Transcripts For CSPAN Mick Mulvaney At Wall Street Journal C

They were asked about impeachment. Were going to talk now with about the white houses expectations for this next year, but there is a lot of news to cover as well. So please welcome mick. [applause] there is a bit of news. [laughter] lets maybe start with the news. Then we can get into the agenda for the white house. Not just for this next 12 months, but for a possible second term. So the congress is very busy drawing up articles of impeachment. They have designed two of them, one of them has to do with ukraine and the president putting pressure on ukraine to investigate this political rival. President trump has said that he would like to see you and secretary pompeo testified in the senate. Will you . Mr. Mulvaney part of me really wants to. I remember when i testified, i was running the cfbd, to the house and the senate. The most fun i ever had i when i was on the hill. We will do what the president wants us to do. That is what it comes down to. If he says go ahead come i mean, he has changed his mind for in the past. If he asks you to testify, what would you say . Mr. Mulvaney i would not say that at all. Part of me really wants to. People ask me all the time, how are you handling this . This is how im handling it. Imagine going through the worst possible to force you have ever been through. And then your spouse sees you on tv every day and have to sit home and watch on tv. It is extraordinarily frustrating. You sit there and go that is , wrong. That is not right. That is not close to being right. And you do want to go out and tell your side of the story. Consider this your opportunity. [laughter] mr. Mulvaney there is a time and a place for that. Why dont you go and testify before the house . First of all, the president told us not to. Number two, who in this room would go under those circumstances without your lawyer . Does that make sense . Not knowing the rules. You go to court, you know what the rules are. Im not sure today what the rules are in the house. I saw something yesterday. What happened was so bizarre that it is hard to describe for those not in washington, d. C. But we had a staffer go down and sit behind the table and testify , not under oath, was not sworn in. The first one was very not sworn but he presented a testimony. He refused to answered questions about that testimony and then sat up on theand dais and ask questions of the other two people. For anybody who follows washington, d. C. , that is the most outrageous in regard think we have seen in terms of procedure in a long time. This is of the wild wild west of process. You cannot lend legitimacy to it. In that process, sondland, the trumpappointed ambassador to the european union, says you that you were in the loop on everything. The president s effort to pressure ukraine, and to announce an investigation of the bidens, to investigate this debunked server issue in return for ukraine getting an audience with the president and military aid. He said, you, pompeo, everybody were in the loop on everything. What is your response . Mr. Mulvaney i am not going to testify today, but i will remind everybody what sondland said. He rarely talked to me and could not get me on the phone. He said you were in the loop. Mr. Mulvaney the democrats what icked and choose by the way, if youre not the reason im a few minutes late apologize, was i was trying to catch the articles of impeachment being introduced. They are very specific, which is as you mention the first article is an article for abuse of power, abuse of authority. And the other one is an article regarding obstruction of congress. This should surprise nobody. That is what this was going to be from the very beginning anyway. Remember, it is 16 members of the House Democrat Judiciary Panel had voted in favor of the impeachment before this process started. They voted this past summer heres my point. You are doing your job and i appreciate that. So i am not going to sit here and make the case one way or another, i am simply going to point out this is a political process not a legal process. All true. Impeachment is a political process. Mr. Mulvaney it is. But sondland said this about you. Do you have a response to sondland . Mr. Mulvaney i very much look forward to if the president wants me to tell my side of the story. It sounds like the white house is taking the fifth. Mr. Mulvaney that is not right. This is a kangaroo process. I dont mean to be too energetic about this, but this was never a level playing field, you are never given the opportunity to tell your side of the story. Again, would anybody in this room go in without the white House Counsel . That makes no sense at all. Keep in mind a couple different times during this process, the rules changed in the middle of the hearing. There were opening comments. You can talk for 45 minutes. Everybody else five minutes. Then i say, im going to take another 20 now. These things actually happened. This is washington, d. C. It is wrong to equate this. It is naturally to equate it with a process that you have seen in court, taking the fifth , giving evidence but that , is not what this is. This is a campaign. Ive been involved in many of them. They are not like anything else. You cannot treat them that way. Paul my last question on this. So we can move on. But i still havent gotten an answer from you. [laughter] mr. Mulvaney you did not ask me the right question. [laughter] paul the press conference in october that you got a lot of heat for seemed to me to be a moment of notable clarity in all of this. You said, politics is into everything, including Foreign Policy. That is a position that was supported by sondland, taylor, hill, vindman, they all testified saying that politics were all over ukraine policy. So my last question. It seems to me there is agreement. Politics was all over mr. Mulvaney ill speak to this in the general point. It did come up in the press conference, so to put it to a more general point, this is the point i was making that in that press conference. Politics is going to affect Foreign Policy. One of the things that stood out watching the testimony of the career staffers, when it gets to politics it and at the waters edge. What they meant by that was different from what i always interpreted that to mean. You might be a democrat and i might be a republican, or vice versa, but once we leave the country, we are all on the same page. That is what i thought that phrase meant, that politics end at the waters edge. If you happen to be the democrat president , you get to set Foreign Policy. I happen to be republican, i set policy. We have one American Vision overseas. That is not what the career staffers met when they were testifying. What they meant is Foreign Policy is much too important to allow politics to play any role. We have to have to have this professional career staff sort of make these decisions, so it does not get dirtied by american politics. I happen to completely agree with that and think that is dangerous. I dealt with the same thing at the cfpb. Elizabeth warren took the position that consumer production of Financial Services Consumer Protection and Financial Services was too important for politics. The reason there was only one of political appointment is elizabeth wanted that to be above politics. I find that extraordinarily dangerous. There is no such thing as professional class running this government. We should not be run by technocrats not accountable to voters. Politics can and should influence Foreign Policy. You may have one Foreign Policy. You are running on, i may have a different one. Whoever wins gets to set Foreign Policy. That was the point i was trying to make in that press conference is a politics can and should influence Foreign Policy. Paul but stopping short of getting another country to investigate your political rival. Mr. Mulvaney again, im not going to go into the facts. You are doing a nice job, and i appreciate it [laughter] paul just asking. Mr. Mulvaney im not good to talk about the facts until the president tells me. Usmca mr. Mulvaney i cannot believe he could not get jerry and nancy on the stage at the same time. [laughter] paul usmca seems to be moving forward. We got a good brief on that last night. Lets talk about the next trade deal, china. December 15 is the deadline the that the administration has given. It is willing to raise tariffs. Further on china. Is that likely to happen . Mr. Mulvaney likely. I am not going to sit here and try to move markets. And i apologize, because i know that would be good for you guys. Here is what i will say about that. What happens on december 15 will have a lot to do with what happens between now and december 15. Whats the trajectory of discussions at that time . Paul what are the two directories . Trajectories . I think they are pretty good. I talked to wilbur ross this week. Talked to lighthizer this week, and jared. And i think the trajectory towards a phase one, the smaller Component Parts that deal mostly with trade and not with the some of the structural issues. A lot of the ag discussion you have heard would be bound up in phase one. But it makes perfect sense, given the complexities of the deal, to break it down into smaller pieces, to see if you can walk, walk before you can run and crawl before you can walk. If we can make some progress on phase one here in the next couple of days or weeks, i think that will on december 15. Paul phase one has been described as your buying more agricultural goods from us and we are lowering some selective tariffs. Mr. Mulvaney i have seen that description. I think that is not unreasonable. Paul that seems to be, at best, a return to status quo. And its after tariffs have been imposed that have cost consumers, after tax payers have had to pay additional funds to farmers, who were hit by retaliatory of tariffs in china. So it is really not even a quo, it ishe status a half step back to the status quo, and at some cost to the united states. Not a great report card after three years of negotiating. Mr. Mulvaney we would not be having any of these conversations if donald trump was not president. This was a was going to be hard. Everybody, regardless of how you feel about the president at some point in time, we were going to have to have these discussions with the chinese. I think many of us, myself included, wish those discussions had been 20 years ago. We could certainly have waited another 20 years. Better now than later. It was always going to be hard. I remember sitting down with some folks inside the white house. With a clearinghouse not only the budgetary stuff but the regulatory affairs. Were talking about how excited we were about the deregulatory successes we had. A little bit less excited about the legislative process. Even when the republicans were in charge of the house. I remember telling folks there are certain things that are easier. Dereg is easy because it is just us. We dont have to work with congress. Which is why we have been successful. You moved to legislation and we have to convince congress. Now it is even more difficult. Trade deals are the hardest on that spectrum, because you have to get another country to change its practices. That can be really, really difficult to do. And weve seen that. At the root of all of this, what is the discussion with china about . About whether or not china wants to join the first tier of nations. You do a deal with germany, you are not required to give away half your business to germany, to a germancontrolled entity, to two business in germany, and the chances of them participating in an orchestrated attempt to steal your stuff is low on your list of concerns doing business in germany. Chinese to step up to that game. That is going to be difficult to do. You say three steps forward, two steps back that is not how i look at the big picture. We are raising the issues that need to be raised. Paul that assumes that china is concerned about its reputational standing and wants to join the first tier. It seems its economic model seems to be working well for it. Mr. Mulvaney but it is unsustainable. Paul it may not be. Mr. Mulvaney we let it work to their advantage. No, stop stealing my stuff. That is a fair conversation to have. Paul but that is the those are the issues that the ceos ceos and the rest of this country is waiting for. That is the big stuff. The smaller stuff is getting back into, you buy some of our goods, and we will lower tariffs. The big stuff is subsidies of Stateowned Enterprises, soes, forced tech transfer, and theft of International Property and there we have not seen mr. Mulvaney that is just human nature. It is always easier to do a big deal after you have done a small deal. It is easier for me to sit down with one of your reporters for an hourlong, on the record detailed interview after i have , a relationship we talk about smaller things. I think youre ignoring human nature, which is that its even more difficult to do the bigger deals first. Doing doing something of a phase one basis to develop that rapport a little bit, that makes sense. Not surprising youre getting that from a businessman president. Paul it is fair to say that this has been in the works for 30 years. The dissolution of the Stateowned Enterprises were supposed to happen after the wto. And it didnt. This is been a negotiating table for 20 years. Including the last three years of the administration. Let me just read the question for those who have not answered yet. U. S. Trade talks and the next 12 months will produce a, no deal, b, a fig leaf deal, c, a meaningful deal, addresses big wases, like what mick just describing, and d, a comprehensive deal, meaning it gets at those big issues. While were waiting for, while were waiting for the answers to come in, President Trump has suggested we might go past the election before a deal is struck. Is that language thats preparing the markets and the American People mr. Mulvaney thats just the president being honest, which is that he doesnt i have seen this before. I was in the real estate business like this compared to the folks in this room just like this. Ive seen people with deal fever before. I have seen people people who work so hard on a deal, i have to have a deal. Im willing to do anything to get that deal. I have been on both sides of that equation. That doesnt exist here. You are seeing the president , take him at his word, i will do a deal if i get a really good deal. Im not in a hurry. I think i got a lot of the cards here. I think he probably does. I think our economy has proved much more resilient that people were expected. The cost borne by the american taxpayer, look, i was on that side of the argument of who would pay the tariffs, but when you put the tariffs on and an inflation goes down, and the currency devalues, the yuan devalues, there is a strong argument that American Consumers are not paying for much of the tariffs. At least not as much as we thought they were. Listen, it is a very vibrant situation, but i do not think you are seeing the president saying that i have to have a deal by the election. In order to win reelection. Paul it looks like it is split. We will probably get a meaningful deal. Mr. Mulvaney i would have more distribution there. A more comprehensive deal. 3. 2 . In 12 months. Paul lets move onto another sticky subject, the deficit. If we can pull up the chart on that, danny. Mr. Mulvaney a lot of red . Paul [laughs] so, lets show what is happening with the deficit. We can understand why in 2009 this happened, but look what is happening to the deficit here over the last three years. Some of the best jobs numbers and some of the strongest economy we have had in years. Its growing. You were once a deficit hawk. You are tea party man. What happened . What is going on here . Mr. Mulvaney here is what happened. The years that really bothered me the most is the budget years of 2017 and 2018, because that is when the republicans held the house, the senate, and the white house. The deficit was way too big then. And people say oh, mulvaney, you are the budget director. You are a deficit hawk. How could you allow it to happen . Whats the president s budget . You will say it is messaging, yeah, the message is, if the president were in charge, this is what the spending would look like. And that budget had to medically dramatically smaller deficits than what you have on there, what that exposes is that even when republicans are in charge of the house, some republicans like spending money as much as democrats. Paul how much does that expose the tax cut that you gave companies . Mr. Mulvaney im not concerned about that at all. People say, you know, the tax cuts its not. Paul loss of revenues. Mr. Mulvaney its not. The has been a year since i have been out of the office. I am going to do this by memory. Last year, last fiscal year, not the one that ended in september was one of the most our debt 800 billion, 900 billion. Almost half of that was, over half was in mandatory spending. Only half of that was in medicare and medicaid and social security, and the other half was on the discretionary side. My party has done such a good job of convincing ourselves that entitlements are the problem that we ignored the discretionary part of the budget, and we spent a bunch of money. The republicans on the hill spent money. Keep in mind, Congress Spends money. I am reminded every time i go to the hill to have budget discussions. Mr. Mulvaney, thank you for being here, but the constitution lets us spend money. You are right, and they did. With the republicans in charge of the house were almost as big as they were with the democrats in charge of the house. It is hard to get members of congress to stop spending money. You say well, the president is as much to blame. Go look at his budget. Paul your stated expectations were that the tax cut would stimulate the economy to the extent that the economy would grow faster than the deficit would accrue. Mr. Mulvaney yes. Paul and that has not happened. Mr. Mulvaney portions of it have. If you look if you drill down to the numbers, again, it has been years since i look at this. Almost all of the deficits attributed to the tax deal is related to the childcare tax credit. The Corporate Tax cut actually did exactly what we said that it would do, generated a fair amount of revenue. Very pleased with the result. No complacent about the amount of growth. Look, there are bunch republicans House Democrat<\/a> Judiciary Panel<\/a> had voted in favor of the impeachment before this process started. They voted this past summer heres my point. You are doing your job and i appreciate that. So i am not going to sit here and make the case one way or another, i am simply going to point out this is a political process not a legal process. All true. Impeachment is a political process. Mr. Mulvaney it is. But sondland said this about you. Do you have a response to sondland . Mr. Mulvaney i very much look forward to if the president wants me to tell my side of the story. It sounds like the white house is taking the fifth. Mr. Mulvaney that is not right. This is a kangaroo process. I dont mean to be too energetic about this, but this was never a level playing field, you are never given the opportunity to tell your side of the story. Again, would anybody in this room go in without the white House Counsel<\/a> . That makes no sense at all. Keep in mind a couple different times during this process, the rules changed in the middle of the hearing. There were opening comments. You can talk for 45 minutes. Everybody else five minutes. Then i say, im going to take another 20 now. These things actually happened. This is washington, d. C. It is wrong to equate this. It is naturally to equate it with a process that you have seen in court, taking the fifth , giving evidence but that , is not what this is. This is a campaign. Ive been involved in many of them. They are not like anything else. You cannot treat them that way. Paul my last question on this. So we can move on. But i still havent gotten an answer from you. [laughter] mr. Mulvaney you did not ask me the right question. [laughter] paul the press conference in october that you got a lot of heat for seemed to me to be a moment of notable clarity in all of this. You said, politics is into everything, including Foreign Policy<\/a>. That is a position that was supported by sondland, taylor, hill, vindman, they all testified saying that politics were all over ukraine policy. So my last question. It seems to me there is agreement. Politics was all over mr. Mulvaney ill speak to this in the general point. It did come up in the press conference, so to put it to a more general point, this is the point i was making that in that press conference. Politics is going to affect Foreign Policy<\/a>. One of the things that stood out watching the testimony of the career staffers, when it gets to politics it and at the waters edge. What they meant by that was different from what i always interpreted that to mean. You might be a democrat and i might be a republican, or vice versa, but once we leave the country, we are all on the same page. That is what i thought that phrase meant, that politics end at the waters edge. If you happen to be the democrat president , you get to set Foreign Policy<\/a>. I happen to be republican, i set policy. We have one American Vision<\/a> overseas. That is not what the career staffers met when they were testifying. What they meant is Foreign Policy<\/a> is much too important to allow politics to play any role. We have to have to have this professional career staff sort of make these decisions, so it does not get dirtied by american politics. I happen to completely agree with that and think that is dangerous. I dealt with the same thing at the cfpb. Elizabeth warren took the position that consumer production of Financial Services<\/a> Consumer Protection<\/a> and Financial Services<\/a> was too important for politics. The reason there was only one of political appointment is elizabeth wanted that to be above politics. I find that extraordinarily dangerous. There is no such thing as professional class running this government. We should not be run by technocrats not accountable to voters. Politics can and should influence Foreign Policy<\/a>. You may have one Foreign Policy<\/a>. You are running on, i may have a different one. Whoever wins gets to set Foreign Policy<\/a>. That was the point i was trying to make in that press conference is a politics can and should influence Foreign Policy<\/a>. Paul but stopping short of getting another country to investigate your political rival. Mr. Mulvaney again, im not going to go into the facts. You are doing a nice job, and i appreciate it [laughter] paul just asking. Mr. Mulvaney im not good to talk about the facts until the president tells me. Usmca mr. Mulvaney i cannot believe he could not get jerry and nancy on the stage at the same time. [laughter] paul usmca seems to be moving forward. We got a good brief on that last night. Lets talk about the next trade deal, china. December 15 is the deadline the that the administration has given. It is willing to raise tariffs. Further on china. Is that likely to happen . Mr. Mulvaney likely. I am not going to sit here and try to move markets. And i apologize, because i know that would be good for you guys. Here is what i will say about that. What happens on december 15 will have a lot to do with what happens between now and december 15. Whats the trajectory of discussions at that time . Paul what are the two directories . Trajectories . I think they are pretty good. I talked to wilbur ross this week. Talked to lighthizer this week, and jared. And i think the trajectory towards a phase one, the smaller Component Parts<\/a> that deal mostly with trade and not with the some of the structural issues. A lot of the ag discussion you have heard would be bound up in phase one. But it makes perfect sense, given the complexities of the deal, to break it down into smaller pieces, to see if you can walk, walk before you can run and crawl before you can walk. If we can make some progress on phase one here in the next couple of days or weeks, i think that will on december 15. Paul phase one has been described as your buying more agricultural goods from us and we are lowering some selective tariffs. Mr. Mulvaney i have seen that description. I think that is not unreasonable. Paul that seems to be, at best, a return to status quo. And its after tariffs have been imposed that have cost consumers, after tax payers have had to pay additional funds to farmers, who were hit by retaliatory of tariffs in china. So it is really not even a quo, it ishe status a half step back to the status quo, and at some cost to the united states. Not a great report card after three years of negotiating. Mr. Mulvaney we would not be having any of these conversations if donald trump was not president. This was a was going to be hard. Everybody, regardless of how you feel about the president at some point in time, we were going to have to have these discussions with the chinese. I think many of us, myself included, wish those discussions had been 20 years ago. We could certainly have waited another 20 years. Better now than later. It was always going to be hard. I remember sitting down with some folks inside the white house. With a clearinghouse not only the budgetary stuff but the regulatory affairs. Were talking about how excited we were about the deregulatory successes we had. A little bit less excited about the legislative process. Even when the republicans were in charge of the house. I remember telling folks there are certain things that are easier. Dereg is easy because it is just us. We dont have to work with congress. Which is why we have been successful. You moved to legislation and we have to convince congress. Now it is even more difficult. Trade deals are the hardest on that spectrum, because you have to get another country to change its practices. That can be really, really difficult to do. And weve seen that. At the root of all of this, what is the discussion with china about . About whether or not china wants to join the first tier of nations. You do a deal with germany, you are not required to give away half your business to germany, to a germancontrolled entity, to two business in germany, and the chances of them participating in an orchestrated attempt to steal your stuff is low on your list of concerns doing business in germany. Chinese to step up to that game. That is going to be difficult to do. You say three steps forward, two steps back that is not how i look at the big picture. We are raising the issues that need to be raised. Paul that assumes that china is concerned about its reputational standing and wants to join the first tier. It seems its economic model seems to be working well for it. Mr. Mulvaney but it is unsustainable. Paul it may not be. Mr. Mulvaney we let it work to their advantage. No, stop stealing my stuff. That is a fair conversation to have. Paul but that is the those are the issues that the ceos ceos and the rest of this country is waiting for. That is the big stuff. The smaller stuff is getting back into, you buy some of our goods, and we will lower tariffs. The big stuff is subsidies of Stateowned Enterprises<\/a>, soes, forced tech transfer, and theft of International Property<\/a> and there we have not seen mr. Mulvaney that is just human nature. It is always easier to do a big deal after you have done a small deal. It is easier for me to sit down with one of your reporters for an hourlong, on the record detailed interview after i have , a relationship we talk about smaller things. I think youre ignoring human nature, which is that its even more difficult to do the bigger deals first. Doing doing something of a phase one basis to develop that rapport a little bit, that makes sense. Not surprising youre getting that from a businessman president. Paul it is fair to say that this has been in the works for 30 years. The dissolution of the Stateowned Enterprises<\/a> were supposed to happen after the wto. And it didnt. This is been a negotiating table for 20 years. Including the last three years of the administration. Let me just read the question for those who have not answered yet. U. S. Trade talks and the next 12 months will produce a, no deal, b, a fig leaf deal, c, a meaningful deal, addresses big wases, like what mick just describing, and d, a comprehensive deal, meaning it gets at those big issues. While were waiting for, while were waiting for the answers to come in, President Trump<\/a> has suggested we might go past the election before a deal is struck. Is that language thats preparing the markets and the American People<\/a> mr. Mulvaney thats just the president being honest, which is that he doesnt i have seen this before. I was in the real estate business like this compared to the folks in this room just like this. Ive seen people with deal fever before. I have seen people people who work so hard on a deal, i have to have a deal. Im willing to do anything to get that deal. I have been on both sides of that equation. That doesnt exist here. You are seeing the president , take him at his word, i will do a deal if i get a really good deal. Im not in a hurry. I think i got a lot of the cards here. I think he probably does. I think our economy has proved much more resilient that people were expected. The cost borne by the american taxpayer, look, i was on that side of the argument of who would pay the tariffs, but when you put the tariffs on and an inflation goes down, and the currency devalues, the yuan devalues, there is a strong argument that American Consumers<\/a> are not paying for much of the tariffs. At least not as much as we thought they were. Listen, it is a very vibrant situation, but i do not think you are seeing the president saying that i have to have a deal by the election. In order to win reelection. Paul it looks like it is split. We will probably get a meaningful deal. Mr. Mulvaney i would have more distribution there. A more comprehensive deal. 3. 2 . In 12 months. Paul lets move onto another sticky subject, the deficit. If we can pull up the chart on that, danny. Mr. Mulvaney a lot of red . Paul [laughs] so, lets show what is happening with the deficit. We can understand why in 2009 this happened, but look what is happening to the deficit here over the last three years. Some of the best jobs numbers and some of the strongest economy we have had in years. Its growing. You were once a deficit hawk. You are tea party man. What happened . What is going on here . Mr. Mulvaney here is what happened. The years that really bothered me the most is the budget years of 2017 and 2018, because that is when the republicans held the house, the senate, and the white house. The deficit was way too big then. And people say oh, mulvaney, you are the budget director. You are a deficit hawk. How could you allow it to happen . Whats the president s budget . You will say it is messaging, yeah, the message is, if the president were in charge, this is what the spending would look like. And that budget had to medically dramatically smaller deficits than what you have on there, what that exposes is that even when republicans are in charge of the house, some republicans like spending money as much as democrats. Paul how much does that expose the tax cut that you gave companies . Mr. Mulvaney im not concerned about that at all. People say, you know, the tax cuts its not. Paul loss of revenues. Mr. Mulvaney its not. The has been a year since i have been out of the office. I am going to do this by memory. Last year, last fiscal year, not the one that ended in september was one of the most our debt 800 billion, 900 billion. Almost half of that was, over half was in mandatory spending. Only half of that was in medicare and medicaid and social security, and the other half was on the discretionary side. My party has done such a good job of convincing ourselves that entitlements are the problem that we ignored the discretionary part of the budget, and we spent a bunch of money. The republicans on the hill spent money. Keep in mind, Congress Spends<\/a> money. I am reminded every time i go to the hill to have budget discussions. Mr. Mulvaney, thank you for being here, but the constitution lets us spend money. You are right, and they did. With the republicans in charge of the house were almost as big as they were with the democrats in charge of the house. It is hard to get members of congress to stop spending money. You say well, the president is as much to blame. Go look at his budget. Paul your stated expectations were that the tax cut would stimulate the economy to the extent that the economy would grow faster than the deficit would accrue. Mr. Mulvaney yes. Paul and that has not happened. Mr. Mulvaney portions of it have. If you look if you drill down to the numbers, again, it has been years since i look at this. Almost all of the deficits attributed to the tax deal is related to the childcare tax credit. The Corporate Tax<\/a> cut actually did exactly what we said that it would do, generated a fair amount of revenue. Very pleased with the result. No complacent about the amount of growth. Look, there are bunch republicans Walking Around<\/a> right now in this town saying deficits dont matter, and they are pointing to that. And honestly i dont know what , to tell them before. Ive fought that for a long time. I think they should matter. But they havent. I wish we werent borrowing as much as we are, but until there is a change in the center of gravity of both parties you are on the hill you are unlikely to , get it. Paul and a deficit contributing to an evergrowing national debt. Mr. Mulvaney yes. Paul before we go to questions, one last one for you. We just talked about things you will be dealing with over the next several months. It is the end of january 2021, the president has been reelected to a second term, what is the top three agenda items . Where itond term, doesnt have to worry about the filter of reelection . Mr. Mulvaney listen, we think it is very unlikely that we are going to get it done on a legislative standpoint. Again, you go back to that spectrum of regulatory change, legislative change, and then trade change. We are going to continue to do stuff on the regulatory scheme from now as long as we are here. Legislatively, there is not a lot of time left in this congress. Even in a good year, a good evennumbered year, congress is finished by the fourth of july. And sometimes memorial day. You got four months of legislative time between the first of the year and a time that congress leaves to go on its reelect. That is magnified a little bit in a president ial year. A very short window to get major legislation that we will be pushing for changes to Prescription Drug<\/a> prices. No question. There is a very good chance we get that legislatively. No, there is not a good chance , but i think it will be difficult to do, especially in the political environment we are in. We will push a regulatory agenda, but legislatively is difficult. To answer your question, what, what starts january 2021 is the stuff we would love to do now, but there is even no time or no attitude on the hill. Paul and that would be . Mr. Mulvaney Prescription Drug<\/a>s will be a big one. Trade will be a part of it. I think the president would love to see further refinements to tax policy. He was always disappointed we could not get that Corporate Tax<\/a> rate down just a little bit more. So we are going to continue to push those types of things and also make some of those cuts permanent. Now weve proven they can work , and they do stimulate the economy, the supplyside economics works. This was not your question but people ask me, what has been the biggest success . 20 years from now, when they write the history of the first time of the Trump Administration<\/a> , it will be that we proved that supplyside economics works, and you can have Growth Without<\/a> significant inflation and bring millions of people into the workforce. Weve brought 5 million more people into the workforce than the cbo projected on the day of election. We have no inflation. Supplyside economics works. Well continue to push that in the second half of the administration. Paul questions for Mick Mulvaney<\/a> . Yeah, lets go right back here. Then martin. Thank you. From bgd holdings. Thank you for your service. One curious about your thinking. Last evening when the advisor to the president , mr. Kushner, was speaking about immigration, he alluded to australias meritbased system. I would want your thinking for further color on that. How appropriate it is fundamentally going to rethink our idea of immigrants, when you go to a meritbased system . Australias population is 25 million. Their civilization is vastly different from ours. How do you see it reshaping who we are, as a country, aside from the business needs, for folks who need to be doing manual work as much as manning the phd work . Mr. Mulvaney that is where i would start on the answer. We need the people. While recognized the president is not antiimmigrant. He is not antiimmigration. He just remembers the mistake that reagan made. Reagan gave amnesty in exchange for Border Security<\/a>. But never got the second half of the deal. So the president look, were not going to talk about fixing Legal Immigration<\/a> until we fix ilLegal Immigration<\/a>. Were going to handle Border Security<\/a> matters first. By the way that goes just beyond , the southern border. The southern border for any year is approximately half of our ilLegal Immigration<\/a>. They come in from all over the world, from all sorts of ports of entry. Fixing ilLegal Immigration<\/a> is a precursor, prerequisite to fixing Legal Immigration<\/a>. Once you have seen us telegraph in terms of reforms to immigration, get to one of the president s in the second term which is we need people, we need , people across the skill spectrum. If we go to a meritbased system, more towards a meritbased system and less towards a family tree type ofbased system, that that will benefit the economy, benefit the country. Yeah, i it doesnt get that much attention. Im surprised by that. Because i thought it would be one of those things that would sort of kick up interest on both the left in the right when we rolled that out six months ago. It was a story for a couple of days, and then it went away. It will be on that list of things for the second terms. Paul i see another question over here. Lets go to martin. Martin it seems to me that the trade deal is the tip of the iceberg. The real issue is americas relationship with china. Do you see a pathway to peaceful coexistence with china or not . Mr. Mulvaney i do. As with any relationship, any relationship by definition would be mutual. So, to the extent they look at the world as a zerosum game , that they have to dominate the i think it was the china 2025 plan that used to talk about. They do not talk about it as overtly as they used to. If it is a zerosum game, that creates difficulty. If there is a way to get everybodys interest aligned i , i think you have a tremendous opportunity. I think theres opportunities for larger nations as well that have gone under developed. I think the relationship with india, for example, could use cultivation. That is 1. 5 billion people. Very interesting. We met with president xi in india excuse me in osaka. , the topic of india came up. He knew the exact eight to the year that india would have more people than china. I think theyre getting close now. He talked about the population growth in india and the lack of population growth in china. So i think there is a lot of opportunities with other nations as well in addition to china. ,i am looking at the zeros flashing at me. Paul yes we have time for just , one more real quick question. Do i see one right here . Yeah. Lets get one right here. Prescription drug prices, you make it one of the top three priorities. Why are Prescription Drug<\/a>s mr. Mulvaney because it is important to folks back home,. That is the bottom line. If it is important to ordinary americans, it is important to the president. I have said this before, and i know this is bizarre. But he is a billionaire man of the people. Bym neither, so i am stunned both of those things. [laughter] mr. Mulvaney but he does have the ability to sort of listen to, channel, and understand what we would call ordinary americans, bluecollar americans, use whatever term you want to. And he understands what is important to them. He started talking more and more on the road about traffic. This is a man who has not driven himself in years and now drives does not drive in traffic. They close the long island expressway. But he still understands what is important to folks back home. I dont know how he does it, but he does it. He knows that is important to them, so that is what is important to him. Paul Mick Mulvaney<\/a>, thank you very much for joining us. [applause] [captions Copyright National<\/a> cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] jerry thank you for that introduction. Thank you, general barr, for being here. The headline for this conversation is antitrust and other matters. With your indulgence, there are","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia803105.us.archive.org\/13\/items\/CSPAN_20191215_091000_Mick_Mulvaney_at_Wall_Street_Journal_CEO_Council_Meeting\/CSPAN_20191215_091000_Mick_Mulvaney_at_Wall_Street_Journal_CEO_Council_Meeting.thumbs\/CSPAN_20191215_091000_Mick_Mulvaney_at_Wall_Street_Journal_CEO_Council_Meeting_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}