Top Government Podcasts – Apple Podcasts

Optimist Economy

1

Optimist Economy

Kathryn Anne Edwards and Robin Rauzi
Stanford Legal

2

Stanford Legal

Stanford Law School
The DSR Network

3

The DSR Network

The DSR Network
A Voz do Brasil

4

A Voz do Brasil

Rádio Senado
Any Questions? and Any Answers?

5

Any Questions? and Any Answers?

BBC Radio 4
The Interview

6

The Interview

BBC World Service
Law Report

7

Law Report

ABC Australia

1 Sept

The U.S. is in the Hole. Will We Stop Digging?

(Originally aired June 10, 2025) The national debt is $36 trillion. That could be a panic-inducing big number. So maybe it will help to understand how we ran up that debt. We've blown 37% of it on tax cuts, with precious little to show for that. But 28% went to stabilize the economy during two major crises (in ‘08-’09 and during the COVID pandemic), which is when you do want the federal government to pull out its credit card. Good news is we don’t have to get the debt to zero. We just need to get it moving in that direction. And for listeners waiting for MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) to make a cameo, that moment has arrived. Support Optimist Economy by becoming a paid Substack subscriber here, or by making a contribution at https://buymeacoffee.com/optimisteconomy Complete show notes with links to articles and data at optimisteconomy.com. You can also find Optimist Economy on: TikTok YouTube Instagram Read more: From Riches to Rags: Causes of Fiscal Deterioration Since 2001 [Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, 2024] Economic Effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act [Congressional Research Service, 2025] Is Modern Monetary Theory Nutty or Essential? [The Economist, 2019]Is This What Winning Looks Like?: Modern Monetary Theory, the buzziest economic idea in decades, got a pandemic tryout of sorts. Now inflation is testing its limits. [New York Times, 2022]
14 hr ago

Dismantling Environmental Law

Deborah Sivas discusses the recent rollback of environmental laws, calls to streamline environmental review to speed up development, and the role communities should play in decisions about what gets built. --- As the push to build more infrastructure gains attention, so does debate over the role of environmental protections and public participation. How can communities have a voice in development while still allowing needed projects to move forward? Stanford's Deborah Sivas, JD ’87, environmental law expert and co-director of the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law School, joins Pam Karlan to discuss the “climate abundance” movement and its implications for environmental law. Sivas examines whether changes to environmental permitting would address the challenges of building new infrastructure and how communities can have a meaningful say in those decisions. “It’s not durable if you don’t have a population to support it,” she says. “If people can see it as a win-win coming into their communities in a way that benefits them as well as larger policy goals, to me, that’s the right way forward—not disenfranchising them.” Sivas and Karlan discuss how environmental law is evolving amid new policy and legal developments, including the current administration’s push for expanded fossil fuel development, changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and a proposal to open some of Alaska’s last old-growth forests to logging. Links: Deborah A. Sivas >>> Stanford Law School pageEndangered Species Act’s “harm” rule, explained >>> Stanford Law School pageConnect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>> Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageDiego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00:00) Introduction and welcoming Debbie Sivas (00:02:16) What is "climate abundance"? (00:04:22) Deregulation for fossil fuels, not clean energy (00:06:26) Why the grid really isn't being built (00:08:32) Killing wind projects (00:10:31) NEPA, the Supreme Court, and citizen suits (00:13:03) Courts vs. agencies: a legal whiplash (00:14:40) Opening Alaska's roadless forests to logging (00:18:57) A "concrete proposal" for environmental democracy (00:22:08) The national and global collective action problem (00:24:02) Novel legal tools: IEEPA, the Alien Enemies Act, and the Defense Production Act (00:25:42) Citizen suits' achilles' heel (00:27:24) Training the next generation of environmental lawyers (00:29:40) Clinic spotlight: Northern Chumash Tribal Council (00:31:13) Closing thoughts Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
1 day ago

Could the Last Two Years of Trump Be the Most Dangerous?

Time is running out for Donald Trump and he, and the rest of the world, knows it. This is concerning - how much more damage will he wreak knowing the end is near? Will nations like China and Russia see these coming years as a window of opportunity, a way to take advantage of Trump’s imbecility on the global stage to further their own geopolitical agendas? Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations joins David Rothkopf and Rosa Brooks to take a look at foreign relations as we approach the end of Trump 2.0 and how they may ultimately be the most dangerous yet. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
3 days ago

Íntegra da Voz do Brasil

A Voz do Brasil