Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apocarplay and then Rouno with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Welcome to the Wednesday edition of Ballants of Power. It's done. We just heard from the President a short time ago. You likely heard it on Bloomberg Radio if you've been spending some time with us. The President signing the bill. This was a seven month long affair Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, specifically the money over Ukraine with such a concerted debate, something the President spent so much time lobbying for.
He actually signed all of this before.
He spoke to reporters earlier at the White House, making it clear that the package is already on the way.
Here's the President of short time ago.
I'm making sure the shipments start right away in the next few hours, literally a few hours, we're going to began sending equipment to Ukraine for air defense, munitions, for artillery, for rocket systems, and armored vehicles. You know, this package is literally an investment not only in your Red Krane security, but in europe security, in our own security. We're sending Ukraine equipment from our own stockpiles.
From our own stockpiles. That's why this billion dollars in hardware was already set to go. When the bill was passed, President signed it.
Get it out there.
We've even heard from some military analysts on this program suggesting that there are staging areas closer to Ukraine where the weapons and material were being held. The President there speaking from the White House with his US and Ukrainian flag pin on his lapel. What about the numbers, though, if we can back up just a moment, what we
saw in the Senate last night is certainly newsworthy. Seventy nine to eighteen the vote, that's the final vote, more voting for this than did in February, and specifically more Republicans. Thirty one voted for this bill compared to twenty two who voted for the version back in February. As you might remember, that was the one without TikTok. This was supposed to be a heavier lift. Doesn't seem so much
like it Only fifteen Republicans voted against it. Let's get into it right now with Jonathan Tomorrow, who covers Congress for US at Bloomberg Government. This day the President signs the bill. Jonathan, I don't know what you would have done with the last seven months of your life otherwise, but this was long and coming, and I wonder how you would frame this final vote in the Senate.
Well, I'd say this is one victory and maybe one last victory, but a victory for some of the kind of institutionalists, of the internationalists in the Senate and certainly within the Republican Party. A victory for Republicans who are kind of more molded by the Reagan era, molded by the Cold War. The party's really been shifting away from them.
It's continuing to shift away from them, but this is one last fight that they want, really driven by Mitch McConnell and bodied by Mitch McConnell, who considered himself a Reagan Republican who came up it was a major figure or has built his career during the Cold War opposing Russia. And when you look at the vote, those Republicans who voted against it very closely aligned with Donald Trump. Many
of them are very recently elected to the Senate. So a newer generation of Republicans are opposing this kind of thing, but it was one last time, or possibly one last time, that that older generation of Republicans were able to prevail on this kind of issue.
Yeah, there's one exception to that, of course, Jonathan John Barrasso, not only a veteran but the Senate Republican Conference chair who wants Mitch McConnell's job.
What do you make of that no vote?
Well, Barrasso is probably the most Trump aligned member of the Republican leadership, and so I think that's a bit of that going on there. He is now, I think, seeking the number two job in that conference, and so he doesn't have the same necessary political pressures as some of the others. Maybe has a little more freedom because I think he's running actually unopposed for that position at this point.
So definitely an interesting vote.
He broke with other Republican leaders on it, but I think that's in keeping with him even though he's of that kind of older era of Republicanism, he's been more aligned with Trump more recently.
The Democrats adjoining Republicans in opposing this bill one not a big surprise. Bernie Sanders but Jeff Murkley as well, Peter Welch also from Vermont, like Bernie Sanders, this is all about Israel funding, right, They wanted to pull back on the weapons that we were sending.
Not a surprise there, not a surprise.
I mean, I think it's one additional vote compared to when they voted in February. I think Welch and Sanders were both nosed back in February, so you have to pick up an additional Democrat. They do want to impose more sanctions or i'm sorry, more restrictions on the way
that those weapons can be used. But I think you're seeing that even though that idea has spread through a significant part of the Democratic base, it's not reaching up into kind of the institutional establishment part of the party.
Yet.
There was a very small number of defections in the House from Democrats, and as we see last night, a very small number of defections in the Senate as well. So a major issue among maybe base voters and younger voters, but not so much the folks who are in office.
Quite at this point, I don't know to what extent any of this is resonating on the campaign trail at this moment.
Ukraine has its own influence.
But there was a primary yesterday, Jonathan, and I know you're covering this as well, with Pennsylvania always being close to your heart. As far as the top of the ticket, here, Nikki, a name that we haven't heard in quite some time, did awfully well. Uh one more than a one hundred and fifty five thousand votes seventeen percent. That's a protest vote worth noting what's happening in Pennsylvania.
Yeah.
Absolutely. I mean when you look at Pennsylvania the last election, it was decided by eighty thousand votes, and so that's you know, half of the mart of what Nikki Haley got. And these are people there was no real campaign, So these are people who didn't have a lot of reason to vote and chose to come out and show their
kind of protest against Donald Trump. And this is a closed primary, so these are only registered Republicans who are voting so today that leaves us with the question of are these people who are registered Republican but have been voting Democratic for some time now, or are these Republicans who are breaking away from Trump after his last election. And even if it's a small number that are Republicans
breaking away from Trump. It could be meaningful. State was this, as I said, by eighty thousand votes last election, forty thousand votes the election before that. So a tiny margin of people could make a really big difference. And we've seen Trump really lose ground in the Philadelphia suburbs, lose Republicans who were kind of Bush Romney traditional Republicans. And when you're looking for every little percentage point, that's a warning sign for the former president.
Glad you get join us, Jonathan.
It's great to see Jonathan Tomori Bloomberg Government look for his reporting on the terminal and online. We should note that the president himself was facing a bit of a protest vote. I guess we can call it that. In Pennsylvania, Dean Phillips, no longer in the race, got seven percent. We'll have more on the primary results and the results of the Bloomberg Swing state poll coming up a little bit later on this hour, as we continue our focus on the foreign aid package that the President of the
United States just signed. This, of course was not only Ukraine and Israel, it was also Taiwan. The INDOPAC compled of this package got much less media coverage, less attention, probably because it was less controversial and it's something that we want to discuss with. Max Bauchus, the former senator and former US Ambassador to China, is with us right now. Mister ambassador, it's great to see you. Welcome back to Bloomberg. I'd like to just start more broadly here with your
foreign policy experience. The President acknowledged the seven month wait, the painful debate that preceded the passage of this bill and the president's signature. What message did we just send to the world by waiting that long, Well, Frankly.
The good news is we were sending message to the world that we can govern. Sure, it took atle while, but we got it done. Could have gone the other way. That package could have collapsed for one reason or another. It did not collapse. It passed. It passed a very large margin, the biparison margin. I should give some comfort to Americans. We could govern based on foreign policy matters, and Sir, a very strong message to Europe on Ukraine. It's a very strong message worldwide and also to China.
China sometimes thinks that that the United States is in decline. This shows no, no, we're not in decline. We're know we're doing we let's slow get in there, but we do get there.
And we're standing by our allies in Taiwan. This is a delicate situation, Ambassador, What does Beijing think about this package we just passed.
When I was serving in Beijing, the Chinese drilled into me that Taiwan is a core issue. It's non negotiable. Taiwan alongs to China. It is totally non negotiable to the Chinese. And that's the message. The Chinese gave it to a with a General Austin just a short while ago. So we have to keep that in mind. And also remember the United States does adhere to a one China policy. One China policy says that there is one China, it's mainland China as Taiwan. We're not sure how that's going
to happen. We are opposed to a military intervention the United States is. We're also opposed to independence of Taiwan. It's very dicey, and frankly, I think that both sides are know where the the tripwire is. Both sides, however, are getting close to it, and I think we run a danger when we send a lot more arms in Taiwan. Most people in Taiwan don't like the status quo. They don't want change, They like it the way it is. They don't want independence, they don't want to be controlled
by China. They kind of like the way it is. And I think there too few in America understand that really is the view of the taiwan As people. And I also don't think China is going to is going to be a military if they Taiwan not in the foreseeable future. Why because Taiwan does not want more generally, US doesn't want more generally. And President she cares about one thing, one thing that's political security. He sees what happened in Ukraine. You see, the Russia made a big mistake.
They embarrassed themselves. Their generals were wrong. He's concerned about his pla generals. Maybe his generals will not do for him what he would like them to do. He's very, very risk adverse when it comes to militarily invading Taiwan.
Well, i'll tell you Anthony Blincoln is on his way, as you know, Ambassador and Bloomberg is reporting that the US is drafting sanctions now potentially sanctions against China for doing business with Russia. He's set to deliver that message in Beijing commercial support to be clear of Russia's military production.
How's that message going to go over?
Well, first, it's good that the Secretary is going to China. I think that more. He should go over more often. If you can't, other cabinet secretary should go over. We just need a lot more communication between US and China. When I was serving as ambassador, secretaries came over very frequently. Bred Obama came over frequently. Now under the current regime
there's less. Under Trump, very few secretaries went over. So it's good that Secretary of Lincoln's going, and he's facing a whole raft of problems and going over that is, first of all, there's a message in US ME sanctioned China for commercial aid, not military, but commercial aid to Russia. I mean, he's also going to probably address over capacity,
the problem that Secretary yelling face. And in addition to that, he's probably going to raise the problem with the Chinese trying to prevent aid to that that sunken ship just off the Philippines. He's going to have a hard time. The Chinese are going to give him a hard time.
Well, they might want to give him a hard time about TikTok as well, because every time we talk about working with China, we want to give them a hard time on something like this.
Well, what do you make of this bill?
I know that we're going to get into a big court fight here, ambassador, but politically, what does this divest or ban order mean for our relationship?
Well, clearly it's not good and as you are replying, has yet to play out. For there's a question whether it could be a sale. I think it's very difficult to occur because any purchaser looking at buying TikTok from by Dance is going to see that Chinese government does not want to sell the algorithm, which means the value of TikTok is very very low. It's not it's not going to work. But second, you know that all the problems of banning the app, the people will get around
it country going forious countries. It's it's just not an easy thing to do. And as you're saying that it's going to be resolved in the courts, basically, I think that it's a huge problem. Raises another issue of frankly, and that is the partisan politics in the United States against China, and it's felt well understood. Clearly, we want to protect our national security first. That's first and foremost
over any everything. The trouble is national security is being used to someone as an umbrella to cover lots of other interests, not just national security, but commercial interests. And you know, you know, I'd like to know where where the beef is. Often the United States government says, well, China's might do this, might do that, what might But
where's the evidence? Where's the evidence? Where's the beef? One problem I have is to a large degree, all of the yes governments have to say China, don't, don't have to invite any evidence, just China. That's enough to cause people all upset and say, oh no, we got to do something against China. I raise all this because we're going in the wrong direction. Is a greater divide between the two countries. Both countries are rearming more and more,
and that's not a good direction. We should be figuring out ways to go in the other direction where we neither country is doing a very good job at all trying to figure out how it worked better together.
Ambassador, I'm out of time.
I don't want to set you up to cut you off here, but in our remaining thirty seconds, should speaker Mike Johnson visit Taiwan now that this is best?
No, he should not speak of PULSI should not have gone over. Johnson should not go over. Let's just kind of let things cool off a little bit. There are ways to show our support for Taiwan, but don't rub spigger Johnson's don't rub the nose of Chinese bigger Johnson did not.
Go Yeah, it's great to have you, Baxter, come see us against soon the former ambassador to China, former US Senator Max Bachus getting us rolling here on Balance of Power.
It's the Wednesday edition. The bill has been signed.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then Rodoto 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.
The good reminder that earning season is underway, and certainly that is driving a lot of the market action, But so too jodas the economic data. We're going to get a bunch more of it this week, including GDP tomorrow, which is expected to show still robust growth in the United States of two and a half percent after the prior reading of three point four percent. To this economy
still by and large hanging in there. The problem for President Biden is he's certainly not getting credit for it, and people don't think it's as good as the data may suggest.
Well, yeah, we have to note I realize the pain that's involved with going to the grocery store and more recently again the gas station. But we have to note that data are so strong that the Fed has had to move its plans to cut interest rates, and you would think that that might be a strength that is enjoyed by more people than we're seeing in this new
Bloomberg swing state. Poul Kley, it's not just those who think the economy is a problem now, but the lack of optimism of the economy moving forward is a huge problem for this president.
Yeah.
Only twenty three percent of respondents said the unemployed the employment rate would improve over that between now and the end of the year, which is suggesting they don't have better prospects necessarily for the job market. They actually expect the conditions to get worse, not better, and therein lies the.
Read among undecideds it's single digits, who are optimistic that that number.
Is going to improve, Kaylee.
So we've got a lot to unpack here and a couple of important voices to help us with That will be joined in a moment by Eli Yoakley, political analyst with our partners at Morning Consult that helped to run this poll. And right now our conversation with Laura Davison, Bloomberg News Politics editor who's deeply involved in the poll. Here, Laura, great to see you have we isolated the biggest areas of concern for Joe Biden here. Issue number one remains the economy.
The economy and within that inflation still continues to be the issue that people are saying that they think is not going to get better. You know, we did see in the past month some data for inflation that was a little less encouraging, the Fed pushing back any rate cuts. You know, Borrowing costs continue to be an issue that people cited.
In this poll.
And you know, by and large, the bump that he got from the State of the Union last month has all but disappeared in this month's pole. So that's not great for the president, you know, particularly in those sun belt states, you know, Arizona, New North Carolina, Georgia. You know, in some cases, you know, you know, spreads looking close to ten percent, which is, you know, a big gap to make up, even though he have some time.
Well, it's interesting to consider how things have since the State of the Union address maybe got better for a period and now has fallen off. He outlined a bunch of things in that address he gave back in early March, including changes he'd like to see to tax policy.
And the like.
And it's interesting when you look at some of the other aside from the top line of the polling, we did down into things like who ultimately should be taxed to save social Security? A lot of people in these swing states think, yeah, tax the billionaires, save our welfare.
It's really incredible how much support there is for a billionaire's tax. You know, the seventy seven percent of swing state voters in this poll said that they would support a billionaire's tax to fund social Security. It's interesting we pulled last month on just the popularity in general of a billionaire's tax. It was, you know about seventy percent. So people love a billionaire's tax, and when you ask them if they want it to pay for Social Security,
they love it even more. Of course, the political challenge of this is, you know, about half of Congress is opposed to a billionaire's tax, if not.
A little bit more.
You know, all of Republicans and a handful of Democrats in some cases. So you know, this is really the disconnect where you see, you know, what the American public ones and what Congress can get done. And that will be the challenge you know, in the coming years.
Rationalize that among Trumps supporters a self professed billionaire, whether or not that's actually true, he's making the lifestyle of a billionaire look pretty good for them, right, and they think that he ought to be able to pay his attorney's fees with small cash donations instead of spending his own money. Those same voters support a billionaire's tax. How does that work.
It's a really interesting disconnect. And we've seen a shift in the American public, you know, in the past you know, decade or so of you know, wanting more taxes on the wealthy. You know, even you know, Donald Trump's tax cut in twenty seventeen. It was the first tax cut to be politically unpopular. You know, Bush did a bunch of tax cuts in the two thousands, all popular. But we've seen this shift of you know that people seem
to think that the wealthy should pay more. How you square that with you know, Republicans also wanting Donald Trump to be able to tack political money for his legal fees. I couldn't even begin to tell you.
Well the subject of Trump's legal battles. It's also worth pointing out tomorrow is the day the Supreme Court's going to hear arguments in his immunity from prosecution case, or the case he's making that he should be immune from prosecution here in Washington. Today, though, Laura, the court was dealing with another issue related to abortion, specifically in emergency cases in Idaho. And yet it speaks to this wider issue of abortion that continues to rear its head in
the legal system and in a number of states. And this poll was conducted including in the swing state of Arizona, after the abortion ruling there, which reinstated a law from the Civil War era, or essentially said it could be enforced. How did we see that showing.
Up so across all party ideas, Democrats, Republicans, independence, abortion has ticked up as an issue that is very important to voters, you know, particularly among Democrats, particularly in Arizona. We saw that most acutely. But having these headlines you know about you know, IVF in Alabama, having the Idaho headlines, having you know, Florida now being a you know, potentially the Biden campaign thinks in play because of the abortion
referendum on the ballot there. This is only continuing to be more important to voters, and Democrats are really banking on this as being an issue that will turn out voters in what is otherwise, you know, political experts are projecting as a lower turnout election that we've seen for the past several cycles.
All right, Bloomberg Politics editor Laura Davison, thank you so much as always for joining us. So, Joe, maybe it is partially about abortion, but our polling would indicate largely it still is the economy stupid, as we hear so frequently, and that's a message the White House is going to
have to counter. And someone from the White House, Gen Spurling, who's an advisor to the President, used to run the National Economic Council was talking about that on Bloomberg Television earlier today, and this is what he said to push back on that narrative.
I think overall, there's been lots of evidence that people are starting to appreciate more of the positive things in this economy. When people have gone to the polls, when they've actually voted and had a chance to register their unhappiness, like in twenty twenty two, what happened. It ended up being a historically positive election for this president.
So for more on the issue of the economy and what we're seeing in our polling, we turned nowt to Eli Yoakley of Morning Consult, where he is the US politics analyst. Eli, it's always great to have you on poll Day, Happy poll Day as we call it here
at Bloomberg. When we look at what we're seeing in terms of the feeling around the economy, knowing that it is currently April, there's still six and a half months ago until the election, at what point of views around the economy solidified enough that there is nothing that the Biden campaign is going to be able to do to change minds.
I mean, one thing that stood out to me as I was reviewing some of The data is this is the first month in a while when voters across the swing state map, more voters than the month before had said that they see prices as increasing. We've done this now for seven months in a row, and we're basically back to where things began in terms of how voters are perceiving inflation. And you know, that's worse in these states where President Biden is doing the worst, places like Nevada,
places like North Carolina and Arizona. Clearly that is weighing on the president's reelection prospects in a big way. This is always voter's number one issue, and even if you ask them to pick one issue, the economy is up there. This is going to be a problem that Biden campaign
is going to have to deal with. They're going to you know, we've seen some of the Democratic strategists argue this that Biden needs to stop trying to sell Bidenomics and meet voters where they are and acknowledge the prices increasing. This is this is obviously a problem for him and until he addresses it, it's probably not going to go away.
So much of this has to do eli with expectations fewer than one in five say they think inflation will come down by the end of the year, only twenty three percent think the unemployment rate will improve. Does this indicate that there's a potential for massive upside for Joe Biden when expectations are so low.
I mean, that's kind of the Joe Biden campaign trick, right, is let people think things are going to be really bad and then outperforming. He did that the State of the Union. People didn't think he could get through a speech that late anight, and he crushed it in their minds, right. You know, yeah, I think that is possible. Voters aren't afraid of losing their jobs, and we've asked that every month. That's not a big concern. Obviously, it's is prices problem
that he's dealing with. The one upside here that we've noticed this month in a bigger way than we had in the previous months, is the economy as a top issue has declined a bit. Other issues have taken precedence. Now. One of those is kind of bad for the president. That's immigration. This is an issue that Republicans have always had an advantage on and are very very good at,
webonizing against Democrats. The other one is abortion, and we saw this wave of in this wave of surveys and increase among the voters who say their number one issue is abortion. That seems like it might be a bit of an out for President Biden, especially in Arizona, by the way, one of the places where he's doing the worst.
The economy is almost tied with immigration, but abortion doubled since we started doing this, and a lot of that movement happened after that state Supreme Court put in that Civil War era law that manned most abortions in the state. So that's a long way of saying the economy is something that people are dealing with. It's a big concern and it makes them unhappy with what they're seeing in Washington.
But as his campaign unfolds over the next several months, there's going to be moments in places like Arizona and in other places where other issues take prominence. The question for President Biden is going to be when is that is at a beneficial moment where the end of the campaign, or at moments like this when twitters might get used to what they're seeing.
All right, Elias, you talk about the issue of abortion and how the Arizona Supreme Court weighed in on that the Supreme Court, the actual high court in the United States here in Washington, was dealing with the abortion issue as well in a case today. Tomorrow they'll be dealing with a case involving Donald Trump and his immunity from
prosecution argument. When we think about Trump and how his legal battles factor into voter opinion in the swing states, I know we've asked this question before in our polling, didn't this time around, But how should we be thinking about as we see him in court in New York where he'll be back tomorrow, as we see the Supreme Court taking up these questions, as we deal with the possibility that he could very well end up a convicted felon in the next month or two, how is that
likely to change what we're seeing in the polling.
I think that the way the American people are thinking about this election, the abortion issue is a big deal. What crisis people are paying is a big deal. But these two individual characters, I think are the biggest deal.
People know where they stand on the policy issues. But you have questions about President Joe Biden's age, almost a senility question, and then you have questions about Donald Trump's alleged crimes, the criminality question, the earlier pieces of this for the former president, we're not breaking through in a massive way when they were coming down, especially some of
the federal cases that are coming. Now that the American people are tuning into this over the coming months, we're going to need to watch how they react to this and how much of this breaks through versus how much of how people think about Donald Trump's criminality is already baked in. I think a lot of the American people had understanding of where they were on that question after things like January sixth, or after all the things we
went through. Trump's twenty sixteen trial, his twenty sixteen election, But he was not on trial of that. He was never convicted by a jury of average folks in a way that it's possible he will be this year. That could be an inflection point if it comes with the day to day trial stuff. We'll see how much that breaks through. That doesn't seem like the kind of thing that is going to be that compelling to the American people.
There's no cameras in the courtroom. All it is is Donald Trump standing out in the hallway talking for a minute and then they move on. The bigger deal will be if Donald Trump faces a conviction that is a defining moment that probably would weigh on the American people.
Spending time with Eli Yoakley at Morning consult Lastly, Eli, we saw and it may not be a big surprise, but concern about geopolitical issues, namely Israel fault to single digits in this poll. As so many people talk about a protest vote in the primary trail for Joe Biden. Is this something he needs to worry about in the swing states or not.
I think that this is an issue where the president has sort of evolved a bit, and it's one where the American people have evolved. Two. I mean, it's not top of mind for voters, but it is one where there are big inflection moments that stick out. And we saw this or in earlier iterations after some horrific hospital bombing or after the Hamas attack on Israel the American people, do you see it when something big and dramatic happens. But look, Israel's losing the PR battle. Donald Trump said that,
and he's right. I mean, we're saying this in all of our data. Israel is losing the PR battle among the American people. The American people seem tired of this war. They seem to be sympathetic with the House Senians are at least both sides equally, and in our national data, they've got a lot of questions about sending money to Israel after what they've seen unfold over the past.
Which is pretty important on a day like this when the President actually signs the bill to send the money and the support. Eli, it's great to have you back, Eli Oakley, walking us through our monthly drop. You're in the Bloomberg Morning Consult Swing State poll talking in a monthly line.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us 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.
I'm Keylee Lines alongside Joe Matthew here in Washington, broadcasting live on Bloomberg Television and Radio on what is not just any Wednesday, Joe, but it is poll day. Yes, once again we have a look at the seven swing states likely to decide the outcome of the election. It's not looking good for President Biden. He's losing in all
but one of them, Michigan. And of course this is something that has not just domestic implications as we consider whether it's going to be the current president or the former president who is president in twenty twenty five, but it has implications for US allies and adversaries in our partnerships all around the world as well, that.
Is for sure.
With questions about what makes this administration different than the last one when it comes to some of our relationships, China's the big one. We hear a lot about tariffs are still in place. Another one that is curious is Cuba, and we have a unique opportunity to speak with the Deputy Foreign Minister the Republic of Cuba right now, Carlos Fernandez Dicosio is joining us from our studios in New York, and it's great to see you, minister. Thank you for
being with us today on Bloomberg. I had the pleasure of being in Havana in twenty nineteen for the rededication of the Hemingway House. At that time I got an earfull about the different policy, the different relationship that the Trump White House had with Cuba than the Obama White House that relationship has not changed meaningfully since Joe Biden was elected, has it.
I agree with you. There has been changes in the sense of a few areas that the US government has decided are or benefit for the US and or benefit of CAN cooperation, for example in law enforcement, in areas of science, technology, health, some academic But the meaningful part of the relationship, which is the economic blockade and the aggression against the Cuban economy, has not changed is been faithfully applied by the Biden administration.
So is the outcome for Cuba serve the same regardless of who wins in November of this year, or do you fear that there could be even more intensified policy under a second Trump administration when it comes to things like sanctions and potential economic ramifications for your country.
Like most people, we can't guess who's going to win the elections, and it's very difficult to truly understand what they promise and what they're going to do. What we hope or what we look for, is that whoever wins does not apply more restrictions, for example, for Cubans that live in the US to relate with their families and their country of origin, or for business people to have even more limitations to business with Cuba. We would hope that perhaps they eased them or lift them, or for
Americans to travel. They're prohibited to travel to Cuba in almost absolutely perhaps they will give the Americans a freedom to be able to travel as they travel to other countries. That's what we hope.
What do you hear from the US when it comes to Cuba's relationship with Russia, because this is something that is obviously considered a very delicate matter here in Washington. The fact that Russia is investing in Cuba, the fact that Russia in fact drafted some Cubans apparently to fight against Ukraine, is that the point of friction between Havana and Washington right now.
The US government knows that most of the investments that take place in Cuba are from European countries or Canada,
not so much from Russia. And they also know that we were the ones that I learned and made public that a few Cubans that were in Europe were being recruited for the war, and we took measures for those that were attempting from Cuba to also travel to the war and we've learned that there are people on both sides, both in Ukraine and Russia of Cuban origin, most of them recruited in Europe, not in Cuba.
Well, sir, considering people who are of Cuban origin brings us to the wider question around migration. I know you and your government have been involved in talks with the US on the issue of migration specifically, is that an area where progress is being made? Can you just characterize for us how that effort is going.
That's an area in which the US government and Cuban government have been able to manage, regardless of the administration in the White House, for decades already with ups and downs. At this moment, we have agreements in place that we implement and issues on which we discuss that put a limit to the uncontrolled flow, which is what we tried to cut. But we made it very clear that as long as the US has a policy of making life difficult for Cubans, it is logical for them to want
to migrate to a more prosperous economy. Above all, if there's an invitation by the US that they will get a privileged treatment if they reach the border of the United States by whatever means.
So what is the next step. What are you asking for from Washington when you talk to the administration, when Havana engages with Washington. What could Joe Biden do now to begin thawing this relationship with such a close neighbor.
What we're not doing is we're not asking for aid or preferential trade conditions or financial support. What we're asking is to be left alone, to allow Cubans to try to develop economy, to try allow us to put in place of transformations that we have identified that are needed to push our economy forward and not make life difficult for the people of Cuba.
Well, sir, and you alluded to the idea that you think the extent of the migration we're seeing from Cuba may have to do with the difficulty economically of what life in Cuba actually looks like. But is there really nothing your own government can do on your side in terms of civil liberties, for example, that may also play a role in stemming that tide.
Civil liberties is not the main issue. Most of the experts from US and Cuba who follow migration would say that it's basically an economic migration. But I do grant that every country has problems in economic policy and the discomfort of people with political situation. It happens in all of Latin America, it happens in the US. I'm sure that if you pull people here in the US, not everybody's happy with the government, not everybody, but he's happy
with the economic condition. But what's extraordinary, what's unique, is that the most powerful nation in the world, as a policy, specifically determined to make life as unbearable as possible for the population. And so it's in the hands of the United States to tackle that. It's an illegitimate approach. So the rest we can deal with, but this extraordinary factor has to be dealt with by the US government.
Minister.
There was a visit by Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister in Cuba at the time of Alexi Navalney's death. That is a story that resonated very loudly here in the US. It's one that the Biden administration took a very strong stand on when it came to Russia's handling of Alexi Navalny. Did Havana have a message for Moscow when it came to Navalney's death.
We have a close relationship with China, with Russia, and there's no it's no surprise that I have visits for ministers, but NAVALNI was not part of our agenda.
All right, Deputy Foreign Minister of Cuba, Carlos Fernandez di Costio, thank you so much for joining us, joining us of course today from New York. We appreciate your time, sir, spent on Bloomberg Radio and television and interesting to hear from him, Joe the idea that maybe there isn't for Cuba much difference between a Biden administration and a Trumpet minutstration in the policy that we've seen under each, but there are serious areas where that Ben diagram does not
overlap as much on things like tax policy. For example, what was done under the Trump administration back in twenty seventeen in terms of tax cuts not similar to the efforts that we've seen Biden, at least outline if he hasn't even necessarily proved successful on his ideas of taxing millionaires and billionaires at higher rates and the like.
But there's a difference, but there's a big difference, and sometimes that's what you're actually able to get done, to your point, than what you're actually professing to do. And it's an interesting situation that we find ourselves in and one that we wanted to talk about with the former chair of the House Ways and Means Committee. See Kevin Brady's coming to talk to us today. The former congressman from Texas is whetherus. It's great to see you, Kevin Brady.
Welcome back to Bloomberg. There's so much we'd love to.
Talk to you about.
And before I get the tax policy, I know Kayley wants to go there as well. I just would love your thoughts on what just happened in your former House of Representatives. Seven months of pushback, this new Speaker of the House managed to pass bills to fund our allies in hot wars around the world. The President signed it today. What does that say about the status of Mike Johnson as Speaker?
Well, Joe and Kayley, it's great to see again. I love being on balance of powers. So I think you know, Speaker Johnson, you know, made a commitment for a very strong America, projecting our strength aroound the world and keeping
us safe for the longer term. He found a way to find common ground and hobble together, not just key priorities for our allies and US rebuilding our military strength as well, but found a way to find common ground on how we seize Russian assets and help pay for the eventual rehabilitation of Ukraine.
So, you know, I think it was a masterful job.
Shows he is a Ronald Reagan Conservative and seeking to lead his House under difficult situations the very best he can.
Well, sir. It's interesting as well that this is not the only thing we've actually seen be able to get through the House with massive bipartisan votes for it. That also happened with the tax package that past the House. It's very unclear what will happen in the Senate. So we want to get to you on the subject of taxes now, considering we can announce today that you're now
strategic advisor for the Alliance of Competitive Taxation. I'm sure there's a lot you want to do in this new role, sir, But what about the tax issue that already is currently sitting in the Senate. Do you have any real hope that that bipartisan deal that would include tax breaks for businesses, expand the child tax credit we'll actually get through in this Congress or is this something we're not going to deal with until twenty twenty five.
So I think we're all hopeful.
ACT is a non Parson really policy focus group of tax diructors from forty eight of America's leading companies.
And these are companies that.
Hire millions of workers, have lots of small businesses, mid sized businesses that depend on that. They can pete around the world each and every day against China, Europe and foreign competitors. So they have a great deal of insight
for policymakers Republican and Democrat on these issues. They are supportive of the package, as I understand, mainly because you know, the business provisions within that within that package helps them compete, drives research, new equipment technology here in the United States. I think you know, they're all hopeful that perhaps they can find common grounds sooner rather than later.
Congressman, in your new capacity representing business interests here, you're going to be attempting and working to preserve the twenty seventeen tax cuts to.
Make them permanent.
And we've got a new poll out today, and I wonder what your reaction to this is.
This is D's and ours.
Seventy seven percent of registered voters in the seven swing states that we are tracking seventy seven percent. There are not a lot of issues where we can get a number like that. Support the idea of a billionaire's tax to pay for Social Security and other entitlements. How do you have both when you're trying to extend the twenty seventeen tax cuts. Could we also see a billionaire's tax in America?
You know, I don't think it's lacked them.
I'm always surprised those polls aren't at one hundred percent,
because who doesn't want to tax millionaires and billionaires? But the truth matter is, you know what tax payers are hoping for than twenty twenty five Congress both parties will come together to extend you know, those middle class and personal tax cuts, the tax cuts for small business they're so critical, and then extend the business provisions that have allowed American companies, small or large to compete around the world and when and bring their profits back to Invest
in America Act, which is this coalition is focused on providing research and policy ideas to Congress on issues like how do you make sure America is the very best place to invest in create new jobs? How do you make sure American companies can compete and win anywhere in the world, especially when China is so publicly targeting our
American industries. And finally, they want to incentivize more research and innovation in the US because, as you know, the country that wins the innovation race really wins the future. And so these are these policy ideas that I think Republicans and Democrats are both vitally interested in.
Well, Congressman, how do you make sure these policy ideas, though, are also fiscally responsible? Because as much as the Trump tax cuts of twenty seventeen may be heralded for the impact they had on businesses, we also saw trillions of dollars added to the federal deficit. If you're not getting as much revenue but you're still spending a lot, that isn't exactly the kind of equation you want to see for deficit reduction. So what's the responsible way to pursue this?
Yeah, so I think one that didn't add trillions of dollars to the debt. That's been fact checked as misleading, even though the President continues to claim that in fact, the corporate tax revenues, which were initially criticizing, we're now generating more for the US government at twenty one percent tax rate than we were at thirty five percent corporate tax rate. And why because we're growing the economy from the business community, increasing workers' paychecks, drawing investment in new
jobs back to the United States. And so what I do think is lawmakers on both sides OWL will be looking for ways to offset some of those taxes. And I will tell you in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, you know, we didn't have one and a half trillion dollars of taxes. We had five and a half trillion
dollars of tax reform. You know, we made major changes to the tax code to simplify, make it more fair, eliminate provisions for some, so we could lower taxes for everyone, middle class families, working moms, small businesses in the like. And I think you'll see lawmakers taking much the same approach in twenty twenty five.
All Right, Former Congressman Kevin Brady of Texas, thank you very much for joining us here on balance of power, and congratulations on the new role again. He has joined the Alliance for Competitive Taxation. As we've finished one battle in Congress this week, Joe over funding over the supplemental It just reminds us there are still many battles ahead, including on tax balls.
Well, we're here every day on Balance of Power. We need to get Kevin Brady in studio.
Congressman, when you're back in Washington, come see us with Kaylee Lions. I'm Joe Matthew. Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern at Bloomberg dot com.