June 4, 2025 • 36 mins
Watch Joe and Kailey LIVE every day on YouTube: http://bit.ly/3vTiACF.
The House-passed version of President Donald Trump’s tax and spending bill would add $2.42 trillion to US budget deficits over the next decade, according to a new estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
The CBO’s calculation, released Wednesday in its so-called scoring of the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” reflects a $3.67 trillion decrease in expected revenues and a $1.25 trillion decline in spending over the decade through 2034, relative to baseline projections. The score doesn’t account for any potential boost to the economy from the bill, which could offset some of the revenue losses.
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:
- Bloomberg Washington Correspondent Tyler Kendall.
- Republican Senator Bill Hagerty of Tennessee.
- Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.
- Bloomberg Politics Contributor Jeanne Sheehan Zaino and Lighthouse Public Affairs Founder Chapin Fay.
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 (00:00):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio News. You're listening to the
Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast Ketch us live weekdays at
noon and five pm Eastern on Apple, Cocklay and Android
Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever
(00:20):
you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Following breaking news that we just got from President Trump
courtesy of his True social feed, where he informed us
he just spoke to Russian President Vladimir Putin by phone
for over an hour, a conversation that the President described
as a good one, but not a conversation he said
that will lead to immediate peace, noting that Putin said
very strongly he will have to respond to the recent
(00:47):
attack on the airfields, referring Joe, of course, to the
drone strikes we saw across deep into Russian territory last weekend.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
This could mean some very difficult days ahead for the
Ukrainian people, knowing that Russia has preference of attacking civilian targets,
unlike what we saw from Ukraine. Over the course of
the next half hour, we're going to bring you two
very important voices in the midst of breaking news today
in Washington, with all the stories we're talking about. Republican
Senator Bill Haggerty of Tennessee will join along with Democratic
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, all in the next twenty
(01:18):
minutes here on the fastest show in Politics. We do
want to start on Capitol Hill, though, Kayley with all
of the breaking news today in Bloomberg's Tyler Kendall First, Tyler,
welcome back. On this phone call lasted over an hour,
Trump and Putin. What else do we know?
Speaker 4 (01:34):
Yeah, hey, Joel Keyley read one of the key lines
from President Trump's truth social posts, which is that he
said it was a good conversation, but not one that's
going to ultimately lead to immediate peace. Now, of course
this was it was not known that they were going
to have this call, but does come after the two
leaders did speak by phone last month, and it contributed
to what was really mounting frustration from this White House
(01:56):
when it comes to really stalled progress towards reaching a ceasefire.
We're going to be watching how this really escalates as
President Trump does confirm that Vladimir Putin has those plans
to retaliate after we really saw that surprise a drone
attack by Ukraine that went so deep into Russian territory
it it hit areas as far as Siberia. Now, we
(02:16):
should say that earlier today Vladimir Putin did come out
and he dismissed the idea of meeting face to face
with his Ukrainian counterpart, something that Ukraine says ultimately needs
to happen if there is going to be progress when
it comes to these talks. It also comes against a
broader backdrop of a Bloomberg News scoop earlier this morning
that the US does not have plans to provide air
defenses to back a reassurance force that would comprise of
(02:39):
the United Kingdom in France that has been trying to
convince the United States to give some firmer security guarantees
moving forward here that would back any potential deal. So
we're going to be watching closely how this ultimately ends
up developing, because, as you well know, the US has
gone to Russia before with a potential plan that could
even see freezing the back of the battlefield lines where
(03:02):
they were, but that hasn't been enough to move the
needle in really a significant way as of yet.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
Well and Tyler, as we consider the implications for what
this means in terms of Russia's behavior in negotiations over
the war in Ukraine. It seems President Trump is also
suggesting that Russia will have a role to play in
separate negotiations with Iron.
Speaker 4 (03:24):
Right exactly. And that's going to be a really interesting
one to follow here too. As we know, this really
is a priority for this White House to ultimately try
to make some kind of progress here. I believe that
the fifth rounds of talks just concluded, and we're seeing
Oman really be an a mediator in these talks, but
details haven't really emerged, including how a potential deal would
(03:45):
differ from the JCPOA, which the US pulled out of
under the first Trump administration.
Speaker 3 (03:52):
Tyler, we thought we'd been talking first with you about reconciliation.
This is an important day on the track to make
the Trump tax cuts either permanent or extended. You've got
members Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee headed to
the White House to meet with President Trump, among them
Senator Ron Johnson, who says he's a flat no unless
these deficit numbers change. This, of course, follows the missive
(04:15):
several of them overnight again from Elon Musk and now
news from the CBO. How important is this meeting today, Tyler.
Speaker 4 (04:24):
Yeah, the stakes are incredibly high, Joe, as the White
House really does try to ramp up the pressure on
these Republicans with President Trump picking up the phone and
calling them directly. Now you alluded to this before. Perhaps
the most vocal group that's emerging as this group that
are pitching themselves as fiscal hawks, and that includes Ron Johnson.
And I actually had the chance to catch up with
the Senator from Wisconsin earlier today. He's pushing for those
(04:45):
deeper spending cuts. He says he's in close touch with
the White House and he realizes that it might take
some time to get the sort of spending cuts that
he's really looking for.
Speaker 5 (04:54):
If I'm wrong, challenge me. I want to get in
that dialogue, Kudas, and that is really my discussion for Trump.
And so he had Kevin Hasson comment right away, I'll
be meeting with Secretary. So he wants to engage, yet
he wants to reduce spending. It's just hard to do.
I'm not denying that fact. Was the slender majority in
the House and Democrats having no interest what soever at
(05:16):
reducing spending. That's our problem now.
Speaker 4 (05:18):
Of course, the other side of this, Joe and Kelly,
is that the White House is dealing with conflicting demands.
So you have some senators here that are calling for
deeper spending cuts, raising some concerns about how some of
the tax sweeteners, whether or not they would really contribute
or incentivize growth over the long term. But then you
have a group of Republicans that are concerned about what
spending cuts ultimately will mean for Medicaid. Now, we should
(05:39):
say that there's pretty broad agreement about those core pillars
of this plan, including extending the twenty seventeen tax cuts.
But at the end of the day, there are really
slim margins here in the Senate. They can only afford
to lose three votes.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Indeed, all right, Bloomberg's Tyler Kendall live on Capitol Hill
for us. Thank you so much, and it's on Capitol
Hill that we stay here on Balance of Power Bloomberg
TV and Radio. As we turn to Republican Senator Bill
Haggerty of Tennessee, who is back with us on the program. Senator,
we appreciate your time. As we just heard our colleague Tyler,
they're outlining that various portions of your body have demands
(06:15):
as to what it will take to get them to
a yes vote on this legislation. What's yours? What change
do you need to see for you to vote for
this package?
Speaker 6 (06:24):
I think the most critical thing to keep in mind, Kayley,
is the fact that if we don't get this done,
Americans looking at a north of four trillion dollar tax increase.
I was talking with Kevin Hasset at the White House yesterday.
His projections are that that would yield a six percent
decrease in our nation's GDP. That would be terrible for America. Frankly,
be terrible for the world economy. We can't let that happen.
(06:45):
The main interest I have is making certain that we
stimulate more capital investment in America, because more capital investment
will be get more jobs, more jobs, more economic activity.
This will have a very positive impact on the economy,
and frankly, it's something that the Congressional Budget Office completely
misses in their analysis. They missed it at an incredible
level back after the twenty seventeen tax cuts and jobs
after passed. In fact, they missed it by north of
(07:06):
a trillion dollars worth of revenues. So I think that
my colleagues need to certainly take into account the fact
that this is a pro growth bill. This tax package
is going to stimulate more economic activity here in America.
We will see growth that's not captured in the CBO estimates,
but will have a material impact on our economy, on
our well being, and frankly, in terms of going the
right direction to reducing the deficit.
Speaker 3 (07:28):
Will Senator, We've got a lot of questions about what's inside,
and it's great to have you back on Bloomberg. You
mentioned the CBO, so I do have to ask you
about that. Two big headlines today coming out of the
Congressional Budget Office. First, the Republican tax bill that cleared
the House they say would add two point four trillion
dollars to US deficits. But that same Congressional Budget Office,
which I know Republicans criticize a lot, is not projecting
(07:50):
the Trump tariffs will cut the budget gap by two
point eight trillion. Do you buy that number?
Speaker 6 (07:56):
And if so, is this bill paid for well? In
the first case, what they do is static analysis. They
don't take into account the dynamic of investment in the
economy that we yield grow, so I think that's patently wrong.
And the second with regard to tariff revenue, it's possible,
but we're not nearly to the end of our trade negotiations,
Jamison Greer. Our trade rep working is hard out to
(08:17):
try to bring together a significant sea change in the
way America is treated on the global stage. I think
we're going to make great progress, but it's very hard
for me to say right now, and I don't know
how the CBO is able to say this. Where we're
going to land on tariff revenues as well?
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Well, Yeah, it is worth pointing out the CBO was
only scoring tariff revenues through where tariff stood as of
May thirteenth, and we already know changes have been made
since then. There's still some legal questions around whether or
not AIPA is going to stand, Senator, so we have
to bear that in mind. We've heard from the Senate
Majority Leader John fun that there's going to have to
be some adjustments made to the salt cap, something that
(08:53):
House Republicans from those salt districts say would essentially mean
that the deal dies when it returns back to the
How else, knowing that the debt ceiling lift is also
attached to this legislation. Do you see risk around making
changes like that? Could that bring the US closer to
the brink of default?
Speaker 6 (09:11):
Well, I think there's always risk in any situation like
this where you have a complex bill. Kayley, We're going
to have a conference meeting right after I'm on with
you now to begin the process of talking through where
the Senate is going to land here, and I do
expect that there'll be improvements. It will be different, they'll
be deeper cuts, and we'll start to see texts coming
out on Friday. What I don't want to do is
try to get ahead of those who are negotiating. As
(09:32):
you know, the Finance Committee is going to the White
House right now to meet with President Trump. This is
a process that's underway. But I can say this at
a very high level, my colleagues in the Senate want
to see more cuts, more definite reduction. But at the
same time, I've been encouraging everyone to move expediously to
make certain that this happens extremely quickly because the United
States economy needs certainty, and with that certainty, we're going
(09:53):
to see more capital investment. The longer this takes again,
the less certain that we've got, and that's going to
have a negative impact on capital investment here in America.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
With that in mind, Senator, I'd love to explore the
idea of permanence with you, because we're hearing about this
a lot more now, the likes of Steve Danes and
others who say, no, we need to make permanent certain
business tax breaks, specifically the full research and development deduction,
bonus depreciation, and interest expensing. Are you on board with
making them permanent?
Speaker 6 (10:21):
Certainly I am. I agree with the premise completely, and
you know, Steve Danes is a business person just like me.
We understand the importance of being able to make long
term plans with respect to capital investments. That's what's driving
Steve's Steve's position, I think he's exactly right, and we
need to extend these as far as we possibly can.
Permanent is the best possible answer we could achieve.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Senator. Of course, well, you and your colleagues are working
on reconciliation. There is also active actively underway an effort
to advance the stable coin legislation, the Genius Act. Last
time you were on with us, we talked about some
of the various amendments that were being put forward, which
you said are being worked through. Have you had direct
conversations or recently with either the Majority Leader or Senator
(11:02):
Roger Marshall about whether or not the Credit Card Competition
Act is going to become a real factor here.
Speaker 6 (11:08):
Yes, those conversations are under way. I certainly respect the
process that we're addressing, but right now this really isn't
about policy, nor is it process. We're just trying to
get floor time right now to get this processed. We
have brought agreement, Kayley, with respect to the content of
the stable coin legislation, my Genius Act, and this is
going to, I think, take us into the twenty first
century in terms of upgrading our payment systems. It's going
(11:30):
to have very desirable effects, taking the US economy into
the digital assets arena, keeping innovation here, lowering risk here
in America, and putting in place guardrails that will protect
consumers because every one of these stable coins will be
backed up dollar for dollar with US treasuries. Very positive
outcome here. We've got very strong support.
Speaker 3 (11:48):
So Okay, what's the timeline, Senator, and what does it
mean for the Clarity Acts coming out of the House Joe.
Speaker 6 (11:55):
The timeline is the key issue right now. The window
is closed on us to get this done because we've
got to turn our attention to reconciliation. As I mentioned,
we're going to a conference meeting, our first broad conference meeting,
to talk about the Reconciliation Bill. We need to get
the Genius Act passed. When need to get it on
the floor. And that's where my discussions have been with
the Leader and with my colleagues, is getting that time
(12:15):
on the floor as soon as possible. I like to
start it today tomorrow, but I like to get that
time on the floor as soon as possible because then
we can turn our attention to dealing with the Reconciliation
Act and getting more confirmations across the floor.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
And when will your attention, Senator turned to market structure
And when the time comes to actually look at a
market structure bill, how can do you expect it will
be to the Clarity Act that was just introduced in
the House last week.
Speaker 6 (12:39):
Well, there's been a great deal of good work that's
been done in the House. A lot of questions have
come up in the process of building the stable coin
legislation that have been more appropriate to market structure. We're
focused on it. We've already begun the process of building
it here in the Senate. Again, as I mentioned, a
lot of it's natural out growth, outgrowth of the stable
coin legislation that we've been pushing forward. So we're going
to turn our attention immediately to that. But I think
(13:00):
the most immediate thing that will happen is the reconciliation
bill coming to the floor of the Senate. In the meantime,
I pledged to President Trump I would get this done
in the first one hundred days if I possibly could.
We've exceeded that by a bit. But President Trump wants
to see this legislation on his desk. JD. Advance was
at the Bitcoin conference in Las Vegas just last week
saying he wants to see a clean bill in front
of him on stable coin legislation in front of President Trump,
(13:22):
and I think we can get there.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
Interesting as you bear down on a reconciliation tax and
spend legislation here, Senator, I know it's going to be
an important day, and you're walking into this meeting after
we're done with our conversation to begin hearing from Republican
members of the House who apparently didn't have enough time
to read the whole bill. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green says
she's a no, having not read a section banning states
(13:45):
from passing their own AI regulations. Mike Flood, Republican from Nebraska,
doesn't like this idea making it harder for judges to
hold officials in contempt of court. They both didn't see
it in the first pass. Have you had a chance
to read that bill?
Speaker 6 (13:58):
Having gone through the entire of the bill, we're in
the process of reviewing all the texts that just came
over in the past couple of days. But again, we're
moving on it. The Finance Committee is at the White
House negotiating it right now. The text is in process,
and it's an item that's in motion. I understand that
there may be items here that not everyone is happy with,
but at the end of the day, we're going to
have to compromise and get it done. I'll come back
to the original point. The American economy needs this certainty,
(14:20):
and I'm going to be working my heart out to
make certain that we deliver the best possible product we
can here. But I'll remind you as well, this isn't
the last bite at the Apple. We'll have the opportunity
to have another reconciliation process coming up fairly soon. So
we're going to find a number of other opportunities to
improve the situation here in the American economy. It achieves
some of the other objectives our legislators and we can
if we don't solve it all here, we'll have another
(14:41):
opportunity to do that.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
Well.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
Senator, you will have an opportunity as soon as tonight
to vote for the confirmation of Mickey Bowman to be
the Fed's new Vice CHAIRFF Supervision after the cloture vote
passed earlier today. This comes just a day after the
FED officially lifted the asset cap on Wells Fargo starting today.
Is this a new a era of banking regulation in
the United States?
Speaker 6 (15:03):
I certainly think so. Michael Barr took us in exactly
the wrong direction, and I'm very glad to see someone
with the sensibilities of Mickey coming into this position. She's
going to do a great job. What we need to
do is return to the overarching mission of making certain
that her capital markets are as competitive and safe as
they possibly can be. Get out of the business. These
extraneous policy issues, whether it regards climate or other sorts
(15:26):
of issues that essentially make the US economy less competitive,
and the goal plating that Michael Barr attempted to do
making US a subject even more regulations than the Europeans
only Hamper's American Capital Formation. Mickey has a very different
point of view, and I'm very excited to see her
come into this role.
Speaker 3 (15:42):
Well, it is interesting seeing this asset cap lifted on
Wells Fargo today, Senator, your colleague Elizabeth Warren, who's going
to be with us a bit later this hour, is
asking for five years of exam reports from the Bank
as a member of the Banking Committee, having suggested that
they've not gone a year without breaking the law. Statement says,
(16:03):
it's stunning the Fed could not wait till the company
went a full year without breaking the law before wiping
its slate clean. Should she get those documents, should the
committee see them.
Speaker 6 (16:12):
I'm all for transparency, Joe, and I'm all for having
committee members have access to the information that they need.
But I'm not about to respond to something that Elizabeth
Warren has said, just based on what she probably doesn't have.
You know, she didn't have access to the documents at
this point. So I don't understand her leveling these accusations,
but she's wont to do that.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
Well, I wonder, Senator, if you'd like to respond to
something President Trump has just said, as he shared with
us on True Social that he spent an hour and
fifteen minutes on the phone today with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
He suggested that phone call will not lead to an
immediate peace with Ukraine, but went on to say that
Putin believes or suggested he could participate in discussions with Iran.
(16:52):
And of course, the US approach to Iran is something
I know you feel quite passionate, passionately about. Is it
appropriate for Russia to be stepping in here?
Speaker 6 (17:01):
Well, I think you understand well the fact that the
previous administration removed all of the maximum pressure campaign that
we had imposed on Iran. We had Iran to a
point where they were ready to deal. Their reserves were
below ten billion dollars. As soon as the Biden administration
came in, they stopped enforcing the sanctions. They put Iran
in a position to fund terror. We saw what happened
with Hamas, we saw what happened with Husbalah, We saw
what happened with the houtis we're bringing that situation back
(17:23):
under control. We're putting back in place at maximum sanctions,
and we also have the opportunity to get the world
behind us, and I think the world should be behind
us to ensure that Iran does not have the capability
to threaten the rest of the world as they seem
to want to do. President Trump has every right to
seek out other world leaders, to find allies wherever you may,
but at the end of the day, it's going to
be up to us to take the leadership position to
(17:44):
deal with Iran and to make certain that they don't
have the capability or the capacity to threaten the rest
of the world as they have in the past. And
understand this, they're behind all of the terror and all
the disruption in the Middle East. It's got to come
to an end.
Speaker 3 (17:57):
A deep dive with Republican Senator Bill Haggarty of Tennessee. Senator,
it's good to see you, and we appreciate all of
your time today on Bloomberg TV and Radio. We're going
to continue our conversation as we crossed the aisle, coming
up to speak with Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts
about these very same issues.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcasts. Catch
us live weekdays at noon and five pm. E's durn
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 (18:35):
Starting the move, we're seeing in Wells Fargo shares today
up just about three quarters of one percent on the
day after the FED lifted the asset cap that has
hampered the bank's growth for years now. But I would
note Joe that Wells Fargo shares are also up about
twenty percent since election day, so there was a lot
of anticipation that this asset cap would indeed get lifted
under this Trump administration.
Speaker 3 (18:56):
There definitely popping quarks at Wells Fargo. Elizabeth Warren, on
the other hand, is not as we told you. Will
be joined here by the Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, having
issued a blistering statement following this FED decision, Kaylee, saying
the entire Federal Reserve Board, including appointees of both parties,
should be embarrassed. She's with us now. The Democrat from
(19:18):
Massachusetts live from Capitol Hill. Senator, it's great to see
you back on Bloomberg TV and radio. You are demanding
five years of exam reports from Wells Fargo, and I
wonder what leverage you have here how far you would
go to get them. Would you threaten to hold up
the nomination, for instance, of Michelle Bowman as the Fed's
Vice Chair of Supervision to get them.
Speaker 7 (19:37):
Look, I'm already opposed to having Michelle Bowman as the
vice chair for supervision. This is someone who has never
seen a regulation for a giant bank that she wasn't
willing to cut or undermine. But understand this about Wells Fargo.
I think before you decide to lift this big penalty
that's been in place for Wells Fargo for seven years now,
(20:00):
you should ask for maybe one year in which they
aren't caught breaking the law. Remember that in January of
this year, the SEC tagged Wells Fargo for cheating investors.
In December, the CFPB tagged Wells Fargo for cheating American
(20:20):
consumers bit it with way to the tune of over
eight hundred million dollars, And in September, the OCC tagged
Wells Fargo for money laundry. So we have the three
big banking regulators all saying Wells Fargo's out there still
breaking the law. And then a report just a few
(20:41):
weeks ago by former and current Wells Fargo employees saying
that the very activities that Wells Fargo engaged in seven
years ago, where they created fake accounts for people and
so on, because they were pressing their employees to get
those numbers in to get more people signed up for
(21:04):
more accounts, that that same activity is occurring today. And
those of the circumstances under which the Fed unanimously says, hey,
Wells Fargo, get on out of here. You don't need
any extra regulation. Now, that just doesn't wash.
Speaker 2 (21:22):
Do you see any potential benefit here, Senator though, of
Wells Fargo being able to better compete with other big banks,
for the competitive landscape to change in that way.
Speaker 7 (21:31):
Look, I'm all for competition, but I don't think that
cheaters ought to have a leg up in competing. And
that's really the part to remember here about Wells Fargo.
The reason we want to have good enforcement of all
of the banking laws is that the banks that actually
follow the law, the banks that aren't engaged in money laundering,
(21:52):
or the banks that are not cheating their investors, that
those banks ought to be able to play on a
level playing field. And Wells Fargo, we know starting seven
years ago that Wells Fargo was so boosting its profits
and by the way, it's CEO compensation based on cheating
(22:14):
American customers. And in fact, it was so awful what
they did that it wasn't just civil penalties. They were
in violation of criminal laws. So the idea that, boyd,
we want to get them right back out there competing
with the other banks at a time when their own
employees are saying, hey, they're back to doing the stuff
(22:37):
they were doing before. That's not the direction we want
to go.
Speaker 3 (22:43):
Senator Elizabeth Warren live with us on Bloomberg TV and Radio.
I'm going to ask you to walk with me here
for a second, Senator, because I don't know if Donald
Trump is watching us right now, but the President is
posting about you right now, just untruth social Donald Trump writes, quote,
I am very pleased to announce that, after all these years,
I agree with Senator Elizabeth Warren on something. The debt
(23:04):
limit should be entirely scrapped to prevent an economic catastrophe.
He's reposting you here where you suggest as much. This
is less than twenty four hours after Elon Musk said,
shame on Republicans who passed the reconciliation bill in the House.
You're finding yourself within a twenty four hour period, agreeing
(23:24):
with Donald Trump and Elon Musk. What's going on around here?
Speaker 7 (23:27):
Well, look, I think on the debt ceiling, I've been
on this for many, many years. The debt ceiling is
just something that's been used as leverage in negotiations. The
United States should never, never threaten to default on its debt.
We should get rid of this debt ceiling altogether. When
we pass a bill saying that we're going to do
(23:49):
a certain thing, that is our saying, and we're going
to pay for it, that's what the United States government does.
So I think that Donald Trump and I, hey listen,
I'm ready to join up with him and make that happen.
We need to get rid of the debt ceiling altogether,
not extend it. Not say ooh, while this is going
(24:10):
on this budget negotiation, let's just roll out a few
trillion dollars more in the debt ceiling. Nope, that has
gotten us into trouble before it continues to get us
into trouble. Donald Trump is right, let's get rid of
it all together.
Speaker 2 (24:26):
Well, so, Senator, if we are to see if the
Senate and House cannot get this reconciliation bill through in
time for the mid July request the Treasury Secretary has
made to avoid bumping up against the X state, would
you support an initiative like that separately, a legislative effort
to eliminate the debt ceiling before that X state comes.
Speaker 7 (24:47):
Look, we should do it now. There's no reason to delay.
Donald Trump is exactly right on this. It's what I've
been arguing for literally for years, and that is get
rid of the debt ceiling. It's serving no fun except
for holdout parties to try to use in negotiations, and
that makes no sense. That doesn't serve our nation. But
(25:09):
we should do that now. It doesn't need to be
tied to anything, it doesn't need any special date on it.
Ask the Republicans, they're the ones in control of the floor.
Let's bring that to the floor right now. It's a
simple piece of legislation. I'm ready to go on it.
I think it's the right thing for us to do.
Speaker 3 (25:27):
Senator, I want to ask you, from your perch on
the Armed Services Committee about what else we heard from
Donald Trump today. He had an hour and fifteen minute
long call with Vladimir Putin. At the end of the call,
he wrote about it and said that peace is not
imminent in Ukraine. He did say, however, that Putin will
have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields
that Ukraine conducted over the weekend using this wild scheme
(25:49):
with drones that had been smuggled into the country. What
do you make of this assessment and what is Ukraine
in for in the days ahead?
Speaker 6 (25:58):
Right?
Speaker 7 (25:58):
Look, Vladimir Putin has been playing Donald Trump, and pretty
much everybody in the world can see that. Just me
seeing it, not just people in the United States see it.
Leaders around the world see it. And it looks like
Donald Trump is beginning to figure that out and starting
to push back against Putin. We owe it to Ukraine
(26:22):
to do everything we can to support them in their fight.
They are on the front lines fighting for democracy, and
they are in the front lines against an expansionist Russia.
Understand this. If Ukraine falls and Vladimir Putin gets either
a big chunk of it or all of it. He's
(26:42):
not stopping there. He's coming for more and more and more,
because that's who Vladimir Putin is. It is important right
now to help Ukraine push back. They are on the
front lines fighting the war for democracy on behalf of
all of Europe, on behalf of the United States, on
(27:02):
behalf of freedom loving countries everywhere in the world, and
we should give them all the support we can.
Speaker 2 (27:10):
All right, Senator, we appreciate you joining us on Bloomberg
TV and radio. The Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, also ranking
member of the Senate Banking Committee, Elizabeth Warren.
Speaker 1 (27:20):
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 (27:39):
We turn to our political panel today. Genie Shanzano is
with us Bloomberg Politics contributor, Senior Democracy Fellow at the
Center for the Study of the Presidency in Congress, and
Democratic analyst, alongside Republican strategist Chape and Fay, founder of
Lighthouse Public Affairs Chapin as we hear Senator Warren say,
I agree with Trump. Let's do this, get rid of
the debt cealing right now. Is this the potential off
(28:00):
ramp for if the Republicans cannot get through this partisan
reconciliation bill with a debt sealing hike attached in time?
Speaker 8 (28:08):
Well, what wild times we're living in? Right, Cats and
dogs are living together. Elizabeth Woarne and Donald Trump are
almost praising each other publicly in agreement. But yes, answer
your question, I do think this is a way maybe
to greece the skids there grees the wheels, so to speak,
and get a deal done. By the way, this is
how throughout history, our history of American history. This is
(28:29):
how big deals get done, and how major programs like
some of the programs the Big Beautiful Bill are arguing
over right now get done right compromise an agreement among
people on the left and the right. So I think
this is good news. I mean, I have always seen
I think MAGA sees Donald Trump as a deal maker
on behalf of the American people, and they have faith
(28:51):
in him to do that. It will be wild to
see them support Elizabeth war in the same endeavor.
Speaker 3 (28:56):
But we'll see that was a wild moment. We have
found an acknowledge what just happened here the President's posting
about Elizabeth Warren while she's live on the air with
this genie? Is that how this ends with the debt limit?
Speaker 9 (29:09):
Your biggest fan, Joe and Kayley, So I love it
the you.
Speaker 3 (29:13):
Can't help but to watch he who can help?
Speaker 9 (29:16):
But watch you guys. The reality is is that I
love his post too, which is strange because it seems
to me he's calling for some bipartisan movement forward. He
ends the post by saying, let's get together Republicans and
Democrats and do this. I'm not sure if that is
just limited to the debt ceiling, which absolutely needs to
be scrapped, but it should also pertain to this issue
(29:40):
of the Reconciliation bill overall. So I don't know if
it's a bad sign for the President that the Republicans
aren't moving on the bills so he's reaching across the aisle,
or a good sign that he's just found religion that
he needs to work across the aisle. But I'm in
favor of you two bringing the parties together like this.
Speaker 8 (29:57):
I love this.
Speaker 6 (30:00):
Done.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
Balance of power. That's what we aim to do here
cheap and finally, we just have a minute left. But
President Trump and Republicans overall have had a lot of
words about the CBO in recent days that they've shared,
specifically poo pooing essentially their estimates on the tax bill.
But now the CBO says tariffs could reduce the deficit
by two point eight trillion dollars over the next ten years.
(30:21):
Is that argument now nullified?
Speaker 8 (30:24):
I don't think so. I mean this is sort of
some of the sausage being made that always spills out
into the public. And if the CBO says something you like,
you support it, you use it as a proof point.
And when the CBO goes the other way, you can
do what the Republicans are doing recently. But it is
helpful to have the CBO give some numbers that can
help an argument and push things forward.
Speaker 3 (30:43):
For sure, GINI, what's your thought on this when it
comes to the CBO. I think I know your answer,
But I think Republicans are suggesting that the broken clock
is right once a day when it comes to CBO's
take on tariffs. But CBO is broke when it comes
to scoring the tax cut bill because it doesn't use
(31:04):
dynamic scoring. Am I warm on this?
Speaker 9 (31:07):
You are hot, Joe, Let's say you're hot. The reality
is is that the CBO. I think is a good
day for the CBO because they give it and they
take it away. You know, as you guys have been
talking about on the tariffs, they are you know, supporting
what the President is doing. I mean not partisan wise,
but in terms of the impact on the deficit. And
yet when it comes to the issue of the reconciliation bill,
(31:30):
they are underscoring the fact that this is going to
increase the deficit an awful lot. So I think it's
a good day for the CBO because it shows that
they are indeed bipartisan or nonpartisan is probably a better term.
But the reality is is that the President and the
Republicans are going to have to really get their head
around what Elon Musk, what so many people have been
(31:52):
talking about. You simply have a math issue when it
comes to the reconciliation bill. You cannot add two point
five trillion plus two the deficit and call yourself economically
or fiscally responsible. I know russ Vote and others are
out there saying about this static scoring and all of this.
The reality is the CBO is running the numbers right,
(32:14):
Elon Musk and others know how to run the numbers.
This doesn't add up. So you either have to cut
spending or you have to increase taxes. It's pretty basic.
Speaker 3 (32:24):
You just heard that from Bill Haggerty. Broken clock is
right twice at that.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
I do want to follow up on your point on
Elon Musk, though, Genie, to what extent is he actually
credible in his contentions that the budget deficit is a
problem in Congress is making the wrong choices here, knowing
that a his companies benefit from massive government contracts and
b is the Speaker of the House was quick to
point out he also wanted those EV credits that this
bill rolls back to stick around. So maybe there's a
(32:50):
bit of a personal issue here.
Speaker 9 (32:54):
Yeah, I mean, certainly as it pertains to the NASA administrator.
As you mentioned to the ed Many to Starlink, he
apparently wanted to re maintain his special status as a
special government employee. All of that is true, but the
reality is Elon Musk knows how to do this math,
and anybody who looks at this objectively, there is no
(33:15):
way that you can make the claim that it doesn't
add an enormous amount to the deficit. And we will
be strapping our children and grandchildren with a government and
a really a country that is economically and fiscally in
a horrible position, not just as a result of the
Republicans Democrats as well. We all own this and we
(33:36):
have to get out of it. So he's right on
the math here, regardless of his reasons for being frustrated.
Speaker 3 (33:43):
How are you looking at this Elon Musk thing? Chapin
obviously a maga darling until I don't know, a few
hours ago this post hit. He hasn't always seen eye
to eye with the president. But are you looking at
this as a disgruntled government contractor or a guy who
saw too much when he was Washington?
Speaker 8 (34:02):
No, I think Elon Musk is an honest broker here,
and he's giving his input right and and it's important input.
While I don't know the level of influence he'll he'll
retain after leaving, you know, the President's side, after seeing
him at the President's side almost on a daily basis.
But there's no question that he has input. And and
like Genie and you all said, he knows the math,
he knows the numbers, and he's he's trying to shape
(34:24):
the legislation just like the president and and every other
special interest I mean would pull up special interests in
the negative way. But that's what happens right now when
when you're in this precarious situation, uh, while the you know,
while they're reconciling the two bills and trying to get
this passed without you know, destroying the economy and the budget.
And and Elon Musk has always been an honest broker
in my mind, on the on the on the numbers,
(34:46):
on the map. So that's what he's doing. I don't
see him as a disgruntled employee. I think he's doing
his part to continue doing you know, his part.
Speaker 2 (34:56):
Chapin, you and frankly Genie are both joining us from
New York. So I want to ask you about the
contention the Majority leader has made that there's going to
have to be made adjustments made to the salt cap
deal that was struck in the House, lifting it from
ten thousand to forty thousand dollars cheap and if that
adjustment is material, do you see any way in which
those Salt Caucus Republicans are going to be able to
(35:17):
vote for this package when it returns to the other chamber.
Speaker 8 (35:21):
You know, it's going to be interesting to see they
have sort of boxed themselves into a corner, so, you know,
fighting for this some of them and some of them
sort of are going to go along. So it's be
interesting to see what the final outcome is. But this
is a huge deal in New York and in their
districts in some of these Republican members districts in particular
in the suburbs, like Congressman Lawler right, sort of the
(35:43):
northern suburbs of New York City, and this is a
critical issue to them and their re election in some cases.
So I think you're going to see some of them
fighting for it really hard, and I think some of
them are going to, you know, go along quietly and
hope for the best.
Speaker 3 (35:57):
Great conversation with our panel, That's Cheap and things. A
Republican strategist Lighthouse Public Affairs and Genie Shanzo, Bloomberg Politics contributor.
Great to see both of you. Thanks for listening to
The Balance of Power Podcast. 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
(36:19):
from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern at Bloomberg dot com
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio News. You're listening to the
Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast Ketch us live weekdays at
noon and five pm Eastern on Apple, Cocklay and Android
Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever
(00:20):
you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Following breaking news that we just got from President Trump
courtesy of his True social feed, where he informed us
he just spoke to Russian President Vladimir Putin by phone
for over an hour, a conversation that the President described
as a good one, but not a conversation he said
that will lead to immediate peace, noting that Putin said
very strongly he will have to respond to the recent
(00:47):
attack on the airfields, referring Joe, of course, to the
drone strikes we saw across deep into Russian territory last weekend.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
This could mean some very difficult days ahead for the
Ukrainian people, knowing that Russia has preference of attacking civilian targets,
unlike what we saw from Ukraine. Over the course of
the next half hour, we're going to bring you two
very important voices in the midst of breaking news today
in Washington, with all the stories we're talking about. Republican
Senator Bill Haggerty of Tennessee will join along with Democratic
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, all in the next twenty
(01:18):
minutes here on the fastest show in Politics. We do
want to start on Capitol Hill, though, Kayley with all
of the breaking news today in Bloomberg's Tyler Kendall First, Tyler,
welcome back. On this phone call lasted over an hour,
Trump and Putin. What else do we know?
Speaker 4 (01:34):
Yeah, hey, Joel Keyley read one of the key lines
from President Trump's truth social posts, which is that he
said it was a good conversation, but not one that's
going to ultimately lead to immediate peace. Now, of course
this was it was not known that they were going
to have this call, but does come after the two
leaders did speak by phone last month, and it contributed
to what was really mounting frustration from this White House
(01:56):
when it comes to really stalled progress towards reaching a ceasefire.
We're going to be watching how this really escalates as
President Trump does confirm that Vladimir Putin has those plans
to retaliate after we really saw that surprise a drone
attack by Ukraine that went so deep into Russian territory
it it hit areas as far as Siberia. Now, we
(02:16):
should say that earlier today Vladimir Putin did come out
and he dismissed the idea of meeting face to face
with his Ukrainian counterpart, something that Ukraine says ultimately needs
to happen if there is going to be progress when
it comes to these talks. It also comes against a
broader backdrop of a Bloomberg News scoop earlier this morning
that the US does not have plans to provide air
defenses to back a reassurance force that would comprise of
(02:39):
the United Kingdom in France that has been trying to
convince the United States to give some firmer security guarantees
moving forward here that would back any potential deal. So
we're going to be watching closely how this ultimately ends
up developing, because, as you well know, the US has
gone to Russia before with a potential plan that could
even see freezing the back of the battlefield lines where
(03:02):
they were, but that hasn't been enough to move the
needle in really a significant way as of yet.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
Well and Tyler, as we consider the implications for what
this means in terms of Russia's behavior in negotiations over
the war in Ukraine. It seems President Trump is also
suggesting that Russia will have a role to play in
separate negotiations with Iron.
Speaker 4 (03:24):
Right exactly. And that's going to be a really interesting
one to follow here too. As we know, this really
is a priority for this White House to ultimately try
to make some kind of progress here. I believe that
the fifth rounds of talks just concluded, and we're seeing
Oman really be an a mediator in these talks, but
details haven't really emerged, including how a potential deal would
(03:45):
differ from the JCPOA, which the US pulled out of
under the first Trump administration.
Speaker 3 (03:52):
Tyler, we thought we'd been talking first with you about reconciliation.
This is an important day on the track to make
the Trump tax cuts either permanent or extended. You've got
members Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee headed to
the White House to meet with President Trump, among them
Senator Ron Johnson, who says he's a flat no unless
these deficit numbers change. This, of course, follows the missive
(04:15):
several of them overnight again from Elon Musk and now
news from the CBO. How important is this meeting today, Tyler.
Speaker 4 (04:24):
Yeah, the stakes are incredibly high, Joe, as the White
House really does try to ramp up the pressure on
these Republicans with President Trump picking up the phone and
calling them directly. Now you alluded to this before. Perhaps
the most vocal group that's emerging as this group that
are pitching themselves as fiscal hawks, and that includes Ron Johnson.
And I actually had the chance to catch up with
the Senator from Wisconsin earlier today. He's pushing for those
(04:45):
deeper spending cuts. He says he's in close touch with
the White House and he realizes that it might take
some time to get the sort of spending cuts that
he's really looking for.
Speaker 5 (04:54):
If I'm wrong, challenge me. I want to get in
that dialogue, Kudas, and that is really my discussion for Trump.
And so he had Kevin Hasson comment right away, I'll
be meeting with Secretary. So he wants to engage, yet
he wants to reduce spending. It's just hard to do.
I'm not denying that fact. Was the slender majority in
the House and Democrats having no interest what soever at
(05:16):
reducing spending. That's our problem now.
Speaker 4 (05:18):
Of course, the other side of this, Joe and Kelly,
is that the White House is dealing with conflicting demands.
So you have some senators here that are calling for
deeper spending cuts, raising some concerns about how some of
the tax sweeteners, whether or not they would really contribute
or incentivize growth over the long term. But then you
have a group of Republicans that are concerned about what
spending cuts ultimately will mean for Medicaid. Now, we should
(05:39):
say that there's pretty broad agreement about those core pillars
of this plan, including extending the twenty seventeen tax cuts.
But at the end of the day, there are really
slim margins here in the Senate. They can only afford
to lose three votes.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Indeed, all right, Bloomberg's Tyler Kendall live on Capitol Hill
for us. Thank you so much, and it's on Capitol
Hill that we stay here on Balance of Power Bloomberg
TV and Radio. As we turn to Republican Senator Bill
Haggerty of Tennessee, who is back with us on the program. Senator,
we appreciate your time. As we just heard our colleague Tyler,
they're outlining that various portions of your body have demands
(06:15):
as to what it will take to get them to
a yes vote on this legislation. What's yours? What change
do you need to see for you to vote for
this package?
Speaker 6 (06:24):
I think the most critical thing to keep in mind, Kayley,
is the fact that if we don't get this done,
Americans looking at a north of four trillion dollar tax increase.
I was talking with Kevin Hasset at the White House yesterday.
His projections are that that would yield a six percent
decrease in our nation's GDP. That would be terrible for America. Frankly,
be terrible for the world economy. We can't let that happen.
(06:45):
The main interest I have is making certain that we
stimulate more capital investment in America, because more capital investment
will be get more jobs, more jobs, more economic activity.
This will have a very positive impact on the economy,
and frankly, it's something that the Congressional Budget Office completely
misses in their analysis. They missed it at an incredible
level back after the twenty seventeen tax cuts and jobs
after passed. In fact, they missed it by north of
(07:06):
a trillion dollars worth of revenues. So I think that
my colleagues need to certainly take into account the fact
that this is a pro growth bill. This tax package
is going to stimulate more economic activity here in America.
We will see growth that's not captured in the CBO estimates,
but will have a material impact on our economy, on
our well being, and frankly, in terms of going the
right direction to reducing the deficit.
Speaker 3 (07:28):
Will Senator, We've got a lot of questions about what's inside,
and it's great to have you back on Bloomberg. You
mentioned the CBO, so I do have to ask you
about that. Two big headlines today coming out of the
Congressional Budget Office. First, the Republican tax bill that cleared
the House they say would add two point four trillion
dollars to US deficits. But that same Congressional Budget Office,
which I know Republicans criticize a lot, is not projecting
(07:50):
the Trump tariffs will cut the budget gap by two
point eight trillion. Do you buy that number?
Speaker 6 (07:56):
And if so, is this bill paid for well? In
the first case, what they do is static analysis. They
don't take into account the dynamic of investment in the
economy that we yield grow, so I think that's patently wrong.
And the second with regard to tariff revenue, it's possible,
but we're not nearly to the end of our trade negotiations,
Jamison Greer. Our trade rep working is hard out to
(08:17):
try to bring together a significant sea change in the
way America is treated on the global stage. I think
we're going to make great progress, but it's very hard
for me to say right now, and I don't know
how the CBO is able to say this. Where we're
going to land on tariff revenues as well?
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Well, Yeah, it is worth pointing out the CBO was
only scoring tariff revenues through where tariff stood as of
May thirteenth, and we already know changes have been made
since then. There's still some legal questions around whether or
not AIPA is going to stand, Senator, so we have
to bear that in mind. We've heard from the Senate
Majority Leader John fun that there's going to have to
be some adjustments made to the salt cap, something that
(08:53):
House Republicans from those salt districts say would essentially mean
that the deal dies when it returns back to the
How else, knowing that the debt ceiling lift is also
attached to this legislation. Do you see risk around making
changes like that? Could that bring the US closer to
the brink of default?
Speaker 6 (09:11):
Well, I think there's always risk in any situation like
this where you have a complex bill. Kayley, We're going
to have a conference meeting right after I'm on with
you now to begin the process of talking through where
the Senate is going to land here, and I do
expect that there'll be improvements. It will be different, they'll
be deeper cuts, and we'll start to see texts coming
out on Friday. What I don't want to do is
try to get ahead of those who are negotiating. As
(09:32):
you know, the Finance Committee is going to the White
House right now to meet with President Trump. This is
a process that's underway. But I can say this at
a very high level, my colleagues in the Senate want
to see more cuts, more definite reduction. But at the
same time, I've been encouraging everyone to move expediously to
make certain that this happens extremely quickly because the United
States economy needs certainty, and with that certainty, we're going
(09:53):
to see more capital investment. The longer this takes again,
the less certain that we've got, and that's going to
have a negative impact on capital investment here in America.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
With that in mind, Senator, I'd love to explore the
idea of permanence with you, because we're hearing about this
a lot more now, the likes of Steve Danes and
others who say, no, we need to make permanent certain
business tax breaks, specifically the full research and development deduction,
bonus depreciation, and interest expensing. Are you on board with
making them permanent?
Speaker 6 (10:21):
Certainly I am. I agree with the premise completely, and
you know, Steve Danes is a business person just like me.
We understand the importance of being able to make long
term plans with respect to capital investments. That's what's driving
Steve's Steve's position, I think he's exactly right, and we
need to extend these as far as we possibly can.
Permanent is the best possible answer we could achieve.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Senator. Of course, well, you and your colleagues are working
on reconciliation. There is also active actively underway an effort
to advance the stable coin legislation, the Genius Act. Last
time you were on with us, we talked about some
of the various amendments that were being put forward, which
you said are being worked through. Have you had direct
conversations or recently with either the Majority Leader or Senator
(11:02):
Roger Marshall about whether or not the Credit Card Competition
Act is going to become a real factor here.
Speaker 6 (11:08):
Yes, those conversations are under way. I certainly respect the
process that we're addressing, but right now this really isn't
about policy, nor is it process. We're just trying to
get floor time right now to get this processed. We
have brought agreement, Kayley, with respect to the content of
the stable coin legislation, my Genius Act, and this is
going to, I think, take us into the twenty first
century in terms of upgrading our payment systems. It's going
(11:30):
to have very desirable effects, taking the US economy into
the digital assets arena, keeping innovation here, lowering risk here
in America, and putting in place guardrails that will protect
consumers because every one of these stable coins will be
backed up dollar for dollar with US treasuries. Very positive
outcome here. We've got very strong support.
Speaker 3 (11:48):
So Okay, what's the timeline, Senator, and what does it
mean for the Clarity Acts coming out of the House Joe.
Speaker 6 (11:55):
The timeline is the key issue right now. The window
is closed on us to get this done because we've
got to turn our attention to reconciliation. As I mentioned,
we're going to a conference meeting, our first broad conference meeting,
to talk about the Reconciliation Bill. We need to get
the Genius Act passed. When need to get it on
the floor. And that's where my discussions have been with
the Leader and with my colleagues, is getting that time
(12:15):
on the floor as soon as possible. I like to
start it today tomorrow, but I like to get that
time on the floor as soon as possible because then
we can turn our attention to dealing with the Reconciliation
Act and getting more confirmations across the floor.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
And when will your attention, Senator turned to market structure
And when the time comes to actually look at a
market structure bill, how can do you expect it will
be to the Clarity Act that was just introduced in
the House last week.
Speaker 6 (12:39):
Well, there's been a great deal of good work that's
been done in the House. A lot of questions have
come up in the process of building the stable coin
legislation that have been more appropriate to market structure. We're
focused on it. We've already begun the process of building
it here in the Senate. Again, as I mentioned, a
lot of it's natural out growth, outgrowth of the stable
coin legislation that we've been pushing forward. So we're going
to turn our attention immediately to that. But I think
(13:00):
the most immediate thing that will happen is the reconciliation
bill coming to the floor of the Senate. In the meantime,
I pledged to President Trump I would get this done
in the first one hundred days if I possibly could.
We've exceeded that by a bit. But President Trump wants
to see this legislation on his desk. JD. Advance was
at the Bitcoin conference in Las Vegas just last week
saying he wants to see a clean bill in front
of him on stable coin legislation in front of President Trump,
(13:22):
and I think we can get there.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
Interesting as you bear down on a reconciliation tax and
spend legislation here, Senator, I know it's going to be
an important day, and you're walking into this meeting after
we're done with our conversation to begin hearing from Republican
members of the House who apparently didn't have enough time
to read the whole bill. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green says
she's a no, having not read a section banning states
(13:45):
from passing their own AI regulations. Mike Flood, Republican from Nebraska,
doesn't like this idea making it harder for judges to
hold officials in contempt of court. They both didn't see
it in the first pass. Have you had a chance
to read that bill?
Speaker 6 (13:58):
Having gone through the entire of the bill, we're in
the process of reviewing all the texts that just came
over in the past couple of days. But again, we're
moving on it. The Finance Committee is at the White
House negotiating it right now. The text is in process,
and it's an item that's in motion. I understand that
there may be items here that not everyone is happy with,
but at the end of the day, we're going to
have to compromise and get it done. I'll come back
to the original point. The American economy needs this certainty,
(14:20):
and I'm going to be working my heart out to
make certain that we deliver the best possible product we
can here. But I'll remind you as well, this isn't
the last bite at the Apple. We'll have the opportunity
to have another reconciliation process coming up fairly soon. So
we're going to find a number of other opportunities to
improve the situation here in the American economy. It achieves
some of the other objectives our legislators and we can
if we don't solve it all here, we'll have another
(14:41):
opportunity to do that.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
Well.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
Senator, you will have an opportunity as soon as tonight
to vote for the confirmation of Mickey Bowman to be
the Fed's new Vice CHAIRFF Supervision after the cloture vote
passed earlier today. This comes just a day after the
FED officially lifted the asset cap on Wells Fargo starting today.
Is this a new a era of banking regulation in
the United States?
Speaker 6 (15:03):
I certainly think so. Michael Barr took us in exactly
the wrong direction, and I'm very glad to see someone
with the sensibilities of Mickey coming into this position. She's
going to do a great job. What we need to
do is return to the overarching mission of making certain
that her capital markets are as competitive and safe as
they possibly can be. Get out of the business. These
extraneous policy issues, whether it regards climate or other sorts
(15:26):
of issues that essentially make the US economy less competitive,
and the goal plating that Michael Barr attempted to do
making US a subject even more regulations than the Europeans
only Hamper's American Capital Formation. Mickey has a very different
point of view, and I'm very excited to see her
come into this role.
Speaker 3 (15:42):
Well, it is interesting seeing this asset cap lifted on
Wells Fargo today, Senator, your colleague Elizabeth Warren, who's going
to be with us a bit later this hour, is
asking for five years of exam reports from the Bank
as a member of the Banking Committee, having suggested that
they've not gone a year without breaking the law. Statement says,
(16:03):
it's stunning the Fed could not wait till the company
went a full year without breaking the law before wiping
its slate clean. Should she get those documents, should the
committee see them.
Speaker 6 (16:12):
I'm all for transparency, Joe, and I'm all for having
committee members have access to the information that they need.
But I'm not about to respond to something that Elizabeth
Warren has said, just based on what she probably doesn't have.
You know, she didn't have access to the documents at
this point. So I don't understand her leveling these accusations,
but she's wont to do that.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
Well, I wonder, Senator, if you'd like to respond to
something President Trump has just said, as he shared with
us on True Social that he spent an hour and
fifteen minutes on the phone today with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
He suggested that phone call will not lead to an
immediate peace with Ukraine, but went on to say that
Putin believes or suggested he could participate in discussions with Iran.
(16:52):
And of course, the US approach to Iran is something
I know you feel quite passionate, passionately about. Is it
appropriate for Russia to be stepping in here?
Speaker 6 (17:01):
Well, I think you understand well the fact that the
previous administration removed all of the maximum pressure campaign that
we had imposed on Iran. We had Iran to a
point where they were ready to deal. Their reserves were
below ten billion dollars. As soon as the Biden administration
came in, they stopped enforcing the sanctions. They put Iran
in a position to fund terror. We saw what happened
with Hamas, we saw what happened with Husbalah, We saw
what happened with the houtis we're bringing that situation back
(17:23):
under control. We're putting back in place at maximum sanctions,
and we also have the opportunity to get the world
behind us, and I think the world should be behind
us to ensure that Iran does not have the capability
to threaten the rest of the world as they seem
to want to do. President Trump has every right to
seek out other world leaders, to find allies wherever you may,
but at the end of the day, it's going to
be up to us to take the leadership position to
(17:44):
deal with Iran and to make certain that they don't
have the capability or the capacity to threaten the rest
of the world as they have in the past. And
understand this, they're behind all of the terror and all
the disruption in the Middle East. It's got to come
to an end.
Speaker 3 (17:57):
A deep dive with Republican Senator Bill Haggarty of Tennessee. Senator,
it's good to see you, and we appreciate all of
your time today on Bloomberg TV and Radio. We're going
to continue our conversation as we crossed the aisle, coming
up to speak with Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts
about these very same issues.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcasts. Catch
us live weekdays at noon and five pm. E's durn
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 (18:35):
Starting the move, we're seeing in Wells Fargo shares today
up just about three quarters of one percent on the
day after the FED lifted the asset cap that has
hampered the bank's growth for years now. But I would
note Joe that Wells Fargo shares are also up about
twenty percent since election day, so there was a lot
of anticipation that this asset cap would indeed get lifted
under this Trump administration.
Speaker 3 (18:56):
There definitely popping quarks at Wells Fargo. Elizabeth Warren, on
the other hand, is not as we told you. Will
be joined here by the Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, having
issued a blistering statement following this FED decision, Kaylee, saying
the entire Federal Reserve Board, including appointees of both parties,
should be embarrassed. She's with us now. The Democrat from
(19:18):
Massachusetts live from Capitol Hill. Senator, it's great to see
you back on Bloomberg TV and radio. You are demanding
five years of exam reports from Wells Fargo, and I
wonder what leverage you have here how far you would
go to get them. Would you threaten to hold up
the nomination, for instance, of Michelle Bowman as the Fed's
Vice Chair of Supervision to get them.
Speaker 7 (19:37):
Look, I'm already opposed to having Michelle Bowman as the
vice chair for supervision. This is someone who has never
seen a regulation for a giant bank that she wasn't
willing to cut or undermine. But understand this about Wells Fargo.
I think before you decide to lift this big penalty
that's been in place for Wells Fargo for seven years now,
(20:00):
you should ask for maybe one year in which they
aren't caught breaking the law. Remember that in January of
this year, the SEC tagged Wells Fargo for cheating investors.
In December, the CFPB tagged Wells Fargo for cheating American
(20:20):
consumers bit it with way to the tune of over
eight hundred million dollars, And in September, the OCC tagged
Wells Fargo for money laundry. So we have the three
big banking regulators all saying Wells Fargo's out there still
breaking the law. And then a report just a few
(20:41):
weeks ago by former and current Wells Fargo employees saying
that the very activities that Wells Fargo engaged in seven
years ago, where they created fake accounts for people and
so on, because they were pressing their employees to get
those numbers in to get more people signed up for
(21:04):
more accounts, that that same activity is occurring today. And
those of the circumstances under which the Fed unanimously says, hey,
Wells Fargo, get on out of here. You don't need
any extra regulation. Now, that just doesn't wash.
Speaker 2 (21:22):
Do you see any potential benefit here, Senator though, of
Wells Fargo being able to better compete with other big banks,
for the competitive landscape to change in that way.
Speaker 7 (21:31):
Look, I'm all for competition, but I don't think that
cheaters ought to have a leg up in competing. And
that's really the part to remember here about Wells Fargo.
The reason we want to have good enforcement of all
of the banking laws is that the banks that actually
follow the law, the banks that aren't engaged in money laundering,
(21:52):
or the banks that are not cheating their investors, that
those banks ought to be able to play on a
level playing field. And Wells Fargo, we know starting seven
years ago that Wells Fargo was so boosting its profits
and by the way, it's CEO compensation based on cheating
(22:14):
American customers. And in fact, it was so awful what
they did that it wasn't just civil penalties. They were
in violation of criminal laws. So the idea that, boyd,
we want to get them right back out there competing
with the other banks at a time when their own
employees are saying, hey, they're back to doing the stuff
(22:37):
they were doing before. That's not the direction we want
to go.
Speaker 3 (22:43):
Senator Elizabeth Warren live with us on Bloomberg TV and Radio.
I'm going to ask you to walk with me here
for a second, Senator, because I don't know if Donald
Trump is watching us right now, but the President is
posting about you right now, just untruth social Donald Trump writes, quote,
I am very pleased to announce that, after all these years,
I agree with Senator Elizabeth Warren on something. The debt
(23:04):
limit should be entirely scrapped to prevent an economic catastrophe.
He's reposting you here where you suggest as much. This
is less than twenty four hours after Elon Musk said,
shame on Republicans who passed the reconciliation bill in the House.
You're finding yourself within a twenty four hour period, agreeing
(23:24):
with Donald Trump and Elon Musk. What's going on around here?
Speaker 7 (23:27):
Well, look, I think on the debt ceiling, I've been
on this for many, many years. The debt ceiling is
just something that's been used as leverage in negotiations. The
United States should never, never threaten to default on its debt.
We should get rid of this debt ceiling altogether. When
we pass a bill saying that we're going to do
(23:49):
a certain thing, that is our saying, and we're going
to pay for it, that's what the United States government does.
So I think that Donald Trump and I, hey listen,
I'm ready to join up with him and make that happen.
We need to get rid of the debt ceiling altogether,
not extend it. Not say ooh, while this is going
(24:10):
on this budget negotiation, let's just roll out a few
trillion dollars more in the debt ceiling. Nope, that has
gotten us into trouble before it continues to get us
into trouble. Donald Trump is right, let's get rid of
it all together.
Speaker 2 (24:26):
Well, so, Senator, if we are to see if the
Senate and House cannot get this reconciliation bill through in
time for the mid July request the Treasury Secretary has
made to avoid bumping up against the X state, would
you support an initiative like that separately, a legislative effort
to eliminate the debt ceiling before that X state comes.
Speaker 7 (24:47):
Look, we should do it now. There's no reason to delay.
Donald Trump is exactly right on this. It's what I've
been arguing for literally for years, and that is get
rid of the debt ceiling. It's serving no fun except
for holdout parties to try to use in negotiations, and
that makes no sense. That doesn't serve our nation. But
(25:09):
we should do that now. It doesn't need to be
tied to anything, it doesn't need any special date on it.
Ask the Republicans, they're the ones in control of the floor.
Let's bring that to the floor right now. It's a
simple piece of legislation. I'm ready to go on it.
I think it's the right thing for us to do.
Speaker 3 (25:27):
Senator, I want to ask you, from your perch on
the Armed Services Committee about what else we heard from
Donald Trump today. He had an hour and fifteen minute
long call with Vladimir Putin. At the end of the call,
he wrote about it and said that peace is not
imminent in Ukraine. He did say, however, that Putin will
have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields
that Ukraine conducted over the weekend using this wild scheme
(25:49):
with drones that had been smuggled into the country. What
do you make of this assessment and what is Ukraine
in for in the days ahead?
Speaker 6 (25:58):
Right?
Speaker 7 (25:58):
Look, Vladimir Putin has been playing Donald Trump, and pretty
much everybody in the world can see that. Just me
seeing it, not just people in the United States see it.
Leaders around the world see it. And it looks like
Donald Trump is beginning to figure that out and starting
to push back against Putin. We owe it to Ukraine
(26:22):
to do everything we can to support them in their fight.
They are on the front lines fighting for democracy, and
they are in the front lines against an expansionist Russia.
Understand this. If Ukraine falls and Vladimir Putin gets either
a big chunk of it or all of it. He's
(26:42):
not stopping there. He's coming for more and more and more,
because that's who Vladimir Putin is. It is important right
now to help Ukraine push back. They are on the
front lines fighting the war for democracy on behalf of
all of Europe, on behalf of the United States, on
(27:02):
behalf of freedom loving countries everywhere in the world, and
we should give them all the support we can.
Speaker 2 (27:10):
All right, Senator, we appreciate you joining us on Bloomberg
TV and radio. The Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, also ranking
member of the Senate Banking Committee, Elizabeth Warren.
Speaker 1 (27:20):
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 (27:39):
We turn to our political panel today. Genie Shanzano is
with us Bloomberg Politics contributor, Senior Democracy Fellow at the
Center for the Study of the Presidency in Congress, and
Democratic analyst, alongside Republican strategist Chape and Fay, founder of
Lighthouse Public Affairs Chapin as we hear Senator Warren say,
I agree with Trump. Let's do this, get rid of
the debt cealing right now. Is this the potential off
(28:00):
ramp for if the Republicans cannot get through this partisan
reconciliation bill with a debt sealing hike attached in time?
Speaker 8 (28:08):
Well, what wild times we're living in? Right, Cats and
dogs are living together. Elizabeth Woarne and Donald Trump are
almost praising each other publicly in agreement. But yes, answer
your question, I do think this is a way maybe
to greece the skids there grees the wheels, so to speak,
and get a deal done. By the way, this is
how throughout history, our history of American history. This is
(28:29):
how big deals get done, and how major programs like
some of the programs the Big Beautiful Bill are arguing
over right now get done right compromise an agreement among
people on the left and the right. So I think
this is good news. I mean, I have always seen
I think MAGA sees Donald Trump as a deal maker
on behalf of the American people, and they have faith
(28:51):
in him to do that. It will be wild to
see them support Elizabeth war in the same endeavor.
Speaker 3 (28:56):
But we'll see that was a wild moment. We have
found an acknowledge what just happened here the President's posting
about Elizabeth Warren while she's live on the air with
this genie? Is that how this ends with the debt limit?
Speaker 9 (29:09):
Your biggest fan, Joe and Kayley, So I love it
the you.
Speaker 3 (29:13):
Can't help but to watch he who can help?
Speaker 9 (29:16):
But watch you guys. The reality is is that I
love his post too, which is strange because it seems
to me he's calling for some bipartisan movement forward. He
ends the post by saying, let's get together Republicans and
Democrats and do this. I'm not sure if that is
just limited to the debt ceiling, which absolutely needs to
be scrapped, but it should also pertain to this issue
(29:40):
of the Reconciliation bill overall. So I don't know if
it's a bad sign for the President that the Republicans
aren't moving on the bills so he's reaching across the aisle,
or a good sign that he's just found religion that
he needs to work across the aisle. But I'm in
favor of you two bringing the parties together like this.
Speaker 8 (29:57):
I love this.
Speaker 6 (30:00):
Done.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
Balance of power. That's what we aim to do here
cheap and finally, we just have a minute left. But
President Trump and Republicans overall have had a lot of
words about the CBO in recent days that they've shared,
specifically poo pooing essentially their estimates on the tax bill.
But now the CBO says tariffs could reduce the deficit
by two point eight trillion dollars over the next ten years.
(30:21):
Is that argument now nullified?
Speaker 8 (30:24):
I don't think so. I mean this is sort of
some of the sausage being made that always spills out
into the public. And if the CBO says something you like,
you support it, you use it as a proof point.
And when the CBO goes the other way, you can
do what the Republicans are doing recently. But it is
helpful to have the CBO give some numbers that can
help an argument and push things forward.
Speaker 3 (30:43):
For sure, GINI, what's your thought on this when it
comes to the CBO. I think I know your answer,
But I think Republicans are suggesting that the broken clock
is right once a day when it comes to CBO's
take on tariffs. But CBO is broke when it comes
to scoring the tax cut bill because it doesn't use
(31:04):
dynamic scoring. Am I warm on this?
Speaker 9 (31:07):
You are hot, Joe, Let's say you're hot. The reality
is is that the CBO. I think is a good
day for the CBO because they give it and they
take it away. You know, as you guys have been
talking about on the tariffs, they are you know, supporting
what the President is doing. I mean not partisan wise,
but in terms of the impact on the deficit. And
yet when it comes to the issue of the reconciliation bill,
(31:30):
they are underscoring the fact that this is going to
increase the deficit an awful lot. So I think it's
a good day for the CBO because it shows that
they are indeed bipartisan or nonpartisan is probably a better term.
But the reality is is that the President and the
Republicans are going to have to really get their head
around what Elon Musk, what so many people have been
(31:52):
talking about. You simply have a math issue when it
comes to the reconciliation bill. You cannot add two point
five trillion plus two the deficit and call yourself economically
or fiscally responsible. I know russ Vote and others are
out there saying about this static scoring and all of this.
The reality is the CBO is running the numbers right,
(32:14):
Elon Musk and others know how to run the numbers.
This doesn't add up. So you either have to cut
spending or you have to increase taxes. It's pretty basic.
Speaker 3 (32:24):
You just heard that from Bill Haggerty. Broken clock is
right twice at that.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
I do want to follow up on your point on
Elon Musk, though, Genie, to what extent is he actually
credible in his contentions that the budget deficit is a
problem in Congress is making the wrong choices here, knowing
that a his companies benefit from massive government contracts and
b is the Speaker of the House was quick to
point out he also wanted those EV credits that this
bill rolls back to stick around. So maybe there's a
(32:50):
bit of a personal issue here.
Speaker 9 (32:54):
Yeah, I mean, certainly as it pertains to the NASA administrator.
As you mentioned to the ed Many to Starlink, he
apparently wanted to re maintain his special status as a
special government employee. All of that is true, but the
reality is Elon Musk knows how to do this math,
and anybody who looks at this objectively, there is no
(33:15):
way that you can make the claim that it doesn't
add an enormous amount to the deficit. And we will
be strapping our children and grandchildren with a government and
a really a country that is economically and fiscally in
a horrible position, not just as a result of the
Republicans Democrats as well. We all own this and we
(33:36):
have to get out of it. So he's right on
the math here, regardless of his reasons for being frustrated.
Speaker 3 (33:43):
How are you looking at this Elon Musk thing? Chapin
obviously a maga darling until I don't know, a few
hours ago this post hit. He hasn't always seen eye
to eye with the president. But are you looking at
this as a disgruntled government contractor or a guy who
saw too much when he was Washington?
Speaker 8 (34:02):
No, I think Elon Musk is an honest broker here,
and he's giving his input right and and it's important input.
While I don't know the level of influence he'll he'll
retain after leaving, you know, the President's side, after seeing
him at the President's side almost on a daily basis.
But there's no question that he has input. And and
like Genie and you all said, he knows the math,
he knows the numbers, and he's he's trying to shape
(34:24):
the legislation just like the president and and every other
special interest I mean would pull up special interests in
the negative way. But that's what happens right now when
when you're in this precarious situation, uh, while the you know,
while they're reconciling the two bills and trying to get
this passed without you know, destroying the economy and the budget.
And and Elon Musk has always been an honest broker
in my mind, on the on the on the numbers,
(34:46):
on the map. So that's what he's doing. I don't
see him as a disgruntled employee. I think he's doing
his part to continue doing you know, his part.
Speaker 2 (34:56):
Chapin, you and frankly Genie are both joining us from
New York. So I want to ask you about the
contention the Majority leader has made that there's going to
have to be made adjustments made to the salt cap
deal that was struck in the House, lifting it from
ten thousand to forty thousand dollars cheap and if that
adjustment is material, do you see any way in which
those Salt Caucus Republicans are going to be able to
(35:17):
vote for this package when it returns to the other chamber.
Speaker 8 (35:21):
You know, it's going to be interesting to see they
have sort of boxed themselves into a corner, so, you know,
fighting for this some of them and some of them
sort of are going to go along. So it's be
interesting to see what the final outcome is. But this
is a huge deal in New York and in their
districts in some of these Republican members districts in particular
in the suburbs, like Congressman Lawler right, sort of the
(35:43):
northern suburbs of New York City, and this is a
critical issue to them and their re election in some cases.
So I think you're going to see some of them
fighting for it really hard, and I think some of
them are going to, you know, go along quietly and
hope for the best.
Speaker 3 (35:57):
Great conversation with our panel, That's Cheap and things. A
Republican strategist Lighthouse Public Affairs and Genie Shanzo, Bloomberg Politics contributor.
Great to see both of you. Thanks for listening to
The Balance of Power Podcast. 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
(36:19):
from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern 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!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.