Skip to main content

tv   FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace  FOX News  November 16, 2014 11:00am-12:01pm PST

11:00 am
crack a coconut. although i'm not sure why you would want to do that. that's all for me here in washington. "fox news sunday" is next. there's a lot of politics with dems backing down on the keystone pipeline. i'm chris wallace. congress gets back to work with battles brewing over immigration, obamacare and climate change. >> i would welcome the president moving to the middle. first indications have not been very helpful. >> there's absolutely no reason why we can't work together. >> we'll discuss the president's climate deal with china and the highly political vote over the keystone pipeline with senators on both sides of the debate. john thune and sheldon whitehouse. then president obama promises to take executive action to block deportation of millions of illegal immigrants. how far will the gop go to stop him? >> they have the ability to fix
11:01 am
the system. what they don't have the ability to do is to expect me to stand by with a broken system. >> we're going to fight the president tooth and nail if he continues down this path. >> we'll talk with two of the gop's new senators who will be on the front lines. tom cotton of arkansas and james lankford of oklahoma. plus, a political firestorm over comments by one of obamacare's architects. >> call it the stupidity of the american voter or whatever, but that was really, really critical to get the thing to pass. >> our sunday group assesses the fallout. our power player of the week. bill marriott, creating hotels for the millennial generation. >> this is what the customers want. you succeed in business by giving them what they want. hello from fox news in washington. first, some breaking news. isis terrorist claim to have
11:02 am
beheaded yet another american in a graphic new video. fox news chief intelligence correspondent has the latest. >> a 16-minute video is being viewed to determine its authenticity but isis does not have a track record of making false claims about the execution of hostages. if confirmed, this will be the fifth western hostage beheaded by the islamic state in less than three months and the third american. he was kidnapped in october 2013. a former army ranger, he traveled to the mideast to work as a medical assistant on the border. after a video showed last month, his family made pleas for his release. the new video is a dramatic video from previous propaganda videotapes and the mass beheading of more than a dozen members of the syrian military.
11:03 am
there are at least two sections which is the britain executioner who threatened similar attacks against u.s. interests. on the president's strategy in iraq and syria, last night his former defense secretary accused the administration of meddling in a way that has not been seen since vietnam. >> i think when a president wants highly centralized control in the white house, at the degree of micromanagement that i'm describing, that's not bureaucratic, that's political. >> analysts say the tape may provide new clues about the group's location, especially its leadership with unconfirmed reports that british executioner was injured in last week's air strikes. >> we should point out we are not using that picture in the orange jumpsuit at the quf his family. thank you. >> you're welcome sdmru there was action but no resolution this week on climate change. the senate is set to vote
11:04 am
tuesday on a bill passed by the house directing the family to finally move forward on the keystone pipeline. and president obama reached a deal with china to cut greenhouse gas pollution in both countries. joining us to discuss all this, john thune, and from rhode island, democrat sheldon whitehouse. senator whitehouse, you are one of the leading environmentalists in the senate. in fact, you make speeches almost every week on the senate floor. have you been assured by the white house that if the senate goes ahead and passes the keystone approval, that the president will veto it? >> our information is that they're leaning that way, but i don't have a hard assurance. >> and how confident are you that he will veto it? >> i hope and expect that he will. i think it's important to send that signal right off the bat. i think the new republican
11:05 am
majority has long depspised and denigrated this president. if they can roll him, they would like to. it's important he set the stage early on this, particularly where the stakes are so high for climate, for the environment, for the damage the pipeline will do. >> senator thune, the democratic leader in the senate, harry reid, has blocked any vote on the keystone pipeline for years. is it your belief that he's finally agreeing to this vote to help mary landrieu, who's in a runoff with the senate race in the first early week of december with a show vote on this with the full expectation it's going to get vetoed by the president anyway? in fact, this is all political? >> sure, it is, chris. this is john holden's bill -- >> we should point out. he's a senator from south dakota. >> senator from north dakota. my colleague from north of the border.
11:06 am
but the point is, this is a cynical attempt to save a louisiana seat in louisiana. in sate was serious about, we would have voted on it five years. there have been five impact reviews. the president's own state department says it would support over 40,000 jobs. in my state of south dakota, 3,000 to 4,000 jobs, $100 million in earnings, $20 million in property tax revenue. this is a -- an issue, a no-brainer in the eyes of the american public which finally, finally, has come to the floor of the united states senate. not because they're worried about american jobs, but because they're worried about the job of a senator from louisiana. >> let me -- let's drill down, if you will into the merits of the keystone pipeline. president obama was pretty defiant about the pipeline and his approval for it this week in asia. let's take a look. >> i have to constantly push
11:07 am
back against this idea that somehow the keystone pipeline is either this massive jobs bill for the united states or is somehow lowering gas prices. i understand what this project is. it is providing the ability of canada to pump their oil, send it through our land down to the gulf where it will be sold everywhere else. it doesn't have an impact on u.s. gas prices. >> but let's take a look at the facts. the state department says the project would create 12,000 direct and related jobs near the pipeline. perhaps tens and thousands of more further away from the pipeline. it's not just canadian crude, as the president said. it would also carry 100,000 barrels a day from montana and north dakota. and, senator whitehouse, oil markets are global. if you put more supply into any part of the system, it's going to lower prices, at least
11:08 am
marginally everywhere. >> well, the difference here is that the tar sands is probably the filthiest fuel on the planet. and when you add that into the equation, you dramatically increase the effect of carbon pollution and of greenhouse gases. now, our friends on the other side won't agree that any of this is real. they will never treat climate change seriously. and so they just look at the one side of the ledger, which is a bunch of jobs. i think it's 4,000 direct joblz, which is good. i mean, i'm not going to -- not going to try to deputiry indicate that, but we're growing at 200,000 jobs a month in this economy. the last environmental public works bills for the highways it would have been 1.8 million jobs. this is no jobs game-changer. harry reid twice offered votes
11:09 am
on keystone on the shaheen bill. and the republicans refused to allow those votes because they didn't want the shaheen bill to pass before the election that would have been good to pass a major piece of bipartisan legislation like that. republican hs a chance to vote on keystone and turned it down. >> let me bring in senator thune. and let's talk about this issue of the pollution because the argument against the pipeline is that the kind of canadian crude we're talking about here, oil from tar sands creates 17% more greenhouse gases than typical oil, and at full capacity the pipeline would create as much carbon pollution as 5 million new cars on the road. what's your answer to that, sir? >> well, in 2011, chris, what the state department said is the oil coming out of canada would replace the same type of oil coming in from venezuela. remember, this is the -- canada's going to produce this oil.
11:10 am
it's just a question of whether we're going to benefit from it or the chinese are going to benefit from it. you add to the fact that the sweet crude oil coming out of the bakken in north dakota, 100,000 barrels go into the pipeline which takes it off a stressed railroad, which makes it difficult for people to get their agricultural products to the marke canadians are going t produce the oil. the only question is if americans will get the benefit and whether we'll replace the same type of oil coming in from venezuela which is what the state department said this project would do. >> let's talk about the other big development -- >> we dispute that. >> we need to move along. i know we could continue this -- >> put me on record as refuting the facts there. i don't think senator thune was yekt. >> you are duly noted. >> thank you. >> president obama announced a
11:11 am
climate deal with china this week. let's take a look at that. the u.s. would emit 26% to 28% less carbon in 2025 than it did in 2005. china agrees to cap its carbon emissions by 2030, when it says 20% of its energy will come from clean sources. here's how senate republican leader mitch mcconnell reacted to this deal. >> as i read the agreement, it requires the chinese to do nothing at all for 16 years. while these carbon emission regulations are creating havoc in my state and other states around the country. >> senator whitehouse, aren't we in the terms of this deal committed to doing, as mcconnell said, a lot more than the chinese? >> in order to reach that 2030 target, the chinese are going to have to build a clean energy portfolio that -- as big as the entire u.s. energy fleet.
11:12 am
so, between now and 2030 they'll build an immense amount of clean energy. that's actually going to be good for american suppliers into those projects. a lot of this is the american design. so, nobody's going to build that much capacity on new year's eve of 2030. the minority leader, soon to be majority leader, is just wrong about that. and in terms of the havoc that the so-called regulations of all of this are -- claim to create by the minority leader, you know, in rhode island, we're seeing the havoc from the carbon pollution. we're seeing the havoc along our coastlines. houses falling into the sea. we're seeing the havoc with fishermen going out to sea and finding fish that their parents, grandparents never saw before. as one said to me, it's getting weird out there, sheldon. >> senator thune, briefly, because i want to move on to immigration. if you can in 30 seconds or so, when 97% of scientific papers
11:13 am
say that human activity does add to climate change, without getting into all the details, don't we have to do something? >> well, look, climate change is occurring. it's always occurring, chris. there are a number of factors that contribute to that, including human activity. the question s what are we going to do about it and at what cost? what the president agreed to is a bad deal pipts all pain and no gain for the american people. it's one-sided, nonbinding. there's a hope down the road the chinese might, might, actually reduce, at the same time the united states reduces its reductions -- or makes reductions twice what we're planning right now. and what that means is, 90% increase in utility rates for people -- low income people in places like south dakota and, i guess what i would say to that is, if you trust the chinese on something like this, i've got some ocean-front important here in sioux falls, south dakota, for you, because this is one-sided and a nonbinding deal we've agreed to and i don't
11:14 am
expect we'll ever see china agree to it in the end. >> we have a couple minutes left and i want to get into the immigration issue. the president has made it clear he plans to take executive action to defer deportations for millions of people who are in this country illegally. senator thune, are republican leaders now seriously considering somehow linking opposition to executive action with government funding, either by setting up a situation that will result in a government shutdown when funding runs out on december 11th or just passing the short-term bills month by month, keeping this fight going and holding government funding hostage? >> i think republicans, chris, are looking at different options about how best to respond to the president's unilateral action, which many people believe is unconstitutional, unlawful action on this particular issue. but my concern -- shutting the government down doesn't solve the problem. my concern is what happens if we end up shutting down what could be a record legislative
11:15 am
accomplishment that's there for the taking if the president would choose cooperation instead of conflict. this president is choosing friction, partisanship and conflict -- i should say, partisanship instead of cooperation. there's a chance for us to get something done here and instead the president is choosing to go down this unilateral path. >> briefly, you're saying you don't think that republicans should take the bait, if you will, and do anything to shut down the government? >> well, it doesn't solve the problem, chris. look, we're having those discussions. we were only in for a couple days this last week. we're going to continue to meet about this. i know the house leaders are talking about it. the senator leaders are talking about it. the fact of the matter is the president would be well served not to go down this path because he's putting at risk and in peril a real opportunity to do something for the country. >> senator whitehouse, should the p president take this executive action soon? some people are saying as early as this week. or should he wait until after
11:16 am
congress passes government funding when it runs -- before it runs out on december 11th? we've got a broken immigration system, which is why republicans and democrats came together in the senate. to pass in a very strong way a bipartisan immigration bill that has been sitting over in the house. and speaker boehner won't bring up because he -- >> if i can just get you to answer the question. should he wait or not? >> it's right there to be done. i think he should force the hand of the speaker and have him take up our bipartisan bill. the real story here is the speaker who won't pass bipartisan immigration reform. >> and force -- >> we have a broken system. they have to do something. >> and force the hand by taking executive action right away? >> or -- i think that could be negotiable. the threat of real and unilateral executive action is all that will drive the speaker's hand otherwise just left with a broken immigration system and a lot of political talk. let's pass the senate bipartisan bill. >> gentlemen, thank you so much.
11:17 am
senator whitehouse, senator thune, thank you for joining us. what do you think? will the senate approve the keystone pipeline and will the president sign it? let me know on facebook or twitter @foxnewssunday and please use #fns. president obama promises executive action on immigration. now republicans debate how to block it. we're joined by two rising stars from the senate class of 2015.
11:18 am
so i'm the one living and i've listened to the tips, the trends and have-you-tried-this. now, i'm ready for someone to listen to me. welcome to fit2me.com, your free custom-fit, diabetes support program that actually listens to you. start building your fit2me program today using key areas of diabetes management.
11:19 am
let's start with food. mexican? asian? italian! want recipes that reduce calories? or carbs? which activity feels more like you? cardio? or couch curls? choose a digital coach. tough love? or a gentle nudge? you can even get a tool kit with treatment options to discuss with your doctor. fit2me also inspires you through games and team challenges. so what kind of plan will i stick with? my plan! get your plan. go to fit2me.com and enter the on-screen code word to get started.
11:20 am
president obama doubled down this week on his pledge to take executive action to block the deportation of millions of
11:21 am
illegal immigrants. some republican leaders in congress say they may shut down the government to stop him. we want to continue to introduce you to members of the gop's new class of freshman senators who will be part of this fight. joining us from oklahoma, senator-elect james lankford and here in washington senator-elect tom cotton. gentlemen, congratulations and welcome to "fox news sunday." >> thank you. >> president obama called both of you on election night, two of the relatively few new republican senators he reached out to. senator cotton, when you see what the president intends to do with executive action on immigration, steps that he apparently is taking in a climate deal with china and we think a veto of the keystone pipeline, do you get a sense he can do business with him? >> i hope so, chris. when president obama called me on election night he said, obviously, we'll have our disagreements but we're going to try to make progress for the people of americans. i don't to want prejudge what he may or may not do on
11:22 am
immigration. some voices in his own party last week were urging him not to go guard with it. i'm hopeful the president will work with congress to make any changes to our immigration laws. >> senator-elect lankford, same question, do you sense with what you've seen since the election any give in this president? >> i don't see any give from the president. he did reach out as well on the phone and said, let's try to find ways to work together. i said, we had ways to work together a year ago on basic thing, a lot of things including immigration. the house passed in december of 2012 a high-skilled worker visa program he immediately threatened veto. senate never took up. he said f we don't do anything, we'll do nothing. >> the first face-off between the president and republicans is going to be on immigration. mr. obama took a hard line on executive action in week in asia. >> i indicated to speaker
11:23 am
boehner several months ago that if, in fact, congress failed to act i would use all the lawful authority that i possess to try to make the system work better. and that's going to happen. that's going to happen before the end. year. >> snof-elect cotton, i think it's fair to say you come from the tea party wing of the gop. do you think republicans should be prepared to either shut down the government by making some links to the funding which runs out on december 11th or to pass the short-term spending bills to keep this fight up with the president? >> well, i don't think anyone wants to shut down the government because that doesn't solve the problem. it's not just republicans who have spoken on this. the american people have spoken. immigration was a central issue in my campaign. won by 17 points. kay hagan, mark begich, mark udall all supported president obama's amnesty bill, they lost. bruce braley, michelle nun, they supported that bill and they lost. oregon, not conservative like
11:24 am
arkansas, voted 2-1 against driver's license for illegal immigrants. the american people have spoken loudly about the kind of immigration reform they want. it's not what the president is proposing. >> but you've got to know, which this has happened before. it happened on obama care in 2013. it happened with newt gingrich in the '90s, even if the president ends up vetoing what leng links to funding, it ends up biting. >> congress uses our power to control how taxpayer dollars are spent to put limitations on what a president can do. the last six years with guantanamo bay the president has wanted to close our detention center there and move -- >> are you saying you'd be prepared, like obamacare, to shut down the government? >> with guantanamo bay, we have fully funded our military spending bills the last six years and put restrictions on what the president can do in terms of transferring terrorists from guantanamo bay to the united states. there's no reason we can't fund
11:25 am
our immigration agencies and not let president to give taxpayer money for i.d.s and -- >> you would to want put that limit -- >> i hopeful we don't have to take that action because i'm hopeful the president will listen to the american people. he's been talking about this for months so i don't want to prejudge what oe may or may not do. >> after the midterms, the republican leaders, mitch mcconnell in the senate, john boehner in the house, made it pretty clear that they did not want to touch this stoke-chop again after what happened in 2013 with obamacare and the fact that the government got shut down. and rightly or wrongly, republicans got blamed. what's changed? >> well, i think the significant part about this is, we still hope to be able to reach out and work with the president on it. we're not pursuing some government shutdown. i think what people misunderstood at the time is how many people really detested what was happening in their personal lives and business with obamacare.
11:26 am
we're trying to find every way possible to be able to communicate, this is a real problem pipts not a website problem. it's a real problem that affects every single american, every single business. this is also an issue like this, but people are not pursuing some government shutdown, though. let me take you to clinton administration. president clinton put out an executive order and the house voted against that to defund that executive order 417-2. that was in 1998. because it took over power from the legislative branch in the states. i'd love to see that kind of bipartisanship again for congress to step up and say to a president, you do not have executive authority to do this. have you to do your responsibility. we have to do ours. >> but i guess what i'm trying to get at, and, you know, i fully understand there are a lot of members who say, look, you've got to use the power of the purse. that's your one advantage, your one piece of leverage over the president to try to change policy but are you willing to go to possibly shutting down the government to do that?
11:27 am
my point, i guess, is, regardless of who's responsible on the merits, it seems like congress gets blamed and the president ends up winning. that's certainly what happened in october of 2013. >> sure. but your assumption is that's the only option sitting out here to shut down the government. i don't believe that's true. it there are ways to fund everything and i don't think the president has the high ground. he has this perception that everyone in the country thinks like him and that's not correct. i represent millions of people, tom cotton represents millions of people. millions of people scattered around the united states that think like us. and though the president thinks only these few crazy conservatives in congress think this way and no one else does, he has misjudged the american people. the american people believe in the rule of law. they don't have a problem with immigration. they have a problem with illegal immigration. for the for the step up and say, i'm going to remove the word illegal and transition this and ignore the law, a lot of people have a problem with that. republicans and democrats alike. >> let me change to another subject you guys will have to deal with and that's
11:28 am
obamacare and the comments by m.i.t. professor jonathan grish, who was one of the architects of obamacare. let's take a look at one of the things he said. >> lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. and basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the american voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get the thing to pass. >> senator-elect lankford, what do you think professor gruber's comments show and what is it that you think, given the fact that the president will certainly veto any outright repeal of obamacare, what do you think the new republican maj senate, can actually accomplish in obamacare over the next two years? >> i think gruber's comments show what is consistent in washington, d.c. this arrogance of centralized government. this administration really believes they're smarter than everyone else and they need to just create the policy and impose the policy. and states exist only to carry out their wishes from the
11:29 am
central government. that's exactly backwards. the best thing is to return health care decisions back to states, back to local authorities. health care compacts, all the things that return those authorities back to the states. we have $50 billion, $50 billion, last year in medicare fraud. $50 billion. that doesn't get corrected by continually centralized control. we have to take care of the independent payment advisory broerd, we have to get rid of that. medical device tax, we have to get rid of that. get rid of mandates on individual people. people are frustrated with that and they're going to watch their taxes go up more next year than last year. it's time to stop messages on this bill. people needs solution because it affects their life. >> senator-elect cotton, realistically, what do you think you can get done with obamacare while president obama is still in office? >> well, our kansans are conservative people but practical people, as well. they know it's hard to repeal
11:30 am
obamacare when the president is barack obama. the house has stopped those harms, like preventing people to pay a tax or businesses to have to pay a tax if they can't provide an obamacare plan. or letting people keep their plans as promised. those passed the house with bipartisan support. the president has taken some of those steps as an administrative pressure i think we can pass that again and the president would be hard-pressed to explain why he wants to veto it if it has broad bipartisan support. >> senators-elect -- i'm tired of saying that so would you get to being senators. we'll follow both of on you your senate adventures. up next, is president obama trying to provoke republicans to overreact with his promise of executive action on immigration? our sunday group joins the conversation. plus, what would you like to ask the panel? just go to facebook or twitter @foxnewssunday and we
11:31 am
may use your question on the air. it says here that a won's sex drive increases at the age of 80. helps reduce the risk of heart disse.
11:32 am
keep hrt-healthy. live long. eat the 100% goodness of post shreddedheat. doctorrecommend it.
11:33 am
11:34 am
there are enough laws on the books by congress which make it clear how we have to enforce our immigration system. for me, simply through executive order, ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president. >> that seemed pretty clear. president obama back in 2011 and a number of times since saying he lacks authority to take executive action to defer deportations for millions of people in this country illegally. a step he now plans to take, perhaps, as early as this week. and it's time now for our sunday group. brit hume, jackie kucinich of "the washington post," syndicated columnist george will and fox news political analyst
11:35 am
juan williams. well, we asked you for questions for the panel. we got this on twitter from jim dixon who writes, send him, the president, a budget that defunds immigration and aca, the affordable care act. make him shut down the government with his veto. brit, how do you answer jim? if republicans somehow tie funding of the government to opposition to the executive action, is it a smart political move or another mistake? >> it's a total blunder to try that. because if the president were to veto the bill, a bill that would keep the government going, and there was a shutdown, it wouldn't matter. it never has what the proximate cause of the shut down. if the government shuts down, the republicans get the game. not some of the blame. not most of the blame. all of the blame. and one would surmise that they
11:36 am
may have learned that by now. their leaders seem to have, but some within the house and senate still think that kind of brinkmanship might work. i doubt it. >> jackie, are democrats fully on board with this idea of executive action despite all of the threats, all the promises that it's going to poison the well? do they just think it's going to solidify even more of the hispanic voter support for the democratic party? and to get back to the other point, it may provoke republicans to overreact? >> don't think a lot of democrats held hope that because republicans took over the senate that all of a sudden there's going to be a lot getting done in congress. i don't think that was out there. from what i've heard, democrats are solidly behind the president when it comes to this. they've been pushing the president to exert his authority. a lot of them have. particularly the hispanic members because they to want see something get done on this issue. >> do they see no downside to creating this kind of confrontation on this issue? >> i don't know this
11:37 am
confrontation wouldn't have happened anyway. remember when boehner tried to release just the principles that house republicans had for immigration reform, i think in january of last year, by february, he had already pulled back. so, there wasn't a lot of hope out there anyway. >> presidents have taken a lot of executive actions, all the way back to president lincoln with the emancipation proclamation, harry truman desegregating the militaries in the '40s. which barack obama is right, the one in 2011 who we saw who said, this is not -- let me get the quote right -- would not conform with my appropriate role as president or the new barack obama that we've heard of in the last few months who says, i can do it and i'm going to do it? >> the barack obama in 2011 and even more of the barack obama of 2008 who was stringent and correct in his criticism of the bush/cheney exexpensive views of
11:38 am
executive power. the policies that reportedly the president is planning to implement are those about which intelligent people can agree or disagree. he's going to shield from deportation millions of people who actually face no realistic prospect of deportation. he's going to give work permits to millions of people who are already working. it's not trivial, but put this in context enforce agencies to concentrate on, a, criminals, and, b, people who arrived recently. fine. the policies are defensible. the policies are exkrushable. beyond the legalities, beyond the constitutional questions. there's a simple et quit of democracy. particularly after we have had, as tom cotton said, an election in which this issue featured in many states and the results were clear, the country opposes what the president is doing. >> what about the argument the president would make that -- you
11:39 am
talk about the et quit of democracy. it passed the senate in 2013. it's been sitting in the house for a year and they've done nothing about it. >> that's too bad. we have a bicameral legislation. in fact, 300-some bills passed the house and sat in the senate. >> i want to get back to this question, though, about how much executive action is too much. how much executive action does the president actually have. this weekend "the wall street journal" had a very interesting article which asked the question, how many is too many? their argument is when the executive -- when the president decides to take executive action, it affects smart groups of people, that's clearly within his right, but in this case where he would take executive action that would affect 5, 6 million people that goes too far. juan? >> i don't think -- the question is, how much is too many by that
11:40 am
calculus. and i don't think that's the issue here. i think the issue here is he does not have the right to rewrite the law. i mean, the law and the congress have the right to set the terms for granting citizenship, number of visas, terms for green cards, for example. that's what the congress has the right to do is what they should be doing. in the clip you played, i think he's saying, he would prefer to have the congress act. >> of course he would. >> that's not the question. >> but can he do it on his own? >> of course he can do it on his own. this is something presidents have done in time in memorial -- >> i didn't say. >> no, you said emancipation pr proclamation. he has moral imperative because we're dealing with tearing families apart. it's as if we're just talking about politics in law. there are real human being out there -- >> they're going to be departed anyway. >> they're huge numbers. record numbers of deportations
11:41 am
in this country. >> the reason these numbers on deportation look so large is the administration counts as a deportation people who come and returned at the border, who never get into the interior -- >> there are -- >> what i would add is the authority you're talking about is prosecutorial discretion which stems from the fact that the government doesn't have the resources to prosecute every law-breaker. therefore, prosecutors have discretion as to which cases to prosecute. what we're talking about here is a mass refusal to deport people who probably wouldn't be deported anyway. >> no, there's a different way to look at it. administrative relief. the president's job -- hang on. the president's job to manage immigration law as passed by the congress. you can't deport all these people. so, what the president is doing is prioritizing, as george said, who is to be the focus of deportation efforts. criminals are the people, not
11:42 am
families. >> as a practical matter, republicans would be wise to keep an eye on how much actual difference it would make if he were to do this. as a legal matter, it seems evidence that prosecutorial discretion is exercised where you simply -- you simply don't have the ability to prosecute everybody. in this case, this is such a wholesale refusal to follow the law that i think it would probably exceed constitutional bounds, if you could get a judge to hear it, which is where the problem is. >> we have to take a break here. when we come back, the next round of open enrollment starts for obamacare, yesterday, as comments from one of the architects of the plan ignite even more controversy. jooishgsz hey matt, what's up?
11:43 am
11:44 am
11:45 am
i'm just looking over the company bills. is that what we pay for internet? yup. dsl is about 90 bucks a month. that's funny, for that price with comcast business, i think you get like 50 megabits. wow that's fast. personally, i prefer a slow internet. there is something about the sweet meditative glow of a loading website. don't listen to the naysayer. switch to comcast business today and get 50 megabits per second for $89.95. comcast business. built for business.
11:46 am
. basically, call it the stupidity of the american voter or whatever. >> too stupid to understand. >> a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the american voter. >> we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is it in. >> a new web video from the republican national committee pouncing on comments from m.i.t. professor jonathan gruber as the new gop majority prepares its plan of attack against obamacare. we're back now with the panel. so, professor gruber who first helped write romney care and then with obamacare says the president's plan was written deceptively on purpose to get it through congress. he says they hid the fact that the mandates were really taxes. he says they hid the fact thater of wealth. george, what does it tell you about obamacare and what does it tell you about the people who wrote it?
11:47 am
>> it tells you they were consciously deceptive. we knew that at the time. it tells you they did lots of unseemly things to get it passed the cornhusker kickback, louisiana purchase and all the other log-rolling that went on. beyond that, mr. gruber has been insulting the american people. and that's not wise. but what he has really said that people haven't focused on sufficiently yet is that they deliberately wrote the law clearly to say subsidies could be dispersioned only established by exchanges in the state. why does this matter? 225 days from now is the last monday in june. by then the supreme court will have ruled on whether mr. gruber is telling the truth.
11:48 am
>> it's off by one or two. federal exchanges and according to the law, if it's a federal exchange, they don't get the subsidies. >> and the wonderfully loquacious professor gruber said, clearly, we wrote it that way to squeeze the states. >> all right. from the white house on down, democrats are doing everything they can to distance themselves, you say mr. gruber. i prefer to say professor gruber. take a look at the democratic leader in the house, nancy pelosi now and back in 2009. >> i don't know who he is. he didn't help write our bill. >> i don't know if you had seen jonathan gruber's m.i.t. analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo. >> one, aren't these gyrations by democrats to distance themselves from professor gruber a little embarrassing?
11:49 am
>> yeah, that looked bad. that's a gaffe, i would say. and i like the tape earlier when she said, have you to pass the law to see what's in it. that doesn't help. i think gruber was insulting to the american people and arrogant in his attitude. so, there's a lot of huberous involved here. are you kidding me? in washington? we package, we merchandise, just like, you know, procter & gamble and anybody else that's selling soap. of course, things are packaged in such a way as to promote -- >> so there's nothing new here? nothing gruber -- >> very little. i would say much ado about nothing with gruber except critics of obamacare are having a field day. the act is working. uninsured rate in the country has dropped by 25%. this is something republicans should be celebrating. we have more competition. we've done away with the medicare doughnut hole. we have no lifetime caps on limits.
11:50 am
we have no conditions about preexisting illnesses. we have preventive medicine. it's just incredible to me, though, republicans persist. >> so, brit, two questions. one, a feast here to answer brother williams, one, is it much ado about nothing, the whole gruber affair? secondly and more importantly, how much effect does it really have in the efforts of republicans to try to, if not repeal, take a scalpel to obamacare? >> in answer to your first question, what juan says is so but it's not quite applicable. yes, legislation is always argued for in a way that's most advantageous to those who are promoting it. and it is sold in their exaggerations, so forth. what we have here is different. we have an admission of an all-out effort to deceive on a number of points, based upon the notion, common among many liberals, the american people do not know what's good for them and they need their more
11:51 am
intelligent betters in locations to take care of that for them. that is what -- that is a premise of obamacare. as a practical matter, i think, it furthers the case people have -- a sense, i should say, people have that they were sold a bill of goods on this. and when we talk about the people who now have insurance, who didn't, great numbers of those people are on medicaid. medicaid patients are having a terrible time finding a doctor who will see them. and there's more coming out about this all the time about this -- the facility, medical facilities being strained, medicaid reimbursements are light, doctors don't want to treat them. so, having insurance is one thing. the question is, do they have care? and i think that question is, in many cases, the answer is no. >> how -- just to pick up on the other point. how important will gruber's comments be as a weapon for republicans to go after obama? >> it will be the gift that keeps on giving as they chip
11:52 am
away at obamacare, but as george suggests, whether non-state sponsored exchanges can allow people in those days -- i'm sorry, will get subsidies. if that happens, the whole law begins to -- >> if i could stick in here, the whole bill of congress, they will yell at him and it will reconfirm people skeptical of obamacare. lit reconfirm their suspicions. the supreme court case is a way. and the bipartisan support, you talk to democrats who don't really like that. that's another $29 billion that would be removed from -- >> you may not like the medical device tax but where do you get the $29 billion over a decade. >> that's the question. sorry. >> open enrollment for the second year of obamacare started yesterday amid reports that some of the policies that people
11:53 am
bought this last year are going to cost 20% more this coming year. from people who talked to, jackie, how confident is the administration that obamacare is going to do better in its second year than its first? >> what you're hearing from some of the people where their price has gone up, they tell you to shop around, go back to buy something else a little cheaper. saying it will level out in the next two or so years. and that you won't see those plans, the prices raise again, but whether it does or not, we'll have to wait and see. but every time it happens when your health care goes up again, it erodes confidence. >> i'm going to ask you the big picture with a short answer. what happens to obamacare? do you think the basic entitlement, not the one tax or something, but do you think the basic entitlement lasts or not? >> i think if the basic
11:54 am
entitlement is that everyone in america aught to have insurance coverage, i think that is now part of the ethic of the country, but there are so many and better ways to achieve that. the fact is what gruber does is strike at the legitimacy of the law. the defense of obamacare comes down to it, live with it. but this was not done in a fair way. okay. how one of the biggest names in hotels is appealing to the next generation of travelers. so i can reach ally bank 24/7, but there are no branches? 24/7 it's just i'm a little reluctant to try new things. what's wrong with trying new things? feel that in your muscles? yeah... i do... try a new way to bank, where no branches equals great rates.
11:55 am
11:56 am
11:57 am
his name has been one of america's best brands for more than half a century. now he's trying to tailor that brand for the next generation. here's how power player of the week. >> before you walk through the lobby, you checked in and went to your room and never came back to the lobby until you were out of the hotel. today the lobby is a gathering place. that's totally different. >> phil marriott is talking about millenials, folks in their early 20s and 30s and what they want in the hotel. while marriott has been in the business for 60 years -- >> i traveled 110,000 mile last year. >> at age 82 he's all about the future. how much of your focus is on the millenials? >> right now there are about 45% to 50% of our business. and another three to four years it will be 60% of the business. >> marriott has an innovation
11:58 am
lab where staffers brainstorm and talk to millenials and have mock-ups of potential hotel rooms. edgy, not big color, big beds and big tvs but often no desks since they are on their laptops. so, this is the shower right here. >> that's the shower, almost right in the guest room. >> it's pretty bare bones. he's got a bed, a shower, a sink. >> and a big tv. >> you can tell, marriott is having to adjust to some of it. >> we were not exactly cool with flowered bed spreads. now there's no bed spreads. they have a cover over the sheets and blanket but there's no real bed spreads. >> does that scare you? >> no, this is what the customers want. >> that could be the motto for marriott's remarkable success. bill's day, j.w., started with a rootbeer stand in 1927. >> he opened on the same day lindbergh flew the atlantic and he met him to say, you ai went
11:59 am
into business on the same day but you got all the publicity. >> reporter: now marriott has 18 brands. more than 4,000 hotels, 700,000 rooms and a lot of guests. >> probably over a million people a night. >> how the that make you feel? >> concerned they are being well taken care of. >> two years ago he stepped down as chairman and ceo. you have not exactly retired, have you? >> no, i don't think i will until they carry me out feet first. i'm averaging 40 to 50 hours a week. >> why do you keep doing it? >> i love it. >> when we ask about the satisfaction of the job, he surprised us. he talked about the 350,000 employees. >> 50% of our general managers in the hotel have been in the company 25 years or more and started as hourly workers. and that to me is terrific. when we bring so many in to make them president of the company, that's the way america's supposed to work. >> here here.
12:00 pm
even though he's moved upstairs in the corporate hierarchy, he still visits 200 hotels per year. and he shows no signs of slowing down. that's it for today. have a great week. we'll see you next "fox news sunday." this week on the "journal editorial report," president obama reacts to the midterm by moving left and ramping up his rule by regulation from immigration to climate change to control of the internet. we'll preview the coming confrontations with the new congress. plus, the supreme court takes up another obamacare challenge as one of the chief architects sparks outrage with controversial comments. and tensions rise as russian troops and tanks pour over the ukraine border. what is vladimir putin's next move?

143 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on