--:-- Sean Rameswaram: The United States has given Ukraine billions of dollars in aid, weapons, money, whatever. And one year in, most Americans remain on board with that generosity.
--:-- Noel King: But the number of Americans who think we should pump the brakes is growing, and politicians are starting to reflect that.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: We're already seeing former President Trump pick up on this. I will get it solved in rapid order, and it will take me no longer than one day.
--:-- Noel King: We're seeing Governor DeSantis use some of the same talking points that we're hearing in Congress. Well, they have effectively a blank check policy with no clear strategic objective identified.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: We also have some lawmakers, particularly Republicans, but really some on both sides that see a long-term concern of China and don't want to empty the cupboards of weapons now.
--:-- Noel King: This conflict must end and the president must be willing to do what it takes to end it with victory. Auditing Ukraine, ahead on Today Explained.
--:-- [Sound effects and music]
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Any department can focus on the work that matters most. I've never met an AI agent. Learn how ServiceNow puts AI to work for people at servicenow.com.
--:-- [Sound effects and music]
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Support for this show comes from strawberry.me. Be honest. Are you happy with your job? Or are you stuck in one you've outgrown? Or never wanted in the first place?
--:-- Noel King: Sure, you can probably list the reasons for staying. But are they actually just excuses for not leaving? Let a career coach from strawberry.me help you get unstuck. Discover the benefits of having a dedicated career coach in your corner. Go to strawberry.me slash unstuck to claim a special offer.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Today Explained, Sean Rameswaram am here with Dan Lamothe, who covers the United States military for The Washington Post.
--:-- Dan Lamothe: Thanks for having me on the show.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: There's been a growing effort and a growing discussion of what kind of oversight is appropriate, what kind of oversight is necessary, and how do you provide that oversight in a very active, very violent war zone, particularly when you get out closer to the front lines.
--:-- Dan Lamothe: It's very difficult to monitor how some of these things are used in places where there are artillery shells falling pretty frequently.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: How much oversight has there been at this point, just over a year into this thing?
--:-- Dan Lamothe: There is a team at the embassy in Kiev. We now have an embassy in Kiev again. We didn't for a while. So that's another factor. Several dozen U.S. military personnel assigned to the embassy, not meant to be there in a military capacity.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: They have performed a handful of inspections. And then a lot of this is done remotely. You know, the Ukrainian military has been provided with electronics that they can then kind of register what they've received and where it's being sent.
--:-- Dan Lamothe: But I think the closer you get to the front lines, the more and more difficult it is to actually monitor, you know, each and every widget, if you will.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: There's more emphasis on things that could be problematic. It's kind of difficult to steal a multi-ton howitzer, for instance. But a stinger missile or a javelin missile that are used to take out, you know, low-flying aircraft or vehicles or something like that. You could see that if that were to end up in the wrong hands, end up in the black market, end up in a terrorist group.
--:-- Dan Lamothe: Those are the sorts of things that could potentially cause problems down the line. So it sounds like there is some oversight, but with this new Republican-led House of Representatives, there have been calls for more oversight.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Has that limited oversight satisfied the new House of Representatives?
--:-- Dan Lamothe: What's a satisfactory level of oversight is very much in the eye of the beholder. But what we've seen so far is an initial hearing late in February where a lot of these questions were teed up.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: What's the structure to protect the American taxpayer? Because I think it's a legitimate question, the American taxpayer. Why are we spending money? It seems like a long way away. But a lot of constituents ask the question, what's all this got to do with me?
--:-- Dan Lamothe: Has there been any waste, fraud or abuse uncovered or reported to your office in these investigations?
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: But how do we feel right now in time about providing all the assistance we've provided to Ukraine and our confidence that it is actually getting where we want it to go?
--:-- Dan Lamothe: And you had defense officials, you had the inspector general of the Pentagon kind of explaining what they've been able to do so far. So part of it is what we're seeing and part of it is what we're not seeing.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: So what we're not seeing is any evidence of significant diversion.
--:-- Dan Lamothe: I think our assessment is if some of these systems have been diverted, it's by Russians who have captured things on the battlefield, which always happens. But that there's no evidence that the Ukrainians are diverting it to the black market or some other thing else.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: There have been efforts. The effort is expanding week by week. But they haven't been able to do, you know, inspections out at the front lines. They haven't been able to do broad, wide accountability of each kind of equipment and each kind of weapon.
--:-- Dan Lamothe: You know, depending on how it sounds from a given lawmaker, it can sound very partisan or very bipartisan.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Help me understand how U.S. taxpayers paying for pensions in Ukraine is a good idea for our country.
--:-- Dan Lamothe: One notable factor, a number of the Republicans didn't really sound very different from the Democrats.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: I will compliment the president, and the ranking member will be glad to hear this. I think it was right for him to go to Ukraine recently, and I think that that sent the right signal.
--:-- Dan Lamothe: They were asking how it worked. They were asking what they had been able to pull off. There's a number of Republicans who are interested in making sure this works.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: It sounds very reasonable when you hear it out.
--:-- Dan Lamothe: I've asked the inspector general and the undersecretary to appear today because it is imperative that the American people understand, A, where our security system is going, B, how it's being used, C, and what protections are in place to ensure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: There are other lawmakers who are very opposed to any aid to Ukraine at this point, really looking to rein it in.
--:-- Dan Lamothe: The questions you get from some of them often come with a flavor of whether or not the United States should be providing the size and scope of aid that it is right now.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Who are the lawmakers who seem most opposed to this sort of mass funding of the war effort in Ukraine?
--:-- Dan Lamothe: Congressman Matt Gaetz from Florida. He is someone who really digging in on whether or not the United States should be providing virtually any kind of aid.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Is the Azov Battalion getting access to U.S. weapons?
--:-- Dan Lamothe: There's a second group of Republicans here that are really pressing the Biden administration on why they are not doing more.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Which argument seemed to sort of carry these hearings? Was it that there should be less funding for Ukraine or that there should be more aid and ramping up of aid to Ukraine?
--:-- Dan Lamothe: More lawmakers are in favor of expanding aid or at least continuing down the path the United States is on.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: You also hear sort of very frequent rhetoric from lawmakers, particularly Republicans, who fall in both camps, which is we don't want a blank check. No blank checks for runaway spending. Whatever that means, we don't want a blank check for Ukraine.
--:-- Dan Lamothe: But I think there's a desire to probably politically make this palatable to as many people as possible.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: So if you are able to show that you are in favor of oversight, show that you are in favor of having as much accountability of these weapons as you can, you then can continue down the path of supporting Ukraine while placating some of the people in your group that are concerned that we're just kind of providing Ukraine whatever it wants.
--:-- Dan Lamothe: Did these hearings produce any evidence to support this idea that there isn't enough oversight and therefore weapons or even money could be getting into the hands of dangerous actors with bad intentions?
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: What came out several times was that there was no evidence of weapons falling into the wrong hands.
--:-- Dan Lamothe: But that comes with the caveat of them also acknowledging that there is still a limit on what kind of oversight they have been able to provide.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And when one lawmaker in particular, Congressman Garamendi from California, asked if any weapons had been provided that had then fallen into the wrong hands, the inspector general kind of pumped the brakes a bit and said, Once the weaponry goes into Ukraine, there needs to be appropriate accountability and tracking.
--:-- Dan Lamothe: We did make a number of findings and recommendations. Most of those have been addressed and the wrecks have been closed. There are a couple that are outstanding. But he could not promise that it hasn't happened at all.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: That's troubling, isn't it?
--:-- Dan Lamothe: It's troubling. It's also, I think, a very likely outcome.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: You're limited on your oversight. They can't promise something that they're not sure about because they haven't had that level of oversight.
--:-- Dan Lamothe: So I think the natural question is what kind of additional oversight do you need? How do you need to expand on this mission? Where do you need to send people? Do you need more people?
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: You know, what does it take to, I guess, feel confident that these weapons are ending up where they are intended to end up?
--:-- Dan Lamothe: That's a that's a rolling concern. That's a rolling challenge that probably evolves over time and probably requires, you know, additional American effort.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Up to this point, we've been talking about weapons. But what about the billions of dollars?
--:-- Dan Lamothe: I saw President Zelensky fired a bunch of staffers over corruption concerns. Were any of the concerns discussed at this hearing about money and where it's ending up?
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Yes. In fact, Congressman Gates specifically raised the firing of those individuals.
--:-- Dan Lamothe: Deputy head of Zelensky's office can't explain where the sports cars came from, so he had to resign. A deputy defense minister resigned over contracting corruption, and the wife of a former Ukrainian politician was found with $22 million in cash crossing the border into Hungary last year.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: President Zelensky is kind of in a box on this. You know, he's got the choice between taking action when he sees something going wrong and kind of dealing with the backlash of that or kind of trying to sweep it under the rug and then having it potentially blow up as a larger issue later.
--:-- Dan Lamothe: And also, you know, that money has an intended focus as well. And if people are skimming off the top, you would expect a good leader to say that's not acceptable. You know, you're fired and I'm going to find somebody who's going to do this job right.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: The best case scenario is the vast majority of this money, the vast majority of these weapons are delivered, used to their intended effect, create some good in the eyes of the Western world, stop Russia where it is, and help the Ukrainian people as they attempt to rebuild their economy.
--:-- Dan Lamothe: The American system isn't completely free of corruption either, but in a very dynamic system where there's an awful lot going on and an awful lot of money moving around, can you really promise 100% accountability?
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: I think that's impossible. I think it would be impossible if it was just our system alone.
--:-- Dan Lamothe: Dan Lamothe, Washington Post.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Believe it or not, the Pentagon isn't terribly accountable to the American taxpayer. In truth, it's hardly accountable at all.
--:-- [Sound effects and music]
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: The deets in a few beats on Today Explained.
--:-- [Sound effects and music]
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Support for Today Explained comes from Built Rewards. These days, it seems like everybody has a rewards program. You swipe your card and you get one cent on the hundred dollars. But with your rent, frequently, you just pay month after month. You never get anything from it other than that roof over your head.
--:-- [Sound effects and music]
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Not anymore, says Built Rewards. Built Rewards says it lets you earn points on your rent. By paying rent through Bilt, they say you can earn flexible points that can be redeemed toward hundreds of hotels and airlines, perhaps a future rent payment, your next Lyft ride, and so much more.
--:-- [Sound effects and music]
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Your home isn't just where you sleep. It's your community. And Bilt wants you to go out and do things in the community. You can eat at your favorite local restaurants, then earn more points. You can get VIP treatment at certain fitness studios. You can enjoy exclusive experiences just for Bilt members every month.
--:-- [Sound effects and music]
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: When you're ready to travel, they say Bilt points can be converted to miles or hotel points all around the world. You can earn points on rent and around your neighborhood wherever you call home by joining Bilt.com slash Explained.
--:-- [Sound effects and music]
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: That's J-O-I-N-B-I-L-T dot com slash Explained.
--:-- [Sound effects and music]
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Support for this show comes from Macy's. It's almost fall, and that means it's time to cycle your wardrobe to the cold setting.
--:-- [Sound effects and music]
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Because while everyone loves a breezy summer outfit, let's be real, layering is even more fun. That's why Macy's Fall Fashion Guide has everything you need to piece together the perfect look for you.
--:-- [Sound effects and music]
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: It's your one-stop shop for fall's latest trends and must-haves curated by their experts. Add a statement shoe to your collection like the calf hair loafers from Steve Madden or tap into your romantic side with flowy dresses from Cece and sheer pieces from INC.
--:-- [Sound effects and music]
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: You can even throw in some textural layers for contrast like a faux fur bomber jacket from Karl Lagerfeld Paris.
--:-- [Sound effects and music]
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Whether your old favorite sweater or coat is on its last threads or you're just craving a new vibe to switch things up, Macy's has got you covered this season.
--:-- [Sound effects and music]
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Find the perfect layering pieces for you by exploring the Macy's Fall Fashion Style Guide. Shop in-store or online at macy's.com.
--:-- [Sound effects and music]
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Today explained his back.
--:-- [Sound effects and music]
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Dan's gone. But before he left, he said, yeah, a lot of lawmakers are worried about corruption in Ukraine with all this defense aid we're sending over there. But then he said the American system isn't free of corruption either.
--:-- [Sound effects and music]
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Don't go thinking our defense spending is 100 percent accountable. And obviously that got us wondering exactly how accountable the Pentagon is to the American taxpayer.
--:-- [Sound effects and music]
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: So he reached out to Julia Gledhill. She's an analyst at the Project on Government Oversight, a.k.a. Pogo.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: Thanks for having me on the show.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Last year, Congress authorized $858 billion for the Department of Defense, counting defense spending outside of the Pentagon, like nuclear spending at the Department of Energy, for example, the budget is really closer to a trillion and a half dollars.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: And apparently that trillion and a half doesn't even include the billions and billions and billions of Ukraine aid. No big deal. Just an additional 62 billion.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: So we're talking about a lot of money and the DoD-based budget is just one large puzzle piece in that equation.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: But the trillion and a half dollar question, how good is the Pentagon at keeping track of all of its money?
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Can I get a drumroll, Paul?
--:-- Julia Gledhill: The Pentagon is notoriously really bad at managing its money.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: We hear often that the DOD has failed every audit it's ever taken. Ever. Like, ever.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: Yes, and it has only completed five. The first one was in 2018, the last of which was this past winter.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: So you're saying that the first time anyone even tried to hold the Department of Defense accountable for its spending, which is something in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars, was in 2018?
--:-- Julia Gledhill: It is the first year that the DOD completed what's called a comprehensive financial audit.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Previously, they did have an office of an inspector general. The inspector's general system exists to place internal watchdogs at all government agencies to detect and prevent waste, fraud and abuse of funds.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: However, in a comprehensive sense, it is correct to say that the Pentagon had not completed a full audit until 2018, which is absolutely insane.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: How did it get to the point where the Pentagon finally had to complete a full audit in 2018?
--:-- Julia Gledhill: In 1990, Congress required every agency to go through an audit process. You can only kick the can for so long, basically.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: What happened in the intervening 28 years?
--:-- Julia Gledhill: You know, we could ask that question about so many things that the Pentagon is congressionally mandated to do and that they simply don't.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Well, how did this go in 2018? Not well.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: The Pentagon received a disclaimer of opinion. Former comptrollers have described disclaimers of opinion like a red light.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: So it's helpful to think about different audit outcomes in terms of red light, yellow light, and green light.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: And we've gotten red lights every single year for five years.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: But when we talk about the Pentagon failing audits, it's a slight mischaracterization because a full failure would in fact be an adverse opinion, which to be clear is also a red light.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: But an adverse opinion is one where independent auditors actually have all the information they have and they say, OK, there's actually really systemic and pervasive inaccuracies in the way that the Pentagon is doing financial reporting.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: What disclaimers of opinion mean are that independent auditors were not able to obtain all of the evidence necessary to even formulate an opinion.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: They just they straight up didn't have all the information they needed.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Did things get better in the subsequent four audits?
--:-- Julia Gledhill: There's been very, very slight progress in the past four years.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: However, the 2022 audit and the 2021 audit were basically the same.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: So, you know, there's not a lot to be happy about.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: In short, there are no consequences to failing an audit. Right.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: And we know this because Congress year after year increases the Pentagon budget by tens of billions of dollars, even beyond what the president and the Pentagon request.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And they do this despite the fact that the Pentagon has received these disclaimers of opinion, these so-called failures for the past five years.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: And even despite the fact that in this past year, the DOD reported that it could not adequately account for 61% of its $3.5 trillion in assets.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: 61%? 61%, well over half of its assets valued at $3.5 trillion.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: The DOD was like, well, we don't really have a complete and accurate picture of what those assets are.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And to be clear, you know, this is a lot of material. It's a lot of information. $3.5 trillion in assets at the DoD are more than 643,900 buildings, structures, fences, utilities, all sorts of capital that you can imagine.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: 643,900 buildings. And they're located in nearly 5,000 sites around the world.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: This isn't just military bases. This is all types of physical DOD presences on the planet Earth.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: So to be clear, it is a lot of information, and a disclaimer of opinion is not surprising or unexpected, particularly for a government agency in the early years of completing comprehensive audits.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: But it is still astounding that well over half of its three and a half trillion dollars in assets are just not properly accounted for at the Pentagon when we continue to increase its budget year after year.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: What are some of the things we've learned about how sloppy the Pentagon's spending might be in these audits we had?
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: So many of the Pentagon assets are actually in the possession of military contractors.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: And when I say military contractors I talking about corporations that work for the Pentagon. These are huge corporations that depend on the U government.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And in the most recent audit the IG reported that it could not substantiate records of government property in the possession of contractors because the Pentagon did not have an internal tracking system for this equipment.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: And this is a big deal. It's also a longstanding issue that the Pentagon has completely neglected.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And the DOD estimated that about 220 $20 billion worth of government property was in the possession of contractors.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: I almost expect Lockheed Martin to be getting wild sums of money with little accountability from the federal government.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: But what are some that might surprise us even more?
--:-- Julia Gledhill: The auditors reported errors in the Navy's property and inventory records.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And in an effort to resolve those errors, the Navy found a warehouse it just did not have on the books anywhere.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: And inside of that warehouse, Yeah, they found a warehouse. They literally found a warehouse and inside of the warehouse, it gets better.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: There was $126 million worth of spare parts for a number of aircrafts, including the F-14 Tomcat, which, fun fact, the Navy retired in 2006.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: Oh, my goodness.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: When you see politicians in Congress calling for increased scrutiny on Ukraine aid and defense spending, does it strike you as a little ironic considering what you know about Department of Defense spending and the fact that we're in the throes of a fight over our debt ceiling at this very moment?
--:-- Julia Gledhill: Yes, it does strike me as ironic.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: I love to see people talking about oversight, but not only when it's politically advantageous or socially advantageous for them.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: I think that a lot of the time when we're talking about Ukraine, when we're talking about the debt ceiling, defense cuts, I'm seeing lawmakers really after soundbites and messaging bills and headlines.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: What I don't see them talking about is the deterioration of accountability mechanisms that prevent corporate price gouging.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: And the situation in Ukraine really highlights all of the longstanding issues that the Pentagon has neglected for years.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And so I really wish that these oversight conversations were happening on a broader scale.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: Of course, the Ukraine lens is really helpful in thinking through how this sort of lack of accountability impedes national security.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: But I don't see these lawmakers after soundbites also talking about how to prevent corporate price gouging in a way that maximizes bang for buck, increases national security and protects taxpayer dollars.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: And why is that? Because it's not a popular political position to ask for more oversight of military spending?
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: No, I don't think it is.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: It absolutely should be, but I think that people are really afraid of looking weak on defense.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And I think the reasons why are an entirely different conversation.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: But, you know, lawmakers on top of that, on top of sort of cowardice, honestly, in my opinion, they also have a lot of vested interests in keeping the defense industry close.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Just to name two financial conflicts of interest, you know, many members of Congress on key national security committees receive campaign funding from defense corporations.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: There's also evidence to suggest that many of them have owned and traded stocks in defense companies.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Pogo has long called for a congressional ban on stock trading for a reason because it colors the way that lawmakers do policy in a way that is not equitable and not fair to taxpayers in any way.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: So beyond Pogo calling for increased accountability, how does this problem get solved?
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: These have been issues for a really long time.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: Like Congress, the Pentagon need to listen to the powers that be and take their freaking recommendations.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Military contractors, the Lockheeds, the Northropes, Boeing, have a history of price gouging the Pentagon.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: And it's important now more than ever to prevent corporate price gouging to make sure that the Pentagon is actually paying fair prices and not arbitrarily inflating spending because they're getting ripped off by defense corporations.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: The answers are out there. The Pentagon is simply not taking them because money makes the world go round.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: And the revolving door so often seems to run Washington, D.C., and it's very disheartening, I will say, because there are folks in Congress and private industry and the Pentagon that simply ping pong between those three areas of policymaking and policy influencing.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And they don't necessarily have an incentive to make acquisition better, to make the Pentagon a smarter buyer.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: And so I think that slowing down the revolving door, chipping away at corporate power in defense policy is all part of the process to advance a more accountable and a more effective Department of Defense.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Julia Gledhill is an analyst in the Center for Defense Information at the Project on Government Oversight, a.k.a. POGO.
--:-- Julia Gledhill: Thanks for having me on the show.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Victoria Chamberlain is a producer at Today Explained.
--:-- Victoria Chamberlain: Thanks for listening to Today Explained.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Matthew Collette, Laura Bullard, Halima Shah, and Paul Robert Mounsey helped her produce this episode about... About 643,900 buildings, 643,000 moments so dear, 643,900 structures.
--:-- Victoria Chamberlain: How do you measure, measure a year? In weapons, in fences, in ammo, in cups of coffee In roadways, in Bradley's laughter and strife 643,900 minutes
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: How do you measure year in the life?
--:-- Victoria Chamberlain: We all have moments where we could have done better, like cutting your own hair. Oh, yikes. Or forgetting sunscreen, so now you look like a tomato. Ouch. Could have done better.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Same goes for where you invest. Level up and invest smarter with Schwab. Get market insights, education, and human help when you need it. Learn more at schwab.com.
--:-- Victoria Chamberlain: Thanks for listening to Today Explained.
