OPINION - Brooks and Capehart 12/3/2021

"Brooks and Capehart on the future of abortion rights, government funding brinkmanship" PBS NewsHour 12/3/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including the omicron variant, U.S. government funding, and a major abortion case before the Supreme Court.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  With the Omicron variant, a near government shutdown, and a major abortion case before the Supreme Court, it has been a busy week in Washington [DC].

To examine it all, we turn to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart.  That is New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart.

Hello to both of you.

Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post:  Hi, Judy.

Judy Woodruff:  Haven't you both together in a long time.  It's good to have you here.

Let's start with the Supreme Court, Jonathan, that long awaited Mississippi abortion case, intense oral argument.  It was — once you started listening, it was hard to turn away.  A lot of people are saying they think they know what's going to happen based open that.

What did you make of it?

Jonathan Capehart:  You don't know what's going to happen based on the — based on those arguments.  We have been down this road before with the Affordable Care Act, when people listened to the or arguments and they thought for sure Obamacare [Republican name for ACA] was going to be the declared unconstitutional, and the decision came out months later, not the case.

But I do think that the concern, after listening to those oral arguments about the constant, what's going to happen to Roe v Wade, whether Roe v Wade will be overturned, is real and it's serious, primarily because, when Donald Trump was President, running for President, he said he would appoint justices to the court who would overturn Roe v Wade.

That was during the campaign.  He got three appointments to the bench.  There is now a 6-3 conservative majority.  And that is why, after listening to those oral arguments, I'm concerned and a lot of people are concerned that a constitutional right is — could be on the verge of being overturned.

And I think that's why Justice Sotomayor's question is the defining one for me, where she asks:  "Will this institution survive the stench this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?"

Judy Woodruff:  A lot of people are quoting that "survive the stench" line.

David Brooks, New York Times:  Yes.

Well, I think Roe is in danger at some point.  Once the thought is expressed as clearly as it was expressed, I think, eventually, they're going to get around to it.

And I have, frankly, been someone who has always supported the overturning of Roe, not because I'm necessarily pro-life, but because I think the court should not decide it.  I think the legislatures, and it should be decided by the democratic process.

And I have always believed — I used to believe, I should say, that, if it went back to legislators, the legislators would settle where the American people have settled.  The majority of American people do not want to ban abortion.  They want to restrict it in some way.  And different states would restrict it.

And I have always assumed that we would wind up where Europe is, with tighter laws than we have, but not a ban.

I am no longer so sanguine that our political system can handle a massive debate over an incredibly hard, incredibly complicated question.  And I say that with the awareness that majorities don't seem to rule anymore.  Polarized minorities rule in our politics very often.

And so we may wind up, if Roe is overturned this year, next year with just vicious cultural, moral, political battles at a time when our democracy is extremely fragile.  And that has got to be worrying.

Judy Woodruff:  What do you see the ramifications, Jonathan?  We don't know what's going to happen.

Jonathan Capehart:  Right.

Judy Woodruff:  But if it goes in the direction it seems to be headed, even if it's something short of completely overturning Roe?

Jonathan Capehart:  Yes, the political ramifications are huge, and I think part of the reasons that David was talking about.

I mean, for Democrats, I'm sure — if we want to get baldly political, for Democrats it could be a way of galvanizing the base at a time when the midterm elections are coming.  Democratic voter turnout traditionally is lower during midterm elections.  And they could possibly be on the verge of losing the majority in the House.  For Republicans, this could be a galvanizing thing for them in 2022 and 2024.

But, in addition to all the things that David said, the question then becomes, it's also a very personal decision.  When we're talking about a woman's reproductive health, it isn't just whether — does she have access to abortion?

No, this is one of the most personal things that she might have to endure, or will have to endure.  And I look at the possibility of the overturning of that precedent, and I look at other precedents out there that could also — with a 6-3 conservative majority, that could also be in danger.

I'm thinking about Obergefell.  I could be looking at a possibility where my marriage could be nullified by the Supreme Court.

So…

Judy Woodruff:  Upholding same-sex marriage.

Jonathan Capehart:  Yes, upholding same-sex marriage.

So, what happens with the Mississippi case — in the Mississippi case, but also we haven't even talked about Texas.  And we're still waiting to hear what the court has to say about that, which actually has even more implications for, I think, things like same-sex marriage and other precedents.

Judy Woodruff:  David, your point about whether the country can withstand that kind of a — can the court withstand the perception that decisions are made based along party lines?

I know Justice Breyer and others have said, oh, no, that's not what's going on here.

David Brooks:  Yes, of course, those on the pro-life think the court got into this in 1973 with Roe and they politicized it, and they invented a right.  That would be the pro-life argument.

And since then, our court and our judicial nomination system has become hyper-divided, hyperpolarized, because — basically because of that issue.

Can the credibility of the court — Justice Breyer and Justice Barrett said, we're not political creatures.

Judy Woodruff:  Right.

David Brooks:  And, from their day-to-day perspective, that may appear to be true, because there are a lot of decisions that we don't talk about.  They're not the big major decisions that are 7-2, 8-1, 9-0.

But I have to say, when I reflect back on the big decisions that really make the headlines and really shift American history, from Bush v Gore on to what's about to come, I'm stunned by how incredibly easy to predict the votes based on their partisanship.

And so, on the big issues, I think the court has become quite predictable and quite partisan, like the rest of America.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, speaking of partisanship, Jonathan, the Congress this week — I guess the Democrats just barely got out of town, at least for the weekend, without having the government shut down.  They were able to reach agreement over government spending.

But what — the Democrats still have some — and the President still have some big agenda items before them this month.  What does it look like is going to happen?

(LAUGHTER)

Jonathan Capehart:  Chaos, Judy.  Chaos.

We have got — so we avoided a government shutdown, actually, a day early, if you really think about it.  But we now have a debt ceiling deadline, December 15, according to the Treasury Secretary.  The National Defense Reauthorization, that's supposed to be at the end of the year; Build Back Better, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer says, oh, we're going to get it done by the end of the year or Christmas.

OK.  Sure, if you say so.

But — and that's just, that's the stuff on the table.  You have got Republicans who, on all of these things, are — basically, they're not there.  They're not a governing partner.

The problem comes when you have got Democrats talking to Democrats, and especially with Build Back Better.  So I said chaos, I have no idea how this is going — how this is going to turn out.  But if it does turn out, it's just going to be messy, and it will bleed into next year, into 2022.

And that's a problem for Democrats, because — well, for the country, because, once we — once 2022 is on the calendar, everything is going to grind to a halt, because nobody's going to want to get anything done.

Judy Woodruff:  What does it look like to you?

David Brooks:  Yes, and I saw a quote, an unnamed quote from a Hill staffer, saying the odds of getting Build Back Better this year were like 20 or 25 percent.

So that — because you got to have CBO scoring.  You got to figure out what Joe Manchin wants.  And so that's — it would be very bad for Democrats.  Joe Biden was elected to be competent, to show it would be calm, we'd have a master — the hand on the tiller, blah, blah, blah.  And the longer Democrats go on, then the worse that claim looks.

But I would say one thing in defense of the Democrats.  (A) it's basically a 50/50 Congress.  That's hard.  (B) if you look back at American history, the Great Society took years to pass.  The New Deal took years to pass.  Our system was not built for speed.

What worries me most — and this is about the government shutdown — like, they're now capable of doing nursery school level legislative activities.  And you feel like they're just barely doing that.

I had a dentist once who was in my mouth and said:  "I'm on the edge of my skill level here."  And she is in my mouth.  And I'm like, "What?"

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  So, I feel like the skill level on Capitol Hill is not where it should be, because they don't have experience of successful legislation.

That — Teddy Kennedy did it.  Back in those days, they really know how to do this stuff.  And so that's the big worry to me.

Judy Woodruff:  That's an image Jonathan and I are going to keep in our — we're going to keep that in our minds.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  But members of Congress you know may remember the nursery school level.

David Brooks:  Oh.

Judy Woodruff:  The President, Jonathan, has one other thing on his plate right now.

And that, of course, is the is the variant, the new variant now.  On top of Delta, we have Omicron.  It's everywhere in the world.  It's in multiple states.  He's done a few things, travel ban.  We're going to have increased testing.

How does it look?  How does his management of this look?  How much is riding on his management of this?

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, a lot is riding on his management of this, but I do think he is striking the right tone.

When we were talking about this last week, it was like, oh, my God, what is this thing?  It's super contagious.  I even mispronounced it because it was so new.

Judy Woodruff:  A lot of us did.

Jonathan Capehart:  Right.

But the President comes out and he says, don't panic.  Get vaccinated.  Get your booster.  Wear your mask, basically saying to the American people, look, we have the tools to be protected against this.

And I also think that the American people, after a year-and-a-half of doing this, no one wants to go into a shutdown, not the President, not — and certainly not the American people.  So we know how to protect ourselves.

So I think, if the President and the administration, as much as it can, project calm, but also clarity in what we need to do to protect ourselves from Omicron, he will be OK.

But, yes, everything is riding on this, because if we do get to a situation where he has to come to the American people and say, we have got to lock down again, even if it's for a good reason, I don't know how that's going to go over.

Judy Woodruff:  It was something the NIH Director, Francis Collins, who I talked to today, said it's something they don't want to do.

David Brooks:  Right.

And Francis said, we're not powerless.  I think that's the big story here.  We're not where we were a year ago.  And, to me, the best thing the administration has done is buy millions of doses of this Pfizer and Merck treatment regimes.  So, you get a positive test, you get five days, and you take 30 pills.  I think that's the Pfizer one.

And it has like an 85 percent of reducing — chance of reducing your hospitalization and death.  So that suggests we're going to enter a phase where we're not going to kill COVID the way we wish, but we're going to learn to live with it, the way we live with the flu.

And I think we're sort of at that point.  And we're going to — we're — if you're fully vaccinated and you're under 50, your odds are quite good.  It's still the folks who need the continued care.

And so I think we're just going to be in a country with a lot of COVID around for a long time.  But we have tools now to make it a lot safer.

Judy Woodruff:  We do have the tools.

And, again, Director Collins saying, if we — as you said, he said, we just need to keep doing what we do — doing what we know how to do, which is the testing and pills.

All right, we're going to leave it there.  Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks, so good to have you back again.

Thank you.

Jonathan Capehart:  Great to see you, Judy.

Judy Woodruff:  Thank you.

OPINION - Brooks and Capehart 9/24/2021

"Brooks and Capehart on Democratic infighting, raising debt ceiling, border crisis" PBS NewsHour 9/24/2021

SUMMARY:  New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including the divide among Democrats over the $3.5 trillion spending bill, the looming debt ceiling deadline, and the Biden administration’s response to the Haitian migrant issue on the southern border.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  As President Biden's legislative agenda stalls in Congress, he has run into yet another issue, or, we should say, continues to run into the issue of turmoil on the Southern border.

For a look at this busy week and what it all means, we're joined by Brooks and Capehart.  That is New York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart, columnist for The Washington Post.

Hello to both of you.

Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post:  You too, Judy.

Judy Woodruff:  Very good to see you…

Jonathan Capehart:  You too.

Judy Woodruff:  … on this Friday.

And there is so much to talk about.

So, David, it does look like there's real trouble for President Biden's domestic agenda.  And it's not the Republicans this time, at least on the part that he's run into, headwinds this week.  It's his own Democratic colleagues.  What is behind this?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Yes, it's just an intellectual difference.

The — and what strikes me is how so many people are drawing red lines.  The progressives are saying, we want $3.5 trillion.  We're not going under.  Manchin and others say $1.5 trillion, we're not going over.

And so that's a gigantic gap.  They can't even agree on when to vote on what.  And so I think what they need to do is look at, what is the key insight of each side?  The progressives are right that we need something big.  We're a nation in decline.  We're a nation — because of disunity.  Lots of people have been left behind by this economy.  And they're right to do something big to try to jolt us back to unity.

The moderates, in my view, are right that we're not going to have a European-style welfare state.  We're just not that kind of country.  We're an individualistic country.  We like to tie benefits to work and have a work obligation.  We're never going to give away as much money in taxes as the Europeans do.  The Norwegians give away about 46 percent of their GDP to taxes.  If this passed, it would get us up to 19.

We're just not that kind of country.  So, if you take the scope of the progressives and the values of the moderates, I think you can get a deal, but they're pretty far away from it right now.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, they both may have a point, Jonathan, but the President's — the future of his of his term in office could be in the balance here.

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, sure, it could be in the balance, but we don't know.

And I look at this as being the storm before the calm.  David's right.  A lot of red lines are being drawn.  And they seem to be being drawn since Wednesday, since they all went to the White House and had their respective meetings with the President.  And then they come out and then they state their positions again.

But I have been paying close attention to the language that they're using.  They're being very firm about what they're for and what they're not for.  But they're not attacking each other, the way they were during the summer.

And so I wonder if this is the usual Washington [DC] theatrics of just doing all of this performance, and then, at some point, when we're — when we least expect it, breaking news announcement, here's the deal.

Now, this is a different Washington.  Who knows if that moment is going to come?  I pray that it does, one, because what they're arguing over is very important for the American people.  Two, if they don't come to some sort of deal, the President's agenda goes from being stalled to dead.  And then, three, it means finally that Washington is completely broken if they can't come to some agreement here.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, it's a different — and then, meantime, there's another massive headache the President has.  And I don't know whether it's another Washington performance, but it's over the debt limit, David.

And this one is between the Democrats and the Republicans.  The Republicans are saying no way.

David Brooks:  Yes.

And when the shoe was on the other foot, they wanted the Republicans, when they were controlling things, to take it.  It's — what's changed is that, 10 years ago, people really used to care about debts and deficits.  It was ranked as a major issue by a lot of Americans.  Now, for whatever reason, some maybe dubious reasons, nobody cares, maybe just low interest rates.

So now there's much greater tolerance among both Republicans and Democrats to run up the debt.  And so voting to raise the limit is not as politically costly as it used to be.  I wish they would just get away with — do away with the whole thing.

We have committed to spend.

Judy Woodruff:  The debt limit, yes.  Yes.

David Brooks:  Yes.

We have committed to spend the money.  The debt limit just says, yes, we're going to borrow the money to spend the money we already committed to.  So they should raise it to a gazillion dollars.  And then we never approach the limit, hopefully.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  And then they should move forward.  It's a bit of ballet that we don't need.

Judy Woodruff:  Gazillion?  What do you think?

(LAUGHTER)

Jonathan Capehart:  Sure.  Gazillion is a great numerator.

But this is sort of a wonky thing, but it's super important for the American people to understand that raising the debt ceiling is not giving Washington a blank check.  It is allowing Washington to pay for the things that they have already bought.

If the government does not raise the debt ceiling, the Bipartisan Policy Center this morning put out their charts, and they have turned me into a huge debt ceiling nerd.  Started back in 2011, when Jay Powell, who was with Bipartisan Policy Center then, put this together.  He is now the Fed Chairman.

I just want the American people to understand this.  If the debt ceiling is not raised and the government can't borrow any money, it has to use the cash it has on hand.  And I have this chart here.  I don't know if the camera can get it, but I will just talk it through, that, on October 15, which they think might be the first day that we reach that X-date, the government will bring in $27 billion in revenues, but will have $43 billion in expenses.

And that's just on that first day.  All that debt that — all those things that aren't paid carries over to the next day.  I can't — we don't — I don't even have enough time to tell you the avalanche of harm that would come to the American people, to the federal government and to the global economy if that debt ceiling isn't raised.

Judy Woodruff:  And not to mention that, government shutdown and all the all the consequences of that, David.

David Brooks:  Yes.

And both the topics we have talked about so far that, the consequences of failure are cataclysmic.  And so I presume, in a normal, functioning democracy, that we don't walk over those cliffs, but who knows?

Judy Woodruff:  I'm just taking a deep breath here.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  Another, of course, major issue the President had to deal with this week, again, Jonathan, was the Southern border.

In addition to what's already been happening there, and the Haitian migrants were starting to gather, in the past week, these images of Border Patrol using reins or other — whatever, belts to go after the migrants.

President Biden has come in from enormous criticism from fellow Democrats over this.  And here's how he commented this morning on what happened.

President Joe Biden:  Of course I take responsibility.  I'm President.  But it was horrible what — to see, as you saw — to see people treated like they did, horses nearly running them over and people being strapped.  It's outrageous.

I promise you, those people will pay.  They will be — an investigation under way now, and there will be consequences.

Judy Woodruff:  And, today, we reported there are no Haitian migrants at that particular place.  We don't know whether more will be coming.

But, Jonathan, how is the President handling this?  And how much of a of a political hit is it for him?

Jonathan Capehart:  I will take the political hit first.  It's a huge hit.

And it's a huge hit.  One, with immigration, the President was already on squishy ground with the American people.  But those images that came out of the men on horseback and Black people running, it was just — is a little too close to home for a lot of us.

And for a President who campaigned on a more humane immigration policy, for a President who, on election night, said to African Americans, you brought me here and I will not forget it, that's why you had a lot of Democrats, particularly African American Democrats, saying to the President, what is going on here?  You must — you must do something about this.

And then, on top of it, what made it even more inhumane is that the President or the administration deported Haitians who had not lived in Haiti for more than 10 years to a country that is still dealing with an earthquake that happened and a Presidential assassination.

Judy Woodruff:  How can — immigration, every President counting back as far as we can count, this has been a tough issue.  Where do you see this going?

David Brooks:  Yes.

Well, we had our last successful Immigration Bill, comprehensive one, under Ronald Reagan.  That was a long time ago.  And, so, he's inherited a gigantic mess that nobody has had the solution for.  I think Biden did make it worse.

And part of the problem was, they promised, on day one, they would reverse all the Trump rules.  Reversing the Trump rules was a good idea.  But doing it all at once, on day one, people in the transition, in the White House were warning about that.  They were saying, we will be overwhelmed.  It'll be a big open door signal.  And we don't have the facilities to handle what's about to hit us.

And that turned out to be true.  And I think what bothers me, aside from what Jonathan was just expressing, was, it seems to be arbitrary, like who gets sent where.  It seems like it's just like, who knows who's being decided?  There's no methodology.  There's no procedure for a lot of people.

And so we're just overwhelmed right now.  And it's disturbing that we're overwhelmed after basically 40 years of this mess.

Judy Woodruff:  It's hard to see how this is an issue that gets resolved any time in the near term.

So, the last thing we want to bring up is, it was September 21, 2001, just a week-and-a-half after the 9/11 attacks, and here was the beginning of the "NewsHour" that night with Jim Lehrer.

Jim Lehrer, Co-Founder and Former Anchor, "PBS NewsHour":  And that brings us to Shields and Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, joined tonight by his new regular partner, David Brooks of The Weekly Standard.

Welcome, David.

David Brooks, Weekly Standard:  Thank you.

Jim Lehrer:  Formally, welcome.  You have been here many, many times before.

Judy Woodruff:  And that man has not changed one iota since September…

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  Yes, I wanted to point out I was 12 at that time.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  So, I'm — I don't know how old I am now.

Judy Woodruff:  So, David, you joined — I mean, you had been on the "NewsHour," but you joined this program at a very sobering, difficult moment for this country.

It was, what, 10 days after 9/11.  And you have been through a lot of ups and downs with the country ever since.

But just talk a little bit about what it's meant to you to be here at this table every Friday night.

David Brooks:  Yes, I will tell you what it's been like.

Like, it's the end of the week.  And, often, I'm tired.  Sometimes, I'm under the weather.  Sometimes, I'm stressed.  I come in here a little low.  I walk out of here an hour later super charged up and super happy, because I get to work with the people I have worked with, and not only the people on set, but Leah (ph) in the makeup room.  Charlie's back there, our lighting guy.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  And so it's just — you feel uplifted when you walk out.

And then, when you think about 20 years, I think about the time and about '04, '05.  Mark and I were on with Jim.  And we showed a Marine funeral just before our segment.  And Jim started crying.  And Mark and I gave like 10 minute answers, so Jim could compose itself.

And so that — that was just like — that's something we're going through together.

I think about sitting with Mark and Jim when Barack Obama gave his 2004 speech, that first big speech, which was watching a star appear, but it was also about a version of America that he was describing.

I think about the day Gwen died.  And I go through all the e-mails that she sent me over the years, and some were just about our friendship.  But a lot were tough.  Like, Gwen demanded excellence.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  And if you didn't show up, Gwen was like, show up.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  And then with you, I mean, you're the hardest-working woman in show business.  Like, I — you have not had a day where you don't completely show up for this thing.

And so you get a sense of people who respect their job and mostly respect the audience.  And out of that derives a kind of patriotism.

And other networks talk a lot about patriotism, but I think we — we try to serve a certain kind of America.  And we try to exemplify that service in a way we do things, in the culture around here.

And it's just been an honor to be part of that for 20 years.  And my next 60 years will be just as good.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  Next 60.

I mean, the "NewsHour" has been just incredibly fortunate and honored to have you with us and, of course, Mark for all those years.  And then Jonathan joined us almost a year ago.

And, Jonathan, you get to sit next to David on Friday nights.  It's not exactly like every other television show.

Jonathan Capehart:  No, it's not like every other television show.

And I knew that this was an important job to get, succeeding Mark Shields, the e-mails that came in from people saying:  Oh, my God, Mark Shields is gone.  I'm so upset.  I'm so sad.  We miss him.  But I'm glad you're there.

It was then that I realized how important this job is, how important it is, what we do.

But what makes this so much fun and why it's so wonderful to celebrate David is, we have been doing this in other venues for a few years now.  And I always look forward to being with David, because you're to the right of me.  I'm to the left of you, completely different backgrounds.

And yet, when I sit with David and talk with David, I feel like I have learned something.  I'm smarter.

The way David speaks about all the issues, it's inviting.  And that's what makes Brooks and Capehart, Shields and Brooks and all the other iterations of this so wonderful.  We come to the table to bring news, educate the audience on the inside, but then to do it in a way that invites the audience in.

Judy Woodruff:  There's clearly some magic that happens here.

David Brooks:  Thank you, Jonathan.  Thank you.

Judy Woodruff:  And we are grateful to both of you, to Jonathan Capehart and to David Brooks.

Congratulations on 20 years.

Twenty years more, 40 years more coming up.

David Brooks:  Shoot me.

(LAUGHTER)

AMERICAN POLITICS - The Divide Over Money

COMMENT:  As always Republicans are over-obsessed with money.  They believe that nothing for the common citizens is worth paying for.  But they give tax breaks to the rich and corporations which acclimate huge profits year-after-year.  Now add the old 'boggy-man' of our Dept Limit and ask why we go through this every time (the Republicans)?  Does your yearly expenses stay the same year-to-year, not likely, they increase and government is no different.

"Extending government funding and raising debt ceiling face uphill Senate battle" PBS NewsHour 9/22/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Congress must act soon just to keep the federal government functioning.  But Democratic leaders are navigating internal divides and logjams as they try to pass two bills that would together dole out trillions of dollars toward infrastructure, child care and combating climate change.  The road ahead on all of these issues is bumpy.  Lisa Desjardins walks us through what's happening on Capitol Hill.

 

 

"Biden again urges Congress to pass infrastructure, reconciliation bills amid stalemate" PBS NewsHour 9/24/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The fate of the bipartisan infrastructure bill and a $3.5 trillion spending package is at risk amid Democratic infighting.  On Friday, Biden acknowledged concerns, but urged Congress to pass both bills.  Amna Nawaz begins our report, and joins Judy Woodruff to discuss.

RED INK - Senate's 2-Year Budget

Hay, America is already trillions of dollars in debt so lets just increase it.  Sound idea....it's NOT.

"The long-term debt implications of Senate’s new 2-year budget" PBS NewsHour 8/1/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Senate passed a new budget bill Thursday, delivering a rare bipartisan legislative agreement.  But critics say the spending it allocates and its temporary suspension of the debt ceiling represent runaway spending and fiscal irresponsibility.  Lisa Desjardins joins Judy Woodruff to discuss the huge numbers at play, who opposed the new budget and the different types of spending it reflects.