tv Your World With Neil Cavuto FOX News October 15, 2015 1:00pm-2:01pm PDT
eight billion, the runways are still not. the water is still there, terminal d is beautiful, and la guardia still sucks, hard. cavuto is next. he is awesome, unlike laguarda. hello, neil. >> hello, shep. and look at what happened on the corp over wall and broad. a big gain, 219 points. maybe the federal reserve doesn't hike interest rates. i know you're saying, didn't they want to raise interest rates? for one day they said there's to reason forked the fed to do anything. that helps banking issues, big players, the dominant theme in the financial markets. something that got a little crazy last night in richmond, virginia, for one donald trump. take a look. >> so we're going to build it, it will be paid for --
>> all right. what was going on, you had a campaign rally there a controversial fellow, but what happened next very few could have managed. broke into fight between supporters and trump protesters, got nasty and ugly and it got very, very scary, and it came only a couple of days after trump himself had been warning i seem a generate a good deal of, well, controversy, an both sides. maybe he should get some secret service protection. to fox business network blake in washington, on why that time might be coming like now. blake? >> this is quite the scene yesterday in richmond, virginia. for the most part it was like any other trump rally. large crowds, thousands of people there. all of them for the most part pro trump supporters, very enthusiastic. and then it took a turn for the worse. there were protesters who ended up crashing the protest.
this was the more tame part. you can hear in the distance them starting to chant "dump trump." >> that's okay. that's okay. so what. that's all right. >> trump backed their first amendment right saying it's their right to protest but that was much tamer than a fight that broke out shortly after that, at that very same event, between some protesters and some supporters, just really handful on both sides-but either way got very dangerous there for a moment. that brings up the question, as you mentioned, potential secret service backing for trump. by this time in 2008, then-senator barack obama had secret service protection for several months already. trump said it's about time he gets his in an interview with the hill on tuesday, so the day before this rally, trump said his own private security has had
preliminary talks with the secret service about protection but hasn't received and it he feels partisan politics is the reason why. he added in that interview, and i'm quoting here, of course i don't think they'd want anything to happen, speaking speaking ofe secret service but i would think they should be very pro-active and want protection for somebody like me that has 20,000 people at any time. neil? >> does raise a point. so what is the standard by which we assign secret service protection to a candidate? as donald trump pointed out at this stage, nor barack obama had protection. he also had a number of very credible and real threats to himself and his family. to former secret service agent dan on what trump -- >> what happens here is the department of homeland security secretary, in conjunction with a committee prized another of of house and senate leadership
members, determine based on crowd size, funds raised and poll numbers who should get it but made a great point. president obama had protection about five months prior. we're already into november. when he was a candidate. with similar type crowd. so if you're going to advocate for candidate getting secret service protection, which i don't agree with, trump should get it, too. >> i don't want to give away the stuff you guys are privy to but the understanding had with senator obama is that there were a number of clear and very real death threats against him, and that they pounced on that because of that. now, i don't think the same applies to mr. trump or any candidate nowsch but we learned in retrospect all it takes is one guy.
think about how protection built up after bobby kennedy's assassination. i fast-toward to 1972, george wallace at his shooting in maryland. and then we say we have to protect all these guys. why do we wait for something like that? >> the government's always going to be reactionary. the leverage crisis to expand their footprint. but the problem with that approach is where does it sentenced i can tell you as a secret service agent, i see no logical reason baited ton the threat footprint that was around when president obama was a candidate -- i see no difference between that threat footprint and the one senator cruz has now. donald trump, marco rubio or anyone else. i can tell you the threat profile of president obama was not as bad as the media makes it
out to be -- >> what constitutes -- do you go by crowds that are generated? does that get to be a security risk? they don't know how to handle the crowds? or just that security could be compromised because you have throngs. >> who is is why donald trump has a legitimate beef. your question is perfect. it's not written clearly. the law, title 18 of the it's code, section 3056 is written that a major presidential candidate. what does that mean? major doesn't mean anything. major means what? pole numbers? crowd sizes? candidates should have to pay for it but if the law is written that way, why is trump not major candidate? certainly drawing the crowds -- >> i know you raise an interesting point as you always do. that let say i you can start out like jimmy carter in 1976. not on anyone's radar some not constituting being a major
candidate, and then he emerged as the nominee of the party. at what point -- i don't know the point in the campaign year he got that protection. but do you get it when you look like you are a credible candidate with a real shot at becoming president? >> my humble opinion here -- jimmy carter, what about bill clinton in 1992. gary hart was going to be the nominee. you get it, honestly, when someone in power says if this guy gets hurt it's going to be really embarrassing. that my humble opinion how this is done. it's such a discretionary decision. >> who get is it now? hillary clinton by the fact she is a former secretary of state and a former senator -- i don't know. >> first lady. >> first lady, okay. so the gets protection. >> yes. that's it. >> nip anyone else in the rate automatically. >> no, just mrs. clinton because
of the designation of former first lady. the former secretary of state that is the security service, not the secret service, but as a form first lady -- one more thing. secret service protection runs up to a million dollars a day on a trip. that's big deal to pay for that. mrs. clinton is getting it for free, taxpayers paying for it. >> thank you very much. always good having you on. >> very welcome. hell, how can you expect to hit a home run politically if you're not doing that well at home? chris christie might be asking that question right now because a lot of eyebrows raised he is placing sixth place in his home state of new jersey. just in case you think he is the only one who has troubles at home, we'll rifle through some of the others who are similarly looking at problematic runs if they were just running in their home state. look at john kashich. look at what is happening with
mr. rubio, mr. bush. they all trail, again in their home states, and it raises a question whether particularly in the case of a bobby jindal that is a dangerous sign for what. jamie? >> when you see these polls like this and you see some of these guys not getting even five percent in the state that knows them best, the states where they were elected by that republican base and can't even get five percent of those people to toe say they should be president of the united states. makes you wonder whether they should reconsider whether this presidential race is something for them. >> having said that, though issue don't know how bill clinton polled in arkansas when he was running. i'm sure that being a home-town favorite and not many -- that would have gotten him some attention, but is it always a given that you -- from your state, you get the back of your state in sarah palin did not enjoy that in alaska at the
time. so i guess i'm wondering, does that translate nationally? >> that's a good point. i don't have the poll numbers but i imagine that rick santorum was not pulling very high in pennsylvania in 2012. wasn't polling high anywhere until january when he suddenly shot up in the polls because he did well in iowa where he spent a lot of time. so in reality if you can win and do well in iowa in state you're focusing on, these might be peripheral. but got to get a sense when only five% of a state is supporting a sitting governor, whether that they have a great shot of translating elsewhere. >> but you mention a good point about being a governor. the bragging opinion of governor, present or former, they made a big difference in their state. that obviously has been governor christie's argument and obviously john kashich's argue. and mike huckabee's argument. so i guess what i'm asking here is whether there's more damaging fallout for a governor or former
governor who is in trouble in his own home state than there is for a senator or former senator. >> certainly more trouble for comparing a former senator like santorum to where he was in his home state in 2012 to a sitting for. their policies are still in effect. people in the state are -- know them, see what they're able to do, and if they don't think they have confidence they're good presidential candidate that might say something, or might say, you're a good governor, we like you, hope you stay here, but we're not sure you're ravedy for that next level. >> all right, thank you, jamie very much itch think in one of our screens there we said that governor christie was in sixth place. he is actually tied for fifth. that is not the great position to be in as the governor of your state. in your state. switching gears quickly. you heard by now that president obama wants to keep more troops in afghanistan to the end of his presidency, into the next person's presidency, whoever
that will be. the guy who took out osama bin laden, on that. 40% of the streen detroit, at one point, did not work. you had some blocks and you had major thoroughfares and corridors that were just totally pitch black. those things had to change. we wanted to restore our lighting system in the city. you can have the greatest dreams in the world, but unless you can finance those dreams, it doesn't happen. at the time that the bankruptcy filing was done, the public lighting authority had a hard time of finding a bank.
citi did not run away from the table like some other bankers did. citi had the strength to help us go to the credit markets and raise the money. it's a brighter day in detroit. people can see better when they're out doing their tasks, young people are moving back in town, the kids are feeling safer while they walk to school. and folks are making investments and the community is moving forward. 40% of the lights were out, but they're not out for long.they're coming back. because at&t and directv are now one! which means you can access your dvr at the dmv. change channels while he changes pants.
and not doing well nationally, certainly not his home state. but the back and forth i thought i'd share and pass along can between marco rubio and jeb bush, jeb bush in the latest -- raised $13 million. marco rubio $11 million. so, obviously the bush home are competenting. we raised more than senator rubio. rubio's people say we have more cash on hand. back and forth. just to sort of put a perspective on that money. so the millions still coming in for some of the big guys over the alternatives, the alternative guys to the donald trumps out there but some -- for some of the lesser players north great news. other news concerning the latest plans on the part of the president to beef up the amount of forces in afghanistan. right through the end of his presidency and into whoever is the next president. 5500 troops will stay there the original talk was 1,000 moves, a
former navy seal team 6 member, instrumental bringing down of osama bin laden,. what do you think of this. >> great to be here. >> is this a good thing, bad thing? >> kind of both. a it's good thing the administration is willing to admit that they need to keep more troops. pulling the rug out from under hem and abandoning afghanistan, something la happen like in iraq. so it's good they're doing it. right now they're just trying to defend four cities. jalalabad, kandahar, and then bagram. they'll try to beat those up and the troop presence will be to avis and assist and train some -- not a lot but they at least they're not abandoning the afghans. >> 5500 guys are going to make that big a difference. >> we are starting to pull out. we pulled out in the per --
persh valley. we're going down to jalalabad where they're going to hold. that would be fine in the valley. it's going -- >> but different characters. >> the tribes in there are going to stay there and they -- doesn't matter to them. they go by the same tripal -- tribal laws. >> the threats. >> the threats in the smaller cities, i've sis moving in, which right now are taliban but they've been paid by isis, a good sum of money to be more brutal and fly the blahing flag, and taliban commanderrers century rounderring to the afghanistan government thaws they don't want to deal with isis. that was with the video they put the guys on thunder knees and blew them up. that's afghanistan, not syria.
that afghan isis, not arabs. >> my original question, 4500 additional men and women is -- doesn't seem to change anything, even if they are helping -- the history on training is spotty. >> the training is not that good. there some quality afghan soldiers. i fought with them before. some not so good -- >> is that just our track record? i'm not blaming you guys but tribesmen, we can't get them up to speed. >> the cultures we train don't have interest in training. they have interest in god willing so they might train or might not and might not fight if god doesn't want them. to they don't have that killer instinct to protect their country and the fanattal muslims are fighting to become god and they're hart core and bead the crap out of guys we train. >> there's a sentiment building on the death of osama bin laden.
he is not really dead? >> there's a story that written -- he was rocheed by pakistan intelligence. if i'm pakistan intelligence, the mission happened, we killed them. i saw it happen. i pulled the trigger -- >> they're upset. >> they're looking for some fringe reporter who tells him a crap story and gets -- >> guys like oliver stone one with his. >> in his stay have pakistani leadings up the stairs. i assure you we're not being led by any foreign countries. it was all americans. >> begs the question whether we should have made it more clear he was dead. >> we have the pictures. the pictures are there if they decide to show them, that's fine. >> they'll say they're doctored. >> itself will be an uprising and if the american people see it -- they need to know justice was served. it looks like a guy that got
shot in the head the times. >> was the argue. it would just so offend many radical muslims -- >> i think that would happen. i can see them getting upset. no reason to do it. we buried him at sea so there's no shrine. it's over. one reason i came out to tell the temperature on fox news was to give closure to these 9/11 families to say issue know this conspiracy theories but he is dead. i can tell you that. that's why i came out with my true name and face. >> you're amazing, thank you very much. rob's dad is here. a much better looking guy. we'll assess our the debate stuff is going and the coverage of it after this.
growing up, we were german. we danced in a german dance group. i wore lederhosen. when i first got on ancestry i was really surprised that i wasn't finding all of these germans in my tree. i decided to have my dna tested through ancestry dna. the big surprise was we're not german at all. 52% of my dna comes from scotland and ireland. so, i traded in my lederhosen for a kilt. ancestry has many paths to discovering your story. get started for free at ancestry.com.
now i don't know if you're into watching presidential debates, whether republican or democratic but i get a different feeling from the media when it comes to critiquing the debates. many examples i could use. i want to use this one about "the new york times" quick headline reaction to the democratic debate this week. the grownups take the stage at the democratic debate. this is what the same newspaper had to quickly summarize about the last republican debate. rivals hit trump as g.o.p. debate becomes testy. i can go on and on, flower guying hillary clinton. i i saw no such praise of any republicans for the likes of marco rubeee but it was a cat call of comedy. molly, doesn't seem right.
>> i'm not going to be breaking any news here by noting that our media tend to be much more liberal than the average american but that does colorful how negative they are about neglect testify baits and positive about democrat debates. the less closely tied to the base of the democratic party you resident have a different reaction. the democratic debate was good, great if late introduction to candidates but you happen candidates openly embracing -- >> look at that "usa today." democrats focus on issues, not e-mails, as if to say the e-mail wasn't want issue at all in a headline, just saying that it nose an issue, thank god the candidated didn't make it an issue. >> it's not actually accurate. say what you want about the rum rum debate, when they talk about foreign policy you hat a debate about philosophy approaches, when to intervene. when democrats were asked to named the greatest national security threat not one but two of the candidates said climate
change. one of them said that the earth would be literally uninhabitable to humans by the time of tower grandchildren. that not substantive on the issue. that's a reding louse thing to say. so the claim that the republican debate was not substantive and the democratic one is it almost completely opposite of what actually happened. >> you could argue about if the issues you've like in the democratic debate were more to your looking then you should at least have the gumption to say, how are they going to pay for these issues we like because that did come up in the republican debate, loudly, sometimes nastily but came up. and i just think it's glaring in the reaction afterwards to just look at, all right, one side fought over the cost of stuff, the other side never addressed the cost at all, but in the eyes of many in the main stream -- not all but many it was that latter debate that got better reviews because they didn't get into this stuff, which is -- >> there's no question that the republican debate is more
entertaining. i think the candidates actually tend to be more aggressive. in the tell democratic debate their mow passive aggressive but they talk about free things to give away and never pressed how that would happen. and when hillary clinton was trying to rebut what carly fiorina said about how businesses are better able to determine their own family leave policies she said -- pointed to the example of california as a great example of how you can pass onerous regulation without in the downside to the economy. that's ridiculous. if you know anything about california and how much businesses are fleeing the state. the used you would you get referee views after saying something like that, whereafter everything that every republican candidate said was fought over, it speaks to how disparate this media coverage is. >> a lot more republicans and certainly more colorful characters, whether you like them or not. one could deem at least hillary was up against the not so great debaters, some might say it looked like a hostage tape but the fact of the matter is, judge
them both fairly. don't praise one where they didn't get into details how they were going to pay for stuff. that gets nasty but it's worth getting nasty over. >> does speak to how -- people in the newsrooms don't open guns, don't know many republicans, don't have a brown in economics so for them they thought the democratic debate was rome. for people who may ben in the rest of the country aren't republicans or gun openers but know people who are, probably good friends with people who are, maybe married or have kids so they'll have a different reaction to for instance, when hillary clinton said that the enemy she was most proud of having were republicans and that's something that sounds very extreme to people outside of newsrooms. >> a little aside about planned parenthood and having the rich pay for it. my only point -- you said it brilliantly -- hold each to the same standard but don't pick and choose. wow. all right. when we come back, here's how bad -- this iran cheating is
this is todd hardy. a fitness buff, youth baseball coach-and lung cancer patient. the day i got the diagnosis, i was just shocked. the surgeon in dallas said i needed to have the top left lobe of my lung removed. i wanted to know what my other options were. and i found that at cancer treatment centers of america. at ctca, our experts examine a variety of therapies, treatments and technologies to identify a plan specifically for each patient. my doctor understood that who i am was just as important as what cancer i had. we talked about options. my doctor told me about a robotic surgery that was less invasive.
we have excellent technology that allow us to perform very specialized procedures for patients who have lung disease. at ctca, it's all about what you can do. i feel fantastic now. exploring treatment options is at the heart of how we fight cancer. the evolution of cancer care is here. learn more about our treatment options at cancercenter.com/lung. appointments available now. a 401(k) is the most sound way to go. let's talk asset allocation. sure. you seem knowledgeable, professional. i'm actually a dj. [ dance music plays ] woman: [laughs] no way! that really is you? if they're not a cfp pro, you just don't know. cfp -- work with the highest standard.
the french have just found that the iranians cannot be trusted. apparently they're so annoyed they want to look at that resolution and deal all over again. more on that after this. you total your brand new car. nobody's hurt,but there will still be pain. it comes when your insurance company says they'll only pay three-quarters of what it takes to replace it. what are you supposed to do, drive three-quarters of a car? now if you had liberty mutual new car replacement, you'd get your whole car back. i guess they don't want you driving around on three wheels.
smart. with liberty mutual new car replacement, we'll replace the full value of your car. see car insurance in a whole new light. liberty mutual insurance. i don't know if you have been keeping one if the documents in iran, they signed a deal and then the mullahs say we have to die. you expect that stuff. what you don't expect is the missile tests in clear violation of u.n. resolutions and accords that is so bad now that the info we have now, they are very much -- this is according to the u.n. -- in violation of u.n. security council resolution 1929 which stipulates iran cannot engage any activities related to ballistic missiles and got so bad the french foreign ministry official said the october 11th october 11th violation is a clear violation of this
resolution. it is a message from iran and the international community. whatever you think of my french accent, rudy giuliani agrees you should pay attention when the french are upset. they're upset. they're worried. >> if the french are more realistic about the danger of iran than we are, we are in deep trouble, and the reality is the french from the beginning -- they objected to this agreement a couple of times in advance, the preliminary agreement. they wanted a much tougher preliminary agreement than the one that obama negotiated. >> we should say, apples and oranges. the u.n. resolutions before the iran deal but they're joined at the hip in this respect. they both called for restrictions on iran doing what it is now doing. >> actually, the obama preliminary agreement and final agreement violate the u.n. resolution. >> now the french are looking at wanting to revisit that.
>> the u.n. resolutions say a nonnuclear iran. obama says, a nuclear iran to a certain point. so, he gave away the store with the preliminary agreement, when he allowed them to be nuclear at all. and -- >> when i hear they come back, people in the white house say, this is not the agreement, then i hear from security experts who say if they're cheating on this, you can bet -- right? explain the different. or is there? >> if you believe that iranians are not going to cheat on the obama agreement, then you should not be involved in foreign policy. you no shoo not be involved in national security. >> they violated a u.n. -- >> you should work in some other area because your too foolish to be responsible for your safety, my safety, and our children's safety. if you believe the iranians, who have cheated consistently for 13 years, if you believe they're going to not cheat on the
eventual agreement we reach and you haven't built that into your program you're too foolish to be conducting our foreign policy. >> then why broad it to the degree they are -- broadcast is to the degree they are. >> why make an agreement and say "death to america. ." >> saying it is one done. >> obama lets them get away with it. why is putin bombing our people in syria? because obama is letting him get away with it. >> what would you do? separate issue, i know. 5500 more troops in afghanistan. >> 5500 traps in afghanistan are a joke. there are 36,000 new york city police officers to patrol this city. and there are 5500 troops he is going to leave in afghanistan it? is a joke. of course it's better than no troops, or maybe it isn't. those 55,000 young men and women
will be in much more serious jeopardy than if there were 'o30 or thousands troops. >> rob o'neill who took out bin laden. >> i just heard him. >> he said it's a difference right now because it's isis. >> of course, it's much more complicated. i you've put in too few men and women, you are sacrificing their lives. if you decided to patrol the city with 55,000 police officers, do you know how much crime you would have? you now home dead police officers you would have? you have to have a sufficient force to protect your own men and women, and in my view, 5500 troops in afghanistan is not only useless with regard to afghanistan, it is a threat to the lives of our troops and a president should never put in so few troops he puts them in harm's way. >> i don't notify wow watched the democratic debate but they talked about the regrets of
getting involved in that region and little time addressing the clear and present threat. >> they canned because he dropped the ball. he can't articulate a policy for syria. putin has now bombed our allies in syria. he has moved in iraqi troops. he moved in iranian troops. has move in cuban troops. somebody said, i think it was senator graham, the only thing he hasn't moved in are venezuelan troops. they're basically creating an empire, and an iranian empire, iran, iraq, syria, yemen, supported by an established nuclear power, russia, supported by troops from cuba. know what saudi arabia has to do, egypt, israel? they have to build up their armies and their nuclear
capacity. they're going to have to create a nuclear capacity in saudi arabia. he is setting off a war between, let's call it. northern shiites middle east against sunni southern middle east. >> but he did acknowledge enough to undo the very one thing he want to do, take all troops out by the end of his presidency. 5500 maybe. >> maybe he should say, look to his conscious and say if i put 5500 men in a place and only 500, maybe i'm going to be bringing back a lot of bodies in body bags and maybe i -- >> he shares nate nothing the harm's bay area,. >> then don't go to afghanistan. come on. that's ridiculous. don't put a in too few troops to the troops account defend
themselves. 5500 is too few, so the defense of the young men and women we're putting there. it's disgraceful to put in so few troops. have the courage to put 30 or 40,000 troops there, so we can get the job done there, but for the second reason so we can protect the lives of americans which after all is his most important responsibility. >> rudy giuliani thank you very much. very good seeing you again. in the meantime, talk about security and issues that kind of concern you. when you reply you have seen these incidents. now the latest in homeland security that had their systems down and they couldn't check who bad guys were boarding a plane unless they did it one by one by one. ♪ ♪ it's the final countdown! ♪
♪ the final countdown! if you're the band europe, you love a final countdown. it's what you do. if you want to save fifteen percent or more on car insurance, you switch to geico. it's what you do. 11,000 local activities right from our app. it's even harder to believe it took you this long to come here. expedia. technology that connects you to the people and places that matter.
what would help is simply being able to recognize a fair price. truecar has pricing data on every make and model, so all you have to do is search for the car you want, there it is. now you're an expert in less than a minute. this is truecar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . another air scare and this time you didn't have to be in the air. all happening on the ground. julie banderas has more.
>> reporter: basically it's the part of security you're not supposed to see and you don't necessarily ever really hear about until of course it shuts down, and that's what happened last night. so thousands of passengers in multiple airlines -- airports all over the country experiencing major delays last night. it was the computer system that checked airline passengers get terror watch lists that experienced a temporary glitch, shutting down for 9 0 minutes. >> the people up there were -- people that couldn't walk. it was crazy. crazy. >> they told me the computer system was down and we needed to fill out some forms old school style, so i filled out the form and everything was set after that are quick and easy. >> you would think or at least hope this is a one-time thing but in fact this has happened many times before and in fact five times in the last year alone, believe it or not. it's still unclear what caused yesterday's glitch, but i assume it's probably not the last time
this happens. >> scary stuff, jew julie, thank you very much. so, we had the scare of southwest airlines where all their systems were down and they had to check people one-by-one to get physical boarding passes. before that you had a jetblue member, a pilot's epads weren't working that what the used to check what thigh needed to fly. see a pattern here? we have a cybersecurity analyst. the kind of stuff that bad guys recognize. >> steve jobs said one time you can check the dots looking forward. you have to connect the dots looking backward. we have had opm, irs, the white house, state department, united hacked previously by the chinese to get their records. let's start putting all of these things into perspective and what we have is one or two times you call it's glitch. after that it's, if there's not something here we have a ton of
incompetents building this statement -- i've been palled of consolidate thing terror watch hiss -- they should not be going down because our national security depends upon our ability to keep people out of the country. >> a disproportionate number of the glitches seem to be happening on anything related to flying. >> and i don't want to create a conspiracy theory. you just talk about oliver stone. you is that right going, there is something to this? how could a system -- one of the 19 hijackers was stopped in april of 2001, not pout a watch list until august put was already in the country. we have to get smart about the stuff. these systems, we better build them to become mission critical so they don't fail, don't go down for 90 minutes. my concern is, did somebody sneak into the country? was this a scanning thing where somebody is looking? is one of our people in the
system? i don't want to create a conspiracy theory but until you prove otherwise the default is that terrorism, is it a hack, intrusion? >> so wrong guys get through. can't imagine that we would deliberately let someone else. obviously in that event but you have long angry lines there at airports. you are going to rush and try to get those people onboard so it could get nasty. right? >> i was just traveling internationally and just came back a week and a half ago. came through at time when in was hardly anybody there it's human nature when you're weighing things you go, close enough and let them through. we hope that's not the case bus human nature and these systems are run by humans. >> thank you very much. a lot more restaurants offering a no-tipping policy, which is great for you, right? but you're going to pay more for it. so how does that fare for you? after this.
♪ some neighbors are energy saving superstars. how do you become a superstar? with pg&e's free online home energy checkup. in just under 5 minutes you can see how you use energy and get quick and easy tips on how to keep your monthly bill down and your energy savings up. don't let your neighbor enjoy all the savings. take the free home energy checkup. honey, we need a new refrigerator. visit pge.com/checkup and get started today.
let me ask you something, would you go out to a restaurant if you knew the restaurant had a no tipping policy. you might pay a little bit more for the food on the menu. but you didn't have to worry about leaving a tip. would you be okay with that? i guess it depends on how much the price of things were raised. union square hospitality group is looking at that. gramercy park cafe, the moma, museum of modern art. others have been doing this. i don't know to what success. it is beginning to be a trend. to sort of even things out, cooks in the back and dishwashers get more money, everything evens out. jessica likes this idea. and carly will put her fing anywhere the wind to see whose
argument is winning out. your argument is what? >> i have no problem. i mean -- he is the guy who runs the place, he's been on the forefront of fighting for equality within the ranks of the restaurants. >> why is this good? >> this is good because in his interview he said this, over the 30 years he's been in the restaurant business, the waiters their pay has gone up 200%, while the those who work in the back, the cooks, have gone up maximum 25%. he's forcibly trying to even it. >> he's seen no push-back from it. >> more costly items on the menu. >> it's a great idea for kitchen workers, but it's a terrible idea for everybody else.
establishment. >> if it starts to catch on, nine out of 10 restaurants in this country are small businesses. >> jessica loves forcing income equality. >> i love it so much. >> one other thing, i was a waitress, i believe, and i can say this because i waited on tables. in the service industry, you should be paid for the service you are providing. this would mean that you could be sitting at a table for hours and then the servers will kick up their heels because there's no incentive there. >> what do you tell the line cook who spent $40,000 to go to the culinary institute. >> i think sthey should pay the more. >> problem solved. >> this one of the few positions you have that's entrepreneurial. you work hard, you make more money. as someone who started waiting tables -- >> that could be taken away from
you. >> you work at a fancy restaurant, it cannot work at a diner, telling you. >> exactly, yes. no more. everyone, everyone is worried about taxes going up and how that's going to kill us and everyone wants to lower taxes. you know what's really killing us? nothing to do with taxes, after this. you're here to buy a car.
kellogg's® frosted 8 layers of wheat... and one that's sweet. for the adult and kid in all of us. ♪ kellogg's frosted mini-wheats® feed your inner kidult or building the best houses in town. or becoming the next highly-unlikely dotcom superstar. and us, we'll be right there with you, helping with the questions you need answered to get your brand new business started. we're legalzoom and we've already partnered with over a million new business owners to do just that. check us out today to see how you can become one of them.
legalzoom. legal help is here. at ally bank no branches equals great rates. it's a fact. kind of like ordering wine equals pretending to know wine. pinot noir, which means peanut of the night. all right. i'm not going to talk about taxes, something that is very taxing. i want to share with you, it's a bipartisan with both parties. rules and regulations are skyrocketing. under this president, per year, they've been going at about a 17,000 new regulations per year. under president bush, 13,000 per year. under bill clinton, 8,000 per year. just tax compliance, we're spending $160 billion a year. you have to make at least that
back to justify the cost with complying with our tax code. no one's talking that, but it's costing a lot more than any taxes ever will. both parties get on it, get moving, fast. because it's killing us. >> hello, i'm dana perino, along with kimberly guilfoyle, juan williams, eric bolling and greg gutfeld, it's 5:00 in new york city, and this is "the five." israel is on high alert and fighting back against palestinians after a string of new attacks. instead of standing by our closest ally in the middle east, the obama administration is accusing israel of terrorism. >> i would say certainly individuals on both sides of this divide are have proven capable of and in our view, guilty of acts of terror. >> state department spokesman john concern kirby stood by tha today. >> i will reit