Rep. Ro Khanna On Why Democrats Should Cut A Stimulus Deal With The White House

Joe Weisenthal (0:11)

Hello, and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots Podcast. I'm Joe Weisenthal. Unfortunately, my co-host Tracy Alloway is off today. That's because we scheduled this last minute interview with a very exciting guest to have. Today, I'll be speaking with Ro Khanna. He is the representative representing the 17th Congressional District of California. It includes a lot of Silicon Valley. He's a progressive Democrat, and what's striking is that he is, as far as I know, the only House Democrat to have publicly broken off with Nancy Pelosi over the current stimulus negotiations. So of course, Nancy Pelosi, in ongoing discussions with Steven Mnuchin, in perhaps an attempt to get a deal done before the election day to spend more money, to aid the economy. So far, there's a lot of debate. Speaker Pelosi has said that the offer from the administration is inadequate, not necessarily so much about the dollar amount per se, but some of the language in it.

Basically, all elected Democrats are with her. Our guest today, Ro Khanna, saying, you know what, yeah, perhaps it's not a perfect deal, but it's worth getting the money out the door now, even if it's less than perfect.

So I'll be speaking with the congressman about his argument and why Pelosi should do a deal and something you should note that this is a fluid, ongoing story. So by the time you're listening to this, the situation may have changed, but as it is, we're recording this Monday afternoon on the 19th. So, Ro Khanna, thank you for joining us.

Ro Khanna (1:55)

Hey, great to be on.

Joe Weisenthal (1:57)

So, so far, as far as I know, you're the only elected Democrat, at least in the House, who has publicly said to the Speaker, just take the deal. Why do you think it's so important for the Democrats to compromise somewhat and get some money out the door now?

Ro Khanna (2:16)

Well, I said we need to make a deal. I didn't say take this specific proposal, but I said, well, we do have to compromise. We do have to get money to people. The food bank lines in my district are twice as long. People are suffering in not being able to make mortgage payment. I was talking to someone who's gonna lose their house. They've run out of their 401K.

There's a concern that restaurants, small restaurants that many immigrant families own may shut down, especially with the winter months.

We can't wait till February. We can't wait for a new administration. And after I spoke out, a number of others have spoken out, Tom Malinowski, Peter Welch, and quite a few others.

Joe Weisenthal (2:57)

So in your view, as of right now, and I mentioned, we're recording this Monday afternoon, October 19th, what do you see as the gap between what the sort of the ideal bill from your caucus would be and where the White House is?

Ro Khanna (3:13)

Well, we have made a considerable progress. In fact, right before this podcast, I was on a conference call with the speaker, and it looks like the White House has come finally to recognize the need for a national testing strategy. They've come up to our 75 billion that we need for contact tracing and testing. It seems like they are finally agreeing to more state and local aid. We were at 430 billion. There's still a part on that number, but we need language on liability to make sure we're not compromising worker safety on that issue.

And we need language to make sure that the money that is being allocated actually is going to working families, to small businesses, and isn't just going to the discretion of how the secretary wants to spend it.

Joe Weisenthal (4:02)

Go further on that point, because this has been a controversial thing ever since CARES Act was passed earlier in the year. This idea of discretion on the part of the secretary of the Treasury, Mnuchin.

What are your big concerns with that in terms of allowing him to decide how a certain amount of cash gets spent?

Ro Khanna (4:25)

Well, it could go to children. It could go to people in poverty. I mean, people say, okay, what's 20 billion, 30 billion in the context of 1.8 trillion? I mean, $30 billion going to children in this country would make a dramatic difference in the poverty rates. It would make a dramatic difference in terms of if we could get it to earning a tax credit or child tax credit. So the last thing we wanna do is give the secretary money, which he may use to help airlines or may use to help executives.