Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Appocarplay and then Proud Otto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
One of the most read stories on the Bloomberg Terminal in the last several hours pertains to what has happened today in the Middle East, specifically in Lebanon, where officials are now accusing Israel of orchestrating an attack that has killed several people and injured nearly three thousand others across the country when their pagers exploded. Joe, this does appear to be a highly sophisticated attackle though Israel itself has not, of course claimed credit for this. This is just others
that are blaming it on Israel. But around fifteen hundred members of Hezbola were wounded in these blasts, which of course happened just south of the capital of Beirut.
We spent so much time talking with experts about methods strategies that Israel might use if there were a concerted retaliatory strike against hesblah or the opening of a new front. We've heard about cruise missiles, drones, maybe even boots on the ground, never pagers, Kayleie. This is a story that you wouldn't believe if you saw it in a movie. And we're still getting a sense of the scale of this attack.
Yeah, again, thousands injured according to authorities in Lebanon. And of course the use of pagers. It's very nature. This is older technology, right, They aren't using things like cell phones, things that could be easily attractable or more hacked into.
So the way in which this potentially all happened is a question that we'll all have to wait the answer to, as we'll have to await whether or not this is something that could be seen as escalatory by Hesbela or by of course Iran, Hesbela being a proxy of Iran. So we want to get some answers to our questions. Now in turn to Natasha Hall. She's a senior fellow with the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic International Studies and is joining us once more here on
Bloomberg TV and Radio. Natasha, welcome back. This is kind of a have do you read? You have to read about it and see the video to even believe this really happened. But what do you think about the nature of these attacks on Hesbla and whether or not this is the kind of thing that would cause Hesbula to strike back.
Well, this is certainly the kind of thing that would cause Hesbula to strike back. I mean, this was quite unprecedented. We're talking about about twenty eight hundred injuries right now, two hundred critically wounded. We have blasts as far as Syria,
and even the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon was injured. So it certainly hearkens the notion that there might be some kind of esclatory attack for this quite embarrassing, to be honest, attack on Hesbala operatives throughout the country, in Lebanon and in Syria. It's unprecedented. I don't think we've ever seen
anything quite like this before. And as you mentioned, pagers are actually an old technology that has Bolah operatives were encouraged to use because they are less hackable, less traceable, and so you know, we're all wondering sort of how Israel could have gotten into these pagers if they had infiltrated the supply chain, which would suggest even a kind of psychological operation on Hazbolah where they will be highly suspicious of partners and members within their communities.
Pretty remarkable.
Levenon's telecom minister Johnny Korm suggesting the batteries on these devices likely overheated. He's calling it foul play, and Lebanon was quick to blame Israel, as we've been reporting. Would we expect Israel to take credit if that's in fact true?
I doubt Israel will take credit. But we do know that just yesterday they had accused Hasbullah potentially assassinating high ranking Israeli military official, so this could have potentially been retaliation for that.
But in all likelihood, this was a long.
Way of planning something these devices. This would have taken a great deal of intelligence work for months in advance.
Well, and it has been months now, Natasha, that we've been graced waiting to see if Hesbela was going to try to strike Israel directly or Ron for that matter, for the assassination of Hesbelah commander earlier this summer, and then of course the subsequent killing of Hamas's former political
leader in Tehran just days later. Is this likely to bring forward the timeline with which Iran or Hesbelah would consider that retaliatory strike actually taking shape, because to this point they've kept the world waiting.
It is possible, although I mean I think Hebelah's significantly weakened right now. I mean there are hundreds in hospitals right now, so physically and psychologically they've been weakened as well. That said, again, this is quite an embarrassing attack on Hezbalah, and so they would be pushed, I think, to do
something in response. What I would say is the most immediate fear for probably US officials is that they were struggling to get a deal on the table between Lebanon and Israel to really demilitarize the border area there in return for some kind of economic package for Lebanon, which has been struggling for a long time, and I doubt that deal is going anywhere anytime soon.
There's just a headline crossing the terminal now from Ason's France Press that you mentioned that Iron's ambassador to Lebanon was wounded in the pager explosion. This all happens as Anthony Blinken sets off on his tenth journey to the region since October seventh, he's going to be in Cairo, we understand, and as Israel sends the message to almost Hochstein representing the Biden administration that there is only a military solution to the north.
Should Blincoln be going to Israel on this trip? So far, he's not scheduled too.
So far, he is not scheduled too.
And it's a good point that you make about Almos Hawkstein, who just twenty four hours ago was warning both Israel and Lebanon not to escalate the situation into a wider war. B Lincoln is scheduled to meet with primarily Egyptian and Klatari officials to get a new deal on the table to present to Hemes and Israel. But the administration is
being very quiet about these talks now. They've sort of shifted strategies from being very very public a couple of months ago about a potential ceasefire deal, and that tells me that they are, you know, sort of not even cautiously optimistic, but they are hoping to be able to move forward on some kind of ceasefire deal, but it doesn't seem to be in the offing at the moment.
So, in other words, Natasha, the longer this takes, which it's been months and months and months now, the less likely it is that it ultimately comes to fruition. I just wonder, at what point, with a presidential election in the US forty nine days away, they just say, all right, well, this administration has given it their best shot, but it's going to be up to the next president.
Now. I think that's what netnya who's calculus is exactly, and I think it's been his calculus not just now, but maybe even a couple of months or three months ago, essentially waiting for the next US administration. It's no surprise to anyone that Netanya, who traditionally, at least in the past decade, has been supporting Republican presidential nominees and likely doesn't want to give Kamala Harris a win prior to the election.
And he also has his.
Own political domestic political issues to deal with, So as much as he can push this out, probably the better for him.
To what extent is our election, if at all here in the US playing into these negotiations. There's obviously a desire by some, including Benjamin Nettie, who I think, to work with Donald Trump, and there are still some questions about the approach that Kamala Harris might take if she wins the White House.
How do you see that dynamic?
Yeah, that's exactly my point.
I think that Prime Minister Nanya, who does not want to give a Democratic nominee the win and would probably prefer a President Trump and giving them a ceasefires is a win for this administration, but it's also a loss for him in the immediate term, and so I think he's going to continue to try to push this out as much as he possibly can, which is one of
the reasons. Frankly, the administration was prioritizing this Lebanon Israel deal, but now that also seems to be in critical condition as well well.
And as we consider the different relationships here Lebanon and Israel, obviously Hamas and Israel, and the ongoing ceasefire negotiations and Aron itself, it raises the question of the other countries in the Middle East. Joe made the point here that Anthony blink In the Secretary of State is specifically not going to Israel on this strip. He's instead going to Egypt,
one of the mediators along with Cutter. How should we be thinking about the evolution of their roles here if the US is in question because of the election and the knowledge that the next president will not be Joe Biden.
Yeah, that's a great question. Actually.
I mean, Egypt is being heavily or rewarded for its active diplomacy. It's going to have to be instrumental in any kind of peace agreement or cease fire deal as one of the sticking points is the Philadelphi Corridor, which is along the border of the Gaza Strip and Egypt. And the administration has also said that it will unlock a major aid deal to Egypt that it had been
blocking because of human rights abuses. So Egypt is certainly, you know, become more of a priority as these negotiations have gone on, in recognition that they will be very, very very important moving forward.
I have to ask you about what's happening elsewhere in the region with regard to Iraq. And I bring this up today because the Iraqi Prime Minister, Mohammed Shia al Sadani sat down with Bloomberg TV and had a message to send that it's time for American soldiers to leave, remembering there are twenty five hundred left who were put
there to fight ISIS. Iraq is a different place now than it was obviously at the end of major combat operations and in twenty fourteen, when the fight against ISIS happened. How should the US receive that message from Iraq.
We've been hearing this message for years now, and typically those who are close to Iran, the prime ministers that are close to Iran, reiterate this message over and over again. But what they say publicly and what they say privately tends to be different, and oftentime prime ministers do actually want US forces to stay for for stability reasons. That said, obviously the pressure is accelerating to get US forces out
of Iraq and even out of Syria. But I do think that there are security obstacles to that, as we've seen in the past few months with Iranian proxy forces really upping the ante in both Syria and Iraq, and we also have ISIS ex exponentially increasing their attacks in Syria compared to twenty twenty three. So the threat is not gone, but the pressure remains, of course from Sudani for US forces to withdraw.
Yeah, the threat is not gone. Natasha Hall, It's great to see you again. Antasha, Thank you for your time, Senior Fellow with the Middle East Program Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Here on Balance of Power.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast Ken Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay with the Bloomberg Business app. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Jo Just Say Alexa Play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Here in Washington, where, of course, we're continuing to assess the fallout from a second attempted assassination against former President Donald Trump, this one, of course, as the last one was from back in July unsuccessful. Donald Trump on Sunday escaped unscathed with the help of his Secret Service detail, who were able to thwart the would be shooter before
he ever even got the chance to fire off a shot. Still, though, Joe, as we've been discussing for the last forty eight hours, it raises questions about the Secret Service and whether it needs more from Congress in terms of actual financial resources being deployed to it.
Yeah, that's true, and you mentioned earlier Speaker Johnson might have a different take on this, suggesting that it's more about manpower allocation as opposed to overall funding of the agency. We're going to talk in a bit with Congressman Bryan's style. The Republican from Wisconsin is with us, chair of the Admin Committee, who might have a thought on this, But a lot of it's going to rest on what we
learned from this investigation. It's not just Butler now, but what happened at the golf course really could lead us to a more.
Definitive position on that.
People frankly talking without a lot of information at this stage, aren't they.
Well, that's very true, And of course there are many investigations happening simultaneously. The FBI, of course, is looking into this at the federal level. The state of Florida, according to Governor Ron Santis, has an investigation all its own, and there still is the Congressional Task Force looking into the prior assassination attempt on Donald Trump. That of course has requested briefings from the Secret Service this week as well.
So there are many different layers to this, many parties involved as they search for answers.
Yeah, and we turned to Bloomberg's Michelle jam Risco for help on this story. She joins us here at the table in Washington. It's good to see you, Michelle. I'm not sure we even have a number yet, right the White House has pledged to provide whatever resources are necessary. We have since learned that Donald Trump had the full compliment when he was at the golf course and going about his business on Sunday. That was following the president's
command after Butler. But outside of an increase of some sort, how do we even arrive at a number or does this involve a reorganization of the agency.
Well, I think that the numbers were a little bit distant from I mean, you're right, we haven't gotten down to that level of deep detail in this debate. I think right now we're just assessing probably three different active debates here.
One is how did this happen? What was the motive?
Here?
Kind of fade the political rhetoric around who's responsible for inflaming these sorts of characters. But luckily in this case, the suspect is still alive. It's something that maybe authorities can glean some information of that will help inform how they can prevent.
A further attack.
So you have the motive debate going on, but then you have, of course the resources debate and should they be lauded, should the Secret Service be lauded for preventing this attack, or is this something that needs to focus on needs more improvement, which seems to be where both parties are at right now, with Biden saying yes, I do think they probably need more personnel and Congress needs
to supply that. Harris echoing that sentiment, saying political violence has no rhetoric, has no place in America, and we will ensure the resource, but Trump saying, Okay, where is it? I mean we had this just three months ago. I need more resources at these events and more security. But you're right, I think an open question about how do they do that, How do they allocate those resources to prevent these sorts of attacks from even getting close to being attempts well?
And how quickly can they make those changes When this is someone who is currently running for that's right, president, in an election that takes place less than fifty days from now. There's only so much time there's actually work with. Is he's still actively campaigning, He's going to be in Michigan doing a.
Real test for Congress and getting things going on Washington, which is never easy on any topic. But also, yeah, you're right. I mean, Trump has shown no enthusiasm to relent on his campaign schedule. These big events are what he lives for on the campaign trail, and he's saying, you know, if I have fifty sixty thousand people on my event, regardless of what numbers are appropriate on the crowd size, he wants the amount of personnel that will ensure his safety the next time around.
Well, it's back of the swing states.
As this has figured out, Donald Trump will be in Flint, Michigan tonight.
It looks like a pretty friendly crowd.
He's got his former press Sixtory, the governor of Arkansas doing the questioning, and what's built as a town hall event.
Yeah, the Arkansas governor, Sarah Huckabye Sanders. That's you know, he's playing to the crowd that he wants to see. But yeah, key state there in Michigan. Republicans hoping to make some headway there in a state that Harris seems to be in good position as well. But yeah, very tight, tight race there. And then later on this evening we'll hear from him. He seems very active in the evenings these days. It's just you know, keeping us busy late
at night, but we'll hear another friendly crowd. He's going to be on Sean Hannity's show and Fox.
Well, and I wonder if we'll hear the similar refrains from him that we've heard in the last forty eight hours. And frankly, it appeared first on that debate stage against Kamala Harris, this notion that it's her in Biden and their rhetoric that is to blame for the attempts on his life. He's describing it as leftist, communist right rhetoric, these ideas that he's a threat to democracy. Should we expect the Harris campaign is going to make some adjusts because of those accusations.
I mean, I think they're going to continue to go with what they have gone with as an administration, as a Biden Harris administration, with the line that political violence has no place in America. I think this sort of back and forth is showing the real campaign realities. Of course, Trump wants to energize his base with this talk of oh, I will never surrender and look at what they're doing to me. At the same time, as you know, if you think back to the Biden campaign, all those months ago.
That was a key theme is Trump is a threat to democracy. And I think you've seen a little bit less of that emphasis from the Harris campaign, but it's still there. It's still you know, she's still talking about how he's kind of undermining institutions and parts of democracy that she's purporting to institutionalize and keep safe.
All right, Bloomberg's Michelle Jamrisco, who covers the White House and politics for US, thank you so much for joining us now. As we've mentioned, we're about to speak with someone who knows a great deal about securing political figures, especially high profile ones and high profile areas like on Capitol Hill. And we turn now to the chair of the House Administration Committee and member of its Financial Services Committee, Congressman Brian Style, the Republican from Wisconsin, is joining us
now live from the Canon Rotunda. Welcome back to Bloomberg TV and Radio. Congressman, it's been a while since we've spoken. We would first love to gauge your reaction as we were talking with you in Milwaukee after the first assassination attempt against Donald Trump, and here we find ourselves again after a second one. What is appropriate for your body to do in response here.
Well, first off, thank goodness the president is safe and that individual failed in their attempt to injure or kill President Trump. What we need to make sure we're doing is two things. One that we have the correct culture and management at the Secret Service. We have a new leader of the Secret Service, but we need to make sure that that institution is operating effectively to secure not only the President, but not only President Biden, Vice President Harris, but also President Trump and JD.
Vance.
In the home stretch of this campaign, there's discussion of whether or not the Secret Service needs additional resources, and really seen evidence that they need additional resources. But I do think there's plenty of evidence that we need to
have a cultural change inside the Secret Service. I think all lawmakers are frustrated with the stonewalling that we're getting in our investigations to be able to make a determination as to what went wrong in Pennsylvania and to gain more information as to what just occurred in Florida.
Congressman, it's good to have you back. Can you speak a bit more to that the stonewalling. You've got an agency now with an acting director who held a news conference yesterday and talked about the level of funding.
That he would like to see increased. What do you need from him.
Well, there's multiple investigations occurring simultaneously, including a Senate investigation as well as a House investigation. My colleagues that are leading the House investigation continue to be stonewalled and getting critical information is to what played out in Pennsylvania.
Understanding what went wrong.
Will allow us to make sure that we know the Secret Service both has the resources they need, but also the management structure that's necessary to put in place to keep all of our political leaders safe.
Well, as we discuss resources, Congressmen, of course you and your colleagues are in a bit of a discussion about the brighter resources for the government on Capitol Hill. Right now, we are just what two weeks out from a potential shutdown if a continuing resolution cannot be passed. What is your understanding at the moment of what the plan is and whether your speaker actually has the votes.
Well, ultimately, the Speaker came forward with a plan to combine both the Save Act to make sure that US elections are for US citizens, to combine that with a continuing resolution to extend that into the new year, where we can come back and address the reckless spending in Washington. I think that's a very reasonable and appropriate play call. Now, in a narrowly divided Congress as we have, any vote is difficult.
I hope he brings that to the floor. I think it'll pass.
It'll put the Senate on the clock to both secure the election and to make sure that we have government funding in place. That said, no one wins, the veteric government shuts down, So I think it's imperative that we move forward quickly to make sure that we're securing the election, but also imperatively keeping our federal government funding open and operational.
You know, it's interesting.
We've had a number of critics of this idea, mainly Democrats congressmen and putting the Save Act alongside this funding bill, because they say that it is a solution in search of a problem. It's already illegal for non citizens to register to vote. What do you tell them about why this is needed?
Why go through this exercise?
Well, this is about actually enforcing the law more than it is simply identifying that it is already illegal. It's already illegal for millions of individuals to cross into the United States illegally, so what we need to be doing is making sure that we're enforcing the law that's on the books. I think it's a reasonable and appropriate action at a period of time when countless individuals have come into the country illegally, that we're making sure that it's
only US citizens that are voting in US elections. I think it's a straightforward, common sense election integrity provision that we should be able to attach to the CR and have it passed in the Senate and signed into law before this November election.
Well, Congressman, another way people may be looking at it is this is setting the stage for questions around election integrity to be brought forward if Donald Trump actually loses in November. He was just posting on his true social accounts earlier today suggesting that when he wins, those people that cheated will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Are you concerned, Congressman, what this could potentially be setting the stage for.
I think we actually have an opportunity to increase Americans' confidence in their elections by putting in place key election integrity provisions, such as the Save Act. Any individual who would engage in a legal behavior should be held accountable for that action. I think that's appropriate to make clear. That said, I think it's reasonable that we should have common sense election integrity provisions to increase Americans' confidence in
their elections. And so those on the left that push back against common sense reforms such as photo ID or the Save Act should be asking themselves why wouldn't they put in place common sense reforms that actually increase Americans' confidence in our elections. Because what the data tells us is as we improve americans confidence in their elections, more people participate, and more people participating legally in our democracy is a good thing.
We've been dealing with a lot of noise in this campaign, Congressman, you don't need me to tell you. The rhetoric has been hot and voters' attention being pulled in a lot of different directions.
Right now. JD.
Vance is in oh Claire, Wisconsin today, is going to be talking a little bit later on this afternoon to voters. When you clear through the noise, what is the issue that's going to help Wisconsin break for one campaign or the other voters hit the polls in seven weeks.
My home state of Wisconsin is the center of the storm. Is good to have that attention on the state, But what I think we should be focusing in on are the biggest policy debates that this country needs to have, Primarily, how do we bring costs down so families can afford the things that they need, and how do we secure the US Mexico border, because the broken border is having real and serious consequences in my home state of Wisconsin
and in states across the country. The more we're having a robust conversation on the policy issues in front of us, the better we are as a country. As we allow the dialogue to turn into other things, it's far less productive for our democracy.
Congressman, as you're there in the capital, of course, you are looking at getting a floor vote today on a bill you've brought forward protecting Americans' retirement Savings from Politics Act. You want to rein in with this bill, sir. Proxy advisors why.
I'm very concerned about the significant role that proxy advisors have. The United States has a clear duopoly where about ninety seven percent of all proxy advisor services are provided by two firms. They're not properly regulated by the Securities in
Exchange Commission. We saw Chairman Gensler got and remove Chairman Clayton's bill on this, I have brought forward legislation that says we should not only regulate them, we should make sure that Americans understand if these institutions have conflicts of interest. I've been concerned that these inte institutions, working with liberal groups,
have worked to weaponize Americans' retirement accounts. This is an opportunity to stand up for good governance, to stand up for proper regulation of outside entities, and at the end of the day, to make sure we're protecting American retirement accounts that have shares being voted on by institutional investors.
Well, that's important to our audience here at Bloomberg. Congressman, do you have co signers? What kind of support do you have for this bill?
We have broad support. We passed it through committee with full Republican support. I think we have an opportunity as we bring it to the House floor this week to pick up Democratic votes. There's no reason that Iss and Glass Lewis, which have such a significant impact on the voting of shares across the board from American publicly traded companies, shouldn't be properly regulated by the securities Exchange Commission, and in particular, both of these institutions should have to disclose
if they have a conflict of interest. That is one of my biggest concerns with both of these institutions, who are advising countless institutional investors on how to vote, they're not currently disclosing their conflicts of interest. The Securitiest Exchange Commission should require that, and my bill does.
That just quickly. Congressman on conflicts of interest, Donald Trump last night was out endorsing the project of hit members of his family World Liberty Financial getting into the crypto business more materially. Do you worry about conflicts of interest there if he actually becomes president.
Oh, he's a private citizen.
He's allowed to engage in private business activities while he's a private citizen. Anybody that's in elected office follows the ethics rules of their given office as I would in the House, as a senator would, or as a president would. What I'm focusing on in my legislation is, in particular, making sure that we're regulating appropriately American publicly traded companies and we're not allowing individuals to have those conflicts of interests that aren't fully disclosed to the American people.
Congressman, is good to have you back.
I'm completely out of time twenty five or fifty tomorrow by the FED.
All of the data, and they're led by the data to not buy politics.
There it is ooh, I think I know what you meant.
Brian Style, the Congressman from Wisconsin, the Republican view on a number of issues. It's great to have you back, sir. With us on Bloomberg TV and radio. Around this time, Kaylie, we're going to be winding up to special coverage.
Of the FED meeting. Of course, you can always count on us.
We'll have much more with our panel coming up next on Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apple car Play and then roud Otto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
The campaign trail is everywhere today for the presidential and vice presidential nominees for the Republican and Democratic parties. We've got them all spread out. Kamala Harris. Just about an hour from now, we'll be sitting down in Philadelphia with members of the National Association of Black Journalists for an interview, of course, following the one that Donald Trump did earlier this summer that led to some negative attention surrounding his
questioning of her racial identity. Meanwhile, Harris is running mate Tim Walls is going to be in two swing states today, Georgia this morning, then heading to North Carolina, while JD. Vance is going to be in Michigan, as will Donald Trump. He has a town hall this evening in Flint, Michigan and moderated by his former Press secretary and the Governor of Arkansas, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and this will be another
opportunity to hear from him. In the aftermath of the second attempt on his life this past week.
He's not been holding back this time, blaming Democrats, even naming Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for their rhetorics spawning
what he says, bullets flying here. And I suspect that that will come up this evening, even though it has been confirmed that Joe Biden requested and delivered additional Secret Service protection for Donald Trump while he was on the golf course on Sunday, We're hearing a lot about double standards right now, and this is a real face off, a rhetorical I hope it stays stays a rhetorical face off between the two campaigns right now, because both are saying a lot ad vance With this very long tweet,
hundreds of words long, calling out Kamala Harris for suggesting that Donald Trump would mean the end of democracy.
He says the gunman acted on those words.
But of course Donald Trump is frequently called Kamala Harris a fascist who would be the end of the country, which sounds a lot like that same line.
Yeah, they both have tried to cast each other as the greatest threat to democracy. The question I guess, moving forward through the remaining forty nine days of this presidential campaign is whether their language and rhetoric might change as a result of heightened threats that we clearly see evident in multiple attempts on the Republican nominee's life.
We turned to Rick Davis and Genie Schanzeno for insights here. It's not an easy conversation and it's difficult to tell where we're going, but it's an important moment here in American politics. She is political science professor at Iona University. He is partner at stone Court Capital, and Genie, I'll start with you because jd Vance has had the last salvo here. I guess Donald Trump did last evening in his crypto rollout talking about the role that demicocrats have
played in their rhetoric on the campaign trail. But we have to acknowledge both sides here, right, That's right.
And you know, I wanted to say Happy Constitution Day to you guys. It is Constitution Day, and as I'm listening to you go off about politics and American politics today, it's good to remember that it was September seventeenth that they signed the Constitution in Philadelphia, an important federal day to remember. But you know, jd Vance has, you know, sort of repeated what Donald Trump has been saying on truth social I agree that you know this rhetoric, We've
heard it. It's intensified on both sides. And I think one of the stunning things is what a big difference this is from what happened after the first shooting attempt on Donald Trump, when you know, the Harris campaign took some of their ads off of the air. Donald Trump talked about having a reawakening and there was much more talk about unity. Perhaps it's because we don't see the shot, we don't see a video. Perhaps it's because the gunman never got a shot off. It's hard to say why.
Perhaps it's because we're fewer days now until the election, but none of that has happened this time both sides. The rhetoric has been pretty pretty tough, and it is problematic for people who want the option to listen to these candidates and to make up their minds about who they're going to vote. You want them to tamp it down, but we don't see any sign of that when we look at what they're saying in these states.
Well, in Genies, you remind us that it's Constitution Day. It also is National voter registration Day, and Rick, as we consider those who may be deciding whether or not they want to partake in the political democratic process of this republic that was formed by the Constitution this time around, does the type of language we're seeing from the candidates who are their choices reinforce this idea that this is
a process someone should want to participate in. Who is drawn in by this kind of dialogue.
Well, we've been in a political environment for some time now, where activists have sort of taken control of the messages, and activists are much more divisive in their rhetoric than sort of everyday voters on aligned voters, voters who see it as their civic duty to participate in elections, or just have a particular point of view that they want
to see implemented in Congress or the White House. And so this kind of activistem inside politics has really been, I think a very negative thing, both on the Republican side and the Democratic side. I had moments of optimism when Oprah Winfrey stands at the Democratic Convention starts talking
about joy. Well, we've come a long way since that convention talking about joy, and I think it would actually behoove both campaigns that are pretty much stuck where they are for now in trying something different, you know, and maybe some uplifting, positive rhetoric about the future of our country and the incredible capability that the American people possess
to create change. Get out of the way of a good electorate and let them think about something positive for a change rather than the petty rhetoric that we see being thrown around today.
Well, we do appreciate the spirit of that message Rick. The fact of the matter is here, Genie. The situation in Springfield, Ohio continues to deteriorate. Governor DeWine is sending state police into the town today a contingent of thirty six troopers. We now count more than thirty bomb threats against schools a local university there. As we were discussing earlier, Wittenberg had already moved to all remote classes this week and has now canceled all home and away athletic events
this week. Donald Trump says he's going to go to Springfield. Shouldkamala Harris as well?
No, I don't think either one of them should go. I think they should listen to the Republican Governor DeWine. I think they should listen to them. Mayor. These are people who have begged them to tone down the rhetoric because as you're just talking about the real life implications on people in that town or city, people who work their people who live there, it is very disruptive to
their lives. I mean, you have people who have been scared to go outside, who have been scared to go around in the city, who feel that they may be under aftack. You have threats of violence, and bombings. This is no way to live. If we want to have a discussion about immigration, and we should, it shouldn't have to be on the backs of lies to get attention on the issue. And so this is where I think. I don't think Kamalahara should go there, and I don't
think Donald Trump should go. But of course, Joe, I'm not sure he's going to listen to me either, So I may just be talking into the wind here.
Well, Genie, as we discuss where Kamala Harris should go, I also wonder where you think the Vice president should go today. In her conversation with the National Association of Black Journalists, it was of course an NABJ conference interview that Donald Trump took part in where things got combative and he questioned her racial identity, whether she was an Indian or Black American, if she was just switching between the two as it suited her. She hasn't really wanted
to engage in that conversation. She did touch on it, perhaps a bit more on the debate stage than we've seen her do in the weeks since he first said those things, But is she going to be able to avoid that in this conversation in a similar forum today, or does she need to address it head on?
You know, I think if she's asked, she can address it. But to your point, Kaylie, she has really steered away from identity politics, and I think in this election and in this election environment, she should focus on issues that matter to people. That is economic security, that is their safety, that is jobs, that is inflation. You know, you've been talking a lot obviously about what's going to be happening tomorrow. The calendar is so important for the Hears campaign. Tomorrow
can be a very good day for them. And if I was her or I was advising her, I would say, focus on the economy and talk about what you're going to do to address the high cost of living. That is the number one concerned people have along with inflation, and tomorrow may be a very good day for you to underscore the work that the Biden camp or the Biden White House has done and what you plan to do differently going forward. So I think that's much more
important than the identity politics. But she may get asked to respond, certainly to what Donald Trump said in that when he was talking to that group you know a few months.
Ago, with that said Rick Politico is reporting that both running mates Tim Walls and JD. Vance will address the Business Roundtable this week. Ad Vance has or spokesperson has confirmed that'll be Thursday morning. We're waiting to hear about the Walls address. This is pretty interesting an important group here. Of course we talked earlier when Donald Trump and Joe Biden were addressing that group. Of course, Joe Biden sent
to surrogate. They originally invited Kamala Harris. She's decided to send her running mate instead.
Is that wise?
You know?
I mean, you don't want your principal Kamala Harris basically doing an opposite speech with a vice presidential running mate of Donald Trump. The reality of Donald Trump did this and was highly unsuccessful, you know, by all measures from the disipans who came out saying that they couldn't really even understand what he was talking about. So yeah, no, I don't think it's that big a deal. They don't
really have a constituency. Maybe money, but I'm pretty confident that by now both campaigns have mind that that that money opportunity within the participants there pretty well. But I do think it's very worthy of her time to make statements and speeches about the economy. We're we're not home free.
There's an opportunity, even this week, with the Fed's decision on rates, to maybe have some win ater back, and frankly, I'd want to be there beforehand, not after the fact, talking about how, you know, the economy is improving and
interest rates have the potential coming down. So I'm actually surprised she wouldn't use an opportunity like this to at least do something, regardless of whether it's with the members of the roundtable or somewhere in a targeted state that that obviously has been affected by high inflation.
All right, Rick Davis Stone Cord Capital Partner, and Jeanie shan Z, you know of this Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress. Thank you both so much for joining us our Bloomberg Politics contributor signature political panel, especially for teasing ahead to tomorrow's big event, the FED decision, the only time we could see a rate cut prior to the November election.
I'll be right around this time tomorrow. We're handing things over to special coverage. Stay with us a lot more ahead on balance of power. This is Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast cans just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then roud Oto 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.
As we turn our attention to the other big ones today in Washington at least, and that's the FOMC. It's the start of a two day FED meeting. If you're with us here on Bloomberg, you probably know that already. You probably also know that this has come down to an argument between twenty five and fifty and we're not going to know until well a little bit later than this time.
Tomorrow. Of course, we'll have special coverage.
Of the outcome of this FED meeting, the announcement, the statement, the dot plot, and the news conference, and it's something that we want to start our conversation with Danny Blanchflower on. Here we're going to get to the candidate's economic proposals as well, with the help of the tenured professor of economics at Dartmouth College, recipient to the Commander of the Order of the British Empire, Danny Blanchflower, Welcome back to Bloomberg.
Are we in the twenty five or fifty camp here, Danny?
And does it matter?
Well?
I don't think it really matters. But I think consensus is gradually moving towards fifty. But I think really the big issue is what's the signal going forward? What are the dot plots look like? Another market's right to be basically pricing in not just rate cuts now, but rate cuts going forward. And obviously this is sort of happening
globally because the Bank of England meets this week. Suspicions are they'll probably do twenty five, but they might even do fifty, and they might be impacted obviously by what the Fed does ECP moving in that direction. I mean, the global consensus is that the US labor market in particular is slowing and you need to get ahead of it. And I think that's really where we are. Might bet, if I had to really bet, was they'll go with fifty.
If that's the case, you know what they're going to say. Political motivation.
What do you make of this whole conversation, even though seven weeks to the election.
Well, that's obviously a big part of it. I mean, I recall sitting in meetings where we were thinking about interest rate changes, and we were thinking about politics and and how to be seen to be sort of separate from the politics. But I guess in this instance, the data is king, and the move to try and get ahead of a slowing labor market is important. But obviously people are going to say, well, this is a political move. I don't think it is basically because of the global
moves that are going on. But people on both sides say, ha ha, look, this is a this is a cut to help the administration, to help Kamala Harris. I don't think, I mean that will be sent sent a part of their conversations, But in the end, I think they'll look through that and say, data's king. I think we have to go with this. I don't think there's any doubt that they'll cut.
The question is will they do?
Will they do twenty five or fifty? But if you look at the sort of interest rate futures, as they say, markets, I think this is the first of quite a lot.
You know, I'm dying to pull you into the political conversation. I actually think of you.
The debating tax proposals for instance, the lack of acknowledgment of our deficit right now. And I thought I would just give you a taste here, just to work you up a little bit on some of the highlights that we've heard just over the past couple of days on the campaign trail the last couple of weeks. To be fair, Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, let.
It rip, and remember, what I'm going to do is something that nobody has ever even thought about doing. No tax on tips, sign President.
We will continue working.
Taxes on tests for service.
And I want to cut taxes on Americans while putting tariffs on China and foreign countries.
To bring our jobs back home.
All the while, he intends to enact what in effect is a national.
Sales tax that would raise prices on middle class families.
As part of our additional tax cuts, we will end all taxes on overtime.
You know what that means.
My plan is to give a fifty thousand dollars tax deduction to start up small businesses.
All right.
I don't know what the next exemption is going to be, Danny Blanchflower, but I guess they're going to be more in the next seven weeks. No one this is what they have in common, is talking really seriously about how they're going to pay for it. At what point do you start beating your head against the wall.
Well, rhetorics all very well, it's not just even how do you pay for it? But how could you possibly implement it? I mean the idea of no tax on tips, So maybe that means that firms stop paying you know, any amount per hour and just let everything go to tips. How do you implement no no tax on overtime? I mean, the unions will love that. I've just got a new paper out show and they're on average, union workers get about five hours a week more than non union workers.
How do you do that? How do you prevent firms suddenly saying okay, well we'll change the work weeks, so instead of you doing forty hours plus five overtime, you do thirty five hours and ten overtime. So the practicalities of how you do this is obviously a complex one, and the debate over our tariff's attax has become complicated. My old colleague Justin Wolfers has been having a conversation with JD. Vance about the price of washing machines and dishwashers.
I mean, this is this is I guess economics for the for the election, and how you implement it, how you pay for it, what you're going to do with the deficit, and not details that have really been worked out, and an economist like me shivers.
I pictured you shivering.
So do we just assume that this is all bluster? Should voters pay any attention? Should investors pay any attention? You mentioned tariffs. The president could do that on his or her own. Tax cuts require Congress.
Well, the first one. The practicalities of tax cuts will obviously depend on the makeup of the House and the Senate and what kind of policy you can come through with. You're right that the president can implement.
Tariffs.
Now it's clear. I mean, there's been a set of recent surveys done, As I say, Justin Wolf has has been pushing this. I mean, it's quite clear that tariffs are basically a tax on consumers, and the consumers will pay this, and this will have big inflationary effects and so on. So the question is, I mean, is the
rhetoric going to turn into actually implementable policies. I assume the Fed won't be terribly happy to see a big jump in the inflation rate, because the response to that would be that the FED would then start raising rates, and you might see, well if Trump says he's going to go to tariff, and he's going to start to think about how to prevent the FED compensating for that fact.
So this doesn't really look like sensible economics. I mean, the idea that you could money to set and help small businesses set up, well maybe, so how you do that remains unclear, and whether you could implement it. I mean I have a lot of evidence, particularly for minority owned firms that actually there are capital constraints, but especially
black owned businesses than others. But whether you think giving away fifty thousand tax break would have positive I suspect it probably would, and it would probably have a particularly helpful effect, as I say, on minorities. But no one's actually priced this out. I mean, you didn't actually say to me that there no tax on tips that's going to cost twenty seven billion, right, this one on task that's going to cost forty eight billion. We haven't seen
the thing priced out. So these are sort of economics of wishful thinking. We will see, but they need to be priced, and we need to think of the effects on the deficit. And we'll see if one of these, whichever one of the politicians wins, whether these things can actually practically be implemented as an economy is slow.
Well, I know that Mia mcguinnis is from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget crunch that no taxes on tips on its own to cost somewhere between one hundred and two hundred billion dollars, which at the moment would be defense or a deficit spending rather.
I don't know.
Danny Blanchflower made it clear in past conversations I would fail your class, and I'm getting a sense that the candidates for president might also. Danny, it's great to have you back from Dartmouth College, straight to your living room and your car and the podcast. 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.