4 Burst results for "Sarah Binder"
Bloomberg Radio New York
"sarah binder" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Carol messer. This stock has shot up big time. Tim stenbeck, so take us into the economic impact of this, along with reporters and editors who help make your business week profitable. Let's dig into it with Bloomberg business week editor Joe Weber. It's the cover story of the upcoming issue, Bloomberg, business week. We did afternoons at two eastern. These are retailers that have been on everybody's radar. Those Apple numbers continuing to come in. On Bloomberg radio, the Bloomberg business app and Bloomberg radio dot com. This is balance of power on Bloomberg television and radio. I'm David Weston, we're continuing now on our coverage of the midterm elections and what might come next, even though we don't really know exactly the results. We don't know whether the Senate will be controlled by the Republicans in the Democrats. And we don't really know the House either, although it looks like it will be a narrow margin, quite possibly for the Republicans. To take us through what this might mean in terms of what gets done over the next two years, welcome to Sarah binder. She's senior fellow in governance studies at the brookings institution also Professor of political science at George Washington University. Some of his mentor, thank you so much for being with us really appreciate it. If we do have a narrow majority and it looks like it might well be Republican. We don't know yet in the house. What does that mean in terms of what they can and can't get done? Well, the big challenge here will be these slim majorities, coupled with intense partisanship in both the House and the Senate throughout Washington. The challenge really will be if it's speaker McCarthy for the Republicans. I think the real challenge will be it will be narrow, but this is also a divided and divisive Republican conference. And speaker McCarthy to be, he has never had to build a majority coalition in the house. He's not been in the top position in the majority. And I think people will be watching closely to see how much trouble he's going to have in building and putting together the wings of that Republican Party. And I must say, we saw in the last Congress, people with a lot of experience with that, whether it's President Biden or whether it's the majority leader Schumer or whether it's Nancy Pelosi. When you had something like, for example, a narrow majority and you have Joe Manchin really control a lot of things. What happens when you really do have only a handful of people who gets to dictate what gets done and not done? Who's the next Joe Manchin? Well, that's the challenge here. No single faction usually dictates. We almost rely on a party leader, especially in the house, either to play off the factions against each other or to give each side what it wants so that eventually you come to terms on a deal. That's a challenge. That's what skilled leadership takes. You can't command lawmakers, right? You have to build, build a majority. And so as you've seen, 50, 50 Senate, any senator is king, and Joe Manchin, being a little bit more moderate than the rest of his colleagues or most of the rest of them, put them in a commanding position, but even Manchin can't get everything he wants because progressives, their votes are needed to. So as you know, professor, there are some things that, okay, he ends up in gridlock, nothing gets done. It's not the end of the world necessary. Something's need to get done. Debt ceiling raising needs to get done. Where does that sit in a very narrowly divided Congress? And let me be very specific. For example, if it is a very narrow majority for the Republicans, is there an incentive to try to get that done in the lame duck session for a Kevin McCarthy if he is the new speaker? Well, I think there's some political incentive for McCarthy not to have to deal with this in 2023 if it's a Republican majority. So on that side, we can imagine, yeah, there would be some incentives certainly from the Democrats to get it off their plate, but also McCarthy not to have to deal with it but he's actually in charge. But neither the Democrats or the Republicans, the Congress is not facing an immediate deadline. We think the next state as we call it when the government could default is probably far off. It's probably in September or early fall of 2023, in Congress when it works, it really, really typically needs a deadline, right? Deadline forces action forces compromise. So in the lame duck that's coming up, a political incentive to solve the problem, but not enough heat I don't think will be put on the parties to actually solve the problem. Talk about our fiscal policy, Republicans would have you believe that actually this will be good for fiscal policy because we've been spending too much money. That's part of the cause they would say of inflation, a lot of economists would agree. Is it potentially good for the fiscal situation in the country if in fact this Congress is badly divided narrowly divided and can't get anything done? Well, I think the challenge here as always is that spending bills for the government, whether it's domestic side or defense side, require 60 votes require a super majority. So there has to be bipartisan agreement. How do you do that in a polarized period where progressives want to spend less on defense, Republicans, conservatives want to spend more on defense, and there's difference of opinion about domestic policy, typically you give both sides what they want. And that increases spending, it doesn't lower spending. So I think despite the narrowness here, with such intense partisanship, I don't think it's going to be easy to get to 60 votes if you don't please both sides of the conference and caucus. And that's really hard to do. Talk us about the generational issue, particularly on the leadership, a number of the leaders up in Congress are getting a little older and I'm saying that as somebody who's older myself so I'm not pointing fingers to anybody, but is it time particularly the Democrats side perhaps to rethink the leadership? Well, I think amongst the House democratic caucus, there's a lot of ferment for pushing forward a really a new generation of leaders and that the leadership of speaker Pelosi and Hoyer and Clyburn that that perhaps their time is done. And all institutions need new blood and it's easier to track people if they have a path
Bloomberg Radio New York
"sarah binder" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Campaign on the other at some point We will be left with just one Welcome to the fastest hour in politics with a blizzard of headlines from Washington around the world We're going to go through them all and have the latest for you as always here On the fastest hour in politics we'll discuss it all ahead with former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper Senator Joe Manchin says he's a no on Sarah bloom Raskin The White House says it's standing by its fed nominee We're going to get the view later this hour by Sarah binder fed specialist and senior fellow at the brookings institution And we start the week with our signature panel Bloomberg politics contributors Genie chansa and Rick Davis are with us for the hour First the markets now another attempted recovery at least Charlie pellett how's it look Turned out to be a down day for the S&P Joe Matthew happy Monday by the way the Dow did manage to eak out that one point gain split session We had NASDAQ on the minus side steep losses for tech in general NASDAQ in specific down by 2% today dropping 262 points the NASDAQ 100 index lower today by 1.9% Russell 2000 down 1.9% as well Ten year yield 2.13% spot gold 1950 the ounce crewed continues its decline today we had West Texas enemy accrued down 5.8% now at one O three O one a barrel briefly Cooper software slipping more than 25% after ours after the company's revenue forecast for the first quarter missed the average analyst estimate Again recapping turned out to be a mixed Monday with the S&P dropping 31 points down 7 tenths of 1% I'm Charlie paladin Joe Matthew is a Bloomberg business flash Okay Charlie thanks Tox continued between Ukraine and Russia but so does the fighting With the shelling of residential areas around the capital of Kyiv now and all over the country now almost 5 million people displaced National security adviser Jake Sullivan opening talks today with China's top diplomat They met in Rome for 7 hours The last meeting I read was 6 Today they hit 7 Following reports that Moscow asked Beijing for military assistance in Ukraine something the Russians were quick to deny this morning But State Department spokesman Ned price today says the U.S. raised concerns in that meeting Here he is The national security adviser our assistant secretary our delegation met with young to chair and his delegation to precisely Make clear our concerns And to be very candid in terms of the implications But the administration will not detail what the potential implications are or could be and that is where we begin today with former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper who will soon be at with a book about his time at The Pentagon called sacred oath mister secretary thank you for being here is the U.S. trying to keep China out of this or does the administration hope to use Beijing to help end this war Well Joe first of all good to be with you And I think to answer your question we would love to have China on the side of the west in this conflict But unfortunately I don't think we're going to see that happen There is a strategic partnership that has emerged over the years between Moscow and Beijing this invasion of Ukraine by Russia however has placed China in somewhat of an uncomfortable position for reasons we can discuss but as much as we'd like to have China on our side I do not see it happening I'm sure you heard Russia hit a Ukrainian military range over the weekend It's only about 15 miles from the border of Poland secretary the administration continues to promise severe consequences if Russia hits NATO territory Secretary what does severe consequences look like in that case Well first of all I'm familiar with that the facility in lviv I was there a secretary of the army in 2018 and we had a number of NATO allies along with us training the Ukrainians and I think the result of those years of training and the arms we pumped into Ukraine have really served the Ukrainians while these past three weeks as they really beat back the Russian army have done a very good job as opposed to a good job That said to your question the message about defending NATO allies severe consequences is the right message to send to Russia They need to know that we will defend our allies under article 5 of the treaty and that and that we're prepared to active need be I have been arguing for some time publicly that we should be publishing more forces into the frontline states whether it's the Baltics Poland Hungary Romania and even Bulgaria I've not seen that happen at least not the pace I'd like because we have no idea where this conflict is going to go I think it's going to last months And I don't see Vladimir Putin backing down at all So we need to prepare for the worst as we work for the best So you want to see more U.S. forces in Eastern Europe by do you want to see more hardware in Ukraine as well secretary There's been a big argument as you well know about MiG 29s from Poland whether those should be transferred and it's looking like Republicans on Capitol Hill with some Democrats as well could have legislation that may be forces the hand of the administration on this What do we need to give Ukraine now I think first and foremost we need to keep the supply chains open with regard to anti armor weapons such as javelin javelins anti air weapons such as stingers and maybe even look at providing them with more medium range air defense systems that some of our allies have such as S 300s We should provide them with anti ship cruise missiles And then we can get to more into other items such as counter battery radars and of course keep up the ammunition supply The MiGs I think we should definitely come up with.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"sarah binder" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Sarah bloom Raskin to the Federal Reserve From the Bloomberg interactive broker studio in New York welcome to the second hour of balance of power I'm David Weston The Senate banking committee was supposed to vote yesterday on President Biden's 5 nominees to the Federal Reserve But Republicans such as senator Bill haggerty of Tennessee objected saying they had unanswered questions about the nomination of Sarah bloom Raskin to be vice chair for supervision Here's the senator yesterday on sound on with Joe Matthew They're more than 35 questions where her answers provided were blanket I do not recall or I'm not aware In response to questions on this So we have not gotten to the bottom of this And we need more information And until we do I'm not prepared to vote on her So to go over this alcohol Senate breakdown we welcome now Sarah binder She's senior fellow at the brookings institution and Professor of political science at George Washington University So professor thanks so much for being with us What do you make of what's going on up there Is this typical Has this happened before Is it different Well in some ways this is just life in a highly partisan 50 50 Senate Right And the fragile majority and it gives rise to the heart barrel tactics this time by Republicans in the minority So in some ways it's what we've gotten used to which is it's really really tough to pursue your agenda even if it's just putting nominees onto the Federal Reserve It's hard That's emblematic of what we've seen generally in the Senate and in recent Senate What's different here I mean in some ways Republicans have just taken hostage the confirmation of the chair of the Federal Reserve Which is of course most important economic policymaker In the U.S. if not globally at a moment of sort of a generational high in inflation And so that's what turning I's here I think on Capitol Hill So what about senator hagerty's point here He said there are 35 questions that she said Sarah Bloomberg said I don't know I don't recall Does he have a point that in fact she was not as forthcoming as is generally required for a nominees Well I think it's hard to know what counts as forthcoming enough And that is always in the eyes of senators who are demanding the information So whether or not it's enough the question is is it enough for those Senate Republicans on the banking committee to be willing to allow the committee to go to a vote No senator pat toomey of Pennsylvania has come out and said wait a second They can function at the fed just fine down a few people and of course Jay Powell is the chair He's now a chair pro tem because he wasn't confirmed but he can act fully And by the way senator Tom says if they want to bring the other four up we could probably get those done right away It's just this one Does he have a point Well I think technically senator toomey is in a crapo and made a similar argument yesterday I mean technically that's correct The fed board as you said they named pal They voted for him That is there are only four on the board at the moment and vote So just three of them named him the chair to hold him over as the Federal Reserve act the law allows them to do And no limitations on his authority under that act I don't think that's why the Federal Reserve act includes that provision They call it an absence Not a vacancy But what does it really matter in that narrow sense No But it does matter politically It leaves the fed without a confirmed chair which is the Senate right That's how they hold the fed chair and a new vice chair accountable Accountable not to the president But the Senate and the Congress And of course it sends a signal I think globally about Congress in the Senate's confidence In J Powell And just to keep in mind of course it leaves the fed board out numbered on the FOMC by the reserve bank presidents And it leaves them short staffed at the same because they've got three vacancies Well let me just probe one thing there Does it say anything to the world about confidence and actually make it brighter than that Is this fight actually about banks or banking regulation of Federal Reserve at all Or is this really about pure politics or something wrong with politics That's how democracy functions but still trying to get political points for elections rather than are we really concerned about the Federal Reserve and regulating banks here Well there are a lot of motives in disparate interest here I think across the Republican conference in the Senate I think there's a variety of views But given the importance that Republicans have placed on turning to the fed and pushing them to do something about inflation it does suggest that they're willing to take a couple of lumps in the road to make a point about with Sara bloom Raskin about her performance but also her policy views about climate change and whether or not the fed should be active on that on that policy I want to double back to a version of the first question I ask which is typical what we're seeing with this particular nomination but more generally it's soft and said in the media that things are getting worse up on Capitol Hill More partisan more difficulty to get along to come to compromise Your political scientists you understand these things Is it true or is it just that we're reacting to what's happening in front of us Oh it's definitely true I mean there's been a long-term here over two three decades increase And what we think of as partisan polarization Some of that's just policy differences between the parties But really it's partisan team play My team's for it So your team is against it And that at the heart of it in addition to differences amongst the parties right Democrats don't always agree with each other Republicans don't always agree with each other But that intense partisanship it breaks the Senate down The Senate typically needs big bipartisan majorities to get its work done Can't get those We see more and more stalemate on policy issues And just look at nominations in particular how long it takes nominees to get confirmed Even Christopher Waller who I think was un objectable by both parties Took him a year Right So this may yet just be a bump in the road These nominees have only been pending for a month Waller took a year So there's room here room here to go I think Well it's quite a saga I must say at least from my point of view Thank you so much It's really great to have you with us That.
The Takeaway
"sarah binder" 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..