May 21, 2025 • 36 mins
Watch Joe and Kailey LIVE every day on YouTube: http://bit.ly/3vTiACF.
The White House amped up the pressure on Republicans on Wednesday urging lawmakers to quickly approve President Donald Trump’s signature tax bill, adding that a failure to do so would be the “ultimate betrayal.”
“The House of Representatives should immediately pass this bill to show the American people that they are serious about ‘promises made, promises kept.’ President Trump is committed to keeping his promises,” the White House’s Office of Management and Budget wrote in a memo endorsing the legislation.
Republicans made some headway in advancing Trump’s bill on Wednesday. House Speaker Mike Johnson announced that he had an agreement with lawmakers from high-tax states to increase the limit on the state and local tax deduction to $40,000, winning over a key faction of members who had threatened to block the legislation.
Bloomberg Washington Correspondents Joe Mathieu and Kailey Leinz deliver insight and analysis on the latest headlines from the White House and Capitol Hill, including conversations with influential lawmakers and key figures in politics and policy. On this edition, Joe and Kailey speak with:
- Republican Congressman Mike Lawler of New York.
- Republican Congressman Kevin Hern of Oklahoma.
- ROKK Solutions Partner Kristen Hawn and Former RNC Communications Director Lisa Camooso Miller.
- Former US Ambassador to South Africa Patrick Gaspard.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the
Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at
noon and five pm Eastern on Apple Coarckley and Android
Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever
you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
President Trump, we learn we'll be meeting with members of
the House Freedom Caucus about the tax cut and Spending cutbill,
the reconciliation process that's underway right now in our Rules
Committee hearing, Kaylee, where now I believe twelve hours into
that process, and a lot of questions about whether we
will see a floor vote on what the President calls
(00:45):
one big beautiful bill. Much of this hinges on a
deal around raising the salt cap. And that's why we're
really glad to be joined by Congressman Mike Lawler, the
Republican from New York is with us now live from
Capitol Hill, and Congressman, we really appreciate so generous with
your time in waiting for the President to wrap at
least this part of the conversation. In the Oval Office,
(01:05):
there is news of a deal on salt a forty.
Speaker 3 (01:07):
Thousand dollars cap.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
If that's real, Congressman, you managed to quadruple the current cap.
Is that the kind of bacon that you can bring home.
Speaker 4 (01:16):
Look, this was a critically important negotiation. I was very
clear for over two years that I would never support
a tax bill that did not adequately lift the cap
on salt. We put pen to paper yesterday, met with leadership,
worked throughout the course of the day to come to
an agreement that would lift the cap on salt and
(01:38):
provide real and immediate and lasting tax relief for hardworking
middle class families. The agreement would lift the cap to
forty thousand, with an income cap of five hundred thousand
that would be phased out, and anyone making above that
would go back down to ten thousand, which is the
current cap. And it provides for the entire of the
(02:00):
ten years of the bill, which is critically important to
make sure that folks are getting real relief. You know,
you look at a district like mine, Three of the
top four of the four counties I represent are in
the top sixteen highest property tax counties in America. So
when we talk about these issues, this isn't about the rich.
This is about providing tax relief to middle class families
(02:23):
who are besieged by high property taxes and high income taxes.
And many of my colleagues will say that a lot
of people don't itemize and they don't take the salt deduction. Well,
that's true, because we doubled the standard deduction, and part
of the pay for for doubling that was salt. And
so we're seeking, after seven years of having this ten
(02:44):
thousand dollars cap, to provide real relief to the middle class.
And that's what this is about.
Speaker 5 (02:51):
So Congressman, should we take that to assume, with the
terms of this deal, that you are now a yes
on this legislation, And assuming you are, are you aware
of any member of the Salt Caucus who was not
yet too yes with you?
Speaker 4 (03:05):
I think the members of the Salt Caucus, you know,
negotiated yesterday in good faith with leadership, with the administration,
and we settled on something that we believe in that
we support. Obviously, we're waiting for the final details to
emerge out of the Rules Committee, but obviously we made
great progress yesterday and I feel much better about where
(03:28):
the bill is.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
As a result, there does seem to be some growing
optimism over a possible floor vote as soon as today, Congressman,
maybe tomorrow. I know the Speaker wanted to see it
happen by the Memorial Day break.
Speaker 3 (03:41):
Will that be the case.
Speaker 4 (03:43):
I know the administration and leadership are working to get
that done. Meeting with members today, obviously, you know that
time frame is something the Speaker set out to achieve.
The objective here is to get the bill passed ultimately
to take effect, to make sure that we are providing
(04:04):
real tax relief, that we are securing our border, that
we are strengthening our military, increasing domestic production of energy,
and protecting vital programs like Medicaid long term and cutting
out the waste, fraud and abuse, and making sure that
illegal immigrants, for instance, are not receiving benefits and taking
(04:24):
away from the very people who rely on these programs,
like the idd community or our seniors or children. We
want to protect this for the long term, get our
fiscal house in order while providing real tax relief. That's
what this bill is about. We've been working on it
for months. Obviously, any time you're negotiating, there's going to
be a give and take. There's going to be a
(04:46):
back and forth. You know, you work through these issues
and come to an agreement. And you know, as I've
said many times, anybody who's ever been married knows you're
going to have to find compromises along the way. You're
not going to get everything you want in life. So
you've got to work through this. And that's what we've
done in good faith.
Speaker 5 (05:05):
Well, and it's not just compromises within the House Republican Conference,
but there also may need to be compromises made between
the House and Senate, which will take up this measure next,
assuming it can get off the House floor. Congressman, has
the Speaker shared with you any assurances that the Senate
will not make changes to the salt deal that he
just negotiated with you and your colleagues.
Speaker 4 (05:25):
This obviously has been a big topic of conversation, and
I'll keep those conversations private, but I certainly know that
the Speaker understands how important it is that this agreement
remain intact.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
I want to go back to the case that you
made for raising the salt cap. In the outset, Congressman,
we heard from Chip Roy. Of course, allowed member of
the Freedom Caucus, who I understand is going to be
meeting with the President later on today, he suggested that
leadership is buying quote, a handful of seats with three
hundred and fifty billion dollars in parochial tax subsidies in
(05:59):
the form of salts.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
Is it possible to have a.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
Conversation with someone who holds that point of view or
are you counting them out?
Speaker 4 (06:06):
Listen, I respect all my colleagues and their perspectives. The
fact is New York is a donor state. We send
more money down to Washington than we get back. So
we can get into the subsidy debate about which states
are taking money from the federal government and which ones
are actually helping fund the federal government. But the fact
is that New Yorkers should not be double tax they
(06:27):
should not be penalized for living in a high tax state.
Salt was in effect for over one hundred years, and
it was used as a pay for, and frankly, part
of that pay for was to double the standard deduction
and provide tax relief to Americans all across this country.
We're just simply saying, after seven years of the ten
(06:48):
thousand dollars cap which was arbitrary and capricious, that we
need to have a much fairer approach, and that's what
we have negotiated. Everybody has understood this for well over
two years. I ran on this, I fought for it.
I said it very clearly from the moment I came
here that I would never support a bill that doesn't
adequately lift the cap on salt. We have been working
(07:09):
to negotiate to an agreement, and so that's what we've
done and I stand by it well.
Speaker 5 (07:16):
And of course you and your fellow New Yorkers who
have helped make the Republican majority have made the case
that if that majority is to be retained, there needs
to be changes to sold. But as we look ahead
to twenty twenty six, if the other side of this
getting what you want on salt is conservatives also getting
a pulling forward of stricter work requirements around Medicaid to
begin in December of twenty twenty six, as we understand,
(07:39):
does that not put the majority at risk for a
whole other reason. How do you navigate around that issue
in the midterms.
Speaker 4 (07:46):
Well, look, at the end of the day, I think
there's broad consensus within the Conference on a few key areas.
Number one, eligibility verification, making sure that somebody who is
not eligible doesn't remain on the program for up to
a year, which is what the Biden administration allowed, Citizenship verification,
making sure that illegal immigrants are not receiving benefits that
(08:07):
they're not entitled to, and work requirements. Able bodied adults
without dependence should be trying to work. I mean you're
talking about eighty hours a month of work requirements, or
educational requirements or volunteering. Anybody who is able bodied should
be trying to improve their life by working. The fact
(08:28):
is Medicaid is a means tested program, and so as
part of that, you are trying to help lift people up,
lift them out of poverty, lift them out of their situation.
Work requirements are something Democrats fought for for years. Bill
Clinton was the biggest champion of work requirements. So I
don't think the issue of work requirements speeding up from
(08:53):
twenty nine to twenty seven is frankly an impediment. I
think there's broad consensus that we should be trying to
help people lift themselves up. Work requirements is a way
to help facilitate that as we are providing them with
support through Medicaid.
Speaker 5 (09:11):
All right, Congressman, we appreciate you joining us here on
Bloomberg TV and Radio. Republican Congressman Mike Lawler of New
York with us live from Capitol Hill.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on
Apple Cocklay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App.
You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
flagship New York station, Just say Alexa, play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
This is, of course an entirely Republican exercise, because it
is reconciliation we're talking about.
Speaker 3 (09:45):
Want to add the voice of another Republican.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
Congressman Kevin Hearn of Oklahoma joins us now live from
Capitol Hill.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
Amid the swirling debate over.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
Tax cuts, spending cuts, and as we just heard, Congressman,
welcome back to Bloomberg TV and Radio. Congressman Polone talk
about Medicaid cuts. And I know that there's been some
evolving rhetoric around this. A lot of Republicans see this
not as a cut, but as making the program more
efficient and in fact work better. There was a time
when you were known as the mic Congressman. You owned
I believe nearly twenty McDonald's franchises in the Tulsa area.
(10:16):
How do you make that argument to an entry level
worker at McDonald's.
Speaker 6 (10:21):
Well, first of all, thanks for having me, and it
is you know, obviously both sides are talking about what's
in the bill. I would argue that the Democrats are
trying to do everything they can to make America afraid.
But here's the reality. Reality is is the waste, fraud,
and abuse in Medicaid. As the President has talked, and
I support everything he's talking about. He has said explicitly,
(10:41):
do not cut the benefits to the American workers, the
people who need Medicaid out there. He said it again yesterday,
he said it in the press. He is not mixed
words about this. And so he wants us to go
after the people that are legally on Medicaid and wants
us to look at work requirements for those who are
able to work don't have dependents, and that's going to
(11:02):
make the Medicaid program more solvent. But we also know
that the Medicaid program is probably the one area of
government benefits that is going to explode and is exploding
right now in exposure and cost. That's going to be
required to keep it afloat into the future.
Speaker 5 (11:19):
Well, so if that is the case, Congressman, are we
talking about long term solves here with these measures or
does something more substantial need to be done. Do the
members of the Freedom Clocus actually have a valid point
that they're making.
Speaker 6 (11:33):
Well, the only way there's going to be anything that's
going to make all of our programs Social Security, Medicare,
and Medicaid solvent for all of those into the future
is to come together in a bipartisan way. This will
never be done in a reconciliation process where one party
has control of the House of Senate and the White House,
whether it's the Democrats or Republicans, there just will not
be enough willpower to make that happen because everybody knows
(11:55):
to do it unilaterally. The other side, as you're seeing
with the Democrats, will demogogue so badly that nothing will
get done. And that's why you're seeing that if we
don't do anything with secial security, and medicare sit down
together in a responsible way, Democrats Republicans, then in less
than seven years, there's going to be a twenty one
percent across a cut across the board cut and so
we have to come together to work on these programs
(12:18):
to make sure that they're solvent for those who deserve them.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
I know this is still a tied up in the
Rules Committee as we speak, Congressman, and there's no sign
of this hearing coming to an end while we're talking today,
but there's an expectation that we'll see a floor vote
as soon as tonight, maybe tomorrow.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
Do you hear that that's the case.
Speaker 2 (12:37):
Is that what you're planning for or could this be
an extended working weekend maybe into the holiday for your caucus.
Speaker 6 (12:44):
Yeah, So as part of leadership, I can tell you
right now it has been our mission to get this
done before Memorial Day weekend, which tonight's from the night.
We're going to make this happen right now. As you mentioned,
the amendments are being debated in the Rules Committee that
started meeting at one am this morning. And I think
what this has proved, whether it's last week's markups, we're
going to work day and night to make sure that
(13:05):
America's taxes remain low. President Trump's fingerprints are all over this,
starting with the twenty seventeen Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,
making that permanent the tax cuts he's doing for the
working class upwards of two thousand dollars in additional taxes
that will not be taken from our people making working
on tips or working in overtime. So all of these
(13:26):
things are important, and including to including reducing the tax
burden on our seniors by some five hundred to seven
hundred dollars per year. All of these things the President
has done. This is not about giving tax cuts to
the rich, as the Democrats are wanting to use a
talking point from seven years ago. This is about making
permanent you all report on business outcomes. There's not a
(13:46):
business person in America that says, by me keeping my
taxes where they are that somehow that's going to cost
the federal government. Only in the scoring of the Congressional
Budget Office does that actually cost money.
Speaker 5 (13:58):
Well, Congress, when you are right, we do focus on
business outcomes here, and we also know that there are
businesses that we're counting on tax credits and other subsidies
in the Inflation Reduction Act that may be rolled black. Now,
you actually told our colleagues on Capitol Hill earlier today
that it's your understanding. The Freedom Caucus is going to
try to talk to the White House about clying back
tax credits from existing projects. Can they do that? And
(14:22):
is that something not only do you expect the House
Conference is willing to support, but wo the Senate get
behind an initiative like that.
Speaker 6 (14:32):
Well, I don't know about the Senate, but that's my
understanding that's been reported that they're wanting to look at
projects that have already been connected to the grid, that
are not yet complete or are still being in working process,
and then having those costs borne by the rate payers
that if somebody has to pay them. In way our
utility system is set up, the commissions or the oversight
groups of each state would be those public utilities will
(14:55):
be able to go back to the rate payers to
be able to make up for that instead of the
federal government paying, you know, somebody in Oklahoma paying for
a grid system in say Kentucky or somewhere. And so
I don't know what the final details of that are
going to be. They wanted to go to the White
House to talk about this, so my assumption is is
that they're on their way over there to to get
support from the President on this. Again, this is really
(15:16):
important part. It's it's a very should that happen to be.
I think it's three to four hundred billion dollars in
possible scoring. That would be additional savings in ways and means.
Because we did all of our stuff working together, not
you know, trying to work through these and hash out.
We had a lot of dialogue. We have, you know,
folks from you know, very rich cold country. We have
(15:36):
folks from oil and gas states lot myself. We have
people that have been in business for a long time
like myself, and we've had others that have been in
state politics that understand how these green credits work and
how they you know, how they're important to states generating
jobs and you know, encumbered by debt and equity situations.
So all of this was fleshed out. That's why we
came to five hundred and fifteen billion dollars in saving
(15:59):
on the green credits by shortening the phase out time
but still allowing for people that had pro just going
to be able.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
To utilize those.
Speaker 5 (16:08):
All right, Congressman, we appreciate you joining us here on
Bloomberg TV and radio. Republican Congressman Kevin Heard of Oklahoma
here with us on balance of power as we continue
to follow the movement on Capitol Hill toward trying to
get to a vote on budget reconciliation. We're also following
the markets. I would note we did see at the
top of this hour a twenty year auction that tailed
weak demand, and that has sent treasury yields materially higher.
(16:30):
We're now up eleven basis points on the thirty year
to five point eight percent, and you're seeing a subsequent
move in equities as well. The S and P five
hundred has ruled over in a big way, now down
about one point three percent. We'll get more on that
with our colleague Charlie Pellett in New York in just
a moment, but first we want to check in with
our political panel who is joining us today. Kristen Hahn
is with US partner at Rock Solutions and Democratic Strategists,
(16:51):
alongside Republican strategist Lisa Commissa Miller, former RNC communications director.
Welcome to you both, as we consider what is happening
in the markets right now, especially in the bond market,
may be tied to what's actually happening with fiscal policy,
so it's great to get your perspective on the direction
that this is really heading Lisa, do you expect that
this package with the changes the Speaker is negotiating either
(17:14):
has finalized with the Salt Caucus perhaps still working on
the Conservatives can have a vote this week?
Speaker 7 (17:22):
Hailey, It really feels unlikely. It feels like everything that
I'm seeing, every indication that I'm hearing, there's a movement
from leadership that really wants to get this done by
the week's end. President is obviously asking for the same,
But the Freedom Caucus has said that they do not
feel like a vote this week is it makes good sense.
They feel like it's an arbitrary deadline, and so it
feels to me like there are just far too many
(17:42):
factions still undecided that would get us through and get
this done. This is Wednesday. We still have a rules package,
we don't necessarily have that through the Rules Committee, and
then that goes to the floor and then more debate happens.
So while the movement continues to go and advance itself,
it doesn't nesscessarily to me, at least right now, feel
like it's likely to happen for the end of the week.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
You've seen a couple of these, Kristen Han, what's your take,
because we spoke with a very optimistic Mike Lawler at
the top of the hour, Chip Roy sounds exactly the opposite.
Unclear if the president can change moods today. Is this
bill gaining momentum or is it slowing down?
Speaker 8 (18:21):
Well, I mean think Mike Lawler has a reason to
be happy right now, so he's coming out of a
very positive meeting. Meanwhile, a lot of his colleagues are not. So,
you know, I agree with Lisa. I think that you know,
this is you know, the legislative process. Although I really
do think that the president and the House Republican leadership.
(18:43):
I mean, if I were in one of those tough
seats to hold on to as a Republican, I would
be very wary of taking a vote on a bill
like this because it's going to come back to haunt them.
Speaker 5 (18:54):
Well, and when we consider what will come back to
haunt whom when and the positioning President Trump specifically here Lisa,
who obviously would like to see a Republican majority maintained
to the extent, and he wants to see this package
perhaps first and foremost, passed by Congress. He went to
Capitol Hill yesterday to make the case. We understand He'll
be meeting at the White House this afternoon with the
(19:16):
Speaker and holdouts in the House Freedom Caucus. Is he
able to convince them today of what he couldn't yesterday
or is he losing his power to exercise complete control
over the Republican Conference.
Speaker 7 (19:28):
You know, I think, Kelly, I've said this before and
I continue to assert that this is a system where
in order to get what you want from the White House,
in order for the White House to get the Congress
to move, they have to have an agreement amongst the
parties about how the parties of those the Congress, and
that White House agreement on policy issues. The President has
(19:48):
the tariffs that are still overweighing and over leaning over
a lot of these districts where they're already feeling the
pinch and already feeling the pain. And I think the
difference between what the President is asking for and what
the Freedom ca is is looking for is still very
very far apart. So as much as the President's going
to tell them to do whatever they can, they also
know that when it comes down to midterm elections, the
(20:09):
President is not going to have as much of a
sway as he once did because he is in fact
in the second half at that point of his term,
and it will make him less and less powerful. So
over time, the President will have less control and less
opportunity to really influence those members because they, in fact
are really trying to defend their seats and stay in power.
And also they need to go home in just a
(20:29):
few short weeks to defend their decision and defend this vote,
and that, to me, would be the one thing that
stands in between the President being successful and those members
and those tough districts taking a vote that they won't
necessarily be able to defend when they return in the
summertime to their districts.
Speaker 2 (20:45):
Kristin, If Democrats don't have a seat at the table
and they don't buy the nature of reconciliation, this is
a Republican only exercise. Are they scheduling town halls for
this Memorial Day break to try to shine a light
on what's happening here? We know that Republicans have been
wary of doing so, based on the DOGE, based on Medicaid.
What are Democrats going to do when they go home?
Speaker 8 (21:06):
I think it's interesting that you asked, because yes, I mean,
the short answer is yes, and I know I was
in touch with some friends over in the House yesterday
about the extent of those plans. And it's not just
going home to their own districts to talk to their
constituents about what is happening and what this bill actually does,
specifically with regard to Medicaid cuts, but they will be
(21:30):
pointing those things out in these Republican districts as well,
so the identified areas where this would particularly hurt some
of these Republican districts, making sure that their constituents know,
you know, what at least this House bill is doing.
And as we all know, this bill, if and when
(21:50):
it does pass the House is going to go over
to the Senate and they're going to be, you know,
a multitude of changes to this bill. So I think,
you know, when these members go home, they're going to
have a number of things to answer for, particularly as
these cuts begin to take place, if the Republicans are
ultimately successful.
Speaker 5 (22:08):
Well, and they may have to answer a lot of
questions about the impact this is ultimately going to have
on the deficit in the long term burden that the
United States and the people within it are saddled with.
Lisa that seems to be what we're seeing evidence of
in financial markets today, in the bond market, especially as
we're seeing the old rocketing higher on both the tenure
and the thirty year. We're up more than ten basis points.
(22:29):
And we have seen President Trump in the past, granted
it was related to tariffs earlier this year, take a
look at what's happening in the bond market, identify what
he saw as queasiness, and decide to change his course
of action. If we are seeing material upset in financial
markets once again over this legislative package that he campaigned
on that we know he wants very badly, would you
expect any kind of similar change of harder? Is this
(22:52):
already largely done and dusted?
Speaker 7 (22:56):
You know, it's really hard to tell, Kaylee. It does
feel like he is while he is saying, you know,
damn the torpedoes and let's go forward. The President also
is mindful of the fact that if the market takes
a hit, or if there are shifts in the underpinnings
of the market, that he very well will adjust because
he doesn't necessarily want to have to answer for that,
because he knows that those kinds of signs are signs
(23:18):
of long term pain and not short term pain. And
that's the other thing that I think he will be
watching for and his advisors will be watching for. But ultimately, Kaylee,
he wants to win so badly. He wants this big,
beautiful bill, one big piece of legislation which could Golly,
I'm as old to know. I mean, the last time
we did that was in nineteen twenty ten when we
passed the Affordable Care Act, So it's been a long
(23:39):
time since we've had a great, big, giant bill get
passed in the Congress in the way that the White
House wants to see it done. But you know, if
anybody's willing to take the shot and take this unprecedented
stance and way to move, it'll be Donald Trump, you.
Speaker 3 (23:53):
Know, Kristin.
Speaker 2 (23:53):
It's interesting as we consider what we're seeing in the
bond market here, the concerns on Wall Street across the
board about rising debt and deficits.
Speaker 3 (24:01):
This is something that the party and.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
Power frequently loses religion on, but it's going to be
hard for lawmakers to hide from what's happening in the
markets when it's right before our eyes, like this was
extending the current policy baseline, the original sin in this process.
Speaker 3 (24:16):
How come we're not arguing about how to pay for it?
Speaker 8 (24:19):
I mean, I think I do think so, and I
think that you're exactly right. The reason why we're not
arguing about how to pay for it is because you've
got one party control in Washington. They want to extend
these tax cuts and it's very, very difficult to do
that if you're looking at actually paying for it. So
it's easier to saddle future generations with that debt. And
(24:41):
I know it's people you know, who are in the
minority party generally get religion on this and talk about
saddling future generations, but it really is, and it has
real impacts on our national security. And you know, you
look at the CBO scoring and you're going to hear
a lot about from republic since they come out in
(25:02):
support of this bill, talking about dynamic scoring and all
of these things. I mean, it's a tale as old
as time. At the end of the day, you know,
I do agree with the Congressman that both sides are
going to have to get together and figure this thing out.
But as long as there's one party control and Washington's
not going to happen.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
Now, the CBO says this plan would increase the deficit
by two point three trillion dollars over a decade.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on Apple,
Cocklay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen
on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us
live on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
I'm Joe Matthew alongside Kaylee Lines in Washington, and on
any other day, what took place today in the Oval
Office would be our lead story. It's one of many
at the moment, as the President of South Africa, syroh Ramaosa,
arrives at the White House amid allegation of genocide put
forth by President Trump against white africaners, in many cases
(26:05):
white farmers, some of whom have been given refugee status
here in the United States.
Speaker 3 (26:11):
It started off as a cordial conversation.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
The President then started to dig into these allegations, going
so far as to even show a video with unsubstantiated
claims of this persecution. The South African president was given
a chance to speak.
Speaker 3 (26:25):
Here's what he said.
Speaker 9 (26:26):
It will take President Trump listening to the voices of
South Africa, some of whom are his good friends, like
those who are here. When we have talks between us
on the quiet table, it will take President Trump to
listen to them.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
President Ramafosa at the White House for lunch and a
bilateral meeting with President Trump that presumably includes other issues
including trade, and we want to talk about this with
Patrick Gaspard. A perfect day to have the distinguished senior
fellow at the Center for American Progress. It's former US
Ambassador South Africa in the Obama administration. Mister ambassador, welcome
back to Bloomberg TV and Radio. Donald Trump is talking
(27:07):
about genocide today. What should be the response from South Africa.
Speaker 10 (27:12):
Well, thank you so very much for having me on.
But it's a bizarre day to be on here today.
Donald Trump is talking about genocide in South Africa. Let's
be really clear here. There is absolutely positively no credible
human rights organization in South Africa or anywhere in the
world that says that there's a genocide taking place in
South Africa. So the response for President Robert Bolsa has
(27:34):
to only be one, there's no genocide.
Speaker 8 (27:37):
Two.
Speaker 10 (27:38):
The bilateral partnership between the US and South Africa is
incredibly important for both sides of the Atlantic on security,
on the economy, on trade. We've got to do things
to bridge this gap, both in the facts and in
the material relationship between the two countries.
Speaker 4 (27:57):
Well.
Speaker 5 (27:57):
President Trump brought to the Oval Office the facts that
he wanted to underscore, at least what was presented as fact,
a video with monitors that had been rolled in and
edited together for those in the Oval Office to see
in person, printed handouts of stories in which he said
they described horrible death of white South Africans. Knowing that
(28:18):
it did seem that a certain amount of this was staged,
and knowing as well, mister Ambassador, that Sera Amaphosa, while
not in the presidential role, was in the South African
government at the time you were serving as ambassador, so
you do know the players here. How did he conduct himself?
Did he do well well?
Speaker 10 (28:36):
I've known President Raben Polsa ever since he was a
labor leader in the country. When I first visited in
nineteen ninety one. President Rama Polsa did everything that he
could to maintain his composure and not only his personal dignity,
but the dignity of the nation that he represents. But
it's really hard when You're sitting across from Donald Trump,
and he's laying out not facts, Katy, but propaganda. The
(28:56):
film that he showed comes from an organization called Afrofum
that's known to be aligned with the most extreme fringe
right wing elements not only in South Africa, but in
the US, Australia and other places. They are adjacent to
people who have been identified as Neo Nazis. These are
questionable characters. You should also understand that the black South
(29:18):
African who's in the video exhorting violence against White Africaners
is another fringe character who is not in the government,
who Sera Ramaposa in the A and C soundly defeated
in the last elections, and who has no credible power
in the country. So it's rhetoric, no fact, all propaganda.
White Africaners, who make up less than eight percent of
(29:41):
the population, represent less than two percent of the murder
victims in South Africa. Furthermore, that small African population also
happened to be some of the largest landowners in a
country that has real asymmetriies of economic conclusion. Those are
the things that South Africans are trying to sell with
the partnership of the US through trade, through hundreds of
(30:04):
thousands of jobs that are reliant on the African growth.
An Opportunity Act that I helped to renegotiate that's up
for renegotiation now, and that Donald Trump and the American
people should be something in a fashion that helps people
along the supply chain in America, consumers in America and
workers in South Africa.
Speaker 3 (30:23):
This is really helpful context. Ambassador.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
I'm sure you saw that Elon Musk was in the
Oval office. We didn't hear him speak. But when you
step back and consider what just happened, was this an ambush?
Speaker 10 (30:35):
It was absolutely at ambush, as evident by the video
that you just made reference to being wheeled in and
then the President of the United States sitting there. We've
printed out copies of alleged articles that lay out the
crimes against africaners in the country, a president who, by
(30:56):
the way, has overturned the entire asylum system in the
US for every other nation, every other nationality, but it's
storing open the doors to Africaners who are allegedly under assault.
Elon Musk didn't have to speak. He is the silent
partner in the negotiations here. Elon Musk and Starlink have
been trying to get into the South Africa space. They're
(31:17):
making all kinds of demands on the South African government,
and I believe, I truly believe that Donald Trump is
carrying water for Elon Musk in these conversations, and they're
hoping that the South Africans will overturn a regulatory framework
that has not made it possible for BUSCA to operate
in South Africa in the way that he would like to.
(31:37):
I hate to say this about the American president, but
too often we see that there's some kind of a
grift that's involved with pronouncements around national security and foreign policy.
It's the case here too, I believe.
Speaker 5 (31:51):
Well, there's another foreign policy issue though, that the US
seems to take particular exception with when it comes to
South Africa, and that's South Africa leading the charge in
the International Court of Justice against Israel claiming that Israel
is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. That was among
the reasons that the Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in
testimony yesterday on Capitol Hill, suggested President Trump won't be
(32:11):
attending the g twenty summit in November in South Africa,
though he didn't necessarily give us a firm answer on
that in the Oval Office, Is that policy around Israel
reconcilable between these two countries, mister ambassador.
Speaker 10 (32:24):
I so appreciate that question from you, and I really
wish that that dominated the dialogue today and the Oval
Office that in trade instead of this ridiculous rules around
white genocide. Let's be really clearer, South Africa has had
a long standing relationship with elements of the Palestinian leadership
Palestinian civil society. No surprise to anyone that following October seventh,
(32:49):
after South Africa appropriately denounced Hamas appropriately talked about South
Africa's right to exist and to defend itself, that then
in turn took up a defense of Palace Indians when
they saw collective punishment being taken upon tens of thousands
of innocent Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. So
(33:09):
that should not have surprised anyone if you know about
South Africa's history and record as it relates to Palestinians
and global human rights. So now Marco Rubio and Donald Trump,
two actors who have not spoken out about the collective
punishment in Gaza. Donald Trump, a president of the United
States who said that we should clear all the Palestinians
out of Gaza and turned into some kind of like
(33:31):
beachfront property. No concern for that. He's now suddenly talking
about genocide, but not in a context anywhere else in
the world. He defends Putin's encouragion against innocent Ukrainians. He
says nothing to speak up about what's happening to Palestinians
every single day where that Yawho is redoubling down on
(33:53):
his occupation and bobbing in Gaza. And now he's singling
out white Africaners who have been who have been ginned
up for him by fringe elements of his movements. I
has victims of genocide. The hypocrisy is overwhelming here.
Speaker 2 (34:09):
So this is a president of the United States, in
your view, whose view has been corrupted by Elon musk.
Speaker 10 (34:16):
I never thought I would live to see the day
where a president of the United States would be sighting
with Vladimir Putent against an innocent sovereign nation that has
been invaded and surfacing myth myth about genocide in one
country in order to help the business interests of one
(34:37):
of his principal supporters, who spent in excess of two
hundred and fifty million dollars on his election. It's an
extraordinary thing. We have something in the United States called
the Foreign correp Practices Act, and I think that our
responsible Congress would be looking thoroughly at these circumstances.
Speaker 5 (34:57):
Ambassador, we just have a minute left here. But given
everything we've just discussed and the evident tension between the
US and South Africa, do you have hope a trade
agreement between the two can be reached, Knowing at the
end of the ninety day period of thirty percent reciprocal
tariff could be put into place once again.
Speaker 10 (35:13):
I'm never hopeful. The US and South Africa have had
challenges in the relationship before. I remember being a young
activist protesting against the resistance of the Reagan administration to
lay sanctions against South Africa. We overcame that there is
bipartisan support for the partnership between the US and South
Africa on trade and on healthcare relief as well. So
(35:36):
I think that there are responsible Republicans in the Center
and the House who understand the importance of the African
Growth and Opportunity Act. Both for security and for economic growth,
and they'll increase the pressure to get to some resolution
of these charges and of these challenges.
Speaker 5 (35:52):
All right, Ambassador, we really appreciate you joining us here
on Balance of Power. Former Ambassador to South Africa during
the Obama administration. Patrick Gaspard, now distinguish Senior Fellow at
the Center for American Progress.
Speaker 3 (36:06):
Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast.
Speaker 2 (36:09):
Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify,
or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find
us live every weekday from Washington, DC at Noontimeeastern at
Bloomberg dot com.
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the
Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at
noon and five pm Eastern on Apple Coarckley and Android
Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever
you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
President Trump, we learn we'll be meeting with members of
the House Freedom Caucus about the tax cut and Spending cutbill,
the reconciliation process that's underway right now in our Rules
Committee hearing, Kaylee, where now I believe twelve hours into
that process, and a lot of questions about whether we
will see a floor vote on what the President calls
(00:45):
one big beautiful bill. Much of this hinges on a
deal around raising the salt cap. And that's why we're
really glad to be joined by Congressman Mike Lawler, the
Republican from New York is with us now live from
Capitol Hill, and Congressman, we really appreciate so generous with
your time in waiting for the President to wrap at
least this part of the conversation. In the Oval Office,
(01:05):
there is news of a deal on salt a forty.
Speaker 3 (01:07):
Thousand dollars cap.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
If that's real, Congressman, you managed to quadruple the current cap.
Is that the kind of bacon that you can bring home.
Speaker 4 (01:16):
Look, this was a critically important negotiation. I was very
clear for over two years that I would never support
a tax bill that did not adequately lift the cap
on salt. We put pen to paper yesterday, met with leadership,
worked throughout the course of the day to come to
an agreement that would lift the cap on salt and
(01:38):
provide real and immediate and lasting tax relief for hardworking
middle class families. The agreement would lift the cap to
forty thousand, with an income cap of five hundred thousand
that would be phased out, and anyone making above that
would go back down to ten thousand, which is the
current cap. And it provides for the entire of the
(02:00):
ten years of the bill, which is critically important to
make sure that folks are getting real relief. You know,
you look at a district like mine, Three of the
top four of the four counties I represent are in
the top sixteen highest property tax counties in America. So
when we talk about these issues, this isn't about the rich.
This is about providing tax relief to middle class families
(02:23):
who are besieged by high property taxes and high income taxes.
And many of my colleagues will say that a lot
of people don't itemize and they don't take the salt deduction. Well,
that's true, because we doubled the standard deduction, and part
of the pay for for doubling that was salt. And
so we're seeking, after seven years of having this ten
(02:44):
thousand dollars cap, to provide real relief to the middle class.
And that's what this is about.
Speaker 5 (02:51):
So Congressman, should we take that to assume, with the
terms of this deal, that you are now a yes
on this legislation, And assuming you are, are you aware
of any member of the Salt Caucus who was not
yet too yes with you?
Speaker 4 (03:05):
I think the members of the Salt Caucus, you know,
negotiated yesterday in good faith with leadership, with the administration,
and we settled on something that we believe in that
we support. Obviously, we're waiting for the final details to
emerge out of the Rules Committee, but obviously we made
great progress yesterday and I feel much better about where
(03:28):
the bill is.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
As a result, there does seem to be some growing
optimism over a possible floor vote as soon as today, Congressman,
maybe tomorrow. I know the Speaker wanted to see it
happen by the Memorial Day break.
Speaker 3 (03:41):
Will that be the case.
Speaker 4 (03:43):
I know the administration and leadership are working to get
that done. Meeting with members today, obviously, you know that
time frame is something the Speaker set out to achieve.
The objective here is to get the bill passed ultimately
to take effect, to make sure that we are providing
(04:04):
real tax relief, that we are securing our border, that
we are strengthening our military, increasing domestic production of energy,
and protecting vital programs like Medicaid long term and cutting
out the waste, fraud and abuse, and making sure that
illegal immigrants, for instance, are not receiving benefits and taking
(04:24):
away from the very people who rely on these programs,
like the idd community or our seniors or children. We
want to protect this for the long term, get our
fiscal house in order while providing real tax relief. That's
what this bill is about. We've been working on it
for months. Obviously, any time you're negotiating, there's going to
be a give and take. There's going to be a
(04:46):
back and forth. You know, you work through these issues
and come to an agreement. And you know, as I've
said many times, anybody who's ever been married knows you're
going to have to find compromises along the way. You're
not going to get everything you want in life. So
you've got to work through this. And that's what we've
done in good faith.
Speaker 5 (05:05):
Well, and it's not just compromises within the House Republican Conference,
but there also may need to be compromises made between
the House and Senate, which will take up this measure next,
assuming it can get off the House floor. Congressman, has
the Speaker shared with you any assurances that the Senate
will not make changes to the salt deal that he
just negotiated with you and your colleagues.
Speaker 4 (05:25):
This obviously has been a big topic of conversation, and
I'll keep those conversations private, but I certainly know that
the Speaker understands how important it is that this agreement
remain intact.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
I want to go back to the case that you
made for raising the salt cap. In the outset, Congressman,
we heard from Chip Roy. Of course, allowed member of
the Freedom Caucus, who I understand is going to be
meeting with the President later on today, he suggested that
leadership is buying quote, a handful of seats with three
hundred and fifty billion dollars in parochial tax subsidies in
(05:59):
the form of salts.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
Is it possible to have a.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
Conversation with someone who holds that point of view or
are you counting them out?
Speaker 4 (06:06):
Listen, I respect all my colleagues and their perspectives. The
fact is New York is a donor state. We send
more money down to Washington than we get back. So
we can get into the subsidy debate about which states
are taking money from the federal government and which ones
are actually helping fund the federal government. But the fact
is that New Yorkers should not be double tax they
(06:27):
should not be penalized for living in a high tax state.
Salt was in effect for over one hundred years, and
it was used as a pay for, and frankly, part
of that pay for was to double the standard deduction
and provide tax relief to Americans all across this country.
We're just simply saying, after seven years of the ten
(06:48):
thousand dollars cap which was arbitrary and capricious, that we
need to have a much fairer approach, and that's what
we have negotiated. Everybody has understood this for well over
two years. I ran on this, I fought for it.
I said it very clearly from the moment I came
here that I would never support a bill that doesn't
adequately lift the cap on salt. We have been working
(07:09):
to negotiate to an agreement, and so that's what we've
done and I stand by it well.
Speaker 5 (07:16):
And of course you and your fellow New Yorkers who
have helped make the Republican majority have made the case
that if that majority is to be retained, there needs
to be changes to sold. But as we look ahead
to twenty twenty six, if the other side of this
getting what you want on salt is conservatives also getting
a pulling forward of stricter work requirements around Medicaid to
begin in December of twenty twenty six, as we understand,
(07:39):
does that not put the majority at risk for a
whole other reason. How do you navigate around that issue
in the midterms.
Speaker 4 (07:46):
Well, look, at the end of the day, I think
there's broad consensus within the Conference on a few key areas.
Number one, eligibility verification, making sure that somebody who is
not eligible doesn't remain on the program for up to
a year, which is what the Biden administration allowed, Citizenship verification,
making sure that illegal immigrants are not receiving benefits that
(08:07):
they're not entitled to, and work requirements. Able bodied adults
without dependence should be trying to work. I mean you're
talking about eighty hours a month of work requirements, or
educational requirements or volunteering. Anybody who is able bodied should
be trying to improve their life by working. The fact
(08:28):
is Medicaid is a means tested program, and so as
part of that, you are trying to help lift people up,
lift them out of poverty, lift them out of their situation.
Work requirements are something Democrats fought for for years. Bill
Clinton was the biggest champion of work requirements. So I
don't think the issue of work requirements speeding up from
(08:53):
twenty nine to twenty seven is frankly an impediment. I
think there's broad consensus that we should be trying to
help people lift themselves up. Work requirements is a way
to help facilitate that as we are providing them with
support through Medicaid.
Speaker 5 (09:11):
All right, Congressman, we appreciate you joining us here on
Bloomberg TV and Radio. Republican Congressman Mike Lawler of New
York with us live from Capitol Hill.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on
Apple Cocklay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App.
You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
flagship New York station, Just say Alexa, play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
This is, of course an entirely Republican exercise, because it
is reconciliation we're talking about.
Speaker 3 (09:45):
Want to add the voice of another Republican.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
Congressman Kevin Hearn of Oklahoma joins us now live from
Capitol Hill.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
Amid the swirling debate over.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
Tax cuts, spending cuts, and as we just heard, Congressman,
welcome back to Bloomberg TV and Radio. Congressman Polone talk
about Medicaid cuts. And I know that there's been some
evolving rhetoric around this. A lot of Republicans see this
not as a cut, but as making the program more
efficient and in fact work better. There was a time
when you were known as the mic Congressman. You owned
I believe nearly twenty McDonald's franchises in the Tulsa area.
(10:16):
How do you make that argument to an entry level
worker at McDonald's.
Speaker 6 (10:21):
Well, first of all, thanks for having me, and it
is you know, obviously both sides are talking about what's
in the bill. I would argue that the Democrats are
trying to do everything they can to make America afraid.
But here's the reality. Reality is is the waste, fraud,
and abuse in Medicaid. As the President has talked, and
I support everything he's talking about. He has said explicitly,
(10:41):
do not cut the benefits to the American workers, the
people who need Medicaid out there. He said it again yesterday,
he said it in the press. He is not mixed
words about this. And so he wants us to go
after the people that are legally on Medicaid and wants
us to look at work requirements for those who are
able to work don't have dependents, and that's going to
(11:02):
make the Medicaid program more solvent. But we also know
that the Medicaid program is probably the one area of
government benefits that is going to explode and is exploding
right now in exposure and cost. That's going to be
required to keep it afloat into the future.
Speaker 5 (11:19):
Well, so if that is the case, Congressman, are we
talking about long term solves here with these measures or
does something more substantial need to be done. Do the
members of the Freedom Clocus actually have a valid point
that they're making.
Speaker 6 (11:33):
Well, the only way there's going to be anything that's
going to make all of our programs Social Security, Medicare,
and Medicaid solvent for all of those into the future
is to come together in a bipartisan way. This will
never be done in a reconciliation process where one party
has control of the House of Senate and the White House,
whether it's the Democrats or Republicans, there just will not
be enough willpower to make that happen because everybody knows
(11:55):
to do it unilaterally. The other side, as you're seeing
with the Democrats, will demogogue so badly that nothing will
get done. And that's why you're seeing that if we
don't do anything with secial security, and medicare sit down
together in a responsible way, Democrats Republicans, then in less
than seven years, there's going to be a twenty one
percent across a cut across the board cut and so
we have to come together to work on these programs
(12:18):
to make sure that they're solvent for those who deserve them.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
I know this is still a tied up in the
Rules Committee as we speak, Congressman, and there's no sign
of this hearing coming to an end while we're talking today,
but there's an expectation that we'll see a floor vote
as soon as tonight, maybe tomorrow.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
Do you hear that that's the case.
Speaker 2 (12:37):
Is that what you're planning for or could this be
an extended working weekend maybe into the holiday for your caucus.
Speaker 6 (12:44):
Yeah, So as part of leadership, I can tell you
right now it has been our mission to get this
done before Memorial Day weekend, which tonight's from the night.
We're going to make this happen right now. As you mentioned,
the amendments are being debated in the Rules Committee that
started meeting at one am this morning. And I think
what this has proved, whether it's last week's markups, we're
going to work day and night to make sure that
(13:05):
America's taxes remain low. President Trump's fingerprints are all over this,
starting with the twenty seventeen Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,
making that permanent the tax cuts he's doing for the
working class upwards of two thousand dollars in additional taxes
that will not be taken from our people making working
on tips or working in overtime. So all of these
(13:26):
things are important, and including to including reducing the tax
burden on our seniors by some five hundred to seven
hundred dollars per year. All of these things the President
has done. This is not about giving tax cuts to
the rich, as the Democrats are wanting to use a
talking point from seven years ago. This is about making
permanent you all report on business outcomes. There's not a
(13:46):
business person in America that says, by me keeping my
taxes where they are that somehow that's going to cost
the federal government. Only in the scoring of the Congressional
Budget Office does that actually cost money.
Speaker 5 (13:58):
Well, Congress, when you are right, we do focus on
business outcomes here, and we also know that there are
businesses that we're counting on tax credits and other subsidies
in the Inflation Reduction Act that may be rolled black. Now,
you actually told our colleagues on Capitol Hill earlier today
that it's your understanding. The Freedom Caucus is going to
try to talk to the White House about clying back
tax credits from existing projects. Can they do that? And
(14:22):
is that something not only do you expect the House
Conference is willing to support, but wo the Senate get
behind an initiative like that.
Speaker 6 (14:32):
Well, I don't know about the Senate, but that's my
understanding that's been reported that they're wanting to look at
projects that have already been connected to the grid, that
are not yet complete or are still being in working process,
and then having those costs borne by the rate payers
that if somebody has to pay them. In way our
utility system is set up, the commissions or the oversight
groups of each state would be those public utilities will
(14:55):
be able to go back to the rate payers to
be able to make up for that instead of the
federal government paying, you know, somebody in Oklahoma paying for
a grid system in say Kentucky or somewhere. And so
I don't know what the final details of that are
going to be. They wanted to go to the White
House to talk about this, so my assumption is is
that they're on their way over there to to get
support from the President on this. Again, this is really
(15:16):
important part. It's it's a very should that happen to be.
I think it's three to four hundred billion dollars in
possible scoring. That would be additional savings in ways and means.
Because we did all of our stuff working together, not
you know, trying to work through these and hash out.
We had a lot of dialogue. We have, you know,
folks from you know, very rich cold country. We have
(15:36):
folks from oil and gas states lot myself. We have
people that have been in business for a long time
like myself, and we've had others that have been in
state politics that understand how these green credits work and
how they you know, how they're important to states generating
jobs and you know, encumbered by debt and equity situations.
So all of this was fleshed out. That's why we
came to five hundred and fifteen billion dollars in saving
(15:59):
on the green credits by shortening the phase out time
but still allowing for people that had pro just going
to be able.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
To utilize those.
Speaker 5 (16:08):
All right, Congressman, we appreciate you joining us here on
Bloomberg TV and radio. Republican Congressman Kevin Heard of Oklahoma
here with us on balance of power as we continue
to follow the movement on Capitol Hill toward trying to
get to a vote on budget reconciliation. We're also following
the markets. I would note we did see at the
top of this hour a twenty year auction that tailed
weak demand, and that has sent treasury yields materially higher.
(16:30):
We're now up eleven basis points on the thirty year
to five point eight percent, and you're seeing a subsequent
move in equities as well. The S and P five
hundred has ruled over in a big way, now down
about one point three percent. We'll get more on that
with our colleague Charlie Pellett in New York in just
a moment, but first we want to check in with
our political panel who is joining us today. Kristen Hahn
is with US partner at Rock Solutions and Democratic Strategists,
(16:51):
alongside Republican strategist Lisa Commissa Miller, former RNC communications director.
Welcome to you both, as we consider what is happening
in the markets right now, especially in the bond market,
may be tied to what's actually happening with fiscal policy,
so it's great to get your perspective on the direction
that this is really heading Lisa, do you expect that
this package with the changes the Speaker is negotiating either
(17:14):
has finalized with the Salt Caucus perhaps still working on
the Conservatives can have a vote this week?
Speaker 7 (17:22):
Hailey, It really feels unlikely. It feels like everything that
I'm seeing, every indication that I'm hearing, there's a movement
from leadership that really wants to get this done by
the week's end. President is obviously asking for the same,
But the Freedom Caucus has said that they do not
feel like a vote this week is it makes good sense.
They feel like it's an arbitrary deadline, and so it
feels to me like there are just far too many
(17:42):
factions still undecided that would get us through and get
this done. This is Wednesday. We still have a rules package,
we don't necessarily have that through the Rules Committee, and
then that goes to the floor and then more debate happens.
So while the movement continues to go and advance itself,
it doesn't nesscessarily to me, at least right now, feel
like it's likely to happen for the end of the week.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
You've seen a couple of these, Kristen Han, what's your take,
because we spoke with a very optimistic Mike Lawler at
the top of the hour, Chip Roy sounds exactly the opposite.
Unclear if the president can change moods today. Is this
bill gaining momentum or is it slowing down?
Speaker 8 (18:21):
Well, I mean think Mike Lawler has a reason to
be happy right now, so he's coming out of a
very positive meeting. Meanwhile, a lot of his colleagues are not. So,
you know, I agree with Lisa. I think that you know,
this is you know, the legislative process. Although I really
do think that the president and the House Republican leadership.
(18:43):
I mean, if I were in one of those tough
seats to hold on to as a Republican, I would
be very wary of taking a vote on a bill
like this because it's going to come back to haunt them.
Speaker 5 (18:54):
Well, and when we consider what will come back to
haunt whom when and the positioning President Trump specifically here Lisa,
who obviously would like to see a Republican majority maintained
to the extent, and he wants to see this package
perhaps first and foremost, passed by Congress. He went to
Capitol Hill yesterday to make the case. We understand He'll
be meeting at the White House this afternoon with the
(19:16):
Speaker and holdouts in the House Freedom Caucus. Is he
able to convince them today of what he couldn't yesterday
or is he losing his power to exercise complete control
over the Republican Conference.
Speaker 7 (19:28):
You know, I think, Kelly, I've said this before and
I continue to assert that this is a system where
in order to get what you want from the White House,
in order for the White House to get the Congress
to move, they have to have an agreement amongst the
parties about how the parties of those the Congress, and
that White House agreement on policy issues. The President has
(19:48):
the tariffs that are still overweighing and over leaning over
a lot of these districts where they're already feeling the
pinch and already feeling the pain. And I think the
difference between what the President is asking for and what
the Freedom ca is is looking for is still very
very far apart. So as much as the President's going
to tell them to do whatever they can, they also
know that when it comes down to midterm elections, the
(20:09):
President is not going to have as much of a
sway as he once did because he is in fact
in the second half at that point of his term,
and it will make him less and less powerful. So
over time, the President will have less control and less
opportunity to really influence those members because they, in fact
are really trying to defend their seats and stay in power.
And also they need to go home in just a
(20:29):
few short weeks to defend their decision and defend this vote,
and that, to me, would be the one thing that
stands in between the President being successful and those members
and those tough districts taking a vote that they won't
necessarily be able to defend when they return in the
summertime to their districts.
Speaker 2 (20:45):
Kristin, If Democrats don't have a seat at the table
and they don't buy the nature of reconciliation, this is
a Republican only exercise. Are they scheduling town halls for
this Memorial Day break to try to shine a light
on what's happening here? We know that Republicans have been
wary of doing so, based on the DOGE, based on Medicaid.
What are Democrats going to do when they go home?
Speaker 8 (21:06):
I think it's interesting that you asked, because yes, I mean,
the short answer is yes, and I know I was
in touch with some friends over in the House yesterday
about the extent of those plans. And it's not just
going home to their own districts to talk to their
constituents about what is happening and what this bill actually does,
specifically with regard to Medicaid cuts, but they will be
(21:30):
pointing those things out in these Republican districts as well,
so the identified areas where this would particularly hurt some
of these Republican districts, making sure that their constituents know,
you know, what at least this House bill is doing.
And as we all know, this bill, if and when
(21:50):
it does pass the House is going to go over
to the Senate and they're going to be, you know,
a multitude of changes to this bill. So I think,
you know, when these members go home, they're going to
have a number of things to answer for, particularly as
these cuts begin to take place, if the Republicans are
ultimately successful.
Speaker 5 (22:08):
Well, and they may have to answer a lot of
questions about the impact this is ultimately going to have
on the deficit in the long term burden that the
United States and the people within it are saddled with.
Lisa that seems to be what we're seeing evidence of
in financial markets today, in the bond market, especially as
we're seeing the old rocketing higher on both the tenure
and the thirty year. We're up more than ten basis points.
(22:29):
And we have seen President Trump in the past, granted
it was related to tariffs earlier this year, take a
look at what's happening in the bond market, identify what
he saw as queasiness, and decide to change his course
of action. If we are seeing material upset in financial
markets once again over this legislative package that he campaigned
on that we know he wants very badly, would you
expect any kind of similar change of harder? Is this
(22:52):
already largely done and dusted?
Speaker 7 (22:56):
You know, it's really hard to tell, Kaylee. It does
feel like he is while he is saying, you know,
damn the torpedoes and let's go forward. The President also
is mindful of the fact that if the market takes
a hit, or if there are shifts in the underpinnings
of the market, that he very well will adjust because
he doesn't necessarily want to have to answer for that,
because he knows that those kinds of signs are signs
(23:18):
of long term pain and not short term pain. And
that's the other thing that I think he will be
watching for and his advisors will be watching for. But ultimately, Kaylee,
he wants to win so badly. He wants this big,
beautiful bill, one big piece of legislation which could Golly,
I'm as old to know. I mean, the last time
we did that was in nineteen twenty ten when we
passed the Affordable Care Act, So it's been a long
(23:39):
time since we've had a great, big, giant bill get
passed in the Congress in the way that the White
House wants to see it done. But you know, if
anybody's willing to take the shot and take this unprecedented
stance and way to move, it'll be Donald Trump, you.
Speaker 3 (23:53):
Know, Kristin.
Speaker 2 (23:53):
It's interesting as we consider what we're seeing in the
bond market here, the concerns on Wall Street across the
board about rising debt and deficits.
Speaker 3 (24:01):
This is something that the party and.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
Power frequently loses religion on, but it's going to be
hard for lawmakers to hide from what's happening in the
markets when it's right before our eyes, like this was
extending the current policy baseline, the original sin in this process.
Speaker 3 (24:16):
How come we're not arguing about how to pay for it?
Speaker 8 (24:19):
I mean, I think I do think so, and I
think that you're exactly right. The reason why we're not
arguing about how to pay for it is because you've
got one party control in Washington. They want to extend
these tax cuts and it's very, very difficult to do
that if you're looking at actually paying for it. So
it's easier to saddle future generations with that debt. And
(24:41):
I know it's people you know, who are in the
minority party generally get religion on this and talk about
saddling future generations, but it really is, and it has
real impacts on our national security. And you know, you
look at the CBO scoring and you're going to hear
a lot about from republic since they come out in
(25:02):
support of this bill, talking about dynamic scoring and all
of these things. I mean, it's a tale as old
as time. At the end of the day, you know,
I do agree with the Congressman that both sides are
going to have to get together and figure this thing out.
But as long as there's one party control and Washington's
not going to happen.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
Now, the CBO says this plan would increase the deficit
by two point three trillion dollars over a decade.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on Apple,
Cocklay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen
on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us
live on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
I'm Joe Matthew alongside Kaylee Lines in Washington, and on
any other day, what took place today in the Oval
Office would be our lead story. It's one of many
at the moment, as the President of South Africa, syroh Ramaosa,
arrives at the White House amid allegation of genocide put
forth by President Trump against white africaners, in many cases
(26:05):
white farmers, some of whom have been given refugee status
here in the United States.
Speaker 3 (26:11):
It started off as a cordial conversation.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
The President then started to dig into these allegations, going
so far as to even show a video with unsubstantiated
claims of this persecution. The South African president was given
a chance to speak.
Speaker 3 (26:25):
Here's what he said.
Speaker 9 (26:26):
It will take President Trump listening to the voices of
South Africa, some of whom are his good friends, like
those who are here. When we have talks between us
on the quiet table, it will take President Trump to
listen to them.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
President Ramafosa at the White House for lunch and a
bilateral meeting with President Trump that presumably includes other issues
including trade, and we want to talk about this with
Patrick Gaspard. A perfect day to have the distinguished senior
fellow at the Center for American Progress. It's former US
Ambassador South Africa in the Obama administration. Mister ambassador, welcome
back to Bloomberg TV and Radio. Donald Trump is talking
(27:07):
about genocide today. What should be the response from South Africa.
Speaker 10 (27:12):
Well, thank you so very much for having me on.
But it's a bizarre day to be on here today.
Donald Trump is talking about genocide in South Africa. Let's
be really clear here. There is absolutely positively no credible
human rights organization in South Africa or anywhere in the
world that says that there's a genocide taking place in
South Africa. So the response for President Robert Bolsa has
(27:34):
to only be one, there's no genocide.
Speaker 8 (27:37):
Two.
Speaker 10 (27:38):
The bilateral partnership between the US and South Africa is
incredibly important for both sides of the Atlantic on security,
on the economy, on trade. We've got to do things
to bridge this gap, both in the facts and in
the material relationship between the two countries.
Speaker 4 (27:57):
Well.
Speaker 5 (27:57):
President Trump brought to the Oval Office the facts that
he wanted to underscore, at least what was presented as fact,
a video with monitors that had been rolled in and
edited together for those in the Oval Office to see
in person, printed handouts of stories in which he said
they described horrible death of white South Africans. Knowing that
(28:18):
it did seem that a certain amount of this was staged,
and knowing as well, mister Ambassador, that Sera Amaphosa, while
not in the presidential role, was in the South African
government at the time you were serving as ambassador, so
you do know the players here. How did he conduct himself?
Did he do well well?
Speaker 10 (28:36):
I've known President Raben Polsa ever since he was a
labor leader in the country. When I first visited in
nineteen ninety one. President Rama Polsa did everything that he
could to maintain his composure and not only his personal dignity,
but the dignity of the nation that he represents. But
it's really hard when You're sitting across from Donald Trump,
and he's laying out not facts, Katy, but propaganda. The
(28:56):
film that he showed comes from an organization called Afrofum
that's known to be aligned with the most extreme fringe
right wing elements not only in South Africa, but in
the US, Australia and other places. They are adjacent to
people who have been identified as Neo Nazis. These are
questionable characters. You should also understand that the black South
(29:18):
African who's in the video exhorting violence against White Africaners
is another fringe character who is not in the government,
who Sera Ramaposa in the A and C soundly defeated
in the last elections, and who has no credible power
in the country. So it's rhetoric, no fact, all propaganda.
White Africaners, who make up less than eight percent of
(29:41):
the population, represent less than two percent of the murder
victims in South Africa. Furthermore, that small African population also
happened to be some of the largest landowners in a
country that has real asymmetriies of economic conclusion. Those are
the things that South Africans are trying to sell with
the partnership of the US through trade, through hundreds of
(30:04):
thousands of jobs that are reliant on the African growth.
An Opportunity Act that I helped to renegotiate that's up
for renegotiation now, and that Donald Trump and the American
people should be something in a fashion that helps people
along the supply chain in America, consumers in America and
workers in South Africa.
Speaker 3 (30:23):
This is really helpful context. Ambassador.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
I'm sure you saw that Elon Musk was in the
Oval office. We didn't hear him speak. But when you
step back and consider what just happened, was this an ambush?
Speaker 10 (30:35):
It was absolutely at ambush, as evident by the video
that you just made reference to being wheeled in and
then the President of the United States sitting there. We've
printed out copies of alleged articles that lay out the
crimes against africaners in the country, a president who, by
(30:56):
the way, has overturned the entire asylum system in the
US for every other nation, every other nationality, but it's
storing open the doors to Africaners who are allegedly under assault.
Elon Musk didn't have to speak. He is the silent
partner in the negotiations here. Elon Musk and Starlink have
been trying to get into the South Africa space. They're
(31:17):
making all kinds of demands on the South African government,
and I believe, I truly believe that Donald Trump is
carrying water for Elon Musk in these conversations, and they're
hoping that the South Africans will overturn a regulatory framework
that has not made it possible for BUSCA to operate
in South Africa in the way that he would like to.
(31:37):
I hate to say this about the American president, but
too often we see that there's some kind of a
grift that's involved with pronouncements around national security and foreign policy.
It's the case here too, I believe.
Speaker 5 (31:51):
Well, there's another foreign policy issue though, that the US
seems to take particular exception with when it comes to
South Africa, and that's South Africa leading the charge in
the International Court of Justice against Israel claiming that Israel
is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. That was among
the reasons that the Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in
testimony yesterday on Capitol Hill, suggested President Trump won't be
(32:11):
attending the g twenty summit in November in South Africa,
though he didn't necessarily give us a firm answer on
that in the Oval Office, Is that policy around Israel
reconcilable between these two countries, mister ambassador.
Speaker 10 (32:24):
I so appreciate that question from you, and I really
wish that that dominated the dialogue today and the Oval
Office that in trade instead of this ridiculous rules around
white genocide. Let's be really clearer, South Africa has had
a long standing relationship with elements of the Palestinian leadership
Palestinian civil society. No surprise to anyone that following October seventh,
(32:49):
after South Africa appropriately denounced Hamas appropriately talked about South
Africa's right to exist and to defend itself, that then
in turn took up a defense of Palace Indians when
they saw collective punishment being taken upon tens of thousands
of innocent Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. So
(33:09):
that should not have surprised anyone if you know about
South Africa's history and record as it relates to Palestinians
and global human rights. So now Marco Rubio and Donald Trump,
two actors who have not spoken out about the collective
punishment in Gaza. Donald Trump, a president of the United
States who said that we should clear all the Palestinians
out of Gaza and turned into some kind of like
(33:31):
beachfront property. No concern for that. He's now suddenly talking
about genocide, but not in a context anywhere else in
the world. He defends Putin's encouragion against innocent Ukrainians. He
says nothing to speak up about what's happening to Palestinians
every single day where that Yawho is redoubling down on
(33:53):
his occupation and bobbing in Gaza. And now he's singling
out white Africaners who have been who have been ginned
up for him by fringe elements of his movements. I
has victims of genocide. The hypocrisy is overwhelming here.
Speaker 2 (34:09):
So this is a president of the United States, in
your view, whose view has been corrupted by Elon musk.
Speaker 10 (34:16):
I never thought I would live to see the day
where a president of the United States would be sighting
with Vladimir Putent against an innocent sovereign nation that has
been invaded and surfacing myth myth about genocide in one
country in order to help the business interests of one
(34:37):
of his principal supporters, who spent in excess of two
hundred and fifty million dollars on his election. It's an
extraordinary thing. We have something in the United States called
the Foreign correp Practices Act, and I think that our
responsible Congress would be looking thoroughly at these circumstances.
Speaker 5 (34:57):
Ambassador, we just have a minute left here. But given
everything we've just discussed and the evident tension between the
US and South Africa, do you have hope a trade
agreement between the two can be reached, Knowing at the
end of the ninety day period of thirty percent reciprocal
tariff could be put into place once again.
Speaker 10 (35:13):
I'm never hopeful. The US and South Africa have had
challenges in the relationship before. I remember being a young
activist protesting against the resistance of the Reagan administration to
lay sanctions against South Africa. We overcame that there is
bipartisan support for the partnership between the US and South
Africa on trade and on healthcare relief as well. So
(35:36):
I think that there are responsible Republicans in the Center
and the House who understand the importance of the African
Growth and Opportunity Act. Both for security and for economic growth,
and they'll increase the pressure to get to some resolution
of these charges and of these challenges.
Speaker 5 (35:52):
All right, Ambassador, we really appreciate you joining us here
on Balance of Power. Former Ambassador to South Africa during
the Obama administration. Patrick Gaspard, now distinguish Senior Fellow at
the Center for American Progress.
Speaker 3 (36:06):
Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast.
Speaker 2 (36:09):
Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify,
or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find
us live every weekday from Washington, DC at Noontimeeastern at
Bloomberg dot com.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.