tv The Journal Editorial Report FOX News November 25, 2012 12:00pm-12:30pm PST
shelters, food lines and schools. that is it for today. have a great week and we'll see you next fox news sunday. >> this week on the the journal, edito al >> paul: with a second term secure, is obamacare now a sure thing or can republican governors disarm the law. we'll ask scott walker. plus, get ready for the regulatory flood from healthcare to financial services to energy, a guide to the new rules that are about to hit our already fragile economy. as talks continue, big defense cuts are still on the table. should republicans embrace the sequester or make a deal to avoid it? deal to avoid it?
>> paul: i'm paul gigot. with his second term how secure, is the signature healthcare law a sure thing. from the obamacare a sure thing or vast expansion of medicaid, heavily dependent on state implementation and a growing number of the governors are saying they won't do the federal government's bidding. wisconsin's scott walker is one of them and joins me now, governor, great to have you with us. >> paul, good to be with you. >> paul: when you wrote to the hhs secretary kathleen sebelius, you wouldn't set up a state exchange you wouldn't have the flexibility to make it work. why don't you elaborate on what you mean by lack of flexibility. >> each of the governors who run it, a state run, partnership or referring to the federal government. any folks that have a state run exchange they need to
realize in the end there is no flexibility in terms of final outcome, there is no substantive difference between the three option, all of them lead to a federally run exchange one way or the other. great example of that talking to my friend gary herbert, the governor of utah, utah, and probably most of your viewers know five or six years ago set up an exchange and did it in a free market way and one of the lowest costs in the country of health care and still have quality health care, but did it through a market driven exchange. according to my friend gary herbert that doesn't qualify under the new affordable care act and they're going to have to come back and put in place something more aligns them with what the federal government wants. to me, you get the exposure without any of the flexibility, that's not a good deal and on behalf of the taxpayers in my state i said no thank you we'd rather have the federal government not only take on the responsibility, but the responsibility to pay for it and not defer to our tax base.
>> isn't there a risk if the federal government runs the entire show you guys will be cut out totally and basically, you'll have even less room for maneuver, your companies in the state, your providers in the state will really have to march entirely to washington's dictates? >> well, there is, and there's that risk, but the reality is, we looked at this. in fact, we looked at it laterally two years ago, december of 2010 after the election, i and a bunch of other governors in both parties went to the white house, and the executive office building with the secretary and others and talked about flexibility then. the reality is the flexibility was limited mainly not to things like how many staff and the state do you have? do you have a handful like utah or hundreds like massachusetts, in terms of regulation of what has to be included and how it's governed in your state, those things are essentially dictated through the federal government, and for all the talk about flexibility, it
really doesn't happen. i've got to tell you though as a governor who believes in federalism and believes in the 10th amendment instincts tiffly, my gut to have the state run it rather than the federal government. you'll get things like the food stamp program and special education anthes a mandate that for years has been mandated by the federal government and the school districts in their country and never comes close to covering the cost of that. i think that most of us who said no and deferred to the federal government did so because we didn't want the cost incurred on our taxpayers. >> as the law is drafted, i gather that the subsidies can only flow through state exchanges, that is the subsidies for individuals to have health care. now, if the federal government delivers the exchange in your state, runs it, then, at least as drafted, the subsidies will not be able to flow. was that part of your calculation as well on it decision? >> no, i think in the end there's a series of things, that being one of them. some other things in terms of
insurance regulation in the state beyond the exchange itself. those are things all of us, including some democrats who did the same thing we did and deferred to the federal government, we're going to come back to the congress and work with members of both political parties and i think those are reasonable adjustments, technical type adjustments, that the congress should be able to make going forward. as you know, and again, your viewers know, most of those decisions were made a few years ago, late in the game without input from governors or for that matter just about anybody else and these are the technical things, if they're going to have it. i objected to it, fought it in court and fought it politically and i lost those battles and conceded at least for the time being there will be exchanges in my state and won't be run by the state. i think if you're going to make it work, most people realize there has to be technical adjustments. >> one of the things you did win on is medicaid and states have the option of opting out of the medicaid expansion, a big part of this bill. have you made the decision on
medicaid yet? are you going to opt in or out? >> i have to tell you as much about the original question, i have as do governors in both parties, hesitations about that. and which is was has over 90% of our people covered. and we have one of the moeks extensive coverage systems in the country and that's part of the reason we fought the bill in the first place and we do it well and a small number of people and why blow up the system for that. having said that, our real concern, the 100% expansion, under the terms of law itself. reading it three years from now, it drops down to 90%, any of us who have dealt with the federal government before and anything else and special, that was a good example i gave before. know they come nowhere near the goals after the legislation. and so, i think many of us are concerned, looking ahead to the future saying you're going to add massive numbers of people on medicaid and some in more states than others and ours to be a minimal number, but still, adding people and
not have the funding, and that's assuming they comply with the law and in light of the fiscal deliver and everything else there, there's a possibility even with the next year or two that medicaid funds to the state might be reduced and without true flexibility with a block grant we have a tough time with what we're dealing with today without adding more. >> what's your estimated number of people to add on medicaid in order for the expansion. do you know that off the top of your head? >> that varies, that's one of the varies, we thought the cost of just an exchange, it could go up to as much as 60 million dollars, for us the number that would be eligible fluctuates depending what we can do with the rest of our population, i think for a lot of governors, that's a part of the concern if we had a concrete answer to this, it might be easier to make those decisions, but we keep sending questions to the administration, not just from the republican governors, but through the national
governor's association and we get letters back that really don't answer those questions and that's part of the problem. >> all right, well, governor, thanks so much. it's going to be a big debate and i'll watch your decisions carefully. >> go packers on sunday night. >> paul: i agree, all right. and when we come back, after laying low in the run-up to the election, president obama's army of regulators is about to make up for lost time from agriculture to financial services and a look at some of the new rules coming your way the new rules coming your way in a second obama term. [ fishing rod casting line, marching band playing ] [ male announcer ] the rhythm of life. [ whistle blowing ] where do you hear that beat? campbell's healthy request soup lets you hear it... in your heart. [ basketball bouncing ] heart healthy. great taste. mmm... [ male announcer ] sounds good. it's amazing what soup can do.
[ male announcer ] this holiday, give your family the greatest gift of all -- peace of mind. with the adt after thanksgiving sale. get adt home security and home management starting at just $99. that's a savings of $300. plus 15% off accessories. call now or visit adtpulse.com/tv. sale ends midnight november 27th. more than a security system, adt can help you turn on a few lights. bring family in from the cold. even let you know when an old friend has arrived.
get the advanced technology of adt and save $300. starting at $99 installed. pulse save on accessories. call now or visit adtpulse.com/tv. sale ends midnight november 27th. >> well, all is quiet in the leadup to the election, but president obama's army of regulators is now back in formation, ready to issue new rules on everything from health care exchanges to greenhouse gases. a rough guy to what's coming down with the regulatory pipeline in a second obama term. the editorial page editor and
james freeman and mary kissle and joe rago. so, joe, give us a big picture sense h magnitudes of what we're talking about? many of these are hundred million dollar rules or more in terms of cost, aren't they? >> yes, when you look at the bush and clinton administrations averageded same number of rules, about 45. obama's first two years, that surged to about 66, 63 in that range. and now, we're starting-- then it fell in the second two years in the leadup to the election and this is because the regulators slowed down, it's because they delayed everything until election day, now, we're about to get-- they're about to make up for last time. >> paul: mary, what do you think are the big rules you're following? >> think about energy, particularly epa. they're bringing out billion dollar rules and something we haven't seen before. and it's going to really
affect almost every part of our economy, because energy goes into the production, pretty much everything. you're talking about ozone air quality standards and carbon standards and greenhouse gas emissions and maybe fracking on federal land, fracking be the high drawlic fracturing technique that leads to oil and gas production. that's regulated by the state. are you saying that the fed wants to get in on the act and preempt the states? >> i think it's a possibility, paul, yes. >> paul: so that would complicated drilling decisions by companies and potentially add to costs even though it's been a big boon to president obama's economy. >> you'd think this is the one area where the regulators might want to have a light touch, unformer, it's probably-- >> james, af been following the financial services industry and dodd frank, i know it's your favorite bill, it's much loved across the land. >> certainly. >> paul: but most of these
bills, most of the rules, i think, haven't been written. >> you think of the first obama term with its slow growth, and regulatory frenzy, a nightmare, but really, from that 2010 law, most of the burden on the economy hasn't happened yet. the law firm does a scoreboard and they say they're 398 rule makings, separate rule makings that were required by the law. >> these are relatively major. >> yeah, really, remaking the financial markets, only a third of them have been enacted, so, most of the big regulatory footprint is coming in the second obama term, even from the law that was passed. >> and give us an example or two? >> well, it runs the gamut from derivatives trading on wall street to bank regulation and consumer loans, it's all over the board and on top of that, you have what bankers called the basel standards so these are incredibly complicated rules, for the
financial crisis now coming back more complicated. so it's optimistic about economic growth when you see this behemoth. >> paul: and joe, to have the full-blown obamacare, and he's got a deal with the exchanges and medicare and medicaid and the insurance rules as well. >> and the day after thanksgiving, 300 new pages of rules come out on essential benefits, all health plans must cover. >>en your job, joe, to read all-- so, but i'm sorry. >> so we're starting to see the wave of these rules are going to the white house budget office for review, and if you think about it, this law is supposed to be up and running on october 1st, ten months from now, we're really going to see a crush in the meantime. >> paul: what about the economic costs of this, mary? and not just in terms of how much each rule may effect the
economy, but is there a larger cost to the economic growth? >> sure, i mean, take dodd-frank talking about, that can affect access to credit for hundreds of millions of americans, and financial innovations and the kinds of products available to buy and businesses that don't know what kind of regulatory costs they're going to face, they'll have to make decisions whether or not to hire more people to invest. and these have costs to the economy. >> there's also a question of what we can do about this. i mean, with congress, congress can't stop it. >> and two terms by the congress. >>, but congress can't do much, the courts-- >> i mean, it's possible, now that the election is over, that you see some willingness among democrats to maybe paer back a few of these laws where they didn't want to acknowledge their failures before the election, but i wouldn't be that optimistic, yes, you've got some court challenges and there is reasonable constitution law for dodd-frank, for example
and perhaps others. >> well, we saw what happened with the constitutional challenges, i wouldn't put that in the bank, all right, when we come back, talk to avoid the fiscal cliff continues and these defense cuts are on the table. should republicans embrace the so-called sequester or cut a deal to avoid it? there's a debate ahead. the capital one cash rewards card gives you 1% cash back on all purchases, plus a 50% annual bonus. and everyone...but her likes 50% more cash. but i'm upping my game. do you want a candy cane? yes! do you want the puppy? yes! do you want a tricycle? yes! do you want 50 percent more cash? no! ♪ festive. [ male announcer ] the capital one cash rewards card gives you 1% cash back on every purchase plus a 50% annual bonus on the cash you earn. it's the card for people who like more cash. what's in your wallet? it's the card for people who like more cash. one is for a clean, wedomestic energy future that puts us in control. our abundant natural gas is already saving us money,
producing cleaner electricity, putting us to work here in america and supporting wind and solar. though all energy development comes with some risk, we're committed to safely and responsibly producing natural gas. it's not a dream. america's natural gas... putting us in control of our energy future, now. [ male announcer ] it's that time of year again. medicare open enrollment. time to compare plans and costs. you don't have to make changes. but it never hurts to see if you can find better coverage, save money, or both. and check out the preventive benefits you get after the health care law. ♪ open enrollment ends dember 7th. so now's the time. visit care.gov or call 1-800-medicare.
>> first of all, this pressure is not something that i propose, it's something that congress has proposed, it will not happen. >> paul: remember that? president obama in the third debate with mitt romney promising to sequester those across the board cuts to spending to kick in january 1st will not happen.
and to avoid the fiscal cliff, sequestration is on the table, and some think-- and okay, james, so, 500 billion dollars in defense already built in to cut. then sequester would cut another 500 billion over ten years, and why should republicans go along with that? >> because, this is really their only leverage on president obama, and i think that as congressman jordan has said, the only thing worse than a defense cut is no cut at all. what you get with the sequester is defense, but also cuts in the social-- >> another 500 billion dollars in domestic discretionary, too. >> right, and it adds up to about 100 billion in 2013. i think you will find that president obama will go a long way to avoid those roughly 44 billion in cuts this year, to social programs and i think if
you want to get a deal out of him with meaningful reform on spending or tacks, this is, this is the key leverage point and if it happens, it happens. >> and you get some spending. >> paul: so use spending on discretionary and defense to leverage better tax policy out of the president. bret? >> well, good luck. (laughter) >> first of all, let's bear in mind we've already cut 500 billion dollars from defense. you know, i was out on an aircraft carrier in the persian gulf a few months ago, this is a carrier that ordinarily takes about 90 aircraft. it had about 60 aircraft on at the time. i don't think that americans really appreciate the way in which defense cuts are already hurting us strategicically abroad in terms of the kind of forces that we can deploy and the other thing, when you cut defense, those defense cuts are easy to cuts forever. i mean, you just think of the difference between the kind of defense expenditure that we had in the 80's to say nothing of the 60's compared to what
we have today. i am not so sure that these cuts in domestic discretionary spending, okay, are going to be forever. no one congress can bind the next. i think that republicans are foolish to think that those domestic cuts are really going to-- >> look, it's theong-term protection of defense, but i think we ought to be concerned about and the fact is we're not going to be able to be in military super power if they're not an economic super power. and we also know you can't grow your debt and spending faster than our economy and expect this to work out. it would be great if we didn't have to worry about what stuff costs, including defense, but we tried that. it was the obama first term debt roughly doubled to about 12 trillion dollars. so, the-- >> and what an elaborate-- >> and one thing, we're sort of having a discussion, he wants to take the hemlock, i want to take the cyanide, and these are not -- these are some bad-- >> it's a way to get to a
better place, i think. >> what about his leverage point, though, james' leverage points, the only that on president obama, to lead to a less destructive solution on tax and spending. >> why, do you think he cares about it? >> i think the one thing he cares about is big government and-- >> he wants big government. >> because the problem is that-- that roepublicans have-- he doesn't care if taxes rise, he's fine with it, probably prefers it, right? >> the one thing he has campaigned on is taxes rising on the rich. this is an emotional issue for the president. this is something he clearly cares about, he was deeply stung by the tax deal that he agreed, the extension in 2010, not only sung by his own left wing base, i think he was almost ashamed of that. i think you're mistaken, if the you think that the republicans-- >> let's say he refuses to
deal as he has been. you still get, at least a beginning toward fiscal sanity. you get the cuts in overall federal spending and that's good for the economy. >> all right, well, viewers, you're seeing this debate here. this is what the republicans are talking about on capitol hill, too, we have to take one more break. when we come back, hits and when we come back, hits and misses of the week. want to try to crack it? yeah, that's the way to do it! now we need a little bit more... [ male announcer ] at humana, we understand the value of quality time and personal attention. which is why we are proud to partner with health care professionals who understand the difference that quality time with our members can make... that's a very nice cake! ohh! [ giggles ] [ male announcer ] humana thanks the physicians, nurses, hospitals, pharmacists and other health professionals who helped us achieve the highest average star rating among national medicare companies... and become the first and only national medicare advantage company to achieve a 5-star rating for a medicare plan...
your efforts result in the quality of care and service we're able to provide... which means better health outcomes... and more quality time to share with the ones who matter most. i love you, grandma! [ male announcer ] humana. ♪ hurry in this saturday and sunday for great deals. likehe lucid by lg, free. or the galaxy nexus by samsung, free. this weekend, get the best deals on the best devices on the best network. exclusively at verizon.
>> time now for hits and misses of the week. mary, first to you. >> paul, i'm giving a hit this week to president obama for an unusually strong defense of human rights that he gave in the speech at university in burma. instead of speaking directly to the regime as many presidents often do, he spoke over the regime to the people of burma, to aspirations for freedom and democracy. now, mr. president, i think it's time to give that speech to the people of russia and china. >> all right.
mar ma mary. joe. >> and he is squire, americans the year. miss dunham is celebrated for reinventing the romantic comedy with the h.b.o. program "girls" and chief justice roberts celebrating for reinventing taxing power for conservatives who endorse liberal priorities and i hope the chief justice is enjoying his new intellectual company. >> paul: all right, joe. bret. >> ron paul, thank you finely for retiring. there's been a question of ron paul, a great man of principle or somewhat strange character with often some might say bigoted views and recently come out talking about the virtues of succession, those of us who always thought ron paul was a crank and find ourselves confirmed. >> paul: remember, if you have your own hit or miss, send it to us at firstname.lastname@example.org and follow us on