tv Cavuto Coast to Coast FOX Business January 18, 2017 12:00pm-2:01pm EST
of the nominees. and that is the key. if they all stay unified, supporting the nominees, they will all be confirmed. >> that is why frank and was bloviating because he couldn't try any of his colleagues. stuart: your word not mine. my time is up. neil cavuto, it is yours. >> you had echocardiogram done. >> ij. because if you actually. >> i'm glad they found a heart. i can't tell you how many times. i had to throw it back at you. >> when i heard going in for open-heart surgery, i realized him so older than you. i better get myself checked out and i've got a clean bill of health. neil: i'm very happy to hear that. i heard that remark once or twice. to continued good health. we are following not only all of these concurrent confirmation hearings but andrew cuomo just
coming down to the trump tower after meeting with the president elect. let's dip into that. >> the president elect is about to embark on policy setting for the nation. he scored eight the union and i want her has the contest conversation. we just finished our new york state budget. if you didn't allow the people of this state to deduct their
state and local taxes. these, the affordable care act, if the affordable care act is ended, we have three million americans, three million new yorkers uninsured. and, that three million families. it would have a dramatic impact on the state and not just for those three million. we now live in a community where if you sneeze, i get sick, right? this is all about public health. so, some of the things to the affordable care act could have dramatic results on new york and if the federal government does make changes to obamacare, it is very important to protect the accomplishments that obamacare also brought to us. we discussed about the housing needs in new york. we have record homelessness in new york city. i was a former hud secretary.
hud could be a great, great ally to cities and states in actually combating homelessness and getting production up once again, so we talked about that. we talked about infrastructure which is something that the president-elect very much wants to concentrate on. we are ready to go in new york. we are ready to build. if he wants to put federal money to use and put federal money to use quickly, this is the state to do it. many of the big projects that i want to get done involve federal interaction, improving laguardia airport. that's federal interaction. improving jfk airport. the subway system that needs dramatic improvement. that involves the federal government. so basically the conversation was about all the opportunities for the the state of new york ad
the needs of the state of new rk while the president-elect is going down to hear about the federal policies. >> get him to reconsider repealing replace? did you at all urge him to he reconsider? >> we discussed, we discussed how the affordable care act affects new york and the pitfalls of a repeal plan which would be dramatic on the state of new york. >> how did he react when you told him? >> oh, no, he is a new yorker, and my sense was he understood exactly what i was saying. and the magnitude of what i was saying. i mean three million uninsured people would be a problem. he talked about state control. to me more of a question of resources as long as the federal government provides resources so we make sure the progress made
is not lost. >> did he talk about staying in new york city after friday or will he move down -- >> that didn't come up. >> talking about chewing the fat or was it more adversarial. >> it was not adversarial. i don't know what you chew the fat in queens. maybe two people with queens accents but we never chewed the fat. >> [inaudible] >> he was knowledgeable about the issues on the affordable care act and different options being discussed. he was knowledge about the issue of state and local deductibility. that is very big issue. he was briefed on the federal side. i wanted to make sure he had the new york state perspective from a budget point of view as he is considering those federal issues. you know, i was in washington, and, for eight years during the
clinton administration, and they brief you on the federal policy options but it is very important to know impact on the state for those federal options, that's what we chatted b i thought it was a good conversation. >> guys, one more. >> thank you, guys. >> do you agree or disagree -- neil: all right, new york governor andrew cuomo, wrapping up a meeting a productive meeting with the president-elect. not many democrats had that opportunity. >> i have tremendous respect for john lewis and work he has done. >> thank you very much. neil: all right, as if he read my mind. a lot of democrats not going because of dust-up with georgia congressman john lewis who claimed originally that donald trump was an illegitimate president, that prompted a nasty tweet back from donald trump. that prompted a nasty tweet at john lewis's office.
we're at point, 64 democratic congressman including mr. lewis will not go to the trump inauguration. governor cuomo has been talking up the idea of a middle class tax cut in new york. to pay for that he is going to hike taxes on the rich, so-called millionaire's tax, that would kick in at half a million dollars. last time they tried this in new york, supposed to be very short-lived. lasted about a year or two. i believe that was cooked up during the dinkins administration. and of course it still persists in varying degrees today. the things about tax increases whether they're on one set of the population or not, they have a way of sticking around. trump economic visor steve moore know it. good, to have you, steve. what do you make tit-for-tat with donald trump and big new york city liberal and governor of new york ruled out a 2020 run, sounds like he might be laying groundwork for one, that the rich don't need a tax cut, if anything, they need a tax hike?
>> first of all i don't believe for a minute he is not looking at a 2020 race. i don't believe that for one minute. i thought it was so interesting how he really focused on what is good for new york and tried to pull back trump obviously new yorker himself from some of his policy proposals. i got to tell you this, neil, as you know i have done a lot of work looking at growth rates of various states, there is no state over the last decade done worse than new york state. maybe a few, my home state of illinois. these blue states like new york, have lost, give you within statistic, that is amazing. new york lost a million net citizens to other states last deck can cade. people are leaving new yor the ason they're leaving in part, what you just tlked about, neil, these high taxes. why is that relevant to this discussion? because i believe if you put in place many of the policies that donald trump is talking about, roll back of obamacare, the federal tax cuts on businesses, the deregulation, i think you
actually bring economic development back to those places in upstate new york that haven't seen any kind of economic development for a long time. so i think new york will be a big benefit if that trump economic program goes through. neil: you know, let me ask you about the plan that president-elect is cooking up and where it might stand. i know you're insight on this, i know you're a big believer in big tax cuts but i'm getting an increasing sense, when i talk to, i don't know, for lack after better term, establishment republicans, former secretary john snow yesterday on this very show, we'll not see big tax cuts, particularly for well think. i'm leaving out corporate for the purposes of this. where do things stand? >> a couple things. i think the primary focus of donald trump, and i've been telling his economic team this, they have to really focus on the business tax cut, neil, that is where the economic bang for the buck is. if we can get that corporate tax rate down from 35%, highest in the world, down to somewhere
between 15 and 2. trump plan at 15. paul ryan plan at 20, say it is at 20%, that is magnet for new capital coming into the united states, especially, repatriation tax 10% will bring a lot of money back as well. so i think the business tax cut is essential. they need to get that done individually. on individual tax rid cuts, that is harder to do. you're talking about taking away deductions which is really difficult because an army of special interests are opposed to that. democrats in washington don't want to cut the highest tax rate. neil, they want to raise the highest tax rate. neil: i'm getting worried, this thing, the tax cut thing's aggressiveness is falling apart. >> i think it may be, heard it first here on fox business news. you may see two bills. you may see a business tax cut where you could get i believe a lot of democrats, especially if
you link that with infrastructure spending. then you might leave the second part which is the broad-based tax reform for another day. one other quick point if i may. neil: all right. >> it was interesting how the governor, in that press conference said, you can't get rid of deductibility of state and lowcall taxes because he says that will be big tax increase on new york. he is right about that. can you imagine raising the tax rates in new york city state, already they're at 13 1/2% in many parts of the state. if they raise it another point or two, you're at 15 1/2%. you can move tax rate to pay zero for goodness sakes. only way new york gets away with it right now because the federal government allows you to deduct a third of that. if you get rid of that deductibility, you make it impossible for people to raise high tax rates. same problem in california, new jersey, connecticut, illinois. those blue states get really hurt by that. >> steve, thank you again. we appreciate it.
steve moore. >> thank you, neil. neil: economic svengali to the trump administration. we have a fox news alert. they're still ongoing. tom price, house and -- health and human services, scott pruitt over at the epa, but the real news was may seconds ago by steve moore, minutes ago, here on this network. that the way things stand now, tax cuts roll out in two ways. first for business. then, for individuals. that is long been suspected. i would imagine in steve moore's case given his importance to donald trump, give the fact he is all but a economics spokesperson to say nothing of influencer, as they like to call them, that purchase confirms, at least what i suspected, that it is going to be phased out in two-ways. first with the business tax cut, hopefully get democratic support if you couple it with infrastructure spending, no sure
deal. then, the individual tax rates. you could judge the effectiveness of that strategy but it is what it is. all right. in the meantime hearings regarding tom price i think they're the most contentious schuss far. questioning not only stock trades was in the house, in the house, with what he thinks of obamacare, the affordable care act, and whether he would dismantle it with little regard to the benefits. let's listen in. >> people with addiction, behavioral health, mental health issues, are they able bodied in your definition? >> well, we weren't as specific as what the definition was. the fact of the matter -- >> i'm asking you now. what did you mean when you said able-bodied in this prosignificance? >> the fact there are many, many individuals who have worked this space for a long, long time who believe providing for individuals who are able-bodied
without children to seek or gain employment -- >> what do you mean by able-bodied, that is the question, you used that term again? >> what is defined in the regulation itself. i don't know -- >> you use the term without an idea how you would define it? >> i think people have an understanding what able-bodied in. it doesn't have the kind of things you described i believe. >> that was simple answer to my question. able-bodied does not people who have addiction and mental health and behavioral health issues? >> the work done to the develop the regulations as you used word. >> i'm not asking about in some future universe, as you use the term in that budget. >> individuals that demonstrated they were in fact having challenges that would preclude them from being able to seek work or employment or education or the like, that they ought to be attended to. >> now, i'm a fan of and think
they do good work of the american academy of pediatrics. i'm a fan of and think they do good work of the american lung association. and i'm a fan of and think they do good work of the american public health association. all of those groups and many others have gone very clearly on record that climate change present significant health issues. they signed a declaration on climate change and health which stated that the science is clear, that this is happening. you on the other hand, have said that, the carbon pollution standards of the obama administration, quote, go against all common sense, and that there are errors and
obfuscation in the allegedly settled science of global warming. i'll pursue this with you through questions for the record because my time has expired but if you could give a brief answer because it appears to every scientific organization in the country, all the legitimate major ones and to really every american university, that this actually is pretty darn settled science. and that the only people who disagree with it, people who have vast potential interests preventing get work done. looks to me making this statement you have taken the side of vast special interests against actually settled science. if we can't trust you on science, that is as settled as climate science, how can we trust you on public health science issues where there is a big special interest on the other side? >> i don't agree with the premise of the insinuation, i will say the climate is
obviously changing. it is continuously changing. the question from a scientific standpoint is what effect does human behavior and human activity have on that and what we can do to mitigate that? i believe that is question needs to be study and evaluated, getting best mine availab -- >> one university that thinks the way you do, one? >> we're running out of time. thank you senator whitehouse. senator young, i believe is next. i don't see him. senator roberts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this anger management hearing. i truly hope my colleagues feel better at least for one day after purging themselves of their concern, their frustration and their anger. i would like to note that i asked the technician here that is running the sound system, the
audio system is working. i thought maybe senator bennet didn't know that, and, he reminded me of my marine di back in the good days where the di would shout, i can't hear you! so, i just thought i would bring that up that the audio system is working. take care of yourselves. dr. price, congratulations on your nomination. thank you for being here today. >> thank you. >> as many of our colleagues have already noted you will play a most important role of can be be -- if confirmed to helping stablize individual market while congress repeals the law and repairs the damage that is caused and enacts reforms, we believe, i believe, will put our health care system on track. ofe three insurance carriers left. we feel very fortunate we have three. with each individual only having
access to two of those, and our premiums rose this past year over 30%. down the road it will be more difficult if we don't do something. there is no doubt with regard to uncertainty and angst among consumers, i think it is important to make clear that even if congress and the incoming administration were to do nothing, let it go, just like in "frozen," let it go, and amending or repealing parts of the affordable health care act, the law is not working and we have to do something to meet that obligation. the prices are unaffordable. markets are nearly nonexistent with few or no options in several states and counties. we're not as rural as wyoming but we are rural in my state of kansas. i have a, i have a concern, back in the day when we sat in this
committee, and wrote the first version of the affordable care act. i don't where that mark is today. it is sitting on a shelf somewhere. we went day and night, day and night, and i was worried about something called the rationers, ipap and the new coverage authorities given to u.s. preventative services task force and i would also mention the patient center out come research institute which not many people are aware of these. i went to the floor of the senate and four people riding a horse and called them the four horses of regulatory apocalypse but i'm worried about it and the provisions which could interrupt the doctor/patient relationship allowing the government to dictate what coverage you can receive. would you share any concerns you
have with regards to these, what i would call four rationers with all due respect what they're trying to do with good intent? >> i appreciate that, senator. i think it is imperative as we move forward that we recognize again that the patient ought to be at the center of this, and anything that gets in the way of the patient and their families and physicians making the decisions about what kind of health care they desire is, we ought not to go down that road. and so, for example, the cmmi, the center for medicare medicaid innovation, i'm a strong proponent for innovation but i've seen in certain instances what is coming out of cmmi is a desire to require certain kinds of treatment for certain disease entities that may or may not be in the best interests of the patient. because it carries the full force of the federal government
and the payment for those services, it means that we're answering the question who decides what kind of care the patient receives, that the answer is washington, d.c., and i simply reject that is where the decisions ought to be made. >> i appreciate that answer. i have a privilege to be member of this committee, the finance committee, and especially being chairman of the, always powerful senate agriculture committee. particularly interested in hhs and more importantly fda's work on food and nutrition policy. during the previous administration the fda issued numerous regulations which limited or delayed guidance in unrealistic compliance states. this is the case of implementation of food safety modernization act and more recently with the nutrition facts panel revision. we all share the goal of a safe food supply and availability of
accurate information for consumers but i'm concerned the administration is not clearly or consistently communicated with the food and agriculture industry regarding new or changing requirements. will you commit to working with the secretary of agriculture and other relevant agencies not to mention the committee i serve on and similar in the house, that your department is issuing science--based guidance and taking into consideration other regulatory burdens when establishing compliance states engaging and other regulatory actions? >> i believe that is not only imperative but the science relied upon ought to be transparent and available to the public so that people can see exactly what was the basis for the decisions that were being made. >> under the previous administration we have seen increased activity and regulatory action on nutrition policies issuing voluntary guidance yet the same administration continues to request additional resources from congress to comply with
statutory requirements under the food safety modernization act. i'm concerned that the administration did not prioritize fda's mission to protect our nation's food supply, instead focusing on nutrition policies. if confirmed, can you discuss how you will focus on the core fda duties, such as implementing the law congress passed rather than agenda-driven nutrition policy guidelines? >> this is really important, senator, and if i'm given and confirmed, the privilege of leading would i work specifically with the fda commissioner, make certain we are relying on science. it is science that is guiding the decisions that we're making and again that the transparency is available for folks so that they can see what kind of decisions are made and how they're being made. in addition to working with policymakers, you know best what's going on in your state and how it is being affected by the rules and regulations coming down from washington in so many areas but certainly in the agricultural arena.
and so we ought to be having a dialogue with every single individual who has an interest, to make certain that we're addressing the needs appropriately. >> thank you for your response. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank thank you, senator rob. senator baldwin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome. >> thank you. >> congressman. you've already been asked about your investments in medical device companies, pharmaceutical companies, as part of the prior questioning but for the record, have you also received campaign contributions over the years from political action committees associated with many of these same companies? >> i don't know but i assume so, just as many of us do. >> okay. so, in terms of, i mean, the american people want to know of course, when you get reviewed for potential conflicts of interests and procedures with the office of government ethics,
is that, in your role, you're fighting for them and not biased towards the powerful companies that you've invested in and that have invested in you. and you've taken some questions on that, but, just let me follow up a little bit to ask first, do you think drug price increases that we're seeing right now, for example, the six-fold increase in the cost of an epipen, is a problem right now for americans? >> oh, as i mentioned i think there are certain areas where drug pricing increases seem to have little basis in rationale findings. i do think however i mentioned again, i think it is important to appreciate we've done some good things this area of drug pricing, whether generic arena where prices health down significantly and -- >> since my time is limited, let me continue down this track.
you've been asked already but trump supports medicare drug next. will you work to to repeal the prohibition on medicare negotiating for better drug prices on behalf of american people if confirmed for this position? >> well, i understand, that if i'm confirmed, if i have the privilege of serving as secretary that the boss that i have will be the president of the united states. >> will you work to repeal the prohibition on medicare negotiating drug prices? >> informed by individuals working within the department, working with the president, carrying out his wishes. >> was that a yes or that a no? >> it depends on that activity. >> he state his position very
recently he supports price negotiation so that people can have the benefit of that. is that something you would press congress to, to do? other words, repeal the prohibition on that negotiation? >> solutions to challenges of folks of needed medication. may be one of those is changing the way that the negotiations -- as you know the negotiations right now, occur for seniors with ppm is pharmacy benefit managers. >> you talked about transparency. would you support drug price transparency mandating that any drug companies that want to increase prices on drugs, release public information how they set their prices? so many appear without justification as you just mentioned? >> i think there is a lot of merit in transparency in every area and certainly in this area. i look forward to exploring if
i'm confirmed with you the ways to make that work. >> thank you. i want to go back to the first round of questioning with the chairman who showed a chart. seems like what was implicit in the back and forth, act of repealing the affordable care act would would only impact the health care industry. talk about 6% being covered on he individual market. the protections, like, coverage on your parents health insurance until you're 26 and pre, mandating that they be covered even if they have a preexisting health condition, limiting caps that led so many into medical bankruptcy, those apply across
the health care system. so, repeal, in no way, limits us to a conversation just about a small percentage of our population. this is a about serious impacts for all of america. would you agree? >> i think the discussion about what our health policy for financing and delivery of health care to the american people is a very, very broad subject. >> if you're repealing the affordable care act, the impact is not fair rolly confined to medicaid and -- narrowly confined to medicaid and individual market, it has impact on every american. medicare too. think of accountable care organizations where we're driving so much of our innovation. that is not confined to the individual market. in fact it is that it impacts medicare very significantly.
let me give one example and in your office when we visited. thank you for your visit. we talked about opioid epidemic. one we talked about the access to treatment to overcome an addictions if the affordable care act is repeal, there will no longer be mandate for substance abuse treatment being covered. is that something you agree with? >> look, the opioid epidemic is rampant and harming families and communities all across the nation. >> would you assure that treatment would be, substance abuse treatment would be covered under a replacement plan you would propose? >> absolutely vital that substance abuse and other kinds of things would be treated -- >> you would seek that protection of the affordable care act? >> that is legislative decision but i look forward to making sure that we're able to get the care they need. >> coverage, i want to make sure i heard the exchange because it sounded to me like insurers that
continue to do it so there doesn't need to be a mandate, 5.7 million young people between the ages of 18 and 26 on their parents health insurance, that is 5.7 million people who aren't in the individual market because in their first job after high school, that doesn't have health insurance. is a wink or promise or do you support having in law a mandate, that 18 to 25 years old be able to stay on their parents health insurance? >> as i say, it has been baked into the insurance programs out there right now. what i absolutely committed to -- >> could change their mind at anytime. >> what i'm absolutely committed to to making sure every single american has access to the kind of coverage they want and financial feasibility to be able
to purchase that coverage. >> thank you, senator baud -- baldwin. senator dr. price, thank you, nice to see you today. i enjoyed our service together last six years in the house of representatives, particularly the fours year we spent on the ways and means committee. i had opportunity not just to get to know you personally there but observe your impressive skillset. your knowledge in health care and health policy. neil: we're staying on this congressman tom price hearing. he is donald trump's choice to run hhs. in almost all the confirmation hearings and wilbur ross taking over commerce, nikki haley at united nations and scott pruitt at epa, one way, shape or form, climate change comes up.
whether it makes people sick, whether he can acknowledge it but to wedge it in as issue that he would have to deal with if he got that hhs appointment. back and forth on this, is just amazing. we're going in and out of the various hearings, just to keep at stake who is at stake. so far no body-landing blows that could compromise their nomination. we're talking about a republican senate, republican house, all cabinet appointees, are approved through the senate. so even in the remote possibility that every single democrat voted against the cabinet choice, there are enough republicans to counterthat. in a of course donald trump-led washington and senate, the tiebreaker role, ift ever came to that, would be busted by the vice president-elect, mike pence. we think we made some news here apart from these hearings, and it concerns economic svengali,
and regarding tax cuts. i want you to listen to this. >> i heard it hear on first on fox business news. you could have two bills. where you get a lot of democrats. neil: interesting, interesting. >> if you link that with infrastructure spending, then you might leave the second part which is broad based tax reform for another day. neil: in other words, do big tax cuts, new tax cuts, revolutionary tax cuts republicans talk about in stages. easier pill to swallow. business tax cuts are pegged to more cost effective way to go about taxing companies, even if it involves dramatically lower tax rates, if that could be proven to spur growth an investment, which even a number of democrats think it would. now the flip side of that is, to entice those democratic vote to do it in a way that supports
infrastructure spending, may be quite a bit of it. may be more than any democrat proposed. donald trump as candidate was looking at a trillion dollars in infrastructure spending. would that be part of this broad tax deal to lower tax rates, simplify corporate taxes, entice democratic votes, more liberal, normally not so predispositioned to accept that, if there is infrastructure spending. leaving aside where money comes from all that. connell mcshane at trump tower one two step hearing. what are you hearing from connell? reporter: definitely made news with comments from steve moore. plays into the biggest meeting today of the president-elect and his get together with governor of new york, andrew como. when he came down behind me in the lobby to address reports he talked as we figured he would about infrastructure spending. think about democrat like andrew cuomo, he hand been
rumored and talked about a possible 2020 presidential dan politically even though the president-elect is opposed to on number about of issues could be worked with. senator chuck schumer may be one of them on things like infrastructure spending. if you're pairing together as steve moore suggests, business tax cut with the infrastructure spending, yes you may find some democratic support. certainly makes sense. many of those democrats would be opposed and have said so publicly to lower personal income taxes using phrases like tax cuts for the rich we heard over and over again. a lot of that, neil, makes a lot of sense. maybe biggest news of the day when you think about what is coming out of here, as we get set for inaugural coverage in washington next couple days, meeting with cuomo was really it. we had a long briefing with sean spicer incoming press secretary as well. he made news, this is interesting, we can look for four to five executive orders to
be signed by president-elect donald trump by friday on day one. there is a lot of speculation that we wouldn't see the president get to work until next week. some are low business call, like protecting the first family and he didn't talk about the topics they were thinking about the why. he said there will be some of mr. trump's top priorities that will be addressed day one. so that was newsworthy as well. not quite as much, neil as your steve moore interview but up there. neil: john roberts who will be fox's white house correspondent daily white house breast briefings, prior to richard nixon, a pool, reporters have a physical pool. there is talk that donald trump would return it to that, for time being briefings will remain in the briefing room, the 49 seats which has vastly gene
grown to 200 reporters assigned to cover the white house, not changing yet. >> sean spicer was with the d.c. reporters and many of us outside in washington were calling in on the phone. to me what is interesting, what spicer said talking about this as incoming press secretary, their goal to make the briefings open to more tha just 49 reporters you can fit in one room. a lot hs been made of the fact incoming trump administration wants to quote, unquote quick reporters out. they say the opposite is true. they want to bring more people in, whether by phone conference, bigger room in the white house. when john asked him he committed to one day of briefings in the briefing room. they will start there next week. neil: whether you have him briefing room or not, it does not, demand that you acknowledge their presence. we'll see what happens. connell, thank you, very, very
much. meantime we've got former raegan budget director, author of best-seller, trump, david stockman. always good to have you here. a lot of supply-siders for lack of a better word, david, we don't like the one two rollout on tax cuts of the we don't like increasing talk we hear they might not be as big tax cuts as we hoped what do you have to say? >> i have a lots of hope and zero faith. somehow the idea of donald trump is second coming of ronald reagan has gotten in the mix. wall street is priced it in. that is completely wrong. neil: we'll not get big tax cuts. >> we won't because we're in diametrically different position. neil: explain. >> in 1980 there was 30% of gdp. there was huge running room and open balance sheet of accidental keynesian stimulus resulted from
the tax cuts and defense increase and massive deficit. ronald reagan increased the public debt by 1.8 trillion, or two times more than had been generated by the first 39 presidents. and the first 190 years of our history. today, we're, we've used all that up. neil: consider us balance if we had numbers like that. >> we're at 20 trillion of debt. neil: you know the argument for it is that, the revenues we get from that would start cutting down that. you don't buy that? >> i don't buy that. you will get reflow. neil: they spend the repro. >> they spend the reflow, but besides that the base case forecast is so optimistic, such a rosy scenario they will need reflow, extra economic growth to get back to where they started. in other words, the cbo baseline says there will be no recession through 2026. neil: did they say that? >> yes. that -- neil: ruling out history. >> that is 206 months, the
longest one we ever had is 100 months or so in the 1990s under much better circumstance. so therefore, if you program in sober economics and lay on some tax cuts that are in some way paid for, you will get a better economy over time. you will not get some huge surge of -- neil: you were sent to the woodshed bit gipper because you dared question the wisdom of tax cuts and whether they would add to the deficit and debt. >> yes. neil: you say this would be a mistake to looking at big tax cuts, who are beyond revenue neutral. to mitch mcconnell. >> i do. when he says deficit neutral, he means we'll put in a little dynamic feedback. fine. but we can't, they have no room to go in there. the for it on march 15th, a stink bomb explodes which is this holiday on the debt ceiling. there has been no debt ceiling since october 2015.
it becomes frozen in on that date, at whatever level we're at, probably 20 trillion plus. they will have 200 billion of cash. take them a couple months to lose it up, use it up. they will be in a debt ceiling crisis, lose it up, use it up, they will be in debt ceiling crisis by june, and all the legislation will be backed up. infrastructure, corporate tax reform. i'm for the corporate tax reform over t lower rates, broader base, even this border adjusted view that turns it really into a vat is good idea. neil: value-added tax. >> but it has to be paid for. it can't be add -- neil: you were in the establishment position on that? >> i wouldn't call it the establishment. neil: direct to this, sounds like you, i don't want to put words in your mouth. former treasury secretary john snow in mitch mcconnell pay for these things. this is john snow yesterday. >> you know better than i, where
does this stand? >> neil, we need tax reform. u.s. tax rates are too high. it penalizes our ability to be competitive in the world economy. i think with tax reform, neil, most people will find over time, they get more in their, in their paychecks. but, tax cuts have to be paid for. tax cuts don't pay for themselves. neil: all right, tax cuts have to be paid for. he is equating it to spending. spending has to be paid for. whatever you risk going into debt for in one area you have to make up for in another. do you agree with that, there is no different ages between tax cuts and deficit spending? >> no. i believe tax cuts are far better, we ought to do those first. but if we're going to have a large tax reform, it needs to have pay for itself with spending cuts, or a broader base, or a tariff on imports and rebate on exports.
neil: in other words, depending on that revenue, you can't change the revenue? >> you can't, when you cut the revenue, let's say by 100 or 200 billion, maybe you will get 30 or 40 billion of flow back. make it a net 160. beyond that, that 160 has to be paid for. i think republican tax plan is a good one but the idea that we're -- neil: i don't even know what it is. how do you know? >> the house, the outline of the house plan, okay? but the point i'm making is, we don't have a open runway, a clean balance sheet, to try some huge experiment and unfunded tax increase that will drive us deeper. why? there is 800 billion in new borrowing this year alone. this is 10 or 12 trillion over the next decade, before we do anything with the trump program. neil: what are our options, david, if you think about it.
if federal reserve already said free candy is over, we'll start hiking rates, there goes their stimulus. if debt limits us to size of tax cuts people want and they're not going to be big, that there goes that stimulus, what is going to goose us? >> we don't need any. that is not the job of government to keep goosing with debt and printed money the private capitalist economy. get finances sound ad government level. then roll back regulations, lower the tax rates to the degree we can. broaden the base. neil: how far do you think we can? >> i think you could easily get the corporate rate down to 20%. that is not a problem. neil: individual rates are little dies syer? >> individual rates are dicier. better thing to cut the payroll tax. that doesn't seem to be on table. neil: that is relative trump change in scheme of things. >> payroll tax is huge. 160 million people pay it. it generates 1.1 trillion a year. it is killing jobs because -- neil: would you cut it out or cut it down?
>> cut it down or eliminate it if i could and replace it with, you know, consumption tax or vat or -- neil: in other words you would take a tax right there and replace it with another tax? >> yep. neil: that you couldn't not have that. >> well the point is, we're putting a 15% tax, employer, employee on wages. we're already highly uncompetitive in the world. that is why trump talkses about, this huge trade deficit. neil: keeps our entitlements going. >> okay, but the thing is until we take that burden off of the cost of labor, we're not going to get take-home pay to workers and good-paying jobs generated. that is the way to go. that is not even on the table. they're so tied up with infrastructure, corporate reform -- neil: why doesn't a president or president-elect just say that? >> well i think -- neil: president polk, i'm going to be one-termer. i will be one-termer. they didn't ask him to run for re-election. i will be one-termer. wouldn't that be great. i will throw this out here.
i see this math. you see this math. here is where we're going. it is not a pretty place. i'm going to risk all this i know i'm doomed on this. i couldn't even run for re-election on this, but i'm here to tell you what the real skinny is? >> it would be a brilliant tweet. it would electrify the situation. i don't think that is going to happen. i think we're going to have a fiscal bloodbath, not a fiscal stimulus. neil: are we going to have a fiscal crisis? >> yes. we'll have debt ceiling crisis. neil: sometime next four years? >> i would say in the next year. neil: really? >> we haven't escaped -- neil: that will be on republicans, they will blame republican. >> why i think he should demand janet yellen resign right now, and set up the fed to take the fall because they created this massive bubble in the first place. do what reagan did. he blamed jimmy carter. he blamed his predecessors for the mess. neil: didn't we have guy blaming his predecessor? aren't we over that. >> we should. in effect he is inheriting a very bad hand of bubble finance
from the fed and massive debt on the fiscal front. and that just limits the running room entirely, and i don't think the trump administration is even, you know, halfway prepared for the monsters that they're going to confront that are in this deep swamp in washington. neil: have you talked to donald trump about this stuff? >> no. neil: i guess after this, not likely? >> okay. neil: persona none gratta. they have pictures of you all around the district. don't let this guy? >> exactly. neil: david stockman, whether you agree or disagree, a lot of this is math. you can quibble with numbers all you want but can't quibble at direction. we'll keep looking at this, a bit of a news development here, that the trump administration is still inclined to go with tax cuts, two big ways, corporate first, individual second. much more after this.
approaching medicare eligibility? you may think you can put off checking out your medicare options until you're sixty-five, but now is a good time to get the ball rolling. keep in mind, medicare only covers about eighty percent of part b medical costs. the rest is up to you. that's where aarp medicare supplement insurance plans insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company come in. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they could help pay some of what medicare doesn't, saving you in out-of-pocket medical costs. you've learned that taking informed steps along the way really makes a difference later. that's what it means to go long™. call now and request this free decision guide.
it's full of information on medicare and the range of aarp medicare supplement plans to choose from based on your needs and budget. all plans like these let you oose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients, and there are no network restrictions. unitedhealthcare insurance company has over thirty years experience and the commitment to roll along with you, keeping you on course. so call now and discover how an aarp medicare supplement plan could go long™ for you. these are the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. plus, nine out of ten plan members surveyed say they would recommend their plan to a friend. remember, medicare doesn't cover everything. the rest is up to you. call now, request your free decision guide
and start gathering the information you need to help you keep rolling with confidence. go long™. ♪ >> we contribute 22% of the u.n.'s budget, far more than any other country. which are a generous nation. but we must ask ourselves, what god is being accomplished by this disproportionate contribution? are we getting what we paid for? neil: all right. nikki haley, south carolina governor, slated to be our next am -- ambassador to the united nations. peter barnes on the fallout because what she is recommending on financial commitment if not cutting out of u.n. all together. that is a leap. how is this going down? reporter: this, she says, our financial contributions to the u.n. is the leverage that the trump administration can use to
try and get reforms at the u.n. she says, that the u.n. does do some good things in her view, anti-poverty programs, food programs, things like that. but she definitely plans to work obviously with the president-elect about reforms at the u.n. she was also questioned and discussed at length the vote in the u.n. security council in december in which the u.s. abstained at the security council on the resolution that was approved condemning israel for additional settlements, continuing settlement in the west bank. listen. >> nowhere has the u.n.'s failure been more consistent and more outrageous than it is, than its bias against our close ally, israel. reporter: she said, as u.n. ambassador for the united states, she would never vote to abstain in a vote that would, that critical of israel, an
important ally, she said. neil? neil: peter, obviously people will seize on that as a sign, is the trump administration then setting itself up to complain about funding the u.n. or even leave the u.n., if a vote comes up which we might disagree. reporter: she, none of the senators were asking about leaving the u.n. all together, despite all the criticism that we've heard. she wants to try to work on reforms. there has been no discussion about us leaving the u.n., at least at this hearing. neil: but holding out the possibility that the funding, which we're responsible by and large, 24%, whatever figure she used, that could be held out as a stick, if we don't get a carrot? >> right. that has been effective in the past, when u.s. wanted reforms
in unesco, education body, u.s. got reforms by refusing to provide funding in that instance. neil: peter barnes, thank you, very, very much. reporter: you bet. neil: senato continue questioning. four differe confirmations going on but not just nikki haley, tom price, health and human services, scott pruitt, epa, all the congressman, up to 64 house democrats all who say they will not go to the trump inauguration. we have never seen anything like that in the past. it all started with john lewis, civil rights icon. georgia congressman, democrat who had said in his eyes, donald trump is an i will legitimate president. you know how donald trump responded. you know how this is gone. i want you to meet the guy who tried to at least talk sense here into both. what progress did he make? andrew young is next.
and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis.
neil: all right. lives were ended up in ansi and even are questioning good choice for health and human services for health and human services could listen in. >> insure this committee that you will not cut 1 dollar from either medicare or medicaid shou you be confird to disposition. >> senator, i put the metric got to be to care the patien are receiving. that is the wrong metric. we had to be putting for the resources. >> i ask you whether you think you have the metric. dollars. yes or no. >> poker at the resources to take care of the patients. >> the millions of americans who rely on medicare and medicaid today are not going to be very reassured by your notion that you have some metric other than the dollars they need to provide these services. you might want to printout president-elect trump statement. i am not going to cut medicare
or medicaid and postponed above your desk in your new office because americans will be watching to see if you follow through on that promise. i also like to follow up on senator franken's question. there is something that they didn't quite get answered. as you know, congressman, the one goal of the affordable care act was to push the health care industry to provide higher quality care at lower costs. under the aca, medicare was recently allowed to change the way that it pays hospitals for hip and knee replacement to something called a bundle and that means medicare pays a set price for the care associated with hip and knee replacement in the hospitals, not congress will decide the most good implants can we do surgeries come a better fight infections. how to spend money to deliver
better service to higher costs. i supported this change because research shows that it really means you really get better care, lower prices. i know the policy is controversial because it affects how hospitals are paid which in turn affects how much money the manufacturers replacements make. one of the companies raised by mr. franken and that is one of the world's leading manufacturers of his bandmates that is than they make are many and can charge higher prices and sell more product. the company no-space and so did the stock analysts. i marched 17, exactly six days after he bought the stock on march 23rd, 2016, you introduced a bill in the house called ahead back that would require hhs secretary to suspend regulations affect in the payment for hip and knee replacements.
is that correct? >> the program to which i think he referred keeps making -- >> i'm not asking you why you support it. did you buy stock in introduced a bill that would be helpful to the companies they just buy stock in. >> the stock was bought by a broker who is making those decisions. i wasn't making those decisions. >> you said you weren't making those decisions. let me just make sure i understand these are your stock trades. these are listed under your name. >> i don't believe so. >> or passively managed mutual fund. >> or a romansh mutual fund? blind trust? let's just be clear. this is not just a stock broker, so when you to handle the paperwork. this is someone who buys stock
in your direction. this is someone who buys and sells the stock you want them to buy and sell. so when you found out -- because you decide not to tell them wink, wink, nod, nod. >> it is that members of the committee would understand. it's important to appreciate that's the case. >> i want to understand, when he found that your broker had made this trade without your knowledge coming e.g. reprimand her? >> what i did was comply -- >> did you sell the stock? >> i did with the ethical and legal -- in a transparent way. >> your time has expired come asunder warned. >> i believe senator murkowski won over by two minutes. did i misread that? >> by two minutes?
>> i think that's what it was and i just turned another 15 seconds. >> i'll keep hurting them and you'll be up to two minutes. >> okay. your periodic transaction no you weren't notified on april 4, 2016. did you take additional actions after that date to advance your plan to help the company you now own stock in? >> am offended by the insinuation, senator. do not reread what you did. you may be offended, the congressional record showed that after you are personally notified of this trade, which he said you didn't know in about an comment that you added 23 out of your 24 cosponsors but also after your notified of the stock transaction he sent a letter to cms calling on them to cease all current and economic plan initiatives under medicare and medicaid innovation and so there's no misunderstanding about who you're trying to help.
>> two minutes are up, senator warren. >> team that. >> senator warren, who is next? senator isakson has three minutes. tree into doubt for a while. what i noticed in these hearings that mhte just me. the answer is unimportant. the question is. so there's really no way that the republican questions current democratic, with the nominee has to say is a relative. the in whatever you want to mix the merits are more crucial. so that a matter. but when it comes to these exchanges, i'm always reminded that sometimes on the left and right the dollar in the party being questioned is interesting. adam shapiro at the latest on how all this is going down. >> what you saw is one of the lines of attack they are using
to discredit tom price. this is on a specific stock purchase, one of 40 over the last couple of years but the congressman has taken part in. he has helped care stocks at amgen, pfizer, lilly, but there was an exchange this morning but the large purchase of stock roughly between 50,000 to $100,000 a company called innate therapeutic spirit wash with senator pat murray did in regards to that purchase. >> congressman, do you believe it is appropriate for a senior member of congress actively involved in policymaking in the health sector to repeatedly, personally and dust in a company that could benefit from his actions. yes or no. >> that's not what happened. >> let me say i believe it's inappropriate and we need answers regarding whether you used her access to nonpublic information when you brought --
bought prices that were unavailable to the public. >> had no access to nonpublic information. >> syou see these exchanges with the democrats in the nomine but then you get very aggressive defense of representative prize. rand paul began his questioning by saying the question whether your artist is insulting in his first question to the nominee with did you go into public service to enrich yourself and of course the nominee said no and it was pointed out by going into public service. so essentially what you're witnessing is the democrats to discredit tom price. neil: all right. adam shapiro, thank you are much. the mickey hailey hearing under way. she says they could benefit. is that true? given the back-and-back-and- back and forth as to whether were disproportionately funding the land seen a bigger role and yet getting a little out of the u.n. there should be a quid pro quo.
jimmy carter as united nations ambassador, andrew young. thank you for coming. >> very good to be with you. neil: first off, i would like to get your reaction to that end governor mickey hailey's view that we pay a lot to keep the u.n. going. do you think there should be a quaint pro-quote there? >> well, i tell you, you pay according to your ability to pay. what i know from the u.n. is if you come hair what it costs to send the u.n. troops into lebanon back when i was at the u.n. and what it costs for the marines to go when, it not only costs much less, but i think we lost almost 300 marines. we didn't lose anybody when they let the u.n. do it. so the u.n. is a good evening for us. it does a lot of work we don't need to be doing and other
people need to carry their birding. the burden need not be dollars. i think governor haley was a very, very good choice and i think she will be extremely lover's needs. and i think she will deal to get almost anything done she wants to get done. train to you now, going back in time a little bit, ambassador, but i'm old enough to remember when i was such a huge deal when you talk to the palace and ends back in jimmy carter's days. >> it really wasn't. tree into your right. it wasn't a big deal. >> person i talked to was a tenured professor of english literature at columbia who had a phd from an american university and he was a devout christian. he happened to be the palestinian representative at the u.n. i have been asked to intervene
with him by both bush or diane and shimon peres. i am not with shimon peres for hours one night, just the three of us over dinner. because israel was concerned about what was going on around it. israel determined that it was going to live peacefully with the palestinian and that was becoming increasingly difficult as other people begin to interfere. we forget that president carter almost single-handedly negotiated a peace agreement with the egyptians that is held to this day. not a single objection is killed in israeli. not a single israeli has killed an egyptian. peace is possible, but it's only
possible if you are sensitive and respectful of all sides of a conflict. neil: you are referring of course to anwar sadat come in the campaign accords which were historic to put it mildly. the reason i mentioned back then in the kerfuffle over that is that here we are all these years later and the united states has taken a role, a hands-off role in a u.n. resolution condemning the israelis over these settlement. i am wondering now the message nikki haley is saddening. the message you make of it that reaction has been so negative to that among certain the republicans and among those loyal to israel. chuck schumer saying much the same in new york that it could poison the well, the peace process. would you think? >> well, i went to the united
nations right after senator moynihan had been involved in the whole business of zionism as racism. i was one of the first by and i got most of the african and caribbean delegate to realize that this is not something in their interest. it wasn't something that they wanted. it was something that could very easily ignore. i never had -- i never had a bad vote on israel the entire time i was there. but i talked to everybody. we have to realize that israel had visited in 1966 was ben gurry on and shimon peres and much or diane is complete the different than the israel that exists now. you had new waves of migrants coming in and they are coming in
from places where they have been persecuted. so they feel very, very insecure. that doesn't mean that we can't find a solution manner. neil: all right. if you don't mind my switching gears a little bit with the dustup about these democratic congressmen and women who are opting out of the trump inauguration. 64 by latest count. would he think of that? >> well, i think that democracy is difficult. it has its messes that covered that it is the best method of getting along with people with whom you disagree. i was picketed my very first day as mayor of atlanta and i was picketed by all the people of the civil rights movement, many
of whom i had trained and gone to jail with him beaten up with. once i became the mayor, there were 300 out there picketing me. i separate a minute, what's going on there? from now on, you're the man. were holding you accountable. i realize that's what democracy is all about your neil: is this fair? you have said about john lewis who said a week ago that donald trump is an illegitimate president. after donald trump had criticized lewis that john lewis is saying. does he told them personally, took a phone call from donald trump. what did he say back to you? >> i said look, this is the time of extremely difficult change. we were not including president-elect term. nobody anticipated what it did.
it's going to take us a little while and i think that democracy requires that we respect each other and we disagree, but we can disagree without being disagreeable. >> is still disagreeable, ambassador. you are negotiating little debates here. so do you think that it is possible the congressman was on any of these other 63 colleagues will change their mind and coach the inoculation if for nothing else than to show support for web is a peaceful transfer of power in this country. not that much over the president, but the presidency. >> well, let me say that i marched in president truman's inaugural student at howard university at rotc and it is called a double up there.
neil: of all be so cold this year. going to be a little warmer. immaculate be a little warmer. i tell you, the celebration of the inaugural is nobody will remember anything but the words of the president-elect. all that goes on around the less we say about it, the better. true interim sorry, do you think they should be there? >> i think that this is what america's freedom is about. the freedom to protest is one of the first amendment freedoms. and if they want to protest, let them protest. but eventually, they are going to have to get along with the president made that in his cabinet and this country is going to move forward no matter how much we differed. >> you are right, congressman lewis. yes a lot of followers that they
showed pity thcivil rights icon. you have many yourself. do you fear th a lot of their followers will think trump is an illegitimate president? do you think he's an illegitimate president? >> no, i think this is some enough for one i don't believe that though i know the russians tried to disrupt this election, we lost this election. the russians didn't take it. and we did it and it's our fault. we overestimated. we played resident electronic cheat. we did not think he could get elected in the polls said we were in lead and were wrong. but the polls were not wrong. but what we did was in running a campaign against the president-elect, we rallied people who normally are not polled. one of the things that i always
said is they never call my opponent's name and i never said anything bad about my opponent and i always can't -- i grew up in the second world war. he remembered the andrew sisters, accenture and the path you come to eliminate negative. latch onto the affirmative. don't mess with mr. in between. i think that we as democrats did not say what we were for. and that's why we lost the election. neil: finally, i know you're pressed for time, ambassador. we talk about what happens now not only on inauguration on friday, but afterwards. you're quite right to say but not the business of governing insurance and things have to get done. we go from very extreme positions here were neither party talks to the other, republicans are salivating at the opportunity to get out or
throw back in the face of democrats for nonparticipation that was thrown at them when they were in the minority. do you think we can overcome that or is this going to be the way it is? >> what they know. i think we've got to change. for one thing, the affordable care act in the states that did not use that hurt more poor white people than it did back people are middle class. neil: but you will acknowledge it has to be fixed. >> it has to be fixed because it has never been tried. i would say my suggestion would be like tennessee, alabama, georgia georgia had $14.9 billion sitting on the sideline that they would not spend on the health care clinics in rural georgia. atlanta did all right.
atlanta had private money coming into a wonderful set of hospitals. but it was a small towns and rural areas but really suffered. let us get some of this affordable care money and then make the changes. but it could not work with 22 states not send a printed sign up to 22 states and then adjust it anyway you want to adjust it. but don't exclude the people who voted for you. and that's what's happening. we sold poor white people the fact that we wanted to take their guns. the young man who was found guilty in south carolina didn't need a gun. he needed until health care. and he needed somebody to screen him in advice and counsel him.
before we died race and guns into this, whether it was columbine or sandy hook for the bombing of the park here in atlanta at the olympics and the blowing up of the post office in oklahoma, none of those have anything to do with race. none of them had anything to do with guns. i think we need to get away from our ideology. let's look at the facts and we will probably find that when we are dealing with the facts rather than the symbols, this country always finds a way to stay together. we might go to the brink and i'm old enough not to have been to the brink many, many times and we've never gotten over. we will not go over now.
i knew president-elect trump over dinner. when my angelo had her birthday party and he was a perfect gentleman. that was a celebration down at his place, were probably two thirds of the people happen to be african-american. but it was nothing. there were no labels. people acted like great american and i think we have to pull the greatness of america together again. >> sometimes you're right. it almost becomes like professional wrestling. >> you guys enjoyed the extremes. >> i don't think there is anything extreme about it.
>> i'm glad you mentioned the andrew sisters without thinking. >> it would've been. >> thank you very much. a real pleasure having you. andrew young, former u.n. ambassador. when we come back, more development on president george h.w. bush in the hospital. we are learning that barbara bush hospitalized as well. this is to admit i george h.w. bush leaving office saying this as a precaution after she was experiencing some fatigue. a lot more after this.
neil: all right. welcome back. we got a lot going on here. that was very interesting with andrew young, a second ago, saying, you know, russia didn't lose us this past election, we did, we lost it. we'll have a lot more. impact on certainly on my fox news show. that is the first prominent democrat to pretty much acknowledge what is out there on the table. russians might have interfered but democrats lost it on their own. that coming from andrew young, jimmy carter's ambassador to the u.n. this is another development we're following, remember that guy running as hillary clinton's running mate, tim kaine among those questioning, the guy getting questions probably most controversy, tom price, slated to become next health and human services secretary. a lot of democrats not happy about it. his commitment to the affordable care act, not much.
he wants to change it completely. question on stock trades while he was in the house that might benefit some of the positions he was taking. elizabeth warren raking him over the coals on that, a host of others, al franken included. mike leavitt, former utah governor, former epa administrator, this guy's resume', is amazing. governor, very good to have you. what do you make of the grilling that you're seeing mr. price get, and particularly on all sorts of issues that sometimes have nothing to do with his purview, including his views on climate change? >> neil, i have been through this myself a couple of times as you alluded. neil: indeed. >> and what you very quickly come to understand these hearings are theater and you don't have any good lines. you're going to subject yourself to this process for a time. this is not about tom price.
this is about democrats and republicans and -- neil: you can't give a right answer. i've seen this happen with both sides, it is not about what the people are saying, who were brought up, to get confirmation, even when they corral, big oil ceos or big bankers, it is about the posturing, isn't it? >> it is. it's about the larger message, and their large message is, we don't want to see health care changed, you do, and we'll do all we can to make it look bad. tom price is going to be, very qualified man. he will be confirmed. he has the credentials, he has the answers to their questions. they don't want to hear them, they want to ask them in a way to make their point. as i say it is sort of theater. neil: all right, so you're prepared for tt. i imagine they sit, guys like you in a room, knowing, all right, tomorrow, governor have confirmation hearing for this post and later on apa, do they go you there the type of
questions at that will come up? were you ever surprised by the line of questioning that would come up? did someone do something that you didn't expect? >> those who have been nominated have, go through a process where they're well-prepared. my guess is that tom price has been through three or four mock hearings where, they have tried to think of all the questions he could be asked, and he has answered the questions. again, there is a bit of theater here. the senators have all been prepared by their staff with a line of questioning. they have seven minutes in which to do it. so you will see, them rye don't want him to answer. they want to ask their next question. reality, often time they're not listening to his answer, they are prepared to ask the next question. one of the interesting things that happened the debate many times they would be able to question him. neil: that's right. >> and senator alexander went through each of the former secretaries gone before that committee and talked how many round they had. so it, there is a lot of theater
playing out here. neil: yeah, i always, i for get the one senator, her name escapes me, said, i don't have time for your answer. that was classic. but, here we are, and i don't see, and you're closer to this than i am, sir, i don't see anything imperilling these cabinet employees ultimate confirmation, i'm going all the way back to rex tillerson for exxonmobil secretary of state position. do you see anything like that that could be problematic? >> i do not. you can expect the democrats, as will always be the case, will identify one or two cabinet members that they will focus on, do what they can to disrupt it. this is not so much about the cabinet members themselves. it is about the subject. i headed epa for a time, and, my confirmation was delayed for 66 days. they would openly tell me, this is not about you. we want to make a point about the administration.
and, it happens in both parties. i have often, often compared it to a sort of political version of hazing that you have to go through in order to have the opportunity to serve. neil: you know, we have seen cases where someone can lose it, i remember john tower for defense when he snapped and, and there are other times where this can happen. i haven't seen it yet. i saw tilson get hot under the collar he was bought and paid for by big oil, by and large, rule of thumb, don't let them see you sweat, right? >> you will notice there is a lot of nonanswers given. a lot of questions that have a point and a lot of non-answers that are given. you also note something, they will always say if i'm confirmed. e of the things that nominees are careful to do is not assume that they will be confirmed. therefore they're being asked a lot of questions about what will you do if you're secretary, well
they want to be clear i'm not yet, until i am my opinion doesn't really matter. neil: that is where i would answer, if you're stupid enough vote against me, take it from there. i guess that's why i'm not nominated for any of these. governor, thank you, very good seeing you. happy new year. >> same to you. neil: mike leavitt, former health and human services secretary, epa administrator. so much, by the way democrats as you know four strong, is that, right? anywhere from 64. house democrats opting out not going to the inauguration, no less than former u.n. ambassador andrew young telling me, maybe, maybe they're blaming the wrong figure here. take a look. do you think he is an illegitimate president. >> no. i think this is something that, for one, i don't believe that, though i know the russians tried to disrupt this election, we lost this election.
the russians didn't take it. and we did it and it's our fault. we overestimated, we played president-elect trump chief. we did not think he could get elected. and polls said we were in the lead and we were wrong. neil: we lost this election. the russians didn't take it. to charles payne. i think that has one word response, wow. what did you make of that? >> another one word, refreshing. you know, i think take it from the source. andrew young is someone who has been around for a long time. he has got no more political skin in the game. he is not running for anything. he can objective and honest apparently one of majority of his party can not be. he is one of my heroes growing up looking up to in the late '70s and early '80s. he is absolutely right. he laid out all the mistakes arrogant, angry democratic party
hillary clinton made. this woman take off a whole month to raise money in the hamptons. spent a lot of time with celebrities in al california and hollywood. decided when she campaigned in pennsylvania only went to philadelphia and pittsburgh. didn't listen to old school folks like ed rend dell. they crunched numbers. this is the topics we'll run on. this is how we divide the country and it should abqaiq walk. neil: what is interesting about the ambassador, he was ting to say he could certainly understand, in these 64 some odd congressman who are perfectly free not to go to the inauguration, i got the feeling, trying to pin him down on this, he wishes they wouldn't do that. >> right. neil: it is what it is. the two sides are talking past each other now. kind of like donald trump as well for compounding the way he was referring to the tweet response on lewis. but, both sides have been talking past each other for years now. i don't see that changing. >> we don't see it changing. we know it has to change.
we hope it changes. listen, gop has a real nice position where they have been able to consolidate power on capitol hill and in the white house. still i think, as an american people, we're one large group of people who felt like they were ignored for the last eight years. i would hate to see the pendulum swing and another large group of people feel like they're ignored for the next four to eight years. so, i think president trump is in, president soon to be trump is in a wonderful position to ultimately stand above all of this stuff. now, i know that at same time lifts all ships and his economic policies have a chance to working unite us, at least removing some of the anxieties that exacerbate other tensions that may be out there but i also want to see him at some point, hey, i'm the kind of guy who has been around the world. i negotiated with people. i know how to put different people at table. ambassador young talked about a dinner he attended where donald trump put it together.
for maya angelou. you don't hear those kind of stories. that is wonderful thing. people in new york, donald trump wrote me a letter two years ago, i write every single day about the markets. he saw one of my pieces, and he called my office and sent me a letter. i know he reaches out to people. i want to see that. i think that is going to come after the inauguration. neil: truth be told, trump had called me and said, neil, can you write a letter to payne. >> you got his signature down before -- neil: i am just joking with you. we did have steve moore on. what i long suspected seems to be coming into play, and i'm not trying to rile up the antitax cut side, i believe if you stimulate economy, it should be big tax cuts because we're running out of other ammo, the fed, that's gone. they will be hiking rate, not cutting them. i think tax cuts are the only answer then. i'm hearing from number of
powerful operatives, mitch mcconnell, and then of course former treasury secretary john snow we're not going to see that, nor should we. that is what their position is. too big of a tax cut, not revenue neutral. it is not good. what do you make of what steve moore is saying? let's do this in two-ways, corporate taxes first, marry it with infrastructure spending. can get into the details how you pay for that infrastructure spending. then as we regroup and gather our wits and wind, try the individual tax cuts? by that time, my view, charles, you've missed an opportunity, but i could be clueless. what do you think? >> i really would love to, your point see them both done almost simultaneously. listen, they have got all the pieces in place. they have all the people in place. we do know that is one of the internal debates with donald trump and the gop with respect to the border tax. the gop for the most part, hey, we throw the border adjustment
tax in, that gives us 1.3 trillion over next 10 years. that offsets revenue we miss out when we cut corporate taxes. looks like they're pretty laser like focus figuring that part out but to leave out the individual income tax part i think would be a huge mistake. you have to let us know you're working on it, making progress. otherwise you lose some optimism, optimism people feel out there i'm going to keep more of my paycheck because i earned it, and i spend it the way i wa. neil: i worry about that. great time chatting with you. i love the letter story. i love the fact that you bought it it was from donald trump. didn't you see the ps i wrote, charles, i like you charles, but i like neil much more? >> i don't know what that said. wasn't sure, it looked like scribbling. now i know,. neil: we joke but your writings are stunning. they make you think. >> thanks, neil. neil: we have more going on.
other charles, charlie gasparino, what steve moore is saying, whether the whole tax debate is coming what we suspected was the case. two big waves. first corporate, then individual. what if the corporate one stumbles, we pass that 100, 200 day window when the latter one slips away, after this. when you have something you love,
>> you heard it first here on fox business news, i think you may see two bills. a business tax cut where you could actually get i believe a lot of democrats -- neil: interesting, interesting. >> especially if you link that with infrastructure spending. you might leave the second part, which is broad-based tax reform for another day. neil: let's see. what does he know. after all we've had him on this network for years and still calls it fox business news. having said that joking, steve moore is encyclopedia.
doesn't have time for news networks. one of the things we've been saying here and my buddy charlie gasparino and i have been debating here whether we would get the kind of tax cuts we're envisioning. what steve moore is saying dr. gasparino, not way you like them, but in waves. corporate first, which is kind of weird and then individual rates. what do you think. >> i wouldn't mind if they didn't marry with infrastructure. this is the question he and steve moore, and people that foisted donald trump on supply-siders like myself and movement conservatives. neil: you are a supply sider. >> yes. he gave donald his supply side bonifides. people like steve and larry kudlow. how can they sit there and stomach donald trump merging the corporate tax in a bill with a infrastructure spending plan? neil: trump is doing it as much to get democratic votes. >> okay, that means you will get less of a corporate tax cut than is needed. we need to be competitive with the world.
neil: how do you know that? >> you can't pay for both. neil: what if that is not important? if it's a way, democrats you get what you want, republicans you get what you want, we both make the deficit work? >> i know what steve moore, if he wasn't playing politics, i'm not saying he is, but if he wasn't trying to soft-shoe this would be saying, and larry kudlow would say this as well, you marry infrastructure tax plan with spending plan with corporate tax cut you will not get the 15% corporate tax. neil: unless attached to the income tax plan forgiveness on money held abroad or tax holiday, would pay for a lot of it, you're not a believer. >> i'm saying if you want to take the corporate tax rate down to 15%, i don't see how congress, paul ryan or mitch mcconnell, will agree to a big infrastructure plan. if you want a decent infrastructure plan, you will not get a 15% corporate tax rate.
they won't, i can't imagine they're going to agree to both of those things. neil: the date and time it would take to settle it, would be past that initial wave of to enact the corporate. >> think about it this way. you are already watering down your tax and regulatory cut plans. i will say this, the market is off again today. the market was up on enthusiasm of less regulations and taxes. the market, even with goldman sachs with great earnings, i will i am illuminate this, when banks have good earnings, markets generally go up. banks are very much tied to the broad indexes. morgan stanley had good earnings. markets were down yesterday, down today. you know why? they're talking about watering down taxes and talking about infrastructure spending. wilbur ross basically came out and confirmed to the whole world, talked about that he is protectionist, he talked about china sanctions and all the rest. neil: he is up for commerce?
>> yes. neil: tomorrow is the biggie, steve mnuchin. he is up for treasury. how do you think that one is going -- >> it will be wild i think. democrats will go after him on his running of the bank one west and, remember he ran it following the financial crisis. he foreclosed on people. neil: but isn't he also a hollywood liberal? they might like that. he was behind of all these movies. >> he is with trump now. "sully" was a good movie. the stock market could be really interesting. does he say something about fannie and freddie -- listen, if he says we want to privatize fannie and freddie, but keep some government backstop, by the way the old fannie and freddie was that got us into trouble, if he says that, watch fannie and freddie shares soar tomorrow, soar, they could double. neil: i want to hear him on this tax stuff. of course he telegraphed on this network, the possibility that, yeah, we're going to lower tax rates for anybody, including the
rich but offset it for the rich by limiting deductions. so many of those 1%, all your friends called up afterwards, said what? if he confirms that again -- >> i think that's fine. this is where it gets squirrely and this is where the markets react negatively. if steve mnuchin says we have to pay for that. we'll cut back the corporate tax cut plan and not give individuals as big after tax cut plan even with closing loopholes. neil: right, right. >> closing loopholes rationalizes tax code. you get paid less, but if you want to buy something, a house or whatever, you have to spend your own my any. that is your business. a lot of rich people don't care about that unless as long as they make decisions where they put their money as opposed -- neil: i don't know that promise of simplified tax code of people like you have dozens accountants handling. >> right. and teams of secretaries typing away at my tax forms. neil: they're typing? that is the problem right there. charlie, thank you very.
we'll be over in d.c. tomorrow. the party begins. gaspo, et.al. keep in mind all of this apparently having to do with a inauguration on friday. more after this. hey gary, what are you doing? oh hey john, i'm connecting our brains so we can share our amazing trading knowledge. that's a great idea, but why don't you just go to thinkorswim's chat rooms where you can share strategies, ideas, even actual trades with market professionals and thousands of other traders? i know. your brain told my brain before you told my face.
mmm, blueberry? tap into the knowledge of other traders on thinkorswim. only at td ameritrade. won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. and if you have more than one liberty mutual policy, you qualify for a multi-policy discount, saving you money on your car and home coverage. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.
>> we're a compassionate society. >> we're not a compassionate society in terms of relationship to poor and working people. our record is worst than any virtually another country. we highest childhood rate of poverty than any major country. our senior older workers have nothing set aside to other countries. i don't think with other countries -- >> if you want to talk about country as other health care system there is are consequences to decisions they made and there are consequences to decision we made. neil: what is interesting in that exchange with health and
human services choice by donald trump dr. price, we define compassion how much money which spend. by that, trillions we spent on war on poverty and still have trillions in poverty and food and hunger issue and some in need of food and hungry, then maybe that approach isn't working, right? so when we had elizabeth warren go back and forth how much money we commit and it should be more dollars, is that right? anyway the hearing wrapping up right now, but it is something interesting to note. gerri willis, on all of that. gerri? >> neil, i have been watching hearing, listening to exchanges, one you pulled, one of the few eventually got to health care. they have been talking to tom price all morning about global warming, race, his stock holdings but his main point of business is going to be the aca, obama heir repeal and replace. you didn't hear a lot of details about that at least i was
surprised by that that is critical, that is what matters to the american people. i talked to one of those folks, kim quaid, a speech pathologist in kansas who is very concerned about this. for years she runs her own business. she would buy her own policy in the open marketplace in kansas. she was happy with what she got. price was good. offerings were good. she got covered what she wanted. in the last couple years policies disappeared, largely because of obamacare. so she went on obamacare. she got the subsidy. even so her costs have doubled. and she doesn't like what is being covered. there are things she wants not covered under this plan. here is what she told me. >> obamacare hasn't helped me at all. my coverage has been poor. my out-of-pocket on my premiums has been sky-high. and like i said, even with the subsidy that i'm getting this year, it is still much higher than what i was paying previously just three short years ago. >> not just her.
a lot of americans are worried, concerned what will come next. can they get rid of obamacare? a lot of people not fans of this. i've been talking to sources, also today, neil, who will make this decision about what comes nix. price will be part of that. trump, pence, mitch mcconnell, paul ryan, chuck schumer and as i mentioned, tom price. those are the names that are going to make the big calls on aca. neil? neil: gerri, thank you very much. we're minutes away from president obama's final press conference. commuting sentence for chelsea manning will come up. a lot of people outraged why he did that, and what fallout will be for getting chelsea manning out of prison. only a few months. good for her or him or, whatever. but good for the country? after this.
neil: moments from president obama's final news conference pretty is expected to get more feedback and his decision process to commute the prison sentence for chelsea manning. trish regan ahead of all that. trish: a lot going on here, president-elect's donald trump nominees, attacking them on pretty much anything and everything they can. welcome to "the intelligence report". we have four confirmation hearings going on including one for representative tom praise, donald trump's pick for secretary of health and human services. getting into some hot water here, things getting rather heated. elizabeth warren and others going after him, democratic lawmakers slamming him and obamacare and the investments he made in healthcare companies. watch.