Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Appo, CarPlay, and then Roun Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Meanwhile, here in Washington, we are all focused on the news that Bloomberg just exclusively broke the Supreme Court inadvertently today, posting a copy of an opinion on its website that would suggest the Court is poised to allow emergency abortions in the state of Idaho. Joe, this is a big deal. Not final yet, as this is not a formal issuing of an opinion, but still suggests that the Court in this case may be delivering a win for abortion rights.
That's right, and for Joe Biden the day before the first presidential debate. The timing here is remarkable, Kaylee. We're in the midst of a three day a tour here. When it comes to opinions, we did expect and still do to get more tomorrow, but we thought the Court was done for the day. We got to this morning, and this dropped a short time ago. Thanks to our team at Bloomberg News and at Bloomberg Law bringing this to us. Now, the question remains, once again, will the Court do anything formal?
And we want to turn to.
June Grosso from Bloomberg Law, the host of Bloomberg Law.
Here on Bloomberg Radio and TV, and June, it's great to see you here.
I suspect you didn't think we'd be talking about this either after this morning's opinions were released. This is going to lead to a whole investigation. We have no idea how this was posted right right.
You know, it could have just been some administrative assistant by mistake posted it and then took it back. I mean, I'm sure there'll be an investigation into this, and hopefully you'll get more information than you did on the political leak of the Dobbs decision. But if you know what we see is true, it's a huge decision and it means and it also affects other states like Texas that
have similar laws. I mean, this case was so important that the trial judge had issued a ruling putting this law on hold and saying that you know, the emergency procedures could go forward, and the Supreme Court said no, they they put a stop to that, and then they decided to take the case without it going to an appellate court.
So that's how.
Important this is. And you know, it could show whether or not the federal law is going to take the place or supersede the state law, which is what the Biden administration argued in this case. They said, if you're taking, as Kelly said, you're taking Medicare funds, you have to follow the Mtala law and that provides for emergency room procedures of abortion if a woman's life is seriously at risk.
And during the oral arguments, Justice Kagan was really sort of you know, I want to say, she was emphatic about saying that, you know, you don't have to wait until the woman's life is in jeopardy, is in threat, in order to have this procedure. And it was very the oral argument, you couldn't tell which way the court was going to go. I mean, you knew that the three liberals were going one way and the three very
conservatives were going the other way. But then the three in the middle, Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Amy Cony Barrett, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, where were they? They were all over the place.
Well, of course, we'll await finding out for sure who the drafter of the final opinion is. But in what was briefly posted online, they indicated that the majority is going to dismiss this case as improvidently granted, which probably relates to what you were just speaking to June, whether the Court should have taken this up in the first place.
But this is a kind of a pattern I've noticed to merge with recent opinions where the court doesn't seem to necessarily be deciding the merits of the case, but rather standing. Is was the case in the social media Biden administration relationship ruling they made earlier this morning, and in the other abortion really case, access to MiFi pristone, which they did rule in favor of, they did so
on the grounds of standing. It doesn't seem that they're necessarily deciding the merits around these abortion rates too.
You're right, throwing this out is improvidently granted is another way to dispose of it, and it's because they're trying to get you know, they're trying to get five votes in order to decide the case, and in a lot of these cases, the easiest way is to say there was no standing. Now the Myfi Pristone case that really there was no standing there. Everyone who saw that initially said why do these doctors have the right to sue? And it's still going to go. States are still trying
to sue over that. So in the mif of pristone case, that was definitely no standing. But in the you know, in the case today they found no standing and that you know, they could have gone either way, so it's an easier way for them to deal with it. But what happens is the lower courts don't get guidance and we don't get information as far as the public to know where they stand on these issues. You know, how far can the Biden administration go in correcting misinformation online?
Now?
We don't know that because the decision is off on a procedural ground. And I had a professor I talked to recently say that, you know, lawyers can find a procedural reason for anything which is true. I can find a procedural reason if you're looking for it, and they're.
Looking for it.
Seems yeah, all right. Gian Grosso, host of Bloomberg Law, thank you so much for your instant analysis on this breaking news story exclusive to Bloomberg. The Supreme Court poised to allow emergency abortions in Idaho. We want to get more reaction now with a special guest I'm pleased to say who is joining us here in our Washington, d C studio. Dana Nessel, the Attorney General of the state of Michigan, is now joining us. Welcome to balance a power.
Thank you so much for being here. While you're here in Washington, could I just ask you first to about your reaction to the news Bloomberg has broken today this opinion that seems in certain who have been posted on the website, but as a court ruling in favor of abortion rights, it seems are poised to at.
Least well, you know, fortunately, in Michigan, in the wake of Dobbs, you know, we had very restrictive laws that were on the books that were unenforceable. But in twenty twenty two, we passed the Reproductive Freedom for All ballot proposal, which you know enshrined reproductive freedoms into our state constitution. So we haven't been worried about this particular situation in
my state. But I've met with women in states with very restrictive bands all over the country, and I can tell you that women of reproductive age and the people who love them all around the United States are probably collectively signing some you know, a breath of relief right now, because I mean, how incredibly scary it is to think that you could be in this situation where you need emergency medical care, you're facing the loss of an organ,
your fertility is at stake, and you know, you're literally looking at potentially dying and having physicians have to, you know, violate their hippocratic owth and say I can't treat you because I'm afraid of going to jail for it. So I think for women all across America, this is a victory. If that is in fact an accurate assessment what was
on the website. It does give me some pause that now this is the second time in a few years that we're seeing something accidentally posted or distributed, and it makes me wonder what's going on at the United States
Supreme Court right now. But you know, we've seen this exponential rise in both maternal mortality as well as infant mortality ever since the Dab's decision came out, and hopefully, if this is a real ruling, from the court, it will do something to curtail the number of deaths we've seen.
So are you encouraged then to see what is apparently forthcoming from the court. And I wonder if you think they should just come out with it today following the ruling on myth of prison Stone maintaining access to the abortion pill, or you discourage that both, to Kaylee's point, earlier have been essentially rulings on standing.
Yeah. I have a theory about that. Yeah. I think that these are not cases that the High Court wanted to hear. I think they were sort of forced upon them by incredibly conservative circuit courts of appeal that really have forced the hand now of the United States Supreme Court. And I've seen decision after decision where I don't think that the justices wanted to rule on this particular case
at this particular time. I don't think that the majority of justices by that I mean six of them on the Supreme Court have an interest in restricting Second Amendment related rights. They don't like in general the gun safety laws, they don't like the use of mifipristom. But these are poor vehicles that have come to them to allow them to the restrict abortion rights or gun safety measures or
things of that nature. So what we're seeing is they are finding other ways to dispose of these cases without having a rule on the merits, and that allows them the freedom in the future to say, well, we're not contradicting a prior decision, we're not overturning any sort of precedent. We got rid of that case on standing, and that's what they're continuing to do.
But should the Court not have expected these kind of challenges to ultimately reach them after they ruled and Dobbs to essentially overturn the constitutional right to an abortion. It was only inevitable that certain state laws or access to certain procedures or medications we're going to have to be called into question, just because of the uncertainty that ruling created.
Now, you would think so, and you would think that that would be their thought as well. But I think some of these cases are just so controversial and so anathetical to public opinion. We have the Supreme Court in a place where you know, we've never had such low confidence or respect for this court, and they've been mired in ethical scandals, and every time they issue a ruling
that is deeply unpopular with the public. They risk having their integrity impugned more and more, and so I think that might be part of the calculus with some of
these rulings as well. And again, because these are cases that are being you know, essentially tossed on standing or improvidently granted or something of that nature, it does still leave room for future rulings where they can still continue to chip away at reproductive rights or the rights of people to have, you know, gun safety laws or other things that are frankly very popular in America.
Let's talk about some more future rulings because the next couple of days are going to be awfully important. As we spend time with Michigan's Attorney General Dana Nessel. This year, you charge sixteen people for falsely claiming to be elected for Donald Trump in the twenty twenty election. We're expecting a ruling on some of the charges level against January six rioters, if we can call them that.
The idea of obstruction, which brings us.
Back to the Enron case, whether this is the same thing as hiding paperwork when we talk about obstructing in this case and official proceeding, what's the court going to say about.
This, Well, it's hard to know what they're going to say, but it's clear what the January sixth rioters we're trying to do, and it's clear I think as well, what the former President of the United States was trying to
encourage them to do. We have seen obviously through the January sixth Committee testimony and of course the discovery in cases all over the United States, well, I should say swing states, especially including my own, that there was a concerted effort to undermine the election, and to do so by making sure that Congress could not meet and could not properly communist.
Law broad enough to apply. Though in this case, you.
Know, I guess we're going to have to see what the court says, but I think that it has to be and it should be, and we certainly have to make certain that we have laws in place that specifically indicate right, that is, it is improper and it is illegal to disrupt that type of a proceeding, because if so, I mean, if we're not going to say that what they did was illegal in this set of circumstances, how are we going to continue to administer elections because this is part of the election process.
Well, and of course we're still relitigating what happened during the election process of twenty twenty both in the immediate aftermath, what was happening at polling centers with fake electors, for example, or even on January sixth of twenty twenty one. How concerned are you specifically in the state of Michigan, which, as you say, is going to be a critical swim state that could be one of the deciding factors in the outcome about elections security in this cycle in twenty twenty four.
Now one of my biggest concerns, and I think this involves all of the many Trump cases that have been pending, many of them of course put on hold because of the Trump immunity case, you know, And this goes to many of the cases that were charged in Michigan as well, and there are a lot. It's not just the false
slate of Elector's case. We have a variety of cases that are relevant to efforts to try to overturn the election in Michigan in twenty twenty Those cases have moved forward at just a snail's pace, and as a result, here we are, four years later, we're going into yet another presidential election. And we have not seen the cases from twenty twenty disposed yet. The courts have you know, really, you know, I mean, there's a German after a German on these cases. It's taking a very long time for
courts to issue rulings. And I'm worried about the impact it's going to have because one of the things about enforcing the law is ensuring deterrence against people continuing to engage in that kind of illegal activity, which again is
so detrimental to our democracy as a whole. So I am worried with the Trump cases not moving forward before the election, with a lot of our state cases not going to be completely disposed of before the election, that it would be sending the wrong message to people that the people weren't held accountable when they did this four years ago, So maybe you won't be held accountable if you engage in the same activity now in twenty twenty four.
We just can't have that, Madam Attorney General, Our listeners and viewers should know that you're the first openly LGBTQ statewide elected official in the state of Michigan. Might be even more remarkable to learn the you're only the second nationwide, which is remarkable. In twenty twenty four, another remarkable statistic is the thousands of military veterans who were kicked out of the service pardon now apparently from Joe Biden for being kicked out on the former military ban on gay sex.
Is your reaction, good job, mister president, or what took so long?
Well?
You know, look, I think that President Biden is doing everything in his power to ensure that LGBTQ people are protected in this country, and he's done that for many years. I think people forget that when Barack Obama took office, he was not in support of same sex marriage, and really why that changed, in large part was because of the urging of his Vice president, Joe Biden. He was the first one to say it out loud and really
apply pressure to President Obama in that regard. So I think just as this is continued theme of you have one candidate for president or incumbent who supports the LGBTQ community and Donald Trump who wants to set us back thirty, forty, even fifty years.
Come back and see us next time you're in Washington. It's great to have you at the desk today on Bloomberg TV and Radio.
Michigan's a turn.
General Dana Nessel, we thank you for being with us. So the fastest show in politics. A lot more ahead. Live from Washington, This is Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and enroun 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 Here in Washington, where we are just dissecting an accident. It seems related to the Supreme Court's website today. The Supreme Court just out saying that the opinion on abortion the emergency Idaho abortion case was inadvertently posted earlier today. Bloomberg Law of course saw it when that happened and found that, according to the copy opinion that was on the website for a brief period of time, the Court is poised to allow for emergency abortions in the state of Idaho.
Yeah, we'll see if we actually get a ruling that follows this. We thought the Supreme Court was done today their work. Two official rulings this morning, Kayley, we could get more tomorrow, maybe something drops in our lap. Of course, if that happens on this day, you'll hear about it on Bloomberg.
TV and radio.
The question is, did somebody do this on purpose? Was it an accident? Inadverton would suggest as much. Will there be an internal investigation that leads to nowhere like the leak of Dobbs. All these things have yet to be answered, but it sure looks like good news for abortion activists and for Democrats. And we're joined at the table right now by the senior spokesperson for the DNC, Hannah Muldavin.
Didn't think we'd be talking about this today, but welcome to the table. It's great to see you.
What does this mean for democratic messaging the day before what could be the most important presidential debate of the cycle.
Well, thank you for having me, and I want to make it very clear why we're even talking about this right now, and that's because the state of abortion rights
in our country is because of Donald Trump. When he was elected, he bragged about electing three conservative justices and overturning Roe v. Way and because of that, we see a dire state in our country for women of reproductive age twenty one states in counting where women don't have access to reproductive freedom that they've enjoyed for fifty years. One in three women of reproductive age can't receive that care that they need. And if Donald Trump wins in November,
it's only going to be more of that. And so the fact that we're even talking about this today and that women's rights have been stripped away is because of Donald Trump.
And yet this court opinion would suggest, or the copy that was briefly posted would suggest, as their methipristone ruling did, that they aren't further taking away rights. Potentially with these decisions they allowed mithipristone access to maintain. They are allowing in emergency situations in which the stability of the mother prevent would be risked without having an abortion to go forward. Is this, in some sense at least taking away a talking point as we get farther and farther from.
Dobs, I think when we look to what's at stake in November and access to abortion, those stats I just mentioned show how many women are already being impacted. Right they go to the emergency rooms for this access and some of them are turned away. What we're seeing is that women are fighting back. Americans are fighting back. Nine out of ten support what we saw today if that ruling ends up being what the Supreme Court puts out,
but it takes away nothing. What we see is Donald Trump who has a plan to continue to threaten abortion rights. And then in contrast, you see a president and Joe Biden and a vice president and Kamala Harris who feel the exact opposite. They want women and Americans to have freedom of reproductive rights, to have freedom in our democracy. And Joe Biden himself said he would he wants to restore Roe v.
Wade.
So I think when we look at what abortion means and abortion rights mean for women this cycle, it couldn't be clearer who stands with them and who stands against taking away their access to this and their freedoms.
You're bringing us some very carefully crafted messaging right now, and I don't doubt that you believe everything you're saying, but you're a professional. Joe Biden's got to go into the Lions then to deliver this message tomorrow night to see up for this job. He's up at Camp David tomorrow. Do you have a line to the president.
What do you expect him.
To say, I wouldn't imagine to speak for the president, but what I can say is that it's been four years since Americans have seen Joe Biden and Donald Trump on a debate stage. A lot has happened in those four years. We just mentioned women's rights being taken away. Donald Trump has been impeached twice and is now a convicted felon on thirty four counts. What Joe Biden needs to do is speak directly to the American people about what he's done so really fought for the working class.
The economy, the fallback from COVID was really softened and actually done really well under President Biden. Right, more than fifteen million jobs created. Joe Biden actually took on big Pharma for the American people to lower cost of prescription drug prices. So I think that Joe Biden is prepared. He won two debates against Donald Trump before, and he can run on his record and what he wants to do, which is make sure that every American has a fair shot.
Well, as we talk about running on the record or touting policy that he has been able to undertake during his administration, is it not problematic for messaging purposes? And for the party at large that that has the potential to get lost in the analysis of just his performance and the kind of energy he showed as an eighty one year old president. Can the policy actually get through to the voter who is only concerned with whether or not he is showing his age and appearing mentally acute.
There's going to be a clear contrast that Americans will see on Thursday on the debate stage, and it'll be against a president who cares for them, who has passed policies that will lower prices for them, who's continuing to fight inflation. Right, the Democrats in Congress and Joe Biden passed the Inflation Reduction Act. No Republican voted for that. So this is a party and a president who is
where he needs to be on the issues. And they'll then see Donald Trump, who's all about himself, revenge and retribution. I think it will be very clear on that debate stage what the two future visions of the country will look like. And I think Americans will see a president in Joe Biden who is fighting for them and one and Trump who is fighting for himself.
When's the DNC going to start calling out Donald Trump for his mental acuity.
I think that I don't speak. I think that when you look at Donald Trump's rallies and you see what he is saying, he doesn't make sense. He is saying things that aren't true.
Right.
We even saw this on January sixth with the Big Lie. He is pushing forward things that are not factually accurate. And Americans are going to be able to see that, maybe for one of the first times, as we're waking up to the fact that there's an election in November. They're going to see that on the debate stage, and they're going to see the opposite in Joe Biden, we believe.
So.
Is Joe Biden's job tomorrow night to be a live fact checker of Donald Trump?
Can he do that?
Joe Biden's job is to show what he's been doing for the American people, which is the contrast to what President Trump will be doing. President Trump is going to
do what he does. I know there are specific rules about this debate that have been agreed upon by both parties, But what Joe Biden needs to do is make sure he knows what he's done, talk about what he's delivering for Americans, the freedom that Americans can really expect under a second administration and the way those freedoms will be taken away if Trump is elected again.
All right, Hannah, great to have you here in studio. Thank you so much for joining us, Hannimal David, a senior spokesperson for the DNC, Great to have you. And of course we're all looking forward to the debate tomorrow night, and as we do so, we want to get a Republican perspective in this conversation as well, and bring in Bloomberg Politics contributor and Republican strategist and partner at Stone
Court Capital, Rick Davis, who is now with us. So Rick, I'll just begin with the same question I just ended on with Hannah. The idea of Joe Biden's job tomorrow night. Is it pitching his vision for the future of the kind or is it calling out to actual inaccuracies that may be spouted by Donald Trump.
Yeah, I would say certainly not the latter. If he spends his time tomorrow night correcting the facts on Donald Trump, then nobody's going to have a sense of what his future aspirations are for the country and what he brings to the table. I think job number one for Joe Biden's competence. That's the issue that is framing people's opinion of him. Is he up to the job? Can't he handle another four years personally? So that vibrancy needs a show, and it needs a show in a way that's a showstopper.
Secondarily to that, he's going to have to convince the American public that he can handle the economy. Right now, Donald Trump wins decisively on who is the best able to handle the economy, and the economy is still the number one issue to most voters. And so if he can accomplish those two tasks, job done, get off the stage, call it a victory, and get on with prosecuting the rest of campaign. If he fails in either of those two, he may have done an enormous amount of damage to his campaign.
I'm fascinated by your experience when it comes to debate prep.
Rick. Bring us inside the room.
You've got what just over twenty four hours today when we talk about these mock debates, someone up there playing Donald Trump. He's got advisors. In the first couple of rows here, you've been in that room.
Is it your job to shake up the candidate. Do you yell at the candidate?
What do you do to try to simulate the worst case scenario for tomorrow night.
Well, certainly it's a different approach between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Yes, you wouldn't have to yell at Donald Trump because Joe Biden highly likely isn't going to be doing any yelling. But that does apply to Joe Biden and his debate prep, and Biden's having much more traditional debate prep where he's up there on the stage with a counterpart that's representing doll Trump and going through questions.
The number one thing is, you know, you try to hone in on these you know, few key messages that the candidate has to get out there in the public during the course of the ninety minutes. And and some of them are you know, interesting stories to tell or one liners both to push back on Donald Trump. We remember, you know, very well the first debate where he's you know, just told him to shut up, and regardless of what else he did, that sort of stuck with everybody. And
and there these are scripted lines. It's very little improvisation happens behind the podium in the middle of a debate. So they're trying to wards those kinds of things out. And yeah, probably murder board Joe Biden a little bit.
On Donald Trump's.
Side, it's totally the opposite. I wouldn't be surprised that he doesn't go out and get nine holes in before the debate sometime tomorrow.
Rick, we just have about a minute left with you, But would also like you to weigh in on how the Bloomberg reporting today that suggests the Supreme or it is poised to allow for emergency cases abortion in the state of Idaho according to something that was inadvertently posted on their website, an inadvertently posted opinion. Who does that serve better in the debate on Thursday? Does it take away the talking point from Joe Biden.
Yeah, No, I think it's a victory lot for Joe Biden. He can stir up his supporters by saying, you know that they adequately defended the reproductive rights and and and
and the federal role in this. I think it does showcase a little bit of what Donald Trump doesn't want to have to deal with, which is is a national law around abortion necessary either way how you look at it, right to choice or right to life, and and and any attention to abortion, especially in a debate, probably in norse to the benefit of the Democratic candidate, because we know from the pulling that a vast majority UH support choice under certain sets of circumstances, and Biden's ability to
manage that issue is pretty well honed.
That's Rick Davis, and he'll be with us tomorrow night as part of our special debate coverage here on Bloomberg TV and Radio. It'll start eight pm Washington Time. Big thanks to Rick Bloomberg Politics contributor. Former Congressman Kevin Brady's up next, Only on Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Evocarplay and thenroun Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Welcome to Balance Off Hour on Bloomber TV and Radio Life from Washington. While we are still in the middle of a twenty twenty four election cycle and very focused on that already, the conversation is beginning to turn toward twenty twenty to five, specifically because that is the year in which the tax cuts, the twenty seventeen tax cutsunder the Trump administration will expire and be up for debate again,
which is starting the whole argument already. This is something we spoke with Congresswoman Gwen Moore from Wisconsin, a Democrat who sits on the House Ways and Means Committee, about yesterday and the idea that revenues went up when that tax reform was passed. This is what she said on paper.
Revenues went up, but not for long because those revenues were used to buy back stop and other sort of unproductive things, and so ultimately it did not contribute to any kind of revenue growth, and we still had the two trillion dollar debt, a deficit paid for by debt.
To talk with us more about this, we're joined by man who used to chair the House Ways and Means Committee. That would be former Congressman Kevin Brady, former congressman and now a spokesman for the Alliance for Competitive Taxation.
Great to see you back at the tanks for having me.
How do you answer these criticisms we heard about the ballooning deficits that making tax cuts.
Permanent would create.
This is from Maya McGuinness, and we tend to trust her work when you look at these numbers, Are we looking at this the right way?
You know, I don't think so. I love serving with Glenn and Ways and Means Committee, but I think she's got some bad information. It was just the opposite. There was a different in revenues initially as we did those rate cuts, but then they ballooned in a big way, both generally because the economy was doing so much better, shot up full percentage point right off the bat. We saw revenues come back from overseas, reinvest in the US, and paychecks outgrew inflation by nine percent. So families were
getting ahead in a big way. But we've recovered that plus more. For example, the corpor ratings, you know, we lowered it significantly from thirty five to twenty one percent. We're generating more revenue today at the lower rate than at the higher rate. Why investments, economic growth happening in the US rather than overseas. And so yeah, we've seen significant revenue growth. The problem is Washington spending faster than even that growth can sustain. And that's the big challenge.
Well, so on that challenge, which I'm sure creates a challenge for you, as you're pitching for lower tax rates, do you simultaneously have to have the conversation, if you lower taxes, you have to cut X, Y, and Z, knowing that none of those things are likely to be entitlements like Social Security or medicare. So what do you suggest is the pay for Yeah?
So I so here's my thought. One lots changed in twenty seventeen. Debt and deficits have risen a lot for good reason. But people forget the original tax cuts we did in twenty seventeen was five and a half trillion dollars in tax cuts. We raised an offset for trillion dollars of it in that bill the present science, So we paid for seventy two percent of it right at all, plus these added revenue. So I always say, you know, the question isn't do the tax cuts pay for themselves?
But when and if growth continues. We've recouped much of it already I think it will now next year. There's about I'm throwing a lot of numbers, but seven trillion dollars total of tax cuts to extend. Almost all those are on workers and small businesses apart on businesses as separate from that, they extend the reforms been twenty seventeen, they generate another three trillion paid for as the office, So they have to find a way to Yeah, exactly right.
So the question is what do we leave behind, what do we prioritize, What other reforms do we do to do that? And what we looked for are reforms that would allow us to lower rates by simplifying, consolidate, reforms that would allow us to grow those pro growth provisions the corporate For example, businesses paid for about eighty percent of their own tax cut, but they wanted a newer vehicle, like buying a new car, You know what I mean,
there's a cost to it. It's more efficient, it's more effective, it gets you farther. Same thing with the new tax code. So lawmakers there a big challenge will be deciding what do we continue in for how long? How do we offset some, if not all, of those costs.
Well, as you said it earlier, it's not about making the tax cuts permanent, it's about making them better.
So when Donald Trump stands.
Up at the podium tomorrow night and he's talking to CEO's business leaders who are wary about inflation, who are wary about ballooning deficits.
How does he make the case.
Well, I think it's pretty easy for him because he's already got the numbers in hand. After we did the tax cuts, inflation stayed low, wages grew, the economy grew in a big way. That will extending locking in those rates for families and businesses is really smart for the economy. I think he should focus on that and any other economic ideas he has, because I think it's going to be a big part of that debate in the election. I mean, inflation is still pretty cruel, you know, cost wise.
Businesses want to be able to compete win around the world, including on main street, and so I hope both those candidates lay out their economic vision because it's I think it's going to be a big part of decision making in November.
Well, and do they have to be specific and decisive in doing so. It was just two weeks ago that Donald Trump was here in Washington and part meeting with CEOs at the Business Roundtable, where our reporting suggests he floated the idea of a twenty percent corporate tax rate because it's a round number. He then told Congress, potentially you replace tax revenue with tariff revenue and then said the campaign, at least in the aftermath, said that was
just something he floated. It's just a suggestion. Is it time for specific policy proposals versus floating ideas?
So I think the answer is soon. You know, November's coming, people are paying attention, and so I think you know, his campaign said, look, he's floating ideas. He will flesh this out if he wants to go down that path. So I think at some point, yeah, voters, because he raised that idea, I'm gonna want to hear how it works and how it impacts them. I know, for me,
you know, tariffs are taxes. You know, they drive up prices, they slow the economy, They tend to benefit a few and punish a lot, and they almost always ignite retaliation against our US farmers, our manufacturers, our workers in a big way. So I always advise candidate steer away from tariffs, you know, I mean, go for growth, because you're incentivizing innovation, manufacturing research here in the US. That's what makes his competitive.
That's what the Alliance for Competitive Taxation is focused on, keeping America the best place to do that new manufacturing research, low corporate So we can compete with against China in other countries. Yeah, and incentivized innovation because the country that wins that race kind of wins the future.
You sound like an old fashioned Republican Congress, you know, I hope.
So now in.
Washington, are you helping to advise or steer the RNC or the Trump campaign on this.
So to the point that I can be helpful, I want to be you know, obviously people want to know what did we do, why did we do it, what performed you know what I mean? What would be the advice, but which I'm happy to do. But I'm excited. This is you know, taxiform happens once every generation, but we have now lawmakers have a chance to leave their mark on it, make it better, improve it, and things have changed. So I'm excited for this new generation of lawmakers to tackle this issue.
All right.
Kevin Brady, spokesman for the Alliance for Competitive Taxation and former chair of the House Ways and Means Committee. Always great to see you here in studio. Thank you so much for joining us. Now we want to get a quick check on world and national news. Amy Morris has that for us in our ninety nine one Newsroom. Here in Washington. Hey, Amy, Hi Kaylee.
The Supreme Court may be poised to allow abortions and medical emergencies in Idaho. That's according to a copy of the opinion briefly posted on the Court's website. The decision insurers hospitals in Idaho can perform those emergency abortions the health of the mother. The copy of the opinion is not necessarily the final ruling, given that it hasn't been officially released, and in fact, the Supreme Court's press office did say it had been inadvertently posted and the official
ruling will be released in due course. Two decisions that were released today. In one case, the Court paired back a public corruption law, saying that state and local officials who accept gratuities are not necessarily covered by a federal bribery statute. And in another ruling, the Supreme Court sided with the Biden administration over communications with social media companies.
Not on the merits, but they say the challengers really didn't have a legal right to sue Global News twenty four hours a day and whenever you want it with Bloomberg News. Now, I'm Amy Morris. Now back to balance of power. Joe Matthew and.
Kaylee Lyne Amy, thank you so much.
Glad to have you with us on Bloomberg TV and Radio here on the fastest show in politics, with something important that's happening today that has nothing to do with the presidential debates tomorrow night, although I suspect it might come up. As a President Biden referred to detained journalists around the world in his speech at the White House Correspondence Dinner.
Here's a reminder, journalism is clearly not a crime, not here, not there, not anywhere in the world.
And Pune should release Evan and also immediately.
The Evan, of course, the President was referring to there as Evan Gershkovich, who today in Russia had the opening of his espionage trial. Joining us now for more is Paul Beckett. He is from the Wall Street Journal Or he's an assistant editor, but also has been handling Evan's case as it has drug out now for some time. Paul, Welcome back to Bloomberg. Thank you so much for joining us here in studio. Should we even really be calling this a trial? Is that what this is?
It's not a trial as your I understand it. We view it more as a secret hearing at which a judge will endorse the accusations false accusations against Evan, after which he will be convicted. So the due processes isn't part of the process.
You've spent a good chunk of time here working toward his release. What does the start of a trial say about your progress?
We remain ever hopeful that we can avoid the path that this is now headed down, But if anything, I hope it just injects some urgency into the Biden administration's efforts to bring Evan and Paul Wheelan and also another's home.
Of course, there is some time between this first hearing today and the next one, which isn't scheduled until mid August, but it does seem that you think ultimately, at the end of these proceedings he will be convicted. How much harder would it be to bring him home after a conviction than before one.
That's hard to tell. The Russians originally said it would take a trial before they would enter into negotiations over his release, but we know that those negation negotiations have gone on in the past year, and we believe that they're going on now. So it's just very hard to tell I think the important thing is it comes to town where we really get into presidential campaign season, we get to the end of the year, then ally governments might change. I mean, there's just a lot looking ahead.
That means the time to bring him back is now.
So you feel like this is a closing window. Donald Trump says the news media is the enemy of the American people. What would happen to this effort if he were re elected?
It has been a bipartisan issue and we'd like to see it stay that way. And for President Trump has talked about the need to get Evan back.
This is something you expect. Maybe both mentioned tomorrow night.
That will be up to the moderators, but we hope it's top of mind for them because it has been a priority in the Trump administration. It was a priority in the Biden administration.
That's important enough.
So we need to We just wanted to finish the job and get them home.
To be honest, can you tell us anything about Evan's condition right now? What you have been able to hear from him as this hearing in this trial? And I say that in air quotes has left or come to today, of course, being the launch.
Day He's held up incredibly well over the last fifteen months when he was in Moscow. He has been moved to Katrinberg, which is a city about nine hundred miles east of Moscow, and he's been putting a new detention facility. You may have seen him in his court cage this morning with a shaved head that was prison mandate. But he's held up all this time, and we've no doubt that he will continue to hold up incredibly well.
How's his family doing.
It's tough on all of them, but they are supporting him. He is supporting them, and we're supporting all of them. So I think they're doing okay. They're just ready for this to stop.
And as you say, they're ready for this to stop. Have you gotten any indication on the speed of progress from the administration or are they just continually telling you we are working on it. Are they giving you exact updates on time frame, on any indication on when we might be saying going from saying free Evan to Evan is free.
Our job is really to try and help create the conditions by which those talks can succeed. But they are being handled in a classified and secret way, so We don't have much insight into where they are. We just know that they're going on and we wish some success.
Wrongfully detained as the State Department has formally determined that Evan Gershkovich was taken for the wrong reasons, allowing of course, for the US negotiate on his behalf in Those negotiations continue now with the support of Paul Beckett.
You should know that Paul was the bureau chief.
The Washington Bureau Chief, a very important job of the Wall Street Journal, and has put all of his time and efforts into securing Evan's release.
And you're always welcome here. Paul. It's great to see you again.
Really appreciate you support from both of you and your listeners and yours.
Thank you, sir for being with us and our best at his family. As you see him wearing the pin. Free Evan with us live on Bloomberg TV and radio.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast can just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then I Know with the Bloomberg Business Ad. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just say Alexa Play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
So, yeah, tomorrow night could be a ripper.
As the gag order is relaxed, the media and the campaigns continue to raise the stakes, and we wanted to get the baseline roughly thirty hours out here. Well, we'll call it a day out, even though our coverage starts at eight tomorrow night with Cliff Young. Of course, the brains behind IPSOS US Public Polling is the president of ipso's Public Affairs and Cliff, it's great to see you. Welcome back, speaking from Cereba thirty thousand foot level. Yeah,
how would you describe the state of polling? And you might want to focus on swing states. I know you have some new numbers there as these two candidates walk into the lions Den tomorrow.
You know, the polling and the appoints been like this for the last year, is basically flatlined. Ultimately, President Biden is in a weak place. He's been weak over the last little bit, and I would ultimately say going into this debate, he has a lot more to lose than Donald Trump does.
It's interesting you say that because the Trump campaign, until the last twenty four hours seems to be essentially raising.
Expectations.
I should say that in the opposite the last twenty four hours, they've been raising expectations so far. Though until then, Donald Trump has made Joe Biden sound like, you know, he's going to be drooling at the podium. He can't stitch three words together, and that kind of creates an interesting scenario for the president, doesn't it.
Yeah, he has to go in. That is, Biden has to go in and show that he's competent, that he's presidential, but he doesn't have a cognitive agility problem. And ultimately, as I was saying, he has to show more. He has in some ways more to lose, more downside than Trump. You know, the American populace expects Trump to be irreverenced, to be kind of all over the place. That is his style. That is not Biden's style. And Biden really needs to show himself to be one that can be president again.
So if you have a line in your swing state right up here that jumps off the page, we at ipsos like to say the candidate who performs better at the main issue wins the election roughly eighty five percent of the time. So we're going to isolate that issue tomorrow, and I assume it's going to be the economy.
Talk about what we'll hear from both.
It's inflation, inflation, inflation more specifically, but yes, the economy. On the one hand, Trump goes into this debate already being credible on it. Republicans tend to be more credible than Democrats on the issue of the economy. As long as he doesn't sort of deviate too much from the diagonal, he should be okay. And on the other hand, Biden has a problem. Biden has tried and the administration has tried to make the economic art argument. Excuse me, remember
biden Omics in any case, it hasn't. It hasn't happened. That connection hasn't occurred for large loss of the population. He's not performing well on the economy, that is, Biden isn't and he at the very least has to plant some season kernels in the American populace's head that he is confident on the issue of the economy.
We've been asking a lot of questions, Cliff about who's going to watch this thing. You know, we're all running this debate as.
If it was an old fashioned commission debate.
But everyone's online and you know how many young people are watching appointment television if it's not a sporting event. And even then you might be watching the highlights on social media. Your poll found thirty one percent of Americans living in swing states, this is the audience that counts for the debate, say their main source of news is social media. So that creates an environment where everyone's just going for a viral moment, right.
Yeah, true, But you know, but the media landscape is much more fractured to day, Joe, As you know, I would say that it's not about watching it in real time in the moment, It's about the after effect.
The day after.
I would say we need about five or six days before we can have a good read on the relative performance. So one way or another, a big chunk of the American population will have some sort of contact with the debate, even if they haven't watched it in real time.
We saw a little bit of a bump for Joe Biden following the State of the Union. It was not the classic State of the Union bump that you would see, but there was a kind of a temporary thing I guess that happened there. Cliff, you can put a finer point on it if you want, But what does history tell us about this first debate impacting numbers on the other side.
For the most part, overall, historically debates don't have enough.
They're wash. So you might have an.
Extraordinary one, you know, like the Obama Robney debate. Obama performed poorly, it really affected the polls, but for the most part, they don't have an effect. That said, this is a very unique debate. It's happening before the conventions. It's not happening by the standards that are set by the Debate Committee. Right, is very unique and it's one once again that's really needed by the Bidom camp. They really need to show themselves or he needs to show
himself to be competent. Trump much less so.
You find likely voters are concerned about inflation and immigration, and those people prefer Donald Trump. I think it was fifty to forty seven percent. If that's the big issue, as we've established here, it's going to be inflation. That's the issue that's going to likely decide the election. Here, does Joe Biden just go in and talk about deficits If Donald Trump's tax cuts are made permanent or extended, the inflationary impact of tariffs.
Are we going to hear in ninety minutes of this?
Yeah, you know that abstract talk will not help Biden. What's happening in practice, in reality is that the average American is not feeling it, not feeling the vibe, is having problems making ends meet. And if he goes in there and talks abstract rates, averages, these sorts of things, he's gonna lose lose people. He really needs to talk about feeling and emotion and connect with them at that level.
How does Trump lose people?
I mean, I know there are kind of no rules for Trump aside from the debate rules themselves. But if he goes in there and starts talking about the late great Hannibal Lecter and electric sharks and all the rest of it, what's that night going to look like for him?
It's gonna be fun. It's gonna be fun to watch.
Obviously.
I don't think there's much downside when it comes to Trump.
I think he's no downside.
What a world not on those sorts of issues. No, I mean, it's all big to to the numbers, and so the people that love them love them. The people that hate him hate him. And by the way, even the people that hate them secretly like to watch them perform in public settings like that. So I really think that the downside's much larger for Biden and much smaller, if non existent, for Trump.
This is really something Joe Biden better get his rest. I know that we've been talking a lot about the preparation here, whether you're going to be doing mack debates or murder boards or you know how Donald Trump isn't doing the traditional preparation is not the most important thing for Joe Biden to get rest.
Yeah, you have to go in there and be spry, right, you have to be agile the extent that you can. Yeah, good night's sleep obviously will be really important, maybe a nap, But ultimately he needs to show that is Biden needs to show Americans that he's presidential, that he's up.
To the task.
Maybe someday I'll take my own advice and get a full night sleep. Cliff Young, it's great to see you. Good luck with your watch party. Something tells me you'll be in the field during our after and I hope you'll come back and talk to us about what you learn. If he's the president of IPSOS, US public affairs with his eyes on the numbers, one of the great polsters we talk to on the regular here on Balance of Power.
He gives you a sense of where we are walking into this, clearly the burden on Joe Biden, according to Cliff Young, Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern at Bloomberg dot com.