Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg Sound On.
Speaker 1: Is this how the House Republics are starting a new term,
Speaker 1: cutting taxes for billionaires, raising taxes for working families, making
Speaker 1: inflation worst. Democrats, more than any other majority in history,
Speaker 1: are addicted to spending. We will use the debt ceiling
Speaker 1: of leverage. Bloomberg Sound on Politics, Policy and Perspective from
Speaker 1: DC's top name. She was unheard of previously to not
Speaker 1: see people on these committees, but Pelosi did it. Many
Speaker 1: Americans believe they said things about COVID, like about Jewish
Speaker 1: space lasers, which should keep them off of a committee
Speaker 1: like that. Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: More members of Congress want to block the Talk. Welcome
Speaker 1: to the fastest hour in politics. As a movement to band,
Speaker 1: tick Talk gains momentum a nationwide band. We'll talk about
Speaker 1: it with Congress. But Rusty Johnson, who helped write to
Speaker 1: build to ban the platform on government devices, see how
Speaker 1: he feels about the next move here. President Biden means
Speaker 1: I'm trumping economic data showing continued growth, but issues another
Speaker 1: warning over the debt ceiling. Will have the latest from
Speaker 1: the Capitol and discuss it with White House Economic Advisor
Speaker 1: Jene Sperling. And as the White House faces new criticism
Speaker 1: from the president's own party on immigration policy, will have
Speaker 1: analysis from our panel, Bloomberg Politics contributor Republican strategist Rick Davis,
Speaker 1: along with Democratic strategist Jim Kessler of Third Wave. The
Speaker 1: move to band TikTok here in Washington is gaining momentum,
Speaker 1: at least on Capitol Hill, as Republican Senator Josh Holly
Speaker 1: introduces legislation to prohibit the app on all devices nationwide
Speaker 1: and as similar measure, as Bloomberg reports, is now cooking
Speaker 1: in the House, seizing on concerns about the way the
Speaker 1: Chinese owned app handles our personal data. It's owned by
Speaker 1: a company called byte Dance. We've talked about it many
Speaker 1: times here, but this move is not new. In fact,
Speaker 1: springs from an effort last year to band TikTok on
Speaker 1: government devices. The Congressman from South Dakota, Republican Dusty Johnson,
Speaker 1: helps to write the legislation that became long Well, the
Speaker 1: name of the bill is block the Talk. Now. I
Speaker 1: know some of your viewers are curious. They just some
Speaker 1: I'm some cranky old man who wants to take away
Speaker 1: their TikTok. And there are some prominent voices out in
Speaker 1: the public square, like a Federal Communications Commissioner Brennan Carr,
Speaker 1: who would advocate for just that, say hey, we should
Speaker 1: not have this app. This app is such a national
Speaker 1: security threat that it shouldn't even be available on some
Speaker 1: of the purchasing platform. That was Congressman Johnson talking with
Speaker 1: a starting point back in September when this whole idea
Speaker 1: took hold, and he's with us right now, fresh off
Speaker 1: votes on the House floor. Congressman Dusty Johnson, welcome back
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg. We appreciate the time. So I have to
Speaker 1: ask you, after what you just said, are you just
Speaker 1: a cranky old man? Well, I am a bit of
Speaker 1: a cranky old man. I feel a lot better about
Speaker 1: the fact that we got our bill pass in December.
Speaker 1: Now we have as we speak, we continue to have
Speaker 1: a TikTok pulled off government devices. They should never have
Speaker 1: been on those gush darns used to begin with. And
Speaker 1: I would just know it for your listeners, I mean,
Speaker 1: this is not this is not some idle threat. I'm
Speaker 1: not howling at the moon here TikTok has been fined
Speaker 1: a hundred million dollars by our government for privacy concerns.
Speaker 1: We have employee whistleblowers from within the company that have
Speaker 1: told us that China, the Chinese Communist Party quote, sees everything,
Speaker 1: all of the data people are using and uploading on
Speaker 1: that app. This thing is a real problem. I can't
Speaker 1: get my kid off TikTok. Is there a file on
Speaker 1: my kid in Beijing? There is absolutely a file on
Speaker 1: your kid that TikTok, and almost certainly by dance and
Speaker 1: almost certainly the Chinese government have I know people think
Speaker 1: TikTok is just about fun dance videos, but the reality
Speaker 1: is that this thing has been designed as a trojan
Speaker 1: horse to be able to scrape up wild amounts of
Speaker 1: American information. And I think that's why you saw the
Speaker 1: move to ban TikTok from government devices as such a
Speaker 1: broad based bipartisan push. I was just named the Select
Speaker 1: Committee on China. This is also going to be a
Speaker 1: broad based bipartisan move because the threat from the Chinese
Speaker 1: Communist Party is multidimensional and it's not going away. You're
Speaker 1: concerned about data collection, are you also concerned about the algorithm?
Speaker 1: Because we don't exactly know how this thing works or
Speaker 1: or just how exactly they have managed to create such
Speaker 1: an addictive product. Congressman, it is really interesting that you
Speaker 1: bring that up, because that is a developing part of
Speaker 1: this story. As people have monitored the thieves that young
Speaker 1: people in China get from their version of TikTok and
Speaker 1: the content that American children get from their feet of
Speaker 1: TikTok is wildly different. The Chinese kids are getting productive, supportive,
Speaker 1: educational content. The Americans are getting garbage. The Chinese are
Speaker 1: trying to do what they can to slow down America
Speaker 1: while they're speeding up their own country. You mentioned in
Speaker 1: that interview, and by the way, the director of the
Speaker 1: f UH the the FBI, Chris Ray, mentioned that one
Speaker 1: of the one of the f c C commissioners is
Speaker 1: actually behind this as well. If there's a concerted effort
Speaker 1: in the House, support in both chambers actually the Senate
Speaker 1: now as well. You've got uh the FCC on board.
Speaker 1: Will there be a national band? Would you support that?
Speaker 1: I want to get a little more information before I
Speaker 1: support a national band. I'm a freedom guy. I've taken
Speaker 1: TikTok off my phone. I don't think anyone should have
Speaker 1: it on their own phone. But before I start telling
Speaker 1: people that they don't have that control over their own phone,
Speaker 1: I want to make sure that this is indeed a
Speaker 1: legitimate national security threat, that that imposes such a problem
Speaker 1: that we need to take that kind of action. But
Speaker 1: but the China Committee is going to be talking about
Speaker 1: things like that starting very very soon. Uh is breaking news, Congressman,
Speaker 1: I have to ask you about and you probably saw
Speaker 1: this coming. Bloomberg is reporting that House Republican leaders are
Speaker 1: considering now extending the debt limit to September thirty. And
Speaker 1: it's a way for me to ask you about this
Speaker 1: because it's obviously been a very a very big deal.
Speaker 1: Is something that President Biden spoke about today in Northern Virginia.
Speaker 1: List they're actually threatening to have us to fault on
Speaker 1: American debt and debt that's been accumulated over two hundred
Speaker 1: and thirty years, okay, and the interest on that that
Speaker 1: we've never ever done that. So we have a retour
Speaker 1: aventary total question, what in God's name with the Americans
Speaker 1: give up the progress we've made for the chaos they're suggesting.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you want to attempt to answer
Speaker 1: the president here, but does buying time through the end
Speaker 1: of September increase the odds of resolving this without a
Speaker 1: problem here? Congressman, that's a tactic that there is not
Speaker 1: consensus around yet. But there is consensus around, uh, certainly
Speaker 1: among Republicans and also among an increasing number of Democrats,
Speaker 1: is that it is irresponsible for the president to not
Speaker 1: negotiate on the debt ceiling. The last eight major fiscal
Speaker 1: reforms that our country has enacted came about as part
Speaker 1: of a negotiation over a debt ceiling. And it makes sense.
Speaker 1: What we're getting is a credit card bill, and it
Speaker 1: is a whopper, and I get it. We have to
Speaker 1: pay the credit card bill. We absolutely should not default
Speaker 1: on our debt. But when a company gets that credit
Speaker 1: card bill show up in the mail, it is exactly
Speaker 1: the right time for that. I'm to sit down and
Speaker 1: have a family conversation about how do they get the
Speaker 1: spending under control. This White House says they should be
Speaker 1: two separate conversations. That default and spending they're not going
Speaker 1: to deal with in in one stop. Here, we've got
Speaker 1: a staring contest. It seems like going on between President
Speaker 1: Biden and your new Speaker Kevin McCarthy, both ends of
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania Avenue. You must enjoy the idea of getting them
Speaker 1: in the same room. Are we gonna make that happen soon?
Speaker 1: You're saying it exactly right. Step one has to be
Speaker 1: to get the President United States and Speaker of the
Speaker 1: House in the same room. They have got to have
Speaker 1: an adult conversation, and for the President to refuse to
Speaker 1: do so is infuriating. The only thing that any of
Speaker 1: us should want is a reasonable, sensible, and responsible resolution
Speaker 1: to this issue. And we can we can get this done.
Speaker 1: We have to raise the Dutch chilling, and we have
Speaker 1: to enact real and substantial fiscal reforms. We're going to
Speaker 1: get it done. Getting back to TikTok for a moment here, Congressman,
Speaker 1: we understand that Marco Rubio, Josh Holly on the Senate side,
Speaker 1: there's actually a Democrat from Illinois in your House of
Speaker 1: Representatives that are are all raising their hands to team
Speaker 1: up with the idea of a national TikTok ban. When
Speaker 1: will you make up your mind if you're on board? What?
Speaker 1: What would make up my mind? What? What would get
Speaker 1: me on board? Yeah? Or when do you think you
Speaker 1: would you like to make up your mind to see
Speaker 1: if you want to be part of this. Oh, sure, absolutely,
Speaker 1: I think what we need to let the China Committee
Speaker 1: do a little work. I think you can get a
Speaker 1: lot of political mileage out of introducing a bill like
Speaker 1: that or to get on board with it. But to me,
Speaker 1: before we really decide to pass a bill, we better
Speaker 1: make sure that if we're gonna erode Americans freedom like that,
Speaker 1: that we're doing it for the right reasons and that
Speaker 1: it is legitimately that big a threat. I think TikTok
Speaker 1: is that biggest threat. But I want to make sure
Speaker 1: before I get on on board a nationwide ban. I'm
Speaker 1: told that you're running back for votes. Congressman, will let
Speaker 1: you do that, and I appreciate your time on the phone.
Speaker 1: Congressman Dusty Johnson, Republican from South Dakota, getting things started
Speaker 1: here on the fastest hour in politics. I mentioned Chris Ray,
Speaker 1: FBI director. He did talk about this, Uh, it was
Speaker 1: in a recent speech. He said the same words essentially
Speaker 1: in congressional testimony as well, favoring a national ban at
Speaker 1: least Tacitly, he talked about this in the University of Michigan.
Speaker 1: Listen to the director, it's parent company isn trolled by
Speaker 1: the Chinese government, UH, and it gives them the potential
Speaker 1: to leverage the app in ways that I think should
Speaker 1: concern us. The idea of entrusting that much data, that
Speaker 1: much ability to shape content and engage in influence operations
Speaker 1: that much access to people's devices in effect to that
Speaker 1: government is something they concern national security concerns. Let's assemble
Speaker 1: the panel for their thoughts on this. Rick Davis's back
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Politics contributor and Republican strategists joined the day by
Speaker 1: Jim Kessler, co founder, a Third Way Democratic strategist and
Speaker 1: former legislative policy director for Senator Chuck Schumer. Gentlemen, great
Speaker 1: to have both of you here. Rick. We talked about
Speaker 1: the government ban the end of last year. Is the
Speaker 1: National Band next? Yeah? I think extending blocked the talk
Speaker 1: to uh national Band is going to generate quite a
Speaker 1: bit of Graham swell. Um. You know, people are still
Speaker 1: waking up to the fact that China is listening in
Speaker 1: to so many aspects of American life and making conclusions
Speaker 1: on how to compete with us by doing that. Uh
Speaker 1: that Um, I still think like like Congressman Johnson said,
Speaker 1: there needs to be more advocacy, there needs to be
Speaker 1: more understanding. But I think as people understand what they're into, uh,
Speaker 1: they're going to realize that, uh, it doesn't supply our culture,
Speaker 1: our society, our economy, our politics with anything positive that
Speaker 1: why not just get rid of it? And so uh
Speaker 1: you can certainly replace it with other social media apps
Speaker 1: in the United States that don't create a foreign threat.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I think this is this is gonna find
Speaker 1: its way into the public domain in a big way.
Speaker 1: People you know, did a double take Jim Kessler when
Speaker 1: Donald Trump threatened to do the very same thing. Remember
Speaker 1: he filed an executive order citing the International Emergency Economic
Speaker 1: Powers Act and and threatened to ban TikTok. TikTok sued
Speaker 1: the government back. That was three years ago. Is this
Speaker 1: a bipartisan issue now? I think it is. Of China
Speaker 1: is a surveillance state, and she Jimping believes that if
Speaker 1: you control the cyber sphere, you control really the world.
Speaker 1: Um TikTok, I believe is a piece of that. I
Speaker 1: think it's it's got to be on the table. Whether
Speaker 1: there's a TikTok band in the United States, there are
Speaker 1: you know, some efforts to see if TikTok can be
Speaker 1: separated from the Chinese parent company and enough safeguards being
Speaker 1: put up, um, you know, so that people will not
Speaker 1: be surveilled. I'm open to looking at that. But you know, also,
Speaker 1: as a parent of a seventeen year old, I'd love
Speaker 1: to see TikTok on for other reasons. Thanks the tablet
Speaker 1: fifteen in my house, Jim, And it's like the only
Speaker 1: thing that matters. Kids don't even watch TV anymore because
Speaker 1: they want to just say they're glued to the TikTok rick.
Speaker 1: It's it's it's addictive. I use that word intentionally because
Speaker 1: of the way this algorithm works. I don't know if
Speaker 1: you heard what the congressman said. This thing is written
Speaker 1: of to work in a certain way, in a way
Speaker 1: that YouTube never never managed. That that that keeps people
Speaker 1: from putting the phone down. It's it's basically a digital drug. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and look, I mean we see that in other social
Speaker 1: media applications that aren't owned by the Chinese Red Army.
Speaker 1: And so the reality is, um, we've got to come
Speaker 1: to grips with how social media has has really affected
Speaker 1: our culture, you know, especially teenagers. We know that there's
Speaker 1: a lot of data out there on the impact on
Speaker 1: young people with what they see and and watch on
Speaker 1: these on these uh you know, social media outlets, and
Speaker 1: we know how uh negative it can be to our politics, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, the Russian meddling in in in
Speaker 1: our politics by and large was to divide people. And
Speaker 1: of course we find out algorithms that are written by
Speaker 1: our own uh countries outlets, uh exacerbate the negative. And
Speaker 1: so I think I think this is a much broader issue.
Speaker 1: But I'm so glad that we're starting to come to
Speaker 1: grips with the fact that Chinese is you know, really
Speaker 1: a pernicious influence in our in our in our social media,
Speaker 1: and we've we've got to start doing something about it.
Speaker 1: So are we all cranky old men here? Jim? I mean,
Speaker 1: I know my kid doesn't listen to the show, but
Speaker 1: if if if he and his friends were listening, that's
Speaker 1: exactly what they would say, out of touch, old and cranky?
Speaker 1: What what? What are we missing? Yes, we are cranky
Speaker 1: old men. But the reason why we're cranky old men,
Speaker 1: and I want to echo with Rick Davis just said,
Speaker 1: we have a social media atmosphere out there in which
Speaker 1: the algorithms are set to that so that anger sells,
Speaker 1: you know, and so the economic consentatives for a lot
Speaker 1: of social media is to get us upset, or get
Speaker 1: us angry, or to get us jealous. And I just
Speaker 1: feel like it's the air pollution around us that is
Speaker 1: affecting this country. And put the red Chinese Army aside,
Speaker 1: like this is a problem in America everywhere. I think
Speaker 1: it's Jim. Government officials are on this, major media outlets
Speaker 1: are on this. I've been told I need to be
Speaker 1: on this because I'm an on air uh personality or whatever,
Speaker 1: even a journalist, that you have to be there because
Speaker 1: that's where the eyeballs are. Jim, that's a very difficult
Speaker 1: thing for a lot of people to say no to
Speaker 1: what happens though, to the official accounts. When you consider
Speaker 1: government officials, like I said on TikTok in the middle
Speaker 1: of this conversation, well you know, I'm on Twitter all
Speaker 1: the time. I'm not on TikTok, but I don't on
Speaker 1: Twitter all the time. And look, it is an angry
Speaker 1: cess pool there, and I think it affects the country,
Speaker 1: and I think it is part of the polarization here,
Speaker 1: TikTok did a surveillance scheme. They're masquerading as entertainment. And look,
Speaker 1: Rick Davis is right, there'll be another social media platform
Speaker 1: that will predict kids that might not have the surveillance
Speaker 1: aspect to it, but it all have the other negative
Speaker 1: mental health aspects to it that I just think we've
Speaker 1: got a dress suit. So let's say they pass a
Speaker 1: bill here they banned TikTok. Rick, what keeps the Chinese
Speaker 1: from just inventing another app, another trojan horse with a
Speaker 1: similar algorithm. Well, I do think that the federal government
Speaker 1: is certainly getting a smart to the tactics of China.
Speaker 1: You know, you saw during the Trump administration a full fledge,
Speaker 1: all of government approach to try and ban Huawei, which
Speaker 1: was just another trojan horse, uh to steal our data
Speaker 1: in the form of a cheap cell phone. Um, but
Speaker 1: we've got some real challenges here, right. This is an
Speaker 1: emerging issue that luckily right now is bipartisan. Right, there's
Speaker 1: nobody out there saying, you know, being soft on China
Speaker 1: tech is somehow a partisan issue, and so so I
Speaker 1: think that that this is something I know that previous
Speaker 1: Rick Davis and Jim Kessler, this is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg,
Speaker 1: So no. With Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. White House
Speaker 1: remains consistent, no negotating on the debt ceiling. You've certainly
Speaker 1: heard that here before, even as Republicans ask for budget
Speaker 1: cuts before in agreement. White House Press Secretary Karine Sean Pierre,
Speaker 1: when it comes to default, we see this as a
Speaker 1: separate matter. We see this a very differently, and it
Speaker 1: should be done without conditions. Had a chance to talk
Speaker 1: about all of this earlier today with one of the
Speaker 1: President's closest economic advisors, Gene Sperling, who brought up the
Speaker 1: topic actually on his own while we were discussing this morning.
Speaker 1: Is better than expected g d P report. Positive data
Speaker 1: makes the White House feel like the policies are working
Speaker 1: and that we will achieve a soft landing. But the
Speaker 1: administration is warning that the good times won't last if
Speaker 1: we default or even get close to a default. Remembering
Speaker 1: that Spurling was there in the Obama White House when
Speaker 1: the whole fiscal cliff thing happened. In listen, I think
Speaker 1: what is really the most concerning uh for really, I
Speaker 1: think almost any responsible economic leader in the private sector
Speaker 1: or public sector. Is the idea that that they would
Speaker 1: return to to what happened in twenty eleven, where you
Speaker 1: actually saw a political party say hey, if I don't
Speaker 1: get our way on our fiscal priorities, we will default
Speaker 1: the United States for the first time in its history
Speaker 1: and risk national and even global recession. You know, I
Speaker 1: really thought we'd all learned our lesson. Really, Democrats and
Speaker 1: Republicans since tyn have not gone there. Democrats didn't not
Speaker 1: to pay bass Well. I want to ask you about
Speaker 1: that because people should know that you were there for
Speaker 1: the fiscal cliff. You were you were actually the head
Speaker 1: of the National Economic Council in a different administration. Is
Speaker 1: it different this time or are you using the lessons
Speaker 1: you learned then to figure out a solution here? You know,
Speaker 1: the point I want to make is that virtually everybody,
Speaker 1: I think virtually everybody has learned the lessons from twenty eleven.
Speaker 1: I think we were President Obama and Vice Bread and
Speaker 1: in Biden at the time, we're very willing to engage
Speaker 1: in in a good faith fiscal negotiation. UH with Republican
Speaker 1: leadership of the House in twentyn over, what combination of
Speaker 1: measures should be done to uh, you know, put the
Speaker 1: put put our fiscal situation on on a stronger path.
Speaker 1: And then but we tried to keep that separate from
Speaker 1: the debt limit. They started to merge together over time,
Speaker 1: and people you know would say, it doesn't matter, you know,
Speaker 1: if they feel they need to use that as a
Speaker 1: hub for negotiations, why should it bother anyone? And then
Speaker 1: we thought what happened. We saw that even when the
Speaker 1: uh you know, Speaker of the House, John Bayner, wanted
Speaker 1: to take a more responsible position, he could not control
Speaker 1: his members. And we got into a situation at a
Speaker 1: critical time of the economy where we came with consumer confidence.
Speaker 1: We significantly hurt our economy. We had our first downgrade
Speaker 1: by a major credit agency. Ever, all of that as
Speaker 1: a self inflicted wound. We've already dealt with external shocks
Speaker 1: from the Arab spring to the Fukushima meltdown in Japan.
Speaker 1: This was a self inflicted and after that, I feel like,
Speaker 1: not just Joe Biden and Barack Obama, but I feel
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer, they all said we
Speaker 1: shouldn't go there. So we've had ten debt limit increases
Speaker 1: over twelve years, three of them were under President Trump.
Speaker 1: Nobody Democrats didn't do payback. They didn't say, okay, you
Speaker 1: either give us paid family leave or worked in a
Speaker 1: defaulty economy. So when so, yes, I don't think it's
Speaker 1: just we who have learned that lesson. I think every
Speaker 1: responsible economic leader in the public and private sector would say, go,
Speaker 1: have a strong negotiation. You know that you usually do. Uh.
Speaker 1: They control a house, they have leverage, we have the
Speaker 1: veto pen, we have leveraged. That's normal political democracy over budget.
Speaker 1: But what we're not doing is a negotiation in which
Speaker 1: people threatened to default the US economy if they don't
Speaker 1: get their way. And let me be clear, it's not
Speaker 1: right when Republicans do it for, you know, to try
Speaker 1: to jam in Medicare or Social Security cuts. That would
Speaker 1: be unpopular and it wouldn't be the right thing for
Speaker 1: progressives to do to try to promote any of their agenda.
Speaker 1: Nobody should threatened that the United States full faith and
Speaker 1: credit as a bargaining ship in a negotiation. Well, Gene,
Speaker 1: it's in part because of that experience you have that
Speaker 1: your name keeps popping up on the Bloomberg terminal here
Speaker 1: that that you're on a shortlist they say, to possibly
Speaker 1: replace Brian Deese as head of the National Economic Council.
Speaker 1: You're the only person who have ever held that job twice.
Speaker 1: Would you do it again? Um? You know. One of
Speaker 1: the reasons that I've been able to be in three
Speaker 1: different White Houses that you learn never comment on any
Speaker 1: personnel question, so uh, you know better if you're asking,
Speaker 1: you'll respect me uh not not going there, And truthfully,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't do that. I wouldn't go there on a
Speaker 1: question about any job or or anyone. It's the president
Speaker 1: and the president alone who speaks and makes those announcements.
Speaker 1: Many thanks for the insights, Jene Spirling, thanks for being
Speaker 1: back with us as ever on Bloomberg. Thank you so much,
Speaker 1: really appreciate it. So I'm not going near the NBC position,
Speaker 1: but he had a lot to say about the death ceiling,
Speaker 1: and as the standoff continues, I would point you to
Speaker 1: the breakfast Club. You've heard about this group of Republican
Speaker 1: senators in the breakfast club, they include Senator Ted Cruz. Well,
Speaker 1: they meet, I guess every Tuesday at breakfast, even though
Speaker 1: they don't eat breakfast. It's confusing but he says he
Speaker 1: knows how this is going to happen, not that we
Speaker 1: will never raise the death ceiling. It is not my
Speaker 1: position that we will never raise the debt ceiling. Rather,
Speaker 1: what the rules say is we will use the debt
Speaker 1: ceiling as leverage to force real and meaningful structural reforms
Speaker 1: to fix the underlying problem. Doesn't have to be a
Speaker 1: total solution for everything. Okay, so let's bring the panel
Speaker 1: in on this. Rick Davis and Jim Kessler, uh, Rick,
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz and and it seems like just about everybody
Speaker 1: seem to know how this is going to end. It's
Speaker 1: about using the time that we have here, I guess too,
Speaker 1: to try to enact some reforms. But it doesn't sound
Speaker 1: like Republicans, aside from some folks like Andy Biggs, actually
Speaker 1: see this going into default or want to see a default. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think this is where everybody agrees with the outcome,
Speaker 1: but nobody, I mean nobody agrees with how to get there. Uh.
Speaker 1: The White House has one point of view. I just
Speaker 1: want to clean debt ceiling. Uh. Moderates in the Republican
Speaker 1: Party are willing to look at different things to connect
Speaker 1: it to whether it's the GDP or the debt or inflation. Uh.
Speaker 1: Then there's others who want massive spending cuts in the
Speaker 1: domestic side in order to do the trade off with
Speaker 1: that UM. At some point in time, most of these
Speaker 1: things are gonna peel off and and you're gonna get
Speaker 1: down to some real horse trading. But I think it's
Speaker 1: just naive to think that you can't use anything in
Speaker 1: Washington as leveraged to get what you want. This is
Speaker 1: a town of leverage. Every issue has another side to it,
Speaker 1: and boats that you need for something else you're doing. So,
Speaker 1: I think the administration needs to join forces in the Senate,
Speaker 1: in the House uh to get something done. I think
Speaker 1: this idea of leaving it up to Kevin McCarthy is
Speaker 1: wrought with problems because on his own he hasn't proven
Speaker 1: it he can get much done unless it's on the
Speaker 1: sixteenth ballot. Wow, Jim, you know Senator Chuck Schumer as
Speaker 1: well as anyone he doesn't want Kevin McCarthy can figure
Speaker 1: this out. What role will the Senate actually play in
Speaker 1: crafting a deal if if they can in the end,
Speaker 1: on some day, Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, and Joe Biden
Speaker 1: will come up with something and Kevin McCarthy will have
Speaker 1: to eat it. And as for the Tuesday Club, I
Speaker 1: think the reason why they don't need breakfast is they
Speaker 1: don't trust each other. They think they one of them
Speaker 1: put poison in it. You don't believe that kind of
Speaker 1: a group, that is not real trustworthy. Just on on
Speaker 1: these structural changes such as security checks, Department of Defense
Speaker 1: interest on the day, federal pensions and veterans pensions. That's
Speaker 1: forty eight cents of every dollar that the federal government spends,
Speaker 1: and half of what's left is healthcare. Like, I don't
Speaker 1: know what these people are. They better put something on
Speaker 1: the table because you know, these structural changes are really
Speaker 1: going to mean something for people. Listen to Ran Paul.
Speaker 1: He's in the breakfast club, and he's got a solution
Speaker 1: for this whole thing to be fixed. He spoke at
Speaker 1: the same time Ted Crew a hundred billion dollar cut
Speaker 1: and free spending. We would balance our budget in just
Speaker 1: four years. This is amazing. We have an opportunity here.
Speaker 1: It could be done, but it would take compromise between
Speaker 1: both Paul parties. Republicans would have to give up the
Speaker 1: sacred cow that says we will never touch a dollar
Speaker 1: in military, and the Democrats would have to give up
Speaker 1: the sacred cow that they will never touch a dollar
Speaker 1: in welfare. I guess it's easy for him to say that, Rick,
Speaker 1: What is he right? Uh? Well, I mean, you know, certainly,
Speaker 1: and there's some component to that, right, you can always
Speaker 1: improve spending at the defense department. There is waste and
Speaker 1: fraud and abuse at the Defense Department and fifty billion
Speaker 1: dollars a lot of money, so you got to clean
Speaker 1: that up. And he's right about spending. Um. That being said,
Speaker 1: I mean, Rand Paul's a libertarian, right, he likes to
Speaker 1: go everybody's box, and it's just not a practical, practical
Speaker 1: approach when trying to solve a really important economic issue,
Speaker 1: you know, like that ceiling. So I think he's a
Speaker 1: gad fly on this issue. I mean, he's not actually
Speaker 1: proposing a specific outcome. He's basically saying, pox on all
Speaker 1: your houses, let's throw everything us And the reality is
Speaker 1: that that nobody's prepared to do that. So his voice
Speaker 1: is singular. I would say the Breakfast Club Keen Coming
Speaker 1: of Age movie, why in the world would you want
Speaker 1: to be associated with that? This is a great question
Speaker 1: with apologies to Richard Vernon, young man, you'll get the horns.
Speaker 1: That's right. Don't mess with the principle. This is Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Son On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. President Biden
Speaker 1: gets another letter. He gets a lot of letters, you know,
Speaker 1: this time about immigration, and not from Republicans. It's from Democrats,
Speaker 1: seventy seven of them criticizing the administration's policies but essentially
Speaker 1: restrict the asylum process at our southern border. Referring to
Speaker 1: the president's new policies we talked about when he rolled
Speaker 1: him out earlier this month before his trip to the
Speaker 1: summit in Mexico City, was that all this month? Wow?
Speaker 1: Among the seventies seven Democrats signing the letters some pretty
Speaker 1: big names, beginning with Congresswoman Alexandria Costio Quartet. Last year,
Speaker 1: President Biden promised to end Title forty two. Instead, he
Speaker 1: is now expanding restrictions on asylum seekers. She was joined
Speaker 1: at a news briefing outside the Capitol this morning by
Speaker 1: a couple other lawmakers on that list, including Senator Bob Menendez,
Speaker 1: the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Anyone who
Speaker 1: tells you that the only way to secure our border
Speaker 1: is to punish asylum seekers is lying. It's why we
Speaker 1: are appalled to see President Biden replicate President Trump's immigration strategy.
Speaker 1: As elected officials, we are duty bound to propose legal solutions,
Speaker 1: one that protects asylum seekers while also securing the safe
Speaker 1: removal of migrants who have no legal claim to stay
Speaker 1: in the United States. Let's sell the panel for more
Speaker 1: on this. Rick Davis is here, Republican strategist of course,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Politics contributed along with Jim Kessler, the co founder
Speaker 1: of Third Way Democratic strategist. Uh Jim, this is not
Speaker 1: looking great for the president. Is he losing his own
Speaker 1: party on this issue. We know republic are angry at
Speaker 1: him about immigration, but these were some pretty bold faced
Speaker 1: Democrats well on this issue. I think President Biden is
Speaker 1: wise to move to the center on this. I think
Speaker 1: that's where he always was in the debates. In he
Speaker 1: was the only one who raised his hand when he
Speaker 1: said that, you know, there should acrossing the border legally.
Speaker 1: Is is a criminal act. Voters, A lot of voters
Speaker 1: feel that Democrats are not paying attention to the border.
Speaker 1: I know there's seventy seven Democrats on that letter, but
Speaker 1: there are a lot more Democrats who were not on
Speaker 1: that letter as well. There does need to be some
Speaker 1: reform of asylum. I think the President is in the
Speaker 1: right place. Well, I'll tell you it's never easy here, Rick.
Speaker 1: We've talked about immigration policy a lot Title forty two,
Speaker 1: specifically recently, Democrats want Title forty two gone. They don't
Speaker 1: like the president's most recent move to restrict asylum. Republicans
Speaker 1: say he's destroyed the southern border. What's Joe Biden do here? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I would say some Democrats don't like his policy on
Speaker 1: Title forty two. There are there are some Democrats, including
Speaker 1: Kristen Cinema from a border state, who actually see some
Speaker 1: merit in the approach. So um, the reality is that
Speaker 1: I understand no. Well, yeah, she was when he put
Speaker 1: it into place. But the bottom line is that these
Speaker 1: are all patchwork. Um uh. Nobody's coming out with a
Speaker 1: workable solution of a comprehensive plan like have been passed
Speaker 1: in the Reagaan administration, offered in the Bush administration and
Speaker 1: promoted through John McCain's candascy for present, where we would
Speaker 1: actually address all the issues that are vexing our country
Speaker 1: around illegal immigration on the border, and until that's done,
Speaker 1: you're really only just putting a band aid on it.
Speaker 1: I would say the politics on this thing, I'm more
Speaker 1: optimistic than I was a year ago. UM you know. Uh.
Speaker 1: The aforementioned Senator Cinema, Independent from Arizona, UM, you know,
Speaker 1: has had very productive conversations with UH Senator Tillis, Republican
Speaker 1: from North Carolina at the end of the last session
Speaker 1: over a little bit more of a comprehensive bill on
Speaker 1: border security and and and has just come back from
Speaker 1: the border with another Republican, Senator Cornin from Texas, another
Speaker 1: border state where I mean, I think they're making some
Speaker 1: progress on coming up with ideas that can be some
Speaker 1: kind of a bridge between what the Biden administration is
Speaker 1: doing and what other issues need to be resolved. It's
Speaker 1: far from being comprehensive, but it's the first signs of
Speaker 1: bipartisanship on this issue that I've seen in a long time.
Speaker 1: Rick makes a great point there, Jim. That trip to
Speaker 1: the border, which was overshadowed by the president's summit in
Speaker 1: Mexico City, also included a Democrat from Delaware, guy named
Speaker 1: Chris Coons is pretty close to Joe Biden, so who
Speaker 1: was the audience for AOC Menendez, Corey Booker and others
Speaker 1: today at that briefing. Was it the president or they're
Speaker 1: just talking to people at home? Well, I think they
Speaker 1: are trying to talk to the president, but but they're
Speaker 1: also talking to the groups. You know, there are a
Speaker 1: lot of immigration advocacy groups. Some of them are taking,
Speaker 1: you know, a pretty left wing position on this, not
Speaker 1: all of them, And you know that I do think
Speaker 1: that in the end, I agree with Rick, there is
Speaker 1: a better chance of bipartisan action on immigration now than
Speaker 1: there has been in a while. You know, there are
Speaker 1: some promising talks, but there's gonna be somebody's going to
Speaker 1: be unhappy on the left and somebody's going to be
Speaker 1: unhappy on on the right if if something gets done,
Speaker 1: and something desperately needs to get done, are there numbers
Speaker 1: for this in the House? Rick, you take the twenty
Speaker 1: maybe away who wanted to block Speaker Kevin McCarthy in
Speaker 1: his fifteen rounds or whatever. We got to uh that
Speaker 1: they're not going to sign onto any kind of compromise
Speaker 1: here on the boarder that involves Democrats. How do you
Speaker 1: get a bipartisan bill a comprey hands of Bille through
Speaker 1: this House. Yeah, well, as Jim says, you're never gonna
Speaker 1: make everybody happy with this, and so you've got in
Speaker 1: this case. I mean, I can't imagine a scenario where
Speaker 1: you're not gonna have to have, you know, Republicans and
Speaker 1: Democrats in the House voting on the same built together.
Speaker 1: I know that's heresy these days, because it's either all
Speaker 1: Republicans voting against something or voting for it, and vice versa.
Speaker 1: And and yet I do think there are enough people
Speaker 1: who are sick and tired of this issue and realize
Speaker 1: the US is the loser on this by not doing
Speaker 1: anything about it, and and and and it may be
Speaker 1: the time where people are willing to cross the aisle
Speaker 1: on both sides and say, you know what, we can't
Speaker 1: go into the election cycle in four with another year
Speaker 1: where we're just going to beat each other up over
Speaker 1: immigration and get nothing done for the country. Where's Chuck
Speaker 1: Schumer on this, Jim, your former bosson colleague. Can he
Speaker 1: get the menendez Is and the Bookers on board with
Speaker 1: something comprehensive. You know, he has been involved in immigration
Speaker 1: comprom mises in the past, and a bill you know,
Speaker 1: passed the Senate, and it looked like it was going
Speaker 1: to pass the House until Eric Cantor, the Republican Um
Speaker 1: majority leader, lost his primary and and and the bill
Speaker 1: got shelved. I do believe, you know, he would like
Speaker 1: to see a compromise agreement there and if something comes together,
Speaker 1: you know, Look, he had blessed what Kirsten Cinema was
Speaker 1: doing with Tom Tillis, and I think that's an indication
Speaker 1: of where he is. He wants to see something happen.
Speaker 1: The fact that it's quiet, that group is quiet Rick
Speaker 1: is encouraging, isn't it. It is because this is a
Speaker 1: harder one to prosecute in the open right. I mean,
Speaker 1: as as Jim made mention, there are lots of outside groups,
Speaker 1: invested interests, they want to meddle in this, and they all,
Speaker 1: you know, they all have their own point of view,
Speaker 1: and that's very hard to knit something together if you
Speaker 1: have to do it in public and in private. So
Speaker 1: I'm hopeful u uh. And I think the Biden administration
Speaker 1: is keeping their head down, not getting in the way
Speaker 1: of this. Uh. And by extending Title forty two, they
Speaker 1: bought time to let Congress work its will. So I
Speaker 1: do think that you know maybe this was just for show,
Speaker 1: uh these Democratic members, but it actually isn't productive, and
Speaker 1: so I think someone needs to go back to them
Speaker 1: and say, like, what are we doing to actually be
Speaker 1: productive with a solution rather than grandstandard. Rick and Jim
Speaker 1: final thoughts. Next, this is Bloomberg, So Nong with Joe
Speaker 1: Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. Bloomberg Sound Once brought to you
Speaker 1: by Innovation Refunds. This is your daily reminder here Innovation Refunds.
Speaker 1: Time to take advantage of the newly extended employee retention credit.
Speaker 1: Innovation Refunds has helped small and medium sized business is
Speaker 1: impacted by COVID claim over three billion dollars in refunds.
Speaker 1: Standing by to help your business get back the money
Speaker 1: it may be eligible to receive. Learn more at get
Speaker 1: refunds dot com. So if you don't already feel old,
Speaker 1: I'm going to help you out right now. It was
Speaker 1: twenty five years ago today, a quarter of a century,
Speaker 1: when the President of the United States said this to
Speaker 1: the American people. Now, I have to go back to
Speaker 1: work on my State of the Union speech, and I
Speaker 1: worked on until pretty late last night, but I want
Speaker 1: to say one thing to the American people. I want
Speaker 1: you to listen to me. I'm gonna say this again.
Speaker 1: I did not have sexual relations for that woman, Miss Lewinsky.
Speaker 1: I never told anybody to lie, not a single time never.
Speaker 1: These allegations are false, and I need to go back
Speaker 1: to work for the American people. Thank you, friendly Crows.
Speaker 1: It was not for another seven months the nation watched
Speaker 1: as President Bill Clinton spoke to them again in a
Speaker 1: deposition in January, I was asked questions about my relationship
Speaker 1: with Monica Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, I
Speaker 1: did not volunteer information. Indeed, I did have a relationship
Speaker 1: with Ms. Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it
Speaker 1: was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and
Speaker 1: a personal failure on my part, for which I am
Speaker 1: solely and completely responsible. This, of course, all broke out
Speaker 1: with the help of then Independent Council of the Late
Speaker 1: Ken's Star and a little help from Matt Drudge helps
Speaker 1: to redefine the idea of an independent council. Now Here
Speaker 1: we have another sitting president being investigated by a special counsel,
Speaker 1: and the most previous president also under investigation by a
Speaker 1: special counsel. Some thoughts from our panel on this. Jim
Speaker 1: Kessler and Rick Davis are with us. Rick, when you
Speaker 1: look back on this twenty five years ago, my goodness.
Speaker 1: First of all, an incredible period of time has passed
Speaker 1: as we sort of figure out exactly what happened and
Speaker 1: whether it was worth it. How does it inform our
Speaker 1: idea of an independent council or a special council with
Speaker 1: what's happening now today. Well, I think the Star investigation
Speaker 1: was a precursor to what we've seen since then, and
Speaker 1: that was high profile, uh prosecuted in the open, lots
Speaker 1: of leagues, lots of information floating around, and then no
Speaker 1: real outcome, right, two years of taxpayer dollars spent investigating
Speaker 1: this issue and and nothing really happened. Subsequent to that,
Speaker 1: we've seen other special councils who have chewed up two
Speaker 1: years or more in an investigation and nothing really happened.
Speaker 1: So I'm hopeful that the Justice Department has learned its
Speaker 1: lessons through the last twenty five years, especially when investigating
Speaker 1: presidents or former presidents, and will not actually spend two
Speaker 1: years of a taxpayer money to come up with nothing,
Speaker 1: and and and and that doesn't mean you have to
Speaker 1: predetermine the outcome. You just have to predetermine how much
Speaker 1: money in time you're gonna be willing to expend on
Speaker 1: the taxpayers. I have to do, Jim Kestler, were the
Speaker 1: lessons of twenty five years ago prevent mission creep from
Speaker 1: these current investigations? I don't think so. Look, the first
Speaker 1: thing I want to say is we should all owe
Speaker 1: an apology to Monica Lewinsky, who was treated horribly during
Speaker 1: that period by the political system and the media and
Speaker 1: was blamed and she really wasn't her fault. So I
Speaker 1: just want to note that the years ago she was
Speaker 1: raped through the coals. Yeah, you're right. I also believe
Speaker 1: that in politics like there is a tip for tat,
Speaker 1: and you know, the Star investigation really was not legitimate
Speaker 1: in my viewpoint. But what it means is then there's
Speaker 1: gonna be another investigation, and then another investigation, and then
Speaker 1: another investigation. Here we are in twenty three with two
Speaker 1: simultaneous special counsels, which we had more time with Jim
Speaker 1: Kessler and Rick Davis. By the way, Monica Olinsky, writing
Speaker 1: this week in Vanity Fair twenty five years later, quote,
Speaker 1: as the years pass one's taste in partners gets better.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg.