Share This Podcast

• Call Congress – 202-224-3121
• Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/y4y2e9jy
• What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcast

Follow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/

TRANSCRIPT

Jane Coaston: It’s Wednesday, March 25th, I’m Jane Coaston, and this is What a Day, the show that just wants President Donald Trump to tell us whatever he told Secretary of War/little boy Pete Hegseth. Here’s Hegseth on Tuesday. 

[clip of Pete Hegseth] This is not Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a not a president who’s interested in vague end states. He’s been very clear with us about what we need to accomplish. 

Jane Coaston: If he’s been very clear with you about the war in Iran, could he be clear with us? Maybe. [music break] On today’s show, new polling shows Trump’s approval rating is on the decline. Shocking. And the Wall Street Journal’s March Madness bracket is AI-mazing. But let’s start with taxes, one of the two certainties in life. A new report published by Fortune magazine on Tuesday found that Americans pay more than $140 billion in out-of-pocket expenses and spend more than 11 billion hours just to fill out their individual tax returns. And that’s before they actually, you know, pay their taxes. In 2022, for example, Americans paid more than $2 trillion in individual income taxes. That’s a ton of money. And at a time when, according to The Guardian, nearly half of Americans think their financial security is getting worse, not better. And the richest people in America often pay remarkably little in income taxes, so after decades of Republicans seizing the opportunity to promote lower taxes to voters, Democrats are getting in on the action and talking lower taxes themselves. New Jersey Senator Cory Booker and Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen have put together separate measures aimed at easing the tax burden on middle and lower income people. Here’s Senator Booker discussing his legislation. 

[clip of Senator Cory Booker] So here’s the big idea I want to share with you. No household in America should pay federal income tax on their first $75,000 of earnings. Keep your money. 

Jane Coaston: But here’s my issue with this. It sounds incredibly basic to say, but taxes pay for public goods, as in goods that everyone gets to enjoy, from parks to roads to schools. I had a lot of questions about how taxing rich people to lower taxes on less rich people ensures we have the money we need for the busses, trains, public pools, and traffic lights we all rely on. So I spoke with Maryland’s Democratic Senator, Chris Van Hollen, about his plan. Senator Van Hollen, welcome back to What a Day. 

Chris Van Hollen: Jane, great to be with you. 

Jane Coaston: You introduced a bill this month that would eliminate federal income taxes for people making less than $46,000 a year and lower taxes for anyone making less than about $80,000 per year. It would also gradually raise taxes on Americans who earn more than a million dollars annually. What else should people know about this proposal? 

Chris Van Hollen: Well, it’s good to be with you. The key idea behind this proposal is we have millions of Americans who are working hard every day just to make ends meet, and we decided as part of this bill that if you’re just at the cost of living expenses, in other words, if your income is essentially matching your basic cost of living expenses, then you should be able to keep more of what you earn. So you’re right. For a single individual who makes $46,000 a year, they would pay no federal income tax um and then we adjust it for households and couples and it’s paid for as you indicate by a surtax on people who make more than $1 million a year so that the first dollar over a million dollars would have a five cent surtax and then it’s graduated from there. So it completely pays for itself. It gives working people a little bit more breathing room and it says to folks who doing very well making over a million dollars a year that they should chip in more so that all of us can do better. 

Jane Coaston: Now, I have a bunch of questions about this, and I’m sure you’ve gotten a ton of questions about this. First and foremost, Democrats are obviously not in control of Congress or the White House right now. So why did you decide to introduce this bill now? 

Chris Van Hollen: Well, because I think it speaks to the concerns Americans are feeling. I mean, we’ve seen in many of these recent elections at the state and local level that affordability is top of mind for Americans. And there’s two sides to the affordability coin, right? One is we should try to contain costs. Electricity prices are going up. Grocery prices are going up. And we should do what we can to prevent those costs from going up further. But the other side of the coin is how much money you have in your pocket to pay for your basic living expenses. And that’s where this bill comes in. It says if you’re in that category of people who’s essentially going paycheck to paycheck, meeting your basic expenses, that you’ll be able to have a little bit more money in your pockets. So it benefits about 130 million Americans. Um. And again, it’s financed by the surtax on people who make over a million a year. 

Jane Coaston: Ben Ritz from the Progressive Policy Institute think tank, he criticized your bill in the Atlantic, and he said, quote, “If the entire universe of plausible tax hikes on the top 2% is spent cutting taxes for the other 98%, no money will be left to pursue other goals.” What’s your response to that argument, that taxing the rich should not just be used as a way to fund tax cuts for everybody else? 

Chris Van Hollen: Well, I disagree with his premise, which is there is additional revenue that we can achieve, for example, by the wealth tax. I mean, I support Senator Sanders’ proposal for a wealth tax, and Senator Sanders supports this proposal that we’re talking about right now to provide middle-income workers with tax relief. So, it’s not either or. We can provide working Americans with a little tax relief and provide revenue for these other priorities as well. 

Jane Coaston: Is that also how you’re thinking about addressing funding issues for Social Security and Medicare? Ben Ritz as well as Eric Levitz at Vox, both of them point out that unless significant revenue is raised, Social Security & Medicare will face budget shortfalls within the next decade. Is the wealth tax, something that you and Senator Sanders are talking about, is that how we solve that problem? 

Chris Van Hollen: Yes, I think it is. I mean, there are a number of wealth tax proposals. Senator Sanders has one, Senator Warren has one. Senator Wyden has one I support them all because I support the concept. As we have it today, as you know, people can pass on large fortunes from one generation to another tax-free because of what we call stepped up basis at death. And it’s really leading us to more and more of an American aristocracy. So I do believe, Jane, that that is a source of funds to address some of these other issues. So for example, in Senator Sanders’ wealth tax bill, he also covers a gap in Medicare to provide coverage for dental services, for seeing, for glasses, um as well as for hearing. 

Jane Coaston: While you’re here, I have to ask about the Department of Homeland Security. Senators from both parties are starting to sound more optimistic this week about the prospect of a deal to fund most of DHS. Do you expect Republicans to eventually agree to some of the restrictions on ICE officers that Democrats have called for? 

Chris Van Hollen: Well, I think all of this is premature. I know Republicans have been making positive soundings about this. In my view, there’s still really important gaps between Republicans, what they say they’ll support and what I think we need to do. Just one example, in my view we need to ensure that we have credible independent investigations when we have wrongdoing by DHS officials. After all, we saw two American citizens killed in Minneapolis and the Homeland Security Department, the former secretary, said that the victims were domestic terrorists, and yet they refused to share that information with state and local authorities. And so it’s outrageous they accused the victims of being domestic terrorists. And so I ask, how can we expect DHS to conduct a credible independent investigation? In my view, we can’t, and that’s not dealt with. So my view, Jane, is for now, we should support what Democrats have been calling for for weeks now, which is let’s just fund TSA, get those agents paid, make sure people are at the airports and getting paid. Let’s fund the Coast Guard, let’s fund FEMA, and then we can continue to discuss meaningful reforms uh to ICE and Customs and Border Patrol. 

Jane Coaston: I thought it was very telling, Senator, that the White House proposal included a line saying we won’t deport U.S. citizens, which is a funny thing for someone to need to say that, oh no, we won’t do the thing that is actually illegal for you to be doing. But to that point, Markwayne Mullin was confirmed to lead DHS this week in a mostly party line vote. You told Fox News this weekend that you have, quote, “no confidence in his ability to do this job.” Do you expect DHS to look any different under Mullin than it did under Kristi Noem? 

Chris Van Hollen: Other than a different face, I don’t see any differences. I mean, they’re going to continue to follow the Trump policies, which will remain the same despite some changes in rhetoric. You probably saw the White House sent, you know, Hill Republicans some memo saying, don’t talk about mass deportations. You know, the American people–

Jane Coaston: Right. 

Chris Van Hollen: –don’t like mass deportation. They didn’t say they were going to end mass deportation. They said just don’t talk about– 

Jane Coaston: They said just don’t talk about it. 

Chris Van Hollen: Yeah. And so, you know, they’ve said from the beginning, they were gonna go after the so-called worst of the worst, and we know that they’re focused not just on the worst of the worst, they’re engaged in these mass deportations. And to your point about simply saying they’re gonna do what’s already required, I mean, I I saw Mullin say, you know, we’re gonna agree that you need a search warrant before you go into someone’s house. That’s what the Constitution says, right? This is the Fourth Amendment. This is plain–

Jane Coaston: Yeah. 

Chris Van Hollen: –constitutional law. So you know, when they say, well, you know, we’re going to finally agree to obey the law. We’re not going to deport American citizens. We’re going not going bash down your door without a warrant. It’s like that is not enough. We want to really fundamentally and meaningfully rein in ICE. 

Jane Coaston: Right. Again, if you’re saying we’re finally going to obey the Bill of Rights, I feel like that says more than you’re intending to say. Lastly, I have to ask you about Iran. It’s being reported that the Trump administration is planning to send 3000 more troops to the Middle East. These would not be boots on the ground and I’m using air quotes, but what are your biggest concerns about the war in Iran at the moment? 

Chris Van Hollen: Well, my biggest concern is that it’s making America less safe. It’s making the region less stable. I mean, the region is on fire now. And the administration entered this war without a clear explanation as to why, constantly shifting explanations, right? At one point, it was to get rid of Iran’s nuclear program. Then Tulsi Gabbard admits in public testimony that they assessed that Iran was nowhere near a nuclear weapon. Then Donald Trump changes the story again. They have no endgame. We have lost 13 American service members, hundreds wounded, over 2,000 civilians killed in the region, including over 100 Iranian schoolgirls. And we’re talking about $2 billion a day in American taxpayer money, plus rising in oil oil and gas prices. Because this was a huge miscalculation. It’s a war of choice. It is an illegal war and we should end it now. 

Jane Coaston: Senator Van Hollen, as always, thank you so much for joining me. 

Chris Van Hollen: It’s great to be with you. Thanks, Jane. 

Jane Coaston: That was my conversation with Maryland’s Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen. Unlike death and taxes, listening to What a Day is actually pretty enjoyable. So if you like the show, make sure to subscribe, leave a five-star review on Spotify and Apple podcasts, watch us on YouTube, and share with your friends. More to come after some ads. [music break] 

[AD BREAK]

Jane Coaston: Here’s what else we’re following today. 

[sung] Headlines. 

Jane Coaston: I am once again joined by Crooked’s Washington correspondent Matt Berg to talk about the big stories. Hey Matt.

Matt Berg: Hey Jane. 

Jane Coaston: Matt, do you remember how we were wondering, actually I wasn’t wondering, but some people were wondering whether or not we were at war with Iran a few weeks ago? 

Matt Berg: Yeah. And that feels like years ago, honestly. 

Jane Coaston: Weird because it’s been like three weeks. But now we have a new problem. The world is still trying to figure out whether the U.S. is actually in talks with Iran to end the war that is a war. Here’s what President Donald Trump had to say on Tuesday. 

[clip of President Donald Trump] They’re going to make a deal. They’re gonna make a deal. They did something yesterday that was amazing, actually. They gave us a present and the present arrived today. It was a very big present worth a tremendous amount of money. And I’m not going to tell you what that present is, but it was a very significant uh prize. 

Jane Coaston: I’m just gonna say it, whatever it is don’t open it. I’ve seen movies, don’t open it. But this present Matt isn’t the only thing Trump’s being vague about actually he’s being vague about the whole thing. Uh. He keeps saying for example the US is in talks with Iran but there’s still no clear indication of what he’s talking about or what the talks would be doing. 

Matt Berg: Right. And despite all this vagueness from Trump, he keeps saying that things are just going great. On Tuesday, he spoke about Iran’s military capabilities, telling a reporter, quote, “Can you name one thing that’s not gone?” Let’s contrast that with what the administration is actually doing. There’s news on Tuesday that the Pentagon reportedly plans to deploy 3,000 more troops in the Army’s elite 82nd Airborne Division to support war efforts. And none of that sounds quite like peace to me. 

Jane Coaston: No, none of this sounds like peace, it definitely sounds like war, and at the same time, Americans are not happy at home. They are extremely pessimistic about the job market, according to new polling from Gallup that was taken at the end of 2025. According to Gallup, only 28% of people said it’s a good time to look for a new job versus 72% who said it’s rough out there. In 2022, 70% of people said it was a good time to look for a job. Remember 2022, when people were quiet quitting, and it felt like employers needed to do everything possible to keep their employees? 

Matt Berg: Yeah, that was four years ago, believe it or not. It has been a very long four years. There’s other polling out today from Reuters and Ipsos showing that only 29% of the country approves of how Trump is handling the economy. That’s the lowest number um in either of his terms, which is pretty shocking, but a more important number maybe to Trump is that that is lower than any point in Joe Biden’s presidency. Which I’m sure he’s still gonna find a way to blame Joe Biden for the economy, but the numbers here don’t lie. And Reuters also reports that Trump’s overall approval rating is dropping now at 36%. So, I mean, you could say that things are looking great for him. 

Jane Coaston: It’s also funny because, you know, I, we heard throughout 2024 that the reason people were voting for Trump was because of the economy and that somehow he could magically bring us back to the economy of 2019, which I don’t remember being that great, but I guess people do. And, um, that’s not happening, but what is happening is basketball. We’re in the thick of March madness and robots are playing this year. Sort of. They are not playing college basketball, which is good. But they are taking part in the Wall Street Journal’s Bracket Tournament. According to the outlet, reporters trained Claude, Gemini, and ChatGPT on how to find the best way to win a March Madness Pool, and then secretly entered them into the Bracket. Claude is currently in the lead, despite picking Illinois to win the National Championship and not one of the number one seeds like, um, Michigan, for example, just picking one out of a hat. Interestingly, all of the large language models, which include Claude, Gemini, and ChatGPT, were initially confused by the concept of a bracket. But actually, I’m fine with the fact that they couldn’t figure this out. The more stuff AI figures out, the more scared I get. 

Matt Berg: I feel the exact same way. I mean, now AI is coming for things that are actually just fun for humans to do, like the community building aspect I love about March Madness and now AI is gonna be involved and I personally do not want robots involved in my community activities. But I mean this just goes to show, like you said, that AI is involved in not just writing and editing resumes and coding, but now it’s getting good at betting, which could bring up a lot of other problems. I mean, we’re seeing all this news about prediction markets and the different problems caused there, and I, could people use AI to make good bets in prediction markets? Like is that being regulated? How is Congress gonna regulate this? 

Jane Coaston: It’s also interesting because, like, AI models are good at probability and they’re good at understanding metrics. After getting past their initial confusion, the models are now doing better than most humans in the Wall Street Journal bracket. They all avoided picking Florida, the number one seed that lost this past weekend. So to our viewers, who are you rooting for in March Madness? You already know who I’m rooting for in March Madnes, because come on, you watch this show. But Matt, I’m always rooting for you. 

Matt Berg: Thanks for having me and please do not replace me with Claude anytime soon. 

Jane Coaston: And we have an update to a story we brought you yesterday. In a landmark decision on Tuesday, a New Mexico jury found that social media conglomerate Meta harmed children’s mental health in violation of the state’s consumer protection law. Jurors found that there were thousands of violations, mandating Meta to pay a $375 million penalty. A spokesperson for Meta said in a statement, quote, “we respectfully disagree with the verdict and will appeal.” And that’s the news. [music break]

[AD BREAK]

Jane Coaston: That’s all for today. If you like the show, make sure you subscribe, leave a review, congratulate Egyptian Queen Hatshepsut on getting some worthy reconsideration from the historical record, and tell your friends to listen. And if you’re into reading, and not just about how the ancient queen was positioned by 19th century historians as an evil usurper, but new research shows she was a diplomatic superpower who led an era of prosperity during the 15th century BC, like me, What a Day is also a nightly newsletter. Check it out and subscribe at Crooked.com/ subscribe. I’m Jane Coaston, and a woman being miscast by male historians? Groundbreaking. What a Day is a production of Crooked Media. It’s recorded and mixed by Desmond Taylor. Our associate producer is Emily Fohr. Our producer is Caitlin Plummer. Our video editor is Joseph Dutra. Our video producer is Johanna Case. We had production help today from Greg Walters, Matt Berg and Ethan Oberman. Our senior producer is Erica Morrison and our senior vice president of news and politics is Adriene Hill. Our theme music is by Kyle Murdock and Jordan Cantor. We had help today from the Associated Press. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. [music break]