>> COMING UP NEXT, WHAT CAN THE PRESIDENT DO ABOUT THE FINANCIAL PAIN OF WAR?

AND, WHO WILL REGULATE GREENHOUSE GASES, IF NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?

ALSO WHY ARE SO MANY FOLKS LEAVING BLUE STATES TO LIVE IN THE RED.

STAY TUNED FOR ANSWERS FROM THE "IVORY TOWER".

THIS PROGRAM IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE MEMBERS OF WCNY.

THANK YOU.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO IVORY TOWER.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

I'M NINA MOORE OF COLGATE UNIVERSITY.

THE PROFESSORS AROUND THE TABLE TONIGHT ARE... LISA DOLAK OF SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY CHAD SPARBER OF COLGATE UNIVERSITY ANIRBAN ACHARYA OF LEMOYNE COLLEGE, AND SARAH PRALLE, ALSO OF SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY.

TONIGHT WE START WITH THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE WAR IN IRAN, AND THE DIFFERENT AND THE BEST WAY TO MINIMIZE THE STRAIN ON AMERICAN HOUSEHOLDS.

ACCORDING TO THE PENTAGON, THE FIRST SIX DAYS OF THE WAR ALONE, COST TAXPAYERS $12 BILLION DOLLARS.

THAT'S ON TOP OF THE COSTS THAT HIT CLOSER TO HOME, LIKE, HIGHER ENERGY PRICES, PRICIER MORTGAGES, PAIN AT THE PUMP, AND EVEN HIGHER FOOD PRICES DUE TO PROBLEMS WITH FERTILIZER SHIPMENTS.

DEMOCRATS SAY, “END THE WAR AND YOU END THE PAIN AT THE PUMP”, BUT, PRESIDENT TRUMP CONTINUES TO PURSUE A VARIETY OF OTHER OPTIONS TO EASE THE PAIN.

MOST OF WHAT HE'S DOING CENTERS ON SECURING THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ, SHIP ESCORTS, RISK INSURANCE, PRESSURING OUR ALLIES.

CHAD, WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER THE BEST WAY TO MITIGATE THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE WAR?

>> SO DAVID USED TO LOVE WHEN I TALKED ABOUT THE JONES ACT.

I'M GOING THERE.

IT IS BACK IN THE NEWS.

A 1920 LAW THAT REQUIRES CARGO SHIPPED BETWEEN U.S.

SEAPORTS TO BE DONE SO ON U.S.

BUILT SHIPS, PROBLEM IS THAT WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE U.S.-BUILT OIL TANKERS.

AND SO IT'S PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE TO SHIP OIL FROM SAY OUR GULF COAST STATES TO LIKE EAST COAST REFINERIES.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS SUSPENDED THE JONES ACT FOR 60 DAYS SO THAT IS A START.

THE SECOND THING THAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT EUROPE'S FIRST PRIORITY IS UKRAINE.

I THINK IT'S WORTH HAVING THESE SORT OF BACK DOOR QUIET CONVERSATIONS, PRIED QUO PROCEED -- QUID PRO QUO CONVERSATIONS ABOUT TRYING TO COMBINE THESE EFFORTS, IF THE U.S.

COULD MAKE MEANINGFUL KIND OF COMMITMENTS TO UKRAINE, WOULD EUROPE BE WILLING TO STEP UP SOME OF THEIR EFFORTS TO HELP US IN THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ BUT I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A HAIL MARY KIND OF THING AND IT'S HOPEFUL AND WISHFUL THINKING.

>> THE JONES ACT, I'M HAPPY YOU MENTIONED THAT.

THAT'S TINKERING AROUND THE EDGES.

I DON'T THINK IT WILL BRING THE OIL PRICES DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY BUT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT THINGS PRESIDENT TRUMP IS TRYING TO DO; FOR EXAMPLE, RUSSIA IS NOW ALLOWED TO SELL, I THINK SEVERAL MILLIONS BARRELS OF OIL WHICH ARE STRANDED IN DIFFERENT PLACES.

IRAN IS ACTUALLY EXPORTING OIL.

SCOTT BASIN FLOATED THE IDEA OF IRAN SELLING OIL TO DIFFERENT PARTS.

AND TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE FACTUAL ABOUT IT, IRAN HAS SAID THAT THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ IS NOT CLOSED.

IT'S OPEN TO ALLIES.

INDIA JUST PASSED THROUGH A BUNCH OF THEIR LPG CYLINDERS.

IT IS CLOSED TO THE BELLIGERENCE OF IRAN.

ON THE WHOLE, THIS WILL BE A LONG-TERM DISASTER IF THE WAR DOESN'T END.

AND EVEN IF IT DOES END, RIGHT?

ONE THUNK WE OFTEN FORGET, A LARGE NUMBER OF THE SHIPPING DEPENDS ON INSURANCE; WHICH IS GENERALLY CONTROLLED BY ENGLAND, LLOYD IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST INSURANCE PROVIDERS.

AND IF THE INSURANCE GOES UP FROM LESS THAN A FRACTION OF A PERCENT TO 5%, THAT'S LIKE HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS MORE IN SHIPPING.

SO THAT'S ABOUT TRUST.

EVEN IF HORMUZ OPENS SPREARL, THE IDEA OF SHIPPING AND SMOOTH SUPPLY CHAINS DEPENDS UPON TRUST.

IF THE INSURANCE COMPANIES DON'T THINK THEY'RE SAFE, THEY'LL RAISE INSURANCE COSTS AND AS A RESULT, THAT WILL FLOW BACK INTO THE GAS PUMPS.

I THINK IN THE LONG-TERM, I'M NOT SEEING A VERY POSITIVE PICTURE.

>> SARAH, WHERE ARE YOU?

>> WELL, I MEAN, FOR ME, THE BIG HEADLINE THIS WEEK WAS LIKE THE REQUEST FOR $200 BILLION MORE IN DEFENSE SPENDING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE ASKING FOR CONGRESS FOR THIS WAR.

SO IT DOESN'T-- WHATEVER EFFORTS HE IS TRYING TO MAKE TO, YOU KNOW, DECREASE THE COST, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT'S THE REALLY MESSAGE WE ARE GETTING.

IN FACT THE MESSAGE WE ARE GETTING IS IT IS GOING TO KEEP COSTING US A LOT OF MONEY AND IT COULD KEEP GOING ON.

$200 BILLION IS AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF MONEY TO ASK FOR THIS WAR, RIGHT?

THEY'VE ALREADY, THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT HAS ALREADY GOT AN EXTRA $150 BILLION UNDER THE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL.

AND IF WE END UP 3, YOU KNOW, SPENDING THAT MUCH MONEY OR A PORTION OF THAT MONEY, THAT'S LOST OPPORTUNITY COSTS, THAT MONEY WE COULD HAVE BEEN SPENDING ON OTHER PROGRAMS.

I MEAN THE $12 BILLION WE HAVE ALREADY SPENT, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD FUND HEAD START FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR, YOU KNOW.

AND THIS IS MONEY THAT IS NOT HELPING US, RIGHT?

IN FACT, IT'S HELPING-- THIS WAR IS HELPING RUSSIA, RIGHT?

WHEREAS THESE OTHER PROGRAMS, IF WE INVESTED IN THOSE, THEY HAVE BIG PAYOFFS.

THEY'RE MORE LIKE INVESTMENTS.

THE MONEY WE ARE SPENDING ON THIS WAR IS JUST, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT CAUSING OR LEADING TO BETTER ECONOMIC OUTPUTS.

>> IT SEEMS LIKE THERE MAY BE NO END TO IT BECAUSE IRAN CAN EASILY INFLICT PAIN, RIGHT, WITH MINIMAL COST.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

>> I AGREE WITH CHAD THAT EVERYTHING THAT WE-- THE OPTIONS ARE ALL TINKERING AROUND THE EDGES.

BACKING THE INSURANCE COMPANIES IS SOMETHING THAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS CAN DO AND IS WORTH DOING BUT DOESN'T ELIMINATE THE PHYSICAL RISK TO THE SHIPPERS.

EVERYTHING ELSE IS WAVING THE SANCTIONS ON RUSSIA, TAKING A FEW BARRELS OUT OF THE STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVES, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO CLEAR THE STRAIGHT OF MINES.

ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE BUYING TIME.

THE STRAIT NEEDS TO BE OPEN.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

AS LONG AS IRAN CAN KEEP IT CLOSED TO THE BELLIGERENCE, THAT GIVES IRAN TREMENDOUS LEVERAGE.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO NEGOTIATE.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO NEGOTIATE A CEASE FIRE TO THE END OF THE WAR AS LONG AS THIS IS TRUE.

I ASSUME BECAUSE ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE TINKERING AROUND THE EDGES, THAT THE ADMINISTRATION'S PLAN, I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION'S PLAN IS-- I ASSUME THAT IT IS MILITARY JUST CONTINUING TO DEGRADE IRAN'S MILITARY CAPACITY; THAT THEY CANNOT, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN'T CLOSE THE STRAIT.

BUT I HEARD AN EXPERT LAST NIGHT SAYING THAT IT WOULD TAKE COMPLETE AIR DOMINANCE OF 50 MILES ON EITHER SIDE OF THE STRAIT AND 100 MILES DEEP.

IT WOULD REQUIRE A NO FLY ZONE THAT WOULD BE CONTINUOUSLY FOR 24 HOURS A DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, AND THAT IS EXTRAORDINARILY COSTLY.

>> UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ASSIGNMENT YOU GAVE US WAS TO THINK ABOUT HOW CAN WE LOWER THE COST, AND THERE IS NOT A LOT OF HOPE, I DON'T THINK, THAT ANYBODY REALLY HAS ON THIS.

EVEN THE STRATEGIC OIL RESERVES ISSUE.

HE IS GOING TO RELEASE 400 MILLION BARRELS OF OIL.

THE DATA I'VE SEEN IS THAT THERE IS ONLY 415 MILLION BARRELS OF OIL THAT WE HAVE SAVED UP THAT EFFECTIVELY, OUR SUPPLIES PLUMMETED WITH THE RUSSIA INVASION OF UKRAINE WHEN BIDEN WENT IN AND TAPID IT.

>> WE ARE AT 1985 LEVELS OF OIL.

AND IN TERMS OF THE TIME ISSUE, ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS LOOKING INTO, HOW DID THE IRANIANS HAVE ANY MISSILES ANYMORE?

AND THE ANSWER THAT I KIND OF FOUND WAS THAT THEY BASICALLY HAVE A DECENTRALIZED MISSILE COMMAND STRUCTURE NOW WHERE THEY RELY ON MOBILE LAUNCHERS AND KIND OF ONE OFF THINGS INSTEAD OF BARRAGES.

THAT IS, TO SAY THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO BUY A LOT OF TYPE USING SELECTIVE, DISRUPTIVE STRIKES THAT WE CAN-- THIS THING IS GOING TO GO ON FOR A LONG TIME.

>> AND THE MINES, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE UNDERNEATH THE WATER-- AND THEY CAN... >> WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME FASTER THAN WE CAN SWEEP THEM OUT.

>> AT GREAT COST.

A MILLION DOLLARS TO SHOOT DOWN SOMETHING THAT'S 5,000.

LET ME PUT THIS ON THE TABLE BEFORE WE LEAVE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS THAT THE COST THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH ARE SORT OF WORTH MAKING SURE IRAN IS NOT A NUCLEAR POWER; THAT THIS IS A WORTHY PRICE TO PAY.

ISN'T THERE SOMETHING COMPELLING ABOUT THAT ARGUMENT?

FORGET ABOUT THE TOCK PILES FOR NOW-- STOCKPILES FOR NOW.

LET'S MAKE SURE IRAN DOES NOT HAVE NUCLEAR CAPACITY.

>> THAT ASSUMES THAT WAR IS THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT, RIGHT?

WE HAD A SET OF SANCTIONS-- IT'S NOT PERFECT BUT WE HAD AN AGREEMENT.

THEY WERE, YOU KNOW, YEARS AWAY FROM BUILDING A NUCLEAR WEAPON, EVEN THEIR OWN INTELLIGENCE, YOU KNOW, SERVICE, TRUMP'S OWN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE SAID AS MUCH, RIGHT?

>> THIS GETS US INTO RELITIGATING THE WAR WHICH WE DON'T WANT TO TO DO.

>> I HAVE A FEELING WE WILL COME BACK TO THIS AGAIN.

LET'S TURN TO OUR NEXT DISCUSSION.

MOST OF US HAVE PROBABLY NEVER HEARD OF THE ENDANGERMENT FINDING, BUT IT'S AN IMPORTANT SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSION: THAT GREENHOUSE GASES ARE A THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE.

THIS 2009 FINDING BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY LED TO FEDERAL REGULATIONS DESIGNED TO REDUCE HOW MUCH CARS, AND POWER PLANTS, AND THE LIKE, ARE ALLOWED TO POLLUTE THE AIR.

BUT THIS YEAR, THE SAME AGENCY REVOKED THE FINDING, AND IF YOU'RE STILL WITH ME, THE REVOCATION IS PART OF A BROADER PATTERN OF SCALING BACK THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN FIGHTING CLIMATE CHANGE.

SARAH, BEFORE WE GET INTO THE QUESTION OF HOW CLIMATE ACTIVISTS MIGHT RESPOND TO THIS RESCISSION, COULD YOU TELL US A BIT MORE ABOUT THE ENDANGERMENT FINDING ITSELF AND WHY IT'S IMPORTANT?

>> YEAH, SO THE BIGGER CONTEXT HERE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, ONE WAY TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE WOULD BE WITH STAND ALONE FEDERAL LEGISLATION, RIGHT?

MANY ECONOMISTS WOULD PREFER SOMETHING LIKE A CARBON TAX OR A CAP AND TRADE PROGRAM.

AS THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO LOWER GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GO GET THAT.

SO THE NEXT BEST OPTION HAS BEEN TO USE EXISTING LAW, THE 1970 CLEAN AIR ACT AND TRY TO REGULATE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THROUGH THAT.

AND THIS WAS ALL STARTED WHEN SOME STATES AND ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS SUED THE E.P.A.

AND BASICALLY SAID THAT YOU NEED TO CONSIDER THESE AS POLLUTANTS UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT.

AND IF THEY ARE, THEN YOU NEED TO ISSUE A FINDING ABOUT BE DONE BY WAY THE OF COURTS ABOUT THIS?

LITIGATION HAS BEEN STARTED AND THE GOOD NEWS IS IT IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED.

THE GOOD NEWS FOR PEOPLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE, IS THAT IT IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED INITIALLY.

IT'S GOING TO END UP IN THE DC CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT HAS UPHELD THE ENDANGERMENT FINDING ONCE AND WHICH IS BROWNED BY THE RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT THAT SARAH WAS TALKING ABOUT AND SO THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY OPTION YOU THE BUT TO STRIKE DOWN THE ADMINISTRATION'S ACTIONS.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT THAT WILL LIKELY LEAD TO SUPREME COURT REVIEW AND IT APPEARS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS BETTING ON THE FACT THAT THIS IS A DIFFERENT SUPREME COURT THAN THE COURT WAS IN 2007.

AND THAT IT WILL OVERTURN THIS CASE, WHICH WOULD HAVE VERY SIGNIFICANT CONSEQUENCES BECAUSE THEN THE LAW OF THE LAND WILL BE THAT THESE ARE NOT AIR POLLUTANTS UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT AND EVEN THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION WOULD BE BOUND BY THAT.

>> UNLESS CONGRESS OVERTURNS IT, WHICH IS VERY UNLIKELY.

>> THE COURT STUFF IS INTERESTING, SO I'M COMING FROM A COMPLETE POINT OF IGNORANCE ON ALL OF THIS.

BUT WHEN I'M READING THIS STUFF, I SEE TWO IRONIES.

THE FIRST IS THAT I SEE THIS AS A CASE ABOUT, A DEBATE BETWEEN WHICH GOVERNMENT BRANCH SHOULD BE DOING THIS REGULATION.

IF YOU ARE A NO KINGS PROTESTOR, YOU MIGHT WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT BIDEN'S BAN ON GAS POWERED ENGINE WAS AN AUTOCRATIC WAY OF REGULATING EMISSIONS BUT, OKAY.

THE SECOND IRON I IS THAT-- IRONY IS THAT A WEEK AGO, THE D.O.J.

SUED CALIFORNIA TO STOP THEM FROM IMPLEMENTING THEIR OWN EMISSIONS MANDATE AND THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE GREENHOUSES BUT THAT THE STATES CAN'T REGULATE THEIR OWN Co2 EMISSIONS BECAUSE THAT'S A ROLE ASSIGNED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SO-- >> CATCH 22.

BLOT BUT EVEN GOING TO STATES WOULD BE LIKE SAYING THAT IN AN OPEN RESTAURANT YOU CAN SMOKE ON ONE SIDE, RIGHT?

>> STATE BY STATE REGULATIONS ARE OPEN.

AND THAT WOULD CARRY ON.

I HAD A DIFFERENT QUESTION, RIGHT?

THIS IS A LONG STANDING LEGISLATION AND I WOULD IMAGINE MANY FACTORS RIS AND MANY CAR MAKERS HAVE PRICED INTO THOSE DEVELOPMENTS ALL THOSE TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES WHICH REQUIRE HUGE AMOUNTS OF FIXED COSTS.

SO I AM KIND OF FLUMMOXED, RIGHT?

EVEN IF THIS RULING GOES AWAY, THE BIG COMPANIES THAT HAVE MADE THIS INVESTMENT, COSTLY INVESTMENTS MAN POWER, TO REGULATE ALL THIS TO COMPLY BY THE LAW, WOULD THEY ALL OF A SUDDEN NOT DO THIS?

THAT'S JUST A HUGE WASTE OF MONEY THAT THEY'RE ALREADY-- AND IF THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION COMES AND TRIES TO CHANGE THIS, THEY HAVE TO AGAIN REINVEST ALL THAT.

SO I'M CONFUSED WITH THE PRIVATE FUNDING HAPPENING, JUST BECAUSE THE LAW IS NOT THERE, IS IT THE BEST OF ALL THE INDUSTRIES TO NOT USE THESE?

>> YOU ARE POINTING TO TWO OTHER IRONIES.

LIKE A LOT OF FIRMS HAVE COME OUT SAYING THEY DON'T LIKE THIS BECAUSE THE E.P.A.

LAW GIVES THEM SHIELDING ON NUISANCE LAWSUITS.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.

THE OTHER IRONY TOO, IS THAT YOUNG REPUBLICANS WANT MORE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION INTO CLEAN AIR KINDS OF ISSUES.

>> SO DOES 87% OF THE PUBLIC.

SARAH?

>> TO YOUR POINT, ANIRBAN, THAT'S TRUE.

THE POWER PLANTS DON'T WANT THIS TO DISAPPEAR BECAUSE LIKE YOU SAID, THEY HAVE INVESTED A LOT INTO TRYING TO CLEAN UP THEIR ACT.

AND THEN WITHOUT THIS SHIELD, LIKE YOU WERE SAYING, THEN YOU OPEN IT UP TO COMMON LAW LAWSUITS, WHICH IS BASED ON DAMAGE, DAMAGES DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE.

AND SO YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE MORE FLARE OF LAWSUITS COMING FROM THE GRASSROOTS SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE COMPANIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE THEY'VE CREATED THROUGH CLIMATE CHANGE.

>> SO MAYBE THE BEST THING TO DO IS TO JUST RIDE IT OUT IF YOU ARE BUILDING CARS.

HERE'S OUR THIRD TOPIC.

RESIDENTS IN BLUE STATES ARE PACKING THEIR BAGS AND HEADING TO RED STATES, MAINLY THOSE IN THE SOUTH.

THE QUESTION IS: WHY?

IS IT THE WARMER WEATHER?

A SLOWER PACE?

OR IS SOMETHING ELSE DRIVING THIS POPULATION SHIFT?

MAYBE TAXES, SAFETY, SCHOOLS, HEALTH CARE?

WHATEVER'S BEHIND IT, FROM A POLITICAL STANDPOINT, THE END RESULT IS, MORE VOTERS IN RED STATES, WHICH MEANS MORE SEATS IN CONGRESS AND THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

WHICH, WHEN YOU ADD IT ALL UP, MEANS MORE POWER TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

LISA, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT DEMOCRATS WHO CONTROL BLUE STATES CAN DO TO REVERSE THESE POPULATION LOSSES?

>> YES, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY HOLD ON ANY HOPE THAT ANY OF IT WILL HAPPEN.

FIRST OF ALL, THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM FOR BLUE STATES.

WE ARE IN A DEATH SPIRAL, POPULATION-- FISCAL DEATH SPIRAL HERE.

FEWER TAXPAYERS, THEY'RE SHOULDERING MORE EXPENSES.

THAT LEADS TO HIGHER PER CAPITA BURDEN ON PEOPLE WHICH ONLY ENCOURAGES MORE PEOPLE TO LEAVE AND SO IT IS TAXES.

IT IS EDUCATION.

THERE HAS BEEN MAJOR GAINS AMONG SOME OF THE SORT OF PREVIOUS WORST EDUCATION STATES IN THE NATION, WITH REGARD TO THEIR EDUCATION STANDARDS.

IT IS HOUSING COSTS.

IT IS CONCERNS, REAL OR PERCEIVED ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY.

AND IT IS REMOTE WORK, RIGHT?

BECAUSE PEOPLE CAN WORK REMOTELY THAT JUST ACCELERATES THEIR ABILITY TO LEAVE AND MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE.

SO IT'S A SERIOUS PROBLEM.

WHAT CAN BE DONE?

WE'VE GOT TO MAKE IT EASY TO BUILD ABUNDANT MARKET RATE HOUSING.

WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE BURDENS THAT HOME BUILDERS FACE IN TERMS OF ZONING, IN TERMS OF REGULATION.

THAT'S IMPORTANT.

WE HAVE TO ADOPT ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES FOR SPENDING THAT IS ALREADY HAPPENING AND BEFORE WE START SPENDING MORE, WE HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, ASK WHETHER EXISTING PROGRAMS ARE WORKING BEFORE WE START TO AUTHORIZE MORE.

THIS EDUCATION THING IS REALLY BIG.

IT'S REALLY CONCERNING TO ME.

I MEAN RIGHT NOW, THE REALITY IS THAT A BLACK FOURTH GRADER IN MISSISSIPPI IS IN BETTER SHAPE EDUCATION WISE THAN A BLACK FOURTH GRADER IN CALIFORNIA.

THAT'S SAYING SOMETHING.

>> BUT SARAH, PART OF THE CHALLENGE IS IF YOU PULL BACK ON THINGS LIKE EDUCATION COSTS, AND SERVICES, THEN YOU GET THE KIND OF RESULTS THAT SARAH IS TALKING ABOUT.

SO WHAT DO YOU DO-- I MEAN LISA WAS TALKING ABOUT.

WHAT DO YOU DO ABOUT THAT?

>> I WANT TO SWITCH THE SUBJECT SLIGHTLY JUST BECAUSE I THINK THERE ARE SOME X FACTORS HERE IN TERMS OF THE MIGRATION PATTERNS HERE.

AND THERE IS ONLY, LIKE YOU WERE SUGGESTING, THERE IS ONLY SO MUCH THAT STATES CAN DO.

I THINK THEY CAN DO THINGS LIKE YOU ARE SUGGESTING ABOUT AFFORDABILITY ESPECIALLY AROUND HOUSING.

THE X FACTOR ABOUT IMMIGRATION, THAT'S SOMETHING THEY CAN CONTROL AS WELL.

SO YOU KNOW, A LOT OF POPULATION CHANGES ARE DUE NOT TO INTERNAL MIGRATION BUT TO IMMIGRATION AND SO TEXAS AND FLORIDA HAVE TYPICALLY GROWN THEIR POPULATIONS THROUGH IMMIGRATION.

AND THAT'S A WAY FOR BLUE STATES TO GROW THEIR POPULATION, RIGHT?

TO BE MORE WELCOMING TO IMMIGRANTS, TO ENCOURAGE IMMIGRATION.

THE OTHER BIG FACTOR HERE IS CLIMATE.

SO THIS IS LONG-TERM PERHAPS BUT WE ARE ALREADY SEEING CHANGES IN MIGRATION PATTERNS BACK TO THE NORTH BECAUSE OF CLIMATE.

EVEN THOUGH PEOPLE ARE STILL MOVING TO RISKY AREAS, AS THE COST OF INSURANCE FOR LIKE HURRICANES AND AGAINST FLOODS, DAMAGE GOES UP, WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO SEE I THINK IS PEOPLE REMIGRATING TO AREAS LIKE THIS.

SO I THINK THERE IS A FEW THINGS.

AND I GUESS I WOULD FINALLY SAY THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY, DEMOCRATS NEED TO GO WHERE THE PEOPLE ARE REGARDS THAN JUST TRYING TO KEEP THE PEOPLE IN THE BLUE STATES.

SO DEMOCRATS REALLY NEED TO GO TO THESE PLACES AND TRY TO CONVINCE VOTERS... >> TO COME BACK?

>> TO VOTE FOR THEM EVEN IN AREAS THAT MAYBE HAVE SEEMED LIKE INHOSPITABLE BEFORE.

>> YOU HAD A REACTION, CHAD?

>> IMMIGRATION IS A FEDERAL LEVEL POLICY AND THE BLUE STATES ARE THE SANCTUARY CITIES TRYING TO BE ATTRACTIVE TO IMMIGRANTS.

THAT AIN'T THE ANSWER BUT WHAT DO YOU REALLY WANT ME TO TALK ABOUT?

TAXES OR HOMELESSNESS?

I COULD GO EITHER.

>> EITHER ONE.

WHATEVER THE LORD LAYS ON YOUR HEART.

>> LET'S GO TO THE HOMELESSNESS.

WEST COAST CITIES HAVE BEEN TOO PERMISSIVE OF TENT IS CITIES, EFFECTIVELY ALLOWING PEOPLE TO BUILD ENCAMPMENTS WHEREVER THEY WANT TO.

SOME PEOPLE CALL IT LEFT COAST LIBERALISM WHERE YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT AND WE'LL PAY FOR IT.

CONTRAST THAT WITH HOUSTON, WHICH REDUCED HOMELESSNESS BY 63% OVER A DECADE.

IT DID SO THROUGH A HOUSING FIRST POLICY THAT REJECTED BUREAUCRACY IN FAVOR OF COORDINATED EFFORTS BETWEEN FEDERAL FUNDS, NON-PROFITS AND LOCAL AGENCIES TO MOVE 25,000 PEOPLE INTO PERMANENT HOUSING.

>> YOU KNOW, THE THING HERE IS THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE BROADER STATISTICS, RED STATES HAVE WORST OUTCOMES IN HEALTH, EDUCATION, GUN VIOLENCE, IT'S JUST COMMON FACT.

I THINK THERE IS A NUANCE TO THIS.

IT WILL BE A RED-BLUE MASH-UP.

MOST OF THE JOB GROWTH THAT HAS HAPPENED, YOU CAN TAKE TEXAS, FOR EXAMPLE, IS ONLY IN THE URBAN CENTERS, RIGHT?

YOU CAN ACTUALLY HAVE THAT STATE THAT IS CONTROLLED BY REPUBLICANS WITH THE LOCAL AREAS LIKE HUGHES AN, AUSTIN, ALL THESE PLACES ARE REALLY, REALLY BLUE AND THAT SHOWED A 71% INCREASE BECAUSE OF THE JOBS ARE ALREADY THERE.

I DON'T THINK IT'S A RED VERSUS BLUE.

IT WILL BE A RED-BLUE MASHUP AT THE STATE AND CITY LEVEL.

>> URBAN VERSUS RURAL.

IT'S TIME FOR OUR GRADE BOOKS.

STARTING WITH FS.

>> BRENDAN CARR WHO THREATENED TO REVOKE THE BROADCAST LICENSES OF AGENCIES THAT THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T LIKE THE IRAN COVERAGE.

HE SIMPLY ECHOED TRUMP'S FAKE NEWS COMPLAINT AND WARNED BROADCASTERS TO "CORRECT COURSE."

WHEN THE GOVERNMENT'S CHIEF BROADCAST REGULATOR TELLS JOURNALISTS TO CHANGE THEIR WAR COVERAGE OR LOSE THEIR LICENSE, THAT'S CENSORSHIP.

PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

>> MY F GOES TO WASHINGTON STATE FOR PASSING A 9.9% INCOME TAX ON PEOPLE WHO MAKE A MILLION DOLLARS.

TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS NOT A MARGINAL TAX RATE ON ALL INCOME ABOVE A MILLION.

IT IS A FLAT TAX ON ALL INCOME OF PEOPLE EARNING A MILLION OR MORE.

SO IF YOU EARN 999,,000 YOU PAY SOMETHING.

IF YOU EARN ONE MILLION AND ONE DOLLARS, YOU OWE 100 GRAND.

THAT'S ASANINE.

>> NO QUARTER NO MERCY FOR OUR ENEMIES WHICH LEGAL EXPERTS SAY VIOLENTS THE LAW OF WAR DELAWAREING THAT NO QUARTER WILL BE GIVEN OR THREATENING TO FIGHT ON THAT BASIS.

TREATING IT AS A WAR CRIME ON PAR WITH TARGETING FIGHTERS WHO ARE WOUNDED OR ATTEMPTING TO SURRENDER IS WRONG.

>> MY F GOES TO THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

THEY WANT TO CANCEL THE LEASES FOR TWO BIG WIND FARMS, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WOULD REIMBURSE THE COMPANY FOR THE BIDS THAT THEY HAD MADE AND TAXPAYERS WOULD BE PAYING A BILLION DOLLARS TO STOP THESE WIND FARMS.

THIS IS AN ASANINE PROPOSAL AT ANY TIME AND PARTICULARLY NOW WHEN WE ARE SEEING THE PRICE OF GAS AND OIL SKYROCKET.

>> TWO ASANINE POLICIES IN ONE NIGHT.

STARTING AS NOW.

>> REPUBLICAN TIM SCOTT AND DEMOCRAT ELIZABETH WARREN WHO PUSHED THE MOST SIGNIFICANT HOUSING BILL IN DECADES BY A VOIGHT OF 89-10 CUTTING RED TAPE THAT MAKES BUILDING TOO EXPENSIVE AND BAN LARGE INVESTORS FROM BUYING UP THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES THAT ORDINARY FAMILIES NEED.

IT NEEDS TO PASS THE HOUSE BUT IN A WEEK WHEN WASHINGTON WAS AT ITS WORST, TWO SENATORS WHO AGREE ON ALMOST NOTHING SAID LET'S FIX WHAT IS KEEPING AMERICANS UP AT NIGHT.

>> I WANT TO SPEAK TO GEN-X FOR A MOMENT AND TELL YOU THAT JENNY NO LONGER ANSWERS THE PHONE THE AT 867 HF 5309.

THE NUMBER OF A NEW CANCER SUPPORT LINE.

AFTER SEEING THE EMOTIONAL TOLL CANCER TOOK ON SOME OF HIS FRIENDS, THE LEAD SINGER OF TOMMY TWO TONE SUPPORTED THE NUMBER THAT HIS BRAND MADE FAMOUS IN 1981 INTO A NUMBER IMPACTED BY THE DISEASE.

>> MY A GOES TO THE SENATE FOR PASSING THE LARGEST HOUSING BILL IN DECADES.

VERY SIGNIFICANT THING THE HOUSE HAS PASSED IT.

LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS IN THE CONFERENCE.

>> TRUMP HAS SIGNALED HE IS PROBABLY GOING TO SIGN IT.

>> HE IS NOT GOING TO SIGN BEFORE THE SAVE ACT.

>> MY A GOES TO THE MANLIUS CINEMA IN THE VILLAGE OF MANLIUS.

THIS HISTORIC MOVIE HOUSE HAS BEEN IN OPERATION FOR OVER 100 YEARS AND IS STILL GOING STRONG.

AFTER IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS PARTNERED WITH THE ONONDAGA HISTORICAL SOCIETY TO SHOW SOME DOCUMENTARIES CALLED STRIDES TOWARDS DEMOCRACY.

THIS LOCALLY OWNED CINEMA IS A REAL GEM IN OUR COMMUNITY AND I ENCOURAGE OUR VIEWERS TO CHECK IT OUT IF YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO ALREADY.

>> WE HAVE JUST A LITTLE BIT OF TIME LEFT.

SO TRUMP HAS SAID THAT HE DOESN'T WANT BILLIONAIRE INVESTORS BUILDING HOUSING, RIGHT?

SPECULATING.

SO DO YOU THINK THAT IS A WORTHY CAUSE THERE?

YOU DOUBT HE IS ACTUALLY GOING TO FOLLOW THROUGH.

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS?

>> LARGE PRIVATE EQUITY STARTS BUYING UP SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES THAT'S AN ISSUE BUT I DON'T THINK IT WILL SIGNIFICANTLY BRING DOWN HOUSE PRICES UNTIL WE INCREASE THE HOUSING STOCK.

>> WELL, THAT'S ALL WE HAVE FOR YOU TONIGHT BEFORE WE GO, I WANNA GIVE A SHOUT OUT TO JAMES, WHO WANTED TO HEAR MORE LAST WEEK ON THE CIVIC CONSEQUENCES OF ELIMINATING TAXES FOR HALF THE COUNTRY, AND LAGRACE WROTE TO COMMEND ANIRBAN'S CONTRIBUTIONS.

THANK YOU JAMES AND LAGRACE, WE'D LOVE TO HEAR WHAT THE REST OF YOU THINK.

PLEASE WRITE TO THE ADDRESS ON YOUR SCREEN.

IF YOU WANT TO WATCH THE SHOW AGAIN OR SHARE IT WITH SOMEONE ELSE, GO TO WCNY.ORG.

I'M NINA MOORE, FOR ALL OF US HERE AT "IVORY TOWER", HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪