tv Charlie Rose PBS January 19, 2017 3:59pm-5:00pm PST
program. >> most don't believe the country's heading in the right direction so why do they want to elect a president swearing he's going keep us going in the right direction. she represented the status quo. he represented change and it's our job now to deliver on the change. >> charlie: paul ryan for the hour, next. funding for charlie rose is provided by the following. >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide.
captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> charlie: paul ryan is here. he was re-elected speaker of the house earlier winning the support of all but one house republican and in his tenth term representing wisconsin's tenth district. he's been described as a steward of policy making long considered the party's intellectual core. gop lawmakers embark on an era of unified republican government. the initial focus is on reversing obama administration policies starting with di dismantling and replacing obama care and overhauling the tax code and i'm pleased to have speaker ryan back at this table. welcome. >> thanks for having me back. good to be with you. >> charlie: we're at an historic
moment. give your assessment of barack obama who this afternoon held his final press conference. >> the obama presidency? >> and the man you knew. >> actually i like the man i know. he'd be a great next door neighborhood. >> charlie: a good neighbor. >> he would shovel your walk while on spring break with your kids. he's a very good family man and has led a good example as a good family man. i think that's important. i think he is a presidency of massive mispotential. i think he came in with a track record of being an ideologue and left progressive so that looked like what he could become but ran a campaign as a moderate.
there was more a moment a lot of promise he might move to the middle and be a moderate president with his incredible gifts of -- no one can communicate like him. he's very gifted at this. he had an opportunity to be more a unifying president if he were to become a centrist but was more of a divided president because he stayed left and his view of the government and institution is one not in keeping with our traditional limited rights republic and the policies he put in place don't and did not work and i think that's basically going to be the legacy. as a human being i like the man. as a dad and husband i like the man. i don't like him as a bears fan. we have healthy conversations about that but that's basically my assessment. >> charlie: is the primary thing obama care that identifies him as too far to the left?
>> that's a big part of it but i think he went through whole sectors of the economy trying to get the government to involve itself so much more deeply than it should have been. i think dodd-frank is aperfect example. he's a legitimate progressive which believes going from national rights to government-granted rights and bureaucracies and harmonize society for good intentions it leads to a corrupt government and cronie government and disrespects individual rights and communities, civil society and i think that's his philosophy. the obama philosophy and that philosophy is apparent in health care, in dodd-frank, and in so many regulations. >> charlie: according to a new poll cnn this morning he's popular since 2009 at 60%.
>> i can see that because he's leaving. he's a likable person. he's an articulate person. our economy isn't terrible. it's got a lot of missed potential. >> charlie: better than others. >> we're the healthiest looking horse in the glue factory. we have big problems in the country but they're fixable and fix them on our own terms. >> charlie: you could have the same problems as speaker with the caucuses you have to deal with is that affair appraisal by john boehner. >> he did say that to me but our caucus has gotten so much more unified than ever before. like you said i only lost one vote for speaker. that's pretty darn rare. the reason is it's two things as i see it. i spent all of 2016 to get our members to come to an agreement on an agenda we'd agree on and
present to the country to run and implement in 2016. 2016 was a unifying moment to take our principles and apply them to problems and come up with ideas and an agenda. we did that. that was unifying and now we have the opportunity with unified government to put it in place is extremely unifying you don't have divided government like we had under when john boehner was speaker. >> i want to talk about congressional agenda and your relationship with the president-elect. >> it's getting better. >> charlie: shall i remind you what he said of you? >> he tweeted it. i'm a big boy with thick skin. it's my tenth term. i don't worry about criticism. it doesn't affect me at this
stage in my life. we constantly communicate and that constant communication has done a lot of to build trust and to get to know each other much much better. i met him for the first time -- well, i shook his hand once in new york four years ago for 30 seconds but i met him for the first i'm after he got the nomination in reince priebus' office after the nomination. >> charlie: after the nomination? >> i didn't know the guy. he didn't know me and i didn't know him. after the campaign we didn't speak frequently and we had our difference and we have worked hard at making sure we're talking all the time. we do that. i talked to him two nights ago. >> charlie: what's the conversation about him and you? >> almost always about the agenda in place. mitch mcconnel and i spent the last two months on piecing
together a legislative plan and strategy to make good on the promises all of us made to the public who elected us and how we'll execute that. so almost all my conversations revolve around that. about the plans, where we're going to go, sometimes it's personnel because he's populating a cabinet. it's all about how to fix the problems and how to get the process going, how to deliver on our object ives and our goals. >> charlie: so the relationship is healthy? >> very healthy. >> charlie: one thing he's said and he's used the bully pulpit to talk about jobs and bully corporations into not leaving and taking manufacturing overassess -- overseas it's a good idea? >> i think the people want an american job fighting for american jobs. >> charlie: it resonate in the campaign. >> we ran on a national stage and felt we should have won and
he figured out how to connect with people. >> charlie: what did he figure out? >> i think he figured out how to really connect with people on an individual basis. everybody talks about twitter and all this stuff he has learned how to communicate directly with the american people and go around the media and to give voice to people who feel like they have not been heard, who feel they've been voiceless. so i think in his unique communication skills which are novel and different than traditional people running for office he has tapped a vein and given voice to people who felt like they haven't been represented. and that basically gave us a winning coalition. i actually look at the election, wisconsin's a perfect example. reagan in 1984 was the last time he won everything but minnesota. we're typically a blue state.
how is it donald trump wins wisconsin? he got disaffected blue-collar voters, union households to vote for donald trump. we together merged forces at the end and had our frictions before, we merged forces and got the unified republican party to unify and the college-educated suburban voter -- >> charlie: including women. >> we got them to stick with the republican party and trump donal democrats and the obama coalition didn't turn out for barack obama. i think the combination of things is how i would quickly describe the victory but donald's role in this is tapping a frustration, giving voice to
it and related with people. >> what do you make of it when they say it was one part that and one part james combey -- comey and one part russians. >> i don't dispute that because all it did was reinforce the existing story. the russians and jim comey didn't put this stuff on computers. they were self-inflicted wounds and the narrative was already out there but i think what she did not do was connect with people and the way her predecessor did. donald trump did. he connected with people. here's the other point. your earlier question i don't think -- i think barack obama is
a popular man and president. i don't think his policies are popular. i don't think the results of his policies are popular. we'll get into affordable care act i assume but when people say i don't like the direction the country's going. look at the polls. most americans don't believe the country is heading in the wrong direction why would they vote for someone swearing he'll change. people wanted change and need and deserve change. it's our job to deliver on change. it's that simple. >> charlie: he also says she didn't campaign in those states. >> it's mind-numbing. we had to see you, feel you, touch you. you had no come and be there to ignore wisconsin and same for michigan. political malpractice but i'm glad because it's to our benefit. >> charlie: at the same time
today he has the lowest polls of anybody who has entered the president almost in history down in the 40%. >> i think they're trying to d delegitimize of the election and some people don't like donald trump and public opinion in any given day what's that matter to a person who is trying to make sure we deliver on the reforms we committed to that we sincerely believe will improve people's lives. >> >> back to obama if you look at the fights he's picking -- i
think it's in his heart to do that. we talk about poverty a lot. >> charlie: every time there's a windmill he took to that. >> i think he'll learn to triage the windmills too. >> charlie: we talked about jobs, immigration, the wall, tax reform, trade. is that your agenda? i can add a few more. regulations are a big deal. it's one of the biggest dark clouds over our economy. i could spend an hour on the
labor department and another hour on the epa. the energy things. it's one thing where i think the obama administration went far past and where i give the president the worst marks of all. regulations. he hyper regulated the economy, it stifled the economy and raising the cost of business and product. without going too far down that road, regulation. i assume you want too get in the affordable care act. and he want to add infrastructure to the priorities. we have done that and have to carve out the fiscal space for that and as you mentioned securing the borders a big part of that plan. >> charlie: he's going to build a wall? >> so we already have the law on the books to have a physical barrier. the way we look at this is whatever the conditions on the
ground are warrant or dictate and i've been to parts of the border where they suggest at this spot we should have a wall and over at these mountains it should be a fence. we'll work to secure the border. it will have a physical barrier and i assume in some places it will have a wall because that's what conditions will dictate. >> charlie: so mexico will pay for it? >> i think the current front is we'll front the cash. >> charlie: the plan is you're going to find the money and he's going to find a way for mexico to pay you back. >> that's right. >> charlie: is that feasible? >> it's if you define paying it back in a broader way. i can go into tax reform. there's ways where we'd get more
money coming in from mexico than the current status quo in excess of whatever it would cost to finance a wall. then go to trade. where we agree is let's get good trade deals. >> charlie: did you think the trans-pacific deal was a bad deal? >> i think he cut a bad deal in certain areas. i didn't support the tpp he negotiated. i worked with his team during the negotiations and i think they went into a direction more to the left the liking of democrats that we don't like and i think they did three or four things we couldn't live with. as it is currently constructed it's not a good deal. i believe in trade. i like bilateral and
multilateral agreements. >> charlie: the president of china was in davos making a speech. he said trade war will destroy everybody's economy. >> we don't want a trade war. >> charlie: but isn't what the president is threatening a trade war? >> i don't think so. first of all the man is a negotiator and business man and think he has a long-ball view of this and just from my conversations with him i don't think it's just episode and anecdotal and we're getting taken advantage of they steal our intellectual property rights and compete in violation of international trade rules today. not to mention dumping goods into our country and through
other countries we call trans shipment. what donald is saying we have to enforce these agreements and make sure we level the playing field. >> charlie: if not he said he'll put a 45% tariff on anything that comes in from china. >> he's a good negotiator. we are getting taken advantage of in certain areas. not all but certain areas. last thing we want is a fortress of america and trade war even n currency war but it doesn't mean we'll say to other countries we we'll play on an unlevel playing field with you. the purpose should be to level the playing field. if we have a level playing field the american worker and business can compete with anybody but we don't want a stacked deck. >> charlie: you believe it's possible for the resurgence in american manufacturing. >> i'm convinced. >> charlie: american workers
have not priced themselves out of the marketplace. >> because there's other factors than bidding down wages. we don't have to play the wage arbitrage game. there's other things we can do and that's the core of our agenda, returning manufacturing to america, make america an energy powerhouse because of the awful regulations the outgoing administration placed on our economy and give certainty and we can become an energy giant. we can have in north america the kind of energy production exportation that can rival -- >> charlie: meaning canada and the united states and mexico? >> absolutely that can rival opec. i believe if we get our tax policies right and regulatory policies right and trade policies right we can see a resurgence. >> charlie: we'll get to obama
care and other domestic issues. what kind of tax reform are you in favor of and is it at one with what donald trump wants? >> we discussed it the other night in great length and if you want to look at it go to our website. 22% corporate rate is what the house says. he want it as 15%. we'd be happy to do that but we have to make the math work. if you look at what our -- >> charlie: if you reduce it you have to get the revenue -- >> we propose revenue neutral tax reform it won't increase the deficit. you get more income subject to taxation to get taxed at a lower rate to make us more competitive. so back up for a second. what's going on in the world and why are we suffering from this tax system we have today? the industrialized countries
their average tax rate on businesses is 23%. our tax rate on american corporations is 35% that's only 20% of american businesses. the tax rate on what we call pass-throughs individuals who file their income taxes as an individual -- >> charlie: you pay as an individual income. >> that tax rate is 44.6%. we're killing ourselves. >> charlie: are they the people who got killed by obama care? >> yes and the regulations. remember, that's where most our jobs come from. most our jobs come from small, medium and new business. the other point i was going to make is we have this goofy system in how we tax ourselves internationally. it tells american businesses you're better off become a foreign company. you're better off making things overseas and selling back to america and if you make money overseas you can't bring the money back because of the tax system.
>> charlie: because it's 35%? >> 35%. we have this goofy system that is so out of sync with the rest of the world and so uncompetitive. there's $2 billion to $3 billion parked overseas american money that's made and earned and not coming back to our economy because of the tax laws. fixing that alone will bring so much more back to the american economy. the other point is when we tax our businesses at higher rates than our foreign competitors tax theirs they win, we lose and it puts american businesses in this global economy at a huge disadvantage. so we want to fix that. we want to get the rates down and encourage businesses to invest in this country to build factories and buy equipment in this country and put us on a level playing field with the rest of the world so if you make it in america, you keep it in america and we want a system that doesn't punish that and that's the primary purpose of
tax reform. why are we trying to do that? grow the economy, more wages, more jobs, higher wages. that's what we want to accomplish. >> charlie: he said every time i hear border adjustment -- you know where i'm going, i don't love it. usually it means we'll get adjusted into a bad deal. it's a very simple system in the way it's described. let me describe it clearly. the rest of the world has consumption taxes so when they make something in their country and they sell it overseas but when something comes from overseas to their country they tax it. we do the opposite. take harley davidson in milwaukee. we make a harley motorcycle in milwaukee, we tax it. we tax it if it's going to be ridden in wisconsin and tax it if it's going to be sold into
japan. it's taxed as it leaves and enters into japan. take honda. they make a gold wing a cycle that competes with the harley. honda makes this motorcycle and if it's going to america they take the tax off of it because it's being exported. and then as it comes into america it's not taxed so their thing is untaxed twice. our motorcycle is taxed twice. >> charlie: therefore you can't be price competitive. >> yes and an unlevel playing field. it's getting us in sync with the rest of the world saying take our tax off our exports and put them on imports like everybody else does and put them on a level playing field like the rest. it's changing the way we do our taxes based on the destination of consumption so that the added benefit is american companies it gives them an enormous incentive too stay in america and keep making harleys in america and
exporting them overseas and make it more profitable to keep it in his country and export it and makes it more profitable to stay in business because your foreign competition coming in is now on a level playing field. >> charlie: i spoke to the vice president liquidity this morning, mike pence, he said we have this repeal and create a new program. he said in the next couple weeks he'll have a program together. is that the timetable? >> we ran on a plan. again go to our website if you want to look at it and we ran on this and we intend on bringing forward these things at the same time. they can't for legislative reasons be on the same bill. it's a procedural challenge but we intend to bring our bills together to show what we would repeal and we feel we can advance in the budget bill not just the repeal of the obama care but replace. let me explain why we think it
requires a sense of urgency. because the law is collapsing under its own weight quickly. >> charlie: people are abandoning it. >> people are leaving and rates are going up so high it's not even insurance. here's the back story. they sold it saying if you like your plan you can keep it and this will help keep down price and premiums. now a lot of insurers have pulled out. 11 1/2 million and it's fallen fall short. we all agree on the goal of getting people insured. nobody disagrees with that. the way they went about it though is they went in the most prohibitive and expensive way to do it, it hurt health care for everybody else in america and the plans people are on now are going away. to give you a couple seconds on
this. humana pulled out, united pulled out, eaetna is leaving. they have one insurance choice left. 31% of all the counties in america only one plan left and we're being told by the insurers they'll pull out so we'll have zero plans left not to mention the deductibles are three times as high -- >> charlie: you just said go to your website. they want to know what your going to replace it and where the money's coming from. >> it comes from obama care because obama care is build on a house of sand that is quickly collapsing. we want to take those resources and direct it towards what we think smarter replacement policy. what's that look like? a couple things. one health savings accounts can give people help and the smarter way to help people with pre-existing conditions is subsidize their care through
risk pools. the x-rays tell us it's 60% of the population have cancer, heart disease. let's just pay for their care and by doing it that way the rest of the pools of americans don't have to cover those losses and we dramatically stabilize the insurance rates and premiums for everybody else. so by having taxpayers i think step up and focus on the risk pools subsidizing the care for those with catastrophic illnesses they don't have to be covered by everybody else and stabilize the plan and think a refundable tax credit is the smarter way for people to buy insurance they like and can afford and better than subsidies. you get assistance to buy care but we want more insurance competition. we want more choices. that's why we want things like interstate shopping. let insurance compete across state line. we have a lizard selling insurance on geico and flo
selling insurance. there's a lot of things -- >> charlie: medicare works. >> the problem is it's going bankrupt. you're pivoting to medicare which i'm happy to do. it's arguably the most important program in the federal government. medicare works but more than half the financing is on borrowed money when the baby boomers retire it will go bankrupt. they'll cash the system and we'll have an in solvent system and people are in the middle of their retirement without a vibrant medicare system. i've been a reform guy in congress for many years. we think the best thing to do is guarantee coverage for those in retirement and they organized their lives around it and we need to reform the program for my generation and down.
the younger people so that we can make sure we can cash flow the commitment for the current seniors and our generation actually has a medicare for when we retire and the kinds of reforms we call for are to have more choice and competition in the medicare plan. >> charlie: where is your freedom caucus on all this? >> they're doing well. they're doing real well. i think we have ourselves re-unified because we took part in an agenda last year and now executing and putting it together has been a unifying factor in congress. john boehner never experienced in his speakership the unified government we get to enjoy now and -- >> charlie: he didn't have the white house. >> that was conflict and you know the story on that. because we now have a chance of making a big positive difference in all these issues and people's lives and take our principles and apply them to problems we
unity. >> charlie: the infrastructure. >> we have to cut spending elsewhere to pay for infrastructure. >> charlie: how big the bill's going to be? >> you hear a trillion eye-popping number that's not from taxpayers into the transportation system. it's also leveraged private-sector dollars. there's project have some federal financing. >> charlie: [indiscernible] . i don't floknow. >> charlie: you don't know how much it will be? >> for every one dollar of federal money there's $40 of
private sector dollars. we want to leverage as much as possible to maximize the fixing of our infrastructure, airports, highways, canals. it's essential to the economy working. we all agree on that. now we have to figure out how to in a fiscally responsible way get that going and the other problem at the federal level is so much of the money through the system is wasted on lots of waste and bureaucracy and overaheaover overhead and we have to clear that up and leveraging for infrastructure programs is a smart, wise use with dollars. >> charlie: and with respect to children that are here illegally what are we going to do about that? >> we have to secure the borders so they don't come illegally. we'll have no solution to an illegal immigration problem.
that's what border security is about. you're asking about people already in the country who are not documented. that is an issue we'll have to get to. once the country realizes we have gotten serious and secured the border. i don't think people have face we can fix this part of the program unless we fix the core problem which is an unsecured border. >> charlie: banning muslim. where is the president-elect on this and where are you on this? >> i subscribe to the view we should have a security test on people coming to the country not a religious test. i think that's in faith in keeping with the first amendment. >> charlie: what's a security test? >> if they're a person that poses a risk to the country don't put them in. >> charlie: and don't put them on a plane either. >> on a plane or bring them here and if we're not certain don't bring them in. that's a security test. a religious test saying a category of people based on
their faith is against our first fundament and religious freedom. i don't think we can or should do that. >> charlie: what's he think? >> what he thinks and -- >> charlie: what's interesting to him is you've been party to changes in his evolution of thinking. >> i think he calls it extreme vetting which we agree with. he want a security test. and yes -- >> charlie: why's he say that? >> he calls it extreme vetting. the example for syria we tried to work this rubik's cupe -- cube back and forth and they can't vet these people. this is unclassified. we know isis is trying to infiltrate refugee populations. the paris shooting where isis
infiltrated refugee populations. we know that's in the plan. >> charlie: and we know as they lose territory in terms of mosul and -- >> they'll be pufshshed out. >> charlie: and higher means as their way of doing that. >> and there's no syria to talk to. we can't call al-asad's government. this is why our latest appropriation bill said no money to bring them here but money to set up refugee camps in the area to get them out of harm's way in jordan and other areas to keep them safe and by the way, most refugees want to go back to their homes. bringing them to the other sided of the world only to bring them back once peace and security is secured doesn't make sense and keeping them close and
contributing to the effort to make sure they're doing well is a better policy. >> charlie: how do you define them has created political problems in europe including one of our best friends, angela merkel. >> they couldn't verify they have 1.1 million refugees that came in. they couldn't verify a whole proportion of them. i don't know about those statistics but it's a big chunk where they didn't know who they are or what their background is. that's putting your national security in jeopardy and we don't want to do that. >> charlie: russia, a town hall meeting said we have to step up our game to confront russia. that doesn't sound like the president-elect it sounds like the speaker of the house. >> we're different branches. >> charlie: do you have an idea how to engage russia.
>> the people he's putting in his cabinet generally have the view i have. jim mattis -- >> charlie: the defense secretary nominee. >> they're more in the category of russia hawks. i think the president-elect has more of a long ball strategy in mind on relationships with russia. >> charlie: everybody wants to know that very question. here's what i'd like to know -- >> a, i can't answer that question. >> charlie: you're the speaker of the house and having those conversations with him. don't you want to say i want to know your long-term strategy. >> i believe he believes in carrot-stick diplomacy. >> charlie: first offer but not my final position. >> i think it's served him extremely well and worked very well and made a difference already before getting in office and i think that's
nontraditional. i'm going out on a limb here. i think it's going to be an unconventional presidency. on russia i really think they're a malevolent actor. i'll say he does believe they're a malevolent actor. [speaking overeach other] >> he does know they're up to no good and tried to mettle in our elections and do not share our interests. russia tries to frustrate our interests. i also think the obama policy brought this about. i think the reset was a big mistake. it was appeasement. they gave away missile defense. the arms treaty -- i can go on and on. >> charlie: stop beating up and
blaming everything on -- >> they did on bush for eight years. give me a few months. the point i'm trying to say is i think the resurgence of this revengist russia is because of a number of factors. they have their own domestic problems. their own oil economy they're dependent upon is not healthy. putin is tightening his grip. it's not a democracy it's a thugtatar dictatorship. i think we have to show there's consequences for these things and going forward we have to help ourselves and allies against the cyber type attack russia is trying to leverage on other countries. i think they're trying to delegitimize --
>> charlie: they're trying to delegitimize other democracies. >> so it looks the same by comparison. i think there's some of that involved and we have to help ourselves and our allies to prevent that from happening. >> charlie: did the intelligence agency make a mistake in summarizing the dossier? >> i think so because they took a document full of total unsubstantiated rumors produced by an opposition research firm for a political opponent in a campaign -- >> charlie: who then hired a british firm. >> and normally wouldn't comment on what is or sentence in classified documents but since it's now out -- >> charlie: it's on the internet. >> by putting it in proximity by combining it and putting it with other products of the intelligence community -- >> charlie: they didn't do that, did they? they didn't put it together?
all they did was summarize it and said we ought to show it to the president of the united states as well as the president-elect. >> i think they contributed to the confluence that's occurred and gave it rise which it should have never have gone. it wasn't legitimate and i think that was a mistake in judgment. because i'm second in line i get the same briefs and get the full -- >> charlie: the vice president and then you in terms of who sees it. >> i'm very involved with the intelligence community. >> charlie: do you respect them, admire them, think they're competent -- >> yes, yes, yes, yes. >> charlie: do you think the president-elect shares that view? >> he just started getting the briefings. >> charlie: reading the briefings? >> both. the men and women who are career who are literally putting their
lives on the line for our country are outstanding professionals that produce really good work. then on top there are political appointees that can produce a difference. what donald trump now has is the opportunity to put his people in place and dan coates a stellar human become. mark pompeo of the smartest guys -- >> charlie: top of his class at west point and went to law school and back to kansas to be a police station -- politician. >> get elect to congress. come on, charlie. donald trump is staffing himself with high quality individuals who will work with this intelligence community and i believe serve him very well. i believe when he realizes and sees the quality they're producing i think they already
have his respect but i think he'll have more of his respect and right now -- >> charlie: when he gets there? >> you have an administration -- every administration is political. the obama one was more political than ever i've ever seen before. >> charlie: what's the most egregious thing they've done in your mind? >> mike micro >> micromanaged the military too much and took senate confirmed candidates from the secretary of defense and secretary much state and had unconfirmed 28 year olds trying to form policy when better experts were out there. i spent so much time with our military and the amount of micromanaging from the nsc is mind-numbing and extremely frustrating to the men and women in harm's way trying to do their jobs. i think that is something that donald trump's going to fix. >> charlie: the president today
in his final press conference raised concerns on a two-state solution in israel slipping away. do you have a fear about that? >> i don't see a two-state solution in thing offing anytime soon. >> charlie: the further you get from it the more it looks like they'll have to face a choice between are we a democracy or jewish state. >> i don't know about that. >> charlie: that's the fear that's raised. you do know that. >> i know that's the fear that's raised but i don't see that coming. >> charlie: this that's the fear the president raised. >> i think the president made a colossal mistake. a colossal mistake -- it made peace harder. it made peace harder and what we did was abandoned our long-standing commitment to supporting our best allie in the region our friend, israel, at the security council. now they've given legitimacy to claims that aren't and that
makes it even harder for the sides to come together. i think he made a colossal mistake at the u.n. i think we need to do more to support our friends in israel. it almost gave -- >> charlie: they have more support militarily from this administration than any other. >> we have a memorandum of information and just negotiated a new one. i won't argue with that but i think the obama administration undercut the u.n. on the way out the door. i think it's wrong and detrimental to state and the two-states works if they want a two-state solution. it's hard to work with a two-state solution if one half of the other government doesn't think you should exist. that's the problem here. they don't think israel has a right to exist. how can you have a two-state solution side by side living next to one another when many of them -- >> charlie: not all of them.
hamas has a charter. >> and they're part of the coalition government. you want to have an endurable agreement to acknowledge each other's right to exist and that doesn't exist. >> charlie: you said paul ryan is not a neocon. what are you? >> in the old days it was a bunch of things and not just foreign policy. >> charlie: it was believed they -- >> i'm less of an interventionist. i believe we need a moral based policy and need to project our views and have to be cautious and judicious with our use of force and it has to rise to a very high level of engagement such that our actual safety and
national interest is risked and rises the troop commitment to a high burden and threshold of proof while defending our values and principles. doesn't mean we should have to use troops but should say moral base policy. i don't call myself a real politic guy which is a lax policy. that's why you think the way i think with russia but we have to be cautious. >> two final questions because i know you have to do something important. >> home to wisconsin. >> charlie: doesn't the speaker have a plane? >> i didn't take it. >> charlie: there is some concern in earn campaign about america's retrenchment and america not playing the role it had and america had lost respect
in the world. nothing offend the president of the united states more than that because he feels that's what he did was build america's respect around the world. >> i see it differently. i think because of the hollowing out of our military and i look at the syria red line as the biggest mistake on that score -- >> charlie: withstanding the fact they got the gas -- >> what he did was he made -- it was in the campaign with us in 2012. he made such a prominent declaration the u.s. president said here say clear line they crossed it and they crossed it and they crossed it and he never enforced it. that one move did more to degrade the value of or word you combine that with the hollowing of our military and combine that with our reset appeasement policy with russia and combine
that with the not agreeing to arm ukraines. >> charlie: did obama appease russia? >> he gave them missile defense with nothing in return. i think there's a lot of things he did -- yeah, we could have done so much more to help the ukrainians after they took crimea and we didn't do that and like at the green revolution in iran in the early parts of his presidency. >> charlie: the people in the streets? >> in fact he hurt the green revolution by tacitly supported the moahs. are we going around the world? >> charlie: yes. >> the iranian deal with the worst of them all which did damage to our standing in the world and national security. we basically said you'll have a nuclear weapon and be a legitimate nuclear power. >> charlie: at the time the deal was being negotiated they were two to three months away fromming having
from having a nuclear deal and now have the material -- >> so we've since then gone above and beyond. john kerry has been the tehran chamber of commerce going around the world helping them give business. we've given them billions in cold, hard cash and effectively paid ransom for hostages. all those things have detracted against our standing. >> charlie: you don't want boeing selling planes to iran? >> i actually don't. i think we need to be tougher and tighter on iran. [overlapping speaking] >> they're the largest terrorist sponsor in the world. they cash flow weapons and arms and terrorists to go after democracies and after us. these are -- >> charlie: what will happen in your judgment in the congress to the iran deal and what do you think the consequences are and
i'm way over here but -- >> the question is where do you go from here now that what's happened has happened and how much toothpaste can you put back in the tube to bring iran back to account. i think they're flush with cash and on their way to being a legitimate nuclear state. >> charlie: you don't think it put them further away from being a nuclear state? >> but it says at the end of the window they'll have nuclear weapons at the end of the window. i'm convinced of that. i do believe they made a big mistake in putting the deal together, yes, absolutely. this isn't like a reformed iran. this isn't an iran that says death to israel. they write on their missiles, usa and israel. >> charlie: and you think will dismantle it?
[overlapping speaking] >> the question is what do we do from here and we have to do more analysis on how much we can make this better. how can we bring iran more to account. how can we tighten up the sanctions because they're still being a bad actor. there's a lot of things already done we can't undo. [overlapping speaking] >> that's why i hesitate to give you an answer because too much is out of our control unfortunately. >> charlie: other than seeing the packers win the super bowl would make you a very happy man. >> a very happy man. >> charlie: would you like to see paul ryan president? >> no. it's not an ambition i've long harbored or harbored. when mitt romney asked me to join the ticket you think long and hard about the factors
involved. i thought whether i'd run a couple years ago. at the end of the day i calls came back to the same conclusion i enjoy being a policy maker and making a difference in congress and i like being a normal person who's a dad and husband and having a normal life and family and can go back to that after civil service. i see this as a vocation to make the best positive difference in people's lives and then being a normal person. that's why i've never harbored presidential ambitions. i've thought bit i have presidential sized policy ambition just not personal ambition. >> charlie: you'd like to be president but don't think it's worth the toll it takes? >> i don't. i want to do this job. i see this as a perfect place for me. i wasn't look for speaker of the house i wanted to stay as the ways and means chairman. >> charlie: they convinced you. >> i did the job and learned to like the job and find it a high
honor and want to do this job and there's no other job i'm looking for. >> charlie: thank you. >> you bet. go packers. >> charlie: thank you for joining us. see you next time. >> for more about the program and other episodes visit us online at pbs.org and charlierose domed. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org
business report" with tyler mathisen and sue herera. >> smooth sailing the men who could soon be in charge of the nation's money and power sources faced sharp questions on their qualifications to lead two critical departments. >> rolling back the rules. the president-elect has promised to loosen some energy regulations but will it be a lot easier said than done. and all board the activist train in an unusual twist. the ceo of one railroad leaves to try and shake up another. those stories and more tonight on "nightly business report" for thursday, january 19th. good evening, everyone. on the eve of the presidential inauguration, the man who may soon be in charge of the nation's finances was on capitol
hill. steve mnuchin defended his record to a senate panel including his leadership at a controversial california bank that has been called a foreclosure machine. tax reform which he said would be fully paid for and regulations as well. a mon javers reports tonight on the confirmation hearing. >> reporter: absolutely packed house for the mnuchin hearing. people waited in line for up to five hours to get seats in this room that gives you a sense of just how enthusiastic people were to hear from mr. mnuchin. democrats going in felt that mnuchin might be the one trump nominee they had a chance of derailing. by the end of the day they might have been felt differently about that. take a listen to this exchange. >> it seems to me in all due respect you just want to shoot questions at me and not let me he expla