tv Making Money With Charles Payne FOX Business September 23, 2017 6:00pm-7:00pm EDT
>> the united states has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself for its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy north korea. rocket man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime. paul: welcome to the journal editorial report, i'm paul gigot. that was president trump tuesday this his first crease to the -- first address to the united states nations general assembly where he took on north korea and other rogue regimes. that warning was followed up thursday with the announcement of an executive order imposing new sanctions on individual,
companies and banks doing business with pyongyang. and with word that china's central bank has ordered its financial institutions to stop dealing with north korea. john bolton is the former united states ambassador to the u.n. and a fox news contributor. ambassador, welcome back. >> glad to be with you. paul: so since those remarks by the president, kim jong un has now said maybe we will send a missile with a hydrogen bomb over the pacific. >> right. i think it shows he's trying to demonstrate he's not intimidated by everything that's going on. this would be the first atmospheric test in more than -- paul: 1980, yeah. >> the environmental consequences would be enormous. but the steps that have been taken, you mentioned the executive order, i think, is potentially quite senate although the words china and russia don't appear in it, those are the two targets to make it very specific who's aiding north korea. paul: let's go back to this hydrogen bomb incident because that would be a serious
escalation on the a part of the north. to do that, as you suggest in the open air, would we have to respond to that in some fundamental way, even militarily? >> honestly, i don't think we should have allowed these last several missiles to be fired over japanese territory. you can argue, well, we didn't think they were aimed there, missiles can fail, missiles can maneuver, and at some point we're going to have to con front -- paul: does that mean shooting one of them down or trying to? >> yes, i think that's at a minimum. the real question is whether there's a remaining non-military option, and that's where this announcement by the chinese central bank is potentially so significant. the problem for the past 25 years is that china's been two-timing us. they say, yes, we don't want north korea to have nuclear weapons, but they don't apply their economic leverage because they fear the regime would collapse. if china is shifting, that is potentially very significant. i don't think it's too soon to tell, but that announcement was obviously unprecedented. paul: yeah. if their banks, i mean, they're
the main customer, the main servicer financially of north korea. if they stop doing that, north korea's in a much worse situation. the other thing is i know you're a skeptic of sanctions, and i often am too, but i will say this: the one sanctions that have seemed to work in the past is financial sanctions because the u.s. financial system is still such a dominant player in the world. and if you can cut off chinese banks or russian banks and say you can't do business with the world financial system, the u.s. financial system is, that really hurts. >> well, the issue, i think, is how much china puts up with. you know, xi jinping has an important party congress coming up in october. i don't think we're going to see a lot of additional steps before then, he doesn't want to look like an american lackey before this important event. but also if you really went after chinese financial institutions, would they in turn go after ours. paul: would china go after ours? >> yeah, to say, look, we're not going to have our banks impeded
without trying to put comparable sanctions on american bank, and that's not a situation you want to get into. i think ultimately you need to talk to china's national interest here, and it may be -- and this is the key point -- have they come to the conclusion that north korea's such an ugly piece of baggage that they've got to do something about it. paul: well, i've been told by senior officials that, in fact, the relationship between china and north korea now is quite strained. there really isn't a lot of communication anymore. north korea isn't saying, is saying we're not your lackey. >> yeah. look, i think there's a generational split in china. i think the older party leaders who see the relationship as close as lips and teeth as they like to see with the north korean party -- [laughter] are being challenged by a younger generation that says it's 1950s strategy to say north korea is a buffer between us and the united states. god forbid there were military hostilities, we're not going to blame them by invading china through north korea. paul: right. >> do you really want this regime in north korea to have the knock-on effect of
encouraging japan or south korea to get nuclear weapons, driving them even closer to confrontation? >> paul: so the thing to watch now is how quickly and how firmly the chinese actually follow through on their promises. >> i think that's right. but then also kim jong un, through this threat and through his other steps, i think, is just making it harder and harder to accept that missiles are being put on launch pads in north korea aim god knows where with what god only knows under the nose cone. paul: what about this back and forth insults? the president calling him rocket man and kim jong un, of course, they specialize in that sort of thing. is that something that you think is helpful from an american point of view? >> honestly, rocket man's a pretty inoffensive -- [laughter] you know, use of sarcasm can help sometimes. the north korean reaction is the standard stalinist propaganda. i think you could expect that under any circumstances. but they are so close now to achieving their 25-year objective of getting deliverable
nuclear weapons that time is short. the number of metaphors, we kicked the can down to the end of the road and so on, i think that's right. one thing to keep in mind it's not just north korea's ballistic missile delivery capability that should be of concern to the united states. anything north korea has being a desperately poor country they will sell to anybody. they will sell their nuclear technology to iran if they're not already renting a mountain or two to iran in north korea -- paul: right. >> they would sell it to terrorist groups who had hard currency. so that's why president trump's statement in his tuesday speech that his objective is the denuclearization of the korean peninsula is really key. because he has rejected the argument susan rice, obama's national security adviser -- paul: that we can live with. >> precisely. that's a very big statement the president made. paul: and you think that the blunt talk of the president, let's say these were blunt words, is useful as a alert to the world community that i'm
different. >> yeah, i am not barack obama. paul: but more than that, i'm going to do something about this. get used to it, it's coming. >> look, if there's a chance for a peaceful resolution, it comes more likely when people are convinced that the only alternative is the use of force. paul: ambassador, thanks. >> glad to be with you. paul: much more ahead as we take a closer look at president trump's week at the u.n. , for tech advice. dell small business advisor with one phone call, i get products that suit my needs and i get back to business. ♪ and life's beautiful moments.ns get between you flonase outperforms the #1 non-drowsy allergy pill. it helps block 6 key inflammatory substances
that cause symptoms. pills block one and 6 is greater than 1. flonase changes everything. money managers are pretty much the same. all but while some push high commission investment products, fisher investments avoids them. some advisers have hidden and layered fees. fisher investments never does. and while some advisers are happy to earn commissions from you whether you do well or not, fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from
(con artists...) they'll try anything to get your medicare card number. so they can steal your identity, commit medicare fraud. what can you do? guard your card? guard your card? just like your credit card. nobody gets my number, unless i know they should have it. to protect your identity, new medicare cards without social security numbers will be mailed next year. visit medicare.gov/fraud stay sharp people! ♪ ♪ >> the socialist dictatorship of nicolas maduro has inflicted terrible pain and suffering on the good people of that country. this corrupt regiming destroyed a -- regime destroyed a process rouse nation by imposing a
failed ideology that has produced poverty and misery everywhere it has been tried. paul: more blunt talk from president trump at the united nations this week, this time taking aim at vens venezuela's nicolas maduro. trump's tone a stark departure from president obama's, so because it signal a new approach to american leadership in the world? let's ask "wall street journal" columnist and deputy editor dan henninger and columnist mary anastasia o'grady and bill mcgurn. mary, take the speech as a whole. what'd you think of it? >> i thought it was excellent. he, you know, he not only sort of laid out the u.s. case for its position at the u.n., but he also did reach out to other countries and say, you know, it's our job, any civilized country, it's our job together to confront regimes that cause chaos and turmoil in the world. and that was exactly the right
tone. in other words, not taking the obama approach that we should walk lockstep together because none of us are better than any other. you know, really admitting, look, we have a leadership position in the world, we're going to look out for our interests, but we need to basically, you know, unify to confront dangerous regimes. paul: a couple of people said, dan, maybe this was donald trump's neo-con coming-out party. is that a little over the top? >> well, let's think about what we mean by that. you know, the neo-cons were willing to take military action against adversaries -- paul: and democracy promotion. >> and democracy promotion, the two together. this speech was given at the united nations which is an institution dedicated to diplomacy to the hundredth power. they don't do military. and so after that talk, for instance, many of the critics of what mr. trump had said said they preferred the speech that came after by french president
emmanuel macron who gave a standard-brand u.n. speech, let's all work together, go towards the goal of climate change. trump said, frankly, much of the world is going to hell, and he identified those places like north korea which clearly are at the point where possibly some military action will be required. and i think it was important for the president of the united states to speak that bluntly to people who are his potential allies. paul: if not a neo-con, and i don't think he's going that far, i do think trump is getting, bill, more comfortable -- as mary suggested -- with american leadership in the world. >> yeah. this was an excellent speech. i wrote through united nations general assembly speeches -- paul: condolences, bill. [laughter] >> most hated speech of speech writers, because you usually call people back to isles. this was a bracing speech basically about upholding the liberal order, and people went nuts. i liked it even more when i saw dianne feinstein saying it was the stage for war, the vatican calling it deplorable and kim jong un, you know, reacting with
his own names. you know, one of the things they forgot, too, in all the hysteria over korea, one is bill clinton made the same threat in 1993 -- paul: the threat of military force. >> not only that, it'd be the end of their country as they know it if they went nuclear. that's the same as donald trump. also he qualified it, if forced to defend ourself and our allies. again, senator feinstein's saying he's threatening war. what is kim jong un doing, you know, with these missile launches and so forth? paul: is there though, mary, a relatively narrow framework of definition of national interests here? i heard a lot about national interests in that speech. what i didn't want hear a lot of is american values, and in a way both go hand in hand. can't you talk about both? i understand the national interests of, you know, security and so on. but ronald reagan had an idealism as well as realism when he talked about our values and
promoting those around the world. not forcing them on people, but speaking about them in a positive way. >> i think it was implied. you know, he was sort of dragging the rhetoric from his campaign and, obviously, you know, speaking a little bit to his base, but i think it was implied, for example, when he spoke about cuba, when he spoke about venezuela and how the venezuelan regime has a harmed its own people. he said that about the iranian regime as well. so i think he did talk about american values, but, you know, not so explicitly perhaps. >> well, i, i'll -- i think there was a confusion and contradiction at the center of some of this. we understand the idea of national self-interest and sovereignty as he said maybe 20 times, but i think the way he described it which is that nations need to act in their own self-interest and what is best for them could be taken by vladimir putin in russia or premier xi in china to say that's exactly what we are doing, like it or not --
paul: in the south china sea or ukraine -- >> the russians have 100,000 troops in belarus threatening poland and the baltics, and they could say only in our self-interest. >> yeah, i think that's true except i think at the end of the day -- i hate to say this as a former speech writer -- speeches don't matter as much as actions. what the trump doctrine will be, which way it goes, will be determined on how he reacts to these specific threats in north korea where he's declared a red line, iran and venezuela and some of these other places. paul: all right, thank you all. still ahead, an all-too-familiar drama is playing out on capitol hill as senate republicans scramble for the votes needed for a last ditch effort to repeal and replace obamacare. ♪ muck. >> we're going to take the bill up next week, and to my republican colleagues, if you've got a better idea, now's the time to come forward.
my friends think doing this at my age is scary. i say not if you protect yourself. what is scary? pneumococcal pneumonia. it's a serious disease. my doctor said the risk is greater now that i'm over 50! yeah...ya-ha... just one dose of the prevnar 13® vaccine can help protect you from pneumococcal pneumonia- an illness that can cause coughing, chest pain, difficulty breathing, and may even put you in the hospital. prevnar 13® is approved for adults 18 and older to help prevent infections from 13 strains of the bacteria that cause pneumococcal pneumonia. you should not receive prevnar 13® if you have had a severe allergic reaction to the vaccine or its ingredients. if you have a weakened immune system, you may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects were pain, redness, and swelling at the injection site, limited arm movement, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, joint pain, less appetite, vomiting, fever, chills, and rash.
get this one done! ask about prevnar 13® at your next visit to your doctor's office or pharmacy. ♪i'm living that yacht life, life, life top speed fifty knots life on the caribbean seas it's a champagne and models potpourri on my yacht made of cuban mahogany, gany, gany, gany♪ ♪watch this don't get mad (bell mnemonic) get e*trade and get invested
♪ ♪ >> the president and i believe that the graham-cassidy bill is the right idea. the president is absolutely determined to keep his promise to repeal and replace obamacare, and so we're urging every american to reach out to members of the senate and the house and urge them as the senate takes up this bill next week. paul: vice president mike pence on fox this week urging fellow republicans to get behind a last ditch effort by senators lindsey graham and bill cassidy to repeal and replace obamacare. republicans are under intense pressure to pass a bill before september 30th when special rules preventing a democratic filibuster will expire. "wall street journal" columnist kim strassel and assistant editorial page editor james freeman join us with more.
dan, what would this bill do? >> paul, i think it does, essentially, three things. it repeals the individual and employer mandates. it is going to repeal the 2.3% medical device tax, and most importantly, it replaces the money spent on tax credits and medicaid expansion with block grants back to the states which would allow the governors and the state legislators to design health care programs appropriate to the populations of their states. paul: now, those states would have to apply for waivers to the federal government -- >> right. paul: -- for permission to move the plans that they have, and the bill tries to deregulate as much as possible but not completely. i mean, there's still protections, and this is a kiss butte for -- dispute for pre-existing conditions. they'd have to have plans where people would have access to that kind of coverage. but a state like vermont or california could go single-payer -- >> they could, or a state like tennessee or florida could experiment with a more market-based system. paul: what do you think of this bill, james?
is this better than what we have? >> well, certainly what we have is failing. i think sometimes that gets lost in the debate over looking at the details of potential alternatives. but this great system of competition we were supposed to get under obamacare, next year there are more than 1500 counties in the united states that will have only one insurer, one option, no competition in obamacare exchanges. you see the premiums rising 20, 30, even more than 40% in some places. the left is saying, oh, that's because of uncertainty in washington. but you hook at mississippi -- you look at mississippi, even if they get all the funning they're hoping for, 18% premium increases. paul: is it better? >> it is better because it's the first step toward more freedom in health care markets. not a ton of freedom, you're still going to be rule by state government. you might like a more open market. you might not like that the federal government is still going to have the authority to improve -- to approve waivers,
and there are still going to be rules on what they will accept from the states, but it's the beginning of a little more flexibility in markets which should mean lore costs. paul: kim, i was a skeptic when lindsay graham came in to see us about six weeks ago or so is saying he had this effort. but what happened, i think, is a lot of the members all went home for august, the recess, and they heard, wow, very, very unhappy constituents saying you told us for seven years you'd do something about this. now you drop the ball. and i think that gave the new political impetus inside the republican conference. >> yeah. that focused minds. i think republicans also owe a debt of gratitude to bernie sanders who decided in the last week to unveil his own medicare for all proposal. [laughter] which also focused minds. they realized that if the status quo continues, that could be where we are headed and that they need to take this opportunity to change things. i think one other thing that helps with the bill, too, is it's around a unifying principle
that's something that brings republicans together which is states' rights. there's not many things out there that does unify the party that way. this is also, by the way, a bipartisan tradition, the idea of devolving more health care down to the states. it's something democrats used to like as well too. paul: yeah, but, kim, are you willing to live with the possibility that california and other states might decide to go single payer and that is, i mean, that basically the government would then run health care? >> that is the beauty of states' rights and the fact that we have open borders in this country, so if you don't like california, you can move to florida. [laughter] >> but isn't it interesting, paul, that graham-cassidy -- which was sort of dead as it was born six or so weeks ago -- the left, the democratic party has gone ballistic over the possibility that this would pass. i mean, they have pull out all the stops -- pulled out all the stops to repudiate the idea that the states could possibly do this. it will raise rates, the cbo is
going to condemn it. they are very, very upset about the idea this could pass. paul one of the other things, james, in the interim when it looked like repeal and replace was dead, lamar alexander and patty murray got together to try to negotiate a way to shore up the exchanges. the democrats gave no ground at all, and lamar alexander announced those negotiations are dead. i think republicans who thought there could be some great bipartisan compromise are realizing that's not on. >> no. and i think kim makes the right point there. where the party, the democratic party is going toward full government-run health care. basically, almost all of the party's major senate contenders, major contenders for the 2020 nomination that are in the senate are endorsed the bernie sanders approach saying obamacare is of too much freedom. [laughter] obamacare, i guess, doesn't cost enough, so they want the full government-run system. paul: all right. when we come back, amid report that is the fbi eavesdropped on former campaign chairman paul
manafort, are president trump's wiretap claims looking a little less outlandish? ♪ ♪ today, we're out here with some big news about type 2 diabetes. you have type 2 diabetes, right? yes. so let me ask you this... how does diabetes affect your heart? it doesn't, does it? actually, it does. type 2 diabetes can make you twice as likely to die from a cardiovascular event, like a heart attack or stroke. and with heart disease, your risk is even higher. you didn't know that. no. yeah. but, wait, there's good news for adults who have type 2 diabetes and heart disease. jardiance is the only type 2 diabetes pill with a lifesaving cardiovascular benefit. jardiance is proven to both significantly reduce
the chance of dying from a cardiovascular event in adults who have type 2 diabetes and heart disease and lower your a1c. jardiance can cause serious side effects including dehydration. this may cause you to feel dizzy, faint, or lightheaded, or weak upon standing. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. symptoms include nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, tiredness, and trouble breathing. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of ketoacidosis or an allergic reaction. symptoms of an allergic reaction include rash, swelling, and difficulty breathing or swallowing. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. other side effects are sudden kidney problems, genital yeast infections, increased bad cholesterol, and urinary tract infections, which may be serious. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you have any medical conditions. so now that you know all that, what do you think? that it's time to think about jardiance. ask your doctor about jardiance. and get to the heart of what matters. they always refer to me as master sergeant.
they really appreciate the military family, and it really shows. we've got auto insurance, homeowners insurance. had an accident with a vehicle, i actually called usaa before we called the police. usaa was there hands-on very quick very prompt. i feel like we're being handled as people that actually have a genuine need. we're the webber family and we are usaa members for life. usaa, get your insurance quote today.
i got some financial how'd that go?le ago. he kept spelling my name with an 'i' it's bryan with a 'y.' since birth. well, i happen to know some people. do they listen? what? they're amazing listeners. guidance from professionals who take their time to get to know you. ♪ ♪ paul: a bombshell report this week claims that u.s. investigators wiretapped former trump campaign chairman paul manafort before and after the 2016 election and that the government surveillance
continued into early year. cnn report monday that the fbi obtained a fisa court warrant to listen in on manafort's phone calls back in 2014 as part of an investigation into his work as a lobbyist for the ukrainian government. the eavesdropping reportedly lapsed for a time but restarted last year as the fbi looked into russia's interference in the presidential election. president obama's director of national intelligence, james clapper, appeared on "meet the press" in march and was asked point-blank whether any wiretapping had occurred. >> there was no such wiretap activity mounted against the president, the president-elect at the time or as a candidate or against his campaign. >> i was just going to say if the fbi, for instance, had a fisa court order of some sort for surveillance, would that be information you would know or not know? >> yes. >> if there was a fisa court order. >> yes, absolutely. >> and at this point you can't confirm or deny whether that exists? >> i can deny it.
paul we're back with dan, kim, and bill. kim, most of the media attention on this story has focused on the fact that manafort himself is in some legal jeopardy. we'll find out, you know, if that's true or not, but what about this idea that if that's true, if this story is true, it means that the fbi was almost certainly listening into manafort's conversations with donald trump -- a presidential candidate -- even as the fbi was also investigating hillary clinton. when has that happened in a presidential election? >> it is astounding, and i can't believe that there is not more outrage over this. i mean, could you imagine if president bush had been found to have been wiretapping campaign managers for the obama campaign as it was running for office? there would be widespread outrage. now, "the wall street journal" is reporting that, in fact, the second wiretap on manafort didn't come until after he was ousted from the trump campaign -- paul: >> but nonetheless, we know that
he continued his conversations with candidate trump and the rest of the campaign team all the way up to the election. so this was still a way to potentially hear a what the campaign was doing can. paul: bill, fisa warrants have a pretty high, quite high threshold of evidence. you have to basically have probable cause that whoever you're listening in on is potentially an agent of a foreign government. >> right. we don't know what the evidence was that was presented to the fisa court. one of the questions i have, did the dossier that's now been discreditedded -- paul: this is the christopher steele -- >> the fbi, and if you step back, it's not just the paul manafort wiretaps, this is two other parts. we know the news about susan rice and samantha power unmaasinging people in -- unmasking people. may not be against the law, but they're saying samantha power did almost one a day. i mean, it's abusive. and then if it's built on a dossier, it's just a scandal of
immense proportions x. the last thing was james clapper and all these people contributed to this idea that donald trump was crazy for even suggesting this. this was -- i think the intro was this makes it a little less outlandish, and now we find there's a lot more to worry about. paul: well, the christopher steele dossier, dan, really is bothersome because if that was the genesis of the fbi investigation into the trump campaign, we know that's been widely discredited. it was ginned up for political purposes. it was, they relied on russian sources that are probably, you know, just spinning disinformation. certainly you want to, you know, if you're in counterintelligence, you want to look at it, but you don't treat it as if it's gospel and the basis even for a fisa warrant. >> yeah, exactly. but consider our conversation. these are important questions that we're raising here about what the intelligence community and the fbi were dong. think though what -- were doing. think, though, what the media narrative is. it is focused on robert
mueller's special prosecution which presumably is about whether the trump campaign colluded with the russians. paul: right. >> that, to me, has become a completely secondary issue here. the more important thing is what was going on with the intelligence agencies back into january of 2016, and only the house and senate intelligence communities using their subpoena powers are going to be able to get to the bottom of that. paul: robert mueller was a former director of the fbi. he is friendly with james comey, former fbi director. he's not going to investigate what the fbi was doing or whether or not that was justified. >> seems unlikely. but i have to wonder, obviously, the fisa court's deliberations are secret, but that judge --whoever it was who signed off roughly a year ago and now presumably knows that they didn't get much out of it at least according to cnn's sources on that wiretap it was inconclusive. so i think maybe that judge is wondering was there really anything to in that the
executive branch brought to me and asked to surveil the political adversaries of the party in power. and that goes to questions about who authorized this in the executive branch, what did the president know about it, what did president obama know about it specifically. paul: kim, shouldn't james clapper, who we saw in that clip, deny that there was any fisa warrant, shouldn't he at least be asked to testify under oath to the house and senate intelligence committees. >> and what about james comey? i mean, what i'd like to know as an american citizen is what were the intelligence community and the fbi doing during this campaign? that's almost more worrisome to me now than some of the other things they're investigating, certainly whether paul manafort registered as a lobbyist. >> not only should they have to come and answer all those questions, but the senate judiciary had chuck grassley just sent a letter saying, hey, by the way, if you were wiretapping paul manafort even before he went to the trump campaign, did you warn the trump
campaign? did you not have a duty to inform that he was potentially entangled with russians? and if not, why not? >> the journal is saying that the surveillance of manafort may have been his e-mail and other electronic messages instead of the phone calls that cnn says, but either way i think it's the same questions. who wanted -- who sought these warrants and how far up in executive branch of the government did that go. paul: all right. still ahead, as the scale of the devastation caused by hurricane maria comes to light in puerto rico, a look at what's behind the recent spate of powerful storms to hit the caribbean and the u.s. so are climate change claims backed up by science? we'll ask a meteorologist next. ♪
what can you do? guard your card? guard your card? just like your credit card. nobody gets my number, unless i know they should have it. to protect your identity, new medicare cards without social security numbers will be mailed next year. visit medicare.gov/fraud stay sharp people! ltry align probiotic.n your digestive system? for a non-stop, sweet treat goodness, hold on to your tiara kind of day. get 24/7 digestive support, with align. the #1 doctor recommended probiotic brand. now in kids chewables. ♪ ♪ >> puerto rico was absolutely
obliterated. puerto rico got hit with winds, they say they've never seen winds like this anywhere. got hit as a fife, category five storm which just literally never happens. so puerto rico is in very, very, very tough shape. paul: president trump this week commenting on the devastation still coming to light in puerto rico following a direct hit wednesday by hurricane maria. it was the latest in a series of deadly storms to batter the caribbean and the united states and from hollywood to capitol hill many are pointing to climate change as the main culprit for these storms. but does science back those claims up? let's ask ryan maui, a research meteorologist and adjunct scholar at the cato institute. so welcome, good to have you with us. three devastating storms in a row here, a lot of people are saying this is highly unusual. is it historically as you've looked back?
>> it's a pleasure to be here, paul. no, it's not necessarily unusual. at the beginning of the spring, seasonal forecasters from noaa expected 2017 to, indeed, be a very active hurricane season. and last year in 2016 it was relatively active with many storms and hurricanes. however, the major hurricanes that we saw with harvey, irma and maria in previous years we didn't see those hitting the united states' coastlines. paul: okay. >> we had been lucky. paul: so we've had those kinds of severe storms, they just didn't end up hitting the united states or areas that we pay a lot of attention to. but let's -- you've looked at the history of hurricane activity. are we seeing more severe storms now or more in general that we should be worried about? >> well, our historical records are somewhat uncertain prior to the advent of satellites in the
1970s. so based on the records that we do have, we have to rely on incomplete records, but what we do have we tend to see hurricane activity remaining relatively stable. we have ups and downs based on cycles, and in the recent years it's actually been 12 years since hurricane wilma, the last major hurricane, hit the united states. and while we had hurricane sandy in between, it's been almost 12 years since we've had a major hurricane strike on the united states coastline. and after hurricane katrina and rita and wilma in 2005, these same questions were being asked. the question was is climate change going to cause an uptick in activity. and our best researchers in the field sat down, started working with computer models, and after several years of very contentious debate behind chosed doors, at meteorology meetings
and in general in the public as well, and what we saw was that hurricane activity was, indeed, expected to become more active over the next hundred years by a measurable amount. the main question is, is are we able to detect that today. and with our current records and the up certainty that we have -- uncertainty that we have, it's not quite clear yet that we have seen that uptick in activity, the more intense storms, the more frequent storms. instead this looks like a season that's unlucky in the respect that many major hurricanes have made landfall -- paul: right. >> -- but it's similar to seasons that we saw in the 1930s that honestly we don't want to repeat today. paul: right. but the theory is that if, as the world heats up, the oceans get warmer and, therefore, you have the ability to draw more moisture into storms and make them more severe. even if there aren't more storms, they'll be more severe. what do you think about that argument? >> that's certainly the theory
that holds, and it's well accepted in the community. that's something that i think we know quite well, that over the next century we will expect stronger storms and by an amount. the more extreme storms will add some additional miles per hour, and that makes a big difference between a category four and a category five over the next century. and as we saw with hurricane harvey, we generally will see stronger, more intense rainfall. the question is, is are we seeing that today -- paul: and you're saying we aren't, we haven't seen that yet. >> well, with our current tools and attribution science which requires peer-reviewed research and computer models, the same that we use morewet forecasting -- weather forecasting, we're going to be using them in climate mode as well in order to determine what the human impact is. now whether that human impact is very small or even detectable is still a question. and the important thing to note is that even if there is a
climate signal that's detectable today, the main change right now is the enormous infrastructure in and buildings along the u.s. coastlines. florida, texas, the gulf coast has continued to build whether there's going to be hurricanes or not. and it's important that we recognize that we will have hurricanes regardless of human impact on climate change and whether these storms will become stronger or less frequent, it's up in the air whether we will have actually more storms or fewer storms in the future. paul: all right. thank you, ryan maue, appreciate your being here. when we come back, republican leaders are just days away from releasing details of their long-awaited tax reform plan. so what should americans expect from next week's announcement? ♪ ♪ i count on my dell small business advisor for tech advice. with one phone call, i get products that suit my needs and i get back to business. ♪
money managers are pretty much the same. all but while some push high commission investment products, fisher investments avoids them. some advisers have hidden and layered fees. fisher investments never does. and while some advisers are happy to earn commissions from you whether you do well or not, fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. the toothpaste that helps prevent bleeding gums. if you spit blood when you brush or floss you may have gum problems and could be on the journey to much worse. help stop the journey of gum disease. try parodontax toothpaste. ♪
♪ ♪ paul: some long-awaited details of the republican tax overhaul expected to be released next week, and for gop leaders it could be a make or break moment as the party scrambles to notch at least one major victory before the end of the year. we're back with dan, kim, mary anastasia and james. james freeman has been lobbying hard for a tax cut. >> yes. paul: and this week the house -- the senate budget committee members seemed, they agreed on a deal to to create space for $1.5 trillion in a net tax cut over ten years. are you happy? >> i'd love it to be bigger, but this is a great step forward. it's a lot bigger than what the house did, so -- paul: house was deficit neutral. >> right, right. basically 200 billion in cuts. this really, really is a big step forward. we can thank senator pat toomey
of pennsylvania, and i think the key here is you look at what's happening in the economy, we're eight months into the trump administration, and job creation is basically the same slow, dreary path it was on during the obama years. so the economy needs help here, needs a growth driver, and this could be it. paul: mary? >> yeah. i mean f they don't grab this -- if they don't grab this, they're crazy. they really did not come to washington to do anything. this is a huge opportunity because there's been so much focus about doing this tax reform in a revenue-neutral manner which, of course, is not enough to get any good tax reform. so they're being handed this opportunity of $1.5 trillion. they have to grab it. paul: yeah. i want to give bob corcoran from tennessee, a self-described fiscal hawk, credit for agreeing with toomey on this. but even $1.5 trillion, you know, people will scream and say, oh, this is going to add to the deficit. cbo, the congressional budget office, says that growth over the next decade's going to be
1.9%. if you got that up to 3, you'd create at least $2.5 trillion more dollars, maybe even $3 trillion in additional government revenue. so if the tax reform increases growth, you're going to get more revenue. >> yeah. which means they should try to push the tax reform as far as they can to that goal x. the question is -- and the question is can you get the big six from the white house, the senate, senate leadership, house leadership together on those numbers. and consider what a week we are heading into for the republican party. there is not only the potential announcement of this tax bill, but graham-cassidy running alongside all towards that september 30th budget deadline which you want to plow all of this stuff into. it's either going to be a big week for the republicans or maybe one of the worst they've had in a long time. paul: it could go either way, for sure. these are republicans, after all. but, kim, there's also in addition to that $1.5 trillion you're going to have other potential space created to
reduce tax rates. if the republicans follow through on cutting some of these loopholes and tax favors in the tax code, let's say, for example, the state and local tax deduction, that could be worth $1.25 trillion if they follow through and get rid of that. now, for those of us who live in new york, not so much fun. [laughter] but the truth is good for the country and better for the tax code and the economy if they can do that. and then you can take rates even lower. >> well, yeah. the keyword there, paul, is if. and i think with what we've seen in the house so far has been a real cautiousness about this. not just about touching some of these deductions, but also worried about the process, which way they score the bill, and is it definite neutral. we don't want to -- deficit neutral. we don't want to upset the fiscal hawks. and it's cramped their thinking in terms of how do you do a big bill, so that's one of the benefits of the senate coming out.
usually the place house members claim the place legislation goes to die. instead they're prodding the house republicans who have been far less unified on this question. >> and this is where, i think, presidential leadership can be so important because he has the bully pulpit, and he should get out there and talk not about revenue neutrality and balancing budgets, but about growth, about how important growth is, as you say, how important it is to reach that 3% number and how this is the way to do it. this is the path that they have to take to get it done. >> and i think what's encouraging on this score is everybody in washington has been telling the president you can't cut the corporate rate that low -- paul: it's now at 5, you can't go -- 35, you can't get it to 15 which is what he wants. >> right. maybe he's not going to get all the way there, but i think that's encouraging that he's not basically agreeing with the kind of beltway consensus that we've got to keep a really high corporate tax rate.
paul: and the importance, dan, is that it means he may be able to get it down to 20 at least, because i think if you don't get it down to 20 or very close to it, you're not going to get the big impact on growth, and especially you're not going to get the incentive change for corporations to invest here as opposed to ireland or u.k. or places where the corporate rate's lower. >> yeah, i agree. and i think what our viewers should understand is keep focused on that number. if it gets to 20 or even below it, we're on our way to good tax reform. if it starts to ease up above that, then we're not. paul: all right, thank you. we have to take one more break. when we come back, hits and misses of the week. ♪ ♪
when it comes to reducing the evsugar in your family's dietom. coke, dr. pepper, and pepsi hear you and we're working together to do just that. bringing you more great tasting beverages with less sugar or no sugar at all. smaller portion sizes, clear calorie labels, and reminders to think balance. because we know mom wants what's best. more beverage choices, smaller portions, less sugar. balanceus.org if you'd have told me three years ago... that we'd be downloading in seconds, what used to take... minutes. that guests would compliment our wifi. that we could video conference... and do it like that. (snaps) if you'd have told me that i could afford... a gig-speed. a gig-speed network. it's like 20 times faster than what most people have. i'd of said... i'd of said you're dreaming. dreaming!
definitely dreaming. then again, dreaming is how i got this far. now more businesses in more places can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network. now more businesses in more places can afford to dream gig. and life's beautiful moments.ns get between you switch to flonase allergy relief. flonase outperforms the #1 non-drowsy allergy pill. when we breathe in allergens, our bodies react by overproducing 6 key inflammatory substances that cause our symptoms. flonase helps block 6. most allergy pills only block one and 6 is greater than 1. with more complete relief you can enjoy every beautiful moment to the fullest. flonase. 6 is greater than 1 changes everything. time now for hits and misses of the week. paul, this is a miss to all of those kids out there that may have made it to college but still have a 3-year-old
understanding of the constitution. they recently did a survey of 1500 undergraduate. most of them have no idea that hate speech was actually protected. one and five that was appropriate to use violence to stop someone speaking with two they disagree. i think along with all of those mandatory writing courses they have. >> for inducting ronald reagan into the hall of honor. i speak as a former dues paying member. i know i am joined by my brother. the accomplishments was real. lead them through three strikes. he fought the communists there
just as he thought the communist by backing the free trade union of solidarity. to mexico for handling the earthquake. the government was much more prepared than it was a 1985 and the response was also better. the civil society has jumped into action. they are providing free hotel stays and water and so forth and just volunteers going in and digging people out. that has come to the left serial outrage. with the outrage of desecrating the samish -- spanish mission. they did more to elevate the lives of native americans i
don't think the rest of us should. is it for this weeks show. thank you to all of you for watching. we hope to see you right here next week. >> lou: good evening, everybody. it is a big week for president trump who is in new york city meeting with the world leaders for the 72nd united nation's general assembly. the summit trying to address challenges. chief among them is north korea and iran. this is the president's debut in the united nations. and an organization as he said was weak and hardly a friend to democracy. he was not won