Episode 08: Trump So Taxing

The threat of another government shutdown, Sesame Street’s new autistic character, and what’s on deck for the resistance. Subscribe to Off-Kilter on iTunes.

Does another government shutdown loom ahead? Harry Stein, the Center for American Progress’s budget guru, joins Rebecca and The Slevs to share the skinny on tax reform, budget fights, and the possibility of yet another government shutdown. Next, Dylan Matthews of Vox unpacks why it’s such a big deal that Sesame Street now has an autistic character. And finally, as part of our #ResistanceWorks series, Ezra Levin of Indivisible talks about what’s behind the Tax March and what’s on deck for the resistance.

This week’s guests:

Harry Stein, Center for American Progress
Dylan Matthews, Vox
Ezra Levin, Indivisible

For more on this week’s topics…

Dylan Matthews’ essay on the subtle brilliance of Sesame Street’s autistic Muppet.
Yet another really bad possible outcome of the government shutdown.

This program was released on April 14, 2017

Transcript:

REBECCA VALLAS (HOST): You’re listening to Off-Kilter, I’m your host Rebecca Vallas. The show is powered as always by the Center for American Progress Action Fund. This week, I speak with Dylan Matthews of Vox on why Sesame Street just introduced an autistic muppet. What that means, why it matters and more. Also, Ezra Levin of Indivisible joins to discuss this weekend’s tax march, it’s taking place on Saturday April 15th; how you can get involved, why people are marching. But first we are re-joined by Harry Stein, he is, as folks will remember the budget guru here at the Center for American Progress. Jeremy, you get to be here too. [LAUGHTER]

JEREMY SLEVIN: Thank you. My intro’s are getting less and less important.

VALLAS: You’ve gone from like the great “Slevs” to like “And Jeremy’s here too.” [LAUGHTER]

SLEVIN: Oh yeah, that guy.

VALLAS: That guy. Harry, thanks for coming in — [LAUGHTER] and helping us understand some stuff. So we wanted to bring you in because now that we’re; we’re not quite closing the book on health care debate, Republicans still need to make some noise about how they’re still trying to you know, take away health care from 24 million Americans ’cause they said they were going to do it so they’re going to try and do it some more. But, in the meantime, they have other stuff they want to do because they’re really really committed to cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations and they just can’t wait any longer to start trying to do it, so that what’s next?

HARRY STEIN: It really is amazing how much the theme of cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations runs through everything. It will certainly run through tax reform and that is apparently what is on deck, and it was part of health care as well. And so right, it sounds like they want to start moving to tax reform, although Trump’s kind of turned around again and said well maybe health care. But if they do maybe go ahead and go to tax reform, we should start to expect to see some proposals coming out of the administration and then the budgets that the Congress will move expected in May or June are really the first step towards paving the way towards tax reform. And the reason that I say that is that the budgets will have a lot of stuff in them but there’s basically one thing that matters and that’s what we call reconciliation. So —

VALLAS: Well, let me stop you there just for a second.

STEIN: Yeah.

VALLAS: All this stuff is connected, right? So we’ve got the tax conversation that’s going to happen, which a lot of Republicans are going to call tax reform, although what it really is tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations that they’re trying to do. But then there is also the budget situation and the budget process but then a lot of people in the media are starting to talk about is the government going to shut down? That’s connected to this to. So, help us understand what’s coming in the next couple of months and how do these things fit together?

STEIN: Sure. So just in the next couple of weeks we have the threat of a government shutdown.

SLEVIN: Whoa.

[LAUGHTER]

VALLAS: Jeremy had a smart thought to offer and it was “whoa.” [LAUGHTER]

STEIN: Whoa indeed, whoa indeed. So the current bills that fund the government run through April 28th and so if there is no resolution to this, on Trump’s 100th day in office, April 29th, that will be the first day of a government shutdown. And there is any number of things that might end up being a reason for a shutdown. Trump has been insisting on getting a border wall. And so that might be something that shuts down the government because that’s a non-starter with Democrats and you need 60 votes to pass a spending bill in the Senate. More recently, Mick Mulvaney said that stopping funding to sanctuary cities, that that’s something that they’re going to insist on. Well that’s also going to be a non-starter, so that’s a government shutdown.

VALLAS: A non-starter for democrats.

STEIN: Non-starter for Democrats, correct.

SLEVIN: Who they need —

STEIN: Who they need —

VALLAS: To get to 60 votes —

SLEVIN: To keep the government open.

STEIN: So that’s why you, and fundamentally not only are these kinds of things, building a border wall, defunding sanctuary cities, not only are these bad ideas on the merits, but that’s the kind of thing that you actually; that belongs in a debate and should pass on its own merits. Attaching these kinds of things to must pass spending bills where you’re just trying to keep the government and open and do the most minimum description of your job, those should not be held hostile to things like a border wall or sanctuary cities that really have no place in that kind of must pass bill.

SLEVIN: So basically before we have the budget and tax reform, which is going to be this big thing in May or June or this summer, we have to just keep the lights on and that’s this month.

STEIN: That’s right.

VALLAS: And remind us, because it’s been awhile since the government shutdown but people may remember it if you’re a fed maybe you remember having some sort of furlough days and not knowing what to do with yourself, hanging out, doing some house painting. If you’re somebody who was maybe was reading about this in the press, it seemed sort of academic and like, what’s really going on? What does a shutdown actually look like?

STEIN: Right. So, we’ll see probably hundreds of thousands of government employees laid off throughout the government. The images that people always remember in these shutdowns are that parks and other kind of, public facilities like the Smithsonian will close. So kind of the iconic image from the last shutdown was a cute child who couldn’t get into the zoo because the gates were shut. But also, you know, clinical trials get suspended at NIH, so you really do lose really important medical research. Some safety inspections, FDA, EPA, those will get delayed in the event of a shutdown. So that’s what we’ll expect to see this time that we saw last time as well.

And the longer it goes the more things start to go wrong. There’s a lot of place where things can basically keep moving for a few weeks or a month. But, then once government grants start to dry up you really do start to see bigger problems. So the longer a shutdown goes, the more places get impacted. A new thing this time, not new but a bigger thing this time compared to last time would be tax refunds. The last time we had a shutdown was later in the year, I believe it was in October.

SLEVIN: Yeah 2013.

STEIN: Yes. So that had some impact on tax refunds because there is always some people filing, but this time around it would be right at the end of tax season, right after, tax season, the deadline this year in April 18th. And the shutdown would just be ten days after that.

VALLAS: Good reminder for me, thank you Harry.

STEIN: Yes, go file your taxes and hopefully you’ll get a refund in a timely fashion but not if there is a shutdown.

VALLAS: Jeremy, is it wrong that, so you remembered that day of the last shutdown with great specificity. And now I’m sort of picturing you —

SLEVIN: I wasn’t googling it at all. [LAUGHTER] There was no googling.

VALLAS: I’m picturing you as the kid outside the zoo. [LAUGHTER] Was that you? Were you the kid who couldn’t go to the zoo?

SLEVIN: That was me.

VALLAS: I knew you looked familiar.

SLEVIN: No, I was up all night covering that shutdown, around the clock, it was not fun.

VALLAS: Oh right, because that’s when you were still, you know part of the press.

SLEVIN: Part of the press. Which I am no longer.

VALLAS: Well, you’re part of this.

SLEVIN: This counts.

VALLAS: You get to be a sidekick. [LAUGHTER]. Ok so back to Harry. So Harry, as I’m still picturing Jeremy at the zoo as the kid —

STEIN: Who had an adorable little like panda bear, hat or something.

VALLAS: Didn’t he, didn’t he?

[CROSS TALK] [LAUGHTER]

STEIN: It was very cute, it was a great hat.

VALLAS: Should wear that hat more. So, ok, so that’s the shutdown and a sort of top-line of what’s at stake. Now pretend that we get through that. We survive either keeping the government funded or not and we manage the shutdown to end and they come to some sort of agreement. Where does that leave us in terms of the budget?

STEIN: So the government is reopened and then the next thing that we will turn to is the budgets for the next year. And so there’s two kind of different types of budgets. There’s the president’s full budget. So you may be thinking, wait didn’t Trump already put out his budget. Well yes, he put out his skinny budget, now we’re going to get the full budget.

SLEVIN: The fat budget.

STEIN: The fat budget.

SLEVIN: Or the, you know, properly [inaudible] budget.

STEIN: Right.

VALLAS: I thought we were calling it a starvation budget.

STEIN: There’s no need to body shame the budget though.

[LAUGHTER]

VALLAS: Appreciate that, thank you. It was the starvation budget anyway.

STEIN: Right.

VALLAS: Ok, so now —

SLEVIN: No body shaming there.

VALLAS: Thank you.

STEIN: So hopefully we’ll get more details on the kinds of cuts that Trump was talking about. Where we know a lot from the skinny budget but we don’t know exactly where he wants to cut anything.

VALLAS: We also didn’t know anything about Social Security or any other so called entitlements that are mandatory spending. We only know about discretionary spending.

STEIN: That’s right. So Trump has said, “no cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.” He already broke that problem by supporting the House bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act which had huge medicaid cuts. We’ll see what his budget does on Medicaid but we’ll also see on things like food stamps, on employment, disability programs in particular. And then there may also be details on taxes in his budget. Now, there’s also then the House and Senate budgets. And those are really quite different. Those are the budget resolution; if you remember the Ryan budgets of past years.

VALLAS: Oh, do we.

STEIN: This is like the Ryan budget again except now Ryan’s the speaker of the house instead of the chairman of the budget committee. And those budgets will likely at least call for huge cuts in Medicaid. Huge cuts in food stamps. So we’ll expect to see those. Two big questions here.

VALLAS: Well, if I’m remembering correctly on the Ryan budget, just to sort of refresh our memories about those fine documents that were really freaking awful. They got like, two-thirds of their cuts from programs that serve low and moderate income Americans. All to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations.

STEIN: Right, that’s right. So they almost always are predominantly based on cuts to programs for low and middle-income people. Medicaid always takes the biggest hit but also food stamps take big hits, Pell Grants take big hits.

VALLAS: Supplemental security income.

STEIN: Right. And the reason that they’re doing a budget is so that they can pave the way for what they call tax reform. And a big question in that budget is what kind of parameters are they going to set for tax reform? Now they’ve said, they’ve said we’re going to do revenue neutral. So that means that at least overall there’s not going to be any net loss in revenue to the government, although certainly some people may see their taxes go up, some people may see their taxes go down. That’s what they say. That’s not what their tax plans do. And so this will be a real rhetoric versus reality question. Are they prepared to actually support revenue neutral tax reform or not?

VALLAS: Jeremy’s taken off his panda hat, which means I think he has something to say.

[LAUGHTER]

SLEVIN: Yes. Once I take it off I’m in the zoo now. So the whole premise of the Ryan budget was that there’s this looming fiscal crisis and we need to put ourselves on the path to prosperity, right? His whole thing was these big charts showing government spending going way up. And we need to balance the budget, even though his budget didn’t always balance. But their whole conceit was that we need to balance the budget and get rid of the debt and you’re saying their budget may not actually do that.

STEIN: They do a great job of posturing on the debt. And they do this with a tremendous amount of hypocrisy but they do this posturing very effectively. So the budget will probably have those graphs with debt likes ascending into the heavens and it’ll say “fiscal crisis” in 50 places and it will say we have to make huge cuts to medicaid and we have to turn medicare into a voucher program. It will certainly say all that. But the purpose of the budget, maybe they’ll actually go ahead and try to do that stuff in legislation. Maybe they will, and we should be ready for that. But the main purpose of the budget seems to be for tax reform where the question is —

SLEVIN: A.K.A. tax cuts.

STEIN: Right. And here’s the thing about that fiscal crisis that they keep talking about. They want to create that fiscal crisis.

SLEVIN: Right.

STEIN: They cut taxes and then they turn around and they say, “My God look at these deficits. We have to do something to Medicare.”

SLEVIN: This is like the Bush tax cuts.

STEIN: It’s the Bush tax cuts, it’s as recent as 2015. We had, actually it was a good deal, but we had a tax bill that the effect of reducing revenues and a lot of that was for extending credits that were really important for working families, a lot of it also went to businesses. I think it was a good deal overall. That said, after it passed then of course the new budget projections come out and show, well deficits are a little bit higher because we’ve reduced revenues a little bit. And people like Tom Price turn around and say, “We have to do something about insolvent Medicare and Social Security.” Well, that’s not why the deficit projections went up but no matter why there is deficits, cut Medicare and Social Security is always their answer.

VALLAS: Isn’t it, it just makes so much sense, right? If there is isn’t actually the problem that you need so that you can force people to feel that you have to make massive cuts to programs that help them and their neighbors and families, you just have to create the problem.

SLEVIN: If it’s not broke, break it.

VALLAS: Right!

STEIN: And they really do have to —

VALLAS: You should patent that, because they’re going to want that.

SLEVIN: That’s stolen from Keith Ellison.

VALLAS: Oh really?

[LAUGHTER]

STEIN: And they really do have to create the problem here because not only are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid incredibly effective programs that have worked so well for so many people —

VALLAS: They’re also really popular.

STEIN: They’re really popular. People know that these programs work. And by the way it’s not just Social Security and Medicare, it is also Medicaid. Medicaid polls way better than I think a lot of progressive advocates think it polls.

VALLAS: Well, we saw that in the recent health debate. I mean in a lot of ways —

STEIN: Absolutely. Absolutely.

SLEVIN: It’s increasingly popular because more and more people now with Medicaid expansion get Medicaid and know how important it is.

VALLAS: More people than get Medicare. It actually, Medicaid has now outpaced Medicare —

SLEVIN: I did not know that.

VALLAS: Almost 75 million Americans are covered by Medicaid now. So it’s not just, it’s often thought of as the low-income health insurance program but it’s critical for children, it’s critical for seniors, it’s really the only long term services and supports program we have in this country because we don’t have long term care insurance and Republican torpedoed that with the CLASS act. So not to get to digressive —

SLEVIN: Let’s talk about the CLASS act!

VALLAS: Right. Thank you Jeremy for, put that penguin hat, not penguin, sorry it’s a panda.

SLEVIN: It’s a panda. I think it’s a panda.

VALLAS: Sorry, put the panda hat back on. So, bring us back to where this is headed. So we are going to see their budgets and we see that they’re paving the way for tax reform. But what’s the actually process they’re going to have to go through to make these things become law. They’re just blueprints that are going to be issued.

STEIN: Right. So they have to pass, the House and Senate have to agree on a budget resolution. The actual content of that budget resolution is important politically because they have to vote on it and it shows where they stand. But as far as what does it mean, the most important thing is just the line about reconciliation. And it really will just be a couple of lines that tell the committees that do taxes to produce a tax bill that means certain parameters on revenue and how much revenue if any, it loses is a big question here.

VALLAS: Those are called reconciliation instructions.

STEIN: Those are called reconciliation instructions. By themselves they don’t do anything. The budget resolution by itself doesn’t do anything. It’s not a law, it doesn’t go to the president. But the reconciliation instruction then enables congress to write a bill that can’t be filibustered in the Senate. And the reason that that matters is that means you only need a simple majority and that means you can pass a partisan bill. The House can pass a bill with only Republican votes, the Senate can pass the same bill with only Republican votes and Trump can sign it into law. And that’s probably the most, their preferred way to do tax reform. You’re hearing some noises about trying to make overtures to Democrats, I’m not sure that the kinds of things Republicans are talking about are anywhere near what Democrats would find acceptable. So creating a way to do this where you don’t need Democratic votes and can just pass something partisan is I think the most likely way forward for tax reform. But let’s not be hopeless about this here. That’s also their path on ACA repeal and look where we are. We’re not obviously out of the woods yet but that crashed and burned in the house and they haven’t even tried anything in the Senate yet.

VALLAS: So, Trump had a big plan, a big tax plan during the campaign. And a lot of folks took a look at it, there was tremendous analysis done, including by you, of kind of who were the winners, who were the losers? Is he going to stick with that? It sounds like there have been some noises that he can’t sell it to Republicans, so is he scrapping it entirely? And if so, what do we expect to see from him and can he find agreement with Republicans in Congress?

STEIN: It’s always impossible to know what’s going on inside Donald Trump’s head.

[LAUGHTER]

VALLAS: Stipulated. Stipulated.

STEIN: Stipulating that, I think one thing that was actually remarkable about taxes for Trump during the campaign was how conventional a Republican he was. His tax plan maybe was larger than the plans from Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio as far as how much revenue it gave away. But it was otherwise generally fairly similar in structure in that it was a big tax cut and the bulk of that tax cut went to the wealthiest people and to big corporations. So, I don’t think that whether the tax plan was written by the people that wrote his campaign tax plan, Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore, or whether it’s written by the seven Goldman Sachs executives or whoever he is taking economic advice from —

SLEVIN: Gary Cohen.

STEIN: Gary Cohen and Steve Mnuchin. The shape of the plan will probably look fairly similar. Now they may try to scale things back a little bit, they may try to redirect things to make it more, to try to smooth the way to get this through congress, but I think the overall shape of it will ultimately be the same. And there’s going to be I think some kind of interesting distinctions, getting into the weeds on what they’re doing versus what congress is talking about doing. But also, House Republicans and Senate Republicans are largely on the same page. They want to cut taxes, they want to cut taxes for rich people.

SLEVIN: So, I have a question. This sounds like it’s going to be really really unpopular. If they are slashing potentially Social Security or part of Social Security through SSI —

VALLAS: And probably Social Security Disability Insurance if you’re listening to Mulvaney.

SLEVIN: Slashing NIH funding, slashing everything to pay for tax cuts which will by and large go to the wealthiest and potentially corporations as well, how is there not a large scale, even more than what we saw the healthcare town halls. How is there not a huge revolt in their districts?

STEIN: Well I think you’re going to start to see that when tax reform heats up. I mean, one of the things that people found galling about their attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act was that at the same time that they’re saying we have to take health insurance from all these people, they’re giving the wealthy a huge tax cut. And I think that you will see something similar as we move into tax reform, when the size of the tax cuts that they’re really proposing, when those become clear to people. One thing that I think to really watch out for in the tax debate is Trump in particular is very good at shiny, symbolic objects. And what I expect them to do is to propose huge tax cuts for rich people, huge tax cuts for corporations, and then hold out something that looks really good in the press that they can call a middle class tax cut.

SLEVIN: Right.

STEIN: And the thing to keep in mind here is two things. One, when you’re taking that much money out of programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, even if they say, even if they’re keeping those cuts out of the tax reform bill, that’s what comes next is those cuts. And we know that’s what comes next because that’s what they call for every year in their budget. The other thing to keep in mind is that whatever crumbs they leave on the table for ordinary people, the tax cuts that go to the wealthy and corporations are just going to dwarf those. And the only people that are going to come out ahead here at the end of the day are the richest people. People like Trump himself and his cabinet.

VALLAS: So if I were to look into my magic 8 ball, which is probably only going to give me stock answers in triangles, maybe it’s a crystal ball that I should be looking into. OK, now I’m looking into my crystal ball —

SLEVIN: “Outlook looks good.”

VALLAS: Well. [LAUGHTER]. I was going to say the triangle says something like, “The rich will get richer.” [LAUGHTER]. I mean, also that. Outlook looks good if you’re rich!

SLEVIN: I was just giving the answer that those triangles get which are never helpful.

VALLAS: No.

STEIN: I don’t remember the 8 ball being so Marxist.

[LAUGHTER]

VALLAS: Well, you weren’t raised by my parents. [LAUGHTER] You better believe that the 8 ball gave only quotes from Karl. [LAUGHTER] So but thinking about, I’m losing my thread because you guys are; oh crystal ball! [LAUGHTER] I was looking in my crystal ball. Back to my crystal ball.

SLEVIN: Not the 8 ball.

VALLAS: Not the 8 ball.

SLEVIN: Only Marxist quotes.

VALLAS: Looking in the right balls, looking in my crystal ball here, the middle class tax cuts sounds like exactly what they would do if they were going to be smart. But then there is also maybe like expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit for workers who aren’t caring for dependent children in their homes, something that Paul Ryan has previously expressed support for, which he realizes could be another crumb to throw and make it look like they’re doing something that could bring some Democrats over. But then there is also Trump and the statements he made during the campaign about child care, which would be done through the tax code. Are those things that we should be watching for as some of the good looking optics that don’t maybe actually pan out beneath the surface in terms of making this a good bill?

STEIN: So they absolutely are. Let’s take those one at a time. On child care, it really is remarkable, as we said at the beginning, how much everything that this administration does is a tax cut for rich people. Even their child care plan, you’d think, how do you even make a child care plan that’s a tax cut for rich people? But that’s what they do. The bulk of the benefit goes to people making six figure salaries. And there is just no reason to do that. But it’s a perfect example of using a shiny object to just again, cut taxes for rich people.

On things like expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, I think we’d all agree that’s a great thing. And we ought to do that. But there’s no reason that the wealthier corporations need a dollar of tax cuts. There is no reason we have to buy off the richest people to do things that we ought to be doing anyway for people that are just trying to get by. And keep in mind that when you make those kinds of trades, where you’re giving tax cuts for more tax cuts, what that ultimately will do is put people like Paul Ryan and Tom Price and Mick Mulvaney and Donald Trump in a stronger position to turn around next year and say, “My God look at these deficits, we have to do something about Medicare and Medicaid.”

SLEVIN: And Mick Mulvaney even saying, he says tax reform is not about the deficit. I think he said something to that effect this week on CNBC. We’re not looking to reduce the debt in tax reform and the reason they’re saying that is just what you outlined. They create these huge deficits by passing massive tax cuts for the rich and then next year they can come around and say, “Oh, we have this massive fiscal crisis. Look at these deficits, we’ve got to cut Medicaid, we’ve got to cut Medicare, Social Security, et cetera.”

STEIN: There’s a lot of things in the press that bother me.

[LAUGHTER]

VALLAS: Can we make that into a segment? [LAUGHTER] I want a standing segment called “There are a lot of things in the press that bother me.”

STEIN: You can just have a running, it doesn’t even have to just be me. I mean, you probably have all sorts; a parade of guests.

VALLAS: We did a lot that last week after The Post really blew it on Social Security Disability Insurance.

STEIN: Yeah. Well the thing that bothers me today —

VALLAS: And Harry, you have one minute left. Make it good.

STEIN: Calling people like Mick Mulvaney ‘deficit hawks’, it just gives them —

SLEVIN: This is the same thing with Paul Ryan! He’s the opposite of a ‘deficit hawk’. He’s a deficit hawk in that he’s really hawkish about making the deficit as big as possible so he can cut programs.

VALLAS: Well no, he’s like a hawk that’s circling over the heads of people who need nutrition assistance or school meals or like health insurance.

STEIN: The deficit is a tool for people like Mulvaney and Ryan to freak out about and to get the agenda that they want to get anyway. Big cuts to programs for low and middle income people. And Mulvaney really reveals this when he says he’s not concerned about the deficit on tax reform. You know, if you have people on who actually, like the deficit is their number one issue, and I don’t think the deficit should be your number one issue. But if it is, it’s gotta be like, you’ve got to be consistent about that then. And people like Mick Mulvaney, you’re right, that’s really a revealing comment and anybody after hearing Mick Mulvaney say “Tax reform isn’t about the deficit,” anybody who still thinks he’s a ‘deficit hawk’ just isn’t paying attention.

VALLAS: And Harry you’re going to have the last word. Harry Stein is the budget guru at the Center for American Progress. Jeremy “the Slevs” is my beloved sidekick.

SLEVIN: Oh, thank you.

VALLAS: And he has a panda hat on that I wish everybody could see because then they would remember. [LAUGHTER]

SLEVIN: We just created this panda hat now, like we invented it.

VALLAS: Well no, I mean you’re wearing it, so, with that,

SLEVIN: I’m getting the ‘wrap’ sign.

VALLAS: Don’t go away, next up Dylan Matthews shares why it is so important and fantastic that Sesame Street now introduced an autistic muppet as a character, don’t go away.

[MUSIC]

VALLAS: You’re listening to Off Kilter, I’m Rebecca Vallas. Last week, Sesame Street introduced its newest character, Julia. Julia, who’s been in Sesame Street storybooks and digital resources for about two years now is the television show’s first autistic character. Here to talk to about the significance of Julia is Dylan Matthews. He’s a reporter with Vox who recently wrote on the topic. Dylan, thanks so much for joining the show.

DYLAN MATTHEWS: Thanks so much for having me.

VALLAS: So, help us understand, who is Julia? What’s the deal? Why is she new on the scene for Sesame Street?

MATTHEWS: So, Julia is part of a project that Sesame Street and the Sesame workshop has had for a couple years now, in partnership with a number of autism groups, and in particular in collaboration with some researchers and autistic self advocates to have a form of representation for autistic kids on the show. And also to sort of provide a model for non-autistic kids for what to do when you meet an autistic classmate and sort of how to understand their differences and get along and play with them. In a lot of ways it’s the same message that the show has always had. Which is you know, we get along better if we can work and play with each other.

VALLAS: So Julia, as I mentioned is, and as you have now explained isn’t new to the show. She’s been part of this storybook project, so she’s been part of sort of Sesame Street resources that parents and schools can use. But this was her first time appear as part of Sesame Street’s show, on TV. What do you view as the significance of her making that jump?

MATTHEWS: Well I think the show has a much broader viewership the way it works now. They have a deal with HBO where the episode will initially air there and then will be available to public TV stations. So it has sort of the same broad reach that Sesame has had for four decades now. And even families that might not have an iPad to use the Sesame Street app that she’s been in in the past, can now sort of show their kids on the TV. It’s also significant in that it shows Julia interacting with sort of, key characters in the show that are favorites of kids and fans. A lot of the episode is Big Bird getting to know her and getting to know sort of how she is different and learning to get along with her. Elmo is one of her good friends on the show. And so I think that’s really significant and gives sort of kid views an entry to the character.

VALLAS: And Big Bird and Elmo are two of the characters that watchers of Sesame Street will know well. So is there, I guess I’m sort of hearing you say there is significance to her being friends with the characters that kids who watch the show view sort of as their friends.

MATTHEWS: Right, it makes her feel not lot like a sort of tangential like, side character. She’s playing with the big muppets, so to speak. And I think another thing that was really significant about how the show chose to present it is that the arch of the episode is one of Big Bird wanting to be friends with her and wanting to learn how to get along and play with her. So it’s portraying befriending autistic kids as something that you should want to do. That sort of, good friends will try to do. And that’s really significant and huge. It’s not like he’s being nice to her out of a sense of obligation, he sort of wants to play games with her and have fun, the same way he does with all the other muppets.

VALLAS: And part of what viewers see and folks who haven’t seen or maybe are not regular watchers of Sesame Street. I will confess, it’s been awhile since I watched Sesame Street until reading your piece this past week. But folks can actually watch the first half of the episode where Julia appears. It’s embedded in the article that you published on Vox’s website this past week. But part of what happens as you describe, they play a game. And it’s not the neurotypical muppets game, it’s Julia’s game, and she actually teaches them how to play. So one of the points that you actually make in your article is that it appears that Sesame Street’s tack here is that the audience for what they’re doing is not autistic children who may be watching the show but actually neurotypical kids.

MATTHEWS: Absolutely. And I don’t want to discount how important it is for autistic kids to see kids like them on the TV. Representation is so important and it’s great that the show’s doing that for them. But there are more neurotypical kids than autistic kids and so I think that the predominate viewership will be them. And I think it’s important for them to learn that it’s not OK to ostracise people because they’re different. That sometimes things that are obvious to you might not be obvious to someone else. That other people might play in a different way and that’s OK and you can actually have fun learning from them in that way.

I know I remember people in elementary school people being pretty vicious about kids who had sort of, differences or didn’t fit the mold. And we know from four decades now of good social psychology research about Sesame Street, that’s pretty good at modeling pro-social behavior. That there is even some evidence that sort of delinquency and crime might be reduced for kids who’ve watched Sesame Street. And so it’s an important educational resource to teach kids how to interact with each other in a sort of, productive and cooperative way. And that’s extra important when you’re dealing with a sort of vulnerable population of children that typically might be mistreated.

VALLAS: Your article in Vox is a very personal one. It’s not just reporting the news that Sesame Street has added Julia as a character and that she’s now had a central role in an episode on their regular show. But you also share personal experiences growing up with autism. And being around kids who were not always friendly and not always inviting to be somewhat diplomatic. I wonder if you would be willing to share a little bit of that experience and how you think things might have been different if Sesame Street had been taking these kinds of steps back when we were kids.

MATTHEWS: Sure, sure. So I open the article with sort of one anecdote from my childhood which was my folks had a group of friends that would sometimes get together and the kids would play downstairs while the parents were up talking. And there was one day, I guess I must have been sort of two or three, where we were all playing hide and seek. And I had never played hide and seek before. And it’s my understanding that a lot of neurotypical kids pick up on this very fast. I just didn’t. I had no idea what the rules were. I would ask people what the rules were and they would not tell me what the rules were.

VALLAS: Kids are the worst. I just need to say that.

[LAUGHTER]

MATTHEWS: Kids are the meanest people in the world. [LAUGHTER].

VALLAS: They really are.

MATTHEW: But I went upstairs to ask my mom sort of, to explain this to me. And she sort started getting going and then one of her friends was like, “No, no, no, you shouldn’t coddle them, he needs to like figure out what the rules are for himself.” And like I get where all of that’s coming from. Parents get all these mixed messages of you need to be tough on your kids or you need to be sort of ultra supportive of your kids and it’s hard to make the right decision in those cases. But what was so powerful to me about episode was it was specifically about how to include kids in situations like that. And how to make sure that everyone is sort of operating on the same page and there is nothing sort of shameful or like cheating about laying thing out to people who might need that.

And also there is something interesting in how, as you say, Julia has her own game that she presents to the other muppets called ‘boing tag’ that’s not like how tag is normally played but it’s her own variant on this. And the kids ask her to explain the rules she sort of gets them in on it. And is a way, she’s modeling for them how she would like them to include her in the future. And how what resources she needs to be an equal participant and to play and have fun with them. And so that felt very poignant for me, given that memory and given some of those experiences.

VALLAS: Do you think that the audience is not just neurotypical but also parents with neurotypical kids?

MATTHEWS: I think there is a degree to that. I mean, parents are very protective of their kids and sometimes that can extend to sort of skepticism of other people’s kids. And I think one thing that the show models is that it’s not dangerous for your kids to be playing with kids with autism. That this isn’t some some of dangerous dark mental illness that’s going to, I don’t know, leap out and your child. And it’s a real worry for me. There’s been a lot of narratives especially after certain shootings, I’m sure you’ll remember after the Sandy Hook massacre there was a lot of speculation that the shooter might be on the spectrum and that that might have played a role. There is no evidence that people with mental illnesses or people on the spectrum are at all more violent. Indeed, typically we’re victims of violence much more than the general population. But it leads to a sort of popular stereotype especially among adults and parents. And so, that’s something I worry about a lot and I think having a character like Julia who is clearly like, benign and wants to have fun and is not a threat to anyone is really valuable in combating that.

VALLAS: So something that you point out in your article is that for a long time, there’s been one autism group that has sort of, as you put it, the most purchase in hollywood and the entertainment industry. And that’s a group called Autism Speaks. Probably most of my listeners are familiar with that group, it maybe has the most name recognition when it comes to groups that work on issues related to autism. And they are often work with celebrities, I won’t call out a bunch of names but they often work with celebrities to do, kind of, benefit concerts and sort of, you know, big flashy affairs that are fundraisers. But the people who are affiliated with this group have said such things as likening autism to being kidnapped. Or as you point out having a fatal disease. And you even highlight that one of the group’s fundraising videos features one of the executives at the organization recalling a time, as you put it, that she thought about driving off a bridge to kill her autistic child. Tell me a little bit about Autism Speaks and the significance of a different approach in the entertainment industry and also, to some extent, educational entertainment with Sesame Street, that is not that Autism Speaks way.

MATTHEWS: Yeah, I think some of the problem with how Autism Speaks has approached things is embedded in the name. That there is sort of an assumption in the name Autism Speaks that people with autism can’t speak for ourselves and that we can’t advocate for ourselves and that we need an organization of neurotypical people as our sort of guardians and protectors. And you see that in some of their iconography even. Their icon is a big puzzle piece as though we’re like riddles for the world to solve. And one thing that’s happened in recent decades is groups like the Autistic Self Advocacy Network have come up run by autistic people for autistic people based on the premise that we can express ourselves. We might be sort of social in different ways that the neurotypical people but we have voices, we can advocate for ourselves. And that conversations about us should include us. There’s the common catchphrase is “Nothing about us without us.”

And Autism Speaks has been without us for a long time. They only recently actually autistic board members. And so Autism Speaks worked with Sesame Street to a degree on this. We should say that up front. But they also include the Self Advocacy Network, they also included researchers and it’s not an episode that portray autism as some force kidnapping your children and victimizing parents. It presents Julia as a person with differences. And I think that’s huge.

VALLAS: And we should give a shout out to Ari Ne’eman would founded the Autistic Self Advocacy Network who is a good friend. And also Julia Bascom who now runs the organization. So doing amazing work with Sesame Street here. The last sort of line of conversation I want to broach with you is something that people who don’t have an autistic friends or co-workers or aren’t aware that they have them might not really be aware of. I really love how you present this in your reporting on this episode and what Sesame Street is doing.

You talk about the importance of helping people to understand that friendship can exist even among non-verbal kids. There often is sort of this, I don’t know if it’s fear or if it’s just lack of exposure, lack of understanding where people think well, “Oh, he’s non-verbal.” Right? Which sort of mean, what, is this kid going to go sit in a dark room and no one is ever going to see or hear from him and so he’s not really a full person. But that isn’t true and it is a deeply offensive and incredibly limited, I would go so far as to say neanderthal level view of autistic people. And this show is doing a lot to help educate, probably even adults. Talk a little bit about what it might be like or what it is like to be a person who is nonverbal but is still a person.

MATTHEWS: Yeah, and I think the key thing is that nonverbal doesn’t mean non-expressive or non-social or non-communicative. That there are a lot of ways that people on the spectrum, people with autism can communicate that don’t involve sort of traditional, sort of eye contact person to person talking. A lot of people rely on writing or speech to text. iPads have actually been a huge thing in the autism community for expanding expression. There are a variety of tools that people can use to communicate and I think that’s crucial because a lot of people see people who don’t like the speak or are largely non-verbal and assume that they can’t speak up for themselves or they can’t sort of have a voice of their own. And they can, it just isn’t in the way that the neurotypical people do.

And this is an interesting thing in the episode is that Julia is mostly non-verbal, that she says a couple of words but primarily doesn’t communicate that. And I’ve seen some sort of, autistic people express some concern about that from a perspective of wanting her to voice herself more strongly and not be spoken on behalf of as much as happens in the episode. And I’m definitely sympathetic to that. But I’m also sympathetic to having a character who is largely nonverbal and who still is able to play with kids and get along with them and communicate with them. And modeling that just because a kid in your class might not like, hold a conversation with you doesn’t mean that they they’re not interested in being your friend or playing with you. And so I thought that was an interesting creative choice on their part and as long as it sort of evolves to include her having her own thoughts and opinions and expressing them in her own Julia way, I think could be a very interesting and valuable model for the show.

VALLAS: Dylan Matthews is a reporter with Vox. You can find his most recent column on this subject, titled “The Subtle Brilliance Of Sesame Street First Episode Starring An Autistic Muppet” at Vox.com. Dylan, thanks so much for joining the show.

MATTHEWS: Glad to be here.

[MUSIC]

VALLAS: You’re listening to Off Kilter. I’m Rebecca Vallas. This Saturday, April 15th, thousands of Americans will descend upon the U.S. capitol to demand that President Donald Trump release his tax returns. The so-called tax march is not only the biggest action to date that specifically targets Trump’s tax returns, it also comes at a time when his administration is starting a conversation about overhauling the tax code in a way that will undoubtedly favor the wealthy few at the expense of the rest of us. Here to discuss the tax march is Ezra Levin, he’s founder of Indivisible and also one of the authors of the Indivisible guide. He’s also one of the organizers of the tax march. Ezra, thank you so much for coming back on the show!

EZRA LEVIN: Love being back on the show, thanks for having me.

VALLAS: Well so what’s behind this so-called tax march? What’s the deal here? It’s tax returns but is it more?

LEVIN: Yeah, so what’s behind the tax march are millions of Americans who want to know what exactly Donald Trump is hiding. There was a poll released actually just today, on Thursday showing that fully 80% of Americans want to see Donald Trump’s tax returns and that includes 64% of Republicans. This is not a partisan issue. This is just about understanding who exactly is Donald Trump working for; himself or foreign dictators that he had connections to, I don’t know. But the tax march is about finding out.

It’s also not about asking Donald Trump ‘pretty please.’ It’s not about him to find Jesus and say “Yep, I will do what every president since Nixon has done and release my tax returns.” We’re not asking Donald Trump to do that. We’re telling congress to use the power they have to get his tax returns. Because congress has that ability. They have that authority and currently they’re choosing not to use that authority but they should choose to use it. And the great thing about the tax march is yes, there’s going to be a big march in D.C., there are going to be thousands of people out here, but there are also marches in 120 plus communities across the country. So this is not just a D.C. thing. There are folks in just about every state who are going to be coming out, saying hey, we want to know what’s going on and you need to actually release your returns just like every other president has in modern American history.

VALLAS: So serious question, Ezra. Does it really matter whether Donald Trump releases his tax returns and is that really where we should be focusing our energy when we’re living in the political moment we’re living in and facing such tremendous risks to essential programs as well as the thread of maybe getting into war following some of the scary events of last week with Syria. Is this really where we should be focusing our energy and resources?

EZRA LEVIN: Yeah so you know, tax returns are about the standard procedures of presidents releasing their tax returns, it’s about that. But it’s actually about much more. It’s about whether Donald Trump is violating basic ethics rules, it’s about whether he is self dealing from his official office, it’s about these foreign entitlements with dictators and others that we just don’t know about. So back in 1973, President Nixon made a big speech he said that, “people have to know whether or not their president is a crook.” That’s where the famous like “I am not a crook” came out. A few months later, congress got his tax returns using the authority they have and the rest is history. I think the tax returns issue opens up a whole slew of basic questions about how this administration is running and they’re important issues because it speaks to everything that we care about. Our institutions actually acting in the best interest of the people. And that’s just a fundamental question we’ve got to answer.

VALLAS: So we’ve seen, and actually remembering back to the last time we had you on the show which was a few months back. It was right around the time that we were re-launching as Off Kilter. And you and I talked about Indivisible which at that moment was just a nascent movement. There was maybe one group, one Indivisible group in every congressional district. It’s grown tremendously and played really a core role in defeating the republican led efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act and so called replace it with something that would further dismantle Medicaid. Indivisible was really at the heart of that and the people who turned out at town halls and who have been calling and showing up at their member’s of congress’s offices. They played a huge role in bringing the heat and making members of congress realize that this was not just a deeply unpopular effort but actually something that would have political consequences. How do we channel that energy into the next fight that we’re expecting to embark upon which is around tax reform and the budget?

LEVIN: Yeah, so I mean, the energy out there in the country is absolutely amazing. I would say just about everyday we think we’re going to hit a plateau and it seems like the energy just keeps on building. Back when we originally talked, I think there were a hundred, maybe a couple thousands of these Indivisible groups that have registered. We now have about 6,000 and an average of thirteen or fourteen per congressional district. At least two in every congressional district. The folks that are leading this movement is not me in D.C. or anybody else who is working at Indivisible at the national level. It’s really people who are somewhat new to the political process. Maybe they voted before, maybe they didn’t. But after this election they decided they had to do something. And so we hear a story again and again and again of, “I was a nurse,” “I was a school teacher”, “I’m an IT technician, I got twenty people together in my living room and suddenly I’ve got 500 people in a community center who are part of my local Indivisible group.”

So folks are getting engaged in a way that we just haven’t seen in recent American history. And I think you hit on a big question which is, so that’s the story now. How to we ensure that that’s the story that we’re telling two years from now, four years from now, that there is some kind of permanent progressive infrastructure that is being developed here and it’s not just a flash in the pan. And that’s exactly what we’re working on here at the national level. We’re working to ensure that the folks who are running these groups, who are really building the movement have the tools they need, have the platforms for sharing best practices that they need. Have the trainings they need to have successful groups, have long lasting groups. But I will say, bottom line is the proof is going to be in the pudding. Whether there is actual impact, whether or not the national conversation is changing and where what is politically possible changes.

So I think you highlight Trumpcare, that is a big proud moment I think for the broad resistance and Indivisible too. We had thousands of people out at the last congressional recess all around in the country including in deep red states like Arkansas telling their senators and representatives do not vote to take away health insurance from 24 million Americans. Do not vote to kill the Affordable Care Act. And we saw that have an impact. Trumpcare could not even get a vote in the House of Representatives. The number one legislative priority of a unified conservative government could not get a vote in the House of Representatives. That is not because the Republicans decided against it, they just didn’t want to repeal Obamacare. It didn’t happen because people across the country made their voice heard. Now that is a huge victory for the 24 million Americans who are not going to lose their health insurance. So legislative victory is astounding. But it’s also a victory for this model of affecting change. It’s a victory of constituent power. So the question now is where does that constituent power assert itself next?

And what we say at Indivisible is, look you got to accept this hard truth. That progressives don’t have the house, the senate, or the presidency. And that means we don’t have the [inaudible] to respond. And so, back when Trumpcare was the issue of the day, that’s what people across the country; that’s what these local Indivisible groups across the country were focusing on. As this administration and this extreme congress pivots to talking very exclusively about cutting taxes for rich people while cutting programs like Meals on Wheels for lower income folks, that’s what they’re going to turn to. That’s how they’re going to assert their constituent power. So I think as long as there is an issue coming up that the president or this congress is pushing for that the American people don’t like, we’re going to see them rising up and paying attention to it and you know, I think that’s what they should be doing. They should be focusing on what currently is under threat. And so looking forward to once congress gets back after this recess, seeing Indivisible groups across the country saying don’t give millionaires and billionaires a tax cut while cutting Meals on Wheels and other essential programs.

VALLAS: Serious question and I’ve said serious question twice I realize but it’s because —

LEVIN: We need some light hearted questions.

[LAUGHTER]

VALLAS: I’m interested, I’m really interested to hear what you’re going to say to this. There have been a lot of comparisons made between indivisible and the movement on the group around resistance recess and those town halls and the Occupy movement. Which was vibrant and raised a lot of attention and got lots of media clips but which petered out before there was any real policy change. Now we’ve seen a big win as you mentioned, and as I mentioned with taking down Trumpcare and efforts to slash Medicaid. But I guess I’m just curious given how much it takes to show up and to keep showing up and to especially on whether it’s weekends or weekdays. Going to town halls, finding child care, it takes a lot to protest and to be part of a vibrant and only going resistance without an end date. Can we keep up the momentum?

LEVIN: Yeah, I’m less down on Occupy than many people. I think you’re right that they changed the conversation. The reason why we talked about the 99%, the reason why inequality is so much in the forefront of national discussion is largely because Occupy shined a big light on it. Which is great but you are also right that the movement as a whole dissipated before it had any big electoral or legislative impact, in at least a direct way. So this is the real question for the broader resistance and Indivisible right now, how can we build a sustainable movement?

How can we ensure that if you’re giving up your nights and your weekends and your mornings in order to lead this resistance on your home turf, how do you keep on doing that? And I say a couple things. One is that you need support. Despite what Breitbart and Fox News says these are not professional protesters, they’re not getting paid to do this, they’re doing it in their free time. And it’s a big difference going between 20 people in your living room and 500 people in your community center. You need tools to ensure that when that five hundred and first person shows up, they feel like they’re part of something meaningful. They’re willing to give up their next weekend too to be part of this. So that’s a role that Indivisible is trying to play, along with many other folks, many other national groups, trying to give you a toolkit for what do you do if your group is wildly successful and has grown to an enormous size. We actually have a tool kit on that. What do you do for your first meeting? How do you structure it? How do you plan your first action? These kinds of supports are necessary to ensure that folks can keep on doing what they’re doing. That’s one kind of concrete thing, actually providing those tools.

But the second thing is really we think crucial to ensuring that this does not dissipate. And that is building a sense of shared identity and shared purpose among these groups. Now the unit of action from our point of view, or the basic unit of activism is not the individual from Indivisible’s point of view. It is in fact the group. That’s why there are 6,000 Indivisible groups across the country. We saw the tea party do this really well. There weren’t just individual tea partiers. There were tea party groups and they sustained each other. They, while one leader might have dropped off, another leader would pop back up to lead the group. So building a sense of community within these local groups we think is crucial. And then more broadly, building a shared sense of identity, a strong sense of purpose nationwide is crucial because the bottom line is we’re going to lose a lot over the next weeks and months. There is going to be damage done by this administration and it is important for Indivisible Roanoke and Indivisible East Tennessee and Indivisible Auburn Alabama to know that when they’re going to their district office, it’s not just them doing that. That they’re a part of this nationwide movement.

The best anecdote that I have around this comes from the February recesses and we’ve seen it during this recess as well, at town halls, they often start with the pledge of allegiance because it is a civic event. There are American flags at the front and there’s a member of congress there and we have videos in rural places in Georgia or Nevada of people starting with the pledge of allegiance. And 500 people in the community center get to the end and then they shout “Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Because they feel like they’re part of this nationwide movement and they are. Now some of that’s just going to have to happen naturally but there is a role for us to play to ensure that that continues. That when people join up they do feel like they’re part of something bigger than themselves. And that’s what’s going to keep this going.

VALLAS: So in the event that people are listening right now, when our show goes up on iTunes as a podcast and they’re interested in getting involved in the tax march on Saturday how can folks find out more, how can they get involved whether they’re in D.C. or whether they’re in another community that is hosting one of these tax marches. And then alternately, if people are listening and this has already happened, but they want to get involved moving forward, where should they go to find out more?

LEVIN: Yeah, the great thing is the answer is simple and it’s the same for both. The way to get involved is to join your local group. Whether that’s an Indivisible group or another group that’s acting locally. The game here is defending your local turf. Getting involved locally. So it is important to recognize that your representatives represent you. And your neighbors and your community. So focusing on your one representative and your two senators is what you should be doing. If you go to IndivisibleGuide.com you can type in your zip code and find your local group. You can also find local events like the tax marches in your area. And the tax marches are great but it doesn’t just end there. The groups are getting involved; in addition to advocacy in campaigns too. There are a couple ways to change what is happening in congress. One way is to fight back against legislation a day, another way is to change who is in congress and making those decisions.

We saw this in the 4th district of Kansas which is a Republican plus 15 district. They just had their election and there was a 25 point swing away from the Trump supporting Republican there. The Republican won by only seven points that is an astounding disaster for the Trump administration. This should have been a cakewalk for them. And it wasn’t. There are more elections coming up; special election in George 6 coming up this Tuesday and the candidate who is polling the highest in that Republican district is a Democrat who is pledging to oppose the Trump administration’s agenda. So if you want to get involved because you want to fight back against legislation, great. If you want to get involved because you want to ensure that there are different members of congress next year, that’s great too. Go to IndivisibleGuide.com, type in your zip code and join your local group to get active.

VALLAS: Ezra, thank you for everything that you’re doing. It’s amazing to hear the numbers of people getting involved. The fact that there are now 6,000 Indivisible groups or more in some districts. 13 or more groups when last time we spoke I think there was one group in every district. It’s been really exciting to watch and I have a lot of fun every week having your folks who are the activists on the group on the show to hear what they’re up to. Ezra Levin is the founder of Indivisible, he was one of the authors of the Indivisible guide that kicks off this whole movement and he’s one of the organizers of this weekend’s tax march which is taking place on Saturday April 15th. Ezra, thanks so much for joining Off Kilter.

LEVIN: Can’t wait to come back.

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.