tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News December 29, 2013 11:00am-12:01pm PST
samantha's response as she watched it live on tv. if you couldn't tell just from watching, she said, are you crazy? no, she said yes. congratulations, rodney and samantha. i'm john roberts. thanks for watching fox where more news and proposals are always on the way. i'm chris ren old. observe obamacare goes into effect on january 1st. but more problems with the website could bring a chaotic beginning to the new year. >> there probably will be glitches. there have been glitches before and there probably will be glitches moving forward. >> we'll discuss obamacare in 2014 with former governor howard dean, and dr. scott gottlieb of the american enterprise institute. then nsa leaker edward snowden releases a christmas message with more warnings about government surveillance. >> a child born today will grow up with no conception of privacy
at all. >> reporter: we'll ask two members of the house intelligence committee, chairman mike rogers and congressman adam schiff how to strike the balance between security and privacy. plus our sunday panelists make their predictions for the year ahead. in politics, entertainment, sports and more. all right now on "fox news sunday." >> and hello again from fox news in washington. it's been a tough year for obamacare with a disastrouswebs disappointing enrollment numbers. but the president's health plan faces even bigger challenges january 1st when folks actually start seeing doctors under the new system. we've invited two experts to discuss what happens now. former governor, vermont governor and dr. howard dean. and dr. scott gottlieb with the american enterprise institute. dr. gottlieb, what do you think
happens on january 1 when folks who think they've been enrolled in the new obamacare system actually go to see their doctor? >> people will go and try to access health care and they won't be insured. they said they effectively want insurance companies to float people through the month, and if people think they're insured, cover them through the month and we'll reconcile them later. some people will go january 1st to try to access health care and they're not going to be insured. some people will have their insurance float through the month and then they'll have that dislocation in february. >> governor dean, how much confusion on january 1 when people who think they signed up under the new system go to see a doctor? >> well, probably less than we think. look, this system is based on what mitt romney did in massachusetts. it's a private sector plan. it actually was designed by people at the heritage institute, and i think it will work. it wasn't my favorite plan, but
i think it will work. but there are going to be dislocations. i think the reason there aren't going to be as many as people think is because most people who are getting signed up are healthy. so there's not going to be a huge rush to the doctor on january 1st. but there are going to be problems. i think they'll work through them and i think by march this whole thing will run a lot more smoothly. >> you're shaking your head. >> if you look at the demographic data of underlying trends and who is enrolling, there is a less healthy population than what the plan calls for and certainly older. you have to put out data because they're not putting out data from healthcare.gov, so what you see is a lot of people are signing up for more expensive plans, they're buying the gold and silver plans when everybody thought they would buy the cheaper bronze plans. effectively what you're doing is paying higher premiums to pay down your deductibles and
co-pays. that's an indication it's a less healthy population. >> i think that's true, but -- go ahead. i think that's true. i think -- but in general, most people don't go to the doctor every single month. you have to be fairly unhealthy to have to do that, so i do -- scott's not wrong about that, though. i think he's right what he just said, that data does show that less healthy people are signing up, younger people are signing up less frequently than hoped. >> i want to get into some of the specifics of what people are actually thinking. this is not going to be an enrollment issue, it's not going to be a website issue, it's going to be between you and your doctor's office when you want health care and whether or not that's covered by insurance companies. one of the president's big promises, of course, was if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. dr. gottlieb, you say not only is that not true, but in some of these plans you may have trouble seeing any doctor. >> they exclude a lot of
specialists. people might have to travel far distances to see a specialist. sometimes you have to travel 50 miles to see a urologist, for example. some places don't have a single dermatologist at a skin doctor, for example. only certain drugs are covered on that list, and if your drug is not on the list, it's not covered at all and it doesn't cover an out of pocket maximum. it's like hmos when people rejected those providers. people made that trade to their own providers. >> you said there were seven pediatricians for the entire county of san diego. >> right, the plan in california had only seven pediatricians in that plan. we found other plans similar and
urologists that were 50, 60 miles away. it's more on the specialty side. there are not a lot of specialties in these plans. >> howard dean, let me bring you into this. how confident are you that the president's plan, if you like your plan, you can keep your plan, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor turned out to be untrue, and specifically dr. gottlieb's point that you may have trouble, especially if you need a specialist, finding any doctor in some of these plans. >> that's going to happen in a few plans. remember, this is the insurance industry that's running this, and the insurance industry always squeezes costs by eliminating possibilities of seeing people. i think a lot of people who signed up are going to know they've limited themselves to closed networks and closed pharmacies because that's what makes their plan cheaper. in boston, they had a network
that closed out a lot of providers. they have to accept the plan being offered. >> governor, if i may, what about the president's promise, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor? i mean, you're now telling me in new hampshire that's not true. >> for the most part, it will be true, but it's a little like the other promise, it won't be true 100% of the time, that's true. >> the other piece of this is you can't buy up to a higher benefit. people think if you buy into a gold or platinum plan, you get a different network. you don't. in most cases the network of physicians are the same between the bronze, the gold and the platinum plan, basically you have a better chance of buying down your deductible. >> you do have a choice between insurance companies, though. it shouldn't be different between gold -- >> in larger problem areas you will have a choice, it's true. >> that was true, scott, though,
before obamacare. alabama, essentially, had one company that was doing 85% of the health insurance business. >> gentlemen, i want to get to this question of cost. this was one of the president's other promises. he said, generally speaking, under obamacare, you will pay less for your health care than you did under the old system. dr. gottlieb, you say one of the problems is that folks may not realize, yeah, maybe their premium is a little bit lower, though in a lot of cases it isn't, but what they don't realize is under a lot of these plans, your deductible s skyrockets so that for months you could be seeing a doctor and you're not being covered by insurance because you haven't met a 4 or $5,000 deductible. >> surely some people will do well. if you're below 250 and the subsidies are different, you'll probably get a cheap plan. but people above that level will more than likely pay more for health care than they were before. and remember, people going into
this exchange are not uninsured folks. most people had insurance and are being forced to move to the exchange. and middle class folks basically don't benefit in the subsidies. >> this is a very interesting -- >> governor, let me just make this point, because particularly, for people who aren't going to get this subsidy or may not get a full subsidy and especially those who have bought into the bronze plans, you have deductibles that are 5 $5,000. you could go to your doctor for an entire year and not reach $5,000, particularly if you're not that sick. >> scott is right, there will be thousands of people who will get subsidies who didn't have insurance before and they will save money. they will see lower premiums to them. here's the interesting thing i find about the deductible argument. it's such a classic republican argument. this is what republicans always wanted. have patience and put more skin
in the game and they'll be more careful about what they spend. now we have a spectacle of republicans attacking the high deductibles just because they're so desperate to attack this plan on any level. patients put more skin in the game with their own money and then they're more careful about how they spend it. >> but these aren't high deductible plans. the idea of a high deductible plan is the routine stuff you cover out of pocket but they cover the catastrophic stuff. here they're full of mandates where the payments will hit you. you'll get moresterization if you're a woman, but you won't get plans on top of that. they're not high deductible plans in the traditional sense of how we think about them. >> let's go to another subject. there's been a lot of talk, and we talked about it briefly here, about who was signing up and the fact it may be orlando, silder,
people and therefore the insurance may not be that good and lower costs to the insurance companies. doctor, under the risk corridor position of obamacare, what are the chances that the federal government may have to bail out some of these insurance companies this year or next year because they hang out more premium benefits than they get in premiums. >> the total cost won't be as expected. it's a $25 billion fund basically paid for with a 6 or 7% tax on everyone with prior coverage. that insurance fund is going to be used to offset some of the losses from the insurance companies, about two-thirds of the losses. so the insurance companies will take losses this year. premiums will go up in 2013 as a result of the bad experience, but not as much as you might think. the bigger issue is plans not
getting into the market. the only plans looking to get in are the medicare plans this year. >> back in september just before the launch of obamacare, you were quite critical of the critics of obamacare, and you said this: i think when they see what this looks like, this debate that we're having, which is outrageous, is going to look really stupid. question, after all of the problems with healthcare.gov, after the fact that it looks like a million, a million plus people are going to sign up by the end of the year, but almost 6 million people are going to have lost their policies because of the cancellations, do you still think the critics of obamacare will look really stupid? >> no, i think they look incredibly partisan. scott is an exception to this. scott and i have debated before. he knows the facts and knows what he's talking about, and i don't think what he has to say is based on partisanship. most of the stuff you see in the
paper that are criticisms are hock hocus pocus and nonsense. >> forgive me, sir, but when it was the website, and i think everyone would agree, and the president called a disaster, when you've got 5 million people who thought they were glg to oi be able to keep their plans and got canceled, that's just fact. >> no, but all the systems and doctors are going to quit. are there serious problems here? yes. >> how about the part i asked you about, governor? >> i'm sorry, what's that? >> how about the part i asked you about? >> the website was badly rolled out. there is nobody that would dispute that, and it needs to be fixed. i think the first year is going to be more successful than most people think. i think you'll get a lot of people who have insurance that didn't have it before. i think you'll have people who have access and it's going to be cheaper. not for everybody. we're going to see -- scott has
made a prediction here. i think he's partly right, but i think the numbers are going to be small enough so that the antis, the partisans, are going to talk about the individuals who have gotten screwed by this. but the vast majority of people are going to benefit from this, and that's what i think is the important part. >> 30 seconds, dr. scott gottlieb, the last word. >> i was prepared to come on your show and say they must have been close to 2 million people. they only announced 1.1 million people. they were at 900,000 on december 2nd, so we haven't seen the rush they thought they would have. >> and the rest of the year? >> you might not see it. the uninsured aren't entering the exchanges because the plans are still expensive for them. >> dr. dean, dr. gottlieb, thanks so much for coming in. we'll be following how things go these first weeks under obamacare. thank you, gentlemen. >> thank you. up next, nsa leaker edward
in an interview with the "washington post" this week, nsa leaker edward snowden declared victory. months of snowden revelations has spurred an international debate about surveillance. for him that is mission accomplished. joining us now is adam schiff of california, and here in d.c., mike rogers. welcome back to "fox news
sunday." before we get to the nsa, the "new york times" has an extensive investigation this morning into the benghazi attack on his front page. it reports, quote, no evidence that al qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. it goes on, and contrary to claims by some members of congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at, yes, an american-made video denigrating islam. congressman rogers, i think the times report directly contradicts what you've been saying. >> i don't know if it was an exhaustive investigation. we've gone through some 4,000 different classified cables leading up to the event, talked to people on the ground during the event, done the por momorte on the event -- >> so what did they get wrong? >> that al qaeda was not involved in this. there was some level of preplanning, there was aspiration to conduct an attack by al qaeda and their affiliates
in libya, we know that. the officials on the ground talked about a planned tactical movement on the compound -- this is the compound before they went to the annex. all of that would directly cricket what the "new york times" definitively says was an exhaustive investigation. it tells me they didn't talk to the people on the ground doing the fighting and the shooting and the intelligence gathering. when you put together that vital information, it proves that story just is not accurate. >> there was this one group everybody says was involved, ansar al-shariya. they say they're a radical group but it doesn't have links to al qaeda. >> i dispute that, and i think intelligence to a large volume disputes that. do they have difference of opinion with al qaeda core? yes. do they have affiliations with al qaeda core? definitely. >> do you think there is opposition to this report? some people say this is clearing the deck for hillary clinton in 2016. >> i find it interesting there is a rollout of stories,
including susan rice who would go on tv and have a direct discussion on this when we still have an ongoing investigation in the house intelligence committee. >> again, do you think that's to protect -- >> i find the timing odd. i don't want to speculate on why they might do it, but i can tell you the information is being presented in a way that we heard before and through the investigation have been able to determine is not accurate in its portrayal. >> congressman schiff, does the times report, in your opinion, exonerate the obama administration from the president to susan rice to hillary clinton? >> i don't think the "new york times" report is designed to exonerate the security lapses within the state department that left our people vulnerable. i do think it adds some valuable insights. i do agree with mike that however intelligence indicates that al qaeda was involved, but there are also plenty of people and militias that were unaffiliated with al qaeda that were involved. i think the intelligence paints a portrait that some people came to murder, some people came to
destroy property, some merely came to loot and some came in part motivated by those videos. so it is a complex picture. there was some planning, as mike points out, but it was not extensive. i don't think it's either accurate to characterize this as a long-term preplanned core al qaeda operation or something completely unaffiliated, and i think, chris, where the "new york times" report both adds value and also is efficiedefici they didn't have the same access to people who weren't aware they were being listened to. they were heavily reliant on people they interviewed who had reason to supply the story they did. sometimes, though, the intelligence, which has the advantage of hearing what people say when they don't know they're being listened to, that could be misleading as well. when people make claims, they boast of things they were not involved with for various purposes. so i think it does add some insights, but i don't think it's complete, and i don't think either paradigm is really
accurate here. >> all right. let's move to the nsa because leaker edward snowden has been on something of a public relations offensive this past week. he gave an interview to the "washington post" in which he said this: for me, in terms of personal satisfaction, the mission's already accomplished. i already won. and he had a christmas message. yes. a christmas message for the people of britain. >> together we can find a better balance, end mass surveillance and remind the government that if it really wants to know how we feel, asking is always cheaper than spying. >> congressman schiff, are you moved by the edward snowden christmas message, and has he performed a public service as he seems to think? >> i'm not moved by the message at all, and i think there is a real irony here that he's giving this message from one of the
most foremost big brother states in the world where he is living without any privacy because there is no right or expectation of privacy in russia whatsoever. so i'm not moved by this at all. he has kindled an important public debate, but frankly, i think it came from a mixture of motivations on his part, and i think he should have stayed in the united states and been willing to stand up for his believes if that's what motivated him. i think that would have demonstrated the courage of his convictions, so i don't find his message particularly moving or appealing. >> congressman rogers, in the "washington post" interview, snowden asks and answers the question, who elected him to reveal all of these government secrets? and his answer is that he says it was the overseers of those programs. he said, diane feinstein elected me when she asked softball questions in committee hearings. mike rogers elected me when he
kept these programs secret. he says he's doing the job that you failed at. >> you have to remember this is somebody who had a troubled employment history who ran to china and russia. he stole american classified documents that because of their release jeopardizes our troops in the field in places like afghanistan. and has allowed nation states, russia, china and others, to have valuable insight into the way our intelligence services operate to collect information to keep america safe. that's who the messenger is, number one. number two, the most recent court case laid out very succinctly the oversight of the surveillance program. i think there is a big confusion that this is obama's program that he instituted while in office. this is a program that was initiated after 9/11 because we missed a big piece of information. so both of the chairs of these committees, all of them members of these committees, are fully briefed on all of these actions. it is our job to make sure they comport with the law.
we do that, we take that very seriously. i think all of that happened, and i think this most recent judicial ruling is important for one reason. it reinstituted faith in the institution of judicial oversight, congressional oversight and the checks and balances within the executive branch. >> i want to talk to you about this, because depending on your opinion, you can just write for a judicial ruling and you can find some backing for it. because let's talk about this mass nsa collection, metadata collection of billions of americans' phone records, who they called and how long the call losted, nasted, not the co. in just 11 days we had one federal judge who called that practice of metadata collection almost orwellian and almost unconstitutional. and then on friday we had another federal judge call it lawful, and the government's counterpunch to al qaeda. congressman schiff, do you agree with the congressional panel,
because they came out with their 46 recommendations along with the two judges who said the government holds onto these billions of records of metadata that it would be better to have the phone companies of some other private entity hold onto that information? >> chris, i do. i strongly agree with that conclusion, and some have diminished the report by saying it's just the work of a bunch of professors. we have to remember, mike morrell was the acting director of the cia, richard clark long experienced some counterterrorism, transcending both parties. the two judges you mentioned both appointed by presidents of different parties and contrary to what people might expect, the clinton appointee held the program and the bush appointee said it was unconstitutional. i actually find confidence in those rulings in the sense those judges didn't feel bound by the party. >> if i can bring in congressman rogers, though, on the specific issue of who should hold onto these records, because there
seems to be a general agreement that they need to be held on by somebody, the haystack that you -- real quickly. >> if i could just address that very quickly, the reason i think the program ought to be restructured is that we can get the same national security information that we need without the government obtaining millions and millions of records it doesn't need to hold. the phone companies already hold these records for a period of time. we can go to them as necessary. we can have a circumstances section where we can get those records immediately. otherwise we can go to the advisory court in advance. we can both protect the country and protect the expectation of privacy, and that's the course we ought to take. >> we're running out of time, so let me bring in congressman rogers. the interesting thing is since that recommendation came out, both the intel community and some privacy advocates say we're not crazy about the government
holding t but we think a private entity holding it would be even worse. >> it opens it up to privacy concerns across the board. there is no such oversight. the reason that decision was important, it looked at all the oversight issues in the ruling in the judges' opinion. very important. >> there's another ruling that direct directly disagrees. >> he said this is probably going to get overturned. why? 15 judges, 36 rulings, all of them upheld that this program is lawful and meets the fourth amendment test. and then you have hundreds of appellate decisions since maryland v. smith that uphold the underpinnings that these are business records, no names, no addresses. that, i think, san important distinction. i think the foundation of the legal argument is there, and what we have here is you're going to take away the safety of what is well overseen, locked away in a vault, very, very
strict oversight of who gets access to even check a foreign number coming into the united states. this is what's important. after 9/11, we missed a foreign call coming in to the united states. they said, how do we fix that? this is the way they decided to fix it, and you have all the levels of oversight to make sure they're safe. it goes to private companies, you're going to have a governor-mandated scheme. no such oversight. >> as we should point out, the president on his hawaiian vacation is studying, i'm sure, the varying court decisions as well as his independent panel's rulings or recommendations, and he's going to come out in january with a new set of guidelines. congressman rogers, congressman schiff, thank you so much for joining us. thank you, gentlemen. up next our sunday panel joins the discussion as the president tries to change the focus from obamacare to exte extending unemployment benefits and raising the minimum wage. plus, what would you like to ask the panel? just go to twitter@foxnewssunday
for many people still looking for work, unemployment insurance is a lifeline. it could make the difference between temporary hardship or lasting catastrophe. >> president obama urging congress to extend unemployment benefits that ran out this weekend for more than 1 million americans. it's time now for our sunday group, brit humes, political analyst. myra lieson, independent senator joe lieberman. faced with independent opinions on obamacare, the president seems to focus the idea on unemployment benefits that ran out yesterday for 1.3 million americans and also raising minimum wage. brit, how strong an argument does the president have both on the merits and as a political tactic. >> he is trying to change the subject, and it all supports and feeds into the concept that he talks about so often, which is the idea of income and
inequality which has grown, but he thinks it's worthwhile to talk about. my sense about it is, look, the people who are losing unemployment benefits had them for a long time. it is supposed to be a temporary measure. it's been extended repeatedly for a lot of people because the job market has been so slow to recover. i think on balance it's an issue that democrats can make some use of because it portrays the republicans as hard-hearted, which is a theme a lot of people agree with and which is a familiar democrat versus republican theme going back a long ways. there is some political motivation. i question how much. >> let me ask you, because you're already seeing ads from liberal groups pointing out people who were going to be cut off and lots of newscasts are doing reports on folks who were well intentioned but unemployed past the 26 weeks the state pays
for have been counting on federal emergency aid which has been going on for five years now. it's tough not to feel for them. >> it's tough not to feel for them. this is also something that's been voted on repeatedly by republican congresss and democratic congresses. it's always been paid for, and if this is extended again, it will be paid for. this is not going to add to the deficit. >> let me quickly point that out. unemployment benefits extended another year would cost $25 million. speaker john boehner, republican speaker of the house, is saying, i'm willing to extend it but you have to find a way to pay for it. they say the democrats haven't done it. >> i think the minimum wage is more of an idealogical argument. i think there's a debate whether it's a good thing for the economy or not. i think the minimum wage is something you'll hear the president talk about a lot. it polls extremely well. it hasn't been raised in a very long time. and to put this in the context
of income and equality, both of these things do nothing about the root causes of income equality, they only cushion the effects of income and equality. the effects of infrastructure and doing something about the long-term deficit, that is what will get the economy growing. >> senator brown, if, in 2014, which just happens to be an election year, becomes a battle between two competing narrows, the president is pushing income inequality and i'm a champion of the middle class, which worked so well for him in 2012, and the republicans are pushing obamacare and all the problems with big government, and these are the guys who gave it to you and you need to turn them out, which side wins? >> it depends where you live. i think it goes state-by-state. and i think the obamacare disaster is actually contributing to what we're seeing in the economy. businesses are holding back from hiring, there is a lot of uncertainty with people. they don't know whether to move take the fine or
not, so there is a lot of indecision. that lack of regulatory tax and uncertainty with obamacare and what do we do, what do we not do. if congress wanted to pass this before the holidays, it would have done it. they didn't do it, it wasn't a priority. will they go and do it retroactively? >> you mean extending the unemployment benefits. >> yes. we did it before, it will probably pass by reid and it's something that will probably move forward. as a republican, i make proposals to just find a way to pay for it. my mom is on welfare. it's a safety net, not a lifelong entitlement. find a way to phase it out. don't make it so draconian as, you're either getting benefits or you're not. >> we ask you each week to tweet us or facebook us or send us questions to ask the panel, and we've got one on facebook for you, senator lieberman.
this comes from greg wright and it's about obamacare. ask senator lieberman, knowing what he knows now, would he have voted yes? >> yes. that was scott brown who sent that question in. >> no, it was greg wright. >> that's his code name. the answer is yes, and i want to make this important point. obviously the rollout of obamacare has been bad, disastrous. the administration has been on the defensive. but we've got to remember that the status quo ante before the affordable care act was adopted and american health care was bad and not very popular. it was very unpopular and people were complaining about the increases in the costs, the unfair way in which they were treated by insurance companies, and the fact that 30 to 40 million people were not covered. and we were paying because when they went to the hospital, they were given health care, anyway, and it was added on to our
health care bill. >> what about this question, i hear this a lot. look, the health care system worked for a lot of people. most people were pretty happy with the health care system, so why not find a target? in a sense, that isn't what the president promised, it just turns out his promise wasn't true that leaves everybody alone and targets the people who were either in the individual plans that were lousy or uninsured. >> in a way that's what happened, because the people who have existing health insurance from their employers or from their governments, for instance, are not being changed much at all. it's the group that didn't have health insurance or the group that was buying their own health insurance or was in businesses where they didn't get it. and i tell you, president obama is going to be president for three more years. even if the republicans win the senate in next year's elections and repeal obamacare, and the president is going to veto it, the best thing now is for both
parties to sit down and try to fix the current system. that is the obamacare answers to the problems in health care. will that happen? i'm not too optimistic about it, but the president ought to leave that kind of an issue. i want to say one more thing about what we talked about earlier. the best answer to income inequality is a growing economy. i got into politics, as you know, because of john f. kennedy. a rising tide racises all votes. we're in a year where the rising economy is going to surge. that's going to improve incoming economy. >> it also gets into the issue of obama benefits because if the economy does grow, a lot of people will be drawn into jobs created. i think next to obamacare, this is the great failure of the obama administration to date, that instead of the robust
recovery which we certainly had a right to expect by now, what we still have a sluggish economy with high unemployment. yes, the stock market is up but it isn't working for way, way too many people and it should have been by now, and let us all hope in 2014 it really does get robust. >> mara, we're beginning to see signs of growth. i know it's fits and starts, and it shoots of optimism and growth, but it does seem to be picking up. >> it does seem to be picking up, but we've had these false springs before. the economy is being forced to grow. that's going to make it harder to do things like raise the minimum wage and extend unemployment benefits, but it's not going to get rid of income inequality. >> no. some people will be more successful than others. >> they need to have certainty. tax regulatory certainty and they need to fix obamacare, period. >> all right. we have to take a break here.
when we come back, our panel looks ahead and gives us their predictions for 2014, and take notes, because joe lieberman will help you win your oscar pool. you know how painful heartburn can be. for fast, long lasting relief, use doctor recommended gaviscon®. only gaviscon® forms a protective barrier that helps block stomach acid from splashing up- relieving the pain quickly. try fast, long lasting gaviscon®.
we have a year-end tradition around here to have the panel make some predictions for the new year on a range of topics and under the heading often an error but never in doubt, let's get to it for the subject politics. william? >> obamacare will continue to unravel. in fact, when you step back and look at it, an awful lot has either been undone, repealed or is being canceled by executive
fiat from the president. so it's already come apart to a great extent. there is more bad news to come when the employer mandate forces a lot of people into the exchanges and they won't like what they get, so i think this is a burden the democrats will carry through this next year into the election. >> mara? >> i predict republic conditianp seats in the house but fewer than a dozen and they pick them up in the senate but not the majority. >> i think the people have a lack of trust in the democrats handling certain issues. >> does a fellow named scott brown who just sold his house in massachusetts and moved to new hampshire actually run for the u.s. senate in new hampshire and half republicans take over the senate? >> obviously, i'd be making some very important decisions in the near future and i'm not going to do it today, so let's move on. joe? >> wow. i guess i got told. >> i will not be seeking the
senate seat from new hampshire. >> do you have any other predictions? >> i would vote for him. >> yes. i want to talk about the legislation introduced to the senate now sponsored by almost 50 members, which would impose tougher new sanctions on iran if these negotiations fail. president obama has threatened to veto it, the iranians say if it passes they'll walk away from the table. i believe bipartisan majorities in both houses will be with iran, the president will not veto it and not walk away from the table. i think they will not find iran a diplomatic way to end their nuclear weapons, and i think by the end of 2014 the u.s. and/or israel will take military action to disable iran's nuclear program. >> entertainment. >> television will continue, in
my judgment, to be where the action is. there has been a proliferation already on cable of new quality drama and see cop shows. i note that matthew mcconnaughey, a man who has no problem getting parts in movies, and woody harrellson will combine for a new cop detective series. that gives you an example of where the action is in the entertainment industry, and i think that will continue. >> i'm very impressed. mara? >> i hate to make predictions, especially about the future. however, i will make a silly one about entertainment that "fast & furious 8" gets made somehow, somewhere. >> i didn't know you were a fan of "fast & furious." senator brown, entertainment. >> who cares as long as there's sports. we all like entertainment but i enjoy the sports part of entertainment better, so i'm excited for the upcoming seasons. >> i do have a question. what was the last movie you saw? >> "wall street."
i've seen just about every movie ever made so i'm a huge movie guy. >> but no entertainment predictions? >> no, i think we'll have a bunch of good movies coming out, and some great books, too. >> senator lieberman, and as i said, clearly maybe too much time on his hands as a retired senator. senator? >> i think the winner will be "gravity." the movie wins the oscar because of the technological brilliance of actually feeling like you're out there in space. >> put that back up because you also have your best actor and actress prediction. >> yes. "american hustle" close second, but great film, and the best actor, christian bail, who trans forms himself from that guy into an overweight, sleezy con artist
who turns out to have a heart. >> and judi dench? >> judi dench has never won an academy award for best actress. she's one of the best actresses of our time. sentimental favorite. she gets it this year. >> again, i think he has a little too much time on his hands. the economy? >> the united states economy is a force of nature and it can plow through he hadwinadwinds a certainly has done that with this economy. i predict the growth we've begun to see will continue and it will pick up some. it won't be enough to plummet after a recession, but it will continue to improve albeit not enough to significantly reduce our debt and other employment. >> mara? >> i made a similar prediction that gdp growth stay just under
3%. >> obama crushes jobs. unemployment goes down because people are rolls. the debt increases to $18 trillion. and i think the economy remains flat. >> senator lieberman. >> i'm the optimist today about the economy. i think the economy is going to break out of the slight movement forward to a really strong year. i think we're going to definitely go over 3% increase in gdp. unemployment will go down to 6.5%. i think the stock markets, the dow will go over 18,000 and the s&p will go over 2,000. why? because all the fundamentals are right. housing sector is moving. business has cashed to spend. we're exporting more energy now, believe it or not, than we're importing. and what's got to change is the psychology. congress helped by adopting the bipartisan budget agreement, and i think they're going to realize that they can also help by avoiding another crisis over the
debt limit extension. going to be a big year for the economy. >> all right. we're in the homestretch. bret hume, sports. >> the bowl championship series in college football has been by and large despite its numerous infirmities a success. fans certainly have liked it. this coming year we introduce a new playoff system. it's not at all clear to me it will be as popular or as successful with the fans. >> mara, and i know this is not your strong suit. >> no, but i have a political sports prediction, which is that russia gets a big fat black eye, a pr black eye for its -- for the winter olympics, for its stand on gays and lesbians. and i think that the president has made a very smart pr move in sending lesbian and gay american athletes to the olympics. >> senator brown. >> listen, i'm a hometown guy. i think the red sox repeat, patriots, new orleans in the super bowl. before the baltimore game i had the patriots not pulling it off, but i'm going to hold that
prediction. i think those are the two teams in the super bowl. >> the patriots get to the super bowl and the red sox win the world series. >> of course. yes. >> shameless. >> i said that last year, the year before, the year before, the year before. >> senator lieberman. >> i'm going to ad lib quickly and say that in the spirit of scott brown i'm going to predict the uconn huskies men and women will win the ncaa championship. but here's my far-out prediction or even suggestion. that one of the most stunning trades ever in nfl history, the washington redskins and dallas cowboys trade quarterbacks. rg3 goes to the cowboys. tony romo comes to the redskins. rg goes back to texas where he's from, assuming tony's in good shape physically, the redskins get a first-rate quarterback with some good years ahead of him. >> i think some of these predictions are quite plausible, that one has zero chance of happening. >> one note. >> yes. >> the state of new hampshire is part of red sox nation. >> i know that. i know that. >> we've got that.
>> see how you do in 2014. right back. [ sniffles, coughs ] shhhh! i have a cold with this annoying runny nose. [ sniffles ] i better take something. [ male announcer ] dayquil cold and flu doesn't treat all that. it doesn't? [ male anner ] alka-seltzer plus fights your worst cold symptoms plus has a fast-acting antihistamine. oh, what a relief it is!
this week on "the this week on "the journal," editorial report from the obamacare implosion to america's global retreat, we take a look back at the biggest stories of 2013. and from stock market highs to sports cheating lows, our panel's picks for the hits and misses of year. welcome to this special edition of "the journal editorial report." our look back at the biggest stories of 2013. i'm paul gigot. joining our final panel of the year is wall street columnist and deputy editor dan hen ger, editorial member