Lever Time - Premium

Producer Frank 0:10
Hello and welcome to labor time the show where we get the Washington Post to correct their own fact checker. I am your guest host producer Frank David Sirota will be out again this week. My sincerest apologies to all of the Serota heads out there who were awaiting his return. On today's show, we will be talking about one of our reporters here at the lever who easily disproved the Washington Post fact checker and forced the publication to issue a correction on a highly sensitive story. Then we'll be talking about the very important and underreported chips act and how it might actually be a giveaway for corrupt tech giants. Finally, we'll be sharing David's interview with Stacy Walker, the first African American to be elected to the Linn County Board of Supervisors in Iowa history. David spoke with Stacey about his experience governing as a progressive Democrat in a red state during the Trump era and what national Democrats can learn from him. This week, our paid subscribers will get to hear the best moments from the levers call in show from this past week in which David and special guest Kate Aronoff discussed where the climate movement goes from here after the passing of the so called inflation Reduction Act. If you would like access to overtime premium head over to lever news.com To become a supporting subscriber giving you access to all of our premium content. And you will be directly supporting the investigative journalism that we do here at the lever. Speaking of which, if you liked this podcast, and you like our reporting, please tell your friends and family about the lever forward them our emails, share links, you know, the only way that independent media grows is by word of mouth. So we need all of the help we can get to continue doing the work we're doing. As I mentioned, David is not here again. Sadly, we're actually at this point thinking about changing the name of this podcast to producer Frank time. It's on that everything's on the table. We haven't made any decisions yet. Please tweet at us if you have any opinions on a potential name change for the podcast. But let's dive right in to our first lever story for the week in which we're going to be talking about the Washington Post. Now, it's no secret that we here at the lever despise corporate media, especially legacy newspapers like the Washington Post, which pretend to be arbiters of objective truth, but are in fact, owned by fucking Jeff Bezos. Well, the post experienced some controversy recently. So last month, the posts fact checker, this guy named Glenn Kessler wrote a piece which ended up being very widely shared, in which he questioned the validity of a new story out of Indianapolis, about a 10 year old girl from Ohio who had traveled to Indiana for an abortion after being raped. So Glenn writes this column questioning the validity of this horrific crime. And it was immediately picked up and amplified by tons of conservative media outlets, you know, basically calling bullshit on liberals like oh, look, look, look at all of this fake news about these horrific rape abortion cases, right? Because that's what conservative media does, until the original story was ultimately confirmed by reporters. So look, we understand that reporters occasionally make mistakes and need to correct their reporting. But when it comes to baselessly, questioning the highly sensitive story of a 10 year old rape victim, Glenn and the post clearly did not do their due diligence. So now we will be joined by the levers, Andrew Perez, who decided to do a little digging and find out where the Washington Post's fact checker got his facts from Andrew Perez, how's it going, Dude, Thanks for Thanks for joining us on lever time,

Andrew Perez 3:53
of course. Thanks. Happy to be here. As always on our lever podcast, you

Producer Frank 3:59
definitely one of our top three favorite reporters who appear on labor time so you can take that with you when you leave here. Andrew, you did some really great investigative reporting this past week for the lever about Glenn Kessler and the Washington Post. So give us a little background on this this post story that Kessler had written up and what it had originally reported.

Andrew Perez 4:25
So The Washington Post's fact checker columnist Glenn Kessler, you know, sort of a known enemy of progressives and progressive media in that he's, you know, constantly sort of botching facts in ways that serve corporate interests and, you know, then get weaponized against the left.

Producer Frank 4:49
I did not know Glenn Kessler before this, so I'm really glad that this was my introduction to him. Yeah,

Andrew Perez 4:54
it's a pretty putrid one. This this is probably the lowest that he's gone. I mean, I really got to assume so. So he wrote this column, you know, basically trying to fact check this story about a 10 year old rape victim who needed to travel from Ohio to Indiana to get an abortion after, after the Supreme Court knocked down Roe v. Wade, and invalidated federal protections for abortion rights, and this, you know, pretty extreme Ohio law was allowed to take effect. And so, you know, there was this sort of conservative media firestorm about this story of the second. The second that Joe Biden had had sort of talked about it even for a second on TV. They all you know, there was this, like smear campaign to just say that, you know, maybe this whole thing is false. This story is too good to be true, too good to check, which, you know, is total nonsense. We've We've since learned that, that actually, the story, you know, was accurate, that someone has been arrested for committing this crime. But in the meantime, Glenn Kessler wrote this column questioning the sourcing of the story. You know, basically raising questions about it being based on, you know, a single source and the source in this case was literally the like abortion provider with the doctor who performed the procedure, who was on record, you know, by name in in the Indianapolis Star?

Producer Frank 6:30
And can I ask you, would that normally meet, like, sort of the basic source requirements? Like a doctor on record? Yeah, I

Andrew Perez 6:39
would think so. You know, it's like a medical professional, but I think I do think that there was also even some backup verification in the story, like were like they spoke to like, maybe some other people who, who worked the clinic. But, you know, still this, this, the news narrative was that like, oh, it's, you know, just a single source. And it's, you know, a woman who really subjected herself to like a pretty big, you know, pylon for, for publicly sharing this story. Anyway, so, so Glenn, went through, he started contacting both like, the Ohio governor's office to be like, Have you heard of this, and then contacting these, like, county, children's service agencies? And, you know, basically asking them to like, hey, like, I mean, the emails, ridiculous what we found, but basically saying, like, hey, like, have you heard of this story in your area, like thinking that it would have to be reported to Children's Services. And so we got his correspondence with the agency that actually made a criminal referral to the police about about this case, in Columbus. But what we found was, Glenn wrote in his piece that he'd contacted all these children's service agencies, and none of them had heard of the matter, right. And then, you know, once the piece was they had to kind of update the piece once there was, you know, the reports about someone being arrested for committing this crime. So he then said that he'd contacted officials in Franklin County, Columbus, Ohio, and that those officials did not offer a response. And what our email showed was that was, you know, a flagrant bullshit. Actually, they had given him a response. And what they told him is that they would not be able to talk about specific cases, because like they're barred from doing so under Ohio law,

Producer Frank 8:44
and how were you able to obtain those emails,

Andrew Perez 8:47
we submitted a public records request to the children's service agency in Franklin County.

Producer Frank 8:52
So basically, this terrible thing happens this this 10 year old is is raped in Ohio needs to get an abortion and Indiana. Joe Biden mentions this story. conservative media jumps on it and is like this can't be true. And then Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post, basically does conservative media's dirty work and is like, Yep, I checked, it's no one knows anything about it. Yeah, that's, that's right. And then what did you actually discover from the Franklin County emails that you got?

Andrew Perez 9:19
Well, so what we found was that his his story about how franklin county officials did not offer a response was not was flatly you know, incorrect, just not true. And what ended up happening is the Washington Post was said that he missed that communication. But so they said it's not true and that they would not be able to talk about this because Ohio law prohibits them from sharing information about specific cases. And that's not that should not be surprising, either, right? Like there's there's like, there's like federal statutes here. And there's there's like state laws in many, many, probably almost every state saying that, like children's services. agencies cannot talk about cases involving involving children. You know, since since we've reported this story, we got back correspondents from one more County. And like showing their emails with Kasler, and you know, so those those officials actually said, like, we haven't heard of a case, but if we had, we wouldn't be able to discuss it with you because of like Ohio confidentiality rules. So written, like the fact that he left that out of his piece, you know, that like there are laws at play here that would bar county services agencies or children's services agencies, from sharing just information about this with him is is just a ridiculous oversight should never should never have been allowed. Like, it should have been a really basic fact checking question here. Like, would I be able to earn information here if I if I go this route, right, like, but he just, you know, left that out. And instead the peace, you know, raised all these like five warm fire questions about sourcing when, like, you know, the Indianapolis Star is reporting here was accurate, and just, Oh, my God, such a shit ton better reporting job than whatever Glenn Kessler put into this.

Producer Frank 11:10
So it's the distinction between him saying these counties said that this didn't happen versus these counties aren't allowed to tell me if anything happened. And yet, yeah, as the Washington books post fact checker, you think he would, he would think it would make that distinction?

Andrew Perez 11:24
Yeah, in the missing an email excuses, kind of ridiculous, right? Like, you don't really right, like in a piece like, this person did not respond to a request for comment. Like, if they have like, you definitely are checking your email for that. Or it's just not something because it's one of those things where they can be like, Yeah, I did, like, Yes, I did. The receipts on that. Yeah, yeah. And, you know, hear, like, God knows if they if they did raise any any questions or any issues with the post? It's not clear. You know, we didn't see any kind of like, extended communications chain here. Just just that Kessler reached out and they replied,

Producer Frank 12:03
I mean, reporters occasionally, you know, make mistakes, and they're reporting, but what was there something specific about Kessler, or this specific story that made you want to follow up on it?

Andrew Perez 12:14
You know, for me, one of the things that really raised the flag was, you know, so his piece did generate, like, some controversy when it when it first came out. And then then when it was updated, because like, because it was used, like it was weaponized by conservative media to raise all, you know, all these questions about, you know, a story involving, like, a 10 year old victim here, right? Like, this girl is a victim, like, there's no reason to be is putting, you know, these kinds of resources into questioning this story, a story where a doctor was on the record. And then, you know, I found his whole kind of updated correction to just be really, really ham handed, sort of like blaming other people. He did an interview with Nieman lab, where, you know, he was pressed on, like his basically his skepticism here. And he said that, that, you know, that the story was based on like the word of an activist in one side of the debate, you know, referring to this abortion provider as an activist in one side of the debate, it just, it just speaks to, you know, how conservative or how conservative and establishment corporate media have, you know, basically just injected this, like, falsehood is the basis of like, everyone's reporting this idea that, like objectivity is like, airing out both sides of a debate, which is just, it's just fake. It's bullshit. It's totally fake. And especially, like, in this case, like, what, what's the other side of the debate here? Like, it's just it makes it makes absolutely zero cents. And it you know, there's so many so many clearly, like, you know, by biases clearly played a giant role in the conception of the story in the execution and the fact that like, there was a decision made to publish it at all right, like, the idea that like anyone is fully any reporter is fully objective and has no point of view is is just fake. It is an absolute fake construct that is just, you know, tearing apart journalism generally. And it's, you know, for me like, I think like we all kind of understand that like that in our organization that like people's views, you know, affect framing the effects story selection at the at the bare minimum. And clearly that happened here, right. That clearly happened in Kessler deciding to do this story, but he also doesn't seem to have gone about reporting it fairly at all.

Producer Frank 14:47
So you found all this out you though you did all this digging you. We published a piece at the lever where you basically detailed all this what what was the result of that did the post or Kessler was bond to your peace.

Andrew Perez 15:01
Kessler did not respond to my email. But the post a spokesperson did. They thanked me for bringing this to their attention. And they corrected the piece relatively quickly within like two hours like before. Before the deadline I give them they they corrected the piece. And they noted, you know, this issue. But now, you know, if you were to if you were to read the piece now, like, with the with them, noting that, like the Franklin County officials said that they couldn't, you know, couldn't answer your questions about specific cases. Like you read it now. And you're like, why was this published? Like, absolutely. Why is this published? Why is it on the internet? Like you didn't raise questions at all, you just throw questions out there and you know, assumed because you were, because it was coming from the Washington Post that, that they were important and vital and that people should, you know, then then then rely on that to tear apart, you know, a story about a better child rape victim. It's insane, right.

Producer Frank 15:58
It's a highly highly sensitive story that became essentially a conservative Flashpoint and the post decided to weighed in on it. And rather than treated carefully, they were like, well, it's also just kind of take the hatchet to it.

Andrew Perez 16:12
Just really a really sloppy piece, just a terribly sloppy job from from the post fact checker. And like, you know, it's not like he's never been sloppy, right? Like there's there's all these kinds of like fact checks he did on the Bernie campaign, like, you know, raising questions about the percentage of Americans who, you know, are suffering through medical debt. Like, you know, the Bernie campaign based on like, literally a study, a study was used to inform his talking points, like a, like a totally reputable study. And, you know, Glendon had to question In fact, effectively, like what the definition of is, is here, like on that study. So he's, you know, he's, like, known for being kind of pedantic and annoying. But, you know, there's a, I think, in this case, this, this approach clearly crossed

Producer Frank 17:05
a line. Well, Andrew, I'm really impressed by your attention to detail and your ability to dig this shit up when it's necessary. So really, really great work on this piece. Glad to glad to call you a co worker and a colleague and a friend, I would say at this

Andrew Perez 17:21
point. Thank you. Yeah, absolutely.

Producer Frank 17:25
For our next story, we're going to be talking about microchips. So if you've been paying attention to the supply chain disruptions that have been caused by the COVID pandemic over the last two years, you know that the US has a big microchip problem, specifically that we don't make them and that we have lost to the leading edge in designing and manufacturing most advanced microchips. Because after decades of globalization, which has offshored our domestic production The US has been left behind when it comes to manufacturing semiconductors, which is Microchip Technology used in goods including everything from computers, cell phones, medical devices, cars, and even advanced military technology. So this has resulted in a massive supply chain crunch, which has been a key contributor to inflation here in the US. Well, luckily, the Biden administration just passed the $280 billion chips Act, which includes 52 Billions specifically to boost us semiconductor manufacturing. But this money won't do much to solve the long term problems that have hamstrung the US semiconductor industry, and might actually be a huge bailout for the US chip manufacturers, which have spent nearly a quarter of a trillion that's trillion with a T quarter of a trillion dollars in the last decades on you guessed it, stock buybacks and shareholder dividends. So now we are joined by the levers Julia Rock who sat down with Hassan Khan, a technology procurement expert with a PhD in semiconductor policy from Carnegie Mellon's Department of Engineering, and public policy. Wow, that is a mouthful. Tell us a little bit about the chips Act and what you spoke to Hassan about.

Julia Rock 19:13
Yeah, so the chips Act was this actually pretty major piece of legislation that passed just before sort of all the chaos around the inflation Reduction Act. So it was a bit lost in the news cycle, but it was this big industrial policy bill aimed at both sort of reviving the US semiconductor industry, which, as you pointed out, has has largely been offshored over the past few decades, as well as some other sort of technology and science policy aims. And one of the key parts of the bill was giving a bunch of money to semiconductor companies for reshoring their manufacturing in the US and so I had this great and fascinating conversation with Hassan about sort of the history of the US semiconductor industry, and how exactly we reached this point where most, not only is most manufacturing of cheap semiconductors that are founded like cars and computers, offshored, which has been a huge contributor to inflation, but also the most advanced semiconductors, which are really key for sort of national security issues. Also are no longer made by Intel, which is a US company, the most advanced semiconductors are now made by a Taiwanese company. And so we had this great conversation about sort of how we reached this point. And then why the chips act isn't really going to solve this problem.

Producer Frank 20:41
I'm just curious. And this is just a frank question, but like, how much semiconductor history research did you do ahead of this interview? Because I've already listened to a little bit of it. It's like very, like, very heady. So like, I'm just curious, as a reporter, how much prep do you do going into something like this?

Julia Rock 20:56
So I had actually interviewed Hassan for a story, I think, a year and a half ago about how New York is trying to pitch itself as the new global hub of semiconductor manufacturing. And they're trying to do this by giving a bunch of money to companies to start manufacturing chips in upstate New York. And, you know, despite Cuomo and now Governor Huckle and Chuck Schumer's best efforts, still not happening. So I learned a little bit about the history of semiconductor manufacturing for that story, and then have just sort of been following the chips bill and reporting on it a little bit and slowly picked things up. By doing that. Yeah,

Producer Frank 21:39
that's just what the Hudson Valley needs is a bunch of microchip corporations coming in. Exactly. All right. Well, now let's go to Julia's interview with Hassan Khan. Wow.

Julia Rock 21:51
So you know, throughout much of this history, the US had some of the most advanced manufacturing technology, except you point out a brief period in which Japan overtook us in the 1980s. You know, today, the US doesn't manufacture any of the most advanced chips below five nanometers, whereas Taiwan semiconductor manufacturing company manufactures over 90% of advanced chips. How did we reach this point? Yeah, so

Hassan Khan 22:16
the inflection point that comes, that leads to sort of the state of affairs that we're in today is really, sort of the seeds of it are in the 1980s, when Japan overtakes the United States, what ends up happening is that there's a massive set of failures in the US where a lot of semiconductor firms go out of business. And then the industry actually reinvents itself post that fiasco, where it essentially bifurcates. So there's a set of firms in the United States that maintain their manufacturing capabilities, and they maintain them and then, but but they manufacture their own chips. So in industry parlance, they're called integrated device manufacturers. At the time, that included firms like Intel, AMD, IBM, and Ti were some of the biggest names, then a new crop of firms begin emerging around that same time that are called fabulous firms. So these were firms that would design their own chips. But because of the emergence of standardized design rules, which actually came out of work that was funded by DARPA, and the US government on how to design chips with standardized processes, because everyone else prior to that was kind of doing it with boutique processing, they could design the chip hand over the blueprints of that chip to a third party manufacturer, and that manufacturer could manufacture it on their equipment because of the standardized design rules. Right. So those were the fabulous firms who would design the chips, and then they would have a foundry manufacture the chip. So you have this split in the industry where you had integrated device manufacturers, many of the most famous ones were based in the US. And then you had an emerging class of fabulous firms. Again, some of the largest ones were based in the US and those fabulous firms would leverage foundries who oftentimes were not based in the US because those foundries could be lower cost in Asia. This is where Taiwan Semiconductor comes in, it gets started in the 1980s, sort of building some of this business, by book you know, by by getting business from from emerging fabulous firms. Anyway, fast forward throughout the 1990s. It's those integrated device manufacturers who continue to dominate and process technology. Again, the most famous is Intel, but there's basically a race between firms like Intel and IBM throughout the 1990s to continue to push the technological frontier. As time goes on. However, the number of firms who can maintain both design and manufacturing rapidly dwindles because maintaining your own manufacturing facilities is prohibitively expensive. It costs you I mean, you've seen the numbers today it costs 10 to $20 billion to build The state of the art fab. And then with the emergence of these foundries and the standardized design rules, you know, the economies of scale essentially say like every firm doesn't need its own fab when you can have when you can outsource to a third party production facility, and they can manufacture for you at a lower cost. So the number of manufacturers who are operating at the leading edge, I think, don't quote me on the exact numbers, I think in 2001, my leading edge I mean, like what was leading edge technology at the time in 2001, was on the order of 18, to 20. And then by 2018, it was three, only one of which was based in the United States. So as Intel, the other two would be considered TSMC and SAMSA. So what ends up happening specifically in the context of United States is that whereas in the 1990s, we had multiple firms vying for technological leadership within the US, and they were obviously competing against foreign competitors. Within the US, by the mid 2000s. We have one firm, and it's Intel. They're our champion, firm in terms of technological process. And so when we talk about America have been having the ability to make the most advanced chips, who was Intel's ability to manufacture the most advanced chips? So where do we where does the freak out about our law? There's actually so I'll pause here. And I'll say, the current freakout that began during the COVID pandemic, about America semiconductor supply chain. One of my core complaints has been that it's actually muddling several issues. There's one issue, the loss of American technological leadership, and that's functionally TSMC is overtaking of Intel. In terms of process technology. Right? I'll come back to that in a moment. The second one, which gets readily conflated with the first one is

our dependence on foreign manufacturers for the vast majority of our chips. And then there, everyone quotes the number that only 12% of semiconductors are manufactured in the United States, you've seen this number 1000s. And 1000s of times, it comes from an sia report that they did with BCG, where they cite that it used to be in 1990 40%. But now it's only 12%. But I'll come back to that in a moment. And then the third is there's you know, the concerns about, you know, reshoring and resilient supply chains, it's everybody suddenly cares about because we realized with shortages or like, and then of course, you know, manufacturing jobs and build back better and sort of the rhetoric about creating good employment opportunity to all across America. Okay, so let's go back, everyone. So, Intel actually lost the technological lead, I want to say in 2018, or 2019. But at the time, you'll notice no one cared. No one cares. You're doing podcasts about semiconductors in 2018, or 2019. Because it was sort of this like, obscure, like it didn't really matter. Because the even though Intel could no longer manufacture the most advanced chips, the most advanced chips, which are now being made by TSMC, were primarily being manufactured for American design firms. So firms like AMD, Qualcomm, and Nvidia were some of the largest customers for TSMC. They had the most advanced designs, and they would be the ones who leveraged TSM C's process capabilities to leapfrog Intel's offerings. So this was this was, although TSMC overtook the technological leading was not seen as like a net loss for America because American firms still had access to that technology. And they were the ones leveraging it to the most effect. But the crazy part and this is where i we i give this whole background on science policy is because if you look at the history of eu v development, America followed the science policy playbook to the tee. And yet the first commercial applications of EV never happened in America, because our ability to commercialize, rested solely on Intel, and Intel, fumbled the bag on. Right? So our technology leadership was fragile because it was reliant on a champion firm. I don't necessarily blame Intel for this. That's going to happen. Technological Development at the frontier is extremely difficult, and Intel is full of brilliant people. But from a policymaker perspective, we all of our chips were in one bag. They were in Intel's bag, right? And upon not intended, but I guess it's a good one. And but in today's world to be able to commercialize UV before TSMC. And that's one of the major reasons not that there's other reasons and to do but that's one of the major reasons they fell behind. But here's the crazy story. If you look at evey technology, its antecedents are a joint development program RAM between national laboratories and the semiconductor industries beginning in the 1990s. To put it succinctly, eu v technology, of which there's only one firm in the world who can make those machines, it's called ASML. It's a Dutch company is based off of technology developed at Sandia National Laboratories. So US government technology, which the US government helped to fund, the first beta to the first alpha tool up at SUNY Albany at SUNY Albany is nano center, with ASML. And then also the first beta production tool was installed at Intel in in their Oregon development facility. But the first commercialization of E V technology did not happen until TSMC, was able to implement it with their seven nanometer chip.

Julia Rock 30:53
You know, we now have have the the trips Act passed this week, Biden's going to sign it. And this is constituted by a few things subsidies for building chip fabs money for I think it's about 25 billion for research and advanced manufacturing tax credit. And and you sort of said, well, this is functionally a bailout for Intel, which we just talked about, it's a triumph of lobbying efforts, and that it is wholly insufficient to stop America's long term loss of competitiveness in semiconductors, which is I think this conversation makes very clear why that would be the case. But you also supported its passage. Why

Hassan Khan 31:31
here's the unfortunate reality. I don't I think when you go through the history of where we are, I think it becomes clearer that simply subsidizing manufacturing facilities for firms that are already wildly profitable, isn't going to solve sort of the deeper rot. However, this Congress, in particular, I do not think is capable of like sitting down crafting and passing that bill that it would take to do all of that work.

Without probably spending a bunch of time and putting any passage of any bill in jeopardy. So Annette, I think getting something passed is much better than getting nothing passed. My worry is that what I expect to happen is now Congress will say, Well, we gave you $52 billion. And then NSF we gave you 20 or $25 billion. So we did our job, we're done. We don't have to think about this, like chips and science policy stuff ever again. But I think as I've tried to be very vocal about is the issues are much deeper, and like money will help. But I think it's like putting a fresh paint coat on a house that needs new drywall, you know, like the house will certainly look nicer. For a while they might even fool a buyer down the line who buys the house. But at some point, they're going to realize, Oh, holy crap, the foundation is in bad shape. And that's where I worry is that we're not actually having the conversation about why the foundation is in bad shape. We just bought into the narrative that America needs to make the world's best chips, we can rely on Taiwan to make the best chips because China's going to invade them. So we should give $52 billion to the industry to make the best chips in America. But what that means is, like I said, it basically means Intel, please make the best chips in America. And we'll give that funding it looks like that funding will be made available to firms like TSMC, and Samsung, who are some of the other manufacturers that are at the leading edge or close to the leading edge. But TSMC has said explicitly, they're never going to build their most capable facilities outside of Taiwan, because they're in their knowledge base. Their best engineers are in Taiwan, they have a local ecosystem of expertise that's available to go between their most advanced facilities and troubleshoot things. They're not going to build their most advanced facility in Arizona when they've been doing everything in Taiwan for 30 years. Same with Samsung. It's the same story except in Korea. Right. So we will get fabs from TSMC and Samsung here that will probably increase the number of chips that are made here. But they won't be their most advanced fabs. Right. And then the only manufacturer who may have its most advanced fab in the US will be Intel, which is why it comes back to it's functionally a bailout of Intel. And what's what's ironic is that after the chips bill passed the Senate, Intel reported its earnings and reported its first net loss. And I don't know how many years I think it's 30 years. And on that earnings call said they're going to reduce their capital expenditures next year by $4 billion while increasing their dividend payment. So all this talk that we've been having for the last I forget how long Congress has been debating the chips Act, is we need to invest in American manufacturing. So that American firms and global firms can build factories in the United States. And the one firm that's close to the leading edge, that's American headquartered at its earnings call, like two days later said, Actually, we're going to reduce our capital investments, and we're going to return money to shareholders. So we need a new approach. And and we have to, we actually have to say, we have to explicitly say the game has changed. Because what Congress just signed us up for is a subsidy race with China. And I do not think that the American Congress and the American taxpayer has the appetite for a decade's long subsidy race with China. And that's my worries, we'll pass this bill. But what happens in three to five years, when China continues to pump $50 billion a year into its industry to subsidize its firms? Will Congress re up this every three to five years? Because if not, we need to come up with a new game plan of how do we get off this like, shitty treadmill and change the nature of the game? Right. And so I think the way that we're going to change the nature of the game is we have to start rethinking some of the institutional structures that we have that fun science and technology development in the United States, we've known about, you know, people will talk about one of the core issues with maintaining our technological lead in semiconductors is the fact that no one funds, like venture capitalists don't fund semiconductor startups, right. And there's a host of reasons. But basically, it's they're really expensive, and it take a long time to return capital. And so VCs are gonna go chase apps that you can just stand up for like a million dollars and sell for $1,000,000,000.06 months later, right. But we've known about that problem for decades. And we don't have new institutional approaches in the United States to tackle that problem.

Julia Rock 36:44
And sort of since we've gone down this route a bit. Can you talk a little bit about the NSF Technology Directorate that? Yeah, so

Hassan Khan 36:52
I think my feelings on on the NSF tech directorate bill are not dissimilar to the ones with regard to the chips portion. I mean, I guess it's not a bailout. But I think it doesn't solve the institutional problems that we have long term. But again, it's better than nothing, right? Because I think it's very clear, you can look at all sorts of data that shows that US government funding of r&d as a percentage of our GDP has been on a long term decline, basically, because like, we've been getting a lot richer, but we haven't really been funding that much r&d. And in fact, if you break down like government r&d funding, like a surprising amount of it is funded, basically, through the DOD and the NIH. So if you strip out DOD and NIH funding by NSF funding, you know, like, the stuff that you might think of as basic science that like funds like crazy new technologies, I think is a much smaller portion of the pie than then we would have thought it would be now where my core complaint with the tech Directorate is twofold. One, it's overly prescriptive. If you look at it, they basically say you have to fund these technologies, right. And someone, someone I don't know who someone gave Congress a list of, like, here's some cool new shit, that we should just like, make sure America kicks asset. And like you go look at that list. And I don't recall the list off top my head. But on many of those technologies, there's already so much private funding, it's not clear to me what the case for additional public funding on those technologies is. Right? This goes back to that question that we're talking about, like, if the industry is already doing a bunch of work on it, like why does the government need to like subsidize it further? Right, there's tons of stuff that the government could substitute, I don't know maybe like vaccines for COVID, or like antibacterial right approaches that we like woefully underfunded. But we're going to fund quantum computing, which like Google, Microsoft, Intel, and a host of other firms are all throwing millions of dollars into every year, like what's the value add of that marginal public dollar? It's unclear to me. So one, it's overly prescriptive in that sense. I don't know what the marginal value out of the public dollar is there. Second, and this is the other one that worries me. Does the NSF know how to do technology development? Like where did we get the idea that the NSF is the right institution to develop new technologies? And this is not a knock on the NSF? Because like the NSF is competence is funding basic science. Right. And I think there's all sorts of complaints to be made about its ability to actually fund basic science. Well, that gets into like, the way we write grants, this kind of goes back to the NIH discussion and Patrick Collison, there's like tons of people on the internet or all over that they're much more wired into, like that complaint than I am. But like, why do we think that the NSF as an institution will be good at developing technology? That's a very different skill set than funding and developing scientific knowledge. And that's not a knock on the NSF. Like no one is asking Google and Apple and Facebook to invent new science. They're like, go make new technology, right? These are different skill sets that require different organizational techniques. But we basically just given the NSF a new left arm and said, Hey, you should really figure out how to use this. I think setting them up that that tech directory up to fail. I mean, you can look into it like the NSF actually has like a hot typology like tech development programs like iCore, and like all these other like we like, you know litany of acronyms. And it's not clear to me that any of them have been notable successes. So it's like, what is the historical record? That gives Congress the confidence that the NSF is the right institution to do this? I think it's more just like the NSF was there. And everyone's like, well, we need to do some, like new tech shit. And tection is basically just science ship. So let's just give it to the it's pretty lazy. That's probably right. What what's distressing to me is it's like pretty lazy, but like to be to be like Frank. And I mean, I don't think too many people feel differently. Like I don't have particularly like high view of like what Congress is capable of today, so I don't expect that.

Producer Frank 40:42
We're going to take a quick break, but we'll be right back with more leisure time. For our final segment, today, we're going to be sharing David's interview with Stacey Walker. So Stacy story is one of the most interesting and modern democratic politics. In 2016, Stacey was elected to the Linn County Board of Supervisors in Linn County, Iowa, becoming the first African American to ever hold that position. Now, lest we forget, this was also the same year that Donald Trump was elected. So David spoke with Stacy about his experience campaigning and now governing as a progressive Democrat in a red state during the Trump era, as well as what national Democrats can learn from him and now what Stacy's plans are for the future of his political career.

David Sirota 41:30
Hey, Stacey, how you doing?

Stacey Walker 41:31
Great. How are you, David?

David Sirota 41:33
I'm good. I really wanted to talk to you. Because we're moving now into election season where Democrats have to try to win, some red districts have to try to win some red states, states that were previously blue states and you are an elected official in Iowa, and Iowa used to be a blue or at least bluish state, and is now considered a fairly reliable red state. So that's why I wanted to talk to you this week as we head into the midterm election season. Before we get to that, just very quickly, you were elected to the Linn County Board of Supervisors, becoming the first African American to ever hold that position. And it was also the year that Donald Trump was elected and won Iowa. I guess, to start off this discussion, why was Donald Trump able to win a state like Iowa? And why have Republicans been able to take over a formerly blue state like Iowa?

Stacey Walker 42:40
David, that's a big question that I think political scientists are wrestling with. And one that I get asked often, I will say this, if I think back to what was happening in 2016. I know at least that the Democratic establishment here in Iowa, I did not believe that Donald Trump had a chance in hell in getting elected. Clearly, they were all reading the tea leaves incorrectly, as we would later find out that about 33% of union membership, at least in our state, voted for Donald Trump.

David Sirota 43:20
That's an incredible number. That's just an incredible number. It is.

Stacey Walker 43:23
We lost in between 2016 and the following general election, several blue collar labor strongholds throughout the state of Iowa. I have this conversation, actually last night with a friend. And I think part of it could be attributed to Hillary Clinton's unpopularity. But certainly another part of it has to do with the fact that the Republican Party right now is speaking to something that resonates with a lot of folks, particularly folks who at one point comprise part of the democratic coalition. And so it was almost like the perfect storm. And then one other thing I will say, that may be more pertinent for this conversation, and that we can extrapolate on later, is that I'm not sure that Americans believe that their lives are improving under Democratic leadership, that there are material improvements to their lives. And that is something literally tangible that the Democrats can do immediately to address the growing schism between their base and you know, the election.

David Sirota 44:45
I mean, this stat, Iowa had 31 pivot counties in 2016. That's 31 counties that voted for Obama, and then flipped to Donald Trump. What specifically beyond Hillary Clinton What kinds of issues? Do you think lots of voters, union households working class voters in Iowa, decided that the Democratic Party wasn't representing them and decided that the Republican Party was representing them? I mean, are there? Is it ag issues? Is it? Is it wages? Is it? Is it cultural issues? What, what is it?

Stacey Walker 45:24
So I carry the rather unpopular and untested belief that this really isn't about policy really isn't about issues. I think it I think it borders more on culture. And it has a lot to do with the perception that Democrats have of not being able to get anything done. David, I think I saw you tweet something to this effect not long ago, about like our message can't be. We're not able as Democrats to do anything for you until we get you know, more Democrats in office, but don't vote for the other team. Because when they're in power, they're going to do all the bad things. So we can't do anything while we're in power, but don't vote for them because they can do things with their power. And that is born from this instinct that Democrats have toward incremental ism, right, like we talk about changing the status quo. But when we're able to do it, either we don't, or we do it in a way that's so minimal, that results aren't readily recognized. And so I don't really think it's any one issue. I think that there is a perception, and it may have some bearing in reality that Republicans are sort of speaking about the bread and butter issues that used to be in the wheelhouse of Democrats way back when the early 90s. I mean, we were a state that was literally known for a liberal senator by the name of Tom Harkin, who was a master at this sort of prairie populism. And speaking to these pocket book issues. And Democrats have a tendency to be a bit heady, which I personally don't mind. But if we're going to be a bit heady, we have to also then deliver results that common folk can realize, I'm not sure we do that.

David Sirota 47:22
You mentioned the democratic history of a place like Iowa, let's turn back the clock for a second. And again, you're an elected official in Iowa. So you you've won elections in one of the big counties in Iowa, as a Democrat, still a democratic County. But let's turn back the clock and ask the question, what was different about the Democratic Party in Iowa? Or nationally, when the party was winning elections consistently, in a place like Iowa? What What was the party doing different than that it's not doing now,

Stacey Walker 48:00
that's an even bigger question. And I say that because I am not so sure that what we were doing, then is necessarily instructive for what we ought to be doing. But from from, from what I know, from history, and what I know from living in this state. And I said it earlier, in this interview, even people like Tom Harkin, when he was campaigning, really talked about the bread and butter issues, I think Democrats have been maligned for, you know, fighting culture wars, which look, I as a black man, and really happy that some Democrats took a very strong position during the black liberation movement that was in full swing a couple summers ago, very happy about that. Whereas I think there are a lot of other Democrats would that would point to something like that and talk about how it is a culture war or talk about point to our positions on pronouns as being a culture war when those issues are very meaningful to certain segments of the Democratic coalition. Now, on the other side of that, though, what I think we don't do well, is knowing how to have a position on an issue like that, that might otherwise alienate a lot of other white folks in this country in this state, is to then be able to take very clear positions on the issues that they actually care about and feel are germane to their everyday life. I used this before. Every person who ran for president on the Democratic side, in this past election cycle, repeated a phrase that every American deserves quality, affordable health care. Every one of them said it and it must have been pulled tested that that's what they ought to say because they all said it. There was only two Truly one candidate who talked about what that actually means and what it looks like and took a very clear position on it, it's not going to be good enough to thinking people for us to continue speaking in platitudes, which there's a time and a place, right, I understand the need for soaring rhetoric to inspire and motivate. But there's also a time and a place for straight talk. And to say, if I am elected, these are the things I will do. This is how it's going to improve your life. They don't want to do that, therefore, you should support me, we have to be able to do both, we have to be able to speak to the issues that impact minority coalition's within the Democratic Party and speak clearly about issues that affect everybody. And again, I'm not sure we do that well in the Democratic Party.

David Sirota 50:50
So you as an elected official in Iowa, what are you doing differently in your elections in your city? To try to combat this? I mean, and I should ask, when you say this to folks in the Democratic Party establishment in Iowa, what is their response? What, what do they say to you? Do they agree? Do they disagree? Do they do? Or do they sort of think that we need a more, the Democrats need to be a more centrist corporate friendly party and just portray the Republicans, rightly so as extremists? And that's the way they can win. But what what are you hearing from folks in in Iowa about what we're talking about?

Stacey Walker 51:31
I'll tell you what I hear the most, and it is really frustrating. What I hear the most from, we'll call them establishment Democrats, is that they agree with me. They agree with me even on the issues that I think most folks publicly would label as radical, they would say they literally sit me down. And this is Stacy, I agree with you. on healthcare, I agree with you and universal education. The problem is, is that they don't say that out loud. And so if it's only me, and maybe a few other folks around the state, talking about the benefits of universal education, universal health care, then we in turn look like the radicals. And it's hard to really move the base, if there isn't a sense that the establishment party leaders actually believe in this. So you have this situation where for whatever reason, our establishment, you know, prominent players in democratic politics, at least here in Iowa won't say the things they actually believe in, it might be because the Democratic Party is led by Joe Biden. And that's not where the head of the party is, on many issues, it might be that it might be that their donor base, it doesn't agree with those policy positions. But there is something that is preventing them, most of them from saying what they truly believe in. And that is incredibly problematic, because we can never sort of move the ball down the field, if you will, and get things done, even when we are in power. Democrats aren't going to be in power here in Iowa for a very long time, which I actually think should liberate them to be able to say the things they really believe in, and then they can develop meaningful contrast between the Republicans because right now, there isn't a whole lot of meaningful contrast, at least among Iowa Democrats and Republicans on several issues. So it starts with being honest about who we are and what we believe in and being courageous enough to say it out loud.

David Sirota 53:38
Now, you just said that the Democrats won't be in power, which is just curious why you're sort of definitively forecasting that I mean, there's is that defeatism is that realism is that the Republicans just gerrymandered the state so badly that they're that that it's going to be impossible? What's that about?

Stacey Walker 53:58
Here's a problem. And I believe this to my core, which is to say, I don't believe that I'm wrong on this. What seems to be the case after 2016 Democrats establishment, neoliberal centrist Democrats went into a panic, because we lost and we not only did we lose, but we lost to a maniac and Donald Trump and his acolytes are now starting to win offices across the country. So understandably so everybody is trying to figure out what we need to do to prevent this from happening. What I think the natural answer was for a lot of establishment types was for the party then to move to the right to start chasing the independence that we lost to the Republicans to start chasing, you know, the voters in some of these formerly blue labor strongholds who are now supporting Donald Trump. We started to chase them and that's dangerous for a lot of reasons. Number one, it moves the overall Overton window to the right. And so now, it's literally changing the the sort of median position of our politics nationwide. But more dangerously, it's leaving behind the different groups that constituent groups of the Democratic Party who need the Democrats to fight for racial justice and racial equity, who need the Democrats to fight for climate justice, who need the Democrats to fight for all of these things that are important to these constituent groups. And the Democrats have made a strategic decision to say no, we know you have nowhere else to go, we know you have to vote for us, we are going to speak only to this group of people who have been to the right of us who we think we're losing. So we are trying to assuage them, we are trying to bring these folks back into the fold. I'm not sure that's sustainable for the Democratic Party. I'm not sure it's the right thing to do morally. And I'm not sure the folks who are abandoning the Democratic Party, to sign up to vote for a racist and Donald Trump are necessarily the folks that give a damn about what these other constituent groups need. And so it feels like betrayal to me, David.

David Sirota 56:27
So moving forward, if you were advising Democrats running in red states, red districts in what could be a very difficult midterm election environment, what would your 234 pieces of advice be as somebody who has been working in the kind of state the kind of political terrain that the Democrats

Stacey Walker 56:53
have lost? So as a disclaimer, it is obvious that I'm a black man. And so my own personal political calculus, being a black politician in a predominantly white state, is a little different, my own personal approach than what I might tell white candidates running for office and similarly situated states. So there's that. And also, I might add, for any of your people who are viewing this interview that the book case behind me is totally blank, I am, I am exiting electoral political life. So I've already started packing up my office. So keep that in mind when I answer. Black, white, or anything in between, I would tell a candidate and I mean, this, this is not me being cheesy, I would tell a candidate to talk about what you're passionate about, and what you actually believe in. And I say that because it turns out, when you talk about things that you actually believe in, you can be convincing, you can be persuasive. Whereas you know, if the D, Triple C and the DSCC, and any other group, third way, if they're sending you pull tests or talking points, I just wouldn't be skeptical, particularly if you don't believe in those things. We're never going to move the ball, if the only thing we can say about healthcare is we believe in quality, affordable health care.

David Sirota 58:30
I mean, if I hear that, if I hear that anymore, like if I hear that, just as you said it, like I could feel kind of this this rage build up in in my body. Because when I hear that, and then think about something like the Rube Goldberg machine of the Affordable Care Act, burying everyone in paperwork, insurance companies, jacking up prices, and that was the solution. And then I hear that rhetoric, I it just drives me insane. And I have to believe it drives voters insane. To know that it's basically horseshit.

Stacey Walker 59:06
Right? Not a lot changed for them. I am I'm not in a position to say that, you know, the quality of life for a person who didn't have health care before the Affordable Care Act, sure, you know, didn't get better, because it maybe it did, but but it didn't change enough. And it didn't help in the way that I think a lot of voters believed it was going to help. And you can chalk that up to well, you know, that's just government for you. But it really isn't, if it is the case that most industrialized advanced democracies have been able to figure this out and we haven't I think it really is more of a testament to how powerful you know Big Pharma and and the insurance companies really are and how much money plays a role in developing our politics. But to kind of circle back I would say, talk about what it is you believe in it. And not only that, but do your homework be prepared to explain how you know, the policy you are proposing, if elected and if enacted, would impact a person's life. And I think you lead from there, I think you have an honest sort of presentation. And I don't mean to say that other politicians are dishonest in their presentation, but maybe it's a little more manufactured than it needs to be. And we are being too cute when it comes to campaigning as opposed to saying, this part about life sucks. I know it, you know it, we all know it. This is the policy I personally believe is going to help improve, defeat that barrier, or you know, help you sort of advance in your life and then talk authoritative ly about it. Because I think voters are craving authenticity. I think they are craving strength for a party to just say, Screw the parliamentarian. We are going to do this a show of force and exercising power when you have it. Because otherwise, if we don't, then I mean this with all of my heart, soul, mind and body. If we don't exercise power, when we have it, then what's the point? Why what's the point? Why are we why are we you know, convincing, mostly young folks to go knock on doors ad nauseam to make phone calls? Why are we convincing? You know, little old ladies to send $15 to Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, why? What's the point of the exercise? If when we get to the position of power, we don't use it, we don't make material improvements in people's lives.

David Sirota 1:01:46
So that leads to my final question, you've laid out what seems to me to be a very common sense, solid strategy. And yet you are not seeking reelection in 2022, you are in a position of some power, not a huge amount of power, but certainly an elected official in in a state that needs better elected officials, and you're leaving in 2022. What led you to that decision? Is it I mean, I know it's not you giving up? But if we need people like you in office, why are you leaving?

Stacey Walker 1:02:25
So I appreciate the question. I'll start by saying that all too often, I think we've come to rely on on politicians to be the truth, the light in a way the absolute savior, that's going to get us out of out of our messes. And I think politicians elected officials are most certainly a piece to that process. But but they're not all of that process. And so I say that as a preface, because I know that I'm not an anomaly, I know that there are other good folks who just need the opportunity to run for office. And so I, I feel good knowing that I can step out of the way and someone else who is equally good, if not better, is going to replace me. So I'll start by saying that. But what I will also say is, you know, at least for me, operating as I do in in the Democratic Party here in the state of Iowa, there, there is no upward trajectory for me, and I have no desire to be a local elected official for the rest of my life. At one point, I thought it'd be pretty cool to be the first African American senator from the great state of Iowa, and to see how far I could extend my political life, if you will, with with the idea that as you as you ascend to higher office, you can help more people, you can influence, you know, national politics. I don't desire that anymore. Because I don't feel valued in the Democratic Party here in the state of Iowa, I feel only useful when the nominees of our our party have been selected and they need people like me to go around and talk to progressives and talk to black folks and and keep them on board. Because progressives and black folks didn't want that person in the primary. And that's not okay. With me personally. And it's, it's hard enough being a black man in America, it's hard enough being a black man in a predominantly white space. It's hard enough being a black leader in a predominantly white space. I don't want to belong to a party. That whose only utility for me is to keep black folks and progressives in line. I know that the ista Abolishment types in my political party in this state and nationally don't want to see candidates like myself nominated and winning offices, we are a threat to the Neo liberal order. And that is an obvious thing, you look at all of this squad and the extended squad members, you have legitimate groups in the Democratic Party working really hard to unseat them. And there's a reason for that they don't fall in line typically. And they are proposing policies that get in the way of the wishes of the donor class. And so you take all of that, and you and you add it all up. And you add up the fact that, you know, I wasn't necessarily a vacation state. So we have incredibly difficult weather. And we have a state government that is increasingly being more radicalized, and to the far right, and a Democratic Party that feels very apathetic at this point. It's hard for me, personally, and it's hard for me professionally to stay engaged in the way that I have. And so what I've resigned myself to, to believing is that we all have a role to play in this grand liberation struggle that we're participating in. And at this stage in my life, my role may have been to be an elected official for six years. And it might look different after this, but it's my current trajectory is unsustainable.

David Sirota 1:06:40
You know, I really appreciate that candor. Right after I worked in Washington, I lived in Montana. And it feels like a state that's in some ways similar to Iowa, at least politically, that it was able to be a kind of labor based blue state periodically, actually, for a long time, until the current era. But it is a state after the governor there. And Democrats, grassroots Democrats won the legislature, it has now moved to the right, and it feels like the same kind of dynamic happened there. And so I guess what I'm saying is that I completely feel you on what you're saying about being in that culture in that situation. And feeling like, it feels kind of hopeless. But I also appreciate you saying that, that there are many different roles to the struggle, and that elected office is one role. And there are plenty of other roles to play in moving our politics to a better place. Stacey Walker, thanks so much for taking time

Stacey Walker 1:07:45
today. Thank you, David.

Producer Frank 1:07:46
All right now for our bonus segment just for paid subscribers. This week, we will be sharing the best moments from our most recent episode of lever Live, which is our weekly show that we do on call in where we take questions from the audience. This past week, David was joined by special guests, Kate aren't off to discuss where the climate movement goes from here, after the passing of the so called inflation Reduction Act. Thank you so much, again, for being a supporting subscriber to the lever and funding the work that we do here. We hope you enjoy this bonus segment. Okay, Rob, you are live. Go ahead and unmute yourself.

Rob 1:08:21
Hi, can you hear me? Hey, Rob. So what I was hoping you guys could talk about is that these democratic bills always kind of suffer two deaths. And the first step has already happened, which is that all these bills always get horribly watered down, happened with the Affordable Care Act, the you know, the Clean Air Act, and now from what build back better was going to be it's what this bill is, you know, so that's the first step. And it's already happened. But what I hadn't really seen people talking about yet is the second act is always a couple of years down the line. You know, a dozen Republican attorneys generals, sue over the bill. And then I joke that the Supreme Court got sued even further, you know, which also happened to the Affordable Care Act and the Clean Air Act? So I guess, was there any thought that went into this bill to try to make it like, you know, sorry, this is a very wonky question. But you know, what is, you know, four years down the line, what's gonna happen when this is in front of the or, you know, we're lucky, it's four years, it might be quicker than that. You know, what's going to happen? When the Supreme Court just chops? Half the good stuff out of this bill? Anyway? That talked about

David Sirota 1:09:35
that is a great question. I mean, that is a I hadn't even thought of that. And I'll pivot to Kate and ask, Kate, are there things in your read of this bill, that the Supreme Court I mean, there's, there's investments, tax credits, I feel like that's relatively safe from the Supreme Court, you know, meddling, but are there other things in this bill, that the Supreme Court that you think the Supreme Court could try to mess with

Kate Aronoff 1:09:59
it? It is a good question. I mean, Far be it from me to underestimate the creativity of the Federalist Society and finding things to quibble with about the spell, they, you know, have exceeded expectations before on that friend, I do think, you know, the it is, I think, relatively safe, because so much of it is structured as tax incentives and credits. But, you know, who knows, I mean, I will say, on the sort of implementation front, and maybe, you know, to be a little bit more hopeful than I've been about this today, is that it is encouraging, right, that we can now move from this really, I think, pretty alienating and very difficult to understand congressional process of haggling over, you know, different numbers and sort of behind closed doors deals between Chuck Schumer and Joe Manchin, etc, with the White House, whatever, that we can sort of get into these sort of more concrete material questions around where money is going out the door, where investments are being made. And you know, how this bill is implemented, which I think has sort of more tangible stakes than some of the kind of like, palace intrigue that defined coverage of this up to this point, and all, you know, its permutations from build back better on. And so I think that is, you know, a really sort of potent ground for organizing, right is for people to really raise a stink about not just, you know, where clean energy provisions are being are being put forth, but around, you know, fighting some of the fossil fuel provisions to right around fighting, this expansion of drilling on public lands. And I think those fights just, you know, are a bit easier to understand, then the haggling over this has been so far. So I think that that is something I'm, you know, relieved about to be on the other side of this a bit, at least this sort of stage or the process. You know, I think this is the opening of a fight or on climate policy, not, not the end, certainly. But,

David Sirota 1:12:31
you know, being. One quick question about a provision that Manchin put in that I'm somewhat torn about, he put in a provision about evey cars. Effectively, I think I've got this right basically saying that that summer, if not all of the subsidies tax incentives for Evie car manufacturing, has to apply to domestically sourced EVs domestically sourced Evie batteries. And I've heard one argument say, you know, this is going to hamstring the bill, because there isn't as robust Evie battery production infrastructure in the United States, and that this mate will make it harder for the market to use these tax credits, because because that that production doesn't exist in the United States. And then the other side of my brain says, well, the federal government has not really leveraged tax credits or its own purchasing power to create markets. And if this bill is offering lucrative, essentially tax incentives for the creation of a more robust domestic Evie battery production infrastructure that is potentially very good good for American jobs, also good for the climate in the sense that the process of bringing Evie batteries over to the United States is a carbon intensive process, the the, you know, the sort of the travel, the shipping, etc. All of that is a huge driver of carbon emissions. I mean, that's an all trade not just an Eevee batteries. So I just curious on that provision, where do you come down on it? Is it Is that like a bad anti environment provision that he put in because the batteries are not as readily available right now? Or is that do you think that's actually a forward looking decent policy for the for the climate?

Kate Aronoff 1:14:34
Yeah, I think it's a pretty thorny question. I mean, what I will say is that if the prime objective of this bill and the climate provisions in this bill is to decarbonize the United States as quickly as possible, you would not have a provision like that, right? The vast majority of and you see this not just with EVs, but also on some of the solar incentives and wind and sedatives that there is a real preference for domestically made products. And so if the primary goal of these parts of the bill was to decarbonize as quickly as possible, you probably wouldn't have that right, because so much clean energy is made abroad, from batteries, to panels to turbines. You know, just other countries have invested a lot of money into building building supply chains for this that we just haven't, to this point. So I feel, you know, personally conflicted about it. I think there is a point at which certain protectionist policies can get in the way of decarbonisation, like there is, you know, a trade off between decarbonizing as quickly as possible and prioritizing the creation of domestic supply chains for clean energy at the same time, which you mentioned, creating a domestic supply chain for clean energy is good, you know, for a whole, a whole host of reasons, we probably should not be relying on other countries to source all of this stuff. It would be nice to, you know, have have, you know, more jobs in the clean energy sector that are sort of high road, you know, manufacturing jobs. This is this sort of nice outcome, I think, yeah,

David Sirota 1:16:25
I get it, but I'm thinking about the shipping side, it's like, yes, there's the American jobs, there's the you know, I'm also thinking that shipping is a huge driver of carbon emissions. And the fact that that this kills me about Larry Summers being billed as some sort of giant hero, I mean, Larry Summers, his trade policy, was responsible for effectively offshoring, most of, or at least a huge chunk of American manufacturing. And, you know, in the name of lower prices, and one of the downsides of doing that, among others, is that when you offshore your manufacturing production, you then create massive carbon emissions to get the products back to the to the domestic market when you import them. And so I'm thinking about it just as a climate pot, like a climate idea that, that in the short term, it may be harder to get those batteries. But in the long term, if there's if it helps, as part of the project of creating domestic supply chains that are less carbon intensive, that's got to be good, I guess, I guess we'll just have to see.

Kate Aronoff 1:17:25
Yeah, I mean, my ambivalence around it is just that I am skeptical that the United States, especially with the amount of money in this bill, you know, there's $50 billion in direct investment in clean manufacturing, that that will be enough to build out domestic supply chains that look anything like the ones that exist in China, or even parts of Europe, right. I think we're just not really doing industrial policy, I would love to see the United States doing that. But I'm just really skeptical that we'll get there. And so I think there's a there's a way in which we could, you know, sort of be cutting off our nose to spite our face investing, you know, just sort of pennies, relatively speaking into the manufacturing side, wall, you know, keeping out cheaper imports to decarbonize. So kind of losing on both fronts.

David Sirota 1:18:17
No, that's a fair point. And what are you telling me that cutting a giant check to like, four or five microchip manufacturers and just hoping things go right, that's not a good industrial policy. And, of course, I'm talking about the the chips bill that we have the lever have been reporting on. Hi, Frank, let's take a couple more calls real quick.

Producer Frank 1:18:35
Jay. Jay, you are the current caller, go ahead and unmute yourself.

Jay 1:18:41
Hi, yeah, I was I missed out on a lot of this, unfortunately, although I do listen to the lever and a watched don't look up and liked it. As a vegan, I have to ask, whenever these issues come up, do you see any political situations or possibilities for speaking about the impact animal agriculture has on the environment, which is quite significant that I almost never hear anybody talking about it, let alone trying to pass bills. And as we know, I think we most most of us know that meat and dairy industries are heavily subsidized. So I assume there's a lot of corporate nature somewhere.

David Sirota 1:19:18
Oh, man, you're speaking my language, Jenny. I mean, you really, you really are I mean, this talking about things that are sort of left out of the climate bill. I mean, I've called this look, I think calling this a climate bill is almost a misnomer. It's an energy bill. Right? Arguably, it's like the bush energy policy, but it's a green version of the bush energy, energy bill. I mean, that's really it's calling it a climate bill. But But yeah, I mean, Kate, the fact that I mean, I guess I would ask like, piggybacking off of Jay's question is of the things that were left out of this. This bill, a so called climate bill, this act had the rank at the top of sort of egregiously absent from a climate bill is that are there other things that in your mind were egregiously absent from something called the climate bill?

Kate Aronoff 1:20:12
Yeah, it's a pretty glaring absence. I mean, on that, I think made co author theory of frankness said this on Twitter at some point about the bill, that it reflects the sort of balance of forces and the Biden administration, you know, in large part by appointing Tom Vilsack to be Secretary of Agriculture has made, you know, made its bed with big egg. And, you know, that is still a sort of third rail that they have not been willing to cross and that there are big, you know, parts of the Democratic Party, which are not willing to consider a sort of climate friendly approach to agriculture. And that, you know, comes up time and time again, and I think is, yeah, there are a lot of glaring absences in this bill. And agriculture is certainly, I would say, near if not at the top of the list.

David Sirota 1:21:08
Okay, Frank, who's up next?

Producer Frank 1:21:10
By the long, Frank got back, not me, Frank. Color Frank got back in line. So we're going to try them again. Since they were waiting patiently, Frank, if you are there, go ahead and unmute yourself. All right.

Frank 1:21:22
Okay. Can you hear me? Okay. Yeah. I firstly give some background information on my question is that I am, I am an expert on building codes. And first time, the word insulation was ever mentioned in a bill, any building code in the country was 2006. That's I'm talking about for government and corporate buildings, commercial or institutional houses were actually included in building codes for the residential code back in the Jimmy Carter era. And houses have had been way, way ahead of, of the commercial and institutional. So right now, existing buildings aren't insulated, particularly ones that are more than 15 years old. And any currently, right now. That the national the building, how the building codes are done, is that there's one corporation called International Code Council writes the International Building Code, international energy efficiency code and some other codes, international residential code, and then government agencies, state city's municipal code counties, by these codebooks. And then some change them. So right now, we don't have any, or any any building any existing buildings are not insulated, and buildings that are that are new being built right now, or are only half insulated at half of what houses are. So we have we have a huge, we're not doing any any energy efficiency, or very little energy efficiency with with the big boxes, but, but we're concentrating on the small boxes. And I'm wondering why we're not talking about actually tackling climate change, because that is probably about 15% of all greenhouse gases going right through the roofs of government and commercial buildings.

David Sirota 1:23:41
So Kate, is there anything in the bill? And Frank, that's a great, that's a great point you're making? Kate, is there anything in the bill that deals with things? Like energy efficiency, building codes, building, building construction? In general? I mean, I do not to put you on the spot here. It's a 700 Plus page bill, but do the do the tax credits deal with any of that or no?

Kate Aronoff 1:24:10
Um, I would need to take a closer look. I'm not sure. Truthfully, I know there's very little money for housing. In the bill. It's a very small line item. The big drivers are the energy tax credits. And yeah, there certainly is not enough sort of attention being paid to to building codes which I will I will own up and say this is not my my area of expertise. So it was not the thing I was sort of focused on.

David Sirota 1:24:46
Either either way, look, I mean, to my mind, I mean on the on the emission side, just to echo Frank, the the a climate bill that doesn't deal with ag that doesn't deal with Bill thing that doesn't depend by building meaning building codes or buildings and construction, that doesn't deal with cement. That doesn't deal with steel. Right. These are, you know, for very emissions intensive sectors of the of the global economy. I mean, those are sort of egregiously absent from this bill. And so if the topic of this conversation is the future of the climate movement, that's got to be a part and focus of the future of the climate movement. Frank, great point. Thanks for your call.

Producer Frank 1:25:37
All right. That's it for today's show. Thank you again for being a paid subscriber to the lever. We could not do this work without you. If you particularly like this episode, feel free to pitch into our tip jar. The tip jar link is in this episode's description, or you can just go to lever news.com/tip jar every little bit helps us do this kind of investigative independent journalism. Until next time, I am producer Frank. Rock the Boat

Transcribed by https://otter.ai