Advertisement

Senators Feinstein and Cornyn on "Fox News Sunday"

Senators Feinstein and Cornyn on "Fox News Sunday"

By Fox News Sunday - July 12, 2009

CHRIS WALLACE: And hello again from Fox News in Washington. Tomorrow morning Judge Sonia Sotomayor faces her judges, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will conduct her confirmation hearings.

We're joined now by two leading members of that committee, John Cornyn , Republican of Texas, and Dianne Feinstein , Democrat from California.

And, Senators, welcome back to "FOX News Sunday."

FEINSTEIN: Thank you.

CORNYN: Thank you, Chris.

WALLACE: Senator Cornyn, can Judge Sotomayor's nomination be blocked? And if so, how?

CORNYN: Well, of course, it was unheard of to filibuster judges until our friends on the Democratic side filibustered a number of nominees.

And unfortunately, a gentleman who might have been the first Hispanic nominee to the United States Supreme Court, Miguel Estrada, who filibustered seven times and denied an up or down vote -- I don't think that will happen to Judge Sotomayor, even though that precedent has now been established.

I just don't see it happening in this case.

WALLACE: And do you see any way, just on an up or down vote, to block her nomination?

CORNYN: I think she'll be given a fair hearing. I personally and all of my colleagues have made the commitment to give her a fair hearing, treat her with the dignity we would expect every nominee to be treated.

But unfortunately, that seems to be more the exception than the rule. But yes, I think she'll have an up or down vote.

WALLACE: Senator Feinstein, is the judge's ascension to the Supreme Court a sure thing?

FEINSTEIN: I believe it is. She is an amazing, warm and intelligent woman, and she actually brings to the court more experience in courts -- trial courts, appellate courts -- than any sitting member of the Supreme Court.

And what has been amazing to me is how she's overcome adversity and disadvantage and carried on and done it basically by herself. She's an amazing story, and I think that's been written up now. I think people are beginning to understand her.

And you know, she's entered into some 3,000 appeals. She's tried 400 cases. She's written opinions. Obviously, people will find this or that they don't like.

But overall, the story is so encouraging -- it is so much a part of the American dream -- and she has done so well at what she's done, it's really -- I take enormous pride as a woman in voting for her. And I never say how I'm going to vote before a hearing, but in this case, I -- John, I find her amazing. I really do.

CORNYN: It's a great American success story, and I -- to overcome adversity and humble origins. But that's not the sort of questions we're going to talk about. We're going to talk about her judicial philosophy.

You know, the judge has given a lot of speeches, in addition to her official actions, where she's questioned whether judges can actually be neutral, whether there is such a thing as objectivity in the law, which means that judges are affected by their biases.

And I think that's a fair area to question her about, because certainly the rule of law depends on the same rules applying to each one of us, no matter our color, our sex or ethnicity.

WALLACE: Senator Feinstein...

FEINSTEIN: Can I...

WALLACE: Well, let me just -- because it will get directly to this issue. Clearly, one of the first questions that Sotomayor will be asked will be about this statement that she made in a 2001 speech and, in some form, in at least a half dozen other speeches. "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Question: How do you expect her to explain that tomorrow?

FEINSTEIN: Well, first of all, I expect her to explain it in the context in which it was made. It may not have been the most artfully put together sentence. However, it does tell you a little bit about the mission of empowerment of women and how difficult it is. And you know, there are many of us, and I've been one, who often thinks a woman has to be twice as good to be thought of as equal. This is a tough arena in the political arena. In the legal arena, it is equally as tough, because all of the advantages are really given to the men in terms of being part...

WALLACE: But is it the right thing...

FEINSTEIN: ... of the in group.

WALLACE: ... for a judge to say that I think a Latina judge will -- I believe would come to a better conclusion than a white man?

FEINSTEIN: Well, she said a wise Latina. I mean, as I told John earlier, I could say, "Can't you believe that a silver-haired Texan who served on the supreme court of his state might know more than whoever it is?" Sure you could. And it would...

CORNYN: I've never been accused of being particularly wise, Chris.

But the problem is you've got to call balls and strikes as a judge, and it really -- you know, the ethnicity focus, the focus on sex and on race, and saying that there may be different outcomes depending on who the judge is, is antithetical to the whole idea of the rule of law, objective and neutral justice. And that's the reason why this deserves some questions.

And with all due respect to my friend Senator Feinstein, this is not an isolated comment. This was an argued point that she repeated again and again and again. The president said she misspoke. His press secretary said, "Well, maybe she should have used different words."

But this is a point that she was trying to make and has consistently made, that in some ways the quality of justice depends on who the judge is. And that just can't be -- can't be true.

FEINSTEIN: Let me respond to that. Judges are not automatons. They are human beings. And they bring to whatever court they serve their experiences, and a variety of experiences, and a knowledge of the law and your -- the human experiences that you have as an individual, I think, play a role.

You know, I've listened to the balls and strikes and, "Well, we're just umpires," and then the individual goes to the Supreme Court and does exactly the opposite. So one's experience, one's venue, one's way of looking at an issue does come into it somewhere along the line. And I think most of us have seen this over and over again.

WALLACE: Are you persuaded?

FEINSTEIN: No.

CORNYN: I'm not, because I think -- you know, does it depend on whether Judge Feinstein or Judge Cornyn happens to be presiding over a case involving two litigants? I think we ought to hope for -- certainly aspire to the equal treatment to people who are similarly situated in court.

And the idea that individuals are going to be treated differently under the law because of their...

WALLACE: But...

FEINSTEIN: That's not -- an individual...

WALLACE: Yeah, but, Senator -- Senator, let me ask -- let me ask a question, because it gets directly to this point.

The Ricci case where Sotomayor sided with the city of New Haven, which threw out a promotion exam for firefighters in which whites did well and blacks did not -- in overturning her ruling, the Supreme Court said this -- and let's put the ruling up on the screen -- "Race- based action like the city's in this case is impermissible."

FEINSTEIN: Let me respond to that, because I was a mayor during the days in the ‘80s of putting together these civil service examinations, when you had a lot of court actions which said to communities they had to do it. And it's very difficult.

I happen to believe that this court judgment is going to place a huge burden on communities, because as I understand the judgment -- and it was a 5-4 decision. As I understand the judgment, you have to be able to show that you have evidence that you could win a court case before you can withdraw an examination which you may, after the fact, find out had problems with it.

Now, that places communities in a very difficult situation, and we'll have to see how it works out. But let me also say this was a 50-plus-page written opinion by a district court. The appellate court reviewed it per curiam, wrote a very brief -- three-judge panel -- wrote a very brief opinion into which she entered. She placed her signature on it. That's true.

And now this will be -- this was adjudged by the Supreme Court, and you have a result. This is one case out of thousands.

WALLACE: Senator Cornyn, as Senator Feinstein points out, it was a 5-4 decision and, in fact, she would be replacing one of the dissenters in the case, one of the people who voted the way she did in the court of appeals.

So in a sense it wouldn't change the balance of the court. Does that make a difference?

CORNYN: Well, what's troubling about the outcome in the Ricci case, where -- if judge Sotomayor had her way, that cities would basically deny promotions based on the color of one's skin, including Hispanics like Lieutenant Ben Vargas, who will be testifying at the hearing this week, and that's just wrong. That can't be the case.

But it's troubling as the outcome -- was the way Judge Sotomayor and her fellow judges on that panel sought to sweep the issue under the rug in an unpublished -- with the summary order which was not an opinion. Stuart Taylor's written a very good article on this in questioning whether it violated the court's own rules.

So it took another judge who heard about the case to call attention to the court and say, "This can't be true, that these constitutional arguments about racial quotas are not even being addressed by the court." So that's another component.

FEINSTEIN: Let me just...

WALLACE: Senator Cornyn -- forgive me.

When you're the chair of the committee, you get to run things.

(LAUGHTER)

Senator Cornyn, what about the argument -- and you hear it -- that you guys, Republicans, don't want to be seen as opposing, fighting, tearing down the woman who would be the first Hispanic justice, particularly when Hispanics represent such an important voting bloc?

CORNYN: Well, a third of my constituents are Hispanic, and I understand that what they want, and what every nominee deserves, is for the nominee to be treated with respect. And we will.

We're not going to filibuster Judge Sotomayor like the Democrats did Miguel Estrada, who would have been on the Supreme Court, I would have -- I would have predicted, if he had not been filibustered and denied an up or down vote.

WALLACE: Yeah, he was being appointed to the -- to the appellate court, not to the Supreme Court.

CORNYN: But the reason he was filibustered is because Democrats knew he was likely be the next pick for the United States Supreme Court.

But I think certainly it's our responsibility under the Constitution to ask questions about judicial philosophy, whether the quality of justice depends on the judge, or whether it's an objective neutral standard that applies to every case and everyone.

WALLACE: In our final moments, I want to turn to another subject, and this involves your role, Senator Feinstein, as chair of the Intelligence Committee.

CIA director Panetta briefed you recently on an 8-year-old program that he had stopped but that Congress had never been told about. Now there are reports that Vice President Cheney ordered the CIA not to tell Congress about it.

One, should Congress have been told about this program, which apparently was never fully implemented? And what do you make of the vice president's apparent role in telling the CIA not to brief Congress?

FEINSTEIN: The answer is yes, Congress should have been told. We should have been briefed before the commencement of this kind of sensitive program.

Director Panetta did brief us two weeks ago -- I believe it was on the 24th of June -- said he had just learned about the program, described it to us, indicated that he had canceled it and, as had been reported, did tell us that he was told that the vice president had ordered that the program not be briefed to the Congress. This is...

WALLACE: And what do you think of that?

FEINSTEIN: Oh, I think this is a problem, obviously. This is a big problem, because the law is very clear. And I understand the need of the day, which was when America was in shock, when we had been hit in a way we'd never contemplated, where we had massive loss of life, where there was a major effort to be able to respond and -- but this -- see, I don't -- I think you weaken your case when you go outside of the law.

And I think that if the Intelligence Committees had been briefed, they could have watched the program. They could have asked for regular reports on the program. They could have made judgments about the program as it went along. That was not the case because we were kept in the dark. That's something that should never, ever happen again.

WALLACE: Senator Cornyn, your reaction to the decision not to tell Congress and the vice president's apparent role telling the CIA not to tell Congress.

CORNYN: Well, Chris, this, of course, comes on the heels of a statement -- unproven, by the way -- of Speaker Pelosi that the CIA had lied to her about enhanced interrogation techniques, and this looks to me suspiciously like an attempt to provide political cover to her and others.

I agree with Senator Feinstein -- the CIA should brief the Congress. Congress should exercise responsible oversight. But to trot out the vice president and say he's the one that's at fault -- this is -- unfortunately sounds like a new theme where they still want to blame the Bush-Cheney administration for the economy and for other things that, frankly, are in the -- squarely within the...

FEINSTEIN: Well...

CORNYN: ... control of...

WALLACE: Finally, if I may...

CORNYN: ... this administration.

WALLACE: ... because we are running out of time, and I have one other issue I want to discuss with you -- and along those lines, there's another story in the paper today, Senator Cornyn, that Attorney General Holder is leaning towards appointing a criminal prosecutor to investigate whether or not CIA personnel tortured terror detainees after 9/11. Good idea?

CORNYN: So after the Obama administration leaves, the subsequent administration will conduct a grand jury to determine whether the president or any person in this administration should be indicted and prosecuted.

This is a terrible trend. And I hope that the attorney general listens to the president, who says, "We need to look forward, not backward." This is high-risk stuff, because if we chill the ability or the willingness of our intelligence operatives and others to get information that's necessary to protect America, there could be disastrous consequences.

WALLACE: Senator Feinstein, you get the last word.

FEINSTEIN: Well, I don't know whether Senator Cornyn has read those inspector general reports, but I have, and they are chilling. And I understand why the attorney general is where he is. I read the Newsweek story. I know no more about it than that.

I don't know whether he will choose to investigate, but that's certainly his independent option, and...

WALLACE: Would you -- would you favor a criminal investigation of CIA personnel and how they treated these terror detainees?

FEINSTEIN: As you know, the Intelligence Committee has hired staff, has an investigation under way, is going through each one of the high-value detainees, their interrogation, their detention, their treatment, the techniques that were used on them, in what combination, over what period of time.

And that material hopefully will be before us within the next six to eight months, and we will be able to consider it, make findings, recommendations, and the committee will also consider whether to release it publicly.

I think this is an independent I.G. I would hope they would let us do our report. But he's going to do what he's going to do.

WALLACE: Senators, we're going to have to leave it there. We want to thank you both so much for joining us and, among other things, previewing those confirmation hearings. We'll all be watching tomorrow.

FEINSTEIN: Thank you.

CORNYN: Thank you.

WALLACE: Thank you.

And tonight on Fox News Channel, Bret Baier and Meghan Kelly host "Judging Sotomayor," and in-depth look at the judge's background and judicial philosophy. Please be sure to watch.

WALLACE: Up next, we continue our series "Right Now" with rising Republican star Eric Cantor . Back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: Time for another in our continuing series "Right Now," where we talk with rising conservative stars about the future of the GOP.

Today we welcome Virginia congressman Eric Cantor , the number two Republican in the House of Representatives.

And, Congressman, welcome back to "FOX News Sunday."

CANTOR: Chris, nice to be here.

WALLACE: The latest jobs numbers shows, despite White House projections that the stimulus package would keep unemployment under 8 percent, it's now at 9.5 percent and climbing. Is it fair to say that the stimulus is a bust or just that it's too soon to tell?

CANTOR: Chris, I do think it is fair to say that the stimulus is a flop. The goal that was set when we passed it was unemployment wouldn't rise past 8.5 percent, and what we see now is businesses just aren't hiring. Even the best projections have us losing 750,000 more jobs this year.

WALLACE: But only -- this is on the part of the White House -- only $60 billion of the $500 billion in spending in the stimulus package has been allocated so far.

And I want to put up a list of the projects in your congressional district. Here they are. There's more than $75 million in federal spending from the stimulus in your district.

Are you prepared to call for all those projects to be shut down?

CANTOR: Well, Chris, this is the thing. You know, all those projects in my district and elsewhere may be laudable in and among the -- in and of themselves, but the purpose of the stimulus bill should have been to be targeted at small business people. That's where the stimulus bill missed the mark.

We don't have people hiring others right now, and that seems to be the problem. Do you know that right now that the average length of someone's unemployment is 22 months? If you put that together with someone having only 12 weeks on average of savings, that's a real problem. And there's a reason small businesses aren't hiring.

WALLACE: So the White House is talking now about spending the current stimulus faster, getting the money out more quickly. I gather you want to rewrite the plan.

CANTOR: Well, listen. We met and -- and I met with the president along with our Republican leader John Boehner back in January. We presented the president with our plan.

And the president was insistent that we go his route and that we deploy the nearly $800 billion in order to get the money spent. We said from the very beginning, "We need to be about preserving, creating, protecting jobs."

WALLACE: So how would you do that?

CANTOR: Well, what -- how we would do that is we would, number one, give people the ability and incentives to hire people. I mean, right now businesses are -- it's very difficult.

And we see the cap and trade bill that just passed. When we see the health care that's being proposed this week, what is -- how those bills are coming down the pike is basically on the backs of small business people.

We shouldn't be making it harder for people to hire right now. We should be giving small businesses an incentive to hire, give them a tax break, give people an individual -- give individuals hope that we're going to lower energy costs, not increase it like we did with cap and trade.

WALLACE: All right. We're beginning to see the first cracks in public support for President Obama. According to the Gallup poll, support for the president among independents has dropped from 59 percent in June to 53 percent so far this month.

And in the key state of Ohio, Mr. Obama's job approval has fallen from 62 percent in May to under 50 percent for the first time.

How big an opportunity is this, Congressman, for Republicans?

CANTOR: Well, you know, listen. I think that, you know, all of us want this country to get back on track right now. We just have some huge challenges. And what the public is beginning to see is that -- again, the realization of the old adage that bad policy makes for bad politics.

And that's what you've got here. You've got policies aimed at trying to arrest the downfall in this economy, and it's simply not working.

And so the opportunity is for the Republican Party to demonstrate that it can and deserves to lead again, and that's why we've been very outspoken in terms of our position on how we address this growing unemployment situation.

WALLACE: And yet, if I may, voters aren't ready, it seems, to turn to the GOP yet. I want to put up another poll.

When asked about Democrats in Congress, voters disapproved by a margin of 12 points. But when asked about congressional Republicans, the margin is minus 28 points -- not exactly a vote of confidence, Congressman.

 

CANTOR: Listen, Chris, there's 16 months until the next congressional election. And where I think that we will head is, unfortunately, in an environment where we see continued job loss. We will see lackluster growth, because we are not taking it as a priority to reduce the cost of hiring people.

WALLACE: So how does the GOP turn around that public perception, "Yeah, we've got doubts about the Democrats. We've got even more doubts about Republicans?"

CANTOR: Well, the bottom line is Republicans need to demonstrate that we've got the solutions for the issues that face American families today.

Barack Obama promised that he would not raise taxes on working families. Well, they just did that last week with the cap and trade vote. They're about to do it this week and next with the health care vote.

All we're talking about now is how are we going to pay for these gargantuan government programs, and really not only to no effect to address the current problem but to make matters worse.

So the Republican Party does have a plan. We are proffering solutions to these very difficult economic problems. What we're also doing is we're launching national efforts to go about this country, to engage a discussion with the American people about how our solutions work better for them in these economic times.

WALLACE: All right. But let's talk about health care reform, because actually, the plan that's coming out of the House, among House Democrats, is not to tax the middle class. In fact, they're proposing a $550 billion tax increase on the rich, on anyone making over $280,000 a year. What's wrong with that?

CANTOR: Well, really, the big issue, I think, surrounding health care is, number one, do you -- do you believe that the government can actually be the one taking over the system and providing the type care that we have.

But number two, how are you going to pay for it? And you're right. Charlie Rangel is poised to announce this incredible half a trillion dollar tax on folks making over $200,000 a year.

But if you look at who that is, half of those people derive their income from small businesses. Half of those people are the ones making the decision as to whether to hire Americans or not. So again, why would we be going into the direction of saying to business owners, "I'm going to take yet even more from you to make it more difficult for you to hire the Americans who are now out of work?"

WALLACE: Congressman, do you believe that every American should have health insurance?

CANTOR: I believe that we ought to certainly put out there as a goal that everyone should have access to health insurance coverage, absolutely.

We ought to make sure that we create a system where you can hold costs down and provide access to a basic plan for all Americans that are out there and can do so.

WALLACE: So how would you get those -- you know, you say a goal. This has been something that we've been talking about for 30 years, 40 years. How would you get that 40, 50 million Americans who are uninsured protected?

CANTOR: Well, I mean, listen. That number of uninsured is always fluid. It's changing. And a large part of those that are uninsured have to do with the people who are in job transitions, have lost their jobs.

We need to, number one, put in place some flexibility in insurance coverage so that people are protected if they lost their job, that do -- we could say that entrepreneurs who want to go out and start to create their own business and hire people will be protected if we put in some type of self-insured -- self-employed insurance plan, so that people can have access to affordable basic coverage. So we need to expand the ability for them to enter larger risk pools to do that.

But listen. The bulk of the people in this country are insured by their employer. And that's about 70 percent of the people. We need -- and we need to make sure that those employers stay in the game, and we need to allow them the flexibility so that they can bring down costs.

Government has never demonstrated the ability to do that.

WALLACE: In the time we have left, let's do a lightning round -- quick questions, quick answers.

AIG, the troubled insurance company, is asking the Obama pay czar whether it's OK to give out $250 million in bonuses over the next nine months. Otherwise, they say they're going to lose top people and that will jeopardize the taxpayer investment of $180 billion.

CANTOR: Nothing good comes out of the government involved in owning industries and corporations. We ought to have an exit strategy to get out.

WALLACE: But what about specifically this question of bonuses? Should -- because there was a huge fuss this last spring about that. Should Congress block AIG from giving bonuses?

CANTOR: Taxpayers basically own AIG. Taxpayers own Freddie and Fannie. We shouldn't be rewarding failure by putting taxpayer dollars behind that. So the quicker we can get out of making those decisions from Washington, the better off this economy's going to be.

WALLACE: A conservative group called Let Freedom Ring wants every member of Congress to pledge that you will not vote on the health care bill until you have actually read it and that the bill is posted on the Internet for 72 hours.

Are you willing to take that pledge?

CANTOR: Absolutely.

WALLACE: You -- is your feeling that that's a real problem in Congress?

CANTOR: Well, sure. I mean, we have passed bill after bill -- I mean, the stimulus bill that almost spent $800 billion was 1,100 pages, introduced to the floor almost in the dark of night and then voted on the next morning.

No one read that bill, and look at the -- look at the problems that arose from the passage of that bill.

WALLACE: Finally, when you've got Republican leaders like Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina or Nevada Senator John Ensign admitting to extramarital affairs and staying in office, questionable use of either private funds or state money, in the case of Sanford, doesn't the GOP, with all its talk of family values, risk looking like a bunch of hypocrites?

CANTOR: Look, I mean, is anyone happy to see all that have happened? No. I mean, it's not good. But listen. We have our thoughts with their families and they themselves.

However, look. The party is not just about personalities. It's about ideas. It's about our ability to go out and prove that yes, we can lead this country again. So we have got a plan. We are talking about the solutions that actually can address some of the problems that working people in this country are facing, and we're going to do that over the course of the next 16 months.

WALLACE: But if you're going to talk the talk, why not walk the walk and say, "You know what? They should step down?"

CANTOR: Well, listen. I mean, again, I say in the instance of the people in South Carolina and Nevada, it is up to them, and those are the elected individuals by those states.

And again, it's not about, necessarily, these personalities. The direction of this country -- and the challenges that we face are enormous. And we ought to be talking about how to go about creating jobs again. We ought to be talking about the things that matter most to people in this country. WALLACE: Congressman Cantor, we want to thank you. Thanks for coming in today and please come back, sir.

CANTOR: Pleasure. Thank you, Chris.

WALLACE: Up next, our panel weighs in on growing concern about the Obama economic plan and declining support from some of his key constituencies. Back right after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: It took us eight years to get dug into this very deep hole, maybe even longer. It will not take us eight years to get out, but it will take us more than 140 days.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOEHNER: Ohio's unemployment rate is above 10 percent. The nation's unemployment continues to rise. And families and small businesses across the country are asking, "Mr. Vice President, where are the jobs?"

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Well, it felt like the middle of a campaign this week as the White House and its critics argued over the effectiveness of the president's economic stimulus.

And it's time now for our Sunday group -- radio talk show host Laura Ingraham, Mara Liasson of National Public Radio, Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard, and Juan Williams, also from National Public Radio.

So we laid out in the last segment the growing frustration with the president's stimulus plan, what seemed to be -- seems to be a drop in his poll numbers.

Bill, how much trouble is Mr. Obama in?

KRISTOL: He's in pretty real trouble. The stimulus was his first big piece of legislation. He got it through, as presidents usually get their first piece of legislation through.

They promised they would be creating jobs by the summer. They said, "If this thing doesn't go through, unemployment could go up to 9 percent, but if it goes through we'll keep it below 8 percent." It's now 9.5 percent.

I think it's hurt his general credibility. You know, would you trust this team to correctly understand the consequences of the cap and trade energy proposal and the health care proposal if they got the stimulus so wrong?

WILLIAMS: Well, I think it's a lot of wishful thinking. He's -- this man's approval rating is still well over 50 percent. He's in the range of every other president during this period.

I think that, in fact, what Bill and other Republicans want is for Obama to be in trouble. So you look at a state like Ohio and, yes, there are more people now saying, "We're concerned about job loss." You look at independents in the country. More of them are saying, "You know, we're concerned about job loss." But even among independents, he still has more than 50 percent support among independents in the country.

So what it is is that people are saying, "You know, we trusted that the stimulus was going to deliver more quickly." The president is saying, "You know what? This was a deep hole and it's going to take time to get out." But I don't think that that patience has been exhausted yet.

WALLACE: Laura, in fairness, we are less than five months into the stimulus package. As I pointed out to Congressman Cantor, only $50 billion of -- or I think $60 billion of the $500 billion in spending so far has been allocated. Is it too soon to be writing off the stimulus?

INGRAHAM: Well, I think time will tell. Fall will be probably a better barometer. However, to ask the American people to have more patience, as the president did on his way back from Ghana -- "We need to be more patient. I never said this would happen overnight" -- I mean, he seems to be purposely lowering expectations already with the stimulus bill.

And you know, patience might be a virtue, but willful ignorance of reality is also a vice. And I think that's what we're seeing right now. Two million jobs lost -- that's a lot of jobs. And people are hurting. And they're like, "OK, we're sacrificing here at home. How is the federal government sacrificing?"

LIASSON: Look, I think that we're at the point where President Obama is not necessarily owning the problem -- people don't blame him for the original mess in the economy -- but he does own the solution. The solution is his, and it's the stimulus package.

And the problem that he's having is that voters right now care about two things, and they're upset about two things. One is the rising unemployment number, as they should be, and the other is the rising deficit number.

And the problem is that the solution to the first one is to spend -- borrow more money, and he can't do that, because there is so much worry about the fiscal situation and the future among ordinary people. That's what makes this very difficult.

I think the talk of a second stimulus bill which you kind of heard around the edges this week from liberal Democrats is not a possibility. KRISTOL: Let me just follow up on that. I'm saying -- and this is where the stimulus really hurts him. As Mara correctly said, what are people concerned about? Jobs and debt. What are Obama's two big proposals out there now? Energy and health care.

Neither would create jobs. Both arguably would be -- make it much harder to create jobs. And both would increase the federal debt. So the -- it's not just that the stimulus generally isn't playing well and hasn't worked very well, and therefore people are a little more doubtful about the Obama team, though I think that's true.

It's that it's not playing well, has undercut, I think, any appetite for his two huge, big-government programs that are coming down the road.

WALLACE: You know, beyond the polls -- and we all know this because we've been around this town a hundred years -- you just get a feel. And I -- at least the feel I got this week was that for the first time since President Obama was elected, Republicans were gaining some traction in making an argument against him, particularly on these issues -- the stimulus hasn't worked, it's big government, big spending, and it doesn't seem to be working.

Would you agree not necessarily that he's wrong and they're right, but that Republicans for the first time are playing offense?

WILLIAMS: No, because they still don't have any ideas. They still -- all they're saying is, "We don't like what President Obama's doing." They're gaining traction in the sense that the American people, I think correctly, are saying, "Well, where are the jobs?" You know, "Why are we building up these large deficits? Aren't we just going to have big tax hikes? Aren't we risking inflation? Aren't we risking putting burdens on our future -- on our children and future generations?"

All that is growing -- has growing momentum, and I think that's what you're picking up on, Chris.

INGRAHAM: Chris...

WILLIAMS: But in terms of the American people saying no to a vision that would say, "You know what? We need to do something about health care," or, "We need to do something about energy," or, "We need to actually get involved in trying to construct an American economy that's not going to be subjected to these kinds of ups and downs like we saw because of the collapse on Wall Street in terms of the stock market or the housing market" -- the American people are all understanding it needs to be re-jiggered, that it was a substantial problem.

So I wouldn't undersell it. I think that -- you know, I think it was Laura who said maybe in the fall is a better time to make the measure. I think that's right.

INGRAHAM: Last Sunday, Vice President Biden said -- not once, not twice, but three times -- "We misread this economy. We misjudged it, how bad it was." Then President Obama overseas said, "Well, we had incomplete information about how bad this economy is."

I think something more profound is going on in these polls. I think people, even some Democrats, are beginning to say, "These people who are supposed to be the smartest people in the room, the most educated, all the experts -- they had all -- incredible advanced degrees, it was going to be a new level of competence in Washington" -- I think a lot of people are saying, "Are some of these guys in over their heads? Do they really know what they're doing for the regular guy and gal trying to make it in this country?"

I think there's a big question mark about just the competence and how we're dealing with these big problems facing America.

LIASSON: Look, the Obama administration made the -- what you might call a strategic mistake, which is back in January, when Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein issued this report that said...

WALLACE: The top economic advisors to the president.

LIASSON: Top economic advisers to the president -- with a stimulus bill, we can keep unemployment around 8 percent.

Now you've got the administration girding people for the fact that it's going to go over 10. It might go even up to 11. I think that's a real problem, because then you have to ask, "Well, gee, if you diagnosed the problem wrong, did you also get the medicine wrong, the solution wrong," which Obama was asked about in Europe, and he said repeatedly, "Absolutely not. I wouldn't have done anything any differently."

KRISTOL: But look at his op-ed today. It's in the Washington Post. It's very revealing. The word "taxes" is not in there. The word "regulations," the word "incentives" -- there's nothing about hiring.

He has a nice little thing about how we should increase the number of people getting degrees from community colleges. That's fine, but who's going to hire them? What incentives is he giving small businesses or big businesses to hire employees? None. And indeed, he's heaping burdens...

WALLACE: But Juan Williams says Republicans have no ideas.

KRISTOL: He's heaping -- he's heaping burdens -- you know, here's three ideas. Cancel cap and trade. Pull the bill. Cancel the health care plan, and cancel the tax increases. Seriously. How would the markets react to that?

If you were a businessman planning one or two year out and Obama said, "No tax increases, no increase in energy costs, no increase in health care costs for you as an employer," you would -- might -- you might begin hiring someone.

With those things hanging out there, no one's hiring anyone.

WILLIAMS: Well, if that's the case... LIASSON: Cap and trade doesn't start for many, many years, actually.

INGRAHAM: But you're planning ahead as a business person.

WILLIAMS: Right.

INGRAHAM: You're planning ahead.

WILLIAMS: You're planning way ahead. But look, what -- in fact, what the administration is thinking about right now is things like taking some of the TARP money, the money that was intended to help the banks, and maybe reallocating it to help small business.

These are specific ideas they can do. They can extend unemployment benefits. They can do more in terms of, you know, food stamps and the like.

INGRAHAM: How is that creating jobs?

KRISTOL: Incentives. Incentives.

WILLIAMS: That helps to create jobs.

KRISTOL: It does not.

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: We're shedding jobs.

WILLIAMS: What is the incentive if you're saying, "Oh, just give more money to business?" I think I've heard this idea.

INGRAHAM: No. No, no, no.

WILLIAMS: Where did I hear this? Oh, it was the Bush administration...

KRISTOL: Here's one idea. Here's one idea.

WILLIAMS: ... that drove us into this.

KRISTOL: Here's one idea.

(CROSSTALK)

KRISTOL: A payroll tax -- a payroll tax holiday for one year would have cost less than the stimulus. Does any grown-up person seriously believe that if you told businesses and employees, "No payroll tax for a whole year," that would not have produced better results than this massive stimulus that was passed five months ago?

WILLIAMS: Bill, it's not as if we haven't tried giving huge tax breaks to the rich and large corporations, and we haven't seen an impact.

INGRAHAM: Highest corporate tax rate in the world.

WALLACE: Panel, we have to take a break here.

But when we come back, House Democrats have decided how to pay for health care reform -- tax the rich even more. Our group offers its ideas right after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: On this day in 1957, Dwight Eisenhower became the first president to fly in a helicopter. Eisenhower took the flight to Camp David, cutting the travel time from two hours to just 30 minutes.

Stay tuned for more from our panel and our Power Player of the Week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PELOSI: Our goal is a healthier America. And again, Congress is moving with comprehensive health reform that provides affordability, accessibility, quality.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That was House Speaker Pelosi this week making her pitch for health care reform.

And we're back now with Laura, Mara, Bill and Juan.

So after struggling for months to come up with a way to pay for this health care package, House Democrats have decided to raise income taxes on the wealthy again -- a $550 billion tax increase on anyone making over $280,000 a year.

Laura, how is -- how does that strike you both in terms of policy and politics?

INGRAHAM: Oh, it's typical. It gives the Republicans an opening, like, "Every time you could just cut spending or offer market alternatives, you go instead to the old liberal standby of raising taxes."

Raising taxes in a difficult economy -- I think a bad move. I think a lot of Democrats, even conservative Democrats, on Capitol Hill are worried about that.

Look, I think what you're seeing with this health care debate is perfectly dovetailing from what we just discussed in the -- in the economy panel on the stimulus. If the president doesn't have credibility on managing this economy, it's going to be much more difficult for them to get this health care reform through. You're seeing that happen now.

A lot of people are saying, "Look, how about the old Hippocratic oath? First, do no harm. Do no harm to our health care system." And a lot of people are worried about that.

WALLACE: But, Mara, politically, isn't it better to tax the rich than to tax the middle class, particularly when...

LIASSON: Yes.

WALLACE: ... you're going back on a presidential pledge?

LIASSON: Yes. Yes. Yes. The president promised many, many times not to raise taxes by a single dime on anyone making $250,000 or less. That's a promise that would be -- that would have political consequences to break. So would passing a health care bill that borrows the money to pay for it.

So they're scrambling to find some way to come up with the money, and I think that this will not be the final solution. The Senate has to come up with its own, you know, pay-fors.

But this is the way the House is going to get a bill out and passed. The big question, I think, is in the Senate. I mean, the Senate Finance Committee, which has been struggling mightily to get a bipartisan bill, hasn't been able to come up with a solution to the financing question.

They wanted to tax benefits. There was a lot of pushback from Democrats on that and from the public. Polls show that was -- that was very unpopular. Why? Because nobody has any idea what their health care costs are worth. I mean, could you tell me how much your health care package is worth? I couldn't.

Now, the idea is that people who get these gold-plated Cadillac plans worth $17,000, $20,000 a year are getting them tax-free. We're subsidizing those people. And almost any expert you can talk to say that's just bad policy. But you know, when you start asking people to pay for it, that's a problem, too.

So I think they're still struggling with this. And the president has said also this bill has to be deficit neutral, and that's what they're going to have to come up with.

WALLACE: Bill, I want to go back, though, because this is -- looks like what the House of Representatives is going to pass -- that they're going to pay a half -- they're going to pay for basically half of the plan through savings and the other half through a surtax on the rich -- a half a trillion dollar surtax on the rich.

Just as a philosophical issue, if universal health care is a national moral commitment, why should everyone making less than a quarter of a million dollars a year get a free pass?

KRISTOL: Well, they shouldn't. But I mean, the idea of raising taxes this amount in a recession is crazy. I mean, he -- here's the question I think one could ask. Why is this health care plan a good idea? And whose health care is going to get improved by this proposal? Maybe the uninsured. Maybe the uninsured. That's not so clear.

And for this, we're going to have a half a trillion dollar tax increase and $400 billion of cuts to hospitals and doctors on the reimbursement side, which is not a trivial thing, incidentally. Doctors and hospitals aren't living high off the hog, and the government wants to cut those.

So I think this will make health care in America -- we're going to pay more and get worse health care. I mean, I really think the plan is now totally nuts, basically. If you want to help the uninsured purchase insurance, there are plenty of ways to do it, through tax...

WALLACE: Such as?

KRISTOL: ... deductions, subsidies -- direct subsidies to people...

LIASSON: Well, they're trying to pay for the subsidies.

KRISTOL: No, that's not...

LIASSON: They have to find money to pay for the subsidies.

KRISTOL: No, but they're...

INGRAHAM: No, it's much bigger than that.

KRISTOL: It's much bigger than that. It's much -- there are plenty of Republican plans. Bush had a plan. There were plans in the past to help people pay for the subsidies.

The idea that you're going to put a -- I don't think it will pass, incidentally. This House of Representatives will not have enough Democratic votes to pass a $540 billion tax increase.

WILLIAMS: Here's the reason why it will pass. It's not that the uninsured are the prime target here. It's the cost that the average American family, when they have medical problems, when they go to the doctor -- say, "This costs too much." When they have to pay for the prescription drugs, "This costs too much."

People are concerned about cost. So in -- it's true that the uninsured are a concern, but it's a secondary concern for most American families and most American voters.

KRISTOL: So to help most American families pay for it, you're going to put a huge tax increase on...

WILLIAMS: No, what they want...

KRISTOL: ... small businesses?

WILLIAMS: ... what they want is they want this health care system to be reformed in some way that will allow them to properly predict costs, much as business is in line.

You'll notice the insurance companies, the hospitals, the doctors -- they're not attacking the Obama administration here. They're trying to negotiate. They're trying to work this out. They're not simply saying no. They just want something that works, because if you look at the polls -- and since we're talking politics, let's look at the polls -- it's overwhelming. The American people prefer Barack Obama to the Congress or Republicans when dealing with health care.

WALLACE: Laura?

INGRAHAM: Woah, woah, woah, woah. The polls are all over the place on this. One thing people -- if people want, quote, "reform" as a generic matter -- but people also don't want to have fewer choices in health care. They don't want their current employer-funded health care to go away. A lot of people are concerned that that will have to go away if there is this public option.

One thing that we know about this -- one thing we know is that Medicare -- and Bill touched on this. Part of this -- half of this -- these cuts are going to come from Medicare cuts. That goes directly to the elderly. That goes directly to people who've paid into this system their entire lives.

They've worked very hard and now we're going to tell, you know, grandma and grandpa, "Well, sorry, the choices that -- the choices that you're going to have as far as treatments are going to be curtailed," and they will be, "because Medicare cuts, which are already cut back, are going to cut back further."

WALLACE: Let me -- let me bring...

INGRAHAM: That hurts the elderly.

WALLACE: Let me bring Mara into this.

You hear growing concern from congressional moderate Democrats. The Senate talks about not meeting the time-lining of getting a bill before the August recess. Is the overall Obama health care plan -- is it gaining or losing momentum?

LIASSON: I think you'd have to say this week was a difficult week when it lost some momentum.

I think the White House has done an incredible job of making health care in general, in the abstract, seem inevitable, that it was going to pass this year. And it's also true that we've never been closer. In other words, the Clintons did not get to this point where actual bills were about to be voted out of committee.

So they have gone farther than any other administration has in the past, but I think it's hitting a lot of big obstacles, and the president is going to have to step in. Up until now, he's laid down his principles, let everybody in Congress kind of work out the details, but hard choices, difficult choices that are painful, are going to have to be made, and he's going to have to make them.

KRISTOL: I think it's not going to -- nothing's going to pass. I mean, it's -- the whole plan depends on believing that a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington, based on their studies of comparative effectiveness, are going to sit there and tell you, "That 75-year-old person who wants a hip replacement, sorry." "Mr. Physician, you think this thing..."

INGRAHAM: Rationed care.

KRISTOL: "... you think you need -- you think you need another MRI to treat your patients, sorry."

That's what the plan is. That's what the plan -- the heart of the plan is rationing. The Congress is not going to pass it.

WILLIAMS: Boy, these are scare tactics we're hearing this morning.

KRISTOL: But wait a minute.

WILLIAMS: "Oh, we're going to take away the Medicare people."

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: "Oh, we're going to tell you you can't have a hip replacement." This is -- this is wild.

But one thing you hear from the White House is if you like your doctor, if you like your insurance plan, you're going to be able to keep it.

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: But then we heard the stimulus is going to work.

LIASSON: That doesn't mean they're going to pay for everything that...

WILLIAMS: No.

LIASSON: ... people want. That...

WILLIAMS: It doesn't mean -- but it -- it certainly does not mean that we have to resort to these scare tactics.

INGRAHAM: Do you think, Juan...

WILLIAMS: The only reason that we hear these scare tactics this morning is because people say, "You know what..."

INGRAHAM: Juan, do you actually think...

WILLIAMS: "... stay with the status quo." The American people aren't buying this.

INGRAHAM: Juan, do you actually think services are not going to be more rationed than they are today?

WILLIAMS: I would imagine that some...

INGRAHAM: Do you actually think there are going to be more choices in health care after this?

WILLIAMS: Not more choices, but I think there has to be some choices, because...

INGRAHAM: Made by whom?

WILLIAMS: ... the American people understand that if you're running G.M., for example, that it runs you into...

INGRAHAM: We are running G.M.

WILLIAMS: ... bankruptcy when you can't afford to pay the health care costs of your workers.

INGRAHAM: Who's going to be making the choices?

WALLACE: Well, thank you, panel. I'm glad to see that we solved another problem here on a Sunday morning.

And don't forget to check out the latest edition of "Panel Plus" where our group here continues the discussion, and we will, on our Web site, foxnews.com/fns, shortly after the show ends.

And for those viewers, and I -- we know who you are, who are eager to see more of the panel, the site will tell you when we're going to post the feature.

Time now for some viewer comments which we pulled from our new blog, "Wallace Watch." Susan Green sent this. "I am not necessarily politically savvy, but I can see the obvious. Sarah Palin simply baffles Washington's political elite and does not fit their mold for the perfect, polished candidate."

And Joel George added, "If Sarah Palin stops cap and trade, helps the right people get elected in 2010, and speaks out against nationalized health care, this whole governor thing will seem small in comparison."

Keep your comments coming. You can find our blog at foxnewssunday.com, where we take you behind the scenes of our show.

Up next, our Power Player of the Week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: Millions of visitors come to Washington in the summer. And as we first told you last November, this year they are finding an exciting new addition to its landscape. Here's our Power Player of the Week.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROUSE: The Capitol Visitors Center is the new front door for the United States capitol. It's where we now welcome the nation.

WALLACE: Terrie Rouse oversees the center, and she gave us a tour just before the grand opening.

ROUSE: We will welcome visitors from around the world. We will welcome eighth graders. We will welcome families.

WALLACE: What all those folks will see is a massive underground complex three-quarters the size of the capitol itself that first allows security to screen everyone coming in and then provides a fascinating introduction to the nation's legislative branch.

Rouse gave us a tour starting in Emancipation Hall, which has three times the footprint of the capitol rotunda -- the first stop, the original plaster cast for the statue Freedom, which sits atop the capitol.

ROUSE: As we approach the Freedom statue, you really can get a feel for the grandeur. You know, on top of the building in the bronze is one thing, but here you're actually approaching it.

WALLACE: Nobody gets this close to the real statue, and it's just beautiful.

Just beyond the statue are exhibitions which offer all sorts of ways to get up close and personal with Congress.

ROUSE: The piece that everybody wants to touch, and you can, is a touchable dome of the capital.

WALLACE: Wow.

ROUSE: Yes, just...

WALLACE: You know, you do want to touch it.

ROUSE: Right.

WALLACE: If that's not enough, there are interactive screens with more opportunities to see Congress.

You can get dizzy in the rotunda.

And there are two theaters where you can see short films about the House and Senate and, if they're in session, watch them live on television.

ROUSE: People can come in and sit down and pause if they will. They can watch 10 minutes of it. They can watch five minutes of it.

WALLACE: And I've got to tell you, having done it, this feels very much as if you're in the gallery overlooking the floor of the Senate.

Congress talked about building a visitors center for decades, but work started after two tragedies. First, in 1998, a deranged gunman ran past security and killed two capitol police officers, and then there was 9/11. ROUSE: We had to bolster things, had to bolster security, had to bolster our vigilance. So the ability to get people into the door was a problem.

WALLACE: The project itself became a problem. It opened three years later than originally scheduled, and, at $621 million, more than double the initial estimate.

But Terrie Rouse, who has spent her career working in museums, thinks most Americans will approve of the final product.

ROUSE: I want to be standing at the door when an eighth grader leaves and you can overhear them saying, "You know, mommy, daddy, I can't wait for the day that I can vote."

That moment when I stand and look through the skylight sort of every night and every morning, I am reminded that we are representing a nation, and we are representing the nation to the world. So it just chokes me up every time I think about it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: And the new center has made it much easier to get into the capitol, roughly doubling the number of visitors from recent years.

Before we go, we want to take a moment to remember our friend and colleague Tony Snow, who passed away one year ago today. Tony was the father of "FOX News Sunday," but what we remember most is what a gentleman he was, with a ready smile and a kind word, which meant so much because they were so genuine.

Most of all, we remember his extraordinary grace and courage as he faced the illness that took him. And to his wife Jill and their children -- Kendall, Robbie and Kristi -- Tony lives on in our hearts as we know he does in yours.

That's it for today. Have a great week and we'll see you next "FOX News Sunday."

END

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PELOSI: Our goal is a healthier America. And again, Congress is moving with comprehensive health reform that provides affordability, accessibility, quality.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That was House Speaker Pelosi this week making her pitch for health care reform.

And we're back now with Laura, Mara, Bill and Juan.

So after struggling for months to come up with a way to pay for this health care package, House Democrats have decided to raise income taxes on the wealthy again -- a $550 billion tax increase on anyone making over $280,000 a year.

Laura, how is -- how does that strike you both in terms of policy and politics?

INGRAHAM: Oh, it's typical. It gives the Republicans an opening, like, "Every time you could just cut spending or offer market alternatives, you go instead to the old liberal standby of raising taxes."

Raising taxes in a difficult economy -- I think a bad move. I think a lot of Democrats, even conservative Democrats, on Capitol Hill are worried about that.

Look, I think what you're seeing with this health care debate is perfectly dovetailing from what we just discussed in the -- in the economy panel on the stimulus. If the president doesn't have credibility on managing this economy, it's going to be much more difficult for them to get this health care reform through. You're seeing that happen now.

A lot of people are saying, "Look, how about the old Hippocratic oath? First, do no harm. Do no harm to our health care system." And a lot of people are worried about that.

WALLACE: But, Mara, politically, isn't it better to tax the rich than to tax the middle class, particularly when...

LIASSON: Yes.

WALLACE: ... you're going back on a presidential pledge?

LIASSON: Yes. Yes. Yes. The president promised many, many times not to raise taxes by a single dime on anyone making $250,000 or less. That's a promise that would be -- that would have political consequences to break. So would passing a health care bill that borrows the money to pay for it.

So they're scrambling to find some way to come up with the money, and I think that this will not be the final solution. The Senate has to come up with its own, you know, pay-fors.

But this is the way the House is going to get a bill out and passed. The big question, I think, is in the Senate. I mean, the Senate Finance Committee, which has been struggling mightily to get a bipartisan bill, hasn't been able to come up with a solution to the financing question.

They wanted to tax benefits. There was a lot of pushback from Democrats on that and from the public. Polls show that was -- that was very unpopular. Why? Because nobody has any idea what their health care costs are worth. I mean, could you tell me how much your health care package is worth? I couldn't.

Now, the idea is that people who get these gold-plated Cadillac plans worth $17,000, $20,000 a year are getting them tax-free. We're subsidizing those people. And almost any expert you can talk to say that's just bad policy. But you know, when you start asking people to pay for it, that's a problem, too.

So I think they're still struggling with this. And the president has said also this bill has to be deficit neutral, and that's what they're going to have to come up with.

WALLACE: Bill, I want to go back, though, because this is -- looks like what the House of Representatives is going to pass -- that they're going to pay a half -- they're going to pay for basically half of the plan through savings and the other half through a surtax on the rich -- a half a trillion dollar surtax on the rich.

Just as a philosophical issue, if universal health care is a national moral commitment, why should everyone making less than a quarter of a million dollars a year get a free pass?

KRISTOL: Well, they shouldn't. But I mean, the idea of raising taxes this amount in a recession is crazy. I mean, he -- here's the question I think one could ask. Why is this health care plan a good idea? And whose health care is going to get improved by this proposal? Maybe the uninsured. Maybe the uninsured. That's not so clear.

And for this, we're going to have a half a trillion dollar tax increase and $400 billion of cuts to hospitals and doctors on the reimbursement side, which is not a trivial thing, incidentally. Doctors and hospitals aren't living high off the hog, and the government wants to cut those.

So I think this will make health care in America -- we're going to pay more and get worse health care. I mean, I really think the plan is now totally nuts, basically. If you want to help the uninsured purchase insurance, there are plenty of ways to do it, through tax...

WALLACE: Such as?

KRISTOL: ... deductions, subsidies -- direct subsidies to people...

LIASSON: Well, they're trying to pay for the subsidies.

KRISTOL: No, that's not...

LIASSON: They have to find money to pay for the subsidies.

KRISTOL: No, but they're...

INGRAHAM: No, it's much bigger than that.

KRISTOL: It's much bigger than that. It's much -- there are plenty of Republican plans. Bush had a plan. There were plans in the past to help people pay for the subsidies.

The idea that you're going to put a -- I don't think it will pass, incidentally. This House of Representatives will not have enough Democratic votes to pass a $540 billion tax increase.

WILLIAMS: Here's the reason why it will pass. It's not that the uninsured are the prime target here. It's the cost that the average American family, when they have medical problems, when they go to the doctor -- say, "This costs too much." When they have to pay for the prescription drugs, "This costs too much."

People are concerned about cost. So in -- it's true that the uninsured are a concern, but it's a secondary concern for most American families and most American voters.

KRISTOL: So to help most American families pay for it, you're going to put a huge tax increase on...

WILLIAMS: No, what they want...

KRISTOL: ... small businesses?

WILLIAMS: ...

For more visit the FOX News Sunday web page.
Sen. Feinstein Goes to War Against Airbnb
Debra Saunders · November 16, 2014
Is There a Viagra for Bored Voters?
Debra Saunders · November 9, 2014

Fox News Sunday

Author Archive

Follow Real Clear Politics

Latest On Twitter