Lotto Luck and USDA Truths: Tom Vilsack Spills the Beans
Tom Vilsack, the former Secretary of Agriculture, drops some serious knowledge in this episode, where he dives deep into the absurdities of agricultural policies and the wild ride that led him back into the spotlight under the Biden administration. He shares a hilarious yet eye-opening tale about his unexpected lottery win that might make you question your luck—especially when he reflects on what could’ve been if he’d hit the jackpot instead of just the Powerball. Vilsack's insights reveal the critical role of public service in shaping food security and rural development, with a touch of sarcasm aimed at the political landscape, highlighting the ridiculousness of how agriculture often gets sidelined in national priorities. Co-hosts Colonel Moe Davis and David Wheeler keep the vibe light as they navigate through Vilsack's experiences, emphasizing the importance of programs like SNAP and the Forest Service amidst a barrage of budget cuts and bureaucratic nonsense. So, grab your earphones, kick back, and get ready to chuckle while contemplating the serious implications of agricultural policies that impact millions!
Tom Vilsack, the former Secretary of Agriculture, shares an amusing account of his unexpected lottery win, which somehow spiraled into a discussion about public service and the USDA's role in America. He recounts a string of fortunate events that began at a dairy conference and culminated in a jaw-dropping Powerball victory. The humor flows as he navigates the absurdity of his luck, laughing about how winning $150,000 felt like a mixed blessing, especially considering the grander sums he could have clinched had fate turned slightly in his favor. What starts as a lighthearted lottery story quickly transforms into a deeper conversation about the importance of public service. Vilsack emphasizes the noble intentions behind USDA's programs, which impact millions of lives daily, from school nutrition initiatives to disaster recovery efforts. His reflections on service are punctuated with sarcasm as he contrasts the public perception of government workers with the reality of their dedication and hard work. The episode captures a blend of humor and serious discussion, showcasing the multifaceted nature of public service in a way that is both enlightening and entertaining.
Takeaways:
- Tom Vilsack's journey from small-town mayor to Secretary of Agriculture reveals the unpredictable nature of political careers and the role of chance in success.
- During his tenure, Vilsack emphasized the importance of public service, highlighting the direct impact of USDA programs on millions of Americans, especially in nutrition and agriculture.
- The podcast underscores the absurdity of government budget allocations, where vital programs often compete for scraps while defense spending remains untouchable.
- Vilsack's reflections on tariffs illustrate the delicate balance in trade policies, where consumer costs and farmer incomes can be drastically affected by international relations.
- The conversation brings to light the challenges faced by the Forest Service, including underfunding and the pressing need for better wildfire management strategies.
- Vilsack's insights on the SNAP program debunk common myths, showing how it supports not just beneficiaries, but also the broader economy, including farmers and local businesses.
Transcript
Foreign.
Speaker B:Welcome to MUCU with our special guest, former Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack in Iowa.
Speaker B:Welcome, Tom.
Speaker A:David, it's good to be with you.
Speaker A:And Colonel, it's good to be with you as well.
Speaker C:Well, thank you.
Speaker B:So, Mr.
Speaker B:Secretary, first of all, how did you pick those winning numbers to get that lotto win?
Speaker B:Come on.
Speaker A:It's a kind of a funny story.
Speaker A:In a a roughly two month period of time, the following happened in my life.
Speaker A:I was at a dairy conference and I won the grand prize drawing, which was a $750American Express card.
Speaker A:I then subsequently went to a quick trip or a come and go here in Iowa.
Speaker A:I bought a scratch off ticket and won $200.
Speaker A:I took $100 of that and gave it to my wife Christy.
Speaker A:The other $100 I pocketed.
Speaker A:And I was in a hy vee store shortly after that.
Speaker A:And I thought, well, I'm playing on house money.
Speaker A:So.
Speaker A:So I went up to the counter and I said, Give me 10 lottery tickets.
Speaker A:The young man said, well, do you want to play the multiplier?
Speaker A:And I did.
Speaker A:No idea what that was.
Speaker A:And I said, well, sure, it's an extra buck.
Speaker A:So it was 30 bucks.
Speaker A:And I put it down and I didn't think about it.
Speaker A:Sunday or two later, I was in church, signed up for the raffle, the $10,000 raffle where you buy a ticket for 100 bucks and it's used to reduce the debt on the church property.
Speaker A:Signed up for that raffle, put Christie's name on it.
Speaker A:About two or three weeks after that church service, she gets a call from Father Vince advising her that she had won the $10,000 prize.
Speaker A:And then a couple weeks later, I remembered that I had purchased those lottery tickets.
Speaker A:And I thought, well, I wonder if any of those numbers hit.
Speaker A:And so I look at the numbers and I went, oh, my gosh, I got the Powerball.
Speaker A:That's.
Speaker A:That's great.
Speaker A:And then I.
Speaker A:Oh, my golly, I got another number.
Speaker A:I got one.
Speaker A:Another number, another number.
Speaker A:I almost.
Speaker A:Just one other number.
Speaker A:So I thought to myself, I wonder if you get, you know, four numbers or five numbers in the power bar.
Speaker A:What if you win anything?
Speaker A:Well, it turns out that you get 50 grand if you do.
Speaker A:And because I had purchased the multiplier, and the multiplier that day was three, it was $150,000 ticket.
Speaker A:So I'll just finish the story with.
Speaker A:By saying, you don't know whether you should be happy about this or whether you should be irritated now.
Speaker A:You could be irritated because if you had not gotten the Powerball number and had gotten the regular number, you would have.
Speaker A:It would have been a $3 million, because you would have won a million bucks times three.
Speaker A:And of course, if I got all the numbers, it would have been $365.
Speaker B:Million, and you wouldn't be talking to us right now.
Speaker A:No, no, not at all.
Speaker B:Not at all.
Speaker A:Not at all.
Speaker A:And probably wouldn't have served in the Biden administration either for that.
Speaker A:So anyway, it was quite.
Speaker A:And I went to the, to the lottery office.
Speaker A:This was just before COVID struck.
Speaker A:And so I walk in and there's an old guy behind the counter, and I hand him a ticket, and I said, you know, I think this is a winning number.
Speaker A:And, and, and I, and I was reluctant.
Speaker A:I, I, you know, sort of wanted to, didn't want to come across as if that it was a winning.
Speaker A:In fact, Christy said, when I told her that I had this, these, these numbers, she said, you better call our son, and he better check.
Speaker A:I said, honey, I can see the numbers.
Speaker A:I'm looking.
Speaker A:Anyway, the guy looks at me as if I'm, you know, an idiot, and he puts it through this machine.
Speaker A:And when they put it through the machine, if you do have a winning number, it goes, woo hoo.
Speaker A:That's the sound.
Speaker B:Oh, right.
Speaker A:And so it went, woohoo.
Speaker A:And he said, my golly, you do have a winning number.
Speaker A:But he said, I can't cut a check for this amount.
Speaker A:So they brought the lady down who was in charge of the lottery at the time, and it turned out she was the AP reporter when I was a state senator.
Speaker A:So she immediately recognized me as the former governor, former secretary, and she thought, oh, this is a PR opportunity.
Speaker A:And so I had to do the big check in the whole nine yards.
Speaker B:Yeah, well, I think the biggest prize was probably getting out of Washington in the last couple of weeks, I hope.
Speaker A:Well, I've used up all my luck, I can tell you that.
Speaker B:That's right.
Speaker B:Listen, I've known you for a long time, and I met you in your first campaign for governor when you were down about 18 points against a congressman, that he accused you of voting for a law that would allow strip clubs near schools.
Speaker B:And the voters in Iowa obviously pretty smart about that kind of stuff, and said, well, hold on a second.
Speaker B:That's not the Tom Vilsack we've heard about.
Speaker B:And he ended up winning and in an amazing election.
Speaker B:And you're my model for public service, Tom.
Speaker B:And I think the world of everything you've Done, you've done it with honor.
Speaker B:You've never been caught up in any scandals or any crap.
Speaker B:And even when you made mistakes, you tried to correct them and be open about them.
Speaker B:And for folks that are listening, tell them a little about your view on public service and how you got involved with maybe Biden and as well as the President Obama.
Speaker A:Well, first of all, I think public service is a noble undertaking.
Speaker A:I think the ancient Greeks had it right, which is that the ability to do something for your community, for your neighbors, is incredibly important.
Speaker A:If you have the honor and opportunity to do that, you should absolutely approach it with a sense of humility and a sense of gratitude because it is an extraordinary opportunity and it's an extraordinary chance to make a difference in the lives of, in some cases, millions and tens of millions of people.
Speaker A:The work at usda.
Speaker A:When you're feeding youngsters better food in their school meals, you're impacting the lives of 30 million kids every single day.
Speaker A:When you provide summer feeding programs for them, you're impacting 20 million young people in a positive way.
Speaker A:If you preserve and enhance the benefits of those who are struggling financially through the SNAP program, you're impacting positively 43 million.
Speaker A:I mean, there just aren't opportunities like that in the private sector to have such a direct impact and a positive impact.
Speaker A:And whether it's the Forest Service or the farm loans or the rural development and the housing programs and all the things that USDA does.
Speaker A:So it's just extraordinary privilege.
Speaker A:So I, and I, and I know how hardworking the vast majority of people who work for the government are.
Speaker A:I mean, the folks who worked at usda, these are a very caring bunch.
Speaker A:They are very committed bunch.
Speaker A:They are people that, and I think, David, you've seen this in North Carolina.
Speaker A:I mean, you're talking about disaster that was unprecedented.
Speaker A:But yet folks who may have lost their own home are at the Rural Development office today or the Farm Service Agency office today trying to figure out how to help their friends and neighbors through a tough period as they try to rebuild.
Speaker A:They're doing it because they believe in the mission and they're just extraordinary group of people.
Speaker A:And I, and I think unfortunately, they, a lot of folks do a disservice to people who work in the public sphere because they've been told that, you know, they're not working or they're not working very hard.
Speaker A:That has not been my experience in the nearly 30 years that I've been involved at every level of government, from being a small town mayor to being A governor, state senator and a secretary not once, but twice.
Speaker A:Joe Biden is the reason I got involved.
Speaker A: In: Speaker A:We, our job was to go around to high schools and to encourage young people who were able of voting age to participate in the caucus and do so for then Senator Biden.
Speaker A:He did a video for us which we showed to the young people.
Speaker A:And it was the senator talking to young people, basically saying that the penalty for not getting involved is that people less qualified than you end up governing you.
Speaker A:And I think frankly we're potentially seeing that happen on the national scale right now.
Speaker A:And that stuck with us and stuck with me certainly.
Speaker A:And he dropped out of the race.
Speaker A:And shortly after he dropped out, the mayor of our small town was murdered in a council meeting.
Speaker A:And his father asked me to consider running for mayor to fill out his son's term and to continue the vision that his son had for this small town that we lived in.
Speaker A:Because of what Joe Biden said, I made the decision to run for mayor, was successful and had the opportunity to serve as mayor for two terms.
Speaker A:The third term, I didn't really run for reelection, told folks that two terms was probably enough, but it turned out that nobody ran, the ballot was empty.
Speaker A: And I ended up there were: Speaker A:And so they elected me again.
Speaker A:I realized, good Lord, this is going to be a lifetime appointment.
Speaker A:So I ran for the state senate.
Speaker A:Took me six years to realize I didn't have that legislative personality that you have to have.
Speaker A:I wanted to be in charge.
Speaker A:And as you mentioned, I ran for governor and we hadn't elected a governor in 30 years.
Speaker A:And it was a sort of a magical fortuitous set of circumstances that created the opportunity for me to win.
Speaker A:And I served eight years in that capacity and I thought my career was over, frankly.
Speaker A:I was, I was a Hillary Clinton supporter, was not a Barack Obama supporter.
Speaker A: In: Speaker A:And when the President Obama won the nomination, of course obviously did what I could to make sure he was elected and was thrilled with he was elected, but just assumed it would be politics as usual and that somebody like me doing what I had done wouldn't likely get an opportunity to be in a cabinet position.
Speaker A:But it turns out that again, fortuitous set of circumstances and events, I think there were some people that were probably in line to get the ag job that didn't want the ag job and may have turned it down.
Speaker A:And the President, while he was putting his cabinet together, also understood the team of rivals concept.
Speaker A:I had run myself briefly for president and so he offered me the opportunity to serve as his Secretary of Agriculture.
Speaker A:And, and I had the chance to do that for his first term.
Speaker A:And then he allowed me obviously to continue doing it into the second term.
Speaker A:And it was an extraordinary experience.
Speaker A:And then I really did.
Speaker A:Public life was over.
Speaker A:But when Covid struck, Christine and I made the decision to support Joe Biden as we had 30 years prior or so.
Speaker A:And the president, after he was elected, called me and said that he had bad news for me and I assumed it was that I wasn't going to be.
Speaker A:There wasn't a place in his administration for somebody who had already been in an administration, already had my chance.
Speaker A:And he said the bad news is I want you back at Ag.
Speaker A:And so had a terrific opportunity to go back to a department that I love and with a lot of knowledge and information.
Speaker A:And I think we did a lot of really solid work over the last four years.
Speaker A:And I'm happy to go into the details on that because I think it's important but obviously this is your podcast so you get to ask me whatever you want.
Speaker C:Well, I've got two, two questions.
Speaker C:One is I noticed James Wilson was the longest serving Secretary of Agriculture and I guess apparently the longest serving cabinet member ever in 16 years.
Speaker C:So I guess first question would be if we can get Trump out, are you going to go back and try to break Wilson's record?
Speaker C:And then second, second question would be I know during Obama's administration you were confirmed by unanimous consent and with the Biden nomination you had overwhelming 92 to 7 I believe is the vote.
Speaker C:And among the seven were the typical names I would have expected.
Speaker C:Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Rand Paul, Rick Scott.
Speaker C:And then I see Bernie Sanders.
Speaker A:Yes.
Speaker C:So what happened with Bernie?
Speaker A:Well, I think two things.
Speaker A:One obviously Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton battled each other in Iowa on several occasions in the caucus process and I was obviously on Hillary's side and I pretty sure that didn't sit sit as well with the Senator as perhaps it could have.
Speaker A:And then secondly, I think his impression of me, and I think it was an unfortunate impression was that I was focused on large scale production agriculture and that I didn't understand the, the challenges of small and mid sized farming operations.
Speaker A:He has a consistency about his, about the positions he takes which you have to admire.
Speaker A:I just don't think he ever had the opportunity to sit down and visit with me about what I thought we could get done in a, in a Biden administration.
Speaker A:I don't know.
Speaker A:It may very well be, if I were up again, it would be the same breakdown, but it isn't.
Speaker A:It's a, it's a remarkable, I think it's a remarkable achievement that I got Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz and Rand Paul to agree on.
Speaker C:That's true.
Speaker C:There are two programs in particular that fall under the Department of Agriculture that are really important here in western North Carolina.
Speaker C:One is the Forest Service, because, as you know, we have Pisgah National Forest and Nantahala National Forest, or, you know, just central to this region.
Speaker C:And then the other One is the SNAP program, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, that aids about 1.6 million North Carolinians, about $3 billion a year.
Speaker C:So I wonder if you could just talk a little bit about those two, because those are really two key issues or two key programs here in western North Carolina.
Speaker A:Well, let me first of all say that the Forest service is roughly 195 million acres of forested and grassland areas that are under the purview of the Forest Service.
Speaker A:Virtually every state, not all states, but virtually every state has some connection with the Forest Service.
Speaker A:And I will tell you that we love to talk about the importance of our National Forest system.
Speaker A:We like to talk about the beautiful vistas that it, that it creates, the opportunities for recreation, for hunting and fishing and biking and hiking, and all of the things that are connected with the outdoors.
Speaker A:But this, the, but the reality is that we as a country have consistently underfunded and under supported the Forest Service, given the gem that it is and given the amount of beauty that it, that it entails and the amount of contribution it makes to something special about this country.
Speaker A:And we've seen the consequence in part with the horrific forest fires, not so much the recent forest fires in the Los Angeles area, but the other forests bars that have been so catastrophic in so many different areas across the country, particularly in the West.
Speaker A:And if you, if you, you know, if you really wanted to manage and maintain the forests in the way that they ought to be maintained, given the importance from a climate perspective, from a recreational and economic perspective, you would be probably investing twice or three times the amount of budget that's allocated to Forest Service.
Speaker A:And this is fundamentally, this is fundamentally the problem with it, with, in part, the budgeting process within the federal government.
Speaker A:If I try to explain it to people that if you look at the federal budget as a giant funnel, you Know, giant funnel.
Speaker A:Where would you want to be if you could maximize the amount of money that would be available to you?
Speaker A:But you obviously want to be at the top of the funnel.
Speaker A:Well, the top of the funnel right now is the Defense Department and the Defense Department.
Speaker A:Helmet security, certainly important, critically important, but they, they very rarely do they get reduced in real terms, and most often they get fairly significant increases.
Speaker A:So by the time the, the Defense Department's authorization bill, appropriations bill is completed, that funnel is about half the size it was at the beginning.
Speaker A:And then when you look at the health and human services budget and you look at homeland Security, by the time you get down to the USDA budget, of which the Forest Service is part, we're at the, we're at this, at the spout part of the funnel.
Speaker A:So it makes it really hard.
Speaker A:And then within the USDA budget, there's some oddities that make it hard to allocate the resources necessary to support the Forest Service adequately.
Speaker A:And it has to do with some of our nutrition programs that ought to be mandatory programs, but they're not.
Speaker A:So they essentially compete for roughly $25 billion.
Speaker A:One of those programs is the WIC program.
Speaker A:It's a great program.
Speaker A:It provides nutrition to youngsters under the age of five and pregnant women to babies.
Speaker A:It's a terrific program.
Speaker A:Expands fruits and vegetables and healthy foods for millions and millions of people.
Speaker A:The problem, though, is you never know exactly how many people will use the WIC program.
Speaker A:So you have to kind of ballpark what you think you're going to need from year to year.
Speaker A:So you obviously will ballpark on the high side, which means that you allocate those resour and you take that resource and you take the resource to fight forest fires, and there's very little left.
Speaker A:About half the budget just goes in those two items.
Speaker A:And when you look at the Forest Service, it's one thing to put the fires out.
Speaker A:It'd be even better if you could, if you could reduce the risk of those fires.
Speaker A:That requires the ability to maintain and manage the forest, and that requires resources.
Speaker A:And so the inflation Reduction act, the infrastructure law that passed during the Biden administration, gave us for the first time some serious resources to begin reducing the wildfire risk.
Speaker A:And we actually ended up reducing that risk for over 550 communities.
Speaker A:Several thousand miles of utility lines are in better shape.
Speaker A:Water systems are protected.
Speaker A: About: Speaker A:So we've begun that process.
Speaker A:But in order for it to continue, there has to be that level of commitment.
Speaker A:So that's really important program and really important department and very dedicated people.
Speaker A:And one of the sad realities of that Forest Service is those guys who go in, those women who go in to fight the fires.
Speaker A:You know, prior to the Biden administration, we were literally paying some of those firefighters.
Speaker A:14, 13, $14 an hour.
Speaker A:They could literally make more money working at a McDonald's than they would risking their life putting a fire out.
Speaker A:I'm proud of the fact that we raised their.
Speaker A:Their pay significantly, but it was a sort of a.
Speaker A:It was based on the infrastructure money, and it needs to be permanently raised, if you will.
Speaker A:And I'm hopeful that notwithstanding all of the budget cuts that are no doubt coming down the pike, that Forest Service doesn't see a reduction in the ability to pay those firefighters, because if it does, we will lose a significant number of those firefighters and it will make it more difficult for us to properly put fires out and to protect people from deadly fire.
Speaker A:You mentioned the SNAP program.
Speaker A:Here's what people don't understand about the snap.
Speaker A:In addition to helping the people that you mentioned in North Carolina who need the financial assistance just to make sure that ends are met and that groceries can be purchased throughout the entire month, there's an entire supply chain of jobs that are supported by the SNAP program.
Speaker A:If more.
Speaker A:If you give me the ability to go into a grocery store and buy a few more items, I'm going to buy a few more items.
Speaker A:It's not like I'm going to bank my.
Speaker A:My SNAP payments, my SNAP card money.
Speaker A:I'm going to use it.
Speaker A:So that means it's more stuff has to be stocked, more stuff has to be delivered, more stuck stuff has to be packaged, more stuff has to be grown and raised.
Speaker A:And throughout the supply chain, there are jobs that are connected to that program.
Speaker A:And there's also farm income connected to the program.
Speaker A:Farmers get 20 cents or so of every food dollar in any one year on average.
Speaker A:So if you're going to cut snap, you're going to reduce jobs and you're also going to reduce farming.
Speaker A:So it's not just the folks who benefit financial or, you know, from a.
Speaker A:From a healthcare standpoint and a nutrition standpoint, but it's also folks who are employed as a result of people being able to purchase enough groceries to take care of their families.
Speaker A:So it's an important program.
Speaker A:And there is a tendency to think that everybody on the program are people that are gaming the system.
Speaker A:You'll hear this quite a bit from some of our friends.
Speaker A:They'll say there's a Lot of able bodied people out there and they're just sitting on a couch and they're just collecting benefits and they're collecting benefits forever.
Speaker A:Here's the truth of it.
Speaker A:80% of people receiving SNAP fall into one of the following categories.
Speaker A:They're either a senior citizen who's worked all their life and is now living on a small Social Security check.
Speaker A:People with disabilities who would love to work but probably can, or if they do, they are limited in terms of what kinds of jobs they can do and working people, people that are actually in the workforce, many of whom have children.
Speaker A:And so 80, that's 80%.
Speaker A:The other 20% are what are called able bodied without dependence.
Speaker A:And the reality is that those folks are entitled to benefits, but only if they continue to look for work and only if they continue to try to get a certificate or certification or some kind of education that will allow them to get a job.
Speaker A:If they're not looking for work and they're not seeking education and not getting that certification, then their benefits are limited to three months every three years.
Speaker A:And some people still know that.
Speaker A:I mean, they don't know that about the program.
Speaker A:They think everybody's game in the system.
Speaker A:The system's really designed to make sure that people are either working or looking for work.
Speaker A:And the reality is that SNAP program probably supports a number of small businesses because they may not be in a position to pay their employees, you know, something above the minimum wage.
Speaker A:So it's, it's an important tool.
Speaker A:And I think it, it obviously impacts and affects more than the 43 million people that currently are receiving benefit.
Speaker B:That's one of the great programs that you administered.
Speaker B:You know, I think there's a couple other programs that really proud that you undertook.
Speaker B:Number one was rural broadband.
Speaker B:Obviously that's helped.
Speaker B:Here in my home county we've got, you know, one of the fast Internet systems in this part of the state.
Speaker B:And then secondly, I think something that, I think it was in the first term of Obama you worked on and finally got done maybe in the second term was the settlement with the African American farmers in this country.
Speaker B:Can you tell us a little bit about that situation and how you were able to resolve it?
Speaker A:Sure.
Speaker A:And in fact, David, there was a significant effort during the Biden administration as well in that space.
Speaker A: ice agency office back in the: Speaker A:They might be seeking a loan to start a farming operation, or they might be seeking a loan to continue to be able to plant a crop.
Speaker A:And a variety of circumstances resulted in people being discriminated against when they sought that help.
Speaker A:In some cases they were denied loans that they were clearly entitled to receive.
Speaker A:In some cases they received loans, but the loan rate of interest was different than what white farmers were experiencing in paying.
Speaker A:Or in some cases they received a loan, the interest rate was the equivalent.
Speaker A:But their loan wasn't processed and wasn't approved until late in the planting season.
Speaker A:So they were put at a disadvantage in terms of their ability to buy the inputs and to basically plant their crop in a timely way to maximize productivity.
Speaker A:So a combination of all of these things resulted in litigation that was filed by groups of individuals who experienced this discrimination.
Speaker A:And all of those cases, either individual cases or class actions, were pending.
Speaker A:During the Obama Congress had appropriated some money to resolve what were called the Pigford cases.
Speaker A:But the amount of money they they appropriated was roughly $100 million.
Speaker A:But it was fairly clear that the total cost of any kind of measure of justice would probably be in the billions.
Speaker A:So I went to the President, the President gave us the ability occasionally to have one on one meetings at the Oval Office.
Speaker A:And I went to President Obama And I said, Mr.
Speaker A:President, we need more money.
Speaker A:We need to the Justice Department to understand that they need to be more flexible in terms of the resources to settle these cases.
Speaker A:And the President agreed.
Speaker A:And basically between myself and Eric Holder, who was then the Attorney General, and his team, Tony west and others basically worked on settling these cases.
Speaker A:And so we essentially settled a number of the, of the Pigford cases involving black farmers, the Keepsigle case, which involved Native American farmers, the Garcia and Love cases, which involved women and Hispanic farmers.
Speaker A:There was still some residual individual cases or issues.
Speaker A:In some cases there were circumstances where individuals brought cases to USDA and went through the normal process.
Speaker A:USDA didn't act during the Bush administration in a timely way on those claims.
Speaker A:And unfortunately people didn't recognize that when that happened, they were supposed to then take a next step of going and filing suit.
Speaker A:They didn't know they were supposed to file the suit, so they didn't file the suit.
Speaker A:So, so the statute of limitations ran on them.
Speaker A:And so there were a number of cases that fell into that category.
Speaker A:So during the Biden administration we were able to ultimately secure resources under the Inflation Reduction act that provided additional resources for additional support and additional assistance, financial assistance, not in the form of compensation, but in the form of financial Assistance for those who had experienced discrimination of all kind.
Speaker A:This wasn't just African American farmers.
Speaker A:This was, again, everybody, including people with disabilities, who may have been in a situation where they didn't get the assistance or help that they needed.
Speaker A:So we were able to, to, to do that.
Speaker A:And in addition to, to all of that, we really changed the, the sort of, the approach when people get behind.
Speaker A:In the past, we were fairly quick to foreclose on people.
Speaker A:Now the attitude is more, let's figure out a way of, can we make it work?
Speaker A:What can we do to assist this farmer?
Speaker A:They may have had a bad year.
Speaker A:They may have had a circumstance beyond their control.
Speaker A:How do we, how do we create some kind of mechanism for them to.
Speaker A:To be able to stay on the farm?
Speaker A:We want to keep people on the farm.
Speaker A:We don't want to kick them off the farm.
Speaker A:So we instituted a series of loan servicing reforms that I think are now helpful.
Speaker A:We also significantly invested in a number of community organizations to ensure that people were aware of the various programs that USDA has.
Speaker A:It's one thing to have programs, it's another thing for people to be able to understand that they could qualify and for them to understand the process they have to go through to, in fact, request assistance from the government.
Speaker A:Sometimes it can be intimidating, sometimes it can be daunting.
Speaker A:And if your parents or your grandparents or your aunt or your uncle or a good friend of yours that experienced discrimination, maybe you weren't particularly keen on walking into a farm service agency office.
Speaker A:We tried to make those offices more friendly.
Speaker A:And at the same time, we tried to create a connection between community organizations that farmers might trust, allowing those community organizations to help farmers develop a relationship with the farm service folks so that they could get the loan assistance and help that they needed, or that they could get conservation help through NRCS.
Speaker A:So we entered into well over 100 contracts with organizations and entities to provide help and assistance to make sure that people across the board, large and small farming operations, were getting attention and getting the type of help that was necessary.
Speaker A:Now, all of this was designed to continue to encourage diversity within agriculture.
Speaker A:And when I say diversity, I don't just mean African American, black farmers, Hispanic farmers.
Speaker A:I'm talking about diversity in terms of how people farm, the size of their farming operation, what they farm, where they farm.
Speaker A:You know, this isn't just a rural issue.
Speaker A:It's also now an urban issue.
Speaker A:And so an effort to try to significantly expand the agricultural opportunity in this country, we went in.
Speaker A: In the: Speaker A:And when we did that, when we managed supply, it made it easier for farmers to do pretty well because the supply was always managed.
Speaker A:And so the prices were pretty good and they were relatively stable.
Speaker A:The decision was made in the 70s to transition to a more production orientation, a more market orientation where the market would determine what the supply should be.
Speaker A:Well, that creates peaks and Valley.
Speaker A:And 10 years after that was put into place, Bob Berglund, who was Secretary of Agriculture, the fellow from that was leaving office in the Carter administration, he said, you know, I'm really concerned that we're going to lose farms with this system.
Speaker A:We need to be sensitive to it.
Speaker A:Since he raised that concern today to now, we've lost over 544,000 farms.
Speaker A:Now to give you a sense of how many farms that is, that's every farm that exists today in North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri and Oklahoma.
Speaker A:Ten states.
Speaker A:All the farmers, we've lost all those folks.
Speaker A:We've lost 155 million acres of farmland.
Speaker A:This was land that was in farming.
Speaker A:It's not being farmed today.
Speaker A:Okay, that's the land mass equivalent of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Maryland and 60% of Virginia.
Speaker A:It's a massive amount of land that is, that's out of, out of production, if you will, and not available, which is one of the reasons why land prices have gone up.
Speaker A:And so when asked about this, the previous Trump administration Secretary Perdue truthfully said, well, you know, in America you either got to get big or get out in agriculture.
Speaker A:Well, the Biden administration focused on a slightly different approach to this by saying, wait a minute, we need production agriculture, no question.
Speaker A:We want to be able to produce enough food for ourselves and for the rest of the world.
Speaker A:We're proud of the fact we help to feed the world.
Speaker A:Great.
Speaker A:But can't we figure out a way, entrepreneurial, for those small and mid sized operations to also stay in business by creating not just a single source of income from that farming operation, that is the sale of a commodity, but by maybe paying farmers for how they farm, paying farmers for the conservation or the environmental benefit that they accrue on the farm, creating new commodity classifications or agricultural waste that maybe has been over applied on land to the detriment of the environment, now can be redirected into creating a whole host of energy and, and bio based product.
Speaker A:So we've created this entrepreneurial opportunity, funded it with resources from a Variety of different mechanisms and I believe it creates a new model for American agriculture to complement production agriculture.
Speaker A:And you know, it was well received as we got it off the ground and as we began to fund projects, as we invested in more process local processing, as we invested in local and regional food systems, as we invested in climate smart agriculture, we saw a real uptake on it.
Speaker A:So a variety of steps and measures taken, David, to not only do right by those who were discriminated against, but to basically create a USDA that didn't get into the same thought process it was in before.
Speaker A:But rather than restricting opportunity expanding.
Speaker B:Well, I hope you're very proud of that and the opportunity to close those cases out and take care of folks in a way that other administrations thought wasn't necessary.
Speaker B:When I talk to folks about you, that's one of the things I always talk about because nobody's ever heard of it, but you stuck with it.
Speaker B:You know, your training as a trial lawyer, I'm sure helped seeing it from their vantage point on why they deserve this and why the government needed to step in and do that.
Speaker B:So again, I'm proud to know that you were at the helm while that was happening.
Speaker B:Tell us one more story about something.
Speaker B:Maybe it was something you really enjoyed during your tenure as Secretary of Ag that maybe we haven't heard of, something that, you know, you really enjoy doing or you and Christy were able to do that you weren't expecting something maybe that M.O.
Speaker B:and I haven't heard.
Speaker A:Wow.
Speaker A:Well, I'll do a.
Speaker A:I'll do a couple of things.
Speaker A:You know, I can remember I was on Air Force One with President Obama and it was my first trip with him, and I wanted to impress him that we were focused on the right set of issues in the right place.
Speaker A:So I thought I would impress him with the work that we're doing in the state of Illinois, given his Illinois roots.
Speaker A:And so I thought I would show him how many home loans we had, we had financed in the state of Illinois.
Speaker A:So I had this, you know, five minute presentation on homeownership and how important it was, how we were working on helping people buy a home.
Speaker A:And he looked at me, he says, you guys do home loans?
Speaker A:I said, yes, Mr.
Speaker A:President, we do.
Speaker A:Really?
Speaker A:He said, I thought that was HUD.
Speaker A:I said, no, sir, that's, that's USDA.
Speaker A:It turns out, Mr.
Speaker A:President, that our loan portfolio, if you take all the loans that we're engaged in, the home loans, the, the broadband financing, the wastewater and water system financing, the business and industry loan program that we have, it's probably $250 billion portfolio.
Speaker A:If we were a bank, Mr.
Speaker A:President, we'd probably be one of the largest banks in the country.
Speaker A:Now, that's something people do not realize.
Speaker A:And people don't realize that those loans, they are critically important to economic opportunity in rural places.
Speaker A:I mean, one of the best stories was, you know, at the outset of the.
Speaker A:The Tea Party, there was a guy in Minnesota who was a big tea Party guy, and apparently he was starting a small business, and he.
Speaker A:He was having a ribbon cut.
Speaker A:And we had told folks that it's important for us to make sure that people understand that when USDA is involved, that USDA is involved and so that they can see their government working.
Speaker A:So.
Speaker A:And it's incur.
Speaker A:We encouraged USDA personnel to show up at ribbon cuttings of activities that they were engaged in.
Speaker A:So one of our rural development persons showed up for this ribbon cutting, and this.
Speaker A:She was.
Speaker A:She was standing next to a group of folks who was talking to this business owner, and this business owner was talking about, you know, I have done this on my own, and I'm proud of this day and didn't do it without any government help.
Speaker A:You know, I built this business on my own.
Speaker A:And he looks over and he sees this guy that he doesn't recognize, and he says, who are you?
Speaker A:I'm so and so from Rural Development usda.
Speaker A:So why are you here?
Speaker A:He said, sir, we're here because you wouldn't have gotten the loan without us because we guaranteed the loan at your bank.
Speaker A:You got to even realize that USDA had made it possible for his business opportunity to become a reality.
Speaker A:I mean, we're.
Speaker A:That.
Speaker A:We're in the dream making people have a dream of homeownership.
Speaker A:They had the dream of a prosperous community that has access to all the bells and whistles of the 21st century, technology and broadband.
Speaker A:Or.
Speaker C:We're the.
Speaker A:We're the dream makers.
Speaker A:When somebody needs a loan to start a new business or to expand their business or stay in farming or start farming or to improve their farming operation, it's an amazing department that people just do.
Speaker A:Even the people in rural America who may know a little bit about what we do have no idea about the breadth of the department.
Speaker A:The Secretary of Agriculture can be in any.
Speaker A:Any place in America.
Speaker A:Legitimately.
Speaker A:I can be.
Speaker A:I could have been in the largest city because of our nutrition responsibilities.
Speaker A:I could have been in the most remote area.
Speaker A:In fact, I could have been in one of 75 to 90 countries that USDA is engaged in with reference to trade and with reference to ensuring that food that comes in and other items that come in from other countries are doing so in a way that is consistent with our safety requirements or organic equivalency requirements or whatever it might be.
Speaker A:It's an amazing department.
Speaker A:So, you know, people would often say, well, you know, what are you proudest?
Speaker A:But when you have the breadth of, of responsibility from food safety to research, to forest service, to nutrition programs, to housing loans, to business loans, to infrastructure, you know, it's pretty tough to pick which of those missionaries you're proudest of because you're proud of everyone.
Speaker A:They do amazing stuff, do amazing, amazing work.
Speaker A:And, and the, the, you know, the other thing that people might not fully appreciate is the extraordinary research that's being done at facilities across the United States, ARS facilities, Agricultural Research Service facilities.
Speaker A:There were, there are quite a few of those labs associated with land grant university universities where people are working hard today to try to figure out how to help farmers produce.
Speaker A:More people are working absolutely.
Speaker A:Right now they are trying to figure out how to get the vaccine that we have to be usable for.
Speaker A:Avian influenza, bird flu.
Speaker A:We have a vaccine, but in order to apply the vaccine to poultry, you'd have to literally stick needle a chick or an egg twice.
Speaker A:Well, that's one thing.
Speaker A:You got a backyard operation.
Speaker A:It's something else again if you got, you know, ten thousand, twenty thousand, a hundred thousand birds in a facility or an operation.
Speaker A:So it's not practical.
Speaker A:So we're trying to figure out how do you aerosol or how do you, how do you make that vaccine available in a way that people can actually use it?
Speaker A:And then if you vaccinate a bird, you got to be able to distinguish between a vaccinated bird and a sick bird because they both have the virus.
Speaker A:So you have to be able to distinguish in some manner the difference.
Speaker A:And then even if you get that solved, you have to make sure that our international trading partners are willing to accept the notion that we're vaccinating our birds, because that has not always been, and as of today is not the case in so many of our key market areas.
Speaker A:So, so it's, it's kind of a complicated process, but yet there are people working today to try to figure out these, these, these challenges to try to help farmers and producers deal with the challenges of Mother Nature.
Speaker A:So it's, I just can't tell you how amazing that department is.
Speaker A:And fingers crossed that in this effort to do whatever is going to be done with reference to the federal government, that people don't, don't, don't screw this up because it's a department that does a lot of good for a lot of people, particularly in rural places.
Speaker C:You mentioned having fingers crossed.
Speaker C:I guess one area where I've got mine crossed, this issue of terrorists, because it looks, you know, I guess traditionally we have exported more food than we've imported, but both imports and Exports are roughly 200 billion per year.
Speaker C:And our biggest countries we import from are Mexico and Canada.
Speaker C:And the biggest countries that we export to are China, Canada and Mexico.
Speaker C:So I'm just wondering, what are your thoughts on, on this threat of tariffs?
Speaker A:Well, look, I totally understand the concern the administration has about fentanyl, and everybody should be concerned about that, and there should be a concerted effort to make sure that that poison doesn't get into our country and doesn't do the horrific harm that it, that it can do and is doing.
Speaker A:But when you assess tariff, you just simply invite retaliation.
Speaker A:And the tariffs that you assess impact consumers.
Speaker A:So when America, when the, when the president assesses tariff on products coming in from China, that raises the cost of those products to American consumers.
Speaker A:So the consumers are the ones who, at the end of the day, end up paying the tariff.
Speaker A:It's not a company or a country, it's a consumer.
Speaker A:So there's a downside, especially if you're concerned about inflation and costs, when the retaliation occurs.
Speaker A:When other countries say, okay, if you're going to put tariffs on our stuff, we're going to put tariffs on your stuff coming into our country, you reduce the capacity of our country to sell that item because there's always competition.
Speaker A:That item can be purchased someplace else.
Speaker A:And with a tariff, that someplace else may be able to offer a better deal, a better price.
Speaker A:So if it's a soybean or it's corn, I can guarantee you the beneficiaries of those tariffs will be the farmers in Brazil and Argentina and other Central American and Latin American countries, South American countries, because they can provide the soybeans and the corn that China or Mexico or Canada needs.
Speaker A:So you essentially restrict the ability to export.
Speaker A:And by doing that, you obviously impact and affect farmer income.
Speaker A:Because if you can't get rid of your excess, if you, if we export 20 to 30% of everything we grow in this country, if there's no market opportunity because we're not competitive, then that crop just basically is in a bin.
Speaker A:And the more crops in bins, the lower the price goes and the more impact it has on Farm income.
Speaker A:And you'll hear a lot of people talk about trade agreement.
Speaker A:They'll say, by golly, we need trade agreements.
Speaker A:We need an administration that's focused on trade agreements.
Speaker A:Well, here's what folks listening to this need to understand.
Speaker A:It's all well and good to talk about trade agreements, but two things.
Speaker A:One, when the United States walks into a trade negotiation, it usually has a set of priorities based on the size and magnitude of our own economy and what needs to happen in order for our major industries to benefit from a trade agreement.
Speaker A:So if it's steel or automobiles, entertainment or computers or technology or IT or whatever it is, it's, there's a pecking order.
Speaker A:And normally we go in there concerned about large ticket items because that's what our economy is now built on.
Speaker A:Agriculture is never necessarily at the top of the list in terms of the size of its impact on our economy.
Speaker A:It is significantly less than automobiles or things of that nature.
Speaker A:Manufacturing countries that we're negotiating with on, on the other hand, oftentimes don't have as sophisticated an economy as we have or as as many sectors of the economy as we have that are strong.
Speaker A:And so agriculture is almost always their top concern.
Speaker A:So we go in with top concern being autos or steel or IT or entertainment.
Speaker A:They go in with agriculture being their top concern.
Speaker A:So sometimes it's difficult to get any kind of agreement that is going to be favorable, if you will, to American agriculture.
Speaker A:The second thing is that it's great to talk about trade agreements, but right now we do not have fast track authority from Congress for the administration.
Speaker A:Which means that if I go in and negotiate a trade agreement, I present that trade agreement for approval by Congress, every member of Congress and every member of the US Senate could propose an amendment to that trade agreement.
Speaker A:So put yourself in a position where you're negotiating with the United States and you shake hands on what you think is a deal.
Speaker A:It's not an up or down vote on that deal.
Speaker A:It's a deal that then goes to Congress and 535 individuals can say, wait a minute, I think I can make it a better deal.
Speaker A:How many trade agreements do you think we're going to be able to negotiate?
Speaker A:We're not going to be able to negotiate any because people are never going to be satisfied that they actually have a deal.
Speaker A:So it's important for Congress, for those who were talking about trade agreements, you'll know they're serious about trade agreements when they start talking about passing fast track authority.
Speaker A:So that once that's Passed, then any trade agreements that's proposed for ratification, it's an up or down vote.
Speaker A:You can't amend it.
Speaker A:You're going to take it or leave it.
Speaker A:Either like it or you don't.
Speaker A:And that's the only way you're ever going to get to a point where you, where you have a trade agreement that, that can get through the process.
Speaker A:And then finally, you know, it's important for, for Americans to understand trade and the benefits and the drawbacks to trade.
Speaker A:There is a tendency to think that every trade agreement, we're always on the short end of it.
Speaker A:But again, our economy is such that the choice that we have and the competitiveness of the pricing of some of the items is directly related to trade.
Speaker A:And so American consumers have enormous choice and oftentimes have competition which lowers costs for them because of trade agreements.
Speaker A:You don't see that in the discussion about trade.
Speaker A:You always see about the concerns about jobs, understandable.
Speaker A:About industries that are being transitioned because a changing global economy.
Speaker A:Fair enough.
Speaker A:Totally understand that we don't do a particularly good job of transitioning.
Speaker A:We need to do a better job of that so that there aren't as many people that are disenchanted, if you will, with the economy because they don't understand why their job has been eliminated because of technology or because of something that occurred in a trade agreement.
Speaker A:So it's, you know, tariffs are complicated.
Speaker A:And frankly, we've spent most of the Biden administration trying to figure out how to lower tariffs.
Speaker A:And we did.
Speaker A:We lowered tariffs on a number of agricultural products, and in fact, we had a number of record years in trade, record amount of exports.
Speaker A:Now, today, there is not a trade surplus as there historically has been, in part because our economy is a lot stronger than many of the economies throughout the world.
Speaker A:So therefore, Americans are in a position to be able to purchase more stuff and they are purchasing more stuff.
Speaker A:And because the economies are weak in other places, that stuff is competitively priced.
Speaker A:So it's the strength of the American economy that's driving the imports.
Speaker A:It's not that we haven't had enough trade agreement.
Speaker A:And it is a fact that the last time we did this tariff thing, we had to pay farmers $28 billion of support for the detriment that occurred as a result of tariffs, resulting in retaliatory tariffs and low commodity prices and no markets for what they were growing and raising.
Speaker A:So if, if we in fact end up assessing tariffs against China, or again in Mexico and Canada in particular, our number one and two customers for A lot of what we grow and raise.
Speaker A:I can guarantee you that the USDA will be asked to do a significant amount of additional assistance to farmers to sort of overcome the, the impact and the, the penalty that they'll, that they'll suffer directly because of the tariffs.
Speaker C:Well, it looks like you're on, what, a five or six week vacation between leaving the Biden administration and your new duties as CEO of the World Food Prize Foundation.
Speaker C:Could you talk just a little bit about your, your new role you're taking on in March?
Speaker A:Well, I'm excited about that opportunity.
Speaker A:The World Food Prize.
Speaker A:There is no Nobel Prize for agriculture and food.
Speaker A:Remarkable.
Speaker A:There's a Nobel Prize for just about everything else, but not for food and agriculture.
Speaker A:So about almost 40 years ago, then Dr.
Speaker A:Norman Borlaug, the father of the Green Revolution, a man who won the Nobel Peace Prize for saving hundreds of millions of lives with, with agricultural science, won the Presidential Freedom Medal and the Congressional Leadership Medal, Congressional Gold Medal.
Speaker A:One of the highly decorated individuals decided that there needed to be a prize that would allow us to elevate innovation in agriculture, acknowledge people that we're doing incredible work to expand and to respond to the challenge of global food and nutrition insecurity.
Speaker A:So every year in October, there's an awards ceremony that is sponsored in Iowa that acknowledges people that have done extraordinary work.
Speaker A:And the foundation also has a significant opportunity to convene leaders from around the world, both in Des Moines and around the world.
Speaker A:This year we'll have convenings in Washington D.C.
Speaker A:and in India where we discuss issues relative to food insecurity, nutrition insecurity, and the strategies and challenges of trying to respond to an ever increasing world population and an ever increasing number of those who are food insecure or are receiving improper nutrition.
Speaker A:So massive responsibility that we all have.
Speaker A:And it's an opportunity for the US for the World Food Prize to basically complement the work that is being done by Department of Agriculture and other nonprofit organizations to try to respond to the challenge here in the United States and abroad.
Speaker A:We also have a number of youth activities where we engage youngsters from over 20 states and a number of foreign areas where we challenge them to think about this issue of food insecurity and nutrition insecurity and ask them to think about solutions that may be working at the local level and how they could be scaled up or have them suggest ways in which this could be addressed and then present those findings, if you will, to policymakers.
Speaker A:So it's a, it's a year long set of activities and events with a focus on global food and global food security and nutrition security, really lifting up innovation and hopefully inspiring the next generation of young people to get engaged in a career in food and agriculture.
Speaker B:And that that program was expanded I think while you were in your first term as governor, is that correct?
Speaker A:Well, we increased the amount of resources.
Speaker B:Yeah, that's right.
Speaker A:Available to, to, to the, to the world food price.
Speaker A:And then I developed a program in Iowa called Vision Iowa where we were contributing money for cultural and recreational opportunities for small and large scale cities in, in Iowa.
Speaker A:And part of the Vision Iowa money was used to renovate the old Des Moines public Carnegie Library into the world headquarters, if you will, for the World Food Prize.
Speaker A:That's a remarkable, beautiful building complete with murals that were done during the Depression.
Speaker A:The WPA program still in perfect condition and areas that are essentially highlighting some of the giants in agriculture, particularly those with, with Iowa Connection.
Speaker B:Another reason to like Tom Vilsack.
Speaker B:So.
Speaker B:So a couple more quick questions and, and then we'll end this terrific conversation.
Speaker B:Politics.
Speaker B:Any chance you or Jessica or Christie or your son might get into politics in the near future?
Speaker A:I think the chances of that are highly unlikely.
Speaker A:Okay.
Speaker B:Well, we'd love to see Jess run for governor in Iowa.
Speaker B:Maybe someday that name still matters there.
Speaker A:Yeah, well, I don't, you know, Jess is, he's, I think he's decided he wants to be behind the scenes and not in front of, in front of the audience.
Speaker A:You know, I look, politics is a lot different than it was when I ran for office, that's for sure.
Speaker A:And you know, you get to a point in life where, you know, I had a decision to make when I left the Biden administration whether I was going to retire or whether I was going to try to continue doing some of the work that, that I've been doing as secretary.
Speaker A:And you know, obviously USDA has a pretty significant portfolio in nutrition and food security.
Speaker A:And so this world food price job is an extension, if you will, of that work.
Speaker A:In addition, I plan on doing some work for the Gates foundation and the Global Dairy Platform, which is the large dairy processors dairy co ops globally who are trying to figure out a way to make livestock and dairy operations more sustainable so that they can reduce the risk of climate and so forth and trying to help create new opportunities for those farms and operations to participate more fully in carbon market opportunities that are going to be created around the world with particular emphasis on some of the developing countries.
Speaker A:So that continues work that if you will have done in the climate space and then going to be affiliated with the university.
Speaker A:Can't make the announcement yet of where, but university where I'll have the opportunity to be working with students to flesh out the work that we did in expanding this new model for small and mid sized family operations, creating new income sources for them.
Speaker A:So it's a full portfolio, if you will, of allowing me to continue working the space I've been working for the last number of years.
Speaker A:And I concluded that I wouldn't do very well in retirement.
Speaker A:And so we'll see how that goes at my age.
Speaker A:But a political career, a political opportunity is.
Speaker A:That's not in the cards.
Speaker B:Yeah, well, I think you've, you've given enough to this country and you're still a young guy though, so you got, you got lots, lots of time to.
Speaker A:Have fun saying a 74 year old guy's a young guy.
Speaker B:Well, come on, 74 is the new 54.
Speaker B:Come on, let's, let's be honest.
Speaker B:So.
Speaker B:All right, one last question, then we'll let you go.
Speaker B:And so Chiefs or Eagles?
Speaker A:Well, boy, I'm a stern.
Speaker B:I know you are.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker A:Born and raised in Pittsburgh.
Speaker A:And so I don't want the Chiefs to get three in a row because then that would allow them to say with some degree of confidence that they're the best team ever.
Speaker A:Still like to think the Steelers in the 70s were pretty good, but man, I don't know how you beat my home.
Speaker A:That son of a gun.
Speaker A:I don't know how he doesn't, he doesn't even look like a quarterback.
Speaker A:You know, he doesn't.
Speaker A:But yet sometimes so agile.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker A:Oh my God.
Speaker A:He somehow finds, I don't know, he's probably thrown a football and I don't know how many different angles he's thrown it.
Speaker A:And then, you know, and when all.
Speaker A:Given that the past with those two guys, you would think they, that they would have linebackers covered all over that fellow.
Speaker A:But he is always open when they need it.
Speaker A:So I'm, I'm thinking the Chiefs.
Speaker A:But you know, Barkley could have a field day.
Speaker A:But you know, Andy Reid is such a, he's, he's an incredible coach.
Speaker B:Oh, come on.
Speaker B:You're not in, you're not in government service anymore.
Speaker B:Pick a team.
Speaker A:Well, I'm.
Speaker A:Who do I want to win?
Speaker A:I want the Eagles.
Speaker A:Who do I think is going to win?
Speaker A:I think it's going to be the Chiefs.
Speaker A:Okay, Gotcha.
Speaker B:All right.
Speaker B:Well, this has been a terrific conversation.
Speaker B:Secretary Tom Vilsack.
Speaker B:First POD since he left public service.
Speaker B:And we look forward to having you back again someday.
Speaker B:Thank you.
Speaker A:All right.
Speaker A:Appreciate it.
Speaker A:Thanks, guys.
Speaker A:Take care.
Speaker C:Thank you.
Speaker A:This has been Muck U with former United States Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.
Speaker B:And co hosted by Colonel Mo Davis and David Wheeler.
Speaker B: Muck U is copyright: Speaker A:More information is@americanmokrakers.com Please consider a donation to support our team and Munkyou.
Speaker B:Sa.
