---
area: "tech-engineering"
category: technology
companies_orgs: []
date: '2025-10-07'
draft: true
guest: ''
insight: ''
layout: post.njk
media_books:
- bloomberg-podcasts
products_models: []
project: []
series: ''
source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXqfYxKcTDQ
speaker: Bloomberg Podcasts
status: evergreen
summary: 美国政府因预算僵局持续关门，特朗普政府放出风声可能不支付被停职联邦员工的工资，引发广泛担忧。同时，围绕农业援助、对华贸易及与加拿大贸易谈判的讨论也持续进行。国会围绕持续性决议的投票陷入僵局，双方相互指责，谈判前景不明。
tags:
- financial
- government-shutdown
- llm
- trade-negotiation
- trump-administration
title: 美国政府关门风波：特朗普威胁或不支付被停职员工工资，农业援助及国际贸易成焦点
---
### Bloomberg 播客介绍

Music

Bloomberg
 Audio
 Studios,
 podcasts,


radio,
 news.

这是 Bloomberg 的“权力平衡”播客。请在美国东部时间中午和下午 5 点收听直播。

You're
 listening
 to
 the
 Bloomberg


Balance
 of
 Power
 podcast.
 Catch
 us
 live


weekdays
 at
 noon
 and
 5:00
 p.m.
 Eastern

通过 Apple CarPlay 和 Android Auto 收听，下载 Bloomberg Business App。在您获取播客的任何地方收听，或在 YouTube 上观看直播。

>> on
 Apple
 CarPlay
 and
 Android
 Auto
 with


the
 Bloomberg
 Business
 App.
 Listen
 on


demand
 wherever
 you
 get
 your
 podcasts
 or


watch
 us
 live
 on
 YouTube.

同时在 Bloomberg 电视和广播的 YouTube 频道上收听。搜索 Bloomberg Business News Live，如果您想收看我们在演播室的节目。

>> On
 Bloomberg
 TV
 and
 Radio
 on
 YouTube
 as


well.
 Search
 Bloomberg
 Business
 News


Live
 if
 you
 want
 to
 catch
 us
 here
 in
 the


studio.

由于政府资金没有出路，我们将与 Tyler Kendall 讨论此事，此前我们听到了议长早些时候的发言。Mike Johnson 仍在华盛顿。事实上，许多议员也在这里，正如我们稍后将听到的 Boston 主席。他现在在国会山现场直播，但当然，参议院必须投票，我们预计接下来会发生更多类似情况。

With
 no
 path
 to
 freedom
 here,
 at


least
 in
 terms
 of
 government
 funding,


we're
 going
 to
 talk
 about
 this
 with


Tyler
 Kendall
 in
 a
 moment,
 having
 heard


from
 the
 speaker
 earlier
 today.
 Mike


Johnson
 is
 still
 in
 town.
 In
 fact,
 a
 lot


of
 lawmakers
 are,
 as
 we'll
 hear
 from


Chairman
 Boston
 just
 a
 moment.
 He's
 live


on
 Capitol
 Hill,
 but
 it's
 of
 course
 the


Senate
 that
 has
 to
 vote
 and
 we're


expecting
 more
 where
 this
 came
 from.

又一轮投票失败，未能获得足够民主党人的支持以通过法案。如我之前提到的，Mike Johnson 早些时候发表了讲话。这是议长的发言。

Another
 failed
 round
 without
 enough


Democrats
 to
 pass
 the
 bill.
 Mike
 Johnson


speaking
 earlier
 as
 I
 mentioned.
 Here's


the
 speaker.

>> 是的，他他想解决问题。总统是一个交易撮合者。他喜欢解决这些问题并朝着解决方案努力。这就是为什么他是一位大胆、强大的领导者，是美国现在需要的。我很高兴能与他在这方面合作。我持有完全相同的意见和立场。但是，同样，这一切都无法实现，除非民主党人停止给美国人民制造痛苦，让国会重新开张，让每个人都回到工作岗位。

>> Yes,
 he
 he
 wants
 to
 solve
 problems.
 The


president
 is
 a
 dealmaker.
 He
 likes
 to


figure
 these
 things
 out
 and
 works


towards
 solutions.
 And
 that's
 why
 he's
 a


bold,
 strong
 leader
 that
 America
 needs


right
 now.
 I'm
 excited
 to
 work
 with
 him


on
 that.
 I
 have
 the
 exact
 same
 uh


opinion
 and
 and
 position.
 But
 again,


none
 of
 this
 can
 happen
 until
 the


Democrats
 stop
 inflicting
 pain
 on
 the


American
 people
 and
 turn
 the
 lights
 back


on
 in
 Congress
 and
 get
 everybody
 back
 to


work.

Tyler Kendall 在华盛顿与我们连线，带来更多关于政府关门和其他白宫新闻。

Tyler
 Kendall
 with
 us
 in
 Washington
 with


more
 on
 the
 shutdown
 and
 other
 news


coming
 out
 of
 the
 White
 House
 here.

Tyler，今天有一个问题，基于我们刚才听到的总统的讲话以及 OM（管理和预算办公室）稍早发布的一份备忘录，一些被停职的员工可能不会得到带薪休假，而这还是我们之前没听过的。总统说，这真的取决于你说的是谁。有些人真的不值得被照顾。我们不知道他指的是谁，是吗？

There's
 a
 question
 today,
 Tyler,
 about


based
 on
 what
 we
 just
 heard
 from
 the


president
 and
 a
 memo
 that
 went
 out
 from


OM
 earlier,
 the
 Office
 of
 Management
 and


Budget
 that
 some
 of
 these
 furlows
 may


not
 necessarily
 lead
 to
 layoffs,
 but


they
 also
 may
 not
 get
 back
 pay,
 which
 is


something
 we
 had
 not
 heard
 before.

At
 this
 point,
 we
 don't
 and
 we
 heard
 reporters
 trying
 to


follow
 up
 for
 exact
 clarity
 on
 what
 this


could
 mean,
 but
 it
 comes
 after
 we
 saw


this
 OM
 memo
 circulated
 written
 by
 the


OM
 director
 Russ
 Vote
 suggesting
 that


the
 White
 House
 is
 considering
 not


issuing
 back
 pay
 once
 the
 government


reopens.
 Now,
 it
 appears
 the
 OM
 is


taking
 aim
 at
 this
 law
 that
 was
 enacted,


as
 you
 well
 know,
 after
 the
 last


shutdown
 in
 2019.
 And
 that
 was


considered
 to
 be
 this
 legal
 guarantee


that
 federal
 workers
 would
 get
 back
 pay


after
 a
 government
 shutdown.
 But
 it


appears
 that
 uh
 the
 the
 issue
 that
 that


they're
 taking
 with
 this,
 is
 that


Congress
 would
 have
 to
 appropriate
 those


funds
 specifically.
 This
 shouldn't
 be


considered
 to
 be
 an
 automatic
 guarantee.

And
 that's
 really
 what
 we're
 going
 to
 be


looking
 for
 here.
 It's
 definitely


raising
 the
 stakes.
 President
 Trump
 said


in
 this
 uh
 Oval
 Office
 meeting
 with
 the


Canadian
 Prime
 Minister,
 Mark
 Carney,


that
 in
 the
 next
 four
 to
 5
 days,
 we


should
 know
 where
 those
 potential


permanent
 layoffs
 shake
 out.
 But
 Joe,


we're
 up
 against
 a
 pretty
 firm
 uh


pressure
 point
 later
 this
 week,
 Friday,


October
 10th.
 That's
 going
 to
 be
 the


first
 miss
 paycheck
 for
 many
 federal


workers.

>> Four
 or
 five
 days,
 he
 must
 be
 thinking,


I
 guess,
 about
 Monday,
 which
 sounds
 to


me
 like
 he
 wants
 to
 give
 leaders
 on


Capitol
 Hill
 room
 to
 make
 a
 deal
 or
 peel


off
 enough
 Democrats
 to
 pass
 the
 CR.

Well,
 it
 was
 interesting
 to
 hear


President
 Trump
 basically
 signal
 that
 he


could
 be
 open
 to
 negotiations
 that
 was


broadly
 taken
 as
 this
 positive
 step
 even


as
 Republicans
 have
 really
 been
 standing


firm
 here,
 that
 the
 government
 needs
 to


reopen
 before
 any
 of
 these
 talks
 can


take
 place.
 Now,
 what
 I'm
 really


watching
 for
 is
 where
 a
 potential


agreement
 shakes
 out
 on
 expanding
 those


Affordable
 Care
 Act
 premium
 subsidies,


whether
 or
 not
 a
 commitment
 to
 an
 up
 and


down
 vote
 would
 potentially
 be
 enough


for
 Democrats.
 Because
 the
 thing
 with


these
 subsidies
 is
 sub
 subsidies
 is
 that


Republicans
 are
 divided
 on
 them.
 Many
 of


them
 go
 to
 people
 in
 these
 states
 that


President
 Trump
 won
 in
 2024.
 These
 are


red
 states
 that
 didn't
 expand
 Medicaid


and
 ultimately
 have
 a
 lot
 of
 people
 on


Obamacare
 insurance
 exchanges.

>> That's
 right.
 This
 of
 course
 all
 as


Tyler
 references
 came
 uh
 in
 the
 middle


of
 an
 Oval
 Office
 meeting
 with
 another


world
 leader.
 Prime
 Minister
 Mark
 Carney


is
 in
 town.
 They're
 here
 to
 talk
 about


tariffs
 and
 trade.
 There
 were
 a
 couple


of
 questions
 about
 that.
 Most
 of
 this


was
 on
 domestic
 politics
 though
 and


that's
 what
 happens
 when
 you
 have
 a
 room


full
 of
 American
 reporters.
 But
 do
 we


expect
 an
 announcement
 from
 the
 White


House
 today
 on
 a
 deal
 with
 Canada?

>> Well,
 it
 was
 a
 relatively
 warm
 meeting


as
 as
 as
 you
 saw.
 Yeah.
 Mark
 Carney


calling
 President
 Trump
 a
 transformative


president,
 but
 we
 can't
 lose
 sight
 that


Mark
 Carney
 really
 did
 campaign
 on
 on


countering
 President
 Trump
 and
 his
 trade


agenda.
 And
 we
 really
 haven't
 seen
 a
 lot


of
 movement
 when
 it
 comes
 to
 the
 trade


negotiations.
 Canada
 still
 facing
 that


35%
 tariff
 for
 non
 USMCA
 compliant


goods.
 Though
 a
 lot
 of
 goods
 coming
 over


the
 border,
 about
 55%
 or
 so
 are


compliant.
 But
 it's
 really
 those
 sector


specific
 tariffs
 that
 I'm
 watching
 for


to
 see
 if
 there's
 any
 sort
 of
 movement


when
 it
 comes
 to
 negotiations.
 They
 are


50%
 for
 steel,
 aluminum,
 and
 copper.


Those
 are
 really
 high
 rates
 and
 they're


impacting
 a
 range
 of
 sectors
 uh
 when
 it


comes
 to
 Canada.
 Uh
 it
 it
 was


interesting
 though
 because
 President


Trump
 uh
 seemed
 to
 demur
 multiple
 times


when
 asked
 what
 would
 it
 take,
 what
 can


Canada
 give
 in
 terms
 of
 concessions
 to


get
 this
 over
 the
 finish
 line.
 As
 you


all
 know,
 there
 is
 a
 range
 of
 things
 that


this
 White
 House
 is
 looking
 for,
 from


market
 access
 to
 curbing
 fentanyl,
 to


then
 digital
 services
 taxes,
 something


that
 has
 repeatedly
 come
 up
 in
 the


conversation.

>> A
 lot
 going
 on
 around
 here,
 Tyler,
 and
 it


certainly
 reminds
 us
 how
 much
 has
 yet
 to


be
 determined
 when
 it
 comes
 to
 Canada.


We
 spent
 so
 much
 time
 looking
 at
 Europe,


looking
 at
 India,
 looking
 at
 China,
 that


our
 nearest
 neighbor
 and
 biggest
 trading


partner
 has
 yet
 to
 be
 resolved.
 Tyler


Kendall,
 frequently
 on
 the
 north
 lawn
 of


the
 White
 House,
 lucky
 to
 have
 her
 in


studio
 today,
 our
 Washington


correspondent.
 Tyler,
 thank
 you
 so
 much.


I'm
 Joe
 Matthew
 in
 Washington,
 and
 it's


great
 to
 have
 you
 with
 us
 here
 as
 we


continue
 the
 conversation
 with
 someone


who's
 in
 the
 middle
 of
 it
 all
 with


regard
 to
 the
 government
 shutdown.
 As
 I


mentioned,
 not
 all
 lawmakers
 have
 gone


home.
 And
 that
 includes
 Congressman
 Mike


Boston,

Republican
 from
 Illinois,
 who
 is
 chair


of
 the
 House
 Veterans
 Affairs
 Committee.


And
 just
 to
 give
 you
 a
 sense
 of
 who


we're
 about
 to
 talk
 to
 here,
 as
 I
 like


to
 let
 you
 know
 exactly
 where
 a
 lot
 of


these
 members
 are
 coming
 from,
 because


yeah,
 they're
 real
 people,
 too,
 and


bring
 a
 lot
 of
 unique
 experience
 in
 many


cases
 today.
 Mike
 Bost,
 former


firefighter,
 US
 Marine,
 ran
 his
 family's


trucking
 business,
 member
 of
 the
 Main


Street
 Partnership.
 How
 did
 I
 do,


Congressman?
 Will
 it
 be
 the
 middle?
 Will


it
 be
 the
 the
 main
 street
 Republicans


who
 figure
 a
 way
 out
 of
 this?

>> You
 know,
 Joe,
 I
 think
 it's
 a
 case
 where


we
 need
 to
 make
 sure
 that
 the
 Senate


today
 makes
 the
 vote
 and
 comes
 back


today.
 Now,
 whether
 that
 happens
 or
 not,


I
 don't
 know,
 but
 I
 know
 that
 every
 day


of
 shutdown
 goes
 on,
 more
 pain
 is
 felt


by
 more
 people.
 And
 when
 I'm
 chairman
 of


the
 VA,
 I
 know
 about
 where
 we're
 going


to
 see
 those
 shortfalls.
 Uh,
 you
 know


right
 now,
 we
 have
 several,
 though
 we
 have


put
 a
 front
 load
 on
 the
 medical,
 most
 of


the
 medical
 uh
 providing
 and
 and
 and


most
 veterans
 won't
 leave
 out
 on
 their


main
 services,
 which
 is
 their
 healthcare,


but
 when
 you
 start
 talking
 about
 TAP


programs,
 people
 leaving
 the
 military,


when
 you
 start
 talking
 about
 the
 fox


grants,
 those
 fox
 grants
 are
 special
 uh


grants
 set
 up
 for
 uh,
 contractors
 to


provide
 mental
 health,
 when
 you
 start


talking
 about
 daycare
 workers
 for
 those


people
 that
 are
 homebound
 veterans,
 those


are
 all
 on
 contracts.
 We're
 trying
 to


work
 with
 the
 secretary
 at
 this
 time
 to


make
 sure
 those
 keep
 going,
 but
 each
 day


we
 go
 further.
 That
 is
 a
 more
 and
 more


danger.
 Remember,
 we
 in
 the
 House,
 we've


done
 our
 job.
 We
 send
 it
 to
 the
 Senate.


The
 Senate
 keeps
 bringing
 it
 back
 up.


There's
 those
 holdouts.
 They
 need
 to
 go


ahead
 and
 open
 government
 and
 then
 we


can
 look
 into
 all
 the
 other
 things


they're
 bringing
 up
 because
 it's
 those


are
 those
 things
 that
 we
 can
 negotiate


while
 we
 work
 on
 this
 budget,
 but
 not


while
 we're
 in
 a
 shutdown.

>> Understood
 your
 point.
 Uh,
 Mr.
 Chairman,


we
 spoke
 with
 the
 secretary,
 Doug


Collins,
 about
 what
 this
 means
 for
 the


agency
 and
 what
 it
 means
 for
 the


delivery
 of
 veterans
 services
 ahead
 of


our
 conversation
 with
 you
 today.
 Here's


what
 the
 secretary
 told
 us.

>> The
 positive
 news
 to
 our
 veterans,


especially
 for
 those
 who
 get
 the
 9


million
 plus
 who
 get
 their
 healthcare


through
 us,
 um,
 that
 they're
 not
 going
 to


see
 any
 difference
 in
 what
 they
 have


seen.
 Our
 vet
 centers
 are
 still
 open,


the
 counseling
 is
 going
 on,
 our
 mental


health
 outreach
 and
 and
 placement
 are


still
 going
 on.
 So,
 this
 is
 a
 good
 time


for
 that.
 And
 I
 think
 really
 is
 to
 look


through
 this
 is
 we're
 going
 to
 do
 the


the
 what
 we
 have
 to
 do
 to
 take
 care
 of


veterans
 and
 we
 have
 the
 funding
 to
 do


that.

>> Did
 the
 secretary
 frame
 that


appropriately
 because
 his
 message
 that


evening
 was
 that
 benefits
 are
 not
 being


affected
 by
 this?
 You're
 looking
 down


the
 road
 though,
 Congressman.
 How
 long


before
 they
 are?

>> down?
 And
 let
 me
 let
 me
 tell
 you
 that


right
 now,
 we
 are
 already
 operating


without
 a
 continuing
 without
 the
 ability


of
 Congress
 to
 um,
 authorize
 those


particular
 side
 contracts.
 Everything


the
 secretary
 was
 talking
 about
 is
 the


actual
 function
 of
 the
 VA.
 That
 is
 the


VA
 contracting.
 As
 we're
 moving
 forward,


we're
 a
 little
 bit
 worried
 as
 those


contracts
 are
 starting
 to
 not
 have


authorization
 numbers.
 Are
 those
 those


things
 that
 can
 lose
 out?
 Your


healthcare
 is
 still
 going
 to
 be
 there.


Your
 appointments
 are
 still
 going
 to
 be


there.
 However,
 when
 we
 start
 talking


about
 the
 TAP
 program,
 that's
 that's


service
 members
 leaving.
 When
 you
 start


talking
 about
 home
 care,
 when
 you
 start


talking
 about
 the
 Fox
 Gr,
 which
 is


mental
 health,
 we
 have
 other
 mental


health
 uh,
 programs,
 but
 each
 one
 of


these
 is
 is
 important
 in
 itself
 for


certain
 individuals.
 We're
 okay
 now
 and


I'm
 glad
 we
 are,
 but
 we've
 got
 to
 pay


attention.
 This
 can't
 go
 well
 for
 a
 long


time.

>> Some
 are
 suggesting
 we
 could
 have


another
 record
 here.
 I'm
 not
 sure


anybody
 has
 a
 clue
 at
 this
 point,


Congressman,
 as
 long
 as
 the
 leadership


uh,
 are
 not
 engaged
 cross
 here.
 And
 I


just
 wonder
 what
 you
 think.
 The


president
 mentioned
 last
 evening,
 uh,
 from


the
 Oval
 Office,
 that
 talks
 were
 underway


with
 Democrats
 on
 healthcare.
 Is
 that
 a


plan
 that
 could
 be
 done
 through
 back


channels,
 that
 could
 be
 done
 quietly
 to


bring
 Democrats
 to
 the
 table,
 or
 does


there
 need
 to
 be
 some
 sort
 of
 grand


bargain
 here
 that
 involves
 government


spending?
 I
 really
 believe
 that
 if
 we


come
 back
 and
 then
 we
 can
 work
 on
 that.


Remember
 that
 that
 problem
 doesn't


become
 to
 f-
 doesn't
 come
 to
 fruition


until
 the
 31st
 of
 January.
 This
 this
 CR


only
 gives
 us
 to
 the
 21st
 of
 November.


So,
 we
 come
 back,
 we
 start
 negotiating


these
 things.
 But
 the
 reason
 why
 this
 is


difficult
 to
 negotiate
 is
 it
 be
 just


that
 it's
 difficult
 to
 negotiate.
 Even


though
 we
 don't
 want
 to
 see
 anyone
 lose


their
 healthcare,
 if
 we're
 have
 to


subsidize
 the
 health
 care,
 there's


a
 problem
 with
 the
 health
 care
 system
 in


the
 first
 place.
 And
 we're
 not


subsidizing
 the
 individuals,
 we're


subsidizing
 the
 insurance
 companies.
 So


therefore,
 the
 minds
 need
 to
 come


together,
 but
 they
 don't
 need
 to
 come


together
 by
 scaring
 our
 general
 public


in
 a
 shutdown.
 We
 need
 to
 come
 back
 to


work.
 We
 need
 to
 go
 to
 work
 on
 these


problems.
 We're
 not
 saying
 they're
 not


there
 and
 we
 don't
 need
 to
 work
 on
 them,


but
 we
 can't
 be
 working
 on
 them
 while


we're
 playing
 these
 games
 and
 you're


holding
 things
 hostage.
 That
 if
 you
 look


at
 our
 Democrat
 colleagues,
 many
 of
 the


leaders
 on
 the
 other
 side,
 13
 times
 they


voted
 to
 keep
 the
 government
 open
 with


this
 same
 type
 of
 clear
 uh,
 clean
 CR
 when


Biden
 was
 in
 the
 in
 gave
 quotes
 like
 we


shouldn't
 hold
 the
 American
 people


hostage.
 We've
 got
 to
 make
 sure
 that
 we


don't
 use
 it
 as
 a
 negotiating
 tool.


Instead,
 we
 keep
 the
 government
 open
 so


that
 we
 can
 continue
 to
 negotiate.


That's
 exactly
 what
 they
 said.
 They
 were


right
 then.
 They're
 right
 now.
 That


would
 be
 right
 now.
 And
 that's
 what


we're
 saying.

>> Congressman,
 our
 listeners
 and
 viewers


should
 know
 that
 your
 12th
 district
 in


Illinois
 is
 is
 not
 part
 of
 Chicago.
 It's


it's
 down
 the
 southern
 part
 of
 the


state.
 You're
 closer
 to
 St.
 Louis
 than


you
 are
 to
 Chicago.
 Actually,
 in
 the


western
 part
 of
 of
 your
 district.

>> Yeah,
 St.
 Louis
 is
 a
 northern
 part
 of
 my


district.
 St.
 Louis
 is
 in
 the
 northern


part
 of
 my
 district.
 And
 I
 have
 one


third
 of
 the
 state's
 land
 land
 mass.
 So

>> well,
 that's,
 you
 got
 a
 lot
 of
 farms
 there


too.

>> You've
 got
 a
 lot
 of
 farms,
 Congressman,


and
 I'm
 wondering

>> so
 what
 are
 you
 hearing
 from
 the
 White


House
 on
 this?
 Does
 there
 need
 to
 be
 a


bailout?
 Should
 it
 come
 from
 tariff


money?
 How
 do
 you
 handle
 this?
 If


they're
 not
 buying
 soybeans
 in
 China,


what
 do
 you
 do?

>> Yeah,
 we've
 been
 talking
 with
 the
 with


the
 administration
 on
 specifically
 that


the
 tariff
 money,
 some
 kind
 of
 situation


to
 help
 many
 of
 these
 farmers
 through


this
 time.
 Understand,
 these
 farmers,


many
 of
 them
 are
 four
 years
 into
 their


banks,
 four
 years
 into
 their
 banks
 where


they
 haven't
 turned
 a
 profit.
 You
 can


only
 do
 that
 so
 long.
 This
 would
 be
 the


time
 to
 give
 them
 that
 opportunity
 while


we're
 building
 those
 markets.
 I'm
 really


really
 glad
 that
 he's
 meeting
 with
 with


uh,
 Canada
 today.
 Now,
 let
 me
 explain


this
 that
 he
 was
 right,
 he
 needed
 to
 meet


meet
 with
 Canada
 because
 if
 you're
 a


grain
 farmer,
 it's
 one
 thing,
 and
 and
 the


USMCA
 was
 a
 was
 a
 good
 deal
 in
 itself.


However,
 remember
 this.
 When
 you
 start


talking
 certain
 key
 products,
 like
 dairy,


which
 we
 provide
 from
 the
 northern


Illinois
 and
 and
 Wisconsin
 into,
 or
 would


like
 to
 provide
 into
 Canada,
 Canada
 has


a
 400%
 tariff.
 When
 we
 start
 talking


about
 30%,
 that
 sounds
 amazing.
 That


sounds
 huge.
 But
 Canada
 has
 400%
 tariff


on
 the
 United
 States.
 Hopefully,
 we
 can


work
 through
 to
 get
 fair
 trade
 like
 the


president
 has
 always
 talked
 about,
 and
 I


trust
 the
 president
 to
 do
 that.

>> What
 happens
 first?
 A
 farmer
 bailout,
 or


a
 deal
 with
 China
 that
 starts
 soaking
 up


some
 of
 these
 soybeans?

>> The,
 the
 so,
 the
 way
 it
 looks
 right
 now
 is


probably
 the,
 the,
 using
 the
 tariff
 money


to
 help
 those
 existing
 farmers
 because


we're
 so
 far
 into
 it,
 unless
 uh,
 these


negotiations
 go
 with
 China
 very,
 very


quickly.
 Now,
 remember,
 we
 have
 to


renegotiate
 with
 China
 because
 China


what
 they
 do
 is,
 when
 they
 allowed
 China


into
 the
 World
 Trade
 Organization,
 they


probably
 shouldn't
 have
 done
 that
 in
 the


first
 place,
 because
 you
 were
 supposed
 to


be
 a
 free
 government
 that
 would
 to
 be


part
 of
 the
 world
 trade.
 But
 that


happened.
 Ever
 since
 then,
 China
 will


come
 in,
 and
 they'll
 take
 the
 commodities


where
 soybeans
 or
 corn
 or
 whatever,
 and


they're
 going
 to
 say
 they're
 going
 to


purchase
 this
 large
 amount
 at
 the


beginning
 of
 the
 planting
 season.


Farmers
 will
 go
 out
 and
 plant
 all
 these


the,
 the
 commodities,
 where
 it's
 corn
 or


soybeans
 or
 or
 wheat.
 And
 all
 of
 a


sudden,

>> yeah,

>> then
 China
 says,
 "Oh,
 we
 don't
 need


that
 much."
 Which
 causes
 the
 market
 to
 fall.


The
 commodity
 now
 is
 a
 cheaper
 rate.
 And


now
 the
 farmers
 out
 there
 trying
 to


figure
 out
 how
 he's
 supposed
 to,
 he
 or


she
 is
 supposed
 to
 get
 the
 rate
 that


they
 need
 to
 even
 make
 a
 profit
 at
 all.


And
 so,
 that's
 the
 problem
 when
 we're


dealing
 with
 China,
 why
 we
 need
 to
 push


them
 back
 to
 the
 table
 because
 it's


either
 your
 farmers

>> Yeah,
 my
 farmers
 are
 hurt.

>> Your
 farmers
 feel
 like
 Lucy
 in
 the


football
 here.
 Is
 do
 they,
 do
 they
 make


off
 with
 the,
 the
 dollar
 figures
 that


we're
 hearing
 about?
 Is
 it
 $10
 billion


the
 president
 puts
 in
 a
 fund?
 What
 do


you
 need?
 That,
 that
 dollar
 amount
 is


being
 negotiated
 with
 the
 chairman
 right


now,
 both
 in
 the
 House
 and
 the
 Senate.
 G.T.


Thompson
 is
 working
 very
 hard
 with
 his


staff
 to
 make
 sure,
 and
 informing
 us
 as


we're
 moving
 right
 now,
 because
 you
 know


if,
 if
 a
 farmer
 is
 going
 to
 make
 it


through,
 then
 you
 want
 to
 provide
 them
 a


little
 bit
 of
 help.
 But
 if
 they,
 if


they're
 really
 the
 ones
 that
 are,
 that


our
 young
 farmers
 are,
 cuz
 because
 the


mega
 farms
 quite
 often,
 they
 hurt,
 but


they've
 got,
 they've
 got
 enough
 in


reserve.
 Is
 those
 that
 don't
 have
 in


reserves.
 And
 so,
 trying
 to
 get
 those


numbers
 squeezed
 through
 the
 USDA
 and


figuring
 that
 out
 is
 where
 we're
 at


right
 now.

>> Really,
 really
 interesting.
 You
 know,
 we


heard
 about
 back
 pay
 for
 federal
 workers


when
 the
 president
 was
 talking
 with


reporters
 in
 the
 Oval
 Office.

>> Uh,
 Mr.
 Chairman,
 I
 don't
 mean
 to
 sneak


up
 on
 you
 here,
 because
 you
 might
 not


have
 heard
 what
 he
 said,
 but
 there
 was
 a


question
 about
 some
 folks
 not
 getting


back
 pay,
 and
 he
 said,
 some
 people
 don't


really
 deserve
 to
 be
 taken
 care
 of.
 He


wouldn't
 tell
 us
 when
 we
 followed
 up
 who


he
 meant.
 Do
 you
 have
 a
 sense
 of,
 of
 who


he
 was
 talking
 about?
 I


>> do
 you
 support
 you?

>> I
 don't
 know
 who
 he
 was
 talking
 about,


and
 that,
 you
 know,
 the
 speaker
 also
 was


asked
 about
 this
 this
 morning.
 I'll
 say


what
 the
 speaker
 said.
 We've
 always
 made


sure
 that
 our,
 our
 employees
 are
 made


whole
 uh,
 on
 back
 pay.
 So,
 I
 would
 say
 if


we
 don't
 do
 that
 again,
 that'll
 be
 a


rarity.
 Um,
 but
 the
 thing
 is,
 if
 we
 get


this
 done,
 we
 don't
 have
 to
 worry
 about


back
 pay.
 And
 I'm
 going
 to
 tell
 you,
 I
 know


how
 that
 is.
 As
 a
 young
 Marine,
 remember


I
 was
 up
 in,
 in,
 during
 the
 Carter


administration
 and
 Reagan,
 but
 during


the
 Carter
 administration,
 Marines
 and


their
 families
 qualified
 for
 food
 stamp


and
 WIC,
 if,
 if
 they
 had
 it
 then,
 but


they
 didn't.
 And
 so,
 instead,
 what
 you
 do


is,
 you
 worry
 from
 payday
 to
 payday
 for


young
 Marines
 with
 with
 a
 spouse
 and


with
 children.
 And
 those
 are
 the
 ones


that
 we're
 seeing
 out
 there
 that
 are


going
 to
 need
 the
 help.
 And,
 and
 they're


going
 to
 just
 be
 dealing
 with
 when
 the


15th
 rolls,
 15th
 rolls
 around.
 If
 they're


living
 payday
 to
 payday,
 how
 do
 you
 go


back
 to
 your
 creditors?
 Not
 everybody's


got
 a
 parent
 that
 they
 can
 go
 back
 and


reach
 to
 and
 say,
 "Hey,
 I'd
 really
 like


you
 to
 send
 me
 money
 until
 I
 get
 through


this."
 That,
 that's
 not
 how
 that
 works.


Unfortunately,
 no
 pay
 is
 a
 very,
 very


bad
 thing
 for
 those
 people
 who
 make
 sure


our
 freedoms
 are
 are
 taken
 care
 of.

>> If
 you're
 paycheck
 to
 paycheck,
 this
 is


the
 biggest
 deal
 there
 is.
 Congressman,


I'm
 really
 glad
 you
 could
 join
 us.
 Mike


Boston
 is
 chair
 of
 the
 House
 Veterans


Affairs
 Committee,
 Congressman,


Republican
 from
 Illinois's
 12th


district.
 And
 great
 to
 have
 your


insights
 with
 us.
 We'll
 assemble
 our


panel
 next
 for
 their
 take
 on
 this.


Bloomberg
 Politics
 contributors
 Jeannie


Shanzeno
 and
 Rick
 Davis
 are
 with
 us
 here


on
 the
 fastest
 show
 in
 politics.
 I'm
 Joe


Matthew
 in
 Washington.
 Thanks
 for
 being


with
 us
 here
 on
 the
 Tuesday
 edition,
 as


we
 work
 our
 way
 toward
 the
 next
 round
 of


voting
 on
 a
 continuing
 resolution
 to


keep
 the
 government
 or
 reopen
 on


Bloomberg.
 Stay
 with
 us
 on
 Balance
 of


Power.
 We'll
 have
 much
 more
 coming
 up


after
 this.

You're
 listening
 to
 the
 Bloomberg


Balance
 of
 Power
 podcast.
 Catch
 us
 live


weekdays
 at
 noon
 and
 5:00
 p.m.


Eastern
 on
 Apple
 CarPlay
 and
 Android


Auto
 with
 the
 Bloomberg
 Business
 App.


You
 can
 also
 listen
 live
 on
 Amazon
 Alexa


from
 our
 flagship
 New
 York
 station.
 Just


say,
 "Alexa,
 play
 Bloomberg
 11:30."

It
 is
 October
 7th,
 two
 years
 to
 the
 day


since
 the
 attacks
 by
 Hamas
 against


Israel
 that
 killed
 nearly
 1,200
 people


and
 kicked
 off
 two
 years
 now
 of
 raging


conflict.

Negotiations
 are
 continuing
 today
 in


Cairo.
 They
 are
 meeting
 again,
 even
 on


this
 solemn
 occasion
 in
 Israel,
 October


7th.
 And
 at
 3:00
 p.m.
 today,
 it
 will


ricochet
 back
 to
 the
 White
 House
 as


President
 Trump
 meets
 in
 the
 Oval
 Office


with
 Eden
 Alexander.
 You
 may
 have
 heard


about
 this,
 the
 American-Israeli
 hostage


released
 by
 Hamas
 in
 May.
 He
 will
 be


with
 the
 president
 about
 an
 hour
 and
 a


half
 from
 now.
 We
 mention
 all
 of
 this,


of
 course,
 because
 the
 possibility
 of


peace
 following
 so
 much
 destruction
 and


death
 appears
 to
 be
 at
 hand
 with
 talks


underway
 here
 following
 the
 president's


20-point
 plan,
 hammered
 out
 with
 Benjamin


Netanyahu,
 or
 according
 to
 some


the
 arm-twisting
 that
 convinced


Netanyahu
 to
 accept
 this
 deal,
 and
 one


that
 we
 have,
 I
 guess,
 conditional


acceptance
 of,
 if
 we
 can
 call
 it
 that,


from
 Hamas.
 But
 they
 are
 obviously


continuing
 to
 talk
 about
 the
 release
 of


hostages
 and
 the
 withdrawal
 of
 Israeli


forces
 in
 Gaza.
 More
 than
 60,000
 people


have
 been
 reported
 to
 have
 been
 killed
 in


Gaza
 since
 October
 7th,
 2023.

And
 we
 start
 with
 our
 panel
 on
 this


today.
 Bloomberg
 politics
 contributors


Rick
 Davis
 and
 Jeannie
 Shanzeno
 are
 with


us.
 Jeannie
 is
 Democracy
 Visiting
 fellow


at
 Harvard
 Kennedy
 School's
 Ash
 Center,


our
 Democratic
 analyst,
 and
 Rick
 is


Republican
 strategist
 and
 partner
 at


Stone
 Court
 Capital.
 Jeanie,
 it's,
 it's


difficult
 to
 imagine
 what
 the


conversation
 is
 like
 today
 in
 Cairo


knowing
 that
 this
 is
 the
 7th
 of
 October.


Does
 it
 heighten
 the
 urgency
 or
 or
 make


it
 more
 difficult
 to
 move
 closer
 to
 a


ceasefire?

>> Um,
 I
 think
 we
 all
 hope
 it
 heightens


the
 urgency.
 And
 you
 mentioned
 Eden


Alexander.
 He
 is,
 by
 some
 reports,
 the


last
 living
 US-Israeli
 hostage.
 And
 I


think
 that's
 going
 to
 be
 quite
 a
 moving


moment
 when
 Donald
 Trump
 meets
 with
 him


at
 the
 White
 House
 today.
 Another,
 as


you
 mentioned,
 in
 a
 long
 line
 of


reminders
 of
 what
 has
 happened
 since


that
 horrific
 assault
 two
 years
 ago.
 Uh,


you
 know,
 I
 hope
 that
 it
 does
 lead,
 lend


a
 sense
 of
 urgency.
 Um,
 the
 problem
 is
 we


have
 these
 two
 phases
 in
 this
 deal,
 and


by
 all
 accounts,
 these
 are
 still
 indirect


talks,
 which
 is
 problematic,
 but
 it's
 also


problematic
 that
 we
 haven't
 had
 yet
 out


of
 Hamas
 an
 acceptance
 of
 both
 of
 these


phases
 of
 the
 deal.
 If
 you
 just
 look
 at


phase
 one,
 for
 instance,
 the
 release
 of


the
 hostages
 and
 then
 a
 movement
 back
 of


Israel
 still
 within
 four
 miles
 in
 Gaza,


that
 yellow
 line
 at
 the
 Trump


administration's
 map.
 The
 problem
 is


Hamas
 has
 never
 wanted
 to
 agree
 to
 that.


They've
 wanted
 total
 withdrawal
 by


Israel.
 So,
 we
 have
 some
 ways
 to
 go,
 but


I
 think
 there
 is
 some
 reason
 to
 hope


because
 the
 entire
 world
 seems
 to
 be


pushing
 Hamas
 to
 accept
 this
 deal.


What
 is
 your
 thought
 today,
 Rick?
 It's
 a


reminder,
 of
 course,
 about
 how
 this


started.
 Uh,
 but
 also
 it
 tells
 us
 how


long
 this
 has
 been
 going
 on
 and
 how


important
 it
 is
 for
 us
 to
 find


resolution
 here.
 Will
 this
 group
 meeting


in
 Cairo


manage
 to
 get
 this
 done?
 Well,
 it's


certainly
 the
 closest
 step
 we've
 seen


since
 uh,
 the
 attacks
 of
 uh,
 October
 7th,


two
 years
 ago,
 and,
 and
 it
 really
 has


ushered
 in
 a
 profound
 change
 in
 the


Middle
 East.
 You
 you
 look
 at
 this
 right


now
 in
 a,
 in
 a
 vacuum
 as
 a
 negotiation


between
 the
 uh,
 Israelis
 and
 Hamas.
 Uh,


but
 the
 reality
 is,
 is
 it
 incorporated
 a


region-wide
 war
 that
 has
 been
 perpetrated


with
 Israel
 taking
 out
 Hezbollah,
 uh,


fighting
 actively
 to
 uh,
 um,
 to
 weaken
 the


uh,
 the
 Yemeni
 um,
 u,
 uh,
 groups
 uh,
 that


have
 been
 supported
 of
 Iran,
 or
 Iran.


Uh,
 an
 attack
 actually
 on
 the


country
 of
 Iran.
 I
 mean,
 like
 when
 you


think
 about,
 you
 know,
 Syria
 changing


leadership,
 I
 mean,
 we're
 in
 a
 different


world
 than
 we
 were
 two
 years
 ago,
 uh,


when
 this
 attack
 took
 place.
 And
 I
 think


that's
 the
 reason
 that
 you
 might


actually
 see
 peace
 here
 because
 there's


no
 retreat.
 Uh,
 Iran's
 its
 weakest


point.
 There's
 not
 really
 active
 support


for
 Hamas.
 Hamas
 has
 taken
 on
 enormous


losses,
 and
 there's
 no
 future
 uh,
 for
 the


people
 of
 Palestine
 uh,
 without
 a


resolution
 of
 this
 conflict,
 and,
 and
 so


pressure
 is
 on.
 And
 I,
 I,
 I
 have
 to
 give


credit
 to
 Donald
 Trump
 for
 keeping


Netanyahu
 and
 in
 the
 game,
 right?
 To


forcing
 him
 to
 a
 negotiation


that,
 that
 otherwise
 he
 probably
 would


not
 be
 actively
 involved
 in.
 And,
 and
 the


US
 is
 Israel's
 last
 significant
 ally,
 and


without
 us,
 there
 would
 be
 no
 peace.


You
 wonder
 what's
 next
 here,
 Genie.


We're
 obviously
 marking
 October
 7th


today,
 but
 I
 just
 saw
 Marco
 Rubio
 on
 the


couch
 in
 the
 Oval
 Office
 with
 the


president.
 We
 know
 that
 Steve
 Witoff


and
 indeed,
 Jared
 Kushner
 have
 both
 also
 been


instrumental
 in
 getting
 us
 to
 this


point.
 Who's
 leading
 the
 charge
 on
 this


White
 House
 diplomacy?

>> Yeah,
 I
 mean,
 I
 think
 Witoff
 and
 Kushner


have
 been
 paramount.
 Obviously,
 you


mentioned
 Marco
 Rubio,
 Secretary
 of


State.
 So,
 you
 know,
 I
 think
 Witoff,
 who


has
 had
 an
 awful
 lot
 on
 his
 plate,
 and


Kushner
 are
 really
 that
 been
 able
 to


deal
 to
 Rick's
 point
 with
 Netanyahu.
 Um,


you
 know,
 but
 let's
 remember
 what
 these


talks
 are
 being
 described
 as
 right
 now,


yesterday
 and
 today,
 as
 technocratic


talks.
 Really
 talks
 about
 this
 first


phase,
 like
 things
 as
 basic
 as
 the


sequencing.
 Does
 Hamas
 have
 access
 to


the
 hostages,
 both
 living
 and
 deceased,
 in


order
 to
 fulfill,
 if
 they
 decide
 to,
 their


end
 of
 this
 deal?
 And
 yet
 again,
 Hamas


has
 still
 not
 agreed
 to
 any
 of
 that.
 And


so,
 we
 do
 have
 a
 ways
 to
 go.
 And
 speaking


of
 Netanyahu,
 he
 is
 feeling
 pressure


both
 internally
 and
 externally.
 We
 have


these
 really
 striking
 polls
 from
 Israel


in
 the
 last
 day
 or
 so
 showing
 that
 about


two-thirds
 of
 Israelis
 are
 saying
 that


Netanyahu
 should
 take
 responsibility
 for


the
 attacks
 and
 resign.
 We're,
 we're


seeing
 that
 a
 good
 substantial
 portion


believe
 that
 Israel
 has
 committed


genocide.
 Those
 numbers
 are
 reflected
 by


Israelis
 or
 Jews
 who
 live
 in
 the
 United


States.
 And
 of
 course,
 the
 White
 House
 is


seeing
 those
 polls
 as
 well.
 So,
 there
 is


a
 lot
 of
 pressure
 on
 Netanyahu.
 But
 of


course,
 there's
 a
 lot
 of
 pressure
 on
 the


Hamas
 political
 wing
 as
 well,
 because


what
 are
 they
 going
 to
 have
 to
 do?
 They


are
 going
 to
 have
 to
 sign
 their
 death


warrant.
 And
 that
 is
 going
 to
 be
 very


hard
 for
 any
 individual
 or
 group
 to
 do.


But
 that's
 essentially
 what
 would
 have


to
 happen
 for
 this
 deal
 to
 go
 through.

>> Do
 you
 mean
 political
 death
 warrant,
 Genie?

>> Abs-.
 Yeah,
 ab-,
 sorry
 about
 that.


Absolutely.
 Political
 death
 warrant


because
 this
 says
 that
 they
 are


disarmed,
 that
 there
 may
 be
 amnesty
 for


fighters
 who
 denounce
 violence,
 but
 that


the
 group
 itself
 will
 be
 disbanded
 and


have
 no
 role
 in
 a
 potential
 future


Palestinian
 state.
 And
 that
 is,
 as
 you


can
 imagine,
 just
 like
 individuals,


states
 act
 the
 same
 way.
 Very,
 very
 hard


to
 imagine
 that
 the
 political
 and


military
 end
 come
 to
 an
 agreement
 on


that.
 They
 may,
 but
 they
 would
 be


signing
 their
 own
 political
 death


warrant
 there.


It
 does
 certainly
 sound
 like
 it,
 Rick.


I'm
 assuming
 you
 look
 at
 it
 this
 way
 as


well,
 as
 obviously
 Benjamin
 Netanyahu


does.
 He's
 calling
 for
 the
 elimination


of
 Hamas.
 To
 what
 extent
 does
 that
 lead


to
 a
 potential
 rebranding,
 however,
 with


political
 leaders
 in
 Gaza
 assuming
 the


role
 of
 leadership
 in
 some
 other
 group?

>> Yeah,
 look,
 I
 mean,
 I,
 I
 think
 it,
 it
 goes


without
 saying
 that
 um,
 Prime
 Minister


Netanyahu
 said
 at
 the
 time
 two
 years
 ago


that
 the
 operation
 that
 he
 will
 uh,
 o-,


overtake
 is
 the
 complete
 and
 total


destruction
 of
 Hamas,
 and,
 and
 that
 has


not
 happened
 to
 today.
 There
 are
 still


people
 who
 uh,
 would
 be
 considered


leaders
 there,
 and
 they
 are
 the
 ones


currently
 negotiating.
 Uh,
 Jeannie
 makes


a
 good
 point.
 I'm
 not
 sure
 it's
 a


political
 point.
 It
 actually
 is
 a
 death


warrant
 for
 these
 individuals
 because
 we


only
 have
 to
 remember
 the
 1972
 Munich


uh,
 Olympic
 massacre.
 And,
 and,
 and
 Israel
 at


that
 time
 said
 the
 same
 thing.
 We
 will


hunt
 down
 the
 people
 who
 did
 this,
 and


and
 we
 will
 destroy
 them.
 And,
 and


Operation
 Wrath
 of
 God
 did
 just
 that.


It
 took
 decades,
 but
 at
 the
 end
 of
 the


day,
 the
 people
 who
 per-,
 perpetrate
 this


attack
 two
 years
 ago
 on
 Israel
 will
 feel


the
 wrath
 of
 Israel.
 And
 so,
 this
 is
 a


heavy
 negotiation.
 Uh,
 there'll
 be


efforts
 to
 try
 and
 get
 leadership


sanctuary
 in
 other
 cities,
 but
 they
 all


know
 what
 we
 know,
 which
 is
 that
 Israel


will
 always
 look
 for
 opportunities
 to


vanquish
 their
 enemies
 who
 perpetrated


these
 horrible
 crimes
 on
 their
 people.


And,
 and
 that
 over,
 that
 has
 got
 to
 be


part
 of
 the
 negotiation
 that's
 going
 on


today.
 And
 so,
 yes,
 there
 are
 a
 lot
 of


technical
 issues
 that
 have
 to
 be
 uh,


figured
 out.
 The
 20-point
 plan
 is
 not


even
 close
 to
 being
 a
 comprehensive


plan.
 But
 at
 the
 end
 of
 the
 day,
 all


parties
 are
 now
 in
 one
 location,
 hashing


this
 out,
 which
 we
 have
 not
 seen
 happen


uh,
 here
 before.
 And
 I
 think
 the
 world
 is


keeping
 pressure
 on
 these
 groups
 to
 try


and
 come
 to
 a,
 to
 an
 end
 to
 this
 carnage


that's
 been
 been
 going
 on
 now
 for
 two


years.

>> It's
 an
 important
 moment.
 Uh,
 Genie,


in
 our
 final
 minute
 here
 in
 our


conversation,
 would
 the
 political


leadership
 of
 Hamas
 then
 following
 the


signing
 of
 any
 deal
 essentially
 just
 go


into
 hiding
 in
 Doha?
 They
 can
 never
 go


back
 to
 Gaza,
 right?

>> Yeah.
 I
 think
 that's
 an
 open
 question,


and
 it's
 a
 really
 important
 one,
 because


what
 history
 shows
 us
 is
 that
 any
 time


you
 destabilize
 a
 leadership,
 whether
 you


describe
 it
 as
 evil
 or
 tyrannical
 or


democratic
 or
 otherwise,
 another
 group
 is


going
 to
 come
 in
 and
 fill
 that
 power
 gap,


or
 power
 vacuum.
 And
 that
 group
 can
 be
 worse


than
 the
 group
 that
 preceded
 it.
 We've


seen
 that
 repeatedly.
 Um,
 and
 of
 course,


as
 the
 leading
 democracy
 in
 the
 world,


we
 must
 always
 remember
 we
 do
 owe
 to
 the


Palestinians
 a
 right
 of


self-determination
 as
 to
 how
 they
 live


peacefully.

>> Genie
 Shanzeno
 and
 Rick
 Davis
 tackling


some
 heady
 issues
 with
 us
 today
 on


Balance
 of
 Power.
 And
 I
 thank
 you
 both


for
 the
 insights,
 and
 we'll
 keep
 you


posted
 on
 talks
 in
 Cairo.
 Stay
 with
 us


on
 Balance
 of
 Power.
 We'll
 have
 much


more
 coming
 up
 after
 this.

You're
 listening
 to
 the
 Bloomberg


Balance
 of
 Power
 podcast.
 Catch
 us
 live


weekdays
 at
 noon
 and
 5:00
 p.m.


Eastern
 on
 Apple
 CarPlay
 and
 Android


Auto
 with
 the
 Bloomberg
 Business
 App.


You
 can
 also
 listen
 live
 on
 Amazon
 Alexa


from
 our
 flagship
 New
 York
 station.
 Just


say,
 "Alexa,
 play
 Bloomberg
 11:30."

>> The
 Tuesday
 edition
 might
 feel
 a
 little


bit
 like
 the
 Monday
 edition,
 in
 that
 the


government,
 yes,
 is
 still
 shut
 down,
 and


we
 have
 no
 idea
 when
 it's
 going
 to


reopen.
 You
 start
 talking
 to
 lawmakers


as
 we
 did
 earlier
 with
 Chairman
 Boston


about
 off-ramps,
 and
 everybody
 points
 to
 the
 other
 party


and
 that's
 where
 we
 are
 right
 now
 with


more
 voting
 in
 the
 mix
 in
 the
 Senate


today.
 Of
 course,
 there's
 the
 prospect


of
 either
 more
 Democrats
 falling
 off
 the


fence
 here
 and
 voting
 for
 the
 continuing


resolution,


much
 as
 there
 is
 some
 falling
 off.
 There


is
 reporting
 today
 that
 Angus
 King,
 the


independent
 who
 caucuses
 with
 the


Democrats,
 who
 voted
 for
 this,
 one
 of


three
 to
 cross
 over,
 might
 not
 be
 on


board
 today
 because
 of
 some
 of
 the


rhetoric
 that
 we're
 hearing.
 A
 lot
 of


this
 comes
 down
 to
 trust,
 which
 we're


going
 to
 discuss
 in
 a
 moment
 with
 Megan


Scully,
 who
 leads
 our
 capital
 influence


team.
 We
 did
 discuss
 it
 earlier
 today


with
 Republican
 Senator
 Bill
 Cassidy
 of


Louisiana,
 who
 is
 on
 Bloomberg


Surveillance.
 Let's
 watch
 and
 listen.

>> There's
 a
 complete
 breakdown
 of
 trust.


Um,
 Chuck
 Schumer,
 obviously,
 he
 could


end
 it
 tomorrow
 if
 he
 wants
 to
 end
 it,


but
 he
 doesn't
 trust
 the
 president.
 Uh,


that
 said,
 Chuck
 Schumer
 could
 end
 this


tomorrow.
 I'm
 hoping
 that
 he
 does,
 and


I'm
 hoping
 it
 doesn't
 take
 a
 lot
 of
 pain


from
 the
 American
 people
 in
 order
 to
 get


him
 to
 do
 so.

>> Is
 there
 a
 breakthrough
 of
 the
 fact


that,
 and
 good
 morning,
 Senator,
 that
 it


does
 seem
 like
 both
 sides,
 at
 least
 at


this
 point,
 want
 to
 talk
 about
 talking,


as
 political
 put
 it,
 that
 the
 president


is
 coming
 out
 and
 saying
 maybe
 there


could
 be
 a
 compromise
 when
 it
 comes
 to


healthcare.

>> Yeah.
 Uh,
 I'm,
 I'm
 absolutely.
 You
 know


it's
 better
 to
 jaw
 jaw
 than
 to
 war,
 as


Winston
 Churchill
 once
 said.
 So,
 let's
 go


ahead
 and
 start
 talking.
 That
 said,


Republicans
 have
 suggested
 a
 seven-week


extension
 of
 the
 current
 budget
 to
 allow


to
 allow
 dialogue
 to
 continue.
 And


that's
 commonly
 done,
 as
 Chuck
 Schumer


points
 out,
 happened
 13
 times
 under
 Joe


Biden.
 And
 so,
 that
 seven
 weeks
 kept


the
 government
 open,
 allowed
 us
 to
 continue


to
 negotiate.
 So,
 I
 think
 there's


something
 else
 that
 Schumer
 is
 thinking


about.
 Not
 quite
 sure
 what
 it
 is,
 but


I'd
 rather
 be
 talking
 than
 kind
 of


sitting
 in
 our
 own
 corners.

>> What
 is
 going
 to
 happen
 though,
 at
 the


end
 of
 the
 year,
 when
 we
 get
 this
 premium


hike?

>> Um,
 well,
 first,
 we
 don't
 know
 a
 premium


hike
 is
 going
 to
 occur.
 Let's
 just
 say


that.
 Uh,
 but
 secondly,
 uh,
 we've
 got
 to


address
 the
 fact
 that
 the
 Affordable


Care
 Act
 has
 become
 the
 unaffordable


care
 act,
 in
 which
 it
 takes
 huge


subsidies
 in
 order
 to
 continue
 to
 make


those
 policies
 affordable
 to
 Americans.


That's
 wrong.
 We
 got
 to
 roll
 that
 back


to
 a
 point
 where
 it's
 still
 affordable


to
 Americans,
 but
 it
 doesn't
 require


these
 huge
 subsidies.
 This
 is
 not


sustainable.
 But
 by
 the
 way,
 it's
 not


just
 me
 saying
 this.
 The
 Washington
 Post


had
 an
 editorial
 about
 how
 the


Affordable
 Care
 Act
 is
 no
 longer


affordable.
 So,
 I
 think
 now
 might
 be
 the


time.
 What
 can
 we
 do
 to
 help
 the


American
 American
 public
 lower
 health


care
 cost
 in
 a
 way
 which
 is
 not
 just
 for


the
 exchanges,
 but
 for
 those
 in
 the
 kind


of
 private
 markets
 as
 well?
 Could
 you


get
 a
 compromise
 like
 that
 before
 the


end
 of
 the
 year?

>> I
 sure
 hope
 so,
 but
 first,
 you
 got
 to


reopen
 the
 government.
 Um,
 we're


actually
 asking
 for,
 you
 know,
 okay,
 how


can
 we
 do
 this?
 How
 can
 we
 do
 that?
 The


government's
 shut
 down,
 so
 we
 can't
 get


some
 of
 the
 information.
 The
 seven-week


extension
 of
 the
 current
 budget
 allows


that
 to
 happen.
 And
 so,
 I'd
 ask
 Schumer


to
 reopen
 the
 government.
 In
 the


meantime,
 I'm
 certainly
 committed
 to
 how


we
 can
 lower
 health
 care
 costs
 for
 all


Americans.
 It's
 what
 I've
 been
 doing
 my


whole
 life.
 And
 so,
 let's
 get
 on
 it.


Senator,
 when
 it
 comes
 to
 moderate


Democrats,
 do
 you
 see
 any
 willingness


of
 some
 of
 them
 to
 join
 the
 three
 that
 we


have
 seen
 sign
 up
 and
 vote
 for
 a
 clear


stop-gap
 funding
 measure?

>> I've
 not
 spoken
 to
 any
 of
 them


personally.
 You'd
 like
 to
 think
 so.
 One


more
 time,
 we've
 just
 asked
 for
 a
 seven-week


extension
 of
 the
 current
 budget,
 which


was
 done
 13
 times
 under
 Joe
 Biden.
 And


so,
 so,
 so,
 I
 would
 hope
 they
 would


because
 this
 is
 inflicting
 pain
 on
 the


American
 people,
 but
 we
 could
 be
 talking


with
 each
 other
 without
 a
 shutdown.


Republican
 from
 Louisiana,
 also
 a


physician,
 we
 should
 note.
 So,
 that


conversation
 about
 extending
 ACA


subsidies
 is
 important
 through
 the
 eyes


of
 Dr.
 Cassidy,
 as
 it
 is
 through
 the


eyes
 of
 Megan
 Scully,
 who
 we
 get
 to
 talk


with
 now,
 runs
 Bloomberg's
 Capital


Influence
 Team.
 This
 is
 the
 group
 of


people
 here
 in
 Washington
 tasked
 with


covering
 this
 shutdown
 24
 hours
 a
 day


until
 it
 ends.
 And
 Megan,
 it's
 great
 to


see
 you
 once
 again.

>> Thanks
 for
 having
 me.

>> In
 a
 shutdown
 here,
 um,
 really


interesting
 to
 hear
 the
 discipline
 among


Republicans
 when
 it
 comes
 to
 messaging


around
 this.
 I
 don't
 know
 how
 many
 times


we
 just
 heard
 the
 name
 Chuck
 Schumer.
 I


don't
 think
 Bill
 Cassidy
 called
 it
 the


Schumer
 shutdown,
 but
 we're
 getting
 that


as
 often
 as
 well.
 13
 times,
 right,
 under


Biden.
 We
 hear
 that
 in
 every
 answer
 from


each
 lawmaker.


Some
 of
 this
 was
 tipped
 over
 a
 little


bit
 by
 the
 president
 yesterday,
 when
 he


talked
 about
 these
 talks
 being
 underway


with
 Democrats.
 The
 White
 House
 has


walked
 that
 back
 a
 little
 bit.
 Yes,
 I


was
 talking
 with
 Tom
 Emmer
 last
 evening,


the
 majority
 whip.
 He
 didn't
 want
 any


part
 of
 that
 conversation.
 All
 I
 heard


about
 was
 the
 Schumer
 shutdown.
 Are


Republicans
 winning
 the
 messaging
 war?

>> You
 know,
 polling
 is
 indicating
 that


they're
 not.
 Um,
 of
 course,
 it's
 early


yet,
 right?
 And
 the
 full
 effects
 of
 the


shutdown
 haven't
 been
 felt
 by
 the


American
 people
 when
 we
 start
 to
 see


travel
 delays
 because
 TSA
 workers
 are


calling
 out.
 Um,
 you
 know,
 perhaps
 it


will
 be
 there
 will
 be
 a
 different,
 there


will
 be
 a
 shift.
 Um,
 but
 you
 know,
 the


the,
 the,
 the
 biggest
 those
 feeling
 it
 the


most
 are
 those
 who
 are
 going
 to
 be
 going


without
 a
 paycheck
 later
 this
 week
 or
 or


next
 week.
 Certainly,
 I
 will
 say
 it's


hard,
 it's
 easier
 for
 the,
 for
 the
 House


Republicans,
 particularly
 to
 stay
 on


message
 because
 they're
 not
 here
 in


Washington,
 right?
 So,
 they
 are,
 they
 may


be
 at
 home
 doing
 some
 um,
 doing


interviews,
 but
 they're
 not
 here
 voting.


They're
 not
 getting
 tracked
 down
 in
 the


halls
 by
 by
 our
 reporters,
 by
 other


reporters.
 So,
 it
 is
 easier
 to
 stay
 on


message
 then.
 But,
 we
 did
 see
 one
 very


um,
 important
 one
 who,
 someone
 who's


become
 a
 bit
 of
 a
 squeaky
 wheel
 in
 the


House
 Republican
 caucus,
 and
 that's


Marjorie
 Taylor
 Greene.
 I'm

>> glad
 you
 brought
 this
 up.
 What
 do
 you


think
 about
 this?
 I
 can't
 even
 read


the
 whole
 thing,
 or
 they'll
 bleep
 us
 on


the
 air.
 And
 it's
 also
 a
 long
 post.

>> It
 is
 very
 long.
 She
 says
 she's
 carving


her
 own
 lane,
 and
 she's
 pointing
 to
 her


own
 family

>> when
 it
 comes
 to
 rising
 subsidies.
 Is


she
 on
 her
 own
 here,
 or
 does
 she
 open


the
 door
 for
 other
 Republicans
 to
 do
 the


same?

>> So,
 it's
 hard
 to
 say
 at
 this
 moment.


Marjorie
 Taylor
 Greene
 doesn't
 really


represent
 anyone.
 Um,
 you
 know,
 she
 was


in
 the,
 the
 ultra-conservative
 House


Freedom
 Caucus
 and
 got
 kicked
 out.
 So


her,
 she's
 sort
 of
 a
 caucus
 of
 one.
 Um,


and
 her,
 her
 allies
 may
 not
 necessarily


fall
 in
 line
 behind
 her.
 Um,
 but
 I
 think


it
 is
 an
 interesting
 jailbreak
 from,
 you


know,
 the
 Republican
 message
 and


particularly
 when
 she's
 talking
 about


her
 own
 adult
 children
 having
 double


premiums,
 um,
 and
 it
 being
 very
 much
 a


concern.
 She
 also
 is
 a
 small
 business


owner,
 and
 a
 lot
 of
 small
 business
 owners


rely
 on
 the
 Affordable
 Care
 Act
 to
 get


their
 insurance.

>> Sure.
 To
 your
 point,
 she's
 talking
 about


uh,
 her
 kids.
 I'm
 going
 to
 go
 against


everyone
 on
 this
 issue,
 she
 writes,


because
 when
 the
 tax
 credits
 expire
 this


year,
 my
 own
 adult
 children's
 insurance


premiums
 for
 26
 are
 going
 to
 double


along
 with
 all
 the
 wonderful
 families


and
 hardworking
 people
 in
 my
 district.


She
 may
 not
 be
 part
 of
 uh,
 a
 powerful


caucus,
 but
 she
 does
 have
 the


president's
 ear,
 right?
 Does
 this
 help


to
 maybe
 crack
 the
 door
 a
 little
 bit
 on


this
 issue
 with
 the
 White
 House?

>> So,
 we
 are
 trying
 to
 sort
 that
 out.
 Um,


her
 relationship
 with
 Trump
 has
 been
 a


bit
 fraught
 um,
 in
 recent
 weeks,


particularly
 over
 the
 Epstein
 files.


She's
 been
 one
 of
 the,
 the
 lawmakers
 to


sign
 on
 to
 what
 we
 call
 discharge


petitions
 there.

>> Yes,
 certainly.
 And
 she
 was
 supposed
 to


have
 a
 press
 conference
 at
 the
 capital


tomorrow
 um,
 on
 particularly
 sort
 of
 a,
 a


revised
 or
 an
 updated

>> that
 seems
 to
 be
 cancelled
 for
 right


now,
 but
 she's
 still
 beating
 the
 drum
 on


the
 release
 of
 the
 Epstein
 file.
 So,
 it


is
 very
 interesting
 to
 see
 her
 break


with
 the
 president
 yet
 again
 on
 this.


I'm
 not
 sure
 if
 he's
 answering
 her
 calls


right
 now.
 We're
 definitely
 endeavoring


to
 find
 out.

>> Boy,
 I
 bet
 that's
 true.
 You
 know,
 with


regard
 to
 the
 discharge
 petition,
 just


to
 veer
 off
 course
 for
 one
 minute,


there's
 a
 new
 member
 of
 Congress.


Congresswoman
 Grahalva,
 or
 Congresswoman


Elect
 Grahalva
 has
 not
 been
 sworn
 in

>> Yes.

>> to
 office
 yet.
 There's
 a
 whole


conspiracy
 online
 that
 this
 shutdown
 is


only
 to
 keep
 the
 Epstein
 files
 from


being
 released.
 But
 why
 can,
 can
 you
 not


swear
 in
 a
 new
 member
 when
 the


government's
 closed?

>> We,
 because
 the
 House
 is
 not
 in
 session.


It's
 as
 simple
 as
 that.

>> So
 they
 can't
 swear.

>> So,
 next
 week,
 it
 could
 be
 a
 different


story

>> if
 Mike
 Johnson
 were
 to
 call
 the
 House


back
 in.
 Although
 he
 says
 they're
 going


to
 stay
 out
 for
 the
 duration
 of
 the


shutdown.

>> Yeah.
 I'm
 going
 to
 take
 the
 opportunity


to
 mention,
 by
 the
 way,
 that
 we're
 going


to
 be
 speaking
 with
 uh,
 Speaker
 Mike


Johnson
 tomorrow
 here
 on
 Balance
 of


Power
 on
 the
 Late
 Edition,
 which
 is
 a


conversation
 that
 we're
 obviously
 uh


very
 much
 looking
 forward
 to,
 to
 learn


exactly
 where
 his
 head
 is
 right
 now.


Now,
 the
 speaker
 of
 the
 House
 will
 join


us
 in
 the
 5:00
 p.m.
 Eastern
 hour


tomorrow
 here
 on
 Bloomberg
 TV
 and
 radio.


Do
 we
 know
 what
 the
 plan
 is
 today,
 or
 are


we
 just
 ad-living?
 There
 was
 supposed
 to


be
 votes
 every
 day,
 right?
 But
 we


haven't
 heard
 about
 a
 time.

>> We
 have
 not
 heard
 about
 a
 time
 in
 the


Senate
 for
 a
 vote.
 They've
 already
 voted


on
 the,
 the
 seven-week
 stop-gap,
 which


Senator
 Cassidy
 mentioned,
 five
 times,


and
 it's
 failed
 all
 five
 times.
 So,
 um

>> six
 might
 not
 make
 a
 difference.

>> Yes.
 Um,
 so,
 we're
 waiting
 to
 see
 if
 they


if
 they
 do
 call
 a
 vote.
 I
 think
 some
 of


the
 president's
 actions
 in
 the
 past
 day


um,
 have
 kind
 of
 thrown
 a
 wrench
 into


things,
 particularly
 his
 announcement


this
 morning,
 or
 the
 OM
 memo,
 the
 budget


office
 memo
 that's
 been
 circulating
 on


not
 giving
 pay
 to
 furloughed,
 back
 pay
 to


furloughed
 employees.
 So,
 um,
 that
 has
 sort


of
 sucked
 all
 the
 oxygen
 out
 of
 the
 room


today
 on
 Capitol
 Hill
 as,
 as
 members
 of


both
 parties
 seize
 on
 those
 comments.

>> Well,
 it's
 interesting
 that
 you
 know


Angus
 King
 aforementioned
 has
 been


listening
 to
 this,
 doesn't
 like
 the


rhetoric,
 and
 he's
 suggesting
 that
 he
 may


become
 a
 no
 vote
 once
 again
 uh,
 on
 all


of
 this.
 We've
 got
 uh,
 not
 just
 Angus
 King,


but
 John
 Fetterman,
 I'm
 assuming
 that


he's
 in
 place
 for
 now.
 Senator
 Cortez


Masto
 also
 a
 question.
 Could
 we
 be
 in
 a


world
 where
 the
 next
 round
 of
 voting,
 and


maybe
 that's
 why
 we
 don't
 have
 one
 today,


looks
 worse?

>> We
 certainly
 seem
 to
 be
 going
 the
 wrong


way.
 Um,
 at
 least
 if
 you're,
 if
 you
 are
 a


member
 of
 Republican
 leadership.
 Um,
 all


senators
 are
 also
 not
 in
 town.
 There


were
 quite
 a
 few
 who
 were,
 who
 were


absent
 last
 night
 for
 for
 the
 vote.
 Um


>> must
 love
 that

>> it's
 a
 60
 vote
 threshold.
 Um,
 so
 it
 is


um,
 it
 will
 be
 very
 interesting
 to
 see
 in


the
 next
 round
 of
 votes.
 You
 know


Republicans
 had
 hoped
 to
 be
 picking


Democrats
 off
 one
 by
 one.
 You
 know,
 there


are,
 there
 are
 several
 moderates
 who


would
 like
 to
 see
 the
 government
 reopen,


particularly
 those
 in
 this
 area,
 people


like
 Senator
 Tim
 Kaine
 from
 Virginia.


But
 um,
 but
 the
 president's
 threats
 to


to
 fire
 um,
 federal
 workers
 and
 to
 not


give
 back
 pay
 to
 furloughed
 employees
 seem


to
 be
 having
 opposite
 of
 the
 intended


effect.
 Instead
 of
 scaring
 Democrats,


it's
 making
 them
 more
 resolute.

>> Wow.
 Amazing.
 The
 president
 says
 four
 or


five
 days,
 uh,
 we'll
 have
 a
 decision
 of


some
 sort
 on
 furloughs
 becoming
 layoffs,
 on


the
 mass
 layoffs
 that
 that
 have
 been


threatened.
 That
 sounds
 to
 me,
 four
 or


five
 days.
 Everyone's
 going
 to
 kind
 of


wait
 for
 the
 10th
 and
 the
 15th,
 the
 next


stops
 in
 the
 pay
 cycle
 for
 feds
 and
 for


military.
 Is
 that
 kind
 of
 the
 next
 stop


in
 the
 road?

>> So,
 we've
 been
 hearing
 him
 say,
 you


know,
 we've
 gotten
 different
 timelines


for
 this.
 You
 know,
 last
 week
 it
 was


within
 a
 few
 days,
 within
 a
 day
 or
 two.


Now,
 it's
 four
 or
 five
 days.
 It's


starting
 to
 feel
 like
 when
 I'm
 driving


with
 my
 kids
 in
 the
 back
 seat,
 they're


acting
 up
 and
 I'm
 like,
 I'm
 going
 to


turn
 this
 car
 around.

>> Don't
 make
 me.

>> Um,
 so,
 it,
 it
 remains
 to
 be
 seen.


Certainly,
 the
 threat
 is
 still
 hanging


out
 there.
 Um,
 federal
 workers
 are


supposed
 to
 be
 paid
 this
 Friday.
 So,
 that


would
 then
 set
 them
 up
 for,
 you
 know,
 for


layoffs
 at
 some
 point
 after.
 He
 did
 say


it
 would
 be
 substantial
 today.
 Um,
 in


the
 past,
 they've
 said
 thousands.
 So,
 um

>> will
 remain
 to
 be
 seen.
 I
 can't


underscore
 enough,
 though,
 how
 different


this
 is
 from
 previous
 shutdowns
 where


you
 know,
 previous
 administrations
 have


not,
 you,
 Trump
 himself
 did
 not
 use


correct

>> the
 35-day
 shutdown,
 the
 last
 one
 we
 had


in
 2018
 to
 2019
 to
 do
 mass
 firings.

>> your
 gut
 check
 though,
 is
 check
 back
 when


there's
 news,
 right?
 I
 mean,
 we,
 we
 could


set
 a
 new
 record
 in
 this
 shutdown.

>> granted,
 we
 could
 reopen
 in
 a
 couple
 of


days,
 but
 the
 prospect
 for
 a
 protracted


shutdown
 is
 there.

>> absolutely.
 Talks
 are
 not


happening,
 and
 neither
 side
 seems
 like


they
 are
 willing
 to
 give
 at
 this
 point.


So,
 I
 think
 that
 it
 will
 be
 interesting


to
 watch.
 Um,
 last
 time
 in,
 in
 2019,


January
 2019,
 what
 ultimately
 convinced


Trump
 to
 reopen
 the
 government
 after
 he


didn't
 get
 his
 border
 wall
 funding
 was


the,
 the
 air
 traffic
 controllers
 not


showing
 up
 for
 work
 and
 hobbling
 air


traffic
 in
 this
 country.

>> And
 we've
 got
 thousands
 of
 flight
 delays


already
 with
 some
 thin
 staffing.
 This


could
 really
 be
 the
 next
 leg
 in
 the


story.
 Uh,
 Megan
 Scully,
 great
 to
 have


you
 with
 us.
 Our
 Capital
 Influence
 team


is
 busy
 living
 on
 caffeine
 and
 nothing


like
 seeing
 Steven
 Dennis
 and
 the
 rest


of
 the
 crew
 up
 there
 on
 Capitol
 Hill
 do


their
 thing.
 Eric
 Watson
 as
 well.
 This


is
 Bloomberg.
 Thanks
 for
 listening
 to


the
 Balance
 of
 Power
 podcast.
 Make
 sure


to
 subscribe
 if
 you
 haven't
 already
 at


Apple,
 Spotify,
 or
 wherever
 you
 get
 your


podcasts.
 And
 you
 can
 find
 us
 live
 every


weekday
 from
 Washington,
 D.C.
 at
 noon
 time


Eastern
 at
 bloomberg.com.