tv Forbes on FOX FOX Business June 21, 2015 3:00am-3:31am EDT
a creed of i think 20% to 25% in the next year. >> gary the exact moment we hit this market top could you clue me in? >> september 3rd at 11 -- look i'm bearish on half the market bullish on the other half right now. >> there you go. more now with dave. you go. more now. >> so you don't trust iran to live up to any nuclear deal? well then get a tsar to make sure they do. days left to wrap up nuclear talks with iran that's what the administration is planning to do but did the iranian president just do something that proves they'll never let a czar or anyone else enforce a deal. hi everybody. welcome to forbes on fox. let's go in focus with steve forbes rich elizabeth mcdonald, sabrina shafer mike and bruce. rich the iranian president saying again they're not going to let any inspectors in to military sites. how is a czar supposed to help? >> well you identified the problem perfectly.
you could have john wayne. you could have clint eastwood. you could have tony stark and ironman as your czar and it's not going to do any good because the iranians have proven themselves very clever liars, and their long-term goal is to build a nuclear bomb. >> well bruce, you know we've had to deal with a lot of these arms deals over the years, and i'm thinking the soviets in particular. reagan used to say -- in fact we have a clip of reagan saying what he used to say. let's play the clip. the maxim is -- trust but verify. >> bruce, the fact is you can't verify even with a czar if they won't let you in the military sites. >> well listen as long as this person is a lead coordinator or somebody there to implement it and it's anybody but donald trump, i would say it's a good idea because you know you want
to have some accountability with this going forward, and i know -- there's no -- the senate still has to approve this. i think it will bring accountability to the process if you have a point person and it doesn't necessarily have to be a new full-time employee. >> if we see the treaty before we sign it. the point is that these military sites are all over iran. that's the place where people keep weapons, at military sites, and that's where the iranian president says we can't go. >> yeah isn't that something? i mean that is the -- i think the reason why you do not proceed along any further with talks with iran. i think rich is right, and i love my dear friend bruce, but we've had a history now of czars saying we're not going to testify. it started in 2008 between. the climate change czar. you know the ebola czar. the president can say, you know what i have a constitutional right to have advisors because i basically am consulting with me on what to do. if you have an iranian czar the
guy you may never see him testify. >> well steve, we've had 40 czars or thereabouts during the obama administration including, by the way, richard -- the late richard holbrook who was a czar for afghanistan. his being a czar didn't fix that problem. >> no. the whole thing is you might say -- a czar in this situation, as you pointed out, with all of the power of nicolas ii when he was overthrown by the communists. he will be powerless. he won't be able to do something. the iranians won't let anyone do. >> sabrina, the fact is we're already beginning to give in in so many areas with the iranians. now in the military sites we already this is near and dear to their hearts because among other human rights problems that they have they're holding a u.s. marine a guy name amir hechmadi. they've been holding him there
without due process at all. should we let them get away with that? >> i think you get to a really important point which is not only is this inefficient and it seems duplicative to me. we have an ambassador to the united nations muggies. we have a president. i don't know why we need another person to negotiates. i don't know why john kerry wouldn't be the point person. as you are pointing out, it seems as though it's becoming a real distraction from the larger conversation which is what is. >> already there's enough information about how we've been dealing with iranians to say next on this deal. >> we cannot trust john kerry. he has proven himself to be completely incompetent. we can't trust the president on this. he has lied about it. he has proven to be completely
incompetent. you could be enforcing any deal. >> yeah look. i think both bruce jepson and mike put their finger on it. this is all about the senate. the act in the house was air big embarrassment. so the czar is meant to move maybe a senator or two here or there to voting for this deal but it's beyond the surface it just doesn't -- it doesn't add up. >> well bruce, you're kind of our touch stone for what the democrats are thinking these days. i just wonder -- i hope you don't mind but it's helpful to
have your opinion on this. when you think of things like the trade deal which the president has kind of lost his mojo on with democrats, could this be another one of those things that he can't get democrats to go along with? >> well it very well could be. i mean but i think that we've come so far along with this process that you know we're inside the 10 yard line. there's a couple of weeks left to go, and it seems to me if the stories are starting to leak that something is moving one way or the other, and so we're getting so close to putting this before congress i don't really see that this is really harming anything at this point. >> the deal stinks, and i don't care whether we're in the 10 yard line. we should punt. >> see? >> it is a bad deal, and you can have czars, queens or whatever. it's not going to work at the end of the day. bad deal enforced unenforced shouldn't be done. >> what happens if the senate says no? the president has been known to
do these executive decisions that go beyond congress. do you think he is going to make any effort to do that? >> i think that would be a real -- for him to do that and he would be really out on a limb without much congressional support if he tried to go it alone there. you know if you have a czar too, it really is lack of accountability. i think these guys put distance between themselves and blame it on the czar it the talk fails. >> when you think about czars, i mean you don't think about democracy. you think about places like old empiral russia. i'm just thinking if in fact this president doesn't get what he wants from congress whether there's any way he could try to go around congress to get what he wants from iran. >> well certainly he might try, but i think he is on to exactly what is bothering me. i don't like an idea of autosing czar as a term in this country to begin with. we are a nation ruled by law, not by small dictators. whether we are talking about a drug czar or a massive foreign policy arrangement. i think this is truly concerning
this is an administration that has lost any transparency and doesn't want to have any liability at the end of it. >> okay. well wished emphasize that other administrations have had tsars as well and i don't like the term. thank you, gang. that was an excellent discussion. appreciate it. hillary clinton's campaign digging up the phrase revenue enhancements for their planned tax hikes to pay for bigger governments. doesn't the term revenue enhancement make you feel so much better about a tax hike?
>> i will work with states and communities across america to make sure that everyone in america has access to high quality. >> wow. hillary clinton touting government programs including preschool. her spokesman replied we are rolling out major policy proposals, among those will be revenue enhancements.
remember that term? that's just code for taxes. are voters going to fall for it? >> they did in greece, and we saw with wr that led, and we saw what spending did in the soviet union. weave had one of the worst economic periods in american history. sluggish growth. very little new business creation. suffer indicating regulations, and now they want to do more of the same. the 1990s clinton raised taxes, hurt the economy, and then the republicans got in and got tax cuts in spending restraint, and we had great prosperity. i don't know why these people can't learn from history. it goes with the beyond away what she or president obama promised in 2008. >> well one other good thing since i'm in chicago is -- if
she does something similar to what her husband did in the 1990s, raising the gas tax or lifting medicare taxes, it wasn't necessarily a horrible thing in 1993. >> no, it wasn't but president clinton back in the 1990s actually lowered the capital gains tax. that's one of the reasons -- that's created a tremendous stock market. that's one of the reasons the economy really took off. >> it did take off. you're right, david. by the way, the president's tax incentives will be ask not what you can do for your country but what your country can do for you. there will be all sorts of tax credits, free tuition, health more pay for sick days, cash for flunkers cash for slackers. we're going to see this rolling policy announcement coming out because hillary clinton faces a more liberal base than even when
she ran for election in 2008 according to gallop. >> what do you make of the revenue enhancements? >> i think hillary is half right. i'm in favor of revenue enhancements but shrinking government and the reason is very simple. we're broke. i would start by eliminating the department of housing and urban development and also eliminating the mortgage -- >> hold on. you are saying that tax hikes are a good thing -- >> tax hikes are a good thinking. we're running the country on a credit card. >> if we pay more in taxes, don't politicians always find ways of spending? they don't save it. they go out and spend it. >> of course they do and all government spending and debt spending by definition do not have resources. when we allow them to spend it involves john boehner and nancy pelosi allocating the economy's resources or private economy. the last thing you want to do is increase the amount of revenues going to washington. if anything we should be talking about tax systems that
would greatly reduce the amount of revenue flowing in the federal government. >> the whole revenue enhancement, it makes my head want to explode. there's just something so dishonest about it. >> yeah. well it's the kind of thing that george orwell wrote about when you manipulate language to corps, you know cover your true intentions. steve put his finger on it exactly. this recovery outside of a few places like silicon valley and the oil patch has been lackluster. the foundation shows remarkably that fewer people are starting businesses today, and that's because aunt parenures are really burdened by complex taxes and complex regulations. if you want to make the economy boom and pay for the kinds of things that hillary are talking about, then you know lighten the load on people who would start new businesses. >> hence, steve, i'm going to take a page from john. who would you rather have holding on to that capital and using it and spending it? the government or people in the
private sector who seem to know a lot more about investment than people in the public sector? >> well one thing in the private sector you're responsible for those resources. you're held accountable for them. if you muck it up you're out of a job. you don't get those projects anymore. ronald reagan was right. the closest thing to immortality is a government program. they just go on and on and on wasting resources and hurting we the people. >> i would rather have a steve jobs or you know bill gates doing better with private capital than a mitch mcconnell. i like mitch mcconnell but than a nancy pelosi or harry reid or the squanderers in government. >> i think of all the establishment, whether they are democrats or republicans, we've been seeing high-spending republicans as well as democrats over the past ten years. >> absolutely. it makes no difference. warren buffett would be a tragic investor if he were senator buffett. government programs are immortal. they last forever, and that's the problem.
that's why you want to reduce -- >> and with the capital in the background there. thank you, gang. the cashin in gang ready to roll at the bottom of the hour. eric what do you got? >> hey, david. gop presidential hopeful rand paul is here weighing in on trump's run for the oval office and steve forbes will love this. rand is unveiling his new fair and flat tax plan. plus microchipping prisoners to keep them from escaping. a good idea or going too far? see you at 11:30. >> we'll all be watching but particularly steve. up here first. he helped make the golden state warriors the nba champs. now co-owner peter guber says he knows how to make the government win for us but federal workers, beware. not going to like this winning strategy. ♪ we are the champions ♪ ♪ we are the champions ♪ ♪ no time for losers ♪ ♪ we are the champions ♪ ♪ of the world ♪
♪ ♪ get excited for the 1989 world tour with exclusive behind the scenes footage all of taylor swift's music videos interviews, and more. xfinity is the destination for all things taylor swift. >> after a 40 year drought the golden state warriors brought home the championship. the owner has advice on how to turn washington d.c. a winning team for us. >> have you to hold that right. it doesn't mean you do it. it's not a threatening right, but they have to know that people in the organization have to know that if you're not going to fit into the plan you're
going to be out. >> sabrina, wouldn't government workers perform better if they had a real fear of being fired if they don't perform? >> i don't think government should or can ever operate as efficiently or effectively in the private sector and we don't want them to and i do think as a taxpayer i have an interest in eliminating waste and bad workers and redid you understand answery, and, of course if there's a threat of not being -- not having a job next year because you're not being productive then absolutely. i think we could streamline government. >> shouldn't it be ease wrer to fire government workers? >> i wish i had a civil service reform plan that would allow peter to get rid of a couple of plunkers. >> a couple? how about a couple million? >> a couple hundred thousand plunkers but wouldn't allow each administration to empty out the executive office. we put in a lot of work to get rid of the spoil system. >> what about that point? we don't want to go back to the spoil system that would allow each new regime, if you will to
get their own clunkers and their own people in. >> oh i would almost prefer that because they wouldn't be as effective at stealing the money. i'm with sabrina on this. i don't want government to be effective. i want it to be dysfunctional. they would spend more of our money if they were effective, but we know that's never going to happen. government sdunt labor under market discipline. what we're talking about is never land. >> mike had -- john has a conspiracy of his own. he wants dysfunctional government so you can get rid of it. >> i think this actually goes to john's point. look gruber and his partners put in their capital, right? he has been a successful investor in sports for years. they buy this team for $450 million. it's now worth $1.3 billion. he had incentives to make it successful which the government does not. >> rich is there any way to get incentives into government? >> well the problem is with the word performance because in the private sector it means building a great product, building market share, making a lot of money, but in government
it can mean good things but it also can mean perverse things. for example, are you performing if you are shutting down some core small community bank because they violated some narrow ruling in dodd frank which was meant for big banks? >> well steve, we have a couple of folks from the private sector that are going to be running for president. carly fiorina among them. they are going to rye to apply private sector tactics to government management. is there any chance that could work? >> long-term, no as long as you have politics in government which is inevitable defining performance will eventually be political. the e.p.a. for example, is very efficient at putting out regulations, but at destroying the coal industry in much of america. is that the kind of efficiency you want? the best kind of government is a smaller government doing a handful of things and leave the rest to the private sector. >> so sabrina, back to you. i understand we're all for smaller government i think here but the fact is that there's some people in the private sector who think the government should operate more likely the private sector. is that just a pipe dream?
>> i think, unfortunately, i think it is. there simply isn't a bottom line. even in an organization like mine which is a nonprofit, i have a responsibility to my donors to be good stewards much their resores. government doesn't have to respond to taxpayers as much as i might want them to. i'm sure there are a few ways we can affect things on the margins, but i don't think we can take what works at a large corporation and implement it in washington something no one was fired at the irs for all their mess-ups. coming up, forget the ties and socks. get an
makes the prehung doors that dads love. >> sure, and faucets and lock sets. good weekend fun. >> everybody have a wonderful father's day. thank you so much for watching. that's it for forbes on fox.umumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumber one business block continues with erin and cashin in. presidential hopeful rand paul is here unveiling his fix for our broken tax system, and, oh yeah what does he think about donald trump's white house bid? plus microchipping inmates to prevent them from escaping. it's the controversial proposal in the wake of the latest prison break. would it be worth the cost or would it be an invasion of privacy of biblical proportions? then vacationers and beach goers on alert. are all these shark attacks attacking a key part of our economy? tashin in starts right now. welcome to