Funding for To The Contrary provided by: This week on To The Contrary: Some families say tariffs are hurting them and women lose more for taking leave than men.

Hello, I'm Bonnie Erbé.

Welcome to To The Contrary, a discussion of news and social trend from a variety of perspectives.

Up first, the economy.

Most Americans say tariffs hav hurt them financially as prices on groceries, utilities and other essentials rise.

About 7 in 10 Americans say they spend more on food than they did last year.

And lower income households feel the pain the most.

Government shutdowns and reduced SNAP or food benefits have added to the pressure.

Meanwhile, wealthier Americans continue to spend and save.

The result is a divide economy between the well-heeled and everyone else.

Joining me this wee in the conversation are former judge and federal prosecutor Debra Carnahan, Center for Equal Opportunity Chair Linda Chavez, The Intercept politics reporter Jessica Washington, and Independent Women's Forum fellow Taylor Hathorn.

Welcome to you all.

And since this week was such a huge win for women and Democrats, I'm going to ask you all first.

Who did better, women or Democrats, starting with you, Debra?

Well, I think Democrats did better than women.

And women did quite well.

I think this was a win for moderate women Democrats.

And moderation was the big winner, at least at the governor's level.

Democrats did incredibly well on Tuesday night.

We saw sweeps in both blu states as well as purple states, and also as Linda and everyone else point out, women did incredibly well as well.

New Jersey and Virginia both are historically purple, if not heavier blue states, and so I really don't think that this is a major off cycle win or a referendum against Republicans.

Does everybody agree that because these tw Democratic women were moderates, are moderates and not—not really, I don't think anybody would sa that the Democratic equivalent of Trump administration, people who are fairly far right.

Is that what clinched it for the Democrats this week?

I do think that in New Jersey in particular, you had a Republican running, Ciattarelli, who was—at least tried to position himself in his earlier runs as a little bit more moderate than MAGA.

That it was significant, but it didn't seem to work this time.

And I think the fact he moved more MAGA actuall probably ended up hurting him.

Do we think that the Republicans are going to do what both parties do when they win?

They usually exaggerate the size of the win claim.

It's a mandate whether in fact it was or not.

And if they do tha this time, will that hurt them in the presidential election?

I actually don't think that this is a referendum on President Trump at all in 2016 and both 2024.

He did not win Virginia.

And so I think that this was pretty par for the course.

But I do think that it opens up a unique conversation that Republicans need to start getting talking points on, which is people care about what is happening in their bank accounts and what that looks like for them and how it affects their families.

And I think Republicans, to be quite frank, are going to win the white House again in a couple of years.

However, I think they're going to lose a huge portion of the vote if they don't start reframing this conversation around what is happening to actual Americans in their daily lives.

So what do you think is going to happen to the Republican Party with tariffs?

We don't— we have not seen a president who moderates his views according to what the public is clearly telling him, it wants them— it wants him to do so.

He's not going to moderate on tariffs.

We can pretty safely assume.

And how are the public going to react?

The public already has reacted.

And I think you saw some of that yesterday.

These were really big margins that both governors of New Jersey and Virginia won by.

And that's significant whethe you're a Republican or Democrat when you see that happen, especially in special elections.

Trump's policies on tariffs has everybody with whiplash.

Oh, I'm mad at you.

I'm going to impose a tariff on you.

I didn't like your commercial quoting Ronald Reagan on tariffs.

And that creates a lot of instability, with small businesses, with all kinds of issues.

And we're seeing that The stock market is one thing, but the majority of Americans aren't in the stock market, and they don't live ever single day by the stock market.

They do live every single day by the groceries that were supposed to go down on day one.

And they're up.

But let me ask you this.

I watch American politic with a bit of a grin on my face in that there are things— therere issues that are obviously coming up, obviously almost at the front door.

And yet Americans don't react right away.

They wait until they get clobbered over the head with this thing like tariffs, and then they react.

Why does it take them so long to respond?

There was a whole lot of hope on the part particularly of certain voters.

Hispanics, for example, swung very heavily towards President Trump.

Heavily in terms of their past voting behavior.

And at least in New Jersey, and also, I think in Virginia, the Hispanic vote seems to have swung back to the Democratic side.

And part of that, I think, is that they bought the idea that Trump had a good economy in his first term until Covid, and he was going to bring that kind of very vibrant economy back, and exactly the opposite has happened.

It's not a great economy.

I went to Costco the other day.

I decided I couldn't afford chuck roast.

Chuck roast was over $60, at Costco, to buy two medium sized chuck roast.

So I think that's hitting people.

And I think this constant reinforcement of going to the grocery store and seeing that prices not only aren't going down, they're continuing to go up, is hitting voters hard.

So Tuesday night really showe the economy is on voters minds.

We saw that candidates who made directly economic appeals, who talked about the cost of living, obviously, we can talk about Zohran Mamdani, but there are obviously othe candidates who really made that the forefront of their campaign.

And we're now seeing that American are reacting to prices going up.

And so while it may have been a slow reaction, I think we are going to see that for sure in the midterms.

It's really important to note that tariffs are a short term solution and not a long term solution.

The second thing that I want to note is from a national security perspective, these tariffs are very, very essential.

So you're seeing that with the relationship that we're having with Vietnam, the relationships that we're having with Japan, how we're working with China now, how we've increased GDP spend for NATO nations.

But it is affecting the American taxpayer and the American citizens in a negative way.

And so I think that the White House and the administration needs to do a better job of showing them the positive effects of these tariffs and that it is not a long term solution, because I do believe that if it comes across as a long term solution and Americans feel like they're going to have to be paying you know, $45 for a chuck roast the rest of their life, that's the stuff they really care about until terrorism hits their front door.

And then they would have been a little bit more grateful for some leverage, with those tariffs in the short term.

First of all, we're not talking about terrorism here.

We're talking about the claim that the fentanyl crisis, is a— That is terrorism.

Yeah, well, people are voluntarily injecting drugs here in America— Theyre smoking pot.

Its not a 100% easy issue.

But let me speak as a conservative.

I'm no longer Republican but I am a staunch conservative, and I believe in the Constitution and the Constitution Article One gives Congress, not the president, the power to levy tariffs.

And we listened to a very interesting debate in the Supreme Court this week.

And I will tell you, there was a whole lot of skepticism there on the part of conservative members of the court to whether or not the president has the power.

You say it's temporary.

He gives no indication whatsoever that these tariffs are going to be temporary.

It is his favorite, policy, is tariffs.

He calls them a beautiful thing.

I disagree with that because deregulation in the first Trump administration was the thing that made the economy so successful.

And so if the president uses these tariffs as a temporary order so that we can get leverage and so that we can increase economic security— our national security and economic security, then I think you're in a good position.

But I do not think it is a long term solution to a very big problem.

But we do need to focus back on deregulation.

That is a huge issue in this economy.

But what makes you think that it might even be a temporary solution, Taylor?

Because he doesn't seem to go to anything temporarily, he makes up his mind.

This is the most important issue.

I don't care if it really is o not to the people—it is to me.

And then he sticks with it.

He said very plainly, you know, I'm not going to revea all of my cards to you, and I'm not someone who's going to advocate for every single thing that President Trump does all the time.

But as a national security expert, I can see the long game here.

It is just hurting Americans in the short game.

And so I think that that i a very important differentiation that we have to make.

And I think that only time will tell to see if that comes about or not.

If we're havin the same conversation in a year and prices are up 30%, I'll eat crow.

I'm the first person to be able to say that I'll do that.

But I really look at the national security implications and our defense systems and right now, this is a really, really important short term solution.

If you were advising— any one of you, if you were advising the Republicans on how to try to conduct to the exten they can conduct public opinion, to make it clear that the tariffs are hurting the much larger than upper class, which controls most of the money but does not control most of the votes.

It's a small percentage of the American population.

How would you be telling them to differentiate between, say, look, I'm affecte by tariffs, I'm hurt by tariffs, and my family income is well below the national average.

How would you tell them to exemplify that?

Something that Republicans really struggle with, that the left is great at, is messaging.

So we have a huge array of diversity of thought on the right.

And when that happens, everyone has a different opinion on solving something and how to solve it.

Even Linda is a conservative too, and we probably have very different solutions to the same problem.

You know, I think that one of the biggest things we need to do is stop not acknowledging the issue on the right, just being like, oh everything's great and perfect all of the time is not a policy solution.

That is not something that regular Americans are going to buy into too much longer.

And so I think the right needs to get their messaging down.

And I am not someone who is big on blaming prior administrations for everything.

But I do think you have to discuss the fact that inflation was the largest issue in the Biden administration.

You can't ignore that.

You cannot ignore that for four years, there was only $1 trillion of investment in the United States from outside sources.

And now in the first nine, ten months alone, we've had $17 trillion of investment.

Jessica, your thoughts on wha the Democrats need to be saying to their constituents, women, people of color, people otherwise not represented in great numbers in American politics.

We have obviously so many different perspective and different kinds of politics.

But what we saw was a positive message, an idea that things may be bad or no exactly what we want right now, but this is a future that we can fight for, that there are things about our community, about our diversity that are worth maintaining and preserving.

And what we need to be focusing on is making sure that the economy also works for those people.

So I thought that was a really positive message we saw from Tuesday night.

And I think if Democrats can take that into the midterms they can have a lot of success.

We have to learn from the electorate what we saw Tuesday night.

Obviously, the economy is number one in their minds.

All the polls sho it's way below immigration now.

Number two.

What deal we have with China is the same thing we had in January when Trump took office.

So there's no oh, I worked out a great deal.

It's the same.

So the other thing is inflation was 2.7% in November of 2024.

We're now at 3%.

You've got the fed cutting back interest rates because they're trying t have us not go into a recession.

So the uncertainty out there with the public and with the Democrat base and with the independents is certainly going to be to talk about the economy.

And you can't lie or bluff your way through what's happening at the grocer store or higher utility bills.

People feel that.

And then, you know, you don't have snap, you know, maybe that'll be resolved, maybe it won't.

But right now, when you have to put food on your table every day for your family, yourself, pay your bills, keep the electricity on.

You can't bluff your way out of that one.

That's certainly a toughie.

All right, well, please let us know what you think.

Follow me on X @BonnieErbe.

From tariffs to the workplace.

A new study shows women take more leave than men and face bigger financial, emotional and career stress.

Less than half feel supported for general health and 4 in 10 report receivin no accommodation for pregnancy.

Many women take leave for mental health, and mental health is cited as the top reason they don't return to work.

On the other hand, employer supports such as flexible policies, clear benefits, counseling and return to work programs reduce negative effects.

So, Linda, what is your message to the Republican Party on how—and I kno you're not a Republican anymore, but what would you tell them they should be emphasizing to gain points on this issue?

I'm not sure that this is as much a political issue as it is a question of economics.

And the fact is, particularl in a time when AI is taking over jobs, it's really worrisome that women leave the workforce even for a temporary basis, even if it is mental health or physical health That is going to have an impact.

And by the way, I've been somebody who for years has argued that the wage gap can largely be explained by differences in terms of women's work habits and work history than any other factor.

And this is going to exacerbate it.

And I'm telling you, AI is coming for jobs.

And if you are a worker and deciding that you need to take more time off, you may be on the chopping block.

So this is a problem that I think women are going to have to solve.

And I don't think employers are going to be considering the mental health needs of their workers as much as they are their bottom line.

And they're going to go to AI for certain jobs if it turns out that the people doing those jobs aren't showing up.

One of my sisters just lost her job last week of 15 years and is also having health issues, and she's losing her health insurance.

And they wouldn't explain exactly why when they laid off 1400 employees.

But their thinking could be, you know, AI, that a lot of these jobs now, especially in accounting and cybersecurity, are being taken over by AI, which also contributes, of course to the economic uncertainty and it's—I think it's a problem that we don't know what it's going to look like.

Well, we don't, but we also don't know— It reminds me so much of when the media were out there predicting that, you know, in the year 2000, the programs would change and and the internet would collapse, essentially.

Yeah.

And it turned out to be a big zero.

And it's possible that there could be elements of that that show up in AI as well.

It is not the be all and en all that a lot of its supporters and people trying to get you to buy the stoc and use the—pay for the products are making it out to be.

I actually wonder if maybe Jessica and I might agree a little bit on this because of our generational gap.

I work in cybersecurity, I work in national security, and I think when you start using these AI-ML tools, you see they are not actually as smart as you think they are.

We have to put in that information.

ChatGPT just released, a new version, ChatGPT 5, where just now publicly available, it solves and uses like algorithms for it to think for itself and think through the issues instead o just regurgitating information.

We have been using AI.

Everyone thinks AI is new, right?

That AI and ML is new.

This has been around for 20 years.

It just develops and reiterate and I actually kind of disagree.

I think tha AI is going to create new jobs.

It is going to transform industry drastically.

It is going to transform how we do things.

But the reason that the world progresses is because we have progress and I don't think that that's a bad thing.

Is there a way t to weave that into the argument explaining why AI may not be as big of a culture changer as a lot of the media are predicting it will be?

I agree that the AI is not as good as what's being sold, but I do have a lot of concerns about it disrupting the industry, multiple different industries.

So I'm a journalist like you Bonnie, and I'm a member of the Writers Guild of America, and we are incredibly concerned about artificial intelligence and what it's being used to do to take away writers jobs.

I've seen it not at my news outlet, where, you know, I try to be as upstanding as possible, but I've seen at other news outlets where people have used artificial intelligence to replace writers and the work has been incredibly sloppy and inaccurate.

And that is a huge concern.

But unfortunately, I think a lot of corporations don't seem to care that muc about what they're putting out and the accuracy of the reporting, as long as people click on it.

So that has deep concerns for me as a journalist.

But I think it's happening in industries across the United States.

I do think, Bonnie, sort of bringing you back to your original questio about women and taking time off.

I think there's a problem here.

And that is, if you are an employer, your concern is not so much for your employees.

I mean, let's just, you know be factual here that it isn't.

It's about making money.

And so I think the, you know, it's a problem if women are taking more time off, and maybe it's a cultural problem.

Maybe we need to talk more about, you know, you can mak these decisions and people do, but there may be consequences for that.

Are you willing to accept the consequences, of leaving the workforce and understanding that when you g back, it's going to be harder?

And, Linda, I kind of want to jump on something you said because what the research also was showing is that corporations could make these investments in women to give them the time off, to recover mentally, to give them the time off to recover from women's physical health issues.

I believe it mentioned, endometriosis and menopause and that actuall these women are more productive when they have this time off, when they have the ability to take care of their mental health, to take care of their family.

And that that actually is good for corporations.

So I think corporations investing in women's mental and physical health is good for corporations, and it's obviously good for women as well.

Well, and the birth rate in the United States is significantly declining.

And I think that that' something that we actually don't talk about enough— All over the world, actually.

All over the world.

Correct.

But, you know, I think especially just looking at the United States, like, that's not sustainable.

That's not something that we should afford.

We should want a higher birth rate in this country.

We should want to be producin Americans who love this nation, who want to see this nation improve, who want to then have kids of their own and grow this great nation and promote Western ideals.

But I think it's really important that we have that be a part of this conversation, too, that the birth rate matters.

And why are people not having kids?

It's not just the economy, it's other components, including what it's like taking off of work and coming back into the workforce.

Those are really important conversations that both the left and the right need to have.

And I will say, I think the right is afraid to have these conversations because they don't know how to have them.

And I think that you need more young women, young conservative women stepping up to the plate saying, hey, I love my career and I love my job, but I also want to be a mom and I want to exist in a world where I can do both and both are equally valued.

But I also think that part of that has to do with people who don't want to be moms, not demonizing women who do want to take time away from the workforce.

And I think that that is an important component of this as well.

But aren't there certain issues that are just too big for government policies to really have an impact?

I mean, you mentioned, Taylor, about lack of reproduction in this country.

It's actually the world over.

I mean, it's in Africa, it's in South Asia, it' in some of the poorest countries and in some of the most sophisticated countries, with highly educated populaces, and I don't see, pardon me for being blocked on this issue, but I don't see what—I mean, aside from maybe giving away $1 million to each couple who has a kid.

And that's never going to happen.

Obviously, the money doesn't exist.

And it's not going to be used for that purpose, but it's very important.

What else can a government do that's really going to say to somebody who's too poor, to busy, too interested right now in getting their career going and making money so they can support a child down the road.

What can that government do to say, okay, we want you to have that kid tomorrow.

So what do we need to do to help you out?

Well, you certainly don't cut off their SNAP benefits where you know from all the statistics that's coming out about SNAP, that the majority work other jobs.

You know, it's not like someone sitting at home and oh, I just want to go collect my money to go feed my children.

But you certainly don' do things like this to families and then say to women, have more babies.

You have to have a support system in place if you want to encourage young wome to have children.

It's terribly difficult to have children and to keep working.

You know, I experienced that with my two sons.

So you can't on one hand say we want you to have more babies.

And then on the other hand, pull the rug out from underneath you as a government and say, oh, sorry, you know, so that' something government could do.

But Debras point leads to really interesting conversation, because there are over 42 million Americans on SNAP.

This started out as a temporary assistance program and has really become a way of life for a lot of people.

And I would argue that i a prosperous and healthy nation, you should have zero people on SNAP long term.

Governments in Europe, some of the, you know, social Democrat parties, etc.

and they do in fact give stipends for children.

It hasn't done anything to raise.

And that's essentially, you know, the argument that even with giving extra money, it doesn't seem to be enough of an incentive.

And I have to agree with Taylor when SNAP, originally then called Food Stamps not SNAP, originally started, it was like 1 in 50 Americans were eligible.

Now 1 in 8 are receiving.

That is a huge see change in terms of what that program's for.

Maybe we want that, but if we do, we have to have a debate about it.

But I want to reiterate again you have to have a living wage.

You can't expect people to pay for childcare and go out and work for $7.50 an hour and say, that's going to be okay.

So there's some layers here that really need to be looked at that I actually think governments can help with.

That's it for this edition of To The Contrary.

Keep the conversation going on our social media platforms, Instagram, Facebook and TikTok.

Reach out to us @tothecontrary and visit our website, the address is on the screen and whether you agree or think to the contrary, see you next time.

Funding for To The Contrary provided by: You're watching PBS.