Steph McGovern (2:30)

It's heartwarming, as you say. And actually, weirdly, it brings to mind one of the striking things that happened to me in the many years after the financial crisis of 2007, 2008, because it's sort of amazing how many young economics graduates made their way to me subsequently and said, I studied economics because of the way you were telling us the global economy was doing.

Robert Peston (2:54)

See, we're doing our bit

Steph McGovern (2:57)

during 2007. So I mean, you know, whether the world has too many or too few economists, you know, let's debate that at some point, but, you know, it appears that both of us are, you know, adding to the world of gratitude.

Robert Peston (3:09)

Yeah, yeah. Should we talk inflation now? Because the figures are out, aren't they? So, so there's been quite a jump in inflation. It's three and a half percent, highest level since February last year. You remember we were talking about them in March, it was 2.6% in March. So it's gone up quite a lot. A lot to do with energy bills, food, transport costs, which all seem to be heading upwards. I know. I was talking to my business partner last night about what's happening with our retail business and energy bills are the things that he said are really, really hitting them now. And also the impact now of all the changes in taxes with wages and stuff inevitably means, you know, you're going to start to see business putting up prices because of it too. So it feels like that's all feeding into the figures now, doesn't it?

Steph McGovern (3:58)

Yes, that's as listeners will know, it's not just the headline rate that matters to the economic impact of this, it's how it compares with the bank of England's expectations and indeed the market expectations. And the reason this was a bit worrying was that this 3.5 is higher than what the bank of England was forecasting, which was 3.4 and the sort of average of market forecasters was 3.3. So it is a bit worse. And it's one of the reasons why markets as we speak are discounting something which will worry anybody who has debt and in particular those who have yet to refinance their mortgages at the new interest rates, because markets are saying interest rates will come down slower than people were expecting yesterday. And I just think a couple of other sort of important elements of this that we should mention, the sort of eye watering one, I don't know if you saw this, was that inflation in our water bills, 26.1%. I mean, those blooming waterfalls.

Robert Peston (5:12)

I know, and they have the monopoly

Steph McGovern (5:13)

on us as well, you know, sewage everywhere, obviously they've got to pay to basically fix their own mistakes. But I mean, I think many people would just say it's outrageous the way that they are putting up their bills, which we have to pay to fix their mistakes anyway. So that's one big thing. But the other aspect of all of this that is obviously disturbing, we've talked about this before, is that both core inflation is rising again, and that's inflation stripping out the energy price hikes, for example, and food hikes, and then service inflation, which is a measure that the bank of England takes very seriously, also rising again, and both up to levels I think we haven't seen for about a year, which, as I say, these are the factors that the bank of England will take into account when deciding the pace of interest rate cuts. So not great. The final thing, just to sort of pick up on something that you said. There is evidence here that the increase in employers national insurance and indeed the increase in the minimum wage, all of which have just come in, though announced by the government in the autumn, they have been passed on by employers in the form of higher prices. So food prices, for example, are thought one of the reasons food prices are rising at the moment is that supermarkets have put up their prices in order to make the pay rises for their staff more affordable and in order to pay the very significant increase in employers national insurance. So, Rachel Reeves budget of last autumn has had an impact, a negative impact on people's living standards, as we feared it would.

Robert Peston (7:10)

Which is interesting because obviously their whole mantra was to not tax working people, but actually you end up doing that indirectly. If you're making it more expensive for people to buy things in the shop, then you're leaving them with less disposable income for other things. So therefore you are essentially increasing their taxes. It's just by proxy, not directly. So that's right.

Steph McGovern (7:35)

And it is basic economics. I mean, obviously, until it actually, until you actually see it, you can't be certain that businesses aren't going to absorb the tax hit. We said on this podcast that we thought it would be passed on in the form of higher prices. And indeed that is what has happened. And one of the things that appears to be happening, which the bank of England's chief economist warned about yesterday, which is quite interesting, is he warned that he also thought that these price rises would feed through, or were feeding through to slightly higher wage settlements, that he thought that wages were also proving to be stickier than many of his colleagues on the bank of England were hoping for, or assuming. And that does again appear to be the case. If you look at, for example, the services inflation element, some of that will be higher than perhaps expected wage increases being passed through in terms of service prices.

Robert Peston (8:42)

And shall we talk, given you've just mentioned the chief economist at the bank of England, Hugh Pill, about the last time we had the latest kind of mpc, this meeting of nine people who decide what happens with interest rates. The last meeting they had, they decided to cut rates from 4 and a half percent to 4.25%. But there was a really interesting division in the voting of that, wasn't there? So you had five who voted for this quarter point cut, then you had two who voted for the half point cut and then two who voted for it to stay at four and a half percent, one of those people being Hugh Pill. So there's this interesting division there about what actually should happen with interest rates.

Steph McGovern (9:26)

Yes, and I mean, we talked about it actually, again, this split, because it was a particularly strong, you know, to have such division. You know, two of the members of the Monetary Policy Committee, including Hugh Pell, saying there should be no change, a tiny majority wanting just a quarter percent cut. That's what happened. But then two, including a guest on this podcast, Rati Dhingra, saying that actually the economy needed to be stimulated more and she wanted a half percent cut, cut. I had sort of conflicting views on this because on the one hand, when you see that kind of split, it makes it very hard, whether you're a business trying to work out, you know, how much you should borrow, whether you're a consumer or a householder, wondering, is this the moment to refinance my mortgage? Is this the time to lock in interest rates? When you see that kind of division on the bank of England, it's unsettling because it makes it much harder to sort of predict the pace of interest rate cuts and what to do and exactly what to do with your finances. So that's the one argument against seeing those sorts of divisions on the bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee and sort of maybe arguing that either they should reach a consensus view and pretend they're all agreed or just not tell us how it works or stop publishing exactly these different votes. The other argument is that you need robust public debate to stop the bank of England making serious mistakes. And it seems to me, looking at Hugh Pill, as you mentioned, is the chief economist there, behavior that he seems to have slightly changed his views about this. So he gave this very interesting speech yesterday, and he says in that speech that he argued a couple of years ago that it was too early to start cutting interest rates and that he wanted to see interest rates little bit higher to really squash inflation. And that since then he's been a bit concerned that interest rates have been cut a bit too rapidly. You could say that on the basis of today's inflation figures, that maybe he got that right, that there is a bit too much inflation still in the system. But what's really striking about Hugh Pell is that for the first couple of years when he was in that job, even though he seems to have disagreed with the majority view on the Monetary Policy Committee, he voted with them because he obviously thought that he needed to somehow show sort of solidarity with the majority view.

Robert Peston (12:03)

But that's not the point of voting, is it? The whole point is to give your opinion.

Steph McGovern (12:08)

I think that's right. Remember, the Monetary Policy Committee consists of two different groups. There are full time employees who are sort of lifers. He's not an actual bank of England life, but technically he is because he's properly on the staff.

Robert Peston (12:22)

He runs their economics.

Steph McGovern (12:24)

But then there are professional economists, usually academics, but not always, who are appointed for a fixed term to the Monetary Policy Committee and they are not bank of England people. And I think he thought that as a Bank of England, a proper bank of England employee, he had to show solidarity with the governor and the deputy governors. And therefore he didn't dissent in public in the way that actually more recently, so we just mentioned that in the last meeting, he was one of the minority of two who didn't want to cut interest rates. So he's obviously changed his mind. He's obviously taken the view that he has got to start showing when he disagrees with his colleagues. And in fact, his speech yesterday, which now looks very, very timely, really massively showed how much he is detached in terms of his outlook from many of his colleagues, because it is all about why he thinks that there is more inflation still in the system than they plainly did. It's now fairly clear that certainly at this particular juncture he's probably won the argument because these inflation figures do, as I say, somewhat reinforce his idea that the battle against inflation is not over and that in particular wages are proving. I mean, it's always painful to say this because obviously we want wages to go up so that people's living standards rise, but if they're fueling inflation, it becomes a vicious cycle that in the end hurts everybody because interest rates stay higher for longer and the economy is more sluggish for longer. It is striking, despite the fact that unemployment is rising a bit and numbers of vacancies are falling that nonetheless pay rises are not coming down all that fast. Of course, the other thing which is quite interesting about all of this is that this stickiness in wages also coincides with a significant fall in immigration. Right. Because even though we've had these new announcements from the government on restricting immigration, we immigration numbers are currently coming down really quite fast because actually of changes made by the previous government. And one of the questions I ask myself is with that very significant fall in immigration, are we in fact seeing employers who now can't employ cheaper people from abroad being forced to pay the indigenous population more in many ways for the medium term? That's a very good thing. But it does show you that when you move from one structural condition in the economy, which is a lot of people coming in from abroad, some of them low wage rates, you know, the transition to a world in which there's less immigration can be quite painful.

Robert Peston (15:18)

Yeah, I was talking to an engineering boss about this yesterday and in particular we were talking about welders needed in shipbuilding on the Clyde and how a lot of the people who've been doing that have been coming over from the Philippines to do it. And there's a real concern now that A, there aren't enough welders anywhere. But B, it's going to really hit the small and medium sized companies because they don't tend to import labor. But because the bigger companies now won't import labor and will try and take people domestically, they are going to leave people in the supply chain, the small and medium sized businesses, in a real talent crisis of not being able to get the people they need because the bigger companies will probably come and get them, the smaller companies in the supply chain. And that has got to, you know, if you're a welder now, ask for more money because you're going to get it because that's that, you know, the situation we're in is there, there's big gaps in skills, particularly in these sectors. And if we're seeing more money for defense and more money for construction and things like that, but we haven't got the people we need. It takes four years to train a welder. Three to four years, you know, and if you're talking plumbing electricians, again, you're talking three to four years. So there's that lag where these people who are trained in these skills are going to be able to ask for a lot more money and then there's simply not enough of them anyway.

Steph McGovern (16:38)

You're absolutely right to, you know, Highlight in just one area.

Robert Peston (16:43)

Yeah.

Steph McGovern (16:44)

You know what the implication is going to be for the employers. We were all a bit relieved a few days ago when we saw first quarter growth coming in better than pretty much Everybody expected that 0.7% increase in the first three months of this year. And the government was pleased because they thought maybe the, you know, the long period of bumping along the bottom was gradually coming to an end. And, you know, they hoped it would show their critics that, you know, they hadn't done as much damage as their critics, Tory Party Reform have been alleging. The concern today though, is when the bank of England makes a judgment about whether growth is inflationary or not, it's all based on how much spare capacity there is in the economy. It's about whether or not the growth is driven by supply, which is businesses in volume terms, as it were, being able to produce more, or whether it is being driven by demand, which is customers of all sorts buying more than our industries and our service suppliers are able to supply without putting up prices. It's all about essentially what the underlying growth rate of the economy is. And the thing that is obviously slightly worrying about these inflation figures is they raise the concern that that rate of growth was faster than the UK economy can stand in a non inflationary way. Right. Because the key metric in terms of what's going to make us wealthy in the long term is how fast can the economy grow without putting up inflation. Right. And the concern is we all thought, yippee, 0.7% and that could, if it's sustainable, lead at last to a recovery in living standards. But if it now turns out that that is demand led beyond the capacity of the economy to meet that demand in a non inflationary way, then we are going to have to get used to again, to an extent forced by the bank of England not cutting interest rates fast enough to lower growth again until investment actually leads to higher productivity.

Robert Peston (19:21)

And also there's a lot of stuff pinned to like the industrial strategy going forward as well in terms of what that's actually going to mean. And should we go to a quick break? And then we need to talk a bit more about what's going on in America, don't we? And also this leaked memo from Angela Rayner to Rachel Reeves, which has got

Steph McGovern (19:39)

you very excited, hasn't it? You're not happy. Read that. You were not a happy bunny.

Robert Peston (19:44)

It's the incentive to do well in life anyway. Right, we'll have a quick break and then we'll chat about that.

Steph McGovern (19:52)

Welcome back to the Rest is money with me, Robert Peston, and me, Steph McGovern. So Angela Rainer's got your goat.

Robert Peston (19:59)

Yeah, I did. I've always liked Angela Rayner, like, I've gotten with her over the years, but this has annoyed me. So this is news that Angela Rainer, apparently, according to the Telegraph, sent a secret memo to Rachel Reeves before the spring statement. When we had these announcements about spending cuts and cuts to welfare, Angela was proposing an alternative, which was basically a tax rate on savers. So things like reinstating the pensions lifetime allowance that we've talked about before, which is where you cap the amount workers can save into a pension before they face a tax charge. It was something that Jeremy Hunt got rid of when he was Chancellor and we talked, hadn't we, in a previous episode, about Rachel Reeves considering bringing that back. Removing inheritance tax relief on AIM shares

Steph McGovern (20:53)

and these AIM shares, just to remind people these are tradable shares, but they tend to be in riskier, smaller companies.

Robert Peston (20:59)

Yes. And then clause in a loophole, which you have on stamp duty for commercial property, raising the bank surcharge, removing the dividend allowance, tax relief on that, increasing the annual tax on envelope dwellings.

Steph McGovern (21:14)

So I don't know what's an envelope.

David McCloskey (21:15)

I know.

Robert Peston (21:16)

I don't actually know what is an envelope dwelling. I don't know. We must find that out. But that's only going to raise 200 million, according to her memo anyway. But the point for me with this is, is that sense of hitting the people who are trying to do better in life. So. So my beef is around. We do have a welfare problem. We know that it's a, you know, an area we are spending an incredible amount of money on, billions of pounds and it's only going up at the moment. So we do need to t that. I don't necessarily agree that we've done it the right way with what Rachel Reeves did announce, but I feel like the incentive to do well in life, the incentive to save, has been demolished by labor. Like, I don't feel like we are encouraged to do well. You know, I come from an area, as I've talked about a million times, you're probably all sick of me saying this, but, you know, Middlesbrough is an area with high deprivation and I really saw earning money as a way to get out of that and a way to do well. And I'm a really prudent saver and investor and everything else. And it's so unfair to be constantly the people who are hit by this.

Steph McGovern (22:23)

So I do think that what you've hit on is really, really important, particularly now, which is, if taxes do need to go up, what are the taxes that you can increase that don't have a negative impact on, particularly investment, because we do need investment to increase the productive capacity of the economy and allow the economy to grow faster, which means wages can rise and we can all be a bit better off. And so if you look at Angela Rayner's proposals, you could argue that the inheritance tax relief on AIM shares would discourage people investing in the kind of businesses we need, particularly younger, smaller, entrepreneurial businesses that we need to help improve living standards. I don't know enough about whether the commercial property stamp duty loophole as described by her, if you close that, whether that would mean that we would have less construction of essentially commercial buildings that we need, again, to stimulate growth. I just, you know, it may be, it may be one of those loopholes because there are always tax breaks that are, you know, essentially pointless from an, you know, from an economic point of view. And so I'm just not, I'm just not. I just don't know enough about what kind of damage that would have on the kind of infrastructure investment we need.

Robert Peston (24:00)

But if you take something like the pensions lifetime allowance, right, so the estimate is that will save and, or make the Treasury £800 million a year. But what we've seen when this cap has been in before, is it doesn't necessarily mean you're going to get more money because people change their behavior to avoid tax charges. So what we saw with this one, and it's why Jeremy Hunt then abolished it, was particularly in the nhs, you'd get consultants retiring early so that they didn't go beyond the threshold.

Steph McGovern (24:33)

Yeah, that was the big driver. And as you said, he looked at trying to do a special exemption for doctors for a whole variety of reasons, even though there is, funnily enough, I think, an exemption for judges, or there was an exemption for judges, he decided it was better to abolish it in the round. Look, in the end, you know, I think one takes the view that so long as you can raise enough money to pay your public services, you want a simpler tax system. And I think there is an argument for saying any kind of lifetime limit of that sort will distort behavior in ways that may end up being damaging. I suppose the thing I would like your view on, though, which is not weirdly, in a way, on Angela Rayner's list, is the thing that the treasury is looking at is abolishing the income tax break on cash that you put into an isa. Right. So basically you can save, I'm sure everybody knows, £20,000 a year in an ISA and pay no income tax on the interest. And actually in this period of higher interest rates that we've been living through, that's been very valuable to, you know, millions of savers. But there are two arguments against essentially giving that tax break. One is that it's a tax break for essentially middle class people, because on the whole it's middle class people who have the capacity to save £20,000 a year. And the argument is why do they need that reward? What is the productive purpose of that reward? So one of the things that the previous government was looking at and we've discussed it, is whether to essentially focus ISAs on investments in shares and in particular whether to focus the ISA tax breaks on investments in British shares. Because one of the problems that British companies have had has been the decline in the relative value of British shares. And that has been driven by the fact that pension funds have massively decreased their investments in British companies. And so the idea is if you basically give to British savers a more limited range of options about where they can get their tax breaks. And one of those limited options would be putting money into the British stock market, whether that would lead to a lot more British money going into British shares, which would push up valuations, which would mean that the cost for British companies of raising money would fall and that would be good for investment.

Robert Peston (27:11)

Yeah, so I kind of half agree in the sense of, I think you're right, we do need to encourage more people to put their money into businesses and a tax free incentive through stocks and shares. ISA is, is a way of doing that. There's a communication and language issue around risk though. And you know, I, I'm like an ISA queen. Every year I'm like working at my ISAs and my, the ones that are doing the best are the stocks and shares. One buy a country mile. I' returns of like 40 odd percent on those ones, whereas I'm getting like 3, 4, 5% on the cash ones.

Steph McGovern (27:48)

But can I stop you for a second? You know, unless you are very untypical, right. In your stocks and shares, isa, most of that money will have been going to America.

Robert Peston (27:57)

Yeah, it is the Magnificent seven. It totally is. So when things went crazy over the last few weeks, I did see it go down, but it still went down to 20% returns. So even at its worst, when everyone was like, oh my God, Apple's gonna die, all these companies are gonna, it was still getting 20% returns. Because you've got to think about these in the long term.

Steph McGovern (28:18)

Look, in a world where money is tight for the government and it massively is tight for the government, the question is, should they in effect be subsidizing the banks? That's one question. And I think there is an argument that says actually, what is the point of giving a tax break for cash investments? Now I think there's a very strong argument for giving tax breaks for investments in the way that you've been doing for investments in shares.

Robert Peston (28:48)

But then, but it's all going to America.

Steph McGovern (28:50)

But then there's a separate question and actually partly because apart from anything else, the return that you have been making, if you really want to have an impact on people's wealth and how much they're going to have to pay for their retirements, frankly this is not rocket science. You absolutely want them to invest in the stock market because over the long term the returns on the stock market are, are way higher than the returns

Robert Peston (29:15)

on cash, which gets eaten by inflation anyway.

Steph McGovern (29:19)

So just in the round, from one public policy point of view, better to give tax breaks to encourage people to invest in shares, but then there's a question of why not frankly limit those tax breaks to investments in the UK economy? Because I suspect that if you had been told you could only get these returns on investments in British shares, you would have put a different pot of money in American shares that wouldn't have got the tax breaks because you're still going to get the returns.

Robert Peston (29:48)

True.

Steph McGovern (29:48)

But you would have put your 20 grand into British shares.

Robert Peston (29:51)

Yes.

Steph McGovern (29:52)

And that I think would have been a good thing.

Robert Peston (29:53)

It is, it is. But I think you're gonna de incentivize people to save if you only do it on the basis of putting money into British shares. I absolutely agree with you that British companies need more investment and support. But if you're pitching it to consumers who are risk averse, they're gonna go, oh no, I' going to because I'll lose all my money. And they're not going to put it into necessarily into cash savings where they have to pay tax on it. There's a real incentive of thinking you're getting something for nothing. And if you take that away, people might then go, well, I'm not going to bother saving. And you know, by the time I've paid the tax on it, that's going to, inflation's totally going to have eaten it and therefore I'll just spend it or I won't save at all. And so I Just think there's a danger we will really struggle as a nation to save if we take away that.

Steph McGovern (30:44)

Sorry, but I am a bit confused. So you're basically, I think what you're saying, you know, it's just a nutshell. You're saying, don't, don't take. Don't take the tax breaks away from your portfolio of American shares. Right. You're saying, keep that whatever you want. Yeah, but what I'm saying, you're saying invest wherever you like. And I think there's an argument for that. I completely agree. But what are you saying about. What are you saying about the cash isis? Do you agree with me that actually broadly their time should be up?

Robert Peston (31:12)

No, I'm not. I disagree with you. I think there should be a tax incentive on cash isis. But I also think there's a communication and financial literacy point, a bigger point about teaching people about risk and what risk really looks like, and therefore allowing people to make those decisions where they feel more confident to put their money in stocks and shares. And that's my point.

Steph McGovern (31:34)

Okay.

Robert Peston (31:35)

Should we quickly talk Trump before we wrap things up there, then?

Steph McGovern (31:38)

Yeah. You want to talk about the big, beautiful tax bill?

Robert Peston (31:43)

Yeah. So this is his tax cuts worth trillions of dollars. He's trying to get it through, but the. He's not doing particularly well on that. And in the meantime, the credit rating of the country has been downgraded by Moody's. Just to explain them what that is. Each country has like a sovereign credit rating, which basically tells you how likely a country is to pay their debt back. And you've got like these big organization like Moody's, S, P, Fitch, and they work out based on the policy plans that the country has and everything else they do in an economic analysis and give them a rating. And with Moody's, it's, you know, your top rating is called A aaa. And now they've downgraded America one notch because of this rising levels of government debt that they have. We've talked loads about the budget deficit getting bigger, and, you know, based on these tax cuts, he wants to bring in as well. Now, the reason why this is interesting is because this is the kind of third rating agency now to downgrade them. S and P had already downgraded them back in 2011. Fitch downgraded them in 2023. And now the third one, Moody's is like, nah, we don't think you're as good as you were for the money in the past. And this is really important. Is it in terms of how a country is perceived and then the cost for them in terms of borrowing money, it makes it more exp.

Steph McGovern (33:08)

Yeah, I mean, look, I don't think one should overstate the importance of these credit ratings. In a way, you would argue Moody's is just stating the blooming obvious that investors have been able to see for weeks, if not years, which is that American debt is on a rapidly rising path. That was true before Trump became president. Arguably, that debt path is accelerating. And it always, in a way, looked a bit anomalous that America still had a AAA rating. You know, it's interesting to me that immediately after it announced there was quite a big fall in the price of US debt, quite a lot of anxiety on stock markets, but it all reversed pretty quickly. Actually, it was a fairly temporary phenomenon. It's also worth just reminding people that of course, the UK lost its triple A ratings years ago. In fact, most developed economies have lost their AAA ratings. And that is in a sense just a reflection of the economic reality we're in, which is, across the developed world, government debt levels have been on a starkly rising path that's massively accelerated since the 20078 financial crisis, where there was an enormous hit to government debts initially because of the cost of bailing out the banks. Covid led to another massive increase in those debts for most economies. And then there is the underlying structural problem, which actually we are going to talk about on this podcast with Karen Ward of J.P. morgan, which is in a world of aging populations and falling birth rates, the cost for the state of health services, of pensions, of basically keeping older people, you know, keeping their living standards at some kind of level and keeping them relatively healthy, just rise and rise and rise. And that is the sort of, in a sense, underlying reason why the debts of countries all across the developed world, the uk, Japan, the US that's why they are rising. And it is why investors are, if not yet, in a state of total panic about the ability of these economies to service and pay their debts over the long term. Why this is now front of mind for most of them, because if you're issuing 20, 30, 50 year debt, that issue of what will the debt level be in 30 years and will you really be able to repay it? It's a practical issue.

Robert Peston (36:01)

Yes. Yes. Yeah, yeah. Do you know what my favorite thing is about this downgrade by Moody's is Washington's reaction to it, which was to slag off an economist at Moody. So they slagged off the chief economist, Mark Zandi, saying no one takes his analysis seriously. And it turns out he actually has nothing to do with the rating side of things. He works for the other bit of the business, the analytics side and not the rating agen. See, so they can't even slag off the right person when these things happen.

Steph McGovern (36:29)

We should come back because, you know, Trump's one big beautiful bill, actually to call it by its proper name.

Robert Peston (36:38)

Can you do it in his voice for me?

Steph McGovern (36:40)

No, you do it in his voice because you're better.

Robert Peston (36:42)

Big beautiful bill.

Steph McGovern (36:43)

Yeah, well, you know, God, that was chilling. The one thing which I thought was quite interesting though is that Trump is doing something that this government is running scared of, which is he is talking about putting up tax, the tax rate for those on the highest earnings. Right. He is actually talking about that. And it's quite interesting to me that he is prepared to talk about it in a way that certainly right now Starmer and Reeves aren't. So there's quite a lot to chew over in the coming couple of weeks, I think.

Robert Peston (37:11)

Yes. But for now, let's wrap things up and let you get back to your lives. Thank you very much for listening. I that's it from us on the Rest is Money. Bye bye.

Steph McGovern (37:18)

Goodbye. Lifelock. How can I help?

1-800-Contacts Advertiser (37:25)

The IRS said I filed my return, but I haven't.

LifeLock Advertiser (37:28)

One in four tax paying Americans has paid the price of identity fraud.

Robert Peston (37:32)

What do I do?

Steph McGovern (37:32)

My refund though.

Robert Peston (37:33)

I'm freaking out.

Steph McGovern (37:34)

Don't worry, I can fix this.

LifeLock Advertiser (37:36)

Lifelock fixes identity theft, guaranteed and gets your money back with up to $3 million in coverage.

1-800-Contacts Advertiser (37:41)

I'm so relieved.

Anthony Scaramucci (37:42)

No problem.

Steph McGovern (37:42)

I'll be with you every step of the way.

LifeLock Advertiser (37:44)

One in four was a fraud paying American. Not anymore. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com podcast terms apply.

Katie K (37:53)

Hi guys, it's Katie K. And Anthony Scaramucci here from the Rest is Politics Us. We have just recorded a four part series that's all about Donald Trump becoming the global phenomenon we know him as today.

Anthony Scaramucci (38:07)

You know, Katie, I knew Donald Trump since 2005. So in this series we rewind the clock right back and dig into the people, the events and the scandals that built him.

Katie K (38:18)

Yeah, we're going to take you from his days in military school, what he learned there, how he actually weirdly thrived there, to his father's ties to the Ku Klux Klan, his days as a business mogul in New York and how that really shaped his worldview and his way of doing business. And we're going to explore parts of the Trump story that you might never have even heard of.

Anthony Scaramucci (38:36)

Not to mention Caddy, the nefarious, hilarious trickster Roy Cohn. Where's my Roy Cohn? I heard him say that so many times. I mean, I was only there for 11 days. Caddy. Where's my Roy Cohn? Well, let me tell you something. If you want to know who Roy Cohn was, you're gonna tune into this

Katie K (38:53)

series with all the headlines that come out of Trump world every single day. We just felt there'd never really been a more important time to try to understand the America that created Donald Trump. To listen to episode one of Becoming Trump, head over to the Rest is Politics, US Wherever you get your podcast

Gordon Carrera (39:13)

Did Vladimir Putin interfere in the US 2016 presidential election? I'm Gordon Carrera, national security journalist.

David McCloskey (39:21)

And I'm David McCloskey, author and former CIA analyst. And we are the hosts of the Rest Is Classified. And in our latest series, we're going deep inside the 2016 election to reveal the true story of whether the Russians helped Donald Trump take the White House.

Gordon Carrera (39:35)

This is the unbelievable story of how Russian spies first hacked and then leaked emails belonging to Hillary Clinton's campaign, how Julian Assange got involved with Putin's spies, and how 2016 marked the point that the world changed forever.

David McCloskey (39:53)

Get the full insider scoop by listening to the Rest Is Classified. Wherever you get your podcasts.