WEBVTT - Bloomberg Surveillance TV: January 29th, 2026 0:00:00.040 --> 0:00:06.720 Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news. 0:00:11.640 --> 0:00:15.440 This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along 0:00:15.480 --> 0:00:18.680 with Lisa Bromwitz and Amrie Hordernt. Join us each day 0:00:18.720 --> 0:00:22.280 for insight from the best in markets, economics, and geopolitics 0:00:22.400 --> 0:00:24.880 from our global headquarters in New York City. We are 0:00:24.920 --> 0:00:27.680 live on Bloomberg Television weekday mornings from six to nine 0:00:27.720 --> 0:00:31.280 am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify or 0:00:31.320 --> 0:00:33.919 anywhere else you listen, and as always on the Bloomberg 0:00:34.000 --> 0:00:37.000 Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app. So here's the laces. 0:00:37.080 --> 0:00:39.440 This morning, the Federal Reserve hitting pause on rad cards 0:00:39.440 --> 0:00:41.800 for the first time since July, pointing to a steadying 0:00:41.880 --> 0:00:45.840 labor market and improving economy. Cludiasalm of New Century Advisors, writing, 0:00:45.880 --> 0:00:48.680 there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic about the labor market, 0:00:48.920 --> 0:00:53.040 reduce rates, fiscal support, and solid consumer spending. Claudia joins 0:00:53.080 --> 0:00:55.360 us now for more, Claudia. It was the least anticipated 0:00:55.400 --> 0:00:57.600 FED meeting in quite a while. In that regard, Chairmen 0:00:57.640 --> 0:01:00.760 Powd did not disappoint. It was an absolute snooze, Claudia. 0:01:00.800 --> 0:01:03.120 They seem to have this confidence in the outlook, a 0:01:03.160 --> 0:01:05.080 better route. Look, how much way should they put on 0:01:05.120 --> 0:01:05.880 recent day set? 0:01:07.480 --> 0:01:07.640 Right? 0:01:07.640 --> 0:01:10.360 Well, I think there was a cautious optimism. 0:01:10.840 --> 0:01:15.679 Right there was a path forward where there's stabilization in 0:01:15.680 --> 0:01:18.200 the labor market that had been when it motivated the 0:01:18.240 --> 0:01:20.160 cuts before, concerns about the labor market. 0:01:20.200 --> 0:01:21.080 So there are some signs. 0:01:21.080 --> 0:01:23.720 Didn't want to overplay it, but some signs, and Powell 0:01:23.800 --> 0:01:27.320 did sketch out a path for inflation to start turning 0:01:27.400 --> 0:01:33.080 back down. But there wasn't full conviction, right, There wasn't 0:01:33.160 --> 0:01:36.759 you know, enough conviction in that outlook to actually see cuts. 0:01:37.040 --> 0:01:38.479 They're still going to want to wait and. 0:01:38.440 --> 0:01:41.480 See the data, but poll is painting the picture of 0:01:42.319 --> 0:01:47.440 further progress on inflation, further potential cuts in rates, just 0:01:47.560 --> 0:01:49.560 not yet. 0:01:49.280 --> 0:01:52.640 Claudia, there was an element of that meme where there 0:01:52.680 --> 0:01:55.360 is someone sitting in a room saying everything is fine 0:01:55.400 --> 0:01:58.080 and there's burning all around them. This question of all 0:01:58.120 --> 0:02:00.880 the questions that he wouldn't answer going forward and kind 0:02:00.880 --> 0:02:03.800 of FED give forward guidance if there isn't a sense 0:02:03.920 --> 0:02:05.920 of who is going to be the next FED chair 0:02:06.320 --> 0:02:08.640 and what some of the response are to some of 0:02:08.639 --> 0:02:12.120 these pretty significant questions that were asked about Fed independence, 0:02:12.320 --> 0:02:14.880 about the dollar, about a lot of other issues that 0:02:14.919 --> 0:02:16.560 were I have no comment. I've got nothing for you 0:02:16.639 --> 0:02:16.840 for that. 0:02:18.400 --> 0:02:18.600 Right. 0:02:18.720 --> 0:02:23.840 So, in terms of the questions about the investigation from 0:02:23.880 --> 0:02:27.320 Department of Justice, the Supreme Court hearing on Lisa Cook, like, 0:02:27.480 --> 0:02:30.400 those are questions the FED will be answering. So I 0:02:30.440 --> 0:02:32.680 think we should remember the press conference is really a 0:02:32.720 --> 0:02:35.679 window into the two days of deliberations about the monetary 0:02:35.680 --> 0:02:37.800 policy decision. He really needed to keep it to the 0:02:37.800 --> 0:02:41.120 economics because that's what they talked about for two days. Soon, 0:02:41.360 --> 0:02:44.120 Pow will be going to Congress for his semi annual 0:02:44.200 --> 0:02:47.440 Humphrey Hawkins hearings, and that is absolutely appropriate place to 0:02:47.440 --> 0:02:50.440 be answering these questions about politics. Paw even gave a 0:02:50.520 --> 0:02:52.359 hint to it in very Fed speak where he said, 0:02:52.360 --> 0:02:55.960 you know, Congress is the window to democratic accountability for 0:02:56.000 --> 0:02:58.160 the FED. That's where the FED goes and has to 0:02:58.200 --> 0:03:00.680 answer those tough questions. So we're going to more on that. 0:03:01.120 --> 0:03:04.200 Is just trying to get the timing right in the. 0:03:04.240 --> 0:03:04.720 Forum, right. 0:03:04.840 --> 0:03:06.600 Yes, it was really for him to speak for the 0:03:06.600 --> 0:03:08.880 committee on these deliberations, and I think he did a 0:03:08.880 --> 0:03:11.920 good job on that. But you know, the politics are 0:03:11.960 --> 0:03:14.480 there and they're going to have to address this more fully. 0:03:14.880 --> 0:03:17.960 There was another issue, another aspect of this press conference, 0:03:18.000 --> 0:03:20.639 and frankly the decision more importantly, and that is one 0:03:20.680 --> 0:03:23.000 of the descents. There were two descents. One of them 0:03:23.160 --> 0:03:26.200 was Chris Waller, the FED governor who is in contention 0:03:26.480 --> 0:03:29.200 to be the next FED chair. Did you see this 0:03:29.320 --> 0:03:32.560 as a more political type of dissent or one that 0:03:32.680 --> 0:03:35.840 actually did come with consistency in terms of some of 0:03:35.880 --> 0:03:37.680 the rationale and previous decisions. 0:03:38.840 --> 0:03:41.240 So I expect to hear from Governor Waller for his 0:03:41.840 --> 0:03:45.560 thinking on his descent, But it does fit a pattern. 0:03:45.600 --> 0:03:49.000 Waller was early to sound alarms about the labor market. 0:03:49.440 --> 0:03:52.400 He may be late to saying all's clear or signs 0:03:52.400 --> 0:03:54.240 are clear. I think it would be very consistent for him 0:03:54.280 --> 0:03:57.240 to still have concerns about, you know, how much stabilization 0:03:57.360 --> 0:04:00.760 really is there in the labor market and on that front, 0:04:00.800 --> 0:04:03.920 and also this piece about the inflation outlook. I mean, 0:04:04.000 --> 0:04:06.720 Waller is a forecaster to the core. He may have 0:04:06.800 --> 0:04:09.760 more conviction that those tariffs. You know, we've seen the 0:04:09.760 --> 0:04:11.320 tarif rights that are there, We're going to have a 0:04:11.360 --> 0:04:14.080 textbook case of them rolling off. And he feels like 0:04:14.120 --> 0:04:16.520 it's an it's worth going ahead and pulling some more 0:04:16.520 --> 0:04:18.839 restriction out of the economy. So I think there's a 0:04:18.839 --> 0:04:22.040 clear economic case that is consistent with not just Waller 0:04:22.120 --> 0:04:24.159 of the past year when he has been in potential 0:04:24.200 --> 0:04:26.719 running for fedchair, but really Waller over his whole career. 0:04:26.800 --> 0:04:28.800 So I would really be hesitant to jump to the 0:04:28.839 --> 0:04:30.640 politics in this moment. 0:04:30.880 --> 0:04:33.600 This is consistent. But to the same time, he is 0:04:33.640 --> 0:04:35.039 in the running to be a FED chair and we 0:04:35.040 --> 0:04:38.040 immediately saw his chances spike up because of that. Do 0:04:38.080 --> 0:04:41.200 you think because he did dissent that actually his chances 0:04:41.600 --> 0:04:44.120 are in fact better today than they were twenty four 0:04:44.120 --> 0:04:44.640 hours ago. 0:04:46.080 --> 0:04:48.800 I have no insights on who will be the next 0:04:48.839 --> 0:04:50.320 FED chair really. 0:04:51.600 --> 0:04:53.599 Now I don't. I mean in the. 0:04:53.320 --> 0:04:55.880 Market, the you know, prediction market response that makes a 0:04:55.920 --> 0:04:58.600 lot of sense. And yes, you know he's pushing for cuts, 0:04:58.640 --> 0:05:01.080 but you know it's the This has been a really 0:05:01.080 --> 0:05:04.800 complicated process. The President clearly has you know, struggled to 0:05:04.880 --> 0:05:06.560 kind of come up with the person that he wants 0:05:06.600 --> 0:05:09.200 to see in that FED chair position. I think, you know, 0:05:09.279 --> 0:05:11.440 big picture, we should step back. Yesterday it was a 0:05:11.480 --> 0:05:14.320 ten to two vote in terms of pausing the FED 0:05:14.440 --> 0:05:17.640 chair is not the swing vote on the committee, right 0:05:17.760 --> 0:05:20.359 whoever goes into that position, there would have been a 0:05:20.400 --> 0:05:24.880 pause yesterday. So I think, you know, I understand the speculation, 0:05:25.320 --> 0:05:28.919 and maybe it did help Waller's odds yesterday, But I 0:05:29.120 --> 0:05:31.839 just we want to fed that's focused on the economic 0:05:31.839 --> 0:05:35.279 conditions and making its decisions and pulling the politics into 0:05:35.320 --> 0:05:37.440 it any more than is absolutely necessary. 0:05:37.440 --> 0:05:39.440 It's just it's a really risky path for us to 0:05:39.480 --> 0:05:39.880 go down. 0:05:40.680 --> 0:05:53.800 Stay with us. More Blomberg surveillance coming up after this, METSA, 0:05:53.960 --> 0:05:57.960 Microsoft reaffirming commitments to record AI spending, most Street rewarding 0:05:58.000 --> 0:06:01.280 one sech giant, punishing the APHA. Angela Zino of CFRA 0:06:01.400 --> 0:06:03.520 has a by rating on Meta and a strong buy 0:06:03.839 --> 0:06:06.919 on Microsoft. Angela joins us right now for more. Angela 0:06:06.960 --> 0:06:10.200 a lot of spending, two very very different looking price 0:06:10.279 --> 0:06:12.920 moves in the pre market. What explains the difference between 0:06:12.920 --> 0:06:14.320 Meta and Microsoft? 0:06:15.760 --> 0:06:18.120 Yeah, John, So I would say, you know, first off, 0:06:18.120 --> 0:06:21.160 we're not surprised by the higher than expected spending from 0:06:21.160 --> 0:06:24.880 these companies. I think most anticipated that going into the 0:06:24.880 --> 0:06:25.320 print here. 0:06:25.360 --> 0:06:26.039 I would say. 0:06:25.920 --> 0:06:30.320 Meta's spending definitely more, even more than we anticipated. But 0:06:30.400 --> 0:06:32.960 that being said, you know, at this point in time, 0:06:33.000 --> 0:06:36.640 you're looking at a guidance of essentially thirty percent top 0:06:36.640 --> 0:06:38.800 line growth here for Q one, and that really is 0:06:38.839 --> 0:06:41.960 what explains it, right, This is a case where it 0:06:41.960 --> 0:06:44.320 seems like Wall Street is willing to bid your SOT 0:06:44.400 --> 0:06:47.800 higher if you're showing the top line growth. And it's 0:06:47.839 --> 0:06:50.880 really phenomenal in terms of the type of growth you 0:06:50.920 --> 0:06:53.520 are seeing at Meta at disappoint in time. It really 0:06:53.600 --> 0:06:56.440 kind of demonstrates the fact that, hey, listen, maybe all 0:06:56.480 --> 0:07:00.200 these investments that Zuckerberg has made here over the last year. 0:07:00.440 --> 0:07:02.320 Is starting to pay off. 0:07:02.360 --> 0:07:05.800 I think Zuckerberg in many respects is treating his company 0:07:06.680 --> 0:07:09.200 like a startup, pumping a ton of money into it. 0:07:09.200 --> 0:07:12.960 You're looking at capital intensity ratio now closer about forty 0:07:13.000 --> 0:07:16.880 five to fifty percent in twenty twenty six, So we've. 0:07:16.720 --> 0:07:18.680 Got some enormous fend going on here. 0:07:18.920 --> 0:07:21.600 We'll see what the products look like as they trickle 0:07:21.640 --> 0:07:24.120 through twenty twenty six. But as we kind of look 0:07:24.160 --> 0:07:27.240 at the performance here at least for today, the street likes. 0:07:27.120 --> 0:07:29.640 What they say at one point six twenty dollars startup, 0:07:29.680 --> 0:07:31.560 It's not bad, is it? Angelo. I want to talk 0:07:31.600 --> 0:07:35.040 about Microsoft. Sometimes sentiment is just shaken, and there's a 0:07:35.120 --> 0:07:38.320 dark cloud that hangs over a stock and an ecosystem 0:07:38.440 --> 0:07:42.080 software named at the moment, Angelo to your hires point struggling, 0:07:42.360 --> 0:07:43.080 what's behind it? 0:07:43.200 --> 0:07:47.600 Yeah, yeah, I mean, and when you look at Microsoft, 0:07:47.680 --> 0:07:49.400 right they are the king of the you know, the 0:07:49.480 --> 0:07:52.280 enterprise king of software in many respects. But whether it 0:07:52.320 --> 0:07:55.120 be a service now that reported last night and SAP 0:07:56.120 --> 0:07:58.680 and others that are probably going to report this earning season, 0:07:58.920 --> 0:08:00.960 and just the numbers we've seeing over the last couple 0:08:00.960 --> 0:08:04.440 of weeks, this is a dark cloud over the SaaS space. 0:08:04.640 --> 0:08:07.680 And you know, as far as what we've seen from 0:08:07.680 --> 0:08:11.559 Microsoft posting the December quarter results the March quarter guide, 0:08:11.600 --> 0:08:14.320 it was very solid in nature. And if there's a 0:08:14.400 --> 0:08:17.120 company that could navigate some of the uncertainties that are 0:08:17.160 --> 0:08:20.040 out there and where you know, the enterprise space should 0:08:20.040 --> 0:08:23.720 continue to buy their offerings, it should be on Microsoft 0:08:23.800 --> 0:08:26.800 side of things, right, So we do think that Microsoft 0:08:26.880 --> 0:08:30.400 is well positioned to navigate some of the uncertainties the 0:08:30.440 --> 0:08:33.319 low visibility across the SaaS space. 0:08:33.040 --> 0:08:34.560 Here over the next couple of years. 0:08:34.840 --> 0:08:37.880 But nonetheless, that's just the narrative that's going on right now. 0:08:38.840 --> 0:08:42.040 And you know, there are other negatives. I think from 0:08:42.120 --> 0:08:44.160 the print here in the December quarter, whether it be 0:08:44.200 --> 0:08:48.040 the higher open Ai concentration risk, whether it be the 0:08:48.080 --> 0:08:51.720 lower expected you know, a cloud gross margin guide for 0:08:51.760 --> 0:08:54.480 the March quarter. I think some of that also seeping 0:08:54.520 --> 0:08:56.920 into the negative reaction you're seeing from Microsoft. 0:08:56.960 --> 0:08:57.280 Angela. 0:08:57.360 --> 0:08:59.600 Let's dig into both of those things. This question around 0:08:59.640 --> 0:09:03.160 just to CLI computing growth and the pace seem to 0:09:03.480 --> 0:09:05.840 miss some of the more lofty estimates and the dependence 0:09:05.840 --> 0:09:08.160 on open Ai. There was one stat for the first 0:09:08.240 --> 0:09:11.840 time Microsoft disclosed that forty five percent of a six 0:09:11.920 --> 0:09:14.600 hundred and twenty five billion dollars book of future cloud 0:09:14.600 --> 0:09:17.880 contracts was from open Ai. How much of a concern 0:09:18.000 --> 0:09:19.920 is this to you, this concentration risk and the likes 0:09:19.960 --> 0:09:20.640 of Microsoft. 0:09:21.600 --> 0:09:23.360 Yeah, I mean, I think it's something you've got to 0:09:23.360 --> 0:09:25.640 be mindful of. But you know, in the same respect, 0:09:25.640 --> 0:09:29.840 their non open Ai RPO is still growing at a 0:09:29.840 --> 0:09:30.840 fairly healthy clip. 0:09:30.840 --> 0:09:31.640 I think, out of about. 0:09:31.480 --> 0:09:34.000 Twenty eight percent or so in the quarter. It's going 0:09:34.080 --> 0:09:36.120 to be lumpy here over the next couple of years. 0:09:36.160 --> 0:09:39.400 I do think that forty five percent figure, you know, 0:09:39.480 --> 0:09:43.600 while large in nature, likely comes down here over the 0:09:43.640 --> 0:09:46.720 next couple of years. So yeah, I mean, on the surface, 0:09:46.960 --> 0:09:50.160 it's concerning. I don't think it's as concerning as you know, 0:09:50.960 --> 0:09:54.440 a oracle type of situation. You know, clearly the fact 0:09:54.440 --> 0:09:57.400 that you know, the Microsoft, if they don't get it 0:09:57.400 --> 0:09:59.240 from open ai here over the next couple of years, 0:09:59.280 --> 0:10:03.120 should see it from other enterprise related vendors. But nonetheless, yes, 0:10:03.200 --> 0:10:05.520 I mean on the surface here, the narrative again is 0:10:05.600 --> 0:10:09.200 one where the street is very concerned about open Ai 0:10:09.280 --> 0:10:11.400 at this point in time. I do think that funding 0:10:11.480 --> 0:10:15.640 around will probably help the narrative in terms of the 0:10:15.720 --> 0:10:20.400 cohort of names tied to open Ai like a Microsoft. 0:10:20.440 --> 0:10:22.720 So again, we'll we have to wait and say. 0:10:22.559 --> 0:10:25.080 With respect to the Azure side of things in the 0:10:25.120 --> 0:10:28.960 cloud computing, how much is this an issue that Microsoft 0:10:29.000 --> 0:10:32.719 just can't meet the incredible demand as quickly as some. 0:10:32.679 --> 0:10:33.600 People would have hoped. 0:10:33.640 --> 0:10:37.679 And how much is this truly competition from Alphabet from 0:10:37.760 --> 0:10:39.960 the likes of Amazon that both report next week. 0:10:41.320 --> 0:10:43.640 You know, I personally think it's more of the supply constraints. 0:10:43.640 --> 0:10:45.640 I mean, they did highlight the fact that, hey, listen, 0:10:46.080 --> 0:10:47.800 they could have grown their numbers in north of forty 0:10:47.840 --> 0:10:50.840 percent if they had the supply, So you know, so 0:10:50.880 --> 0:10:53.360 I do think it is more supply constraint in nature, 0:10:53.440 --> 0:10:56.400 but in the same respects, this is a company that's 0:10:56.440 --> 0:10:59.080 going to see also much more difficult comparisons on the 0:10:59.120 --> 0:11:01.960 Azure side of things over the next couple of quarters. 0:11:02.440 --> 0:11:04.400 You know, two quarters from now, you're. 0:11:04.280 --> 0:11:06.280 Going to have to lat numbers like thirty nine percent 0:11:06.320 --> 0:11:08.800 year of the year of growth. So I would expect 0:11:08.800 --> 0:11:12.200 the numbers to potentially even decelerate further, let's pull it 0:11:12.200 --> 0:11:14.960 into the mid thirties range as we kind. 0:11:14.800 --> 0:11:15.839 Of progress through the year. 0:11:16.080 --> 0:11:20.120 But nonetheless, I mean, these are still pretty phenomenal type 0:11:20.160 --> 0:11:23.520 of growth numbers from Azure, and in fact that actually 0:11:23.559 --> 0:11:26.240 ended up being beating our expectations. 0:11:26.559 --> 0:11:27.560 Just taking a step back. 0:11:27.600 --> 0:11:30.120 What caught my eye overnight was Jensen Wong talking about 0:11:30.120 --> 0:11:32.800 how we don't have the energy potentially there's going to 0:11:32.840 --> 0:11:35.880 be constraints in Taiwan when it comes to chip making 0:11:35.960 --> 0:11:39.240 into United States and into Europe. Are these CAPAX now 0:11:39.480 --> 0:11:43.040 numbers so big that actually the energy demand, the physicality 0:11:43.080 --> 0:11:45.319 of building it out doesn't actually work yet? 0:11:46.160 --> 0:11:47.760 I mean, well, we've got to see. 0:11:47.880 --> 0:11:50.280 I mean, at this point in time, you know, energy 0:11:50.320 --> 0:11:52.600 bottlenecks are clearly a risk out there. I mean, I'd 0:11:52.640 --> 0:11:55.160 say personally, at this point in time, the street is 0:11:55.200 --> 0:11:58.440 probably more concerned about some of the memory bottlenecks and 0:11:58.520 --> 0:12:00.400 to you know, to be honest, I mean, when you 0:12:00.440 --> 0:12:03.480 start thinking about the higher plants cap xpland it probably 0:12:03.480 --> 0:12:07.559 takes into account some of the higher boosts in memories 0:12:08.320 --> 0:12:11.040 in memory prices as well. But as far as you know, 0:12:11.080 --> 0:12:14.160 the energy bottlenecks are concerned, it's going to get lumpy 0:12:14.200 --> 0:12:14.880 in nature here. 0:12:15.200 --> 0:12:17.360 They're going to be more challenges and certainties. 0:12:17.800 --> 0:12:19.319 I think that's going to be more of a twenty 0:12:19.400 --> 0:12:22.360 twenty second, second half of twenty twenty seven event and thereafter. 0:12:22.720 --> 0:12:24.800 But nonetheless definitely something to be mindful. 0:12:25.000 --> 0:12:27.240 Just as a market analyst and a market participant, Angela, 0:12:27.280 --> 0:12:29.040 you've witnessed markets for a long time. If you can 0:12:29.080 --> 0:12:31.360 get away from these names just for a moment, I 0:12:31.360 --> 0:12:33.080 think Lisa's doing a great job this morning. You're talking 0:12:33.080 --> 0:12:34.839 about the constraints in the physical world. Do you think 0:12:34.880 --> 0:12:37.480 that's to trade so far of the year that people 0:12:37.480 --> 0:12:39.640 are just chasing that story cross asset. 0:12:41.000 --> 0:12:44.920 I mean, it seems to be you know, I definitely 0:12:44.960 --> 0:12:48.280 think there's you know, there's definitely something to be said 0:12:48.400 --> 0:12:51.079 about that. You know, you kind of look at really 0:12:51.440 --> 0:12:54.760 where the narrative is across the tech ecosystem, right, it 0:12:54.800 --> 0:12:59.040 continues to pile up in a number of these ship 0:12:59.240 --> 0:13:02.200 related type of names that would benefit from that physical 0:13:02.240 --> 0:13:06.280 AI world, as well as hardware related names as well. 0:13:06.440 --> 0:13:09.680 So yeah, maybe not be as exposed to some of 0:13:09.720 --> 0:13:12.240 the constraine tie time memory, but nonetheless, I mean you 0:13:12.320 --> 0:13:14.480 kind of look at the play here at least across 0:13:14.559 --> 0:13:18.000 the tech ecosystem and it would support that thesis here 0:13:18.040 --> 0:13:20.640 and I don't know if it lets up here, you know, 0:13:20.679 --> 0:13:22.960 in the near term you'll definitely get some choppiness. But 0:13:23.040 --> 0:13:25.920 over the next three to five years, you know, when 0:13:25.960 --> 0:13:29.000 you start thinking about the shift for an AI world, 0:13:29.720 --> 0:13:32.520 it is going to be dictated more on the physical 0:13:32.640 --> 0:13:37.559 AI opportunities, where there's also you know, greater uncertainties tied 0:13:37.640 --> 0:13:40.880 to this, you know, SaaS oriented trade. And we've kind 0:13:40.880 --> 0:13:44.719 of seen this accelerated shift away from chef sas to 0:13:45.000 --> 0:13:47.840 kind of the the more you know, chip making related 0:13:47.920 --> 0:13:49.960 names here, even over the last couple of weeks. 0:13:50.240 --> 0:13:53.680 Stay with us Mulplinberg Savanas coming up off to this. 0:14:03.040 --> 0:14:05.320 Jeanette loves to take us rights in this any shutdown 0:14:05.320 --> 0:14:07.480 would likely be shortlived or shore lived. 0:14:07.640 --> 0:14:11.839 Cham of Pale, I think please don't okay, right, that 0:14:12.000 --> 0:14:13.920 was a short lived issue. 0:14:13.960 --> 0:14:17.520 Thank you pronunciation short lift, particularly if they Senate does 0:14:17.559 --> 0:14:20.400 not strip out the Humeland Security funding bill. Jeanette joined 0:14:20.440 --> 0:14:22.360 us now for more Jenet apologies to get en off 0:14:22.400 --> 0:14:24.880 track there, Let's get back on track going into the weekend. 0:14:24.960 --> 0:14:26.080 Is this shutdown avoidable? 0:14:27.480 --> 0:14:29.120 Yeah, I mean it looks right now like we're going 0:14:29.160 --> 0:14:32.600 to again, as Tyler mentioned, have a short term shutdown 0:14:32.680 --> 0:14:35.760 over the weekend, which would be less impactful than obviously 0:14:35.760 --> 0:14:38.400 if it was lasting much longer than that. There is 0:14:38.440 --> 0:14:40.680 this issue about the fact that they are not going 0:14:40.720 --> 0:14:43.120 to do a separate legislative vehicle. As Tyler said, it 0:14:43.120 --> 0:14:45.400 does seem like they want to the Democrats want to 0:14:45.480 --> 0:14:48.160 use the funding bill as the vehicle for some of 0:14:48.200 --> 0:14:52.360 these changes on immigration enforcement, and so that's why we're probably. 0:14:52.040 --> 0:14:54.160 Going to have to have this shutdown now. 0:14:54.320 --> 0:14:56.760 Obviously, this could you know, we could have at least 0:14:56.800 --> 0:15:01.440 a continuing resolution to cover the Home Security bill once 0:15:01.480 --> 0:15:03.200 the House comes back in on Monday. 0:15:03.440 --> 0:15:05.520 So this could be very short lived. It could last 0:15:05.560 --> 0:15:06.520 only three days. 0:15:06.800 --> 0:15:09.560 But obviously depending on how this plays out, this could 0:15:09.600 --> 0:15:11.160 have good, big implications. 0:15:11.480 --> 0:15:13.440 A shutdown would only be a partial shutdown. 0:15:13.480 --> 0:15:16.800 Six appropriations bills were passed, but this is still about 0:15:16.840 --> 0:15:19.600 seventy five percent of the government funding and it includes 0:15:19.600 --> 0:15:22.640 important things. Depending on how this plays out, do they 0:15:22.720 --> 0:15:26.120 pass the defense spending bill, because we obviously are trying 0:15:26.160 --> 0:15:29.640 to threaten and ran with action right now, so that 0:15:29.720 --> 0:15:31.720 is not exactly good to have a shutdown when we're 0:15:31.720 --> 0:15:35.119 trying to have a very strong US national security strategy. 0:15:35.520 --> 0:15:37.440 What happened to IRS funding. 0:15:37.480 --> 0:15:39.600 We're in the middle of tax refund season, so that 0:15:39.640 --> 0:15:43.280 could have a really big impact. And then obviously labor 0:15:43.400 --> 0:15:45.440 as well, so if that's not taken care of, we 0:15:45.480 --> 0:15:47.920 could actually miss another jobs report at the end of 0:15:48.000 --> 0:15:50.120 next week. So I do think that Congress has been 0:15:50.160 --> 0:15:51.920 on a path to avoid a shutdown. 0:15:52.120 --> 0:15:53.360 They will probably try. 0:15:53.160 --> 0:15:55.840 To get these five bills passed immediately and get that 0:15:55.960 --> 0:15:57.920 taken care of, and then we'll be dealing with this 0:15:57.960 --> 0:16:00.440 Homeland security bill, and it would be a partial shutdown 0:16:00.480 --> 0:16:03.040 that may last, hopefully just a short amount of time. 0:16:03.040 --> 0:16:04.520 And that is our overall. 0:16:04.120 --> 0:16:06.640 Thinking, Well, let's deal with the Homeland security bill, because 0:16:06.640 --> 0:16:08.800 that's going to be where the huge debate is going 0:16:08.840 --> 0:16:12.320 to a lie. What is Senator Schumer actually asking the 0:16:12.360 --> 0:16:15.200 Republicans to amend in that bill? 0:16:15.440 --> 0:16:17.480 Yes, I mean they want to obviously tack on some 0:16:17.680 --> 0:16:20.680 policy provisions as Tyler mentioned, where they want to make 0:16:20.680 --> 0:16:23.120 sure that there's no use of masks, there's the use 0:16:23.160 --> 0:16:26.920 of body cameras, there's a code of conduct to things 0:16:26.920 --> 0:16:29.400 of that nature. So obviously this would have to go 0:16:29.560 --> 0:16:33.200 back to the House. There are there was some options. 0:16:33.240 --> 0:16:35.440 You know, you heard some Republicans saying that they were 0:16:35.480 --> 0:16:37.960 open to this, but then you've started to hear others 0:16:38.040 --> 0:16:40.840 start to say that there have a disagreements particular about 0:16:41.000 --> 0:16:44.120 the mask issue and things of that nature, and. 0:16:44.080 --> 0:16:48.880 So this could be a little bit of a friction point. 0:16:49.120 --> 0:16:52.080 But obviously the administration does know that something needs to 0:16:52.120 --> 0:16:54.520 be done in the wake of what has happened over 0:16:54.560 --> 0:16:57.320 the weekend with the shooting of a US citizen, they 0:16:57.360 --> 0:16:59.520 do realize that they need to make some changes here. 0:17:00.000 --> 0:17:02.240 I think they will ultimately push to get this bill 0:17:02.280 --> 0:17:03.240 done one way or another. 0:17:03.320 --> 0:17:05.840 Jeanett, though, if the Republicans do decide to go along 0:17:05.880 --> 0:17:09.479 with these Democrats wants to pass that bill, are they 0:17:09.520 --> 0:17:12.399 basically acknowledging then that their strategy when it comes to 0:17:12.480 --> 0:17:15.360 DHS and ICE hasn't actually worked. 0:17:16.400 --> 0:17:17.159 Not necessarily. 0:17:17.200 --> 0:17:19.080 I mean, I think you've heard from a lot of 0:17:19.119 --> 0:17:22.560 Republicans the way they've framed the issue, that they can 0:17:22.600 --> 0:17:26.560 say that there's been less safety for everyone involved. There 0:17:26.560 --> 0:17:29.480 are ways that they can show that just the tactics 0:17:29.480 --> 0:17:32.360 have maybe become a little bit too strident and they 0:17:32.359 --> 0:17:33.359 need to make some changes. 0:17:33.400 --> 0:17:34.920 So I think that they can do this in a. 0:17:34.840 --> 0:17:39.440 Way that creates not a losing message for the Republicans. 0:17:40.000 --> 0:17:42.480 Jenett, Is it a good strategy to hold government funding 0:17:42.520 --> 0:17:45.040 hostage to try to get some leverage? I mean, this 0:17:45.080 --> 0:17:47.280 seems like voters are not particularly pleased with that. The 0:17:47.359 --> 0:17:50.480 last time around, it didn't really work out for Democrats. 0:17:50.840 --> 0:17:52.680 There were a lot of concerns around air traffic, and 0:17:52.720 --> 0:17:55.040 we're chill still trying to work through the lack of 0:17:55.119 --> 0:17:57.560 data releases. I mean, is this something that's sort of 0:17:57.600 --> 0:18:00.639 running out of power in terms of the voter base. 0:18:02.000 --> 0:18:02.200 Yeah. 0:18:02.240 --> 0:18:04.199 I mean one of the things that obviously when we 0:18:04.280 --> 0:18:07.439 came into let's say, last Friday, there was an effort 0:18:07.640 --> 0:18:11.200 to have this bill done, have funding completely taken care 0:18:11.240 --> 0:18:15.439 of before the deadline tomorrow evening but what happened with 0:18:15.440 --> 0:18:19.280 the shooting was obviously a stark change. It created the 0:18:19.359 --> 0:18:22.840 need to find some sort of leverage to change tactics Otherwise, 0:18:22.880 --> 0:18:26.200 I think both parties were completely against having other shutdown. 0:18:26.400 --> 0:18:28.879 They felt the pain on both sides of that forty 0:18:28.880 --> 0:18:31.560 three day shutdown that we had last fall. But there 0:18:31.680 --> 0:18:34.000 is the concern obviously that if they try to do 0:18:34.040 --> 0:18:37.199 a separate legislative bill, there's a worry that maybe it 0:18:37.240 --> 0:18:39.800 passes the Senate, but it never passes the House, and 0:18:39.840 --> 0:18:42.160 so there's also this fear that that ruins their own 0:18:42.240 --> 0:18:45.360 leverage on the Democratic side if they have to give 0:18:45.520 --> 0:18:50.000 up the option to try to hold the government funding hostage. Obviously, 0:18:50.040 --> 0:18:53.040 I don't think people would want a long term shutdown. 0:18:53.200 --> 0:18:55.240 I don't think the White House, the Republicans, or the 0:18:55.280 --> 0:18:57.840 Democrats want a long term shutdown. I think they do 0:18:57.960 --> 0:19:00.400 want to find a solution here and hopefully this will 0:19:00.480 --> 0:19:02.240 just last a few days to get this over the 0:19:02.240 --> 0:19:02.760 finish line. 0:19:02.880 --> 0:19:04.000 Jene you mentioned something else. 0:19:04.040 --> 0:19:06.640 If the administration understands that something needs to be done, 0:19:06.680 --> 0:19:09.080