tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News April 25, 2010 2:00pm-3:00pm EDT
in west virginia killed in the mine explosion. they will start there at 3:30 eastern time and we will bring it uninterrupted to you through 5:00 right here on the fox news. that's it for us here from washington. >> chris: i'm chris wallace and this is "fox news sunday." president obama's debt commission gets to work. how will they try to rein in washington deficit? we will have the two chairs, former republican senator allen captioned by closed captioning services, inc. and bill clinton's former chief of staff. it is a "fox news sunday" exclusive. then, the debate over financial reform heads for a senate showdown. we'll talk with the senate gop leader mitch mcconnell and in arizona, should authorities be able to check the i.d. of any one suspect the of being an illegal immigrant. we will ask our sunday regulars whether this crackdown goes too far, all right now on "fox news sunday." >> chris: and hello again from
fox news in washington. the president's debt commission holds its first meeting tuesday and his job couldn't be tougher. joining us are the two cochairs of the commission. gentlemen, let's start with the size of the problem. according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office under the obama budget plan by 2020 the national debt will be 90% of the u.s. economy. that is the highest percentage since just after world war ii. senator simpson, how serious a threat is that to the country? >> well, you tagged it with saying it might be the toughest job certainly that i have had andy 18 years in the senate, i did the iraq study group, we a done a lot of things, americans for campaign reform. this is a suicide mission and i'm glad that my fellow bowles
and i are jumping without a parachute. it is not just unsustainable. it is unconscionable what is going to happen to this country unless we and that is politicians and nonpoliticians and academics and citizens realize we are not republicans and democrats first, we are americans. >> chris: mr. bowles, this president and this congress have added trillions of dollars more to the deficit which is already big when they came into office. why should we think that they are part of the solution and not part of the problem? >> chris, i think it is fair to say that when president obama came in he inherited a budget that was structureally unbalanced, he inherited two wars, and he inherited an economy that was on the brink and he has taken some steps to try to bring it back. i don't think we could look to the past. we got to look to the future. if you look at where we are today and you just look at the
mandatory payments they equal the entire revenue that comes into the u.s. government. that means that every dollar we spend today on the military, on homeland security, education, infrastructure, transportation, it is all borrowed, half borrowed from foreign countries. that is a formula for disaster. the president has said he will be behind the effort 100%. he said everything is on the table, i believe him. >> chris: gentlemen, as you begin your work, speak for yourselves, not for the panel, help us understand what your strategy is for attacking the deficit? senator simpson, let me start with you but i will give mr. bowles a crack at this afterwards. to you look to curb spending first or taxes and do you worry as you go after the deficit about possibly pushing this fragile economy back into a recession? >> well, i don't worry about anything. we are in this one for our
grandchildren. somebody said they are stalking horses for taxes. i'm a stalking horse for my grandchildren. this is not what about george w. or even what this president did. this is a situation where i hope and my naive green pea way that we can get all 18 of these fine people to say this is where we are. this is where we are. we are using only the actuaries of social security. we are using only the actuaries of healthcare. we are using only cbo figures. we are not going to go by our own figures. we are not going to say we are going grow our way out of this. we could have double growth for 30 years and never grow our way out of this. hopefully we will say this is where we are and if we can do that, that is my naive objective then we can start letting blood. nothing is off the table.
absolutely nothing. >> chris: mr. bowles, your strategy for attacking the deficit and do you go after spending first or taxes? how do you go about this? >> chris, look, first of all, allen and i are 100%. we are a team, i know that sounds strange to washington to have a republican and democrat agreeing with each other but we do. my strategy is the same as al. let's make sure the american people know we have a looming crisis. to do that we have to have a real set of numbers. means using the actuarial numbers from social security and medicare and using the numbers prepared by cbo that most people agree are correct, the congressional budget office. and then once we have gotten real numbers out there let's see if we can persuade people to trust each other, come
together and really take some of the stuff stands to bring down spending. >> chris: you want to go after spending first before taxes? >> i think we have to go after everything. everything has to be on the table whether it is revenue or spending. i personally would like to go after spending first. >> chris: senator simpson you anticipated some of the chatter here in washington, house republican leader john boehner has already called this commission and let's put it up on the screen, a partisan washington ex-er center ice rigged to impose massive tax increases and pass the buck on the tough choices we need to make right now. question, you pride yourself on straight talk. do you really believe that the republicans here in washington are going to be willing to go along with serious tax increases? >> well, i really wouldn't drag those old bones out of the graveyard. that was a statement long ago
and bainer has appointed three fine people from the house minor thity, ryan, cave, the gentleman from texas and we talked to emand they say we feel that this is -- we must do something and we are here to do it. so, if the argument is always just going to be on any kind of thing we do, well, let's see, you going to do taxes first or spending first, i haven't the slightest idea but i know one thing, if we can get the figures before the american people then we will sit down and then and then all bleed and bitch from there. >> chris: i think you have a bumper stick flare there, mr. senator. >> it's terrible. >> chris: mr. boles, congressman raul grislta is already complaining about what you guys might do to social spending and he says this, it is all about cut, cut, cut. do you really think the democrats are willing to go along with cuts to entitlements
and other social programs? >> they have to. if we are going to be serious about balancing the federal budget and righting this fiscal ship we have to have everything on the table and that includes the entitlement programs. we will never get to balance if they are not on the table. >> chris: let's talk about the specifics that you have to face. speaking for yourself now, just as one member of the commission.org you see big savings to be made in social security. in. >> social security -- if people can get together on that baby we can solve that one in half a day. social security is the least of our problems. but the thing that is really impossible to believe is that whatever adjustment we make and whatever has been suggested for the last ten years in social security reforms from top to bottom, you know, new dates, more contribution, none of that affects anybody over 57. where do i get my mail. in from these old cats 70 and 80 years old who aren't affected one wit. people who live in the gated communities and drive their lexus to the perkins to get the aarp discount. this is madness. >> chris: do it in half a day, give us bullet points, what do
you think have you have to do or what can easily be done to save trillions of dollars out of social security? >> what he we have to do is re-establish trust. it is really corny to say that the 18 of us have to establish trust knowing that nobody is going to lay there in the woods and leak stuff. knowing that nobody is just there to drop a bomb or come armed and just fray the whole thing and if it doesn't work i will go home to cody and i won't suck my thumb and i will say i did my best. >> chris: are you talking about -- and i understand you are talking about people under 57. talking about raising the retirement age, talking about higher taxes? >> i don't know. but i know that there are -- there are think tanks all over the country who have talked how to resolve social security and just like in '83 when monahan and dole and thoughtful people got together it didn't take them long to solve it because they had all the facts they needed. so do we.
>> chris: mr. bowles, barack obama i don't have to tell you campaigned in 2008 for president on a flat pledge that he would not raise any taxes, not income taxes, not any taxes on people making less than $250,000 a year. do you feel bound by the president's pledge? >> what i feel bound by is the president looked senator simpson and me in the eye and he said everything is on the table. we will look at every single way to right this fiscal ship whether it is cutting the sacred cows that you just talked about or raising revenue. we have to have everything on the table. we have to discuss it fully. we have to establish trust and once we do that then we got a chance just like we did in 1997 to get to balance. >> chris: mr. bowles, what do you think of a value added tax? >> i think it is something that ought to be on the table. i think there are many good arguments for a value added tax or consumption tax as opposed
to a tax on wages. i'm not for taking anything off the table. >> chris: as one member of the commission, do you have an opinion? do you think it is a good idea or a bad idea? >> i have an opinion about lots of things. i want to see everything go on the table and the pros and cons discussed and then see us make decisions and hard recommendations. >> chris: senator simpson, what do you think of a value added tax? >> i think that if everybody would get serious. you can't do a value added tax without dealing with the income tax. if you just want to shreek into the vapors, a value added tax is going to detroy everybody, fine. but everything we do we will be doing in some kind of balance. you can't add the value tax and keep the present structure. ken conrad wrote a remarkable book about the entire income tax and how unfair the whole thing is. we have the ability and i hope the just of each other to
adjust and put together a package and if the american people and congress don't like it just let them sink because greece is sinking on debt and deficit. how would you like to be the united states of america when china pulls the continue cup and says we don't want t bills we want money. that is where we are. it is serious business. >> chris: your deadline with coming up for a proposal for the president and congress is september 1st which is coincidentally after the elesbianss. is that a copout? are you preventing voters from being able to say in the election what they think about the ideas? >> we are involved in a project screw the american people, fool them, fake them out. i mean what is this about? december 1st has to be after the election. one of the congressmen wanted it october 1st.
what a cya that is. pick apart and get you reelected. i hope we can come up with legislative language, what do you think of that? options and legislative language. is a copout about reporting on december 1st to the most morn thing that affects every american for the next decades? what is the -- copout about that. >> it is not a copout. it is a copin and gets the politics out of it and gives us a chance to build up trust to get to real hard recommendations. >> chris: let me ask you and i will start with you mr. bowles. realistically and i looked over the course of the last two decades there have been four separate commissions and none of their recommendations on tax reform, medicare, social security, none of the recommendations have become law. let me ask you as you embark on this and i will start with you, mr. bowles, what do you think of the chances that you will be able to come up with recommendations that become law and take a big chunk out of the
debt? >> neither one of us have in idea. i know that in 1997 when president clinton brought me back to "balance the budget" not a soul believed it could be done. we strategicked trust on both sides and made progression. i believe working with al simpson and this commission we can make progress. >> chris: and senator simpson what do you think of the chances you will get something down here that in effect helps your grandkids. >> well, i really do. i will think we can. i have been called naive. i have been on commissions. i was son the elect commission on immigration refugee policy. didn't always work but we came out with legislation. i was on the iraq study group where five dems and five repubs had to agree on every word. we suggested the surge and now they adopt #-d 57 of those. i don't look upon anything with cynicism. i'm really a nut, u believe in optimism and i believe that the
american people when we tell them honestly where we are, i tell you they are out on the streets, you can talk to anybody in laramie or charlotte or dybbuk and they will say something is wrong here and what do we have to do and we will try to tell them. >> chris: thank you both so much for talking with us. we will the follow the commission's work and over the next six months, please come back, gentlemen. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thanks very much. >> chris: up next senate republican leader mitch mcconnell. will the gop make a deal on financial regulation? solutio come back. ts. [ male announcer ] stop losing. start gaining.
senate republican leader mitch mcconnell. welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> glad to be with you. >> chris: start with the tough immigration law that the governor of arizona signed on friday which requires police officers to check the status of any one that they reasonably suspect could be an illegal imgrant. do you support the law? do you think it is constitutional? and what about the claim it will lead to racial profiling? >> i think the real question is whether we will take up immigration in washington and there are two things missing that were there in '07. '07 we had a rather low unemployment rate and we had a president really committed to taking up the issue, two of the cabinet secretaries were up during the debate for six weeks. i think the question for us is are we going to go forward up here and it strikes me with all the border security problems down there they are worse than they were three years ago and with 10% unemployment it is not a great time to take the issue
up in washington. >> chris: are you prepared to comment on the arizona bill? >> i haven't studied it. i know it is quite controversial but studying a state law is not something i normally do and i haven't looked at it in detail yet. >> chris: don't republicans and some say this is the whole point of the new democratic zeal in congress for pushing immigration reform, don't republicans run the risk of alieniating a large and growing bloc of voters, hispanics? >> i think it is an important issue. we do have an enormous number of people who are in this country illegally. the important question of what to do with them. right now we have a very high unemployment rate. i don't think this is the right time to take up the issue with the border security problems, the drug wars going on across the border, 10% unemployment. is strikes me our time would be better spent at the federal level on other issues. >> chris: turn to the issue you are dealing with and that is financial regulation. harry reid called for a vote
sometime monday afternoon, monday evening to cut off a filibuster by republicans to bring the financial regulation bill to the floor of the senate. is there a bipartisan compromise? and if not, do you have the 41 senators
onboard to sustain the filibuster? >> we don't have a bipartisan compromise yet but i think there is a good chance we are going to get it. what i would like to see it an opportunity to prevent the democrats from doing to the financial services industry what they just did to the healthcare of this country. we saw the cms report on friday. >> chris: the health and human services actuaries. >> looking at what would be the impact of bill and virtually confirmed everything senate republicans were saying about the healthcare bill. it is not going curb costs and a whole lot of budget gimmicks and on and on. we want to make choria don't have the same impact that they did on healthcare.
my view is similar to the bastino of wall street. we need to have a system under there under which creditors can expect they will be treated fairly some what similar to the bankruptcy laws and we need to have enhanced capital requirements. none of that is currently in the bill that the majority leader would try to have us take up on monday which came out of the committee on a strictly party line vote. that is not the best place to start. >> chris: i want to press the question i asked you before. do you have the 41 votes to sustain the filibuster tomorrow? >> it is my expectation we will not go forward with the partisan bill tomorrow and this will stimulate the kind of discussion we have to get it right along the lines that the washington post is recommending this morning and along the lines that i think are the best way to go as well. >> chris: let's talk a little about that. the big argument as you have
framed it is whether the democratic bill will prevent more bailouts as the democrats claim or whether it will enable more bailouts as you claim. senator, isn't the $50 billion fund that you criticized and i must say that was part of the washington post story, too, isn't that intended to liquidityate failing firms, not to prop them up? >> on that issue as to whether or not it is a good idea to raise the money and stick that fund in there, the president's own secretary of the treasury agrees with me. the washington post as i just indicated agrees with me. it is better not to prefund no matter how you fund it whether it is a tax on banks or whatever it is, a fund that creates an expectation that it will be used. >> chris: what would it be use for tortion liquidate firms, not to prop them up. >> in the same way that we used the tarp funds back in '08. and that is a bad idea. what we need to do is make it virtually if not impossible to
be tubage to fail. enhance capital requirements. >> which is in the current bill. >> not in the way that we would do it. and second, don't suggest to creditors that if you are a friend of the government you are going to be treated better. we saw that on the general motors deal. the government treated the unions better than it did the bond holders. we need to have creditors understand that they are likely to be treated similarly to the way they would be in bankruptcy law in this country. that kind of stability i think is a better place to start in the senate than this partisan dodd bill that came out of committee without a single republican vote. >> chris: and you are saying until you get satisfaction on these issues and sounds like there are several issues, not just the $50 billion fund. you are saying until then you believe you have a solid republican vote to keep the bill from getting to the senate floor. >> it is not ready yet. very complicated subject.
democrats are not even in agreement that. chris, this is not a situation where anybody i know in the senate wants no bill to pass but it is important to pass a good bill. >> chris: you just heard the two chairs of the presidents it debt commission. are there any circumstances under which you could accept as part of a grand bargain, a grand deal, tax increases? >> let me put it this way. i think i appointed my members and i said that this is a serious effort. a serious effort to do something about arguably our biggest problem which is the mountain of unfunded liabilities we have coming our way that everybody understands. and so i don't think it is a good idea to appoint members to a commission and then start telling them what they can and can't do. i will give my my own opinion. my own opinion is we don't have the problem in the country because we tax too little, it is because we spend too much. i didn't sit down with the
three members that i appointed and tell them what to do. we will meet in good faith and ultimately whether it passes will key pendly on what it looks like. >> i'm asking you as not ohm an individual senator and coincidentally the top republican in the u.s. senate, could you accept a compromise which had serious spending cuts but also has tax increases? >> if i start telling the commission. >> chris: i'm asking you personally. >> i told you that me personally i don't think we have a problem that we tax too little. i think we have a problem because we spend too much. >> chris: aren't we heading for a dead dolls lineback because anything acceptable -- right-hand we heading for a deadlock because anything will -- >> we have to take a look at the report and my understanding is the majority leader and the speaker are committed to taking the measure up in december. my support will depend entirely on what it looks like, what it recommends. >> chris: you were part of a
bipartisan group that went to the white house this week and melt with the president about his upcoming supreme court nomination. you can see pictures here of you in the oval office with the president and other congressional senate leaders. did you come away with any sense of whether the president is look for someone who can be easily confirmed or conversely whether he is is looking for someone more liberal and therefore would stir up more of a confirmation battle. >> he didn't tip hayes hand. frankly had i been in his shoes i wouldn't either. the only thing i said is it ought to be an orderly process, not a rush to judgment. this is a dig position and we will treat it fairly and go through the pro jess of looking at the record of the individual. >> you have even as we all have the list of a half dozen to ten nominees. are there some people on there that you just hate or conversely people on there that you could support? >> i wouldn't want to mention
any one i know to be no chance, that person would be appointed. >> chris: you think -- >> i don't want to eliminate somebody of a following of being on the supreme court by suggesting that i might find them a worthy selection. >> chris: you think that would be a badge of dishonor. >> that would not do them any good, let's put it that way. >> chris: back when democrats were in the minority and filibustering bush judicial picks for the berchl you said this. any president's judicial nominee should receive careful consideration but after that debate they deserve a simple up or down vote. are you willing to say right now that you will not filibuster, you may vote against but you will not filibuster president obama's nominee? it is interesting in the meeting this week, leahy and senator sessions and senator reid, there were only two of us that had not filibustered a supreme court nominee.
the president and vice president and reid and had filibustered justice alito. we had a big debate about that at the time that you just pointed out on the screen. unfortunately, the no filibuster ever on judges it position lost. democrats established that that is a possibility. it is highly unlikely, however. unless the nominee is an extraordinary individual outside of the mainstream with really bizarre views. but now that the democrats have established that as a precedent against my better judgment that is the precedent of the senate and remains a possibility. >> chris: but you are patrioticking it out as a pretty -- but you are putting pretty remote and premoat and tropical depression ordinary circumstance. >> it would take an unusual nominee to justify that. >> chris: finally, i want to ask you about florida politics which everybody seems to be
getting swept into these days. several top republicans including mitt romney and dick cheney this week endorsed the former house speaker marco rubio in the battle for the senate gop primary in florida. you have endorsed governor crist. are you taking back your endorsement? >> that was over a year ago and a lot has happened since then and governor crist might be thinking of running as an independent. my advice to him would be to compete as a republican. he has been a republican all of his life. and to remain within the -- within the party. i hope he will do that. >> chris: are you taking back your endorsement? >> not today. [ laughter ] >> chris: but he has to decide by next friday, right? >> i think if the governor would decide to run as an independent he will not have any republican support. >> chris: and if he decided to run as a republican would you still aah por support him. >> a year ago i said i would support the governor.
we are not even sure we will be competitive in florida. >> chris: are you troubled with what he has done? >> i would be troubled if he decided to run as an independent. he would not have my support and not have
the support of any other republicans i know. >> chris: thank you for coming in. it is always a pleasure to talk and sometimes even to spar with you there. >> thank you, chris. >> chris: the arizona law cracks down on illegals. we willle ask our sunday regulars if the measure goes too far, after the break. ♪ [ male announcer ] let's kick our excuses to the curb. cover 'em up with an extra bag of lch. let's get our handsa lit. our dollars a little stroer. and our thinking a little greener. let's grab all the bags all the plants and all the latest tools out there. so we caturn all these savings into more colorful shades of doing. more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot.
sign the toughest immigration law in the nation. time for the sunday panel. brit hume. and mara liasson of national public radio. bill kristol of the weekly standard and juan williams also of national public radio. let's take a look at what the new arizona law does and put it up on the screen. makes it a state crime to be in the u.s. illegally. legal immigrants must carry paper work proving status. people can sue local governments if they think immigration law is not being enforced. brit, is it good policy? and is our resident supreme court justice the 10th justice, do you think it will stand up to court challenge? >> i'm not sure. people see it as a usurpation of the federal law enforcement function and that is to say the protection of the borders. i think it is emergency policy. and i think it is going to be quite a trick to train the police officers in that state
so that they can carry out this mandate to check anybody who they have a reasonable suspicion of being in the country illegal without engaging in profiling or violating civil rights. i will think that will be difficult to do. i think there probably inevitably will be civil rights violations. the question is that seems to me is did arizona act reasonably here under the circumstances bypassing this some what draconian law and the answer i think may well, be, yes, because they are facing a serious crisis down there induced by the presence in their midst of a lot of illegals, some of whom are creating terrible problems. i think it is a political problem for the republicans to be responsible for this. it will be controversial and alien eight latinos. i think the fault lies with the utter failure of the federal government in washington to deal with this issue. >> chris: mara?
>> i think as a political document i think i agree with brit. i think it will further cement the image of republicans as the party that is against hispanics and certainly really cost them at the polls when that image was created in 2007. i think that interestingly enough one of the things on that list of provisions the law does is going to be in any final immigration bill which is some kind of documentation, whether it is an i.d. card or whatever. that is something that will be a permanent feature when we finally get a resolution. do i think it has added to the conversation about whether or not we should move forward, the congress should move forward right now or not with an immigration bill. >> chris: before we get to the politics, i want to go back to the merits of it, bill, and the claim from critics that is institutionalizes racial profiling on a number of area, the supremacy clause, article 1 of the constitution which gives the -- you can see i have done a little studying on this, might as well get it out, which
gives the federal government control over immigration and also the 14th amendment on reasonable search and seizure. does it violate the constitution? >> it is a matter of federal preemption over state law. i'm a liberal on immigration. i supported the bush mccain proposals and took a lot of grief from my conservative friends on this. this is not draconian. will a few people get stopped perhaps because some policeman has reasonable suspicion that is person is illegal? will he be stopped and asked to provide a driver's license? >> yes. >> that is the huge civil rights violation that is going to occur five times or eight times in arizona. there are huge burdens on the hospitals and crimes being committed near the border and it is not unreasonable for arizona. here is what a politician said
friday, he said people who are here in america illegally need to get right with the law, pay a penalty and face a criminal background check or face removal. you know who said that? barack obama. that is the spirit of the law. that is the spirit of the arizona law. the law he wants. he is president of the united states and he is doing nothing about it. half a million illegal immigrants are in arizona and the state of arizona decided maybe we can try to do is little bit about this. >> chris: juan? >> mitch mcconnell was here this morning and said the problem in arizona is the federal government has not acted. and that is because republicans so far have refused to do anything about the illegal immigration crisis in america. >> you're right, the republicans control the presidency and senate and the house. >> president bush tried to do something and then what happened is republicans in the senate blocked any effort at immigration reform. ronald reagan did something about it in his time. why is it that republicans today refuse to do anything? >> juan, that was then and this is now.
>> what is your point? >> the democrats control the works. >> so now we blame everything on the democrats that the point? >> the point is what we are now coming toward the end of a second year for this president. he has control of everything. his party has controlled the congress toward the latter stages of the bush years. so there has been plenty of opportunity here. now, they will try and move an immigration bill in the senate. >> right. >> we'll see. >> what are the prospects you think with almost uniform republican opposition? that is the reason that things have been paralyzed or frozen for so long. so now we get local action and i think it is imprudent action as our studious friend chris wallace said, it as violation of the constitution, unreasonable search and seizure. bill kristol says 8 to 13 times
somebody will stop somebody ob the street. no, anybody with a hispanic accent or brown skin is going get stop. >> the mayor of phoenix said that. and you know what, governor brewer in making her announcement said we are going to try to prevent this kind of thing from taking place. she acknowledges this is a huge problem and i know having been recently in mexico there is a huge drug problem and a huge drug crisis coming across the border but this is something for the federal government to deal with and the fact that washington refuses to deal with it is just terrible. it is evidence our government is not functioning. >> i agree with you, i think that is right, juan, it is. to this point it seems to me that there is plenty of blame to go around. but the idea in a washington that is totally controlled by one party that you would blame the minority party for the the problems seems to me unreasonable. >> chris: let me ask you, mara, about the politics of it. we saw something interesting from mitch mcconnell. the convention hall wisdom has
been this is a good political to bring up immigration reform and to push it ahead of energy reform is a smart move by the democrats because they will get on the side of hispanics and mobilize and they will vote foredemocrats. mitch mcconnell said we have a serious unemployment and there are north americans looking for jobs and we can't be worried about how to get more immigrants into the country. >> there is a serious question about the timing not just for the economy because this is in the teeth of the recession. also for the democrats. i think over the median term and i mean by 2012 this is a must pass piece of legislation for democrats. they cannot go before the voters in 2012 without having done this. for 2010 i think it is a completely different matter. in the long-term it is more divisive for republicans they cannot win national elections while alieniating the biggest
block of voters. it is a divisive thing for democrats. >> chris: bill, your thoughts. i think most people in washington think there is very little chance that they will actually pass immigration reform before the november election but how it plays politically plus or minus for the president and the democrats to be pushing immigration reform? >> i think it cuts both ways but honestly as a political matter i prefer to be tough on illegal immigration and run the risk of being portrayed by antihispanic. a lot of hispanic citizens aren't happy about illegal immigration. i think this is hair ry harry e making a political decision based on nevada that is going to damage the democrats in the senate and house races. >> chris: when we come back, the debate over financial reform and the new effort to bring down the nation's looming debt. our panel tackles both topics, after the break. at sharp, our goal
unless your business model depends on billing people, there is little -- bilking people there is little to fear from the new rules chris president obama this week talking tough to wall street executives about why they should back his financial reform plan and we are back now with the panel. brit, senate republicans are now saying we can get an agreement, we heard it from mitch mcconnell just here if we just keep talking a little bit longer but meanwhile, senate democratic leader harry reid scheduled a cloture vote sometime tomorrow, monday, to
try to end a filibuster and bring the financial regulation bill to the floor. your sense of who has the momentum at this point? >> i think there is momentum behind this bill. i don't think the republicans will pay a stiff price if they keep it from coming to a vote or coming to the floor right now. in the long run i think the chances of a bill are pretty good. i do think as inevitably is the case there will be all kinds of unintended consequences that will cause all kinds of problem. and i think this about the politics of it. it seems that the democrats think people are mad about big government but they hate wall street too, and we are not going to line up as the skourges of wall street and that will renew people's anger in us. i think it has subsided a great deal and i think the democrats will not get out of this the kind of political gain that they expect. they may pass a bill and it will be cited as an achievement and help in some way but i
don't think it is that big a deal any more. >> chris: let's talk about anger towards wall street. we had the goldman, sachs suit and now the leaking of e-mails that don't make the goldman, sachs executives, you can argue fairly or unfairly, don't make them look good. the top executives from gold goldman, sachs will be before a committee this week. >> i think the fact there is so much public anger against wall street is bly you will not see more than maybe one attempt by the republicans to stop the bill from coming to the floor. i could see that they could stop the motion to proceed once but in the end you will get bipartisan support for the bill. the one thing that mitch mcconnell mentioned, the $50 billion bailout fund, the white house doesn't want it either. i can see that being dropped easily. if republicans were as confident that the wall street anger diminished they would be
putting up a bigger fight. >> the senate banking committee simply released private e-mails from goldman, sachs. >> i think it was the committee on investigation. >> senator levin's committee authorized the staff to release e-mails that were pro envie sld provided to the investigative committee. it is an outrage actually. this is -- now, any business in the united states has to worry that any e-mail sent anywhere at some point if you three years later look embarrassing -- but lloyd feinstein is testifying and they want to put him on the spot and release the e-mails. the notion that this bill increases executive authority and discretion so much as opposed to other ways of fixing the financial crisis through the bankruptcy code and the like that that it is bad to
release the authority to the federal government this much, that is the core objection and dispute over the bill. for president obama to pretend the only reason you might dislike this bill is if you are interested in bilking people this is ridiculous. of thes the content of the e-mails. they are saying you know what, we are going to make money while investors are losing money, in fact we are going to have a winfall. is the outrage in case you missed it and that is why public outrage over the behavior by these wall street titans is over the top. i might add -- >> shouldn't senator levin's e-mails be released. he is the public official. letts see his e-mails to his staff when they discuss whether to embarrass lloyd. >> you are lost in the woods on this. it doesn't matter who is releasing it. as a rule of law in washington -- >> of course, it matter. >> you sit at your desk at your
corporation, your boss can read your e-mails. >> right, you know what, the senator of the the united states is not the boss of every employee at goldman, sachs. that is a very revealing statement. we all work for carl levin. >> please, what about the investors and people putting money into the wall street firms being beginned. >> you can continue -- that are being gyped. >> chris: you can continue this on panel plus. you heard them talk about what their plans are. what do you think of the chances by the end of the year we will end up with serious deficit reduction? >> serious deficit reduction or a plan calling for serious deficit reduction? >> either. >> i think the commission will agree that we need serious deficit reduction. i think the committee will probably lay out a list of ways to get there without necessarily picking any. i don't know whether they can agree enough on that. the idea that by the end of this year that this fiscal
train wreck which refers not only to the the current extraordinary levels of debt but all the unfunded liabilities going forward, social security, medicare in particular, that there will be some kind of serious effort there i think is a pipe dream. it will -- it won't happen that quickly or that soon. i just don't think it is possible. >> i think at the very least the commission is going to form a really -- perform an important educative function and people will understand hopefully by the time they are done on december 1st what the problem is and what the consequences are. >> i think people know that are. teadon't think that the pea parties. >> a lot of people think the problem would be solved if somebody elses it taxes are raised or benefits cut. therer isry economist says that in the next couple of years, this isn't down the road any more. the can has been kicked as far
as it can be kicked. there will be an action forcing event. whether it is china saying it doesn't want to finance us at low interest rates any more, something is going to happen. and the commission is just a first step. >> chris: bill, as practical matter of politics does there in the end whether it is with this commission or at some point have to be a grand compromise of spending cuts and tax increases to get everybody to jump off the cliff together to use my thelma and louise analcy. >> no, unless we accept the permanent increase in the size of government that happened in the last two years. we can reduce the size of government and go back and have the same tax burden we had before and the same spending we had before when the budget was more or less balanced. >> in the last two years that is the problem. we didn't have a deficit before the last two years when we didn't even put th wars on the box. we didn't provide for funding for medicare prescriptions for
seniors. we didn't have any problem is that right. bill. >> the deficit was $137 billion. it was trivial and it was a surplus in 2000. it would go back into surplus if we didn't have the huge splurge in spending with presidents bush and obama. >> entitlements are huge problem. we made significant cuts. you come to something like social security and here is where the problem is. are the tea party people going to say you know what, we will raise the age requirement for social security and cut benefit. are they willing to say that or just scream at washington over taxes. you have to have accommodation. that is why brit says he doesn't believe anything is going happen. i have to believe the american people say we want responsible activist. >> i have more faith in the tea party people than i do in the
commission. >> chris: thank you, panel. see you all next week. check out the latest edition of panel plus where the group continues this discussion on our website fox news sunday.com. we promise we will post the video before noon eastern time. up next, we hear from you. ♪ (laughing through computer) good night, buddy. a
>> chris: time for comments you posted to our blog wallace watch. the tea party protests got many of you to weigh in. ken sent this. the tea party is a genuine grassroots movement not affiliated with either party. the ultimate result will be the end of washington's ability to governor against the will of the people. doreen had a different take, they don't realize the major case of the deficit is a series of unfunded wars. we fight wars on borrowed money. please keep your comments coming. you can find us at foxnewssunday.com. we'll see you next fox news sunday.