Breaking: GOP Wins Shutdown Showdown as Enough Democrats Defect to Re-Open Government

 

Eight Democrat-caucusing senators broke from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s demand to restore Obamacare subsidies and voted Sunday night to reopen the U.S. government after a shutdown that began on Oct. 1.

The deal, the Washington Times reported, would keep the government funded through January. While it doesn’t offer a promise that the Obamacare subsidies would be retained, a vote would be held next month under the agreement.

The Senate deal replaces a continuing resolution bill passed by the House on Sept. 19, requiring the House to come back into session and return to Washington to vote on replacing it.

If the votes are there in the lower chamber, that means that — at the earliest — the government would reopen on Tuesday or Wednesday.

The 60-40 vote Sunday night, passed a little before 11 p.m. Eastern, garnered seven votes from Democrats and one from a Democrat-caucusing independent. One Republican — libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky — voted against the deal.

Sixty votes were needed to pass a resolution without the so-called “nuclear option,” which would likely have meant the end of the filibuster as we know it.

Of the Democrats who voted for it: Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Dick Durbin of Illinois, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, Tim Kaine of Virginia, Jackie Rosen of Nevada, and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire.

Independent Sen. Angus King of Maine, who caucuses with Democrats, similarly voted to keep the government open.

Trump was optimistic before the vote was taken: “It looks like we’re getting very close to the shutdown ending,” he said before the vote.

Shaheen, the lead negotiator for the Democrats who broke from Schumer, was more realistic about what it meant.

“This was the only deal on the table,” she said. “It was our best chance to reopen the government and immediately begin negotiations” on the Obamacare subsidies.

Furthermore, a clause in the spending package would not only rehire government workers laid off by the Trump administration during the shutdown but provide them with back pay. Those who have been furloughed or working without a paycheck will also, as per usual, receive their salaries once the government reopens.

There is still one major hurdle: The bill needs to pass the House, where the GOP has a slim majority. And, while there was a willingness of some Democrats to work with the GOP to reopen the government without the subsidies in place, Senate Minority Leader Schumer and others made it clear they found the deal unacceptable.

“I have been clear on this from the beginning: I will not turn my back on the 24 million Americans who will see their premiums more than double if we don’t extend these tax credits,” Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego said on social media.

Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy — considered an outsider possibility for the party’s 2028 presidential nomination — also posted a video to X in which he condemned those who joined the GOP in the vote.

Related:

Every Parent Knows Why Republicans Cannot Give In to the Democrat Shutdown Tantrum

 

“There’s no way to sugarcoat what happened tonight. 

And my fear is that Trump gets stronger, not weaker, because of this acquiescence,” he said in a caption to the video.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a New York Democrat, also made clear that the new package would face opposition in the House.

Bottom of Form

“For seven weeks, Democrats in the House and Senate have waged a valiant 

fight on behalf of the American people,” he wrote in a statement. 

“It now appears that the Senate Republicans will send the House of 

Representatives a spending bill that fails to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits.”

He also attempted to pin the Democrats’ failure to reopen the government or renegotiate the tax credits — COVID-19 expanded benefits that cap out-of-pocket costs at 8.5 percent of household income for families earning less than 400 percent of the poverty level — on the White House.

“Donald Trump and the Republican Party own the toxic mess they have created in our own country and the American people know it,” Jeffries said.

Polling has been mixed, however, and hasn’t generally found that the American public blames Trump for the shutdown:

However, the Democrats did score larger-than-expected victories in off-year elections in states which tend to be blue strongholds. Particularly in Virginia, where a large number of federal employees live in the Washington, D.C., suburbs, the shutdown seemed to work to the Democrats’ advantage.

In the days leading up to the election, and just hours before polls closed, reports began to emerge that Senate Democrats were leaning toward working with the GOP to end the shutdown.

Whatever the case, Schumer made it clear he was going to fight against the bill even after it was clear it had the votes to pass.

“This healthcare crisis is so severe, so urgent, so devastating for families back home that I cannot, in good faith, support this CR that fails to address the healthcare crisis,” Schumer said, according to Fox News, adding the Republicans “showed that they are against any health care reform.”

It’s also unclear what the vote will mean for Schumer’s future as minority leader. While he reenergized the liberal base with his hard-line negotiating tactics, his failure to shut down the government in response to another continuing resolution in the spring almost cost him his job, with several high-profile left-wing activist groups calling for him to step aside or be forced out.

♦️𝐖³𝐏 𝐃𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝

 

W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

posted by DarkGoldenMan

Welcome to the W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

Post whatever you got in the comments section below.

This feature will post every day at 6:30am Mountain time. 

 

It’s Time for the GOP To Shake Off Last Week’s Election Losses and Tweak Its Playbook

 President Trump’s second term has been successful so far.

Supporters cheer as Democrat Abigail Spanberger speaks after being declared the winner of the Virginia governor's race at Richmond, Virginia, on November 4, 2025. Stephanie Scarbrough/AP

President Trump’s enemies, beleaguered and gasping after an entire year of endless defeats at his hands and predictions of disaster that did not occur, are now jumping around like Elon Musk at a 2024 Trump election rally. From the New Republic through the New York Times to MSNBC, they resemble nothing so much as a collegiate sports team high-fiving, throwing their equipment in the air, and doing somersaults after a winning score.

Their famine for even a crumb of the taste of victory is understandable, but unless the president has lost his well-demonstrated capacity for political survival, their triumphalist ululations are premature. Two blue states and ultra-blue New York City voted blue. In Virginia, the Republican candidate, Winsome Earle-Spears, was an admirable and capable officeholder but not a skillful campaigner.

With a large number of Virginia Democrats employed by the federal government in the midst of a government shutdown, the lopsided Democratic victory hardly constitutes a broad rejection of the administration. The election of an attorney general who once advocated in an email the death of his opponent and his opponent’s children, is not a flattering reflection on the judgment of Virginia voters. Neither is anything else they’ve done, apart from the election of Governor Glen Youngkin and Lieutenant Governor Earle- Spears, since the piping days of the original Senator John Warner, (the one who was once married to Elizabeth Taylor).

More worrisome from the Republican standpoint was New Jersey and the much larger-than-expected victory of the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Mikey Sherrill, over the Republican Jack Ciaterelli, who came 10 points closer to outgoing Governor Phil Murphy four years ago. Ms. Sherrill, a graduate of the United States Naval Academy and former Navy pilot, former assistant United States attorney, and a graduate of the London School of Economics and the American University in Cairo with a diploma in Arabic, is an unusually impressive candidate.

Ms. Sherrill  is much more likely to be the authentic face of the future of the Democrats than the completely infeasible mountebank, New York’s mayor-elect, Zohran Mamdani, who got 50.3 percent of the vote in the 65-percent Democratic City of New York, running against a disgraced and deposed Democratic former governor.

It is a cliché to point out that a large number of New York City Jews are so thoroughly secularized they prefer to think of themselves as having no religion than to bear the sometimes onerous burden of being bound hand-and-foot to every initiative of the State of Israel. They perversely demonstrate this by voting for a candidate who opposes the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state while running for an American municipal office that gives him no leverage whatsoever on Middle Eastern issues.

Those who impute to the mayor-elect a cunning political careerist strategy that could lead him on a quick march to the White House are just punch-drunk anti-Trumpers. Mr. Mamdani will disappoint his followers and confirm the animosity of the half of New Yorkers who voted for candidates almost as unacceptable, but for different reasons, as Mr. Mamdani. 

With that said, the president should recognize that it is time to change his tune and some of his methods. The country does not want to hear any more denunciations of President Biden – not because it disagrees with them, but because that is why they voted for Mr. Trump, and they don’t need to be reminded of it.

The country does not approve of ICE simply going through random workplaces and expelling from the country anyone who entered illegally, even if many years ago and after thoroughly assimilating and being gainfully employed and raising a family in the United States. The appearance is increasingly of rounding up those who are the easiest to find as they have the least to conceal, while dangerous criminals and chronic welfare cases evade the ICE dragnet.

The administration has to recalibrate this policy to assure that it regains the support of the large section of the Hispanic community that voted for it last year and the majority of Americans who oppose illegal immigration but are prepared to be generous to those who have been exemplary contributors to American life for many years. The common law concept of acquired rights has not died and must not be ignored.

It is time to make the point that approximately $350 billion has been deducted by tariff income from the federal budget and national trade deficits at no cost to the taxpayers and only very marginal cost to American consumers, but also that this program is being wrapped up with comprehensive agreements with other major trading countries.

Communist China and Canada are the principal outstanding states. The country will support a strong line with China that has picked America’s pocket, but rightly disapproves of the bullying of Canada, a fair trading country and absolutely reliable ally. (The author is a Canadian-U.K. dual citizen.)

The president should consider returning to the once effective practice of directly addressing the country in nonpartisan policy speeches. This started with President Roosevelt’s famous fireside chats and was continued successfully through such famous events as President Eisenhower’s statement on sending an army unit to carry out the Supreme Court’s desegregation order in Little Rock, Arkansas; President Johnson’s statements on civil rights; and President Nixon’s invocation of the “silent majority” in support of his plan to de-escalate American involvement in the Vietnam War. (His approval rating gained 20 points as a result of that speech.)

Mr. Trump had an unsuccessful test of this method in his first term because he delivered his message live and while suffering from a head cold. If he pre-taped non-partisan policy explanations, he would attract wider support for his policies and de-escalate to some extent the extreme partisanship that now taints public discourse.

The administration should shake off last week’s off-year elections and tweak its playbook. This has been a very successful presidential term so far and should not be compromised by tactical mistakes.

CONRAD BLACK

https://www.nysun.com/article/its-time-for-the-gop-to-shake-off-last-weeks-election-losses-and-tweak-its-playbook

A Number of Progressive Democrats Are Coming Out Hard Against Schumer Shutdown Deal

RedState 

As more details of a deal to end the government shutdown come trickling out, so to do more Democrats come out against the deal.

A handful of Senate Democrats are working with Republicans on a deal to end the shutdown and re-open the federal government, with a big part of that deal being a future vote on extending Obamacare subsidies by a year. But it appears that both the lack of an immediate amendment to the continuing resolution to extend those credits as well as progressive concerns about President Donald Trump's "authoritarianism" have progressive activists alarmed and progressive politicians quick to say "No."

What's in the Current Deal?

As previously reported, the deal being worked on in the Senate comes down to a promised vote on Affordable Care Act subsidies, which the government-run healthcare system uses to offset rising costs (mostly triggered by said Affordable Care Act). Also part of the deal is a funding for three key appropriations bills (each link points at the Senate Appropriations website, where you can find the text of those bills): 

1. Agriculture-FDA Bill Summary
2. Legislative Branch
3. Military Construction-VA Bill Summary

The deal would also immediately re-open SNAP funding, delivering those funds to American families caught in the legal crossfire over those appropriations during this shutdown. Also part of the deal is a measure to undo the mass firing of federal workers under OMB at the start of the shutdown.

Progressive Democrats Object

A number of progressive Democrats are currently objecting to the deal. On the Senate side, Senator Bernie Sanders says it "would be a disaster for the Democrats."

Several members of the House Democratic caucus have also voiced their objection. Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta, Vice Chair of the Democratic Party, posted on social media that "Any 'deal' that ends with Dems just getting a pinky promise in return is a mistake." 

"The American people are suffering because Republicans refuse to stop healthcare costs from skyrocketing," his statement added. "An agreement that doesn’t fix that reality falls massively short."

Congressman Greg Casar of Texas said the deal would be a "betrayal of millions of Americans."

Another progressive, Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts, said "Democrats must stop playing by the old rules in a broken Congress," while Mallory McMorrow, a Senate candidate in Michigan, said "Americans can’t afford this deal."

When Will the Government Re-Open?

We could see a test vote as early as tonight, though the odds get slimmer as time goes on. But the current plan would require the House to re-convene and pass this new spending bill. Speaker Mike Johnson has yet to formally recall members back to Washington to start passing bills again.

Johnson has made it clear that he believes the House continuing resolution (CR) was more than fair and that Democrats, particularly in the Senate, are the problem. It is hard to imagine a scenario where Johnson is eager to get Congress back in session to vote on a different spending package, and there may not be much stomach among conservatives to pass a bill that even remotely offers hope to an ACA subsidies extension.

As of now, it doesn't seem like an immediate end is in sight. But dealmakers on both sides are hoping to get something done as soon as this week. There are a lot of factors—and, more importantly, politicians—involved in making it happen, however.

Senate Deal Reached to End the Govt Shutdown

The AP reported from the Senate. A deal has been reached.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate is voting on the first steps to end the 40-day government shutdown Sunday after a group of moderate Democrats agreed to proceed without a guaranteed extension of health care subsidies, angering many in their caucus who wanted to continue the fight.

The group of three former governors — New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire Sen. Maggie Hassan and Independent Sen. Angus King of Maine — said they would vote to reopen if the Senate passed three annual spending bills and extend the rest of government funding until late January. Senate Majority Leader John Thune endorsed the deal Sunday night and called an immediate vote to begin the process of approving it.

“The time to act is now,” Thune said.

The deal would also include a future vote on the health care subsidies, which would not have a guaranteed outcome, and a reversal of the mass firings of federal workers that have happened since the shutdown began on Oct. 1. The full text of the deal has not yet been released.

[…] Republicans need five Democratic votes to reopen the government. In addition to Shaheen, King and Hassan, Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, home to millions of federal workers, also said he would support the agreement.

After Democrats met for over two hours to discuss the proposal, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said he could not “in good faith” support it. (read more)

New Polls: Strong Minority Says Political Violence 'Justified'

RedState 

It's easy, the week after an election where Republicans, frankly, didn't do so well, to feel a little put-upon. We shouldn't. This isn't the time to wring our hands, this is the time to spit on those hands and get to work. We lost a few elections in some blue states; disappointing, but not unexpected. The key thing now is to prevent the midterms from being a repeat of that. Take it, learn from it, keep moving. And a couple of recent polls give us both cause for hope and reason to be alert.

On Friday, Politico presented a couple of those surveys. My colleague Nick Arama commented on the first poll, showing the Democrats have no leadership at all.

That poll surveyed 2024 Kamala Harris voters and asked simply: "Who do you consider to be the leader of the Democratic Party?" "I don't know" came in first, and Kamala Harris, second. "Nobody" came in third. 

I think I know that guy.

But the second poll Politico describes was on the acceptability of political violence, and that one is much less amusing.

A majority of Americans, 55 percent, expect political violence to increase, according to a new poll from POLITICO and Public First. That figure underscores just how much the spate of attacks — from the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk earlier this year to the attempts on President Donald Trump’s life in 2024 — have rattled the nation.

It’s a view held by majorities of Americans all across lines like gender, age, party affiliation and level of education, though Democrats and older voters expressed particular concern.

I wish I could say this comes as some surprise. It doesn't.

The question asked was "When you think about the atmosphere around U.S. politics today, which of the following best reflects how you feel? I expect politically motivated violence in the U.S. to..."

The overall results were 29 percent decrease, 55 percent increase. (Count me in on the "increase" side.)

Posing the question to 2024 Trump v. Harris voters didn't open up a lot of daylight between the two. Among Trump voters, 34 percent said decrease, 50 percent, increase. Among Harris voters, 25 percent said decrease, 61 percent said increase.

But here's the worrisome part:

The POLITICO Poll, conducted after Kirk’s assassination, suggests Americans are rattled by the environment of heightened political violence — and that most still reject it: about two thirds, 64 percent, say political violence is never justified.

Still, a small but significant portion of the population, 24 percent, say that there are some instances where violence is justified.

“What’s happening is public support for political violence is growing in the mainstream, it’s not a fringe thing, and the more it grows, the more it seems acceptable to volatile people,” (University of Chicago political science professor Robert) Pape said.

That's unsettling. 24 percent of the American adult population may believe that political violence is justified; that is, millions of people. There are, as of 2023, the most recent year for which good data is available, more or less 180 million American citizens between the ages of 16 and 60, the ages at which one is most likely to engage in political violence. 24 percent of that number would be 43,200,000 people, who think political violence might be justified. If one percent - one - of them acts on it, that's 43,200 people willing to commit political violence.

These are people who are willing to riot, loot, burn, and yes, even kill, for political purposes. And if anyone thinks it can't happen here, we should remember that as recently as the summer of 2020, it did.

Trump administration officials are moving into secure military housing because of threats to themselves and their families. President Trump himself, during the 2024 campaign, was the subject of two assassination attempts. 

And, then, of course, there was Charlie Kirk.

We live in interesting times. The next two or three election cycles may decide whether the United States survives and moves into a political and economic renaissance - or collapses into violence, rack and ruin. Sometimes it sure seems hard to see a middle ground.

White House NEC Director Kevin Hassett Discusses Democrats Baiting Trump to Violate the Law – Video and Transcript

White House Economic Council Director, Kevin Hassett, is a straight shooter; he calls things as they are, not as many would pretend them to be.

On the issue of court orders demanding various cabinet secretaries spend money to fund the government, Director Hassett correctly reframes the issue around the law of federal spending that says money not appropriated for that expenditure cannot be spent. The Supreme Court will strike down, as they already have, any order not grounded in the law around government spending.

Hassett correctly warns that any cabinet agency who attempts to comply with a district or circuit court order, is running the risk of having a lawsuit filed against them for spending non-appropriated funds. This could be part of the reason why Democrats are purposefully not reopening government, to force the Trump administration into a catch-22 legally where they are going to violate the law either way.

Margaret Brennan stands jaw agape at the Machiavellian approach that Director Hassett outlines, “surely they would never do that” she proclaims. In response Hassett reminds Brennan that such Lawfare strategies are indeed part of the larger stop Trump movement. Video and Transcript Below.

[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We begin this morning with the Director of the White House National Economic Council, Kevin Hassett. This is now the longest shutdown in American history. The treasury secretary told us two weeks ago November 15 was the hard stop for any paychecks going to US troops. Does that remain the point of exhaustion?

KEVIN HASSETT, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: Right, I think that- that’s about the right number. And the problem is that under the law, we’re not allowed to spend money that hasn’t been appropriated. And there is a law, the Antideficiency Act, that says that if a government official spends money that isn’t appropriated by Congress, which will only happen if the Democrats vote to open up the government, then you could even have criminal penalties. And so people are very carefully studying the law and trying to get as much money out the door as is legal. And we’re very glad that we found a way to get a lot of the SNAP money out, but it’s really pushing the boundaries of the law, which is why the Supreme Court had to take that ruling from Rhode Island and put it on hold.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Until the lower court rules–

HASSETT: Until the lower court goes back and comes up with a legal justification for what they said, because there probably isn’t one, sadly, which is why we have to get this government open. I mean, the fact is Goldman Sachs, they have a top economic team, and they’re estimating that we’ve already knocked about 1.5% off of GDP. I think that number is probably low if we keep going even a couple more weeks, because there’s going to be a massive amount of air disruption, especially around the holidays. And one of these things every now and then when we’re talking economics, you and I, we talk about seasonal adjustments and things like that. But the fact is that Thanksgiving, that Thanksgiving time, is one of the hottest times of the year for the economy. It’s Black Friday, you know, and all that kind of stuff. And if people aren’t traveling at that moment, then we really could be looking at a negative quarter for the fourth quarter.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Which is significantly disruptive to the president’s agenda. But to the point you were just making about food stamps, and we saw this Friday, a temporary stay by the Supreme Court that would block full food stamp benefits pending the lower court decision. The administration’s argument, as you just referenced there, was that it would be illegal to move around funding and to tap the Section 32 account at the USDA. But why not do this as a short term patchwork solution? Because you have found ways with the military pay to stretch things out. Why prioritize in that case and not do so with food?

HASSETT: Well, the president’s job, and all of our jobs, is to uphold the law. And when- I’m not a lawyer, but when the lawyers tell us–

[CROSSTALK STARTS]

MARGARET BRENNAN: But are–

HASSETT: what we can do–

MARGARET BRENNAN: — that wasn’t done with the military.

HASSETT: But, but, but yeah, I think that the military is different because of the commander-in-chief stuff. But the legal analysis suggests that we’re doing everything by the book, and then stretching things as much as we can, and basically trying to keep people from committing crimes. Which you know, you know about- in the season of lawfare, if you are a cabinet secretary and you spend money that’s not appropriated for that purpose in your cabinet, then they can come back and they can take you to court.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But you’re also making a political bet that Democrats aren’t going to challenge paying the military. Do you really think Democrats would challenge and take to court paying people for their food stamp benefits?

HASSETT: Let’s just say that we’ve seen Democrats–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –if, if Congress is going to fund it, when the shut- shutdown ends?

HASSETT: We- we’ve seen Democrats take to court people that- on really, really poor charges, and so I think they’re likely to do anything.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, it seems a political calculation is the point.

HASSETT: Well, we, we don’t have a political calculation. Our calculation is to get the government open, to get the food stamps to people, and to get people to be paid, 750,000 government workers aren’t getting paid right now. I know you’re talking to the Governor of Maryland in a minute. I’m sure his people are really hurting. Let’s just get the government open, and then let’s talk about things like the healthcare premiums, but do that through regular order.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, it sounds like you are saying the position is the same, open the government, then we’ll talk about healthcare. But the president, just in the past 36 hours, has put out a number of social media posts. It sounds sort of like he’s proposing something in regard to health insurance payments. He said, I’m recommended- to Senate Republicans that hundreds of billions of dollars currently being sent to money-sucking insurance companies to save bad healthcare provided by Obamacare now be sent to the people so they can purchase their own much better healthcare. He also said they should terminate Obamacare. What does this alternative system look like? Because the entire standoff is about healthcare right now.

HASSETT: Right. Well, the president is, you know, a beautiful tactician, a beautiful negotiator–

MARGARET BRENNAN: This is an off–

HASSETT: –And this is- you know, what he said, he’s brainstorming and trying to help the Senate come up with a deal that can get the government open. And one of the things you could do is conservatives believe that they don’t want the government to micromanage people’s lives. And you know, everybody believes that people should have healthcare, and so why not take the people who have higher healthcare premiums and just mail them a check and let them decide? The reason why it could have an effect is that there are multiple tiers under the Affordable Care Act of different types of insurance, and it could be that people would rather have the money and go from like, you know, this kind of plan to that kind of plan and save themselves a little bit. And so that’s, that’s, you know, basically giving the people an opportunity to make more choices than the government usually lets them.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Is this the Senator Cassidy proposal?

HASSETT: I’m sure that Senator Cassidy and President Trump talked about it, but whether he agrees with everything that Cassidy- I haven’t talked to him about it yet.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, does the Republican leader in the Senate accept–

HASSETT: –The president–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –this proposal?–

HASSETT: — the president started this idea yesterday, I don’t think that it’s been discussed widely in the Senate yet.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So the president–

HASSETT: It’s the weekend.

MARGARET BRENNAN: –The Senate’s in session this weekend–

HASSETT: –Yes, the Senate is in session this weekend and we are–

MARGARET BRENNAN: because they’re trying to end the shutdown–

HASSETT: –And here I am.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But this is not the Republican Party’s position.

HASSETT: As of right now, it’s not the Senate position, but the president thought it was something they should think about.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, he seems to be negotiating before the government’s open.

HASSETT: He’s talking to his colleagues in the Senate on the Republican side.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But you would agree that there does need to be a deal on healthcare, that healthcare costs are too high.

HASSETT: Well, I think that if you look at the Affordable Care Act, these premiums weren’t made permanent by the Democrats during the COVID emergency because they’re worried about the budgetary costs. And so if you look at the premium increases, they don’t affect most people below two times the poverty line, three times the poverty line. But there are a lot of senior citizens that are above, like, around four times the poverty level, which with a husband and wife team would be about 120,000, that are seeing really big premium increases. And I think that everybody’s going to want to think about what the next step for that would be, because are seeing- again most people aren’t seeing much of an increase at all, but the maximum increases you’re seeing could be up to about $500 a month for seniors who have really costly plans.

MARGARET BRENNAN: The president has also been talking about affordability, and our CBS polling shows the president’s approval rating on the economy has dipped to 38%, the lowest of this term. 75% of those polled say he’s not focusing enough on lowering prices, but the president said this week Democrats are making it up and quote, “every price is down.” I’m sure you know the Consumer Price Index showed grocery prices are up nearly 3%, in September from a year ago.

HASSETT: –well–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –Do you dispute that?

HASSETT: Well, actually, let’s go through the facts, right? Inflation went up about 5% under President Biden. In President Trump’s first eight or nine months, depending where we get the last number, it’s up 2.7%. One of the big things that’s hurting affordability is mortgages. The interest rate went up by about 4%.

MARGARET BRENNAN: This is grocery prices–

HASSETT: –No, grocery prices are actually down significantly under Trump. But here’s the thing–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –but depends on which–

HASSETT: Let me– I’ll just make a point.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay.

HASSETT: That if you look at the real reduction in spending power for Americans under Joe Biden, then it went down about $3,000 because we had up to 9% inflation, and then they went to the grocery store, they couldn’t buy the things they’re used to buying. The real spending power, adjusted for inflation, under President Trump has gone up about $1,200 so far this year. $1,200 is not $3,000, and so people are right to feel stretched, but we’re making progress. And if you look at all the positive things about the economy, industrial production just about at an all time high, capital spending about at an all time high, GDP growth right now about 4%, then that shows that the income growth that we need to get more affordability is on the path to happening. And the bottom line is that the last Consumer Price Index surprised down. It was lower than expected, and it would have been even lower because there was a refinery shutdown that caused it to go slightly higher. So we see inflation under control and the economy booming, but we understand 100% why people are still hurting, because we haven’t made up all the room that was lost under Joe Biden.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So are you comfortable with 3% inflation?

HASSETT: I’m comfortable with 2% inflation.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So no, you’re not happy where things are now.

HASSETT: Well, they got to go down a little bit more, but there- but the point is that inflation is like the Queen Mary, my friend Alan Greenspan used to say, so when you go from almost 4% that we had in January down to the mid twos, then that’s a trajectory that usually has momentum.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So the St. Louis Fed found tariffs account for half a percentage point of the annual inflation rate. How much do you think the tariffs are hiking prices?

HASSETT: You know, there’s a couple of papers out there that say that prices went up by between two tenths and five tenths. And the thing to remember, if those papers are true, is that that’s a level adjust, because the tariff goes in, and then the tariff is just there, so it doesn’t affect inflation in the future. It would be a one time level adjust. Our estimates at CEA are much closer to zero, and it’s all based on modeling and assumptions about elasticities and things. But for the most part, the one way you can see it is you could look at the price of imported goods, and the price of imported goods, CEA put a report out, has actually been declining under tariffs. Because what happens is that the Chinese want to sell us lots of stuff, and there’s a tariff, so they cut their prices so that they can still have a larger market share in the US.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Kevin Hassett, always good to have you here. Of course, we have to leave it there for now. We’ll be right back in a minute. Stay with us.

[END TRANSCRIPT]