C (11:05)

Thanks, Mike. Great to be with you and Congressman Weiner. I'm all New York City all the time. I love New York, born and raised, and I love to do what I do because I love my home so much.

A (11:16)

Well, that's good. But in terms of teasing the guest, you gave it away. It's Anthony Weiner, seven term congressman who served New York's 9th congressional district. Don't you wish there were the equivalent of jingoist on the municipal level and then we could all call ourselves that, right, Anthony?

B (11:33)

That's right. I'm a jingoist. I'm, I'm. John and I are the same. We're just like all New York all the time. This Manhattan Institute thing really does kind of focus him a little bit, just on the island of Manhattan. But, but we all have the same biases. We love New York City.

A (11:49)

So a few let's, we're going to get to New York City and we're going to get to our new mayor. But I did notice in the New York Times today or this week, Nancy Mace, who I'm going to call Nancy Grace, wrote an op ed where depending on where you read it, it was either titled what's the Point of Congress or why the Republican House isn't Working. Now she is among a cadre of Congress women who I called the crazies in the beginning of the show. Well, it's Mace who has wavered between crazy and really quite practical. Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene. Marjorie Taylor Greene is quitting Congress. They all were radicalized or maybe you could say took advantage of the political opportunity of the Epstein files. So I want to get into a little bit of an analysis of what you guys think that is really driving these members of Congress. But let's talk about the argument for a second that Mace is putting out there. She says when the Democrats hold the majority, they ram through the most progressive policies they can. They deliver for the coalition that elected them while they are in power. She gives enormous amount of credit to Nancy Pelosi. She then says, quote, however, today Republicans have a governing trifecta, House, Senate and White House. And if we fail to pass legislation that permanently secures the border, addresses the affordability crisis, improves health care and restores law and order, we will lose this majority and we will deserve it. So putting aside, I take issue with some of that analysis, but that last thing I read I actually do agree with. Do you, Anthony Weiner, and do you agree with her assessment?

B (13:23)

Well, to some degree this is a structural thing. The Founding Fathers thought of lots of reasons why we should slow down Congress and make it less impulsive. And I don't think they contemplated a time when people would literally run for Congress saying I'm going to do everything I can to stop Congress from acting. And the main place I disagree with are, look, we've always had this tension. We've always had this idea, I mean, I disagree with her that during the Pelosi's reign, we did the most progressive things imaginable. In fact, if you look at things like the Affordable Care act and bailing out Wall street and things like that, we actually were fairly moderate in the things that we approach. But the difference is with the Republicans is unlike the Democratic caucus, they have this group and it doesn't need to be that big to make a difference of 20 or so people that are going to be no on everything. And to be honest with you, Nancy Mace was part of that group. This whole idea of like, you know, being the person that throws themselves in the mercy of the court for being an orphan after they just murdered their parents, she's a little bit in that camp. But we've always had in Congress in time immemorial, we've had people who are lifers who are just at they figured they had made it good made in Congress. They're just going to serve out their term for 20 years, whatever it is. They're not terribly significant except for their vote. You have the institutional people who want to be leaders in Congress, but then you have something that is less and less around and that is people that wanted to be experts and policymakers of a certain type. If you wanted to be the foremost expert on reforming, say the copyright and patent laws, Congress was a place that you can get stuff done because basically members like myself who would say, go ahead, you guys go do that. We'll help support you. But being an expert, there's no premium in saying I want to be there for 20 years because I have policy things I want to do. She is right about that.

A (15:11)

Yeah. And Marjorie Taylor Greene and quitting didn't say I got the things I wanted to get done done. She said something like this isn't working for me. She talked about, I don't know how honestly you could take her. She talked about her differences with Donald Trump and maybe she just sick of Congress. Maybe she's biding her time for a statewide bid. But John, I want to ask you this idea of conservatives limited government being the government that governs least governs best. You know, you could take that to extremes. Do you think the current Republican Party or do you think the current Congress has in terms of the ideology getting in way of real progress?

C (15:44)

Well, the current Republican Party dominated by Donald Trump is not always consistently a conservative party. It is ideologically heterogeneous. You know, it takes a little bit of this philosophy and a little bit of that philosophy. And I think it is a bit incongruous for Mace to call for a more deliberative, open rule house and yet hold out Nancy Pelosi as an example. You know, Nancy Pelosi was a speaker who got things done by having tyrannical control over her own members. And, you know, much less playing nice with Republicans. You know, she didn't get the ACA passed by playing nice. So I don't necessarily see that as being consistent in Mace's critique, but I do think that Congressman Weiner's structural assessment is accurate. The Framers thought that Congress was going to be the most powerful branch of government and Section One. That's right. So they limited that by enumerating its powers, by subjecting it to a presidential veto, by instituting a judiciary in the Supreme Court, so also by splitting up the two houses of Congress. But I think the framers in a way misjudged human nature. Maybe they assumed that future representatives were going to be like they were. You know, they assumed that individual members were going to be eager to take on responsibility and address the challenges of their day, but that is simply not the case today. The incentives are all aligned with shirking the duties, responsibilities of Congress in so many ways. And that's really a function of technological change and institutional changes, that Congress has really abdicated a large part of its responsibility.

A (17:45)

Yeah. And do you think. And then, Anthony, first of all, I'm gonna anticipate something that you were thinking, which is, I don't know if she played nice or didn't play nice with the aca, but there was a lot of availability for Republican buy in that probably wasted time and went nowhere. Right.

B (18:00)

100%. I mean, we started out with a premise that was proposed by Republicans. This notion of subsidizing the insurance industry so they can provide more, more benefits to Americans. Subsidizing a private industry that many of us despise. It's funny to hear Trump say we don't want to give more money to the insurance industry. I mean, that we try to take a Republican model. And just apropos of this notion that she strong armed people, I want to vote on the floor to have Medicaid for all Americans. And I decided to withdraw it after she put me in a room with 15 Democratic members who were friends of mine and said, these guys are the guys that are going to have to really put their careers on the Line if you put that to a vote. And that was her kind of leadership. Look, the one important thing, I know you want to get to another subject, but the most important thing that's different in a lot of these, that's from now to then. No one, when I was in Congress in the early in the 2000 I was in 2000 2011, no one conceived in either party that we would willingly give away authority to the executive branch.

A (19:04)

That's my exact question. Yes. Do you think that the Republicans, John, are doing this by design? Are they scared, disinterested? Or is it an actual governing philosophy to even though we have the power of the purse, we'll give it away to the executive. Even though we have the power to levy tariffs now, we won't pursue that. That is my question. John, what do you think the Republicans really are thinking or are they just scared?

C (19:28)

I don't necessarily think this is a Republican only phenomenon. The rise of the administrative state has been going on for many decade. Congress has passed fewer and fewer bills. Agencies have basically taken on the responsibility of legislating. Members have gotten used to that. And the committees have certainly atrophied in their expertise, in their ability to deliberate. They've often become the venues for showmanship and social media clipping rather than for meaningful policy deliberation and advancement. So the administrative state has in effect taken upon itself the responsibilities that rightly belong to Congress. And this has been a pretty standard conservative critique for decades now. I think in some ways the problem might get a little bit better now that the Supreme Court has overturned the Chevron doctrine, now that we may see the end of so called independent agencies through the downfall of a 1935 case, Paul Humphrey's executor. But ultimately I think that this is emblematic of deeper social issues in society, of not wanting to take on personal responsibility for things.

B (20:51)

Can I just jump in here? John, you're making a fundamental mistake here. One is an example of Congress saying we Congress are going to create bipartisan independent boards. We Congress are going to do that. We're going to take our prerogative. And you might argue we took it from the executive branch, fine, but we took it. This case, it's Congress saying we're not going to control the power of the purse, something you learn about in the fifth grade. We're not going to control taxation, something that's tariff, something that's written in the Constitution. This is the thing where you guys in the think tank community have rolled over and played dead on. This should not be a conservative idea to give this power, powers that were in Section 1 to the Executive branch. And I want to tell you something. I guarantee you're gonna squeal like a pig when Democrats take over Congress or Democrats go to the White House rather, and you have President Newsom doing this. This is the biggest difference today. And for Nancy Mace and for the others not to realize that they essentially when this worshipping at the altar of Trump as a political philosophy is not going to age well for the Republican.

C (21:57)

Party, I don't think there's that much daylight here. I certainly don't think that the administrative state has led necessarily to better governance or outcomes. I think that there are structure, deep structural problems and that have not been addressed in quite a long time. And so we've gone down the slippery slope. So I very much think that there should be severe guardrails on the delegation of authority to administrative bodies. And yeah, I know that the chances are very good when the shoe's on the other foot that we won't like the outcomes. And that's part of.

B (22:34)

Yeah, but this delegate, you're doing it a little bit. I mean, just so they make one final point, Mike, you're doing this delegating to agent, to bipartisan. We're not talking about the creation of the National Transportation Safety Board here. This is the executive branch saying we are going to take spending that Congress did and just decide not to do it. It's ground ball, basic taking away the primary legislative power, the one we all got together, Democrat and Republican and both agree we're never going to give this up and we're going to fight it tooth and nail in every administration up until Trump, too. And that's what I'm talking about. So I'm not talking. I understand you want to have this conversation about whether or not Congress should make it to hire people who are experts in making sure trains don't derail because we don't know what the fuck we're doing. Okay. I'll argue that all day. But the fundamental thing that Nancy Mace is saying and that Marjorie Taylor Greener is saying to ignore that this fundamentally outsourcing of all their entire party to Trump is the thing that's very, very different and that is the thing that people should be howling about.

A (23:36)

Let me ask you a question, Anthony. Can you cite an example when you were in Congress of a Democratic Congress stopping the powers or standing up for their prerogatives against a Democratic president? Because it's easy to do it when either you're the outsider party and the other party controls both branches. Or I was thinking of when Joe Biden was trying to get through a lot of his student debt cancellation. I didn't see those noises from Democrats then. But you were out of Congress. So can you come up with a tangible example where Democrats said to Obama, no, you're not going to do this as the executive, this is our job.

B (24:13)

Oh, the appropriators, the appropriation committee, which is the thing we all cared about the most, the spending of the money. If there was an effort by any president to do a rescission, Congress as an institution with meaning taking back or not doing, Congress as an institution would rise up against that because none of it wanted to be our guy.

C (24:31)

Next.

B (24:32)

The one thing that. And you can say that maybe this is that pork spending is a problem or that spending is a problem. Let's put that aside for a moment. The very power is something that was jealously protected. They call the appropriating chairman the Cardinals because that's how we revered it so much. Of all the bipartisan bills we had in Congress, the transportation spending bill, which we would do every, I can't remember how many, four or five years, would pass with hundreds of votes of margin because we all had an interest in protecting our rights to spend. So that did happen. Now, if you want to say that we didn't mind when an agency was left vacant, when it was a Republican vacancy as opposed to a Democrat, things like that happened. Yeah. But I want to tell you something else. For the most part, these agencies that were created were a function of the idea that our government in our country got to be a lot more complicated to run. And I served with members of Congress. You don't want to leave them in charge of mitigating oil spills or whatever, these agents. There's a reason we hire experts like John to help us out with these problems.

C (25:37)

But I do think that Congress has not guarded its institutional prerogatives against the executive. Be that as it may, Congressman, the Congress has not sued the executive, for example. And Congress would, I think, be the only party to have standing for a violation of their constitutional prerogatives. So, you know, it just hasn't gotten there. And of course, that's because partisan loyalty has trumped institutional loyalty.

B (26:07)

Well, that's not exactly why we don't sue, because we don't believe in going and asking the judicial branch to tell us what our rights are. We generally try to work it out some other way. But I listen, I agree. If you want to say that the Administrative state has gotten big. And the administrative state is, to some degree, lacks accountability. But remember something, John, we in Congress, the citizens of the United States, through their representatives, decided, you know what? We want these agencies, we want half Republicans, half Democrats, go out and hire experts on how to do these various things. That was an act of Congress. Now, did we turn over the keys, so to speak, to the executive branch? Was that the way to do it? Yes. But I have to say something that I believe that whenever there is something like a train derailment in Palestine, Ohio, everyone's running around what administrative agency didn't do their job. And fingers get pointed because that's the way we've come to think as citizens about the way our government is structured.

A (27:03)

Now.

C (27:04)

The rise of the administrative state, though, has taken away the incentive for members of Congress to specialize to a degree at least. I mean that the. As the administrative state has risen, the competency of the individual members and the strength of committees and specialization within that, things like Congressional Research Service have atrophied for a number of reasons, I grant you. But the Founder's vision was certainly quite different from these Alphabet soup of administrative agencies, which oftentimes exercise all three types of power. Legislative executive entries.

B (27:40)

I would agree. I would be stunned if the Founding Fathers were thinking about who's going to investigate plane crashes. I think you're right about that. They probably did.

A (27:46)

That's not fair. How about just. How about just, you know, establishing the equivalent of the FBI or the CIA or the environment? What was the environment back when the Founding Fathers. It was expansive and there was, you know, barely any carbon in the air. So it is true that things have gotten a lot more complicated and our citizen, citizenry couldn't possibly handle all of the complicated questions through election of Representatives. Yet at the same time, I think I hate to do this in the middle. You're both right. I mean, you're both right that there is a way to massive an expansion of the burgeoning administrative state, and yet. And that Congress can't be relied upon to look at all of the. Reliably relied upon to do all their job and look at everything that the Executive is doing. I just don't know that by saying we're going to do our job, less is the way to bring anything.

B (28:42)

Well, I think it's fair, but I mean, not, not to build this Christmas tree of too much. But I doubt that if we had to spend a third of our time doing fundraising, we might not have put some of that time towards legislating I doubt that if we weren't obsessed because of the perfect, in the worst sense of the word, of gerrymandering, that we have to be obsessively concerned about a primary candidacy all the time, that maybe that would leave us more free to be more critical of the our party or our president. Yeah, there's a lot of things about this, but this expression that came up in the Supreme Court and that John has alluded to, oh, we're just becoming an unelected administrative state. Yes. This is a by and large a very big country. And you can argue maybe Congress should be bigger. We are a big country that's doing a lot of complicated things. But when I was there in Congress, I want to tell you something. There was always a guy you can turn to guy generically, or could be a woman who is a member of Congress who, if you wanted to know how some obscure agriculture program worked, you can find them and you can sit down with them on the floor and say, how does this work? And they would know. You would be impressed with how many people do become specialists because their district requires it.

A (29:55)

And you're sure it's not that way now?

B (29:58)

I'm not sure it's not that way now. But have you seen. Have you. Do you tune into YouTube at all?

A (30:02)

And it's not select. It does not select for, you know, that kind of equity expertise. John, last word.

C (30:08)

The fundamental question here is who will rule us, who will govern us? And I would rather err on the side of democratic accountability augmented by greater avenues for expertise, deliberation, and responsible adult decision making. I agree with many of the structural issues that Congressman Weiner just raised, like primaries being, you know, forces that run against all of that. But fundamentally, I don't think that the rise of the administrative state has necessarily led to much, much better outcomes and at the expense of greater democratic accountability. And Congress is functioning as it should.

B (30:47)

I think that's all fair. I know you said that was the last point. Let me just say we're seeing this play out in real time. At hhs, at the Health and Human Services. We have one guy who doesn't believe in experts, who believes that, like, you can basically say he's acting like he's in charge, et cetera. He's saying we don't rely on experts, and I think we could quite possibly cost us lives. So we're seeing it play out in real time. Let's see how it works out.

A (31:09)

Last question. This is just something you raised I want to follow up on. Consider it a Bonus, if you will. You said that Nancy Pelosi put you in a room with 15 people who are friends of yours. And you realize then the consequence of this, this initiative that in your heart of hearts and also you thought was right for your constituents, is what stopped you then from pursuing that more of the personal or the political?

B (31:32)

It's a great question. Here's what it comes down to. What separates me as a Democrat from so many Republicans is I believe in trying to get half a loaf. I believe in trying to achieve the achievable, the progress part of progressive. And what it came down to, to me, is that I saw there was a potential that if I were successful, putting aside the personal relationships, if I were successful on the floor of the House of Representatives, I might indeed, might indeed pass, because I think a lot of Republicans might have seen the wisdom of voting for it. I realize that it might sabotage what could have been some progress in improving the way that we pay for health care in this country. All that being said, there is a personal element. That's the thing about Nancy Pelosi that a lot of people don't realize. John alluded to the iron fist. There is nothing a speaker can threaten you with. If you're in the state legislature, you can take your office away, for Christ's sakes. In Washington, there's nothing that a speaker can do to you. The very worst that they can do is maybe go back and try to knock you off one of your committees. But even that's hard to do because other members have to approve that as well. What she was brilliant at is understanding the different pressure points. She put me in a room with some. She said, listen, I promised you this vote. I will give you this vote. Because I had done something else earlier in. In the session, and she said, I will still let you have it if you make the decision. Go ahead. That's the kind of politics of a small group that the Republicans have not figured out because they have too many people there that would just be perfectly happy to throw a hand grenade into the building.

A (33:07)

All right, in a minute, we'll be back, and we will talk about boat strikes in Venezuela and what are we going to do here in New York City with two experts? Back in a minute with more of not even mad.

B (33:26)

Guys, thanks for helping me carry my Christmas tree, Zoe.

A (33:29)

This thing weighs a ton.

C (33:30)

Drew, Ski, lift with your legs, man.

B (33:32)

Santa. Santa, did you get my letter?

A (33:34)

He's talking to you, Bridges. I'm not.

B (33:36)

Of course he did. Right.

A (33:38)

Santa, you know my elf, Drew Ski. Here he handles the nice and elf. I'm six' three. What everyone wants is iPhone 17 and at T Mobile you can get it on them. That center stage front camera is amazing for group selfies. Right, Mrs. Claus.

B (33:51)

I'm Mrs. Claus's much younger sister.

C (33:54)

And AT T Mobile there's no trade.

A (33:55)

In needed when you switch.

C (33:56)

So you can keep your old phone.

B (33:58)

Or give it as a gift.

C (33:59)

And the best part, you can make.

B (34:00)

The switch to T Mobile from your.

C (34:01)

Phone in just 15 minutes. Nice.

A (34:03)

My side of the tree is slipping.

B (34:06)

The holidays are best better AT T.

A (34:07)

Mobile switch in just 15 minutes and.

B (34:09)

Get iPhone 17 on us with no trade in needed. And now T Mobile is available in US cellular stores with 24 month legal.

A (34:16)

Credits for well qualified customers plus tax and $35 device connection charge credits and.

B (34:19)

Imbalance due if you pay off earlier. Cancel Finance Agreement 256 gigs, $830. Eligible for it in a new line.

A (34:22)

$100 plus a month plan with auto.

B (34:23)

Payments, taxes and fees required.

A (34:24)

Check out 15 minutes or less per line.

B (34:25)

Visit t mobile.com.

A (34:30)

And we're back. We are joined by John Ketchum today of the Manhattan Institute and Anthony Weiner, longtime member of Congress and a guy who I think was at one point going to be the next mayor of New York City. Now there is a guy who we're sure is going to be the next mayor of New York City. He's Zoran Mom Donny. He has proposed so many, many things. My assessment is pick a big one. And I would say it's something like helping working moms and working dads find childcare for. Pick a big one and get it done. And if you have to sacrifice the buses or the city run grocery stores or the rent control, do that to get the big win under your belt. But then again, we also have, and people don't talk about this, we also have essentially a budget crisis and Mamdani will be fighting headwinds when it comes to taxation with which Kathy Hochul, the governor of New York who endorsed him, has not been too keen on raising. So before we get to Anthony, let me ask you, John, what do you look at in terms of Zoran Mamdani's biggest challenges? And if you had any advice for him, maybe advice that he would take, not the wish list from the Manhattan Institute, what would that be?

C (35:45)

So Mamdani has multiple overlapping challenges of fiscal, legal, logistical. He can't really freeze the rents unilaterally because the mayor does not control rent stabilized rent increases. There is a semi Independent body called the Rent Guidelines Board. It's made up of mayoral appointees, but they have for cause protection and cannot be fired at will. They also serve for a term of years. Currently there are six members who who have their terms up. So in theory, Mayor Adams could replace those members with expired terms and Mamdani would really be without recourse to challenge that, at least until those members terms expire. Now, the Rent Guidelines Board is supposed to weigh a number of factors the law requires it to, so things like insurance costs and operating costs, property tax increases and so forth. What Mamdani is essentially proposing is to say none of that is going to matter for four years. I'm going to put people on that. Only agree to a 0% rent increase. That seems to me to be in violation of the plaintext of the rent stabilization law and certainly subject to a legal challenge. Other things are similar. So like free buses. The mayor doesn't control the bus system, the MTA does. And the chair, CEO of the mta, Jano Lieber, has poured cold water on the free bus program. Not only that, the bus revenues are guaranteed to the MTA's bondholders. So they can't just eliminate the source of revenue. The bondholders would have to be given a replacement source of revenue and agree to that change. It's something my colleague Nicole Jelanis has written about. And in terms of childcare, like you said, Mike, that's going to cost 6 billion bucks. Altogether, Mamdani's proposals are 10 billion bucks. There are major logistical challenges to getting the care providers up and running, much less the taxes passed in Albany, which include corporate tax hikes that mean that you're going to have a business in Poughkeepsie or Rochester paying more money every year to fund Zoran Mamdani's agenda. So the advice I would give him is don't ignore reality. There are legal restrictions to what you can do. You've promised the world. Try to, you know, fulfill those promises by running small ball pilot programs which are much more feasible, and focus on the fiscal reality of the city, which means you have to grow the city's economy. It's imperative to do that.

A (38:42)

Well, no one said it was going to be easy, Anthony.

B (38:44)

Right. Yeah. I am not. He's going to get his rent freeze bill. De Blasio did it. And I think the policies are right or wrong. I've got some problems, frankly. I think with most of these policies and some of them are going to be hard to do, but I think he'll be able to achieve them, at least in some way, to be able to stand up and say, I did what I said I was going to do. You know, the free supermarkets, it's five. It's already a pilot program. It's five in four boroughs or five boroughs. You know, we already passed. I think a mayor called Mike Bloomberg did this, did a form of this by providing big tax subsidies. I don't know if you've noticed in New York, drugstores all have salad bars nowadays. That's because of a tax substitute proposal to get more food and supermarkets open in these communities. Look, I think he's going to have a tough time doing these things. I think to some degree, any opposition that he runs into is going to play into his narrative of who he's fighting for. Which brings me to the seminal thing that mayors have to be doing, and that is when people flip on their phones or flip on their TVs and radios, if there are any of those still existing, they'll see him saying the things he says so well during the campaign and making the fights he said so well. My concern for him is not really what's going to go on here in the city and state. It's the troubles that are coming out of Washington. If you think of the foundational things about New York's economy, real estate, tourism, health care, finance, all of them are under assault by the Trump administration. Immigration crackdowns and pissing on Canada and China and everything else have led to reduction in tourism. That's one part of our economy. The real estate part of our economy is getting hit very hard by these tariffs, raising the cost in timber and aluminum and everything else. You've got health care that's getting decimated by the big Bill because of the cuts to Medicaid. Health care is an enormous part of the New York economy, so he's going to have to deal with those things. But one thing they have in common is they give him this external fight to be waging, whether it's Albany or Washington, New York City. A lot of your viewers and listeners don't realize this. It's a creation of New York State. We basically have to ask New York State if we want to give a liquor license on Avenue A. We've got to ask the New York State Agency to do it. So to some degree, the narrative that has been set up here, he's got to fight Albany, he's got to fight New Jersey, he's got to fight Trump is perfect for the kind of politician that he is.

A (41:11)

Right? But if he doesn't have any achievements or accomplishments. He will be damaged if he came in. He is going to get the rent freeze. I agree with that. I think he's going to get some. And he's going to get the grocery stores. And that won't do much because as you said, Bloomberg's fresh program, and I really do think he's going to get some version of free buses. He already got a couple lines. He could get them somewhere. There's. It's so important to him and it's such a signature policy that it's going to get done. So I agree with you. He's good on the rhetoric and he's good with fighting. But if he doesn't get wins, people aren't going to give him credit. People will say he's just a guy who talks. And I think that to compare him to de Blasio, who is a guy who talked but didn't talk in a way that people liked. I really think that de Blasio getting the Pre K program funded so helped him. I mean, he won reelection for a lot of other reasons. Reasons, but it so helped him as a signature accomplishment. And that would be the kind of playbook that I would pursue.

B (42:08)

I would agree. I would agree. And one of the ways that you can do it, and I agree with you about the buses, I think he'll have one or two in each borough. You know, one of the fundamental problems with the bus proposal is you don't want to do anything to compete with subways. You're just going to have people moving from a subway for 290 and going to a bus for nothing. It didn't make sense. So he'll probably figure out ways to find transit deserts to make them free. And I told.

A (42:29)

I just have to say, like when I read articles about how well it worked in Des Moines, I think exactly about your point. First of all, I say Des Moines. I'm like, you guys, like, I know Des Moines exists and it's a real place and I've been there. But Des Moines, come on. Yeah, Des Moines mean anything for New York?

B (42:44)

Yeah, I think that's right. And the. You can look at the de Blasio model on Pre K to say, well, maybe we'll just add a year or two to the Pre K program for the first three years. We'll add one more year, one more grade. I think he'll be able to get those things. But I think you're right. But here's. I want to tell you, I want to tell you something so I ran for City council this summer. I lost here in Greenwich Village, in East Village. And when people would ask me about affordability, I said, I'm not gonna bullshit you. If you elect me or any mayor, it's not gonna be. Suddenly your prices are gonna fall through the grind. That's not the way it works. Now, did people want that message in 2025? As it turned out, not. I'm stuck being a, you know, a box and a podcast. But I will say that you're right. You need not only to. You need one or two things to be able to say. I said I was gonna do it and I did.

A (43:39)

Yeah, listen, you came in fourth in your city council race. I guarantee you're at least top three as a box in this podcast. But, John, you were gonna say, the.

C (43:45)

Fundamental problem with Mamdani's policy agenda is that it really will not address the underlying causes of the problem. The reason why housing is so expensive in New York City is simply because there is not enough of it. If you put stricter price controls on, you're only going to make the problem worse. And I can give you a fact that will blow both your minds. If you look at the actual rent paid in New York City, it is only $1,600 a month. But the asking rent is something like $4,700 in Manhattan. Right. And something like 37, 3800 citywide. Now, how can there be such a difference between actual rents paid and the asking rents? Well, it's because there's very little supply on the market at any given time. And so you're just seeing the very, very tip of the iceberg of the housing supply that becomes available. And the fact is, we have simply not kept pace with the amount of housing that we need to grow as a city. Our jobs have grown faster than our housing stock has. And if you simply try to freeze rents, that does nothing positive to boost housing supply. So if he doesn't augment his proposal with pro supply, pro market measures, you can't do this all with government spending because there's simply not enough available to build the scale necessary, then he's bound to fail. So part of his success is going to depend on whether he can be pragmatic enough to invite the private market to do what it does best and allocate resources to address these needs.

A (45:40)

I. That great stat that did blow my mind. I understand it. I think that there is. I'm positive that there is nothing that One mayor in 1, 2, 3 terms can do to get the housing Stock to the point where it really starts having a real effect on rent. That doesn't mean you can't move it in the right direction. And that doesn't mean that initiatives like as both you guys know. But I'll tell my audience about City of Yes, which maybe over the course of a couple decades will introduce 80,000 new housing units. It's good, it's necessary. It's also a drop in the bucket. So it's going to be on other issues where he will have to show that he's making some dent in terms of affordability. And also, you don't want to push us backwards. And I do think, just economically speaking, a rent freeze is bad economics and we'll do that.

B (46:30)

I mean, let me just say I agree with a lot of what John said. And look, fundamentally we're a city of eight and a half million people. You hear these proposals of like, let's add 100,000 units. And people are like, oh my God, that's amazing. It's nothing compared to what 8.5 million people are. But I will say this. Our success as a city is fundamentally about this notion of more people want to come here than we can really handle. It's kind of a weird dynamic that yes, we want to be in the 1970 when there are wide open swaths of land for Ed Koch to convert into new housing. That might have been a great thing that he created 250,000 units in three years, but that just meant that there was a lot of empty buildings that were in REM and in foreclosure and everything else. This is a fundamental thing now. This is where the politics and the pros kind of clashes a little bit. You know, Mike Bloomberg, I ran again, I ran against him in 2005 and was going to do it in 2000. I once said New York City is a luxury product. Now you're not supposed to say that. Right. And I kind of fundamentally disagree as a middle class guy and overwhelming. We have a lot of very poor people in the city, a lot of working people. But I think what he was striving at was this idea. People want to come here and invest here and buy market rate units and buy co ops and condos and everything else.

A (47:47)

Right, right. Pay the $4,700 asking price.

B (47:50)

That doesn't do anything to really address affordability. That's why I think there have to be some. That's why people. You can make the same critique about Mondami. There's only a million rent stabilized apartments. That's not Gonna be everybody. I bet you a lot of people walking the street who heard that campaign slogan who aren't in rent stabilized apartments. Oh great, great. My rent's gonna be frozen. But still, I think a lot of it when you're mayor of the city of New York is just taking the fight. And I think you're right. He's gotta have some accomplishments and he'll have some. But I don't think he's going to make the city. There's not going to suddenly be milk and honey flowing through the streets of New York City.

A (48:24)

Do you think he's specially skilled in the things he's great at?

B (48:27)

Well, I think he's especially in of this moment in that, you know, we used to have realignment, kind of change the elections every 20 years or so. Now it seems like we have them literally every election. And if you are a guy or a woman who reads, I'm the change guy. I am Ugandan rapping guy who does TikTok videos for this moment running against a bunch of stiffs. Let's not forget he ran against a Cuomo and a Stringer and a Lander. These guys are not exactly lighting anything up.

A (49:01)

Wait, and your former WABC co host, right, And Sliwa who turned out to.

B (49:06)

Have, he actually turned out to be more meme worthy than I thought he would turn out to be, you know, in a retro kind of of way. But he was perfectly positioned and situated for this moment, this city, this field right now. But before we draw too many conclusions, I know this is a subject for another show. It's not like Mondami mania is dominating politics around the country. Mikey Sherrill in New Jersey ran an ostentatiously non mondami campaign. We're seeing kind of a test play out in the state of Texas where we have an out there lefty changey person running. It's kind of a old timey kind of politician for Texas Senate and the Democratic side. So I don't think there's anything transformative about him as a candidate except to say he was perfect for this moment right now. The same way I was seen as something of a relic when I ran for city council this year.

A (49:56)

Uh huh. And John, what's your assessment of that? Sitting where you do, knowing what the Manhattan Institute thinks about the world. Are you worried about the skills of Mamdani?

C (50:05)

Well, Mamdani was unique in that he could bring together a group of disaffected young people who many of whom are quite highly educated and have decent jobs but who found life in New York more difficult than they expected. They had done everything right. They went to university, they got a decent job, and yet they couldn't quite make it in the way that they thought they would when they got here. And, and Mamdani is essentially promising that he will give them more security, that the government will shield them from the predations of the marketplace. Now, I don't necessarily think that that's a good thing because we should want our young strivers to be industrious and, you know, the sky's the limit for them. And if we are handing them forms of welfare effectively to the say you don't have to worry about your rent going up, I think that will change the culture, the ethos of this great city. And the other way that he won is that he activated a new voter base of Muslim New Yorkers, which heretofore really weren't all of that politically active. And that is a great credit to him. So he really did seize the moment, both in terms of capitalizing on anti Trump sentiment, a relatively weak field and these new electoral opportunities.

A (51:32)

That's true, but he also did run against stiffs. Let's not overestimate.

B (51:35)

And he's probably going to be. Mike, he's probably going to be unpopular this time next year, right, because we know that incumbents become unpopular. He started out with about 55% of the vote. He is probably going to be unpopular, too. But for the moment, I think as a political and I have, I sense that he's a pretty smart guy. Like he, he said having a police commissioner stick around seems like it makes some sense. He did say some things about learning on the campaign trail that the private sector is going to have to help him with housing. I think he's smart enough to figure out much. And the blocking and tackling of running this city, it's on autopilot. It's unbreakable. People are going to collect the garbage. People are going to patrol the streets to keep them safe. EMTs are going to pick up people when they're hit by buses. For the most part, it's going to move forward. But we are in this moment now that I just think that people are increasingly chagrined about the state of politics. And he gave people a sense of hope and let's see if he can make it work.

A (52:32)

Well, that's the second consecutive episode of not even Mad you've been on Anthony, where you reference getting hit by a bus, which I only say because it's a segue to a boat strike. Which is on September 2, the United States carried out a second deadly strike on a boat in the Caribbean from Venezuela said to be carrying drugs. This has now caused a major issue as senators have seen the video of this. And to a person, every Democrat saying this is a war crime, the only reason it might not be a war crime is it's not a legitimate war, in which case it's just murder. Whereas every Republican on that committee said, no, this is fine, this is what we should be doing. Late Lee Some updates are that lawmakers are trying to pressure the administration to release the video by limiting the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth travel budget. Don't know if that will work. And Donald Trump has both said he will, but then he won't release the videotape very quickly. My take on this is without the video, I don't know this will go forward to being an issue just because we can imagine in our own minds whatever happened in that incident. And even with the video, it might not mean that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is in trouble. But Anthony, do you think, what do you think from what you can tell, how much of a scandal is this and how much of a misdeed is this?

B (53:55)

Well, I think it's a misdeed. I don't know. I mean, you know, this is what happens when you have people in high levels of government who are like the guy at the end of the bar saying blow them all up kind of vibe. You know, for the most part, laws around how you prosecute wars or how you deal with your military are to protect our troops. We have many more troops out there in different parts of the world, many more civilians out there in vulnerable positions. These rules are to protect us. And I think the knock on effect of just having the sense of lawlessness that anyone can shoot at anyone at any time, I think most Americans, if you sit them down and talk them through, it would probably say, yeah, this is problematic. Structurally speaking, though, I realize, and others mattered as well, how much we relied upon cool heads and adults at Department of Defense in the first Trump term to kind of stop him from doing stupid things and things. We don't have that now. And in no time in my political life, Democrat or Republican, did I have a sense that it was a crazy person or an unfit person who was running the Department of Defense. Even if I didn't like their policies. I'm like, all right, you got generals, you got admirals, you got Joint Chiefs of Staff, you had Department of Defense secretaries because they're basically mature People, I don't get that sense now with hed6 and I think so fundamentally, I think Americans are uneasy with the idea that the whole thing has kind of become a clown show.

A (55:14)

Yeah. And that is my question for you, John. Do you think Hegseth is still serving Trump's interests?

C (55:22)

I think it depends really on how Americans are perceiving this. And my sense is, like Congressman Weiner is that it's mostly, you know, chaotic to a great extent. You know, if Americans saw that this was having a visibly, you know, impactful deterrent effect on drug importation to the United States, if there were fewer drugs being consumed on the streets, I think that people would cut the administration some slack here. Drugs are not only a national health emergency, but they're also a huge disorder problem. And people don't like chaos. They don't like it when they perceive the government to be functioning chaotically, but they also don't want to see it on their streets. And even though these boats are purported to bring in cocaine, not fentanyl, which is the single biggest drug issue in the United States, but cocaine deaths still account for something like 28% of all drug related deaths in the United States. It's still a big problem. And the potency of modern drugs has made it much more difficult to enforce against. So I think what Trump is trying to do here is say, you know, I'm going to get a couple of birds with one stone. I'm going to destabilize the Maduro regime. I'm going to try and deter drug importation into the United States by showing everyone that I mean business. Of course, that might not play out entirely to his design.

B (57:05)

I mean, I don't want to get bogged down on the facts here, but there's some evidence these boats weren't even coming to the United States. They're thousands of miles away. And I thought we sealed the southern border. What are we so worried about? I mean, I thought we sealed so no one's going to come in. I totally get it. And I remember I was in Congress, I think I was in Congress when Bill Clinton blew up an aspirin factory that he thought was terrorism. Mike, you might remember that Sudan, something like that. And I was a Democrat. I'm like a non interventionist whatever. I'm a peace whatever. But I support him. He's my president. He's blowing up terrorists. Okay, But I think it's the greater sense. And if you wanted to make, if I was Donald Trump, and I wanted to say, look, I know this Looks bad, but it's a deterrent to the bad guys. Just be honest about it, because I think that's kind of what they're trying to do. I'm not really sure what they're trying to do, but there's not a coherent sense of like, okay, here's what this is. And I think that, particularly around issues of military affairs, that I think that the American people are gonna kind of grow weary of this hegseth macho stuff. That's my punditry on it. I mean, I know that, John, you're probably right that if you can couch it as we're stopping drugs, I don't think there's too much sympathy for Venezuelan boat couriers.

A (58:19)

Yeah. From what I understand, the drugs maybe were headed to Europe also. Can cocaine kill a third of the people? I don't think so. I think what that stat is, and you're not wrong, but that cocaine is in the system of maybe a third or 25% of those who die. But it is fentanyl driving the deaths. A little like, did they die from COVID or. With COVID let's say that with cocaine. I also think that you're right, John, in that the American people, by and large, are doing something to get the drug dealers do it. So I think they did it for the meme, essentially. I think that they are destroying these boats so that Pete Hegseth can post the meme of the cartoon turtle. That's the whole point. But they could have gotten the meme and maybe even they could have gotten electoral benefit if they put a vote in front of Congress and said, do you authorize us to get the votes? And then all these Democrats, but maybe also some Republicans, certainly Thomas Massie would say, no, we don't. But it would have been a more. What's the word? Constitutional way to go about this. Because as much as we hate drug dealers, we don't assassinate them at the border. Right. Why is this different from just putting two bullets in the back of the head of everyone who's trying to, you know, take cocaine with them over the border? If we did that.

B (59:34)

Mike, let me, Let me. Let me posit a different straw that might be stirring this drink. It could be, if you think of.

A (59:41)

The unifying, that might be snorting this coke. Yes, exactly.

B (59:44)

If you think of what unifies a lot of what we see going on in this administration, it's will Donald Trump like it when he sees it on Fox News? Will he like this? Will he think I'm doing a good job and this is a classic. Like, if you're trying to appeal to a 9 year old, you're like, we're gonna blow up their boats, boss. I don't think there's a strategic thing around it. Now, we may find out in the coming weeks that their strategic imperative is to destabilize Venezuela or to come up with a rationale for an invasion. Let's put a pin in that. But so much of what I see these guys doing, it's like, how will this look to the boss when he sees it? And I don't think there's any thought that goes beyond that. When to deal with someone like Hexent, he doesn't seem to like he's into strategia, if you know what I mean.

A (60:30)

Right. I heard the argument about chasing Maduro out of Venezuela via these strikes, but I don't see how this tightens the noose around Maduro. That. That doesn't mean Hag, Seth or Trump doesn't see it that way. I just don't see. And by the way, I think that's a worthy goal. I just don't see how it does it to you, John.

C (60:49)

I think the theory is show the people that. That their government is not in control, that their government cannot do anything against these boats and therefore their government cannot do anything to protect them. So rise up and get rid of this Maduro regime.

B (61:09)

Yeah, I'm not buying this. I think that if I were to see a foreign entity blowing up boats, American boats, no matter what they said they were, I think I'd be pissed off. I'd be like, it's us versus them.

A (61:22)

Yeah. I don't think most Venezuelans actually look at it this way. I mean, maybe I'm over indexing for the expat community, but they do feel overrun by the drug dealers and lawlessness, and they do want the drug dealers put to death. And they do think that the cartel of the sun, which is. Which was indicted. But a description of the generals in Venezuela are very much involved in the drug industry. But still, that doesn't mean, I think, that the noose is tightening. Okay, let us get to the part of the show. And by the way, thank you for solving that one for us. Let us get to the part of the show where we talk about an indignity. Could be a daily indignity, could be something that just annoys us, could be something that grinds our gears or gets our goat. And this is why we call it the goat grinder. I have mine loaded. John, do you have a Goat Grinder. You'd like to share with us?

C (62:09)

I do, and it's a very Manhattan Institute one. But it just shows that I landed in the right place, and that's fair evasion. I just get so annoyed when I see people jumping the turnstile or indeed blocking or obfuscating their license plate so that the readers don't get them crossing the bridges. We live in a common society. We should all play by the same rules. There's a program, if you are low income, to get a discounted omni card. Pay the damn fare.

A (62:43)

My go grunt. I'm with you there. By the way, when I see someone. When I see someone jumping the turnstile, and if they're a kid, I roll my eyes, but if they're out of high school, I say to myself, I don't want you tackled or arrested, but I want you not to do that. And you should get a ticket and have to pay a fine. So my Go Grinder is Way Mo's driverless cars, which I have never. I have never ridden in one. That's not my Go Grinder. I'm glad they exist. Technology marches or rolls on, and it is good that there are people who are watching this. But some of our guardians of drivered cars are taking it way overboard. And I point to you, Futurism.com and they weren't the only ones who are reporting on this story. But apparently in San Francisco, a Waymo ran over a dog. And this was a couple weeks after a Waymo ran over and killed a bodega cat. And we don't want cats to die and we don't want dogs to get hit. But the headline, children SOB as Waymo runs over dog. And they have a picture of this golden retriever, the smiliest of the dogs, with a Waymo in the background. Then you read the detail of the report. It comes from a Reddit post. The dog wasn't a golden retriever. It was a small dog. We don't even know that the dog has died. In fact, there's no reporting that the dog has died. So out of thousands and thousands of rides, a dog has been hit. We only can assess this if we look at the baseline, the denominator of how many driver taxis are just driver cars have run over dogs. And I see no reporting on that. So unless you compare it against the logical thing to compare it to drivers behind cars and is that safer? You're not actually giving us any news. And all indications are that, yeah, it is safer. Maybe it's even too safe. The way MO's are overly deferential to what possibly could be a person in the crosswalk. But I don't stand in the way of technology. I do stand in the way of alarmist futurism. Headlines. Anthony, do you have a goat grinder?

B (64:45)

So your headline is Mike Pesca, run over the dogs.

A (64:49)

Yes, run over the dog. Got it. Especially if it's not a golden retriever.

C (64:52)

Yeah.

B (64:53)

Now I just want to establish for our audience, we haven't coordinated it all on our grind. We're finding them for the first time now.

A (64:59)

Right, right.

B (65:01)

We're hearing them for the first time. We didn't exchange any notes about it.

A (65:04)

Correct.

B (65:04)

Here is mine, coincidentally, is also about dogs and cats. I fostered a dog two summers ago and I'm what they call a foster fail. I now have a 12 year old Pitt Stafford, whatever it is, I don't know lying on my floor here. I have to buy food for my kids. I don't pay sales tax on that. And yet I pay sales tax when I buy dog food. Mike, you have a cat. No hair, but a cat. I mean, I don't know if you do. John, I don't understand the rationale for why we should say that something is an essential expenditure when you're buying food for yourself or for your kids, but not for your dog or cat. To make it even further, if you starve your dog or cat, that's a good crime. And if we decided that we didn't want to take care of them, that would be a crime. If you went into court and were getting a divorce, they're treated like members of the family. You're going to get visitation from dogs and cats. My pet peeve, my grind. And also one of my 25 ideas when I ran for city council. So if you don't buy it, I'm not.

A (66:06)

You're not.

B (66:07)

You're not alone was there should be no sales tax when we're buying food for our dogs and cats. Just like there aren't. The distinction government makes all the time is what is an essential expenditure. We try not to tax those. Have sales tax on those. There should not be sales tax on dog or cat food. Unless you get hit by a Waymo. Then whatever fees associated with that, you should.

A (66:32)

Then the intravenous. The intravenous IV should be taxed.

B (66:36)

Exactly. So that is my grind, that now that I'm a dog owner, I pay sales tax on dog food. I don't think you should have to.

C (66:43)

I'll say I'm in favor of Democrats Lowering taxes. Including here.

B (66:47)

Totally. I'm in favor of increasing sales taxes on insider commentary magazines by think tanks, though that should be doubled.

A (66:56)

So to articulate a general principle, if you can be punished for not doing it, it shouldn't be taxed.

B (67:03)

No. I think that the way that we look at this is that food is not because of that you shop for at a grocery store, is not taxed because it's seen as an essential thing that you cannot escape. Like, sales tax just should be things that if you really wanted to. Like, for example, we pay sales tax when you go out because you're paying for the service. But since this is in the category of something that is essential, feeding your family is essential, and my dog Billy is essential. So we should. I should not pay sales tax on that.

A (67:33)

Okay, where do you stand on the perennial New York State debate? Is a marshmallow taxable or untaxable? Is it a candy or is it a food? You know about this. They always.

B (67:43)

I'm not familiar with this. This is in the same category as a taco, a sandwich, and there's a hot dog a sandwich in that same category. I am not up. I've been off social media for a while. I'm not up on these big, big debates. But I'm gonna say that if you're in the south, the marshmallow is food. Cause they put it in salads.

A (68:01)

Mm. And, John, where are you? You're gonna be anti tax no matter what?

C (68:05)

I'm gonna be against taxing it, but I always try to break things up in Aristotle's category. So it has the same material cause as food, but it doesn't have the same formal cause as food. So, yeah, you can. You can analyze this a whole bunch of ways, but no, no, let's not tax it. Let's err on the side of that.

A (68:26)

Currently, marshmallows are not taxed when served in packages in stores, but when covered in chocolate, they are taxed. Then it becomes a candy or served on premise for consumption. You know, famous marshmallow stores just pop them at a dime each. Well, I want to thank my guests this week, Anthony Weiner and John Ketchum of the Manhattan Institute. Thank you guys so much.

B (68:51)

Thank you both.

C (68:52)

Thank you.

A (68:53)

And until next time, we're not saying that you're right. We're not really asserting that we're right, but we are saying we're not even mad. And that's it for today's show. Corey War is the producer of the Gist. Kathleen Sykes helps him with the gist list. Leah Yan is our production coordinator. Jeff Craig does our socials. Michelle Pesca is COO of Peach Fish Productions. Improve gpru, do proo. And thanks for listening.