Speaker 1: The overall tax plan I think works for war because
Speaker 1: and here's why, you've got to look at it in
Speaker 1: context of our economics war China. You can't separate at
Speaker 1: the terrorists and what he's doing on the three oh ones,
Speaker 1: what he's doing on trying to stop intellectual property theft
Speaker 1: and appropriation from the taxes. The taxes principally were to
Speaker 1: make our companies competitive with Germany, Germany and China. The
Speaker 1: the the personal tax rates, which I didn't totally agree with, right,
Speaker 1: because it's more of the trickle down, uh, is something
Speaker 1: that had to be used to get this thing past.
Speaker 1: So that's Steve bann in a while back explaining that
Speaker 1: the Trump tax cut was meant to offset the pain
Speaker 1: there's gonna come with the Tarraf war. Right. I actually
Speaker 1: heard somebody use that um argument against Trump on one
Speaker 1: of the Sunday talk shows. Look all the games that
Speaker 1: they made here in Pennsylvania with the tax cut, they're
Speaker 1: losing it all through the Terraf. Well, that was supposed
Speaker 1: to be an offset. Now, if that was the point,
Speaker 1: Steve Bannon's on some show talking about it, I haven't
Speaker 1: heard Trump explain that to anybody. No, No, why don't
Speaker 1: we usher in the fabulous Debra J. Saunders, White House
Speaker 1: correspondent from the Las Vegas Review Journal, currently at their
Speaker 1: DC bureau, I believe to discuss this and more. Hey, Debra,
Speaker 1: how are you hard to believe that Steve Bannon is
Speaker 1: no longer with this administration? Isn't it? Well? I tell
Speaker 1: you what, the complete lack of reporting on that angle
Speaker 1: and this is one of the most poorly reported stories
Speaker 1: I remember in recent years, as everybody is just looking
Speaker 1: at it purely through the lens of do I like
Speaker 1: Trump or dislike Trump? Um, this is a really big, interesting,
Speaker 1: important negotiation. There in the middle of this is you know,
Speaker 1: everything the Trump presidency hangs on this because, as you know,
Speaker 1: because we know that, let's go ahead, say China, China,
Speaker 1: Trump that the big issue for him. It was that
Speaker 1: he was going to take on China and that he
Speaker 1: was going to he was going to do what he
Speaker 1: could to get China to have fair trade practices, and
Speaker 1: and and and now we're in the middle of it,
Speaker 1: and one of two things is going to happen. Trump's
Speaker 1: gonna win or he's not. If Trump wins, it's a
Speaker 1: big game for the US economy. It hurts China, and
Speaker 1: I think we'll have it. We'll have a great economy
Speaker 1: through and his chances of being reelected are certainly, you know,
Speaker 1: better than even right. If he loses and we have
Speaker 1: a and this is a prolonged trade war, it's going
Speaker 1: to hurt the U s economy. It's going to hurt
Speaker 1: him among his base, which has really stood behind him
Speaker 1: up till now, and and and maybe for a while.
Speaker 1: We just don't know how long. Uh, and uh. He's
Speaker 1: not going to come across as the great dealmaker that
Speaker 1: he said he was, and it will be ugly. Hey,
Speaker 1: I want to point something out, partly for our listeners
Speaker 1: and partly for you, Deborah. We talked about this. I
Speaker 1: think it was last hour. We got a great note
Speaker 1: from an eminent thinker and um well as somebody knows
Speaker 1: about Chinese American trade and has lived and worked in
Speaker 1: China for forty years. He says, in China, there's a
Speaker 1: significant and growing body of academics, business people, and policymakers
Speaker 1: who agree that most of what the US is demanding
Speaker 1: of China is in China's long term interest. So while
Speaker 1: in the short term I think it would be more
Speaker 1: beneficial for the US than China. There are plenty of
Speaker 1: Chinese who think we need to sign this deal and
Speaker 1: continue our move to economic modernity. So I just thought
Speaker 1: that was worth noting. But as usual, I found that
Speaker 1: Trump administration's messaging on this a bit haphazard. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: always interesting that Trump is both uh, maybe the greatest
Speaker 1: political communicator of my lifetime and the worst at the
Speaker 1: same time. I mean, sometimes he communicates thoughts and feelings
Speaker 1: to crowds in a way that nobody can and everybody's cheering,
Speaker 1: and then on stuff like this, I feel like he
Speaker 1: counts on pundits on Fox News to explain his policies
Speaker 1: to people because he doesn't, really I haven't hurt him
Speaker 1: go out there and make the argument to farmers. Look,
Speaker 1: it's gonna hurt for a while, I realized this, But
Speaker 1: this is what's gonna be like for you in the future.
Speaker 1: Why doesn't he do that? He does it on Twitter.
Speaker 1: He's been doing tweets saying yes, trying to count on
Speaker 1: all farmers to read his his tweets. I guess they
Speaker 1: get up early, melts the cows and read his tweets. Um,
Speaker 1: but I mean there are he he said, Um, this
Speaker 1: is going Um, this is going to hurt China that
Speaker 1: if you don't want to pay tariffs and you shouldn't
Speaker 1: be manufacturing in China, you can move to another low
Speaker 1: cost country to manufacturer, like Vietnam. And yes, farmers are
Speaker 1: going to be hurt in the long one, that's gonna
Speaker 1: help you. We've got this fifteen billion dollar fund that
Speaker 1: we can give to farmers that will help you as
Speaker 1: a pain somewhat. I know manufacturers are going to be hurt,
Speaker 1: but in the end it will be in their interests.
Speaker 1: He's been saying all that on Twitter. Well, listen, you
Speaker 1: got to go to the White House and tell him
Speaker 1: to hire Joe Getty as their new communications director. Because
Speaker 1: if I were in charge, I would be out there.
Speaker 1: I would have the President, I would have all of
Speaker 1: his UH spokespeople saying all we want is for China
Speaker 1: to follow the rules they agreed to when they joined
Speaker 1: the World Trade Organization. We've been letting them slide now
Speaker 1: for damn near a couple of decades, and they're ripping
Speaker 1: us off. We don't want him to rip us off anymore.
Speaker 1: It kind of reminds me of the NATO thing. Look,
Speaker 1: I didn't decide this, this was decided by others a
Speaker 1: long time ago. I'm just trying to enforce the rules. Actually,
Speaker 1: it fits in with immigration to I'm enforcing the rules,
Speaker 1: the laws that other people passed, whether it's the World
Speaker 1: Trade Organization, our own Congress, or whoever, other people were
Speaker 1: letting it slide. That's kind of interesting. You're right, Um,
Speaker 1: you would know more about this because you're you're so
Speaker 1: close to Trump and follow him everything like that. I
Speaker 1: can't imagine him personally backing down just because he's the
Speaker 1: kind of the kind of guy he is. I can
Speaker 1: see him taking this to the end. But well, the
Speaker 1: Republican Party cave on him at some point. Well, I
Speaker 1: mean these are trade negotiations. I mean the party has
Speaker 1: stuck with him amazingly, and when you think about what
Speaker 1: a free trade party, the Republican Party has been the
Speaker 1: fact that he has this much support and that basically, uh,
Speaker 1: even even free trade senators are trying to give him
Speaker 1: a pass on this. I think because of the point
Speaker 1: you made, everybody knows it's in our interest to have
Speaker 1: this work. That if Trump can get the concessions he's
Speaker 1: looking for, it's good for the U. S. Economy and
Speaker 1: the country comes out stronger. Um, I'm sorry, my mind
Speaker 1: wandered for a second. His personality. Can you see him
Speaker 1: backing down? Well, you know, he did back down on
Speaker 1: the budget, and so we've seen that before where when
Speaker 1: there was a government shutdown, he did back down once.
Speaker 1: I don't see him doing that on this one, except
Speaker 1: you know, if you get here's the thing. He likes
Speaker 1: this personal relationship that he has with she, and these
Speaker 1: personal relationships mean a lot to him. Um. I guess
Speaker 1: my only question would be if the Chinese can convince
Speaker 1: him that the deal that China wants is Trump winning,
Speaker 1: maybe something like that happens. Um. Otherwise, this is his
Speaker 1: signature issue. This is the thing that he really wants
Speaker 1: to win. But if China is just going to be
Speaker 1: intransigent in the US economy continues to get pummeled and
Speaker 1: it's already started at some point in time, a reasonable
Speaker 1: person would cry uncle. And then the question is, then
Speaker 1: why did you get us into this problem? And that's
Speaker 1: and that's the thing. I can't imagine the situation that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump cannot want to be in. Deborah J. Saunders,
Speaker 1: white House correspondent for the Las Vegas Review Journal, on
Speaker 1: the line talking about the trade negotiation that's going on.
Speaker 1: What do your sources say, Uh, Deborah about speaking of
Speaker 1: mind wandering? Um, what was it gonna ask? Because it
Speaker 1: is important China trade something you just said it was?
Speaker 1: I got distracted. I'm looking at AOC's Twitter page and
Speaker 1: oh man, she's something. Oh what I hear is that
Speaker 1: all of the material issues have been decided and they're
Speaker 1: just hung up on enforcement mechanisms. Is that what you're hearing? Well,
Speaker 1: I mean what Trump's saying is we agreed on everything
Speaker 1: and then they took it all back. Oh yeah, that's
Speaker 1: what they're saying. We we we agreed, We're not five there,
Speaker 1: and then chining To just said no and this is
Speaker 1: and this is a negotiating tactic and that then so
Speaker 1: we're supposed to give up the concessions we won. Mm hmm. Well,
Speaker 1: I guess we'll We'll find out in time. But I
Speaker 1: still think a deal will be struck and I think
Speaker 1: it will be enormously positive. Um, but but we shall see.
Speaker 1: You're you're talking about a totalitarian regime. And if there's
Speaker 1: one thing, totalitarians who are good at their jobs know
Speaker 1: that if they give a little, they might lose everything
Speaker 1: because when it comes to control, you know there's only
Speaker 1: you know, there's control, and then there's not control. Debra J. Saunders,
Speaker 1: White House correspondent, Vegas Review Journal. Thanks a million, deb
Speaker 1: Thank you. We will talk to you soon. I had
Speaker 1: never thought of about that before until I started rambling
Speaker 1: on there. But there are three issues there where Trump
Speaker 1: could have done could still do a better job of arguing. Look,
Speaker 1: I'm just enforcing the rules that already existed. The NATO
Speaker 1: countries agreed to paying this much, they weren't. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: make them pay how much they agreed to NATO. He
Speaker 1: wants to t Barnado. Our immigration laws are this, I'm
Speaker 1: going to enforce them. If you don't like them, change
Speaker 1: the laws and the w t O the way they've
Speaker 1: set up everything. China is supposed to do this, they aren't.
Speaker 1: I'm saying we need to enforce it, right, Yeah, well
Speaker 1: devent all these things, these new hard lines, so we'll
Speaker 1: want to go through a little pain to enforce it.
Speaker 1: Which none of his predecessors were Republican or Democrat. Pretty
Speaker 1: interesting worth noting