>> next, a conversation on president trump's relationship with congress, including efforts to pass the health care bill and other republican proposals. we'll also hear about 2018 mid

term elections, the committee for economic development hosted this conference. >> ok. good morning, everyone. and thank you for joining us r the committee for economic development's spring policy conference. for those of you i have not met, i'm steve, the ceo for the committee. i would like to first thank our sponsors. you should see signs. without these wonderful people we would not be able to do this. triple creek ranch, henrietta for. the rand corporation, tiaa, insignature numb, cal tech, pace communications, kelly services. thank you, karl, for everything that you do.

arizona state university, corn ferry, the aerospace corporation. host hotels and resorts, air bus, broad view networks. thunder bird school of global management and finally the the national aeronautic association. so let's give a round of applause to all of our sponsors. [applause] we have a terrific lineup over the next two days. we will have conversations on the new administration and congress' first 100 days. we'll look at the prospects for bipartisanship as we heard in our previous earliership polarship.ay, bi infrastructure, immigration. just a few little issues that e're dealing with as a country. tomorrow we'll take a step back and discuss its issues at the forefront of corporate governance policy which has been a long focus of ced and our colleagues at the

conference for governance center will host the discussions tomorrow. this evening we'll host an award dinner honoring the chairman of the aerospace corporation and a ced member. and they'll present her with the leadership in the nation's interest award followed by a conversation about her career in civic work. most know that the -- most of you know that this is ced's 75th anniversary. we've been here active on public policy issues since our initial work which started with the development of the marshall plan in the 40's and our involvement in the bretten woods agreement which created the the imf and world bank. just a few things we did early on. but we've been active for 75 years with our ceo members we are totally nonpartisan which is everybody goes yeah, right. because if you're in this town

everybody says they're nonpartisan but they're not. but we are. and we have been since the beginning of our existence and we're very proud of that. everything that we're doing today is on the record. we are being broadcast by c-span so the cameras in the back are c-span. so if you wave you will see yourself later on television through the repeats. and if you stay up all night you'll see it twice. so we also are on twitter so we use the hashtag. so everybody on their phones, it is ok to be on your phone, on your smart phones and on your computers in this conference. and we know that you are only tweeting good things about the conference. and it's the only thing you're doing on your phones so we allow it. so, therefore, have fun. we're pleased to open today's conversation with about the political landscape.

no one party has the monopoly on good ideas. that's especially true when you consider these enormous issues we're dealing with today. we are very pleased to have a great panel this morning. here to lead the first discussion is michelle. the contributing editor to the atlantic and one of the country -- which is one of the country's most esteemed magazines for commentary on politics, curt tur, and technology. from ned by reporters cnbc. our member bob walker the executive chairman. from there michelle i'll let you take it away. thank you. >> thank you so much.

we are here to talk about the nitty-gritty of the new political landscape. and this is usually a great event in part because at the end we talk to you and everybody usually has great questions. we'll dig down into specific areas as this progresses but i want to start with a kind of big picture question for you. i think you've been around town a decade or three. five. our or >> five. >> what has struck you about the political climate in the of, trump era in terms like, what about it looks like the the same old same old if anything, and what about it is particularly unusual? >> well, i use my state of pennsylvania as the example. pennsylvania was not expected to go for donald trump of, like, in any way, shape, or form.

the first time in my 50 year history of politics in pennsylvania where the rural areas beat the urban areas. not because the the urban areas didn't turn out their vote. the democrats worried about pennsylvania but they thought they would lose it because they wouldn't turn out the vote in philadelphia. they turned out almost 450,000 people, which is what they needed but still overwhelmed by what happened in the rural areas of pennsylvania. what was that? notice two of the earliest members of congress who endorsed donald trump were both from small towns in upper pennsylvania that have a constituency far different than suburban philadelphia or pittsburgh, or the cities themselves. those are towns that were affected by illegal immigration, towns that lost jobs, and they were towns that nationalist

leaning. that is the constituency that the donald trump brought to the forefront and that constituency helped elect a republican senator in the state that was considered to be in trouble and it nationalist leaning. that is the constituency that also elected dozens of members to the pennsylvania legislature. so we have an overwhelming republican edge in the legislature. but the question is but the question is at the present time measuring those constituencies against what in 2018. e case because those people he brought in think he is being overwhelmingly successful. they think that he is doing very well on the jobs front because he has used a lot of mike ro targeting to tell them i saved jobs at ford, at carrier, they believe he is doing well there. they believe he has shut down the border that is down to a trickle at the present time. so therefore he is winning on immigration. hey love the tough talk he's

doing on foreign doing on foreign policy. so if you measure that constituency, they think he is being successful. if you go to the rest of the republican constituency, then they have concerns about donald trump but also the trump constituents have some concerns about the republican congress. thai don't think he is doing very well. then you have the whole resistance movement out there a by people angered about the fact that they were sure they were going to win and they didn't. so there are a lot of cross currents in politics right now that are running. but the people who don't watch morning joe in the morning are who believe that the donald trump is doing quite well. >> lisa, when you talk to policy makers who believe that people around, what is their sense of being able to -- i understand the microtargeting and why rural pennsylvania voters would think this is going bang busters. but republican lawmakers don't

think it's going so well or the glitches that have cropped up. are they optimistic that this is going to iron itself out? or are they anxious that this is kind of how it's going to be going forward? >> well, i think a little bit of both perhaps. i would agree with bob that in washington, d.c. any member of congress is going to be looking at how is what donald trump saying and doing going to impact me in my race a year-and-a-half from now? or they are going to have to measure their activities and their temperature around their support, around their reelection. unfortunately, that's just the name of the game. where i sit is with the state legislatures around the country. it's an interesting juxtaposition working in the beltway but also talking to the state legislatures on a regular baste all around the country. i would say just like bob

talked about in terms of the pennsylvania example, we had a pretty good sense at my organization that donald trump was going to win just because we were hearing from the state legislatures, saying i see the numbers in wisconsin and it's looking good. i see the numbers in michigan and it's looking good. on election night, i was texting with the majority leader of michigan and the majority whip in wisconsin, and sure enough by 8:30 they knew they had the state locked up. so very similar story to bob's. and it was tracking those -- the different turnout models. i was just thinking about this before we walked up, having been a part of the 1994 contract with america and kind of takeover of the republican house back then, it's an interesting comparison to see the -- because that was as equal of a shakeup i think in

d.c. as this election in terms of kind of a wakeup maybe, more of a shakeup but a wakeup call. and i think that when, in 1994 the contract with america had the first 100 days and i think that was one of the first policy initiatives that laid out the things that the new republican congress was going to effect and pass in the first 100 days. i don't think this president or, frankly, speaker ryan or mitch mcconnell were prepared for the first 100 days in the same way that the republican congress tried to prepare themselves back then. so you're seeing some of this play out with their inability to get a health care bill. and i know health care is on a panel down the road. but when i talk to my legislatures, they want to try to find solutions. they want to be productive. and my legislatures are republicans and democrats. admittedly probably more

republican than democrat because we're free market and limited government. but we are another nonpartisan organization. legislatures that want to work with this congress and this administration on the issues that are playing out, but they're having a hard time trying to figure out exactly where the legislatures that shifting as with sands are they offer up their report. >> do you want to jump in? >> i'll take a shot now and say did not see the trump weave coming in nove -- wave coming. the first thing that struck me most is that even with a unified house senate and white house, there is still remarkable division within the republican party that seems to have hampered the economic agenda that both the president and the republican leadership had hoped to push through by

this time. it sort of strikes me that we had this debate just before we walked up. the president, was donald trump elected for his policies or was he really elected because he was giving voice to frustration that was being felt by so many workers who have felt left behind by globalization perhaps? o if the latter is the case, then perhaps he can be considered successful by simply continuing to be that mouth piece, continuing to identify with that worker. but if he was elected truly on at s agenda, then we look the record so far, it doesn't seem like it has truly panned out. donald trump doesn't have a prior policy record of prior governmental record, a prior voting record to contend with, so he is someone who is interested clearly in making a

deal. however, when you look at paul ryan and republican leadership, they operate from a sort of comprehensive policy framework that limits their ability to make the compromises needed to, for example, pass a health care bill. so i think that political op tunism that donald trump was able to use to create a new coalition that took him to the white house right now is running against sort of policy principles in congress that might limit how far they can actually go in achieving some of those agenda items. >> this is a question then for everybody. i focus primarily on congress and when i talk to the republicans on the hill, staffers, members, whatever, they're not all that upbeat about things so far. or at least they are very anxious. and obviously there's a range of opinions and a range of what

can be done. what are you hearing in terms of where they think this is going? and obviously it's been very bumpy from a policy standpoint. you cannot overestimate what a spectacular epic fail it was not to repeal obamacare when they said they would. >> paul ryan said it very clearly that the republican party is going through growing pains. we're already hearing rumblings that the spending bill, they may punt that down the road as a one-week cr perhaps. so the time line for achieving these items keeps getting pushed back. the question becomes, from our network's perspective focused on the business and the markets, at what point do you start to doubt whether or not some of these reforms come hrough at all?

the president has said -- the treasury secretary has said they look at the stock market as sort of a scorecard. another measure of potential success. seeing stock markets seeing st sort of flatten out. that could be another thing that gives them pause especially when you look at a cabinet and administration that is so filled with wall street bankers, the number of people from goldman sachs, et cetera. they're very attuned to those dynamics in a way previous administration might not have been. >> if you're a republican on capitol hill and you're not concerned at the present time, you'd better get concerned. the fact is that they are being assessed in a far different way than the president is being assessed. as i said, the president is being assessed by this constituency that he put in place. but a lot of those people who voted for donald trump were also traditional republicans. the folks on the capitol hill are used to talking to those traditional republicans. with f them are unhappy what they see happening and certainly the trump people in

that coalition are unhappy with what they see happening. so they're concerned. the problem is you're dealing with a white house where the president said in the midst of the health care debate who knew it was this complicated. well, the fact is anybody who has spent any time in it knows that it's a complex issue. he said you pull out one part the whole thing collapsed. well, yeah. that's exactly the problem in the health care arena. they are faced that the health care bill is needed to do the tax bill. the tax bill may be even more complicated than the health care bill was. so you've got a series of things here that the administration needs to get on board with. and the administration then needs to decide whether or not they're going to work exclusively with the republican the president has said -- the treasury secretary has said they look whose are divided in their own conference or whether they're going to have to the go to the a more bipartisan formula. donald trump doesn't care. all he cares about at the the

end is success. i think one of the interesting things happening in town right now is this administration trying to figure out who it is they are so that they know where they go to make their deals. >> the one thing i hope -- and i agree with all the comments with the health care bill and took place.that we would hope or one would hope that because of donald trump's message and because of the outreach to the kind of the forgotten man and the worker, least their message of shrinking the federal government could start to be an underpinning of how they might take the next step on health care. we've been talking with some of the governors at the national governors association and trying to figure out a way that maybe the state legislators on

both sides of the aisle and the governors can get together and say, look, let's find a way for us to maybe seek the waivers that have been kind of thrown around. maybe figure out a way to on the some states that have taken medicaid, figure out a way to address the fact that they've taken it. on the other states that have not figure out a way to get a waiver so they can come up with their own policy. so i would hope at least that there would be some commitment to this kind of -- addressing the the balance of power and trying to devolve some of that power especially on the health care debate down to the state level. >> bringing it back to the politics of this all, as you've noted, trump and the republican congress are being assessed sman independently. now, usually the situation is if you break it, you own

it. but this president has a particular gift for blame the the freedom caucus when the bill fails or say it's the democrats. how nervous are the republicans congress members about whatever happens they wind up blamed for it? if you want somebody less popular than trump, you only have to look at the speaker of the house whose numbers are in the toilet. >> i was looking at some data yesterday or some polling numbers that have been coming back on recess. and bob maybe you've seen this as well. but it was interesting to me and kind of a little surprising that actually the polling and the recess experiences that the freedom caucus members are having is better than the more moderate republicans who were willing to go along. so, you know, on the health care bill specifically, this base that bob was talking about that elected trump and then

many of the kind of new members that are participating in the caucus, the freedom caucus i think are kind of cheering them on. which is a little bit nerve racking when you really want to -- if you're the president and want to get something done, you might want to compromise with whoever comes to the table, you know, i think that they're going to be coming back from recess with a lot of differing opinions of how to move forward. and paul ryan is going to have to figure that out. >> if you want to consider nervousness, just look at the lections in kansas and much closer was than anyone had necessarily antiss the pated. the other thing is we've already spent much closer than anyone had necessarily antiss the pated. so much talki about the forgotten man and that helped put trump in the white house and how they were oicing that frustration.

but another demographic that could be critically important in 2018 but another demographic that could be critically important in 2018 are the folks in the suburban, the affluent suburban united states who were they voting in november as an anti-hillary clinton vote and they're sort of holding their noses and voting for donald trump? or was the rhetoric and the sort of vision of america that he was putting forth, was that something that was truly appealing to them? it was interesting to me that hillary clinton's former spokesperson tweeted out after the georgia election that the path to success in 2018 is through the pannera bread of america. so for the brackic party, are they going to try to rekindle that park with the blue collar voter, with rural america? r are they going after the

college educated centrist who they might feel have a better chance of winning over this that will be really interesting to see where they focus their efforts. >> i think that's going to be on a case by case basis in each district. we're talking about 2018. we know that there's a lot of senate college educated races on the b. when you start to dissect state by state and really look into what is the political dynamic in wisconsin? you know, is it going to be tammy baldwin's year to the get reelected? there's already four or five republicans in that race. so they see some elements or at least expressing interest in that race. they see some elements of an opportunity there. on the congressional side, i just think that each house members is going to have to play their cards the way their district would read out and they're going to have to the maybe, maybe step aside their loyalty to the white house and actually play out their own district as they should. >> look, paul ryan's numbers reflect the fact that a lot of people think that the speaker

of the house can simply tell his members what to do and they'll do it. it doesn't work that way. and so he is dealing with the freedom caucus and the tuesday group and a whole bunch of factions inside his conference. but the fact is that this constituency out there that trump appeals to sees paul ryan also as being someone who the president relied upon to get the health care bill passed and he didn't do it. so some of those numbers are driven by that fact as well. there's time yet, but the republicans need to figure out a way to govern. republicans are great in opposition. we're great at fomenting anger and going out and so on. we're not so good at governing. that's the frustration that

this administration is going to feel and it's the frustration that many members of congress feel at the present time. >> well, that begs the question then of, ok, the next presidential election is an eternity away. the mid terms, not so much. what will congress need to get done bottom line in order to not have the wrath of voters come down on their heads? >> i think they have to come up with some kind of health care solution. it won't necessarily be the bill that paul ryan wanted. it i think -- lisa has identified one way in which they could begin to do this is by devolving power back to the states of making certain is covered but covering them under the medicaid program largely run by the states. there are solutions out there that might even attract some bipartisan support in the congress. so i think they have to get something done on that front. i think they have to get

something done on the jobs front on economic growth and so they have to come up with some kind of a tax reform package. again, if it may not be the big tax reform that people have talked about. it may be a series of smaller tax changes that they ultimately are able to pass but i think in those two areas they have to perform. and i think they also have to do something about keeping the government up and operating. they've got to come together to pass a budget that keeps the government in place and assures that people are not adversely affected by a government shutdown or a government unable to meet their basic needs. >> i think we would all like to avoid the government shutdown. >> this is sort of an out there question but i just want to raise it. do republicans actually have to do anything in order to see success in 2018?

meaning do they simply have to avert disaster of a government shutdown, disaster of a nuclear war with north korea for example? basic things here. in order to be seen as successful. the reason i say that is because the the economy is doing a lot better. we're seeing the economic growth at 2% or perhaps even better. the the trump administration will tell you it will be 3% even, perhaps if they get some sort of small tax cut through that could temporarily boost g.d.p. if americans were voting on the economy in november and sort of the economy in november and sort of adding up all of the angst that they had gone through during the great and the long and slow recovery, we're kind of back. and if we're kind of back, is that enough in itself and in or to hand republicans another victory in 2018? >> i would think that it would be a huge disappointment if

there wasn't a tax bill that was kind of transformational. it's possible that we'll get kind of bits and pieces of -- sorry. >> i know. it's a huge disappointment. 1986 was a long time ago, and that was the last time we had kind of a big package tax bill. do i think it's going to happen? probably not. but it's such a missed opportunity when you've got -- and likewise, if the democrats had all three branches of government, for them to get kind of their big banner kind of topics done and issues worked done. but i think think that the health care bill and the the tax reform are some elements of tax reform,. i would add to bob's list potentially some infrastructure. and that's kind of the jobs and -- element of his message. but i would add that infrastructure package, which seems to be kind of talked about right now on the hill. >> i think that's right. and, look, republicans are in decent political shape.

i mean, we talked about the divisions among the republicans because they are the governing party at the present time. but the democrats have huge divisions that they're wrestling with. and it's not clear that you can maintain the kind of anger that is driving some of the special elections right now. and so the republicans are in decent shape. a lot of their seats are pretty safer that even some marginal losses will keep them in place. ut, you know, they need to win several senate seats. they've got a good chance to do that just based upon the numbers. but if the atmosphere is not good, they will have a problem winning those additional seats. you're right, a strong economy will make for a much better election season, but a strong economy will depend upon getting some of these tax

changes because the economy right now is getting some momentum just out of the belief that some of these things are going to take place in washington and will improve it. the one thing that trump is doing at the present time is he can do with executive orders, a lot of work on regulation. that will help keep the economy going because a lot of the changes in the regulatory atmosphere will make a big difference for companies being able to keep jobs on board. >> what do you think democrats need to do if they want to -- besides march around with resist signs. >> besides organizing other women's march. right. so this kind of goes to the question of, to what extent do the politics shape the policy? if the focus is going to be on that blue collar worker, then the policy agenda or the

economic message -- the message to your voters is going to be very different than the one you deliver if you're trying to reach suburban soccer moms who drives a mini van. so right now i think it seems are trying to figure that the out. going to the two most recent examples of kansas and georgia, it was interesting to see that the democratic challenger in kansas was someone who was a bernie sanders supporter who had received funding from the daily coast, who had that progressive appeal. whereas, in georgia, it was a very different situation where lot of the money was sort of utside national money that was coming in, and that candidate was considered much more moderate. both candidates, really, considered much more moderate. coming in, and that not a trumpite and not really that part of the standard progressive wing of the party. so which one of those is going to be the heart of the democratic message for 2018? i think it's still being debateded.

>> i would just say -- >> i'll put on my partisan hat for a second. it is interesting in georgia now to have the power -- the party that's going to the empower women running viciously against the woman who is the republican with a candidate who doesn't even live in the district. >> that's hard to respond. >> he specifically called out women as a key demographic he was trying to win over. >> what was it, $8.5 million came in from outside of the state of georgia for that race, which was interesting. i would say to your point about maybe republican ks just kind of coast and -- through this and avert some kind of disaster. i again wearing my state legislative hat would just implore everybody to remember what's going on in that base. when bob says that the republican party is doing well, all you have to do is look at the map that i passed around on the tables that shows that the

republicans right now have 69 chambers of 99. those are state legislative chambers across the country. it's 99 not 100 because nebraska is unicameral. but you can drive from key west, florida, to the border of canada and not leave a republican trifecta state. that means governor, senate, and house in that state. that's a pretty amazing statistic. i think this is probably a high watermark for state legislative control, and that for what the democrats may need to be focused on, is something that i know they're looking at it and i know they're thinking about it. but it seems to me that as you look at 18 and 2020 that was the redistricting year that becomes a whole other element

of all of the moving parts that we have to think about in terms of how things are going to play out and what's going to the happen. redistricting is going to become a huge issue on all sides and the fact that those map have been -- they get drawn every ten years and they will be drawn again if this map that i handed out stays the same by a mostly republican membership and or legislature. >> all those state legislatures are the farm teams for national office and right now the democrats lack a farm team. they're an aging party that lacks a farm team which is an jn going problem for them that they're going to have to solve. >> that does beg the question. the coasting question and the way the map are drawn, i don't think anybody is looking forward the democrats to the retake everything in 2018 if nothing else because the map is so prohibitive. but do you wind up with a

situation where republicans control everything in washington and they can't get anything passed. so you're left with similar to the complaints about obama doing everything by executive order trump can repeal his regulations and do whatever. but you can't get a major tax bill done. you can't get a major health care overhaul done. how big of a concern is that? even if your party is still winning. >> and for instance you can't do immigration reform without legislation. this is another big item that is out there. you can't really get to that issue without doing the legislation. some of it can be done by executive order. >> infrastructure is going to the require -- >> infrastructure will require lots of money and some specific targets. >> and god forbid anybody try to tackle entitlement reform. anything substantial would require something going through congress like that. and right now, they're having trouble.

on some level will the voters care if they've still got trump up there cheering and they're still being told that carrier is getting a few thousand more jobs and stuff like that? at what point do they care? >> going back to your previous question connecting it to this one on what do democrats need to do in order to see progress for their party in 2018. there's a real question for a lot of our state democrats over how much to cooperate with the president, how much to cooperate with republican leadership. do you give them that -- do you become part of that coalition that allows them to do some of these thing which is democrats have wanted for such a long time, such as infrastructure spending. but i think that there is a warning there, which we saw over the past week president trump had come out and changed his position on the ex-im bank, for example, saying on the campaign they'll that he was opposed to it and then meeting

with business ceo's and now democrats, now saying he sees a use for it, then nominating people to fill its board. so that was something that someone like a hiteie hite camp had been a very vocal advocate for but once he nominated people for the board it were people who had opposed the ex-im bank, actually put forth bills that would have eliminated the ex-im bank. the point is that i think for someone like a hite camp or someone like a manchen what they're seeing is that the president can give us and he can also take etsdz away. so there might be a double-edged sword in trying to cooperate or being willing to come on board with some of these republican proposals. >> that's a perfect example of kind of his ability to find the deal. you know, wherever it is. and i'm sure that a lot of people are upset that he kind of flip flopped on his position on that but i'm sure he will

try to figure out a way to kind of split the baby and say yeah, i came out and i learned a few more things but now i've put some people in place that are going to -- maybe try to dismantle it in a different way or use it in a different way. an interesting -- having somebody who is a deal maker and negotiater by trade a is a very different thing than having a classic politician that has come through the ranks. >> this is one of the real failures of this the administration thus far, and that is to get their personnel in place. everybody in washington knows that personnel are policy. and the fact that some of these departments, the only top political appointee that exists in the departments is the secretary and the assistant secretaries, the agency heads, a lot of them have not been put in place yet. and this administration is going to have trouble moving its agenda forward and negotiating with the hill on

the agenda so long as you don't have the people in place. >> and there was a little bit of discussion among pentagon folks yesterday that maybe if the they had everybody in place they wouldn't have lost an armada. >> so we probably have time for one more thought from you guys before we toss it to the audience. is there anything that you particularly think has been a controversy or that people should be concerned about? you know like the conflict of interest things, that could be politically problematic but really aren't. >> i think the russia issue is an interesting one because i don't know that you'll ever find a place where the trump people were directly involved. hat you have is russia that is since czarrist times has interfered with other people's election. they're interfering with the french and german elections at the present time.

so we should expect they will continue to interfere in ours. but i think that one has maybe spent time on the front pages that is not warrented given the realities of it. >> i would just say in general the kind of politics of disruption. are really hurting this town and the people who work in policy and the people who are in the jobs running government relations for their companies. you know, to have to explain to our see suite what's going on, that's an orchestrated attack, guys are fake news. that's just -- called politics. not right here. just the general politics of disruption and orchestrated guy events and calibrating that is going to become -- i have kind of called it the new normal but it's really sad that it is. >> one thing that i'm watching

is, what is business' influence in washington? obviously this is a president who has welcomed ceo's to the white house multiple times. made a big show of it each time. to what degree does the business community sort of temper that pop list nationalist vain that trump tapped during the elections cycle? is this a shift that we're seing in a president's permanently? something that he is reacteding to the most recent advice that he receives? but if the business community is in there frequently, then they're frequently the most recent advice that he receives. >> with that, i think we have microphones floating around. so anything that you want to ask the eye something that he i reacteding to the most recent advice that he receives? but if the steamed experts here. right up front. she's coming with the mic. she's sneaking up behind you. >> good morning. my name is greg from the university of central florida.

so my question to you is to the point about sort of congress having this hip cratic oath of do no harm. be ok. might the president put forth his guidance for the fy-17 spending, which next week is going to be the first time he's required to sign a spending bill. chgs kind of interesting because the guidance put ford, one of the things he did, he proposed cutting nih by 19%. if the there's one agency that's sack sacrosanct in the federal government, it's nih. to what extent do you think congress is going to have to throw itself on the sword and push back on the president and is he going to be so teflon that whatever happens it's going to be congress' fault, it won't be his? >> to what well, i don't think there's going to be a problem with regard to the 2017 spending which is what the bills are that they're coming

up in the next couple of weeks. those are pretty well cooked at the present time. the question is for 2018 where they put in a lot of these cuts. and i think in aun honesty that the omb setting the negotiating points, there's no way that you're going to cut some of these agency bs i the numbers that are in there. but it will allow them to negotiate more across the board kinds of reallocations. and this administration is going to look to changing some of the administrative structures in order to find some of those savings. and i think that's going to be a negotiation pattern during the next few months. >> the democrats are never going to get behind a, we're going to cut $54 billion out of nondefense so we can have 54 billion more in defense. so they would have to find a way around that.

it will get very heated and will break down from what he is wanting. >> bernie, economic consultant. what's the likelihood that we'll move back towards compromised which census, whatever you want to call it? or are we going to continue with this partisan to throw whatever party is in power out over time and back and forth and accomplishing very little? >> who wants that one. >> well, i'll try here. look, we live in very, very difficult times for a lot of people out there. and the way in which people have adjusted to it is by moving into their own tribes. and the fact is our information sources at the present time allow you to do that. i mean, you -- if you're on one

side you watch msnbc if you are on the other side you watch fox news and you get your opinions reinforced constantly. nd so long as the country is reacting to world events and to national events from their tribal positions, it's going to be very difficult to change the nature of politics. parted of this is to open up the debate more in the congress and do some congressional reforms that make certain that all the sides get expressed and then we come to the a conclusion. so there are some active attempts under way to deal with the whole issue of congressional reform that i think could in fact make the congress somewhat more responsive than it's able to have been in the last few years. >> that's a very long way of saying, you know, don't start

your kind of bipartisan club right now. is, we seem to focus on the republican versus democrat but yet when you look at the number of republican governors who did not support trump, still don't support him, with trump who ran under the title of r but previously ran under d. so we really have, in reality, a republican party? or do we have a whole bunch of almost different parties just under the r. heading? >> well, it's not just the the republicans that have that problem. the democrats have the problem as well. there are divisions within their own parties that prevent them -- both parties -- from

finding government. look, donald trump is a phenomenon. he caught a wave of anger and frustration in the country. people had him in their living rooms for ten years being a strong man on one of the most popular shows on television, and they thought, ok, if i want to really shake things up in washington, here's the the guy. but he doesn't have much in the way of partisan loyalty. and i don't think in the end he will govern very much as a partisan. he will govern in ways that advantage the trump administration. and if that means unifying the republicans heel try that. if it means -- he'll try that. if the it means seeking help from democrats and putting together a coalition that's very different from one that the republicans would be comfortable with, he'll do that. >> you don't even have to go to

the governors or the white house for that question. i mean, i spent a lot of time talking to the house freedom caucus members, and when trump -- before trump got sworn in, i falked to the chairman mark meadows and he assured me that they would be given trump the same workover they gave obama when it came time to work through a lot of these bills. and i doubted him but sure enough they stuck to their positions for the health care debate. now, i also, talking with house leadership, they were pretty confident that in the name of opportunity -- this was going to be the republican party's big opportunity to kind of come together, put aside their small differences or what the ship ent calls the little and move forward on big issues. obviously that may happen. but right now no one is terribly optimistic that that is happening. the failure of the the

obamacare replacement bill makes it really tough for them to do a big tax reform. so the odds of that have suddenly gone through the floor and you are working with weird timelines. so you have not one republican party even within, say, the house conference. now, that doesn't mean that they won't come together on certain things but the answer to your question is, they started out thinking that, oh my god this is it, we can do this. going to pull together. and even if they don't like every little clause of the bill they're going to put that going and pass it. and that has not happened at this point and they're not talking like they're looking at that happening in the next couple of revolutions. >> i would just say that the identity politics is playing out. and donald trump i think is an

evolving political figure. it's safe to say that he is still learning on the job a little bit. and whether he knew he was republican or thought he might be republican, he saw some poll numbers up in new york when he was thinking about potentially running for governor and said, why don't you check it nationally? and he tapped that nerve and saw this political space. and i don't even know -- i haven't seen the figures. but i would venture to guess that a lot of that base who we would have thought were traditional maybe reagan republicans are those -- or those reagan democrats that maybe went back to being democrats and have been kind of the forgotten guy for a while. so he was electd with a lot broad base d of than i think just the traditional republican candidate, capital r., would

have been. >> one more thing. their ideological differences within the white house as well sort of the bannon versus cureb anywhere divide, when you think peter navarro who is the president the's head of the national trade council versus a gary cohen, former goledman sacks banker. so it seemed like until the president and the the white house can settle the differences between some of these warring factions it's going to be very difficult for them to set the tone for what happens in congress, what happens in other elections down the road. rsh a good point. the treasury secretary has already said he doesn't like to play with the debt ceiling. he thinks it's absurd that the congress has playd with the debt ceiling with a political football whereas omb political person likes to play with it. >> there's no ideological core within the administration yet. and i would venture to say that maybe the president doesn't

want that. he's looking for all of these cross currents to play themselves out and that he is going to take kind of either the best deal that he can get or the last person who talked to him. i would -- a lot of managers in the c suites like a little chaos in their senior i management team because they want people to duke it out and fight it out and really argue for their positions. he might just be managing in a similar type of fashion. >> i can't see. i'm blind bid the lights. there we go. >> excellent panel. i'm a development consultant. bob, you started out saying how overwhelming the rural and smalltown response was in pennsylvania. i think that's been replicated all over the country.

yet i don't see -- there's more polarization that has become evident from that election. one is the rural-urban divide. another is big business and small business. of course wall street versus main street. yet i'm puzzled that we don't have -- given the fact that this population gave overwhelming support to president trump, how come there's no rural reinvent program going on? something like a new homestead act. something like a trust bustling of the big corporate farms that displaced millions of farmers on both sides of the boreder. so i don't see anything about the current agriculture secretary saying we need to the repair these broken down small towns with abandoned factories and abandoned storefronts and factory farms or farms that are not feeding the people and causing an increase in their health care costs.

so that's a lot to say in a few minutes. but how come there's no rural development project going on with this current administration? >> first, on the agricultural side we haven't got an agriculture secretary yet. he's sitting in the senate aiting to get confirmed. it would help to have somebody there. but secondly, i do believe that the infrastructure bill that they come up with ultimately will be very different it would help to have somebody there. but secondly, i than somebody at the infrastructure bills in the past and will reflect some of the needs of small cities and communities across the the country rather than simply being an urban infrastructure program. so from what i'm hearing, we are going to see an infrastructure bill that is far broader than most that we've had before. >> i would add to that just keep your eye on secretary ben carson over at h.u.d. because i think you're going to see -- i guess that's an an

agency that's often overlooked and not followed. but i do think that he is putting in place a good team. he's got the ear of the president right now. and i think some of the urban renewal types of projects, whether they're folded into the infrastructure or not. but those are going to start to get some traction. >> i mean, the democrats have made clear that they won't sign an infrastructure bill or get on board with an infrastructure ill that is just solicit private investors for toll roads or things like that. they want something more comprehensive as well. so that will be one of the more interesting projects when they get to that because that is outside of the traditional republican comfort zone. major infrastructure spending. talking to conservative thes on the hill, they flip out when you talk about that $1 trillion price tag and how you're going to make up for that with -- keep it budget neutral, a lot of them.

but it will be one of the more interesting areas when they finally get around to that. so nobody really knows. >> i would agree with that as well. first, president trump says he is going to bring back coal jobs. so that's one way in chess trying to the address the needs of rural voters. and that might not be done necessarily through comprehensive legislation. that might be done through deregulation instead, as we've been talking about that is one area where he doesn't need to worry about trying to get democrats on board. he can start the process of repealing some of the environmental regulations. the the waters of the u.s. act, he's already started on that. so there's other avenues to address it other than just pushing legislation through congress. >> actually, i think you're you're going to have to have the last word because we're out of time. but thank you so much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017]