Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots Podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm Joe Wisenthal. Unfortunately my co host Tracy Alloway is
Speaker 1: off today. That's because we scheduled this last minute interview
Speaker 1: with a very exciting guest to have today. I'll be
Speaker 1: speaking with ro Kana. He is the representative representing the
Speaker 1: seventeenth Congressional district of California. It includes a lot of
Speaker 1: Silicon Valley. He's a progressive Democrat, and what's striking is
Speaker 1: that he is, as far as I know, the only
Speaker 1: House Democrat to have publicly broken off with Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: over the current stimulus negotiations. So, of course Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: and ongoing discussions with Steve Manuchin in perhaps an attempt
Speaker 1: to get a deal done before the election day to
Speaker 1: spend more money to aid the economy. So far, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of debate. Speaker Pelosi has said that the
Speaker 1: offer from the administration is inadequate, not necessarily so much
Speaker 1: about the dollar amount per se, but some of the
Speaker 1: language in it. Basically all elected Democrats are with her.
Speaker 1: Our guest today, Rocana saying, you know what, Yeah, perhaps
Speaker 1: it's not a perfect deal, but it's worth getting the
Speaker 1: money out the door now, even if it's less than perfect.
Speaker 1: So we'll uh, I'll be speaking with the Congressman about
Speaker 1: his argument and why Pelosi should do a deal and something.
Speaker 1: You should note that this is a fluid, ongoing story,
Speaker 1: so by the time you're listening to this, the situation
Speaker 1: may have changed. But as it is, we're recording this
Speaker 1: Monday afternoon on the So Rocanna, thank you for joining us.
Speaker 1: I ain't great to be on so so far, as
Speaker 1: far as I know, you're the only elected Democrat, at
Speaker 1: least in the House who has publicly said to the Speaker,
Speaker 1: just take the deal. Why do you think it's so
Speaker 1: important for the Democrats to compromise somewhat and get some
Speaker 1: money out the door now? Well, I said we need
Speaker 1: to make a deal. I didn't say take the specific proposal,
Speaker 1: but I said, look, we do have to compromise. We
Speaker 1: do have to get uh money to people. The food
Speaker 1: bank lines in my district are twice as long. People
Speaker 1: are suffering and not being able to make mortgage payment.
Speaker 1: I was talking to someone who's gonna lose their house.
Speaker 1: They've run out of their four oh one k uh.
Speaker 1: There's a concern that restaurants, small restaurants that many immigrant
Speaker 1: families owned may shut down, especially with the winter months.
Speaker 1: We can't wait till February. We can't wait for a
Speaker 1: new administration. And after I spoke out, a number of
Speaker 1: others have spoken out, Tom Melanowski, Peter Welch, and quite
Speaker 1: a few others. So in your view as of right now,
Speaker 1: and I mentioned we're recording this one day afternoon in
Speaker 1: October nine, what do you see as the gap between
Speaker 1: what the sort of the ideal to bill from your
Speaker 1: caucus would be and where the White House is? Well,
Speaker 1: we had made a considerable progress, and right before this podcast,
Speaker 1: I was on a conference call with the Speaker, and
Speaker 1: it looks like the White House has come, uh finally
Speaker 1: to recognize the need for a national testing strategy. They've
Speaker 1: come up to our seventy five billion that we need
Speaker 1: for contact tracing and testing. Uh. It seems like they
Speaker 1: are uh finally agreeing to more state and local aid.
Speaker 1: We were at four hundred thirty billion. There's still a
Speaker 1: part on on that number. But we need language on
Speaker 1: liability to make sure we're not compromising workers safety on
Speaker 1: that issue, uh, And we need language to make sure
Speaker 1: that the money that is being allocated actually is going
Speaker 1: to working families, to small businesses, and isn't just going
Speaker 1: to the discretion of how the Secretary wants wants to
Speaker 1: spend it. It go further on that point, because this
Speaker 1: has been a controversial thing ever since Cares Act was
Speaker 1: passed earlier in the year, This idea of discretion on
Speaker 1: the part of the Secretary of the Treasury, Minuchin, what
Speaker 1: are your big concerns with that in terms of allowing
Speaker 1: him to decide how a certain amount of cash gets spent. Well,
Speaker 1: it could go to children, It could go to people
Speaker 1: in poverty. I mean people say, okay, what's twenty billion,
Speaker 1: thirty billion in the context of one trillion, I mean
Speaker 1: thirty billion dollars going to children in this country would
Speaker 1: make a dramatic difference in the poverty rates. It would
Speaker 1: make a dramatic difference in terms of if we could
Speaker 1: get it to earn a catastrate a child testrion. So
Speaker 1: the last thing we want to do is give this
Speaker 1: secretary money which he may use to help airlines or
Speaker 1: may use to help executives. Uh. And people feel that
Speaker 1: the people most in need didn't have it. Now you
Speaker 1: mentioned and liability. This has been a big priority reportedly
Speaker 1: for Majority Leader of the Senate McConnell, that businesses have
Speaker 1: some sort of liability protection. What's your view and how
Speaker 1: much is this a sort of poison pill that Democrats
Speaker 1: really just can't vote for if versus um something where
Speaker 1: there is potential for a compromise. I think there is
Speaker 1: potential for compromising. The compromise that we have outline is
Speaker 1: very simple. Adopt worker safety protections as a safe harbor.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you adopt the protections, if you say
Speaker 1: we're going to adopt a plan to keep workers safe,
Speaker 1: we're gonna have the appropriate ppe, we're gonna have the
Speaker 1: appropriate social distancing, and you comply with that, uh, then
Speaker 1: the liability is not going to be an issue. But
Speaker 1: we're not going to give you immunity if you have
Speaker 1: no plan to keeping workers safe. Okay, So in theory,
Speaker 1: businesses can in your viewers should be able to get
Speaker 1: some sort of legal protection under the stipulation that they
Speaker 1: take worker safety seriously exactly. And and I think any language,
Speaker 1: once you comply with the workers safety UH provisions, that
Speaker 1: provides a safe harbor. I mean, then if you're sued,
Speaker 1: then you could say, no, Look, we complied with what
Speaker 1: Congress said. Actually is a safeguard for businesses. When McConnell
Speaker 1: is saying, is just give them blanket immunity so that
Speaker 1: if people come to work and get COVID, they have
Speaker 1: no responsibility. Currently, the Ocean Statue of and this is
Speaker 1: getting a little in the weeds, but it has it
Speaker 1: doesn't regulate airborne pathogen. So when McConnell is saying, is
Speaker 1: that's your problems, like getting the cold. If you got
Speaker 1: to work and you get the cold, you can't sue, uh,
Speaker 1: the your employer. And unfortunately there's some Republicans who still
Speaker 1: make that analogy. But COVID is not the cold. It's
Speaker 1: a deadly disease, and we have to require that employers
Speaker 1: take basic measures. Particularly, I mean when you look at
Speaker 1: Amazon and you know people in fulfillment centers where they're
Speaker 1: packed almost like sardines and rapidly transmitting uh, the disease.
Speaker 1: The Amazon or other companies like that need to take
Speaker 1: preventive measures. So obviously we're literally two weeks out or
Speaker 1: two weeks in a day as we're recording this from
Speaker 1: the election. How much anxiety, honestly is there on the
Speaker 1: part of Democrats about this idea of you know, quote,
Speaker 1: giving Trump a win or giving McConnell a win at
Speaker 1: such a pivotal moment, especially with the belief that a
Speaker 1: lot of people think there's gonna be a huge Democratic
Speaker 1: sweep and the opportunity to pass the sort of perfect
Speaker 1: bill at the Dream Bill come January. I don't think
Speaker 1: that's what's motivating Get for a couple of reasons. One,
Speaker 1: I think this would be seen as a win for
Speaker 1: the speaker. I mean, the House Democrats passed something five
Speaker 1: months ago, they passed something a month ago. We all
Speaker 1: know that. You know, Trump's advisor Cudlow was out there saying, oh,
Speaker 1: we don't need a stimulus, the economy is doing perfectly fine. Uh,
Speaker 1: And that was wrong. And the President basically is going
Speaker 1: to be passing Pelosi's bail. I mean, so I think
Speaker 1: this would be seen a win in leadership for how Democrats. Second,
Speaker 1: the human need, I mean, the the fact of the
Speaker 1: matter is that you can't wait till February. I mean
Speaker 1: the stock market can wait? Is stock market? You can say, look,
Speaker 1: the odds are Democrats are gonna win and everything will
Speaker 1: be fine February, And that's the expected value, but you
Speaker 1: don't have expected value calculations if you're looking to put
Speaker 1: food on the table or meet your next rent bill. So, uh,
Speaker 1: the urgency of acting is is there as well? Right?
Speaker 1: So earlier in the spring, of course, the House already
Speaker 1: did pass a pretty substantial Phase four. I don't even
Speaker 1: know what phase we're on anymore, but another a huge deal,
Speaker 1: the Heroes Act. I think it was worth over three
Speaker 1: trillion dollars. If we do get a Democratic suite Biden
Speaker 1: in the White House, a Democratic Senate, do you think
Speaker 1: that is basically, um, roughly what we could expect in
Speaker 1: terms of fiscal stimulus out of your caucus or could
Speaker 1: it even be potentially bigger in your view? I think
Speaker 1: we would even do something bigger because that that bill
Speaker 1: didn't have a monthly stimulus checks. That bill didn't have
Speaker 1: sufficient infrastructure investment to create jobs. So I think there's
Speaker 1: gonna be a whole look at what is it going
Speaker 1: to take to get the economy back on track? What's
Speaker 1: it going to take to create jobs now? If we
Speaker 1: can get uh some of it done now, then we
Speaker 1: can come back for doing the remainder uh in February.
Speaker 1: And I think that there's a large value in in
Speaker 1: in doing that, especially because you may have much greater
Speaker 1: Republican opposition once you have a H. Joe Biden as president.
Speaker 1: So potentially any deal that's done now part of the election,
Speaker 1: or I guess theoretically in the lame duck could be
Speaker 1: seen as kind of a down payment on something larger,
Speaker 1: but allow allow some of the work to get done now. Yes,
Speaker 1: I mean, because you don't, because, like I said, people
Speaker 1: can't wait till February. And second, while I'm very confident
Speaker 1: Abiden and I'm hopeful on the Senate, I mean it
Speaker 1: seems a big gamble to begin to say that, uh,
Speaker 1: we're definitely gonna win back the Senate, and let's say
Speaker 1: we don't. Let's say we have Biden and the Senate
Speaker 1: is is still by one vote in Republican hands. Then
Speaker 1: what are we gonna do? So I just think that
Speaker 1: there's too much writing on it. Let's get people relief
Speaker 1: and then we can get done the remainder in February.
Speaker 1: Do you think that the Democratic Party do you sense
Speaker 1: a change in deficit phobia in your party? Whereas at
Speaker 1: one point I think under the Obama administration, very early
Speaker 1: on after the Great Financial crisis, there was impulse on
Speaker 1: the part of the Obama administration to reign deficits, to
Speaker 1: talk about the important of getting them under control. Do
Speaker 1: you think that impulse um is less there and that
Speaker 1: the party feels comfortable about spending without apologizing for it.
Speaker 1: I got one this it's been necessitated by this this crisis.
Speaker 1: You know, I will say one of the most unpopular
Speaker 1: votes I cast. I think it was one of two
Speaker 1: or three people to vote against the Democratic Rules Package
Speaker 1: in the beginning of this Congress because it had PAGO.
Speaker 1: And one of the arguments I made is Pago makes
Speaker 1: no sense as an economic matter. How can you pay
Speaker 1: for everything? What if we have a crisis, we may
Speaker 1: need to spend more than something costs, and it's just
Speaker 1: terrible economics. And uh, I you know, I was excloriated
Speaker 1: I think in uh certainly by certain colleagues. Why are
Speaker 1: you voting against Pago. Well, it turns out that we
Speaker 1: had a pandemic, and now they're just suspending PAGO. Hopefully
Speaker 1: this teaches us a lesson that we shouldn't have Pago
Speaker 1: in in in future packages. I mean, the idea is
Speaker 1: that a government needs to be able to spend when
Speaker 1: interest rates are extranally low and when we have crises
Speaker 1: and need fiscal stimulus. And of course Powell has made
Speaker 1: this argument, and and I think this is where he
Speaker 1: makes a very He's a more conservative, and he makes
Speaker 1: this argument better than I do. And he says, look,
Speaker 1: in a low interest rate environment, if you borrow the
Speaker 1: money and you spend it, you're gonna prevent further permanent
Speaker 1: damage to the economy because you may save some restaurants
Speaker 1: and small businesses from going under. If you don't spend
Speaker 1: that money, you're gonna have permanent damage. And that permanent
Speaker 1: damage is actually gonna lower the the economic growth. So
Speaker 1: spend the money now at low interest rates, preserve the growth,
Speaker 1: and then, by the way, you can always pay it back. Now,
Speaker 1: people will argue that government ments never pay back, but
Speaker 1: theoretically there is no real economic case for not spending them.
Speaker 1: You know. One of the things that I think has
Speaker 1: really struck a lot of people with the Cares Act
Speaker 1: is that, and it sounds simple, but that putting money
Speaker 1: in people's pockets is just an incredibly powerful tool, and
Speaker 1: that it works very well. And we saw this pretty
Speaker 1: impressive rebound in spending and all kinds of positive economic
Speaker 1: outcomes as a result of that much rebound, much faster
Speaker 1: than a lot of economists had expected. What about something,
Speaker 1: and where do you stand on sort of uh, permanently
Speaker 1: establishing more robust fiscal stabilizers so that we don't always
Speaker 1: need to have a bill or a vote or cares
Speaker 1: act like situation where as soon as the unemployment rate
Speaker 1: starts to rise, we kick in nationally unemployment insurance on
Speaker 1: a robust scale to start to balance out fight the downturn.
Speaker 1: I think i'd be one of the smartest policies we
Speaker 1: could have. Bill Spriggs, who was an economists and the
Speaker 1: Obama administration has been pushing this. In fact, I was
Speaker 1: working with him on such legislation before the pandemic. But
Speaker 1: having automatic stabilizers, having some sense that things kick in
Speaker 1: just particularly to state and local government so that they
Speaker 1: don't have to lay off and on unemployment insurance and
Speaker 1: extensions in moment the crisis, I think would help alleviate
Speaker 1: the worst of downturns and make sure that we don't
Speaker 1: have these huge spikes in unemployment. Alright, I'll let you
Speaker 1: go in just a minute, but I gotta ask sort
Speaker 1: of one question that's not related to this. Of course,
Speaker 1: your district, UM, your represent the seventeenth Congressional district. And
Speaker 1: if you look at the names of the towns, there's
Speaker 1: all the familiar Silicon Valley town Sunny Vale, Coupertino, Santa
Speaker 1: Clara and so forth. Obviously, we've seen a lot of
Speaker 1: Democrats really um get more aggressive about their calls for
Speaker 1: big tech to be broken up, to be regulated more aggressively.
Speaker 1: Tell me about the conversations you have with your constituents
Speaker 1: on this topic and why how do you view that
Speaker 1: agenda in terms and in the context of representing the
Speaker 1: best the best interests of the people who vote for you. Well,
Speaker 1: we definitely need well crafted regulations. I mean, we have
Speaker 1: to recognize the value of technology. I mean they're responsible
Speaker 1: for some of the greatest in vations in the world.
Speaker 1: In our country, I think if the SNP five of
Speaker 1: its growth over the last five years have been some
Speaker 1: of these tech companies. They're fueling a lot of uh
Speaker 1: economic activity in this country and helping even small businesses
Speaker 1: with which are now selling online and they're competing with
Speaker 1: ten Cent and Bai Do and Ali Baba and in
Speaker 1: China on the other hand, we have to make sure
Speaker 1: that these platforms aren't abusing their own platform privileges. So
Speaker 1: I don't believe we should break them up. Of one
Speaker 1: thing I should do think we need to consider is
Speaker 1: to have a duty to deal with sellers. Uh. That
Speaker 1: means platforms shouldn't just have a presumption that they can
Speaker 1: do whatever they want on their platform and not allow
Speaker 1: other people to sell or to use their platforms if
Speaker 1: they have some form of monopoly power, some high concentration,
Speaker 1: I mean, too many people need these platforms, uh, and
Speaker 1: they shouldn't have the arbitrary ability to deny access. I
Speaker 1: mentioned that the big outset. You're the first elected representative
Speaker 1: to say do a deal, and not necessarily the deal
Speaker 1: that was on the table, but get some deal done.
Speaker 1: As you mentioned, A couple of others um have now
Speaker 1: said that why was that not a why was that
Speaker 1: a sort of minority position or why has that been well?
Speaker 1: I mean we candid. I mean I think people said, oh,
Speaker 1: are you hurting our sides negotiating posture? And and we
Speaker 1: should just speak with with one voice, and and people
Speaker 1: you know, you don't want to say that we're willing
Speaker 1: to compromise because we have to play hardball. I mean,
Speaker 1: those were the counter arguments for for not speaking out.
Speaker 1: And my view is that, you know, my first duty
Speaker 1: is to my constituents, and a lot of people in
Speaker 1: my constituency said we have to go get something done.
Speaker 1: And I have faith in Nancy plus that she's a
Speaker 1: very tough negotiator. Having members say we need to get
Speaker 1: something done is not going to uh compromise her ability
Speaker 1: of getting the best deal. But I do think that
Speaker 1: the country wants members at least making every effort to
Speaker 1: uh to come to some agreement. And in your view,
Speaker 1: Speaker Pelosi is negotiating with minutrition and totally good faith,
Speaker 1: with the desire to get a deal, not just because
Speaker 1: there's this perception that, oh, they just want to be
Speaker 1: seen as talking. No, I don't think. Look that I
Speaker 1: don't understand why Trump, who has been so inconsistent when
Speaker 1: at some point says I don't want to negotiate and
Speaker 1: another point says, go bigger, if you're serious about this
Speaker 1: at two point two trillion, where they're already up to
Speaker 1: like one point nine trilliant, he could have just said,
Speaker 1: let's take what the Houses has done, I mean, and
Speaker 1: then it would have been very clear that they the
Speaker 1: negotiations were we're taking place. I mean, we couldn't reject
Speaker 1: what we've already passed. So I think you've had a
Speaker 1: lot of the gamesmanship out of the White House and McConnell,
Speaker 1: and that's really been where the bulk of the problem is.
Speaker 1: That said, you know, there are people on our side.
Speaker 1: We believe we have to compromise as well, and we
Speaker 1: want to get something done. All right, Rocanna, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for joining us, and it should be uh,
Speaker 1: we'll be we'll be watching. Thank Karen, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: And that was my conversation with the Representative Rocana. You know,
Speaker 1: of course by the time you're listening to that, um,
Speaker 1: everything may have changed in terms of where we are
Speaker 1: with the stimulus. But again we're recording this Monday afternoon
Speaker 1: on the nineteen, So there you have it. This has
Speaker 1: been another episode of the Odd Lots Podcast. I'm Joe Wisn't.
Speaker 1: You can follow me on Twitter at the Stalwart. Follow
Speaker 1: my co host Tracy Alloway on Twitter at Tracy Alloway.
Speaker 1: Follow my guest on Twitter, Representative Rocanna, He's at Rep Rocana.
Speaker 1: Follow our producer Laura Carlson at Laura M. Carlson, Follow
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Head of podcast, Francesco Levie, and check out
Speaker 1: all of our podcasts onto the handle at podcast. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening.