Tillerson Should Resign, Haass Says

Fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. He joins Tom in our Bloomberg ninety one one news room down in Washington, d C. And Tom a great interview. Uh. Stand Fisher is still a believer, still believes we're gonna have higher inflation. He really does. I mean, Jared walked

in the Durance. So what do you think? This is always and really this goes as Jared knows back to the history of stand Fisher through the seventies and eighties as someone always airing towards an normalization rates in a time of accommodation. And I'll be honest between the lines, and it's always that kind of interview with a fedeficial Uh, David, it was that kind of interview. We were ultra accommodative

and we're less ultra accommodative right now. Thank you to the many people listening with senting some worth these uh sending kind notes they were listening to, Really, David a time of transition, which means that Jared Bernstein is absolutely the perfect person to speak to. Now for those of you that don't know Jared Bernstein, as I've said for years, as a liberal, conservatives must listen to a force at the Economic Policy Institute for years is public service to

Vice President Biden. Yes he's a liberal economist. Oh my word, don't mention it on air. And now at the Center on Budget Administration, h Jared, how far is a divide between liberal and conservative economists? I would suggest it's not as wide as the media put. I mean, this is gonna sound a little annoying to people, but you know, Paul Krugman says, the facts have a liberal bias. Uh So,

I really do try to go by the numbers. So when I when I look at take the Federal Reserve, for example, when I look at inflation, I form a view. Their inflation obviously very quiescent. So the normalization campaign should move very very slowly in my view, when I look at tax policy, I look at I look at the numbers, and that's how how we make our call. I think too often in economics we have ideology trumping data, and

I just try to avoid that. Jack Berson, help us mark this moment that Tom mentioning the transition we're seeing at the Fed stand Fisher here with just days left in that role before he moves on to whatever's next. There's a lot of transition happening here. I mentioned the vacancies at the top of the show. How how transformative a moment is this. I think it's potentially quite transformative, and I actually think this is a somewhat difficult time

to be going through so many transitions. The Federal Reserve is involved in a very delicate ask right now. Obviously I'm talking about unwinding the very large balance sheet, but

also the kind of data driven normalization campaign. You know you've got essentially Janet Yellen at the wheel communicating I think very clearly to markets, giving I think extremely useful forward guidance, talking about the data, talking about the models, and at a time like this, to be replacing sciety of your starting team with with unknowns, I think it creates a potentially creates a level of uncertainty that is

potentially damaging. It's one of the reasons, by the way, that I've really been stressing the importance of Donald Trump reappointing Janet Yellen. Uh. That might sound like an outside the box idea, but as we all know, she still is a frontrunner. What do you make is as you watch a call it a parlor game. As you watch all of this play out, the reports of Kevin warsh head into the White House to meet with the President, tour J. Powell having a conversation with him and with

the Treasury Secretary as what are you looking for? How do you how do you you try to figure out how do you try to piece together what their perspective on monetary policy is? Well, look, I mean we parlor game is the right word, and and and we we do in Washington have this unfortunate tendency of kind of uh, you know, going through the entrails of anything having to

do with the Federal Reserve. I think the best advice when it comes to all of this is to ignore it all for the most part, because Donald Trump is completely unpredictable and you can't figure out what he's going to do based on a meeting he's had with someone else. The better idea is to kind of think through the substance what would make most sense, and for those of us with some sort of a public voice to to to put that forth. And that's what I've been trying

to do in this reappoint yelling campaign. There's so many themes to talk about, and with you and with your true expertise and fiscal dynamics, How urgent do you feel, Jared to get a score on a nine page tax reform proposal or is it just a media frenzy and we wait till sometime next year. You know it is urgent in the following sense. I mean we are uh you mentioned fiscal or fiscal constraints. We are a country that's simply based on our aging demographics alone, we're going

to need more revenues down the road, not less. So when I hear the Republicans putting forth a bill that threatens to lose at least two trillion over ten years based on pretty conventional score keeping based on the details we know so far, that strikes me as extremely problematic. So yes, we we definitely need to pay attention to

those numbers. I mean, within into the numbers, and I've seen one point five trillion and it goes out to two point four trillion is maybe the high point I've seen in different punditry explained to our audience what that number actually is. I mean, I guess it's a tenth

of our fiscal budget. But what does it mean to a pro like you, Well, I mean in terms of you really should scale those numbers by g d P and uh, you know, over a ten year period, we're talking about the percent maybe less than a percent of g d P. But what we're what we're what we're talking about from my perspective is the fact that the Congressional Budget Office tells us And on this point, I don't think there's really any argumentation at all that over

the next ten years we're going to need two and a half percent of GDP more revenue to meet our obligations VISA B, Social Security, medicare other some of these larger government programs of social insurance programs, if you will. So the idea that we can somehow meet our promises at the same time that we cut taxes uh that severely. It's just it's just not arithmetic, it's just it's just fantasy.

And then when you start talking about how how growth effects are going to make up the difference, you know, nobody who's not being paid to believe that believes it. Let me bring things full circle here. We're gonna come back with you for another block as well. But Tom asked you about the difference between liberal economics and conservative economics.

Let me ask you about the state of non partisan economic analysis in Washington, d C. We're all struck by this story about a paper being pulled from the Treasury Department website recently at tax analysis paper, the conclusions of which ran contrary to what the Treasury Secretary thinks about

tax reform. I'm struck by what's been said about the Tax Policy Centers analysis of this proposal that was released last week, Kevin Brady saying the analysis a work of fiction that Stephen King would have been proud of were in hatched, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee saying here that no respectable academic or researcher was willing to have their name associated with something so haphazardly cobbled together. I think Donald Marin, former head of the CBO might

take exception to that. What's the state of nonpartisan analysis? And washingtond see how imperiled is it? You know that that litany you just ran through. I gotta say, it's just downright depressing to me, because you've seen a tax on the Congressional Budget Office, on the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. By the way, I recently found out that the three top directors of the of the TPC, the Tax Policy Center,

all used to work for Republicans. And so these these are by the numbers folks, and they don't have a thumb on the scale. Now Washington is filled with partisan economics. You know, I think it was Manuchin the other day, said Treasury Sectary. Manuchin said, I can get lots of economists on TV to endorse my plan and to tell you that it will pay for itself. That's true, but that doesn't mean that the plan will pay for itself. That just means that they can cherry pick the opinions

they want. I was I was just very quickly here, Jared, and will come back. Wonderful to have you with us for this half already get started in Washington. I would just you and whole seeking or and maybe modestly different pages. But there's Douglas Holtekin the other day saying the vector on deficit to GDP is five six and he was the first one who said seven percent of GDP. Do you share the same concern that the vector that we're

seeing now could continue out to something newsworthy. Yeah, Doug and I share this view of Doug is in a he's a good example of an economist on the other side of the aisle who I I very much respect, and he's like myself and like, by the way, lots of economists on from from a more conservative perspective to whom I've discussed about this. We are all worried about the impact of this tax plan on deficits and debt.

And it just shows you that these alleged deficit hawks there chicken hawks when it comes to the real deal. This is what we love to do, Bloomberg surveillance folks. David Gern New York. I'm Tim Keen FM News bureau in Washington. To have the Vice Chairman of the Fed with us, and then to follow up with one of the great analysts of monetary and fiscal economics in Washington, Jared Bernstein, of the Center on Budget and Policy UH priorities as well. Thrilled to have them with us UH

this morning. We've talked a lot about monetary policy. Jared, let me ask you about the debate over tax reform. We've seen one page go to two pages, go to nine pages. We've seen the framework sent up to Capitol Hill senator or in hatch saying the Senate Finance committees

where this thing is going to be written. What are you gonna be watching for as you as you look for points of agreement and disagreement among the Republican ranks particularly, Actually, there's a very important thing to be watching for this very day. Republicans are suggesting now that they're going to give up on their repeal of the state and local tax deduction. That is, they were going to repeal UH this deduction in order to help pay for their for

their tax cut. Now they're either cutting that back or they're going to leave it in place. So the thing to watch for is will they now cut their ask in terms of the magnitude of the tax cut because they're cutting a pay for as they lose part of a pay for, the arithmetic would suggest they'd have to cut back what they're asking for in tax cuts. If they don't, it's a signal that they're really completely detached from any concerns about the deficit or dead implications of

this plan. Even if they do, those implications are already quite negative. The leaders you're watching here, I mentioned Senator Hatch, Chairman Kevin Brady, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, obviously working on this issue very minute in details as well. Are you looking to them? Are you looking to to House Speaker Paul Ryan? Are you even casting your eyes the Little West looking at the White

House as well? I'm not so much looking at the White House because they're kind of distracted with a bunch of other things, And I'm not so much looking at the quote Big six, the architects of the plan. What I'm looking at is the Republican Caucus. Remember it with the Republican Caucus that brought down their attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. And it's not a slam dunk that they're going to have their be able to muster

their troops behind them on the tax cut either. So that's where I think you want to look if you're trying to figure out where this is going, I mean, within all of this. And I guess I'm touching back to the sixties because I've been watching the ken Burns, the Vietnam War, the effort, which folks, is spectacular. If you like tri X film from Eastman Codec, you'll love the black and white photos are just breathtaking what they've done in the restoration of another time and place. The

arch fear of your world. Jared Bernstein is, Oh, no, we're gonna have the Walter Hellers sixties runaway inflation. Remember that phrase whip inflation. Now we're miles from that, aren't we. Yeah, We're miles from the arch Republican fear, aren't we? Yeah? I think we are. And Uh, it's interesting gets back to our where we started our discussion. I think you have have to be very careful if you're administering monetary

policy to not be fighting really old wars. Uh and and and Actually Cherry Yellen was quite articulate about this in a speech he gave last week to the to the Nave, which people said it was an important speech. I found it to be very important because she really was scratching her head about the underlying model. And I think saying quite clearly, we really have to think the

fundamental forces driving inflation. So to the extent that you're pulling monetary policy based on memories of runaway sixties and seventies, I would recommend that you you do a pretty serious rethink on that. I wanna untilt here in the final minute that we've got with you two democratic eco politics. You did public service with Vice President Biden. Some say

that Joe will take another run at it. Do we need to see democratic economic theory move from a progressive East coast, left coast mentality to something more Scoop Jackson, something more mainstream, something more Joe Biden. Do you see any evidence of that? I do in the following sense, I think that you know, Joe Biden in particular had a way of connecting with a lot of a set of voters who turned out to be decisive in in

the last election. Sent kind of center left folks from both the Democrats and the Republican Party had ignored those concerns, particularly around globalization, for really decades on end, so putting policy aside because I think it's a different discussion. You definitely someone who can connect with with with blue collar voters. Did you see any evidence of that? Uh? And by in terms of I mean it's too early, I mean to me, it's too early, right kind of wait for

the mid terms. Yeah, And I think I think we have to wait wait for the I think the policy question is actually very interesting as well, which is that you know, should Democrats attack to the center, should they attack to the left? And I tend to think that, Uh, there are a lot of folks asking Democrats, really, what have you got to answer for the fact that even as we close in on full employment, there are a lot of folks are being left behind. And that's a

really tough question. I got about fourteen more questions. We will do it again with Jared Bernstein in the Center on budget and policy priorities as well. Let me do a day to check a little weight to the tape after this day, that day, in the next day of record highs, reminding where the TAO is twenty two thousand, sixty one spur and the vix stunning nine point six nine. Sherman Greenspan would call that a quite essence. VIX from New York, from Washington, stay with us. This is Bloomberg.

Steve Rattner with us here in our Bloomberg LEMN three studios in New York. He's the chairman of Willed ADVISORIESET, managing Michael Bloomberg's personal and philanthropic assets. Michael Bloomer, of course, the majority owner of the eponymous Brig LP, which owns Bloomberg Grady, among other properties. That Steve great to have you with us here. We've been talking a little bit about a tax reform in the budget throughout the morning. Give us your perspective on what we've gotten so far.

It's safe to say there's more detail. I suppose it's all relative here. We've got nine pages plenty of unanswered questions. Lawmakers are now charged with writing this thing, translating that into hundreds, if not more than a thousand pages of legislation. What are you watching? What are you most keenly interested

in seeing how things are getting hammered down? I think the most interesting recent development, which I believe I heard on Bloomberg Radio this morning, is the question about the state and local tax deduction, Because that is UH that was going to create a pay for of one point eight or one point nine trillion dollars, essentially funding a very large portion of the corporate tax cuts. There has been enormous pushback. The politics are ugly. There's uh anywhere

from forty to fifty. I have heard different numbers Republicans in high tax states who are going to have trouble voting for this, starting with people like Peter King on Long Island. And if they lose that or have to carve it back substantially, Uh, it really calls into serious question what is already a difficult problem of the deficit aspects of this plan. You know, we had to we had this conversation about healthcare that it was so closely

tied the reconciliation process. We're seeing that used here again. What are the consequences of that? And and and does this the hope for tax reform have longevity if if that process can't be used, if if we can't stick to this very short timetable that's been laid out by Republicans on the whole, Well, I think the short time table and reconciliation are slightly disconnected. Reconciliation requires it to

be done within the budget. Year doesn't. But the Republicans wanted done this year because the politics are such that next year will be very very difficult. The only way this will happen is through reconciliation. I don't you can see how difficult it has been the for the Republicans to put together fifty votes for any of the various healthcare proposals. Imagine trying to put together sixty votes across party lines for any tax care attacks that cut proposal.

It's just not going to happen. So what the Republicans have to do is try to get fifty people in their party to agree on this thing. And it's going to be tough. And just one last point is, of course, within reconciliation, it has to be it has to be budget neutral. After the ten uere window or else those tax cuts expired. And I think this general agreement that it's one thing to monkey around with individuals and say

your tax cuts are gonna expire. If you do that with business, you're probably losing a large part of the benefit you're getting by cutting the taxes in the first place. Steve, whatever anybody's politics, a lot of people taking in and rethinking or the new thinking of Ken Burns, the Vietnam War, and within that is in concept of month after month after month in the White House around that table the best and brightest. You are as qualified as anyone in

this nation to talk about the best and brightest. They were so frustrated that they bring you in his bizar. I don't know if the czar is the best and the brightest, But are we just moved on from actual merit and skill sets? Is being an item of importance an economics stand fisher, or if we have we given up on the concept of best and brightest? Well, obviously I have. I have a bit of a bias about this. I think the current president has appointed many people who

no one would regard among the best and brightest. He's appointed some who people would regard, whether it's Jim Mattison or hr McMaster or John Kelly, who people would regard as among the best and the brightest. I think, I think again, I'm perhaps biased. I think President Obama did have a team, uh an all star team for the most part of people advising and helping him. So, okay, I hope we go back to the best of the brightest. I hope we hope we just fill these empty jobs

because we need people. We need good people down there. But the problem, of course, at the moment is Again, this may sound like a political Statement's not meant that way. Nobody is going willing to go to work in the Trump administration right this minute. The Ratner charm is that you follow up pundentry with actual hard nails work. You know, real reports that you put together call from other sources is of great acuity. What is the Ratner acuity on

tax reform? What is the distinction you've come up with, or I should say, what you're going to look forward to into two eight. One of the things that has struck me about this a tax bill, which I don't think the White House has really disputed, is that in fact, and we don't have all the details, but based on what we know, it's something like a three hundred billion dollar tax increase for individuals as a whole and something like a two and a half billion dollar tax cut

for companies as a whole. A lot of that through the pass throughs, which BA which, contrary to what the White House says, essentially benefits high income tax payers. And I understand and agree with the importance of cutting the corporate tax rate and reforming the torque corporate tax code, but there's an element of fairness in this that seems to be missing, and I think that's what you're going to see a lot of pushback on from both parties. From a fiscal perspective, how do you fix the problem

like get Puerto Rico. We're seeing this in acute focus now, President saying yesterday that the island's debt needs to be wiped out. Uh, that doesn't seem feasible to me. But it's safe to say that what we've seen happen here with this hurricane two weeks ago, has heightened the problems this island has already been facing for some time now. From from an investing perspective, what's the way out here for this this this part of the United States. Well,

it's a restructuring problem. And I don't I the President, you know, not not uncharacteristically, it's just sort of waving his hand and saying stuff that frankly doesn't make a lot of sense. As you know, we just went through a very painful restructure in Puerto Rico. UM reduced the debt somewhat, it's still a lot of debt, I don't think frankly, however horrible this hurricane has been. The Puerto Ricans are entitled to simply have their debt wiped out.

This is this this is a moral hazard issue at a credit and a credit market issue. I think the Puerto Ricans deserved a massive amount of federal aid, just as Louisiana and New Jersey and lots of Florida and Texas have gotten when they've had hurricanes, and then I think we need to really take another look at economic development there. But the Puerto Ricans unfortunately will and should be left with a substantial amount of debt because they

accumulated it. You know, there's been a lot of talking here about the president's legislative agenda, what he's prioritizing safety, say that's changed week by week by week, and now that these events that have introceded as well, to what degree is that the White House is responsibility to shepherd through the tax reform process that you've worked within an administration, how essentially is a leadership role from the executive branch when it's something that's in the provenance of of of

the legislative branch to figure out there's a pendulum in this whole thing. There are there are times when an administration will just go to Congress and say we want to do healthcare, you figure it out. Uh. There are times when and then people say, well, the White House isn't doing its job. It's not actually putting together a plant. There are times when the White House puts together a highly detailed plan, sends it to Congress, and immediately Congress

has it's dead on arrival. So it's a it's a very complicated dance between the two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. But yes, absolutely the White House bears a major responsibility to herd. The cats go through the process and try to bring people together. I just I can see it now, Steve Rattner his next position czar of Cats, something like that. Steve Rattner, thank you so much. As always greatly appreciated Tom informed perspective here from many sources in his own opinion.

Occasionally as well, Mr Ratner will advisers, Oh, look there's cats out the window here in Washington. I can see them. Now. Should we do a day to Trump Hotel Thomas, you're so fond of doing on this trip. Now, you've been nursing this call. I did not. I've been nursing the plague. Um, I did not make it. It's actually a bit of a ways away. It's like blocks more than blocks. The tower visible from all corners of the city, though lost time, but anyway, you have to be like a donor to

go up the town. I get to the data. Sorry, but this is without question the interview of the Morning. And some of you may be stunned at that, after the Vladimir Putin comments at Moscow, and of course my conversation with the vice chairman of the Fellow Reserve, Stanley Fisher.

But indeed this is the interview of the Morning. It is extraordinary that the leader, and someone who has done so much in the last ten years for the Consul on Foreign Relations, Richard Hass, has simply come out and reaffirmed what we saw a few days ago, which is the Secretary State of the United States of America should resign. Ambassador Hass joins us. Now his book is, of course A World and Disarray. Richard, this is a thunderous moment when someone of the establishment, and of course your bi

party establishment says the Secretary State must go. Please discuss well, I want the Secretary of State Tom to be successful.

I wanted to be effective, and I just don't think it is possible under the circumstances, and part it's because of this president and how he's organized this administration, his own conduct with the tweeting, his public disparagement of the Secretary of State like we saw the other day, the lack of resources and staff that he's given to the Secretary of State, the special role for Jared Pushner at the White House. All this makes any Secretary of States

job extraordinarily difficult. But this Secretary of State, I think has made it, made it even tougher on himself by not pressing for resources, by not pressing for staff. Now he has his own criticism of the President that that's come out, and I just don't see how this how this can work again. I want this. This is not an ad hominum attack on rex Hillis and Ivan's uh. It's simply my own take is that he cannot succeed in this job. I also think that this show has

listened to by a lot of business people. I think it's also a lesson that what works in a corporate environment doesn't necessarily translate or transfer when it's moved into a political environment. We saw it with Paul O'Neil, a Treasury who did not succeed and I think we're seeing it with Rex Stillerson its State, David jump vide your place. Yeah, I wanted to ask you just about him, what you would have liked to see in terms of reaction. I was putting stuff together as we saw the tweets about

North Korea and Secretary Taylorson. I looked at the secretary schedule. He would have been in air at that point. He spent twelve hours in Beijing meeting with officials there, including the country's president. How would you like to have seen him respond? And and and was there a moment for him to speak out against what he was reading on Twitter? Well, when the president did those tweets, if I had been

in his shoes, that's when I would have left. I would have said, you're pulling the rug out from under me. Diplomacy is an essential national security tool. The Secretary of State is the country's chief diplomat. My success is your success, Mr President, and you need to empower me, not undermine me.

So either I would have resigned or I would have had a showdown, though I expect given the last eight months, there would have been any number of previous show donce I interviewed the former Treasury Secretary last week, and in doing research for that, noted that he was the Deputy Secretary of State from Management and Resources for a time, and we were going to talk about staffing at the Treasury. But I noticed that that position at the State Department

right now is is unfilled. The gentleman filling that role, John Sullivan, has been elevated to deputy secretary overall. Uh. And the sense that I got from talking to Nick Wadhams, who covers the State Department force, is there's no effort underway to fill that position. This is like the CEO of the State Department is as I understand it, given what's happened here, what's been filled and what hasn't uh, how bad shape is the State Department in right now?

In other words, if if Secretary Taylorson were to leave, what would his successor inherit? What if successor would inherit as a state department? That's the terrible morale senior Foreign Service officers taking early retirement. Virtually all the regional and functional assistant secretary jobs are are empty. The more senior under secretary jobs are empty. Most of our embassies are

not being headed by ambassadors. So what his successors should do, if and when that comes about, is make dealing with all this a condition of taking the job. And again the argument should be, Mr President, in order to succeed, I need this, and my success is your success. He was just joining us Bloomberg Saveillas from Washington from New

York today in a conversation with Richard Hass. He's President the Council on Foreign Relations, author of wonderfully Concise and must read a world in disarray, And he has said in a statement on Twitter, a statement I should say, I don't know if it was a hundred characters, remember something to the effect the Secretary of State now must resign.

I've been watching Ken Burns, the Vietnam War, Ambassador Hass, and you look at the best and brightest around the table, and I think a name that so many of our listeners don't know, Dean Rusk, was everything opposite of what we're dealing with now in Washington. If we move on, are there other Dean Rusts out There's people that are steeped in qualifications to finally take a given position. Again, it's it's it takes to both sides of the relationship.

Tom This president has to be prepared. Uh here, what he needs is to diplomatic equivalent, say of what Secretary Maddis is doing at the Pentagon. He needs somebody a real stature. But then he needs to give him, He needs to give him authority. He hasn't been willing to do it on the diplomatic side, and that would mean raining in his own tweets. I think raining in the role of Jared Kushner. Again, this is not an ad

hominum attack. It's simply you can't have multiple secretaries of a state, and he has to stand behind the Secretary of State in the way to say that George Herbert Walker Bush did with with Jim Baker. But there's people out there, there's people for foreign policy experience who could could could do the job, but only if the president allows them to do the job. As you've observed all of this, I wonder if you could help us understand

the difference here. But Queen, how effectively I don't think arguably Jim Madis has run the Pentagon versus how Rex Tillerson has run the State Department. It seems like he has been immune from a lot of the scrutiny and criticism that Rex Tillerson has been has he been able to work with what seems like a lot of autonomy even with his criticism out this morning of the president stands on the irandeal, He's able to say things that are influential and not meet the might of the president

in doing that. What's he done that Rex Tillerson hasn't Well? First of all, he began with an advantage which he had real standing in the foreign policy national security world given his military background. He also had much more experience in the in the ways of policy making. Rex Tillerson

was knowledgeable or is knowledgeable about the world. That's not to say it's not the same thing as being knowledgeable, but how palace policy has made in Washington, d C. Then Jim Madis at the Pentagon got a large amount of resources Secretary Tillers Tison is not and didn't didn't asker them. Maddis began with all the military in place, so you had a large bureaucracy. Plus he's dealt rather regularly with the Washington establishment in the press. He hasn't

isolated himself in the same way. So virtually every step of the way he's going about performing his job differently. But we don't how those two gentlemen get along the way in which they're working together on foreign policy, if at all. But I think to be getting along. I think that, you know, Secretary Tillerson along with Secretary Manus and others, seem to have a decent working relationship. But it doesn't matter if the national security process doesn't work well.

You can't have a situation, for example, where we're dealing with North Korea and the United States is threatening a trade war with South Korea or or or charging the South Korean president with appeasement. You need a much more discipline national security process. I need the president to put away his his Twitter account. You just can't have that. Is General McMaster part of this equation or has he been pushed to the side I heard so little about

him recently. Well, he's part of the equation. He's a good man. But again he's in a near impossible or to be more general, extremely difficult job given in the whole the essential quality of a national security process is discipline, and it's very hard to run a disciplined operation in this administration. Richard hass thank you so much on short notice, this warning, Ambassador House, of course, the author of a world in disarray, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations. David,

you have the ambassador's tweet in front of you. I can pull it up to here very quickly. But certainly something that he has put into more forceful for him here. He was something that he tweeted a little bit earlier in the week, but he's saying here. Rex Taylorson has been dealt a bad hand by the President of the United States and has played it badly. For both reasons, he cannot be effective Secretary of State and should resign.

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 Keene. David Gura is at David Gura. Before the podcast, you can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio.