← The Majority Report with Sam Seder
The Majority Report with Sam Seder
2497 - Fight Over Republican Cuts to Medicaid & "Abundance" w/ Ezra Klein
01:27:17
Today Sam has his much-anticipated discussion with Ezra Klein about his book Abundance, tune in! Sam and Ezra's convo is wide-ranging, but focuses mostly on housing, regulation and the influence of money in politics. But first, Sam checks on the...
Loading summary
Transcript237 lines
- [00:01]
Sam Cedar
Hey folks, do you drink wine? I do. For a long time I had absolutely no idea what to do when I went into a wine store. Then my sister worked for a vineyard in Italy for years, years ago. And then I knew about what to do about one wine. But this is 2025 and you no longer have to worry about what you're going to do when you go into a wine store or that your sister may or may not work in the wine business. Naked Wines is a service that directly connects you to the world's finest independent winemakers so you can get award winning wine delivered directly to your door. If you use our code Majority for the code and the password@naked wines.com you're going to get an incredible deal of 6 bottles for just 39, 99. How do they do it? Naked Wines connects winemakers and wine drinkers directly. My sister, having been in that business told me the incredible markups and there's like four different people, four different entities between you and the winemaker. But with Naked Wines you can get wines coming directly from the vineyard to your door. Delivery at 60, up to 60% off. Naked Wines has been around for over 15 years. They fund over 90 independent winemakers around the world. You have no commitments or membership fees. You can enjoy Naked Wines hassle free. You can pause or cancel at any time. So just because you've got a trip coming up or I don't know, Dry January doesn't mean you can't enjoy Naked Wines before or after that vacation or that dry January or the dry week that you have or whatever it is. They've got an incredible collection of stuff. We had all Naked Wines at my last Thanksgiving and since then I've been hitting the the Syrahs pretty hard. Now is the time to join Naked Wine. I mean it's too much information. Now is the time to join Naked Wines community. Head to nakedwines.com Majority Enter, I mean click enter voucher. Put in the code Majority for both the code and the password and you'll get six bottles of wine for just 39, 99 with shipping included. That's 100 bucks off your first six bottles at naked wines.com/majority. Use the code and password majority for six bottles of wine 39, 99. Put the link in the podcast and YouTube description. And now time for the show the Majority Report with Sam Cedar. It is Wednesday, May 14, 2025. My name is Sam Ceder. This is the five time award winning Majority Report. We are broadcasting live steps from the industrially ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, usa. On the program today, New York Times colonist, host of the podcast Ezra Klein show, co author of the new book Abundance. Ezra Klein will be here. Also on the program today, Trump in the Middle east pushing an enlarged Abraham Accord, meanwhile taking a little more grief for that what turns out to be not totally free $400 million jet. Trump supposedly reportedly reversed on China tariffs because it was going to crush his own voters. Meanwhile, RFK Jr. Fresh out of swimming and feces, testifies in Congress to defend his health and human services cuts. Republicans out in the open about Medicaid cuts for wealthy, tax cuts. And in that same bill, the House Republicans sneak Trump's ability to unilaterally revoke tax exempt status from NGOs. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, instead of fixing the problems at Newark, changed his wife's flight to avoid flying in and out of that airport. Wisconsin judge indicted by the DOJ for supposedly obstructing ICE's attempt to arrest an immigrant. EPA to weaken the rule curbing forever chemicals in water because of course. And Uruguay's Jose Mejica, did I pronounce that right?
- [04:58]
Emma Vigeland
Yes. They also call him Pepe.
- [05:00]
Sam Cedar
Pepe. The world's poorest president has died. All this and more on today's Majority Report. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. Thanks for joining us. Emma is off today. It is, however, still officially hump day. Got a lot to talk about this. The big story right now, of course, is going to be a what Donald Trump ends up doing in the Middle east in terms of, you know, based upon the conversation we had yesterday with Jeremy Scahill, if I don't know, profits lead to helping Palestinians in Gaza survive, essentially this food, water, energy embargo, medicine embargo that Israel has levied against it for over two months, its intention to occupy and continue to bomb Palestinians in Gaza. We'll see if that if Donald Trump's a profit incentive in any way sort of butts up against that agenda. And where it takes us, we shall see. Meanwhile, papers all over the place here winding its way through the Republican caucus in the House is the one big beautiful bill. Just a reminder, it is a reconciliation bill. There was a resolution that was passed a couple of months ago now that basically did the broad outlines of what the bill was going to be. The key for the Republicans is they're going to do it through reconciliation, which is the only way they can. They must make it budget neutral. So the tax cuts they want to extend for Donald Trump they're going to attempt in the Senate to pretend that the baseline is not when what the, what the revenue would be when the current legislation expires at the end of this year, they're going to pretend that it's not expiring and that is the new baseline. So they have more room to perform more tax cuts in the meantime. Either way, they know they're going to have to cut the budget to make room for those tax cuts. And in that budget resolution at the beginning of the year, they basically tasked the Energy and Commerce committee with finding $800 billion of cuts and their biggest pool of money is Medicaid. So we already know that what's winding through in this bill are going to be massive cuts to Medicaid, significant cuts to snap, what we used to call food stamps. Particularly, it's going to put huge burdens on people who are over the age of 54, between 54 and 64 to get food stamps. Also, in the event of a financial crisis, some type of stress in the economy, states will not have the ability to easily provide food assistance to their citizens who may need it in a sort of a quasi emergency situation. Today in the energy and commerce, I should say yesterday, sorry, the debt collective protest protested the energy and commerce reconciliation markup when they basically are going through their portion of what ultimately will be part of this big reconciliation bill.
- [09:39]
Ezra Klein
And then there's a second video here. Real quick.
- [09:57]
Sam Cedar
There you have protesters being literally wheeled out because these are the type of folks that are going to be suffering most under these cuts. Alex from Rhode island asks how would bill drafting this go in an alternate universe if the Senate filibuster was gone? The I suspect they just grow the deficit. They would still provide the tax cuts, but we wouldn't see the cuts to Medicaid. That would be my guess. And Republicans would have to own the fact that how desperate they are for tax cuts either way, that that would be my guess.
- [10:48]
Ezra Klein
I also want to shout out the group hands off health care. That was their protesting.
- [10:54]
Sam Cedar
Oh, so that was posted by the debt collective and it was hands off Medicare.
- [10:57]
Unknown Speaker
Yeah.
- [11:00]
Sam Cedar
This is going to be a big fight. And it's unclear how the Republicans are going to deal with this. We've had multiple Republicans now insist they will not vote for this bill not because of Medicaid cuts, not because of SNAP cuts, but because they're not getting the proper deductions for state and local taxes for and to be clear, the first 30%. Now this is what's on the table. The first 30% of, of your state and local taxes and this is only really an issue for wealthy people. The first 30% will be deductible. It's been capped at 10% under, under Trump. And this is a way to punish blue states that are high tax states because they provide services for their people. The 30% only applies to the first $400,000 income earners. So if you make over 400,000, it's 10%. These Republican lawmakers are putting. This is their Mangeo line. Is that what you call it? This mango line is not about Medicaid cuts, not about cuts to food assistance, but rather people making over $400,000 should be able to deduct or should have more. It should have less of a 30% cap or a higher cap than 30% on their ability to deduct their state and local taxes, which are a function of the value of their homes. Largely. That's where they draw the line. I'm sorry, it's 30,000, right? Not 30%. Excuse me. The first 30,000 is subject to being deducted. It's impressive.
- [13:02]
Ezra Klein
It's a good deal.
- [13:02]
Sam Cedar
Mike Lawler has some real principles, taking.
- [13:06]
Ezra Klein
80 calls a day about that one issue.
- [13:09]
Sam Cedar
In a moment we're going to be talking to Ezra Klein, New York Times colonists, host of the Ezra Klein show, also co author of the new book Abundance. Meanwhile, a couple of words from our sponsors. Long work weeks, busy weekends can leave you feeling and looking depleted. Hello. Prolon's five day fasting mimicking diet works at a cellular level to rejuvenate you from the inside out, providing real results. Now they're upping their game with their new next generation five day program delivering the same science backed benefits in a cleaner, more convenient and more flavorful format. Prolon is a plant based nutrition program. They have snacks, soups, beverages designed to nourish the body while keeping it at a fasting state, triggering cellular rejuvenation and renewal. It is not a diet, it is science. And it has been developed for decades at the USC's Longevity Institute backed by top US medical centers. Prolon has been shown to support biological age reduction, metabolic health, skin appearance, fat loss and energy. I did this, I guess a year ago February. I've been meaning, I've got the box and I've been meaning to tackle it. It is a challenge, but it was much easier than I thought it was going to be. My energy levels were high. Saul really enjoyed me having to watch him eat other food while I had like, like a cracker or a wafer. But I, my energy was up. I never got like massive headaches. I think on day three I had like 12 hour period where I was like, this is really rough. But you really do feel it kick in at different stages. And there's a whole, obviously there's a whole science to this where your body moves from like one state to another and it basically just mimics fasting but continues to provide you nutrition for a limited time. You can be first in line to experience the new next generation at Special Savings. Prolon's offering you 15% off site wide plus $40 bonus gift when you subscribe to their five day program. Just visit prolonlife.com Majority that's Pro L O N L I F E.com Majority claim your 15% discount and your bonus gift. Prolon.com prolon life.com Majority put the link in the podcast and YouTube descriptions also. It is spring folks, but very soon it's going to be summer. Now is the time. Did you know that Fast Growing Trees is the biggest online nursery in the US? They have thousands of different plants and over 2 million happy customers. I have been one for over 10 years. They have all the plants your yard needs. They have stuff for house as well. Like you can put a little fig tree in your house, or a little lemon tree or a little avocado tree. But for your yards you can put in bigger fruit trees, privacy trees, flowering trees, shrubs. They got all sorts of trees, bushes, grasses, wolfberry. Look it up. Doesn't matter what plants you're interested in. Fast Growing Trees has you covered. You can find the perfect fit for your climate, your perfect fit for your space. They have advisors and experts that can walk you through that and answer all the questions you have. What's good for my region? What's good for my climate zone? What should I do with my yard? How should I do this? They also have an alive and thrive guarantee. Ensures your plants arrive happy and healthy. Which means you no longer got to go to the big box store, choose from two different crappy varieties of apples and then dump all the dirt in the back of your Subaru. They have a 14 point quality checklist, ensures you're getting the best quality plants possible. Like I say, you can also talk to their experts about landscape design, whatever it is. They have a research center that has full of resources, tips, advice. You can check out their zone finder, see what growing zone you're in. Fast Growing Trees has the best deals, up to half off on select plants and other deals and listeners to Our Show Get 15% off your first purchase when using the code majority at checkout. That's an additional 15% off. At fast growing trees.com using the code majority at checkout. Fast growing trees.com code majority now is the perfect time to plant, use majority to save. Today offer is valid for a limited time. Terms and conditions may apply. Garrett from Masses. I drive a Chevy. Same principle applies. All right. We're going to take quick break. When we come back, Ezra Klein, co author of the new book Abundance.
- [18:13]
Unknown Speaker
It.
- [18:39]
Sam Cedar
Foreign. We are back. Sam Cedar on the Majority report. Emma Vinglin out today. It's a pleasure to welcome I back. I guess, I mean maybe it was years ago been a minute. Ezra Klein, New York Times columnist, host of the podcast the Ezra Klein show, also co author of the new book Abundance. Ezra, welcome to the program.
- [19:11]
Unknown Speaker
Thank you for having me.
- [19:12]
Sam Cedar
All right, so we should say just a little bit of backstory. You guys have reached out to us. Our efficiency quotient not particularly high. And so it you were on the Iglesias show, I guess the slow boring podcast and mentioned that we hadn't responded. So we wanted to have you on to talk about the book. We had we had Paul glasses on from Washington Monthly year old Haunt where I interned Love Paul with a critique that was I think like middling critique some of the proposals that were brought up in the book. But let's just start with you outlining like what thematically what is the book about?
- [20:09]
Unknown Speaker
The book is about a very simple question which is what do we need more of and how do we get it? And then the parts of the book that I think have aroused more controversy, critique, energy, conversation is that much of the book is is a is exploring the question of why in the places Democrats govern or in the times when Democrats govern are liberals are Democrats are in some cases people on the left unable to produce more of the things we need. Why is there so little housing in California and New York? Sam, where are you Just so I have you're in New York. You're in New York. So why in places like New York and California and Illinois where you have a lot of Democratic control have to become very unaffordable? Why is it very hard to cite enough clean energy even though that's become a major project for the Democratic Party, why is so much that we do so goddamn slow? Medicare released its Medicare cards a year after was passed into law getting prescription drug prices negotiated on 10 drugs took three years and will only go into effect this year just in time for Donald Trump to take advantage of it and brag that it was him who did it. So this question of the, the sclerosis of liberal government, how do we actually make it deliver the things it is promising to deliver is the core inquiry of the book.
- [21:26]
Sam Cedar
And the, the culprits run across I guess like 4, 4 sort of main silos as far as I can tell. Like the, we have the regulation and bureaucratic red tape and this is a problem both in terms of like building infrastructure and to some extent within the context of housing. There are. That housing is also addressed by like local, I guess incumbent groups that have power there. The infrastructure, again some of that bureaucratic process is a function and we'll get into this is a function of environmental regulations that end up getting abused in some fashion. And, and then in the context of like, of science and innovation, it is a sort of a risk averse funding. But let me before we go into some of the specifics from your perspective because I've been reading a lot of the, there's a lot of reviews.
- [22:37]
Unknown Speaker
Have you read, have you read the book?
- [22:39]
Sam Cedar
I have. Well, I've listened to the book.
- [22:41]
Unknown Speaker
Let's put it down. That's as good.
- [22:44]
Sam Cedar
And, and to me I like your read better than Derek's. Okay, but, but, but I've listened to it.
- [22:53]
Unknown Speaker
All right, if you, that, that just gives you a sense of what level we're talking.
- [22:56]
Sam Cedar
This is, That's a different, that's a different critique. But yes, I have read the book and I've also read there's a tremendous amount of reviews about the book.
- [23:06]
Unknown Speaker
What is your critique of the book? I want to answer your critique of the book.
- [23:09]
Sam Cedar
Well, let me, I will get to that. I will get to that. But from your perspective, is this a policy or a political book?
- [23:17]
Unknown Speaker
Oh, I don't think you can separate those two.
- [23:20]
Sam Cedar
Okay.
- [23:21]
Unknown Speaker
You know my career, I'm a policy from way back, but I think something that has always been central the way I understand that is policy, politics and process. And I think this is very much a book about process and proceduralism are all intertwined. The idea that you can peel them apart. You could say, oh, this bucket is policy, this bucket is politics is not at all how I look at that question.
- [23:43]
Sam Cedar
Yeah, and I guess, you know, let's, we'll start with the policy side first. But, but broadly my critique is there seems to be a, an absence of. Well, I think, I think the culprits that you've chosen in some instances are correct. But broadly speaking there's an absence of, of analysis of power dynamics. I think that. And the interplay of money and politics, or I should say power in our society, I think is, is problematic. I mean, I think, like, look, there have been, you know, questions about specific policies and assumptions. I've read critiques about your assessment of why China is able to do certain things and, and whatnot. But, and I also think the, the power questions really filter through a lot of, of what you perceive to be problematic. And then I think broadly, I think it's also difficult to understand, like, how this is going to function as a political question. But we will get separate the second.
- [24:58]
Unknown Speaker
Well, we'll do the second in, in.
- [24:59]
Sam Cedar
A minute, but let's do the talk about power.
- [25:01]
Unknown Speaker
Let me talk about power. I have been interested to see this critique develop and I just had Zephyr teach out on my show. There's an episode with her and Shoikha Chakrabody called Abundance in the Left that I think people would be interested to hear sort of do the power debate at some length. I think this has been very revealing to me about what my friends on the left and I think of myself usually as on the left, though liberal, not a, not a leftist, I guess, mean when they say power. I think this is a book entirely about power, but it is a book that treats power highly situationally. So there is a structure of power that arranges itself around, say, a housing development in San Francisco that is a different structure of power than arranges itself around the question of can you build interstate transmission lines? Which is a different structure of power, then arranges itself around the question of can you cite rural broadband and build that in the way that you want to, which is a different structure of power than you see in a bunch of the other cases in the book. And one thing we are attempting to do over and over and over again is get extremely granular about what is happening. So one thing that bothers me about the power analysis that, that I hear on the left, let's take housing because I always think it's very important to ground things in like a specific case. Texas builds more housing than California. It builds more housing than New York. When people move to Austin and Houston and Dallas, they build homes. When people move to San Jose and San Francisco and Los Angeles, they don't. Is your view, do you find it a credible view to say that the issue is Texas has solved the corporate power problem, but California is permeable to corporate power and dominated by oligarchy in a way that Texas or for that matter, Florida is not?
- [26:51]
Sam Cedar
Well, I don't know if it's Necessarily, I think it's not necessarily corporate power. I think what we're talking about is money. I think we're just talking about money.
- [27:01]
Unknown Speaker
Texas has solved the money in politics problem, but California, well, I can tell.
- [27:06]
Sam Cedar
You that, like, if you want to compare, let's say, San Francisco to Houston, right. You just have a lot more space in Houston. You have a lot more money in San Francisco. And so the power that rests with the money is more concentrated, literally. Right. And has the ability in those instances to stop this housing project or that housing project. Like look at Austin, for instance. You bring up Austin in the course of Austin. And, and, and this was. I read this in the review because obviously I'm not studying Austin or San Francisco for that matter. But Joe Wiesenthal wrote, you know, that his observation about Austin was that it was cheap and then it got very expensive. Then there was, and it was a function of costs went up, rents went up. It's. It became expensive there.
- [28:05]
Unknown Speaker
Rents have gone down in Austin because they built so much.
- [28:08]
Sam Cedar
They built.
- [28:09]
Unknown Speaker
So I really want to, I want to. Hold on what you said the first time. But, but, but San Francisco is concentrating.
- [28:13]
Sam Cedar
Money in a way that there was no change in the building codes, for.
- [28:19]
Unknown Speaker
Instance, like the argument that building code responded in Austin. So you can just go look. You can. I mean, I don't know if you guys are able to pull up data on the show and show it, but just go pull it up. If we can. You can search. Fred, housing starts in Austin and San Francisco. You could just do this in general. You can look at this analysis across blue and red cities. But, but what, what the difference. Oh, let me just, I'll, I want to go through, through this example, but we can go through a bunch of them. Houston doesn't have a zoning code. That's why it's easier to build there. I mean, I was talking to a developer there and he said, look, the thing everybody knows about Houston, if you're a developer, is it's a bad place to be a homeowner. It's a good place to be a developer. And this is what I mean when I say the whole book, in a way, is about power. That in these procedural questions, in this question of how do you get housing approved, what we have created in many blue cities and is a lot of veto points. And that veto point can be used by corporate power. It can be used by moneyed interests. It can be used by local homeowners who are not power in the way we would normally think of them. But sure, as hell are power when you're thinking about whether or not to build housing, it can be used by all sorts of players. And so I think that one of the places where I quite diverge from some of my other friends on this is that I think when you create this level of proceduralism, this level of veto points, they get captured by interests over time. And that that is a place where power can pool. Now, I think the place where I probably part just to finish the thought, I think the place where I probably part is that I think that the left is often very attentive to power when it is coming from certain recognized villains and much less attentive to power when it is coming from people who might in other contexts look like allies or just be local homeowners. But that can also be real power wielded in a problematic way.
- [30:07]
Sam Cedar
Well, but you listed off three entities that have power, corporate power, moneyed interests and homeowners. And I would suggest to you that in all three of those that you just listed that money is ultimately the controlling factor. So for instance, I can tell you like, I don't know San Francisco, I don't know Austin. I know Worcester, Mass. And I can tell you that during urban renewal we had, there was an entire neighborhood that was completely, I don't know if you've ever been to Worcester, had gone through 290. There was an entire neighborhood called Laurel Clayton, I think it was, that ended up dumping people into a housing project, Plumlee Village. And it was all run by the Worcester Redevelopment Authority that was completely streamlined. None of the other, you know, what we would call today groups. There was no equity involved in this, you know, equitable justice or anything like this. And the neighborhood was completely destroyed because input only essentially came from this big insurance company and the Worcester Redevelopment Authority, which was essentially owned by the same type of people. And, and I only know about this because a buddy of mine, which was homeless in high school because of how much destruction generationally it had created as a result of that. And so when you list off those three elements of power, in my mind, those are all moneyed interests, those local homeowners. I'm sure there are stories of low income people who own homes in an area that hasn't been redeveloped, stops, you know, is able to stop building. But I would imagine those are very far.
- [32:00]
Unknown Speaker
And I think we should be in agreement, right? If this is the case you're making, then I think we should be in agreement because there's no doubt that it's money when you, it's Sometimes money, interest for sure. Right.
- [32:14]
Sam Cedar
What is it the other.
- [32:15]
Unknown Speaker
Let me, let me, let me finish the thought and then, and then you can give me your rebuttal. When you create these highly legalistic systems, the people with the money to hire lawyers and lobbyists are going to be more capable within them. And so the structure of a society that begins to bury so much in bureaucracy, where you have to know when to show up to the planning meeting and you have to know who the city council members are, like it begins to structurally favor those who can navigate that society. So when we talk about things like upzoning, where we want to make it possible to build more houses in an area like everybody knows it is almost impossible to upzone a race rich area. And that is because they are able to bend this process to their will. Now you can take a place like.
- [33:01]
Sam Cedar
Let me address that. I mean, I get, I get that point there and because, and I think that is what worries, I don't know about other people, but that, that's the type of thing that worries me because the argument you've just made is almost identical to the one that I would have every week with Tim Carney, who I know you know, back in the day, which is a, an idea that the problem with wealthy influence. And if we, if you and I agree, then it is money the problem with it.
- [33:34]
Unknown Speaker
We don't agree that it's all money. Okay, I said money is one, is one mechanism of influence, but it is.
- [33:40]
Sam Cedar
I think it is the biggest one. Would you agree with that?
- [33:44]
Unknown Speaker
It depends on the issue. So look, there are a bunch of, there are lots of these issues.
- [33:50]
Sam Cedar
Okay, well, let me finish, let me finish my point about Tim Carney. He would say that you need to have less government. That way it cannot be as corrupted or manipulated by moneyed interest. Now I don't know if you think that money is the problem 51% of the time or 30% of the time.
- [34:11]
Unknown Speaker
I don't think categorically asking that question is. But here let me say where I disagree with Tim Carney, because maybe I'll clarify where maybe you and I don't agree. Tim wants a less capable state. I want a more capable state. Tim wants a state that does fewer things. I want a state capable of doing more things, including the things it has already promised to do. So when I look at California high speed rail, I work backwards and I say what the fuck happened that the state of California could not build high speed rail, which they can do in Japan, they can do in China, they can do In Europe, Tim looks at it and says they shouldn't be trying to build high speed rail. And so the disagreement I have with Doge, with a lot of different, with a lot of my friends on the right, is they want to reduce state capacity. I come at this from as a liberal who wants the state to accomplish very difficult things. Decarbonizing the economy, building enough affordable housing, including, by the way, public housing, building mass public infrastructure, things like high speed rail or the Big DIG or the 2nd Avenue subway here in New York City. And what I see is a state failing to accomplish its goals right now. They would say, don't fucking try. I would say fix the state. And one issue with the state is that it has become so highly regulated. Not in terms I see. I find that when I use the term deregulation, like people's brains turn off because they think of deregulation as something that the state does for the market. But no player is more highly regulated than the state itself. Often by Republicans, often because of power in the way that you would define it. But I think a lot of liberals, a lot of leftists have won, and this is my critique going backwards, cease to see this. But two, they don't take state failure seriously. And when something like California, when something like California high speed rail happens or rural broadband, they sort of move on instead of saying, why are we not delivering? We are the people who believe in government. People are pissed at government for. For a reason. How do we make government deliver?
- [36:10]
Sam Cedar
See, and I think the, and I think in terms of results, I think you and I are largely aligned. But I think the problem is, and you bring up Doge, and it's ironic that you and Carney will approach it in a very similar way, but anticipate different outcomes. But that being aside, I mean, I think that is where, you know, people get a little bit.
- [36:37]
Unknown Speaker
But I don't think we're approaching it similarly. I think it's at a level of abstraction, it's similar. And then you go granular and it's not at all.
- [36:43]
Sam Cedar
But see, this is what we're talking about. You see, like it's a pol. Their policy and politics are in the same place. So we have a level of abstraction, we have a level of granular, right? And the point is the way that these two co. Mingle, I think becomes problematic where these two things meet. Because your, your identification of the primary problem, right? I mean, this is the point like the. You don't address moneyed interest per se in the book. The primary problem is, I Mean, if you just do a, you know, like a summary of the book. Primary problem has to do more with the regulation and the handcuffing the state has done of itself, but the state doesn't do it itself. Like, all of this handcuffing comes from a place, and it's either moneyed interest or it's not. And I'm. I have no doubt. Different times.
- [37:46]
Unknown Speaker
This is where I think you've really oversimplified politics. I. I want to try to find the right example because I think if we stay high, we just are like, yelling about this abstract question of money. But let's talk. We both believe in decarbonization.
- [38:00]
Sam Cedar
I think that's really grounded.
- [38:02]
Unknown Speaker
Hold on. But let's talk about it from this perspective. We both believe in decarbonization. Right. Climate change is a problem.
- [38:10]
Sam Cedar
Yes.
- [38:10]
Unknown Speaker
And we sort of see the pathway on that is we have to build a lot of green energy to reorient our economy. So you can run a modern economy on a green energy basis. Yeah.
- [38:20]
Sam Cedar
Yes.
- [38:21]
Unknown Speaker
Okay. So to do that, you have to move all this energy production over to renewable sources, and then you have to get the energy from where it currently is. Right. A solar farm, a wind farm, hydroelectric, you know, project whatever it is and run it through transmission lines to where we plug shit into the wall and charge it. I have done a lot of coverage of this failure point because we are, to be perfectly clear about this failing to build enough transmission lines. There is no world in which our decarbonization strategy works if we cannot increase by orders of magnitude how fast we are building transmission lines. There is money trying to build transmission lines. There is money trying to slow down the building of transmission lines. Just walking into this process and saying, where's the money? Doesn't get you anywhere. Like, I have talked to the private equity figures trying to get a transmission line built. I have also talked to the green, you know, new dealers trying to get that same transmission line built. And I've also seen the people standing in the way of it who have all their reasonable and good arguments. I don't find when I dig into these things that the way I can just repeatedly sort politics as well. Like, over here there's the money, and the money is bad, and over here there is the not money, and the not money is good. Usually there's money on both sides of it. There are sometimes unions on both sides of it. And so the structure of the book, because I hope people come from this and want to read it, the structure of the book is Typically working backwards from a problem. We're not building enough housing. If we go granular on that, what can we learn? We're not building enough transmission lines. If we go granular, what can we learn? I just don't think abstracting out to money tied the state's hands. If money could untie the state's hands on a lot of big building projects, all these fucking developers would do it. But here, because the proceduralism takes on a life of its own.
- [40:08]
Sam Cedar
I, I, I follow what you're saying, that in each case there are specifics that are different and you cannot generalize. It sounds like what you're saying.
- [40:18]
Unknown Speaker
You can generalize some, but you, you have to take seriously the specific issues in each case, I have no doubt your generality should emerge out of the granularity.
- [40:27]
Sam Cedar
Okay, what are the generalities? Like, this is what, I guess what.
- [40:31]
Unknown Speaker
I'm, I am saying the default in America has become that building, particularly when the state is involved, has become too slow and expensive. We have created an architecture of policy that makes it too hard for us to achieve our goals in the real world and for that matter, in social insurance. Say it again.
- [40:46]
Sam Cedar
Who's the we?
- [40:48]
Unknown Speaker
It depends. I had, you're not going to look here, here's a version of the well.
- [40:55]
Sam Cedar
But I'm trying to address the point because, for instance, okay, so I don't.
- [41:01]
Unknown Speaker
Want to give you a better, better answer to who's the well?
- [41:03]
Sam Cedar
But why, why I think this is important, though, is because, see, this, to me, is the central question really about the book, because I think I could say there's some things in it I like, there's some things that I don't like. But the general point is, I think, for instance, where does the title Abundance come from?
- [41:25]
Unknown Speaker
Derek's piece on Abundance.
- [41:27]
Sam Cedar
Okay, the, the, we have seen an entire movement build up about abundance. Correct? I mean, like, there is a lot of money behind this broad notion of abundance. And Derek, I think it was on the Lex Friedman podcast, said something to the effect of there is a fight within the Democratic Party. I don't think he used the word for the soul, the Democratic Party, but for where we're going as a political, as a, as a, as a, as a political movement. And folks from the Nickerson center have said, like, we have identified the Democratic Party is the best place to have this abundance agenda. And so as a political matter, they're not talking about, you know, in that instance in the Nikkei, they're not saying, like in San Francisco, we need to roll back. We need to roll back this specific policy. This is attempting to develop a movement.
- [42:24]
Unknown Speaker
Well, I want to. I want to answer for myself here, not for this cannon. Right. So my first piece that you were.
- [42:29]
Sam Cedar
On that Lex Friedman podcast, I mean, that's.
- [42:32]
Unknown Speaker
People should go listen to it. I stand by everything I said on the Lex Friedman podcast, but Derek, I believe I'd have to go back and look at what section you're quoting from. But Derek is responding to a lot of very heated left criticism of the book, which, to be honest, neither of us were expecting. My. The way I wrote, at least my parts of the book, to me are extremely compatible with virtually and frankly, necessary for all left goals. It's a book about affordable housing, decarbonization, state capacity. And my initial piece that leads to this book is in, I believe, 2021. And it is building off of the fact that the Biden administration is trying to do decarbonization through building a lot. And as I begin to follow that policy project, I begin to realize we're not going to get it done under these laws. So that's, I think, one very important thing. But I want to go back to what you asked a minute ago, which is who's we in this book? We is Democrats. This book is very focused for a very particular reason that we can talk about, because it's not that the only problems in governance come from the left. They don't. My first book was all about the. Largely about the right and polarization and asymmetric polarization. But I became very interested, having moved back to California in 2018, in why is this state governed by all these Democrats doing so badly? Why is it unaffordable? Why is it building less clean energy than Texas? Why is it not building enough housing? And part of the motivation for doing this book is there are a lot of problems. Republicans, I mean, we're living through them right now. There are a lot of problems liberals impose, I'm sorry, Republicans impose on the political system. But there's a sort of rigor and confrontation that I think is demanded when you look at the states where the people who, broadly speaking, agree with you are in power and it's not working the way you want it to, you're not getting the outcomes you want to get. And so one story this book is telling is about a collision of the New Deal left, which is very, very focused on growth and building and in many ways is very reckless with that. Right. You were talking about Worcester, Massachusetts, which is. Sounds to me like it's a story from that era. But there we could give, you know, Robert Moses is a classic story of this. We can talk about, oh, you know, we really do despoil, like, environments and poison streams and we, you know, run highways through marginalized communities and all the things people know. And in response to that, again correctly, a New left arises. Ralph Nader, Rachel Carson, the entire environmental movement, and it passes all kinds of bills that are very, very, very effective and consequential in their day to restrain government's ability to act recklessly and to do things without considering and creating space for consideration of their impacts. So you have things like the National Environmental Policy act and all these, you know, bills and projects of that era. And then in this fucking maddening historical moment we're in, the problem becomes not that we're building too much, but we're building too little. And particularly building too little in the places where that left, that new left was most powerful. California, New York, places like that. And so this is a confrontation with having created a very successful architecture to challenge, restrain and sue the government that is now being used against liberal or leftist for that matter, projects. If you would like the government to do public housing, say you think I'm in a neo shitlib and you just want the government to do the public housing, great. I would like to see a lot more public housing too. The government cannot currently do public housing under the regulatory structure under which it operates. And yes, some of that is money, but it's also the fact that you can sue to stop all this stuff under the National Environmental Policy Act. It's also the fact that government, what I call everything, bagel liberalism, loads huge amounts of standards and projects and goals into everything that public money touches. So in California, it costs about 2x 2.2x per square foot to build housing, as it does in Texas. Fine. Market rate housing, 2x per square foot. If you are doing affordable housing subsidized by the government, it's more than forex. So why are we making the government's housing for the poorest people so much harder, slower, and more costly to build and like? Is that in the long run good for our goals? I think it is important to confront why government in the place where people agree with us more than the places where they don't, is not getting the outcomes we both want to see it achieve. That's what the book is about.
- [46:56]
Sam Cedar
And I don't know how much public housing is in Texas or how much public housing is in Texas or if we're. But. And that seems to me to be a Relevant question. But the, the notion of the everything bagel liberalism. This is the idea that like we have constraints on federal money, that certain amount of union workers, or there may be a certain amount of, of equity associated with it and at one point.
- [47:27]
Unknown Speaker
Or contracting procurement or a million other things. Right.
- [47:30]
Sam Cedar
And like there's, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that, you know, we could go through this, these, these bills and find things that are problematic if they are coming necessarily from. I have two, there's two issues. One is there was one point in the book where you talked about we have a choice whether we're going to put filters into apartments that are built, public housing built near highways, or the people are going to live under the highway. And it seems to me that there's got to be a third choice as opposed to we're going to poison people slowly or we're going to keep them unhoused.
- [48:15]
Unknown Speaker
So I want to say specifically what you're talking about that section. So I'm talking to Jasmine Tong, who's an affordable housing developer, does nonprofit affordable housing. And what she is saying is that compared to market rate housing, when she is building housing for homeless people, she is subject to environmental, green building standards, etc. That are so far beyond what market rate housing has to do that it often makes it impossible to finance the thing entirely. And a lot of these projects both no fall apart. And I am saying there that it makes a lot of sense. You understand how people get into a conversation that we should have better than average air filtration systems in, you know, affordable housing built near a freeway. But in a city where you are not building enough affordable, affordable housing at all, because again, you have layered not just that, but a million of these onto every individual project. So again, it's costing much more per square foot than market rate housing at.
- [49:10]
Sam Cedar
Some point is built near the highway. Why, why is that? Say again, most public housing, some huge percentage of public housing is built.
- [49:22]
Unknown Speaker
We're not even talking. Yes, that's all. I mean, listen, we're in agreement that that's all power. But when we are talking, I am saying that the affordable. We are not building enough affordable housing.
- [49:32]
Sam Cedar
Why are we addressing that far downstream the issue issue when we're completely alighting the issue that is upstream from that.
- [49:42]
Unknown Speaker
Which is completely alighting the issue. The whole fucking book, man, is about wrecking these zoning codes that allow rich people to keep it out of their areas. If you can't build it in the first place, because you can't make it Affordable to build, which the people who build it will tell you. I think I've actually found this whole. The set of arguments I've had, and it's really productive in a way. I don't disagree with you about power, but every time we talk about a specifically like, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's a problem. But no, we actually have to solve the problem like I am. If you want to make housing development by right, which I think you should do so that rich communities can't stop it. And the affordable, like, I live on a block with public housing right now. I believe there should be public housing mixed in everywhere. But you can't build it if you cannot affordably build it if you're going to, you know, in Chicago, the mayor of Chicago sent out this tweet and he said, hey, look at all we're doing. We built 10,000 units of affordable housing for $11 billion. People like you did fucking what? Like, whatever it was, it came to $1.1 million per unit. If we're going to cost $1.1 million per unit, when the government builds housing for poor people, we can't build enough of it. It doesn't matter where you're building it.
- [50:54]
Sam Cedar
I mean, the, I think the, the, you know, even if I stipulate that it is exclusively zoning requirements, or the everything bagel liberalism that is creating the. The, the barrier to build, you know, housing, you know, we can, we can look at the CHIPS act, and that was also something that had everything big liberalism built into it, which apparently, as far as I could tell, up until, you know, Donald Trump shows up, was quite effective in, I mean, the timeline of things definitely hold.
- [51:39]
Unknown Speaker
They went back and answered one of my critiques on the CHIPS Act. If you go back to that original piece, one of the things I'm saying is that they've loaded a lot into this bill, but taken nothing away after that piece comes out. Joe Biden, President Joe Biden signs a bill from Ted Cruz and Mark Kelly exempting the CHIPS act from environmental review under the theory, as the administration says, that we cannot allow this to be delayed for years and years under environmental review.
- [52:03]
Sam Cedar
This is the.
- [52:04]
Unknown Speaker
You can think that's bad or good, but if you want to say the CHIPS act is going smoothly and well, it's in part because they took the critique well.
- [52:11]
Sam Cedar
The. I think there are instances and, you know, you talk about i95, for instance, what Shapiro was able to.
- [52:18]
Unknown Speaker
Pennsylvania.
- [52:20]
Sam Cedar
The idea that, you know, and my argument is without that equity, you do get people living in apartments that are Going to slowly kill them or give them asthma or higher asthma rates. Without that equity, you are going to destroy a neighborhood like we saw in Worcester with generational impact. But I also think as a political matter, you, it is extremely difficult unless there is some type of buy in from everybody that there are circumstances that qualify as an emergency or an urgency that give you the political ability to do something like this. So for instance, in the i95 thing, you cite that as an example of where this type of like power, sort of centralized power to bypass this stuff is effective. And it was very effective in that moment. But if you contemplate like the, the constituents who and constituencies who would be for it versus against it within, you know, there may be people who are like, I got a store on Route 1 and if 95, that bridge is down, I'm going to make a lot of money because people are going to drive by. But outside of that there was an alignment where in the fact that you could essentially bypass these things in a state of an emergency. There was the political will to do that. There was the political will to do that. In the context of the CHIPS act and to, to, to revitalize industrialization, you had buy in. And on some level it feels like some of what you're talking about with the jettison of the everything bagel liberalism, maybe it's like it's not what you're talking about. Jettisoning is not the poppy seeds or the garlic or whatever it is on top, but it's like maybe the salt inside or you know, the, the, the dough.
- [54:29]
Unknown Speaker
Well, you mean that very. You have to be very connected to what you're trying to achieve. Like I guess I would turn this question on you because I feel like we, we want to be as you're saying earlier, upstream. Do you think we can build enough affordable housing if the units cost $650,000 to $1 million to complete per unit just flat. Like can we pay for that?
- [54:53]
Sam Cedar
I would imagine not, depending on. So how.
- [54:56]
Unknown Speaker
So, so what should we do then? Like what, what is your view of what is pushed? It doesn't cost that much to build market rate housing. So what is your view? If, when government, if when you trigger government money, you often double the per square foot cost in some cases of the housing it builds or when you trigger government money, they don't get things like high speed rail done. Like all I want to do here, man, I'm not here for like a big like left liberal, moderate fight. I actually want the government to deliver things. I think we both want it to deliver. I don't want it to give people asthma, but I need it to be able to build housing because homelessness is a fucking problem. And it is the worst problem for the people experiencing it, not for me. So what is your theory? I mean, look how you get this cost of construction down, the speed up. There's got to be some. Something here.
- [55:44]
Sam Cedar
Well, it's obviously localized, right? I mean, I have a sense of like in New York, how it could be cheaper.
- [55:51]
Unknown Speaker
Okay, let's do New York.
- [55:52]
Sam Cedar
Do not allow developers to sit on land and wait for the market to catch up to them. We do not allow homes to sit unoccupied without it being a cost on those people. I mean, there is. There is a lot of excess housing and space in the city that is being held in private hands.
- [56:18]
Unknown Speaker
Okay, great. Let's say we do all that, but we're talking here very specifically, the New York City is going to have to build housing that is affordable. We know, like, there are studies on this. You can read them. You can go talk to developers. Like, the reporting on this is like very straightforward. We know that when you trigger the public rules, it ends up being extremely, extremely expensive. We know that like in San Francisco where they would try to build a public toilet for almost $2 million, they do that here too. Why does it cost so much and why does so often fail when government tries to achieve the things we both wanted to do?
- [56:53]
Sam Cedar
I think property has been so commodified that there is such a profit incentive, such a money incentive to slow that roll, that it creates a whole litany. There's an everything talking about. There's an everything bagel talking about projects.
- [57:15]
Unknown Speaker
That are past that point. Point. Like, I think, let me be really meta clear here on what I'm trying to do with you, because I think you keep wanting to pull it back to where we can. Let's say, let's totally premise. Corporations are terrible. They are bad. They're like, they are your enemy.
- [57:30]
Sam Cedar
Hold on, agenda.
- [57:32]
Unknown Speaker
And yes, there are cases where the government is building affordable housing on land they own or they have already bought or they are funding somebody else to build it that is already nonprofit housing. This is just like it's not being done for profit. We are not in a commodified system. We know that housing costs more than the commodified housing cost to build. It is fine to say that it costs more. This is a totally reasonable interpretation. That is because wealthy landowners and wealthy corporations have colluded maybe with other figures on Rules that have made a cost more. But which of these are you going to pull apart? Right. Which. This is the trade offs that we are trying to force people to confront in abundance. You have to go into this thing and say this is not working, I need to make it cheaper, faster, more achievable. Like when you can't make the corporation your villain, who, what are you doing? Like how do you approach that?
- [58:24]
Sam Cedar
A question of that problem of making the. Well first off, I think as a political matter, making the corporations a villain is going to be far more, you're going to have a far broader support than making, you know, environmental groups or people seeking equity in housing the villain.
- [58:43]
Unknown Speaker
That's fine, but, but then I would problem here.
- [58:46]
Sam Cedar
Well, and then I would say the problem again is that we have so greatly commodified housing there is such a profit incentive to create these barriers. I know how they exist today, but the idea of unwinding it, you're just like, you know, the whole book is about the idea that what was good intention 25 years ago, 40 years ago has now brought us this problem. It seems to me that there's an attempt to restart that cycle where we're.
- [59:16]
Unknown Speaker
Going to say I just, I really want to push you. I don't think you can say the reason it costs more money and is so much more difficult and is so much slower to build nonprofit affordable housing than to build market rate housing is because we've over commodified housing. I just, I just don't. Or that that Texas is better at building housing because they have somehow decommodified housing compared to California.
- [59:38]
Sam Cedar
They have more space.
- [59:39]
Unknown Speaker
They simply have plenty of space. If you go to San Jose, man, there is plenty of space. It's strip malls and single family homes. It is one of the richest tracts of land in the whole country, in the whole world. It could be skyscrapers, it could be Shenzhen, it is strip malls and single family homes. We have plenty of space in California.
- [59:58]
Sam Cedar
I mean I can't speak to San Jose.
- [60:01]
Unknown Speaker
Like Silicon Valley is what I'm talking about. Like you go right around where these fucking venture capital firms, man, I promise you, you will not leave that drive saying there is nowhere to build six.
- [60:11]
Sam Cedar
Story apartment building and do we have public transport there?
- [60:15]
Unknown Speaker
Like how we would if we could build it. That was part of what high speed rail is supposed to be doing, which is why I'm so rich.
- [60:21]
Sam Cedar
Tax base is going to pay for those, for that public transport and those buildings there.
- [60:27]
Unknown Speaker
I mean that was our tax base. I was One of the taxpayers.
- [60:30]
Sam Cedar
Well, I, I mean we, I am.
- [60:32]
Unknown Speaker
Saying that I don't think it is plausible to say that the reason you can't build in like San Jose and you can in Texas is that we've decommodified in Texas. We just haven't.
- [60:41]
Sam Cedar
Well, we have plenty, we have plenty of space in the desert too. But the point is, is how are we going to. I'm talking about the places where you, where, you know, you guys specifically make the point that New York City, San Francisco, these places are, you know, where people should be living and creating. And the I, from my perspective in New York, having, you know, lived here more or less for 30 some odd years, 35 years, this place got a lot more expensive. Not because there were constraints on zoning, not because there was equity. There hasn't been like this place got more expensive.
- [61:27]
Unknown Speaker
I'm not again, I am pro equity. I believe what I'm doing will create a whole lot more equity because you need to make the affordable housing. But you know, in the book, if you've listened to it, I have a whole section critiquing Michael Bloomberg for this whole concept that New York City should be a luxury good. That whole section of the book that it is a incredible mistake that a lot of Democrats made along the way to sort of get into this idea that it is like a penthouse for the upper class.
- [61:55]
Sam Cedar
Yes. And I would suggest, I mean look, there was a. This just came out a report by the Fed UCLA that specifically addressed the question of whether it was housing constraints. You California Federal Reserve researchers found that constrained housing supply is relatively unimportant, explaining the differences in rising house prices among US Cities.
- [62:27]
Unknown Speaker
Have you read the debate on this report?
- [62:30]
Sam Cedar
I haven't, but it put it said predicts the same. Okay, well it's controversial. I mean I'm willing to accept that like.
- [62:41]
Unknown Speaker
On some basic level you have enough things follow supply and demand. If you have enough of something, if you have too much of something, the price of it is going to fall. Right. To argue that higher incomes because, and this again, like I think in a weird way we would agree on this. Higher incomes are going to be a causal factor in restrictive zoning and building policies because people get higher incomes, they buy a house, that house becomes a major asset for them. And again, this is all in the book. The way they can protect the value of that asset is by making it impossible for people to live in near them. They are creating their own scarcity. And so again when I hear this book is not about power, to me this book is all about power.
- [63:21]
Sam Cedar
Well, but I still can't get an answer as to what is the primary. We're talking from a national perspective, right? I mean across the country. This is going to be a message. You just visited the Senate caucus to talk about this. Derek was talking about there's a fight. It's happening right now. Our book is trying to win a certain intra left coalitional fight about defining the future of liberal in the Democratic Party. I mean if this fight's going on and this is, this is part of a movement, there's a lot of money behind it. The, I can't remember the organization you probably know just dropped $120 million citing the abundance movement. There's a lot of money behind this. What is the. I know that there are granular problems in each of these different cities, but do you think there, if there is a villain, and I imagine that there's, you know, a good movement always needs a villain. What is the villain? Is it, is it just the. It is. We have overly restrictive zoning.
- [64:34]
Unknown Speaker
And I think you and I probably disagree that good movements are built on clear villains. But, but let me, let me try to give you a good answer to this question. We didn't think the intra left argument was with you. Just to be really blunt about it. I thought I, yeah, you, the, the Neo Brandeisians, etc.
- [64:54]
Sam Cedar
I don't know if I'm necessarily a Neo Brandeisian, but.
- [64:56]
Unknown Speaker
Okay, you may not be, but, but they've been, they've been very critical of it. We thought the intra left argument had to do much more with a debate that is very live. Again, it's a sort of new deal, new left divide to us between is the right future. Organizing government to organize the resources of society to create this kind of plenitude of housing, of energy, of infrastructure, these things that we want, of innovation, which is a big part of the book. Or is it more of a small as beautiful future? Is it more degrowth inflected? Is it more that we actually build too much already? Is it that there isn't enough meaning in things? In a weird way, Donald Trump has begun to really embody this other side. When he comes out and he says maybe the kids have too many dolls, right? You got 30 dolls, maybe only need two. You got 30 pencils, maybe you only need five. So our view was not that the sort of fight that was live here was with people who worry about corporate power. It's that if you come from the places I come from or frankly that you live in now, and I live in now, you see a lot of Democrats who show up at the planning meeting and don't want any affordable housing because they don't want it to change their housing values. You see a lot of people using all sorts of tools of delay in all sorts of directions to stop things from happening. And to us, like, I think one of the really profound fights is do you think delay as a omnipresent tool of governance is a virtue, or do you think speed is more of a virtue? And if you think speed is a virtue, as I do, I think we should deliver government services much faster. Then what sort of moves are you willing to make to make that true?
- [66:38]
Sam Cedar
I'm confused. You were surprised that your fight, that your, your fight was with the Neo Brandeis? Who, who, who did you think, who did you think the fight was like? You take.
- [66:53]
Unknown Speaker
There's a big schism in the environmental movement and the environmental community between the side that thinks we need to build our way towards decarbonization and the side that is much more about worrying that when we build things, we're going to change environments. We're, you know, using things like the California Environmental Quality act and National Environmental Policy act to stop things that, that, that.
- [67:16]
Sam Cedar
What, what would their movement. I'm trying to figure out who you're talking about. The growthers.
- [67:21]
Unknown Speaker
If you follow or report on any part of the decarbonization fight, you will find that the entire architecture of environmental policy we have is being mobilized against it in order to sue it out of existence, sometimes by moneyed interests. But there was a point in time when, like a chapter of the Sunrise movement, you know, I think it was in mass, signed onto a solar moratorium. There is a lot of conflict among people who see themselves as liberals, committed to these goals, et cetera, or on whether building is good or bad. I think that if you, if you're looking very skeptically, but what do you think NIMBYs are?
- [68:02]
Sam Cedar
Well, I think NIMBYs, for the most part are wealth, are wealthy people.
- [68:10]
Unknown Speaker
Right. That's a big part of the fight. We thought we were about to have.
- [68:12]
Sam Cedar
The Kennedys, you know.
- [68:14]
Unknown Speaker
Yes.
- [68:14]
Sam Cedar
Stop the, the, the windmills.
- [68:17]
Unknown Speaker
So now you're making my argument for me. Come on, do it. Give it to me.
- [68:20]
Sam Cedar
But I, the. If. When I look at the common strain through those people and their ability to actually impact policy, I see money.
- [68:32]
Unknown Speaker
Okay, but. So you, you look at one strain, and I probably have a broader set. So let me, let me say, let.
- [68:36]
Sam Cedar
Me give you one more than that.
- [68:38]
Unknown Speaker
Let Me give you one where we will disagree.
- [68:39]
Sam Cedar
Wait, what is broader than that?
- [68:41]
Unknown Speaker
Because it's not just the Kennedys. It's not just the people.
- [68:45]
Sam Cedar
Well, I know it's not just the Kennedys, but I'm talking wherever those NIMBYs succeed, I am willing to bet that the relationship between how much money they have and the YIMBYs have, the NIMBYs far more often than not will have more money. I mean, that's, this is like, I know, you know, the research on this, like when these are contested, there's no doubt my mind that, you know, there we have regulations or that. But it's to protect people's assets and people who have assets versus people who don't have assets. And so like that is the, I don't know how you generalize it more than that.
- [69:34]
Unknown Speaker
So I think, I think on this, on the NIMBY side, we largely agree, Right. And so when I say that we were looking, we thought there were different obvious sources of opposition. That was a big one. And we would, I mean, again, as you know, there is a whole section of the book about how destructive it has been to turn housing into the central asset class and wealth engine for the middle to upper middle class. Right. It's not true for the very wealthy, but that's a, you know, a thing people know. But here's a place where we probably disagree. In California, where I'm more familiar with the politics, the California Environmental Quality act, which I think most people agree has overgrown its initial design and is being used to say do things like try to stop UC Berkeley from expanding dormitoriums because more students are environmental nuisance. One thing that really defends it is that there's a coalition of unions that use CEQA to sue development in order to get unrelated labor standards concessions. And to me, that is a misuse of power. I am pro stronger labor standards. I am not pro radically expanding how much you can delay every single project in order to get concessions that were not in the initial architecture or vision of that bill. So yes, there is power. The NIMBYs are power and the NIMBYs are related to money. But power is also misused by groups I feel more allied with. That's one utility of focusing on blue states. For me.
- [71:04]
Sam Cedar
We had a union problem in the context of Medicare for all in that fight. I mean, there's, I think you can find that all, you know, I mean, across a ton of different issues. And you'll have unions on different sides of the same issue because carpenters and.
- [71:20]
Unknown Speaker
Builder trades are Very different in California.
- [71:22]
Sam Cedar
But I think we both agree that the net value of a strong union movement is, is a positive. And actually like a lot of problems we have in terms of across the board are a function of the deunionization of the, of the country. So there's no doubt, like we can find specific instances. And I sort of feel like that's, I think, you know, part of what I have as a critique of the book. There are particular instances, but broadly speaking, when we're talking about coalitional politics, which is definitionally democratic politics, to move forward and to have power and to actually get things done, it seems to me you can't do it by diminishing the coalition.
- [72:19]
Unknown Speaker
So there we genuinely disagree. Yes, like that. That is truly like, I want to, I always want to be very honest about points of disagreement. There are places where I think we are actually aligned and here I think Democrats have become way over coalitional and I think it is a huge problem that we are not delivering.
- [72:37]
Sam Cedar
Which, which parts of the coalition do you think should be jettisoned?
- [72:41]
Unknown Speaker
I don't ever talk about in terms of jettisoning because I don't think that's how coalitions work. I think they just change issue to issue. But I do not think we should have such a level of proceduralism that forces this many giveaways to this many interests in every process. And again, to use a, an example where I think we would probably be.
- [72:58]
Sam Cedar
Can you be specific about the interests? Are there interests that, that, that go across the board? I mean, that's, that's what I keep trying to get at is that like everything is specific.
- [73:09]
Unknown Speaker
You keep trying. I, I think my virtue is specificity. And your critique of me is I'm overly specific. Mine of you overly general.
- [73:15]
Sam Cedar
I'm saying like, you're not. You're specific about the granular instances, but you say the. We need to have less interests and I want to know who those interests are that we need to have less of.
- [73:27]
Unknown Speaker
I want to have. Let me go back to the Medicare example for a minute because you brought that up and I think it's a good one. We passed Medicare, sent out those cards in a year when the Biden administration did two things I think we both probably liked, which is prescription drug negotiations and limiting out of pocket lifetime caps or having lifetime caps for out of pocket costs. It took them three to four years to move it through a regulatory process that we have expanded with things like notice and comment periods and more opportunities for judicial review that can be utilized by, in this case pharmaceutical companies, but others as well to kind of slow everything down and force a lot of concession. I want to break that process and make it much more under agency discretion what they do and make it harder to challenge in that case. That's going to hurt pharmaceutical companies. Right. So I think that you and I would like it in the California housing case. I want to make housing instruction much closer to buy. Right? Right. I want you to have the right to build the housing you want to build, assuming it conforms to basic standards. This is what we've done in California for ADUs. It worked really, really well. A lot of people will be mad about that. NIMBY's, certain unions, etc. I would like to make it easier to build modular housing. Again, different people will be mad at that. I don't have one answer for you on who I'm trying to screw over because I'm not trying to screw anybody over. What I'm trying to do is focus liberal governance on the outcomes it is promising people and get people to confront why we are failing to deliver them. If you end up with a different answer than me, that's great. But that should be a very granular confrontation with why high speed rail didn't happen, why the second Avenue subway is so fucking expensive, why we're not building enough housing. I don't believe you can do this in generalities in the way that I think a lot of people want to. I think that it requires a lot of confrontation with, with the individual failures we see and then trying to figure out, okay, do things rhyme across these failures? Is there a level of government that should have the authority that currently does it, that kind of thing.
- [75:31]
Sam Cedar
All right, I've held you really long and so I want to. But let me just. Yeah. So what is then the political. Like what do we organize around as a political movement? If it is in, in these various instances, people are going to get situationally marginalized in the process. Right. I mean, or however, however gently you want to say these your interests here. We're going to ignore in these specific cases. What is the political message that's going to resonate and get these different factions of the Democratic Party on board with this as a broad message.
- [76:17]
Unknown Speaker
I think every national politician who succeeds tends to be reformist and highly critical of the era of their party that came right before them. Bill Clinton was very critical of the Democratic Party preceding him, you know, sort of New Democrat, et cetera. Barack Obama was extremely critical of both the way money acted in politics prior to him. You could you might disagree about his actual administration, but and then the Iraq war. Donald Trump was extremely critical of the pre Donald Trump Republican Party. I think being honest with people that you have noticed the same failures on your side that they have is a very potent politics now. I am not a politician. I don't have to win elections. I have a freedom to say things that I think are true that maybe people to judge and Wes Moore and you know, Gretchen Whitmer and whoever don't. So I don't necessarily come here telling you I know how to win elections. I don't think you should believe me or really anybody else who doesn't routinely win elections if they tell you that. But the idea that pointing out, yeah, we fucked up. Yeah, things are moving too slow. Yeah. You don't feel the government is spending your money. Well, I thought it was incredibly telling that when the New York Times polled this just a couple of weeks ago. What you found when you polled people like is government inefficient? Plus 18 is Doge a good idea? Plus 6 is Doge doing a good job? Minus some significant number is Elon Musk doing a good job like -18 or 20. People believe, often correctly, that government doesn't deliver for them, that it's not spending their money well, that they're not getting what they want out of it. And I think going to them in the first order and saying, yeah, I am going to be laser relentlessly focused on, on making sure the roads I promise to fix for you actually get fucking fixed this time. We are actually going to. Bill, we learned something about California high speed rail. And the next time we do one of these big projects, here's what we learned and here's how we are going to make it work. Look, I could be wrong. I think it's important.
- [78:17]
Sam Cedar
Of the three Democratic presidencies that we've lived under, would you rate the highest in terms of your policy set in terms of accomplishing them?
- [78:29]
Unknown Speaker
Obama. But a lot of. But there's things you need to learn from that one too.
- [78:33]
Sam Cedar
And that's a function of the aca.
- [78:35]
Unknown Speaker
Function of the aca. I mean I think they got a lot done that was very valuable. But I will always say that part of my thinking goes back to that era because you go back to the 2009 stimulus bill and what does it promise? What are its big headline projects that are going to be the reinvestment side? It's high speed rail, it's a national set of interoperable health records and it's a national smart grid and we are over three.
- [78:59]
Sam Cedar
I would also argue they screwed up on the housing crisis immensely. And under Obama, we lost, what was it, a thousand statewide Democrats. Which is why I think we had such a poor bench over the, you know, in the following 10 years, some comptroller loses their, their, their job because of the wave. I'm not convinced that we didn't get Trump as a function of Obama.
- [79:26]
Unknown Speaker
I think, I think a full debate between us and Obama should be for.
- [79:29]
Sam Cedar
Another day, a different day. But Ezra, I really appreciate you taking the time and we will link to abundance and of course your podcast, huge podcast. And the New York Times is also a well known newspaper.
- [79:48]
Unknown Speaker
I've heard of it. Yeah, a strong Northeast regional. Thank you, Sam. I enjoyed it.
- [79:52]
Sam Cedar
All right, thanks, Ezra. All right, folks, we got to take quick break, head into the fun half of the program wherein we will have fun.
- [80:02]
Ezra Klein
What's that?
- [80:05]
Sam Cedar
I didn't feel like we could have done that for a. I don't know what just happened. Folks, it's your support. It's your support that keeps this show going. You can become a member@jointhemajorityreport.com when you do, you not only get the free show free of commercials, you also get the fun half. You get to I am the show.
- [80:52]
Ezra Klein
This, this is the part that Russell we were just saying for ourselves when he got to break.
- [80:57]
Emma Vigeland
I always go to break here. This part, this is never on the show.
- [81:00]
Sam Cedar
I was just saying there was a lot of reviews apparently. I don't. When did I get cut off A.
- [81:06]
Ezra Klein
Russ went Instead of the one shot, he just went to break.
- [81:08]
Emma Vigeland
There's like a 10 second pause where you weren't 10 talking. So I thought okay, maybe get with the program.
- [81:14]
Sam Cedar
People should be listening to this show on one and a half times speed. That is like that is the bar to entry for this program.
- [81:22]
Ezra Klein
That is what I listen to.
- [81:25]
Sam Cedar
Also don't forget, just coffee, co op, fair trade coffee, hot chocolate. Use the coupon code. Majority get 10% off. And check out. Look at if there is ever a day where I came off as Max left foot. The foot of this is the hat. This is the merch is the merge pitch. They just went to town. Those evil corporate. Evil corporate bastards. Mac, Max left you can get the truckers hat. Two different types of truckers hats. Check those out. We have completely. Russ. There we go.
- [82:09]
Emma Vigeland
Working on it.
- [82:11]
Sam Cedar
We have completely over commodified merch and hats.
- [82:19]
Emma Vigeland
Can I pitch a hat?
- [82:20]
Sam Cedar
Listen, I'll tell you something. You can pitch a hat, but you got to go through a lot of procedures before we even contemplate it, which is why these hats cost 35 bucks.
- [82:30]
Emma Vigeland
I want to have this as Ezra fucking Klein, all right? Because he. I feel like he said the F word a lot.
- [82:36]
Sam Cedar
Did he?
- [82:37]
Ezra Klein
I like that.
- [82:38]
Emma Vigeland
It was maybe more than a dozen F bombs.
- [82:40]
Sam Cedar
Are you serious?
- [82:41]
Ezra Klein
We need an abundance of.
- [82:42]
Sam Cedar
I didn't. I did not. I don't register that, but I didn't swear.
- [82:47]
Emma Vigeland
Not once.
- [82:48]
Sam Cedar
Okay. Yeah, no, I've trained myself. That was back in the day on radio. I was like, I'm not going to. Cause the who's going to pay this $50,000 fine ain't going to be me.
- [82:58]
Ezra Klein
I feel like I. I heard in the old archives you talking to janine in, like, 2007 or something about how you taught yourself how not to and you never swore on air accidentally.
- [83:09]
Sam Cedar
Yeah, I don't remember what. I don't remember how I did that. But anyways. Shop. MajorityReportRadio.com Matt left Reckoning.
- [83:21]
Ezra Klein
Yeah, actually, speaking of big ideas, huge show for ideas last night on Left Reckoning, Andrew Hartman talking about his giant opus, Karl Marx in America, which is a really exceptional book, talking about the history of that guy's ideas and how they've been inspiring and terrifying people in this country. Also, Michael Burns, formerly of Wisecrack, came on to talk about philosophy. If we're less philosophical than we were 15 years ago, masculinity and religion. So all the big ideas last night. Patreon.com left reckon in.
- [83:55]
Sam Cedar
See you in the fun half.
- [83:58]
Emma Vigeland
So now I have to do the animation, right?
- [84:05]
Sam Cedar
Three months from now, six months from now, nine months from now. And I don't think it's going to be the same as it looks like in six months from now. And I don't know if it's necessarily going to be better six months from now than it is three months from now, but I think around 18 months out, we're going to look back and go like, wow. What? What is that going on? It's nuts. Wait a second. Hold on. Hold on for a second. Emma, welcome to the program.
- [84:35]
Unknown Speaker
Fun Half. Matt, do Fun Half.
- [84:39]
Sam Cedar
What is up, everyone? Fun half.
- [84:42]
Unknown Speaker
No. McKee, you did it.
- [84:44]
Sam Cedar
Fun Half.
- [84:45]
Unknown Speaker
Let's go, Brandon. Let's go, Brandon. Fun Half.
- [84:50]
Sam Cedar
Bradley, you want to say hello? Sorry to disappoint everyone. I'm just a random guy.
- [84:55]
Unknown Speaker
It's all the boys today. Fundamentally false. No. I'm sorry. Women.
- [84:59]
Sam Cedar
Stop talking for a second and let me finish.
- [85:02]
Emma Vigeland
Where is this coming from, dude?
- [85:03]
Sam Cedar
But, dude, you Want to smoke this? Sip an egg. Yes. Hi. Me? Yeah.
- [85:16]
Unknown Speaker
Is this me?
- [85:18]
Sam Cedar
Is it me? It is you. Is this me?
- [85:23]
Unknown Speaker
Hello?
- [85:24]
Sam Cedar
It's me. Think it is you. Who is you? No sound. Every single freaking day. What's on your mind?
- [85:32]
Unknown Speaker
Sports. We can discuss free markets.
- [85:34]
Sam Cedar
And we can discuss capitalism. I'm gonna go skylight. Libertarians.
- [85:38]
Unknown Speaker
They're so stupid.
- [85:39]
Sam Cedar
Though common sense says of course. Gobbledygo. Gook. We nailed him. So what's 79?
- [85:45]
Unknown Speaker
21.
- [85:46]
Sam Cedar
Challenge. Man, I'm positively quivering. I believe 96. I want to say 857. 210.
- [85:51]
Unknown Speaker
501.
- [85:52]
Sam Cedar
1/2. 3, 8, 9, 11.
- [85:55]
Ezra Klein
For instance.
- [85:56]
Unknown Speaker
$3,400. 1900.
- [85:58]
Sam Cedar
54. $3 trillion. Sold. It's a zero sum game. Actually.
- [86:04]
Unknown Speaker
You're making me think less.
- [86:05]
Sam Cedar
But let me say this.
- [86:07]
Unknown Speaker
Poop. You can call it satire. Sam goes to satire.
- [86:11]
Sam Cedar
On top of it all. My favorite part about you is just like every day, all day, like everything you do. Without a doubt. Hey, buddy. We see you. All right, folks, folks, folks.
- [86:27]
Unknown Speaker
It's just the week being weeded out.
- [86:29]
Sam Cedar
Obviously. Yeah. Sun's out, guns out. I, I, I don't know. But you should know, people just don't.
- [86:40]
Ezra Klein
Like to entertain ideas anymore.
- [86:42]
Sam Cedar
I have a question. Who cares?
- [86:46]
Ezra Klein
Our chat is enabled, folks.
- [86:48]
Sam Cedar
I love it.
- [86:49]
Unknown Speaker
I do love that.
- [86:52]
Sam Cedar
Gotta jump. Gotta be quick. I gotta jump.
- [86:54]
Emma Vigeland
I'm losing it, bro.
- [86:58]
Sam Cedar
2 o' clock, we're already late and the guy's being a dick. So screw him. Sent to a gulag.
- [87:05]
Unknown Speaker
Outrageous.
- [87:06]
Sam Cedar
What is wrong with you?
- [87:08]
Unknown Speaker
Love you.
- [87:09]
Sam Cedar
Bye. Love you. Bye. Bye.