Pete Buttigieg: The Left's Identity Crisis, Wealth Tax, 2024 Mistakes, Plans for 2028

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].