[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. Maybe this is what normal looks like. I'm not talking about the snow. Maybe this is what normal politics looks like or maybe it's a sucker punch. President Biden, we all know, has been calling for a new era of unity, including negotiations on important bills in Congress between Democrats and Republicans, something that hasn't been happening much in recent years, as you know.

Notably, when Obama was president, Republicans wouldn't negotiate on much of anything and Congress had years of gridlock. That led to Obama resorting to more executive orders by the end of his term. Of course, Trump governed largely by executive order, and Biden has gotten off on that foot, too. On many things, you need Congress. Here we are with President Biden proposing a $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill. He may have the votes, may, in the Senate, to get it through with only Democrats, but then this weekend came a letter to the president from 10 relatively moderate Republican senators led by Susan Collins of Maine.

They do support the $160 billion for COVID testing and vaccines, but are calling for a negotiation on a smaller package overall. Their starting point is around $600 million compared to President Biden's $1.9 trillion and targeting it more narrowly to people in need, plus reducing the length and amount of extended unemployment benefits, providing aid to schools, but less aid to schools intended to help with reopening safely, and taking out some Democratic priorities that the Republicans say are unrelated to COVID relief like doubling the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

We don't know yet if the Republicans are proposing to take out aid to state and local governments, something that many states consider crucial to their survival right now, that failed last year, as many of you know, when Mitch McConnell was in charge of the Senate. He called that a blue state bailout. Congress did get to yes, of course, on COVID relief several times last year, but the final bill, passed in December after many months of delay and gridlock, was very unsatisfying especially to Democrats because it left so much out, and had stimulus checks of just $600 when they wanted $2,000.

A meeting is now set for this afternoon between the White House and some of these 10. Here are some clips from the Sunday talk shows from a few sides on this. First, here is one of the 10 senators, Bill Cassidy from Louisiana, challenging President Biden to live up to his rhetoric on a new era of bipartisanship.

Bill Cassidy: If you say you want bipartisanship and then you have a budget reconciliation which is chock-full of handouts and payoffs to Democratic constituency groups, you don't want bipartisanship, you want the patina of bipartisanship.

Brian: Senator Bill Cassidy on Fox News Sunday. That was a slightly edited version of that clip for brevity, but we didn't change his meaning. Here's Biden economics adviser Brian Deese on CNN's State of the Union showing some willingness to negotiate at least on the idea of targeting relief payments, often called stimulus checks, to lower-income Americans.

Brian Deese: We're open to that idea. We're open to ideas across the board.

Brian: Brian Deese, representing Biden saying he's open to a negotiation. Here is Bernie Sanders, of course, an independent senator from Vermont, on ABC this week.

Bernie Sanders: We all want bipartisanship. I think you're going to see more of it as we move down the pipe. We all look forward to working with Republicans, but right now, this country faces an unprecedented set of crises.

Brian: What should happen here? An old school negotiation to get to yes, where both sides get some priorities to them, and nobody gets totally what they want. Might that set up good relations between President Biden and a meaningful group of Republican senators to get other things done that would otherwise require 60 votes, or is this a sucker punch intended to force Biden to say no, and then let the Republicans say, "See, he's not really for bipartisanship," and just try to weaken him?

We'll get a progressive journalist's view of this, and we'll touch on other issues too, with Huffington Post Washington Bureau chief, Amanda Terkel. Thanks a lot for coming on, Amanda. Welcome back to WNYC.

Amanda Terkel: Thanks for having me.

Brian: Where are you on the scale of excited by the prospect to cringing at the thought of this negotiation this afternoon?

Amanda: [laughs] I'm eager to see what comes out of it as I think most people are, because obviously, something needs to happen. I think your summary was really great in where people are in their hopes and also their concerns. During the Obama years, Obama tried in very good faith to negotiate with Republicans. He thought there were reasonable Republicans. He could work with them. He spent much of his presidency doing that only to realize that they weren't actually negotiating in good faith with him most of the time. Biden obviously saw this.

Biden has said he believes in bipartisanship. He wants to work with Republicans, but I think he learned the lesson that he can't rely on them if they're not going to work with him, and he will have to move forward.

Brian: Here's a list of the names. I thought people might like to hear the 10 names. I'd like to get your take. I think people would be interested in your take, if this is some kind of potential emerging moderate block of Republicans. It's Susan Collins, Bill Cassidy from Louisiana, as I mentioned, Rob Portman from Ohio, Todd Young, Michael Rounds, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Shelley Moore Capito, Jerry Moran, and Thom Tillis.

I'm curious what you make of that group because I raised the possibility of a sucker punch intended to force Biden to say no and then let the Republicans say, "See, he's not really for bipartisanship," and just try to weaken him. Mitt Romney and some of the other signatories may well want a good faith negotiation, and to start marginalizing the more radical and more Trumpy wing of their party.

This could be a way to start building back a center that could benefit these Republicans too at the expense of the Republican populist wing who they don't want to always have to fear. I'm curious if you have any take on where along that spectrum this group might actually be.

Amanda: Yes, if there are Republicans that Biden can work with, it's definitely this group. You saw people like Romney, especially willing to come out and criticize Trump, but at the end of the day, they're still Republicans. Romney and others have already come out and opposed things, some of the executive orders that President Biden is doing, and basically saying if he goes forward with these environmental initiatives or other things, then he's not really for unity. It's already being set up as, "If Biden does anything I don't like, he's not interested in unity." In some ways, it is a bit of a trap.

Where Biden has to be careful is that in order to get anything passed, even if he uses budget reconciliation which requires only a majority, so he needs only Democrats, he still has to worry about losing people like conservative Joe Manchin from West Virginia or Kyrsten Sinema from Arizona, who sometimes does cross the aisle and vote with Republicans. I think those Democrats want to see that Biden's putting in a good faith effort to negotiate as well. Again, Biden has the rest of his party who wants to see him go big. They don't want to see him reduce payments to individuals, or cut funding to schools or states, for example.

Brian: Listeners, Democrats, Republicans, others, what matters to you in the COVID relief bill, and what do you think the pros and cons of how much compromise are right now? 646-435-7280, or if you want to bring up other national politics things, you can with Amanda Terkel, HuffPost Washington Bureau chief, 646-435-7280, or you can tweet @BrianLehrer. Again, the phone number's 646-435-7280.

Let's go down some of the Republican bullet points as they've been reported and get your take. One is just the number on the next round of stimulus checks. Biden's saying $1,400, now it came out this morning, the Republicans are saying $1,000. It doesn't seem like that big a thing to dig in on, especially from the Republican side. Why? Why would they make a big deal, certainly a deal-breaker over $400 to Americans who need it?

Amanda: I think that politically, it's not really a winner for them when you have so many people struggling. This was a thing during the campaign, people liked the checks. [chuckles] People who are struggling from COVID like getting these checks, and a lot of them credited Trump with getting those checks to them. If they hear a group of Republicans are fighting for smaller checks, I just don't think that's a winner right now.

Rob Portman was saying on CNN this weekend, too, that the checks should be limited to people making $50,000 and less, and families making $100,000 or less. I think that's something that Republicans will be pushing on too, this sort of means testing. Again, I think that's maybe somewhere Democrats could negotiate on, but at the same time, I think a lot of Democrats are arguing, "Let's just get this out as widely as possible. It will help stimulate the economy. You can get more money flowing." There are just a lot of families who need this, who maybe are struggling for other reasons who make more than that.

Brian: Right. Well, that's where Brian Deese, the Biden advisor said on TV, we played that clip, that maybe they're open to some kind of negotiation. Again, as you said, the Republicans want the new relief check or stimulus check to be for Americans with $50,000 of income per person, not $75,000, and I guess phase out the child credits, too. They say some people making close to $300,000 would get some of those child credits as it stands. The Biden folks seem to be open to more targeting.

Next one, related, the Republicans want the extended unemployment checks reduced from an extra $400 a week that Biden wants, to an extra $300, I think they're saying, and probably more important to them than the number, not to be guaranteed through September as Biden would have it, but a shorter time to see how the economy recovers with the vaccines coming. What do you think about that?

Amanda: Again, it seems like you were saying earlier, $100 a week, is it really something you want to dig in on? Especially if you're unemployed, $100 goes quite a ways. Republicans have always been hard line on this issue of unemployment aid, feeling like it encourages people not to go to work. I think that that argument has always been flimsy, but especially so in the era of coronavirus, when you just can't go to work, the jobs aren't there, it's not safe to go out, people are being fired. On the other issue, too, of how long it goes. September, I think if anyone's been paying attention to the news, September does not seem that far off. [laughs]

Brian: It seems really close. Totally.

Amanda: It doesn't seem like the economy will be up and going again, and so, does Congress really want to deal with this again and have people's aid in jeopardy? I think extending it doesn't really seem that foolish at this point,

Brian: Listeners tweets, "We--" meaning Democrats, "We won Georgia because of $2,000 checks," and the, "Socialism to the rich Republican argument makes my head explode because of their tax cuts. They should call it a $2,000 immediate tax rebate, then maybe they wouldn't stand in the way." That's the first listener comment.

Big thing, I think, the Republicans do not want the big policy item of raising the minimum wage nationally from $7.25 an hour to $15 an hour. Depending on where you're hearing this folks, your state might have a $15 an hour minimum wage or something close to it, but some states have $7.25 because that's all the federal government requires, and the Republicans say that's a big policy item, the minimum wage. It's not COVID relief, and it shouldn't be tacked onto this bill. Fair enough, to separate it out and come back to it on that basis?

Amanda: This is going to be, I think one of the most fascinating parts of this is whether Biden and Democrats stand firm and make this a part of this and fight for it, and go forward with budget reconciliation, or whether this is something that they say, "We'll fold on and we'll separate it." Obviously, the $15 minimum wage is something that has been a priority for Democrats for quite a while. It was a big issue in the Democratic presidential primary.

Again, it's not a crazy idea. The minimum wage hasn't really budged in many places in many years. Democrats say that we need a living wage, and this is part of helping people recover from this economic fallout from COVID. Senator Bernie Sanders is obviously a big proponent of this, and he's leading the charge, but Biden so far has said that it's important to him. Again, I'm very interested to see whether Democrats decide to stand firm on this.

Brian: Janet in Red Bank, you're on WNYC. Hi, Janet.

Janet: Hello?

Amanda: Hello there.

Janet: Can you hear me?

Brian: I can hear you just fine.

Janet: Okay. What I called to say is I strongly favor targeting aid to people who need it. My husband and I are both retired, and we are comfortable, and we've received stimulus checks and we then go and donate that money to a food bank or some other cause. I would like to see my government dollars targeted to the people who really need the aid.

Brian: Janet, thank you very much. Let's go right to another caller. Here is Sandra in Brooklyn, you're on WNYC. Hi, Sandra.

Sandra: Hey, Brian, can you hear me?

Brian: I can hear you. What you got?

Sandra: I just wanted to chime in on the stimulus and just really voice my concern for the overall well-being of the country. Looking at what's happening in Myanmar right now, we didn't think the Capitol riots--I guess, depends where you are in the country, but here in Brooklyn, it's been, that seems to me that the Capitol riot was something that was actually going to happen. Gains stopped last week, stopping the trading.

These things, to me, just seem like there's snowballing, and if Biden doesn't do something big that affects the majority, and hits at this underbelly of the rot in this country. I really think it's dangerous right now. I think anything could happen. I think we could be like Myanmar. I'm just wondering, it just feels to me where I am in my apartment, quarantining in Brooklyn, it seems like the country is really on a precipice, and we're close to just kind of imploding.

Brian: Does that inform how you feel about this stimulus bill negotiation or COVID relief bill negotiation?

Sandra: Absolutely. I think if Biden gives in to Republicans, if he entertains them, and if he cuts down the amount of money that he spent, if we ever actually get a check, or if it comes in March-- this whole delay thing, I think is dangerous. I think he needs to do something quick. If he gives in to the Republicans, I think it's a wrap. I think it's a game over.

He's going to lose any credibility, with the progressive left or willing to give, I think that's going to disappear. It's already happening on social media, just the way people are talking about, the $1,400, and they're rebranding that, the whole thing. He didn't say he's given us $1,400, he said he's given us $2,000, and it's just that kind of stuff. If that continues, I think he could lose the country. I'm so on edge every day. It's terrible.

Brian: Sandra, thank you very much. She brings up so much, Amanda. My guest is Amanda Terkel, Washington Bureau chief for HuffPost. Myanmar, I had the same thought as she did last night, seeing that Aung Sun Suu Kyi is possibly being overthrown by a military coup at this moment. What if Trump had a defense secretary who was willing to engage rogue elements of the armed forces, how much further than January 6 would we have gotten, and how close might we be next time? That used to be the kind of story that would strike Americans as, "Oh, there go those other countries again. We don't have to worry about that," but did you get a shudder when you saw the Myanmar story?

Amanda: [laughs] I think Sandra brought up a lot of good things. I did not make that connection, but I think, and she mentioned the January. We've been talking about the January 6th Capitol riot. The news that's come out of that, which I think goes along to what Sandra was saying, is honestly, how scary it is and how much worse it could have been. Hearing about a lot of the plans, the bombs that were placed at the Democratic and Republican national headquarters. It could have been a lot worse than it was even. This will all be on display, I think at the impeachment trial that starts next week, but this idea that Sandra was talking about that Biden needs to go big.

I think a lot of Democrats took that away from the Obama years when he did the stimulus after he took office. That had an effect and that did help the economy, but a lot of the conclusions that came out of that from the Democrats is that it didn't do enough and it didn't go far enough. It helped the economy a little bit, but it didn't fully pull it out, and Obama should have gone bigger, and that's what they want Biden to do now.

Brian: Right. She talked about unity within the Democratic Party. A lot of the mainstream media talks about unity between Democrats and Republicans, but there's also unity within the Democratic Party, and whether he's starting to lose a certain amount of the base who he got elected largely because of greater turnout than for Hillary Clinton in 2016. If people start to get disillusioned, well, then what does that mean for 2022?

On the other hand, when Obama lost Congress in his first midterm election, a lot of people analyzed that as, because he went too big for Republicans who were able to turn that into the Tea Party, and then turn off a lot of people in the center to Obama. How tricky a thing do you think that is for Biden to decide whether, just on a political basis, he has a bigger chance of losing the House if he goes to big or if he goes too small?

Amanda: No, it's incredibly tricky, and you know that he's thinking about this quite a bit. When he talks about unity, and bipartisanship, and what does that actually mean, and who is it most important to keep unified? Obviously, you cannot keep the entire country unified toward one legislative proposal or one bill, but the Biden White House, I will give them credit. It's pushed back a little bit against Republicans who say that doing anything that Republicans don't like, isn't unity.

Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary's pushback saying, "Are Republicans against helping people who are unemployed or Republicans against this extra assistance? These are ideas that aren't Democratic necessarily. These should be something that the entire country is for," and that polls bear out that's true. More people in the country are for these ideas, which is also why Biden won. I think Biden will have a tough time hanging on to Congress after 2022 elections, the Senate for example, is not looking great for Democrats. That will all be playing into his thinking on this.

Brian: Here's a caller who told our screener, she is unemployed. Let's get her thinking on this. Irene in Harlem, you're on WNYC. Thanks, so much for calling in, Irene.

Irene: Thanks for having me, Brian. I appreciate you guys all the time, but my number one thing about all this means testing, like they're talking about changing the amount that they're considering giving people relief based on your income, from $75,000 to $50,000.

Number one, my understanding is they base that income level on our taxes from 2019. That's before the pandemic, I had a job, I have been unemployed since March. The rent relief that New York state set up, the means testing is based on my income before the pandemic. I don't understand how they are deciding whether or not you get pandemic relief based on your income before you were affected by the pandemic. It's making me crazy.

Brian: That's a really good point and I don't think a lot of people bring up that point. Amanda?

Amanda: Yes, I think that's a great point and I think that's an argument against lowering the threshold and means testing in general. I think it gets tricky because again, if you give people money, it will help the economy flowing no matter at what level, but yes, no, I think the caller brings up an excellent point.

Brian: I want to turn the page and go to your recent article about Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, and his flip-flops on Trump's responsibility for January 6th, and how that plays to everything, but just to wrap up this thread for the moment, do you think-- how do I put this? Do you think that there-- do the Republicans won anything or do they just want to stop things?

Because when I go down the list of bullet points, they want less of this, less of that, less of the other thing. When I think of the old fashion congressional negotiations, it's sometimes more like, I'll give you something you want, if you give me something my constituents want, but they don't seem to be asking for anything, they're just asking for less of stuff.

Amanda: Yes, I think there are some Republicans who genuinely want to just stop everything Biden is doing, and to try to obstruct him. I do think that there are some Republicans who do believe that the economy does need something, but what we're going to see during the Biden administration is a lot of Republicans suddenly being concerned about the deficit again, and being concerned about spending, which is always something that Republicans talk about that they're concerned about when Democrats are in power, but as we saw when Trump was in power they weren't really concerned about that at all. I think that's a little bit of what's going on here, is that they are getting back to their concerns about deficit and spending.

Brian: All right, we'll do that other part after a break, also get ready, Amanda. I will ask you at least one GameStop question. Stay with us folks. Brian Lehrer on WNYC.

[music]

Brian Lehrer on WNYC with HuffPost Washington editor, Amanda Terkel, and as we get ready for the impeachment trial next week, you wrote about House Republican leader, Kevin McCarthy crawling back to Trump in recent days, and this might be emblematic of the party as a whole in Congress, after saying this on the House floor. A lot of you may not have heard this because it got lost in a lot of other things that were being said on both sides, but Kevin McCarthy, who is the House Republican leader, he's the one who wants to become Speaker of the House in two years if he can get a few more Republicans elected, he said this during the impeachment debate this month.

Kevin McCarthy: The president bears responsibility for Wednesday's attack on Congress by mob rioters. He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding. These facts require immediate action by President Trump, accept his share of responsibility, quell the brewing unrest, and ensure President-elect Biden is able to successfully begin his term. The president's immediate action also deserves congressional action, which is why I think a fact-finding commission and a censure resolution would be prudent. Unfortunately, that is not where we are today.

Brian: That was pretty direct, Amanda, at the beginning of it, and then he used it to argue against impeachment for an alternative, which would be censure, but McCarthy seems to now be distancing himself, even from his own remarks at the beginning of that, and you wrote up Kevin McCarthy and his role, what is his role?

Amanda: Kevin McCarthy is trying to get credit for not making Trump supporter and Trump himself mad, but also for looking like he's distancing himself from Trump, and denouncing him a bit. Really what Kevin McCarthy is doing is just making everyone angry. He said that Trump bears responsibility. He later said that he doesn't actually think Trump provoked the mob of his supporters and then in an interview with Greta Van Susteren, he said that there no inconsistency. He said, "I also think everybody across the country has some responsibility."

Not surprisingly, that comment didn't go over well for the millions of people in the country who actually bear no responsibility for this, while I think people would like to see some GOP lawmakers who emboldened Trump and his supporters take a little bit more responsibility. Kevin McCarthy has been having a tough couple of weeks.

Brian: As the impeachment trial is coming next week, here's the line spoken by Trump at the rally just before the insurrection or as it was starting, that Republicans are citing repeatedly now, let me get your take on how good a defense.

Trump: I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building, to peacefully and patriotically, make your voices heard.

Brian: We're going to hear that a lot once they start this trial next week. I don't know if it matters that he said that explicitly, maybe the Republicans wouldn't vote to convict him anyway, in hardly any numbers, but what do you make of that piece which is being discussed a lot?

Amanda: Yes, that line has been used a lot by Republicans, but he also, in the same speech said, "You'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong." He also singled out Mike Pence saying that he better do the "right thing". Not surprisingly, a lot of Trump supporters who went to the Capitol were furious at Mike Pence, promising that they were going to lynch him, and kill him, and looking specifically for him. It's pretty amazing that a president sent a mob of people to go after his own vice president.

I think any Republican using that peacefully line is a reason to not impeach Trump is not doing so in good faith. I don't think they would have impeached him anyway, but we're seeing this interesting thing now where I think Republicans want to see Trump argue that impeaching a president who has left office is unconstitutional, whereas it seems increasingly like Trump wants to just re-litigate the election and argue it was stolen from him once again.

We saw that five lawyers who were supposed to be the core of his legal team, defending him from impeachment, have left. It seems like it was because they didn't want to go down that route and so now Trump has had to bring in new lawyers just a week before the trial is set to start.

Brian: This reminds me of the first impeachment trial, where remember, Republicans were getting ready to say, "What Trump did with Ukraine was bad, but it's not serious enough for him to be convicted and removed from office." Trump said, "No, no, no. You have to go up there and say, my phone call was perfect." It looks like we're about to see a replay of that, with him demanding that he gets defended on the basis of what he did was perfect in this case, too, and the big lie is really true.

Amanda: Yes. Trump, it seems like as we're learning, Trump is a difficult person to work for, if that wasn't clear after the past four years. Democrats are going to really make an emotional appeal, making these GOP lawmakers who don't want to convict Trump, making them relive what happened on January 6th, perhaps bringing in witnesses. We're not sure if testimony will be allowed from police officers who were injured, and will Republicans actually want to look in the face of these police officers and then say that Trump wasn't guilty of anything, but, again, it hasn't been decided yet whether witnesses will be allowed.

Brian: Is it now set in stone that it will be an impeachment trial? Obviously, an impeachment, which is the indictment, did come out of the House and got sent to the Senate, but could they still negotiate on even that if a two-thirds majority conviction seems impossible, and go for some kind of bipartisan censure like McCarthy was suggesting there in that clip, and just try to disgrace Trump further without needing a conviction that they're not going to get?

Amanda: They can do that. I haven't seen much appetite for that yet, but they certainly could. A conviction at this point seems incredibly unlikely. I think most people don't expect that to happen. I think a lot of Democrats and Republicans want the trial to be over fairly quickly. Democrats, because they want to move on with the rest of Biden's agenda, and Republicans, obviously, because this isn't something they want to linger on.

They want to move on beyond Trump, but I think there are a fair number of Democrats who think that what happened was outrageous. Just because the president is out of office it doesn't mean that he shouldn't be held accountable. Actually, if you're interested in unity, Republicans say, pursuing impeachment hurts unity, but for a lot of people, not closing this process up, and going through, and holding someone accountable, that's actually bad for unity because you need to show that this is wrong, this is part of the healing process.

Brian: One other HuffPost article that's related that I'd like you to comment on before you go, and then I will ask you a GameStop question. This is something we're doing separate segments on and it's huge. We focus mostly on the news of today this morning, but very important longer-term piece in HuffPost headline, GOP Lawmakers Seek Tougher Voting Rules After Record Turnout and Election Losses. Are they trying to use the essence of the big lie to try to limit mail-in voting for the future in many states?

Amanda: Yes, absolutely. You're seeing this in Texas, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, some other states, this year alone. This year is very short so far, but Pennsylvania lawmakers have already introduced 14 pieces of legislation meant to limit voting rights, which is the highest of any other state. Obviously, Pennsylvania was a very important state in Trump world, in litigating whether the election was stolen.

Republicans have not liked absentee voting, or mail-in voting, whatever you want to call it, because it's easier. Republicans have long said that if more people can vote, that helps Democrats because it seems like more people are Democrats, which has shown when Democrats continue to win the popular election in presidential elections, or the popular vote in presidential elections. They are absolutely trying to limit this, and they are couching it as voter confidence, voter integrity, trying to claim that there are all these problems with mail-in voting when that's just absolutely not true.

Brian: Last question. Do you have a take on Wall Street and GameStop? Is HuffPost reporting on that? You're the Washington Bureau chief. We have AOC and Ted Cruz seeming to take the same side against the hedge funds.

Amanda: I think that people don't really feel very bad for Wall Street and the hedge funds. This is their comeuppance. The fact that this is making Wall Street so upset, I think was the whole point of a lot of this. I think that for a lot of people, they are not day trading, they are not playing in the stock market. A lot of this seems abstract, but the fact that Wall Street is so upset and saying that if you don't fix this, the economy is going to crumble, I don't really think most people believe that. Right now, I think people who are unemployed, people who are struggling because of coronavirus, there's just no sympathy for Wall Street at this point.

Brian: HuffPost Washington Bureau chief, Amanda Terkel, thank you so much for joining us today. Stay warm.

Amanda: Thank you.

Brian: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Much more to come.

 

Copyright © 2020 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.