14 November 2009
Today’s Tabbloid
PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
‘Has Any of This Made Us
Safer?’ [‘Cato at Liberty]
NOV 13, 2009 08:40P.M.
In the November 6th Washington Post, Petula Dvorak lamented the
effect of REAL ID compliance on women who have changed their names.
The Department of Homeland Security is about to give out blanket
waivers to states across the country who have not complied with REAL
ID requirements — again. But some states have been making it harder to
get licenses because of the national ID standards they still think are
coming.
“I doubt the most notorious terrorists of our time — the Sept. 11
hijackers, Timothy McVeigh — would have been stopped by these new
DMV requirements,” Dvorak writes. ”All these laws have done is make us
more harried, more paranoid and more red-faced than ever.”
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
ATR Supports H.R. 3905, “The
Estate Tax Relief Act of 2009”
[Americans for Tax Reform]
NOV 13, 2009 05:43P.M.
Americans for Tax Reform sent the following letter today to
Congressman Kevin Brady (R-TX): On behalf of Americans for Tax
Reform, I am pleased to support H.R. 3905, “The Estate Tax Reli...
1
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
The FISA Amendments: Behind
the Scenes [Cato at Liberty]
NOV 13, 2009 04:53P.M.
I’ve been poring over the trove of documents the Electronic Frontier
Foundation has obtained detailing the long process by which the FISA
Amendments Act—which substantially expanded executive power to
conduct sweeping surveillance with little oversight—was hammered out
between Hill staffers and lawyers at the Department of Justice and
intelligence agencies. The really interesting stuff, of course, is mostly
redacted, and I’m only partway though the stacks, but there are a few
interesting tidbits so far. As Wired has already reported, one e-mail
shows Bush officials feared that if the attorney general was given too
much discretion over retroactive immunity for telecoms that aided in
warrantless wiretapping, the next administration might refuse to provide
it. A couple other things stuck out for me.
First, while it’s possible they’ve been released before and simply not
crossed my desk, there are a series of position papers—so rife with
underlining that they look like some breathless magazine subscription
pitch—circulated to Congress explaining the Bush Administration’s
opposition to various proposed amendments to the FAA. Among these
was a proposal by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) that would have barred
“bulk collection” of international traffic and required that the broad new
intelligence authorizations specify (though not necessarily by name)
individual targets. The idea here was that if there were particular
suspected terrorists (for instance) being monitored overseas, it would be
fine to keep monitoring their communications if they began talking with
Americans without pausing to get a full-blown warrant—but you didn’t
want to give NSA carte blanche to just indiscriminately sweep in traffic
between the U.S. and anyone abroad. The position paper included in
these documents is more explicit than the others that I’ve seen about the
motive for objecting to the bulk collection amendment. Which was,
predictably, that they wanted to do bulk collection:
• It also would prevent the intelligence community from
conducting the types of intelligence collection necessary
to track terrorits and develop new targets.
• For example, this amendment could prevent the
intelligence community from targeting a particular
group of buildings or a geographic area abroad to
collect foreign intelligence prior to operations by our
armed forces.
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
So to be clear: Contra the rhetoric we heard at the time, the concern was
not simply that NSA would be able to keep monitoring a suspected
terrorist when he began calling up Americans. It was to permit the
“targeting” of entire regions, scooping all communications between the
United States and the chosen area.
One other exchange at least raises an eyebrow. If you were following the
battle in Congress at the time, you may recall that there was a period
when the stopgap Protect America Act had expired—though surveillance
authorized pursuant to the law could continue for many months—and
before Congress approved the FAA. A week into that period, on February
22, 2008, the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence
sent a letter warning Congress that they were now losing intelligence
because providers were refusing to comply with new requests under
existing PAA authorizations. A day later, they had to roll that back, and
some of the correspondence from the EFF FOIA record makes clear that
there was an issue with a single recalcitrant provider who decided to go
along shortly after the letter was sent.
But there’s another wrinkle. A week prior to this, just before the PAA was
set to expire, Jeremy Bash, the chief counsel for the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence sent an email to “Ken and Ben,” about
a recent press conference call. It’s clear from context that he’s writing to
Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Wainstein and General Counsel for
the Director of National Intelligence Ben Powell about this press call,
where both men fairly clearly suggest that telecoms are balking for fear
that they’ll no longer be immune from liability for participation in PAA
surveillance after the statute lapses. Bash wants to confirm whether they
really said that “private sector entities have refused to comply with PAA
certifications because they were concerned that the law was temporary.”
In particular, he wants to know whether this is actually true, because
“the briefs I read provided a very different rationale.” In other words,
Bash—who we know was cleared for the most sensitive information
about NSA surveillance—was aware of some service providers being
reluctant to comply with “new taskings” under the law, but not because
of the looming expiration of the statute. One of his
correspondents—whether Wainstein or Powell is unclear—shoots back
denying having said any such thing (read the transcript yourself) and
concluding with a terse:
Not addressing what is in fact the situation on both those
issues (compliance and threat to halt) on this email.
In other words, the actual compliance issues they were encountering
would have to be discussed over a more secure channel. If the issue
wasn’t the expiration, though, what would the issue have been? The
obvious alternative possibility is that NSA (or another agency) was
attempting to get them to carry out surveillance that they thought might
fall outside the scope of either the PAA or a particular authorization.
Given how sweeping these were, that should certainly give us pause. It
should also raise some questions as to whether, even before that one
holdout fell into compliance, the warning letter from the AG and the DNI
was misleading. Was there really ever a “gap” resulting from the statute’s
sunset, or was it a matter of telecoms balking at an attempt by the
intelligence community to stretch the bounds of their legal authority?
2
14 November 2009
The latter would certainly fit a pattern we saw again and again under the
Bush administration: Break the law, inducing a legal crisis, then threaten
bloody mayhem if the unlawful program is forced to abruptly halt—at
which point a nervous Congress grants its blessing.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
The Week in Government
Failure [Cato at Liberty]
NOV 13, 2009 03:28P.M.
Over at Downsizing Government, we focused on failures in the following
departments and agencies this week:
• Export-Import Bank: Call it the “Boeing Bank”
• HUD: Federal Housing Administration woes continue and housing
subsidies for the dead
• Transportation: High-speed rail lobbyists squabble over taxpayer
loot
Also, in addition to losing more money, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
lose their inspector general.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
The Missing Leg of Immigration
Reform [Cato at Liberty]
NOV 13, 2009 03:16P.M.
In a speech this morning in Washington, Homeland Security Secretary
Janet Napolitano said the Obama administration remains committed to
enacting real immigration reform. In a key passage in her remarks, she
said reform must contain three essential components:
Let me be clear: when I talk about “immigration reform,” I’m
referring to what I call the “three-legged stool” that includes a
commitment to serious and effective enforcement, improved
legal flows for families and workers, and a firm but fair way to
deal with those who are already here. That’s the way that this
problem has to be solved, because we need all three aspects to
build a successful system.
The phrase “improved legal flows” is rather vague, but it points toward
some kind of expanded visa program to allow future workers to enter the
country legally. Our current immigration system offers no legal channel
for anywhere near a sufficient number of foreign-born workers to enter
the country legally to fill the lower-skilled jobs our economy creates in
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
times of normal growth.
I’ve made the argument for expanded legal immigration in a recent op-
ed, and in a Free Trade Bulletin when the Senate last debated reform in
2007.
After a promising start, Secretary Napolitano spent most of the rest of
her speech touting how much has been done on the enforcement side,
and almost nothing about how we can expand opportunities in the future
for legal immigration as an alternative to illegal immigration.
Without that crucial third leg, Congress will just be repeating the two-
legged failure of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
The Hypocrisy of “Well-Fed
Activists” [Cato at Liberty“Well-
Fed Activists”]
NOV 13, 2009 02:41P.M.
Speaking at a food security conference in Milan, Nestlé chairman Peter
Brabeck-Letmathe today criticized “well-fed activists” whose protests
and lobbying activities have, in his opinion, held back the adoption of
food technologies that could help the starving poor:
It is disheartening to see how easily a group of well-
intentioned and well-fed activists can decide about new
technologies at the expense of those who are starving.
Nestlé has been subject to intense criticism in recent years, primarily
over its strategies to sell infant formula in developing countries, but I
think Mr. Brabeck-Letmathe is spot-on here.
Penn & Teller made a similar, if more forcefully put, point in the last few
seconds of this excellent video (warning: language may be offensive to
some).
3
14 November 2009
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Who Will Protect the Women?
[Cato at Liberty]
NOV 13, 2009 02:34P.M.
As I mentioned here yesterday:
[W]hen some people in Washington hear that nation-
building in Afghanistan is not a precondition to making
America safer, or that prolonging our presence undermines
America’s security, the argument for remaining then shifts to
preserving the security and human rights of the people of
Afghanistan.
For example, Sen. Barbara Mikulski, (D-MD), a member of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Aid and Dean of the Senate
Women, said last April, “The United States should do everything it can to
encourage Afghanistan to respect the basic rights and welfare of women
and children.”
But Malalai Joya, an Afghan woman elected to her country’s Parliament,
says in yesterday’s Mercury News (via GG):
As an Afghan woman who was elected to Parliament, I am in
the United States to ask President Barack Obama to
immediately end the occupation of my country.
Eight years ago, women’s rights were used as one of the
excuses to start this war. But today, Afghanistan is still facing
a women’s rights catastrophe. Life for most Afghan women
resembles a type of hell that is never reflected in the Western
mainstream media.
In 2001, the U.S. helped return to power the worst misogynist
criminals, such as the Northern Alliance warlords and
druglords. These men ought to be considered a photocopy of
the Taliban. The only difference is that the Northern Alliance
warlords wear suits and ties and cover their faces with the
mask of democracy while they occupy government positions.
But they are responsible for much of the disaster today in
Afghanistan, thanks to the U.S. support they enjoy.
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Gitmo Prisoners to NY for Trial
[Cato at Liberty]
NOV 13, 2009 01:27P.M.
Today, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that he plans to
move five prisoners from Guantanamo to New York for a civilian trial.
Holder says the prisoners masterminded the 9/11 attacks and will now
face the death penalty.
Some journalists and commentators are calling this move a wholesale
repudiation of the Bush policy. Actually, no. Holder also announced that
five other Gitmo prisoners will soon be put on trial before a military
commission. Thus, the Bush framework essentially remains in place. The
Executive will decide on a case-by-case basis who will be held prisoner
(overseas, Gitmo, here in the USA), and who will be tried in civilian
court, and who will be tried before a military commission.
By way of background, these prisoner controversies (habeas corpus,
waterboarding, trial by commissions) fall into three basic categories: (1)
detention/imprisonment; (2) treatment (including interrogation
practices); and (3) trial issues. Today’s announcement concerns trials.
If there is to be a trial for persons accused of terrorism, it ought to be in
civilian court. Courts martial are for persons actually in the U.S. military
(the Fort Hood shooter). Military “commissions” are a hybrid that is
nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. It is mistake for Obama to
retain the commission system because it is (a) dubious to begin with, and
(b) can be whimsical with respect to the people that end up there. Even
the former Gitmo prosecutor has voiced his objections to the system!
Bin Laden and his cohorts murdered some 3,000 people on 9/11. It is
lamentable that they did not all go down fighting at Tora Bora. But we do
have to have policies in place for captures. Boiled down, the U.S. should
follow the Geneva Convention for prisoners and, for trials, the
procedures set out in the Constitution.
For additional Cato work on this subject, go here and here.
4
14 November 2009
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
The Odd Couple [Cato at
Liberty]
NOV 13, 2009 01:04P.M.
Well, here’s an interesting pair. Today’s Washington Post contains an
op-ed on climate change and trade, written jointly by Fred Bergsten,
director of the Peterson Institute of International Economics, and Lori
Wallach, director of Global Trade Watch at Public Citizen.
The authors readily admit, quite early in the piece, that they are usually
on opposing sides of the trade debate. The Peterson Institute scholars
are well-known and well-respected advocates of freer international trade.
Global Trade Watch, and Wallach in particular? Not so much. She has
called NAFTA a “disastrous experiment” and has a special section on her
website calling on people to Take Action! on trade (example: by hosting a
house party to celebrate the tenth anniversary of ” the historic 1999
Seattle protest victory of people power over corporate rule.”)
Yet here they are, claiming to agree on “a suprising number of aspects of
the climate change debate and on the related need to overhaul global
trade negotiations.” I am still trying to make sense of the op-ed, because
it lurches around a bit, and to work out exactly how deep the agreement
of these strange bedfellows really is. But for now, let me comment briefly
on what I think is the main thrust of their op-ed: a proposal for
launching a new round of trade talks.
The authors point out that a new treaty on global warming would
“require new trade rules in intellectual property, services, government
procurement and product standards.” So, hey, why not combine that into
trade talks?The Obama Round (as if Obama-worship has not gone far
enough) “would include, as a centerpiece, addressing these potential
commercial and climate trade-offs and updating the negotiating agenda.”
That, quite frankly, would be fatal for the World Trade Organization.
Developing countries, now in the majority in the WTO, are in general
very resistant to the idea of bringing extraneous issues into its agenda
(witness constant struggles over linking trade to labor and environment
issues, to name just two). More to the point, we already have a round in
progress. The Doha round has been struggling over old-fashioned trade
concerns like tariffs and subsidies (remember them?) since launching in
2001. The risks of overburdening the WTO agenda are, in my opinion,
far greater than the possible benefits. It’s fairly clear to me why Wallach
would advocate a new round full of poison pills, but not so clear why
Bergsten would put his name to such a suggestion.
It’s not even clear to me that such an approach would “help the
environment.” Why the optimism about the possibility of
agreement under the auspices of the WTO when negotiations in forums
designed explicitly and solely for the purpose of halting climate change
have been unsuccessful?
( Speaking of which, expectations for a breakthrough at the
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
upcoming Copenhagen conference on climate change are being rapidly
scaled back, with talk of an “interim” agreement — likely some anodyne
political statement — rather than the final deal that environmental
groups had hoped for. The international diplomacy circus rolls on,
though: conferences are planned for Mexico and South Africa — talk
about a carbon footprint! — next year.)
For my take on the climate change and trade debate, the solution to
which does not involve launching an Obama Round, see here.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
We’re Looking for a Few Good
Geeks [Cato at Liberty]
NOV 13, 2009 12:09P.M.
Take comfort, college and grad students: No longer need you settle for
spending next summer backpacking around Europe having adventures.
Instead, apply for a Google Policy Fellowship, and come work on tech
policy issues with Jim Harper and myself in scenic Washington, DC.
The extremely competitive ten-week program comes with a $7,000
stipend, and is a chance to do serious policy work on issues like privacy
and surveillance, telecommunications regulation, and other things you
read about on Slashdot. Applications are due December 28, so get
cracking!
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Crist and the Stimulus: For,
Against, For [The Club for
Growth]
NOV 13, 2009 12:07P.M.
Crist: For the Stimulus Before
He Was Against It… Now For
it Again
A week after telling CNN he “didn’t endorse” $787B bill, Fla.
Gov. admits, “I support it”
WASHINGTON - Club for Growth PAC today responded to
Florida Governor Charlie Crist’s second (in as many weeks)
re-clarification of his position on February’s $787 billion
5
14 November 2009
federal stimulus bill.
“If Floridians aren’t sure what Charlie Crist believes, it’s okay
- he’s not either,” said Club President Chris Chocola. “In
February, Crist campaigned for the stimulus, signed letters of
support, gave speeches at rallies, and gave President Obama a
hug on national television to show the world how much he
loved the $787 billion dollar debt bomb Congress dropped on
our children.”
For months now, Crist’s opponent in next year’s Republican
Senate primary election, former Florida House Speaker
Marco Rubio, has criticized Crist’s stimulus stumping,
offering Floridians a real alternative to meddling, big
government schemes like those that created the recession in
the first place. Rubio’s message of economic freedom and
limited government is resonating in Florida, and polls show
the race has been narrowing all year.
In response, Governor Crist last week told CNN he “didn’t
endorse” the stimulus, but the ploy backfired, as Crist’s
enthusiastic support for the bill was in the public record. So
yesterday Crist re-clarified his position on the stimulus,
again, telling the Palm Beach Post, “I support it … it’s helping
our economy.”
In fact, since the $787 billion spending bill was passed, the
national unemployment rate has risen to 10.2 percent,
despite the president’s promise that the bill would keep
unemployment below 8 percent. Three million jobs have been
lost, including almost 200,000 in Florida alone.
“Marco Rubio understands that big government doesn’t solve
economic problems, it creates them, and he will bring real
change to the United States Senate. Charlie Crist in the
Senate won’t change anything, except his mind… apparently
several times.”
PAID FOR BY CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC AND NOT
AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE’S
COMMITTEE. 202-955-5500.
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com 14 November 2009

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

On CNBC’s Kudlow Report The Hubris of the Trillion-

Tonight [Larry Kudlow’s Money Dollar Man [Cato at Liberty]
NOV 13, 2009 10:49A.M.
Politic$]
NOV 13, 2009 11:45A.M. Former President George W. Bush

said Thursday that America must resist the “temptation” to

allow the government to take over the private sector, taking a
subtle shot at his Democratic successor by warning that too
much state intervention and protectionism will squelch the
economic recovery…

“As the world recovers, we will face a temptation to replace

the risk-and-reward model of the private sector with the
blunt instruments of government spending and control.
This evening at 7pm ET:
History shows that the greater threat to prosperity is not too
little government involvement, but too much,” said Mr. Bush.
OBAMA GOES TO CHINA
NBC’s Steve Handelsman reports.
Um, what? The president who

• expanded federal spending by more than a trillion dollars a year,

IS THE U.S. MESSING UP THE WORLD’S MONETARY
before his disastrous last hundred days
SYSTEM?
An in-depth look at the message of the dollar, gold prices and stocks.
• federalized education

Panel:
• laid out “a smorgasbord of handouts and subsidies for virtually
every energy lobby in Washington.”
*Zachary Karabell, CNBC Contributor/River Twice Research President
*Andy Busch, BMO Capital Markets; CNBC Contributor
• protected the steel, agriculture, and textile industries from foreign
*Steve Moore, Sr Economics Writer for the Wall Street Journal Editorial
competition
Board; “The End of Prosperity” Co-Author

• backed farm bills with lavish subsidies for producers

IS OBAMA REALLY GOING TO LOWER DEFICIT?

• created the biggest new entitlement since Lyndon Johnson

*Keith Boykin, CNBC Contributor; Former Clinton White House Aide
*Tony Fratto, CNBC Contributor; Fmr. White House Deputy Press
• bailed out Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Bank of
Secretary
America, Citigroup, and dozens of other banks

MADOFF PROGRAMMERS ARRESTED

• provided government support for mortgages, credit cards, auto
CNBC’s Scott Cohn reports.
loans and other consumer debt, and

9/11 MASTERMIND TO BE TRIED IN NYC

• bailed out Chrysler and General Motors in direct defiance of
Tim Brown, 9/11 Firefighter Survivor will join us.
Congress’s refusal to do so

SHOULD GITMO BE CLOSED?

now says that his successor is about to “replace the risk-and-reward
model of the private sector” with “too much government involvement”?
*Ann Coulter, Syndicated Columnist; “Guilty” Author
Shouldn’t President Bush be doing penance in a monastery somewhere,
*Christopher Amolsch, Criminal Defense Lawyer
rather than embarrass the free-market cause by pretending that he
wasn’t the biggest-government president in decades?
Please join us. The Kudlow Report. 7pm ET. CNBC.

6
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
ATR and CFA Support the
“Protect Taxpayers from
ACORN Act” [Americans for
Tax Reform]
NOV 13, 2009 10:33A.M.
Earlier this week, CFA and ATR sent a letter in support of the “Protect
Taxpayers from ACORN Act” to Sen. Johanns, and are urging all
Members of the Senate to co-sponsor and otherwise suppor...
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Government Housing
Adventures [Cato at Liberty]
NOV 13, 2009 10:06A.M.
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
which have already consumed $112 billion in taxpayer bailouts, may have
additional losses if they can’t recoup claims from struggling private
mortgage insurers.
From the Journal:
Fannie Mae has about $109.5 billion of mortgage-insurance
coverage in force, which represents 4 percent of all single-
family home loans it owns or guarantees. Freddie Mac had
$63.4 billion in mortgage insurance and $12.2 billion in bond
insurance. Private mortgage insurance is required for any
home loan with less than a 20 percent down payment, and
the policies typically cover 12 percent to 35 percent of losses
in the event of a default, according to HSH Associates, a
financial publisher. Mortgage insurers have been forced to
pay up as loan defaults escalate.
Escalating loan defaults are also likely to bite taxpayers through the
Federal Housing Administration, which covers 100 percent of losses. The
FHA is in deep trouble:
The reduction in private insurance coverage has contributed
to the rise in the volume of loans backed by the Federal
Housing Administration, a government mortgage insurer that
backs loans with as little as 3.5 percent down payments. It
could be required to ask for a federal subsidy for the first time
in its 75-year history if the housing market deteriorates
further.
Who is looking out for taxpayers here?
7
14 November 2009
Ryan Grim at Huffington Post reports that the Federal Housing Finance
Agency, which is in charge of Fannie and Freddie, has used a legal
technicality to rid itself of its inspector general:
There is no independent auditor overseeing the federal
agency responsible for some $6 trillion in home mortgages,
because the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel
ruled that the agency’s inspector general didn’t have
authority to operate, according to internal memos obtained
by the Huffington Post. The ruling came in response to a
request from the Federal Housing Finance Agency itself —
which means that a federal agency essentially succeeded in
getting rid of its own inspector general.
The timing is curious:
Fannie and Freddie are burning through cash at a staggering
rate. Fannie reported a loss of $18.9 billion in the third
quarter of 2009, four billion more than it lost in the second
quarter. FHFA requested $15 billion from Treasury to plug
the hole. What’s it spending money on? “The company
continued to concentrate on preventing foreclosures and
providing liquidity to the mortgage market during the third
quarter of 2009, with much of our effort focused on the
Making Home Affordable Program,” boasts the press release
accompanying the announcement of the massive loss. “As of
September 30, 2009, approximately 189,000 Fannie Mae
loans were in a trial period or a completed modification
under the Home Affordable Modification Program.” Those
are the precise programs that Kelley was looking into when
his own agency shut him down.
See here for essays on the problems associated with the federal
government’s housing market interventions. Also check out Johan
Norberg’s book, Financial Fiasco: How America’s Infatuation with
Homeownership and Easy Money Created the Economic Crisis.
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com 14 November 2009

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Kudlow Jobs Summit [Larry

Kudlow’s Money Politic$]
NOV 13, 2009 09:55A.M.

We debated President Obama’s jobs summit plans on last night’s Kudlow

Report. Joining me were Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary and
Casey Mulligan, University of Chicago economics professor.