PG123: Opioid Emergency, CFPB Overruled, Jeff Flake, Tax Reform

Subscribe:  iTunes | PocketCasts | Overcast | Stitcher | RSS

This week, Mike and Jay start by talking about President Trump’s declaration of the opioid crisis as a public health emergency. Mike wonders about the timing of the announcement, which came out a week before the president’s opioid commission is scheduled to release its final report, and hopes that significant federal funding will soon follow. Jay thinks federal action may help at the margin, but is concerned about throwing money at the problem.

Then, Mike gets to talk about his favorite regulatory agency – the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) though this week he’s dismayed at the agency’s arbitration rule being overturned by Congress. Jay believes it was a wise move by Congress and the Guys get into a somewhat heated discussion over the merits of class action lawsuits vs arbitration.

After that, it’s a discussion of what Arizona Senator Jeff Flake’s decision to not seek election might mean for the Republican party. Flake’s announcement comes in the wake of another Senate Republican, Tennessee’s Bob Corker making a similar decision.

Finally, Mike and Jay discuss the state of tax reform. Mike’s inner idealist comes out and he makes an impassioned plea for some good faith attempts at working across the aisle. Jay argues that Republicans have to be more realistic.

We hope you’ll check out today’s sponsor:
ZipRecruiter. Politics Guys listeners can post jobs on ZipRecruiter for FREE. Just go to

Listener support helps make The Politics Guys possible. If you’re interested in supporting the show, go to and click on the Patreon link.

3 thoughts on “PG123: Opioid Emergency, CFPB Overruled, Jeff Flake, Tax Reform”

  1. Hello Mike and Jay,

    I have listened to you or almost a year and a half and I appreciate the content very much. I would really like both of you to do a series of episodes devoid of “labels”. Saying that a liberal does “…” or a republican does “…” is not a good way to explain your positions.

    i would love to stay in contact with you all to explain my position more.

    1. I agree that blanket labels can be misleading and we try to not apply labels indiscriminately. On the other hand, it’s important to talk about common or typical beliefs and positions of conservatives and liberals, while acknowledging that there are always people who don’t hold those beliefs or positions. – Mike

      1. The thing is…I know you’re correct Mike! I know it. I tend to identify with your analysis of the issues and appreciate your attention to detail in those matters. I just can’t shake the idea that labels, if used, should have clear definitions and not used inappropriately. They shouldn’t be used in such grand, sweeping manner to dismiss the opposing sides’ position.

        I was just hoping that my input was an appropriate way to “refresh” what both of you (but mostly Jay) thinks of when you all say “liberal”, “conservative”, “republican”, “democrat”.

        Either way, keep up the great work! Thank you Mike and Jay!! <3

Leave a Reply