Billionaires are running America. The current shutdown proves it.

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Taya Graham:

Hello everyone. Welcome back to the Inequality Watch Report. I’m Taya Graham, your inequality watchdog. Now, these past two weeks, Washington didn’t just shut down the government. It shut down equality because when the government stops working, inequality doesn’t take a break. It actually cashes in. Now Republicans are saying that the shutdown is about bad policy from Democrats, but we see something different that it is fundamentally about inequality and we can prove it right, Stephen?

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, absolutely. This is what I think we are going to start calling the first full throated inequality shutdown. It’s not just about politics. It’s not just about who has different policy proposals. I think we’re seeing something really, really different. It’s been evolving and it’s been on the horizon for a long time, but walking around Capitol Hill, we are seeing a different force here that is kind of defining the moment. I think it has a lot to do with economic inequality.

Taya Graham:

Now, what have you been seeing on Capitol Hill? I mean, we’ve been going to DC I would say, every other day for the past two weeks monitoring this shutdown. What have you been seeing?

Stephen Janis:

Nothing basically. Well, because there’s no one there because Johnson has shut down Congress. Now, generally speaking, in the past when you have shutdowns, you’ll have both sides sort of eating a lot of pizza, staying up late, negotiating at least being around. But Johnson has said absolutely no one’s going to be there, so there’s no way anything can happen. So they have literally thwarted any kind of exchange between the two parties. So really that’s what makes it to me somewhat different. In the past, there have been the same sort of brinkmanship when it comes to policy. Someone has one idea, someone has another, but this is completely sclerotic. There is no negotiation going on, and to me, that says a lot about where our democracy is right now.

Taya Graham:

Very well said. And honestly, while Congress is bickering, overspending, and the Democrats are outnumbered and outgunned while they’re trying to restore the Affordable Care Act subsidies or protect Medicare from cuts or just keep food on the table from mothers and babies who rely on SNAP and wic, and meanwhile, the same Republicans who call themselves fiscally responsible are essentially on paid vacation as government employees are told to work for free. So from what you’ve seen, what are the Democrats actually fighting for in this shutdown, and what happens if those A subsidies and Medicare protections lapse for even just a few weeks?

Stephen Janis:

Well, so exactly, precisely what they want is the restoration of the A tax credits, which were enacted during the pandemic in 2000, what was 2021. And what they were meant to do was make the Affordable Care Act more affordable for people by giving credits to people tax credits who have higher and higher incomes. Now, it goes all the way up and down the scale, but basically what it did was cut in half the premiums that people are paying, even more so than that, and what will happen if these expire, people’s health insurance premiums on a monthly basis will go up substantially. And that’s on top of the fact that people’s healthcare is already getting more expensive. So it will be catastrophic for a lot of families, and that’s why the Democrats are sort of holding ground and not negotiating at this point.

Taya Graham:

As a matter of fact, we have a clip. We actually attended the Democratic Women’s Caucus presser. Let’s just listen to one of the Democrats describe the impact that these cuts are going to have.

Speaker 3:

Hospitals are closing maternity care, deserts are growing, Medicaid is being gutted by a trillion dollars. Think about what that means to the American people and specifically to the people that Mike Johnson represents. Most children in Louisiana are on Medicaid. 64% of births in Louisiana are paid for by Medicaid, and 74% of nursing home residents in Louisiana are also on Medicaid. So this isn’t about blue states versus red states. When you defund Medicaid, when you refuse to stop going after the Affordable Care Act, when you choose to hike premiums, all to cut tax cuts for 900 billionaires, it’s everyone else who suffers.

Taya Graham:

Now, Steven, what I found curious is that the cuts that she’s describing, a lot of the people in Speaker Johnson’s district are actually going to suffer if these healthcare premiums through the a CA become unaffordable, how can he continue to ignore his constituents?

Stephen Janis:

Okay, that’s why we’re calling this an inequality shutdown. What you’re seeing here is something, a phenomena that we’ve called and that we’ve been tracking called constituent disengagement, right? Where the needs of your constituents have no effect on your politics. And what you’re seeing in Speaker Johnson’s cases, actually 77% of the people who get upon Obamacare credits are in red states. And Speaker Johnson’s district has some of the highest number of Medicaid recipients. So you’re seeing this process where the constituents needs are disengaged from the, and why would that happen? Why would that disengagement occur? Because they know they don’t need constituents. They know that they have a oligarchy in some sense, that will clear the way for their election regardless of what happens. We’ll talk about more how that process works and how the mechanics of that works. But that’s the basic thing you’re seeing is a disengagement from, and that’s how democracy works, right? You’re constituents need healthcare, you’re going to vote for it, you’re going to negotiate, you’re going to keep Congress open. But in this case, he said, no, absolutely not. The bank is closed. And I think that has a lot to do with the psychology of an inequality shutdown and why it differs from other

Taya Graham:

Shutdowns. There are people who are working right now. There are people who are running the power grid. There are people who are in law enforcement. There are people in the military. There are people in hospitals, air traffic controls, air traffic control. People who are protecting us when we’re flying, who are not getting paid right now, but they’re not the only ones getting furloughed. Even justice gets furloughed. Now, remember that discharge petition that could force a vote to expose Epstein’s powerful protectors that is still frozen in limbo and the wealthy predators remain protected while working class Americans are losing their healthcare and paychecks, and the victims of these predators are still waiting for justice and their day in court. Now, you brought up the Epstein discharge petition in our interview on Capitol Hill. Can you explain how this unfinished business reflects a justice system where the wealthy are literally insulated and protected from justice while the rest of the government literally stops functioning?

Stephen Janis:

Well, the thing is that right now the discharge petition has 217 votes. There are only three Republicans. So basically right now, the entire Republican party is covering up for serial predators, a serial predator, and a lot of his cohorts and do not want the files to be released. Now, what a discharge petition does is it means that Congress has to have a vote. So that means that right now, speaker Mike Johnson won’t even allow Congress to vote on a subpoena that would force the Justice Department to release all the records. Now, we were on Capitol Hill, we covered the press conference for the survivors. I know you had a lot of thoughts about that. I mean, it impacted you, right?

Taya Graham:

It absolutely did. And I don’t think anyone could look those women in the eyes. I stood just two, three feet away from many of these women, spoke to them directly, asked some questions directly. I don’t think anyone could look those women in the eyes and not believe them when they were speaking their truth. And this is not just one woman or two women or three women who have come forward. There were literally a dozen women there who were brave enough to come forward and talk about their experience. And they’re doing it for the hundreds of women and girls who had been victimized by Jeffrey Epstein, which is why it was so egregious that Cash Patel, FBI director said essentially that Epstein, excuse me, only trafficked those hundreds of victims to

Stephen Janis:

Himself

Taya Graham:

As if there was no other predator involved.

Stephen Janis:

Now, how this fits into the idea of the inequality shutdown is the fact that Jeffrey Epstein is a perfect example of how the justice system has been warped by inequality. We learned as part of some of the documents that came out, that police in the initial 2008 charge, 2009 charge released the names of people who had complained about Epstein to him. We also learned that Epstein, of course, spent weekends, spent nights in jail, but days in his own home, and as you said, probably

Taya Graham:

Victimizing, he actually spent days in his own office, his luxury

Stephen Janis:

Office,

Taya Graham:

And it was said and alleged that there were women that were brought to him during the day while he was at that office.

Stephen Janis:

You have a

Taya Graham:

Incredible

Stephen Janis:

Massive inequality in injustice system that will prosecute people we’ve seen in Baltimore for spitting on a sidewalk and throw them in jail. And this man didn’t serve any real jail time until most recently, until 2019. So you have this massive inequality that we see portrayed in that. And I think it is plausible that Johnson doesn’t want to open Congress because he doesn’t want to have to swear in at Alito Alva who would be the 218th vote on the discharge petition. I think that’s a big thing. We’ve talked to many people who said that we played the clip. Absolutely. We actually have a clip with her where we asked her specifically about this, why don’t we play it and then we’ll talk about it.

Speaker 4:

Congressman, do you agree that you’re not being sworn in because of the Epstein petition? Is that what you think is

Speaker 5:

There is no other common denominator that we can point to,

Speaker 4:

Right? And so how do you feel about that? I mean, what do you want?

Speaker 5:

One incredibly frustrated. The issue of releasing the Epstein was Trump’s campaign promise. On day one, they would be released. So here we are waiting, and now we have Speaker Johnson who’s actually ended votes early in order to avoid a vote. And obstructing my sworn in.

Speaker 4:

Will you sign the petition once you’re sworn in?

Speaker 5:

Yes, I will. That’s number 2 18, 2 17, got in and after 24 hours, no problem at all.

Speaker 4:

And he swore people in during pro forma sessions before, right?

Speaker 5:

Yes, he has. And a whole freshman class was sworn in during the shutdown, so there really is no excuse. Do you think he’s holding up the swearing in because of the Epstein file? I mean, I can’t point to anything else.

Stephen Janis:

So I mean, all the excuses Johnson has thrown up, like Congress is not in session, did not apply to Republicans, and he has continued to be stubborn. She’s been elected for 22 days. Two Florida Republicans have sworn in almost 24 hours after they were elected.

Taya Graham:

She has several hundred thousand constituents that aren’t being represented right now because he won’t swear in. And so he has changed his theory onto why she shouldn’t be sworn in. He said that she deserves all the pomp and circumstance and that other people have received when they’re sworn in.

Stephen Janis:

So imagine what that means that the entire Congress, the people’s body, they’re supposed to be the most representative, is shut down to protect a serial predator. How much more could that be an expression of inequality in this

Taya Graham:

Country? Absolutely. And there’s a grim irony here. The same politicians who are decrying government waste are still collecting paychecks. They’re still getting paid while janitors and TSA and other federal emergency staff and so many others and federal contractors. And how does this hypocrisy play out politically? Is the media getting this message across and what is their role in this?

Stephen Janis:

Well, I think the media is playing as a sort of a horse race where you have two parties who’s going to win, as if that’s the most important thing to people that don’t have healthcare, who’s going to come out on top? What’s the gamesmanship? Republicans making certain moves, like forcing a vote on the defense bill? Defense appropriations Bill, Democrats doing X, Y, and Z. So they’re not covering, they’re not looking at the underlying substantial issues or what we’re talking about constituent disengagement. That is not the issue. What the issue is for them is who’s going to come out and triumph in this. And I think that’s part of why I think the mainstream media does not do the service it could be doing to this particular debate because the underlying extremes of inequality are what driving this, and it’s not really horse race, and the losers are going to be the American people regardless of what happens.

Taya Graham:

And we’ve spoken and we’ve spoken on the inequality, watch about our theory on conflict billionaires. Steven, maybe you can talk about their role in shaping the narrative that undocumented immigrants are the reason that millions of Americans shouldn’t receive cheap

Stephen Janis:

Healthcare. Right. Well, let’s listen to Speaker Mike Johnson make his argument and we come back. I will talk about that a little bit.

Speaker 6:

As you know, people who are here in the United States legally have never been eligible for the Obamacare subsidies for Medicare, for Medicaid. So what exactly are you saying that they’re trying to do when you talk about giving free healthcare to

Speaker 7:

Them? I’m so glad you asked. Okay. So when we passed the one big beautiful bill, the Working Families Tax Cut, we had Medicaid reforms in the bill. You and I talked about it on the air. What we did was to eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse. There were a lot of people on the program who were enrolled in the program who were never eligible to be there. Medicaid is intended for eligible US citizens, not illegal aliens, not also US citizens who are able bodied workers like young men. So we passed the law. This president signed it into law. Democrats voted against it, of course, and it’s been wildly successful.

Speaker 6:

What you did was narrow the eligibility for certain people to get access to the A CA subsidies. What they want to do is undo the changes that Republicans made in that, but basically, wouldn’t that only affect people who do have legal status? People who are refugee seekers here in the United States, asylum seekers here.

Speaker 7:

Those are two totally different issues. Now, they’ve created this as a new argument that they have as to why they should not keep the government open, but they’re arguing a December policy debate for a September funding issue. The subsidies that you’re talking about don’t expire until the end of December.

Speaker 6:

No, no, no. The subsidies for just everyday Americans, that’s one thing that obviously has been the main premise of their argument. But you’re saying they want to give free healthcare to people who are in the United States illegally.

Speaker 7:

That is exactly what the effect will be. But

Speaker 6:

When I looked at it, there’s a little nuance because they want to undo changes that y’all made narrowing who was eligible to get that? Those are people who are refugee seekers, asylum seekers. They’re not technically people who are here illegally.

Stephen Janis:

Okay. Tell you, this is an argument that is actually prov to be false on its face. It doesn’t really take much fact checking or much Googling to figure out or AI searching to figure out this is absolutely, absolutely false. But why would an entire party base its argument on something that is provably so easy to unwind and prove false? Well,

Taya Graham:

I mean, Kaitlyn Collins was able to prove it false. I mean, it’s literally illegal, federally prohibited for someone who is undocumented to receive access to Medicaid or to the a CA.

Stephen Janis:

Well, part of our idea of constituent dissociation or constituent disengagement is the idea of Facebook arguments. These are arguments that are tailored to Facebook because there’s simplistic lacking content or because they’re simplistic, lacking context. These are Facebook ready arguments. And how that plays into the conflict billionaires is, we talked about this in an earlier show. The conflict billionaires are the people who monetize and profit off of conflict as a way to keep us from accessing our rights and for holding politicians accountable. And the way to make the system unresponsive to the masses. That’s exactly what it is. So conflict billionaires are like a Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk. I mean, let’s remember Elon Musk bought Twitter prior to his turn to becoming a Republican and supporting Trump. So basically speaking, these conflict billionaires have set the stage for these simplistic type of arguments that are provably false, but actually easy to pass along on Facebook. I have friends who are Trumpers, and they post this all the time. You could post all the contextual elements saying this is not true. The law completely forbids it and it won’t matter. So basically, the conflict billionaires have taken the public square that could be informative and make us make Congress more responsive and make us understand what Congress has to do to actually protect our rights and made it a complete fertile ground for stupidity and actually inaccuracy. So that’s how it

Taya Graham:

Works. It’s such a shame because initially, and I hate to admit my age, but I was around when the internet was first being born, and there was bulletin board systems.

Stephen Janis:

I know you’re that old,

Taya Graham:

But it was actually a way for people to communicate with each other. And now the way these social media platforms are manipulated by the billionaire CEOs who run them we’re able to communicate less effectively. And we are more partisan than ever. I mean, the promise of the internet was that it was going to connect all of us that was going to welcome in a new age of communication all across the globe. And instead, we are more siloed. We are more partisan, and we’re angrier at each other than I think we’ve ever been.

Stephen Janis:

Well, I think it was all down to a very simple decision that many of these platforms made, which was instead of having your newsfeed go chronological, your newsfeed became cluttered with stuff that got the most reaction or the most anger, the most hate, the most low sum responses. And when they made that decision, they made tons of money, but they also made impossible for people to have reason debate about policy.

Taya Graham:

And they also, as a matter of fact, just as one small example, or actually I shouldn’t say a Civil war is a small example, Facebook allowed, really helped foment a civil war in Myanmar. So these partisan views, these silos that we end up in politically that are enhanced by the, I guess the outrage mechanics of the social media platforms we engage with, they have serious real world consequences on our

Stephen Janis:

Politics. It would be much harder for Mike Johnson to make that argument, that specious argument about people’s access to this care. If he didn’t have Facebook and the other platforms in Twitter to extol the virtues of his ability to debate public policy, it would be and amplify nearly

Taya Graham:

Impossible to amplify these incredibly 2D thoughts.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. So it’s really the perfect runway for them. And then you add on top of it, they close down Congress. So really the avenues of accountability and the ability of democracy to circulate ideas and then to hash them out has become almost impossible because billionaires pretty much own all the operative mechanics of the system.

Taya Graham:

They own the commons.

Stephen Janis:

And the thing is, I want to make this point, this is not a revolutionary point. People have talked about this before, but we are seeing it. We are seeing it because we walked around the halls of Congress. Yes, we did. We’re run the video right now and it was empty.

Taya Graham:

Yes, it was

Stephen Janis:

During what would be a national crisis. You just mentioned all the people that aren’t getting paid who aren’t working, and we could walk around and not find anyone. We knock them

Taya Graham:

Doors and all the Congress members who are getting paid

Stephen Janis:

Right

Taya Graham:

Now and they are getting paid. Let’s make sure to emphasize that all those Congress members that aren’t working for you right now are getting paid.

Stephen Janis:

But remember, I mean, to make a deal, people need to talk. People need to interact, and they’re not doing that. And people need these healthcare benefits and they need to find a way to make it happen. And they will not, so long as they’re not in session. And so long as Mike Johnson continues on that path, we will not see any progress.

Taya Graham:

Very true. And just to be completely clear, this isn’t just a gridlock. It’s a shutdown of fairness and of compassion, which we’ve been calling the inequality shutdown. The people who clean the government offices or protect our airplanes or care for our seniors or feed our children are the first to feel it. And next, anyone who needs healthcare enrollment on November 1st, they’re going to feel it next. And the people who broke the system, the billionaires, the lobbyists, and the political grifters, they will never feel that pain unless, for example, citizens United is struck down in an attempt to detoxify our democracy by getting the dark money out politics. But that would just be one small step, and I would be curious to know what anyone who might be watching, what do you think would be the next step to make our democracy healthy? Again, please be sure to leave your thoughts in the comments below, and I might even be able to pick out one for the comment of the week. I want to thank you for joining us for the Inequality Watch Report. I’m Taya Graham.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks Arm me. Appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

And that’s Stephen. Janis. So we’re your Inequality Watch Dogs reporting for you.