The national debt just hit $40 trillion. Is any of it actually your problem? Let’s go Off Script

Hey everyone, I'm Simone Del Rosario. Welcome to Unbiased Updates Off Script

We spend all day reporting the news at Straight Arrow. Now we get to talk about it

Coming up on the show today, $40 trillion in debt. It's a number so big. Is it even real

And does it actually cost us money personally? We're breaking that down with our cost of living

reporter. Plus, the Trump administration wants to change how children get vaccinated

including separating shots now given together. But why are those vaccines timed the way they

are in the first place? We're going to talk to our health reporter who dug into the science

and tells us what could change if those shots are spread out. And later, we've heard a lot this week

about Dolly Parton, the music, the fame, the legacy she leaves behind. But now parents are sharing

something Dolly did for their kids that a lot of people never knew about. Let's start with what

matters, what caught our attention this week, and why we think it deserves yours. The big story for

us right now is probably one you don't need a headline to put into words how you feel

the cost of living. We experience it every time we charge that card. But there are things happening

in the news that continue to impact our day-to-day expenses. Speaking of charging cards, the national

debt just hit $40 trillion. The money we're spending just to pay the interest on that debt

exceeds a trillion dollars a year. That's more than we spend on our annual defense

If something doesn't change, the Congressional Budget Office thinks our interest payments will

double in the next 10 years. So is that just fake money at this point? $40 trillion? Like

does it even matter? Does it affect us personally? Or can the government just keep writing checks

I want to bring in our senior cost of living reporter, Lauren Pearl. Lauren, first of all

Welcome to Offscript. Thanks so much. Great to be here. You're a first-timer here

$40 trillion, though, pretty wildly unimaginable number. I did the math, though, just to put it into context

$117,000 per person living in the United States. What does that level of debt mean for our own personal finances, if anything

Well, sure. I mean, it sounds like monopoly money to us, and it certainly is a staggeringly high number, but it does affect everyday Americans because it's pushing up borrowing costs

The bond yields have gone up. Investors are going to get skittish about investing in the U.S. government and bond yields through a very complicated process that we don't need to get into here

But they really do have an impact on all types of borrowing costs, including credit card costs, including car mortgages, car payments, everything that matters to Americans and really hits them in their pocketbook

So it does matter to all of us. And, of course, there could be a breaking point where things really get out of hand

And we've been warned. And there doesn't seem to be an end in sight in this ballooning debt

Yeah, and all of the projections are pretty bad at this point

I just talked about even just the interest payments alone doubling in 10 years' time

When you're doing your reporting, what's one thing that you find yourself needing to debunk about national debt

Two things stand out to me. One is that debt alone is not the end of the world

We've always we've had it for a long time. Some debt is normal in an economy, in a growing economy, in a complex economy like ours

It's just gotten very, very out of hand. The other thing that I think surprises a lot of people is that it's growing

The debt is really bipartisan. Sadly enough, nobody, no president in recent history has done anything to tackle it

In fact, I did a report about an economist who looked at how quickly the rate of debt to GDP has grown over different administrations

And actually, the highest rate of growth was under Barack Obama. But President Trump is now on track to break Obama's record for growing the debt to GDP ratio, which is a very important ratio in his or his two year administration

So so the fact that it's happening under presidents of both parties, I think, is something that some people aren't aware of

Lauren, while we have you, I want to shift to talk about your latest story. It's called U.S.-Canada trade war threatens more than high prices. Anybody can look that up on our app or at san.com. Now, our Unbiased Updates audience that watches every day, they know that the U.S. and Canada are in this renewed trade war. We're seeing these threats on both sides about slapping tariffs on this good and that good

I wanted to ask you, how big of a trading partner is Canada for the U.S.

And how big of a slice are we talking about as far as what could be caught up in this latest version of a trade war

We're talking about a huge trading relationship here. Canada is the U.S.'s second largest trading partner only after Mexico

About $900 billion worth of goods and services crosses this border every year

So it's enormous. And Trump has slapped on tariffs that cover about $20 billion of Canadian goods

And then Canada has announced tariffs that will go into effect on September 8th of roughly the same amount covering about billion of American goods coming across the Canadian border So relatively speaking it quite a small slice of this trading relationship But what is really important to note is that

it may cover only $20 billion of goods, but a lot of those goods are parts that go into other goods

So really, there's a ripple effect from even these tariffs, which are not small. I mean

$20 billion is in chump change. But compared to the vastness of this trading relationship

it is really a fraction of what goes over the U.S. and Canadian border

You really interviewed some of the who's who of economics for this story. What's the big

takeaway? And I know that you do a really great job of always getting people across the political

spectrum. So what's what's what everyone can agree on about what's happening right now between the U.S

and Canada? The first round impact of these tariffs will be to raise prices for consumers because

the tariff you know the companies might be able to absorb some of the tariff costs but eventually

those usually get passed on to the consumer. But the more kind of bigger threat according to

these top economists I spoke to, was that, again, when you start to mess with supply chains

then you can really snag production. You can, investors will go elsewhere when building

companies. You're really messing with a vast network of production. And once you do that

you can stall growth in the economy as a whole that can lead to job losses. So there are a lot

of secondary impacts that go beyond the 20 billion, the value of the goods that are being tariffed

Yeah. And that's why your article explicitly says right there in the headline that it threatens more

than high prices. And you get into all of that there for people to read. I wanted to ask you

before you go, Lauren, you have a pretty unique position here at Straight Arrow covering costs of

living what's your approach to covering it in a way that goes beyond just telling people

the rent is too damn high which hopefully people get that reference if you don't google it the

rent is too damn high i live in new york city and i can say the rent is too damn high

lauren yeah how do you approach this i i think it's important to um try to get as many perspectives

as possible. I, of course, talk to a lot of economists, but I like to talk to academics

folks in government, and really people on the ground and try to hear about their personal

experiences. And what's happening to our economy, I mean, a lot of the top line numbers don't really

reflect the lived experiences of everyday Americans. I mean, the stock markets going

bonanzas, but that may not impact the folks who don't own stocks and bonds and don't have a slice

of that pie. So I think it's really important to get beyond the top line numbers and figure out

what's really going on. Awesome. Thank you, Lauren. We're lucky to have you here and nice to have you

come on Offscript to talk to us about what we all know. The rent is too damn high. All right. Thanks, Lauren

Thanks. It was fun. Thanks. Well, the comment section can be a pretty loud place, but you're not just screaming into the void

Every week we pick one question or comment worth a closer look and see where the facts take us

This week, as we heard from Lauren, Canada is hitting back dollar for dollar

after President Trump slapped new 50% tariffs on billions of dollars in Canadian goods

But one of you says, let's not pretend this is an even fight

drumming 11 writes quote hitting back is a complete joke canada is getting absolutely

crushed economically the u.s has only felt the reverse effects in a couple of sectors

canada has eaten far more haymakers than the u.s has in this fight so is he right who's actually

taking the bigger hit let's start with canada now there's no question that it has more exposure in

this fight. The U.S. is by far Canada's biggest export market, and American tariffs have already

hit industries like steel, autos, and manufacturing. Canadian businesses have cut jobs and orders in

some of the hardest hit sectors, and the Bank of Canada has said U.S. tariffs are leaving the

economy smaller than it otherwise would have been. But absolutely crushed? Well, that might be a bit

too strong. The damage isn't even across Canada's economy. Steel exports have fallen by about half

for example. Auto exports are only slightly below 2024 levels. And these latest U.S. tariffs cover

about 5% of Canada's exports to the U.S. But America isn't above the damage either. U.S

companies that rely on Canadian goods can face higher costs from the tariffs, and some of that

can make its way to consumers. And now we know what Canada's next round looks like

Starting September 8th, Ottawa will match the new U.S. tariffs dollar for dollar, targeting about 20

billion U.S. dollars in American goods. That includes steel, dairy, appliances, farm equipment

and electronics. So is Canada taking more haymakers? Well, considering it's dollar for dollar and the

the U.S. is the bigger economy. Yeah, that makes sense. But that's different from saying Canada is

being economically wiped out or that the U.S. is walking away without paying a price. We love

hearing from you Keep those comments coming to us here at Straight Arrow We do read what you write on our YouTube videos And now you can email us at offscript at san All right let go inside the story now You can read the headlines on Straight Arrow but this is where we go a step further than even the reporting on the page

The details that didn't fit, the questions that came up, and the journalism that shaped the story

So the Trump administration wants childhood vaccines given separately whenever possible, which could mean more trips to the doctor and changes to when some shots are given

That got our health reporter Jess Craig thinking, why do kids get certain vaccines at two months, six months, or a year old in the first place

In her report published this week, by the way, called When Should Children Get Each Vaccine Dose and Who Gets to Decide

Jess looks at three common vaccines, hepatitis B, DTaP, and MMR, to find out what's behind the timing and what could change

Now, Jess, not everyone gets to have an epidemiologist on their staff, so we are very lucky to have

you to be able to ask these questions. What inspired you to dig into this specific angle in the first place

The immediate news hook was the recent Trump administration executive order that was wanting

the CDC, pediatricians, and other public health providers to look into separating out vaccine doses

So the Trump administration has long called for changes to our national vaccine schedule and federal guidelines

They have pointed out that in the U.S. we receive a lot of vaccines and a lot of doses, and they have questioned whether all of those are really necessary

so he has the Trump administration has called for us to separate out not only certain vaccines

from each other but also when we have combination vaccines like MMR which covers for measles

mumps, and rubella which are three separate infectious diseases we have only one shot or

one vaccine so Trump recently signed that executive order where he wanted to split

those three diseases into three separate shots. And so that really got me thinking

what do we know about the safety of taking different vaccines and doses at different times

And why do we receive certain vaccines at certain times anyways? And I wanted to dig into

the science, but also some of the logistics behind that. Okay. So the way that it is recommended now, and we'll kind of get into the steps of this

But based off of what you were able to find from this story, is this the way that it's always been done

Is it normal to be questioning what this scheduling is? So this has been done since about the 1960s

The federal government stepped in to start creating federal or national guidelines

There's also a number of other stakeholders involved there. The American Academy of Pediatrics is one

And then the CDC has an advisory board that is still around today that typically makes recommendations

So for a long time, there was no agreement. And it wasn't until the 1990s that all of these different stakeholders came together to release the first sort of consensus national guideline on vaccines

But even since then, we have changed the schedule periodically when new research emerges, particularly around safety and efficacy

And so the schedule has had small tweaks as we go. And both the American Academy of Pediatrics, the CBC and other public health stakeholders are routinely reviewing this data to make sure that our national vaccine schedule is most up to date and in line with emerging evidence

So I have to share this story is of particular interest to me

For those who don't know, I'm nearly eight months pregnant. So I'm a little over a month away from being that person that is very regularly in their pediatrician's office, in and out of it

How often are people typically making that trip now, given the scheduling

And what might that look like if these new recommendations go through

Sure. So right now, there has been a lot of talk over the past year and a half about the hepatitis B vaccine

because that has typically been recommended, given to every newborn on the day that they're born

A few hours after they're born, that shot is recommended. Outside of that, there are many vaccines given at two, four, and six-month visits

That's four to five different types of vaccines are given, which I know can seem like a lot for especially a new parent who is going into the doctor's office

and they have this tiny little child they've been nurturing, and all of a sudden you're going to give them a bunch of needles in the arm

So I know it can be alarming. And then we, you know, MMR is first given around 12 to 15 months

And there are several other times later in childhood we might get boosters or other vaccines

You know, the recent changes that the Trump administration has suggested, we don't have a lot of details about what that might look like

but we could go from, you know, three to five main visits

It could be upwards of 10 to a dozen, depending on how far we take this separating out vaccines

You know, if we take MMR, for instance, and that alone becomes three separate vaccines

we've just tripled the number of times you need to go to the doctor just to get measles, mumps, and rubella

So the details aren't clear yet, but, you know, it really could dramatically increase the number of times kids have to go to the doctor for shots

Is there science behind separating MMR, the measles, mumps, and rubella? So I spoke to a couple of different experts, and basically all of the research shows that

when you give measles, mumps, and rubella together in a combination vaccine, it's safe

and effective per clinical trial and FDA regulatory requirements However one expert I spoke with did mention that there might be some advantages to separating them out For instance we commonly see mumps

outbreaks on college campuses, and that's because immunity to mumps can wane over time

So in situations where you have an outbreak on a college campus, it might be advantageous to have

a mumps vaccine that is not given with MMR, measles and rubella as well. There's also strong

evidence that shows that children really only need one dose of rubella, but presently the federal

guidelines recommend two MMR doses. So there is some evidence behind that. However, you sort of

have to balance that science and that biology with the reality of what it takes to manufacture

vaccines. I mean, it takes millions of dollars and tens of years to develop a new vaccine

to go through all of the clinical trials, and to demonstrate that it's safe and effective for all

of the different populations of kids. So is a pharmaceutical company, a vaccine manufacturer

going to be willing to do that? Maybe, most likely not. If there's some sort of federal

mandate to do so, then we might see that. But if we do go that route, there is going to have to be

new vaccines that are approved for use in the United States. And that would take time. And

that would also take a lot of investment. Jess, what I love about your reporting is that

you always stick to the science. You get perspectives from all different sides. You're

always really respectful and you take politics out of it. This could be a political story. We know

people have a lot of opinions about vaccines. It's so nice to be able to talk to someone and just

get the level truth. These are some advantages, some disadvantages, and here's what it might cost

So if you'd like to read Jess's full story, you can check it out. It's on our site. It's also on

our Straight Arrow app. It is called, again, When Should Children Get Each Vaccine Dose

and Who Gets to Decide? Jess, thanks so much for joining us on Offscript

Thanks for having me. We've got limited time in the mornings, and not every good story makes the unbiased updates show

So here are some that are still worth your time. The U.S. Air Force major, who has been detained twice in recent weeks after speaking out against President Trump

is now facing charges in military court. Major Jason Watson was first detained last month while protesting on the steps of the U.S. Capitol in full uniform

calling for Trump's impeachment. The Air Force says Watson is now charged with several violations, including three counts under Article 88

for allegedly making contemptuous comments about the president. He's also accused of disobeying orders and conduct unbecoming an officer

Watson's lawyer told CNN this week he, quote, stands by the fact that he did this so others wouldn't have to

The Air Force is holding Watson in pretrial confinement. And two former NBA players say they want into the WNBA draft after declaring themselves women

But league sources are calling it a publicity stunt. Inez Cantor Freedom and Royce White, who was also a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Minnesota

both recently announced plans to enter next year's draft. Their announcements appear aimed at the debate over transgender athletes in girls and women's sports

The WNBA's collective bargaining agreement says the league is restricted to women

but doesn't specifically address gender identity or sex assigned at birth. Now, a person familiar with the decision tells the Associated Press that neither Freedom nor White is eligible for the draft

The WNBA itself has not publicly explained why. Freedom was also escorted out of Sunday's Indiana Fever Chicago Sky game after a confrontation with Sky guard Natasha Cloud

The team's owner now says Inez is banned from home games unless he's able to prove to the team he can abide by the rules without being a potential threat

And finally today, here's the kicker, a story we know is worth ending on

We've heard a lot this week about Dolly Parton's music, her career, and the life she built far beyond East Tennessee

But there's a part of her story a lot of people are just now discovering

For years, Dolly's name has been showing up in mailboxes across the country on books sent to little kids

She started the Imagination Library back in 1995 in the Tennessee county where she grew up

The idea came from her dad, who couldn't read or write. Before he passed away, my daddy told me that the Imagination Library probably was the most important thing I'd ever done

Now, I can't tell you how much that meant to me because I created the Imagination Library as a tribute to my daddy

He was the smartest man I've ever known, but I knew in my heart his inability to read probably kept him from seeing all his dreams come true

The program might have started small, but today it serves one in six American children under five

Kids can get a free book every month from the time they're born until they turn five

no matter how much money their family makes. Since Dolly died Tuesday, parents have been posting videos on social media of the books

their children received over the years. The Imagination Library says those books will keep coming

And we'll leave you with something Dolly said about why she did it

Let's share this dream that all children should grow up in a home full of books

The first step is always the hardest, but you will never know unless you try

Okay, that's it for us this week. Thanks for hanging out with us on Unbiased Updates Offscript

Shoot us an email and let us know what you think of the show. That's offscript at san.com

For all of us here at Straight Arrow, I'm Simone Del Rosario. We'll catch you next time

Thank you