Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg Sound On,
Speaker 1: But we have twelve million jobs opening, six million people
Speaker 1: roughly looking for work. Why shouldn't be able to find
Speaker 1: a job? Ukrainians have quite frankly, a lot more information
Speaker 1: than we do. This is their country, their territory. Floomberg
Speaker 1: Sound On Politics, policy and perspective from DC's top names.
Speaker 1: I'm sure Democrats would stay they're shaming Republicans, but I
Speaker 1: think this is an issue that really motivates both sides.
Speaker 1: Given some of the votes that we saw in the Senate,
Speaker 1: there's definitely the momentum and the will to pass something.
Speaker 1: From Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: The Pentagon says it is not directing the war in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the fastest hour in politics with the latest
Speaker 1: on Russia's war and an important conversation ahead with Senator
Speaker 1: Mark Warner, Democrat from Virginia, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee,
Speaker 1: member of Finance, Banking and Rules, who was also instrumental
Speaker 1: in Boeing moving its headquarters to the Washington area, will
Speaker 1: get into all of this. And with two job openings
Speaker 1: for every job seeker in America right now, we look
Speaker 1: inside another strong Job's report and talk about the risks
Speaker 1: of inflation with Jared Bernstein of the White House Council
Speaker 1: of Economic Advisors. Later on, the prospect of Roe v.
Speaker 1: Wade being overturned could mobilize Democrats in the fall, but
Speaker 1: Bloomberg opinion columnist Julianna Goldman says they will need to
Speaker 1: organize in order to win. The Biden administration says it
Speaker 1: is not providing intelligence to Ukraine on the locations of
Speaker 1: Russian generals, and it did not direct it. Says Ukraine's
Speaker 1: attack on the Muskva Right, Russia's flagship in the Black
Speaker 1: Sea that Ukraine sank last month a terribly embarrassing moment
Speaker 1: from Moscow. All this reported by The New York Times
Speaker 1: and NBC News. But no, not quite. According to here,
Speaker 1: Pentagon Press Secretary retired Rear Admiral John Kirby, do not
Speaker 1: provide intelligence on the location of senior military leaders on
Speaker 1: the battlefield or participate in the targeting decisions of the
Speaker 1: Ukrainian military. Ukrainians have quite frankly, a lot more information
Speaker 1: than we do. This is their country, their territory, and
Speaker 1: they have capable intelligence collection abilities of their own talked
Speaker 1: about it at length. We know that the US has
Speaker 1: been providing intelligence to Ukraine. Kirby says that other nations
Speaker 1: are also giving intel to Ukraine, which then makes decisions
Speaker 1: on how to use it. This was echoed today by
Speaker 1: Jen Psaki as well on Air Force One as the
Speaker 1: President flew to Ohio. And we're lucky now to have
Speaker 1: Senator Mark Warner join us again on Bloomberg Radio. Of course,
Speaker 1: democrat from Virginia chairs the Intelligence Committee and also serves
Speaker 1: and I think every other committee in the Senate, not
Speaker 1: quite Banking, Budget, Finance and Rules. That's pretty close, and
Speaker 1: was instrumental in helping Boeing relocate to the DC area. Senator,
Speaker 1: welcome back to It's great to hear your voice. I
Speaker 1: want to ask you about how this Boeing deal came together.
Speaker 1: But first, are you concerned that these reports of intelligence
Speaker 1: sharing will will be seen by Russia as an escalation? Well,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to comment obviously on any specific report,
Speaker 1: but I I do want to say that that American
Speaker 1: intelligence at in combination with our allies, particularly the British,
Speaker 1: has been really forward leaning in this whole um Ukraine,
Speaker 1: Russia conflict. Matter of fact, I think in a way
Speaker 1: that deserves our admiration. Before the invasion, it was really
Speaker 1: American and British intelligence that warned our Ukrainian friends, warned
Speaker 1: the balance of NATO. Many of the Europeans who you
Speaker 1: know candidally a year ago after Mr Trump NATO was
Speaker 1: pretty broken, had to be convinced, had to be assured.
Speaker 1: I remember being at the Munich Security conferences recently as
Speaker 1: a UM ten days before the invasion, and some of
Speaker 1: our European allies were still unsure. But the forward leaning
Speaker 1: and the willingness to share. And then on top of
Speaker 1: that what happened was we saw repeatedly when and I
Speaker 1: think this really put Putting off his game, there was
Speaker 1: gonna be a Russian effort to create a coup in
Speaker 1: in Ukraine. American intelligence out of that, the British went
Speaker 1: ahead and even named the Ukrainian that the Russians were
Speaker 1: gonna put in. There was before the war there was
Speaker 1: going to be a a video that would look like
Speaker 1: it was showing Ukrainian and doing bad things. We expose
Speaker 1: that as well. So I do think the forward leaning
Speaker 1: nature of the of the American Intelligence Committee has been
Speaker 1: very good in it, and it's been publicly reported repeatedly.
Speaker 1: You know, the American intelligence and other intelligence focus on
Speaker 1: the West are sharing with the Ukrainians who don cannibally
Speaker 1: a better job than think any of us expected, incredibly effective,
Speaker 1: but you reject them. This idea that this is being
Speaker 1: framed now is as a proxy war between the US
Speaker 1: and Russia. On some of the reports that have hit
Speaker 1: the news in the last um, you know, two or
Speaker 1: three days, UH have a level of specificity that I
Speaker 1: don't think gotta be um running around, But the ben
Speaker 1: the general basis that we ought to be sharing with
Speaker 1: our our Ukrainian allies, that the very people who are
Speaker 1: literally um sending now close to billions of dollars of
Speaker 1: military aid too. I think, uh, I think that intelligence
Speaker 1: along with that military aid is one of the reasons
Speaker 1: why the the Ukrainians are doing so well. And let
Speaker 1: me be clear that this is not an American only item.
Speaker 1: We have you know, lots and lots of countries, countries
Speaker 1: around Europe and frankly even beyond Europe. I mean our
Speaker 1: Canadian friends you know even are similar. Our friends and
Speaker 1: Asia are sending other assistance to Ukraine. This really is
Speaker 1: in my mind, so much bigger than simply Ukraine versus Russia.
Speaker 1: This is really whether the alliance of democracies around the
Speaker 1: world will stand up to this kind of authoritary and
Speaker 1: therefore not the US versus Russia. I guess it's your point. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that is that is not that this isn't
Speaker 1: a This is a an alliance of democracies against authoritarian regimes. Now,
Speaker 1: am I concerned that Russia is, you know, making a
Speaker 1: even stronger ties with the Communist Party in China? Yes,
Speaker 1: but I think that kind of authoritarian alliance um was
Speaker 1: in existence before this war and on. At the end
Speaker 1: of the day, I think we're also gonna have to
Speaker 1: we we are facing, predicting on the economic challenges with
Speaker 1: China that are extraordinarily great Sounder. We've been anticipating the
Speaker 1: battle for the dun Boss to get severe for a
Speaker 1: few weeks. Now. Is it possible Congress can pass this
Speaker 1: thirty three billion dollar aid request from the President before
Speaker 1: that battle is decided? Absolutely, Joe. Matter of fact, if
Speaker 1: we don't, it would be horribly irresponsible of us. I
Speaker 1: was hoping that we could have passed this aid, you know,
Speaker 1: so that we could have had the passage of it
Speaker 1: take place before May nine, which in Soviet slash Russian
Speaker 1: history is a very important day. It was the celebration
Speaker 1: of the Soviet overcoming the Nazis. Um And let me
Speaker 1: make two quick points on this. One is in this
Speaker 1: thirty three billion and you know, a big chunk of
Speaker 1: its defense, a big chunk of its humanitarian economic But
Speaker 1: if you take the defense component, and you take also
Speaker 1: the previous thirteen point three, which I believe was mostly defense,
Speaker 1: and then you add in the Europeans UH commitment on defense,
Speaker 1: which is not quite you know, fifty fifty with us
Speaker 1: we're slightly more. But you add that together and you're
Speaker 1: talking about total Western aid to Ukraine in the forty
Speaker 1: to fifty billion dollar category almost since the beginning of
Speaker 1: the war. And Russia has only got a defense budget
Speaker 1: about sixties six billions. So you know, this also sends
Speaker 1: a signal to Putin and the Russian leadership that you know,
Speaker 1: the West is not going to walk away from this commitment.
Speaker 1: I do think the Russians, in terms of their military tactics,
Speaker 1: they have been UH in Ukraine. I think luck because
Speaker 1: their nose has been bloodied so many times when the
Speaker 1: battle around Key for example, that that that battle for
Speaker 1: the dom Bass hasn't been as fully engaged yet. But
Speaker 1: I think it would be critical if there is a
Speaker 1: a single major battle, which I'm not sure there's gonna
Speaker 1: be maybe a bit of a war of attrition now,
Speaker 1: but that we get that aid. It's important in terms
Speaker 1: of assistance to the Ukrainians. It's important to keep you know,
Speaker 1: making sure that that is a signal to our European
Speaker 1: friends that they need to continue to produce. But most importantly,
Speaker 1: it's a signal to Putin that he is not going
Speaker 1: to be successful in his effort. You mentioned May nine
Speaker 1: before I move on. Do we need to worry about Monday?
Speaker 1: What could that mean for the war? Um, that's a
Speaker 1: great question. I had thought six weeks ago that that
Speaker 1: May nine might have been a time where Putin could
Speaker 1: have taken some whatever he could have found as some
Speaker 1: level of success and use that as a way to
Speaker 1: kind of end the conflict. Clearly he's not been successful,
Speaker 1: like uh, you know, so I don't think a ninth
Speaker 1: is going to have anything significant other than what uh
Speaker 1: Putin might might do. There's been speculation, and I'm not
Speaker 1: sure if there's been speculation that he might make a
Speaker 1: formal declaration of war against Russia against Ukraine, which would
Speaker 1: allow him to call up all of his reserves. Um,
Speaker 1: there's been some concern that he might take part of
Speaker 1: the territory he's captured and you know, announced some kind
Speaker 1: of public site that would be phony, but would try
Speaker 1: to take those parts and absorb them into uh into
Speaker 1: Russia or some of the rump republics. Um. I gotta
Speaker 1: believe he's gonna do something, but I'm not sure we
Speaker 1: have a a great idea what that may be. We're
Speaker 1: going to find out together. Senator Boeing is moving to
Speaker 1: the Washington area, more specifically northern Virginia from Chicago, a
Speaker 1: move that you encouraged some time ago. Reports Save Virginia
Speaker 1: is not providing financial incentive. So why is Boeing cunning? Well, One,
Speaker 1: we've had a good history in Virginia over the last
Speaker 1: number of years of being probos nous of recruiting companies.
Speaker 1: I worked for six years to get north of Grumman
Speaker 1: the move from California to Virginia. Next Lee Corporation, you know,
Speaker 1: in terms of North America, move their headquarters here. Obviously,
Speaker 1: Amazon made a huge splash a year plus ago when
Speaker 1: they announced, Um, you know, this is not going to
Speaker 1: be a huge number of jobs per se. Oh, they'll
Speaker 1: be obviously high paying jobs. But I think it's it's
Speaker 1: significant in that we've had a pretty darn good track
Speaker 1: record of offering good quality of life, good schools, you know,
Speaker 1: a pro business environment. One of the things that didn't
Speaker 1: get as much attention that I'm as excited about as
Speaker 1: the uh the international headquarters are Boing, which is the
Speaker 1: fact that Boeing is also going to launch a research
Speaker 1: and development center in Northern Virginia. And with all the
Speaker 1: things taking place in aviation and drones and all the
Speaker 1: various touch points that aerospace touches across the whole variety
Speaker 1: of fields, that R and D investment in Northern Virginia
Speaker 1: may ten years from now be a much more significant
Speaker 1: addition to this the region's economy into Virginia's economy that
Speaker 1: actually even the headquarters does this speak as well to
Speaker 1: Boeing's increased exposure to defense. More than half its sales
Speaker 1: last year came from military contracts. You know. Uh, A
Speaker 1: number of folks have said to do they want to
Speaker 1: be closer to the regulator's d D too. Capitol Hill. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm not sure. The truth is, you know,
Speaker 1: if a company moves closer here, oftentimes they want to
Speaker 1: try to raise their profile. UM. Frankly, you know, Boeing
Speaker 1: is a well well known entity. They do need to
Speaker 1: raise their profile. A matter of fact, they've got to.
Speaker 1: I think they've still got some corrective work to do
Speaker 1: in terms of some of the failures and uh they had.
Speaker 1: And I do think the new management team that Boeing
Speaker 1: is really taking that head on. UM. And I'm not
Speaker 1: sure at times as a former governor, UM, when I
Speaker 1: was pitching Virginia, you being close to those of us
Speaker 1: at the Capitol, I'm not sure we're that the good
Speaker 1: news item or a bad news item. But I think
Speaker 1: end of the day, at least in my conversations with
Speaker 1: the Boeing management, it was about quality of life. It
Speaker 1: was about the you know, the management team, this is
Speaker 1: a good area. It was also about attracting a diverse
Speaker 1: set of talent. One of the things that Boeing has said,
Speaker 1: both in the management level and I think on the
Speaker 1: technology level, you know, engineering and elsewhere, they want to
Speaker 1: make sure they're moving towards a more diverse workforce, and
Speaker 1: the greater Washington business community has really worked very closely
Speaker 1: with UH. You know a number of our universities, from
Speaker 1: Howard to George Mason in in UH Northern Virginia, which
Speaker 1: Virginia Tech, where UM, the CEO of Boeing has served
Speaker 1: on a and served with me actually on a innovation
Speaker 1: board as Virginia Tech tries to grow its presence in
Speaker 1: Northern Virginia. I'm sure you know. Just this week, the
Speaker 1: families of the victims of the two seven thirty seven
Speaker 1: Max crashes as to judge in Texas to overturn Boeing
Speaker 1: settlement with the government. UH. They say they were short
Speaker 1: changed because it was handled as a fraud case, not
Speaker 1: a criminal case. Do you think that settlement was fair?
Speaker 1: You know, Joe, I don't. I've I've read as a
Speaker 1: as I think most of us have followed this UM story.
Speaker 1: Obviously it was a you know, huge tragedies and this
Speaker 1: was more than one plane that went down. But I
Speaker 1: candidly don't know enough of the specifics of this settlement
Speaker 1: to make that kind of judgment. Senator, It's great to
Speaker 1: have you with us on Bloomberg Sound On as we
Speaker 1: wait to find out what unfolds on Monday. Your voice
Speaker 1: on all of this, in your view from the Intelligence Committee,
Speaker 1: is very important to us at Bloomberg. Senator Mark Warner,
Speaker 1: Democrat from Virginia, thank you, sir, Sheriff, Senate Intelligence Finance,
Speaker 1: Banking in Rules member. It is quite a business card.
Speaker 1: After today's jobs data, we bring in Jared Bernstein of
Speaker 1: the White House Council of Economic Advisors for his take
Speaker 1: on all of this. Jared, welcome back to Bloomberg. Well,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for inviting me back. Always a pleasure
Speaker 1: to share ideas here. And we've we've got a big
Speaker 1: jobs report on our hands that I'd like to start with.
Speaker 1: The headline is stronger than expected. It's a big number.
Speaker 1: The President says, this all adds up to eight point
Speaker 1: three million jobs since he took office. So, Jared, why
Speaker 1: do people seem so downbeat right now? Does does everything
Speaker 1: come back to inflation at this time? We look, there's
Speaker 1: definitely elevated inflation in the system, and the President talks
Speaker 1: about what a challenge that is for household budgets every
Speaker 1: time he speaks, So no one's giving that short shrift
Speaker 1: at all. But we also have to be extremely mindful
Speaker 1: of the backdrop to support the strength of the American
Speaker 1: household and business sector as well. Certainly the job support
Speaker 1: today is in focus. But if we look at household
Speaker 1: balance sheets, if we look at debt service, if we
Speaker 1: look at people's net worth, if we look at business starts,
Speaker 1: and I can keep going. I think that the broader
Speaker 1: point is that while inflation is very much upon the land,
Speaker 1: and we're doing everything we can to ameliorate that burden
Speaker 1: on household budgets, it's not the only factor in play
Speaker 1: in today's economy. Much has been said about the participation
Speaker 1: rate in the job market is I just want to
Speaker 1: stick on this job's report for one minute. Here with
Speaker 1: two job openings, as you well know, Jared, for every
Speaker 1: American that does not have one. Bloomberg spoke earlier today
Speaker 1: with Labor Secretary Marty Walsh. Here's what he had to
Speaker 1: say about that. The question is, if we have twelve
Speaker 1: million jobs opening, six million people roughly looking for work,
Speaker 1: why shouldn't they be able to find a job. And
Speaker 1: I think we have to do a little diver look
Speaker 1: into that number regionally to see exactly what the reason is.
Speaker 1: I mean, are people under skilled do we need to
Speaker 1: scale them up? Are they really looking for work? How
Speaker 1: do we do how do we encourage them to get
Speaker 1: to work. What's your thought on that, Jared, Is there
Speaker 1: a simple answer or is it more complex than that? Well,
Speaker 1: I think Secretary Walsh has long been an advocate of
Speaker 1: making sure that workers get all the supports they need
Speaker 1: to get the best job they can. And in fact,
Speaker 1: in those same data that show the increased vacancies, you
Speaker 1: do see elevated quit rates. Now, sometimes people have quit
Speaker 1: rates and think, wow, that must be a bad thing
Speaker 1: for working people. In fact, what we know is that
Speaker 1: those people are upgrading their jobs, They're getting better jobs,
Speaker 1: and that's one of the things that happen when you
Speaker 1: have so many vacancies. So I think part of what's
Speaker 1: going on here is we just have a very strong
Speaker 1: consumer demand, very strong business investment climate. We saw that
Speaker 1: even by the way in the first quarter g d P.
Speaker 1: Now that I've had a negative handle having to do
Speaker 1: with imports and inventories, but you got under the hood
Speaker 1: and looked at the consumer spending. The investment still very strong,
Speaker 1: and that's creating strong labor demand as we spun on
Speaker 1: today's report. So the question then becomes, if we extend
Speaker 1: this little bit, Jared, is how long can that phenomenon last?
Speaker 1: Now that the FETE has begun tightening. What's your view
Speaker 1: on the second half of this year. Do you expect
Speaker 1: to see demand destruction and then would that be followed
Speaker 1: by layoffs as corporations begin to with just to this
Speaker 1: new interest rate environment. Well, certainly, one of the things
Speaker 1: that we're trying to do here at the White House
Speaker 1: is helped to ease some of the supply constraints so
Speaker 1: that we maintain strong demand but bring up supply in
Speaker 1: the sense of, for example, our work at the ports
Speaker 1: supply chains, implementing the Infrastructure Law, trying to go further
Speaker 1: and get Congress to pass the Bipartisan Innovation Act with
Speaker 1: a deep investment in semiconductors. That's more of a medium
Speaker 1: term play. So if we can increase the economy supply
Speaker 1: side from where we are, we think that we can
Speaker 1: help maintain some of the growth that we're seeing while
Speaker 1: easing inflationary pressure. So if I can get philosophical with
Speaker 1: you for a minute, and I know you love to
Speaker 1: do that, I want to ask you about the causes
Speaker 1: of inflation. This is the big conversation right now in Washington,
Speaker 1: and I guess nationally Republicans say it's because the administration
Speaker 1: spent too much on stimulus coming out of COVID, and
Speaker 1: they've even said that about the prior administration. But the
Speaker 1: White House, the Biden White House, is consistently pointed to
Speaker 1: the shift in demand for goods during the pandemic from
Speaker 1: services to goods, and supply chain problems that came from
Speaker 1: the pandemic a global phenomenon, not something we likely could
Speaker 1: have managed on our own here. Do you believe, though,
Speaker 1: that the stimulus spending made it worse? In other words,
Speaker 1: is everyone right? You know? Interestingly, I think we've already
Speaker 1: implicitly answered this question our conversation so far. We've talked
Speaker 1: about two things. Very strong demand consumer sector, household sector,
Speaker 1: corporate sector. Very strong labor market. Of course you saw
Speaker 1: today's report, um and still some issues on the supply side.
Speaker 1: Still constrained supply, whether it's supply chains, labor, supply coming back,
Speaker 1: but not not what we'd like to like it to be.
Speaker 1: And I think the inflation is best understood as strong
Speaker 1: demand hits constrained supply equals elevated prices. Now look are,
Speaker 1: but that means it would have happened without the stimulus spending.
Speaker 1: Is that your view? Well, I think one one easy
Speaker 1: answer to that is to look at Europe. Okay, they
Speaker 1: did some fiscal policy, but they didn't do the American
Speaker 1: rescue plan. So they're looking at inflation rates of seven
Speaker 1: point five percent with the March read and the EU
Speaker 1: that's in the store high for them. If you look
Speaker 1: at Canada, if you look at France, Italy, just US
Speaker 1: across countries, he's going to see elevated inflation. And and look,
Speaker 1: we didn't all do the same fiscal policy, but we
Speaker 1: all had the same pandemic. So that gives you a
Speaker 1: sense of one of the core factors there. And if
Speaker 1: demand and supply chains then are the real drivers of inflation.
Speaker 1: Do you worry about hiking rates in this environment, you know,
Speaker 1: the sort of sledge hammer approach? Or is that the
Speaker 1: only way to dampen demand for goods? I would imagine
Speaker 1: everyone who's paying attention to all the dynamics we're talking about,
Speaker 1: fiscal policy, monetary policy, the underlying macro economic conditions as
Speaker 1: we've described them, recognizes that the FED needed to pivot
Speaker 1: and they on so Now, interestingly, the President of the
Speaker 1: United States has made that same comment. He has supported
Speaker 1: the Fed's action. Of course, he's uh nominated and renominated
Speaker 1: a great slate of nominees for Congress to confirm as
Speaker 1: quickly as possible. UH and uh and so I don't
Speaker 1: think there's any question that in this environment, the stead
Speaker 1: is the first and foremost institution fighting against this elevated inflation,
Speaker 1: and they're going at it. They certainly are. I guess
Speaker 1: I just you know, I'm trying to get to this
Speaker 1: in a slightly different way. If if supply chain is
Speaker 1: the problem, and fixing the supply chain is the solution,
Speaker 1: right as opposed to just across the board hiking rates
Speaker 1: and causing the incredible level of fear that we're seeing
Speaker 1: now on Wall Street. Well, I think if I've I've
Speaker 1: tried to articulate that we have very strong demand and
Speaker 1: we also have constraints supply. Now, the SEAT is going
Speaker 1: to come at this using their tools, which more work
Speaker 1: on the demand side. We're going to come at this
Speaker 1: using our tools, and our tools happened to be our
Speaker 1: work at the ports, are work trying to increase trucking,
Speaker 1: bringing down costs like drug and healthcare costs. So you're
Speaker 1: already doing it, is your point. Yeah, but but there's
Speaker 1: much more for us to do. So, for example, affordable housing,
Speaker 1: this is actually a key um Biden administrative administration agenda.
Speaker 1: We recognize the constraints in the housing market, and shelters
Speaker 1: about a third of the of the CPI. So this
Speaker 1: is in our budget. So this is a legislative initiative.
Speaker 1: But we also have things we can do administratively on
Speaker 1: that front to help increase the supply of affordable housing,
Speaker 1: and we're doing them. Okay, one other thing in this
Speaker 1: I know you. You and I have talked about this
Speaker 1: a lot before. Earlier this week, the President talked about
Speaker 1: the fact that the deficit was expected to come down
Speaker 1: one point five trillion this year. Now, if you just
Speaker 1: do the simple macroeconomics and you write out g d
Speaker 1: P consumption plus investment, etcetera at the end of that equation,
Speaker 1: Yet government spending that kind of a fistical contraction is
Speaker 1: what the economists called negative fiscal impulse. That too, should
Speaker 1: serve to help dampen some inflationary pressure. So I think
Speaker 1: we can look at deficit reduction in that regard as well.
Speaker 1: One of the big concerns lately has been a recession.
Speaker 1: Instead of asking you today about the R word and
Speaker 1: what do you think the odds are, I want to
Speaker 1: ask you about the S word. As I read on
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg stagflation threat sends credit risk auges soaring globally, Jared,
Speaker 1: how likely is it that we will see a period
Speaker 1: of stagflation? Well, look, I'm old enough to remember the
Speaker 1: misery index, which is the unemployment rate plus inflation. Obviously,
Speaker 1: the second factor in that calculation is elevated, but the
Speaker 1: first is anything but. And so we have a three
Speaker 1: point six percent unemployment rate. We have a pace of
Speaker 1: job gains that, by some metrics is historically unmatched. Jared,
Speaker 1: I wish we had more time as always, uh, And
Speaker 1: I know you'll come back. I hope you will soon.
Speaker 1: Of the White House Council of Economic Advisors. Here one
Speaker 1: ount on the fastest hour in politics coming up or
Speaker 1: joined by Bloomberg opinion columnist Julianna Goldman, who says DEMOCRATSY
Speaker 1: don't organize to win the fight for row. This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: Senator Schumer says it's coming next week, the legislation to
Speaker 1: codify Roe V. Wade as law of the land. He
Speaker 1: announced his plan from the floor of the Senate this week.
Speaker 1: This is about to change. Next week the U. S.
Speaker 1: Senator is going to vote on legislation to codify a
Speaker 1: woman's right to seek an abortion into federal law. I
Speaker 1: intend to file cloture on this vital legislation Monday, which
Speaker 1: would set up a vote for Wednesday. Republicans will have
Speaker 1: two choices. They can own the destruction of women's rights,
Speaker 1: where they can reverse course and work to prevent the damage.
Speaker 1: To be more precise, that was from the briefing that
Speaker 1: follows upstairs. Now, this, of course, after the big league
Speaker 1: of the draft opinion showing the Supreme Court poise to
Speaker 1: invalidate Roe v. Wade. The conventional wisdom has been that
Speaker 1: this is gonna help Democrats in the mid terms by
Speaker 1: mobilizing voters right big turnout, especially suburban women. But it's
Speaker 1: not likely. That's simple and Bloomberg Opinion columnist Julianna Goldman
Speaker 1: gets to this in her latest column. She joins us
Speaker 1: now to talk about it. Juliana, thank you for being here.
Speaker 1: I've been looking forward to our conversation. You say Democrats
Speaker 1: need to take a page from Stacy Abram's playbook. Which
Speaker 1: page do they all? All of them? All the pages? Joe,
Speaker 1: thanks for having me on. I I really appreciate the time. Um. No,
Speaker 1: but look we see, uh, reproductive rights groups are calling
Speaker 1: from May fourteenth, there is this big day of action.
Speaker 1: We're going to see UM protests and rallies on the
Speaker 1: scale of the Women's March back in UM. And that
Speaker 1: is you know, that is all fine and good, and
Speaker 1: the energy and anger and the passion needs to be harnessed. Um,
Speaker 1: But there's a lifetime between now and November. And UM.
Speaker 1: You know, this isn't just about mobilizing, but it's going
Speaker 1: to be about organizing. And historically Republicans and the pro
Speaker 1: life movement have done a better job on the organizing front,
Speaker 1: case in point, electing lawmakers who are going to appoint
Speaker 1: conservative justices the Supreme Court to overturn roguers. Just way
Speaker 1: to explain what you mean or if you can articulate
Speaker 1: the difference between mobilizing and organizing, because I think a
Speaker 1: lot of people consider them the same thing. Yeah, you
Speaker 1: in politics and and talking about elections, you use them interchangeably, right,
Speaker 1: But mobilizing is you know, getting people out getting them
Speaker 1: on the streets, getting them UM to the polls. But
Speaker 1: organizing is really about getting in deep on the ground,
Speaker 1: getting the people who aren't likely to vote or haven't
Speaker 1: voted before. UM, you know, not just focusing as you said,
Speaker 1: on the suburban voters, but going into rural areas, UM,
Speaker 1: going into um, you know, to less educated, less affluent,
Speaker 1: more underserved communities, and explaining to the people. And in
Speaker 1: this case, you know, I quote I show in the piece,
Speaker 1: UM that you know, half half Americans don't know what
Speaker 1: the laws are in their states when it comes to
Speaker 1: access to abortion and reproductive just stunning for such a
Speaker 1: controversial issue it is. And also UM, you know, knowing
Speaker 1: and understanding that the people who are going to be
Speaker 1: impacted most severely from Row versus you know, from Row
Speaker 1: being overturned are the more hard to reach UM voters
Speaker 1: or people who have not voted before, and they're the
Speaker 1: ones who really need to be organized, UM and tapped into.
Speaker 1: You covered Washington for a long time, you understand Capitol
Speaker 1: Hill and the politics behind this. If this polls a
Speaker 1: majority of Americans do not want Roe v. Wade to
Speaker 1: be overturned, then how come this is such a heavy
Speaker 1: lift for Chuck Schumer. He does not have the votes
Speaker 1: to pass this next week, right because in in the
Speaker 1: SoundBite that you you you uh posted just now, you know,
Speaker 1: he's talking to Republicans. But it's not just Republicans, it's
Speaker 1: Joe manchin Well. UM. And you know the author of
Speaker 1: this report that I based the piece off of thetas
Speaker 1: Scotch full the Harvard Social Scientist. UM. She looked at
Speaker 1: the last fifteen She looked at about fifteen years of
Speaker 1: organizing around social justice campaigns. UH, contrasting the efforts in
Speaker 1: North Carolina, UM with the Reverend Wlliam Barber versus Georgia
Speaker 1: which you mentioned, and the Stacy Abrams playbook, and looked
Speaker 1: at why it was so much more successful UM in Georgia. UM.
Speaker 1: You know, and she she points out that that yes,
Speaker 1: we see the educated democrats, the educated activists that are
Speaker 1: going to be getting up and rallying again, but they're
Speaker 1: not the ones that need to UM. They're not the
Speaker 1: ones that need to be be activated. You know, they're
Speaker 1: going to be out there yelling at Joe Mansion. She said,
Speaker 1: They're going to be out there yelling at Joe Mansion
Speaker 1: to get rid of the filibuster. Um. But he's not
Speaker 1: going to do that. Um. And so you know what
Speaker 1: Democrats need to do is they need to get more seats.
Speaker 1: And already this was looking like a blood bath, um,
Speaker 1: heading into November for Democrats. So what do they need
Speaker 1: to go out and get cell phone numbers? Is what
Speaker 1: you're saying, right, they need to go and get cell
Speaker 1: phone numbers. I mean one of the points that she
Speaker 1: makes in the in in her report, um, you know
Speaker 1: is that Republicans have been able to go into churches,
Speaker 1: to gun clubs. Um. You know, taken over the place
Speaker 1: of unions. Um. You know, which Democrats have had historically, Um,
Speaker 1: you know, been been a source of strength for them. Um.
Speaker 1: You know she looks at Stacy Abrams and how she
Speaker 1: went to funeral homes for organizing. Um. And so you
Speaker 1: know it's like you said, it's it's cell phones, it's
Speaker 1: you know, yeah, it's it's on the ground organizing. Let
Speaker 1: me ask you at our remaining moment here, and I
Speaker 1: know it's not the thrust of your column, but how
Speaker 1: about Republicans organizing around this? Republicans are very effective at that,
Speaker 1: right with in terms of raising money and organizing, you know,
Speaker 1: actionable uh groups in terms of voting and voting behavior
Speaker 1: that we could see in November. Or is this really
Speaker 1: a democratic story about mobilizing that the Republicans have already
Speaker 1: got the energy they need. No, I don't I don't know.
Speaker 1: I think that, you know, I hate to say this,
Speaker 1: but I think it remains to be seen. Look like
Speaker 1: I go back to saying there is a lifetime. There's
Speaker 1: gonna be time between now and when the final opinion
Speaker 1: is handed down. And you can see that Republicans are
Speaker 1: really you know, they're they're kind of they're steering clear
Speaker 1: and they're treading lightly on this. I think they need
Speaker 1: to see what the final opinion is. And Democrats do
Speaker 1: Juliana Goldman come back and see us again on Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg sound On on Bloomberg Radio. As we
Speaker 1: round out our Friday together, we assemble our reporter's round table.
Speaker 1: It's been a while since we've done this. If you
Speaker 1: listen to sound On, you already know Bloomberg Government's Emily
Speaker 1: Wilkins and Jack Fitzpatrick no strangers to our microphones. And
Speaker 1: today we want to focus not a fairly busy agenda
Speaker 1: on Capitol Hill before the House returns to town. Emily,
Speaker 1: I'll start with you. It's great to see you in
Speaker 1: studio today. Chuck Schumer says he's moving a bill to
Speaker 1: codify abortion rights next week. Uh, he does not appear
Speaker 1: to have the votes. Is this about shaming Republicans in
Speaker 1: the publicly voting? No, I mean you can use the
Speaker 1: word shaming if you would like to use that word.
Speaker 1: I think what Jack Schumber would probably use the word shaming.
Speaker 1: And in trying to stick with with the non biased
Speaker 1: track here, I'll just say it's getting them on the
Speaker 1: record right. If they get this vote, then groups can
Speaker 1: run ads saying that Senator such and such voted against
Speaker 1: this bill to protect the right to abortion and it's
Speaker 1: something you know that that Democrats do see is critical
Speaker 1: to do. But but no, I mean this is going
Speaker 1: to need sixty votes to move forward. Democrats don't have
Speaker 1: sixty votes. In fact, the last time that they tried
Speaker 1: to move forward legislation on row, they didn't even have
Speaker 1: enough support within Democrats to get the fifty. You had
Speaker 1: Senator Joe Manson vote against, so he will be an
Speaker 1: interesting one to watch this time. Um. But but yes,
Speaker 1: I mean this is really just more of a messaging
Speaker 1: thing than than any substantial legislation. Jack, Senator Schumer wants
Speaker 1: to shame some Republicans, but many pro life Republicans will
Speaker 1: be proud to stand up and vote again this legislation.
Speaker 1: Does that go from most of the party in the Senate, Yeah,
Speaker 1: most of the Republicans, I think. I'm sure Democrats would
Speaker 1: say they're shaming Republicans, But I think this is an
Speaker 1: issue that really motivates both sides, both parties. The Democrats
Speaker 1: are hoping that this ruling and the fact that it's
Speaker 1: come out now early, uh, sort of motivates their own
Speaker 1: Democratic base. But it's not really necessarily a persuasive issue
Speaker 1: where you're going to find Republicans to win over. And
Speaker 1: I think that's illustrated by the fact that the two
Speaker 1: potentially persuadable Republicans in the Senate, Senators Collins and Murkowski.
Speaker 1: They may be able to get something a little more
Speaker 1: moderate than this bill that the Democrats are are putting
Speaker 1: forward that would take a step toward codifying ROW. But
Speaker 1: that's not the plan because they know they're not going
Speaker 1: to get sixty votes, so they might as well give
Speaker 1: the Democrats they're uh, sort of what the base wants
Speaker 1: to see, allow the Republicans to vote no, and both
Speaker 1: parties end up saying, hey, we we got what we
Speaker 1: wanted out of this. Politically interesting. Chuck Schumer Emily yesterday
Speaker 1: was saying, you know this, We're not just doing this
Speaker 1: as a one off. We're gonna keep coming back again
Speaker 1: and again and again. How many versions, how many attempts
Speaker 1: could we see? I mean, it will be interesting to
Speaker 1: see if there is some sort of somewhat bipartisan legislation
Speaker 1: that comes from this um, although even then it's a
Speaker 1: huge question mark. I mean, the idea that you get
Speaker 1: ten Republican senators is a lot here. I think it's
Speaker 1: also worth noting no. I was talking with a couple
Speaker 1: of strategists, particularly down in Texas because they've got an
Speaker 1: interesting primary coming up there with one of really the
Speaker 1: only uh anti abortion Democrat left in the House, Henry
Speaker 1: quay Are. He will be facing the progressive Jessica to
Speaker 1: Snarrows later this month. But I was asking no, Snarirows
Speaker 1: has really tried to make a quare stance on abortion
Speaker 1: and issue, and I asked them strategists, if it's going
Speaker 1: to work, and they really pointed out that. You know,
Speaker 1: for Democrats, they're not immune to a fleet in ation.
Speaker 1: They still care about things like high prices, the economy,
Speaker 1: the kitchen table issues. Yes, abortion is something that really
Speaker 1: energizes and motivates the base, but it's certainly not the
Speaker 1: only issue at play here in these mid terms. Republicans
Speaker 1: do not seem to be concerned here with polling Jack,
Speaker 1: a majority of Americans do not want to see Row v.
Speaker 1: Wade overturned. But that doesn't cause a problem in a
Speaker 1: primary season, doesn't right in a Republican primary, that may
Speaker 1: not be an issue. Also, if you look at the
Speaker 1: details of polling UM, probably the most motivated group by
Speaker 1: this on the Democratic side would be college educated women.
Speaker 1: Uh And keep in mind, you know, Joe Biden outperformed
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton among that group. I'm not sure how much
Speaker 1: Democrats have to gain by the most motivated voters who
Speaker 1: you'd be trying to turn out, who otherwise might turn out.
Speaker 1: It might not turn out in a mid term. Uh.
Speaker 1: So it doesn't pull that well in the aggregate for Republicans,
Speaker 1: But in Republican primaries, you're probably safe as an anti
Speaker 1: abortion Republican. Uh And Democrats don't have very easy math
Speaker 1: on their side to say, you know who exactly is
Speaker 1: going to show up who wasn't going to It's really
Speaker 1: smart analysis there. President Biden this afternoon is once again
Speaker 1: pushing the Bipartisan Innovation Act, which has been crawling through Congress.
Speaker 1: We've talked about this a lot emily. Can the House
Speaker 1: and Senate get together on this or is it actually
Speaker 1: in danger of never passing? I think at this point,
Speaker 1: given some of the votes that we saw in the Senate,
Speaker 1: there's definitely the momentum and the will to pass something.
Speaker 1: I mean, when you look uh and certainly the you
Speaker 1: can frame this legislation in several different ways, but when
Speaker 1: you look at the desire for the US remain competitive
Speaker 1: against China, that is absolutely something that is bipartisans And
Speaker 1: so I think there is a question that we did
Speaker 1: see um some sort of early meetings on the House side.
Speaker 1: I don't think everyone's gotten together fully on this one yet, um,
Speaker 1: But there is the willingness to do something. There is
Speaker 1: time left to do something, and I think it's just
Speaker 1: a question of you know, when you actually get the
Speaker 1: conference seas in the room, and then after that what
Speaker 1: the sticking points are, which I think is something we're
Speaker 1: really going to see shape up in the next coming weeks.
Speaker 1: Is it possible to kind of frame these sticking points Jack?
Speaker 1: People have been talking on both sides of the aisle
Speaker 1: about passing the Chip Act, which is inside this legislation,
Speaker 1: for the better part of a year. The Commerce Secretary
Speaker 1: was out again this morning, the President out again. What's
Speaker 1: holding it up? Yeah, it's been very interesting because it's
Speaker 1: not necessarily an issue that is holding it up. It's
Speaker 1: that there's been a back and forth in which both
Speaker 1: the Senate and House kind of try to use their
Speaker 1: prerogative to do their own bill. And that's why we're
Speaker 1: in a conference now. There was never a time when
Speaker 1: they got together and said, let's do one bipartisan bill.
Speaker 1: And it's an issue that's broad enough that you can
Speaker 1: just keep adding things. For example, are our colleague Maria
Speaker 1: cuy just reported recently, even after all of this, there's
Speaker 1: now talk by Senators Ron Wyden and Mike Creepo and
Speaker 1: some others saying, what if instead of just spending this
Speaker 1: money on semiconductor and investments, there could be a semi
Speaker 1: semiconductor investment tax credit, And then you open the door
Speaker 1: to a whole conversation about tax credits. There's some pushback
Speaker 1: on exactly, you know, So it's the conversation has just
Speaker 1: never ended, and it's gone on and on and on.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of bipartisan support for what's in this,
Speaker 1: but eventually they have to stay all right, we're doing
Speaker 1: one last bill that's good for the House and Senate,
Speaker 1: and we're going to end these conversations, and that would
Speaker 1: be quite a moment. One thing that does appear to
Speaker 1: have bipartisan support is anything that helps Ukraine in its
Speaker 1: war against Russia. And uh, it gets a little more complicated,
Speaker 1: but largely bipartisan support for additional sanctions. Jack, are we
Speaker 1: going to get another round from Capitol Hill itself or
Speaker 1: is this something that the administration is going to own?
Speaker 1: You know? On sanctions, the administration is taking the lead,
Speaker 1: and there's a conversation coming up among group of seven leaders.
Speaker 1: There's there's sort of an ongoing conversation about if there
Speaker 1: are more sanctions that they can add, or if there
Speaker 1: are any loopholes they can get around to better enforce sanctions.
Speaker 1: But in Congress, the conversation really is about providing that
Speaker 1: money that thirty three billion dollars requested by Biden. That's
Speaker 1: something that is a lot of bipartisan support. The one
Speaker 1: challenge is they still have a COVID relief bill that
Speaker 1: Democrats want to attach to that. If you get into
Speaker 1: the COVID conversation, you have to get into the title
Speaker 1: forty two immigration pandemic policy issue. So it's a question
Speaker 1: of whether the Ukraine Supplemental spending bill, which is very popular,
Speaker 1: becomes the Christmas treat that's weighted down with a number
Speaker 1: of ornaments, but that issue itself has a lot of support.
Speaker 1: Is there any chance Emily this comes through as a
Speaker 1: clean bill or something to Jack's point, particularly COVID funding
Speaker 1: will have to be attached to it. That is sort
Speaker 1: of the big question right now. And you certainly have
Speaker 1: Democrats who are out there saying that they want to
Speaker 1: have both of them attached, that they think that it's important.
Speaker 1: But I think Democrats understand that it's going to it's
Speaker 1: it's sort of a calculus of how it looks, right.
Speaker 1: Who is going to shoulder the blame if Democrats attach
Speaker 1: COVID funding to Ukraine or Democrats going to be the
Speaker 1: ones left holding the bag for not trying to class
Speaker 1: pass a clean bill, or couldn't they sort of blame
Speaker 1: Republicans for being the ones not providing the votes. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is I think kind of the big question right now.
Speaker 1: Republicans really vote against it though with COVID funding attached,
Speaker 1: Republicans would try to attach that title of forty two
Speaker 1: immigration funding to it, and then once that happens, Democrats,
Speaker 1: you're going to have an issue. We put all the
Speaker 1: ornaments on the tree. That is that how this likely ends.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's either going to be Democrats are going
Speaker 1: to realize that they want to pass something quickly they
Speaker 1: need to pass a clean bill, or it's going to
Speaker 1: be yes some sort of battle where it's just the
Speaker 1: thing after thing after thing is added and then this
Speaker 1: whole process dolls. You have a gut check on that
Speaker 1: jack because you know at some point President Zelenski is
Speaker 1: going to say, hey, where's the thirty three billion, and
Speaker 1: that's going to be a big deal. The administration of
Speaker 1: Biden administration is running out of their current draw down authority.
Speaker 1: They were down to the hundreds of millions and they're
Speaker 1: requesting tens of billions. So the pressure is on now
Speaker 1: and there's still this push to get a vote by
Speaker 1: next week on this. Uh so the pressure is already there.
Speaker 1: We know that the Republicans, if the COVID money was attached,
Speaker 1: the Republicans would call for an amendment on Title forty two.
Speaker 1: If that fails, they would have their excuse for voting
Speaker 1: against the whole thing, and they could also offer an
Speaker 1: amendment to do a standalone Ukrainian supplemental so, you know
Speaker 1: it could be challenging for Democrats if they insist on
Speaker 1: attaching the COVID money. Well, next week gott to be
Speaker 1: another riot in Washington. As we hear from Jack and Emily,
Speaker 1: it's really great to spend time with both of you.
Speaker 1: Good to see Bloomberg Government's Emily Wilkins and Jack Fitzpatrick.
Speaker 1: Thanks to both of you, and have a great weekend.
Speaker 1: See get back here Monday. I'm Joe Matthew. This is
Speaker 1: Bloomberg