All right, everybody. We are super

pleased to have Rahm Emmanuel join us

for the all-in interview today. He was

the senior adviser of Bill Clinton, last

president, reside over zero national

debt, and he was Obama's chief of staff,

mayor of Shytown, ambassador to my

favorite country to visit Japan uh under

President Biden. He hasn't made an

official announcement about his

presidential run in 2028, nor do I think

he's going to make an announcement here,

but he's been talking a lot about where

the country needs to go in a postTrump

world, specifically in 2028.

Freeberg and I are going to ask Rahm

about the most important topics facing

America today. the economy, inflation,

employment, surging national debt,

never- ending wars, the rise of

socialism, and sadly anti-semitism,

immigration, skilled and legal, and how

his positions have evolved over four

decades of service to America. Welcome

to the All-In Interview. Rahm Emanuel,

welcome, Rahm.

>> I'm Yeah.

>> Okay, there you go.

>> I didn't know that was the queue. I was

like waiting for that was felt like an

obituary. I was waiting for the rabbi to

get up. [laughter]

>> [music]

>> I'm going [music]

that introduction is the only one that

ever starts with Clinton. Usually they

start my career in Congress and so I

give you a lot of kudos for remembering

that I started as senior adviser to

President Clinton. So

>> well let's start with that. What did you

learn under Clinton and [laughter]

Obama? And you know, these two what I

would say are the last two sane

presidents we seem to have had who were

moderates. In my mind, I'm a moderate,

>> slightly left-leaning,

>> but uh these seem to have been two great

presidential runs that you were involved

in. What did you learn from each of

those individuals?

>> They have different skill sets. So,

let's also but they they had an outlook

of the world. They had an outlook of the

United States in the world. They had a

outlook of

kind of a progressive affirmative view

of government. I think they most

importantly, which I kind of remind

everybody, you can't have progressive

policies if people think that the

government can't run and organize a one

car parade. Not possible. They have to

have an affirmative view. And the last

time you've had a net positive was under

Bill Clinton. And it actually wasn't for

uh the balanced budget obviously helped,

but actually it shifts when he signs

welfare reform. And you can go back and

look at the data. Uh but to their skill

set, Bill Clinton was a unique person

who um in my view was able to integrate

in three-dimensional chess both policy,

politics and press [snorts] and

understood the presidency as a in a way

that uh Teddy Roosevelt had redefined

it. He was redefining it for the 21st

century and he really meant what he said

being a bridge there. And nobody was

better not just at giving a speech but

taking a policy being able to

communicate to carry people from where

they were to change and may not make

change threatening and then achieve the

objectives you wanted. That said,

President uh Obama in my own view uh

coming at the end or not the end but the

Iraq war etc

understood that this was a different

president both the end of the Iraq war

or towards the end and the financial

meltdown that we were at a pivotal

moment and a transitional moment for

America and I do think you know look

every president gets judged what's the

world you inherited

what is the world you leave behind. And

sometimes the harshest critics of both

Obama and Clinton come from the left,

not the right. And I said, "Is it the

peace or the prosperity you don't like

most?" Because I'll I'll address it. Was

it

>> the fact that post Reagan, Clinton's

economy grew the most, jobs grew the

most, and income disparity shrunk the

most? And people were calling it the uni

power that no country both economically,

politically, militarily had as the power

the United States had. Now we can get

back to what happened there. Uh and then

I think in the same way uh the left

criticizes Obama for being kind of uh

tepid and you know he hires a country

that's near a depression known as the

great recession but it was actually

getting close to a depression saves it

from that transitions to from losing

800,000 jobs to creating 200,000 jobs

and you know gets America out of uh two

wars uh continues obviously the war on

terror but repositions America in the

world to be a force for good. And I

learned how you, you know, it's not like

a to-do kit. There's no kind of there's

no to-do kit in the drawer of the

resolute desk, but the merging of

policy, politics, and uh I want to say

public relations, but communications.

>> Did Obama export American democracy as a

point of primary policy? And did that

lead to this world that we find

ourselves in today where there's this

pullback because a lot of what gets

exported

>> ends up being kind of one side of the

political spectrum, not the other. And

now we kind of seeing this what did we

do?

>> I made this point a long time ago. I

said it recently at the Aspen Security

Conference. So I'm now writing my next

op-ed on this the journal as a prelude

of a curtain raiser to the summit

uh by Xi and Trump. Mhm. I'm uh I'm

going to I'm labeling it the summit of

disruption.

Xi is largest export is not autos

electronics. It's the domestic dis

economic dysfunction of China. They're

crushing everybody other countries

manufacturing base industrial base

across the world. They have more cases

WTO cases than any other country and all

of them combined are against China.

Chile steel plant, Indonesia's garment

plant, Brazil's four burn furnaces. We

are exporting our domestic political and

cultural dysfunction. That is the two

superpowers are holding the world

hostage. One through economic

dysfunction and domestic. I mean Xi

refuses to deal with the obviously the

real estate bubble popping a consumer

that's flat on their back and an

industrial uh base that makes no

rational sense. And so they're I mean

literally their as an example their auto

industry

is now exporting more cars and their

profits are down 20%.

>> Right?

>> We I mean by uh through Trump you can

look at what he's doing in Brazil 9 days

before the German election meeting with

the neo-Nazi party the AFD there was

race tensions uh in Great Britain. We

seem to we want to exacerbate them. We

are literally

exporting both political and cultural

dysfunction at our home onto the world.

Uh now I happen to think this president

stylistically

likes to punch down and kiss up to Putin

and Xi, but that's a stylistic point.

But that's what the two superpowers,

they don't seem to have managed their

internal and now they're exporting it on

the rest of the world as a a dumping

ground for their domestic problems. I

happen to think coming back from Japan

etc. that rather than have tariffs we

should have an economic block so all of

us together can withstand China to

actually organize not only that economic

block but then kind of other pe uh meet

them in the marketplace. That's how we

you know win friends and influence

enemies.

>> Yeah. Is that a different view than the

Obama era notion that we should be

exporting

American culture, American democracy, I

think was the framing. And that then

opened the floodgates to exporting our

culture wars. And then our culture wars

became this kind of battleground where

there's like transgender theater in

Africa and like things, right? All of

this stuff.

>> No, I don't think that's what opened the

door. Uh, look, David, I think the

United States of America, like every

country, has four tools in their

national security toolbox.

One is military power,

second is political persuasion,

third is economic statecraftraft, and

fourth is cultural attraction.

And you're saying that, I mean, I think

America's culture large, not just

Hollywood. Um,

the American brand is a cultural

attraction or was. I actually think this

president has hurt the American brand,

our economic state craft, our market,

our technology, our universities and

research. Uh, uh, national labs that is

a e piece of our economic state craft is

a piece of our national security and our

ability.

You know, there was a great story the

other day by David Graham, but

gentlemen, only the United States could

get Russia and Ukraine around the table.

There is no other world power. Our

political persuasion could to do that is

an asset in our national security

toolbox. If you wanted to do the reason

I laid out in my speech in the Middle

East in Israel, the 23 state solution,

China, Russia or Europe cannot do that.

Only we can do that. Now, we have a

massive polit political military power.

each uh I happen to think it's not

prepared for the future. That's on both

parties. I was also present at one at

them. I think we got so enamored with

the war on terror we lost sight of the

trans transformation that was happening

on the battlefield and the technologies.

You can see that in the drone area as an

example. Neither Iran or Ukraine have a

navy and they both control waterways

near their fronts. Tells you everything

you need to know that you're not

fighting two wars, you're fighting two

different types of wars and we got to

get ready for that. So to me, this also

is a slightly sickness of all you guys

in media, which is where do we point the

blame? I don't think Obama representing

our cultural attractions around the

globe. I do think America being popular

around the globe is a political asset

that then you use. Now that America's

brand under Trump is in the toilet, that

actually hurts America and its political

power, its economic state crap, and its

military capabilities.

Simple. So I don't kind of say, you

know, I don't think that we were

exporting those cultural things and

therefore that's where this problem

came. I don't that's not how I see the

point of origin or what has happened

here.

>> Fair enough. Can I just ask one thing on

China? So China's been historically

>> It's your podcast. You can ask whatever

you want. It's whether I It's what it's

whether I answer it.

>> Well, I'm just here for Jason at his

pleasure. But um [laughter]

like so

>> you're doing fine, sweetie. Keep

>> that that's true for both of us.

>> Okay. Well, thanks. Um Jason's going to

have me back. Okay. So, as as I look at

China, historically, it's been about

this manufacturing base, this energy

production capacity, right? I often

reference they're on their way to 8

terowatt of electricity production.

We're kind of sitting around one,

hovering around one, finding it very

hard to get to two by 2040. So, China's

got this massive amount of of energy

that they can use to power electrified

things. They've got 20 times the

manufacturing square footage as the US,

and much of it is automated. But now

with AI and open sourcing AI, not only

is China kind of dampening the capacity

to compete in manufacturing, making

molecules, making pharmaceuticals,

making materials, now we're seeing them

effectively eliminate the capacity to

compete in knowledge, services, and IP.

And this has really been the heart of

the US economy, at least for the last 30

years, probably going back even further.

But as we shifted to a more kind of

global trade oriented economy and we

allowed manufacturing to move to China

and elsewhere, we focused on this kind

of knowledge and services base. Do you

think that we have a response against

China today with how we're positioned

economically and what's going on with

AI? And this is the thing I worry a lot

about in this China US conflict is we're

all still still looking at the last 30

years as opposed to thinking about what

the next 20 years look like in a world

of kind of AI commoditization of all the

things that American economy has been

powered by. one uh so let's step back

the way I see it is

we got ci comes to power

and

we

buy into this win-win

stuff that he's selling

and it was never a win-win

China wants everybody dependent on China

and them independent of you

that is their theory of the case. You

our markets are going to be so big and

important you can't do anything about

it. You're going to be dependent your

economy on our markets. We're going to

leverage that to then destroy,

manipulate, and control your

sovereignty. And we'll be independent of

you. We don't need your market. And

we'll have multiple. If you give us

barley, we're going to have five other

people give up. Look at the soybeans

case. The United States,

we'll cut off your soybeans. We got

Brazil and Argentina soybeans. So they

have duplicity in the system. So they

have maximum latitude with minimum for

us or anybody else. Second, I take a

lesson out of uh

co

and I think this is illustrative of

their plan and how we have to get smart.

We have to learn from our mistakes. You

can't ignore them. You should look and

I'm going to get back to your software

piece. But in co

gene notices in operation of warp speed

that within 12 months 14 whatever United

States develops a vaccine that has a 90

plus% efficacy.

China takes 18 19 months and their

efficacy is in the 60%.

And we know for a fact that a lot of

Chinese leaders were not taking the

Chinese vaccine but they were end up

taking quietly fizer madna etc. And they

couldn't export this vaccine. Nobody in

the third world want that's a huge

opportunity for America. We squander it

on the political side the economic side

the cultural side

winning quote unquote the global side.

Second, Xi makes a decision that will

never happen again. Massively invests in

the life sciences and within 5 years,

China is not just nipping at our heels.

The Perry pursuit with the United States

in life sciences, a place that the

United States outside of one or two

examples in Europe dominated.

Now again, I'm going to take a shot at

Trump. Every budget he's proposed a 40%

cut in NIH.

Every budget. and the Republicans face

off and allow 15%. You're not going to

cut NIH in your way to American

leadership.

There's a pancreatic drug on the market.

It came from NIH funding and it's

actually now looking like it will

actually address three or four other

cancers.

The NIH, the National Science

Foundation, the DARPA are and America's

national labs and our national

universities are our crown jewel. And

what are we doing? We have an

administration declaring war and

actually involved in unilateral

disarmament.

Now software and manufacturing we are

dominant in software and in those tech

spaces. It doesn't we shouldn't think

it's either software or manufacturing.

It's both. We allowed one to atrophy

everybody. We allowed a

commercialization of our national

security. The business round table, the

chamber of commerce

way over influenced our national

security visa v China when we saw

industry by industry, supply chain by

supply chain move offshore and America

economy kept getting vulnerable

and that's on everybody

everybody.

And the other piece of it is so what we

need to do what's the next 20 years one

aggregate Australia, Japan, South Korea,

Taiwan, EU, friends in Latin America and

get more friends. Don't declare war on

Brazil. It's a big economy in the

region. Make it an economic block

because standing together makes China

isolated. Isolate the isolator. then use

that time of a block not our unilateral

actions but in an economic block where

we're the dominant player to organize

our research and our capacity

to then build up now example using the

defense industry

United States again flatfooted but don't

underestimate the United States

new technology

entrepreneurs

venture capital, the DARPA research arm

and the United States ability to deploy.

You give us 5 years and our capacity of

that incredible system will produce as

long as we don't light let Rathon

General Dynamics to kill it and the

Pentagon to nurture it. But we have to

use the time of an economic block to

stand up what we have allowed to atrophy

and then to organize that block to

confront China and then China and North

Korea and Iran

and Russia. We isolate them. And right

now I got to be honest, the president

has isolated America at America's

vulnerability. So that's how I look at

the next 20.

>> Yeah. And where do the Middle East

nations fit into that equation? Are they

part of the block? And

>> Sure, David. I would say this. There's

three trends going on in the Middle

East. Step back from the news of the

straight of Hammoose.

There's three or four trends

that we then aggregate. And one of the

reasons I laid out what I laid out in

Israel

is a way that would isolate Iran. It

would be a good day for Israel security,

a good day for America's leadership, and

a good day for American allies in the

Middle East. The UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait

are staying with kind of the United

States.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt,

and Jordan in that first list. Saudi

Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, and

Qatar

look like they're hedging.

They know they're reliant on America,

but they're not going to be so dependent

that they're vulnerable because of the

lack of the leadership in two wars, Iran

and Iraq. That's one trend. And one of

the reasons I mentioned the the speech,

the India, Middle East, Europe economic

corridor, it keeps everybody coming

closer to the United States economically

and also politically on the 23 states.

Second,

Iran invested

40 years and 40 billion plus in the what

Israel described as the octopus, the

proxies. [snorts] Hamas is degraded to

defeat. I thought there was a very good

article in the foreign affairs on this

point. Hezbollah is cornered. Damascus

and Syria has been lost. And the Iraqi

president seems to be making pretty good

headway, not all the way there, on

dealing with the militia.

That strategy of the proxies is so

different. And an example of that, you

have the Lebanese government working

with Israel on cornering Hezbollah and

degrading it. Syria,

a non-Assad president, is now talking to

Israel about a security agreement. That

would mean Jordan peace, Egypt peace,

Syria security agreement. The three

forces on the six- day war all came to

some resolution with Israel. as a fact

massively different strategically

different and Syria will be the outlaw

of a pipeline from Basera to their port

for energy around the straight of

Hermoose these are big opportunities so

when I say and then you obviously know

about semiconductor chips other pieces

of the economic piece but yes ma major

players in the Gulf would be part of

that economic block

>> let's um before we leave China talk a

little bit about Taiwan obviously

Trump administration's been talking

about, hey, in 2027 or 2029, China plans

on invading Taiwan, seizing the FABS,

etc. You worked under multiple

administrations where strategic

ambiguity was uh the process for

>> Yeah. And uh hey, we we support Taiwan

and China and just keep it super

ambiguous. The next president is

probably going to have to deal with

>> Actually, let me say this. We keep the

politics ambiguous, but as it relates to

using kinetic force to change the status

quo, we're not ambiguous.

>> Yeah. Unpack it.

>> There's Well, there's two different

parts to the Taiwan one, China policy.

That's a political statement.

And then nobody changes the status quo

through the use of force. Those are two

things.

>> Yeah. And is if uh

>> to prove that some just to prove that

somebody knows something about the

Taiwan act as well as policy. Yeah. Is

your thinking Taiwan will uh at some

point block and do a blockade? And how

would the next president or how should

the next president deal with that

circumstance? Should we be airlifting,

you know, all the equipment [laughter]

and people out of Taiwan or should we be

engaging in a blockade? This is, I

think, the escalation that maybe isn't

getting enough attention. And then we'll

go back to the Iran war. All right.

Well, Jason, let let me start here,

which is the consequence of the Iran

war.

China's watching the United States bog

down in the straight of Hermuz resources

allocated

their confrontation with Philippines has

picked up dramatically. Their economic,

military, and political isolation in

Japan much more aggressive. They're

doing things around the Saku Islands

that are much more aggressive. They

fired a live missile from a submarine in

and around Australia. and all our allies

in the region. Those are just some of I

could go on to Vietnam what they've done

and other things in the in the

Philippines being the most dramatic in

this South China Sea.

All they now China is sending a message

to all our allies Korea, Japan, India,

Australia, New Zealand, Singapore,

Philippines and Vietnam even are the

look your protector

no more I and the damage by this

administration moving not only resources

there attention political the one thing

I know you guys didn't ask but it's not

that you didn't ask but

when there's a for the White House

becomes a one ball juggler.

Okay, this White House is consumed with

what's going on and they have lost focus

on the Indo Pacific and it's quite

evident China has picked up their

aggression. Our long pole in the

Indoacific is Japan. They are under

economic pressure, political pressure,

military. Yes, we have just come to the

benefit of the yen, but we haven't done

and done anything in and around the Saku

Islands.

We haven't done anything as it relates

to the economic coercion China's

involved in

>> or the political China.

So, hold on.

>> So, you say 2027. I'm like I'm looking

at today and say you don't get you don't

get to wait. It's happening now. And

second is I happen to think the South

China Sea,

everybody talks about the Taiwan, and

I'll get to that. I think when you look

at the Philippines,

Vietnam, Malaysia, and you look at

China's behavior and the islands they're

creating again, uh, out of the shaw, out

of, you know, scar bro, etc. They aren't

waiting to try to say that the South

China Sea, in which they lost the court

case in 2016, is their backwater. And

Philippines is not Taiwan. It's a

country. It's a treaty ally. And it won

a 2016 case. And if we don't stand up

there, I don't before you get to Taiwan.

>> So it sounds

like you or think we should be

projecting some force there or putting

some troops there or some ships there

with our allies and we have to rebuild

those bridges.

>> We already have we already have troops

there and we already have resources. We

need to double them up and give

Philippines the confidence especially

given that President Marcos is taking

massive risks. Second,

in Taiwan, there are three strategies.

One idea is a quarantine,

two is invasion, and three, off of the

ch mainland China's coast are three

islands associated with Taiwan.

They got a rock, a butterfly, and a

tree, and a fisherman. That's it.

Now, there's three strategies. One is

the economic quarantine that just

suffocates Taiwan. One is an invasion

that tries to end this in 96 hours. And

the other one is they take over those

three islands and look at the world and

say, "You're going to start a war over

this." And they do their incremental

strategy. And if you look at China

and their history, they have done all

three of those historically with

different countries. We have to be

prepared for all three. one, they want a

96-hour, not a Ukraine example. We have

to say no, there's going to be 96 days

and have the resources, the capacity to

say this isn't going to be one and done

quick. Two, as it relates to quarantine,

we have to be able to show both through

our resources, which is why the

Philippines and the Okanana Islands a

quarantine can't work both air, naval,

otherwise you can't pull it off.

And then third is the little islands off

of Japan, off of China. How we have to

project

where before etc. Because remember

there's a security piece and there's a

deterrence piece and we need to be our

deterrence piece is very weakened right

now.

>> I want to get your opinion also on Japan

remilitarizing since you spent some time

there and their role in this because

that seems to be an ally that's

critically important as well as South

Korea. So let's go to Iran right after

we sort of sum up what's happening with

those two allies in in your estimation

how we should be courting them.

Obviously we just backs stop the yen uh

and we have a pretty solid relationship

with Japan.

>> Look Japan is the long pole of America's

Indopacific policy.

You look at the quad India Australia

Japan the United States. You look at the

trilateral the two of them that I worked

on between Korea Japan and the United

States. United States, Japan and the

Philippines.

The one constant is Japan. With the

United States, [snorts] our Okinawa, our

largest military footprint in the world

in a single country is in Japan. Europe,

the biggest by continent, but it's the

only place in the world there is a

aircraft carrier permanently based. So

militarily there, last five years in a

row, number one direct foreign investor,

United States, Japan. last five years in

a row number one direct in foreign

investor in the Japan the United States.

So from economic term you know I could

soft power or what's called the cultural

attraction you can look at what Japan's

done on baseball in the United States

between the two countries sharing a

cultural attraction. So I'll just go

through it and Japan now because the

prime minister had the audacity to say

publicly which we have tried for 30

years to get a Japanese prime minister

to say publicly that a move on Taiwan

would be a national security threat. She

says it, China goes crazy because she

said it publicly what she never wanted

it announced

for domestic reasons. They're now under

economic coercion, political coercion,

and military intimidation. You have to

get there to be uh and it's not just

and I'm not I'm happy the

administration's decided to support the

yen and intervention. I think there's a

lot of self-interest as it relates to

our treasuries and our dollars and the

pressure on our treasuries right now

because of the amount of debt we have.

But we have to do more from a military

training from uh when Russia and China

are doing exercises around the Saku

Islands that we're just not present for.

>> Can we go over to Europe for a minute

before we talk about

>> this? This is your show. Do whatever you

want.

>> Domestic issues. I do want to talk about

domestic issues, particularly the

economy and government spending's

interaction with the economy. But before

we do, there's an argument that Europe

is in this kind of state of irreversible

decay. And many have indicated points

that I think are counter to your kind of

characterization of the AFD party and

Germany being a neo-Nazi party that that

party is really a response to an open

border policy in Europe, an open

immigration policy that many would say

has really drained resources, has

diluted culture. Right.

>> David, for let me say one thing.

>> Yeah, please.

>> The German intelligence agency has the

AfD under watch.

forget whether I characterize it as a

neo-Nazi. You don't want to buy it.

>> Well, the US intelligence also had

Donald Trump under watch, right? So, I

mean, like a lot of ways a lot of ways

we could paint that, but yeah.

>> Yeah. Yeah. A lot of ways.

>> Yeah. But I'm not but I'm not I'm not

I'm not trying to be supportive of the

party. I'm trying to indicate that

there's a reaction to something going on

in Europe.

>> And I Yeah,

>> that there's no doubt about both on the

cultural side and economic side. There's

a reaction in Europe like there is here

in the United States. And so what's your

view on where Europe is, how immigration

played a role, and where things are

going in Europe?

>> Look, I think immigration

played a role in the same way that I

think economic stagnation played a role.

Um, and I think that uh,

and this is also somewhat as we get as

we transition closer to home before we

keep pushing Iran off and we'll do that.

Look,

you look at what has happened to incomes

where here in this country, we have a

greater share now of Americans living

paycheck to paycheck.

That has

>> almost 2/3 I think it's 63% of Americans

are

>> and so that has changed our politics and

it's changed our cultural landscape. So

do I think immigration plays a role?

100% it does play a role. I also think

stagnating incomes

when there's greater concentration not

just of wealth but greater concentration

where the political system is skewed

towards that wealth

all of that gets mixed into the stew.

There isn't a separate soup dish for

immigration separate from the dish on

you know incomes economic growth GDP

etc. I mean Europe. Here's my thing. I

think um the former Italian prime

minister Daggy wrote a good plan for the

EU. It is in our interest for a strong

robust

European

based economies to be technologically

and otherwise contributors to the to

Western uh system. If I'm right about a

block, you don't want hangarons. You

want people that are actually rowing.

And so I happen to believe Europe is

important for America's security,

important for our economic prosperity

most importantly. And we want them to be

competitive. I do think they have

participated in their own kind of

suffocation. Just on this point, Ron,

because this idea that Europe is

committing suicide, has kind of taken

form in the political narrative that's

being told.

>> Do you disagree with that?

>> I think I I think Europe has made policy

decisions that are not in the best

interest of the citizens of [laughter]

Europe.

>> Okay. Well, okay. Okay. So, whether I

you said that I said should

I get it, there's no difference. The

answer, the short answer is yes. You

agree?

>> Well, so so yeah. So let me ask the the

policies are arguably leftist policies.

They're policies that come from the

left. The the energy policy that gutted

Germany's nuclear power production and

made them dependent on Russian energy

was an insane set of policy decisions.

the idea that you will provide public

services and public welfare programs

while opening the borders to increase

the population for nonproductive people

to come in and then drain those

resources and then you know there's all

the cultural delution stuff which I

think but the idea that AFD and other

parties in Europe are arising out of

>> yeah

so you're saying open borders Freeberg

are a leftist policy for the last 40

years that's been a Republican policy to

let as many people into the country as

possible

labor.

>> Wait a second.

>> Yeah.

>> Is the party affiliation of Angela

Merkel a mystery to you, David?

>> Right.

>> Oh, no. Wait a second. You made this

broad broad brush attack about the left.

Angela Merkel came out of the Christian

Democrat, the conservatives. [laughter]

>> Right.

>> Two, it was her decision to cut the

Wait, no, wait a second. You're making a

point that is I I apologize. This will

be the last time I'm on your show.

Historically wrong.

>> That's fair enough.

>> Okay. Well, you're you're welcome to

tell me I'm wrong.

>> I'm Well, good. Put on your seat belt.

I'm enjoying this right now. It's like

30.

>> Okay. She She's from the CDU and when

the Syrian 1 million people that come

out of Syria,

>> she says we can handle this. That's a

that's from the Christian Democratic

Union, the conservative that element

Koh's party. Number two,

after

the nuclear facility in Japan

has its meltdown, she shuts down the

nuclear facilities and makes Germany

much more dependent on Russian energy

and we were the ones that warned against

it. So don't tell me this is from the

left. You're wrong.

>> There was a lot of anti-uclear rhetoric

coming for a long time. Just to be

clear,

>> that but but who's who's the chancellor

that said shut it down? Yeah, that was

>> No. Who?

>> Merkel. Merkel. Yes.

>> What party is she from?

>> The Christian Democrat union.

>> What what what part of the political

landscape, left or center? All right.

>> I would Well, nowadays I would say far

right, but

>> this is this [laughter] is crap.

>> How you would probably want to

characterize it, but I think the

argument

>> your basic argument. Let me let me now

that I've decided to score my Emanuel

points on you, let me back up.

>> And immigration and immigration, I

think. Yeah. Yeah, she did. She opened

the borders when there should have been

a more thoughtful pro. Look, the one

thing we know, I'm going to speak at

home about immigration. Look, people

don't like this order. They don't like

it on the border and they don't like it

on the streets of Minneapolis. And

Europe responded to the disorder,

whether that's in Stockholm, whether

that's in Berlin, that it seemed way out

of that. Europe is a very welcoming uh

continent, but it looked out totally out

of control. as you saw just this weekend

visa v Morocco.

Okay, so that's not as bright. But to

say that this is leftist is just not

accurate. Brussels on the economic front

while they were trying to regulate

suffocated innovation, entrepreneurship,

and competitiveness and they're trying

to correct that. out where I find fault

with us and the not us being uh through

the Trump administration is we are

exacerbating their tensions when they're

trying to deal with it. Germany today is

losing I I read a story and I got to

remember the number right.

I think it's 5 to 10,000 manufacturing

jobs a month to Chinese pressure. That

should be an opportunity for us to come

in and say let's work together and

confront China, not independently but

together. We're not doing that. We're

exa we're meeting our our vice president

nine days before election is meeting

with the AFD. When there's race problems

in Great Britain, we're exacerbating

them. When Maloney is dealing with some

stuff domestically, we attack her.

>> I'm sorry there Rahm. Why Why does Trump

do that?

>> I look I think this is

>> what's the strategy in his part if there

is any

>> Jason I I have said this before and I'm

going to repeat.

>> This president punches down and kisses

up. He has this fixation about Putin and

Xi admiring him as an equal and they

think he's a joke. They think he is not

their equal. America is their superior

but he is not their equal. He then takes

a Lula in Brazil

Mertz in or a Maloney or a Carney or a

Shine Bomb and he punches down because

he thinks if you're a middle power I'm

going to show how big and bad I am. He

is nothing but a bully and nobody's

buying it anymore. Everybody is looking

at the emperor wearing no clothes

>> which I guess would be a great point for

us to

>> There's no strategy to this. This is all

his insecurities.

>> He's just winging it. Okay. Um, so let's

do Iran and then go to the United

States.

>> I know. I was kind of feeling I was

feeling good beating up David there for

a second.

>> WELL, NO. I MEAN, [laughter]

THIS IS WHY WE'RE HERE. I will tell you

I will tell you if you showed me if you

showed me Angela Merkel's decisions on a

blank sheet of paper I would say that's

a leftist

>> program that's

>> so I would say like and I would say

across Europe across Europe there there

has been almost this like

>> I I don't know how to describe and what

I'm trying to understand is also the

psychology versus the foreign influence

on these suicidal policy decisions that

seem to be wrapped up in what prescribed

leftist notions that end up becoming

policy actions at scale and maybe

specifically you're talking about

immigration. So let's just go right at

im

>> economic decisions, energy decisions,

immigration decisions the core. So let's

talk defense decisions.

>> Okay, Rom, let's just tackle one thing

at a time. Immigration is a critically

important one. I think we've gone from

too hot, too cold. Uh Americans didn't

like an open border, as you pointed out,

chaos. They also hate the chaos just

according to surveys that ICE dragging

people, you know, out of their homes and

taking people who are picking

strawberries and, you know, just

basically beating the out of

Americans. Uh, and in some cases these,

I guess we've had four deaths and

they'll be adjudicated over time. But I

want to know what your solution is to

immigration. We had President Trump on

this podcast. He promised we'd put a

green card on every diploma of every

immigrant coming here and then they

reigged on that and they've been trying

to uh essentially kick out some of these

best and brightest we brought here which

has a negative impact on our ability to

build great companies in Silicon Valley

etc. Almost all the great entrepreneurs

we have are either immigrants or sons of

immigrants like my friend David Freeberg

here. So tell us what is Rahm Emanuel's

plan for immigration post this hot and

cold that we've had? Is there like a

Goldilock zone?

>> Yeah. Well, I actually bizarrely I'm

like the last optimist that you could

actually get a deal legislatively.

I start with two principles. We're a

nation of laws and a nation of

immigrants. And whatever we do on legal

and illegal has to be true to both.

Nobody likes people breaking the laws

and giving a pass. And I'm included.

You're looking at the guy for President

Clinton that designed Operation

Gatekeeper in San Diego, Operation

Safeguard in Ngalas, Arizona, did the

stuff in El Paso. I'm t my view. And

then also the resources at the

workplace. Tough borders, tough

enforcement.

There's a thing called the dignity act.

Has 23 Republicans, 23 Democrats in the

House.

It's true to being a nation of laws and

a nation of immigrants. Is it the bill

that Jason would write? No. Is it a bill

that Rahm Emanuel would write? No. But

does it achieve the goal? Yeah. So,

everybody else is hiding using rhetoric.

I endorsed it. Now, if you were doing

politics and think, you would stay away

from this and use just Pablo. But to me,

we got to get this problem behind us so

we have a future in front of us. You got

23 Republicans that signed on to certain

things around legal and certain things

around illegal. Does it tilt from the

first time when the Democrats were in

the majority a little more to the

Republican side? Yeah. They're now the

majority. Now, could you tilt it back to

the original? Yeah. And you need

leadership out of the White House, not

just coming on this show and President

Trump speaking Pabum and never really

following through like he did on

Dreamers, like he did on Green Card on

every diploma. it legal immigration

getting the best and the brightest.

Going back to our China example, all

these people that are leading leading

China's life sciences came out of the

United States, trained, worked in our

life sciences. We kicked them out like

fools.

Okay? So, to me, pass the dignity act.

Don't mess with it. And again, I want to

be clear. It is not the bill I would

write if I was sitting down at my

keyboard.

Does it accomplish the goal I set out?

Is it a true compromise? Yes. Do we

finally b do what we have to do at the

border? Correct. Does it finally do what

we have to do to attract the best of the

brightest? Yes.

And that to me would stop the civil war.

>> What about a point based system? It

seems like all the great high

functioning immigration uh countries in

the world have a point-based system. And

even Japan, um I just learned on my last

trip a couple weeks ago, they're going

to require you have to speak the

language fluently to get those jobs. And

there's so many people who want to go to

their great nation. They've kept it

pretty tight and uh they force people uh

to assimilate. So what's your views on

assimilation, speaking the language in

pointbased system?

>> Well, look,

>> any lessons there from Japan?

I think the best lesson for the United

States if I could,

but there's a there's lessons.

Now remember, because you're touching

something that's also both legal, etc.,

but it's also historic and cultural. I

don't think Japan is a perfect analogy.

No,

>> given it's an island.

I think if you're looking for something

analogous,

the two countries I would say that we

have a lot to learn on to emulate as

well as is both Canada that has somewhat

of a point system, their variation,

their signature on it, a Canadian

signature and Denmark.

And so if you're asking me,

and look,

Japan has 98%

uh homogeneous society, only like 3.7

million immigrants, and they think they

have an immigration problem. You look at

the United States on a dem on kind of

just a quantitative, it's like totally

different. So I I look at the Canadian

system. Well, how Canada because of our

system or our dysfunction is now

attracting what used to be the talent

that would come to America, the ability

to study in America.

I actually think the Canadian model, the

Danish model closer to where we get best

practices and lessons learned. The

dignity act does some of that. Now I'll

give you example. This is not about

immigration, but it's something I spoke

about when it came to affordability for

higher education.

I would let universities, colleges

across the United States go up, set a

goal, you can go up to 20% foreign

students

today. Some of them are six, some are

more. I don't care how you divide it

between your grad and undergrad. That's

up to you, yours.

But those students pay full play. They

pay full price.

It would subsidize our ability to get

American students uh get a three-year BA

rather than a four-year, saving mom and

dad a year's worth of tuition because

the foreign students pay full full boat

and they want the American brand. So,

and given that they came here to study,

they would more likely want to stay and

then start building this country

economically as you said from the

technology and other type of companies

across the United States. A lot of

immigrants and children of immigrants

came because of the university system

and that's a that is a political power

and persuasion and capacity the United

States has underinvested in. So I kind

of look and the short answer is Canada

and Denmark are the better uh examples.

The dignity act I don't want to sit here

and go through the bill with you and rip

it apart but a that does it. B, I want

to be very clear. If you control the

border,

you send a signal that people who break

the law don't get rewarded. And I I so

angry at our part, my party, not only

losing control of the border, but in the

2020 debate, raising your hand and

saying I'm going to give healthcare to

people that cross illegally

from a forget the immigration policy,

the value system. You have American

families suffocating under health care

costs.

Not everybody universally covered, but

may we're significantly well on our way

there. And you're talking about free

healthcare to having crossed the border

illegally at every level. That was

foolish by uh the party.

>> Free

[laughter]

Kenya. Jason, I'd like you to start

referring to him as David. Okay. A

little more. a little more damage on the

problem. We got a sax on Freeberg. So

you say I'm That's not That's your

problem. I just think Free I just

Freeberg is so insensitive to his and

we've clearly proved that David has a

lot of sensitivity on this show.

>> I I am very sensitive. [laughter]

>> I am I always tell people I'm probably

the the the last person to ever get

offended by anything, but

>> Jason always offends me off the bat. So

Ron, I will start by just a framing and

it's a contention I'd like you to

disagree with that

>> I disagree.

>> Yeah. Federal [laughter] debate club. So

no matter what I say, you are to

disagree. Okay.

>> Can we establish a fact Angela Merkel

came out of the CDU?

>> I I would establish a fact that I

[laughter] consider Angela Merkel a

leftist. But we'll

>> I mean it does speak to I think we'll

>> what defines each of these parties. I

mean, you were part of a party that

>> the Democrats, you know, in I think

their the peak moderate era that wanted

to balance the budget, that wanted the

border to be controlled and that wanted

to have, you know, globalism, you know,

and now that seems to be half Trump's. I

mean, it's hard to define these parties

anymore, especially with social.

>> That's why I think actually categories

like saying these are leftist policies

is actually all bro all wasted and

broken. But go ahead, David.

>> Yeah. No, because I mean even in the

Trump administration, we're taking

equity stakes in companies, which is

yeah,

>> not a typical free free market

conservative view. But let me just frame

this up. So I would argue that over the

last 30 years, where the government

spends more to try and make things more

accessible to American citizens, the

cost of those things goes up in a

disproportionate way. The average rate

of inflation in the last 30 years has

been 2.5%. But housing's gone up by at

least 5% a year on average, compounding.

Education over 6%, healthcare 5 1.5%.

And all three of these categories are

categories where the federal government

has launched programs to either

subsidize or make available these

categories of services to people through

promises. You are going to all have a

home. You are all going to have

education. You're going to all have

healthcare. And the more that the

government provides 300 billion a year

in housing support, $200 billion a year

in education, over a trillion dollars,

$2 trillion almost in healthcare, the

more things get more expensive. And so

is it really the role of the government

to provide these services or get the f

out of the way and let the market work?

Because in all the places where the

government hasn't launched services,

hasn't provided support, hasn't provided

loans like technology, energy, food,

consumer services, we've seen a net

decrease in total cost. And so deflation

actually works when you let markets

work. But when the government comes in

and tries to rally up markets to provide

more to more people, things simply get

more expensive.

>> Okay.

>> Tell tell me why I'm wrong.

>> You're wrong. And first of all, the GI

Bill was a government initiative.

Massive increase in housing and home

ownership in America. Would you have

recommended after World War II for those

who served overseas, no GI Bill because

the market will take care of your

housing needs? It also had an education

component. Number two, when you said we

don't have a we don't food costs went

down and government was involved, what

do you consider the agricultural bill

that subsidized growing of food in the

United States to big Agra?

>> Well, I know that bill very well, but we

we could debate that bill if you'd like,

but I can two you say we're not involved

in energy. Well, we have a tax write off

for drilling. We're involved in energy.

That's just not true.

>> You could make that case about

everything, Ron. Like, you could say we

touch everything. But our total dollar

spend, our total dollar spend is what

I'm talking about.

>> That that's why your analogies are wrong

and B that right now I happen to think

uh that the United States government and

there's a balance between

uh both the private sector and the

public sector. And this balance is

trying to when the forces and

concentration of both power and wealth

get too much you and I'm just having

opened up the Teddy Roosevelt library

etc. That was a redefinition of what the

government does to come to the aid of

those who are most vulner not just

vulnerable but vulnerable to the

concentration of power. Now to housing

there is where the government has messed

up and this is not on the national level

but on the local level it has made it

both when you get things like in San

Francisco like in New York

you have a concentration of a really do

an economy that's doing well but

restrictive laws as it relates to zoning

building permitting that drive up costs

not the only reason, but a contributing

a significantly contributing factor.

Now, I'm not mayor today,

[snorts] but if I was mayor of Chicago,

I would say, "Okay,

I'm going to put all our zoning laws,

all our building laws, and all our

permanent planning laws, and I'm going

to measure them up against Dallas,

Houston, and Phoenix. You tell me what

we have and why they don't have it, and

why we have it, and they don't have it.

And if you can't justify it, get it the

hell out of here.

I would also do things because I think

the biggest problem we have in housing

is firsttime home ownership

and that is a post financial 2008

meltdown. For whatever reason, the

market has gone on the high end and the

low end and the first time home

ownership is where we are stuck in a

sense of new construction. And I

actually do think that's a place where

both the public and private sector

together needs to address a problem that

has been now around for almost 20 years

and the private sector on their own

haven't fixed.

And so I don't agree with uh your

analogies and I do believe now there's

places where the government gets in its

own way and there's places in which it

should be targeted to incentivize the

private sector to address those

problems.

Now

I that's where I would go uh in

addressing that

>> do education like yeah go ahead.

>> Oh I was turning my attention there.

>> Okay. Uh now look

I spent

eight eight years and every day every

hour working fixing an education system

that was broken and when I was done

Stanford called it the single best Sean

rear in there at Stanford the single

best education system of the top 100. We

drove by example we drove our graduation

rates from 56 to 83%.

We drove our reading and math scores at

every one of the elementary levels. I'm

doing this by memory, so I could be

slightly wrong. It's in the report, but

we were six months ahead of our peers.

And trust me, that is not easy to

achieve. Now, I'm going to go to

Louisiana at the end of September

because it's the only state whose

reading and math scores have gone up to

pre-COVID level to find out what they're

doing. Like I went to Mississippi on the

higher ed on the elementary level. One

is we created K full day kindergarten,

free full day prek. I'm very big

believer in early childhood

in the elementary years.

Three things, universal accountability,

not just teachers, parents, principles,

and the schools.

Two,

reboot our teacher education and

training so it's constant, not just one

and done. And the teacher uh training

today is really flat.

Give the teachers the support so they

know what to do on the subjects they're

supposed to do. Constantly train them.

It's not and redo reboot the entire

teacher training program starting at our

colleges.

Three

is braid the resources together so

states and cities can meld it because

what happens on [snorts] the southside

or west side of Chicago or what happens

in our suburbs or what happens in some

of our best schools like North Side and

Payton just isn't the same students and

poor students need more resources but

accountability through the system. Now

fourth, nobody wants to talk about it.

Guess what? You got to be at this every

day. This is a 20-year project, not a

two two-year project. That's what

Mississippi and Louisiana showed us.

High school fundamental reform.

Elementary re stay with the uh the

fundamentals. High school,

we drove 50% of our kids, which was our

goal. We're graduating with college

credit on high school day.

I'd set a goal as if I decide to do

this. 100% of our kids will graduate

high school with college credit through

dual credit and dual enrollment with our

local community colleges of which are

1,200. Second, we're the only school

district in America that set this up and

I to make it a national requirement.

Nobody graduates and gets a high school

diploma without a showing a letter of

acceptance from a college, a community

college, a branch of the armed forces or

vocational school. Every child, not just

Jason, David, and Rams, has a plan. They

know where they're walking to when

they're walking on graduation day.

Universal post high school education. I

rec and now we hired a huge amount of

college careers in the city of Chicago,

but we accomplished 98% compliance with

it.

Third,

take $8 billion you're wasting on

detention centers at the ICE and

modernize our community college systems,

both the campuses, the curriculum, and

the relevancy it has to the industries

in and around.

Finally, fifth, higher education

20% foreign students. They're allowed up

to two identify 10% of the stuff that

you do pay for in complying with the

federal government. you keep a 100% of

those dollars.

Three,

if a child graduates with 20 college

credits from high school, that child is

uh open to a three-year BA, not a

four-year, saving mom and dad, the

equivalent of a full year of tuition.

Oxford and Cambridge do three-year BAS.

Second, if your income is below 200,000,

you're going to go to college for free.

fourth or third finally in that area if

your income's above 200,000 it does each

year doesn't go above inflation

that's what I would do on education get

kids minimum four years ideally three in

universal prek

return to the fundamentals stay at it

bring accountability and standards back

into the school system revamp our high

school years into college career Not

just diploma driven with two to three

examples. The best one I also did first

and only school district, first city to

do it. You got to be average in high

school. We made community college free.

The goal here is to take the high school

years when you lose students and the

community colleges and meld them so kids

are graduating high school with college

credit prepared for the next step in

their life. 80% of all the jobs require

some education, minimum of two years

post high school. And we've done nothing

to revamp our high school years since

Teddy Roosevelt. [snorts] That's kind of

top to bottom.

>> Yeah.

>> And it and no child, no student

of any income or background

is left out of that. You want to go to

college and then be an engineer, great.

You want to be a nurse, you want to be a

carpenter. As you pour more of these

dollars into the community colleges,

into the federal student loan program,

the administrative staff continues to

bloat. We've seen administrative staff

grow from 10% to 60% in the last 30

years as they've had no limits on

spending because the federal student

loan program doesn't provide a criteria

that says if your tuition costs too

much, if your school isn't that good,

etc., etc., we we restrict your access

to this loan program. The loan program

is so unrestricted that it provides a

fuel for the fire. Okay.

>> For cost. That is for cost.

>> Right. Okay. I just sat there and told

you what. Okay. Great. Now, let me ask

you.

>> You haven't addressed the fact that 50%

of our kids can't read at grade level.

>> You want to talk to me about Oh, no. No.

Wait a second. Wait a second, David. The

way you asked that question told me

where your priorities are.

>> Your priority is Okay. I want to talk

about student loan.

>> Higher education. Higher education. I'm

not I'm not talking about the I'm not

talking about um how do you GET TO

HIGHER EDUCATION? WELL, I get I get

you're not talking about it, but there's

a lot of parents sitting around the

kitchen table talking about it.

>> I'm talking about cost and higher

education. That's it. That's all I'm

talking about.

>> I just gave you a plan. Ask anybody that

gets on your show. I just gave you a

plan of how to control costs. None of it

dealt with the student loan program. It

dealt with the fact that we cut our nose

off despite our face by not letting

foreign students come in and pay full

price, which are squeezing our colleges.

You get up to 20%. You decide how you

want to do it. You can identify 10% of

the savings that you comply with federal

government. You keep 100% of the cost.

But here's what you're going to do

different. And to get that Wait, wait,

wait a second.

>> I get to This is the answer part to the

question part. Go for it. Yeah. Yeah.

>> Okay. You want to get to college?

>> Revamp what goes on in not only the

elementary years, but the high school

years. You know, when kids drop out of

college, David, third grade. That's when

they start dropping out. And when you

have 50% of your kids not reading at

grade level, college cost is not your

problem. We're going to compete against

China with 50% of our kids not reading.

I'm sorry, that's not how you beat a

country that's three times your size.

>> Yes, we need to fix we need to fix that

issue. But like just taking a zoom out

and and so my concern arises

>> kids drop out of college in third grade.

David,

>> I'm not Yeah, I'm not talking about

dropping out of college. I'm talking

about how much we spend on

administrative in colleges and

how much we've allowed it to inflate and

that ultimately leads to a cost and and

an an accessibility problem to higher

education. Rahm because as it gets to be

30 40 60 $80,000 a year for a kid to go

to school.

>> Two things

you are talking about costs that is a

problem to me. The problem is that we've

given up on 50% of our kids.

>> Given up a fair statement. It's a fair

statement. Okay, it what you identified

is a problem.

I'm identifying the problem. Number two,

in my view,

I have spent more time on the subject of

education. I wanted to be an early

childhood educator when I went to

college and I took a system that William

Bennett called the single worst in

America to where Shawn R and Stanford

called it the single best of the top 100

and it took everything of my soul to get

it there.

>> Yeah.

We need to take the high school years,

let alone the standards and

accountability in the elementary years,

and revamp them

as in the three things I talked about

that fit together. B average, community

college is free. 50% which I would set

as a goal is 100 have to graduate with

college credit under their belt. And

third, nobody gets a diploma that

doesn't tell us what they're doing next.

College, community college, branch of

the armed forces, certification school.

I'm not just about college. You're 500

to 600,000 electricians short just for

data centers. Broadband 150,000. You

can't build submarines because we don't

have pipe fitters and plumbers. Okay.

So, I'm You want to be a pipe fitter?

Great. You want to be a physician?

Great. You want to be a physical

therapist? Great. Have an education

system that actually reflects the

economy and skills that we need.

>> Yeah, that's a good point. And and and

my concern, Rahm, comes from since you

get the you make a lot of you make a lot

of great points and you make some that I

disagree with, but that's what we're all

about. And as I zoom out, I mean, I look

at our $7 trillion a year spend in the

federal government, 5 trillion a year in

revenue. We're 2 trillion short. We've

got 40 trillion in debt, 30 years at 5%.

That's 2 trillion a year in interest

expense. We have to figure out a way to

reconcile the fiscal condition of the

federal government to have a future for

our kids. And so for me, every

everything comes down to this like cost

model. And I'm like, where are we

spending money that we're inflating

costs and it doesn't make sense to do

it. So I have I have a slate. Look,

>> and by the way, Rahm, this was something

that Trump promised he would do with

Doge and other cuts and

it [clears throat] was it was all it was

all snake oil salesman. Look, I don't

accept redistribution

and I don't accept the corruption.

You can't have capitalism or economic

freedom with corruption as a as a

grounding principle. It's against the

rule of law which is key to capitalism

and economic freedom and redistribution

doesn't solve anything as it relates to

growth. I believe in five things that

are essential to grow the economy and

grow incomes and so people are no longer

living paycheck to paycheck.

One, everything we've just talked about

on education and training from prek to

BA. Two, the dignity act as I said as it

relates to immigration. Three, modernize

our energy system. Visav Texas is the

best example in the United States. And I

said that three, four,

10% levy on all predictive markets and

online sport gaming and it has to go to

the NIH, National Science Foundation,

and DARPA. double our dollars into

research. Fifth, a tax code that does

not reward wealth preservation, but

wealth creation. This tax code is an

abomination as it relates to economic

freedom. Control the overall spending

for the next 5 years so it can't grow

and start making some tough choices

within the system. I told you, you don't

support it. I would not spend $38

billion on detention centers nobody

wants. I would take eight of it as a

starting point and modernize the,200

community colleges throughout the

country that are the economic backbone

of Lacrosse, Wisconsin, Spartanberg,

South Carolina. Go down the list. I've

seen it firsthand because we did it in

our community colleges. The World Bank

called it the best college career

program in America. That to me is what

we should be doing. And we're going to

make some tough choices. I don't believe

in sending ICE agents out with $50,000

bonuses when I'd rather give a bonus to

signing up to be a carpenter

electrician. That's more important to

America's future than some mass man

running around the streets of

Minneapolis. What's the politics of

this? How do you get Congress to come

along? Because for years, we've heard a

lot of points from both parties about we

are going to rationalize spending. We

are going to do the right thing. We are

going to get ourselves out of the

deficit. We are going to make things

economically viable for the United

States for people are going to advance.

Everyone's got great ideas, but when

push comes to shove, representatives of

their district or of their state end up

saying, "I'm going to give more to my

people in order to get reelected." And

the budget goes up and up and up.

>> David, David, here's the thing which is

unfortunate about American politics.

>> As a person that coined the term never

allow a good crisis to go to waste.

It's the opportunity to do big thing.

Look, I believe the surplus created

sloppiness that Bill Clinton left. We

try to fight two wars with two tax cuts.

Really stupid. Never been done in

American history. And that's the

beginning of a wild. We went from a

surplus that Alan Greenspan described

would be a danger to America because of

the 10 10year Treasury note to running $

38 trillion of deficit from a surplus to

that because it was reckless. We fought

Iraq and Afghanistan with two tax cuts.

Never tried in American history. And it

proved to be stupid.

Now that crisis has come and due and

it's going to force some really tough

things on the system and no and we

cannot have while also AI is hovering a

further concentration of wealth to a

very few can't happen because you can't

get to the fiscal sensibility you want

just talking about cutting not just

because of the politics because it's not

right and it won't work. So, we're going

to have to actually deal with the

revenue side as well as the spend side.

I gave you a cap, but we have a tax code

that everybody on this show, me

included, are rewarded for preserving

wealth, passing it on. There was a story

the other day in the Wall Street Journal

6 weeks ago. Retreats are being

organized to help kids figure out how to

handle their inheritance.

>> Yeah,

>> you have got to be kidding me.

And we have a tax code that favors that.

You you get you are an idiot if you

don't take advantage of pres of actually

preserving your wealth and passing it on

for one generation another. And you all

know this. We all know it.

The step up basis is a way to avoid to

all taxes when everybody else is working

for a living and can't make monthly pay

bills. So it's going to hit everybody

and you're going to make some changes.

One thing I was uh as most capitalists

not concerned with was minimum wage

because I just thought well the free

market will work that out. And then

after watching it raise in cities in the

United States and what's going on in New

Zealand and the Nordic countries, all of

the studies now show when you go to 12

to $20 an hour, there's no difference.

Doesn't cause any economic hardship uh

for those companies and it doesn't cause

unemployment or automation. So what's

your take on the federal minimum wage

being raised? Three things. I worked

with Bill Clinton when we raised it.

When Nancy Pelosi and I helped make her

a speaker, that was the last time it was

raised. It was seven and a quarter. When

I was mayor, I raised it. I'm a big

believer, not only that, raising the

minimum wage. I would raise it and have

it go up uh each year as we did in

Chicago

coupled with a very generous earned

income tax credit. That's what makes

work pay. So, a minimum wage with a very

robust uh earned income tax credit of

which I would, if I was magic, you know,

waving a magic wand, I would take the

earned income tax credit, the per child

uh tax deduction and do a single family

credit.

So, it's all in one thing.

>> I think we should talk about DSA DSA

before we wrap.

>> You know, last weekend in Chicago, the

DSA held their convention. You're not

Democrats. You're a separate party. I'll

see you in November. You're living,

you're literally beating Democrats.

Forget about it. Not interested in I I

spent my whole life Bill Clinton

replacing George Bush, Barack Obama

competing against John McCain, flipping

31 districts from red congressman to

blue congressman so Nancy Pelosi would

be a speaker. I am not into turning a

blue district midnight blue. It doesn't

do anything for minimum wage. It doesn't

do anything for universal prek. It

doesn't do anything to give 10 million

children who didn't have healthcare

healthcare.

So, I'm not impressed. You are a

separate party. You're the Democratic

Socialist of America. I'll see you in

November on the ballot. You had a party

convention. You are not a Democrat. And

there was a person the other day in Tom

Edel's party and Tom Metsel's column

uh who a justice Democrat part of the

DSA network who said they're not

interested in beating Republicans.

Well, now I appreciate the honesty. I am

I think Donald Trump is an existential

crisis. You think Barack Obama, Nancy

Pelosi or Hakeim Jeff are an existential

crisis? I don't. And we have a

fundamental strategic difference. We

have a fundamental policy difference and

we have a fundamental political

difference. Go to your own party. Stay

there. I'll see you in November.

>> There you have it, folks. Over to now

with Rahm Emanuel. We will have you back

in the coming months and years as you

will as this has been amazing and we got

to get you on with Chimoth and Sachs

next. Thank you so much.

>> Thanks guys.

>> All right, besties. I think that was

another epic [music] discussion. People

love the interviews. I could hear him

talk for hours. Absolutely. We crushed

your questions in a minute. We are

giving people ground truth data to

[music] underwrite your own opinion.

What did you guys think? That was fun.

That was great.