investment firm and previously raised money for democratic esent of candidates al gore, hilly clinton and barack obama and served as ie investment officer for soros fund magement. more recently he raised more than $57 million for donald trump's 2024 campaign. if confiedhe would become the second gay person to ser in a presidential cabinet aer pete buttigieg. next, in his own words. we start with his were marks at a conservative economic policy summit old on the sidelines of the 2024 republicanatnal convention. he talked about economic priorities for a second trump administration. >> let me start with you. you are one of the leading financial minds in america. have made a lot of money in the financial markets. have been a strong supporter of donald trump. you talk to him all the time.

you see scott on fox news all the time, fox business news, as well as jason and charlie, of course. you're talking to trump. what do you think he needs to be doing, in addition to the things we've been talking about, what does he need to do to get this economy going because you're talking to him all the time? scott: i think it's a lot of what you said. i suggested to him that his good friend, the prime minister of japan, who was tragically assassinated, had something called the three arrows. i suggested to president trump that he had a similar three arrows and just to back up a little. i have a good life. i used to always say, i want fortune, not fame. but i've come out from behind my desk in this election cycle because i do believe the 2024-2025 is the last chance for us to grow our way out of this

massive debt. that the biden administration has put us under. and if you hear the former fed vice chair, it was her idea to get rid of the average inflation targeting, right when inflation took off, but she's now head of the chair of the national economic council and she gave a speech last year and the just the tax program that you've shown. so they have spent, spent, spent and now i think they want to put the u.s. economy in what i call an economic respirator. or ventilator. you go on a ventilator because you're sick and 50% of the time you don't come out. and i think we're about to go -- they want to put us on an economic ventilator ala european-style social democracy. so, what would i do?

to grow out -- i think we need to freeze, not cut, discretionary spending. except for defense. i think as dr. laffer said, defense is an investment that you never hope to use. president reagan took defense spending as a percent of g.d.p. from about 4% up to 5.5%. progressives said, he's a warmonger, budget hawks said, you're crazy, you're going to blowout the deficit. and now we're at 3% of g.d.p. because he took down the soviet union. so freeze discretionary spending except for the defense, deregulate 3% real economic growth, bring -- have a commitment to bring the budget deficit down to -- by 2028 to 3%. as a financial markets person, i can tell you financial markets will respond to that area well.

good forward guidance on that. i told the president come you didn't get us to 7%. you don't have to get us to 0%. entitlement reform. you don't have to do the big entitlement reform until you get the current house in order, and the current house is on fire. 3% real economic growth. 3% deficit to gdp by 2028. to your point, a 3%, 3 million more crude equivalents per day. crude and gas. we are producing about 20 million, so up that 15%. i have been looking too, the other three, saudi arabia is holding off 3 million barrels of production per day. maybe convince our friends in the kingdom that lower oil prices, good economy is better for them and the world.

>> you're one of trump's top economic advisers. what are two things that you think he should do right out of the gate? we will start with you, scott. scott: he should make clear that he will tackle the budget deficit because everyone thinks that he is prolific. then, he should implement tech policies -- >> speak into your mic. scott: all right. >> mine is on. >> i think mine is on now. >> no, they are not on. >> keep talking. scott: all right, anyway, make it known that he is fiscally

responsible, tax cutter, announce that he is going to follow through at a level on the deportations. there are 1.5 million final orders of deportations for illegal immigrants. we should give them 60 or 90 days to leave. >> more now fromco bessent, president-elect donald trump's pick to be treasury secretary, and his owwos. in 24 . bessette was a featured speaker at a manhattan institute discussion on fiscal policy, the economy, and the bin administration's economic policy.

>> hello, everyone. it's my great pleasure to introduce scott bessent, the founder, ceo, chief investment officer of a global assessment firm he launched in 2015. prior to that, he served as chief investment officer and held a number of roles since the 1990's and 2000, overseeing investments in europe. outside the world of finance, he taught economic history at yale, his alma mater, and been a prolific philanthropist, including in his home state of south carolina. please join me in welcoming him. [applause] scott, you have been a respected voice in financial markets for decades. you're only recently started weighing in publicly on larger questions of u.s. public policy and the stakes of the 2024 election. what motivated you to start speaking out about the direction of american economic policy? scott: first, thanks to you, the manhattan institute, for having me.

when he invited me, he said just of you know, we have heather mcdonnell -- you had me at those. i don't need anymore. it is a good question. i've always been politically interested for macro investing, you are always politically adjacent to geopolitics. people ask me, what is macro investing? we live at the edge of geopolitics, economics, and gravity. eventually gravity wins. so, for a long time i've been analyzing political situations, economic situations, and i just decided that 2023-2024 is important for me to come out from behind my desk, because i think we are at a very unique moment here.

i would list three reasons, or three things i'm focused on as, one, just in the u.s., i'm alarmed by the size of these deficits and the spending. we do not have a tax collection problem. we have a spending problem. i have never really seen -- well, we've never seen anything quite like this. i am an economic historian. for better or for worse, i can tell you what the budget deficit was under lyndon johnson in 1967 as a percent of gdp. this is really alarming in terms of this 6%, 7% deficit during peace time, during a non-recessionary time. i think that the buying the administration knows what they are doing. there are two very different

choices for america. they have a central planning, top-down mindset going back to the 1960's and 1970's revisited. i was at yale when james tobin was there. he was janet yellen's phd advisor. i thought we had put all this on the scrapheap of history, but it's back. if it's not working any better this time, i would argue probably worse, i would think we were confronted with that choice -- maybe we will get into my view of what you want to call it, bidenomics, bidenflation, bidenitis, like a cute disease, when i'm in a particularly bad mood i call it bidenism.

i think on the others, we see from trump 1.0, it is not a strict adherence to reagan's principles, but it's a pretty good 21st century adaptation, and it really worked for everybody. i will bring it back to number three, but igniting the private sector and the kind of balance across all income distributions and per capita labor and growth that we had, i thought was phenomenal. that's number one.

number two, i think, as an economic historian and someone who has been in markets for 40 years, i actually think i'm starting to look like it now, but i think we are also at a unique moment geopolitically, and i could see in the next few years that we are going to have to have some kind of a global economic reordering. something along the line of new bretton woods, or if you want to go back, something back to the treaty of versailles, there is a very good chance that we are going to have to have that over the next four years. and i'd like to be a part of it. i have studied this. i think it's a unique skill set. three, as both of your most

recent panelists said, the republican coalition is now a very new coalition. and i am very dedicated and focused to making sure that keeps expanding and to make sure that this new group who joined the republican party, that the policies are good for them. that we retain those groups and continue growing and turning it into majorities. two weeks ago here in d.c., a gentleman and i had a day with 150 or 200 black entrepreneurs and it was fascinating. many of them have always been republicans. some have just switched. some are trump curious. to spend the day with these folks was so enlightening. they feel as though they are not

getting adequate representation in the republican party. they are insulted by the, oh, donald trump went to jail, so that's why black people are voting for him. these people at this event are entrepreneurs, business people first-generation, they are rich. they are franchise owners. they are car dealers. they are not ivy league graduates or fortune 500 companies. this is main street. that is the natural progression for the republican party. the third reason for coming out from behind my desk is to make sure that constituency gets bigger and bigger. reihan: you painted a pretty bleak picture of biden's economic agenda. i think that he would say my agenda has been a historic success. labor markets are tight, the inflation reduction act and chip

act are spurring investment. while the president acknowledges inflation has been a challenge he would argue that the worst is behind us. let's drill in a bit about where you think that a second bite intern will take the country economically. again, what the president is saying is that this course is delivering, ultimately, wage growth. it will help us compete with china and what have you. when you are looking ahead to another four years of president biden, where do you see the u.s. economy at the end of that? scott: back to what we said in one of the earlier panels, he is giving away so much money. why are the programs so unpopular? imelda marcos was on a bus throwing out dollar bills and she was super popular. money can buy you votes and love. that is not happening this time. to give my overview, you've got this top-down view and this

turning machine where you think you can turn the dials, kind of back to jfk's economic cabinet. the economy is too big and too complex. these are linear people with a linear program, and they've gotten a linear result. so, the linear result, the global result is unemployment is low, investment is high, and everyone is unhappy. the output is fine, but the nonlinearity in the system means that all the components really aren't working at all. i've been quoted before as saying i can make zimbabwe great again if i had a 7% budget deficit. or reserve currency. i think one of the former panelists was getting at, when

talking about the fed putting on the brakes and the buying administration hitting the accelerator, in grand prix racing it is called two-footed driving. you are hitting the gas and hitting the brakes going around the corner. i think that is what is happening here, this inflation, i don't think the american people are going to forgive him for it. reihan: so you think even though it is moderated somewhat, you think we are on kind of a knife edge where it can come roaring back without material change in economic policy? scott: it is always there. it would re-accelerate. we've had a very steep price level declined that i think has americans seething. seething. my firm is not very good at --

we don't try to predict particular numbers. we tried to get the direction of travel. we are getting an employment number tomorrow. maybe the heat has come off the jobs market, but it has come off the jobs market in a bad way. through mass, unfettered immigration. that should not be a tool in the toolkit for getting down inflation, because back to the question of why everyone is unhappy is, can you imagine what the bottom 25% of wage earners wages would have been if we hadn't had, depending on the number you want to use, 10, 15, 20 million new arrivals? if i look at these policies, there is what i believe a flawed macro machine, and they keep trying to make micro

adjustments. they caused the great inflation, the housing market takes off, and then mortgage rates take off, and young people or old people are now locked out of the housing market. so, we are going to announce a $10,000 starter kit and then a $400 a month subsidy, and just all these irregularities and contortions in the system that are so unhealthy, and all they are doing is pushing the housing market up more. but the real problem in the housing market is going to come in 12, 18, or 24 months, because new arrivals typically take 24 months to start forming households. so guess what, there's going to be more competition for housing, -- reihan: a relatively fixed supply? scott: probably at a 2.5 million dwelling deficit.

with this top-down view, they're just getting slice after slice of the problems at all the micro levels. reihan: sorrow, more housing insecurity and maybe even more homelessness in the streets of some american cities. then you could try to say, we will build more public housing, or what have you, but that's not a great track record. building on that, many americans are itching for return to the low interest rates of the past 20 years. others believe that ultralow rates have badly distorted the market for risky assets. with european central bank cutting their key policy rates this week, what do expect from the fed in the coming months and what should the fed do? do you think grabbing jay powell by the lapel and saying cut the key policy rate down is the

right step? scott: i think bank of canada and ecb can cut, because the canadians and the europeans exercise some level of fiscal prudence. they are not two-footed driving. there is a natural economic cycle, and jay powell has been easing, for whatever reason, he felt compelled to ease financial conditions last fall, after the fomc meetings in november and december. the statements were very anodyne, and he walked out at a press conference and gave very dovish guidance of rate hike, rate cuts are coming and a massive ease of financial conditions. by doing that, what happened? he pushed up the stock market,

which benefits the top 20%, and then we are back to the bottom 50% who don't own assets, they have debt, so rates have had to stay higher for longer. i actually think that he has hurt biden's chances by reigniting inflation, pushing economic growth, re-accelerating economic growth, when it could have been slowing. and i think they could have been cutting rates, but they are not. and i would also predict that it won't be a slowdown in inflation that causes rates to get cut. i think it will be an economic wobble. reihan: you mean that there is going to be some kind of, maybe a quarter of negative growth, or something like that? scott: for some kind of slowdown in the economy -- i think it will be an economic slowdown that actually causes it. the administration has a lot of tricks up there sleep between

now between november 5, november 6, november 7. everything is up for grabs. but we're probably going to see $150 billion come out from the covid employee retention checks. those checks will conveniently start getting mailed out next month. reihan: a number of administrative measures have have been designed to buoy the economy. scott: back to the younger voters have really started to turn on president biden. i've seen some of the numbers. the under 35 cohort had been very, very attached to the democratic party, and that is starting to move. a big portion of that is housing. if you look now, the philadelphia fed has been measuring credit card delinquency since 2012, and we

are at the highest rate of delinquencies since they have been measuring. and that is primarily the lower 25% income group. the other group that has very high credit card delinquency is 35 and up, because they don't have assets. reihan: there is a stark difference between the tax policies being proposed by former president donald trump and incumbent president joe biden. let's start with biden. among other things, the president has called for steep tax increases on corporate and investment income and insists this will leave middle and lower income households untouched. we talked about your concerns with deficit and debt. where do you stand on biden's approach and the tax increases he is most focused on? scott: why did i come back from behind my desk now? i viewed 2024 as a last chance to grow our way out of this problem. for more years of layering on this amount of that and then end

up in a permanent european malaise. maybe you have to go to a higher taxation regime to hold things in place a la france. i do think there is an opportunity to grow our way out out of this, but i think it is biden layering on the debt. i think i'm deeply cynical about this. spend, spend, spend, many of the assets are not productive. clearly, they have gotten rid of scoring. you are replacing things that work with things that maybe work less well. these could be stranded assets. now, they are going to say we've done all this spending, we've got to pay the piper. i have a piece that came out yesterday as part of the series, they asked about 10 to 12 people

for the national economy magazine, how do we restart american productivity? my number one, you do it through tax policy and you keep high return, high after-tax returns on capital. raising these capital gains taxes, raising taxes, raising corporate taxes is just the wrong thing. it is a sleight-of-hand when biden says he's not going to raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000. if you're going to move cap gains up to the same level as ordinary income, that's going to apply to everybody. i think this is worse and worse. reihan: then there is the incidence of corporate taxes as well presumably has an impact on wages and indirectly consumers. scott: we saw an investment boom 2018, 2019.

the other thing is, the 2017 trump tax cut, a lot of the deficits were frontloaded because the investment expenses were in those years. the biden deficits were actually worse, because the expense was 100% on day one. i just think this is a dynamism killer. some of these other ideas, like taxing unrealized capital gains, if you want the tax unrealized capital gains, if you want to drive the venture capital industry offshore, i couldn't have come up with a better way to do that. i am on a foundation board, and every three years, to make us feel not very smart, they take us out to silicon valley. on the last trip we said we don't want to meet the fund

managers, we want to meet the entrepreneurs. what was fascinating, six out of the eight entrepreneurs were not nativeborn americans. that is high-end, high-class immigration. but those people could all be in singapore, they could all be in israel, they could all be in abu dhabi, and we will drive that whole class offshore. reihan: added earlier on, you noted earlier that you saw the trump presidency as a shrewd adaptation of the reagan era playbook for the 21st century. i wonder if you could elaborate on that. when you think about the ways in which a selective departure, the way in which he did reaffirm the reagan playbook, talk to us about the parallels. scott: let's go back to where we were in 1980. reagan came in with high inflation and the great malaise and the soviet union. trump came in, it wasn't malaise, but the recovery post-gfc had not been strong.

they both immediately went for tax cuts. they both focused on the biggest external threat. reagan spent the soviet union into oblivion. i think trump had a different idea for how to deal with china, and makeup for a lot of bad trade, historical trade agreements. and kind of pushed things forward. i think that once trump was in office -- and even make america great again, it was a reaganesque set. it's an optimistic vision of

america, instead of managed decline, which i would think a biden 2.0 would be. but i will say, i think whoever wins has a mandate. if joe biden wins, he has a mandate for central planning, things on the periphery, novel economic ideas, social policy. and donald trump will have a mandate for deregulation, closing the border, and energy independence, and projecting strength. both candidates will have a mandate. reihan: going back to tax policy for a moment, donald trump is calling for making the tax cuts and jobs act permanent and calling for a big across-the-board increase in tariffs, a policy that critics see as self-defeating.

is there a role for tariffs in a conservative economic policy agenda? scott: let's go to alexander hamilton. he believed in tariffs for two reasons. when he was setting up the treasury there was no real revenue. so, tariffs, until world war i, tariffs were the main source of revenue. he believed tariffs to generate revenue and protect nascent u.s. industry. i would add a third reason for tariffs at it is negotiating. so, i think that given donald trump's credibility and what he has done in the past on tariffs that we might not have to get to

tariffs, but the threat of tariffs will change the quality and the fairness of a lot of historically poor trade deals. president trump, ambassador lighthizer was very focused on the trade deficit, and they talk about it is a function of bad trade agreements. i think the tariffs are one way to remedy that. but i think anyone with an economics background will also tell you the trade deficit comes from our budget deficit and from the level of the currency. so, there is this interaction and calculus between the three. i don't think -- i believe in a conservative agenda tariffs have a place, but i think it is part of a calculus of all the tools in the toolkit. reihan: you might be among the world's leading experts on currency fluctuations and how to

think about them. if you go back to the reagan era come you had the plaza accords. scott: the plaza accords and then the louisville courts, up and down. reihan: talk about whether you see large-scale currency intervention as an important tool for the next presidential administration. scott: i don't think it has to be a large-scale currency intervention. i think what we have to have is to go back to the 1980's and even the 1990's where there was a large-scale coordination between currency, between fiscal, between monetary, and with the chinese, with a lot of these systems, these excess reserves that are being accumulated, the level of the excess reserves just tells you that probably there is the initial trade agreement is not right, the level of currency is

being suppressed, there is hidden subsidies. there is something wrong there with these excess reserves. is there something else that could be done? or, could you say come you are accumulating these excess reserves, you are moving out of treasuries, maybe that is a good idea? reihan: essentially the strength of the dollar now is a product of interventions other states are undertaking, including adversaries, and we need to be more proactive? scott: i think we are not thinking about it the way we use two. i think it is back into this calculus. the other thing is, when you are running these massive deficits that generate the high

inflationary level, the biggest currency in the world is now a carry currency. there is on forward points a real pick in yield over the japanese yen of 3%, 3.5%. that is not sustainable or optimal over the long-term. but i think we have to keep coming back to china, because how do we think about the chinese currency? our research at my firm shows that we think the chinese currency on any academic model is now undervalued. they've done a big internal devaluation, cut labor, written down real estate, very similar to what happened to the europeans 2011-2012.

the chinese currency is in three different equilibriums. they are statistically cheap, you have 99% of your citizens if they could take the money out they would, and then you have the 20% chance of foreign investors who probably believe if i am holding an rmb there is a 20% chance on not getting my money back. i think the rmb is something we have to investigate the relationship between that and the dollar. charles kindleberger, one of the great currency thinkers of the 20th century, i think kindleberger was a big part of that. at the time it was between the u.s. and sterling. he called it the important pair. we have to rethink the important pair for the u.s. and cnh.

when you go to reserve currency status in the history of the world there have been six reserve currencies. what do the former reserve currencies have in common? portugal, spain, holland, france, the u.k. they were also security zones. how did they lose reserve currency status? especially spain. they got highly leveraged and could no longer support their military. when you tell me, people in the biden administration say we want to keep reserve currency status but the 10 year budget projection calls for a 10 percent cut in the fence in a world that has seen if anything defense spending rise come you can't keep your reserve currency status if you lose the defense umbrella.

reihan: you are an admirer of shinzo abe. faced with persistent deflation, his economic revival consisted of three arrows, aggressive monetary policy, fiscal stimulus, structural reform. if you were to advise say, donald trump if he were elected president, what would you suggest as the three arrows for a successful presidency? scott: i might even advise him to campaign on three arrows. 3% real economic growth. how do you get that? through de-regulation, more u.s. energy production, slaying inflation, forward guidance on

confidence for people to make investments so the private sector can take over from the bloated government spending. two, i would urge him to make public his desire to get the deficit down to 3% by the end of this term. he didn't get us to the 6% or 7% deficit. they averaged 4% under him. get that down to 3%. then, 3 million more oil barrels per day for u.s. energy production. that would be my 3, 3, 3. that would substantially decrease the oil price, which would bring inflation -- that is one of the number one, of the number one drivers of inflation expectations. then, back to the fed, they

could go into a proper easing cycle. reihan: you started your remarks by describing how that has been a big motivator for you getting in the fray, getting into the public policy debate nationally. this year, the federal deficit will land between 6% and 7% of gdp and the primary deficit will be close to 4%. that is a staggeringly high relative to europe, relative to canada -- as you mentioned. it is really an outlier when you are looking at other advanced market democracies. you're talking about getting the deficit to 3% overall, not just the primary deficit. talk to us about a path that you consider politically realistic and credible. donald trump is someone who is a pragmatist, someone who won't want to tank the economy, but won't be closed to the idea that some fiscal consolidation might be appropriate.

when you're thinking about the path, what does that look like? some fiscal consolidation that is not something that will cause an enormous amount of economic pain? scott: my earlier point, i think that we are at the last chance for growing our way out of this. it has to include -- we reinstate the 2017, the tax cuts and jobs act, i think we can tame this -- you know, the green new deal, probably save a trillion over 10 years on that. probably something to do on medicaid in terms of empowering states, no cuts. i think on discretionary spending we probably need to do some kind of a freeze, except defense. i think the market will respond to that.

i have been very outspoken. i noticed with great pleasure in the last 48 hours that senator kennedy, louisiana and senator hagerty from tennessee took secretary on to task for shortening the u.s. debt maturity which eased financial conditions. people talk about criticizing the fed, i think the treasury has taken over the fed. as the former fed chair, she knew how to do it. i think there is a chance that you can get into a good reflexive cycle on debt cost, because i think it has been imprudent to finance at the front end. cost. i think it's been proven and

it's driven by high deficit see it in this will. more than the defense budget. he has privatized himself but they are a national defense.

during a conflict. when the cold crisis of the war crude and the economic. and that there are no interest

rates increased this year. president trump with the right policy could create a self reinforcing cycle on the downside. the entitlements are massive walk our way under control. protecting the american

industry. and that is the source of revenue. and biden announced his own. other it's. it amounts on the council and the current depreciation and two thirds of the.

electing 10% and 7% of that for you. you are using it as a geopolitical. thing about the biden policy, anything they don't like and the market failure. you said the work and what needs so in terms of bilateral trade

agreement values we should make it very clear. >> there is will we will not love you. >> in terms of. >> the tax cuts and what makes you think of that, what makes

you think it will go better. >> we are working on weight is an the elections and it never went. then we get covid we don't know, things were going very well so not sure, i reject the few minutes not important for the country will include laundry and i think it would have gone down so i think it was a home run by

the private sector. the demand was met with deregulation as opposed to now it is meant by regulation. ...

are they optimistic? and could you also give me an idea of who they want to see? >> i will work backwards it. i have no particular expertise but i can tell you, i think they would be happy with the list that leaked out yesterday. the wall street group would be very happy with that. i think the wall street group was always going to come back. what i find more interesting is the venture-capital cohort who is supporting president trump and what they say in las vegas, new shooter. this is a completely new group. is being socialized in silicon valley it is okay to be a

republican, it's okay to support donald trump. i found the comments on why he's coming out in favor of donald trump, a lot of it was anti- biden sentiment. it's pervasive anti-semitism. but a lot of these policies, there are two candidates now. there is a poor choice. that's a kind of jump the line i guess, over here. you mentioned you think if you can get real gdp potential gdp with most people's estimates is not much more than the previous administration. hasn't changed all that much

maybe a shade here or there. 1.83 is a pretty big chunk. where do you see the big difference is coming from? cook said think the global economy is actually picking up. if you look -- between trump and biden if you look at the economic data for biden the big jump is in structures. which is the manufacturing. mining, which is the energy industry was practically nil. you can get consumer excuse me, i think you can get consumer sentiment back. i think it can be export. i think it could be very broad

based and a lot of it driven. just in the energy industry they could get a regulatory certainty. some of my clients for some of the biggest private families who are manufacturers in the u.s. i always ask them from trump won .0 what was more important three of the tax cuts or deregulation? the tax cuts were nice but that regulatory certainty is what enabled us to do the massive cap acts. we would show up at the obama epa on a friday and we would see things from window guidance on a chemical facility. can we do this? what you think of that? there will be on site at the facility on monday.

i think it can be across the board. i think once we can get inflation down, interest rates down then i think we can have proper housing. >> i hope you will indulge me on a bit more of a personal question. you live for many years in a london. you looked in the northeast united states they are back in her home state of south carolina. one reaction i've heard from a number of folks on the political right is that in the wake of donald trump's experience in his criminal trial a lot of people come to believe that if you are someone who holds conservative political conviction it is no longer very wise for you if you or someone of means in particular someone who might be a target to reside in a deep blue municipality or state. someone who is a lifelong brooklyn resident, that is a dismaying thought. i wonder how you think about

that. when you think and speak to other like-minded folks people who want to enter the public life, are you getting that sense as well? that you have to migrate given the changing climate? the enemy of the state. the state is in a state government has maybe come to the forefront. its attackers, regulation, ease of doing business. again, regulatory certainty. this migration from the blue states to the red states is one of the largest migrations the post- civil war migration by

american blacks out of the south. this migration back to red states started before there was a notion of the enemy of the state. i think there is a risk premium that's being created. it's being created on tax insurgency. i have one investment in massachusetts. massachusetts put in eight tax and excess tax above a certain level. massachusetts is my biggest tax bill last year. i have one investment there. i think this idea of economic freedom i think it's economic freedom. i don't think we been degenerated yet to this idea of the enemy of the state, i hope we won't.

i'm part of the republican party. i studied theory a lot and part of the republican party that is think the best revenge is the one on november 5 let's not set off tit-for-tat chain reaction traditionally, conservatives are the adults in the room. let's stay that way. it is alarming. it is alarming on both sides to see the breakdown in the federal system. whether it was during trump with sanctuary cities we are not going to enforce the law. in the state of texas feel as though they have to enforce their own border. we've got to get back to this idea that the federal system does work. >> everyone please join me in

thanking him. [applause] [background noises] [laughter] [background noises]

movement. >> hello and good evening. my name is