You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch us live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business app, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
This is our one and I did miss you. I have to say Happy New Year, since we haven't had a chance to say that yet. I know it's getting a little late. Do you go through that at the store, at the gas station? Now that we're a weekend, do you still say Happy New Year? I'm still saying it Happy twenty twenty four. It's going to start coming together now as Congress returns to town, and that's why we're
spending a couple of plates today. You've been hearing on Bloomberg about a deal on top line spending levels that might help to avoid a government shutdown. They say, not those the same levels we agree to back in June. We'll get to that, along with talk of a border deal, potentially by the end of this week. And I know you've heard me say that before, but it's one week from Iowa, and that's where I want to start the conversation with Will Hurd. Of course, former Republican residential candidate.
He's now behind Nicki Haley in the campaign, longtime a Texas congressman, former CIA officer, and can touch all of the stories that we're talking about here, from the campaign to the border to shut down politics.
Congressman.
It's good to see if welcome back voters actually are going to start having a say, a week from today, we're going to have more than just polls to talk about. And I wonder if it's a foregone conclusion that Donald Trump wins the Iowa caucuses.
It's not a foregone conclusion. And Joe, I'm gonna start with Happy New Year. I'm still saying it. I appreciate and look, here's what we're going to see. You're seeing a number of town halls that are being done by Fox News this week. Donald Trump is actually finally participating in one. You're going to have a debate later this week, which is ultimately good to see Nicky Haley and Ronda Santis go head to head, and then we have voting
a next Monday. People should also be paying attention to the weather because right now it's expected that weather in most parts of Iowa is going to be in the negative teens that's going to impact the number of people that come out for caucuses. So it's not a foregone conclusion that Donald Trump wins. You know, expect he thinks he's going to win by a large number. If he doesn't win by a big number, people are gonna be talking about his vulnerability. So a lot can happen still in seven days.
Well, you just made a great point.
Aside from the weather and we are bundling up for this, I'm actually a little bit scared.
And that's a real deal.
It's not just about those of us who are there from warmer clims. They'll be shivering in Des Moines. That could actually be a turnout story, and you can speak to that. But the way you just framed it is basically a question of by how much will Donald Trump win? In other words, a potential moral victory for someone who could come in second place in a strong showing as Nicki Haley that candidate.
I think Nicki is absolutely that canids She's the only person that has been having momentum since the very beginning of this race. Actually, when you look at head to hair comparisons in a general election between her and Joe Biden, she's winning by double digits. Most people only focusing on the fact that Donald Trump may be up on Joe Biden by three or four points. Nicki Haley has consistently
been up by double digits. So if Republicans want to see a absolute victory in November, Nicki Haley is the best choice. And that helps up and down the ballot. And when we look at the debates that are going on in Congress, you want to make sure there's really big coattails to keep the House in Republicans' hands. Right now, we're basically at a two Republicans only have a two seat majority that can potentially flip in November. Senate looks
good for Republicans taking over. So if you want to see conservative leadership in Washington see and getting things done, I think Nicky has the best chance. That's the case she's been making throughout these early states.
I'm going to throw this at you before I changed the topic to what's happening here in Washington, and would love your take on that as we spend time with Will Hurd. The Emerson poll out of South Carolina out Friday shows a tough go for Nicki Haley in her home state twenty five percent to Donald Trump's fifty four percent. There's been a lot of talk about some of the
confusion surrounding her answer on what caused the Civil War? Recently, is that going to be a deficit for her in South Carolina and how important will that state be for her potential to move forward.
She's made it.
Very clear that the Civil War, the reason for the Civil War was slavery. She has talked about her mistake and not having that be the first thing that came out of her mouth. I think many of her opponents are using that in order to try to create drama and to stop that momentum that she's been seeing. But I think you're going to start seeing momentum continue to build in Iowa and New Hampshire as she goes into
her home state that she knows incredibly well. And so you know, this is as you said at the top of this conversation, it's exciting that we're soon going to get to have to not worrying about what polls are saying and seeing what voters are actually saying, because I will I will say this, if you look at some of the polling versus votes of significant votes over the last let's call it nine months the abortion of ballot
initiative in Iowa, the gubernatorial race in Kentucky. The polling did not reflect what actually happened at at the ballot box. And so this is going to come down to who has the best organized campaign and what when voters are finally thinking about what do we want? Do we want, you know, four more years of chaos, or do we want someone who's thoughtful, who understands foreign policy. Do we want an accountant in the White House so that we start actually getting our financial house and order.
Well, I'll tell you the story here in Washington today is not so much about the presidential campaign who the next president will be, but whether we're going to have a government shut down in a couple of weeks. And I know that there's now an agreement on top line spending. It's the same agreement we had in the debt ceialing deal. So I have to admit I don't know if there's even much reason to talk about it, because it doesn't feel like progress. Jim Langford, though, says there is progress
on the border. Will heard last time you were here, there was a hope that this might be done by the end of the year, and of course would help to unlock funding for Ukraine, but would bring a long sought compromise on border security and on immigration reform on asylum law. Are you as optimistic now as you were a couple of weeks ago here, because we're hearing from negotiators, including Langford, that there could be text by the end of this week.
Langford is a serious guy, he's a thoughtful guy. He's not someone he's not going to say that if they're not close to some kind of deal. But we have to look at all this stuff together. If and I agree with you, the top line numbers is an agreement to agree to the last numbers, and that's going to require that's going to require the House to then you've got to actually write the bill that matches that number.
And let's be frank, the conservatives in the House that are criticizing this again have never voted to fund the government, So the fact that there's going to be something that appeases them, it's just ridiculous. It's you know, can speak of Johnson, keep half of the get half the Republicans to vote for it, and are Democrats willing to participate? But you've got to be able to have a government open in order to get this side deal to deal
with supplemental funding between Ukraine and the border. The border is continuing to be a crisis. I'm always going to be hopeful that something gets done because the communities along the border have been suffering for for five years. You know, we think about you know, most people only think, oh, you know, when New York and Chicago and la started complaining, that's when it really became a crisis. You know, it's been a crisis. It's been a crisis since the last
year of Donald Trump's presidency. He's the one that began this problem, and then it just became considerably worse under President Byen. Last month, I think it was three hundred and twenty thousand people were apprehend and that's the all time high in the history of our government. So this is a this is a real.
Seeing some staggering figures, that's for sure, And I wonder if you think it's a good time then to impeach the Homeland Security Secretary. The first hearing will take place in the House on Wednesday. Alejandro Majorcis, of course, is seated at the negotiating table. We're told at least helping to represent the administration. Is this the moment to pull the plug on the secretary?
If I was president, by it, And let me be frank, I'm not one to generally give him advice to that's good for him. You know, if I'm Joe Biden, I would fire Secretary Mayorkis when you look at some of his bad pulling numbers, especially in a general election against general election voters. A significant amount of of the drag on Joe Biden is his is his bungling of the
of the border crisis. And so this is you know, there's the there's a lot of Democrats that are frustrated with Secretary of Mariorchis and just look at the record. This is the worst the border crisis has been in our country's history. We've had over five million people come into our country illegally under Secretary of mayorcus of the data shows he's done a terrible job. And I am of the the opinion that this is they have not
been actually implementing legislation appropriately. You do you know, we've made it very clear what asylum is supposed to be. They're having an incredibly generous definition of asylum, which is allowing these millions of people to come into the country, and to me, that alone is a violation of Secretary of may Orcus's duties.
Well, it's looking like he may well lose his job. Will Hurd while you're with us, I have to get your insights quickly on the Secretary of Defense. And I ask you this as a former CIA officer, I'm guessing this is not a major kitchen table story right now. But he kind of went missing, having gone into Walter Reed for an elective surgery before Christmas. He was readmitted on New Year's Day, experiencing severe pain, and he is
still there now. Apparently there was a breakdown in communication. Congressman, by that, I mean no one knew.
He was there.
They had to call the Deputy Secretary on the beach on vacation in Puerto Rico. This is something clearly that could have been planned and advanced. How important is this breach of protocol?
Well, I think it comes to a lack of trust. And if you can't handle something this significant properly, how are you going to handle something that's moving fast. You know the fact that the Deputies Secretary had most of the authorities at that time for because of some other agreement, but the fact that Secretary Austin had not notified the president and the folks within the department, it makes no sense. And that now we're days later, we're still don't have
the full story. This is a problem. I think everybody wishes him and hopes that he's healthy and safe and has a speedy recovery. But this is not how you handle the fact that are one of the most important people in our government has to go into the hospital.
Will Heard, It's good to see you, former congressman, former Republican presidential candidate back with us on Bloomberg Radio. Come back and see us again soon. In fact, we'd love to talk once the voting does begin. I'd love to hear from the panel on this quickly, the matter of the Secretary of Defense. We're going to have a lot of time for the border and shut down politics coming up, but let's bring in Jeanie Shanzano and Rick Davis, Bloomberg
Politics contributors. It's great to see you guys. Happy New Year. I missed you both.
Rick.
There are some folks who are, at least on the Republican side. I think the Defense secretary should be fired. Should there be accountability here.
Yeah, absolutely, I mean, honestly, somebody needs to be fired. I mean, there's obviously a chain of commander exists, and there we go. And I think that if you know, the secretary was in communicato because of his health, it falls on others within the department to make sure that they're maintaining this level of transparency that's due a senior member of the cabinet like this. I mean, honestly, it's just outrageous. So yeah, I think a head should.
Roll, A head should roll.
Jeanie. The administration is speaking. John Kirby earlier today said Lloyd Austin stays in the job. Their concern right now is his health. Should we wait to learn more before we judge what happened.
Yeah, I think we should all be concerned about his health. That we all can be. But the reality is is that this is about national security. And can you imagine the CEO of any company disappearing for a week. You know, there are twenty seven thousand or more people who work at the Pentagon, and their argument is that the woman who was supposed to inform the president was out sick. Something is amiss here. It is a problem that he is in line for the presidency. He has the nuclear codes.
The president needs to lead and he needs to deal with this absolutely, the optics. The concern about his hospitalization is what's going on. We should all be concerned, But this is about national security while we're in an active war zone across the world, and so I do think the White House is going to have to address this.
I mean, at least I called somebody when I was out.
For a week. Genie, we'll have a lot more.
With our panel, Rick Davis and Genie Shanzano as we pick their brains on a potential deal on the border and whether we're going to shut down by the way, a week away from Iowa a week from today, and Rick and Genie will be with us. We'll have more straight ahead on sound on This is Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch the program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com, and 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, Big Screaming Headline Over the weekend, reporters called into bureaus to write the story of the grand deal that was put together here in Washington, d C. The House and Senate leaders Speaker Johnson Senator Chuck Schumer, and an agreement at last on top line spending levels, something that we've apparently been waiting for, even though they're the same levels we got back in June. I'm having a little
bit of trouble with this one. As we remember the movie Gaslight from nineteen forty four was once Angels Street on stage, remember this, the husband trying to drive his wife insane. Things start to go missing, gas lights dim without being touched. And as I read here on the terminal, one point five nine trillion dollars the new top line
negotiated here in Washington, DC, a cap on discretionary spending. Interesting, that's the same exact number that was in the debt ceiling deal back in June, the one that helped to get Kevin McCarthy fired. Yet here we are again talking about this as if it's news. It includes recisions, and this is what the Speaker says is new of unused COVID funding and cuts to the irs. They add up to about sixteen billion dollars, which is barely a rounding error.
And so conservatives in the Freedom Caucus are not happy, and it's very difficult to tell whether we just improved our chances or not. This is happening at the same time as negotiating over the border takes place in Washington. As we reassemble the panel for their take, Brick Davis and Genie Shanzeno are here Bloomberg Politics contributors. Genie am I going crazy here. One point five to nine trillion. It's the same number we could have missed all that drama.
If we just go back to June, we'd have the same deal we have now, right.
That's right, it's like deja vu all over again. And you mentioned gas lighting, and I was thinking of another film, But you know, the reality is is that this is pretty much all that Johnson could get. And the real question is where you ended Is he going to be able to keep his job in the aftermath. It really almost doesn't matter what Chip Roy and the Conservatives say
on this. They're going to push him to the right as much as possible, but the reality is he's going to need Democrats to get this passed and you know, one question to keep in mind is are they going to push him enough so that he tries to include things involving abortion or LGBTQ rights which will really create enough work and have him lose some needed Democrats. So
that's what we're talking about here. Otherwise, this is pretty much what McCarthy negotiated and what eventually he Brinnick Ghannon got him fired.
Wow.
Freedom Caucus calls it a total failure.
Rick.
I could go through all of the individuals here, from Chip Roy to Andy Biggs, but I think you get the point. Is the speaker gaslighting us. How do we call this a new deal?
Yeah, it's a.
Joke, is what it is.
I mean, he's his strategy has taken us full circle to exactly as you said, right back to the very beginning. It sounds like a bad Sound of Music episode. And so like the bottom line is that now they found a new problem. You know, the same guy's Gats, Biggs, Rosendale, all these guys who you know, threw out McCarthy as speaker over the budget deal have now said now the budget deal is less problematic than the fact that we need to have HR two embedded in the budget deal.
The House's big border security plan. So you can keep the number, but you got to have border security in there too, And I just think they keep moving the goalpost. It doesn't help the Speaker. I doubt if he's going to lose his job over this. But as Genie said, there's not going to get anything done unless they have Democratic votes. And if they have Democratic votes, none of these people's voices matter.
So not only has nothing changed since before the holidays, but not since last June. Just a different guy holding the gavel here. The border you mentioned Rick may well be intertwined here. In fact, they're talking about potentially moving all of this as one piece if a border deal can be reached in the Senate. Now I realize the speaker's talking about negotiating directly with the White House now because a Senate deal may not fly in the House.
This is the latest though from James Langford, the Senator, the Republican Senator at the negotiating table. He was on Fox News Sunday.
Tex Hopefully this week to be able to get that out. Everybody will have time to be able to read and go through it. No one's going to be jammed in this problem. But it's a matter of trying to be able to get this out. But to make law, we've got to have a Democrat Senate, a Democrat White House, and a Republican House to be able to go through this. So this agreement has to work. Everyone's counting on this
actually working. But it's going to have to be agreement that a White House that is a Democrat White House and a Democrat Senate can also line up with a Republican House. And we're working the thread that needle for things that actually work, all.
Right, Genie, He says text could emerge by the end of this week. That would mean they're pretty darn closed. It would also be a day or two after the first impeachment hearing for Alejandro majorcis, how's this all going to come together since he's involved in these negotiating sessions.
Yeah, that's right, And you asked Representative Hurt the right question about is this really the time to impeach the
Secretary of Homeland Security? Not to mention, you know, I'm trying to just figure that when Johnson goes over to the White House to negotiate with the President, this will be just before or after they vote on mayorcis, they decide to hold his son in contempt, and oh, by the way, they decide potentially on impeaching him, because those are the kind of things that the Conservatives are going
to push Johnson to do to save his job. You couple that with the calendar the coming twenty four election and the votes there, and the fact that Donald Trump has been out on the stump making big hay out of the issue of immigration. So I go back to the reality that I cannot see a world in which Republicans allow Joe Biden and the Democrats to get a deal on immigration. As much as Langford is negotiating in good faith, I don't see how they allow this to happen.
And twenty four is going to be looming over all of this.
What do you think about that, Rick, Because we know the border is not playing well for Joe Biden. Now, and this new CBS News you Gov poll underscores that sixty eight percent disapprove of the President's handling of the border. Sixty three percent think you should be tougher on the border. That's the backdrop for this conversation. Donald Trump and well, I guess Mike Johnson both know that this would probably help Joe Biden if they got a deal.
Yeah.
I think that the reality is Republicans have to at some point do something proactive on the border. They can't just throw up poison pill legislation that doesn't go anywhere. Republican constituents, voters care about this, and they both care about different things. I mean, we've got to remember that the voters for the Democrats, voters for Biden, they want a more efficient process. They want the border more secure, and Republicans want more border security and then a more
efficient process. So they have a totally different point of view on what is success. Both are under some level of pressure to make progress. As as you know, Congressman former Congressman Will Hurd said, you can't have a year where you have, you know, hundreds of thousands a month of hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants crossing the border and not take a hit. If you're a Republican or a Democrat.
You think we're going to shut down, I'll ask you both, Rick, and we're looking at two different dates. I'll remind everybody. One is late this month. The second is early February. There are only what eight legislative days to figure this out.
How's this going to happen?
You know, Look, you've got a half a dozen approached bills. You ought to be able to get those done on the House side in the first series of administration budget deals and on suspension you could pass at with Democrats and Republicans together, no brainer. Now as long as there are no poison pills in those bills. So right now, if the Republicans want to sabotage the system, they put poison pills in there and have to force the Democrats in the Senate to rewrite everything.
That is important. Genie, the Speaker could still go there if he wanted to.
Do you think we're heading for a shutdown?
I hope not. I don't think so. It's not in anybody's interest to shut down. Rick just mentioned the poison pills are the big thing to watch, especially on abortion in LGBTQ rights. That would be devastating to the bill. And by the way, the calendar is tough, as you mentioned, eight days to that first deadline. That's tough in normal circumstances.
But how about it.
Little New Year's optimism from Rick Davis Genie Shanzano, both agreeing there will be no shutdown, and of course we're going to be thinking about this conversation when we walk up to those dates, realizing it'll be kind of a partial shutdown and then a whole shutdown in February, and all this is going to coincide with what's happening in Iowa. Can you imagine after Donald Trump spends this week in courtrooms across the country, actual voting, actual caucusing will take place next Monday.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound On podcast. Catch us live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcast.
Welcome to our two Bloomberg Sound On. I'm Joe Matthew in Washington, joined by Kaylee Lines.
It's good to see you, Kayley.
It sounds weird, although Will Hurd told me it was not too late to be saying Happy New Year. So I'm gonna say happy New Year to you because I haven't released well, I haven't.
Seen you first.
That's fair, Happy New Year, Joe.
But I am struggling with that a little bit. You know, you go to the gas pump here at the store.
Do you do the have or are we be I think you have.
One week, so we're beyond that, and I think we're beyond. But I appreciate the well wishes for my year. It's going to be a doozy Joe. You and I both know it.
Yeah, we're about to go through a lot, and you know it. Really we start spinning the plates now. Senate's getting back to town today, house tomorrow. People called in to work over the weekend because there's a deal on top line spending levels. And I find this really funny. I did a whole thing last hour on gas lighting and the movie gas Light in nineteen forty four.
That feels like as.
The gas lights were dimming without anyone touching them, and this woman was driven crazy by her husband who was moving things in the night.
That's what's going on here. Now.
I'm glad we have Jack Fitzpatrick because maybe he can pull me in off the ledge. But they agreed to one point five to nine trillion dollars, I believe correct, which is exactly the same thing they agreed on last June when Kevin McCarthy was speaking right, same fiscal.
Year, Yeah, same seven hundred and seventy three billion dollars non defense discretionaryes.
Friending a side deal.
Well there's that too.
Yes, they cutified the side deal, so it's exactly the same plan that we had last June.
But Mike Johnson would tell you they got sixteen billion dollars in savings from those of the forward that irs funding cut of ten billion dollars, and then we're sending the six billion in COVID relief money.
Yes, I don't think that's a real big difference. That's a rounding error, is what that is.
But that's why we have Jack to help us exactly who held forth I understand like a hero and a captain in the chair last week. Great to see you, Jack, I say, happy New Year.
We're in it? Is it just me?
Or are we playing games with the same numbers here?
It is a reagreement more than anything else.
I like that.
I mean, you said rother than before, and they've been arguing for months over things you could probably call a rounding error. The side deal is a little shy of seventy billion dollars in extra spending. I mean, the government is going to spend. It's hard to even keep track what we're going into four or five to six trillion. This is all the discretionary numbers is at one point five to nine trillion versus one point sixty five trillion.
They've been arguing and risking shutdowns and slinging mud over a relatively small pot of money in the grand scheme of things. But that is what the argument has been since June or so, and now they have re agreed to basically the same numbers more or less as they struck in late May early June.
Okay, so maybe we're calling this a win, even though I'm not really sure it should be a win. But the idea is just helps take a step at least toward averting a shutdown. The thing is, top line figures are one thing. Then you have to divvy that up, turn that into legislative text, and get that past both
chambers before actually January nineteenth and funding runs out. So how much of the hard work is still ahead When it was this hard to agree to the deal that was already agreed with you in the first place.
This was probably the hardest question for them to answer, and they answered it, and that's good, But there are still very hard questions to answer. It's probably debatable really whether this was the hardest. They are still going to have fights over policy riders. How much do you want to get into the tough policy measures, not just dollars and how much you're going to spend. But the big ones over the past year have been abortion access being
legislated through some of these spending bills. The FBI. There are conservatives who are hesitant to fund the FBI without policy right, there's resentment over the FBI visa v. Donald Trump's legal troubles. There is not an agreement now on how they are going to broadly approach policy riders. So any policy measure they could fight over, they can still fight over it. Also, as you mentioned, they agreed to a defense and non defense number. They didn't divvy that
up into the twelve appropriations bills. How do they divide that up for an allocation for each of those bills, which has an effect on what kind of programs get more money and less money. That's something that they still have to do, and it's not a lot of time until January nineteenth, so there are still plenty of hurdles for them.
Man, but possible. You're not covering a shutdown this time.
It's very good news. Yesterday's news was a big broad.
Well, this is encouraging, Kaylee.
I'm a naysayer. I'm accusing people of gaslighting. Jack, who does this for a living, is encouraged.
Okay, Well take Jack's word for it.
Absolutely great to see it. Jack Fitzpatrick, don't be a stranger. I know you won't be. I'm wondering what Nick has to think and has to say about all of this, because we have eight legislative days. I haven't even brought up the boarder yet. By the way, eight legislative days. Remembering though, we have two dates, so we do a little shutdown for a couple of days after the first
one and get it done potentially by February second. Mick mulvaney, of course, co founder of the Freedom Caucus and a former acting Chief of Staff in the White House, former budget director. I'm just gonna say happy New Year, because I started all of this and I'm just coming back today. Mick, it's great to see you. Does this sound like a.
Shutdown that can be averted?
Sure?
Does it sound like shutdown has been averted?
No, I'm not really sure. I was sitting here, I was in Louisiana yesterday for the swearing in of Jeff Landry, Republican governor, who's also a Tea Party member, class of twenty ten. So sort of old home week. But a couple of those folks are still in Congress, and they were all scratching their head as to where Mike Johnson got the one point sixty six trillion dollar deal.
Keep it with mind. Mike Johnson was also there yesterday because he's from.
Louisiana as well, so I'm not sure. I'm looking at Chip Roy's page here today and he says, Look, it all depends on the policy deals we can get as part of this spending deal. I cannot imagine what policy deals they are going to get. It seems to me, if you're going to avoid a shutdown, it's going to follow the same exact model that it has for the last decade, which is all the Democrats will vote for it, a couple of Republicans will vote for it, the Republicans will start.
An internal blood bath over it.
So if that's if that's what you if that's what a shutdown means, I think that's what you've got.
Okay, So you are envisioning an internal bloodbath here, Mick. Not exactly a pretty picture you're painting, But for Mike Johnson specifically knowing the fate of his predecessor, Kevin McCarthy, who passed a deal with Democratic support and lost the gavel as a result, do you really think he's staring down that same threat? Can House Conservative stomach another speaker fight?
You know, if they were rationally answer that question will be no. But I don't think Matt Gates is a rational act. And all of this, I'm not sure how if they really made the case that they got rid of McCarthy because of policy shortcomings, that he was incapable of cutting a good deal with Democrats with the White House, and then it wasn't about something personal between Matt and McCarthy.
You know, Matt always said it was about policy.
If it really was about policy, it strikes me that the same policy they got McCarthy fired just got it agreed to again. So I'm not really sure what the argument is not to do anything different than what they did to Kevin.
Well, that's interesting.
The Freedom Caucus calls it a total fail, suggesting that it's clear that Mike Johnson Mick will need Democrats to pass this. So now we really have created the same exact scenario in which Kevin McCarthy got fired. But that was before we went through Stevescalise and Tom Emmer and Jim Jordan. I don't mean to ask the same question that Kayley just asked, But who else is there?
There isn't anybody.
But of course that's not again, that's that's a rational question to ask about this. If you're simply trying to stop this from happening, which a couple of folks probably would be interested in doing, then trying to get rid of this speaker throws a monkey wrench.
Into the whole thing.
The question the conservatives are gonna be asking is how was this different. Mike Johnson has got to be able to go to them with something and say, look, here's why you should keep me. I've just cut a deal that does X, Y and Z, and that is better than the deal you would have gotten under Kevin McCarthy, and that's why I should stay. I don't know what that deal is yet, because the number is bigger. I mean,
the number is actually bigger than they agreed to. I think it one five nine, and now it's one six six of course, that side deal I thought was supposed to be just a handstake and a secret It wasn't anything that the House voted on. So technically, I guess you could make the case that Mike Johnson is spending more not the same, if you want to say that the side agreement technically wasn't agreement because the McCarthy and Schumer don't have the ability to cut those types of deals.
So it's really ugly. I hear what everybody's saying. It sounds like it's certainly a move in the right direction towards the abarding a shutdown. I'm not sure it's I'm not sure it's anywhere near the end of the discussion.
Well, and Mick, doesn't it all hinge on the border anyway? When you have members of the Republican Conference saying HR two or bust, no security, no funding, shut down, the border, shut down the government, it seems that everything is about the border here.
It could be.
Now you could also make the argument, I think you could make it plausibly that well, they always want to talk about the border. They sort of are some other Republicans now they sort of have at least tacitly if nothing else given into this concept of mirroring the border discussions up with funding for Ukraine, Israel, to a lesser extent, Taiwan.
Right that.
Those four pieces seem to be stuck together. Yes, they would love to have a second bite at the apple. I just don't know how they do it. If you say, well, we have to have HR two in order to pass anything out of the House, then nothing will pass out of House because the Senate will never pass HR two. So I hear what you're saying, But I think that maybe the spending deal will be isolated from at least the discussion a by HR two because that has sort of been married now to Ukraine and Israel.
To what extent is Donald Trump helping to direct the conversation here, Mick. Last time we spoke, it was shortly after we learned that Mike Johnson was in regular contact with him. We heard him talk about the boarder quite a bit over the weekend in Iowa. Do we at this point really think that he's going to endorse any deal that might make Joe Biden or any Democrat look good.
No, And I think that's one of the reasons you hear him. I haven't seen anything out of him today about the spending deal. I think he's waiting to see how it's received. When it's received badly by a Conservatives, he's going to attack it. He might also wait to see what Nikki Haley and Ron Desantus are saying about it, but I guess is they'll attack it as well.
So no, I don't think Trump is interested. That's that's not unusual in politics. Right.
There's a couple House members over the weekend who said they weren't interested in doing a board deal now because it would give Biden the victory too close to the to the election.
That that's not unusual.
I dealt with the same thing with Democrats when I was in the White House in twenty nineteen, in early twenty twenty. They didn't want to give Trump and he wins, you know, that close to election. So that's that's certainly the politics as usual. But no, I don't think Donald Trump is interested in brokering a deal here. You know, when he was running for office the first time, he was, you know, against all the spending deals. When he was
in office, he was for all the spending deals. When he was out of office, he was against the spending deals.
Again, so I think you can continue to see that trend.
Well, Mick, you just mentioned there Nicki Haley and Ron DeSantis. Keeping in mind that you're speaking with us exactly one week out from the Iowa caucuses. Do either of them stand a real chance?
If there was, if I was looking for an upset Kaylee, it would be in DeSantis.
I don't think any of them. I don't think Nicky Oron has a chance to beat Trump.
But if you look to folks who overperform versus underperform, keep in mind Donald Trump underperformed badly in two thousand and sixteen, I think it was twelve points or something like that, and Ted Cruz overperformed by about the same amount, in large part because Cruz understood how caucuses were different than primaries, and Trump, at that time, a first time candidate, really didn't. Now Trump is working really, really hard to make sure that mistake doesn't happen again in twenty twenty four.
But that being said, a lot of Cruz's team has signed on with DeSantis. So if there's a chance for anybody to overperform next Monday, I'll be looking for Ron to overperform. If he doesn't, and he finishes third, then I think he's out of the race. I think you have to finish second in Iowa to move on to Super Tuesday. It looks like he's not going to finish second in New Hampshire. I may excuse me. He may finish fourth in New Hampshire or fifth. So but I
will watch to see if DeSantis overperforms. I don't think he's got a chance to beat Trump, but he may do better beter than the polling is showing.
Well.
Just in our last minute here, Mick, I wonder your thoughts on your home state South Carolina. Emerson has Trump at fifty four, Hayley at twenty five. If she can't outperform a number like that in her home state, is it over?
Oh, Joe, I've been waiting for somebody asking that question. Everybody alays wants to talk about Iowa in New Hampshire and everyone and then folks realize that South Carolina comes next, and the dirty little secret down here is that, Yeah.
Trump is going to crush her.
She's done really really well the last couple of months, and I do think she's got a chance to pull within maybe single digits in New Hampshire.
She's done. Had a nice effort there, But South Carolina's Trump state. South Carolina is Trump country.
One percent.
Trump is winning the state.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised to hear that, but it's always news when we hear it from Mick maulvaney. It's good to see him, Mac. Thank you for the insights. As always, Mick mulvaney on sound On. We do this conversation each Monday, myself and Kayley with Mick, and we'll do it again when we head to Iowa. This is Bloomberg. Thanks for listening to the sound On podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, and
anywhere else you get your podcasts. And you can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at one pm Eastern Time at Bloomberg dot com