Power Play 2/1/2013
Hagel's horrible day. Will Congress duck sequester? And enforcement debate could stall immigration deal.
- Duration 24:38
- Date Feb 1, 2013
Hagel's horrible day. Will Congress duck sequester? And enforcement debate could stall immigration deal.
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
As to the Iranians.
Persian gulf some of these Iranian questions you ask I support the president's.
Strong position on containment.
As I said.
By the way I've just been handed a note that I.
-- misspoke and said I supported the president's position on containment.
Hey if I said it meant to say that obviously his position of the opinion containment we don't have a position on -- And that is what it looks like when your confirmation hearings in front of the senate go poorly.
And this is power play and I -- -- -- firewall and happy Friday Internet.
And Chuck Hagel the former Republican former Nebraska senator the President Obama wants to be the secretary of defense had.
-- terrible outing nobody thinks he had a good outing when he went up to the senate yesterday.
-- did he struggle on basic policy points like whether network containing a rolling back the Iranian regime in Tehran.
Stumbled and fumbled when he was pressed on prior statements that he had made and he spent a lot of time backtracking and a lot of time mumble -- that.
So that's interest thing but is it consequential does it make it less likely that he will be confirmed.
We'll find out we will suss that out.
We'll also talk about the defense sequestration that is looming that is coming out there in the future that everybody agrees would take a big bite.
Out of our ability to be prepared it.
We will talk about those things we will also talk about the immigration debate where that is and we'll sprinkle throughout we will interspersed throughout the discussion of at today's.
Unhappy jobs numbers affect the political discussion here in Washington will do all that and have some special Super Bowl -- points.
So you might call of this there is there's much for you'd like.
But you'll like none of it any more than the chance to -- note here from -- ratified by.
Lieutenant general Thomas McInerney we're tired of the united states air force.
We should point out that make that makes him a three star general which is a pretty big deal he's the form.
He's the former assistant vice chief of staff for the united states air force general welcome.
Thank Chris for her OK and I should point out Internet as you think about what the general knows.
He knows the scope of how the Defense Department deals with congress how congress deals with the Defense Department where they keep the money and how they do it because he's commanded.
And appropriated and all kinds of stuff around this -- over the course of a forty year career so we've got the right man for the job.
-- -- Is there was assumed to be -- -- in a -- issue and perhaps but that he was gonna go and now the question whether you can get sixty votes is real.
What's your gut tell you.
I don't think you get sixty votes.
You know that's -- he'll get fifty and its required sixty.
-- in fact.
They filibuster right and the question is.
If they don't filibuster I think he will I think the -- is fourteen to twelve.
In the committee and when you go on the floor so he'll probably get it out of committee right hand.
Surprises because clearly as you pointed correction it was a devastating.
-- day for him yesterday.
Ended it did surprise me a great deal because.
You know he's going to be more skillful we really didn't do his homework and have the answers.
-- the questions that the media had laid out from containment on Iran.
And how do you respond to stopping.
In Iran from going nuclear.
Judge the IR -- not to be a terrorist organization Hamas.
A terrorist or situation nuclear zero.
And all these vital -- issues to the United States and national security.
And he didn't have them and they were not clear and concise and he's -- some people that were very clear concise in the past.
Now something is that income you saw the difference in how.
These sorts of series ago John Kerry.
Goes into be.
We wants to be secretary of state -- is now former senator I guess.
But a senator at the time part of the club ran for democratic president in 2004.
And he went through there and -- Batted back.
The small amount of difficult questioning that he had and it was all very chummy.
In very collegial.
And hagel who was a bit more of strippers when he was in the senate it look like Lindsey Graham John McCain at all the guys who.
Ironically used to be his -- -- that used to be the crew very very tight they took a real pleasure in raking over the coals for a long time yesterday.
It was embarrassing.
Because big big clearly went for the -- Against Senator Kerry now secretary of state curious thing she's being sworn in as we speak they'd be effective -- to.
That -- went quite well but they went for the jugular and by the way they they were the right questions to Harris.
They were clearly on point.
You know Senator McCain and it was painful to listen to -- anything just yet he really dug in on it.
But clearly yes most of -- successor and all that was verbal.
That is as brutal as I have seen.
In many many years so.
But the -- weren't forthcoming answers were not as clear that I think that he could reviews and should have been prepared as you pointed out.
Before going to -- that he knew it was going to be -- Well and that's just the thing you start to wonder if there's little bit of overconfidence at play here because senator hagel having served for so long and -- on that very committee and dealt with these issues.
And he's the head of the Atlantic Council which is a foreign policy think tank.
And he has all of this stuff one wonders if he wasn't overconfident and didn't do the brief and the murder boards that somebody else should have.
Well he clearly was because those were answers it should have been scripted and he should just looked.
And clearly gone through skillfully answering why he thought.
That the surge was the biggest.
The -- in the twentieth sentry.
He should have been able to do there.
And but as you point and I think everybody agrees he didn't do his homework.
He didn't prepare himself and now I think he's raising doubt amongst people.
Clearly -- very serious concerns.
And I think if you would have given much more solid performance.
That it would have.
I think released some of those concerns.
In a way but I'm greatly concerned that this administration is taking us from -- But the unilaterally disarm and that could be very very dangerous problem.
Against this radical Islamic.
Enemy threat that we face in who are well underway led by Iran.
To developing nuclear weapons that we'll end up in US cities that use the culture and the irony of course is that -- -- was talking about containment.
And those things it was a concurrent with the regime in Tehran basically announcing they were gonna go and enrich uranium.
To a fare -- well they were not going to be bound by any.
And was -- -- and guys.
Like let us.
My thoughts were -- what would -- now part of what the purpose.
Senator Daschle's nomination was.
From the president's point of view was to be instructive to Republicans about how they should view.
Foreign policy and how they should view defense policy and things that they should be more like him instead of John McCain and Lindsey Graham at all.
It probably makes it harder to prove that point since they didn't do very well kudos there we -- ago.
Here's what the Internet says -- did a lot of double talking says is -- anyone listening triple talking even sometimes.
Big -- 323 says wait I just hear the general say that -- didn't study for the hearing.
You would think.
-- or for that matter anybody for the job would not have to study.
-- now wait a minute -- -- this is ours this is like 67 hour day this is this the worst.
Grilling that you're ever gonna receive in your life so anybody -- so it's not like anybody's.
If the general himself that -- going to do this he would still have to don't know you still spent two weeks cramming in jamming and getting ready to go in right.
Absolutely and dig beneath the fact is that he had made a lot of very provocative statements that were.
Really others that mainstream in some cases like Hamas is not a terrorist organization.
The Iranian revolutionary guard corps -- RTC.
He voted against.
Naming him as a revolutionary.
As a terrorist organization.
He should have studied to have an answer of why he made that courts does he retract that.
If he doesn't know that the -- -- city and Hamas are terrorist organizations we are in trouble.
Patriotic fair minded.
With broad perspective not to say that not and not to say.
Who quite dapper I should also point out general -- and -- we thank you very much for making time for us today -- groups.
Okay today we're gonna take a quick break but when we come back we'll talk about the looming cuts to the defense program how -- factors into this.
We'll talk about the economy we'll talk about my power play for the day we do -- rollicking fun will continue.
So stick around.
And that is what it looks like we'll be armed forces the United States go out to train to be ready to defend us in our interest around the globe and here at home.
And this is power play now the reason you just saw that is because the folks at the Pentagon.
Say that if the automatic 5% across the board cuts to defense spending that are called for under the sequestration.
Which from the 2011.
Debt ceiling deal that if -- go into effect they won't they'll have to stop training troops.
For missions other than immediate deployment to Afghanistan.
And lots of other hideous things that they say that they will have to do that we know and we've talked about this here before nobody is better format and then the Pentagon.
And they will always be able to tell you why they don't get another 900 billion dollars this year that they won't be able to defend us and we'll all be blown up but.
People are starting to listen and pay attention that may be this is a very dangerous thing.
So how dangerous and will it be implemented.
We have an expert on both subjects.
Because we have with us admiral to assess that he's a former congressman from the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
And used to deal with how the navy got -- stuff.
So he's very familiar with how this works and as to what will happen.
Politically I give you gentry Collins your old friend Internet -- -- former national political director for the Republican National Committee that makes him a Republican strategist and you're welcome back that you.
All right guys so.
The question is this we'll start -- -- admiral the how bad would this.
-- really it's really don't my -- yeah.
Razor cut across every single area.
That said could it be sustained well frankly yes this year is fifty billion dollars and the majority of that is in research and development procurement.
Only about 15% of that funding ever comes out the first year the -- the other 85% comes out here 234.
But this is not winning.
And distance and frankly a lot of this has to go with what you -- do you begin it's all of a sudden doing one less week of training.
But I think that that when you combine that with an appropriations bill that is you know.
Not not increasing from last year they and you really begin to get into a problem this is by congress should.
Re addressed the sequestration if it doesn't though.
I think the more harm will be to our economy because it will probably -- me GDP growth of less than 2% at a sustainable but not what it needs to be we need to get our debt down but hopefully lead over the next nine years not the issue we're just about to come out of the game get going again.
Nobody wants and so as the admiral just outlined for you nobody wants this this is not a that he was in fact it was designed to be avoided it was supposed to be so terrible that no one would let it go into effect.
But the people in the red team.
Are increasingly saying well at least it's cuts at least we do get a spending reduction -- -- so eager to tax and spending reductions that they are now.
Flirting pretty openly with the idea of just letting the actual.
Well look I don't it is just people on the -- let's be clear every first ball President Obama.
Originated this idea that back in between eleven.
Calendar year -- you are going through this -- the first time.
And then defended it right and he immediately came out and said we're we're not gonna let the pressure off of this congress we've got to get the budget -- control.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- I think -- be -- well they do it.
You know I.
I think frankly I think the balls and they didn't in this and its corporate culture right because the senate now for the first time for -- is going to be a position where they've got to pass a budget I've yet they've got to by -- -- -- -- margin they've got more see something more vulnerable seats up.
I -- fourteen Democrats and so I think they've got some red state Democrats are gonna have a hard time.
I'm voting for democratic budget if we don't see alternative cuts.
-- 92 sequestration is more likely to happen.
And know what that with the Republicans say is we'll do it.
I will offset their wool wool block the sequestration because the Republicans do like military so much.
They say that but this -- -- will have to have cuts offsetting other places.
And they say that sort of like is that what happened and then we'll do that giving cuts is hard finding places to cut especially in divided congress is harder.
-- well it is but the fact is -- -- Big believer that we need them spending reduction including entitlement reform as well less tax revenues and I think -- -- balls and to generally the right approach to dollars and it's been a reduction in -- one dollar.
In tax reform our tax revenues that -- Our defense can be part of the sheer sacrifice them smartly.
-- it when I was running in these programs and might have mentioned you congress in 2005 we said the new aircraft carrier V eleven billion dollars.
For the confidence of -- felt that cost was about.
We don't tell congress that would you buy a car from somebody sent.
I think the price two years from now when you're going to receive the cars in between thousand dollars -- only 13 confident that it's going to be you wouldn't -- -- -- know.
Pretty much what the price will be short.
We had about 300 billion dollars of cost over its.
As I was -- the needy in our whole Defense Department is usually focus because.
We ourselves are not that accountable how we do it.
Because we went shipyard that built an aircraft right it's so there's better ways to go out our -- accountability and that's what we do -- Smart people we need both spending reductions.
And passionate he's doing -- -- and I believe thoughtful approach to getting 141000 debt reduction this decade alone.
Admiral what you don't know is that -- the cars that I bought problem wasn't that -- and held them off those folks.
Different I had different I've I've had a different experience -- my life so last we're very very quickly.
For you gentry.
Will this sequester be -- won't go into effect.
You know senator Reid out very quickly and yes or no coming not coming I think it's -- he thinks is coming here that Internet it's coming you -- the -- -- -- but I think we can speculate stipulated stipulated.
And we stipulate that you guys are great gets good friends and we thank you for making time for us this Friday to protest semi democratic tell us.
-- -- says this -- it all yesterday.
It's probably dawning on senators who didn't serve with -- that he just not very bright.
That's not very nice but certainly.
For senator hagel yesterday.
The idea of him as VP -- patient's mind in big thinker that the president -- put him put out there.
Definitely that that that's the truth.
Whatever side of the -- you're sitting on -- we're gonna take a quick break but when we come back we will talk about the enforcement.
Component the comprehensive illegal immigration legislation and how that could be the sticking point to -- deal done will examine that when we come back.
-- -- And not using border security.
As an excuse or block to the path of citizenship.
We just want to make sure and this is very important both substantively and politically that there is a secure border.
And -- was this Charles Schumer democratic senator from New York.
And press conference talking about eight bipartisan -- the gang -- a bipartisan immigration reform package.
That he is part of talking about the importance.
And when we say enforcement we're talking about secure borders we're talking about decent checks were talking about card -- and all that other stuff.
And this is power play so here's the deal and an end.
The truth is that for Republicans they are -- skeptical and very concerned and I would point to an excellent column by your friend Charles Krauthammer.
That they will get it went as happened in 1986.
That they will grant them broad amnesty for some ten million or more illegal immigrants and then end up not getting the border controls and -- that they were promised.
Could this be these stumbling block to eventual reform you know who probably knows -- Jason Riley.
He's a columnist for the Wall Street Journal and is making its debut here on the big show Jason welcome.
Thank you for having that.
You -- OK so talk to me about four why is enforcement why is this such a tricky question.
Well it's it it's a tricky question because in the bipartisan agreement in the sun at what you have is a provision that would allow.
The millions of people upwards of eleven million people to get a sort of probationary status if this legislation would pass.
And then in order for a -- and then under that probationary status they'd be able live here and continue working here and so forth.
But before they could move onto a green card and citizenship.
There would have to be some security markers and that.
And it indeed the reality is that Republicans want to make that pathway to citizenship.
Hard and difficult.
Or harder and more difficult.
And then the Democrats would have -- they want the citizenship to come.
And the green cards to come much sooner in the process and I think that's where where the dividing line is and I think there's a red scare of the Democrats asking for too much.
We're getting too greedy because.
As I said the probationary status means that millions of people here who can pass a criminal background check would be able to work and stay here.
But they want the citizenship to come sooner.
Now this -- and Charles and others on the right have said this that basically.
There should be no amnesty conditional provisional temporary whatever it would be call until there is aboard a border fence and that everything else is in place.
That's probably not a politically realistic ask is it.
I'm no I don't think it is for a couple reasons why you have to define what border security means doesn't mean.
The people are crossing the border illegally doesn't mean.
People who come legally and overstayed their vetoes those are -- -- enough of them are deported.
The but the problem that you're never gonna make the border impenetrable.
And a fair question the people on the right.
-- is will you ever be satisfied that the border is secure and some would never be so there's sort of arguing in bad faith.
Now it's true that people on the last our last interest that in a secure border.
That's certainly the case and it wouldn't be a priority.
For them and many of the people praising the bipartisan agreement.
Laughed out meaning of the people on the left left out entirely the security provisions because that is not a priority on them but I think.
What we need to do is keep our eye on the ball here and -- and realize that these things work in tandem.
Giving people more legal ways to come.
Is a way of enhancing border security these are by and large economic migrants.
Coming to war if you give them a way to come legally they will use it.
That will free up Border Patrol the focus on people who must sneak into the country drug dealers potential terrorist and so forth so the -- work in tandem.
And we don't want to put the cart before the horse you'll reduce pressure on the border by putting in place a legal way for more people to come.
Jason -- good words we thank you for your insights have a great thank you.
Okay now here's an outlaw -- said general general Mac and Ernie was once my boss in the air force.
You never wanted to -- -- him and prepared he was a great commander and leader in Omaha we can tell you that we are all very fond of them here at the Washington bureau of the Fox News Channel is a great guy.
And by the way at his age which I'm not specify at this point he is going outbreaks that week of skiing yeah.
And -- -- next week the guy is kind of is kind of a stud it's pretty cool.
OK so lots of great -- today lots of good stuff today.
Laura Ingle is in for Jonathan Hunt at the twelve -- -- you like that.
You also like the fact that it's Friday which means that you get the weekend 22 hot debate -- what we've told you this week and we'll see you back here on Monday but how about.
That's very special Super Bowl addition of power points.
And that -- points in his blue bowl.
The two teams playing in the Super Bowl are from arguably two most democratic cities in America.
-- -- -- native Baltimore.
And her hometown of San Francisco are playing each other in the Super Bowl this is a blue America.
Vs blue America so that's your first.
And PowerPoint whatever happens will be a democratic victory in the super boy blue state.
Blue city team.
Will definitely be the next Super Bowl champion but think about this here's an interesting data point for you leadership senator point one intent.
That's right out of the last ten Super Bowls nine have been one.
By teams from counties that went democratic in the previous presidential election the last time that a team.
From a town.
That went Republican in the previous election was 2003.
When the Buccaneers.
One in -- from Hillsborough County down in Florida.
And really out of the last ten years said then.
Of the teams came from states that voted democratic in the previous election.
The exceptions being of course Tampa that -- New Orleans and the colts that's it.
Why why why is this why is this so true or Democrats better football -- Here's your third PowerPoint density divide.
Everybody knows that if you want good football -- go to the south.
But -- the SEC eight.
This is just true now Texas we salute you.
But here's the deal America lives and the country who lives in cities lives in the suburbs but the higher the population density where you are.
Means that you are more likely to be a Democrat the closer the more people -- per square mile more democratic -- are likely to be urban areas are democratic rural areas are.
Republican that's the truth and so that explains why.
Big cities that produce winning football teams like I don't know the Pittsburgh Steelers for example.
Tend to be more democratic -- something for you to consider if you're watching the football game and now.
As we like to do every day we want to leave you with the word.
From our friendships.
So what happened -- today it was shocking because it showed an astonishing.
Lack of confidence -- -- he was -- he was weak.