[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. Well, we're just getting this news that we will report on during the show today as we learn more about the CEO of the health insurance company UnitedHealthcare being shot outside a hotel here in Manhattan, shot and killed. We will, of course, look into the context of that. Was that a political assassination of sorts against a healthcare CEO? Was it something more personal? We have no idea at the moment, but we will report during the show as details come in, because this just happened a short time ago on the apparent fatal shooting of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare.

Meanwhile, we've promised to cover the incoming Trump administration on at least two tracks on this show, straight up policy debates and analysis, and calling out threats to democracy or attempts to move toward authoritarianism if they occur. Brooklyn and Manhattan Congressman Dan Goldman seems to be moving on those two tracks too. He's had a lot to say recently about policy issues, from affordable housing and childcare, to the mass deportation that Trump has vowed to carry out in New York City and elsewhere. Goldman, who'll join us in a minute, has had a lot to say about Trump as a threat to democracy.

We've talked on the show about a Trump laugh line at a meeting of the House of Representatives' Republican caucus a few days after the election. Remember that? It's already faded from the headlines. The line was, "I suspect I won't be running again unless you say he's so good, we've got to figure something else out." That was received as funny by the House Republican crowd in attendance, but not everyone was laughing, right, including Congressman Goldman. He quickly introduced a resolution that would reaffirm the 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, the amendment that says no person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice. Pretty straightforward. No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice.

The press release from Goldman on his resolution emphasized that Trump's remark wasn't funny, in part because he had said similar things at least 15 times about not abiding by the Constitution's term limits for president. I pulled the soundbite of two of the incidents that Goldman cited. Here's one at a campaign rally in 2020.

President Donald Trump: And we're going to win four more years in the White House, and then after that we'll negotiate, right? Because based on the way we were treated, we're probably entitled to another four after that.

Brian Lehrer: So that's one example. Here's another of the congressman cites from Trump at a fundraiser in 2018, speaking about China's President Xi Jinping. The sound quality is not great on this, but it's worth listening carefully, and then I'll repeat the words anyway after it plays. But Xi Jinping had just suspended China's term limits law and you'll hear Trump say, "Xi declared himself president for life and maybe we'll give that a shot someday," and you'll hear how the crowd at the fundraiser whoops it up at the prospect.

President Donald Trump: China's great and XI is a great gentleman. He's now president for life. President for life. No, he's great. Hey, look, he was able to that. I think it's great. Maybe we'll have to give that a shot someday.

Brian Lehrer: So Trump in 2018, from a recording obtained by CNN at the time, speaking about Xi Jinping, Trump said, "He's now president for life," and the crowd laughed and cheered at that. Trump said, "He was able to do that. That's great. Maybe we'll have to give that a shot someday," and the crowd whooped it up again.

With that, we welcome Congressman Dan Goldman, Democrat from Lower Manhattan and parts of inner Brooklyn, roughly Brooklyn Heights, down through Sunset Park, more or less including Windsor Terrace, Cobble Hill, elsewhere around there, now elected to his second term. Congressman, welcome back to WNYC. First of all, congratulations on your reelection.

Congressman Dan Goldman: Oh, thanks, Brian. It's great to be back with you.

Brian Lehrer: Let's start with the 22nd Amendment and democracy, and then we'll move on to policy items from there. You collected all those examples of Trump saying things about third terms and president for life, and each time he gets, you heard the sound bites, each time he gets both laughs and cheers from the crowd. How much do you think he's joking or does he really want to break democracy that much?

Congressman Dan Goldman: I don't think he's joking. Donald Trump does not have a very good sense of humor and I take everything he says at his word. He will claim a lot of things he says are jokes because that's his M.O. He sends off or fires off trial balloons to see what kind of reaction he gets, claims he's joking, but then it becomes normalized. The best example I can give you of that that's already happened is the notion of him pardoning himself.

I remember in June of 2018 where he mentioned that the first time and there was an uproar and outrage. He claimed that he wasn't going to do it, but he could and backtracked and qualified. Well, before this recent election, it seemed pretty well accepted by many people, including in the media, that he would pardon himself if he needed to. And so I take these things very seriously and that they are an effort for him to normalize unconstitutional and anti-democratic conduct and words.

Brian Lehrer: I'll get back to the 22nd Amendment in a minute. But since you mentioned pardoning himself, would it be fair to say, as some analysts are saying, that the people of the United States, the voters of the United States, essentially did pardon Trump by overlooking the conviction where there was already a conviction and the other criminal charges, and decided for themselves that it was a matter of lawfare, as the Republicans call it, a kind of political warfare using prosecutors more than it was legitimately a case of many criminal acts?

Congressman Dan Goldman: Well, those are two different questions. The first is, no, I do not think that the election results were a reflection of Americans' desire to acquit Donald Trump of anything that he has been charged with. I think ultimately, the big message from the election is that the American people care about the issues that affect the American people. While they may not like Donald Trump's anti-democratic conduct, they object to him trying to overturn an election, many American people are trying to make ends meet. There's an affordability crisis in this country, housing costs are through the roof, grocery prices are high, healthcare costs are high, and people are worried about making a comfortable life for themselves more than Donald Trump's legal problems

The accusations of lawfare are preposterous and I don't think that we can normalize them. I was on a subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government for two years led by Jim Jordan. They were unable to demonstrate a single instance of the Democrats, Joe Biden, actually engaging and using the federal government to weaponize against their political enemies. Everything they alleged fell under its own weight, but this is how the Republicans operate. They project onto Democrats things that they do.

There's well documented efforts of Donald Trump to weaponized the federal government in his first term. There were guardrails around him, including qualified, competent appointees of his own, who in many cases prevented his worst instincts from happening. But what we are seeing with his cabinet selections right now is that that is his goal and he's not putting the guardrails around him, and he will try to weaponize the federal government, either through the Department of Justice, the FBI or other aspects of it to get at his political enemies.

Brian Lehrer: I see, though, that you've defended President Biden on his pardon of his son, Hunter Biden, but some other Democrats and commentators are very unhappy about this, for one thing, because Biden previously said he wouldn't do that, and second, because he claimed the prosecution was political in that case. There's this New York Times story that Mayor Adams highlighted yesterday that begins with the line, "President Biden and President-elect Donald J. Trump now agree on one thing, the Biden Justice Department has been politicized."

Yikes, Congressman. So the president protecting his son at the expense of maintaining public trust in the Justice Department is the tension that some are seeing there. If people think it's always political, they may not think Trump is a unique threat, and they might just shrug rather than care to resist when he turns the Justice Department into merely an extension of his interests. How much do you agree or disagree?

Congressman Dan Goldman: I do agree that President Biden should not have stated that he would not pardon Hunter Biden, especially after the plea agreement fell through and I think that's a critical aspect of this case. In a almost unprecedented fashion and completely inappropriate, Republicans in Congress tried to intervene in Hunter Biden's ongoing criminal case to sabotage and submarine a plea agreement that they felt in their esteemed wisdom was not satisfactory, even though they, of course, have no idea what the evidence is.

In part because of their efforts to intervene and in part because the plea agreement was unusual because of fear of retribution if Donald Trump were to become president, the plea agreement fell apart and ultimately, Hunter Biden was charged with crimes that no one else would have been charged with. Now as we stand here and Donald Trump is putting Matt Gaetz and Pam Bondi and Kash Patel in charge of the Department of Justice and the FBI, all of whom have declared their desire to weaponize the Department of Justice and specifically in Kash Patel's part, against Hunter Biden, that is the politicization of this case.

It is not necessarily that the Biden DOJ did anything that was politicized, because I think the original plea agreement was a very fair resolution and obviously, the Biden DOJ thought that as well. But once the plea agreement fell apart, there's, there's no way that the prosecutor can just simply end the investigation without moving forward with any good faith basis. Ultimately, Hunter Biden was charged with crimes that anyone whose last name was not Biden would not have been charged with.

So it's not that the Biden DOJ is politicized. It's that this case was so politicized by Republicans and by ultimately Donald Trump and his future nominees who will take over the Department of Justice and have threatened to charge Hunter Biden with additional crimes that the Department of Justice already declined to charge him with. That is where President Biden thinks it's politicized and unfair and I agree with that.

Brian Lehrer: You're raising some interesting nuances to this story that may get lost on a lot of people who don't look at it that closely. But can you cite evidence for the main charge in what you just said, which is that, if I heard you correctly, Republican members of Congress had enough sway with the supposedly independent counsel, David Weiss, who was first appointed by President Trump at the time to look into Hunter Biden and then retained by President Biden to stay on and continue to look in to possible crimes by his son.

Are you saying that rather than being independent, that prosecutor was swayed by political pressure by Republicans in the House of Representatives to go back on a plea agreement that he had made with Hunter Biden?

Congressman Dan Goldman: No, I don't think he went back on the plea agreement. I think he tried to defend the plea agreement in court. It gets complicated and nuanced, as you point out, but the pressure from Republicans in a completely inappropriate and talk about weaponization of their authority in Congress to intervene in a completely separate criminal prosecution, totally inappropriate and unwarranted. I do think that that highlighted this plea agreement and that caused further scrutiny of the plea agreement. That was unusual, but it was unusual because of the threat of retribution by Donald Trump, not by anything else.

Brian Lehrer: So who scuttled it?

Congressman Dan Goldman: Sorry?

Brian Lehrer: Who scuttled it?

Congressman Dan Goldman: Well, ultimately, I think everybody takes some responsibility for scuttling it. I think the judge didn't accept it as is. My suspicion is Hunter Biden's team would not take a plea agreement if he did not have immunity from additional crimes such as FARA, which Kash Patel has declared without seeing the evidence that Hunter Biden violated, as well as money laundering, which they allege-- Jamie Comer seems to think he's an expert on criminal prosecution, and he has said that he's committed money laundering. And so if you don't get protection and immunity from that, then Hunter Biden said, "I'm not going to plead guilty and accept responsibility and ultimately force the hand of David Weiss to either drop the charges or to move forward with charges that are never charged."

Brian Lehrer: That's why the president pardoned Hunter, not just for anything he was convicted of, but also for anything else he may have done during the recent years, up until this moment, because of the possibility that Kash Patel as attorney general will go after him again for older things?

Congressman Dan Goldman: Yes, specifically for FARA violations and for money laundering, which he was not charged with, but Republicans have cited over and over that he should be charged with. Look, I sincerely do not think that President Biden would have pardoned Hunter Biden if that original plea agreement and the arrangement that they had agreed to would ultimately carry the day. But after that fell through because of Republican intervention and the threat of Donald Trump, this case is now outside the norm.

Brian Lehrer: I said Kash Patel as attorney general. Obviously, I meant Kash Patel as FBI director and Pam Bondi as attorney general. We spoke in detail on yesterday's show with reporter David Rohde from NBC News about ways in which they want to and Trump wants to make the Justice Department more of an extension of the president's interest and less independent. But for you, as a lawyer and a student of these things, what is the proper balance between independence and accountability to the president in your opinion of the Justice Department?

The Republicans will argue, for example that, "Hey, look, JFK appointed his brother as attorney general and Obama had Eric Holder, who called himself while he was in office the president's wingman."

Congressman Dan Goldman: But neither JFK nor President Obama intervened or directed any specific criminal investigations. I think that's where the line has to be drawn. There's no question that the attorney general is an appointee of the president, and from a policy perspective, in terms of what areas to focus on, where to put resources, what policies to pursue, the president should have a role in defining that, but where the line must be drawn is on specific criminal investigations and prosecutions. The president must have nothing to do with any of those cases, those investigations, that's where the line should be drawn. Donald Trump violated that line, according to the New York Times, or at least tried to 10 times in his first term, and has promised now to do it again and has put in political lackeys who are generally unqualified in order to set himself up to do it again.

Brian Lehrer: I saw you on News 12 as a congressman from New York saying you're worried Trump will use his revenge and retribution tour, as you called it, against New York in particular. What do you mean by revenge and retribution tour, and what are you envisioning with respect to New York?

Congressman Dan Goldman: Well, this is a president who withheld disaster relief from Puerto Rico and California because they didn't vote for him and that was in the first term. Now he's furious and he has been very vocal at the Manhattan DA, at the New York attorney general, at New York and he, I believe, is poised to use his authority to punish New York, to punish New York City, to withhold aid, withholds funding, to potentially look to isolate New York or a state similar to New York, like he did with the SALT tax deduction, where he tried to punish blue states by limiting that deduction and help red states.

Donald Trump views everything through a partisan lens. There isn't a single part of his job that he thinks is nonpartisan. I am concerned that with his power as president and his anger and vengefulness towards New York City and New York State generally, that he will use that power to punish our city and state.

Brian Lehrer: How specifically?

Congressman Dan Goldman: Well, there are numerous bills that were passed in the first two years of the Biden administration, the Infrastructure Law, the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS and Science Act. The administration decides where a lot of that money goes. If President Trump just decides and directs his various agencies not to give any grants to New York City or New York, that is one way that he could do this. That would be devastating for New York City, it would be devastating for the state, and it would be simply because he is angered and upset with New York. That would have a really serious and detrimental impact on so many of the things that we are trying to do to improve New York City and to improve New York State.

Brian Lehrer: We took a long detour there from the 22nd Amendment. I want to just cycle back to that very briefly and put a pin in that topic and then we'll go on to other things like Speaker Mike Johnson's recent threat to undo Obamacare. We'll see what you as a Democratic member of the House of Representatives think is actually likely to come down the pike there and what you might do about it.

But on your resolution to have Congress reaffirm the 22nd Amendment, it already exists and it's clear about the two term limitations in the US Constitution for president of the United States. It doesn't matter, according to the text, whether the terms are continuous or broken up like Trump's. It says, "No person shall be elected president more than twice." You're a lawyer. Are you just drawing attention to Trump's words with this resolution or do you think it's actually needed to secure that provision of the Constitution?

Congressman Dan Goldman: The Republicans are in control of both the House and the Senate and Donald Trump is going to be president. If there is going to be a resistance to Donald Trump's effort to undermine our constitution, to dismantle our federal government to sabotage our democracy, it is going to have to come from Republican members of Congress and Republican senators because they have total control. This resolution is an opportunity for Republicans to go on record and to declare that they will have fealty to the Constitution because they take an oath to the Constitution and not to Donald Trump.

It should be very simple, as you point out, for them to simply say, "Yes, that's what the Constitution says," but they're resistant and reluctant to doing that. This is an effort to call them out and to make sure that they go on record as affirming and reaffirming what the plain text of the Constitution says so that this idea of Donald Trump staying on after 2028 is not normalized.

Brian Lehrer: We'll continue in a minute with Congressman Dan Goldman, Democrat from Brooklyn and Manhattan. We'll talk about Obamacare and the new Congress. We'll talk about mass deportation and New York City. And listeners, we can take some phone calls for him, 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. We'll get in a few phone calls or texts for Congressman Goldman. Stay with us.

[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC with Brooklyn and Manhattan congressman, Dan Goldman, now elected to his second term and weighing in on all kinds of policy and democracy matters. We've been talking about his resolution to affirm that the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution exists. We've been getting his reactions to President Biden's pardon of Hunter Biden. Before we go on to issues of the economy and mass deportation and maybe a couple of other things, Congressman, people are calling about pardons. Gary in Brooklyn, I think wants Biden to issue more pardons before he leaves office. Gary, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Gary: Hi. Yeah, these could be very strategic pardons geared toward basically addressing Trump and Patel's enemy list. And Trump can do for them exactly what he did for his son, issue pardons covering the last 10 years for Hillary Clinton, Merrick Garland, Fiona Hill, Eric Holder, et cetera, et cetera. There's a whole list. It's easy to find and would prevent Trump and Patel from attacking these people, which seems to be their goal for the next administration, and force them to do their real jobs, which they seem intent in fact I'm not doing.

This would be pretty easy, pretty straightforward. It doesn't sound great, but it's appropriate and we should call their bluffs. Democrats should start acting a little bit like Republicans when appropriate and for good purposes, not for evil purposes.

Brian Lehrer: Gary, thank you. And Congressman, I'll mention that we have at least three callers on the board with versions of that same question.

Congressman Dan Goldman: It's a very good point. I'm reluctant to encourage the president to take official action in some ways to legitimize those threats. Unlike in the Hunter Biden case, there are no specifics. There is no ongoing investigation. There was no investigation that would ultimately result in prosecution, at least as of now, but the threat is real. I agree with you. It's something I would understand some consideration. I'd be very reluctant to do it if there were not specific indication of specific crimes or specific activity that would be investigated that would be within the statute of limitations, et cetera, because I don't think that the pardon power should be abused and should be politicized. I think that's very important for it to remain as apolitical as possible.

I do think that President Biden needs to use his pardon authority much more aggressively for many other Americans who deserve clemency and who deserve perhaps a second chance because of extended nonviolent sentences that we in many cases realize now were probably too long. And I think there are other applicants and other individuals who have demonstrated a clear need or at least legitimacy for a pardon, a legitimate claim for a pardon.

I hope that President Biden does aggressively use his pardon power with some of the same empathy that he clearly feels for his son about many, many other Americans who were either wrongly prosecuted or excessively sentenced.

Brian Lehrer: Moving on to another topic, and Gary, thank you for your call. You've referred to the SALT tax cap, the state and local taxes deduction cap of $10,000 on your federal income taxes as a Trump first term policy to punish blue states, retribution at that time because New Yorkers pay more than $10,000 more than people in other states in state and local taxes so they get more financially hurt by capping that deduction.

He indicated during the campaign that he might be open to repealing it and some local Republicans like Mike Lawler from north of the city say they are very determined that that be in any new tax bill or economy bill. Do you see that coming, repeal of the SALT deduction cap?

Congressman Dan Goldman: Brian, it's a great question. It's probably better directed to Mike Lawler than me because the Republicans are going to move under reconciliation to address the tax cuts that are expiring this year. I think every single New Yorker should be--

Brian Lehrer: And reconciliation means the senate wouldn't need 60 votes. It would only need 51 votes. Go ahead.

Congressman Dan Goldman: Right, and would just need a straight majority in the House as well. The Republicans have the majority. It's a very slim majority, but if people like Mike Lawler or Andrew Garbarino or Nick LaLota are going to actually come through on their promises to lift that deduction, they have the votes to do that. The question is are they going to roll over like they did in this past Congress and cede all power and control to the extreme right wing of their party, or are they going to stand up for what they believe in and what they have promised their constituents in New York as well as other Republicans in New Jersey and California and other blue states generally where this has a much greater impact? If so, they can get it done, but if not, then that will be very reflective of their ability to serve their constituents.

Brian Lehrer: Another factor there, though, is that those blue states, why do people have so many state and local tax dollars to deduct? They are relatively wealthy states, they are relatively high tax states and so not every Democrat is for that repeal. I'm sure you've heard Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had said some version of, "Hey, the SALT tax cap is a tax on the rich because you have to have a relatively high income or wealth to even pay more than $10,000 a year in state and local taxes," which is where that cap is set. Fair point to any degree, in your opinion?

Congressman Dan Goldman: I understand where she's coming from, but I don't agree because certainly, as you go around New York State and you talk to middleclass Americans who have worked very hard to be able to gain home ownership, they're almost all impacted by this. It is not just for the wealthy, and it is an unequal tax, and that's why I object to it. I am for very targeted tax hikes or certainly closing corporate loopholes, but to do it in a uniform way that impacts every single American in exactly the same way, and that's not the limit on the SALT deduction.

That's why I would support lifting the cap on the SALT deduction, because I think it's an unequal tax that also places a significant burden and an unnecessary and excessive burden on middleclass New Yorkers who have worked very hard to achieve the American dream and to gain homeownership and to live a comfortable life. Certainly, my conversations, especially in the suburbs of New York City, this is an issue for very many people and not just simply the wealthy.

Brian Lehrer: Has anyone floated the idea of just applying the cap to income taxes but not to property taxes? That would protect retired homeowners, for example, who pay a lot of property taxes to the value of their homes has gone up over time, but still cap the deduction for people currently making relatively high incomes? Has that come up at all?

Congressman Dan Goldman: I haven't seen that. I think the proposals that we saw last Congress were to get rid of the marriage penalty and potentially to raise the limit from $10,000 to $20,000, but there's a lot that is open. I really wish, and this is going to be a test of Donald Trump's promises, because he promised to make life better for the middleclass. If he repeats the 2017 tax cuts, over 83% of the benefits of those tax cuts went to the top 1% of earners. That is not helping the middleclass. That actually has hurt the middle class.

I'm very interested to see what he actually is going to do because in my view, he won this election because of his promises to make life better and more affordable for the vast majority of working Americans. If he repeats the 2017 tax cuts, that will be the opposite of what his promise is.

Brian Lehrer: I want to play a clip of House Speaker Mike Johnson who has said, we played one clip of him in the past, he said, "On the day after the election we're going to have the most aggressive first 100 days agenda that anybody's seen in the modern era." Then there's this clip of him just before the election on what one piece of that agenda might be. Here's Speaker Johnson.

Speaker Mike Johnson: Health care reform is going to be a big part of the agenda. When I say we're going to have a very aggressive first 100 days agenda, we got a lot of things that are on the table.

Reporter: No Obamacare?

Speaker Mike Johnson: No more Obamacare.

Brian Lehrer: So no Obamacare, no Obamacare. I think he tried to walk that back somewhat after the fact, but where do you think that stands and what do you think the Republicans are going to try to do to or with Obamacare or anything having to do with health insurance?

Congressman Dan Goldman: Well, this is really where the rubber is going to meet the road. Obamacare and Affordable Care Act is broadly, broadly appreciated and favored by the American people. It has put more than 40 million Americans-- given access to healthcare. The Democrats have reduced prescription drug prices in the Inflation Reduction Act significantly, will now be $2,000 maximum a year this next year, if you're, if you're on Medicare and there are many other bills that the Democrats passed, the CHIPS and Science Act, Mike Johnson also said that he would want to get rid of that. That, of course, is the incentive for $100 billion micron investment in the Syracuse area.

The Infrastructure Bill and the Inflation Reduction Act and the subsidies for renewable energy are all things that they have targeted. All of those things have tremendous benefits for the majority of Americans and so the question really is, is Mike Johnson, are the Republicans going to continue to cater to the 1%, to corporate America, to large corporations at the expense of working Americans, or are they going to come through on their promise to make life more affordable and make the American dream more accessible for hundreds of millions of Americans?

If they attack Medicaid, Medicare, the Affordable Care Act, Social Security, the CHIPS and Science Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, they are hurting the vast majority of Americans in order to favor the very, very small minority of uber wealthy Americans. That's the decision that they have to make and every single American, wherever you are, must recognize what is going on here and make your voices very loud and clear.

Brian Lehrer: I think Gary and Little Ferry in Jersey isn't having some of what we're talking about today. Gary, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Gary: Hello. Thank you for taking my call. First of all, the only way Trump can run for a third term if you repeal the 22nd Amendment, and that's only happened once in our history with Prohibition. So it's now to appeal it, you need two-thirds of each House of Congress, president [unintelligible 00:37:09] and three-quarters of the states and that's not going to happen. All this talk, there's a filibuster. Yeah, for budgetary items, you could have a majority, but you can only use it three times. So I mean, this is-- and talking about Social Security and Medicare, we're running out of money. I mean our debt is now higher than our economy.

You politicians on both sides, you don't talk about the need to cut spending, to raise taxes on everybody, including the middleclass, otherwise, we're going to face a disaster down the road. But that's that talk is expensive. You're not going to be elected and you all know that.

Brian Lehrer: Gary, thank you very much. Well, he's put a few specific things on the table. I don't think we have time to get to all of them. But no, you don't have to worry about Trump trying to have a third term because they'd have to repeal the 22nd Amendment. I think your concern is that he would ignore the 22nd Amendment and he might have enough support to get away with it. He's not worried about Obamacare. He cited that to our screener because it would take 60 votes in the Senate to repeal it, which they won't have. Your answer to that might be if it's in a spending bill, they'll only need 51 votes.

Then he says nobody's talking about the debt that's going to cripple Social Security and Medicare and lots of other stuff if you don't deal with it. So maybe on that just very briefly?

Congressman Dan Goldman: I agree. I agree with Gary, and I think it's an important point. Our debt service payments are dramatically increasing and becoming a more and more significant part of our GDP, and it's going in the wrong direction and we have to get control of it. The problem that Democrats have is that we would be happy to work with Republicans to cut costs in effective and efficient ways, but the Republicans only view the deficit as having one input, and that's costs. They don't view another input, which is revenue.

Gary makes a good point and we can discuss how to raise tax revenue and what the best ways of doing that are, or what the most equitable ways are doing it are, but that has to be part of the conversation if we're going to lower our deficit. Republicans who are now in control believe that the only way to lower our deficit is to cut costs, not to increase revenue. If there's a repeat of the 2017 tax cuts, which raised the deficit by, in some estimation, more than $2 trillion, even more perhaps, Donald Trump's term, four years raised the deficit, I believe, $8 trillion. Donald Trump and the Republicans have an opportunity to reduce the deficit, but that is going to require both revenue and cost cutting.

Brian Lehrer: These promises that Trump made during the campaign, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security, do you oppose all three?

Congressman Dan Goldman: No, I don't oppose them. I think that those are practical ways of reducing the tax burden on working Americans and those are the people who should have a reduced tax burden. It's Donald Trump's buddies down in Mar-a-Lago who should have an increased tax burden and it wouldn't matter to Elon Musk if he had to pay another billion dollars in taxes. I don't think that would necessarily be appropriate in that amount, but certainly with billionaires and 30 years ago, we didn't have anywhere close to this wealth inequality. We didn't have people who had hundreds of billions of dollars.

The money does not matter to people like that and we should recognize that the reason why Elon Musk is able to make so much money is, yes, because of his ideas and his intelligence, but also because of the infrastructure that our democracy, our capital markets and our economy provided to him as well as government loans that he benefited from.

Recognizing that it is not just his own abilities and intelligence that enabled him to achieve this success is to also recognize that he should be feeding back into that same infrastructure that gave him the foundation to be able to be so successful. That's where we need to focus more of the tax burden.

Brian Lehrer: We have two minutes left in the segment, mass deportation. Listeners, heads up, if you're afraid this might apply to you or someone you care about, we're going to do an in-depth lead segment at the beginning of tomorrow's show with advice for people concerned about mass deportation. If you're here as a law-abiding person in this country and you're worried about the Trump mass deportation program coming for you, we're going to talk about that in detail at the start of tomorrow's show.

Congressman Goldman, mass deportation, I'm not sure what kind of action they're actually going to take in New York City, but the agency ICE was quoted in the New York Post saying there are 58,000 people in New York City alone who are here illegally and have been convicted of or charged with crimes. Do you think all those people should be deported, and what else are you foreseeing, and what resistance are you planning, if any?

Congressman Dan Goldman: Well, our immigration laws make very clear which crimes warrant deportation. Yes, I believe that in those situations we ought to follow the law, but when Donald Trump is talking about mass deportations, he's not just talking about those with felony convictions who under the law should be deported. He is talking about any undocumented immigrants and there are more than 600,000 in New York City.

What that would do is, of course, to break up families. It would destroy community networks, and it is addressing the problem in the exact wrong way because you're going to need a lot more funding to do this. Well, why would you put the funding toward mass deportations and breaking up families rather than putting it into a comprehensive legislation to reform our immigration system, to add asylum judges, to add to add lawful visas so that there are lawful pathways?

There are only 20% to 25% of asylum applicants who are granted asylum, but it takes more than seven years and so many people come here because it's worth it. Even though they know that they would otherwise not be granted asylum and are not legally here, it's worth it to them. Why are we not focused on reforming our broken immigration system and putting funding towards that, rather than trying to put that same funding toward breaking up families and mass importations?

Brian Lehrer: Last question, kind of two parts. This came up with Mayor Adams in his news conference yesterday, and I don't think he gave a clear response. Do you think as a member of Congress and as a lawyer that there should be a distinction on deportability between people who've been convicted of crimes and people who might be at Rikers Island charged with crimes?

Congressman Dan Goldman: Of course.

Brian Lehrer: And to that point, a listener texts, "I'm concerned Eric Adams may be beholden to do Trump's bidding because of his federal legal problems." So address both of those things. We've got about 30 seconds.

Congressman Dan Goldman: Yes, absolutely. We ought to follow the law. The INA, the Immigration and Nationalization Act, sets forth which crimes require deportation, and those are the people who've been convicted of those crimes that should be deported. But no, Rikers Island, if you're a pretrial detention, you have not been adjudicated, and our due process requires adjudication. I don't know exactly what the mayor said yesterday about this, but I think it's very important that we follow our laws and the law sets forth very clearly who should be deported, and we should certainly follow that.

Brian Lehrer: We've covered a lot of issues. Congressman Dan Goldman from Brooklyn and Manhattan, thank you very much for your time today.

Congressman Dan Goldman: Thanks so much for having me, Brian.

 

Copyright © 2024 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.