agenda on the post-election economy, we are joined i larry kudlow, who is very kind to join us from his vacation time. we are thankful for that. he is president trump's chief economic advisor. larry, thank you so much for joining us. mr. kudlow: thank you for having me, ben. prof. peterson: i will also have a separate -- ben: i will also have a separate conversation with pat mchenry. you can follow along with the h tag #rncpolitico. i want to ask you about what president trump said in 2016 and even before that when he was running for president. he called the stock market a big fat bubble blown up by the fed that was set to explode. i wonder why it is not the same thing now, given the fed is pumping huge amounts of money into the economy. why is the stock market not a big factor like you said it was in 2016? mr. kudlow: it is a completely different situation today than it was in 2016, dealing with the pandemic. and the resulting economic contraction permitted getting the pandemic. pre-mitigating the pandemic. i don't know what he meant in 2016. i'm not sure i would agree with that. in our economic task force during the campaign, it never really gave up, so i'm not sure i could give you much help on that one. , iterms of today's market think the market is, number one, pardoned by progress on the development of vaccines and byrapies -- hardened progress on the development of vaccines and therapies. it is hardened by dealing with the hotspots and spiking we have seen in the south and west, very rough patch from late june through much of july. it appears to be calling right now. that does not mean the hardships are over, but the case rates have come a down, i think about 35%. the fatality rate has also started to bend lower. i think the market likes that a lot. two other things in brief. one is the steps taken to help rescue and sustain what we can in the economy were, in my judgment, very positive. you had emergency measures to increase spending and cut taxes, which is what you have to do we in an emergency situation. the government, both fiscal and monetary, literally the lender of last resort and provider of last resort. that's what we did with the bipartisan package. i think the market appreciated that. i think the market appreciates to efforts by the said poor liquidity into the system, to stabilize markets, and to be a tremendous lending resource to badly hit sectors. finally, not everybody agrees with me, but i see a very strong rebound coming after a dreadful contraction that we have experienced pretty much across the board. housing,t, booming more good housing numbers today pending home sales. we have manufacturing, durable goods report beating expectations. automobile sales have been huge. consumer spending has been substantial, and i am looking forward to a very strong third-quarter. areunch is the markets looking at all those things and perhaps then some. ben: i knew you are a big proponents of the v-shaped recovery idea. i wanted to ask you whether you think there is any risk -- there has been a lot talk at the rnc convention, and vice president pence talked about it last night and president trump talked about it tonight, the economy and how great it was before covid-19. obviously not a lot of people are feeling that. -- a lot of people are not feeling that. you have parents sitting their kids back, not sure if they will be able to stay in school or get sent home over covid. that you aresk talking about how great things are when people may not be feeling it? mr. kudlow: the greatest risk is the shape of the virus. that is the greatest single risk. it always was and always will be, in my judgment. the good news is this summer, as we had these hotspots in the south and southwest, it appears from the numbers in july -- we will get more in august -- at the restraining effect on the economy was not nearly as large as many of us feared. that's a very good thing. you are right, we are not home yet. certainly there is much more work to be done. by the way, i thought the claims numbers were very good. i have not looked at the unadjusted claims because this is his -- this is a strange period, but adjusted claims have been down for four straight weeks, and continuing claims are up by almost 3 million in the last month, setting up another good august jobs number. there is plenty of work to be done. we are not there yet, no question, but first of all, you know me. i love optimism and hate pessimism. think the signs in may, june, july, now august are showing that we are on the way back. so i am emphasizing that, trying to inject some hope. look, if the numbers were not there, i would not be saying this. ben: the numbers are there in a lot of ways you say they are, but obviously the claims numbers are still high, unemployment is still high, and job creation was low in july. i hope you are right that the august number bounces up. but it does seem like those upticks put a little bit of a hitch into the v-shap, and not everybody agrees -- the v-shape, and not everybody agrees we are getting a v-shaped. i know you're optimistic, but i was just wondering whether you got that message might ring hollow to some people listening, thinking, what is he talking about? mr. kudlow: i think americans tend to be helpful. i think americans are meeting this challenge in a brave way. i think they know the government is doing what they can to assist them through this difficult period. i think they appreciate that. you will hear more from president trump on that this evening. you heard the vice president last night. i think the challenges are there. we are doing everything we can. i will say, you for being in the past, the underlying economy was in excellent shape -- you have heard me in the past, the underlying economy was in excellent shape pre-pandemic. with energy, better trade deals, i think that set up the economy. the pandemic was a killer. on the other hand, it is a national disaster. national disasters do pass. i do not know exactly when. it looks like it is abating. i am hopeful that continues, that the medication keeps working, and that the vaccines and therapies come online. i'm just saying the numbers are suggesting that we are stronger than people might have thought, and i'm going to show those numbers. if the numbers went south on me, i would be honest about it, but right now they are very strong. look, i would say to you -- this is more a hope than a forecast, ok? if the virus continues to flatten after this tough summer of spiking, i think you will see more businesses we hit aven though pause as we come back online. more people are going to come back to work. the ppp was a genius idea and may well have saved 50 million jobs. i do wonder if you worry about the wave of bankruptcies coming this summer, and the fact that a lot of these businesses are just gone for good and not coming back. mr. kudlow: there is unused money there, but we would love to have a formal legislative extension of ppp. that is tied up in these negotiations and so forth. i would just say that it did its work brilliantly in a dismal period. i think when you look at the job numbers, which have improved so much, and unemployment has come down so much, and again, we have much more work to do, but the point is so many of the temporary layoffs have trended , back working, and that was one of the plants behind this. i like that. i like the continued push by the fed. monetary policy may be underrated as it often is, so i will stay with my guns. nobody is perfect. the atlanta fed is looking at 25% or 26% growth in q3. i would be thrilled with 20%-ish. cbo is under 20%. time will tell. ben: we have really limited time with you, larry, so i wanted to do a couple other things real quickly. thesaid your remarks at convention that president trump inherited this terrible economy from obama and created this jobs miracle and all that sort of thing. look at the trend of unemployment among all demographic groups. it declined to 10 years ago and has been steady since then and since the president has been in office. the gdp numbers may be better for a quarter or two but don't look that different. i just wonder how you rectify those things, that it is a terrible economy and trump made a great. an kudlow: number one, it is abnormally slow -- was an abnormally slow recovery for policies that i think were not progrowth. 2015 to theend of end of 2016, we were slumping badly. we might have been on the front end of another recession. we were well below 2% growth. i don't recall the exact number, but it was well below 2%, which, when i started out in the game, economists used to call a growth recession. certainly, the unemployment rate came down from the peaks of the ,reat recession and so forth but you had tremendous job search and tremendous drop in unemployment. 3.5% unemployment, which is where we were pre-pandemic, is either a record or near record historically. that is a great achievement of president trump, the tax cuts and the rollback of regulation has helped enormously to put torque and entrepreneurship back online. we are rewarding success, not punishing it. perhaps we might talk about mr. wyden's policies, which i think are the wrong way. but the key point here was wage inwth was far greater than the prior administration, and the tax cuts, particularly the business tax cuts, helped benefit the middle and lower middle income categories much more than the higher. that was something we talked about, predicted, and it came true. and a rising tide did lift all those. you look at the end employment rates, record low unemployment rates for women, hispanics, african-americans, asians, people without advanced degrees, and so forth. never seen anything like that -- ben: but weren't they all trending in that direction before? i just don't know if it was a revolution that he unleashed when those things were all in place, but we could argue about that forever, and i don't want to get bogged down. i did want to ask you about stimulus and whether we are still stuck in these negotiations, and we don't seem to be getting anywhere until the end of september, maybe. can this economy continue to recover and do well without more fiscal stimulus? on of the president has done what he did through executive action, but not the same as a big, conference of plan from congress -- comprehensive plan from congress. are we ok without it? mr. kudlow: i think we are. with all matters of the sectors, housing, autos, consumers, and so forth, with those demands rising and inventories crashing, it is a classic business cycle turning point. you are going to have to rebuild inventories, and that is going to put people back to work with good wages, so in that sense it is self-sustaining. having said that, the administration will continue to oppose these 3 trillion or $4 trillion packages which are a wish list, mostly, on the left. however, there are issues we would compromise on. i mentioned the ppp earlier. i think any eight to, schools, reopening is something we would very much like to look at. there are a number of issues. secretary mnuchin calls it kids in jobs. -- and jobs. if the congress was to legislate continued unemployment assistance, we have done it by executive order, but legislation would probably be better and more orthodox. on the other hand, the president said he is not going to wait. the negotiations are stalled, so he took strong action on continuing unemployment assistance through the federal government, and on a payroll tax deferral which he would like to formally forgive as a term it is wage hike -- as a tremendous wage hike for those who are working and as an incentive for those coming back to work. awanted to put in reemployment bonus, a retrenching credit -- retention credit. all of these things could have been discussed with a much more modest price tag. now is not the time to worry overly -- that's when i was going to ask you, why do we care about the price tag, given massive -- there is no limit to the tax cut adding to the deficit, so why should we send aid to state and local governments? i don't understand the hangup on the price tag. mr. kudlow: one key point here -- a couple of key points -- number one, much of the price tag on the others the aisle -- other side of the aisle was not related to covid. very important point. at least a third, if not more, so that's not what we call smart spending. ben: how do you mean it is not related to covid? mr. kudlow: unrelated to covid. one simple example is this flap over the post office. that's not the only thing, but i will tell you there ask of at least $1 trillion was not directly related to either the economy or the health situation with respect to covid. that's one point. another point, i always prefer tax cuts and incentives. i think incentives matter. i would rather let people spend their own money than have the government hit their tax pockets and re-channel money to pet projects. so, why not let people keep more of what they earn and more of what they invest? we had some good tax cuts in the first cares bill. we will have good tax cuts in the second that, by the way, will not be a complete revenue loss. over time, i believe they will be paid back. , chiefsaid all that meadows has sent today or yesterday, maybe on your forum, i don't know where it was, they are looking at a skinnier package. i'm not going to get ahead of any curves here. we are not there yet. or sixould agree on five areas, which would probably include additional spending and might well include tax relief, why not do it? why not do it? ben: right. realted to get to tiktok quick, because that is in the news today. many suitors coming forward to buy tiktok. what is the status of the white has negotiations to get a sale of tiktok? is oracle still a leader, or are there other sutures? and what happens if china retaliates by cracking down on apple or other companies? mr. kudlow: ben, you are a colleague and friend. i don't have much to say on the internals of this thing. our view, we are just waiting to see what the private sector comes up with. the interest of the u.s. government in terms of economic es, national security polici is to be sure that there is no getpersonal information can back to china. that is the key point, because the chinese government thinks it has a lead on all pieces of information where there companies are engaged. we don't agree with that. the united states is a democracy and we support private enterprise. they don't. new bids will be fine. we will look at everything that comes up. hopefully something will develop. i believe the first deadline is mid september. it could last longer, but the president has said it is 45 days, and that we get you to mid-september from when he said that. we don't have a view of who is better or worse, but the issue here is potentially the national security area, where confidential personal information is vitally important. if it does not work, it does not work. ben: lastly, i was never quite clear on this idea that somehow the u.s. should take a cut from any tiktok sale, how that would. where is that when fog going to come, and should we be in the brokering a deal? it seems strange. mr. kudlow: we don't know if that's going to happen. i know the president has mentioned that. he has his reasons for saying that. sometimes a good negotiator is a tough negotiator. that's a trump hallmark. i don't want to say it will or won't happen. the essentials here are going to be national security, and the treasury, the president, and so forth will make a decision whether these bidders work or not. ben: very good. larry, it was so great to have you. appreciate you taking time from your vacation to join us. very kind of you. thank you for coming on with us. mr. kudlow: thank you, ben. take care. ben: let's continue the conversation about the economic recovery look like with trump in the white house for another four years. we've got time with congressman patrick henry of north carolina. here.you for being appreciate you taking the time. can you hear me, congressman? rep. mchenry: i can hear you. i wanted to be polite via zoom with the pause. ben: and beth, you've got me too? >> yes, i'm here. ben: we are going to talk the economy and covid. congressman, i want to start with you and ask you about the status of the stimulus. larry and i talked about where the differences are and whether it is needed. mark meadows talked about it a little bit. it seems like a lot of progress has been made. maybe we need to wait until september 30 to get another stimulus bill. give us an update on where it is. do we need another one? rep. mchenry: i think we do need another measured approach. the economy still needs support. we have the shutdown of our economy and most states in the nation, and economic consequences of that shutdown of our economy. still warranted in these states where you have very high numbers of the virus spread. package isther warranted, but not an unlimited price tag. what speaker pelosi has asked for is the most expensive bill congress has ever passed, and the white house has countered and said, we are willing to negotiate the second-most extensive bill in our nations history. i think there is a deal to be had, but there are some structural problems with the negotiation. one, you have a president seeking reelection. two, it is within 70 days of that election. three, you have the opposition party in charge of the house of representatives and enough democrats in the senate to block any package. finally, the speaker and minority leader in the senate are doing much more of joe biden's bidding than the american economy's bidding in their current negotiations. that is frustrating to me, that they are not willing to come up with a compromise because of the presidential year. that's how i see it. i don't think that means we are in store for a deal on this much-needed package. you quicklyd to ask about that, on this price tag that you and larry talked about, i don't understand why we are worried about price tags when we have been running up these massive deficits the last several years under president trump on the because of the tax cuts. you can are the -- you can argue whether it unleashed a lot more growth. but why are we back to " the price tag really matters?" rep. mchenry: the price tag has always mattered, but if you look at our situation in march, we used the best available information as we created the bipartisan cares act. i think it did a very good job. quite friendly, i missed the mark on ppp. i was aiming for a higher number to support small businesses. it is not just topline dollars. it is underlying policy objections as well. you have democrats but structural budget problems in their states, so they are seeking additional money further states that predates covid. structural problems. you look at california and illinois and a few places across the northeast. that is really their big argument, over that state money that does not have anything to do with covid. ben: few places like north carolina not have budget problems that would have been helped through the state relief, maybe not predating covid, but -- you followy: ben, wall street closely. you are good at this. you know the answer. everyone loves free money. but first in the trough our politicians. they would rather not have to tax people for spending, so they want manna from heaven to fall down on them at the state level. we can deal with state money as that state deficit has been dealt to them based off of covid. but we should not be doing is bailing out states because covid is the cover. that's what we are talking about. with the fundamental question of support for small businesses and support for the unemployed, i think there is a deal to be had here, but the greed of an election year, of a presidential election year, has taken democrats off of being reasonable about these things. and instead of asking for 100 percent of the request, they could get 2/3 of still -- and still be successful, but it is a presidential election year. ben: i wonder what your thought is on a, the need for another fiscal stimulus package toward this economy right now, how big it should be, and what the consequences could be if we don't get one this year. i definitely think there is a need for a second round. i have been arguing for one for several weeks at this point. i am afraid at the way the administration has characterized the current economic circumstances that we may get people believing it is not necessary when it really is. there are some segments of the labor market that have shown resilience through covid that may be masking, at least for some observers, the real devastation that has been happening for others, so i absolutely think it is necessary. i would also like to see a continued expansion of unemployment benefits for people who have lost work, and also something that looks like ppp, perhaps with a bit more flexib ility so that accounting sophistication can take advantage of those benefits. we have been talking at these events about the uneven nature of this economy and how, obviously, people at the top very well, and people in the middle and bottom have not done as well. covid has made that even more stark, and we've got new work in this area that looks at who has been hit hardest. what have you found? beth: right, on friday we will be posting a new piece looking at the breakdown for how levels have changed for high wage earners versus low wage earners. see thatisingly, we low-wage workers have had a huge, dramatic drop in employment level through covid and through the things we had to do to put a hold on covid, and they have not recovered as dramatically as higher wage work is have -- workers have. this is my concern of the problems that are existing in a severe way, which may be masked. to follow up, the extent to which this recovery could get derailed between now and the election, it feels like we are doing better on the covid-19 in thebut we did pause pace of job creation in july, and jobless claims are still really high, and a lot of businesses are not reopening. now we have the school issue in the fall. it feels like a potentially dangerous moment for the economy right now, if it is the fed doing everything and congress not doing anything. beth: it does. i have ruled out the possibility of a v-shaped recession at this point. there was dramatic growth that has since slowed. at this point, since we have had the elimination of unemployment insurance benefits -- additional and employment insurance if it's, we will see a contracting consumer spending, showing a further slowdown in that recovery. we are talking about these individuals and businesses as stimulus. when people think about stimulus, they think we put money into the hands of people, they go out and spend and get the economy moving. but what we are talking about here is more of a panda aid -- more of a band-aid to get us through the storm. what is keeping us off-line as covid, not the fundamentals of the economy. i would like to see money going to businesses and people so they can shelter-in-place, literally and figuratively, until we can get the economy back online through covid. it is important to make that distinction. ben: congressman, on that point, obviously it is a political imperative for president trump and the white house to keep the economy moving forward. in the last month of the year, the stock market going up and jobs numbers going up. it seems like taking money out of people's pockets that they have been getting is going to reduce consumer spending. i wonder why there is not more of a sense of urgency, like let 's get this done now. rep. mchenry: ben there is. let me be clear, i think there needs to be another package. i said this in may, june, and july, that we need to have good data coming in to know the nature of the virus. at the time we passed the cares act, we were told that same week, don't wear a mask by the cdc and who. don't wear a mask. it's bad for your health. we were also told at the same time that this will probably model out like the flu. by summer, this will model out and there will be a recovery. congress and policymaking used the best information we had. quite frankly, we did mostly right with the cares act. we did not get it perfectly right, because it did model out as the flu season. isid is very serious and it not the flu, but modeling out that there are fewer cases when it warms up, that has not been the case for this virus. what i said we should do is to basically measure twice and cut once and have a good package at the end of july, beginning of august, that has the best information at that time of what we could do to get through the fall and into the spring. that was my emphasis. knowing that you have a democrat house, a republican senate, and a republican in the white house, it is in the nature of that moment that you have a compromise. so the democrats put out their bill in the house that was the most expensive spending bill in our nations history. it was three times the stimulus stimulusobama 12,009 -- the obama 2009 stimulus. can we get to half of that? probably. the republicans said one trillion, the democrats $3 trillion. so can you do the math and split the difference? pelosi said no. so you are asking a republic and policymaker what we can do, and sadly all i can do is express this. i am willing to come up with a compromise like we did with cares, ppp, the exchange stabilization fund, and all that good work that has been quite productive for the economy, just akers outlined the need to support the basic functionality of our economy so people can survive. i think we get that. -- did that. now we need to do that again. ben: i know a lot of people are frustrated. rep. mchenry: and i'm not frustrated with you, i'm frustrated with this environment , because there is a compromise to be had and we are not there. ben: let's look forward a little bit. beth, this is intended to be looked at, what the economy is going to be look like in the next four years. i will come back to the congressman and talk about what he thinks the trump agenda might be like in a second term, but what do you think it would look like, and what can you do -- obviously, the question is does he have total control of congress, which you probably won't. but when you look at the trump 2.0 agenda for 2021 and beyond, what should be there? dr. akers: where we are going, it depends critically on the trajectory of covid at this point. generally speaking, mr. kudlow addressed this point prior to the onset of covid, the administration had a lot of progress policies in place -- progrowth policies in place, like the cutting of regulation, , whichting in taxes allowed for expansion beyond a period we have historically seen. whether or not bacon quickly resolve the covid situation will determine whether or not we are able to regain that trajectory. also, how quickly we are able to get out the relief to businesses and individuals to create the relief to where people can survive this period. people end up having. -- moving. they sell their homes. businesses shut down. that creates scarring effects that will be long-lasting. i thing there is a fair chance we can get back onto that growth trajectory we are on before. in the absence of that, i am concerned we are going to have depressed growth continuing over the next four years of a republican administration, or any administration. ben: yeah, a double dip recession, potentially, if we don't get the aid back out. if we don't get it done between now and the election, a double-dip recession is quite possible. congressman, when you think about another four years , what do youtrump think the economic agenda should be for president trump in 2021? rep. mchenry: you look at the first-term agenda, if we go back to january, we had one of the best economies of our lifetimes. growthsubstantial gdp with the lowest unemployment in 50 years. we had the lowest unemployment across every racial and ethnic community in this country as well. we had wage growth that was quite strong at every strata of our economy. we saw the results from republican policies of regulatory relief and tax relief that provided real benefits for america. that's what you are hearing from these convention speakers this week at the republican convention. i can see a second part of that agenda but yet -- that agenda which does not just take down the layer of regulatory expense from the obama era, but goes even further to bring us to a much more competitive economy. that's one. two, a much more aggressive stance when it comes to on shoring or re-shoring china. now you have a broader understanding of the ill effects of that regime. every american understands that in a much different way than previously. i think you will see, as part of that trade agenda, deeper linkage between us and europe, in a very meaningful way that will benefit us in terms of our negotiating stance with china and trade. i think you will see a much stronger economic agenda offered by republicans and president trump than a president biden. what president biden will do is oppose every one of those regulatory tax changes we made in the first term of president trump. his agenda would have an impairing impact on our economic recovery. let me quickly ask you about the results of president trump's policies. argued, the growth increased a little bit, but a limit the trends started 10 years ago, and the levels of unemployment did not look much different than they did under obama. but what did look different is the explosion of debt. the outlook is really bad. in the context of covid, no one cares about it that much, but the fact is this administration has exploded debt and deficits. when will republicans start caring again, or do you just not care anymore. rep. mchenry: i have always cared about this, and my voice has been drowned out by election and electoral politics. debt and deficits under president bush was problematic and not right for our economy. then president obama came and said to president bush "hold my beer." and then trump sent to obama "hold my beer. go this is euphemistic -- "hold my beer." this is euphemistic, not literal. ben: that's a lot of beer drinking. rep. mchenry: and we are the ones with the tab as americans. we have to have restraint. there is also misrepresentation about the republican tax cuts. it is commensurate with what it was in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's and 1980's. that's a percentage of our economy that we are rendering to the federal government in federal taxation and federal income. there has been a big misunderstanding about the nature of that tax cut. but the benefits are real, and we have to make sure we have a competitive business sector for small businesses and large businesses. president biden would have a very different agenda on tax policy than president trump. i think he said that he is going to raise taxes on corporations and thereby small businesses and a lot of families as well. i think there is a big difference between the two parties when it comes to tax policy and economic the lessee -- economic policy. while republicans have not been perfect when it comes to spending, my democratic the most out of the think?th, what do you should we not worry while we're fighting covid? at what point should we? beth: i largely agree with the congressman here, the deficit prior to covid suddenly, in this new environment, my concern has deeply lessened. of course, that's because we're thinking about the spending we're making today as an investment. there is good debt and bad debt and i'm all about running up the deficit for good investments now and avoiding going into more debt than is necessary. think,wonder what you say joe biden wins the white house and wants to put through a big stimulus package and maybe it does include some rollback of the corporate tax cuts and maybe even a ricky rate -- resurrection of the original rate, but has a big tax rate. republicans would reestablish their fiscal prudence and really fight against any big spending bill out of biden focused on covid. beth: as for me, i don't know. i'm the economics expert. not the political expert here. i think probably. i'm wearing my economist hat, not my political hat. ben: let's go back to congressman mchenry. let's say biden wins and puts forward a very large stimulus package, $3 trillion or whatever it is, and it looks like the economy really needs it and people need the money, but it has tax policy in it that you hate. what are the chances you could get something like that through if he does not have full control of congress? rep. mchenry: i'm the wrong person to ask this -- ben: i have to ask somebody. rep. mchenry: my point here is, my record's very clear i'm not going to vote for a tax increase. i think we should make do with the income to government. when we're rendering similar amounts to the federal government that we did in the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's, and we can figure out how to make it work, we have to look at the spending side of things. to your larger point here, in the midst of a crisis, in the midst of this health pandemic that we're dealing with, the crash -- question of our spending is a secondary one. we have to make sure we get people through this very tough time, where a chunk of our economy is shut down because of some externality that no one could control. and so this is not born out of malfeasance, from wall street or anything like that that brought us the 2008-2009 economic consequences. this is substantially different. and so we've got to get through this. and i think there would be a positive side if president trump, after he's reelected, or if joe biden is elected, that they would reach out to have a bipartisan start to their administration. i think that would be a very strong beginning. that's what president trump wanted to do with the transportation infrastructure package, to have a bipartisan win to start the process of his administration. i think joe biden should think the same way, rather than the stronger leftist policies he's indicating. because that's where his party is. ben: yeah. no, i appreciate that. we've got two minutes left. both of you will have thoughts on this. apologies to the audience if we get minor these, but the fed did something important today, which is say in the future, it would not hit the inflation target and might let inflation run harder. fundamentally, structural shift is really important. beth, what did you think of that? beth: i think it's a really important move and it's the right move. the concern of overheating the economy, which has prevented it from having a more stationary policy may not need to be as close to top of mind. that's a good thing in addressing economic downturns. i think it's good news. ben: what about you, congressman? he spent a lot of time in this area. good idea, that idea? rep. mchenry: i agree with dr. akers. theink the fed is doing right thing by outlining the longer run policies here. i think -- policy set here. i think he gets bipartisan credit for his foresight in january and february to ensure the fed headstrong and defies -- decisive action. and i think he has continued to act decisively for the organization, for the economy, and for the global economy. ben: yeah, he didn't always get bipartisan praise, or at least from certain occupants in the oval office. i don't hear the president criticizing powell now, but he really went after him hard and often earlier, before covid. what do you make of all that? rep. mchenry: oh, well the president has strong opinions, even about the people he appoints. and what i would say is that, i for one, have been a strong supporter of chairman powell from his nomination through the whole process. he has done a fantastic, very smart job, and the president has complaint. like all presidents have complaints about the federal reserve. but this president does it a different way. if you go back to fdr, he had complaints about the federal reserve. he just didn't have twitter to express it and perhaps wouldn't express it the same way president trump does even if he did. ben: do you think you should keep him on for another term? say trump wins and biden is up. stick with al? -- powell? rep. mchenry: i would leave it to biden or trump to this decision. i think he deserves it. i think that gives greater credence to the policies and gives us greater credibility, internationally, for sure. ben: i've weaved a few audience questions in here without necessarily identifying them as audience questions. we've just got a minute. i want to ask this one because it gets back to the issue of debt deficit, whether it will ultimately matter. we have simply asking, how worried should we be about the five-year low, deficit exploding? it does seem there's at least some reaction in markets to the trajectory of this, the concern about where it's heading, particularly in the dollar. should we be worried about that or it just doesn't matter? beth: in this moment, i say it should not be a top concern. of course, in the long run, it is. that's the concern with the growing deficit. but at the moment, not at top of mind for me. ben: even if the dollar is dropping, too soon to worry about it. ok, looks like we are out of time. super kind, congressman mchenry, and beth, for you joining us today. we really do appreciate it, sharing your thoughts and giving insight. thank you to bank of america for serving as a sponsor for the program. and a big thank you to everyone tuning in on the livestream for joining us. please do take care and stay safe out there. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> tonight on q&a, author and historian harold holzer on his book, "the presidents versus the press." >> washington found himself criticized for stealing money from the treasury, for indiscretions during the french and indian war, for lack of patriotism during the revolution. all sorts of chargers that were unimaginable against the early. and when he wrote his verbal address, he drafted -- farewell address, he drafted something that made it clear that one of the reasons he was not standing for a third term was that he could not take the implications, as he put it, of newspapers any longer. >> harold holzer tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. now, federal reserve chairman jerome powell talks about efforts to keep the inflation rate averaged at 2%. he says measures would be taken if the rate drops or rises below or above 2%, and discusses covid-19's impact on the economy and how this recovery will be different from previous economic crises. --s is just china of an hour shy of an hour. evening,fternoon, good and good night to our guests from 46 countries around the world in at least 12 different time zones. it is my pleasure to welcome you to the federal reserve bank of kansas city's economic symposium titled, "navigating the decade ahead: implications for monetary policy." my name is arthur george -- esther george, and i'm pleased to be joined by chairman jay powell, as well as many of my colleagues from the federal reserve, and by other cera

Related Keywords

China , California , United States , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Wein An , Shaanxi , North Carolina , Washington , Americans , America , Chinese , American , Pat Mchenry , Esther George , Arthur George , Harold Holzer , Joe Biden ,