Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg Sound on
Speaker 1: the question that we have for Kevin McCarthy, who seemed
Speaker 1: to be Speaker McCarthy, what is what is his plan?
Speaker 1: I want to be clear, this is an investigation of
Speaker 1: Joe Biden and that's where the committee will focus in
Speaker 1: this next carbon. I don't always agree with the Biden administration.
Speaker 1: I've been very vocal about that, but this is a
Speaker 1: step in the right direction. Bloomberg Sound on Politics, Policy
Speaker 1: and perspective from DC's top names. I would not say
Speaker 1: we're out of the woods yet, but I am cautiously
Speaker 1: optimistic about this week being off to a good start.
Speaker 1: This has to be boring, boring, boring for these kids
Speaker 1: to standing up here. You're allowed to do anyone, including
Speaker 1: ghost till a pump Bloomberg Sound on with Joe Matthew
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Radio. Republicans will take control of the House,
Speaker 1: we know that, but Kevin McCarthy has yet to seal
Speaker 1: the speakership. Welcome to the fastest hour in politics, as
Speaker 1: the new majority in the House selects leaders and crafts
Speaker 1: and agenda, along with a lot of investigations, were joined
Speaker 1: by a member of the Caucus tonight, Congresswoman Nancy Mace,
Speaker 1: Republican from South Carolina, just reelected with a lot to
Speaker 1: say later new calls on Congress to stop a possible
Speaker 1: rail strike from happening just in time for Christmas. We'll
Speaker 1: have the latest with Art Wheaton of Cornell University School
Speaker 1: of Industrial and Labor Relations. Figure out the sticking points
Speaker 1: here analysis from our panel Gene Chanzano, Bloomberg Politics contributor
Speaker 1: and Democratic analysts, along with Republican strategist Lester Months and
Speaker 1: from b GR Group. There was a breaker late today
Speaker 1: news from the Supreme Court that we should hit right
Speaker 1: off the top, clearing the way for a House committee.
Speaker 1: This is the Ways and Means Committee to get six
Speaker 1: years of Donald Trump's tax returns. Pretty interesting here, without
Speaker 1: explanation or any public dissents, the Court rejecting the former
Speaker 1: president's bid to block the I R S from turning
Speaker 1: over the documents. This goes back a couple of years now.
Speaker 1: House Ways Means, of course, pressed with why do you
Speaker 1: need these tax returns? They say it's in the name
Speaker 1: of legislation, which it needs to be in this case
Speaker 1: for a Congressional committee. I have some craft legislation on
Speaker 1: there's presidential documents and accountability or something along those lines
Speaker 1: of lawyer representing the former president of Supreme Court did
Speaker 1: not immediately respond to emails requesting comment. But the timing
Speaker 1: here is important, of course, as the Republican majority prepares
Speaker 1: to take hold, the Trump legal team was asking that
Speaker 1: these remains sealed until the next Congress begins, and of
Speaker 1: course they wouldn't go very far at that point with
Speaker 1: a Republican led House Ways and Means Committee. We'll be
Speaker 1: talking about this with our panel. Genie Schanzana was with
Speaker 1: us today along with Lester Monthson of b g R Group,
Speaker 1: formerly a staff director the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As
Speaker 1: we get into some geopolitics here as well, and we're
Speaker 1: going to connect shortly with Congresswoman Nancy Mace, Republican from
Speaker 1: South Carolina, who joins us here on the verge the
Speaker 1: threshold of this new majority taking hold. That is a majority,
Speaker 1: of course, uh, that is promising some pretty heavy duty
Speaker 1: investigations into the Biden administration. And we heard about this
Speaker 1: from Representative James Comer, the Republican from Kentucky, the incoming
Speaker 1: House Oversight Committee chair. He shared a stage with Representative Mace,
Speaker 1: who's going to be again joining us in just a moment.
Speaker 1: Listened to the way he framed the plans for this
Speaker 1: committee starting in January. The Biden families business dealings implicate
Speaker 1: a wide range of criminality, from human trafficking to potential
Speaker 1: violations of the Constitution. In Congress, this committee will evaluate
Speaker 1: the status of Joe Biden's relationship with his family's foreign
Speaker 1: partners and whether he is a president who has compromised
Speaker 1: or swayed by foreign dollars and influence. I want to
Speaker 1: be clear, this is an investigation of Joe Biden, and
Speaker 1: that's where the committee will focus. In this next carvers
Speaker 1: pretty tough stuff, and of course Kevin McCarthy has his
Speaker 1: own plans as well, and he's gone down to the border,
Speaker 1: which we're hearing about today from both sides of the aisle,
Speaker 1: back to the southern border in the White House had
Speaker 1: plenty to say about that during the briefing today. We
Speaker 1: compare notes with Lester Months and again principle at government
Speaker 1: relations from b GR group, who is with us on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg sound on Lester, thanks for being here. Is as
Speaker 1: this new majority in the House comes together, how much
Speaker 1: of a third rail? Will these investigations be? You know,
Speaker 1: I was I was how staffer when the Republicans took
Speaker 1: over in nine five and launched about a dozen investigations
Speaker 1: into the Clinton administration. Some of them certainly were merited,
Speaker 1: some of them may be a little left. So the
Speaker 1: net effect of them was pretty marginal in terms of
Speaker 1: learning much about the clint administration and having any kind
Speaker 1: of salutory impact on public policy. So I would I
Speaker 1: think the Republicans here should should move with caution and
Speaker 1: a little bit of humility. I'm not saying there isn't
Speaker 1: something to look at. They should be looking at things
Speaker 1: that concern them. But I wouldn't put a lot of
Speaker 1: I wouldn't put a lot of my chips in this basket.
Speaker 1: And you know, interestingly, the line you here as well,
Speaker 1: we can walk and shoot gun at the same time.
Speaker 1: Oversight is part of the the responsibility and duty here
Speaker 1: of the congressional branch, especially the House. We we planned
Speaker 1: to do our duty. Yeah, but you get into a
Speaker 1: fever pretty quickly, as as folks may have noticed in
Speaker 1: politics in our country in the last few years, and
Speaker 1: you tend to only be able to focus on a
Speaker 1: certain number of things. I think far better for Congressional
Speaker 1: Republicans to offer an alternative vision on policy, an approach
Speaker 1: than the Biden administration. The Bid administrations had trouble on
Speaker 1: a number of key issues, crime, the border, the economy. Goodness, gracious,
Speaker 1: I would I would be much more optimistic about about
Speaker 1: an agenda that included positive suggestions on how to solve
Speaker 1: these really deep problems we have in our society instead
Speaker 1: of focusing on this kind of gotcha hearings and that
Speaker 1: kind of thing. Right laster months and is half of
Speaker 1: our panel today, along with Genie Schanzano of course, Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Politics contributor and Democratic analyst. Uh, we can't. They don't.
Speaker 1: They can't find Nancy May. So that's funny. They don't
Speaker 1: know where they don't know where she is. I guess
Speaker 1: the majority has not taken effect yet, Genie, your thought
Speaker 1: on the investigations. You know, we start talking about hunter
Speaker 1: Biden's laptop. Now, where does that leave a very slim
Speaker 1: majority when it comes time for reelection because I'm assuming
Speaker 1: these are going to be lengthy, you know, Benghazi style hearings,
Speaker 1: and we may not have Genie either, you know, I
Speaker 1: tell you Lester it's just you and me, Pal, we
Speaker 1: should get a beer here and get this done, right,
Speaker 1: I'm for it. Yeah, So you know, you consider, you
Speaker 1: consider the status of things, and Democrats don't have a
Speaker 1: lot of time to get anything done in the lame duck.
Speaker 1: What's important at this point? Is it same sex marriage?
Speaker 1: Or has that been punted into the new year? Uh?
Speaker 1: Same sex marriage? You know it is a fraud issue.
Speaker 1: Um that it's going to help their base. I'm not
Speaker 1: sure it's gonna set them up for success down the
Speaker 1: road and taken back the House and and defending the
Speaker 1: White House in twenty four. I think better for the
Speaker 1: Democrats to focus on the economy. This is this is
Speaker 1: their big weak spot, on addressing and then on buttressing
Speaker 1: the Biden administration's great success in Ukraine and making sure
Speaker 1: the president has the resources he needs to continue that
Speaker 1: policy and to and to be able to help the
Speaker 1: Ukrainians prevail over the Russian So those are the two
Speaker 1: things I'd be focusing on if I were the outgoing
Speaker 1: Democratic majority. Interesting that, and how difficult does the debate
Speaker 1: get to be around Ukrainian funding, Say, come January, when
Speaker 1: you have members of the Republican Caucus and I realized
Speaker 1: it's at this point a fairly small number. But the
Speaker 1: Marjorie Keyler, Greens and mac Gates as they're saying not
Speaker 1: one more dollar, this is a refrain, And of course,
Speaker 1: you know Kevin McCarthy said no more blank checks. Is
Speaker 1: that just tough talk right now to try to sound
Speaker 1: like you're fiscally responsible or does that actually change policy? Well,
Speaker 1: I suspect some members are going to vote that way.
Speaker 1: They're not going to vote for any more money. I
Speaker 1: think there are a small minority. I don't think they're
Speaker 1: gonna win, but there is a there's kind of an
Speaker 1: existential question here for the new House Republican leadership, which
Speaker 1: is are you going to be willing to work with
Speaker 1: Democrats get Democratic votes to approve something that you're in
Speaker 1: favor of. I think Kevin McCarthy, at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, wants to provide assistance to the Cranings in
Speaker 1: a way that will help them win. Is he gonna
Speaker 1: be is he gonna Is he gonna be able to
Speaker 1: work with Democrats to get those votes to get that
Speaker 1: achieved without undermining his leadership role in the Republican Conference.
Speaker 1: That's a big question. I'm sure it is he has
Speaker 1: to look like he got something to the right or
Speaker 1: their strings attached to that money, something that maybe we
Speaker 1: haven't heard about yet. Well, I think there'll be a
Speaker 1: lot of talk about oversight and making sure the money
Speaker 1: is well spent. And that's good, that's fine, that should
Speaker 1: be done. We actually have a lot of mechanisms in
Speaker 1: place that make sure those things happen. I think I
Speaker 1: think taxpayers should be reassured that money that goes to
Speaker 1: the State Department and our other aid agencies actually pretty
Speaker 1: well spent and achieves the goals that we wanted to achieve.
Speaker 1: But talking about that is a good thing. And reassuring
Speaker 1: the American people that we're not going to we're not
Speaker 1: just doing this on a lark, and we're making sure
Speaker 1: the money is doing the right thing. That's that's important
Speaker 1: for politicians to be engaged in. I think it's I
Speaker 1: think it's a fair thing to talk about. Is it
Speaker 1: silly to try to force a conversation about the that
Speaker 1: ceiling or is that that's just Kevin McCarthy most likely
Speaker 1: it's problem to own next year. Well, I think it's
Speaker 1: also President Biden's problem to own. Uh, this is this
Speaker 1: is going to force a negotiation between the two parties
Speaker 1: to get to a compromise on some key issues. I
Speaker 1: don't know. We don't think anyone knows what they are yet.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's the budget, Maybe it's something else that's not
Speaker 1: so bad. I know our friends on Wall Street and
Speaker 1: at our Bird Faculty club tend to get upset about this.
Speaker 1: But if it's if it's something that drives the two
Speaker 1: parties together to kind of force them to come to
Speaker 1: a compromise, maybe that's not so bad, Which begs the
Speaker 1: big question here does does it does a divided Congress
Speaker 1: force cooperation or encourage division? Well, we're gonna find out,
Speaker 1: aren't we. I think I think what we're gonna We're
Speaker 1: gonna see both. We're gonna see the parties fighting over uh,
Speaker 1: you know, the Hunter Biden laptop and other topics that
Speaker 1: aren't so important to normal Americans. But then they're also
Speaker 1: going to be agreeing on on things that are kind
Speaker 1: of below the radar and don't get attention from from
Speaker 1: Bloomberg and other sources. Necessarily, it's not that controversial, whether
Speaker 1: it's entitlement spending or basic basic programs that everyone kind
Speaker 1: of believes in. There's you know, like the stuff we
Speaker 1: all kind of agree on. Is that five we're fighting
Speaker 1: on that that gets the news. Yeah, we hate to
Speaker 1: be part. We try to be as wonky as we
Speaker 1: can here. I think you know that Lester and would
Speaker 1: be a part of the project. That's why you're here.
Speaker 1: Of course. Hey, Lester and I got our own show.
Speaker 1: This is great. Stay with us on sound On coming up,
Speaker 1: will fold in Jeanie Schanzano I promised this time. Lester
Speaker 1: months and stays around and we explore the breaker today
Speaker 1: from the Supreme Court clearing the way for six years
Speaker 1: of Donald Trump's tax returns to go to Richie Neil's
Speaker 1: House Ways and Means Committee. I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg. So no with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: It's hard not to just picture Congressman Richard Neil, the
Speaker 1: chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, holding six
Speaker 1: years of Donald Trump's tax returns in his hands with
Speaker 1: a laughter that could be heard on the other end
Speaker 1: of Pennsylvania Avenue. But is that real? Is that actually possible?
Speaker 1: After the Supreme Court today cleared the way for the
Speaker 1: committee to get six years of Donald Trump's tax returns.
Speaker 1: Kevin Brady gets the same stuff right without explanation, without
Speaker 1: the scent. And this is something that of course comes
Speaker 1: as we were just discussing with Lester, what a month
Speaker 1: and change ahead of the new Republican majority taking hold
Speaker 1: of Trump lawyer legal team was asking for January just
Speaker 1: to keep this as quiet as possible. We have the
Speaker 1: full panel here, I'm told Jeannie Schanzano is with US
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Politics contributor Democratic Candleston Lester months and here as
Speaker 1: well from b g R Group Republican strategist a genie.
Speaker 1: Were you as surprised as anybody to hear this? And
Speaker 1: how come you don't believe this goes anywhere? Well, you know,
Speaker 1: I was struck by by the counting of the days
Speaker 1: twenty nine days since the committee sought these tax returns
Speaker 1: into finally get them. And somebody said it was almost
Speaker 1: as long as the Civil War. Um. So if it
Speaker 1: seems long time, it really is um. And of course
Speaker 1: this could be overturned, but it's unlikely, and I think
Speaker 1: it's it's you know, noteworthy that this decision was made
Speaker 1: with no dissent that said, of course the we are
Speaker 1: on a calendar. Um, we have a calendar issue. We're
Speaker 1: in a lame duck and so they have a limited time.
Speaker 1: And of course Republicans get these as well. So I'm
Speaker 1: not sure how far this will go, except it is
Speaker 1: a victory for of three years, for this committee that's
Speaker 1: long been seeking things, and they'll at least get a glimpse.
Speaker 1: And there as many people, myself included, who believe the
Speaker 1: public has a right to have to have this and
Speaker 1: for nation, and it is finally in the hands of
Speaker 1: the people's representatives in Congress. So that's a good thing.
Speaker 1: By the way, I didn't talk to Genie before this,
Speaker 1: and I don't know. I did not know that Genie
Speaker 1: believed this was going nowhere. Is it going nowhere? No,
Speaker 1: you know, I wouldn't say. I wouldn't say we know
Speaker 1: yet if it's going nowhere, but I would say it
Speaker 1: is a significant win. And and by the way, when
Speaker 1: when you and Lester were chatting, I was shouting into
Speaker 1: their radio, enjoying your conversation, saying brilliant things, but you
Speaker 1: couldn't hear me. So yeah, that happens a lot. Yeah,
Speaker 1: when I'm after, how come we've seen this headline or
Speaker 1: not with the Supreme Court, of course. But you hear
Speaker 1: about Donald Trump's tax returns and you say, Okay, wake
Speaker 1: me up when something happens. It's the holy grail for Democrats.
Speaker 1: My goodness, They're finally going to reach the promised Land. Uh.
Speaker 1: I confess some cynicism here. I think this is a
Speaker 1: purely political move to get the president's tax returns, not
Speaker 1: that they won't be interesting, and that that they won't
Speaker 1: say something about his ways of doing business. You don't
Speaker 1: about presidential document accountability. I'm guessing yeah, I guessing we're
Speaker 1: not going to see a big bill come out of
Speaker 1: this that changes our laws. So I think it's and
Speaker 1: with our upside down politics, this may actually work to
Speaker 1: the democrats disadvantage. I don't know. Donald Trump likes attention.
Speaker 1: This is going to be more attentions, gonna be another
Speaker 1: way for him to talk. Republicans are learning that him
Speaker 1: being out front is not great for the party. Democrats
Speaker 1: want to keep pushing them out there because he's good
Speaker 1: for them. So this whole thing is upside stuff in
Speaker 1: his tax returns though, right, I mean, if they got
Speaker 1: these documents and leaked them, Uh, my goodness, that would
Speaker 1: be the best read in town. But but what's the
Speaker 1: expectation game. Everyone knows he's basically a con artist, and
Speaker 1: so when we when we see the tax terms and
Speaker 1: he's revealed to be a connie, that's kind of what
Speaker 1: I thought anyway. So, although it would be something to
Speaker 1: be running for president, Genie and to be to be
Speaker 1: proven to have never paid or to no longer pay taxes,
Speaker 1: which is what the allegation was, that's right, And you know,
Speaker 1: and and he not only is a former president, but
Speaker 1: he's a current contender for the Republican nomination for president,
Speaker 1: and so that does matter. And you know, I do
Speaker 1: agree with what you know you are saying and where
Speaker 1: Lester was saying that, you know, it's unlikely we see
Speaker 1: big legislation out of this. But one thing I think,
Speaker 1: at least I wish we would have a conversation about
Speaker 1: in this country would be is it time to require
Speaker 1: major party presidential candidates to release tax documents and also,
Speaker 1: by the way, health records. There are privacy issues, for sure,
Speaker 1: but these people represent us and we may have a
Speaker 1: right to this information. I would at least like to
Speaker 1: hear a robust conversation about that. In Congress, but I
Speaker 1: don't expect we're going to get that either. Well, how
Speaker 1: come wouldn't that be good politics, whether it's in the
Speaker 1: lame duck or in the new Congress? Lester, Uh, you know,
Speaker 1: in a way, I think that I agree with Genie.
Speaker 1: I think that'd be a great idea. Congress ought to
Speaker 1: be put in pressure on the president. Generally speaking, let's
Speaker 1: try to hamm them in. Let's give the you know,
Speaker 1: the people's you know, the people's part of our government,
Speaker 1: the people's branch, a little more authority, a little more
Speaker 1: ability to out maneuver the president. I'm kind of in
Speaker 1: favor of that as an old apt from Capitol Hill.
Speaker 1: So yeah, let's let's lay on some requirements for the
Speaker 1: chief executive line up. Donald Trump lawyers argue the House
Speaker 1: panel lacked a legitimate legislative purpose. Genie, that's actually what
Speaker 1: needs to be shown here. Right, If you're the Ways
Speaker 1: and Means Committee and you go to court, that's the
Speaker 1: only grounds you have, the only ground you have to
Speaker 1: stand on. Uh. I can't imagine this news conference if this,
Speaker 1: if these documents are delivered, what is Chairman Richard Neil
Speaker 1: tell America. You know, I think he's going to tell
Speaker 1: America the reason why it was so important and why
Speaker 1: they fought for, you know, three long years plus days
Speaker 1: as long as the Civil War to get these and
Speaker 1: and I hope he says it has less to do
Speaker 1: with Donald Trump specifically than it does to do with
Speaker 1: the work of this body, which is oversight and legislation
Speaker 1: in the interest of the American public. And of course
Speaker 1: the Lame Duck won't be able to do that. We'll
Speaker 1: see if it's picked up in the Republican Congress. But
Speaker 1: I hope that's what he says and makes it not
Speaker 1: personal to Trump but in our interest as the people's body.
Speaker 1: Of course, if there's nothing in there and he opens
Speaker 1: it up, it looks like Carldo Rivera at al Capone's grave.
Speaker 1: Our panel stays with us for the hour, Jeannie Chanzano
Speaker 1: and Lester Months and with us. I'm Joe Matthew from Washington.
Speaker 1: This is sound on, this is Bloomberg. I'll tell you what.
Speaker 1: If there is a rail strike, the blame game in
Speaker 1: Washington will be fierce. I say that as several powerful
Speaker 1: industry groups and you can read about this on the
Speaker 1: terminal of course, or urging Congress to step in and
Speaker 1: prevent this strike. This is the same one we were
Speaker 1: talking about August September now just in time. It's like,
Speaker 1: you know, the sequel to the Grinch kind of a thing.
Speaker 1: Although these workers have very legitimate concerns, we are still
Speaker 1: talking about it, and not only are they asking Congress
Speaker 1: to get involved, there's a lot of pressure on the
Speaker 1: White House to do more here and in today's briefing,
Speaker 1: a lot of questions about, well, how involved are you,
Speaker 1: Where's Marty Walsh? How about the president? Here's Press Secretary
Speaker 1: Karine John Pierre. This is the third time I'm saying
Speaker 1: he's been directly involved. You're talking about one union president.
Speaker 1: They're twelve, so you're talking you're talking about one. I said,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to provide any details at this time.
Speaker 1: The administration role broadly has been also in touch with
Speaker 1: with with parties. Just the President has been clearly Uh
Speaker 1: he's been held Uh has he's been brief but he
Speaker 1: has actually been directly involved. Not going to get into
Speaker 1: more details on that. But you're talking about one president
Speaker 1: out of twelve, one president of one union, is what
Speaker 1: she's saying. Their twelve unions. Just so this isn't complicated
Speaker 1: at all. Now, if Congress does get involved, they can't
Speaker 1: do anything about this, of course, until they get back
Speaker 1: from their Thanksgiving break. So let's not hold our breath
Speaker 1: right now, but understand a little more about it as
Speaker 1: we're joined by Art Wheaton, director of Labor Studies at
Speaker 1: Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations. Aren't here
Speaker 1: we go again? But I guess it never really stopped
Speaker 1: this way? Can you explain exactly how we got here again?
Speaker 1: A lot of people thought this was resolved with the
Speaker 1: so called tentative deal that had been announced a few
Speaker 1: months ago. Well, they've been negotiating for more than two
Speaker 1: years to try to get an agreement, and the tentative
Speaker 1: agreement which was reached with the help of President Biden,
Speaker 1: Marty Wallash, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Agriculture,
Speaker 1: all involved in trying to resolve this dispute, and they
Speaker 1: came up with an agreement, a tentative agreement that needs
Speaker 1: to be ratified by the members. The agreement they came
Speaker 1: up with solved almost all of the financial problems or
Speaker 1: financial issues. This imminent strike or potential strike is all
Speaker 1: about a changing in the attendance policy that was unilaterally
Speaker 1: implemented by the railway companies. So that's the big issue
Speaker 1: that wasn't that wasn't settled in before. So they added
Speaker 1: one more flexible day, and that wasn't seen as enough
Speaker 1: got it. And this was because people were getting fired
Speaker 1: for going to the doctor. Correct And they had people
Speaker 1: literally dying while they were driving or you know, operating
Speaker 1: the train because they couldn't get a day off to
Speaker 1: go to the doctor and died of a heart attack.
Speaker 1: You've had lots of people missed their families funerals because
Speaker 1: they couldn't get the time off. What do you make
Speaker 1: of the reaction from the White House here that they've
Speaker 1: They've made clear the Press Secretary today that Marty Walsh
Speaker 1: has been involved, that Joe Biden has, but would not
Speaker 1: answer questions about at what time or how frequently this
Speaker 1: one President again, you heard her reacting to his complaining
Speaker 1: that the administration needs to get more engaged. Now. Well,
Speaker 1: the way it works for labor law in the United
Speaker 1: States is there's nothing that says the company ever has
Speaker 1: to say yes. So that can be pretty frustrating. So
Speaker 1: they exerted a lot of different pressure for all the
Speaker 1: names and the people that we talked about, But there's
Speaker 1: nothing here that the President and his secretaries can force
Speaker 1: on the railway companies to change their attendance policy. There is, however,
Speaker 1: something that Congress can do. So the President Biden gave
Speaker 1: a thirty day pause, they had them go back and renegotiate.
Speaker 1: They offered up a tentative agreement. But there's really not
Speaker 1: a whole lot President Biden can do individually except lobby
Speaker 1: or try to persuade the rail companies to change their
Speaker 1: what is seen as a drug only in attendance policy.
Speaker 1: Congress can and will step in if they go out
Speaker 1: on strike. Yes, and we've seen this happen before, but
Speaker 1: it would not be preemptive, as your point correct. So
Speaker 1: under the Railway Labor Act. So probably of the people
Speaker 1: that are in unions in the United States are either
Speaker 1: under the National Labor Relations Act or under a private
Speaker 1: sector or a public sector act. The plane strains and
Speaker 1: automobiles that are under the Railway Labor Act, and that's
Speaker 1: where this one falls onto, and that's why some of
Speaker 1: the remedies are quite different and strange as compared to
Speaker 1: other labor law. Well, it brings us back to September
Speaker 1: and the questions we were asking democrats here, how do
Speaker 1: you how do you blunt an effort like this to
Speaker 1: avoid the economic impact of a strike but also be
Speaker 1: the labor party. Well, they've done what they can. They
Speaker 1: brought him to the table. So you would think the
Speaker 1: railway companies would feel at least some amount of pressure
Speaker 1: by having to speak in the White House with all
Speaker 1: of the different secretaries. But there's still nothing in the
Speaker 1: US labor law that can force management to say yes.
Speaker 1: And I think they're trying to exert pressure, but there's
Speaker 1: nothing like a tragedy and a catastrophe to help change
Speaker 1: the thinking. If they do happen to go out on strike,
Speaker 1: that will start to change some of the calculations. And
Speaker 1: all of this will wait until the voting is done
Speaker 1: in Georgia. Oh man, it sounds like you can see
Speaker 1: this happening this time around. Yes, But also you gotta
Speaker 1: remember that one of the few powers that a union
Speaker 1: has is not just necessarily to strike. It's the threat
Speaker 1: of a strike that can be very persuasive, and sometimes
Speaker 1: negotiations go to the very last minute. It is not
Speaker 1: unusual for the contract to get settled at PM for
Speaker 1: a contract that expires at twelve midnight. So those types
Speaker 1: of things have up in bargaining and you have to
Speaker 1: be prepared for it. But you have to remember that
Speaker 1: at the bargaining table it's the union members and have
Speaker 1: to vote on it and agree to it. If they
Speaker 1: settled this two months early, then the membership would say,
Speaker 1: I'm not agreeing to this. You should have fought harder.
Speaker 1: Why didn't you get what we wanted? So sometimes you
Speaker 1: have to go and teeter on the brink a disaster
Speaker 1: um to number one, get leverage on the company, and
Speaker 1: number two, to get your membership to agree that you
Speaker 1: gave it all you got to get what they needed.
Speaker 1: He knows he was a labor negotiator. Art Wheat and
Speaker 1: thank you for bringing us to school on this from
Speaker 1: Cornell School of Industrial and Labor Relations. All this on
Speaker 1: the brink of the holidays. Will reassemble our panel. Next
Speaker 1: for the politics. I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg. So no with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: If you feel like we have this conversation before, that
Speaker 1: is because we did. It was in September, the White
Speaker 1: House US was on the ropes with this potential rail strike.
Speaker 1: Same for Congress, hearing calls to step in and do something.
Speaker 1: Markets were moving. Actually, some shippers started changing plans. Remember
Speaker 1: they weren't even taking certain orders. They were looking for alternatives.
Speaker 1: Start flying airplanes around, driving trucks around. I learned today
Speaker 1: actually on balance of power, three trucks for one train.
Speaker 1: To give you a sense of how much stuff would
Speaker 1: be affected by this, and this is why everyone is
Speaker 1: concerned in Washington. It would be a massive economic disruption
Speaker 1: on Christmas. And so we reassemble the panel for their
Speaker 1: take on this latest round. Jennie Chanzano and Lester Mounson
Speaker 1: are with us. Genie of course, Bloomberg Politics contributor and
Speaker 1: Democratic analysts. Lester Mounthson, Republican strategist with government relations firm
Speaker 1: b g R Group. Genie, this is not what this
Speaker 1: White House needs now. I mean, the impact on supply
Speaker 1: chain and ation would be a non starter politically, it
Speaker 1: would and it puts them in a real difficult situation because,
Speaker 1: of course the reality is that would put them in
Speaker 1: a terrible situation as we face the holidays economically, but
Speaker 1: on the flip side as you look, and I will
Speaker 1: quote Nancy Pelosi here, railroad companies are making obscene profits
Speaker 1: on the backs of these workers, and you should not
Speaker 1: get fired for staying home when you're sick. So is
Speaker 1: the administration going to push through this agreement that was made,
Speaker 1: try to get Congress to push that through? Um? Are
Speaker 1: they going to try to push the corporations to really
Speaker 1: man up a woman up in a way and give
Speaker 1: workers what they need? Because this is absolutely and insane
Speaker 1: in a cruel system that these people, these workers are
Speaker 1: being subjected to, and it's got to be addressed, and
Speaker 1: now is the time for them to do it. But
Speaker 1: the White House has, of course facing this inflation crisis
Speaker 1: and it's going to be really difficult to do. But
Speaker 1: you certainly think that Marty Washed the Labor Secretary, knows
Speaker 1: all of this. Uh, if he's a union guy, are
Speaker 1: just surprised he hasn't been able to crack this. I mean,
Speaker 1: we thought we had a deal, yeah, I mean, And
Speaker 1: the reality is is that the Joe Biden went out
Speaker 1: and celebrated that deal when in fact it's still had
Speaker 1: to be approved by the workers at these twelve unions
Speaker 1: and one by one. I mean, it's sort of been
Speaker 1: in the back pages of the news. Many of these
Speaker 1: unions that have voted have said this doesn't go far enough.
Speaker 1: And as you were just talking about with your guest,
Speaker 1: one more flexible day is not enough, and I urged
Speaker 1: people to read the reality of the situation. I mean,
Speaker 1: he talked about people dying, missing funerals. They cannot take
Speaker 1: a day off from work, even when they're sick, and
Speaker 1: that is no way to treat workers in this country,
Speaker 1: particularly when they are making record profits and they happen
Speaker 1: less for the President claims to be, or certainly strives
Speaker 1: to be, as he says openly in his speeches, the
Speaker 1: most labor friendly, the most union friendly administration in history.
Speaker 1: How come this White House can't make a difference here. Well,
Speaker 1: maybe Democrats have lost their feel for private sector unions.
Speaker 1: They're pretty enthralled with public sector unions these days. Maybe
Speaker 1: they've tilted a little bit too far in that direction. Uh.
Speaker 1: And as as Genie points out, the President was taken
Speaker 1: credit for this deal before the election, he's already kind
Speaker 1: of done his victory dance. It looks bad now that
Speaker 1: his deal for these folks was was not what they
Speaker 1: thought was good enough. So the White House is gonna
Speaker 1: reap a little bit of what it has sewed here
Speaker 1: in what way, Especially if Congress steps in and stops
Speaker 1: it doesn't that save the White House. It does, and
Speaker 1: it doesn't. There's a real battle here in this country
Speaker 1: over private sector union workers. Politically, Republicans are making a
Speaker 1: better a better case to this Democrat effect than they
Speaker 1: have in decades. And I'm not saying I'm necessarily in
Speaker 1: favor of that, by the way, but this is where
Speaker 1: the Republican Party is going. If the White House, you know,
Speaker 1: if this plays out in such a way that the
Speaker 1: White House has demonstrates a real failure of leadership, that's
Speaker 1: gonna benefit Republicans going forward in and a lot of
Speaker 1: these swing voters, a lot of these folks who are
Speaker 1: who are going to be affected by this directly that
Speaker 1: I'm talking about workers in the railroad industry are exactly
Speaker 1: the kind of voters both parties are looking for. It's
Speaker 1: gonna make it a little bit easier for Republicans to
Speaker 1: go after them. We'll keep you posted on this. Obviously,
Speaker 1: this could break before December gets here, that that's when
Speaker 1: the deadline is and we'll keep tabs on this, but
Speaker 1: I'll tell you, Genie, this is not a conversation that
Speaker 1: Joe Biden wants to hear people having about his administration.
Speaker 1: It just runs against everything that he says, everything he says,
Speaker 1: everything he believes. And I mean, we're talking about am track, Joe,
Speaker 1: and I understand we're not directly talking about am Track
Speaker 1: here as we talked about this railroad strike. But this
Speaker 1: is who Joe Biden and was, and and you know,
Speaker 1: just to follow up on Lester's point, the tension has
Speaker 1: been in the Democratic Party between you know, understanding and
Speaker 1: doing the work of the white you know, Midwestern voters
Speaker 1: who they seem to have lost in twenty sixteen to
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. Joe Biden got some of them back in.
Speaker 1: But you know, this kind of thing threatens to suggest
Speaker 1: that they may not understand what people lives are like.
Speaker 1: And in this case, it's these railroad workers and to
Speaker 1: do the work to ensure that they get what they
Speaker 1: deserve and they're not asking for much. Meanwhile, on the
Speaker 1: southern border today, the man who would be speaker, Kevin
Speaker 1: McCarthy shows up in El Paso, and it was known
Speaker 1: he was going to make the trip. It wasn't known
Speaker 1: exactly what he would say here. It is our country
Speaker 1: may never recover from Secretary Mayorcas dereliction of duty. This
Speaker 1: is why today I am calling on the Secretary to resign.
Speaker 1: He cannot and must not remain in that position. If
Speaker 1: Secretary majorcas does not resign, House Republicans will investigate every order,
Speaker 1: every action, and every failure. We'll determine whether we can
Speaker 1: begin impeachment inquiry. There you go, which brings us back
Speaker 1: to where we started UH this hour with investigations and yes,
Speaker 1: apparent UH impeachment plans, certainly for the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Speaker 1: It's been suggested for the President of the United States,
Speaker 1: along with the Attorney General. Ahead of his arrival, or
Speaker 1: at least ahead of the news briefing, Karine John Pierre,
Speaker 1: the White House Press Secretary, was asked about his trip
Speaker 1: to the border. They were ready for it. Here she
Speaker 1: is the question that we have for Kevin McCarthy, who
Speaker 1: soon to be who soon to be speaker? McCarthy, Um,
Speaker 1: you know, what is what is his plan? What is
Speaker 1: he doing to help the situation that we're seeing? What
Speaker 1: what is his plan? He goes down there and he
Speaker 1: does a political stunt like many Republicans do that we
Speaker 1: have seen them do, but he actually is not putting
Speaker 1: forth a plan a plan to help us, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: deal with an issue that we're all seeing, that you
Speaker 1: all are reporting. And I mean one of the things
Speaker 1: he can do is he can go to Texas Senator
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz or any members of the Republican Caucus from
Speaker 1: Texas who voted against the President's request for record funding
Speaker 1: to support the hard working men and women at the
Speaker 1: Department of Homeland Security. It's a pretty good answer, Lester,
Speaker 1: when you consider the voting record here. But is this
Speaker 1: a stunt for Kevin McCarthy or is he doing exactly
Speaker 1: what voters want them to do. Well, it's definitely a stunt,
Speaker 1: But we we have a politics of stunts now, and
Speaker 1: that doesn't necessarily make it illegitimate at all. You know,
Speaker 1: the January sixth Commission hearings, to some extent can be
Speaker 1: characterized as a stunt. They had some impact. Uh So
Speaker 1: just because of the stunt doesn't mean it's bad. Can
Speaker 1: can Kevin McCarthy's message prevail? I think the White House
Speaker 1: has some definite weaknesses here. The record um security at
Speaker 1: the border is not very good. Uh, and there there's
Speaker 1: a lot of questions about the policies and what they're
Speaker 1: carrying out. So a little bit of daylight and sunlight
Speaker 1: from the legislative branch I think might be a good
Speaker 1: thing here. But at the same time, Republicans are going
Speaker 1: to be in the majority, they do need to suggest
Speaker 1: alternative policies that could work. I think they will do that.
Speaker 1: But like the White House is not wrong to say
Speaker 1: what's your plan? Fair enough? And I tend to think
Speaker 1: that the January six Committee made a greater contribution to
Speaker 1: history than this trip of the border. But I get
Speaker 1: your point here, Genie, what's the Biden administration do on
Speaker 1: immigration reform, border security for the next two years when
Speaker 1: no one has an appetite for comprehensive legislation, You know,
Speaker 1: they should listen, you know, to people like Governor elect
Speaker 1: Katie Hobbs in Arizona, who is out talking about the
Speaker 1: fact um, you know, very calmly um, not quite as
Speaker 1: draconian as as Kevin McCarthy, about the fact that Democrats
Speaker 1: really have to go visit the border and see what
Speaker 1: is going on because there is a crisis. Well no,
Speaker 1: I mean she's right there. She's right, there is a
Speaker 1: crisis at the border. That is absolutely true. Joe Biden
Speaker 1: has said it himself. So they need to listen to
Speaker 1: Democrats like her who are saying, you know, this is
Speaker 1: a challenge for us here and it needs to be addressed. Now.
Speaker 1: To your point, there is no appetite in Congress and
Speaker 1: hasn't been for decades to address this crisis. And Biden
Speaker 1: is right. He put forward the Citizenship Act in January.
Speaker 1: It never passed, and they're right to ask Republicans what
Speaker 1: they're gonna do. Um, But beyond that, they really do
Speaker 1: have to at least do a better job of showing
Speaker 1: that they are caring about this issue and taking steps
Speaker 1: to address it, because it is something that you know,
Speaker 1: really most Americans give the administration loan marks on. They
Speaker 1: inherited this crisis, but they are in in control and
Speaker 1: they do need to at least take steps to address it.
Speaker 1: You can't have Democrats like Katie Hobbs criticizing them and
Speaker 1: others at the Texas border and elsewhere, Democrats who say
Speaker 1: they're not doing enough. I know that Lester, this wouldn't
Speaker 1: get through the Senate, but but well, Republicans in the
Speaker 1: House impeach Alejandro mai orchis Uh. That's a great question.
Speaker 1: You know, if the Speaker says they're going to pursue that,
Speaker 1: there's seems to me like there's a decent chance they'll
Speaker 1: they'll try to do that. Yeah, as you point out,
Speaker 1: the Senate won't convict. I do want to discroup j
Speaker 1: on one thing. I'm not sure the administration by administration
Speaker 1: inherited this. The Trump administration did have although it didn't
Speaker 1: build the wall that it said it was going to,
Speaker 1: their policies on the border, uh, did lead to fewer
Speaker 1: crossings than the current administration. So this is this is
Speaker 1: a new development. Yeah, there are a lot of ways
Speaker 1: to talk. The South too, also broke up a bunch
Speaker 1: of families. But boy, this is always easy to talk about.
Speaker 1: Lester months and thank you Gennie Schanzano our panel. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg