Host: [00:00:00] Welcome to Discourse, where we cut through the noise and make sense of the chaos. I'm your host, Wayne Unger. I'm a law professor and former Silicon Valley nerd, and I've spent years breaking down complex topics into digestible takeaways. And on this podcast, we'll take a deep dive into the pressing issues shaping our world in law, politics, technology, business, and more.

No echo chambers, no corporate influence, just thoughtful analysis and respectful civic dialogue. Because understanding different perspectives isn't just important, it's necessary. Let's get started.

Welcome back to Discourse. Thank you for joining us for another episode. I'm your host, Wayne Unger, and we are recording this on Thursday, March 6th at 6 48 p. m. Things may have changed since. On today's docket, we have lots to talk about because it's been another busy week of the Trump administration and chaos around the world.

So, we begin with several different stories. First, President Trump's speech before a joint session of Congress. [00:01:00] We'll also talk about how the federal government is beginning to call back federal employees who were previously terminated by DOJ and the Trump administration because we have begun to realize that they are necessary and essential employees.

In addition, we have the tariffs, the on, again, off, again, on, again, off again, tariffs that we are seeing the Trump administration apply to countries around the world, but perhaps most notably our trading partners, Canada to the North and Mexico to the South.

We'll also take a look at the measles outbreak that continues to spread in the Southwest. And we'll discuss how this is completely preventable. And yet, here we are. 

We will also discuss the attacks on public education that the Republican Party has led over the last 20 years. We'll see how that has all come together as the Trump administration seeks to dismantle the Department of Education, and his new education secretary, Linda McMahon, has just been confirmed by the United States Senate.

So let's turn to the attacks on public [00:02:00] education by the Republican Party over the last 20 ish years or so. I'm going to talk more specifically about the Republicans approach to public education, and then of course the Democrats approach to public education. But what we've seen over the last 20 years or so is a concerted effort To attack science and objective fact.

There are things that are just plainly objective fact. Now, the Donald Trump administration, at least during his first term, perhaps most famously, Kellyanne Conway said that Trump has alternative facts. And that is perhaps the best illustration of the world that we are living in today. Now, with this podcast, I try to convey true, objective fact as much as I possibly can, and then of course, add my commentary accordingly. But we've seen this broad based attack on science. Here's the thing about science. Science is provable and replicable. Science is [00:03:00] provable and replicable, meaning that whatever science says, we can prove it and we can replicate that. That's the nature of science.

So when we run an experiment, we should be able to prove it and then replicate it. That is science. Okay, so let's turn, perhaps, to this measles outbreak to illustrate this. We have seen several cases of measles lead to an outbreak in the southern part of the United States, more specifically Texas.

And a lot of these cases are with unvaccinated children. And that's just disheartening to me. My sympathy goes out to those children who are suffering from measles, because chances are, those children did not choose not to be vaccinated. They didn't have a choice in the matter, and instead, their parents chose not to vaccinate their children, and perhaps, perhaps, I have no actual data to support this, perhaps, their parents [00:04:00] were actually vaccinated.

So, their parents were vaccinated against measles, and now they are not vaccinating their children, and their children are catching measles because it's an incredibly infectious disease, incredibly infectious, way more infectious than COVID 19, as an example, and they The children are now suffering for their parents poor decisions.

Now, we've seen, of course, over the last several years, a rise in conspiracy theories and falsehoods about vaccinations in general, perhaps most notably that vaccinations, childhood vaccinations, cause autism. Now, that has been debunked over and over and over again. It has been debunked yet. People continue to believe it by reading misinformation online, claiming to be science.

Let's turn to the data. Johns Hopkins reports that there are 124 cases of measles in Gaines County, Texas, with [00:05:00] approximately 9 cases in Lea County, New Mexico, its neighbor. Now here's the catch 22 with vaccinations. When a vaccination rate is high, the disease goes away. And as the disease goes away, people become less concerned about the disease, and they may not see the necessity to vaccinate.

So it's kind of a catch 22 in the sense that vaccination rates can ebb and flow depending on the prevalence of the disease that they are meant to vaccinate against. And specifically, the measles vaccine is generally referred to as the MMR vaccine, which stands for measles, mumps, and rubella. 

So I was curious to see how many cases of measles have been reported in the last couple of years. For this, I turned to the American Academy of Pediatrics, and they actually have this fascinating interactive map that shows you various outbreaks of certain diseases, including measles. Just [00:06:00] to give us an idea, there were 71 cases of measles in Clark County, Washington in winter of 2018.

And then there were 85 cases of measles in Ohio in winter of 2022. There were 242 cases of measles in Rockland County, New York in winter 2018. There were nine cases of measles in Philadelphia in winter of 2023. And then there were about 12 cases in Ocean County, New Jersey in summer of 2019.

So the measles outbreak in Texas is not necessarily something that hasn't occurred in the past. We've seen other outbreaks throughout the United States. Now here in Texas, perhaps it's getting some attention because John Hopkins reports that 124 cases of measles in Gaines County, Texas with nine more in Lea County, New Mexico, at least as of this recording, well, that brings us to 133 cases. of measles. And [00:07:00] 133 cases of measles is the largest outbreak we have seen since the winter of 2018.

Now, that said, I wanted to know how many measles cases there were by year. So in 2019, there were 375 cases of measles. In 2020, there were 1, 282 cases. In 2021, 13 cases. In 2022, 49 cases. And in 2023, there were 74 cases of measles. Now of those numbers, certainly the 2020 numbers stand out. 1, 282 cases in 2020. But I can't forget that in 2020, of course, we also had the COVID 19 pandemic, which caused a lot of us to remain indoors and sheltered with our friends and family and close relatives, for example.

So not only was COVID 19 an infectious disease, a contagious disease, but of course measles being [00:08:00] more infectious. Being more infectious than COVID 19, perhaps the reason why we saw an abnormally high amount of measles cases in 2020 was due to our global response to COVID 19. And to quickly review measles for a second, measles is a highly contagious disease caused by the measles virus.

It causes a cough, red eyes, high fever, and rash in most cases. In some cases, it may also cause pneumonia. Encephalitis, brain damage, and a weakened immune system, which can have lasting effects for years after the original positive test. And it spreads via droplets in the air, similar to what we saw in COVID 19, except it's, again, more contagious.

But here, measles also spreads by surface contact, so it can live on a surface. The virus can stay in the air for several hours after an infected person has released droplets, either by coughing or sneezing, as an example.

 And [00:09:00] as I record this, we have some unfortunate breaking news that I'm just now getting.

Mhm.

Host: The New York Times is reporting that an unvaccinated New Mexico resident has died of measles.

And with this breaking news, it is the second death in the growing outbreak of measles that began in West Texas. So, the issue here is not only the rejection of science, but the issue here is an unnecessary death. Somebody died because they refused the vaccine. Now, of course, there may be legitimate reasons for why they refused the vaccine, ones that are actually rooted in science.

So, for example, it is possible that the individual is immunocompromised, and thus cannot get the vaccine. That's different, that's different from those who believe [00:10:00] medical misinformation and those who reject scientific fact. The scientific fact is, and again this is provable and replicable, is that the measles vaccine is overwhelmingly effective and safe.

That is the objective fact. Now with anything we do in medicine. There is a risk and there will be a case here or there that does not go according to plan. That is always the case in anything in medicine.   

I want to note something else. Yes, you have every. You have every right to refuse medical treatment in the United States. In fact, that's an inherent right given to you by the Constitution according to the United States Supreme Court.

You have every right to refuse medical treatment in the United States. [00:11:00] And that includes refusing vaccines. But see, the one thing that I think many tend to forget is that none of your individual rights and liberties are absolute. None of them. To a certain extent, government may infringe or frustrate your individual rights and liberties.

 The government must meet a high standard in order to do this, to be clear. The discussion here is the difference between public health and an individual right or liberty. While you have an inherent constitutional right to refuse medical treatment, we as a country, that individual right or liberty to refuse medical treatment may yield in the interests of public health.

Because when you refuse a measles vaccine, as we see in West [00:12:00] Texas, then that not only compromises your health, But it also compromises the health of the community around you. Given that measles is an incredibly infectious disease. 

Now, a vaccine doesn't mean you won't get sick. And we often heard this during the COVID 19 pandemic, where those who received a COVID vaccine We're still testing positive for COVID. A vaccine is meant to build up your immunity. To essentially make your immune system stronger to respond if you are exposed.

And that same rationale applies with respect to measles. The measles vaccine doesn't mean you won't get measles. While there is a low chance of getting measles, if you are vaccinated, nonetheless, there is still a chance. Now, the vaccine says [00:13:00] that if you are exposed to measles, and if you test positive to measles, you will likely have a mild case versus a fatal case.

So, those who choose not to get vaccinated, not only compromise their own health, potentially subjecting themselves to a fatal outcome, but they also jeopardize the health of those around that person because if they pick it up, they can spread it, even to those who are vaccinated. And so something doesn't sit right here with me. Because while you have every constitutional right to refuse medical treatment, that right is not absolute. And you exercising a right to refuse medical treatment to receive a vaccine that is overwhelmingly effective and safe, again, scientifically proven, Because science is [00:14:00] replicable and provable? Well, your refusal to receive that vaccine should not compromise my desire to remain healthy.

Thank you

Host: So the measles outbreak is actually emblematic of the systemic attack, this concerted attack on science. And it's not just, with vaccinations. We have seen it with climate change. The science is provable here, and it's replicable. That's the nature of science.

These are objective facts that Republicans seem to refute and that Republicans seemingly attack. So, I want to ask, why does the Republican Party generally attack public education. Over the last 20 years or so, [00:15:00] we've seen a concerted effort to defund public education 

We generally saw a massive budget cut to public education right around the Great Recession, in part caused by the Great Recession of 2008 2009. And those public education budget line items never seemingly recovered, at least not to the levels that they existed in, say, the first 10 years of the 2000s.

So, We've had this systemic, concerted effort to defund public education, and often it's been disguised as school vouchers or under the notion of school choice. I wanted to peel back the layers a little bit on this Republican talking point, on this Republican proposal of school choice and school vouchers.

We've seen how this program works, we've seen it because it is happening right now in Arizona. Little bit of history here, on his way out the door, Republican Governor Doug Ducey signed [00:16:00] two major bills into law that are worth talking about for this episode.

The first one was the creation of a statewide school voucher program, and the second one You was the creation of a flat tax rate in the state of Arizona. And they're both related, even though they don't seem like they're related. I'll discuss that here in a second. 

So a history of Arizona's school voucher program. Starting with the 2022 2023 school year, Arizona expanded its Empowerment Scholarship account, which was previously available for students with disabilities, and this time, with the expansion, it allows all families to spend public funding on private education for their children. Now, sometimes known as the Voucher Programs or Universal School Choice, similar programs are being implemented or expanded in several states, including Florida, Idaho, and Indiana.

Now with the school vouchers, students receive up to 90 percent of the amount of the state funding that they would have been given if they went to a public school, [00:17:00] regardless of whatever school that they ultimately attend.

For most students, this is approximately 7, 000, again, a 2022 figure, and the amount may vary for students with disabilities and can be upwards of 30, 000. 

Now, the Arizona Department of Education reports that the average school voucher is 15, 225, while most school voucher programs While most school vouchers, approximately 53 percent of them, are in the 6, 000 to 7, 000 range.

About 16 percent of the vouchers released are about 20, 000 to 29, 000, and about 20 percent receive the voucher with more than 30, 000. 

So the school voucher program that was created by Governor Doug Ducey and the Arizona Republicans expanded the eligibility to all students in Arizona. Now this includes, as of [00:18:00]2022, 1. 1 million students in traditional public and charter schools.

But the program also expanded to cover, once again, those in private school and homeschooled. Now in Arizona, that's about 50, 000 students who are in private school, and about 35, 000 students who are homeschooled as of 2022. 

So the Arizona program, as it stands today, allows parents to purchase educational services for their children outside of the traditional public schools.

Parents may use the funds at approved vendors or at schools for the purposes that include, but of course are not limited to, private school tuition, curricula, educational supplies, tutoring, and even home education. Parents must agree not to enroll their child in a public school district or a charter school and must not simultaneously accept the funding from the state's school tuition tax credit program.

The school vouchers is funded with taxpayer [00:19:00] dollars and is administered by the Arizona Department of Education.  

Now when it comes to the funding of the program, the school voucher program receives funding from the state's general fund, which is overseen by the Arizona Department of Education. Now, in the event that the voucher expenses surpass the allotted budget, the Arizona Department of Education has the authority to seek additional funds from the state legislature.  

Now I came across a report from the Learning Policy Institute, and in their report, they conducted a cost analysis of Arizona's voucher program. based on publicly available data from Arizona's Department of Education and the state legislature. Now this report, at least according to them, gives the first overview of Arizona's voucher program and it provides an outline of steps for establishing the cost of the program.

And these steps are by calculating the per student cost of a universal voucher program and then determining the number of students [00:20:00] participating in the program and the previous school enrollment. 

To give us an idea of how much money is going out the door towards this program, let's look at the enrollment numbers. So prior to the implementation of the universal voucher program that as it exists today, We had, those limited vouchers primarily for students with disabilities in academic year 2020 to 2021.

Host: Those limited vouchers hit approximately 9, 643 students. The following academic year in 2021 to 2022, it was approximately 12, 127 students. And then, in 2022 to 2023, the first year of the Universal School Voucher Program in Arizona. It added not only those who previously qualified under the prior criteria, it also added a whole slew of students.

So in total, the school [00:21:00] voucher program was 61, 689 students enrolled. And then in 2023 to 2024, the total enrollment was estimated to be 72, 428 students. So just to give us an idea here, in 2020 to 2021, it was 9, 643 students. Just four years later, it is 72, 428 students.

Now the estimated cost of the school voucher program. Remember how I said in 2020 2021 in that academic year, only those who previously qualified under the limited scope program were able to get funds. And that was, once again, about 9600 students.

Well, in that program, the total costs was approximately $140 million to the state of Arizona, and in [00:22:00] 2021 to 2022, the number of students went up to approximately 12,000 students, and thus we saw the cost go up to approximately $189 million. Fast forward to academic year 2022 to 2023, when the first year of the universal program eligibility expanded, we now saw 61, 689 students enrolled in the program, which increased the cost, the total cost, to 5, 000, 000.

187 million. That was an increase of approximately 400 million between academic year 2021. Academic year 2022 and then according to the Learning Policy Institute's estimates, when in 2023 to 2024 with 72,428 students estimated to be enrolled in the [00:23:00] Universal program, we saw an increase in the total cost to $709 million.

That was an increase, once again of $519 million. From academic year 2023 to 2024 over the academic year where it was that limited eligibility 2021 to 2022. So to summarize these statistics, according to the Learning Policy Institute, Arizona's program grew from 12, 127 students to 61, 689 students between academic year 2021 and academic year 2022.

That was an increase of 409%, and by the end of December of 2023, the number had expanded even further to 72, 428 students. Now, nearly all of this growth came from students enrolled in the universal [00:24:00] program, , the expanded eligibility program, of which the large majority had not previously attended a public school.

So the projected cost of the program to the state has consistently increased since its initiation and initial estimates, which were prior to the implementation of the expanded eligibility program, those initial estimates set 64. 5 million for the program. The program's financial requirements have surged well exceeding the $64.5 million estimate that the Arizona State legislature led by Republicans previously stated.

Now, the state allotted $625 million for the program in academic year 2023 to 2024. But it appears that this budgeted amount will significantly undershoot the actual program costs. 

So using the data from the Arizona Department of Education's first quarter report for [00:25:00]academic year 2023, the Learning Policy Institute calculated that the program cost was going to be approximately 708 million. To put the funding for the program into context, the estimated net funding for the entire program In 2023 to 2024 is the equivalent to the salaries of 5200 new classroom teachers in the state based on the average teacher salary of approximately 57, 000.

And this shows how the money, Arizona taxpayer money, is being diverted from public education over to private education and homeschool education. Now the numbers support the takeaway that the majority of these funds under the universal voucher program in the state of Arizona are going to private school students and homeschooled students. So in that way, Arizona is now [00:26:00] sending more money into the private and homeschooled category. Where that money could have gone to the public school category in excess of 5200 new classroom teachers based on the average state salary for public school teachers.

Just imagine for a second where that money, which is now going to these universal school voucher programs, could have been used in public schools. Not only, of course, increasing the number of teachers, but thereby decreasing the student to teacher ratio and class sizes.

So, potentially more individualized instruction. which as an educator myself, I recognize is actually more effective than large class sizes, not to mention school supplies. 

The money that is being diverted away from public schools, again, going to the private school students and the homeschooled students under this universal voucher program.[00:27:00]

If that money went to public schools, it could not only go for. More teachers. It could also provide, for example, updated, more recently produced, more current textbooks . So students would be learning the most recent information and not from a textbook that perhaps is 10, 12, 14 years old. Now, that simple analogy of 100 in a school line item budget for a particular state, of course, is not exactly a match to how Arizona's program is funded.

So, to describe how Arizona's program is funded, let's break it down this way. Now imagine, once again, that there is 100 in the state's pool for education, and you go from 100 students who are in public school, so you give them 1 for 1, and you have 100 students in the private school education system in [00:28:00] the same state.

But if the money is tied on a per pupil basis, you add students to the equation and you try to keep the amount of money per student constant, well now you've added a hundred new students. To the pool, and so you have to effectively double your education budget in order to maintain the same ratio. So in this case, if you now have 200 students, again, 100 being public school and 100 being private school for a total of 200 students, if you want to maintain the same level of per pupil funding, now you need $200 in your budget.

 Proponents of the school voucher program may argue, we're not pulling money out of the public education system because the money stays constant. And instead we have just raised the spending of education across the board in the state of Arizona. Well, while that [00:29:00] is true, think about again, is the need in public education still there?

That answer I think is yes, and is the need for public funding of education in private schools necessary? If we think about many of the private schools in the state of Arizona, many of them being tuition funded. Then perhaps we don't need the state funds to go to those private schools because many of the parents of those private school students could already afford the tuition at those private schools.

 Thus, the money is not as necessary in those private schools than it is in the public schools.

And so for going to increase the state funding of education, Perhaps that money is better used in the public school system to, for example, hire [00:30:00] more teachers, to lower that student to teacher ratio, to purchase new supplies like textbooks for the students. 

That said, the logical thing to do here is to increase the funding. If we're going to bring more students pulling from the state education budget. But that didn't happen because simultaneously, Republican Governor Doug Ducey signed into law a flat tax in the state of Arizona. So now all taxpayers in the state of Arizona pay a maximum of 2.

5%. So while he Increased the costs across the state by implementing a school voucher program, adding a lot more students into the equation. He also reduced the revenue by lowering the tax. 

Now the 2. 5 percent is really a lowering of the tax rate for the highest income earners in the state of Arizona. Prior to the [00:31:00] implementation of the flat tax, we saw the highest income earners in the state of Arizona paying approximately four, maybe 5 percent , of their income to the state for income tax.

So now we've reduced that for them, the highest wage earners, the highest income Taxpayers in the state of Arizona are now paying less, whereas the lower income taxpayers in the state of Arizona, who were previously paying 2. 5%, based on their income bracket, continue to pay 2. 5%. So this tax cut overwhelmingly benefited the highest earners in the state of Arizona.

Not surprisingly, because Doug Ducey, was and still is a very high earning individual in the state of Arizona. If you are unaware, Doug Ducey is the former CEO of Coldstone Creamery.

So the governor's two bills that he signed, as he was walking out the door [00:32:00] did two things. It lowered the tax revenue for the state of Arizona and it increased the public education costs. What happens when you take in less money yet you increase your costs? You face a budget shortfall. You face a spending deficit.

And so most recently, Arizona's budget shortfall held at about 1. 4 billion dollars. And much of that is attributable to the new school voucher program. 

 There are certainly a bunch of positives. Funds could be used for private school tuition, extracurricular programs, or homeschooling supplies. Creating access, creating opportunities, expanding extracurricular programs. And I'm not trying to fault that. I am highlighting merely the program itself in the state of Arizona, that has caused this massive budget shortfall of approximately 1. 4 billion. 

That said, the question here is who actually needs that [00:33:00] money. So here's what doesn't make sense to me, the state of Arizona has taken money away from the public education system, has increased the number of individuals who now get a poll from that education line item budget in the state of Arizona. And now some of that money is going to high net worth families and high income generating families who were otherwise fully able and capable of paying for private school tuition prior to the school voucher program.

So, in effect, what has happened here for many of the highest income earners in Arizona, albeit not all of them, is they've had a reduction in their costs of education for their children, while simultaneously having a reduction in the tax rate that they pay. So at the end of the day, more money in their pocket.

Admittedly, I am a fully public educated individual. I grew up in a public school system in [00:34:00]Arizona. I went to Kyrene Elementary School District, and then I went to Tempe Union High School District, and then on to Arizona State for both of my degrees. I currently teach at a private education institution, and I am generally a believer in education across the board.

I have long been a supporter of education funding, and generally education access. So if there's more ways in which more individuals can get more education, I am generally supportive of that. And that was a value instilled to me by my mother. My mother being an immigrant into the United States, to MAGA Republicans, a lawful immigrant into the United States, and eventually became a naturalized citizen.

She always instilled in me. And our family, the value of education, that education was a pathway to a better life. And I acknowledge that, I cherish that, and I am so glad she did because I wouldn't be where I am today [00:35:00] without that level of encouragement that she had and that level of impact that she had on my life.

Now nonetheless, this causes me to think about why has the Republican Party led a concerted effort to defund public education? Now, there are many causes here. There are many reasons why. And I don't mean to imply that there's any single reason or any single cause. Rather, I am going to drill down into one in particular, and this is pure suspicion based on some statistics that I'll convey to you here in a second. Nonetheless, I think through again what motivates the republican party and actually to be fair what motivates any political party And that motivation comes down to power.

So, a party in power wants to remain in power, and the party not in power wants to get that power, if we think about it, right? That's just the fundamental nature of political parties. And so, how does, in this case, the Republican Party [00:36:00] keep or get to power if they're in the minority. How do they keep it if they're in the majority?

And how do they get it if they're in the minority? Well, there you have to be voted into power, at least here in the United States. And by being voted into power, you need to convince voters to vote for you. Now consider this for a second. I looked at the Pew Research Center and a poll that was recently conducted after the 2024 election looking at the voter statistics, the voter demographics out of the 2024 election, and so I'll convey some of their findings, some of the Pew Research Center poll findings to you here, but my general takeaway as I look at these numbers and I think through Why does the Republican Party generally want to pull money out of the public education system?

I cannot help but think here that there is some reason that's tied to their voter base. First, these are several of the findings from the Pew [00:37:00] Research Center. 67 percent of registered voters in this country are white, 13 percent Hispanic, 11 percent black, and 4 percent are of Asian descent.

If we look at the numbers from the 2024 election, both parties are more racially and ethnically diverse than they were three decades ago. So a lot of the Pew Research Center statistics are going to compare the 2024 election to the data that they collected in 1996.

Republican and Republican leaning voters tend to be older than Democrat and Democrat leaning. voters. Currently, 60 percent of registered voters are 50 years of age or older and voters with a college education defined as having a bachelor's degree has increased significantly since 1996 from about 24 percent in the mid 1990s to about 40 percent today.

Voters with a high school degree or less education have declined overall since [00:38:00] 1996. For Democrats, there's a share of voters with a college degree or more has approximately doubled since 1996, from 22 percent to 45 percent today. And the share of Democratic voters who have no college experience has fallen by approximately half.

Whereas before, in 1996, those without a college experience was approximately 51 percent of the Democratic voting base, and now, today, that is 25%. For Republicans, voters in general are more educated than they were back in 1996. However, GOP supporters are divided equally between those who never went to college, Those who attended college but did not receive a bachelor's degree and those who have a bachelor's degree.

So, interestingly enough, Republican voters in the 2024 election were approximately a third, a third, and a third with respect to those categories. [00:39:00] Now, also for Republicans, white voters without a college degree remain the largest block within the Republican voting base. But their share has fallen by 17 percent since 1996.

In 1996, it was approximately 68%, and today, white voters without a college degree make up approximately 51 percent of the Republican base. And since 1996, Republican voters with a bachelor's degree has grown from 18 percent to 30%. Republicans also remain overwhelmingly Christian. Slightly more than half of the Democratic voters, on the other hand, self identify as Christian, with approximately 38 percent identifying as religiously unaffiliated.  

Now, having considered those statistics from the Pew Research Center, here's what stands out to me relative to this conversation about public school funding. For Republicans, white voters without a college degree remain their largest block, [00:40:00] and then those voters who obtain a college degree tend to vote more along the lines of Democrats.

because Democratic voters with a bachelor's degree has now grown to approximately 30 percent of their voting base. So, what is my takeaway here? My takeaway here is that Republicans are incentivized to cater to white voters without a college degree.

The other takeaway here is that the Republican party tends to do better. With white voters without a college degree. So this tells me that there's an inherent incentive for the political party to maintain that large voting block of white voters without a college degree. So what is a public policy position that furthers that entrenchment in power and furthers that base the white voters without a college degree?

Well, [00:41:00] defunding education then. Because if you defund education, if you defund public education to where individuals are not getting a quality education in their K through 12 experience, then they are not going to continue on to college. And also, if you defund college, then those who cannot afford it are not able to go.

So, my Instinct here says that Republicans have generally attacked public education, have generally wanted to defund public education, because it helps them stay in power or get power when they are in the minority.

Now, Donald Trump has expressed time and time again a desire to dismantle the education department. And this of course has caught fire amongst the entire Republican Party and it is essentially the Republican Party position right now that the Education Department needs to go away.

But to be clear some of the conversation is [00:42:00] that the programs Implemented and administered by the Education Department will simply transfer to other departments that we don't need a standalone education department Now, there's a couple of things to note here. Number one, one argument from the Republicans is that the education department needs to go away because the federal government should have no role in public education.

Well, there is a role, and there will always be a role for the federal government in public education. And that relates to funding. The federal government will always have its hand in funding public education across this country. Whether that's through subsidies to the state governments, whether that's to student loans in higher education, any way you slice and dice it.

The federal government will be involved in K 12 and higher education in general. Now, perhaps this is also a symbolic move by the Republican Party. Of course, the Education Department's functions can be transferred to other [00:43:00] departments and agencies, but dismantling the Education Department is symbolic for both sides, actually, for FAIR.

On one hand, Republicans view it as a federal government getting out of education, and I note that this is a stark change from the Bush era, No Child Left Behind, where we, at the time, believed in federal standards for education outcomes. Now, on the other hand, the Democratic Party, well, they can view it as another step in the sustained attack against public education. So it's symbolic on both sides. 

Now, the United States Senate just recently confirmed the new education secretary, Linda McMahon. Linda McMahon, if you are unfamiliar with her name, she is married to Vince McMahon. And perhaps you know the name Vince McMahon. Vince McMahon led the WWE for years. And, Linda McMahon was intimately involved in the organization as well.

Now, they are no longer involved in the WWE, and Linda McMahon went on to run for public office. [00:44:00] At least twice, lost both times, and she also served for a very short duration on some public education board here in the state of Connecticut. But other than that, she has no education background. Now one can argue that the secretary of the education department does not need to have a career in public education or in private education. Administering and managing and directing the education department amongst the federal government is more of a business role where you're administering payments, you're overseeing programs, you're managing staff, etc.

But there is something to say. When you do have somebody in that role, who has been boots on the ground, who has been boots on the ground in public school classrooms, or even private or charter school classrooms, and has led teachers in different ways. Because, at the very least, you can pull from that experience and [00:45:00] apply it to the job.

And that's what we saw with Miguel Cardona, the education secretary during Biden's administration, who coincidentally, by the way, has a tie to Connecticut. Just like Linda McMahon. 

Yeah.

Host: So let's turn to the federal workforce for a second. As I mentioned in a previous episode, there's process policy and procedure here with respect to the termination or elimination of federal jobs. Now, as one federal worker told NPR in a story I heard just the other day, she feels like she's now being jerked around. That she's on again, off again, on again, off again, and nobody has a coordinated plan. And we are also seeing courts and other adjudicative bodies reinstating federal workers who face termination because they were terminated unlawfully.

As I mentioned in that previous episode, the downside is, these are human lives. [00:46:00] Federal workers are human beings who have mortgages, who have car payments, who probably have children, and perhaps children in college, so they're funding college educations, and suddenly we're terminating them, and then calling them back, and then terminating them again.

That is simply not fair to them. This is why, as an example, the private sector goes through painful planning stages with respect to layoffs and terminations. This is why we have process policy and procedure. This is why the law requires notice be given to the employees before you cut off their paycheck.

So, all I want to say here is, we continue to see chaos, driven by the Trump administration, in seeking to achieve its objectives, in shrinking the federal government, but doing so without a plan, doing so without any type of [00:47:00] strategy, and in doing so, Messing around with people's lives.

Now that lack of planning, we're also seeing on the tariff front. So, perhaps it's worth going into a little explanation now about what a tariff is, who has the authority to issue a tariff. And what a tariff may do to an economy. So first, a tariff is essentially a tax. It's an import tax. So when we bring in a good, whether that's raw materials or a finished good, like an automobile, that is manufactured abroad, outside of the United States, and we bring that in, well then, The person importing or the entity importing that good must pay that tariff.

So, for example, if we import a vehicle that was manufactured in Mexico by one of the big three American companies, like GM, well then [00:48:00] GM has to pay that import tax, aka a tariff. And these tariffs can be absorbed, but only to a certain extent. This is essentially an increase in price. They now have to pay more money to bring that good into the United States. Some can absorb that price increase and essentially lower their profit margins. Others cannot. And thus, in order to sustain as a business, they have to pass that increase in cost to the end customer.

And in this case, it's the American people. So the American people ultimately end up, in most cases but not all, paying for the tariffs. So the argument that the tariffs are somehow a tax, and the foreign country pays for it, is just blatantly inaccurate. Because, again, they're paid upon the importer, or they're paid by the importer of a good.

Now, that said, [00:49:00] that of course creates some sort of economic incentive structure. Because if it's more costly to bring a good in from a foreign nation, then perhaps it is less costly to just make the good here in the United States. So this is the potential pro behind a tariff policy driven by the Trump administration, where before a company like GM may be manufacturing their vehicle at a Mexican plant, well now that has increased in cost, so at some point, GM has to make a decision to bring back manufacturing to the United States.

And in so doing, essentially avoiding that tariff. Now the issue here is the pure globalized nature of supply chains these days. And take it from somebody who actually used to work in supply chain at a major Fortune 500 company. And in fact, in one of the most complex and one of the highest rated supply chains [00:50:00] in the world, consistently by industry analysts at Gartner. Let's look at it from a supply chain perspective for a second. 

 As I mentioned, tariffs are a tax on imports. So whenever something is imported into the United States, if it's subject to a tariff, then the importer must pay it. So let's look at a relatively simple product. There's a new market player in the water space, and you may have seen them because they have a clever marketing strategy and they are called Liquid Death. And it's water. It's just canned water, essentially. Some of it is sparkling water, some of it's flavored water, but nonetheless, this brand, Liquid Death, is a water company.

Now, in order to make their product, You have two primary ingredients. You have the can itself, and you have the water. That's it, right? I mean, if you ultimately boil it down, it is [00:51:00] two things, the can and the water. Now, Liquid Death happens to be based in Los Angeles, California, and at least according to their cans, we are seeing that they are bottled in Virginia and in Idaho.

But let's say that they can't get their cans from any supplier here in the United States, so they have to turn abroad, and maybe they buy their cans from elsewhere. Maybe they buy their cans from a country that is now subject to Trump's tariffs. Or perhaps they make the cans here in the United States, but nonetheless they still need the aluminum to make such cans.

And so since we're discussing aluminum cans for a second, I did a simple search and looked for the countries that have the highest level of aluminum exports.

 So aluminum as a raw material, in order to make those aluminum cans come from all parts of the world. The top 10 countries as of [00:52:00] 2021 in aluminum exports include Canada, India, Russia, UAE, Norway, Netherlands, Malaysia, Australia, Bahrain, and Iceland. Well now let's look at the top 10 countries that produce aluminum. The top 10 countries as of 2023. include China, India, Russia, Canada, UAE, Bahrain, Australia, Norway, Brazil, and Malaysia. 

Now, if we look at the numbers that each of these top 10 countries produce, China has the overwhelming majority of aluminum manufacturing and production in the world. China, which is the number one producer of aluminum in the world produces 41 million tons of aluminum, at least in 2023. Now, the next largest country with respect to aluminum production is India.

And India is at 4. 1 [00:53:00] million tons of aluminum produced in 2023. So, number one, China at 41 million tons, India at 4. 1 million tons. Yeah, big difference. As we look at that as a percentage, China produces over half of the globe's aluminum production.

So if you're going to place a tariff on aluminum, either as a good, or if you're going to place a tariff on China as a country, well then That aluminum, which goes into Liquid Death's product at the end of the day, is now facing a higher cost.

So Liquid Death has to make a business decision. Either one, they're going to absorb the increase in cost due to this extra import tax that the Trump administration has placed. They're going to absorb it, and it's going to eat away at their [00:54:00] profits. Or, they are going to have to raise their prices to maintain their profit margin.

And when they raise their prices, who pays? Americans. The consumer pays when prices are raised. And I just find it intriguing that throughout the 2024 election, the number one complaint, I think from voters that I heard over and over again, was inflation. And I'm not downgrading or dismissing inflation as a concern.

But nonetheless, the definition of inflation is a sustained increase in prices. And so Americans elected Donald J. Trump, who paraded around tariffs, which have the effect. of raising prices.

Now here's the other thing. Now imagine this from a business perspective for a moment. It is more difficult from a business perspective to operate the business when [00:55:00] you have unpredictable futures ahead. And what I mean by that is if prices are fluctuating and fluctuating in a major way, well, that makes business planning incredibly difficult to do because you are constantly trying to play.

Okay. How do we maintain a profit margin? Can we make payroll? Can we generate more revenue this month? What do our costs look like? Running a business in an unpredictable environment is more difficult to do than running a business in a predictable environment. 

So here's my point with the tariffs. We have now seen the Trump administration threatening tariffs against, I'm just going to use Canada and Mexico as an example. He's threatened it and then he's issued a 30 day extension and then he applied them and then he rescinded them. So he is all over the place with respect to the tariffs.

This of course creates an [00:56:00] unpredictable and chaotic market that businesses have to navigate, especially again, if they're doing business in Mexico and Canada and the United States so in this way, tariffs themselves. Aren't necessarily driving the unpredictability in the market that causes a business to want to pull their hair out. Rather, it is Donald Trump's application of these tariffs that is leading to this unpredictability in the market. And that's really what I want to highlight here.

I am not a trade expert, I am not an economist, so I don't want to highlight whether it's good policy to implement tariffs or not in the current environment. But I do know one thing, and that one thing is, when you have an unpredictable market, it is much more difficult to do business in that market. And when you're on [00:57:00] again, off again with these tariffs, when you're unsure and you reverse course.

Almost within hours, that makes it very unpredictable and it makes it very difficult to plan and strategize from a business perspective. 

That's it for today's episode of Discourse. Thank you for tuning in and being part of the conversation. You can catch future episodes of Discourse wherever you get your podcasts. If you found this discussion insightful, be sure to subscribe, leave a review, and share it with others who value thoughtful analysis over the noise.

You can also join the conversation by visiting DiscoursePod. org and following me on X and Blue Sky at Prof Unger for more insights and updates. Until next time. Keep thinking critically, stay curious and engage with respect. We'll see you soon.[00:58:00]

Discourse is a commentary podcast for informational and educational purposes only, and does not constitute professional advice or legal advice. The opinions expressed are solely those of the host and any guests and do not reflect the views of any employer institution or organization. This podcast is not journalism and does not adhere to journalistic principles.

It offers analysis, opinion, and discussion on current events, but should not be relied upon as a new source. Listeners should consult qualified professionals for legal or otherwise expert advice specific to their situation. Thanks for listening.