Well the clash between the fed and President Trump escalating as exfed official bill dudley urges the central bank not to bail out an administration that keeps making in his words bad choices on trade policy in an oped, he says in part odd theres even an argue am that the election itself falls within the feds perview. After all, trumps relationship arguably presents a threat to the u. S. And Global Economy to the feds independence and its ability to achieve its employment and inflation objectives. Fed officials should consider how their decisions will effect the political outcome in 2020. Steve, that shocked even me and i thought id seen it all from the fed. What did you make of this . Obviously his mindset is in 2016 when the fbi, cia, brennan and others try to manipulate the 2016 election thats why we got to get that report out by the way from attorney general barr and others on how they try to manipulate that election, and theyre trying to do the same thing. He wants the fed to do the same thing. Absolutely outrageous, un contusion all he should be sent to north im not even sure how to respond to that. I actually thought it was i would say i actually liked a lot of the article but for the paragraph you read. I thought david that was a pretty important paragraph. I didnt question that. I thought the article had a lot of interesting insights about listen, the feds not there to back stop bad trade policies. I think that being said, ive never been so politicizing the fed. I dont like the idea that hes necessarily trying to politicize it even more than the president has recently, and i dont think it really plays well. Im assuming hell never go into the Public Service domain again. Yeah, but robert, bad trade policies aside, look at the yield curve. Weve got an inverted yield curve. Youve got yields around the globe, not in the u. S. Per se but yields a undercut rosenstein the globe, and Foreign Countries that are at negative rates, several trillion, and now youve got a 30year bond rate, my friends, okay 30 year paper from the u. S. Government, that is now lower than the overnight rate that banks charge each other per the fed funds rate, so how is the fed completely out to luncheon this thing . Yes we made a mistake in december, they hiked rates when they shouldnt have and they walked that back in july announcing well bill Dudley Company we dont need to cut rates any more because it plays into the trump camp. Its ridiculous. David a lot of people editorializing. You asked your own questionandanswered it, its interesting but i didnt mention what we should do with rates. I only mentioned about the article, with respect to rates, i was against the december move and i think that was just very vocally, i was against the december move and i think the recent move was just an offset. David but its his comments on the political situation that we want to focus in on and the wall street Journal Editorial Board writing about this, joining us now, mary the column in the journal suggested that dudleys remarks really effecting the independence of the fed if theyre out actively trying to choose political presence. Well first of all hes a former fed official, right . Hes not a fed official but i think that the elites in the circles that he travels david he was head of the new york fed by the way, which is the most important there is. He was but i think whats important is lets keep in mind that the fed has always been political. Even when it pretends not to be its always under a lot of pressure from the elected government to do whatever the president wants done. I mean, i think whats really offensive here is the idea that he decides or some group of elites decide that this president , hes a danger to the world, and the fed should step out of its role of Monetary Policy which is basically, low inflation and low unemployment. Those are its two mandates, period, and it should step out of that role and somehow stop trump from being reelected because this group of people think hes a danger to the world thats totally outside of the realm of nonpartisan Economic Analysis and i think it weakens bill dudleys, you know, stature , really. He doesnt look like a serious economist. He looks like hes a political hack. David liz . Mary it seems to me theres two very good pushbacks to this. The first being has he considered the alternatives, if its not President Trump being reelected, does he really think that Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren probably the most likely candidates at this point are going to do better for the economy than the low regulation and low tax environment that weve been in . I dont think so and secondly, where was bill dudley and the rest of the fed, by the way whose mandate does include full employment when millions of jobs were being shipped overseas to china and other low cost countries. If theyre interested in trade, they should have been on board that little problem a long, long time ago. I think hes totally discredited well i really cant agree with you on the shipping jobs overseas. Actually if you look at the data , the problem with manufacturing jobs in this country really has to do with automation, largely, and the more freetrade we have, as far as im concerned, the better, but again, coming back to the principal problem here, which is the fed has a mandate to pursue low inflation. Its mandate is not to keep the economy roaring and if bad trade policy is slowing down the economy, thats not the feds problem and in that sense, bill dudley is right, but its unfortunate that he has to take this political position which, im sorry, go ahead robert. I totally agree with you on that. I think ex that paragraph he said a lot of interesting things i do think the idea that hes talking about 2020 what the fed should do, irrespective of my view of President Trump, we have to beat him, not where the fed is imposing any type of restrictive behavior. I would say to liz, i just want to be clear. Joe biden is up on three of the last four polls, and those polls hes exactly even now, robert. No, those polls are david all right, all right, but lets say the point is and steve, id like you to weigh in on this. Mr. Dudley is actually suggesting that a newman date of the Federal Reserve is picking president ial, i mean, president ial president s, or who youre in favor of or who youre against. This is extraordinary at a very high Ranking Member of the fed would say this. And sadly its not without precedent. We saw the cia and the fbi behaving this way in 20152016 and trying to go against trump in 2017, bad stuff and the feds role should be the integrity of the dollar. Of course all of this assumes that institution can guide the economy. It cant. So maybe we should be rooting for it to try to do something because it will mix it up. Steve the integrity of the dollar which has rocketed to highs multiyear because other currencies, other Central Banks are following, cutting rates doing what they should be doing to support their economies. Trashing your money is not the way you stimulate an economy, ask argentina. Fair enough and zimbabwe too but ill tell you what else is going on though is to kind of as robert and i were talking about earlier its clear that bill dudley is saying he doesnt want the fed to go any further with rate cuts any further with accommodation because that is what trump has suggested. Hes been right by the way trump has been right about notes suggestions all the way back to last year when the fed should have been cutting they made that mistake to hike in december, that crashed the markets momentarily so if there is anybody that is any guess rather as to what bill dudley is saying here its that the fed should not be accommodated for what trump wants or what the economy needs and thats a serious proposition if hes actually in a place. I could say its far from clear that the fed was wrong in december. They did what they did, the economy kept roaring and its not clear to me that we could have negative Interest Rates and should be punished just because we have bad trade policies. Makes no sense. David were not talking about negative Interest Rates yet but go ahead liz you wanted to Say Something. I was going to say mary was distinguishing between trying to keep the economy going and keeping unemployment low. It seems to me those two things typically coinside, and the fed, i think, has made it pretty clear they want to keep the recovery going because being it is led to incredible job creation and they dont want to see that end, so there may be a definitional interest inexactly what is full employment, where are we at that, are we at that point, but i dont think the fed has no responsibility for prop ping up the economy. I think to the contrary its clear that they do. David all right, well new rules are just out this afternoon, restricting automatic u. S. Citizenship, for children who are born on u. S. Soil. A live report from the white house on what this means for pregnant women, traveling to the u. S. , thats next. President trump first right citizenship, where you have a baby in our land, you walk over the border and have a baby, congratulations to babies now a u. S. Citizen. Were looking at it very very seriously. This was me six years ago. And this is me now i got liberty mutual. They customized my car insurance, so i only pay for what i need. Then i won the lottery, got hair plugs, and started working out. And so can you only pay for what you need. Liberty. Liberty. Liberty. Liberty. You may have gingivitis. When you brush, and the clock could be ticking towards bad breath, receding gums, and possibly. Tooth loss. Help turn back the clock on gingivitis with parodontax. Leave bleeding gums behind. Parodontax. Who used expedia to book the Vacation Rental which led to the discovery that sometimes a little down time can lift you right up. Expedia. Everything you need to go. Expedia. Termites, were on the move. 24 7. Roger. Hey rick, all good . Oh yeah, were good. Were good. Termites never stop trying to get in, we never stop working to keep them out. Terminix. Defenders of home. But some give their clients cookie cutter portfolios. Fisher investments tailors portfolios to your goals and needs. Some only call when they have something to sell. Fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. And while some advisors are happy to earn commissions whether you do well or not. Fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. Maybe thats why most of our clients come from other Money Managers. Fisher investments. Clearly better money management. David President Trump last week saying his administration was looking at ways to stop automatic citizenship for the children of Illegal Immigrants in the u. S. , now that they have found a way or at least think say they found a way. Edward lawrence has the very latest from the white house. Its a rule change, right, edward . Reporter exactly the u. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services made a rule change in this document right here. Now this rule change what it says is basically the parents outside the United States who give birth the child will not automatically be considered a resident or citizen of the United States. It also says that temporary visiting or temporarily visiting the United States does not establish residency, so in this filing it says a u. S. Citizen who was born in the United States generally meets the residency requirement as long as he or she can present evidence to demonstrate that his or her mother was not merely transiting through or visiting the United States at the time of his or her birth. Now that rule would effect women coming into the United States in order to give birth, for those children to become residents of the United States, now those parents would have to apply for their children to become a citizen, unless the parents establish residency. Now this does apply to government workers around the globe and it also applies to u. S. Military members. Now in addition, if parents have children outside the United States, they would have to get a visa for that child, if necessary, to come back into the United States, to establish residency for that child here in the u. S. Now these new rules go into effect on october 29, and you heard right before us, the president saying they are looking at something to do, trying to figure out the citizenship, harden the rules formation here. This will likely be challenged in court. David edward stay with us because youve been going over this thing with a fine toothcomb scott what do you think of it . Edward this has a lot of layers to it obviously like you said theres a lot of people effected. What kind of opposition does the administration expect to have here in the next few weeks and months, with respect to congress and certainly in court as they try to push this through . Reporter well in court obviously the challenges that happened with immigration those grassroots groups have been challenging in the ninth circuit or the court that leads to the ninth Circuit Court of appeals youll probably see something for that front. Democrats and republicans havent even had time to process this and weve been trying to make calls here within the white house, and they dont know anything about this, even within the u. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services we have been trying to figure out clarification from this and they really werent aware sort of surprised everyone it was put online, and this rule change seems to target residency and thats how they are trying to get at this. Well it seems to me, edward, theyre going afterbirth tourism more than illegal immigration when the people come acrosstheboarder and have children and theyre automatically made citizens. I mean, a lot of people including myself really oppose this policy. Every developed nation except canada has gotten rid of it. This is kind of a traditional thing going back to the days when we really were looking for new immigrants to come to the United States, and now, it really has given rise to two things. One is that it really encourages illegal immigration because its a huge home run to have a child in the United States and have that child already become automatically a citizen but it also gives rise to tourism which i think is in the tens of thousands of people who come from china and russia and other countries, because they want that golden passport, and they get it. People pay hundreds of thousands of dollars. There are groups that organize this kind of trade. I think its appalling and if this rule can get rid of that, i think that would be a huge win. And this rule is at the heart of that. If you look at it, within the language of these rules it really goes to the heart of that issue, trying to stop through residency, so its a technical term, that youre not an automatic citizen of the United States, and this is something that the administration has been trying to stop the president you saw there in this just before we came into this segment, the president had said he wants to look at trying to stop this and give out our services for free. Morgan, theres a lot of people in the military that im hearing incredibly disappointed that in footnote 3 of this document that they are more or less telling that newborn that born overseas by men and women on military bases will not be considered u. S. Citizens. I mean, that seems outrageous is an under statement. We have been trying to get clarification on the white house from that specific point also and in addition it goes a step further. They would have to get a visa if youre in certain countries to have the child come back into the United States to become a citizen. So thats even a second layer that u. S. Service men and workers at the state Department Around the globe would have to do. David edward i just want to chime in because a lot of people are talking about the 14th amendment, this is the idea of birth right citizenship and the 14th amendment which after all was, it did come out right after the civil war was meant to apply primarily if not exclusively to the slave population in the United States, at that time. Thats what the 14th amendment but really wasnt expecting this kind of birth right citizenship, right . I will tell you this is just a definition of residency, so that might be the legal way theyre trying to maneuver this around so were not changing the law here. This is just a definition of residency and thats how they are sort of making this happen. And by the way david, to your point, people have said that this needed a constitutional amendment to change birth right citizenship. The other point of view was just this kind of rule changing, changing the wording, because as you probably know, the citizenship clause talks about people becoming their children becoming citizens, if they are under the jurisdiction of the United States, and people have long argued that people in the country illegally are not under the jurisdiction, and therefore, those now with the number is like 300,000 people a year, born to Illegal Immigrants, they should not automatically become citizens. That word jurisdiction is going to be a tricky one david because even if youre here illegally youre still subject to the laws despite what some cities may think. They are still subject to the laws of the United States and to the state, so i think the courts are going to end up throwing it out saying what theyve been saying for years. You dont want this k