Shapiro Rejects Wealth Tax, Blames Trump Tariffs and Iran War for Inflation

夏皮罗反对财富税，将通胀归咎于特朗普关税与伊朗战争 宾夕法尼亚州州长Josh Shapiro指出联邦关税与对伊战争正在推高生活成本，同时为该州促进增长的跨党派税收模式辩护。 宾夕法尼亚州州长Josh Shapiro阐述了他务实且促进增长的施政方针，重点强调了许可改革、减税和创造就业，与联邦层面的机制失调形成鲜明对比。他坦诚谈及2024年民主党总统提名流程，解释了自己为何主动退出副总统人选考量以专注于宾夕法尼亚州，同时严厉批评了特朗普时期的关税、医疗补助（Medicaid）削减以及针对伊朗的外交政策。在整场对话中，Shapiro强调要重建公众对民主体制的信任，反对对未实现收益征收财富税，并主张将合理的外交政策辩论与反犹主义区分开来。 宾夕法尼亚州州长 Josh Shapiro 倡导亲增长、重自由的施政蓝图，推行附带逾期全额退款保障的行政审批改革，大幅精简官僚流程以匹配商业发展速度。 (1:40) Shapiro 明确反对针对未实现资本利得征收财富税，强调这会扼杀创新与创业链条，主张通过降低企业税并搭配中产阶层劳动所得税抵免来促进公平发展。 (13:05) 针对 2024 年副总统候选人遴选的争议，Shapiro 坚决否认自己因犹太信仰被排除，透露是在与哈里斯深入沟通后主动致电退选，以专注于治理宾夕法尼亚州。 (20:17) Shapiro 批评联邦政府单方面加征全面关税以及激化对伊军事冲突直接加剧了通胀压力，导致居民日常食品和能源生活成本大幅攀升。 (28:09)

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro argues that sustainable political and economic success requires pragmatic, results-driven governance that accelerates bureaucracy, rejects ideological purity tests, and defends individual freedoms. Contrasting his state executive record with federal turmoil, Shapiro contends that Democrats must broaden their coalition by actively reducing living costs and rebuilding public trust in governing institutions. Streamlining Bureaucracy and Expanding Workforce Opportunities (1:40) Shapiro frames Pennsylvania's administration around a pro-growth model designed to operate at the speed of business. To resolve bureaucratic delays, his administration introduced a money-back guarantee for business permitting deadlines, resulting in only five fee refunds across 40 million permits issued. He cites administrative reforms that reduced barber licensing turnaround from 20 business days to same-day issuance as tangible proof of regulatory relief saving workers money. To expand workforce mobility, Shapiro signed an executive order removing four-year college degree prerequisites for state government jobs—leading to 60% of new state hires lacking a bachelor's degree—and tripled state investments in vocational-technical education and union apprenticeships. To restore civic trust in public institutions, Shapiro emphasizes aggressive anti-fraud enforcement rather than across-the-board service cuts. Drawing on his tenure as Pennsylvania Attorney General, he directed the state's Office of Inspector General to enforce strict post-reimbursement accountability across human services. By requiring healthcare and human service vendors to verify delivery before receiving payment, Pennsylvania became one of the leading states nationally in investigating and prosecuting Medicaid fraud. Tax Competitiveness, Middle-Class Relief, and Cost Pressures (15:28) Rejecting wealth taxes on unrealized capital gains, Shapiro contends that penalizing capital creators dismantles the startup pipeline. He points to Pennsylvania's low flat personal income tax and repeated reductions in the corporate net income tax as key competitive advantages, arguing that while startups need early-stage support, established firms must pay their fair share. To support working households facing living costs, his administration created the Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit, providing an average refund of over $800 to approximately 940,000 residents, and sought a $1 billion legislative fund to rehabilitate aging housing stock, noting half the state's homes were built before 1950. Shapiro sharply criticizes federal economic actions under Donald Trump, arguing that federal tax cuts favored the wealthy while shifting costs onto vulnerable populations. He warns that federal Medicaid cuts threaten healthcare access for 500,000 Pennsylvanians and imperil 26 rural hospitals operating at a deficit. Furthermore, Shapiro attributes acute inflationary spikes to federal tariffs and military actions, citing state-level cost increases in agricultural fertilizer (36%), coffee (30%), beef (19%), and gasoline prices rising to $4.15–$4.16 per gallon amid conflict with Iran. Democratic Coalition Strategy and Party Politics (20:17) Shapiro rejects the narrative that the Democratic Party faces terminal decline after the 2024 presidential defeat, highlighting subsequent off-year electoral rebounds in Virginia, New Jersey, and a Democratic sweep of three contested Pennsylvania Supreme Court seats in 2025. Addressing the 2024 vice presidential selection, Shapiro refutes claims that he was passed over due to his Jewish faith, stating he voluntarily phoned Kamala Harris roughly 48 hours before Tim Walz's announcement to withdraw his name from consideration in order to remain focused on governing Pennsylvania. Looking toward future elections, Shapiro cautions Democrats against enforcing ideological litmus tests that alienate mainstream voters, independent podcasters, and business leaders. Pointing to his record governing alongside a divided state legislature—balancing a Republican Senate and a Democratic House—he argues that effective governance relies on forging consensus around shared priorities. He contrasts this state pragmatism with Congressional leadership, accusing House Speaker Mike Johnson and federal lawmakers of surrendering constitutional war powers, trade authority, and executive oversight. Foreign Policy, Iran Conflict, and Civil Liberties (47:05) Critiquing federal foreign policy, Shapiro characterizes the military engagement with Iran as an unjustified "war of choice" launched without defined objectives or a coherent exit strategy, noting shifting rationales that ranged from deterring Israeli action to nuclear containment and regime change. He highlights the sacrifice of 13 fallen U.S. service members while arguing that military personnel deserve clear strategic missions from their commander-in-chief. Addressing Middle East diplomacy, Shapiro criticizes Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for isolating Israel internationally, eroding bipartisan American support, and failing to protect citizens on October 7. He reiterates support for a two-state solution that excludes Hamas from governance. Domestically, Shapiro stresses the necessity of divorcing legitimate foreign policy debates from antisemitism, cautioning that holding Jewish citizens accountable for Israeli state actions revives classic dual-loyalty tropes. While defending constitutional rights to peaceful student assembly, he insists that protests must never cross into targeted harassment or bigotry. Shapiro offers Pennsylvania's centrist, pro-growth governance model as an alternative to both national polarization and progressive ideological litmus tests. However, whether his blend of regulatory speed, corporate tax competitiveness, and institutional pragmatism can unite a fragmented national party coalition remains an open question heading into the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential cycle.

宾夕法尼亚州州长乔希·夏皮罗（Josh Shapiro）在《All-In Podcast》中阐述了以结果为导向的务实治理路线，主张通过审批提速、减税反腐与文凭门槛改革重塑民众对公共机构的信任。夏皮罗严厉批评了联邦层面的关税通胀、对外军事干预以及国会制衡失职，呼吁民主党摒弃意识形态纯洁性测试，依靠可落地的民生红利与捍卫基本自由来重构执政联盟。 宾州亲增长治理与审批改革 (1:40) 夏皮罗阐明了宾夕法尼亚州“支持增长与自由”的治理哲学，核心是以企业运转速度推进行政效率。上任之初，该州商业审批效率位列全美倒数前五，夏皮罗政府随即设立“超时退还申请费”的行政保障机制。在其任内发放的4000万份许可证中，仅有5次触发超时退款；以理发师执照为例，申办周期由20个工作日缩减至当日办结，直接降低了个体创业的阻碍。夏皮罗指出，其任内全州累计减税7次，失业率连续32个月低于全美均值，使宾州成为当前美国东北部唯一实现经济增长的州。他强调，官僚机构延误会诱发民众对民主体制的深度怀疑，而高效行政则是遏制极端政治思潮滋长的基石。 在财税与劳工政策上，夏皮罗明确拒绝开征未实现资本利得税，认为惩罚资本创造者将破坏创业链条，主张以具有竞争力的平税率吸引商业投资。同时，宾州推行州级劳动所得税抵免，为约94万工薪阶层提供平均逾800美元的减税。夏皮罗在就任首日即取消绝大多数州公职的大学学历要求，推动60%新录用人员无需四年制文凭，并将职业技术教育与学徒培训资金增加两倍，此外还申请设立10亿美元住房基金改造该州半数建于1950年前的老旧住宅。在财政监管上，夏皮罗依托前州总检察长履历，推行严格的服务实证核销机制，使宾州成为全美打击医疗补助（Medicaid）欺诈最严厉的州之一。 民主党中间路线与副手退选内幕 (20:17) 针对民主党在2024年大选后的战略迷茫，夏皮罗否认党派陷入终极衰退，并列举2025年弗吉尼亚、新泽西及宾州（民主党囊括三席州最高法院法官）的非大选年战绩，佐证中间路线的选民号召力。面对宾州参众两院分属两党掌控的现实（共和党掌控参议院2席优势，民主党掌控众议院1席优势），夏皮罗坚持跨党协商，主张围绕核心优先事项促成共识。他强调民主党应维护包容的“大帐篷”，停止推开温和派与科技创业者的纯洁性测试，重新聚焦公共教育、社区安全（任内增聘2000名警官，全州暴力犯罪下降12%、致命枪击案下降42%）与个人自由——并直指共和党通过图书审查和限制女性生殖权利已背离其标榜的自由传统。 谈及2024年副总统提名内幕，夏皮罗正面否认了因犹太信仰或党内进步派阻力而遭哈里斯（Kamala Harris）弃用的传闻。他表示，在拜登退选且仅剩百天竞选期的背景下，开展公开初选在时间上并不现实；自己在与哈里斯进行了坦诚的面谈后，确信留任宾州州长是服务公众的最佳路径，因此在蒂姆·沃尔兹（Tim Walz）被提名的前48小时，主动致电哈里斯撤回了参选考虑。面向未来政治周期，夏皮罗呼吁外界勿过度聚焦2028年大选，必须先将2026年中期选举打造成对联邦政策的全民公投。 联邦关税通胀与权力制衡失序 (28:09) 夏皮罗对特朗普（Donald Trump）第二任期的经济与内政路线展开严厉批评。他指出，联邦加征广泛单边关税直接推高了家庭生活成本：在宾州，商业化肥价格上涨36%，咖啡上涨30%，牛肉上涨19%，橙汁上涨9%，沉重挤压了农业生产与日常消费。同时，夏皮罗抨击联邦税改以削减民生安全网为代价向富人让利：宾州已有12万人失去Medicaid，另有32万人面临直接断保威胁，导致26家农村医院濒临倒闭，未获补偿的医疗开支最终被迫转嫁并抬高了中产阶层的私人医保成本。 在宪制运转上，夏皮罗指责以众议长迈克·约翰逊（Mike Johnson）为代表的国会领导层彻底让渡了宪法赋予的关税、宣战与监督权力，放弃了对行政权力的制衡职责。夏皮罗还谴责华盛顿出现的特赦交易化现象，指出围绕海湖庄园的游说准入以及前币安（Binance）首席执行官赵长鹏（CZ）等特赦案严重削弱了司法严肃性，强调必须由跨党派选民共同追究公职人员的道德操守。 伊朗军事冲突反思与中东外交立场 (52:49) 在外交事务上，夏皮罗将特朗普政府升级对伊朗冲突定性为缺乏明确战略目标与撤离路线图的“自选战争”（war of choice）。他批评政府在行动依据上反复变动——先后以阻止以色列单边行动、打击核设施及推动政权更迭为由，导致政策陷入混乱；而仓促的政权更迭无法带来实质稳定。夏皮罗悼念了在行动中阵亡的13名美军士兵，并指出战事已推高宾州汽油价格至每加仑约4.15至4.16美元的高位，造成深远的能源通胀冲击。 针对以哈冲突与反犹主义问题，夏皮罗主张将对反犹偏见的无条件谴责与对以色列政府的外交评判严格分离。他指出，偏见与仇恨危害整体公共安全，两党政客均须无差别谴责本党内外的偏见言论。夏皮罗长期批评内塔尼亚胡（Benjamin Netanyahu）在10月7日未能履职保护国民，指责其政策使以色列陷入国际孤立并破坏了美国两党长期共识；他重申支持排除哈马斯治理的“两国方案”。同时，夏皮罗警告切勿把美国犹太人等同于以色列官方行为，防范“双重忠诚”的偏见抬头，并强调在保护和平抗议权利的同时，必须坚决制止对学生的恐吓与骚扰行为。 夏皮罗在节目中呈现了以行政效率与跨党妥协在关键摇摆州立足的治理模式，试图为极化语境下的民主党提供跳出教条的中间范本。然而，地方层面的治理成果在多大程度上能够抵消联邦关税带来的输入型通胀、医疗安全网削减与海外地缘冲突的外溢冲击，仍是其政纲面临的核心现实挑战。

## Background 本期节目由知名播客《All-In Podcast》于2026年4月8日发布在YouTube平台，由主持人杰森·卡拉卡尼斯（Jason Calacanis）对宾夕法尼亚州州长乔希·夏皮罗（Josh Shapiro）进行深度专访。节目简介显示，对话主要围绕夏皮罗在宾州推行的亲商促增长与精简繁文缛节蓝图、财富税之争、民主党在2024年大选后的路线反思、国会制衡失效，以及对特朗普政府中东开战与内塔尼亚胡执政政策的严厉审视展开。 ## TL;DR 宾夕法尼亚州州长乔希·夏皮罗分享了宾州在分立议会下通过7次减税、推行“办不成就退款”审批改革及严打欺诈实现逆势增长的务实治理模式，明确拒绝未实现收益财富税以守护创业土壤。在反思2024年大选与辟谣哈里斯副总统遴选内幕之余，夏皮罗主张民主党摆脱意识形态纯洁性测试，重新树立代表教育、治安、经济机遇与真正自由的“大帐篷”形象。他严厉抨击了特朗普关税推高生活成本、削减医保加重中产负担以及国会放弃宪法制衡的软弱表现。针对中东危机与反犹主义，夏皮罗直斥对伊战争是目标模糊且缺乏退出机制的政治冒险，并强调必须严格厘清对内塔尼亚胡政策的合理政治批评与针对犹太群体的偏执仇恨，始终以美国的核心国家利益为最高准则。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场访谈在轻松幽默与严肃问责之间切换自如，从开场围绕费城76人与纽约尼克斯的球迷互呛，迅速切入到关乎国家经济与战和走向的核心议题。主持人提问直击痛点且充满现实焦虑，夏皮罗则展现出一线行政长官兼资深检察官特有的沉稳、干练与条理清晰，善于用具体的民生账本化解抽象的党派纷争。对话在谈及海外军事冒险与权钱交易时饱含锋芒与痛心疾首的愤怒，整体氛围兼具商业播客的务实锐气与顶级政治对谈的坦诚厚重。 ## Bulletin - [01:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=100s) 宾夕法尼亚州州长 Josh Shapiro 在专访中展示了其“亲增长”务实执政样板：推行 7 次减税、审批推行“办不成就退款”倒逼机制，使宾州成为美国东北部唯一保持经济增长的州，失业率连续 32 个月低于全美平均水平。 - [13:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=785s) Shapiro 明确拒绝针对未变现账面资产征收“财富税”，并推出首个“工薪宾州人税收抵免”政策，为近 100 万工薪家庭直接发放每户逾 800 美元现金以对冲通胀与贫富差距。 - [23:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=1401s) 针对 2024 年副总统遴选风波，Shapiro 明确辟谣因犹太信仰被拒的传言，证实是在与卡玛拉·哈里斯坦诚深谈后主动退出名单，优先选择留任宾州州长。 - [50:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=3000s) Shapiro 猛烈抨击特朗普对伊朗的战争是缺乏退出战略的“选择性战争”，并严厉谴责内塔尼亚胡不仅防范 10 月 7 日袭击失职，还将以色列带向国际孤立道路；同时强调必须将批评中东外交政策与零容忍反犹主义严格区隔。 ## Key takeaways - [01:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=100s) 宾州践行“亲增长与抓落实”（GSD）路线，累计实施 7 次减税，失业率连续 32 个月低于全美平均，逆势成为美国东北部唯一保持增长的经济体。 - [04:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=273s) 推行行政审批革命与“不满意退款保证”，将办不成退规费作为硬约束，在极度分立的州议会下发放 4000 万张执照仅触发 5 次退款，审批效率跃居全美前五。 - [09:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=552s) 行政效率低下和办事受阻是滋生极端政治与社会冷漠的温床，提升效能和严肃起诉 PPP 及医疗补助（Medicaid）欺诈是重建公众信任的关键。 - [13:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=785s) 坚决反对针对未实现账面资产征收“财富税”，主张通过营造友好税收环境保护初创企业度过“死亡之谷”，而非通过激进征税扼杀资本与创新。 - [16:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=978s) 设立宾州首个“工薪宾州人税收抵免”，为全州约 94 万名一线打拼的普通劳动者每人提供 800 多美元直接返现，切实抗击生活成本上升。 - [18:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=1113s) 痛批特朗普预算案为富人减税导致宾州 50 万人失去医保、26 家农村医院濒临倒闭，最终医疗系统亏损被全额转嫁给购买商业保险的中产阶级。 - [20:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=1217s) 坦承曾当面直谏拜登寻求连任不符合国家利益；驳斥 2024 年大选因犹太信仰被哈里斯放弃的谣言，澄清系自己主动退出副总统搭档遴选。 - [24:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=1497s) 强调民主党重振旗鼓不能跳过中期选举空谈 2028，必须通过扩充警力抓治安、投资教育等“沉着胜任的治理”（calm, competent governance）对比华盛顿的混乱。 - [27:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=1675s) 关税和对伊冲突直接推高宾州民生物价和汽油成本，民主党必须打破严苛的“纯洁性测试”，构建包容性更广的“大帐篷”联盟夺回“自由”定义权。 - [33:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=2001s) 大力破除“文凭主义”与精英偏见，上任首日即废除绝大多数州政府公职大学学历门槛，新聘员工中 60% 无本科学位，并将高中职业技术教育预算翻倍。 - [38:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=2292s) 斥责国会领导层彻底沦为总统越权的“橡皮图章”，批评将关税权与宣战权拱手让给行政分支的行为瓦解了建国先贤设计的宪政制衡机制。 - [41:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=2514s) 严厉批评特赦权沦为私人俱乐部政治筹码与权钱交易工具，主张司法系统调查政客亲属应依证据与法律行事，杜绝将法治武器化。 - [47:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=2838s) 对反犹主义在左翼和右翼的蔓延坚持零容忍立场，谴责“选择性问责”的党派双标风气，并坚决将反仇恨议题与中东外交政策辩论剥离。 - [50:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=3000s) 长期公开批评内塔尼亚胡在执政和安全防范上的重大失职及其对美国两党共识的破坏，重申实现中东持久和平唯有依靠“两国方案”。 - [53:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=3226s) 抨击特朗普对伊朗发动的是缺乏清晰目标、撤军策略与公众沟通的“选择性战争”，背叛了其不卷入中东战事的竞选承诺并导致美军官兵不必要牺牲。 - [57:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=3471s) 高度警惕将以色列政府行为与普通犹太人画等号的“双重忠诚”历史偏见，坚定捍卫美国对外政策的独立性，绝不容许被任何外国盟友捆绑裹挟。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=0s) 介绍宾州州长 Josh Shapiro：篮球录像与费城尼克斯之争 访谈开场，主持人 Jason Calacanis 热烈介绍了本期重磅嘉宾——宾夕法尼亚州州长 Josh Shapiro。Jason 列出了一连串亮眼的数据与政治标签：Shapiro 在宾夕法尼亚州拥有破纪录的超高人气，支持率至少达到 60%；政治光谱上属于温和派，行事风格高度务实，秉持坚定的“把事办成”（Get Shit Done, GSD）理念；在治安执法层面作风强硬，在起诉打击联邦医疗补助（Medicaid）欺诈方面更是高居全美第一；在产业上支持数据中心建设，在中东以色列问题上拥有细致审慎的见解。现场还播放了一段 Shapiro 年轻时打篮球的珍贵 VHS 录像，画面中他身穿复古短裤运球突破并利落跳投。Shapiro 笑着证实那是大约 1990 年他打控球后卫时的场景，并感叹“那还是大家投中投的年代，现在大家都不投中投了，全都去投三分，其实应该多投中投”。 两人随即就篮球展开了一阵轻松幽默的互呛。Jason 作为纽约尼克斯队的铁杆球迷，提到 Shapiro 是费城 76 人队的忠实支持者，两队即将狭路相逢。Shapiro 毫不客气地打趣回应：“恕我直言，尽管我希望我们今天的对话愉快，但我可一点都不想在球场看到你；如果你全副武装穿着尼克斯那套破玩意儿出现在费城，我可绝对不会高兴。”Jason 提到两人的共同好友、76人队联合老板 Dave 在场边与他们合影，正是 Dave 的全力撺掇促成了 Shapiro 此次做客《All-In Podcast》。Shapiro 也表示，正是朋友推荐这档节目有深度思考，才促成了这场令人期待的对话。 --- ### [01:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=100s) 宾州的经济增长奇迹与“把事办成”的务实路线 Jason 将话题切入核心，将 Shapiro 在宾夕法尼亚州的治理成绩与加州州长 Gavin Newsom 复杂的执政表现进行了鲜明对比。Jason 坦言自己之所以离开加州搬到得州，就是因为加州在商业与治理上堪称一场灾难；与此同时，纽约、新泽西、波士顿等传统深蓝重镇也正在大量流失商业领袖与企业。然而，Shapiro 领导下的宾夕法尼亚州却逆势突围，频频斩获大单。Jason 询问 Shapiro 究竟施展了什么策略，打破了“民主党人不擅长搞经济与做商业”的普遍刻板印象。 Shapiro 明确表示，自己无意去评判加州或其他民主党同僚，只想用宾州的硬核事实说话。他指出，宾州目前是一个坚定“亲增长”（pro-growth）的州，全力欢迎商业机构入驻并扩张。在其任内，宾州创造的新增就业岗位除了两个州之外超过了全美所有其他州；为了增强竞争力，州政府先后进行了 7 次减税，涵盖小企业、抚养子女的家庭托儿税收抵免、老年人以及广大工薪群体。目前，宾夕法尼亚州是美国整个东北部地区唯一一个经济仍在保持增长的州，且失业率已连续 32 个月稳定低于全美平均水平。与此同时，州政府大力投资于没有大学文凭的蓝领劳动群体的技能培训，将职业技术教育（Vo-Tech）和学徒工项目的财政预算翻了整整三倍。在 Shapiro 看来，确保每个孩子受良好教育、街道安全、社区有优质工作机会，就是每天“把事办成”（GSD）的根本所在。 - **减税举措**：累计推行 7 次针对性减税，精准覆盖小微企业、托儿育儿家庭、退休长者与工薪阶层。 - **就业表现**：失业率连续 32 个月优于全美大盘水平；除两个州外，新增就业规模领跑全美所有州。 - **教育与职业培训**：针对无本科学历人群，将职业技术教育（Vo-Tech）与学徒培训项目的拨款预算大幅提升至原先的 3 倍。 - **区域经济地位**：在美国东北部各州普遍面临企业外迁与增长乏力的背景下，宾夕法尼亚州成为该区域唯一的增长型经济体。 --- ### [04:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=273s) 审批革命与“办不成就退款”的行政问责 针对 Jason 提出的加州与纽约等地住房短缺、红绳官僚主义严重、邻避主义（NIMBY）导致审批旷日持久等弊端，Shapiro 详细阐述了宾州彻底逆转行政审批效率的实战策略。宾州的审批速度曾排在全美倒数前五，如今已跃升为全美前五的标杆。Shapiro 强调，改革的核心在于理念转变——认识到行政审批（许可）关乎企业生死与就业大局。政府必须以商业的节奏（speed of business）运转，为 CEO 和投资者提供确定性，把过去长达 3 年的审批流程压缩到 6 个月内。 为了杜绝推诿扯皮，Shapiro 设立了“不满意退款保证”（Money-Back Guarantee）：如果州政府未能在承诺的法定截止期内完成审批，就全额退还申请者的全部审批规费。这一倒逼机制彻底激活了官僚体系。在他任内发放的高达 4000 万张各类许可与执照中，最终仅仅触发了 5 次超时退款。更为难能可贵的是，Shapiro 面对的是极度分裂的州议会——州参议院由共和党以 2 席微弱优势把持，州众议院由民主党仅以 1 席占优；他凭借穿透党派分歧的务实能力，通过行政令与跨党派立法的双轨并行，成功推动了这一全面审批改革。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 宾夕法尼亚州审批体制改革机制 accDescr: 展示宾州从理念转变到退款倒逼机制与跨党派协作的行政审批改革闭环 subgraph Mindset["理念重塑"] A["审批关乎经济命脉"] --> B["确立 '设法说行' (Get to Yes)"] B --> C["以商业速度推进 (Speed of Business)"] end subgraph Execution["机制与政治推动"] D["跨党派立法与行政令"] --> E["极度微弱分立议会协作"] E --> F["设立 '办不成就退款' 机制"] end subgraph Outcome["落地成效"] F --> G["累计发放 4000 万张许可/执照"] G --> H["仅 5 起逾期退款"] H --> I["审批效率从全美倒数前五跃升至前五"] end Mindset --> Execution Execution --> Outcome ``` Shapiro 还举了一个看似微小却影响深远的民生细节：在宾州成为一名理发师需要官方职业执照。在他就职州长第一天，申请理发师执照需要整整等待 20 天；而经过重构后，现在申请人当天就能拿证。Shapiro 算了一笔非常朴素的经济账：“我给我的理发师打电话，问他一天剪几个头？他说大概 10 个。按每次 20 美元算，一天就是 200 美元，20 天就是整整 4000 美元。”通过将办证周期缩减到当天，政府直接为基层手艺人省下了数千美元的生活来源。Shapiro 强调，无论项目是耗资数亿、容纳上千工人的大厦，还是街角服务邻里的小理发店，政府的角色绝不是制造阻碍，而是要在保障安全与环保的同时全力以赴“设法说行”（get to yes），真正成为改善民众生活的正向力量。 - **审批退款机制**：在累计处理的约 4000 万份审批和执照中，因行政延误而触发退费的案件仅有 5 起。 - **政治格局**：Shapiro 在参议院（共和党多 2 席）和众议院（民主党多 1 席）的极度分立格局下，成功凝聚两党共识完成立法。 - **理发师执照改革**：发证时间从上任时的 20 天大幅提速为“当天立等可取”，直接避免基层从业者因等待行政流程而损失上千美元的停工收入。 ### [09:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=552s) 政府效率、消除冷漠与打击欺诈 当普通人申请营业许可屡屡受阻、想开一家小店却处处碰壁时，随之而来的不仅是沮丧，更是愤怒。乔什·夏皮罗（Josh Shapiro）指出，这种愤怒最初针对的是具体的行政机构或州长，但随后会演变成一种对整个体制的犬儒主义（cynicism）与深深的不信任。这种对政府运作的失望，恰恰给极左和极右的“黑暗极端声音”创造了趁虚而入、利用公众情绪的机会。夏皮罗坚信，解决这一困境的解药就是提高行政效能：办事要高效、迅速帮民众把事情办成（“get people to yes”），社会上的冷漠与极端情绪自然会随之减少。 主持人杰森·卡拉卡尼斯（Jason Calacanis）顺着谈到了极端的“马蹄铁理论”（horseshoe theory），指出绝大多数美国人并不想要极端意识形态，大家只想要一个运转良好、高效的社会。卡拉卡尼斯随即提到浪费、欺诈与滥用（waste, fraud, and abuse）问题，并提及好友埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）所主导的“政府效率部”（DOGE）举措。他指出，纳税人缴纳的每一块钱里可能有 20% 到 30% 都被浪费了，共和党往往以此作为攻击民主党各州（如加利福尼亚州、密歇根州）的利器，而夏皮罗在宾州打击欺诈方面似乎早有布局。 夏皮罗明确表示，无论大家在具体政策上对“这一美元该不该花”存在多大分歧（这种分歧本是健康的民主讨论），在“绝不能容忍有人偷走纳税人的钱”这一底线上必须高度一致。他在担任宾州总检察长期间，就在疫情期间重拳出击，起诉了大量骗取 PPP（薪资保障计划，Paycheck Protection Program）贷款的违法分子。升任州长后，他通过州监察长办公室（Office of Inspector General）继续保持高压态势。 - **先干事后报销机制**：在向社会提供公共服务（如人类福利服务）时，宾州不再提前预付款项，服务机构必须提交报销申请并严格证明确实完成了工作。 - **严厉打击医疗补助欺诈**：宾夕法尼亚州的医疗补助欺诈（Medicaid fraud）起诉案件数量位居全美各州前列，对骗取税款的行为实行行政处罚与刑事诉讼双管齐下、“零容忍”政策。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 治理效能与打击欺诈流程 accDescr: 展示行政审批效率低下带来的后果，以及宾州通过快速审批和严格打击欺诈重建公众信任的机制。 subgraph Problem["行政效率低下与腐败"] A["审批拖延 / 小企业难开办"] --> B["民众极度沮丧与愤怒"] B --> C["对体制产生犬儒与不信任"] C --> D["极端政治声音趁虚而入"] end subgraph Solution["夏皮罗的治理对策"] E["提高行政效率 / 快速通关"] --> F["减少社会愤懑与冷漠"] G["PPP 贷款欺诈严厉起诉"] --> H["建立纳税人信任"] I["先核验后报销与反医疗欺诈"] --> H end ``` --- ### [13:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=785s) 财富税争议与加州的资本外流 卡拉卡尼斯梳理了夏皮罗的执政风格：亲商、少监管、减税并杜绝欺诈。但他随后把矛头对准了民主党内部分派系热衷的“财富税”（wealth tax）。在硅谷、风投以及创业圈中，创始人和天使投资人已经缴纳了巨额税款，然而加州近期推出的激进税收提案——企图对纳税人尚未变现的账面资产（paper wealth）强行征收 5% 的资产税——让创业者群体感到极度反感。包括参议员伊丽莎白·沃伦（Elizabeth Warren）和伯尼·桑德斯（Bernie Sanders）也在联邦层面呼吁没收未实现收益。其后果就是企业创始人和资本的大溃逃，包括谢尔盖·布林（Sergey Brin）和优步（Uber）前 CEO 特拉维斯·卡兰尼克（Travis Kalanick）在内的大量富豪都在过去 12 个月内逃离加州，搬往得克萨斯州奥斯汀等地。卡拉卡尼斯直接发问：夏皮罗是否赞同这种针对未实现收益的财富税？ 夏皮罗对此给出了非常明确的拒绝。他先是幽默地打趣卡拉卡尼斯：“来宾州多交点税吧，兄弟，别在别处交了！”随后他认真指出，这种惩罚未变现资产的财富税“根本不在我的政策议程之内”。他在宾州已经连续 7 次削减税收，宾州拥有全美最低的个人所得税率之一。夏皮罗阐述了他的经济哲学：一方面，必须确保最底层的劳动者减轻负担，顶层富裕阶层承担合理的“公平份额”（fair share）；但另一方面，绝不能通过破坏性的税收扼杀创业梦想。 - **生命科学产业的避风港**：夏皮罗以生命科学（Life Sciences）行业为例，许多创业者带着看似不可思议的想法起步，正是得益于宾州亲商的环境和友好的税制，才能够安然度过创业初期的死亡之谷（Valley of Death）。 - **共同繁荣的契约**：政府在早期支持企业、给予机会，而在企业成功壮大之后，企业再向宾夕法尼亚联邦回馈其应缴的税额，这种平衡在宾州运作良好，经济增长数据便是明证。 --- ### [16:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=978s) 贫富差距与“工薪宾州人税收抵免” 针对财富税的替代方案，卡拉卡尼斯进一步追问：当前美国家庭贫富分化严重，股票等权益类资产的膨胀速度远超普通工资，而全美只有 40% 到 50% 的人口深度参与了股市，另外半数国民完全享受不到资产增值红利。对于动辄拥有千亿、万亿账面财富却数十年不抛售股票的超级富豪，如果不搞财富税，究竟该如何解决日益加剧的贫富鸿沟？ 夏皮罗从宏观与地方两个层面列出了他的应对思路。首先，他强调一个国家如果经济只为那“1% 的顶层人士”运转，这个经济体就绝对无法长久维系。赚 100 万美元的人自然能买得起年薪 5 万美元者买不起的商品，但政府的职责不是去没收资产，而是“必须创造机会并建立公平的竞争环境”（level playing field），维持一套合理公平的税收机制。 其次，夏皮罗分享了宾州在解决经济不平等上的切实举措：州政府通过并设立了有史以来第一个“工薪宾州人税收抵免”（Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit），相当于州层面的所得税抵免（Earned Income Tax Credit）。该政策精准针对那些每天辛苦打拼的普通劳动者，直接向他们的口袋里返还真金白银。 - **近百万人直接受惠**：全州将有约 94 万名（近 100 万）符合条件的工薪族获得这一抵免资格。 - **每人返还超过 800 美元**：每个合格家庭或个人将直接拿回 800 多美元的现金返还，以切实对冲通货膨胀及高昂的生活成本，让劳动者拥有自由支配收入的权利。 ### [18:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=1113s) 抨击特朗普税收与医保政策：将负担转嫁给中产 乔什·夏皮罗（Josh Shapiro）直言不讳地指出，如果换作是他执政，他绝对不会效仿特朗普（Donald Trump）在联邦层面推行的做法。夏皮罗严厉批评特朗普在国会中一群“马屁精”的逢迎协助下，通过了所谓的“美丽预算案”（beautiful budget bill）。他直言，法案的实质就是为那些根本不需要减税的富人减税——“在真理与正义的殿堂里，你私下跟那些人聊聊，他们心里很清楚自己根本不需要这份减税”。 这种政策的恶果直接转嫁到了基层民众身上。在宾夕法尼亚州，已有 12 万人失去了医疗保险，明年预计还有约 32 万人失去联邦医疗补助（Medicaid），累计将有 50 万宾州人失去医保。此外，全州有 26 家原本就处于运营赤字的农村医院，因极度依赖被联邦大幅削减的 Medicaid 而濒临倒闭。夏皮罗痛批，特朗普自以为给富人减税是明智的经济举措，实际上却拉大了贫富差距，未参保人群的医疗成本最终会转嫁到购买商业保险的中产阶层头上，这纯粹是“愚蠢的经济政策”，严重阻碍了整体经济的发展。 - **宾州医保受损人数**：已有 12 万人失去医保，预计再有约 32 万人失去 Medicaid，总计影响达 50 万人。 - **农村医疗危机**：26 家依赖 Medicaid 补贴的农村医院面临关闭风险。 - **成本转嫁机制**：未参保人群带来的医疗系统亏损，最终由缴纳私人商业医疗保险的中产阶级埋单。 --- ### [20:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=1217s) 2024 年大选反思：为何没有快速初选与党内辩论的价值 主持人杰森·卡拉卡尼斯（Jason Calacanis）将话题引向民主党在全国层面的政治困境。作为一个在布鲁克林成长的爱尔兰天主教徒兼独立选民，杰森表示自己通常在温和派中投票，但民主党在 2024 年大选中的惨败令人震惊。他质疑当时乔·拜登（Joe Biden）显然已不在最佳状态、早该退选，但党内为何没有在 7、8 月间搞一场“快速初选”（speed run primary），让夏皮罗、普里茨克（JB Pritzker）或皮特·布蒂吉格（Pete Buttigieg）等人公开竞争总统提名。 夏皮罗表示自己在刚出版的新书中详细记录了这段经历。他曾极其坦率地当面向拜登提出：寻求连任既不符合党派利益，也不符合国家利益。然而，在距离大选仅剩 100 多天的情况下拜登退选，客观上已经没有空间去组织杰森所设想的那种初选流程。面对主持人“大败”的定性，夏皮罗提醒道，虽然 2024 年受挫，但到了 2025 年政治钟摆已经开始回摆——民主党在新泽西州、弗吉尼亚州大胜，宾州也赢下了 3 个州最高法院席位。他坚信党内当前围绕“我们支持什么、愿意为什么而战”所展开的激烈争论是健康的。即便媒体和播客喜欢挑动民主党内部派系对立，但充分的政策辩论才能让民主党在未来重新执政时变得更有治理能力，而非仅仅为了赢下选举。 --- ### [23:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=1401s) 辟谣副总统遴选内幕：主动退出而非因犹太信仰被拒 杰森再次追溯 2024 年副总统遴选的争议，直言拜登当年挑选卡玛拉·哈里斯（Kamala Harris）时明确设定了“有色人种女性”的硬性标准；而在哈里斯挑选竞选搭档时，外界普遍呼吁选择夏皮罗，最终哈里斯没选他，坊间广泛传言是因为她担心搭档犹太裔副总统会输掉大选。杰森当面质问这是否属实。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 副总统遴选决策流程澄清 accDescr: 展示外界传言与夏皮罗本人陈述的哈里斯副总统搭档遴选实际经过对比 subgraph Rumor["外界传闻"] R1["媒体推测: 犹太裔身份阻碍胜选"] --> R2["哈里斯决定放弃夏皮罗"] end subgraph Fact["夏皮罗澄清的真实经过"] F1["哈里斯与夏皮罗进行深入坦诚面谈"] --> F2["周日晚间夏皮罗致电哈里斯"] F2 --> F3["夏皮罗宣布主动退出遴选"] F3 --> F4["约48小时后哈里斯宣布搭档蒂姆·沃尔兹"] end ``` 夏皮罗对此说法给予了极其坚决的驳斥。他坦言自己非常感谢哈里斯的考虑与坦诚交流，但他向对方挑明退出的时间是在哈里斯宣布蒂姆·沃尔兹（Tim Walz）的大约 48 小时前。在周日晚间与哈里斯面对面深谈后，夏皮罗主动致电表示不希望再被列入考虑名单。他热爱在宾夕法尼亚州担任州长的职务，深信留在宾州更能切实为选民服务。他明确澄清：“这根本不是她因为我的宗教信仰而不选我，而是我最终对那份工作不感兴趣。” --- ### [24:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=1497s) 展望 2028：用沉稳胜任的治理击破华盛顿的混乱 杰森接着探讨民主党走向 2028 年大选的格局。他指出加州州长加文·纽森（Gavin Newsom）早已高调卡位，而共和党内部在特朗普对伊朗发动战争后，传统的 MAGA 与“美国优先/仅限美国”（America First）孤立主义派系发生决裂；与此同时，民主党内部的“社会主义翼”（如 Mondami 等激进派）让温和派感到困惑疏离，正是这些温和派中间选民在此前倒向了特朗普。杰森询问夏皮罗，民主党如何才能在 2028 年重振旗鼓。 夏皮罗强调，眼下绝不应跨过即将到来的中期选举去空谈 2028。他认为中期选举应当成为一场全美全民公决，直指华盛顿特区弥漫的“混乱与腐败”。面对特朗普在每个触及的领域制造混乱，民主党领导人必须向选民展示“沉着、胜任的治理”（calm, competent governance）能够为普通人切实带来什么。夏皮罗以宾州的实绩作为替代方案的明证：在经济增长的同时全力抓治安与教育，用实打实的执政成果赢回民心。 - **扩充警力与治安改善**：宾州增聘了 2,000 名警员，大力投入社区暴力预防；全州暴力犯罪下降 12%，致死性枪支暴力骤降 42%。 - **公共教育跃升**：在增加教育投资后，学生成绩上升、旷课率下降；根据《消费者事务》（Consumer Affairs）的评估，宾州公立教育质量已跃升至全美第 10 位左右。 ### [27:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=1675s) 对比特朗普的混乱：通胀、关税与两党“大帐篷”的较量 Josh Shapiro 强调，民主党必须向公众证明，除了唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）带来的“混乱、残酷与腐败”之外，还有另一条可行的道路，而宾夕法尼亚州正在向外界展示这种替代方案。主持人提出，2026 年的中期选举无疑是对特朗普执政前两年的公投；尽管最初几个月民意支持度尚可，但随后的关税政策、移民及海关执法局（ICE）的动荡局势，以及如今已进入第六周的对伊朗战争，让局势陷入极度混乱。主持人质疑，民主党是否只需坐享其成，指着飙升的油价和通胀指责对手？Shapiro 回应称，光靠抨击是不够的，必须拿出建设性方案。特朗普主动按下了关税按钮，直接引发了宾州物价暴涨：咖啡涨价 30%，牛肉上涨 19%，橙汁上涨 9%，当地农民依赖的化肥更是暴涨 36%。战争使油价飙升至每加仑 4.15 至 4.16 美元左右，即便战争立刻停火，物价与油价也需数年才能回落。 主持人进一步追问，如果由 Shapiro 来重塑民主党，排名前三的核心议题应是什么？主持人批评民主党过去存在严重的“纯洁性测试”（purity tests）：比如将仅仅在 COVID-19 观点上有分歧的终身民主党人 Joe Rogan 排斥在外，或者在埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）创建了电动汽车品类后，白宫召开 EV 峰会时却将其拒之门外。主持人坦言自己虽拒绝了特朗普运动的拉拢，但不得不承认共和党极力打造“大帐篷”，哪怕你只认同他们 14% 的政策，他们也热情欢迎。 - **关税带来的物价涨幅（宾夕法尼亚州数据）**：咖啡上涨 30%，牛肉上涨 19%，橙汁上涨 9%，化肥上涨 36%。 - **能源压力**：对伊冲突导致全美及宾州汽油价格冲上约 4.15~4.16 美元/加仑。 - **民主党内部问题争议**：主持人批评民主党对不同意见者（如 Joe Rogan、Elon Musk）推行极端的政治审查与孤立策略。 --- ### [31:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=1880s) 宾夕法尼亚治理纲领：教育、安全、经济与夺回“自由”的定义 面对主持人的质疑，Shapiro 明确划清界限，指出主持人列举的那些孤立言行并非出于自己之口，呼吁将讨论聚焦在他本人的施政方针上。他指出，即便主持人当初接受了共和党的拉拢，在承受了特朗普一年半的政策冲击后，生活也未必更好。作为全美最关键、竞争最激烈，且面对分裂议会（divided legislature）极难治理的摇摆州州长，Shapiro 亮出了自己的四大施政支柱：第一是投资公共教育，给每个孩子公平竞争的起点；第二是建设安全社区、坚决打击犯罪；第三是推行支持经济增长的政策（pro-growth economy），发展能源产业、创造就业，尤其向长期被遗忘的农村与萧条社区倾斜。 第四项支柱则是“自由”。Shapiro 发起猛烈反击，痛斥共和党背弃了曾经自诩的“自由之党”招牌。现在的特朗普与共和党试图管控孩子在学校能读什么书、干涉女性自主决定身体与医疗药品的权利、插手家长的育儿方式，甚至试图操纵和改变投票规则。Shapiro 主张，民主党应当果断夺回话语权，成为真正代表教育、公共安全、经济机遇与自由的政党。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Shapiro's Core Governance Pillars accDescr: Four main policy pillars outlined by Josh Shapiro for Pennsylvania. subgraph Pillars ["Shapiro 的四大执政支柱"] direction TB P1["公共教育<br>Invest in Education"] P2["社区安全<br>Safe Communities"] P3["促增长经济<br>Pro-Growth Economy"] P4["真正自由<br>True Freedom"] end P1 --> Goal["重塑民主党政治主张，赢回工薪阶层与摇摆州"] P2 --> Goal P3 --> Goal P4 --> Goal ``` --- ### [33:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=1981s) 住房危机与去精英化：取消公职大学学历门槛与万亿美元基金 话题转向年轻人最感绝望的现实负担——难以承受的高房价与贬值的大学文凭。主持人直言两代年轻人都觉得自己被欺骗了：“婴儿潮一代霸占着房子不卖，大学学费高得离谱却换不来高薪。”Shapiro 解释道，他所说的经济机遇本身就涵盖了居住和医疗的可负担性。针对住房难题，他向州议会申请设立一项 10 亿美元的专项基金，用于新建和修缮住房。宾州 50% 的房屋建于 1950 年之前，往往只需花费几千美元更换锅炉、屋顶或门窗，就能保住一套宜居住宅，无需完全从零新建；同时，他推行了激进的审批监管改革，坚决砍掉官僚繁文缛节，以加速住宅开发。 对于高等教育贬值与技能断层，Shapiro 重点分享了他在上任第一天签署的第一项行政命令：彻底废除绝大多数州政府公职必须持有大学本科学历的门槛。在宾夕法尼亚州多达 8 万名州政府雇员的体系中，除了医生、律师等少数必须具备专业高级学位的岗位，普通职位全部解除文凭限制。该政策推行后，州政府新入职员工中高达 60% 没有本科学历。宾州同时将高中的职业技术教育（CTE）资金翻了三倍，并大幅加码学徒工项目投资。 - **宾州老旧住房现状**：全州 50% 的住房建于 1950 年前，更新基础设施（锅炉、屋顶等）比新建房屋成本效益更高。 - **住房政策方案**：申请设立 10 亿美元基金支持新建与修缮，推行法规改革加速审批。 - **废除大学文凭壁垒**：Shapiro 就任州长首日签署行政令，目前宾州政府 60% 的新聘雇员无需大学文凭。 - **蓝领与职业教育支持**：全州 62% 的成年人口无大学文凭，州府对职业技术教育（CTE）与学徒制的投入增加两倍；在南费城造船厂从事焊接工或在生命科学建筑中做暖通空调（HVAC）维护，年薪均可轻松突破六位数（10 万美元以上）。 --- ### [35:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=2151s) 终结文凭主义与应对民主党内激进派 针对技工群体重新受到追捧的现象，Shapiro 明确澄清自己并不反对上大学，他本人和主持人都接受过大学教育；但他严厉批评两党政客长期以来采取的一种“精英主义态度”（elitist approach）——将成功与拥有大学学位划等号，并以此设立人为的准入壁垒。军旅生涯磨练出的坚韧意志、职业学校锤炼的实战技能、私营部门摸爬滚打的实践经验，这些都应当被认可与重视。政府的职责是打破壁垒，让选择上大学的人能深造，让不上大学的人也能凭本事过上有尊严、有保障的中产阶层生活。 最后，当主持人将话题引向民主党内部的极左翼与民主社会主义运动，询问其是否对 Zohran Mamdani 等激进派感到担忧时，Shapiro 迅速拉回此前主持人谈到的两党策略，重申自己对政治建设的根本理解：必须坚持“大帐篷”（big tent）理念，容纳多元观点，而不是搞自我边缘化的纯洁性排查。 - **打破精英偏见**：认可退役军人经验、技工培训和私企从业经历，打破把大学学历作为唯一晋升标准的垄断机制。 - **党内路线态度**：主张民主党应保持包容性，建立能够争取更多选民的“大帐篷”联盟，避免陷入意识形态内耗。 ### [37:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=2236s) 寻求共识的施政哲学：聚焦共同利益而非分歧 宾夕法尼亚州州长乔希·夏皮罗（Josh Shapiro）以自己每天办公的州长书桌为例，阐述了他的务实施政理念。在这张桌子前，他经常与不同党派的立法者就法案、财政预算等议题展开拉锯式谈判。夏皮罗直言：“如果我把每一个无法与我达成百分之百共识的人都赶出办公室，我们将一事无成。”每当他与共和党议员面对面坐下时，双方都会各自列出最想达成的十项施政目标。虽然双方绝不可能在全部十项上完全吻合，但只要有三到四项契合，他就坚持将精力放在能够达成共识的这三四件事情上，而不是死咬着分歧严重的五六七项争执不休。 夏皮罗强调，推进国家或州事务的核心在于构建多数联盟——无论是在州议会中凝聚多数票将法案送上办公桌，还是在选举中赢得多数选民支持。政治的本质应当是求同存异、聚拢人心，而不是将全部注意力集中于党派隔阂与对立情绪之上。 ### [38:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=2292s) 国会的软弱与制衡机制的崩塌 主持人杰森·卡拉卡尼斯（Jason Calacanis）对此深表共鸣，并借此向国会现状发难。卡拉卡尼斯指出，包括他在内的一代人曾见证两党议员虽然在白天下死力辩论，但私下仍能共进午餐并妥协协商；然而如今从加征关税到对外宣战，总统动辄以行政命令越权，两党合作精神荡然无存，政坛陷入极度毒化的互相封杀与人格暗杀中。夏皮罗对此毫不留情地将当前的国会领导层斥为“可悲且软弱的人（sad, pathetic people）”。他特别点名众议院议长迈克·约翰逊（Mike Johnson），指责其彻底沦为唐纳德·特朗普的“橡皮图章”，完全放弃了宪法赋予立法机关的监督与制衡职责。 夏皮罗表示，建国先贤在宾夕法尼亚构想美利坚宪政体系时留下了两大基本预设：一是主政者应当具备正直操守（honorable people），二是不同权力部门之间应行使职权互相制衡，甚至在必要时放缓节奏以阻止恶法与恶行。然而，如今国会议员为了权力摸爬滚打，爬上领导层后却心甘情愿将宣战权和关税权拱手让给总统，将对特朗普的效忠置于对宪法的就职誓词之上。这种自我矮化不仅让三权分立体系在时代检验中摇摇欲坠，更使整个国家承受深重代价。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 三权分立设计与当前国会制衡失效对比 accDescr: 对比了建国先贤设想的宪法制衡与当前国会沦为橡皮图章的现状 subgraph Design["建国先贤的宪政设想"] A["具备道德操守的官员"] --> C["行使制衡职能 (Checks & Balances)"] B["独立且有担当的国会"] --> C C --> D["防止专权并阻挡恶政出台"] end subgraph Reality["当前的政治现实"] E["国会领导层放弃职责"] --> G["全面授权总统 (关税 / 宣战权)"] F["缺乏操守与底线的政治运作"] --> G G --> H["宪政制衡失效与权力滥用"] end ``` ### [41:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=2514s) 权钱交易与总统特赦权的制度性滥用 当被问及特朗普政府具体的腐败行为时，夏皮罗列举了一系列自肥与利益冲突的现象：总统核心圈子和家族成员借机牟利，甚至有中东国家赠送价值数十亿美元的私人飞机；在海湖庄园等私人泳池俱乐部里，只要能接近总统并捐款游说，就能轻易换取一份特赦名单。卡拉卡尼斯对此表示赞同，指出从比尔·克林顿到乔·拜登特赦其子亨特·拜登，再到特朗普上任第一年就随意特赦包括加密货币高管 CZ（赵长鹏）在内、甚至连本人是谁都叫不上名字的人物，原本依托政治惯例与道德自律的特赦权正被彻底玩坏，沦为特权阶层的“免死金牌”。 夏皮罗指出，自己当初曾公开批评拜登特赦儿子的行径，但特朗普对特赦权的滥用完全是“断层式的升级（next level）”。夏皮罗以自己审批宾州特赦与减刑的亲身经历说明： - 审查特赦案是极其严肃、沉重且充满内心煎熬的司法权责，必须依靠祈祷与良知谨慎定夺。 - 给予或驳回特赦必须保持高度透明，明确当事人是否真正具备悔过与争取宽恕的资格。 - 宪法赋予行政长官这项权力，是建立在行政长官具备道德底线与良知的前提之上；若只要在私人俱乐部攀谈、政治捐款便能批发特赦，这是对宪政基石的公然践踏。 ### [45:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=2702s) 政客亲属自肥的边界与法治常态的回归 针对政客子女与家庭成员借势敛财的顽疾，卡拉卡尼斯提出了现实困惑：司法调查至今并未定罪特朗普的子女，而亨特·拜登此前出任毫无经验的乌克兰公司董事并拿走数百万美元薪酬，显然也属于权钱寻租。面对道德自律与惯例失效的现实，法律是否应当一刀切地禁止政客子女参与自由市场商业竞争？ 夏皮罗以资深检察官的专业视角回应道，解决此类问题绝不能靠一刀切的极端政策，而是必须坚持严肃客观的司法程序。如同司法部对亨特·拜登发起全面调查一样，任何涉嫌自肥或违法的行为都必须由执法机关“顺着证据走、依照法律办”：有罪则依法起诉，证据不足则绝不起诉，严禁将法治武器化作为清算政敌的工具。夏皮罗坚决不接受“道德惯例已彻底终结”的悲观论调，他认为这种崩坏可能只是特朗普时期的暂时失常。要让政治回归正轨，需要共和党、民主党以及无党派选民在投票箱前共同发力，用选票倒逼并推选出真正具备诚实、操守与履职尊严的公职人员。 ### [47:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=2838s) 反犹主义与政治站位：超越党派偏见的零容忍态度 主持人谈及乔什·夏皮罗（Josh Shapiro）的住所曾在一年前遭到一名反犹狂热分子的纵火袭击，并指出公众似乎对夏皮罗的犹太信仰格外关注，而支持以色列的议题也正在使民主党内部产生严重分歧。主持人回顾了哥伦比亚大学等高校校园内犹太学生被同学围堵追逐的混乱与心碎场面，询问夏皮罗作为当事人与犹太人，在个人层面上如何面对这种愈演愈烈的反犹主义。 夏皮罗明确表示，必须把“反犹主义”与“以色列及中东外交政策”明确拆分为两个完全不同的议题来讨论。在反犹主义问题上，绝不存在任何模糊地带（"no nuance"）：无论是极左翼还是极右翼散布的反犹言论，他都毫无保留地予以谴责。夏皮罗直言，当前政坛的一大病态是许多人只愿意在政治对手犯错时跳出来指责，而对自己阵营内部的恶行视而不见。他特别称赞了共和党参议员特德·克鲁兹（Ted Cruz）敢于批评党内反犹言论的勇气，并强调自己在民主党内部出现极端苗头时也同样毫不留情地予以回击。夏皮罗指出，无论仇恨针对的是犹太人、穆斯林还是基督徒，这种偏狭都会让整个社会的每一个人变得更加不安全，社会各界必须在日常生活中随时随地同仇敌忾地谴责仇恨。 - 明确区隔反犹仇恨与中东外交政策，强调对任何形式的偏执与仇恨均持零容忍态度。 - 批评政坛“选择性谴责”的党派双标风气，倡导无论左右两翼都应对己方阵营的极端言行展开问责。 ### [50:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=3000s) 内塔尼亚胡的失败与中东和平：从美国利益审视以巴局势 讨论随即切入以色列与加沙冲突的核心。主持人提到，很多美国犹太裔民众一方面认可以色列在遭遇“10月7日袭击”后解救人质与自卫的正当性（类似于美国在“9·11事件”后打击阿富汗的反应），但另一方面，几乎绝大多数人都对本雅明·内塔尼亚胡（Benjamin Netanyahu）在加沙地带的军事行动深感不满，并且忧虑美国正在被以色列拖入一场与伊朗的非必要战争。 夏皮罗澄清，自己并不是以“美籍犹太人”的狭隘身份来看待这个问题，而是完全立足于“美国人”的立场，最核心的考量是何种政策最符合美国的国家利益，即实现中东地区的和平与长期稳定。他回顾道，早在10月7日袭击发生之前，他就长期公开批评内塔尼亚胡。夏皮罗直指内塔尼亚胡将以色列带上了一条极其危险且孤立的道路，彻底撕裂了美国两党过去对以色列跨党派的一致支持，甚至在10月7日惨剧发生当天，内塔尼亚胡作为国家领导人“根本没有看好家门”（"wasn't minding the shop"）。夏皮罗重申，长远解决之道依然是推动“两国方案”，让以色列与一个非哈马斯领导的巴勒斯坦国和平比邻共存；然而当前特朗普政府发起的中东战事是一场彻头彻尾的“选择性战争”（war of choice），总统不仅从未向公众阐明战略目标，甚至连如何体面收场都一无所知。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 战略误区分析 accDescr: 展示夏皮罗眼中内塔尼亚胡与中东局势的因果恶性循环 subgraph SG1 ["领导层失误与孤立"] A["内塔尼亚胡执政失职<br/>（10月7日防范失败）"] --> B["激化地区矛盾<br/>破坏美国两党共识"] B --> C["以色列在国际社会日益孤立"] end subgraph SG2 ["美国陷入战略泥潭"] D["特朗普发动选择性战争"] --> E["目标模糊且缺乏退出机制"] E --> F["国家安全与经济利益双重受损"] end C -.-> D ``` ### [53:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=3226s) 特朗普的对伊战争：模糊的目标与破碎的承诺 主持人指出，过去美国一直对伊朗核设施采取“修剪草坪”式的遏制战略，成效原本十分明确；但特朗普上任刚13到14个月，就打破了自己绝不卷入海外干涉的承诺，仓促开启对伊战争并试图推进政权更迭。主持人追问，当梅根·凯利（Megyn Kelly）、塔克·卡尔森（Tucker Carlson）乃至亚历克斯·琼斯（Alex Jones）与大批“播客老铁”（podcast bros）等昔日拥趸纷纷跳船反对时，特朗普究竟为何在这个时间点动手？ 夏皮罗猛烈抨击这是特朗普对支持者的又一次重大背叛。他列举了特朗普违背承诺的斑斑劣迹：背叛了支持他的农民、削减了曾承诺保留的白卡医疗补助（Medicaid）、因滥加关税导致物价飞涨。在对伊动武的说辞上，白宫内部自相矛盾、破绽百出： 1. 马尔科·卢比奥（Marco Rubio）最初宣称动武是因为内塔尼亚胡即将单方面行动，美方被迫抢先出手，随后又收回这一说法； 2. 特朗普曾在七八个月前宣称已彻底摧毁伊朗核能力，如今却改口称必须出兵才能解除其核威胁； 3. 白宫宣称目标是政权更迭，结果却是推翻了一名80多岁的阿亚图拉，换来了一名年仅60多岁、立场更加激进强硬的强硬派领导人。 夏皮罗愤怒地强调，作为三军统帅，特朗普从未坐在椭圆形办公室里直视美国民众的眼睛说明动武的真实目的。因为没有清晰界定作战目标，军队就根本不可能制定撤军方案；最终导致13名美军阵亡将士永远无法回到家人身边，为一场目标模糊的政治冒险献出了宝贵生命。 - **多重违背的竞选承诺**：加征关税推高物价、大幅削减医疗补助、背弃不卷入中东战事的诺言。 - **自相矛盾的动武借口**：从“防范盟友单方面行动”、到“二次摧毁早已摧毁的核武设施”，再到推举出更强硬新政权的“失败政权更迭”。 - **不可挽回的生命代价**：谴责因统帅战略失职而在未定义任务中牺牲的13位美军官兵。 ### [57:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=3423s) 美国核心利益与对外战争的独立性 对于美国卷入中东冲突的行动，乔什·夏皮罗（Josh Shapiro）直言不讳地指出，这从一开始就是一场“失败且妥协的使命”（failed and compromised mission），其根本症结在于发起者从未向公众明确阐明进军的具体战略目标。主持人杰森·卡拉卡尼斯（Jason Calacanis）对此表示赞同，并提出人们在事发之初的第一反应往往最接近真实意图：现实情况似乎是以色列执意采取行动，而美国本无必要介入，却被动地捆绑了进来。 夏皮罗借此重申了他在阿富汗战争问题上的核心观点，强调美国绝不能被任何其他国家“牵着鼻子走”。美国的对外行动必须始终且唯一地服务于美国的国家利益、国家安全利益，以及为美国人民争取更多自由与机遇。他严肃指出，无论面对怎样的盟友或世界领导人，美国都绝不应该被霸凌或裹挟，而唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）在此事上显然没有守住这一底线。 - 夏皮罗强调美国国家利益至上，对盲目追随外国军事行动提出严厉批评。 - 无论面对何种外交联盟，美国政府都必须向民众讲清为何出兵，不能丧失外交与国防的主导权。 ### [57:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=3471s) 厘清反犹主义与中东政策：警惕“双重忠诚”的历史陈词 针对美国国内愈演愈烈的反犹主义风潮，杰森提出质疑：当普通民众看到内塔尼亚胡（Benjamin Netanyahu）在军事行动中越界、进而将美国拖入战争泥潭时，这种因支持以色列政府而引发的愤怒，是否正是催生国内反犹情绪的根源？他指出，在哥伦比亚大学或哈佛大学等顶尖高校爆发的亲巴勒斯坦抗议中，许多年轻抗议者根本无法清晰区分两者，直接将以色列国家政权的所作所为等同于犹太人群体，并拒绝投票支持任何支持内塔尼亚胡的政客。 夏皮罗对此给予了严肃的反驳与辨析。他告诫大家必须高度警惕这种论调，因为将普通犹太人与以色列国家政权画等号、默认犹太人全面代表并支持以色列的一切政策，恰恰是历史上最古老、最恶毒的反犹陈词滥调之一——即所谓的“双重忠诚”（dual loyalty）指控。夏皮罗主张： 1. **对反犹主义必须零容忍**：在这个原则问题上“没有任何模棱两可的灰色空间（no nuance）”，全社会应当在此凝聚共识、坚决反对歧视与仇恨。 2. **对中东政策必须保留辩论空间**：在涉及以色列、伊朗及中东地缘政治时，必须保护多元甚至尖锐观点的表达空间。 夏皮罗特别强调，保护和平抗议（peacefully protest）的权利是美国社会基石的重要组成部分，无论是支持政府还是反对政府政策的民众，都应当享有公开发声的自由。作为宾夕法尼亚州州长，他每天都在努力将“反犹憎恨”与“对以政策批评”这两场对话彻底剥离开来。他警告道，一旦两者的界限发生混淆与交织，社会氛围就会迅速滑向危险的深渊，越过文明底线。 ### [01:00:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=3626s) 个人立场与体育调侃结语 在进一步梳理个人立场与政治批评的关系时，杰森总结道，一个人完全可以在严厉批评以色列政府的同时，依然深爱身边的犹太邻居与朋友，这本是一个十分朴素且清晰的概念。夏皮罗对此深表认同，并敞开分享了自己的个人经历：他自身就对内塔尼亚胡领导的以色列政府持极为强烈的批评态度；但与此同时，他也是一个深爱以色列这片土地的人——他曾在此生活、写过相关的书籍，甚至当年就是在以色列向自己的妻子求婚。夏皮罗再次呼吁，公众必须时刻警惕将政权政策与族群身份混为一谈的危险倾向。 随着访谈接近尾声，气氛转为轻松的体育调侃。杰森向夏皮罗表达了感谢，预祝他在政治生涯中一切顺利，并顺势提到了NBA季后赛，谈及夏皮罗家乡的费城76人队（Philadelphia 76ers）。作为纽约尼克斯队（New York Knicks）忠实球迷的杰森打趣道：“看来我们第二轮要碰面了，尼克斯必胜！”夏皮罗则幽默回应，下次再上《All-In》节目时一定会套上一件76人队的连帽衫；面对杰森在球场场边席相见的邀请，夏皮罗借节目的名字打趣做结：“我将全力以赴（I'm going all in）。” ## Notable quotes > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=0s) 那还是大家投中投的年代，现在大家都不投中投了，全都去投三分，其实应该多投中投 — 乔什·夏皮罗 > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=0s) 恕我直言，尽管我希望我们今天的对话愉快，但我可一点都不想在球场看到你；如果你全副武装穿着尼克斯那套破玩意儿出现在费城，我可绝对不会高兴。 — 乔什·夏皮罗 > [04:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=273s) 我给我的理发师打电话，问他一天剪几个头？他说大概 10 个。按每次 20 美元算，一天就是 200 美元，20 天就是整整 4000 美元。 — 乔什·夏皮罗 > [13:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=785s) 来宾州多交点税吧，兄弟，别在别处交了！ — 乔什·夏皮罗 > [18:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=1113s) 在真理与正义的殿堂里，你私下跟那些人聊聊，他们心里很清楚自己根本不需要这份减税 — 乔什·夏皮罗 > [23:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=1401s) 这根本不是她因为我的宗教信仰而不选我，而是我最终对那份工作不感兴趣。 — 乔什·夏皮罗 > [33:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=1981s) 婴儿潮一代霸占着房子不卖，大学学费高得离谱却换不来高薪。 — 杰森·卡拉卡尼斯 > [37:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=2236s) 如果我把每一个无法与我达成百分之百共识的人都赶出办公室，我们将一事无成。 — 乔什·夏皮罗 > [50:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=3000s) 根本没有看好家门（wasn't minding the shop） — 乔什·夏皮罗 > [01:00:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=3626s) 看来我们第二轮要碰面了，尼克斯必胜！ — 杰森·卡拉卡尼斯 > [01:00:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM&t=3626s) 我将全力以赴（I'm going all in） — 乔什·夏皮罗 ## Mentioned 乔什·夏皮罗 (Josh Shapiro), 杰森·卡拉卡尼斯 (Jason Calacanis), 加文·纽森 (Gavin Newsom), 唐纳德·特朗普 (Donald Trump), 乔·拜登 (Joe Biden), 卡玛拉·哈里斯 (Kamala Harris), 蒂姆·沃尔兹 (Tim Walz), 埃隆·马斯克 (Elon Musk), 伊丽莎白·沃伦 (Elizabeth Warren), 伯尼·桑德斯 (Bernie Sanders), 谢尔盖·布林 (Sergey Brin), 特拉维斯·卡兰尼克 (Travis Kalanick), JB·普里茨克 (JB Pritzker), 皮特·布蒂吉格 (Pete Buttigieg), 乔·罗根 (Joe Rogan), 佐兰·曼达尼 (Zohran Mamdani), 迈克·约翰逊 (Mike Johnson), 比尔·克林顿 (Bill Clinton), 亨特·拜登 (Hunter Biden), 赵长鹏 (CZ), 特德·克鲁兹 (Ted Cruz), 本雅明·内塔尼亚胡 (Benjamin Netanyahu), 梅根·凯利 (Megyn Kelly), 塔克·卡尔森 (Tucker Carlson), 亚历克斯·琼斯 (Alex Jones), 马尔科·卢比奥 (Marco Rubio), All-In Podcast, 费城 76 人队 (Philadelphia 76ers), 纽约尼克斯队 (New York Knicks), 优步 (Uber), 政府效率部 (DOGE), 联邦医疗补助 (Medicaid), 薪资保障计划 (PPP), 工薪宾州人税收抵免 (Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit), 美国移民及海关执法局 (ICE), 海湖庄园 (Mar-a-Lago), 哈马斯 (Hamas), 哥伦比亚大学 (Columbia University), 哈佛大学 (Harvard University) ## Video description (0:00) Jason intros PA Governor Josh Shapiro (1:40) Shapiro's blueprint for PA: pro-growth, pro-freedom, less red tape, prosecuting fraud (13:05) Wealth tax debate, what Dems are getting wrong on business (20:17) 2024 Democratic collapse, future of the party, socialist wing (38:12) How Congress has become "pathetic," political corruption (47:18) Antisemitism, Netanyahu's failures, and the chaos of the Iran War Follow Gov. Shapiro: https://x.com/GovernorShapiro Follow the besties: https://x.com/chamath https://x.com/Jason https://x.com/DavidSacks https://x.com/friedberg Follow on X: https://x.com/theallinpod Follow on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theallinpod Follow on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@theallinpod Follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/allinpod Intro Music Credit: https://rb.gy/tppkzl https://x.com/yung_spielburg Intro Video Credit: https://x.com/TheZachEffect Referenced in the show: #allin #tech #news [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAsUZEJHiM)

[0:00] 乔什·夏皮罗: 那还是大家投中投的年代，现在大家都不投中投了，全都去投三分，其实应该多投中投 [0:00] 乔什·夏皮罗: 恕我直言，尽管我希望我们今天的对话愉快，但我可一点都不想在球场看到你；如果你全副武装穿着尼克斯那套破玩意儿出现在费城，我可绝对不会高兴。 [4:33] 乔什·夏皮罗: 我给我的理发师打电话，问他一天剪几个头？他说大概 10 个。按每次 20 美元算，一天就是 200 美元，20 天就是整整 4000 美元。 [13:05] 乔什·夏皮罗: 来宾州多交点税吧，兄弟，别在别处交了！ [18:33] 乔什·夏皮罗: 在真理与正义的殿堂里，你私下跟那些人聊聊，他们心里很清楚自己根本不需要这份减税 [23:21] 乔什·夏皮罗: 这根本不是她因为我的宗教信仰而不选我，而是我最终对那份工作不感兴趣。 [33:01] 杰森·卡拉卡尼斯: 婴儿潮一代霸占着房子不卖，大学学费高得离谱却换不来高薪。 [37:16] 乔什·夏皮罗: 如果我把每一个无法与我达成百分之百共识的人都赶出办公室，我们将一事无成。 [50:00] 乔什·夏皮罗: 根本没有看好家门（wasn't minding the shop） [60:26] 杰森·卡拉卡尼斯: 看来我们第二轮要碰面了，尼克斯必胜！ [60:26] 乔什·夏皮罗: 我将全力以赴（I'm going all in）

[15:28] Josh Shapiro: The idea that Donald Trump thought it was smart economic policy to give a tax cut to those who don't need it and pay for it with those who are struggling... that is going to hold back our entire economy. [20:17] Josh Shapiro: This wasn't about her not picking me because of my faith. This was about me, in the end, not being interested in that job. [33:01] Josh Shapiro: You want to go learn to be a welder? You're going to make six figures working in a shipyard in South Philadelphia. You want to go and you want to work on HVAC systems? You're going to work in some of our most complex life sciences construction jobs and you're going to make six figures doing that. [36:51] Josh Shapiro: Our founders always contemplated two things: one, that there would be honorable people in office; and two, that the people in office would exercise their power and be a check on one another... What Americans are confronting now is a realization that we don't really have all honorable people in positions of authority in the federal government.

[0:00] All right, everybody. We've got an [0:01] incredible guest today. Governor Josh [0:03] Shapiro is here. Obviously governor of [0:06] Pennsylvania. He's got [0:08] uh record-setting popularity in [0:10] Pennsylvania right now. 60% approval, at [0:13] least. He's a moderate. Uh he's focused [0:15] on getting done, GSD. He's tough on [0:17] crime. Ranked number one, according to [0:20] my notes, on charging Medicaid fraud. [0:23] He's pro data center. He's got a nuanced [0:25] take on Israel. And he's a baller, [0:28] apparently. Cuts the table. [0:31] Got him. [0:33] Very nice. [0:34] >> god. [0:35] >> There's your governor. [0:36] >> Look at those short shorts. Holy cow. [0:39] >> Got him. Wow. It's the late '80s. [0:43] >> Man, based on the VHS tape, this looks [0:45] like the '80s. [0:46] >> Yeah, that was 1990, I think. [0:50] >> Look at that, playing the point. [0:51] >> There you go. [0:52] >> Very nice. Very nice. All right. [0:54] >> That was back when That was back when [0:55] people shot mid-range jumpers. They [0:57] don't do that anymore, man. They don't [0:59] do that. They should. [1:01] >> All threes. Yeah, I mean, we have a [1:02] couple of players and and we were [1:04] talking before the show started. You're [1:05] a obviously a big Philly fan and I'm a [1:07] big Knicks fan, so I will see you at the [1:09] games. We're We're on a collision [1:11] course. [1:11] >> I, by the way, with all due respect, and [1:13] I hope we have a good conversation here. [1:15] I hope to never see you at the games. [1:17] Cuz if you're showing up in Philly with [1:19] all your Knicks crap on, I'm not going [1:20] to be a happy guy. [1:22] >> Oh, look at a selfie courtside [1:24] with my friend [1:26] Dave, who is one of the co-owners of the [1:28] team, who's a mutual friend of ours. Um [1:30] who I think egged you on a little bit to [1:31] come on the program here. [1:33] >> He did. [1:34] He should go on All In. They have [1:35] thoughtful conversations and anxious to [1:38] have one with you. So, thanks for having [1:39] me. [1:39] >> Yeah. There's so much for us to talk [1:41] about, but I I thought I would start [1:43] with [1:44] your track record in Pennsylvania. And [1:45] the reason I wanted to start there is [1:47] because there's a bit of a collision [1:48] course happening right now between you [1:50] and Gavin. Gavin's got what I would [1:53] describe as a variable um tenure here in [1:55] California. Um I left California for [1:58] Texas cuz I just thought it was a bit of [1:59] a disaster, but you're doing great in [2:02] your state and [2:04] that's in the face of New York, my [2:06] hometown, New Jersey, Boston, like [2:08] losing a lot of business leaders. [2:10] And you've been scoring, you know, some [2:12] big wins. So, when you look at your [2:14] track record, maybe you could just [2:16] educate the audience on what you've [2:18] gotten done and maybe in comparison to [2:23] what's happening in those other states [2:25] with other democratic leaders cuz you [2:27] seem to be [2:29] maybe the exception to this rule that [2:30] Democrats aren't getting it done on a [2:32] business level. [2:33] >> Look, I'm proud of what we've done. I'm [2:35] not in comparison with Gavin or any [2:37] other democratic governor. I'll just [2:39] talk about what we've done here in [2:40] Pennsylvania. We are a pro-growth state. [2:44] We want businesses to come here and [2:46] grow. I'm proud of the fact that we've [2:48] created more jobs in all but two states [2:50] in the entire country. We've cut taxes [2:52] seven different times to be more [2:54] competitive, cut taxes for small [2:56] businesses, also for families trying to [2:58] afford child care, for seniors, for [3:00] working Pennsylvanians. We've taken our [3:03] permitting process, that's the usually [3:06] the ticket you need say to build your [3:08] building, right? If you're trying to [3:10] build something here in Pennsylvania, we [3:11] were bottom five in the country. I think [3:13] we're now a national model, easily top [3:15] five in terms of speed. We've got a [3:18] money-back guarantee on all of our [3:20] permits. If we don't get you your permit [3:22] in time, we'll give you your money back. [3:23] And fun fact, we did issue 40 million [3:26] permits during my time as governor. [3:28] We've only had to issue five refunds, [3:30] meaning only five of those permits were [3:32] late. We are now the only growing [3:35] economy in the northeastern part of the [3:37] United States. At the same time, we're [3:40] investing in workforce development, [3:41] especially if you don't have a college [3:43] degree, tripling funding for Vo-Tech and [3:46] apprenticeship programs, and [3:47] understanding the need to take the [3:49] workforce we have today and prepare them [3:52] for um jobs here in the Commonwealth of [3:54] Pennsylvania. I'm proud that we've got [3:56] an unemployment rate below the national [3:58] rate consistently over the last 32 [4:01] months. I think it is really critical [4:04] that every kid born in Pennsylvania gets [4:06] a great quality education, that that kid [4:08] has a safe street to walk down to get to [4:11] school or wherever else they're going, [4:12] and that they've got a job in the [4:13] community that they love. Those to me [4:16] are the core foundational principles. [4:18] It's what we focus on every single day. [4:21] Our mantra, as you said at the top, is [4:23] GSD, get done. Those are the areas [4:26] where we focus on getting done, and [4:28] I think we're putting a lot of points on [4:29] the board every single day that's having [4:30] a meaningful difference in people's [4:32] lives. [4:33] >> How are you getting that done? Let's [4:35] just take the permitting as an example. [4:38] Why is it so dysfunctional in [4:39] California? You know, obviously I'm an [4:41] investor in technology companies, and we [4:43] just saw red tape after red tape, then [4:45] on housing. [4:47] It's incredibly hard to build anything. [4:49] The NIMBYism, you know, if you cast a [4:51] shadow, nothing can be built, and then [4:53] housing prices keep going up. And you [4:55] know, if you want to hire a nanny or a [4:57] teacher, [4:59] or you know, if a firefighter moves in, [5:01] they can't even afford a home in the [5:02] community that they're servicing. So, [5:04] how did you fix this? [5:07] And why can't other states not fix it? [5:11] >> I mean, look, I I can't speak to how [5:12] it's done in California. I'll just tell [5:14] you in Pennsylvania, the way we start [5:16] the conversation is by recognizing [5:19] permits are critically important to [5:21] economic development and to creating [5:22] jobs, right? If we, the government, can [5:25] move at the speed of business, if I can [5:28] give you as a CEO predictability to know [5:31] your business is going to be open in 6 [5:33] months instead of 3 years, right? [5:35] Because the permit took too long, then [5:37] you're going to want to invest here. So, [5:38] we sort of start with the important idea [5:41] that permits matter. Second, when you [5:43] come into our state government to get [5:45] your permit, let's just use a building [5:47] as an example, right? We want to get to [5:50] yes. We still want to protect the [5:52] environment and public health and public [5:53] safety, and we do that, but we want to [5:56] get to yes. So, our attitude has [5:57] shifted. [5:59] Third, we've got to have that money-back [6:01] guarantee cuz that money-back guarantee [6:02] holds the bureaucracy accountable. Now, [6:05] I will tell you that some of this we've [6:07] done administratively, meaning I've [6:09] signed executive orders and we've made [6:11] those changes. But, in other things, [6:12] we've worked with the legislature to [6:14] pass new laws to speed up our [6:16] permitting. And it hasn't always been [6:18] easy. Understand, I'm a Democrat as [6:20] governor. I've got a divided [6:22] legislature. I was the only governor for [6:24] a while with a divided legislature, now [6:26] there's one other. I've got a Senate led [6:28] by Republicans by just two seats and a [6:31] house led by Democrats by just one seat. [6:33] But, this is an area where I've been [6:34] able to bring Democrats and Republicans [6:36] together in order to make progress in [6:39] terms of passing this this permitting [6:41] reform. And again, [6:43] proof is in the pudding. What we are [6:44] seeing is that businesses are coming [6:47] here and the economy's growing. Let me [6:49] give you one more example. This may seem [6:51] really small to you, but it's a big [6:52] deal, okay? When I talk about a permit, [6:55] if you want to be a barber in [6:57] Pennsylvania, you need a permit or [6:59] technically it's called a license, but I [7:01] put it all in one [7:01] >> Yeah, some kind of certificate, yeah. [7:03] >> Right. The day I took office, it took 20 [7:07] days for a barber to get their permit to [7:10] be able to go out and cut hair. Today, [7:12] you get it same day. You get it within [7:14] that day. That may seem silly to you, [7:16] but but it but I just I called my [7:17] barber. I asked him, he said, "How many [7:19] heads do you cut a day?" He said, "About [7:21] 10 a day." At 20 bucks a pop, 200 bucks [7:24] a day for two for 20 days. That's real [7:27] money. That's thousands of dollars that [7:30] we're putting into that barber's pocket [7:32] just because we got them their permit [7:35] more quickly. So, I know it may sound [7:37] nerdy, it may sound wonky, but whether [7:39] you're building some big building that's [7:41] going to house hundreds of workers or [7:43] thousands of people who are living [7:45] there. Or whether you're the local [7:47] barber that everybody needs to go to to [7:49] get to get their haircut. This stuff [7:51] matters. And the quicker you are, the [7:53] more jobs you create and the more money [7:55] you put in people's pockets. [7:57] >> It also matters, I think, on a [7:58] philosophical basis of who is the [8:01] government working for? Themselves and [8:03] their timelines or for the people who [8:05] put them in office? And I think that's [8:07] the philosophy just at least watching it [8:10] happen in New York and California is the [8:11] opposite of what you described. There's [8:13] no sense of urgency and there's [8:16] almost a situation where people believe [8:18] it's intractable, that they can't change [8:20] it. And so [8:21] that's I think such an important point [8:23] is that you actually made it happen. [8:25] >> I think that's a great point. I want to [8:27] focus on what you just said there. Um [8:29] first off, I I start the conversation [8:32] believing the government can be a force [8:33] for good in people's lives. Second, that [8:36] we got to figure out a way to get to [8:37] yes. Whether it's building the building [8:39] or whether it's getting that mom the [8:41] support she needs for her kid with [8:43] autism who needs support. We got to [8:45] figure out a way to get to yes and get [8:47] them um that help. And then you [8:49] mentioned uh in your question the way [8:51] people get I I I don't recall if you [8:53] used the word frustrated or or they [8:55] feel, you know, um that that [8:57] government's sort of holding them back, [8:59] right? Not trying to work with them. [9:00] >> in a way, right? It's just if you have [9:02] that experience three or four times, [9:04] whether it's at the airport or getting [9:05] your driver's license or getting the [9:07] hair cutting you know, certificate. Like [9:09] it's just oppressive over time. You just [9:11] feel like the government's working [9:12] against you. [9:13] >> Yeah, and what does that what does that [9:14] person feel after they try and get their [9:16] permit, they can't get it. They try and [9:18] open up their small business, it won't [9:19] work. They get frustrated. By the way, [9:21] they get pissed. And then not only are [9:23] they pissed at that agency or that [9:26] governor or they're pissed at, you know, [9:29] that state government. They also grow, [9:32] and this is an important point, a little [9:34] more cynical about government and a [9:36] little bit more frustrated about the [9:39] process. And when that happens, I think [9:41] that that creates more distrust in our [9:43] system and it creates more opportunity [9:46] for I think frankly dark voices on [9:49] extremes to come in and take advantage [9:52] of people. I I I find that, you know, if [9:54] we get it done the right way, if we [9:56] process things quickly, if we get people [9:58] to yes, then maybe a byproduct of that [10:01] is a little bit less cynicism in our [10:03] system. [10:04] >> Yeah, and and the horseshoe theory that [10:06] you're kind of referencing there, these [10:08] two extremes just taking over the [10:10] conversation, [10:11] that's not what the majority of the [10:13] country wants. They they want to just [10:14] live in a high-functioning society. I [10:16] was curious how you look at fraud, um, [10:21] waste, fraud, and abuse. My friend Elon, [10:23] to drop a name, you know, did this doge [10:25] thing, was a little controversial, but I [10:27] think what we've seen is, hey, 20-30% of [10:30] every tax dollar collected is wasted. [10:34] Some of it's fraud, some of it's just [10:36] incompetence. It could be anything on [10:37] that spectrum. And this seems to be the [10:39] Republican Party's rallying cry to beat [10:42] the Democrats going into California, and [10:44] prosecuting people, Michigan, etc. You [10:48] have seem to have gotten ahead of this. [10:50] You've been doing this for years. So, [10:51] maybe you could explain your take on [10:53] fighting fraud specifically, health [10:56] care, or in other areas. [10:57] >> Yeah. Look Look, I think we've got to [11:00] focus on rooting fraud out of the [11:02] system. Now, you and I may differ on, [11:05] hey, should we spend a dollar on that [11:07] initiative or not? And by the way, those [11:09] are super healthy differences, and we [11:10] should argue that out. We should debate [11:12] that. But where we should have no [11:14] difference is if someone's stealing that [11:17] dollar instead of going to its intended [11:19] purpose, we should be against that. And [11:22] and I am. Prior to serving as governor [11:24] and having the privilege of sitting [11:25] here, uh, in this office serving the [11:27] good people of Pennsylvania, I was the [11:29] state's attorney general. And you'll [11:31] remember back during COVID, there were [11:33] those PPP loans to help our small [11:36] businesses and other businesses stay [11:37] afloat. We'd probably agree like good [11:39] idea, right? We got to keep businesses [11:41] afloat. [11:43] But during that time I went out and [11:44] prosecuted a whole bunch of people for [11:46] stealing that PPP money, for not using [11:48] it for its intended purposes. Here as [11:51] governor, I've maintained a similar [11:53] focus through my office of Inspector [11:55] General, rooting out fraud through [11:57] making sure by the way, we're not [11:59] fronting you money when you're going out [12:01] and providing say human services. You [12:03] have to submit for reimbursements and [12:05] you've got to make sure you prove that [12:07] you did that work. When we find that [12:09] someone took advantage of the system, [12:11] we're referring them to prosecutors. I'm [12:13] proud of the fact that we've had more [12:15] Medicaid fraud prosecutions in [12:17] Pennsylvania than I think any other [12:18] state. Maybe there was one other. We're [12:20] we're certainly toward the top of that [12:21] list. Proud of the fact that we've [12:23] identified that, we've sent it to [12:25] prosecutors and and we've addressed it. [12:27] If we can address it administratively, [12:29] we do. If not, we understand that those [12:31] things need to be prosecuted. We should [12:32] have a zero tolerance policy for that. [12:35] We should make sure that if we're going [12:36] to utilize a hard-earned dollar of a [12:39] taxpayer for a purpose like providing [12:42] someone with health care that they need, [12:45] we got to make sure that that dollar [12:46] makes its way to that person so they get [12:48] their health care. And you know, our [12:50] folks are working really hard on that in [12:51] Pennsylvania. [12:52] >> So pro-business, [12:55] uh less regulation, lowering taxes, [12:58] eliminating fraud, um and all of this is [13:02] just getting done in the state. And then [13:05] you know, the next piece that in at [13:07] least my community, people who are [13:09] creators of businesses, venture [13:10] capitalists, angel investors, founders, [13:14] we pay our taxes, pay a lot of taxes uh [13:17] depending on which state you live in. [13:19] And then there's this movement [13:20] >> paying more taxes in Pennsylvania, man. [13:22] Stop paying them elsewhere. [13:24] >> Yeah. It well, the and you know, we then [13:27] get struck with this California law and [13:30] a lot of my friends have moved to Austin [13:31] where I live now. They just said [13:33] suddenly, hey, we want to seize 5% of [13:35] whatever you got. You already paid your [13:37] taxes, you haven't paid capital gains on [13:39] some of this equity you own in your [13:41] company. Maybe it's paper wealth, maybe [13:42] it's your company went public now and [13:44] you could sell some of it, but you might [13:45] crater the stock if you do. And [13:47] Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, [13:50] and California all trying to seize [13:54] assets. And this has really hit the [13:56] creator [13:58] the business creators in a in a really [14:00] offensive way [14:02] to the point at which they're moving. [14:04] We lost California lost Sergey, Travis [14:08] from Uber just fleeing fleeing en masse [14:11] in the last 12 months. Do you believe in [14:14] these wealth taxes and do you believe in [14:16] seizing people's assets on gains they've [14:19] never received? It's It seems to be [14:22] getting momentum. [14:23] >> I mean, I'll just tell you we've cut [14:24] taxes seven times in Pennsylvania. We've [14:27] got one of the lowest income taxes in [14:29] the entire country. It's why I'm joking [14:31] with you you should come to Pennsylvania [14:32] and [14:33] locate here. [14:35] And And look, I mean, that kind of tax [14:37] that you're describing is not something [14:39] we have here. It's certainly not [14:40] something [14:42] on on my agenda. I do think people need [14:44] to pay their fair share. I think you'd [14:45] agree with that. We need to make sure [14:47] that we are easing the burden on those [14:50] who are working and who are at the [14:52] lowest, you know, sort of economic point [14:54] on the scale. And we got to make sure [14:55] that folks at the top are paying their [14:57] their fair share [14:59] in order to to sustain our society. And [15:01] I think we've struck a a really good [15:03] balance here in Pennsylvania. And I [15:05] think our growth numbers [15:07] bear that out. I think seeing more [15:09] people coming to the state bears that [15:11] out. And I think there's an important [15:13] stat, one of the things you you cited in [15:15] those [15:16] entrepreneurs as as you were going [15:18] through your question is [15:20] you know, these are people who kind of [15:21] started with a dream, with an idea that, [15:24] you know, someone might have looked at [15:25] and said, "Geez, I I don't know about [15:27] that." But they stuck with it and and [15:28] they built up their companies. We see [15:31] here in Pennsylvania, particularly when [15:33] it comes to life sciences, right? We're [15:36] seeing people plant a flag here in [15:38] Pennsylvania, start with an idea that [15:40] others might think, "Boy, I I don't know [15:42] about that." But then because of our tax [15:45] environment in Pennsylvania, because of [15:47] our pro-growth approach in Pennsylvania, [15:49] we're seeing more of those small [15:51] businesses, more of those small [15:52] companies, especially in life sciences, [15:54] survive that sort of valley where a lot [15:57] of those companies go out of business [15:59] and sustain themselves here because [16:01] again, I think we're showing that we're [16:03] pro-growth, we've got a smart tax [16:05] environment for them. And by the way, [16:07] after we invest in them, after we give [16:09] them a shot, and after they do well, we [16:11] expect them to pay their fair share back [16:13] to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. And [16:14] I think that's that's the approach we've [16:16] taken and it's working. [16:18] >> Yeah, and so if you're not in favor of a [16:20] wealth tax, what would you do to deal [16:24] with maybe this disparity in [16:27] wealth that we're seeing? There was just [16:28] some statistics that came out the other [16:30] day, I'm sure you saw them. The upper [16:32] middle class has just been surging, [16:34] middle class going down a bit, and [16:37] people in the lower wrongs going down as [16:40] well. So, [16:41] people may feel like they're not making [16:42] enough money, but in reality what's [16:45] happening is people feel other people [16:47] have made a tremendous amount of money, [16:48] which is true because of equity holdings [16:51] are growing much better than salaries [16:53] ever will, and only 40% only 50% of the [16:56] country really participates in a [16:58] meaningful way in equities. The other [17:00] 40-50% don't have any exposure to that. [17:03] So, how would you deal with somebody [17:06] making, you know, a hundred billion [17:08] dollars, five hundred billion dollars, a [17:09] trillion dollars, and never selling [17:11] their equity, or maybe not selling it [17:13] for 20 years? How do you think about [17:15] that? [17:15] >> make sure three points, a Pennsylvania [17:17] point and a couple broader points. One, [17:19] you cannot have a national economy that [17:22] works if it's only working for the 1%. [17:25] And you pointed out in your question the [17:27] wage disparity and the disparity of [17:29] income. You have to make sure that there [17:32] is opportunity for those at all [17:34] different income levels. And look, as we [17:36] sit here today, if you're making a [17:38] million dollars [17:39] versus $50,000, you make a million [17:41] dollars, you're going to be able to buy [17:42] some stuff that someone at $50,000 can't [17:45] buy, right? We sort of understand that, [17:47] but you got to have opportunity and [17:50] you've got to have a level playing [17:51] field. You got to have a fair shot and [17:53] you got to have a tax system that works [17:55] in a fair way. So, that's sort of point [17:57] one. Point two is here in Pennsylvania, [18:00] we've tried to address some of that [18:01] economic disparity by passing the first [18:05] ever working Pennsylvanians tax credit, [18:07] sort of a state-side earned income tax [18:10] credit. So, what we're saying is if [18:12] you're working, if you're going out and [18:13] busting your hump, we're going to put [18:15] some money back in your pocket. About [18:16] 940,000, almost a million Pennsylvanians [18:19] are going to qualify for a little over [18:21] 800 bucks back in their pockets. So, [18:23] that's going to help not only today with [18:26] rising costs due to a lot of these [18:28] federal policies, but it's going to put [18:29] money back in people's pockets, allow [18:31] them to make, you know, the the the [18:33] investments they need to make in their [18:34] everyday lives. Here's the third point. [18:37] What I would not do cuz you asked what I [18:39] would do. What I would not do is what [18:41] President Trump did at the federal level [18:43] with an aid and assist from a whole [18:46] bunch of sycophants in Congress by [18:48] passing that budget bill or the [18:49] beautiful budget bill or whatever the [18:51] hell they call it. In effect, what they [18:53] did was they gave a tax cut for those [18:56] who simply do not need it, right? And by [18:59] the way, you know, in the palace of [19:01] truth and justice, you talk to those [19:03] folks. They know that they didn't need [19:05] that tax cut. And what happens as a [19:08] result of that is I've got [19:10] 500,000 [19:12] Pennsylvanians who are going to lose [19:15] their health care. I've got 120,000 who [19:18] have already lost their health care. [19:19] About another 320,000 [19:21] or so were likely to lose Medicaid next [19:24] year. I've got 26 rural hospitals that [19:27] are likely to shutter because these are [19:30] rural hospitals that are working at an [19:31] operating deficit and they're relying so [19:34] much on Medicaid which has been slashed [19:36] by the federal government. So, the idea [19:38] that Donald Trump thought it was smart [19:40] economic policy to give a tax cut to [19:42] those who don't need it and pay for it [19:45] with those who are struggling where and [19:47] create even greater economic [19:49] disparities, that is going to hold back [19:51] our entire economy. Just take those [19:53] 500,000 people who aren't going to have [19:55] health care. You're paying for that and [19:57] I'm paying for that with our private [19:59] insurance. So, what Donald Trump has [20:01] done is shifted that burden onto those [20:04] who are struggling, making it harder for [20:07] them, adding additional cost to the [20:09] middle class. And I think that that is [20:11] that that lacks [20:13] um frankly, it's just dumb economic [20:15] policy. And I think it's going to set us [20:17] back. [20:17] >> Here we are. Politics is on the table. [20:20] Incredible track record you have, but [20:21] let's dive into the Democratic Party. Uh [20:23] I'm an independent, but grew up Irish [20:25] Catholic in Brooklyn, so grew up a [20:27] Democrat. Probably have voted you know, [20:30] 60/40 Democrat to Republican, but always [20:33] for a moderate, somebody who can get [20:34] stuff done. That's why I find you quite [20:36] appealing. But, let's talk about the [20:37] Democratic Party [20:39] and the shellacking they got [20:41] in the last election. [20:43] And specifically, what really troubled [20:46] me, [20:47] Biden didn't look like he was all there [20:49] and uh I think we've all come to some [20:51] consensus that he probably should have [20:52] dropped out earlier. [20:54] But, what was really disheartening to me [20:55] was that they didn't do the speed run [20:57] primary. They didn't do, you know, a [20:59] capsule primary over that July-August [21:02] period and gave you a shot and other [21:04] people a shot, Pritzker, Pete whoever to [21:08] to compete for the nomination. Was that [21:11] a huge mistake for the Democratic Party? [21:13] And then when you look back on it, do [21:15] you think that might have cost you all [21:17] the election? [21:17] >> Well, look. I mean, I actually wrote [21:19] about this in in the book I I recently [21:21] published where, you know, it it became [21:23] clear to me that [21:26] you know, Joe Biden seeking another term [21:28] was probably not in the best interest of [21:30] the party or or the country. And I spoke [21:32] to him directly about that and and [21:34] bluntly about that. Once he made the [21:36] decision to drop out with a hundred and [21:38] whatever days to go, you know, there [21:41] there were not many opportunities, I [21:43] think, to have the kind of primary [21:44] process that you're talking about. I [21:47] think it is important to look forward, [21:49] right? And not look backwards. And you [21:51] said in the last election Democrats took [21:52] a shellacking. Actually, if you look at [21:54] 2025, it was the opposite. I mean, the [21:56] president's party, the Republican Party, [21:58] got beat in New Jersey, got beat in [22:00] Virginia, got beat here in Pennsylvania [22:02] where we won three state Supreme Court [22:04] seats. So, obviously, there's a pendulum [22:06] in in American politics. And it's [22:09] clearly [22:10] swinging back. I think what's important [22:12] is is that we look forward. And yeah, I [22:15] think it's also really important for our [22:16] party to have for my party to have a [22:19] real debate and to have a real [22:21] discussion about ideas. What are we for? [22:23] And what are we willing to fight for? [22:25] And I realize that process may at times [22:27] look a little messy. I realize and I [22:29] mean this with the utmost respect. It [22:31] gives folks like you on a podcast or on [22:32] a show the ability to sort of pick [22:34] apart, maybe try and, you know, sort of [22:37] parse words or point one Democrat at [22:39] another and try and create conflict. But [22:41] I would just say that overall, having [22:44] this debate and having these issues [22:46] being raised and having disagreements, [22:48] that's healthy for our party. And [22:50] ultimately, I think our party's poised [22:52] to take back power. And that will make [22:54] us better at governing. To me, the whole [22:56] purpose of running in an election is [22:58] getting the chance to govern, not just [23:00] winning the election. And so, having [23:02] these debates right now puts us in a [23:04] better position when we win those [23:06] elections. And I'm running for [23:07] re-election right now in Pennsylvania. [23:09] Going to work my ass off to win another [23:11] term and earn the support of the people [23:13] of Pennsylvania again. And I want to [23:14] continue to deliver, continue to [23:16] um you know, focus on these issues that [23:18] matter most. And having that debate, I [23:19] think is really healthy. [23:21] >> I understand looking forward is most [23:23] important, but I got I got to go one [23:25] more time in the rearview mirror here, [23:26] which is Kamala Harris was picked [23:29] because Biden had put out a criteria, [23:31] "Hey, I want to have a woman of color as [23:33] my vice president." He was very explicit [23:34] about that. She could be qualified, [23:37] unqualified, you know, moderately [23:39] qualified. But then when she went out to [23:41] pick her VP, everybody was saying, "Hey, [23:44] Josh Shapiro should be really in that [23:45] running." And she didn't pick you [23:47] specifically cuz she didn't think she [23:48] could win with the Jewish vice [23:50] president. [23:51] >> Yeah, [23:51] >> So, [23:52] >> I don't respectfully I I got to push [23:54] back on that. And again, I I've been [23:55] very very open about this. Yeah. [23:57] >> Let's do it. [23:57] >> Yeah, and and I respectfully I'm not [23:59] looking to, you know, be argumentative [24:00] with you, but I I [24:02] >> Be candid. Yeah. [24:02] >> I was very very detailed and and and [24:06] very specific in my book about this [24:08] process. And I was very grateful to the [24:10] vice president for being considered. And [24:13] grateful to her for the candid dialogue [24:15] we had. And about 48 hours before she [24:17] picked Tim Walz, I pulled out and made [24:19] clear that that was not something I was [24:22] interested in doing. I thought I could [24:23] serve the good people of Pennsylvania um [24:26] and and do my best serving here as [24:28] governor in a job that I absolutely [24:30] love. So, this wasn't about her not [24:32] picking me because of my faith. Uh this [24:34] was about me um in the end not being [24:36] interested in in that job. [24:38] >> Really? [24:40] Sincerely, yes. Uh cuz it did seem like [24:42] you wanted to to be considered for that [24:45] VP position. [24:46] >> I called Sunday evening after she and I [24:48] met and had a really candid conversation [24:51] uh to inform her that I did not want to [24:52] be considered. I thought she had some [24:54] really good people to choose from. [24:56] >> All right. So, let's move forward then [24:57] looking at winning. You're going to run [24:59] for governor again. Assume that's going [25:01] to be a shoe-in. [25:03] You know, you got to do the work, but [25:04] it's pretty clear you're going to [25:06] >> your your confidence there, my man. [25:08] >> Yeah, no, it's it's clear. But let's [25:09] talk a little bit about if you were to [25:11] run for president, which people seem to [25:14] think you've got a really good shot. [25:16] But you're below maybe national [25:20] recognition right now. You're a little [25:22] bit far behind. Gavin has come out, [25:24] "Hey, I'm running. I'm running. Here I [25:26] am." He's obviously in the pole position [25:28] for now. I want to understand the [25:30] Democratic Party and how they should [25:32] proceed because just like the right [25:35] seemed to separate and you had this mega [25:37] coalition [25:38] and you had, you know, the traditional [25:40] Republicans who were just aghast at [25:43] Trump and his style and his behavior, [25:45] etc. [25:46] Now that seems to have fractured again. [25:48] You have America first, America only. [25:51] All the supporters who were supporting [25:54] Trump now have [25:56] come out vocally against him because of [25:57] the war in Iran. And then you have on [25:59] your side the socialist Democrat [26:01] movement, which I think a lot of [26:03] moderates are like, "Well, that's [26:04] confusing. We don't want to have [26:07] more Mondamis." And that doesn't seem [26:09] super appealing to a lot of moderates. [26:11] And the moderates are the ones who [26:12] flipped this election and they went the [26:14] last election, they went with Trump [26:15] largely as opposed to going with Kamala. [26:18] So [26:18] handicap for me, [26:20] what has to happen in the Democratic [26:23] Party to win in 2028? [26:24] >> I understand what you're asking and I I [26:25] will answer your question. I don't think [26:28] anyone should be looking past these [26:30] midterms. And while I appreciate the [26:32] confidence you you have in me and and [26:35] and maybe in the the broader dynamics [26:37] here, I think we need to have a national [26:39] referendum in these midterms on what [26:41] people see happening in Washington, D.C. [26:44] The the chaos and the corruption that [26:47] exists there. I think people need to [26:48] show up in record numbers and vote their [26:51] concerns. Since I'm not looking past the [26:53] midterms, I do think it is important [26:56] that we acknowledge Donald Trump has [26:59] injected chaos and corruption into [27:03] everything he touched. And I think it's [27:05] important for me, for other Democratic [27:08] leaders in this country, to be able to [27:11] show what calm, competent governance can [27:15] actually deliver for people. That's what [27:17] I'm going to be talking about in these [27:18] midterms as I seek re-election. I think [27:21] it is important to paint an alternative [27:23] picture to the chaos Donald Trump has [27:25] created. One where you can actually grow [27:28] the economy. You can make our [27:29] communities safer. We didn't talk about [27:31] this yet, but we've hired 2,000 more [27:33] police officers, invested in community [27:35] violence prevention, and violent crime [27:37] is down 12%. Fatal gun violence is down [27:40] 42% in our Commonwealth. Um we've [27:43] invested in public education, and by the [27:45] way, scores are up, truancy is down. Um [27:49] we're moving up on the list. We're about [27:51] 10th um according to Consumer Affairs in [27:53] the quality of public education. I think [27:55] we've got to show that there is an [27:57] alternative to Donald Trump's chaos, to [28:00] his cruelty, to his corruption. And [28:02] you're seeing that, um I think certainly [28:05] in my state. I think you're seeing it in [28:06] other states as well. And we need to [28:08] paint that alternative picture. [28:09] >> So, 2026 is certainly going to be a [28:11] referendum on the first 2 years of this [28:14] presidency, [28:16] which was extremely popular for the [28:18] first 9 months or so. People felt really [28:20] good about the economy. [28:21] >> Some people. [28:22] >> And that Well, I think the his polling [28:25] was great. But there was this tinge, I [28:28] think it's pretty accurate to say, the [28:29] tariffs felt like those were chaotic. [28:33] >> Yeah. [28:33] >> Then you get the ICE situation. That [28:35] feels very chaotic. Then you go to this [28:38] war with Iran, and that feels like a [28:40] peak chaotic moment that we're in here [28:42] in week six of this. So, it's certainly [28:43] going to be a referendum on Trump, and [28:46] it feels like all the Democrats have to [28:48] do is sit back and say like, "Look, [28:51] is this what you want? Gas prices up, [28:53] inflation." But you're saying they have [28:55] to paint another picture. Paint that [28:56] picture for me. What is that picture? [28:58] >> I think [28:59] on both sides of what you just said, [29:01] Donald Trump chose to push the tariff [29:04] button, right? [29:05] >> Yeah. [29:05] >> And as a result, here in Pennsylvania, [29:07] what we're seeing is coffee prices are [29:09] up 30%. Beef is up 19%. OJ, orange [29:13] juice, is up 9%. The fertilizers my [29:16] farmers rely on here in Pennsylvania up [29:18] 36%. [29:20] So, we're seeing whether you're a [29:21] farmer, whether you're, you know, a dad [29:23] just trying to cook dinner for his kids, [29:25] whatever the case may be, everything [29:28] costs more because of the the [29:30] recklessness and the chaotic approach [29:32] Donald Trump's taking on our economy [29:34] with these tariffs. Obviously, this war [29:36] has spiked gas prices. Up today about [29:39] 415, 416 here in Pennsylvania, similar [29:43] across the country. Probably years [29:45] before those gas prices come down even [29:48] if the war, you know, hopefully ends, [29:50] you know, very very soon. And so, I [29:53] think it is important, yes, to point [29:55] that out the way Donald Trump's policies [29:57] have hurt the American people, have hurt [30:00] our farmers, have hurt our small [30:02] businesses. The point I was making a [30:04] moment ago is I think that's part of the [30:06] conversation. The other part of the [30:07] conversation is, "Okay, well, what are [30:09] you doing to make people's lives [30:10] better?" [30:10] >> Yeah, well, so what what should the top [30:12] three things be? Like, if you were [30:14] running the Democratic Party and you and [30:15] everybody got in a room and said, "You [30:16] know what? We really are going to take [30:18] winning seriously, not get into this [30:20] like purity test for everybody in the [30:22] party, and you know, everybody's got to [30:26] be perfect, and Joe Rogan's not good [30:28] enough to go on air with because he's a [30:31] lifelong Democrat, but he said something [30:33] about COVID we don't agree with. [30:34] Therefore, he's out of the party. Elon [30:36] Musk is a little bit weird on the Well, [30:38] but but the Democrats did. And then, oh, [30:40] Elon Musk waited hours to and and had [30:42] Obama at SpaceX and then all of a sudden [30:44] he can't come to the White House for the [30:46] EV Summit, the category he created. Like [30:48] it's pretty obvious the Democratic Party [30:50] had some real dysfunction in there in [30:52] terms of building a bigger tent. And I [30:55] can tell you I have never felt [30:57] more courted in my life [31:00] than the Republican Party trying to get [31:02] me to be part of the the Trump movement, [31:05] which I demurred and declined. It wasn't [31:07] my style. But they are trying to build [31:11] the biggest tent possible. They're like, [31:13] "Oh, you agree with 14% of what we do? [31:15] You're in." [31:16] >> Okay. [31:17] >> Yeah, so walk me through what the top [31:19] thing should be. Yeah. [31:20] >> Let's dissect. First off, you attributed [31:22] a number of things to Democrats that I [31:24] didn't say. So, um we're you're here [31:26] interviewing me, so let's focus on the [31:28] things I say. Number two, um they went [31:31] and they courted you [31:32] uh and you demurred, but by the way, um [31:35] even had you not demurred, had you [31:36] signed up, I don't know that your life [31:38] would be better off after a year and a [31:40] half of Trump's policies. What I am for [31:43] here in Pennsylvania, the ultimate swing [31:45] state, the toughest state to win in, an [31:48] incredibly tough state to govern in, [31:50] particularly with a divided legislature, [31:53] I'm for investing in public education, [31:55] giving every child of God an [31:56] opportunity. I'm for safe communities, [31:59] and we're building that here, and we're [32:00] reducing crime in all of our [32:02] communities. I'm for a pro-growth [32:05] economy, where we generate more energy, [32:07] we generate more jobs, where we create [32:10] more opportunities, particularly in our [32:11] rural communities and forgotten [32:13] communities that have been too often [32:14] left behind. And here's the fourth thing [32:16] I'm for. I am for freedom. And I'll tell [32:19] you what, this president represents a [32:21] party that used to be known as the party [32:24] of freedom, and now they have turned [32:26] their backs on that. They want to tell [32:28] my kids what books they're allowed to [32:29] read, they want to tell women what [32:31] medicines they can take and what they [32:33] can do with their bodies, they want to [32:35] control the way I raise my child. They [32:38] want to say, [32:40] uh, you know, every day that, yeah, you [32:42] can vote, but we're going to set the [32:43] rules and try and rig them in a way [32:45] where you're not going to be successful. [32:47] They are not the party of freedom. And I [32:50] think the Democratic Party has an [32:51] opportunity to be the party of [32:53] education, safety, economic opportunity, [32:55] and freedom. That's what we're doing [32:57] here in Pennsylvania, and that's what [32:59] I'm going to continue to put forth. [33:01] >> I think it's a great platform. I would [33:02] add to it housing. [33:04] The thing I hear about from young people [33:05] all the time is that, you know, just [33:07] I'll never be able to afford a house. [33:09] The American dream's a bit of a scam, [33:11] and college is overpriced. So, how do [33:14] you think about housing? And And what do [33:16] you Is that an issue in in your state? [33:18] Or [33:19] >> talk about housing. Let's also talk [33:20] about college, cuz you raised both of [33:21] them in your question. And [33:23] >> And look, I mean, that has disinfected, [33:25] by the way, just like two generations [33:27] who are like, you guys tricked us on [33:28] housing. You told us we'd be able to get [33:30] home, and you won't sell your home, [33:32] boomers. And And you told us we could [33:35] always make more than our college [33:36] education cost, and that was a lie, too. [33:38] >> Yeah. When I was talking about economic [33:40] opportunity, it's somewhat shorthand, if [33:42] you will, for also being able to afford [33:45] that community. [33:46] Affording that community can be [33:47] healthcare. It can be housing, right? [33:49] But let's talk about housing. Here in [33:51] Pennsylvania, I've asked the legislature [33:53] for a $1 billion fund to be able to [33:55] build more housing in Pennsylvania and [33:58] repair existing housing. 50% of my [34:01] housing was built prior to 1950. You can [34:04] invest a few thousand bucks in a new [34:06] boiler, a new roof, some new windows, [34:08] actually keep people in their homes, and [34:10] not have to build new homes. We also [34:12] have to eliminate, or damn near [34:14] eliminate, the red tape that exists when [34:17] it comes to building housing. We got to [34:19] be able to build this faster. And so, I [34:21] put forth a regulatory reform plan to be [34:24] able to build more housing. I think that [34:27] is, um, really, really crucial. Let's [34:29] talk about college for a minute. The [34:31] first day I was governor, the first [34:33] executive order I signed was to do away [34:36] with the college degree requirement to [34:39] work for state government. We have [34:40] 80,000 employees, damn near all now you [34:43] do not have to have a college degree [34:45] other than say the doctors and lawyers [34:47] and people like that who require [34:48] advanced degrees. So now 60% 60 60% of [34:53] all of our hires in state government [34:55] don't have a college degree. We followed [34:57] up on that by tripling our funding for [35:00] votech and CTE in our high schools. Our [35:03] dramatically increasing our funding for [35:05] apprenticeship programs. 62% of my adult [35:09] population here in Pennsylvania do not [35:11] have a college degree. So we need to [35:13] make sure we're investing in them so [35:15] that they have opportunities. You want [35:17] to go learn to be a welder? You're going [35:19] to make six figures working in a [35:20] shipyard in South Philadelphia. You want [35:23] to go and you want to work on HVAC [35:26] systems? You're going to work in some of [35:28] our most complex life sciences [35:31] construction jobs and you're going to [35:32] make six figures doing that. So for us, [35:36] we fundamentally believe that you've got [35:38] many pathways to opportunity here in [35:40] Pennsylvania. For some, it's going to [35:42] college, great. And for others, if you [35:44] choose not to go to college, that's also [35:46] great. We're going to make sure that we [35:48] pave the way for you and give you that [35:50] opportunity. [35:51] >> Yeah, the generation two about movement [35:52] is [35:53] well upon us. People are starting to [35:55] figure out going in debt 100, 200k [35:58] versus getting a plumber job, carpenter [36:00] job, HVAC, whatever for six figures out [36:03] of the gate is a much better [36:04] opportunity. [36:05] >> Yeah, and to be clear, I'm not [36:07] on people that go to college. I went to [36:08] college. I presume you went to go to [36:10] college. But for too long, by the way, [36:13] politicians in both parties defined [36:16] success exclusively [36:18] around the idea of you having to have a [36:20] college degree and then set up arbitrary [36:23] barriers to entry. Hey, if you don't [36:24] have a college degree, you can't apply [36:26] here. What about the skills that you [36:27] developed in the military? What about [36:29] the skills you developed at a trade [36:31] school or the skills that you developed [36:33] working in the private sector? Those [36:35] skills should matter, and now they do in [36:37] Pennsylvania. And we're no longer taking [36:39] an elitist approach that shuts people [36:42] out just because they don't have a [36:44] college degree. We're giving them the [36:46] keys to opportunity, and we're giving [36:48] them opportunities to pursue more [36:50] success here in Pennsylvania. [36:51] >> Does the socialist democratic movement [36:55] worry you, Mondami and the crew? [36:58] And [36:59] how do you think about that in terms of [37:01] the party dynamics? [37:02] >> I mean, remember the question you asked [37:04] me out of three or four questions ago [37:05] about you said, "Well, yeah, I only [37:07] agree with 14% of what you agree with." [37:10] You know, come join the party. Look, my [37:12] view is that we got to have a big tent. [37:14] And my view is that we've got to have a [37:16] real debate around different ideas. And [37:18] just because I might not agree with you [37:20] on these three things, I might agree [37:22] with you on something else. Listen, [37:23] >> Yeah. [37:24] >> I'm sitting behind my desk here in the [37:25] governor's office. This is where I [37:27] negotiate bills and budgets and other [37:29] things. If I threw everybody out of my [37:31] office that I didn't agree with 100% of [37:34] the time, we'd never get anything done. [37:36] When I sit down across the table from a [37:38] Republican lawmaker, I say, "What are [37:39] the 10 things you want to accomplish?" I [37:41] tell him the 10 things I want to [37:42] accomplish. And you know what? We're not [37:44] going to agree on all 10, but if we [37:45] agree on three or four, I'd rather focus [37:48] on those three or four things where we [37:49] can find common ground than the five, [37:51] six, seven things where we're just going [37:53] to disagree. And so, I think if you want [37:55] to make progress, you got to figure out [37:57] how to create, you know, majorities. [37:59] Whether it's a majority in the [38:00] legislature to get a bill to my desk, a [38:02] majority come election time to win an [38:05] election, you got to find ways to bring [38:07] people together and find common ground [38:08] and not just focus exclusively on our [38:11] differences. [38:12] >> What's your take on what's going on in [38:13] Congress, Senate in terms of Trump and [38:17] getting alignment there? Because, hey, [38:19] when you go to war or you do tariffs, [38:22] um this was something we had a [38:23] consultation between these different [38:25] branches of our government. And we had [38:28] other presidents on the Democrat side, [38:29] etc., you know, say, "Hey, we're going [38:31] to just get rid of student loan. I'm [38:33] doing an executive order." Curious your [38:34] take on the balance of our of our [38:37] different branches of government and the [38:40] lack of collaboration because this is [38:42] particularly disturbing. We're both Gen [38:44] Xers. We grew up watching the Democrats [38:46] and the Republicans argue, but then they [38:48] all got together, had lunch, and they [38:50] negotiated. Where is that esprit de [38:52] corps of everybody rowing in the same [38:55] direction uh for all Americans versus [38:58] this toxic, you know, we're we're just [39:01] going to block each other at and do [39:03] character assassination at every single [39:06] turn. It's it's the most polarized of [39:07] our lifetimes, for sure. [39:09] >> think the Congress of the United States, [39:12] um the leadership there, I mean, they're [39:14] frankly kind of sad, pathetic people. [39:17] And let me explain why, right? You put [39:21] um [39:22] what's his name, Johnson in as a [39:24] speaker, [39:25] and he's effectively a rubber stamp for [39:27] anything Donald Trump wants. And by the [39:29] way, whether you agree with Trump or [39:31] not, I think you can agree that you'd [39:33] like your member of Congress [39:35] to at least meet the burdens that they [39:38] have on them in the Constitution of the [39:40] United States, which is to be a check, [39:42] which is to be a a separate branch of [39:46] government, and a branch of government [39:47] that has meaningful responsibilities [39:50] here. When the Congress of the United [39:52] States walks away from their [39:53] responsibilities, whether on tariffs or [39:55] whether on declaring war, [39:57] and ultimately just kind of empower the [40:00] president, again, agree or disagree. [40:02] Obviously, I have profound disagreements [40:04] from the president on on those things. [40:06] Then what what you've really done is [40:08] you've limited um the power of the [40:11] Congress. And what you've really done is [40:13] you've seen a whole bunch people that [40:15] put Donald Trump before the oath of [40:17] office they take to the Constitution. [40:19] And I think that's just pathetic. By the [40:21] way, why these people work so hard to [40:25] get to Congress, to move up in [40:27] leadership, to do all the things they [40:29] got to do, and then give away their [40:30] power to Donald Trump? That's pathetic [40:33] and it's weak. And I think our country [40:35] is suffering as a result of it. Look, [40:38] I'm here in Pennsylvania where where it [40:40] all began 250 years ago. [40:43] And the brilliance of our founders [40:46] um was that they left so much of the [40:48] work [40:50] to the next generation and the [40:52] generation after that to pick up the [40:54] baton and continue to perfect our union. [40:58] Our founders though [41:00] always contemplated two things. [41:03] One, that there would be honorable [41:05] people in office. [41:07] And two, that the people in office would [41:10] exercise their power and be a check on [41:13] one another. [41:15] And in some cases slow things down to [41:18] make sure that bad things didn't occur. [41:20] Bad things couldn't get through the [41:21] process. [41:23] I think what Americans are confronting [41:24] now is a realization that we don't [41:27] really have all honorable people in [41:30] positions of authority in the federal [41:32] government. And that that checks and [41:34] balance system that was constructed here [41:37] in Pennsylvania is not standing the test [41:40] of time because you've got these [41:42] profoundly and pathetically weak people [41:44] like Johnson and others who just simply [41:47] give away their power to folks who are [41:50] corrupt and to folks who are not acting [41:53] in an honorable way. [41:54] >> You keep uh bringing up that corruption. [41:56] Explain to me what corrupt things you [41:59] know that the Trump administration has [42:01] done. [42:01] >> I think to me there has been an [42:03] extraordinary amount of self-dealing. [42:05] There there has been [42:07] um a good bit of family members doing [42:10] quite well in this uh in this [42:13] environment. I think you're seeing more [42:15] and more people who have the president's [42:18] ear being able to lobby him at his swim [42:20] club to get a pardon for someone that [42:22] frankly doesn't deserve a pardon. I [42:24] mean, I think the list goes on and on [42:26] and on, but those are some examples that [42:28] I think the American people see with [42:31] their own eyes taking a you know, a [42:33] billion-dollar jet from the Qataris and [42:35] thinking there's nothing attached to [42:37] that, right? I mean, I think that [42:38] there's just a lot of that that moves so [42:42] fast that the American people are having [42:44] a hard time keeping up with it, but [42:45] there will be a reckoning on this one. [42:48] >> Yeah, I so on the pardons I'm strongly [42:51] agreeing. Feels like the pardon power is [42:53] super abused. Is is there a path to [42:56] refine that tool cuz it relies on norms, [43:00] right? And ever since Bill Clinton, you [43:02] know, did some, you know, friends and [43:04] then obviously Biden did his son and [43:07] then Trump's doing his, [43:10] you know, folks. It feels like now this [43:12] is just a get out of jail card. You come [43:14] into an administration and then [43:16] everybody from Fauci to you know, Hunter [43:19] Biden and everybody else is just going [43:21] to get a pardon on the way out. How [43:23] would you reshape that tool? [43:25] >> Well, let let's be clear and I I don't [43:26] think you're suggesting this, but and I [43:29] was critical of Joe Biden when he [43:30] pardoned his son, right? I was critical [43:33] of him publicly. What we are seeing [43:35] under Donald Trump, you have to admit, [43:37] is next level when it comes to the [43:39] abuse. [43:40] >> it's yes, it's in the first year. It's [43:41] not on the last day even. It's like an [43:43] ongoing tool here. We had CZ [43:46] who was a a crypto person who got [43:48] pardoned and Trump didn't even know who [43:50] he was. Right. He was just like, "Ah, I [43:52] heard he's a good guy." [43:53] >> I mean, I will tell I sit at this desk [43:56] here [43:57] and I sign pardons and clemencies. [44:00] And I take that responsibility so [44:02] seriously. And and I agonize over these [44:05] decisions. [44:07] And and I pray that I get these [44:09] decisions right. [44:11] And I believe I have. And I'm [44:13] transparent about why I viewed someone [44:16] as worthy to get a clemency and also [44:19] worthy of not getting one or not worthy [44:20] I should say but but also not earning [44:23] one. And these are tough tough [44:26] decisions. Goes back to what I said a [44:28] moment ago. Our founders when they [44:30] vested that kind of authority in an [44:32] executive didn't necessarily do [44:34] something wrong by giving the executive [44:36] that power. [44:37] But they were leaning on the assumption [44:39] that the executive would be honorable. [44:42] That the executive would would would do [44:44] this with morality and real scruples in [44:47] mind and and I think what we're seeing [44:49] with the president is if you sidle up to [44:51] him at his swim club [44:53] you donate a certain amount of money [44:54] maybe or you have his ear for some other [44:57] social reason, you can usually get him [44:59] to give a pardon to someone who's [45:01] important to you. [45:02] >> Yeah, the the pardons definitely are [45:04] super troubling. How do you deal with [45:06] the family members and the kids [45:07] enriching themselves? [45:10] Obviously [45:11] nothing has been [45:13] um [45:15] done by a court or an investigation into [45:17] Trump's kids at this point. Um so we [45:19] just want to be clear about that. You [45:20] know, we had uh Hunter Biden [45:23] getting a ridiculous million-dollar [45:24] board seat. I've never seen anybody get [45:26] paid a million dollars to be on a board. [45:27] That was obviously corrupt in some way [45:30] or somebody trying to curry favor. [45:31] Doesn't mean the president Biden was but [45:34] definitely was corruption there. [45:36] How do you deal with kids of and and [45:39] this has been going on for a while um [45:41] these kind of allegations. [45:43] If we if we can't rely on honor and [45:45] norms [45:46] is there another proposal here that [45:49] the kids of you know, people in office [45:51] can't make money. Your kids can't make [45:52] money. If I was running for office, my [45:54] kids couldn't make money in the free [45:56] market. How do you Is there any kind of [45:58] solution you can think of? [45:59] >> I think it is important. You you cited [46:01] Hunter Biden. They went through a legal [46:03] process. There was an investigation by [46:04] the Department of Justice. I think there [46:06] has to be a real look, I say this as a [46:09] former prosecutor, a real look at some [46:11] of this stuff and follow the evidence, [46:13] follow the law. And if charges are [46:14] warranted, bring them in. By the way, if [46:16] charges are not warranted, don't bring [46:18] them. Do not use the the rule of law as [46:21] a tool to go against, you know, [46:23] political opponents in in any way. But I [46:26] think what you've got to have here are [46:28] people who are operating with real [46:31] morality. And you do have to figure out [46:33] a way to operate within the norms again. [46:35] I'm unwilling to accept that that is [46:37] gone. It may be temporarily suspended [46:39] under Donald Trump, but I'm hopeful that [46:41] we can find our way back to that. Let me [46:43] be clear about something else here. That [46:45] finding our way back to that [46:48] is a bipartisan exercise. It's going to [46:51] require Republicans and Democrats and [46:53] independents all demanding, when they go [46:55] to the ballot box, that we want to [46:57] elevate people who are ethical, people [47:00] who are honest, people who are focused [47:02] on doing their jobs with integrity. And [47:05] then when those people are in office, [47:07] rewarded with the votes of the public [47:09] and in these positions of public trust [47:11] to hold them accountable as well. [47:13] >> And you believe that can can happen in a [47:14] post-Trump world? [47:15] >> I do. I do. I strongly agree. Hey, it's [47:18] a year since your home was firebombed [47:23] by [47:24] an insane person who was anti-Semitic. [47:27] Your faith comes up over and over again. [47:29] I personally think people are a little [47:31] obsessed with it, but here we are and [47:34] the Democratic Party's been split apart [47:36] as well over this support of Israel [47:39] issue. You have a very nuanced position. [47:41] Number one, how are you dealing with [47:42] that personally, the anti-Semitism, [47:44] which to me as somebody who grew up in [47:46] Brooklyn with lots of Jewish friends and [47:49] all kinds of different people, just [47:50] insane to think that [47:51] Jewish students are being or any [47:54] particular group of students being [47:55] chased by the other students at Columbia [47:56] University because they're Jewish and [47:58] this chaoticness um is just [48:00] heartbreaking, but as a Jewish person [48:03] and literally experiencing it firsthand, [48:06] I mean, how are you doing with that? [48:08] >> Yeah, I appreciate it. Look, we [48:10] we should separate this and have two [48:12] conversations. One about Israel and one [48:13] about anti-Semitism because you kind of [48:16] blurred both in that question. Let's [48:17] focus first on anti-Semitism. I have [48:19] been very outspoken [48:21] about those who are engaging in [48:23] anti-Semitism, peddling words that are [48:26] anti-Semitic. And importantly, I've been [48:28] critical of people on the political left [48:30] and on the political right. And I think [48:32] anti-Semitism is a problem in our [48:34] society and is a problem on the left and [48:37] it is a problem on the right. And I [48:39] think it is important that we call it [48:41] out. We call it out whether we're in an [48:43] interview, not [48:44] >> Yeah. A conversation. [48:45] >> a conversation, yeah. Call it out when [48:47] um you know, on on social media. And [48:50] then we just call it out in our [48:51] communities, in our daily lives where we [48:54] see it. On that, there should be no [48:56] nuance. We should be able to come [48:58] together, people who are Jewish, people [48:59] who are Christian, Muslim, and all agree [49:02] that hatred, bigotry in any form [49:05] directed at a Jew, a Muslim, Christian, [49:06] anyone, it has no place. And by the way, [49:09] it makes us all less safe. And so we [49:12] have to focus on speaking out against [49:15] that. No nuance on that. [49:17] >> Yeah. [49:17] >> On the issue of Israel, the Middle East, [49:19] and the war in Iran, and Gaza, there's a [49:21] lot of nuance there. I'm happy to answer [49:22] your questions on that, but I think on [49:24] the issue of anti-Semitism, we have got [49:26] to be in a place where we universally [49:29] condemn it. And I think what you're [49:30] seeing from some folks on the right and [49:33] some folks on the left is they'll only [49:35] call it out if it's said by a political [49:38] opponent or someone they disagree with. [49:41] And I frankly respect people on the [49:44] right like Ted Cruz who have called it [49:46] out within the Republican Party. I've [49:48] tried to call it out when it rears its [49:51] ugly head in my party, it is important [49:54] that it be universally condemned. [49:56] >> So easy to do. Let's tackle the uh issue [50:00] of Israel and I would say, yeah, every [50:03] Jewish person, Jewish-American person [50:05] who I know, when I ask them about this [50:07] issue, obviously, incredible tragedy [50:09] October 7th, going and collecting the [50:12] hostages seems like a reasonable thing [50:13] to do. [50:14] I was there for 9/11, you know, seems [50:17] like a pretty analogous situation. [50:19] This has to be settled and the United [50:22] States went and did what it had to do in [50:23] Afghanistan and took out Iraq for extra [50:26] measure. Um it's a whole other [50:28] diversion. But, 100% of folks say they [50:30] don't agree with Netanyahu's approach to [50:33] what happened in Gaza. And then, folks [50:35] feel a decent number of people, whether [50:37] it's reality or not, [50:39] that America's getting dragged into this [50:41] war with Iran not under false pretenses [50:45] uh and because Israel is pushing us to [50:48] do it. So, let's take these two issues [50:50] separately and I'm just curious in [50:52] understanding your position on this. Are [50:54] you part of the Jewish-American diaspora [50:57] that believes, "Hey, Israel has a right [51:00] to defend itself, but maybe Gaza went [51:02] too far." [51:03] >> Okay. Well, first off, um let me say [51:05] this. I don't view this issue as a [51:08] Jewish-American, as you said. I view [51:10] this issue as an American. And I view [51:13] this issue in a way of trying to [51:15] understand what is the best thing for [51:17] America, which to me is having peace and [51:21] stability in the Middle East. Okay? [51:23] That's how I approach these issues. It [51:26] is um and I've been clear and consistent [51:29] about this long before October 7th, that [51:32] I think Netanyahu, the leader of Israel, [51:36] um is someone who's been leading Israel [51:38] down a dangerous and isolated path. I [51:42] think he has made Israel um more [51:45] isolated in the world community. He has [51:47] fractured really what used to be a [51:50] non-partisan or bipartisan [51:53] um American support for Israel. And I [51:56] think he has put Israel in a very [51:58] dangerous place. And of course, he was [52:00] the leader of Israel who wasn't minding [52:03] the shop when October 7th happened. So, [52:06] I've been very critical of Netanyahu for [52:08] years and years and years. [52:10] I've also for years made very clear that [52:12] I think the America's interest in the [52:15] region should be for stability and [52:18] peace. And that it would be my hope that [52:21] you would have two states living [52:23] peacefully side by side, Israel and a [52:27] Palestinian state. Now, [52:29] I realize that is a long way off given [52:31] where we are right now. But it is clear [52:33] that we need to work toward that. And [52:35] obviously, that Palestinian state cannot [52:38] be led by Hamas, which is a terrorist [52:40] organization. And there has to be some [52:43] structure that is put in place in order [52:46] in order to create that. As it relates [52:49] to the war, which you also asked about [52:51] in in your question, I mean, this was a [52:53] war of choice. The president never [52:55] defined the objectives. It is clear that [52:58] I don't know how the hell to get out of [52:59] this. [53:00] Um we'll see what he ultimately does [53:02] with his big threats. You know, we're [53:04] we're recording this on the eve of his, [53:07] you know, of his big uh threat um using [53:10] language [53:11] >> using language that was so [53:13] offensive, you'll excuse my language, [53:15] that diminished the value of human life. [53:19] Um we'll see what he ultimately does. [53:21] Does he chicken out as he usually does, [53:23] or does, God forbid, he he go through [53:25] with that? This was a war of choice. He [53:28] didn't know why he got into it. He [53:29] didn't know how the hell to get out of [53:30] it. America's [53:32] >> get into it, handicap? [53:33] >> America's national security interests [53:36] have not been well served by this. And [53:38] economically, you've talked about this. [53:40] Economically, we are worse off uh [53:43] because of this war. I'm sorry. I didn't [53:45] mean to speak over you. [53:46] >> no, no. I mean, listen, I I appreciate [53:48] your candidness, Governor. Why did he do [53:50] it? If you had to handicap it, or what [53:52] are you hearing when you talk cuz you [53:53] have obviously a lot more information [53:55] than the average [53:57] American? [53:58] >> Why now? Why did we do this now? We had [54:00] done, you know, the strategic trimming [54:03] of the hedges, mowing of the lawn, [54:05] whatever the term is to get rid of the [54:06] nuclear progress. That's containment [54:09] seemed like a perfect strategy, and then [54:12] all of a sudden we decide we're going to [54:14] do regime change. This is after Trump [54:16] promised that he would never get it in [54:18] would do an intervention like this in [54:20] the Middle East. This is after we were [54:21] told by the Republicans do not vote for [54:24] a crazy Democrat who will take us to war [54:27] with Iran, and here we are in month 14 [54:30] or 13 of the Trump presidency, and he [54:32] started a war. [54:33] >> Yeah. [54:34] >> His own biggest advocates, from Megyn [54:36] Kelly to Tucker Carlson and, you know, [54:38] people on the fringe, Alex Jones, and [54:40] everybody in the middle, the comedians [54:42] who supported him, the podcast diaspora, [54:45] or the podcast bros, they're all fleeing [54:47] the ship. [54:48] They did not want this. So, here we are. [54:51] Why did he do this? Why now? What is [54:53] your handicapping of it? [54:54] >> Well, I I'll answer that. I will just [54:55] say it's yet another broken promise to [54:58] the people who put him in power. He [55:00] screwed over the farmers who put him in [55:02] power. He told people he wouldn't slash [55:04] Medicaid. He cut Medicaid. He told [55:06] people he'd bring down prices. Prices [55:08] have skyrocketed because of his tariffs. [55:11] He He's got this long string of broken [55:14] promises. Now, why did he break this [55:16] particular promise? [55:18] Let's Let's examine the record. First, [55:20] Rubio went out and said he did it [55:22] because if we didn't move then, [55:25] Netanyahu was going to move and was [55:26] going to force our hand. Then they [55:28] walked it back. He said 7 or 8 months [55:31] ago that they destroy their nuclear [55:34] capabilities, and then came back 7 or 8 [55:37] months later and said, "We had to go in [55:39] because we had to destroy their nuclear [55:42] capabilities." I don't know. Then they [55:43] said it was about regime change. Well, [55:46] great. I mean, we went from like an [55:47] 80-something-year-old Ayatollah to a [55:49] 60-something-year-old [55:50] Ayatollah who, by all accounts, um seems [55:53] to be far more hardline. I'd hardly call [55:56] that successful regime change. So, to [55:59] me, it is hard to [56:02] think you've seen I've been trying to be [56:03] very forthright in answering your [56:04] questions. [56:05] >> You're doing good. [56:05] >> know how you answer that question [56:08] because the president never answered [56:10] that question. He never sat in the Oval [56:14] Office and looked the American people in [56:15] the eye and said, "This is why we're [56:18] going in." And you know what? This isn't [56:20] semantics. This isn't politics. If you [56:23] don't know why you're going in, you [56:25] don't know how the hell to get out. You [56:27] don't know how to instruct the military, [56:28] our brave military, including those 13 [56:32] souls who did not make it home to their [56:34] families because they went on a mission [56:36] that the president never defined. And we [56:38] mourn their loss. We thank our military [56:41] heroes for what they did. We thank our [56:43] military who are out working every day [56:47] on behalf of our freedom, and our [56:48] safety, and our security. But they [56:49] deserve a commander in chief who would [56:52] have defined the mission. And if you [56:54] define the mission, you know how to get [56:56] out. He never defined the mission. I [56:58] don't know, ultimately, if he will [57:00] follow through on his threat. Again, [57:01] it's, you know, it's Tuesday afternoon [57:03] you and I are talking. We'll see [57:05] ultimately what he does here. But, um to [57:07] me, this has been a failed and [57:08] compromised mission from the beginning [57:11] because he never made clear why he was [57:14] going in. [57:14] >> Yeah, and I know you got to go in a [57:16] moment. It does seem to me that first [57:18] explanation, sometimes people hear their [57:20] first reaction and their first statement [57:22] is the true statement, uh just in [57:24] general. And it does seem like Israel [57:26] was going to do this, and we joined [57:27] them, and we didn't need to. [57:29] And to your point about Afghanistan, [57:31] should never pardon me, America should [57:33] never be led around by any other nation. [57:36] It should always be about America's [57:38] interest, our national security [57:40] interest, the interest of expanding [57:42] freedom and opportunity for the American [57:44] people. We should never, ever be bullied [57:47] as maybe President Trump was by any [57:49] other world leader. [57:51] >> Back to the anti-Semitism we're [57:52] experiencing now, you said, "Hey, let's [57:54] address them separately." But I don't [57:56] think you can separate them if [57:58] we're getting pulled into this war by [58:00] another nation and people believe, like [58:03] you and I do, "Hey, Netanyahu maybe went [58:05] a little too far here." [58:07] That is what's causing the anti-Semitism [58:09] in this country, don't you think? This [58:11] relationship with Israel, the state of [58:13] Israel and Netanyahu [58:14] >> I think I think you have to be [58:15] >> support for Netanyahu, that's not [58:17] causing the anti-Semitism here. That's [58:19] what these young people seem to be [58:20] saying is, "We don't want to vote for [58:23] somebody who supports Netanyahu." [58:25] >> Well, I think you have to be real [58:26] careful on that. You you the collective, [58:29] not you individually. I mean, if you're [58:31] suggesting say that Jews are Israel and [58:36] reflect Israeli policies and support [58:38] everything Israel does. I mean, that's [58:40] one of the oldest anti-Semitic tropes [58:42] out there, this sort of notion of dual [58:44] loyalty. I think it is fair to vote on [58:48] the issue of do we support what Donald [58:52] Trump is doing relative to Netanyahu. [58:54] That's fair. But to suggest that somehow [58:58] it's, you know, because Jews are tied to [59:01] Israel and that's why [59:02] >> Well, you and I can parse this issue, I [59:04] think, very easily. But young people at [59:07] Columbia or Harvard, where all this is [59:10] going on in these, you know, [59:12] pro-Palestinian protests are going on, [59:14] they don't seem to be able to make that [59:16] parse. That seems to be one of the roots [59:17] of the problems here that people do put [59:19] together [59:20] >> Yeah. [59:21] >> These young people, they could be [59:22] stupid, they could be misinformed, but [59:23] they do put together what the state of [59:26] Israel is doing and they equate it with [59:28] Judaism. That's what I have tried. [59:31] >> And that's why I'm trying to be so [59:32] outspoken on this, and making clear that [59:35] on anti-Semitism, there should be no [59:36] nuance. And that's a conversation where [59:38] we should all be able to unite, and that [59:40] we have to protect a place for nuance [59:43] when it comes to Mideast policy, when it [59:45] comes to Israel, when it comes to Iran, [59:47] and and and anything happening in the [59:50] Middle East. And we need to give space [59:53] for those who want to peacefully and I [59:55] want to stress peacefully protest. We [59:57] want to give space to those who differ [59:59] from the administration, and frankly, [60:01] those who support the administration to [60:03] be able to go out and to protest [60:05] peacefully. And that is I think an [60:08] important part of the fabric of our [60:11] American society. I just think it's [60:13] important. I try and do this work every [60:15] day as governor to keep those [60:16] conversations separate, because when [60:17] they get blended, that's where I think [60:19] it gets dangerous, and that's where [60:22] I think it it really crosses a line into [60:24] something we don't want to see in our [60:26] society. [60:26] >> And you could be [60:28] super critical of Israel, and you could [60:31] love your Jewish [60:33] neighbors and friends. These are these [60:34] this is a very simple concept here. [60:36] >> And I think that reflects where I am on [60:39] many things. I've been super critical of [60:40] the Israeli government, the Netanyahu [60:42] government, [60:44] and and I'm someone [60:46] who who loves Israel, someone who has [60:48] spent time in Israel. I wrote a whole [60:50] book about [60:52] proposed to my wife there, and and how I [60:54] think the the idea of it is is [60:56] important. We've got to figure out ways [60:58] to keep those two conversations [61:02] not not separate, but but blurring the [61:04] lines in a way that creates some [61:06] dangers. I think it's something we have [61:08] to guard against. [61:09] >> Yeah, lots of education, lots of [61:10] opportunities. Josh Shapiro, thank you [61:12] so much for coming on All In, and we [61:14] look forward to having you on again, and [61:16] good luck with your race, good luck with [61:18] your 76ers. I will see you in the second [61:21] round, it looks like. [61:22] >> Next year or next time I'm on, I'll be [61:24] wearing a Sixers hoodie, so [61:26] >> Go Knicks. [61:27] >> There you go. [61:28] >> I'll see you court side, my friend. Do [61:30] you go to the games? [61:30] >> I'm going all in. [61:46] I'm going all in.