Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg Sound On.
Speaker 1: You can continue to count on NATO support for US
Speaker 1: long as it takes I would expect that we will
Speaker 1: begin to see an escalation of the fighting again. Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Sound On, Politics, Policy and perspective from DC's top name.
Speaker 1: How about all the people who weren't able to go
Speaker 1: to college. There's very little discussion about why our college
Speaker 1: in universities cost so much money. It creates a division
Speaker 1: within his own caucus, but also in the country. Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Sound On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. The US
Speaker 1: pledges billions more in weapons for Ukraine as the war
Speaker 1: reaches the six month mark. Today, welcome to the fastest
Speaker 1: hour in politics. As the Pentagon and NATO doubled down
Speaker 1: on the war effort, just as fighting begins to intensify
Speaker 1: once again. Retired Navy Admiral James Debritis will join us
Speaker 1: on the strategy for Ukraine and how long this could last.
Speaker 1: President Biden makes good on his promise to forgive some
Speaker 1: student loans. The planning just announced that goes a lot
Speaker 1: further than that. We'll get details from Bloomberg. White House
Speaker 1: reporter Nancy Cook, who helped to break the story. Analysis
Speaker 1: from our signature panel this day after another primary night,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Politics contributors Jeanie Schanzano and Rick Davis are with
Speaker 1: us for the hour, and we start things off. President
Speaker 1: Biden today announcing the US will send Ukraine it's largest
Speaker 1: weapons package to date. It's almost three billion dollars in
Speaker 1: surface to air missiles, mortar rounds, radar systems, drones. The
Speaker 1: announcement delivered in writing coinciding with Ukrainian Independence Day ceremonies
Speaker 1: in the capital of Keys. To sound from a replaying
Speaker 1: by President Zelenski and the First Lady of Ukraine as
Speaker 1: the nation marks thirty one years of independence from the
Speaker 1: Soviet Union. Here's Zelensky in a news conference earlier today
Speaker 1: with translation, and the civilized world is supporting us. We
Speaker 1: are not afraid of the Russian Federation, he says, six
Speaker 1: months in, but more intense fighting is coming, and we're
Speaker 1: joined to talk about what is next. By retired Navy Admiral,
Speaker 1: former NATO Allied Supreme Commander James Sturbridus, now Bloomberg contributor
Speaker 1: and Vice chair of the Carlisle Group, author of the
Speaker 1: book To Risk it all, Admiral, welcome back to the program.
Speaker 1: Could be with you, Joe. Now that we've reached the
Speaker 1: six month mark in this conflict, there's a huge sense
Speaker 1: of accomplishment in Ukraine in here in the US, because well,
Speaker 1: nobody predicted Ukraine stay in the fight for this long.
Speaker 1: We got it through six months. It's kind of remarkable.
Speaker 1: But then, Admiral, the sobering realization follows that this will
Speaker 1: not end anytime soon. How long can Ukraine keep this going? Oh?
Speaker 1: I think indefinitely. Um, this is turning into a stalemate.
Speaker 1: I think a pretty good model, frankly is the Korean War. Um.
Speaker 1: North and South Korea is still in a state of war. Technically,
Speaker 1: occasional military operations go back and forth, both nations jockeying
Speaker 1: on the world stage. UM. I think this one has
Speaker 1: every possibility of going on for a lengthy period of time.
Speaker 1: And that's the worst news for Vladimir Putin because over
Speaker 1: time he'll continue to be outside the global economy and
Speaker 1: it'll it'll put enormous downward pressure on his economic situation.
Speaker 1: The US is announcing another three billion dollars in military
Speaker 1: aid for Ukraine, and it appears to be coming with
Speaker 1: the promise for plenty more UH as needed here. But
Speaker 1: it's been interesting to hear the administration's language around this
Speaker 1: and and even that from NATO suggesting that some of
Speaker 1: the arms that we're sending right now are not for
Speaker 1: the imminent battle but for months down the road. Are
Speaker 1: we still giving Ukraine what it needs? We are, Joe,
Speaker 1: and UM, I think the proof is in the putting.
Speaker 1: The results show that we are. We've stopped the Russian
Speaker 1: advance effectively cold. Um, They're not going to be able
Speaker 1: to roll over the entire country as they wanted. Um.
Speaker 1: They're going to have to settle at some point for
Speaker 1: some portion of Ukraine. And that's um, you know, still
Speaker 1: to be determined whether the Russians will even get that much. So, UM,
Speaker 1: we're sending the right weapons. And I'll make two quick points.
Speaker 1: One is, Yep, we've added three billion dollars. The total
Speaker 1: tab now is north of ten billion. But in the
Speaker 1: context of what we spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, where
Speaker 1: we spent billions and billions of dollars every week, UM,
Speaker 1: this is not a huge amount of money. And we
Speaker 1: can continue to do this, and we ought to continue
Speaker 1: to do this, and The second quick point is back
Speaker 1: to the question you as a moment ago, UM, I
Speaker 1: think the uh. The polling in the United States shows
Speaker 1: UH strong majority of Americans support this and understand why
Speaker 1: we need to stop Vladimir Putin, which is going to
Speaker 1: be pretty important a few months down the road, especially
Speaker 1: if we're still talking about elevated energy prices, the winter
Speaker 1: heating season and so forth. We heard from the administration
Speaker 1: today on Bloomberg Amanda Slout as Senior Director for European
Speaker 1: Affairs on the National Security Council, with a clear expressing
Speaker 1: a clear expectation, if not concern, about much more concerted
Speaker 1: fighting in the weeks ahead. Admiral listen to what she says. Well,
Speaker 1: have you respond? I would expect that we will begin
Speaker 1: to see an escalation of the fighting again. Everybody is
Speaker 1: obviously very conscious of of winter coming up. The muddy
Speaker 1: season starts in in midfall, UH, and so there is
Speaker 1: going to be a desire by both sides to make
Speaker 1: as much progress on the ground as they can before
Speaker 1: we move into the winter months. It's anonymous line, winter
Speaker 1: is coming. Admiral Stefrida's what is Ukraine need to do
Speaker 1: now to get ready? Um? First and foremost, take the
Speaker 1: weapons systems that are flowing so freely. We've talked about
Speaker 1: the US contributions, there are equally enormous levels of resources
Speaker 1: coming from our European colleagues and NATO. Number Two, they
Speaker 1: need to go on the offensive in and around Cure soon,
Speaker 1: which is a major city gateway to Crimea. By doing
Speaker 1: that they'll draw troops away from Putin's main military effort
Speaker 1: up in the Don Beast, so offensive operations. And number three,
Speaker 1: the Ukrainians need to continue. They're actually quite remarkable abilities
Speaker 1: to reach behind the front lines and take out Russian logistics,
Speaker 1: sinking the Black Sea flagship, knocking down dozens of aircraft
Speaker 1: on a base in Crimea. Um, the Ukrainians are showing
Speaker 1: a great deal of creativity and war that's often a
Speaker 1: key to victory. You're a sailor, of course, Admiral of
Speaker 1: the concern about keeping the Black Sea open and secure
Speaker 1: remains a major one. Are we outfitting Ukraine with the
Speaker 1: weapons it needs to continue, keeping ports open if that's
Speaker 1: even possible through the winter, or simply attacking Russian vessels
Speaker 1: in the water. And I ask you that now against
Speaker 1: this backdrop of President Zelenski claiming that they want to
Speaker 1: take Crimea back at the war will end in Crimea. Yes,
Speaker 1: I've been following President Zelenski's commentary. I think both sides
Speaker 1: are going to create very high levels of expectation in
Speaker 1: their rhetoric. We'll see where it all lands once negotiations occur.
Speaker 1: But you're right to point at the importance of the
Speaker 1: sea and all of this. Here's some good news for
Speaker 1: a change. Um, the Turks negotiated agreement between the Russians
Speaker 1: and the Ukrainians to export grain. That's working well. Dozens
Speaker 1: of ships have left, more coming in that will help
Speaker 1: the Ukrainian economy. It'll keep the major port of Odessa
Speaker 1: busy and open. It will keep a route through the
Speaker 1: mine fields that have been laid in the Black Sea
Speaker 1: by the Ukrainians to protect their shores. So that's going well.
Speaker 1: And finally, yes, we should be giving the Ukrainians the
Speaker 1: ability to reach out and touch the Russian Black Sea
Speaker 1: fleet as they did so successfully and sinking the Muska
Speaker 1: the flagship a couple of months ago. War fair or
Speaker 1: is that ship to ship warfare or something I'm not
Speaker 1: thinking of. It is using shore based cruise missiles that
Speaker 1: can reach out to see and they have to be
Speaker 1: given direction and targeting by drones. So it's a combination.
Speaker 1: Ukraine does not have the naval forces to go toe
Speaker 1: to toe with the Black Sea Fleet, but they can
Speaker 1: hurt them badly from the shore using drones for targeting
Speaker 1: and long range cruise missiles. You said just last week
Speaker 1: that Russia is pushing the world to the edge of
Speaker 1: a potential nuclear crisis. We're watching what's happening in this
Speaker 1: ongoing Russian occupation of Europe's largest nuclear power plant in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: This doesn't look like it's going to end anytime soon,
Speaker 1: as it leverage for Vladimir Putin. What's he trying to do?
Speaker 1: He has three goals in occupying that nuclear power plant.
Speaker 1: Number one is simply to deprive the Ukrainians of about
Speaker 1: twenty of their electricity, which comes from that Zapparzia nuclear
Speaker 1: power plant. Number two, Putin is kind of trying to
Speaker 1: scare the Europeans. He's sort of waiving the Chernobyl scenario
Speaker 1: at the Europeans. I think it's highly unlikely he's going
Speaker 1: to go in that direction because prevailing winds will deposit
Speaker 1: radioactivity on his shores. As well. And thirdly, Putin believes
Speaker 1: that because it's a nuclear site, Ukrainians won't attack it
Speaker 1: in force, and as a result he can use it
Speaker 1: as a kind of mini sanctuary for his forces. It's
Speaker 1: very strict magically located near that city of cure San
Speaker 1: that I mentioned a moment ago. Does this war ends
Speaker 1: in some sort of fade out of attrition as opposed
Speaker 1: to a climactic decisive when I presume you still think
Speaker 1: on behalf of Ukraine, um, I think it ends with
Speaker 1: a negotiation and armistice agreed to by both parties. Whether
Speaker 1: that's six months from now or six years from now,
Speaker 1: I think is hard to predict. But certainly for the
Speaker 1: next six months you're gonna see both sides maneuvering, trying
Speaker 1: to gain as much territory as they can, because both
Speaker 1: sides are burning through resources. On Putin's side, too many
Speaker 1: killed in action, wounded, seventy eight thousand, too much equipment destroyed.
Speaker 1: His burn rate is terrible. And on the other side,
Speaker 1: we mentioned it earlier, the patients of the West, the
Speaker 1: support for the weapons going to the Ukrainians, both of
Speaker 1: those are dwindling resources. Six months from now, I think
Speaker 1: both sides will be looking for a negotiating table. Well,
Speaker 1: you just said something, Uh, you just said something very interesting.
Speaker 1: As a professional warrior, you're looking at this and allowing
Speaker 1: for up to six years. You said this could be
Speaker 1: six months or six years. Is that really what America
Speaker 1: needs to brace war? I think that again, let's look
Speaker 1: at the Korean War that's been going on since then.
Speaker 1: What I don't think we're going to see is massive
Speaker 1: levels of combat. This is going to dwindle down to
Speaker 1: a kind of a stalemate of frozen conflict is the
Speaker 1: term that sometimes used. They'll be flare ups here and there,
Speaker 1: but I think that it is more likely we'll get
Speaker 1: to a negotiation sooner rather than later. My point in
Speaker 1: mentioning a six year um and pointing to the Korean
Speaker 1: War is simply that war is unpredictable. Retired Navy Admiral
Speaker 1: currently vice chair at the Carlisle Group James his new book,
Speaker 1: To Risk It All, Nine Conflicts and the Crucible of Decision.
Speaker 1: It's our pleasure as always, Admiral, stay in touch with
Speaker 1: us on Bloomberg. Thanks so much. Always, will assemble the
Speaker 1: panel next. This is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg. Sound on
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Radio. So another three billion dollars in weapons
Speaker 1: for Ukraine. That's just from the U S alone. But
Speaker 1: it's not all on the way yet. It's not on
Speaker 1: a plane or shift right now. It's great information on
Speaker 1: the terminal from our Pentagon team. You're not gonna hear
Speaker 1: this anywhere else unless you watch news briefings all day.
Speaker 1: The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Colin Call, you've
Speaker 1: heard him on this program, said this to reporters at
Speaker 1: the Pentagon. The new aid is aimed at a year
Speaker 1: from now, two years from now, to dissuade Vladimir Putin
Speaker 1: from the notion that he can wait. Everybody out, Let's
Speaker 1: assemble the panel with us Rick Davis, Jeanie Schanzano, Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Politics contributors on this six month and Independence Day, both
Speaker 1: coinciding for Ukraine. Rick, as I reading this story and
Speaker 1: it's a very important part of this package. Six additional
Speaker 1: national advanced surface to air missile systems have yet to
Speaker 1: even be put under contract and produced. These are made
Speaker 1: by Raytheon. So or are we signaling our intentions to
Speaker 1: be there two years from now or are we actually
Speaker 1: buying this stuff? You know there has been a concerted
Speaker 1: effort by the administration to start broadcasting a comfort level
Speaker 1: with the idea that this conflict is gonna last a
Speaker 1: long time. And so I think this messaging around the
Speaker 1: three billion dollar package, you know, here are the kinds
Speaker 1: of things we're gonna send that will help build the
Speaker 1: defense infrastructure of the country, not just fight the war.
Speaker 1: So you know, these these items you just mentioned that
Speaker 1: Nasam's um you know, their air defense package, so they
Speaker 1: would go around you know, a capital city or somewhere
Speaker 1: like that, uh and the Washington to protect exactly, especially
Speaker 1: with unmanned attacks, and so there are other kinds of
Speaker 1: systems that go after jets. And so you know, you
Speaker 1: can see the narrative building around this administration, which is like, hey,
Speaker 1: we're in it for the long haul, you know. So
Speaker 1: this knows so much about a war that drags on
Speaker 1: two years. Rick, this is for building a post war military,
Speaker 1: is that what you're saying, Yeah, this is this is
Speaker 1: to give the tools to the Ukrainians to really satisfy
Speaker 1: their security needs long term. Three billion dollars is a
Speaker 1: lot of money, Genie. In two years is a long
Speaker 1: period of time. How many Americans do you think are
Speaker 1: are aware of this, and does the White House need
Speaker 1: to be doing a better job telegraphing that. I mean,
Speaker 1: most people were not at the Undersecretary's briefing, that's right,
Speaker 1: And you know, Zelinski himself has been saying in the
Speaker 1: last couple of days exactly what you are saying is
Speaker 1: the concern is that people across the world, not just
Speaker 1: in the United States, forget about the plight of Ukraine
Speaker 1: and as this drags out. This is what Putin has
Speaker 1: been banking on too, the Biden administration's point that Americans
Speaker 1: and the West to simply don't have the stamina to
Speaker 1: stay in this. So that's why this you know, two
Speaker 1: three billion today is so important because it suggests, along
Speaker 1: with Boris Johnson's surprise visit to Kiev, that there is
Speaker 1: international and Western support there. The challenges, of course, it's
Speaker 1: been thirteen billion dollars total, and that has to sustain
Speaker 1: over a long period. I'm not saying the money, although
Speaker 1: it does, but the support, and that's going to be
Speaker 1: very important to your point that they message this appropriately.
Speaker 1: And again, there can be issues that crop up that
Speaker 1: we don't imagine at this moment that will diminish support
Speaker 1: in a big way. I'm glad you mentioned Boris Johnson. Well,
Speaker 1: you never know who is going to show up and
Speaker 1: keep you at all friends. I simply say this, we
Speaker 1: must keep going. We must shore as friends of Ukraine
Speaker 1: that we have the same strategic indurance as the people
Speaker 1: of Ukraine. Almost missed him. Then you Uh showed up
Speaker 1: there leave unannounced at least publicly to take part in
Speaker 1: the ceremonies today and they held a joint news conference.
Speaker 1: Who else needs to show up there, Rick, I mean
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, I'm assuming is not going to keep anytime soon.
Speaker 1: But we've been talking a lot more about visiting Taiwan
Speaker 1: than we have Ukraine lately. Yeah, And and that's disappointing
Speaker 1: because I think it was great of Johnson to go
Speaker 1: on Independence Day. We've heard all kinds of reports about
Speaker 1: what kind of initiatives the Russians we're gonna try and take.
Speaker 1: Everyone was worried that there'd be active shelling and Kiev
Speaker 1: we actually suggested to get the us UH citizens out
Speaker 1: of the country. Um So the fact that he was
Speaker 1: willing to do that, he gets the profile and courage
Speaker 1: award for the day. But I do think it's important
Speaker 1: to keep up the public diplomacy in support of of Ukraine,
Speaker 1: and I think really important as we get in toward
Speaker 1: this G twenty meeting in November, where Vladimir vibra Putin
Speaker 1: is is actually playing to a ten and so what
Speaker 1: kind of pressure can we put on how do we
Speaker 1: heighten the visibility you know, of Zelenski and the activities
Speaker 1: in Ukraine in advance of him coming out of his
Speaker 1: hole and and trying to act as if, you know,
Speaker 1: there's nothing wrong. What if Joe Biden did show up
Speaker 1: in Kiev, Jennie, Is that good politics right now? What
Speaker 1: if that was your sort of October surprise out of
Speaker 1: the mid terms or is it foolish? You know, I
Speaker 1: was wondering if he might do that just before the
Speaker 1: mid terms. Um, But I think the danger there is
Speaker 1: it would look like it was driven by politics. And
Speaker 1: I think for Joe Biden and so many other American
Speaker 1: public officials, not just in his administration, but bipartisan, this
Speaker 1: is something that they see a sort of above politics,
Speaker 1: if there can be such a thing, or a bipartisan
Speaker 1: So I think he's got to be careful about the timing.
Speaker 1: But most important is the issue of security and that's
Speaker 1: something that we heard when when they were considering him
Speaker 1: going prior it was not secure for him to go.
Speaker 1: And maybe that will change and we will see him there.
Speaker 1: But I give Johnson a lot of credit for going.
Speaker 1: It's that kind of spotlight that that needs to be
Speaker 1: kept on this in order for the public support to
Speaker 1: sustain itself. Secret Service wouldn't deal with It's still right, Rick, Yeah,
Speaker 1: you need a lot more Nay Sam's around keep to
Speaker 1: want to have the President Nited States show up in
Speaker 1: the plaza, got it. Yeah, So they actually need to
Speaker 1: be ordered, by the way, the six I mentioned the
Speaker 1: prior to that had been promised have still not been
Speaker 1: ordered yet. So it is an interesting sort of component
Speaker 1: of this defense that we're well support of the defense
Speaker 1: program here that we're providing that not a lot of
Speaker 1: people are talking about. Yen Stoltenberg at NATO today pledging
Speaker 1: basically unlimited support. You can continue to count on NATO's
Speaker 1: support for as long as it takes, for as long
Speaker 1: as it takes the word from NATO. Rick and Genie
Speaker 1: stay with us for the hour of course. Our signature panel,
Speaker 1: I'm Joe, Matthew and Washington. Glad you're with us as
Speaker 1: we turned to the big news from the White House
Speaker 1: next student loan debt, relief, forgiveness, but also a lot
Speaker 1: more than the headline is telling you. We'll dig into
Speaker 1: this with Bloomberg White House reporter Nancy Cook, who helped
Speaker 1: to break the story. I'm Joe Matthew again. This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: Thanks for being with us on Bloomberg Sound On. President
Speaker 1: Biden made the announcement today at the White House. Using
Speaker 1: the authority Congress granted the Department of Education, we will
Speaker 1: forgive ten thousand dollars in outstanding federal student loans. In addition,
Speaker 1: students who come from low income families which allowed them
Speaker 1: to qualify to receive a pell grant, will have their
Speaker 1: debt reduced twenty thousand dollars, just as you read in
Speaker 1: the story from Bloomberg. White House reporter Nancy Cook out
Speaker 1: ahead on this yesterday and early today, and she's with
Speaker 1: us now to pick through some of the details of
Speaker 1: this plan. Nancy, welcome back to the program. Thanks for
Speaker 1: having me. Let's start with what this does. Ten thousand
Speaker 1: dollars that sounds familiar in loan forgiveness for most, twenty
Speaker 1: thousand for those with pell grants, But there's also a
Speaker 1: cap on undergrad loan repayments. How does that part work?
Speaker 1: So basically, the way that it would work is that
Speaker 1: you would take um, you know, if you're if you're
Speaker 1: below the one thousand, so if you make less than
Speaker 1: a d dollars a year, it would cap your monthly
Speaker 1: payments at five percent of your income. And that's a
Speaker 1: huge thing. I mean, I feel like the ten dollar
Speaker 1: forgiveness and the dollar forgiveness that's really sort of like
Speaker 1: the headline news and what people have been watching. But
Speaker 1: the Biden administration is also trying to make tweaks to
Speaker 1: the student loan repayment system going forward beyond just this
Speaker 1: one time debt kid. It would have impact a huge
Speaker 1: amount of people. Um And and also there's like some
Speaker 1: nuance there too, like you know, it could affect the
Speaker 1: student loan forgiveness also applies to people who have parent
Speaker 1: plus loans. So if you're a parent, for instance, and
Speaker 1: you co signed for you know, one of your your
Speaker 1: kids loans as like a bunch of people do to
Speaker 1: help them, you know, that loan also counts for loan forgiveness.
Speaker 1: Like the kid and the parents couldn't both take advantage.
Speaker 1: But my point is this is actually a big deal
Speaker 1: and it's something that progressives UM have wanted for a
Speaker 1: long time, and they're thrilled with the wind. Some are not, though,
Speaker 1: and it's been interesting to hear the reaction from from
Speaker 1: certain politicians, from certain groups like the N double A CP.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden promised this on the campaign triol and we
Speaker 1: went back and listened to a couple of his rallies
Speaker 1: yesterday when people were honking horns back in COVID, you know,
Speaker 1: the drive ins. He even mentioned the ten thousand dollars
Speaker 1: at every turn, the hundred and twenty five thousand dollar cap.
Speaker 1: So why why criticism from the left. Well, I think
Speaker 1: that it depends. You know, I've talked to different people
Speaker 1: on the left. I think some people feel like, you know,
Speaker 1: the N double A CP, for instance, was really pushing
Speaker 1: for him to forgive at least fifty thou dollars in
Speaker 1: student debt. I don't think he was ever going to
Speaker 1: do that, UM, And so I think it depends who
Speaker 1: you talked to. Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has been very
Speaker 1: intimately involved in this discussion. You know, I think it
Speaker 1: is really happy with this outcome. You know, UM people
Speaker 1: feel like progressive that I spoke to feel like they
Speaker 1: pushed Biden further than he was likely to go. You know, Biden,
Speaker 1: I feel like, left of his own devices, would have
Speaker 1: done ten thousand dollars in student debt if if anything,
Speaker 1: And there's a sense that they moved him on, you know,
Speaker 1: some of these nuance issues that we already talked about,
Speaker 1: but also the twenty dollars for pell grant recipients. He's
Speaker 1: doing this all on his own through executive action. Exactly
Speaker 1: does that mean that if another president came in a
Speaker 1: couple of years from now, they could undo it. Well,
Speaker 1: the thing is is that the debt cancelation is a
Speaker 1: one time thing in terms of the cap though, oh sure, right,
Speaker 1: in terms of the cap, they could make those tweaks. Definitely,
Speaker 1: that's a great point. Interesting what happens to those loans?
Speaker 1: Does the government pay them off or do they just vanish?
Speaker 1: I think they just vanished, that's something I know country,
Speaker 1: But I also think that that's why, you know, this
Speaker 1: is a controversial idea among UM economists. You know, we've
Speaker 1: been talking about student debt, and I've been covering this
Speaker 1: for a while, but it is like a pretty new
Speaker 1: political and economic idea. And I do think you know,
Speaker 1: if you talk to economists, not the ones who work
Speaker 1: in the White House, you know there is a sense
Speaker 1: that people haven't really tried this before, and so we're
Speaker 1: not really sure what will happen to the economy. Well,
Speaker 1: Republicans are already calling out administration for worsening inflation, right,
Speaker 1: and of course they point to none other than Larry Summers,
Speaker 1: which they must love, uh and the Biden administration. But
Speaker 1: he tweeted a couple of days ago you saw this.
Speaker 1: I hope the administration does not contribute to inflation macro
Speaker 1: economically by offering unreasonably generous student loan relief or micro
Speaker 1: by encouraging college tuition increases. He says, it raises demand
Speaker 1: and increases inflation. But interesting another tweet, he said, every
Speaker 1: dollar spent you saw this on student loan relief is
Speaker 1: a dollar that could have gone to support those without
Speaker 1: the opportunity to go to college. That sounds like a
Speaker 1: tweet that Joe Biden thinks about at night. Well, also,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden speaks to Larry Summers, and Larry Summers speaks
Speaker 1: to the White House Chief of staff Ron Klain. I
Speaker 1: imagine he said these things to them. It's not just
Speaker 1: Larry Summers who was raising questions. Jason Furman, you know,
Speaker 1: another top Obama economic official, has been very down on
Speaker 1: student loan debts. Republicans are I mean, I think the
Speaker 1: White House decided that this was, you know, a good
Speaker 1: political thing for them to do ahead of the mid terms.
Speaker 1: It was a way to excite voters. It was also
Speaker 1: a campaign promise that they wanted to fulfill. Um. It
Speaker 1: was a way to deal with some of the generational
Speaker 1: wealth gap issues. UM. And I think that we'll have
Speaker 1: to see what it does the economy. You see the
Speaker 1: comments on Twitter, Republicans say, there he goes, he's literally
Speaker 1: buying votes now to do this right before the mid
Speaker 1: term elections. Does the White House have an answer to that?
Speaker 1: Is that? Is that part of the talking points? That's
Speaker 1: not part of the talking points. But isn't that always
Speaker 1: what political parties do. I mean, Republicans passed a huge
Speaker 1: tax bill in seventeen Um, you know, before the terms.
Speaker 1: You know what I mean? I feel like this is
Speaker 1: the way Washington. This is the way Washington works. Both
Speaker 1: parties do it when they're in power. I just congratulate
Speaker 1: you on the reporting because this has been so long
Speaker 1: in coming, I mean since before he was in the
Speaker 1: White House. And if you have a terminal, if you're
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg dot com, you saw it with Nancy Cook
Speaker 1: sharing the byline last evening. Thanks for coming back to
Speaker 1: talk to us. Thanks for having me to We've learned
Speaker 1: a couple of things. You know. Look, the President says,
Speaker 1: by the way, that the deficit reduction from his administration
Speaker 1: more than covers all of this. But you heard the
Speaker 1: response from Nancy. They're like, well, the Trump administration did
Speaker 1: the tax cut since and that's exactly what the reaction
Speaker 1: has been. Well from the President himself, he was trying
Speaker 1: to get ahead of this in the speech while announcing
Speaker 1: the program using the authority Congress granted the Department of Education.
Speaker 1: We will forgive. I will never apologize ever helping Americans, working, working,
Speaker 1: American's mental class, especially not to the same folks who
Speaker 1: voted for a two trillion dollar tax cut that mainly
Speaker 1: benefited the wealthiest Americans and the biggest corporations that slowed
Speaker 1: the economy, didn't do hell uch for economic growth, and
Speaker 1: wasn't paid for, and racked up this enormous deficit, so
Speaker 1: the White House can claim a win here to say
Speaker 1: that the president's making good on a campaign promise, and
Speaker 1: even the statement later from the n double a CP
Speaker 1: was a lot more favorable than it was this time yesterday.
Speaker 1: We'll see how the panel feels about it. The politics
Speaker 1: US could be moving on this as we head for
Speaker 1: the mid terms. Genie Chanzano and Rick Davis will be
Speaker 1: with us as we also look back on a big
Speaker 1: primary night New York and Florida. Big night for Nancy Pelosi.
Speaker 1: I keep hearing, but what about Joe Biden. It's the
Speaker 1: fastest hour in politics. I'm Joe Matthew and Washington. Thanks
Speaker 1: for being with us. We'll check traffic and markets on
Speaker 1: the way. This is Bloomberg. You're listening to Bloomberg. You
Speaker 1: sound on with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. President Biden
Speaker 1: makes good on the campaign pledge to relieve student loan debt,
Speaker 1: the forgiveness plan ten thousand for most twenty dollars and
Speaker 1: loans for some who received hell grants. By the way,
Speaker 1: we haven't even mentioned at least I haven't. If you
Speaker 1: can forgive me the extension. This is the final extension,
Speaker 1: the President announcing four more months on the moratorium on
Speaker 1: student loan repayments. So that gets you through the year.
Speaker 1: And this is as you may well expect. Well, we've
Speaker 1: already told you this not playing well on the other
Speaker 1: side of the aisle. You're gonna satisfy that obligation. You do,
Speaker 1: you follow through, you work hard to do that. Then
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, other people don't have to changing
Speaker 1: the rules of the game in the middle of the game.
Speaker 1: Just as not fair. Congressman Dan new House, Republican from Washington,
Speaker 1: kind of crystallizing what many in the Republican Party think
Speaker 1: about this. It's a fairness issue, they say, just as
Speaker 1: well as an economic one. Let's reassemble the panel, Rick
Speaker 1: Davis and Jeannie Chanzano or whether Genie, you've got your
Speaker 1: classroom gonna be full of students next week. I assume
Speaker 1: that this is going to play very well with them.
Speaker 1: But do they vote? Uh? They do? Um? We I
Speaker 1: think we will see a fairly robust turnout in the
Speaker 1: mid term amongst people under the age of twenty five.
Speaker 1: But you know, I think for me, I have to
Speaker 1: say that, you know, this is critically important because of
Speaker 1: course these students are carrying the largest single debt of
Speaker 1: any group of Americans. And the question that I have
Speaker 1: for the Biden administration is, yes, relief on this, that
Speaker 1: is fine, But I think they should couple that with
Speaker 1: addressing the really problematic issue of college affordability, because to me,
Speaker 1: what's happening here is, you know, something of an upstream parable.
Speaker 1: They are just addressing what we're seeing as the remnants
Speaker 1: of a problem without addressing the problem. And the problem
Speaker 1: has been needed to be addressed for many, many decades.
Speaker 1: The actual cost of the damn thing, the the actual cost.
Speaker 1: And you know, and Republicans are right, I know a
Speaker 1: lot of people in college. I know a lot of
Speaker 1: people who chose not to go, who went to more
Speaker 1: affordable colleges because they couldn't pay back loans from more
Speaker 1: expensive colleges. People who didn't go and are working in
Speaker 1: paying taxes to pay for this. They have a right
Speaker 1: to be frustrated by this. And that's why not just
Speaker 1: the Biden of administration, but Congress as a whole should
Speaker 1: address once and for all the issue of college affordability,
Speaker 1: not just deal with the remnants of a problem without
Speaker 1: addressing the root cause. There's the forgiveness component here, Rick,
Speaker 1: and we saw that coming, but I was kind of
Speaker 1: blown away. And I think we established with Nancy Cook
Speaker 1: a little earlier that you can flip this headline. The
Speaker 1: cap on loan payments going forward of five percent of
Speaker 1: of someone's discretionary income is a huge deal. That that
Speaker 1: impacts any future student loan borrower going forward. How does
Speaker 1: that play? Is that something that people can Republicans say
Speaker 1: that that's a bad idea. Well, sure, I think what
Speaker 1: they're gonna say is that all of this adds to
Speaker 1: the national debt um It just took a year for
Speaker 1: Biden the past the Inflation Reduction Act, which which reduced
Speaker 1: the national debt by just under three hundred billion dollars.
Speaker 1: He just added five hundred billion dollars including the extension
Speaker 1: maybe even more, uh to replace that. I mean, in
Speaker 1: one fell suit, one move of the pen, A year
Speaker 1: or a year's amount of work on reducing the debt
Speaker 1: has just been wiped out. And he's line that this
Speaker 1: is more than covered by deficit reduction is not genuine. No,
Speaker 1: I mean, and and by the way, why have deficit
Speaker 1: reduction if you're just gonna pilot right back on the
Speaker 1: next day. I mean, like, this is the thing that's
Speaker 1: confounding most budget watchers is that that, first of all,
Speaker 1: this should have been done through an appropriation process, right,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden. The president is not allowed to make appropriations. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's the job of Congress. And so we talked about
Speaker 1: this last night. Rick. Let's say Donald Trump wins the presidency,
Speaker 1: it's twenty four he can rescind this executive action and
Speaker 1: the cap specifically on his first day in office. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but he can't. He can't claw back the five dollars
Speaker 1: worth of deficit that just been added back, because wouldn't
Speaker 1: that be something to Jennie you know, Hey, sorry, you
Speaker 1: gotta pay it back. We're gonna put this back on
Speaker 1: your credit card. Yeah. I don't think anybody could claw
Speaker 1: it back. But I think an even bigger issue is
Speaker 1: can Democrats are quite frankly Republicans as well. Once you
Speaker 1: go down this road, the incentive is you key doing
Speaker 1: it again. And so you know, it's really really hard
Speaker 1: to pull this back at all because people borrowing tomorrow. Yes,
Speaker 1: the cap is there, but they're going to be saying, hey,
Speaker 1: am I going to be forgiven that first ten thousand dollars. Again,
Speaker 1: the issue here is the problem of affordability of higher
Speaker 1: education in this country. It should be a public good,
Speaker 1: just like health care. It should not be only for
Speaker 1: the wealthy or when you get somebody in office who
Speaker 1: forgives a loan. That's the critical issue that needs to
Speaker 1: be addressed. And this is all icing around the cake
Speaker 1: at this point. Genie Chanzano and Rick Davis make up
Speaker 1: our signature panel here on Bloomberg Sound On. We got
Speaker 1: through another primary night, and I have to ask you
Speaker 1: both about it. We're not going to dig through all
Speaker 1: these races because it's been a bit of time, but
Speaker 1: there you know that we talked so much about this
Speaker 1: race in Manhattan between Jerry Nadler and Carolin Maloney. She
Speaker 1: lost by a lot. This is a long time Democratic
Speaker 1: leader on Capitol Hill, two former allies going at it.
Speaker 1: But while we consider that race, I want to bring
Speaker 1: you back to the debate that they had when President
Speaker 1: Biden came up. Because I was told all day today
Speaker 1: and I read all day to day that this is
Speaker 1: a great night for Nancy Pelosi. Nobody said Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: This was the New York One debate with Nadler Maloney
Speaker 1: and Pateel. Should President Biden run again in Mr Nadler
Speaker 1: too early to say, doesn't serve the purpose of Democratic
Speaker 1: Party too to deal with that until after the mid terms.
Speaker 1: I don't believe he's running for re election. Okay. That
Speaker 1: prompted a whole round of stories, forcing her to apologize
Speaker 1: the next day on CNN. Mr President, I apologize. I
Speaker 1: want you to run. I happen to thank you won't
Speaker 1: be running, but when you run, or if you run,
Speaker 1: I will be there. You have deserved it. You are
Speaker 1: a great president. Rick. It just makes me wonder what role,
Speaker 1: if any Joe Biden is going to play in these
Speaker 1: mid terms. Now that we're pretty much getting through the
Speaker 1: primary season, you see what the general is gonna look like.
Speaker 1: Is he gonna play a role in it? Yeah? His Uh,
Speaker 1: certainly he'll play a role in the general. I think
Speaker 1: his numbers are starting to improve a little bit. I
Speaker 1: think he had a good legislative session, so I don't
Speaker 1: think you're gonna be able to keep him out of
Speaker 1: some of these districts. But I think he has minded
Speaker 1: his p's and queues, knowing that he was incredibly unpopular
Speaker 1: in a lot of these districts and and and stayed
Speaker 1: out of a lot of these primaries. So um, he'll
Speaker 1: be unleashed. He'll want to see the Democratic tape go
Speaker 1: over the House and ensure that he has his role
Speaker 1: in that. And I suspect they'll have him in states
Speaker 1: campaigning for Senate candidates if they think his numbers warrant it. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, his popularity has been ephemeral. It's gone up
Speaker 1: and down. Uh, he's having a good month, but I
Speaker 1: think things like this student loan forgiveness can put him
Speaker 1: right back in the box because all those people who
Speaker 1: liked what he was doing on deficit reduction are going
Speaker 1: to be grossly disappointed today. You might remember, Genie, when
Speaker 1: we had John Fetterman on the lieutenant governor Pennsylvania is
Speaker 1: running against Dr Roz for Senate. Now, we asked him,
Speaker 1: you know how about Joe Biden. He said, I would
Speaker 1: be proud to have Joe Biden campaigned for me here
Speaker 1: in Pennsylvania. So it depends on the race. It depends
Speaker 1: on the state. Yeah, it does. And we shouldn't forget that.
Speaker 1: Poor Caroline mcloni. She had a bad night last night,
Speaker 1: but she did that not once, but she did it twice.
Speaker 1: She also did it with the New York Times editorial board,
Speaker 1: and so, you know, I don't think it's ever good
Speaker 1: politics to say that the president of your party either
Speaker 1: should not run or should not campaign with you. It
Speaker 1: does you no good, particularly when you're facing a primary.
Speaker 1: And it made little sense from the beginning for her
Speaker 1: to say that, And of course it was turned out
Speaker 1: to a large extent that really got her last night.
Speaker 1: And she is now, of course talking about issues of sexism,
Speaker 1: which are themselves real, and so I think we're going
Speaker 1: to hear a lot more from her on that going forward.
Speaker 1: You know, you probably saw the back and forth between
Speaker 1: Fetterman and dr Oz. I have to ask you about
Speaker 1: this just while we're still here, because it's it's kind
Speaker 1: of amazing the fact that this even took place. This
Speaker 1: brings us back to Wagner's rights and the crew. Detay thought,
Speaker 1: there's a grocery shopping. I'm at weg nurse and my
Speaker 1: wife was some vegetables. Dr Ozzie went there shopping. He's
Speaker 1: getting the vegetables for the so called crewe to day,
Speaker 1: they hit him for that. John Fetterman says, we call
Speaker 1: that a veggie platter in Pennsylvania. Uh, no, tequila and
Speaker 1: crete and uh, then it's not Wagner's, it's Wegman's. Veggie
Speaker 1: trey was the term. So Dr Oz doubles down. Did
Speaker 1: you see the statement that that he said, if if
Speaker 1: John Fetterman had ever eaten a vegetable in his life,
Speaker 1: then maybe he would have had a Maybe he would
Speaker 1: not have had a major stroke and would not be
Speaker 1: in the position of having to lie about it constantly.
Speaker 1: The Fetterman campaign was quick to right back and call
Speaker 1: him out for insensitivity. Uh is this fair game, Rick,
Speaker 1: when you're talking about a candidate's health on the campaign trail. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I would think the doctor in doctor Oz would have
Speaker 1: understood the caution about lecturing people about their diets and
Speaker 1: and and what causes strokes. So I thought that was insensitive.
Speaker 1: I was really enjoying the crewe tote battle though, I
Speaker 1: mean that was actually starting to have a lot of fun.
Speaker 1: But I think one of the things Dr Os has
Speaker 1: to start worrying about is if Fetterman gets him into
Speaker 1: this tat on on memes, he's gonna lose that race. Uh.
Speaker 1: He needs to be talking about inflation, He needs to
Speaker 1: be talking about, you know, what are the bread and
Speaker 1: butter issues for American families, and talking about CREWD totas
Speaker 1: and Fetterman stroke and things like that are not going
Speaker 1: to get in votes. And so this is a sign
Speaker 1: of an undisciplined UH candidate who has never run for
Speaker 1: office before, and it makes me worry that he's missing
Speaker 1: the big picture here. Jennie Fetterman's replies statement said, I
Speaker 1: had a stroke. I survived it. I know politics can
Speaker 1: be nasty, but even then, I could never imagine Reddy
Speaker 1: kuling someone for their health challenges. Is this a loss
Speaker 1: for Dr oz Oh, it certainly is. I mean you
Speaker 1: can just feel him struggling to catch up and struggling
Speaker 1: to get, you know, to kind of play around with
Speaker 1: these issues and memes and online, you know, back and forth.
Speaker 1: It wasn't just the Crew to te it was also
Speaker 1: the number of houses. And he's been sort of trapped
Speaker 1: by this. And to Rick's point, what he should be
Speaker 1: talking about is something that does appeal to voters in Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: That is inflation, that is gas prices, that is Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: I mean, you can go through the list he's gotten.
Speaker 1: They've gotten him off track and he needs to get
Speaker 1: back on track. Genie and Rick. Great conversation our panel
Speaker 1: here on Bloomberg Sound On. You can hear us every
Speaker 1: night on Bloomberg Radio five, Pete M. Washington Time. If
Speaker 1: he showed up late, subscribe to the podcast. You can
Speaker 1: hear us that way too. I'm Joe, Matthew, and Washington
Speaker 1: will meet you back here tomorrow on the fastest tour
Speaker 1: in politics. This is Bloomberg