[00:00:00] All right. Welcome back to Discourse. I'm your host, Wayne Unger, and we are recording today's episode at 11:30 AM on Tuesday, July 15th. And things, of course may have changed since. On today's episode, we are discussing what is in Trump's big, beautiful bill. Now, I have to admit that I should have done this episode before Congress passed the bill and before Donald Trump signed the bill into law.

But at this point, it's the law. So what's in it and how might it impact you? All of this and more right after this message.

 Thank you for listening to Discourse. We are excited and honored to announce that you all have put us in the top thirty of News Commentary, podcasts in the United States on Apple Podcasts. So thank you once [00:01:00] again. We'd like to continue making this podcast available to you without commercials. To help us continue this work commercial free, please join us as a subscriber and support us with a monthly contribution.

Visit discoursepod.org and click the support button today. 

Now let's begin with the headlines. First up, the Transportation Security Administration or TSA will allow passengers to keep their shoes on as they go through security at airports across the country. Thank goodness is what I say in response to that because I am tired of waiting behind those individuals who haven't flown, you know this century and who don't know how to take their shoes off or who.

For example, wear combat boots and they're not in the military, and then they're standing there holding up [00:02:00] everybody because they have to undo the laces on their combat boots. So thank goodness to that.

And second, Trump and his attorney general, Pam Bondi, are in hot water with the MAGA base.

It centers on the Epstein papers, specifically the Epstein client list. MAGA seems to be fed up over the Attorney General and President Trump claiming that there is some sort of coverup happening here, that even though many in the Republican administration have touted that such a client list exists.

Now they are saying it doesn't exist, and for that reason, they are not going to release a list that doesn't exist except they've made references to an actual list. So we're seeing the pushback, we're seeing the, the conspiracy theories, float around there on maga. MAGA is turning on President Trump.

And it's perhaps telling because for a [00:03:00] long time. Donald Trump and MAGA talking heads were out there parading conspiracy theories with respect to the Epstein client list and Epstein in general. One of those conspiracy theories, for example, was that Epstein did not actually commit suicide, that he was murdered in prison as a part of this broader coverup.

But where in fact is the coverup today, it certainly appears that the coverup is happening by the White House and by the Trump administration. And I say that because there's a likelihood that Donald Trump is actually named in those files. And I'm not just pulling this outta thin air.

I am looking right now at a complaint that was filed in 2016 right before the election, to be fair against Donald Trump and Jeffrey. They were the two defendants in this case. Now the plaintiff chose to go by a pseudonym. She just called herself Jane Doe and rightfully so because she wanted to protect her privacy.

I don't fault her for that. [00:04:00] But interestingly enough, shortly after it was filed, only a couple weeks later, the plaintiff in the case filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, meaning that she withdrew the case. Now it's interesting. She so willingly withdrew the case because in a situation like this, I would expect there to be a very quick settlement.

We already saw how Donald Trump settled the Stormy Daniels fiasco before the 2016 election, so that that story would not go public. So he was likely combating the same thing here where he likely settled the case in Jane Doe versus Donald Trump. And. It's not abnormal in settlements. We see this all the time.

It's not abnormal in settlements to have non-disclosure agreements and even non-disparagement agreements, meaning that the plaintiff and the parties who [00:05:00] have agreed to settle everyone who has agreed to that settlement agree not to disclose the terms of the settlement, perhaps even the existence of a settlement.

Moreover, they agree not to speak poorly about each other. But I'm not a party to that settlement. And I have the court records. These are the records that were filed with the court. They're public record that you can go on and access in theory if you know how to get them online. That said, let's look at the complaint.

So this complaint was filed on September 30th, 2016. So let's read it real quick. Plaintiff Jane Doe proceeding under a pseudonym brings this lawsuit against Donald J.

Trump and Jeffrey e Epstein. She alleges among many, many things that she was subject to the acts of rape, sexual misconduct, criminal sexual acts, sexual abuse, forcible touching, assault, battery, intentional and reckless infliction of emotional distress. [00:06:00] Duress, false imprisonment and threats of death or serious bodily injury by the defendants that took place during several parties during the summer months of 1994.

It says that the parties were held by defendant Epstein at a New York City residence that was being used by defendant Epstein. It gives the address nine East 71st Street in Manhattan. And during this period, the plaintiff in the case, again, who's proceeding under a pseudonym to protect her privacy.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff was 13 years of age and legally incapable under New York law to consent to any sexual intercourse or other sexual contact. And what does the allegation say specifically with respect to Donald Trump? Well, it says a little bit later in the complaint that the plaintiff, Jane Doe was enticed by promises of money and a modeling career to attend a series of [00:07:00] parties in 1994 with several other similarly situated minor females held at this New York residence, and at least four of those parties were attended by the current president of the United States, Donald Trump.

Of course, he wasn't the president in 1994. Quoting from the complaint. By this time in 1994, the defendant Trump had known Epstein for many years. Defendant Trump, and I warn you of the content that is about to come. It is explicit. The complaint says defendant Trump initiated sexual contact with the plaintiff at four different parties on the fourth and final sexual encounter with defendant Trump.

Defendant Trump tied plaintiff to a bed, tied a minor to the bed, exposed himself to the plaintiff, to the minor, and then proceeded to forcefully rape [00:08:00] her. And during the course of this savage sexual attack, plaintiff loudly pleaded with the defendant Donald Trump to stop. That was to no effect. Defendant Trump responded to the plaintiff's pleas by violently striking the plaintiff in the face with an open hand and screaming that he would do whatever he wanted to her.

The next paragraph in the complaint alleges that immediately following the rape, Donald Trump threatened plaintiff that where she ever to reveal any of the details of the sexual and physical abuse by of her, by Donald Trump, the plaintiff and her family would be physically harmed, if not killed. I am reading directly from the complaint. The complaint made these allegations.

This complaint is public record, so it certainly seems that there is some sort of connection. I think it's well established maybe at this point with all the evidence that's floating around in the public sphere that [00:09:00] Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein knew each other. There are plenty of photos of them together, as an example.

So. Whether he attended the parties. This complaint says he did, whether he had any sexual contact with minors, this complaint says he did. And so perhaps why the Donald Trump administration, in this case, the Department of Justice, led by the Attorney General who is like in his pocket, why aren't they releasing the Jeffrey Epstein papers?

Perhaps because they implicate. The sitting president of the United States.

And I'll just say that the sheer irony that. Everything that Donald Trump has done to date, if it's the Epstein client list that brings him down, I will just be flabbergasted. Not the double impeachments, not the call with Zelensky after he won, not the [00:10:00] insurrection on January 6th, nothing has really attacked Donald Trump's favoritism or favorability.

And if it's the Epstein papers, I'll just be flabbergasted.

Alright, third, our third big headline is Tariffs and Inflation. So breaking news inflation for June of 2025, ticked up. Now that's expected, but the inflation ticking up is now attributed. By many experts to Trump's tariffs. Now, I've said on past episodes that we would expect to see the inflationary impact of Trump's tariffs, but maybe not quite yet, right?

Because we haven't seen a gross increase in inflation. We've only seen just the minor increase . And that's in part because I think. The Trump tariffs have, for the most part [00:11:00] been paused because after he announced those liberation day tariffs, those massive tariffs on basically every country around the world back in April, he then put a big pause on it, and that's how he began to get the name, the nickname Taco for Trump always chickens out the taco tariffs, and he originally said 90 days.

That 90 day mark has passed. He has since extended it even further to August 1st. And so now at this point, despite his constant announcements about a tariff here, tariff there, 35% tariff on Brazil, for example, 35% tariff on Mexico and those tomatoes and Canada, we have yet to really see any of these tariffs that Trump has announced go into effect.

Now, don't get me wrong. Some tariffs have, and that could explain the uptick in inflation for June of 2025. But [00:12:00] we'll see if these massive tariffs, which by the way have been enjoined in part by the International trade court, that is a federal court specific. Two trade jurisdiction. I've said that on the past episode where basically we have a federal court that handles trade matters.

Well, they've enjoined it, but the appellate court has effectively enjoined their injunction. So, which means that the tariffs can go into effect once Donald Trump puts them into effect. But it appears that Taco Trump always chickens out. Now he has announced massive tariffs against two of our strongest allies in recent days, Japan and South Korea.

He's also threatened 50% tariffs against Brazil for what he believes get. This is the unfair treatment of its former president.

And the thing here is we have a trade surplus. With Brazil, remember that [00:13:00] one of the initial reasons for this trade tariff policy or strategy was to bring trade into balance with many of the foreign countries where we run a trade deficit. Where we actually buy more from those countries than we ship out to those countries.

Well, in Brazil we, we run a trade surplus, and yet Donald Trump wants to tariff them anyways, or is threatening to announce, or it's has threatened these tariffs of 35% on Brazil. Now, keep in mind, Brazil is a massive exporter of coffee. So for all of my listeners who drink coffee here in the United States.

If a tariff on Brazil were to go into effect a broad-based tariff that applies to all goods exported out of Brazil, expect coffee prices to go up.

Alright, let's get to the meat and potatoes of today's episode. Trump's big, beautiful Bill, what's in it? What will it do to America, and how might it [00:14:00] impact you and other Americans? Well, before I dive into answering these questions, I must disclaim that I am not an economist. Also, I am not a tax attorney or an accountant.

So everything that I say in this episode and the next, because this will be a two-part series, everything I say in these episodes is not, nor should it be considered legal advice. This is pure commentary, how I interpret the bill and what I think of it. So if you're seeking legal advice, I encourage you to consult a practicing attorney or an accountant.

All right. With that disclaimer outta the way, this is a whopper of a bill. So much so that I must dive into the commentary into two separate episodes. This is part one, which we will mostly cover the changes to Medicaid and the elimination of the green energy tax credits that were provided in the Inflation Reduction Act passed during the Biden administration and now post [00:15:00] part two to this series in a few days.

But on part two, we'll discuss the massive spending in the big beautiful bill, some of which is legitimate and necessary. Other spending? Not so much. I'll say that after reading the bill cover to cover that members of both parties are correct about some things about the bill.

Many are incorrect about other things. In other words, the Republicans talking point about the big beautiful bill, some of those talking points were correct, some were incorrect, and the same goes for the Dems. Okay? So I won't be able to detail everything that is in this bill, but I will detail what stood out to me.

Let's begin with the social programs. Now this includes SNAP or formerly known as Food stamps and Medicaid. Mostly Republicans characterize the changes to SNAP and Medicaid specifically as changes that are necessary to prevent or mitigate [00:16:00] fraud in these programs.

And I admit. After reading the bill cover to cover that some of the changes to both programs might keyword might prevent the fraud. However, it's important to understand the particulars to better understand whether the Republicans talking points hold any merit whatsoever. See, both Medicaid and SNAP are funded in part by the federal government.

Yes, they are Federal government welfare programs. But both Snap and Medicaid are administered by the individual states. So take Medicaid for example. The names of the Medicaid programs differ from state to state because they are administered by the individual states. So the states get free reign to call it whatever they want.

And this is often why so many recipients or beneficiaries of these programs failed to connect the two that whatever their state program is. Actually Medicaid in Arizona. Let me give you an [00:17:00]example. It's called the Arizona Healthcare Cost Containment System, more commonly known as Access. That's a mouthful.

In Alaska, it's called Denali Care. In Arkansas, not very creative here, Arkansas, they call it healthcare. Just Plain Out Healthcare, that's their program. In California, it's called Medi-Cal, and in Connecticut it's called Husky Health. So all 50 states have different names for it, but of the 50 states by my count, 18 states refer to their Medicaid programs as Medicaid, or at least Medicaid is in the title of their program, like in West Virginia.

West Virginia calls their Medicaid program appropriately straightforward, West Virginia Medicaid. So the federal laws that create these programs provide how you can qualify for these programs. In general, Medicaid eligibility depends on at least one or a combination of the following, your age, income, the number of people in your family, and [00:18:00] if you are pregnant or have a disability.

But states also. Here's the kicker. They can add to the qualifications beyond the minimum standards that the federal government has established in federal law. So according to Arizona's Medicaid program, we'll use this as an example. Their website, the access website. In order to obtain Medicaid, you must first be a United States citizen, or what's called a qualified immigrant, such as a permanent resident.

Texas also requires citizenship or that qualified immigrant status, and same with Pennsylvania. In fact, many states require citizenship in order to qualify for Medicaid. So the Republican talking point that Medicaid is flooded with undocumented persons receiving Medicaid. Or healthcare in general? Well, that's simply not true.

They are not receiving Medicaid because a lot of states require citizenship in order to get those Medicaid benefits. [00:19:00] Now, to the extent that there are any undocumented individuals who are getting Medicaid, to the extent that that talking point is true, guess whose fault it would be? It'd be the individual states, because the individual states are the ones administering the programs.

So if a state isn't checking for immigration status, then that's on them. If there are a bunch of non-citizens or undocumented persons, or those persons who are unlawfully present in the United States receiving Medicaid in Texas, for example, well then that's Texas's fault. But in either event, there plainly isn't a notable population of undocumented persons benefiting from Medicaid, except, here's one exception for in emergency services, which I'll explain more in a bit, because all 50 states, their Medicaid programs cover emergency services regardless of citizenship status.

In fact, going back to it, most states require [00:20:00] citizenship or lawful, permanent residency to qualify for Medicaid. There are a handful of exceptions, one I previously mentioned, but here are some others to note. First, several states permit children regardless of citizenship status to qualify for Medicaid.

Several allow pregnant women regardless of citizenship status to qualify. But all 50 states, all 50 states offer Medicaid coverage for emergency situations for emergency medicaid. Essentially to anyone, including those who are unlawfully present in the United States. Now, Trump's big, beautiful bill. Well, it amended the federal Medicaid qualifications.

It now specifies that you must be a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident to qualify for Medicaid. Now since the big, beautiful bill amends federal law states must comply regardless of whether they are currently allowing [00:21:00] any coverage for those who are unlawfully present in the United States.

So what does this mean? If you are unlawfully present in the United States, you no longer get Medicaid, period. Full stop. Now, many Americans will say that makes sense. I do not want my tax dollars funding the healthcare of those who are unlawfully present in the United States. And I think that's a fair view.

I, I have to admit, I think that's a fair view, but I know many who hold this view might lack the greater context to consider. So let me expand on this for a bit. Consider someone who is unlawfully present in the United States. Let's call him John, for example. John is involved in a horrific car accident and is rushed to the emergency room.

He undergoes several surgeries and is placed in the intensive care unit or ICU. Luckily, John survives. See, in emergency [00:22:00] situations like this, hospitals by law, well, they must act quickly and render emergency care. They do not, and in fact, they cannot by law wait to confirm your citizenship status. Before they operate and before they deliver those emergency medical services.

In fact, federal law requires them to act as quickly as possible to stabilize you and to think about it, we generally want hospitals to act quickly in emergency situations, right? We generally want them to operate right away. We don't want them to wait for confirmation of citizenship status or insurance coverage because that wait time

could mean life or death in many circumstances. And if you are a family member for a second, if you are a family member of someone who's been involved in a horrific car accident, or a gun accident, or a natural [00:23:00] disaster, you want the hospital to act quickly. You want the hospital to save your loved one.

This is in part why federal law mandates that medical care be given in those emergency situations. But most hospitals are for-profit businesses in the United States, and even those who are non-profit hospitals, well, they must at minimum break even, otherwise they'll close, right? Everybody has costs that they have to pay, for-profit, as well as non-for-profit hospitals.

So regardless of whether a hospital is for-profit or not-for-profit, every hospital must pay their cost to keep their doors open. So what happens in John's case, that hypothetical, that horrific car accident that I previously mentioned? Well, he's unlawfully present in the United States. He's been involved in a horrible car accident, but luckily he survives due to the great medical care [00:24:00] that he received at a nearby hospital.

Now the hospital bills. For John on the low end, let's say they add up to about $200,000, because healthcare is expensive here in the United States on the high end, perhaps $1.5 million. So who pays? Well, John can't. In fact, most Americans probably could not pay that out of pocket. That's why we have health insurance as an example.

Well, in a situation like this, the hospital could turn to the state Medicaid program to seek reimbursement for those costs. It is emergency medical care given to someone who is not a United States citizen and who is not lawfully present in the United States. So at very least the hospital gets some of its money back from the state. And the federal government,

In cases of emergency Medicaid to non-citizens, well, they [00:25:00] provided previously what's called enhanced federal matching funds. But now with a big, beautiful bill that's gone, those enhanced federal matching funds, in fact, the federal government would pay for a greater percentage than it otherwise would in those situations like John's.

Now states will lose this higher federal reimbursement that they previously received with respect to Medicaid services in emergencies. Now, the BBB has also changed the eligibility requirements. Well, what happens? Some states could eliminate the emergency care coverage for those who are not lawfully present in the United States because the big, beautiful bill reduced the government's cost sharing burden, placing greater cost onto the individual states to pay.

Now, what if the state decides to refuse coverage even for [00:26:00] emergency care? For anyone who is not lawfully present in the United States, there are some listeners who I imagine are like, yeah, why should we be paying for even emergency care? We'll put the moral consideration aside for a second. Just think practically here, the hospital is going to eat those costs because again, the hospital is mandated by law to deliver those emergency care services.

So if the state isn't going to pay for it, it's gonna have to eat those costs, except the hospital will probably look at covering its costs through some other way. Because if the state isn't reimbursing it, it needs to stay open, so it's gonna cover its costs some other way. So at the very least, it will try to cover its costs by distributing those costs that they did not collect on

to other patients. So the cost associated with John's [00:27:00] horrible car accident, well, in this example, they'll likely get passed onto paying customers. Paying customers. They'll likely get passed onto private insurers, which means healthcare costs go up for everyone. So while your tax dollars aren't paying for the Medicaid coverage for this emergency care, guess what?

Now your health insurance premiums go up. You're paying for it that way. Either way it is going to get paid for. So how do we solve for this? Well, to reduce the cost sharing, we generally want, and this is kind of the general theory here, we generally want more people paying into the healthcare system. We generally want more people to have medical insurance.

And when we have more money in the system, in theory, that drives down the costs on a per person basis because we can distribute those costs more widely because the [00:28:00] costs are now distributed amongst a larger number of payers.

And as a general comment, the Republicans by the way, have led a decades long effort to make it more difficult for people to receive health insurance, and they repealed, for example, the Affordable Care Act individual mandate. Thus, allowing more people to skip out on health insurance, thus decreasing the number of payers in the system, thus driving up insurance premiums for everyone else.

But I digress.

Let's get back to the big, beautiful bill. What else did the big beautiful bill change with respect to Medicaid? Well, it also established work in what's called community engagement requirements according to the text of the bill. So beginning in December of 2026, those who are able bodied, not disabled, not pregnant, those adults who are under the 65 years of age cutoff [00:29:00] without dependence, well, they must complete at least 80 hours of work.

Per month or volunteer the same number of hours or participate in education or training programs to keep their Medicaid coverage.

The big beautiful bill requires the states to scrap auto enrollment and IRS income Self attestation rules. What does this mean? It means that states can no longer auto-enroll individuals or autorenew individuals, and states now must require everyone on Medicaid to prove your income in order to qualify or prove the low amount of income that you have to qualify. It requires states to redetermine continuing eligibility every six months versus annually, which is what it once was. Consider this, this now administrative burden placed onto Medicaid patients, thus increases [00:30:00] the burden and the likelihood that some individuals who would otherwise qualify for Medicaid,

they might get kicked off due to the administrative requirements and the burdens now imposed by the big beautiful Bill. Now, the Congressional Budget office or CBO estimated that at least 7.8 million people could lose Medicaid coverage by 2034, basically nine years from now due to the big, beautiful bills reforms.

Now Republicans insisted, insisted that the big, beautiful bill contained no cuts to Medicaid. That's misleading. It is true that the big beautiful bill adds requirements such as the work requirement or the community engagement requirement . And that technically doesn't cut Medicaid coverage, but as the CBO estimated, it will likely cause once eligible individuals to lose the [00:31:00] coverage because they cannot meet the new work slash community engagement requirement and.

As I said before, others might lose coverage due to the newly enacted administrative requirements to confirm your eligibility every six months, those administrative burdens may lead to people losing coverage. So perhaps the only true cut by kind of mind definition of a cut, which is where the Democrats have a leg to stand on, is with those who are unlawfully present in the United States.

The big, beautiful bill. Cut. This was actual funding cut, the enhanced cost sharing that I previously mentioned for emergency medical care, the federal government's portion that would reimburse the states for emergency medical care. Now, states face a higher cost burden for the care because they now receive less than they otherwise did from the federal government.

[00:32:00] Now with this higher cost burden associated from those individuals who are not lawfully present in the country may lead to states rethinking how they'll cover emergency care for non-citizens. And as I said, republicans continue to claim that these changes are necessary to prevent Medicaid and snap fraud.

This prompts the question, at least to me. Where's the fraud? Are Medicaid programs littered with dead persons getting payments as the Republicans uh, proclaim are non-citizens getting free healthcare left and right? The answer is no. That's not what the data shows. Most Medicaid fraud involves providers, not the patients.

The majority of Medicaid fraud involved billing for services that were either never provided. Or perhaps they're billed with a higher code called upcoding, or providing unnecessary [00:33:00]services to maximize the payments, the reimbursements from the Medicaid program. There's also fraud in kickback and referral schemes.

Providers who receive payments or incentives for referring patients for unnecessary services. Caregivers also claim hours that they never worked. The overwhelming majority of Medicaid fraud is committed by the providers. Now, of course, if it's truly about preventing fraud, does the BBB the big beautiful bill make any changes to prevent, to catch, or to mitigate this fraud?

I read the bill cover to cover. That answer is no. Nothing that I can see in the big, beautiful bill. Is truly targeting where the fraud occurs in Medicaid. Instead, the Trump administration has seemingly supported providers who have gotten caught c committing Medicaid fraud. Get this. According to Physicians Weekly, five years ago, [00:34:00] during Trump's first term, the CEO of one of the largest pain clinic companies in the Southwest was sentenced to more than three years in prison after being convicted of a $4 million illegal kickback scheme associated with Medicaid. Guess what Trump did? He commuted his sentence after three months and Trump, his reasoning for that commutation was no one suffered financially.

Ah. Here's the thing. Taxpayers suffered financially because taxpayers are the ones who fund Medicaid programs, and it was the Medicaid programs that paid out bogus claims filed by this pain clinic, this provider.

Physicians Weekly also reported that Trump has granted pardons or commutations to at least 68 people convicted of fraud related crimes or interfering with fraud criminal investigations according to Kaiser Health News.

[00:35:00] And at least 13 of those fraudsters were convicted in cases involving more than 1.6 billion in fraudulent Medicaid claims. Trump also, by the way, in the second term, fired many independent inspectors general. And it's the inspectors general who are tasked with investigating provider fraud. So let's look at another specific example.

Trump commuted the sentence of a guy named Philip Afores, I think I'm saying that last name correctly.

Philip was a Florida healthcare executive convicted in 2019 of a $1.3 billion Medicare and Medicaid fraud scheme. Now, Trump's own Department of Justice during his first term said publicly that Philip is quote, the man behind one of the biggest healthcare frauds in history. End quote. He was eventually [00:36:00] sentenced to 20 years following his conviction.

Guess what trump did? Trump freedom after only 14 months. He commuted his sentence. So, while I admit that some of the big beautiful bill reforms might medicate Medicaid fraud, to me it appears that Republicans targeted the wrong cause. They said, Hey, look over here at the fraud that is basically non-existent.

We're going to change the eligibility requirements to prevent the fraud. That's what they said. Well, I call bs. I call BS because they changed nothing, absolutely nothing about the laws that criminalize the actual fraud that is occurring in the system. In fact, Trump effectively says, don't worry. If you commit it, I'll just pardon or commute your sentence based off of his past pardons and commutations.

So if this was truly about fraud, if it was truly about fraud, about [00:37:00] targeting the fraud that truly plagues the system. Then the big beautiful bill should have targeted those actual fraudsters. Instead, Congress chose to make it more difficult for the patients, those who are already on Medicaid, to continue to receive their Medicaid.

Of course, to be clear, Congress is within their full authority to do this as am I in my full authority or legal right to criticize Congress's policy judgment here. That said, I really have two points. First, if this was truly about combating fraud, congress made a piss poor policy judgment. Thus, this leads me to believe that it was never about fraud.

It was and still is about reducing Medicaid costs by kicking people off Medicaid, by [00:38:00]making it harder to get Medicaid or to renew their Medicaid. My second point is this, along those lines, the downstream effects of the big beautiful bill reforms with respect to Medicaid, per the Congressional budget office,

it will lead to many losing coverage. And with hospitals still needing to pay their bills, your health insurance premiums will go up because somebody has to pay. And if they can't pay, if the hospital cannot recoup their costs, then they close. So plainly said, the Republicans are not focused on the true fraud in these programs because if they were

they would have passed reforms to the criminal laws and or the reimbursement submission processes. That's the truth here. [00:39:00] And the Medicaid reforms were not the only provision in the bill that reduced federal spending. The big beautiful bill also eliminated many of the tax credits provided by the Inflation Reduction Act passed during the Biden administration.

So let's go into those. Those are the EV tax credits. They're gone. The tax credits for improving the energy efficiency of your home, Gone. The residential clean energy credit, gone. The commercial clean energy credit, gone. The big, beautiful bill eliminated almost all federal tax incentives that incentivized individuals and corporations to invest in more energy efficient technologies.

Meanwhile, the big beautiful bill opened up oil drilling by requiring, it literally requires the Department of Interior to sell leases on federal lands. And so think of it this way. The big, [00:40:00]beautiful bill shifted the government's energy policy from one that was focused actually on energy efficiency, post inflation reduction act, and maybe renewable energy like wind and solar.

Well, the big beautiful bill shifted it back to the good old fashioned oil, the same oil that has caused climate change. You know the thing that the science is actually clear on the CL that the climate is changing yet, you know what? The Republicans continue to deny. So, let me digress for a second, because on this point of climate change, I recall months ago that Donald Trump said he's the most pro-science president in the history of the country.

But as we know, he's full of hyperbole and lies. His administration has slashed federal grants and federal spending on science research and development. Research universities across the country face federal funding pullbacks and [00:41:00] freezes that have slowed or outright halted their scientific research. The Republican Party has shown with the big beautiful bill that they continue to deny the effects of climate change.

 By now, you have likely heard of the devastating floods that hit Kerr County, Texas. The Houston Chronicle reported that the flooding was triggered by record breaking, slow moving storm system that dumped approximately 10 to 15 inches of rain over the course of a few hours.

So much rain, in fact, that it equated to four months worth of rainfall for that region. This along with several other factors, such as the terrain, caused the Guadalupe River to surge over 26 feet. 26 feet within 45 minutes. Now, Texas Hill country faced the catastrophic amounts of rain in a topography that could not absorb it, in a landscape in geology that caused [00:42:00] fast runoff leading to the deaths of over 130 individuals.

And I'm sure that number will increase as more bodies are recovered. And yes, this was in part caused by climate change. See, the warmer atmosphere caused by greenhouse gas emissions causes more moisture in the air. A warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor. That's science. It's provable.

That is science.

More water vapor in the air means more rainfall overall and more heavy rainfall during shorter periods of time. Climate change has increased, slower moving or stationary storms. Those that just hover and the climate science suggests. The, and here's a term that I learned. The mesoscale convective vortex over kerrville would not have normally lingered [00:43:00] for so long.

Meaning that it's slow moving aspect that dumped all of that rain over a short period of time, and the storm just stayed there. Well, the climate science suggests that would not have occurred, that the storm would have moved more quickly. Of course, this has raised the question, how could this disaster have been prevented, or at the very least, how could the damage have been mitigated?

Some attention has been given to the lack of a flood warning system in the region. According to the Houston Chronicle, again, nearly a decade before the catastrophic flash flooding killed over 130 individuals, that's the current count, in Kerr County, several local officials were hard at work trying to convince their peers to buy into a new early flood warning system throughout 2016.

Then Kerr County [00:44:00] Commissioner Bob Res, according to the Houston Chronicle, noted that the fact of the matter is floods do happen and we need to be, and we need to be prepared for them. But they never secured the funding in part because the state of Texas denied it to them at least three times. The state denied it.

For instance, after Hurricane Harvey, when federal funds became available, KE County and the upper Guadalupe River Authority asked for some of those federal funds. But guess who denied it? Governor Greg Abbott's administration denied their application. So for years. Since 2016, Kerr County sought public funding to improve flood warning systems in the region, but then came the Republican egos.

And here's what I mean by that. In 2021, the Biden administration actually awarded a $10 [00:45:00]million grant to Kerr County, according to the Texas Tribune. And that money came from Get this. The American Rescue Plan Act, which a Democrat led Congress passed to support local governments during the pandemic, uh, an act, the American Rescue Plan Act, that Republicans railed that they hated.

Yet of course, they took the money. Now, cities and counties, cities and counties were given flexibility to use the money on a variety of expenses, including those related to storm infrastructure. Kerr County, despite knowing that they need needed to improve the flood warning infrastructure, its residents sought actually to reject the $10 million grant on political grounds.

Recordings from the commission meetings at the time recorded resident testimony. One resident told the commissioners of Kerr County. [00:46:00] I'm here to ask this court today to send this money back to the Biden administration, which I consider to be one of the most criminal, treasonous, communist government ever to hold the White House.

Another resident quote, we don't want to be bought by the federal government. Thank you very much. End quote and listen for yourself .

 we do not want more of biden's mandates attached to keeping Biden money, but these people are communists. They hate America. They're teaching it in our schools. They're invading the border as we speak. I don't think we should take any money from the federal government because they can't be trusted.

Now, we don't need these funds here. We've done just fine and we'll get by without 'em. But you spend this money, you're signing a contract with the devil and the devil's in the White House if you vote to keep Biden's money. [00:47:00] I hold you personally responsible and personally liable. The Biden regime has proven to be tyrannical and anti-American.

There is no part of this administration that is the good of America or Americans at heart. We want no part in anything coming down from the federal government. This is Texas, and Texans can take care of Texas and I, I don't believe we should take the money. We should not have it. Um, I don't trust our, our federal government.

I don't think that they're truthful with us and in these days and these times or whatever, we can't afford to make a mistake.

See, and that's what I mean by the Republican egos. The Republican egos, insofar as, Hey, we don't want that money just because it comes from the Biden administration.

And that video that I just played for you is from now this, it's available on YouTube so you can go see it for yourself.

And it is a recording of those residents saying those things. So what happened with that $10 million grant from the Biden administration? [00:48:00] They took the money and per the Texas Tribune, when it was all said and done, the county approved $7 million on public safety radio communications systems for the Sheriff's Department and the county fire services to meet the community's needs for the next 10 years.

An additional $1 million went to the sheriff's employees in the form of stipends and raises, and just over $600,000 went towards additional county positions. But get this, some of that money was also used to create a new walking path. Now, of course, retrospect is 2020 . Today we have Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick of Texas, saying that quote, the state needs to step up and pay end quote, and the state most likely will step up and pay now that this disaster has occurred.

But let's also be fair, I have to be fair to the local officials, local officials, like the ones in Kerr County, face tough decisions on how to allocate those [00:49:00] funds. They have to make some trade-offs here. Do we fund this over that? Because money is not endless. So while it is unclear. Whether these Kerr County officials even knew that the $10 million grant from the Biden administration that came from the American Rescue Plan Act, it's unclear whether they knew that those could have been used for a flood warning system.

But not surprisingly, no one is admitting that they knew that at the time or whether they simply passed on that flood warning system. They opted to spend most of the money. Legitimate needs to be fair on the sheriff's department, on the county fire services. Those are legitimate needs in my eyes. Of course, I also disclaim that I might change my opinion if I learn more about exactly what they spent the money on.

But that said, could you blame the Kerr County officials for misprioritized [00:50:00] the funds? Yes. I think that that's reasonable to, even in retrospect, question the judgment as to where the money was most needed. But if the federal funds were restricted and they could not have been used for the flood warning system, then it seems to me, that the Kerr County officials should not be blamed for not using the money in this way.

Now ultimately we need to know whether the Kerr County officials could have used the money for the flood system and if so, why they chose not to. But no one's answering those questions. To be fair, many reporters aren't asking those questions either.

Alright, but back to what we were previously discussing, the big beautiful bill, just as the big, beautiful bill reduced federal spending in certain areas like Medicaid.

It also appropriated. Billions of dollars. In my opinion, the big [00:51:00] beautiful Bill actually shows the Republican's priorities with respect to federal funding. As they shift that funding from A to B, they deprioritize social programs such as Medicaid and snap, and they prioritized military, space, and immigration enforcement spending.

Oh, and by the way, they in, they also prioritize get this spending on Trump's properties. Yeah. They really did. $300 million to Trump's properties, in fact, according to the big beautiful Bill. The big beautiful bill turns over $300 million to local and state officials for anything related to Trump's properties.

 We'll leave that for the next episode. But remember that this is a two part series. I'll be back with episode two in a few days. Stay tuned. We'll discuss all of the federal spending and the big, beautiful bill as well as its tax reforms.

[00:52:00] 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.

Discourse is a commentary podcast for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute professional advice or legal advice. The opinions expressed are solely those of the hosts 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 news source. Listeners should consult qualified professionals for legal or otherwise [00:53:00] expert advice specific to their situation. Thanks for listening.