tv Real Money With Ali Velshi Al Jazeera September 2, 2014 7:00pm-8:01pm EDT
from the intelligence thank you so much. that's all of our time. real money with ali velshi is coming up fo at the top of the hour right here on al jazeera america. >> another american journalist apparently beheaded at the hands ofs islamic state. i'm talking to our journalist on the ground in iraq just ahead. and looking closer at the money behind the treaty that could force america to go to war whether it wants to or not. and plus, the surprising spike in the price of generic prescription drugs, and why a lot of them are not the bargain they used to be. i'm ali velshi, and this is "real money."
this is "real money", and you are the most important part of the show, so tell me what's on your mind by tweeting m me at ai velshi or hit me up on facebook. the islamic state announced today that they had killed another american journalist, captured in syria. they reportedly showed the beheading of steven sotloff, a journalist who disappeared while covering reports for a magazine and other publications. he reappeared in another video that showed the beheading of american journalist, james foley. and the group said that it's retribution for u.s. airstrikes against isis positions in iraq. and they threatened to kill a third captive, a british man, david hayes, the u.s. officials said they have seen the video,
but can't confirm its authenticity yet. the vacuum left by civil conflicts in both countries, the united states has continued airstrikes against the group in iraq, and joining us from erbil, from the kurdish reason, is fault lines correspondent, josh rushing. a former u.s. marine who served as a spokesman for the u.s. central command, which directed the invasion of iraq in 2013, and he's now on the front lines of the latest conflict. josh, what have you seen? >> reporter: well, i traveled a 600-mile front line from the border, and the islamic state swept so quickly across the northern part of iraq, it effectively separated kurdistan from iraq. what you see closer to the
iranian border, we witnessed iranian fighters supporting the peshmerga, and in the middle where it is now, we met the pk, hundreds of miles away from the isis black flag, pk are the kurdish rebels listed as a terrorist group by the u.s., but they benefited from the u.s. airstrikes. yesterday, we hit a convoy of the many envoys of al sadr, dozens of vehicles packed with guys with guns and rocket launchers, all of these disparate fighters are fighting against the islamic state. kind of a coalition of the disagreeability. but it speaks to the bararity and those those around t. >> john, the expansion i was in the property and the real estate that they want to take
over, but they're not constantly expanding with recruits with passports, but this is not an army that's getting bigger, as you described it, but in some ways, islamic state is breaking into different groups and that's going to make it harder to target them. >> yes, it's an observation more than a prescription for success in some way. but at least in iraq, we tend to report on islamic state as if it's a homogenous group. and in fact, it's not, it's a collection of a few different groups. you have the foreign fighters that you're talking about, and i think those numbers are fairly low in iraq, and the majority of the people who are in islamic state are sunni tribesmen, and then you have former baathists, and sudan
army officers helping to organize the movement. but if you look at the fighters and the sunni tribesmen and you wonder why they are supporting the islamic state, they started with protests a year ago in the anbar province because they had been disenfranchised in the maliki and shiite government, backed bit u.s. so there are over 70 positions back at the u.s. embassy in washington, filled by she a and there are flight schools, military flight schools, they're all shia and not one sunni. sunnis can only take it for so long and that revolution kind of at the same time dovetailed with isis expanding from syria, and then the baathists came up with the iraqi army officers. these three groups have different histories, divideiologies, and most importantly, different goals.
so at the moment, they want different sunni power and they're looking at getting it in different ways. i sat down with the tribal leader, and what he wants is political power in baghdad to enshrine rights for the sunnis, for the federal system where the sunnis can control their own area, much like kurdistan does. and it's not like fighting alongside of the state. but meeting a revolution that enables the islamic state. so as the media, we have done a bit of a disservice in supporting them as a group when there are other groups involved. >>hat speaks to the fact that if baghdad and the central government were to get it's act together and be more inclusive, it could end up weakening islamic state. josh rushing for us in erbil, iraq. the latest violence presented by the islamic state
presents a huge challenge for the administration, and it may put pressure on the pressure. one of the things that josh is reporting, mike, is this disparate group of people, bands of warriors fighting t islamic state, they are bold and making advances because of the u.s. airstrikes, and they're a bit worried about what happens when that discontinues. >> and exactly, that's the fear of the administration here. the stumbling block if you will, to moderating and vetting the opposition, and when it comes to expanding those existing airstrikes happening over iq and inducted by the u.s. military into syria, a very controversial proposal, the subject of much debate over the last two weeks, ever since the gruesome murder of james foley, the first american
newsman fob beheaded. this is not a secret of what's happening in syria, not of which the reasons include the sophisticated weaponry, much of which has been taken over by the islamic state in iraq as they have swept over the border in baghdad, used against the iraqi forces and used against the peshmerga, and potentially used against the united states as well. and we should add now, because the of ostensible retribution tt the united states has been carried out, there was another airstrike by the american military force, this one again around the mosul dam, the violate facility that was taken back over by the islamic state by the iraqi and peshmerga. >> but at the moment, mike, is there real talk in the
administration of things that don't look like airstrikes? american troops active on the ground? >>. having said that, this comes up again and again, and they make this distinction between the combat forces on the ground. when that besieged ethnic minority on the top of the mountain, mount sinjar, and they had to coordinate with the military forces to evacuate them, they allowed for the possibility that american forces would come into hostile combat contact. but with defensive posture. they said time and time again, that the american forces are not going to be inserted on the ground. and we hear time and time again, and emphasized not just from the administration, but members of congress as well. that this is going to have to be a regional approach, many of the sunni dominated cultures as well. and we heard from a tom official who gave a tv
interview, the assistant secretary of state, who said is there a tragedy with attacking islamic state within syria? he said, stay tuned, and it's very sophisticated, but for a regional approach, president obama will be going to a summit, and he's on the way to wales, and he's ending secretary kerry to the gulf to talk about these things, and many of them allies of the united states to come up with a coordinate the response. >> they're spending more money in the defense budgets so the u.s. isn't carrying all of it. >> and not spending money elsewhere. >> there's much to talk about nato, 28 countries in the nato alliance, and not all of them put their money where their mouth is. who pays their fair share in the name of gobble security. what could be a bad thing for
>> there's a war of escalating words between russia and the western alliance that has the power to formally restart the cold war that docked europe for four decades. that's what nato leaders will contend with when they meet this week with great britain, and how to respond to the crises in ukraine. momentum has swung in favor of the rebels, thanks to their decisive support from the russians, and meanwhile, russia's president, vladimir putin, told a european official that he could "take kiev in two weeks." and whether he was bluffing or not, poland and estonia feel more vulnerable than ever. now, nato, the northern
atlantic organization, came into being after worl world wari by the united states, and it's original purpose was to defend against soviet expansion into the west. and these countries in blue were part of the nato alliance when it started in 1979 and three decades. article 5 of the nato treaty states that an attack on one member is considered an attack against all, and all members are required, they are bound to come to each other's defense. but in 1992, the soviet union fell. and nato began to let it's guard down in europe. at the same time, it took advantage of russia's weakness and expanded into former soviet block countries. all of these countries in red are nato countries joined since 1992. and these are from before. nato leaders were taken aback
this year when natey fielded a large force within days and used it for crimea. ukraine is not a member of nato and talk of admitting it into the nato alliance is a real red line by russia. and that's why nato is waking up to the new nato war with russia. to boost nato's rapid response capabilities. the alliance may build a command station in poland as tensions with russia build. and meanwhile, president putin may boost their defense spending. right now, 3/4 of nato's defense is taken up by the united states, but with nato entering a new heightened state of readiness, the question of nato is coming to the fore.
>> fighting in the ukraine, turning all eyes to this week's nato summit in wales. monday, they paraded the alliance's proactive side. unveiling plans for a new rapid reaction force to respond to russian aggression and other burgeoning security challenges. >> able to deploy at very short notice. >> a sense of urgency, at odds with the financial contributions of the majority of nato members. >> nato is an alliance of 28 countries, to ask for the security and defense of its members. >> nato have agreed to spend 2% of their gdp on their defense spending to help secure their alliance. as of last year, only four members fulfilled that. estonia, greece, the united kingdom and the united states, whose contributions represent the lion's share of the
alliance's military spending. germany, the second largest, spends only 1.3% of its gdp on defense. u.s. members have long complained about the others faming to pay their share. but with new enemies and historic enemies, the question is if they will find the political will to shore the security in the 65 year history. >> nato has been searching for a mission since the fall of the sov yet union, and putin's aggression in ukraine has finally settled the debate about the alliance's modern mission. that's from george conned-in, and he joins me from dc. the lack of a mission may explain why the 24 nato countries don't spend 2% of their gdp on nato defense.
>> there are countries that do, but greece spends most of its money preparing to defend itself from another nato member in turkey, and you have countries that very much rely on, like canada, that spend only 1%. and so it's a definite problem. so it said that nothing focuses the west more than russian tanks crossing into a sovereign nation, and you are going to see some movement, certainly in the baltics. >> we have seen estonia particularly aggressive about going out there, like paul linden saying, you have to watch out. but the fact is estonia, and latvia, unlike ukraine, are nato members, and will they
live up to it? if russia sets foot in any those countries, all nato countries need to see it as an attack. >> i have no doubt that they would live up to that requirement in poland. i think there would be a backlash domestically in the united states at least trying to persuade us that the american national security is at risk in the baltics. but this is a reminder. george w. bush wanted georgia and ukraine as nato members, and we would have been required under article five to come to their defense. in interstate, when russia went into georgia. >> nato doesn't, despite many of the nato countries don't fulfill their own gdp spending requirements, nato is a force with teeth. and if they had to respond, they could be brought up to
full norris and ro ready to go n the event of the invasion of nato countries. >> that's because they are for the most part, nato. other than the uk and the united states, a lot of them would have a tough time. we saw that in libya, where the nato operation wasn't all that smooth and effective. >> how do we -- we just showed the audience the graphics of the four that do contribute properly. obviously estonia, and they have a real interest, being that they border russia, and greece spends most of its dense money dealing with turkey and the united kingdom and the united states bear the largest. how do you say to canada, your defenses need to be beefed up enough so you can be a contributor to this collective defense? >> oh, it's very difficult. europe is still having a
difficult time coming out of the recession. there is into domestic appetite in canada, france, germany, to spend more on defense. it's a tough sell in the united states, and it's an even tougher sell in other countries. >> you pointed out that the baltics are nato's new front line, and this is a tricky one. there would be resistance saying, why would american interest be served getting involved militarily. but there's new ground, saying that there would be forward operating places in poland and other places. these are bases and they wouldn't broach a treatedy agreement with russia, but it would trigger another along their border. >> they're triggering word games, because in the nato founding document, they agreed to not have permanent nato
forces in these bordering states, and what nato is calling it now, is consistent employment. we're not supposed to call it permanent. and i don't know how you translate it. >> a more permanent base? >> well, to the russians, there's no difference, they're very unhappy, but we're unhappy with russia, and it's even. >> thank you very much. here's one way to get america back on the road to economic recovery. build more roads, i'll explain that theory coming up, and plus, i'm explaining what the republican party needs to do to pick umore seats in the upcoming midterm elections.
data breach. the company is investigating activity. breaking the news of the breach this afternoon, and they will notify customers if it's confirmed. several have had problems in the last months, including target and pf chang. the u.s. is on the road to recovery, but a lot of americans aren't buying that. 71% of americans say the great recession has taken a permanent toll on the economy. report characterizes them as unhappy and moody and pessimistic. 30 years with a degree in public policy, working in japan and that company's decades of stagnation, and the plight now facing the united states and europe. those economies are facing a huge problem.
an oversupply of global labor and factories and capital. firing up more quality jobs, it's a huge investment in infrastructure, and he makes that point in the book, oversupply, overcoming the greatest challenge to the global economy. and daniel alpert joins me now, good to see you again. >> good to see you. >> when you look at the problems we're facing around the world, we keep saying, how do we create more jobs in and your thesis is, nobody is looking to create more jobs because we have too many of them. >> it's not that we have too many jobs, but we have too many people seeking them and sometimes they're not in the united states, but they're in emerging nations. if you look back at the great recession, you see the creation of more jobs each year. after all, in the last eight months ago, we have seen an
average of 200,000 jobs or more per month being created. and that sounds like a great number until you look under the hood. and you see jobs that are part-time, you see jobs that are touted as jobs, but you see part-time jobs, and jobs at incredibly low wages, and we're not seeing the usual balance where you see lower wage jobs lead to higher demand. and higher wage jobs in the recovery that we're familiar with. it's polarized. and people are saying, i'm still behind the 8 ball, and it's not working. >> it's clear that jobs are the thing that change people's opinion. we have a stock market up 35% since last year, and we have a housing market that has not recovered from its highs, but doing quite well. but what we have not seen enough of is growth in high wage good jobs, and that's why at least half of the population has a sour mood about the economy. >> and when you consider it not
only in the united states, but across all wages, in nations that have high wages and structures that are not competitive on a global basis with china and some of the emerging nations, but what you start to see is not a picture of the question of stock markets rising or housing rising, but you look at what policy has been since the great recession, which is effectively cheap money and policy, and those things, that policy bolsters financial markets, and doesn't do anything for the demand size. >> what is the best answer for the demand side? >> well, this is something that is not new. people have been talking about it for a long time. we have not only a glut of labor, but a glut of capital. last year, when people thought they would rise, they hit 3%, and now it's back down to 240 again, right? why is that?
this global glut of capital is creating an environment in which it's very very clear. if you have an excess of supply, of productive capacity in say china and elsewhere, why would anyone build a new plant that's not sufficient for the products that those plants could make? so we're asking too much of the private sector. we go back to the old supply-side arguments in the united states where people say, if only we could lower taxes, if only we could invest in new capacity, we would be okay. but that's really asking too much of people like myself who invest in things. why would i build ray new -- that only leaves another agent. and unfortunately when push comes to shove, that agent of employment is the government. >> we have a time when interest rates are low, and bond rates are low, and we have an oversupply of labor, which leads to you the same conclusion that it leads me. why don't we build things.
>> if you with borrow money for ten years, and you know you have to fix that bridge ten years from now, and you can employ today, and china is willing to lend at 2%. or maybe we're stuck in a japan-like situation and we're going to see it for a long time. but bringing forward employment today and creating demand for internal consumption in the united states itself. >> why is something so politically obvious not happening? >> because we have a world that's divided, on the one hand, you have a group of people saying, let's do the smart thing and take the money, the $7.9 trillion in foreign arrives held in emerging countries, and let's take the money and put it to good work, and by the way, the folks that have the money, would be happy for us to have it, so increased demand would be increase for
their products as well. so on the other hand, you have these austerity oriented people who believe we're in a fiscal crisis in the united states, which couldn't be farther from the truth. and if you want to know why, read my book. as a practical matter, that group has had dominance over the u.s. political environment for a very very long time. including the supporters of the economics. and since ronald reagan entered office. at that time, we had the ons situation. we had supply relative to demand in the united states, and today the situation couldn't be any different. >> it's a good read. thank you for being with us. daniel alpert, the manager of western capital,. coming up, eric cantor has found a new job. why being a one-time lawmaker can be pretty lucrative. stay with us.
>> eric cantor, incognito investment of $2.3 million. and that's a nice bump for his salary as congressman. not bad for a guy with 0 banking experience. he landed a job in finance. canter raised $3 million from the security and investment industry in his career. cantor follows a long list of washington power players who cash in on wide receiver after working in washington. last weekend, geiter joined
pinkus, he had a stunning upset by dave bratt, who had support from the tea party. the politicians left capitol hill from their five week recess and when they return, there will be talk about re-elections. the republicans are expected to maintain control of that chamber. so most of the attention is on the senate, which has 36 seats up for grabs. republicans need to pick up six seats to pick up control from the democrats, which would give the gop control of both houses. polls show that democrats are under heavy pressure. so we want to look at what the gop would have to do to secure those votes. i spoke with kevin from the american institute, he served as an adviser to a number of
presidential candidates, including george w. bush and senator mccain and mitt romney. and he said that the first test for republicans will come at the end of the month when it's time to fund the government again. >> they probably already decided that there's no way they want a government shutdown, and no way they want to have a big budget showdown before an election that the polls show they're winning right now, so what they want to do is pass the ball around until the election because if they do that, they think they're going to win, but on the other hand, they maybe want to try to get some kind of concession out of the democrats, so they won't play it as smartly as they should, and as soon as they do that, the left-wing media, which is most of the media, but not you, they are going to say that the evil republicans are trying to destroy the earth. and that's probably what's going to happen. so at some point, the media is going to say the republicans are going to kill us all. and that's going to be the main
story for about a week. >> if you believe in minimum wage, which is 7 and a quarter. if the minimum wage kept up with inflation, it would be somewhere around what the president is proposing as the minimum wage, $10.10 an hour, and the democrats are putting their back into and will, and it's something that the republicans are not. what is the best argument that the republicans have for telling people that the minimum wage shouldn't go up? >> right, the problem with the minimum wage is the economic argument is extremely sound, but as soon as you make it, you look like a total jerk, so the democrats love to talk about minimum wages during the election year, because you have to have a business that's flourishing and a higher productivity of workers, and a business friendly environment. and that's how you get the wages up, but setting 2 up, all
it does is cause higher unemployment. and as soon as you talk that way, you are playing the democrats game, and they're really really good at that game, and they play it every election season, but it's really really irresponsible to increase the minimum wage. because you're hiring the people that you want to help, and they're on the backs of the businesses that hire them, rather than collectively coming together as a society and helping poor people. so the minimum wage is going to be a topic that i would guess will be ducked by republicans and be pushed hard by democrats in the election. it keeps coming up because the democrats argue that they want to increase it, and maybe they do, but if they do, it shows that they don't understand economics, and they need to go back and take a remedial class, and the republicans fight it on principle and look like jerks doing so. >> let's take a moment and do the math to talk about economics. if you increase the minimum wage by roughly 40% to go to
$10.10. we know that the people at the lower end of the spectrum spend a greater portion of their money. if i make $1 million a year, i don't have to use all of that money to live. and is the argument that if you increase these people's wage, it will come back into the economy because these people will spend more? >> if nobody lost their job, that would be the only thing that you have to consider, right? but the way to think about it, for everybody that makes a little bit more, there's somebody who loses everything. so the net increase and the assumption that you would get from it is not something to write home about economically. i know that there's the allen kruger study. but there's not much of a dispute that it's slightly negative, and some people are going to lose their jobs. but my problem is those people who lose their jobs are exactly
the people that we should care most about as a society. so if we care about low wage workers and want to help them, the way to do it is to subsidize low wage workers hired by employers, because it increases their demands, and drives up the wages and nobody loses their jobs. but the problem of that is it costs money, so it's an explicit subsidy. and the minimum wage is not subsidize. >> when i hear it, it's the earned income tax credit. >> it could be that, or ned phelps has this great book, a nobel prize winner, you should get him on the show, making work pay, and he goes through a number of structures to
encourage firms to hire work, and it should be considered. but subsidizing work, doing things to increase the demand for workers drives up their wages and doesn't make anybody lose their jobs, and for congress to return over and over again to the stupid thing that helps others lose their jobs, it's really a sign of how decayed american politics is. and frankly, i would hope that others the republicans talk about all of the tactics right now, that the voters recognize what's going on, and demand something new of our politicians. >> you take generic precipitation drugs to save money, but these days, some of the generics cost almost as much as the name brands that they replace.
>> it is no secret that rising healthcare costs put a big burden on american families and the overall u.s. economy. i'm talking about everything from hospital bills to insurance premiums. but generic drugs have been a way for americans to save money. generics help consumers to shave 8-$10 billion per year from their medical bills. they make up almost 80% of all prescription medicine in the united states, but as duarte
reports, in the last year, even generic drugs have made a surprising spike. >> generic drugs for medicine, often things like lipitor often drop from $4 a bill to just $50 a dose after their patents expire and american manufacturers join in the fray. >> the difference in generics is literally between the price of bread and the price of a luxury car. >> the usual dependable cost of drugs on the rise, some to astronomical heights. a recent industry analysis found that generic drugs came more expensive with one out of 11 doubling the cost. tetracycling, used for everything from mold to lime
disease, jumped 17,000%. it's a dangerous precedence say healthcare professionals for those depending on them for breast cancer and heart disease. >> when they go to pick up their medication and it turns out to be 10 or 20 times more than they think it is. they don't pick up the medication, they go without the medication. >> at the end of the day, we're the ones standing at the counter, facing our customers, our patients, mostly the elderly, who are wrestling with the affordability, and the prescription drugs. >> pharmacists like bradley arthur say that they're increasingly facing the costs of drugs. they have to reimburse some of the cost because the insurance have not kept up. >> that has been devastating to us. 98% of our revenues are generated by pharmaceuticals. and my business has suffered cash flow problems, which make
it difficult for me to meet my obligations to my suppliers. >> the unsustainable losses per prescription are having a very significant impact on their ability to remain in business, and even huge chains like walgreen's had to overestimated earnings by $1.1 billion in july due to increased costs of generics. think often blame manufacturing issues like shortage of raw materials. but analysts say that often only a few companies make a single drug. and that makes suppliers like lynette, reaping the profits. the companies reported sales for cardiovascular products quadrupled in the last few months. some say that growing revenues may encourage more companies to
produce generics, and hold prices down. but some are not holding out hope. >> without intervention by congress, i don't see the marketplace addressing it on their own and fixing it. in the end, the only ones suffers are the small business persons and ultimately the patients. >> the national community pharmacist association has called for a congressional hearing on generic drug prices. a survey by the group finds that more patients are not taking their medications because of the rising prices and more seniors are in the dreaded coverage gap, or doughnut hole where they must pay higher out of pocket costs. as they take over, the demand for cheap generic drugs will only grow. a health research firm in ann arbor, michigan, he joins us now from boston, thank you for
being with us, mason, and duarte's piece describes the challenge that there are not enough market participants making these generic points. i thought that was the point. a drug comes off of its patent protection, and now everyone can make it and the price comes down, and why is that not working? >> well, i think, ali, sometimes markets can be very slow to react to emerging situations. i think that you've had a confluence of a lot of things happening with marketplaces in the last couple of years. and part of it is that individual pharmaceutical companies are seeing a wave of many of their products going off patent. and they are embarking on the generics programs, trying to keep the brands alive to some extent. and some of them are buying generic houses, and engaging in activities, and likewise, if
you have generic drug houses starting to mainstream into pro appropriate ear drug development. you see these with the dr. righ readies of the world. and economics would suggest that if there's enough profit out there, you're going to get enough market entrance, but there are barriers to entry in this whole thing. >> you and i can't say, hey, they're paying much, and let's start up a company and make it. >> well, it's not quite that easy as that. you have the manufacturing facilities, and you have to go through a variety of testing and so forth in order to meet good manufacturing practices, and this takes time and money, and the market can be slow to react to these. >> what's on the demand side? we're not all that picky and not that smart to be picky. if our doctor prescribes a drug
and it's expensive, we don't know to ask for something else or provide pressure to bring the places down. >> that's the parody. i think that we're starting to see changes with that, with the evolution of consumer driven healthcare, and more and more, i know that i have one of those plans myself. and my physician prescribes something, and i tend to ask questions. maybe as a health economist, i'm more savvy than what drug is right than the average consumer, but with what's on the internet and consumer advertising on tv, i think that patients are more and more aware of these options, and at some pointatsome point will stag to market sickness. i heard on the introduction for example, the farm it sift saying that prices are too high and the patients leave the drug
there. we see that in our administrative claims databases, where patients reverse the claims that have been submitted, and it's a lot of times due to sticker shock. >> mason t. good to talk to you. thank you for joining us, and it's an interesting topic. mason russell, the vice president of strategic consulting in boston. coming up next, burger king is the latest american company, and american taxpayers are being grilled by this trend.
and there of been calls to stop the practice. but this could spur even more deals. and diane francis shares that in her latest for the post. and why canada and america should become one country, and diane, i should remind our viewers, we talked about the book a little tongue-in-cheek because that would solve the inversion problem. but there of been a lot of inversions in the last 10, 20 years, none so prominent as burger king. had walgreen done it, and they weren't thinking about it, we would have had this discussion earlier, burger king in canada, tim horton's is like changing the flag, and why are you so incensed by this? i was very outrage bid the deal on the basis of two things.
i'm a dual citizen, american and canadian, and i file and pay taxes in two countries. and there were 8 million americans live outside of the united states, we are obliged to file and disclose everything that we do abroad and pay taxes that year on the income that we make. if we live in bermuda where there are no taxes, we have to pay taxes to washington. why can google and burger king not pay taxes as long as they stash their cash abroad? that's not fair, ands in no justification for it except that the lobbyists have been very successful in washington in letting them getting this exemption. corpses solely in the united states have to pay those income tax rates, and point number two, canada has a very high tax rate on its people generally because it's more social welfare than the united states, but it could not have lowered
it's corporate income rate to half of the american rate if it had paid it's share of the military costs and the peace-keeping costs -- costs -- >> which we were discussing at the beginning of the show. nato crete are supposed to spend 2%. and now it spends. >> 1%. it has lowered it's military budget because it can. because the united states protects north america in order to derive some of these benefits such as a lower tax rate and make it more competitive. today not canada's fault that burger king has chosen them, but it's galling that you enjoy the protective umbrella of the united states, and you're not pulling your fair share of the weight. >> do you think -- i think that the res red herring is that thes a tax differential. and the united states tankses
differently than money you make anywhere else in the world. >> unless you're apple or google or pfizer or burger king. >> very few american companies pay the tax rate. if we had a tax rate that everybody paid and all corporations paid, maybe we could have a lower tax rate. >> the estimates are that $9.5 trillion, that's what we spent in iraq in the war, $1.5 trillion is stashed away abroad in the treasuries of these multinational companies, and has never been taxed until it's repaint rated. the problem is, they're never going to repatriate, and why would you do that and pay a 39% tax on it? this is what pfizer has done. they went to britain, took over a drug company and used the cash they stashed abroad to buy that company and they will
never repatriate it. >> should the united states be thinking about something to get this money back? >> to me, if you want to renounce your corporate citizenship and move abroad, pay up all of the taxes you owe and it wasn't give to the united states, and number works i think immediately and retroactively, everybody who did an inversion should be treated the same as an individual. if an american citizen living in canada or europe has to pay their taxes every year and file in the united states of america, so should a corporation, and i would like to see that in the court and that could be an edict out of the treasury at the department. >> diane francis, good to see you, writer for the washington post and writer of many books. season soft so the was a journalist in syria and wrote for time magazine.
today the islamic state released a video that purports to show his beheading by a british executioner. and this follows james foley, an american judicial lift also coop furd in syria. what these two men share is a common title, freelancer, and it's growing. between 1998 and 2010, some 20 newspapers and media companies, closed their foreign bureaus and laid off their correspondents. through bebroadcast news from some of the world's biggest conflict zones. way they do it is by buying images from sotloff andboli. but it could be dangerous. they rarely offer the same security and equipment that a staff is entitled to. it's a cheaper waydy business.
covering the war from the front lines is expensive. but the reality is, they don't have front lines, and when things go bad, the freelancers have themselves to rely o no $1 million insurance policy, and no contractor to guide them home. in the end, they may only have their guts to get them through. some of them take the biggest risks and yet they pay a steep cost for what they do. more than half of the 70 journalists killed in syria since 2011 have been freelancers. keep in mind that the only reason we know what's happening in syria and other war zones are because of sotloff and others. so do we protect them? or do we hope that journalists like foley and sotloff continue to bear witness to events that you might not know about it they weren't there to report on them? i don't know the answer, but
tonight we remember sotloff and foley and all of the journalists who die in the pursuit of their noble mission. i'm ali velshi, thank you for joining us. >> hi, everyone. this is aljazeer aljazeera amer. state of fear, the islamic state says it has beheaded a second american journalist. how ca can it be stopped? and rebel forces in somalia, growing a terror network. and stand off in pakistan, after three days of clashes, the prime minister tries to rally support. can