Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then Broun Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
In Washington, a lot of the focus here from the White House and from Capitol Hill is instead on activity we are seeing in many places across the country, from the West coast at UCLA to north of US in Manhattan, Joe. As we've seen these pro Palestinian protests roiling college campuses and ultimately last night police having to get involved in New York.
That's for sure. Look, no one knew exactly how that was going to go. Students who had occupied the hall on Columbia's campus, who were many of which were chanting live as we were in the late edition of Balance of Power yesterday, were cleared out. They said they would not leave without being forced to, and they certainly were. It was just after nine pm. If you're with us on Bloomberg TV, you can see images of police at work.
They entered the building on a second floor there and dozens were arrested, Kaylee led away by bus to their next destination. They're trying to clear out the campus for a May fifteenth graduation ceremony, and it's unclear they're going to have the cooperation of all students on them well, and.
The university has asked the police to stay present on the campus until May seventeenth try to get through all of those And this just really underscore is a great political problem for this administration, as you have seen a Republican lawmakers, especially taking this opportunity to go to Columbia University to speak about this issue, taking action just today on anti semitism we expect in the House of Representatives.
And at the same time you have representatives of this administration in the Secretary of State in the Middle East trying to work on a East fire deal, which may be the only thing that could help ease this tension abroad end at home.
It's pretty remarkable and Jordan Fabian from our White House team is framing it perfectly in his piece today talking about the make or break moment for Joe Biden right now, and he joins us at the table. Jordan, it's always great to have you. Thanks for being here. This is a fine line that Joe Biden is walking here. Of course, Democrat needs young people to show up to be elected. Clearly, he's dealing with the strife overseas that Kayley mentioned and
it's playing out on campuses. Now. How is the White House responding to questions of free speech versus security for Jewish students.
So they've issued statements through spokespeople condemning things like the seizing of the building at Columbia, any kind of violence or anti Semitic rhetoric. Of course, there's been pressure for Joe Biden himself to come out and address this, both
of Jewish groups and from Republicans in Congress. It's a tough line, as you mentioned, Joe for him to balance though, because on one hand, he has these young voters who, you know, it's not all young voters, but a very vocal segment who've been out there protesting his approach to
the Israel Hamas conflict. On the other hand, you have, you know, Jewish Americans a lot of other people who are very concerned about this, and so threating the needle and sort of putting out some kind of nuanced message is something very difficult right now. So it seems like the White House is hoping that the conflict resolves itself during these as He's fire talks this week, and that really takes a pin out of the protest we're seeing across college campuses well.
And it also is worth noting, Jordan that a lot of this, frankly, is not actually in the hands of the president. It is up to these universities whether or not they're going to meet demands of students in terms of divesting from Israel, for example, And it's up to other parties, namely Israel and AMAS as well as the Egyptians and cutteries as to whether or not ultimately a ceasefire agreement is reached. There's only so much that the president is able to do, that's right.
And you make a good point, Kaylee, which is that these protests aren't about Joe Biden, and then not really even about the US government. It's about what the universities are doing. And so whatever he says might not call
the concerns. And you know, the Biden campaign will tell you that while we're seeing a lot of a protest activity, a lot of intense feeling, this is only a you know, small sliver of not only the US electorate of young voters and young voters while they support a ceasefire, they support the end of the war, they don't rank this
too highly. So there's other issues like the economy where that's going to speak more to how they're casting their ballot in November than what we're seeing on televisions with the protests right now.
Is this his primary focus right now? When you look at Joe Biden's day, if you look at the length of time he can spend on an issue. We finally got through this whole funding process with Ukraine and Israel, we have fund at the government. Obviously he's got a campaign running, but when he's in the West wing, is this occupying his full attention at the moment?
Absolutely?
I mean he said in public speeches that oversees conflicts. I mean not just but Ukraine, the funny package you just mentioned, that's occupying the majority of his time. And it's interesting because we're in this election year. Usually you would see a president a presidential candidate out of the road, and you're seeing him out on the road. But a lot of is mental energy, a lot of the time spent behind closed doors is clearly spent on resolving this conflict.
He's been on the phone with the leaders of Israel, of Arab nations who are helping broker the ceasefire talks, and it's clearly weighing heavily on his mind.
All right, Jordan Fabian, who covers the White House for us here at Bloomberg, thank you so much. We want to turn this now to our political panel, our signature political panel, Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzano Bloomberg Politics contributors are with us now. Genie, as Jordan is just describing here a president that has been on the road where he has not been to this point, is actually on any of these campuses that we're talking about. Does the president need to make a trip to one of these
schools to talk to these students. Is he able to address this issue from Afar?
You know, I think he can address it from Afar. You know, these are issues for the college campuses themselves. When the protests get out of hand and they turn violent, or they are anti Semitic, or they are bigoted, if they are, you know, in any way impeding somebody's ability to get an education, and police are called in. Absolutely the government comes in, but that is the police, the president, the speaker of the House. They do not have a
role on this. College campuses have many things to address. They've done somethings right on this, They've done something's wrong. We all know that. But the reality is the president doesn't need to be on a college campus to say I denounce anti Semitism, I support peaceful protests, and that is something that he should be saying forcefully. But he should leave it to the officials at the college to
do what we do, which is teaching students. And if the students need to have a lesson as it pertains to peaceful protest, if they need to have a lesson as it pertains to any sort of thing, that is up to the university, the board of chancellors, or whoever is in control. So I don't think the president needs to go there except to give a commencement dress when invited, as you will at Morehouse in a few weeks.
Well, I wonder, Rick Davis, if we're in for many more larger protests. Knowing that it was congressional testimony that really got this started. We remember, of course Harvard and MIT more recently Columbia's leader, and now we understand that a House committee will be summoning three more university leaders Yale, UCLA, University of Michigan. That's May twenty three, assuming they all testify, Rick, what will this story look like by then?
Yeah, I think that this is going to continue on through the red hot summer, right. I mean you would have thought, oh, everybody go home after school. You know, this is final week in many of these institutions. Maybe just take a breather from this. But look, I mean, this isn't really about whether or not the universities are investing in Israel. I mean, for heaven's sakes, it's just such a tiny issue in the grand scheme of things.
It's what's happening on these campuses that have the President engaged and others around the country, including Congress, and that is rampant anti Zionism, rampant attacks on Jewish students in the you know, and the harassment that they have to go through. I mean, this is a cultural issue that needs to be addressed. It is unacceptable behavior in virtually every single instance of these protests. They are fueled by this kind of bigoted behavior. And it is the president
of the United States. It sets the standard for our society to live together, and this is not the way to do it. And the universities have failed universally. If you have a protest where they've taken over your campus or your office buildings, you've by definition failed in your ability to create a positive environment for all students to learn and to get along. And so yeah, I think
this is something the president should deal with. I think Congress legitimately should try as hard as they can to fight back the spread of anti Semitism that's been well reported in our country. And I think this is a legitimate topic to be discussed, especially in the summer of a presidential election year.
Okay, So Rick, from your point of view, if this is really a cultural issue, this is not something that would would have a geopolitical solution in any sense a ceasefire agreement would it bring an end to the kind of behavior or language that you are talking about that has been on display here. This actually, in your mind, is more of a domestic issue in this country, even if it if it originated from something that happened abroad.
Sure, Look, there's no question that any improvement in the condition on the ground in Gaza would would help calm things down within our country and other countries around the world are affected by this. But the reality is we also know that ceasefires haven't lasted, and this one is not, even if they get it, not planned to.
Be last forever.
Bibnt Yahoo, the Prime Minister of Israel's made it perfectly clear that regardless of ceasefires, he still plans to root out the balance of Hamas and that means ground troops from the Idea in Gaza killing Palestinian Hamas agents. And so, yeah, this isn't going away anytime soon. And yeah, we all hope and pray for a ceasefire, but I don't think anybody in this administration or in the region believes that solves all the problems.
Rick and Jeannie Kayley is pointing me to a tweet right now from an official at the White House, the Deputy Communications Director, that the President will deliver remarks next week on anti Semitism, what they call a sacred duty to remember in more than the six million Jews who were systematically murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators. He will deliver a keynote address at a Holocaust memorial ceremony. Genie is this more what you had in mind.
It's absolutely he is doing the right thing. He needs to denounce forcefully as he always has, anti Semitism in any form. There is no question. He needs to denounce violence, maltreatment, mistreatment of anyone. He also needs to support the right to peaceful protests. And I think he needs to remind people what the heart of what these young people who are out there aren't there about is a war that
is going to last. As Rick just talked about. They fear for the large amount of their future and they don't feel like their government is doing enough about it. Should they do that peacefully, absolutely, but let's not forget this is a devastating and awful war that is going on down there out there, and they are asking for
a cease fire now. Protests, as they are and have always been, have a lot of different voices in them, but that is at the heart of this, and that is also something that the president and the administration are pushing for. So, you know, I think we have to give credit to young people. Anybody who has sent a child to college in the last ten twenty years, as I have, and I teach it at college. The motto at almost every one of these American universities is changed
the world. That is what we teach the students to do, to think, to act, and so when people go out to make a change in their world peacefully, we support that. When they get out of line, they have to accept those consequences, and absolutely they should. What happened in New York overnight had to happen. But this is the reality
we're living in. And the President is right to speak on anti Semitism, just as I hope he speaks about the right to peace believe protests and does his job, which is pushing for a ceasefire in Gaza and helping the civilians over there who are suffering enormously on both sides of the of the aisle and including and most importantly the hostages.
Ginny, we have less than a minute left. But as you talk about young people changing the world, the world also can change depending on the way people vote in November. From your vantage point, is it more likely that these young voters will just not vote at all, or that they actually would be willing to turn out and vote for Donald Trump rather than Joe Biden.
On this issue? You know, they don't see, at least as far as we can tell so far Donald Trump as a viable option, because of course he's somebody who just you know, last weekend went out and talked about the context of Charlottesville and the Nazis that were out there. So they don't see him as a option, so they may just stay home. But you know, this is something that we have to wait and see. It's still not the most important issue on the minds of most people
in this young age group. That remains the economy.
Genie Shanzino and Rick Davis. This is why they are our signature panel. Thank you for the insights.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then rod Oro with the Bloomberg Business App. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just say Alexa Play. Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Welcome you. Because we saw it coming. It was right at this time yesterday. Nathan Dean was sitting in this chair and we were talking about the possibility of rescheduling cannabis being announced maybe even that day, And it happened about five minutes after Nathan walked out of the room, and here we are this morning, on this first of
May afternoon, forgive me watching. Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, announced plans to reintroduce the Federal Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act. This would be to full blown legalize marijuana in this country, removing cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act, which is something that polling shows a majority of Americans actually support, but no one sees happening quite yet. We're going to go one step at a time here because what happened yesterday
is very important. You can read about it on the terminal the Justice Department recommending cannabis be reclassified as less risky, a very important step for cannabis businesses here who are also waiting for the Safe Banking Act they can't use banks either. To pass and this is of course a bunch of states now that have done this, that have legalized marijuana. One Congressman who was ahead of the curve on this issue, and it was way ahead, is Earl
Blumenauer of Oregon. Of course, was also ahead on this issues, the founder and co chair now of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, and he was out with a statement on rescheduling yesterday, marijuana was scheduled more than fifty years ago, he writes, based on stigma, not science, and Congressman joins us now live from Capitol hillster, I appreciate your being with us. I suspect this is a major development for you and the work that you've put into this. But I'd like
to start at the beginning here. If it was based on stigma not science, where did that come from? As we hear tobacco companies, Was it racism or was it both?
It is the aftermath of Richard Nixon's failed War on drugs.
He weaponized cannabis in an.
Effort to gain political advantage, jamonizing young black men, young people generally, and being able to beat the drum of cannabis.
It launched this fifty year war on.
Drugs that had drugs terrible consequences for a million young black men. It has stimied efforts to be able to move it forward, but the people insisted that they were going to take it in their own hands.
We've now seen.
Thirty eight states have legalized medical cannabis. We have twenty eight states that have fully legalized adult use. Many of these are by a vote of the people. We now have over seventy percent of the public that thinks that cannabis should be completely legalized.
This decision by.
The Biden administration to deal with reality and schedule it as Scheduled three rather than Schedule.
One is really extraordinarily important.
It's going to allow state legal cannabis businesses to deduct their business expenses for tax purposes. Right now they pay two three times more than typical. So this is going to be earth shattering. It's going to lead, i think, to the Safe Banking Act through the Senate in near future, and it's starting the revolution.
All of those would be big developments here. Your colleague Steve Scalise, the Majority leader, sees things rather differently, as of course, you know, Congressman. He had this to say after the development on rescheduling, we need to be reducing the number of people that use drugs and not increasing that number. We should not be making matters worse. He said, where's the disagreement here? Because you're talking about the war
on drugs and he is as well. Congressman, how would you respond to, Steve Scalise?
The states that have the most draconian drug laws have not reduced the use. In fact, states that don't have a system like we have in Oregon actually.
Puts more risk for youngsters.
Somebody who's getting their marijuana from a corner drug dealer, Nobody checks ID, nobody deals with a license that they lose, and it's available in every state.
Steve is just in the ozone.
In fact, the majority of people in his own state support legalization, and having more draconian enforcement is not going to make a difference at all, other than it will disrupt some lives. This is an industry that now has almost a half million people. The industry is forty billion dollars and that's just the legal business. So people like Steve are just out in the ozone. They haven't been able to stop it. Sessions, I'm sorry, not at all.
It's just funny that we know. I'm talking to a lawmaker about this. Usually you say it's the people smoking potter in the ozone. But you're on the Ways and Means Committee congres This is a cultural issue, it's a business issue, and I think you're making the point here. This is also a taxation issue. As Chuck Schumer floats this federal legalization effort here, I know that's not about to happen. I'm just curious what would it mean. Do
you have a number? What would it mean for revenues into the federal government if you legalize pot.
Well, first of all, having the reschedule to schedule three means that it changes the equation for people with these businesses. They're not going to pay two, three, four times the typical text. It means it's going to be easier to comply. It's going to take money losing propositions and make them money.
Making propositions.
This is going to mean hundreds of billions of dollars in the foreseeable future if we get this right. And of course, the health benefits are undeniable. That's why we have thirty eight states that have not waited for the federal government. They've taken medical marijuana in their own hands. So this is going to be revolutionary.
Talk about the amount of support that this has around the country, Congressman, and apparently in your own chamber, is this something you talk about with your fellow lawmakers?
Yes, I mean I've gone and beaten the drum. For example, in the Safe Banking Act, we had three hundred and twenty one representatives in both parties that voted for it twice.
In fact, it's past the House seven times.
What's going to happen with what Chuck Schumer, Ron Wyden, Corey Booker shared Brown Congressman Danes are Senator Danes from Montana. They're going to be putting this forward and you're going to see that it will get probably sixty sixty five votes. This is the most significant whip count that you're going to get. I think it's going to asher in a whole new era of rational drug policy.
Earl bloominare Congressman from Oregon's third congressional district. We thank you for being with us, sir, and we'll have more details as this raps. It could take the rest of the year, based on what we understand as a comment period and a final approval that needs to take place. Here, let's assemble the panel for their take on this and some of the other stories popping today in Washington. Rick Davis is here along with Genie Shanzino, our signature panel,
just like that Bloomberg Politics contributors. Rick, this is not a Republican issue typically, and I just referenced what Steve Scalise said in the wake of this news here Chuck Schumer, Corey Booker, and others. Right now, Ron Wyden Democrats in the Senator talking about their bill to legalize marijuana. But this seems to be something that might be a bridge too far for your party. What do you think about what's happening right now.
Yeah, there's still quite a few Senators and congressmen Republicans who agree with Steven Sclave, which is, we should be not encouraging drug use in America. We should be encouraging less drug use in America. And I don't think anybody who lives in a state that has legalized marijuana, either for recreational purposes or for medicinal purposes, don't think that
that hasn't increased the risk on the road. That's pernicious effect of walking down the street and getting a secondary high just to go on from meeting to meeting in New York City these days. And the reality of it is is no one has really done empirical studies around
the long term health effects of marijuana. And so I just think for the purposes of the debate, sure, if it's going to be happening before it it's an age old Washington slogan, But the reality too, Is that just because a lot of wrong has been done through marijuana policy in the past doesn't mean that it expunges the record in the future.
Well, we're talking about a couple of different things here, Genie. Rescheduling is one. Safe banking is an whether you know, in the case of rescheduling, you're allowing these existing companies that do have employees to actually take those tax deductions, allowing them through safe banking, which has not yet passed, to use the banking system. Both of those different than what Chuck Schumer is talking about now, and actually legalizing this on the federal level. This is something that Joe
Biden promised though on the campaign trail. Is this good politics? Rich's painted the picture for us. You walk out the door, god knows you're in New York, and you get punched in the face by cannabis smoke wherever you go. This is I guess this is the new reality. Should this the government need to catch up with it?
Yeah, you know, I think Joe Biden is one of the most moderate Democrats out there on this issue. He obviously has a personal tie to the issue of drug abuse, and it's something that helps explain, although not fully why he has long been against de Krimlin decriminalization or legalization, but he also wants to take steps, which is what the administration is doing now to reduce penalties.
Right.
So you know, these are the sort of small steps that he is taking and trying to thread this needle, and we have to see where it goes. But you know, the reality here is that there's only so much the President and the administration can do. If you want to get real traction on this, it's got to come from Congress. Just what you're showing in terms of Chuck Schumer, the Controlled Substance Act that's got to be changed by Congress.
The criminal Code got to be changed by Congress. And so there is going to be a I think a really heated, interesting debate on this issues for some of the reasons you just laid out and Rick was talking about, because we've heard a lot from the pro legalization side so far and a little less from the anti so I think that's going to be happening. But again, Joe Biden, these are small, important steps, but they're still small and allow him to walk this more moderate line.
Yeah.
Well, and the word though, Rick, is that you know the data here are stubborn. Most research shows that legalizing marijuana has not actually increased usage. Joe Biden just doesn't like the ideas from a different generation, and this just doesn't seem to be something that he wants to speak about in the way that people expected during the campaign. Does he need to be consistent on this? Does he put Kamala Harris in front of the issue? What do you do in a re election campaign?
Yeah, I think it's the difference between being the president United States and having a set of trend and a moral center for the country, versus being a candidate and frankly needing to shore up the base vote he's got, especially within the party of young people. And when you pull young people, this is a lopsided issue, right. They don't see the harm, they don't see the foul, they haven't been historically damaged by it, and so for them
this is a no brainer. And anybody gets in a way of this is just thinking about the past, not the future. And so it's a real hard line that president has to pass through. And I'd say, you know, this is not a surprise to me that the administration would be changing the classification of this drug. You know,
six months before presidential election. Not saying it's a quid pro quo, but it certainly does soften up that eighteen to twenty five year old base within his party who's been reluctant to be enthusiastic about his presidency.
I do wonder about that genie and our remaining couple of moments here you're on campus, and the story on campus most recently has been a not good one for Joe Biden. As we watched police break up another encampment last night, three hundred people arrested at Columbia University. Are you hearing talk about this? Is this a front burner issue for college students right now or are they looking at the war in Gaza.
You know, when you look at the polls, the younger people are, the more supportive they are about making marijuana or cannabis accessible decriminalizing it. There's no question there a lot of support, but it's not something we've seen where people go out and vote on. Certainly when it's on a state level ballot, we've seen people who don't traditionally go out vote on it. But it's not a federal
level something that we've seen really make a change. So I am not convinced that this is something that will help an awful lot. Do they support it absolutely? Will it get them out to vote?
No?
The economy reigns stream when it comes to young people, jobs, inflation, the economy. There's a lot of interest in GAZA, but even that is lower when you look at the most important issue goals.
I just think that's fascinating, after you know, so many years of people speculating on what the impact of something like this would be, it's still just young people want to be able to buy a house, right. It's pretty simple sometimes when it comes to politics.
If you're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast, catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Appo, CarPlay and then Proud Otto with the Bloomberg Business app Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Here in Washington, just a little ways down the road from where Joe and I right now, we're getting ready to breed a statement from the Federal Reserve and ultimately have a press conference from Chairman Powell. Joe and there's a real possibility that despite what we heard just weeks ago after a hot CPI report from President Biden who said there will be rate cuts this year that the Chairman could indicate in fact there very well may not.
Be, yeah, or could there be a hike this year still to come. I think they're thirty percent odds on that at the moment, as we wait to hear from what we're told will be a much more hawkish j. Powey's got a point to prove today, Kaylee, and it's based on the data. It's very hard to deny what's happening here in this economy, and it's something we wanted to spend some time with Lindsay Owens to talk about before we turn things over to our special FED coverage.
Lindsay is an economist the Groundwork Collaborative where she's executive director and Lindsay, it's great to have you back. How concerned are you, knowing your background in economics here you have a slightly more progressive view and the idea of a more hawkish FED at this stage when you consider the impact that these rates have had higher for longer on the housing market, creating a higher barrier for entry for young people, more potential risk for the job market. What are we about to hear?
Yeah?
Absolutely, I mean, I think it's pretty clear that AL is unlikely to veer off his higher for longer strategy, you know, holding rate study for now, but potentially coming off some of the earlier projections for September rate hikes. But you know, the question I think we have to ask ourselves here is what are the benefits of a higher for longer strategy and what are the risks? And I do I think given the areas where we're seeing sticky inflation, it's really unclear that the higher for longer
strategy has a lot of payoffs. You know, when it comes to the housing market, when it comes to energy costs, when it comes to auto insurance, which is another one of the areas where we're seeing more inflation than we'd like, none of those are really responsive to the Fed's interest rate policy. And in fact, when it comes to the housing market, you know, it may well be the case that the federal reserves policies are exacerbating some of the
pricing that we're seeing in the housing market. So I think the evidence that the higher for longer strategy is going to sort of bring down the last mile of inflation is thin.
And I think the evidence that the higher for longer.
Strategy is starting to post some considerable costs, is getting stronger by the day.
Okay, Lensy, your point is well taken that a lot of the stickiness is where you see most directly, interest rate polony policy transmitting as in higher rates, higher mortgage rates. That has ripple effects throughout the housing market for example. But isn't the risk of not keeping rates higher for longer that rates going down or the expectation that they will go down further fuels demand, gets people out there spending, and all of those different areas of the economy where
we're not talking about inflation getting sticky. Suddenly do start to see prices spiking higher again, isn't isn't that really the concern?
Yeah?
Absolutely.
The Fed is trying to you know, handle the upside risk of inflation sort of you know, picking back up considerably right then they're worried about that.
You know.
I think we've seen a lot of inflation come down because of transitory factors and also because.
Of supply coming back online. I don't think.
There's huge risk of you know, a big increase in consumption here that's going to have inflation sort of unmooring and sort of spiraling out of control. So I'm definitely in the camp of someone who actually thinks coming off interest rate hikes at this point, you know, is smart. You know, I would like to see cuts frankly, you know, given given where we are in the cycle here, but you know, we'll have to see sort of where Pal
is at two o'clock. But you know at the end of the day, and he's signaling that he's going to stick with the higher for longer strategy.
And I think.
You know, we're all sort of watching this experiment play out in real time of the FED trying to chase inflation down to two percent, and you know, hoping that they'll be successful. But increasingly, you know, when we parse the individual data, it really doesn't look like this last mile is going to be responsive to interest rate hikes.
And so I think we're in a real predicament here.
Does that last mile last through November? Because we've talked a lot about the political implications of interest rate changes around the election, and Joe Biden's got his eyes on about six months from now, where are we? Where are we in the cycle?
Then lindsay, yeah, I mean, you're absolutely right.
The political consequences of this really punishing interest rate environment are considerable. American's top concerned about the economy right now is high prices, but they're also concerned about high borrowing costs. They're concerned about mortgage rates, which are incredibly high right now.
I mean, look, you know, I think sometimes.
We get you know, focused on sort of watching mortgage rates tick up and down. But you know, let's think about what this means in real terms for families. I mean, I myself would be paying twice as much per month in today's interest rate environment then in the interest rate environment in which I bought my home. That is a
considerable difference, right, Twice twice the monthly mortgage payment. Right, So this is pushing folks, you know, out of home ownership for years, right, Folks not being able to jump in to the mortgage market. So the effects of this are considerable on the economy. Of course, the economy is top of mind as folks head to the ballot box in November, and we also have to look at some of the other things that are influenced by the high
interest rate environment. I mean, you know, Americans are holding a huge amount of debt right now. Aprs on credit cards are sky high, and credit card companies are you know, really in some ways hiding behind high federal fund.
Rates to keep aprs really higher than they need to be.
So I think this is affecting consumers, you know, most consumers, many consumers in America every day the high cost of borrowing. And it's absolutely the case that getting some relief on borrowing, you know, I think would be really helpful for President Biden before November.
Lindsay, we have just about a minute left before we hand things over to our special coverage, in about an hour until Chairman Pal walks up to that podium to deliver the press conference. If you had one question to ask him today, what would it be?
I mean, look, the question I have is, you know, are we really getting payoff from higher for longer? What is your evidence that higher for longer is going to get that last mile of inflation down, that is going to get housing costs down, is going to get energy costs down, that is going to get auto insurance premiums down. I think you've really got to ask yourself, you know, sort of as the juice worth of squeeze here in the high interest rate environment.
And then if I got a follow up question.
You know, I would sort of be interested in hearing him articulate the consequences of higher for longer, because I would. I hope he's well aware of the consequences here for American families.
All right, Lindsay Owen's Groundwork Collaborative executive director, former Senior economic policy advisor to Senator Elizabeth Warren. Thank you so much for joining us. It's an excellent question, Joe, about the way that monetary policy is transmitting in this economy, whether we can actually get down from three percent to two percent, or maybe the question Chairman Powell would like to answer least of all, is two percent still achievable.
Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already an Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern at Bloomberg dot com.