Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on Apple Coarcklay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Let's get to it without further delay.
I'll turn it over to my colleague Saliah Mosen, who is live at the Treasury Department with the new Secretary, Scott Besson.
Selia, thank you, Kayleie.
I'm here with US Treasure Secretary Scott Besson and Washington. Mister Secretary, thank you for joining me. Good to see you, Uh, mister Secretary. We are inside the cashroom at the Treasure Department. It is almost impossible to overstate how important the work that is done in this building is to the US financial system. Yet right now there is widespread concern about
the DOGE team's access to sensitive payments systems. Are you worried at all that that access and that tinkering of the payment systems could affect the Treasury's market or cause any disruption?
Good well, Seleiah, thank you for asking me about that, because there's a lot of misinformation out there. First of all, when you say the Doge team, these are Treasury employees. It are two Treasury employees, one of whom I personally interviewed in his final round. There is no tinkering with the system. They are on read only. They are looking. They can make no changes. It is an operational program to suggest improvement. So we make one point three billion
payments a year. And this is two employees who are working with a group of long standing employees.
The letter that the Treasure Department sent earlier this week talked about how the team currently does not have access to change the system. Have they, at any point this year had the ability to make changes.
Absolutely not. This is no different than you would have at a private company. And by the way, the ability to change the system sits over at the Federal Reserve, so it doesn't even lie in this building. So they could make suggestions on how to change the system. But we don't even run the system.
And if they ask for if they request the ability to change the system, would you grant that.
No. Again, they have no ability to change the system. I have no ability to grant that change. That they can make suggestions then it would go to the Federal Reserve, and just like any large ERP system, there would be tests. There would be this, there would be that, and then the Fed will determine whether these changes are robust or not.
As the Secretary of Treasure, you also oversee the IRS. Do you know what kind of access the team has to IRS data or individual taxpayer data?
Well, I'm glad you asked two, because look, thers, the privacy issue is one of the biggest issues, and over the past four years we've seen a lot of leaks out of there. The IRS systems are quite poor. When I started in college in nineteen eighty I learned the program in COBAL. I think there are twelve different systems at the IRS that still run on COBAL. But as of now, there is no engagement at the RS.
And if they request that access, would you sign off on that request?
They haven't, so we'll take that when it comes to it. I think there is a lot to do there, but the president was elected with a big agenda and to the extent that getting the IRS in better shape is part of that. Sure, because look, with the IRS, what am I concerned about? I am concerned about collections. I'm concerned about privacy, and I am concerned that the system is robust and customer.
Service, But do you think that if they ask for access that is something you would consider signing off on.
There are a lot of things I'd consider, But look, we're in the middle of the tax filing season right now. We even with the government buyouts that are being that expire at midnight tonight, we have been mandated that the IRS customer facing employees that they're not eligible for that until May fifteenth, So I don't imagine anything's going to go onto the IRS until then or beyond.
Elon Musk just a few half an hour ago tweet it out that Treasury needs to stop approving certain payments. Has your staff tried to block any payments here at Treasury?
We have not, and I'm glad you asked that too. And just to put in perspective, Elon and I are completely aligned in terms of cutting waste and increasing accountability and transparency for the American people. I believe that this Dove program in my adult life is one of the most important audits of government or changes to government structure.
We have seen that. When I was in my twenties, we had the Grace Report, and there's some great suggestions that came out of that never implemented under Clinton and Gore. I think it was to government efficiency or reduce government. Nothing happened. So President Trump came in. There's a big agenda and I think that there are gigantic cost savings for the American people here, and I think it's unfortunate the way the media wants to lampoon what is going on.
These are highly trained professionals. This is not some roving band going around doing things. This is methodical and it is going to yield big savings.
At any point, would you heed what Musk just tweeted and stop payments from coming through Treasury.
Well, most of that happens above us, that it comes from the Department and the agencies. We are doing a complete review and I want to emphasize to you and everyone watching that it is an operational review, It is not an ideological review. We want to make sure that the American people are getting the best practices, and I don't think that's happening right now.
The systems here at Treasury they're known to be a little antiquated, but very very sensitive, but also they're working. I'm hearing, you know Bloomberg, we hear a lot about investors being concerned that this could hit markets in some way or start to cause a loss of confidence. What as a long time hedge fund and investor like, do you have a response to those concerns.
People shouldn't be concerned that at Treasury we move deliberately and we fix things. That's the way we work. So everyone should know that all the payments are going to be made, they're going to be in good order, and at the end of this review, they're going to be substantial savings for the American taxpayer.
Mister Secretary, you have experience in currency markets, and now, as in your new role, you oversee US currency policy. I'd like to ask you what does a strong dollar mean to you?
Well, first of all, the strong dollar policy is completely intact with President Trump, and I was very happy at his Economic clob of New York speech in August when he re emphasized the importance of maintaining the dollar reserve currency status. But let's think about what does a strong dollar mean. It really means four things. One that when we think about a fiat currency, a piece of paper is credibility. So a strong dollar is credibility and a
rule of law that is backing it up too. It means a composite price in the screen the Bloomberg Currency Index, that is the dollar moving up against that three. It is a bilateral price. So what's important to remember is the dollar is either weak or strong versus something else. So we want the dollar to be strong. What we don't want is other countries to weaken their currencies to
manipulate their trade. And then fourth that we want to have the best policies that create the environment for a strong dollar.
Let's talk about other nations and how they manage their currencies. The President has asked for a tariff study from several of his cabinet officers or incoming cabinet officers Doe April first, and the Treasury piece of that is to assess how to handle when foreign nations manipulate their currencies. Do you see any evidence of manipulation in foreign exchange rate markets right now?
Well, we'll wait till the study comes out. But I think just intuitively, you and I could agree that when you see the accumulation of these large surpluses, that there is not a free form trading system that's going It could be due to the level of the currency. It could be due to trade restrictions, It could be due to some interest rate repression policy. So it could be any of those.
Are there any countries that you're monitoring or watching specifically right now? I know the President in the past has labeled China as a currency manipulator. Do you see any other nations that need to be closely watched.
Well, I think we'll see on April first. And as you know that China's the most imbalanced, unbalanced economy in the history of the world, and they are and a deep recession right now. Their experience in deflation and they're trying to export their way out of that. And we can't allow that. We want fair trade, and part of that is taking a strong position on the currency and the terms of trade.
Yesterday, the Treasure Department had its first quarterly refunding since you were confirmed. Do you have any plans of looking at how the Treasury's debt issue and strategy comes together?
Well, I think the good news is that the trajectory of the borrowing is dropping, so I was very happy to see that. It's one of the few good surprises I was left by the previous administration. So the trajectory is good and the government's well financed into the third quarter, and I believe that as we as it becomes apparent that the present's agenda is working, that we'll see a great deal of non inflationary growth and I think that that will help us calibrate what the debt policy should be.
But I don't see any changes in the issuance for the foreseeable future.
And what about the process. Do you think that tea BAC is the most effective way of getting feedback from markets?
Well, I want to think all the members of tea BAC who are here this week, they are a very elite group. I think that maybe over time we need to think about the style of engagement. It is turned into more of a research think tank than direct market engagement, and that's going to require some changes from both sides. I believe when TEABAC was originally started, it was supposed to be a market feedback mechanism, a little less of a think tank, and we've been assigning research projects, So
I think there's some recalibration on both sides. But I think that whatever we do, t BAC will still exist.
Mistress Secretary you said yesterday in an interview that the Trump administration is more focused on long term gields than what the Federal Reserve is doing, which is a bold statement.
I want to ask, how.
Do you plan to keep a lid on yields considering the deluge of debt issuance that is coming down the pike and also some of the inflationary risks that are ahead.
Well, one of the things I wanted to emphasize is that we are not focused on whether the Fed is going to cut not cut. What we are focused on is lowering rates, So we are less focused on the specific of rate cuts and how do we get the whole curve down. I mentioned that the tenure I believe is the important price to focus on its mortgages. It's
long term capital formation. So and look, I think with the President's policies of energy, dominance, deregulation, and non inflationary growth, I think that the tenure is going to naturally come down. And then look, on top of it, what if we do get some big savings on the spending side from the dose programs. Like let's think of a naive formula
government equals spending minus taxes. For my entire career and beyond, maybe even back to pre FDR the government equal spending minus taxes the S The Republicans we like spending, We just wanted to raise it less. The Democrats want to raise it more taxes. Democrats want tax increases. We want tax cuts. What nobody's singing about is what if the S actually went down? What if it actually goes down because of everything we're doing right now?
But what about the inflation concerns that are stumming from the tariffs and tariff threats.
Look that I'm not sure that where this narrative the tariffs for the country putting on the tariffs is inflationary, that we could have a small one time price adjustment that as we saw in Trump one point zero, that the deregulation and the other policies we stayed right around the Fed's target level. So I'm unconcerned about that. I think especially that China, now given all their excess capacity, will no matter the level of the tariffs, will end up eating quite a bit.
There's a lot of uncertainty around tariffs. We see them threatened or signaled, and that they're taken back. It appears as if this administration might be unfriendly to businesses.
Is that right?
Really?
I think it's just the opposite. I think this is the most pro business administration in history, and everything we are doing is going to increase the after tax return capital and as a result, working Americans will have very high real wage growth. That what we've seen over the past four years is the government and government adjacent sectors providing the employment growth. And why have we experienced a
supportability crisis? First there was a massive spending met by increased regulation, which caused inflation, and then government and government adjacent jobs do not call real wage growth because they move up at CPI. So I think that we are going to not only be business friendly, but very very friendly for working Americans.
We're seeing companies already under some stress from the tariff threats, China is investigating Google, and also, as you know, are well aware that business is like to be able to plan ahead. But with so much policy uncertainty, that predictability factor is gone. That all points to a little bit of a tougher environment.
Well, look, I think the best thing we can do for predictability is make the tax cuts and jaw back permanent. That would be the single best thing we could do for predictability, We can go back to the one hundred percent expensing and add some new features that I think business is going to be very happy with. But again, the most important thing is that it filters down to working wages, which is what we saw the President Trump's
first administration. Hourly workers did better than supervisory workers.
Well, let me ask you about the tax plan. Then, on the campaign trail, Trump floated no taxes on tips and cutting the corporate rate and a lot of other proposals. How are you going to juggle which campaign promises are high on that the priority list for the bill, considering how costly everything would be.
Well, that we're just starting the process now and that we'll do what President Trump will give us his priorities. But I can tell you the real priority is fixing this affordability crisis for the American people. And when you think about no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security, no tax on overtime, potentially putting back in auto loan deductibility, all of those benefits accrue to the bottom fifty percent
of income earners in America. They have really taken it between the eyes for the past four years, and that's unsustainable.
Before I let you go, mister secretary, I want to ask you if you have had your traditional weekly meeting with FED Chair Powell.
Yet we did that. I did an away game over the FED. We had a very nice breakfast. Chair Peal and I don't know each other well, so it is very constructive.
How do you view that relationship involving the two agencies and buildings are supposed to work very closely together, And you've had some criticism in the past.
Of his work, and as I said at my hearing, everything I'm going to talk about is things the Fed's done in the past prospectively monetary policy. I will not comment on, and I'm sure he's going to do the right thing so there'll be no criticism.
All right, Well, mister secretary, thank you so much for joining. Kaylee back to.
You, all right, Bloomberg Salaya Mosten live at the Treasury Department with the newly minted Treasury Secretary Scott Besson. A wonderful interview taking place here on Bloomberg TV and radio.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcasts. Catch us live weekdays at noon and five pm. He's Durn on Apple Cockley and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station Just Say Alexa played Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Because we just heard from the Treasury Secretary Scott Besson. In his view and presumably the administration's view overall, the best thing for economic predictability, he says, is to make the twenty seventeen tax cuts permanent. This, of course, is one of the legislative objectives of President Trump and of this Republican controlled Congress. The question is how exactly they do that and when and how big is the bill?
And it's those questions they're working through. Today.
Is Donald Trump convened House Republicans at the White House to talk about the way forward on the budget. It's a complicated process. A budget reconciliation package can be a big thing, or it can be two pretty big things, as the Senate would prefer. Lindsey Graham saying he's losing patience with the House and he's going to go ahead and pursue a budget resolution on part of this, the border and defense and energy, and the Senate wants to
get to taxes later. The question is whether the House can get it back together on its e idea for a one big, beautiful bill before that happens. So for more, let's turn to our political panel. Rick Davis is with me Stone Court, Capital partner and Republican strategist, alongside Democratic strategist Caitlin Legacki.
Rick.
Obviously, the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, had laid out a pretty ambitious timeline for trying to get one big package done. The more time that passes without forward progress, is it the greater likelihood that this thing does get split into parts?
Yeah? I actually, you know, based on where everybody is today, I think there's literally no chance at the House of Representatives on this timetable that you just described the Speaker Johnson has, which includes getting and all these things done, the debt limit, the budget for this year, you know, all the reconciliation work that he's talking about doing, including an extension or making permanent the TCJA, all that by April. I don't think so. I mean, it's herculean task in
Washington to do something like that. So I think what you see is what you get, which is the Senence already moving their budget, their border and their Defense bill that Donald Trump clearly wants and endorses as quickly as it can and leave time then throughout the course of the rest of the year to get done the work of making those tax tests permanent and increasing those taxests by other policy measures that Donald Trump hasn't even really endorsed or outlined yet.
Well, so, Caitlin, here's the thing about what's making this difficult in the House. It's that there's hardline conservatives who want to see steep spending cuts and that's not really in line with what leadership thinks is realistic when you consider moderate members and the fact that the Senate needs
to be on board with these ideas as well. If the Senate moves first and splits these things into giving the border win to the President and potentially a border win to those hardline conservatives, why then, if it's to a second tax package, would those same hardline conservatives be willing without other incentives to do things.
That could add to the deficit.
If one gets past how hard much harder does number two become.
It's incredibly difficult. I mean, Democrats had this problem with the Infrastructure Bill and then the Build Back Better Act during President Biden's term. But I think the reason that this gets much much more difficult if you split this into two bills is then Republicans are going to be in a position where they have to trade making the
tax cuts permanent in exchange for other budgetary offsets. The thing about reconciliation bills is that they have to be paid for, and so where there's risk there is that the biggest chunks of federal spending are things like veterans benefits, social Security, medicare things that are incredibly popular and will be politically very toxic if Republicans dismantle those programs or slash their funding in exchange for corporate tax cuts. So that's the line they're going to have to walk.
Well, So if you're trying to walk that line, Rick, obviously you can see where the difficulties lie in there. And Seleiah was just talking about this with Secretary Besstt, this notion that there are a lot of tax ideas that have been put forward when it comes to reduce or no tax on tips, on social Security, on overtime. Is it going to be a matter of just whittling
down what tax stuff can ultimately get through. Could we end up in a world where actually all that happens is an extension of the twenty seventeen package could be.
And I think you've got to remember too on the political dynamic in the House, and this includes Democrats. If they let this tax cuts expire from twenty seventeen, it'll be the greatest tax increase in the history of the United States. There are a lot of vulnerable Democrats in Trump districts who are not going to vote for the large or sit back and vote against tax cuts that would rest bolt in an increase in their constituency tax taxes significantly. And so it's not just this Republican versus
Democratic dynamic. And that's why I think having a standalone tax bill to vote on before the end of the year, as people ramp up for elections next year, that they're going to think twice if you're a Democrat about voting against this Trump tax policy. And look, you're not going to get some of these Republicans no matter what I mean, no matter if you even find offsets for this. These are people who don't support Donald Trump's agenda, regardless of
what it is. These are folks who supported opponents to him in the primary they're not on board like the majority of the Republican caucus, and you're going to have to find Democrats to offset that. And if you pile everything into one big package, it's going to be much more complicated because then you're pressuring also, you know, sort of Biden district Republicans. Remember what's looming over top of all, this is the saltes.
Ay Yes.
Buzzword here on Bloomberg TV and Radio.
Yes, the salt cap will feature in these conversations. Rick Davis and Caitlin Lagaki our political panel here on Balance of Power today.
Thank you so much.
I'll be joined straight ahead by Republican Congressman Mike Flood of Nebraska.
I'll be back for more on Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon and five pm. He's durn on Apple, Cocklay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station Just Say Alexa played Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Some of the headlines we got out of that interview between Bloomberg's Laya Mosen and Treasury Secretary Scott Besson that we just listened to live here on Bloomberg TV and Radio. In addition to talking about the dollar, we learned a few other things, including that he's met with the Chair of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell. He's not, though, interest in commenting on monetary policy, or for that matter, concerned about whether the fet is going to cut or not.
They're looking at other ways to bring rates lower, a lot of that having to do with fiscal policy and cutting government spending. On that note, he also addressed the Department of Government Efficiency and the access they have been given to the treasury payment systems, the Treasury Secretary, saying that dogs will not be allowed to change the treasury system and has absolutely had no power to do so, and that people should not be concerned about treasury payments
being made. He also was asked about tax policy, and he said the most important thing for economic predictability is to make the twenty seventeen tax cuts permanent. That, of course, is something that Congress is working on, although it's not clear how exactly or when that is going to happen and what all could go into this ultimate tax package.
His axios is now reporting that At a meeting at the White House today between the President and House Republican leaders and members, he talked about some of his other campaign promises too, no tax on tips, on overtime, on Social Security. It's a lot to get done, and again the question is how as there's growing impatience in Congress
for this budget reconciliation process to really get started. As we heard on Balance of Power yesterday from Republican Congressman Byron Donald's of Florida, here was his take.
When it comes to tax policy, most of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act is not new policy that we got to work our way through. We are extending most of that policy and having new conversations on no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on social Security, the ECCA, and some other new tax pieces that we're going to have to figure out. But the political lift is not in explaining the policies, it's moving it through the two chambers. And my view, two bills is the way.
To go at this point.
Two bills is the way to go. He says, that's not what House leadership has been advocating for. One big, beautiful bill is the preference of the House. Although the Senate does like that two bill strategy and a budget. Chair Lindsey Graham is saying he's going to move ahead on that next week. So the clock is ticking for House leadership and we want to go now live to the House. Joining me from Capitol Hill is another voice
to add to this conversation. Republican Congressman Mike Flood of Nebraska is joining us here on Bloomberg TV and radio. He is the vice chair of the Main Street Caucus. Congressman, welcome back. It's always great to have you. Can you just tell it like it is as you understand it now? Is there a one bill plan that is looking like it is making progress forward?
Well, we've said for a long time, most of us in the House have said one bill makes sense. Listen, We've got to get everybody on the same page. The more bills you have, the more uncertainty you interject into this whole process. You know, we're talking about tax cuts,
border energy independence, and spending cuts. Out of those four things, there's a million things that could go wrong, and each one of the four policy objectives, I think the only way to go forward, like the President said, like our Speaker has said, like our Appropriations chair has said one big bill, and you know what, quite frankly, it's frustrating that we can't land on an answer. Even if it was two bills. Somebody make the call and go forward.
We can't be messing around with this. In my opinion, it should be one bill. That's where House leadership has been, That's where Jason Smith, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, has been, and I'm hopeful that we get there. But I'll tell you the way it is right now. And I was on the phone last night with House Leadership,
some members of House leadership. They were still working at eleven thirty, back and forth trying to figure out how they could make this meeting at the White House very productive today. And I actually think they made some good progress last night in the Speaker's office. I really credit folks like Mike Johnson and Chip Roy. They are working this out, trying to get to yes, and I'm confident
we'll get there. It's always messy, but democracy is messy and our process is messy, but the result will be good.
So who is most contributing to the mess right now? Congressman? Is it the hardline conservative in your conference? You are pushing for steeper spending cuts or it is or is it anti senators like Senator Lindsay Graham who are trying to get ahead of your chambers work.
You know, in my opinion, the House of Representatives wants deeper spending cuts that maybe the Senate does. Right now, that's just me reading the situation. I'm interested in spending cuts that change the trajectory of our thirty six trillion dollar deficit. I want to see big things done because I want to put this whole crisis with our debt behind us. Not everybody has the same interest there. So from where I sit, it's not whether we extend the
tax cuts or the border or energy independence. Everything we're talking about now really concerns how deep do we cut? What do we cut, and how does it look and how do we explain it to the American people?
Well, so, can you shed a little more light on what the discussion is around what and how deep will be cut? Considering it does seem that there isn't much appetite to cut mandatory spending. And yet if you're trying to get spending cuts of the size that some of your colleagues want, you might have to tap into somewhere.
Well, absolutely, we.
Do have to tap into mandatory spending. That said, in reconciliation, you can't touch social Security. The President has said he does not want to see any cuts to the benefits delivered to patients for Medicare, and I'm now hearing medicaid. However, there are things that we can do. There are provider taxes that are paid by health care providers and then they get a rebate back on that. That's not a fee for service. There's different types of funding for social
safety net programs. There's things that we don't think work very well that have been funded for years. There's also student loans and should we put a cap on some of those things. There's a variety of ways to cut. You'll see a menu of options that will come out in March, and it will be littered with a collection of ideas, some of which Americans are going to really not before. But hey, if we don't sacrifice, if we don't understand that this is going to be a painful process,
nothing's going to change. And I guess my message to the American people is we as a nation, as Americans, have to recognize that this is such a big problem our debt, that we're going to have to say no to some programs that we like but we simply can't afford. And it's easier said than done. I'm ready to go there.
I've been preparing my constituents for such a thing. We need the buy in of the American people to say, you know what, this is short term pain for long term national security, not living under this crippling thirty six trillion dollar debt.
Well, and we know the debt reduction efforts aren't just within your Chamber or Congress. It's also actively underway at the Department of Government Efficiency through the efforts of Elon Musk, and already we're seeing movement there and through executive orders as well as any of this front running the ability to get these spending cuts on paper in the reconciliation process. Though, congressoon how does this all fit together?
Well, I think there are some things that Doge can tell us about that we can do in the reconciliation. Others will be executive branch options. I'm glad of your reporting today. I had the same conversation with our Treasury Secretary and Monday night I asked him, does Elon Musk or DOGE have direct access to the federal payment system. He said, no, they have a read only access of past expenditures. That's no different than a state auditor having access to all the expenditures in a state budget. I
don't see why that is so alarming. But I did make clear to the Treasury Secretary that we're counting on him to do a good job. We're counting on him to protect American's private information. And I also told him that at the end of the day, Article one of the US Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, and ultimately, if these things are going to get solved, it has to go through Congress.
Well, in Congress also, of course, has oversight responsibility. Should Elon Musk be added to that. Does he need to come testify in Congress as to what exactly DOJE is doing, have some form of the legislative branch holding him accountable.
Well, I'll tell you what. Right now, he's acting at the behest of the president who just won a national election on this very issue of cutting government spending. I also understand that Elon must can't make any changes to the federal payment system, so he's going to read only capacity. People are going to react to whatever he puts on his platform called X. But ultimately, and I've heard this from the President, I've heard this from the President's people.
There's only one person that speaks for this administration, and that is President Trump himself. And President Trump has said there are things we are going to a green wand with Elon, there's things we might not do. I think there's an appropriate level of oversight. Again, Elon is only entitled to a read only version of federal expenditures. That's not crippling democracy in any way. That's finding out what's
been going on with this huge bureaucracy. Quite frankly, a lot of the folks that I represent are like, finally someone's looking into this, and I'm I'm excited about where we can go. As as a member of Congress, I want to compliment what DOJE is doing by making those cuts permanent.
Well, Congressman, I'd like to ask you about what else your branch is going to have to achieve in the not so distant future. Here, we've obviously begun our conversation on reconciliation, but there are still funding measures that need to somehow get passed, if not another continuing resolution by mid next month, a debt sealing deadline that is going to be looming as we get closer and closer to the X date with each passing day. How do those
things get done? And frankly, are you able to do it alone as Republicans or do you need Democratic support?
Well, I'm one of four hundred and thirty five, but I think we should put the debt sealing conversation and the policy in our reconciliation package and get that passed if we can do it in a timely manner. You know, we've got to deal with the government funding expiration on March fourteenth. One of the things I want is I want to see us implement our twenty twenty four budget priorities. We should not be living under a budget that was signed by Joe Biden. It was also authored by Senate
Democrats with House Republicans want. I want a twenty twenty four budget that's put in place until we get to our twenty twenty five budget, that has our priorities in it, our focus. I don't want another simple continuing resolution just to kick the can down the table. And if I were an appropriator, I would think that would be a slap in the face. They spent all last year putting a budget together, and we're going to simply just do a kick the can down the hill maneuver with another
continuing resolution. Listen, we're here to govern, We've put the time in. Let's make that our funding policy for twenty twenty four and get that done.
Well.
As you allude to kicking the can, though, at least in most recent history, that can can't be kicked without
democratic feet also taking part in the can kicking. It has had to be a bipartisan initiative, Congressman, And based on the the kind of temperature in the House right now and how displeased Democrats seem to be with what some of what has gone on in the last few weeks, are you confident that those votes will still be provided to make up for Republicans who very well might not vote for some of these policies that we're talking about here.
Well, you know we're talking about continuing budget funding. This isn't a vote on reconciliation. I know that Tom Cole, our Appropriations chairman, talks with his counterparts on a bipartisan basis in the Senate, and certainly here in the House, appropriators have their own language. They know how to work through these funding issues. They've done this for years on years and years. I'm confident that we can work on
a bipartisan basis. Listen, outside of reconciliation. If we're going to make any progress the next two years, we're going to have to work with fifty three Senators and seven Democrats at a minimum to make the government run. And so that should come as no surprise. We can achieve that we've done it before. It will require some compromise, but you know what, I've voted for those continuing resolutions.
I've been part of the bipartisan effort to put them together as the vice chair of the Main Street Caucus, you know, almost eighty five members strong. We are the ones that come to work every day, that make sure that America is open for business, that our bills are paid, and that we are responsibly governing. And I can tell
you we will get past March fourteenth. The government will be funded, We'll figure out our plan on the debt service or the debt limit, and ultimately we're going to have to find some way forward with the Senate and maybe even some members of the House Democrats.
All right, Well we'll leave it on that note. Republican Congressman Mike Flood of Nebraska joining me live from Capitol Hill today. Thank you so much helping us work through a lot of these fiscal conversations.
Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already an Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find us live every week day from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern at Bloomberg dot com.