tv Public Affairs Events CSPAN December 6, 2016 3:00am-5:27am EST
huge, big infrastructure projects whether they are private sector driven or public projects as well. so we did a highway improvement plan and arkansas that was bipartisan that we just passed in a special session of legislature that creates $1 billion in new money for highways in arkansas. combines federal and state money. we are moving forward and i think there is incredible excitement among the states going to have an administration that understands that health care, more flexibility has to begin to the states whenever you are talking about infrastructure it is going to be a strong partnership to get the job done. so we are sitting on pins and needles to see how this develops. i want to end with one thing before i turn it back, i served in congress and the 1990 plaza and in 2000 i joined the george
w. bush administration. when i was in congress we were able to set aside some differences and accomplish some great things. it was the last time we had a balanced budget and our nation. back to that. i think there is opportunities that now we can work together from whatever political thingsion to get some done, particularly infrastructure but it has to start out, any bipartisanship starts out with a process. you build the framework for an initiative by working with the other party from the very beginning. bipartisanship is not -- this is an idea, can we get your support for it? that is not true bipartisanship. i hope we can move in the area of infrastructure with a bipartisan process and outcome so we can do something great and take advantage of this opportunity.
you. thank mirror, you are now the head of the conference on mayors. contentious election. how has that been reflected at the conference and what do you see from your fellow americans as far as what they expect, need, and want to see going forward in washington? >> like most of the country, time whena 24-48 hour people were just stunned. people contacted me in the next few days saying look, it is over. mirror's know about it election. when it is over, you try to hit the reset button and say, what do we do now? we're trying to hear more about the president-elect's ideas for infrastructure. the need israel. mayors know the
water systems, the bridges, the roadways are in dire need of attention. cities, east coast largely, there are billions and billions of dollars of deferred maintenance buried in the ground where you can't see it where politicians through the decades did not see any political advantage to fixing it because no one would know if you fixed it or not. the deferred maintenance built just anilt up and it is issue we are handing off to the next generation and children if we do not do anything about it. i think the nation's mayors would love to work with the trump administration on beginning to address that. one final question to president-elect trump is there have been talks amongst candidates and amongst the sitting president about removing the tax exempt status for municipal bonds. that would drastically cut in the amount of infrastructure dollars we are able to build
with. 5%-10% of our projects would no longer be able to be it said that is really important was that that tax-status remain on municipal bonds. rollins, you are the mayor of one of our largest most vibrant cities. what do you see is the hope, the concern, what do you want to feel is getting accomplished? go is no magic to the first 100 days i think we all know that. people have picked that up since it is a round number, and sounds nice. a getting things done takes a much larger longer time. but what do you expect of dallas, a city that is had a lot of challenges but has seem to overcome much of them and seems to be growing at a rapid pace? mira romans: i hope nobody screws it up for us. mayor rawlins: i hope nobody
screws it up for us. our revenues are growing at a rapid pace. believe isreasons, i we're a very centrist city, ok? we are a blue city and a very red state. tactical and very i believe -- i am a democrat, but i believe staying in the middle of the road does two things. first of all, i think it is really responsive to taxpayers. i think that is what taxpayers want. they want things to happen and they do not care about ideology. ok? they care about results. and so when you bring people together, things actually happen. they are happier. also, when you're in the levee road you can go faster, ok? host: everybody else gets out of your way. wlings: everybody gets
out of your way. i am very enthusiastic about this movement because i believe it is the next wave of what is going to be happening in america ground on find common infrastructure, all right? not only do we need infrastructure but it is really what we will elect to to do, build for the long-term. building for the long-term for america is a challenge. education will take care of us. lastly on infrastructure, and we do not talk about it enough, is the return we're going to get on that investment. , not only this right our jobs created by property values go up. .usinesses move businesses grow. you drives the way it. it is not just an investment because things are decrepit, but it is making things happen. you are talking about water.
i joined the u.s. council of mayors and did not realize we have a few cities in the nation that have wooden pipes. what it types. host: when abraham lincoln was president. back a year or two. rawlings: get back in the middle-of-the-road, keep it simple, make some happen and you could make some progress. it is much more informative and useful to everybody to open it up for questions from the audience. we can bridge this gap a little bit. there is a lot more we can talk about. do you see any need on the definition of infrastructure for internet improvement? infrastructure is another area as we try to tease out a more focused agenda, potential agenda for congress? >> that is a good example of
where there is so many silos. you look at internet access, vertically important in rural areas of our country. you have the department of agriculture engaged in this. the fcc and engaged in this. we have really got to make sure that is highly coordinated. then of course you have the private sector that has to drive it as well. we have a number of initiatives to arc and talk, first 100% our schools which we will have by the middle of next year and then we want to make sure it gets to our communities. this is a very significant and it should be included in infrastructure probably right at the top of the list. >> one of the big issues i think we all agree in america is gap between the haves and the have-nots. in the information age, that cap has got to be closed. we do not have to bring down the house, we can just bring up the have-nots. in thet it a wonderful
20th century to have president trump be the eisenhower of the highways, the eisenhower of the digital age. i think it would help a lot with that issue. >> i agree. because it affects our schools. it affects our libraries. it affects people's everyday lives. how many of us to not bring our phone that is attached to the internet? in the last 10 years that has become so overly viable in our lives that it has got to be included. it is different because it is largely private-sector driven on marketplace but sewer are utilities and a lot of other projects. host: what must question, the privilege of the chair. we have not discussed a lot about tax reform. are there particular taxes from there aspective out governor and mayors, the eu would like to see address? >> in terms of federal policy,
the idea of being able to re-sure the money from companies that has been over seas -- that has been overseas and restore it, i think that is an example of tax reform that president obama talked about but obviously president trump looks at that as well so that is one you want to be able to get quick agreement on. let's do that. let's get that money being brought back. stimulate the economy and use a portion of it for infrastructure. >> i am in a weird place because texas tax policies are pretty good. we do not have personal income tax or commercial income tax, you know. are pretty simple in that way and i think we should -- as a democratic think we should still be simple but i'm going to add a mixed point. we can tag about infrastructure, we take away those tax-free bond statuses, it is going to hurt
infrastructure and a major way. so we can't. we have to watch out for unexpected consequences. >> i think we need tax reform to create jobs. the tech system as it is exist -- the tax system as it exists today is a lot like the health system. if we were to start from scratch it would not look like this. every time we address it, we just kind of week it. i don't think we make it better. i don't envy anyone trying to take on those challenges because the outside noise it comes in every time you try to address change in either of those entities is enormous. i do not believe we are going to move the economy at 2%, three percent, 4% without significant tax change. host: questions from the floor. is there a microphone? there. >> ken.uld like to know
i want to know whether you would mind identifying infrastructure projects in each of your states that would be critical to the existence of your economy versus this kind of general expenditure across all of the water mains and all of the internet infrastructure or whatever. is there a single project in your state that is absolutely on the highest priority -- whatever the cost? dam or whatever. for example in new york and new jersey we have a tunnel. all of the freight in the northeast and all amtrak trains to the north east and the mid-atlantic states would come to a halt in a few years if we do not spend $30 billion to rebuild it.
so, with the help of the port authority in the states and now have of it from the federal government, that is now a highest priority project. would you favor that kind of approach where you identify the 50 most critical projects as a priority, given that you have a finite amount of money available, or do you feel that we have to have a broad shotgun to use thisitically finite amount of money? thank you. >> go ahead, mayor. mayor rawlings: i don't think it ed.uld be shotgunn i would go to the 50 largest cities as opposed to state and that's where people are living today. so, prioritize that. i really think what should happen though is a commission
should be set up and we should really run the numbers on all of the infrastructure projects, understand the critical needs of them and the return on investments and make it very transparent for everybody so it is not everybody gets a little piece of candy at christmas because we won't make the biggest return on that investment. that's my thought. in 2009, the stimulus back shirt -- package came out and mayors asked for a significant portion to be funneled straight to the city so we could get the projects done. at the end of the day, the projects went the way most of them do, and that was to the state. ,hen it was all said and done cities did not get their share of the needs. most went to the rural areas. i think we would have a similar message. really, if you really want to have the largest impact on the largest numbers of people, the
cities need a larger specific share of the funding stream. moreot saying that we need than the states. we could use a formula to make sure that some of the money goes straight to the city so they can direct it to the most urgent needs. inis a problem if you are washington to figure out what the most important needs are. local governments will be able to do that more specifically. there is a role for states and cities in this, but if we have the funding streams the same way we did in 2009, i fear it will not have the impact people perceive it is going to have on the front end. host: governor? we need moreon: consistent policy and terms of highway funding. theeed more coordination in expansion of broadband access across the country. we need to have the water projects, we need all of those.
you've got to be able to cover a broad range of infrastructure. but then i also think it would be good to have the super project list, and that is where you need special attention -- i would be happy if we could list the top ones here in arkansas, is a specific list of priority. would it be different in the cities? you know, i think there's probably a lot more agreement. one of our projects would be a bridge across the arkansas river. that helps cities. it helps the cities all along, but it's a state priority project. and so, there's a lot of coalescence and agreement as to what those projects would be at the state and city level. just adding a little bit to that, one of the important things is to allow as much
decision-making to come down on those priorities to the states and the cities. i just think back to the days -- it's a completely different area, but still it spoke to the ability to come together to make things work and how the flexibility made a real difference in states. that was welfare reform when we had bill clinton as resident and newt gingrich in the congress. -- bill clinton as president and newt gingrich and the congress. we tried three times to get a bill the president would sign. the states were able to meet the needs of their various populations. i interpreted new jersey quite broadly, and it made a difference. there were other states that were tighter, but it made the difference for them. yes,ey will be, i believe, you need to have that top list so people will have the confidence that there is an in -- there is a return on investment, even if it is not a dollar return, but you need to let the states and the cities
have a certain amount of flexibility. mayor rawlings: and, governor, i think there is room for federal grants. it's a partnership. and, governor,t: i think there is room for federal grants. it's a partnership. we have some skin in the game. host: a question over here? a big supporter -- im from new york. i'm a big supporter of infrastructure investment, -- i am from new york. i'm a big supporter of infrastructure investment, but i'm also concerned our national debt, at a level that is higher than any time since world war ii relative to the economy, how are we going to pay for this?
and we often talk about, well, we can use a portion of that money that is repatriated from overseas. the truth is we can use all of that money that is repatriated from overseas and that will only address a fraction of the infrastructure we have been talking about. they're up in a number of suggestions of using private enterprise to fund at least a part of the infrastructure needs that we have. if you look -- if any of you look at some of these proposals, and do you have any interest in them? gov. hutchinson: absolutely. the projects i have mentioned, we create a revenue stream and use the private sector to accelerate the project. that is one of the real key
deficiencies we have in our infrastructure now. there is too long a time frame. costs go up or you don't get the benefit from the economic growth. so, yes, that to me -- if you are going to be at the federal government saying, we can put this project together, it should be timeliness, it should be partnership with the private sector, and those that can be shovel ready the quickest and have the greatest economic impact ought to move forward. i agree with your point about the federal debt. in arkansas we have a lot of problems. we got down to a 3.8% unemployment rate. the first quarter, we have the highest economic growth rate of any state in the union. if we can use the infrastructure investment that spurs the theomy on, that will reap
benefits in terms of the national debt as well. mayor rawlings: i went to a conference of the white house where mayors were introduced sovereign wealth funds, large pension funds, and i realize there were trillions of dollars -- trillions -- sitting on the sidelines wanting to invest in the united states, and we can figure out how to talk to them and put these deals together to read and probably one of the most important things the secretary of the treasury howhelp us do is figure out to do that. what gets in the way his ideology, because people run on this notion that we don't want to privatize something, ok? and there's different models to do it on both ends, ok? i agree with the governor that we need to figure out how to get that money working here in the
united states, and it has to go it has to go to washington. i agree with the governor. we have a good bond rating. we can borrow all of the money we want. we have to pay back. i have a very conservative will not be all fired up about that. i think we need new creative to just terms of how we will create revenue. are there ways to have tax credits to address the jobs created by the construction of the infrastructure? and that somehow be generated back into the revenue stream? i think there have to be creative tools out there. win fors like a win- everybody. on the as we rely
taxpayers to pay the entire freight, it's going to be hard to borrow enough money to buy our way out of it. host: i want to go back there. i can't see. [indiscernible] john with pedestrians.org. how has your city, your state changed its approach to transportation in the last 35 years and has federal policy helped you make those changes, or do they need to make changes at the federal level to help you make those changes? well, i wills: take it on first. first of all, congress did away with earmarks. -- gov. hutchinson: well, i will take it on first. first of all, congress did away with earmarks. you could not just wait on him
marks. it was not going to happen. if you're going to create that growth and infrastructure, the highways, you had to figure out a way to do it on your own. we had a bond issue, we had a half cent sales tax increase statewide. the voters supported that because they see the benefit from it. there's two changes i would like to see. to thet have to go back earmark days, but i would like to have a new federal highway ill that has more funding sources -- federal highway bill that has more funding sources so re robust. it is distressing to me it takes so long from approval to delivery and breaking ground on it, and i think a lot of it has to do with restrictions on federal policy and not providing the states that flexibility. those things should be addressed. mayor rawlings: i am pleased
with a republican governor. he stepped up and said we should be in the highway building business. we have been. we got a statewide referendum passed, and now i think we are on the move again. i do think with state transportation for our cities especially, we have to think bit.de the box a little it's not just highways. we've got to focus on mass transportation. we've got a project underway, high-speed rail between dallas and houston that is going to be privately funded, and ways that we can do that. so, i would hope that gets part of the dialogue a little bit more. so, i do think we are making progress at the state level. i also agree we are making progress, but you know, on the transportation side, figuring out ways to fund it, in oklahoma, we have a penny
on the dollar sales tax. we passed a series of initiatives about how long the taxes going to last and how much is the money if they extend it to us. they have passed every one of these. we built convention centers, parks, we built 70 five schools, we build what are projects, sports arenas. thatitizens seem to like the taxes going to go away unless it pays for something else, and they also like the pay-as-you-go philosophy. it takes is a little longer to build the project, but in a verys, conservative climate like oklahoma, we can get those initiatives passed. have i'm afraid we only time for one more question and it's going to have to be -- the answers are going to have to be brief.
>> water systems in the internet -- which i agree completely with. does something called hardware in the loop. i was just wondering, mainly for the mayors, it seems to me the water system, the surgeon water systems that are also hooked up to the internet are incredibly at risk for people being able to go in and hacked those systems -- hack the systems and direct the equipment to do something you would not otherwise wanted to do. it to do. want all the companies i have worked with, highly classified, had in norma's amounts of cyber attacks on them. i'm just wondering what your thoughts were about the safety of these systems now and what needs to be done to enhance that safety. because every investment is
something we need to address. i think is as: vulnerability none of us want to talk to much about it because we don't know. you don't know what cyber terrorism looks like. don't forget the autonomous vehicle is right around the corner. those are, i think, susceptible to reprogramming -- host: i would add something to that. right after 9/11, one of the things we were able to do at epa was get the targets hardens in the water system. we worked very closely with the water affiliates, associations and they really took steps to harden themselves as targets and they have been constantly upgrading and watching. barrier,e you put up a the bad guys figure out another way to go in. you're constantly at it. me isre concerning to chemical site security. that is an area we have not been able to get consensus on and we do not have these same kind of chemical site security. example of thean
kind of thing that can go long and how devastating it is. at this point, we are out of time. of that to keep us on schedule. but i want to thank a fabulous panel. -- i have got to keep us on schedule. but i want to >> donald trump holds a victory rally today and speaks to supporters in fayetteville, north carolina. see it live at 2:00 eastern on c-span two. >> coming up, vice president joe biden on the dodd frank mitchell regulations. a panel on the future of i mitchell regulations under a trump administration. later a panel on presidential debates. ♪ >> c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you.
coming up this morning, north carolina republican congressman, walter jones, is joined by ted lieu to discuss the bipartisan efforts to reverse a u.s. court of appeals decision over contributions to medical committees. both argue the ruling allows super pac's to accept unlimited donations. a look at foreign efforts to spread fake news during the 2016 election cycle. be sure to watch washington journal beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern this morning. joining the discussion. is the official lighting ceremony for the u.s. capitol christmas tree with remarks from congressional leaders. the annual fair money from the west lawn of the capital is live at :00 p.m. eastern on c-span three. later in discussion on freedom of speech and freedom of the
press and politics. that is at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span three. >> abigail fillmore was the first are slated to work outside the home teaching at a private school. mimi eisenhower's hairstyle created fashion sensations. --was marketed as a color eager to replicate her style. jacqueline kennedy was responsible for the white house restoration organization. nancy reagan saw her name on the list of -- she appealed to ronald reagan for help. she later became his wife. these stories and more are featured in c-span's book, "first ladies." the book makes a great gift for the holidays.
a look into the private lives of every first lady. stories of fascinating women and how their legacies resonate. share the stories of america's first ladies. first ladies in. back published by public affairs and now available at your favorite bookseller and also as an e-book. >> now vice president joe biden speaks about keeping the dodd frank financial law intact in the trump administration. his remarks at georgetown university also focus on preventing another economic crisis. this is 50 minutes. [applause] >> good afternoon, everyone. as our semester comes to a close, i wish to thank all of you for being here today.
we are especially grateful to the director of our center for financial markets and policy at our mcdonogh school of business and vice provost for faculty. since its founding in 2010, the center has served as a forum for regulators, policymakers, and industry leaders to come together to engage in rigorous debate, discussion, and research to guide policy and practice. i want to say thank you to all of our colleagues at the center who have helped make this special gathering possible. we come together today at gaston hall. throughout our history, this hall has served as one of the most important places for political discussion here in washington. and here it reflects the commitment we have as an academic community located in
our nation's capitol to engage in a national dialogue on the issues raising her country. last month, in a message to our community, i reaffirmed a responsibility to bring the resources of our university into engagement with the challenges in our nation. and one of the ways in which we realize this commitment is through fostering and promoting the debate and dialogue that takes place on this hilltop. today, we are honored to welcome two individuals who have played an important role in shaping and directing economic policy for our country -- former chairman of the federal reserve system and the economic recovery advisory board paul volcker and vice president joe biden. mr. volcker and vice president biden have been long-term colleagues in leadership intended to promote the flourishing of our economy and promoting transparency and
become ability and our financial system. we are honored to welcome vice president biden back to our hilltop and we look forward to his reflections in just a few minutes on the importance of sound financial sector regulations. first, i would like to offer a few words about our distinguished guest who will introduce him, mr. paul volker. a graduate of princeton, he began his career as economist at the new york federal reserve bank in 1982. -- in 1952. since that time, he has held numerous positions in public and private sectors, including the vice president of forward planning at chase manhattan bank, undersecretary of the u.s. treasury for monetary affairs, president of the new york federal reserve, and for two terms, chairman of the board of the federal reserve system.
he has provided counsel and guidance to national organizations, chairing in 2004, the independent inquiry to midi and in 2007 a world bank panel reviewing operations of the department of institutional integrity. in 2008, president obama asked him to leave the present's economic recovery advisory board -- the president's economic recovery advisory board. he is served on a number of advisory boards, including his own nonpartisan, nonprofit group the volcker alliance, which he established to address the challenges of successful implementation of public policies and to help rebuild public trust in government. in 2007, he served as speaker and received an honorary degree here at the commencement ceremonies of our mcdonogh school of business. it is an honor to welcome back to the hilltop to -- to welcome him back to the hilltop to
address our community together. please join me in welcoming paul volcker. [applause] mr. volcker: thank you very much president degioia, students, staff, others who might be here. i'm introducing vice president occasionthis special is a really great privilege for me. i think i ought to begin with a revealing anecdote. one day, if i recall correctly, in november 2009, sitting quietly in new york, i got an unanticipated telephone call. vice president biden was on the
line. that was the one and only time for me. he went to ask me whether commercial banks shouldn't be involved with speculative trading was catching on. i said it was a good idea, but i had no horses to sell it. the vice president immediately responded, don't worry about that. i will be your horse. that he was. he took on the skeptics, then and now, in the administration. he gave the proposal political weight. president obama soon announced his support. to my complete surprise, they labeled the new law the volker rule. it should have been labeled b biden rule. the no one would have the nerve to question it today. [laughter] mr. volcker: now we are approaching an unexpected new administration and there are
questions, not least about financial reform. no doubt there are those who would like to see large parts of the financial reform set out in -- set out and the dodd-frank act set aside, seemingly oblivious to the lessons of the near breakdown of the financial system in 2008. we escaped a great depression, but it took an enormous intervention of government funds to protect the banks and the economy from that threat. we don't want to repeat that experience again. there's been a lot of comments i know, about the relatively slow so-called great recession.
in my view, not enough attention has been paid to the fact that we have in fact reached close to full employment. our performance stands out in contrast to the rest of the industrialized world. to my mind, it's very important that we have reached that point of full employment consistent with reasonable price stability and the prospect we can maintain that in the months and years ahead. i realized, there are large questions about the future. the period of expansion has been long by historic standards. productivity growth is below earlier experience. i suspect it is hard for the statisticians, as much as they try, to keep up with the cyber economy and measure its output. the result may be lower statistics than the real economy justifies. but i'm not here as a prognosticator. we are in sounder economic
footing than when president obama and vice president biden took office. so, i greatly appreciate the opportunity not to introduce joe biden, who needs no introduction from me, but to thank the man. he has given his professional life to public service, his personal life to a strong family. each has had its share of satisfaction and joy, but tragedy as well. i trust vice president biden as you leave office, you leave with a sense of personal contribution and satisfaction that only a full life with family love and public service can provide. ladies and gentlemen, welcome the vice president of the united states. ♪ [applause]
[cheering and applause] vice president biden: don't jump. thank you. please, please be seated. mr. chairman, what a high honor and wonderful complement for you to introduce -- wonderful compliment for you to introduce me and save the things you said. i hope as i leave this office my ability to stay engaged in the affairs of the country is partially as meaningful as yours has been. you have never, ever stopped
serving your country. you have never, ever stopped anyone from going to you to ask your advice and input. you are one of the most respected economists in the country and you are one of the most respected men in the country. thank you. [applause] vice president biden: it's good to be back up on the hill. [cheering] vice president biden: it's good to be back in gaston hall. [cheering and laughs] vice president biden: my son hunter -- as a matter of fact, 5 bidens have graduated from this great university -- [cheering] vice president biden: i think based on the tuition at least a sidewalk should be named after me.
vice president biden: my son, and two of my sister's children and two of my brother's children, and it has served them all incredibly well. i was thinking president degioia, as -- i was thinking, president degioia, when i walked on the stage the first time i walked out here was when your predecessor was president. he asked me to liver -- to deliver the most difficult speech i ever delivered in my life. my son joined the jesuit volunteer corps, and there was a retreat, filled as this hall is the today. i was also my father whether i would come and speak on how my faith had informed my public policy. i had spent most of my career, all of my career making short i never let the twain meet, to never talk about my faith as it related to public policy. it was personal. but i didn't know how to tell
father o'donovan no. [laughter] vice president biden: and i worked very, very hard. i mean this seriously. i spent hours and hours turned -- hours and hours trying to figure out how can i do this question mark and as we catholics say, as the nun used to say to us, "i examined my conscience." i realized the one thing that informed my public policy been most was my faith and all of the great faiths -- abhorrence for the abuse of power. so the subject matter, it ended up being a significant moment for me in realizing all of the things that have ever gained my emotional commitment and intellectual effort all related to the abuse of power, from the time i got involved as a high school kid in the civil rights movement to the women's movement to the abuse of women and children, and that are, as well
is the abuse of economic power. in a strange sense, that is what i will talk about today. and, mr. chairman, i want to thank you and the volcker alliance. the chairman released a paper today that is a blueprint on how to make our financial system safer, especially mitigating the risk of short-term debt. it is a very important read for financial leaders, reporters, academics, and students, for anyone concerned about the future of our economy. from my perspective, it comes, i think, at a very pivotal moment. we are in the midst of one of the longest recoveries in american history as the chairman pointed out.
there are still a lot of people being left behind. but it wasn't an accident. it happened because we made some very tough, very unpopular decisions -- they turned out to be the right call on balance. and one of the first people the president went to was chairman volcker to lead a group of economists. it is a recovery that requires us to know how far we have come and how we can't afford to go back to policies that nearly brought down the entire economy just eight years ago. that's what i would like to talk to you about today. president obama and i were forming an administration eight years ago. the financial system was crumbling and the economy was on the brink of collapse.
we lived the pain. we can't ever forget the turmoil. people were terrified of another great depression. over 3 million foreclosures a year from 2009 until 2011. bank runs -- thought to be a thing of the past -- were back. remember in the 1930's, our grandfathers, great-grandfathers withdrew their money. i was criticized for hyperbole when i called it "the great recession." there goes biden again. another biden gaffe. [laughter] biden: i wish it had been a gaffe. large institutions were taking their funds back. credit markets dried up, making it almost impossible for small businesses to keep their doors open and meet payroll.
for prospective homeowners to get a mortgage, car buyers to get a loan, and right before election day, lehman brothers collapsed, unleashing a real, actual fear the whole financial system could come crashing down. it's hard to remember that right now, thank goodness. across the country, people are rapidly losing confidence in the government's -- were rapidly losing confidence in the government's ability to stem panic. the real consequences for american households, american businesses outside of wall street, off of wall street. we had already lost 695,000 jobs. good paying, middle-class jobs. when barack and i placed our hands on the bible as we were sworn in on january 20, 2009, we
had already lost almost 700,000 -- at that moment -- and we ended up losing 800,000 by the end of january. long-term unemployment saw historic highs. the poverty rate exceeded 15% -- that's the highest level in decades. the stock market plummeted. it's hard to believe it now. it was going to fall below 6000. that was the debate. trillions of dollars of wealth lost. decades of retirement savings lost overnight. i think we are still feeling the lingering effects in terms of how people conduct themselves. falling real estate prices left nearly a third of mortgage homes underwater. 7 million homes lost to foreclosure since the start of the great recession. gm and chrysler -- iconic automobile industry of the united states -- headed toward bankruptcy, risking the livelihoods of 1.5 million workers.
this economic crisis did not happen i chance. chance.ot happen by we remember why it happened not to hold people responsibly specifically, but make sure we do not commit the same sin again. it was the direct result of shortsighted, irresponsible, and i would argue greedy actions by wall street and washington's lax regulations over a 20 or 30-year period. barack and i knew that fixing the real economy meant stabilizing the financial system. mr. chairman, i remember that conversation we had, but i also remember the meetings we had to figure out what to do and how we leaned on you. i remember the first meeting the president-elect and i had with our team in chicago a month before the inauguration. we were told that tens of millions of americans own more on their home than they were worth and we were told we might need well over a trillion
dollars to fix the banks. the good news, we were told, and i remember sitting in that room -- you were there, you were back in new york, i believe. i'm not sure where you were, but the economic team we have put together, the advisory team, we were told -- the good news, the opening comment was, "mr. president, we have good news. we are not going to recommend you call a bank holiday." whoa, what do you mean? [laughter] vice president biden: there were considerations that we recommend a bank holiday. that is what president roosevelt was told during the great depression. we knew our regulatory system was outdated, designed decades ago and ill-equipped to monitor the modern-day economy.
we had seen this play out before in major economic crises driven by insufficient regulation. i was there in the united states senate when we dealt with the savings-and-loan crisis in the 1980's. i was there when we had to deal with the failure of long-term capital management in the 1990's, and i was there in the aftermath of the enron debacle in 2000, which reminds me of that old bad joke -- claude and maude in the late 1990's thing on the porch, and claude looks at maud and says, remembered you tooks gassed and care of me? she goes, remember we bought that little -- and remember we bought that little drug store, and he goes through all of these things, and then i got drafted in ww2, and that's when i lost
to be as fingers on my hand, and he says, maud, i was thinking. you are bad luck. [laughter] vice president: maybe i am bad luck to have been through all of those. i was there. [laughter] vice president biden: when it comes to the great recession of 2008, we knew the specific underpinnings were complex, but also that we could avoid repeating them again. banks and other financial companies knew that they could turn around and sell these loans in a heartbeat. ew lendingten thr standards of the window, making billions on loans to people who were completely unprepared to make the payments. i remember a fellow who was a classmate of my son who became a very successful real estate man. and i remember him telling me, you know, i had a housekeeper, came up to me and said, guess what?
they're going to give me a $300,000 loan. he said, how can you pay it? she said, they told me i would be able to. i'm not making this up. ratings agencies were paid by banks and institutions to upgrade risks. time and again, they gave insulated ratings to get -- inflated ratings to get business. they are taking on risky investments, putting the whole system at risk. there was a debate in the white house whether i should say that, but i say what i believe. that was the worst vote i ever cast in the united states senate -- repealed glass-steagall act. it allowed investment banks to operate with too much leverage, too much reliance on short-term debt, and very little supervision. across the board, a shadow banking system operating with limited oversight, the last of
-- the lack of systematic regulator overseeing mail system, new exotic financial products, widely misunderstood, not subject to regulation. the structure of executive pay creating incentives for ceo's to take excessive risks. collectively, this is not about allowing banks to take on more risk. it was about shifting the risk from the banks to the taxpayer. that is because the federal government lacked authority to manage the banks. they knew they had a backstop in the american taxpayer. the administration and our democratic allies in congress knew we had to protect families from the immediate damage, but also we had to help prevent future crises.
president bush saw the beginning of the crisis in knew he needed to act even though he had no way to know its magnitude. so he started the troubled assets relief program, so-called tarp, which in some cases financed toxic assets from the banks. and before stimulus was a dirty word, president bush pushed for checks to taxpayers to jolt the economy a little bit, and president obama and i, along with the republican congress, continued the tarp -- and i, along with the republic in congress, continued the tarp program. mr. chairman, you know voting for tarp, bailing out banks was like putting a stink in -- putting a snake in everyone's living room. todd about the most unpopular vote. i am serious. the folks who caused the crisis all of a sudden, we're making sure we bail them out. it's hard to explain to average, well-informed americans.
but it was necessary. it was the right vote. it helped save the economy. when all was said and done, tarp amounted to $400 billion. they got it all back plus $15 billion in interest. we rescued the auto industry, which was not at all popular, among democrats or republicans. six in 10 people did not think we should do it. it was on the brink of bankruptcy. today -- i know i got blamed for pushing that a lot because i middle-class joe, i'm the guy with the manufacturers -- well, you know -- [laughter] vice president biden: i understand, and universities in particular and washington in particular, to be middle-class means you are not this is dictated -- you are not sophisticated. but i know when the middle class does well, everybody does well. we do well when the poor have a way up. we have a social contract with
the growing middle class. today, the automotive industry is back on his feet. 695,000 jobs added since the automakers emerged from bankruptcy, the fastest growth on record. and dodd frank was the centerpiece of our plan to stabilize the financial system and prevent another crisis. with your help, mr. chairman, we cilemented the vocal rule -- rule.r the law did everything from helping students get the best rates, to making sure that creditors operate within the law. pretty important stuff that is taken for granted again. but i don't know how many times my son, who was a decorated veteran, he was a jag officer, spent a year in iraq -- i
remember how i had an opportunity to see him several times because i was responsible for iraqi and i traveled to iraq and afghanistan attila 20 times. i would see him. he would say, dad, soldiers would come, panicked to see me -- they are foreclosing on my house. what do i do? they have brought more than 11 billion dollars of relief to americans what protecting consumers from harmful practices and dodd-frank also created the financial oversight council to see where the risk might arise. the goal is to monitor when a failure by a single company could end up affecting people
who have nothing to do with that particular firm or company. the law of regulated derivatives, like credit default swaps, bringing them into exchanges to increase transparency and brought oversight to the shadow banking system. federal deposit to deale corporation with bankrupt banks and increase the amount of insured deposits from $100,000 to 250,000 dollars, giving people peace of mind the banks were safe. requiring better capitalized banks, making them hold more capital and subjecting them to the stress tests. enforced conflict of interest prohibitions with rating agencies to restore confidence that their evaluations are fair and unbiased. they put in place new regulations to change the culture of executive compensation like say on pay, which allows shareholders to say whether executive raises are appropriate.
like clawbacks, which regulates the ability to clawback bonuses from underperforming executives. i will talk about this later, but more frankly, there is more that needs to be done in reigning in ceo pay. this was all part of a nationwide effort to rid our financial system of reckless behavior and fraud that nearly brought down the entire economy, not just here, but worldwide. let's be honest. there were some -- myself, the chairman, and some others, including state attorney generals -- you did not think we went far enough. [laughs]
vp biden: i remember my son calling me. dad, i can't tell you what i'm about to do because it may be a conflict of interest. but dad, i want to warn you, the administration is not going to like it. i'm not going to settle with these banks. senator leahy, senator rick cooper of north carolina -- senator roy cooper of carolina, now elected, and beau biden went after the banks, bringing over one hundred million dollars back to delaware in several billion to all three of those states. but none of this happened overnight. the financial sector stabilized much more quickly than our critics thought it would, allowing american commerce to get back on its feet. mitch mcconnell, who was a friend and truly is a friend, john boehner who is a friend, paul ryan who is a friend, the
entire republican caucus. hell, i remember when the media thought it was exaggerating when i called it the great recession. the same people said that dodd-frank would restrict credit markets. but today, credit markets are functioning again. the chairman of the house financials service said that dodd-frank would crush small business funding. today, small business funding is back to pre-recession levels. so much for the disaster. he and so many other republicans said it would crush community banks. today they are expanding significantly. he and other republicans said it would make the banking sector riskier. the banks are better capitalized today with an initial $700 billion protecting against the downturn. the number of bank failures decreased from 140 a year when the president and i took office to eight last year. and because the cost of federal insurance fell $30 billion, a decline of 98%. and so much for the republican
party orthodoxy that says dodd-frank would be disaster for the real economy. as my friend john boehner said, here are the facts. i know a lot of people, and probably some of you do, many of your parents lost their jobs and were hit hard. but today, we have witnessed the longest streak of job growth. added. million jobs countriesthe other combined. and the unemployment rate is 4.6 percent. at the time of the great recession, there were too many retirees who lost their savings and laid retirement. today, most retirement accounts of been restored. we know that not everybody got back their homes. not everyone got back
everything. housing prices are up by about a third. what we forget is those folks who lost their homes never having missed a mortgage payment -- and then they ended up underwater and lost their homes, never able to get back into a home, they are not benefiting from that additional money that is back. thef they weren't in then, now that it is $19,000, they are not benefiting. there's a lot of people we should be paying attention to, that quite frank with, neither party paid enough attention to. every time i talk about this, its middle class joe again, but the truth of the matter is, a lot of people got hurt. back.ny are still not some workers deserve more pay for the work they do. this is the fastest growth on record. the wages rose by 3% this year
alone. our gdp was up 11% even after accounting for inflation over the course of this administration. so there was undeniable progress the last eight years and the president and i both acknowledged it's not enough. not enough. that is why we proposed a number of things i will speak to. we are a lot better off today than we were when we took office or it i don't say this in defense of the economy. i say this in defense of why we should not be changing the fundamental way in the ways that have been suggested. economyften said the crisis torom recovery and we are now on the cusp of resurgence. we also know the path to this resurgence has included real hardships for americans, some of whom have never really made it back. they still feel left out. they're very reason to ask why. the first truth is the american economy cannot prosper in the middle of a financial crisis,
period. our capitalist system is the greatest allocator of capital in the history of the world, but if you protect from abuses it helps create jobs and the middle class. we need it, but we need it to function a way that will let everybody in. so the financial sector can be robust and lay the groundwork to rebuild the middle class. the second truth is more should have been done. even on top of our trillion dollars stimulus, even on top of the largest tax cuts for the family inss history, even on top all the lifelines to automakers, the president and i tried to do more. we tried hard to push the american jobs act of 20 11 that provided billions and training and unemployment insurance, tax cuts for schools and businesses. all told, it would have added 2 million jobs and generated 1.5% economic growth. our friends on the hill said no.
we knew in order to prosper we needed a 21st century infrastructure. world in6th in the transportation and infrastructure. i got in trouble when i said if i blindfold you and put you in an airport at laguardia and then in beijing, to do therefore in the morning -- put you there at four clock in the morning. everybody disagreed. this is the united states of america. we pushed for an infrastructure package that would have put millions of american workers back to work. republicans on the hill said no. we proposed billions of tax cuts for working americans. again, the hill said no. we wanted to make two years at community college free, paid for by closing loopholes. basis.epped-up
does anybody believe in the 21st century 12 years is enough? does anybody really believe that to be true? that 12 years of free education is enough to compete in the 21st century? forady, that study i did 10 jobsident, 6 in require more than a college degree. excuse me, a high school degree. we know some of the most qualified women are staying out of the workforce. why? the cost of childcare. in washington, if you have two kids, the cost is $22,000 a year. we wanted to triple the child tax credit. that could add 500,000 women into the workplace. our friend said no. when reagan was president we had about $800 billion in tax loopholes. now we have $1.3 trillion per year.
all the economists here at georgetown, tell me you can justify more than $600 billion to $800 billion of that is generating a social good or productivity? we wanted to incentivize companies to bring profits home, bring operations back home. our friends said no. in the end, we just didn't have the republican votes in the congress. so, let me just say to you all, this is not your father's republican party. all of a sudden -- i remember all the years i served in the senate. infrastructure was pushed more by republicans than by democrats. literally, not figuratively. there was a consensus on a range of things, like the basic bargain that if you contribute to the well-being
of the outfit you work for, you get to share in the benefits. that was the basic bargain. democrats and republicans from 1972, when i got elected as a 29-year-old kid, and 20 years before, 30 years before. which leads me to the fundamental question. where do we go from here? the people have spoken. .e cannot be lulled into we cannot forget what caused this god-awful recession of a years ago. eight years ago. the same policies being advised now. reduce state tax. deregulate orthodoxy. the president and i want to clear the rubble.
we wanted to build a new stadium, one that actually had lights. for god's sake, if we cannot do that lets at least make sure the umpire is on the field calling balls and wearing a striped shirt. that's why we cannot allow the repeal of dodd frank. we can't go back to the days when the banks were free to take your depositors money. we can't go back to the day when financial companies take massive risk with the knowledge that taxpayer bailout is around the corner if they fail. we cannot afford that. the country cannot afford that. afforddle class cannot that. we need to make sure executive compensation does not go back to short-term. i spoke at length about stock buybacks. do not have the incentive to build for the
future but rather swing for defenses today. they are not bad guys or bad women. incentivizes. that is the incentive. it started in 1980 when ronald did it. we need to change this as well in my opinion. -- sec rulespeal created by don-frank. toalso need to continue address the loopholes by long-term debt. we need to step up our monitoring of enforcement activities. look at wells fargo. the justice department and i cannot speak to it because i do
not speak to them. they are reviewing whether or not there are criminal sanctions here. think of what ordinary people go to jail for. let's be clear. this should never be allowed to happen again. millions of families pay the price for reckless and irresponsible policy. our regulators need to have resources to catch this activity report gets out of control. it is pretty basic. you do not have to be an economist to understand this. you do not have to be an economist. it helps. [laughter] that's why have a lot of them working for me. but you don't have to be an economist to understand this. look at what we did to cause this in the first place.
now us, should we change back to the problems that caused this in the first place? as my little grandson would say, it is not rocket science. ladies and gentlemen, let me close with this. my deceased wife used to tell me, her expression was, joe the greatest gift god gave mankind was the ability to forget. my mother, and god love her, said, that is true generally. if it were not i would normally have one child. it is a great if god gave us, the ability to forget. because how could you go on? but it does not apply in governing, where to forget is dangerous. dangers. given what the people of this country went through eight years a rollede cusp of depression and how far we have come today on the cusp of a role
potential resurgence with the united states better positioned country in the world to lead the 21st century. my lord. my lord, we are so much better positioned. i am not supposed to be an expert on the economy but i am supposed to be an expert on foreign policy. i do not have my briefcase with me today but i do know a lot about foreign policy. i have met every major world leader for the last 35 years. i look around the world, do you think any leader of a major country would trade places with the president of the united states in terms of the opportunities of the 21st century? know i want to i see them succeed. they don't have enough energy. they don't even have enough water. we are talking about a $2 trillion problem. and if you think that you think the eu is serious competition and they are going
-- eight hour lunch as we were told. i remember being at the wharton school and being told how japan was going to bonus. remember how they were buying the rockefeller center new rest? i remember thinking, there is not a shot in the world of that happening. why? not because of barack obama and joe biden. because we are the most productive workers in the world, three times more productive than workers in asia. energy, we are the epicenter of energy in this century or at least for the next 50 years including renewable energy. watch what we can do. happens.t ladies and gentlemen, we respect and cantual property adjudicate contract differences and know they are going to be kept. we are so much better positioned than any nation in the world and
we have a workforce that continues to be replaced -- and, i might add, namely a product that has transformed the world it in terms of technology that was not made or conceived in america. the two great things about america, one of which is stamped in the dna of every american, nativeborn or otherwise, no or how bad our education system is in great school, no child ever gets criticized for challenging orthodoxy. unlike any other country in the world including our allies. we are encouraged to challenge orthodoxy. you cannot make new things unless you break new things. -- old things.
we are a remarkable country and we cannot forget, we cannot forget who we are or where we recently tame from and go back to what created this crisis in the first place. we have to keep moving forward and my hope and prayer is that we will. i think we have give this new administration a fighting chance. i think they are in the position now is beginning to determine a lot of the stuff that seemed awful clear to them is not so clear. we will see. we will see what happens. if you notice, they have decided they are going to immediately repeal the affordable care act. then all of a sudden they figured out, 20 million people will not have insurance. then all the sudden they figured out, all those kids on their insurance policy of the parents, good night lucy. [laughter]
v.p. biden: all of a sudden they figured out there were going to go back to charging women more for insurance than men. all of a sudden they've figured out, oh my lord i guess pre-existing conditions do matter. have me father for i sinned. applause] folks, look, because there are so many young people in this audience i want you to know two things. someca has developed incredible women and men who never, ever stopped fighting for what they think is right for the country. like paul volcker. mr. chairman, i really mean it. no, no. your voices should be listened to based on batting average. take a look at what they said
and what happened. judge objectively. whether or not it is worth listening to. measured against how fundamental whetherave changed and they are still relevant or timely. folks, this is no time to turn back. i got elected when i was a 29-year-old kid in the u.s. senate. i was listed as a young idealist. i have been doing nothing but getting up in the morning as my dad would say, it is a lucky person who gets up in the morning puts two feet in front thinks it still matters. i think it still matters, a lot. a whole lot. take a look at where we are positioned compared to everyone else in the world. i was listed as a young optimist when i got elected. i will conclude by saying i can
say without fear of contradiction by anyone who knows me, i am truly more optimistic about america's chances today than at any other time since i have served and i have served as 44 -- 444 years. for 44i have served years. thank you all very much. [applause] announcer: the senate again the week by voting to advance a bill
that would provide more funding for medical research and bolster medical treatment programs. vice president biden was acknowledged by senate majority leader mitch mcconnell for his work on the cancer treatment shot initiative. he also asked that the provisions of the bill be named son, the vice president's beau biden, who died of cancer last year. where day whena we see the vice president preside. welcoming youd to back later in the week. i know members will have plenty to say about his life and his legacy leader in the week. the senate would like to specifically acknowledge his efforts to help americans struggling with cancer. -- he has known the
cruel toll this disease can take. and he has not let it beat him. he is chosen to fight back and has taken a leading role and the senate will soon pass the 21st century cures act as a testament to his tremendous effort. i think it is fitting to dedicate this bills critical effort to someone who would be proud of the presiding officer today. that is his son, beau biden. a moment that is exactly what the senate will do. renaming the cancer initiatives in this bill after beau biden. >> will be senator yield for a brief statement? i have one more. thank you. >> so therefore mr. president, i to the senate concede
one at the desk. concurred 174 to make a correction in the enrollment of hr 34. >> is there objection presenting to the measure? without objection. >> i call up an amendment that would rename a title of the bill. i would say to the clerk i would like for her to read the entire thing. >> mcconnell and mr. reid, the amendment number 5137 beginning on page one line seven, strike following correction in all that follows and insert the following . correction one, amended long title so as to read "an act to accelerate the development and delivery of 21st century cures." number two, amend the heading for section wants us to read " beau biden, cancer moonshine and
numberovation content." three, the item relating to 1001 --1001 s follows, beau biden, cancer moonshine and nih cancer innovation project. tracks the concurrent resolution interveningith no action or debate. tracks without objection. [applause] >> democratic leader, i see all my colleagues. serving in the senate for 36 years, during the senate i was he was ass advised much a man of the senate as anyone could be. he was a democrat but he was
also aware that anybody at any time and i so admire him. i know he has worked closely with the republican leader on important issues. so i want the record to have the fact that the presiding officer is as proud as his family as anyone could be and doing this for beau biden, furthers the man, the presiding officer, has had on this country indebted to the republican leader for allowing me to co-sponsored this amendment changing the name of this bill to the beau biden memorial moonshot. so grateful to you. senators, understanding and presiding as a man of the senate and always will be.
clerk will report the motion. announcer: congress continues work on the medical research and treatment bill known as the 21st century cures act. here's sullivan, what is the main purpose of this legislation? >> it's a bipartisan effort and is looking to speed up the approval of new drugs, new cures to get the patients, particularly for rare diseases, but it also has money in it which is helping bring the democrats on board to invest money in the national institutes of health for medical research, particularly on cancer. --e president biden pause 's cancerident biden moonshot is a big part of the bill and it has funding for that
as long as other medical research items. the idea is to speed up, improve research and innovation around cures and new drugs to get to patient. >> so democrats really showing they were on board in the house what last week. the boat 392 26, the house passing the measure last week. what are some of the key house and senate lawmakers responsible for getting the final bill done? >> this is a threat up in republican from michigan, he is the chairman of the house energy and commerce committee, he is until the end of this year, this was his big last act, his signature bill that he has been pushing for a long time. but it is bipartisan. congresswoman diana -- a democrat from colorado was his big partner in the house on this. they joined with the senate for the house committee chairman, lamarr exit alexander in his counterpart patty murray, the democrat also played a big role. >> a couple of specifics, what with the bill do about fda drug approval process? >> it's a variety of ways to try to speeded up make it more efficient, some critics have said it goes too far and has
made the lowering standards of the fda, but the sponsors push back on that and said still going to be safe, we are just trying to speed it up a little bit. for example, using something called real-world evidence, so instead of waiting for clinical trial which is the gold standard but takes a long time and can be expensive, it allows for data from the use of a drug in the real world to say, this looks like it is having a good effect, maybe we can just use this data ahead of time without waiting for the clinical trial. >> that the bill includes funding to fight opiate abuse. connect this to the bill that was passed earlier this year, the larger packet and fighting opiate abuse. >> this is been an issue that congress has been dealing with, the opiate of abuse. there was a bill earlier the sheer but the democrats criticize that bill, a lot voted but still criticized insanity
criticized it, saying it did not have any money in it. so now this bill today is bringing some money along which is making some democrats happy, -- it is alien dollars one billion dollars over two years. it is a significant amount of money and that is dry praise from the white house and republicans as well have said they want to put money towards the. >> strong support in the house, the white house is in it supports the bill but it has some concerns, what are those? >> they set over all the strongly favor the bill. they're upset, as people often are on the way the measures paid for. it does have some obama care cuts and it called the prevention fund which is part of obama care and is meant to provide money to prevent illnesses, for example stopping people from smoking which leads to cancer, but overall their concerns are relatively small, i think they're pretty happy with where the bill ended up. >> you mentioned vice president
joe biden and the cancer moonshot and the vice president was in the chamber for the 21st century cures at, what does this do bill do specifically for them which i program? >> it gives it money. that's the the main thing. 1.8 billion dollars, part part of that any h funding is set aside for cancer research to essentially cure cancer over a number of years. experts say it is obviously not as simple as coming up with one cure, but it is trying to accelerate research and knowledge of cancer. it is a big win for vice president biden. it is something he is very passionate about. and as you said, he will be coming to the senate to see it in person. >> what is it about the bill
that has senator sanders and senator warren upset about? >> the holdouts are saying this is basically a giveaway to pharmaceutical companies. it's helping them get their drugs approved faster. other little provisions that were slipped in their that they say or disfavors to the drug companies and in return they're not really getting anything. they say does does nothing to address drug prices which is been a big issues with epipen's getting a lot of uproar. this bill does not directly deal with drug prices, that would've made a much more partisan issue which lawmakers are trying to avoid. bernie sanders and elizabeth warren also say that even though there is money they wanted it to be what's called mandatory which means is guaranteed funding it's guaranteed funding and doesn't have to be renewed every year, but this is guaranteed money but it does have to go through the appropriations process over your. >> you can follow peter sanders -- sullivan on c-span.
drag c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. running up this morning, north carolina republican congressman another congressman to discuss bipartisan efforts to reverse a u.s. court of appeals decision over contributions to political committees. both argue the ruling allows super pac's to accept unlimited donations. then a look at foreign efforts to spread fake news during the 2016 election cycle. with the policy research institute. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal live again handsome :00 a.m. eastern this morning. join the discussion. up on c-span, the future of financial regulations under a trump administration. later, journalist leads a panel on presidential debates.
>> coming up today, a hearing on our of data manipulation by the u.s. geological survey. deputy director testified before the house natural resources subcommittee live on c-span at 10:00 a.m. then, the influence and terrorist threats in the middle east. live from the senate foreign relations committee at 230 p.m. eastern also on c-span3. >> often when you look at a project, you look afterwards to see whether you have of cheap your objective and at what cost. so i want to to see through this last half-century of military intervention, partisan politics and morality aside, what happens after the party is over? what are the aftereffects of war?
what are the human and financial effects on both sides? gruberer: brian discusses his latest book "war: after the party." >> i went to a lot of these places. of course we all come with some form of bias. trying not so much to understand what a partisan point of view might be or be valued at it to look at what the mission of accomplished and what were .he costs on both ends announcer: sunday night on c-span's q&a. >> next, financial reporters discuss potential changes in the initial industry with the upcoming trump administration. this upcoming event was hosted
by the clearinghouse organization, a banking trade organization. >> ok, if everyone could put their knives and forks down or at least quiet them. we're going to get started. that was good. welcome to lunch. we're going to do something different. discussion ofless capital ratios and things like that and we thought it would be both instructive and also quite a lot of fun to hear from the media. their perception of the environment for institutions and more broadly with recent events in politics, the topics get more
interesting. as you know, i am capable of long introductions but i will not do them here because you know these people. i wake up every morning with than white like many of you. i spend all day with this man because he pops up periodically and i turn the volume back up. i think with the financial times people, street journal they do not pop into my office and are not with me in the morning, i read them at leisure and in great detail. they are true resources when it comes to these issues and obviously a big read for a lot of you in this audience. probably less known to you will be antiwar who will be our moderator from citigroup. head of government affairs at citigroup. which given the reach of citigroup is pretty broad. yet she always seems unruffled
to me. worked in theusly senate, the work of the office of the vice president and the president for legislative affairs in the bush administration so she knows whereof she speaks. i think you could not be in better hands and let me turn it over to candy and the rest of the gang. candy: thank you to greg and he rest of my panel. usually i have to be the one answering the question so it is a pleasure to be here asking me questions to put them on the spot. i think we are going to start with politics and set the stage for the environment and move from there into policy issues as we go along. it open to to throw all of you as you look back on the election night. and we -- the numbers were coming back in all of a sudden states that were not supposed to be in play were now in play and
pennsylvania was moving in the and michigantrump and again, ohio, and other states. what was kind of going through your minds as the election was unfolding and perhaps we can talk a little bit to not only what was on your minds, but what aboutou thinking with financial services as you watch the results come forward. broadly foren it up conversation. >> what was i thinking as the returns were coming in? well, my first thought was it might be that i got something wrong. just a slight possibility that i did not call it right. so there was that initial sense of wow. this is remarkable. i clearly missed the extent to which trump us message would resonate in the rest built and
that clinton was not getting the numbers she needed in the obama coalition. she was not getting particularly some of the suburban female white voters we thought would vote. they did not turn out in big enough numbers. in trump ran up the score some of the places obama won in 2008. the nature of the election surprised me and surprised a lot of people that trusted the polling. when you look at the margin, the popular vote was not far off. she winds up with a 1% or 2% when in the popular vote it might be slightly below where she was but a lot of the state surveys, michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania, were several points off and so it was surprising to me. i would not say a was spending a lot of time at that moment thinking what does this mean for the financial services industry
but i started thinking about that in the days following and i'm sure people get into the extent to which this was a complete seismic change in which there would be a massive of deregulation and the preservation of dodd frank or whether people who are close to trump are in favor of some of that mike pence wants to do in the house that would include higher capital levels so there will be that kind of war between those who want to completely gut.-frank and not raise capital level completely. shock, on, surprise, that all went through my mind and then i thought what i would have to write and i got really depressed. so, you would not of been on the same conference call. there's a conference call i am probably not suppose stock about but i will anyway. evening with nbc ndp included the exit polls, i
remember trying to look at the person who is talking and it was very early on in the evening that i realized something was not about to happen the way it was expected to happen and i cannot quite describe to what he said except it reminded me of treeuy from the rocket company and apollo 13 who kept saying, no, it's not supposed to do this, it is not supposed to do this. and i was like, give me an answer and he was like, no it's not designed for this. and i was like, is something is weird here. stuff starts coming in. here's a where thing, something like several thousand times the following conversation had to take place. exit poll or, do you think donald trump is trustworthy to be president? respondent -- no. exit pollster, who did you vote for? -- donald trump.
if you look at the exit polling, that happened with an enormous amount of people overall and i think it was something like 30% or 40% of trump voters. i had the displeasure of having conducted a national poll two weeks earlier. cnbc has done a national poll for several years now. we showed hillary with a nine point lead which is a weird. you hope for a poll that is in line with everybody else so your neck is not sticking out. i'veback and think, should been smarter about thinking about that polling? the other data in the poll that shows how dissatisfied people were with the political system, with the economic system, how angry they were, how much concern or was about the tonomic future and said myself, ok there is no way they can put essentially the incumbent back in.
had to tilt in my analysis against the top line but you can read the bottom line of this and the exit polls as well explaining what happened. >> it was neutral as a paper but very much set up as a party. we had lots of pizzas. we even ahead a refrigerator with beer. we were trying to look useful that evening. i went down to the pub at about 7:00. around 8:30. back and i was watching weakening against the dollar. you see a movement. this was inching up and up. i thought we could be in for a bit of a shock. the pizzas did not get eaten. the bear was left untouched.
i hammered out something about japan. -- the critics >> there was a similar effect at the wall street journal. have of us there at the banking team would be their late sort of watching the market and the other half would come in early do next morning. i was on the late shift and the early cute -- early crew the next day were joking about how they could come in at normal time if it was an uneventful election. if everything went as planned. obviously that did not take place. looking at the political dynamic of it, wondering how everything
was so surprising to 70 pollsters but also, we were following the markets and watching stock prices for the to theteresting reaction gathering news that it was going to be a trump win and then changing around 5 a.m. or 6:00 a.m. some felt he was going to -- that the start -- stock started to rebound. we found out and about and eight-hour timeframe. optimism comes from the republican congress. had a republican house on the question really was whether the republicans were going to maintain the senate. back,tory if we look there has only been certain times when the administration was controlled by the same party. that you got things done in the current timeline. if you look to obama's first two mid 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
-- d especially for trump >> the one thing you could throw out what that -- >> right, in this case. >> i think the market was really wrong about that. i think one of the moments i had myselfbe excited for professionally and that half of my job was to be covered for the fed. economic policy in this country has not been covered for six years. you can laugh at that but it is true. i was excited when the republicans won the congress in 2014 because i thought it meant at least bills would go through congress and be on the president's desk. that could barely put anything on the presidents desk.
i want to talk about that further. my feeling was professionally, economici will have policy. as an american, i was not sure going to get by another four years with gridlock and this is an aside, obviously six years in russia at see arly time when we country with need for legislation, you need that stuff. it just was not getting done for whatever reason. i think we could talk about what is going to be done but the fact that something can get done, may be some of that is reflected in the markets optimism. >> as candy pointed out, the market started to turn around overnight partly because of the concession speech which was
overly gracious and not filled with vitriol at it was clear there is going to be a republican president, house, senate, which we can get into the detail for what that actually means but for lower individual tax rates, and maybe some stimulus spending, all of good news forrm the stock market not necessarily if you spiked news up and inflation and you have a scenario where you do a big stimulus where the economy does not appear to need a big stimulus. but the scenario quickly played itself out that this is a great short-term move. transition into policy a little bit but first let's talk about the transition because any administration has to go through it, they have a transition team. assessing regulation, policies,
creating some sort of briefing book that is ultimately going to be turned over to the heads of all of these agencies and new cabinet posts. one of the more important ones we have many caring about for treasury, perhaps i could put you on the spot as to when we might hear or who it might be and kind of talk about the rumors that have been flowing. >> anecdotally about this, i have been hearing for days now. just the thought of having been in this room for it 30 minutes, i have heard both that he was going to be announced tomorrow into that jared kushner has vetoed him and he is not going are angry at they him for not having raised enough money.
it is important we talk about the trump transition to say it is not like any transition with seen and a long time. this is very ad hoc. every transition has different factions. but the extent to which they are open to public fights among tribes staff about who is going to take a certain job. example of that with kellyanne conway publicly arguing against him. trump still seeming to be inclined to pick him. but on the treasury front, he seems to be the most likely candidate to get it. there are still others in the mix. including jeb hensarling who i don't think gets it. it's hard to cover this transition because you have so many elements of the trump universe fighting each other and in terms of the transition team, steve and i were talking beforehand and it's true, this is not the universe of economic
policy and financial policy people that a lot of you know very well. a guy like bill walden, sort of big in the 1980's, allied capital and then he had the big fight with einhorn may and kind of disappeared into the wilderness for a long time and been living on a farm or investing in movies and now he's back and on the treasury aaron lucchetti landing team and very anti-regulation and very anti-big government, but we don't know a whole lot about him or what he is doing. so it's very hard to cover this transition and i think there are a lot of people involved in it that we just don't know very well. >> that is a perfect example of of that. although he was a familiar face he wascampaign trail,
different than someone like say, john allison ran a bank and is at the cato institute and is very much on the record of what should happen. i think if trump does take mnuchin it's a wild card for how high he prioritizes financial services reform and the dot-frank rollback. >> from what i've been hearing, much less connected is the news guys. >> i spent most of my thanksgiving researching and writing a story about him. but we heard on monday about the confirmation. it came and went. it seems nothing is certain in this environment and trump has absolutely nothing to gain by keeping the likes of us informed. >> i think there's an element of what ben said there's some in-fighting. there's definitely a lot of factions for the big jobs. there's also an element, i think, he wants to test the waters, right? if you want to hire a treasury
secretary, even if it's mnuchin, you want to interview five candidates to see what you're passing up. >> for some of these treasury people there's always the question, is this candidate we are talking about before getting through the paperwork, the vetting, the assets, how he would -- somebody like mnuchin would put in a blind trust or liquefying assets and how willing is he to do that? of course, we have the guy at the top not really inclined to do any of that. so, how do you demanded of your cabinet secretaries? that's true of the big jobs but particularly true for treasury when you're operating within a universe of people that have significant assets and possible conflicts so that's one thing that could be slowing the treasury announcement down. but i think it is more that trump is not completely -- i think he leans mnuchin and likes him and knows him, but there are people very close to trump who are whispering in his ear,
"don't pull this trigger yet." there are conservative ideologues that would prefer allison to mnuchin because he's known, on the record, on his views on, you know, reform in the regulatory system and banking reform, whereas you have more of a blank slate in a guy like steve. a lot of these moving parts. i hear often, "this is coming tomorrow" and then by the end of the day stand down, it's not happening. >> nobody said romney for treasury secretary? >> no. i haven't heard that. it could happen. >> to me, this points to another issue which is -- to borrow a craps term, which is a game i'm fond of -- the extent to which the market is trading trump on the come here. in large measure, a campaign is a dress rehearsal and a blueprint and a skeleton for an administration.
and part of why we have not seen anything like this before, there's no campaign structure that moves from here to there. we had that famous quote when apparently somebody went into the west wing and asked, "how many of these people stay?" so he doesn't have -- i don't think he's tremendously behind where he would be. but i also think that the extent to which the president-elect was specific about plans and specific about what he wanted to do, it was unclear in the sense he had people to do these things remains unclear. i know the market is very optimistic and i think there's something about that optimism but i think it's way out over its skeeze on this in terms of what is capable to be done given the infrastructure that he lacks. i know that the morning that the "times" published its interview with donald trump, i have this personal reaction of, you know, w.t.f., for lack of a better
term. which is, how am i supposed to do this job if, for the next several months, the whole game is "if then"? right? if he does this, then it might mean this for the economy. but the "if", we don't know what the "if" is. the "if" could be, i'm going to keep parts of obamacare or i'm going to get rid of this. i'm going to keep this. if the "if" is so uncertain, it's very difficult to game out events, and right now, the market has decided what the "if" is and what the "then" is. >> i think one more thing on the nature of this transition versus other transitions. in some way, it's not dissimilar from obama in 2008 in the sense, you know, senator obama then did not have a government in waiting. he was coming out of a single term in the senate that wasn't a massive world of policy people around him.
so he's building a lot from scratch in the transition. they took it so seriously from the start in terms of, you know, just hitting the mark and they also had a crisis they were coming into office to deal with so the policy framework was, how do we stop the bleeding? how do we get a stimulus package quickly? let's get people in place to do that. for trump, there's no government in waiting, no policy universe to turn the key in the white house and start moving. and you have a relatively decent economy, decent gdp growth, good stock prices, good housing prices, and kind of a blank slate for what he could do. as steve said, we don't know what the "if" is. so you have somebody whose policy views aren't well-known in addition to not having the apparatus and structure to put in place a new administration. the gap of unknowns is enormous. candida: well, i think part of the continuation of that unknowns is we're going through a period of time, as you said, they're trying to figure out cabinet officials. that's wave one, right? because you have to have the names in, you have to get people through the confirmation process, hearings and things at the beginning part of january in order to get individuals
confirmed on january 20 and 21 so you actually have a cabinet with a continuity of government the day the president is sworn in. after that, and the conversations that are going on next is what is wave two and wave three and, of course, wave four? if you look back and some of the research i've done previously, administrations take, at minimum, through august to try to fill out a lot of these positions. so you're going to have cabinet officials going in to treasury with themselves, probably a secretary, and maybe a counselor. and then no one else underneath them in terms of assistant secretaries or undersecretaries, etc. the question is, how long is it going to take, the next set of names and positions that will be filled? and i keep hearing wave two -- maybe it's wave three -- but wave two is filling out treasury
but also starting to look at the fed, you know, the fcc, the cftc. some of these conversations are occurring at the hill as we speak, because there are names still pending. as we know, the fcc will be in a position with not having a quorum with the resignation and departure of the chairwoman. so, you know, at some point some of these positions will have to accelerate, or congress is going to decide here in the next week that they're actually going to confirm some of these folks to begin to fill out these positions. but given the discussions, maybe we could turn a bit to the fed. we know we had two vacancies that remain pending. they don't appear to be going anywhere right now. and we had the vice chair of supervision. you know, turillo has been in the acting role, but he has not been officially appointed or confirmed, so there are some slots that certainly can be filled. you know, if treasury secretary
gets named and the trump transition focuses on it, what impact do you think a new administration, whether transition or administration itself, can actually have on the fed, and what are we thinking of how quickly this could happen or what it could mean for people here in the room around the policy going forward? aaron: one thing i'd say on that, and you mentioned turillo as the acting chairman of supervision, vice chairman of supervision, that is a very powerful regulator to have been there that long and be in the acting title. i think it speaks to the fact there's such partisan discord and inability to work together in washington that obama felt like he couldn't get turillo through. he wanted to stick with turillo. so what will the democrats do? how willing will they be able to work with trump? how much will they push back on his nominees, on his policies, how much will they try to work with him? i think that's one of the big wild cards, and a lot rides on
schumer and the leadership in trying to determine how tough will they make for -- make it for trump to move through wave two and wave three. ben m.: i wonder how long turillo will survive? if he'll looks to quit and take a position in academia in september, he has to rev up for six months, which means he's out by spring. i have spoken to a lot of people in the room before, and the consensus is that they won't be sad to see the back of him. [laughter] >> let's take a poll. [laughter] steve: the numbers are that he gets to point two immediately. if he names one of them as the vice chairman of supervision, then he gets, probably, turillo to resign. he will have a chair and a vice chair. he'll have five and seven in the
next year and a half. ben w.: i agree with all of that. i got emails after he was named head of supervision. all of them is like, if this happens i would be surprised if turillo stays a week. that would be the conventional wisdom. i have spoken to dan, so i don't know if that's true. does he stick around to try to stop somebody from undoing what he's tried to do on capital levels? and all that? i doubt it. he probably does head for the door. and a lot of the game will be played at the fed, in terms of regulation that all of you care about, because, you know, we get into this more detail. the idea that congress is just going to uniformly get rid of dodd-frank and change regulation overnight. it is just way more complicated than that and way harder than that. as aaron rightly said, it
depends on democratic unanimity in the senate and the ability to filibuster stuff. and it's not like elizabeth warren and her forces are completely without weapons. and also in arguing that, look, trump campaigned on a populous message of championing the little guy and not giving wall street what they want, and he's going to have to deal with that. >> what weapons does she have? ben w.: she can't stop him, but she does have the bully pulpit, still, and she has the convening power to get the progressive left to at least make noise and get in the headlines what some of these regulatory changes would do. i mean, if republicans are, you know, lockstep in agreement on an agenda on financial reform and changing a lot of these things, they can probably get it done and get it signed by trump. but there are going to be plenty who are nervous that, you know, is this really what republicans in pennsylvania, ohio, wisconsin voted for? how is this going to play with these people? what does it mean for 2018
elections, all these senate elections that are coming up in 2018? i just don't think it's a slam dunk that all of a sudden the pro-wall street reform people, i think they're in retreat. i think their odds are stacked against them, but i think there's still weapons they can use to try to slow some stuff down in the senate. that's why it gets back to the fed and the appointments there and the departure of turillo will be where a lot of the action will take place. candida: i think, ben, following up on steve's point, i mean, the senate still has the filibuster now. there is a question as to whether or not the senate will change the rules going forward which would require only 51 votes for many of the provisions. but under the rules of the senate it takes 60 votes to end debate, to bring a bill to a vote. which is what the filibuster is. you have to enact cloture. and you need 60 votes. at that point, that's really the challenge that the republicans have, i think, around any of the reforms which is, you only have
52 republicans. if all are voting with you. assuming louisiana goes for the republican candidate. but you end up with 52 senators. so somewhere in there, 60, you need eight democrats. steve: so can i play this out, then? if elizabeth warren wants to filibuster any reform to dodd-frank or -- i don't know how it will happen. separate bills or single bills? candida: well, no one knows the answer to that -- steve: she can stop that unless they somehow get eight democratic votes. >> or they try to go through reconciliation. candida: or they try to move something on a bill that requires 51, which you can do with special rules in the senate. but not get totally nerdy, you have to -- [laughter] ok. so my background used to be budget rules in the u.s. senate. so i will get nerdy. and you need to do -- to have reconciliation, it has to have a budgetary impact, and it isn't a budget like we think budget. it has to be scored by the congressional budget office to
say it will have an impact. and there are few provisions i am aware of that could get that scoring. but that's for others to think about whether there are certain provisions that could ultimately be considered as -- steve: so i don't want to be debbie downer here. trading likesn't elizabeth warren has a filibuster authority over the reform of dodd-frank. am i crazy about that? candida: i'm not -- steve: it seems to be trading like this is a done deal. candida: i am highly skeptical
all this stuff will get undone rapidly. >> the stocks out there are declining and they're all good and work -- >> financial -- all the financial stocks of the s&p 500. ben m.: we've all seen in bank stocks and we have written stories, seems to me, about nothing to do with the prospects of regulation under the new administration. my colleague is a huge fan of the charts, and he showed me early on that the gap between the the eight and 10-year yield is -- it is all prospects of a normalization of monetary policy, as far as i can tell, given all the uncertainties we talked about, all these personalities that may or may not do what job. i think it's in that -- aaron: well, dodd-frank reform is one of the reasons the xlf is up. i agree with ben that the yield curve, the infrastructure for infrastructure spending, more inflation, the longer part of the bond, yield curve spiking up and the short and probably coming with it at some point, that that's all very positive for bank stocks. and then also just the change in activity, very good for trading. so part of the banks that has been depressed for years in part because of regulation, in part because of market conditions and investor appetite is starting to see a lot more robust activity. steve: you say carry on, bid it higher, it's all good? aaron: well, they have a good rally. whether it sustains is another
question. it definitely reset -- i think regulation was part of that but not a huge part of that. i think it will definitely be a tailwind for the stock. but if you're counting on regulation going away or deregulation coming in or dodd-frank being rolled back as sort of the thesis for your bank stock investment, it may be a longer play or trickier play. ben w.: i think we should take into account the extent to which the bank stock rally is a relief rally from what the market expected, which was a clinton white house with a democratic senate and a republican house majority and a clinton administration that, you know, she is widely viewed on wall street as pretty moderate on banking and gave all the speeches and all that kind of stuff. she had to run populous to beat bernie sanders and talk about cracking down on wall street. she probably had to put people into positions in a lot of these agencies and a treasury who have strong pro-wall street reform background, and all of a sudden, in an instant, that got wiped away completely.
so you had to have a reset in expectations for bank reform and regulation based on, a, generally pro-business white house senate and house of representatives. so a lot of it was a counterfactual. we thought we were going to get this -- oh, my god, we got that. candida: so aaron, back to you on the comment you made in term of the bank stock evaluations, etc., and we're looking at an infrastructure, potentially, some type of infrastructure package, although no one really understands what that means. tax reform, which we think is potentially corporate, territorial and -- or international reform and individual. or at least that's the starting point. and repeal of obamacare and maybe some form of replacement. so we have some changes going on in some big marketplaces. possibly -- i mean, things will take longer, but certainly in the course of the first six months or so is where some of these conversations are going to go.
so what's the thinking around the impact with respect to the deficit? how is, sort of, the analysis going with, you know, is there consideration as to whether some of these policies, depending on what you look at and we really don't know what the substance is going to be, but is the market going to start reacting more to concerns around deficit spending, should some of these proposals not be paid for or offset or -- aaron: yeah, you have been thinking about that question for a while. it doesn't seem like it's been caught on yet. i have been waiting on s&p or moody's to say, wait a second, these deficit issues could have an impact. the president-elect has a lot of business experience and running businesses with a very low bond rating, to put it kindly. [laughter] aaron: you know, his views on deficits and growth are probably different than the deficit hawks. sort of at a core level. now, the deficit hawks are important to the tea party and his base, but it doesn't seem
like they're getting a lot of love, yet, at least early days. to me, the infrastructure is a very plausible thing for him to do. he's a real estate guy. he's built things over his life. that's very appealing to him. and also, it has had bipartisan support, as long as it doesn't get the deficit too out of control. he can talk about rolling back health care and rolling back dodd-frank, but that will be a very difficult fight. whereas infrastructure projects will not be as hard of a fight or him. ben w.: i think it will be harder, because there's bipartisan support for the idea of infrastructure spending, but the method in which you do that is there is very little bipartisan agreement, and democrats are already starting to coalesce around the idea they would fight an infrastructure program that's based on, you know, credits for private corporations. you know, they're talking about corporate welfare, and they'll continue to do that if there's
not a big public spending piece of it that is the government building stuff. again, you get into the question of, can he muscle it through a republican congress? and i don't know that he can, if you have a filibuster in the senate of democrats saying, "we love the idea of rebuilding our roads and bridges, but we don't love the idea that this is all a handout to big corporations, and we're going to fight it," and this is not what trump voters voted for. it's all part of the broader message. democrats haven't quite figured it out yet, but at some point, there will be a theory of the case against trump, which is what you voted for is not what you're getting. you're getting millionaires and billionaires in all these important jobs. you're getting across-the-board tax cuts for rich people. you'll get an infrastructure program that's designed for corporate america. if they can figure that all out and coalesce around it, i don't think there's some slam dunk for an infrastructure spending bill. steve: i think one of the things that has to be considered is, there's only so much bandwidth in the white house and in congress for major overhauls. i remember i had a conversation
with the chief of staff for bush, going into the second administration, and he laid it out for me all these things they were going to do. and i said, "that's a lot of stuff," and he said, "the president is very ambitious." i said, "you could maybe not get any of this done." actually, you were involved in all this, weren't you? [laughter] candida: yeah, i was. we didn't get a lot of it done. >> by god, she got it done. steve: social security, immigration. i don't know it was the result of that being that. but it was like you could pick one thing or two things, maybe. and then you got to get to -- you got to get over the hump of the mid terms. because that's going to be key. so this two-year window, i think not only what does he choose to focus on? if you think about the enormity of immigration reform and dodd-frank and a tax cut proposal and repatriation and -- you know, even just the
repatriation proposal, which we're talking earlier, it includes pretty major overhaul in the tax system going from a territorial -- to a territorial system, and then the repatriation on top of that, it's a pretty big undertaking for, if you're right that they don't get up to speed until sometime around august, you know, if you get the secretary in there -- i forget, do you remember when geithner was finally was up to speed to get that? i guess it was february? >> of 2009. steve: of 2009. >> that was a disaster. steve: he should have shut up then. >> yes. [laughter] >> it was a deer in the headlight. steve: we had him on. i had did the interview with brian williams, and the market like took a step down every word he said. even the word "the." >> that was not a high point of the obama administration. steve: and maybe you wait until you -- undersecretaries and you have the -- not to mention the
job that you did which was congressional liaison. candida: well, the white house jobs will be filled, because it doesn't require confirmation, so he'll have those positions kind of filled out day one. >> and another thing to watch in that is where does economic policy come from? some presidents choose to use the treasury and some choose to keep it -- >> economic council. >> you're familiar with that format. >> keeping it 1600. ben w.: the other thing to take into account when talking about the massive agenda and the difficulty of getting a lot of it or any of it done is the fact they have to do confirmation fights for some of these people. sessions is going to have a fight. there may be others who have tough confirmation hearings and then a supreme court justice takes up most of the bandwidth in any administration or a lot of the bandwidth. again, sort of the caution of people that think a full rewrite of the corporate and individual tax code, along with infrastructure spending, dodd-frank repeal, obamacare repeal. i mean, just pump the brakes.
steve: can i add one thing to this? which is this to me says that i should read and understand the paul ryan plans best because geithner had a thing -- the world would be in total chaos, but he would come to me with a plan. whether or not it was the right plan -- candida: right. whoever has the plan can dictate the policy. steve: to the extent they don't have to wait to review in , what was it, betterway.gov? and i read a bunch of it but maybe i need to memorize it now -- ben w.: yeah, they had the bones. candida: there's a lot of policy ideas that can be translated. ben w.: you saw in the campaign, the first and second iterations of the trump tax reform plan moved from rates cuts that were not going to happen much closer to the paul ryan-kevin brady set of rate cuts, and that's probably where they'll wind up. i don't think --
steve: he is still prior on steroids. ben w.: well, maybe more like human growth hormone and -- steve: like a nasal spray. [laughter] steve: well he went from 12 to , 10 to six and ryan's at three. ben w.: yeah. but you could see them working those details out. i can see the trump administration not being too proprietary about paul ryan kind of driving the bus on corporate tax reform and individual tax reform and then taking credit for it when it gets done. he's not like -- he's a headlines guy, not a details guy. candida: i am going to open it up to the audience in just a second. but to comment on what ben and steve were saying, you have personnel and supreme court and a minimum of two budget resolutions and repeal of obamacare and all of these things not -- it's going to take a lot of time. i think the interesting challenge will be how the administration tries to deal with the fact that they're going to be running up against
government operating far more slowly than perhaps they think it ought to be and the kind of pressure. so i'm already told, just anecdotally, that the house had their calendar scheduled, so they can determine which days they'll go in and go out, and the days they were listed, they had three weeks in, one week out. traditionally, how the congress has been operating, and they don't vote mondays or fridays. and the trump transition took a look at the calendar and said, "you know, this doesn't work, because i work seven days a week, and you guys aren't really here," and so the calendar went back and got revised. and they took out the one extra week off, etc. so there's already some of that interesting pressure around, you know, how much work is going to be done, and the senate has now announced they will be in mondays and fridays. now, we'll see if they are in mondays and fridays and if they really vote. there seems to be some movement around maybe, given the amount
of things that need to get addressed and understanding there's a short window, that they're going to try to push it. but at some point, the twitter account is going to probably start pressuring the congress to act more rapidly than the congress is sort of willing or able to do. and i think that tension will be an interesting dialogue for you guys to write about. >> "interesting" is an understatement. you can see it which trump declares war on congress, the do-nothing congress. anything is possible. and they could be at complete odds with each other by three, six months into the administration. we have no idea. >> and it will likely happen between midnight and 3:00 a.m. [laughter] >> and it will start -- steve: you will be on that late shift. we'll call it the "tweet shift." [laughter] candida: all right. i think we're going to open it up for questions from the audience. i don't know if there's a mike. steve: you guys are laughing like this is hysterical, right? it's not funny. >> some of it is funny. steve: i mean, he's going to be up at 3:00. >> he's going to be up at 3:00. >> and laugh in the face of
horror and misery. >> i think it's all good, ben. >> happy days are here again. >> i'm psyched. >> the mic is here. >> sorry. i default to moderator mode. because i moderates in many of these things. sorry, candida. candida: that is fine. >> >> so 2016 was supposed to be the good year for democrats in the senate. [inaudible] a lot more democratic seats. it was supposed to be the really pivotal year. so 2016 was supposed to be good year for democrats in the senate. 2018 was supposed to be the year they were defending a lot more seats and therefore looking to lose ground. how does that play in terms of dynamics now? does that encourage democrats to compromise, knowing the situation could get far worse in 2018? or does it encourage republicans to sort of hold back a little bit expecting or maybe get the 60-seat majority in 2018?
ben w.: that's a great question, and you're absolutely right that it's a dismal and terrible math for democrats in 2018. they fully expected to win the senate in 2016 and lose it again in 2018, and they have not won it back in 2016. to see their numbers dwindle even more at 2018, how that changes the political dynamic, someone smarter than me will have to figure that out. i do think there's some incentives for democrats in those vulnerable seats to show that they have achieved something on the legislative front in terms of economic policy. whether there's anything that puts forward that they can support that doesn't make them vulnerable to primary challenges from the left or look like they're caving to the trump agenda. i mean, you have to remember while trump did win the electoral college, he did not win the popular vote. he doesn't have this massive mandate, and there is a lot of pressure on democrats to stand up to trump, to resist trump, so i don't think we know the answer until we know what his legislative agenda looks like, what's in these bills that these democrats in the senate are
being asked to vote on, and it could go either way. they could decide they have to not be obstructionists and get through some economic legislation that could boost economic growth, or they could decide that trump is so unpopular and toxic that they can block him at every turn and be rewarded for it. it's just too soon to answer that. >> we're in new york, and no one has mentioned senator schumer. >> i mentioned him. >> we're in new york. there is nobody that has mentioned senator schumer. two new yorkers now that has traditionally found a way to do business together. senator schumer, who's never forgot the wall street. a big part of his constituency is in the financial services marketplace. what role does senator schumer have now, post-election? assuming that he's minority leader? candida: can i make one comment?
because i heard a great quote the other day on schumer being the republican leader. given his relationship with donald trump, republicans should be more scared than the democrats or equally as scared as the democrats, in terms of that relationship. so i think there's some truth to, you know, what kind of dialogue could happen between the white house and senate democrats in a way i think could open up some possibility for coalition. steve: i'll let ben answer this or maybe aaron. but i will point out real quickly. in fact, mark, i'd call you and ask you that question. you would obviously have great thoughts on that. the issue to me, is in a normal world, we would perhaps passed dodd-frank as it was and gone back and revisited it in at least a four-year time frame, maybe a five-year time frame. that if senator schumer can't possibly be a bridge between the