Right-Winger Tries To Take On Katie Porter... INSTANTLY Regrets It

Summary

The transcript captures a heated congressional debate on investing in early childhood education. A congresswoman argues for the economic benefits of such investments, highlighting a potential 4x return, while facing opposition rooted in outdated, patriarchal perspectives. The discussion underscores the need for political will to address social disparities, advocating for a $700 billion investment over ten years to support universal, high-quality early care and education.

Takeaways

• 💼 The speaker argues against the notion of not investing in opportunities because it involves 'other people's money,' pointing out that all government spending comes from the American people.
• 🏛️ The function of Congress is to allocate the American people's money, and the speaker challenges the idea that spending should be avoided, even suggesting the absurdity of zeroing out the defense budget as a result.
• 🗣️ The speaker emphasizes the importance of reflecting the desires of most Americans in government spending decisions, rather than just the interests of a few.
• 💡 An investment opportunity is presented, where every dollar invested returns $4, highlighting the potential benefits of such investments for the economy and future generations.
• 🤔 The speaker questions why Congress has not taken advantage of investment opportunities that could benefit the country, especially when the science supports the long-term benefits of early childhood support and education.
• 💔 The current economic loss due to lack of affordable childcare and early education is estimated at $122 billion, which could have been gained for the economy.
• 👶 The need for universal childcare is underscored, with the argument that it would not only benefit families but also significantly boost the economy.
• 🧑‍🦳👴 The demographic makeup of Congress is noted as being older, male, and wealthier, which may not fully represent or understand the needs of average Americans, particularly regarding early childhood education.
• 🤝 The speaker calls for a change in Congress's approach, moving away from outdated, sexist ideas and towards investment in areas like early childhood education.
• 💰 A specific proposal is made for a $700 billion investment over ten years for high-quality early care and education, suggesting that this could be funded by taxing the wealthy.
• 🌐 The script touches on the broader issues of structural sexism and the need to value and invest in areas that benefit women and children, reflecting a more equitable distribution of resources.

Q & A

What is the main argument against investing in opportunities with other people's money as presented in the script?

The main argument is that such investments involve making choices with funds that the owners might not agree with, potentially leading to misuse of the American people's money.

What is the function of Congress in relation to spending money as mentioned in the script?

The function of Congress is to spend the American people's money, with every dollar spent coming from the American people, and it is their responsibility to make decisions on how to allocate these funds.

What investment opportunity is being discussed in the hearing, and what is the expected return on investment?

The investment opportunity being discussed is related to early childhood education and care. The expected return is at least $4 for every dollar invested, with no risk involved.

Why does the script suggest that Congress has turned down an investment opportunity similar to the one presented?

The script implies that despite the clear economic benefits and the potential to generate significant returns for the economy, Congress has not invested in universal child care due to a lack of political and public will.

What is the estimated economic loss due to the lack of affordable childcare and early childhood education as per the script?

The script states that the lack of affordable childcare and early childhood education is causing an estimated loss of $122 billion to the economy.

What demographic is suggested to be underrepresented in Congress, affecting policy decisions?

The script suggests that Congress is disproportionately older, richer, and male, which may not personally relate to or understand the needs of early childhood education, thus affecting policy decisions.

How does the script describe the policy pattern of Congress regarding investments?

The script describes a pattern where Congress, being predominantly older, richer men, tends to overinvest in areas they understand, like defense, and underinvest in areas like early childhood education that may not personally benefit them.

What term is used in the script to describe the perpetuation of social disparities by institutions like Congress?

The terms used in the script to describe this are 'patriarchy' and 'structural sexism'.

What is the proposed solution in the script to address the lack of investment in early childhood education?

The proposed solution is for Congress to abandon sexist and outdated ideas and start thinking more about investments, advocating for $700 billion over ten years to establish universal early childhood education.

What is the script's stance on the representation of single mothers in Congress and their impact on policy?

The script argues that the lack of representation of single mothers in Congress skews the perspective on policies like childcare, as single parents may not have the luxury to choose to stay home and thus require more support systems in place.

How does the script define 'universal' in the context of childcare and early childhood education?

In the script, 'universal' is defined as ensuring that funding, outcomes, and choices for childcare and early childhood education are available to everyone, allowing for different arrangements based on individual needs and preferences.

Outlines

00:00

💰 The Paradox of Spending 'Other People's Money'

This paragraph discusses the concept of spending 'other people's money' in the context of Congress, highlighting the fact that all federal spending originates from the American people. The speaker refutes the notion that Congress should refrain from certain actions because they involve spending other people's money, arguing that this would lead to a halt in all spending, including defense. The speaker then introduces an investment opportunity for the hearing attendees, promising a fourfold return on every dollar invested, emphasizing the no-risk nature of this investment and its broad appeal across economists and political parties. The discussion shifts to the lack of universal childcare despite its potential economic benefits, with an estimated $122 billion in lost economic activity. The speaker questions the reasons behind this inaction, suggesting that the lack of political and public will is the main obstacle, despite voter support for such measures.

05:03

👶 The Impact of Congress's Demographics on Policy Priorities

The second paragraph delves into the demographic makeup of Congress and its influence on policy decisions, particularly regarding early childhood education. It points out that Congress is predominantly older, male, and white, which may contribute to an underinvestment in areas like childcare that do not personally affect its members. The speaker argues that this demographic bias leads to a perpetuation of social disparities and structural sexism, as the body tends to focus on and fund areas that its members understand and benefit from, such as defense spending, while neglecting others like early childhood education. The speaker calls for a shift in Congress's approach, advocating for a $700 billion investment over ten years to establish universal early childhood education, funded by taxing the wealthy. The paragraph concludes with a plea to Congress to consider the struggles of single parents and the economic benefits of investing in childcare and early education.

10:07

🏛️ The Disproportionate Representation in Congress and Its Consequences

In the final paragraph, the speaker emphasizes the disconnect between the American people's experiences and the representation in Congress. It reiterates that it is Congress's duty to spend the American people's money for the benefit of future generations, questioning the purpose of their role if they fail to invest in the next generation of workers. The speaker also addresses the issue of choice in childcare, arguing that without sufficient funding, options become limited. The paragraph concludes with a critique of the current state of Congress, suggesting that its unrepresentative nature skews its policy decisions and prevents it from adequately addressing the needs of the American people.

Keywords

💡Investment Opportunity

An investment opportunity refers to a chance to put money into a venture with the expectation of gaining profits. In the script, it is used metaphorically to describe the potential benefits of investing in early childhood education, where every dollar invested could yield a return of four dollars.

💡American People's Money

This phrase highlights that all the funds spent by Congress come from taxpayers, emphasizing the responsibility of elected officials to use these funds wisely. The script uses this concept to argue against the notion that spending should be minimized, suggesting that investment in social programs can be beneficial.

💡Defense Budget

The defense budget refers to the allocation of funds for a country's military and defense needs. In the script, it is mentioned as a counterpoint to suggest that if the argument against spending 'other people's money' were taken to the extreme, it would imply eliminating even essential spending like defense.

💡Universal Child Care

Universal child care is a concept where access to childcare services is provided to all families, regardless of income or other factors. The script discusses the lack of universal child care in the United States and the economic benefits it could bring if implemented.

💡Economic Benefit

Economic benefit refers to the positive impact on an economy, often measured in terms of financial gains or increased productivity. The script argues that investing in early childhood education has a clear economic benefit, as it can generate more money for the economy than it costs.

💡Patriarchy

Patriarchy is a social system in which men hold primary power and are dominant in roles of political leadership, moral authority, and social privilege. The script uses the term to critique the demographic makeup of Congress, suggesting that the overrepresentation of older, wealthier men may contribute to policy decisions that do not reflect the needs of all citizens.

💡Structural Sexism

Structural sexism is a form of discrimination embedded in the social, political, and economic systems that perpetuates gender inequality. The script argues that the lack of investment in early childhood education is an example of structural sexism, as it undervalues the work predominantly done by women and does not address the needs of families.

💡Political Will

Political will refers to the determination and support of politicians to make certain policy changes or implement specific programs. The script suggests that the lack of universal child care is not due to a lack of public support but rather a lack of political will to prioritize and fund such initiatives.

💡Early Childhood Education

Early childhood education encompasses the learning and development programs for young children, typically before they reach school age. The script highlights the importance of investing in early childhood education for both the individual benefits to children and the broader economic benefits to society.

💡Taxing Wealthy Individuals and Corporations

This concept refers to the policy of levying taxes on those with higher incomes or on corporations to generate revenue for public services or social programs. In the script, it is suggested as a potential source of funding for a universal early childhood education program.

💡Single Moms

Single moms are mothers who are raising children without a partner. The script emphasizes the unique challenges faced by single mothers, particularly in accessing affordable childcare, and argues that policy decisions should take into account the needs of this demographic.

Highlights

Congresswoman Porter argues against investing with other people's money, as it may not reflect the choices they would make themselves.

All money spent by Congress comes from the American people, emphasizing the responsibility to make choices that reflect their interests.

A counterargument is presented that not spending money at all, including on defense, would be the only way to avoid using 'other people's money'.

The hearing is about economic investments and their returns, not federally mandated programs.

An investment opportunity is presented where every dollar invested returns at least $4, highlighting the potential benefits of such investments.

The speaker emphasizes the importance of investing in early childhood education, which has been overlooked despite its proven long-term benefits.

The current economic loss due to lack of affordable childcare is estimated at $122 billion annually.

A call to action for Congress to invest in childcare and early childhood education, despite the political and public will currently lacking.

The demographic makeup of Congress is described as older, male, and white, which may influence policy priorities.

The underrepresentation of women and people of color in Congress may contribute to the neglect of issues like early childhood education.

The speaker suggests that personal experiences of Congress members, many of whom are older men, may not align with the needs of the majority of Americans.

The term 'patriarchy' and 'structural sexism' are used to describe the systemic bias in policy-making that favors the interests of older, wealthier men.

A proposed investment of $700 billion over ten years is suggested to establish universal early childhood education, funded by taxing the wealthy.

The benefits of investing in early childhood education are underscored, with the potential to generate trillions of dollars for the economy.

The speaker implores Congress to consider the struggles of single parents and the necessity of affordable childcare options.

The importance of representation in Congress to ensure policies reflect the experiences and needs of all Americans is emphasized.

Transcripts

If I could just, for the record, say I would not take Congresswoman

Porter's investment opportunity because it's investing with other people's

money, and it's making choices that they might not themselves

want to make with those dollars.

I want to start by talking about other people's money,

because last time I checked, that's all we spend is the American people's money.

That's actually the function of Congress.

And there are no dollars that we spend that do not come from the American people.

So the argument that we shouldn't do something because it's spending

other people's money, would simply suggest that we don't spend any money at all,

including zeroing out the defense budget.

Is that, in fact, what you were suggesting, Doctor Burke,

that we zero out the defense budget so that we don't spend other people's money?

No, but it is the case that I just want to.

I'm reclaiming my time.

You are spending other people's money always, and that those choices need

to reflect what most Americans want.

- Okay, most Americans do. - Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chair.

Reclaiming my time.

This is not a hearing about federally mandated head start.

I don't know what you're talking about.

This is actually not what this hearing is about.

This is a hearing about the economic and individual investments and returns

and benefits both to the future generation of American children

as well as to our ongoing current economy.

So I have an investment opportunity for everyone in the hearing room today.

For every dollar that you invest, you will get back at least $4.

Anyone want to invest?

- I'll take it. - It's pretty good.

You won't lose your money.

You'll always get back more than you put in.

And unlike some of these investment schemes, mine is legal.

Anyone in? This is, just math.

Four is more than one. More money is better than less money.

Economists agree. Republicans.

Democrats agree this investment is not a hard decision.

People would snap this up in the real world.

Invest a dollar, get four back. No risk.

Miss Patek, would you believe me if I told you that Congress had that same

investment opportunity for our country and turned it down every year?

- Sadly, yes. - Why would you believe that?

Because we know that the science is there.

That when we support children and families, especially starting at birth,

that it yields long terme and outsized benefits for families and for our economy?

And yet, here we are, over 50 years after Nixon vetoed universal child care.

Still, with families struggling to find and afford care

and providers making poverty wages.

And I think you gave earlier, what is the total new estimate of how much this would

generate for our if we had affordable childcare, full access to child care,

what would this generate for our economy?

So for a family, for the whole economy, for the whole economy.

Okay.

So we're losing right now $122 billion. $122 billion

that we could have in our economy.

And yet what we hear around here all the time

is that we don't have money to do things.

So Congress has had years to invest in universal child care.

Every dollar we put in would have generated estimates show about $4 for our

economy, and yet we still don't have it.

Why?

Miss Potato. Why don't we have this?

Well, we need to build the political and public will.

The voters are there.

- Okay. - So let's.

The problem must be then the will of the people here.

Because voters support this. So let's talk about who's here.

How would you describe the gender balance and average age of Congress?

- It skews older male and whiter. - That's correct.

So about only about 28% of members of Congress are women.

The median age in the Senate is 65, and the median age in the House is 58.

So lots on average, lots of older people, lots of older men, lots of men.

Is this the type of group who personally needs early childhood education?

- Generally. - Not generally.

Not so.

Early childhood education won't benefit many members.

Most the average member of Congress.

Most members kids are grown so they don't have to care

about where their kids are going.

And even when their kids were young, most members leaned heavily on their wives.

And I say wives because most members are men, heterosexual men,

to juggle their kids schedule.

And frankly, there's a lot of rich people in Congress who didn't have to worry about

how to afford childcare or how to navigate the system because they were wealthy.

Too many in Congress don't get it because they never had to live it.

So this leads to the familiar policy pattern.

The older men collectively, that's our Congress not to take away

from any individual champions, including Representative Beyer and Senator Heinrich,

but the collective body of older, richer men in Congress overinvest in things they

understand, like the Pentagon, and they under-invest in things like early

childhood education that don't personally benefit them, maybe don't even make sense

to them, and maybe do not reflect how they lived their lives, even if they are big

problems for the majority of Americans.

So, Miss Batiuk, when institutions like Congress perpetuate long standing

social disparities for women like this, is there a terme for that?

- I think it's called patriarchy. - Patriarchy is correct.

I would also call it structural sexism.

When we say smash the patriarchy, when we say that structural sexism continues

to permeate this body and this policy, our policies, that's what we're talking about.

We're not imagining it. It's not about interpersonal slights.

It is about what this body chooses to get done and to fund and to focus on,

and what always ends up on the cutting room floor and legislation.

Sexual, structural sexism is an age old story.

It's not going to go away by itself.

It's going to go away because we make it go away.

When we stop undervaluing the work of black and brown women who or the

majority of child care workers, we start recognizing that women can and must

contribute to our economy if we're going to have a globally competitive economy.

So, Miss Boutique, to fix this problem, Congress has to abandon

these sexist, outdated ideas and start thinking more about investments.

How much would Congress need to invest to establish universal

early childhood education?

We have been advocating for $700 billion over ten years to invest

in high quality early care and education, which could easily be supported by taxing

wealthy individuals and corporations.

So you're advocating for 700 billion over ten years, president Biden, remember,

everyone proposed 400 billion for preschool and child care.

And yet that would have multiplied by four generated trillions of dollars

for our economy.

So all of our witnesses, everybody said that we take this bet

we'd quadruple our money if we could.

So investing in early childhood education shouldn't be a hard call.

Even given the profile of Congress, we should all want to make

investments that pay back.

So if my colleagues are not moved by the clear economic benefit of investing

in early childhood education, maybe they'll be moved simply by this

single mom asking them to care on behalf of all the other parents of young children

who are struggling in this country, I implore Congress to invest

in child care, child care workers, and early childhood education.

There are lots of ways that we could deliver this.

Like Representative Beyer, I have had lots of different kinds of arrangements.

Universal, to quote what most mosaic said, doesn't mean the same.

Universal means that the funding, the outcome,

the choice is there and available.

If if we had universal health care in this country and we don't, some people

might choose to go get a colonoscopy every year and a lot of people won't.

It's the same thing with child care.

I personally have had my children in big corporate care.

I have had them hourly in home part time.

I have had full time living, I have been in a family owned

small business and I have had in-home family based care, all of it.

And you know what? It all was really helpful.

Particularly as a single mother.

Because there is no other person.

Senator Vance's hypothetical says

that one parent might prefer to stay home.

That's probably true.

There's a lot of statistics that show that parents, men and women have different

preferences at different points in time.

But what about the 10 million single moms? Where do they fit?

Doctor Burke, where did you put your children in child care?

Well, I'm not going to bring my children into this hearing,

so doesn't have any bearing on this.

- Do you have children? - I do.

So I'm sharing my story because my story is one that doesn't

get heard in this Congress.

Because, you know how many single moms there are.

1 or 2. One.

Child care, custodial care to help people who may choose

all kinds of different options.

I've had full time care. I've had three fourths care.

I had a state when I had a spouse. He stayed home some years.

That was how we fit the pieces together. But that's what this hearing is about.

Not jamming one size fits all.

But if there isn't the money, there won't be the choice.

That's why we see married parents choose

saying they would prefer to stay home because they have the option to stay home.

Single parents don't say they'd rather stay home because they couldn't.

So our whole perspective here is warped by the fact that this body is

so disproportionately unrepresentative of the American people's experience.

It is absolutely Congress's job to spend the American people's money.

And if we can't spend it to help the next generation of American workers,

I don't know what the hell we're doing here, I yield back.

Can I respond quickly to that?

- No, she actually cannot. - No. Thank you, doctor.

All right. We appreciate it, but.