tv The Journal Editorial Report FOX News April 2, 2017 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT
have a great week. we will see you on the nextnews. us, we will back at 4:00 and i will be on the fox report at 7:00, see you seen. >> all right. ♪ ♪ ♪ paul: welcome to the journal editorial report. i'm paul gigot. votes on president trump's nominee expected next week. the senate judiciary committee is scheduled to vote monday on neil gorsuch with republicans now planning for a full senate vote by the end of the week before lawmakers leave for a two-week easter recess and as democratic opposition to gorsuch continues to mount and the threat of a filibuster continues to grow, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell vowed this week that he will be confirmed one way or another. >> we are going to get judge gorsuch confirmed.
they'll be an opportunity for the democrats to invoke closure, we will see where that ends. it'll be really up to them how the process to confirm judge gorsuch goes forward. paul: joining the panel this week wall street journal panelist and deputy editor dan, washington columnist kim and editorial board member collin levy. only two democratic senators say they'll vote for gorsuch, and most of the rest of the democrats not all declared but the vote count against him is mounting. what's the democratic strategy here to defeat judge gorsuch? >> well, the democratic strategy here is to somehow portray republicans as the ones who are radical forever considering breaking the filibuster but we have to look at basics here and what the democrats are doing is
crazy, they are proposing a filibuster of a nominee who is as mainstream as they come. this is a judge who had 2700 opinions, 98% of those opinions were unanimous. of the times he descented, half of those were against republican colleagues and half against democratic colleagues. there's nothing controversial here. you have a crazy situation where it's pure politics democrats are playing. there's nothing in his record and nothing in his testimony that -- that they should be getting so worked up about. it's a play to the base. paul: if you have 52 republicans voting for gorsuch and so far that looks like what you'll get plus two democrats, that's 54, that's a majority of the senate. what the democrats are saying, wait a minute here, it's not a 50 vote threshold, we now want 60 votes and you have to meet the threshold. how historically speaking is that a threshold that is actually been invoked? >> no, of course not. democrats are coming out and
say, oh, look, there was a filibuster once upon a time in 1968 against justice abe fortus. he was already on the court and it was a situation where he was picked, they basically picked on him because of some specific things that were going on with the white house, some specific policy issues. paul: he was appointed lbj was going to elevate to chief justice. >> right, exactly. you know, these situations are not at all analogus, if we go now to have a 60 vote standard for republicans, you know for sure that republican -- democrats are going to be sure to switch it back to a majority standard when they're in control. paul: all right, so kim, what about this -- this angle here? i think chuck schumer is trying -- the majority leader in the senate is trying to basically get handful of republicans to say, we are so intimidated for
breaking a filibuster for supreme court nominee that we want to cut some kind of a deal that either blocks gorsuch or will confirm gorsuch but any future nominees will have to meet that 60 vote threshold. is this likely -- are the republicans thinking about this? >> well, if they did, it would be the dumbest thing that they have ever considered. look, right now republicans are totally position today get neil gorsuch on the court without having to do any deals with the democrats. there's a talk of which mcconnell invoking the nuclear option which means that they would change the rules so that they could not have have a filibuster for supreme court nominees anymore and all they need to do as republicans stick together, 52 of them, that's what you need to change the rules. now, there may be a temptation for a few moderates but there's a lot of pressure on folks like susan collins and others to -- to move with mitch mcconnell and
not go down that road. when you have institutionalist like john mccain and lindsey graham having to go nuclear, it's harder for other republicans to think about a deal. paul: if you did a deal like that, let's say, okay, we will let gorsuch go through, he has impeccable credentials, that would make chuck schumer co-president for the purposes of nominations because it would basically mean that anybody on donald trump's list of 21, that he proposed during campaign as nominees couldn't get confirmed? >> no, they would be off the list. left of center on the court -- the only people that would acceptable to the democrats. they have made that very clear and so once again the democrats are paying the price for what harry reid by blowing up the filibuster for appellate court
nominees. in 2013 he did that. the supreme court ruled in 1982 that the senate had within its power to do except that any motion like that itself could be filibustered. harry reid is the guy who changed the filibuster that his been used since 1837. it's the senators reason for being, it's what distinguishes him from being more than house members. but he did that and now we are at this point and now the stakes are so high both for neil gorsuch and president trump and for the republicans that there is no option if the democrats insist on going down the strategy, to blow it up. paul: does he get confirmed, gorsuch? >> i think he absolutely gets confirmed. there's no way that three republicans could go along with chuck schumer and survive. paul: what do you think? how many votes? >> i think it's going to be close. i'm not going to make the vote call but i think he's going to get confirmed. paul: kim, do you agree?
>> yeah, he will probably get 54. paul: thank you, when we come back the president target it is freedom caucus following the gop's failure, is there still a path forward on repealing and replacing obamacare? >> i know that we are all going to make a deal health care. that's such an easy one. i have no doubt that that's going to happen quickly.
♪ ♪ ♪ paul: president trump lashed out this week at the conservative freedom caucus following the gop's failure to advance a bill to repeal and replace obamacare. the president tweeted thursday, quote, the freedom caucus will hurt the entire republican agenda if they don't get on the team and fast. we must fight them and dems in 2018. house speaker paul ryan said he sympathized with the president and indicated that an agreement on health care was not off the table. >> i understand the president's
frustration, i share frustration . about 90% of conference is for repeal and replace obamacare and about 10% are not. that's not enough to pass the bill. we are close. what i am encouraging members to do to talk to each other until we get the consensus to pass this bill. paul: we are back with dan and chris and joe rego joins the panel. joe, you have been reporting the story. is this possible to revive this bill? >> well, i feel a little bit like it's the scene in dumb and dumber where he goes so you're saying there's a chance. [laughter] >> it's not impossible, they could reach consensus but it's very unlikely and the reason these talks are going on is that, i think, a lot of members of the freedom caucus didn't realize or didn't think through the implications of what they were doing, how it harmed the trump agenda, kept obamacare in place and failed to have any
kind of spending reform early in this presidency. paul: fiscal hawks but this took a trillion dollars out of federal spending and now it's back in. >> it's back in. you are giving huge tax cut and there are all kinds of tax cuts. this was a conservative bill that the conservatives killed for being insufficiently conservative but this is right -- this is what they wanted to do on health care for the entire obama presidency. paul: right now they have to basically get the moderates in the middle who were put off by some of the changes that the freedom caucus insisted on and the freedom caucus to insist otherwise they don't have a majority in the house. >> yeah, the real problem here is that the original bill was what a compromise looks like. the moderates didn't like this or that element but they would have been there in the end. when you pulled it so far to the right, it just alienated the
caucus and blew up a very fragile coalition. paul: they were close, 4 to 5 votes. >> 90% of the caucus was there. i think it might have been a little bit higher. paul: did you -- dan, you were critical in the column of the freedom caucus and they defined themselves as the only conservatives who are really conservative, and trump went after them. is that a smart strategy for trump to do that? >> it looks like it creates more division. one of the members of the freedom caucus justin amash tweeted back that it didn't take look for -- paul: justin amash never voted for anything. >> i'm trying to point out the divisions that actually exist inside the republican caucus. congressman chris collins of new york, head of moderates said it
will never meet with the freedom caucus. these two groups of people are at each other's throats. i think it constitutes a third party inside the congress, it's like fascist, it's like italy. [laughter] >> they set themselves outside. there's nothing they can do that's positive. all they can do is block things from happening. paul all and yet, kim, without them, let's say they have 30 members, we don't know exactly how many they have, that's enough to kill any bill because they only have a majority of 22. is -- is trump smart to go after them or is this going to make them dig in and blow up everything? >> well, the evidence so far is that his pounding on them a little bit seems to be having some sort of impact. you've had a couple of members of the freedom caucus who have left the caucus or criticized the caucus itself for going down the road that it did go down. the president has been tweeting
about individual members who largely been silent, not been going back, amash is an outlier there. the pressure needs to be put on them and that's the best way to putting them in a situation where it becomes clear that they're holding the republican party hostage themselves and to see if their own -- their voters are happy with that. paul: so donald trump talked about maybe working with democrats on this, joe. what would it take to get democratic cooperation on a health care reform? are we basically -- starting point would be to take repeal off the table? >> taking repeal off the table and the democratic priority is expanding government control of health care. so, for example, one-third of u.s. counties are down to a single insurer. paul: under obamacare? >> if that situation persists and they get down to zero, i think a lot of democrats would
say, just send medicaid in. paul: expand 58 from 65 which would be hugely expensive. that would be their offer to compromise. >> right. just look at medicaid, kansas this week conservative kansas legislature voted to expand medicaid. they figured the status quo is going to persist so why not take the free money. so this is really been a very fiscally and damage, a lot of it has been inflicted here. paul: so you think it's off the table for the last two years -- next two years, dan? >> i say it's 80% off the table. that was such a big loss that i think they will at least try to get it back. paul: all right, when we come back, republican leaders vow to go move ahead with their agenda but is rewriting the tax code harder after the gop's health care defeat?
>> we want this to be the last tax season americans have to put tax season americans have to put up with this broken tax code remember here at ally, nothing stops us from doing right by our customers. who's with me? we're like a basketball team here at ally. if a basketball team had over 7... i'm in. 7,000 players. our plays are a little unorthodox. but to beat the big boys, you need smarter ways to save people money. we know what you want from a financial company and we'll stop at... nothing to make sure you get it. one, two... and we mean nothing. ♪ ♪
♪ ♪ ♪ paul: vow to go move ahead after last week's health care defeat republican leaders are setting their sights on a historic tax overhaul, something that can't come soon enough for many americans with 73% of voters in a new fox news poll saying they want to see tax reform this year. economist douglas was the director of the congressional budget office under president george w. bush, he's now the president of the american action forum. so welcome back, sir, good to see you. >> good to see you, thank you. paul: so is the health care failure make tax reform harder
or will it concentrate republican minds and say, we have to get something done, let's go with this? >> i think it's a little bit of both to be honest. it certainly sent a bad message to caucus because what it really showed that a small group of individuals can bring things to a standstill. the reality of tax reforms there's always winners and losers. that's the bad news. the other part that you mentioned i think is very real. republicans know that they have to go into 2018 with victories that shows they know how to govern or they'll be in bad electoral shape. that should concentrate their attention in a very big way. paul: you think -- you're in favor of tax reform. you think thatled -- >> absolutely. paul: add growth in the near term and long term, how much are we talking about if it's tax reform done right? >> if you did a serious progrowth tax reform that was very discipline and didn't have
a whole bunch of goodies for people, you can add half a percentage point to the economy year after year after year. accumulates in ways that boggle the mind. the difference between the growth rate of england say and the growth of the united states over periods of centuries was about 2 to 3 tenths of a percentage point and in the process the u.s. became the largest global economic power and the united kingdom was no longer. those are the differences that really matter. paul: well, here is the other thing, we are at a stage of this expansion, a law expansion over seven years where it's going to get hard to get a lot of growth out of the labor market because, you know, we have full employment in some parts of the country. the consumer has been doing fine but he probably can't get a lot more. you have to get it from increase investment and capital expenditure, do you agree with that and that's what you're talking about when you're talking about tax reform,
kicking off that capital expenditure? >> yes, you have to get the investment in innovation, capital, in structures and with that comes greater productivity growth. that's the route to higher real wages. so everything should be focused on getting better business investment performance in the united states and tax reform is the number one thing in that list. paul: all right, 35%, we know it's the highest in the developed world. the house bill gets it down to 20, trump has talked about get to go 15. what do you think is the top rate you need to get it down to in order to really have an impact on growth? >> i think if you get it to 25% you get it to the middle of the pack in the developed world. to get it to 20 and 15 would be enormous success. the house plan has taken at face value would establish the place on the globe that has a single tax, not a corporate tax and value-added tax, but a single
tax at low rate of 20%. that would be improvement for companies. paul: you still have the individual tax, unfortunately. [laughter] paul: okay, so 25, you can live with that or you don't get a big growth kick? >> right. right. no one should settle for anything above 25. we need a serious reform that gets us down to 20 or 15 that also changes the structure of the tax and should be proinvestment. the house, for example, has immediate wry-off of all tangible and intangible investments. fantastic provision. it should be territorial, we are the last country on the growth trying to tax and should tax on what they are in the united states. there's some really substantial steps that need to be taken to get us back just to being competitive. paul: some people are saying because of the issue that you raised, tax reform has a lot of losers and a lot of people are going to oppose it. you know what, we are not going
to get the reform that you're talking about so we may have to settle for a tax rate cut and not a really big reform that takes out a lot of the junk in the tax code that. hurt it is growth impact, does it not? >> it does because we've got a lot of provision that is have nothing to do with growth and are really just in there as special favors to different industries. you really have to clean that stuff out and get capital flow into its most productive view in every way. paul: individual tax rate would go down to 33%? is that adequate? a lot of your scholarship has an on growth effect of lower tax rate. 33% is still pretty high. >> 33% is still pretty high. what the house did is have a separate provision that says if you have business income report it on individual income tax, sole proprietorship and that income would be taxed at 25% rate and they recognize that 33
is to high. that's a very extraordinary step. we have never seen that before. paul: that leads the poor wage easterner and salary person behind. it sucks, no? >> yes, i completely agree with you. deal reform that would match corporate rate, that's the kind of thing that we have done in the past. paul: thanks for being here. >> thank you. paul: still ahead intelligence committee opens probe into a heart attack doesn't care what you eat or how healthy you look. no matter who you are, a heart attack can happen without warning. a bayer aspirin regimen can help prevent another heart attack. be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. bayer aspirin. [vo] quickbooks introduces and her mobile wedding business. she travels far and wide to officiate i do's. and quickbooks automatically tracks those miles. she categorizes with a swipe and is ready for tax time. find more than $4000 in tax savings. visit quickbooks-dot-com.
with toothpaste or plain water.an their dentures and even though their dentures look clean, in reality they're not. if a denture were to be put under a microscope, we can see all the bacteria that still exists on the denture, and that bacteria multiplies very rapidly. that's why dentists recommend cleaning with polident everyday. polident's unique micro clean formula works in just 3 minutes, killing 99.99% of odor causing bacteria. for a cleaner, fresher, brighter denture every day.
>> the public deserves to hear the truth about possible russian involvement in our elections, how they came to be involved, how we may have failed to prevent that involvement, what actions were taken in response, if any, and what we plan to do to ensure the integrity of future, free elections. paul: that was senate intelligence chair richard burr thursday at his committee's opening hearing on russian interference in the to 2016 election. even as a similar effort in the house has stalled a partisan brawling. democrats are calling on devin nunes to step down as chairman of the house intelligence committee after he viewed documents on white house grounds and then briefed president trump before telling committee democrats.
white house officials reportedly aided nunes in reviewing that intelligence, we are back with dan, kim strossel and so, kim, you talk today chairman nunes at length this week, what did he tell you about this story? >> well, i think what's important that we understand about this story is that he went, he viewed these documents and what they essentially proved, you have dozens upon dozens document that is contain information about trump transition officials, some of the people, names in them are still masked, meaning, they are not outright called by their name in the reports but the reports are written in such a way to make it clear what trump transition people we were talking about and these were wildly disseminated at the top levels of the ob i'm government. you could look at this and in essence what devin nunes has seen is evidence that the obama administration was essentially
spying on the incoming administration. paul: so there's really two sides of the investigation. the first side is how did russia meddle and getting to the bottom of that and the intelligence committee is doing that and the second thing is that nunes wants to put on the table is was the administration -- the obama administration somehow -- how did it listen in on michael flynn, for example, the former national security adviser when he was meeting with a russian embassador and was that information as you say supposed to be masked when it involves u.s. citizens. why was that so widely disseminated that it could leak to the media, that's what he wants to focus on. he's saying that the democrats in the house intelligence committee don't wanting to there. >> they don't wanting to there because this is potentially criminal what is going on. we have very strict rules about monitoring u.s. citizens and then if you do incidentally about minimizing the use of their names, making sure that they're protected from exposure
and having -- the only way we can trust government on spying on people. democrats concern is that this continues to be looked and that somebody may have broken some laws. paul: what about the issue who devin nunes sources were, is that significant to this or does it matter? >> devin nunes has said that he got his information from intelligence officials. there's no reason not to believe this new -- new york times has a story but the bigger point is every time we have a conversation about process, this is what the democrats want have happen because they don't want to talk about the information that he actually found. paul: where does this leave us, dan, it means the the democrats are succeeding with the media, delegitimizing the house probe, does that leave us with the senate probe? >> it leaves us with the senate probe. there's some hope there because in the first day of the hearings
this past week, senator mark warner actually said that he didn't think the russian meddling favored one party over the other. it doesn't seem like a big deal but in the context of what the democrats have been saying, it is a big deal because the whole narrative has been that they only helped the trump campaign. so i think it's possible that the democrats on the senate intelligence committee are actually going to try to find out what happened, but it's going to be so hard to push on that direction because 80% of the media narrative is to push the trump campaign and presidency to the edge of the cliff on this story. paul, you, bill, wrote about jim comey saying that he's more important than anyone else because he's got -- he has investigative power and he's -- and the house intelligence committee folks, they're complaining that comey hasn't been very cooperative. >> look, the problem that we have is that jim comey is in the position of determining
legitimacy of trump presidency. i agree with kim on this issue with devin nunes. it's insane people are talking about leaks to devin nunes. heavies the -- he's the head of house intelligence committee. maybe he made procedural mistakes. look, there's an effort to discredit him, getting to recuse himself. loretta lynch did not recuse herself after she met with clinton on a much more serious matter involving her. this is an effort not to find out what devin nunes says. looks, he's the only one in all of this who has been very specific. he's read reports, he has seen names, he actually hasn't gone too far. he doesn't even know whether this was incidentally collected, you know, he just knows -- he wants to find out was it collected and he's also said it's not related to russia or criminal investigation. these are questions and the storm is designed not to answer
the questions and with general flynn we have, he's seeking immunity, the one man felony committed against and everyone assuming he's guilty when we have evidence the other direction. it's just crazy. paul: briefly, joe, should former general flynn get immunity? >> i suppose. were we don't want this to be a criminal investigation. we want to find out what happened. that would be the best cy. all right, still ahead president trump signs an executive order rolling back obama era energy regulations, what it means for the environment and the economy when we come back. >> my administration is putting an end to the war let me talk to you about retirement. a 401(k) is the most sound way to go. let's talk asset allocation. -sure. you seem knowledgeable, professional. would you trust me as your financial advisor?
-i would. -i would indeed. well, let's be clear, here. i'm actually a deejay. ♪ [ laughing ] no way! i have no financial experience at all. that really is you? if they're not a cfp pro, you just don't know. find a certified financial planner professional who's thoroughly vetted at letsmakeaplan.org. cfp. work with the highest standard.
>> with today's executive action i'm taking historic steps to lift the restrictions on american energy to reverse government intrusion and to cancel job-killing regulations. [applause] paul: president trump tuesday signed executive order rolling back many obama era policies including the power plan that cut carbon dioxide that can be permitted from power plants particularly those that burn coal. he joins me now from los angeles. welcome, thanks for coming in. >> my pleasure. paul: so do you think that the convention wisdom of the media is that this is president trump repudiating president president obama's climate agenda, would you describe it that way? >> i think it's a fair characterization but it's actually more than that.
it really is focused on the overreach that we've had from the obama epa for the last eight years and it's not just with climate change, it's dealing with a number of regulation that is actually make it very difficult to produce energy at least in some parts of the country. paul: because the administration had a real focus, though, particularly on coal and really any fossil fuel as opposed to renewables, that's where the obama administration we wanted to favor renewables over fossil fuels. this goes back to leveling the playing field, is that fair? >> i think that is fair. there was a particular focus on coal, there are dozens and dozens of regulation that is were targeted at anybody that uses coal, at people who produce coal and so that was such a focus during the obama administration that they're really turning it back to a level playing field not just for coal and natural gas and oil but also for renewables to make sure that there's an appropriate level of regulation.
paul: one criticism i heard about this rule and the claim by the president that he can revive the coal industry, look it's not just regulation that hurt coal but market forces because natural gas, fracking that has developed, new technology makes gas cheaper than coal to produce electricity and you really aren't going to be able to do that much to revive the coal industry. >> well, look, we believe in markets and if it really is true that natural gas can outcompete coal, then that's how it should be. the problem is there's been heavy-hand of government that hasn't been the case. there's been so many thumbs on the scale specially for wind and solar and such an an amimous against coal. we are removing government -- paul: do you think coal can make something of a comeback? >> i do. at this point it is certainly
true that companies are not looking at building new coal fire power plants for a variety of reasons but when it comes to where we get our electricity from, without this -- without this regulatory overreach there will be more energy produced by coal than there would have been. paul: carbon omissions have declined in the united states certainly as a share of electric output and one of the reasons for that is natural gas because less carbon intensive than coal, do you see that trend continuing that would accomplish some of the climate change agenda that so many environmentalists want without heavy-handed regulation? >> well, as you say, it really is clear that the market is driving significant reductions and everyone i know in the industry does expect that to continue for ways into the future just because of the natural gas revolution and what we have been able to produce here in the united states and
this executive order from the president will actually remove some of the regulatory burdens on that industry as well. paul: one of the things that wasn't in the executive order was what the u.s. is going to do about the paris climate change accord that president obama signed. there's a debate in the white house about whether to stay or leave, what's your advice to the administration? >> well, i'm not sure i'm the best person to be offering advice. there's certainly two sides to this. some of the people say, look, paris was complete nonbinding anyway. it was basically an aspir educational rule set by the president so staying in doesn't have that big of an impact, on the other hand, there are people who believe legitimately that just as a matter of constitutional law that was inappropriate for the president and the international community to specifically try to circumvent congress in the way that he designed this treaty. i think it's objectionable on
constitutional grounds. paul: president obama committed the united states to an accord that was not committed to the senate for approval of two-thirds of the senate as the constitution says treaties should be submitted. that's the problem. >> right. that's the problem. and so he acknowledges that he didn't commit the united states although they certainly tried to portray it that way in the press, but it is not legally binding on the united states because it was not ratified by the senate. paul: okay, all right, thank you jeff holmes, i appreciate you taking the time. when we come back the trump administration taking a so-called sanctuary cities is latest move sound policy or i no longer live with the uncertainties of hep c. wondering, what if? i let go of all those feelings. because i am cured with harvoni. harvoni is a revolutionary treatment for the most common type of chronic hepatitis c.
it's been prescribed to more than a quarter million people. and is proven to cure up to 99% of patients who have had no prior treatment with 12 weeks. certain patients can be cured with just 8 weeks of harvoni. before starting harvoni, your doctor will test to see if you've ever had hepatitis b, which may flare up and cause serious liver problems during and after harvoni treatment. tell your doctor if you've ever had hepatitis b, a liver transplant, other liver or kidney problems, hiv or any other medical conditions and about all the medicines you take including herbal supplements. taking amiodarone with harvoni can cause a serious slowing of your heart rate. common side effects of harvoni include tiredness, headache and weakness. ready to let go of hep c? ask your hep c specialist about harvoni.
>> when cities and states refuse to enforce immigration laws our nation is less safe, failure to deport aliens who are convicted of criminal offenses puts whole communities at risk specially immigrant communities in the very sanctuary jurisdictions that seek to protect the perpetrators. paul: attorney general jeff sessions this week urging so-called sanctuary cities to cooperate with immigration officials or risk losing funds. the move is the latest step by the trump administration to crack down on the more than 140 jurisdictions in the u.s. that do not assist federal authorities in forcing immigration law. sessions said monday that state and local governments will now have to certify that they are not sanctuary cities when applying for $4.1 billion in justice department grants. we are back with dan henninger and bill mcgurn and mary o'grady
also joins us. mary, who has the legal upper hand in this fights between the cities and the federal government? >> i think the cities have the upper hand only in the sense that federal appeals courts have ruled that if there's no warrant for the city to hold the individual and only what they call a detainer, then there's no obligation for them to -- to keep the prisoner or hand them over to ice. paul: even if they're illegally documented -- undocumented, i mean, illegal? >> yeah, they just say you have to have a warrant and if you only have to have a detainer, that's not enough. paul: this is an order to detain somebody who is undocumented? >> right, basically the problem is that most of the cities are saying, look f he's wanted for homicide or, you know -- paul: serious violent crimes. >> in the case of new york 170 serious crimes. for example, if he's a gang
member, the cities say we have no obligation to hold them and they have released people like that. paul: states are sovereigns, cities have sovereignty and federal government cannot go in and say use square police resources for a federal law like immigration enforcement, on the other hand, the federal government is it really obliged mary to send money to the cities? >> it's not obliged and i think donald trump can win this in a political sphere because he can win because even illegals living in the communities do not want these kinds of people in the streets. paul: bill. bill: yeah, i'm with mary on that part. the states have some rights, the courts made clear they can't be totally drafted. i mean, the two parts that i enjoy about this is that the left is discovering state rights
for the first time, not really the cause that they have been taking -- paul: glories of federalism. welcome aboard. bill: part of the trade-off is you may not get the federal dollars, right, that may be a power that donald trump. the larger thing is that my immigration solution is i want more people coming in but i don't want bad guys and if we find bad guys, i want send them out and the real answer to all this is fix the law and too many people specially on the left have -- would rather have nonimmigration solution where you clear up the status of people and so forth, they rather have the issue and in some ways that led us to where we are today because donald trump campaigned and i'm go clarify. paul: is that fair in the sense that i agree with some of the left and a lot of people on the right don't want immigration reform. bill: barack obama had eight years to put immigration bill
and he didn't do it. this is what we are getting. paul: well, is there a compromise here, mary, suggests, okay, cities and states really should cooperate with violent criminals, serious criminals who are illegals but, look, we are not going to necessarily send to you somebody who commits a misdemeanor or caught with a driver's violation or something like that? >> it's going to be difficult because the cities and the federal authorities, ice, immigration service don't trust each other. the city thinks ice is going to overreact and grab anybody including people with minor offenses and not just felons. the police overreact and say we are not going to cooperate with that. the big question whether cities like san francisco and chicago have in, effect, have become safe harbors. the one everyone talks about ricardo sánchez who murdered kate stanley.
ricardo sánchez was deported to méxico five or six times. he came back every single time. he said he went to san francisco because he thought he would be safe from ice because of san francisco's laws on this. paul: that's appalling. >> that's an appalling situation. you cannot have people like mayor em man -- rahm emanuel saying they are not going to cooperate at all. >> they're not addressing the main problem which i say criminality that dan is talking about. each side is trying to use this to appeal to their base. the democrats are trying to say you know what, the republicans don't like you and that's good for them at the ballot box and the republicans are trying to appeal to their native base. paul: we have to take one more paul: we have to take one more break, hits an misses of the wek
if you have postmenopausal osteoporosis and a high risk for fracture... i can tell you prolia® is proven to help protect bones from fracture. but the real proof? my doctor said prolia® helped my bones get stronger. are your bones getting stronger do not take prolia® if you have low blood calcium, are pregnant, are allergic to it, or take xgeva®. serious allergic reactions, such as low blood pressure; trouble breathing; throat tightness; face, lip, or tongue swelling; rash, itching or hives have happened in people taking prolia®. tell your doctor about dental problems, as severe jaw bone problems may happen, or new or unusual pain in your
hip, groin or thigh, as unusual thigh bone fractures have occurred. prolia® can cause serious side effects, including low blood calcium, serious infections. which could require hospitalization; skin problems; and severe bone, joint or muscle pain. only prolia helps strengthen and protect bones with 2 shots a year. i have proof prolia® works for me. can it work for you? ask your doctor about prolia® today. various: (shouting) heigh! ho! ( ♪ ) it's off to work we go! woman: on the gulf coast, new exxonmobil projects are expected to create over 45,000 jobs. and each job created by the energy industry supports two others in the community. altogether, the industry supports over 9 million jobs nationwide. these are jobs that natural gas is helping make happen, all while reducing america's emissions. energy lives here.
>> this is a hit to education secretary betty devos who gave a great speech this week calling for an expansion of school choice. after spending about $7 billion trying to funnel money into low performing schools, there were no significant academic improvements. so secretary devos has a basically said we need to start looking at a broader range of options and empowering parents and stop apologizeing for a system that is harming people it's supposed to serve. paul: joe. >> a miss this week to chelsea clinton who denied any intention of running for public office and thereby denying me the pleasure of watching another clinton lose another big election. you know, there's nothing like the entitled, unproductive kid of a politician to energize voters. [laughter] on the other hand, she didn't
rule it out entirely, so maybe there's hope. paul: oh, boy, kicking 'em when they're down. [laughter] mary. >> paul, this is a hit for united airlines which last week decided to enforce its dress code for relatives and family members and employees who are flying for free on the airline. this caused a big stink because the, an airline employee rejected two young people who came not wearing the proper attire. and i applaud united airlines as someone who travels always time, i think that civilization would be much better off if we started dressing like we used to. paul: all right. bill. >> paul, a miss to the naval academy for the political correctness that led jim webb, a graduate, combat veteran, a senator, to decline this year's distinguished graduate award. the pressure came because he wrote an article against women in combat 40 years ago, and