Sound On: Russia's Victory Day, Roe v. Wade Fight

Given some of the votes that we saw in the Senate, there's definitely the momentum and the will to pass something. From Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. The Pentagon says it is not directing the war in Ukraine.

Welcome to the fastest hour in politics with the latest on Russia's war and an important conversation ahead with Senator Mark Warner, Democrat from Virginia, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, member of Finance, Banking and Rules, who was also instrumental in Boeing moving its headquarters to the Washington area, will

get into all of this. And with two job openings for every job seeker in America right now, we look inside another strong Job's report and talk about the risks of inflation with Jared Bernstein of the White House Council of Economic Advisors. Later on, the prospect of Roe v. Wade being overturned could mobilize Democrats in the fall, but Bloomberg opinion columnist Julianna Goldman says they will need to

organize in order to win. The Biden administration says it is not providing intelligence to Ukraine on the locations of Russian generals, and it did not direct it. Says Ukraine's attack on the Muskva Right, Russia's flagship in the Black Sea that Ukraine sank last month a terribly embarrassing moment from Moscow. All this reported by The New York Times

and NBC News. But no, not quite. According to here, Pentagon Press Secretary retired Rear Admiral John Kirby, do not provide intelligence on the location of senior military leaders on the battlefield or participate in the targeting decisions of the Ukrainian military. Ukrainians have quite frankly, a lot more information than we do. This is their country, their territory, and they have capable intelligence collection abilities of their own talked about it at length. We know that the US has

been providing intelligence to Ukraine. Kirby says that other nations are also giving intel to Ukraine, which then makes decisions on how to use it. This was echoed today by Jen Psaki as well on Air Force One as the President flew to Ohio. And we're lucky now to have Senator Mark Warner join us again on Bloomberg Radio. Of course, democrat from Virginia chairs the Intelligence Committee and also serves and I think every other committee in the Senate, not

quite Banking, Budget, Finance and Rules. That's pretty close, and was instrumental in helping Boeing relocate to the DC area. Senator, welcome back to It's great to hear your voice. I want to ask you about how this Boeing deal came together. But first, are you concerned that these reports of intelligence

sharing will will be seen by Russia as an escalation? Well, I'm not going to comment obviously on any specific report, but I I do want to say that that American intelligence at in combination with our allies, particularly the British, has been really forward leaning in this whole um Ukraine, Russia conflict. Matter of fact, I think in a way that deserves our admiration. Before the invasion, it was really American and British intelligence that warned our Ukrainian friends, warned

the balance of NATO. Many of the Europeans who you know candidally a year ago after Mr Trump NATO was pretty broken, had to be convinced, had to be assured. I remember being at the Munich Security conferences recently as a UM ten days before the invasion, and some of our European allies were still unsure. But the forward leaning

and the willingness to share. And then on top of that what happened was we saw repeatedly when and I think this really put Putting off his game, there was gonna be a Russian effort to create a coup in in Ukraine. American intelligence out of that, the British went ahead and even named the Ukrainian that the Russians were gonna put in. There was before the war there was going to be a a video that would look like it was showing Ukrainian and doing bad things. We expose

that as well. So I do think the forward leaning nature of the of the American Intelligence Committee has been very good in it, and it's been publicly reported repeatedly. You know, the American intelligence and other intelligence focus on the West are sharing with the Ukrainians who don cannibally a better job than think any of us expected, incredibly effective, but you reject them. This idea that this is being framed now is as a proxy war between the US

and Russia. On some of the reports that have hit the news in the last um, you know, two or three days, UH have a level of specificity that I don't think gotta be um running around, But the ben the general basis that we ought to be sharing with our our Ukrainian allies, that the very people who are literally um sending now close to billions of dollars of military aid too. I think, uh, I think that intelligence along with that military aid is one of the reasons

why the the Ukrainians are doing so well. And let me be clear that this is not an American only item. We have you know, lots and lots of countries, countries around Europe and frankly even beyond Europe. I mean our Canadian friends you know even are similar. Our friends and Asia are sending other assistance to Ukraine. This really is in my mind, so much bigger than simply Ukraine versus Russia.

This is really whether the alliance of democracies around the world will stand up to this kind of authoritary and therefore not the US versus Russia. I guess it's your point. Yeah, I think that is that is not that this isn't a This is a an alliance of democracies against authoritarian regimes. Now, am I concerned that Russia is, you know, making a even stronger ties with the Communist Party in China? Yes, but I think that kind of authoritarian alliance um was

in existence before this war and on. At the end of the day, I think we're also gonna have to we we are facing, predicting on the economic challenges with China that are extraordinarily great Sounder. We've been anticipating the battle for the dun Boss to get severe for a few weeks. Now. Is it possible Congress can pass this thirty three billion dollar aid request from the President before that battle is decided? Absolutely, Joe. Matter of fact, if

we don't, it would be horribly irresponsible of us. I was hoping that we could have passed this aid, you know, so that we could have had the passage of it take place before May nine, which in Soviet slash Russian history is a very important day. It was the celebration of the Soviet overcoming the Nazis. Um And let me

make two quick points on this. One is in this thirty three billion and you know, a big chunk of its defense, a big chunk of its humanitarian economic But if you take the defense component, and you take also the previous thirteen point three, which I believe was mostly defense, and then you add in the Europeans UH commitment on defense, which is not quite you know, fifty fifty with us

we're slightly more. But you add that together and you're talking about total Western aid to Ukraine in the forty to fifty billion dollar category almost since the beginning of the war. And Russia has only got a defense budget about sixties six billions. So you know, this also sends a signal to Putin and the Russian leadership that you know, the West is not going to walk away from this commitment. I do think the Russians, in terms of their military tactics,

they have been UH in Ukraine. I think luck because their nose has been bloodied so many times when the battle around Key for example, that that that battle for the dom Bass hasn't been as fully engaged yet. But I think it would be critical if there is a a single major battle, which I'm not sure there's gonna be maybe a bit of a war of attrition now, but that we get that aid. It's important in terms

of assistance to the Ukrainians. It's important to keep you know, making sure that that is a signal to our European friends that they need to continue to produce. But most importantly, it's a signal to Putin that he is not going to be successful in his effort. You mentioned May nine before I move on. Do we need to worry about Monday? What could that mean for the war? Um, that's a

great question. I had thought six weeks ago that that May nine might have been a time where Putin could have taken some whatever he could have found as some level of success and use that as a way to kind of end the conflict. Clearly he's not been successful, like uh, you know, so I don't think a ninth is going to have anything significant other than what uh

Putin might might do. There's been speculation, and I'm not sure if there's been speculation that he might make a formal declaration of war against Russia against Ukraine, which would allow him to call up all of his reserves. Um, there's been some concern that he might take part of the territory he's captured and you know, announced some kind of public site that would be phony, but would try to take those parts and absorb them into uh into

Russia or some of the rump republics. Um. I gotta believe he's gonna do something, but I'm not sure we have a a great idea what that may be. We're going to find out together. Senator Boeing is moving to the Washington area, more specifically northern Virginia from Chicago, a move that you encouraged some time ago. Reports Save Virginia

is not providing financial incentive. So why is Boeing cunning? Well, One, we've had a good history in Virginia over the last number of years of being probos nous of recruiting companies. I worked for six years to get north of Grumman the move from California to Virginia. Next Lee Corporation, you know, in terms of North America, move their headquarters here. Obviously, Amazon made a huge splash a year plus ago when they announced, Um, you know, this is not going to

be a huge number of jobs per se. Oh, they'll be obviously high paying jobs. But I think it's it's significant in that we've had a pretty darn good track record of offering good quality of life, good schools, you know, a pro business environment. One of the things that didn't get as much attention that I'm as excited about as the uh the international headquarters are Boing, which is the fact that Boeing is also going to launch a research

and development center in Northern Virginia. And with all the things taking place in aviation and drones and all the various touch points that aerospace touches across the whole variety of fields, that R and D investment in Northern Virginia may ten years from now be a much more significant addition to this the region's economy into Virginia's economy that actually even the headquarters does this speak as well to Boeing's increased exposure to defense. More than half its sales

last year came from military contracts. You know. Uh, A number of folks have said to do they want to be closer to the regulator's d D too. Capitol Hill. Um, you know, I'm not sure. The truth is, you know, if a company moves closer here, oftentimes they want to try to raise their profile. UM. Frankly, you know, Boeing is a well well known entity. They do need to raise their profile. A matter of fact, they've got to.

I think they've still got some corrective work to do in terms of some of the failures and uh they had. And I do think the new management team that Boeing is really taking that head on. UM. And I'm not sure at times as a former governor, UM, when I was pitching Virginia, you being close to those of us at the Capitol, I'm not sure we're that the good news item or a bad news item. But I think end of the day, at least in my conversations with

the Boeing management, it was about quality of life. It was about the you know, the management team, this is a good area. It was also about attracting a diverse set of talent. One of the things that Boeing has said, both in the management level and I think on the technology level, you know, engineering and elsewhere, they want to make sure they're moving towards a more diverse workforce, and the greater Washington business community has really worked very closely

with UH. You know a number of our universities, from Howard to George Mason in in UH Northern Virginia, which Virginia Tech, where UM, the CEO of Boeing has served on a and served with me actually on a innovation board as Virginia Tech tries to grow its presence in Northern Virginia. I'm sure you know. Just this week, the families of the victims of the two seven thirty seven Max crashes as to judge in Texas to overturn Boeing

settlement with the government. UH. They say they were short changed because it was handled as a fraud case, not a criminal case. Do you think that settlement was fair? You know, Joe, I don't. I've I've read as a as I think most of us have followed this UM story. Obviously it was a you know, huge tragedies and this was more than one plane that went down. But I candidly don't know enough of the specifics of this settlement

to make that kind of judgment. Senator, It's great to have you with us on Bloomberg Sound On as we wait to find out what unfolds on Monday. Your voice on all of this, in your view from the Intelligence Committee, is very important to us at Bloomberg. Senator Mark Warner, Democrat from Virginia, thank you, sir, Sheriff, Senate Intelligence Finance, Banking in Rules member. It is quite a business card.

After today's jobs data, we bring in Jared Bernstein of the White House Council of Economic Advisors for his take on all of this. Jared, welcome back to Bloomberg. Well, thanks so much for inviting me back. Always a pleasure to share ideas here. And we've we've got a big jobs report on our hands that I'd like to start with. The headline is stronger than expected. It's a big number. The President says, this all adds up to eight point three million jobs since he took office. So, Jared, why

do people seem so downbeat right now? Does does everything come back to inflation at this time? We look, there's definitely elevated inflation in the system, and the President talks about what a challenge that is for household budgets every time he speaks, So no one's giving that short shrift at all. But we also have to be extremely mindful of the backdrop to support the strength of the American household and business sector as well. Certainly the job support

today is in focus. But if we look at household balance sheets, if we look at debt service, if we look at people's net worth, if we look at business starts, and I can keep going. I think that the broader point is that while inflation is very much upon the land, and we're doing everything we can to ameliorate that burden on household budgets, it's not the only factor in play in today's economy. Much has been said about the participation rate in the job market is I just want to

stick on this job's report for one minute. Here with two job openings, as you well know, Jared, for every American that does not have one. Bloomberg spoke earlier today with Labor Secretary Marty Walsh. Here's what he had to say about that. The question is, if we have twelve million jobs opening, six million people roughly looking for work, why shouldn't they be able to find a job. And I think we have to do a little diver look into that number regionally to see exactly what the reason is.

I mean, are people under skilled do we need to scale them up? Are they really looking for work? How do we do how do we encourage them to get to work. What's your thought on that, Jared, Is there a simple answer or is it more complex than that? Well, I think Secretary Walsh has long been an advocate of making sure that workers get all the supports they need to get the best job they can. And in fact, in those same data that show the increased vacancies, you

do see elevated quit rates. Now, sometimes people have quit rates and think, wow, that must be a bad thing for working people. In fact, what we know is that those people are upgrading their jobs, They're getting better jobs, and that's one of the things that happen when you have so many vacancies. So I think part of what's going on here is we just have a very strong

consumer demand, very strong business investment climate. We saw that even by the way in the first quarter g d P. Now that I've had a negative handle having to do with imports and inventories, but you got under the hood and looked at the consumer spending. The investment still very strong, and that's creating strong labor demand as we spun on today's report. So the question then becomes, if we extend this little bit, Jared, is how long can that phenomenon last?

Now that the FETE has begun tightening. What's your view on the second half of this year. Do you expect to see demand destruction and then would that be followed by layoffs as corporations begin to with just to this

new interest rate environment. Well, certainly, one of the things that we're trying to do here at the White House is helped to ease some of the supply constraints so that we maintain strong demand but bring up supply in the sense of, for example, our work at the ports supply chains, implementing the Infrastructure Law, trying to go further and get Congress to pass the Bipartisan Innovation Act with a deep investment in semiconductors. That's more of a medium

term play. So if we can increase the economy supply side from where we are, we think that we can help maintain some of the growth that we're seeing while easing inflationary pressure. So if I can get philosophical with you for a minute, and I know you love to do that, I want to ask you about the causes of inflation. This is the big conversation right now in Washington, and I guess nationally Republicans say it's because the administration spent too much on stimulus coming out of COVID, and

they've even said that about the prior administration. But the White House, the Biden White House, is consistently pointed to the shift in demand for goods during the pandemic from services to goods, and supply chain problems that came from the pandemic a global phenomenon, not something we likely could have managed on our own here. Do you believe, though, that the stimulus spending made it worse? In other words, is everyone right? You know? Interestingly, I think we've already

implicitly answered this question our conversation so far. We've talked about two things. Very strong demand consumer sector, household sector, corporate sector. Very strong labor market. Of course you saw today's report, um and still some issues on the supply side. Still constrained supply, whether it's supply chains, labor, supply coming back, but not not what we'd like to like it to be. And I think the inflation is best understood as strong

demand hits constrained supply equals elevated prices. Now look are, but that means it would have happened without the stimulus spending. Is that your view? Well, I think one one easy answer to that is to look at Europe. Okay, they did some fiscal policy, but they didn't do the American rescue plan. So they're looking at inflation rates of seven point five percent with the March read and the EU that's in the store high for them. If you look at Canada, if you look at France, Italy, just US

across countries, he's going to see elevated inflation. And and look, we didn't all do the same fiscal policy, but we all had the same pandemic. So that gives you a sense of one of the core factors there. And if demand and supply chains then are the real drivers of inflation. Do you worry about hiking rates in this environment, you know, the sort of sledge hammer approach? Or is that the

only way to dampen demand for goods? I would imagine everyone who's paying attention to all the dynamics we're talking about, fiscal policy, monetary policy, the underlying macro economic conditions as we've described them, recognizes that the FED needed to pivot and they on so Now, interestingly, the President of the United States has made that same comment. He has supported the Fed's action. Of course, he's uh nominated and renominated a great slate of nominees for Congress to confirm as

quickly as possible. UH and uh and so I don't think there's any question that in this environment, the stead is the first and foremost institution fighting against this elevated inflation, and they're going at it. They certainly are. I guess I just you know, I'm trying to get to this

in a slightly different way. If if supply chain is the problem, and fixing the supply chain is the solution, right as opposed to just across the board hiking rates and causing the incredible level of fear that we're seeing now on Wall Street. Well, I think if I've I've tried to articulate that we have very strong demand and we also have constraints supply. Now, the SEAT is going to come at this using their tools, which more work

on the demand side. We're going to come at this using our tools, and our tools happened to be our work at the ports, are work trying to increase trucking, bringing down costs like drug and healthcare costs. So you're already doing it, is your point. Yeah, but but there's much more for us to do. So, for example, affordable housing, this is actually a key um Biden administrative administration agenda. We recognize the constraints in the housing market, and shelters

about a third of the of the CPI. So this is in our budget. So this is a legislative initiative. But we also have things we can do administratively on that front to help increase the supply of affordable housing, and we're doing them. Okay, one other thing in this I know you. You and I have talked about this a lot before. Earlier this week, the President talked about the fact that the deficit was expected to come down

one point five trillion this year. Now, if you just do the simple macroeconomics and you write out g d P consumption plus investment, etcetera at the end of that equation, Yet government spending that kind of a fistical contraction is what the economists called negative fiscal impulse. That too, should serve to help dampen some inflationary pressure. So I think we can look at deficit reduction in that regard as well. One of the big concerns lately has been a recession.

Instead of asking you today about the R word and what do you think the odds are, I want to ask you about the S word. As I read on the Bloomberg stagflation threat sends credit risk auges soaring globally, Jared, how likely is it that we will see a period of stagflation? Well, look, I'm old enough to remember the misery index, which is the unemployment rate plus inflation. Obviously, the second factor in that calculation is elevated, but the first is anything but. And so we have a three

point six percent unemployment rate. We have a pace of job gains that, by some metrics is historically unmatched. Jared, I wish we had more time as always, uh, And I know you'll come back. I hope you will soon. Of the White House Council of Economic Advisors. Here one ount on the fastest hour in politics coming up or joined by Bloomberg opinion columnist Julianna Goldman, who says DEMOCRATSY don't organize to win the fight for row. This is Bloomberg.

Senator Schumer says it's coming next week, the legislation to codify Roe V. Wade as law of the land. He announced his plan from the floor of the Senate this week. This is about to change. Next week the U. S. Senator is going to vote on legislation to codify a woman's right to seek an abortion into federal law. I intend to file cloture on this vital legislation Monday, which would set up a vote for Wednesday. Republicans will have

two choices. They can own the destruction of women's rights, where they can reverse course and work to prevent the damage. To be more precise, that was from the briefing that follows upstairs. Now, this, of course, after the big league of the draft opinion showing the Supreme Court poise to invalidate Roe v. Wade. The conventional wisdom has been that this is gonna help Democrats in the mid terms by mobilizing voters right big turnout, especially suburban women. But it's

not likely. That's simple and Bloomberg Opinion columnist Julianna Goldman gets to this in her latest column. She joins us now to talk about it. Juliana, thank you for being here. I've been looking forward to our conversation. You say Democrats need to take a page from Stacy Abram's playbook. Which page do they all? All of them? All the pages? Joe,

thanks for having me on. I I really appreciate the time. Um. No, but look we see, uh, reproductive rights groups are calling from May fourteenth, there is this big day of action. We're going to see UM protests and rallies on the scale of the Women's March back in UM. And that is you know, that is all fine and good, and the energy and anger and the passion needs to be harnessed. Um, But there's a lifetime between now and November. And UM. You know, this isn't just about mobilizing, but it's going

to be about organizing. And historically Republicans and the pro life movement have done a better job on the organizing front, case in point, electing lawmakers who are going to appoint conservative justices the Supreme Court to overturn roguers. Just way to explain what you mean or if you can articulate the difference between mobilizing and organizing, because I think a

lot of people consider them the same thing. Yeah, you in politics and and talking about elections, you use them interchangeably, right, But mobilizing is you know, getting people out getting them on the streets, getting them UM to the polls. But organizing is really about getting in deep on the ground, getting the people who aren't likely to vote or haven't

voted before. UM, you know, not just focusing as you said, on the suburban voters, but going into rural areas, UM, going into um, you know, to less educated, less affluent, more underserved communities, and explaining to the people. And in this case, you know, I quote I show in the piece, UM that you know, half half Americans don't know what the laws are in their states when it comes to access to abortion and reproductive just stunning for such a

controversial issue it is. And also UM, you know, knowing and understanding that the people who are going to be impacted most severely from Row versus you know, from Row being overturned are the more hard to reach UM voters or people who have not voted before, and they're the ones who really need to be organized, UM and tapped into. You covered Washington for a long time, you understand Capitol

Hill and the politics behind this. If this polls a majority of Americans do not want Roe v. Wade to be overturned, then how come this is such a heavy lift for Chuck Schumer. He does not have the votes to pass this next week, right because in in the SoundBite that you you you uh posted just now, you know, he's talking to Republicans. But it's not just Republicans, it's Joe manchin Well. UM. And you know the author of this report that I based the piece off of thetas

Scotch full the Harvard Social Scientist. UM. She looked at the last fifteen She looked at about fifteen years of organizing around social justice campaigns. UH, contrasting the efforts in North Carolina, UM with the Reverend Wlliam Barber versus Georgia which you mentioned, and the Stacy Abrams playbook, and looked

at why it was so much more successful UM in Georgia. UM. You know, and she she points out that that yes, we see the educated democrats, the educated activists that are going to be getting up and rallying again, but they're not the ones that need to UM. They're not the ones that need to be be activated. You know, they're going to be out there yelling at Joe Mansion. She said, They're going to be out there yelling at Joe Mansion to get rid of the filibuster. Um. But he's not

going to do that. Um. And so you know what Democrats need to do is they need to get more seats. And already this was looking like a blood bath, um, heading into November for Democrats. So what do they need to go out and get cell phone numbers? Is what you're saying, right, they need to go and get cell phone numbers. I mean one of the points that she makes in the in in her report, um, you know is that Republicans have been able to go into churches, to gun clubs. Um. You know, taken over the place

of unions. Um. You know, which Democrats have had historically, Um, you know, been been a source of strength for them. Um. You know she looks at Stacy Abrams and how she went to funeral homes for organizing. Um. And so you know it's like you said, it's it's cell phones, it's you know, yeah, it's it's on the ground organizing. Let me ask you at our remaining moment here, and I know it's not the thrust of your column, but how

about Republicans organizing around this? Republicans are very effective at that, right with in terms of raising money and organizing, you know, actionable uh groups in terms of voting and voting behavior that we could see in November. Or is this really a democratic story about mobilizing that the Republicans have already got the energy they need. No, I don't I don't know. I think that, you know, I hate to say this, but I think it remains to be seen. Look like

I go back to saying there is a lifetime. There's gonna be time between now and when the final opinion is handed down. And you can see that Republicans are really you know, they're they're kind of they're steering clear and they're treading lightly on this. I think they need to see what the final opinion is. And Democrats do Juliana Goldman come back and see us again on Bloomberg.

This is Bloomberg sound On on Bloomberg Radio. As we round out our Friday together, we assemble our reporter's round table. It's been a while since we've done this. If you listen to sound On, you already know Bloomberg Government's Emily Wilkins and Jack Fitzpatrick no strangers to our microphones. And today we want to focus not a fairly busy agenda on Capitol Hill before the House returns to town. Emily, I'll start with you. It's great to see you in

studio today. Chuck Schumer says he's moving a bill to codify abortion rights next week. Uh, he does not appear to have the votes. Is this about shaming Republicans in the publicly voting? No, I mean you can use the word shaming if you would like to use that word. I think what Jack Schumber would probably use the word shaming. And in trying to stick with with the non biased track here, I'll just say it's getting them on the

record right. If they get this vote, then groups can run ads saying that Senator such and such voted against this bill to protect the right to abortion and it's something you know that that Democrats do see is critical to do. But but no, I mean this is going to need sixty votes to move forward. Democrats don't have sixty votes. In fact, the last time that they tried to move forward legislation on row, they didn't even have

enough support within Democrats to get the fifty. You had Senator Joe Manson vote against, so he will be an interesting one to watch this time. Um. But but yes, I mean this is really just more of a messaging thing than than any substantial legislation. Jack, Senator Schumer wants to shame some Republicans, but many pro life Republicans will be proud to stand up and vote again this legislation. Does that go from most of the party in the Senate, Yeah,

most of the Republicans, I think. I'm sure Democrats would say they're shaming Republicans, But I think this is an issue that really motivates both sides, both parties. The Democrats are hoping that this ruling and the fact that it's come out now early, uh, sort of motivates their own Democratic base. But it's not really necessarily a persuasive issue

where you're going to find Republicans to win over. And I think that's illustrated by the fact that the two potentially persuadable Republicans in the Senate, Senators Collins and Murkowski. They may be able to get something a little more moderate than this bill that the Democrats are are putting

forward that would take a step toward codifying ROW. But that's not the plan because they know they're not going to get sixty votes, so they might as well give the Democrats they're uh, sort of what the base wants to see, allow the Republicans to vote no, and both parties end up saying, hey, we we got what we wanted out of this. Politically interesting. Chuck Schumer Emily yesterday was saying, you know this, We're not just doing this as a one off. We're gonna keep coming back again

and again and again. How many versions, how many attempts could we see? I mean, it will be interesting to see if there is some sort of somewhat bipartisan legislation that comes from this um, although even then it's a huge question mark. I mean, the idea that you get

ten Republican senators is a lot here. I think it's also worth noting no. I was talking with a couple of strategists, particularly down in Texas because they've got an interesting primary coming up there with one of really the only uh anti abortion Democrat left in the House, Henry quay Are. He will be facing the progressive Jessica to

Snarrows later this month. But I was asking no, Snarirows has really tried to make a quare stance on abortion and issue, and I asked them strategists, if it's going to work, and they really pointed out that. You know, for Democrats, they're not immune to a fleet in ation. They still care about things like high prices, the economy, the kitchen table issues. Yes, abortion is something that really energizes and motivates the base, but it's certainly not the

only issue at play here in these mid terms. Republicans do not seem to be concerned here with polling Jack, a majority of Americans do not want to see Row v. Wade overturned. But that doesn't cause a problem in a primary season, doesn't right in a Republican primary, that may not be an issue. Also, if you look at the details of polling UM, probably the most motivated group by this on the Democratic side would be college educated women. Uh And keep in mind, you know, Joe Biden outperformed

Hillary Clinton among that group. I'm not sure how much Democrats have to gain by the most motivated voters who you'd be trying to turn out, who otherwise might turn out. It might not turn out in a mid term. Uh. So it doesn't pull that well in the aggregate for Republicans, But in Republican primaries, you're probably safe as an anti abortion Republican. Uh And Democrats don't have very easy math on their side to say, you know who exactly is going to show up who wasn't going to It's really

smart analysis there. President Biden this afternoon is once again pushing the Bipartisan Innovation Act, which has been crawling through Congress. We've talked about this a lot emily. Can the House and Senate get together on this or is it actually in danger of never passing? I think at this point, given some of the votes that we saw in the Senate, there's definitely the momentum and the will to pass something.

I mean, when you look uh and certainly the you can frame this legislation in several different ways, but when you look at the desire for the US remain competitive against China, that is absolutely something that is bipartisans And so I think there is a question that we did see um some sort of early meetings on the House side. I don't think everyone's gotten together fully on this one yet, um,

But there is the willingness to do something. There is time left to do something, and I think it's just a question of you know, when you actually get the conference seas in the room, and then after that what the sticking points are, which I think is something we're really going to see shape up in the next coming weeks. Is it possible to kind of frame these sticking points Jack? People have been talking on both sides of the aisle about passing the Chip Act, which is inside this legislation,

for the better part of a year. The Commerce Secretary was out again this morning, the President out again. What's holding it up? Yeah, it's been very interesting because it's not necessarily an issue that is holding it up. It's that there's been a back and forth in which both the Senate and House kind of try to use their prerogative to do their own bill. And that's why we're in a conference now. There was never a time when they got together and said, let's do one bipartisan bill.

And it's an issue that's broad enough that you can just keep adding things. For example, are our colleague Maria cuy just reported recently, even after all of this, there's now talk by Senators Ron Wyden and Mike Creepo and some others saying, what if instead of just spending this money on semiconductor and investments, there could be a semi semiconductor investment tax credit, And then you open the door

to a whole conversation about tax credits. There's some pushback on exactly, you know, So it's the conversation has just never ended, and it's gone on and on and on. There's a lot of bipartisan support for what's in this, but eventually they have to stay all right, we're doing one last bill that's good for the House and Senate, and we're going to end these conversations, and that would be quite a moment. One thing that does appear to have bipartisan support is anything that helps Ukraine in its

war against Russia. And uh, it gets a little more complicated, but largely bipartisan support for additional sanctions. Jack, are we going to get another round from Capitol Hill itself or is this something that the administration is going to own? You know? On sanctions, the administration is taking the lead, and there's a conversation coming up among group of seven leaders.

There's there's sort of an ongoing conversation about if there are more sanctions that they can add, or if there are any loopholes they can get around to better enforce sanctions. But in Congress, the conversation really is about providing that money that thirty three billion dollars requested by Biden. That's something that is a lot of bipartisan support. The one challenge is they still have a COVID relief bill that

Democrats want to attach to that. If you get into the COVID conversation, you have to get into the title forty two immigration pandemic policy issue. So it's a question of whether the Ukraine Supplemental spending bill, which is very popular, becomes the Christmas treat that's weighted down with a number of ornaments, but that issue itself has a lot of support. Is there any chance Emily this comes through as a clean bill or something to Jack's point, particularly COVID funding

will have to be attached to it. That is sort of the big question right now. And you certainly have Democrats who are out there saying that they want to have both of them attached, that they think that it's important. But I think Democrats understand that it's going to it's it's sort of a calculus of how it looks, right.

Who is going to shoulder the blame if Democrats attach COVID funding to Ukraine or Democrats going to be the ones left holding the bag for not trying to class pass a clean bill, or couldn't they sort of blame Republicans for being the ones not providing the votes. I mean, this is I think kind of the big question right now.

Republicans really vote against it though with COVID funding attached, Republicans would try to attach that title of forty two immigration funding to it, and then once that happens, Democrats, you're going to have an issue. We put all the ornaments on the tree. That is that how this likely ends.

I mean, it's either going to be Democrats are going to realize that they want to pass something quickly they need to pass a clean bill, or it's going to be yes some sort of battle where it's just the thing after thing after thing is added and then this whole process dolls. You have a gut check on that jack because you know at some point President Zelenski is going to say, hey, where's the thirty three billion, and

that's going to be a big deal. The administration of Biden administration is running out of their current draw down authority. They were down to the hundreds of millions and they're requesting tens of billions. So the pressure is on now and there's still this push to get a vote by next week on this. Uh so the pressure is already there. We know that the Republicans, if the COVID money was attached, the Republicans would call for an amendment on Title forty two.

If that fails, they would have their excuse for voting against the whole thing, and they could also offer an amendment to do a standalone Ukrainian supplemental so, you know it could be challenging for Democrats if they insist on attaching the COVID money. Well, next week gott to be another riot in Washington. As we hear from Jack and Emily, it's really great to spend time with both of you. Good to see Bloomberg Government's Emily Wilkins and Jack Fitzpatrick.

Thanks to both of you, and have a great weekend. See get back here Monday. I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg