Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then Proud Otto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
With me in Washington is Mike Dorning, Bloomberg Politics reporter and editor. And great to see you, Mike, to be here to kind of assemble these two models. We're getting this slow drip from both campaigns to flesh out their economic policy proposals. Did we learn much new today other than that corporate tax.
Rate, Well, the main thing was the Wall Street Journal headline suggesting that Yes would for a lower tax rate. But that just both what Kamala Harris did yesterday and what he may do today reinforce, Unlike most of what was saying today, an actual difference between the two candidates when it comes to corporate taxes. Kamala Harris wants to raise them, not as much as Biden wants to raise them, but she wants to raise them back closer to where they were before Trump put in his corporate tax cuts.
Trump wants them even lower than he previously lowered them. He wants corporate tax rates in general to be a little bit lower even than after the Trump corporate tax cut, and he wants an even lower corporate tax rate for companies that manufacture goods in the US. So there you see a clear distinction in the economic outlook between the two.
Finally finding some sunlight here with specifics, that's what we're interested in. On Bloomberg, Kamala Harris yesterday talking about capital gains taxes twenty eight percent when people earning a million dollars or more, compared to about forty percent that Joe Biden was calling for. Does that help to to solve some of the worry that Wall Street has about a potential Kamala Harris administration.
This one hits close to home.
I think that it may, you know, to some degree, make her Wall Street supporters and her Tech World supporters more comfortable with her from a business standpoint. Most of what she's been leaning into though or trying to help small businesses, which fits in better with the general Democratic critique of the problems with our economy. The Democrats want more competition in the economy, so she's focusing more on lifting up small businesses, which obviously, you know, create more
competition in the economy. But she is trying to scale back some of the aspirations that Biden has to increase capital gains taxes and.
Realized gains is a different matter.
Right, We haven't heard from her on that till her day said she is pursuing that, but we don't know that.
Yeah, but a lot of these changes with Harris, it wasn't like she was actually going to ever be able to do what Biden has wanted to do and couldn't even do with like Democrats having a trifecta.
Realistic approach, if not a more conservative.
Basically, she's moderating her stance to no longer have something that isn't going to happen anyway. So it's it's closer to what you might actually be able to get. I kind of doubt that she would even be able to get what she wants to get.
Yeah, you bring up where you refer to something important.
We're talking about all this stuff like whoever gets elected is going to happen in Congress.
To make tax law.
Yeah, these approaches might be impossible for both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris if they're elected.
Depending on the bounce of power on Capitol.
Hill, I would say that Trump has a better chance than Kamala Harris does of getting more of his program. But the reason to be if he has a Democratic Senate. That's not likely. But I don't see a Democratic Senate as very likely if Trump wins. It's not even necessarily that likely even if Harris wins. But Trump, if he wins, has a better chance of a kind of a trifecta
number one and number two. The Republican lawmakers are mostly afraid of crossing him, so he has more ability to get the Republican members of Congress in line to do what he wants than Kamala Harris has ability to get sort of the most conservative or least liberal, depending on how you look at it, members of her party.
In lawe really interesting as we spend time with Mike Dorning with eyes on Donald Trump. If you're with us on YouTube, you can see he's speaking at the Economic Club of New York. This will resolve to a Q and a session that we want to bring you live here on balance power. Can we bring Rick into this conversation. I'd love to if we can. Rick Davis of course, Bloomberg Politics contributor, a longtime Republican strategist and partner at
Stone Court Capital. Great to have Rick on board as always as we wait for the Q and A.
Rick, It's good to see you. I wonder your thoughts.
On the battle of the taxes here. That's what this really has turned into this week.
Who's winning it?
Yeah, you know, it's really pretty interesting to me that both sides are trying to claim below ground on taxes. You know, who can out tax cut the other, and yet at the same time they're all offering these massive government spending programs within their own platforms, and how they don't pay for all this stuff. I mean, nobody I was listening into the Trump speech, I didn't hear anything
about the deficits. And I've been waiting to hear from Kamala Harris about government spending because they both basically are taken the approach that they can write checks that bust the budget and don't seem to care about that. They don't seem to care about the integrity of the social Security system, Medicare, Medicaid, the federal deficit. I mean, like these are not insignificant issues, and by the way not insignificant issues to American voters, and yet they are not
even in the discussion. In the first week of September, in the middle of a presidential campaign.
Less than a week out from the big debate Rick, he just said it out loud, companies must make products in America to get the tax rate of yes, fifteen percent.
So there it is.
Donald Trump also making news on this idea that Elon Musk floated in his interview, if we're calling it that. On X, Donald Trump says he will create a government Efficiency task Force. Pretty interesting idea here, Mike, to bring someone like Elon I don't know if he would be involved, to essentially audit the spending of tax dollars. Isn't that kind of what Congress already does well?
In theory, that's what Congress is supposed to be doing. But there's been you know, it reminds me of al Gore reinventing government. It's periodically you can have like X, you know, bring people in or someone inside government to do a review of things that might lead to changes. It might not lead to changes, but it's it's said. It's not an it's not an unreasonable idea. It's just a question of what would that actually accomplish. Sometimes you
can reorient the government. Sometimes you can't. In theory though there we elect people to do that, the President and Congress. And this is kind of like going to McKenzie or something.
If you're in a corporation, what do you think of this?
Rick?
Are we just throwing everything at the wall at this point or are these real proposals?
You know, Look, I agree, I mean Mike's pointed. We've had commissions that try to solve the deficit problem, tried to cut the growth of government, tried to fix social security and Medicare, and usually their reports, you know, collect dust on the desk of Congress and the administration. So it's not a bad concept to want to reduce the size and scope of government. There's no question that it's bloated over time. And and you know, and Elon Musk might as well be the co chairman of this campaign
at this stage. I mean, I remember starting this campaign wondering what will.
He do now he's all in the.
Chips are in the middle of the table, and that could be a good thing or a bad thing. I mean, like, I don't think it's going to help reach out to union voters if you're Donald Trump, regardless of whether they're you know, sort of the leaders of the unions or the rank and file. Because we know the first recommendation, it's predictable from an Elon Musk commission, would be get rid of unions in the federal government. A lot of my friends would applaud that. But how you implement that.
These are statutory programs. You had to take them to Congress if he wants to cut them. So, you know, it's a really good thing to talk about, because I don't think Republican, Democrat or independent or vegetarian don't agree, don't disagree that the government's too big and uneffective.
So I think they're playing into the right concept.
I'm just not sure that Elon Musk is the leader of the band, is going.
To really play the music people want to hear.
Okay, well, you know we heard from the group Taxpayers for Common Sense on this, Rick and Mike. They actually delivered an open letter, this being twenty twenty four, in podcast form, an open letter to Elon Musk. They've been at this for thirty years. Of course, this is on the Budget Watchdog All Federal podcast. It's time to light the fires and kick the tires on a fiscal commission
that will protect American taxpayers, they say. But keeping Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and Congress on the correct trajectory toward fiscal success is truly rocket science, Mike, Are they onto something here?
I mean, it's hard to do. For instance, one of the you know, you can look for waste here and there in government, and there's probably plenty of it. But the big questions that really have to do with our fiscal trajectory are things like social security, Medicare, and tax rates,
and people know what the trade offs are there. And the consensus politically is don't do anything that can help the fiscal trajectory because it's either painful to raise taxes or it's painful to cut Social Security or Medicare benefits, and so let's just not do either, and you know, see what happens in the future. That's basically what the American consensus is.
It's interesting he's actually accusing today in the speech Kamala Harris of busting social Security and Medicare by allowing illegal immigrants to come and exploit the benefits. But neither campaign is going to touch under these entitlements.
Right, Neither campaign is going to touch the entitlements back in the lock box, and the Congress isn't going to want to do that if neither Trump nor sure Democrat is in favor of that. I would also say that, you know, on the immigrants question, arguably, if you have younger immigrants coming in and they are mostly younger immigrants, that actually does help the imbalance between retiring people and working people.
Rick talk to us about style here.
We've spent a bit of time on substance, the extent that we understand proposals being thrown out there from both campaigns. Donald Trump speaking of the Economic Club of New York. This is not a rally in Middle America where they chant lock her up. But he is still referring to Comrade Kamala, calling her a communist and a Marxist, running through a number of accusations that we tried to fact check on the way out of the speech here. Remember
when he spoke to the business roundtable. Some of the comments we heard from CEOs is is this the right room for this approach? How's he doing with tone and tenor if this or Joe Biden, that's what everybody'd be asking.
Yeah, he isn't speaking to the room, He's speaking to the media. And the reality is he could care less what those guys in the room think. They're not really his types. He's his base and where he's going to get boats is in Middle America, rural suburban areas, and it's not represented in New York's economic club. So he's taken the opportunity not to pander to the crowd, and this is what he does. Well, you know, he's not situationally,
he talks over everybody's head. I'm sure there are a lot of people who are scratching their head right now in the room who are very sophisticated, don't need to be educated on some of these issues, and feel like they're being pandered to. But that's what you have to expect. I mean, you couldn't fact check this speech.
A little bit.
The half of it that I heard probably had twenty lies in it, and like, so who's going.
To do that?
And so like you just have to take him for what he is and apply whatever necessary filters you have. But yeah, there's gonna be a lot of folks in that crowd scratching her head and going for an early martini this afternoon after witnessing this. But I must admit it is a little bit of a deja voo, and that you know, in two thousand and eight, when we run the McCain campaign, we did a very similar thing around the same time, and a week later we had
that you know, global financial crisis. And this was the week that John McCain basically said, after hearing from these guys you.
Know, assembled in that room of very similar cast of.
Characters, actually that you know, we're headed to a disaster, and he suspended his campaign came back to Washington because he thought fixing the economic problems of our country were more important than running for president.
Well we've gone a long way since then.
How true?
And I can only imagine Rick Davis's first thought when Senator McCaine told him that's.
What the plan was. Hey, let's add it.
The voice of a Democrat to our great conversation here with Rick Davis and Mike Dorning, Laura Fink is with this, Democratic strategist, founder CEO of Rebel Communications. Laura, great to have you with us here on Bloomberg. We've been talking about some of the policy proposals that we've heard here as this really seems to center around a battle of the taxes. There's going to be a rewriting of the
tax code one way or the other next year. Is Kamala Harris bringing enough here talking about, for instance, a lower than expected capital gains tax rate for the wealthiest Americans to really drive this debate that Donald Trump has had his hands around pretty well so far.
Well, I think you see her gaining in terms of polling on the economic issues the more people get to know her. And I think this is just one more example of that. When you're talking about the corporate tax rate and she introduces something akin to what was in place and what was backed by Ronald Reagan. That's a pretty reasonable stance with respect to evening out the tax code and ensuring that investors are paying their fair share.
That Warren Buffett secretary isn't paying more than the rate of the folks making a million plus in terms of their investments, and don't I think it's reasonable in the sense that I don't think it's going to decrease investment. You're not going to have the venture capitalists from Silicon Valley taking their toys and going home. They're going to be on the hunt for the next the next unicorns. So this is something that's reasonable. It's something that you're
seeing praised about. Overall, her economic policy being praised by the likes of Goldman Sacks and Moody's and the pen Wharton Economic analysis. That those are not liberal organizations. So I think you see a real balanced approach from the Harris campaign.
I hear you Golden Sacks not liberal. I'm not sure what you mean. This is important. Let's talk about that. Goldman Sachs note, Rick, your thoughts on this. The tax policies had it in the election could have a big impact, will one way or the other on earnings, corporate earnings. We think about the trajectory the future of the S and P five hundred. This is right down the middle. Here is the estimate profits could shift in the ballpark range of five to ten percent, depending on who's elected in.
Which policies are enacted. Here.
Donald Trump's promise to cut the federal tax rate here to fifteen percent from its twenty one would raise S and P five hundred earnings by four percent. Kamala Harris's proposal to lift the rate to twenty eight percent would cut earnings by about five percent. Does anything else matter to the people in that room?
Rick, You know, I think.
That there are a few things that matter to people in that room, but this is obviously something that's going to have a material impact on how.
They look at these candidacies.
If you believe that it's just about earnings and that's how you're going to make your political decisions, then you're going to have that analysis to go.
And by the way, I think it's a really healthy thing.
In the political environment to have organizations like this doing scoring like this, because I must admit, in the past we haven't really had clarity around these policies and how they would impact corporate America or tax payers or consumers, and so I think, you know, this amount of information is very helpful, but I would be surprised, you know, just using this is a big focus group, you know here in New York during this economic speech, how many
people in the room would actually be motivated to vote on the issue of corporate earnings alone, because remember, there are a lot of things that go into that corporate earning package, not just taxes, and you know, whether it's political instability around the world, you know, or unemployment or inflation. I mean, all those things are going to be a basket of decisions that they're going to have to follow.
Yeah, boy, interesting, I suspect a lot of them have terminal subscriptions.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apple car Play and then Roud Oro with the Bloom's Our Business Act. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just Say Alexa Play Bloomberg eleven.
Thirty, New York.
Of course, where Donald Trump is spending his day today is he is still speaking before the Economic Club of New York, outlining some new economic policies which Joe and I have mentioned, but also threatening what could happen to the economy under a potential Harris administration, including what he just described as facing fiscal armageddon.
Yeah.
A lot of this is coming down, of course, to the fiscal policies these two campaigns have put out there. But we've spoken with a lot of economists, budget watchers on this program and others here on Bloomberg. Joe and we do know that if it's all about fiscal responsibility, ten and a half trillion dollars worth of tax cuts over the next ten years is going to be very hard to pay for, that's.
For sure, and it's not always enough to just say that you're going to grow out of it now. It's interesting when you think about the notes that we got from Golden Sachs over the past twenty four to forty eight hours. Here the different ways you can slice this. There was one economic forecast from Goldman predicting that a Trump presidency would damage gross domestic product due to the tariff and immigration plans to an extent that would not
happen in the Harris campaign. Yet we also have competing research, if we can call it that, with an eye on the markets. Here at S and P five hundred earnings. Donald Trump's promise to cut the federal corporate tax rate, as he just said, to fifteen percent from twenty one would raise earnings by about four percent. Kamala Harris's would cut it by about five. Kaylee, I think we need a ruling from the ref. He's in New York as well.
Michael McKee, Bloomberg Economics and Policy correspondent, Michael, which one is Wall Street paying attention to?
That's a good question. It's hard to ignore Donald Trump, but his plans are sort of incoherent, and economists would basically tell you they're not going to work. So you would say, Kamala Harris, but Kamala Harris has only released some plans. And the problem is at this point that nobody knows what will actually pass. There are a lot of things being thrown around that make for good sound bites and political points, but that's not what's going to happen.
And a prime example of that is something they both agree on, which is no tax on tips. It's a bad economic idea. It would lead to distortions in the way the economy is taxed, and it's an unfair idea because minimum wage workers in the back of the kitchen don't get any tax breaks. So that's not going to happen. But so how do you evaluate plans that are not going to have fifteen percent is not going to happen as a corporate tax rate.
The way it means.
Committee and members of Congress who already made that clear. So how do you evaluate these plans other than you know, do they make any sense at all? Could they be considered.
Well?
And Mike yes, no, one of us can predict the future, including you, me, Kamala Harris, and Donald Trump, but can't we use history in the past as a guide here, because we did see enacted into law tax cuts during his first administration with the twenty seventeen package that he
would now like to make permanent. So when he makes the argument that tax cuts like the ones he would like to pursue again in a second term will be paid for because of the growth they generate, is that what we saw the first time around.
That is not what we saw and historically that is not what we've ever seen. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves. That's a well established economic fact. Growth is never big enough high enough to pay for itself from additional tax cuts. In the first year after Trump's tax cuts took effect, we actually saw tax re seats in the country go down some so it's income tax receipts,
and we didn't see any real increase in investments. Some stuff was brought forward, but the real benefit went to consumers who had a little bit more money to spend, and that juiced growth a little bit. Overall, tax cuts don't have the impact that all politicians like to give that they are a drag on the economy.
Well, what are the research notes saying this morning? What are the analysts thinking about this approach to capital gains that we heard from Kamala Harris yesterday. Higher numbers than they want to see, but not as high as Joe Biden. It seems to be this attempt to moderate a slightly liberal approach here, Mike, how's it washing over the street?
Well, I think people like the idea that she came down from the Biden position, but of course it would be us from where we are now. It becomes a little bit of a religious discussion in the sense of what's fair. Is it fair that wealthy people who make their money off of investments can pay a lower tax rate than the guy who has to go to work and lay bricks for a living. And so that's the real dilemma for Congress to decide, is do we want to tax these people on a sort of equal basis.
If so, you're going to have to raise the capital gains tax. But where you raise it is a combination of a lot of things, including how much money do you have to raise because you've cut taxes elsewhere. So where she is hard, it's better according to the people on Wall Street who would like to see a little bit less taxation, but it doesn't really tell you where
you're going to end up. And the other thing that she did propose yesterday, though, gets a lot of credit, and that is the Small Business Tax Credit for businesses. It's not reduction in taxes, it's a credit, so you actually can get money back if you start a small business and meet the conditions. And that is seen as a very good way to maybe boost growth at the low end of the economy.
Well, Mike, in addition to tax policy, before we let you go, we heard Donald Trump talking about tariffs once again, saying he'll use them to encourage production in the US. Tariffs, of course, unlike tax policy, maybe something Donald Trump, if he uses certain presidential powers when it comes to economic crisies,
for example, he could enact all on his own. And especially considering we're analyzing jobs data today awaiting the big non farm payrolls report tomorrow as a guide to tell us when the FED will cut rates, or rather by how much, how soon, how quickly are these kind of policies he's outlining actually going to mean that the Fed's cutting cycle might not last very long.
Well, that's one way to look at it is that his policies will be inflationary. That is the conclusion of almost all the Wall Street firms that have looked at it, because it's Americans and businesses in America who pay the tariff cost and not the foreigners. So it would add to inflation. How fast hard to say, and so hard to know exactly what the FEDS timing would be on it. But he can pose some punitive tariffs as he did on China, as Joe Biden did on China, in situations
where there is a provable unfair trade. He can't impose the ten to twenty percent universal tariff without congressional action, and that's probably not going to happen. But the bottom line is is even if you impose all these tariffs, you can't raise much money. And whether Americans pay it or foreigners pay it, it would be only a small fraction of what is lost by the income taxes, So
it doesn't really make any sense. The US government's budget was much much smaller when, as he quoted William McKinley today saying that tariffs would work under McKinley's presidency, tariffs raised most of the money. But that's why we went to the income tax shortly after McKinley was gone, because it didn't raise enough money.
All right, Bloomberg Economics and Policy Correspondent Michael McKee, thank you so much for helping us analyze what we're hearing from both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris in terms of the policy they'd like to pursue.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast Ketch just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Appo, CarPlay and then Proud Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube, indeed.
On Bloomberg TV and Radio. Live from the studio here in Washington. Two guests are joining us, the verse being Peter Chapman I onm q CEO, which is a quantum computing company, together with Democratic Congressman Glenn Ivy of Maryland. He represents the fourth district, and of course, congressmen you are here along with Peter. Given Peter's work in Maryland and at UMD specifically, welcome to you both. Thank you
so much for your time. Peter, I'd love to just begin with you because i think for a lot of people, they hear quantum computing, they read a headline like the Biden administration targeting China's development and that area, and they think, Okay, what do I need to know about? Why is this viewed as critical technology that would require export controls? What do we need to know?
So quantum computing, there's two aspects to it. One is a national security concern. A large enough quantum computer could break encryption, and so we use encryption for digital data
for our communications infrastructure. And if you can break that, that means that you can hack into people's emails, you can listen to digital conversations, and you can alter restore all of our records in digital files, and that's how we use them as truth and so now all of a sudden you could go through and change who owns properties, who owns stocks, all those kinds of things. So that's
one aspect. The other one is that it's expected for the next fifty years that the economy will be powered by quantum and so there's a global space space race to see who's going to be the leader for the next fifty years using this technology.
So here we have in a literal sense, a public private partnership at the table here today, Congressman, your take here as we hear from the Biden administration. I don't know if you saw this coming, but it seems that we're in a world with technologies like this and artificial intelligence where you both need each other.
Right now, Oh absolutely, I think, and I think the government needs the private sector more than the other way around.
But I think we want to.
Make sure that we're supportive of their efforts and make sure in part that we stay out of the way, but also in part that we provide the type of capital and support that they need.
Stay out of the way, provide guardrails as well well.
I mean, it's a fine line, especially since most of us in the government I'll include myself in that category, don't know much about what they're actually doing. So when you get deep into the weeds. There's a reason I went to law school and didn't stay on the PhD track.
This is one of those.
But you know, I think it's important for us to make sure that we're facilitating their growth and their development and research because we are in competition with China and other countries. To make sure that we can stay ahead of the curve on this front and also maximize the capabilities. As you heard, the military applications, the cybersecurity issues, and just the other research possibilities are all powerful reasons to do that well.
And part of that competition with China does reflect itself and things like exports controls, but arguably it also does in say legislation like the Chips Act, where the US is trying to make more of this stuff on US shores rather than having it be centered in places like China. Do you have a relationship with that kind of legislation. Do we need a Quantum Computing Act realistically or are these things actually intersected.
Some intersection, But we definitely need more investment by the US government to go to quantum industries. If you look at China, they've allocated fifteen billion dollars. They've built a small city in China which is just for quantum. The five year Plan for China states that they will leap fraud the US and the West by using quantum technologies. We haven't allocated that kind of money because it really
is a public private partnership. So the way we compete in the West is not just through government but also through industry, and so we need to strengthen that relationship to be able to compete against countries like China.
I'd like to hear from you more, Peter on cybersecurity. It's what you said is important here.
We're calling the crowd strike event, the intense competition with Palo alto the questions that we have and kind of like you mentioned, congressmen falling into the arms of these companies with technologies that we don't always understand. If quantum computing can crack cyber defenses, can it also enhance cybersecurity if used properly.
Yes, it's both the problem and also the solution. So we're working on and others are working on quantum networks, and these quantum eworks then can't be hacked by quantum computers. So it's both the problem and also that's the security. Indeed, it is.
Like kind of reminds me of diamond is the only thing that can cut another diamonds kind of situation. I'm just trying to think of a way to analytes that's in my head. So as we talk about the idea that this maybe have important implications for national security cybersecurity, you obviously think of public private partnership is very important. Is this also bipartisan? We know that competition with China is maybe one of the few things that you and your colleagues can agree on on capital.
Head every now and then, they're one of those that pop up. This I think is one of those. I think the challenge that was really going to come down to the allocation of funds and my Republican colleagues, as you may have heard, are you trying to move these sort of funding issues in a different direction overall? But I think even here we can find bipartisans.
So the ability for the US to be competitive and quantum computing could be completely related to the spending fight that's about to go down when you return to the.
Well, I'll see. I'll say it this way.
I mean, as you just heard, you've got nations that are actually trying to poach US companies.
And get them to move there are that are in this field.
And at the same time, you've got a gigantic investment by China in the in the computing field, the quantum computing field. So if we want to stay competitive and stay ahead of the curve, which allows us to deal with some of the other factors you were talking about, like export controls. If we're behind, we don't have to worry about export controls. We're trying to catch up. We're still in the lead and we can maintain that, but it's going to take I think, a joint effort. We've
left out academia as well. There's the third corner of the iron triangle. But if all of us work together in a coordinated way, like we should, I think we can maintain our supremacy.
This is about education. Though it sounds like you guys are on a road.
Show to tell people what we're talking about. We can't get through a day without hearing about AI. It's quantum computing. A blind spot in Washington.
I mean, I think AIS it's a broad umbrella. They're blind spots under that rubric too. Sometimes people are talking about different things. But at the end of the day, I think Congress needs to focus, and we need to do it by committee because you know, not everything's going to fall under every category. Deep deep fakes for example. That's one committee, but doesn't necessarily go to these kinds of issues and challenges.
The military applications.
We haven't even talked about drones yet, but I think, you know, we need to make sure we're moving forward on all of those fronts in a way that allows the scientists to take the lead and with support from the government in academia.
Yeah, just these new quantum networks. So we're working on quantum computing and also quantum networking. Within quantum, there's another area which is quantum sensing, new ways to be able to image into the ground oil exploration. Of those things
we're doing two out of the three quantum networks. One of the places to be able to build a quantum network to a drone and then the neat thing about that is you can't hack the communication to the drone, so when you were if you were in Ukraine, there's no way to block the communication between the drone and the ground, and so it's maybe a really powerful way to be able to control things on the battlefield.
Fascinating.
Peter Chapman, great conversation with a s HEREI, A unique conversation that we've been looking forward to.
CEO I on CUE, thanks for sharing your expertise. We'd love to talk to you again.
You're sitting on clearly some extremely powerful technology and a great conversation with Congressman Glenn Ivy we're not done with you.
A couple of questions.
About what Kaylee mentioned the funding battle, and I know that we could be talking about another potential shutdown, but that doesn't happen in an election year, does it.
You know, I just heard one of my colleagues on I listened to the counter programming every now and then today I was doing that on the way in and he's actually talking about this is one of the leaders of the Freedom talk is who's actually talking about a shutdown, And he said potential could be a week, could be all the way to November fifth.
Is this because of the Save Act? Is that where the fall connected it to the Save Act?
But you know they've been talking about that kind of stuff since before then. But you know, at the end of the day, I think obviously that's beyond irresponsible and damaging to the US economy at a time when things seem to be moving in a better direction than they had been. And I just think the government ought to be able to take care of a basic function like staying open and paying its debts.
Well, of course, your work doesn't stop there. We just have a minute left, Congressman. But you, of course are on the task force that's looking into the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. He suggested in an interview with doctor Phil just that last week that he thinks Joe Biden and Kamala Harris might be partly to blame for that happening to him. Have you unearthed any evidence of that in the investigation?
No, But more importantly, the FBI hasn't either, and the Secret Service hasn't either. And I'm not aware of anything concrete by anybody, even the people on the fringes other
than Donald Trump, who've even suggested something like that. So that's it's a pathetic comment, frankly, and it's unfortunate because it feeds into these kinds of conspiracy theories that I think continue to undermine American democracy at a time when we just heard the other day that Russian some of our adversaries are trying to take advantage of that and use that against us.
Are you confident that the Secret Service will keep both of these candidates safe for the rest of the campaign.
I am, But I think there's obviously room for improvement. We need to keep really working and focusing on making sure that all of the improvements get made as quickly as possible. We also have an accountability issue here too. Something went horribly wrong in July thirteenth, and the people that allowed that to happen need to be held accountable.
Yeah.
Of course we've seen the resignation of Kim Cheatle, but the question is whether or not more heads could roll and what actually happens within the Secret Service in the aftermath of this. Congressman, great to see you here in our Washington, DC studio. We should do this more often. Congressman Ple and Ivy, the Democrat from Maryland, appreciate your time.
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 Noontimeeastern at Bloomberg dot com.