June 3, 2025 • 36 mins
Watch Joe and Kailey LIVE every day on YouTube: http://bit.ly/3vTiACF.
President Donald Trump worked the phones Monday and took to social media to try to sway Republican holdouts on his multi-trillion dollar tax bill, encountering conflicting demands from GOP senators even as he urged them to move swiftly.
The legislation, which last month passed the House by one vote, faces opposition from both moderates and ultra-conservatives in the Senate, where Trump can afford to lose no more than three votes.
“With the Senate coming back to Washington today, I call on all of my Republican friends in the Senate and House to work as fast as they can to get this Bill to MY DESK before the Fourth of JULY,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
The president gave lawmakers at odds with one another the feeling that he was on their side.
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.
- Bipartisan Policy Center Senior Vice President Bill Hoagland.
- ROKK Solutions Partner Kristen Hawn and Bluestack Strategies Founder Maura Gillespie.
- American Property Owners Alliance Executive Director Colin Allen.
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. 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
(00:20):
you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
You're in Washington, we have our eyes on Capitol Hills,
specifically on the Senate, after we spent weeks watching the
House of Representatives and the wrangling that it took to
get the House Republican Conference in line to pass President
Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill as it is actually this
legislation is actually now called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Remember,
it took a lot of wrestling arm wrestling from the
(00:45):
Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, but also from President
Trump himself in some ways. Arguably, Joe, it's President Trump
that's acting as the majority whip. I don't know where
Tom Emmer is and in any of this, but the
question is going to be can President Trump play that
role as well? In the United States Senate, where the
dynamics are a little bit different, though certainly we see
evidence today of the president.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
Try dynamics are really different. As John Thunne would tell you,
beginning with salts, you don't have senators Republican senators in
salt states, which is the beginning of just a long
list of different ideas that are going to be coming
out of the Upper Chamber. Whether they make them into
legislation has yet to be seen. Tyler Kendall is standing
by at the White House for US right now. Bloomberg
(01:28):
Washington corresponded with HERRAI and the administration's take on this,
because Tyler, that does seem to be the energy center
is on President Trump's end of Pennsylvania Avenue right now.
Speaker 4 (01:38):
Right, Yeah, Hey, Joe, President Trump really trying to ramp
up the pressure on these Senate Republicans, making phone calls,
posting on truth social as you've been mentioning. Because we
have to keep in mind here the White House is
dealing with some pretty conflicting demands when it comes to
these Republicans that want to make changes to the House Bill.
On one hand, you have these this group of senators
(01:58):
pitching themselves as fiscal hawks. Ran Paul. You mentioned also
Senator Ron Johnson, who had a phone call with President
Trump yesterday. I says he has plans to meet with
the White House's economic team, and he wants to see
some deeper spending cuts. But of course, on the other hand,
here we have those concerns from Republicans about what changes
to benefit programs could ultimately mean, particularly when it comes
(02:21):
to Medicaid, perhaps speeding up those work requirements. Also, the
House's plan to freeze the Medicaid provider tax have some
of the states take on more of that to cost sharing.
These are all raising concerns and really is a politically
fraught issue for this White House. President Trump doubling down
in recent posts on truth Social saying that the bill
will not cut Medicaid. But there are analysis out there,
(02:41):
including one that we cite here at Bloomberg News that
predicts seven point seven million people by twenty thirty four
could ultimately lose coverage because of a shifting in the
eligibility requirement. So they really are going to have to
thread the needle here to make everybody happy and ultimately
to pass this bill. I could keep going. Of course,
it's the big, beautiful bill. So there's a lot of
other provisions where we're seeing disagreements. But Joe and Cayley,
(03:02):
we have to keep in mind, they can only lose
three Republicans at the end of the day, and we
know there are many more than that that are raising concerns.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Yeah, Ran Paul says he thinks there are at least
four who could be ready to stop this thing in
its tracks, knowing that the White House is up against
a kind of self imposed deadline, if you will, that
Senator Thune Tyler seems to be going along with they
want this done by July fourth. When would that mean
it actually leaves the Senate if it still has to
go back to the House, if it's to get to
the President's desk by Independence Day.
Speaker 4 (03:33):
Right, exactly, Kelly, It's definitely an expedited timeline. Center Tom
till Us, a Republican from North Carolina, did tell reporters
yesterday that the Senate's current plan their goal is to
get some of those medicaid and tax changes over to
the White House to review by this weekend and then
to push more of a fuller draft of the package
in the next ten to fifteen days. This would be
(03:55):
incredibly expedited. Now. Of course, they want to see this
done by July fourth, because that ultimately gives lawmakers a
little bit of buffer room here against what really is
going to be that hard deadline, which of course is
the X State. We even had Treasury Secretary Scott Besstt
really say that that is going to be what adds
fuel to the fire for these lawmakers because it is
one big, beautiful bill. So they are of course also
(04:15):
attaching a hike to the debt ceiling. And we were
talking about Senator ran Paul before. His biggest point of
opposition is that this bill ends up lifting that ceiling.
But when you look at the details of this the
House plan lifts it by four trillion dollars Joe and Cayley,
but the Senate has said there's enough runway to lift
it up to buy five trillion dollars. So there's still
disagreement even among that issue too.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
All right, Bloomberg's Tyler Kendall live on the North lawn
of the White House, Thank you so much. As we
can center the consider the positions of various senators here.
Senator Cynthia Lummis, the Republican from Wyoming, was on Bloomberg
TV and radio in the last hour saying that there
are changes she needs to see on medicaid, specifically if
she's to vote yes for this bill. And we had
(04:58):
a similar conversation with one of for a colleague, Senator
Kevin Kramer of North Dakota, joined us on the late
edition of Balance of Power yesterday and we asked him
if he'd be prepared to vote yes as it stands
right now.
Speaker 5 (05:09):
This is what he told us.
Speaker 6 (05:10):
I want this to pass, but there's no reason that
the Senate should just simply rubber stamp it when we
can do so much better. I think it was interesting
listening to the leader from the House say I don't
think there's any way to find more savings, and I
think that's really the thing we have to do. We
will not be able to pass the bill without finding
some more spending cuts. I do think though by and
(05:32):
large it will look similar to the House bill, but
we just may be able to find some other places
for savings.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
So for more on where exactly they might be able
to find savings, just how big these changes to the
numbers might be, we turned to Bill Hoagland, senior vice
president at the Bipartisan Policy Center and former Republican staff
director for the Senate Budget Committee, who was here with
us in our Washington d C. Studio Bill, Welcome back
to Bloomberg TV and Radio. Always good to have you.
When you look at what you're hearing from the very
(06:00):
factions in the Senate, those who want steeper cuts, those
who think the cuts maybe go too far. Who would
you anticipate wins out here? Or do they actually cancel
each other out? And we're not going to see many
changes at all.
Speaker 7 (06:11):
No, I think there'll be changes in the bill, and
I think it is likely that they will come together.
There's a lot of pressure being put on, particularly as
it relates to if they do not put something together here,
the tax increases that will take place will hit sixty
eight percent of all those out there who file taxes
one way or the other. How much that is, But
certainly there will be pressure. Changes will take place, They'll
(06:34):
have to take place. There's no question in my mind
that are a number of provisions in this bill that
the House set over that are what we call birdable
in the sense that they do not belong in this bill.
They have no budgetary consequence, and so it will change now.
The question I would ask, though, is to get it
done and on the presence desks by July. The fourth
(06:56):
is rather expedited process. But what that tells me is
that the Senate is nego will have to negotiate what
they passed.
Speaker 8 (07:04):
The House will have to just simply take up and pass.
Speaker 7 (07:07):
And that's where the difficulty is going to lie in
terms of can they put a bill together in the
Senate that the Senate that the House can simply take
and pass.
Speaker 3 (07:15):
Should we assume that the current policy baseline accounting method
is okay with the parliamentarian? Will that be the.
Speaker 8 (07:23):
Case of the Senate? Well, Joe, that's a very good question.
Speaker 7 (07:27):
It's a question that I've been asking myself for quite
some time.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
Mike Johnson seems to be making this assumption.
Speaker 8 (07:33):
I think that.
Speaker 7 (07:36):
Being an old budgeteer, I don't think that it passes
the test that is necessary to get around a bird rule.
There is a problem here with the current policy baseline,
and I don't want to get into the weeds here,
but it does impact upon what we call the bird rule,
which is adding to the deficit beyond the ten year window,
in which case that it would be a it would
(07:57):
violate the process and his store. I've been out of
the twenty three twenty four reconciliation bills that have been
enacted over the fifty year history of the Budget Act.
I participated in about twenty of them, I guess, and
we've always used current law, not current policy.
Speaker 8 (08:14):
But at the same time, I will tell you what
I'm picking up.
Speaker 7 (08:17):
As an old budgeteer who thinks deficits and debt matter,
I'm picking up it doesn't really matter right now. They
aren't concerned about the debt and deficit and that's disconcerting
to me, if nothing else.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
Well, we've also heard from the Majority Leader. Senator Thune
contends that actually it's up to Senator Lindsay Graham, who
leads the Budget Committee, to decide whether current policy baseline
is justified or not. Do you see John Thune as
being willing to defy the parliamentarian on that or any issue?
Speaker 8 (08:43):
No, I don't. I think the par I think.
Speaker 7 (08:47):
The Majority Leader has I understood, made it very clear
he's not going to question the parliamentarian, and therefore I
don't think he would go beyond the parliamentarian's advice. Now, again,
the Parliamentarian gives the vice to the chair. The Chair rules,
not the parliamentarian, and so it's possible the Chair could
say current policy is fine and we'll go forward with it.
(09:09):
It's a real it's an unanswerable question, Joe. I'm sorry
at this point to give you that astract.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
Well, this is you know, we're getting to the rub here. Yes,
the old lion that the Senate is the saucer that
cools the sea. Is it going to be the opposite
this time?
Speaker 7 (09:23):
I think the Senate is going to certainly modify the
house the hot tea of.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
The House and turn up the heat under the tea.
Speaker 7 (09:32):
But honestly, this is going to be a very dicey
exercise obviously for the majority leader in the Senate, because
he has to also make sure that whatever he passes
can get passed back into the House and not fail
in the House too. So getting the two sides, the
ones who want more deficit reduction of those who don't
(09:54):
want to make the particular reductions that are necessarily this
this is going to be a very very difficult exercise
for the new majority leader.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
When we consider the Medicaid issue, specifically, President Trump is
contending that there are false statements being made that these
are not Medicaid cuts that are happening. We've been told
the same by many Republicans on this program, including a
Congressman Ashley Hinson last night who told us that this
is just fear mongering on the Democrats. This isn't about cuts,
it's about making sure the program can last long term.
(10:22):
How realistically should we be framing these Medicaid alterations cuts,
whatever you want.
Speaker 4 (10:27):
To call them.
Speaker 7 (10:27):
I think it's half. I think there's truth in both
arguments that are being put forth. Number One, work requirements.
Are the work requirements a cut? Know that they are
requiring individuals to participate in the Medicaid program and if
they choose not to because of the work requirement, is
that a cut?
Speaker 8 (10:45):
I don't know.
Speaker 7 (10:46):
At the same time, the provider tax that's in there
does impact directly, I think nursing homes, rural hospitals, that
could feedback to being real cuts on individuals. So when
the CBO makes it instrument, and your reporter indicated also
about six point seven million, seven million people that would
be removed from the Medicaid rules because of this, I
(11:08):
think I think it's hard to say there aren't going
to be reductions here. And particularly the one area that
should be focused on I think, as coming from a
rural area myself, is the rural hospitals they are there
could very well be hit by the provider. Take one
other thing I want to make a point I would
make is that we should also look at the SNAP program,
(11:31):
the food stamp program, and the changes that are being
proposed there, which are work requirements also, but also the
requirement that the states pick up a particular share. Right now,
the benefits the SNAP benefits self is one hundred percent federal.
If you're asking the states to pick that up for
the SNAP benefits, and then you're asking the states to
(11:51):
pick up the administrative costs associated with the work requirement,
there are going to be some major shifts in administrative
costs to the states. And those are a lot are
red states. And so when those red state governors start
calling their senator, I think it will make some changes
that you're.
Speaker 3 (12:06):
Only putting your finger on. So Jim Justice knows this,
which is why he's been talking about it. Republican senators
with big rural communities in their states are deeply concerned
about that provider tax. They see nursing homes closing, rural
hospitals closing. Does that mean Republicans crank back the changes
to Medicaid?
Speaker 7 (12:24):
I think they I think there will be some changes
in the Medicare Medicaid program, particularly coming out of it.
You know, you've reported so many times here we got
Susan Collins who has concerns. Yet, Murkowski has concerns. Josh
Holly of all people, Conservatives senator has concerns about that
these are big issues in rural areas of the country,
(12:44):
in rural hospitals. Yes, I think there will be changes.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
Well, as we wait to see what those changes are
in the Senate. The House is also going to be
taking up some work this week, as the White House
is now formally sharing a precision package with the House, PBS, NPR,
USAID funding. I think it amounts to about nine billion.
Speaker 8 (13:02):
Dollars, billion bill.
Speaker 2 (13:03):
I think they're going to make a big deal out
of this. But is this a big dealer? Is it
a drop in a bucket?
Speaker 7 (13:09):
Well, nine billion dollars is nothing to snuff, and I
would say that yes, it is a big deal.
Speaker 8 (13:15):
The question here is, I'm not clear.
Speaker 7 (13:17):
I haven't seen the proposal yet whether it's the nine
billion is made up basically the USAID funds and then
the public radio and public communication. And my sense here
is if they put those two together as one package.
It probably does pass the House. I'm not sure it
passes the Senate. Again, we're back to the rural areas
(13:41):
that depend some of the corporate broad testing systems that
are out there. Not to take anything away from Bloomberg
at all, of course, but definitely so, yes, that's it.
One thing you should know is that that this is
probably just the start of recision. This is something under
the Impoundment Control Act. The President has every right to
(14:01):
propose to Congress the elimination of funding that has been
made available. My sense is there's going to be a
lot more coming later in the year.
Speaker 3 (14:10):
Will that be coming with help from the DOGE or
is that a.
Speaker 8 (14:13):
Separate Well, it's separate from DOGE.
Speaker 7 (14:15):
But the DOJA proposals that not now take actual form
in the form of a recision that was submitted to
would be submitted to Congress. I want to get into
the weeds too far here, but you have forty five
Congress has forty five days to act on a recision
package once it's submitted.
Speaker 8 (14:32):
Either approve it or you don't approve it. And what
if you wait until.
Speaker 7 (14:37):
Say the middle of the August recess and you propose
those it is possible that those recisions would go in
effect without any action by Congress.
Speaker 8 (14:47):
This is what we call.
Speaker 7 (14:48):
Line item recision VETO, and so be aware that there's
some more coming.
Speaker 3 (14:56):
And that can happen during a recess as only.
Speaker 7 (14:59):
It's well, it's not. They're not on official recess. There's
continuous station. They will not go on recess during the
August perform it largely so that they can avoid recess appointments.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
Right, wow, we remember what we were having a conversation
about recess appointments every day.
Speaker 3 (15:17):
Yes, we were on the cabinet nomage. Just wait, we'll
come back around. We'll call Bill Hoaglan. It's great to
have you with us. Thank you, Bill as always a
veteran of the Senate now with a bipartisan policy center
and giving us a real sense, Kelley, of what we
can look for with changes that are coming out of
this bill. You wonder if Donald Trump told John Thune
to keep it the way it is.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
Yeah, well, certainly the Speaker of the House hasn't been
shy about doing that, saying, mister Majority leader, you need
to change this as little as possible if you want
me to be able to pass it. A second time.
We'll see how much louder the voice of the president.
Speaker 3 (15:46):
Gets on this. Yeah, may not be very practical for
John Thune. In the meantime, stay with us. We're going
to assemble our political panel next Moragillespie, Kristen Hahn, no
strangers to this debate. We'll be up with us here
on Balance of Power alongside Kally Lines. I'm Joe Matthew.
Thanks for being with us on Bluebird TV and radio.
Speaker 1 (16:05):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcasts. Catch
us live weekdays at noon and five pm. E's durn
on Apple Cockley 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 played Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
I'm Kateie Lines alongside Joe Matthew, live in Washington, where
we are focused on the United States Senate as we
will be probably all week for the weeks to come,
basically leading up until when they leave for the July
fourth recess, which is actually the last week of June
is the last week they're scheduled to be in session,
and the Senate Majority leader John Thune has suggested he
(16:44):
would like to see a bill pass through the Senate,
set sent back to the House, and pass through the
House on the President's desk by the fourth of July.
So the time is short and there's a lot of
people that still need to be made happy here, including
Republican Senator Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, who is not yet
a yes. She said on this bill, there's still something
she would like to see change, including when it comes
(17:04):
to Medicaid. She said this on Bloomberg TV and Radio earlier.
Speaker 9 (17:08):
I would like to see some reforms to Medicaid. This
is not in an effort to remove benefits from those
who were intended to have it, but rather to stop
the states from using a mechanism to enrich their federal
(17:32):
participation dollars. And forty nine states are doing it. It
would require the reform of the state's loophole for me
to support the Medicaid reforms.
Speaker 3 (17:48):
She's talking about changes to the provider tax, which, as
we were just discussing with Bill Hogland, is a problem
for a lot of Republican Senators who represent rural states.
The fear that it could lead to the closures of
rural hospitals or nursing homes. It's where we start our
conversation with our political panel. Republican strategist Mara Gillespie is
(18:08):
where us. The founder of Blue Stack Strategy is Kristen Hahn,
Democratic strategist and partner at Rock Solutions. Great to see
both of you, hear, Mora, what's your sense of this.
If Republican senators start to tinker with this deal on Medicaid?
You work for a former speaker, a former Republican Speaker
of the House, is it DOA when it comes back
(18:29):
to the lower chamber? What happens now?
Speaker 5 (18:32):
The pressure does begin to mount though on making sure
it can still get done again. I think that the
biggest issue here is the role that the President will
play in pressuring these members, especially in the House I
to accept what the Senate has done with the bill
and get it done before realistically the August recess. I
think that's the more likely scenario. But Senator John Thune
(18:53):
is going to let this kind of work its will
through the Senate, and you're seeing that play out and
talking about the benefits and some of the issues there
with rural states. You know, Missouri is one that I
know they have deep concerns about that provision that Senator
Lumbus talked about. So you're going to have a couple
of these senators that are going to raise their you know,
right a flag as saying this isn't a non negotiable.
(19:14):
They have a little bit more you know, staying power
as far as some of them aren't out for reelection
this cycle and they're not up in the midterms, whereas
the House is going to have to play ball more
so when it comes to Donald Trump's pressure.
Speaker 2 (19:27):
So is that another way of saying, Laura that or
more that the Senate actually does have a great deal
more leverage here. Might not be as easily moved by
either the leader John Thune or by President Trump himself.
Speaker 5 (19:41):
They do just because of the fact that the House
is up for reelection in twenty twenty six, and several
of the senators that are speaking out some are up
for reelection in twenty six. But again, they represent a
larger swath of the American public, and so they're objectives here.
They do have more legs to stay in on as
far as being able to push back on these provisions
of the House puss through.
Speaker 3 (20:02):
What's your sense of this, Kristen Han as a Democrat
watching a Republican only exercise, do you expect that the
House signs off on whatever comes back?
Speaker 10 (20:13):
I mean, I think that if they want to ultimately
get this done, they're going to have to. You know,
I worked in the House side when we had a
you know, a Democratic Senate, a Democratic House, and President
Obama in the White House, and it was a frustrating
thing for the for the House staff and the members
because we would send something over to the Senate and
(20:33):
that we come back to us and we call it
sticking the House. I mean it's so if the President
wants to get it done, I think he's just going
to have to force the members of the House to
do it. And then a lot of them are going
to be in some really tough spots if they get
this done because of what we were discussing, you know,
heavy cuts to Medicaid and how that will impact a
lot of rural America. And I know that there are
(20:53):
a lot of Senators, sorry, members of the House, we're
very concerned about that coming back.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
Well, well, when we consider those swing districts in twenty
twenty six, in the messaging war that is going to
be fought in them. Kristen, We were told last night
by one Republican lawmaker that Democrats are just fear mongering
on this. President Trump is saying the same. How do
you think voters will actually view this medicaid issue? Is
it just semantics to them?
Speaker 10 (21:20):
I mean, you look at these town halls and a
lot of these Republican or red districts, and people are fearful,
they're scared, and that's not something that the National Democratic
Party has genned up. That's that's what's happening on the ground.
People are, they're upset, and they're voicing their opinions, and
they're going to voice their opinions at the ballot box.
So you know, I was very actually, as a cons person,
(21:44):
very impressed with you know, Republicans in the House who
had been very concerned about this leading up to the
vote for the bill, but once they voted for it,
they were all speaking off of the same playbook, saying
that Democrats are fear mongering and this isn't actually you know,
you know, we're just you know, people who are not
citizens United States shouldn't have medicaid. I mean, they're they're
(22:04):
doing a good job of talking about it up in
DC and Washington on television, but at home people are
concerned and that's what they should be concerned about. In
twenty twenty six, for sure, what.
Speaker 3 (22:16):
Is it mora that gets President Trump out of the
White House back up on Capitol Hill. You know there's
going to be a tough meeting at some point where
everybody goes behind closed doors so they can be cajoled
or even shamed by the President. We're starting with phone calls,
but when does the personal visit happen? Does that push
this across the line?
Speaker 5 (22:35):
It will likely when it goes back to the House.
I think you're going to see some of these cuts,
you know, in terms of snap You know, Chuck Grassley
has been pretty adamant about that one that he doesn't
like the House version of it, and so seven members
of the Senate don't like that either, And the discrepancy
there between with the Senate once versus with the House ones,
it's pretty pretty massive. So I think when we see
how that plays out, and then again with the medicaid
(22:56):
to the medicaid discussion, you know, the message there is important,
and I think that that Kristen hit on that a
little bit there about what they're saying about fear mongering,
but they're also talking about there needs to be a
accountability when it comes to Medicaid, and the programs themselves
are not sustainable if we don't get a handle on
the fraud, waste, and abuse both in Medicaid and Medicare.
And so being able to talk to your constituents going
(23:18):
home and doing town halls, even though they're challenging, even
though they're very difficult and you do get yelled at,
it's important to hear your constituents, hear them out and
explain to them what it is that you're looking to
do as a member of Congress, and that messaging war. Unfortunately,
if they're not successful, Donald Trump will have to come
in and let them know here's what's happening, and he
all have them, maybe, you know, make some promises about
going to their districts and going in to help them
(23:39):
during their reelection. I think that kind of a conversation
between the conference and the President is going to be
pretty important, especially with some of these holdouts who are
concerned about the impact for their reelection.
Speaker 2 (23:50):
I do want to mention that at this hour, the
White House Press Secretary Caroline love It is holding court
in the briefing room answering questions from reporters. She did
just make a little bit of news confirming that President Trump,
as you can see live on Bloomberg TV as well
as on Bloomberg Originals, will be attending the NATO summit
later this month. That, of course, is being held just
after the G seven meeting, which he is also attending.
(24:12):
I would imagine the war in Ukraine will feature heavily
on that agenda. But she's also speaking to the efforts
on Capitol Hill, as she notes that the White House
will be sending a recisions package today to the House,
but is talking about the Big Beautiful Bill as well.
She says Republicans opposing the Big Beautiful Bill are wrong
and Kristen, she also is pointing out specifically the CBO
(24:33):
being wrong at least in her words, historically on the
economic impacts of such legislation. We have seen a lot
of Republican I are thrown at the CBO specifically, do
they have a point? Should we be taking CBO estimates
at face value?
Speaker 10 (24:50):
Well, I think you know we've said this before on this,
so that people tend to really lean on the CBO
and love on the CBO when they agree with their
assessment and then you know, and not when they don't.
So this is a tale as old as time, and
people have gone after the CBO forever. But I know,
I think that you know, the CBA play plays an
(25:12):
important role clearly in any piece of legislation that has
an impact on our debt and deficit and spending in
this country, and they're the ones that are actually looking
at it, not through a political lens. So I think
it's important to take what they're saying seriously.
Speaker 3 (25:26):
Is this a party in power thing or a Republican thing? Though?
More I remember the Biden Whitehouse embracing CBO scoring. What's
Republicans allergy to? What is a non partisan outfit with
years of experience inside the Congress. They're not going to
(25:48):
start dynamics scoring tomorrow, apparently, But what are they doing wrong?
Speaker 5 (25:53):
Well, I think for a lot of Republicans, but I
think it goes across the aisle as well. You know,
the CBO score is one aspect of the viability of
a piece of legislation, but it also really does come
down to the messaging of it and the will of
the people behind it and the power of the members
who are pushing it forward. So it's not the end
all be all, and I think that that's how Republicans
have viewed it for a long time. Sure they have
(26:15):
to get the bill scored, but it doesn't necessarily make
or break whether that bill has a piece of legelation
has viability, and so looking at it through that lens,
that's more or less how Republicans have largely viewed the CBO.
But to Christen's point, may mean the hypocrisy about it
kind of goes runs the game on Capitol Hill. You
love it when it loves you, and you hate it
when it hates you back. So that seems to be
(26:35):
the consensus there.
Speaker 2 (26:38):
Well, speaking of hate, I do want to call attention
to a post that just hit the wire on X,
specifically from the man who owns it, Elon Musk, taking
to X and saying the following quote, I'm sorry, but
I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork
filled congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on
those who voted for it. You know you did work,
(27:00):
you know it, Kristin, Is this what happens when Elon
Musks leaves Washington.
Speaker 10 (27:05):
I guess so, man. He didn't have a long tenure here,
and he certainly doesn't have the stomach for the politics,
particularly when you're talking about dealing with issues that are
this big. But that's certainly interesting. I wonder if he
and the President had some sort of call. I don't
know what's going on there, but it's always interesting to
see what he says. I don't disagree with him necessarily.
Speaker 6 (27:28):
So.
Speaker 3 (27:30):
That sounds like they broke up.
Speaker 2 (27:32):
Yeah. Yeah, and this goes well beyond just that a
bill can't be both big and beautiful that he said
on CBS last week. Yeah, this is much harsher language.
Shame on those who voted for it, he says. I
wonder if we'll be hearing from President Trump about this one,
or if this will work its way into the White
House briefing that is currently happening with Caroline love It.
(27:54):
Thank you very much to our political panel, Kristen On
and Mara Gillespie. Always great to have you here on
Balance of Power. As we watch the wire on X
watch the Wires on the Terminal as well. We'll be
back for more in just a moment on Bloomberg TV
and radio.
Speaker 1 (28:11):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on
Apple Cockley and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App.
Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch
us live on YouTube.
Speaker 3 (28:27):
I want to add the voice, as I mentioned, of
a stakeholder here. We talk about salt date all day long,
and if you live in one of the Salt states, well,
I guess you are a stakeholder. But sometimes it's interesting
to talk to somebody beyond an elected official here because
from lawmakers to lobbyists, this is a big deal right
now in the throes of this debate. Colin Allen is
executive director of the American Property Owners Alliance and joins
(28:51):
me right now here in Washington, d C. Colin, welcome,
It's good to see you. Thanks, Joe, appreciated live you
right as a stakeholder in this.
Speaker 11 (28:57):
Debate, absolutely, yeah, you know. We the American Property Owners
Alliance were founded in twenty twenty to represent the interests
of individual homeowners and small property owners across the country. Right, so,
salt is a huge issue for people who own property
across the country, you're not seeing uh you know this,
the local taxes go down, right, as as home home
(29:20):
values continue to go up and and and local governments
look to fund priorities sometimes even as you're you're seeing
the federal government shrink what they're looking to do, right,
you're going to need to see some of the local
governments pick up the slack. And the way they do
that is through property taxes. So I you know, I
know living here in the in the DC area, both
both the valuation and the and the assessment went up
(29:44):
on properties in the county that I live in this year.
So it's it's been a while since we've seen that,
and it's it's coming to you.
Speaker 3 (29:49):
Well, talk to me about what the Alliance is doing.
We should be clear you're a five o C four
advocacy organization, so you can actually engage in lobbying and
political activities. Do you have four behind this right now?
Are you calling lawmakers about this?
Speaker 11 (30:03):
That is correct? We're working to make sure that you know.
What we've seen is the House has given us a
good provision here with with forty thousand dollars in salt
relief that would cover most of what you'd see from
a property owner. And what we were urging is for
the Senate to finish the job here.
Speaker 8 (30:20):
You know where it is.
Speaker 3 (30:21):
Do you like the deal struck in the House.
Speaker 11 (30:23):
The deal in the House is a good deal and
it'll cover you know again, what we're looking at here
is property taxes for the vast majority of Americans.
Speaker 3 (30:30):
Well, listen, if you're lobbying this issue, you're probably you
know more about this than anybody who's reading or hearing anything.
You're you're on the front lines of the debate. What
are you hearing from the Senate? Are they actually going
to keep this intact? Because you know what the line is,
there's no such thing as assault state in the Senate.
If you're a senator, if you're a Republican senator, your
(30:50):
state's not too worried about this issue right now.
Speaker 11 (30:52):
Yeah, So what we're hearing, and i'd say look towards
you know, the person that I've looked to recently as
a Senator, Mark Waynemullen from Oklahoma. He's not just because
I like what he's saying about salt.
Speaker 3 (31:02):
He's afraid of making big changes. As a former congressman,
I think.
Speaker 11 (31:04):
Isn't you know, and I think look to him as
a good gauge here, right, that he is still very
in touch. He's a relatively new senator. Yeah, I've been
there for about two and a half years, and still
has really good connections with the House leadership, especially on
the Ways and Means Committee and the leadership of the House.
So I think he is having those conversations and in
a really good position to be a gauge for what
(31:25):
the House may or may not be able to do
from the Senate.
Speaker 3 (31:28):
I wasn't kidding when I was talking to Tyler Wane,
and we do salt stories, they become the most right
on the terminal. When I talk about it on the air.
All of a sudden, my terminal lights up. I get email,
I get tweets because so many Bloomberg viewers and listeners
understand this story and so many are impacted by it.
If you're living in estate though, where you do not
have high property taxes, and they're talking about a blue
state bailout, what's the answer to that? Because this is
(31:50):
the debate we're in.
Speaker 11 (31:51):
So I think one of the things and try to
illustrate that a little earlier, right, is that as we
are continuing to see the value of homes appreciate. Right,
we're under supply, We're not building enough enough, new supplies
not coming under the market. What we're seeing is that
the values of homes continue to get more and more expensive.
And i'd say, as you look to the federal government
(32:12):
maybe shrinking some of the responsibilities that they're looking at,
a lot of those services are not necessarily going to
go away, right, They're going to go to the states,
They're going to go to the localities. And the biggest,
the biggest way that those organizations, those units of government
fund their priorities is through taxes own properties. So I'd say,
as we continue to see these increasing valuations and local
(32:33):
property taxes going up, this is an issue that is
going to creep across the country.
Speaker 3 (32:37):
Well, you don't only have your ear on this debate
on Capitol Hill. You have your ear on the market.
That's the reason why you exist at the Alliance. And
I want to follow up on what you just mentioned
because it's really interesting looking at the dynamics in this market.
And we had new numbers by Redfin that you probably
saw Axios published today. A buyer's market if you can
afford it, there are nearly five hundred thousand more home
(32:58):
sellers than in the US housing market. How long could
this last?
Speaker 11 (33:04):
So I think, you know, and I was listening actually
funny enough this morning on the way in listening to
a podcast with Logan Modashami from Housing Wire kind of
looking at that and I think debunked maybe some of
the numbers. I think his exact his exact comment was,
I'm going to give this a yellow card. Unclear where
(33:24):
that number is coming from, right, I think it may
be a proprietary formula from from Redfin, but definitely something
that that you're seeing there and what we may be
seeing is maybe not this like imminent crash of twenty
to forty percent that I think you'll see some of
the trolls.
Speaker 3 (33:40):
Talking about when when we use these kind of packted terms,
is that not true.
Speaker 11 (33:44):
I think we're probably coming back into more of an
alignment right where where you're you're having a little bit
more supply coming online and buyers are coming out and saying,
you know, hey, maybe I understand that interest rates are
not coming back down to three or four percent. I'm
going to take advantage of of you know, where I am.
I still have a you know, my job is good.
I've had a change in my life circumstances, right, We've
(34:05):
had a kid, I've gotten married, whatever it is, and
and I do feel that the time now is right
and that we're we're in a pretty good what happened.
Speaker 3 (34:12):
We can all live our lives around interest rates and whatever.
You get a job, sometimes you got to move, or
sometimes you need to or want to move. What happens
if the FED starts to cut What if we get
fifty basis points this year or more? What would that
do to the market.
Speaker 11 (34:25):
I think you would see an immediate interest in in
our folks getting in and.
Speaker 3 (34:29):
Buying market and buying. Is that right?
Speaker 11 (34:31):
Absolutely? Yeah, No, I think that is very much. You know,
some of the folks who may be sitting on the sidelines,
right and this is one of the things that we
talk about on the capital gain side, is that you've
got especially older, longer tenured folks who've lived in their
homes for a long time, you know, may want to
take advantage of of getting in there and selling a
property if they've been locked in sure, you know, for
(34:51):
a long time, and say, yeah, you know, maybe i'll
downsize now it makes sense.
Speaker 3 (34:56):
You know where it well didn't place for a long time.
Speaker 11 (34:58):
Exactly where it didn't make sense at you know, six
and a half percent, maybe it makes more sense at five.
Speaker 3 (35:02):
You're telling us you think salt stay is where it
is when it comes back to the House.
Speaker 11 (35:06):
I think it's certainly open for debate.
Speaker 8 (35:08):
Right, this is it.
Speaker 11 (35:09):
I used to be a where I came from. Yeah,
was that I would start off and say, you know,
I think the Senate is kind of a they'd take
the House bill, send it back and say, you know,
you guys can eat.
Speaker 3 (35:21):
Whatever we passed, right, yes, exactly? Will the Senate try
to jam the House again?
Speaker 11 (35:25):
I really feel like you saw this bring the rapture.
You saw this bill pass with one vote, right exactly.
I think we're just in a fundamentally different spot here.
Speaker 3 (35:34):
I feel good.
Speaker 11 (35:35):
I've heard I've heard in a number of different things mentioned,
but I'm going to follow Senator Mullins lead on this
one and say, I think we're in a good spot.
Speaker 3 (35:41):
He's part of the driving force behind the salt cap
keeping it lifted. Colin Allen, American property Owner's Alliance, Right conversation,
I appreciate your coming in to see us in Studio Commune.
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
(36:03):
us live every weekday 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. 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
(00:20):
you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
You're in Washington, we have our eyes on Capitol Hills,
specifically on the Senate, after we spent weeks watching the
House of Representatives and the wrangling that it took to
get the House Republican Conference in line to pass President
Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill as it is actually this
legislation is actually now called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Remember,
it took a lot of wrestling arm wrestling from the
(00:45):
Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, but also from President
Trump himself in some ways. Arguably, Joe, it's President Trump
that's acting as the majority whip. I don't know where
Tom Emmer is and in any of this, but the
question is going to be can President Trump play that
role as well? In the United States Senate, where the
dynamics are a little bit different, though certainly we see
evidence today of the president.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
Try dynamics are really different. As John Thunne would tell you,
beginning with salts, you don't have senators Republican senators in
salt states, which is the beginning of just a long
list of different ideas that are going to be coming
out of the Upper Chamber. Whether they make them into
legislation has yet to be seen. Tyler Kendall is standing
by at the White House for US right now. Bloomberg
(01:28):
Washington corresponded with HERRAI and the administration's take on this,
because Tyler, that does seem to be the energy center
is on President Trump's end of Pennsylvania Avenue right now.
Speaker 4 (01:38):
Right, Yeah, Hey, Joe, President Trump really trying to ramp
up the pressure on these Senate Republicans, making phone calls,
posting on truth social as you've been mentioning. Because we
have to keep in mind here the White House is
dealing with some pretty conflicting demands when it comes to
these Republicans that want to make changes to the House Bill.
On one hand, you have these this group of senators
(01:58):
pitching themselves as fiscal hawks. Ran Paul. You mentioned also
Senator Ron Johnson, who had a phone call with President
Trump yesterday. I says he has plans to meet with
the White House's economic team, and he wants to see
some deeper spending cuts. But of course, on the other hand,
here we have those concerns from Republicans about what changes
to benefit programs could ultimately mean, particularly when it comes
(02:21):
to Medicaid, perhaps speeding up those work requirements. Also, the
House's plan to freeze the Medicaid provider tax have some
of the states take on more of that to cost sharing.
These are all raising concerns and really is a politically
fraught issue for this White House. President Trump doubling down
in recent posts on truth Social saying that the bill
will not cut Medicaid. But there are analysis out there,
(02:41):
including one that we cite here at Bloomberg News that
predicts seven point seven million people by twenty thirty four
could ultimately lose coverage because of a shifting in the
eligibility requirement. So they really are going to have to
thread the needle here to make everybody happy and ultimately
to pass this bill. I could keep going. Of course,
it's the big, beautiful bill. So there's a lot of
other provisions where we're seeing disagreements. But Joe and Cayley,
(03:02):
we have to keep in mind, they can only lose
three Republicans at the end of the day, and we
know there are many more than that that are raising concerns.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Yeah, Ran Paul says he thinks there are at least
four who could be ready to stop this thing in
its tracks, knowing that the White House is up against
a kind of self imposed deadline, if you will, that
Senator Thune Tyler seems to be going along with they
want this done by July fourth. When would that mean
it actually leaves the Senate if it still has to
go back to the House, if it's to get to
the President's desk by Independence Day.
Speaker 4 (03:33):
Right, exactly, Kelly, It's definitely an expedited timeline. Center Tom
till Us, a Republican from North Carolina, did tell reporters
yesterday that the Senate's current plan their goal is to
get some of those medicaid and tax changes over to
the White House to review by this weekend and then
to push more of a fuller draft of the package
in the next ten to fifteen days. This would be
(03:55):
incredibly expedited. Now. Of course, they want to see this
done by July fourth, because that ultimately gives lawmakers a
little bit of buffer room here against what really is
going to be that hard deadline, which of course is
the X State. We even had Treasury Secretary Scott Besstt
really say that that is going to be what adds
fuel to the fire for these lawmakers because it is
one big, beautiful bill. So they are of course also
(04:15):
attaching a hike to the debt ceiling. And we were
talking about Senator ran Paul before. His biggest point of
opposition is that this bill ends up lifting that ceiling.
But when you look at the details of this the
House plan lifts it by four trillion dollars Joe and Cayley,
but the Senate has said there's enough runway to lift
it up to buy five trillion dollars. So there's still
disagreement even among that issue too.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
All right, Bloomberg's Tyler Kendall live on the North lawn
of the White House, Thank you so much. As we
can center the consider the positions of various senators here.
Senator Cynthia Lummis, the Republican from Wyoming, was on Bloomberg
TV and radio in the last hour saying that there
are changes she needs to see on medicaid, specifically if
she's to vote yes for this bill. And we had
(04:58):
a similar conversation with one of for a colleague, Senator
Kevin Kramer of North Dakota, joined us on the late
edition of Balance of Power yesterday and we asked him
if he'd be prepared to vote yes as it stands
right now.
Speaker 5 (05:09):
This is what he told us.
Speaker 6 (05:10):
I want this to pass, but there's no reason that
the Senate should just simply rubber stamp it when we
can do so much better. I think it was interesting
listening to the leader from the House say I don't
think there's any way to find more savings, and I
think that's really the thing we have to do. We
will not be able to pass the bill without finding
some more spending cuts. I do think though by and
(05:32):
large it will look similar to the House bill, but
we just may be able to find some other places
for savings.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
So for more on where exactly they might be able
to find savings, just how big these changes to the
numbers might be, we turned to Bill Hoagland, senior vice
president at the Bipartisan Policy Center and former Republican staff
director for the Senate Budget Committee, who was here with
us in our Washington d C. Studio Bill, Welcome back
to Bloomberg TV and Radio. Always good to have you.
When you look at what you're hearing from the very
(06:00):
factions in the Senate, those who want steeper cuts, those
who think the cuts maybe go too far. Who would
you anticipate wins out here? Or do they actually cancel
each other out? And we're not going to see many
changes at all.
Speaker 7 (06:11):
No, I think there'll be changes in the bill, and
I think it is likely that they will come together.
There's a lot of pressure being put on, particularly as
it relates to if they do not put something together here,
the tax increases that will take place will hit sixty
eight percent of all those out there who file taxes
one way or the other. How much that is, But
certainly there will be pressure. Changes will take place, They'll
(06:34):
have to take place. There's no question in my mind
that are a number of provisions in this bill that
the House set over that are what we call birdable
in the sense that they do not belong in this bill.
They have no budgetary consequence, and so it will change now.
The question I would ask, though, is to get it
done and on the presence desks by July. The fourth
(06:56):
is rather expedited process. But what that tells me is
that the Senate is nego will have to negotiate what
they passed.
Speaker 8 (07:04):
The House will have to just simply take up and pass.
Speaker 7 (07:07):
And that's where the difficulty is going to lie in
terms of can they put a bill together in the
Senate that the Senate that the House can simply take
and pass.
Speaker 3 (07:15):
Should we assume that the current policy baseline accounting method
is okay with the parliamentarian? Will that be the.
Speaker 8 (07:23):
Case of the Senate? Well, Joe, that's a very good question.
Speaker 7 (07:27):
It's a question that I've been asking myself for quite
some time.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
Mike Johnson seems to be making this assumption.
Speaker 8 (07:33):
I think that.
Speaker 7 (07:36):
Being an old budgeteer, I don't think that it passes
the test that is necessary to get around a bird rule.
There is a problem here with the current policy baseline,
and I don't want to get into the weeds here,
but it does impact upon what we call the bird rule,
which is adding to the deficit beyond the ten year window,
in which case that it would be a it would
(07:57):
violate the process and his store. I've been out of
the twenty three twenty four reconciliation bills that have been
enacted over the fifty year history of the Budget Act.
I participated in about twenty of them, I guess, and
we've always used current law, not current policy.
Speaker 8 (08:14):
But at the same time, I will tell you what
I'm picking up.
Speaker 7 (08:17):
As an old budgeteer who thinks deficits and debt matter,
I'm picking up it doesn't really matter right now. They
aren't concerned about the debt and deficit and that's disconcerting
to me, if nothing else.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
Well, we've also heard from the Majority Leader. Senator Thune
contends that actually it's up to Senator Lindsay Graham, who
leads the Budget Committee, to decide whether current policy baseline
is justified or not. Do you see John Thune as
being willing to defy the parliamentarian on that or any issue?
Speaker 8 (08:43):
No, I don't. I think the par I think.
Speaker 7 (08:47):
The Majority Leader has I understood, made it very clear
he's not going to question the parliamentarian, and therefore I
don't think he would go beyond the parliamentarian's advice. Now, again,
the Parliamentarian gives the vice to the chair. The Chair rules,
not the parliamentarian, and so it's possible the Chair could
say current policy is fine and we'll go forward with it.
(09:09):
It's a real it's an unanswerable question, Joe. I'm sorry
at this point to give you that astract.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
Well, this is you know, we're getting to the rub here. Yes,
the old lion that the Senate is the saucer that
cools the sea. Is it going to be the opposite
this time?
Speaker 7 (09:23):
I think the Senate is going to certainly modify the
house the hot tea of.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
The House and turn up the heat under the tea.
Speaker 7 (09:32):
But honestly, this is going to be a very dicey
exercise obviously for the majority leader in the Senate, because
he has to also make sure that whatever he passes
can get passed back into the House and not fail
in the House too. So getting the two sides, the
ones who want more deficit reduction of those who don't
(09:54):
want to make the particular reductions that are necessarily this
this is going to be a very very difficult exercise
for the new majority leader.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
When we consider the Medicaid issue, specifically, President Trump is
contending that there are false statements being made that these
are not Medicaid cuts that are happening. We've been told
the same by many Republicans on this program, including a
Congressman Ashley Hinson last night who told us that this
is just fear mongering on the Democrats. This isn't about cuts,
it's about making sure the program can last long term.
(10:22):
How realistically should we be framing these Medicaid alterations cuts,
whatever you want.
Speaker 4 (10:27):
To call them.
Speaker 7 (10:27):
I think it's half. I think there's truth in both
arguments that are being put forth. Number One, work requirements.
Are the work requirements a cut? Know that they are
requiring individuals to participate in the Medicaid program and if
they choose not to because of the work requirement, is
that a cut?
Speaker 8 (10:45):
I don't know.
Speaker 7 (10:46):
At the same time, the provider tax that's in there
does impact directly, I think nursing homes, rural hospitals, that
could feedback to being real cuts on individuals. So when
the CBO makes it instrument, and your reporter indicated also
about six point seven million, seven million people that would
be removed from the Medicaid rules because of this, I
(11:08):
think I think it's hard to say there aren't going
to be reductions here. And particularly the one area that
should be focused on I think, as coming from a
rural area myself, is the rural hospitals they are there
could very well be hit by the provider. Take one
other thing I want to make a point I would
make is that we should also look at the SNAP program,
(11:31):
the food stamp program, and the changes that are being
proposed there, which are work requirements also, but also the
requirement that the states pick up a particular share. Right now,
the benefits the SNAP benefits self is one hundred percent federal.
If you're asking the states to pick that up for
the SNAP benefits, and then you're asking the states to
(11:51):
pick up the administrative costs associated with the work requirement,
there are going to be some major shifts in administrative
costs to the states. And those are a lot are
red states. And so when those red state governors start
calling their senator, I think it will make some changes
that you're.
Speaker 3 (12:06):
Only putting your finger on. So Jim Justice knows this,
which is why he's been talking about it. Republican senators
with big rural communities in their states are deeply concerned
about that provider tax. They see nursing homes closing, rural
hospitals closing. Does that mean Republicans crank back the changes
to Medicaid?
Speaker 7 (12:24):
I think they I think there will be some changes
in the Medicare Medicaid program, particularly coming out of it.
You know, you've reported so many times here we got
Susan Collins who has concerns. Yet, Murkowski has concerns. Josh
Holly of all people, Conservatives senator has concerns about that
these are big issues in rural areas of the country,
(12:44):
in rural hospitals. Yes, I think there will be changes.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
Well, as we wait to see what those changes are
in the Senate. The House is also going to be
taking up some work this week, as the White House
is now formally sharing a precision package with the House, PBS, NPR,
USAID funding. I think it amounts to about nine billion.
Speaker 8 (13:02):
Dollars, billion bill.
Speaker 2 (13:03):
I think they're going to make a big deal out
of this. But is this a big dealer? Is it
a drop in a bucket?
Speaker 7 (13:09):
Well, nine billion dollars is nothing to snuff, and I
would say that yes, it is a big deal.
Speaker 8 (13:15):
The question here is, I'm not clear.
Speaker 7 (13:17):
I haven't seen the proposal yet whether it's the nine
billion is made up basically the USAID funds and then
the public radio and public communication. And my sense here
is if they put those two together as one package.
It probably does pass the House. I'm not sure it
passes the Senate. Again, we're back to the rural areas
(13:41):
that depend some of the corporate broad testing systems that
are out there. Not to take anything away from Bloomberg
at all, of course, but definitely so, yes, that's it.
One thing you should know is that that this is
probably just the start of recision. This is something under
the Impoundment Control Act. The President has every right to
(14:01):
propose to Congress the elimination of funding that has been
made available. My sense is there's going to be a
lot more coming later in the year.
Speaker 3 (14:10):
Will that be coming with help from the DOGE or
is that a.
Speaker 8 (14:13):
Separate Well, it's separate from DOGE.
Speaker 7 (14:15):
But the DOJA proposals that not now take actual form
in the form of a recision that was submitted to
would be submitted to Congress. I want to get into
the weeds too far here, but you have forty five
Congress has forty five days to act on a recision
package once it's submitted.
Speaker 8 (14:32):
Either approve it or you don't approve it. And what
if you wait until.
Speaker 7 (14:37):
Say the middle of the August recess and you propose
those it is possible that those recisions would go in
effect without any action by Congress.
Speaker 8 (14:47):
This is what we call.
Speaker 7 (14:48):
Line item recision VETO, and so be aware that there's
some more coming.
Speaker 3 (14:56):
And that can happen during a recess as only.
Speaker 7 (14:59):
It's well, it's not. They're not on official recess. There's
continuous station. They will not go on recess during the
August perform it largely so that they can avoid recess appointments.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
Right, wow, we remember what we were having a conversation
about recess appointments every day.
Speaker 3 (15:17):
Yes, we were on the cabinet nomage. Just wait, we'll
come back around. We'll call Bill Hoaglan. It's great to
have you with us. Thank you, Bill as always a
veteran of the Senate now with a bipartisan policy center
and giving us a real sense, Kelley, of what we
can look for with changes that are coming out of
this bill. You wonder if Donald Trump told John Thune
to keep it the way it is.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
Yeah, well, certainly the Speaker of the House hasn't been
shy about doing that, saying, mister Majority leader, you need
to change this as little as possible if you want
me to be able to pass it. A second time.
We'll see how much louder the voice of the president.
Speaker 3 (15:46):
Gets on this. Yeah, may not be very practical for
John Thune. In the meantime, stay with us. We're going
to assemble our political panel next Moragillespie, Kristen Hahn, no
strangers to this debate. We'll be up with us here
on Balance of Power alongside Kally Lines. I'm Joe Matthew.
Thanks for being with us on Bluebird TV and radio.
Speaker 1 (16:05):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcasts. Catch
us live weekdays at noon and five pm. E's durn
on Apple Cockley 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 played Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
I'm Kateie Lines alongside Joe Matthew, live in Washington, where
we are focused on the United States Senate as we
will be probably all week for the weeks to come,
basically leading up until when they leave for the July
fourth recess, which is actually the last week of June
is the last week they're scheduled to be in session,
and the Senate Majority leader John Thune has suggested he
(16:44):
would like to see a bill pass through the Senate,
set sent back to the House, and pass through the
House on the President's desk by the fourth of July.
So the time is short and there's a lot of
people that still need to be made happy here, including
Republican Senator Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, who is not yet
a yes. She said on this bill, there's still something
she would like to see change, including when it comes
(17:04):
to Medicaid. She said this on Bloomberg TV and Radio earlier.
Speaker 9 (17:08):
I would like to see some reforms to Medicaid. This
is not in an effort to remove benefits from those
who were intended to have it, but rather to stop
the states from using a mechanism to enrich their federal
(17:32):
participation dollars. And forty nine states are doing it. It
would require the reform of the state's loophole for me
to support the Medicaid reforms.
Speaker 3 (17:48):
She's talking about changes to the provider tax, which, as
we were just discussing with Bill Hogland, is a problem
for a lot of Republican Senators who represent rural states.
The fear that it could lead to the closures of
rural hospitals or nursing homes. It's where we start our
conversation with our political panel. Republican strategist Mara Gillespie is
(18:08):
where us. The founder of Blue Stack Strategy is Kristen Hahn,
Democratic strategist and partner at Rock Solutions. Great to see
both of you, hear, Mora, what's your sense of this.
If Republican senators start to tinker with this deal on Medicaid?
You work for a former speaker, a former Republican Speaker
of the House, is it DOA when it comes back
(18:29):
to the lower chamber? What happens now?
Speaker 5 (18:32):
The pressure does begin to mount though on making sure
it can still get done again. I think that the
biggest issue here is the role that the President will
play in pressuring these members, especially in the House I
to accept what the Senate has done with the bill
and get it done before realistically the August recess. I
think that's the more likely scenario. But Senator John Thune
(18:53):
is going to let this kind of work its will
through the Senate, and you're seeing that play out and
talking about the benefits and some of the issues there
with rural states. You know, Missouri is one that I
know they have deep concerns about that provision that Senator
Lumbus talked about. So you're going to have a couple
of these senators that are going to raise their you know,
right a flag as saying this isn't a non negotiable.
(19:14):
They have a little bit more you know, staying power
as far as some of them aren't out for reelection
this cycle and they're not up in the midterms, whereas
the House is going to have to play ball more
so when it comes to Donald Trump's pressure.
Speaker 2 (19:27):
So is that another way of saying, Laura that or
more that the Senate actually does have a great deal
more leverage here. Might not be as easily moved by
either the leader John Thune or by President Trump himself.
Speaker 5 (19:41):
They do just because of the fact that the House
is up for reelection in twenty twenty six, and several
of the senators that are speaking out some are up
for reelection in twenty six. But again, they represent a
larger swath of the American public, and so they're objectives here.
They do have more legs to stay in on as
far as being able to push back on these provisions
of the House puss through.
Speaker 3 (20:02):
What's your sense of this, Kristen Han as a Democrat
watching a Republican only exercise, do you expect that the
House signs off on whatever comes back?
Speaker 10 (20:13):
I mean, I think that if they want to ultimately
get this done, they're going to have to. You know,
I worked in the House side when we had a
you know, a Democratic Senate, a Democratic House, and President
Obama in the White House, and it was a frustrating
thing for the for the House staff and the members
because we would send something over to the Senate and
(20:33):
that we come back to us and we call it
sticking the House. I mean it's so if the President
wants to get it done, I think he's just going
to have to force the members of the House to
do it. And then a lot of them are going
to be in some really tough spots if they get
this done because of what we were discussing, you know,
heavy cuts to Medicaid and how that will impact a
lot of rural America. And I know that there are
(20:53):
a lot of Senators, sorry, members of the House, we're
very concerned about that coming back.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
Well, well, when we consider those swing districts in twenty
twenty six, in the messaging war that is going to
be fought in them. Kristen, We were told last night
by one Republican lawmaker that Democrats are just fear mongering
on this. President Trump is saying the same. How do
you think voters will actually view this medicaid issue? Is
it just semantics to them?
Speaker 10 (21:20):
I mean, you look at these town halls and a
lot of these Republican or red districts, and people are fearful,
they're scared, and that's not something that the National Democratic
Party has genned up. That's that's what's happening on the ground.
People are, they're upset, and they're voicing their opinions, and
they're going to voice their opinions at the ballot box.
So you know, I was very actually, as a cons person,
(21:44):
very impressed with you know, Republicans in the House who
had been very concerned about this leading up to the
vote for the bill, but once they voted for it,
they were all speaking off of the same playbook, saying
that Democrats are fear mongering and this isn't actually you know,
you know, we're just you know, people who are not
citizens United States shouldn't have medicaid. I mean, they're they're
(22:04):
doing a good job of talking about it up in
DC and Washington on television, but at home people are
concerned and that's what they should be concerned about. In
twenty twenty six, for sure, what.
Speaker 3 (22:16):
Is it mora that gets President Trump out of the
White House back up on Capitol Hill. You know there's
going to be a tough meeting at some point where
everybody goes behind closed doors so they can be cajoled
or even shamed by the President. We're starting with phone calls,
but when does the personal visit happen? Does that push
this across the line?
Speaker 5 (22:35):
It will likely when it goes back to the House.
I think you're going to see some of these cuts,
you know, in terms of snap You know, Chuck Grassley
has been pretty adamant about that one that he doesn't
like the House version of it, and so seven members
of the Senate don't like that either, And the discrepancy
there between with the Senate once versus with the House ones,
it's pretty pretty massive. So I think when we see
how that plays out, and then again with the medicaid
(22:56):
to the medicaid discussion, you know, the message there is important,
and I think that that Kristen hit on that a
little bit there about what they're saying about fear mongering,
but they're also talking about there needs to be a
accountability when it comes to Medicaid, and the programs themselves
are not sustainable if we don't get a handle on
the fraud, waste, and abuse both in Medicaid and Medicare.
And so being able to talk to your constituents going
(23:18):
home and doing town halls, even though they're challenging, even
though they're very difficult and you do get yelled at,
it's important to hear your constituents, hear them out and
explain to them what it is that you're looking to
do as a member of Congress, and that messaging war. Unfortunately,
if they're not successful, Donald Trump will have to come
in and let them know here's what's happening, and he
all have them, maybe, you know, make some promises about
going to their districts and going in to help them
(23:39):
during their reelection. I think that kind of a conversation
between the conference and the President is going to be
pretty important, especially with some of these holdouts who are
concerned about the impact for their reelection.
Speaker 2 (23:50):
I do want to mention that at this hour, the
White House Press Secretary Caroline love It is holding court
in the briefing room answering questions from reporters. She did
just make a little bit of news confirming that President Trump,
as you can see live on Bloomberg TV as well
as on Bloomberg Originals, will be attending the NATO summit
later this month. That, of course, is being held just
after the G seven meeting, which he is also attending.
(24:12):
I would imagine the war in Ukraine will feature heavily
on that agenda. But she's also speaking to the efforts
on Capitol Hill, as she notes that the White House
will be sending a recisions package today to the House,
but is talking about the Big Beautiful Bill as well.
She says Republicans opposing the Big Beautiful Bill are wrong
and Kristen, she also is pointing out specifically the CBO
(24:33):
being wrong at least in her words, historically on the
economic impacts of such legislation. We have seen a lot
of Republican I are thrown at the CBO specifically, do
they have a point? Should we be taking CBO estimates
at face value?
Speaker 10 (24:50):
Well, I think you know we've said this before on this,
so that people tend to really lean on the CBO
and love on the CBO when they agree with their
assessment and then you know, and not when they don't.
So this is a tale as old as time, and
people have gone after the CBO forever. But I know,
I think that you know, the CBA play plays an
(25:12):
important role clearly in any piece of legislation that has
an impact on our debt and deficit and spending in
this country, and they're the ones that are actually looking
at it, not through a political lens. So I think
it's important to take what they're saying seriously.
Speaker 3 (25:26):
Is this a party in power thing or a Republican thing? Though?
More I remember the Biden Whitehouse embracing CBO scoring. What's
Republicans allergy to? What is a non partisan outfit with
years of experience inside the Congress. They're not going to
(25:48):
start dynamics scoring tomorrow, apparently, But what are they doing wrong?
Speaker 5 (25:53):
Well, I think for a lot of Republicans, but I
think it goes across the aisle as well. You know,
the CBO score is one aspect of the viability of
a piece of legislation, but it also really does come
down to the messaging of it and the will of
the people behind it and the power of the members
who are pushing it forward. So it's not the end
all be all, and I think that that's how Republicans
have viewed it for a long time. Sure they have
(26:15):
to get the bill scored, but it doesn't necessarily make
or break whether that bill has a piece of legelation
has viability, and so looking at it through that lens,
that's more or less how Republicans have largely viewed the CBO.
But to Christen's point, may mean the hypocrisy about it
kind of goes runs the game on Capitol Hill. You
love it when it loves you, and you hate it
when it hates you back. So that seems to be
(26:35):
the consensus there.
Speaker 2 (26:38):
Well, speaking of hate, I do want to call attention
to a post that just hit the wire on X,
specifically from the man who owns it, Elon Musk, taking
to X and saying the following quote, I'm sorry, but
I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork
filled congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on
those who voted for it. You know you did work,
(27:00):
you know it, Kristin, Is this what happens when Elon
Musks leaves Washington.
Speaker 10 (27:05):
I guess so, man. He didn't have a long tenure here,
and he certainly doesn't have the stomach for the politics,
particularly when you're talking about dealing with issues that are
this big. But that's certainly interesting. I wonder if he
and the President had some sort of call. I don't
know what's going on there, but it's always interesting to
see what he says. I don't disagree with him necessarily.
Speaker 6 (27:28):
So.
Speaker 3 (27:30):
That sounds like they broke up.
Speaker 2 (27:32):
Yeah. Yeah, and this goes well beyond just that a
bill can't be both big and beautiful that he said
on CBS last week. Yeah, this is much harsher language.
Shame on those who voted for it, he says. I
wonder if we'll be hearing from President Trump about this one,
or if this will work its way into the White
House briefing that is currently happening with Caroline love It.
(27:54):
Thank you very much to our political panel, Kristen On
and Mara Gillespie. Always great to have you here on
Balance of Power. As we watch the wire on X
watch the Wires on the Terminal as well. We'll be
back for more in just a moment on Bloomberg TV
and radio.
Speaker 1 (28:11):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on
Apple Cockley and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App.
Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch
us live on YouTube.
Speaker 3 (28:27):
I want to add the voice, as I mentioned, of
a stakeholder here. We talk about salt date all day long,
and if you live in one of the Salt states, well,
I guess you are a stakeholder. But sometimes it's interesting
to talk to somebody beyond an elected official here because
from lawmakers to lobbyists, this is a big deal right
now in the throes of this debate. Colin Allen is
executive director of the American Property Owners Alliance and joins
(28:51):
me right now here in Washington, d C. Colin, welcome,
It's good to see you. Thanks, Joe, appreciated live you
right as a stakeholder in this.
Speaker 11 (28:57):
Debate, absolutely, yeah, you know. We the American Property Owners
Alliance were founded in twenty twenty to represent the interests
of individual homeowners and small property owners across the country. Right, so,
salt is a huge issue for people who own property
across the country, you're not seeing uh you know this,
the local taxes go down, right, as as home home
(29:20):
values continue to go up and and and local governments
look to fund priorities sometimes even as you're you're seeing
the federal government shrink what they're looking to do, right,
you're going to need to see some of the local
governments pick up the slack. And the way they do
that is through property taxes. So I you know, I
know living here in the in the DC area, both
both the valuation and the and the assessment went up
(29:44):
on properties in the county that I live in this year.
So it's it's been a while since we've seen that,
and it's it's coming to you.
Speaker 3 (29:49):
Well, talk to me about what the Alliance is doing.
We should be clear you're a five o C four
advocacy organization, so you can actually engage in lobbying and
political activities. Do you have four behind this right now?
Are you calling lawmakers about this?
Speaker 11 (30:03):
That is correct? We're working to make sure that you know.
What we've seen is the House has given us a
good provision here with with forty thousand dollars in salt
relief that would cover most of what you'd see from
a property owner. And what we were urging is for
the Senate to finish the job here.
Speaker 8 (30:20):
You know where it is.
Speaker 3 (30:21):
Do you like the deal struck in the House.
Speaker 11 (30:23):
The deal in the House is a good deal and
it'll cover you know again, what we're looking at here
is property taxes for the vast majority of Americans.
Speaker 3 (30:30):
Well, listen, if you're lobbying this issue, you're probably you
know more about this than anybody who's reading or hearing anything.
You're you're on the front lines of the debate. What
are you hearing from the Senate? Are they actually going
to keep this intact? Because you know what the line is,
there's no such thing as assault state in the Senate.
If you're a senator, if you're a Republican senator, your
(30:50):
state's not too worried about this issue right now.
Speaker 11 (30:52):
Yeah, So what we're hearing, and i'd say look towards
you know, the person that I've looked to recently as
a Senator, Mark Waynemullen from Oklahoma. He's not just because
I like what he's saying about salt.
Speaker 3 (31:02):
He's afraid of making big changes. As a former congressman,
I think.
Speaker 11 (31:04):
Isn't you know, and I think look to him as
a good gauge here, right, that he is still very
in touch. He's a relatively new senator. Yeah, I've been
there for about two and a half years, and still
has really good connections with the House leadership, especially on
the Ways and Means Committee and the leadership of the House.
So I think he is having those conversations and in
a really good position to be a gauge for what
(31:25):
the House may or may not be able to do
from the Senate.
Speaker 3 (31:28):
I wasn't kidding when I was talking to Tyler Wane,
and we do salt stories, they become the most right
on the terminal. When I talk about it on the air.
All of a sudden, my terminal lights up. I get email,
I get tweets because so many Bloomberg viewers and listeners
understand this story and so many are impacted by it.
If you're living in estate though, where you do not
have high property taxes, and they're talking about a blue
state bailout, what's the answer to that? Because this is
(31:50):
the debate we're in.
Speaker 11 (31:51):
So I think one of the things and try to
illustrate that a little earlier, right, is that as we
are continuing to see the value of homes appreciate. Right,
we're under supply, We're not building enough enough, new supplies
not coming under the market. What we're seeing is that
the values of homes continue to get more and more expensive.
And i'd say, as you look to the federal government
(32:12):
maybe shrinking some of the responsibilities that they're looking at,
a lot of those services are not necessarily going to
go away, right, They're going to go to the states,
They're going to go to the localities. And the biggest,
the biggest way that those organizations, those units of government
fund their priorities is through taxes own properties. So I'd say,
as we continue to see these increasing valuations and local
(32:33):
property taxes going up, this is an issue that is
going to creep across the country.
Speaker 3 (32:37):
Well, you don't only have your ear on this debate
on Capitol Hill. You have your ear on the market.
That's the reason why you exist at the Alliance. And
I want to follow up on what you just mentioned
because it's really interesting looking at the dynamics in this market.
And we had new numbers by Redfin that you probably
saw Axios published today. A buyer's market if you can
afford it, there are nearly five hundred thousand more home
(32:58):
sellers than in the US housing market. How long could
this last?
Speaker 11 (33:04):
So I think, you know, and I was listening actually
funny enough this morning on the way in listening to
a podcast with Logan Modashami from Housing Wire kind of
looking at that and I think debunked maybe some of
the numbers. I think his exact his exact comment was,
I'm going to give this a yellow card. Unclear where
(33:24):
that number is coming from, right, I think it may
be a proprietary formula from from Redfin, but definitely something
that that you're seeing there and what we may be
seeing is maybe not this like imminent crash of twenty
to forty percent that I think you'll see some of
the trolls.
Speaker 3 (33:40):
Talking about when when we use these kind of packted terms,
is that not true.
Speaker 11 (33:44):
I think we're probably coming back into more of an
alignment right where where you're you're having a little bit
more supply coming online and buyers are coming out and saying,
you know, hey, maybe I understand that interest rates are
not coming back down to three or four percent. I'm
going to take advantage of of you know, where I am.
I still have a you know, my job is good.
I've had a change in my life circumstances, right, We've
(34:05):
had a kid, I've gotten married, whatever it is, and
and I do feel that the time now is right
and that we're we're in a pretty good what happened.
Speaker 3 (34:12):
We can all live our lives around interest rates and whatever.
You get a job, sometimes you got to move, or
sometimes you need to or want to move. What happens
if the FED starts to cut What if we get
fifty basis points this year or more? What would that
do to the market.
Speaker 11 (34:25):
I think you would see an immediate interest in in
our folks getting in and.
Speaker 3 (34:29):
Buying market and buying. Is that right?
Speaker 11 (34:31):
Absolutely? Yeah, No, I think that is very much. You know,
some of the folks who may be sitting on the sidelines,
right and this is one of the things that we
talk about on the capital gain side, is that you've
got especially older, longer tenured folks who've lived in their
homes for a long time, you know, may want to
take advantage of of getting in there and selling a
property if they've been locked in sure, you know, for
(34:51):
a long time, and say, yeah, you know, maybe i'll
downsize now it makes sense.
Speaker 3 (34:56):
You know where it well didn't place for a long time.
Speaker 11 (34:58):
Exactly where it didn't make sense at you know, six
and a half percent, maybe it makes more sense at five.
Speaker 3 (35:02):
You're telling us you think salt stay is where it
is when it comes back to the House.
Speaker 11 (35:06):
I think it's certainly open for debate.
Speaker 8 (35:08):
Right, this is it.
Speaker 11 (35:09):
I used to be a where I came from. Yeah,
was that I would start off and say, you know,
I think the Senate is kind of a they'd take
the House bill, send it back and say, you know,
you guys can eat.
Speaker 3 (35:21):
Whatever we passed, right, yes, exactly? Will the Senate try
to jam the House again?
Speaker 11 (35:25):
I really feel like you saw this bring the rapture.
You saw this bill pass with one vote, right exactly.
I think we're just in a fundamentally different spot here.
Speaker 3 (35:34):
I feel good.
Speaker 11 (35:35):
I've heard I've heard in a number of different things mentioned,
but I'm going to follow Senator Mullins lead on this
one and say, I think we're in a good spot.
Speaker 3 (35:41):
He's part of the driving force behind the salt cap
keeping it lifted. Colin Allen, American property Owner's Alliance, Right conversation,
I appreciate your coming in to see us in Studio Commune.
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
(36:03):
us live every weekday 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!
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.