WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.779 Welcome back to the Deep Dive. Our mission here 00:00:02.779 --> 00:00:05.080 is simple. Take a mountain of information articles, 00:00:05.620 --> 00:00:07.700 research your notes, and find the core insights. 00:00:08.400 --> 00:00:10.519 We cut through the noise to get you well -informed, 00:00:10.839 --> 00:00:14.119 fast, all tailored just for you. And today, we're 00:00:14.119 --> 00:00:16.480 diving into a really interesting stack. We've 00:00:16.480 --> 00:00:19.160 got recent news reports focusing on political 00:00:19.160 --> 00:00:21.960 events and reactions, detailed analysis on the 00:00:21.960 --> 00:00:24.960 federal budget and economic projections, and 00:00:24.960 --> 00:00:27.679 some surprising data points on demographic shifts 00:00:27.679 --> 00:00:30.710 across the US. Think of this deep dive as your 00:00:30.710 --> 00:00:33.130 shortcut to understanding some of the most complex, 00:00:33.369 --> 00:00:35.369 interconnected stories shaping the country right 00:00:35.369 --> 00:00:37.490 now. We're going to pull out the most important 00:00:37.490 --> 00:00:40.149 facts, highlight surprising connections you might 00:00:40.149 --> 00:00:42.469 miss looking at these pieces individually, and 00:00:42.469 --> 00:00:44.189 give you the context to see the bigger picture. 00:00:44.329 --> 00:00:45.909 It's quite the journey through this material. 00:00:46.329 --> 00:00:48.770 Yeah. OK, let's unpack this stack and start where, 00:00:48.850 --> 00:00:50.850 well, a lot of the headlines have been recently, 00:00:51.549 --> 00:00:54.240 the ongoing situation in Los Angeles. Right. 00:00:54.380 --> 00:00:56.920 So when you look at the history of major urban 00:00:56.920 --> 00:00:59.079 unrest, it typically runs its course in about 00:00:59.079 --> 00:01:01.619 a week. Our sources note that if what's happening 00:01:01.619 --> 00:01:04.299 in L .A. were purely a spontaneous response, 00:01:04.780 --> 00:01:07.819 its duration wouldn't be entirely outside the 00:01:07.819 --> 00:01:10.200 norm. But there's a suggestion in the material 00:01:10.200 --> 00:01:13.879 we reviewed that this unrest isn't purely organic. 00:01:14.560 --> 00:01:17.280 One perspective argues it's been largely manufactured 00:01:17.280 --> 00:01:19.680 for political theater purposes. And if that's 00:01:19.680 --> 00:01:21.640 the case, it might help explain why it seems 00:01:21.640 --> 00:01:23.739 to be continuing longer than you might otherwise 00:01:23.739 --> 00:01:26.500 expect. What's really fascinating here is the 00:01:26.500 --> 00:01:28.939 gap between the narrative you might hear and 00:01:28.939 --> 00:01:32.159 what's reported on the ground. Exactly. While 00:01:32.159 --> 00:01:36.480 some portray L .A. as a hellscape, the observable 00:01:36.480 --> 00:01:38.760 evidence suggests confrontations have been largely 00:01:38.760 --> 00:01:42.000 peaceful, relatively few, and confined to a pretty 00:01:42.000 --> 00:01:43.849 small part of the city. Yeah, we even heard from 00:01:43.849 --> 00:01:46.430 readers who live there who reported like minimal 00:01:46.430 --> 00:01:48.650 impact where they are. Right. And that brings 00:01:48.650 --> 00:01:50.629 us to the claim that order was restored thanks 00:01:50.629 --> 00:01:53.950 to federal forces. But the reality, according 00:01:53.950 --> 00:01:56.709 to the analysis we have, seems different. It 00:01:56.709 --> 00:01:59.209 does. The Marines, who were mentioned in some 00:01:59.209 --> 00:02:01.250 reports, apparently haven't actually been deployed 00:02:01.250 --> 00:02:03.489 for this mission. They're reportedly undergoing 00:02:03.489 --> 00:02:06.510 additional training. The National Guard was deployed 00:02:06.510 --> 00:02:09.949 around 2000 troops, but their role is limited 00:02:09.949 --> 00:02:15.000 described as glorified security guard duty, and 00:02:15.000 --> 00:02:17.500 crucially, The material points out that normal 00:02:17.500 --> 00:02:20.180 order was almost entirely restored before these 00:02:20.180 --> 00:02:22.699 troops even arrived. Which is a key point. And 00:02:22.699 --> 00:02:25.379 that limited role for the troops ties directly 00:02:25.379 --> 00:02:27.500 back to the fact that the Insurrection Act hasn't 00:02:27.500 --> 00:02:30.219 been invoked. Right. For context, this is a rarely 00:02:30.219 --> 00:02:32.719 used federal law that would allow the president 00:02:32.719 --> 00:02:35.139 to deploy military troops domestically for law 00:02:35.139 --> 00:02:37.520 enforcement. Exactly. And without invoking it, 00:02:37.639 --> 00:02:40.000 the armed forces deployed have very restricted 00:02:40.000 --> 00:02:42.800 powers. So this situation looks less like a full 00:02:42.800 --> 00:02:45.909 scale federal takeover to quell unrest. and maybe 00:02:45.909 --> 00:02:48.370 more like an effort to get the appearance of 00:02:48.370 --> 00:02:50.729 being tough without taking on the significant 00:02:50.729 --> 00:02:53.270 risks. Like the potential political disaster 00:02:53.270 --> 00:02:55.770 if civilians were harmed, right? The sources 00:02:55.770 --> 00:02:58.349 bring up comparisons to historical tragedies 00:02:58.349 --> 00:03:01.490 like Kent State. Yeah, it seems like a move calculated 00:03:01.490 --> 00:03:05.150 perhaps for offics more than actual law enforcement 00:03:05.150 --> 00:03:07.539 action by the military itself. And on the legal 00:03:07.539 --> 00:03:09.719 side, Governor Newsom and the California attorney 00:03:09.719 --> 00:03:12.680 general did seek an immediate emergency injunction 00:03:12.680 --> 00:03:14.800 to stop the Trump administration from sending 00:03:14.800 --> 00:03:17.560 troops. What happened with that? Well, a U .S. 00:03:17.639 --> 00:03:20.460 district judge, Charles Breyer, heard the arguments, 00:03:20.599 --> 00:03:22.860 but didn't grant the injunction immediately. 00:03:23.639 --> 00:03:26.120 He gave the administration until Thursday to 00:03:26.120 --> 00:03:28.960 file briefs. So a decision should be coming soon 00:03:28.960 --> 00:03:31.750 after that. OK. And what about the cost of this 00:03:31.750 --> 00:03:34.770 deployment? Ah, yes. The acting controller of 00:03:34.770 --> 00:03:38.530 the Department of Defense estimates it at $134 00:03:38.530 --> 00:03:42.349 million. $134 million. But there was a striking 00:03:42.349 --> 00:03:45.189 detail highlighted in the sources. That this 00:03:45.189 --> 00:03:47.229 estimate somehow doesn't seem to cover basic 00:03:47.229 --> 00:03:49.430 necessities like food and shelter for the troops? 00:03:49.789 --> 00:03:51.930 You're odd. It is. And that's a point being made 00:03:51.930 --> 00:03:54.229 visually on social media with images circulating. 00:03:54.669 --> 00:03:56.969 The material notes that visual evidence can be 00:03:56.969 --> 00:04:00.050 particularly impactful in shaping public perception. 00:04:00.469 --> 00:04:02.090 So depending on where you get your information, 00:04:02.250 --> 00:04:05.569 you might be seeing that $134 million cost and 00:04:05.569 --> 00:04:07.370 thinking about how those tax dollars are being 00:04:07.370 --> 00:04:10.490 spent. Or maybe you're seeing images of troops 00:04:10.490 --> 00:04:13.789 lacking basic supplies. It's quite the contrast. 00:04:14.009 --> 00:04:16.509 OK, so shifting from the specifics on the ground, 00:04:17.089 --> 00:04:19.250 it's pretty clear this is being actively leveraged 00:04:19.250 --> 00:04:21.870 in the political arena. Oh, absolutely. Speaker 00:04:21.870 --> 00:04:24.329 Mike Johnson, for instance, is using the events 00:04:24.329 --> 00:04:26.750 in LA to push for the quick passage of what he 00:04:26.750 --> 00:04:29.610 calls the one big beautiful bill. Right. Framing 00:04:29.610 --> 00:04:32.829 it as providing essential funding needed to secure 00:04:32.829 --> 00:04:36.350 our nation's borders and supporting IC agents 00:04:36.350 --> 00:04:39.149 against illegal aliens and the radical left. 00:04:39.529 --> 00:04:42.290 Strong language there. Very. But the analysis 00:04:42.290 --> 00:04:45.310 we reviewed expresses, well, quite a bit of skepticism 00:04:45.310 --> 00:04:47.970 about this push, describing it as hot air. Why 00:04:47.970 --> 00:04:50.480 is that? Well, the skepticism comes from the 00:04:50.480 --> 00:04:52.699 assessment that there's very little chance the 00:04:52.699 --> 00:04:54.759 Senate will just quickly ram through a multi 00:04:54.759 --> 00:04:57.259 -trillion dollar budget bill because of the current 00:04:57.259 --> 00:04:59.540 headlines around immigration policy clashes. 00:05:00.000 --> 00:05:02.199 Makes sense. By the time the Senate is likely 00:05:02.199 --> 00:05:05.180 ready to act on a comprehensive budget, the situation 00:05:05.180 --> 00:05:06.920 on the ground in LA will probably have shifted 00:05:06.920 --> 00:05:09.740 anyway. Exactly. Looking at Senate reactions 00:05:09.740 --> 00:05:12.120 more broadly, though, most Republicans appear 00:05:12.120 --> 00:05:14.199 to be supporting the administration's actions, 00:05:14.639 --> 00:05:18.060 which are characterized in the analysis as A 00:05:18.060 --> 00:05:20.600 pseudo crackdown. You saw Senator John Kennedy 00:05:20.600 --> 00:05:23.399 reportedly said the president had no choice and 00:05:23.399 --> 00:05:26.220 Senator John Cornyn felt Trump needs to restore 00:05:26.220 --> 00:05:29.480 order, claiming plenty of precedent for the National 00:05:29.480 --> 00:05:31.300 Guard deployment. Although it's interesting, 00:05:31.459 --> 00:05:33.699 the sources we looked at described this specific 00:05:33.699 --> 00:05:36.019 type of National Guard deployment, you know, 00:05:36.079 --> 00:05:37.860 under these circumstances without the Insurrection 00:05:37.860 --> 00:05:41.720 Act as unprecedented. So a bit of a clash there 00:05:41.720 --> 00:05:44.110 on the precedent. It is. The stack of material 00:05:44.110 --> 00:05:46.629 also highlighted a few individual senatorial 00:05:46.629 --> 00:05:49.050 reactions that really stand out. Let's talk about 00:05:49.050 --> 00:05:51.110 those. OK. First, there's Senator Tom Cotton. 00:05:51.589 --> 00:05:53.389 You might remember about five years ago, back 00:05:53.389 --> 00:05:56.069 in June 2020, he wrote that controversial op 00:05:56.069 --> 00:05:58.850 -ed, arguing for using the military against civilians 00:05:58.850 --> 00:06:01.970 to restore order. Right. That caused a huge uproar, 00:06:02.110 --> 00:06:03.750 led to resignations at the New York Times, I 00:06:03.750 --> 00:06:06.009 recall. It did. And what's the takeaway here? 00:06:06.110 --> 00:06:08.550 According to the analysis, it suggests it shows 00:06:08.550 --> 00:06:11.699 how the Overton window has moved. Meaning? What 00:06:11.699 --> 00:06:15.019 was considered outrageous then is less so now. 00:06:15.420 --> 00:06:18.439 Pretty much. What was seen as an extreme suggestion 00:06:18.439 --> 00:06:21.040 five years ago using the military domestically 00:06:21.040 --> 00:06:23.720 like this. Well, something resembling it is actually 00:06:23.720 --> 00:06:26.639 happening now with apparently far less public 00:06:26.639 --> 00:06:29.379 outrage. Wow. One source even pointed out that 00:06:29.379 --> 00:06:31.379 the Wall Street Journal recently ran a slightly 00:06:31.379 --> 00:06:33.860 updated version of Cotton's original piece without 00:06:33.860 --> 00:06:37.019 obvious repercussions. It really does highlight 00:06:37.019 --> 00:06:40.160 a shift in what's deemed acceptable public discourse 00:06:40.160 --> 00:06:43.300 or action. OK, who else? Another notable reaction 00:06:43.300 --> 00:06:46.160 came from Senator Mark Wayne Mullen. Ah, yes. 00:06:46.459 --> 00:06:48.180 When asked about Governor Newsom, he offered 00:06:48.180 --> 00:06:50.600 a quote about Newsom sucking at being number 00:06:50.600 --> 00:06:53.740 one at being a terrible governor. Which is quite 00:06:53.740 --> 00:06:56.339 a sentence. It is. As the material points out, 00:06:56.360 --> 00:06:58.759 that's pretty convoluted phrasing. The use of 00:06:58.759 --> 00:07:00.839 multiple negatives arguably means he ended up 00:07:00.839 --> 00:07:03.680 saying Newsom sucks at being bad. Implying he's 00:07:03.680 --> 00:07:06.930 good. Technically, yeah, it's maybe a minor point, 00:07:06.990 --> 00:07:08.870 but it does raise an interesting question about 00:07:08.870 --> 00:07:11.930 clarity, you know, and precision in political 00:07:11.930 --> 00:07:14.250 communication, especially when you're trying 00:07:14.250 --> 00:07:17.470 to land a criticism. Fair enough. Then there's 00:07:17.470 --> 00:07:19.750 Senator John Fetterman, a Democrat. His comments 00:07:19.750 --> 00:07:22.300 have sounded, well... somewhat different from 00:07:22.300 --> 00:07:25.000 the typical Democratic responses. Yeah, he condemned 00:07:25.000 --> 00:07:28.100 actions like setting cars on fire and assaulting 00:07:28.100 --> 00:07:31.360 law enforcement as anarchy and true chaos. Which 00:07:31.360 --> 00:07:34.600 is strong language. It is. The sources speculate 00:07:34.600 --> 00:07:36.939 a little bit on influences, even mentioning a 00:07:36.939 --> 00:07:39.579 dinner he had with Steve Bannon. But the main 00:07:39.579 --> 00:07:41.800 point being made is that framing the situation 00:07:41.800 --> 00:07:45.579 as anarchy and true chaos might reflect a particular 00:07:45.579 --> 00:07:47.800 viewpoint that seems a bit at odds with reports 00:07:47.800 --> 00:07:50.180 suggesting more contained, though still serious, 00:07:50.399 --> 00:07:52.519 incidents. One source just noted that anyone 00:07:52.519 --> 00:07:54.680 calling this anarchy and true chaos probably 00:07:54.680 --> 00:07:57.939 hasn't seen actual anarchy and chaos. Generally, 00:07:58.319 --> 00:07:59.920 though, Democrats seem to be taking a stance 00:07:59.920 --> 00:08:02.399 against both Trump -specific actions and against 00:08:02.399 --> 00:08:05.279 non -peaceful protest. Governor Newsom has warned 00:08:05.279 --> 00:08:07.800 that lawbreakers will face full prosecution. 00:08:08.259 --> 00:08:11.259 And LA Mayor Karen Bass imposed a curfew. She 00:08:11.259 --> 00:08:13.600 did, although it's worth noting that her curfew 00:08:13.600 --> 00:08:16.639 is in a small downtown area about 10 miles away 00:08:16.639 --> 00:08:19.480 from where the main violence occurred. Hmm. Which 00:08:19.480 --> 00:08:21.300 leads the sources to wonder about her specific 00:08:21.300 --> 00:08:24.720 goals. Is it purely for safety? Or maybe also 00:08:24.720 --> 00:08:26.899 sending a message that the Democratic Party strongly 00:08:26.899 --> 00:08:29.680 opposes non -peaceful demonstrations? Could be. 00:08:29.949 --> 00:08:32.549 The analysis suggests that given her age, she's 00:08:32.549 --> 00:08:34.870 likely not positioning herself for her next political 00:08:34.870 --> 00:08:37.429 job in the same way someone like Newsom might 00:08:37.429 --> 00:08:39.750 be. So her motives could be more centered on 00:08:39.750 --> 00:08:42.830 governance or just signaling the party stance. 00:08:43.429 --> 00:08:45.529 And speaking of that curfew, there's a practical 00:08:45.529 --> 00:08:48.090 detail the material flagged. Oh yeah. If it's 00:08:48.090 --> 00:08:50.549 still in place through Friday, how will it impact 00:08:50.549 --> 00:08:53.690 traffic for the Dodgers game? The game ends well 00:08:53.690 --> 00:08:56.289 after the 8 p .m. curfew starts and the stadium 00:08:56.289 --> 00:08:58.909 is right near the edge of that zone. Ah, exiting 00:08:58.909 --> 00:09:01.370 that area could get pretty complicated for fans. 00:09:01.610 --> 00:09:03.470 Good point. Getting back to Governor Newsom for 00:09:03.470 --> 00:09:05.809 a second, he appears to be actively using this 00:09:05.809 --> 00:09:08.710 situation, not just for California, but maybe 00:09:08.710 --> 00:09:11.850 to raise his national profile for a potential 00:09:11.850 --> 00:09:15.129 2028 presidential run. The material points to 00:09:15.129 --> 00:09:17.820 several examples. Yeah, one example cited is 00:09:17.820 --> 00:09:21.340 that rather surreal Star Wars themed video he 00:09:21.340 --> 00:09:24.580 posted on X. It featured stormtroopers and a 00:09:24.580 --> 00:09:27.220 computer voice reading his tweet like Emperor 00:09:27.220 --> 00:09:29.759 Palpatine. I saw that one reader even commented 00:09:29.759 --> 00:09:33.159 that they do a better Palpatine impression. That's 00:09:33.159 --> 00:09:35.720 a fun detail from the sources. He also gave an 00:09:35.720 --> 00:09:38.720 address aiming for a statesman like tone, quoting 00:09:38.720 --> 00:09:41.799 Justice Brandeis, urging peaceful protest and 00:09:41.799 --> 00:09:44.549 positioning himself as resisting Trump. But what 00:09:44.549 --> 00:09:46.809 the sources argue Governor Newsom really wants 00:09:46.809 --> 00:09:49.470 from the Trump administration is to be arrested. 00:09:49.590 --> 00:09:52.309 That's the suggestion. He's reportedly continued 00:09:52.309 --> 00:09:54.909 to publicly challenge and dare the White House, 00:09:54.990 --> 00:09:57.549 while the analysis thinks Trump probably won't 00:09:57.549 --> 00:09:59.509 take the bait. But with him, you never know. 00:09:59.789 --> 00:10:01.850 Exactly. An arrest would become a huge badge 00:10:01.850 --> 00:10:04.070 of honor for Newsom among his base, right? Totally. 00:10:04.289 --> 00:10:06.309 It might even lead to jokes like that old one 00:10:06.309 --> 00:10:09.250 about Rudy Giuliani. With Newsom, every sentence 00:10:09.250 --> 00:10:12.629 has three parts. A noun, a verb, and my arrest. 00:10:12.879 --> 00:10:15.240 Okay, switching gears slightly within this political 00:10:15.240 --> 00:10:17.860 landscape, Representative LaMonica McIver of 00:10:17.860 --> 00:10:20.220 New Jersey has actually been arrested and formally 00:10:20.220 --> 00:10:23.639 indicted. And this was by an interim U .S. attorney, 00:10:23.899 --> 00:10:26.179 Alina Habba, who previously worked for Trump. 00:10:26.940 --> 00:10:29.000 That's right. Now, federal indictments usually 00:10:29.000 --> 00:10:31.220 have a very high success rate, often well over 00:10:31.220 --> 00:10:33.820 90 percent. But the analysis we saw suggests 00:10:33.820 --> 00:10:36.460 this case might be an exception. Why is that? 00:10:36.820 --> 00:10:39.899 Well, Several arguments are presented. One, that 00:10:39.899 --> 00:10:42.059 the prosecution could be politically motivated. 00:10:42.559 --> 00:10:45.159 Two, there's a legal question about whether her 00:10:45.159 --> 00:10:47.879 alleged actions even rise to the level of a federal 00:10:47.879 --> 00:10:51.299 crime, even for a private citizen. And three, 00:10:51.639 --> 00:10:53.820 her status as a member of Congress offers some 00:10:53.820 --> 00:10:55.679 protection under the speech and debate clause. 00:10:56.159 --> 00:10:58.620 So the thinking is the government's odds of getting 00:10:58.620 --> 00:11:01.179 a conviction aren't that strong. That's the consensus 00:11:01.179 --> 00:11:03.879 from the sources. There's even speculation the 00:11:03.879 --> 00:11:05.840 case might just be quietly dropped after making 00:11:05.840 --> 00:11:08.580 headlines. Meanwhile, McIver is expected to use 00:11:08.580 --> 00:11:10.940 this indictment for fundraising, maybe become 00:11:10.940 --> 00:11:13.960 a cause celebre on the left. Could she leverage 00:11:13.960 --> 00:11:16.559 this into a political promotion like Newsom seems 00:11:16.559 --> 00:11:19.120 to be trying? Well, opportunities in New Jersey 00:11:19.120 --> 00:11:22.019 seem limited right now. Governorship looks locked 00:11:22.019 --> 00:11:25.019 up. Senate seats aren't open. The sources mention 00:11:25.019 --> 00:11:27.779 maybe a Democratic cabinet post or even being 00:11:27.779 --> 00:11:30.379 considered as a ticket balancing VP candidate. 00:11:30.559 --> 00:11:33.399 But. Her short time in the house, just nine months, 00:11:33.720 --> 00:11:36.320 is seen as a pretty weak resume for VP. Yeah, 00:11:36.440 --> 00:11:38.139 that's probably fair. It's also important, I 00:11:38.139 --> 00:11:41.419 think, to broaden our view beyond just LA. These 00:11:41.419 --> 00:11:44.919 largely peaceful anti -ICE protests have spread 00:11:44.919 --> 00:11:48.159 nationwide, right? They have, popping up in around 00:11:48.159 --> 00:11:50.580 two dozen cities, including places you might 00:11:50.580 --> 00:11:53.440 not immediately think of like Columbus, Dallas, 00:11:53.700 --> 00:11:57.120 Las Vegas, Louisville, Nashville, San Antonio, 00:11:57.379 --> 00:12:00.139 San Diego. It's not just concentrated in traditionally 00:12:00.139 --> 00:12:02.679 liberal areas. And why is that wider spread relevant? 00:12:03.379 --> 00:12:05.980 Because while voters often say they dislike demonstrators, 00:12:06.220 --> 00:12:08.659 they tend to dislike instability and unrest even 00:12:08.659 --> 00:12:11.769 more. The analysis observes that blame for instability 00:12:11.769 --> 00:12:13.809 often falls on the party in power. Something 00:12:13.809 --> 00:12:15.590 Lyndon B. Johnson might have had thoughts on 00:12:15.590 --> 00:12:18.769 as the source notes. Indeed. Finally, within 00:12:18.769 --> 00:12:21.509 this whole climate of political tension and reaction, 00:12:22.110 --> 00:12:24.230 there is Donald Trump's upcoming birthday parade 00:12:24.230 --> 00:12:27.750 this Saturday, described in one source as a kind 00:12:27.750 --> 00:12:31.110 of triumph of the will reenactment. And nationwide, 00:12:31.389 --> 00:12:33.590 no King's demonstrations are planned in response, 00:12:33.870 --> 00:12:36.600 including a big one in D .C. Right. Trump has 00:12:36.600 --> 00:12:39.740 reportedly warned of using very heavy force against 00:12:39.740 --> 00:12:42.740 anyone who disrupts his birthday plans. But, 00:12:43.200 --> 00:12:45.200 well, the sources recall his approach in L .A., 00:12:45.200 --> 00:12:47.460 speaking loudly, but maybe carrying what looks 00:12:47.460 --> 00:12:49.899 like a smaller stick, at least for now. OK, let's 00:12:49.899 --> 00:12:52.200 shift gears completely now. Moving from the political 00:12:52.200 --> 00:12:55.799 events to the details of the federal budget, 00:12:56.120 --> 00:12:59.259 specifically looking at that one big, beautiful 00:12:59.259 --> 00:13:01.960 bill act recently passed by the House. Right. 00:13:02.100 --> 00:13:04.259 And the core insight from the analysis of this 00:13:04.259 --> 00:13:06.440 bill based on the release data is that despite 00:13:06.440 --> 00:13:08.299 its framing, it's projected to significantly 00:13:08.299 --> 00:13:10.580 add to the federal deficit, especially in the 00:13:10.580 --> 00:13:12.279 near term. Now, the Congressional Budget Office, 00:13:12.360 --> 00:13:15.440 the CBO, they provide nonpartisan analysis and 00:13:15.440 --> 00:13:17.940 scoring of legislation, right, projecting cost 00:13:17.940 --> 00:13:21.039 and impact. Exactly. And the CBO scoring of this 00:13:21.039 --> 00:13:23.399 bill, according to our sources, highlights how 00:13:23.399 --> 00:13:25.820 many of the supposed spending cuts and revenue 00:13:25.820 --> 00:13:28.700 increases within it are actually temporary or 00:13:28.700 --> 00:13:33.360 described as illusory. Illusory, meaning not 00:13:33.360 --> 00:13:36.100 real. Pretty much. The argument presented is 00:13:36.100 --> 00:13:38.340 that the bill wasn't primarily designed for long 00:13:38.340 --> 00:13:41.399 -term fiscal responsibility. Instead, the structure 00:13:41.399 --> 00:13:44.159 seems aimed at maximizing short -term political 00:13:44.159 --> 00:13:46.139 benefits and giving the appearance of fiscal 00:13:46.139 --> 00:13:48.700 action, even if the long -term picture looks 00:13:48.700 --> 00:13:51.379 worse. The data visuals we looked at were pretty 00:13:51.379 --> 00:13:53.620 stark, weren't they? They were. Charts showing 00:13:53.620 --> 00:13:56.299 projections for huge near -term deficit hikes 00:13:56.299 --> 00:13:58.659 under current law. And if the changes in this 00:13:58.659 --> 00:14:01.019 bill were made permanent, the deficit hikes are 00:14:01.019 --> 00:14:03.879 huge in all years. One chart even had that provocative 00:14:03.919 --> 00:14:06.759 title, Spending Cuts, What's Spending Cuts? So 00:14:06.759 --> 00:14:08.980 the overall forecast based on this analysis, 00:14:09.120 --> 00:14:12.059 where are we heading? Towards 8 % of GDP full 00:14:12.059 --> 00:14:13.980 employment deficits. That's a significant level, 00:14:14.259 --> 00:14:15.940 a really significant level. And what about tariffs? 00:14:16.080 --> 00:14:18.600 Do they help? The sources note that tariffs currently 00:14:18.600 --> 00:14:21.299 in place could narrow the deficit slightly, but 00:14:21.299 --> 00:14:24.440 the phrase used was just by a bit. The estimate 00:14:24.440 --> 00:14:27.100 is still a seven point three percent deficit 00:14:27.100 --> 00:14:29.980 to GDP ratio, even with permanent tariffs. Wow. 00:14:30.299 --> 00:14:32.759 So this level of deficit spending, it raises 00:14:32.759 --> 00:14:35.519 pretty big concerns about the long term sustainability 00:14:35.519 --> 00:14:38.600 of U .S. debt levels. Definitely. And it's compounded 00:14:38.600 --> 00:14:41.159 by the country's low national savings rate, meaning 00:14:41.159 --> 00:14:43.519 we're heavily reliant on global capital flows 00:14:43.519 --> 00:14:46.330 to finance all that debt. And there's an argument 00:14:46.330 --> 00:14:49.190 presented that if the U .S. pursues more isolationist 00:14:49.190 --> 00:14:51.570 trade policies, it could potentially undermine 00:14:51.570 --> 00:14:54.009 global confidence in U .S. debt. Which could 00:14:54.009 --> 00:14:56.090 lead to higher interest rates needed to borrow 00:14:56.090 --> 00:14:58.629 money. Exactly. And higher interest rates directly 00:14:58.629 --> 00:15:01.350 impact the cost of the debt itself. Right. The 00:15:01.350 --> 00:15:04.230 CBO projections shown indicate the net interest 00:15:04.230 --> 00:15:06.309 burden, basically. The cost of servicing the 00:15:06.309 --> 00:15:09.070 debt is expected to rise steeply. In fact, one 00:15:09.070 --> 00:15:11.669 source even questions whether the CBO's own interest 00:15:11.669 --> 00:15:14.669 rate projections might be too good to be true. 00:15:14.990 --> 00:15:17.809 given the path of spending and debt. Yeah. So 00:15:17.809 --> 00:15:19.429 the takeaway here seems to be that regardless 00:15:19.429 --> 00:15:21.990 of the political rhetoric, the underlying fiscal 00:15:21.990 --> 00:15:24.789 picture painted by this analysis is one of significant 00:15:24.789 --> 00:15:28.230 and potentially unsustainable increases in debt. 00:15:28.570 --> 00:15:31.129 Okay. Moving from the national balance sheet 00:15:31.129 --> 00:15:34.629 to, well, people. Population dynamics. Our stack 00:15:34.629 --> 00:15:37.049 also included material on demographic trends, 00:15:37.269 --> 00:15:39.950 both globally and within the U .S. Right. Globally, 00:15:40.149 --> 00:15:42.490 the striking trend noted is declining fertility 00:15:42.490 --> 00:15:45.110 rates in most developed countries, particularly 00:15:45.110 --> 00:15:47.610 sharp declines seen in East Asia. And the projection 00:15:47.610 --> 00:15:49.809 for China is rapid population decline in the 00:15:49.809 --> 00:15:52.389 coming decades. Yeah, quite dramatic. Here in 00:15:52.389 --> 00:15:54.769 the U .S., migration patterns continue to show 00:15:54.769 --> 00:15:57.509 the South leading in population growth. Looking 00:15:57.509 --> 00:15:59.809 at data over the past couple of decades, 2003 00:15:59.809 --> 00:16:02.809 to 2024, the South had a year -over -year growth 00:16:02.809 --> 00:16:05.730 rate of plus 1 .4 percent. Ahead of the West 00:16:05.730 --> 00:16:09.009 at plus 1 .0 percent, the Midwest at plus 0 .9 00:16:09.009 --> 00:16:11.789 percent, and the Northeast slowest at plus 0 00:16:11.789 --> 00:16:14.259 .8 percent. And drilling down into what drives 00:16:14.259 --> 00:16:16.559 that growth gives more insight. The South is 00:16:16.559 --> 00:16:19.299 growing robustly across all components. Natural 00:16:19.299 --> 00:16:21.799 growth births minus deaths, domestic migration, 00:16:22.059 --> 00:16:24.059 meaning people moving from other states, and 00:16:24.059 --> 00:16:26.370 international migration. But the Northeast and 00:16:26.370 --> 00:16:29.090 the West actually show negative net domestic 00:16:29.090 --> 00:16:31.409 migration. That's right. More people are moving 00:16:31.409 --> 00:16:33.789 out of those regions to other states than are 00:16:33.789 --> 00:16:36.769 moving in. Now, this outward movement is offset 00:16:36.769 --> 00:16:39.029 by natural growth and international migration, 00:16:39.129 --> 00:16:41.730 so they still grow overall. But the Northeast 00:16:41.730 --> 00:16:43.669 has the highest rate of people moving away to 00:16:43.669 --> 00:16:46.259 other states. And the Midwest. Interesting case. 00:16:46.559 --> 00:16:48.500 It has the lowest rate of natural growth among 00:16:48.500 --> 00:16:51.139 the regions, but it benefits from both positive 00:16:51.139 --> 00:16:53.840 domestic migration and international migration. 00:16:54.000 --> 00:16:55.779 OK, now here's where the demographic section 00:16:55.779 --> 00:16:59.299 got particularly fascinating, I thought, bringing 00:16:59.299 --> 00:17:02.159 in correlations with political leanings based 00:17:02.159 --> 00:17:05.990 on state level data from 2023 and 2024. Yeah, 00:17:05.990 --> 00:17:07.990 this was really interesting. There's a strong 00:17:07.990 --> 00:17:10.970 positive correlation in our value of point seven 00:17:10.970 --> 00:17:13.569 five, which is quite strong, statistically speaking, 00:17:13.569 --> 00:17:16.589 very strong between how Trumpier a state is measured 00:17:16.589 --> 00:17:19.049 by the twenty twenty four Trump vote share and 00:17:19.049 --> 00:17:22.430 its total fertility rate. So the more a state 00:17:22.430 --> 00:17:24.630 voted for Trump in twenty twenty four, the higher 00:17:24.630 --> 00:17:27.650 its fertility rate tends to be. Exactly. The 00:17:27.650 --> 00:17:29.569 average total fertility rate for Trump states 00:17:29.569 --> 00:17:31.829 was one point seven two compared to one point 00:17:31.829 --> 00:17:34.869 four nine for Harris states. Put simply Trumpier 00:17:34.869 --> 00:17:37.289 the state. higher the fertility. And there was 00:17:37.289 --> 00:17:39.529 a strong negative correlation noted too, right? 00:17:39.789 --> 00:17:42.390 R equals negative point eight zero. Yeah, also 00:17:42.390 --> 00:17:45.089 very strong. Between how Trumpier a state is 00:17:45.089 --> 00:17:47.750 and the median age at first marriage. So a negative 00:17:47.750 --> 00:17:50.109 correlation means as one goes up, the other tends 00:17:50.109 --> 00:17:53.230 to go down. The more a state voted for Trump. 00:17:53.450 --> 00:17:55.670 The lower the median age at first marriage tends 00:17:55.670 --> 00:17:58.029 to be. The average age for Trump states was 28 00:17:58.029 --> 00:18:01.670 .4 compared to 30 .3 for Harris states. So Trumpier 00:18:01.670 --> 00:18:03.690 the state, younger the age at first marriage. 00:18:03.990 --> 00:18:06.529 These correlations just based on the data offer 00:18:06.529 --> 00:18:09.190 a really compelling though obviously not causal, 00:18:09.630 --> 00:18:11.910 look at how demographic and cultural trends seem 00:18:11.910 --> 00:18:13.809 to align with political divisions across the 00:18:13.809 --> 00:18:15.789 country. Absolutely. And this connects back to 00:18:15.789 --> 00:18:17.710 some of the reader feedback we received specifically 00:18:17.710 --> 00:18:19.690 about the New Jersey primary. Right. One reader 00:18:19.690 --> 00:18:21.829 highlighted what they saw as a disconnect between 00:18:21.829 --> 00:18:25.150 the current zeitgeist, which they felt once wholesale 00:18:25.150 --> 00:18:28.109 change candidates like, you know, Bernie Sanders, 00:18:28.230 --> 00:18:30.809 Trump, maybe even Elon Musk. Right. Those kinds 00:18:30.809 --> 00:18:33.869 of figures. And candidates who are more work 00:18:33.869 --> 00:18:36.670 within the margins change this program by five 00:18:36.670 --> 00:18:39.289 percent types. And that reader's local union 00:18:39.289 --> 00:18:42.329 chapter, a university professor's union, actually 00:18:42.329 --> 00:18:45.089 endorsed a candidate described as the leftiest 00:18:45.089 --> 00:18:48.029 and most strident, which sparks some reflection 00:18:48.029 --> 00:18:50.480 in their notes about, well, the nature of unions 00:18:50.480 --> 00:18:53.119 or maybe union leaders who are professors. Interesting. 00:18:53.519 --> 00:18:55.920 So this perspective, combined with that fertility 00:18:55.920 --> 00:18:58.460 and marriage data we just discussed, it might 00:18:58.460 --> 00:19:01.380 hint at deeper cultural or ideological currents, 00:19:02.000 --> 00:19:04.240 influencing both political preferences and these 00:19:04.240 --> 00:19:06.759 underlying demographic trends across the U .S. 00:19:06.980 --> 00:19:09.359 It really might. OK, so rounding out our look 00:19:09.359 --> 00:19:11.640 at recent political news, voters in New Jersey 00:19:11.640 --> 00:19:13.779 did head to the polls for their primary elections. 00:19:14.140 --> 00:19:16.869 The results were largely as expected. Yeah, Mikey 00:19:16.869 --> 00:19:19.849 Sherrill, a Democrat, and Jack Ciattarelli, Republican, 00:19:19.970 --> 00:19:22.210 will face off for governor in November. That's 00:19:22.210 --> 00:19:24.250 set. Mikey Sherrill's Democratic primary was 00:19:24.250 --> 00:19:26.329 actually closer than Ciattarelli's Republican 00:19:26.329 --> 00:19:29.509 contest. She won with 34 % against two mayors 00:19:29.509 --> 00:19:32.750 who got about 20 % and 16%. Which led one source 00:19:32.750 --> 00:19:35.049 to wonder if New Jersey Democrats tend to prefer 00:19:35.049 --> 00:19:37.190 representatives over mayors, given how that played 00:19:37.190 --> 00:19:40.009 out. Could be. Jack Ciattarelli, on the other 00:19:40.009 --> 00:19:42.650 hand, won the Republican primary decisively, 00:19:42.869 --> 00:19:46.470 with almost 68%. But while Ciattarelli's margin 00:19:46.470 --> 00:19:49.970 was wider, the analysis notes this doesn't necessarily 00:19:49.970 --> 00:19:53.190 mean he has greater overall enthusiasm heading 00:19:53.190 --> 00:19:55.609 into the general election compared to Sherrill. 00:19:55.829 --> 00:19:58.650 Right. The Democratic primary was just more competitive. 00:19:59.109 --> 00:20:02.230 Plus, you have to remember, New Jersey is a reliably 00:20:02.230 --> 00:20:05.490 blue state. True. Significantly more votes were 00:20:05.490 --> 00:20:08.329 cast in the Democratic primary, around 800 ,000, 00:20:08.470 --> 00:20:10.289 compared to the Republican primary, which was 00:20:10.289 --> 00:20:13.250 about 450 ,000. And Mikey Sherrill is described 00:20:13.250 --> 00:20:17.079 as a Fairly boring moderate. The assessment is 00:20:17.079 --> 00:20:19.059 this makes her unlikely to turn off Democratic 00:20:19.059 --> 00:20:21.380 voters, even if she doesn't, you know, ignite 00:20:21.380 --> 00:20:24.400 huge enthusiasm. And an unenthusiastic vote counts 00:20:24.400 --> 00:20:26.500 the same as an enthusiastic one, right? Exactly. 00:20:26.759 --> 00:20:28.559 So Cheryl is presumed to be the favorite, although 00:20:28.559 --> 00:20:30.799 there isn't any general election polling available 00:20:30.799 --> 00:20:33.240 just yet. Now, this would be Ciattarelli's second 00:20:33.240 --> 00:20:35.660 try for governor. He lost by just three points 00:20:35.660 --> 00:20:38.519 to Phil Murphy last time. Pretty close. It was. 00:20:38.900 --> 00:20:41.319 And one argument reviewed suggests Ciattarelli 00:20:41.319 --> 00:20:44.119 could win this time. He's got greater name recognition 00:20:44.119 --> 00:20:47.420 now, more experience, and he's facing a non -incumbent. 00:20:47.819 --> 00:20:50.599 About the counterpoint. Well, Phil Murphy, though 00:20:50.599 --> 00:20:53.200 relatively unpopular, managed to win re -election 00:20:53.200 --> 00:20:55.900 last time, even while his party held the White 00:20:55.900 --> 00:20:58.680 House, which is something a New Jersey Democratic 00:20:58.680 --> 00:21:01.480 governor hadn't done since the LBJ era, apparently. 00:21:01.559 --> 00:21:04.069 That's a strong point. Also, Ciattarelli didn't 00:21:04.069 --> 00:21:06.049 have to contend with being associated with an 00:21:06.049 --> 00:21:08.029 unpopular Trump administration during the last 00:21:08.029 --> 00:21:10.029 election cycle because Trump wasn't in office 00:21:10.029 --> 00:21:12.329 then. That could be a factor this time around. 00:21:12.529 --> 00:21:14.509 We also got some interesting color on the primary 00:21:14.509 --> 00:21:17.849 from readers in New Jersey. One felt it was a 00:21:17.849 --> 00:21:20.829 stealth election with low turnout, saw a few 00:21:20.829 --> 00:21:23.549 yard signs, but lots and lots and lots of mailed 00:21:23.549 --> 00:21:26.309 flyers. And get this detail from that same reader. 00:21:26.599 --> 00:21:29.119 None of the flyers came from official campaigns. 00:21:29.259 --> 00:21:31.779 They were all from independent PACS political 00:21:31.779 --> 00:21:35.099 action committees, many with really obscure names. 00:21:35.299 --> 00:21:37.339 The reader joked about getting mail from New 00:21:37.339 --> 00:21:40.980 Jersey citizens for wonderfulness. Huh. It really 00:21:40.980 --> 00:21:43.799 highlights the huge role of outside money in 00:21:43.799 --> 00:21:46.460 campaigns now, even at the state level. Another 00:21:46.460 --> 00:21:48.859 reader discussed the potential split of the union 00:21:48.859 --> 00:21:51.539 vote and mentioned their local union. The university 00:21:51.539 --> 00:21:54.359 professors one endorsed the candidate described 00:21:54.359 --> 00:21:58.180 as the leftiest and most strident, which again 00:21:58.180 --> 00:22:00.720 sparked some interesting thoughts about dynamics 00:22:00.720 --> 00:22:03.900 within specific unions or maybe professors and 00:22:03.900 --> 00:22:05.980 leadership roles. And a final reader described 00:22:05.980 --> 00:22:09.319 Cheryl as just fine, characterizing her as that 00:22:09.319 --> 00:22:12.569 work within the margins type. politician. Contrasting 00:22:12.569 --> 00:22:14.750 her with candidates who seem to tap into that 00:22:14.750 --> 00:22:17.150 desire for wholesale change we mentioned earlier. 00:22:17.390 --> 00:22:19.869 Right. This reader expressed hope that Chattarelli 00:22:19.869 --> 00:22:22.150 is similarly mismatched for the current political 00:22:22.150 --> 00:22:24.490 mood, or maybe that the whole burn it all down 00:22:24.490 --> 00:22:27.009 sentiment might fade a bit by November. We'll 00:22:27.009 --> 00:22:29.269 see. Looking ahead on the political calendar, 00:22:29.569 --> 00:22:31.930 Virginia has primaries next week, followed by 00:22:31.930 --> 00:22:34.369 New York City. Always more material coming in. 00:22:34.390 --> 00:22:37.119 Never stops. Wow, OK. We've really covered a 00:22:37.119 --> 00:22:39.960 lot of ground in this deep dive today from the 00:22:39.960 --> 00:22:42.799 complex situation unfolding in Los Angeles and 00:22:42.799 --> 00:22:44.880 all the layers of political maneuvering around 00:22:44.880 --> 00:22:47.259 it Through representative MacGyver's indictment 00:22:47.259 --> 00:22:49.299 and the ins and outs of the New Jersey primary 00:22:49.299 --> 00:22:52.220 and then into that broad national picture of 00:22:52.220 --> 00:22:55.019 the federal budget deficit Yeah, and those truly 00:22:55.019 --> 00:22:57.619 fascinating correlations in US demographic trends 00:22:57.869 --> 00:23:00.329 Our mission, as always, was to extract the most 00:23:00.329 --> 00:23:02.750 important nuggets from this stack of sources, 00:23:03.390 --> 00:23:05.490 giving you a clearer, more connected picture 00:23:05.490 --> 00:23:09.329 of these different stories without feeling overwhelmed 00:23:09.329 --> 00:23:12.690 by information overload. We've seen how specific 00:23:12.690 --> 00:23:14.910 events connect to national political strategies, 00:23:15.390 --> 00:23:18.190 how legislative details impact the economy, and 00:23:18.190 --> 00:23:20.789 how those underlying demographic forces might 00:23:20.789 --> 00:23:23.210 correlate with political leanings and maybe shape 00:23:23.210 --> 00:23:26.029 the future. So what does all this mean for you 00:23:26.029 --> 00:23:28.109 thinking about the country right now? Yeah, here's 00:23:28.109 --> 00:23:30.089 a final provocative thought for you to consider 00:23:30.089 --> 00:23:32.849 building on everything we've just explored. Given 00:23:32.849 --> 00:23:35.210 the sharp political reactions to unrest we've 00:23:35.210 --> 00:23:37.589 seen, the significant increases projected for 00:23:37.589 --> 00:23:39.710 the national debt based on recent legislation 00:23:39.710 --> 00:23:42.269 and those notable demographic correlations with 00:23:42.269 --> 00:23:44.890 political alignment. How might the competing 00:23:44.890 --> 00:23:47.470 visions for the country's future actually grapple 00:23:47.470 --> 00:23:50.069 with these intertwined economic and social realities? 00:23:50.319 --> 00:23:53.259 How does that desire for wholesale change versus 00:23:53.259 --> 00:23:56.059 work within the margins politics play out against 00:23:56.059 --> 00:23:58.579 a backdrop of a rising debt burden and these 00:23:58.579 --> 00:24:01.079 really distinct regional demographic shifts? 00:24:01.380 --> 00:24:03.039 Something to keep mulling over as you observe 00:24:03.039 --> 00:24:03.579 the news.