You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch us live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business app, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
It's already been a day and this is getting to be a recurring theme here as Republicans bring a procedural vote to the floor of the House to engage debate not actually even passive bill on defense spending. And this didn't end the way the leader hoped.
On this vote, the Ya's are two hundred twelve, the nays are two hundred and sixteen.
The resolution is not adopted.
The House now for a third time here a little grown there failing to start debate on this Pentagon spending bill eight hundred and twenty six billion dollars, which really is making everyone feel like a shutdown maybe more likely or imminent. Here it's going to be a working weekend at least on Saturday before everyone goes home for the Iwish holiday. And even if a cr gets passed in the House, it doesn't stand a chance in the Senate.
That's where changes will happen and things get very complicated, and then there's of course, we've got the holdouts here, the rogues in the Republican Conference, namely Matt Gates, who says no continuing resolution, especially if it requires Democrats.
But if Speaker McCarthy relies on Democrats to pass a continuing resolution, I would call the Capital moving truck to his office pretty soon, because my expectation would be he'd be out of the Speaker's office quite promptly.
He knows has a way speaking with reporters outside of the House. Marjorie Taylor Green weighing in in a conversation earlier with Bloomberg, there were a bunch of mics around. But speaking with Bloomberg about the continuing Resolution again, that's the stopgap bill that would keep the government from closing DOA.
She says, as far as the CR, we had an over two hour meeting, and what I heard in the meeting is there were seven or eight people that were no on it, and so it's to me it's dead in the water unless they change something.
Dead in the water. And then of course there's Donald Trump, who got to Truth Social last evening. Here, I need to pull it up so I can do this properly. Truth Social to talk about his take on this. Now, Remember, Kavin McCarthy has been an ally, so I'm even arguing that this is why he brought up the impeachment inquiry, was to help Donald Trump, who writes a very important deadline it's approaching at the end of the month. Republicans in Congress, he says, can and must defund all aspects
of Crooked Joe Biden's weaponized government. I'll skip down a little bit here, use the power of the purse and defend the country. He says. This is also the last chance to defund these political prosecutions against me and other patriots. So we've got a problem here at a critical time here. Let I say nine days and we're done, and we can't figure out to stop gap, never mind the whole thing.
That's why we wanted to talk as well with Mark Goldwin, Senior vice president, senior policy director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Mark, it's great to see you, Welcome back. We have a lot that we could get into here and be curious your thoughts on some of the options. But is the Committee kind of like everyone else in Washington and expecting a shutdown at this point.
We've been actually doing. Some surveys of experts at House say the odds of the shutdown.
Are going way up, way up.
You always assume they're going to do something the last minute to avoid it, until they don't. And it's hard to see how we get from here to there.
If you're following this, you know you're playing along in your home game. They think that they can pass a CR in the House, the Republican Ledhouse, then it goes to the Senate. They attach Ukraine funding, they attach disaster relief. It comes back to the House. That's where the problem lies, right.
Well, the House can't even pass a CR yet they've been having They can't even get their own I'm talking best case case scenario. And the House and Senate not only did they disagree on things like Ukraine and disaster, they disagree on the top line. Normally, a continued resolution just takes last year's numbers and extends them with small modifications. But the House wants to go significantly below last year's numbers, and the Setate in some ways wants to go above.
So they don't even have fundamental agreement on the number, let alone the things that are attached to it.
And it's happening against the backdrop of this test of the speaker's authority. Does that feel real to you or is Matt Gates just you know, having fun entertaining his followers.
Well, you have to understand. The rules they set up for the speaker puts him in constant state of vulnerability. So in the past, the majority of the majority was kind of the rule. If the speaker, Republican Speaker could get most Republicans on a bill, he'd put it forward. Speaker McCarthy seems to need almost the entirety of the majority. That's a really different criteria.
Yeah, boy, sure is the problem. Solver's Caucus is reportedly working up something here. They've agreed on a plan that would in fact make a lot of people happy if it ever saw the light of day. It calls for all twelve appropriations bills to be passed by January eleventh, Right, so this would actually push us through the end of the year. Here would include Ukraine, it would include a
disaster relief, and it would create a Debt and Deficit Commission. Now, I don't know if this is going anywhere, but the idea of a debt and Deficit Commission, you know, kind of brings us back a little bit to the super Committee and some of the swings that we've taken at this before. Would the Committee support something like that because I believe that that that's something that you've encouraged in the past. How about in the form it's being proposed to.
Very strongly, we just put out a letter with eleven of some of the top policy experts in the left, right, and center, all calling for a fiscal commission. The appropriations we're talking about now, they cover a quarter of the budget, so that leaves three quarters of the budget undiscussed, plus
all the revenue. This commission is probably our best way forward to have an honest, adult, bipartisan conversation over medicare, over tax policy, over social Security, and over other parts of the budget that frankly, politicians are too excited to beat each other over the head with and not interested enough in solving when it's out in public.
Interesting, do you have a sense of what's going to happen in the next week here? Even if Republicans do finish their work this weekend, the shutdown would happen at the fiscal year, not say, a month from now, because you don't expect a cr to pass or is this just anyone's guess.
It's anyone's guess. I think they could come together last minute with a short kick the can. We could be in a shutdown and then we have to reopen. I hope that whatever they do, they take very seriously this idea of a fiscal commission, because we're not going to solve any of our budgetary challenges just looking at the defense and the non defense appropriations.
Remembering, of course, there was a debt ceiling deal. What if you brought that back to the floor, now, what would happen?
So what's interesting is the whole purpose of that debt ceiling deal was to set the number so that the appropriators could fight about other stuff.
And we're still more arguing over that numb deal never happened.
The House wants to go way below the deal, the Senate actually wants to go above the deal. Nobody actually wants to stick to the deal.
But he passed it at one point. Could he do it again? It's just amazing. You go away for August recess and you come back and we're in a different reality somehow.
Yeah, be interesting to ask the folks that voted for it whether you support the deal, but you just don't support what would come out of it or not. Remember again, there's this unanimity among majority problem. Right, So not every Republican voted for that deal. Perhaps the same ones that voted for the deal would vote for the appropriation. But then Speaker McCarthy is at risk of a voter no confidence effectively.
What does it do having Voladimir Zelensky here? As I was saying with Jack, you know, right in the middle of all this, the motorcade rolls up. He's meeting with leadership at least on the Senate side, and he's meeting with the Speaker as well. Not so much the rank and file does a bit of a disruption here and reminds everybody of this thing that we can't seem to agree on. Does his arrival make it more likely that Ukraine will get another dose of funding or is it interrupting the flow?
You know, maybe a little bit of both. I do think that ordinarily the need for emergency or disaster funding actually can kind of skid the wheels increase the wheels. Excuse me, Yeah, right, so the hurricane money needed in Florida, etc. But in this case, the Ukraine funding has become controversial in some circles, and it may actually be an impediment to a final deal.
Does the committee want to hear a conversation about revenue or is it just about funding responsibly living within our means. It seems we never talk about the potential of hiking taxes.
To try to close this gap, we have to talk about revenue. Look, there's about one and a half trillion dollars a year we spend through the tax code on various tax breaks. The idea that we would talk about the real spending but not the tax spending is a little bit silly, and it's another reason I think this
Fiscal Commission can help. I worked on the Simpson Bulls Commission in twenty ten, on the Super Committee in twenty eleven, and all of the Republicans, I do, Democrats Republicans both agreed, we need to talk about entitlements, We need to talk about revenue.
Yeah, did Donald Trump just guarantee your shut down? Did you see what he vuote on true Social something New? Or he's urging Republicans to vote against what he calls a very important deadline at the end of the month. Republicans in Congress can and must defund. He says, all aspects of Crooked Joe Biden's weaponized government. And I could read the rest.
But well, there's a couple of ways this can go down, right. The one is that the House Republicans come together on something they can negotiate with the Senate. And the others is that this isn't bipartisan pell one way or another. We are not going to have the government shutdown for the entire next fiscal year. So even if it's shutdown, it we'll reopen at some point, and we will need the votes for that.
You like to think it will, Let's hope we're not about to make history. Mark Goldwine, great to have you back, someone we want to stay in touch with while this is being figured out from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, our neighbors here in Washington, where he's Senior VP, Senior Policy Director. I'm Joe Matthew and Washington will assemble our panel next John Sidleledi's Lincoln Mitchell or with us only here on.
Bloomberg you're listening to the Bloomberg Sound On podcast. Catch the program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio. The tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com, and 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.
Kyley lines here she is in a whole different studio.
Good to see you.
You.
Actually you were up on Capitol Hill for a good chunk of the morning and I was too impossible to get around because every street is closed around the Capitol because Zelenski, well at least was there and pretty interesting here. You know, we're all talking about a potential shutdown after what's been going on even today with that failed vote in the House on a military funding getting cloture or at least moving through that procedural vote, Kayley. But the
argument for Ukraine funding is pretty loud today too. He's on the Pentagon for the first time. Then he's going to the White House later on. But you talk to a lot of lawmakers who have a lot of different views on whether we're we're going to shut down a week from tomorrow.
I did, I mean I talked to some of those hardliners, including Republican Congressman Matt Gates of Florida, who told me there will not be sufficient Republican votes for a continuing resolution, and then he went on to say, if they've had moderate Republicans who want to join up with Democrats, they'll be signing their own political death warrant. So I think that just speaks to the mood among some Republicans on
the Hill right now. But to your point, Joe, of Ukraine being one thing and funding battles being another, I would argue that they are tied because one of those that flipped on McCarthy, one of the individuals who decided not to vote for the DoD funding bill was Marjorie Taylor Green, and I asked her why outside the Capitol, and she said, I wanted Ukraine funding. Out of that they should have spun it off into a separate bill bill I could have voted no for. They didn't do that.
So I voted no on the rule and I'll vote no on the bill.
Michael McCall meantime, says, fine, we'll write it into the budget for next year. He was talking to reporters earlier as well.
Right now, as the triops, you're going in with no air kever, they have to take the minds by hand at nighttime. We wouldn't send our troops into that situation. So we need to give them everything they need. If this administration won't give it to them, then I submitted that we write it in our appropriations bill, We write the weapons that he asked for that this administration won't give,
write that in our proporation's bill. And I think the Democrats at the table were the Stenny warrior that Nancy Plosi to the whip and Chairman, mister Meeks, we all.
Agree Nancy Pelosi is still in charge of that. You were in that in that scrum. He was just emerging from his meeting with a lot of Versilensky.
Correct that he was there with Speaker McCarthy and he said that Speaker McCarthy did press Selensky on the accountability question that a lot of lawmakers have been raising, but that also McCarthy has been strong in his support for Ukraine. And he was asked about that twenty four billion dollars in supplemental funding for Ukraine that the White House has asked for if it'll pass, and mccau seems pretty firm that Ukraine is going to get that aid, that the
House is going to make that happen. It just might be kind of hard to get that done given the rhetoric we're hearing from some other members.
Yeah.
Absolutely, it was not only McCall by the way, who was talking about his meeting with Selensky. In the other chamber, we heard from Senator Chuck Schumer.
Let me just there was a single sentence that summed it all up, and I'm quoting him, verbade him. Mister Zelenski said, if we don't get the aid, we will lose the war.
That's a quote. Ute.
Were there pushback from Republicans.
In that room, No answer to the questions it's bringing Brett Bruin, I've been looking forward to the president of the Global Situation Room, former US diplomat and the Obama administration is with us right now and a reliable voice when it comes to Ukraine and of course all geopolitical matters. Brett, it's great to have you back. We spent so much time talking about this war effort in the run up to war, in the execution, going through the counter offensive,
and now the fight for money. Does this visit make a difference for President Zelensky?
Well, I have to say, Joe, it could not have come at a more important time as they are hashing out not just you know, questions overall of government funding, but very specifically will they authorize those twenty four billion dollars that the Biden administration is asking for. And it is hard to look Zelensky in the face, to see that pain on his face and to turn him down.
And I think it will be more difficult tomorrow and in the coming days for many Republicans to hold that line that somehow our support that one hundred billion dollars or so is not being well spent. When you see the sacrifice, you see the bravery that Ukrainians are demonstrating on the battlefield.
Well, when we talk about what we see, I wonder what kind of message it sends, at least optically for someone on the outside looking in, like Vladimir Putin to see when Vladimir Zelensky was walking into the House meeting, he was flanked only by the Democratic leader Hakim Jeffreys. He was not there being walked escorted in by Speaker McCarthy. And I feel like that just visually also underscoes some of the discord we are seeing.
How does that play, Yeah, Kailee, I think this is really important to remind folks here in Washington that every appearance of doubt division is an opportunity for Moscow and they will exploit it to the fullest. When I was at the White House back in twenty thirteen twenty fourteen focused on Russian propaganda, they take those sound bites and they amplify them. So I think it's really important for leaders on both sides of the Aisle to be responsible
with their questions. Yes, we should make sure that our money's being well spent, we shouldn't just write playing checks. But at the same time, you know this notion that somehow we're just not going to send any more support that hits really hard in the trenches of eastern Ukraine.
So how's this going to end? He is making his trip through Congress, stopping by the Pentagon and then talking to the President Brett, it's that first visit that's really going to matter. He did get with Speaker McCarthy, and to your point, it does seem that being in person maybe loosen up the mood a little bit with some of the limited commentary that we've I've heard from Kevin McCarthy, But this is probably not going to be part of
a continuing resolution. What can President Zelenski actually get done today.
I think it's really important at the White House that President Biden and his team start to articulate what does success look like? We want twenty four billion extra dollars and this is what we think that we can see in the coming months in terms of progress, because up until now it has just been one announcement of more money after another, and I think Republicans are taking advantage
of that. They're exploiting the fact that the administration says we'll just send more money over We've got to start looking at what are those goals, what does success look like? And I think that will help to ensure that everyone remains focused on what all of this is for.
Well, on that subject of defining success, Brett, when Congressman McCall came out of that House meeting and was talking to a group of US reporters, he said that this can't be a war of attrition, that there needs to be a plan for victory and it needs to happen quickly, and the speed of things was something he kept coming back to. Also, the idea that Ukraine just isn't getting weapons fast enough, even if the US agrees to send them,
that the process is just too slow. What's your take on that, even if you know, okay, here Ukraine, you can have what you want, but it still has to get to those front lines. It has to get there to start making a real difference. And I just wonder if it is too slow to make a difference.
And I agree, Kaylee, I think we are in this situation where the last year and a half, you know, Ukraine has had to go down a laundry list of asks. Every time the administration here in Washington saying I don't think so, only to reverse course. That choose up valuable time, It choos up valuable resources that could be spent on
executing a strategy, on getting further support. So I really hope as we head on, unfortunately towards that two year mark, there is an effort to articulate these are the things that we're going to need in order to get to where we think we could be a year from now, and that helps I think everyone across the NATO Alliance to understand what they have to show up with, because right now it's kind of like a potluck meal.
We're talking with prep Bruin at the Global situation room, Brett, I've got to ask you about what's happening in Poland. This, of course Ukraine's neighbor, whose premiere says the country is halting weapons supplies to Ukraine. We are no longer this is a direct quote transferring weapons to Ukraine, because we
are now arming Poland with more modern weapons. Went on to say his government has no intention to quote risk the security of Ukraine unquote, and will not interfere with armed shipments from other countries through this country that of course has become the hub for these transfers. How much of a problem is this and is this coming down to a personal dispute between Poland and Ukraine.
Well, look, Poland also has an election coming up. Some of this is domestic politics. But what I will say is that it raises the challenge of our defense production capabilities, both here in the US but particularly in Europe. And I don't think that enough has been done to ramp those up. Because we've been sending an extraordinary amount of arms and weapons systems over to Ukraine. We have to
backfill those. We have to expand capacity, not only you know in the European theater, but obviously we have a significant threat that is developing over in the Taiwan Strait. So we've got to focus on a broader strategy, and I think we've been too myopically looking at some of these issues. You know, I served in a rock as a diplomat with an army commander who was saying, you can be so focused on the problem that you missed the threat. And I think we are really focused on Ukraine.
We've got to ensure that our European allies also have what they need.
So on the subject of the threat, those who are proponents of continuing to help Ukraine in this war to continue to provide funding essentially, see anything that is giving in in any way or relenting in the battle against Russia is sending signals elsewhere to I don't know, places like China. Brett, what do you think about that? Not just that the signals that whatever is happening in the US is sending to the Kremlin, to Vladimir Putin, but to others as well, other adversaries.
Well.
On the positive note, I actually think that Beijing has been given more reason for pause when it comes to a potential invasion of Taiwan because they have seen the way that the West came together, and while certainly there are critiques of the slowness with which it happened, I think now the fact that it has happened, that we do have a model for how we come together as a community of democracies and support of the nation that's threatened is important nonetheless, And this is where you know,
when I talk about the post American era, I think you need to only look as far as places like India, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, not to mention some of you know, the other major adversary challenges. And what we're seeing is an effort to try and disrupt the old order, to take advantage of places where the US and you know, our European allies are disengaging, Africa certainly being a big one. I worry that we are going to see over the
coming years efforts that will create more friction. There will be more instability, and I think for listeners on Bloomberg Radio, one of the challenges is that crises, global crises will become more common. What we're seeing play out right now between Armenia and Azerbaijan is only going to multiply.
This is quite a headline. Brett Bruin in the New York Times today, Zelenski tells UN Security Council it's useless. Will Russia has a veto when you consider that the fact that so many world leaders did not attend the UN General Assembly this week She putin mccron, sunak, I could keep going here, and that was supposed to advantage Joe Biden. When you step back here and look at the General Assembly at this point, is it broken?
I think there are a lot of broken parts and pieces in the UN system. It was never perfect, but it was designed to prevent the kind of conflicts that are now playing out, particularly in Ukraine. And the fact that the UN Security Council has been so impeded in taking any action, really demands that we look at how we come up with new systems, How can we create
new structures because what we have certainly isn't working. And this week up in New York at the UN General Assembly has laid bare how irrelevant the UN system has become, not just on these conflicts, but even in response to the global food crisis, to climate change, to a whole host of other challenges. So I think it's incumbent upon the democracies of the world to come up with a
new structure. We need essentially a NATO for democracy. We need something that's broader than just a North Atlantic alliance, because that's what the challenges of the world demand today.
I think you just named your calling, Brett. That's going to be your next job.
I'll look forward to it.
He's the president of the Global Situation When where I'm pretty sure he's got his hands full already, Kaylee. I could see Brett Ruin leading this Commission for Democracy. It's great to have you back. Brett joining us from the Global Situation Room as always on Bloomberg Radio. He's not done, Zelenski continues the rounds today in the Capitol.
Yeah, he should be shortly at the White House with President Biden.
Not doing the whole formal arrival today, they're just sitting down to meet. We'll have details on that coming up as well. I'm Joe Matthew along with Kaylee Lines. Glad you're with us on Bloomberg Sound On, on the radio and on YouTube, and of course only on Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound On podcast. Catch us live weekdays at one eastern on Bloomberg dot com. The iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business app, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
They've confirmed another in the US Senate nineties six to one. How about that for General Randy George, the next Army Chief of Staff. And you're saying, what happened to the blockade, Well it's still in place. Senator Tommy Tubberville of Alabama, still blocking more than three hundred military officer promotions here in his seemingly never ending objection to the Pentagon's abortion travel policy. I say another because the big one came
down just a short time ago. Its late yesterday. Actually see Q Brown, next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader, made this decision to bring them to the floor to get around the blockade, and spoke about it earlier today.
These men should have already been confirmed. They should already be serving in their new positions. The Senate should not have to go through procedural hoops just to please one brazen and misguided senator. But this is where we are.
Bloomberg caught up with that senator earlier this morning outside the chamber. Here's Tommy Tuberville.
Problem is, we've been doing this for seven months. We could have been doing a few a week, but they refused to do it because they didn't think they were wrong. Well, they're dead wrong on this, and so the American people on a controversial set like this, of course need to have their voice or do their senator in commerce. It doesn't need to be dictated from the White House with a memo or the Pentagon. So we have a whole now still on around three hundred promotions. They need to
be promoted, but that's up to Humor. If he wants to bring them to the floor, we'll confirm.
Which could take the better part of the rest of this year. Based at least on what Democrats are suggesting, Tubberville seems to think it would move a little bit quicker than that. Let's reassemble the panel for their take. John Sidlite's had Trilogy advisors and Lincoln Mitchell political analysts, lecturer of the School of International Public Affairs at Columbia University. John, This, I guess is setting some sort of precedent. It's what Chuck Schumer said he didn't want to do and that
he wouldn't do. But the military does now have at least a top commander in the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Is it the right move?
I don't know if it's the right move, Joe. I think what this truly comes down to is this two different issues I think at play here. One is obviously this procedural issue involving abortion right a very, very polarizing issue in American politics. But clearly Chuck Schumer had the ability to allow for each nominee to be debated, it just would have chewed up an enormous amount of time
on the Senate floor. And so Senator Tuberville exploited Senate rules which give great powers to each senator to hold up debate to pursue policies that he or she may wish to, and as he's I think effectively done. He pointed out the fact that Senator Duckworth had done the same thing with I think eleven hundred promotions back in twenty twenty over the issue of Alexander Vindmann. So Tuberville is exercising the leverage that's available to him on this issue.
But I think there's a larger constitutional issue here that I think is more important to the American people, and that is can the executive branch unilaterally change legislation that affects executive branch policy decisions? So, in this case, a Defense department allowing for paid travel for service members to have abortions, and that is something that the Senator and the House have already voted on in the passion they
prohibit that. So can the executive branch override congressional legislation without the vote of the people. And I think this is going to be an important precedent for other very polarizing issues in the months and years to come.
Well, I'll tell you what Lincoln Turberville says, just bring that policy to the floor. And it's kind of I guess it's unknown right now. What would happen you could speak to the vote here that just took place, or these two confirmations. I know that you are not a fan of the Tuberville blockade, and a lot of lawmakers get very upset by the way. That's Democrats and Republicans who believe this is impacting military readiness and that it's
the wrong way to make a point on this. But does Chuck Schumer have the votes if he actually brought it to the floor to defend that policy.
I think we need to be careful about some of the sleight of hand that Tuberville is using here. Abortion is not a controversial issue. Access to abortion early in the pregancy is opinion that a majority of the Americans support. The reason is controversial is because the minority that opposes that idea is overrepresented in the US Senate and number of state legislatures and in the Supreme Court. So to say this is an issue about which Americans, you know,
are are completely polarized, is a bit misleading. And when we should we should remember that if you were to go to the floor with this bill, you would have. However, it was phrased the House voting a long party line saying you should not be able to travel to get a portion if you're in the military, and the Senate saying you should, and then the President, if possible, vetoing it to you know, depending on how on how the yes or the nose were phrased. We know that's how
it would go. We know this is now an issue that is essentially a party line issue. The point to underscore for Tuberville, and he's right, we could have a long debate about every single one of these appointees in the Senate could do nothing else. Uh, you know, for a party that's happy to shut down the government, maybe
that works. But the point to underscore for Tuberville and anyone who supports them, is that that the position then is that the national security United States is less important than women in the military being able to have reproductive freedom. And look, that's a policy dispute. Not everyone's going to see it my way on that. I understand that, but that is the position. And you know, the legislative pyrotechnics of Chuck Schumer or Tommy Tuberville, or the military or
the Biden administration has to work around that. But that is the position that Tuberville is saying. And again he's entitled to have that position. But you know, this is from a party that, for as long as I remembered, lectured me because I wasn't tough enough on national security and didn't care enough. Well, they don't seem to care so much either.
Was the issue of military readiness. There's also the matter of military families John who are in many cases are living in temporary housing. Their kids didn't start the school year the way they were supposed to because they thought they were moving. One of the parents in that house is not getting an anticipated pay raise because of it.
This is why people are questioning, I guess the morality, if I can use that term of Tuberville's approach, what should be said about these military families, just the cost of being in the military.
Unfortunately, they're caught up in the vise of this debate, and there's a trade off involved here in every type of a decision, whether it comes to policy, legislation, or regulation,
and there's never going to be a perfect solution. I mean, I can't speak for Senator Tuberville as to what the impact is on these families and to what extent he is sympathetic to their plight, but he clearly feels strong enough about this, as do the voters in his state, and as do the voters in a number of other states whose senators may support him, even as there are those that oppose him. So this is the democratic process.
Sometimes it's ugly, and there are very human consequences to it, but this is the price that some lawmakers are willing to pay to achieve their objectives.
Well, that's clear with Tommy Tuberville. I just wonder if Chuck Schumer just made it less likely for him to drop this blockade by putting these votes on the floor. We will not know, of course, until he makes that decision, if a decision is made. John, thanks for the time today. John sidelities at Trilogy Advisors. Lincoln Mitchell stays with us for some final thoughts. Straight ahead here on the fastest show in politics. You know they found the wreckage of
that missing F thirty five this week. Now the eyewitnesses are coming forward. That's next on sound On Only on Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg sound On podcast. Catch the program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the tune in alf Bloomberg dot Com, and 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.
Were still waiting to learn more about this F thirty five Stealth Fighter jet that went missing, remember at South Carolina after the pilot ejected a couple of days ago. Now we told you they did find wreckage from that jet in a field that was outside of the area they were even looking in. So apparently this thing flew for a minute. Still not sure why it wasn't pinging
anyone or why it was so hard to find. Remember, they had to actually put out a phone number to ask for the public's help on this, and eyewitnesses are now emerging. One woman in Williamsburg County, where the plane went down, tells NBC News that she and her family they're out there having a little time in the backyard. They saw it go almost inverted just before it crashed. And Randolph White, also from Williamsburg County, he heard the jet when it was going down right over his house.
He says he was inside shaving and if you ever imagine what that sounded like, tried to imagine, Well, imagine no longer.
I heard a screeching, saw that between a screech and a whistle.
I said, what in the will of this? Yeah?
And boom in my whole house.
His whole house shook. He says he didn't realize it was a plane at the time. I thought it was a media rite. So he didn't call anyone. Lincoln Mitchell, I don't know how you lose a stealth fighter, but with men like that, at least we know what they sound like.
That's right, and that's the beauty of radio. I'm not an expert on military aviation. However, I do recall being on Bloomberg Radio a few months ago where I was asked about UFOs. So I'm not saying anything, but maybe we should try to explore that connection. I don't know how the military loses an airplane. I'm glad that gentleman who was shaving. I hope he didn't cut himself or anything like that. I mean there, obviously, I hope everyone's okay.
I knew I could count on you. Lincoln. I got to have you as always. Don't be a stranger. Lincoln Mitchell political analyst. He lectures at the School of International Public Affairs at Columbia University. And here's a little something you might not know. Lincoln writes a substack on baseball and politics, and you got to check it out. It's called Gobitzing with Lincoln. Of course, how about Randolph White? Can we do that again?
I heard us screeching.
Between us screech and a whistle.
Thanks for listening to the sound on podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already an Apple Spot five and anywhere else you get your podcasts, and you can find us live every weekday from Washington, d C. At one pm Eastern Time at Bloomberg dot com.