The President Has Hurt His Credibility, Bell Says

policy going forward from here? I'm pleased to say here in New York is Dantana Boum, p WC Global Sanctions Leader, and he joins us around the table right here, right now, Dan, talk to me about the latest moves in the White House and the significance of them for you. I give up. I mean this is this used to be really easy to try and predict what was going to happen. Next.

You've got a new incoming National Security advisor who, you know, we're reminded, does not need confirmation by the Senate, who has some rather extreme views on dealings with hostile nations around the world historically. Well, let's let's be a little bit more blunt here. Uh, this is somebody who has been for war on many occasions as one of the architects behind the Iraq war. Um, is this sort of a sign that President Trump is planning to threaten military

action somewhere? Yeah, I mean, that's that's obviously what this looks like we could be headed towards. I think there's still enough moderates that exist within the government that hopefully that's not the case. I mean, you look at the Iran deal. With Pompeo replacing Tillerson, that already put the Iran deal at risk. Um Bolton has been extremely anti the Iran deal. In fact, wanted to preemptively attack Iran North Korea as well. It wasn't really up for negotiating sations.

Who was up for a more preemptive strike. All of these are really complicating what was already a fairly tense situation to begin with. Down Do you believe there's an intellectual framework for for shaping the people around the president right now? Because if there is, most people say all roads lead to Iran. Rex Tillison had a difference over a run with the President the United States. Hr McMaster

also having that difference with the president. Another one that's really in focus now will be Mattest, the Defense Secretary, because he also has a different opinion on Iran, So to all roads lead to Iran or is this something else? It's unclear what the strategy is. The only thing I take comfort in is the civil servants that are a Treasury and State for the most part, still remained from prior administration. So the people that are actually executing the

underlying work, a lot of them are still there. Obviously, the revolving door of people making direction for the plans have been changing pretty rapidly over the last year. But I want to believe there's some sort of a strategy here. I mean, we're there's so many fronts that this administration is trying to cover off on now, between Iran, Russia,

and North Korea, now who knows potentially Cuba. I mean, it is absolute whiplash trying to manage all of this and try and look for some sort of cogent theme here. There are so many different ways we could go this morning. Um, we could talk about some of the market action and the risk aversion. Now, we could talk about the tariffs with China, and we're gonna get to all of those things. I do just want to get your thoughts on the j c p o A with Iran, the Joint Comprehensive

Plan of Action. Talk to me about the next scheduled event where the President could really make a difference here, because it feels like we're gravitate, gravitating towards a moment where he might move to rip that up. So may is the next scheduled waivers to further extend the sanctions relief with the j c p o A. And already it's been I mean, every time the waivers have come up, it's been spoken about in terms of, you know, this is the worst deal ever and it will never go ahead.

And every time the waivers have been extended, I have some doubts this time that that may be the case. I mean, the other complicating factor is due to other things that the Iranian regime has been doing, the EU has been looking at applying additional sound actions unrelated to the j c p o A, but additional sanctions on Iran, and Iran is just kind of sitting back looking at this, wondering what did we actually sign up for to begin with.

So you advise companies and wondering what are they asking you what are they calling you up right now about? So we get a lot of calls about looking at the risks to enter Iran globally, and obviously, as an American I'm restricted in the support that I can provide, but as a global organization, we try to look at, you know, how do you ring fence U s, nationals, how do you apply a framework to understand the risk

that you're entering. Especially with Iran and the snap backed provisions of the j c P o A, there's a possibility that within sixty days of the sanctions being lift being reimposed that a company might have to exit. So everyone that goes in needs to have an exit strategy, and that's the basic advice that we're advising. How problematic is it with the turnover to come up with some kind of predictable path for these companies. It's it's impossible at this point, and it really has slowed the growth

of entry into Iran. There were obviously billions of dollars of deals announced in the wake of the j c P away in the aviation and automotive industry. Now we are seeing a lot more hesitancy by our clients around the world as they're looking at Iran entry. They're asking the question of what exactly do we do next, and they're honest answers. It's really unclear what the next step

is for our listeners, just churning in. At the momentum, the market actions follows were down just seventy eight on the down, negative five or six points on the SMP five hundreds, So following yesterday's route, we are bouncing off the lows in terms of futures, a bit of risk aversion in the FX market with a stronger Japanese Yeah, dollyan at one of five and treasury stable here after

yesterday's big bit. The tenuere treasury yield as follows at two point eight two percent, so a little bit of calm coming through to this market in the last I would say, the last one hour, Lisa, Yeah, although there still are some pretty big losers. You can see that Facebook share is still down ahead of open. You can see that ten Cent has been really absolutely penalized, so a lot of red to down. It's at Lesa's question and important question about what you're advising companies at the moment.

You talked about companies around the world. I imagine if you're a European company looking to do business in a place like Iran. Now, even you were thinking, I don't know what to do, because even if I was an American company, I would be very very hesitant. But as a European company, the US has up the agreement. Is that a place you want to make an investment right now, and as a US company, with the exception of foreign

organized subsidiaries, you're essentially iced out of the market. For the European companies, the challenges and continues to be the ability to finance any transactions with Iran, because there's no major bank in the world that will really touch the business. And that's been the case even after the deal was put in place, even after pressure from the UK and

US governments to establish banking relationships. Because of so many banks being penalized over the years, many of your gun shy about re entering a market and potentially putting a bull's eye on their back. A lot of people will wake up this morning they'll see the Chinese retaliating with arrists from the arrists that the United States introduced just yesterday. They proposed in the last twenty four hours, What has changed for US foreign policy? If and I think it's sold.

I mean, we're moving very rapidly to an isolation isolationist approach to how we're dealing with the world. I mean, we have a trade war with China now that's looming. We have actual wars with Iran and North Korea that are on the table. I mean, there's a lot of legitimate threats. But the way in which we are handling some of these actions in a somewhat unilateral matter is com complicating our perception in the world. Just push back a little bit. China's measure in response to the US

was pretty minor. What do you make that? I think similar to how a lot of countries deal with response in a more responsible manner. I mean, this is obviously not the just the opening salvo. I think what China is responsive with three billion dollars and tariffs against US imports um is really just the beginning. It's going to slowly but surely kind of ratchet up the pressure on US companies, and obviously China is a massive trading partner

to the US. You can't start with the big bang necessarily, although some administrations might believe otherwise. But I think this is just the beginning. Dantana Bum. It's been great to have you with us in a studio here in New York, and it's great to catch up view the p WC Global Sanctions Leader. Fantastic guests we can bring in right now.

Really caught my attention on Twitter yesterday evening. Ian Bremer, Eurisia Group founder and an authority on global geopolitical risk, tweeting the following yesterday evening probably the worst biggest single day for geopolitical risks since I started Eurisia Group in nineteen and that's a stunning statement. Give us the y Well, first of all, you have the decision to take fifty billion dollars of terroiffs against China, which they will react to in the context of a big transition towards a

more confrontational relationship with the Chinese. Elevation of Peter Navarro Um, the decision to signs law a bill, a travel bill on Taiwan that will lead to a direct exchanges of high level officials. That's a red line for the Chinese.

So the most important bilateral relationship in the world taking a marks turn to the negative real tipping point there Um, and the appointment of John Bolton uh to National Security Advisor, one of the most outspoken Hawks arguing for preemption against North Korea, ripping up the Iran deal, much stronger himself

on China as well. But the issue is that this is happening in the context of a global environment that is already unwinding a geopolitical recession, where the US doesn't have the kind of influence internationally that it has historically

and is much more prone towards miscalculation. Where nine eleven obviously a much more dramatic shock, but it happened in the context of a u US that was clearly a global leader, with an awful lot of allies behind this, and so it's a consequence there wasn't nearly listened impact on geopolitical environment. Yeah, I was going to say, and I think a lot of people would have read that and said, what about two thousand and one? What about

the invasion of a rug? But your point quite clearly in a G zero world, in the context of that, that makes it a lot more fragile at the moment. Something else you've also warned about Ian before the departure of the last twenty four hours was how significant the departure of HR McMaster would be for this administration. Just talk me through why and walk me through the domino effect from here. How you think this evolves. Well, you have people now around Trump that are more enabling of

of Trump. Before with Chillerson, with McMaster, with Gary Cohne, you had people who may not have had enormous influence over Trump, but they were willing to strongly say when they believed that Trump was wrong. They were largely moderating influences, and they were analytically fairly sharp. Um, so they actually knew a fair amount about the world. They had a fair amount of expertise. Um. You're losing a lot of

that with their replacements now. But you're also enabling. You're enabling with people that are not willing to tell Trump when he's wrong. They're willing to support his instincts, and they're also intrinsically more hawkish, more prone towards escalation. Trump himself has made his presidency more about ripping up the deal with Iran and more importantly, more about North Korea.

We had a lot of presidents Democrat and Republican ended have known that North Korea was getting worse, but they didn't want to engage very much themselves, because they knew that it was going to be very hard to fix and the downside was going to be great. Trump's ability to fix North Korea, his expertise is certainly no greater

than previous presidents. He's much more risk acceptance. So there is a possibility of a diplomatic breakthrough, but there's also a much greater chance that we end up with in a war. And I do think that the recent appointment, capped off most importantly by Bolton's accession to get Security Advisor, makes the likelihood of direct military conflicts, specifically with the Koreans and also potentially between the US and Iran or Israel and Iran, much more likely than it was twenty

four hours ago. Some pretty frightening words so far, though, as John pointed out earlier, it's really sentiments sentiment shift, and one that that's negative because the actions taken so far haven't been in themselves that extreme. What to you will signal a market escalation that moves us much closer to some kind of military altercation. Well, first of all, yesterday did right, I mean, you know the fact that you have a seven plus point hit to the markets.

When's the last time that that happened directly as a result of presidential action. That was a market move of choice, uh, not the reaction to a global recession or you know, sort of a bubble bursting um. And so I do think that combined, as I said, with Taiwan, combined with the escalation of Peter Navarro, one of the most anti China hawks that again has been in a high level position in any administration in decades, has set the Chinese

off on the market spot for the first time. Reacting to that is you know, the markets have been very complacent with geopolitical risks over the past year, in part because the baseline economics are doing well. This is the first time that Trump has taken action that really moves in a very different direction. I don't expect the markets to react on issues like North Korea or Iran until

you see a direct shock. The corporations will. They're starting to put plans in place in terms of what they would do if there was a massive supply chain shock or oil prices would a spike over a hundred briefly, or even if they had to get their ex paths

out of situations. Every corporation, major corporation we advise as talking about that now, but the markets are much more short term and they don't necessarily plan for escalated tail risk, which are the kinds of things we're seeing all over the world right now geopolitically so and it's a really good point. Typically we just consider those things at how risk. I want to talk to you about what you consider to be the base case right now? In the eighth

of John Bolton. We now have a national security advisor in the White House that couldn't even get confirmed by a Republican controlled Senate as the US Ambassador to the u N under George W. Bush. We have John Bolton as the National Security advisor individual that has written our pets about striking Iran and striking North Korea. Do you just consider it inevitable? Now? Is your base case that that j c p o A, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the agreement with Iran just gets torn up.

It's it's probably a base case. It wasn't Again, twenty four hours ago, I think Trump had said he wanted to do it, but there was a lot of pushback from people around him, as well as from Europeans and even American allies. Like the Staudis and the Iranians who are no fan of the Iran deal, recognized that if Trump ripped it up, that the U s would be isolated to be that by themselves, you know, it caused

more problems than it was worth. They didn't want tougher sanctions by the Americans against Iran, but on different issues on IRUN solistic missile program, on the support for terrorist organizations has below others around the region. Now, I think that the baseline, the spite effect is going to continue to be an enormous amount of pressure against Trump to do this. I do think the baseline is that the j c p o A, the irandeal goes away or

the Americans rip it up. And I think part of the reason for that is because the pressure on Trump himself the Mueller investigation um the which is clearly going much longer than the inspected expected. You saw the departure of his top attorney just in the past forty hours

because he wasn't listening to him. Trump's expectations around that investigation clearly were much more rose tinted um as he comes to realize that the starks sharks are circling his behavior has become more erratic, he has lashed out more. I do think that the Bolton appointment is part of that. Do you think that amid the White House turmoil, the

China tariffs and the US tariffs are just noise. No, they're not noise because unlike Caribs against American allies, where there's very strong pushback from those advising Trump and his major funders, all of the Republicans you know, sort of governors and senators and the rest, on China, there actually is a strong desire among many advising and supporting Trump. The Chinese are engaged in unfair practices. They're not providing reciprocal market access to the Americans. This is getting worse

and the Americans need to do something about it. The problem is that Trump's policies are not very strategic, They're not very directed. As I mentioned, they also include Taiwan issues which are not linked, but which the Chinese will

see is pushing them in the corner. And also, the Americans don't have allies on their side because of the symbolic efforts against NAFTA and willingness to put allies on notice on aluminium steel if they don't get the Americans a better deal pulling out of the trans specific partnership earlier in Trump presidency. All of this makes American policy against China more unilateral, when if you want to take a tough line against China, you want it to be

more multilateral, more strategic. And it's been great to catch out with you, a friend of the program, and we always appreciate your insight on all of these issues that dominate the agenda currently, the geopolitical issues very much at the front and center as we close out the trading week. Ian Bremer, really appreciate your time. Thank you, sir, that you raise a group founder joining us on the latest movements in the White House and that trade battle between

China and the United States. I want to bring in a kind of hack that is d F E. D and F Man head of research and kinda thank you so much for being with us. Let's start with those teriffs, the US imposing terroriffs on China, China retaliating. How much is this just noise at this point? Not really the biggest measures that could have been taken? Uh? And and sort of how are you how are you suggesting that

clients play this? Yeah, this is this is very much a measured approach, and actually it is in a spot to the previous um steel and a million times. There's not at all in retaliation of the one we heard yesterday, which was about five the big one. So this is China basically picking in tiny little um areas which such as wine and dry fruits, pork bellies, some steel. These are not going to really impact China's economy very much or the industry. Indeed, um we're talking for the on

the agriculture, on the fruit space, probably one billion. They have a lot more to give if they needed to really negotiate their way through. I think they're putting that in their backside of their pocket right now. Kind of at the moment, there is an annual export from the United States to China totaling about a hundred and thirty billion dollars, the retaliation from the Chinese totaling about three billion dollars worth of goods. Kind Of, you can hardly

call it a trade war year, can we? No? Definitely not, And I think China doesn't want to. They've all they've you know, shooting the undershooting pain. They've been showing they want They've been taking every opportunity when the US rhetoric has been a little bit surprising or maybe provocative. They've tried to show that, look, we're responsible world leader. That's a position they're very much trying to covet and um and and enhance upon um. So. No, they don't want

a global trade war. Actually, China doesn't really need their Their economy is so strong and their intra Asia trade is so big. They doesn't. They don't. They actually won't lose so much if there was a big trade war between ton in the US. So this is um so they won't lose if you think in a big way. You know, I just wanna read you a comment by an analyst regarding some of these tariffs. This can turn ugly on a global scale very quickly, in synchronous global

growth or not. Markets are right to be pricing in a more subdued outlook. I'm just wondering, first of all, whether you agree with this this from I M G. Asia Pacific chief Economist Robert Carnell. And second of all, are you watching us? I mean, at what point will you change your expectations for commodity prices based on some

of this, uh, this trade scuffle action? Say so, First of all, the US has given thirty days to consult on on what on what they're going to actually do whether and so they're actually going to go ahead and do all these tariffs. So thirty days a long time. The China's come up with a small retaliation. It's again it's not a retaliate, it's more of a going do this because we could do this. UM. They haven't really taken on the big guns out we've already seen with

the EU. Trumpet said we're going to put tires on EU steal. Those are those are not not going to happen. Japan still exampt so in study days a lot could happen, and I personally think it will be toned down by the by when it when it comes to it. UM. In terms of impact on commodity prices, right now, it's risk off because the mere thought of a global trade war UM is not good for global economic growth, which in turn is not good for commodities such as iron, ore, steel,

energy UM. Less so on agriculture, But agriculture is potentially, for me the biggest one which China could use against UM the US on soybeans if they needed to. Yeah, so D please elaborate on that in terms of what exactly do you expect the price action on soybeans and grains to be should dis escalate, So the trade between US soybeans to China is equivalent of about fourteen billion dollars, So that's huge UM. And right now the US has already been starting from pretty four years of falling prices

for soybeans. Libviously, they've enjoyed a bit of a resurgence because Argentina, one of the big producers UM, has had a very bad crop. There's been a drop there. But if the US were to lose the China a third of US UM so it's a third of Chinese imports come from the US on soybeans. That's a big market UM. If they were to lose that, then they would have to look for alternative markets. But no one can quite

compete with China on that kind of a scale. So you would see UM initial adjustment and prices lower in order to attract other buyers, but that would be a huge loss for China for the US of China would disappear kind of I'm trying to understand the framework for

through which the administration is viewing this trade issue. I understand that overall, very very disappointed by the massive trade deficit between China and the United States, and they would like to adjust that, and quite clearly that's what they're looking to do. But I'm trying to understand what they're ultimately targeting because the Common Secretary Wilbur Ross often talked about the theft of American genius and trying to target

intellectual property. But as I look at some of the terrorists that have been unveiled, there on a whole load of everything, whether it steals, whether it's agriculture we're now talking about at the moment, now we're having this discussion about intellectual property as well. Is this a blanket effort from this administration or is it somewhat targeted? What's your read, Kona interesting? Um, I feel it's just a very strong

message Trump to be fair. He when he was campaigning to become president, he did say he didn mention this unfair trade advantage that China has over the US, and that he was going to at some point when if you were elected, he would try and redress that. So this is I suppose his first attempt to do that. Um. Like I mentioned, I think what will actually end up happening, will could be a lot less. Um. I think it's widespread because they want to see what will stick and

what will not and what the reactions will be. You kind of have to hit all areas before you see where the pain is. And I think once you get the various US industry lobby saying no, you can't that we will be impacted this way, that's when they'll start picking and choosing and narrowing it down to a little too smaller subset. Could I imagine that you're getting a number of calls from your clients, what's their main question you're up to? Right? It would be commodity prices? What's

the outlook? And my first answer to that would be, um, it's it's risk off right now, there's general uncertainty. Um, we just have to watch it. It's it's we just have to watch this how it pants. I genuinely feel China will continue to take a very measured approach um. Economically, they it was not a catastrophe for them to take this hit on a on what the US is proposing, so they don't necessarily to retali it in a big way. Um, And they could end up looking like the through the

Responsible Party here who's advocating free trade. It's something that they've been trying to just stance that we're trying to push for a while. So it may not end up being a full learned global trade war, which some people are expecting. Kind of been greatly catch up with you a d n F manhead of a research talking about

a risk off moving commodities. President Donald Trump tweets that he is considering a veto of the one point three trillion dollar spending bill it had previously one final passage by Congress this morning. It reverses his administration's previous statements, and of course it raises the prospect that he'll be able to shut down the government because of a failure to get a deal. Here to tell us more about this is Steve Bell. He is at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

He's a senior advisor. And I'm wondering, Steve, you know, as someone who has worked previously in government for Pete Domenici, New Mexico's storied senator, and really you're familiar with the ongoing budget debates that take place in Congress. Is this unprecedented for a president too? In a sense not necessarily just politicize the issue, but to turn it into a public relations campaign absolutely. You know you mentioned I used to be used to work for a Chairman Diminage when

I was staff director of the Budget Committee. That was a long time ago, but um, just to give you my age away, I was here from Nick. I've been here since Nixon was president, and I have never seen, uh, something like this occur. What I suspect is happening is this democrats. Democrats are crowing that they got the best of the deal. And in the Senate a majority of Democrats voted for this bill. Many Republicans voted against it, and so Democrats are saying, see, we got what we wanted.

He didn't get money for his wall. Uh, he didn't get some other things he wanted. Made him give some money for the for the under you for for the for apartment, for the tunnel, and so they're bragging about it, and that's got to make him very unhappy. Steve. I'm just wondering where this leaves Republican congressmen who are trying to actually get this done and avoid a government shutdown. Uh. There is a report out that they basically followed his

talking points that he had distributed earlier. So what does this mean about the negotiations going forward in the likelihood of a shutdown in the in the near term future. I don't think he's going to veto it because most of the members of Congress are now out back home, because we have a two week recess coming up. Number one,

number two. I just don't think there's going to be any credibility anymore when he says he's going to do this or that, or when Mark short or others who represent him on the Hill say this is what the president is going to do. When you put out a statement of administration policy and the President himself says, I'll sign this bill despite some misgivings, and he tells the Speaker of the House that he can say that and then changes his mind, he really has hurt his credibility.

I'm not sure this president understands the ramifications of that. UM I said simply that no one's going to believe what he says anymore. UM the you know you already have some questions based upon earlier differences of of one day he said this and one day he said the next. Like Mr McConnell, the Majority leader in the Senator said something about that. Paul Ryan was saying last night, good

I got the President to sign this. A lot of folks now feel embarrassed, and it's going to make it more difficult for the President to get things done on the Hill though. I got to be honest with you, this may be the last thing that passes this year of any significance. Steve Bell, a quote from Mick Mulvaney, the White House budget director, says, let's cut to the chase. Is the President going to sign the bill? The answer

is yes? Why because it funds his priorities? Does this now damage the credibility of mc mulveney Mr Mulvaney's credibilities or any damage because he has not produced a budget yet that has received even a hearing on Capitol Hill in the last two years or last fifteen months. Um. But this further, this further damages it. Um. The notion that this funds his priorities other than defense is really quite in striking contrast to the budget he set up here.

He wanted deep cuts and all the domestic programs they're going to be increases of around fifty billion. Uh. He wanted money for the wall in the area of eighteen billion. He got about one point five billion, but that's scattered between the wall and additional border agents. He wanted no money, uh for the tunnel, and he had to give five

million plus for that. So all in all, let's be honest about it, this was not a victory for the president except in the area where there was vast bipartisan support, and that was in military spending increases. So, Steve, since you have so much experience and actually crafting these things and understanding the negotiations back and forth, have you had a chance to really look at the details of this bill and what kind of filler or sort of pet projects were financed through it. Can you give us a

sense of that? You know, I'm not gonna lie. I haven't reades. I've read some summaries that were put out on the on the on the twelve. This this huge bill comprises twelve different individual bills. But you just take a look when you fixed taxes twice in their low income tax credit and a mistake in the tax bill that was signed last December that would have hurt farmers. So you've got a hodgepodge of everything in here. And as we look at it, we will find more favors,

more deals. I think the big deals that weren't cut, for example, giving subsidies to keep the Obamacare machinery running well, a promise that was made to Senator Collins, they just simply didn't do it. And uh that probably is not made Senator Collins of Maine, a Republican, very happy. But it's the things that didn't happen. There's no there's no immigration of kind of language and here at all. And so I think, as I said at the beginning, this

is going to damage his credibility pretty pretty seriously. And I don't think, uh, the appointment of John Bolton, by the way, helps any because now people are gonna wonder about Dolly, what you're gonna do on around nuclear deer or what's he going. So I think this really does hurt his relationship with Congress, and I think especially embarrasses the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan. What do you think this does to the Republicans in the upcoming mid

term elections? I think it hurts. I think we've already seen in two or three elections where Democrats have performed much better than we had anticipated or that history would indicate, and if you take a look at the retirements that have already occurred in the House, especially and some of the retirements we anticipate based upon the election in Pennsylvania eighteen where the Democrat one for the first time in many, many years. Um, I think you're seeing a lot of nervousness.

And I think Republicans right now are pretty concerned that the tax cut, while it was a positive, is not as much a positive in the election coming up as they had hoped, and that Trump, with this kind of back and forth behavior, may be a bigger burden than they had feared. The Nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget projects that the United States will run two trillion

dollar annual budget deficits by twenty seven. Oh yes, Oh, I mean, you know, we did a calculation here last year and we said in f y eight, four years earlier than the Congressional Office projected, we would have a trillion dollar deficit in f y eighteen. So I think it is eminently possible, especially if you consider we haven't had a recession or anything else, eminently possible that we'll run a two trillion dollar deficit within four or five years.

And this is let's be honest. In peacetime during expansion, since we've been keeping records, this is the first time we've had such dramatic increases in deficits. That keep that in mind. We're an expansion and we're not at war in any significant global war, and yet we're still running huge deficits. I want to bring you a new tweet from Senator Rand Paul, a notable fiscal conservative and contrarian.

He just tweeted out minutes ago. I agree the real Donald Trump should veto this sad excuse for legislation because it's one point three trillion dollars in spending that farthes is almost no one read, just real quickly. Do you agree with that? Yes, no one. Look, the chief clerk for the Appropriations Committee used to work for me. Hard working guys. I don't think even the staff has read all of pages. Yeah. Well, Steve Bell, thank you so

much for taking the time. It's wonderful to get your expertise and insight at a time of a lot of uncertainty, at least politically. Steve Bell of the Bipartisan Policy Center, he is a senior adviser there, but he has a storied history in Congress, and even on Wall Street at Salomon Brothers. He was the staff director of the Senate Budget Committee from one until nineties six. Thanks for listening

to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at Tom Keane before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio.