12 Burst results for "Sarah Bender"
"sarah bender" Discussed on Marketplace with Kai Ryssdal
"Does seem a bit like a gimmick in a world of politics. That's Sarah bender, she's the political scientist in our story of professor at George Washington University and a senior fellow at the brookings institution. Although we tend to like put policy and policy solutions in one bucket and the politics in a different bucket, that's not how lawmakers see the world. Bender studies Congress, and she is in this piece because as much as this is a story about the nature of money, money and how government handles it kind of go hand in hand. Like the politics and the policies, they're tightly intertwined. You can't escape the politics. And so when you're asking them, should be raised, the debt limit to what level should we suspend it, right? Those aren't strictly policy questions. They're political problems. The political problem here isn't that the government can't pay its bills. It's that Republicans in Congress don't want to vote for a debt limit increase so that they can use the threat of default to leverage the Democrats into spending cuts. And so even if we think that the debt limit is like in today's world, almost nonsensical because the money is already out the door, right? Lawmakers see the politics. The money is already out the door, which kind of turns this into a game of political chicken. But my sense is at the end of the day, nobody really wants to be blamed. Lawmakers don't want to be blamed for really bad outcomes. And this seems like it could be a really bad financial and political outcome. If they don't raise the dead limit. We don't know exactly what would happen if the government defaults. Other than that it would be really, really bad. Millions of jobs lost global financial catastrophe bad. That's why Congress has raised the debt limit almost 80
"sarah bender" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"In New York, welcome to the second hour of balance of power. I'm David Westin. Well, Congress is in on a break right now for the July 4th holiday, but when it gets back, there's a fair amount that it needs to attend to including the success of the chips act called the U.S. innovation and competition act that everybody seems to want to get past, but they can't get it done. And a lot of appropriating to do to keep the government going. To take us through what Congress has in store for it and what it should and should not be doing. Welcome now, Sarah bender. She is Professor of political science at George Washington University and senior fellow in governance studies at the brookings institution. So professor thanks so much for being with us. One of the priorities for Congress is they come back. Well, the Democrats have a lot on their plate. They are coming back next week, but time is running short. Midterm elections are coming. We high inflation, presence approval of teetering at 40%. And yet, there's a big agenda here. They, as you said, they are still trying to pursue with Republicans. The chip or endless frontiers act basically a big boost to the domestic semiconductor industry. They still Democrats still want to move on some form of clean energy, healthcare, reducing the cost of prescription drugs. Those are two big things. They still will, of course, need to do spending for the coming fiscal year. And everything is just getting a little bit harder as time is running short. Yeah, at the same time, we also have the president requesting a suspension of the national gas tax at various things to try to address the inflation that I'm sure a lot of people who are back with their constituents are hearing a lot about right now. Is it likely the Congress will do something least on the inflation front? Well, I think there's been a lot of resistance even amongst congressional Democrats to push back against President Biden's a proposals on gas tax holidays. We're seeing a little bit of that at the state level, but many lawmakers seem to understand that that, in fact, could fuel more inflation and that's a real job here has to be done by the fed. Relatively little fiscal policy can do at this particular moment. You refer to it a moment ago, professor, but what about whatever is left of the build back better plan? I don't think they like to call it that anymore, but they had all those things. But things like energy and various things. There was word that Joe Manchin is in negotiations to actually come up with something. Well, it seems to be back in the news for sure. Joe Manchin, senator Manchin remains in the driver's seat. He seems to be trying to steer a package that he can vote for. Some carefully tailored clean energy, tax incentives, this question on reducing the cost of prescription drugs, which seems to generate a lot of money, which Manchin wants the bill to put toward deficit reduction. Never say never. The expiration of that date is September 30th. It may yet not happen, but these negotiations do seem to be having a little bit more traction than they did last year. And professor what's the effect in all likelihood of the midterm elections at some point people are going to be focusing specifically on their reelection all the house in a third of the Senate. Well, for sure. And Congress is not really in session all that much in the fall. They'll be there in September. House is gone in October. The senators will be there a little bit in October. But all eyes are on midterm elections, the closer they get. And I think everybody understands the big issue is what people think of Biden's performance and especially the state of the economy and the price of gas. Professor take a step back with me if you would for a moment because it strikes me that the Supreme Court, if anything has added to the agenda of Congress by saying, a lot of these things really are up to Congress or state legislatures. For example, the EPA decision with West Virginia. Last week, where they said, you know, if this has to happen, then Congress has to pass something to get it done. Is there a shift going on in the responsibilities of Congress over against the administrative branch if I can call it the branch? Well, I mean, the Supreme Court, whether or not they think Congress can actually get its act together to make these sorts of very minute specific instructions to bureaucratic agencies, that's not Congress's forte. I think in general, deals get made by doing a little delegation, a lot of delegation to the experts in bureaucracies. To enable them to think about how are we going to address these issues and how we're going to do long-term problems that Congress is not very good at foreseeing. So the record of Congress increasingly stalemated doesn't give me a lot of hope that they will be able to rise to this challenge that Supreme Court is throwing back on their plate. So let me push you on that just a little bit because we had pat toomey the senator from Pennsylvania on last week and I asked him about this quite specifically saying, wait a second, Congress can't get much done. So how realistic is it for the Supreme Court to say it's up to Congress? And he said, well, that's really undemocratic, isn't it David? I mean, that's why we are structured the way we are. Is there something undemocratic about the delegation to administrative agencies? Well, I think the delegation is to the reality of living in a world as complex as ours and a country as huge and diverse as ours that the way in which bipartisan agreements come together is that they have to be a little ambiguous to get the package out the door. So delegations to agencies can be done well or it can be done poorly, but the difficulty Congress faces and updating these laws means that power is just necessarily going to flow somewhere else and some that's where expertise lies. And so sort of a flip side of how do you legislate in the world and how do you make policy in such a complex world? Finally, let me ask the tough one, which is the deficit and the debt. Everyone seems to talk about it. Nobody does anything about it. It reportedly is one of the things that Joe Manchin, the senator from West Virginia is very concerned about. Is there any move afoot in Congress at all to take a serious look at the deficit and the debt and try to address it? I don't think either party has that high on its agenda. Certainly Joe Manchin is trying to put it in the radar and certainly the changing sort of inflationary environment, right? Where the U.S. can't rely on sort of near zero interest rates, it's going to change the calculation here, raise the pressure on lawmakers to act, but this is a problem that demands bipartisan buy in and the parties just aren't there. In history, going back as you've studied these things, can the markets give the Congress something of a nudge? That is to say, if the interest rate's really go up substantially, it's going to be hard to serve as the debt. Well, I think that's absolutely the case. And we do have episodes where markets can discipline Congress. Certainly, I think we've seen it on debt limit machinations that go on. I think the scare in 2011 has
"sarah bender" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"On the terminal who would have thought this a couple of weeks ago Raskin's fed nomination likely doomed by mansion opposition Thought Joe Manchin owe the Democrats one After build back better not today as the democratic senator says he will not back Joe Biden's nominee For the Federal Reserve vice chair of supervision Stephen Dennis writing it likely dooms her confirmation in the Senate Given broad Republican opposition and that starts with the ranking member who happened to be on the air here on Bloomberg when the news broke Pat toomey senator pat toomey ranking member the banking committee you will hear David west and this is on balance of power asking him the money question Here's senator to me Does this spell the end of the nomination I think it probably does as a practical matter I'm not aware of any Republican support for Israeli and I have not spoken with every last Republican colleagues so I'm not speaking for anybody but I'm just not aware of it And so much for a bipartisan approach although that's what The White House is saying Jen Psaki was asked about it again today in the briefing The White House kicked out a statement suggesting that they are unmoved by this development Fine senator Manchin we will seek a Republican To vote yes But in a 50 50 Senate and after everything we've heard pat toomey has been consistent In speaking about this he described today once again to David Westin on balance of power his problem with Sarah bloom Raskin Here he is on Bloomberg This is a radical change in the mission of the fed I mean there's an important debate to have about how quickly we transition to a lower carbon economy But those decisions need to be made in the most transparent and open process by people who are accountable to the American people because they have costs Explaining his opposition over Prior statements from Sarah bloom Raskin you heard this all come out in the confirmation hearing About her views on fossil fuels and how at least some time ago believed that they might have limited access to banking for instance as we try to transition to renewable energy I want to bring it back here if we can go back to February and that confirmation hearing let's just bring you into the room This is senator pat toomey with Sarah bloom Raskin herself Are you saying you no longer hold these views that you've stated about allocating capital as a result of your perception of this risk My views have been consistent senator the fed should not pick winners in losers They should not be exposing taxpayers to undue risk Okay I'm sorry that there is no reasonable reading of these articles and speeches that can come to a conclusion other than that you want to be allocating capital away from those industries that are generating large amounts of CO2 Yeah well he was never convinced Sarah bloom Raskin went on to try to answer more questions None of the answers seemed to resonate So here we are Statement from The White House I'm jumping all the way to the last line after they talk about how well qualified she is quote we are working to line up the bipartisan support that she deserves So that she can be confirmed by the Senate for this important position Nothing to see here move right along As we introduce Sarah bender senior fellow in governance studies at the brookings institution poly sci professor at George Washington University and author of the myth of independence how Congress governs the Federal Reserve Sarah thank you for being here Sure Thanks for having me Is this as good as over Well that seems to be the writing on the wall here There's not been a Republican willing to come out and say that they would support bloom Raskin So it seems that this candidacy for the fed's vice chair of supervision probably is not going to happen So the other four gets split off maybe there's another vote but I wonder Sarah when you hear this and you know you've seen this movie before not necessarily with the fed but with other nominees when you start getting into the grinder on Capitol Hill is it up to Sarah bloom Raskin to withdraw The White House doesn't want to turn around and cave on this Is it up to the nominee Well I think that's often what happens is the nominee who themselves often don't want to go through The process will want to withdraw We don't know exactly what will happen here but I would not surprise me to see that outcome And then you get four nominees to the rest all pass all are confirmed That seems to be what's happening here Manchin even last week said let's not go ahead on Raskin and go ahead with the other four So it looks like they were easily the 50 democratic votes to confirm the other four This is a party line on Sarah bloom Raskin we heard it a couple times there from pat toomey We essentially heard it from Joe Manchin even though he's in another party The White House says she's answered every question Is this fair the way this is being dispatched by Republicans Well Republicans did play hardball here They boycotted the committee vote And in the 50 50 Senate in a 50 50 committee evenly balanced that would break the rules of Democrats went ahead So there was hard for sure They could have just shown up in voted against her But they didn't do that Right now right Well I guess Joe Manchin would have stopped that from happening For sure that would have likely would have happened before or at a confirmation vote on the floor So the issue here I think more generally she was accused by Republicans and really sort of that she would be a rogue regulator even though she has a career of public service behind her Even as high as the deputy treasurer Including on the Federal Reserve which is one of the real ironies here Absolutely So okay minute left here Sarah We've got a fed meeting this week The White House is telling us that the fed is essentially working with one hand tied behind its back in the fight of our lives against inflation Are they right Well the fed I think many believe it's behind the 8 ball And it has as it said it's got to start tightening But it's not so easy given supply shocks demand from Americans It'll be hard They want to avoid a recession But also they have to kind of prepare us I think for potentially higher levels of inflation then we've been used to How long do you think until the nominees are confirmed in all of these seats are filled We'll save the four obviously the president may need to come up with another But to get these foreign place are we weeks away Oh I think we're easily weeks The average of late has been several months for these nominees And they're already two.
"sarah bender" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio
"To agree to various measures. It makes it all the harder on a 50 50 senate. Really for the majority party to make a lot of progress. More of our conversation with Sarah Bender on C stands the weekly You can find it wherever you get your favorite podcast. This'd is a re air she spread. Your programming from Monday W. C. SPF in Washington next, a forum on former President Trump's role and influence in the Republican Party following his election defeat. A recent survey of people who voted for him suggest that they feel under threat. Analysts review what the results mean for the future of the Republican Party. The American Enterprise Institute hosted this event last Friday. Good afternoon. I'm Karlyn Bowman, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. And I'd like to welcome all of you and R C span audience to today's van called Donald Trump in the future of the GOP. Let me give you some background. Henry, old son of former AI colleague and now a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, has long been one of the nation's most astute observers of the Republican Party. His 2015 book The four faces of the GOP written with political scientists, Dante Scala has been widely praised for its analysis of different factions within the GOP. With this new poll, he is able to look at one of the most important new groups Trump voters and put them under the polling microscope. Henry has been a regular participant in the Eyes Election Watch program, and we're delighted to give him this forum to discuss the new poll. Late last year, Henry approached you Go about doing a survey of 2020 Trump voters. You got agreed, and they partnered with the Ethics and Public Policy center and Henry to survey 1000 Trump voters from January 11th to 14th. The survey on Lee looks itself identified Trump voter, so it is not representative of the Republican Party. Questions, Henry wrote. Look at full of politics, culture, economics and social issues. The top lines of the survey will be available for all of you when we send out an event summary within a few hours of this event were also very fortunate to have a superpower to share their reactions to the survey. All have had the opportunity to review the pole. Joining us or Kristen Soltis Anderson, co founder and partner of the polling and strategic firm Echelon insights, Daniel Cox and AI, research fellow and director of a eyes exciting news Survey Center in American Life. And finally Sean, trendy and a visiting fellow and senior elections analyst. It real clear politics. All of their bios are available on the Web site. Henry is going to give an overview of some of the polls. Major findings. He will speak initially for 25 minutes. Then we will turn to Christian. Then Dan and Sean, we will allow time for your questions at the end of the program. You can submit questions by emailing Samantha Dad Bold spin at a I got orgy for on Twitter with the hashtag Ai GOP future before getting started. Let me thank Samantha Samantha Goldstein, who has done great work in helping us But this event together working with Jacqueline climate, Skylar Pollack and Brandon Rastus, it AI and also our wonderful events team and I'd also like to thank Josh Brittanee Bppc, who was very helpful in getting the invitations to the event out. Henry, Why don't you begin? Thank you very much, Carlin. And thank you all for spending your lunch hour with us to talk about that most interesting of topics whether the Trump Coalition It's like the start again. By thanking you go. Both. The team in San Francisco had advice. An ample lot stay on the team in London with which I worked Marcus Roberts with and for everybody at AEI in ethics in putting this together. Let's dive into the data with some slides, and I will turn my face off so that you can focus on the face that matters the face of the Trump voters. Again. This is on Lee of people who are self described Trump voters. So when you see liberal, moderate conservative, very conservative or other demographic breaks out, this is not of the general electorate as a whole. This is only of Trump voters who described themselves by this Appalachia. We start with the question that's on everybody's mind. Does. Donald Trump dominate the days Republican Party? Well among Republicans who voted for Donald Trump? He starts in very strong, but I'm not sure I would say dominant position. We asked these voters that they are more of a supporter of Donald Trump or of the Republican Party. Two thirds of the people who voted for Trump said. They're more of a supporter of Trump in the party. But that means 34% said they were and as you can see the number of people or the share of people who say they arm or supporter of Donald Trump. Then the Republican Party rises with self perceived ideological conservatism. In other words, the ideological base of the Republican Party is likelier to say that they're more of a supporter of trump than the people who are more likely to depart the party when you actually have a general election. Route. I think one thing that we need to look at when I use ideological self descriptions is the group that calls themselves conservative. This is the largest ideological breakdown of the full larger than very conservatives and significantly larger than liberals and moderates as my work with Dante Scala showed Group that calls himself conservative in Republican primaries vote differently than those who call themselves very conservative. And they have the notable distinction of being the only ideological group that always backs the winner. And the very conservative group has on Lee back the winner once since 1992. And that was when George W. Bush started as the candidate of the conservative center and expanded to become the favorite of the very conservative, right. When his colleagues and challengers on the right Gary Bauer and Steve Forbes dropped out here. We see that two thirds of the conservative voter is more of a supporter of Donald Trump in the party, and then this chair's dropped the more hard support for Trump. We try and find If Trump runs in 2024 54% of his voters say they'll definitely back him. That's 52% among the conservatives. Is it very important if he doesn't run that the Republican candidate for president is loyal to him. Well, 40% of Trump voters say they are on Lee 36% of the conservative voters, and it's worth noting that the very conservative voter is only about 34%. Of the Trump Coalition. As Carla noted, this is not representative of the Republican Party as a whole because there are a number of Republicans who voted either for Joe Biden or for third Party candidate or voted down ballot while skipping the presidency. These will surely tilt the numbers within the broader Republican primary electorate away from Donald Trump's favors, so this is kind of a high water mark. Trump's support within the modern GOP slide, too, please. Trade is one of those issues that gets hackles up. It's something that Donald Trump broke with Republican pre Trump sentiment on by embracing, if not protectionism, certainly an aggressive approach to re casting trade relations. And when he was a nascent candidate coming down that escalator in Trump Tower, the two issues he harped on repeatedly We're immigration and trade, immigration and trade, immigration and trade. As we see, there's a substantial block of people within the Trump Coalition, who would generally agree with Donald Trump's Non treat non traditional positions on train. 40% say that trade hurts America's economy rather helps it and that number rises for people who switched parties Obama and 2012, or voting for third party candidate and voting for Donald Trump in 2020. What unites S'more Trump's coalition than divides. It is the idea that trade reduces jobs for Americans whether you think it's been good in the abstract or not. 60% of the Trump voters think it produces jobs and that rises to 71%. Of the voters who switched from Obama to trump That doesn't note 16% of all voters of who for trump in 2020, where people who in 2020 12 either voted third party or voted for Barack Obama. So it's a sizable number and it's one that the Republican Party cannot afford to lose. As it goes forward to turn Trump's 47% minority into a 51% majority in the 2024 election, majorities of all social classes among Trump voters believe that trade reduces jobs for Americans. That's the poor. The working class. The middle class in the self described upper middle class is, regardless of what they think about trade. They all think it reduces jobs..
"sarah bender" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio
"Left on. There's some independents who one of whom, across the aisle Chase's party, and so things were a little loosey goosey there for a little while. But the last 50 50 senate that state for a while, we would reach back to maybe 18 eighties early 18 eighties. So it's very unusual now. Of course, we've had 51 seat Majority 52 ft majorities and those are also very Hard so, but 50 50 Senate are particularly just because everything hangs particularly in an increasingly partisan Senate, where it's much harder to get senators from both parties to agree to various measures. It makes it all the harder on a 50 50 Senate. Really for the majority party to make a lot of progress. More of our conversation with Sarah Bender on C Span's the weekly You can find it wherever you get your favorite podcast. For this February. 8th. This is Washington today on C Span radio on Steve Scully. We're glad you're with us. Here are some of your Monday headlines. The stage is set for the second impeachment trial getting underway tomorrow. Lawyers for former President Trump taking aim at congressional Democrats for trying to quote silence a political opponent and I'm a minority party through impeachment. But House Democratic managers who will be Prosecuting say they will prove their case in the coming days. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office estimates that raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour could potentially cost 1.4 million jobs by the year. 2025 increase the deficit by another $54 billion over the decade. It also estimates though, that the policy change would lift 900,000 people out of poverty and raise income for.
"sarah bender" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio
"So we still have that reconciliation bill even though Congress long ago got rid of the second budget resolution, So this is what we have today. Congress right to budget. It doesn't go to the president for a signature. It's sort of it's aspirational, but it has some teeth on then the thing is, let's say, um, let's say the budget includes more money for health care for the poor. Again. That's in the blueprint. But then reconciliation is used to basically make changes say to the federal tax code to help pay for that increased spending on health care. So reconciliation is where kind of the rubber meets the road. This is the bill that does the actual changes in laws toe effect spending in revenues. Let's take the history one step further, because, as we pointed out, then President Richard Nixon vetoing the bill, but Congress overriding that beat 1974 the year in which Nixon resigned from the presidency because of the Watergate scandal. But what led up to the debate of the Congressional Budget Act well, the body that came on the heels of several years of conflict between Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and Republican White House and in particularly President Nixon, and those disagreements centered on a couple of issues, but the primary one that was encouraging Congress. Kind of stand up for its budgeting, Powers and Theo stand up for its power. The purse was that the president was, in essence what we say Impounding Money College would appropriate money that's safe for roads and bridges and the president have was deciding that he wasn't going to spend the money sort of a direct kind of full frontal challenge. To Congress's constitutional power of the purse. And many of those disputes ended up in court. The federal courts can decide with the Congress. But one solution here was to write the Congressional Budget Act, which is really gave Congress for the first time, I put a real role in writing the budget rather than just first of all, relying on the executive branch to write a budget, but also it created the Congressional Budget Office so that lawmakers would no longer have to turn to the executive branch and the offices. They wouldn't budge it and asked for their assumptions and estimates So it really was a statement of Congress. And it seems almost foreign compared to today's Congress. Right. It was a statement of Ah Congress standing up for an exerting its powers relative to the executive branch. And to that point, I thought this fascinating in your recent Washington Post op ed in which Lawmakers viewed the process of reconciliation as a way to not only meet congressional budget goals but also as a tool to reduce federal deficits. We now have a debt approaching $28 trillion and Congress now debating $1.9 trillion in stimulus spending later this year. We're told that the bite administration will look at another $2 trillion for infrastructure so that the budget law I mean it's Change a little bit over time. But the ways in which majorities, sometimes bipartisan, sometimes not have tried to use reconciliation. It's really stretched reconciliation in ways that might not really have been anticipated when the when the law was written in the seventies, and some of the stems from kind of the wording that's in the law about making changes. Two federal law affecting revenues and spending rather than directing that you can't that I can't impose deficits, so Congress is, of course over the years has tried to kind of manage the reconciliation process in a way to get it back to its roots off. Basically, you know, improving how we budget And that comes through the imposition of what we call the bird rule that was put into a sort of create in the eighties but then written into the budget boy in the 19 nineties, and we could get into the bird rule. But the point of the bird world was basically a little bit to try to pare back the use of reconciliation to try to much more tightly tie it. To effects on on the budget and on the deficits and to make it harder, not impossible, but harder. T use reconciliation to bust the budget. But I mean, all we have to do is look back to the last successful use of reconciliation and 2017, where was used for largely for corporate tax cuts and other tax cuts, but which has been estimated to cost no upto $2 trillion, so So with consent of both parties when they're in the majority, the parties see this reconciliation process. It is, um Yoon from a filibuster on that makes it quite attractive to majorities, especially small ones that were used to now that don't have the means to overcome Ah, filibuster of their proposal. So you brought up the bird rule, of course, named after Senator Robert C. Byrd and Democratic West Virginia, one of the longest serving senators in American history. What led to the bird rule? Why was this one of his signature accomplishments in the U. S Senate? Well, the issue here really was the ways in which both administrations in particular the Reggae administration and early 19 eighties in concert with a divided split. Congress really tried under bird and also Howard Baker, other Republican from Tennessee under their leadership. To try to rein in abuse of the reconciliation. Filibuster pan right? It was really very attractive. When once you have a big, wide open reconciliation process here that could circumvent the need to attract 60 votes, as we say, uh, to overcome a filibuster. That led majorities to put all sorts of provisions that had very little to do with reducing the federal deficits. So that the really the the burden nerve. That was the reasons why bird with Baker and others moved create this rule that we've really named may break for Byrd himself. And that is really to prohibit in the language of the law. We caught quote unquote extraneous matter by policy changes that do not have a direct and substantial impact on the federal budget. Let me remind our listeners were talking with Sarah Bender. She is the author of the book Politics or Principal Filibustering in the U. S. Senate. She serves as a senior fellow at Brookings and it teaches political science is a professor at George Washington University. So you have the bird rule. And you also have what now we call the birdbath. Can you explain? Sure. So the bird wool and this is all written into the law. The bird rule sets out what we call a six pronged test off What counts as that fancy word, the right counsel's extraneous matter. But if you just if you whipped open your favorite copy that Commercial Budget act and you read the section of the six points that can provoke what we call Ah Bird Real challenge. It's pretty difficult understand, And it's very hard to apply..
"sarah bender" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio
"Again. My Spanish is even worse the night that my Dutch filibusters are full of us care of those who were sort of so many insurrection across Central America. 18 fifties. But it became a really good term for explaining what people were seeing in the Senate before and right after the civil war, where senators we're learning techniques for holding up legislation that they opposed. Um, So it's not not great noble when say these are noble linguistic groups here for for the concept of filibuster, And yet, as you well know, it does give an individual senator potentially. Ah, lot of authority a lot of influence in the process for sure, And especially so today because the way in which filibusters work their way out. I mean our step back up a second, right? So filibusters. What What are we talking about? It's really any effort to hold up the Senate right to block or delay the Senate from really getting to a vote. But today, when we think about is their filibuster, we look to the way in which majority tries to end the filibuster, which is, in essence, how we're going to get the Senate to a vote. And the way they do that today and for the 1917 is to use what we call culture, and that rule requires 60 votes to cut off debate and get the Senate to what it is that they want to vote on Andre. That's increasingly in a slim majorities in a very partisan institution that could be quite hard, especially for 50 person. Senate majority to get all the way to 60 means really need Republicans, many of them across the aisle to cut off debate to get to a vote. Let me turn to another issue that we've been hearing a lot about, in particular with the former Democratic leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, more recently with the Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, and that is the issue of the nuclear option. Go back to 2013. Here is what Senator Harry Reid said about that issue. Even one of the Senate's most basic duties, confirmation of presidential nominees has become completely unworkable. This present, there has been a believable, unprecedented obstruction for the first time in the history of our Republic. Republicans have routinely used the filibuster to prevent President Obama from appointing its respective team working. Coming judges. It's truly a troubling trend that Republicans are willing to block executive branch nominations even when they have no objection to the qualifications of the nominee that from the Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, back in 2013, Sarah Bender, Why did we see this nuclear option? Why did Harry Reid Field was necessary? Well, then prince of for several years leading up to 2013, but especially We, uh well, Obama was president and there was a Republican minority intent on blocking many of Obama's nominees to the executive branch, as well as to the lower federal courts. Democrats were frustrated that Republicans were constantly voting against culture, meaning that Democrats couldn't get the 60 votes to cut off debate to vote to confirm nominees. Now, Uh, it was Harry Reid's choice as majority leader and 2013 to invoke what we call the nuclear option. Um one way to understand the nuclear option is to think about and to understand why it's so explosives and why, given the term nuclear is to think about how the Senate would normally change its rules here. So the goal here, as Harry Reid pursued was to lower the number of votes. You need to cut off debate, and he wanted to lower it from 60 Move majority. He wanted to get it down to a simple majority. In essence, 51 senators now one route to change in the rules of the Senate is actually there's a rule. That sort of explains how you change the rules and not to get too complicated, But you can filibuster efforts to change the filibuster rule right? So Perri Reed wants the lower sixties 51. Well, not the minority party was obviously going to filibuster that, and it's even crazier than that. Which is normally we say it takes 60 votes to get closer to kill a filibuster. Well, it actually under the rule, take 67 votes to cut off a filibuster of effort to change the filibuster. Which I mean isn't comfortable crazy but be you could imagine if you've got you know 53 54 Democrats in your majority your the way you're going to get 67 senators to agree. T take away some of the right to filibuster nominations. So Harry Reid takes another avenue. It's called going nuclear, and in essence, it's circumvents the rules it really it reinterprets the quota rules, and it sets down a new interpretation. In what we call a precedent and precedents are set by majority vote, so all read really had to do was find the right procedural situations and essentially offer a new interpretation and the new interpretation of the rules was. You don't need 60 to end a filibuster of a nomination. You just need 51, a majority of Senate Democrats. They backed him up in. That's what we call going nuclear right? Um, nuclear, in part because it's kind of avoided the real rules. It circumvented the rules, but also because we used to think it was going to just so antagonize the minority party that they would start to blow up every remaining bridge in sight to make life even harder for the majority for all the other things they wanted to do in the Senate. How then did the Republican leader a couple of years later, Mitch McConnell take that one step further when it came to Supreme Court nominees. So when reading the Democrats and 20 13 set out this new interpretation of the rules. They said it was on Lee going toe apply two nominees to the executive branch into lower court. Federal lower federal courts, so district courts and courts of appeals But the new president did not apply to Supreme Court nominees. Lo and behold, is 2017. Republicans now have President Trump in the White House and they have a Republican majority in the Senate and keep in mind..
"sarah bender" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio
"And after weeks of wrangling, the Democrats finally reaching an agreement with the GOP to take narrow control of the U. S Senate. In fact, it is an evenly divided 50 50 Senate, with Vice President Kamila Harris casting the key type. Making vote and now a budget debate over President Bynes $1.9 trillion coronavirus package. It's front and center. It is the debate in which one party is using a process called reconciliation to potentially exclude the other party. Here's Republican John Cornyn of Texas and a Democratic leader Chuck Schumer. Our Democratic colleagues were preparing to abuse the budget reconciliation process to RAM President Biden's coronavirus relief proposal through the Senate. There's nothing about the process itself that prevents bipartisanship. What has made recent reconciliation efforts by Senate Republicans, so partisan was not the process but the legislation. They sought to pass that from the Senate floor ahead on the weekly understanding the U. S Senate, and just why it operates the way it does. Our guest is Sarah Bender. She has covered a number of books on the legislative process serves as a senior fellow at Brookings. She also teaches political science at George Washington University. Our conversation begins with an explanation of just what reconciliation is, and I understand that you need understand the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 congressional Democrats in 1974 on acted the Congressional Budget Act. They did it over the veto of President Nixon. On that law's pretty key to understanding what's going on Senate in the House this month and next, so the law gave Congress new power back and 74 in writing the federal budget. And it included two key parts that we're seeing on the floor this week and in the coming weeks. First, it allowed Congress and it gave it the ability to map out a budget blueprint sort of a set of goals for guiding spending and revenue decisions for the coming fiscal year, But it also authorize a process known as reconciliation. And that Bill essentially told Congress to change federal laws in a way to ensure that Congress would be able to meet those revenue and spending goals that it laid out in that blueprint. So that's what we see on the floor right that both the House and the Senate House has passed and believe it already and the Senate is working on what we call the budget resolution on D when they originally wrote the law in 1974 they actually require You're allowed for two budget resolutions, and it's only important to know that because it tells us why reconciliation was created and what it did the first record. The first resolution sort of proposed the annual budget blueprint. And then the second resolution later, right before the fiscal year began. Sort of did a little bit of living talk sort of refined it. Adjusted it for any spending decisions that have been made. But then they went to the reconciliation process and that basically sewed up loose ends that bridge the gap between the aspirations in the budget resolutions and the reality of the revenues and spending that the government was going going to go through in the coming year. So we still have that reconciliation bill even though Congress long ago got rid of the second budget resolution, So this is what we have today. Congress right the budget, it doesn't go to the president for a signature. It's sort of it's aspirational, but it has some teeth on then the thing is, let's say, um, let's say the budget includes more money for health care for the poor. Again. That's in the in the blueprint. But then reconciliation is used to basically make changes say to the federal tax code to help pay for that increased spending on health care. So reconciliation is where kind of the rubber meets the road. This is the bill that does the actual changes in laws, toe toe effect spending in revenues. Let's take the history one step further, because, as we pointed out, then President Richard Nixon vetoing the bill, but Congress overriding that the 1974 the year in which Nixon resigned from the presidency because of the Watergate scandal. But what led up to the debate of the Congressional Budget Act well, the body that came on the heels of several years of conflict between Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and Republican White House and in particularly President Nixon, and those disagreements centered on a couple of issues, but the primary one that was encouraging Congress. To kind of stand up for is budgeting Powers and Theo stand up for its power. The purse was that the president was, in essence what we say Impounding Money College would appropriate money that's safe for roads and bridges. And the president was deciding that he wasn't going to spend the money sort of a direct kind of full frontal challenge to Congress's constitutional power of the purse, and many of those disputes ended up in court. The federal courts tennis decide with the Congress. But one solution here was to write the Congressional Budget Act, which is really gave Congress for the first time I put a real role in writing the budget rather than just first of all, relying on the Negative branch to write a budget. But also it created the Congressional Budget Office so that lawmakers would no longer have to turn to the executive branch and the Office of Management budget and asked for their assumptions and estimates. So it really was a statement of Congress and it is seems almost foreign compared to today's Congress. Right? It was a statement of Congress standing up for an exerting its power is relative to the executive branch. And to that point I Father's fascinating in your recent Washington Post op ed, in which lawmakers viewed the process of reconciliation as a way to not only meet congressional budget goals, but also as a tool to reduce federal deficits. We now have A debt approaching $28 trillion and Congress now debating $1.9 trillion in stimulus spending later this year. We're told that the bite administration will look at another $2 Trillion for infrastructure s O the budget law. I mean, it's changed a little bit over time. But the ways in which majorities, sometimes bipartisan, sometimes not have tried to use reconciliation. It's really stretched. Reconciliation in ways that might not really have been anticipated when the when the law was written in the seventies, and some of the stems from Kozo the wording that's in the law about making changes to federal law affecting revenues and spending rather than directing that you can't you can't impose deficits. So Congress of course over the years has tried to kind of manage the reconciliation process in a way to get it back to its roots off. Basically, you know, improving how we budget and that comes through the imposition of what we call the bird rule that was put into a sort of trade in the eighties but then written into the budget law in the 19 nineties. We could get into the bird rule. But the point of the bird world was basically a little bit to try to pare back the use of reconciliation to try to much more tightly tie it. To effects on on the budget and on the deficits and to make it harder, not impossible, but harder. T use reconciliation to bust the budget. But I mean, all we have to do is look back to the last successful use of reconciliation and 2017, where was used for largely for corporate tax cuts and other tax cuts. But which has been estimated to cost you up to $2 Trillion. So with consent of both parties when they're in the majority of the parties see this reconciliation process. It is immune from a filibuster on that makes it quite attractive to majorities, especially small ones that were used to now that don't have the means to overcome. Ah, filibuster of their proposal. So you brought up the bird rule, of course. Dr Senator Robert C. Byrd and Democratic West Virginia, one of the longest serving senators in American history. What led to the bird rule? Why was this one of his signature accomplishments in the U. S Senate? Well, the issue here really was the ways in which both administrations in particular the rate administration and early 19 eighties in concert with a divided With Congress really tried under bird and also Howard Baker, the Republican from Tennessee under their leadership to try to rein in abuse of the reconciliation, filibuster ban, right. It was really very attractive when once you have a big, wide open reconciliation process here that could circumvent the need to attract 60 votes, as we say, uh, to overcome. Filibuster that lead majorities to put all sorts of provisions that had very little to do with reducing the federal deficits. So that was the really the the burden nerve. That was the reasons why bird with Baker and others moved create this rule that we've really named Maid Rite for Byrd himself. And that is really to prohibit in the language of the law. We caught quote unquote extraneous matter policy changes that do not have a direct and substantial impact on the federal budget. Let me remind our listeners we're talking with Sarah Bender. She is the author of the book Politics or Principal Filibustering in the U. S. Senate. She serves as a senior fellow at Brookings and teaches political science is a professor at George Washington University..
"sarah bender" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio
"We'll see what this resolution looks like on the other side, and what signals Democrats sending to the American people along the way. That from the Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell earlier today, the debate over this stimulus bill does kind of time when the Senate for the second time in 20 years is evenly divided. It 50 50 on our podcast the weekly We talk to Sarah Bender. She is a Brookings fellow, a George Washington diversity political science professor. About where the Senate is at this moment, and she offered some historical perspective. 50 50 cents or various, very unusual, right, you reference back to 2001, but we have to go back more or less of late 19th century, There was a case and 53 senators get dying right left on. There's some independents who one of whom, across the aisle faces party, and so things were a little loosey goosey there for a little while. But the last 50 50 senate that stayed for a while. We would reach back to maybe 18 eighties early 18 eighties, so it's very unusual now. Of course, we've had 51 seat Majority 52 ft majorities and those are also very hard. So, but 50 50 Senate are particularly just because everything hangs particularly in an increasingly partisan Senate, where it's much harder to get senators from both parties. To agree to various measures. It makes it all the harder on a 50 50 senate really for the majority party to make a lot of progress. Sarah Bender is our guest on C Span's of the weekly. It's available wherever you get your favorite podcast. Joining us on the phone is Elena trained, she covers Congress and the bide Administration for Access. Calm. Let me begin with the Senate debate over the $1.9 trillion covert relief package. Give us a sense of where things stand this evening. That's right, Steve. They're in the process of passing a budget resolution, which will make the process of reconciliation. Easier on. Essentially, it's a tool that allows Democrats instead of having the 60 votes normally needed for any sort of regular legislation that goes through the Senate. It would allow them to pacify a simple majority vote or 51 boats. And, of course, Democrats would be more likely to pass that than they would, um, a much larger bill. And so President. Biden is still very eager to work with Republicans on this, and he keeps saying that that he wants to Make sure that they can reach some sort of compromise. But his team and also Democrats and conversations with him also recognize that they have priorities in there that they want to get done, and that they have a tool that will allow them to do that. And so it's really unclear now what's going to happen? But Biden is still very much committed to some sort of compromise. And that's what Republicans are hoping that will end up happening in one of your pieces that actually calm Chuck Schumer is fast, Reedus. Covering the joys of running a 50 50 Senate with virtually no margin for error. He's dealing with stubborn centrist, irritated base and uncooperative opposition. There's a lot there. Can you unpack it? Yeah, well, he's in a really tough spot. Yes, he is. He's two weeks and now to have being the majority leader, But if it entirely different Senate then when Mitch McConnell was running it, there's 50 50 tie, which means that a lot harder to jam through his priorities. Um, yes to deal with bearing degrees and different wings within the party. The moderate feel like they have immense power because again, there's razor thin majority in the Senate. But also President Biden is really committed to working with them and Republicans, and so they feel like they have a leg off kind of bypassed. Truck humor in getting things done with the White House Progressive are also trying to pull him and the party to the left, and they have a agenda that they want to get done, and they think they're it's wait and see what happened with leader Schumer and whether hell continue toe kind of put their priorities first. Of course, Mitch McConnell is going to try and force him on a corner it many different issues. We saw that Happened with the delay of the organizing resolution or the palace here in accord that kind of set up how the Senate would operate in this new 50 50 state. And then there's Republican, too, are of course, we saw this this week when they went straight to President Biden to negotiate their own bill, and they're going to continue to try to skirt him in additional legislation. I think in the weeks to come, we're talking with Elaine a train of access, and Not only is he facing pressure here in Washington, but it's You point out the Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, also feeling it at home, whether it's representative Alexandria, Causey, Cortez or governor Andrew Cuomo house Oh, well, New York is an interesting state, but of course, Alison Um Alexander Ocasio Cortez, New York congresswoman, Very popular Progressive. He's flirting with the idea of running for Senate in 2022. Chuck Schumer seat is up during the midterms, and so there's definitely a pull there and something that he needs to watch for. She does Ron. She's very popular, says a ton of support. And so I think that he's definitely keeping an eye on her and it could potentially shape how he acts on some issues as majority leader and then Governor Cuomo. Has also been putting a lot of pressure on him, particularly with stimulus bill and making sure that they get additional funding for state and local governments..
"sarah bender" Discussed on KQED Radio
"It's here. Now. Lawmakers working out of power sharing agreement in the Senate have been battling over the fate of the filibuster. Let's take a deeper look at that. And why the Senate rule play such a big role, deciding whether a bill is passed or not. Joining us now on Skype is Sarah Bender, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution. Sarah. Welcome. Thanks for having me sure. So this could be tough for people to follow. Even though the Democrats hold the power in the Senate, they can't just turn around and pass every one of their priorities. And that's because of the filibuster explain. Well, the filibuster is really any effort to block or delay the Senate from voting and in the modern Senate. There's a rule we call it. The closer rule, and the key here is to get to a vote on whatever it is whether it's covert, relieved or raising taxes. Whatever you have you To get to a vote. You need to invoke culture and that requires 60 votes. Democrats, as you noted, only have 50, which means in order just to put a bill on the floor and to cut off debate on that bill, they need at least 10 Republicans to vote with Democrats to cut off debate. And in the contemporary Senate. We often find that the parties don't in fact, want to work together even to come debate. Well, that is true on when people think about a filibuster. They might think about a long winded marathon into the night speech designed to avoid that vote. You might remember this one from Senator Ted Cruz back in 2013 Do you like Green eggs and ham. Do not like them, Sam. I am I do not like green eggs and ham. Okay, so it doesn't usually get that far. Doesn't it usually is just the threat of one of those speeches. That is enough to kill that momentum on a bill. Correct in today's Senate. It's extremely rare to see anything like what Sometimes we now call that talking filibuster and senators and really don't want to spend their time on the floor, listening to each other, let alone listening to doctor sues, And so it works really, to both parties advantage in the short term, at least just file culture and see if you can get 60 votes. So the rule has been around for a while. And Democrats took the so called nuclear option of getting rid of it for all judicial and executive branch nominations back when President Obama was in office and then Mitch McConnell went even further and ended the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations during the Trump administration. How seismic of a shift have those changes been those changes really radically changed the nature of putting judges for lifetime positions onto the bench. It means that a majority party if it controls the White House, can very easily by themselves with no participation from the minority Party put judges on the bench to change the ideological tenor of the Federal court system. And what does it say about our politics? You know, you point out for Brookings that the use of the Senate closer rule has become far more common in the 21st century. More closer motions have been filed in the last two decades. Then in the 80 years prior why what's going on with that? The issue here in the recent decades is rising partisanship. And that means that the opposition party has an incentive of really making it very hard on the other party to make progress on its issues. And so the easy thing if you're in the minority is simply withhold your votes for culture. Or the other way the Senate works often is just that the leader goes to the floor and ask for unanimous consent. Are there any objections here to putting this bill on the floor in a single senator can object. So the more likely in the more often that the minority party has just objected. The more often the majority party has felt they need to file closure in the 19 sixties and seventies. Even early eighties, a big important bill. It came to the floor. You'd have to then work on it on the floor. But in today's Congress, that big important bill, it never makes it to the floor because often it can't get closer. And that's why the gridlock..
"sarah bender" Discussed on The Takeaway
"We're gonna end today's show talking about the electoral college count happening in congress today. It's the final step than certifying. Joe biden our nation's next president and historically the vote count is a largely ceremonial process. But like everything else. This election cycle the proceedings are expected to be more contentious than usual. A number of republicans in both the house and senate have said they would challenge the results in today's joint session here to discuss all this more. Sarah binder a professor of political science at george washington university and senior fellow at the brookings institution. Sarah thank you so much for joining us. Sure thanks for having me. So let's just start with some basics. What is the point of today's proceeding in. And why do we have this count. Will the point here is to count up all of the electoral college votes which were cast in the states as we follow in the constitution so the constitution said. It's not enough just to have the state's electoral college meat. We're going to count them all up. One final count and it's going to be done by the congress sitting together with the vice president presiding because he's the president of the senate so the point here is to make sure and review essentially all these certificates but really it's accounting exercise a fallen the constitution and the laws that have elaborated the details for the day. Okay so then to clarify. They're not certifying. they're just counting the really not certifying. And they're in the wake of a very contested election. In the late nineteenth century the congress and the president signed into law a very strict set of procedures and those procedures. The electoral count act. That does the hard work of the certification was really happening. Here is these certified really certificates are sent to washington to the vice president of the national archives. The vice president is told in the constitution essentially to open up the envelopes. And hand them to tellers. Who will count them. It really is accounting exercise. Which is as. We'll see why it's given a lot of i rolling and ally of concern about the fact that there's going to be challenges Potentially on the floor during today's counting of the electoral votes right. So talk about that a little bit. Howard the president's ongoing claims about voter fraud affected the process or the perception of it. And is it fair to say that. This year's count is is like no other in history. Well i think it's fair to say here. The we have not have anything so contested since that election of eighteen seventy six so we have had over century of role. Larry very non dramatic very heavy on ceremony. Very light on drama with an occasional protest here or there but it's really been seen as a sort of waving a flag about an issue about voting in ohio in two thousand and four or about voting in florida in two thousand and one. But it's always been seen as just a final. Let's let's make a small stand here. What has to happen here. And why we're facing this sort of much more dramatic Episode today is that the president's allegations of fraud despite having been rejected by dozens of state and federal courts including the supreme court Despite those rejections of his claims. The president has really turned today's assembly into really this test. Are you with me or against me. And that has removed the attention. They're not really quibbling about whether or not these are valid certificates of votes whether they've been lawfully certified. They're not really doing that. They say they are the republican opponents. But what they're really doing is a. It's a loyalty test now. From the president's perspective. I hesitate to get into his mind but the presence perspective is pushing pushing pushing vice president pence to basically throw l. the valid votes which is not a power vice president hats. Right right so let's talk about these objections so if someone does formerly object to a state's election results what happens next so the process is written into the law and it says that a house member must have the consent of the senate member they both have to put their objection into writing. And then when state is called. If you are going to object to arizona you rise and get recognized to make that objection now if you check the boxes house. Member senate member written on paper then member there in joint session the house and senate the house. The senate has we're in the house chamber though the senate and the senators have to walk back to the senate chamber. The house will meet separately. The senate meet separately. There's a the law says you can vote for two hours. You can start. You can debate for two hours but no more. And then there's an upper down vote on that objection in a majority vote in the chamber but the law also says you need a bicameral agreement to house has rejected and the senate has to object the state's electoral votes in order to actually not count those votes. So do you expect. That's quite a process. So do you expect this to be hours days. What what is your expectation. So there's a little Uncertainty about how far republicans want to go there seems to be some agreement amongst senate republicans That they will challenge arizona that they will be challenging pennsylvania and that they want to challenge georgia however on the house side. There's support for challenging several more. Let's say that it had three challenges and each state each state is done separately and we know that. There's a up to a two hour debate so that's six hours right there. We're under code sort of restrictions. In the way they vote in the house and so you have to add at least a half hour. Maybe an hour to each of those votes and the senators have to walk back and forth and so forth so conceptually. We're talking about a twelve hour sort of into the wee hours of the night however these are senators. They don't like to spend a lot. Time trudging back and forth As we say in washington sometimes when they're out there are going to go on recess until the inauguration we think sometimes we say they here they smell jet fumes. They're ready to go home so i don't think we can eliminate the possibility that after one or two objections three most that they call it quits. We have a minute let. Let's talk about mike pence. You mentioned him earlier. What's the role of the vice president in. Does he have any real power. The vice president is a glorified letter opener. Today that's his role. He opened the envelope. He hands them to the house. And senate tellers and at the end he reports back the numbers. He doesn't even say who is elected. He just announces that the who has How many votes okay. From is there a chance that today will alter the results of the november's presidential election. It may take a while to get there. But at the end a biden harris will be president and vice president for sure. Sarah bender is a professor of political science at george washington university and a senior fellow at the brookings institution. Sarah thank you very much for being here. Sure okay everyone that's a wednesday takeaway for you. Thanks for taking part of your day to be with us. Call us about anything at eight. Seven seven eight might take. That's eight seven. Seven eight six nine a two. Five three or send us a tweets at the takeaway. We also take your voice. Memos record them on your phone and send them to take away. Callers and mail dot com. Thank you so much for listening. I'm cindy guess. And this is the takeaway..
How Is The U.S. Economy Doing?
"Begin today a little piece of audio you a mere twelve seconds. Not Too long won't be too painful but inside it. There is a whole lot to digest. Here you go. I believe that monetary policy is and a good place and should continue to support sustained growth a strong labor market and inflation running close to are symmetric two percent objective. Those those of you recognize that to be a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Not too tough really given the subject matter. Go to the head of the class. If you identified the Speaker as Richard Clara the vice vice chairman of the Fed a gold star to you. Now why are we starting with him. A couple of reasons honestly number one because the Fed has been taking some heat it lately for having gotten a lot of its economic forecasting wrong. Hello inflation number. Two because Clarita said today and chair Powell says often the really the economy's pretty good number three because pugh is out with a study today. That says not everybody out in the actual economy agrees with the fat so so two interviews with which to test those premises. I about the Fed Sarah Bender. She's a professor of Political Science at George Washington University where she studies the Fed. Welcome to the program. Thanks thanks for having me. What do you make of the vice chairman speech today and more importantly how the feds sort of is positioning itself in this economy right now? Well the Fed is saying saying so far. So good The comedies on a good track Congress's given us a dual mandate of low sustainable unemployment and low inflation Kevin. And we're hitting him. He's not telling us really where things are going in the future. He's saying data dependent meeting by meeting. But he's telling telling us the economy is on a good course he Said and and chair. Paul says this all the time that they're going to you know work to keep the expansion going as as long as they can and one of the things chair Paul says and Clark said it today was that You know the longer expansion goes the more it helps people at the bottom. How much can the Fed really do though for the people at the bottom of this economy but the fence so far is doing a lot by keeping a monetary policy not so loose and accommodative right and you see wage gains at the lower end of the economic spectrum at a certain point though? There's only so much that monetary monetary policy can do and absent fiscal policies. That might say deal with job training or job relocation or healthcare. There's is only so much weight that can be put on monetary policy makers. Let me carry that forward to an interview. We're going to have here in a couple of minutes with A upholster from pugh who has a new study out today about economic inequality in this country. What can the Fed do on economic inequality which consistently ranks pretty high in terms of what what people are worried about in this economy? Well the best contribution they can make is to keep an eye on employment and do as much as they can to Stoke job growth but without sparking inflation keeping an eye on the health of the financial system so that people have access to quality and so forth at the end of the day though. It's really the limits of what monetary policy makers can do. The really simple line is heading into an election year. Right is. It's the economy stupid frame that for me in terms of the Federal Reserve and the role of the economy in the next eleven months of of our common experience. Well Congress gives the Fed to commands. Keep inflation low keep jobs growing. That's what the Fed is aiming to do. Oh here and the extent that they're successful it means the economy's growing and on an even keel in. That's what helps incumbents get reelected Sir Bender under she's At Brookings also Professor Political Science at George Washington University professor. Thanks for your time. Am I appreciate sure. Thanks for having me okay. So all of that said interview number two now from the Pew Research Center who study out today shows as I said that not. Everybody agrees that the economy is all sunshine and Light Ruth Galmoc. She is a senior researcher at Pew Rookie to have you on for having me if I say that seventy percent of respondents to this Survey that Y'all did if if I say that they believe the economy is rigged. Is that too strong word. I would say that. They think that the economy is unfairly favouring powerful special interests interests so we asked whether the economy was generally fair or whether it unfairly favored these powerful interests and seven and ten Americans that they did not think it was fair. We should point out. There's as a partisan divide here as with most things in this country now that's right. Republicans are about evenly split with about half of Republican. Same economy is generally fair and half of the economy saying unfairly early favors these special interests whereas Democrats overwhelmingly say that the economy is not fair. okay so Brass tacks your who's got the power so we asked Americans who they thought had too much power and influence in today's economy and about eight and ten or more American said that politicians Titians corporations and people who are wealthy had too much power we also had majority saying health insurance companies banks and other financial institutions and tech companies had too much cower Let me ask you then who doesn't have the power or is parallel. I suppose another way to put it. Yeah we asked to people. Apple felt did not have enough power and Americans pointed to people who were poor the middle class and interestingly small businesses. Yes say more about that because when I read this in small all businesses came up I was. That's the thing that got me on the phone with you to be honest. Yeah I'm and one interesting thing was we saw a partisan divide and how Democrats and Republicans on looked at a number of these groups. Republicans were less likely than Democrats to say that large corporations had too much power but when it came to small businesses Democrats and Republicans were largely in agreement that that small businesses did not have enough power. Today's economy. So what else do people need to know about this. I mean as they read this and they hear that you know seven ten people think the economy is is unbalanced. Silence shall we say instead of rigged. What are they supposed to do that information? It's hard to say What people are supposed to do? In this survey we did sort of dive into what Americans think about economic comic inequality in general and while most Americans say that there's too much economic inequality in the country. They didn't rank particularly highly as an issue. So it's hard to sort they how that will play out Raquel Nick. She's a senior researcher at the Pew Research Center. Thanks a lot. I appreciate your time. Thanks for having me