Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
Speaker 2: Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Appo, CarPlay and
Speaker 2: then roud Otto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on
Speaker 2: demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live
Speaker 2: on YouTube.
Speaker 3: To the news of the day, including of course, the
Speaker 3: late Friday announcement that Scott Bessett will be if Donald
Speaker 3: Trump gets his way, the next Treasury of the Secretary
Speaker 3: Secretary of the Treasury. It is Monday, after all, of course,
Speaker 3: keeping in mind that if Besson is to be the
Speaker 3: next Treasury Secretary, he does still need to win Senate confirmation.
Speaker 3: But he has had a pretty clear narrative of the
Speaker 3: agenda he would like to pursue. This kind of three
Speaker 3: three three policy. He says, reduce debt to three percent
Speaker 3: from the current six percent, make GDP growth go up
Speaker 3: to three percent, and pump three million more barrels a
Speaker 3: day of crewe in the United States. He also has
Speaker 3: floated the idea of a shadow fed chair and had
Speaker 3: this to say to Joe Matthew and myself last month
Speaker 3: when he joined us about the influence Donald Trump might
Speaker 3: want to have on FED policy.
Speaker 1: He has a deep understanding of financial markets as opposed
Speaker 1: to most politicians, so he wants to be involved in
Speaker 1: the conversation. He has very well formed opinions. He has
Speaker 1: a lot of private sector friends, so he just wants
Speaker 1: to be a voice.
Speaker 3: We want to add another voice to our program here
Speaker 3: on Balance of Power on Bloomberg TV and Radio. In
Speaker 3: turns of the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee,
Speaker 3: the Democratic Congresswoman from California, Maxine Waters, is joining me now. Congresswoman,
Speaker 3: thanks so much for being here. I would love first
Speaker 3: just your reaction to the nomination of Scott Besson. Will
Speaker 3: he be an adequate steward of the US economy.
Speaker 4: Let me just say this, as the world has been
Speaker 4: watching President Trump's appointees, it is not about competence.
Speaker 5: It is not about the.
Speaker 4: Ability to be an advocate for the people and protect
Speaker 4: investors and do all that needs to be done to
Speaker 4: ensure that, you know, the people of this country that
Speaker 4: the Americans have someone looking out for their best tenters.
Speaker 4: He has made his appointments based on loyalty. Loyalty and
Speaker 4: that means they will do whatever he wants. And so
Speaker 4: you know, I consider the new public policy will be
Speaker 4: whatever Trump wants by his appointees who have been chosen
Speaker 4: because of their loyalty. So I can I get into
Speaker 4: whether or not this appointee, as you know, the Treasury
Speaker 4: is different from anybody else. But I expect right now
Speaker 4: that we're going to be up against appointees and every
Speaker 4: level of govern that are loyal to Trump, and they're
Speaker 4: going to take this country in a whole new direction,
Speaker 4: as identified in Project twenty twenty five.
Speaker 3: So when it comes to Scott Beston specifically Congressoman, do
Speaker 3: you think the market is perhaps misplaced in its notion
Speaker 3: that he actually could be something of a balancing force
Speaker 3: for the president, a kind of steady hand, if you will,
Speaker 3: when it comes to the extent of tariffs that should
Speaker 3: be pursued, for example. You don't believe that to be true.
Speaker 5: No, I do not believe it to be true.
Speaker 4: Again, and let me reiterate, these appointments are based on
Speaker 4: whether they're going to do what Trump wants them to do.
Speaker 4: It is not based on any evidence that they can
Speaker 4: be independent, that they in fact will be looking out
Speaker 4: for the best censures of the people.
Speaker 5: And so I'm prepared.
Speaker 4: I'm prepared for whatever Trump wants them to do, and
Speaker 4: I'm prepared to fight that. I'm prepared to be able
Speaker 4: to help organize that committee the Democratic side to educate
Speaker 4: the public about what they're doing and what's going on.
Speaker 4: So I'm not going to back up and say we
Speaker 4: can't get anything done. We're going to continue to try
Speaker 4: and put before the American people the kind of public
Speaker 4: policy that they expect appointees and elected officials to do.
Speaker 5: On behalf of the people.
Speaker 4: And then we want to see if we cannot only
Speaker 4: educate and inform, but whether or not the American people
Speaker 4: are going to understand that they now have a president
Speaker 4: of the United States of America who has no respect
Speaker 4: for the Constitution, does not care what president is on
Speaker 4: any subject, and that he's going to do what he
Speaker 4: wants to do. And so I'm looking for him to
Speaker 4: reveal himself as he has identified himself.
Speaker 3: Well, Congresswoman, as you look ahead to the work you'd
Speaker 3: like to continue doing as a ranking member of House
Speaker 3: Financial Services, you're going to be working with another Republican
Speaker 3: atop that committee. Is there's jockeying now for the chairmanship.
Speaker 3: A number of candidates, of course, who are vying, is
Speaker 3: there someone you'd most like to work with that you
Speaker 3: think the most productive bipartisan legislative work out of the
Speaker 3: committee could happen under.
Speaker 4: That's a possibility, But if I identify them right now
Speaker 4: to you for the public, this probably would lessen their
Speaker 4: opportunity of getting chosen. So yes, I hope there could
Speaker 4: be someone that follows that description, but I can't tell
Speaker 4: you whom at this point.
Speaker 3: So just one of the candidates, in my understanding, you
Speaker 3: think you could work with on a bipartisan basis of
Speaker 3: the three or four that have been floated.
Speaker 4: Well, to tell you the truth, I could work with
Speaker 4: members from the opposite side of the owl pretty much
Speaker 4: in the way that I've worked with McHenry and others.
Speaker 4: But we've got to see who's willing to step up
Speaker 4: to the plate and do what is necessary to protect
Speaker 4: our investors, do what's necessary to hold on to the
Speaker 4: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that's protecting our consumers. Any of
Speaker 4: those who can do that, I can certainly work with them.
Speaker 3: Well, we have seen some bipartisan work coming out of
Speaker 3: the MIDI in this committee in one hundred and eighteenth Congress,
Speaker 3: including bill that advanced out of the Committee and ultimately
Speaker 3: passed on the House floor of the FIT twenty one Act,
Speaker 3: the Market Structure, Crypto Legislation and Congressman, and I wonder
Speaker 3: what you think the future is of those kinds of
Speaker 3: legislative initiatives now that Republicans won't just have control of
Speaker 3: your body, but the Senate as well.
Speaker 4: Well, let me tell you, I've worked very closely with
Speaker 4: mce henry where we've tried to get stable going. Our
Speaker 4: efforts have been about guardrails. We're not opposed to legitimate
Speaker 4: legislation that appears to be in the best interest of
Speaker 4: the people of this country. And there may be some
Speaker 4: crypto that would like to have guard rails. If there
Speaker 4: are guardrails that we can agree to working with all
Speaker 4: of the entities that are interested in and a part
Speaker 4: of developing crypto if we're ever going to get there,
Speaker 4: and that means the Treasury, that means the Federal Reserve,
Speaker 4: that means the sec that means all of these agencies
Speaker 4: have to come together with the President on crypto in
Speaker 4: order to have something that will have guardrails and will
Speaker 4: not just be determined by the fact that crypto companies
Speaker 4: are trying to invade all of our financial services members
Speaker 4: with large contributions, etc.
Speaker 5: Etc.
Speaker 4: We know what's going on, and we think now they're
Speaker 4: going to have an opportunity to learn more about what
Speaker 4: crypto really is and how it works in this digital
Speaker 4: economy that we're involved in. So we've got a lot
Speaker 4: of understanding, a lot of searching out, and a lot
Speaker 4: of educating to do. And if we can work with
Speaker 4: anyone who's willing to do that and provide these guardrails,
Speaker 4: I'm ready, and.
Speaker 5: I think some of my members are.
Speaker 4: And I do believe that some of the members who
Speaker 4: voted for the crypto legislation that you're talking about will
Speaker 4: no more now about what they voted for and be
Speaker 4: a lot more skeptical than they were or when they
Speaker 4: decided that they would give it a chance, that they
Speaker 4: would go ahead and vote in ways that they didn't
Speaker 4: quite understand. But I don't think that'll be the case anymore.
Speaker 3: Well, you just mentioned their congressoman the SEC's role in this.
Speaker 3: The chair, Gary Gensler, of course, has announced that he
Speaker 3: will be a step down on January twentieth, when this
Speaker 3: new president and new administration comes in. And I wonder
Speaker 3: given the nominees for other regulatory agencies that we have
Speaker 3: already seen coming from Donald Trump Brendan Carr, for example,
Speaker 3: at the FCC. What concern you might have about the
Speaker 3: kind of person who could ultimately fill the shoes that
Speaker 3: Gary Gensler is stepping out of.
Speaker 4: Well, you know, a Gensler was an expert in crypto.
Speaker 4: He taught crypto at the university, and many of those
Speaker 4: in the crypto business did not like him, did not
Speaker 4: want him because he knew too much and he wanted guardrails.
Speaker 4: And he was absolutely the one who I believe should
Speaker 4: be in position to deal with securities as we understand them.
Speaker 4: Crypto is a security, it is not a commodity, and
Speaker 4: that's what the fight is all about, commodity versus security.
Speaker 4: And I don't know who can fill those shoes, but
Speaker 4: we'll have to see.
Speaker 3: Well, we know gangsters will be out of those shoes
Speaker 3: in January. A term that goes much longer, though, and
Speaker 3: there's no sign that this person will be leaving in
Speaker 3: advance of the term being up. Is Michael Barr, the
Speaker 3: Vice Chair of Supervision at the Federal Reserve, who of
Speaker 3: course initially put forward the Basel three end game proposal
Speaker 3: with higher capital requirements for big banks, something many of
Speaker 3: your colleagues on the Financial Services Committee and the President
Speaker 3: elect have been highly critical of. How do you expect
Speaker 3: Michael Barr will fare under this new administration? Do you
Speaker 3: think that Donald Trump might actually try to fire or
Speaker 3: demote him?
Speaker 5: Well, first of all, let me just go back some
Speaker 5: of what you just said. I think I missed. But
Speaker 5: let me tell you.
Speaker 4: If you mentioned Powell oh at the Federal Reserve, he
Speaker 4: cannot fire him and he's not going to leave, and
Speaker 4: we've already gotten him to make that a public statement,
Speaker 4: and so he'll be there.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 4: If you're talking about Ginstler and why he would be
Speaker 4: stepping down, he knows Trump does not want him. Trump
Speaker 4: would fire him in a hot second, and so he's
Speaker 4: stepping down.
Speaker 5: He will not be there.
Speaker 4: I don't know much about a replacement, and whether or
Speaker 4: not they will come in with the same kind of
Speaker 4: understanding that the securities must be DELA and that crypto
Speaker 4: are securities. And so if they come in already thinking
Speaker 4: that that's not the business of the sec the Securities
Speaker 4: Exchange Commission, that rather it is a commodity, then we
Speaker 4: have a problem.
Speaker 5: And so we've got all of these issues to work out.
Speaker 3: A Congressman, I had asked, and I'm sorry if I
Speaker 3: was hard to understand. Michael Barr, the vice chair of
Speaker 3: Supervision at the Federal Reserve, who of course will oversee
Speaker 3: the future of capital requirements for big banks. What do
Speaker 3: you think his future holds in this incoming administry?
Speaker 4: Let me just tell you, we've got to continue to
Speaker 4: educate our members and the public on why it is
Speaker 4: so important that we have capital requirements and that we
Speaker 4: have what we need to protect against, you know, the
Speaker 4: kind of meltdown that we had in two thousand and eight.
Speaker 4: You know, we cannot eliminate you know, the lessons that
Speaker 4: have been learned about capital requirements, and so we're going
Speaker 4: to push very hard with all of the information, with
Speaker 4: all of the history about what took place when we
Speaker 4: had the meltdown in two thousand and eight, and this
Speaker 4: country was practically ruined because of a lack of the
Speaker 4: ability of the banks of this country to be able
Speaker 4: to ensure all of our depositors and investors that they
Speaker 4: can be safe.
Speaker 3: All right, Congressoman, thank you so much for joining us
Speaker 3: here on Bloomberg TV in radio. That is, the ranking
Speaker 3: member of the House Financial Services Committee. Democratic Congressman Maxine Waters,
Speaker 3: thank you so much.
Speaker 2: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Kensis
Speaker 2: live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then roud
Speaker 2: outro with the Bloomberg Business App. You can also listen
Speaker 2: live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station,
Speaker 2: Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 3: We do have breaking news at this hour from here
Speaker 3: in Washington, where, of course, one of the federal cases
Speaker 3: against Donald Trump was bought by Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Speaker 3: He at the Department of Justice is now moving to
Speaker 3: formally drop that case, the twenty twenty election obstruction case,
Speaker 3: and the charges that were brought against Trump. Then this
Speaker 3: is not a surprise. We knew this might be coming,
Speaker 3: and as it is longstanding DOJ policy to not prosecute
Speaker 3: a sitting president, which Donald Trump is about to become
Speaker 3: in just fifty six days, and when he does take office,
Speaker 3: we know he has promised to make some changes at
Speaker 3: the DOJ. Initially, That's why he wanted Matt Gates to
Speaker 3: be the leader of it when he was nominated for
Speaker 3: Attorney General, only to withdraw his name from consideration last
Speaker 3: week and have Pam Bondi named in his stead. But
Speaker 3: now that Gates is out of the picture for ag
Speaker 3: there's scrutiny on some of the other controversial cabinet selections
Speaker 3: that Donald Trump has made, including, of course RFK Junior
Speaker 3: for Health and Human Services, Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense,
Speaker 3: and then there's Tulci Gabbard who was tapped to be
Speaker 3: the Director of National Intelligence. She could face a bit
Speaker 3: of an uphill climb to get Senate confirmation, at least
Speaker 3: if the words of one Republican Senator, James Langford, who
Speaker 3: sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, is to be believed.
Speaker 3: This is what he told CNN just yesterday.
Speaker 6: Well, we'll have lots of questions she met with Bishiro Sad.
Speaker 6: We'll want to know what the purpose was and what
Speaker 6: the direction for that was. As a member of Congress,
Speaker 6: will want to get it. She has to talk about
Speaker 6: past comments that she's made and get them into full context.
Speaker 3: So let's assemble now our signature political panel for more
Speaker 3: on this. Rick Davis Stone Court Capital Partner and Republican Strategists,
Speaker 3: alongside Democratic analyst Jeanie Schanzeno who is a senior Democracy
Speaker 3: Fellow at the Center for the Study of the Presidency
Speaker 3: and Congress. Rick, if you were on Tolsei Gabbert's team
Speaker 3: trying to make sure that she ultimately gets confirmed and
Speaker 3: takes this job as a Director of National Intelligence, would
Speaker 3: you be pretty nervous right now? What does she need
Speaker 3: to do over the course of the next many weeks
Speaker 3: in order to ensure she gets the requisite votes in
Speaker 3: the Senate?
Speaker 7: Well, I think they're probably doing this meeting directly with
Speaker 7: the staves of the various committee's Armed Services Committee, Intelligence Committee,
Speaker 7: those committees that really care a great deal about that
Speaker 7: posting and talking to the staves and to the members
Speaker 7: directly sort of airing out any issues like what Senator
Speaker 7: Langfort might have about her trip to Syria, what she
Speaker 7: did there, what was the cause, and how did she
Speaker 7: organize a meeting with Bashar al Asad, at the time
Speaker 7: a global criminal for using chemicals against his own people
Speaker 7: chemical warfare. So she's got some explaining to do. But
Speaker 7: if she has a rational explanation for these things, then
Speaker 7: what I can tell is the Senate is in the
Speaker 7: mode of trying to give Donald Trump the appointments he wants,
Speaker 7: and yet I do think it's going to be a
Speaker 7: drawn out process. I mean, there's requirements for high level
Speaker 7: security clearances. Those haven't even begun because of delays in
Speaker 7: the transition, So I think we'll be talking about this
Speaker 7: for quite some time to come. But you know, she's
Speaker 7: a talented individual who if she can explain away some
Speaker 7: of the concerns that people have about her approach to
Speaker 7: Syria and to Russia, then she stands a chance of
Speaker 7: acceding to the job.
Speaker 3: Well, she's also a former Democrat, Genie, so way in
Speaker 3: here is this a job she deserves to have.
Speaker 8: You know, I think the Senate is going to do
Speaker 8: it's vetting on her. I think what's troubling to me
Speaker 8: are the charges that are coming that she is somehow traitorous,
Speaker 8: and I think we have to be very very careful
Speaker 8: with that kind of language when it's being used pretty
Speaker 8: publicly without evidence. She does, to Rick's point, have to
Speaker 8: explain her trips to Asad, she does have to explain
Speaker 8: the language that she's been using as it pertains to Russia.
Speaker 8: But just because somebody has a view that doesn't line
Speaker 8: up with what is expected in certain circles, we have
Speaker 8: to be very careful about calling her obviously a former VET,
Speaker 8: a former congresswoman, a former candidate for president, and now
Speaker 8: this nominee. That said, I think questions have to be
Speaker 8: asked by the Senate, and Senator Lang is right about
Speaker 8: her expertise and ability to do this job, which is
Speaker 8: what is very concerning to me. This is an important job.
Speaker 8: This was a job created after nine to eleven to
Speaker 8: ensure the president gets the best intelligence he can and
Speaker 8: is she able to do that job. There are a
Speaker 8: variety of questions about that, and also questions about whether
Speaker 8: our allies feel comfortable sharing information if she is at
Speaker 8: the top of this. So I think all of those
Speaker 8: are fair game. I would not be surprised if we
Speaker 8: see four people Murkowski, Collins, Mitch McConnell, maybe one from intelligence,
Speaker 8: who say no to her and Donald Trump is forced
Speaker 8: to look elsewhere. It wouldn't surprise me at all.
Speaker 3: Well, as we consider here what is and is not surprising,
Speaker 3: Perhaps not too surprising, as it was already signaled that
Speaker 3: this would be coming by Special Counsel Jack Smith, but
Speaker 3: the DOJ now formally moving to drop the obstruction case
Speaker 3: in the twenty twenty election case, specifically against the now
Speaker 3: president elect. Here in Washington, Genie, we knew that they
Speaker 3: weren't going to try to prosecute a sitting president. Jack
Speaker 3: Smith has signaled this much. He's also apparently looking at
Speaker 3: retiring before Donald Trump can even take office. And I
Speaker 3: just wonder when you couple this with other news we
Speaker 3: have gotten just last week that the sentencing in the
Speaker 3: case that Trump was convicted in has been postponed indefinitely.
Speaker 3: Does this just end every legal inquiry essentially, at least
Speaker 3: in terms of criminal prosecution into Donald Trump. Is this
Speaker 3: ever going to be reignited?
Speaker 8: I think for the most part this ends it, and
Speaker 8: in my mind it should end it. There is a
Speaker 8: big debate about do we end these or freeze these
Speaker 8: as is happening in New York. I think at this
Speaker 8: point ending them is the right course. But you know,
Speaker 8: it's a hard question because you know, setting aside Donald Trump,
Speaker 8: there is a looming question about whether you're getting a
Speaker 8: lot of jail free card is being elected to office.
Speaker 8: That's deeply disconcerting to many Americans. But that said, at
Speaker 8: this point, I do think the DOJ is right to
Speaker 8: drop this, And if I was Jack Smith, I would
Speaker 8: be sending in my resignation as well as I expect
Speaker 8: we see his entire team resign at this point.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, there's been plenty of reports that everyone who
Speaker 3: was on that team might be fired from the Department
Speaker 3: of Justice under this incoming administration. Anyway, Rick, as we
Speaker 3: consider though, that it's not going to be Matt Gates
Speaker 3: who leads the department going forward. He's taken himself out.
Speaker 3: It's now Pam Bondi, who is the Attorney General designate.
Speaker 3: There isn't much thought that she will face difficulty in
Speaker 3: getting confirmed. How do you expect she'll handle things like
Speaker 3: this or at the suggestions that the President elect made
Speaker 3: on the campaign trail that he would like to go
Speaker 3: after and see prosecuted people who are his own political enemies.
Speaker 7: Yeah, look, I mean there are plenty of that the
Speaker 7: Justice Department have had in the past about how they
Speaker 7: handle issues related to sitting presidents, and I think this
Speaker 7: goes by the wayside just as consistent as any other
Speaker 7: has done in the past, dating back to Richard Nixon.
Speaker 7: The long and short of it, though, is Pam Bondi
Speaker 7: will be the Chief Council Chief cop for the United
Speaker 7: States of America and at this point in time, there's
Speaker 7: no reason to believe that that's inconsistent with serving under
Speaker 7: a Donald Trump presidency. And if in fact, there is
Speaker 7: a date and time where the President instructs her to
Speaker 7: do something otherwise, I think we'll hear from the courts
Speaker 7: and from the Congress to ensure that these norms are
Speaker 7: adhered to. And we certainly have no evidence that the
Speaker 7: division of labor, the division of power in Congress and
Speaker 7: the Supreme Court or federal courts will see otherwise. So
Speaker 7: I think there's systems in place to keep government running.
Speaker 7: And it certainly is totally appropriate that Jack Smith would
Speaker 7: see this opportunity to pursue other interests. And he's served
Speaker 7: his country well over you know, two decades, and you
Speaker 7: know he's not going to want to serve in an
Speaker 7: administration that he's just been prosecuting.
Speaker 2: So it's.
Speaker 7: I don't see anything particularly surprising by the decision other
Speaker 7: than the fact that it's happened now and it kind
Speaker 7: of creates a finality to, you know, this crazy ride
Speaker 7: we had starting back in August of twenty twenty three
Speaker 7: when the President was indicted on federal charges. So it's
Speaker 7: it's been quite something to see in the process work
Speaker 7: its way out.
Speaker 9: Well.
Speaker 3: And as we consider here that we won't see Genie,
Speaker 3: the evidence that was actually gathered by Jack Smith presented
Speaker 3: in a courtroom, we have, to Rick's point, seeing the
Speaker 3: original indictment than the stuper receiving one and the one
Speaker 3: that was changed in light of the Supreme Court decision
Speaker 3: around presidential immunity. A lot of these details made public
Speaker 3: not just by Jack Smith and the judge in this case,
Speaker 3: but also, of course, as it pertains to the events
Speaker 3: of January sixth, specifically by the congressional committee that looked
Speaker 3: into this and had highly publicized, publicized, televised hearings into this.
Speaker 3: The American people already had knowledge of a lot of
Speaker 3: this conduct and voted him to be the forty seventh
Speaker 3: president anyway, So would it ultimately have even mattered if
Speaker 3: everything came to light.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I mean it's an excellent point, because you know,
Speaker 8: you'd have to be living under a rock to not be,
Speaker 8: you know, have knowledge as to what these accusations were,
Speaker 8: and despite that, you had millions of Americans go to
Speaker 8: the polls and choose Donald Trump. I do think it's
Speaker 8: important that Smith and I understand he will issues a
Speaker 8: report on his findings. That's critically important for posterity. It's
Speaker 8: critically important for us as historians and scholars. I also
Speaker 8: think it's critically important that the courts continue to do
Speaker 8: their job, including define for us what the limits of
Speaker 8: immunity are. You know, we don't live in a monarchy.
Speaker 8: The idea of total complete immunity is not what they
Speaker 8: were talking about, So those limits still need to be defined.
Speaker 8: And to me, that is even more important than any
Speaker 8: other continued prosecution of Donald Trump because this speaks to
Speaker 8: people who serve in these positions going forward, and that's
Speaker 8: what the government and the courts in particular need to
Speaker 8: tell us what those limits are, because we've never had
Speaker 8: to answer this question before.
Speaker 3: All Right, Jeanie Shanzano alongside Rick Davis. Together they are
Speaker 3: our signature political panel. Joining me on this Monday edition
Speaker 3: of Balance of Power. Thank you so much, and we
Speaker 3: still have more ahead. I'll be joined by Mick Mulvaney,
Speaker 3: the former chief of staff in the first acting chief
Speaker 3: of staff in the first Trump White House and director
Speaker 3: of the Office of Budget and Management as well during
Speaker 3: that administration. He's next on Bloomberg TV and Radio.
Speaker 2: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast ketches
Speaker 2: live weekdays at noon Eastern on Appo, car Play and
Speaker 2: then Proud Otto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on
Speaker 2: demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live
Speaker 2: on YouTube.
Speaker 3: As expected, the Department of Justice is moving through Special
Speaker 3: counsel Jack Smith to drop the twenty twenty election obstruction
Speaker 3: case against the now President elect Donald Trump. There have
Speaker 3: been signals that this would happen, as it is long
Speaker 3: standing DOJ policy not to prosecute a sitting president, which
Speaker 3: Donald Trump will become once again fifty six days from now.
Speaker 3: But it does end what was already a historic prosecution
Speaker 3: series of prosecutions frankly against Trump as an individual that
Speaker 3: are now going away as he gets set to take
Speaker 3: office for a second time, and of course the first
Speaker 3: time around when he was the forty fifth President of
Speaker 3: the United States, mickmove was active in that administration. He's
Speaker 3: former acting White House Chief of Staff under Trump, former
Speaker 3: Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and of
Speaker 3: course co founder as well of the House Freedom Caucus
Speaker 3: as a former congressman. To boot Mike, we know your
Speaker 3: resume is long. It's always good to have you here
Speaker 3: on Bloomberg TV and Radio. There's a lot I'd like
Speaker 3: to get into when it comes to the OMB specifically,
Speaker 3: but if we could just first get your reaction to
Speaker 3: this news. I know you had strong feelings about the
Speaker 3: events in and around January sixth. Now, Donald Trump not
Speaker 3: necessarily going to be held accountable for any of that
Speaker 3: alleged action that he took in the lead up to
Speaker 3: and during it. But this is largely to be.
Speaker 9: Expected, right it is.
Speaker 10: In fact, I think it's probably the biggest story that
Speaker 10: everybody knew was going to happen.
Speaker 9: Anyway. You can't.
Speaker 10: I mean, it's been long standing policy, as you mentioned,
Speaker 10: that you don't prosecute a sitting president, which means it
Speaker 10: would have to sit there for at least four years
Speaker 10: the prosecution would, which is not tenable. So I guess
Speaker 10: this is an inevitable sort of side effect.
Speaker 9: Of the election.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and now we're getting a new announcement from the
Speaker 3: DJ also formally moving to drop the other federal case
Speaker 3: against Donald Trump, which was the classified documents case down
Speaker 3: in Florida, So both federal prosecutions are now out of
Speaker 3: the picture. He of course has had his sentencing in
Speaker 3: the case in New York, the state case around the
Speaker 3: falsification of business records in which he was convicted, That
Speaker 3: sentencing has been pushed back indefinitely. We're not quite sure
Speaker 3: at this time what's going to happen with the other
Speaker 3: state case down in Georgia. But this effectively Mick puts
Speaker 3: to bed all of his at least criminal legal issues.
Speaker 3: And I do wonder if he wouldn't be about to
Speaker 3: go back into the White House had they not happened,
Speaker 3: Had we not had these series of indictments throughout the
Speaker 3: course of what was his active presidential campaign, do you
Speaker 3: think he still would have won.
Speaker 10: I think it gave him and you and I have
Speaker 10: talked about this before a couple of times.
Speaker 9: It gave him a new message. It gave him a
Speaker 9: rallying cry.
Speaker 10: Some of the criminal chargers were so weak, Kayleye, And
Speaker 10: I know I'm giving an opinion on that, but they
Speaker 10: were facially very weak. The basis of the case, one
Speaker 10: of the cases in New York was that he that
Speaker 10: he paid back a loan early that the debtor didn't
Speaker 10: or the lender didn't complain about. Another case was revolving
Speaker 10: around it, you know, criminal charges for legal hush money payments,
Speaker 10: and it gave him, you know, it raised a lot
Speaker 10: of questions even with Democrats, as to whether or not
Speaker 10: he would have been charged with those things if his
Speaker 10: name wasn't Donald John Trump.
Speaker 9: And it gave him that new.
Speaker 10: Rallying cry that you know, look at what they're doing
Speaker 10: to me. If they can do it to me, they
Speaker 10: can do it to you. Elect me, and that won't happen.
Speaker 10: It reinvigorated his campaign, so said from the very beginning.
Speaker 10: If there's one human being probably most response with Donald
Speaker 10: Trump going back to the White House, it's probably Alvin Bragg,
Speaker 10: followed closely by Letitia James.
Speaker 3: Incredible to consider. And of course, yes, we did hear
Speaker 3: a lot about this from Donald Trump on the campaign trail.
Speaker 3: Something else we heard from Trump frequently while he was
Speaker 3: campaigning is that he had nothing to do with the
Speaker 3: Heritage Foundations Project twenty twenty five. And yet we have
Speaker 3: seen a number of people named to be part of
Speaker 3: his second administration who were affiliated or contributed to that project.
Speaker 3: And in fact, just a few weeks ago, Joe got
Speaker 3: to sit down with the President of Heritage, Kevin Roberts,
Speaker 3: who told him this about the way in which it
Speaker 3: could be informing this incoming administration's policy decisions.
Speaker 11: We think that this is the beginning of a golden
Speaker 11: era of conservative reform. I will say that because the
Speaker 11: work of Project twenty twenty five represents the conservative movement,
Speaker 11: it would be very difficult for anybody to implement policies
Speaker 11: on education, on the border, on taxation without at least
Speaker 11: consulting those ideas in people. That's not some arrogant or
Speaker 11: hubistic comment.
Speaker 12: On our part.
Speaker 11: That's just the nature of how policy making works.
Speaker 3: And one of those people make that contributed to Project
Speaker 3: twenty twenty twenty five has now been tapped to take
Speaker 3: your old job, Omb Director Russ Vote will be reprising
Speaker 3: his role. And I do wonder what you make of
Speaker 3: that choice and if it actually does signal anything about
Speaker 3: the way in which Project twenty twenty five could be
Speaker 3: working its way into outcomes in this administration.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 10: I mean, look, what I think the guy from Heritage
Speaker 10: was trying to say in so many words, is twenty
Speaker 10: Project twenty twenty twenty five is just Republican conservative orthodoxy
Speaker 10: in a lot of different places.
Speaker 9: So if you're going to be a Republican president.
Speaker 10: You're going to probably put into place a lot of
Speaker 10: things that happened to be in Project twenty twenty five.
Speaker 10: I do think that the Trump campaign sort of moved
Speaker 10: away from the project because in large part of the
Speaker 10: positions on abortion, which they considered to be a liability politically.
Speaker 10: But look, it's conservative orthodoxy and that's what's going forward.
Speaker 9: You asked me about RUSS. I'm very excited about this.
Speaker 10: In fact, I think, you know, Elon Musk and Vivek
Speaker 10: Ramaswami get all the attention for this Department of Government efficiency,
Speaker 10: and they should, and it's an important thing that they're doing.
Speaker 10: But in order to implement the things that I think
Speaker 10: they're going to start recommending, you have to have Omb
Speaker 10: on board. And nobody knows more about government works or
Speaker 10: doesn't work than RUSS votes. So I thought it was
Speaker 10: a really, really solid decision at Omb, and he'll make
Speaker 10: a good member of that government deficiency team. Keep in mind,
Speaker 10: the last time President Trump asked somebody to restructure the
Speaker 10: federal government, it was me, and we didn't have much
Speaker 10: luck because the whole of the deep state was against us,
Speaker 10: and some of our cabinet secretaries were against us. I
Speaker 10: think I don't think that that troika of Elon, Vevek
Speaker 10: and Russ are going to have the same impediments that
Speaker 10: we had in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 3: Well, and you could potentially add another name to that
Speaker 3: team as well as Congressman Marjorie Taylor Green of Georgia.
Speaker 3: Apparently we'll be leading a House Oversight subcommittee helping implement
Speaker 3: the DOGE recommendations. I do wonder though, as we know
Speaker 3: that that Department quote unquote does have intel July fourth
Speaker 3: of twenty twenty six to make these proposals. To do
Speaker 3: this work, there are going to be spending battles being
Speaker 3: fought in Congress well before that. Basically right when we
Speaker 3: get into the new year, the new Congress and the
Speaker 3: new administration, we're going to have to deal not just
Speaker 3: with regular appropriations, but a debt stealing fight. Well, and
Speaker 3: I wonder how you think russ vote will navigate those
Speaker 3: what it means for the ultimate outcomes of what those
Speaker 3: deals could look like.
Speaker 10: Well, what Russ is going to do, and this is
Speaker 10: what good staffers are supposed to do, and Russ was
Speaker 10: a good staffer in the previous administration. I have every
Speaker 10: expectation he's going to be a good staffer going forward
Speaker 10: is simply laying out the facts and the arguments for
Speaker 10: the president. Russ is a lot more fiscally conservative than
Speaker 10: the president United States is, just as I was. Trump
Speaker 10: wanted to hear from the fiscally conservative wing of the
Speaker 10: party and he wanted to hear from other folks as well,
Speaker 10: and Russ will be the loudest voice in those discussions.
Speaker 10: You're right, we've got appropriations bills to deal with, You've
Speaker 10: got the debt ceiling to deal with.
Speaker 9: You've got to look very closely.
Speaker 10: Kailey, to that first sort of that thin budget that
Speaker 10: will come out in the first couple of weeks of
Speaker 10: the administration, because that will be the first indication is
Speaker 10: what their priorities are. President's budget is a messaging budget,
Speaker 10: you know, what are their priorities going to be? And
Speaker 10: Russ will be obviously have his hand in that. So
Speaker 10: it's going to be a very quick or a fast
Speaker 10: moving couple of weeks on those spending issues, and it
Speaker 10: will be interesting to see what not Trump comes down
Speaker 10: sort of with that more the heavier spending side of
Speaker 10: the party or the fiscally conservative side of the party
Speaker 10: that Russ represents so well.
Speaker 3: Well, and in those initial those first weeks, Mick, there
Speaker 3: also is going to be a really narrow majority in
Speaker 3: the chamber you used to sit in the House of Representatives.
Speaker 3: It's really going to be only a few votes that
Speaker 3: Mike Johnson can afford to lose as Speaker because Trump
Speaker 3: has pulled three members of the House for this administration,
Speaker 3: or I guess when you include Matt Gates having resigned
Speaker 3: no longer being part of the administration, that's still a
Speaker 3: vote gone in a special election that's not being held
Speaker 3: until April first. How hard is this going to be
Speaker 3: to get done with such a slim majority?
Speaker 9: Really hard.
Speaker 10: I think people lose sight of the fact it's not
Speaker 10: quite as bad as it sounds, just because technically Waltz
Speaker 10: is still a member of the House and can still vote.
Speaker 9: Traditionally you don't, but you can.
Speaker 10: I never voted after I was nominated for the OMB
Speaker 10: back in twenty seventeen, but I could have.
Speaker 9: It would have been legal for me to do that.
Speaker 10: So until those folks are confirmed, all those House members,
Speaker 10: they are still sitting and can vote, so they don't
Speaker 10: really lose those Republican votes. Mike Johnson doesn't lose those
Speaker 10: Republican votes until those folks resign. Now, yes, obviously mentioned
Speaker 10: Matt Gates has already gone, so that narrows it a
Speaker 10: little bit. But to your point, it's going to be tight,
Speaker 10: There's no question about that.
Speaker 9: And he's not going to be able to afford to
Speaker 9: lose any folks, I think, any votes.
Speaker 10: I think the one thing that's sort of sitting there,
Speaker 10: the eight hundred pound gerrill in the room, is that
Speaker 10: Donald Trump still has a lot of influence over the
Speaker 10: Republican Party, probably never more so than now, and if
Speaker 10: they want to whip votes, they should be very successful
Speaker 10: in doing that well.
Speaker 3: Perhaps though not enough influence over at least the Republicans
Speaker 3: in the Senate to be able to get someone like
Speaker 3: Gates through the confirmation process, hence himself gains taking himself
Speaker 3: out of contention for that role. When we look at
Speaker 3: some of these other nominees Toolsey Gabbard, RFK Junior, Pete Hegseeth,
Speaker 3: do you think there could still be Republican resistance adequate
Speaker 3: enough to potentially tank those nominations, Mick or is everyone
Speaker 3: else going to get through?
Speaker 9: You know, it's it's a really good question.
Speaker 10: It's one of those inside the Beltway questions, because oftentimes
Speaker 10: it's not every single administration, but oftentimes what will happen
Speaker 10: is an incoming administration will offer up a sacrificial lamb
Speaker 10: somebody they know they can't get confirmed because they're too
Speaker 10: extreme one way or the other, but it satisfies their
Speaker 10: base and it gives sort of a little sop to
Speaker 10: the minority party in the Senate. We saw this back
Speaker 10: in twenty twenty one with Nero Teten, who was nominated
Speaker 10: for omb by the Biden administration, even though a lot
Speaker 10: of Democrats thought she was too progressively left to get confirmed,
Speaker 10: and indeed she wasn't she They took that name down.
Speaker 10: Was Matt Gates that sacrificial lamb? Or was he sort
Speaker 10: of a different thing entirely. I think if you look
Speaker 10: at the if you look at the names you just gave,
Speaker 10: I gotta think Kennedy's got the toughest road just because he's.
Speaker 9: Such a weird guy.
Speaker 10: I mean, I hate to use the word that you know,
Speaker 10: you know, that word meant something before Tim Waal start
Speaker 10: using on the campaign. But he's he's he's an unusual
Speaker 10: human being, and it should make for an interesting confirmation process.
Speaker 9: Heg Seth will get the attention because of the post.
Speaker 10: Obviously, HHS, which Kennedy's nominated for, is not as critical,
Speaker 10: is not as perceived as being as high ranking as
Speaker 10: the Secretary of Defense is. But every time people ask
Speaker 10: about Hegseth, I say, look, if he wasn't on TV
Speaker 10: and he was just somebody with degrees from Princeton and
Speaker 10: Harvard who had written a couple of books on the topic,
Speaker 10: had two Bronze stars served overseas two different times, I
Speaker 10: don't think you'd be getting the negative attention that you were.
Speaker 9: So I think Hegseith is fine. I think Tools is fine.
Speaker 10: I think if anybody is going to have the biggest challenge,
Speaker 10: it's going to be Kennedy.
Speaker 3: Well, and finally Mick. As we consider here the notion
Speaker 3: of future challenges around all of these things, I do wonder,
Speaker 3: assuming that these people can't even get confirmed, what challenges
Speaker 3: they may face upon actually stepping into the job. If
Speaker 3: this transition is delayed because of a lack of signing
Speaker 3: of ethics and transparency pledges in order to get access
Speaker 3: to the classified or at least not public information they
Speaker 3: need to do their roles. What do you make of
Speaker 3: of the slow walking here.
Speaker 9: Listen that slow walking. It works both ways. There's a net.
Speaker 10: You're seeing a natural tension now between the administrative, the
Speaker 10: executive branch, and the legislative branch. It has very little
Speaker 10: to do with party and everything to do with structure.
Speaker 10: The incomeing administration doesn't want to sort of give everything
Speaker 10: to the Senate all at one time, and the Senate
Speaker 10: doesn't want to move very quickly. Keep in mind, I've
Speaker 10: often said that, you know, advise and consent has in
Speaker 10: large part become extort and delay. I can't tell you
Speaker 10: the number of Republican centators who called me when I
Speaker 10: was at OMB, trying to get stuff out of me
Speaker 10: in exchange for lower level confirmations moving forward and so forth.
Speaker 10: So there's that natural tension. I think it's important that
Speaker 10: the Treasury Secretary go early, Secretary State Defense go early,
Speaker 10: and that the OMB go early, just because you do
Speaker 10: have to write that budget very quickly.
Speaker 9: My guess is those.
Speaker 10: Will be the first ones confirmed, and then the other
Speaker 10: ones may drag out over the course of the next
Speaker 10: couple of months.
Speaker 12: Well.
Speaker 3: Of course, he used to be director of the UMB himself.
Speaker 3: Mick mulvaney also former acting Chief of Staff in the
Speaker 3: Trump White House joining us here on Balance of Power.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much, especially as Mick helps us react
Speaker 3: to the breaking news we have gotten just this hour,
Speaker 3: the Justice Department making it official that they are dropping
Speaker 3: the prosecutions the federal ones of the now president elect
Speaker 3: in both cases. That includes the document's case in Florida
Speaker 3: and of course the case related to twenty twenty election
Speaker 3: subversion brought against Donald Trump. Here in Washington. We have
Speaker 3: had reaction from Trump's communications director Stephen Chung, who says,
Speaker 3: in part, the American people re elected President Trump with
Speaker 3: an overwhelming mandate to make America great again. Today's decision
Speaker 3: by the DOJ and the unconstitutional federal cases against President
Speaker 3: Trump and is a major victory for the rule of law.
Speaker 2: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens
Speaker 2: just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then
Speaker 2: ron Oto with the Bloomberg Business App. You can also
Speaker 2: listen live on Amazon Alecxa from our flagship New York
Speaker 2: station Just Say Alexa, playing Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 3: You're in Washington. We're getting this work week started after
Speaker 3: what was a short weekend for many political journalists because
Speaker 3: work went well into the night on Friday, as it
Speaker 3: was Friday evening when the President elect Donald Trump decided
Speaker 3: to dump a whole host of cabinet level nominations on us,
Speaker 3: including that, as we've mentioned of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent
Speaker 3: tapped for that job, but we also got his selection
Speaker 3: to be the next Secretary of Labor. The current congressman
Speaker 3: Republican or congresswoman rather from Oregon, Lori Chavez de Riemer,
Speaker 3: and her nomination is already getting some pushback, not from
Speaker 3: Democrats as you might expect, but actually from Republicans, as
Speaker 3: conservatives have some concern about her support for the pro
Speaker 3: Act protecting the Right to organize. She was one of
Speaker 3: just three Republican co sponsors of that legislation, and some
Speaker 3: see that as a sign that she might be too
Speaker 3: close to labor unions. So for more on this and
Speaker 3: what it signals about the approach to unions this incoming
Speaker 3: administration will be taken, we turn to SETH Harris back
Speaker 3: with us here on balance of power. He of course,
Speaker 3: was a top labor policy advisor to President Biden. He's
Speaker 3: now a senior fellow at the Burn Center for social
Speaker 3: Change at Northeastern University. Seth, Welcome back to the program.
Speaker 3: I do wonder what you know of Shavez Dreamer, excuse me,
Speaker 3: and how close to unions you really perceive her to be.
Speaker 12: What I know about her is that she is a unicorn.
Speaker 12: She is a genuine pro union Republican and we thought
Speaker 12: they had all gone extinct, but here we found one
Speaker 12: in nature or President Trump founder in nature. She had
Speaker 12: support from several unions in her re election campaign, which
Speaker 12: was unsuccessful. As you noted earlier, she is a sponsor
Speaker 12: of co sponsor of the pro Act, which is the
Speaker 12: private sector worker organizing legislation that has been pushed aggressively
Speaker 12: by the labor movement, particularly the AFLCIO. She's also a
Speaker 12: supporter of a very important public sector worker organizing piece
Speaker 12: of legislation. So these are positions taken by only a
Speaker 12: very very very small handful of Republicans in Congress, and
Speaker 12: that's why she is facing some pushback from elements of
Speaker 12: the business community and also from some Senate Republicans.
Speaker 3: So if she's going to be confirmed by the Senate,
Speaker 3: would you expect Actually most of that support comes from
Speaker 3: Democrats instead of the majority Republicans, well.
Speaker 12: The Senate Republican caucuses in a little bit of a
Speaker 12: pickle with a congress Woman Chavez Durimer. They don't want
Speaker 12: to vote no on one of President Trump's nominees, particularly
Speaker 12: when there are several other nominees who are much more serious,
Speaker 12: problematic than the congresswoman is. I won't name them, but
Speaker 12: you know who I'm talking about. So the question is,
Speaker 12: does the business community very aggressively oppose Congresswoman Chavez Dureimer
Speaker 12: in her effort to become Labor Secretary. I expect that
Speaker 12: she will get a large majority, if not all, of
Speaker 12: the Democrats supporting her, because she is just about the
Speaker 12: best candidate for Labor Secretary the Democrats could hope for.
Speaker 12: I expect she will get a very sizeable percentage of
Speaker 12: the Republican caucus simply because President Trump wants them to
Speaker 12: vote for her, and they're going to have to save
Speaker 12: their no votes for other cases.
Speaker 3: Well, as we consider what the president elect wants. Seth
Speaker 3: You of course have been on this program before, arguing
Speaker 3: that he was not a very pro union president the
Speaker 3: first time around, But does this selection suggest that this
Speaker 3: second administration might actually be different?
Speaker 12: I hope so, but I doubt it very much for
Speaker 12: a number of reasons. First, President Trump has made pretty
Speaker 12: clear he is not a fan of unions, and there's
Speaker 12: a lot of people around him who are very aggressively
Speaker 12: opposed to unions and would like to see the union
Speaker 12: movement shrink or disappear. The second reason is that the
Speaker 12: Labor Department is not the National Labor Relations Board. The
Speaker 12: law that is made and the regulations that are promulgated
Speaker 12: having to do with worker organizing and collective bargaining come
Speaker 12: out of the National Labor Relations Board. The Labor Department
Speaker 12: administers job training programs, enforces employment laws like the minimum
Speaker 12: wage and overtime, but it really has nothing whatsoever to
Speaker 12: do with union organizing and collective bargaining. And the third
Speaker 12: reason is President Trump has already made abundantly clear that
Speaker 12: he would like to eliminate or significantly reduce the size
Speaker 12: of federal sector unions, the unions that represent federal employees.
Speaker 12: I don't think that all of a sudden he's going
Speaker 12: to become a union supporter in one sector and the
Speaker 12: aggressive opponent of unions among the employees who are going
Speaker 12: to be working for him. So I'd like to be
Speaker 12: positive about this appointment. I think it is a good
Speaker 12: thing that somebody who thinks about workers and thinks about
Speaker 12: worker power will be sitting in the secretary's office at
Speaker 12: the Labor Department. I didn't expect that, but I don't
Speaker 12: think it means that President Trump all of a sudden
Speaker 12: becomes Joe Biden.
Speaker 3: Well, we also know that President Trump, or as when
Speaker 3: he becomes the forty seventh president, there are a number
Speaker 3: of things that he would like to pursue that would
Speaker 3: impact labor supply in the United States, including the mass
Speaker 3: deportations he's been talking about, which could create a shortage
Speaker 3: in some sectors of workers. And I wonder if you
Speaker 3: actually see that creating an environment in which unions and
Speaker 3: collective bargaining could be able to exercise more power if
Speaker 3: the supply of workers is reduced materially.
Speaker 12: The mass deportation is is going to be tragic for
Speaker 12: our country, and it's going to be catastrophic for our economy.
Speaker 12: I don't think it helps the labor movement in the
Speaker 12: least Organized labor works very closely with immigrant communities in
Speaker 12: their organizing, in their outreach, and their advocacy. There's a
Speaker 12: lot of evidence that some employers use immigration law to
Speaker 12: bust union organizing drives. They call the immigration authorities when
Speaker 12: there's any sense that workers who are undocumented and working
Speaker 12: for those employers might be trying to organize. I fear
Speaker 12: that that will return, and that we will see a
Speaker 12: lot of union organizing sabotage in that way in certain sectors.
Speaker 12: You have undocumented workers in some sectors, but not all sectors.
Speaker 12: But I think it is going to put a lot
Speaker 12: of fear into the hearts of a lot of workers
Speaker 12: all across the country, not merely undocumented immigrants, but others
Speaker 12: like DACA recipient and DOCA beneficiaries, and those who have
Speaker 12: temporary protective status and those who have green cards even
Speaker 12: are going to be very deeply fearful that they could
Speaker 12: be sent out of the United States. So this is
Speaker 12: not good, I think, for anyone, but I think it's
Speaker 12: particularly bad for those workers who would like to see
Speaker 12: more organizing.
Speaker 9: Well.
Speaker 3: And as we consider the potential secondary effects of some
Speaker 3: other policies as well, like tariffs, for example, which could
Speaker 3: raise obviously the cost of importing materials in supply into
Speaker 3: the US, and that could hit ultimately the bottom line
Speaker 3: for many companies I wonder then, how that filters into
Speaker 3: the labor costs they are willing to tolerate. What what that
Speaker 3: would mean for wages, especially if it also creates an
Speaker 3: inflationary environment and workers would be looking for wages to
Speaker 3: try to keep paced with that. How do you see
Speaker 3: that potentially playing out as the way in which tariffs
Speaker 3: ultimately translate to labor.
Speaker 12: The logic of President Trump tariffs is that if you
Speaker 12: build up high tax walls, tariffs are essentially taxes. If
Speaker 12: you build up high tax walls to bringing goods into
Speaker 12: the United States, then we will develop industries in the
Speaker 12: United States to make those same goods, and they will
Speaker 12: be comparatively advantaged. That's the logic, But it's so grossly
Speaker 12: oversimplified that it's just not going to turn out that way.
Speaker 12: First of all, a lot of industries have left the
Speaker 12: United States because it's simply too expensive for them to
Speaker 12: operate here. They don't want to pay a living wage
Speaker 12: to American workers, they don't want to comply with American
Speaker 12: environmental standards, they don't want to pay American taxes, and
Speaker 12: so they have moved overseas. Those manufacturing facilities and other
Speaker 12: kinds of facilities largely are not going to come back,
Speaker 12: and even if they were to come back, it would
Speaker 12: take years and years and years to engage in the
Speaker 12: kind of industrial policy that would be required in order
Speaker 12: to rebuild those industries in the United States. So the
Speaker 12: likeliest content consequence of the tariffs will be much higher
Speaker 12: prices for Americans for consumers, not merely with respect to
Speaker 12: imported products, but also domestic products. The prices will go
Speaker 12: up because they know American producers won't have to keep
Speaker 12: their prices low. And also, I think a lot of
Speaker 12: people are going to lose their jobs because what's important
Speaker 12: into the United States is not all finished goods. Some
Speaker 12: of the goods are inputs to products that are made
Speaker 12: in the United States. And if you're building a car
Speaker 12: and you can't get the part of the car that
Speaker 12: you need that's coming in from another country, you can't
Speaker 12: build cars. And that means that people are going to
Speaker 12: lose their jobs. So this is going to be very,
Speaker 12: very deeply disruptive. It is going to be very expensive,
Speaker 12: and it's going to be bad for the economy and
Speaker 12: workers well.
Speaker 3: And of course a lot of these imports and inputs
Speaker 3: into goods come first through ports, as they enter the
Speaker 3: United States, which brings me to another question set the
Speaker 3: dock workers strike here on the East Coast, that, of
Speaker 3: course a deal was reached to put off until January fifteenth,
Speaker 3: or suspend until then. That's just five days before President
Speaker 3: Trump will be inaugurated. What exactly how difficult a union
Speaker 3: negotiation could he be inheriting essentially from his first days
Speaker 3: back in the Oval office.
Speaker 12: Very very difficult. The biggest issue for the longshore workers
Speaker 12: in their negotiations with the US Maritime Alliance, which is
Speaker 12: the trade association of the East Coast and Gulf Coast ports,
Speaker 12: was wages, and the union and management settled the wages issue.
Speaker 12: But the other biggest and most important issue is automation.
Speaker 12: What the union does not want to see happen is
Speaker 12: for their members to be displaced by automation in the ports.
Speaker 12: Of course, the employers would like to move to automation
Speaker 12: because it's a lot cheaper and it allows them to
Speaker 12: do what they're currently doing with many fewer workers. So
Speaker 12: that is a big sticking point and it is deeply contentious.
Speaker 12: The union and management have started negotiations a number of time,
Speaker 12: number of times over the last several months, and then
Speaker 12: they've stopped negotiations because they simply cannot make progress. So
Speaker 12: I think the possibility of a strike is quite high.
Speaker 12: I think that President Trump is going to face a
Speaker 12: challenge when he gets sworn in.
Speaker 3: All right, Seth Harris, thank you so much for joining me,
Speaker 3: senior fellow at the Burn Center for Social Change at
Speaker 3: Northeastern University and a former top labor policy advisor to
Speaker 3: President Biden here with us on Balance of Power.
Speaker 9: Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast.
Speaker 10: Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify.
Speaker 5: Or wherever you get your podcasts, and
Speaker 10: You can find us Life every weekday from Washington, DC
Speaker 10: at noontime Eastern at Bloomberg dot com.