Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane Jay Ley.
Speaker 1: We bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg. We
Speaker 1: are thrilled to bring you this morning. Diana fritchgot Roth,
Speaker 1: former Office of Policy Planning for George Herbert Walker Bush
Speaker 1: and now working with the Trump administration and Treasure You're
Speaker 1: working with Secretary Minution right now, right, and it's on
Speaker 1: economic policy. You have a span across Republican politics. I
Speaker 1: would suggest as no one truly does. There's some that
Speaker 1: did it, then, there's some that did it along the way,
Speaker 1: and there's some that are doing it now. But I
Speaker 1: would argue in Washington, nobody's spanned it like you. What's
Speaker 1: a difference between Treasury financial in the process of Republican
Speaker 1: politics and administration now versus under President Bush? Well. I
Speaker 1: started off with President Reagan in the Council of Economic Advisors,
Speaker 1: and it's been a great privilege to work under four administrations.
Speaker 1: President Reagan, President George H. W. Bush, President George W. Bush,
Speaker 1: and now President Trump. And we're here to talk about
Speaker 1: President George H. W. Bush. And he was a very
Speaker 1: kind man, as many people have said, and he did
Speaker 1: his best to cut the deficit and keep the economy going.
Speaker 1: And what was really interesting is that in what we
Speaker 1: were saying is that the economy was growing, but the
Speaker 1: National Bureau of Economic Research didn't mark the end of
Speaker 1: the recession, the end of the recession being in March
Speaker 1: until December. So in December nWo when President Bush said
Speaker 1: the economy had been growing all year, turned out he
Speaker 1: was right, it had been growing out right. Well, I'm
Speaker 1: not blaming what is so important here and this is
Speaker 1: in great and I say this is great spirit for
Speaker 1: the humor of the former president. We need a definition
Speaker 1: of voodoo economics, and you're the only one in the
Speaker 1: planet can really. I mean, Jim Baker can do it,
Speaker 1: and others can do it. But Diana first got Roth,
Speaker 1: what is voodoo economics? Just once and for all. Well,
Speaker 1: I don't know what voodoo economics is. But right now
Speaker 1: we have cut taxes and the economy is growing very strongly.
Speaker 1: We had great GDP numbers last month. The economy is
Speaker 1: growing above three right now, take your point, debate about
Speaker 1: the vector there. But this is important and this goes
Speaker 1: back to something that Michael McKee said to me. Yes
Speaker 1: and again, folks, Mike McKee will join me on radio
Speaker 1: here on Bloomberg Surveillance through the morning. I've thrown with that.
Speaker 1: And what's so interesting here is the lessons we learned
Speaker 1: about cutting taxes to spur growth and maintain fiscal integrity.
Speaker 1: That was something important to President Bush, important to President Reagan.
Speaker 1: There was an experiment then, and under President Trump's leadership,
Speaker 1: there's an experiment. Now. How's the experiment going? Can we
Speaker 1: really grow our way out of a fiscal challenge? The
Speaker 1: difference between twenty sixteen and the economy now in seventeen
Speaker 1: and eighteen is remarkable. People thought that the economy could
Speaker 1: not grow at higher than two percent, and it's on
Speaker 1: track to grow at higher than three percent this year.
Speaker 1: Business investment sword consumer confidence. Business confidence are up, business
Speaker 1: investment increased. Okay, I'll take your point, Diana. But what
Speaker 1: is so important here is to understand that idea of
Speaker 1: a twin deficit. My chart of the year is that
Speaker 1: linkage of trade deficits something dear to President Trump, and
Speaker 1: also the linkage of our fiscal deficit and the vector
Speaker 1: of that is getting back to the time of when
Speaker 1: you were very young of Reagan and Bush Senior. Do
Speaker 1: we have a risk here of twin deficits into or
Speaker 1: frankly beyond. It's up to Congress to put in place
Speaker 1: proposals to cut spending, to cut the spending. And President
Speaker 1: Trump proposed cutting spending. President George H. W. Bush proposed
Speaker 1: cutting spending, and it's up to Congress to follow and
Speaker 1: make those spending cuts that presidents propose. Presidents propose, but
Speaker 1: Congress has to in the last uh, Congress is responsible
Speaker 1: for how much you spent. No, this is interesting, Diana
Speaker 1: first got Roth, thank you so much joining us right
Speaker 1: now in Washington to begin a discussion on this is
Speaker 1: the right gentleman, and that as you know, since November
Speaker 1: on the death of George Bush, there's been all sorts
Speaker 1: of worthy speak he isn't worthy in the communications of
Speaker 1: the Republican Party. Run bun Jen has had a most interesting,
Speaker 1: interesting career managing the message of Republicans. He's reached huge
Speaker 1: acclaim for that, frankly by Democrats as well, and we're
Speaker 1: thrilled at run bu Jeen can join us this morning, Ron,
Speaker 1: What was your biggest challenge of communication for Republicans. Well, thanks,
Speaker 1: it's great to hear you know, I would say that,
Speaker 1: you know, the biggest challenges are getting the message out
Speaker 1: in a consistent way, and that that is very challenging
Speaker 1: when you have all kinds of elected officials in republic
Speaker 1: Looking party who want to communicate different things, Getting them
Speaker 1: unfocused on a single message to say the same things
Speaker 1: at the same time can be very very difficult, and
Speaker 1: especially in today's age. Obviously you have the President Trump
Speaker 1: uh communicating via Twitter and really driving that driving that
Speaker 1: message the way he wants to. And I think there's
Speaker 1: a lot of Republicans that are are are figuring out
Speaker 1: the direction of the Republican Party after after the election,
Speaker 1: after the election, and the direction. Do you just assume
Speaker 1: that President Trump runs for a second term? Is that
Speaker 1: just a given? Yes? I think he runs for a
Speaker 1: second term, and I think he's going to give Democrats
Speaker 1: a run for their money. You know, if Joe Biden runs,
Speaker 1: he's really the only relatable, I think candidate at this
Speaker 1: point to Americans that could really uh that could really
Speaker 1: give a good be a good sparring partner versus h
Speaker 1: versus President Trump. And he's just a master of message
Speaker 1: in terms of activating people and getting people riled up
Speaker 1: and getting you know, harnessing that anger that's out there.
Speaker 1: And I feel like there are so many Democrats right
Speaker 1: now are running that they're going to dilute their own mess.
Speaker 1: You were directly involved in the process and processes of
Speaker 1: the last election. At the Rotunda today and and yesterday
Speaker 1: and at the National Cathedral today there will not only
Speaker 1: be the remains of the forty one president, his son,
Speaker 1: the President with Mrs Bush yesterday. Some of those images
Speaker 1: were wonderful, but also Jeb Bush, which is maybe the
Speaker 1: more modern Bush and certainly the one that run Bungen
Speaker 1: has bounced off of the most in recent years. Can
Speaker 1: jet Bushes still run in the Republican Party? I think
Speaker 1: more along the lines of UM on the local level,
Speaker 1: potentially the state level. There are still opportunities out there,
Speaker 1: you know, for for those voices UM. You know, there
Speaker 1: is a polarization in politics, obviously on the left, and
Speaker 1: the polarization and with even the Republican experiment. I would
Speaker 1: say it's you know, I I would agree with that,
Speaker 1: and I think that's going on in the Democratic party too.
Speaker 1: You have this polarization on both sides. Um, that's that's
Speaker 1: really pulling people to the left and right. There are
Speaker 1: still opportunities in those moderate suburbs. Um that Republicans lost
Speaker 1: um as a referendum on President Trump, UM to a
Speaker 1: lack more moderate voices. I think in the future, and uh,
Speaker 1: you know, I think that the Republican Party still remain strong.
Speaker 1: We still have the White House, we still have the Senate.
Speaker 1: We grew our numbers in the Senate, but as you
Speaker 1: mentioned earlier to me, you've got to take back some
Speaker 1: of the losses. Where does that strategy come from? I'm
Speaker 1: fascinated within what I think all of our listeners, whatever
Speaker 1: their politics, they observe the president of the presidential tweets,
Speaker 1: the conferences, the gaggle around the helicopters he dashes. Forget
Speaker 1: about that communication strategy. There's got to be a communication
Speaker 1: strategy for Republicans to get away from his core constituency.
Speaker 1: Does that strategy exist or where where's the colonel that's
Speaker 1: not in the lunch room at the Hey Adams Hotel.
Speaker 1: Is Well, no, it's not. I mean, it's core constituency
Speaker 1: is though of voters right now? So you have to
Speaker 1: figure out where can you get the other the margin,
Speaker 1: where do you get the next that's your world, That's
Speaker 1: exactly that's our world, and we have to figure that out.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that there is a number of
Speaker 1: things we should be doing. We need to be appealing
Speaker 1: much more to women, to white female voters, to to frankly,
Speaker 1: be much more inclusive um in in our messaging. And
Speaker 1: that has to happen at a consistent basis. Right now,
Speaker 1: what we're doing and what the Democrats are doing is primary,
Speaker 1: is driving messages. It feels like we're both both sides
Speaker 1: are running primary elections right now instead of the general,
Speaker 1: and the general election feels like it doesn't really exist,
Speaker 1: meaning that we're driving messages and either side to motivate
Speaker 1: our voters to the polls to try to outprimary each other. Okay,
Speaker 1: I love that phrase. That's a round bonding original out
Speaker 1: primary each other. Guess what after that? You got elected enough,
Speaker 1: for example, Ronald Reagan and I would suggest President Bush.
Speaker 1: Maybe they went right, but they moved to the center
Speaker 1: as they moved to the general election. I'm right, those
Speaker 1: days are over right, Well, we'll see. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: every election is different. I mean, you know, when um,
Speaker 1: uh President Bush lost to Bill Clinton. Uh, it was
Speaker 1: over the economy, um, and it was over whether or
Speaker 1: not President Bush could relate to relate to uh, relate
Speaker 1: to Americans. And you started feeling out of touch. And
Speaker 1: the President Clinton took advantage of that, and they called
Speaker 1: it it's it's what is it? It's the economy stupid?
Speaker 1: Was the was the line. And so I think, you know,
Speaker 1: and within a year or two, I mean, within a year,
Speaker 1: we have to start a consistent message that is much
Speaker 1: more appealing or else it's going to be just another
Speaker 1: primary election. Well it's just another primary election and just
Speaker 1: another primary process. But the process is time is different
Speaker 1: from K Street and Ice Street and the other you know,
Speaker 1: the secret dark corridors out by Reagan Airport. There's offices
Speaker 1: of Republicans trying to figure out the primary system inform
Speaker 1: our audience. How does that that ballet start and why
Speaker 1: is it different from the last time around? What I've
Speaker 1: learned as New Hampshire is not as important as it
Speaker 1: used to be. I think that this that's right. I
Speaker 1: think um that you know, we start out with with
Speaker 1: a slight advantage in Ohio and Florida because we have
Speaker 1: Republican governorships there. You know, we just won a very
Speaker 1: divisive election in Florida. That means we have the infrastructure
Speaker 1: of that state party apparatus to help us with those
Speaker 1: primaries for that primary system. But the primary states are changing, Um,
Speaker 1: you know, we have we have states like North Carolina
Speaker 1: that's that feels like it's changing. Um, you know, other
Speaker 1: states like Arizona for instance. That's obviously okay if if
Speaker 1: North Carolina discovers Connor Lamb's plural the gentleman from northwest
Speaker 1: north southwest rather of Pittsburgh, those kind of Democrats. Republicans
Speaker 1: have to be different, don't they. You know, I think
Speaker 1: of Austin Powers in that movie Behave. Republicans have to
Speaker 1: behave if they're up against a more traditional Scoop Jackson Democrats.
Speaker 1: I think it really depends on each district, in each message,
Speaker 1: you know, and and the candidates themselves, um, you know,
Speaker 1: and what what's going on in that state and district.
Speaker 1: I mean that that's the thing now right now, it's
Speaker 1: a it's a referendum on President Trump, and it will
Speaker 1: be a presidential election. But on the local level, they're
Speaker 1: going to have to continue to to um to keep
Speaker 1: the Trump based enthusiastic while trying to reach out to
Speaker 1: other voters. And that's a difficult needle to thread. Run Bundie,
Speaker 1: Let's leave it there. Thank you so much, greatly appreciate
Speaker 1: the perspective here of a gentleman in communications for the
Speaker 1: Republican Ron Bundin. Thank you, so thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Uh this morning I said to someone a few days ago,
Speaker 1: would you just find the admiral? And of course at
Speaker 1: Bloomberg surveillance there can be only one admiral, and that
Speaker 1: is James Travidez. Of course with a Fletcher School at
Speaker 1: Tufts University. Admiral, we are thrilled to have you with
Speaker 1: us today. UM. I was reading about Admiral the Grumming
Speaker 1: torpedo bomber of World War Two and the basic aeronautics
Speaker 1: of what President Bush flew was It drove like a truck.
Speaker 1: I mean it was a little different back then, wasn't
Speaker 1: it It was? And this is all we say fly
Speaker 1: by wire. I mean this is nothing electronic obviously, just
Speaker 1: some basic hydraulics. Truck is a good example. It's like
Speaker 1: a truck made by the Soviet Union. I mean, this
Speaker 1: thing just banged through the air. He was so proud
Speaker 1: of it and was such an extraordinary naval hero and
Speaker 1: we all miss him so deeply. I knew him reasonably well,
Speaker 1: wrote some speeches for him over the years, and Tom
Speaker 1: when I was the Supreme AI Commander of NATO, he
Speaker 1: was one of the biggest supporters of NATO. We're going
Speaker 1: to miss that, gentleman. Well, that is there. I mean,
Speaker 1: we got eight ways to go now, Michael mckeena jump in.
Speaker 1: But but this is so important. We saw it with
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg interview with Mr Porschenko yesterday on Ukraine John
Speaker 1: Mersheimer Chicago talking about maybe we overreached? Did President Bush
Speaker 1: ever suggested his writings are directly to you, Admiral, that
Speaker 1: maybe we overreached too much in our expansion of NATO. Nope,
Speaker 1: he was someone who was rock solid on that. Of
Speaker 1: course he lived those years. Uh. And also we need
Speaker 1: to mention still living the Secretary of State in those days,
Speaker 1: James Baker, who be featured prominently in the funeral today
Speaker 1: you'll see his face often. He was one of Bush
Speaker 1: His closest friends. The two of them really created this
Speaker 1: new world. And I think despite all the concern and
Speaker 1: claim that perhaps we pushed Russia into a corner. I
Speaker 1: just don't see it that way. Historically, no NATO tanks
Speaker 1: tom ever went rolling into Warsaw or Bucharest to force
Speaker 1: those countries to join NATO. But there were plenty of
Speaker 1: Soviet tanks back in the day that rolled in there.
Speaker 1: Those nations wanted to be in NATO were lucky they're
Speaker 1: in NATO. One of the things that he is known for,
Speaker 1: if you are a nerd enough looking at these things,
Speaker 1: is the way he redesigned the National Security Council and
Speaker 1: set up Brent Skokroft as a sort of honest broker. Uh.
Speaker 1: You remember in the Nixon years, before that happened, you
Speaker 1: had the big fights between the Henry kissing your faction
Speaker 1: and whoever was at State at the time, at George
Speaker 1: Schultz in the Reagan administration, UM, that really made a difference.
Speaker 1: He had a George H. W. Bush came to office
Speaker 1: with a specific idea of how foreign policy should be run.
Speaker 1: He did and the way he did foreign policy and
Speaker 1: defense policy and international diplomacy were a direct reflection of
Speaker 1: his character, which focused on team building. Uh. You know,
Speaker 1: as he would say, there's no eye in the word
Speaker 1: team t E a M. And it was a reflection
Speaker 1: of his own athleticism coming and playing on great baseball teams,
Speaker 1: and his personality and the way he was raised. And
Speaker 1: he wanted a Lieutenant General Brent scot Croft to be
Speaker 1: the National Security Advisor because Brent, who's still alive in
Speaker 1: his nineties, marvelous gentleman. UH was the embodiment of no
Speaker 1: one of us is as smart as all of us
Speaker 1: thinking together. That was the hard of the NSC under
Speaker 1: President Bush the first and it was well run. Did
Speaker 1: he leave it in as good as shape as he founded?
Speaker 1: A President Bill Clinton's first term not particularly successful from
Speaker 1: a foreign policy standpoint, And then you had a lot
Speaker 1: of the former Bush one forty one alumni end up
Speaker 1: in Bush forty three's cabinet, and people are looking at,
Speaker 1: you know, the legacy of George W. Bush in the
Speaker 1: Middle East and wondering how did how do we go wrong?
Speaker 1: From father to son. Part of it can be explained
Speaker 1: by nine eleven and the extraordinary pressure that put on
Speaker 1: that administration, UH, the Bush forty three administration. Part of
Speaker 1: it was personalities. Um I was at the time working
Speaker 1: directly for Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld strong personality, Vice
Speaker 1: President Dick Janey's strong personality, National Security Advisor Condi Rice,
Speaker 1: who I think tried very much to followed the sccroft model.
Speaker 1: But in those years, those were big personality. We were
Speaker 1: in a war, and I think it was a very
Speaker 1: different time for the nation. So if you want to
Speaker 1: look for a model, it is definitely Bushart one. If
Speaker 1: you're just joining us. James Trevidus with us, he is,
Speaker 1: of course with a Fletcher School, former Admiral of the
Speaker 1: United States Navy on the special day for Bloomberg Surveillance.
Speaker 1: Our coverage from Washington and from New York, this day
Speaker 1: of memory and services at the National Cathedral for George
Speaker 1: Herbert Walker Bush. Mike, your questions are so good and
Speaker 1: so well informed. I want you to continue with the Admiral, Michael,
Speaker 1: pick it up again. Please let me as long as
Speaker 1: we have you here and we have an admiral, let
Speaker 1: me just ask you something about what's going on today.
Speaker 1: The whole US China trade issue gets caught up in
Speaker 1: the larger U S. China relationship, and we saw and
Speaker 1: this didn't get a lot of publicity, but during the
Speaker 1: g twenty summit Argentina, the US sent a destroyer through
Speaker 1: the South China Sea into territory. China is claiming how
Speaker 1: dangerous is that situation? How how much of a conflict
Speaker 1: do we really have with the Chinese over this? Because
Speaker 1: people are talking about, well, if if Trump fails whatever,
Speaker 1: we can have a new Cold War. Is that what
Speaker 1: we're facing the kind of thing we went through with
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union? Or is it a different kind of challenge.
Speaker 1: I think it'll end up ultimately being a different kind
Speaker 1: of challenge, Michael, but Um, we have tactical challenges with
Speaker 1: China in tariffs, trade, intellectual property, cyber conflict. Those are
Speaker 1: things I think we can negotiate our way through, and
Speaker 1: I think we will. The one I worry about is
Speaker 1: the uber strategic challenge is in fact, the South China
Speaker 1: Sea enormous body of water size of the Caribbean and
Speaker 1: Gulf of Mexico combined, full of hydrocarbons. China claims it
Speaker 1: in its entirety as territorial sea. It's a posterous claim.
Speaker 1: The United States and our allies are pushing back on it,
Speaker 1: not only in international courts where it's been rejected, but
Speaker 1: also operationally your point, driving our ships right through these
Speaker 1: claim territorial sees. I think that's gonna be a tough
Speaker 1: one to negotiate, but no, in the end, I think
Speaker 1: we'll find a way to avoid stumbling into a full
Speaker 1: blown cold war. I've got about five more minutes of
Speaker 1: good questions on Robert Caplan's Asia Cauldron, but we'll have
Speaker 1: to leave it there with a good admiral at Mr Venus,
Speaker 1: we are thrilled that you are with us today. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much. He is a tough university and there
Speaker 1: Fletcher School as well. Michael McKee with me. This is
Speaker 1: Tom Keene and Washington, Michael McKee and New York on
Speaker 1: this most special day for the nation morning for the
Speaker 1: memory and services of George Herbert Walker Bush with us,
Speaker 1: not William Hoagland. Bill Hoglan, who is truly one of
Speaker 1: the nation's experts on our debt and deficit with the
Speaker 1: Bipartisan at Council. Bill Hoagland. Um, we go back to
Speaker 1: Henry Clay in eighteen fifty two, and then with the
Speaker 1: finishing of the Capitol in eighteen sixty and eighteen sixty eight,
Speaker 1: Abraham Lincoln and Thaddya Stevens and on to President Reagan.
Speaker 1: President for John McCain on August thirty one of this year,
Speaker 1: and now another president lying in state in the rotunda.
Speaker 1: You visited the rotunda two days ago, and you had
Speaker 1: the privilege of visiting in the quiet early morning. What
Speaker 1: was it like being in the rotunda? Very moving, calm. I.
Speaker 1: Of course, it's spent many years in the Capitol, I
Speaker 1: worked in the Senate, I spent many a day walking
Speaker 1: through the rotunda. But to visit the rotunda with the
Speaker 1: president lying in state, uh and in the quiet of
Speaker 1: that early morning hour, um is was brought back a
Speaker 1: lot of memories in my affection for the for the president,
Speaker 1: overcome me peas honest John meetscham Will you eulogize today?
Speaker 1: Of course, his one volume is considered definitive tell Us
Speaker 1: of the Fiscal George H. W. Bush, I think it's
Speaker 1: a bit of a mystery and a bit of confusion
Speaker 1: over what is fiscal beliefs really were? Well, I do
Speaker 1: think that clearly uh uh. The when he came into
Speaker 1: office to get the nomination, there was some concern that
Speaker 1: this was a liberal Republican, Eastern State Republican who was
Speaker 1: not to be trusted on some of the conservative issues
Speaker 1: of control and not raising taxes. And so of course
Speaker 1: his big his statement down in New Orleans and on
Speaker 1: the getting the nomination read my lips came back to
Speaker 1: haunt him because when we went into the we had
Speaker 1: a number of issues facing as we had savings and
Speaker 1: loan meltdown, We had a number of problems that Congress
Speaker 1: is being controlled by Democrats, and we negotiated a budget agreement.
Speaker 1: In it was a budget agreement that did required the
Speaker 1: negotiations and compromise, and in that compromise UH taxes were raised,
Speaker 1: but it was a five billion dollar deficit reduction. He did.
Speaker 1: He was concerned and his staff were concerned about the deficits.
Speaker 1: They would have preferred to have controlled it on the
Speaker 1: spending side, but we were working with a Democratic Congress
Speaker 1: and so he had to negotiate. UM I had the
Speaker 1: privilege and honor of attending the twenty fifth anniversary of
Speaker 1: the President at his library and in college station back
Speaker 1: in April. Um As I was getting ready to go
Speaker 1: onto the stage, the President and came up behind me
Speaker 1: and his wheelchair and pulled me on my UM shirt
Speaker 1: TI or my coach Kai and said to me something
Speaker 1: about how I was responsible for him being a one
Speaker 1: term president, because that negociated to how much of course
Speaker 1: he was kidding he was He was wonderful and working
Speaker 1: with the staff. And I will always remember that last
Speaker 1: direct encounter I had with the president. It. Uh, it's
Speaker 1: quaint to remember now that Uh, in fiscal nineteen ninety,
Speaker 1: the year that you put together this agreement of the
Speaker 1: federal budget, deficit was two dollars and it's going to
Speaker 1: be this year at trillion dollars, and and everybody was
Speaker 1: panicked about two hundred and twenty one billion dollars. Uh.
Speaker 1: Things seemed to have changed. It was, I guess to
Speaker 1: get back kind of at what Tom was saying. Uh.
Speaker 1: When he ran for president in nineteen eighty, he derided
Speaker 1: the idea of tax cuts paying for themselves as voodoo economics,
Speaker 1: and he said, you know, read my lips, no new taxes.
Speaker 1: But he agreed rather readily to revenue enhancers. As the
Speaker 1: statement that they put out at the time said, um,
Speaker 1: what what did he really think about deficit spending and taxes?
Speaker 1: This was before the whole Republican tax pledge, and that's right. Thing. Well,
Speaker 1: one thing I would say was that like that he
Speaker 1: that that agreement was the beginning. Of course, yes he
Speaker 1: lost his loss that his term of office at one
Speaker 1: term office, but with but with Clinton coming in, there
Speaker 1: was a agreement which is trictly a partisan agreement on
Speaker 1: the Democratic side, which and then there was a nine agreement.
Speaker 1: Uh and I would argue, and the agreement brought us
Speaker 1: to a balanced budget, which I had on our working
Speaker 1: on it. I do think that he did start at that,
Speaker 1: even though it was a cost him, cost him his
Speaker 1: job as a one term president, he did start the
Speaker 1: process of really focusing in the subsequent to the seven agreement.
Speaker 1: After we reached balanced budget, then things kind of went
Speaker 1: to went in the wrong direction. But I think I
Speaker 1: think he was pragmatic about deficits. I think he believed
Speaker 1: deficits mattered. I believe that he thought that they should
Speaker 1: be controlled. I believe his focus was primarily on the
Speaker 1: spending side, but overall he was pragmatic and knowing that
Speaker 1: to reach that agreement, to try to reduce those deficits,
Speaker 1: we had to focus not just on the spending side,
Speaker 1: we had to focus on revenues. To excuse me, Bill
Speaker 1: Bill Hogdon with us with a bipartisan Council can't say
Speaker 1: enough about his abilities on the debt and the deficits bill.
Speaker 1: Can I ask the dumb question of the day, is
Speaker 1: there any question? Is there any evidence we can actually
Speaker 1: quote unquote cut spending? UM? Well, I think there, I
Speaker 1: thought one pest to say, yes, there has to be
Speaker 1: some hope here that we can look at the UH
Speaker 1: four trillion dollars at the federal government spends and surely
Speaker 1: we can find areas within that that we can control. UH.
Speaker 1: I do think we have to focus on those programs
Speaker 1: that are the most most difficult politically, and that are
Speaker 1: the entitlement programs, whether it be so SECAREDY or Medicare
Speaker 1: medic it those are not politically popular UH programs to address.
Speaker 1: In fact, our current president and said they were off
Speaker 1: the table. I don't know how we can control deficits
Speaker 1: long term on the spending if we don't realize that
Speaker 1: we have to focus on on those programs are manager
Speaker 1: for the future. At the same time, I think that
Speaker 1: coming back to the President George Bush, George Bush, I
Speaker 1: do think that he felt that you had to have
Speaker 1: a compromise here in a democratic system with UH and
Speaker 1: that meant that you had to focus not just on
Speaker 1: the spending side. We had to focus on revenues. If
Speaker 1: you do both together, I think then you have more
Speaker 1: likelihood of getting agreement to do the spending side. Um, politicians,
Speaker 1: if not smarter, more aware of euphemism. So the idea
Speaker 1: of campaigning for revenue enhancement is probably off the table.
Speaker 1: But I'm wondering. You know, you're we're gonna see if
Speaker 1: the deficit keeps going up. Uh, We're gonna see somebody
Speaker 1: trying to campaign on bringing down the deficit. But how
Speaker 1: do they do that? And I'm wondering in two thousand twenty, um,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is going to want to campaign on the
Speaker 1: idea of rolling back his tax cuts. So how how
Speaker 1: do you how do you make the case now because
Speaker 1: we're not seeing bond yells get out of control because
Speaker 1: of the deficite. Well, again, I think there are two
Speaker 1: things that hapnic Leon Panetta when he was leaving office,
Speaker 1: and there are two ways to control the deficit. One
Speaker 1: was through a crisis and the other was through leadership.
Speaker 1: And unfortunately I don't see the leadership in at either.
Speaker 1: Into Pennsylvania Avenue. I said that with respect to vote,
Speaker 1: and so I'm afraid that at some point there that
Speaker 1: there might be a crisis, and then that crisis comes
Speaker 1: with that will force their attention to deal with this
Speaker 1: and a serious pamer that they're not dealing with now.
Speaker 1: William Holden, thank you so much for being with us
Speaker 1: today's senior Vice president the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington.
Speaker 1: Were just wonderful perspective there on the reach of the
Speaker 1: state of our fiscal economics from the time of President
Speaker 1: Bush two of the president as well. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform you prefer.
Speaker 1: I'm on Twitter at Tom Keane before the podcast. You
Speaker 1: can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio.