Robert Scheer SI Podcast

Do Republicans Want Americans to Starve?

Christopher Bosso’s new book delves into why the food supplement anti-poverty program, SNAP, is under attack by Republicans despite its enormous success in alleviating hunger for 40 million people currently.

Click to subscribe on: Apple / Spotify / Google PlayAmazon / YouTube / Rumble

The topic of feeding those in need doesn’t sound like it should be controversial but the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, in the United States is bizarrely under attack by Republicans in the current Congress. Joining host Robert Scheer on this episode of the Scheer Intelligence podcast is Christopher Bosso to discuss his newest book, “Why SNAP Works: A Political History—and Defense—of the Food Stamp Program.”

Bosso and Scheer delve into the destructive politics that aim at destroying needed programs like SNAP despite their effectiveness in helping poor and working class people. “SNAP gets caught up in this welfare debate, which [has] its fair share of racial and gender overtones to it, because this notion that you should take care of yourself is deeply ingrained in [our] culture,” Bosso said.

The view of poor and working class people continues to evolve in the US, especially when programs like SNAP are put up to a debate amongst politicians. Scheer says that the program is a win-win in every facet and explains, “I’m in such shock that this is a center of controversy… Most of my life this has not been a controversial program. Agriculture likes it. Rural America likes it. Republicans often have liked it. Even cranky liberals like it.” On the other hand, Scheer notes that something very similar happened when neoliberal president Bill Clinton boasted about ending welfare as we know it with his destruction of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. Meanness towards the poor is unfortunately bipartisan. But the current attack on the once non-controversial food stamp program, Bosso responds, is a new low for Republicans.

Support our Independent Journalism — Donate Today!



Robert Scheer


Joshua Scheer


Diego Ramos


This transcript was produced by an automated transcription service. Please refer to the audio interview to ensure accuracy. 

Robert Scheer Hi, this is Robert Scheer with another edition of Scheer Intelligence, where the intelligence goes to my guests. And in this case is Christopher John Bosso, professor of public policy and politics at Northeastern University, published by the University of California Press. Do you want to hold up the book for when we show it on video? Because one thing, it’s a great book, very important book. But what’s really great about it is it only costs 25 bucks in hardcover. How did they do it? They ripped off Chinese labor right? The great hypocrisy of it. 

Christopher Bosso It was subsidized by foundation money. So I’d buy more about how they actually did it beyond that, I don’t know. 

Scheer Let’s cut to the chase here. You’ve written about a subject that most people don’t want to think about unless they happen to be in the 40 million American group of people who need the food stamp program needs supplementary, what is it technically called? 

Bosso The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. 

Scheer Yeah and the subtitle of the book is A Political History and Defense of the Food Stamp Program. Now, let me just tell you, as a kid who was born in 1936, so thank God for FDR is what I heard all my life. And my father lost his job the day I was born in Bronx Hospital and had it not been for all sorts of programs that came in response to the Great Depression, I would not be here. That’s pretty clear. And so I have never understood why any of this is controversial. And in the case of the food program that you’re talking about and it’s major advocates were basically agriculture, big low paying stores like Wal-Mart, right? You know, the Sunbelt. And because basically we used to destroy food when we overproduce because we have all these agricultural subsidies. So there’d be big collections of cheese rotting and grain rotting and everything. And the food supplement program was, hey, don’t let it rot, give it out to people who need it. You know, it’s a no brainer. Whatever religion you believe in, whatever philosophy, you got to be a kind of weird character to not want this. Now, once again, some Neanderthal Republicans, I don’t know, I don’t wanna give Neanderthals a bad rep, are attacking this program, which again, I should point out that George W Bush actually expanded the program. They used to be an enlightened Republican view and supported Wal-Mart’s position because in a way it underwrites low wages that people can get assistance. But you chose to write about the book, and I like the title. It’s a political history, you’re an academic, you’re objective, but you put in there and defense of the food stamp program. Why does it need defense? 

Bosso Well, I think it’s a great question, and I defend it because it’s one of those programs that everybody doesn’t like for different reasons. You know, liberals, for example, would prefer straight cash. You know, it’s one of those programs that they would prefer that low income people, low income households get cash. You know, you know, a straight line like Nixon’s universal income kind of idea way back when. Conservatives, you know, depending on which brand of conservatives you talk to, you know, don’t like the idea of welfare and they regard SNAP as welfare. It is, you know, is actually a supplemental program designed to supplement food nutrition. But it’s also at the end, an income supplement. That’s what you’re doing. So everybody has a critique of the program for different reasons. You know, your point. Does the SNAP subsidize Wal-Mart and other low wage employers? You know, maybe it does, because by supplementing wages. Does SNAP incentivize, you know, does it disincentivize work? Well, there’s critiques about that. There’s arguments about that. You know, does it incentivize people to eat bad food? There’s critiques about that. Should we.. Yeah, And there’s all kinds of I don’t. 

Scheer Want to go through the negatives…

Bosso But my point is defending the… Yeah, go ahead. 

Scheer What everybody should love about your book, so let’s just cut to the chase. This is a book about a program that has worked for a long time. 70 years or something, Right? How long? 

Bosso Well, it will be 60 years next year officially. 60 years now, because Kennedy brought it back in 1961. 

Scheer Okay. So let’s just be clear. I’m able to buy and read a book. You want to show it again. Show me the cover again. Because I like the whole idea. What we want to know because everybody’s saying we throw money at problems. We throw money at problems. Of course they don’t mind throwing problems at banks that defraud people out of their homes, as Obama did in the saving the banking industry because they were too big to fail. But nonetheless, the very idea that at this stage of technology and civilization and everything else, we are questioning whether you should have supplementary food aid to people and have children are involved families and everything is, to my mind, absurd and that I should have to applaud you for setting the record straight and telling us that it works and why it works. And yet the reason people should read this book is some in the Republican Party, possibly the new leader of their majority in the House. You know, I don’t know where Trump actually personally comes down. He was actually a pretty big spender during the pandemic, throwing money at problems. You know, help people on unemployment and everything else. Maybe he won’t be so bad but nonetheless, your book was celebrated by The New Republic because they’re big and a lot of liberals, their big thing now is Trump is this menace is going to destroy everything. And your book was celebrated as an achievement of an enlightened program that works that the Republicans might destroy. Let’s put that to the side. That’s prediction. What I would like to know is, first of all, if this program works and it’s a model, and right now at this moment in America, we don’t know the exact figure, but it’s close to 40 million human beings are getting some food on their breakfast table, some eggs that would otherwise have been destroyed. This is part of helping agriculture be stable. That was one of the original goals of the thing. They’re going to be able to feed their children before they go to school so we don’t have to totally depend upon the school lunch program, which also benefits from this. And so to my mind, why isn’t this a norm? Why is there any controversy about this? 

Bosso Well, I mean, it’s a controversy simply because this is the United States and we don’t like welfare. That’s sort of the long… I mean, our history, our culture is anti welfare. At least that’s the way it’s talked about. I mean, at the end of the day, Americans actually like a lot of the programs that are in place, they just don’t like welfare in it’s an abstraction. And so SNAP gets caught up in this welfare debate, which got its fair share of, you know, racial and gender overtones to it know, because, you know, this notion that you should take care of yourself is deeply ingrained in your culture. Having said that, you know, we don’t want people go hungry. And that’s the point why SNAP has survived so, so long. Is that the end the day it meets at that point in contradiction. We don’t like welfare, but we don’t want people to go hungry in a land with so much food. So SNAP becomes the sort of place where… 

Scheer …Put the word welfare into it. That has nothing to do with the traditional use of the word welfare. Let’s cut to the chase. I mean, the reason I’m in such shock that this is a center of controversy is that most of my life this has not been a controversial program. Agriculture likes it. Rural America likes it. Republicans often have liked it. Even cranky liberals like it. And it seems to me now and you make a very important point, is that we want to build in us “them” dichotomy. We want to have a group of people to dislike. This is the old welfare queen thing that Ronald Reagan did, which you discuss in your book. And we want to pick on not the poor, because there are plenty of white poor and they can also vote. And this is a program that, as I keep saying, has basically benefited agriculture big or small, and it’s taken food that would have otherwise been wasted. And we’d be reading stories as we used to read of cheese rotting and, you know, grain spoiling and everything else. So this is clearly a win-win program, win-win. I didn’t need your book to convince me that this was a program that works. What I find amazing is that this sensible use of government authority and so forth should be questioned and questioned now and actually maybe in this election. 

Bosso Right. I mean, it’s not new in a sense. One reason why I raised the fence of it, because for the last 30 years, there really has been a wing of the Republican Party, the most conservative group going back to Gingrich that you know, and, you know, even before that attacked SNAP as essentially welfare. So there has been a strain of anti-welfare. 

Scheer Let me interrupt you for a second, I actually interviewed Gingrich about this and his phony baloney thing was really it should come… We need charity and we need help and we have to help people, it should come from the private sector, from individual Americans. Well, the fact is there are a lot of private church organizations and so forth that can use this program to distribute food. 

Bosso Well, I mean, let me be blunt, without SNAP, the entire food bank system breaks down because SNAP is the huge elephant in the room for those folks. Because if you didn’t not have SNAP those folks, we have nowhere to go a lot of times. And they would go to the food banks and the food pantries and there wouldn’t be enough there to support them. They all know that. So they all know that without… So the food bank system is a big supporter of SNAP because they know without SNAP, without school meals, they would crumble under the demand. 

Scheer So one other argument. Okay. So we’re going to stipulate here and if people don’t. Like it, They research it and they get angry about it. But as far as I’m just going to stipulate, and this is the prejudice of having grown up in America for a long time and I full confession. I was born in 1936 at the height of the Depression. And so, yeah, my family got a lot of support from measures of the Roosevelt administration, including food support. And so I suspect from my generation, even if they’re arch Republicans, there wouldn’t be that much argument about using surplus food to feed people instead of having rot. It’s that simple. Why would you want the food, right? Because I would say at the heart of the program, the reason it always sailed through Congress. Originally big agriculture wanted it. You know, this was a way of subsidizing the price of food, you know, keeping it stable, and instead of, you know, just letting it by putting it somewhere, too, right? No, we gave it to people. So I think it’s one of those truly no brainer issues. But I applaud you for pointing out that despite it being an obviously great program, it’s under attack. And the attack reminds me and I know your book is not about the whole area of what is called welfare, but basically how do we deal with the poor? You mentioned Michael Harrington and others, you know, brought our attention to poverty. It’s one reason why President Kennedy did expand this program a bit, because, oh, we do have poor people. Thanks to Michael and others who wrote about it in the early sixties. Oh, we have to pay attention. But the irony is, here we are. No country has ever been this rich. No country has ever been this abundant, you know? And yet we can’t take care of a significant portion of our population. And we question anything, including a program that works. And I do want to remind people, because, you know, as I say, I read about your book originally it was a New Republic article, and they were talking about all this stop Trump and the Trump people want to hurt us. The fact of the matter is, I saw, wait a minute, where are the Democrats on these kind of programs? You know, and the argument that you address. I just want to read one thing, because it’s a question about having incentives to work and the attack on this. And it mentioned here at the end of the New Republic article. Yes, they said the odd thing you said they quote you versus said is that there’s no good evidence that SNAP disincentives work. Two decades of studies have shown that work requirements are effective at kicking recipients off the roll but not getting those recipients to acquire a job. Oh, well, of course, that was the whole story of Bill Clinton’s project success. It failed in Arkansas When he put it in, it failed nationally. Oh, we’re going to get these well, 70% of the people on what was called Mosaic. Two families with Dependent children were those dependent children, 70%. I covered this. I went to Arkansas. I looked at Governor Clinton’s program, and then I looked at the federal program. And what a key thing he as governor when he was running for president, said, I asked him two questions. Is this a way of saving money? He said, no. If you really want to get people back to work, you have to do education. You have to supply child care. Correct. Secondly, I said it can’t be a state program, can it, Because you’ll have a meanness. Darby He said, absolutely. It has to be a federal program and it has to be subsidized. Well, right now, you know, we living in a situation where we don’t have effective programs for what is a really large at risk population. And the good news here is that no one no, I mean, there’s an even an embarrassment factor to attack this program. But the principles that you outline in your book really have much broader application. You know, and the arguments against this program are also used against a lot of all the other programs. I don’t want to hijack your book. So have. 

Bosso You seen any new. 

Scheer Awards? 

Bosso I mean, obviously, the debate over SNAP is at its core, the same debate that we’ve had over almost every program for low income people. The poor is, you know, should you know, because you’re sister’s ethos that we have in our culture, at least in the abstract, that people should work. In fact, all of our programs have been based on the notion of work. And if you go back and look at almost all of our programs, the Earned Income Tax Credit, for example, the largest anti-poverty program we have is based on work. You don’t work. You don’t get there. You don’t earn income. You don’t get the tax credit. So we had this notion in the United States that everybody should be working. Now, this collides into other things, like mom should be at home raising the kids. Well, what do we do about mom? So we don’t really know what to do with mom. So we think she should be working, but we don’t. We want to take care of the kids, but we don’t supply health care. You know, so we have this contradiction in our culture about the role, for example, of women and family. You know, other countries pay, people stay at home. The French will pay, the mothers stay at home and raise the children. So, you know, other countries deal with this also. But, you know, the. 

Scheer Father or the father. 

Bosso Or I think it’s I think it’s a family allowance. So I’m not sure of, you know, if it’s gender based or not. But I think there’s a family allowance because the French wanted to incentivize having children. You know, after two World wars, especially after World War One. So, you know, we in the United States, we’ve got this sort of duality in our heads about especially about the role of women. But when it comes to poor people, the view is, is that they should be working. So, you know, so, you know, we’re going to give a hint. 

Scheer That we qualify. 

Bosso That’s at least that’s The View. 

Scheer Your movie indulge me here. You’re basically giving away the main argument is the beneficiaries of these programs are people who can’t work, not because they’re inept, but because they’re too young. 

Bosso Disabled or they’re seniors. Yeah. 

Scheer Yeah. But, I mean, this. 

Bosso Should. 

Scheer Be true of child welfare. Oh, 70% were children. Oh, your mother’s not working. You’re not going to eat. I mean, you know. So let’s cut to the chase here. Yes. 

Bosso The majority of households are with kids. 

Scheer Well, but the point. 

Bosso And in fact, the work requirements typically only relate to family to able bodied men without kids. So there’s a you know, there’s a bit of a note. 

Scheer And the hypocrisy, by the way, to now stick it to these so-called conservatives because they are too hard to know what they’re conserving. But they are all for, you know, people having families if they want them. And they’re critical of the birth control movement for trying to keep that down. But once the child is born, I’m not the first person to observe this. 

Bosso It’s a body. Frankly, it’s. 

Scheer All about the child. The child was only important when it was a fetus and a political football, you know, But once the child was born and if they happened to be born to mothers who are not working, for what reason or fathers who are not working, for what reason, oh, the heck with them. You know, that’s really what I can’t look, I just want people to buy your book and read it because I want to discuss precisely because the immorality, the profound immorality of the argument, the attack on poor people has to be made clear. And presumably every version of Jesus is thinking, or the Hebraic tradition or Buddhism. I mean, there is no religion that I know of that does not emphasize the weak and helping the other and showing concern. So for all of what Chris Hedges talks about, our move to a kind of Christian fashion is in, which is scary and nationalistic and militarize. I mean, it’s pretty hard to imagine somebody saying, no, I don’t want that child to have that piece of bread or that butter or that milk. But that’s really professionally as a scholar, that’s what you’re up against, right? You must hate groups. You must try to get this word out. 

Bosso Well, I mean, I think that you run into again, you run this prejudice of you know, of you know, we don’t trust poor people because we don’t think we think if they’re poor, it’s their own fault, you know? And, you know, and especially if they are not like us. And so I think there’s this constant sort of cultural tension in the United States because, you know, because, again, you know, our view on poor people is that we should control them, we should monitor them. We should make it harder for, you know, and so we have a tendency to think poor people are poor because, you know, they somehow have failed morally or. 

Scheer Otherwise or conservative you tech because you’re a that’s not really the conservative position when it comes to birth control. 

Bosso Which is a separate issue. That’s. 

Scheer No, it’s not. 

Bosso Well, of course. Yeah. 

Scheer Okay. But as somebody who was born into poverty, let me tell you, I’ve thought about it quite often. My mother had, I think, more abortions before she had me. And my mother was not married when she had me. So I’ve always thought in this debate, at least when the Catholic Church says they’re pro-life, they at least make some effort to take care of children who are born. They utter hypocrisy of saying you’re against birth control, but you don’t care about the child once it’s born. Strikes me personally, you know, what are we talking about here? I mean, so let’s not avoid that. What you’re really in your book is talking about taking food out of the mouths of babes. Mm hmm. Right. 

Bosso Well, animal. Well, it’s also talking about why, in fact, that argument has failed. That’s why SNAP has been so resilient. It’s because at the end of the day, Americans don’t want fellow Americans to go hungry. And so SNAP is about food. So whatever people’s abstract notions of welfare or about the poor are, at the end of day, they also don’t want to see their fellow Americans be hungry. And so SNAP is the reason why I defend the program is that it’s effective at getting people to get food through the regular system of going to stores. Mirror SNAP. As you take your ID card, you go to Wal-Mart, you go to your local, you know, grocery store, you go to your local bodega. If they’re taking SNAP and you can buy food like everybody else can. That’s the genius of it. You don’t look different. You’re not having color coupons anymore. And so it utilizes the existing system to enable people to get food. You know, that’s, I think, a genius system. 

Scheer Yeah, but we knew we wouldn’t need your book if that was obvious to everybody. 

Bosso That’s why I wrote it, because I was fascinated by how this program is still survived all these years. 

Scheer No, but also, your book is a defense of the program, and it unfortunately needs a defense. Right? That’s what I’m talking about. What’s sick about our culture, our system. I mean, that’s my point, because the same defense programs are not all the same. But clearly, the program to aid to families with Dependent Children, you don’t want dependent children to be lacking in education, health care, supervision. You know, Head Start programs, if they’re dependent children and their parents are not able to provide what is needed and they grow up without that being provided. There’s a social cost, there’s a damage, so forth. So any kind of rudimentary common sense decency would have you supporting these programs. And the irony, as I point out, with the pandemic, when suddenly a lot of us were vulnerable for one reason or another, particularly not having jobs, suddenly we wanted the government to throw money at us, certainly for health care. No questions. You get the vaccine, you go there, you get this checkup, you get you get an extra unemployment check, you’ll get this. And there was Donald Trump leading the charge, right? I mean, the fact of the matter is Donald Trump played Roosevelt, FDR, during the pandemic, and we did not. 

Bosso Get in the way. Yeah, well, or at least do not get in the way of it. I mean, you know. No, no, no. I’m honestly, it’s, um. This is always a reason. 

Scheer Well, I think we misunderstand the Trump phenomena. 

Bosso Oh, no. He’s a walking the populist dimension of him. You know, he didn’t mind spending money. 

Scheer Okay, But as on the receiving end, people got extra money. Oh, yeah. To allow them to pay their rent or mortgage. And it saved them. That’s right. How do you get to say that the programs work if they can be used not just to save banks? The New York Times, I mean, today, this morning, they have a story, the great educational success of the military education program. Oh, you have somebody in the Army. They got in the military. They’ve got a regular salary. You’re paying their teachers of their kids much more than the regular school system. They have none of the social disarray, crime or anything else. They can live on a base and, oh, you get higher test results. And the people at The New York Times, they lost all sense that this is a model for America. Oh, really? So we’re going to all of us join the military and then we’ll get the grade scores up. It’s nonsense. And I don’t know, it’s not for me to put some more outrage into your defense of your book and the program. But I think the significance of your book is that these programs that trace back to the New Deal and Roosevelt work, they worked splendidly. That includes regulating banks. That includes later on the Eisenhower Building, the highway program, worrying about infrastructure, all of this stuff which every modern capitalist society and the world does. It’s not just France. They do it to survive. They do it because it’s efficient. That’s the message of your book, The most important enduring program which feeds people, keeps them alive and hopefully healthier so that medical costs are less for the society. That program is still under attack, but it’s really a model for thinking about a more logical, not heritable, but more logical society, which some people refer to as social democracy or something. But it’s really just common sense. It’s what Confucius said a good emperor had to do. It’s what Aristotle said a good emperor had to do. I mean, this is not some new modern rocket science. 

Bosso No, not at all. And that was the point I think about the book, was that I sort of start out with a question about how is this program survived all these years? And then I came away going, you know, compared to the alternatives, this is a good program. 

Scheer Yeah. So, you know, really, why should people buy the book? 

Bosso I think it would help them understand why we do it this way in the United States. Why do we have we’re the only country that bases our food assistance on this model. But it’s also an income assistance program. At the end of the day, that’s what SNAP is. And so, like a lot of our income assistance programs, the United States, when. 

Scheer We’re the only ones. But then you’re suggesting the others have other ways and maybe better ways of doing. 

Bosso Well, the other countries, most other rich countries give you know, they will provide straight cash through like some welfare system or another board or nothing or nothing. 

Scheer So for this congressman, what is his name gets from in Florida, wants to be the leader of the House. If he doesn’t like this program, why does why doesn’t he just give cash, let people go whatever store they want? 

Bosso Because we don’t trust poor people. So we so at least we at least we in fiction, actually. But obviously, when it comes to SNAP, at least they’re spending it on food. 

Scheer Okay, so why is our country all capitalist class dumber than the others? Say the government, you know, Really? What are you. 

Bosso Doing? You know? 

Scheer I mean, that’s basically. 

Bosso I think that that I think that there’s been a if I can hazard a guess. 

Scheer This is a primarily that we are a society built on racism. We identify poverty with race, and therefore we can be vindictive and vicious and illogical and punish children of the wrong race and not care about the consequence. 

Bosso Well, actually, I think it might be, you know, their arguments about that. I would argue that, you know, once upon a time postwar, you saw a model, the United States unionized employee, employers unionized. My father was an automobile worker, Chevrolet. And I grew up in a postwar America where you had large employers of unionized workforces. And so you had this government employee employer relationship that was very similar, what happens in Germany and that sort of stayed in place from the forties through the seventies. And then it breaks down. And obviously with union busting and with, you know, and the loss of big job employment for a lot of industrial working class people. So by the eighties that begins to break down. And then we come to celebrate the entrepreneurial, the robber baron types. You know, when we’re celebrating Elon Musk over say that the chairman of General Motors, the chairwoman of General Motors, you know, that’s a cultural phenomenon. But, you know, but there were the bones there of that relationships that we sort of lost. You see them maybe creeping back in some sectors. 

Scheer Well, you know, show the book again. And look, people keep saying what works? What can we do that works? You know, and this is the book and I’m adding to it. I think this is a model for thinking about all of the so-called do gooder programs that unfortunately, most do gooders have run away from or are indifferent to. Is shocking to me. As I said, somebody who grew up in the suppression and my prayers were, you know, and we never made it to the level of auto workers. They were garment workers. So it was a bit rougher. But the idea that somebody had told me when I was going to high school or something that we would be arguing about the food stamp program and that that would be questioned, I think I would think they’d all gone off their mind. You know, and by the way, you know, just one last thought, you know, because people keep saying, well, Trump is, you know, a fascist Hitler. Well, what are the appeals of fascism? Everybody forgets. I know because my father was from Germany and my half my family were from Germany and the rest are still there. Unfortunately, the Jewish side of my family were killed by them. But the fascism worked in the most advanced, technologically advanced, enlightened, scientifically enlightened society. These people don’t have jobs and they didn’t have food. And you walked around. My uncle told me, my German uncle with a wheelbarrow of Marx and you couldn’t buy a loaf of bread. And he was a farmer. He couldn’t sell his food and he had a burial in the fields. And so when we look at Trump’s appeal, you know, an appeal of any demagogue of that sort, it’s because people are happy. And the people who are happy and are going to Trump are happy economically, you know, And most of them are white. Most of them are supposed to be privileged in this society, and they are hurting. And I while I appreciate that The New Republic gave your book a great plug, I think their whole idea that all of our problems start and end with Donald Trump, who is a symptom of societal disarray, rather, as an innovator. I think your book is an answer to that. Even there’s a very good program, excellent program. I don’t know how you possibly go. Critics charge it is being challenged. And while Trump some of his people I don’t know where he comes down on this are leading that charge. I don’t hear much defense on the other side of the aisle. 

Bosso And that was one of my great it’s one of my points. Liberals should be, in fact, defending this program far more than they do sometimes. Say that again. Liberals should be defending this program far more than they do sometimes. 

Scheer So why aren’t they? 

Bosso Well, it’s because it’s not cash. They like the idea of cash better because it’s cleaner, gives people more freedom. But my argument is that, you know, we’re not going to do that in this country, except under rare circumstances, like during a pandemic when everybody was affected. Your point about this was that when when have we been all in together? It’s during crises, the depression, the pandemic. Those are the rare moments in American history where universal programs like this tend to be supported because we’re all in the same boat. But that’s rare. 

Scheer On that note, let me I really appreciate it because you show the book cover one more time. University of California Press. And unfortunately, the electronic version covers, of course, as much as that. So you get the actual book. 

Bosso Five bucks? 

Scheer Yeah, 25 bucks. And I want to thank you. Yeah, I want to thank Laura Kondourajian at KCRW and Christopher Ho for posting these shows on this great NPR station and others. I want to thank Joshua Scheer, executive producer, who insisted I do this and was great admirer of your work. I want to thank Max Jones, who does the video. Diego Ramos, who writes the introduction and I particularly shout out to the JKW Foundation, which in memory of Jean Stein, a great author who cared about these issues of supply, some funding for the show. See you next week with another edition of Scheer Intelligence. 

Subscribe to our weekly newsletter

* indicates required
CC-BY-NC-ND is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license. CC-BY-NC-ND only applies to ORIGINAL ScheerPost content.

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments