This Is Why People Hate the Government

interview from the New York Times. David and I have spent our careers interviewing

“some of the most interesting and influential people in the world which means”

we know when to ask tough questions and when to just sit back and listen. And now we've teamed up to have these conversations every week. We'll try to reveal something about the people shaping our world. And we'll get some great stories from them too. It's the interview from the New York Times. Listen wherever you get your podcasts.

One of the big problems in Left Politics is that the very people who Democrats and liberals and socialists think should be the most excited about

big new government programs meant to help them. Or often the least excited.

Or often voting for the party that wants to cut government. It's not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things and

“one reason for this. The reason I think we don't talk about newly enough is that”

often times their experience with the government is horrible. Their experience with government programs meant to help them is not just inefficient. It's punitive. It's humiliating. It's controlling. That's because sometimes those programs are built to humiliate, punish, and control them. Any Larry is a staff writer at the Atlantic. She's the author of the new book The Time Tax, which is all about

this. She's also my wife. We are married. So we talk about this a lot at home. She joins me now. Any Larry, welcome back to the show. Thank you for having me. So I think people might imagine that I know everything about this book. But in fact, like, when you live with a writer, they will not let you ask anything about their book while they're

working on it. Oh gosh, no. And it's also, we have very different work habits. So I write almost exclusively between like 10 pm and 4am, just when you're sleeping and getting up to meditate because you're like a normal person. So I feel like there's a real ships in the night quality at all of this. So this is a huge opportunity for

you to finally find out what the book is about. Yeah, no. It comes out shortly. So I'm glad that you'll finally be acquainted with it. So I want to start simply. Yeah. What's the time tax? The time tax is the burden of work, whether that's emotional work, logistical work, you know, like learning knowledge work that goes into any paper work or bureaucratic process in which you are the end user. So it's basically

thinking of bureaucracies effect on the people who are being bureaucratized. You're sort of describing them here as irksom, but you sometimes have another definition of

it. I've heard you use which I always find very vivid. We describe the time tax

is administrative burdens as a tool of social control. Yes. What do you mean by control there? These things seem neutral. There's this understanding, right? If you're going to get something, there's going to be some paperwork. But these are not infrequently purposeful. They are designed to make people feel good about themselves and their relationship vis-a-vis the government or feel bad about

themselves and their relationship vis-a-vis the government. So they're one of the ways that we construct class. They're a way that we make sure that people can get something and make sure that some people can. So the way that I think of them is that they are regressive filter on progressive policies. It's out there, but it's going to be so hard to get that a lot of people aren't going to get it. And I don't

think that we really think about the way that we have this regressive filter on a lot of progressive policies. They're a way in some ways in terms of just social control, right? We use work requirements to supposedly get people to work. They're not terribly effective at that depending on the program, right? We can use them to encourage people to get an education. We can use it to shape economic decisions,

household financial decisions. See if you're taking drugs. Yeah, what can you, what can

“you buy with this? The SNAP program? You have to get food that you're cooking”

yourself. You can't get hot food. So you can't, you know, you can't get a rotisserie chicken at Costco. But you can get food that you microwave at your

a method of control, right? We don't want you just using this to be easy. We want you cooking your own groceries. And there's, finally, enough, in a lot of states, there's exemptions for people who are unstabely housed or homeless because it's really hard to cook for yourself if you're not living anywhere. SNAP cards are good, right? Even tea cards now, they work just right. It's like your visa, but it

“used to be that, you know, and in some cases, it's still right like you have to”

separate out the grocery orders. It makes you very visible to other people in the grocery store that you're using it. And I think that that is like a social outcome, too. A total of humiliation. Yeah, they want to humiliate you. Or they are willing to humiliate you so that you can feed your kid. And so that's what I mean when I say that these are social tools, right? And they come with this kind

of time valence, they come with this financial valence, and then they come with an emotional valence, too. You've a good line in the book, we say poverty is a social construct, not just a material state of being. And the time packs is part of its construction, with forms, summonses, and sanctions. The government impresses upon poor people that it is therefore, they are poor. It

applies skepticism to the needy, the overwhelmed, and the unlucky, that it

does not apply the powerful and wealthy. It does not, but it also adds in and you

say it this way in other places, like a part-time job, right? You're already

“behind, you're already struggling with basics of life. And now you have to do”

all of this. You've been reporting with someone in Utah. It's like, I feel like it's a very good example of this. Do you want to talk through that? Yeah. Um, Marcella is a single mom of three kids, and she's a manicurist. And so she is low in time. And there's so much that I admire about her. Um, she has just been handed a lot, and she has worked so hard to make her life better in her

kids life better. When I met her, she was going to school, so that, like, asked attention school, so that she could perform different services, higher value services. When I saw her a couple weeks ago, she has this idea for kind of like a nail tech thing. She gone to the University of Utah to ask about like, what is a copyright and a trademark? Can they help her patent it? She'd found an

American producer, like a maid in the USA producer. And she had been helped by an

amazing nonprofit based in Salt Lake City called Circles, which is self-imparament,

right? Uh, people come to these meetings. They get advice, but they're really focusing on getting there and come up and, you know, having help and accountability towards a plan. And it is this enormously enormously great resource that's very different than the experience that people often get when they're walking into a benefit office there. And she uses public assistance, Medicaid, other

programs, nap, and she was labeled as a fraud risk nine years ago. And she sort of describes this as a paperwork error. She didn't mean to do it, but she can't, like, afford a tax person. And she didn't know how to, you know, talk to the state about, like, hey, we, the nail salon I was working kind of screwed me over on this. What? And she paid some restitution to the state. The dollar amount is

really low. And ever since then, she has to reapply for her benefits every month or two years later. And these benefits are meant to help her kids. She

has never had any issues since then. And the state of Utah has kicked her off of

one benefit or another more than 120 times, 120 times. And she doesn't have a lot of choice, right? She's got kids to feed in a very literal sense. And it's like, what, what is the point here? But it's just a lot of time. I mean, you have this scene where she's being hurt by, I think, at least in part, social workers. And they're just befuddled in front of their computer. Yeah, it takes hours and

hours and hours and hours. And she doesn't have a computer, right? She doesn't have a, she just got one. But she didn't, she didn't have a laptop. She didn't have Wi-Fi, right? She's, you know, went on, on, on, on at some point with me about how hard it was to, like, get a photo on her cell phone and send it as a fax because she needed to do that. And she's like, how do I do this thing? And I'm like, why do you

“gotta, why do you have to send anything as a fax? But you do. And the amount of time, the”

amount of stress. And it's why I think that she's such an amazing person that she has managed to figure things out in spite of this. So yes, she gets the help, but it comes with this tremendous cost. And it's time she can't spend. Yeah, with her kids.

nail business. Yeah, exactly. And I, I just always think this is such an underrated.

But there's all, you talk about some of it in the book. And this has been like a obsession at times in our household. There's a huge cognitive cost to poverty. Yeah. Yeah. That being poor is like being sleepless. Yes. And like we've people have like done this. They have looked at it. They have done all kinds of experiments. It's equivalent to pulling in all nighter. And it's just constant like thinking about

things and mental weight. And it just makes it harder to pull out that if the point of the state was to make it easier to not be poor, that these states, it believe the way you're going to do that is wrapping people in procedure and

“humiliation. It's exactly the opposite. Oh, the like, well, you need to make it”

easier for people to move forward in their life, not harder. Yes. Like if you're poor, it's fucking hard enough. Right. And there's this idea, the ordeal mechanism theory. So this is this like very, you know, probably nobody has ever heard of this comes out in the 1980s that basically in government programs. You want to make them a bit of an ordeal. And what that is going to do is that is going to get people

who don't really need the benefit, not to get it. Right. It's going to discourage them. And it's also going to help you protect about against fraud. It's going to, you know, increase the public's confidence in a given program. And I think layered on to that is this idea, this almost pure, a tannical notion. If you're getting something you've got to work for it, it shouldn't just come to you. And so if you're not working or not working

“enough in the labor market, you should, you should have to work for these things. You shouldn't”

just get them. And in fact, you needed to have all of these little structures and these rules

in order to build the kind of mass public's trust. But this didn't always totally make sense

to me because it's not like people liked welfare better after 96. It's not like a more popular, nobody's like, oh, that's a really great program today. So I don't think that adding administrative burdens to it improved it. But so then what happens in 96. Today we are ending welfare as we know it. But I hope this day will be remembered not for what it ended, but for what it began. In 96, the program is required to have work requirements. It's required

to have sanctions for non-compliant users of the program. It's a time limit. You can only get it for five years. No matter how many kids you have. Right, if you have one kid and then you have a kid 10 years later, like you're not going to get tanniff, right? It stops being an entitlement. So if you meet the criteria, you don't necessarily get the benefit. It gets block granted to the state.

And they've never changed the block grant amount, even adjusting for inflation. It's still 16.85

trillion billion dollars per year. So tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny. From now on, our nation's answer to this great social challenge will no longer be an ever-ending cycle of welfare. It will be the dignity, the power, and the ethic of work. Today we are taking an historic chance to make welfare what it was meant to be, the second chance, not a way of life. For the people who are receiving the money, they have to do so much work to get this really

poultry benefit. And the benefit is so hard for them to get. And the application is not just difficult to do, but the application is like humiliating, embarrassing. Something that nobody actually wants to do, often because the benefit is so small. So one example of this is that let's say that you were a teenage parent and you weren't married to the father of your children. State requires you to identify the father of your child to the state so that they can go after the dad for child

support. And you might think, okay, that's like reasonable, right? Like maybe that helps the non-castodial parent become more involved in the life of their kid. But if you actually talk to mothers who are complying with this, they say things like, I actually have a pretty good relationship with that guy, but he's really poor. And like, what if he becomes homeless because he's been garnished for child support? Or they might say, I was in an abusive relationship and I don't want

to identify the father of my child to somebody. I don't trust, right? To some state admit it, what? I'm going to tell them about one of the hardest things that happened in my entire life.

“And so non-compliance with the child support rules, which again, I think they have a fine theory”

behind them leads to in some cases, like half of the people who get sanctioned by the program, which is the sort of punitive you're not complying with the rules, we're going to call your benefits back. Depending on the state, our sanction for that, one policy alone. And Tanniff now

This is like one of my favorite, right? The program that we have that has this supposed goal has gotten so jumbled up. And the money goes to so many different things. And the state's administer this

“program often with such cruelty that it doesn't actually do anything. So I think this gets it the”

big distinction operating across a lot of these programs, which is the programs where we intuitively are by default think people are deserving. Yes. And the programs where we treat them intuitively are by default, the government does with suspicion. They have to prove themselves worthy. And I think it's useful to sort of jump back and forth a little bit between them.

The postal service is kind of an amazing example here of a program, a government operation.

They just decided everybody is worthy of getting their mail delivered, no matter where they live. Yeah. You talk about a art project, I guess, by Stephen Brower, at New York's School of Visual Arts. Can you just talk about that and talk about the post office as a kind of counter example here?

“Yeah, absolutely. So he has these students, art students, I think. And he asked them to send him”

a letter. So these students, they draw maps, they make pictures like they write things in kind of unusual type faces and fashion, right? And they're arts students. And basically all of the mail gets to him because the postal workers like figure it out. They look at the map and they're like, okay, like we'll say good, you know, it has a stamp on it. We're going to try. Are they're like shading and occluding and trying to figure the addresses out? And I think that the postal service

has this service orientation. It is in so many ways like the most amazing service I think

in American life. They operate everywhere. You don't have to register your address. They deliver mail by skiff in some cases, like I think like those boats that you do. This, they deliver mail by

“mule to the base of the Grand Canyon. Who lives at the base of the Grand Canyon and how's that?”

There's a hotel. And there's a Native American reservation I believe is there. There's people down there. They make a good faith effort to get mail to everyone. But this gets to the question of deserving undeserving. We have decided you're deserving of getting your mail delivered. You live somewhere. There's no question. Medicare, you turn 65. That's it. It happens pretty easily. And we were talking about this in the team as we were preparing for this. And one of the questions

some are saying, well, that's easy because it's just when people are getting to retirement, but no, these social security in the sense that you get different amounts depending on what your income has been, what you've paid in, Medicare is multiple programs within it. So why are they easy? Is it like a lack of administrative complexity in figuring out who it is or is it something else?

Seniors vote. Seniors are enormously politically powerful as a constituency in the United States.

This is a contributory benefit. And there's this idea that the government is kind of saving your money and giving it back to you that I think is a pleasant fiction. That's not how it works. Yes. Regardless, there's this idea that, yeah, if you don't earn social security, you're not going to get social security. And there's tremendous amounts of beautiful political science research that shows that participating in social security makes you civic, makes you feel

like an American. And then you'll come out as a constituency to defend it. And a lot of other programs don't have that. Many other programs don't have that. You talk a bit about the research on this of what happens when you interface or depend on programs that humiliate you that make you jump through a lot of hoops. What does happen? The work that I like on this, one of the great pieces of work on this. And there's a lot in political science. And there is a lot in sociology.

Is this work by Joe Soss. And he looks at moms who are on cash welfare. And compares them to moms that are similarly situated and income terms, but aren't getting the program. And he finds that welfare makes people withdraw, right? It makes them less civic, less likely to vote. They develop this adversarial relationship with the state because they see the state as being

And the government through programs like this is imparting a sense of worth on people political

worth, right? It's saying, well, maybe you deserve to be treated like this. Maybe this is how much we care about you. And people absorb that feeling. You get the sense that social security cares about you. You get the sense of the postal service cares about you. One of the parts of the book I found very moving is in the latter half. You tell these two stories. And one of the people is, if she works for sort of a boutique real estate agency.

And she gets a bad head injury. And she's treated, and she ends up in what you describe as like a

“paperwork vortex with the state. But is she and her family sort of react to that as an injustice?”

Yes. Like they, I don't know what their income background is, but but clearly they're not used

to being treated this way by the state. She's college educated. She's called education. It's a college educated. Yeah. And you compare it to someone who doesn't come from that. And how much you're just like, yeah, this is the way the state treats me. But it reminded me, and often think that people, they'll look at how sort of working class voters are often less trusting of the government, right? They vote more Republican now. And they sort of think

there's just a strange, like a false consciousness there. It's all culture issues. But oftentimes working class voters have terrible experiences with the government.

And I think that's actually quite underplayed in why sometimes they are not as enthusiastic

“about, you know, liberal or, you know, left-disgovernment programs as one would think, right?”

Like, you know, if you've had good experience with the government, you think, oh, redistribution. It's going to be great for everybody. Yeah. But then if you've been on the business end of redistribution sometimes, it has maybe been really humiliating and time-consuming for you. Absolutely. This is one of the complications I think to the what's the matter with Kansas theory, right? Which is that these are voters voting against self-interest.

Yeah, that they're voting against their own self-interest, right? Yes. The people who are middle class who are college educated, I've spoken with, and there are many, who have the bumpy fall down the income ladder. And then have to interact with the government as a supplicant who is their begging for help are traumatized. Often they're like, "Wait, you're treating me like I'm poor." And they don't conceive of themselves as being poor.

“They conceive of themselves as having a hard time and that's fair and fine. But yes, I think if you”

were merely looking at income, the lower down you go, you're spending more time interacting with the government and you're not getting the nice parts, right? Like, you're not getting the, ooh, I'm visiting an American embassy abroad, parts. You're getting the standing in line and pee in a cup, parts. You're getting the, I'm going to humiliate you. I'm going to treat you like you're a fraud risk. But then again, there are some parts of the government that even high-income

folks deal with that are absolutely miserable. They just have more capacity to handle it. [music] I gave my brother a New York Times subscription. She said, "New, you're a long subscription, so I have access to all the games. We'll do the word, oh, many spelling bee." It has given us a personal connection. We change articles.

And so having read the same article, we can discuss it. The coverage, the options, not just news. That's a diversified gift. I was really excited to give him a New York Times cooking subscription so that we could share recipes. And we even just shared a recipe the other day. The New York Times contributes to our quality time together. You have all of that information at your fingertips. It enriches our relationship, broadening our horizons.

It was such a cool thought for gift. We're reading the same stuff, we're making the same food, we're on the same page. Connect even more with someone you care about. Learn more about giving a New York Times subscription as a gift at nytimes.com/gift. I'd asked you before this. If you had a favorite time tax, if you had a favorite form, a thing that exemplified what you're talking about here. And so maybe it's a way of illustrating

what we're actually describing. You said you did, what is it? The DHS 1171. Of course. There is a guy named Michael Brennan who used to run one of the United Ways in Michigan. And

things like that around people. Human-centered design. And he for years carried around the

“DHS 1171 in his pocket, like a little mini-acharversion of it. You meet the most interesting people.”

I do, I do. I mean, I'm an extrovert. I'll be with anybody. But he, you know, it reminded me of like a priest carrying the Bible or like a lot of politicians or constantly. They love miniature constitutions. And that was because this was the main application for aid in the state of Michigan. And it was at 18,000 words and a thousand questions. A thousand questions. And you might not have to answer all of those. But regardless, if you're like, I'm not sure

if I can feed my kids, this is the form that you're filling up. And so Michael Brennan and his

organization Sevillea helped to redesign it. But until recently, this was the form. And I have it if we want to look at it. Love a prop. Okay. So this is on kind of like two-sided paper. So it's actually kind of smaller than it, you know. This is heavy. Yeah, it's heavy. And it's really hard to look at it. It's like, it's hard to read. It's like, do I have to do all of this? Oh my god. So look, I do want to, I've not seen this one before. This is a lot of boxes. It's terrible.

If this person is under 22, complete this section, who paid for this child's birth expenses,

state, parents, another person, what was a marable status of the mother while pregnant with this

child, if married to divorced, marriage date, separation date, divorce date, order, county state, order, county state, if single this child's conception date. City, for the same question, conception city, state, country, has an affidavit of parent-age or court order named someone as a father. Where your kid was? He's saved. Doctors don't ask you that.

“This is the state telling poor people to go fuck themselves. That's what that is.”

I cannot imagine how upsetting it must be to already be in a state of risk or distress. And you're going to the state for help. You were asking for help and they're like, oh, there was your kid. What day was your kid conceived? What day was your kid? I don't know what they're kids were conceived. Nobody does. That's not like a thing. And what is the state telling you when it asks you that? It's also just a kind of you go through this form.

It's very intimidating as a form. It's hard to read. It's hard to read. It's like, it's enormous. It tells you a lot that if you like, I'm just like in the front. It's like, if you don't give correct information, I mean, what if you get the conception date wrong? I look at something like this and here's my question for you about it. Is the way you understand this form that the government here was incompetent,

rule-bound, fetishistic of procedure? Or is the way you understand this form? Or the way you said it a minute ago that this is not a government that is not thinking about the time tax. This is a government with exquisite sense of what the time tax can do. This is a government weaponizing the time tax because it does not want people to complete this form because it wants

“you to get it and its view of you is if you're asking us for help, you should pay and if you can't”

pay with money, if we're going to have to support you, then you better really need it and the way we know if you really need it is if you will subjugate yourself before us, if you will humiliate yourself in this way and that it, you know, in this telling, right, not my view, acts as a virtuous disincentive to people going on the public doll. I think it is all of the above. Oftentimes, I think that these documents kind of happen by accretion. There's some state laws, there's some federal laws,

they ask that you figure this out. Some of it's well-intentioned, like maybe we'll get you this extra little bit of assistance if we know that you're at risk in these categories. But this is constructed by people who have a lot agree and are talking a lobbyists and are wearing suits. And it is constructed to meet the states' needs of like, okay, what do we feel like we need from these people? What are the legal requirements? What given our processes do we need? This is not a form

But so you're saying, the way you're describing this, you're saying you actually think this is coming from a government that sees rules not people, not a government that correctly understands what it is

“attempting to do. All of the above. And I think that we have a great example of this in HR1,”

which is currently rolling out, which is applying a nationwide work requirement in the Medicaid program. This is the one big, beautiful bill act. So yeah, describe that. So the main pay for, which is not pay for all the tax cuts, but pay for some of them, are work requirements in Medicaid and SNAP? Yeah, it extends them in SNAP. SNAP already has work requirements. It just food stamps the non-mutter name for it. And so there's some just straightforward SNAP cuts. So refugees

and a siles get cut from the program and some cases. And then in SNAP, food stamps, it takes the work requirement and it extends it to some categories that didn't have to comply with it before older Americans, for instance. But then what it does is it takes the Medicaid program.

And just stop for a second. Medicaid is not a cash benefit. You can't do anything with Medicaid

“except for get healthcare. So the idea that you would get Medicaid and you would stop working”

or which is leaving on the door is kind of silly, right? But for the first time ever, it is applying a nationwide work requirement to non-disabled adults in the Medicaid program. And that is the engine, the cash engine, driving tax cuts for the wealthy, not because those people are not poor enough to get on Medicaid. But merely because most of those people will not be able to comply with the work requirement because it's so owner-ass. This is a, I want to stop here,

because both because it's a good example because it's a really massive policy change about to go into a nice huge. You try to think about this. What is Medicaid for? We think people should be able to have healthcare even if they're more. Yes. SNAP, you imagine a person who is poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. Yeah. And you got to be really poor. 138% of the federal poverty line, which is really low. And either, cannot find a job or cannot get it together

in a way where they can like work their way through the paperwork and continuously prove that they're looking for a job in the right ways. And different states are going to implement this and places and implement this in different ways with different levels of difficulty for the people they are testing. What is, what about societies improved if that person now has no coverage when they have a heart attack beats me and they're going to go to the ER and it's going to be uncompensated care that

somebody will pay just not Washington. So will the individual pay because they're not going to get

“treated for that health condition that they have? I think about this all the time. I'm a type one”

diabetic. No insulin. I'm dead in a couple weeks. I don't know. Maybe longer. And you are creating this burden where many people on Medicaid are already working if they can. Notably, they just don't make enough or they don't have a job like a nice fancy job like we have that comes with health insurance, right? Or they can only get a part-time job or whatever. They have care-taking responsibilities. These are not generally people who are just sitting at home not working.

And there are people who have other health insurance options for the most part. I mean,

this thing that I always thought was the most telling about this move. Was it it was not done on

it so you could imagine a world where they did like a big Medicaid reform package. And they decided we want to have work requirements and we thought about how to implement them. I would oppose up like all the way through. Yeah. But it was telling that this was done to get saving. So richer people get tax cuts. It's absolutely. And there was this tremendous, you know, Donald Trump promised that he wasn't cutting Medicaid, right? This is going to be easy to comply with.

And what we're going to do is we're going to get people like they kept on citing young men, young men who aren't working to get Medicaid. We're going to get them to work. We're also the cheapest people to ensure. Yeah. They don't really use a lot of health care young men generally. But we actually know that putting a work requirement in Medicaid doesn't raise employment rates because some states have had work requirements. There's some local programs.

They've gotten waivers basically to implement them. And when they do this, the employment rate doesn't

go up. What happens is that it is a big paperwork clusterfuck. And it's expensive for the

And they find out when they're in the ER, right? Because often times if you are, you know, a younger person, you're managing this that in the other, you might not really realize that you're not insured until all of a sudden you're like, oh, I've dislocated my shoulder or I have something that really needs to be checked out. So yes, as you were saying, this does not work unless it kicks people off. And they said it wasn't a cut. They said they're not cutting. But how are you going to get a

trillion dollars from the program without cutting? I would also note that the predominant recipients

of government benefits, they're, you know, they're always saying it's about the young guys who

don't want to work. They're women. Women who are much more likely to be taking care of kids, much more likely to spend a lot more time doing that, much more likely to be the person who is managing the household. And I think that there is a lack of integrity. I think it would be one thing to come out and say, we're cutting. We're kicking people off Medicaid. They should figure out how to get insurance in some other way. That is a terrible policy, but at least it's honest.

This, this isn't honest. And I was talking about somebody who runs a health clinic that serves an indigent, mostly homeless population of folks, many of whom have a substance abuse problem.

And these people, the treatment that they often need is inpatient psychiatric treatment,

“and then wrap around supports to help them get stable. And we know that that is the best way to”

help them that is often what they are seeking. That is the care that they get. They're all going to lose their insurance. Because they're not going to be able to comply with this. They don't have phones. They don't have computers. How are you supposed to comply with a work requirement if you're sleeping in a tent? One of the things that people are very well rewarded for in mid-earnity is the kind of mind that is very good at managing tasks and bureaucracies and

information that works with symbolic information very smoothly, that has a lot of executive function, that wakes up in the morning and does your morning pages and writes out your task, by the end of the night, you're laughing at me because you're describing yourself. I, I, I, I, I have a great irony is that I've married somebody who's good at this stuff because I,

“do I have a driver's license? Do I know where it is? Nope. I think one, yes, to the first and”

note of the second. Yeah, I think it exists. Some place in time and space. I've literally talked

to my therapist on the phone and we have opened the mail together. Good, good, good insight there, good insight there. If you don't have that, if for all kinds of reasons, you know, people have addiction issues. Yes. People grew up in homes where they were badly traumatized. People are operating under all kinds of other burdens. People's minds are neurodivergent in a certain way. People are terrible social anxiety. Yeah. That makes it hard to do the things that society

rewards you for. Things that come very naturally to other people. We like pretend that people are all successful because they have a worked hard if they didn't. And everybody knows it's bullshit. Okay. And the things also that help you work hard and make you a compulsive worker, you often don't choose those either. And see, you take somebody who is already struggling with this and maybe that is part of why they are poor because they just have trouble navigating modernity. They have

depression. They have anxiety. They have other health issues. And then you begin to pile bureaucratic

“procedure on them. Pile forms you have to fill out. Forms that like routinely, I get in late”

or that don't I get in late. That I get in late. To go back to one of the years saying before, yes, I think that high-income people have it often. A completely different orientation towards this kind of paperwork. And I really like the Bernard suits idea of having a looseory attitude, right? The looseory attitude is what makes a game a game. Arbitrary rules and this, like, okay, I'm going to try and win. And this is the attitude that many high-income people bring

to, like, for instance, a college application. Yale is going to make you spend $100 on the application. You're like, oh, that's another place where I can achieve, right? This is a democratic idea of, you know, the heart of you work, the better a boy you are, right? Or view you of high-priced accountants, high-priced cash products. It's a game you're trying to win. We've talked about this that sometimes you meet a very high-income person in our line of work and the degree to which they talk

about texts, avoidance. They really talk about it all the time. It really kind of gets an off on it,

it's not just a peer-chance, it's a Elizabethan idea of there's deserving and a undeserving and we're going to separate these to, I think that importantly in the United States, this has to get filtered to the prison of race, right? The reason that we do not have these kind of universally accessible, simple benefits is anti-black racism, right? A lot of these big programs are set up during Jim Crow. I know that this sounds kind of overly declarative, but I don't think it's, it's wrong.

You brought up deserving of deserving poor. And one reason that a lot of these benefits look like this, including in blue states under democratic governments, that believe in Medicaid, yeah, that believe in tennis, that believe in all kinds of tax credits and hands up and all the rest of it is twofold. That one fraud is a real problem. Yeah. And two, that even just politically, if you believe in these programs, if they develop a reputation for helping people for whom that

help is not deserving, right? The program will be destroyed, right? This is function what happens to a welfare, right? We have can if because of the view was and this was racialized and this was wrong in many cases, but it was wrong in literally every case that welfare reform is helping people that, you know, middle America didn't think should be helped. And that got strong enough that a democrat was a one who ended up getting it. So what about the arguments that actual policy

“makers make for doing things this way? I think it's important when you're thinking about the shift”

from AFDC to tennis. This is what happens in '96. Old welfare to new welfare. And old welfare used to be an entitlement. If you met the criteria, you got it. That's not true anymore at all. You can meet the criteria. This is true for a lot of public programs, actually, housing vouchers, that kind of thing. You can meet all the criteria. You might not get it.

Which is crazy to high-income people, I think, where it's almost always like, you meet the criteria

you're going to get it. Yeah, if you have a mortgage, you get the mortgage interest deduction. Yeah, they're not shuffling around who gets it, but if you're eligible for section 8 vouchers, you may not. Yeah, you might wait 10 years, 12 years, right? And it might not be obvious to you why some people are getting it. And it's often not entirely obvious to the people within those organizations either, I would note. But, yes, the shift to AFDC to tennis is driven not wholly,

but at least strongly, by racial concerns, not fraud concerns. Those come together, right? These are two sides of the same coin. The originator, the program that comes like way earlier is this mother's pension program, which is used almost as run at the state level. It's used almost exclusively by white women. In which you, you know, if you were a good widow, or a woman who had been abandoned and you had kids, you would have kind of a social worker come,

and it was very paternalistic. But, you know, it was supposed to be wages for being a mother

“and doing the most important work in American life. This is like an old progressive era policy, right?”

But then, when you get ADC, which then becomes AFDC, this is complicated, part of social security, because it's an entitlement, because black women are more likely to be low-wage, you know, when they have kids, yeah, they use the program. And the entire program becomes about, you know, the media conception of the program, whenever they show images, there's really great study by Martin Gaillin, showing that whenever they show images, they're not

showing white women anymore. Even though black women are never a majority user of the program,

they are never. They still aren't. You know, it's these black families in urban areas. And that is partially along with concerns about the rising cost and everything else is what leads to this backlash that you can actually trace the way that politicians are talking about it. They stop talking about kids. They start talking about moms, and they start saying that, well, these moms need to be working. And, you know, they start saying, well, welfare is a work

program. And it transforms, and that leads to 96, which then leads to us there. So, I would just note

“that I think that when you are thinking about fraud, it's really important to think about”

the racial diversity in this country and the way that it has changed the way that we set our

public programs up. The second thing is that there would be way less fraud if the programs were

simpler and easier, right? If you have fewer rules, and the government does more work to determine, like, okay, we're going to look at your tax returns and figure out if you actually get this.

There would be fewer people getting overpayments underpayments and appropriate payments. I would

note that we have not a great sense of how much fraud there is in these programs. We have an improper payment error rate, which is, you know, just right, like when they go back and they look, did you get too much? Did you get too little? A lot of it is driven by the complexity of the program itself and the fact that the government is not doing the work. It's these people who are kind of pulling together forms or filling out this and oh gosh, who could imagine anybody filling this out

incorrectly? And yes, there's fraud. There's absolutely fraud. I'm not saying that there isn't. Fraud is both real and who's fraud we choose to care about is telling? Who does a lot of the

Medicaid and Medicare fraud? Doctors? Or the heads of large organizations like Rick Scott,

“a senator from Florida who ran a, I believe it was a for-profit hospital organization that was one of”

the largest fraud that had to do one of largest fraud supplements with Medicare and history. Yeah. Separately, you got to be real fancy to do a big Medicare fraud. Donald Trump pardoned, part of their community, I don't remember, but did one of the two, I'm somebody who had settled around the largest fraud cases with Medicare more recently. You do have real fraud on the individual, on the part of individuals. On the other hand, Trump and their Republicans getting the IRS audit

division has made fraud a lot easier for high-income taxpayers. You know, they are not going after

Medicare and Medicaid fraud in the way they could. I mean, there are a lot of way, like the biggest

frauds come from organized actors, both legitimate and illegitimate, who are able to do kind of complex frauds that are not about, like putting the wrong name down on the form. Yeah, it's unbundling

“services. It's complicated. You got it. It's buying fake. It's buying like leaked information online”

and using that to apply for unemployment insurance. You know, and you do, I mean, in Minnesota, right? Like the kind of smiley info that you're real, whereas organizational. Yes, absolutely. I can tell you this. There would be more improper payments in the home mortgage interest deduction, tax program, which to be clear, we should think of as a benefit program because it is, even if we don't frame it that way. If you had to do pissed tests, how many people would get

would get their benefit revoked for that? I wonder. If you had to do this form instead of like, ticking a single box that actually you're accountant is doing because you don't do your own taxes, you know? Well, this goes to maybe the time tax and also a, like, a good place to see the choices are making that the most people interact with in America, which is the tax system itself. Yeah. So this is part of the book. How does our tax system work from this perspective and how

could it? Oh, my gosh. In Japan, for the most part, if you're earning a salary, you don't ever have to do your taxes. Japanese taxes are just does it for you. In a number of your PN countries, you can like, I forget whether it's Sweden or Finland you do by text message, Norway, sorry, to the Nordics. Do they all look the same to you, any? I'm just like, I can't remember which one. I'm so sorry. The day ends are over here and they're like, it's not us.

And in many other peer countries, they'll just send you a form that's mostly filled out

“and you can figure out if you want to do any changes and then maybe you sign it, you send it back.”

It is like, visible. You know when Europeans are like, "Wait, your healthcare system works how?" You got build for what? Like, you know, the whole, like, you ask a European, like, "Oh, how much did you have to pay to get that baby?" That feels like part-in? Sort of similarly, I think if people understood that the IRS, I'm not saying they're not like a competent and professional agency at doing what they're doing. And in fact, I know a lot of civil servants at the

IRS that are like, "Chomp it, get the bit to be able to do people's taxes for them." They're not allowed to, they're not allowed to. Here's a crazy thing about this because I think it's worth like getting at the mechanism here. The IRS has all the information. The reason the IRS can come after you fill out your taxes and say, "You underpaid" is because they know how much you're supposed to pay. And given that they know how much you're supposed to pay, they could just tell you how much

you're supposed to pay. And in other countries, they just tell you how much you're supposed to pay. And then you're like, "Okay, great." And then you pay it. We even had a pilot program

killed it. Yeah. And people liked it. Yeah. Oh my gosh, direct file. It was great. There's two things. There's two things here. So one is that the US tax system is so complex. There are so many write-offs and kind of arcane, fussy little provisions that do require people to tell the IRS. But most people, that's like not true for. Most Americans take the standard deduction, which means that you're not itemizing things. Nine and ten take the standard deduction.

The second is that there's a legal prohibitions on data sharing between US government

agencies. So HHS might have some information on you. They can't send it to the IRS very easily for the most part. The systems don't talk to each other and very often in other countries. They do. And for a lot of Americans, the idea of having a government that has a unitary repository of all of this information and it's all connected is really terrifying. We have very little social trust

“and I think correctly. Why would we? However, you can always give people the option.”

Make it a permission. I want the government to fill up my taxes for me. I want the government

to search for benefit programs and then go get the data from the state tax office in the IRS.

You know, just think about optionality. I think a lot of really low-income people might be like, yeah, if I could just tick a box and have them do as much as they could, that would be great. And I think that letting data bases talk to each other with permission is different than probably having it in a big database. So I want to stop here because one of the moments in the book where you said something that just stopped me a little cold was you went to a stonia. I remember when

you went to a stonia. You didn't tell me much about that trip. So I read about it in your book. And you talked about Estonia's only once policy. Oh, yeah. Like, this was so

“you took back. Yeah. That is almost how to read about it. What is the Estonia only once policy?”

So Estonia creates a government denobo. Not that long ago. Right? Post-Soviet. Yeah. They get their independence back and it's all really young people

that are not that this is the most important thing. But I do think it's interesting in the

history. I've done the people who are putting a government together in their like 20s and 30s. A lot of them are not actually retirement age now. And uh, or just barely retirement age now. And uh, they are extremely poor. They are financially distressed. They need foreign investment. And they need the support of institutions like the IMF. So they want to also after the Soviet experience, they want to have a government that people kind of trust and believe in. And they

“end up putting together the most like technologically advanced government. I think perhaps on earth.”

Almost certainly. Yeah. Like at least in terms of service delivery. Yeah. And they have this policy that if you tell any part of the Estonian government, a single piece of information, I had a kid. I switched addresses. It, you will only tell the government once, only once. So like if you tell your kid's school, you know, like here's our new address. It just updates it with every other agency. And they have this unified system of benefits that you can go online

and see like your voting record, your property records. Um, you know, access your medical rate. And I was sitting with a woman who was showing me this. And I was like, I don't even know how I would get all it. Like, you know, your your educational records, right? Like, it's like, does the government have any idea where I, the public school where I went to elementary school? How would you even know? And so yeah, going back to the IRS, there is a challenge. But again, it's like, they don't want

to meet it. They want you to have to do your own taxes. And so, you know, this costs Americans. But it's not big. It's not the IRS, it's not the IRS. It is Republicans. It's not Congress. It's Republicans. Yeah. Because Republicans forever have wanted taxes to be hard. So you hate the government. Yeah. And it's not just because they're in the pocket of like big tax preparer. Although, they are a little bit in the pocket of big tax preparer. Like, into it, and others have

got a lot of money. Yeah. It's going to be so heavy. It's a big industry. So heavily. But if every

pretty great. Yeah. Then you're going to want more government. Totally. And Republicans don't want

you to want more government. And so it creates this kind of kind of don't they know? Right, like, they want government for some people. There's a whole thing about Donald Trump. But they don't want to fish a government. Although, I will say about those. One of the things I just remember thinking about with those. Do you know what I'm talking about is a number of times when I don't walk out of here. What I'd be reporting on the way social benefits work or something.

And I would run into all of these privacy considerations in the government. We can't do the obvious thing because the IRS won't share any data. Yes. And it's like, that's a firewall. And we just

“can't get through it. Even though that's how we could make everything work a lot better. And then”

it turned out that that wasn't a firewall. And I'm not saying what Elon Musk endorsed it was legal.

It was probably not legal. But it turned out to be doable. Look, one way or another. Guess who gets to change laws? Congress? You could make things work better. We have taken too much about the government works as settled and unchangeable. And it's not. And does was, you know, running through walls, destructively. But one thing they really showed was a lot of things that say the Obama or Biden administrations treated as sacrosanct. Yes. Those were guidelines. Those were recommendations

from your lawyers. Yes. And maybe it's worth it to start breaking some guidelines and rewriting rules in order to make the government work better. There's a deeper issue here, which is that Congress does not see itself as the administrator of any. You know, my view is Congress should get rid of the filibuster. And then when Democrats are in power, like they should actually do the things they say they're going to do and vote on a party line to do them and then see if the public likes

“them. And then if the public does like it, they can be reelected. And that's how democracy”

is supposed to work. Instead of this, like, we can't do anything. And we would like you to study congressional procedures to understand why. Let Parliament on a bumper sticker. Really, take what presidential power and think of a prime minister. It's going to be really popular. The essay wants to abolish a Senate. This is the moderate position now. Yeah. The thing you're really debating in this book pretty explicitly is the federalization of powers. Yeah. That you do

not like how many programs are stated ministered. You definitely don't like it when it goes down at the county level. Like you're arguing for a simpler, but bigger and more national government. Yes. Things should be federalized. What do you want to federalize? Oh my goodness. So there there are some constitutional issues here. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not going to get into them. Yes, Medicaid, federalize it. UI unemployment insurance, federalize it. Tanniff, if you're going to have

it, federalize it. Any program? Yeah. This is my bumper sticker. It's like a hate laboratories of democracy. The federal government is better at doing this. They are for a few reasons. One, they don't have balanced budget requirements. Right? This is actually like a really big thing.

States and cities do. The second is just like a simple, who, like how many agencies are we going

to have doing the same work type question? There's 56 Medicaid programs. Yeah. What happens when you move? Yes. It's a constant, really. It happens all of the time. And if you're like housing

“and secure, you move a lot. Yeah. Totally. And I think that there is a floor that's so many”

state and local program sync below. That that seems like a much more important issue to me than laboratories of democracy that actually go above and beyond and have great benefits. Although it's very interesting to me that it's not necessarily blue states that have better administration than red states because they're under the same constraints. Right? And they've also often so highly proceduralized or in government. Oh my god. Like you often have like more generous benefits

in a much more complex bureaucracy. Yeah. Absolutely. It is not the sort of thing. California is a nightmare on a lot of this. They've gotten better on some fronts, but it's just it's not like a simple, you know, the more liberal. It doesn't map on like that at all. It really, really doesn't. But yes. If you could take these programs and federalize them and make it such that the agencies administering them were responsible for outcomes and saw themselves as a surface delivery

organization, yes, it would be a lot better. It would be way better. I'm Daniel Adkinson. I'm a travel editor at The New York Times. When you're on social media

Do you know if they got freebies in exchange for promotion? At The New York Times, we get a lot of

“invitations to take free trips. We turn them down every time. We do not accept any discounts.”

We don't accept any free stays. We don't allow our riders to trade access for a good review. We need to maintain our independence to provide you and accurate picture and get the real story behind any trip that you're going to take. It's a big decision to choose where you want to spend your valuable time and money. We want to make sure that that trip is something that's worth it. If this kind of reporting sounds valuable, you can get it and so much more by subscribing to The New York Times.

Your first book was about universal basic income. When I got to the end of the sun,

I came to think these books were more connected than I thought when you were at The New York Times. It seemed to me that you were moving towards something that's more like the government should do fewer things but do them clearly and well. This seemed to me in the antipoverty to mention like it was sort of an argument for a negative income tax. Not quite a UBI where it's like Bill Gates gets it but you know something where if you're below a level, you just get it. We don't

test you. We don't put you through who we just say there's a level in this country. People do not need to fall beneath. The sort of conservative argument over the years for something like UBI or

negative income taxes which Richard Nixon pushed at one moment. What I am proposing is that the

federal government bill the foundation under the income of every American family with dependent children that cannot care for itself and wherever in America that family may live. Excellent precedent up until the government should do fewer things we do about it. It's a problem's Cambodia. I'm not a huge fan of. Yeah, I'm not. I'm not a huge fan of the tape Richard Nixon. There's a lot of things to be concerned about there but a fascinating figure. That seems

like the kind of thing you're envisioning here. Yeah, look at the child tax credit. Right? So the child tax credit exists. There's this brief moment during the pandemic where they give a really big CTC and it reaches 80% of target families. The IRS administers it instead of some welfare agency somewhere. What does it do? It cuts child poverty in half and granted that's mostly due to just the sheer amount.

“The giant money cannon but the administrative simplicity I think is actually important there.”

Most people don't have to do anything the money just shows up and so the problem I think with running so many programs through the tax code where it really is much more efficient and the IRS

has become a crucial welfare benefits administrator even though it doesn't like to think of itself

that way. Both the IRS and Congress, I guess, is it then people don't notice. You know, there's amazing research by Suzanne Matler of Cornell that shows that high-income people, no matter how much they're getting in government benefits, they're always like, well, I don't use any government program. That's because it's like their accountant is figuring it out. I think that they might just not conceive of it that way because we are not beating somebody over the head with like,

hey, you got a home mortgage interest deduction which you didn't have to pee in a cup for. Whereas it's really obvious to people getting safety benefits that they're getting them because they have to go to these offices and fill out all of this paperwork and everything. So I do think that there is this kind of downside to tax programs which is that, you know, they become invisible. But look, they're way easier for the government to administer way cheaper and you're much more

likely to get them to the people who you want to get them. You could also make some pretty simple design tweaks to make things happening through the tax, who are more visible. I mean, it could come as a large check. It's not that difficult. Absolutely. I remember this is whole story from the Biden era. We're Biden, like, I'm not going to put my, like, big signature face on a check

“like Donald Trump. It's like you should have put your big signature and check, like Donald Trump.”

Yeah. So what do you say to conservatives because I've seen this case pushed against your box? It's like, look, this is a great description of how government fails. It is a great description of government complexity. It is a great description of government incompetence which you agree is at least part of the story here. So ending in a stirring call for bigger government, more government is like fundamentally paradoxical. Governments just do less and be more out of people's lives

and not take in ways so much of their, do they want to take away social security? What? Some of them do. A lot of big programs work great. They work really, really well.

in the way that the governments around the world work. We have low standards. We're letting

these assholes get away with murder. I mean it. There's no constituency for this right now.

“It's a thing I think about all the time. There's no kind of way to say, hey, when you're creating”

like a partially refundable tax credit, something, something that's like means tested. Like that is stupid and you shouldn't do that because you're asking a lot of people and nobody's going to use that and who needs that fuss. And I think that we should. We should say, hey, we're paying you to do this. You take $7 trillion a year. Be competent. You have a great line in the book where you say that politicians care a lot about whether or not a program exists

but not really whether it's accessible. Totally. And it's also, and again, I think it's the

civil servants often. They really want these programs to work. They would love to use their

experts on these programs and we don't listen to them either. They are like people who are stakeholders. It's not like, you know, you have them coming forward and being like, I think that we could make these really good changes. And that would result in, right? Like a lot of them want to do that and they're statutorily not allowed. You'd have to get a law passed. You'd have to get a regulation passed. Who at the White House is going to listen? You're not allowed to speak out. You'd

get fired. No. Can't go right and uphead from me. I mean, I know through you how many people you talk to in the bureaucracy who are just like hair on fire, like funneling you information about how it doesn't work. Oh my God. But nobody wants to make government programs work better than the people who are held back from administering them correctly. Yes. Like if you devoted your life to getting people snap and now you're not able to get people snap, it drives you crazy. Absolutely. If we

treated people as experts in their own experience by which I mean, people who are using these programs and the people administering them, I think things would work much better. Gen Palca, I think has like the greatest, you know, exagesis of this idea in recoding America. All the recoding America. Yeah. Guest of the podcast. Guest for the show. Right. Where she describes it as this like bureaucratic anxiety cycle. So what happens is, you know, Congress spends some money. They have some program.

The program doesn't work well. And so they put more rules on the bureaucrats who become then less capable of actually administering the program. They get called in before Congress. And so you just end up in this kind of doom loop of like Congress telling them, telling these bureaucrats, okay,

“well, here's in an even more specific way what I think you should be doing instead of saying”

to the bureaucrats, we trust you. Here's the goal. Get it done. We were talking earlier about our government bumper stickers. And I thought about this before. Mine is actually simpler fairer faster. I feel like Democrats should run. And they're going to say the government will be simpler, fairer and faster. And they should actually make that happen. They should make the policy simple. They should make them way less corrupted by money. They should actually pass

try to pass in fact a constitutional amendment on money. And they need to make them faster. Right. A bun is a lot about speed. This book has a lot in the end about speed too. And I think when people talk about making government efficient, it doesn't mean anything. And I'm like Democrats opt to know what they mean when they're talking about. They tend to mean saving money when they talk about government efficiency. Yeah. But you want the government to be

efficient from the perspective of the person it benefits. And that means it's simple to use. It treats them fairly and respectfully. And they get what they need from it fast. So their

“time isn't taxed. Yeah, absolutely. I think that this is a great way to do it. The thing”

that I think a lot about is the political economy here. Right. If that was a way to win votes and if people wanted that, why doesn't it happen? Because the time tax is like a problem. It is a

giant mess of a million different problems administered at different parts of government. And that is

in fact part of the problem. And I think that the feedback loops are broken in a lot of cases here. So what I mean by feedback loops is that the people who use the most punitive, stupid government programs, they get turned off from civic engagement. So they don't become a constituency demanding for the program to get better. But I think you can actually look at some politicians that have tackled this. And it's pretty popular when you can actually do it. So Zura and Mom

Donny in New York has had this whole, you know, like if you're a small business, it shouldn't take you a million, you know, pieces of paper and all of this time to just like get a very basic business license. That's great and almost like kind of like Republican politics. And I think that, you know, could that politics work for people? I think so. I think it'll be very interesting to watch

the stories are going to be about people who can't get cancer treatment. Marginal cases who

cannot prove that they are disabled because doctors don't know what condition they have and they don't have a doctor to diagnose them is not part of the reason that they need health insurance. This is going to kill people. And so I don't think that it's going to be more popular for the Medicaid program. And so there's this piece of political science research that actually showed that administrative burdens do not just make recipients less likely to engage civically.

They kind of sour entire communities on the government because they're like, "Why are you treating us like this?" And you know, I would want to see more research on this. I'm really interested,

“but it makes sense to me. Do people like a government that treats people this way?”

I've wondered whether or not the Trump Medicaid and SNAP work requirements are going to create an opening. I mean, when Republicans cut government sharply, they often create the conditions for a politics sense of expansion because people don't like the effect of the cuts. We've seen this happen many, many times before. People feel the cuts all of a sudden or they fear the cuts all of a sudden. They recognize what they are losing or might lose and it creates focus and it creates

the possibility to do something. Now they've decided to do a massive cut. It's going to hit many of their voters, many Trump voters on Medicaid or on SNAP. It's going to hit them in very unpleasant complicated ways. And I think give the opposition an opportunity to make this kind of burden on issue and not just sort of argue for expansion or restoration of funding, but actually say, this is not what your relationship with government should be. This is not what government should

do to you, make it easier for rich people to cheat on their taxes and harder for you to get.

“Medicaid. I think that that's absolutely true. I'm very concerned that SNAP could collapse”

in some states. Because one of the things it does is it says to the states, if you have an error rate that is above, I think it's 6%, which like 40 states have a, again, improper payments, not fraud rate and proper payments rate above that, it makes them pay for part of the benefit,

which they've never had to do before. And I'm very concerned that states will not be able to do this,

and they will not have the money to cover it, and they might just not have SNAP. I've talked to hospital administrators and state legislators who are like, what are we going to do when Medicaid gets gutted? How are we going to keep hospitals open? They are going to destabilize whole health systems. I think that they might drive doctors and nurses and respiratory therapists out of the profession. They are creating a mass administrative burden, a mass time tax, the like of

which we have never seen. 96, 10 of reform, like that was so tiny in comparison to this. Much smaller program. Almost 25 million people. They're sapping billions of hours of people's time to give money to rich people. Yes, I would hope that this would create an opening for actual

“root to stem reform. But I think that you could develop a politics of them. And for most Americans,”

you could never have to fill the tax form of panic count in for that again. Can you imagine how nice

that would be? It would be really nice. I cannot. I think that's a good place to end. A little moment of imagining nice things. Always a final question. What if three books you would recommend to the audience? So while I was thinking of the books to recommend to the audience, you and I had created this list of books that we mentioned to each other constantly. So one is the book that has changed how I have read every memoir, every autobiography since. I'm not saying it's a good book. I'm saying it's a

deranged object that I think everybody should read. And this is a book called My Silent War by Kim Filby. So Kim Filby is a spy, prominent British spy. And he almost becomes the head of MI6. He's a Soviet agent. He's a Soviet agent. And he eventually defects to the Soviet Union and drinks himself to death in Moscow. And you know, I think that there is perhaps some expectation of like a warm reception there for all that he had done for the Soviet cause. But of course the Soviets don't trust him. He's a liar.

Right? He just spent his whole life letting the people that he grew up with, the people that he worked right next to, right? Like sending them home and body bags to their widows. And so many books have been written about this guy, many. Like Ben McIntyre's books kind of come up in this. He is like

Graham Green was a spy. John the Karei. I don't know what is in John the Karei's heart. But I think

“that he hates this guy more than he has ever hated anybody else. And but he writes this this book”

that is I kept on like waiting for them to be, right? Is he actually like a communist or socialist? Like what is that? And there's nothing there. What a wasted life. What a miserable human being. And I'm not saying that all memoirs should be read. But that's one of my books, which I

think may nay of your readers. And like the second is the book that I against you. Any really

mentions a spoke a lot. She's not lying about this. Kimfield becomes up constantly. World historical piece of shit. What a world historical piece of shit Kimfield is. The second is the book that I consider most insightful about politics and political thinking. And it is neither of us or sports hunters. But it is a book about sports. It is about UNC and Duke. It is called to hate like this is to be happy forever by Will Blive. I bring this up constantly.

And it is about, um, you know, this famous football JK rivalry. Sorry. It's basketball.

It's about the off sides rule. And yes, it's about basketball. Sorry, um, by Will Blive, it's really, really beautifully written. But this book is about, right? Like how habits, how acting in this rivalry out, like inculcates the rival risks mindset that's all occurring within people who live within like 12 miles of each other is kind of one of the fun parts about it.

“And then my third hobby horse book, which I think people talk about this book all the time,”

but I feel like a lot of people have never actually read it is gender troubled by Judas Butler.

It will blow your hair back. The reason we are so dumb. I'm a huge listener of manager podcasts, along with yours. I'm a really big listener of Joe Rogan. And the reason I bring it up all the time is I'm like, has Joe read gender trouble? Because wow. I mean, he's camp. This is not like an original point of mind, but he has such a fascinating conception of masculinity. And it's enacted in such a wonderfully camp way.

This is such a take. This is obvious. I'm not saying it's wrong. This is like table stakes. Have me on Joe Rogan. I'd love to talk about paper work with paper work in your performance of gender. Yeah. I would watch that. I said it's beautiful. I really, really do. I think it's really, really interesting. And one of the things that I think is kind of interesting is there's this idea of just like manly men with the tossed off the room. And one of the points made in

this book is right. Like you learn what gender is by enacting gender. And by this iterative process of emulation of putting on the muscle tea and these books look at all the same book. These are all the same book. These are all the same book. These are all the same. This is why I brought them together

“so that I like if you want to understand psychology, don't read. Well, I don't know. You don't”

think your way into actions you act your way into thoughts. Exactly. These are all the same book in very different ways. In very, very different ways. Any lar, thank you very much. Thank you. [Music]