♪ neil: on a day six year-old children are laid to rest, where can i begin, what can i add that

has not already been discussed or debated or explored? i've year more than already exploited. how does the business show even try, should it? many said it should not and that i should not. i tend to agree with that sentiment, that i can add little to this debate continuing. but i also think to just three things business as usual. i could go on about the fiscal glove, and i will. unions after michigan targeting the nation, and i will. trust me when i say, i will stick to business. for starters tonight, i am not just stock on business. what i am stuck on is tell a tragedy like this profoundly affect business in ways you know like a moment of solace.

trying desperately to make sense of an unspeakable tragedy, and they can't, no one can. for all the expertise, a complete loss trying to understand this senseless taking of life. so many lives. i don't offer much to explain that. i do predict this. coming when they did to me it will have a profound effect on not just our psyche, but our economy. the shoppers to pause, parents who lost to be in this debt. still intend to make this a special holiday for their family, but maybe a little less focused. i bet you this past weekend, like the state a lot of folks are simply questioning why stop in their shopping tracks to ponder the fragility of life and thinking of those now devastated

families in connecticut. they're but by the grace of god. and not saying that malls will not be crowded. i am saying, this tragedy has changed things coming as it did when they did. the most innocent among mass. it cannot help but affect us, as lois, maybe even stop us. good for the soul, i guess, but not necessarily good for retailers. with me now, the wall street journal's steve more. spell it out. what -- and i know you monitor these sales numbers by the minute. what affect so far? >> the fallen angels in connecticut will move the area, the country, the world to more compassion, caring, working, harder to help each other. it will be like a september september 11th effect, eggs and much more profound.

so people we will shift from conspicuous consumption to giving more to churches and synagogues and spiritual institutions and give more to communities instead of shoppers shopping for their own homes, there will be giving the money to habitat for humanity. instead of shopping for themselves, they will be giving to the institutions that help the communities that are so broke and underfunded. neil: have you seen evidence of that, reported chips? >> right after hurricane sandy when we were all thanksgiving day and night working our way through wal-mart's across the country. people were buying one big gift, but for somebody else. not really shopping for themselves. in their religious institutions over the weekend. people were giving more

spiritual organizations, habitat for humanity. %-in connecticut, all the people who are devastated across the country from natural disasters to man-made. it started with the collapse in connecticut of the bridge and the senseless killings on i-95 and the people drowning in hurricane irene and then the effects of sandy. neil: cumulative affect. >> where the consumer will have a conscience the same way the consumer had a conscience after september 11th, but much longer lasting this time. neil: i respect to the heck out of bernie, but maybe these type of soul-searching moments tend to be short-lived, may be going

to the increased disaster nature or coverage of late or the fact that we have seen this sadly before. just a couple of weeks ago in a shopping mall, to say nothing of the overall shooting some months back. i am not saying we'd used to it, but we are not shocked by this. whenever a fact, it is not that long lasting. >> i am not so sure about that. that think there was something different about the horror and nightmares quality of this tragedy in connecticut. you know, i went to tyson's corner mall, which is one of the biggest malls in america saturday. i could not believe it. seventy parking spaces, which is, you know, usually the weekend before christmas, you know, that is the busiest time of the year. i noticed, just being in stores, people did not have their heart in it. it did not seem so important whether you get the latest ipad award, you know, you contrast

this with people stampeding in the doors to get the nike shoes. you know, will there be an economic effect? i have not seen it yet, but i think that there will. retailers will be heard by this because people -- this last weekend was one of the biggest, if not the biggest shopping weekend of the year. people were not taking out there credit card. they just did not have their credit -- part in it. neil: and they don't. >> that is going to hurt. that is going to, i thinkk have a significant needed impact potentially on retail sales. you don't make that up. if you are a retailer, you never make that up. neil: make it up. what do you see them? >> steve is completely correct. the credit cards as steve referenced, or not being pulled out. the extra items, as steve said, were not being bought in shopping malls and shopping centers.

and steve is absolutely right. retail. you miss the sale now. you do not get back the week after christmas. united back next year. there are so many retailers and trouble that it may rationalize some retailers next year and shopping centers the following year. it is going to have a long-term effect, what is going to have a beneficial effect on the spiritual psyche of americans, so, as you said, it is not the conspicuous consumption. it is really caring about the community in the people and the community helping one another. >> let me add something to that. i get annoyed the people sang spending stimulates the economy. that is through, but people save a little bit. is that the end of the world? and not so sure when we have such huge debts on the personal and federal balance sheet. at the end of the world people keep their wallets in their pants this year.

neil: particularly for all the right reasons. there is a flip side to tragedies, sometimes, not all the times. they can bring out the best and as, neighbors to stop quarreling . the speaker meeting president obama at theewhite house, and sounding particularly noteworthy that there was little if any name calling after that meeting. that does not mean that the cliffs still is not coming. they are just not shouting about it or party figures about it. hence, they might put aside personal attacks and do something about it. clear politick reporter. what do you see happening? >> well, there is a markedly different tone on capitol hill. we have been accustomed to congressional leaders opening of their respective chambers of the beginning of each week for the past month, kind of poking in each other and really having a negative debate. today we sought congressional leaders take to the floor and really lament this situation, the tragedy that happened in

connecticut of the weekend and called for support, continued support an outpouring of support for the families there from capitol hill. and we also saw lot of talk, of course, today, about the issues of gun rights and gun control on the floor. neil: here is what i am thinking. i know politicians are human beings, but there are also politicians demand that think in this environment they don't want to look indifferent or callous or sniping about a deal when certainly in this environment does not seem to register. it seems offensive. even if a deal looks unlikely, they are not going to get nasty about it. i guess the question i'm asking you, how long do you expect that to last if a deal does not involve? >> well, we saw over the weekend the speaker's staff and the white house staff quietly working behind the scenes. we did not hear much about that. the speaker went to the white house today again going quietly, returning to capitol hill

quietly. not really much information coming out. there are trying to work out a deal here, but we're not going to see the kind of public debates, i think, that we saw last weekend in the week before, these kind of heated exchanges. i think, you know, this will be important to watch, whether some lawmakers who will be tough to kind of get on board with some of these deals, whether it is often a little bit in the face of tragedy. there still are some really big divisions on both sides, of course, but as you mentioned, you know, whether we will see this publicly, i think, remains to be seen. neil: we will watch closely. clear politics. thank you very much. so, if the speaker blanks. the guy with the pledge is worried that the speaker is going to fold. ♪

[beep] [indistinct chatter] [kids talking at once]

[speaking foreign language] [heart beating] [heartbeat continues] [faint singing] [heartbeat, music playing louder] ♪ i'm feeling better since you know me ♪ ♪ i was a lonely soul, but that's the old me... ♪ announcer: this song was created with heartbeats of children in need. find out how it can help frontline health workers bring hope to millions of children at everybeatmatters.org.

neil: well, it turns out that the speaker is for hiking taxes on the rich, just not the same

ones the president is talking about. in a private meeting, reports are that the speaker said he is open to zapping the million and overcrowd to secure a deal with the president wants to go after the 250 grand in overcrowding. to grover, who has been thinking that over, talking about americans for tax reform president grover norquist. we are getting thi variety of different sources. that is the deal he has offered the president on taxes. what do you think? >> well, the reason i have been advocating court will -- for quite some time that he should insist on c-span cameras and fox business cameras in the negotiating room so that when he put something on the table in return for something else, the conversation does not end with his concession. what we don't know is that what exactly the various moving parts of this deal are. i think it is wise of the obama

administration to take any movement on taxes and trumpet it while not moving at all on spending. i am not sure this is why is negotiating strategy. neil: we don't know. we are told one of the things he is open to is addressing entitlements, but to your point, maybe your fear, a broad promise to address them eventually. that won't do it. right? >> for years the president has done nothing entitlements said and make them worse and then a new one with obamacare with a trillion dollars of tax increases attached to it over the next decade. neil: so this deal is dead in your eyes if the speaker entertain it. would you go after him? >> there is no deal. there is a conversation that they're having. we don't know what the moving parts are. i think their is a very real question as to whether the president wants the deal or whether he would rather go over the fiscal cliff. it looks to me as though the

speaker is tough to have showing how terribly reasonable he is. every time he puts one of these on the table the president says no to the idea of taxing people who make more than a million dollars. he wants to hit people who make 200,000 that. neil: so what of the president goes with the million and over? still our view, going after spending and they are not doing and. >> yes. the only reason you raise taxes to avoid reducing spending. every dollar in tax increase this place is a dollar of spending. so the problem was spending too much, tax increases are part of the problem, not part of the solution. they crowd out spending cuts. now, there are two other bites of the apple that the republicans have. the debt ceiling increase in the continuing resolutions that have to be voted on because the democrats in the senate don't pass budgets anymore. everything is done by a continuing resolution your much

smarter than i am, but as i see it, the only thing really being moved here as far as pieces on a chessboard of the size of those tax hikes and to their will affect a mess and now has, -- gone up from the republican negotiating point. that might make it more palatable to some republicans. whenever they agree on the flip side of that in terms of spending or not, would you hold any republican wwo raises taxes to breaking a pledge and a target in two years? >> again, you have to look at the whole package and whenever the deal is, a temporary deal because we are going to be going back, both -- the republicans have very little leverage in this initiation. a lot of leverage and debt ceiling in a lot of leverage and the continuing resolution. the play that we can make to keep taxes low and to restore tax reductions in the subsequent

negotiations. they have been talking originally about doing rate reduction, not increases, but a reduction as part of tax reform driven by the power of the continuing resolution and the debt ceiling. neil: in an of itself rrising taxes right now, raising rates right now is not a scarlet letter on anyone who does it right now, or is it? >> again, it really depends upon what the broader issue is. this is a piece of the puzzle, not the agreement. the first part where, frankly, the republicans have the least leveraged. activision push for what they get two years ago from the same president obama which was an extension of all the tax cuts. neil: they're not going to get that. >> one of the reasons we are not doing as well is that the american people are not there to see these negotiations on c-span. the president's original budget cut was a trillion dollars in savings by not occupying iraq in

afghanistan for a decade, to countries we have been kicked out of, so it is not exactly a budget cut, but he was trying to get people to agree that it would be his contribution to deal. that was on "cavuto." instead, the new york times quotes every republican offer on taxes as a concession that has not actually happened yet. at think there is their very real danger of us spending too much time talking about saints in a negotiation which is why we should all be on tv -- neil: but it's not, so we have to go with it. but i think that the fates -- i think rare going to have it. >> we will see. neil: thank you. meanwhile, punches were flying, and now lawsuit's filing. michigan union fighting a new crackdown. a legal eagle saying they will still get shut down. ♪ the boys use capital one venture miles

for their annual football trip. that's double miles u can actually use. tragically, their ddy got sacked by blackouts. but it's our tradition! that's roughing the card holder. t with the capital one venture card you get double miles you can actually use. [ cheering ] any flight, anytime. the oreboard doesn't lie. what's in urallet? hut! i have me on my fantasy team.

♪ neil: well, signed to a sealed, but still not delivered. days after michigan's governor sign that right to work bill, different groups already filing lawsuits to block it. lots more are expected. the folks trying to block the law to have a case. they disagree. explain to me why they might have a case. >> to very important reasons. first, there is a due process issue about how this came into place. there was no notice. they actually closed down the state house. it was done in secret. whenever something is done in secret, people have something to hide, something that they are ashamed of. neil: like the health care law. >> you think? and that's correct. the public did not have an

opportunity to weigh in, criticize command their opinion, which is what this country is based on. this is a huge reach to somehow argued that allowing in more protesters and citizens to yell at the legislators would have changed the outcome, i think it is preposterous. if that was the cases should be running and yelling in my legislators because there are a lot of laws i want changed. >> as an american citizen, that is what this country was based on, our right to contribute to the political process. the citizens of michigan elected these lawmakers based on their principles and promises. neil: to know what they came up with. >> the problem is the governor said for years that he did not have this issue on his agenda. he may not have gone so far as to say he did not support it, but he said this was a non-issue. neil: he did not go after collective bargaining. what he brought to the floor, the idea that the public sector workers have to be immunized. let them make that call. >> it is not a constitutional issue and was not the

legislature that decided to close the doors. plenty of individuals have the opportunity this speak there mind, i expressed their concerns neil: she said no. >> there were not permitted during the political session. there were no committee hearings the public could not voice their opposition. neil: of the defense would have a very good case arguing. so it's possible that judge could overturn it. >> procedural is just as important. we should dig deeper and look at the purpose of unions to begin with. it is about the individual being less powerful than the group. so if this law has the effect that many of its opponents believe it well, a decrease in money and find steady in in, it will decrease their power and eventually overtime -- neil: we know in the 23 other states that have right to work laws, the business environment has not improved. so a better environment. >> absolutely. the statistics speak for

themselves. times have changed. unions are not as relevant as they need to beat. tons of labor laws that cover everything from, you know, -- neil: they have those. >> absolutely, but -- neil: don't throw them out. you consider them outdated. >> we don't throw with the law, but i think the relevance of unions themselves is questionable because we have these laws, and we have wage and hour laws, discrimination laws to my handle these cases for years. >> why should private workers who would be part of this union, but not have to pay dues benefit from a grimace that they make? is that not a legal argument that overturned? >> the issue really is why would require as a condition of employment someone to pay to be part of the union? what if you don't believe in the ideals? neil: what if you benefit from what other increases they score? >> so that is up to the union. >> but is not the main fact. the law requires that the unions

represent all the employees, whether or not they are members of the union. neil: i mean, not the u.s. are -- i talked to lawyers all the time. i never understand you guys. you are so brilliant. there is an argument to be made that they're not part of the union or could benefit from a government they make, so there might be a stipulation for nonunion union members, do you know what i mean? >> plus break this down and make it simple. neil: i like that. it's very effective. go on. neil: employees had to pay a very small percentage of their income to the unions for representation. as a result of this law, it will no longer be mandatory for employees to make those payments. as a result, the unions will be representing all of the employees, but without necessarily being paid. it will become a voluntary basis, whether or not these employees want to pay a couple of hundred dollars per year.

neil: that is exactly right. do you agree? >> i believe -- is all about choice, giving employees and workers a choice. if the unions decide that they want to change the way they handle things, then that is on them. perhaps this is a way to get unions to change things happened convince people that they should be -- absolutely. why should somebody be forced to pay into something, especially as a condition of employment? neil: you don't think they have a legal rant -- legal ground to stand on. >> i don't think this will all watering court. they need to deal with this during the next election. neil: you would be suing everyone and his uncle. >> there are legitimate challenges to this law and employees need representations'. he is in do a better job, but i think people have a choice their right to say we can get this representation for free. why am i going to pay for it. that is a danger to the representation. he said a few moments ago.

these other states that have this law have not seen a distraction to the aryans, but the point here is -- neil: i did not say that. i said they're doing very well. >> i did not mean to misspeak. the point i am trying to make is that manufacturing states like michigan, it is much more important than in southern states where you don't have -- the auto, date unions need to exist. neil: the industries. thank you very much. it is not a good day to be a millionaire. reports are that the speaker has to run them under the bus. that is what they expected. here is what they did not. that there would end up being the only one under the bus. ♪

♪ neil: just because the speaker

is open to hiking taxes on millionaires, do not assume democrats are going to return the favor by hiking the retirement age anytime soon. members of the congressional black caucus already on record mixing the eligibility age to 67 from 65. many other prominent democrats agreed. medicare and medicaid. it's a democratic congressman one of them. congressman, even at 20 years out for people with 35 now, 45 even 20 years out, people that are 45 years old now, what about raising the age? >> the first question is cutting medicare to extend the tax cuts. if you let all of the tax cuts expire, you have 2 million more than the simpson-bowles goal of in medicare. once you decide you want to cut medicare in order to pay for the

tax cuts, then you can get and tax cuts, then you can get into how you're going to do it. a carries the aids. neil: he is offering. he might go down, of the cases. you would be open, if he gives in on an issue, you would be open-ended, as another negotiating return, addressing the medicare eligibility age down the road. down the road? >> and you want to start off going to pay -- let's talk a lot of the tax cuts, not just over a million or 250, all of them. he let them expire you have to get anything. neil: to you for letting all of the rights expire? >> am i? yes. >> that would solve the problem. >> more then solve the problem. now, if you want to extend them. neil: keep medicare going for more than a few years. >> twelve years now. if you want to cut medicare, keep the money in medicare to

extend medicare, not to pay for tax cuts. neil: it sounds like you would be very open to letting all of the tax rates go back to up pre- bush cutting levels, and other words, clinton-era levels. in order to not touch anything on entitlements. >> that is the choice that you want to make. neil: but a lot of people don't want to make that choice. >> but it's a choice that we will have to make the monk that amount that is a choice that you just made. is almost mathematically required that you also cut medicare to pay for it. neil: can we do both? >> well, you can pay for, but you have to pay for it in some kind of way. you are talking arithmetic. going to have to address the fact that government spending is

exceeding the money at this being brought in. it might now, but you still have to address spending. are you doing in the spending side? >> well, we have already cut a trillion and a half of non-defense discretionary, the lowest point that it has been as a percentage of gdp. we have already made significant cuts. we cut $716 billion. must not have been watching television over the last presidential campaign because cut $716 billion. neil: in order to pay for neil: so in order to pay for something that is expensive -- you just lost all that away? >> a lot of that went back to medicare. you get free checkups and cancer screenings. neil: anything you would -- >> $716 billion and we cut it. [talking over each other]

[talking over each other] neil: that was a snub to the health care law -- was in the? >> they are all slots. neil: everyone pays more taxes. i'm just telling you the math. so besides what you say, something would have to give, or words that already being brought down. what i'm asking you is why. >> to the extent that medicare needs adjustments, and you save the money. we need to make adjustments in medicare, either raising taxes or reducing benefits. there are a lot of ways to reduce the benefits. but keep the money in social security. my problem is cutting social security and medicare in order

to preserve the tax cuts. neil: what i'm saying to you, sir, you can go ahead and raise all the rates that you wish. i appreciate your clarity on that. you are very to the point. that alone isn't going to do it, either. >> inputs in children and a half on the table then you need. it is a trillion and a half better than simpson-bowles. neil: all right, a chili and and a half, we have to shave at least a trillion over 10 years, it's like chump change. >> simpson-bowles had a goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction.

>> reason that no one is making a list of what you have to cut, when you look at the list of things you have to cut, social security and medicare, transportation and everything else, you make a list of what you have to cut in order to extend the cuts and then we can make a choice. do we want to make these cuts in order to preserve the tax cuts? i would rather not have a cut. what i suspect we will do, pass the tax cuts first, then come back and make all the draconian cut that number could pass up we knew. anyone i don't really think so, congressman. [talking over each other] [talking over each other] neil: you have a solution to it, but we will see what happens. at least you are clear. you want high taxes for a lot of folks. all right. you i want to make choices. let's make the choice is. neil: part of it is hard

choices. >> deficit reduction is on talking bout. it's all there. neil: all right, thank you, congressman, thank you very much. after the break, a private powwow at the white house. the president is backed into a corner. the economy may go off the cliff.

neil: if they are still talking, a deal must be in the works. john boehner met at the white house with the president today. great news, right? not necessarily. we have the former secretary to george w. bush. >> good evening. i think in politics, as well as business, leaders have to address both the urgent and

important. the urgent is to avoid going over the fiscal cliff. but that really is just a down payment on the important issue. that is the former fiscal foundation and then building on top of that policy that produces growth and opportunity and jobs. if we simply see a deal on taxes alone, i don't think addresses this as well as entitlement cuts and taxes. neil: i don't know about that, sir, in this environment where there is finger-pointing or

blaming, it is greeted poorly. rightly so among americans. they are afraid that they will look even worse. i think that -- and you are the expert -- i think that they are just afraid of looking like -- you and i know that you could have a problem. it's not the republicans who risk buffalo wing it. >> i certainly hope that's not the case. in regards to tax rates for people who earn more than a million dollars from his willingness to put the debt limit and debate off until late next year. there is general agreement on discretionary spending.

i actually thought it was interesting to listen to your previous speaker. what we are talking about is making fundamental changes to the entitlement programs to keep them healthy over the long term. neil: that was if the rates rose. i would be okay if they tried to get what they want. >> well, i think that is why we have to be very careful in terms of what we do on the fiscal cliff decisions. but we don't undercut our ability it leaves a firm fiscal foundation. it allows us to build policies for growth and economic growth above 3%.

jobs and opportunities. otherwise, we are condemning ourselves to an aspirational 2% growth level. that is a class like jobless recovery. at 2% we can meet our obligations, but we can't create jobs and opportunities. we have to get 3% or higher. neil: talk about something that would kick us in the aspirational. raising the eligibility age for medicare, even decades out, it will start with lots of rules and fines right now.

neil: no way, no how, democrats will consider raising the eligibility age for medicare.

the very real and expensive double standards right before our eyes. explain what is going on here? >> apparently the environmental protection agency thinks that it is a good time to make standards even more rigid so that businesses can have another disincentive to create jobs and put money back in the economy. it really makes you scratch your head. this is the same environmental protection agency that thought it but it was also a good idea to toughen up standards on farms. dust standards on farms. which they have every five years, the epa has to kind of revisit the clean air act, and they can keep the standards status quo, they can lower them. i think like newt gingrich said, this agency needs to be abolished. it is a job killer. at a time when we need jobs, and we are talking about businesses

investing in the economy and getting the economy going again, this makes you go, oh, my goodness. neil: i'm wondering about why it is okay to ram the stuff down our throats. it is tough to even consider raising medicare eligibility age. >> that is obviously something that is clearly necessary. when it comes to fixing the entitlement programs. listening a few seconds ago was full frustrating at several junctures. the number one issue for all

americans with jobs and the economy. the president wants to run through the epa, he should've made it clear that we are going to go on this environmental adventure at the expense of jobs and let the voters decide whether or not they wanted to endorse that. neil: what worries me is this is not set an encouraging stage. >> guy just laid it out pretty well. the former bush official that you just spoke with, the problem is entitlement. entitlements right now, if we look 75 years into the future, the congressional budget office has said that social security, medicare and medicaid are virtually 100% responsible for

our budget deficit in the next 75 years. neil: what is your concern? >> what is important is that we have done away with normal budgeting processes. we haven't passed a budget in 3.5 years. we have also done away with, in some cases, congress on legislation. if congress doesn't pass something that the administration wants. via the dream act. neil: not because he got more stuff more done, but a lot of that stuff didn't matter because it never got them. the potential of manchester united unlocked. nyse euronext.

unlocking the world's potential. can i still ship a gift in time r christmas? yeah, sure you can. great. where's your gift? uh... whew. [ male announcer ] break from the holiday stress. ship fedex express by december 22nd for christmas delivery.

neil: day make a list? stuff you have to do or have to buy?

decorations to finish? party is to make? but i bet the families of those 20 children are not bothering with a list when the only thing they want to is their child back. that is not happening. what is the point* of the list? we cling to that as a benchmark of what we get tender not getting done as a free some up productivity to what we could scratch off on a piece of paper. it is just a list. either marketing every item of there will be another list another marker one offering more things to check off until we take a closer look but they did not say much what matters.