Trump Should Apologize for Charlottesville Comments, Former GM CEO Says

Tom Keene is off this week, and I love this story that fran and Scarlett food Wolf last week that I heard about second hand. Tom and I were taking time off to climb Mount Everest, I gather well with the summit insight. One of us had to turn back to host the show, and here I am. Our first guest is Nathan Sheets. He joins us in our Bloomberg eleven three studios. He's the chief economist at pe JIM Fixed Income. Of course, former Under Secretary of the Trade

for International Affairs. Join me and Francy on TV now here on radio as well. Great to have you with us, Nathan, and let me start by looking forward to the meetings in Jackson Hole. A little bit later this week, we talked about this someone on television, What are you listening for? What? What? What normally transpires at Jackson Hole? As much as you can say what normally transpires it at this annual event,

what are you gonna be listening for? So, I think the UH the key in these meetings is what we hear about the inflation process. UH. Central banks are very focused on why, on the one hand, the global economy is performing well, but on the other hand, why inflation is as low as it is. And I think that there will be a lot of a lot of reflections and thinking about whether the inflation process has changed in some significant way, for example, as a result of shifting

demographics or deep change UH in the economy. We heard her make the case UH now a few months back that the inflationary headwines we're seeing her transitory UH. She has since walked that back a little bit. But how much of the conversation do you think it's going to center on that the temporariness of what we're seeing. So, I would say, particularly in the United States, that is

a key question. There are some temporary factors that have influenced UH, consumer prices of late UH medical costs of influenced the CPI, UH cell phone plans, and so forth. But it does feel more and more like that's only

part of the story. And the fact that this soft inflation performance is is echoed and many other of the advanced economies UH in recent months suggests that maybe there's something deeper, deeper at play, what Nathan, And if it is something deeper, do we need to try and fix that at the root of the cause, or do we just need to look at a different set of numbers. So I think for UH, for central banks, the question of what is driving this is a very deep one UH.

I think part of it may have to do with UH the fact that inflation has been very low for a long time. At Once inflation expectations are anchored, it becomes very difficult to to raise them. I think that the experience in Japan UH in in in recent years very much highlights highlights that challenge UH. So this is this is a very tough set of issues. Is it just temporary UH? Is there something deeper at play? And ultimately the issue of what what drives inflation expectations for consumer?

Nathan were you surprised? So the both the European Central Bank and the Fed kept on saying that actually, inflation will be fine in a couple of quarters once you know the market, the labor market start stabilizing and that will feed into wage growth. And they've kind of had to reassess that and go with what the market was expecting. Does that mean they lose credibility? So? Uh, The baseline macroeconomic models UH focus on the relationship between slack in

the labor market, the unemployment rate UH, and inflation. And I really think that even in this very tough situation and circumstances that central banks are in, that that relationship is the best that the central banks have to go on. But as you suggest, their confidence in that model is is uh not as great as as it has been

in the past. And so I think they're having to, uh, in some sense drive by looking through the rear view mirror and look at where the economy has been and where it is and where it has been and is is a place where inflation remains very very low. Maybe we had this ECB form a few weeks back in Portugal and and there was news there about a new

effort of coordination among central banks. Do you expect that conversation to to continue that that form ended up making a lot more news, I think than a lot of people expected, in part because there was some marketing misinterpretation of what Mario Dragging and others had to had to say. Did you expect there to be continuity between that conference in this one? So I would say the issue of central bank cooperation is one that is sometimes I think misunderstood.

The FED, UH, the CB, the Bank of England primarily have domestic man dates for price stability and for the FED in addition UH full employment, So when they're talking about cooperation, it is primarily an exercise in information sharing, in relationship building, and only in very rare instances is that the formal coordination of policy. Now, of course we're in a global economy and central banks have to pay attention to what other central banks are doing because there

are meaningful there are meaningful spillover effects. But I wouldn't expect there to be much talk in Jackson Hole of a formal coordination, but a lot of of of times bank comparing notes and better understanding what other central banks are thinking and how they're assessing the developments in their economy. We're at this point in the conversation about central banking where you pull up a speech and you do control left and you try to find all the instances of

the word taper or or derivations thereof. Is Marito drag under pressure to to say more about the tapering process at this point. I think that that Mario Draggy will be moving in a very uh, deliberate way on his communications strategy. And I think these reports we've heard of the last week or so that he's likely to focus on international economic issues and less on tapering and the trajectory of monetary policy in the year area are are credible.

So I think it will be a very interesting presentation, but may be somewhat more of an academic intellectual exercise than a blueprint for where the ECB will be headed. Where's what should the ECB worry about their Italian elections? Unclear which way they would go if they were to be held now, and they have to be held before March of next year. Yeah, there are significant political risks uh for the CB to be factoring in, and I

think that very much forms a backdrop for them. I would say an imminent concern for them is as they start thinking about reducing the size of their purchases, what does that mean for bond markets in Europe? And particularly does tapering pose any risks for bond markets in Italy and Portugal where UH the ECB has been a significant a significant borrower. I think there is an underlying story

in these countries of recovery and stronger economic performance. But even so, having the e c B reduced the purchases and ultimately exit could have implications for demanding yields in those economies. Nathan in twenty seconds, should they worry about

the level of the euros and getting too high? The e c B UH watches the euro close a UH, and levels UH such as what we have today in the past have drawn comment from the e c B. On the other hand, the euroeconomy is performing very well and a stronger European economy is able to absorb a stronger currency and UH and continue to grow at an acceptable pace. So there's a balance there, but the e c B will be paying attention to it closely, all right, Nathan,

Thank you so much. Nathan Sheets there PGIM Chief Economists stays with us at your region bunds today gaining with treasuries while the dollar is steady after the drop we saw on Friday. Of course, it's all about to the central bankers meeting at Jackson Hole. As Nathan was saying, it's about growing and knees about persistent low inflation that we'll be watching out for and what they can do

about it. This is Bloomberg here with Nathan Sheets of p Jim formerly the Treasury Department or Bloomberg eleven three oh studios, having a conversation about monetary policy. Maybe we'll

talk a little about fiscal policy as well. Help us understand the degree to which personnel matters that at this point, Nathan, there's a new survey of economists sound indicating that a lot of them, the majority of them, think that Gary Cone is going to be the next uh FED share you look at what this president, this administration is going to be able to do with regard to appointments, and uh he the president could radically change the configuration of

the FED. What's your sense of how that's going to change policy going forward? So on the one hand, by sense is that, uh, personnelity is crucially important and who is who is leading the Federal Reserve is is very significant, and issues about their background and how they view the world and how how flexible they may be in implementing monetary policy versus how rules based they may be could have a very different implications for where US um monetary

policy is headed. But it's also the case that there is a fair amount of of inertia inside of the Federal Reserve, and part of that reflects the fact that you have reserve bank presidents who have long tenures and they have significant impact on the trajectory of policy, and the Federal Reserve staff is is very influential in framing

the policy decisions. So I do expect that the changes in personnel that are likely over the next year or two at the FED are likely to change the tone of of FED communication and to some extent, the trajectory of policy, but it won't be an abrupt shift or an abrupt discontinuity in in FED policy. With some regularity, we hear the clarion call from the Treasury Department about the dead ceiling, raising the dead ceiling. We're hearing it

again from from this new Treasury Secretary. Steve Lution would like to see that done cleanly, he'd like to see it done on time. He's already begun to use so called extraordinary measures to make sure the government can continue to pay the bills that that come. How much has this conversation changed. How worried are you about the government raising the debt ceiling here on the heels of an

August congressional recess. As a as a macro economist, they would say, one of the very important third rails UH for US policy is taking steps to continue to foster confidence in the US government and our ability to make good on our obligations. As a as an economist, I see UH significant downside and essentially no upside to pushing the issue of of of of funding the government and the debt ceiling to the very to the very brink. It's uh, it's UH. It's important that we get this

issue resolved, and we get it resolved constructively. Now that's said, I do worry that the political dynamics afoot are likely to make this UH more challenging rather than less challenging. UH. With in the past, the Democrats owned the government, the Republicans were the challengers in the opposition, but it's not

clear who owns UH. Continuing the government's operations in the current in the current configuration, and I think that creates uh some potential UH stresses and challenges and getting this issue resolved over the next several weeks. Nathan, whose job is it to to make it workable? I don't know.

Is it the president's? Is it the chiefest off? I think ultimately, UH, it is responsibility of the President of the United States, along with the Speaker of the House and the majority leader in the Senate, to engineer an approach that UH manages a solution to this problem. UH. That they are the leadership, they are the political leadership, and this is a political problem, and it's one that there's no really there's no option other than to find

a solution. Right, But how does he do that? How much political capital has he lost so far with Republicans? And how does he regain the trust? I think that that the congressional Republicans. Uh, there is within the Republican caucuses in the Senate, in the House, there are a lot of centrifugal forces, UH, a lot of differing views and UH, it's it's it's going to be a challenge, UH.

And it's not clear how we get from where we are today, uh to a place where uh the leadership that I described, the President, the Speaker, and the Majority leader are able to leverage the Republican caucus and uh for for for Dad's ceiling, they also need some Democratic votes. That's going to require sixty votes in the Senate. Nathan Sheets for generous with your time this morning doing TV and radio with us. This is Bloomberg Surveillance on bloom Burgrinder.

Nathan Sheets of p Jim joining us on our Bloomberg eleven three oh studios in New York. More to come. This is Bloomberg David Gurreat and Francine Lappa Francine in London. Tom Keane off this week. This is Bloombick Surveillance. Continuing our conversation about Washington now with Brad Blakman. He was

member of President George W. Bush's senior staff. He joins us now from our bureau Oor Bloomberg ninty nine one Studios in Washington, d C. Great to have you with this, Mr Blackman, and let me begin just by asking you about the role of the chief of staff in the White House. So much of of our attention has been on John Kelly and the degree to which he's changed the way things are run at the White House over these last couple of weeks in a vacuum. What what's

the role of of a chief of staff? Well, the chief of staff is the gatekeeper to the president. He controls the president schedule and access and direction. Um. That is really the coin of the realm of a president is his time is a finite amount of time the president has. It has to be spent well, and there has to be a direction in in where the administration

is going in legislation and policy and regulation. So that is the role of the of the manager, if you will, is a chief of staff who's able to manage the staff but also manage the care and feeding of the president as well as his official duties as president. And how much of his or her responsibilities include dealing with with the Congress. I know a lot has been made here.

The fact that you look at John Kelly and and in his tremendous amount of military service, I gotta some of that we spent as a liaison tip to capital. How important is that relationship between the chief of staff and the legislative branch. It's important, but it's it's not a day to day UH concern. That's why an effective team has to be built around an effective manager or

chief of staff. He needs now a good political person, a good legislative person to work the day to day UH issues of the hill, a communications person, and policy. That team of management, policy, communications, legislation, and political is really the benchmark of where this president is going to go because he needs a good team to rely on in order to carry out his instructions. Mr Blakeman, how

would you advise the president today after the week he's had. Well, he has a great opportunity tomorrow in Phoenix, He's going to be giving a rally, and I think he needs to set the tone now as president to unite the country, um, from every part of the country, every person in the country, whether you're a publican Democrat, whoever you are, wherever you are, we're all Americans, and the problems that face us are not um are not just problems of one person or

one group. UH. Here. We have to get the economy moving. We need trade, we need infrastructure, we need healthcare. The big ticket items that the President promised must be kept now. And it wasn't only promises the President made. These were promises the Republicans. Everyone who stood for office in two thousands sixteen made the promises to make America great again. Well, that comes with policy, and right now, Uh, there's a legislative agenda coming up in the fall that must be

dealt with. They must be dealt with affirmatively. And uh, failure is not an option. Right, But how would you advise Republicans that maybe took offense or absolutely did not agree on how the President handled Charlottesville. Well, you know, the president again has an opportunity in Phoenix to set set a tone. The president's written statements on Charlottesville. We're line. It's when he went off script and Tuesday and uh,

and and damage those written statements that were that we're fine. Um. And but Republicans have to understand we have global issues, we have national issues, heavy issues that need to be solved, and we only have one president. He's our president for at least four eight years, and and we have to

make sure that he's successful. Brown, I'm looking at a copy of The New York Times, a piece in thereby Jeremy Peters and Maggie Haberman looking at the role of Steve Bannon in this administration before he left, and the way things will change now, And a line sticks out to me the right. Bannon's exit will clarify that only one person, Mr Trump, for better or worse, has always been his own chief strategist. What's your sense of the

intractability of this president? We were talking about John Kelly at the degree which he's begun to change the way the White House is running now that you've observed this president in this role for more than than seven months, Now, is he somebody who's who's a way of doing the job can be changed? Do you think sure? Because I

think he's success driven. And uh, right now, if I were the chief of staff, I'd laid before the president the promises that he made in the campaign and and and then set forth the legislative agenda to provide for deals to be closed. The president now has to work Congress. And the success of this president will be his ability to keep his promises on the big ticket items like infrastructure and taxes and and and budget and military. The things that he promised the American people they're going to

remember when they go to the polls. And by the way, two thousand eighteen, we have every member of the House up for reelection as well as one third of the Senate, and if Republicans want to hold that majority, then they have to have a record to run on. You've you've done work as a communications consultant. I wonder what you you make of what we've seen with your card to

the President tweeting the president not sticking to script. I think a lot of his Republican supporters in particular, would like nothing more, uh for him to be talking about taxi for him now, if not exclusively than that, than almost So how do you get somebody to to to stay on topic? How do you get the president to focus on on these issues that would make him you say,

he's success driven, maybe lead to some some legislative successes. Well, I would tell the president, sir, you can be spontaneous, and you can be reactionary to to news it as it happens, but there's got to be a method to the madness. And uh, there has to be a communications strategy that's honored by the staff but also honored by the president and um and I think there's gotta be more deliberative tweeting. There's gotta be more targeted tweeting the

president certainly understands the targeting of messaging. He's done it his entire life. Now it needs to be a little bit more honed and and uh and thought out. And I think General Kelly needs to hire somebody sooner rather than later a good communications strong communications Personally. I think the president respects and and willum and and we'll uh adhere to And you see a president that is willing

to listen. What we we've heard many times and over and over is that you have people that advise him, but then he goes at it his own way. Well, I think a lot of the problems this White House has is simple to me, and that is the people who get you to the White House and the campaign are not necessarily the people you need when you get there. And I think once you peel away the campaign staff and start hiring professional people who know Washington, know how

it works, insiders are not necessarily swamp creatures. Um. They can they can help you navigate this town and get you the success that you need in order to rack up uh. The achievements at that are the basis of the promises you made in the campaign. So I think discipline is key to an effective White House. But more importantly than that is teamwork. Mr Blakeman, who will define conservatism in the US. Is it bandoned or is it

the Murdock's No. I think conservatism is going to be uh displayed by the parties and the leaders within the parties. It's not the outside people who were the influencers who determined conservatism. It's the people who are actually on the front lines who are putting their votes down. It's the president who's signing bills. Those are the things that directly affect the American people and that will determine the conservative movement in America. Uh. Do you recognize that the Republican Party,

the views the Republican Party espoused by this president. You're somebody who has said worked for President George W. Bush. How much has the party changed since then? Well, we're not keeping to the platform and uh every four years, parties Uh deliberate, they fight, they can jole, Uh, they trade, they bargain, they compromise on the platform. My suggestion is get back to basics, get back to the platform that was hashed out at the convention. This is what we

stand for. Honor the promises that were made, and you'll be wildly successful. The American people expect healthcare, they expect tax reform, they expect infrastructure, debt reduction, a strong military. These are the These are the things that you should be focused like a laser beam this fall on. UH. Tax reform must come. We have to have major accomplishments so that we can run in two thousand eighteen and

retain our majorities in the House and the Senate. All right, Prab Blakeman, thank you very much for the time this morning. Brad Blakeman joining us for our ninty on one studios in Washington, d C. He was an adviser to President George W. Bush. Johnny is now on our phone lines days. Grover Nork which the President Americans for tax from always great to speak with him to hear his thoughts on the debate over tax reform in Washington and DC. Grow

were great to speak with you. Let me start by asking you how much the the the agenda has changed from a policy perspective now that Steve Bannon is out of the White House. I think last we spoke, I asked you about a plan that Mr Bannon had floated here to apply a new tax on Americans making more than five million dollars a year. So he was wrestling his way into the conversation over a tax from what changes for you now that he's out of the White House. Nothing.

He was not a participant in the debate on tax reform. The one idea that it's reported that he put forward, although it seemed to sort of be a dead cat bounce that he didn't even seem to repeat it. He wanted to have a higher marginal tax rate on the highest income Americans and by the way, most small businesses, because he thought that was populist. It was one of the stupid or dumbest, most destructive ideas ever put forward. And I'm pleased to see it got zero support. I

don't think that's why he got fired. UH. But his stepping aside to do other things has may have an effect on immigration policy, it has zero effect on tax policy. There is complete unanimity. This is this is what gets lost in all the jangle. And because of the conflict on healthcare, the House, the Senate, and the White House, the big sick the top two ties from each Minuchan from Treasury, Cone from UH, the economic advisors, as well as a speaker, and the majority leader and their tax guys.

All six are meeting talking daily, Their staffs are talking repeatedly every day. They've been doing so for more than a month. But now CBO and Joint Tax are free to score bills dealing with tax reform instead of being caught up with efforts to score what's going on on healthcare?

Chairman Brady telling me telling me as much about a week ago when I interviewed ahead of the speech that he gave it the Reagan Ranch, I believe last week give me a sense that grovery if you could have what you're going to be looking for when you're going to be looking for a plan from the White House. Here, we're waiting that we're waiting a comprehensive plan here from the Big Six as you call them. Yeah, the White House will announce a plan that has House and Senate

UH support. So that I was not gonna have a plan, or we're gonna have three plans or two plans or one and a half plans. You have one plan by September twenty eight that will go to the House Ways and Means Committee, who will be thoroughly aware of it. They may have some ideas or amendments they want, but they will be fully understanding exactly what it is and largely in support. Look, everybody agrees the corporate rate is going towards fifteen, the small business rate, the sub Chapter

S rate is going towards fifteen. Everybody agrees. But actually, don't we need someone to lay it out? Yeah? No, no, no, that's what's gonna take till September twenty eight. And I under saying, if everyone agrees on where you're going, the only question is how quickly you can get there. Whether some of these tax cuts are temporary and others are permanent. But the idea of the border justability of the corporate income tax was divisive. The senators from Walmart didn't like it, uh,

and so it probably wasn't going anywhere. They took that off the table and Paul Ryan's World Agreement not eight. Now answer me this, do you think last week was a setback for the president? And if it was in the wake of Charlottesville, does it mean that he will be in a hurry to push tax reform through? Um? That's that hadn't thought of it that way. I thought there were two big things this administration the House and said it one's due before election. One was healthcare. It

was tax reform. Healthcare has been put off. Even if they come back and visit it, it will be a skinny bolle, not a uh significant reform. Uh So to get the economy strength, and you have two tools now. One is all the de regulation that's happening, and that's big, and the FCC changes in the TC changes and the FDA changes and FIRK and all of a sudden, that's all big, big, big, and fifty years from now we'll go wow, that was that was a big part of this.

But none of those make headlines. The press and and voters will focus on the tax reform and whether job creation and of creation followed. We need strong economic growth in the first two quarters of next year. This is what the White House understands, the House and the Senate

leadership understands. And if you're running for reelection and all the Congress and our heart of the Senators are, you want robust growth starting in the third quarter of this year if you can by making sure everyone understands that the pro growth parts of tax reform will take effect from September from the date that they dropped the bill, not from the date that it passes. Nobody should hold up an investment or to lay a decision based on tax policy. They should know that the new rules would

be the old rules. Uh. But you need to have strong growth in the first two quarters of next year so that everybody gets that the economy is stronger. Understand it's because of tax reform and to a certain extent, other challenges. The president has fade into the background if he has delivered the growth that he said was his top priority. So to that extent, it is increasingly important.

I would argue was made more important by delaying healthcare reformas it strikes me that there is a fire underneath a lot of Republican congressman to get something done, and I want to using that, I ask you about the state of the pledge something you're you're famous for getting congressman to sign a pledge to that they won't raise taxes.

Are you at all worried that the pressure to do something, particularly after what happened with healthcare, might lead some of them, might leave perhaps a majority of them to to opt to raise taxes. Absolutely not. The tax reform that we're talking about is a multi trillion dollar tax reduction. It does that one by taking a dynamic view of the economy, joint taxes, dynamic scoring dynamically, So this would be a net tax cut period that in no way comes close

to violating the pledge. The pledge would be if you shot down with the Democrats and past the net tax increase. That isn't going to happen, largely because ninety plus percent of Republicans have signed the pledge, kept it and are never ever, ever, ever ever going to raise taxes. Carvin, let me ask you lastly, hear what your group is

doing here to to push for tax reform. Are we speaking with Tim Phillips about a week ago about the work that Americans for Prosperities doing, The money that he's invested in this cause, the events that he's holding around the country give us a sense of of what you're doing. Can you put a number to it and sort of how is your your advocacy for this change to your As we move ahead past this August recess, sure, the

focus has moved from healthcare to tax reform. Health Care was supposed to be a joy and our tax cuts, so it's very much a tax bill that got shun to decide uh Americans for tax Form runs the Center Right Coalition meeting of a hundred and fifty Center right leaders in DC every week, but there are forty state capitals where similar meetings are structured at the state level.

So we're working in each of those states, true, and with everything from the state think tank, to state taxpayer groups, to all the various state activist group, business groups, n f I, B Chamber, and so on to make sure that in every state we have voices that are focused on what exactly is in tax care at tax reform and why we need it. We'll be doing ads too, and we just try to figure out where we need

to do and raising resources to do that. But over the last several months and now you'll see strong support out in the grassroots, targeting individual congressman, senators and the newspapers and radio talk shows that they listen to. Great to speak with you. Let's talk again once we get that White House plan grabbing Norquays. There joined us now

is Dan Akerson, former chairman and CEO of GM. He joins us for our Bloomberg studios in Washington, d C. It's great to have you with us here this morning, and I wonder if we could use what I just mentioned as a peg to talk about what business is interested in hearing from the the White House at this point, how dialogical relationship it is between business and the White House. What would you like to see happen with regard to

that relationship going forward. Well, I think there needs to be UH an interactive discussion based on respect and UM. And I think there's clearly that every CEO given the opportunity to sit on a policy of formulating body than the president chairs would welcome the opportunity because here she's got to represent their shareholders. They want to make sure their point of view is reflected in any UH developing

strategy or policy. And but then to the president has a constituency that he or she must make sure that they're talking to. And the CEO also has a constituency. It's the customer base obviously, and also he has this employees and his suppliers that are looking at him or her to make sure that UH their shared value, shared perspectives, and to put it into cliche, everybody's on the same page. And and I think there was a rift in that

fabric of dialogue over the last week or so. So the actress and you have that that rift, as you describe it. Early on in this administration, we saw a lot of business leaders going to the White House meeting with the president. He appeared to be listening to them. We had the video footage of the beginning of a lot of those meetings. You had Steve Schwartzman convening this group of experts that comprised the Strategic and Economic Policy Forum. I wonder where we go from here? How do you

pick up the pieces from this? How do you how do you make that relationship a robust one again? Well, you know, I think leadership is always comprised of such topics. Are elements as character, competency, integrity, empathy, temperament. And I think, although we have rarely seen this, I think the president essentially has to, in some form or fashion, has to

apologize for what happened. You know, I had my dad, my father who was born in the early twenties and five uncles fought against a perspective that was really morally corrupt and it was represented by a swasticker. And so when the President of the United States, the leader of the United States and the free world, says that there were two sides, and there were good people on both sides. That's just a nethema to everything I've ever been exposed to and what my family and I served as well

fought for. And you say that that is just so wrong that it has to be amended. And at the end of the day, you know, I don't know exactly when it went on in Charlottesville, but there were nineteen people injured and one killed. None of them were carrying tiki torches the night before, screaming Jews won't replace us and things of that nature. It was just wrong. And I think humility and and asking for forgiveness of a

portion of our society would be in order. I don't think it's forthcoming, So it will be depending on the company and the person. It'll be difficult to uh to ascertain exactly how that relationship will evolve. If I were still an active CEO, I would try to reach across and see if there couldn't be some uh explanation or accommodation. But I think it's going to be difficult for a while.

And I think certain industries consumer for example, it will be more difficult for a CEO to UH look or appear to be uh, you know, UH to have a more constructive relationship with the president, which I think is a sad state of affairs. There should be a good working relationship between American business and the chief executive of our country. But Danna Kristen, do you believe that unless

the president apologize? So, if he does not apologize, and I don't know if there's a time frame, if it needs to be in the next two weeks, do you believe that he will actually lose the respect in the faith of C E O. S. And where does that put corporate America? Well, I can only speak for how I would see that we've all made mistakes in our lives and an apology sincere apologies. As you know, I just was out of line, and I want to take this moment, this point in time, this opportunity to apologize.

There there is no excuse for the KKK. It's a domestic terrorism group. They've done terrible things in the history of this country. And there's no excuse for supporting any organization that wants to fly a swasticker in our in our population. I just, uh, this is not a there's no gray area around those. In my mind, it's a black and white issue, and I think fundamentally, I hope and believe that the president feels that and he just And it goes to one of the elements of what

I described as leadership. It's temperament. Yeah, you can't allow yourself to become so emotional and say things that you will regret later. It's it's like a marriage. It's based on trust. You have to believe that the guy in the corner office or in the oval office is UH that shares values that I think are basic to the American experience. Do you believe that the White House will recover, that this Trump administration will recover from it if the

President doesn't apologize. Hard to say. I think as time goes on, this whole fade a bit, but there have been There's a segment or population that I think are really I've been damaged, hurt uh And it will be suspicious for a while. But it's not impossible to win back the goodwill of the people with good deeds. But I mean things for example, I also mentioned empathy. It's just you have to be steady, you have to be predictable.

You can't. I remember the Rose Garden celebration when the House passed their version of repeal and repace of Obamacare, and Obamacare is flawed, and I don't think anybody in the right mind would say it's it's a perfect piece of legislation. Uh, it needs to be fixed. But then several weeks later he calls it mean. Well, he had a celebration of it, and then he couldn't get the Senate to pass it. And then you can see in our legislators, our senators and our congressmen, they kind of go,

what what's this all about? One hand, it's a rose garden celebration, subsequently called mean and then he's angry and calls out senators that have constituencies that they represent. And I can tell you as an American and God, I've been blessed in so many ways, but you see to yourself, uh, empathy. I don't want to live in a country that doesn't

take care of the most vulnerable among us. And Uh, in our family, we've had some medical problems the last couple of years, and we were blessed to have insurance. What if I weren't. What happens to people on the margin unemployed, Uh, where they have a major medical problem, do we just say, well, too bad for you? And best of luck. And you can't say that twenty five or whatever the number is. But I heard five million Americans in the next five or six years would be

without insurance. And and somehow there's got to be a compromise. And I think a good leader that would gain the good, the trust and respect to the American public, regardless of political affiliation. And just said, look, we all know the Obamacare is flawed. I need six people on either side of the aisle. I don't need to pick the right wing or the left wing too, two groups of six a dozen people, uh, and come back to me with the five or six things that we need to replace

to make it better. I mean at the time they passed Obamacare, I remember and they said they can't pete across state lines. Crazy competition is good, and you can uh expand the pool, the ricks pool at the insurance companies taken on, and you can you can essentially cross subsidize from high risk areas to the lower risk areas.

They're they're just basic fundamental business decisions that were overlooked because Obamacare was not passed with one Republican vote, and I guess repeal and replacement vote with not one Democratic vote. You can't reform one sixth of the U. S economy UH without having a bipartisan bill that both parties can

live with. And so there's work to be done. And I think that'd be a good place to start, UH, to go back and make a valiant effort and and get a select number to come back with us with a bipart come back to the entire Congress with a bipartisan view, and you'd have the right wing on one side and the left wing on the other side saying that's not good enough. Well, Medicare, believe it or not, you probably too young to rem Medicare was very controversial

at the time. Yeah, very controversial, but look at them on Alzheimer's patients there. What if we didn't have Medicaid, how would families take care of their loved ones as they got older? And it's a very popular program today. Damn we gotta leave it there. Thank you very much for those valuable comment. Stan Atkinson, former chairman and CEO of General Motors, joining us. We're not Animal Studios in Washington, d C. Here on Bloomberg Surveillance David Gura with Francine Laco,

who is in for Tom Keene. 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 that David Gura? Before the podcast? You can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio