Transcript:
Daniella Gibbs Léger: Hey everyone, welcome back to “The Tent,” your place for politics, policy, and progress. I’m Daniella Gibbs Léger.
Colin Seeberger: And I’m Colin Seeberger. Daniella, I don’t know about you—I am sick of cold season and cold season.
Gibbs Léger: Exactly. Cold and then colder.
Seeberger: Yes.
Gibbs Léger: Maybe some snow.
Seeberger: Yes.
Gibbs Léger: And then cold again.
Seeberger: And then, achoo, cold.
Gibbs Léger: Exactly. I am so ready for this winter to go away. Bring on the hay fever and the seasonal allergies, but give me the warmth, I will take it.
Seeberger: Let’s do it. Let’s do it.
Gibbs Léger: Yes, exactly. I’m glad to see that we both made it into the studio this week—
Seeberger: Indeed.
Gibbs Léger: —so at least that means there’s been continuous school and care for our children. And I hear it was totally worth it for the conversation that you had.
Seeberger: It really was, Daniella. I talked to Michael Linden, who is a senior policy fellow at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth and a CAP Action alumni. We talked about MAGA Republican plans to use a type of legislative maneuver called budget reconciliation to slash services Americans rely on and deliver tax cuts for Trump’s billionaire political donors. We also chatted about how Trump’s illegal funding freeze is hurting everyday Americans.
Gibbs Léger: It is definitely at the top of everyone’s mind right now. But before we get to that, we have to get to some news.
So last week we heard powerful testimony from director Slava Leontyev. He served in Ukraine’s special forces, and he reminded us what Ukrainians are fighting for as they try to stave off Russia from erasing their country and their identity.
Which is why it’s all the more disturbing that the Trump administration is meeting with Russian officials this week in Riyadh to try to negotiate an end to the war without the participation of Ukraine or any other European country. This is a blatant betrayal of our allies and really a gift to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Making decisions about a nation’s future without that nation represented in a room is really something that is straight out of an imperialist playbook. It’s disheartening, but honestly not surprising from a president who just last week said Ukraine may, quote, “someday be Russian,” and this week blamed Ukraine for Russia’s invasion. And yes, it was Donald Trump, not Vladimir Putin, who said these things.
Trump has long disregarded the importance of Ukraine’s struggle and how it impacts democracy’s ability to resist authoritarianism around the world. He blocked aid to the country time and time again—sometimes illegally, like during his last administration—and now he’s throwing Ukraine under the bus and playing right into the hands of his oligarch buddy, Putin.
Seeberger: That’s exactly right, Daniella. And like we’ve said since Inauguration Day—and I feel like a broken record here—but none of these actions make Trump look strong, right? He doesn’t project like a strong leader. They make America and him look weak.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said this week that Ukraine will never accept a deal made without their input. And why should they?
Gibbs Léger: Right.
Seeberger: If Mexico invaded the United States and took over Texas, and Canada negotiated a peace agreement with Mexico over our land without including us in those talks—it’s not like we would agree to that, right? Absolutely, not.
Gibbs Léger: Uh-uh, uh-uh.
Seeberger: So far these negotiations don’t include any permanent security guarantees. So Russia could just come back in a few years and attack Ukraine again in the future. All of this is coming on the heels, of course, of a truly frightening speech Vice President JD Vance made at the Munich Security Conference last week. He attacked European democracies, blaming them for everything under the sun while his own party chips away at democracy here at home. The irony is really staggering. Cozying up to Russia while lecturing Europe on free speech does nothing but weaken the transatlantic alliance and embolden autocrats like Vladimir Putin.
Also, I just got to point out: I hear a lot from folks on the Right that are like, “Europe’s got to step up.” You know what? Actually go look at each of the countries in the European Union—
Gibbs Léger: Mm-hmm.
Seeberger: —and how much they have been putting forward toward actually protecting Ukraine from this Russian offensive in pretty much in every single quarter since this conflict first started. In nearly every single quarter, Europe has actually outmatched the United States in terms of its contribution.
The broader implication is a world where might makes right and secret deals replace transparent diplomacy, which undermines the principles of sovereignty and collective security that have helped keep the world relatively stable for decades.
These developments, they aren’t just a betrayal of Ukraine. They’re a dangerous step toward a fractured and lawless international order—one that could spiral into a far more serious conflict with a nuclear armed adversary, potentially drawing in the United States. These are the stakes, Daniella.
Gibbs Léger: And absolutely terrifying ones at that, Colin. But speaking of fractured and lawless, that seems to be the MO right now of this administration here at home.
Seeberger: Sure does.
Gibbs Léger: They have continued to purge workers at a number of key federal agencies, and it’s having immediate repercussions for the health and safety of Americans. Over the weekend, the administration fired a new wave of workers off at the CDC and the FDA [the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration]. Here are some of the things that these people worked on before they were fired:
- Responding to disease outbreaks
- Making sure medical devices for people with cancer and diabetes are safe to use
- Ensuring infant formula is safe to consume
- Administering grants for research into curing cancer and heart disease
Even people who were in charge of responding to an outbreak of tuberculosis in Kansas City—that is currently still ongoing—were let go.
And unfortunately, the list goes on and on. And I should add that according to NPR, many of these firings might not even save taxpayers any money because the terminated positions weren’t paid for with tax dollars.
This also comes, of course, in the middle of the worst flu outbreak in 15 years. And to add insult to injury, the administration has now ordered the CDC to take down many of its informational resources on the flu and the efficacy of flu vaccines. It’s like they want to make us sicker, Colin. So much for the, quote-unquote, “Make America healthy again.”
Seeberger: Yeah, I mean, it’s just despicable. Another key agency that saw recent sweeping cuts was the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA, of course, is already facing a shortfall of air traffic controllers because of its overburdened air traffic control system. So while this round of FAA firings didn’t terminate any controllers, every firing here stretches an already stretched agency that much thinner.
Gibbs Léger: Mm-hmm.
Seeberger: It’s really just a recipe for disaster.
And we saw the ramifications of putting stress on this system last month in a horrific fatal plane crash over the Potomac River. Then there was the crash of a Delta flight from Minneapolis in Toronto just this week. Luckily, it doesn’t appear that anyone lost their life in that accident.
At a time when we’ve seen the first fatal commercial aviation accident in 15 years—as well as numerous other crashes, like one that happened on Wednesday in Arizona that killed at least one person after two planes collided—the last thing the administration should be doing is removing FAA support structures.
And lastly, we’ve got to talk about the huge cuts at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Because most of the people who work at the VA—92 percent, in fact—they either deliver health care directly to veterans or they help administer health services. Some message it sends to fire people who take care of those who bravely served our country.
I actually read about a Virginia Army veteran named Valerie Jackson who had her mammogram appointment at the VA canceled after the firings. She gets regular mammograms because her family has a history of cancer. Now, she won’t be able to get screened until June. The agency isn’t just canceling appointments, though. It’s also canceling research efforts on veteran suicide, opioid addiction, cancer, and conditions related to toxic burn pits.
This administration claims it’s cutting civil service positions in order to make things, quote-unquote, “more efficient.” You know, Daniella, I don’t really think depriving veterans of critical medical care; removing safety measures for food, formula, and medical devices; or leaving us flat-footed in the face of future pandemics is more efficient at all.
Gibbs Léger: It certainly is not, Colin. And we have only talked about a fraction of the harms from DOGE’s [the Department of Government Efficiency] purge. We didn’t even get to the experts who run our nuclear weapon sites that were impacted by these layoffs.
Seeberger: That was wild.
Gibbs Léger: That was so wild, you know? Or the workers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture leading the government’s response to bird flu who were let go. The Trump administration is now desperately trying to rehire them. It’s not giving efficiency to me.
Seeberger: It sure is not, Daniella. It’s giving incompetence.
Gibbs Léger: Exactly. Well on that note, that is all the time that we have for today. If there’s anything else you’d like us to cover on the pod, hit us up on Twitter, Bluesky, Instagram, and Threads @TheTentPod. That’s @TheTentPod.
Seeberger: And stick around for my interview with Michael Linden in just a beat.
[Musical transition]
Seeberger: Michael Linden is a senior policy fellow at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. He previously served as a senior adviser in the Office of Management and Budget during the Biden administration. He’s also served as a senior adviser on the Senate budget and health care committees. Before that, he’s worked at Groundwork Collaborative, The Hub Project, and the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Michael, thanks so much for joining us on “The Tent.”
Michael Linden: Thank you very much for having me.
Seeberger: So the reconciliation process is ongoing, and people probably are like, “What the heck even is that?”, right? And we know that there’s some conversations that are going on in the House, some conversations that are going on in the Senate.
Where are we in the process? What does it mean? And where do you think that we’re going over the course of the next few months?
Linden: Yeah. So step back for a minute, there’s this fancy word “reconciliation” that you might hear about, people might talk about, but to break it really all the way down, it’s just a budget bill. That’s what it is. That’s the way to think about it. It is a piece of legislation that has some special rules that help it get through the Senate faster. But what it fundamentally is, is a tax and budget bill. It’s going to change a bunch of the tax code. It’s going to change a bunch of the spending and the programs in the federal budget. That’s effectively what this bill that is starting to move through Congress is going to do.
And so what is in that bill? Well, it’s still a little bit undefined. There’s a lot of details that are left to be figured out, but at a very high level, we do know what the core pieces of this big budget bill are going to be.
And they’re basically three. One is a massive tax cut that mainly goes to very high-income people. So about $4.5 trillion—that’s a very big number. Most of that is going to go to people at the very top—top 5 percent, top 1 percent, and so on. The second big part of the budget bill is massive cuts to health care and food assistance and a whole host of other services that low- and moderate-income people, mainly, rely on and middle-income people rely on. And then a big chunk of it will be put on the national credit card because those tax cuts are so expensive.
So those are the three big pieces. There’s going to be more details as they move through the process, but that’s where they’re headed.
Seeberger: Well let’s dig into some of those elements.
We actually just at the time of this recording—it’s Wednesday morning—we actually just got some breaking news. President Donald Trump went on Truth Social this morning and sent out a post saying that he is calling on both chambers to pass the House of Representatives’ budget resolution, which puts an enormous bullseye on some of the programs you talked about—Medicaid, food assistance, right?
Linden: Yeah.
Seeberger: Why are they taking aim at these programs specifically, as opposed to others in the federal budget like giveaways basically to Big Pharma? And what are the impacts that American families can really expect from some of these policy changes?
Linden: Yeah, it’s the right question. And sometimes when I tell people what’s in their budget plan, they don’t believe me because it sounds so cartoonishly evil.
Seeberger: Mm.
Linden: Because fundamentally, the budget plan that the House of Representatives has started to put together would involve about $1 trillion of cuts to Medicaid. Medicaid covers health care for 70 million people in this country, many of whom are children. A big chunk of Medicaid covers long-term care for senior citizens, people who have disabilities.
It’s an extraordinarily efficient, frankly. It’s a very low-cost program, all things considered. It’s much lower cost than, for example, private health insurance. But fundamentally, the Republican caucus in the House seems to think that that is not a good use of money, and instead we should be giving those dollars to tax breaks at the top.
And that is literally what their budget does. That $1 trillion of money that they want to cut from Medicaid would go directly into bigger tax cuts for people at the very top. And you can see why when I tell people that, they think that can’t possibly be the case. Most people in this country, including most Republicans, think that would be totally backward. But they are counting on the confusion of a legislative process and the noise in the media obscuring this very simple fact: that what they are doing is taking money out of the pockets of low- and moderate-income people so that they can partially finance very large tax cuts to people at the top.
It is a little bit baffling. It’s exactly the opposite of what I think the American people were hoping for and certainly what the American people want.
Seeberger: Yeah. Stealing money out of people’s pockets—never really popular. But also, speaking of money, MAGA Republicans’ policy proposals—they’re really expensive. You talked about some of this being deficit financed, right?
Linden: Right.
Seeberger: They want to extend the 2017 tax cuts, which is, like you said, about $4.5 trillion. They want to make us believe that the cost of continuing that policy is going to be nothing because it’s just building on the same law that was passed before or some magic wand is going to be waved and there’s going to be this tremendous additional economic growth that’s going to pay for the plan itself, which is, of course, the same song and dance that we saw in 2017 when they made these exact same arguments.
Linden: Right. This time it’ll trickle down.
Seeberger: Yeah.
Linden: It’s never trickled down before, but this time, for some reason, it’ll trickle down. I don’t know. It seems unlikely to me.
Seeberger: I think that’s right. Can you clarify for our listeners: What will running up the debt and deficit to pay for these tax cuts—what will that mean for everyday Americans? How does that affect their finances?
Linden: Yeah. So I feel like if you talk to most people, they’ll say some version of, like, “Why does it feel like there’s never enough to go around? Why does it feel like my kids’ schools are always underfunded? How come the hospitals don’t have enough beds and are not well funded? Or how come my roads have potholes? How come there’s not enough job training slots? There just doesn’t feel like there’s enough to go around.”
And the reason is that we’ve been spending trillions of dollars on tax cuts for rich people over the last 25 years and doing so puts enormous pressure on the rest of the federal budget.
And so you have these large deficits and this large debt, which is primarily a function of tax cuts over the last 25 years. And what ends up happening to regular people is that they pay the price because we don’t invest in everyday Americans and in their lives. And so the deficit and the debt gets used as an excuse for why we just don’t have enough money to put into your kids’ schools or into your community hospitals or to make sure that your energy costs are a little bit more affordable. We just don’t have the money.
Well, we do. We would have the money if we would just ask the very wealthy and corporations to pay what they owe, to pay a little bit closer to their fair share. So one of the ways that this debt and deficit impacts everybody is, it’s used as a reason why we have to cut Medicaid. For example, right now—that’s what’s happening right now. And honestly, it’s really unconscionable. We wouldn’t have this budget crunch if we didn’t spend trillions of dollars on tax breaks for people at the very top.
Seeberger: Of course, these higher deficits also put upward pressure on interest rates, affecting people’s home loans, car loans, student loans now. That’s a direct thing that people are seeing every single month, too.
I am curious to talk to you about also—in addition to about reconciliation, I am curious to talk to you a little bit about what we’re seeing from Elon Musk and Donald Trump, who are running around town slashing services that Americans rely on—
Linden: Yeah.
Seeberger: —in the name of “efficiency,” quote-unquote, and allegedly still illegally freezing funding for important programs.
You worked at the Office of Management and Budget—
Linden: Yeah.
Seeberger: —a powerful office that helps an administration and president manage the budget and implement their policies. So I’m sure it’s not lost on you how alarming the developments we’ve seen and how out of step with how the government is supposed to function.
What are some of the effects Americans are already feeling? And what happens if Trump and Musk continue their government purge?
Linden: Yeah. It is scary. It’s scary for a bunch of reasons. And I think, first of all, we should be laser-focused on the human impact of these completely illegal actions.
There are Head Start centers around the country who have not had access to their funding, which means they’re going to have to lay off workers. Kids are not going to be able to go to school. That’s very concrete. A child is not going to be able to go to school because Elon Musk decided that Head Start is wasteful.
There are farmers who are not receiving what they had planned on for their finances to make it work for them. We can have a debate about whether those kinds of things—Head Start funding or agriculture subsidies—we can have an argument about whether those things are good or bad. But the place to have that argument is in a democratic system, and that’s Congress.
Congress is the one who’s supposed to decide where the money is supposed to go. It’s not up to the president to unilaterally decide that, in part because we don’t want one person deciding whether your Social Security check counts as wasteful or fraudulent. You’ve already seen Elon Musk completely misunderstand how some of these programs work, and with really significant consequences.
And here’s the other thing that really makes me nervous: They’re cutting things that they know would never pass Congress—
Seeberger: Mm-hmm.
Linden: —because they are popular, and they are effective, and people want them. And if you think that Social Security is off the table because it’s too popular, there’s no way they would cut it, Donald Trump promised they would never cut it—if there are no checks and balances, if there’s nobody saying to them, “You’re not allowed, that’s illegal, you can’t do it,” they might do it.
You already hear Elon Musk talk about how much fraud there is in Social Security—that’s baloney. There is actually not a lot of fraud in Social Security. The vast, vast, vast majority of Social Security goes to people who paid into the system, who earned those benefits and get what they deserve. In fact, the problem in Social Security is that for a lot of people, it takes too long to get their eligible benefits.
Seeberger: Yeah. That’s right.
Linden: So instead of solving that problem, he’s going to create more problems by cutting off people’s benefits illegally. Now, maybe they won’t do it. Maybe Congress will step in and stop him. But it is a bad thing to have the executive branch—any executive branch—but it’s especially a bad thing to hand over the decisions to an unelected billionaire who has enormous conflicts of interest and who’s really just in it for his own bottom line.
Seeberger: You were just jumping to the next question that I had. Speaking of those conflicts of interest, we know that Musk and the DOGE team have even potentially now gotten access to sensitive data, like, oh, everybody’s tax returns—
Linden: Yeah.
Seeberger: —their Social Security numbers, their payment data history. And they’re doing this all at the same time that Musk and his companies are receiving billions and billions of dollars in government contracts, enriching his own companies. It all just seems really flagrantly corrupt.
How is he getting away with this? And what does it really reveal about the priorities of President Trump and his administration?
Linden: I mean, it is flagrantly corrupt. It’s unbelievably corrupt. And I think we have a real problem on our hands here because Americans, I think for some good reasons and also some not so good reasons, have really come to mistrust their government. And they’ve really come to feel like no matter what happens, wealthy people seem to always come out ahead. Corporations seem to come out ahead. Corporations can spend four years gouging people and get another tax cut as a reward. Wealthy people seem to get to play by their own set of rules.
And that mistrust, I think, has permeated so much of our collective consciousness that maybe the incredibly out-in-the-open corruption that we’re seeing—dare I say fraud that we’re seeing—from this administration, I guess it just washes over people as business as usual. But it’s really not.
And for all of the problems that our government has, I think it is fair for the American people to want and expect their federal government to be in their corner and not in the corner of a bunch of billionaires and giant corporations. And I think that they are really making a huge political—I mean, certainly I’m happy to argue every day and twice on Sunday that it’s unconscionable, it’s bad policy, it’s illegal, it’s unconstitutional. I think it’s also bad politics.
And I think that the American people are going to be very frustrated when they find that the government that they elected to try and make their lives a little bit easier, to give themselves a little breathing room are, in fact, cutting back their health care, stealing money out of their pockets, making their Social Security unstable—all in the service of protecting Elon Musk’s bottom line and giving more tax cuts to billionaires. That is not a popular agenda. And I have to believe that they’re going to pay a political price for it.
Seeberger: Yeah. Speaking of that, I’ve been sensing a lot of hunger on the Left, calling on their elected officials to sound the alarm about what’s going on right now, right? This isn’t normal. I’d be curious to get your thoughts on what are the most important things that our elected officials should be doing to respond in this moment.
Linden: Yeah, I mean, look, I think it’s not just the Left in many respects, especially on these bread-and-butter tax and budget issues that we’ve been talking about here. Medicaid is 70 million people.
Seeberger: Yeah.
Linden: That’s a lot of Democrats. That’s a lot of Republicans. That’s a lot of independents. Every poll in history has shown that plenty of Republicans really don’t like tax cuts for billionaires. They feel just as frustrated with a tax system that lets the super wealthy off the hook as everybody else feels.
And so on some of these bread-and-butter economic issues, it’s really not just about the Left. It’s really about people who work for a living versus giant corporations and billionaires. And what I am hoping is that that becomes the overriding issues of the day.
Now I do think that there’s a real frustration that’s being directed at Washington in general, that Americans want to see their elected officials stand up and say, “This is wrong, this is illegal, and we are not going to conduct business as usual while the Treasury is being raided in the service of the wealthiest people in the history of the universe.” And I do think that is an important message for elected officials to both hear from their constituents and to convey to their colleagues.
But look, a lot of this is in our own hands. What I said earlier is one of the biggest challenges we face is that people don’t believe that something as out-and-out corrupt as what’s happening in the federal government could really be happening. I mean, they have a mistrust of the government, but do they really believe that they’re going to cut your own health care to pay for tax cuts for billionaires? It just sounds so outlandish in many respects.
Seeberger: Ludicrous, yeah.
Linden: But we all have some responsibility to talk to our friends and neighbors and say,”That is actually what’s happening.” And it is.
Seeberger: Yeah.
Linden: And the more that people hear from people they trust in their own circles that, “Yeah, if you can believe it, that’s what Congress is really considering. And yes, it is true that Elon Musk is trying to cut funding to low-income preschools to make more room for tax cuts for billionaires,” the more people will begin to believe it, and they will raise their voices.
Seeberger: That’s exactly right. And that’s you, that’s me, that’s our neighbors, that’s our family, and that’s our elected officials, too. We all have the responsibility to talk about these harms because they’re happening and will continue at even greater scale if this reconciliation bill does get through.
Michael Linden, thank you so much for joining us on “The Tent.”
Linden: Thank you so much for having me. It was a real pleasure.
[Musical transition]
Gibbs Léger: Well, that’s going to do it for us this week. Be sure to go back and check out previous episodes. But before we go, Colin— OK, let’s talk about it: “The Bachelor.”
Seeberger: Come on, lay it on me.
Gibbs Léger: Oh my goodness. I went from two episodes ago being a Carolina fan to being like, “Get this woman off my TV.”
Seeberger: She’s got to go.
Gibbs Léger: She has got to go. I cannot believe he gave her the rose.
Seeberger: She’s awful.
Seeberger: She’s so bad. She’s so manipulative and not self-aware.
Seeberger: No.
Gibbs Léger: And like, I get it. Everyone’s selfish. They want their time with Grant. Like, that’s why you’re on this show.
Seeberger: Sure.
Gibbs Léger: But like, to play the victim and just monopolize all the time? I was just like, “Oh my God, I don’t like her.”
Seeberger: Meanwhile, she’s like, “Yeah, I’m not sure I’m feeling this. I don’t know what’s for me.” Get out of here.
Gibbs Léger: Literally, get out. Pack your bags and go.
Seeberger: Yeah.
Gibbs Léger: Because that’s not what this show is about. Well, “It’s not natural to fall in love with somebody, get engaged.” I’m like, “That’s literally the show you signed up for.”
Seeberger: Yes, correct.
Gibbs Léger: So, like, if it doesn’t jive with your constitution, then leave.
Seeberger: This is not for you.
Gibbs Léger: It’s not for you.
Seeberger: So, I really I thought that Juliana, I think is her name, really handled that quite diplomatically—
Gibbs Léger: She did.
Seeberger: —and was very savvy and poised and classy. I got to say, I was a little caught off guard when, I think her name is Dina came to Carolina’s defense seemingly in that scene. And then in the previews for next week, she’s like ripping Carolina a new one. So it seems a little two-faced to me.
Gibbs Léger: It did. I was also like—
Seeberger: I’m going to stay tuned.
Gibbs Léger: “Is she trying to get some screen time?” Like, what’s going on?
Seeberger: Yes.
Gibbs Léger: They go to Scotland next week, so that’ll be pretty and interesting.
Seeberger: I’m excited. Speaking of Scotland, I know that you’re not a “Traitors” watcher, but oh my God “The Traitors” has been unbelievable this season, and I can’t wait to see where it goes next. I also know that you have not started watching “The White Lotus” yet, Daniella.
Gibbs Léger: I know, I know, I know.
Seeberger: But it is giving me all the joy in this winter doldrums season, watching them make it over to Thailand and check into the White Lotus Thailand. It’s going to be a really fun season. The Ratliffs are so much. Love Parker Posey. She’s incredible.
Gibbs Léger: She is wonderful.
Seeberger: The brothers. The dad’s getting inquiries from The Wall Street Journal asking them about some shady business deals. The trio of friends who come to The White Lotus to detox and spend time together and just relax. You know that they’ve got good drama that they’ve got to unpack. It’s going to be so much fun.
Gibbs Léger: All right. I am committing to sometime this year.
Seeberger: You can do it, Daniella.
Gibbs Léger: I am going to watch it. I believe in myself. But like I said earlier, I am still trying to catch up on “The Diplomat.” Which, what, I think, came out all of last year?
Seeberger: We don’t do diplomacy anymore, OK?
Gibbs Léger: Well that’s why I need to watch it! Although maybe that’s not a good example of diplomacy.
Seeberger: Also that.
Gibbs Léger: We should not be taking our cues. Although, I don’t know, maybe Trump is and that’s why we’re in this situation.
Seeberger: Here we are, folks.
Gibbs Léger: Here we are. OK. On that note, I will say it again. It’s still flu season, so—
Seeberger: Very much so.
Gibbs Léger: The doctors say even if you haven’t gotten your flu shot, you can get it now and it will be good. So please do that for yourself and for everyone around you.
Seeberger: Yes.
Gibbs Léger: Yes. And we will talk to you next week.
[Musical transition]
Gibbs Léger: “The Tent” is a podcast from the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It’s hosted by me, Daniella Gibbs Léger, and co-hosted by Colin Seeberger. Erin Phillips is our lead producer, Kelly McCoy is our supervising producer, Mishka Espey is our booking producer, and Muggs Leone is our digital producer. Hai Phan, Olivia Mowry, and Toni Pandolfo are our video team.
Views expressed by guests of “The Tent” are their own, and interviews are not endorsements of a guest’s perspectives. You can find us on YouTube, Apple, Spotify, Google Play, or wherever you get your podcasts.