There are certain trillion dollar ideas

that the private sector just won't do

because it doesn't pencil or because of

whatever market failure is there. That's

where you need government. First of all,

the the debt path [music] we're on is

not sustainable. That I think identity

has become too central to how my party

thinks. My big worry is that if we're

[music] already at a level of

concentration of wealth and power that

no republic has ever survived. Is this

going to be a development that [music]

just makes wealth and power even more

concentrated in even fewer hands?

>> All right, besties. I think that was

another epic 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 underwrite your own opinion. What do

you guys think? That was fun. [music]

That was great.

>> All right, everybody. Welcome back to

the All-In podcast interview series.

Last week, we had Joe Mansion on. This

week, Pete Buddha Jesus here. Everybody

knows Mayor Pete, born in Southbend,

Harvard, road scholar, uh, McKenzie, US

Navy, and, uh, of course, ran for

president and was the transportation

secretary under Biden. Welcome to the

program, Pete Booty Judge. How are you?

>> Good. Thanks for having me.

>> Pleasure. Uh, meet Shamath Poly Hapatia,

a former Democrat who rewrite his

support of your party and now is uh a

Republican and really the spirit of this

program is to just have a candid

discussion. We like to get into the

details and so I thought I wanted to

start with your perception of

entrepreneurs, technologists, etc. I was

watching a clip of you on um Bill Maher

and you said, "Hey, you know, these

these libertarian, science-based folks

in Silicon Valley, they made a very

practical decision. These are rich men

who have decided to back the Republican

party that tends to do good things for

rich men. And these rich men include Tim

Cook, uh Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk.

These are people who have been part of

the Democratic party for a very long

time. huge donors to the Democratic

party and they all made this sort of

flip. Do you think it was just

pragmatically based upon the desire to

have less regulations, a better business

environment to personally make more

money or do you think there were other

things at work with the loss in 2024?

>> Well, I don't think you can reduce it to

any one thing, but I certainly think

that's part of the story. Uh look uh uh

it's no secret that Republican policies

tend to favor people who are wealthier.

Uh and a lot of people who drifted away

from the Democratic party, at least the

ones who are getting a lot of attention.

Like how could these business figures,

investors, billionaires have gotten away

from from Democrats and gone to

Republicans might be kind of a you know

dog bites man story. like not something

that's wildly complicated. If you look

at the fact that, you know, Democrats

have been extremely concerned about

wealth and income inequality and you got

a lot of very very wealthy people. I

don't think it was just that. I mean, I

think uh there are a lot of things that

that kind of combined at once. But, you

know, for a lot of my friends who are

scratching their heads saying, "Wait a

minute, these are folks who are from the

tech and science world. How could they

back a president or administration

that's been deleting references to

science and kind of censoring science at

least anytime that climate is concerned?

A lot of these guys are libertarian. How

could they be on board with the uh you

know the administration that is uh

sending troops into streets and has uh

uh really led a crackdown on freedom.

That's kind of something out of the

fever dreams of my conservative and

libertarian friends back when we were,

you know, arguing about politics over

beers that I never thought I would see

happen. uh these folks, some of these

folks are gay and how can they be

backing an administration that's, you

know, really uh assaulted uh LGBT

rights? And you know, if you just go

down the list, there's a lot of things

that are counterintuitive

uh about some of these Silicon Valley

leaders who flipped in many cases

flipped from being very very active

Democrats uh to backing Trump. And you

know, maybe there's an intuitive answer

to that counterintuitive thing, which is

that many of them feel their short-term

business interests or personal financial

interests are better served by

Republicans. I get that. I would I would

counter, as I think a lot of people in

Silicon Valley who are still Democrats

would, that look, a healthy business

environment, you know, you don't want to

be overregulated, but you also want to

make sure you're an environment with

rule of law. You want to be in a place

where it's safe to say scientific truths

out loud. you want to be in a place

where somebody can't impose their

interpretation of their religion on

other people. I, you know, I have a

whole counter to that. Uh, but, you

know, I think that's the kind of swirl

that we got into. Uh, definitely just in

those short years between 2020 and 24.

>> Do you think that there was censorship

under the Biden administration for

things like scientific truth? Let's just

focus on COVID for a second and the back

doors that it seemed that the Biden

administration had to places like

Facebook and places like Twitter to just

suppress scientific thought and debate

as you just talked about.

>> So, this is an amazing example of some

of the false equivalencies that I've

seen thrown around out there. So yeah, I

I would acknowledge I think a lot of

folks would say that uh you know it came

really close to the stove some of the

times when the administration was trying

to make sure that you know bad

information or misinformation wasn't

being pushed uh into the kind of public

health conversation and was engaging

social media companies that were trying

to you know be responsible and do the

right thing and and there might be

moments that that you know they got that

wrong or went too far. But right now,

we're in a moment, right, where the

president of the United States doesn't

like being criticized by a comedian and

has the head of the FCC, which regulates

corporations that are trying to buy TV

networks, go out and threaten them and

say, you know, you're we can do this the

easy way or the hard way. I mean, that

is a whole different level of

censorship. Not to mention just the way

they've gone through like every

government website, right, and deleted

anything that could accidentally be a

reference to climate change. So, you

know, I'm worried about the false

equivalencies here. You could definitely

say there were moments under the last

administration or any administration

where we could argue that that having

fidelity to to free speech, you know,

you should have done this way instead of

that way or these edge cases should have

been different. But but I am nervous

that anybody would equate a president

trying to direct the destruction not

only of journalists but of comedians

that he doesn't like with public health

authorities in a public health emergency

that killed a million Americans doing

their best to try to make sure that

people got good public health

information. Let's talk a little bit

about where the rubber meets the road,

which is tax policy. And I think a lot

of what we've seen in this back and

forth to add to why the Democrats lost

all of these amazing entrepreneurs and

capitalists who build these amazing

companies that create all the jobs in

the tax base for this country.

Two tax proposals recently, New York

City with Mandami and I don't know if

you've come out and publicly supported

him yet, but he's proposing 54% tax for

the top earners there. Here in

California, we uh have the floating of a

bill to charge a wealth tax of 5% on

billionaires. At a recent Mandami

rally, they were chanting tax the rich.

And Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders,

who I think are far left of you, and you

can correct me if I'm wrong, are saying,

"Hey, ban the billionaires." And we have

this sort of movement that being a

billionaire is in some way immoral or

unethical. So, let's start with some

brass tax here. Would you support, and

obviously you're going to run for

president again in 2028, and you're one

of the lead candidates. Would you ever

support a wealth tax?

>> In principle, maybe. Yeah. I mean, you

rightly said, you know, folks like

Bernie uh are to my left. I don't know

the details of the state and local

proposals you just mentioned, but those

sound on their face like they're further

than I would go. Uh but look, in

reality, we tax across a variety of

things, right? There's income tax,

there's payroll tax, there's property

tax. Wealth tax would be kind of along

the lines of a property tax. And the

thought, of course, is that you've got a

lot of folks who become incredibly

wealthy. And importantly, the way

taxation works now, less and less of the

way the wealthiest people accumulate

their income is actually booked as

income, right? And this is why you have

these stories of, you know,

multi-billion dollar corporations or

multi-billion billion dollar individuals

somehow paying an effective tax rate

that's lower than a teacher or a

firefighter. And I think most people get

that that's wrong. So I guess my overall

take is, you know, everything has a

balance, everything has limits, but if

if you're asking me the question, are

the wealthiest people in America right

now paying too much tax or too little

tax? I would say the wealthiest are

paying too little tax. and whether you

adjust that through income tax, whether

you adjust that through, you know,

something like a wealth tax. And there's

a lot of ways to do it. Uh I think

what's important is that it's fair, that

it makes sense, and and that you do it

in a way that that can make sure that

the people who are spectacularly

rewarded by our system are contributing

to it without being so extreme that that

uh you know, you're you're you're

crushing wealth creation.

>> What is the responsibility of the US

government in your eyes with the tax

receipts that they get? How do we

understand that money is being spent

appropriately and well

versus pet projects or pork barrel

spending or frankly just waste and

grift. Where is that line? And give us

some examples of how you would make sure

that as tax receipts went up,

accountability went up with it. Yeah, I

think that's that's super important and

and people's willingness to pay taxes

depends on some level on their, you

know, sense that they're getting good

value for their money. So, I I cut my

teeth as a mayor. We didn't we couldn't

uh, you know, print more dollars if we

wanted to. As the city of South Bend, we

had a cash budget, had to balance it

every year. If we took on debt, we

really had to think hard about how we

were going to pay on that debt. We made

sure that any time we're asking people

to be paying revenue into the city, they

know what they're getting for that.

Whether it's police service or parks or

trash pickup, I don't think that's the

worst metaphor to think about how things

should work at the national level, too,

right? We we should believe that we're

getting good services, good

infrastructure. That was obviously what

what I worked on when I was uh at the

federal level as as Secretary of

Transportation. We should get good

national defense and all the other

things that we, you know, as a country

are How do you how do you make sure that

it's not wasted? Like I'll give you an

example. You had billions and billions

of dollars allocated to you from the

infrastructure and jobs act to deploy

charging infrastructure, right? And as

of this year, there's only a few hundred

of these charging stations. It's been

pretty much an abject failure.

>> Uh that's not true. And and I'm really

glad you raised that because it's

actually one of the biggest red herrings

we had to deal with. So this is a

program to get EV chargers deployed by

2030. The thought was, you know, by

2030, we think about half of the sales

or we were hoping about half the sales

of cars in the country would be EVs.

Now, in order to have that work well,

we're going to need more chargers. The

market does a good job of delivering

chargers in a lot of places, but there

were other places where we found it was

lower income or it was more rural. It

was more spread out and it just wasn't

going to pencil for the private sector

to do to do it, right? So, uh we had a

fund uh called NEVI. uh I can't even

remember what the acronym was, but the

point was it was like you said about $7

billion uh to buy down the difference to

uh subsidize or just outright build

those chargers in places where they were

needed. And we made a couple of choices

uh that we knew would mean that it would

take longer, but we were okay with that.

One of them was to have it led by the

states. So instead of sitting there in

Washington saying where all the chargers

ought to be built, we send the funding

to the states. We let them set up their

own program. And importantly, we let

them set up their own programs

differently. So, you know, we were going

to dictate what the optimal subsidy was

in Wyoming compared to West Virginia or

whether you even do it through a subsidy

or whether it's owned and operated by

the state. We took we took a step back

on that, let the states innovate, even

if that means it's going to take a while

for them to polish the program, knowing

that that meant most of the chargers

would go in in 2026, 2027, but well

ahead of 2030. Now, the second thing,

this is really important, too. We made a

conscious decision to insist that the

Chargers be made in America. Now, when

you do that, you're deciding that it's

going to take longer. I'll just admit

that because just buy them off the shelf

from China would be dramatically

quicker. We thought that was worth it

because we thought it was important to

have a US-based industry with, you know,

American workers, ideally union

electrical workers, uh, making and

installing these chargers. Again, we

knew that if if the goal was to get them

all done by like 2023 or 2024, we

wouldn't have had the luxury of doing

that. But since we thought most of the

charges would be needed by well, by

2030, we were okay with that. Now, here

comes Washington politics, right? And

somebody gets a hold of the numbers.

They see it's a seven or eight billion

dollar program and then falsely try to

make it look like we spent the seven or

eight billion dollars already on the

handful of chargers that that they

already managed to build first even

though we never thought most of the

charges would be built even during our

first term. And that's where the

Washington game comes in, right? Take

something that I mean the jury is still

out, right? The program's not done.

We'll see how the Trump administration

does in completing the program. But, you

know, you can't really say whether it

was a success or a failure until the

program's been run. But they move the

goalpost. And I'm not challenging you

that like there's waste that there's uh

bad things that happen in and and and

government spending that I don't like.

But

>> what's your what's your best guess in

general? For every dollar that gets

given to the United States government by

US taxpayers, what actually lands in

productive programs that benefit

Americans versus what gets leaked away?

What's your best guess? Is it 50 cents

of every dollar, 10 cents of every

dollar, a penny, 90 cents? Like what is

your best guess? you've been in the

bowels of these organizations.

>> So my experience in transportation is

that most of it goes to very good use. I

mean if you just break it down uh it

goes to things that keep the aviation

sector operating safely. It goes to

things like highways, roads and bridges.

That was the biggest slug of funding

that we had in the infrastructure

package. uh and when you know the

general or the government accountability

office or or the inspector general by

the way institutions that Trump is

demolishing right now but the

organizations that do the auditing and

really dig in on a bipartisan basis um

often in terms of outright fraud you

know they're going to come in a number

that's well below 1% but but but you

know I've also seen my own sense as

effective

>> no effectively this is this comes to the

other part I was going to say I mean I

think about my time in the military for

example

>> you know there was a building. I think

it was Leatherneck. Maybe it was

Kandahar, but I think it was

Leatherneck. When I traveled out there,

there was a building that had taken

years to go up. I think it was like $30

million. And just before they were about

to activate it, uh, they tore it back

down. I mean, it's just a complete

boondoggle. And and we see stuff like

that happening for sure. We see cost

escalations on a lot of projects. So,

it's not, you know, it's not the same as

fraud. I mean that's the like under 1%

but it's still a huge waste if you have

a project cost 1% or 10% or sometimes

100% more than it should right I mean by

definition every penny it takes to build

something more than what it was actually

required is wasted and I do think

there's a lot of that I think government

gets in its own way with procedure

>> just explain to us as a secretary how

much control do you have in stopping

that waste So if you see it, so I'll

give you a specific example. In 2023,

there was some pretty incredible outages

in the FAA. We've all now learned that

we have an incredibly brittle air safety

infrastructure that needs to be

upgraded. You saw that in 23 there was

outages all the time. What do you do to

stop that? And when you see the waste,

how do you stop it?

>> You know, that was an example where we

needed to invest, right? So, it's that

tough situation and needing to swallow

hard and go before Congress and the

taxpayer and say, "Look, we need more

funding for this." But that's what we

did. And by the way, this is one of the

rare areas where I agree with my

successor who's done pretty much the

same thing uh to make sure we got the

funding to upgrade the technology. Now,

this is one of the few audiences might

be nerdy enough that that I can geek out

a little bit and talk about the big

upgrade to the communications backbone

that that we were doing. It was to go

from TDM to IP from from copper to fiber

and to I think a lot of people would be

astonished to know that you know

something as important and theoretically

modern as our aviation system uh is

working on TDM. Uh so that obviously had

to be upgraded. We launched a contract.

Verizon is the contractor. You know,

obviously a multi-year multi-billion

dollar IT contract when you have to

have, you know, not even 59s but like

billion to one uh chance of anything

going wrong 24 by7 by 365. You know,

it's challenging and it takes a while.

But, you know, that's one of the reasons

why we felt a lot of urgency on that

particular issue. But again, there's two

ways of looking at this, right? Both of

which are true. One thing is to look at

the system and say how can the system

not be more modern like we need to make

better use of the dollars that go into

the system to have more up-to-date

communications infrastructure to have uh

more controllers uh who are both well

equipped and well-rested and FA's got to

do better on that. The other way to look

at it is consider the civilizational

achievement that is aviation safety in

this country. So it's easy to grumble

and I grumble and more than grumble. I

mean, I got pretty upset with a lot of

things about how aviation works as a

passenger, which is why we pushed

airlines so hard on on passenger

protections. But, you know, just in the

four years I was secretary, we had about

4 billion passenger implants. So, 4

billion times somebody got on an

airplane, right? Um, and zero commercial

airline crash fatalities out of that 4

billion. In other words, what this kind

of clunky, imperfect federal government

has achieved is a standard of safety on

afford a form of transportation that

involves being propelled through the air

almost at the speed of sound by

flammable liquids miles above the

ground. And you know, frankly, you and I

are one of us is more likely, not to be

flip about it, but one of us is more

likely to randomly die of natural causes

during this taping than to be involved

in a commercial airline fatality.

>> Let's hope it's Jason.

>> Wow. [laughter]

Well, I was about to say, I mean, it is

like in some places in our some places

in our infrastructure, we're incredibly

blessed. And I'm wondering as, you know,

now you're in your 40s, you've seen a

lot of the world, whether it's your

military service or or, you know, just

being a mayor of a small town and then,

uh, obviously working in a cabinet

position. How has your view of free

market dynamic solving problems versus

the government solving problems evolved

if at all? Because when we talk about

these problems, you look at what's

happening with space. We now can get to

space for, you know, 5% of the cost than

we used to. Thanks to Elon Musk and

SpaceX, we have superchargers and

chargers everywhere thanks to Tesla and

a number of other

folks putting them out there, Charge

Point, etc. when it comes to putting

fiber into rural areas, which the FTC

was trying to do, they were going to

spend5 to $25,000 per home. And now we

have Starlink and their competitors.

Again, back to Elon, which your party

decided

under Biden, you wouldn't even invite

the guy to the EV summit. So,

>> well, let me talk about that, but we'll

I want to park that to the side because

we should probably talk about what

happened there. But let's forget that

cuz I want to I want to mention that

>> because when you when you know I I'm a

I'm a moderate but voted Democrat about

65% of the time and Republican a third

of the time. When I look at it, I just

can't understand how the Democratic

party hates us so much. Hates

entrepreneurs and that's how they feel.

But that's how that's how Silicon Valley

feels. We'll talk about whether you want

to deny it or not. But it feels like

>> hate entre like I don't think most

Democrats do. I I but I I know what you

mean about the vibes and we should get

to the piece about about Elon

particularly but but but on the piece

you're on the substance of the question

you're raising. Yeah. I think it's

really important to think of this as

>> not like should it be government or

should it be the private sector but like

which parts should government do and

which parts should the private sector

do. So to me like the classic example is

just the smartphone right. Um, I cannot

imagine that a smartphone designed by

the federal government would be a pretty

thing or that an app designed by a

matter of fact having been in the

military and and dealt with I guess you

could call them apps like some of the

kind of uh software that that that you

have to deal with even if it's done by

contractors. It's kind of done in a way

that you can tell was designed by the

government and and and it's not pretty.

Um, on the other hand, you know, when

you talk about capital allocation, the

federal government literally invented

the internet, right? So, there's things

there's certain trillion dollar ideas

that the private sector just won't do

cuz it doesn't pencil or because of

whatever market failure is there. That's

where you need government. That's things

like basic research. That's things like

filling in gaps that especially on

network effects like you know broadband,

EV charging networks, that sort of thing

where the bulk of it can be done quite

well by the private sector, but there

are pieces that just don't click unless

you have unless you have federal

involvement. And that's the attitude we

tried to take on things like EVs. Like I

never thought that we were going to, you

know, create a government EV or that you

even needed the government to make sure

that a transition to electric happened.

But we did believe that for it to be

made in America, for it to happen as

quickly as we wanted, and for it to

reach people who maybe couldn't afford

those those initial buyin costs who we

really wanted to help out, you know,

that's where there's a role for policy.

That's where there's a role for funding.

>> What I get confused though, Pete, is

like on the one hand, you're saying the

government should set up these clear

moonshot objectives that advance America

>> for itself and relative to other

countries. But then the other side is

that if you do too well achieving those

objectives, we want to go and take a

bunch of that away from you. How do you

reconcile that? And how do you think it

impacts the the motivations of young men

and women who want to learn and excel

and put themselves at risk but also want

to believe that if they put themselves

at risk and then they are rewarded that

they've earned those rewards.

>> Look, uh I love people being

entrepreneurial, creating something and

doing well by it. I mean that's but to a

certain basic idea only to a certain

level like beyond a certain point of

>> entrepreneurship if you create a

monopoly. Yeah. If you create a monopoly

I might not like it. If you hurt other

people I might not like it. If you

concentrate power into your hands to an

extreme extent I might not like it

because that's just that's just not

American. But in general if we're

talking about taxation I just want to

make sure people who are really well off

do their part to pay into a system that

has helped them to thrive. uh because uh

you know that's what it takes for the

next generation to do well and that's

what it took for all of us to do well. I

mean

>> let's just assume you're president. You

get trillions of dollars of receipts.

>> Mhm.

>> I'm going to guess the party line that

you have to take as Doge was bad. Okay,

fine. What is the version of Doge that

you would implement so that

>> Great question.

>> We could figure out what percentage of

that dollar that we're giving you is

wasted and stop it.

>> Yeah. So, I would love in theory a

department of government efficiency that

was actually about government

efficiency. I think that would make tons

of sense. Uh, it's what I tried to do

again when I was mayor. We took apart

the small government that I was in

charge of about a $300 million operation

and put it back together and found that

it could be radically more efficient in

many ways. And we need to do that at the

federal level. We need to

>> How much money did you take out from

that 300?

>> Uh, we we used it better. I would put it

that way. So, uh, you know, we didn't I

mean, there were areas where we were

able to kind of have, uh, uh, have a

certain, uh, budget line item shrink,

but in a city where the average per

capita income was 18 or $19,000 per

person when I came in, uh, we weren't

handing that over in tax breaks to

wealthy residents. We were putting it to

other use on uh, on public safety uh,

and fundamentals like that. But look,

again, I agree that the doge we could

have could do a lot of really good work.

It could find duplicative regulations.

it could find cases where we could move

from inputbased to outputbased

uh evaluation of our programs. In other

words, instead of saying like this is a

meaningful program because how many

billions went into it, uh figure out how

much value came out of it. But the Doge

we got was one that couldn't even count

that put uh information sometimes that

was wrong by three orders of magnitude

on its own website then erased its own

information because they didn't believe

in the transparency. The doge we got

sent an email to every air traffic

controller in the country during an air

traffic controller shortage and

suggested they quit being an air traffic

controller and get something quote more

productive to do in the private sector

only later on to be told actually uh

that was a mistake. The Doge we got

apparently wasn't supposed to send that

information all the air traffic

controllers. Whoops. the Doge we got

fired people in charge of making sure

our nuclear weapons were safe and in

charge of making sure that bird flu

didn't spread and then whoops you know

tried to hire them back in a race. So

yeah, there's a huge difference between

the doge we got and the doge we could

have had. But if you're talking about in

principle should we unleash like really

smart talented people with an outside in

perspective and a free hand to evaluate

what is working and where we're not

getting value for our money in

government. like you and I would be on

in violent agreement that that's a good

idea and there's no better place to find

some of those opportunities than the

things that the federal government does

because it just does or because there

was a good reason once upon a time but

that reason has expired or maybe the

reason was not good to begin with.

>> Can we go to debt maybe um as part of

this? I don't know where you were going

to go chas but I think maybe

>> I wanted to I wanted to go to the inner

workings of the Democratic party but go

ahead to debt and then we can go

>> yeah and then that's a good segue. I was

just going to point out, you know, we've

we've added about $2 trillion in debt

over the last uh well, nine years now

under Trump, one uh 45 46 Biden and now

again with Trump, we just hit 38

trillion. So, it seems like we're adding

2 trillion a year. What's your take on

the sustainability of this?

>> First of all, the the debt path we're on

is not sustainable. And that's one area

where you're right, neither party has

covered themselves in glory. And it's an

area where I would part with some in my

own party. I think for too long you've

heard the message from

Democrats is basically debt doesn't

matter like or there's no such thing.

>> And there was a moment when this felt a

little more credible. Some of the

evidence at as of a few years ago uh put

a lot of wind in the sales of what was

called modern monetary theory. Uh I

think a lot of that looks different now.

>> It looks different. And then you had the

And then you had the Republicans, right,

who say that debt matters but then uh

act the exact opposite. Now, look, as as

a good Democrat, I could point out that

I would argue there's a difference in

terms of what history empirically has

shown us in terms of the return on

investment you get when you raise debt

to fix roads and bridges and other

productive infrastructure versus if you

blow up the debt in order to give

massive tax breaks to the wealthiest

people in the country. because that has

just never generated the growth that you

know I mean the laugher curve has

collapsed empirically and it just

doesn't work that way right so I could

quibble over if you're going to do debt

what's the best thing to do with it and

I would argue the best thing to do with

it is education healthcare investing it

make sure kids don't get lead poisoned

investing it in ports and roads and not

investing it in uh uh you know in tax

cuts for extremely wealthy people who

who didn't need them and in some cases

weren't really asking for it and were

perfectly productive in fact history

would say more productive at times in

history when they were paying more taxes

in the US. But leaving that partisan

fight aside, I do want to come back and

agree with you again that that where we

are right now is not sustainable. That

contrary to what some on the left would

say, there is such a thing as the debt.

It does matter and we need to make sure

that what we're doing going forward is

more consistent with with some basic

fiscal responsibility.

>> What is the fiscal responsibility? I

mean, I hear all these, you know,

political speak over and over again from

you guys, but I never hear anybody say,

"You know what? We got to tighten our

belts, folks. We're going to have to cut

unemployment. We have to cut these uh

and we're going to have to raise taxes

here. We have to make cuts here." I

don't ever hear any of you come up with

like a plan that actually would pass

mustard with any of us in the business

community who have to run companies and

make sure they're solvent. This does not

seem like you have a plan or anybody

else has a plan. And it's is it because

it's so unpopular that you can't just

say, "Hey, it's there's going to be some

austerity here and it's going to be

painful and there's going to be more

taxes and that's going to be painful and

then you don't get elected."

>> Is that the issue?

>> I literally did put out a plan which I

balanced every single spending back when

I was running for president in 2020,

which feels like another lifetime. Every

single thing that I proposed spending

on, uh, I also proposed to pay for and

explained what would have to happen

tax-wise in order to do it. And again,

that's just those are the habits that I

built as a mayor who had to do my budget

in cash. So, look, it's not like it's a

completely unsolvable problem. There are

measures that we got to take to reduce

things like the cost of providing

healthcare, which is one of the biggest

uh uh sources of pressure on uh

Medicare, Medicaid, you name it. Not

just getting people insured, but the

actual underlying cost. Same with

pharmaceuticals. And then there are

things you got to do on the revenue

side. Like I'm I'm sorry, but like we

can't just slash a trillion bucks from

from what the wealthiest people are

paying again and again and then call

this a sustainable budget.

>> The trillion dollars of cuts. What is

that specifically that's being cut?

>> Oh, you mean the on the on the tax side?

>> Yeah.

>> Well, start with OBBA, right? Uh and

then TCGAA, too. Like we know that the

vast majority of the benefits of those

tax cuts went to the wealthiest. Uh, we

could say the same about the broader

pattern of cutting taxes going back to I

mean I guess if you look back over the

50 years. I mean why do you think that

the American entrepreneurial class was

more productive in terms of annual

productivity growth back when taxes were

higher?

>> How do you measure that?

>> Well, I don't know. Productivity growth

and income taxes. I mean those are two

pretty simple measures you could use.

>> And as I'm sure you know

>> which era

>> well look at the 70s and 80s, right?

60s7s 80s. look at GDP growth,

productivity growth, and tax rates. I

I'm sure you're aware that those growth

rates were higher and the tax rates were

higher, too. I'm not saying there's no

correlation where like if you overt tax,

you'll eventually get less productivity,

but you know, if you look

[clears throat] at where we are in the

spectrum between too far this way and

too far that way,

>> it's not like we're doing this in a

vacto data. But I just want to make

sure. You think the BBB was a giveaway

to rich folks? Like no taxes on tips,

extending the Trump tax cuts that

disproportionately affected

middle-income folks. Those are those are

giveaways to rich people.

>> Do I think the majority of the OBBA tax

cuts went to rich people? Yes.

>> And how do you define majority? Like

dollar tonnage of depreciation or actual

dollars in pockets of humans?

>> I mean, either way you look at it,

right?

It's important how you look at it

because it's

>> actually if you're low income uh dollars

in your pockets is going down when you

account for what they've done with the

subsidies. I mean remember this is I

don't care how subsidies which subsidies

>> can you name me a measure can you name a

measure by which

>> I'm ask I'm asking you I'm asking the

politician I don't know

>> yeah I don't have a line item breakdown

in front of me what I'm telling you is

that it is not terribly contested like

if anybody listening to this podcast

feels like opening up a window and

looking it up for themselves uh just to

figure out which one of us is right it's

not terribly contested that the majority

of the benefit of TCGA and OB OBBA went

to wealthy people and it's definitely

not contested or I would say generally

not contested that OBBA represents one

of the largest transfers of wealth from

lower income people to upper income

people in global history.

>> How do you measure that?

>> You can measure it in terms of wealth

before and after. You can measure it in

terms of the incidence of the different

forms of taxation. You can measure it in

a total package that accounts for

subsidy as well as as benefit. I mean

any number of ways. But again, if you

measure it a different way, I'd love to

hear it because I don't I don't regard

this as something that's deeply

contested, but it sounds like you have a

measurement in mind that's different,

and I'd love to run with it and look it

up so I can see where you're coming

from.

>> And we definitely cut corporate taxes

and personal taxes because of TCJ. Yeah.

Right. I mean, that was

>> And to be clear again, because the LER

curve turns out to be we did

not just grow our way out of the

deficits that created. Right.

>> Let me ask you a question about the

inner workings of the Democratic party.

I'm sure you've been asked this a

hundred times, so sorry for us being the

101st, but in Kla Harris's memoir, she

points in part to your identity as a

reason why you weren't considered as her

running mate. Can you explain to us the

role of identity in Democratic politics?

Both perhaps you on the way in when you

were nominated for secretary and then

maybe on the way out when you were not

considered as a credible VP candidate.

Let's just say I would love for identity

to play a less central role uh in the

politics of our country and and the

politics of my party and and not just

because I might have been passed over

for uh for an opportunity, but just

because I think it is it has really

dominated so many people's thinking in a

way that makes it harder for us to build

a message across identities. I mean,

don't get me wrong, I I don't think it I

don't think it makes sense to pretend

that identity doesn't matter. I don't

think it makes sense to pretend to be

colorblind. I also don't think it makes

sense to allow that to explain

everything, which is one of the habits

that's formed, I think definitely on my

party's far left, that that made it

harder for us to get through, especially

when you have a lot of people whose

interests are shared. I'm thinking about

the economic interest of poor people and

low-wealth people in this country, for

example, who are black, white, and of of

every ethnicity and identity and gender,

of course, who maybe didn't hear a

unifying message that was speaking to

them as a group because it felt like my

party was it was like a salad bar, like

here's something for your group and

here's something for another group and

here's something for another group and

it didn't add up into a story. Now, I

would argue that Trump practices a kind

of identity politics, too. a sort of a

white identity politics that uh makes

people feel like they are encircled by

the other that that that immigrants are

sort of an invasion. I mean, we can go

down that road and I often have, but uh

the more straightforward way to answer

your question about my party is that I

think identity has become too central to

how my party thinks.

>> How have they reacted? You know, you you

took a pretty firm line on Israel Gaza.

You took a pretty firm line on

transgender folks in sports. tell us

about the dynamics of taking those

positions inside the Democratic party.

>> Famously, our party has a lot of

different voices within it. And so, you

know, some folks uh if you are not

saying the leftmost thing, uh they're

just done with you. But I think a lot of

others believe in the idea of politics

as as building a coalition and and

pulling people into a bigger picture.

and and I'm going to say some things

that uh you know won't be in conformity

with what every activist group in my

party wants to hear. That's okay. That's

that's part of it.

>> How do you navigate the the necessary

extremism maybe that's required then to

get out of a primary process?

>> Well, this is the classic issue with

going from primaries to generals, right?

you you are pressured to say one thing

to appeal to the base in your party and

then you wind up if if you're not

careful saying things that make it hard

for you to have credibility in a general

election when you're trying to uh paint

a picture that the broadest number of

people possible can can see themselves

in. That's nothing new. But one thing

that has happened more and more and more

is that that's happening in more and

more races. So the presidency is always

a little bit like this, but the

presidency is also the one that gets

painted in the broadest strokes because

it's it's a campaign for the whole

country and it's all the different

jostling around all the issues and all

the groups all boiled down into two

people running for one office. But where

I think this actually hurts us the most

is in Congress. So we got 435 seats in

the House. Last time I checked, less

than one out of 10 of them is considered

to be seriously competitive at best.

like less than 40 are actually

competitive, which means in nine out of

10 races, the primary is pretty much it.

So, you never even have to bother

thinking about whether some stance you

took in the primary is going to make it

harder for you to work across the aisle

or or harder to win people over or bring

them together in the general because

these districts are so gerrymandered,

right, that uh that all you have to

worry about is your right flank if

you're a Republican uh or your left

flank if you're a Democrat. That's where

I think it hurts us the most. the

Democratic Party. Really two parties

right now. The classic Democratic Party,

I'll call it the Clinton Obama party,

you know, hey, [clears throat] we're

socially liberal, but we're not like

absolutely crazy and insane. We we don't

necessarily uh need to advocate to have

trans kids get surgeries and uh when

they're 12 years old and 14 years old

and all the stuff that's now become, you

know, illegal in most modern countries.

Is it two parties now? is I'm watching

Manny and like that group go, "Hey, ban

the billionaires, more taxes and

socialism, and here's all the handouts.

We're going for it." And then there's

guys like you and you know the I would

say the the more Clinton era, Obama era

kind of moderate Democrats now is is

kind of how I'd frame it. And then can

those two ever coexist in the same

party?

>> I think both parties have their

contradictions and that's definitely

true for my party. Uh, I mean the way I

view it is one of the biggest problems

we have as a society is this level of

inequality we've hit that like

historically there's no evidence that

any republic can reach this level of

equality to hold on to it and continue

to be a republic. And so the question is

what do you do about it? And you've got

obviously a socialist left that says the

answer is socialism. Uh you've got uh

Republicans who tend to say this is not

a problem at all. And then you got where

I think of as the center or at least

what I would like to be the center of my

party, which is saying, "Yeah, we've got

to do things. We got to lean in. We got

to use uh the tools of the state, not in

a socialist way, but uh in a way to try

to have things be more balanced in this

country." Um is there a contest between

kind of the center left and the far left

or however you want to characterize it?

Sure. But then, you know, I mean,

today's Republican party is a coalition

of normal Chamber of Commerce business

Republicans, more of the kind of tech

Republicans who to me are more

libertarian, even though it puzzles me

that they're for uh such uh dramatic

government control over society right

now and Trump. But whatever. My point is

you have you have normal business

Republicans, you have technibertarians,

you've got economic populists, right,

who's who who are in many ways to the

left of even even left of center in some

weird ways on on trade and some uh

issues like that. And then you got white

nationalists, right? And I don't know

that they can coexist for long if

they're not held together by the awe of

or fear of, you know, the personality of

Donald Trump. Uh and you know people

keep imagining maybe what if we had a

third party and you know I look at other

countries that have it's not it's not

unusual in a lot of other modern

countries to have four five six seven

parties. In some ways it feels on its

face like that would make more sense in

the US but I I think the reality in

practice is anytime somebody tries to go

off and start a third party it just it

just winds up screwing it up for one of

the other two and we're right back where

it started. Pete, do you think that

Donald Trump made the right decision to

close the border? And if not, why not?

>> I think that he is right to draw

attention to the problem of the border

and that it is uh it is important to

have a secure border. I don't believe it

was true that it was exactly open

before. Uh I think it is functionally

closed now, but I I would agree that the

last administration uh didn't do enough

and didn't do enough early enough.

>> Yeah. Yeah.

>> And why do you think Biden looked the

other way?

>> What was the strategy? Was there a

strategy?

>> Yeah, I think what happened was he was

really looking to Congress to do it. He

came out of Congress. He was a creature

of Congress and thought, you know,

Congress can forge a bipartisan since,

you know, there's actually a bipartisan

agreement among the American people on

what to do, right? Which is what most

people believe, what I believe, which is

let's make it harder to come in

illegally and easier to come in legally

and and to get legal if you're not. I

mean, that's where most people are most

country.

>> Yeah. And that's where most of the space

for compromise has been on the hill. And

yet, you know, I think it was the '8s

last time we had an actual bill to fix

it. So, I think he, and this is

speculating, I I never really, you know,

was in the middle of the immigration

side of things, but I think he felt like

the way to do this was to get things

done in Congress, he he felt that, you

know, he'd managed to get the

infrastructure bill done, IRA. Um but

what's interesting is when he finally

gave up on Congress uh when it was clear

that we just weren't going to get very

far and meanwhile you had had that that

exe set of executive orders that came

late in the term that had a major effect

on the number of illegal crossings. So

you got to ask yourself if that

executive order that happened toward the

end if that had been done in year 1,

year two, would we be in a different

place? Now of course we're on the other

extreme. I mean, we got we got citizens

who just have an accent or look brown

getting picked up sometimes getting

detained without access to a lawyer for

a frighteningly long amount of time. And

that's citizens, let alone other people

who, you know, maybe they shouldn't be

here, but they also shouldn't be

brutalized, right? And I think one

reason you see the pendulum swinging on

on this is is we're seeing just how

extreme it's gotten at a time when again

I think the only way forward really is a

kind of a grand bargain where we bring

together the the the the people who

believe in these simple realities that

we've got an economy and a society that

exerts a pull that actually needs more

people like for our demographics and our

economy to work then there is room in

the kind of legal pipeline to come in.

Just to clean this up, Pete, like if you

if it were up to you, would you reopen

the border or would you maintain the

Donald Trump position right now of okay,

now it's closed, now let's figure out

this grand bargain, as you say, keep

>> more precise by what we mean. I mean, if

you mean like having it be difficult, at

least as difficult as it is now, to

cross illegally. I think that's it's a

good thing for it to be difficult to

cross illegally. Um, but again, I think

calling it open then or closed now,

you're talking about a lot of different

overlapping things. Obviously, there are

a lot of things about Trump's

immigration policy I think are wrong,

destructive, possibly illegal, too. I

mean, if everybody has consensus that

the border should be closed and it

should be orderly and legal, uh, you

know, great. It's 80% of the country.

Um, and then the majority of the country

doesn't like what we're seeing with ICE

agents without badges wearing masks.

That's the majority of the country is

uncomfortable with this. A large

percentage of the moderates who voted

for Trump, at least this is what the

surveys are saying, people are not

comfortable with this. So, I'm curious

about what you think the motivation is,

and you can go into conspiracy corner if

you want. It's allowed here on this

program. We can speculate, but the

conspiracy corner for Biden was he

wanted to let a lot more people in in

order to build the Democratic base in

order to get voters. Okay, that's one

theory. Now, the theory here is Trump is

doing these violent deportations,

tackling people, spending a lot of money

while doing it. Um, why why is Trump

doing it this way? Why does Pete think

he's doing it this way? I

>> I I think he thrives on a politics of

fear. I think chaos is good for him. I

think he thrives on chaos. Uh I think

when you see images of uh people getting

beaten up or you know what what he used

to call American carnage like anything

that validates that basically the worse

it it's a weird thing but the worse it

feels to be in this country the better

off Donald Trump is whether he's running

for president or whether he is president

and sending troops marching into the

streets. Can I just say as the only

immigrant right now on this podcast who

immigrated here legally, I feel much

safer and better under a Donald Trump

presidency than I ever did under a Biden

presidency. Just want you to hear from

my mouth for what that's worth.

>> Do you feel safer about the fact that a

Latino doctor crossing the street in

Washington DC uh is getting hassled or

harassed because they're brown?

>> I don't think that I've heard that. Now,

>> okay. So, you're not aware of any case

in which a US citizen who is like but

you're No, but but I will tell you, for

example, after 911,

>> you wait. You're on a podcast commenting

about immigration. You have some level

of awareness.

>> Let me let me tell you after 9/11, for

example, for years, I had SSS on my

boarding passes

>> and I was pulled over constantly and

people probably thought that I was a

Muslim hijacker.

>> So, I know what it feels like to be

harassed. And what I'm telling you

categorically is I feel safer in this

presidency than I have ever felt. And

I'm just letting you know that. This is

just my lived experience.

>> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think

>> I'm glad you feel safer. I'm worried

about how most Americans feel.

>> Well, I mean, I think we're all aware

that people are being picked up and

they're being racially profiled and

their Fourth Amendment rights are being

suspended here. And

>> let me put it a different way. Has it

crossed your mind that if right now they

started by going for people who are

illegal and then they've started

roughing up people who are citizens but

who are speaking up against the

administration that even if you feel

safe now in a country where that sort of

thing can be done where people can you

know where even comedians could lose

their jobs for criticizing the

government. Does any part of me wonder

if that might ever come for you

>> Pete? It did come for me. Here's what

I'm trying to tell you. after the

Patriot Act passed after 9/11, I had to

come to terms with the fact that even as

a legal immigrant into the United States

that I was going to get extra searches,

I was going to get stopped. And it

happened for six years. I came to terms

with it. I put my head down and I kept

working.

>> But that didn't mean it was okay, right?

It was a law that was passed and people

felt for whatever reason that there was

an amount of racial profiling that could

happen then. And what I'm telling you is

every immigrant class at some point has

felt this. My point is it made things

safer in the aggregate. And what I'm

telling you now is what is happening now

makes cities safer. It makes places

safer. If you go to Washington DC, it is

the safest it's ever been. And you hear

this consistently from many many brown

and black people.

>> I guess what I'm telling you is if you

take the amount of money that it costs

to do a full-scale military deployment

in American city and you just used it on

uh you know improving funding for the

police and mental health and a whole lot

of other things, you probably get a

pretty good result that way too. But I

know there are a lot of people and I I I

have heard you know personal direct

examples of people who are in some cases

US citizens or in other cases here

illegally who no longer think it's even

okay to go outside who ask people to run

errands for them because of the

atmosphere that has been created in

Washington DC. So it's definitely not

safer for them.

Let me ask you a different question

which is I really want to get some

insight into what it was like for you to

work in the Biden administration. We've

had the sea of tell alls coming out, Kla

Harris's book, KJP's book. We had Joe

Mansion on last week and one of the

things that he said is that

>> it was not that Joe Biden changed, but

that the staff were nuts and that Ron

Clay was effectively a gatekeeper and if

you had reasonable proposals, they would

go into some black hole and die.

Can you give us a sense of what it was

like to work under Biden and the the

positives but also the negatives? Give

us a fair representation.

>> Yeah. And and in the spirit of fairness,

I should say this is the only time I've

outside of military, it's the only time

I've ever worked in the federal

government. So I can't benchmark, you

know, to compare one white house to

another or one president to another. But

I'll tell you what my experience was

like. There's a high level of ambition

trying to get big things done quickly,

especially in the first two years when

there was uh felt like there was that

opportunity to uh work with both houses

of Congress to make it happen, including

just a ton of energy going into well

among other things spending time with

folks like Joe Mansion trying to make

sure that that we held together that

that coalition to do things like the

infrastructure law. Um there were calls

I agree with, there were calls I

disagreed with. Um, there were also a

lot of times when it looked like

something wasn't going to happen and

then somehow it happened. And that was

where I I do think it helped to have a

president who spent as much time as he

did in the Senate because, you know, it

really felt like the infrastructure bill

was dead. We forget this now cuz cuz it

happened and it's kind of hard to

imagine it was any other way, but you

know, it was proclaimed dead many, many

times in that summer of 2021 before it

got done. So these moments of snatching

uh uh victory from the jaws of defeat,

you know, the word gatekeeper gets used

a lot for White House staff. I don't

think that's unfair. I would also say

though that I don't say that's new. Um

you know, the gatekeeper is often the

the kind of other word you use for a

chief of staff.

>> Was he into cognitive decline or when

did you first realize he was in

cognitive decline, I guess, would be the

better question, or suspect that he

wasn't,

>> you know, up for the job.

>> You could feel that he was growing

older. I mean, I think we all saw that.

Uh, I think my experience and obviously,

you know, I wasn't at the White House

every day. Most of the time I was I was

out in the field doing transportation

work. But, uh, you know, what I would

see if I was at an event was the same as

what you'd see, you know, watching TV.

Um, I think the debate was a real

turning point.

>> Yeah. I mean, the debate was a turning

point, right, where you just saw I think

everybody saw what everybody saw. On the

other hand, you know, when we were

>> something like that happen, h how does

somebody who is so in cognitive decline

get put up into that situation because

it's clear that they knew many months

before that this was not going to end

well. How did they get to that point?

How insular were they? And then I want

to talk about the uh selection of Kamla

without having a primary. So yeah.

>> Yeah. I think the short answer is there

there's not really a they that makes

that decision, right? people give

advice, but there's a he like one person

decides if he's running again. One

person decides at the end of the day on

the campaign strategy and is accountable

for that. Uh so, you know, I think I I

can't imagine what exactly was going on

in the inner circle. I wasn't I wasn't

part of those conversations, but um

yeah, I I do think that, you know, by

the time it got to that debate, uh it

was just very clear that it wasn't

serving him well, wasn't serving the

party well.

>> Okay. So now you don't want to go to

that point. But but just as the last

thing about the speedrun, there was no

primary.

>> Yeah.

>> And you know, we were speculating on

podcast like why not run a speedrun?

Just have the six or seven candidates,

including yourself, just do three weeks.

This would be like blockbuster

television. Were you in favor of the

speedrun or not? Was there discussion of

that? We're hearing that Obama and maybe

some other people wanted to have a quick

primary. And what do you think the

outcome would have been? Would you have

had a shot at uh winning? Yeah, there's

there's a lot of chatter of that. Um,

and I think in hindsight, we we've

obviously got to ask since the outcome

of what did happen was not good. I think

anyone serious in our party has to say,

okay, what if we'd done that? And you

could argue that it would would have led

to I don't know, but you could argue it

would have led to a different nominee.

You could also argue it would have led

to the same nominee, but that she would

have been stronger, right? I mean, if if

she had become the nominee by prevailing

over another half dozen people who

wanted a shot, presumably that kind of

sharpening that that happens uh would

have served her well in the general. And

and let's remember that that's actually

more normal, right? Like most countries

don't drag out their their presidential

>> process for more than a few weeks.

>> Let's move to a different more tactical

question. This is my last question for

you, Pete, which is there's some

discussion about moving NASA under the

Department of Transportation.

>> Good idea, bad idea. Give us your

reasoning.

>> Well, let me think of it. To be honest,

I haven't like deeply reflected on this.

Um, at a selfish and nerdy level, it

would have been amazing as Secretary of

Transportation to be working NASA, too.

Um, I think generally anytime you can

have like one

uh box or on an org chart where you

where there's two, you know, as long as

it's justified, I think there are some

benefits to that. I mean, definitely

right now the way that it let me put it

this way. If we think the future of

space is going to be more and more about

commercial space, which is is clearly

just as a matter of numbers what's

happening. The mishmash we have now

where you got NASA obviously leading

government-driven space missions. You

got the Department of Transportation

which actually already had

responsibility over some things and we

did commercial space licensing. We wound

up having to radically accelerate how

that worked. Uh because that actually

comes under the FAA um largely because

you have to go through the national

airspace to get to space, right? And

there's actually parts of it that sit

with commerce. So it would make sense to

disentangle that one way or the other,

whether it's inside of DOT or whether

you configure it a new way. I mean, I do

think that Washington in general, my

part is definitely guilty of this, is

too attached to all of the like

structures that we have right now and

the existing or charts and existing

habits. And you know, one message I'm

trying to get my party to accept is, you

know, if and when we get another chance,

a lot of the things that he has burned

down just aren't coming back the way

they were, why would we put them back

the way they used to be if it was full

of problems anyway? So, I don't have a

really deeply considered answer for you,

but I wouldn't be hostile to a change

just because it's a change or just

because it came from this

administration.

>> This is my last question. There was a

report that came out today. I think the

amount of miles driven per day by Whimo

is about to pass 250,000.

We have Tesla with cyber cab and robo

taxi. These things have a material

ability to prevent drunk driving and

prevent vehicular deaths.

What do you think should be done? Should

we let this play out at this exact pace?

Is there a responsibility in from the

federal government? Do you wish you had

done more to accelerate this? Tell us

about autonomous driving and its role in

society.

>> So, I I think that there's the potential

to save a huge number of lives. You

know, we talked earlier about the

incredible standard of aviation safety,

right? Zero fatalities per billion

better. It's the opposite on roadway

safety. Nobody talks about it. I we had

a plug door blow out of an airplane and

we we reconsidered our whole oversight

framework because somebody could have

gotten hurt that day. Meanwhile, every

day 100 to 150 people die on our

roadways to car crashes and vehicles

driven by humans. I mean, it's enough to

fill a 737 every day. It's on par with

gun violence. 30 40,000 people a year.

So, human drivers have a murderous track

record. It's a little bit different when

we talk about professional drivers who

have incredible I mean I met truck

drivers who'd have, you know, two

million miles with no uh crashes or

accidents. But just as a general rule,

most of us the average driver thinks

they're safer than the average driver.

And the average driver stands a

shockingly high percentage chance of

getting somebody killed. So, you know, I

think we're at the point where at least

some of these technologies right now

already are safer than human beings and

that's only going to increase and

improve. And the the irony of it is, you

know, even if a handful of highly

publicized uh negative incidents will

will really change public acceptance. So

my approach was

>> and they have. Yeah.

>> Yeah. So my approach was we we do need

to be conservative as a safety regular

to make sure it's safe. Not because I

don't believe in the technology, but

because I do because I think if people

see it unfolding safely, uh there's

going to be more acceptance. But are

there things we could or should do or

could or should have done to accelerate

AV adoption? Um, I think the answer is

yes. Like the the simple reality is we

we can't tolerate like it's no big deal

human drivers killing more than 100

people a day on our roads. This is a

perfect segue for my final question.

We've had a grand debate occurring in

our industry about job displacement. Uh

Amazon announced yesterday, I'm sure you

saw 30,000 white collar jobs to be

eliminated.

UPS today something around 40,000 people

and there was a leak in the New York

Times

that Amazon was planning on eliminating

600,000 job wrecks for the future and

not hiring them because they're so

convinced that robotics will do that. We

all know AI is going to be the biggest

change of our lifetime. I don't think

that's the debate. The question is um

what will job displacement and new job

creation look like this time? What does

Pete Buddhajed think? Do you think that

we have

a serious issue on our hands or do you

think we'll be able to navigate it? And

then what's the government's role in it

when you're president? What will it look

like if you inherit this chaotic AI job

displacement potential?

>> Yeah, I'm I'm seriously concerned about

it and and part of that's from growing

up in the industrial Midwest. Like, you

know, we were told I grew up in Northern

Indiana, uh, a lot of auto industry

supply chain companies there. And in the

90s and 2000s, a lot of trade and

automation, but the truth is mostly

automation came in. And uh everybody was

told, you know, don't worry too much

about what you're doing today. The pie

is going to get so much bigger that

everybody will be better off. And the

thing is, the pie did get bigger, but

the rest of that promise didn't come

true. And people were pissed. People

were pissed because they lost their

income, but also even after they got

their income, if if they went through a

training program and got another job in

a field that was growing, but it wasn't

who they thought they were, it wasn't

connected to their their sense of

identity or belonging, then you continue

to have a displacement that's not just

economic, but but but really deeper than

that. And I actually think a lot of that

kind of leads directly to the populism

and the nationalism that you see in this

administration and this in this

political moment. So uh and the thing

that really haunts me is you know as

much as any auto worker or electrical

worker I know like their sense of

belonging and identity you know very

much depends in many ways on being an

autoworker or an electrical worker.

That's even more true for most white

collar workers. I know people who work

in law or or software or you know um uh

you know you see what's happening in

radiology just to take one example

what's happening in medicine that's

really changing because of AI and the

the displacement that could come with

that I think is enormous and I don't

think we're prepared. Yeah. I don't know

you know I don't want to get into

prediction games about which things will

happen in which order but I think it's

clear that it's big. It's clear that

it's fast. It's coming. It's

accelerating. And my big worry is that

if we're already at a level of

concentration of wealth and power that

no republic has ever survived, is this

going to be a development that just

makes wealth and power even more

concentrated in even fewer hands? I

don't think it has to be. I think that's

where, you know, good policy can make a

difference.

>> But I think if we just sleepwalk into

it, that could happen. It could be even

more

>> dabiliz. The thing that you just said is

the key. It doesn't have to be. It

requires very smart, thoughtful

legislation. I think that we had

>> some really idiotic legislation under

Biden that President Trump and David

Saxs have largely unwound these

diffusion rules, the gatekeeping, all of

those things, Pete, would have seen us

lose to China. Just to be very clear, as

a technologist who's in the middle of

it, who is investing and building,

>> what I'm telling you is those historic

rules were terrible and dumb. and they

had one or two companies who would have

basically had all the spoils and the

rest of us would have been standing on

the outside looking in. That's no longer

the case. We can run the race now. But I

think what you said there is very

critical. It doesn't have to be a winner

take all or winner take most outcome.

>> Well, and to me that's, you know, that's

not just a question of tech policy. Like

that's a question of

>> Well, this is by way and this is, by the

way, I just want to be clear. The reason

why it was likely under Biden is because

it was so difficult to actually talk to

him. he wouldn't talk to anybody. The

difference with Trump, just so it's

clear, is that he'll talk to everybody.

He'll make his own decision, but he gets

the broad tapestry of everybody's

feedback. The danger of that Biden

approach is that when one or two people

are allowed in and everybody else is

shut out, and you can't even find a way

of just proposing ideas or explaining

how it's going to be, you get things

like the Biden diffusion rule. So, just

as something to think about, I think

being open and being available to people

is a really good way of running the

country. That's one thing I definitely

believe in.

>> If you win, Pete, you going to forget us

and not come back on the pod and you

won't invite us to the White House or if

you win, can we still can I get an

invite to the White House?

>> I would love for this not to be our last

conversation.

>> Our friends at Poly Market, I'm sure you

know uh all about these uh prediction

markets and how good they are. Looks

like Gavin AOC oddly in second place and

then yourself in third place right now.

Gavin obviously is running up the hill.

Who knows if he takes the arrows first,

but it looks like you're in a pretty

good position here. What are your

thoughts here on the early um indicators

of who's connecting with the sharps over

at Poly Market?

>> Well, you guys don't strike me as folks

who'd be content with a 6% return, but

[laughter]

>> got to get those numbers up, Pete.

>> Maybe a day, Pete. Maybe a day.

>> Well, I mean, what do you think about

Gavin coming out just strongly and

saying, "Hey, I'm running. Obviously,

I'm running. He's he's been pretty clear

about it. Do you think that's smart

savvy move or is that a crazy move three

years?

>> I don't know. I mean, you know, one

interesting thing about what the current

president did is I if I remember right,

he didn't even wait for the midterms uh

in order to announce.

>> So, you know, it feels like the

timelines keep shifting. I'll tell you

like I'm in no hurry to be in the middle

of presidential politics. Obviously,

it's something I care about. It's

something I have done uh already once

before in 2020, but you know, this year,

this is the first year in in about 15

that I haven't been uh in office or

running for office, and I'm kind of

enjoying it. I mean, I'm I'm working

hard supporting candidates I believe in.

We have a a pack uh and and I travel a

lot and speak a lot, but uh you know,

there there will be a time for those

kinds of things, and I'm not uh uh I'm

not going to try to rush.

>> You support mom Dami? Did you did you

support him? Did you come out publicly

for him or you have concerns? I'm not

getting directly involved in that race

uh or endorsing or anything like that.

>> You're gonna you're gonna dunk the

globalize the inifat bullet. I mean that

is the craziest obviously that's that's

a that's a problem. Uh you know he's got

a lot of he's got a lot of views that I

mean it's no surprise or secret that he

is further left than I am in the

Democratic coalition. That said,

>> you know, uh I was a a 29year-old mayor

that a lot of people wrote off and and

uh didn't take seriously uh and was able

to get big things done. So, you know, I

expect that he's going to win.

>> Socialist experiment in the what was at

least before the greatest city in

America and one of the greatest cities

in the world.

>> Well, uh you know, the thing about

winning is you get a chance to uh find

out very quickly uh how good your ideas

are and whether they'll have the results

you have in mind. And you know, that's

something that I expect that he'll win

and then we'll all get to see.

>> Yeah. I mean, it's it's going to be

interesting to see when that 54% tax

hits like if people are like, you know

what, Miami and Texas look pretty great.

You know, maybe I'm going to bounce. All

right, listen. Pea Judge, uh, thanks so

much for taking the time. We'll have you

on again. Uh, great to talk with you

and, uh, we appreciate you coming on the

program. We'll see you all next time.

Byebye.

>> Same here. Good day.

>> Great job. [music]

>> I'm going all in. [music]