to six House seats in the midterms from mid cycle redistricting in California and a state court ruling in Utah. Republicans could gain up to 14 seats from mid cycle redistricting in six states, most recently Florida and Tennessee. Today we'll share views from the left and right on the ruling. Then Executive editor Isaac Saul gives his take. Foreign.
- [08:51]
Isaac Saul
We'll be right back after this quick break. When people talk about energy, recovery and performance, what do they usually overlook? The truth is, it's fiber. Most people think fiber is just about staying regular, but fiber actually plays a major role in energy, stability, recovery, focus and overall performance. Once you understand how gut health works, Momentous Fiber plus stops feeling like just another supplement and starts feeling foundational As a lifelong athlete, I'm always looking for the edge and the kinds of supplements that can really make me feel better in my body. And I have to say I feel like I found it with Momentous. Whether I'm using their creatine chews or their Momentous Fiber Plus, I have to say I just feel a lot better. I don't usually advertise supplements, but these are some of the best in the industry used by professional athletes and of course, people like me who are just trying to stay fit and feel good. Right now, Momentous is offering our listeners up to 35% of your first order with promo code TANGLE. Head to livemomentous.com and use the promo code TANGLE for up to 35% off your first order. That's livemomentous.com promo code TANGLE One of the biggest sighs of relief I had recently was when I finally got life insurance. With a newborn son at home and my wife who I want to make sure is taken care of forever no matter what happens to me, getting life insurance was just one of those things that took a big weight off my shoulders. Ethos makes getting life insurance fast and easy 100% online. You can get a quote in seconds, apply in minutes and get same day coverage. There's no medical exam, you just answer a few simple health questions. You can get up to $3 million in coverage and some policies are as low as $30 a month and you'll get your lowest rate from their network of trusted carriers. Ethos has 4.8 out of 5 stars on Trustpilot with over 4000 reviews. So take 10 minutes to get covered today with life insurance through Ethos. Get your free quote@ethos.com Tangle that's Ethos E-T-H O S.com Tangle. Application times may vary and rates may vary.
- [11:06]
Will Kaback
Here's what the left is saying. The left strongly opposes the ruling, arguing the amendment process didn't violate Virginia's constitution Some say the majority's rationale fails under scrutiny. Others call on Democrats to fight the decision. In Vox, Ian Millhiser described the glaring error in the Virginia Supreme Court's gerrymandering decision. In essence, the majority argues that Virginia voters who are opposed to the amendment were disenfranchised because they were denied an opportunity to vote for lawmakers who oppose it in the 2025 state legislative elections. But there's a pretty glaring problem with this disenfranchisement argument. The amendment was submitted to the voters in a referendum. Virginia voters were in fact given an opportunity to cast an up or down vote on the redistricting amendment, and a majority of them voted to approve it. If Virginia's constitution called for a simpler amendments process where two subsequent votes of the state legislature were alone sufficient to amend the Constitution, then the majority's argument would make more sense. In that case, the election held between those two legislature votes would be state voters only opportunity to weigh in on the amendment. But under Virginia's actual constitution, voters are given a direct opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment. So it makes no sense to say they were denied an opportunity to express their view on the amendment by the timing of a legislative vote. In above the Law, Joe Patrice wrote, Republicans spend 30 pages trying to explain why election doesn't mean election. Mere days after the United States Supreme Court declared that the Voting Rights act cannot be invoked to bar racially discriminatory gerrymandering as long as state legislators make a halfway plausible claim that the new districts were drawn for purely political purposes, the Virginia Supreme Court overturned a statewide election to approve purely political maps. Tennessee, Alabama, South Carolina, all actively redrawing their maps behind closed doors to strip black voters of meaningful suffrage. Virginia sent their maps to the electorate, and after it passed, the state Supreme Court scrambled to rewrite the rules to erase the whole election. Virginia's robed GOP activists embraced the opposite day role, jettisoning several years worth of Republican messaging that early voting is fake and elections mean election day to pronounce with a smirk that as soon as early voting begins, nothing a legislature does can be before the election. The majority grasps at historical hearsay that the purpose of the rule is to allow voters to make a single issue vote for their next representative based on the possibility of a ballot measure. In the New York Times, Jamelle Bouie argued, democrats who are soft on Republicans have got to go. Key Virginia Democrats quickly acquiesced to the decision. Don Scott, the Speaker of the House of Delegates, said, quote, we respect the decision of the Supreme Court, while governor Abigail Spanberger said she was, quote, disappointed but didn't challenge the ruling or the court's authority. This is a mistake to start. The ruling is absurd. The effect of this new definition of election would be to vastly complicate the state's judicial system, as the constitution forbids courts from pulling voters into the judicial process during the time of holding any election at which he is entitled to vote. There's also the fact that the court had a chance to halt the process earlier this year. It didn't. To then invalidate the referendum when it won is to suggest that the law here was less important than the politics, but more than the absurdity of the ruling is the basic principle. The referendum wasn't just an election. It was the people of Virginia exercising their right to amend their constitution as they see fit. On what basis can the state supreme Court, a creature of that constitution, invalidate a sovereign decision of the whole people? The correct response is to fight back in the name of the people who made their choice in a free and fair contest. Now here's what the right is saying. The right supports the court's ruling, saying Democrats gambled on a flawed process and lost. Some framed the decision as a win for constitutional law. Others warned that Democrats could respond by embracing more radical proposals. The Washington Post editorial board argued the court was right to strike down the unconstitutional gerrymander. Friday's 4:3 decision may be technical and procedural, but the reasoning is solid. The Virginia Constitution includes clear requirements for any amendments which were intended to make changes difficult. The justices concluded that the constitutional requirement wasn't met because the state's General assembly voted for the first time on October 31, four days before election Day to put the constitutional amendment to voters. By that time, more than 1.3 million people had already cast ballots, about 40% of the total vote. The election was well underway. Prominent Virginia Democrats reacted disingenuously to the high court's ruling by focusing on its timing. Attorney General Jay Jones complained that the decision overturns election results and, quote, silences the voices of millions of Virginians who cast their ballots. Jones is the one who insisted that the court wait until after the election to judge the merits of the challenge. He believed a usually friendly court wouldn't dare defy his party's interests, and the case would be moot anyway if the measure failed. The result of Jones imprudent legal strategy is that national Democratic groups wasted $64 million to narrowly pass a referendum that the court was going to strike down all along in the Daily Wire, Ken Cuccinelli wrote, Virginia's Constitution held and Democrats power grab failed Democrats scheme was as cynical as it was procedurally reckless. During a disputed special session, they rammed through a proposed constitutional amendment on a party line vote, one that would temporarily suspend the bipartisan redistricting commission and let the General assembly redraw congressional districts to their liking. The court rejected the commonwealth's tortured argument that election means only Election day, a single 24 hour period, rather than the entire 45 days of voting that Virginia allows, also thanks to the Democrats. So where does this leave Virginia? The court's 2021 nonpartisan maps, the ones that earned an A from independent analysts, remain in full effect for the 2026 congressional elections. Virginia will continue to have a six to five congressional delegation split, with the districts drawn fairly and without a partisan thumb on the scale. Today's ruling is a reminder that constitutions matter, that process matters, and that no political party, no matter how large its legislative majority or campaign war chest, is above the law. In the New York Post, Jonathan Turley said Virginia's gerrymander flop leaves Democrats frustrated and dangerous Democrats are facing a potentially catastrophic reversal of fortune. Once Virginia Governor Spanberger sought to eradicate Republican representation, total war broke out, and now red states like Florida and Tennessee have moved forward with their own redistricting. On top of the fact that GOP states have more room for partisan gerrymandering, the Virginia Supreme Court decision comes on the heels of the U.S. supreme Court's ban on racial gerrymandering. To make matters worse for the Democratic Party, a new census in 2030 will correct the mistakes that erroneously awarded them multiple districts after the 2020 census. That prospect of a political apocalypse has Democratic strategists pushing for radical changes in Washington before it's too late. Top priority? Packing the Supreme Court as soon as they retake power. As Virginia has shown, an independent court can unravel the best laid plans. Last week, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries declared the Supreme Court illegitimate as he blasted its ban on racial gerrymandering. After the Virginia court's ruling, the frustrated Democratic establishment is ever more likely to echo him and to go beyond all right, that is it for what the left and right are saying now. I'm going to pass it back over to Isaac for his take. Isaac, over to you.
- [19:47]
Isaac Saul
All right, that is it for what the left and the right are saying. Which brings us to my take. I've written and spoken a lot about gerrymandering in the last few months, and it's Fair to say, I feel quite conflicted. I have a visceral, intense loathing for all manner of gerrymandering across the country, a process that allows politicians to pick their voters rather than the other way around. I blame President Donald Trump for opening up a new front in this war through mid decade redistricting and then escalating it further by forcing state leaders to play ball or face the consequences. And as I look for an off ramp, I'm left thinking that the only way any of this ends is if the gerrymandering gets so bad both sides realize it's in their best interest to back off. In Virginia specifically, that means I'm in the uncomfortable position of rooting for gerrymandering and as a response to previous gerrymandering, to create an even national map. This ruling then leaves me deeply conflicted. It is an obvious electoral victory for Republicans and it's bad news for Democrats. Yet it's also a good outcome for democracy and a bad outcome for my long term hope, which is that both parties see clearly that gerrymandering is a bottomless pit and start to back away. For Republicans, the electoral victory is clear. Democrats tried to gerrymander a purple state from a 65 congressional makeup to 10 to 1 in their favor, and the Court's rejection of the ballot measure to create that map gives Republicans either an edge or a shot at winning at least four competitive House seats they otherwise would have been very likely to lose. Paired with new maps in Florida and Tennessee, the last few weeks have very much tilted the gerrymander wars in Republicans favorite. I had been hoping for a draw, and while that looked likely a week ago, it's ancient history now. Barring another dramatic twist in this saga, the President's plan is working. The Court's decision is obviously a bad outcome for Democrats, not just because of the national map advantage Republicans just fell into, but also because Democrats sunk a lot of time, effort, money and political capital into trying to get their amendment through. It looks like they aren't giving up either. Some members of the party are now considering a truly radical plan to lower the age limit for state Supreme Court justices, remove every justice currently on the court, replace them, and retry the map. That would mean dumping more money, more time, and more political capital into an environment to disenfranchise their own voters with the added spice of breaking every norm along the way. As for democracy, this is still a good outcome for Virginia. Gerrymandering is a Scourge and a 10 to 1 map in a purple state is a genuine absurdity. The court's reasoning for striking down the map was technical and understandable to me. It was also almost beside the point. As Ian Millhiser wrote under what the Left is saying, both sides had textual evidence in their corner, so the court could have justifiably ruled either way. It seems to me the court applied the technical rule the way it was supposed to here specifically for this kind of moment. Yet the rule itself feels almost unworkable. Are we really saying we don't want voters to have any fast moving power, even referenda, as a tool on their belt? Ultimately, Democrats tried to rush this through, effectively deny millions of Republicans competitive elections, violate a 2020 voter led effort to ensure independent map making, and they failed. Plenty of people suspected they might fail too, yet they barreled ahead anyway. A court checking that kind of indulgence means other state parties should think twice about sinking tens of millions of dollars into efforts to undermine our representational democracy. Yes, this ruling helped a national party that is currently gallivanting across the country gerrymandering. And yes, unlike other gerrymanders, voters approve Virginia's measure in a very narrow statewide referendum. But it was still a play to rob voters of fair representation. Even acknowledging the will of the majority of Virginia voters, gerrymandering is still a cancer on democracy. In that sense, I'm glad this effort failed. Writers like Jamelle Bouie under what the Left Is Saying criticize Democrats for acquiescing to a state Supreme Court ruling. Sorry, but no. If the left wants to criticize Trump and Republicans for attacking or ignoring the courts, they shouldn't publicly bemoan that Democrats aren't doing the same thing anytime they get a really big ruling they don't like. Booie also complained that the court didn't stop all this earlier, yet it was Democrats who insisted the court wait until after the referendum election to rule on the legal challenge. And finally, this is a terrible outcome in the effort to make President Trump pay for his mid decade redistricting push. As I wrote in my deep dive on gerrymandering back in 2022, while both sides gerrymander, the practice more produces advantages for Republicans. If Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina redraw their maps, which they likely will, Democrats will have to win the combined national popular vote by roughly 4 points in the midterms just to flip the House of Representatives. To be clear, Trump did not invent gerrymandering and he isn't the root cause of it. But right now we are in the midst of one of the most egregious, unjustifiable, extralegal gerrymandering binges in American history. And Trump started it. He launched this war with pure cynicism, and for a moment it looked like it was all going to blow up in his face. Now it looks like it may actually work out for him the way he wanted it to. To call this frustrating or upsetting is an understatement. The Supreme Court has effectively said that it can't do anything about partisan gerrymandering, only that it would overturn racial gerrymandering, even though it's often impossible to tell one from the other. This means our only hope under the current circumstances is that state level politicians do the right thing. Yet when Indiana Republicans stood up to Trump and refused to gerrymander, they ended up being ousted by their own national party's money and attacks. I'm not rooting for Democrats to get an electoral advantage, but I was hoping that Democrats response would be successful enough that President Trump might back down. Yet in their effort to punch the proverbial bully in the mouth, Democrats had to undo the progress of independent commissions in California and Virginia. Virginia. Which led to one of their maps being thrown out. Meanwhile, the new Florida map Republicans just drew is an obvious violation of the state's anti gerrymandering law. Now it's Florida's turn. Will its state Supreme Court do the right thing? Six of the seven justices were appointed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who approved the map. So I'm skeptical. The result is that both sides wade deeper and deeper into this grotesque practice wherein one side seemingly always ends up getting an advantage, and our state and local level representation only matters as a rubber stamp for national political interests. Our national and presidential races swallow up everything, and the legitimacy of the entire system that is supposed to make our country so special is strained further and further. All the while, a president who has shown a reckless disregard for the law, the courts and the decorum of our system ends up winning or forces his opponents to meet him in the mud, just to degrade everything even more. I wish I had some good news, but I really don't. A few weeks ago, our best case scenario was that millions of voters in California, Texas and Virginia would have their voting power diluted and that both parties would back off. Now we're going to bowl ahead on this unrighteous path with no end in sight. All right, that is it for my take. I'm going to pass it to Ari for staff concurrence and then Audrey Moorhead for staff dissent.
- [27:42]
Ari Weitzman
Thanks, Isaac. I'm going to read my concurrence to what Isaac wrote today, and then I'm going to read our associate editor Audrey Moorhead's staff dissent. Since she's traveling, I'm going to fill in for her today. First, my concurrence. I agree with Isaac that both sides arguing before the Supreme Court of Virginia had valid arguments that could have won, and I want to explore that further. The entire case hinges on the Virginia Constitution's stipulation that a voter referendum on a constitutional amendment has to come after a legislative session, and it all boils down to whether a session ending four days before Election Day counts as preceding the election. A partisan on either side will be backed into a contradiction one way or the other. Either an election is defined as Election Day, presenting a problem for Democrats arguing that ballots that arrive after that day still count for that election, or mail in votes are a legitimate aspect of an election, which would present a problem for Republicans suspicious of mail in votes. How does one resolve this apparent dilemma? Personally, I try to separate out the distinct issues at play. First, at the Virginia level, voters who wanted to see how the legislative session proceeded before casting their votes weren't deprived of that opportunity simply because early voting was meaning definitional issues. Aside about what is or isn't the election, I disagree with the practical element of the state Supreme Court's decision. Second, at the national level, the temporal parameters that define the election are in dire need of definition. I wouldn't be at all surprised that the Supreme Court believes it is their place to step in and provide those parameters, either by hearing a challenge to this decision or or by issuing a broad ruling in the upcoming decision in Watson v. Republican National Committee. Now for Audrey's dissent. I disagree with Isaac's position that successful gerrymandering in Virginia could solve the problem of national gerrymandering rather than worsen it. Partisan gerrymandering is so pernicious and so wrong because it asked state voters to bear the burdens of the national party's woes when the system should be the other way around. State level interests should be fairly represented at the national level. As such, allowing Virginia's gerrymandering to go through would not have solved a larger problem. Also, hoping the current cycle would stop with Virginia fails to recognize that it could have stopped with Texas and California. But now, because Virginia acted and its proposed map was so egregious, the cycle continues on in Florida. Arguing gerrymandering was okay in Virginia means believing it could be okay in Florida too. Really. Gerrymandering is wrong in every scenario.
- [30:42]
Isaac Saul
We'll be right back after this quick break. Missed calls and slow follow ups are silent killers. That's how businesses leave money on the table without even realizing it. And that's why today's episode is brought to you by Quo, spelled Q U O. That's the business communication system built so you never miss a call. With Quo, your entire team can handle calls and texts from one shared number so you don't miss messages or drop conversations. Everyone sees the full thread, replies are faster and customers actually feel taken care of. Quo has become the number one rated business phone system on G2 with over 3000 reviews built for how modern teams work, and more than 90,000 businesses, from solo operators to growing teams, rely on it to stay connected, professional and consistently reachable. Money is on the line. Always say hello with Quo. Try Quo for free plus get 20% off your first six months when you go to Quo.com, that's Q-U-O.com Tangle that's Quo.com Tangle.
- [31:53]
Progressive Insurance Advertiser
You're listening to this podcast, so I know you've got a curious mind. Here's a helpful fact you might not know yet. Drivers who switch and save with Progressive save over $900 on average. Pop over to progressive.com, answer some questions and you'll get a quick quote with discounts that are easy to come by. In fact, 99% of their auto customers earn at least one discount. Visit progressive.com and see if you can enjoy a little cash back. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates national average 12 month savings by $946 by new customers surveyed who saved with Progressive between June 2024 and May 2025. Potential savings will vary.
- [32:37]
Isaac Saul
All right, that is it for my take in our concurrence and dissent today. Which brings us to your questions answered. This one's from Lauren in London, England. Lauren said how much truth is there to the argument that European social safety nets are propped up by American military spending? All right, well, first of all, people from across the political spectrum have criticized countries for being free riders, including former President Obama and President Trump. If those two agree on something, we should probably look into it. The US Is in fact providing a huge chunk of military funding to protect other European countries. When it comes to NATO defense spending. That is money going toward defense, specifically for NATO allies, which are largely in Europe. The U.S. has no competition. It spent $980 billion in 2025, accounting for 62% of NATO's defense spending the next two highest spenders were Germany and the United Kingdom had roughly 94 and $91 billion, respectively. The US devotes more money to NATO defense, and it's not close. Although this could be in flux, the effect of that spending is a little more complicated. We don't have a way to track a direct link between more US defense spending and more European social services, But a look at each country's social spending can tell us whether there is a large difference between countries that could potentially be downstream from spending less on defense than the United States. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD, in 2021, the total of government provided social expenditures for those three highest NATO defense spenders was 22% for the UK, 27.2% for Germany, and 23.2% for the US, so all roughly similar. Not every country is like the UK or Germany. Ireland's net public spending is 12.5% and France's is 28.6%. But overall, most of the European countries social spending falls within 5% of the UK's and Germany. So overall, while the United States undoubtedly puts a lot toward defense that benefits European countries, the evidence doesn't strongly show that the spending props up sprawling safety nets. All right, that is it for your questions answered. I'm going to send it back to Will for the rest of the POD and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace.
- [35:03]
Will Kaback
Thanks, Ari. All right, here's today's under the radar story. According to preliminary data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Affordable Care act enrollment for 2026 decreased to approximately 23 million, roughly 1 million fewer enrollees from the year prior. A separate analysis by the consulting firm Oliver Wyman found that enrollment in healthcare.gov dropped by approximately 8% from 2025, while enrollment in state based exchanges increased 2%. The drop follows the end of the COVID era enhanced ACA credits, which Democrats unsuccessfully sought to extend last year during a 43 day government shutdown, experts and state officials suggested the enrollment decline will continue through 2026 and beyond. The Hill has this story and we'll put a link to it in the show notes. And finally, here's today's have a nice day story. A retired chicken farmer in Australia gathered rocks from a nearby quarry for a garden wall and unknowingly mortared a 240-million year old fossil into it. Researchers from UNSW, Sydney and the Australian Museum have now formally identified the specimen as Arenarepton supinatus, a four foot long salamander like river predator from the Triassic period. The fossil was remarkable, remarkably well preserved with faint traces of skin still present in the stone. We don't often find skeletons with the head and body still attached and the soft tissue preservation is an even rarer occurrence, said PhD candidate Lachlan Hart. Scientists say the fossil is one of the most significant finds in the state in decades. Science Daily has the story and again we'll put the link to it in today's show. Notes we will be back with you tomorrow and until then have a great day and night. Peace.
- [37:02]
Isaac Saul
Our Executive Editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul and our Executive Producer is John Wall. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman with Senior Editor Will Kaback and Associate Editors Audrey Moorhead, Lindsey Knuth and Bailey Saul. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. To win more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website@retangle.com.
- [37:41]
Podcast Advertiser
MARKETERS you know that feeling when your creative clicks, when that social post sends engagement through the roof, when your outside of the box campaign hits ROI positive. When a personalized homepage turns prospects into customers, it's utter marketing bliss. Contentful helps you create tailored omnichannel experiences without working overtime. No stress, no limits, only possibilities. Get the feels@contentful.com youm're listening to this
- [38:09]
Progressive Insurance Advertiser
podcast, so I know you've got a curious mind. Here's a helpful fact you might not know yet. Drivers who switch and save with Progressive save over $900 on average. Pop over to progressive.com, answer some questions and you'll get a quick quote with discounts that are easy to come by. In fact, 99% of their auto customers earn at least one discount. Visit progressive.com and see if you can enjoy a little cash back. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates national average 12 month savings by $946 by new customers surveyed who saved with Progressive between June 2024 and May 2025. Potential savings will vary.
- [38:45]
Podcast Advertiser
48 million people in the United States are adolescents between the ages of 14 and 24. They're working, parenting, leading, sometimes all at once.
- [38:56]
Will Kaback
I'm balancing work and being a mom at the same time, and I'm still on track to graduate with my Bachelor's next year.
- [39:03]
Podcast Advertiser
So what do today's young people need to truly thrive? Tune in to Good Things from Lemonada Media to hear the six part Thrive series.