Brian Lehrer: It's the Brian Lehrer show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. Here's one thing I don't have to tell you to begin the week on this Monday. If you own a car or if you're a truck driver, the cost of gasoline has been going up and up and up and with the energy embargo on Russia, gasoline prices are going up even faster than with plain old American domestic inflation. Now, Democratic and Republican governors alike are starting to talk about what is called a gasoline tax holiday. Governor Murphy in New Jersey, Governor Hochul in New York, Governor Lamont in Connecticut, which is to say liberal governors in the northeast, not to mention in 22 states overall, I've seen it reported, are among them. Here's Governor Ned Lamont last week.

Governor Lamont: Now is the time to provide immediate relief, A, to the people of Connecticut broadly in terms of inflationary pressures and specifically as it regards drivers getting hit at the pump.

Brian Lehrer: Are gasoline tax holidays a good idea? New York Times Economics Columnist Peter Coy in his latest column says no. In fact, the headline on his piece says, "Cut the Gas Tax? No, No, No." We'll talk to Peter Coy now about why he gives the idea three thumbs down and also about some of the other economic headlines so integral to what's going on right now that he's also written about, the Federal Reserve Board saying they will raise interest rates six times this year and the effectiveness or not of economic sanctions on Russia that hurt everybody else. Peter, thanks for coming on. Welcome back to WNYC.

Peter Coy: Well, thanks, Brian. It's been a while. I used to talk to you when I was at Bloomberg Businessweek. Joined the Times last summer or so. This is fun. Glad you have me on. You're a daily fixture in our household.

Brian Lehrer: Well, thank you. That is very good to know and glad to see you have joined the esteemed New York Times. I hope that's a good thing for you. Now, why are you a three-times no on cutting gasoline taxes?

Peter Coy: Well, no reason to stop it one time. As long as you're going to be negative, you might as well be definitively negative, but yes, there are a lot of reasons. One is that-- think about it. First of all, I have to say, a little sympathy for the problem. You're right that the high gasoline prices are hurting a lot of people. There's ought to be some way to relieve the pain, but is a gas tax holiday the right solution? That's where I would argue, no. Think about it. I know a lot of reasons. Why do we have a gas tax in the first place? Well, part of it is because the gas tax funds work on roads, repairs, construction. That's effectively a user tax so that people who use the roads by driving their gasoline-powered vehicles should pay for the upkeep of them.

Brian Lehrer: Can I stop you right there?

Peter Coy: Yes, go ahead.

Brian Lehrer: Because Governor Hochul in New York actually expressed some ambivalence about the idea of a gas tax holiday the other day, though she said she's considering it. Here's a clip of Governor Hochul on why she's ambivalent.

Governor Hochul: We understand that this is one area we should be looking at. We are looking at it, but I also know that many of our funds are for roads and bridges and the people who are calling for the end of the gas tax are also asking for more money for infrastructure.

Brian Lehrer: That goes right to what you were just saying. The people who are calling for the gasoline tax holiday are the same people who use the roads and some of this tax is dedicated to highway and other roads infrastructure.

Peter Coy: Exactly. In some cases, it's actually a legal thing. There are covenants in bond issues that are used to raise money for roads, bridges, and so on, that require that money to-- a certain amount of money to be devoted to that. It's actually the governor-- you hear the governors talking a lot about holidays, but in some cases, they may not be able to do it legally. They're probably getting some advice from the lawyers on that. That's one thing. Then another is all the so-called externalities, as economists like to say, caused by driving a vehicle, particularly a gasoline-powered vehicle.

Air pollution, with local air pollution, as well as greenhouse gases that cause global warming. Congestion in the roads, accidents. Now there's a separate conversation we could have some other day about electric vehicles because they don't cause local air pollution, but they do cause other problems. They're still consuming electricity. They're still involved in congestion and accidents. People talk about using a vehicle miles tax instead of a gasoline tax, but I don't want to go there right now because that's really a completely separate and equally interesting issue.

Brian Lehrer: Well, you do have some suggestions in your column for better ways to ease the pain of inflation that the government can help with, but before we get there, let's complete the thought that I think you just started about climate. Do you think that this can be an opportunity to move more quickly off fossil fuels spurred by economic incentives or is that an environmentalist dream that's really a longer-term project that can't be done at the snap of a finger?

Peter Coy: I'm more in the latter camp. It can't be done in the snap of a finger. Also, if you're trying to raise fuel prices in order to alleviate climate change, the way to do it is actually, say, raising taxes rather than putting more money into the pockets of the producers of fuel, OPEC, and Western multinational oil companies. That's what's happening now. The producers of oil are the ones who are benefiting from this, the tightness in the market, the fact that Russia's production or sales have gone down, and so on. Yes, I'm not against higher--

Brian Lehrer: Let me linger on that one because that's a very interesting aspect of what's going on now that maybe people haven't thought about so much. Some of our listeners probably have, but maybe isn't being reported by a lot of the media so much. We hear about things like some of the major oil companies pulling out of Russia and people saying, "Oh, even some of the oil companies are willing to do the right thing and not do business with Russia and take that hit on their bottom lines." Are you saying this is actually good for the major oil companies?

Peter Coy: Well, having to withdraw from Russia is not good for them. A lot of them have invested a lot of money there. I think they're getting out mostly because they just look at Putin's irrational behavior in Ukraine and say, "This guy could do anything. He could nationalize us. Let's get out while the getting is good. Let's write off our investment. Admit this did not turn out well. Russia's just not a good place to be doing business these days." Also, it is a way to salute the flag. It's a win-win for them to get out.

Brian Lehrer: Good public relations.

Peter Coy: I give them some credit that they care about the horrific destruction in Ukraine, so I'm sure that's a factor as well. I don't want to be too cynical here.

Brian Lehrer: What about their bottom line? Are they passing all this pain on to drivers or are oil company profits going down? I haven't looked at oil companies' stocks lately. In fact, I can't remember the last time I looked at oil company stocks, but how are they doing in general?

Peter Coy: The oil companies are able to pass along the higher prices for crude in higher prices at the pump. Fact is historically a pattern where if the price of crude goes up, price of gasoline goes up immediately whereas when the price of crude goes down, the price of gasoline goes down more slowly. As a net benefit, the volatility ends up being a net benefit to them.

Brian Lehrer: Right because nobody makes them do it. In fact, how can people tell government regulators or individuals if they're being price gouged at the pump or anywhere else for that matter at this time of rising prices? Let's stay on gasoline for the moment. If the producers and even the gas stations themselves, the local gas stations, are going to make the same amount of profit by passing on X cents per gallon extra in costs to the drivers, but they say, "Well, I could do that, but I could raise it another 20 cents per gallon because right now nobody's going to notice and people are just going to have to pay it." Then that's price gouging. How does anybody know?

Peter Coy: There is something called a crack spread, which is the difference between the price of gasoline and the price of the product. Into the gasoline, the Energy Information Administration of the US Department of Energy also tracks prices. You can see over time what's happening to the profits at the retail level, at the wholesale level of gasoline. I have to admit, before we came on the air here, I didn't really do that. I don't know to the degree that's happening right now, but obviously the solution to that, in the long run, is competition. There is some but limited competition in gasoline markets. There's a handful of big companies that dominate the distribution, the retail end of gasoline in the United States.

Funny enough, Lukoil is one of the-- and they're booted out of the market now effectively if not legally. Lukoil being owned by the Russians. We're ranging pretty widely here, but I would definitely say that gasoline prices are elevated in a way that's-- Here, let me put it this way. One of the readers of my newsletter wrote to me and said, "Hey, this whole idea of trying to protect people from the higher gasoline prices, maybe we shouldn't be protecting from that. Maybe that's just the price we pay for the war that's going on now. We didn't try to protect people from the costs of fighting World War II, why should we be protecting them from the costs of fighting the war in Ukraine?"

Brian Lehrer: Although that might be a regressive solution that hurts poor people and middle-class people more than it hurts people with the most money. Listeners, if you're just joining us, this wide range in conversation is with Peter Coy, New York Times economics columnist. We started on his latest column, which says, "Cut the Gas Tax? No, No, No." We've already touched on some other things. We'll get to other causes for inflation. We'll get to the feds' interest rate hike last week with six total this year to come, they say, and whether that can or even maybe should cause a recession and the economic sanctions on Russia, are they helping to do the right thing in Ukraine or are they just hurting everybody?

Listeners, I see a lot of calls are coming in already without me even giving out the phone number. For the rest of you who don't have us on speed dial, 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, for Peter Coy on any of those things. Peter, before we start taking some phone calls, let's complete the thought that yes, I took us down three or four different tangential rabbit holes away from, which is your alternative to cutting the gasoline tax and still easing people's inflationary pain.

Peter Coy: No, thanks. I want to at least cover that a little bit before people start telling me I got it all wrong. You still help people, but you do it with some a general fund tax, like the stimulus checks where they go out to everybody regardless of how much you drove last year or you're driving now. In some cases, they're structured so you don't even have a car to get one of these checks. The idea is inflation is high overall. Gasoline stands out for being uniquely high, but we don't have to tell our listeners that overall inflation is high and people are suffering from it. At the same time, states are doing quite well financially. A lot of them are having surpluses.

This is an excellent time for them to put some of that money back into their taxpayers' wallets. You could structure this. The gasoline tax, you alluded to this, is regressive in the sense that it hits poor people more than it hits rich people. If you're trying to solve that problem without cutting the gasoline tax, you could do it by giving more of the money to poor, lower middle class, middle-class people and give little or none to rich people. You'd be achieving two things. You'd be helping reverse the effects of the gasoline high prices, but without causing more damage to the environment and taking money away from what's needed to repair roads and bridges.

Brian Lehrer: Are gasoline taxes inherently regressive in the first place, because they tend to be a flat number of cents per gallon rather than a percentage?

Peter Coy: Correct, rather than a percentage of your income, for example. They're regressive in the sense that, when you say regressive you mean they hit poor more than the rich and that's true just because except for the very poor who don't drive, in general, the pattern is that if you're wealthy, even if you drive a lot, even if you drive a fuel-guzzling car, gasoline is a small percentage of your overall consumption market basket. If you're poor, even if you try to economize, just because gasoline is going to be a bigger budget item for you, and so the high gasoline tax is going to hit you harder. That's what I'm trying to help out with here with another solution other than just cutting the gasoline tax.

Brian Lehrer: You are talking about something if I heard you right, like the early pandemic era, stimulus checks that would go out to people because everybody's experiencing inflation whether they have cars or not. That would just go out to people on an income graded way.

Peter Coy: Yes, and then the people for whom food is the killer item, the money would help them with their food. For people for whom it's college tuition, they'll spend it on college tuition. There'll be some people for whom gasoline is the killer [unintelligible 00:16:35]. For them, it'll help cushion to below the high gasoline prices.

Brian Lehrer: Here's Meg in Rockville Center, who says she was just driving in her car. Hi, Meg. You're on WNYC with New York Times Economics Columnist Peter Coy.

Meg: Hi. Good morning.

Brian Lehrer: Hi.

Meg: You asked the question about price gouging and as I'm driving out going east in the Syosset area on Jericho Turnpike almost every gas station had the price of 4.19. All of a sudden as I'm heading toward Huntington Station, it's 4.59 and 4.49. My question is how is that not price gouging? How could it be such a big discrepancy between stations? Back where I live in Rockwell Center, it's been 4.19 also for this whole weekend.

Peter Coy: I don't want to start speculating on local conditions like that. Off the top of my head, I can think maybe it has to do with who the distributors are, but what is true is that you'll often see stations across the street from each other pricing the same for the obvious reason that if one raises the price that provides an umbrella for the other to raise the price and if one cuts the price, the other has to do the same.

Meg: I agree, but 40 cents is a lot. Huntington Station is a less wealthy area and the gas price is higher.

Brian Lehrer: Can I ask you one thing about that, Meg?

Peter Coy: Sure.

Brian Lehrer: Just curious, this is a hyper-local thing, but you're in Rockville Center, which is on the South Shore, Huntington Station is North Shore. My understanding is that in the Huntington area there's generally full service only not self-served. Do you know if you got your gas pumped for you in Huntington station while once you got that closer to Rockville Center you were filling up yourself?

Meg: In this particular one gas station, they pump it for you, the other it's not.

Brian Lehrer: Yes.

Meg: In Rockwell Center, you pump your own, at most gas stations.

Brian Lehrer: Okay. Interesting. [crosstalk] Go ahead, Meg, finish the thought.

Meg: I'm sorry. I didn't say 40 cents is a lot.

Brian Lehrer: It's a big difference. What can a consumer-- I realize you're looking more at the macro picture, Peter, and we should have a consumer advocate on to talk about what somebody like Meg can do at the retail level if she thinks that there's price gouging going on because the difference from one station to the next in the same general area is so big. What can somebody do as far as you know?

Peter Coy: I would say drive to a cheaper gas station. Basically, that's what you need to do because the reason stations can charge more is that people pay. It's whatever the market will bear. That's why I was saying before that stations across the street tend not to be so far out of line. It's just so easy to go to the cheaper one or [crosstalk]

Brian Lehrer: That's an old line model. I guess some places are still like that where you might have two or three gas stations on the same corner, but a lot of places don't have that.

Peter Coy: Yes. If you don't have that yet, well, then you-- You asked what people can do.

Brian Lehrer: Yes.

Peter Coy: You can write to your congressman sure, but practically speaking, your best bet is if the price difference is important to you, shop around. [laughs] That sounds obvious, but--

Brian Lehrer: Another thing you can do, and then we're going to move on to some other aspects, is, contact the New York State Attorney General's office because Letitia James since you in New York State, Meg, because Letitia James, the attorney general, has said she's going to be on the lookout for price gouging of gasoline at this time, as well as other things at this time of high inflation, but to my knowledge, she hasn't put out any reports or accusations yet. I think she does want the public to be the eyes and ears out there and say, "Hey, it was 40 cents more gallon here than down the block there. Maybe you should look into that." There's a tip that maybe everybody can use.

All right, when we continue in a minute, with New York Times Economics Columnist, Peter Coy, we're going to get to a related column of his that asks, basically, what about price controls? We haven't done that in this country for a long time. Could that be called for now? We'll talk about his column that asks if the Fed, the Federal Reserve Board, through raising interest rates is going to cause a recession, and on we go. Brian Lehrer with Peter Coy in WNYC.

[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. As we continue with Peter Coy, New York Times economics columnist on his recent one, "Raise the Gas Tax. No, No, No." We'll get into some of the other things that I mentioned before the break. Peter, let's go through some more phone calls, first. A lot of people are calling in. Our lines are completely full, by the way, with people who want to say one thing or another about a gasoline tax, so let's hear from a few more. Angelo in Pearl River, you're on WNYC. Hi, Angelo.

Angelo: Hello, sir. I agree with everything that he's been talking about. I don't believe the gas tax should be neglected. We have actually an EV and ICE vehicle, and we have that because our daughter goes up to the University of Buffalo. The distance isn't good for the EV, but it's fine for ICE vehicles. In the future, there's going to be more EVs. I was thinking of having a gas tax in line that with a connected car, the mileage is read via Wi-Fi or when you get an inspection once a year, your mileage is taken down and could be taxed that way in a monthly payment, like a donation, but a monthly payment, and it wouldn't be as stressful and it would be paid evenly for road use. What do you think of that?

Brian Lehrer: Do you understand it, Peter?

Peter Coy: Well, yes. ICE, by the way for the listeners, is internal combustion and gasoline-powered vehicles or diesel whatever.

Brian Lehrer: I was just going to ask. I thought I'm really stupid about something that probably everybody else knows, but internal combustion engine just means gasoline-powered for this context.

Peter Coy: Unless maybe the vehicle is powered by ice cubes, and that would be pretty remarkable. No buts.

Brian Lehrer: Or the immigration bureau. Anyway, go ahead.

Peter Coy: Yes, right. This is essentially the idea of, okay, if gasoline taxes are essential, and then people don't use gasoline anymore, you've got to come up with a substitute. A natural thing to do is charge people who have electric vehicles based on their use of the roads. One way to do that is a bit intrusive, is to have a GPS on the car so that you can actually measure how many miles people are driving per week, per month, per year. I got an email from a reader in Oregon who read my newsletter, who said, "Yes, we have that here." He said, "The only problem is, the next time I commit a major crime, I'm going to have to use a different vehicle so they can track me down."

Brian Lehrer: [laughs] Yes. That'll be part of their surveillance state.

Peter Coy: That's the concern. For many people, that's a legitimate concern. I think that might be the way we're going to go.

Brian Lehrer: Let me go next to Renee in Wayne, you're on WNYC. Hi, Renee. As we talk about gasoline taxes, we've hit Long Island. We've fit Rockland County. Now we're in Wayne. Hi, Renee.

Renee: Hi, good morning. Thanks for taking my call. Yes, I agree with Peter not to cut the gas tax to allow people to make decisions of what type of cars they buy, to get rid of some of the gas-guzzling ones, and move towards more environmentally conscious vehicles. I think it's the right thing to do just to keep it aligned with what it is.

Peter Coy: There you go. I like that.

Renee: I like the stimulus checks idea too. Because this way, it will help the poor as opposed to the people who drive it and don't care what the gas price is.

Peter Coy: Right.

Brian Lehrer: All right. You've got a fan out Route 80 there, Peter. We are going to go to Peter, another Peter, Peter in Syosset back to Long Island, North Shore, who is going to put on the table, something that you wrote about. I'm going to let Peter launch this part of the conversation. Hi, Peter. You're on WNYC.

Peter: Hi, Brian, thanks very much for taking my call. The one comment that I wanted to make is I think that your guest mentioned something about how there were no price controls during World War II. My memory is that they were price controls. Not that I was alive then, but that there were price controls during World War II, that there was a board whose job was to make sure that people weren't gouging and to keep prices under reasonable control. Of course, my memory could be completely wrong.

Oh, by the way, also about the gas prices on Long Island, I live in Syosset. There are bands of prices. If you drive south from Syosset and you get towards Hempstead Turnpike, the prices there are lower. You go further south, onto the South Shore and the prices go back up again. I don't know why that is, but it is.

Brian Lehrer: Well, Syosset is pretty much next to Huntington and our Huntington bureau chief, one of my producers comes from there, says there's a rule in Huntington basically where the attendant has to pump the gas for you. It's like little New Jersey, in western Suffolk County.

Peter: Okay. I don't get to Huntington, so I don't know about that.

Brian Lehrer: Price control. Peter, I'm going to leave it there. Thank you. Keep calling us. Peter Coy, Peters's memory, the memory is probably the wrong word because he says he wasn't alive during World War II, was that there were price controls. Sure enough, you wrote an article about this to put it back in the conversation for today. What's some of the history there, and why isn't anybody but you basically raising the idea with prices going up so much?

Peter Coy: Okay. There were price controls. I'm not sure how the listener got the idea that I said anything different that there certainly weren't. I wrote a newsletter about that in February. Now, people who read that reacted in different ways. Some people said, "How come you're not more in favor of price controls?" Others said, "How dare you even write about price controls? What an awful idea." Brian, I'm sure you get that all the time. [chuckles]

Brian Lehrer: Yes, that's right.

Peter Coy: It comes with the territory. I actually in general, I just thought it was very interesting that in 1946, there was a letter written to the New York Times by 11 former presidents of The American Economic Association, putting Nobel Prize winners, defending price controls, or being in favor of phasing them out slowly to stop a spike of postwar inflation. You would never see prominent economists like that, mainstream stalwarts of the profession agreeing on something like that today. I just thought it was fascinating to see a huge difference in the tenor of the conversation around price controls.

I tend to think that they're not a good long-term solution, but maybe after a hurricane or something, there could be an argument. That gets back to the price gouging conversations that are happening around gasoline prices.

Brian Lehrer: Right. Well, in situations where price controls worked, if you think they were to ease the public's pain in general, who did absorb the pain? Because the cost has to be borne in some ways, presumably, if there's more demand than supply.

Peter Coy: Exactly. Really, what happens is you get shortages. It's classic Econ 101. If you set the price below the market-clearing level so that the demand at that price exceeds the supply that people are willing to supply at that price, then there won't be enough of the stuff, whatever it is. You're forced to resort to other means of distribution besides the price signals, such as ration coupons. I really don't think we're in the mood for going to ration coupons for gasoline or any other product right now.

Brian Lehrer: Right, and another listener writes, "There was gas rationing during World War II." Another one writes, "What about New Yorkers who can't have an electric vehicle due to living in apartments?" Another one writes, "I went to school at UCF in Orlando, University of Central Florida in Orlando. There was one gas station about a mile north of Orlando International Airport, which would consistently charge $2 a gallon more to take advantage of theme park car rental folks." [chuckles] That's an example of having you over a barrel of oil.

Peter Coy: Just quickly on that, that's legit to make to charge more when you're providing an extremely needed service like you're right next to the car rental return. That's why I would say, you can't always just assume that when a price is high, that is an example of some illegal behavior. You got to let markets work to some degree.

Brian Lehrer: Another one, a little report from the front here, "A week and a half ago, there was a 70 cent price difference on a two-mile stretch of Route 17 in Bergen County. Another report from the front about the disparities that have people shaking their heads. All right, I want to turn the page. We don't have a lot of time left, but I think people would be really interested to hear your take on interest rates as a tool to fight inflation. The Fed raised them a quarter of a point last week and signaled they'd likely do that six more times this year or maybe was six times total. Either way, can you explain the relationship between interest rates and inflation?

Peter Coy: Right. The reason you raise the interest rate is to make it more expensive for people to borrow, that could be businesses or consumers. That tends to cool off the economy. Just can't do stuff they would have done otherwise. When you cool off the economy and you cool off the band, gets back to the supply and demand thing. Reduces demand, and prices tend to fall, or at least they don't rise as quickly. The Federal Reserve does not have a lot of tools at its disposal to deal with inflation. The main one is raising interest rates.

For a long while, Jay Powell, chair of the Federal Reserve was resisting aggressively raising rates, because he said, "We want to focus on getting unemployment lower. We don't want to endanger that by prematurely raising rates." Inflation really caught hold much more than he thought it would. Now they're in a "all-hands-on-deck, we got to do something here." They're raising rates, and my piece is saying, "Yes. Okay, I understand that." You could actually end up going too far and inadvertently causing a recession by chilling the economy too much.

Brian Lehrer: Your column last week, asked if raising interest rates will cause a recession. Did you come to a conclusion?

Peter Coy: Well, I quoted David Rosenberg. He's an economist I really, really admired up in Toronto, who he's tends to be a little bearish. He actually predicts there will be a recession starting the second half of this year. A big reason for it will be the Fed pushing interest rates too high. I didn't have to make a call because I'm not an economist. I just write about economics. I think that that's a point that needs to be heard. While we're all on the bandwagon of raising rates quickly to stop inflation, we all want to turn into Paul Volcker, who did that in the early '80s. It should be remembered that when Volcker raised interest rates to cure inflation, he caused two rather severe recessions back to back in the early '80s.

Brian Lehrer: Well, which is worse for most people, maybe this is a stupid question. The economic slowdown caused by raising rates - that is a recession or a near recession - or the economic pain caused by inflation?

Peter Coy: That's not a bad question at all. It's an excellent question and people wrestle with that all the time. I guess I tend to take the side of that unless inflation is really endemic, and it's getting out of control, that it's not as bad of a problem as recession. What would you rather do? Pay high prices for stuff or lose your job and not be able to pay for it at all? That's how I found that.

Brian Lehrer: If recession equals unemployment. Last thing. I want to touch on one more column of yours, which came, we should say, just before Russia started the invasion of Ukraine, and in that one, you asked if economic sanctions could deter Russia from an invasion? Well, now we know that didn't happen. How much do you think the sanctions as levied so far, can cause a quicker or a more just end to the war?

Peter Coy: I still think that sanctions clearly are not a cure-all, we've seen that, but they are probably the most valuable tool we have. Even if it doesn't deter Putin now from waging this war, it'll eventually degrade his ability to continue the war, you just got to run out of money and resources. That's number one. Number two, it sends a very strong signal to anybody who would ever think about trying this again, that the allies are able to fight back and that you're going to really, really shoot yourself in the foot by attempting to invade another country.

Brian Lehrer: There we leave it except I'll throw in this one more interesting tweet that came in, which said, "To avoid the surveillance state, the electric vehicle taxes," because that came up with respect to monitoring electric vehicle use. "To avoid the surveillance state, the electric vehicle taxes should be metered just as gas and electricity are, taxes paid to the power company, the power company pays the government." All right, we're going to leave that uncommented on just as a thought bubble for future conversations here about electric vehicles. We thank Peter Coy, New York Times economics columnist for an interesting conversation on a number of these economic fronts today. Peter, we really appreciate it.

Peter Coy: Well, I really enjoyed it. Thanks a lot. Looking forward to being on again.

Brian Lehrer: I look forward to having you on again.

 

Copyright © 2022 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.