Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at
Speaker 1: noon and five pm Eastern on Apple, Cockley and Android
Speaker 1: Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2: President Trump on True Social describing that Ukrainian president Vladimir's
Speaker 2: Lensky as a quote modestly successful comedian, then going on
Speaker 2: to describe him as quote a dictator without elections. Zelensky
Speaker 2: better move fast or he is not going to have
Speaker 2: a country left. Can't imagine how this is received by
Speaker 2: President Zelensky himself.
Speaker 3: Joe That's true, who earlier had suggested that Donald Trump
Speaker 3: is peddling in Russian disinformation. Donald Trump goes on to
Speaker 3: write in that same post, Biden never tried Europe has
Speaker 3: failed to bring peace in Zelensky probably wants to keep
Speaker 3: the gravy train going, knowing that hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians,
Speaker 3: including thousands of civilians, have died since Russia's invasion. And
Speaker 3: that's where we start our conversation with Seth Moulton, the
Speaker 3: Democratic Congressman from Massachusetts, is with US, not only a
Speaker 3: combat Marine Corps veteran who served four tours in Iraq,
Speaker 3: but now a member of the Armed Services Committee in
Speaker 3: the House. Congressman, it's good to have you back here
Speaker 3: on Bloomberg TV and radio. Your reaction to the rhetoric
Speaker 3: following the opening of talks yesterday in Saudi Arabia. Did
Speaker 3: this entire matter just take a turn to favor Russia
Speaker 3: at the table?
Speaker 4: Absolutely? And Trump is siding with a murderous dictator. And
Speaker 4: I love you, Joe, but thousands of civilians didn't just
Speaker 4: die in Ukraine.
Speaker 3: They were killed.
Speaker 4: They were killed in a brutal, illegal war the Vladimir
Speaker 4: Putin started. And now the President of the United States
Speaker 4: is saying that Ukraine started the war, that we should
Speaker 4: side with Russia. I mean, I mean, this is akin
Speaker 4: to FDR suddenly coming out and siding with Hitler in
Speaker 4: World War Two. Ronald Reagan must be rolling over in
Speaker 4: his grave. And it's unbelievable. It's just unbelievable that Republicans
Speaker 4: do not have the basic decency and simple courage to
Speaker 4: stand up and condemn the President for what he's saying.
Speaker 4: I hate to say it, but I served with a
Speaker 4: lot of Republicans who we are just absolute cowards.
Speaker 2: Well, sir, as we consider the role of various Republicans here,
Speaker 2: including someone who used to be part of the Republican
Speaker 2: minority in the Senate. Marco Rubio, the now Secretary of State,
Speaker 2: did say yesterday that both Ukraine and Europe would be
Speaker 2: brought to the table at some point in these negotiations,
Speaker 2: even if they weren't initially. Do you believe that to
Speaker 2: be true?
Speaker 4: No, because Marco Rubio doesn't speak for himself. He speaks
Speaker 4: for Donald Trump. And when Donald Trump's is that they
Speaker 4: won't come to the table, then that's what Margot Rubio
Speaker 4: will do. So no, I think that they'll come to
Speaker 4: the table at the end of the very day, the
Speaker 4: very end of the day, and be forced, or at
Speaker 4: least the Trump administration will try to force the Europeans
Speaker 4: and the Ukrainians to accept a deal that favors Russia.
Speaker 4: That's just everything on Putin's wish list. I mean, this
Speaker 4: is truly unbelievable. I know, there are a lot of
Speaker 4: shocking things that have come out of this administration. A
Speaker 4: lot of the shocking things are things that Trump promised
Speaker 4: to do. So it's hard to say. You know, a
Speaker 4: lot of Americans say, well, you know, that's what the
Speaker 4: president promised. I don't think he ever promised in his
Speaker 4: campaign to side with a murderous dictator. It's just it's
Speaker 4: unfathomable in American history.
Speaker 3: We talked before, Congressman about the prospect of another Yalta.
Speaker 3: You clearly do not like what's going on right now.
Speaker 3: How should these talks proceed?
Speaker 4: These talks should by bringing Ukraine and Russia together to
Speaker 4: negotiate a deal that restores the sovereign voters of Ukraine
Speaker 4: because they were illegally taken by Russia, that provide some
Speaker 4: form of restitution for the billions and billions of dollars
Speaker 4: in damage done to Ukraine and its economy, and some
Speaker 4: some sort of restitution for the hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 4: innocents killed in this war, although we know very well
Speaker 4: they can never come back. But the idea that an
Speaker 4: American commander in chief would throw out all of that
Speaker 4: to side with Vladimir Putin is something that our Congress
Speaker 4: needs to come to terms with. His Republican supporters need
Speaker 4: to come to terms with, and you know, everyday Americans
Speaker 4: walking around Massachusetts right now shouldn't ignore because our safety,
Speaker 4: our national security is on the line when our commander
Speaker 4: in chief sells us out to the Russians.
Speaker 2: Well, as we consider what all we've heard, not just
Speaker 2: from the President himself, but from the likes of the
Speaker 2: Defense Secretary Pete hegset this notion that the US is
Speaker 2: not willing to have peacekeeping forces on the ground to
Speaker 2: make sure that any kind of peace is lasting, that
Speaker 2: that should be left up to Europe. Having been deployed yourself,
Speaker 2: Congressman on multiple occasions, as Joe mentioned, should US troops
Speaker 2: have to play that role.
Speaker 4: I'd like to think that they won't. But you absolutely
Speaker 4: don't take that off the table. I mean, at its best,
Speaker 4: that's just unbelievably dumb negotiating on behalf of the Secretary
Speaker 4: of Defense and the President of the United States. But
Speaker 4: what we're clearly seeing, and I suggested a few days ago,
Speaker 4: is this isn't just bad negotiating. This is negotiating on
Speaker 4: behalf of the Russians. That's what Trump and Heg Seth
Speaker 4: are doing. They're negotiating on behalf of the Russian.
Speaker 3: As we spend time with Congressman Seth Moulton, the Democrat
Speaker 3: from Massachusetts. What will then be the answer, Congressman, from
Speaker 3: your Arm Services Committee. What are you hearing from your
Speaker 3: colleagues on the committee? What does the chairman want to do?
Speaker 4: I mean, look, my colleagues are in disbelief, but the
Speaker 4: problem is that they're silent.
Speaker 3: That's the problem.
Speaker 4: Republicans in Washington don't agree with this traitorous talk. They
Speaker 4: want to support Ukraine, but they're scared. They're just scared
Speaker 4: of Donald Trump. They're scared that they'll lose their precious
Speaker 4: little seat in Congress if they say anything bad about
Speaker 4: the president. And that's why I use the word coward
Speaker 4: to describe so many of my Republican colleagues.
Speaker 2: Well, the argument that I won't say that they're all
Speaker 2: monolithic in this, but that you hear some making, Congressman,
Speaker 2: is that Europe should have a greater responsibility for its
Speaker 2: own defense here. That part of this is that Europeans
Speaker 2: need to be sharing a greater portion of this burden.
Speaker 2: Is there no accuracy to a suggestion or do you
Speaker 2: not see that concern as valid that Europe cannot stand
Speaker 2: up its own resources and make its own investments in
Speaker 2: its defense and security right now? Because the administration would
Speaker 2: argue that is part of what they're pushing for here.
Speaker 4: Sure, that's a valid concern, that's a valid point of view.
Speaker 4: That has nothing to do with selling out to the Russians.
Speaker 4: And that's an absurd and absolutely absurd implication. I mean,
Speaker 4: tell me, you're asking this question, what on earth does
Speaker 4: that have to do with siding with Vladimir Putin over
Speaker 4: this murderous war? What does that have to do with
Speaker 4: giving away Ukraine's sovereign territory? What does that have to
Speaker 4: do with lying about Zelensky and how this war began?
Speaker 4: I mean, I'm sort of a gas at the question.
Speaker 2: Well, and only suggesting that what you hear from the
Speaker 2: President in part is not just his language around Zelensky
Speaker 2: or around Putin or abound his ability to be a
Speaker 2: deal maker, but also specifically about the US financing that
Speaker 2: has been provided to Ukraine. It does seem the money here, Congressman,
Speaker 2: is an issue for him and he would like to
Speaker 2: see Europe standing up more of that. Do you not
Speaker 2: think if Europe were to say, okay, we're all going
Speaker 2: to pay or NATO specifically five percent of our GDP,
Speaker 2: that is now our goal in terms of defense spending
Speaker 2: that that could make the President come around in some
Speaker 2: of these other ideas.
Speaker 5: No, I don't.
Speaker 4: I don't think so, because he's clearly shown that he's
Speaker 4: going to slide with Russia. That's what he's shown. That's
Speaker 4: what everything here says. And let's be clear, he's also lied,
Speaker 4: lied blatantly about European assistants. The Europeans have given more
Speaker 4: money to Ukraine than America has. He said that America
Speaker 4: has given three hundred and fifty billion dollars. It's not
Speaker 4: even close to that. So the president is lying through
Speaker 4: his teeth as he supports Vladimir Putin. No, I'm not
Speaker 4: naiven have to think that that will turn around. And
Speaker 4: the idea that rush that Europe should help pay for
Speaker 4: its own defense, that's something. First of all, it's an
Speaker 4: idea that President Obama put forward first, saying they should
Speaker 4: reach a two percent target. That's been the goal for
Speaker 4: a long time. It's not been five percent. I heard
Speaker 4: some of the European allies at Munich talk about getting
Speaker 4: to five percent as an ambitious goal. I'd like to
Speaker 4: see them reach that too. Ill agree Europe should contribute
Speaker 4: more to NATO. I am not sitting here selling out.
Speaker 3: To the Russians. Congressman, the DOGE is turning its attention
Speaker 3: to the Pentagon, as I'm sure you've heard that a
Speaker 3: new directive to get rid of probationary employees that we
Speaker 3: have seen go through other agencies is in fact now
Speaker 3: heading for the Department of Defense. As a member of
Speaker 3: the Armed Services Committee, what are you hearing about this?
Speaker 3: How many people could be let go and to what
Speaker 3: extent could that impact readiness?
Speaker 4: Look, I'm someone who's championed reform at the Pentagon for
Speaker 4: a very long time. But reform isn't just throwing people out.
Speaker 4: Reform is being smart about how we modernize our defense,
Speaker 4: being smart about how we spend our money, and reducing bureaucracy.
Speaker 4: But just willy nilly cutting a bunch of people whose
Speaker 4: jobs are critical for our national security. That's irresponsible, it's dangerous,
Speaker 4: and God forbid, it leads to it at some attack
Speaker 4: on the in the United States that were not prepared
Speaker 4: for because the people who are supposed to be on
Speaker 4: the job watching for these signs and signals are no
Speaker 4: longer on the job. Because Elon Musk, an immigrant, came
Speaker 4: in and sat behind the Oval office desk, even though
Speaker 4: he was unelected to do so, and decided to just
Speaker 4: willy nilly cut a bunch of people out of out
Speaker 4: of government jobs. I mean, it's irresponsible, and you know,
Speaker 4: and yet somehow it's not surprising coming from a commander
Speaker 4: in chief who, let's not forget dodge draft himself. He
Speaker 4: was asked to go to Vietnam, he said, nope, someone else,
Speaker 4: some other American can go into my place. He faked
Speaker 4: an injury, and now he's hired the South African immigrant
Speaker 4: to sit with him behind the Oval Office desk and
Speaker 4: make decisions about our national security. Doesn't sound good to me.
Speaker 4: Shouldn't make you feel Congress, your family.
Speaker 3: I've had the opportunity to talk to you a lot
Speaker 3: of times since you became a member of Congress, and
Speaker 3: you don't seem like you're in a good place as
Speaker 3: a lawmaker or as an AX. Four years for you,
Speaker 3: Joe looks four years for you? Or are you going
Speaker 3: to craft an answer to this as a Democratic Party?
Speaker 4: Joe, you know me very well, and you know that
Speaker 4: I have been out front in redirecting the Democratic Party
Speaker 4: and saying that it's no longer good enough just to
Speaker 4: criticize Trump, that we've got to have our own way forward,
Speaker 4: and that we've got to make some changes as a
Speaker 4: party to get back touch with the majority of Americans.
Speaker 4: So you never have to question whether I'm willing to
Speaker 4: make changes and reforms in the Democratic Party. But I'm
Speaker 4: also going to hold Republicans accountable, and that's what needs
Speaker 4: to happen right now when Donald Trump is selling us
Speaker 4: out to the Russians.
Speaker 3: This was quite a conversation with Congressman Seth Moulton, the
Speaker 3: Democrat from Massachusetts, with us live here on Bloomberg. Congressman,
Speaker 3: thank you very much, Kayley. You don't have to guess
Speaker 3: how Seth Malton thinks about all of this.
Speaker 2: No, certainly not, and he is not alone in his views.
Speaker 2: Specifically about some of the language we are hearing around
Speaker 2: the description of President of Ukraine, vladimir's Lynsky as a dictator.
Speaker 2: You are seeing at least some mild pushback from Republican
Speaker 2: senators on the Hill suggestions that that is not how
Speaker 2: they would describe the Lame John forne example, but not
Speaker 2: necessarily full throated pushback to the tactic that the administration
Speaker 2: is taking here when it comes to approaching these talks.
Speaker 2: At least an issue.
Speaker 3: Yeah, John Thune is speaking with Bloomberg about this a
Speaker 3: short time ago, laying blame against Vladimir Zelenski, saying Russia
Speaker 3: is the aggressor and there is not a question about that.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast Kettas
Speaker 1: live weekdays at noon and five pm, E's durn On
Speaker 1: Apple Cockley and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App.
Speaker 1: You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
Speaker 1: flagship New York station Just Say Alexa played Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 2: Today, the Senate was gearing up to move forward on
Speaker 2: a budget resolutionist so called Skinny one, that would address
Speaker 2: part of the legislative agenda that President Trump wants to pursue,
Speaker 2: specifically providing funding when it comes to border security and
Speaker 2: changes to energy policy, a strategy pursued by Senator Lindsay Graham,
Speaker 2: who leads the Budget Committee in that chamber, as well
Speaker 2: as the Majority Leader John Thun. The House, of course,
Speaker 2: is trying to do everything in one package. And today,
Speaker 2: as we mentioned, that got the endorsement from the President
Speaker 2: on True Social who said, in part quote, the House
Speaker 2: resolution implements my full America First agenda everything in all caps,
Speaker 2: not just parts of it. The question, of course, though, Joe,
Speaker 2: is if it is to be everything, how much exactly
Speaker 2: does everything cost.
Speaker 3: That's a great question that no one in Washington, I
Speaker 3: think can answer right now. But somebody is going to
Speaker 3: have to come up with an answer. Philip Swagel among them.
Speaker 3: He's director of the Congressional Budget Office, and when you
Speaker 3: hear people talk about scoring legislation, this is the entity
Speaker 3: that does it. He's with us at the table right
Speaker 3: now ahead of the storm. Philip. Good to see you
Speaker 3: and welcome. CBO bipartisan, non partisan.
Speaker 6: CBO is non non partisan.
Speaker 3: Forgive me, one of the most important agencies in Washington,
Speaker 3: and therefore a very easy target when lawmakers want to
Speaker 3: complain about the process. We'll get to that. What are
Speaker 3: you doing right now as an organization when you're waiting
Speaker 3: for these massive bills to drop? I mean, are you
Speaker 3: are you? Are you doing exercises? How do you get
Speaker 3: ready for what's about to happen?
Speaker 7: No?
Speaker 6: Very good. You know, we're here to support the Congress.
Speaker 8: And I said, we're nonpartisan units for both chambers and
Speaker 8: both sides, and we support both the Republicans, the majority
Speaker 8: and the Democrats the minority. We've been working with the Congress,
Speaker 8: with members with committees for months as they prepare for
Speaker 8: this legislation, and we're working with both sides that both
Speaker 8: it's Chairman Graham of course in the Senate, Chairman Arrington
Speaker 8: in the House, and we're supporting them, we're supporting their staff,
Speaker 8: and that's just routine. As the committee's jurisdiction refine their legislation,
Speaker 8: we're going back and forth with them to provide them
Speaker 8: with cost estimates and other information.
Speaker 2: Well, you mentioned Chairman Arrington. Obviously, the budget resolution that
Speaker 2: he put forward that worked its way out of the
Speaker 2: Budget Committee called for four and a half trillion dollars
Speaker 2: in tax cuts that will be allowed in return, you
Speaker 2: have to have at least one and a half trillion
Speaker 2: dollars of spending cuts. Keeping in mind that the President
Speaker 2: said last night that he doesn't want to see Medicare,
Speaker 2: Medicaid or Social Security touched. Is that mathematically possible?
Speaker 8: I mean, for sure, it's mathematically possible, and it depends
Speaker 8: on the decisions to be made by the Congress in
Speaker 8: the future. At this point, where the Congress is now
Speaker 8: is that they're working on a concurrent resolution. It's a resolution,
Speaker 8: it's concurrent between the two chambers, the House and the Senate.
Speaker 8: There's no cost estimate of that. Where the cost estament
Speaker 8: comes in is later in the process, after each chamber comes.
Speaker 6: Up with the specific legislation.
Speaker 8: And so that's instances we're working with them on a
Speaker 8: technical basis and confidentially when the eventual legislation comes forward
Speaker 8: in whichever way it proceeds with, you know, so the
Speaker 8: bigger or smaller, we will eventually provide a cost estimate
Speaker 8: that makes the numbers clear.
Speaker 3: I want to get to an important debate that's underweight
Speaker 3: right now in Washington, because we've had people sit at
Speaker 3: this table and argue that extending the Trump tax cuts
Speaker 3: will prompt growth that is on quantifiable we get back
Speaker 3: to dynamic scoring and so forth as a concept. There
Speaker 3: others are saying that it'll explode the deficit and ravage
Speaker 3: the economy. We get both extremes. Here a lot you
Speaker 3: wrote at the end of last year because higher taxes
Speaker 3: increased revenues. This is the idea of what would happen
Speaker 3: if they were allowed to expire. Because higher taxes increase revenues,
Speaker 3: the federal government borrows less, making more funds available for
Speaker 3: private investment. These two effects roughly offset each other. As
Speaker 3: a result, the expiration of the individual income tax provisions
Speaker 3: here does not significantly affect CBO's projections of real GDP.
Speaker 3: So does it inspire growth or not?
Speaker 8: Okay, no, very good, And that's from a blog post
Speaker 8: on the CBO website. And the way to think of
Speaker 8: this is that the Tax Act in twenty seventeen has
Speaker 8: a number of provisions. Many of them are permanent already.
Speaker 8: So these international provisions that are largely permanent, there's corporate
Speaker 8: provisions largely permanent. There's some business provisions that are not permanent,
Speaker 8: expensing the research credit.
Speaker 6: And then there's the personal side.
Speaker 8: And so the quote you read is exactly exactly right.
Speaker 8: It's about the personal side. And as you said, the
Speaker 8: higher deficits that would result from extension of those leads
Speaker 8: to crowding out such a downward effect on GDP growth.
Speaker 8: The positive incentives of lower taxes goes in the opposite direction.
Speaker 8: Those two cancel out on the business side. So that's
Speaker 8: on the personal side. Then on the business side, those
Speaker 8: have a smaller cost in dollars, but probably a larger
Speaker 8: bang for the buck in terms of economic growth, and
Speaker 8: so to know the growth impact of the eventual legislation,
Speaker 8: we have to see it all and that's what we're
Speaker 8: waiting on.
Speaker 2: Well, and we're all waiting on it. We've been waiting,
Speaker 2: it feels like, for some time, and I'm sure that
Speaker 2: waiting game is going to have to last a little
Speaker 2: bit longer knowing and we've had multiple conversations with Chairman
Speaker 2: Jason Smith of the Ways and Means Committee about pursuing
Speaker 2: the tax cuts that Trump would like to see implemented.
Speaker 2: This notion that he needs more than four and a
Speaker 2: half trillion dollars because that alone is what it will
Speaker 2: cost to extend the twenty seventeen tax cuts. Can you
Speaker 2: walk us through the math on why that figure for
Speaker 2: extension is so much higher than the original score of
Speaker 2: the legislation from eight years ago.
Speaker 6: Okay, no, it's a great question.
Speaker 8: And well, first of all, I should say, our colleagues
Speaker 8: in the Joint Committee on Taxation eventually will provide the
Speaker 8: cost estimates for the cost and so their numbers will
Speaker 8: appear in a CBO cost estimate, but by statute, their
Speaker 8: JCT's numbers. So broadly speaking, the twenty seventeen Act when
Speaker 8: it was enacted in December twenty seventeen, had a variety
Speaker 8: of lower taxes, but it also had base broadeners. Some
Speaker 8: of those were one time it changed the indexation of
Speaker 8: tax brackets. There's a one time repatriation of foreign income
Speaker 8: that resulted in revenue, and another number of other provisions.
Speaker 8: And that's why the original cost of the twenty seventeen
Speaker 8: Act on net was lower because of these one off provisions. Now,
Speaker 8: of course, the cost of whatever is extended or whatever
Speaker 8: changes there are, will again depend on the specifics are
Speaker 8: there one off provisions, are there other base broadeners, and
Speaker 8: what exactly is done.
Speaker 3: So when you start talking about the process, here, bring
Speaker 3: us behind the scenes just for a moment, because I
Speaker 3: picture stables of men and women wearing green visors going
Speaker 3: through the raps. I mean, just the amount of time
Speaker 3: required to read all of this is thousands of ours.
Speaker 3: How do you devour a reconciliation bill of that size?
Speaker 8: Now, I'm just I'm sorry, I'm smiling at the green visors.
Speaker 8: That is our self image. It's a positive here, It's yeah,
Speaker 8: it's definitely a positive.
Speaker 9: You know.
Speaker 6: It's what we do. We read the legislation line by line.
Speaker 8: And word for word, and we work closely with Congressional staff,
Speaker 8: and you know, the committees are very helpful as they
Speaker 8: develop legislation.
Speaker 6: We work back and forth. They provide a red line.
Speaker 3: So you're seeing this as it's being written. Though you
Speaker 3: don't get this one night and you all have to
Speaker 3: go home and no, that's take a chapter.
Speaker 8: Yeah, and of course, look, there's going to be changes
Speaker 8: over time. There could be changes at the last moment,
Speaker 8: and we support the Congress whatever processes.
Speaker 6: That you know does it. That's how we do it.
Speaker 8: I can give you an example from twenty twenty one.
Speaker 8: So this is the reconciliation that happened, then we can
Speaker 8: build back Better. At the end of the process by
Speaker 8: which build back Better passed the House. It was never enacted,
Speaker 8: but past the House. There are a number of members
Speaker 8: of the House who had questions about the legislation, and
Speaker 8: we gathered a bunch of us at CBO together in
Speaker 8: a conference room. We were still wearing masks, and you know,
Speaker 8: we'd all been vaccinated, and we're on a conference call
Speaker 8: with dozens of members of Congress and they're asking us questions.
Speaker 6: On page seventy two, line seven. You have this.
Speaker 8: The White House says that what's the difference, and the
Speaker 8: you know, the right analysts from CBO, one of my colleagues,
Speaker 8: we get on the phone and you know, the conference
Speaker 8: call and say well, here's what it is, next member.
Speaker 8: And so that's that's to kind of in the weeds
Speaker 8: that we do.
Speaker 6: If that's what members want.
Speaker 3: This is the good stuff, Kyllie. This is literally how
Speaker 3: the sausage is made.
Speaker 8: At some point during that meeting we took I mean,
Speaker 8: it's going to sound sounds crazy in twenty twenty five
Speaker 8: thinking about it, but we took our mask off and
Speaker 8: we're all like, wow, this is weird.
Speaker 3: That's what you look.
Speaker 6: It was just like, you know, we just we do
Speaker 6: what we need to do to accomplish the mission.
Speaker 2: Well, I guess it's also a question of how your mission,
Speaker 2: having been completed, is actually received by some of the
Speaker 2: very same members that you're referring to. Obviously, you'll be
Speaker 2: well aware that the CBO has come under some criticism
Speaker 2: for the way in which it scores things. I mentioned
Speaker 2: the share of the Ways and Means Committee Jason Smith earlier.
Speaker 2: This was him during our last conversation about the way
Speaker 2: tariffs should be or should not be involved in all
Speaker 2: of this.
Speaker 10: When you care about the fiscal health of the nation
Speaker 10: as a whole, you have to look at the possible
Speaker 10: influx of future revenues that could come from the President's
Speaker 10: trade proposals and across the board ten percent tariff which
Speaker 10: the President did campaign on, and across the board tariff
Speaker 10: that can bring in trillions of dollars. So those are
Speaker 10: things that you have to look at that can affect
Speaker 10: the fiscal health of the nation as a whole. But
Speaker 10: in the rules of reconciliation, CBO and Joint tax will
Speaker 10: not allow those to be scored appropriately.
Speaker 2: So he's talking about how tariffs fit into the fiscal
Speaker 2: health of the US overall, but because of the rules
Speaker 2: of reconciliation, the CBO and Joint Tax will not allow
Speaker 2: it to be what he described as scored appropriately. Weigh
Speaker 2: in on the appropriateness of the way all of this
Speaker 2: comes together, because even the Treasury Secretary says, you can't
Speaker 2: view these two things in isolation. Taxes and tariffs.
Speaker 8: Okay, no, no, and I agree with that. I agree
Speaker 8: with what Treasury Secretary DestinE said. It depends on how
Speaker 8: the tariffs are put in place. If they're put in
Speaker 8: plays through administrative action, through the President using his authority,
Speaker 8: then it doesn't score in legislation. And so Chairman sim Smith,
Speaker 8: of course is right about that.
Speaker 6: We can still provide information to the Congress.
Speaker 8: So we could provide a letter that says, you know,
Speaker 8: here's what the president is done, here's our estimate of
Speaker 8: what the revenues would be, and here's the economic effects.
Speaker 8: And in such as it's going back to what we
Speaker 8: talked about just a moment ago. If we have revenue
Speaker 8: coming in that will reduce the amount of crowding out
Speaker 8: and boost GDP. And of course on the other side,
Speaker 8: the tariffs would reduce the efficiency of the economy, and
Speaker 8: you know that would go in the opposite direction with GDP.
Speaker 3: Mention that the outset here. You're the easiest target in Washington,
Speaker 3: aren't you. Almost by design, by structure, you've made it
Speaker 3: clear nonpartisan. That's almost like a kick me sign. In
Speaker 3: this incredibly political environment we're in. Does it make your
Speaker 3: job harder?
Speaker 6: It's tempted to look behind me after that sign.
Speaker 8: Now you know, CBO is a mission oriented place and
Speaker 8: the people who come to CBO are two hundred and
Speaker 8: seventy colleagues. We are mission oriented. We are here to
Speaker 8: support them.
Speaker 6: It's not always.
Speaker 8: Vice versa, but that's just part of the and whatever
Speaker 8: information they need, our job is to get it to
Speaker 8: them what they need, when they need it.
Speaker 2: Well, we appreciate you being here at least right now,
Speaker 2: as you have those deadlines to meet. Eventually, when we
Speaker 2: look at ultimately the size of this legislation, however big
Speaker 2: it ends up. Philip Swagel, Director of the Congressional Budget Office,
Speaker 2: thank you so much for spending time.
Speaker 11: With us here.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
Speaker 1: us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on Apple,
Speaker 1: Cockley and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen
Speaker 1: on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us
Speaker 1: live on YouTube.
Speaker 3: We're waiting for a ruling here, a federal judge set
Speaker 3: to scrutinize the Trump administration's attempt to throw out the
Speaker 3: corruption charges the case against the Mayor of New York,
Speaker 3: Eric Adams, remembering yesterday that Hockel was hold up with
Speaker 3: city leaders trying to figure out the next move. She
Speaker 3: may in fact following We're waiting for this ruling. Once
Speaker 3: that happens, may in fact move to oust Eric Adams.
Speaker 3: That's something that will be keeping tabs on for you
Speaker 3: here today as attention shifts to Miami. This is not
Speaker 3: a crypto story, although I guess it could become. You've
Speaker 3: got to be crypto bros crawling all around the FII. Right,
Speaker 3: We'll have to ask Tyler. This is the big summit here,
Speaker 3: funded by the Saudi Investment Fund, right, the Future Investment
Speaker 3: Initiative Institute. Not likely a place Joe Biden would have
Speaker 3: been dropping a keynote speech in the first month of
Speaker 3: his first term. But here we are joining the likes
Speaker 3: of TikTok Ceo, shoot you leaders of other big tech companies,
Speaker 3: Think Oracle, think Uber. Yes, the President of the United
Speaker 3: States will be there five pm Eastern time, so says
Speaker 3: the schedule. We're going to carry the speech live here
Speaker 3: on Bloomberg. That'll be in the late edition to balance
Speaker 3: a power. But we get a treat right now because
Speaker 3: Tyler has already made her way to Miami. She's got
Speaker 3: the machete down there, clearing through all the brush to
Speaker 3: get to the real story, and is with us right
Speaker 3: now from FII at Miami beach Tyler, what's going on
Speaker 3: down there ahead of the big speech tonight.
Speaker 7: Yeah, hey, Joe, Well, we know that President Trump is
Speaker 7: likely to really focus this on and increase that he
Speaker 7: wants to see when it comes to US investment. You'll
Speaker 7: recall that during his first week in office, the Saudi
Speaker 7: Crown Prince called him and said that Saudi Arabia would
Speaker 7: be investing six hundred billion dollars in the US when
Speaker 7: it came to investments and trade over a period of
Speaker 7: four years. That was considered to be a pretty big pledge. Right,
Speaker 7: That mounts about fifty five percent of Saudi Arabia's GDP. However,
Speaker 7: President Trump said that that wasn't enough. He called for
Speaker 7: Saudi Arabia to instead increase that number to one trillion dollars.
Speaker 7: That number, expert say is highly unlikely. However, it has
Speaker 7: spurred us. You've been talking about these business interests to
Speaker 7: come here to Miami to talk about potentially how this
Speaker 7: increased flow of capital between the two countries could be
Speaker 7: beneficial for them. And there's a real sense here on
Speaker 7: the ground that the Saudis would like to focus on
Speaker 7: terms of of agreement, right, investments and artificial intelligence of
Speaker 7: advanced manufacturing things like this, particularly as they find themselves
Speaker 7: in the center of some of the White House's key
Speaker 7: policies this week, such as hosting the US Russia talks.
Speaker 7: But Joe, to be clear, there are still, of course,
Speaker 7: other contention points that could come up depending on which
Speaker 7: way President Trump would like to go, including his plan
Speaker 7: when it comes to Gaza, as well as recent complaints
Speaker 7: on oil prices. So we'll have to wait and see.
Speaker 7: We did inquire with the White House to see if
Speaker 7: we could get any sort of preview and they just
Speaker 7: told us to stay tuned, but we will be here
Speaker 7: at five pm Eastern when he starts.
Speaker 3: Well that's the exactly what I was going to ask,
Speaker 3: So we're going to get the weave then, right, you
Speaker 3: just rolled out like six stories. He'll probably hit them all.
Speaker 3: Do the ad lib? What does he have about an
Speaker 3: hour in store here? And who's in this crowd? Tyler?
Speaker 7: Actually yes, about an hour. According to the schedule, he
Speaker 7: is set to depart here at six fifteen eastern, so
Speaker 7: give or take there. And we know that there are
Speaker 7: some big tech titans. You mentioned the TikTok Ceo, so
Speaker 7: Ken Griffin, Steve Cohen, we know that other industry leaders,
Speaker 7: including chief executives of Uber and Oracle, will all be
Speaker 7: here and we talk about the weave. I'm also interested
Speaker 7: to see if he makes any remarks about potentially a
Speaker 7: PGA live merger. That's something that often comes up, and
Speaker 7: we're talking about Saudi backed ventures, right, and something that
Speaker 7: has often divided Washington on a biportisan basis when it
Speaker 7: comes to Congress, which has launched investigations into this merger
Speaker 7: amid criticism of Saudi Arabia's record when it comes to
Speaker 7: human rights abuses, for example. So whether or not dat
Speaker 7: could come up is also a big question, but it
Speaker 7: could be a wide range of things here as President
Speaker 7: Trump makes his debut here in.
Speaker 3: Miami, the big debut. Yeah, we'll carry it live boy,
Speaker 3: good luck getting the reservation at Joe's tonight, although Tyler
Speaker 3: could probably get in. How about Tyler, Kendall, look at
Speaker 3: the shot. If you're with us on YouTube, Tyler knows
Speaker 3: how to live set up in Miami. Check this out.
Speaker 3: Look like you're on entertainment tonight. We'll get back with
Speaker 3: Tyler a little bit later on Thank you, of course.
Speaker 3: As always, Kendall, I'm Joe Matthew and Washington on balance
Speaker 3: of power, where we're balancing a number of stories that
Speaker 3: become the weave. We're going to hear about the tariffs
Speaker 3: as well, right. President Trump was just talking about them
Speaker 3: last evening. Here's what he said.
Speaker 12: Some of the biggest companies in the world and because
Speaker 12: of what we're doing economically and through tariffs and taxes
Speaker 12: and incentives, and they want to come back into the
Speaker 12: United States.
Speaker 2: Have you decided specifically what the auto tariff rain should be.
Speaker 12: Yeah, I probably will tell you that on April second,
Speaker 12: but it'll be in the neighborhood of twenty five percent.
Speaker 12: We want to give them time to come in because,
Speaker 12: as you know, when they come into the United States
Speaker 12: and they have their plant or factory here, there is
Speaker 12: no tariff. So we want to give them a little
Speaker 12: bit of a chance.
Speaker 3: Donald Trump at mar A Lago. This is why Nathan
Speaker 3: Dean's phone keeps ringing, because the game keeps changing, the dates, move,
Speaker 3: the timing, the implement the size of the tariff. Now
Speaker 3: we're twenty five on auto's all right. This is why
Speaker 3: we have Nathan, of course, our top policy analyst at
Speaker 3: Bloomberg Intelligence here in Washington, Nathan Dean's the phone just
Speaker 3: it keeps ringing. What's the big question these days?
Speaker 13: Well, I mean, obviously on the tariff front, yes, this
Speaker 13: question of will President Trump move forward. I mean, we
Speaker 13: had a client this morning ask you know, he's starting
Speaker 13: to sound like a boy who cried wolf. And you
Speaker 13: know what we have to go back to and what
Speaker 13: we tell our clients is when it comes to tariff's look,
Speaker 13: President Trump truly believes in tariffs. But the question is
Speaker 13: what nuggets can we glean from his statements and his
Speaker 13: truth social posts to see if there's any way that
Speaker 13: other countries could come back and create a negotiation. This
Speaker 13: is what we saw with Canada, this is what we
Speaker 13: saw in Mexico, this is what we saw with Columbia.
Speaker 13: The question for these reciprocal tariffs is is this a
Speaker 13: simple measure of you charge us, we charge you. Then
Speaker 13: there's a high chance these tariffs will go into fruition.
Speaker 13: But if there's other things that like, say that there's
Speaker 13: negotiation with the European Union on cars or maybe banks
Speaker 13: in Canada.
Speaker 6: Things that President Trump has talked about.
Speaker 13: If there's negotiationations that take place, potentially these tariffs will
Speaker 13: come back but you know, ultimately you do have to
Speaker 13: prepare for these tariffs because at a certain point, we
Speaker 13: do think President Trump is going to move forward like
Speaker 13: he did with China and ten percent market.
Speaker 3: It's a bit interesting. I mean, you're hearing from investors
Speaker 3: and they're saying, you know, let us know when it matters, guys,
Speaker 3: let us know when we should care the yes a
Speaker 3: piece at a new high yesterday.
Speaker 13: Well, but that's the point is these tariffs haven't come
Speaker 13: in and we haven't seen the impact yet on the
Speaker 13: American consumer, right, and so one of our basic case
Speaker 13: scenarios for these tariffs is is that if we are
Speaker 13: going to see tariffs move forward outside of a universal tariff,
Speaker 13: if you see tariffs moving forward, they'll probably be in
Speaker 13: industries the American consumer won't see initially. You know, think
Speaker 13: of food prices, you think of potash, you know mean
Speaker 13: Canada fertilizer, you know the industry there. So you know,
Speaker 13: we'll see. I mean, obviously it's hard to predict, and
Speaker 13: we have to always apologize to our clients that we
Speaker 13: don't know what's going to happen here, but you have
Speaker 13: to prepare for them always with the idea that these
Speaker 13: deadlines are not deadlines. These are self imposed deadlines. And
Speaker 13: so President Trump can always come back and say, based
Speaker 13: on upon my conversation with Prime Minister Trudeau or with
Speaker 13: the European Union, these tariffs have been pushed off, and
Speaker 13: so then we'll just fight, you know, see that that
Speaker 13: you know that delay, and we'll have to deal with
Speaker 13: accordingly with it.
Speaker 3: Well, it's interesting because tariffs were supposed to help pay
Speaker 3: for tax cuts or this is like before we even
Speaker 3: got to the election, never mind the inauguration. That was
Speaker 3: part of the argument. You got to have them all together,
Speaker 3: extend Trump tax cuts. Look at these beautiful tariffs they
Speaker 3: helped to pay for because they raise a lot of revenue. Uh,
Speaker 3: we're working on the tax cuts now. In fact, there's
Speaker 3: a budget resolution that's moving. Well, we've got one on
Speaker 3: both sides, both chambers, House and Senate. Whether it's one
Speaker 3: big beautiful bill or another, we could have a standoff.
Speaker 3: But aren't we missing a major component here? If these
Speaker 3: are just threats?
Speaker 13: Yeah, you know when it comes to the reconciliation fight,
Speaker 13: you know, we really don't care from a market perspective,
Speaker 13: whether it's one big beautiful bill or two bills. Right, well,
Speaker 13: we care about our Are the tax cuts going to
Speaker 13: be dealt with? Is there four point five trillion dollars
Speaker 13: worth of tax extensions?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 13: Is that going to add to the deficit or is
Speaker 13: it revenue neutral or budget neutral? We won't know that
Speaker 13: until the Senate part of Thementarian gets in there and
Speaker 13: we start to see what the offsets, whether it's the
Speaker 13: Inflation Reduction Act. So we're still probably about two to
Speaker 13: three months away from where the markets really want to
Speaker 13: start seeing the specifics. You know, we don't think that,
Speaker 13: you know, the House is going to be able to
Speaker 13: come up with a resolution, you know, plan with specifics
Speaker 13: within Speaker Johnson's time frame of April in May. I
Speaker 13: wouldn't be surprised if we had this conversation in July
Speaker 13: and we were talking about specifics then. But when it
Speaker 13: comes to tariffs, just note that if tariffs do go
Speaker 13: into the reconciliation discussion, then it becomes a congressional tariff,
Speaker 13: not a presidential tariff, and it sort of, you know,
Speaker 13: handcuffs President Trump's ability to negotiate if it goes into
Speaker 13: the record. But again, we have never seen what's happened
Speaker 13: with the External Revenue Service that President Trump floated about earlier.
Speaker 3: It's going to have a conversation with the head of
Speaker 3: the CBO coming up in the next hour. The ability
Speaker 3: to score all this is impossible, right well, I mean, look,
Speaker 3: if you start talking about external factors like tariffs, the
Speaker 3: idea of dynamic scoring, we're not about to change the
Speaker 3: way we do this now.
Speaker 13: And we're telling our clients don't worry about the sea
Speaker 13: scoring all that much. I mean, because ultimately, and you know,
Speaker 13: the Congress is going to figure out a way or
Speaker 13: the Republicans will figure out a way to get it
Speaker 13: close to the centerm. Parliamentarium will approve it.
Speaker 3: Sure.
Speaker 13: The question is is that will Republican lawmakers, certain Republican
Speaker 13: lawmakers go forth to pursue and vote for a reconciliation
Speaker 13: package that potentially could increase the deficit. If the CBO
Speaker 13: comes back and says, look, we see economic growth here,
Speaker 13: but the deficit is going to increase by one to
Speaker 13: three trillion dollars because of this, can they get the
Speaker 13: votes in the House when you can only afford to
Speaker 13: lose three at the moment, Can you get the votes
Speaker 13: in the House. That's the more bigger question is the
Speaker 13: political question because if it looks like this is going
Speaker 13: to be increasing the deficit, you know, the tariff question,
Speaker 13: the Doge question, could all be moot because it comes
Speaker 13: down to those Republican.
Speaker 3: Lawmakers, comes down to three w Wasserman Schultz is on
Speaker 3: the other days say we're just looking for three good Republicans.
Speaker 3: We'll see about that, because we have breaking news from
Speaker 3: New York. Looks like you're going to be able to
Speaker 3: maybe drive south of sixtieth Street again here and park
Speaker 3: your car the lot, confirms the Department of Transportation. If
Speaker 3: you're with us here on Bloomberg, I know this is
Speaker 3: important to you, especially if you're driving around New York,
Speaker 3: or maybe you're not driving around New York because of
Speaker 3: the congestion pricing confirming the termination of the New York
Speaker 3: congestion pricing program. This was a New York Post report,
Speaker 3: as you heard from Trolley Pellett a short time ago.
Speaker 3: Now it's a fat headline from the US government DOT
Speaker 3: confirming termination of congestion pricing program. Just another example of
Speaker 3: Donald Trump putting his finger on the scale here on
Speaker 3: the state level as well.
Speaker 13: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, that's them o coming out of this White House.
Speaker 3: Nathan Dean Bloomberg Intelligence. You're his client because he's with
Speaker 3: us here on Balance of Power. Thank you. Nathan is
Speaker 3: always as we try to find our way forward on
Speaker 3: so many issues from reconciliation, tax cuts, and tariffs coming up,
Speaker 3: will assemble our panel, Rick Davis and Kristen Hahn with
Speaker 3: us today right here on Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power Podcast. Catch
Speaker 1: us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on Apple,
Speaker 1: Cocklay and Android Auto the Blueberg Business App. You can
Speaker 1: also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New
Speaker 1: York station, Just Say Alexa played Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 3: The big sit down with not only Donald Trump but
Speaker 3: Elon Musk. I guess they recorded this several days ago.
Speaker 3: It actually went to tape last week. Talking about their relationship.
Speaker 3: They really do seem to love each other. My goodness
Speaker 3: after listening to this conversation for a while, but also
Speaker 3: the work of the dough Now this got to be
Speaker 3: a little bit interesting because the White House, since the
Speaker 3: interview was recorded, had to delineate in the courts that well,
Speaker 3: Elon Musk doesn't actually run the doge and he's a
Speaker 3: senior presidential advisor, but speaking for the apparatus here, Elon
Speaker 3: Musk talking quite a bit about the work that they're
Speaker 3: trying to do here and the functions, as he calls it,
Speaker 3: of this entity. Listen to Elon Musk on Fox.
Speaker 5: One of the biggest functions of the Dog team is
Speaker 5: just making sure that the presidential executive orders are actually
Speaker 5: carrying out. And this is I just want to play it.
Speaker 5: This is a very important thing because the president is
Speaker 5: the elected representative of the people, so it's representing the
Speaker 5: will of the people. And if the bureaucracy is fighting
Speaker 5: the will of the people and preventing the present the
Speaker 5: president for implementing what the people want, then what we
Speaker 5: live in is a bureaucracy and not a democracy.
Speaker 3: Let's start there with our great panel today. Rick Davis
Speaker 3: is with US Republican strategist partner at Stone Court Capital
Speaker 3: and Bloomberg Politics contributor, alongside Kristin Hahn, Democratic strategist and
Speaker 3: partner at Rock Solutions. Kristin, Rick, great to have both
Speaker 3: of you here. You know, look, we could talk about
Speaker 3: the Doge all day long, and there's a lot of news.
Speaker 3: The group is turning to the Pentagon next here, Rick,
Speaker 3: But I want to ask you about the optics of
Speaker 3: that presentation. I'm not sure I've ever seen an interview
Speaker 3: where a sitting president of the United States chose to
Speaker 3: share the stage with someone else, you know, I guess
Speaker 3: other than their spouse. Maybe. What do you think about
Speaker 3: Donald Trump showing himself on par with Elon Musk taking
Speaker 3: questions about policy together, speaking openly about their relationship. What
Speaker 3: was the point of that exercise?
Speaker 9: Yeah, I think that it seems that President Trump is
Speaker 9: a little sensitive to all the stories about Elon Musk
Speaker 9: and his influence and whether he's really the shadow president.
Speaker 9: Even he even addressed it in the interview where he's
Speaker 9: talking very frankly about people are all claiming that, you know, basically,
Speaker 9: I'm a puppet and you must admit. I mean, like,
Speaker 9: that's a I've never seen an interview like that with
Speaker 9: a president and Elon must sitting there with a blue
Speaker 9: blazer and a T shirt that says tech support.
Speaker 3: It's like, yeah, I'm nothing but a tech support for
Speaker 3: the guy.
Speaker 9: I mean, like, I mean, I'm sorry, I mean like
Speaker 9: it's like a Saturday Night Live routine.
Speaker 3: To have a president himself involved. Kristin what did you
Speaker 3: think of all of this? And what do you think
Speaker 3: jd Vance was doing at home as he watched this
Speaker 3: on TV?
Speaker 11: I don't know, hopefully it's not watching this. I mean
Speaker 11: it's interesting because you know, apparently Elon Musk's son doesn't
Speaker 11: seem to think that Donald Trump is the president either,
Speaker 11: if you believe what he whispered to him during that
Speaker 11: weird other press conference that they had. But at the
Speaker 11: end of the day, you know, Elon Musk, if you
Speaker 11: try to like wade through all the crazy and the weird,
Speaker 11: I mean, he's doing a lot of things that are
Speaker 11: having a massive impact, and he just says that he's
Speaker 11: being you know, transparent. He just and that we should
Speaker 11: believe him because he's tweeting things here and there, and
Speaker 11: there's crowdsourcing of information. But I can tell you that
Speaker 11: people even inside these agencies don't quite know what's going on.
Speaker 11: They ended up firing a number of people who are
Speaker 11: working on the bird flu epidemic on accidents. They're trying
Speaker 11: to hire them back now. So I'm not sure exactly
Speaker 11: what Elon Musk is referring to when he's talking about transparency.
Speaker 11: You know, I saw Mitch Landrew was doing. A former
Speaker 11: mayor of New Orleans was doing an interview earlier. That
Speaker 11: made a lot of sense to me. He said, you know,
Speaker 11: I had to cut the budget by twenty percent at
Speaker 11: a really difficult time, and you have to do it surgically.
Speaker 11: He's like, you know, I can cut off twenty percent
Speaker 11: of my weight of my body, but if I cut
Speaker 11: off my leg, you know, I'll bleed to death. So
Speaker 11: I think that was a pretty good analogy.
Speaker 3: A scalpel, not a chainsaw. Rick. I don't know if
Speaker 3: he saw the wall of receipts. You guys can both
Speaker 3: weigh in on this, but you know, there has been
Speaker 3: a real public relations effort, not just in the interview
Speaker 3: last night, but to show what the DOGE is doing online.
Speaker 3: They're even debunking tweets and putting up cost cutting. But
Speaker 3: it hasn't always gone the way they hoped. As The
Speaker 3: New York Times reports, the cuts on the page amounted
Speaker 3: to about sixteen billion dollars in savings that were itemized here.
Speaker 3: Almost half of the line item savings could be attributed
Speaker 3: to a sinking contracts for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an
Speaker 3: eight billion dollar contract, it said. Closer scrutiny found that
Speaker 3: was an eight million dollar contract Rick, And so the
Speaker 3: receipts are leaving some people wanting how important is it
Speaker 3: for Doughs to be transparent to the dollar figure here?
Speaker 9: Yeah, well, I think it's especially trans important now because
Speaker 9: I see, you know, moving around the internet that I
Speaker 9: don't know if this is the case or not, but
Speaker 9: Elon Musk suggesting, hey, let's write everybody a five thousand
Speaker 9: dollars check as a dividend from all the hard work
Speaker 9: that we've done at DOGE, and you know, it just
Speaker 9: hearkens back on you know, George W.
Speaker 3: Bush.
Speaker 9: You know, we had a surplus when he took office,
Speaker 9: and he decided to give everybody you know, a cut
Speaker 9: of that and didn't make a material difference in most
Speaker 9: americans household budget, but it killed the surplus that the
Speaker 9: federal government had and we immediately started definit spending, which
Speaker 9: is where we've been ever since. So I'm a little
Speaker 9: confused because I read the same stories you do, Joe.
Speaker 9: Whether or not this is a six billion dollar savings
Speaker 9: or sixty billion dollar savings, that's a pretty big gap,
Speaker 9: you would think if they're doing all this work and
Speaker 9: you're taking all the shots for doing it that you
Speaker 9: want to itemize like what the taxpayer's benefits are the
Speaker 9: receipts wasn't a great way to do it. There ought
Speaker 9: to be a more professional way to do that. We
Speaker 9: ought to be knowing what we're savings as we cut.
Speaker 9: And by the way, all this should be factored into
Speaker 9: the congressional activity because I heard the President in that
Speaker 9: interview say we're not cutting anything associated with Social Security, Medicare,
Speaker 9: and Medicaid, which is fine. I mean, he's been saying
Speaker 9: that for quite a long time, except you know, eight
Speaker 9: hundred and fifty billion dollars worth of savings that they're
Speaker 9: applying to the tax cuts comes out of medicaid. And
Speaker 9: so maybe the Republican House leadership didn't get the memo
Speaker 9: that Donald Trump saying, don't cut any Medicaid funding. So
Speaker 9: it's all a lot of confusion right now, which I
Speaker 9: think is the one thing that everybody can agree on
Speaker 9: is nobody really knows what's going on.
Speaker 3: So maybe we're cutting off a pinky finger down a
Speaker 3: leg here, Kristen. But this idea of the Doge dividend,
Speaker 3: this this came from Elon Musk on Twitter. He posted
Speaker 3: this says, going to check with the President on this
Speaker 3: idea to pitch the president on a dividend based on
Speaker 3: savings that the DOGE achieved. But I thought the point
Speaker 3: here was to cut the deficit. If you send all
Speaker 3: the money back, the deficit still needs to be paid,
Speaker 3: doesn't it.
Speaker 11: It does that. It really was remarkable when I saw that,
Speaker 11: and I totally agree with Reco. Mean, you've got to
Speaker 11: figure out what what are we trying to accomplish here?
Speaker 11: I mean, never mind the fact that you will never
Speaker 11: get at the truly get at the debt and deficit
Speaker 11: without you know, with just waste frawden abuse, it's not possible.
Speaker 11: You have to address entitlement reform, and you have to
Speaker 11: look at tax reform as well. So, you know, I'm
Speaker 11: not sure exactly what what they're trying to accomplish, because
Speaker 11: they're looking forward to moving the baseline around and figuring
Speaker 11: out how to add, you know, to renew the Trump
Speaker 11: tax cuts without adding to the deficit, which is just
Speaker 11: funny money and which should be offensive to your viewers
Speaker 11: and listeners. But you know, I think if Elon Muss
Speaker 11: has said that he's trying to draw down the deficit,
Speaker 11: like you said, what are we doing here? What are
Speaker 11: we trying to accomplish? And also it doesn't take a
Speaker 11: whole lot of scrutiny to realize that it was eight
Speaker 11: billion and not eight billions.
Speaker 3: Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make
Speaker 3: sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify,
Speaker 3: or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find
Speaker 3: us live every weekday from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern
Speaker 3: at Bloomberg dot com.