What the President’s 2024 Budget Means for Evidence-Based Policymaking

[J.B. WOGAN]

I’m J.B. Wogan from Mathematica and welcome back to On the Evidence.

Hey listeners, before we start the show, I’m excited to announce that that we’ll be a recording our first live podcast on May 2nd at 2 p.m. Eastern Time on LinkedIn Live. I’ll be interviewing Tina Rosenberg about the role of data and other evidence in supporting solutions journalism. Tina’s reporting has earned her both a Pulitzer Prize and National Book Award. About 10 years ago, she co-founded the Solutions Journalism Network, an independent nonprofit that advocates for an evidence-based mode of reporting on the responses to social problems. The network challenges journalists to look for data or qualitative results that show whether a solution they’re covering is actually effective. We’ll explore what solutions journalism is, and how researchers who evaluate policies and programs can contribute to evidence-based reporting about solutions.

And you can help. In the show notes, I’ll include an email address you can use to submit questions in advance. You can also just join the live recording and type questions into the chat.

Again, that’s May 2nd at 2 p.m. Eastern Time on LinkedIn Live.

OK, now for this episode, we’re debuting a new occasional series on the show that we’re calling Evidence in Government, where we talk about new developments in the halls of government and the role that evidence can or should play in decisions that could improve people’s lives.

To lead these episodes, we’ve tapped my colleague Mike Burns, who recently became our senior director of communications and public affairs at Mathematica. Mike previously worked in public affairs for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. House Appropriations Committee, and several members of Congress.

On this episode, Mike interviews two guests about President Biden’s recent proposed budget for the 2024 fiscal year. Our first guest, Caitlin Emma, covers the federal budget and congressional spending bills on Capitol Hill for Politico Pro. Our second guest, Nichole Dunn, is the vice president for federal policy at Results for America, a nonpartisan nonprofit focused on helping decision-makers at all levels of government harness the power of evidence and data to solve the world's greatest challenges. Both interviews took place the last week in March.

In the show notes, you’ll find more information about our May 2nd live podcast, as well as a transcript of the interviews, plus additional resources about the president’s budget.

I hope you enjoy the episode.

[MIKE BURNS]

All right. So we can -- we can just get right into it, I guess. So, Caitlin, earlier this month, as you very well know, the President put out his Fiscal 2024 Budget. So, you know, what we're really curious about is how do you think about framing the budget for your readers? And are there any stories that you pulled out of the budget release that -- that really stand out to you?

[CAITLIN EMMA]

Yeah. I mean, I think that this budget is sort of an interesting one because it is sort of framing things for the remainder of Biden's, you know, first term. And it's sort of setting -- himself up for the next two years. You know, we had, obviously, passage of major pieces of, you know, spending legislation the last few years from the American Rescue Plan to, you know, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Inflation Reduction Act. You know, now you have sort of Republicans railing on that spending and, you know, accusing Democrats of driving inflation, and House Republicans are trying to, supposedly, pull together some kind of budget that, you know, seeks, sort of a more austere vision for the next ten years or maybe not. I don't know. They seem to be pulling back on this notion of a ten-year balanced budget. But basically you have the White House sort of taking a moment to recognize what seems like the idea that the era for passing big bills like that is over. And Democrats don't have full control of Congress anymore, obviously, so the -- the budget, you know, recognized $3 trillion in deficit reduction policies which the White House has made a real point of highlighting, you know, especially as Republicans have been railing on Democrats for, you know, what they see is out-of-control spending. So I think it's sort of an interesting vision, you know, for the White House. Like, just a couple of years ago, you can really see how much has changed. He was proposing trillions of dollars in spending for the economy and COVID recovery and, you know, now this fiscal '24 budget is looking to build on the success of a lot of those bills that have been passed, but also recognize that, you know, okay, Democrats are getting hammered over this. It's time to, you know, maybe present our vision for what we see as, you know, reining in the deficit. So, you know, it's an interesting budget to put forward, especially as, you know, a lot of folks are anticipating that he'll run for a second term. He obvious -- obviously hasn't announced that yet but, you know, I think this budget sort of serves the dual purpose of being almost like a little bit of a campaign policy platform and, you know, just a vision for the coming fiscal year.

[MIKE BURNS]

And now it's interesting. You -- you raised a couple factors that I think are really kind of merging together. I mean, you have the debt limit, of course, this year. Democrats wanting a clean debt limit raise. Republicans wanting spending cuts attached. You have the delay in the House Republican budget, the 2024 election as you mentioned, and then, as you've reported, even -- even tax season can factor into the debt limit fight. I know you've covered the budget and appropriations process for a while now. Could you talk a little bit about your experience? I mean, the confluence of those factors, it -- it's -- it's pretty -- it can be pretty overwhelming. And just curious on how that's kind of factoring into this year.

[CAITLIN EMMA]

Yeah. I think we're in a very interesting moment right now where -- especially, like, this -- this week. I don't know when this podcast is -- is going to publish but, you know, we are looking at a recess in April -- congressional recess in April. So if you kind of just figure that this week is a little bit over. Like, Congress is already basically in April. You know, this is the close of -- of tax season, essentially. Like, the clock is ticking for action on this issue. You know, we've had a lot of estimates so far, putting the ex-date at, you know, anywhere from early June through September. Moody's Analytics thinks it could be, you know, mid-August. The Bipartisan Policy Center has predicted, you know, a scenario in which there could be, like, a -- I think their phrasing was a, quote/unquote, too-close-for-comfort situation where, you know, we might be looking at a breach right before quarterly tax receipts come in on June 15th which would sort of give, you know, the government a little bit more, like, breathing room. You know, there -- there could definitely be a scenario in which, like, early June looks pretty bad if tax season is ultimately disappointing. So we kind of don't really know yet where things stand in terms of when the debt limit actually hits crisis mode and, you know, just negotiations in Congress are completely stagnant. There are no conversations, you know, between the Republicans and the White House aside from, like, letters that were -- I put in quotations, letters -- on Monday that were exchanged back and forth. You know, there -- there's -- really, it's -- it's almost time to really start talking seriously about this. But if you're Democrats, I mean, the strategy is just to not engage and ultimately get Republicans to swallow, you know, some kind of clean debt ceiling hike. And that strategy has been successful in the past. You know, my colleague Jen and I did a look back at past debt limit fights recently and it was kind of a fascinating exercise because you kind of forget. I mean, this is my -- the second debt limit episode that I've personally covered, but you forget really, like, the dynamics of each one of those fights. And one of the things that we found was that, you know, any time Democrats decide to engage, they end up kind of losing ground on a lot of issues. So maybe it's the smart strategy for them to just refuse to do anything. But, you know, it's getting to kind of a crunch-time place. Like, the energy right now on the hill is very, like, scrambly and everybody is looking for, like, any kind of incremental development because there's just, like, nothing happening and time is running out. And they're about to leave for, you know, a recess in April. So there's a lot of appetite for something to occur and, you know, nothing is occurring. So [laughing] -- it's a fun -- it's a fun time.

[MIKE BURNS]

So it -- it's -- it's funny you mention the -- the debt limit look-back. I think you -- you called it the "Debt Limit Time Machine.” And I was wondering, since you've -- you've been on the -- you've been covering the appropriations and budget process for a little bit now. And you've kind of seen the cycles play out. Are there any trends -- specifically, as it -- as it relates to funding the government, that have really stuck out to you during your time?

[CAITLIN EMMA]

Yeah. I mean, I think if you're talking about just, like, the annual appropriations process, I think one of the more interesting -- not so much in terms of actual -- the flow of actual money -- but one of the more interesting shifts that I've just seen this year with appropriators is, you know, specifically in -- in the Senate, for a long time you had Richard Shelby and Patrick Leahy sort of running the show. And, you know, they got things done and they made deals and a lot of that just happened behind closed doors. And that was just the way, you know, they -- they were able to get things done. They got a lot of complaints about the fact that, you know, they were negotiating a massive omnibus spending package sort of without, you know, a lot of input. And then they're dropping it at the last possible second and asking everybody to, you know, decide that they're okay with it and pass it instead of shutting the government down. And that was an effective strategy for them for however many years that they were negotiating partners. And now in the Senate we're seeing Appropriations Chair Patty Murray and her Republican counterpart, Susan Collins -- it's just like a -- such a stark difference from the way those two operated. And it's a very, very stark difference from, you know, what's going on in the House. Where you have these two very powerful women who have put out multiple statements together, who have pledged to do this together, who have promised to put twelve bills on the floor -- to pass twelve bills on the Senate Floor. The last few years, you know, I can't even really remember the last time I went to a Senate Appropriations markup. Probably was, like, 2019 or 2018 or something like that. You know, they're -- they're promising to do these bills and to do them in regular order. And, you know, to maybe pass what could be a few "minibuses" or something in terms of fiscal 2024 spending packages. So this real, concerted effort -- bipartisan concerted effort to get appropriations done in the Senate is just a very -- very different experience from the last few years of Dick Shelby and Pat Leahy. And obviously there's a lot of questions about whether or not, like, House Republicans can even get it together at all on appropriations this year. So, while that's kind of all a mess, it -- at least for the moment being -- it really seems like the -- the Senate's top two appropriators are -- are really on top of things.

[MIKE BURNS]

I'm just pivoting back to the -- the President's budget for a second. A lot of the work we do at Mathematica revolves around surfacing data-driven insights that can improve health and social programs. And I know in -- in your reporting you've -- you've covered some of those that were in the President's budget. With respect to proposed changes to help in social programs, what do you consider to be some of the biggest takeaways?

[CAITLIN EMMA]

Yeah. I think there's two pretty big takeaways, you know, at least from what Biden has proposed so far. And I think they sort of speak to the broader political debate that's happening right now on entitlements. The budget put forward Medicare solvency plan, and this sort of comes as, you know, we're obviously having this big discussion about what do House Republicans want in exchange for raising the debt ceiling? You know, do they want to cut entitlements? Do they not? Supposedly, they do not. You know, this is sort of something that, you know, for example, Senator Joe Manchin said he earlier this year met with McCarthy and agreed that, you know, this is not something -- they're not looking to -- to do a big overhaul like that. You have Republicans, you know, really out there trying to hammer the message that they don't want to touch programs like Social Security. You know, this is all sort of, like -- this is all political. Like, I'm looking at the -- you know, at the Presidential election coming up and the elections coming up. So there's a lot of messaging right now on entitlement. So it -- it seemed very intentional that, like, the Biden Administration would put forward a Medicare solvency plan specifically. So, you know, in that way, they can say, like, this is our proposal for saving a program that is projected to, you know, not be able to pay out full benefits in, you know, about a decade or whatever that is. You know, that proposal relies heavily on expanding taxes on wealthier Americans, so it's worth noting that that is something that a lot of Republicans are not going to accept. So it's not exactly like a bipartisan idea, but it is an idea. And, you know, it's also worth noting, I think, that the budget did not propose any sort of similar fix for social security. I think the language in there was something like, you know, the President looks forward to working with Congress, or something, on this issue. You know, that is a -- that was sort of notable in that, you know, that's -- that's a big one hanging out there and they decided not to offer a fix for that. You know, I think White House officials since have stressed that, you know, this is something that, like, they're going to have to work together on. And he -- he already has a Medicare plan, you know -- things like that. So I think those two items, specifically, in the budget are one of the more interesting, I guess -- political? -- elements of the Fiscal 2024 request. You know, especially as, like, all this drama is going on with the debt ceiling and, you know, all -- all fiscal issues are being discussed all at once, all the time.

[MIKE BURNS]

Well, we'll -- we'll -- we'll certainly keep an eye out. And, you know, along those lines, really, what are you looking for over the coming year? What should -- what should folks kind of -- in addition to following your reporting, of course -- what should folks be on the lookout for as we advance through budget and appropriation season? And -- and hopefully, you know, come to a resolution and fund the government.

[CAITLIN EMMA]

Yeah. Right now I think we -- not so much -- I mean, it's all sort of intertwined. It's a very -- it's a very interesting moment where, you know, we kind of have no idea what's going on with debt ceiling negotiations. You know, House Republicans have sent a lot of mixed messages. You know, it seems like at first they were going to sort of put their -- outline their vision for fiscal concessions in a budget resolution. They seem to be pulling back on that idea now because, as we reported earlier this year, budget resolution is going to be really hard to pass in the House. You know, they need 218 votes. That's an extremely fractured conference on fiscal issues. And passing a budget resolution is -- getting uniform support for budget resolution is normally hard, and I think in this case it's extraordinarily hard. So, you know, tying your debt ceiling ask to something like that is probably not smart. So that's where they started. It seems like they're backing away from that now. You know, really, just waiting to see what House Republicans coalesce around in terms of what they want in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. You know, can they get uniform support for some kind of vision for fiscal concessions? Will the White House even talk to them or entertain real talks at all? You know, is President Biden going to meet with McCarthy again? All of that -- you know, when is the ex-date going to hit? Like, these are all, like, still unknowns. And then, at the same time, you have a government funding deadline of September 30 and, you know, that's not great because it's kind of, like, within this whole window of -- of when, you know, we might be breaching the debt ceiling. And one thing that people are starting to talk a little bit more about is tying action on the debt ceiling, maybe, to government funding, government funding cycle. You know? It's all very hypothetical, but you could have a scenario in which Congress passes maybe some kind of short-term debt ceiling hike that, you know, pins, like, a new ex-date to when government funding runs out. And then you have, like, these parallel discussions of, like, funding the government and also raising the debt ceiling. It all kind of sounds like a nightmare [laughing] that could drag on through -- I don't know -- maybe the end of the year. Maybe December. Maybe we'll be here, like, two days before Christmas still dealing with all of this, but there's just a wild amount of unknowns right now and the stakes are super high, both for, you know, the health of the economy and, like, the fiscal state of the country, and keeping the government open. So it really -- it remains to be seen. You know? And right now we're in this, like weird moment of like spring where there really isn’t any imminent threat so everybody’s just trying to figure out where we go from here but I expect things to heat up in the next couple months and it could be a really crazy summer, potentially.

[MIKE BURNS]

Well, you have a front row seat. So I'm sure we'll get a lot of good insights. So continue to get a lot of good insights from you, Caitlin. Where can folks follow you? I know you're on social. Where can we direct folks?

[CAITLIN EMMA]

Yeah. Totally. Well, my colleague Jen Scholtes and I both cover budget and spending issues for Politico's Congress Team, so, you know, you can find us on Twitter. I'm @caitlinzemma and she's @jascholtes and, obviously, if you go to politico.com or if you're a Politico Pro subscriber, you can check out our coverage. And, for subscribers, the two of us write an afternoon newsletter every single day called "The Budget Appropriations Brief," and it is our labor of love. But you can catch up on all the latest there, every single day, five days a week, except for, you know, a couple breaks that we get [laughing] a year. But -- yeah, that's -- that's probably the best way to -- to find us. Or, you know, feel free to e-mail us. You know if there’s ever any questions that folks have about like budget and spending issues or tips or anything like that. Our -- our e-mails are just the first letter of our first and our last name @politico.com. So cemma@politico.com if you ever want to talk.

[MIKE BURNS]

Great. Thank you, Caitlin. It was great speaking with you. And thank you for your time and good luck with everything.

[CAITLIN EMMA]

Yeah. Thank you so much!

[J.B. WOGAN]

Thanks to Caitlin Emma for her overview of President Biden’s 2024 budget. We turn now to Nichole Dunn, vice president for federal policy at Results for America.

[MIKE BURNS]

So just right off the bat, could you tell us a little bit about Results for America and -- and what you all do?

[NICHOLE DUNN]

Yeah. Absolutely. Results for America is a national nonprofit. We are a nonpartisan nonprofit that helps policymakers at all levels of government better use data and evidence to make better decisions and faster progress on some of the challenges that our country is facing. And we believe that if you use the best information possible that we can get better impact from the, you know, $2 trillion that -- of government money that we spend every year to see real equitable impacts on issues like economic mobility.

[MIKE BURNS]

Great. So -- so, clearly, you're -- you're taking a look at the President's budget request when it comes out every year. When you and your team are reviewing it, what are you looking for? Are there any sorts of new or sustained investments that signal to you that an administration is serious about building and using evidence to improve the effectiveness of government?

[NICHOLE DUNN]

Definitely. So we look for three main things. Is the administration investing in building evidence? Is the administration using evidence to prioritize its investments? And is the administration shifting dollars to programs and policies that are -- are backed by evidence of effectiveness? So how do we look for that? There's some signals we're looking for, including things like evaluation set-asides. So are there significant funding being set aside to evaluate how well programs are working? We're looking for evidence-based grant making. Whether the administration is driving dollars to those evidence-based programs across agencies, across issue areas that we know will get better results for the American people. We're looking for building evidence and data capacity. We're reviewing whether the administration is building on the promise of the Evidence Act. Are they investing in staffing? Staffing is so important, so that we need the staffing, the resources, the infrastructure to achieve a more evidence-based, results-driven government.

[MIKE BURNS]

And with regards to investments in evidence and evaluation, what stands out to you about the President's budget request for the coming fiscal year?

[NICHOLE DUNN]

Yeah. There's some exciting additions that we saw in this year's budget that really would advance evidence-based policy making and -- if enacted. The President's -- the President requested continued funding for a relatively new postsecondary education evaluation set-aside. So I was mentioning set-asides before. This is a set-aside in Higher Education Act with the exception of Pell Grants, not to be included. But it would allow funds to be pooled at 0.5% for an evaluation fund. That would represent a major increase in funding to evaluate the work in higher education. This is a program that Results for America has been watching closely and will continue to watch closely, and is hopeful that it can really make an impact in looking at how we can better help students access and graduate from college. There's also a new tiered evidence program in higher education authorized in FY22. It's called the "Postsecondary Student Success Grant," also known as the "College Completion Grant Program," which really also focuses on helping nontraditional students access and graduate from college. It would increase investments in interventions that are proven to work to accomplish that goal. And the President is requesting $165 million for this program. That is a 267% increase from the $5 million authorized last year. I think that confidence comes from the evidence that shows this program works, and has such a -- a positive impact for students, their families, the -- and the economy and workforce. We believe this program has a -- a lot of potential, and we'll be monitoring its -- its implementation as well. And just as important, the Administration requested funding to build staff capacity. I mentioned earlier how important staff capacity is. For example, at EPA, they've included $6 million for five new full-time employees for evaluation work. At the Department of Interior, they've included funding for three new program evaluators. And across many agencies the budget would add staff capacity to help support the implementation of the Evidence Act. So these investments -- they're not flashy. They, you know, might not be as exciting as big new programs, but they really are critical to making sure we see equitable economic mobility across the country. And Results for America has long said we should set aside at least 1% of program funds for evaluation. We really believe it's worth investing -- you know, this is just one cent out of every dollar to make sure the other 99 cents are being spent effectively in delivering real results.

[MIKE BURNS]

And -- and so, you know, we're already starting to see some of these spending fights gear up, I think, especially with the -- the debt limit coming up within the next -- as soon as the next few months. How optimistic are you about -- about these programs in their current context?

[NICHOLE DUNN]

Yeah. I think that, you know, like you mentioned, we are in an era of divided government, but this has long been a bipartisan issue to ensure we are investing dollars in what works. And we know that this is something that -- innovation is happening at all levels of government. And states are doing this work. Cities are doing this work. And I think they want to see the federal government incentivize the use of data and evidence to make sure we are getting the impact we really want -- want to see.

[MIKE BURNS]

Nichole, I think you read my mind a little bit there because I actually wanted to localize it a little bit -- because I know that Results for America works with state and local governments as well. And I was curious about how the proposed activities in the President's budget compare to what you see at those other levels of government. Do you see examples of the White House learning from these laboratories of democracy? And, conversely, is the administration role modeling anything that you think states and localities should emulate?

[NICHOLE DUNN]

Yeah, definitely. We are seeing innovation happening at all levels of government that can be shared and replicated. Policymakers are watching and learning from each other. We provide fellowships, and one of the number one things we hear from the policymakers and government leaders is -- tell us more about what the smart things our colleagues are doing so that we can maximize our impact and learn from each other. And I really -- I really love that about working with government leaders. So one example, in AmeriCorps, which has been a real leader at the federal level in evidence-based grant making, right now in this year's budget, the agency is investing 64% of AmeriCorps' state and national grants and programs backed by strong evidence. And those efforts, in turn, led to advances at the state level. Twenty-seven state service commissions are increasingly investing their AmeriCorps funds in what works, and -- and copying this example of defining and prioritizing evidence in their grant making. So that's something that states learned from the federal government. Governors, state leaders, and mayors are all replicating strategies that we've seen at the federal level. They're defining what evidence-based means. They're prioritizing evidence-based approaches in their budgets. We're seeing cities really dig in and make sure they're prioritizing evidence and equity in their budgets. We're seeing set-asides for evaluation. The American Rescue Plan, state and local fiscal recovery fund dollars had specific provisions that said you can use these dollars to build the infrastructure to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs you are using with -- with ARP dollars, and we're seeing -- we're seeing state and local governments do that -- try -- try to build -- use those dollars to build their capacity. And the administration is closely watching what state and local -- local governments are doing. They want to know -- like, they want to know how American Rescue Plan investments are doing and -- and we're sharing those -- those best practices back with them and they are -- are looking to learn from that.

[MIKE BURNS]

It -- it's interesting. You know, you highlighted a lot of examples of -- of evidence-based policymaking and how states and localities are driving forward with that. And it -- it really contradicts, I think, the narrative of -- that we hear so much about, you know, policy just kind of being made by almost more passion than evidence. It seems like this is a really important story to tell. I -- how are you at Results for America kind of pushing forward with that? Because it -- it just, to me, seems like something that is really worth, kind of, telling that story.

[NICHOLE DUNN]

Yeah. It is a really important story to tell. And I do believe what is at the heart of wanting to use data and evidence as a tool is to get those better outcomes. The federal government, state, and local leaders -- they want to see their kids recover from learning loss that happened during the pandemic. They want to see youth be reconnected and -- and find jobs in their community. And they -- you know, they -- they want to make sure all kids are reading on grade level. And they're seeing that there is evidence about what helps you get to those outcomes better than other ways. You know, I believe that folks, from my experience working in local and state government and at the -- in federal government, do come to work every day to make a difference in people's lives. And data and evidence are a tool to help make that a reality. And so we do want to tell those stories. A couple places that we tell those stories, we have an -- what we call our "Economic Mobility Catalog.” And this is a great tool. So you can go to this catalog and you can say, "I want to improve early childhood education.” And you can look at the programs that have been proven to make an impact in early childhood education and what the evidence is, and then read about case studies where it's been implemented. So that's one place. We have fellowships. We have a state education leaders' fellowship. We have a workforce fellowship where we're working with local government leaders, state and local government leaders to help them move in this direction and then highlighting where they're -- they're making progress. So we have case studies and proof points that we share out. And in a lot of places we have a -- we have an ARP dashboard so you can go on Results for America's website and see a dashboard of how state and local governments are using their ARP dollars in housing and workforce development and -- and other areas. You know, all the different areas that -- that lead to a good recovery and -- and also how they're using evaluation and evidence to improve how they implement those programs.

[MIKE BURNS]

Just to pivot back to the President's budget for a second, were there any key investments or priorities that were -- were not in the budget request that you and others in the evidence-based policymaking community would like to see added by Congress this year?

[NICHOLE DUNN]

Yeah! I think there are a few areas we think could where improvements in investment could be made for example one issue that is important to policymakers at community, place-based organizations, at local government, at state government, and in the federal government is integrated interoperable data systems. We need to know what is happening from pre-K through the workforce system and we need to have the state level data infrastructure built and the data integrated and interoperable so that policymakers, programs, and individuals and families have the data to make the important decisions about what is happening and what -- what can be improved. So the administration has supported increases for statewide data systems, but these programs have been long flat or underfunded, and we think there needs to be more investment to help state agencies and workforce boards make informed decisions based on the best data. So we're really hoping to see significant -- investment in the state-launched [inaudible] data system and the workforce data quality initiative. And, while we applaud the President's budget for including new evaluation staff capacity, at many agencies there's need for more support. They -- we need -- the evaluation offices that are doing this important work need additional staff, and we need to keep investing in agencies' ability to evaluate what works so we can improve results and keep learning and keep using that learning to make the best use of taxpayer funds.

[MIKE BURNS]

Great. Well, Nichole. Thank you so much for joining us today. This was a great conversation.

[NICHOLE DUNN]

Yes.

[MIKE BURNS]

We very much appreciate your insights. Before we let you go, where can we follow Results for America? Where -- where would you like to direct people to?

[NICHOLE DUNN]

Results4america.org. And it's number 4 -- so results4america.org.

[MIKE BURNS]

Well, Nichole, thank you again. This was great.

[NICHOLE DUNN]

All right. Thanks for having me. I really appreciate it.

[J.B. WOGAN]

Thanks for listening to another episode of On the Evidence, the Mathematica podcast. This episode was hosted by Mike Burns and produced by the inimitable Rick Stoddard. Our guests were Caitlin Emma of Politico and Nichole Dunn of Results for America. In our show notes, we’ll include resources from Politico and Results for America on the president’s budget.

As a reminder, we have a live show on LinkedIn Live on May 2nd at 2 p.m. Eastern Time. Follow Mathematica on LinkedIn for more updates about the show.

You can catch future episodes of the podcast by following us on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also visit us at Mathematica dot org slash on the evidence.