>>> 11.8 MILLION.

THAT'S HOW MANY PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES ARE AT RISK OF LOSING THEIR VITAL HEALTH INSURANCE BECAUSE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S NEW DOMESTIC POLICY LAW.

WHILE HE HAS INSISTED THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO CAUSE DEATH, FORMER TREASURY SECRETARY, LAWRENCE SUMMERS, ARGUES THAT IT'S A CRUEL LAW THAT PUSHES ASIDE SIMPLE MATTERS OF DECENCY, AND HE JOINS WALTER ISAACSON TO EXPLAIN.

>> LAWRENCE SUMMERS, WELCOME BACK TO THE SHOW.

>> GOOD TO BE WITH YOU AGAIN.

>> YOU WROTE LAST WEEK, AFTER PRESIDENT TRUMP SIGNED WHAT HE CALLED THE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL ON JULY 4th -- YOU SAID, I DON'T REMEMBER ANY PAST JULY 4th, BEING SO ASHAMED OF ANY PAST ACTION MY COUNTRY HAD TAKEN PIT THAT WAS IN A NEW YORK TIMES OP-ED.

WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?

THING IN ITS BRUTALITY.

WE'VE HAD BUDGETS ALL THE TIME.

WE'VE HAD CHANGES IN POLICY.

THE UNITED STATES HAS NEVER CUT BACK ITS SOCIAL SAFETY NET.

NEARLY, AS MUCH, IN ANY ACTION.

NOT IN RONALD REAGAN'S CUTS IN 1981.

NOT IN THE WELFARE REFORM BILL THAT WAS PASSED IN THE MID- 1990S.

NOT IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS.

NEVER, HAVE WE HAD AS LARGE A CUTBACK IN THE SOCIAL SAFETY NET MEASURED RELATIVE TO THE SIZE OF THE ECONOMY, AS WE DID HERE.

AND, THE ACADEMIC EVIDENCE, THE STUDIES OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE ARE KICKED OFF OF MEDICAID IS VERY CLEAR.

THEY BECOME A BIT MORE LIKELY TO DIE, AND OVER 10 YEARS, THIS IS LIKELY TO KILL MORE THAN 100,000 PEOPLE.

THERE IS A KIND OF CASUAL BRUTALITY ABOUT THIS THAT IS NOT EVEN BEING WIDELY DISCUSSED, THAT IS JUST ON A DIFFERENT SCALE THAN ANYTHING OUR COUNTRY HAS DONE BEFORE, IN ALL THE VARIOUS BUDGETS WE HAVE HAD.

AND THEN, YOU ASK, WE ARE DOING THIS TO SAVE MONEY?

AND, FOR WHAT?

SO THAT PEOPLE, WHO CAN NOW TAX- EXEMPT, PAST $30 MILLION TO THE KIDS, WILL BE ABLE TO TAX-EXEMPT $32 MILLION TO THE KIDS?

SO THAT CORPORATIONS WILL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO HAVE TAX RATES THAT ARE LOWER THAN THE ONES THEY ASKED FOR AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL TRUMP LEGISLATION?

I JUST THINK THIS IS OUR COUNTRY GETTING ITS VALUES ALTOGETHER WRONG.

>> LET ME ASK YOU THE BIG PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION.

THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS WE PUT IN THE COMMENTS, THAT EVERYBODY HAS A RIGHT TO, WHETHER IT'S POLICED OF --POLICE PROTECTION, FIRE PROTECTION PIT SHOULD HEALTHCARE BE ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT WE TRY TO MAKE SURE IS MORE IN THE COMMONS, SO WE CAN PROTECT A SOCIETY THAT HAS DISPARITIES OF WEALTH, AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY CAN SURVIVE IN SUCH A PLACE?

>> A LOOK.

I AM A PROGRESSIVE.

I TEND TO THINK THE RIGHT ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS, YES.

BUT, THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE DEBATING HERE.

WE ARE DEBATING WHETHER A PARENT, WHO IS TAKING CARE OF A CHILD, WHO WEIGHS 70 POUNDS AS AN ADULT, WHOSE BODY IS WRACKED BY CEREBRAL PALSY, IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO SO THEY CAN GO OUT AND EARN A LIVING TO SUPPORT THE FAMILY.

WE ARE DEBATING WHETHER PEOPLE, WHO ARE DISCHARGED FROM THE HOSPITAL HAVE A PLACE TO GO, WHEN THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES.

WE ARE DEBATING WHETHER AGED PEOPLE, WHO NEED DIALYSIS TO SURVIVE --THERE IS A WAY OF GETTING THEM TRANSPORTATION TO THE HOSPITAL.

WE CAN DEBATE THE EXTENT TO WHICH WE SHOULD PROVIDE FOR THE SAME MEDICAL CARE FOR EVERYBODY.

THAT IS A HARD AND COMPLICATED QUESTION.

I AM ON THE PROGRESSIVE SIDE OF IT.

BUT, THE MOST ELEMENTARY KINDS OF DECENCY --I'M SURE THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE, WHO ARE AGAINST THAT.

BUT, I THINK THE VAST MAJORITY IF THE QUESTION WERE PUT TO THEM, WOULDN'T WANT TO SEE THE KIND OF BRUTALITY THAT WE ARE ENGAGING IN.

AND, IT REFLECTS WHAT WE ARE SEEING TOO MUCH OF.

WE ARE SEEING IT IN THE TARIFFS.

WE ARE SEEING IT IN MANY POLICIES.

IT IS JUST A CASUAL, WHAT SOUNDS GOOD, WITHOUT REALLY MAKING AN EFFORT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS HAPPENING ON THE GROUND?

THAT IS HOW THE DOGE DESTROYED THE ABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT TO COLLECT TAXES AND DISTRIBUTE EFFICIENTLY, SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS.

THAT IS HOW WE ARE SEEING DEPORTATIONS OF PEOPLE, WHO ARE AMERICAN CITIZENS, AND HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING WRONG.

IT'S THE -- THIS ISN'T A MATTER OF --WE CAN DEBATE THE LONG-STANDING QUESTIONS BETWEEN PROGRESSIVES THAT IS NOT WHAT IS AT ISSUE WHEN I CRITICIZED THIS BILL.

WHAT IS AT ISSUE WHEN I CRITICIZE THIS BILL IS SIMPLE MATTERS OF DECENCY ABOUT US AS A SOCIETY.

>> WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS, IT'S A BASIC CRUELTY DRIVING THIS?

>> IT IS A BASIC COMBINATION OF CRUELTY AND INDIFFERENCE, COMBINED WITH A SINGLE-MINDED FOCUS ON WHAT SHOULD BE TERTIARY OBJECTIVES.

PROVIDING TAX BENEFITS TO PEOPLE, WHO ALREADY HAVE THE HIGHEST INCOMES AND THE GREATEST LEVELS OF WEALTH.

IT IS THE WRONG FIRST PRIORITIES, THE WRONG AND COMPLETE INDIFFERENCE, AND THEN, A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF GRATUITOUS CRUELTY.

>> YOU JUST SAID THAT THE MEDICAID CUTS WOULD CAUSE 100,000 DEATHS OVER THE NEXT DECADE, AND YOU SAID NOT LONG AGO ON A TV SHOW, THAT IS 2000 DAYS OF DEATH, LIKE WE HAVE SEEN IN TEXAS THIS WEEKEND.

YOU WERE REFERRING TO THE TEXAS FLOODS.

SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, SCOTT BESSENT, SAID YOUR COMMENTS TURN TO HUMAN TRAGEDY INTO A POLITICAL CUDGEL, DEEPLY OFFENSIVE, AND HE CALLED ON YOU TO APOLOGIZE.

WHAT DO YOU SAY?

>> SECRETARY BESSENT CAN BE OFFENDED BY WHATEVER HE WANTS TO BE OFFENDED.

WHAT IS CALLOUS, WHAT IS A POLITICAL CUDGEL, IS THE POLICIES THAT HE AND HIS ADMINISTRATION ARE LEGISLATING.

THAT WILL, ACCORDING TO OBJECTIVE EXPERTS, IN BOTH PARTIES, KILL PEOPLE.

I DON'T APOLOGIZE FOR MAKING VIVID THAT LARGE A NUMBER BY POINTING OUT HOW IT DWARFS THE TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE TRAGEDY THAT TOOK PLACE IN TEXAS.

I THINK SECRETARY BESSENT, RATHER THAN ATTACKING EX- OFFICIALS, WHO ARE USING THEIR FREE SPEECH RIGHTS TO MAKE COMMENTS, WOULD BE BETTER OFF ASKING THE QUESTION, WHETHER, PERHAPS, IT WAS SUCH A GREAT IDEA TO SLASH THE BUDGET OF THE WEATHER BUREAU.

WHETHER IT WAS SUCH A GREAT IDEA TO BE IN STRONG OPPOSITION TO FEMA, IN LIGHT OF WHAT HAPPENED.

I DON'T HAVE ANY BASIS FOR KNOWING.

I REALLY DON'T, BUT AFTER A TRAGEDY OF UNPRECEDENTED SCALE, THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE IN THE IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH OF EFFORTS TO CUT THE PROTECTIVE MECHANISMS THAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE THE QUESTION THAT A THOUGHTFUL, CONSCIENTIOUS GOVERNMENT WOULD ENGAGE IN.

>> WHEN YOU WERE TREASURY SECRETARY, DURING THE LAST YEARS OF THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, I THINK YOU ALL PRODUCED BALANCED BUDGETS.

COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE SITUATION THEN, WITH WHAT TRUMP IS FACING NOW.

>> WE TRIED TO ALWAYS BE VERY CAREFUL, TO RESPECT WHAT THE INDEPENDENT, NONPARTISAN PEOPLE AT THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE WERE DOING.

SOMETIMES, WE FOUND IT INCONVENIENT.

SOMETIMES, WE WISHED THEY WOULD DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT, BUT WE UNDERSTOOD THAT IF IT WAS GOING TO BE A PROCESS WITH INTEGRITY, THERE HAD TO BE AN UMPIRE, AND THE UMPIRES ABUSE HAD TO BE RESPECTED.

AS PART OF THE SAME KIND OF EXPERTISE, THAT HAS LED THEM TO STOP SUPPORTING VACCINATION OF PEOPLE, AND LED THE COUNTRY TO AN UNPRECEDENTEDLY HIGH LEVEL OF MEASLES, THEY ARE JUST ATTACKING ALL OF THOSE PROCEDURES, AND MAKING UP THEIR OWN RULES, AND THEIR OWN ACCOUNTING.

I THINK IT'S VERY UNLIKELY TO PRODUCE ANY KIND OF FAVORABLE OUTCOME ON THE BUDGET.

>> I REMEMBER BACK THEN, DID YOU ARGUE THAT DEFICIT REDUCTION WAS NOT A BIG PRIORITY?

NOW, ACCORDING TO THE CBO, $3.4 TRILLION OVER THE NEXT DECADE.

IS IT A REAL PROBLEM NOW?

>> LOOK, I DID ARGUE, IN AN ERA IN THE DECADE OF THE TEENS.

I WAS, FOR A TIME, UNCONCERNED ABOUT THE BUDGET DEFICIT, FOR TWO REASONS.

IT'S BECAUSE THE DEFICIT IS MUCH SMALLER THAN IT IS NOW, AND BECAUSE INTEREST RATES WERE MUCH LOWER THAN THEY ARE NOW.

IF YOU CAN BORROW, INEXPENSIVELY ENOUGH, YOU HAVE TO WORRY LESS ABOUT BORROWING.

I THINK THE APPROACH THESE GUYS ARE TAKING IS RECKLESS.

IT IS RECKLESS, BECAUSE WE ARE FACING UNPRECEDENTED DEGREES OF SECURITY THREAT, AND THERE IS A QUESTION ABOUT HOW LONG THE WORLD'S GREATEST DEBTOR CAN REMAIN THE WORLD'S GREATEST POWER.

IT IS DANGEROUS BECAUSE WHEN YOU ARE SELLING SO MUCH DEATH, THERE CAN, DAY WHEN MARKETS JUST DON'T WANT IT.

THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED TO ENGLAND, CATASTROPHICALLY, AND ENDED PRIME MINISTER TRUSS'S PRIME MINISTER SHIP.

THAT FINANCIAL --IT'S TAKING MORE RISK, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T HAVE A RECESSION.

WE DON'T HAVE A PANDEMIC.

WE HAVE ONGOING, BUT NOT A MAJOR, NEW, NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT.

AND SO, THIS IS THE TIME WHEN WE SHOULD BE REBUILDING.

THIS IS THE TIME WHEN WE SHOULD BE FILLING UP THE COFFERS, SO THAT WE WILL BE READY FOR THE NEXT EMERGENCY.

INSTEAD, WE ARE BORROWING LIKE WE'VE GOT AN EMERGENCY RIGHT NOW.

THAT RAISES THE QUESTION OF WHAT WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO WHEN THE EMERGENCY COMES.

THIS IS IRRESPONSIBILITY, IN ADDITION TO THE MORAL IRRESPONSIBILITY.

THIS IS FINANCIAL IRRESPONSIBILITY, IN TERMS OF MARKETS, AND IT IS PRUDENTIAL IRRESPONSIBILITY, IN TERMS OF FLEXIBILITY, THE LIKES OF WHICH, I HAVE NEVER SEEN.

>> YOU HAVE BEEN VERY CRITICAL, OF COURSE, ON THE TARIFFS.

ESPECIALLY, ON THE UP AND DOWN TARIFFS, OPPOSING AND TAKING IT BACK, AND PAUSING.

LEAVE ALL OF THAT ASIDE, IN TERMS OF HOW HE IS IMPLEMENTING IT.

YOUR PUSH FOR FREE TRADE AND GLOBALIZATION, REALLY DID HURT, SOME OF THE JOBS BASED IN AMERICA --DO YOU THINK YOU OVERDID THAT?

DO YOU THINK THERE MAY BE SOME ROOM FOR SOME TARIFFS?

>> I THINK WE NEED TO DO SOME THINGS FOR THE MANUFACTURING SECTOR.

I STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE CHIPS ACT, THAT SOUGHT TO REVITALIZE OUR SEMICONDUCTOR INDUSTRY.

WE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE DONE THINGS LIKE THAT SOONER, FOR MANUFACTURING.

THAT WERE DONE TO SUPPORT CLEAN ENERGY MANUFACTURING, THOSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE SOONER.

YES.

I THINK THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE SHOULD HAVE MOVED MORE QUICKLY TO DO, WITH RESPECT TO SUPPORTING INDUSTRY.

DO I THINK TARIFFS ARE THE RIGHT ANSWER?

ALMOST, UNIVERSALLY, NO.

IN MANY, MANY CASES, WALTER, THEY ARE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.

THINK ABOUT STEEL TARIFFS.

60 TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE WORK IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES THAT USE STEEL, AS WORK IN THE STEEL INDUSTRY.

WE ARE COSTING MORE JOBS BY RAISING INPUT COSTS THAN ANYTHING WE ARE SAVING IN THE STEEL INDUSTRY.

WE ARE NOW IN AN ELECTRIC ECONOMY, WHETHER IT'S DATA CENTERS, WHETHER IT'S ELECTRIC CARS, WHATEVER IT IS.

THE KEY TO FLOURISHING IN THAT IS TO BE ABLE TO MOVE THERE IS AN ELEMENT THAT DOES THAT.

IT'S COPPER.

AND, THE ADMINISTRATION IS TALKING ABOUT MASSIVELY RAISING THE PRICE OF COPPER.

THAT IS GOING TO DO MORE DAMAGE TO MANUFACTURING THAN ANY NUMBER OF JOBS THAT ARE GOING TO GET SAVED IN THE COPPER MINING INDUSTRY.

WE CREATED JOBS DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION FASTER THAN THEY HAVE BEEN CREATED BEFORE OR SINCE.

AND, A STRATEGY THAT RECOGNIZED THAT AN OPEN, GLOBAL ECONOMY, WOULD DO MUCH, MUCH MORE TO HELP YOU AS EXPORTING THAN ANY LOSSES SUFFERED ON THE IMPORT SIDE.

THAT WAS THE RIGHT STRATEGY.

AND SO, THIS IS A TERRIBLE STRATEGY --EVEN BEFORE, WHAT IS GOING TO COME, WHICH IS THAT THE OTHER COUNTRIES ARE GOING TO RETALIATE.

WE ARE LIKE A FOOTBALL TEAM THAT CAN'T RUN THE PLAY IN PRACTICE, WHEN THERE IS NO DEFENSE, WITHOUT IT BACKFIRING.

THESE ARE POLICIES THAT, EVEN BEFORE THE REST OF THE WORLD RESPONDS, ARE GOING TO MAKE US POORER.

IN TERMS OF, LESS INPUTS.

THE OTHER PART OF IT IS, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WORKERS, WALTER, IF YOU ASK PEOPLE RIGHT NOW, ARE THEY WORRIED ABOUT WHETHER THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE A JOB?

THAT IS A MUCH SMALLER ISSUE FOR PEOPLE THAN THE COST OF LIVING.

AND, THESE TARIFFS, AT THE CURRENT LEVELS.

THE YALE BUDGET LAB SAYS THEY'RE GOING TO ADD $2800 TO THE AVERAGE FAMILY.

THERE HAVE BEEN HALF A DOZEN, CAREFUL, THOROUGH, STATISTICAL STUDIES OF THE MUCH SMALLER TARIFFS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IMPOSED DURING HIS FIRST TERM.

THEY ALL FOUND WHAT COMMON SENSE SUGGESTS, THAT THOSE TARIFFS ARE PASSED ON IN THE FORM OF HIGHER PRICES TO CONSUMERS.

AND SO, YEAH.

IT'S NOT BECAUSE I DON'T CARE ABOUT AMERICAN WORKERS, THAT I AM FOR SUPPORTING AN OPEN, GLOBAL ECONOMY.

IT'S BECAUSE I DO CARE ABOUT AMERICAN WORKERS, AND I WANT THEIR PAYCHECKS TO GO AS FAR AS THEY CAN, AND I WANTED TO HAVE MAXIMUM OPPORTUNITY TO DO WHAT AMERICA IS BEST AT.

NO FREE TRADER WOULD EVER HAVE SUGGESTED THAT THE ROLE OF AMERICAN WORKERS SHOULD BE TO ASSEMBLE SMALL TELEPHONES.

IN THE WAY THAT THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, OF THE ADMINISTRATION, SUGGESTED WAS THE CENTRAL PART OF THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION'S ECONOMIC STRATEGY.

YES.

WE DO NEED TO BE PAYING ATTENTION TO MANUFACTURING, TO NATIONAL SECURITY.

BUT, NO, TARIFFS ARE NOT THE RIGHT WAY.

>> LARRY SUMMERS, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU