tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News October 20, 2013 3:00pm-4:01pm PDT
we love to hear from you. we will be back here next sunday morning with the latest "buzz." the government rere-opens. the debt creating is raised. there are more budget battles ahead. >> this deal kicks the can down the road. >> there is a lot more we need to do. >> as federal employees go back to work, the president pushes a new agenda. >> there are no winners here. the last few weeks have conflicted unnecessary damage on our economy. >> the republican party licked its wounds. >> if the senate we republicans stood united with the house of representatives republicans we would have won. >> we will discuss what happens now with senator marco rubio, on the sunday exclusive.
>> then, as frustration with washington reaps new heights, how do we avoid another budget she down? >> we want to look for ways to find common ground to get a budget agreement. >> we will talk with two key lawmakers, senator durbin of illinois and senator blunt of missouri. and the continuing problems with obamacare. our "power player of the week," the 31-year-old behind the shutdown. that is all right now on fox news sunday. "fox >> hello again from fox news in washington. government workers are back on the job after the 16-day partial shut down. president obama is pushing a new agenda for the year while republicans argue about the best strategy. we have a g.o.p. leaders of the center of the debate, florida senator rubio. welcome back to fox news sunday. >> thanks for having me back.
>> you are one of the 18 republican senators who voted against the final deal to re-open the government. was that a political gesture because you knew it was going to pass anyway? or were you really prepared to keep the government shut down and to bump up, to pass the deadline for raising the debt limit? >> let me be clear. i never was in favor of shutting down the government. i was in favor of funding the government fully and voted to fund it fully. the only thing i didn't want to see was waste money or obamacare which is a disaster. we have seen that the signup on the exchanges which was supposed to be the easy part of this endeavour has turned interest a fiasco the administration is struggling with. why waste a penny more on that. it is important to remember what is at stake that the american dream is under assault. people who are stuck in jobs that do not pay enough to live
off of or have not been able to find a job in months and the growing since this is the new normal. we cannot accept that. this cannot be the new normal. we can restore the american dream and rebuild it but we cannot if we leave the issues unaddressed. >> we will get to obamacare in a moment but i want to press this question, the republican senator, the leader in the senate, said what you guys did for the last 2 1/2 weeks was a mistake. here is what he said. there is no education in the second kick of a mule. a government shut down is off the table. we are not going to do it. is mcconnell wrong? >> in hindsight any endeavour you get in there are lessons to be lashed and the question if all of us would believe that the country is headed in the wrong direction and problems like obamacare need to be repealed, moving forward for us, the question is, are there any lessons from the last three weeks we can use to in the future we are more successful in achieving results.
we are prepared to have that conversation. i don't think any of those issues whether it is the debt or obamacare or restoring of the american dream will be possible unless there is a unified republican party. >> is mcconnell wrong to say that government shut down is off 9 table? >> i never wanted there to be a government shut down. >> i understand. >> chris, the people who should down the government were the president and the democrats in the senate who basically said that unless you fund the entire -- until you fund obamacare we are unwilling to fund the entire government. they forced this situation we have just been involved in. >> the senate conservatives found a powerful political action group announced they will support mcconnell's tea party challenger in the primary next year. do you support mcconnell's re-election to the senate? >> i do support senator
mcconnell. he is trying to lead our yen. it is a diverse conference. and he has to represent his own state. at the end of the day he has done a good job of being the leader of the republican conference in the senate and that is not an easy job to do. >> let's get to obamacare which is your big issue in this more matter. the federal website for obamacare is again down for repairs this weekend and second of health and human services will not testify before a house of representatives subcommittee this week that is going to investigate the shaky obama rollout because -- not nuttily because, she will have time to attend a gala in boston the night before. should president obama replace her? >> that could become an option. i am not a fan of media calls for people to resign but actions like you outlined will make it harder and harder to do her job.
the transparency or lack thereof on the issue is concerning. we just heard news that 500,000 people have somehow gone on the website and left some information, that tells us nothing as far as how many have enrolled harassment is a revaunt matter because if new people don't sign up for the exchanges, the rates on the exchanges are going to be astronomical and undermine the entire private health insurance industry. her refusal to testify is undermining her credibility. there could become a point where she will have to veto sign because she is no longer has credibility to do the job. >> i suspect a lost our viewers have not heard of this yesterday. the administration officials have said 476,000 people have applied or submitted applications on either the federal or the state websites
but it doesn't say how many have enrolled and you have to apply first and known you have to find if you are eligible and then you enroll. having said that, 476,000 politicians, does that indicate that, perhaps, this is less of a mess and republicans are overstating the republican? >> they need to get seven million people on this thing so by their own numbers it is not going to get there. many of these petroleum have filled it out and some will not qualify. there is a lot of work to be done in getting other people on there and there is no mechanism to do that. if enough people did not sign up for this program and the premiums on the program will not be affordable. it gets into the debt spiral where the premiums go up and the program collapses. that is the direction we are headed. the point i wanted to make, in the 21st century, setting up a website where people can buy
something is not that complicated. people do it each day. the inability of the federal government telling to set up a website where people can go on and buy something like health insurance does not look well for the more complicated elements of the law that are yet to be rolled out. >> president obama is pushing a new agenda for the rest of of year and he wants to renew the push for immigration reform which is stalled. a congressman who at one point supported immigration reform now says "it would be crazy for the house republican leadership to enter into negotiations with him, obama, on immigration because his goal now is to destroy the republican party." do you agree with the congress labrador? >> immigration reform is something the country needs. no one disagrees we have a broken immigration system. we do not have mechanisms to enforce our immigration laws.
the issues have to be dressed. what the congress plan is addressing is something i hear from opponents all the time and it is a valid point: you have a government and a white house that is consistently decided to ignore the law or how to apply it. the law is on the books. they decide what parts of it to apply and which parts newt apply and issue their own waivers without congressional oversight. they say you will pass an immigration law that has both some legalization aspect and some enforcement. what is not to say the white house will not come back and cancel the enforcement aspects? that is what he means by lack of trust. they make a very legitimate point. the president has undermined the effort. >> do you agree it would be crazy to deal with him and to press forward with immigration reform because of that lack of trust? >> i don't think that is what he was saying. what he was saying, that house deserves the time and space to craft their own solution.
this notion they will negotiate a deal with the president on immigration, that is much more difficult to do for two reasons because of the way the president has behaved toward his opponents as well as the white house and what they have said and done. two, because of what i outlined. immigration reform is a lot harder to achieve today than three weeks ago because of what has happened. the house deserves the time and space to have their own ideas of how to move forward. see what they come up with. it could be better than what the 123459 -- senate has done. >> you were an architect of the plan that passed the senate. there is suggestion that perhaps you have backed away from the plan. let me ask you directly: as part of a comprehensive land that does include tougher enforcement measures, do you still support an earned path to citizenship? >> the answer is yes, depending on the way it is outlined in a comprehensive package.
i believe as i always have the best way to address immigration reform is an individual bill that builds on each other. i have always believed that. the senate went a different direction. i wanted to new what the senate came up with. we have house colleagues with their own ideas of how to pursue this. ultimately, we have been lectured for three weeks about being realistic being told we will not get rid of obamacare and we will not repeal it because obama is in the white house. we have been lectured about that. they need to be realistic about immigration reform. the house and many members have strong opinions on what reform should look like and without them on board there will not be reform. many democrats are going to have to make the decision about immigration: do they want it as a political talking point or looking for a result? they will have to show more flexibility on the key points like you have outlined.
>> some conservatives call your plan although it takes 13 years to become a citizen and you have to go through a lot of steps, call it amnesty and in the early presidential horse race polls, you have taken a hit. in april you led one poll with 19 percent followed by ryan, rand paul and christie. this month, paul loads, followed by christie and you are back in third place. has your support for comprehensive immigration reform hurt you with conservatives? >> obviously, you are citing a poll that shows that could be the case but that is not why i did it. fur are look at only what the future could hold politically they would not undertake this issue. i knew that. i am convinced this is important for our country to confront and to solve. i felt i was in a position to make a positive difference. when you pass any bill it will
not be perfect. administration is this case. i believe it is important for our issue to confront because the alternative is to leave things the way though are. i argue that the way things are now is amnesty. is there a way to improve upon what the senate did? probably. i am sure. that is what i hope the house of representatives will work on. they deserve the time and space to do that. >> senator rubio, we thank you for sharing part of your weekend with us. it is always good to talk with you. >> next, will it be deja vu all over again in congress in three months? we will talk about the battle of the budget. e budget that has jut ♪ wow...look at you. i've always tried to give it my best shot. these days i'm living with a higher risk of stroke due to afib, a type of irregular heartbeat, not caused by a heart valve problem.
at first, i took warfarin, but i wondered, "could i up my game?" my doctor told me about eliquis. and three important reasons to take eliquis instead. one, in a clinical trial, eliquis was proven to reduce the risk of stroke better than warfarin. two, eliquis had less major bleeding than warfarin. and three... unlike warfarin, there's no routine blood testing. [ male announcer ] don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis ifyou have an artificial heart valve abnormal bleing. while taking eliquis, yomay bruise more easily and it m take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. i've got three important reasons to up my game with eliquis. [ male announcer ] ask your doctor today
if eliquis is right for you. geothe last thing i want iswho doesnto feel like someone is giving me a sales pih, especially when it comes to my investments. you want a broker you can trust. a lot of guys at the other firms seemed more focused on selling than their clients. that's why i stopped working at my old brokerage and became a financial coultant with charles schwab. avo: what kind of financial consultant are you looking for? talk to us today.
we want to have smart deficit reduction. we want to grow the economy. we want budget process is the way to do that. >> we believe we can find common ground. >> the government had just been open for hours when the leader of the budget conference committee met to start working on a deal by a december deadline to avoid another shutdown. will washington learn its lesson and finally reach a compromise? joining us from chicago the number-two democrat in the senate, dick durbin. here in washington, a member of the republican leadership roy blunt of missouri. senators, welcome back. before we start, let's talk about the big differences between the budget that the house passed and the senate passed. let's put them on the screen. the senate calls for $975 billion in new taxes. the house has none. the senate cuts $275 billion from health care, mostly from medicare providers. the house cuts $2.7
trillion by repealing obamacare and changing medicare to a voucher system. overall the senate budget is $# 1 billion more. -- is $91 billion more. senator blunt, big difference. is there a deal to be made? >> i think there is a deal to be made here. what we should have learned the last couple of weeks, if you're a divided government and arguing against the law, you're disadvantaged. that number that the house used actually is the number that the law ultimately will enforce if we don't reach some agreement to moderate that. the budget control act is the only thing we found that actually controls spending. this is the second year in a row, and the first time since the end of the korean war that spending has gone down at the federal level two years straight. the budget control act is there. senate republicans, i believe house republicans are very supportive of that. and whatever kind of agreement we make --
entitlements, savings versus additional spending i think has to be done with the understanding that at the end of the day if we don't make an agreement, the number is going to be $967 billion in discretionary spending. >> let me pick up on that with you, senator durbin. because as senator blunt suggested, republicans have some leverage here. if nothing happens the sequester spending cuts kick in on january 15 and discretionary spending is cut by $21 billion. paul ryan, the house budget chair, is proposing a kind of trade in which they would agree to some short-term spending increases, which you guys want, in return for some long-term spending cuts through entitlement reform. does that sound reasonable? >> well, i can tell you this. if this is the bargain that the republicans are now pushing for that we have to cut medicare to avoid cuts in the department of defense, let us step back and take a look at this. paul ryan couldn't pass his budget in the house of representatives. the republican majority wouldn't vote for it unless
he violated the budget control act and added more than $20 billion in defense spending. we ought to sit down together and realize that sequester is the clumsiest, most awkward way to cut spending. we can do it much more sensibly. and i think we can meet our spending targets. we can reduce the impact, negative impact of sequester on our national security and national defense. >> let me ask you -- don't get into the weeds on me here. if they were willing to relax some of the short term spending cuts for defense and domestic programs, what would you give them? >> i'm going to leave that to senator patty murray. i'm not going to negotiate here on fox. patty murray is the chair of our budget committee. i respect paul ryan. we disagree on politics and certainly on issues like the future of medicare. but when it comes down to it, we've got to be able to put everything on the table. that means republicans have to be willing to put revenue on the table. i can't understand this basic premise that this tax code is sacred, this there
aren't loopholes in there that should be closed and the savings be dedicated to reducing the deficit. why is that such a radical idea to most republicans? >> that's what i suspected you were going to say, senator durbin, which is it can't be short-term spending increases for long-term spending cuts revenue. is that a nonstarter? one of the ideas is not raise rates but just that you would close some loopholes, tax reform, and use some of that money to cut the deficit. >> i don't know anybody opposed to closing loopholes. in fact, if we were going to do a revenue-neutral tax rewrite, chairman baucus could do that and do that pretty quickly. the percentage of the wealth of the country, the gross domestic product of the country that's coming to the federal government right now is pretty much where it has been at the high numbers since world war ii, about 18.5%, 19%.
why does it need to be more than that? this is not about closing loopholes. this is not for that. this is about whether you close those loopholes to make tax rates lower or close those loopholes so that you have more than 20% of the gross domestic product. congress has failed to do its job. still the unwritten story about the shutdown was we were at the last day of the spending year and not a single appropriations bill had passed the senate of the 12 that need to fund the government. only one had been brought to the floor. and it was one that the majority leader knew couldn't pass. >> i don't want to -- let me go back to taxes because that always seems to be the big problem here. senator durbin, why is it any different that republicans refuse to raise revenues than president obama's refusal to make any changes in obamacare? >> let me just tell you this before we go any further. i want to correct the record for roy. the one appropriations bill
we brought to the floor, the transportation bill, was a bipartisan bill. senator murray, senator collins, when we brought it up for a vote to go forward with the only appropriations bill we brought to the floor, senator blunt and all of the republicans except senator collins voted against going forward on the bill. so don't criticize us. we tried to move forward on the appropriations bill. >> you guys are so far beyond what most people know or i think care about. go back to taxes. why is it that republicans are unreasonable when they say no new taxes, but president obama is perfectly reasonable when he says no changes to my health care reform plan? >> you've never heard me say that. i don't think you've heard the president say that. there is no perfect law. as i said before, the only perfect law was brought down on clay tablets by senator moses off a mountain. so we should sit down and look at constructive ways to make obamacare, the affordable care act, work better. in just a short period of time 17 million americans
have tried to log on to this website, a half a million -- i'll dispute some of your earlier claims -- a half a million are moving towards signing up for health insurance. this is a popular program. let's make it work better instead of trying to -- >> i'll talk about obamacare in a second but why do taxes have to be on theñi table? why can't you just make a deal, short-term spending for long-term entitlement reform? which senator you support and president obama supports. you have supported the idea of some entitlement reform. >> that's right. i do. i'll tell you why. social security is going to run out of money in 20 years. i want to fix it now before we reach that cliff. medicare may run out of money in ten years. let's fix it now. that means addressing the skyrocketing costs of health care. that's what obamacare is focused on. yet the republicans want nothing to do with it. if we don't focus on health care and on dealing with the entitlements, the baby-boom generation is going to blow away our
future. we want to make sure medicare and social are solid. >> let me bring senator blunt into this. we've been talking about the fact that the websites are shut down again for repairs this weekend. we have the situation with secretary sebelius where she can go to a gala in boston but, no, she won't testify before a house committee. your thoughts. >> i think the secretary's view that she doesn't have to testify, doesn't have to answer questions, is too busy for that is unsustainable and she won't be able to sustain it. >> should she be out? >> i think she'll have to testify. i don't think she can refuse to answer questions about this. trying to defend that i have time to go to a gala in boston but i don't have time to appear before the congress because i'm so busy trying to make this system work, this doesn't make sense, and people know that. but this is a very mechanical thing. the most expensive website ever -- and it doesn't work -- we're nowhere close to knowing whether the
president's health care plan is going to work or not. people are going to find out over the next few weeks and months how hard it is to sign up, what happens to your insurance rates. we'll see if senator durbin is right or if i'm right. i don't think this plan will work because i think it's based on a couple of premises that won't work. when you can't even put together the package to sign up, that shows how big a job it is to try to, for the federal government to manage 16% of the economy and people's health insurance plans is not where the federal government should be. >> senator durbin, we've got about a minute left. isn't this rollout an embarrassment that raises serious questions about obamacare? and isn't it an embarrassment that secretary sebelius is refusing to answer questions pra house committee? >> ultimately secretary sebelius will testify before congress. i don't know the circumstances of this last minute let's do it in a few days. but 17 million americans
have already visited these websites. >> how many signed up? >> almost half a million. >> half a million filed applications. the government continues to refuse to say how many have enrolled. >> what else are we going to do but take their applications and process them. but that's an indication of national interest. one of the most successful states per capita so far is kentucky, the state of senator mcconnell and senator rand paul. they have had 10,000 people. governor steve bashar, an amazing outpouring of interest in health insurance. i think it's on its way to being a substantial success. it is off to a rough start with the website. if we're talking about competency and accountability, i have a question for the republicans. we just went through a government shutdown of your creation. it cost us $30 billion for taxpayers, hundreds of thousands of jobs, and the republican party brand is at the lowest level in the last 30 years. who is going to be held accountable for that? is there going to be a
question about the future of senator cruz? >> you've got 30 seconds to answer, senator blunt. >> senator durbin and others think somehow this is a big win for their party. nobody won in the last three weeks. the president is saying he won't negotiate about important issues. democrats in the senate rejecting offer after offer from the house. people's confidence in government is shaken. democrats look terrible. republicans look terrible. the president looks terrible. we all had better figure that out before we go into drawing lines in the sand like changing the budget control act in this next set of negotiations. >> on that happy note, senator blunt, senator durbin, thank you both. thanks for coming in today. we'll follow what happens with the budget and obamacare. thank you, gentlemen. up next, with the shutdown over, there is renewed focus on the very shaky rollout of obamacare. our senate panel weighs in on what it means for the future of health care future of health care reform.
president obama's ideas are deeply flawed, and the implementation of this law has been a national embarrassment. let me be plain. the law that carries the president's name is the hallmark of a reckless federal government that has lost its way. >> ken kaoufp nelly -- cucenelli vowing to continue the effort to overturn obamacare in the republican weekly address. it is time for brit hume, fox news senior political analyst. julie page who covers the white house. syndicated columnist and fox news contributor george will and charles lane of "the washington post." there are two interesting developments on the obamacare front this weekend. the federal government website is down again for repairs. you can see what people saw during the middle of the
night if they went on to healthcare .gov and it turns out that secretary sebelius turned out to have time to attend a gala the night before. now that the shutdown is over, are all the issues with obamacare going to become a bigger issue? >> i think they will become more visible, although they were pretty visible despite the focus on the shutdown. i think it is probably good news the system was down. it need to be down for repairs. it may need a complete redesign which may set it back i don't know how many months. the website is kind of first hurdle. this program faces many hurdles. it's having a terrible time -- it is clearly having a terrible time on this first hurdle. then comes the question of how many people, when they see the prices and they see how much will be offset in certain cases by subsidies, how many people will think
it makes sense to buy in. if you don't get to a certain critical mass, the system will not work. they are nowhere near getting a sense of that yet. so this thing has a long way to go -flt plus the fact that an awful lot of people are being told your insurance that you now carry which would qualify under obamacare if you can still get it, canceled. so you have all of these possible victims out there. and we don't know how many there are. but if there are enough, the system will fail. >> julie, which brings us to your story we've been talking about today. she is the one who broke the story, the government says 476,000 people have applied on the various websites. they didn't say how many have enrolled. a couple of questions. first, what's the difference between applying and enrolling and how much does one tell you about the other? secondly, as someone who covers the white house, how worried about what is going on here, the president and his top people? and is secretary sebelius
in any trouble? >> i'll take your second question first. the administration, the white house in particular, very worried about this. they have spent a lot of time, a lot of money on this program. you can't say that this rollout has been anything short of embarrassing for the president. he's going to come out on monday, address these problems. it is the first time we'll really have seen him do that. i don't know how specific he'll get. >> he's going to say we messed up here? >> i think he'll have to. if he comes out and says anything other than this, he's going to be ripped apart by the media, because this has been a disastrous rollout. in terms of secretary sebelius, the administration says they have confidence in her. i think they have to look at the optics of this week. if she is going to be at a gala when she could be testifying before congress, it looks like she is not taking this as serious as she should be.
you have to fill out an application first before you can actually enroll. this is where you enter your personal data, income information that helps the government figure out what kind of subsidy you could qualify for. it is important to know this number but this number doesn't tell us how many people are going to enroll. >> before you shop and look at plans, you have to apply. >> and know if you can qualify for any of these plans. >> you can qualify and then say no i don't think so? >> absolutely. we don't know how many people who apply will actually enroll. >> i'm guessing the president will say this is george w. bush's fault. >> or mitt romney's. >> the problem from the start going back to 2009 with the affordable care act, as this debate began, a large majority of americans had health care and a large majority of that large majority were happy with their health care. now they've devised a
system that depends on mass irrationality of young people. that is not content to subsidize the elderly as they're doing through social security and other things, they now have to pay more than they were paying and more than they would have to pay in the tax fee whatever we call it by not buying obamacare. they have to pay more to subsidize the elderly. and once they see -- once the exchanges are up and running and fully informing them, i think you're going to see sticker shock and recoil against the affordable care act. >> again, this only works -- obamacare only works if you get about 2.7 million young, healthy people to sign up. as george is suggesting, they pay their premium, they're not going to end up needing many services because they're young and healthy and that money goes so the insurance companies can afford to do things like handle people with preexisting conditions. otherwise it is like pulling a thread and the thing falls apart. charles, under the individual mandate people
have to sign up by january 1 -- actually by december 15 for the january 1 rollout or they have to pay this fine, penalty tax. not a great deal in the start. $95. do you think it's possible if these problems continue that the president would delay the individual mandate? >> you put your finger on what is both politically and in policy terms the fundamental problem here, which is you could confront a situation where people are potentially paying a tax for failing to sign up for something that was impossible to sign up for. and that is, i think, the definition of unfairness in the eyes of most americans. if you have a couple of hundred people talking to the media about being in that predicament, it is a disaster for the president, and he would face a decision to either continue the program any way or to delay it, which is exactly what the republicans were demanding he agree to do during this whole last government shutdown. so i think if he's not worried and he's not urgent
about fixing this thing, he better be because come early next year he doesn't want to be in that predicament. >> think about that, chris. if he had agreed to a one-year delay on the individual mandate, this worry about people not being able to sign up when the law desires them to do so would not be present, at least not now. also the government would never have had to shutdown. one of the measures passed by the house was fully fund the government with the one-year delay in the individual mandate. and if it comes to pass any way on his own motion, then the republicans' posture in all of this might begin to look a little better at least in terms of the shutdown. it looks pretty bad now but it might look better then. >> all this presumes also that if they had another year that the system would work better, which i'm not sure -- because they had three years and it still doesn't work. >> they would be off with a year's delay. >> we have to take a break here. when we come back, a look at the president's
>> passing a budget, immigration reform, farm bill. those are three specific things that would make a huge difference in our economy right now. and we could get them done by the end of the year. >> president obama laying out a three-point to-do list for congress now that the government shutdown is over. we're back with the panel. white house officials seem to think they're in a the rest of the year. if republicans are shaken and there is a chance they can get some of these big agenda items, especially immigration reform through, if republicans resist
again, they can score political points. is that a smart strategy? >> i think it's unrealistic. i don't think that any republican embarrassment over this shutdown andño' the drop in the favorability of the partyxdñr does not mean they're going to go along with whateverñiv wants sufficient to get a bill on immigration reform, sufficient to get a budget deal and who knows about the farm bill. when the president is standing there talking about the farm bill being one of his major elements, that shows you how -- >> it also includes food stamps. >> i know it does. i think the kweupbdz are in a stronger -- i think the republicans are in a stronger bargaining position particularly on budgetary matters than they were doing the shutdown and expect them to make use of that leverage. >> i want to play a clip on president obama thursday morning just after the shutdown ended. >> you don't like a particular policy or a particular president, then
argue for your position. go out there and win an election. push to change it. but don't break it. >> julie, how do the president and his team in the white house, how do they see this now that the shutdown is over? do they think they have republicans on the run? how do they think this is going to play out in terms of policy and politics going forward? >> i think it's a very unknown answer, even in the white house at this point. i'm struck by howñi shrunk the agenda is for the president just a year after winning his second term. when he was inaugurated in january he talked about raising the minimum wage, expanding early child ho*d education, immigration reform looked like it had a chance to pass over the summer. now we're talking about things like the farm bill which is generally a fairly easy thing to pass. i think they are certainly hoping that republicans will look at what just happened through the budget
talks and say we really, on immigration in particular, we need to make progress here. but i think they're hearing from a lot of democrats who are saying i don't know if republicans are actually the ones who feel that way at this point. >> george, the immediate issue and we talked about it with senators blunt and durbin, is to work out a budget deal. there are enormous differences when you look at the two budgets, the ryan budget and patty murray budget. what do you think are the chances -- republicans have the leverage which is nothing happens, the sequester kicks in. what do you think are the chances for a compromise? if not a grand one, a so-called down payment. >> the pain here is asymmetrical. republicans aren't happy with the sequester but the democrats are terrified of the sequester. for the sequester to go on another year would not dismay most republicans, although it does damage the defense. can i go back toñi the farm bill?
the farm bill is mostly nothing to do with the 2%, less than 2% of americans entkpwaeublged in farming -- engaged in farming. it's mostly a welfare bill, for food stamps. the president's position is not enough people are on food stamps. more people are on food stamps that live on the west coast of the united states, the populations of oregon, washington and california. i think republicans relish the opportunity to talk about the urgent necessity of passing this farm bill. >> it doesn't look like the farm bill anymore. chuck, let me present to you that got roundly slapped down. it seems to me there is a deal to be done here. the deal is that the republicans who aren't crazy about the sequester have said first of all, don't like the defense cuts, but i would trade short-term entitlements in return for long-term cuts.
>> paul ryan said the entitlement tprorpls he would call -- reforms he would call for in return for the ones president obama might embrace. senator blunt said something in the paper today that i thought was well said. he said you can't win these fights fighting over how to have the fight, which is what the republicans have been doing amongst themselves for the last who knows how many months. it seems to me the key variable for the republicans in terms of using the leverage they have here is are they going to unite on a strategy? are they going to go into these talks with one plan? and if there's anything from their point of view that's advantageous is that this is a quiet negotiation. it's patty murray and paul ryan. >> regular order, the house budget committee, senate budget committee the way it's supposed to be. the way we learned in civic books. >> not the circus with a
vote every day and conferences in the middle of the day with this rambunctious group of republicans. it can be a quieter process where they have fewer opportunities to embarrass themselves. it will depend on them being able to articulate a strategy and follow through. that is a big if. >> there is another big if. that is taxes. you heard durbin bring it up at the start. would they be willing to accept a deal that portrays short term spending increases for long term cuts? do taxes have to be on the table which according to republicans means there is no deal. >> if taxes have to be on the table for democrats there is no deal to be had here. i think that will be interesting, whether you t%.tttjzcratic party where you have the president saying for the sake of getting this issue taken care of, for the sake of being able to show the country we can strike a deal, i am willing to trade some entitlement reforms in exchange for the sequester. i think khaopbss are looking pret -- i think
chances are looking pretty slim that is going to happen. >> i want to talk about republicans. one of the most striking aspects of this is how badly it seems to me the republican leadership the repub judged their own membership particularly in the house, how determined house republicans, the tea party faction was to have this fight and continue this fight, not to just show lifting obama care and when that gets lifted, we'll drop it. george, your sense of whether you think the leaders, mcconnell and boehner, can and will push back harder on their members that time around. >> i think they will. the fact is, they have extraordinary leverage.dged we are now talking entirely in e republican terms and republican defeat. no artaxes, how much is the spending going to be cut. federal workforce is being cut, discretionary domestic spending is being cut and this is all mitch mcconnell getting basically on his own the sequester two years ago.
>> your thoughts? >> this is also better for republicans on another level. the problem -- one of the problems was the republican posture in this shutdown.ther it was not just that they got blamed for the shutdown, which people, as they've shown in the past, did not like. it is also that the republicans weren't really for anything. they were against obama care, that's what they were.ubli did they have an alternative plan for w obama care they were advancing in any of these votes? it's not at all clear to me thac they even devised one. there were some republican ideas out there.id n this, at least, is a more ar positive agenda in the sense they're talking about entitlement reform and things of that kind, that may be e attainable. i think it's a lon g shot, but it may be attainable and i think ki that putsnd them in a better lit in the polling. less than a minute left, george.left the thing is, republicans can ic say, just like obama did when the bush tax cuts were going to expire at the beginning of the year, fine, no deal, we'll let e the law play out, the sequesterl cuts, cut spending $20 billion
down to 967. do you think the republican -- the members in the house and the senate are willing to go with that and forego this battle ove obama care as a way to shut down the government?y >> i think they will. again, it's playing out entirely on their priorities and their is terms and in their vocabulary.y so i think they are delighted to avoid another frontal charge against the entrenched forces of obama care.on >> we're going to have to leave it there, to be seen. thank you, panel. see you next week. and remember, our discussion continues every sunday on panel plus. foxnewssunday.com. and make sure to follow us on twitter, @foxnewssunday. up next, our power player of tha week. the young man behind the government shutdown. u @foxsunday. jackie: there are plenty of things i prefer to do on my own. but when it comes to investing, i just think it's better to work with someone.
someone you feel you can really partner with. unfortunately, i've found that some brokerage firms don't always encourage that ki. that's why i stopped working at the old brokerage, and started working for charles schwab. avo: what kind of financial consultant are you looking for? talk to us today. a playground of innovation,. color, and design. showing up where we least expect it. and taking inspiration from our wildest dreams. because kohler doesn't see the world in fixtures and faucets. it reimagines. coloring our lives in ways only bold could do, it's no wonder the world can't wait to see what kohler does next.
afghanistan in 2009. on the u.s.s. saratoga in 1982. [ male announcer ] once it's earned, usaa auto insurance is often handed down from generation to generation because it offers a superior level of protection and because usaa's commitment to serve current and former military members and their families is without equal. begin your legacy. get an auto insurance quote. usaa. we know what it means to serve.
ted cruz was the public face of the government shutdown, but just as important was a 31-year-old conservative strategist you've never heard of. and he's our power player of the week. >> after shutting down the government and almost hitting the debt limit, was it worth it? >> the house has been very clear. they say, we want to fund the government, we just don't want to fund obama care. and that makes perfect sense. you bill that as literally falling apart before our eyes. it's unfair, unaffordable, and unworkable and the house passed four different bills that would have funded the government with the stipulation that we need a time-out from obama care. so it's really the president and harry reid that shut the government down. >> but you didn't defund obama
care, you didn't delay obama care, and after the final deal, you acknowledged the that you're not going to be able to do that until you win the senate and you win the white house and in the words of president obama this week, go out and win an election. so what was the point? >> i think in terms of a one-year delay in defunding it, that's absolutely something that could have happened, if the house and senate were as united on the republican side as they were on the democratic side. and said, look, this bill is not working. >> i want to go back to tuesday. house speaker boehner pushed a bill that would show that the gop was united, that would get a minor concession on obama care, and you and heritage action came out and urged members to vote no and said, we are going to make this a key vote on our legislative scorecard. and i have to say, it looked like michael needham had more clout than the speaker. because suddenly he didn't have the votes and he had to pull his own bill. >> i think that's ridiculous. house of representatives deserves a lot of credit for having listened and fought on
obama care. that's something that's admirable, listening to the america people. >> but my question is, why is it in the end that the house members sided with michael needham and not john boehner? >> they didn't. they sided with the american people. >> well, they sided with what your view of what the american people wanted rather than john boehner's view. >> they sided with millions of constituents. our scorecard is the most transparent scorecard out there. people can go to heritageaction.com. here's the votes that are important and here's how your member of congress voted. >> but you did more than just put out a website. you'll go door to door during a primary campaign and push your scorecard, correct? >> we've went door to door every single day of the year and make sure that people know about the information that's out there. >> and i'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, but the point is, if somebody had voted for the boehner bill over your objections and you would say it's a no, you'll go door to door in his district and say, hey, congressman so-and-so voted -- >> we're going to go door to door and explain people's voting
records and explain tough questions. >> there are a lot of o issues out there, entitlements, taxes, spending. why do see you obama care as such a fundamental issue? >> i think at the point where the federal government has the right to intrude into the relationship between a patient and its doctor, there is no longer any part of our lives that the federal government has a right to be in. health care decisions should not be made by bureaucrats in washington. and i think that's why people all around the country recognize that and that's why there's so much fear and anger in this law. >> "the wall street journal" says the republican party now has the lowest approval rating since they started doing polling in 1989. does that bother you? >> well, it bothers me that a lot of people are upset with the republican party, lest they be conservatives, republicans, independents, or democrats. and i think the answer is to have a party that stands up strongly for the reaganesque principles that made it great. >> you want to remake the republican party, don't you? you want to turn it from the party of wall street and the establishment to a libertarian populist party. >> the republican party has been at its best in 1994, in 2010,
with marco rubio and rand paul and ted cruz. >> and the party of john boehner and mitch mcconnell? >> this is the party of ronald reagan. and i think that the american people have the right to have two party who is give very different views of the future. and we have a democrat party that represents the progressive of woodrow wilson that says there's no limit into how far government can intrude into your lives and there's another party that says limited government and individual responsibility and civil society are those things that allow people to flourish. and i think if the american people have that clear choice between those two parties, the republican party will win every time. >> needham started working for the heritage foundation, one of washington's biggest think tanks straight out of college, and three years ago, they named him to start heritage action, a political lobbying group. be sure to tune in next week for a special power player of the week. fox's charles krauthammer. we'll discuss his ideas, his clout here in washington, and his remarkable personal story in the first of a special two-part
series. that's it for today. have a great week and we'll see you next "fox news sunday." this is the "fox report." tonight, death threats on twitter aimed at a u.s. senator who's leading the push to defund obama care. why the feds are taking them seriously. and bipartisan agreement on obama care finally? both republicans and democrat agree. poi pointing to the rocky rollout of the president's signature health care law. and now searching for ways to deal with it all. >> send air force one out to silicon valley, load it up with some smart people, bring them back to washington and fix this problem. it's ridiculous. and everybody knows that. >> and the obama administration is playing defense, as the problems pile up.