Speaker 1: Yeah, Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane Jailey.
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 Right Now.
Speaker 1: Emily Eakins joins us with the Cato Institute. Emily, you
Speaker 1: are one of the important now analysts rather in the nation.
Speaker 1: On our millennials, I know we don't know the micro
Speaker 1: detail of the election yet, but that the millennials show
Speaker 1: up and what do they mean to the results? Well, yes,
Speaker 1: I mean evidence suggests early on that millennials were more
Speaker 1: energized to vote, but I think they're more reflecting did
Speaker 1: overall of how many Democratic constituents felt going into this election,
Speaker 1: that they viewed this as a referendum very specifically on
Speaker 1: President Trump. But is it enough? I mean, Dan Balls
Speaker 1: just published in the Washington Post talking about that red
Speaker 1: wall that hit the blue wave. I mean, do the
Speaker 1: millennials have enough up to with the marginal help liberals
Speaker 1: in two years? I think that it could during the
Speaker 1: presidential year, but as we know, you know, mid terms
Speaker 1: are a little bit tougher because of turnout. However, what
Speaker 1: we have seen is that it looks like we're still
Speaker 1: counting votes, but more people have voted, or as about
Speaker 1: as many people voted in this election as in a
Speaker 1: presidential election, which is quite astounding. So we still have
Speaker 1: to wait to see how that shakes out in terms
Speaker 1: of millennials, but their turnout was higher, um than what
Speaker 1: would be expecting in typical midterm elections. Many just in
Speaker 1: terms of the key issues that really attracted votes as
Speaker 1: to vote for a specific party, was pretty clear for
Speaker 1: lot of people in the last twenty four hours that
Speaker 1: immigration meant a lot to those that voted Republican and
Speaker 1: health care ment a lot to those that voted Democrat.
Speaker 1: What mattered to the independence So for independence, obviously both mattered,
Speaker 1: but perhaps two different reasons for independence. Health Care matter
Speaker 1: quite a bit, but it had a lot to do
Speaker 1: with costs and premiums going up, and so it kind
Speaker 1: of depended on how the candidates framed the issue in
Speaker 1: their in their specific districts. I think on immigration, though,
Speaker 1: I think a lot of independence feel like the Trump
Speaker 1: administration went too far, especially what we saw with the
Speaker 1: family separations of supporter would you explain, and this is
Speaker 1: from the Cato till I understand that if we have
Speaker 1: a vector of growing debt a vector of growing deficit
Speaker 1: to GDP, when does the growthiness certitude drift away from
Speaker 1: the Trump administration? Sorry, I couldn't understand. Well, they believe
Speaker 1: in a growth. Mr Cudlow believes in growth at our
Speaker 1: costs and if we grow, fix our deficits or you know,
Speaker 1: the deficits will grow. Kato pushes against that to be polite.
Speaker 1: When does that dialogue end? Well, just to be clear,
Speaker 1: I'm a polster at the Cato Institute, so I'm not
Speaker 1: taking positions one way or another, but I can tell
Speaker 1: you what the data does. And then, Um, Republicans really
Speaker 1: are the only ones that are caring about the budget deficit,
Speaker 1: as evidenced by what we see, um, what people tell
Speaker 1: us in the polls. Obviously Democrats are talking about it
Speaker 1: at the national elite level, but it's really only rank
Speaker 1: and file Republicans that seem to care about it. But
Speaker 1: even they have elevated other concerns above that. UM. And
Speaker 1: so I think that's only really when Democrats are in
Speaker 1: office that we hear a lot of Republicans complaining about
Speaker 1: the budget deficits um and yes, I think that the
Speaker 1: kind of the reason or the justification they will give
Speaker 1: if they'll say, well, economic growth will get it out
Speaker 1: of it. And it is we we are saying, um,
Speaker 1: a pretty good economy of during Trump's tenure. But that
Speaker 1: doesn't necessarily mean that's enough to get us out of
Speaker 1: the budget. Emily, thank you so much, Emily Egans with
Speaker 1: his Cato Institute where she just pulling and thinks about
Speaker 1: broader issues right now from the shores of the Mummie River,
Speaker 1: Fort Wayne, Indiana, Mark lauder h joins us right now
Speaker 1: his service to Mike Pence over the years and with
Speaker 1: lauder communications right now in Indiana, Mark lauder an incumbent Democrat,
Speaker 1: went down in flames. Does that signal a different Republican Party,
Speaker 1: a new nuanced Republican Party. I wouldn't view it as
Speaker 1: much of that. I think this is really a correction
Speaker 1: from a very flaw to cannidate that was nominated in
Speaker 1: two thou and twelve that really just imploded there in
Speaker 1: the last months before the election inve which opened the
Speaker 1: door for a for a Democrat to take that seat.
Speaker 1: And I think this was Indiana basically showing a traditional
Speaker 1: deep red state status uh and restoring them with a
Speaker 1: with a Republican senator. And yet Democrats across the contentious
Speaker 1: what I'm gonna call it for our global audience, the
Speaker 1: eastern Midwest, the Great Lake States. Uh, there seemed to
Speaker 1: be a Democrat tinge there. What does that signal moving
Speaker 1: forward to two thousand twenty, Well, it's it's always going
Speaker 1: to be a challenge. And while there were a lot
Speaker 1: of great victories for Republicans on on Tuesday, UH, the
Speaker 1: governor's races in uh in in Wisconsin, the one in
Speaker 1: Michigan was really never really close. So that was you know,
Speaker 1: that was something obviously we would hope for. But you know,
Speaker 1: we also got a very good, strong Republican governor elected
Speaker 1: in Ohio, which was a very close thing and uh
Speaker 1: and close a number of positives. I'm one of the
Speaker 1: ball state guy. Let me rip up the script here.
Speaker 1: What did you learn from the state of Ohio? Florida
Speaker 1: and Ohio really matter? What did Mark Lauder take away
Speaker 1: from Ohio first and foremost that candidates matter? Uh. So
Speaker 1: we had very strong candidates in both Florida and Ohio
Speaker 1: in the governor's races. In the Senate race, obviously, with
Speaker 1: Governor Scott uh defeating Senator Brown in Ohio was never
Speaker 1: really a possibility. It would have taken a red wave
Speaker 1: to to capture to capture that seat. So I'm not
Speaker 1: sure we learned a lot more we had. You know,
Speaker 1: there were some very good house pick or a households
Speaker 1: in Uh in Ohio. So it's all gonna come down
Speaker 1: a lot of times local issues. And these these elections,
Speaker 1: especially at the House of Representatives level, are still hyperlocal,
Speaker 1: and so you need to have great candidates who are
Speaker 1: raising money, knocking on doors, doing those basic things. And
Speaker 1: in this case, we saw that many Democrats outrage is
Speaker 1: the Republican at the house district level, raw Republicans on
Speaker 1: a state level and on the national level, Uh completely
Speaker 1: swamps Democrat fundraising organization. But that's kind of translate translate
Speaker 1: down to those those house districts. Not let's talk about
Speaker 1: have you identified what a Republican president is running against
Speaker 1: the ideas that is coming out of this Democratic Party
Speaker 1: that the Republican President Donald Trump will be running against.
Speaker 1: In I've struggled to get a coherent sort of idea
Speaker 1: of what the Democratic Party stands for right now and
Speaker 1: through the campaigning of the last few months, have you
Speaker 1: got a good idea? I don't think so, other than
Speaker 1: the other than resistance, which is really the only message
Speaker 1: they have put forward is is resistant. It will be
Speaker 1: interesting to see and this is and this is a
Speaker 1: very important moment because campaigning is one thing. Governing is
Speaker 1: something completely else. And do the Democrats with their new
Speaker 1: majority in the House of our Presentatives know how to govern?
Speaker 1: Which means you're going to have to produce budgets, You're
Speaker 1: going to have to produce the basic legislation and come
Speaker 1: into an agreement. With an expanding majority in the United
Speaker 1: States Senate and a Republican in the White House. Will
Speaker 1: they be able to to do those things? If they won't,
Speaker 1: this could be quickly reversed in two years in a
Speaker 1: presidential election here because there majority is not that great.
Speaker 1: This has been great, Thank you so much. Mark Lauder
Speaker 1: with us from a lot of communications, has work for
Speaker 1: Republicans in Indiana. There now joining us, and we've heard
Speaker 1: from discourse from Republicans someone certainly affiliated with the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: Democratic Party Laurence Somers joins us, the former Secretary of Treasury,
Speaker 1: and also, of course the former president Harvard University, Larry Somers.
Speaker 1: I guess we're all going to go back to our
Speaker 1: general economics as we dash through grid luck. I think
Speaker 1: of your uncle Paul Samison, the Nobel Laureate, and his
Speaker 1: classic text of what does Lauren Summers think of gridlock?
Speaker 1: What actually gets done in Washington? Look, we just saw
Speaker 1: a frustration election. People can't agree on it everything, but
Speaker 1: for some things they can't agree on it. We need
Speaker 1: to focus on combating the people be so frustrated. That
Speaker 1: starts for raising the minimum wage, for adjusting for inflation
Speaker 1: that it's been in a very long time. That means
Speaker 1: putting back to protections in Obamacare so you can get
Speaker 1: health concerned when you need it, which is when uh
Speaker 1: you're sick. That means confronting the kind of excesses of
Speaker 1: business power. Frankly, that we see, why should it cost
Speaker 1: three times as much to get it in haler from
Speaker 1: your kids in the United States as it does in
Speaker 1: uh can Okay, let's look, Larry, this is critical. Let's
Speaker 1: go These are issues everybody could be able to agree on.
Speaker 1: And what we need to do is stop having wars
Speaker 1: and move forward. Okay, but Larry, this goes right to
Speaker 1: the point Charles Meyers mentioned this earlier this morning, was signum,
Speaker 1: which is one of the two things we can do
Speaker 1: in this gridlock as infrastructure and also pharmaceutical pricing. Do
Speaker 1: you actually believe in then the gridlock, that we can
Speaker 1: get a reduction in drug prices? As you allude to
Speaker 1: the inhalers. Look, I'm not sure what what Congress will
Speaker 1: succeed in passing. I'm sure what the country needs to do,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure what the vast majority of its uh
Speaker 1: UH would support that. I'm sure what responsible officials would
Speaker 1: find constructive ways to UH to compromise on prognosticated prognosticating
Speaker 1: Washington UH politics. I'll leave to somebody else the economy
Speaker 1: part enough, Larry, do you really think that the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party can become the party of fiscal responsibility? I think
Speaker 1: the priority. Look, we've in the long run, their issues
Speaker 1: around the budget deficits that we've got to confront. But
Speaker 1: if we're gonna move our economy forward, if we're gonna
Speaker 1: move our country forward, if we're gonna come together again,
Speaker 1: fiscal responsibility for the long run is not the priority
Speaker 1: right now. Serving the interests of a frustrated, angry electorate
Speaker 1: that whose interests have not been followed for the last
Speaker 1: two years. Is what the priority has has got has
Speaker 1: got to be When I hear people come on these
Speaker 1: financials those and talk about how their agenda is to
Speaker 1: have the FED raised interest rates faster because they think
Speaker 1: somehow too many people are being employed um and to
Speaker 1: cut and to do what they think is courageous, which
Speaker 1: is to cut the Social Security benefits that people earn
Speaker 1: forty dollars a year. And they don't talk about the
Speaker 1: price of inhailers. They don't talk about what it's like
Speaker 1: to live on seven dollars and thirty five cent UH
Speaker 1: minimum ways, because they don't talk about the fact that
Speaker 1: every corporation can contribute as much money as it wants,
Speaker 1: but no employer will. But thousands of employers won't give
Speaker 1: their workers the day off to go and vote, and
Speaker 1: states across the country go out of their way to
Speaker 1: make it as hard as possible for people in minority
Speaker 1: groups to register, and they're not complaining about that. I
Speaker 1: have to say that it's hard to focus on their
Speaker 1: abstract long run financial UH concerns when they are oblivious
Speaker 1: to the concrete UH concerns that are hurting the lives
Speaker 1: of UH tens of things and people who work for
Speaker 1: their companies. So larry a couple of points you've made down.
Speaker 1: I want to pick up on the point on the
Speaker 1: Federal Reserve to some degree, do you agree with the
Speaker 1: President of the United States then that the Federal Reserve
Speaker 1: needs to stop hiking into US writes I think the
Speaker 1: FED needs to be careful and needs to be careful
Speaker 1: and prudent as uh the day as the data comes in,
Speaker 1: and very much aware that monetary polishing operates with a lag,
Speaker 1: and so there's a riff that you're tightening, you're tighten,
Speaker 1: you don't remember the lag, and you uh tip the
Speaker 1: economy into recession. I think that I think that the
Speaker 1: kind of FED bashing in which the President has engaged
Speaker 1: is really unfitting of his office, and he's likely to
Speaker 1: be counterproductive because it means that if the third word
Speaker 1: of decide wanted to slow down our tightening, they have
Speaker 1: to reckon with the possibility that they look like they've
Speaker 1: been We may see that at eleven thirty today with
Speaker 1: a press conference. Lawrence Summers of Harvard, of course, the
Speaker 1: former Secretary of Treasure at the United States with US
Speaker 1: this morning, Larry, you are identified with secular stagnation. We
Speaker 1: got X number of quarters of growth. Every single guest
Speaker 1: John Farren Ice speak with believes we will see a
Speaker 1: vector south in g d P in economic growth. Are
Speaker 1: we gonna enjoy summer's secular stagnation here with a lesser
Speaker 1: growth and a high inflation Off of those deficits, I
Speaker 1: think growth is likely to slow. I'm not worried about
Speaker 1: inflation reaching UH dangerous levels in placient has been below
Speaker 1: the two percent target for a decade down. It may
Speaker 1: creep a little bit above the two percent PLACER target.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's a serious problem. I think the
Speaker 1: serious problems are around the things i've been UH talking
Speaker 1: about the lives of citizens who are so obviously frustrated
Speaker 1: with what's happening in our country at averaging UH to
Speaker 1: be frustrated. And I think we've got to focus on
Speaker 1: maintaining the momentum of growth. But if we can address
Speaker 1: some of the issues I've talked about, like UH the
Speaker 1: minimum ways, like making necessary investments in our country's infrastructure
Speaker 1: which enables us UH to compete, we can raise the
Speaker 1: country's long run growth, right, But I don't think sugar high,
Speaker 1: sugar high approach, who's based on corporate tax cuts, the
Speaker 1: companies that have plenty of cash is gonna do a
Speaker 1: lot to push the economy forwards. Secretary Summers, thank you
Speaker 1: so much. Laurence Summers with the course from Harvard University
Speaker 1: joining us. Now we we we've been really trying to
Speaker 1: get guests with a different twist and particularly operational guests
Speaker 1: of how you get elected. We've done that on the
Speaker 1: red side and the blue side. Now Robbie Mook joins us.
Speaker 1: Of course you CINO and CNN, but far more Robbie
Speaker 1: Mook working with Secretary Clinton in her two thousand sixteen campaign.
Speaker 1: What was the campaign tactical execution, Robbie that you saw
Speaker 1: last night? What paid off? That's a great question and
Speaker 1: and thanks for having me um. I think, well, I
Speaker 1: think Democrats stuff except in unexpected places in South Carolina, Oklahoma.
Speaker 1: And what the candidates did there was run local races. Uh.
Speaker 1: They spoke to their constituents as someone from the community.
Speaker 1: They didn't allow interest groups in d C to push
Speaker 1: them or shove them in some cases into particular policy positions,
Speaker 1: and they ran advertising on kitchen table issues like healthcare
Speaker 1: and job creation and education. Um, I think there were
Speaker 1: there were. There were kind of two different campaigns going on.
Speaker 1: One was on cable television and the other was in
Speaker 1: these districts and and it was much more kitchen table.
Speaker 1: One of the management things you have with the egos
Speaker 1: you have to deal with is once they get elected,
Speaker 1: you've got to calm them down and hold their hand,
Speaker 1: or maybe they jison you out the door. How do
Speaker 1: the Democrats move forward? Do you counsel grace or should
Speaker 1: they move forward in the House with a certain fire.
Speaker 1: That's a great question. Democrats need to focus on delivering
Speaker 1: results for the people who elected them. And if you
Speaker 1: look at the kind of candidates we elected, people out
Speaker 1: of law enforcement, out of the military. Um. Their their pragmatic,
Speaker 1: practical people. And so I think there's actually going to
Speaker 1: be in a really good way internal in the caucus
Speaker 1: to get things. Okay, let me cut to the chase.
Speaker 1: That's very nice of you to say, what is Maxine
Speaker 1: Water is going to do as chairman of the House
Speaker 1: Financial Services Committee? I mean, are we in for endless committees?
Speaker 1: In the back and forth? You know, it's almost like Brexit,
Speaker 1: just the back and forth every day of the president
Speaker 1: and his infirmities, or are we actually going to get
Speaker 1: government done that advances your Democratic party? Well, I think
Speaker 1: Democrats want to get things done. There's h if you
Speaker 1: if you was into Nancy Pelosi last night, Um, she
Speaker 1: didn't talk about investigation. She talked about, you know, improving
Speaker 1: healthcare and infrastructure bill, which I think there's there's broad
Speaker 1: based support for across the country. Um. And so I
Speaker 1: think there's all the chance in the world that that
Speaker 1: stuff can happen. That the real question is as the
Speaker 1: president going to be an honest broker and and for
Speaker 1: example on immigration, you know, he cut a deal with
Speaker 1: Democrats last year and then walked away from them at
Speaker 1: the last minute. He's just not a reliable, trustworthy broker.
Speaker 1: That's that's been his reputation all of his life. And
Speaker 1: so I think a lot of this falls on him
Speaker 1: to decide if he's gonna if he's going to be
Speaker 1: an honest negotiator and follow through on his promises and
Speaker 1: frankly put political capital behind something other than himself. I mean,
Speaker 1: he just hasn't shown the ability to to expend political
Speaker 1: capital to move something through he just wants to win
Speaker 1: the news cycle every day. Rob Let's ask a question
Speaker 1: that falls on the Democratic Party. I want to ask
Speaker 1: you who President Donald Trump will run against. That would
Speaker 1: be ridiculous. I want to ask you what President Donald
Speaker 1: Trump he's going to be running against. What is the
Speaker 1: idea that the Democratic Party wants to communicate to the
Speaker 1: electorate the President Donald Trump will be running against. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it is incumbent on our nominee to prove two things.
Speaker 1: First of all, that Donald Trump has not been honest,
Speaker 1: that he gave people a raw deal. He said he'd
Speaker 1: do one thing and he's done another, and he's hurt
Speaker 1: everyday people in their lives. Um, their wages haven't gone up.
Speaker 1: The tax code got rigged against them. Uh, you know,
Speaker 1: he was it was really good for himself, but not
Speaker 1: good for them. And then secondly, we need to prove
Speaker 1: the case that we can do a better job. We
Speaker 1: can create more jobs through you know, through something I
Speaker 1: can infrastructure, we can we can improve Obamacare so that
Speaker 1: healthcare markets stabilize and it's more affordable for families. Those
Speaker 1: are the things we have to prove, and I think
Speaker 1: the President is going to do everything in his power
Speaker 1: to try to make the debate in our primary about identity,
Speaker 1: politics and a whole bunch of other issues we can't
Speaker 1: fall from. On the economy, I find it very difficult
Speaker 1: to see how the Democrats are going to come up
Speaker 1: with an idea that really goes against what he's done.
Speaker 1: Wage growth is up, g d P is up, confidence
Speaker 1: levels just look at the soft data from the business
Speaker 1: community sky high. What is the argument that comes from
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party. Wages are distinctly not up. People are
Speaker 1: taking home less pay every single year that goes by,
Speaker 1: and the latest payrolls report, right, but that's not growing us.
Speaker 1: It's not growing at the same pace as inflation. And
Speaker 1: the President the president right for this year, but if
Speaker 1: you look at the past thirty years, it has not
Speaker 1: been growing fast enough. And the president past attacks bill
Speaker 1: that gave away billions of dollars um to corporations and
Speaker 1: to the richest individuals. We have not seen that invested
Speaker 1: back into companies. It's being used for buy backs. And
Speaker 1: our children are being saddled with mountains of debts. So
Speaker 1: I think there's a lot at stake here. Very differently.
Speaker 1: We gotta each your backer, Robbie, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Greatly appreciated uh with his perspective on the mechanics, working
Speaker 1: with Terry mccaull if for a few years ago, and
Speaker 1: the governor at Race in Virginia of course of Secretary
Speaker 1: Clinton two years ago. It is good within all of
Speaker 1: our political views today, our economics, finance, investment, David Wilson's
Speaker 1: good stock report. To talk to somebody that actually lived,
Speaker 1: he is forever. The Senator from Mississippi, Trent Lott joins
Speaker 1: us this morning, a senator, A lot wonderful to have
Speaker 1: you with us. And within that is where one side
Speaker 1: of the House has to get used to the other
Speaker 1: side of the House as well. How well senators in
Speaker 1: the how are Republicans in the Senate adapt and adjust
Speaker 1: to a Democrat House. Well, first, Tom and Tim is
Speaker 1: good to be with you again. And this is quite
Speaker 1: an interesting morning. I was invested in the business report.
Speaker 1: But you know, there's been two similar situations that I
Speaker 1: lived through in the eighties when Reagan was president, he
Speaker 1: always had a Democratic House and only part of the
Speaker 1: time of Republican Senate. And yet working with Tip O'Neill,
Speaker 1: working across the with people like Bob Michael and Bob
Speaker 1: Dole or the Senate, but they got things done. And
Speaker 1: in the nineties when Clinton was president, we had both
Speaker 1: the House and the Senate. New Gingrich and I were
Speaker 1: leading the two bodies and we worked together. Clinton talked
Speaker 1: to us. We we did welfare reform, we balanced a budget,
Speaker 1: we passed safe drinking water, and we passed telecommunication form.
Speaker 1: A lot of things can be done in a divided government,
Speaker 1: but it takes communication, It takes chemistry, takes a vision,
Speaker 1: but most of all, it takes leadership. Does your Ablican
Speaker 1: president have the communication and chemistry to do that? Beginning
Speaker 1: with the press conference at eleven thirty this morning, Well, uh,
Speaker 1: he's gonna have to adjust to the circumstances that he faces.
Speaker 1: He does have, thank goodness of the Republican Senate, but
Speaker 1: he's gonna have to deal with Anti Pelosi in a
Speaker 1: Democratic House, um, you know, and try to figure out
Speaker 1: how we can get things done. There's some things the
Speaker 1: Senate can do on their own. But if he would
Speaker 1: reach out to uh, Chuck Schumer in the Senate and
Speaker 1: Anti Pelosi and Mitch McConnell, say, can we get together
Speaker 1: on infrastructure? This is something I think he cares about. Uh,
Speaker 1: does anybody deny that in America we need to invest
Speaker 1: more in Lane's planes, trains, ports, harbor, water and sewer. Well,
Speaker 1: absolutely not. It's not partisan. So they need to think
Speaker 1: a little bit about can we get something done for
Speaker 1: our country in the lame duck session and next year?
Speaker 1: Now after that, all bets are all pim Trent What
Speaker 1: it sounds like he was running for office there, Well,
Speaker 1: you never thought about it, but I couldn't afford to
Speaker 1: give up my livelihood and I didn't want to divorce
Speaker 1: after fifty four years. At the same way, some retired,
Speaker 1: Well you got to know when to retire. By the way,
Speaker 1: some of our colleagues need to think about that. Let
Speaker 1: me bring in pen Fox p. Well, let's follow up
Speaker 1: on that. What who are the key relationship builders in
Speaker 1: the Senate? And you just mentioned retirement. Should there be
Speaker 1: an age limit? Owner? Oh no, no, no, you know
Speaker 1: look American people, uh can end the term and leadership. Well,
Speaker 1: you know in the Senate, for instance, they do have
Speaker 1: term limits on everybody, but the Republican leader, the whip
Speaker 1: really good Man Corning from Texas is having to step
Speaker 1: aside his whip after six years, and the other leaders
Speaker 1: I presume Will will move up Thune and Barasso and
Speaker 1: Roy Blunt. He's a very interesting personality. He served in
Speaker 1: the House, he's a whipping house and now he's a
Speaker 1: leadership in the Senate. So if some of those folks
Speaker 1: will try to think about how do we reach across
Speaker 1: the aisle and see if there's something we maybe can
Speaker 1: for instance, uh, the Congress Democrat House and Republicans, and
Speaker 1: they're gonna have to deal with the trade issue, you know,
Speaker 1: the U. S m c A uh follow up to
Speaker 1: NAPTA has to come to Congress. Are they going to
Speaker 1: be able to get that done? And by the way,
Speaker 1: if they don't, you know, what is the situation with
Speaker 1: regard to trade in Canada and Mexico are two most
Speaker 1: important trading partners. What are the relationships that you believe
Speaker 1: currently exists or that have been built over time that
Speaker 1: still exists in the Senate between Democrats and Republicans. I
Speaker 1: have to tell you I don't see much. Um. You know,
Speaker 1: it's the kind of thing you have to work on
Speaker 1: every day. I had a unique personality to work with
Speaker 1: in Tom Dashel from South Dakota. He was a Democratic
Speaker 1: leader when I was a Republican leader. We had a
Speaker 1: good chemistry. We talked all the time, and we were
Speaker 1: able to get a lot of things done. Uh, even
Speaker 1: though we you know, had the president, you know it
Speaker 1: was Clinton, but it uh, you know, they're just gonna
Speaker 1: have to try to think about, Okay, what do we do.
Speaker 1: The fact is we do have a Republican Senate at
Speaker 1: gain seats, and we do have a Democrat House. It's
Speaker 1: a fact. Now, how are you gonna deal with that?
Speaker 1: The part of the bridge that could be built, Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, I think they should stay in Washington
Speaker 1: and work more. Uh. This deal where they come into
Speaker 1: town Monday night or Tuesday morning and they want to leave. Third,
Speaker 1: you can't govern like that. Uh. You know, the American
Speaker 1: people work five days a week. Yeah, the last time
Speaker 1: I checked. And this idea that could sleep in our
Speaker 1: offices that ought to be illegal in my opinion. But
Speaker 1: you know, they're gonna have to spend more time here. Uh,
Speaker 1: and they're gonna have to find a way. One of
Speaker 1: the issues, one of the things that caused me to
Speaker 1: decide to leave Congress when I did was the embarrassed
Speaker 1: I was about the inability of Congress to do immigration reform. Uh.
Speaker 1: It needs to be done both for those that are here,
Speaker 1: uh and for those that we might want to come
Speaker 1: that are legal. Uh. And to control, um, the flow
Speaker 1: of illegal immigrants into this country that hasn't been dealt
Speaker 1: with since nine six effectively. Uh, everybody knows it's an issue.
Speaker 1: We need to find a way to come together. Senator,
Speaker 1: Please don't be a stranger. A senator a lot of
Speaker 1: Mississippi with his work with John Brow of course afterwards
Speaker 1: your partner as well, Senator, thank you so much, greatly appreciated.
Speaker 1: Stephen Moore joins us now writing with Dr Lafler trump Anomics,
Speaker 1: which got wide played, particularly in Republican areas. To the
Speaker 1: gentleman from New Trier and Whinette, Illinois, Stephen Moore, the
Speaker 1: deficit grows? At what point does a deficit get in
Speaker 1: the way of trump andomics? Well, good morning, thank you
Speaker 1: for the nice introduction. And uh, that's first time people
Speaker 1: have mentioned my high school but didn't go to Newture
Speaker 1: Edge outside of Chicago. And uh, look, I think you're right.
Speaker 1: We've got a we've got a booming economy right now.
Speaker 1: You know, we had these big elections last night, and
Speaker 1: I think that the people say, well, the economy wasn't
Speaker 1: really on the ballot, Well, it sure was. And I
Speaker 1: think if it hadn't been for this booming economy, Republicans
Speaker 1: would have maken a huge bud. I think, you know,
Speaker 1: it's the economy is what saved so many of these
Speaker 1: Senate teams for the Republicans and some of the governorship.
Speaker 1: So look, I'm very bullish on the US economy. I
Speaker 1: actually think that this outcome for investors because this is
Speaker 1: boom investors. So I just okay, that's I think that
Speaker 1: the outcome last night where the Democrats took the House,
Speaker 1: Republicans took the Senate is absolutely the best possible outcome
Speaker 1: for financial a markets. That's actually did outcome for Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: I think it gives them two years to run against
Speaker 1: Nanti Pelosi and the and the the Democrats. So you know,
Speaker 1: I think, you know, you saw one of the futures
Speaker 1: were up on something my communters points this morning. I
Speaker 1: think this is a good Outkay, Stephen, you sound like
Speaker 1: Lawrence Cudlo Deaconomic Club in New York. I asked the question,
Speaker 1: you didn't answer it. Tell me about the dynamics of
Speaker 1: debt and deficit given this economic growth. Everybody knows the
Speaker 1: vector of deficit to GDP, when does it turnaround? Yeah,
Speaker 1: so that's a great question. In fact, in the book.
Speaker 1: In the book, we talk a lot about that. You know,
Speaker 1: we are from our first meeting with Donald Trump, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, to some two and a half years ago,
Speaker 1: we basically told them, look, Donald and that we call
Speaker 1: them Donald, that we call him Mr. President. We said,
Speaker 1: you're never gonna make any progress in reducing this massive
Speaker 1: tidal wave of debt that is coming because of the
Speaker 1: aging of the baby boomers unless we get economic growth
Speaker 1: rate up. You know, under Obama, the average growth rate
Speaker 1: you know, with something like one point nine five percent
Speaker 1: per year, which was you know, just not high enough,
Speaker 1: not nearly high enough. We need to double that growth rate.
Speaker 1: And so we always said, look, get the economy moving,
Speaker 1: get people in the workforce, get people off welfare and
Speaker 1: into jobs, and during factories back in the United States
Speaker 1: spring corporate profits and business profits up, and you'll get
Speaker 1: a surge of revenue. Since you know that Trump has
Speaker 1: done that, we've gotten the growth rate up to you know,
Speaker 1: close to fourth porcent now over the last I just
Speaker 1: want I know, but Stephen, I haven't answered my question.
Speaker 1: I know I'm answering it. So the solution to the
Speaker 1: debt is economic growth. We've got to get the if
Speaker 1: we keep up this economic growth rate, just as in
Speaker 1: the late ninety nineties under Bill Clinton when we actually
Speaker 1: ran budget surpluses at the end of his presidency, if
Speaker 1: we get to if we keep this high rate of
Speaker 1: growth up, the debt is a sure of GDP will
Speaker 1: continue to fall. Stephen Moore, is there any evidence, practical
Speaker 1: evidence to suggest that tax cuts are able to generate
Speaker 1: enough growth to replace the revenue that is lost from
Speaker 1: those tax cuts, And if so, can you point me
Speaker 1: hang on? Hang on, because I've looked at a variety
Speaker 1: of economic studies and at the most they say that
Speaker 1: maybe a third of the money of the revenue that
Speaker 1: is lost from tax cuts is made up, under the
Speaker 1: best of circumstances, from economic growth. Just a third. Yea. So, uh, Look,
Speaker 1: our objective with the tax cut was to grow the
Speaker 1: economy and create jobs. That was the number one issue
Speaker 1: for the American people in two thousand, Uh, you know, fourteen,
Speaker 1: fifteen and sixteen, Every year, what were Americans concerned about
Speaker 1: the economy and jobs? And we put that first, and
Speaker 1: we've done that. We've created the best labor market ever
Speaker 1: for American workers, at least in fifty years, and we've
Speaker 1: got a booming economy with three and a half four
Speaker 1: percent ROW. Now is the depth going up? Yes? Why
Speaker 1: is it an upset going up? Because spending is out
Speaker 1: of control. Spending is out of control, and I'm not
Speaker 1: going to depend the Republicans on the spending. You know
Speaker 1: that they have done nothing and neither party wants to
Speaker 1: control spending up last year, even with the tax cut,
Speaker 1: even with the tax cut in two thousand eighteen to
Speaker 1: score two thousand eighteen, which ended in October, we had
Speaker 1: more federal revenues into the treasury than any time in
Speaker 1: American history. It's not a revenue problem. It's a spending problem. Okay,
Speaker 1: we're gonna leave it. There's Stephen Wore, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Not enough time today. We'll have you back on as soon.
Speaker 1: Is an important book with Art Laughler, Stephen Moore, Arthur B. Laughler,
Speaker 1: Trump Adomics, of course, with a theory and actual policy
Speaker 1: that we've seen from the president, and again we may
Speaker 1: get clarity on it. We're squeezing some time here with
Speaker 1: Frank Keating of Oklahoma, Governor Keating, if I can jump
Speaker 1: to your tangible expertise and law enforcement, including being an
Speaker 1: FBI agent. If the president that advances forward the rhetoric
Speaker 1: in discourse on immigration, how will that be played out
Speaker 1: with our military at the border? Is a is a
Speaker 1: police guy? Do you want the army at the border? Well, Thomas,
Speaker 1: you well know the Post Commatatus Act UH prohibits the
Speaker 1: military involving itself in law enforcement activities and surely grabbing
Speaker 1: people and pushing them back. Committing a misdemeanor. Illegal enter
Speaker 1: in the United States is a law enforcement act. The
Speaker 1: Immigration Service at one time Lake Reagan reported him as
Speaker 1: did the Border Patrol. And in a situation like this,
Speaker 1: the only thing you can do is to have Mexico
Speaker 1: help you to keep people from coming across and putting
Speaker 1: barriers that are significant along the border so people can't
Speaker 1: crawl over it and effect a wall by some other name.
Speaker 1: So I'm not really happy about what's going on. I
Speaker 1: think we have to protect our borders. If you let
Speaker 1: these people in, you're gonna have ten times at number,
Speaker 1: particularly with over doors. The new president of Mexico, you
Speaker 1: don't know, he's very, very left wing his rhetoric. So
Speaker 1: far it's been reasonably positive, but you just don't know.
Speaker 1: So you certainly don't want everybody in Central South America
Speaker 1: Mexico coming across the border. That's just not sustainable. Governor Keating,
Speaker 1: during your second term, one of the major accomplishments was
Speaker 1: your increase in spending on education. This was for a
Speaker 1: common education, vocational technical, higher education that was throughout the state.
Speaker 1: You also introduced charter schools to Oklahoma for the first time.
Speaker 1: Based on what you know about the disposition of the
Speaker 1: way money is spent right now, For example, Arizona voted
Speaker 1: down school vouchers during the mid terms. What is the
Speaker 1: likelihood that we're going to get a coherent education policy. Well,
Speaker 1: the good news him is that fellaalism work and in
Speaker 1: the education arena and across the board, you have to
Speaker 1: work together Democrats and Republicans, And in my case, I
Speaker 1: was the first Republican governor since the sixties. Overwhelmingly Democrat
Speaker 1: House and Senatives. But I told them, Okay, I'm for vouchers,
Speaker 1: but we'll do public school vouchers, and I'm for choice,
Speaker 1: public school choice, and we ought to have charter school
Speaker 1: as well. They went along with that, and the ethnic
Speaker 1: charter school, for example in Oklahoma City, has nine thousand
Speaker 1: students and they have very high A C. T scores,
Speaker 1: whereas many public schools throughout the state burdened by huge
Speaker 1: levels of democracy that's across the country. The money doesn't
Speaker 1: go to the class room to get people like the
Speaker 1: three of us to teach. It goes to bureaucrats average
Speaker 1: salaries in six figures, and I think that's crazy for
Speaker 1: any state to overinvest in bureaucracy and under invest in
Speaker 1: the classroom. The governor. One final question, it's a hundred
Speaker 1: and seventy five miles from Tulsa to Wichita. I feel
Speaker 1: like I'm writing a song for the Lake, Glenn Campbell.
Speaker 1: You're moving from Tulsa to Wichita, and you're moving to
Speaker 1: a state with a Democrat governor. Uh. The brown Back
Speaker 1: experiment north of Oklahoma in Kansas, how did that work out? Well?
Speaker 1: I think Sam Brownback is a very bright guy, but
Speaker 1: as a former senator, I can't figure this out. He
Speaker 1: was not effective with the legislature didn't work with him.
Speaker 1: Republican or Democrat, you have to do that, and if
Speaker 1: the Democrats say no, it's hell no, then you say, okay,
Speaker 1: then where can we go? I mean, if you want
Speaker 1: to be a dictator, and I can say this is
Speaker 1: a Catholic. If you want to be a solo person
Speaker 1: in charge them, run for pope. But if you're a
Speaker 1: leged latory definition, you're to compromise. And I don't think
Speaker 1: Sam Brownback compromised. And I think the public decided they
Speaker 1: want to have administered the whole system of dioretic Frank Katy,
Speaker 1: thank you so much, and uh I hope to see
Speaker 1: you at your next travels to New York to advance
Speaker 1: for the next volume of Next Magical Children. Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to
Speaker 1: interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform you prefer.
Speaker 1: I'm on Twitter at Tom Keene before the podcast. You
Speaker 1: can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio.