Episode 05: The Wolf in a Silver Fox’s Clothing

What Neil Gorsuch might mean for the Supreme Court, and what Alexander Acosta might mean for the future of labor. Plus, the role of celebrities in the resistance against President Trump, and a hot mic moment in Michigan. Subscribe to Off-Kilter on iTunes.

Everyone’s talking about Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings were this week, and coincided with a unanimous ruling by all eight justices that he was wrong about a major disability ruling he made in 2008. To unpack these hearings and discuss what the Democrats’ next moves are, Rebecca is joined by Ian Millhiser, Justice Editor of ThinkProgress. Getting a lot less play in the media is Alexander Acosta, Trump’s second pick for labor secretary, whose hearings were also held this week. Judy Conti of the National Employment Law Project joins to talk about Acosta’s civil rights record and what it means for the future of labor. Next, celebrity chef and founder of Food Policy Action Tom Colicchio discusses how celebrities are pushing back against Trump’s policies. And finally, Alan Fosnacht — a member of Indivisible Michigan — calls in with the skinny on Rep. Dave Trott’s ugly hot mic moment and how Republicans are feeling the heat from the resistance.

This week’s guests:

Ian Millhiser, ThinkProgress
Judy Conti, National Employment Law Project
Tom Colicchio, Food Policy Action
Alan Fosnacht, Indivisible Michigan

For more on this week’s topics…

How Gorsuch will make liberals miss…Justice Antonin Scalia.
Who the heck is Alexander Acosta?
A deeper look into hunger in the U.S. — and how it’s hardly inevitable.

This program was released on March 24, 2017

Transcript:

REBECCA VALLAS (HOST): Welcome to Off-Kilter, powered by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, I’m Rebecca Vallas. This week Tom Colicchio joins me to unpack how celebrities are pushing back on proposals to cut programs like Meals on Wheels that are part of Trump’s scorched earth budget. Also, who is Alexander Acosta, Trump’s pick for labor secretary? He had confirmation hearings this week, we’ll dig in a big on that as well, but first we have no Jeremy Slevin he is out sick, so I’m joined by a guest star Ian Millhiser, the justice editor at Think Progress. He’s been closely following Neil Gorsuch’s hearings, that’s of course Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court. Ian, thank you so much for joining Off-Kilter.

IAN MILLHISER: Good to be back, thank you.

VALLAS: So, dark time aside, back up with me for a second and just help us remember, who is Neil Gorsuch? What do we know about him? What did we know going into these hearings?

MILLHISER: So Neil Gorsuch is the mayor from season 3 of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.” He is very folksy, he says “gosh” and “golly” a whole lot, I mean, there is nothing about this man that isn’t wholesome. The only problem is that he is evil.

VALLAS: So Ian, I’m sorry to quickly detour but you have just guaranteed yourself a spot on my show any week you want because of that “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” reference.

[LAUGHTER]

MILLHISER: I could bring so much — I actually spent an inordinate amount of time yesterday deciding which “Buffy” villain he is.

VALLAS: Well, I’m glad that we cleared that up.

MILLHISER: Yes, yes.

VALLAS: Gosh and golly, so Neil Gorsuch, you describe him as evil. Now, I feel like there is a lot of folks out there who maybe, take issue with what they describe as histrionic language around some of Trump’s cabinet picks and now around the Supreme Court nominee. So, I’ll play devil’s advocate, is evil really the right word?

MILLHISER: Yeah, I mean, I don’t know what’s in this dudes heart. I don’t know if he believes the things he believes because he is a sadist or he believes the things that he believes because he just doesn’t know any better. But the things that he believes will take us to a really terrible place. You know, if you look at his record, he voted in favor of religious objectors who thought that they should get to decide whether or not their employees have birth control coverage in the Hobby Lobby case and then again in the follow up to the Hobby Lobby case. He tried to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood, he and I mean some of this gets very technical, but he wants to transfer power from federal agencies like the EPA and you know, agencies like the Department of Labor that are trying to protect workers to the judiciary at the very moment when Republicans are consolidating their control over the judiciary. Which is going to lead to a world where Republican presidents, when Republican administrations will be free to regulate as they’ve always been able to. And Democratic presidents and Democratic administrations will have a very tough time doing things like the Clean Power Plan that Obama put in place or the overtime regs that he tried to put in place. So this is going to be really bad for the country if this guy is confirmed. And look, I mean, I don’t know. He seems like, he’s a little cocky at his hearing but he seems like a wholesome, like, that sort of like, a little too chipper dad that everyone has a friend that has that kind of dad —

VALLAS: Definitely drives a Volvo.

MILLHISER: Yeah, I mean, seems like the kind of person who, I mean he seems like the sort of person who used to drive a Volvo, now he drives a Mercedes.

VALLAS: But it’s a Mercedes, what’s the opposite of a Sedan? Why I can’t I come up with the word?

MILLHISER: Yeah, he’s got the extra seats in the back for the kids —

VALLAS: Right, right, right, that! Like the way back, we used to call it —

MILLHISER: Yeah, like the station wagons.

VALLAS: Not just the station wagon but it has this thing where the two kids are sitting in the way back, we called it, where you’re facing out the back —

MILLHISER: And everyone wanted to ride in there when you’re in the carpool.

VALLAS: And it was always the cool dad.

MILLHISER: Yeah, so he totally seems like the sort of person who drives that and I’m sure he loves his wife but what he’s going to do if he gets on the Supreme Court is horrifying. And this is just the stuff that we know he’s going to do because he’s written opinions saying, “yes,” like, “taking away women’s birth control is my bag, baby.” When you consider the other issues, where you just have to assume because this is what every other conservative justice wants to do that he’s going to go along with it, then you start getting into serious dismantlings of our voting rights, of union rights, there’s a big gerrymandering case coming up he could be the fifth vote to say, “Oh yeah, partisan gerrymandering is totally cool and we should keep on doing it.”

VALLAS: Now, one of the things that a lot of the Republicans supporters of the Gorsuch nomination have been touting is that he would be, if confirmed, maybe the most conservative justice on the court. And of course to them, that’s a really good thing. Is that accurate, and maybe help unpack that a little bit.

MILLHISER: Yes, so I mean, I looked into his record and the thing that’s hard when you’re looking into lower court judges is most of the work that comes up to the lower courts is fairly routine. Like 95% of the cases there is a clear right or wrong answer and like, the issues aren’t pretty political. You do get a sense when you look at the cases that he’s decided that do have political salience that he consistently takes fairly extreme positions. I mean, I think I have very little doubt that he will be to the right of Justice Scalia who was very very far to the right when he was on the Supreme Court. In every issue that I’ve been able to find where Scalia disagrees with Thomas, and Justice Thomas is the most conservative person on the court, Gorsuch’s views are more consistent with the Thomas position than the Scalia position. And in some cases, this suggests that he might have very radical views.

So he has one opinion where he talked about, for example, about reviving something called the nondelegation doctrine. And what this means is there are all kinds of laws saying that, where Congress says to a federal agency, “Here is some instructions on some problem that we want you to solve. Now we need you, agency who has expertise in this to figure it out.” The Clear Air Act works this way. The Clean Air Act doesn’t have a list of, like, ok this factory can produce this much pollution and this power plant can produce, and so on and so forth. The Clear Air Act provides instructions that says something like, “The EPA shall determine what the best available method is for reducing emissions by coal plants,” and then having examined the existing technology and what’s being done in the industry we’ll make sure that everyone complies with the standard. As the technology improves, it’s dynamic. So as the technology gets better, the amount of emissions will go down. And that’s just one something that Congress isn’t capable of doing. Like Congress isn’t capable of constantly monitoring that stuff and you know, they don’t seem capable of passing laws at all. They’re certainly aren’t capable of doing that kind of monitoring.

VALLAS: And even when Congress seems to be working, and gridlock is not the norm, the legislative process is intentionally not one that moves so quickly and so easily as to be nimble in the way that you’re describing. It’s much more fitting of a sort of a regulatory or even a subregulatory process that an agency would oversee.

MILLHISER: Right. And so, this process of like, being dynamic and observing new technologies and having agencies come up with regulations are, that bind industries, Thomas thinks that this is outright unconstitutional. You cannot do it at all. Which is not something that is consistent with a modern government. It would be bringing us back to the 19th century. Gorsuch wrote an opinion suggesting that the very least he wants to move in that direction. And he’s vague enough where it’s not clear to me whether he’d go the full Thomas, but there is no other justice on the court who wants to go as far as it seems Gorsuch, you know, is pushing things. And that’s very frightening. I mean, that is a fundamental rethinking, not just of how our government works, but of the question of whether we can have a meaningful government in the 21st century. Because you know, there is no modern nation that doesn’t have this kind of regulatory process and in you have to be able to study new technology, figure out what’s going on in industries, have economists look at it, have scientists look at it and if you can’t do it, then among other things, your nation cannot have an environmental policy.

VALLAS: And so as a matter of sort of practically, for those of us who maybe find that intellectually interesting but want to say, “what the fuck does that mean for me?” What exactly would that mean when it comes to, say, you’re making the environmental example, what the EPA is able to do.

MILLHISER: So, I did not breathe in toxic amounts of mercury at any point today and I’d like for it to stay that way and if you have also not breathed in toxic amounts of Mercury you can thank the environmental protection agency for that.

VALLAS: For as long as it continues to exist under Secretary Perry.

MILLHISER: Exactly. Or what is it, Pruitt.

VALLAS: Oh, it’s Pruitt. Perry has [department of] energy.

MILLHISER: Perry has energy.

VALLAS: I’m sorry, I had my own ‘oops’ moment there, I couldn’t remember which of the three agencies Perry had wanted to eliminate. It turns out it’s the one he was actually now nominated to run.

MILLHISER: And one thing I will note as a side note, that he didn’t know what it does.

VALLAS: No, he didn’t.

MILLHISER: I mean, the Department of Energy is one of the more misleadingly named agencies, because primarily what it does is keep our nuclear weapons safe. You know, we put the guys who didn’t know what the agency does in charge of our nuclear arsenal.

VALLAS: But those are the times we’re living now, Ian. But we digress, so one piece that I want to make sure we get to here is that there was actually a huge, kind of, newsmaking moment during Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings. That was not about what was happening in the room, it was actually what was happening on the Court. The 8 justices that he is auditioning to join and which it looks like he is likely to be confirmed, I think I’m right in saying that, despite Democrats’ opposition. And we’ll get to sort of what the path forward is in a minute. But the 8 justices that he is looking to join actually handed down a ruling that was a huge rebuke to a ruling he had made previously. That has to do with students with disabilities and their rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, better known as IDEA, give us the story.

MILLHISER: Sure. So IDEA deals with, it’s actually a fairly difficult law to implement. Because it recognizes that each individual with a disability is an individual and they have a right to an education but in order to ensure that they get the education that they have a right to, they have to get an individualized plan to ensure that the school is doing what it needs to help them. And that could be a lot of things. Often if someone is hard of hearing, it could be a hearing aid. There was a case before the Supreme Court recently where there was a person who needed a service dog, and so she can have her service dog. In a case that Gorsuch heard in 2008, it involved an autistic student. And Gorsuch said, the exact phrasing was that “the IDEA only requires schools to provide accommodations that provide merely more than a de minimus amount of assistance to that student.” What that means, so long as they do a little more than nothing, that’s cool. And this appears to be something that Gorsuch just invented. When you go back and you check the cites in his opinion —

VALLAS: Which I’m sure you did.

MILLHISER: Which indeed I did do. [LAUGHTER]. You know, you read the cases that he was citing, what it turns out that there were previous decisions that said that school districts cannot simply provide a de minimis amount. They have to provide more than just more than nothing. And so, to put this into legal terms, they set a floor. They said that schools can’t dip below this line. And Gorsuch rewrote that standard into a ceiling. He said if the law only requires you to go this far, and you don’t have to clear the bar any higher. You know, he took a legal standard that was written to protect students and rewrote it as something to limit their rights.

VALLAS: And just to put this in terms that are more, maybe, human. Because I think the legal framework is really important to understand. This case was about a boy whose name is Luke, and actually his father testified at the Gorsuch hearings this week because this case made so much in the way of news. But he, this boy wanted to go to school, which is his right under this federal civil rights law, the IDEA, which ensures all students, including students with a disability, have access to a free and appropriate public education. And if schools, as this law ends up being applied as the courts interpret the law, can say, “you know what? We’re doing everything we need to under the law,” which is to say almost nothing at all. To make sure that students are getting the services and the accommodations and other things they need to learn. The student ends up being in situation of not getting a meaningful education at all and Justice Roberts, in his opinion, rebuking and really smacking Gorsuch upside the head, made that point really clear.

MILLHISER: Yeah, I mean Chief Justice Roberts is not a liberal. You know, he’s not someone who I frequently find myself agreeing with. But I mean, you want to pump your fist in the air at some of the passages in his opinion. I mean, it was a really strong opinion the Supreme Court handed down. It said that under the standard that Gorsuch handed down, that doesn’t even count as an education. The idea that you could go to school and so long as they’re doing a little more than nothing. That’s okay. That doesn’t even count. What he said is that for the overwhelming majority of students, the goals should be they progress normally with their peers. You know, so like the test should be in a school setting you’re given tests and you’re given exams and you’re giving quizzes and if the student is able to thrive in that environment in the same way that any other student without a disability is able to thrive, then that should normally be the standard. And sometimes you have someone, whether it’s like a severe and profound intellectual disability or you know, something a very serious disability that prevents them the standard. But in that case, it’s very powerful that the Supreme Court is saying that we should strive in each case to get someone up to that. And then when you have someone who can’t meet that you’ve got to push hard.

VALLAS: So the Roberts opinion is significant and the timing was amazing, given that it was handed down literally as Gorsuch was being asked questions about his record by senators who are —

MILLHISER: Not just that but 20 minutes before the opinion was handed down he was asked about this case. He was asked about his ruling on the IDEA and he played it off, oh, I was just following precident.

VALLAS: Oh yeah, so I actually want you to tell this part of the story. Because what he said to the senators who were actually overseeing these confirmation hearings, was that, he kinda sorta looked at them and said into the mic, “wasn’t me.” Right?

MILLHISER: Yeah, that’s exactly right. So what he said, the history here, in 1996 there was another case in his court involving this law the IDEA. Which used the phrase “more than de minimis.” You have to provide with more than de minimis accommodations. And Gorsuch added a word. He said that you must merely provide more than de minimis. So again, he —

VALLAS: He changed the standard.

MILLHISER: He changed the standard.

VALLAS: And yet he is claiming that he is bound by precedent in some way so “It wasn’t me.”

MILLHISER: Yeah, exactly. I mean, you know, again he took something that was supposed to protect students and he turned it on its head so that he cages them.

VALLAS: So in the last minute I have with you, where do we go from here? It sounds likely under conventional wisdom that he’s going to be confirmed. Democrats don’t want that to happen. There’s lots of talk of a filibuster. What do you think in 30 seconds is your gaming out of how this plays out?

MILLHISER: So I recommend heavy drinking.

[LAUGHTER]

VALLAS: Well, hopefully my listeners already knew that was my ongoing recommendation for the Trump administration years, but yes!

MILLHISER: At this point, I think that pressure on Democratic senators does help. Because we don’t know if Republicans are bluffing. You know, they say that if Democrats filibuster they have the votes to nuke the filibuster and maybe they do. And if they do, great. The filibuster has done more harm than good anyway over the long haul of history. If they don’t and Democrats call their bluff, the best case scenario is that America is saved from Neil Gorsuch. So I think pressure helps. Because we know what happens if Democrats cave on this. We know who this guy is. You know, the best shot is that, the good news is Senator Schumer, the Democratic leader came out and said he was going to filibuster. Senator Carper, Senator Casey who are some more moderate dems came out against him. So like, the right things are happening. But there are still some shakey dems, and I think that pressure helps.

VALLAS: Don’t go away, next up, Judy Conti from the National Employment Law Project joins to help me understand who is Alexander Acosta, Trump’s pick for Secretary of Labor, take two.

[MUSIC]

VALLAS: You’re listening to Off-Kilter, I’m Rebecca Vallas. After President Trump’s first nominee for Labor Secretary withdrew amid accusations of domestic abuse as well a dismal record as an employer, Trump announced his new pick, Alexander Acosta. A law school dean and a former U.S. attorney as well as the head of the civil rights division at the Department of Justice under George W. Bush. Acosta’s confirmation hearings took place this week to discuss who he is, his civil rights record, and what his nomination could mean for the future of labor. I’m joined by Judy Conti, she’s the federal advocacy coordinator at the National Employment Law Project, better known as NELP. Judy, thanks so much for joining Off-Kilter.

JUDY CONTI: My pleasure, thanks for inviting me.

VALLAS: So, it feels like, I mean there is a lot going on, admittedly. There’s a lot of other things in the news right now, but it feels at least to me like this guy Acosta, who now is the nominee for Secretary of Labor is getting very little attention in the press, and frankly until I was prepping for this conversation with you, I didn’t know almost anything about him. Who is he, what do we know about him and just maybe give us an overview.

CONTI: Alex Acosta is someone who has been prepping for this moment and probably future moments before Senate confirmation panels for most of his career. I say this with no criticism and no disrespect, he is a very focused and ambitious person who does have a fairly long career in public service all under Republican administrations. And he is what I would call your hardcore federalist society conservative. You know, sort of like a small government adherence to originalism and founding fathers, whatever that happens to mean. And you know, someone that you would probably say is sort of a mainstream conservative. Not necessarily the newer ilk of tea party-ers if you will. I think it’s safe to say that he’s probably a fairly very conservative person on a lot of social issues if you will. He has worked at the Department of Justice and civil rights. He’s worked at the National Labor Relations board, he was an U.S. attorney for the southern district of Florida. He’s also had some stints in private practice. He’s currently the dean of the Florida International University law school. So you know, he’s had a very impressive and a very diverse career. I do know that from people on both sides of the aisle who have worked with him, he is well liked. He is someone with a very clear conservative perspective but people do say he’s not a knee jerk ideologue.

I do think one of the biggests questions though, and we can ask this question based on what we know about his previous public service and we need to ask this question given what we know of the Trump administration is you know, how independent a voice is he going to be? How hard will he stand up and fight for working people in the face of adversity from an administration? We know that we know that when he was running the civil rights division at the Department of Justice, he sort of looked the other way when political motivated hiring was going on for civil servants. Which is a big no-no to say the least. And it’s certainly not the case that his deputy had this idea all on his own. I’m sure the instruction came from on high and Mr. Acosta, an inspector general reporter noted had every reason to know and had every reason, you know, there were serious red flags and he turned the other way. We know from his time with the southern district of Florida that probably because of the fair amount of political pressure he offered into a real sweetheart deal of someone who was accused of pretty heinous crimes involving underage women. And I’m quite certain political pressure was brought to bear there as well because the person involved is a generous donor.

And we know already that Trump extracts a lot of loyalty from the people who serve him. And it’s a my way or the highway kind of administration. And Presidents certainly have the prerogative to govern as they see fit, but we also know that this is an administration that, to say the least, is pushing the limits of law and ethics, certainly in some places and it wouldn’t be surprising to see that happen in terms of the Department of Labor as well. So, you know, we really need a labor secretary that is going to stand up to that when and if it happens. And Mr. Acosta’s track record leaves a little bit to be desired in terms of standing up to political pressure.

VALLAS: Well, and along those lines, one of the pieces of his record that has come to light in the lead up to his confirmation hearings was that as the head of the civil rights division when he was at the Department of Justice, he intervened to oppose a lawsuit challenging a voter suppression law in Ohio. And that in the course of that action, he actually even wrote the judge promoting what many have called a weakened interpretation of the Voting Rights Act. What does this tell us about his concern for civil rights and what kind of labor secretary he would be, particularly understanding how much the Department of Labor plays a critical role in enforcement of protections including racial discrimination against workers?

CONTI: Right, I mean it’s really worrisome for any number of reasons. I mean, first of all, he did this against the advice of all of the career attorneys in that division, or the vast weight of the majority of career attorneys in that division. And you know, in these organizations, in the Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, civil rights in particular there are, the people who work there, civil servants, they’re, because they care deeply about these issues of course, but they are ones that really have devoted their careers to rigid and neutral application of the law as it is written. So to disregard them in such a highly charged situation does make worry about what will happen when you know, the senior wage and hours staff is very clear about a particular interpretation of an overtime time law or regulation. Or the occupational safety and health administration, the same kind of problem.

Beyond that, the fact that he wrote a letter to the judge, there’s nothing in the federal rules of civil procedure that provides any avenue for just random letters to go to a judge even from a deputy attorney general. So it was a bizarre extrajudicial action that he took on top of the fact that it was really splitting with the opinion of the professionals who are tasked with enforcing the Voting Rights Act. So, it’s just another one of those indications that perhaps there is an independence problem. That we really, really need to keep our eyes on. The fact of the matter is that these things came to light very easily and clearly and very fully, so if confirmed I can tell you that advocates are going to keep an eagle eye on things at the Department of Labor and I think the fact that he was questioned about them so thoroughly at the hearing yesterday and they’ve been written about so thoroughly in the press probably does at least help in the sense that he knows all eyes are going to be watching. So I hope that that will have an appropriately prophylactic effect.

VALLAS: Now he himself is the child of Cuban immigrants and this is actually something that he brought up in his confirmation hearing. He went out of his way to tell senators that the experiences of his parents, Cuban immigrants who he described as “living paycheck to paycheck” taught him the value of having a job and hard work. And he pledged in his hearing to push for increased opportunities and thorough enforcement of workplace safety rules. Does that sound just like nice rhetoric to you or is there reason to believe that he is actually committed to those promises?

CONTI: Well it is certainly at least nice rhetoric, right? And I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of his family’s story and what an impact that had on him. What I wish we heard more about though, is sort of the next step. Either him speaking about it on his own or quite frankly the committee questioning him more on it. Because it is always the case that the immigrant workforce in this country is the most at risk for violations of their employment and labor rights. Particularly undocumented workers but not only undocumented. And they are under the best of circumstances nervous about complaining about those violations, whether to a state or a federal department of labor or even seeking out private legal counsel. But not surprisingly after the first two months of the Trump administration, they’re more afraid than ever to complain. If ICE agents are meeting people at churches and schools, there is certainly no reason to think that going to the Department of Labor to complain about wage theft or occupational safety and health violations is a safe action any longer, right?

People, we know from press reports and we know from our advocates out in the field that workers are afraid to go to the Department of Labor to collect checks that are owed to them for unpaid wages. That they’re certainly terrified to go and complain about any sort of new violations. And we’ve long, across administrations, this is not a Republican or Democrat priority, we have long vigorously enforced our basic employment laws on behalf of undocumented workers because if we don’t, first of all it’s a human rights violation. So out of basic human decency, if people work they need to be paid. If they work they need to be in safe conditions. But beyond on that, if we let unscrupulous employers hire undocumented workers, steal their wages, make them work in shoddy conditions, then there is no incentive for them to hire either work authorized or American citizens to do those jobs. They can always undercut the market with people who they can scare into not complaining. And that lowers the floor for everybody. That is one of the things that creates fewer good jobs for American workers if you will. To sort of build on some of the Trump rhetoric.

So it’s really important that in order to protect American workers, we have to protect all workers in America. And we didn’t hear anything about that piece yesterday. Like what is Mr. Acosta going to do to keep the Department of Labor open to undocumented workers? Is there is anything he thinks he can do to assure them that they’re safe to complain? I’m honestly not sure there is. But beyond that, the current Department of Labor, the most previous one I should say, you know, did a lot of targeted investigations, of employers and in industries where they knew there were high rates of violations and high rates of vulnerable workers. Is the current Department of Labor going to continue doing that so that they can proactively and safely reach out enforcing employment laws on behalf of undocumented workers without waiting for them to come and complain. Or are they going to go back to the Bush era notion that the most important thing they can do is compliance assistance? Help small businesses know how to comply with the law which you know, resulted in such poor enforcement of the wage and hours laws that the GIO issued two scathing reports in 2009 about it.

Mr. Acosta’s family and origin story is very compelling, I do believe it is one that gives him a keen appreciation of what the immigrant workforce goes through in this country. But as we know we have an administration that doesn’t appreciate that and doesn’t care about that. So it’s one of those other questions. What is he going to do to be an independent voice within that administration and what is he going to do to protect the immigration workforce in this country both because they deserve protection but also because then that also protects the American workforce.

VALLAS: In the last couple of minutes that I have with you Judy, it’s sort of hard to remember that only just a few months ago we actually were watching great progress being made when it comes to the rights and the well being and the economic security of working people in this country. We saw a rule expanding overtime pay and really updating what were long outdated policies in that space. We saw the fiduciary rule move forward which really is about protecting the American people from conflicts of interest that their financial advisors or brokers might have that they could actually profit off of at the expense of investors. I’m curious to hear your thoughts about how we can expect him to if confirmed, act on those and other timely policies that are going to be the bread and butter of the Department of Labor.

CONTI: Well unfortunately I don’t think that anything we heard in the confirmation hearing yesterday gives us any confidence that he is going to act strongly on behalf of workers with any of those issues. When asked specifically about fiduciary, about overtime, about the Silica Rule for example, three very important ones, you know, he would talk about one is underview by the courts and we’re not even sure we have the authority to do, the president has issued an executive order that we need to reconsider everything, the president has issued an executive order that we need to delay that. The president is my boss and would not give a clear answer. And in absence of a clear answer, I can only infer that those are not going to be regulations that he’s going to vigorously enforce or enforce at all. So the gains we fought so hard to make over the past 8 years, but the past 4 years in particular, really could erode very quickly.

VALLAS: Judy Conti is the federal advocacy coordinator at the National Employment Law Project, NELP. Judy, thanks so much for joining the show.

CONTI: My pleasure, thank you and thanks for the great work you guys do.

[MUSIC]

VALLAS: You’re listening to Off-Kilter, I’m Rebecca Vallas. Last week one of the budget cuts proposed by President Trump that sparked perhaps the most outrage was deep cuts to federal funding for Meals on Wheels. What’s next for food insecurity and hunger in the Trump era, and what’s the role of celebrities in resisting bad policies? To discuss, I’m joined by Tom Colicchio, a celebrity chef who founded Food Policy Action. Tom, thanks so much for joining Off-Kilter.

TOM COLICCHIO: Sure, of course, thanks for having me.

VALLAS: So you’re perhaps best known for your role on the cooking competition show Top Chef. What drove you to make the jump to advocacy on food and nutrition issues?

COLICCHIO: Well, you know, it’s really interesting at the top you brought up Meals on Wheels and the cuts to Meals on Wheels, or the proposed cuts. Going back thirty years ago, there was a chef in New York City, that was one of the first organizations that chefs really rallied around. In New York, Gael Greene would was a reviewer for New York Magazine that was something that she was really focused on. And it was something that chefs came together once a year, we do a large fundraiser. And that was one of the things that really clued me into hunger, that was hunger in the senior community. And then, oh around 6 years ago my wife was mentoring a young girl and realized that she was often hungry. She lived in the shelter system in New York City and we managed to get her into a private school to meet some of her needs. She had some learning disabilities. And about the first week into the school year we got a call from the principal that it was clear that she was hungry and asking for food. This private school didn’t have a lunch program. And so, you know, that led to a film that I produced along with my wife who directed it and co-directed it with another woman named Christy Jacobson, and that film was called “A Place at the Table.” And that was about hunger in the United States. And after the film came out it gave me a platform to start speaking about some of these issues around hunger. Which then led to the formation of Food Policy Action.

VALLAS: Now some on the right, including Breitbart News, a right wing media outlet founded by Trump’s own senior advisor Steve Bannon have dismissed and even mocked celebrity engagement around progressive causes and progressive candidates, particularly in the lead up and following November’s election. What do you see as the role of celebrities and particularly celebrities who care about progressive causes, in the Trump era?

COLICCHIO: Yeah, that’s pretty rich considering that the current president is really a celebrity, more than a politician at all, with a businessman turned celebrity for reality shows. So, that’s kind of interesting, I think. Listen, I think the role, forget about celebrities for a second, the role of people in a democracy is to use their voice. It’s to speak up. If I could reach more people because I have a platform well that’s a decision. And I make it at a risk. Besides being on TV, I’m a businessman. I own 8 restaurants and 8 sandwich shops and so the risk I take is I may alienate some people who don’t like what I’m saying. But I still believe that in a functioning democracy it’s incumbent upon all of us to speak out when we see injustices. It’s kind of why we fight wars so we have the ability to continue to speak out and protect our first amendment rights. So, I don’t do this because I’m a celebrity, I do it because I’m a father of three boys, I’m a businessman, I care about this country and I care and believe that people should have a right to high quality or at least nutritious foods that will nourish our country and continue to make sure that we are prepared to meet the needs of an increasingly dangerous and complicated world.

VALLAS: Now, we’ve talked a little bit about Meals on Wheels and it probably the lion’s share of the attention in the last week among nutrition programs that are on the chopping block. But it’s just one nutrition program currently in the cross hairs. Nutrition assistance for women, infants and children often referred to as WIC, also saw deep proposed cuts in Trump’s budget. The supplemental nutrition assistance program, formerly known as food stamps is also considered to be on the chopping block in the congressional Republican agenda. Even school lunch is not considered safe from cuts right now. How do you plan in the coming weeks and months to use that bully pulpit that you have to mobilize opposition and to fight back?

COLICCHIO: Right, there’s again, there’s so many programs that are under assault. Actually, it goes even further. HUD, there’s cuts to HUD that actually supports after school feeding programs as well. You know, we started Food Policy Action five years ago to hold legislators accountable for how they vote around food issues including around nutrition and hunger. And so we’ll continue to use our scorecard. But this is something, the idea of nutrition and hunger is something we’re all mobilized around. After the film, we were approached by a gentleman who at the time was heading up a large media company, we’ve since switched over to a company called MUC. And reached out to us and saw the film, reached out to us, wanted to help us amplify the message of the film. And the message of the film was that hunger is so pervasive in this country that it needs a broad and well funded nutrition program, funded by the federal government to actually end hunger, and something we can do is end hunger, not just manage hunger. And so he approached us and put together a $300 million dollars, so it’s a hundred million dollars a year for the next three years of donated media to help us run a messaging campaign around hunger. And those messages really include who’s hunger, why they’re hungry, what we can do to end hunger in this country and just to really educated the population about the issue.

When you start talking numbers and you know, [inaudible] 42 million Americans struggle with struggle to feed themselves and their family. People are shocked. They don’t believe the number is that high. Now, those are the number of people that are currently on SNAP, or family’s on SNAP. There is plenty of people who qualify but don’t apply. Right now you have in California many Latinos who are able to receive SNAP. If you’re in this country more than five years you are eligible for benefits, legally or illegally. And right now because of the ICE roundups you have people who opting out of the program because they don’t want to be on record, they don’t want to show up in public offices and so yeah. This is a dismantling of our social safety net and it’s also for all the wrong reasons too. Let’s look at children for a second, we touched on seniors.

Let’s look at children. We know that children, when they show up to school properly nourished, if they’re getting breakfast in first period, math scores go up by 17%. Rates of absenteeism goes down, instances of going to the principal’s office goes down. The kids are learning; teachers know this as well. And so instead of looking at some of these nutrition programs as a handout, as a liberal handout, why don’t we start looking at the benefits of making sure that children can compete. Making sure that they have access to good education because they are properly nourished. We know that education is the key to upward mobility but yet we are deciding not to feed children and give them tools they need to really thrive. So I think we need to start looking at what this means in terms of a future for our country and how competitive we will be. If we are cutting out a large population of our children and making sure that they’re stunted for the rest of their lives, they’re not going to contribute to society. So the idea that Americans can pull themselves by their bootstraps and live up to their potential we like [inaudible] myth that we like to tell. But if we don’t support that it just will be a myth and it’s not something that people will realize.

VALLAS: You bring up a great point that a lot of the perceptions about people who are hungry really trade more in myths than in facts. How can we help policymakers and particularly members of congress understand that there are political consequences and I should actually pose that as a question. Do you view realistically that there would be political consequences at the ballot box if members do vote to cut food stamps, something we’ve seen them do in the past and seemed to get off scot free.

COLICCHIO: Well yes, no it actually has happened. So last election, not this past election but the election before that, Steven Southerland who was a congressman from Florida almost singlehandedly kill the farm bill because he proposed that people who receive SNAP benefits would have to be in a work program or working. Which pretty much almost ended the farm bill. Food Policy Action targeted him and he lost his election. So we already see that there are consequences of members of congress that are trying to cut some of these programs. I think we just need to make that louder. I think we need to continue to talk about that. You know there is hunger in every county in this country. That means that every single member of congress has constituents that are hungry. And we need to have people speak up.

Because I think too often, again, the model going back to the eighties when we started changing some of these nutrition programs and started to defund them, the model was churches can take care of this. Other charitable organizations can take care of this. And charity has done a great deal to manage hunger and help people who are in real desperate situations. But it’s not going to end hunger. And so when people understand this and hopefully they’ll lend their voices to this issue and start voting around this issue. Start showing up in town halls, and we’re seeing this now. This is something that we talked about in the film, [inaudible] came out four years ago. People asked, what can we do? We said use your voice. Show up at a town hall and they looked at us like we were crazy. Now it’s starting to happen. And so right now people are talking about the Affordable Care Act because that’s topical right now.

But we need to have people start showing up to these town halls and demanding that their elected officials actually solve the problem of hunger. But people have to understand how it affects them. So if my kids in school, you know in public school you know there are kids in that class that are hungry. Kids that are hungry, they’re going to act up. They’re going to take those resources, especially in an overcrowded school the resource is that teacher. If they have to pay more attention to that student that’s acting up as opposed to teaching. So it does affect students in the entire classroom. And so, once people start to understand the effect that is had on their own lives, they’ll demand that we make some changes here. And again, this is not one of those intractable problems like war in the Middle East or terrorism that are hard to solve and it’s going to take years. Hunger, we could fix it. It’s just money. We produce enough food in this country. We produce enough calories, people aren’t hungry in this country because of war or famine or drought. They’re hungry because we don’t have the political will to make sure everyone is fed.

VALLAS: Often, the conversations around poverty and hunger exist in a separate silo from conversations around tax policy and yet moments like proposed budgets are sometimes those rare moments where the two issues do actually collide and people see the connections. It isn’t just that President Trump is proposing to slash all sorts of programs across the board that serve low and middle-income Americans. It’s so that he can redirect that spending and funnel much of it up into tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country and for corporations. Do you feel that that is an important piece of the message for people like you and other celebrity advocates to carry as part of a conversation about how we address hunger and poverty?

COLICCHIO: Yeah, i think you’re hitting the nail on the head on three different issues here. One, that poverty and hunger one and the same. Actually, hunger is a symptom of poverty. Ending poverty is much more difficult than ending hunger. But yes, the programs that people rely on. And, again, we’re talking about people who are working, we’re talking about working poor. The average SNAP recipient has at least one family member working, greater than 50% has people that are working. So these are people that are working or struggling. They’re doing their part; they’re fulfilling their social contract, they’re actually going out and getting a job but they can’t feed their families on that. So, and it’s not just the nutrition programs.

For instance, after school programs are being cut so the single mother who is dropping her kids off at school 8 o’clock in the morning, and picking them up soon after 5:30 after they get out of work. If these programs are cut, what are they going to do between 3 and 5? Does that mean they have to quit their job? And do what, go on welfare and ask for more assistance? Again, I think that people need to understand how these programs work, who they benefit and it’s not just they’re benefiting an individual person, they’re actually benefiting society at large. And so, the idea that we’re just going to cut more programs that again, help everyone, just to give a tax break to people who really don’t need it, I just don’t think that’s fair. But can, do we need tax reform, absolutely. But that doesn’t necessarily mean cuts. What that means is maybe a simplified way to deal with taxes. Maybe a simplified way for businesses to not have to be able to skirt around the issue of paying taxes. So yeah, I think we need tax reform but to me that doesn’t mean tax cuts.

VALLAS: Tom Colicchio is best known for his role on “Top Chef.” He also has a project called Food Policy Action and is one of the nation’s leading anti-hunger advocates. Tom, where can folks learn more about your current initiative?

COLICCHIO: Two places. Food Policy Action, you can go to FPA.org and see the work that we’re doing there. You can also go to FoodIsFuel.org, that is the website for the anti-hunger campaign that we launched a month or two ago, two months ago. We have our first PSA up and we’re thrilled to have Michelle Obama who lent her voice to the campaign as well. And we are about to launch our print campaign. You’ll start see some ads soon. So you can go to those two websites and see what we’re doing.

VALLAS: Tom Colicchio, thanks so much for joining Off-Kilter.

COLICCHIO: Thanks.

[MUSIC]

VALLAS: You’re listening to Off-Kilter, I’m Rebecca Vallas. Members of congress have continued to feel the heat at town halls packed by angry constituents demanding answers about ACA repeal and other unpopular policies. Discovering that not all press is good press, some, such as Dave Trott, a Republican from Michigan have actually begun attacking their own constituents. As part of our continuing series following the resistance movement spreading across the U.S., I’m joined by Alan Fosnacht of Indivisible Michigan. Alan thanks so much for joining the show.

ALAN FOSNACHT: Absolutely.

VALLAS: So it’s been reported that this past week Dave Trott, your congressman in Michigan, he held a town hall and Indivisible Michigan was there and at that town hall he did some talking about why he was supporting President Trump’s budget and in particular a huge increase in military spending that is going to force massive, massive cuts to other parts of the budget. Tell us a little bit about what happened after he expressed that support and then how we ended up with sort of a hot mic moment.

FOSNACHT: Yeah, absolutely. So at the town hall you’re right, he started talking about the President’s budget and then he moved on to talking about the military. And he actually said, and I’m quoting, “that the U.S. military is the weakest that it’s ever been.” And that really angered the people who were there for the town hall. That came off to us that he was attacking, disparaging men and women in uniform. And not only is that statement just factually incorrect but the idea that we would find out later on from a hot mic moment that he was actually directing his political operative to try to frame his constituents as un-American because we booed when he went after the military. The men and women in the military should be respected. They do great work. They certainly should not be disparaged by a member of congress like Dave Trott. And the crowd was very upset by that moment.

VALLAS: Now, this hot mic moment that you’ve referred to, there was actually a local TV station present at this town hall and later they ended up actually uploading some of the footage including one of his strategists, a man named Stu Sandler saying and not knowing he was being recorded, “We’re going to take that part,” I’m quoting, “We’re going to take that part where they’re booing the military and I’m going to get someone to write a story and we’re going to promote the shit out of that.” And that’s exactly what they ended up doing, except they made it sound like you guys were booing, not the statement about the military being the weakest it’s ever been, according to Congressman Trott, but actually making it sound like you were booing supporting the troops.

FOSNACHT: Yeah, that’s exactly right and it’s exactly what he did. You can hear in the hot mic moment, the footage, he’s actually approving his political operative to frame his constituents as un-American and taking it completely out of context. And you know, like I said before, the crowd was upset because he was disparaging men and women in uniform. We should not be calling them weak, it’s not actually correct and you know, and constituents should never be treated that way. He should never allow a political operative to go and try and make his own constituents, a thousands of us who came out there, it was snowing, it was cold. We were trying to make their voice heard, and to turn around and take a comment and take it out of context and say that we’re somehow un-American is completely beyond the pale. And we Indivisible Michigan, we’ve put out a press release demanding that he apologize to us. We should never be treated that way. We’re his constituents, we have a right to be heard. And for him to attack us because we disagreed with his comments that went after the military and the men and women serving there, it was just outrageous and we demand an apology. He hasn’t given us one yet. But we’re hoping that he does and this should never happen. He should never be attacking his own constituents.

VALLAS: Well he ended up getting what he wanted and his strategist got what he wanted because Fox & Friends ended up this week picking up that booing segment and framing the moment exactly the way that the strategist was hoping that it would get picked up. Saying who doesn’t support our military, why would they boo that and Dave Trott had his moment in the sun, making it sound as though you were the quote un-American ones. I’m curious if you were able to have a conversation with Dave Trott right now, what you would say to him and also just a little more context about sort of what Indivisible Michigan is planning to do next.

FOSNACHT: Sure, so if I were able, we’ve been trying to meet with him. Apparently the only way you can is if you go to Washington, D.C.. He won’t meet with us in the district, we actually tried. There’s actually a group of seniors who went to his office about a month ago. They were upset about what they were hearing about the cuts that they were going to be making to health care. And he actually called the police on them. There is actually another video that’s online on our facebook, Indivisible Michigan, the 11th district. Where there is a video, he calls the police, and the police force these seniors who are literally just trying to make their voice heard because they don’t want their health care cut, they don’t want premiums to go up on them and he won’t even meet with them. He won’t even have a staff member meet with them. He calls the police to escort us out. It’s just wrong. If I were to be able to talk to him right now, first I would tell him shame on you, congressman. You shouldn’t be treating your constituents that way, especially when we’re talking about cutting health care. It’s not right. So that’s what I’d say to him. He probably wouldn’t want to hear it. But that’s what I think a lot of people in this district are feeling. And that’s why we had over a thousand people come out to this town hall and have such a good response there.

But going forward, a lot of the things that we’re concerned about is the overall direction of this country. We are seeing everything from cutting our health care, Russian entanglements with the president, you know tax cuts for the super rich and campaign donors and the fact that the president a temperament and conflict of interest problem. We’re just very deeply concerned what’s taking place in Washington. So we’re going to be fighting for getting a government that is actually going to listen to people like us who actually have to work for a living. We’re not rich people. We have to, when they raise our premiums on our health care we’ve got to figure out how to make square our budget. Does that mean we pay our premiums, our prescription drugs, or are we going to have to forgo those to make sure that we’re paying the utility bill? So that’s what we really want. We want a Washington that’s going to put regular people’s interests first. Not mega rich campaign donors who are funding their campaigns. That’s what we’re going to do, we’re going to hold them accountable everywhere we can. Especially when he’s going after our health care and trying to hand out tax cuts like it’s candy to the super rich. And we’re going to be fighting for regular people in Michigan and the middle class. That’s what we’re doing

VALLAS: Alan Fosnacht is with Indivisible Michigan and was at that town hall. Thank you so much for helping us set the record straight and also for what you’re doing to really shine light on the real agenda here behind people like Dave Trott and others who really don’t know what to do with the fact that they’re actually being held accountable for the policies that they’re supporting. Thanks so much for joining Off-Kilter, Alan.

FOSNACHT: Absolutely, thank you very much.

VALLAS: And that does it for this week’s episode of Off-Kilter, powered by the Center for American Progress Action Fund. I’m your host, Rebecca Vallas. The show is produced each week by Eliza Schultz. Find us on Facebook and Twitter @OffKilterShow. And you can find us on the airwaves on the Progressive Voices network and the We Act Radio network, or anytime as a podcast on iTunes. See you next week.