Sound On: Burn Pits Bill Blocked, 2Q GDP Disappoints

the money. Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. The economy contracts for a second straight quarter, just as Democrats resurrects President Biden's climate and tax agenda. Welcome to the fastest hour in politics on a swirling day in Washington. Will be joined momentarily by White House Adviser Gene Spirling to talk about the argument over recession and what impact

this new legislation will have. We'll get another view on this from our gold Wine of the Committee for a Responsible Budget later this hour, and from our signature panel. Bloomberg Politics contributors Rick Davis and Jeanie Chanzano with us. They've been focused, of course, on the President's agenda, since it was called Build Back Better. You heard the news

break right here at this time yesterday. The Schumer Mansion Deal, now called the Inflation Reduction Act of comes together three major components climate, health, deficit reduction that please to President Biden, spoke today from the White House. Experts, even some experts who have criticized my administration of the past, agree that this bill. This bill will reduce inflationary pressures on the economy.

It'll be paid for with a fiftcent minimum corporate tax, along with enforcement of tax cheats, and an end carried interests, leaving enough behind to lower the deficit, which the White House says, in turn will help to cool inflation in itself. Deficit reduction. Of course, you've also got lower drug prices. Now assume in this passes to be negotiated with the government. Republicans say, though it'll do the opposite, it will make inflation worse, and they were quick to pounce on today's

GDP report showing a second consecutive quarter of contraction. Now, if you've listened to this program the past week or so, you know Republicans are accusing the White House of trying to redefine recession. And we've been around the circle a couple of times. On this year's House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Einstein once said, and we all know it, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. So what you really should

do just go with changing the definition. Maybe people won't here you are understanding there it is. But as we've heard from our own economics reporters at Bloomberg here from Mark Zany two days ago, it's just not that simple. And that's where we start our conversation with Gene Sperling, White House American Rescue Plan Coordinator, Senior Adviser to the President. Janus. Great to have you back on Bloomberg. Thanks for coming in. I'm not going to ask you if we're in a recession.

I'm not gonna do it. Are you worried that we will have to experience one to get inflation under control? Um? Well, listen, all we are trying to do is make sure there's a balance and I think correct view of the state of the economy now. And you know, we certainly understand that the global inflation UH in our country UH in the world is hitting the United States, and it's a little comfort to American families going through the gas line or the grocery line that this is a global problem.

They're getting hit with higher prices and that's definitely affecting people's you know, sentiments about the economy. And you know, we fully understand that even with the good news the gas prices are down almost sev cents now, um. But I think I think the things we're talking about today offer a more balance view of the resilience that we're also seen in the economy, even in the face of the higher interest rates that are independent, FED is instituting.

And you know, one of the things you heard from Chairman Paul, you hear from from us is that this job market is still very strong. I mean, you know, I was just looking two point seven million jobs over the last seven months other than last year. That's the most jobs ever created in the first six months of the year ever in the history of our country. And that's why, Powell, that's why we well, no, that's not consistent with the notion of a contraction or a downtream.

If you looked at the GDP today, you also saw that people that that spending in services actually contributed to uh to growth and that you saw with the bank earnings from City Group JP Morgan, they're saying they're not seeing signs of recession among their vast number of con rumors. Does that mean you know, we should take a rosy view. No, but I do think that there is another our word

out there, and that's resilience. And I think you're seeing resilience that we we can at least hope can help us get from UH this red hot economy of to a more stable growth with lower prices as we go forward. Just to ask you more about the labor market, because that has been the refrain from the White House and from others, from economists saying, look, this this is not going to end up being a recession. We're not in one now when you have three point six percent unemployment.

The President has said that Senator John Kennedy, Republican from Louisiana was was talking about this on Fox and he replied to what the President was saying, I'd love to get your response to that. Here's what he said. He says, yes, but unemployment is low. On employment is low, Well, there's

a reason for that. People aren't working. Um, you don't look at the unemployment now when you look at the labor force participation, right, And we've had a lot of people retire, and we had a lot of people who refused to go back to work, and they're now riding in the wagon and everybody else has got to pull the wagon. And the bottom line is the economy sucks and it's not gonna get any better. It's got a way of words, Jeane Spurling. But I wonder where is

he wrong there? No, he is wrong, um, because if you look at what the kind of core core labor force, which is twenty five to fifty four year old, it is now fully returned. It's actually stronger was prior to uh, the pandemic. Um. There is true that there, you know, we could there were still a little bit behind in getting everybody, uh some of the older Americans back, but you've actually seen the greatest increase in labor force participation over this period of time. And again uh for the

four year olds, the core workers. It's actually it's actually wronger. So I really don't like that notion because it's it's it's somehow blaming that there are people out there for not uh you know, pulling their load when you're really seeing people coming back worst using American Rescue Plan forty billion dollars of it to get more people back in the economy. I do think that there are some with

COVID and childcare that may be inhibiting some people. But I think overall, the games have been strong, and that's certainly does not you know, uh negate. The very very strong job market and the unemployment rate reflects that it's not creating a deceptive picture in any way. Janet Yellen was asked today in her news conference how much the labor market would have to cool or contract, if that's

a better word, to bring inflation down. We didn't get a very clear answer on that because maybe it's not knowable or I don't know, Gene, maybe you're not allowed to answer that from from the White House. Do you what's your thought? Well, I think there are some questions that are kind of back ways of getting the administration to do what I'm not supposed to do, which is common on the independent Monetary Policy of the Federal Reserve.

But I think what I would say is that UM is that I think there is a lot of evidence that uh the things that were in the American Rescue Plan have created a bit more resilience in places in the economy that often have led to contraction in the past, state and local governments contracting right now, they're actually adding

to growth a bit. And you know, it's interesting when JP Morgan did their earnings, they said they didn't see signs of and in fact, they were seeing consumers spending more than they were at at this time last year.

So I think what I think the hope is is that we have such a strong labor market instead of being a sign uh, instead of looking at that as just a sign of is that their potential overheating, uh, you can look at it also as a sign of resilience that people are working, they're pulling in a paycheck, they still have some savings, and that that actually, uh can put us in a better position to make that

transition to more stable growth with lower prices. Uh. You know, in a way that does back all the games we've we've seen in the labor market. If one of the big complaints are one of the big knocks on the administration with regard to the economy genus is messaging, why not take victory to the point that you were just making for recovering all the jobs lost in COVID, you should how about put a big neon sign up over the White House. I mean, why get bogged down in

an argument over what's a recession? Look, this is challenging, but I think the truth is is that you have to recognize that that even with record job creation, even with low unemployment, even with lots of better jobs and getting ages. You know what, when people go through the grocery line or the or the gas pump and they feel higher prices, you know, that hits them hard, and even if they've gotten a raised, they feel like they're

giving some of it back. And I think it's important for us to offer a bank to recognize that degree of paying people are feeling at the grocery store or the gas pump. But then at the same also to say, wow, look at this actually recovered all the private sex jobs already that were lost during the pandemic. Unemployment for all Americans, but for Black Americans are back to where they were after just a little over a year. It took six

years for us to do this. Maybe you could buy a plane with one of those banners, fly it over Capitol Hill that well, you know, I think though, if you just do that in people nice feel that you're not recognizing I understand they're feeling. So really, you know, I know people know the Republicans are trying to say

that we're spending this or that way. But I really think I hope somebody listening to me now realizes we're trying to recognize the squeeze people are feeling, but also giving them an accurate, more balanced view of the of the point of resilience and strengthen the economy as well. Gene, thanks for being with us on a busy day. Jean Spurling, Senior Adviser to the President with us on g d P Day and Big Deal Day. We'll assemble our panel next.

Rick and Jennie are coming in. This is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg, So No with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio three to one, eight seven. Yeah, that means twenty four Republicans defied Kevin McCarthy to vote for the Chip Act or whatever we call it, Chip Act. The Chips and Science Sacked. That's it. The Chips and Science Act passes on this vote. The Yas are two hundred and forty three. The names are one hundred and eight seven one member

voting present. The motion is adopted, Madam Speaker. There it is. It's gone on the way to the President, who's of course got the pen ready. But there was a last minute effort to sink this puppy. After Republicans heard about this Schumer Mansion deal on the Reconciliation Deal, Kevin McCarthy started whipping against it last night. I'm a no on the Senate Chips bill that will come to the floor today. I was a no last week. I was a no last night, and I'll be the first no on the

board later today the first let's assemble the panel. Gosh got a lot to talk about with Rick Davis and Jeannie Sheanzano Blueberg Politics contributors. Uh, Rick, I'm not sure where to begin here. GDP not good to consecutive quarters of contraction, but a big news deal for Democrats. Here is this a wash today for Joe Biden? I can't figure out where we are. I think it's a good day for Joe Biden. He didn't get hammered the way

most presidents would have with this GDP number. They did an amazing job of putting everybody out that could speak in front of a camera worked for the last two days to say, oh no, don't believe what you're reading and uh and I think part of that worked, but the key thing was overlaid on top of that was the big mansion news yesterday and the passage of the

chip sacked today. This is a great day for Joe Biden when it comes to his legislative agenda, and so you know, take some edge off of that by having bad economic news. Um. I mean, you just heard Gene spirling. You'd have thought we were in a great boom cycle in our economy. So the talking heads are doing their job, and I think they're keeping us a float. But look

that that bill is gonna come. Most of the people who are being talked about is saying it's not a recession are also saying we will likely be in a recession. And so this may feel good today, but the closer we get to the fall, Um, the last thing this administration wants to do is find those same people are saying, now we are in a recession, right, and that could happen. Gennie, you might remember kind of an unexpected remark from Joe Biden, we could go back and find it. This is for

maybe a month or so ago. He said, No, we're not going into recession, though a lot of people think we will next year. This is still a big risk. Jenny Ellen talked about it today. There's a war in Ukraine that's not going away yet. There are supply chain problems that despite the Chips Act, not going away yet. We've got a pandemic that still is shutting down areas in China. How careful should the White House be if

we're about to step into a real recession. Yeah, I think they have to be careful with this semantic game. You know, they did win, and I agree with Rick the day, and they won because the headlines people adopted this, this idea that despite you know, since the nineteen forties defining recession colloquially one way, technically it's another, and people are now saying things like we're moving towards the recession. Well, this has you know, is dangerous for the president because

he did the same thing with inflation. Right, it's transitory, it's not here and then all of a sudden it's here. So you know, this I think can be a dangerous game for them. Because politically they're right. Economically, but politically, if people are feeling pain, they really don't care how you define a recession. And they do think that the president seems out of touch, and that's why his poll

numbers are down. That aside, what a great day for the administration in terms of chips and moving towards reconciliation. So who said that two out of three ain't bad? That's pretty good Rogers number. I think that's but you're right. I'm sorry, it's okay, Rick, I don't I don't know how you square this uh in administration that's trying to put a good shine on on on what Senator John Kennedy referred to as an economy that sucks. Is it a messaging problem or is there more involved here? No,

I think it was more involved here. I think that um, part of it is demographics, right, we were actually transitioning out of a group of people, you know, and certainly I'm in that category who you know, have been a major driver of the economy for the last you know, thirty years and we're aging out and and I think, you know, part of what the senator was talking about was, you know, people over sixty five people over fifty five,

they're just not going back to work. Um and uh and and that wouldn't be you know, uh, that big a deal if it wasn't such a large portion of the population. It needs to be a much louder conversation about that because that, I mean that that's big stuff. That those are big, long term trends that that we haven't gotten our arms around. Uh. You know. Janet Yellen was asked in her news conference Genie about the inflationary

impact of this reconciliation bill. She was asked, I believe by the Wall Street Journal if she could quantify it, and she could not. Does this White House also need to be a little bit careful on the impact this could have. I mean, they're they're talking about having an impact on people's household budgets the minute he signs it. Yeah, that's right. And this is the argument, you know, the conservatives are out there saying we're in an you know,

it's an inflationary period. Weren't nine percent and you're putting in one day four hundred billion dollars potentially into the economy, and that is going to be inflationary. On the other hand, a lot of smart people argue, this is deflationary. You're bringing down the cost of you know, you're bringing down the deficit, you're drinking down the cost of prescription drugs, and that's all very very helpful to the economy. Well, we haven't figured it out yet, but maybe we will

by the end of this hour. We've got Mark Oldwine coming in next from the Committee for a Responsible Budget. His view on this, the report today and where the economy is going, by the way, two very different takes you're about to hear as we try to learn more about this on the fastest hour in politics. This is Bloomberg. The headline on the terminal says it all. Biden encounters

g OP recession talk by touting job gains. Will that's certainly been the case, the President talking up low unemployment as the sign that we are not in a recession. Along with his story, it's including Gene Sperling, who was with us short time ago. But after this morning's g d P report showing a second consecutive quarter of contraction, Kevin McCarthy, the minority leader in the House, sees things

a bit differently. This news is a Graham milestone that points towards more hardship, more suffering, and more pain for the American people. Okay, so, as usual, the American people are caught between these two extreme talking points, neither of which fully reflecting where we are. That's why we wanted to talk to Mark Oldwine. Uh Senior Policy Director is the title at the Committee for a Responsible Budget Markets.

Great to have you back. I'm not sure if I should start with the recession or the legislation, but let's just go in order here. I mentioned the GDP report already, your concerns about this, the administrations bending over backwards to convince us we are not in a recession, and most economists say, well, we don't know yet, but how worried are we about sliding into one? Based on what you see under the hood here? Yeah, I don't think we're in a recession when you look at the labor market,

look at strunk consumption. I think what we're in right now is an inflation crisis and the risk is that going forwards, that could turn into a recession as we as we try to fight down inflation. Yeah, so that becomes a story next year or late this year. Yeah, Well, it may happen late this year, but not be a story untill next year. I think the timing is really uncertain. But here's the trade off. To fight inflation, the Federal

Reserve needs to raise interest rates. And the more than the Federal Reserve raise interest rates, the bigger the risk that they throw us into a recession. We've talked about the chances of you know, sticking landing here and soft landing to be exact park and the odds are not with the Fed. They have a history that policy makers have a history of overshooting, starting too late in overshooting.

Uh does that mean they need to start or at least, you know, stop hiking or even start cutting sooner than the Fed appears to be prepared for. I don't think so. I think the bigger risk here is persistent inflation. If inflation gets baked in, it becomes a lot harder to fight. So they may very well overshoot. They should try their best not to. But I don't think now is the time to pull back. So let's talk about this deal. Mansion, Schumer now Biden is behind it. They say it will

lower inflation. Larry Summers was apparently the party to convince Joe Mansion. I was fascinated by this. This back room talk that that that this in fact would lower prices, that this would not be inflationary, and that's what got him back on board in talks with Chuck Schumer. What is the Committee for a Responsible Budget? See Frankly, I don't think Center Mansion needs convincing UM that on what

will and won't lower inflation. He's talk to me that while now, Um, this this bill is going to reduce the prices that households of businesses pay, and it's probably gonna reduce the macroeconomic inflation, but takes some money out of the economy. It's not going to solve inflation on its own, but it's going to be rowing in the

same direction the said, making their inflation fighting job easier. Okay, so you see, uh, you see the White House Uh telling the right story here in terms of deficit reduction as well. Is it possible to quantify that when it comes to inflation or are we going to have to give this some time? I think we're going this some

time because of the nature of how this phases in. UM. I think that the most obvious inflationary impacts are going to be very hard to measure in the near term, and it's gonna be more the intangible stuff that matters quicker. How much is lower prices and lower expectations helping with

this wage price spiral. That what this is really going to do is provide some insurance against inflation remaining too high for for several years, and it may just allow the Fed to raise rates a little bit less, which reduces our inflation excuse me, our recession risk as well. Okay, that sounds pretty good to me. Mark that there's been more argument over the Chip Act in whether in fact

that would help to lower inflation. Realizing that, you know, Democrats and Republicans agree that it's needed, and there's a national security aspect to it. This is a supply chain aspect. Can you actually connect the dots directly to inflation? Though? Yeah, I'm I'm skeptical. Frankly, there's certainly reasons to do more investment, but more more spending of that magnitude is going to

increase demand faster than it's going to increase supply. So while it may be good for our long term growth, I'm skeptical the Chips Act is going to help much with inflation even in the long term. Uh, And I realized It's impossible to predict, but we're talking about a pretty big change in that industry. In the long term, it may result in stronger economic growth. I still have faith in the Federal Reserve. Over a long period of time,

we are gonna get inflation under control recrdless. So it may on that be a good bill, but I'm very skeptical it's going to help us with our current inflation challenges. We heard earlier from Senator John Kennedy was playing a remark that he made on Fox talking about the White House really misunderstanding the economy, which he described I believe as one that sucks. Uh. I realized that's not a scientific term here, Mark, But how would you describe it? Yeah,

it's not great. Look, there's some parts of the economy they are actually quite strong. We have a good labor market right now with good consumption. But inflation is killing us. It's it's eating away all of our wage games, all of our economic growth. And so I described this as an economy in inflation crisis, and that's that should be the number one priority in terms of what we need to get under control. Mark old One is Senior Policy Director,

Committee for a Responsible Budget. Great to have you back, Mark, and thank you for the insights. As I mentioned, Janet Yell in the Treasury Secretary. She held a news conference today and was asked about the inflationary impact here, just like we discussed with Mark, what would this actually do

in terms of data? Secretary, I don't have numerical estimates for you, but UM I see that as making a very important contribution to lowering the cost of prescription drugs, which is um for many households of very severe burden on their household budgets. This is something that UM policy makers and members of Congress have sought to accomplish for many, many years, and it's a great achievement if it can become law, and will certainly help if it can become law.

We've still got some things to figure out here. How easy or difficult will this be for Chuck Schumer to get across the finish line. We'll turn it back to the panel next. Rick Davis and Genie Chanzano with us for the hour. Their insights, I'm Joe Matthew and Washington did you joined us on the fastest hour in politics? Will check traffic and markets for you on the way as well, and if you're just showing up. Subscribe to the podcast if you haven't already, Why haven't you already?

This is Bloomberg, This is Bloomberg. So long with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. The bill is being scrubbed right now, as they say, by the Senate Parliamentary And what did I see? Seven hundred pages. It's gonna be some good Sunday reading for a lot of lawmakers who say they need to see the text first. Of course, I wonder how many will pour through seven hundred plus pages as I read on the terminal, they will be doing so, uh,

as they set up a vote for next week. That's at least the hope for Chuck Schumer, who says that he's been in touch with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. If you were with A yesterday, you know there are concerns about this build back better. This is not, but it does appear that progressives are on board. Here's Chuck Schumer. Well, I talked to this progression the CPC today. UH. Congresswoman Jiapaul was very loudatory of the agreement, as was

just about everybody on the phone. Everyone real. Speaker Pelosi said it best. She said, when you look at this agreement, you don't look at what's not in it. All of us would have wanted more in it. If you look at what's in it, and what's in it is dramatic, significant, and we'll move America forward a great deal. Sam of the panel to talk about the way forward here with Rick Davis and Jeannie Chanzano Bloomberg Politics contributors. Uh, do

you take him at his word there? First of all, Genie, when it comes to progressive Democrats, do they have any choice but to vote yes for this? They have a choice. I think they should vote yes for it. I obviously they're not, you know, completely happy with what's in there, but to his point, or what's not in there? But to his point, there's a lot in there that they can like. But you know, there is a danger always

they dig into the details. You know. I've heard people talk about things like drilling on federal lands that can be something that raises red flags. So there's always things a pipeline, there's always things that can frustrate progressives and frustrate other people. That said, Democrats would be wise to

move this forward as quickly as possible. This would be foolish for a Democrat to vote against I'm assuming, Rick, what's your view, whether it's progressives concerned about what is not in the bill or moderates concerned about what's not in the bill, I e. Salt. Do they have to just drop those worries and go vote? Oh yeah, that's the only choice they have. There's not gonna be any amendments to this bill. They couldn't get anything done on that.

And and look, I mean, progressive wanted that child tax credit is a fundamental aspect of what they were after, you know, in the original bill back better plan, as you point out, you know, uh, you know, big states like California, New Jersey, New York wanted that salt. Uh, people are going to come out with a half a loaf. But the half off they got is a lot more than they were about to get. I mean, the timing of this is really what's key, which is, this is

the only shot you've got left this year. There won't be another reconciliation bill. You're gonna be lucky to have this. If you can get this done, Uh, you'll have a talking point in the fall, you know, for the elections, and and and so you yes, or no. And look they unlike today's vote with the chip back in the House, you've got twenty four Republicans, You're not gonna get any Republicans on this one. So the Democrats have their backup

against the wall. They can only bleed four votes and and everyone's gonna have to hold hands and say, regardless of whether we got what we wanted, we're gonna say yes to this. Keeping in mind this includes the biggest tax hiking ears. It keeps much of the Trump tax cuts in place. But listen to the president with regard to how it will be paid for. Now, I know you've never heard me say this before, will come as a shock to you, but fifty for the Fortune five

companies paid no federal income tax. And you only heard me say that about ten thousand times. But the fact is they paid no taxes on an income collective income over forty billion dollars. Well, guess what this bill ends there. It's they're gonna have to pay a minimum of fift tax. Okay. Kirsten Cinema as an allergy to tacks hikes, Rick, does that keep her hesitant to vote yes for this or are you confident that she's on board. I'm not confident

she's on board. If this had been a revision of the Trump tax cuts from his administration, I could tell you with some confidence that she would have been opposed to the changes. There the fact that this is strictly limited to a corporate tax uh and really a tax on Wall Street. UM. You know, maybe there's a window to get her support, But as you point out, she has been vehement about not wanting to slow the economy because of you know, the UM, the pursuit of revenue

through taxation and UM. And I've not heard her put out a statement yet on this bill. We got a statement from Representative Sarah Jacobs of California that was the present vote voted president on the Chips Act, and we've been in touch with her. Bloomberg Radio reached out and they just returned a statement saying that the package a

big win for the country, especially the San Diego region. UH. After consulting with the House Ethics Committee, get this Congresswoman Jacob's voted president in order to maintain transparency, ethical standards, and to prevent a personal conflict of interest regarding the contents of that bill. I guess that's a good thing. Genie. But but what does that mean? You know, it means that she's decided that for personal reasons, it would be a conflict for her vote either way, for against it.

She would have probably been for it if it wasn't for this person kind of the industry, Do we know, Matt, I'm just talking to producer match Earl us in touch with their office. We'll find out for you and let you know. That's the kind of thing that voters probably appreciate. To be honest with you, as we spend time with our panel, Rick and Genie with us on Bloomberg Sound On, I want to talk about something that no one is talking about today, and that's a different piece of legislation,

the Pact Act. I think this is on your radar, Rick, it probably is yours as well, Gennie. For those of you who haven't heard about it. This is the vote that would provide healthcare coverage for millions of veterans who were exposed to toxic burn pits uh in in Vietnam era veterans exposed to agent orange. It It is being held up in the Senate now in a move that some people think is retribution for this deal coming together. They had to whip against something, so they chose this.

Senator Pat Toomey says, it's it includes budgetary gimmicks. Democrats are outraged. And even John Stewart came to town today. He took part in a news conference with the Speaker of the House outside the US Capital, and he was lit up over this. America's here rows fought nor wars outside, sweating their asses off with oxygen, battling all kinds of ailments. Well, these mothers sit in the air conditioning, walled off from any of it. They don't have to hear it, they

don't have to see it. They don't have to understand that these are human beings. Do you get it yet? Do we see that these are these aren't heroes? Pretty tough talk here, Rick. We saw the impact that John Stewart had on the the effort to help firefighters who got cancer from the toxins from the towers falling on nine eleven. Do you think he can make a difference here, Well he has. I mean he's been going at this

for quite some time. Even just to get a vote in the Senate was pretty big accomplishment for Jon Stewart. And and you know, look, he's rightly upset, and my my framing the obstruction correctly on this. You know, look, I don't know how much of this is a retribution to uh, you know, to sort of getting hoodwinked on the on the reconciliation bill. Um. I'm a little surprised Pat Toomey has taken the position he's taken because he has been supportive of veterans issues in the past. And uh,

and and he's not running for reelection. And I mean this was kind of a an easy yes. Um. So the bill felt five votes short. Uh, it didn't get the sixty votes it needed to get to the next stage of the legislative process. And U and I have absolutely no doubt that John Stewart will be back up in the fall trying to get another bill up to see if he can get it past. Does this see the lead to day again? Jeannie, Well, the goal John Stuart said today was to not let the Senate recess

until this is done. And so you know, he's, yeah, that's unlikely, but that's that's what he publicly stated. And you know it just um, I think an enormous miss on the part of the Republicans. They voted for this ill on June six to fourteen, to come back today on a procedural issue and to vote against it. You know, it's really unconscionable when you think about it. These are people dying horrifically of cancer and other diseases who desperately

need this bill passed. And so you know, I think they should stay in the idea, they'd go home for recess and leave this hanging. And let's not forget it past the House by you know, overwhelmingly three eighty or something, uh by partisan So you know, and it's it's a procedural issue, and that's where it's unconscionable. Well, you know, it's interesting the President talked about this is the state of the Union, Rick Um, why not make some noise

about this while Republicans are hammering him on inflation. Why don't why don't you make this a cause for the administration? You know, look, I think that um, you know, the administration probably has in the past spoken out on on this issue. I think that um, you know, they're having, as we talked earlier in the show, a really good day, you know, to take your eye off of the sort of seminal um a legislative work that's being done here, you know, around the Reconciliation Package and the Chip Act.

To talk to talk about something that actually didn't work. Um, you know, I mean I'd be sitting in a White House going wow, you know, like we'll get around to that in a minute. You know, let's not let's not digress. You know, he needs a president needs a victory lap like nobody does. And the fact that it comes on a day when John Stewart got punched in the face by the Republicans in the Senate, you know, is you know, it doesn't mean that the president doesn't sort of feel

the pain with John Stewart. But um, you know, live to fight another day. Why doesn't John Stewart run for governor New York? Genie? Would you get on that campaign? Hey, I'd work for I'd work for him, and I think, you know, but I think he likes to be out there. I think he likes to be pushing clauses he cares about, you know, and being governor that's awfully hard. That's an actual job. You gotta actually do some work there. Rick

and Genie, thank you so much. Our signature panel for a reason, the best in the business boy, did we get a lot done today and it's not over yet. I'll meet you back here tomorrow. On the fastest hour in politics, we call it Sound On. I'm Joe Matthew in Washington. Will take care of you on the way home. Traffic markets, stay right here. Daybreak Asia on the way as you would expect, with more breaking news on Bloomberg Radio. This is Bloomberg