WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.500 Welcome back. If you're trying to get a real 00:00:02.500 --> 00:00:05.500 handle on the big news stories without drowning 00:00:05.500 --> 00:00:08.599 in articles, you're in the right place. Exactly. 00:00:09.099 --> 00:00:11.119 Today we're doing a deep dive into some major 00:00:11.119 --> 00:00:14.259 electoral news. We're looking closely at a, well, 00:00:14.820 --> 00:00:16.859 pretty significant Republican budget proposal. 00:00:17.120 --> 00:00:19.839 Right. And also what some recent economic indicators 00:00:19.839 --> 00:00:22.030 are telling us. It's quite a mix. It is. We've 00:00:22.030 --> 00:00:24.789 got news reports, some specific electoral vote 00:00:24.789 --> 00:00:29.250 info in a PDF, and even a bar graph showing these 00:00:29.250 --> 00:00:32.149 proposed budget changes visually. So the mission 00:00:32.149 --> 00:00:35.170 today? To pull out the absolute key info from 00:00:35.170 --> 00:00:37.030 all this. We want to give you clarity on what 00:00:37.030 --> 00:00:39.850 this budget could mean and, you know, the broader 00:00:39.850 --> 00:00:41.850 economic picture right now. OK, let's jump in. 00:00:41.929 --> 00:00:44.289 First up, this thing being called the Republican 00:00:44.289 --> 00:00:47.460 Scorched Earth Budget Plan. Sounds dramatic. 00:00:47.500 --> 00:00:50.100 It does. And to be clear, this is a proposal. 00:00:50.420 --> 00:00:52.520 It's what would happen starting October 1st if 00:00:52.520 --> 00:00:54.259 the new Congress doesn't pass something else. 00:00:54.640 --> 00:00:56.460 So current funding kind of continues until then. 00:00:56.520 --> 00:00:59.799 Got it. But the proposal itself, it's the scale 00:00:59.799 --> 00:01:01.659 of the cuts that's really grabbing headlines, 00:01:01.899 --> 00:01:04.439 right? Absolutely. The proposal asks Congress 00:01:04.439 --> 00:01:07.859 to cut non -defense spending by, get this, over 00:01:07.859 --> 00:01:11.719 $163 billion. Wow. And that visual breakdown 00:01:11.719 --> 00:01:14.219 we looked at, the graph, really paints a picture 00:01:14.219 --> 00:01:17.489 of some, well, potentially huge shifts in where 00:01:17.489 --> 00:01:19.450 the money goes. Huge seems like the right word. 00:01:19.629 --> 00:01:21.329 Let's run through some of these proposed numbers 00:01:21.329 --> 00:01:23.269 because they are pretty stark. State Department 00:01:23.269 --> 00:01:27.109 down 84%. 84, yeah. EPA, the Environmental Protection 00:01:27.109 --> 00:01:30.730 Agency down 55%. HUD, Housing and Urban Development 00:01:30.730 --> 00:01:34.329 down 44%. It keeps going. Labor down 35%. Interior 00:01:34.329 --> 00:01:37.629 31%. HHS, Health and Human Services down 20%. 00:01:37.629 --> 00:01:41.709 Even NASA sees a 24 % cut. Treasury down 19%. 00:01:41.709 --> 00:01:45.799 USDA Agriculture down 18%. Commerce 17%. Education 00:01:45.799 --> 00:01:48.959 gets a 15 % proposed cut, energy 9%, just as 00:01:48.959 --> 00:01:52.519 8%. And smaller but still notable cuts for Veterans 00:01:52.519 --> 00:01:55.739 Affairs, VA down 4%, and transportation down 00:01:55.739 --> 00:01:58.079 5%. So you see this pattern, right? Deep cuts 00:01:58.079 --> 00:02:00.079 across a really wide range of departments. But 00:02:00.079 --> 00:02:01.900 then... And there are the increases. Exactly. 00:02:02.200 --> 00:02:05.019 Defense is proposed to go up by 13%. Okay. And 00:02:05.019 --> 00:02:06.840 Homeland Security, which it's important to note, 00:02:06.939 --> 00:02:09.300 includes USAI, the foreign aid agency that's 00:02:09.300 --> 00:02:13.490 proposed for a massive 65 % increase. 65%. So 00:02:13.490 --> 00:02:15.830 that really spells out the shift in priorities, 00:02:15.889 --> 00:02:18.629 doesn't it? Less money for diplomacy, environment, 00:02:19.050 --> 00:02:22.189 housing, social programs. And a lot more for 00:02:22.189 --> 00:02:24.409 defense and border security, essentially. And 00:02:24.409 --> 00:02:26.710 the sources we looked at gave some idea of the 00:02:26.710 --> 00:02:29.050 intended impacts of these changes. Sometimes 00:02:29.050 --> 00:02:30.750 they sound pretty tough. Yeah, let's touch on 00:02:30.750 --> 00:02:34.419 a few. For agriculture, the cuts could mean things 00:02:34.419 --> 00:02:37.360 like rural development, farm loans, food programs, 00:02:37.539 --> 00:02:39.719 potentially going back to levels not seen since, 00:02:40.039 --> 00:02:42.759 like the Eisenhower administration. Wow. Okay. 00:02:42.960 --> 00:02:45.400 Commerce. Well, commerce supports lots of industries. 00:02:45.819 --> 00:02:49.240 Trade. The stated goal of the cuts there, according 00:02:49.240 --> 00:02:51.759 to the proposal, is partly about limiting China's 00:02:51.759 --> 00:02:54.139 trade leverage. But you have to wonder about 00:02:54.139 --> 00:02:56.460 the impact on U .S. businesses involved in trade 00:02:56.460 --> 00:02:59.280 too, right? That's the question, yeah. On defense, 00:02:59.500 --> 00:03:01.800 well, the aim is clearly just a big boost. Right. 00:03:02.060 --> 00:03:04.740 Education. The idea there, despite cuts to many 00:03:04.740 --> 00:03:07.539 programs, is supposedly to get money more directly 00:03:07.539 --> 00:03:10.580 into schools for kids. How that works in practice. 00:03:11.219 --> 00:03:13.539 TBD. Could see rollbacks of some recent funding, 00:03:13.740 --> 00:03:16.099 especially things aimed at helping low -income 00:03:16.099 --> 00:03:19.819 and minority communities transition to new energy 00:03:19.819 --> 00:03:23.000 sources. And the EPA cut, 55%. That sounds like 00:03:23.000 --> 00:03:24.860 it would have to affect things like monitoring 00:03:24.860 --> 00:03:28.080 pollution, toxic waste cleanup. It seems unavoidable, 00:03:28.240 --> 00:03:31.680 yeah. HHS widespread cuts across health initiatives, 00:03:32.180 --> 00:03:34.120 homeland securities increase. Specifically linked 00:03:34.120 --> 00:03:37.740 to border security and the term used was mass 00:03:37.740 --> 00:03:40.860 deportations. Okay. Housing and urban development 00:03:40.860 --> 00:03:43.979 cuts could hit rental assistance, programs fighting 00:03:43.979 --> 00:03:47.360 housing discrimination. Interior cuts. That's 00:03:47.360 --> 00:03:49.460 likely bad news for national parks, fish and 00:03:49.460 --> 00:03:52.240 wildlife, conservation efforts. Justice Department 00:03:52.240 --> 00:03:54.520 focus seems to be shifting heavily towards tough 00:03:54.520 --> 00:03:57.199 on crime, FBI stuff, border enforcement. Labor 00:03:57.199 --> 00:03:59.909 Department. more focus on vocational training, 00:04:00.169 --> 00:04:03.289 specifically for the 16 to 24 age group. NASA 00:04:03.289 --> 00:04:06.669 seems focused on Mars and commercial space. State 00:04:06.669 --> 00:04:09.150 department cuts are tied to foreign aid reductions, 00:04:09.509 --> 00:04:11.830 ending what the proposal calls radical leftist 00:04:11.830 --> 00:04:14.830 priorities. Transportation, less money for transit, 00:04:15.289 --> 00:04:18.769 more focus on essential travel. Treasury? Maybe 00:04:18.769 --> 00:04:22.170 less tax enforcement, which could affect how 00:04:22.170 --> 00:04:25.189 much scrutiny wealthy individuals or corporations 00:04:25.189 --> 00:04:28.550 face. And Veterans Affairs, VA, potentially more 00:04:28.550 --> 00:04:31.569 privatization of medical care. It's a lot. And 00:04:31.569 --> 00:04:33.850 the sources really highlighted the potential 00:04:33.850 --> 00:04:36.889 human cost. Things like summer food programs 00:04:36.889 --> 00:04:39.490 for kids, help with heating or cooling bills, 00:04:40.029 --> 00:04:42.470 title education funding for lower income schools. 00:04:42.949 --> 00:04:45.209 These are specifically mentioned as potentially 00:04:45.209 --> 00:04:47.420 being hit hard. Seems like it could really change 00:04:47.420 --> 00:04:49.699 the social safety net. That's the concern, yeah. 00:04:50.040 --> 00:04:52.660 Did we get any political reaction in the sources? 00:04:52.920 --> 00:04:55.500 We did. Senator Susan Collins, for example, was 00:04:55.500 --> 00:04:57.240 quoted saying something like, this is pretty 00:04:57.240 --> 00:04:59.439 unlikely to actually pass the Senate. Why is 00:04:59.439 --> 00:05:01.939 that? Well, she pointed out it hits a lot of 00:05:01.939 --> 00:05:03.839 programs that are popular, even in blue states, 00:05:04.160 --> 00:05:06.160 things people rely on. Makes sense. Anyone arguing 00:05:06.160 --> 00:05:08.540 for it. Representative Mike Conaway from Texas 00:05:08.540 --> 00:05:10.660 framed it as reflecting Republican priorities, 00:05:11.019 --> 00:05:12.920 strong defense, supporting the military. And 00:05:12.920 --> 00:05:15.180 the House Appropriations Chair, Tom Cole. He 00:05:15.180 --> 00:05:17.560 basically acknowledged it's a really tough budget 00:05:17.560 --> 00:05:19.899 environment and working with that slim House 00:05:19.899 --> 00:05:22.519 majority makes things difficult. There's also 00:05:22.519 --> 00:05:24.839 mention of the salt cap, the state and local 00:05:24.839 --> 00:05:27.519 tax deduction. Right. That complicates things 00:05:27.519 --> 00:05:30.600 in the Senate, too. To get some votes, especially 00:05:30.600 --> 00:05:33.279 maybe from Republicans in high tax states, there 00:05:33.279 --> 00:05:35.339 might be pressure to raise that cap. But that 00:05:35.339 --> 00:05:38.079 could alienate other Republicans. Exactly. So 00:05:38.079 --> 00:05:41.040 politically, it's a it's a tricky path forward 00:05:41.040 --> 00:05:43.379 for this proposal, to say the least. OK, let's 00:05:43.379 --> 00:05:46.040 shift gears a bit, but stay on the economy. We 00:05:46.040 --> 00:05:48.819 also saw some really interesting polling data. 00:05:49.040 --> 00:05:52.000 Yeah, this is from an ABC News Ipsos poll, and 00:05:52.000 --> 00:05:54.160 the numbers were quite striking, especially visually. 00:05:54.360 --> 00:05:57.360 What stood out? Well, first, disapproval of Donald 00:05:57.360 --> 00:05:59.759 Trump's handling of the economy when he was president 00:05:59.759 --> 00:06:03.339 sits at 55 percent versus 39 percent approval. 00:06:03.449 --> 00:06:05.670 OK, so more disapproval than approval. Right. 00:06:05.829 --> 00:06:08.410 And looking forward, only 21 % think the economy 00:06:08.410 --> 00:06:10.990 is actually getting better right now. 53%, a 00:06:10.990 --> 00:06:13.089 majority, think it's getting worse. And people 00:06:13.089 --> 00:06:16.870 are feeling price increases. Oh, yeah. 25 % said 00:06:16.870 --> 00:06:19.730 prices for necessities went up a lot. Another 00:06:19.730 --> 00:06:22.589 62 % said a little. So almost everyone is feeling 00:06:22.589 --> 00:06:25.310 it. But here's the kicker, right? The question 00:06:25.310 --> 00:06:28.629 about blame if a recession hits. This was fascinating. 00:06:28.860 --> 00:06:31.500 The poll asked if the economy does fall into 00:06:31.500 --> 00:06:34.079 recession, whose policies would be mainly to 00:06:34.079 --> 00:06:38.319 blame? A huge majority. 72 percent said Trump's 00:06:38.319 --> 00:06:41.720 policies. 72 percent. Wow. Compared to only 28 00:06:41.720 --> 00:06:43.420 percent who think his policies wouldn't be a 00:06:43.420 --> 00:06:46.300 factor. Exactly. That's a really big gap. It 00:06:46.300 --> 00:06:48.639 suggests that even people who might have approved 00:06:48.639 --> 00:06:51.139 of his economic handling before could still blame 00:06:51.139 --> 00:06:53.579 his policies if things go south now. So that 00:06:53.579 --> 00:06:55.339 could be a major challenge for him politically 00:06:55.339 --> 00:06:58.379 if there's a downturn say before July or leading 00:06:58.379 --> 00:07:00.800 into an election. You'd have to think so. That's 00:07:00.800 --> 00:07:03.060 a significant number pointing potential blame 00:07:03.060 --> 00:07:06.639 his way. The source also briefly mentioned potential 00:07:06.639 --> 00:07:08.579 shortages and supply chain issues, especially 00:07:08.579 --> 00:07:11.240 with China, but didn't really elaborate much. 00:07:11.639 --> 00:07:13.339 OK. Now, speaking of the former president, he's 00:07:13.339 --> 00:07:15.139 been out there talking to our sources mentioned 00:07:15.139 --> 00:07:17.500 a big interview. Yeah, he sat down with Kristen 00:07:17.500 --> 00:07:22.360 Welker on Meet the Press for like 74 minutes, 00:07:22.879 --> 00:07:24.899 covered a lot of ground, apparently, though our 00:07:24.899 --> 00:07:26.720 specific source didn't detail the whole thing. 00:07:26.819 --> 00:07:28.819 But we do have notes on his take on recession 00:07:28.819 --> 00:07:31.459 fears generally. Right. He seems to be downplaying 00:07:31.459 --> 00:07:35.199 them, saying the US would be OK, basically. Yeah. 00:07:35.319 --> 00:07:37.579 Not a major concern from his perspective. Had 00:07:37.579 --> 00:07:40.060 he mentioned businesses? Yeah. Claimed many are 00:07:40.060 --> 00:07:43.300 being helped. And interestingly, said small businesses 00:07:43.300 --> 00:07:45.879 wouldn't need to deport workers without proper 00:07:45.879 --> 00:07:48.399 papers during an emergency. Kind of a specific 00:07:48.399 --> 00:07:51.279 point. And tariffs on China. Still pushing those. 00:07:51.420 --> 00:07:54.240 Definitely. Same argument. Unfair trade. China 00:07:54.240 --> 00:07:57.199 defrauding the U .S. for decades. He also pushed 00:07:57.199 --> 00:07:58.819 back on the idea that Chinese goods are better, 00:07:59.279 --> 00:08:02.430 even if cheaper. Any reflections on some of his 00:08:02.430 --> 00:08:05.670 more unusual past ideas, like buying Greenland? 00:08:05.930 --> 00:08:08.170 He mentioned that. Said he didn't pursue Greenland 00:08:08.170 --> 00:08:10.290 or a big military parade because of the cost. 00:08:10.350 --> 00:08:13.129 And the wall. Still planning on it if re -elected, 00:08:13.129 --> 00:08:15.949 he said, and still maintains Mexico will pay 00:08:15.949 --> 00:08:18.610 indirectly through trade deals. What about Social 00:08:18.610 --> 00:08:21.089 Security, Medicare, Medicaid? Always a hot topic. 00:08:21.389 --> 00:08:24.250 He claimed he won't make cuts, but acknowledged 00:08:24.250 --> 00:08:26.750 other Republicans might want to. That's a line 00:08:26.750 --> 00:08:29.310 he's drawn before. Interesting. He also weighed 00:08:29.310 --> 00:08:31.839 in on that Harvard student situation, the ones 00:08:31.839 --> 00:08:34.480 who lost job offers. Yes, he sided with the employers, 00:08:34.940 --> 00:08:36.799 saying they were right to pull the offers because 00:08:36.799 --> 00:08:39.600 of the students' pro -Palestine stance. And his 00:08:39.600 --> 00:08:42.139 reaction to the Letitia James investigation in 00:08:42.139 --> 00:08:44.820 New York? Called it a shame. Pretty standard 00:08:44.820 --> 00:08:48.179 reaction from him on that. Foreign policy, Ukraine 00:08:48.179 --> 00:08:50.879 and Russia. Expressed confidence he could settle 00:08:50.879 --> 00:08:54.360 the war quickly. Even floated the idea that Ukraine 00:08:54.360 --> 00:08:57.139 might have to give up some territory. NATO. Same 00:08:57.139 --> 00:09:00.240 message. Other members need to pay more. And 00:09:00.240 --> 00:09:02.980 he mentioned Mark Walker, the potential Senate 00:09:02.980 --> 00:09:04.879 candidate. She said Walker should make up his 00:09:04.879 --> 00:09:07.220 mind soon about running. So yeah, hitting a lot 00:09:07.220 --> 00:09:09.399 of his familiar themes, keeping himself in the 00:09:09.399 --> 00:09:12.019 conversation. Absolutely. And he's not the only 00:09:12.019 --> 00:09:14.940 prominent Republican voice weighing in. Marjorie 00:09:14.940 --> 00:09:16.480 Taylor Greene has been outspoken too, hasn't 00:09:16.480 --> 00:09:19.799 she? Very much so, especially on Ukraine. She's 00:09:19.799 --> 00:09:23.220 strongly against more funding. Her argument is 00:09:23.220 --> 00:09:25.059 that it's just provoking Russia and dragging 00:09:25.059 --> 00:09:27.639 out the war. What's her alternative? Focus on 00:09:27.639 --> 00:09:29.539 U .S. border security instead. That's her main 00:09:29.539 --> 00:09:32.860 point. And Iran. She expressed real concern there, 00:09:33.220 --> 00:09:35.399 worried about the potential for war. She also 00:09:35.399 --> 00:09:37.879 raised issues about accountability. Right. Yeah. 00:09:37.960 --> 00:09:39.879 Questioning why no one's been held responsible 00:09:39.879 --> 00:09:45.169 for the Afghanistan withdrawal chaos or. The 00:09:45.169 --> 00:09:47.570 origins of COVID -19. On this weaponization of 00:09:47.570 --> 00:09:50.370 government theme. Big concern for her. Feels 00:09:50.370 --> 00:09:52.850 conservatives are being targeted unfairly. She 00:09:52.850 --> 00:09:55.210 urged Republicans to be more aggressive in protecting 00:09:55.210 --> 00:09:57.690 their voters. She had a specific claim about 00:09:57.690 --> 00:10:00.070 Ukraine too, didn't she? Something about resources. 00:10:00.529 --> 00:10:03.470 Right. Suggested the conflict is partly about 00:10:03.470 --> 00:10:06.190 access to Ukraine's mineral wealth and that Russia 00:10:06.190 --> 00:10:08.309 could end up benefiting from that. So her overall 00:10:08.309 --> 00:10:11.149 view is more inward looking. Less intervention. 00:10:11.490 --> 00:10:13.490 Seems that way. Worry about getting dragged into 00:10:13.490 --> 00:10:16.129 bigger global conflicts. Focus on domestic issues. 00:10:16.289 --> 00:10:18.450 OK, one last piece from our deep dive today. 00:10:18.669 --> 00:10:21.169 This involves potential confirmations in the 00:10:21.169 --> 00:10:23.769 Senate. Yeah, this was interesting. Representative 00:10:23.769 --> 00:10:26.929 Mark Walker is predicting a tough time for Representative 00:10:26.929 --> 00:10:29.269 Mike Waltz's confirmation hearing. Waltz is up 00:10:29.269 --> 00:10:31.889 for a UN ambassador role or something similar. 00:10:32.649 --> 00:10:35.350 The source mentioned UN ambassador nominees generally 00:10:35.350 --> 00:10:38.070 and Waltz specifically. The issue is Senator 00:10:38.070 --> 00:10:41.179 Tom Tillis. What's he doing? He's put a hold 00:10:41.179 --> 00:10:43.820 on all these nominees until he gets more information 00:10:43.820 --> 00:10:46.320 from the Department of Defense about protocols 00:10:46.320 --> 00:10:49.059 protecting service members. Ah, so it's not about 00:10:49.059 --> 00:10:51.860 Waltz specifically, but Tillis's hold affects 00:10:51.860 --> 00:10:54.700 him. Exactly. Walker's take is that this hold 00:10:54.700 --> 00:10:57.500 puts Waltz in a really difficult position for 00:10:57.500 --> 00:11:00.539 his hearing. He'll have to address Tillis's concerns. 00:11:00.679 --> 00:11:02.720 And Walker thinks it'll be tough. He called it 00:11:02.720 --> 00:11:05.460 a potential brutal hearing and basically said 00:11:05.460 --> 00:11:08.279 it's unclear how Waltz navigates it. It just 00:11:08.279 --> 00:11:10.440 shows how these internal Senate procedures and 00:11:10.440 --> 00:11:13.179 holds can really complicate things. Right. Okay, 00:11:13.299 --> 00:11:15.039 that was a lot to cover. Let's try and pull the 00:11:15.039 --> 00:11:17.000 threads together. So we've got this proposed 00:11:17.000 --> 00:11:19.440 Republican budget with really drastic shifts, 00:11:20.179 --> 00:11:23.139 big cuts to domestic programs, big boosts for 00:11:23.139 --> 00:11:26.039 defense and homeland security. Then we have the 00:11:26.039 --> 00:11:28.440 economic side polls showing public worry about 00:11:28.440 --> 00:11:30.919 recession and significantly a strong tendency 00:11:30.919 --> 00:11:34.120 to blame past Trump policies if one hits. We 00:11:34.120 --> 00:11:36.879 heard directly from Trump downplaying those recession 00:11:36.879 --> 00:11:40.200 fears, sticking to his positions on trade entitlements 00:11:40.200 --> 00:11:42.500 foreign policy. And we heard from figures like 00:11:42.500 --> 00:11:44.940 Marjorie Taylor Greene pushing back against foreign 00:11:44.940 --> 00:11:47.620 intervention, focusing on domestic issues and 00:11:47.620 --> 00:11:50.059 accountability. Plus that inside look at how 00:11:50.059 --> 00:11:53.039 Senate politics like Tellus's hole can impact 00:11:53.039 --> 00:11:55.570 confirmations like Walters. For me, the real 00:11:55.570 --> 00:11:59.090 aha moments were first just the raw numbers in 00:11:59.090 --> 00:12:02.230 that budget proposal, an 84 percent cut to the 00:12:02.230 --> 00:12:05.870 State Department, 55 percent to EPA. It really 00:12:05.870 --> 00:12:08.110 forces you to think about what government priorities 00:12:08.110 --> 00:12:10.970 would look like under that plan. I agree. And 00:12:10.970 --> 00:12:13.950 that polling number, 72 percent, potentially 00:12:13.950 --> 00:12:16.490 blaming Trump for a future recession. That feels 00:12:16.490 --> 00:12:18.870 like a really significant data point in the current 00:12:18.870 --> 00:12:21.070 political landscape. Absolutely. And for you 00:12:21.070 --> 00:12:23.230 listening, this is an abstract stuff, is it? 00:12:23.309 --> 00:12:25.730 Not at all. Potential changes to heating assistance, 00:12:26.049 --> 00:12:28.370 food programs, environmental rules, education 00:12:28.370 --> 00:12:31.250 funding, tax enforcement. These are things can 00:12:31.250 --> 00:12:33.230 directly impact your community, your family, 00:12:33.509 --> 00:12:35.610 your wallet. It really connects the policy debates 00:12:35.610 --> 00:12:38.210 to everyday life. Which leads us to maybe a final 00:12:38.210 --> 00:12:40.210 thought to leave you with. We've talked about 00:12:40.210 --> 00:12:44.090 these huge proposed budget shifts, this economic 00:12:44.090 --> 00:12:46.669 anxiety, these differing political visions. The 00:12:46.669 --> 00:12:49.850 question is, what are the potential long term 00:12:49.850 --> 00:12:52.860 consequences of all this? Regardless of who wins 00:12:52.860 --> 00:12:55.559 elections or which specific policies get enacted, 00:12:55.960 --> 00:12:58.139 if you have these deep divisions on spending 00:12:58.139 --> 00:13:00.720 priorities and this underlying economic worry, 00:13:01.059 --> 00:13:02.700 what does that mean for the country's social 00:13:02.700 --> 00:13:05.039 cohesion, its ability to tackle big problems, 00:13:05.139 --> 00:13:08.440 and its role in the world down the road? Thinking 00:13:08.440 --> 00:13:11.139 about the assumptions behind these plans and 00:13:11.139 --> 00:13:13.379 what unintended consequences might ripple out? 00:13:13.639 --> 00:13:14.919 Exactly. Something to chew on.