Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. If you're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast, catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Appo, car Play, and then Freud Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Live from Washington, where most of Congress is back today. The Senate doesn't actually get back to business and tell tomorrow, but the House is in session. It is not, however, on the floor of the House that the Speaker, Mike Johnson, is making news. He took to Twitter just a few minutes ago to talk about what we're seeing happening on college campuses in Columbia, which we've discussed on this program, but elsewhere as well, saying we cannot allow the lawlessness
we've seen recently on college campuses. Congress will take action to protect Jewish students and hold these pro Hamas protesters accountable.
Joe, the idea would be cutting FED funding, which is something that he did float when he was on campus at Columbia. That was less than a week ago, right, I'm trying to remember if he was Wednesday last week, something like that. It's an idea that's come up before. I just wonder if he could potentially string together some sort of alliance of progressive left and conservative right to make that happen in the House. Is he going to cut a deal with Primeila Giapol or is this just messaging?
Well, it's an excellent question. And then even if you could form kind of an unusual coalition to get this done in the House, what would happen in the Senate and what would the Presidence.
Is another big question. Yeah, I wonder how the panel feels about this. We've talked about these campus protests quite a bit and their political impact with Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzano, and they are with us now Bloomberg Politics contributors,
our signature panel here on Balance of Power. Genie, what's your thought on this when you hear Mike Johnson floating the idea of cutting federal funding for these universities, You, of course work for Iona University and you spend every day working with young people, many of whom are very upset about this. Now we've got a wrecked message coming out of Washington. Will it be any more than that?
You know, I think it possibly could be so we have Mike Lawler from New York who has this draft of an anti Semitism bill, if you will. It has bipartisan support. It requires the Department of Education to change broad in its definition of anti semitism and to enforce the rules on the books after that redefinition, if you will. And you know, Lawler has said he thinks it will help decrease the amount of intimidation of Jewish students on campus. And I think that's something that we could very well
and should in my mind, see bipartisan support for. So I think we may get some action like that. I think the one thing that we should keep in mind well two things from my perspective. Number One, as much as there is a lot of protests over the weekend and on college campuses, there are a lot of students who are protesting lawfully, and equally, their rights to pro
test lawfully need to be protected. And of course, when you protest lawfully, you take the repercussions if you are arrested or thrown off campus, and they need to know that that is what happens as well. So I think there's a way to both support the right to speak and to certainly ensure against anti semitism or any kind of abuse of any student or any person in the country.
Well, so, Rick, I guess it just begs the question on how easily this could happen in the United States Congress, where we'd love to talk on this program and others about how little they've been able to get done. Is this an issue where you could actually get enough like minds together to do something, perhaps a little bit more drastic than you might expect.
Well, you've seen resolutions pass recently by the House in a bipartisan fashion overwhelmingly condemning the anti semitism that we're seeing on these college campuses. So I don't think there's a lack of support. I think everybody's kind of hoping right now now that with schools getting out that it diminishes the nature of the debate here students go home, or there's less activity or public attention on these campuses,
and that somehow this will debate. But the reality is we should have zero tolerance for this kind of behavior, you know, a month ago, today, or anytime in the future. And so my guess is that we're in a period now with Congress where there are just going to be
a bunch of messaging bills. Right, other than maybe FAA reauthorization and a couple other relatively minor things that will be very bipartisan, You're going to see the Democrat Party in the Republican Party putting up resolutions and bills that aren't expected to ever make it to the President's desk, but will make a very strong statement. I would anticipate this week getting something like that out of the House
of Representatives from the Republican leadership. Frankly, even you know, pressing the Democrats suspect the squad, you know, to take a vote on something that is very pro Jewish, very anti anti Semitism, and we'll see if that plays out politically.
Ginnie, as we've noted, Columbia's graduation is set for May fifteenth, We've already seen one major graduation ceremony canceled because of this nationally. If students don't leave at two o'clock that's half an hour away, should they be forcibly removed so the school can get on with its planning for graduation?
Yeah, I mean, this is.
What I'm talking about.
One thing we teach students is you should speak your mind, but you need to do so lawfully. You need to do so peacefully. And when we protest peacefully, we have to accept the repercussions, which are if you are in violation of the law, you have to go peacefully with police officers who will.
Escort you out.
And in this case, the added issue here is that these are students. If they want to finish the semester, which is what Columbia is allowing them to do, if they leave peacefully by two, the threat is if they do not leave peacefully, they may not be able to get their credits for this semester or graduate in the future. That is what you have to accept if you are going to protest, and so yes, I think the university
will have to take steps. You simply cannot protest and expect to disrupt everybody else's lives, and so they are going to have to accept whatever those repercussions are. But again, if the police come in, they need to do so peacefully. Keeping in mind, by the way, that all of these protesters are not students. There are many outside agitators and that has complicated this as well.
Yeah, it's a very good point. Genian point will taken as well on the fact that some actions have consequences, whether or not you are prepared to meet them. Speaking of consequences for actions, Rick, as Congress comes back this week, we all are still kind of dealing with the question as to whether or not Mike Johnson is going to face a real motion to vacate as consequence for passing
aid for Ukraine and other US allies. Before the break, Are we about to find out that Marjorie Taylor Green was just bluffing?
Yeah, I think sometimes you're gonna get called on the sky is falling strategy, and maybe that's the case. The reality I think that she has come to conclude is that even if she pulls the trigger on the motion of vacate, there're gonna be enough votes to keep him from getting thrown out, and probably likely with the help of the Democrats, the motion wouldn't even go to its maturity.
It would just be tabled.
So nothing looks weaker than pulling a trigger on something like this and then nothing happens. That kind of takes away her ability to ever try this again. I'm sure she understands that the one thing she knows is how to get attention. If she wants attention in the future, she can't diminish herself too much, although there's a new level for that every day in the House of Representatives.
But the reality is there's no.
Consequence to her anymore, at least not until after November, and so regardless of what she does, Johnson's going to be speaker for the Balance.
It's Marjorie Monday, Jeanie. I don't know what timeline we're looking at here, but the last thing she said was his days as speaker are numbered? Is she talking about to Rick's point at the end of this Congress.
Yeah, I wouldn't pretend to know what Marjorie Taylor Green is talking about. You know, it was interesting to hear Joe Biden raise her name as well in the context of his jokes at the White House Correspondence dinner, So you know, she's gotten her fair share of attention. But I think the real fact is is that this is going to be all up to Hakem Jeffries if she
does pull the trigger. And I do think Democrats we heard from Jared Moskowitz, for instance, over the weekend saying Democrats obviously will follow uh Hakeen Jeffries, but they are inclined not to allow her to do this. I think Jared Moskowitz said, we wouldn't even let her name a post office, let alone remove a speaker. You know what that happens to him after that? If he's saved by Democrats, I don't know what that means for him going forward in his own caucus. But I think all eyes on
Haqem Jeffries. If she does pull the trigger on this.
Well, a lot of it comes down to Donald Trump too, right, who hasn't, outright, I guess, said absolutely no to the idea of vacating the speaker, but has come to my Johnson's defense not once but twice. Is it ultimately the former president that is going to make the call for her? Genie, Yeah, I think so.
I mean, Mike Johnson.
Have you ever seen somebody hug anybody as close as Mike Johnson is hugging on to Donald Trump right now. He knows that the closer he gets to Trump, the least less likely she's going to pull the trigger or he'll get kicked out. So that is the strategy. She's probably trying to draw a wedge between them. It's going to be crazy to watch in the next couple of weeks, as Congresses and session for four weeks. Theoretically, if they stay that long.
It's like a lot of work for them, four weeks in a row.
Yeah, that can change, by the way, Let's see if they really make.
It to four weeks, all right, Jeanie Shanzano and Rick Davis, Bloomberg's Politics contributors, of course, our signature political panel, kicking things off on this Monday. It is a question, though, Joe, of even if they stay all four weeks, how much gets done in a four week Perer.
Well, that's true, and I will note this moment in which we just went through a whole conversation about the rest of the congressional agenda and stable coin never came up. That's fair point something to note.
Yes, that effort is probably still ongoing. It's just a question of whether it can get across the finish line and through what vehicle if it's not the FAA reauthorization. So that's a story we'll continue to keep on top of.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast Ken Just Live weekdays in Eastern on Applecarplay and then ron Oto with the Bloomberg Business Ad. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just say Alexa, play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Kicking off the week, and of course Joe. That puts us just about an hour from the deadline. For students at Columbia University who have been in this encampment. Of course pro Palestinian protesters, some of them perhaps outright anti Israel. Colombia putting out a note to students in that encampment today saying please promptly gather your belongings, leave the encampment.
If you voluntarily leave by two pm and sign a provided forum where you commit to abide by all university policies through June of next year, twenty twenty five, you will be eligible to complete the semester in good standing.
This could be a dicey moment here. We've seen evictions of these encampments fall into violence more than once. They're certainly recovering from that in Austin and in Boston. The Speaker of the House was standing on that campus. It's just days ago, Kaylee. This has really become the center of this at least campus angle on this story, and it's one that's very divisive. We spoke earlier with our
White House correspondent Josh Wingrove. The White House Correspondent's dinner actually was the site of a pretty large pro Palestinian protest, shouting at people as they went inside the party. They're trying to get as much coverage as they can with enormous pressure domestically here on Joe Biden. And that's where we start our conversation, Kaylee, with Hagar Shomali. The idea of a potential truce here, a breakthrough and a deal on hostages would be enormous for this administration and of
course all the parties involved. Hagar is a former National Security Council where she specialized in Syria and Lebanon, now at Greenwich Media Strategies, where she has founder har Gar, It's great to see you. Are we on the verge of a breakthrough?
Well, it seems very close, and it seems have been very tenuous, and you've got pressure kind of building on both sides, and it looks hopeful. You have Secretary Blinking in Saudi Arabia today where he has been working with them and has made the call on Hamas from there to accept this proposal, which he called quote extraordinarily generous coming from the Israelis and UH.
And that's something that's very significant because these.
Talks have been going on for a while and the fact is that they keep getting these proposals get narrower and narrower.
And right now the latest proposal from what we.
Know, is that it would include a lower number of hostages exchanged for Palestinian prisoners, and it would also allow Palestinians, gaz and civilians to return to their homes in northern Gaza and UH and so hopefully, hopefully it'll get it'll get somewhere. Hamas for the last few proposals has been the sticking point, and it feels as though, you know, and Secretary of Lincoln has made a point of saying that he he reiterated that today that it's on Hamas.
Hamas is the one blocking Gassy's fire. But I do have more hope for this one.
Well, of course, there's always risk of disruption, Hagar and Bloomberg is reporting today that you the US and its allies are concerned that the International Criminal Court could soon issue arrest warrants for a number of Israeli officials, reportedly, according to other outlets, could include prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the concern is that this would be something that
really jeopardizes any kind of ceasefire deal. Just how problematic would that be And is the ICC, in your mind, likely to put off something like that in the name of reaching an agreement.
You know, when I saw that news, it surprised me, mainly because of its timing. Typically these types of issues happen they take much longer. So for example, when I handled Syria, it took the ICC much longer to issue an arrest warrant and to put President Usad, who is a butcher and murderous dictator, to put them on their list. Then it has the Israeli officials I have heard. I did see that the news would include both Israeli government
officials and hamas leaders. And that's also important because you obviously have hamas leaders and Cutter right now. I believe in Turkey as well, and so it would include both. But it's very significant you're talking about. It's almost like a well, an international restaurant means that to wherever they travel outside of their own country, they're going to get arrested, and sometimes within the country if there is, for example, an uprising against Nathan Yahoo. Then they could also arrest
him domestically. It just kind of depends how goes. Israel's not a party to the ICC, so they probably wouldn't arrest him domestic, but they would recognize it.
But you never know how the future holds.
But that said, the timing also, these are serious, the arrestaurants.
It sounds a little bit like a game, but it's not.
These are very serious things and could definitely play out negatively. But I believe that the Israel government at this time is so focused on what's happening with the ceasefire talks and in Gaza itself that they're probably not paying much attention to it. They're hoping that the US is able to push the icy seats.
Into lay well.
The talks are supposed to begin Tuesday in Cairo here and as the US urges Hamas to accept a deal, hgard. We don't even know if Hamas is going to be there. They haven't responded to questions about Israel's offer or whether it will send a delegation. So I guess we're going to learn imminently here. If this is possible, we can't obviously move forward without Hamas, can.
We no, not really, No, you can't move forward without them. But that said, Israel is holding in its hand a very large stick, and that stick is going into Rafa. And they and they've made it very clear that they're they're they're not going to hold back no matter what the US or other international partners say about their desire to go into Rafa and to target the Hamas battalions and and and sales and leaders who they believe are still there. They've already pursued air strikes against Rafa. They
haven't pursued yet this ground invasion. And we know from satellite imagery that they that we've seen new tents erected to the north of Rafa. So it's believed that those tents are part of the Israeli plan to evacuate over one million people who are in Rafa. But that said, that is a very big threat and very credible threat that Israel holds, and that you can see them using that that they're not afraid to go win and the ceasefire deal is the only thing keeping them from pursuing that operation.
Well, we know that's part of the message that Anthony Blinkn, the Secretary of State, is bringing to the region trying to persuade Israel against an eminent invasion of Rafa, given how many hundreds of thousands, if not over a million, Palestinians could be caught up in that. Can we just talk about his role though, as a mediator in all of these varying different areas with the Israeli government and IDF,
with the other parties involved in these negotiations. He's been to the Middle East seven times in less than seven months, Hagar, and what does he really have to show for it?
It's stunning.
Well, you know, I handled the Middle East, as you know, and I can tell you one of the common frustrations is that you can travel a thousand times and you churn your wheels. You can create policy after policy, and it can be very difficult to have any movement and break any ground. I personally wish that I wish to see from the US government louder calls for the release of.
All I mean law of all hostages. But we have to remember there are apparently about.
Five US nationals as well taken hostage in Gaza right now, and one of whom was on the videos that were released by Hamas last week, and those videos came out only because Cutter pressured Hamas to release them, to give some kind of proof of life for individuals. And so the thing is my answer to that is really that that's just kind of how it goes. And to be fair, it would be similar whether it's in Russia or China.
Those negotiations with sides that are either adversary in this case you've got a terrorist organization which is even worse, are always going to be extremely difficult and tenuous. And also, by the way, with the Israeli government also, the conversations are always difficult and and you keep seeing these they take inches forward, they say, they make these steps forward, but they're unable.
To seal these deals.
But the whole point is to try and get to to get to some negotiation.
All wars end in a negotiation and showing.
That kind of effort is something that they have to do because they have to try for it, even if it's far fetched. But I do think that this time they are nearing something.
Realgar We have to ask you again about what's happening at Columbia University, something Kaylee was mentioning a bit earlier this hour, and we'll remind our listeners and viewers that you are a professor at Columbia School of International and Public Affairs. Two pm is the new deadline that authorities have provided students to break up their encampment and leave the central lawn so they can start preparing for graduation
ceremonies in the middle of May. There are a lot of things I'd like to ask you about all this, including what you're hearing might happen today at two o'clock. But to what extent is this You're at the microcosm here of this argument on the campus of Columbia University, the extent to which it's impacting national public opinion.
Yes, so it's what we're seeing is quite stunning, actually, and I really don't think anybody, any one of us, could have expected things.
To go the way they did, with the protests.
At Columbia inspiring these other protests across the country, some of which have been very loud and have faced really some you know, brutal crackdowns if you will, I don't know if that's the right word, but where you're seeing the police arrest and those arrests are not going very peacefully, if if I could, I think that's the most accurate way I could say, and so what you have now.
So on one hand, the way it's inspired these protests across the country came after Columbia invited the New York Police Department on campus to arrest the students there, and it ended up causing a backlash on campus that also inspired movements across the country.
And I don't think it's going to end anytime soon. And this is the thing a lot of I think a.
Lot of folks hope that that professors are hoping, okay, but the summer is coming and then students are going to go home. But the administration seems to believe and expects that these protests are going to continue until the election at least, and.
That they're going to use the election and the political de banter and focus to highlight this issue even more. They're going to feel quite strongly about that.
Now, if you're going to have a ceasefire now, or even if it delays and it's in a month or so, that is going to ease tensions.
A little bit.
But the fact is that these these protests have devolved into numerous demands. They are not just demanding divestment or for a ceasefire or against aid to Israel. They're demanding things like you know, for at Columbia at least, they're demanding that they get rid of the exchange program we have with the University of Tel Aviv. They're demanding even
included demands related to Harlem residence there. The devestment has to do with not it's not in Israeli companies, it's you're talking in American companies that work in Israel, for example, Google and Blacky Martin and.
Things like that.
These just not very realistic demands and and so you're just they've reached this standoff and impass. They've reached an impasse is the right word. And I expect at two pm. I do expect students, some students to accept to stay and knowing that they might get arrested or that the security might take them off. They will be suspended if they stay past two pm. And the university was clear that they've been able to identify who they are that's
not difficult, and that they will be suspended. And if they're suspended, then they've been then they're trespassing on the campus, and so they will be removed somehow.
But I expect it to get very tense.
All right.
Hagarshamali is an adjunct professor at Columbia University, also the founder and CEO of Greenwich Media Strategies and formerly of the National Security Council. Thank you so much for joining us. No shortage, Joe of Intensity and Drama in Upper Manhattan.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. It's live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and Android Otto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Welcome to the Monday edition of Balance of Power. I'm Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio, on the satellite and on YouTube. It's great to see you and have everyone back together as we try to follow the bead here on what might happen, if anything next in Congress. And there's a fair chance that the store is basically closed after the funding bills for Ukraine and Israel past just about a
week ago. Here it's Marjorie Monday in Washington. Everybody wondering about the Motion to vacate, whether it's even still alive because Marjorie Taylor Green's language has changed a lot. Remember she threatened to fire Mike Johnson. It only takes one in the House to get this motion to vacate on the floor if he brought Ukraine funding to the floor. Well, now it's law, the money's already going out, the weapons are on the way, and well there's still no privileged
resolution yet to make this happen. And her language has changed quite a bit. Remember a week ago she was vowing to bring this to the floor if the Speaker did not resign. He called her bluff, and we're still waiting. It's the matter of an FAA extension that needs to be handled, a reauthorization of the FAA, and it could become a big old Christmas tree. This could be the last train leaving the station, assuming they get that done. And Jonathan Tamari joins us now from Bloomberg Government to
pick up the pieces from there. It's great to see you, Jonathan. We're going to start dealing with the FAA, I presume eminently. Is the Speaker going to get fired this week?
That's the big question.
And we're waiting to hear what lawmakers say when they come back to vote this evening. You know, we as you mentioned, Marjorie Taylor Green had talked about that she was going to bring this motion, that the vote on floor and aid was crossing.
A line for her.
But really things have been pretty quiet in the day since, in the week since, as you know, you know, people leave town kind of tempers can settle very often, the heat of the moment can dissipate, and so we've not seen anybody else publicly join in her call to get rid of Speaker Mike Johnson. There's a lot of Republicans, even those who don't like him, who don't want to go back through the whole tumult that they already went through of trying to replace a speaker. And so there's
no sign yet of growing momentum. But I think we'll be checking with lawmakers as they show back up tonight to see if anybody has anything new to say when they return.
Yeah, she filed the motion to vacate thirty eight days ago, which is pretty interesting to see. Nothing yet. So let's talk about actual business if we can for a moment, Jonathan. We've got two weeks here to reauthorize the FAA, and it looks like we've got some deal making underway. There is reporting on the way this reauthorization may look, and it may not come with what some people expected in the form of a stable coin bill or a Safe Banking Act. What are you hearing?
Yeah, I mean the there was a release last night from the relevant chairs in both both houses, the Senate and the House, and both parties, so all four got together and they released an FAA reauthorization bill that they say is a compromise that they've all agreed on. So that signals that it could be on you know, the not upon here a glide path towards getting done in the coming weeks. The Senate has a procedural vote already tied up for Wednesday, and so we'll see how different
lawmakers react to the compromises here. But when you've got the top the chairs and the top ranking members in both parties in both houses on board with something, it signals that it's probably going to get done. And this carries a lot less of the kind of political weight and political divides some of the things that we've been dealing with in Congress recently, like four and eight or
the FIZA spying bill, or debt ceiling your budget. You know, this is something that's pretty much a straight policy issue, and I would imagine that it does get done, and as you point out, it could be the last really big thing that Congress gets done. So we'll see if people try to pile on other elements into this bill to kind of get one last bite at the apple.
Yeah. Well, yeah, that's just in our last minute, Jonathan. What's the conversation about amendments going to look like, because this could be carrying a whole lot by the time it's passed.
If it does pass, Yeah, I think you're going to see a lot of rank and file members wanting to get amendments on this things that they've been working on throughout this Congress, knowing that by the time they leave for their summer break, there's not going to be a whole lot of legislating done for the rest of the year, and there's the uncertainty of who's going to win the White House and that might delay any further action. So I think you're going to see people wanting to put
their pet projects onto this bill. And of course the issue for leaders is always that the more you do that, the more you risk adding something that is objectionable to one faction or the other, and that could actually stop the bill in its tracks. So it's a careful balancing act as always that I think we'll see play out over these next few weeks.
Yeah, this thought'll be fun to watch. Jonathan Samari, great to see you. Say hi to everybody as they're rolling back in Bloomberg. Government Congress reporter with us live on Balance of Power. As we add the voice now of Maya McGuinness, I can only imagine what Maya has been thinking in these final throws here of getting something passed after the Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan passed the House and Senate. She's, of course the president for a Committee for a Responsible
Federal Budget, Maya. It's great to see you. Surely a balanced budget amendment will be added to this FAA.
Bill, right, Yeah, and any new things that they tack on, they'll definitely pay for it, because they've been demonstrating with such fiscal responsibility.
Well we're being cute here, of course, but what do you think about this? Just before we move on to what's next, we just passed a ninety five billion dollar for an aid bill. It was originally an emergency request. I know a slice of that Ukraine money is alone, should it be offset.
You know, emergency spending, one doesn't generally feel like you have to offset it because it's truly for emergencies. That said, the fiscal environment in which we are right now means that anything that adds to the debt, no matter what the purpose, it could be very important, it could be a real emergency, but debt is debt, and that still puts upward pressure on inflation, on an interest rates, it
compromises our national security integrity. So there are a lot of reasons that no matter how important something is, it would still be preferable to offset the costs. There was some interest in the House. Jody Arrington, the chairman of the Budget Committee, had talked about some very smart healthcare reforms that we could have used to offset the costs, but there was no real that didn't get any real momentum.
I think if you take a step back, the point is in order to do a urgency spending or foreign aid when it's necessary, you have to be fiscally secure. We need to get our fiscal situation in better shape. So even if it's not a direct offset, we should turn our attention to bringing the national debt down. You've heard me say it before, and I'm sure having to.
Say it, well, gush, they have all summer to work on it. Just imagine what we could get done if we actually were serious about that. Maya, are you worried about this FAA bill being loaded up with expensive Christmas ornaments?
I am worried about it.
I actually don't think that will ultimately be what happens. I think there'll be many people who make runs at attaching their bills the things they prefer. But listen, everybody in the House has an election that they want to get back home and start focusing on. It's a very difficult tight rope to walk to get certain things attached or not. So I think there's a risk of a Christmas tree, but I think the most likely outcome is that it passes without anything major being.
Attached to it.
Wow, that's sands something is that just because everyone's exhausted of the division in Congress?
Right the patchwork of getting things that would be attached that enough people could agree to would be very complicated. Even if someone supported some of the amendments, they might be resentful they didn't get their own amendments. And because there is not a commitment to which things should be attached. Like there's division on the tax bill, which is the kind of thing that you could think of as being attached.
There's division on a lot of the different policies.
So I don't see it falling into place in an elegant enough way that leadership is able to craft a bigger package.
Could happen, definitely, people will give a try.
Well, I'm glad you mentioned the tax bill, because this must be a head scratcher to you. They were practically celebrating its passage a couple of months ago. This was said to be look, we can get along and get things done. It moved pretty quickly. The chairs of the two related tax committees in the House and Senate came to terms, and then it got bogged down in the Senate. With a lot of different concerns about this. Some people wanted to make changes that essentially brought the bill to
a halt. Is there any chance now that even though we're past April fifteenth, this tax deal, a multi billion dollar tax deal that had bipartisan support, could actually see the light of day.
There is a chance.
I mean, this has been a really interesting and complicated process from our perspective, non partisan worrying about fiscal issues. It's even been complex to make sense of it because it is a deal that puts together a lot of different taxes, the child tax credit, the business taxes, and what I don't think is smart about it is that they're temporary, and when you do temporary tax policy, you know you're setting yourself up for a cliff.
You're not looking at the full costs.
On the other.
Hand, they did put forth offsets for this, and that's it's a very important precedent, which is, if something is worth doing, it's worth finding a way to offset the cost rather than borrowing for And I thought that they worked very hard to come up with that. I thought there was a lot of bipartisan agreement that they should offset the cost, and they came up with and approach do that, So it was a policy that I.
Thought made sense.
Listen, I think the thing we should be focusing on more than anything right now is fiscal overall, getting our fiscal house under control before you're adding tax cuts or spending increases. But at least things that are offset are important. But there is a lot of resistance. My again, I think where everything's headed is, oh my gosh, we can't get anything else done in twenty twenty four, Let's push it to twenty twenty five, when all of these tax cuts are going to be firing.
There's going to be so much work to do. Let's just throw it into the big soup.
Well, the lobbying money is coming in on extending the twenty seventeen tax cuts, the lobbying and the organization. We actually talked to Cavin Brady, of course, a former Ways and Means A chair, about his new efforts coming back into the fold here in Washington. This is going to be a big part of the conversation, Maya. What's your thought on this? What would happen if those tax cuts were made permanent?
Well, yeah, twenty twenty five, let me just say it is going to be a huge year because those tax cuts are expiring, and we're going to have a debt sealing situation to deal with again. So there's going to be a lot of moving pieces and very important pieces. The cost of extending the tax cut is phenomenally large. You're talking about well over three trillion dollars at a time, whereas you know, the debt's near record levels, interest payments are soaring. We can ill afford to have trillions more
added to the debt. Offsetting the cost is certainly something that can be done. We should be focusing on real tax reform, not tax cuts. And there's a lot of base broadeners in the tax code that you can go through and.
Limit, expand some.
Of the offsets that we're used before, a lot of things that would bring the costs down. But that's exactly what those lobbying groups are lobbying against. Everybody wants to preserve their favorite hole in the tax code that benefits their constituencies. So this will be as difficult as tax reform originally was in terms of making sure that it
doesn't add to the debt. And you have a very very strange Bedfellow situation here where most Republicans would like to extend those tax cuts, though significant amount would like to pay for part of them, and the President, of course has said he won't like taxes be cut for anybody below four hundred thousand dollars. So that's a lot of tax cuts that people are supporting without talking about how they.
Do the costs.
And again, everybody in their budget says we're going to pay for it, Nobody says.
How yeah, the proposal will be paid for, right, but then maybe reality will kick in here. This is really interesting as we spend time with Maya McGuinness considering that effort in twenty five and whether anything can actually happen now. The billionaire's tax is supported by according to our polling, Maya, I say, the billionaire's tax, the concept of a billionaire's tax, as President Biden is proposing, is supported by Democratic and
Republican voters by vast margins. This includes Donald Trump supporters, the same people who would probably celebrate extending the twenty seventeen tax cuts. And I'm not sure I understand the rationale there, But could a billionaires tax help offset some of the rest of this if it happens.
Yes, I think that those are the proposals that you're going to hear much more about.
And you're exactly right.
From both sides, it's no longer a Republican or a Democratic issue because populism and kind of the populist approach to taxes is something that has gained traction in both sides, and there is a real resentment about the huge levels of income inequality as billionaires.
Continue to get more and more billions.
I think that the popularity of these tax increases on the very wealthy are going to grow, and I think one of the questions will be as they start trying to figure out, how do you actually structure these so that they're constitutional, so that they're workable, so you don't have people who are leaving the country hiding their assets.
There's all sorts of ways to avoid them, but I think that you will see biparers and support for all sorts of different approaches to middle class tax cuts and higher taxes on the wealthy.
It's no longer the domain of just Democrats.
As you pointed out, that's really interesting, an interesting time that we're in. I don't always quite understand the way they come out on the wash Here maya I've got less than a minute left when we talk about the tax deal on the table. You and I talked about this for a couple of moments. Does the Committee support this current framework now the exchange for a wider child tax credit in exchange for lower corporate taxes in some cases, does it work for you?
Well, it's interesting.
I mean, our take is generally policy neutral. There are many policies that could make sense, but we're not going to say this is the right wrong policy. We're going to say, does it add to the debt. It's okay to borrow when there's things like COVID or emergencies, it's certainly not okay to borrow now. So something that either reduces the debt, which is our first choice, or doesn't add to it, then we would say that's fiscally responsible, and then we can fight out the details of the tax policy.
But do we need to continue to reform our tax code. We do.
We need it to be pro growth, and we need it to be so those are all important considerations, along with let's not add more to.
The debt, crystallizing the philosophy at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. We don't always get to talk about that part of things. She's the President. Maya mcgainn. It's great to see you. I hope you had a fun weekend.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast Ken just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and enroyd 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 to the Monday edition of Ballance of Power on Bloomberg TV and Radio. Court is not in session in Lower Manhattan today, Kayley and the Donald Trump hush money case. He'll be back there tomorrow. He was a big topic of conversation at the White House Correspondence dinner, and as you might suspect, as he has been historically, the butt of many jokes that.
Night, Yeah, including jokes from Colin jos who was the comedian of the evening, talking about how nice it was to see the President of the United States in an event which didn't begin with a bailiff saying all rise, basically suggesting that Donald Trump is spending a lot of days in the courtroom today not today, and he won't Wednesdays. Wednesday is the day off of this trial, but Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, and Thursday, of course is the gag order.
Here is the second one where the judge will hear arguments as to whether or not Trump is in violation of that gag order that is supposed to prohibit him from doing things like disparaging witnesses, and the prosecution says he's been.
Doing a lot of that well, that's right. The reporting from inside the courtroom has actually been quite lively on the daily basis a lot of questions about the essence of this trial, Kayley. Of course, with the four potential trials that this president former president could endure here, this was always seen as the weakest by a lot of the folks we talked to. I think Nick Ackerman might be an exception there who really cites the strength of this case. But defining it has been a real problem
for a lot of people. Is it actually that Alvin Bragg is bringing Donald Trump into court for Is this a manipulation of documents case, a falsifying documents case, or is it an election interference case? Or is it actually both?
I think they're trying to make the argument that it's actually both. Yes, he falsified business records, facing thirty four counts of that, but it's a felony because it was done so with the intent to violate election. Yes, is our understanding, But of course Jim Zsiren probably has a better understanding than we do because he is a legal professional, former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Jim, it's always great to have you here
on Balance of Power on Bloomberg TV and Radio. Joe brings up an interesting point because a lot of the questioning of witnesses that we saw last week included David Pecker was around whether or not this really was intended to help Trump politically. So far, do you think the prosecution is having success making that case?
Well, I think Pecker was a very damaging witness against Trump. He professor to be a friend of his to this day, and Trump may conclude, with friends like that.
Who needs enemies? Because Pecker really set the table.
He put flesh on the bones of the whole case of how from the time Trump first announced for the presidency, the National Inquirer was publishing damaging information about his political rivals and also trying to take polls that weren't necessarily accurate, which showed that Trump would be a viable candidate as later he turned out to be.
How difficult will it be for Alvin Bragg or are you already seeing the path here to make this an election interference case?
At the same time, Well, I'm not convinced that calling an election interference case is the greatest way forward.
It is an election.
Interference case, and there are political legal scholars in my respect, like Norm Eisen who first brought it out, and who stress it's the twenty sixteen preview to what happened in twenty twenty making fraudulent statements in order to seize power.
So there is a parallel there.
But I'm not so sure the jury is willing to buy that because it plays into Trump's claim.
That this is all a political prosecution. There is the other side of the coin. This is really a.
Business integrity case. It's a simple case. It's a case of falsifying business records with the intent to commit a crime, the crime being either election in a fiperence or tax fraud, or both the federal and state election interference. Now that in mind, there really isn't that much to it. You have thirty four obviously false documents business records of the Trump organization, which are the mute witnesses that really put
Trump in the soup. He falsified those documents, He knew about those documents, seven of the nine checks he personally signed. There is testimony of Michael Cohen, whose credibility they will challenge. But Cohen's testimony is going to be corroborated. First corroborated by Pecker. It'll be corroborated by other witnesses as the prosecution moves along. So I don't think it's that difficult a case if Bragg plays his hand deftly sizes that
it's a white collar crime case. My old boss in the US Attorney's Office, Bob Morgenshaw, the legendary prosecutor, used to say, you can't prosecute the streets unless you prosecute the suites and sees.
And meeting the business suites. And he didn't.
Other prosecutors have, and that makes this case not that unusual, and not a selective prosecution where they've singled out Trump, but rather a prosecution that's a garden variety case involving business integrity.
Yeah, except this one just happens to involve a former president and current presumptive Republican nominee. But I do take your point, Jim. Of course, there's something else in regard to this case. In addition to witness testimony that we're waiting for this week, on Thursday, we will have a second hearing of arguments related to whether or not Trump has violated the gag order, he is under even more count of this, according to the prosecution, have come up
since the last time Judge Marshawn heard these arguments. But what can he actually do here? What consequence does this ultimately have if he is found to have violated it and gets what a thousand dollars fine for each thing? That's not really a big number for a billionaire.
Well let me get to that for a moment.
But I want to answer you because he is the former president of the United States, and never before in history has a former president of the United States been charged with felonies. But the law is not supposed to be about who the defendant is. The law is supposed to be about what the defendant does, and that's what this case is all about.
Now. As to the gag order hearings, I.
Don't believe that the judge is going to clap Trump and irons and put him in jail for a day, for an hour, or for a year for violating a gagorer.
I think he'll be very tough.
On Trump and say the next time it happens, it's going to be very difficult for you. But I think he will find them. He doesn't have to limit himself to a fine. He can put him in jail for contempt of court, even if the DA hasn't asked for that. But the DA has been very moderate. He's asked to find him. There's really the issue of delay, because if he puts him in jail for any significant period of time, it's going to delay the trial. And that's the last
thing the judge wants. That's the last thing the prosecutor wants. Undoubtedly Trump will appeal, and undoubtedly by the time the appeal has heard, they'll say Trump has served enough time, let's go on.
With the trial.
But it may delay the trial for thirty to sixty days, which nobody wants. So I think that they're probably will be a fine imposed and there probably will be a very stern Dutch uncle talk from the judge that what he's done violated the order. What he's done in terms of attacking witnesses and families of prosecutors is intolerable and violates the order, and next time he does it, the judge is going to be very hard on it.
Jim, we're out of time, just very quickly, just to make sure that our listeners and viewers understand, and I'm asking you legitimately if you or I were in that position, if we had violated the gag order to that extent, what would happen to us?
I think we'd go to jail, no question about it. And so then the Trump.
Obviously then the law does not apply equally. Already we've established that.
I think we've seen, as we saw in the immunity argument in the Supreme Court, Trump has gotten a deference from the courts unlike anyone else in a country where no man is supposed to be above the law.
Yeah, all right.
Jim Ziron, former Assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Always great to have you on the program sir, Thank you so much.
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 Noontimeeastern at Bloomberg dot com.