Joining us now to discuss is Republican
Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana.
Senator, thanks for joining us.
So a potential default could
now just now just be 11 days
away, theoretically.
President Biden said today
that he's done his part.
Now it's time for Republicans to move.
How worried are you that
a catastrophic default
could actually happen
and do you think Republicans
who are negotiating
need to be willing to move more
Well, a couple of things.
First, I think the president
needs to show leadership.
He took about 100 days to gauge,
you know, to kick in.
And now that he's finally negotiating,
I'm pleased that he's doing so.
But I also want to point out
that Secretary Yellen's comment
about one default occurs
potentially as very early
as the 1st of June.
But it could be later.
Well, let's have a little leadership.
The financial markets are all nervous
about this.
Is it the first or is that the 14th?
A quarterly
payment of taxes
comes to the federal government
beginning on the 15th,
at which point
the risk of default is averted.
So the president just needs to step up
and calm down the markets
by being specific.
And lastly,
the president
has been jacking up
spending in his first two years
of the presidency.
Now he wants Republicans
to accept that as a new baseline.
I think Republicans
and the American people
are reasonable to say, Mr.
President,
just because
you have artificially inflated
spending for the first two years
of your presidency,
by the way,
given us all kinds of inflation
to boot it,
does that become the new baseline?
We don't think it necessarily has to.
And I think Republicans are reasonable
to ask that it be reset back down.
Yeah,
you're referring to the fact
that the White
House, according to reports,
offered to
as part of
this negotiation,
offered to freeze spending,
I think at 20,
22 levels, whereas obviously McCarthy
and the Republicans
negotiating wanted
wanted it to be frozen
at an earlier levels.
The House Freedom
Caucus is
a group of very conservative
Republicans in the House
Republican Caucus.
They're saying that
they're going to oppose basically
any compromises
to the original legislation.
That they passed
a majority of the House Republican Party.
We should note, voted to not count
electoral votes
from Arizona and Pennsylvania.
Based on election lies,
the lies that you stood up against.
Do you think the House Republican caucus
can be counted on
to arrive at a reasonable compromise
in these debt negotiations,
given that fact, that ugly fact that
that sometimes they
take pretty extreme positions
Well, I think that the tea
I have strong feelings
about about the last election
and how that transpired.
But nonetheless,
I think that's a totally separate issue.
And let's give a tip of the hat
to Kevin McCarthy,
the package
that he sent to the president.
He had Republicans
voting for a debt ceiling increase
who had never previously voted for a debt
ceiling increase.
And I don't think we're going to allow
anxiety, existential anxiety
about the future
to kind of dictate what is done today.
Once Kevin said in a private meeting,
never asked me to do something
because you think I can't.
Let me first go out there
and see if I can.
I think the president needs
to step forward
make an earnest effort
to meet Republicans
and the American people
on the issue
of lowering our indebtedness.
And if they do so,
let's see what McCarthy can do.
And I'd like to have more faith in Kevin.
President Biden
also said this morning that he thinks
that he has the authority
to lift the debt limit on his own
using the 14th Amendment
though he said it's unclear
if he has time to use it given the
all the legal challenges
that would ensue.
The amendment
says, quote,
The validity of the public debt
of the United States
shall not be questioned, unquote,
I know you don't think he should do this,
but do you think he's right
that he has the ability
to use the 14th Amendment
to raise the debt ceiling on his
own without Congress
You know, I'm not an attorney.
It does sound like he's
kind of squirreling around a little bit.
His left wing wants him to invoke it.
It's one more example of the president's
taking the constitutionally
delegated authority
of spending
from the House of Representatives
and trying to kind of aggregate it
into the White House.
I think the president needs to show
leadership.
Okay.
House Republicans, American people,
you're concerned about spending.
I'll meet you there.
As opposed
to finding a dodge
that tries to tries
to work its way around.
And that's a dodge.
Meet the mayor of meet
the American people
and Republicans where they are.
I think we can get to where
we need to be.
I think we can all agree that
that a debt default would be a disaster
or would affect
the economy, would affect
a lot of people out there
who are watching right now.
You are part of a group
of bipartisan senators
who have in
the past worked out
other compromises on infrastructure,
on guns, on other issues.
Is there a plan B here?
If we get right up to the moment
that a default could actually happen, is
is there any sort of, you know, emergency
legislation to raise the debt
ceiling for two more months
or anything like that
just to make sure that the country
does not plunge into this catastrophe?
Well, first, I think as I said earlier,
I think Plan B, my first one is June
one is the 1st of June
one is the drop dead date
If it's June 15th,
is there really an issue
that would calm down financial markets
if the president and Secretary
Yellen came forward with that?
In terms of the Republican Senate
coming up with something,
this is between the president
and the House Republicans.
And that's
why it's been so frustrating
to see the president on the sidelines.
If the Senate comes up with something,
the House has to accept it
and the White House does.
So why not just put them together?
I think Plan B
is to get the president engaged.
So let's talk about social security,
because if a default happens,
one of the first things to fail
will be Social Security checks
to seniors who rely upon them.
But as you've been sounding
the alarm about Social Security,
also faces
another threat
in just nine years, estimated insolvency.
And the top two Republican candidates
for a presidency, Donald Trump
and Ron DeSantis,
are now both saying they wouldn't change anything
about Social Security.
Is that disqualifying?
You know, I think if you
have a leading
presidential candidate,
be a Joe Biden
who clearly is saying that.
Are Donald Trump
pretending to the American people
that there's
no problem with Social Security
then then they lack the leadership
to become the president
of the United States?
By the way,
you can fix Social Security
and you don't raise taxes on seniors.
You don't cut their benefits.
And there's a way to do it
that actually improves the program.
But there's no leadership
like that from Trump or Biden.
In my mind,
that lack of leadership on an issue
so critical to so many Americans
is disqualifying.
So you have a plan
to create a $1.5 trillion fund
that would use investment returns
to fund Social Security.
Again, we're talking
we're about nine years out
from insolvency
estimated given how DC works
or doesn't work,
given how we're
waiting into the last minute
with the debt limit,
we're going to go through this again
in the fall with government funding.
Is there
any willingness
among your colleagues, Democrats
and Republicans in the Senate
and the House to act
now to try to fix this problem?
First, put this in context.
US insolvency.
When insolvency comes in nine years,
people who are currently receiving
social benefits will get a 24% cut.
That's the reason you want to act now.
And if you wait until the deadline,
then the cuts are bigger
and the tax
and or the tax increases are greater.
And so if you want to solve it
now, without that,
you need to solve it now.
And we actually had bipartisan senators
and bipartisan group of representatives
that were willing to commit
to this big idea.
Again, 1.5 trillion in an investment fund
separate from Social Security.
And the risk falls
upon the fund
if the market goes down,
people still get their benefits.
No. 24% cut.
When Joe Biden came out in his State
of the Union speech
and began to speak about Republicans
trying to take away your Social Security,
it all fell apart.
The president clearly plans
to run for reelection, as does Joe Biden,
as the Donald Trump
making Social Security
an issue
attacking anyone who comes against them.
They are ignoring a problem
which is
which is important
for seniors, important
for our nation's indebtedness.
I wish
both of them would show real leadership.
Let me ask you before you go.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis
is anticipated to announce that he's
running for president.
South Carolina Senator Tim Scott
has filed paperwork to do the same.
Former Vice President Mike Pence
likely right behind them.
Here's something Governor DeSantis
reportedly told donors on a phone
call this week.
Quote,
You have basically three people
at this point
that are credible in this whole thing,
Biden, Trump and me.
And I think of those three
to have a chance to get elected
Biden and me, unquote.
Do you agree with him
that Trump cannot win a general election?
Well well, a couple of things.
I don't think Trump can win a
general election,
but that's a nice way for him to diss
people like Tim
Scott is a pretty formidable candidate.
So so
you just have to take this
as a competitor trying to diss others.
On the other hand,
they're in the last election cycle,
we saw that in all the swing states,
almost all
Georgia, Pennsylvania,
Nevada and Arizona.
That trumps that.
The candidates
for Senate that Trump endorsed all lost
If you're taking the votes
that went to other Republicans
and put them together,
those Republicans would have won.
So I think the president's
kind of high profile
endorsement of those candidates
actually hurt those candidates,
at least in the general election.
So if past is Prolog,
that means President
Trump is going to have a hard time
in those swing states,
which means that he cannot win
a general election.
All right, Senator Bill Cassidy,
Republican of Louisiana,
good to have you back, sir.
Thank you so much.