A PEN, A PHONE AND AN EXECUTIVE SMED AND CAN ANYONE LIVE ON MINIMUM WAGE?

STAY TUNED.

"IVORY TOWER" IS NEXT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO "IVORY TOWER."

I'M DAVID CHANATRY FROM UTICA COLLEGE.

I'M JOINED TONIGHT BY KRISTI ANDERSON FROM THE MAXWELL SCHOOL AT SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, NINA MOORE FROM COLGATE UNIVERSITY, PHIL KLINKNER FROM HAMILTON COLLEGE, AND LUKE PERRY FROM UTICA COLLEGE.

IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE AGAIN GUT HERE WE ARE.

IT IS NOT A REPEAT THIS TIME AS THE DEMOCRATS HAVE PRESENTED CHILLING VIDEO EVIDENCE OF HOW BAD THE CAPITOL RIOT WAS AND HOW WORSE IT COULD HAVE BEEN.

HOWEVER, THE OUTCOME SEEMS PREORDAINED.

SO PHIL, WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS TRIAL IF WE KNOW WHERE IT IS GOING TO END UP?

DON'T WE HAVE BETTER, MORE IMPORTANT BUSINESS TO GET TO?

>> WELL, I THINK WE DIDN'T NECESSARILY KNOW WHAT THE OUTCOME WAS GOING TO BE WHEN THE PROCESS STARTED.

IT WASN'T CLEAR THAT SENATE REPUBLICANS WOULD BE IN LOCK STEP AGAINST IMPEACHMENT AS THEY SEEM TO BE.

BUT I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO MAKE THE CASE IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION.

AND I THINK AS YOU POINTED OUT IN THE LEAD, THAT THIS CHILLING VIDEO EVIDENCE, WE DIDN'T REALIZE AT THE TIME JUST EXACTLY HOW BAD THE ASSAULT ON THE CAPITOL WAS.

AND I THINK THERE IS AN IMPORTANT SORT OF CASE TO BE MADE IN PUBLIC OPINION, AND ALSO FOR HISTORICAL TERMS, EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED HERE IN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ROLE IN IT AND EVEN IF WE DON'T MANAGE TO GET THE VOTES TO IMPEACH HIM, I THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED AND RENDER THEIR JUDGMENTS ACCORDINGLY.

>> THE THING IS, IMPEACHMENT WASN'T FOR PURPOSES OF PUBLIC EDUCATION, NOR TO THE POINT THAT DEMOCRATS MAKE, OF PUNISHING THE PRESIDENT.

RATHER ARTICLE 2 SECTION 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION MAKES CLEAR THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE PROCESS IS TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PUBLIC OFFICE.

AND THERE IS EMPHASIS ALSO THERE ON THE PRESIDENT, WHICH, FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NO LONGER.

I THINK THE REAL TELL TALE SIGN THAT THIS PROCESS DOES NOT HAVE FIRM CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDING IS THE FACT THAT SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CHIEF ROBERTS HAS DECLINED TO FULFILL HIS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO PRESIDE.

MY OWN THOUGHT IS THAT THE BEST WAY TO HOLD THE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE, TO HAVE A SORT OF PUBLIC AIRING OF WHAT HAS OCCURRED, IS THROUGH A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.

IT IS A CRIME TO INCITE A RIOT.

IT IS A CRIME WHAT HE DID, ALLEGEDLY IN CONTACTING THE GEORGIA ELECTION OFFICIALS.

IT'S A CRIME THAT HE ATTEMPTED TO REMOVE MUELLER FROM OFFICE DURING THE INVESTIGATION.

AND ALSO THERE IS A SENSE THAT HE VIOLATED THE FEDERAL BRIBERY STATUTE BY THREATENING TO WITH HOLD AID FROM UKRAINE IN 2019.

SO MY SENSE IS THAT THE TRAIN TO IMPEACHMENT HAS LEFT THE STATION, BUT NOT NECESSARILY THE TRAIN TO PRISON.

>> I THINK THAT'S RIGHT THERE ARE WAYS HE SHOULD AND WILL BE PROSECUTED.

BUT I DISAGREE THIS SHOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED.

I DON'T THINK ROBERTS DECLINING TO CHAIR THIS SPEAKS TO HIS BELIEFS THAT IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

AND I AGREE WITH PHIL THAT THIS IS TO THE AUDIENCE, IT IS FOR THE PUBLIC AND FOR HISTORY TO REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED I DOUBT-- I KNOW-- I'M SURE NONE OF THE CRIMINAL TRIALS WHICH WILL BE MUCH MORE SPECIFIC AND ABOUT OTHER THINGS MOSTLY, WILL FOCUS ON PRESENTING, COULD POSSIBLY PRESENT SUCH AN EMOTIONALLY RIVETTING PICTURE OF WHAT HAPPENED ON THAT DAY AND WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED ON THAT DAY.

>> SO LUKE, LET ME ASK YOU, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS A LOT OF DISBELIEF AMONG DEMOCRATS THAT HOW COULD THE REPUBLICANS NOT SEE WHAT HAS HAPPENED.

BUT IS THERE PERHAPS SOME PERCEIVED, YOU KNOW IS THERE LIBERAL GROUP THINK TANKS GOING ON HERE THAT OF COURSE HE'S GUILTY?

>> CERTAINLY THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY HAS PRESENTED A EXTENSE USUALLY CRISIS AND THAT FORMS THEIR OPINION OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE CAPITOL AND THE INSURRECTION AND HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THAT.

I DON'T THINK IT IS SO PREORDAINED HOW REPUBLICAN SENATORS ARE GOING TO VOTE.

RIGHT NOW THEY SAY 40 SENATORS IN TOTAL IN FAVOR OF CONVICTION, 37 AGAINST AND 21 OPEN, INCLUDING SEVERAL REPUBLICANS THE ELECTORAL DYNAMICS INTRIGUES ME.

REPUBLICAN SENATORS ARE COMPARTMENTALIZING THEIR THOUGHTS TO PRESERVE THEIR AMBITIONS BUT WHEN YOU SEE PEOPLE LIKE PHIL CASSIDY COME AND VOTE TO PROCEED WITH THE TRIAL.

HE WAS JUST RE-ELECTED AND I THINK PEOPLE LIKE HIM AND BEN, THEY'RE CALCULATING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO OUTLAST THE TRUMP FACTION OVER THE NEXT SIX YEARS AND IT WOULD NOT SURPRISE ME IF FIVE TO 10 REPUBLICANS END UP VOTING TO CONVICT.

IT WILL BE SHORT OF TWO-THIRDS THRESHOLD.

IT'S HARD TO GET AN EXTRAORDINARY MAJORITY WITH THIS DYNAMIC LET ALONE AN IMPEACHMENT OF THIS MAGNITUDE.

>> DESPITE THE WAY THE TRIAL IS GOING, IS TRUMP DONE?

I MEAN IS HE GOING TO JUST FADE AWAY AFTER THIS OR WILL HE STILL HAVE INFLUENCE?

RIGHT NOW IT SEEMS LIKE PEOPLE ARE MARCHING TO HIS TUNE.

>> HE IS THERE, HE IS GOING TO BE RUNNING IN 201234 AND I ARG' HE IS PROBABLY THE FAVORITE NOMINEE FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN 2024.

>> .

>> WHICH SEEMS TO BE A BIG PART OF THE MOTIVATION OF DEMOCRATS TO PRECLUDE HIM FROM OCCUPYING FEDERAL OFFICE IN THE FUTURE BUT THEN AGAIN AND I KNOW I'M SOUNDING LIKE A BROKEN RECORD IN THIS REGARD, THE REASON HE REMAINS VIABLE IS BECAUSE HE HAS THIS HUGE BASE.

AND THE REST OF THE REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT, WHICH IS PARTLY WHY, EVEN THOUGH THEY SAW, THEY ACTUALLY SAW EVIDENCE OF WHAT WAS HAPPENING TO THE SENATE AND YET BASICALLY POOH-POOHED IT.

>> CERTAINLY STRONG EMOTIONS BY ENTHUSIASTIC TRUMP SUPPORTERS.

BUT THE LAST PRESIDENT TO LOSE-- THE LAST PRESIDENT WHOSE PARTY LOST BOTH CHAMBERS OF THE WHITE HOUSE AND CHAMBERS IN A FOUR YEAR PERIOD WAS HERBERT HOOVER.

AND HE WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY WITH HOOVER AND NIXON.

HIS LAST COMMENTS TO HIS SUPPORTERS WAS HAVE A NICE LIFE.

I DOUBT HE WILL RUN.

IT WILL BE DIFFICULT FOR OTHERS TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN TWO TO FOUR YEARS FROM NOW.

>> YOU DON'T THINK THINK HIS FINAL WORDS "I WILL BE BACK IN SOME FORM "WAS CRITICAL?

>> TO TRY TO MONETIZE HIS FAME THROUGH MEDIA NETWORK AND SETTLE GRIEVANCES OF PEOPLE WHO CRITICIZE HIM.

THAT'S HOW I THINK HE WILL BE BACK.

>> WHAT BETTER WAY TO SETTLE GRIEVANCES THAN TO RUN FOR OFFICE AND WIN.

>> HE HAS ESTABLISHED AN OFFICE OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT.

SERIOUSLY?

>> FORMER PRESIDENT OBAMA FAMOUSLY SAID HE HAD A PEN AND A PHONE AND HE WOULD GOVERN BY EXECUTIVE ORDER WHEN HIS LEGISLATIVE AGENDA WAS STYMIED.

PRESIDENT TRUMP DID THE SAME.

AND NOW PRESIDENT BIDEN IS USING EXECUTIVE ORDERS TO PUT HIS STAMP ON THE PRESIDENCY.

AND WE ARE ALSO SEEING INCREASED USE OF SUCH AUTHORITY AT THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVELS.

SO NINA, HAS HAD USE OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY JUST GONE TOO FAR?

>> IT HAS GONE TOO FAR ESPECIALLY BECAUSE IT HAS GONE FAR BEYOND WHAT THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS WAS.

THE INTENT WAS FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO EXECUTE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, CONGRESSIONALLY ENACT FEDERAL POLICIES AND FEDERAL COURT ORDERS.

BUT AS YOU INDICATED IN THE LEAD, OBAMA IS AN EXAMPLE OF PRESIDENTS USING THE EXECUTIVE ORDER TOOL AS A WAY TO INDEPENDENTLY ESTABLISH PRESIDENTIAL POLICY, PARTICULARLY IN THOSE INSTANCES WHERE CONGRESS FAILS TO ACT.

SO WITH OBAMA CONGRESS FAILED TO ACT WITH IMMIGRATION REFORM SO HE ISSUED DACA.

IF WE LOOK BACK IN HISTORY, WE CAN SEE GOOD EXAMPLES OF WHERE THIS WAS NECESSARY SCUCH SUCH AS IN THE CASE OF PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT WHO HOLDS THE RECORD FOR ISSUING 307 EXECUTIVE ORDERS.

BUT THAT'S BECAUSE HE FACED THE CRISIS OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS MUCH BETTER POSITIONED TO RESPOND TO CRISES THAN IS CONGRESS.

BUT THE DOWNSIDE IS AGAIN IT IS SORT OF A SUBSTITUTE FOR CONGRESSIONAL INTAX.

BUT TRUMP SAID IN 2016, HE WAS GOING TO UNDO MUCH OF WHAT OBAMA HAD DONE.

NOW HE DID THAT.

NOW BIDEN, IN ONLY A MATTER OF WEEKS, HAS RESCINDED FULLY 30 OF THE 200 PLUS EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED BY TRUMP.

THAT'S 14%.

SO THE DOWNSIDE IS THAT THERE IS INSTABILITY WHEN YOU SHIFT BACK AND FORTH AS TO, YOU KNOW, POLICIES THAT HAVE REAL WORLD, REAL HUMAN CONSEQUENCES.

>> I WOULD TAKE THE POINT THERE IS A LARGER ISSUE OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION.

THIS CONCEPT AMONG POLITICAL SCIENTISTS CALLED THE PERILS OF PRESIDENTIALISM.

WHEN YOU HAVE A PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM LIKE THE UNITED STATES HAS WHERE POWERS ARE DIVIDED BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, THAT IT LEADS TO GRIDLOCK, WHICH OFTEN LEADS TO NOTHING BEING DONE OR IT LEADS TO PRESIDENTS SORT OF CONSTANTLY AGGRANDIZING POWER, UTING THE EXECUTIVE ACTION AND EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY TO ADVANCE THEIR GOALS AND ULTIMATELY BEGINS TO ERODE THE LEGITIMACY OF THE SYSTEM.

SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A PROBLEM OF JUST PRESIDENTS DOING THE WRONG THING.

IT REALLY IS A PROBLEM IN THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTIONAL SETUP.

>> SO KRISTI, THIS IS DETRIMENTAL, IN YOUR VIEW, THEN TO GOOD GOVERNANCE?

>> I THINK AS PHIL SAYS, IT'S TAKING US AWAY FROM WHAT THE CONSTITUTION WOULD LIKE TO HAVE HAPPEN; THAT IS THE CONGRESS IS DELIBERATING AND LEGISLATING AND COMING UP WITH LEGISLATION.

SO IN THAT SENSE, YES, IT IS NOT A GOOD IDEA AND IT IS TAKING US AWAY FROM CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY.

BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, I THINK, WE CAN UNDERSTAND CERTAINLY WHY BIDEN IS DOING THIS.

HE IS, AS SOMEBODY SAID, MOSTLY UNDOING THINGS THAT TRUMP DID, WHICH CAN BE DONE BY EXECUTIVE ORDER.

EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM ON EVICTIONS.

HE REQUIRED THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH APPOINTEES TO SIGN AN ETHICS PLEDGE.

THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT DON'T NECESSARILY NEED CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION.

AND I WOULD ALSO MAKE THE POINT THAT HIS ACTIONS SEEM, TO ME, TO BE NOT GOING AGAINST POPULAR OPINION.

AND THINGS LIKE WEARING MASKS ON PUBLIC TRANSIT, RESTORING THE ABILITY OF TRANSGENDER PEOPLE IN THE MILITARY, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ALL ARE SUPPORTED BY A MARKETS OF THE POPULATION AND AND I WOULD DEFEND HIS DECISIONS ON THESE.

>> LUKE, WHERE DOES THIS END THOUGH?

IF JOE BIDEN IS UNDOING WHAT TRUMP DID WHO IS UNDOING WHAT OBAMA DID, ARE WE GOING TO GO BACK AND FORTH FOREVER?

THERE SEEMS TO BE A REAL RISK HERE.

>> I THINK IT'S MORE THAN THAT.

THERE IS A GOOD POSSIBILITY THAT BIDEN IS GOING TO FORGIVE UP TO $50,000 IN STUDENT LOANS AND YOU KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT THAT.

THERE IS NOT A CLEAR PRECEDENT FOR HIM TO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT.

I HEAR WHAT MY COLLEAGUES ARE SAYING.

OKAY, IT IS BAD.

WHAT IS IS THE IMPERATIVE.

30 OF THE LAST 40 YEARS HAS DIVIDED GOVERNMENT.

WE HAVE SEEN THE PARTIES DRIFT AWAY FROM ONE ANOTHER, HYPERPARTISANSHIP, 24-HOUR NEWS CYCLE.

LIKE SO MANY THINGS WHETHER WE ARE TALKING ABOUT REPUBLICAN SENATORS IN THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OR PRESIDENT BIDEN, I TRY TO PUT MYSELF IN THE OTHER PERSON'S POSITION.

WHAT WOULD I DO?

PROBABLY THE SAME THING.

THE OTHER VIABLE ALTERNATIVE IS TO REMOVE THE FILIBUSTER AND HAVE THE DEMOCRACY LEGISLATE IN A DEMOCRATIC WAY AND THEN IF YOU WIN POWER, YOU CAN GET THUNKS DONE.

THAT'S GOING TO BE A TOUGH ASK BUT THAT'S THE ONLY WAY OUT OF THIS THAT I SEE?

>> I CAN ANSWER SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS OF WHAT THE ALTERNATIVE IS.

THE ALTERNATIVE IS, INSTEAD OF THE PRESIDENT LEGISLATING, CONGRESS, THE LEGISLATURE, ACTUALLY LEGISLATES AND WE ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THE WORK OF YEARS AGO WHO SAID THAT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HAVE BASICALLY ABANDONED THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE LAW.

AND WHEN IT COMES TO BUILDING CONSENSUS, THE MOST DIFFICULT PLACE TO BUILD CONSENSUS AROUND ARE THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF ENFORCEMENT OF HOW TO APPLY THE LAW.

SO CONGRESS HAS CEDED ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO FEDERAL AGENCIES, WHO ARE TIED TO SPECIAL INTERESTS AND SO IF WE CAN GET THE LEGISLATURE TO DO ITS JOB, AS IT ONCE DID IN THE PAST.

I MEAN THIS IS SORT OF AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS, THEN WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO RELY ON PRESIDENTS.

NOR, FOR THAT MATTER, ALLOW PRESIDENTS TO MAKE LAW.

>> BUT DON'T YOU AGREE, NINA, THAT AS LUKE SAYS, THE ONLY WAY WE COULD DO THAT RIGHT NOW IS TO GET RID OF FILIBUSTER?

THE ONLY WAY THE CONGRESS COULD LEGISLATE?

>> YEAH, THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION AND I'LL SAY THIS THAT WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE MUST BE GOOD FOR THE GANDER AND SO WHEN DEMOCRATS GOT RID OF THE FILIBUSTER FOR LOWER COURT JUDGES, THEY THEM HAD TO PAY THE PRICE P FOR THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES.

SO I'M CONCERNED NOT JUST ABOUT THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCE PRESENT BUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN REPUBLICANS ARE IN OFFICE AND THEN THEY DISCARD THE FILIBUSTER ABROAD A LARGE NUMBER OF ISSUES, PERHAPS BUDGET RECONCILIATION WHERE THAT NOW DOESN'T APPLY.

>> WE HAVE AN UNPRECEDENTED SITUATION WHERE MAJORITIES ACTUALLY GOVERN.

>> ONE PIECE OF THE $1.9 TRILLION COVID RELIEF BILL IS AN INCREASE IN THE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE UP TO $15 FROM THE CURRENT 7.25.

WHILE IT SEEMED LIKE JOE BIDEN WAS WILLING TO LET THE G.O.P.

STRIP IT OUT OF THE BILL, SPEAKER PELOSI SAID THE MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE WILL BE IN WHEN THE HOUSE PASSES THE BILL.

THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE SAID IF IT WAS FULLY IMPLEMENTED IT WOULD RAISE 900,000 PEOPLE OUT OF POVERTY BUT AT THE COST OF A MILLION JOBS.

IS THAT A DEAL WORTH MAKING GIVEN THE STAKES?

>> LEAVING ASIDE THE NOTION OF WHETHER IT SHOULD BE IN THE COVID RELIEF BILL, I THINK THAT, YES, I AM VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF $15 MINIMUM WAGE.

WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR YEARS.

IT HASN'T BEEN RAISED SINCE 2009.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO LIVE REASONABLY ON MAKING MINIMUM WAGE WHICH MANY, MANY PEOPLE DO IN THE FOOD INDUSTRY AND OTHER PLACES, WORKING 40 HOURS A WEEK, EVEN WORKING 60 HOURS A WEEK.

YOU CAN'T DO IT.

IN SYRACUSE, FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH IS NOT AN EXPENSIVE SKI CITY, THE LIVING WAYNE CALCULATION, THE AMOUNT NEEDED TO MEET BASIC NEEDS FOR A FAMILY OF TWO ADULTS AND ONE CHILD IS ABOUT $23 PER HOUR.

I WOULD ADD THAT THE CPO ESTIMATE OF JOB LOSSES HAS BEEN QUESTIONED.

A LOT OF GOOD RESEARCH LOOKED AT CITIES THAT RAISED THE MINIMUM WAGE TO MORE THAN $10, MOST OF THEM.

AND LOOKED AT BEFORE AND AFTER AND WHETHER THERE WAS JOB LOSS IN THE FOOD SERVICE INDUSTRY AND IT WAS NOT.

IT REALLY DIDN'T CAUSE SIGNIFICANT JOB LOSS AT ALL.

IN FACT, IN SOME CITIES, THE NUMBER OF JOBS INCREASED.

>> I THINK THE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE SHOULD BE RAISED.

YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD IMPACT 21 STATES IN A VERY POSITIVE WAY.

THE THING I STRUGGLE WITH IS HOW MUCH.

HOW DO YOU SETTLE ON A FIGURE THAT'S APPROPRIATE?

$SA WOULD BE MORE THAN DOUBLING THE EXISTING WAGE.

THAT WOULD LEAD TO AN ANNUAL SALARY OF $31,000 FOR AN INDIVIDUAL.

THAT'S PRETTY CLOSE TO THE NATIONAL MEDIAN INCOME FOR AN INDIVIDUAL.

AND I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE ENOUGH TO GET ABOVE THE LEVEL.

BUT I THINK MORE LIKE $12 AN HOUR WOULD GET TO $24,000 A YEAR, THAT WOULD BE TWICE THE GOVERNMENT'S ESTIMATE FOR THE POVERTY LEVEL AND I THINK WE PROBABLY ALL AGREE THAT ESTIMATE IS LOW.

YOUR TARGET TO DOUBLE THAT AND I THINK THAT'S A GOOD PLACE TO START.

AND I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHY $15 IS THE BEST OPTION AT THIS TIME.

>> WELL I WOULD SAY WHETHER IT'S THE $15 OR PERHAPS $13 OR $14, THIS, TO ME, IS A CASE OF ROBBING PETER IN ORDER TO PAY PAUL.

AND I DO ACCEPT THE CBO ESTIMATES THAT 900,000 WOULD BE LIFTED OUT OF POVERTY AND SEE AN INCREASE IN THEIR PAYCHECKS BUT 1.4 MILLION WOULD LOSE THEIR PAYCHECKS ALL TOGETHER AND COULD SEE, AS TO THE RESEARCH, THAT YOU POINTED TO, THERE IS A GENTLEMAN OUT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ALONGER WITH HIS COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE DONE A META ANALYSIS OF OVER 100 STUDIES ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS THAT FOUND THAT, IN FACT, THERE ARE VERY SERIOUS COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES TO RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE BESIDE THE TRADE-OFF THAT I MENTIONED.

THERE ARE ALSO THE IMPACTS ON THE PAYROLL TAX, 7.65% OF WHICH EMPLOYEES HAVE TO PAY.

THERE IS THE COST OF, YOU KNOW, THAT GOES TO CONSUMERS, OF HIGHER PRICES OF WHETHER OR NOT AMERICAN PRODUCTS ARE MORE COMPETITIVE.

SO I THINK-- I DON'T WANT TO DISMISS THIS AS JUST FEEL GOOD POLICY, BUT I DO THINK A MORE CAREFUL LOOK HAS TO BE LOOKED AT THE ESTIMATES AND, AS I SAID, THE IMPACT ON THE GROUND TO REAL PEOPLE WHO MAY BE HARMED.

>> I HAVE BEEN AROUND-- I'M NOT THAT OLD BUT I HAVE BEEN AROUND LONG ENOUGH THAT EVERY TIME THEY OFFER TO RAISE MINIMUM WAGE, ALL THE DOOM SAYERS SAID THIS WOULD BE TERRIBLE FOR THE ECONOMY AND TERRIBLE FOR JOBS AND THAT NEVER CAME TO PASS.

IT IS EASY TO GET CAUGHT UP IN THE DYNAMIC OF 1.4 MILLION PEOPLE MIGHT LOSE JOB AND A LITTLE LESS RAISED OUT OF POVERTY.

27 MILLION AMERICANS WOULD GET A RAISE.

THESE ARE PEOPLE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE INCOME LADDER.

THEY NEED MONEY.

THEY WERE STRUGGLING BEFORE COVID AND ARE STRUGGLING NOW.

IT SEEMS LIKE THE MINIMUM WE SHOULD BE DOING, AS KRISTI POINTED OUT.

THIS COMES NOWHERE NEAR WHAT IT TAKES TO HAVE A LIVING WAGE, EVEN IN A PLACE LIKE SYRACUSE THAT'S AFFORDABLE.

>> I WOULD JUST POINT OUT THAT RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE PROPOSAL, THEY DON'T TAKE PLACE RIGHT AWAY.

THAT'S OVER FIVE YEARS OF INFLATION AND COST AND SO ON.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IMMEDIATELY.

>> BUT I GO BACK TO MY EARLIER POINT OF, I'M NOT REALLY SURE PHIL WHERE YOU GET THE 27 MILLION BECAUSE THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, WHICH IS A BIPARTISAN AGENCY, HAS NOT PROJECTED THAT.

BUT AGAIN, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT OCCASION OCCASIONAL STUDIES.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT LITERALLY A FEW HUNDRED STUDIES BY ECONOMISTS, WHO HAVE LOOKED AT ACTUAL INSTANCES.

THIS COULD END UP BEING AN ISSUE OF LET'S GET INTO THE DETAILS, THE NUTS AND BOLTS WHAT HAVE WILL ACTUALLY HAPPEN.

AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SEE THAT THE FINDINGS DO REVEAL THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE ECONOMIC REPERCUSSIONS BUT THE EXISTING STUDIES ACROSS THE BOARD SHOW THE OPPOSITE PRESENTLY.

>> OKAY.

SO THAT HAS TO BE THE LAST WORD ON ON THAT TOP IB.

WE HAVE TO GO TO THE As AND Fs.

KRISTI YOUR F PLEASE.

>> TO THE REPUBLICAN STATE LEGISLATORS IN 28 STATES THAT REACTED TO THE RECORD TURNOUT BY PRODUCING BILLS THAT WOULD REDUCE VOTER TURNOUT ELIMINATING VOTER BY MAIL, I.D.

REQUIREMENTS, MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT TO REGISTER VOTERS AND GIVE STATES GREATER LEEWAY TO PURGE VOTERS FROM THE FILES IF THEY DON'T VOTE IN EVERY ELECTION.

>> AND NINA, YOUR F. >> WASHINGTON POST REPORT POINTS OUT THAT A RECORD NUMBER OF WORKING MOTHERS ARE QUITTING THEIR JOBS IN ORDER TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR KIDS AT HOME DUE TO A LACK OF CHILD CARE AND CLOSED SCHOOLS UNDER COVID.

THE RESULT IS THAT FOUR TIMES AS MANY WOMEN HAVE DROPPED OUT OF THE LABOR FORCE AS COMPARED TO MEN.

IT'S EXPECTED ALSO THAT THIS WILL HAVE A RIPPLE EFFECT ON FUTURE EARNINGS, RETIREMENT SECURITY AND GENDER EQUITY IN THE WORKPLACE.

SO WHILE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE PROs AND CONS OF OPENING OR CLOSING SCHOOLS FOR TEACHERS AND SCHOOLS, WE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT WORKING MOTHERS ALSO HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME.

>> LUKE, YOUR F. >> THE U.S. FEDERAL DEBT IS EXPECTED TO EXCEED THE ENTIRE U.S. ECONOMY PER THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE YESTERDAY.

THIS IS ANOTHER REMINDER OF THE TREMENDOUS HUMAN AND FINANCIAL COST OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S POOR RESPONSE TO THE PANDEMIC, PROMPTING THIS EXTRAORDINARY TIME.

>> AND PHIL YOUR F. >> OKAY.

MY F GOES TO REPUBLICAN SENATOR CHUCK GRASSLEY OF IOWA REPORTEDLY READING OFF AN iPAD CONCEALED IN HIS DESK DURING THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS.

SENATOR GRASSLEY, DO YOUR JOB.

>> AND KRISTI, NOW TO YOUR A. I'M SORRY FOR THE MIXUP THERE.

>> MY A GOES TO THE GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE REALIZED HOW DIFFICULT IT IS FOR MANY OLDER PEOPLE, PEOPLE WITHOUT GOOD INTERNET CONNECTIONS OR JUST PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW HOW DON'T HAVE A LOT OF TIME ON THEIR HANDS TO FIND APPOINTMENTS FOR COVID VACCINATIONS.

THESE FOLKS ARE CREATING BETTER WEBSITES, SETTING UP GROUPS TO PROVIDE PERSON TO PERSON HELP FOR PEOPLE HAVING DIFFICULTY.

MAKING THE APPOINTMENTS WHICH IS UNFORTUNATELY A LOT OF PEOPLE.

SO AN A TO THOSE FOLKS WHO ARE HELPING.

>> AND NINA, YOUR A PLEASE.

>> SOUTH CAROLINA HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL HENRY DARVEY HAS TAKEN ON A SECOND JOB STOCKING SHELVES AT WAL-MART STORES DURING THE NIGHT SHIFT SO THAT HE CAN GIVE THE EXTRA MONEY THAT HE EARNS TO HIS NEEDY STUDENTS.

90% OF THE STUDENTS IN HIS SCHOOL LIVE BELOW THE POVERTY LINE.

THE GREAT THING ABOUT THIS IS THAT WAL-MART, IN TURN, GAVE HIS SCHOOL A CHECK FOR $50,000.

SO AS GREAT AS THIS IS, IT REALLY DOES MAKE ME FEEL LIKE I CAN DO MORE.

>> AND LUKE, YOUR A, PLEASE.

>> MY A TO EXECUTIVE ANTHONY VINCENTE WHO REQUESTED THAT GOVERNOR CUOMO REMOVE BOTH ELECTION COMMISSIONERS IN ONEIDA COUNTY FOLLOWING A 97-DAY POST ELECTION DEBACLE IN 22.

HE SAID THE DIENL OF THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE REQUIRES IMMEDIATE ACTION.

>> AND PHIL, NOT TO FORGET YOUR A.

>> LUKE AND I ACTUALLY AGREE.

I GIVE MY A TO ONEIDA COUNTY ANTHONY VINCENTE.

THE LAST TIME IT HAPPENED WHEN FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT WAS GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK BUT IT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

>> AND SO WE SHOULD ADD THAT.

THAT RACE HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY CALLED AND CERTIFIED AND CLAUDIA TENNEY WILL BE THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR NEW YORK 22.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US THIS EVENING AND FOR COMMENTS, YOU CAN WRITE TO THE ADDRESS ON YOUR SCREEN.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO WATCH THE SHOW AGAIN, YOU CAN DO SO ONLINE AT WCNY.ORG.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY.

AND FOR ALL OF US AT "IVORY TOWER."

HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪