it's not clear to me putting the dollars into the hands of individuals in these 10 states assuming the states take it up. resulting in better prices from a lot of these stitutions or providers or manufacturers. the other thing unclear, there is no additional things i'd share them with the other thing is that i will leave you with is going back to the question of how do we get this proposal

anywhere? if the state is going to pursue this it would be coming to get the questions on how this all works it would be through the org 15 labor process. is it likely to come as the demonstration likely to assist in promoting the object of the medicaid program. >> we are going to leave to take you live to discussion about free markets with house financial services chair patrick mckinney of north carolina. you are watching live coverage on c-span2. >> there is an emerging consensus around the future of free enterprise here in washington dc in essence, is a free enterprise to have the future or at least not much of the free-market orthodoxy can be found in the left and right and increasingly in the halls of power. if the biden administration the

core animating conviction the agent neoliberalism is not met by nomex represents a paradigm in which thoughtful industrial planning will build the economy of the future. and stringently regulated politically client private enterprise will have the privilege of playing a supporting role in meeting. needless to say, by demonic because it resonated with the wider public. the president and allies largely avoid the term these days. and for good reason. in recent echelon and site survey do not% of voters cited the cost of living as a biggest challenge facing the country. 85% of respondents told ap that inflation and rising crisis will be "strong motivator" vote in november. only 31% of registered voters believe the economy is on the right track. of course, none of this would suggest voters are suddenly becomes all government ideologues. even but among republicans 52%

of voters in the most recent survey rich households should pay a greater share of their income in taxes. that's not exactly encouraging news for those of us who are hardened tax cutters. doesn't that suggest things are very different than they were in the reagan era? not quite. in 1987 the tail end of the reagan presidency 63% of voters felt the rich weren't paying ■u enough. that's the height of the reagan era republican voters were more critical populace than they are today. s 1980 415% republican voters felt the federal government spent too much on social security. not exactly bringing endorsement. today the number has fallen but fallen to 8%. somewhat lower than what you expect in the age of the electric this is exactly a revolutionary shift. the truth is whether we are talking about the reagan era or biotin era most voters aren't

especially ideological. indeed this is one way to make sense of the political rise no one seriously believes trenton is a committed ideologue rather his appeal he will do whatever it works in the defense of consistency. as we look to the future of free enterprise the real question is not whether voters will explicitly embrace the economic prescriptions it's about which policymakers they ■awill trust to get the economy moving ahead. to break left behind communities in stagnation and decline the argument partisans of free-market policies to make the argument most compelling is not that their approach is the most philosophically sound it's thatcalling for sustainable flexible policies that actually work to combat sclerosis and stagnation. what we need is free-market realism not free-market ideology. many of today's most profound political economy challe energy abundance biomedical progress and rising

geopolitical tension call for renewed focus on unlocking the supply side of the economy. this is some of what we are discussing today and with that, i'm honored and delighted to introduce our first speaker, genuine leader on the hill representative patrick henry of north carolina during congressman henry office he served a number of key leadership roles including position as chairman of house financial services committee. drawing on his wide-ranging experience nd executive branch and the north carolina house of representatives, chairman mchenry has played a central role in efforts to modernize america's approach to financial relation. please join me in welcoming chairman mchenry. [applause] it's been almost 16 years global financial crisis which devastated the american economy. how concerned are you about the prospect for another financial

crisis. >> there is always a concern whenever you are in one of these seats overseeing the financial system of the next crisis. or that you don't have enough data or the proper data to measure what will become evident after the that through a massive amount of urat preven financial crisis including financial stability oversight council which moves the balance sheet with the systemic banking crisis that took down three banks but only three banks less systemic in the aftermath the oversight council didn't see this coming.

no matter how much money you throw at it no matter how many government words you have your going to miss what will become evident afterwards. what we can do is build resiliency to the financial system. and make sure there's a clear understanding of bank balance sheets so investors can see and sethat's what happened in march. investors in december called out what became evident to the broader public in march. the regulators didn't catch it. clarity to the puic in third and final, make sure you have no bank can fail and the bank can fail without causing contagion in the financial system. nor a large crisis otherwise. i think we can do that improper regulation. changing significantly what that's like.

you've taken all of our banks and we now have a banking system that rates those over $50 billion and those under $50 billion, two types of itutions. in terms of regulation, regulatory practical regulation they treat them all the same. you don't really have a diversity of lending option in the marketplace which has given us that vibrancy. imagine a large bank you come in and say i'm an entrepreneur i have these three contracts i would like to buy my fourth piece of equipment. the large banks as we don't have time for this type of lending it's a little too risky for the fact checking exercise

and used to be pre-financial crisis you go to a small bank and they would say tell me about the contract. it's right on the street we know these institutions we know you have a two-year run for the contracts. we verified it with these folks. we will take a risk and they walk with you it's more adventurous style lending private equity style investment banks used to do. they cannot do because of regulatory overreach. the public markets large banks don't adapt to the regulatory structure. it does have a large macro effect for the landing. but they can adapt to a few more lawyers. >> you see the banking sector right now is excessively consolidated and you want to see new entry? >> what i would like to see is real competition.if you're denied the loan at $100 billion

bank you probably can be denied same loan at a $10 billion bank. and $1 billion bank. before you go back those three institutions may have different risk profiles and the adaptability to take different types of risk-based knowledge and practical understanding. that's less of the case today. while we have a significant number of banks in this country, it's been grossly consolidated over the last 40 years, born heavily out of washington regulation of a disproportionate set of consolidations occur because of regulatory cost. then you have the recurrent financial regulators that look at competition law very artful in a new think math i think gross concoction somebody is trying to sell you because they have an overage of celery in the kitchen.

so they're trying to foist on the body politics it does not want. i've gotten ahead of myself stop my point here is that we need to get back to traditional understanding of competition law not the administration novel approach to competition whereby no one wins. no one wins and their, they've had this very artful look of what they don't like in the marketplace not competition law. if the administration wants to oppose consolidation of financial institution or technology companies, they can do that through policy they don't need to mask it and competition law. the traditional economics of the competition.

>> part of it is a question of excessive consolidation but you want to use the right tool to address that. also another issue with differentiation making sure we have financial institutions to the wide breadth. >> some reasonable consolidations for banking could make sense. so you actually have more competition right pnow after th households in america half the households in america have an account with one bank. is that absurd? yes. the direct results of those large financial institutions being fitted by dodd frank and driving consolidation is the elite highest level in decimating the financial institutions where they can't even consolidate to compete up with the largest financial institutions stop.

>> you been a champion of innovation in the financial sector one area where there have been considerable innovations and considerable controversy is the digital asset ecosystem. can you walk us through what you are trying to accomplish with the financial innovation technology for the 21st century app. >> right now we have this thing called crypto. i will try to put it into building blocks so you see where i'm going to stop crypto, crypto think that client, you have a watching infrastructure in the key to the block chain infrastructure to see information protect the data that's a key your key had some value. that key we now call crypto. that would be bitcoin you have

the infrastructure and a key to the infrastructure of the key has some value a number of people ing that is a financial instrument because the key does have value to a larger network. what is crypto and what is a digital asset has no real definition stop we have over 10,000 coins being offered in novel concepts. much of which is fraud. no federal definition of this. no legal frame for establishing property right or ownership right. no means of exchange. so what are trying to establish with legislation working with congressman french hell who helped me and we designed this bill together with glenn thompson and dusty johnson on

the agate committee we established what is the securities and exchange route commission proper role on market structure, what is the futures trading commission. what is digital commodity what is digital security and we have this dividing line. this is what happened in 1933 with the establishment of securities act and securities exchange act 33 and 34 this is what we need for this new architecture around digital assets. definition means of exchange, clarity underwater. what we are trying tgot bipartisan out of the house, two thirds of the house of representatives with somebody one of my deborah knapp colleagues almost all republicans. what we establish is a clear set of rules and not just similar to what the europeans established. not similar to what they

established in japan singapore and even hong g to catch up to where europeans are in the new cutting edge technology. when was the last time we try to catch up with europe on technology not this. it's been a very long time we were behind europe but this is one area we are because we don't have clarity of law. i think given how wide this vote was in the house it establishes two things. post financial crisis politics are not the same. this is not been big bank little bank policy with the progressive left populist progressive left is trying to do with financial policy so the politics are gone. number one number two crypto is here to stay and it's bipartisan.

with those two things that gives us an opportunity to legislate not just in the house but through the senate and get the bill signed. >> what you see is potential implication of rising rays of digital assets for financial stability? do you see it as potentially a tool that's conducive to fostering greater stability? i think there is a widely held view that it's not. to call it crypto currency to call it a currency i don't think has the right moniker. this is the underpinning of the next internet technology we will see the benefits of digital assets and crypto for the next 20 to 30 years. in many ways the concerns of ai and deep faith can be answered through digital assets and tokenization. those things we can establish digital identity is very resilient way.

and award against ai defects. the pairing of those technologies will bring us a level of tability these were because i governmental public

companies and the united institutions very special treatments. they ignited the financial crisis in 2008 2009 stop we have not fixed the problem. these are not because i public sector fully public sector institutions with special privileges. and over $1 trillion of assets this is the great work left undone and public policy. for my chairmanship i had three terms to lead to the committee. as a republican we have term limits and benefit house republics greatly. a number of great republicans

mice competing for my seat in the congress and that's a very good thing. i think the term limits policy perhaps has been a great benefit. in this circumstance it me i kn going in that's component where ever tiredcongress. if i had time it would ba top agenda item. but it will take time. and will take administration as interested in doing something and fixing the problem. and fixing the problem in a way that sustainable for the american economy or long-term.

which means you have to have a balanced approach and with interest from both parties in order to legislate here. i think it's possible but the administration deeply engaged it's gonna be a hopeless task. but it needs to be done. especially with fannie and freddie having abortions into new product offerings that get away from safe and sound practices and get down to the pre-financial crisis. >> you referring to the advent of the proposal for home equity product from freddie. >> yes. >> i'm curious if you think the private credit markets are to be impacted by the advent of such. >> and shirley what if you have a government agency competing with you you usually lose private sector decisions and public sector decisions with

money don't have the same level of resiliency. i think it's problematic i also think it's highly risky fannie and freddie to get into the offerings most of the products are in second loss position. in the first loss position it's not in >> it does seem akin to sweeping socialization of swath of the housing market which has all sorts of implications. >> of the further socialization of the housing market.

any more than that will be a great risk to the taxpayer. >> if you describe next year's you have all the ramp up of the biden large-scale vending programs. thoffice. much of that expires. the healthcare provisions that

in place our tax policy. tax code. those expire at the end of 25. we also have the individual rate all business rates. the third tax system in the united states corporate rate a personal income rates. and the personal rates expire you have a confluence of a fiscal clef unlike anything we've seen. in american history. the dollar amount is going to be extraordinary.

the first thing congress has to do is separate the two issues. you can deal with the tax policy first and you can deal with the additional fiscal items second it will be more difficult to deal with the trade-offs necessary in the fiscal question that it will be in the tax questions. and the tax question the hottest issue then from tax cuts and jobs act today is the discretion of the we have a 0,sufficient ã don't answer and municipalities within those certain states. >> i can't imagine which. >> i don't want to be too specific. [laughter] the reason why we tax cuts and jobs, everyone hates to

hear this. i care deeply about policy but i make policy in the midst of politics. i want 100% of my policy i'm willing to trade in order to get things passed and that means i don't always get, i never have gotten 100%. for the tax cuts and jobs act the only way we are able to do this out of action the way we did it because of the vote to do it. in the next congress we will not have the vote to do it the way we did with the tax cuts and jobs democrats have a much more significant problem on salt than do republicans but republicans if you have a problem let's say you have the

practical thing in the house 400-3502 218 vote for republican to 17 for democrat. well but we only have five people who care about salt. that's 500% more than we need. to address the problem. i believe we will have to address salt in a much more balanced way for members of our party who represent very southern piece of a very important state. that's not even the best example of this because you have illinois you have california you have certain municipalities across the country that are republican issue and that probably quite differently. to deal with the tax bill you

should be able to get that going quickly in 2025 with a republican house republican senate and republican white house that would unlock tax collection without having to address the fiscal question which will be much the linear and much more challenging given each of the subsidies and how they affect different districts and states. >> are there pay for as you can imagine conservative and moderate in the house coalescing around in order to accommodate let's say somewhat more generous approach to salt? republicans in the house and talked about the idea of rolling back many of the green energy subsidies and the inflation reduction act. i'm curious where you see some opportunity? it's good you are not running for reelection. >> i'm liberated here. i would tell you we tried to

address some of the clean energy tax provisions subsidy provisions biden put in place. last 2023. my republican leadership in the house sounded a very challenging thing. >> how to unify? >> yes because we are representatives. if you're going back and telling your people you directly put the screws to them, they don't liit. you talking about clean energy, let's talk solar, wind, the largest solar states in the country are republican-led states. the investment in solar is disproportionately and republican districts in those republican states so the idea you're going to do a full

reassessment green energy tax policy and be able to do it like this it's going to be quite a challenge. >> you can imagine that being shave but not wholesale reversal. >> correct. i think there are other more interesting pay for as you can do and tax policy. the question is whether or not the vote will be there to bear that. that's why i think you have to separate the two things tax policy from fiscal policy in the subsidy question. because you can do tax extension through the tax codes and jobs act without getting into some of the thorny issues around green tax credits. >> this past october use our best speaker during a very tumultuous time in the house. by all accounts he did a masterful job of dealing with an exceedingly difficult situation. is your sense of the divides in the house gop conference driven by ideological differences or

is it crashing personalities. >> those are two of the three reasons. the third reason is you have a narrow pub■>lican majority of t house and democrats in charge of the white house press senate. you have a razor thin majority in a democrat washington. it's a tough environment. it's a tough

expectations were sky high what we can do with one half and one third of government. i thought we had a better set of expectations and congress and we still have excessive expectations for what we can achieve this summer, in particular, passing all 12 appropriations bills when the senate has no plan to do that. regardless in the house the presidential election and election in november will dictate whether or not we have a spending bill and the rest of the fiscal year done, whether or not we really appropriate fully congress. the expectations were not properly set. the opening week of congress should abandon the expectations that are. we work intently to set the expectations of what we are aiming for with the fiscal

associations for the debt ceiling how we are going to operate the house with the investigator priorities and all those things passed out the first week of january and a very public way. speaker mccarthy like a great dynamic effort with the participants bringing them together and saying here is how we are going to operate. and fulfilled all the pledges and computing the negotiations and what we prioritize for appropriations how the weaponization of government operated with judiciary committee would focus on the oversight committee. the speaker honored every bit of those commitments and had success. success with the debt ceiling negotiation success with all the legislative proposals that came through house conference whether immigration reform tackling energy policy a number of key priorities in the

conference. and was undone bypassing continued resolution that was not what i expected for the year as a risk set i thought through by the way, the risks that didn't include what would happen to me that was not on the bingo card. but the risk set i had set in december there was three things the debt ceiling, finds a full year government running those of the big3 risks for speakership. he succeeded with the debt ceiling negotiations, congressman graves and i tasked us with negotiating with white house. we brought back a proposal and he managed it so very well stating early on let's negotiate get it out of the way and the white house finally

caving when they said they would not negotiate with us they caved. speaker had the upper hand in the negotiations reasonable than the president the president ããwe got negotiated agreement to raise the debt ceiling with the largest spending cuts in american history attached to the debt ceiling increase. @lgot two thirds vote of the house republicans two thirds vote of house democrats have never had a debt ceiling increase in my 20 years in congress it was like that. the spending cuts we can get to this about the debt deficit will be a pebble dropped in the ocean comparison to the problem yet still rates as the largest deficit reduction package congress has ever raised in history. then to september the speaker

has continued resolution we passed it with two thirds majority and the majority of republicans voting for that. that's what went to the speaker with democrats. it was not thought of as a political suicide event the idea was something bad happened we were in a bunker somewhere and reminisce congress we quickly make the decision on who the speaker is it was not

thought of it would take 23 days to resolve the issue please the nine-year-old was a little embarrassed. the 23 days were a huge challenge for house republicans it really showed our divides

getting to the decision was rough. absolute rough. we authorized buys, passive supplemental, all ese ends has two thirds support in the house and two thirds to the

house. >> often times with the particular bipartisan coalition you also mention another bipartisan coalition he built around digital assets when you are thinking particularly with the question of free enterprise. do you see as you leave the house the possibility there will be innovation forward market friendly coalition that could be public couple together with folks from both political parties. or is that just a pipe dream?

>> i think those are on the market structure built. 71 democrats voted r 21. they touch every caucus the democrats have. including showing you can be firmly in the midst of your party and innovation forward. including speaker pelosi.

understands the value of technology and innovation being the congresswoman from san francisco. so to see that mix it doesn't break down in terms of ideology. it doesn't even neatly break down based on age. the longer-term democrat colleagues is innovation forward as the newer members of the caucus. but it shows they are interested in america keeping its edge and we have to foster that and make sure that for us to compete against the great adversaries globally we have to be better versions of ourselves. with double down on who we are open society, rule of law, speech rights, all those things that have given us the great capacity over the long-term free economy to develop the best products and find the fit. we are going to outcompete everyone over the last century

based of those principles. with the double down on the efforts not try to be pale comparison to the ccp. that's a really bad idea. but to be better versions of who we are historically, that's how we win in the next century. >> please join me in thanking chairman mchenry. [applause] >> next we will have a panel led by my colleague judge locke we will begin shortly.

i've gotten fancier in my days, it's unny. >> hi, everybody i'm judge

gallant senior fellow with the senior research fellow man ãã i'm very pleased to have introduced and moderate the panel on the cost of intervention. before i start, to set the stage and go a little bit further. one thing that's easy to forget and spread wide and came to office's sharpest and shortest recessions in modern memory. you would think it would have a very positive political boost from overseeing recovery dropped to the highest level what the best we've seen in 40 years the biden camp lane after what he characterized as the chaos of the trump years but

surprisingly to many people he actually oversaw one of the most activist economic policies in modern times rivals in some sense the achievement of the great society or new deal in terms of economic interventionism in terms of spending and new regulatory policy. although the administration has seen a rise of very low unemployment as the administration likes to emphasize is also seen an era of very high inflation vast unprecedented levels of government spending and new interventionist policies. these are three of my favorite commentators and speakers versus brian reidel senior fellow of manhattan institute, chief economist for rob portman and served as director of budget from marco rubio 2016 campaign. if any of you have followed the news recently you probably have seen brian commentating in many different forms and many

different publications. stephen myron on the my left is a fellow at the manhattan institute former senior advisor widely in academic forms such as the american economic journal. in the middle right there is allison schrager also seen your fellow at the manhattan institute. she's the author of the very fun but serious book i highly recommend to you. also a regular contributor at the economist. and bloomberg. if i could i would like to start with may seem overbroad question that is what do each of the panelists think is the most consequential decision biden's presidency.

>> the economic tone of the administration is really set in the first 50 days with the american rescue plan. if any of you held out hope this administration would moderate bipartisan, care about deficits, maybe even listen to economists, the american rescue plan shows us we were getting a highly medical partisan and quite ideologically progressive administration. when biden took office, there was so much stimulus already in the system and the economy was reopening that the cbo said the economy was only $420 billion below capacity.

we got $350 bailout state budget deficits that didn't actually exist. union pension bailout money for schools, unemployment bonuses, all grieved with child credit and even more rebates. so economists across the spectrum warrant this bill is too big and it's going to trigger inflation. they got ignored for two reasons. first it was a democratic narrative that had grown out of the great recession that the great recession's recovery was held back by not enough stimulus in government i think that was wrong that was the narrative. second, because that bill became more about what text then policy, democrats refuse

to negotiate or compromise they saw this christmas tree bill bill. ...... the idea of a build back better collapse, biden

reelection. and for decades. and i know you bring a little bit with the policies. >> i agree with this policy driving inflation is the most consequential. inflation is one that i want to emphasize another one part of the reason is because of inflation and another is because you need it available if something happens.

and it was for this impression.■ we have this in which to do so. but if you run a 7% deficit during this expansion is historically reckless but also it leaves you with no thing to third and you have limited response.

and it was causing inflation and monetary policies to protect that. now is the break in policymaking jake sullivan lester where he had this con and if you call in the early post pandemic years always

people were like, it became a focus which i love and think more carefully. in this idea like i didn't realized environmental restrictions for would have to hire more. i don't think the government has internalized that and i don't see it being we shouldn't direct resources and human capital.

fred is trying to go. financial capitalism getting these policies. i thought it had gone and we had the clinton administration believing in markets. >> those of us who remember the time one or two or 3% gdp now look back in admiration of that.

for the first two years of biden's terms a sympathetic congress discussing these massive interventions if anyone feels free to jump in, the animations like this ideology behind it and to do with whether or not they are involved in the planning. >> the theme of the first two years was unions and industrial policies. we have seen based on reunions.

it was stepped on the school fighting inflation. the way, he chose union and labor over inflation. they are picking winners and losers. >> the policy going on these going on. these winners and losers and prioritizing labor over the higher goal to fight inflation.

thirty or 40 years and policies without trade-off. i think that's gone. inflation is not back even if it goes down and their minds. in the consulate of activities and there are no costs so it is a complete believe. >> and that is the ideology. and no inflation for about a

decade. combined with i think being sidelined in the biden administration and you can consider that. it is about the economist. and during this, they been able to use and comprehend.

>> i think we have been seeing this for several administration. grab whatever power they have. and it was trying to rein in president nixon. president continues to grab more power expect especially accelerated bush and obama now congress doesn't assert itself anymore. and was so huge also discovered

executive driven$! spending and poor healthcare. building and infrastructure and we have seen very aggressive lighthouse though the power can while we expected it, the changes are how brazen it's become. in congress used to be the other party's opposition the white house as the enemy.

and take as much power as you want. >> when they come into power but this scale being different i think it is a new way and about $1.5 trillion. during the first term. >> do think it is distinctive? >> i think it is distinctive. last ten years it's emerged one of the major issues in the 20th century and in china and would go to the leader and

maintain middle-class it becomes harder that's expensive in america. it is adding to the cost of making things and regulations ry raising the cost of influence. there are many regulations that the administration and sometimes written into statutes of the law that require companies subsidies from the jobs act to observe requirements which makes unions preventing firms from competing on labor costs and reducing costs of building something, i just raises the cost of doing business in these requirements are throughout the biden honors

program and range from things like requiring a ton of features and cars to reduce missions mark requiring cars shut off if they are idling. there are dozens of things like that and every one of them makes it more to build and everything, use american labor in factories, you make it competitive and china doesn't care about that so they will come undercut you because they are making it lower because they don't have, some regulations are necessary. we have a lot of regulations that are important for so many are absolutely unnecessary and raise the cost. it is a major problem in wanting to prioritize issues like the

competition will china. >> many of us have talked, one of the fundamental visions is subsidized demand and restrict supply. , how much wou say inflation could be in by moments with recovery a reserve and they have inherited? >> inflation at its peak two or 3% due to expansionary policy and post pandemic supplies and since then the issues have been

largely resolved but isn my infs still high and giving a real test once inflation is in the economy, it is hard to get rid of so it's laying blame they are in expansion. the whole purpose of moment. policy is decreasing demand. three and a half% inflation a couple of years in the becomes the wage contract. the becomes a normal inflation.

lehman morneau for being persistent. >> the nature of the fiscal policy the federal reserve's behind failing to deal with inflation? >> initially behind the curve, i don't think they are now, you can quibble with how restricted they are being their job is larger largely undermined and we are running enormous debt that can be inflationary.

it ties in the future in terms of the independence we have high interest when we have a lot of debt and that is even more work can be undermined. related to interest rates, many of us have lived in the last couple of years the median home has doubled. taken to the fact that higher interest rates on housing, median mortgage on the home has doubled. what is the response to this policy? first, they assume more policies than the economy and regulation

of force the fed to raise rates even higher. the harder washington, biden presses the gas from of the s but the white house unveils a tax credit for buying housing for just going to raise demand more. the policies drive up interest rates brother with policy against it and subsidizing demand. this is why i promise pulled her hair out. >> a lot of this done by unilateral support.

suvs but buying catalogs to benefit from the taxpayer subsidies. somebody buying an 80000-dollar cadillac doesn't need a tenth of the cost covered over by the taxpayer. they were divine trade agreement. thereby keeping inflation and a lot of it is language and unilateral action.

the vicious cycle of the inflationary demand coming up interest rates and the deficit. thet can be to trillion a year by the end of the decade in the biggest expenditure outside of social security and 25% of the federal taxes will go from the debt. it is a moderate economic

administration would change many things. after the new deal and it is dealing with the deficit. one of the most important questions is the competition with china and precious time in which to really make an effort maintaining international supremacy and middle-class. to the extent we spent four years making american manufacturer activity building extensive to the extent we haven't done much to make

america to invest higher work. we've given time in which to continue building up the engine trying to ignore the market so look at auto industry now, china went from being nonexistent in the auto export international auto export, to being the biggest export all of a sudden theso. we have eroded our physical state, maintained an expensive currency and regulated our economy being uncompetitive and have not taken the time we have to compete with china.

getting what regulating a.i. going back to neoliberalism not. these things are in great society we still have. it is really hard to get rid of. >> one of the legacies against the biden administration is this view that on a physical basis we can increase any for everybody and give everybody these benefits and pay for the whole thing. we have these expectations of economics completely outside of

economic reality. within decades. could not close up by taxing the rich. 400,000 in taxes even as we expand medicare your reading these lawmakers to rain back.

>> how much of this can be undone and they are there and the hoping for people to change course. >> the biden administration keeps giving people money. obviously inflation and there is some sort of connection there. and they might be open to it.

>> you can take the approach, the new supplies that have come subsidizing sectors of the economy, winners and losers. you can have a reform where you make it easy to invest and ect higher economy going because it can easily adjust. >> it is undeniably the case losing between four to eight years to address social security and medicare, four years closer to social security and medicare parties involved and having it rapidly over these will make the

inevitable solution for people. ultimately the government has promised more than the economy more than will ever be able to deliver. the longer we wait and the more interest rates go up in the process, the more it's baked into the cake, your taxes will raise more than they would have had we done this earlier. not only losing these years but going backward. >> doing that will help unpopular policies and provide that many handouts and still have massive majority failed programs. reading has proposed $1 trillion in spending in the mortgage

proposal considering the current situation around inflation and double down. this is a more political question but should we expect something for the beats the current polling and wins again and november, using the likelihood of that? >> so much depends on outside factors. democrats win back the trifecta, they will try hard get the band back together. they might find voters enthusiastic. it republicans hold a house or senate, there's much desire to talk and not much will happen

legislatively which is normal. much will depend on the econo. is there recession? what happens in taiwan and ukraine? probably little legislative process as possible and i will add end of next term, president biden is going to be 85 years old. there's a legitimate question of how the policy will be relative to the white house. there's a lot of talk and stories about the outside influencer in the biden white house because the president is control so the direction of the second term we might see more empowerment where staff is.

we heard a lotoved so aggressivy which he didn't campaign on his because he had a younger 30-year-old staffers in the white house so what will they think of next? >> although i have concerns, 30-year-old white house staffers, i guess that will happen a little longer. >> i think it depends on congress although we do have executive action. who's in the administration? are you trying to get the beating and the administration? it could be worse.

what we have seen is the marginalization, economic policy generated so i don't see talk to your economists soargely driven by reelection i imagine it could be the same. >> a lesson the biden administration took from the midterms when inflation was even was that letter state inflation

but they didn't predominantly vote based on the button on economic issues and that's a lot of them thinking now so therefore if we do get second term, i would expect him to do the same. they think it's working, they don't seem to care about long-term fiscal sustainability and think inflation is something that is a messaging issue and not the material economic issue, you haven't looked in the rearview mirror lately or never ait concern and to get another term, voters will say

they are unhappy but do voted us back into office so will just do the same thing. >> you don't think it will punish? maybe interest rates -- >> on the fiscal crisis yet. close to want to buy and there is regulation to do that. >> but it is available at some time. >> yes, in the next four years. >> a message from noneconomic means the wars around the world and harderhis is what nursing, there is war? 15% of visit?

could be a shock noneconomic in nature but not from within the economic system to the going to open up q&a does anybody have questions?áç >> spirit of charity, what is one thing the administration has done the you think is genuine? >> i'l generous. i'm against the trade stuff but i do think during the pandemic we became aware how vulnerable we were to the chinese economy.

i don't think we shouldn't be depend on any one country so making us less dependent on the one country is a new policy. >> a positive, i hope to broaden a bit and say standing up and funding ukraine not only is good as defense policy but fiscal policy, is a lot cheaper than later. fiscal responsibility act even if it was kicking and screaming and i would add finally, a great amount of curve while the president trade policies have been, it's not trump the.

if you are looking, charging a president purely on trade policy you could say as bad as biden is, he has resisted, he's not calling for 10% global tariff. that's on a curve but i'll give him that. >> to take the other side, i thought biden would come in and get rid of all tariffs on china but it's been retained largely so i am pleased that. infrastructure is a good thing, we need infrastructure but the idea, it was mangled not realizing if you don't take

steps to make it affordable then you can't afford it and it will cost billions to make a subway or whatever and w can't afford. we had to take steps to make it look in means to do so and we didn't do that. >> you said we should retire the phrase on fire favor of higher forever. >> i think we are in for higher interest rates and higher

systems if they decide to unfollow they think they will cut 200 basis points. i worry more about the longer and that it is trading on all these things. it's going to be hard to get mortgage rates down i think this is nothing to do with this era

even with bidding wars all over the country is going to close the window of great fingerprint about the sentencing exposed it is. right now leo current baseline going 34 and 34 years discretionary spending, 234% in gdp and it's been about 40 go rates are greater national debt

never again see .8%. the latest they is a bit are about four and a half% to 5% right now and every time they arrived $35 trillion over 30 years and therefore .83.8 another in the have the debt going to 350%. second reality is your lawmaker has gambled long-term fiscal policy hope the interest rates reach 4% ever again.

you can always trust brian to bring us back down to earth again. >> i was locked in 20 or long grueling of arson. an election? >> i like you to think the palace. [applause] >> that was great.

♪♪ [inaudible conversations] a market hearing from house financial chair. [laughter]

>> since the global financial crisis which devastated the american economy. [inaudible] [applause] >> it's been almost 16 years the global financial crisis which devastated the american economy. how do you, on a crisis and what is your assessment in both major parties have done since to

foster this? >> there is always a concern whenever you are overseeing the financial system of crisis or you don't have enough data or proper data to measure what will become evident after crisis. what i do know is through massive amounts of resources including the financial oversight council which missed the other sheet a year ago with stomach banking crisis it took down three banks, only three banks and the aftermath of the oversight council didn't see this coming so no matter how much money you throw at it or

how many boards you have, ms.. what we can do is build resiliency and make sure there understanding the balance sheet so investors he clearly, that's what happened march. they called out what became the broader public and regular student catch it. according to the public and finally making sure of the public sector, the bank can fail without causing contagion in the system, more a large crisis otherwise and we can do that through regulation changing

american financial system. >> talk a little more about this message. >> first of all, you take all of our thanks and we now have a banking system that raised those over $50 billion and there are 150 billion of those. in terms of regulatory regulations from washington are all the same. you have a diversity of these options in the marketplace with this vibrancy so imagine a large bank and you say i am an entrepreneur and the large banks as we don't have time for this type of lending edits to risky for regulars and it used to be,

greek financial crisis could go on about these contracts window institutions and you have contracts because we verified it with these folks so it is private equity style investment that thanks used to do and the cannot because of regulatory overreach. public markets and largeks adopt to regulatory structure and has fish mackerel effect on lending. >> you see it as consolidated? difficult i would like to see is real competition and 100 billing dollars thank you will probably

ha and one billing dollars thank before you go back, the institutions may have different risk files and adaptability to take different risk based off of knowledge and practical understanding so while we have a significant number of banks in this over the last 40 heavily washington regulation and disproportionate consolidation because of regulatory costs. you have financial regulars that look at the nutritional law in a new way. i think the concoction trying to sell you because they have this salary so they are trying to

place on the body of politics so i got ahead of myself but what i'm saying here is that back to the traditional understanding competition law, but this administration novel approach for which no one claims it no one wins and they have what they don't like the marketplace, competition law. consolidation of the■cí traditil

part of it is consolidation you want to use the right tool to address the financial institutions meeting the needs of wide threats. >> and some prison and consolidation for thinking so you have more right now of the household in america has a staff household in america have an account with one thing. it is absurd? a direct result of large financial institutions driving consolidations to the highest level and decimating these institutions where they can consolidate.

in considerable controversy and digital assets. can you walk us through the technology the 20% request. >> we have a thing called crypto and i'll try to put it in, crypto. establishing it quite in the infrastructure in the key to the bar protecting your data and what we call the network so you

have this infrastructure in value that a number of people are treating back on this instrument because it does have value to a larger network. now what is crypto and the asset let's we have over 10000 coins and novel concepts, much of what is wrong. no will frame for establishing right no means of exchange so what i tried to establish legislation, it helped me and we decided this together with congressman thompson,

established the exchange committee commission and proper roles and market structure. what is the trading what is the digital commodity? is in 1933his is what we need for this architecture around a means of exchange and clarity under law. what we are trying to do with this legislation was 71 of my democrat colleagues, all republican, what we established is a clear set of rules of the road are not for what they established not to similar to what they established.

in the poor and even uncle going to catch up to where the europeans are in this cutting edge technology. try to get your technology in this country for the last century, is a long time where we are behind europe on innovation policy but thiss o this long ane the boat was in the house, it's two things. one, but energy prices is not the same. this is not bank world bank policy, it's not what the progressive left is trying to do with financial policy so those politics are gone number one number two, crypto is here to stay. with those two things, it gives

an opportunity to legislate not just in the house of the senate and get a bill. >> for financial stability, you see this as a tool that to foster stability? i think is a widely held view to call it crypto currency, i don't think that is the right monitor. lizzie the benefits of digital assets crypto the next 30 ways . answered through digital assets organization.

>> hi, everyone. our next panel focused on economics and the republican and how it might shape economic policy. i am pleased to be joined by insightful analyst of the american political scene. on the insights well regarded which is about to celebrate a tenth anniversary and party of the people in the multiracial gop. a government relations that is just national republican committee and prolific commentator recounted that it will in the washington post. ...

liam donovan is a government relations strategist, an alumnus of a committee and a prolific commentator who can be found in political new york times, washington post and the wide world of cable news. being incredibly modern savvy thinkers they have sub stocks which i recommend you subscribe to. olson had to handle a family matter so he will not be joining us this afternoon. a number of commentators have argued that as the republican party grows more working-class the changing republican base is demanding and expanding welfare state, higher taxes on the rich and more support for organized labor. you have argued that this is not quite right. the working-class shift is driven by more of what you call tough guy populism. tell us what you mean by that. >> everything about this

realignment, it is not something that we have only seen in the last few years. since donald trump has been on the scene. really going back to the 1960s driven over cultural issues. back from 1960s and it is really, you know, the breaking point over vietnam in the counterculture. a large segment of formally democratic voters. from the democratic party. i think from all of, every analysis that i have seen long-term public opinion, it shows that it is really the voters voting has become much more aligned with cultural issues and there is been no real change in the relationship between economic conservatism or liberalism or progressivism. it really is a cultural issue

divide. i think that what we can say, i think a lot of people try to characterize this new electorate that both candidates are facing this year. economically right or economically left. this is no fixed economic ideology. they have a very definite social ideology left and right. their view is just much more pragmatic. it is governed by their view of the economic divisions. that is what is really driving the economic debate in the selection. more so than a right left debate >> if you are trying to argue a member of this populace coalition on wait a

these really only care about the rich. it will not be a persuasive argument. >> le motivate. when you look within the republican coalition, it is interesting. it shows that the more you support donald trump, actually, the more you voice free-market people. the more you voice antigovernment viewpoints. that is the venniagram between the electorate and trump supporters in the electric. almost c is any distance between the two. you really are an elite idea. when you actually look at the issue after issue after issue does not really have any basis in public opinion in the real world.

>> recently making the case that we have seen a new form of market skeptical bipartisan chair for trans partisanship on capitol hill. liam, is it a real thing? how would you describe the ideological landscape among republicans and congress? do you see really defined the bridges or n? >> i think the emergence of populist ideas, the horseshoe you do see emerging as a function of an identity crisis happening within the party. what trump did it. we need to figure out and backfill like the form on the senate side you are seeing it with jd vance, marco rubio, they are not apprching at the same way. i tend to think that it is

interesting. it might have, you know, there may be ideas that come out of that that you can build around. right now it's still in the early stages trying to figure out what works. i think ideology is probably the wrong lens at lisa four trying to understand the last two years it is much more about, less about your policy positions, more about your attitude toward power. the leadership structure and the other side. in terms of do you believe that your voters send you to washington to make criminal progress and to make things a little bit more conservative within the constraints of being in a town that is largely led by democrats or did they send you there to burn it all down. if you think about just from that, you know, if we think

about what the turning point in the last two years was that pretended over the last, since 2022 election, was the boat or, following the boat for speaker within the conference. when leader mccarthy got the majority of this conference, that is typically the end of the story. within the republican conference only way you have a meaningful majority is the will of that majority is respected once you go to the floor. that is the only power that you have. what 20-25 members realized this is where our leverage starts. our ability to say no unless you do everything we want, that reoriented the power dynamics and on the one hand, hamstrung what a speaker was able to do with the slim majority in only one of the levers of power within d.c. informing everything else that came after that.

i think what the members of the conference believe matters a lot less they had do we believe we are there to come up with a strategy go out and execute it and put points on the board or are you more interested in waging cell more internally accruing power? i think that it haslly changed e last 10, 20 years. it used to be you came to town. you come to, you know, you come to be the committee structure and you work your way up. do good things for your district or you want to someday run state why don't you come up to the leadership structure. you're kevin mccarthy you come in your second way term you work your way up and eventually want to be speaker. more and more you've had people coming here with the understanding that it is once more satisfying, more, you know,

in some ways you can raise your profile more by having your podcast and having your twitter following. you know, even if your antics get you kicked off committees you did not come here to do committee work. you can come here and be somebody. cap the only power that matters. >> anti-institutionalist. >> absolutely. you have, based on, you know, if you think about how the map gets redrawn every 10 years there is a scramble to redraw at this time in a way that reflected the change in coalitions that patrick has talked about. that means that there are fewer and fewer of the sorts of seats utterly visible in the general direction. there are a heck of a lot that can be lost if you are looking over your shoulder. when the primaries, you may want to be with leadership.

you may be here to get things similar district is out there, you know, doing stunts like you saw, it holds your tactics in that direction. the other piece of this is those antics drive the people that want to be there to govern out. as an institutional acts element you will end up with a fundamentally different, we talked about this before but if we flash forward to next congress, if every republican wins out you would have 85 members even around for the tax cuts and jobs act. >> i wonder, patrick, you have done a number of analyses of the universe of attentional republican voters. talk to us a bit about the patterns that

you've observed. what are the types that may be part of the trump coalition in 2024. >> there are many. there is one that we did at the offset of the republican primaries in 2024 where, you know, we had identified six fractions. the largest one is pretty maximum. >> i think you called it ultra concerned. >> yes. you know, public opinion on the right particularly seems to be less and less defined by, you know, let's just say where do you stand on issue x but more, you know, the war on woke comes up. some of the outreach comes out. what is your level around that? >> 11 on every one of these questions. >> the largest group.

found was to some degree , this was right at the outset. the great trump versus desantis battle. early 2023. ron desantis is really going squarely head-on. you know, really swipe what were really double trump strongest supporters under him. it looked for brief moment after the 2022 midterms that you know this group could be evenly split , could be persuaded. very quickly, and even before the indictment, very quickly it turns out that this group really rallies back. that was a moment like january 6 , a number of the midterms, just a quick moment in time where he. honorable and turned out not to be. among the other, they are to group set out kind of highlight. you have a group of mostly

younger people who are may be more cosmopolitan on, you know, may be old, the social issues. nonetheless or what i would call the anti-woke. they actually do gravitate. >> the barry weiss voters. >> exactly. you kind of saw —-dash. >> it was not a group. it was like 20% or something like that. >> in a six way grouping. that was kind of the ramaswamy voters. >> believers and meritocracy. that is a big issue for them. not gun rights or abortion rights. >> the more interesting group is a 20% group that i call moderates. this idea of trump has this

incredible strength right among the largest core of very conservative by mary voters. the moderate nikki haley boater, these are moderate voters who maybe were not enamored of donald trump but did not see any other alternatives. voted for him both times. had very few for positions on these issues. really, for trump in a lukewarm way, but not really considering anyone else. if you look at the voters who, you know, ultimately decide about a work in progress, you know, donald trump won the 2016 nomination with the same voters that broke late for mitt romney. voted late for john mccain. not committed and one lane of a party are not ideologically committed.

>> we used to call them though somewhat conservatives. >> i do think it is not just the straight right left right kind of dynamic. >> that is interesting. the anti-woke cultural. speaking from the left behind. the populace deserve to be taken seriously. the anti-woke culture war was fake. looking to reinvent themselves in the trump era. i wonder what you think about this. many of my colleagues see this differently. they believe that this really is very genuine. in some ways a more salient and pressing issue then class war. this is a political formula that can unite those away from the coalition i am curious if you buy that.

>> not only can it be blended together, it has in the past. what we talk about the issues are no different than the sorts of culture war not in the sense of the issues we are talking about. the culture war issues that we saw with the hardhats in the 60 s and 70s. it is how the coalition came together. it is how you democrats. it cannot be brought together is demonstrably false. i do think that seeing it is a bad faith in, it is not my sense certainly. the idea that one should be taken seriously in the other should be dismissed as something to do at your own political. the same menu of increases on 2020. tax increases, they often were not able to pass with the

democratic trifecta. how is democratic reliance impacting the interparty debate over the tax cuts a job acted tax cut more broadly come 2025. i know that you follow this very closely. curious to see where you see the divide. >> it is very interesting. part of what we are leading into and 2025 is a reprise of what we saw in 2011. 2012, 2013. ultimately punted. it was a replay of using the reconciliation process that gave us the oh one and oh three bush tax cuts. are basically daring the future congress to let it go what happened there was you had an instance where first after a pretty good shellacking or whatever obama called it he said , okay, fine, i don't want any part of raising people's taxes. we will do a two-year extension.

the 2012 election obviously was quite■ñ good for obama and he dd not feel compelled to do the same. despite such a bad republicans in 2012, in early 2013, they were able to get 98% of the bush tax cuts extended. we were in the middle of this it was not fully fledged at that point. at that point, you had, the threshold whereby the democrats were talking about the rich. something like 200,000, let's say. i fear that we will be in a similar position next year. i don't know if anybody remembers baiters plan b. an opportunity for republicans to essentially pick the price point at which people became rich and should be paying higher taxes. an attitude among republicans. i think this is a function of

grover pledged discipline. we will not vote for anything affirmatively that would raise taxes. instead, democrats pick the number and that number ended up being 400,000. that ended up being the top rate 39% rate kicking in and flashing forward biden is now using that is the figure where, you know, anything below that is good. that is the middle class. anything below that the rich people a bad and they should pay more in taxes. to your point, as democrats are much more reliant on upper income hi associated economic status individuals that becomes much more salient for them. it depends on the balance of power. particularly at the map looks pretty strong. it would be divided government. republicans will still be in the position where they need to pick some sort of meme there. if they do get a trifecta they will do what they can agr o i wt

a map of where i think you used $1.5 million home values and what their partisan affiliation was. it was quite red. rather than the discourse may tell us. i thought that was interesting. >> talk to us about where the upper-middle-class is politically. how that is shaping democratic and republican authorities. >> it is kind of the threshold. both new york times reporters. that is conveniently designed at that level. but, no, i think that at some level, what is interesting, i am surprised that the economic realignment, in the se way that it really has not had very

much of a transformative effect on republican economic policy trump foregrounded.ich rll donald trump getting behind a conventional republican economic policy decision. in the same way, i do not think democrats have fully surrendered that positioning right on tax cuts for the wealthy. >> a public opinion among upper income democrats, they do seem it theory. >> they judge it to be advantageous for them politically. because it is popular, it is pretty popular. but, in the same?ñ way as some f the republicans have guided by dense cultural concerns, so to have democrats. so long as donald trump is on

scene. the abortion ban, so long as you have, you know, the prospect of oh my god democracy will end if trump wins. i think tax policies will fall pretty far down the priority list for a lot of these voters. and a lot of these upper-class voters, cosmopolitan cultural values. yes, you do havecontent from the salt caucus. a healthy share of democrats. at the end of the day this is still not a huge part of the democratic >> as an elective issue i think pat is exactly right. this $4.6 trillion is coming whether you like it or not. the salt issue in particular, the salt cap goes away. everything goes back to the way it was. it does raise the question of,

you know, i think democrats would be happy to not have any of these fights. not have to pick that threshold where someone magically becomes rich or, you know, what the amount of -- that is a hairy problem. not something you want to deal with. they should be talking about the issues keeping their coalition together. this is coming like it or congress tends to kick the can whenever it can. i think the real forcing mechanism as you can imagine is the neveroop of debt ceiling fights will come back in probably the second quarter of next year. that is probably what forces this conversation. when it comes through, they will have to deal with some very tough pinpoints in terms of, you know, remembering who their current coalition is. >> there is a slew of electoral

spirit they have been making the case for politics of abundance. a more market friendly approach. boosting housing supply. infrastructure investment. there are even some elected officials the democratic governor of colorado who seem to be embracing this sensibility. t friendly moderate democrats are poised for a comeback or is this another issue where it is ultimately culture that matters most and you will just see a random grab bag of folks on these economic issue >> i think in particular, what is interesting about that issue, you are right that it has emerged on the liberal left. it is also very interesting to see that catchphrase actually take. what is interesting is agenda is happening. maybe blue cities in red states. look at what is happening in

miami and texas. the model for this, why is it happening? they are more than happy to use their population growth figures as a club to beat gavin newsom in california. mentioning the $1.5 million housing map, half of those are in california. >> higher subsidies being used to build solar wind energy and red america. >> that is right. partly because it is the only place you can build things anymore. you have space to build things in red states. you have tax friendly policies. and a lot of open space and lower cost of living where people want to move. it is an interesting paradox. maybe you have a community of folks through this model. it is sort of this balance

because if it works too well for these red states they may become blue. >> i am curious also about the relationship with business. when you think about the relationship with big business, stereotypes stretching back to the 70s and 80s, the conservative right is in the pocket of big■2 business. then there is this libertarian critique that we are against crony capitalism. you have seen the social transformation. the dynamics for the electorate playing out in former boardrooms now you have a lot of companies trying to attract young talented employees in these high cost metros. it seems that there is changing partisan alignment of fluids in the corporate cease we. i wonder what you see as the implications of that for political economy. do you believe that democrats

because of this will become more business friendly. republicans and the business class that could prove problematic in the future? >> somebody that represents and advises business. just because you are crosswise with the republicans does not mean that democrats are coming to your raid. in some degree they fall to the chamber and relate directly to their supporter for democrats because they try to say let's embrace the folks that have taken some good both in that kind of thing. no real reward for that. no real market for that. part of that goes back to the previous question. i don't know if there is a market on the left for, you know , i don't want to overstate the parallels. on the left there may be more of an appetite for strategic voting to get to somebody that can win that general.

going from the most progressive person. i do think that there are certainl and i do think that the ira is a perfect example of this where you have policies. democrats should think and pitch in the gold watch. he really saved them in many ways. it is best hope at this point is to hope that it works and businesses put in money and projects and shovels and steel in the ground. it is going to take that economic activity in the change in the freedom for republicans not as a democratic thing, not as an ideological thing as economic activity. so, i think looking at the left there are similar dynamics. it is just slightly more

functional and there is a little bit more of a strategic ability to cooperate in things. i will come back around to a different version of the answer. the best hope that democrats can give business and corporate community is stability in a thie next trump administration, lots of good in theory that can come. it is the tricky part. people can understand what the next four years would look like. no one knows they desperately want to know from us what this mean. we will have to see and we will have to see who the personnel are. this will dictate a lot of where things go. >> a number of clients in the corporate world trying to understand the the right.

i'm curious to where you see the relationship between conservatives and big businesses in theuture. >> this whole idea of woke capital, relate the one place where i have seen in a tangible way this populace sentiment on the party actually move the needle in terms of really rethinking the commitment. it used to be, you know, when i first started my career, if a business comes to washington, there is this presumption that you are pretty much, unless the global democratic congress sort of had a lot of jobs in that district, that most of your support would come from republican. and using the free markets. now, you know, what we are seeing is republican voters, republican elites and activists saying we no longer will give

them a free pass to corporations it is not because of any fundamentally changing ideas about the role of business and the economy, it is because of what they see from coming out of these boardrooms. the sense that these are not our people anymore. these are not -- and i think where the populace positioning has been more successful, you see it get much more purchased in terms of grassroots political , in terms of public opinion on the right is when, you know, people are defined of being completely on the wrong side of our values. and that has been, i think, it was the initial animating principle. the desantis -- desantis it may be a valuable challenge to donald trump coming from these fights that he was able to pick in florida with, you know, organizations, people would have thought traditionally republican but were extremely popular.

the more he went up the national polls. so, you know, i think much more so, and i contrast this, republicans need to be friendlier to unions. we need to stand on the picket line. we see jd vance do it. you see some republican start to do. that has been far less successful with the things you can attach to the cultural trend >> idea wonder how you think about the corporate course correction. there been a number of business leaders that have said, essentially, going as far as saying we need to understand, respect folks are on the right side of the political aisle. jamie dimon is one very notable business dealer. he certainly is not alone in that regard. of course ef consumer facing brands that have experienced not just, you are accustomed to

backlash from folks on the left but now backlash from consumers on the right. is your sense that this represents a real seachange in this will be stable when folks recognize that it's not just the hr department pushing me from one direction. i am going to want to steer clear of political controversy. >> to the point that you made earlier, the fact that, especially in the companies we are talking about inq< the publc markets, competing for talent you pressure coming from within your employee base, you pressure coming from without, you have the sensibilities of being fundamentally different in terms of these being wealthy college-educated people who don't understand the new parties that exist now. that is what they have to contend with. i think the recognition to your point that you will never make

anybody happy with anything you say in the best he will do is be as neutral as possible. it is not easy to navigate that, but the decision to lay and to get out there on issues i think, there is an emerging recommendation that more bad can happen then good. part of that is just, you know, general columns and public affairs strategy. just in terms of corporate identity, i think that you have to be really careful because you are caught in between and there is going to be a mobilized group who is looking for theopportunip to their advantage. >> two races are like to get your thoughts on. two interesting senate races where the kind of right left contrast, i think, is potentially instructive. in pennsylvania you have senator bob casey. running against dave mccormick a

successful entrepreneurial and had fudge manager that is navigating this more political landscape. again, this is a guy who has roots in the state but is also associated with hedge funds, high finance. this world that is often demonized. then in ohio you have senator sharon brown. was firmly on the left of the democratic party. now somewhere in the middle of where the party is. facing off against bernie moreno a success republican donor, you know, way you money backed by president trump. i am wondering if you could talk to me a bit about what you are seeing from mccormick and moreno , what you are seeing in those races, how you think they will fare. is it different to be a wealthy self funder candidate coming from the world of high finance versus from owning a chainf

car dealerships? >> that is something you will have to navigate. really clear, the clearest retro positioning i have seen talking about retro. the things commenting as recently as the 1990s. i think john federman quite successfully branded doctor oz. feeding mccormick inhe primary as out of touch. a carpet bagger and you know, to some extent, he kind of fell into, oz fell into that trap as a political office. that is always a risk that you have. outside of the process. the fact is that that remains, i think, a pretty decent advantage in terms of winning those primaries. being a political outsider. that really is the of trump.

that republican primary voters price pretty highly. >> the idea of somebody that is self-made is a plus rather than an alliance. >> how do you thread that needle someone who initially seemed like he had more of a common touch in the culture and the trump mold as opposed to omit romney high finance type who famously they tried to get them to embrace this sort of corporate reader. trying to embrace the narrative as somebody who could show, you know, that he meant business. he just would not do it because that is not to we was fundamentally. the same way donald trump was able to tout his wealth. i think that it is certainly quite an intertiave to navigate. >> liam, you have given a lot of

thought to candidates, candidate positioning. when you look a races , is there any interesting aspects that you would want to call out for us and thinking about how economic policy debates unfold. >> you have to think about the commonality that you have. this whole class. the luckiest group of people. you caught a wave in the first place. they are incumbents now. at the time, the nrc and republican thought that that would be a great cycle. it turned out to be a pretty horrendous one. as bad as people remember the romney experience being the senate was worse. it was an array of all great paper candidates that flopped everywhere. it set back the project of getting the majority. if you think about how those classes work, you weave in and

out of good midterm cycle, good presidential cycle, good midterm cycle because of the ways these cycles work in the pendulum swings. this is the first time that it sinks back up with the presidential. what does that mean? in ohio that means flashforward from 2012. the last time he was on the ballot with the presidential candidate. the people that trump brings out where the people that either stayed home or were still okay with obama after 2012. so, the fundamentals of that state are such that trump should win it by eight or 1210 points. in an environment where it is just so much harder to fight political gravity and maintain an independent identity such that people are willing to split their tickets, that shares the trouble. the thing is he has this appearance of, you know, he does not look like the kind of

politician. we think back to 2022 race which was a bigger win for jd vance and people remember. the democrat they are actually had, you know, if you look back at tim's wardrobe in previous years -- immediately running statewide he was rolling his sleeves up and wearing jeans and stuff like that. despite the fact that he has been in elected office when he was 26 years old or something crazy like that, he has the image of the guy that is still cool going down to the hall and hanging out with traits. so i think that that is what he needs to fight out and when this thing and i expect that that is what will likely happen if he can avoid stepping in. pennsylvania is af not need tipping point state. casey still has a golden name in pennsylvania dpite the fact that there are fewer and fewer

voters every year that ever voted for his father. but, i think, as a neutral proposition, he fits what pennsylvania democrats are kind of okay with. >> repositioned on abortion. >> yes. from a residual standpoint. he kind of gets credit on both sides. aware dynamic where he hs evolved in this time in the senate but i don't think anybody hold it against him. fewer single issue voters on that if you think about mccormick to patrick's point what we saw 22 was the playbook. just using that carpet bagger, you know, appealing to the sensibility. a hedge fund from the coast. the ability to say that i am indeed from here. i, you know, went to west point. fought for our country. that is my story of my success and i want to come home and do right by my home state.

i think the tricky part is in both of those states the china issue is a big one on all sides you will see different people using it. that is what i've seen them focus on with mccormick. trying to tie hedge fund guy with investments. that is such a tough one. if they can make that stick, that is just really brutal. >> also a throwback back to 2012 >> it is. even if trump wins in pennsylvania, i don't think we expect him to have a crushing victory. that ability to run a little bit ahead abided and may be corralled those third-party voters, the reason that the senate race looks different than the presidential races is because the threshold for victory where it matters for donald trump is probably 48-49.

they probably need to do a little bit better because the leakage to rfk or whomever will not be there in the senate race. they will be choosing between the right or the left. >> fascinating. patrick, you have written a great deal about the evolution of the hispanic electorate in particular. i'm wondering if you could talk to us a bit about what it is we can confidently say about the economic sensibility to that group. one mental model is when you're looking at the cross pressured, blue-collar working class maybe they do fit that parig of really strongly opposing entitlement reform and what have you. another paradigm is they are aspirational voters who really embrace the idea of economic growth. up by your bootstraps kind of mentality. the strong guy populism resonates with them because they want to build wealth themselves and get ahead. >> it is more of that and it is

fundamentally. >> more of that aspirational aspect because, i mean, as a population that has come here with nothing. when you look at the safety nets that exist in most of these countries, they are either nonexistent or the government in this country steal from the population. there is no sense that the government is a benevolent force in hispanic culture. it is, it is not like, you know, where you would have all the norwegian immigrants to wisconsin. part of rural wisconsin still pretty democratic and minnesota still pretty democratic because you had a core of immigrants that believed in social democracy. you don't really have that with hispanics. what you have had over several

decades is, you know, a working-class sensibility and outside sensibility, you know, a sense of group identity and people really gravitating in urban political settings towards the democratic party for reasons that are not ideological. i think that what we are seeing across the electorate, i think that we are seeing a real alignment over multiple cycles, not just this cycle and not just the previous cycle. among nonwhite voters because you see ideology starting to matter a whole lot more. if you say ideologically conservative, whatever that means to you, policy positions, social issue positions, you are seeing voters who self identify as conservativ v republican. that is a big deal. ninety plus% of white voters who self identify as conservative vote republican. among african-american about 45% hispanic voters about 65%.

if you can get that conservative number up close to 90%, that will be some big shifts. that will fundamentally affect the popular vote. shifting the popular vote by three or four points. economic, when it comes to hispanic voters, you just have so much, as a result of this distrust of government and, you know, corruption, you see not only in these latin american companies but the united states, you just have family stepping in. $200 billion in residuals back to the united states to let america and, that is really kind of the belief that if i am going to get ahead i will do it with my own hard work and then once i make it, i will pay it back to my family members. that is just fundamentally i think different beliefs set.

and that which underpins kind of progressive economic ideology. >> i'm sure this is an oversimplification. what i'm hearing is in a funny way the confusing of a constituency very socially liberal, upscale voters of the democratic party is making it more economically left. the infusion of the downscale of voters may actually get th+he republican party to reaffirm its commitment to the opportunity. does that sound crazy to you? >> i do not think so. i think that one of the things that you hear, you hear that people are really upset about this site via and are really sensitive to this idea of people getting paid not to work. getting paid by the government not to work. social security, medicare, they are seen completely differently. they are seen as programs i paid into.

frankly the only source of retirement savings that a lot of these people have when it comes to food stamps, when it comes to a lot of these programs. they do see a lot of fraud in these programs particular these core programs in south texas that really are a cash economy. it is easy to hide income. it is easy to hide income so it's easy to claim benefits. that is something that people down there are very sentive to our polling is something that they associate. rightly or wrongly for the democratic party. >> liam, there's a pretty good chance that donald trump will be back in the white house in 2025. a great deal of reporting about how he is seeking allies in silicon valley, wall street in the corporate world. as you noted earlier on, assume that there is a second trump term. what is your gut on how he will approach economic policy? he seems to care about the

health of equity markets. how do you see that playing out? >> that is a fascinating question. typically where things come out. who will he listen to on economic matters. it is a revolving door. one he could be listening to steve moore and larry kudlow and on the other end he could be listening to a donor that is next to him in the next moment he could be thinking about others. i think that there is a mix of people who he listens to because they are successful, he listens to because they are on tv and he likes what they say. listening to them because their policies are kind of aligned with his impulses on trade in particular. it is that dissidents that makes it really tough to predict how the policies will come out. what we saw in 2017 and what we see now as sort of, i think, part of what donald trump

understands to be missed opportunity, outsourcing the hr functions of his government to mike pence, to the heritage fo people. he did not expect to win and once he did when he did not appreciate how important that was. surrounded by a bunch of people he did not pick. surrounded with a bunch of lawyers looking for reasons to tell him no and not wasting it to get a guess. what does the book look like? what does the personnel look like? it was coming into these agencies? who will be leading the treasury department and whatnot. i think the cast of characters we saw in the first administration are not necessarily the sorts of people i would expect to be in this one that is the guessing game. see who shows up over the transition trying to be in on the ground floor and make it play. it is not always coherent. it does not necessarily make sense. whatever he heard last is what tends to stick in his head. it may end up as policy. >> patrick, curveball question for you.

there is a very good chance that president biden will be reelected. i wonder what you think about what second biden term could look like given that his approval rating is quite low and it is quite possible that he could win reelection with a low approval rating, with a profound lack of enthusiasm about his management of the economy. what does that environment look like for economic conservatives? can you see them running the table when it comes to midterms and gubernatorial elections around the country? is that a kind of. where you could see some interesting building of this coalition you have described in your book or do you think there will be demoralization on the ride. >> click demoralization. i think, you know, to ask some extent, mentally different psychology. i think among people on the right and the left in terms of how they approach the prospect of losing democrats are definitely afraid of losing.

they absolutely do not believe that they will lose. in some weird way this was true in 2020, that wedding phenomena on the left that you just do not have on the right. they are absolutely may be overconfident they will win in some instances this manifests in post 2020 as, you know, a moment of when we did not actually lose among some people. i just wonder to what extent will we see the return of. obviously we saw it play out in some very ugly ways. >> you can imagine another scenario where, you know, biden wins reelection and a lot of folks convinced it was not on the up and up. >> right. the question, i think at that moment, the biggest question is will donald trump try to do it again? are we just going to see rerun of 2028? i think everything fundamentally

revolves around that. i think, certainly, midterms would be, you know, if historical patterns prove correct midterms could once opportunity for republicans. we thought the same thing about 2022. >> to patrick's point i think it does take except the laws. remember, on inauguration the famous seed with mcconnell and the assorted leadership figures saying we will basically make obama want term president and go out and win races. >> in the wake of what was a big loss by modern standards. it started in the of 2009 the brown election in january of 2010. things came back very quickly. there was no time to worry about whether you loss. you had to unite against the new villain. the same thing happened even after pretty demoralizing

lawsuit in 2012. you had a huge midterm. probably one of the biggest we can remember. the catch here is twofold. as i mentioned before, the map that was drawn in 2011 redistricting was not built for the trump coalition. it was built for romney theoretical and that is what sort of, you know, that wild swing from 2016-2018 was reflected of that. what you saw in the most recent redistricting is redrawing the lines to protect comments on both sides can get away from these wild swings. that senate map that i mentioned this is a class where republicans have to win otherwise these alignments have already happened. the only other member who was sort of out of step with the presidential lien is susan collins who manages to divide gravity every time. you can see her do it again but with the voting it is a little bit hairy there. that is defense, not offense.

the opportunities are here and now. i think that they would in terms of the environment. >> would not necessarily translate be met when the house popular vote, but there's only so much you can get. what we saw white people were so shocked coming out of 2022. republicans think they will win all the time so when they don't they have a crisis. republican democrats think they have this incredible night. i think if you think about republicans winning the house popular vote by a pretty substantial margin a five vote margin. this new map is fairly durable relative to recent years. >> fairly durable in the sense that. >> in the sense that it seems to match up pretty well with the

coalition such as they are in this moment. while you could have a backlash against joe biden who was very popular at that point, republicans have to get their act together and they have to be there. maybe it will be in new york. they would have to list out those seats. part of the reason they stand to keep the house is these things happen on the same night in the same places. the reason people oppressed and that republicans will lose the house beyond the dysfunction is the fact that, well, biden will win and therefore there will be a bunch of seeds to go. they are not overexposed in the way the democrats were in 2020. the reason they had the big swings was it was the countercyclical going against trump and then getting some of it back but not in a position

where they are and seats they have no business belonging. it is usually reflected in a way of of being and seats they cannot sustain. >> we have time for two really quick questions. does anyone have a question they would like to ask? >> i really appreciate your insight today at this panel. kind of a piggyback from the same question. how do you see touching moving with a biden victory versus a trump victory. does this start to fade with a trump loss? >> i don't know if this will be a satisfying answer to your question. it raises a fascinating fact for the first time in 130 years to men that are term limited the lame ducks as soon as they are elected. the question becomes what is next. that is why the deep states lose large here. there are bunch of people.

the leaders in the clubhouse will be the respective vice president, whoever that person may be. i don't know if they will get it lying down but i think that that will be the question. that decision has a huge bearing on where the republican coalition goes in 2028. >> if you have someone in that rubio camp. >> two of those three. >> someone else is a more traditional conservative. >> o tim scott.■l >> you have jd vance who could be seen as an ideological acolyte. will he go with either somebody who he perceives as out of central casting. he seemed surprised highly or someone who just will not get in

the way. while not necessarily have thei. someone who may be well-positioned to run. >> but will not become a new senator of gravity for the party >> that's right. >> who knows. even for a decade plus. any other questions? we have someone on the side of the room. >> does regional identity have any relevance in today's politics? >> surprisingly, yes. as somebody who analyzes, you know, voting patterns, it is actually pretty stubborn. in some respects. it is definitely gone away. it has gone down. you still have significant parts of rural wisconsin that are closed. it sho b state. you just look at straight

demographics. wisconsin should be a pretty solidly red state but because of patterns of settlement going back 100 years, it is not. it is not solidly red state. may be more now so then it was. i do think that it is something to watch for. you have arizona and nevada which are to, and i don't think either of those are by any means locked in for donald trump. what is interesting is you have very similar demographics in those states, very similarly concentrated populations in one major metro one trending white while the other trends left. so, i do think that if that is a factor that gets underplayed a k about but please join me in thanking patrick and liam for joining us.

[applause] .... .... ■@

mr. speaker we have one more vote. last time that john dingell votes in the cells after 59 a great servant of our country. [applause]

now joining us on c-span here on the "washington journal" michelle the author of the new book the life of battle i d-day and the push of the american superpower but that book just recently released and i want to ask you what general dwight d eisenhower's day was like 80 years ago. >> worrying is the short answer. he didn't sleep that night as much as we could tell. he stayedak up all my chain-smoking filling ashtray after ashtray and reading western #jnovels because that's how he cleared his mind when he neededed to think and needed toe able to focus. starting early in the morning around 6:30 reports came in and

almost all of them are positive. and slowly but surely he got more and more information and the day trying to find out basically what was going on. i think the most stressful part of that day was the news from omaha beach was long in coming pretty got an early report from a famous american aviator who had personally boarded an■w airplane just to see the invasion himself first-hand and running into them he was told that everything was looking great although omaha was a bit touch and go. it was not until 6:00 at night the general eisenhower got correct informationig about omaa and the trying and disasteratio. he then went rushed to the headquarters of bernard

montgomery who is the british general with the respoil groundd to see whether or not they could move the omaha landing to one of the british sectors for at that point the question about whether or not omaha beach had the advantage. ultimately the british general on the ground general dempsey reported back, no there's too much congestion to bring in americans over to the site.e. it'll be easier to create congestion on the beaches so the orderde was to go to bit core ad the leader was keep fighting and ultimately the following day general montgomery ordered the other americans which had landed on utah beach quite successfully to essentially turn to take the pressure off of omaha beach and thin the few days they linked

up in the rest they say is history but it was a stressful and exhausting day were eisenhower probably didn't sleep for the better part of 48l and y of worrying that those worries didn't come across in the message that general eisenhower sent out to all of his troops to benthe message that came from the supreme expeditionary force eisenhower's message to the troops as they embarked one d-day. soldiers sailors and airmen of the allied expeditionary force you are about to embark upon the great crusade towards which we have driven these many months. the eyes of the world are upon you. the hopes and prayers of liberty loving people everywhere marked with you. you are a company with brave allies and brothers in arms on other fronts. you will prevent the destruction of the german war machine the

elimination of over the offenses of europe and security for ourselves in our free world. your task will not be an easy one. your enemy is well-trained, well-equipped and battle-hardened. he will fight savagely. but this is the year of 1944. much has happened since the triumphs of 192041 to. united nations have inflicted upon the germans great defeats in open battle, man-to-man. our air offensive has been reduced their strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. our homefront■- has given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions and placed great reserves of great fighting men. the tide has turned. the free men of the world are marching together to victory. i have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty and scale of battle. we will accept nothing less than

full victory. good luck and let us all beseech the blessing of almighty upon this great and noble undertaking. the eisenhower's message to the troops on d-day. that was his voice reading that message a couple years later a recording of the general and the president of the united states. michel paradis he said the tide had turned in that message. what wasn't dwight eisenhower's role in turning the tide before june 6? >> it was the indefensible one in as much as he personally the day worried sick he never let on about that pretty always projected optimism and projected result because he knew his worries were his own and probably the most important thing he could do as a leader and as a military leader in the face of this