>> GUN SAFETY... WORKERS' RIGHTS AND THE FIRST STEPS OF HOUSE REPUBLICANS COMING UP NEXT ON IVORY TOWER.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ WELCOME TO IVORY TOWER.

I'M BARBARA FOUGHT FROM SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY.

JOINING ME TONIGHT ON THE PANEL ARE: RICK FENNER, FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY ANIRBAN ACHARYA, FROM LEMOYNE COLLEGE CHAD SPARBER, FROM COLGATE, AND BEN BAUGHMAN, FROM GANNON UNIVERSITY.

PANEL, LET'S START WITH A WORKPLACE ISSUE.

I WAS SURPRISED TO LEARN THAT ABOUT 20% OF WORKERS ARE SUBJECT TO A NON-COMPETE CLAUSE IN THEIR CONTRACTS.

THAT MEANS THAT THEY CAN'T GO TO WORK FOR A COMPETITOR WITHIN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME.

THE REASON?

SO THEY DON'T TAKE BUSINESS STRATEGY OR PLANS TO THE COMPETITOR.

THE HEAD OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION WANTS TO DO AWAY WITH SUCH RESTRICTIONS.

AND I'M WONDERING, RICK, WHAT WOULD BE THE IMPACT OF THAT?

>> WELL, FIRST, TO PLEA ME, I BELIEVE THAT NON-COMPETE AGREEMENTS ARE BASICALLY THERE TO INSULATE BUSINESSES FROM COMPETITION AND TO KEEP WAGES DOWN.

THEY RESTRICT WORKER MOBILITY.

THEY KEEP ENTREPRENEURS FROM GOING OUT AND STARTING THEIR OWN BUSINESSES.

NOW THEY'RE USUALLY TWO ARGUMENTS MADE TO SUPPORT THESE NON-COJ PETES.

THE FIRST IS, AS YOU SAID, THERE ARE TRADE SECRETS THAT ARE GOING TO BE TAKEN.

WELL, NON-DISCLOSURE CLAUSES ARE STILL ALLOWED TO BE SIGNED BY WORKERS, SO THINKING A WORKER FROM COKE IS GOING TO TAKE THE SECRET OVER TO PEPSI ISN'T PROTECTED BY NECESSARILY THE NON-COMPETE.

THE SECOND IS THAT COMPANIES NEED TO RECOUP THEIR INVESTMENTS.

IF THAT'S THE CASE, THERE ARE MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE WAYS THAN NON-COMPETE CLAUSES TO DO THAT.

IF YOU THINK IT'S GOING TO TAKE FIVE YEARS TO RECOUP YOUR INVESTMENT, THEN SIGN THE EMPLOYEE TO A FIVE YEAR CONTRACT WHERE BOTH THE EMPLOYEE AND THE EMPLOYER ARE OBLIGATED TO STAY TOGETHER.

TO BE PAID AND STAY WITH THE COMPANY.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, FOR McDONALD'S TO RESTRICT AN 18-YEAR-OLD FROM GOING TO WORK TO BURGER KING IS JUST AN ATTEMPT TO KEEP DOWN WAGES.

IT'S NOT NECESSARY FOR THE EFFECTIVE WORKING OF THE COMPANY.

>> I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU, RICK, NON-COMPETE CLAUSES HISTORICALLY HAVE BEEN SHOWN IT DEPRESSES WAGES AND MAINLY, IF YOU REMOVE THE NON-COMPETE CLAUSE, THE WAGES INCREASE.

THE ANECDOTAL MATERIAL THAT YOU SAID THIS PERSON WORKED FOR BELL LABS FOR 20 YEARS, LEFT BELL LABS, WORKED FOR A STARTER FOR 20 MONTHS AND COULDN'T WORK IN THE INDUSTRY.

THAT'S HORRIFYING.

THERE IS NEW LITERATURE COMING OUT OF THE PRINCIPLE AGENT MODEL AND THERE IS ONE PAPER THAT CAME OUT THAT CLEARLY STATES THAT BASED ON INCENTIVE, AN EMPLOYER MAY NOT WANT TO IMPOSE SUCH A NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT.

SO IN OTHER WORDS, THERE IS AN OPTIMAL WAY TO DO THIS, TO WRITE A CERTAIN KIND OF CONTRACT WITHOUT ACTUALLY SHUTTING OUT THE EMPLOYEE FROM THE BROADER MARKET.

AND YOU ARE RIGHT, NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS STILL APPLY.

SO DOES NO BUSINESS AGREEMENTS.

WHERE YOU CANNOT LIKE, YOU KNOW, POACH OR WORK WITH PREVIOUS CUSTOMERS OF THAT COMPANY OR RECRUIT THEM TO YOUR OWN BUSINESS.

SO I DO THINK GETTING RID OF NON-COMPETE IS A GOOD THING.

>> CHAD, I'M THINKING THAT COMPANIES INVEST A LOT OF MONEY, IN MY PARTICULAR INDUSTRY, TV STATIONS INVEST A LOT OF MONEY IN PROMOTING CERTAIN ANCHORS, RIGHT?

AND SHOULDN'T THEY BE ABLE TO RECOUP THAT INVESTMENT?

>> YEAH, YOU ARE TAKING THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE STANCE HERE, I THINK.

I THINK THERE IS A PARALLEL BETWEEN THIS POLICY AND WHAT PATENTS DO, RIGHT?

PATENTS GIVE PEOPLE A MONOPOLY ON THEIR INVENTION.

MONOPOLIES ARE BAD BUT AT THE SAME TIME THEY ENCOURAGE INNOVATION AND INVESTMENT SO WE LOOK THE OTHER WAY.

YEAH, IT'S GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY.

LET'S SUPPORT THEM.

THAT'S THE KIND OF LINE THAT THE PRO-NON-COMPETE PEOPLE ARE USING.

BUT, YOU KNOW, AS RICK ALLUDED TO, 15% OF WORKERS WITHOUT A COLLEGE DEGREE WORK UNDER A NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT.

THE ECONOMISTS HAD A FUN ANECDOTE ABOUT JIMMY JOHNS THAT UNTIL 2016, A SANDWICH MAKER THERE WERE NOT ALLOWED TO WORK FOR A COMPETITOR.

YOU CAN'T TELL ME THAT'S ABOUT INNOVATION.

NOW, IN TERMS OF THE DATA, YOU DO FIND THAT IN STATES THAT HAVE BANNED THESE NON-COMPETE CLAUSES, FIRMS INVEST LESS IN EQUIPMENT AND TRAINING.

THAT DOES HAPPEN.

BUT YOU ALSO GET MORE START-UPS AND THE START-UPS ARE ALL ABOUT, YOU KNOW, INNOVATION AND YOU DO GET, AS YOU SAID, 4% WAGE INCREASES AND SO I DON'T KNOW; WHAT I THINK YOU COULD SELECTIVELY DO THIS, RIGHT?

YOU MAYBE PROHIBIT NON-COMPETE CLAUSES, PUT THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE EMPLOYER AND SAY YOU HAVE TO MEET SOME KIND OF BAR TO, YOU KNOW, IMPOSE ONE OF THESE.

>> NON-COMPETES ARE ILLEGAL IN SILICON VALLEY.

>> THEY ARE.

>> DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE HURT THE HIGH TECH INDUSTRY TOO MUCH.

>> THEY ARGUE THAT SHIFTED SOME OF THE ACTIVITY AWAY FROM CALIFORNIA TO TEXAS.

>> AND I THINK WHAT CHAD JUST SAID POINTS TO HOW IT MAY IMPACT BUSINESSES, WHICH ULTIMATELY IMPACTS CUSTOMERS AND US.

SO I LIKE IT THAT, HEY, WAGES ARE GOING TO GET HIGHER, BUT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE SALES PERSON THAT ANIRBAN MENTIONED ABOUT WALKING OUT WITH AN OLD ROLODEX LIKE WE HAD BACK IF THE DAY OF PEOPLE THEY WORKED WITH.

AREAS OF SALES WHERE YOU ARE CONSTANTLY NETWORKING WITH PEOPLE AND YOU HAVE TIES WITH THEM AND THEN YOU MOVE TO ANOTHER BUSINESS, THAT IS SIMILAR TO THAT, IT IS A TRICKY THING.

BUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT IS THAT WE ARE BECOMING MORE OF A REMOTE SOCIETY.

SO BEING ABLE TO MOVE WHERE YOU WOULD LIKE TO MOVE, AND IF THAT COMPANY IS NOT THERE, IS IT REALLY COMPETING?

SO THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS AND NON-DISCLOSURE COMPONENT THAT IS GOING TO BE PRESENT IN MOST CONTRACTS ANYWAY.

>> DO YOU ALL SEE THAT THE FTC IS KIND OF ANTIBUSINESS OR IS THAT ITS ROLE TO PROTECT WORKERS?

>> CERTAINLY THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE HAS ARGUED THAT THE FTC DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THIS.

SO I THINK THERE IS GOING TO BE A LOT HAPPENING THERE ON THE LEGAL SIDE THAT I FRANKLY DON'T UNDERSTAND.

BUT I'M INTERESTED IN, IF YOU DON'T DO AN ALL OR NOTHING PROHIBITION AGAINST THESE CLAUSES, WHAT CAN YOU DO?

ONE THING IS JUST MAKE IT MORE APPARENT THAT A PERSON SIGNING A NON-COMPETE, THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT PEOPLE WHO KNOW THAT WHEN THEY'RE SIGNING A NON-COMPETE WHEN THEY'RE HIRED, THEY NEGOTIATE FOR HIGHER WAGES.

DO ANY OF US KNOW IF WE HAD A NON-COMPETE WHEN WE JOINED OUR JOB.

I DIDN'T READ MY FACULTY HANDBOOK.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS IN THERE WHEN I SIGNED UP BEING MORE TRANSPARENT.

>> LIKE A CONTRACT YOU HAVE TO SIGN WHEN YOU DOWNLOAD AN APP.

WHO IS READING THAT?

>> IT IS HARD TO SAY TO AN 18-YEAR-OLD, EVEN IF THEY READ IT IS GOING TO GO TO THE SHIFT SUPERVISOR AND SAY I'M NOT WILLING TO WORK UNDER THESE SETS OF CIRCUMSTANCES.

>> AND ONE THICK I WILL SAY IN ITS FAVOR, UNLIKE OTHER PROLABOR GROUP THINGS LIKE UNIONS OR MINIMUM WAGE OR WHATEVER, THIS IS ABOUT INCREASING COMPETITION IN THE WORKPLACE AND SO LIKE THIS IS THE KIND OF LABOR POLICY THAT I KIND OF LIKE.

>> WELL, THE INCIDENT OF A SIX-YEAR-OLD IN VIRGINIA SHOOTING HIS TEACHER AT SCHOOL BROUGHT UP MORE CONVERSATION THIS WEEK ABOUT GUN SAFETY.

I WAS INTRIGUED ABOUT SOME NEW PROGRAMS STARTED IN SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA.

THE CITY REQUIRES GUN OWNERS TO CARRY LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR THE NEGLIGENT OR RECKLESS USE OF A FIREARM.

AND IT MAKES GUN OWNERS ALSO PAY AN ANNUAL FEE OF ABOUT $25 - WITH THE MONEY GOING TO VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAMS.

IT'S-- BEN, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THESE POLICIES FROM A LAW ENFORCEMENT VIEWPOINT?

>> IT'S A POLITICAL POLICY IS WHAT IT IS.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT IT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN IT SOUNDS GOOD.

BUT THE REALITY IS, OUT OF THE 23 MOST RICH COUNTRIES, US BEING ONE OF THEM, WE COUNT FOR 80% OF GUN-RELATED DEATHS.

IT'S A REAL ISSUE AND FEEDS TO BE DEALT WITH IN A REAL WAY.

IT'S A MULTIFACTOR ISSUE.

SO WERE VENGSES THAT ARE AIMED AT REDUCING GUN VIOLENCE, NEEDS TO BE LOOKING AT RISK FACTORS.

AND THAT'S WHERE THE COMMON FACTORS, SO THAT'S WHERE IT'S AT.

YOU HAVE A BUNCH WHEN YOU PAIR THEM TOGETHER AND RED FLAGS GO UP AND YOU USE THAT APPROACH, YOU CAN BE MORE EFFECTIVE IN IMPACTING AND REDUCING GUN VIOLENCE.

>> IS IT CLEAR WHAT REALLY DOES WORK IN GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION?

>> YES.

WE KNOW THINGS LIKE IF WE PUT TAXES ACTUALLY ON ALCOHOL, SUBSTANCES, THAT ACTUALLY IMPACTS VIOLENT CRIME OVERALL AND CAN IMPACT GUN VIOLENCE.

IF YOU LOOK AT STRICTER GUN LAWS AND THE FACT OF WHO CAN HAVE THEM, THAT CAN IMPACT IT BUT IT HAS MIXED REVIEWS ACROSS DIFFERENT STATES.

>> THIS IS AN UNENFORCEABLE LAW AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

THE ONLY WAY IT'S GOING TO WORK IS IF PEOPLE AGREE TO REGISTER THEIR GUNS AND WE KNOW PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.

SO TO TELL PEOPLE THAT THEY HAVE TO GET INSURANCE OR THAT THEY HAVE TO NOTIFY THE GOVERNMENT THAT THEY HAVE A GUN, AND THEN PAY THIS $25, IS NOT GOING TO BE EFFECTIVE.

AS BEN SAID, THIS SOUNDS GOOD BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S VERY PRACTICAL.

THE MAYOR ALSO SAID THAT HE THOUGHT THAT MOST EXISTING HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE ALREADY COVERED THIS.

I CAN'T SEE THAT THAT THAT IS TRUE BECAUSE IF IT WAS, WE WOULD HAVE HEARD ABOUT CLAIMS BEING FILED UNDER THIS AND WE CERTAINLY HAVEN'T.

I THINK BEN HAS MENTIONED SOME THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO BE MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE.

>> AND IT DOESN'T COVER CRIMINAL NEGLECT.

>> I HAVE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT TAKE ON.

THIS ONE THING THAT IS CLEAR FROM THE DATA THAT STATES THAT HAVE MORE LAX GUN LAWS HAVE HIGHER GUN DEATHS.

THAT'S CORRELATION, OF COURSE.

I DON'T SEE WHY NOT; FOR EXAMPLE, THIS IS NOT VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE DO WITH CARS.

AND HAVING INSURANCE ON CARS, HAVING REGISTRATION AND SO ON, HAD HISTORICALLY MADE ROADS MUCH MORE SAFER.

NOW YES, HOW DO I ENFORCE IT?

IT WOULD BE ENFORCED OVER TIME.

NOW IF THERE IS AN INCIDENT AND SOMEONE IS FOUND WITHOUT AN INSURANCE, THEN THEY CAN BE PROSECUTED ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME WAY AS LIABILITY AND TORT WORKS IN TERMS OF CAR-RELATED DEATHS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO I DO THINK IT'S A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION IN THE WONDERFUL TRADITION OF AMERICAN FEDERALISM OF WHAT HAPPENS TO PROVIDE THIS INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY OWN A CERTAIN KIND OF INSURANCE THAT FREES THEM, RIGHT, FROM LIABILITY, WHEN, YOU KNOW, THIS IS ACTUALLY A PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE.

AND THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT PUTTING AN UNDUE BURDEN SO THAT YOU CAN'T OWN A GUN.

IT'S JUST REGULATING THE GUN.

>> I THINK I MIGHT ACTUALLY AGREE WITH YOU.

>> OH MY GOD.

>> I THINK THIS IS A STEP TOWARD LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOU USED THE WORD RISK.

IT'S A STEP TOWARD PEOPLE HAVING TO PAY FOR THE INHERENT RICK OF OWNING A GUN AND IT'S RELATED TO AN IDEA I KICKED AROUND FOR A WHILE BUT NEVER BETA TEST SO IT COULD BE TERRIBLE.

THERE IS SOMETHING ABOUT REQUIRING GUN OWNERS TO JOIN A CLUB INTOrd TO PURCHASE A FIREARM, AND IF THAT FIREARM IS USED IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME, THEN THE WHOLE CLUB COULD BE HELD FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT.

AND WHAT THAT WOULD DO IS CREATE A SYSTEM WHERE A COMMUNITY POLICING WHERE THE CLUB ITSELF IS VETTING PEOPLE FOR MEMBERSHIP AND CHECKING IN AND MAKING SURE PEOPLE ARE TAKING SAFE STEPS LIKE STORING THE GUN IN A LOCKED PLACE, PUTTING ON A TRIGGER LOCK.

IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK IF SOMEBODY... YOU KNOW, IS CARELESS.

BUT BEING A MEMBER OF A GROUP THAT CAN ENFORCE SOCIAL NORMS WITHOUT THE GOVERNMENT BEING INVOLVED, I MEAN THAT MIGHT BE A WAY TO DO IT AND APPEAL TO LIBERTARIANS.

>> HOW IS THE GOVERNMENT NOT INVOLVED?

ANIRBAN BROUGHT UP CARS.

THE WHOLE THING WITH CARS, IT STARTS WITH THE REGISTRATION OF A VEHICLE.

THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO ENFORCE THIS.

AND HOW SUCCESSFUL HAVE GUN REGISTRATION LAWS... >> WHEN I SAY THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT INVOLVED, WHAT I MEAN IS THEY'RE NOT THE ONES DOING THE MONITORING, THE VETTING, THE CHECKING IN, WHATEVER.

IT'S JUST REQUIRING THAT A PERSON BELONGS TO THIS CLUB OR WHATEVER AND IT'S THE CLUB ITSELF THAT'S ENFORCING THE NORMS AND THEY'RE HELD FINANCIALLY LIABLE FOR ANY KIND OF VIOLENCE THAT'S COMMITTED WITH THE WEAPONS.

>> BUT A LOT OF IT-- WE CAN SPEAK ANECDOTALLY FOR SOME OF THESE IDEAS THAT SOUND NICE, BUT THE REALITY IS THAT MOST OF THESE ARE HAPPENING BY VIOLENT-- BY PEOPLE THAT HAVE SHOWN VIOLENT BEHAVIOR IN THE PAST.

AND EITHER ARE CURRENTLY USING SUBSTANCES, USUAL ILLICIT BUT ALSO ALCOHOL, OR ARE CURRENTLY USING THAT.

WE NEED TO LOOK AT REAL RISK FACTORS INSTEAD OF GUESSING AT WHAT A NEAT EASY FIX WOULD BE.

>> SO THOSE REAL FACTORS BASICALLY, WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY WOULD BE PAID FOR BY SOME KIND OF AN INSURANCE, RIGHT?

THOSE ANTIALCOHOL, ANTI-TEEN VIOLENCE KIND OF PROGRAMS.

>> THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE PAYING TAXES THAT ARE NOT COMMITTING THE CRIMES WITH THE GUNS ARE HAVING TO SUFFER FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE USING GHOST GUNS THAT ARE MADE.

YOU CAN USE A 3D PRINTER TO MAKE IT, FOR GOD'S SAKES NOW.

IT'S HIGHLY IMPORTANT THAT WE ARE ADDRESSING THE ACTUAL ISSUES THAT LEAD TO IT.

>> THE CONTEXT FOR THIS ONE IS AGAIN THE SIX-YEAR-OLD WHO IS SHOT.

THAT'S NOT A SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEM.

THAT'S A CARELESSNESS OF THE PARENTS AND THE OWNERS PROBLEMS.

HOW DO YOU FORCE SOME OWNERS TO BE MORE CAREFUL?

AT THAT'S WHERE MY IDEAS COME FROM.

>> YOU THINK INSURANCE WOULD HAVE KEPT THE PERSON FROM LEAVING A LOADED GUN AROUND?

>> LIKE THE MICROFINANCE MODEL AND APPLYING IT TO GUN OWNERSHIP.

COMMUNITY ENFORCEMENT OF PROPER BEHAVIOR TO AVOID RISK.

>> ALL RIGHT.

WE NEED TO TURN TO OUR THIRD TOPIC.

LET'S GO TO WASHINGTON.

WE FINALLY HAVE A SPEAKER IN THE HOUSE AND THE REPUBLICANS MADE SOME NEW RULES AND PASSED THEIR FIRST BILL, CUTTING FUNDING FOR THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE.

HOW DO YOU ASSESS THE WAY THE REPUBLICANS HAVE GOTTEN STARTED?

>> WELL, LET'S START WITH THE I.R.S.

PIECE FIRST BECAUSE SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY TRACK CENTER RELEASED A GOOD REPORT ON I.R.S.

BEHAVIOR AND ONE OF THE THINGS THEY REPORTED IS THAT WORKERS EARNING $25,000 A YEAR OR LESS HAVE A 1.3% CHANCE OF BEING AUDITED WHICH IS FIVE TIMES HIGHER THAN OTHER GROUPS.

HALF OF ALL AUDITS BY MAIL ARE CONDUCTED OR TARGETED ON THESE POOR WORKERS.

THE REASON BEING IS BECAUSE IT'S REALLY SIMPLE TO DO.

IT TAKES A LOT OF MONEY AND RESOURCES TO AUDIT MILLIONAIRES.

IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR A COMPROMISE OF SORTS ON THIS ISSUE, LET'S NOTE THAT THE TAX CUT AND JOBS ACT OF 2017 GREATLY SIMPLIFIED THE TAX CODE FOR MOST AMERICANS SO IT'S POSSIBLE THAT WHAT WE COULD DO IS SHIFT RESOURCES AUDIT IT RESOURCES AWAY FROM TARGETING POOR AND MIDDLE-CLASS WORKERS AND TOWARDS MILLIONAIRES THAT APPEAL TO THE MEDIAN VOTERS.

>> ARE THE REPUBLICANS RIGHT TO PULL BACK VOTING?

>> IT'S NOT GOING TO GO ANYWHERE.

IT'S MOSTLY PERFORMATIVE.

>> BECAUSE THE SENATE WOULD NEVER PASS THIS?

>> LET'S START WITH A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I THINK ARE PRETTY IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT.

FIRST, REPUBLICANS RAIL AT THE SIZE OF THE DEFICIT AND THE DEBT.

SECOND, THEY SAY THEY'RE NOT GOING TO RAISE TAXES.

AND THEY CLAIM TO BE THE PARTY OF LAW AND ORDER.

AT THE SAME TIME, WE KNOW THAT THE TAX GAP, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT IS OWED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND WHAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY PAY IS ABOUT $300 TO $400 BILLION A YEAR AS PEOPLE DO NOT REPORT ALL OF THEIR INCOME.

SO YOU WOULD THINK THAT REPUBLICANS WOULD BE ON BOARD WITH FUNDING THE POLICE, THE FINANCIAL POLICE, SO THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO RAISE TAXES, THIS HAS BEEN SHOWN TO REDUCE THE DEFICIT, SOME, OVER TIME, BUT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ON BOARD AND I CAN ONLY COME TO TWO RATIONALES.

1: THEY WANT TO MAKE IT AS EASY AS POSSIBLE FOR THE WEALTHY TO AVOID PAYING LEGAL TAXES AND SECOND, GO BACK TO WHAT THE TERM THAT THEY USED, STARVE THE BEAST.

THEY WANT TO SEE THE GOVERNMENT COLLECT AS LITTLE MONEY AS POSSIBLE, EVEN IF IT LEADS TO, AS CHAD MENTIONED ON LAST WEEK'S SHOW, YOU KNOW, DEFAULTING ON THE DEBT OR NOT PAYING ALL OF OUR PENSIONERS ON SOCIAL SECURITY.

SO I THINK THIS IS UNJUSTIFIABLE IN TERMS OF THE REPUBLICANS, BUT NOT SURPRISING.

>> ANIRBAN, WHAT ELSE ABOUT THE REPUBLICANS BESIDE I.R.S.?

>> I JUST WANT TO QUICKLY SAY DEFUND THE I.R.S., I AGREE WITH YOUR FIRST POINT.

IT'S POLITICALLY RATIONALE.

IT MAKES SENSE THEY DON'T WANT THEIR OWN DONORS TO BE AUDITED.

IT'S POLITICAL RATIONAL THEORY KIND OF STUFF BUT I SEE SOME HOPE HERE, RIGHT?

SO THERE IS THIS IDEA CALLED THE DISCHARGE PETITION WHICH WAS FAMOUSLY USED BY LYNDON JOHNSON, LAST YEAR BY A.O.C.

WITH STOCK TRADING.

IT TAKES A BILL OUT OF THE COMMITTEE, DISCHARGES THE COMMITTEE FROM CONSIDERING THE BILL AND PUTS FOR A DIRECT VOTE ON THE FLOOR WITHOUT THE SPEAKER EVEN, WITHOUT THE POWER OF THE SPEAKER.

SO I SEE THAT WITH THAT TOOL, ALTHOUGH IT IS A LONG, DRAWN OUT PROCESS, I'M SKEPTICAL ABOUT IT BUT SLIGHTLY HOPEFUL SOME REPUBLICANS AND SOME DEMOCRATS CAN COME TOGETHER, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO DEBT CEILING, WHERE, YOU KNOW, CATASTROPHIC DEFAULT OF THE UNITED STATES, WHERE THEY CAN PUSH THROUGH THE DISCHARGE PETITION AND THEY CAN PUT IT AS A VOTE AND PASS THAT BILL.

YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THAT WILL BE ALSO SET FOR CLIMATE CHANGE OR MAYBE EVEN FOR POLICE REFORMS OR, YOU KNOW, OTHER KINDS OF REPUBLICAN, YOU KNOW, PROJECTS THE DEMOCRATS CAN ALSO KIND OF JOIN LIKE, YOU KNOW, IN A BIPARTISAN WAY.

WHETHER IT WILL HAPPEN OR NOT, I DON'T KNOW BUT THAT IS A ROUTE BY WHICH WE CAN SUBVERT KIND OF THE EXTREME ENDS OF THE PARTIES.

>> BEN, HOW ABOUT THE REPUBLICANS FIRST STARTS, HOW DO YOU ASSESS THAT?

>> I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE ROUGH BECAUSE RIGHT NOW I THINK OUR CONGRESS IS THE WEAKEST OF THE THREE LEGS.

THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SEEING.

YOU HAVE THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE THAT FOR THE LAST DECADE OR TWO DECADES HAS HAD WAY TOO MUCH POWER, AND JUST NOT DOING THE JOB.

THEY'RE NOT REALLY GETTING WORK DONE.

YOU HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE GETTING IN THE WAY OF THINGS GETTING DONE THAT ARE THE ONES THAT ARE GETTING ELECTED BECAUSE THEY'RE GETTING MORE FINANCING FROM PEOPLE THAT WANT TO PUSH THAT KIND OF AGENDA.

SO ULTIMATELY, I THINK THE REPUBLICANS HAVE A TOUGH ROAD.

IT'S JUST NOT WORKING CURRENTLY LIKE IT USED TO.

IN OTHER WORDS, PEOPLE USED TO LIVE IN WASHINGTON THAT WERE PART OF CONGRESS, AND THEY WOULD GO TO THEIR-- THEIR KIDS WOULD GO TO SCHOOL TOGETHER.

COMMON GROUND THAT THEY WOULD SIT DOWN AND HAVE HUMAN CONVERSATIONS RATHER BE JUST DIVISION.

>> I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO IS THIS NEW SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BECAUSE THAT COULD HAVE TEETH.

WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO IS SEARCHING FOR EVIDENCE THAT FEDERAL WORKERS HAVE BEEN POLITICIZED.

THE FIRST ACTIONS WILL BE TO EXPLORE WHETHER REPUBLICANS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE TARGETED BY I.R.S.

INVESTIGATIONS, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND SO FORTH.

I WOULDN'T BE THE FIRST PERSON TO CALL THIS McCARTHYISM PART 2.

BUT IT'S EASY TO IMAGINE HOW THAT MIGHT EVEN AFFECT OUR INDUSTRY, WHICH, YOU KNOW, WE TAKE A LOT OF MONEY FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK VERY FAR TO FIND INSTITUTIONS AND POLICIES THAT ARE UNFRIENDLY TO CONSERVATIVE THOUGHT AND SO WE ARE GOING TO BE FACING MORE SCRUTINY.

>> I WANTED TO RAISE AN ISSUE ANIRBAN BROUGHT UP.

CAN YOU NAME EIGHT REPUBLICANS YOU THINK WOULD BE WILLING TO CROSS OVER RIGHT NOW?

RIGHT NOW EVERY VOTE HAS BEEN ON PARTY LINES.

THE SO CALLED MODERATES, OF WHICH THERE ARE FEWER AND FEWER, DID NOT STEP UP AND TRY TO DO MUCH TO SQUELCH WHAT THE RENEGADES ON THE FAR RIGHT HAVE DONE.

>> I SUBSCRIBE TO YOUR SCEPTICISM THERE.

BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT IF WE ARE STARING DOWN A MASSIVE DEFAULT OF THE UNITED STATES AND REPUBLICANS REALLY DIDN'T SEE THE BIG RED WAVE CRASHING ANYWHERE, SOME REPUBLICANS MIGHT FEEL THAT, YOU KNOW, IT MIGHT BE IN THEIR BEST INTEREST TO KIND OF CROSS THE LINES.

BUT I'M SKEPTICAL LIKE YOU ARE.

>> AND IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT THE REPUBLICANS DO RELATED TO ALL THESE NEW-- NOT ALL BUT SOME NEW DOCUMENTS FOUND IN BIDEN'S OFFICES.

TIME TO OPEN UP THE GRADEBOOK.

As AND EVERYs.

RICK YOUR F. >> TO A NEW STATE LAW THAT GIVES LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THE OPTION TO PROVIDE PROPERTY TAX CREDIT UP TO 10% TO VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS AND AMBULANCE WORKERS.

WHILE WELL INTENTIONED, THE DESIGN OF THIS PROGRAM IS HORRIBLE.

VOLUNTEERS THAT LIVE IN AN APARTMENT WOULD GET NO BENEFITS.

SOMEBODY LIVING IN A MODEST SIZE HOUSE A SMALL BENEFIT.

SOMEBODY LIVING IN A MANSION WOULD GET A BIGGEST BENEFIT.

THIS GIVES THE BIGGEST BENEFITS TO WEALTHY VOLUNTEERS WITH LITTLE TO NOTHING TO POOR VOLUNTEERS.

>> MY F GOES TO ELON MUSK.

LAST THANKSGIVING HE ANNOUNCED VIA TWITTER, A MASSIVE ROLLOUT, HOURS AFTER THE ANNOUNCEMENT, IT CAUSED AN EIGHT-VEHICLE CRASH INJURING NINE PEOPLE INCLUDING A TWO TWO-YEAR-OLD CHILD.

TESLA ACCOUNTED FOR MORE THAN 70% OF 379 CRASHES BASED ON DRIVER ASSISTANCE AND THEY INVEST INVESTIGATED 35 CRASHES HAVE KILLED 1 PEOPLE.

HERE IS A SLOGAN FOR TESLA.

TESLA, AUTOPILOT TO YOUR AFTER LIFE.

>> MY F GOES TO THE INCREASINGLY APPARENT PROTECTIONIST PROVISIONS IN LAST YEAR'S INFLATION REDUCTION ACT.

SOME SUBSIDIES FOR DOMESTIC MANUFACTURER OF SEMICONDUCTORS CAN BE JUSTIFIED ON NATIONAL SECURITY GROUNDS BUT OTHERS LIKE ELECTRIC VEHICLES TO GET TAX CREDITS DISRUPT THE INTERNATIONAL TRADING SYSTEM, REDUCE GLOBAL WELFARE AND FRACTURE OUR ALLIANCES.

THAT PROPAGANDA CARTOON YOU SEE ON YOUR SCREEN COMES FROM THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY HOPING THAT THESE THINGS ARE GOING TO DIVIDE THE WEST.

>> AND BEN?

>> YEAH, MY F IS GOING TO BIDEN'S MALARKEY MISTAKE, THE POSSESSION OF A DOZEN DOCUMENTS THAT WERE SOME OF THEM BEING MARKED TOP SECRET.

THIS HIGHLIGHTS, ALONG WITH TRUMP'S RECENT THINGS THAT WE HAVE BEEN SEEING IN THE NEWS, PROCEDURAL WEAKNESSES THAT ARE IN PLACE WHENEVER A PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT IS LEAVING OFFICE.

>> AND LET'S SEE WHO HAS DONE SOMETHING WELL, RICK, YOUR A.

>> I'M GOING OUT ON A LIMB A MINUS TO THE LATEST INFLATION NUMBERS REPORTED FOR THE PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS INFLATION FELL FROM 7.1 TO 6.5%.

THAT'S STILL HIGH BUT AS THE GRAPH SHOWS, MOST OF THAT 6.5% WAS DUE TO HIGH RATES OVER THE SUMMER.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAST SIX MONTHS, INFLATION HAS GONE UP BY ONLY 1%.

SUSTAIN THAT FOR A FULL YEAR AND WE WOULD BE AT THE 2% RATE THAT THE FEDERAL RESERVE IS TRYING TO TARGET.

WE ARE NOT THERE YET.

THE DATA SUGGEST WE MAY NOT BE AS FAR AS WE THINK.

>> ANIRBAN.

>> MY A TO SYRACUSE'S FIRST FULL TRUCK AND BEER HALL, RENOVATED WAREHOUSE ON ERIE BOULEVARD AT THE INTERSECTION OF WALNUT AVENUE.

ENJOY SOME GOOD FOOD AND BEER.

>> CHAD YOUR A.

>> TO THE BIPARTISAN GROUP OF EIGHT SENATORS WHO RECENTLY TRAVELED TO TEXAS AND ARIZONA TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE CRISIS AT THE BORDER.

THEY VOWED TO FORM A COALITION THAT WILL DEVELOP A PLAN FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM.

THAT LEAVES ME HOPEFUL BUT NOT OPTIMISTIC.

>> BEN, HOW ABOUT YOU?

>> MY A GOES TO BIDEN'S LAWYERS WHO ACTUALLY TURNED OVER THE DOCUMENTS WITHOUT HAVING TO BE RAIDED.

BY THE FBI AND UNDER THREE STATUTES.

THE U.S. C 793, AND 1519.

>> VERY GOOD.

WELL, THANK YOU FOR WATCHING TONIGHT PLEASE LET US KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE TOPICS WE'VE DISCUSSED.

YOU CAN WRITE US AT THE ADDRESSES ON YOUR SCREEN.

IF YOU MISS THE SHOW ANY FRIDAY NIGHT, TUNE US IN SATURDAY AFTERNOONS AT 5:30 • OR FIND US NEW TIME ONLINE AT WCNY DNT ORG.

STAY SAFE AND GOOD NIGHT.