Boston Public Radio Podcast
Best Of BPR 9/12: So ... Are We Better Off Than We Were Four Years Ago?
Support for Boston Public Radio comes from the University of New England, offering undergraduate and graduate programs in Portland, Maine, on the ocean in Biddford, Maine, in Morocco and online. The University of New England, UNE.edu. And imagine exhibitions. Harry Potter, the exhibition, is now open. You can experience the filmmaking of Harry Potter through interactive sets, props, costumes, and more. Tickets at harrypotterexhibition.com. I'm Jim Brody. And I'm Marjorie Egan. This is the best of Boston Public Radio, a new daily podcast from GBH, featuring our favorite conversations from our three-hour radio show in under 40 minutes. Don't panic. If you love filling your phone with episodes of our full-show podcast, you can still find it anywhere you get your podcast, or just catch us live on 89/7 GBH, starting at 11 o'clock. Today on the podcast, we will bring you a breakdown of both Kennedy's economic proposals from MIT economist John Gruber, Kamala Harris' opportunity economy, and Trump's concept of a plan on health care. So, are we or are we not better off than we were four years ago? And former Master's, the Secretary of Public Safety, Andrew Cabral joins us to discuss Ron DeSantis' use of state agencies and taxpayer money to fight the abortion initiative on the ballot in November. And here's the show. [Music] [Music] At the debate, the other night, the first question directed to Vice President Harris was is the economy better than it was four years ago? She didn't directly answer the question on what is the most important issue in the minds of voters coming up to November 5th of this year, but she did have this to say on the economy. I was raised as a middle class kid, and I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of America. And that is why I imagine and have actually a plan to build what I call an opportunity economy. And I intend on extending a tax cut for those families of $6,000, which is the largest child tax credit that we have given in a long time, so that those young families can afford to buy a crib, buy a car seat, buy clothes for their children. That was Kamala Harris. Here's a little bit of what Donald Trump had to say about the economy. We've had a terrible economy because inflation has, which is really known as a country buster. It breaks up countries. We have inflation, like very few people have ever seen before. Probably the worst in our nation's history. We were at 21 percent, but that's being generous because many things are 50, 60, 70, and 80 percent higher than they were just a few years ago. This has been a disaster for people for the middle class, but for every class. Joining us to sort through all of this on what I said is the single most important issue identified by voters leading up to November is John Gruber. John is the chair of MIT's Department of Economics, where he's also the Ford Professor of Economics. He was instrumental in creating both the Massachusetts Healthcare Reform and the Affordable Care Act. His latest book is Jump Starting America, Breakthrough Science, can revive economic growth and the American dream. John Gruber, it's good to see you. Good to be here. All right, John, let's just get right to it. Are most Americans better off today financially than they were four years ago? Is the economy better today than it was four years ago? Well, I think that's a yes or no answer. No, I'm not kidding. I think I understand why Kamala avoided answering that question. That basically, right now, the state of the economy is less important than the state of people's perceptions of the economy. We've talked about before on this show, there's an incredible partisan divide on how you think the economy is doing. Literally, when the new president gets elected, all of a sudden people thought they kind of is doing terribly. Suddenly, I think it's doing great. And vice versa. And the answer, of course, varies across people. For the typical person in America, you are unambiguously better off than you were four years ago. The economy is growing more rapidly. Inflation, the current inflation rate is actually lower than it was. And unemployment is at historic level. Employment growth is slowing a little bit, and I think the Fed is going to react. We can talk about that. But the bottom line is for the typical person you're unambiguously better off than you were four years ago. The challenge for everyday people is it's a complicated answer. It's hard to explain sometimes what you're feeling. And I know that you've talked with Jim and Marjorie about this, and this is one of my pet peeves about life, about the Snickers bar situation. You know, when you are paying a lot for one thing like housing and you only write the check once a month, you may not notice it. But when you go to the get, when the gas prices are high for no reason, you think every time you fill up, oh my God, this is terrible, even though incrementally it may not be impacting you as much as some other big expense like college or medical expenses are. You go to the supermarket, your Snickers bar that you buy every day or every couple of days. That's more expensive, so you react to that. And then sometimes, you know, you go to a 7-Eleven and just pay through the nose for something for convenience, but, you know, that doesn't impact how you care about the economy. How can a politician, how can an elected official get people to connect, look at our economy is on fire compared to Western, our Western cousins, our other democracies, and have that actually make them feel that what they think they're experiencing is actually not what they're experiencing. You know, I think this is incredibly hard. I had a real, you know, I'm in such a bubble here in Cambridge. I had a really, I have an experience of taking a long cab ride with a die-hard Trump supporter a couple of weeks ago and arguing with him and seeing the argument, and it was basically incredibly hard to make any headway because basically they had done their own research, they had their own data, and I think the bottom line is it's just hard to convince people of the facts. There's a small number of principal people who haven't made up their mind, and that's why I think rightly Kamala is focusing on what her plan is going forward. I mean, it's bizarre, if you think about it, that the economy is doing incredibly well and they're not bragging about it. I mean, economists have models of election outcomes, where we essentially predict election outcomes based on a number of variables, including how the economy is doing. If you take our traditional measures, our traditional model, and use the economy is doing right now, this should be a landslide victory for the Biden-Harris team, a landslide. Okay, it's not because those models are broken by the lack of agreement on what the facts are. As a result, it's just, I think she's taken on our strategy of just not trying to adjudicate something she can't win, but focusing on people understanding how she's going to make it better. Well, which is a difficult problem since it is their most important issue, and as we mentioned, CNN's poll of people who watched the campaign, watched the debate the other night, 55 to 33 or 35, they preferred Donald Trump's plan or concept in the case of healthcare to Harris's. You know, stepping back from what actually is, and obviously there are lots of content to digest, she went out of her way to say Goldman Sachs said Wall Street, saying that her plan is better for the economy than Donald Trump. Are you in a position to give a big picture sense of what she's proposing for the economy versus what Trump is, John Gerber? You know, you remember when Michelle Obama said when they go low, we go high, and it didn't really work? I think the new saying is when they go vague, we go precise, and that didn't work. Democrats were always sort of on the hook for giving more details. And I think she said, look, as vague as she is, she's still more precise than Trump. So she's not giving a lot of details. Let's be honest, here are the past Democratic candidates who put out multi-thousand-page detailed policy proposals. She's being vague, and you know what? That's the rules by which Donald Trump is playing, so why shouldn't she? That said, what do we know? We know the main thing we know is on tax policy. Donald Trump passed a massive corporate tax cut along with a set of individual tax cuts that due to financial trickery are set to expire during the next term. What Harris has said, what Biden said and Harris has said is they will extend those individual tax cuts for those making below $400,000, and they'll largely pay for that by reversing some of the corporate tax cuts that Donald Trump put in place. The best estimates are if you add that up, it won't quite pay for it, though she'll probably fall short by about a trillion dollars or two. Donald Trump has said he's going to keep the corporate tax cuts in place. He's going to make them bigger, and he's not going to get rid of any of the individual tax cuts that you can send them all. That's talking about $7 trillion. Now, we've talked before on this show about debts, and at what point does deficits and debts matter? We haven't hit it yet, but we're getting closer every day, and $7 trillion versus $2 trillion is a big difference. I think that is a fundamental difference in terms of where their plans are going, and that's probably honestly the most significant difference we know about. Well, one of the difference, even though the tariffs that were imposed by Trump as president have been continued by Biden to a great degree, the term that was used last at the during the debate a couple of nights ago by Kamala Harris was the 20% Trump sales tax. And she's referring to the tariffs that he wants to put in place. Well, explain what he's proposing, and secondly, who pays when there are tariffs on foreign goods, Sean Gruber. So, basically, this is one of those things which economists have a hard time explaining well, so let me try my best. When you put a tariff on a foreign good, the question is, will the exporter, let me back up, what is the tariff? It's actually tax on a good that's coming into this country. So, if we have a tariff on Chinese refrigerators made in China, what that says you buy a refrigerator made in China, you pay more for that than one made elsewhere. The question is, will that be borne by the Chinese exporter in making less money, or by the American consumer in paying a higher price? That is not entirely obvious, and fortunately for economists, Trump put in place a lot of these tariffs. Let him be clear, they were fairly targeted. They weren't broad like what he's talking about now. But he put in place a number of targeted tariffs on number of household consumer goods, and those have been studied, and the evidence is unambiguous that they lead to fully pass through to higher prices for American consumers. What Trump's talking about now is a much broader tariff. It's not targeted on certain goods. It's everything coming out of this country is 10% or 20%. Kamala is right. That is essentially a sales tax that's going to pass through to higher prices. Now, will it continue to pass through one to one, I can't say, but will it be mostly passed through for sure it will, and that'll lead to higher prices. And that's why what's frustrating is what Kamala is saying is, look, forget about our disagreement about past inflation measures, which we'll never get agreement on. Let's look at what's going to happen next. What's going to happen next is Trump has a plan that will be extremely inflationary. She does not, and that's what she's trying to get folks to focus on. John Gruber, I would have paid a million dollars if one of the moderators had just asked Donald Trump to define what a tariff is. I honestly don't really think he understands what it is, and I think that, I mean, I'm sure he does. I'm always caught between either he's being a brilliant strategist here, or he has no idea what he's doing. And I think that he's able to wrap this being tough on China, which many people agree that his concerns about China when he was president were accurate, and use this tariff as a club without really understanding. And most people, frankly, I'm sure most people don't understand what a tariff is. Is there any way that candidates can communicate without sounding condescending about these things that are happening that trickle down and actually impact you buying a refrigerator and what it's going to mean? It sounds good to have some China, but it really impacts you when you buy a big ticket item. So you've asked the million dollar question here, which is how can experts communicate without seeming condescending. And basically, we've got this view that's emerged in America, whereas an expert explains something by definitions condescending. That's partly on experts. That's partly on experts do a better job of not being condescending and explaining things more clearly. I think the right, if I was speaking to someone and I had a chance to explain them, I would say that absolutely is possible. You could imagine this could be bad for China, but we've actually run the experiment. We've tested it. And the answer is, it's not bad for China. He's already done this. It hasn't hurt China. It's hurt American consumers. So that would be the best way I would try to approach it, whether it be convincing. I can't tell you. So we're talking to John Gerber, head of the economics department at MIT about the actual economic plans such as they are for the two candidates and what impact they would have on the economy. John, you were as expert as anybody on the planet on the Affordable Care Act, since you helped make it happen there. When Trump was asked the other night about his healthcare plan, ultimately, when he was cornered, even though he promised he had a better one when he was president. This was the most relatable part of the debate for me, because I think I have said this. I have a concept. That's what he said. He had no plan, man, he had no plan. Now, forget the healthcare aspects, meaning how is this society? Most of us believe healthcare should be right. What's the economic impact of her position, which is to make the Affordable Care Act even stronger, she says. And Donald Trump's no plan, except that he's not crazy about the Affordable Care Act. Jim, it's a great question. Let me say one thing first, which is I think we finally found the best use for Donald Trump, which is a band-name generation machine. I mean, just from one night, we got a great new metal band, Spheres of Terror. That's a great metal band. We got a great new email band, Concepts of a Plan. That's a great new email band. So I think we finally found what Donald Trump could actually be good at. Look, let's be very close. Go back to the history. Republicans in 2017, 2016, ran against the ACA, which at that time was unpopular. That was a non-trivial reason why they got elected. They then realized, we then realized the nation, they had no plan to replace it, and that if they got rid of the Affordable Care Act, 30 million Americans would lose health insurance. As a result, the Affordable Care Act was retained and is now 60% popularity. Recessments suggest about 50 million Americans have a one-pointer and other used bought insurance on the ACA exchanges. So it's popular. It's successful. Donald Trump did weaken it in certain respects. Biden strengthened it. And the most significant way Biden strengthened it is by increasing the generosity of the tax credits that you get if you buy health insurance on the ACA exchanges. So for most of your listeners, they have insurance on the employer or the government, this is irrelevant to them. But for those who need to buy insurance on their own, maybe between jobs or just they don't have a job that provides insurance, they can do so through the ACA exchanges or what's called our connector here in Massachusetts. If they do so before Biden, if they did so and their incomes were not high, they got a tax credit to offset those costs. Now, Biden has made that universal. Everyone gets a tax credit to offset the costs such that no one has to pay more than 8% of their income to buy insurance on the exchanges. This is very important. This is a guarantee to all Americans that you will not have to pay more than 8% of your income for health insurance premiums if you buy on the exchanges. Those expire next year. And basically, I think fundamentally, if Harris is present, they'll be extended, if Trump's present, they won't. And that's pretty much where we stand right now. And I think the best estimates are that several million people have gained health insurance coverage because of these subsidies. And people are better off and that's going to be fundamental. If we talk about differences between the two candidates, that's going to be a big one. John Gruber, I want to ask you to help us to unpack and understand the price gouging conversations and the price limit conversations. Kamala Harris, Vice President Kamala Harris, you know, a couple of weeks ago introduced this idea of protecting consumers against grocery price gouging. I interviewed Senator Elizabeth Warren last week talking about what does that mean when there's an emergency. We already do it in many, many states. If there's a hurricane or something happens and retailers want to jack up the price of water or gasoline, there are already laws in place to do that. We've had a major supermarket chain and a testimony in front of Congress announced that they pretty much do some kind of price gouging on a regular basis sort of admitted to this price fixing. Many people reacted to Kamala Harris by saying we don't want the government in charge of that market setting prices for things. People continually say they don't want their groceries to be so high, the grocery price. And what is happening here? What can the government actually do to help keep the costs of our groceries high outside of the idea of these emergencies that would eliminate price gouging? You know, I think once again where Kamala is trying not to look backwards, but let's remember the reason prices had this really one time increase. Remember inflation stopped was mostly because of the supply side problems that were introduced by COVID, the supply chain problems. But there is some evidence that companies use this opportunity as a way to excessively increase prices. Now, that's a term that's not well defined in economics price gouging is a term that's not well defined in economics. That said, we do know in economics that when there's not enough competition in the market, prices will be very high. And the Biden administration has been very aggressive, more aggressive than any previous administration in trying to go after this kind of market concentration. FTC Commissioner Lena Kahn has pressed a lot more cases than traditionally been done to try to break up this concentration. We all agree, all economists agree that putting caps on prices doesn't work. It only makes things worse. But we also many economists think that we need to be much more aggressive and proactively trying to block mergers that are going to reduce market competition. It's hard to break things up once they've merged. That's everyone, people are breaking things up. That's really, really hard to do. It's much easier to stop the mergers in the first place. And I think the Harris, I think what my interpretation, what Harris is saying is her administration will continue the Biden administration's efforts to aggressively prosecute concentration increasing mergers. Well, in that definitive note, John Gruber, that was quite a primer, quite an explainer. Thank you so much for your time. It's good to see you. Here now via Zoom is former Suffolk County Sheriff, former Secretary of Public Safety for the Commonwealth, Andrew Cabral. Andrew, it's great to see you. Hi. Hi, how are you both? Good, good, good. All right, Andrew, let's, we've had a little time to digest the debate, the great debate. What are your hot takes? Okay, so I'm just, I'm just going to kind of make this point. So all of the talk leading up to the debate was about what the sitting vice president of the United States needed to do to prove to people that she was ready to be president of the United States. Now let's keep in mind that all the previous vice presidents of the United States have been mailed and all were presumptively qualified to step into the shoes of the presidents they served. When that president either chose not to run or couldn't run because of constitutional requirements, but putting that aside for just a second. All of the talk and it came from everywhere, every pundit, everybody with an opinion. This is what she needs to do. She needs to thread this needle. She needs to walk this line. She needs to reach out to this group. She needs to do this. And she is former district attorney, former attorney general of the state that is large enough and has enough of big enough economy to be its own country and a former state senator. And has been vice president for three years. That's the resume she was bringing to this debate. And her opponent was a convicted felon, a civilly adjudicated rapist, a failed form of president who incited an insurrection prevented the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in the country's history. Still doesn't acknowledge that he lost, he did a debate for this election, having still not acknowledged that he lost the previous election has been fomenting violence. But when he loses this election, and is a proven pathological liar and all of the conversation was about what she needed to do to prove that she was ready to be president. And, and that it tells you a lot about, you know, people always say, well, how did we get here? That's a big part of how we get here. We haven't learned anything from what happened with Hillary Clinton. We're doing the exact same thing this time. All of that said, she beat him like he stole something. She beat him. I mean, honestly, and you know why, and you're most of the women who were watching it. Most of us went into it knowing, given her background, especially women who've been prosecutors knew that she was going to destroy him. But when she gave him the look, when she when she shook his hand and gave him the look, there are very few women that didn't recognize that look that look said I'm coming. You can go stand over there. I'll be there in a second. I'm coming. And she just dismantled him completely. But here's the thing of all of the people who have run against Donald Trump in every primary and he's been running for office for, for, you know, a long, long time now. The only two people who have ever stepped to him and called him out have been Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris. And still, we talk about what she needs to do to prove that she's worthy of being on that stage. So, you know, my takeaway from the, from the debate is, I had full confidence that she would do what she did, and she did it. And I'm very proud of her for doing that. But as she said, it's still an uphill climb because no matter what she does, you know, it's still she says we're still going to be considered the underdog. And I think, you know, at some point, maybe we ought to be taking a good long hard look at why that could possibly be true in 2024. Andrew, my headphones are not working. Could you repeat what you said about the debate? I'm sorry. So obviously abortion was a major moment in the debate. And I think that the Choctaw was right, the phrase that she used twice at least Trump's abortion bans will stay with us. And it was excellent branding. He uses words. Speaking of abortion, I think people know that there are a ton of states where abortion questions are on the ballot. I think people also own November 5th. People also know that every state on which they've appeared since Dav, since the repeal of Roe v. Wade, even in red states, the pro-choice side has prevailed. Ron DeSantis is not only using state agencies, but using taxpayer money to oppose the viability standard that would be in the ballot question in Florida. Can you play lawyer for a second? I mean, when I used to ballot questions, people like Bill Weld individually, even when he was governor, would speak out against them. But he was speaking as a governor and individual, not using taxpayer money. I know in Massachusetts that would be totally illegal expenditures. It's got to be in Florida, isn't it? Well, I never say never about Florida, because I almost consider Florida to be another country. So I don't really know what the status of their law is. You are absolutely correct that you could get killed in the stampede of lawyers running to Massachusetts courthouses to stop something like this were to happen here, which is why it never will. But when you look at this, this is an almost natural progression of all of the voter suppression efforts that the DeSantis administration undertakes routinely. So a citizen backed ballot initiative, suppressing the will of the citizen, there's not a big leap between suppressing the will of the voter and suppressing the will of the citizen. That's exactly what his administration is about. But if it is not illegal in Florida. I don't know what what federal system they're operating under it that that to me would be insane and I would hope that there are lawyers right now rushing to stop him from doing this to literally take the money of taxpayers I'm sure there are tons and tons of voters to suppress a citizen backed initiative that got enough signatures to get on the ballot, where the deadline for challenging those signatures. As long since passed I think it's passed seven months ago. But for him to have individual state agencies engaging each and within their own sphere of power to to destroy this, and also to read the his the Attorney General of Florida, and two other agency heads have pledged collectively $600,000. Yeah, I forgot about this effort, which is, which is being backed by this sort of independent path. First of all, in Massachusetts, if we heard the three agency heads had the economic wherewithal to pledge $600,000 on their salaries, back or, or, or support anything we would be, you know, and we'd retired and fainting couches here. That's the fact that they would take money to do that, to add to the taxpayer money he's already spending and that they can afford to do it. I'm sorry, but there's a lot in Florida that just absolutely stinks. You know, we haven't discussed the following in the show at all and I'm sorry we have not, but we have discussed the fact that this, this tactic, I don't mean to cheapen it, but it is a tactic as well as a substantive thing about using ballot campaigns to encourage people to do the polls, not only to achieve the desired outcome of the ballot question, but was initiated by George W. Bush, I think in 2004, with bans on same sex marriage. And it appears that the legalization of is it recreational marijuana in Florida and the abortion provision. The reason the thing we have discussed that, well we haven't discussed on the show, I was looking at some polling data last night. Florida is not totally out of the grasp of the Democrats, of Harris. And that's why Harris launched her reproductive tour, not only to get under Trump's skin, but in Florida to boost the abortion, you know, the ballot question effort. Let me just say they have 30 electoral votes, which is 11 more than the one state we're talking about nonstop Pennsylvania. And obviously Florida, if it goes democratic sort of ties up an election, but God, I'm sorry, Andrea. Well, I think they're really panicking and they're really worried. I mean, the stories about the seniors in the villages, the villages, the community. Now they were, you know, they were Trump caravans by the villages, the last time they ran, but they seem to have realized his intention to affect their social security and Medicare, and to try to do away with them. And they have been organizing for Kamala Harris. And I think I'm really hoping that people are paying attention to the stuff like this. It's happening in Florida because it is the clear, one of the clearest indications we have that GOP rule is they intended to be minority rule, and they intend to thwart the will of the citizen, the will of the voter at every turn, and to use the power of government to do that as much as possible until they can dismantle government. So that is no longer effective to carry out the will of the people or the voter. Another story that's been in the news, which is quite a personal one, and quite moving is the case of Senator Joan Lovely, who represents, I think the second Essex district in Massachusetts. And she's talking about a law, you know, it's always so fascinating to me how far behind some laws are on what many of us believe should be. She shared, I believe yesterday or this week that she as a child had been sexually molested, and she was pushing by an uncle when she was six. By a family member, right, to eliminate the statute of limitations for survivors of child sexual abuse in civil cases. I was shocked to find out that that hadn't already happened. Can you tell us what this is and what this means? Yeah, I mean, I, you know, it used to be you had three years, right, just three years period, but, you know, in the advent of all of the child sexual abuse cases, particularly involving clergy, or other members of the church against children. It's the needle of the goalposts have been moved and moved and moved and moved on it to extend the statutes of limitations out further and further and further. So I think the current state of the law in Massachusetts is the statute starts running at the age of majority so at age 18, and then you have, I think, 30, is it 35 years? 35, yeah. 35, that's what the current state is. And, you know, every time it gets extended out, we have the debate about whether or not making it indefinite or extending it to 50 years or 100 years or whatever it might be. If that works to prejudice, the person who is accused. Now, in a criminal case, where someone's liberty is at stake, it becomes a much bigger argument. If they're convicted in a civil case, you're not talking about someone losing the liberty you're talking about at best money damages. So, extending it or eliminating it altogether, while it can have a deleterious effect on someone's ability to defend themselves if the people on whom they would rely for exculpatory testimony have all died or don't remember. Yes, it would would, and that's something that you'd be able to put before a judge that it was that you were prejudiced in this regard at the time the cases brought, but I think to Joan Lovelies point, and the point of so many others who support this bill, that is not a reason for not eliminating the statute of limitations, given the harm that comes to people and the generational effect that being abused has where there are certain people who have been abused to go on to abuse others, and then people who have been abused to suffer, you know, psychologically for the rest of their lives. By the way, here's a little bit of sound from Senator Lovelies, who's speaking to the Senate floor in July 31st, and here she is. I want to say thank you. I want to say thank you to the President's staff. We're here today to take this very important step, again, to give the opportunity to survivors. Should they choose to, a lot of survivors, this won't change anything for them, they're not going to come forward. They will keep that tucked away and live with the pain, but some may come forward and they should be allowed to. By the way, a global editorial says, I think it's 19 states has already done this, and this is, Marjorie and I have railed against, as all of you should, the fact that legislature is on a five month vacation. And however, they have done a few, during this vacation, they're an informal session, which means in English that there cannot be one dissenting vote of the 200 legislators, any of them are there, or else the thing is killed, even if it's, you know, 88 to one. This is an area where the House has to comply with, join the Senate, and they should just do it. And they should just do this if they're concerned about an issue of fairness. And I have to say, this whole notion of everything getting stale, as you say, a side that needs exculpatory evidence is gone, can say it's prejudicial. And a jury, if a jury is in a case, they have the ability to say this information on the part of the plaintiff is not credible anymore because the age and memories. So I really don't see arguments against this in the spirit of fairness. I assume some defense lawyers, civil defense lawyers may oppose it, but there's really no, there's no good argument against this. Is there? No, and what you have on the other side, in addition to the actual harm to the victim, and I think the point is made in the globe story, the person that they're sort of profiling here is Joe, Joe Kreisberg, he's the president and CEO of Matt. He's very well known in Boston civic community, and he told his story to the globe. He said that the man who abused him as a former guidance counselor and a coach was sentenced from molesting nine boys at Camp Greylock in the Berkshires in the 1970s. And what we know about most the vast majority of child molesters is they don't stop. So why should you when the harm is going to be continuing the harm is indefinite the harm could be potentially infinite. Why would you prevent by a statute of limitations, the possibility that someone could come forward and stop someone like this before they hurt someone else. So one last thing I want to say about this someone who deserves a little, not a little bit of credit, a lot of credit, the lawyers who we came to know during their representation of some of the survivors of the sexual violence from priests in the Catholic church. The Carmen Dursos, the Mitchell Garabedians who are just done some of the most important work ever have also been very active in the effort to get the legislature to do the right thing here so they deserve even more praise and they've gotten already. Andrea, it's great to see you be well. Good to see you too. Can you repeat what you said at the beginning. I actually now have to go take a nap. Thanks for listening to the Best of Boston Public Radio podcast from GBH. Our crew is Zoe Matthews, Aiden Conley, Nicole Garcia, Hannah Loss, our engineer is John the Claw Parker, our executive producer is Jamie Bologna. You want to hear the full show download our full show podcast or tune in to 897 GBH 11 to 2 each weekday. Today's episode was produced by Zoe Matthews.