tv The Kudlow Report CNBC June 26, 2013 7:00pm-8:01pm EDT
we know about boeing. it is a great american company, a proud company. by the way, it's also an unbelievably good stock and tremendous innovator. it's probably the best american innovator we have. promise right the supreme court doma decision on same sex marriage is going to have some important effects on individuals, their finances and spousal benefits. we're talking income taxes, estate taxes, health coverage and more. we'll tell you what it means in dollars and cents. are we headed to $1,000 per ounce for gold. other commodities got slammed. is this from china or just global deflation? team obama is about to go all out appealing to athletes and hollywood actors hoping to
convince young americans to sign up for obama care policy. so far the numbers aren't good. let me ask you this. if you're young and healthy, why on earth would you agree to join a plan that costs more and gives most of the resources to the old and the sick? all those stories and more coming up on the kudlow report beginning right now. first up this evening the supreme court striking down the defense of marriage act. a major victory forced a voluntary indicates of same sex marriage. pete williams joins us now with the full details. good evening, pete. >> reporter: larry two big rulings today. the supreme court on the defensive of marriage act and remember what this law is, it said the federal government could not recognize marriages in states where they are legal. they said that law served no legitimate purpose and demeaning same sex couples, you hhumiliat
their children. and it disposed proposition 7, approved by 52% of california voters in 2008 that stopped same sex marriage there. what the court said was that the trial judge's opinion deciding that prop 8 is unconstitutional stands. because it said the people who appealed that ruling, the proponents who got prop 8 on the ballot didn't have the proper legal standing to come here and appeal pinpoint what the opinion said written by chief justice john roberts in order to appeal you have to have some specific injury to you, a keen interest in an issue or a general grievance is not enough and the prop 8 proponents don't haste. as a practical matter first of all another month at least before california can resume same sex marriages as the legal process continues to play out. and secondly the obama administration is now trying to address exactly what you were talking about at the beginning. how do these benefits work?
for example, if a couple gets married in a same sex marriage state like massachusetts and then moves to another state like indiana do the benefits go with them or not. as worded now most of them don't and some may require an action of congress in order to be able to follow a couple from a gay marriage state to a nongay marriage state. >> that's exactly where we're going to try to go. i know it's complicated. i want to ask you generically big picture. what does the supreme court decision to doma do to the 30 odd states, 35 some-odd states that do not yet recognize same sex marriage? >> reporter: as a legal matter nothing. it doesn't change them at all. the supreme court said nothing about whether a state that chooses not recognize same sex marriage is in any way constitutional difficulty. in his dissent, anthony scalia said you can be sure people who want to extend same sex marriage to other states will use tlang of today's opinion in order to do that.
remember, anthony scalia ten years ago today when the supreme court decided the texas case said that people would use the wording in that case to try to get same sex marriage as well and that has, to some extent borne out that opinion ten years ago was cited in today's ruling. >> pete williams, thanks. all right under the supreme court decisions today same sex couples are now eligible for benefits including social security and gift and estate tax breaks and many more. let's bring in jeff tanenbaum and i welcome our special co-host former hewlett-packard ceo carly fiorina. mr. tanenbaum, let's see the woman that brought this suit stands to gain $363,053 on an estate tax baby because of that.
am i right? what else is going to go on in these calculations? >> you're right. it's an estate tax refund. >> right. so, is this going to be across the board, estate tax refund? in other words, we're just looking at the financial implications not the social implications. from your vantage point, is the estate gift tax is going the biggest issues, income tax issues, social security and health care benefits, where do you see this? >> i think it's going to be in several areas. i think there's clearly going to be significant benefits for same sex couples with regard to income tax issues, with regard to employer provided benefit programs, with regard to leave programs. there's a whole host of benefits that same sex couples will now have access to that they didn't have before or they had it in a
different way. >> how long do you think it's going to take before people really understand how to apply for all these benefits? is this something that people can start doing differently tomorrow? does it have to work its way through some additional clarification from the courts or into the government? in other words, what does a gay couple do tomorrow? >> that's a great question, and from an employer perspective and i represent employers, many of those questions will be able to be answered by employers fairly quickly with regard to their own benefit programs. with regard to other issues, the answers are really going to wait until there are agency guidelines in some cases regulations. there are a whole host of issues to work through. perhaps most notably what if any aspects of the potential new benefits that will be available
would also be made available retroactively. >> i was going to ask that retroactively. what do you think about that? what's your sense of it right now? >> the case did not discuss retroactivity at all. so there's a tendency to think that the ruling would just proceed on a forward looking basis, but i think you can anticipate that there's going to be some challenges to that, and there are some arguments to be made for retroactivity. the courts tend to look at a wide variety of factors in determining whether or not a law will be given retroactive effect. in this case, it seems more likely that it will be construed only on a going forward basis but nobody knows. >> is it likely someone would have to sue again, potentially,
to determine retroactivity or to challenge their right to retroactive benefits? >> very possibly with regard to retroactivity. with regard to other benefits it's just going take some time for employers to work through revisions and policies and procedures and programs, provide training to employees and to n managers and supervisors how to implement those changes. >> one last question from me, it's my impression that the government has been way behind private industry in this regard. i know when i was at hewlett-packard we changed our benefits programs to include same sex couples, for example. since you represent corporations, is my impression correct that corporations have been moving in this direction fairly rapidly and the government is now catching up or is that impression inaccurate? >> i think you're right. and it will depend, in far, on where you are in the country. there are, of course exceptions to that rule. but i think you're right.
i think private employers have been moving in this direction for some time. and as an example we're not going to see much in the way of significant change in california as a result of the prop 8 decision just for that very reason. >> i want to ask you one last quick one, it's a question that our own nbc pete williams asked. what if you move from a same sex state to a nonsame sex state what happens then? how complicated -- do you carry your benefits with you or do you lose them? >> it's a great question. we don't know the answer. the court didn't address that issue. they didn't address section 2 of doma which would have addressed that issue. it was not an issue before the court. there's an issue probably only lawyers could love, the full faith and credit issue and those issues are likely to result in further litigation. >> all right. we'll see. jeffrey tanenbaum thank you very much. we'll switch gears in the market today. gold crashed but stocks roared.
go figure. we'll have a lot of market action to cover and that's up next. later on is team obama going to get athletes and celebrities to convince young people to sign up for obama care? they better because a simple look at the numbers show that this plan is a raw deal for the young and the healthy. and don't forget, folks, free market capitalism is always the best path to prosperity. i wish we had a lot more private competition in this health care plan. i'm kudlow. we'll be right back. honey... it's time to go.
all right. stocks had a good day today. dow is up 150 points. but metals in full meltdown mode. gold down 27% this year alone and on track for its worst quarter on record. and silver, it's down a whopping 39% year-to-date and i'm especially looking at gold. gold is telling me there ain't no inflation, period. it's also telling me that there's a substantial risk the fed will tighten sooner and more intensely than they should. that's why i think there's going to be some major volatility and i would be thrilled, to tell you the truth if the stock market closed somewhere near current levels. 12% dwreer date gain.
if we can hold that i'll love it. i'm not a real bear. but i am worried and i'm calling myself an uncertain neutralist. i don't like deflation. let's talk. we have scott nations, brian kelly, carly fiorina is still with me. when i see this gold action and commodities i'm worried about deflation. >> you have to be. gold is a weird instrument where people try to value it and say how can you trade gold. i look at gold as the aggregate global price level. an ounce of gold will buy you a suit in london. when you look at that and see gold down 27%. you have to say that market is giving you a signal of deflation. when you look at what's going on in the emerging markets with the outfloss from the emerging morkts, other commodities, aluminum, zinc, nickel, all down. >> copper. >> all killed.
that's not an environment either you have over capacity which you know you do, perhaps weakened demand end up in a deflation engineer place. >> there might be a more benign interpretation. i want to put this on the board. sometimes gold falling is very positive. it means people would rather invest in the market or where there's companies directly where you actually get a real yield. gold doesn't give you dividends, doesn't give you a real yield. sometimes like in the '80s and '90s falling gold was side-by-side with rising stocks. is that possible now? >> there are a couple of things going on and they are different for gold than the industrial metals like copper. because of the performance-enhancing drug like fed bond-buying and now that it seems it's going to come undone gold being further from home valuation in either bonds or
stocks feeling the heat first. and copper is a very different thing. the problem with copper is china. but, you mentioned deflation and gold and i think if you look at housing prices you're not worried about deflation at all. so, i will agree that the chart for gold for the year looks really, really ugly, but it's simply a fact that, that qe was a performance-enhancing drug for gold and they lost their supplier. >> gold is down almost, what almost down from 1900 to 1300, dropped down 1250. hats a heck of a jump. maybe we should ignore gold. maybe we should look at the economy. how do you see the world? >> well, i do agree with you that to me what this says is that underlying demand is not particularly robust, despite progress in things like the housing market for sure. i think this stock market, my own view is it's way ahead of
the fundamentals and has been for sometime. i also think the last couple weeks, to reinfor the fed has too much power. and whenever they take the foot off the brake it will be ugly. it has been ugly and all they are doing is making brief and mild suggestions. >> this ugly part worries me. it just worries me. because people are telling me, bernanke said the other day that, let's say he's taken the foot off the pedal by not buying bonds rapidly. nonsense. the monetary base will slow down. he's not injecting cash into the economy. this is why i would be thrilled if i could keep a 12% gain on the s&p for the year. i think we'll have so much volatility anyway. i want to get you guys back in
here. >> i think you're right. the fed is notoriously have a bad track record of what the economy will do. >> really? shocking. shock. >> some prime is contained. all those parts. to say that the economy in the second half of the year will pick up and you got to start worrying about inflationary pressures or it getting too hot, it's insane to me. i agree with you that the stock market is way ahead, way ahead of the underlying fundamentals and that doesn't even at all come talking about what's happening in the emerging markets which i think could be a fairly serious problem. >> scott nations, i had a couple of smart people today say gee whiz gosh the third revision for gdp was only 1.8%. that means the fed won't tighten. i say nonsense to that. horse manure to that. the fed stuff doesn't look at that stuff. they ethe housing price increase, the durable goods rise, they will look at the jobs
numbers at the end of the day, employment, employment, employment. i think they are bound and determined to tighten. scott, i really do. i don't think it will have as carly said i don't think it will work out smoothly. >> i think the fact we had that crazy reaction to gdp today shows just how perverted the fed has gotten the markets. now bad news is good news and now bonds and stocks can rally. but, larry, i agree with you. if we can hold 12% and the fed either starts tapering or tells us how, when and precisely by how much they are going to start tapering that would be a huge victory. we would say 2013 end up acgreat year. when the fed doesn't tell us what they are thinking, when they are thinking about tightening or tapering, that's when the market gets carried away. >> i'll just say this. what do i know. economists never get it right. i would just say this that gold action, crunching numbers, not
copper, that's coming out of china, so do all the metals, the gold action tells me fed will quit buying bonds sooner, more intensely and the fed fund rates are going up sooner than anybody thinks. bernanke is bound and determined to do that and i may be dead wrong and if i am i'll acknowledge it. do you want to add something? >> let's assume you're right. even if you're wrong, however, i go back to my original point, think about the power that this man and his few words has. it's crazy. >> i got to give him that. >> but at what cost of changing, manipulating the fundamentals of a market. >> he's trying to offset the mistakes in fiscal policy coming out of les is maisonblanche.
>> i would strip the fed of its dual mandate. i think it's due to abuse. >> i worry about inflation last year and the year before i was dead wrong. i was dead wrong. identify admitted it. scott nations thank you very much, buddy. all the best. now you're going to hang with us. another win for ben bernanke. another win. get this. the latest cnbc survey does show a real uptick in the economy and its sentiment across dunn. that's big ben story for tightening, it's better than you think. we have that story up next on kudlow. [ male announcer ] when gloria and her financial advisor
when you want a financial advisor who sees the whole picture, turn to us. wells fargo advisors. . the latest cnbc all american economics survey shows americans are more optimistic. our senior economics reporter steve liesman joins us now with all the details. good evening, steve. >> reporter: thanks, larry. american news on economy are the best they have been since the recession began. our survey of 110 americans finds more people think their home values will go up and fewer judge the current state of the economy as poor than any time since the recession began. 41% of americans expect their wages will increase over the next year the largest percentage since 2008. americans see their home prices rising in the next 12 months. that's the highest expectation since 2007. while these measures are on the
positive side they remain depressed. few americans are satisfied with their starved living than they were in '07. 54% said their standard of living has met or exceeded their expectations but 71% in 2007. but the survey found americans are satisfied with their jobs. 85% say they are very or somewhat satisfied with their jobs and americans seem to like their co-workers and their bosses. on that happy note, larry, back to you. >> that's great stuff, steve liesman. let's get reaction. americans are satisfied with their job. that's very interesting point. as a former ceo what do you make of it? >> i think it's an interesting point, it's an encouraging point. the people that don't have a job aren't answering that question that way and we still have a lot of folks who haven't been employed for a long time. there are two things about the economy that i'm worried about despite all this great news. one is those who have been unemployed for six months or longer because the data is
becoming more and more clear that those people are finding it virtually impossible to find another job. so we're creating, perhaps this permanent class of people who cannot find meaningful work. the second is that still entrepreneurship is in trouble. more small businesses are failing. fewer are starting. we're choking the entrepreneurial life out of the economy in many ways. that's why i think the economy continues to underperform. lots of good progress but i think some long term worrying. >> no question. we'll come back to this overregulation theme because i know it's important to you and the rest of us. brian, what did you make -- that's a very optimistic survey and steve liesman's surveys are very interesting. >> steve does great work. you have to separate the two things in that the trader in me hears stuff like that and i say that's the top, i want to go, i want to be a contrarian. i want to buy it when no one
else wants to bit. i think there's some kind of survivorship bias or who you call. if you look at the unemployment statistics 55 and over, 5.8% unemployment rate. under 25, i think it's almost as close as 10% if not higher at this point in time. so there's a huge disparity there, depends on who you ask, and i would just say how much better can it get? >> i'm going to say in my very simple minded way, rising share prices which affects about half the households in this country one way or the other plus improvement in home prices have put people in a better mood. it's not perfect. you're right about the jobs. a whole list of unemployment problems. people are in a better mood because their house values have gone to up and stock market value has gone up and that's why i don't want the fed to do anything. anyway, thank you very much. now, if you're young, healthy and have a job, obama care needs you. in fact it really needs you if that group doesn't sign up, the
big numbers for obama care health exchange will never happen the entire program is in jeopardy. here's the thing. why should a young and healthy person sign up for what looks like a raw deal? we'll have that whole debate up next on kudlow. ♪ ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] if you can't stand the heat, get off the test track. get the mercedes-benz you've been burning for at the summer event, going on now at your authorized mercedes-benz dealer. hurry, before this opportunity cools off. vo: i've always thought the best part about this country is that we get to create our future.
you get to take ownership of the choices you make. the person you become. i've been around long enough to recognize the people who are out there owning it. the ones getting involved and staying engaged. they're not sitting by as their life unfolds. and they're not afraid to question the path they're on. because the one question they never want to ask is "how did i end up here?" i started schwab for those people. people who want to take ownership of their investments, like they do in every other aspect of their lives.
welcome back to "the kudlow report". i'm larry kudlow. in this half hour an immigration reform war is inside the republican party. people like senator marco rubio, senator jeff flake, senator ayotte are being threatened with prime challenges and recalls. we'll ask senator flake about this when he joins us in a couple of minutes. and what does our co-host carly fiorina have to say about corporate tax reform. we'll go one on one with carly in a minute. the obama administration is reaching out to the nfl. the nfl, nba, hollywood celebrities anybody they can get to help enrollment in the new program created under obama care. here's ron pollock, founding executive director of families usa and chairman of the board of enroll america and guy benson, host of the guy benson show. still with us, carly fiorina.
mr. pollock, welcome to the program, sir. when you read about this, i may be wrong, but when you read about this, first of all it sounds like the infrastructure is not put in place. the insurance exchanges mostly 30, 35 states are not in place. and when you look at the numbers for young people, they are not going to sign up. what's your take? >> first of all, i think with respect to young people, this is going to be a terrific deal for young adults for the following reason. under the affordable care act people can go into these new marketplaces, these so-called exchanges. when they do they can select from a wide variety of plans. here's the key. what the affordable care act does is it provides very substantial subsidies for people up to 400% of the federal poverty level, for a person living alone that's $46,000 in annual income. for a couple it's about $63,000. >> most people don't use.
most young people don't want it, don't want to pay for it. actually, the way this thing works out, it costs you about, i don't know, up to whatever, five, six, eight hundred dollars a year. you won't use it. you won't get the 6,000 deductible or the premiums. in other words i'm focusing on the younger crowd. >> yes. >> why? the numbers don't add up, sir, that's my question. >> well, i think they more than will add up because the folks who are below 400% of poverty will be getting very significant subsidies that will substantially reduce their premiums. now these subsidies are provided on a sliding scale, the lower your income the greater the subsidy. for young adults, they are the ones who are in entry level jobs or may not have a job. so they are disproportionately going to get the subsidies so that the premiums come down. larry, the key point for young
adults is not that they don't want insurance, the question is it a value proposition. and in the past it wasn't a value proposition, now it will be a value proposition. >> let's get guy benson in here. guy, how do you react to that? >> that's a lot of wishful thinking. i suspect the reason we're hearing about the glitz and glamour of celebrities alibi sports stars there's a quiet desperation here on behalf of the administration that young people won't sign up. let's put aside my own views of the law. identify been opposed to the law. you have young people particularly on the individual market who will look at these premum shocks in california, for instance, between 64 and 146% premium shock, premiums going up in the state of california for younger and healthier people. they will look at that price tag, larry and say why on earth am i going to pay that when there's an option to remain
uninsured, pay the penalty which is a tiny fraction of the cost, $95 a person or 1% of their income. if something goes wrong they go knocking on the door of the insurance and they have to get it under the law. >> they can go to these boutique medical centers being set up in walgreen's and walmart, very interesting all across the country to save money. what's your take on this. >> well, look. let's just assume for the sake of argument that young people sign up in droves. let's assume for a second that the celebrity push is successful. in the end, of course, execution is everything. and whether you're for this law or not, i think there are two fundamentals that we're starting to discover more and more about. the first is the complexity of the law itself. people don't understand it. people are still trying to figure out what it means.
i happen to serve on the board of a hospital. people are saying what does this mean, how do we implement it. secondly the exchanges are not in a position to actually be up and running. which is a tragedy. >> that was my earlier point. >> in 30 states. >> that's a big problem. >> i don't understand the math here. young adults spend about $800 a year on health care, that's a generic study. obama care you have to go in, there it's going to cost you close to $6,000. that's the expense. why would anybody do that? as you said, i think you sawed it or guy said it if you're around $50,000 a year it's going to cost you 95 bucks. that's your penalty. the mandate tax will only go up 00 to 600. why spend 5800 grand and spend 500 or $600. >> young people don't think about the future in quite the same way. they believe they are
invincible. >> they are bullet proof. >> maybe you delay the decision, which, of course, impacts the economics of this program. let's even say a young person says, you know, maybe by the time i get to 32 or 33 or 34 and i'm married and having family now maybe i'll think about it. that has a huge impact. >> there are two misunderstandings. first we're not talking about anything close to $5800 because after the subsidy, that's what people are actually going pay out of pocket. it's going tiny fraction of that. by the way, you can't simply, when you get sick say now i'm going sign up for insurance. there are specific enrollment periods and so you can't have somebody who is in a hospital say hey insurance company, i now need your insurance now insure me. it doesn't work that way. so this is really going to be a good deal -- >> really? >> because the enrollment periods are very limited to try to avoid the kind of thing that i just described when somebody
gets sick you can't all of a sudden call an insurance company and say now cover me. there will be specific enrollment periods and they are limited to that. >> the only reason i raise the question and i'm somewhat surprised you're an expert i'm certainly not, but that is one of the charges that the government, the obama administration leveled against insurance companies. the heartless insurance companies who actually wouldn't cover someone, who didn't have an insurance policy when they became ill. i find it very hard to believe, given all that has gone into this law, that the government will choose to actually deny care to someone who faces a life threatening disease because they didn't sign up. >> carly, there are two things here. what you're suggesting, what you're talking about is there are no longer can be denials by an insurance company for somebody who has got a pre-existing -- >> understand that.
>> so that is in the law. however, in order to sign up for coverage, there will be specific enrollment periods. >> yes, as insurance companies have always had. >> no, no, with respect to coverage through the affordable care act, the typical enrollment period is going to be about seven weeks. the first enrollment period is longer, it's going to be from october 1 through march 31. it's only if you enroll at that time. >> i understand. but that doesn't get -- really i'm sure you're right. but that doesn't get to the point we're making. estimates of the cost of obama care require a certain buy in of young people to enter. what i'm saying, i think what carly said, the math doesn't add up. the deductible runs upwards of $6,000 a year. they don't want to do that. they don't need that. they are only is going spend $600, $700, $800 a year. they can go to a boutique medical places in walmart if
they need help. they can go to a doctor. they won't spend that kind of money. the mandated tax is a better deal for them. the point i'm making guy benson young people are bullet proof until they are 30 or whatever. they won't pony up the money. the government doesn't have enough money to make up the subsidies and therefore the system could fall of its own weight. >> just in this enrollment period the point is someone goes in when they get hurt, when they get hit by a bus, they get uncommon pen saided care at the hospital, then the next period comes up and then they sign up with their pre-existing condition. that's a problem. >> exactly. >> sir, mr. pollock -- i didn't interrupt you. >> is because you got already 6 million young adults who have been signed up in coverage as a result of the affordable care act. now they are getting their coverage through their parents. but it is clear that if you offer a good value deal, young
adults will sign up. >> the parents are paying for that. >> and because of the subsidies this will be a terrific deal. >> larry, can i make one more point. the last poll that came out last week from the kaiser family foundation, 35% said they don't think insurance is worth it. if those numbers are close to reality it's a disaster. >> that's what i said from day one. when you look at the numbers actually the deductible you have to go through $5800. you have to pay $700, $800 to get this thing the numbers don't work. >> larry -- >> got to get out. i can't. i get the last word here. i'm saying this thing is being financed by an enrollment of young people that will never take place. nba all-stars not with standing, rock stars singing, ain't going to happen. we'll see. be dead wrong. guy benson, thank you.
mr. ron pollock we appreciate it. is there a severe political price to pay for republicans who vote in favor of immigration? all right senator jeff flake is one of those republicans. he's getting hammered and he'll answer when he comes and joins us in just a few moments. [ female announcer ] doctors trust calcium plus vitamin d to support strong bones.
and the brand most recommended by... my doctor. my gynecologist. my pharmacist. citracal. citracal. [ female announcer ] you trust your doctor. doctors trust citracal. we're headed the same way, right? yeah. ♪ [ panting ] uh... after you. ♪ [ sighs ] [ male announcer ] it's all in how you get there. the srx, from cadillac. awarded best interior design of any luxury brand. lease this 2013 cadillac srx for around $399 per month, with premium care maintenance included. you make a great team. it's been that way since the day you met.
but your erectile dysfunction - it could be a question of blood flow. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph like needing to go frequently or urgently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or if you have any allergic reactions such as rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a 30-tablet free trial.
the senate continues to push ahead on immigration reform. approved border security. now if passed the bill which pours billions into border security and does offer a path to citizenship for millions of people, the bill still has an uncertain future in the house and for the republicans who back the bill there is a major conservative backlash which just may be beginning. joining us now to talk about it all, we welcome back arizona republican senator jeff flake. he's a member of the gang of eight. as always, mr. flake, it's great to see you. so what i gather now is from one of the blog sites or websites in arizona there's a movement to recall you because you've been supporting this. what do you think of it? >> i feel i pass ad right of passage, i guess, in the senate,
recall petition being taken out. i think senator mccain and senator kyl had the same done to hem. >> it's amazing to me. these are good friends of mine. this is a family quarrel. people like ann coulter have benton attack. people like mark levin have benton attack. sarah palin called for senator ayotte to step down or to lose or some such thing. what's the big -- why is this so emotional in your judgment? what is the thing that's crew cusifying all of this >> there's skepticism about the federal government to carry this out. that's why in this legislation with regard to border security and this corker-holden amendment adds substantially to the significant border security elements of the bill we put intrigueders that have to be tripped in order for anybody to adjust status. certain number of miles of fence
have to be built. mile posts have to be achieved like entry-exit system has to be fully deployed, e-verify. i think it's people's justifiable skepticism in government that's causing this outrage. >> no doubt. one of the things i hear all the time, again from conservative friends of mine is that the legalization comes before the border security, and if that weren't bad enough the department of homeland security, napolitano, is going to run the whole operation. so i don't know which is worse, the legalization or napolitano. but that's what i hear again and again and again. can you respond to that? is that true? >> let me take the second one first. what we do in the legislation is not just mandate a certain number of miles of fence be built, or that certain mile posts like i said in terms of e verify and entry-exit system is put in place, we have a punch list from the border patrol and said what would you need to secure the border.
you know different kinds of technology, you know, radar, certain number of planes, certain number of helicopters. we gave them what they want and said this is the minimum that dhs is do. there's some latitude beyond the minimum that they can adjust to, but they have to do certain things and that's because, i think, we have justifiable skepticism. >> doesn't that take time? this is the part i don't get. i worked for reagan. certain policy changes take time. if you're going to add 20,000 border agents, let's say, for example, you can't just do that overnight, it's going to take a while. >> you're right. that's what leads to the second part of your question. why can't we just postpone legalization or the so-called rpi statutes for those who are here illegally. >> it takes a couple of years to get e-verify implemented nationwide it will take a couple of years to build the fence, it
will take several years to hire the border agents. during this time unless you believe in the principle of self-deportation these people will be here and the best thing we can do is bring them occupant of the shadows and put them on probationary status without benefits and that's what we're doing here. so, in order for it home to adjust to green card status these mile posts have to be hit. i want to bring them out of the shadows. >> is there any way you and senator rubio and others, senator ayotte, how can you explain that to the mark levins of the world, to the ann coulters of the world and these are very good friend of mine, by the way, they are people i respect and i have great affection for. i under or at least i think i do, can you get them to understand it because there's so much warfare going on in the gop right now. >> like i said, i tuned skepticism that's out there. i share it. but i can tell you, i've worked on this legislation and i know
that we have certain provisions in there. we've done our best to make sure that certain things have to be done before other things occur. triggers are firm here. and where people are skeptical who decides when that trig certificate hit we put in provisions things have to occur, certain number of border agents have to be hired. certain miles of fence have to be built. people point out after '86 a lot of these promises were made but never kept. we make sure that before anybody can adjust their status, these things have to occur. so there's pretty good incentive there. >> we'll leave it, senator jeff flake. sir, i'll just say this, my personal editorial. i think you guys are profiles in courage. i disagree with some of my conservative brothers and sisters. i think immigration reform is good for the economy. i think it's good for the whole country. i think it will be good for the border security as well. anyway, all the best and luck. keep on plugging. thank you very much jeff flake.
there is a pursuit we all share. a better life for your family, a better opportunity for your business, a better legacy to leave the world. we have always believed in this pursuit, striving to bring insight to every investment, and integrity to every plan. we are morgan stanley. and we're ready to work for you.
218 of the world's largest 500 companies were based here. in the u.s. today, while the u.s. still plays home to lion's share of top companies that number has shrunk to 132. why? carly fiorina, what do you think about president obama declaring war on coal and fossil fuels and jobs and growth yesterday? >> tell me what you really think. >> last fall he said he wouldn't do that in the primary. >> we know president obama is a political opportunityist. here's what's distressing to me about that speech. first let's stipulate for a moment that global warming is real and that it's manmade, all right. all the scientists agree that a single nation acting alone will have zero impact on global warming. the only way global warming is actually impacted is if all nations act together spend trillions of dollars and collaborate over many years. if we're serious about impact
being global warming what president obama should be doing is talking to china. instead, he's putting in place measures that will destroy jobs, that will prevent our coal industry, china is desperately trying to buy our coal they can't export it because they can't make it any more. >> they can't make it to export it which is dumb. >> what's distressing to me among other things is this president lays out an extremely precise goal, how much he wants to reduce carbon emissions by 2020. i wish we had a goal that was that precise around job creation, around the unemployment rate falling. >> every president has these dumb goals and never get there. give me the last minute on tax reform. >> it's clear, everyone knows it now, even the politicians know it, our corporate tax rate is uncompetitive. i was horrified at the sight of tim cook being berated by senators from both sides of the
aisle about the taxes he paid when what he's doing is lawfully dealing with a tax code that's uncompetitive. it's uncompetitive. but more than that, it's complexity is now killing small business. we need to lower every rate. my solution is lower every rate, close every loophole, complexity works great for big business but it's killing small businesses. one of the reasons small business can get off the map. >> it empowers irs in ways we wish we can't empower them. >> and don't they look great now? >> if you had a nice simple flat go down 25% get rid of all the deductions or most of the deductions you won't have to worry about offshore tax savings or go in front public, you do your job and make profits. >> do your job, make profits, and i am convinced as are many who are a lot smarter about the economy than i am, you would raise revenue. >> it's a revenue raiser.
>> absolutely. >> lower tax rate. the europeans found that out. they cut their corporate tax rates. wound up making money. >> ireland is a lovely place. >> they lowered their tax rate. >> carly fiorina, terrific. that's it for this evening's show. i thank everybody for watching. we'll have carly back time and time again. i'm kudlow. we'll see you tomorrow night. [ male announcer ] the mercedes-benz summer event is here. now get the unmistakable thrill and the incredible rush of the mercedes-benz you've always wanted. ♪ [ tires screech ] but you better get here fast. [ girl ] hey, daddy's here. here you go, honey. thank you. [ male announcer ] because a good thing like this won't last forever. mmm. [ male announcer ] see your authorized dealer for an incredible offer on the exhilarating c250 sport sedan. but hurry. offers end soon.
the ones getting involved and staying engaged. they're not afraid to question the path they're on. because the one question they never want to ask is "how did i end up here?" i started schwab for those people. people who want to take ownership of their investments, like they do in every other aspect of their lives.
>> from prostitution... to slave labor... human trafficking is a booming business. >> wherever you have greed and vulnerable victims, you've got a recipe for human trafficking. >> it's unconscionable what we see. it's really a silent epidemic. >> this appalling criminal enterprise knows no boundaries. >> the sky's the limit in terms of what people are trafficked for. >> i think what would surprise people the most is how easy it is for traffickers to commit this crime and how easy it is to get away with it.