of corrections. lauren: 18 years later, we will never forget. back to you. connell: lauren, thank you. the bgc charity day. thank you for joining us. that does it for us. "bulls & bears" starts now. deirdre: law makers back on capitol hill with many now pushing for a big expansion of social security. we will tell you how they plan to pay for it. this is "bulls & bears." i'm kristina partsinevelos. joining me, scottie martin, steve forbes, gary kaltbaum and liz peek. house democrats are debating this week on whether to vote on a new measure that would shore up and expand the social security program and they would pay for it by none other than raising payroll taxes. the proposed tax increase would reportedly raise more than a trillion dollars over the next decade. so gary, i feel like i already know the answer but do you think this is the solution to social

security, depleting over the next 35 years or so, so isn't this something we've got to do? >> hate it. kristina: i knew it. >> let me say this. they created this ponzi scheme many years ago where workers put money into something, where they said it was going to be in a lockbox and they ended up taking the money to where workers now that retired only get paid by the workers of today. they forgot to plan on demographics going forward so what do they do? go after the citizenry and go after the dollars and go after the wealth and turn it into another big gigantic redistribution of wealth. one gentleman wants to tax everything above $400,000. that means you put money into social security, a ton, and get a lot less back. in other words, they are treating the wealthy and the successful like the you-know-what on your shoe. it is a terrible idea for a government that's going to spend $4.5 trillion this year. they think they need more. >> well, the problem is that

social security trust fund has no money in it right now. just a lot of non-marketable ious for the treasury so they have already spent the money. the idea it's going to run out in 2035, it's already busted today. moreover, raising taxes on workers will mean a less good economy and by the way, if we have a decent economy, there are more than enough resources to pay people who are on social security and about to go on social security, the problem's only with younger people and we can put in a new system for them. we have time to do it. so this is just another democrat scheme to fleece the american people even more. >> steve, the government intends to be fully good to go on those ious, i promise. just like say the guys from "dumb & dumber." whatever their names were. they will pay all those back. here's the thing. i'm joking. steve, i'm joking. here's the thing. gary said something important. the operative word of what gary started with there is workers.

you're going to raise corporate payroll taxes, then say okay, hey, you know what, i want you to still hire all these workers and pay benefits and higher salaries, yet you will tax the corporations who are the very ones paying those workers. it itself is not going to help social security because it's going to hurt the workers. >> can i throw in something, which is this subject has come under scrutiny, obviously many times before, and i think if you go back to the simpson-bowles commission in 2011, they actually had some sensiblede about reforming social security to make it sustainable. the number one thing is you have to extend the retirement age because when this program went into effect, initially, the average life expectancy was something like 62 years old. benefits started at 63. the idea was not that people would live for decades on social security distributions which are extremely modest. the idea was it was a supplement for people who didn't have any

retirement savings. unfortunately, the american people have now looked at this as sort of how they retire, what they will depend on and it is inadequate for that. we have to sort of reform the basic underpinnings. kristina: that ties in perfectly to what gary started out saying, we are not accounting for the changes in demographics. you're saying that, and our viewers aren't seeing it, but steve is shaking his head when you said to increase the age of retirement. why is that? >> because it breaks the promise. you put money in, you are supposed to be able to withdraw at a certain age. we have the resources to pay those benefits. we have the resources to pay for benefits for people that are about to go on social security. certainly we do. we have an economy -- well, washington is spending on other things. that's another problem. but the fact of the matter is, we have an economy that has over $100 trillion of assets, an economy that's quite capable of growing 3% to 4% a year. so instead of taking things away from people, let's figure out how to have this economy more

for people who are working, because it's their resources that pay these benefits. >> but -- let me say steve forbes, this was a contract with the american people that's been changing since day one. i think when it started, social security, you were like on your first 3,000, then it kept going, then it kept going. then you started getting taxed on your social security and they raised it again and again. >> that's why we shouldn't fall for this trap today. in the 1980s they said this will save social security for the next zillion years. here we are and the system is in trouble again. leave the thing alone, get the american economy growing and have private accounts, personal accounts for young people where they would own those assets, not washington politicians. >> you want to find the mismanagement, find the mismanagement in the whole social security system and look no further than the public nature of it. if you privatize those accounts like other countries have had, we don't have that growth problem in a lot of the numbers

that are in the coffers. if the government would get its head out of you know where, that would be great to actually get those privatized. you want to see assets grow, that's how they will grow. >> then they lose the control of those dollars. >> there you go. >> imagine if they never did social security but made you put that same amount of money into an account, ten-year treasuries. a, the treasury would have a ton more money right now and b, we would have control of our money. but of course, we gave it up many years ago and we are in the soup. kristina: what do you think, given that the bill actually has 210 co-sponsors at the moment? >> well, it sounds like they are all but one is a democrat so it's not going anywhere. they may indeed pass it out of committee and it may pass the house. it certainly isn't going to pass through the senate. look, i think a lot of people feel something needs to be done about social security, the program, and the question is how is it going to go about it. i think the answer is even a lot of people in the democrat party

in the house are saying there are a lot of different avenues including some of the senior people like steny hoyer. he's not signed off on this. sounds like there's a lot more work to be done and everyone has always thought it needed to be bipartisan because this is truly the third rail of american politics. >> let me just say, the biggest issue is anybody that's trying to become wealthy gets screwed by all these proposals of all these new taxes. they are trying to say if you make a certain amount above this level, you're getting taxed more and the next level, you are getting taxed more. it never ends. we will never have wealthy people ever again if these people ever get their way. >> if they don't go after those people directly, they will go after the corporations that employ those people. therefore, if you are a corporation sitting there watching this, reading about this potential bill, you are like great, now they will go after us for the social security mismanagement that's occurred for decades now. kristina: tell me how you really feel. president trump, we will move on, president trump preparing to take action on e-cigarettes. is the president, though, making

the right move or has he gone too far? we will ask dr. marc siegel, next. >> vaping has become a very big business, as i understand it. like a giant business in a very short period of time. but we can't allow people to get sick and we can't have our youth be so affected. great riches will find you when liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. wow. thanks, zoltar. how can i ever repay you? maybe you could free zoltar? thanks, lady. taxi! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ ♪ ♪ award winning interface.

♪ ♪ award winning design. ♪ ♪ award winning engine. ♪ ♪ the volvo xc90. our most awarded luxury suv. ♪ ♪ audrey's on it. eating right and staying active? on it! audrey thinks she's doing all she can to manage her type 2 diabetes and heart disease, but is her treatment doing enough to lower her heart risk? [sfx: crash of football players colliding off-camera.] maybe not. jardiance can reduce the risk of cardiovascular death for adults who also have known heart disease. so it could help save your life from a heart attack or stroke. and it lowers a1c. jardiance can cause serious side effects including dehydration, genital yeast or urinary tract infections, and sudden kidney problems. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. a rare, but life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur.

stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this bacterial infection, ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. lower a1c and lower risk of a fatal heart attack? on it...with jardiance. ask your doctor about jardiance.

people are dying with vaping. so we're looking at it very closely. you know, if nothing else, this is a conference that's going to let people know about it, because people are going to watch what we're saying, and parents are going to be a lot tougher with respect to their children. lot of people think vaping is wonderful, it's great. it's really not wonderful. that's one thing i think we can say definitely, commissioner. it's not a wonderful thing. >> president trump looking to take action against all flavored e-cigarettes. this after at least six vaping-related deaths from a

mysterious lung illness. the trump administration is expected to roll out rules banning thousands of flavors in the coming weeks. here now to talk about this is our good friend, dr. marc siegel. so dr. siegel, should there be a cigarette ban? >> i want to answer it indirectly and say this. out of the nine million people that are vaping, three million of them are under the age of 18, and one out of four high schoolers are now vaping. they give the reason that they're vaping is flavors. they don't even know there's nicotine in these products. since this is illegal, illegal, by the way, for anyone under the age of 18 to be purchasing an e-cigarette in any state in the union, they are looking at trying to raise this to 21 in congress right now, by the way, but there's not a state where you can actually legally buy this, so of course they have to enforce it. and of course the trump administration is right to say let's clear the deck of flavored e-cigarettes. that's my way of answering. that's what has to be banned. get the flavors out of this. >> dr. siegel, this is scott martin.

when i'm reading about some of the i guess evidence that's coming out is a lot of the issues seem to be withome of the counterfeit e-cigs or vapes out there. what does the ban do for getting after those? if you take the stuff off the market that's legal, i get it, but it doesn't attack the ones that shouldn't be there anyway. >> you me a great point. let me be clear. we are talking about two different things. i agree with you that the 450 cases of people being severely ill suddenly from vaping, it's probably due to a cannabis-related product that they either got in a cannabis shop illegally or in a state where recreational marijuana is legal. not the same thing as what's coming out today at the national institute of drug abuse saying by the way, one-quarter of all high schoolers are vaping. that's what the administration is reacting to. m agreeing with your possible cynicism that they may be piggybacking on to the other headline here and saying wait a minute, let's use that for more momentum, but it's a separate one, too many high schoolers are

vaping. two, there's no regulations on the product whatsoever as to what constitut a produ that's actually been scientifically studied. so yes, the injury is probably due to cannabis shops or illegal products or home brew, not to what we're talking about regarding flavors. >> speaking of flavors, a big discussion was menthol. that is included in the mix. it's considered a flavored product. why not go after banning menthol cigarettes as well, to maybe hopefully decrease the flavoring all together across the board? >> i agree with that. i think you're right about that. i think the way to go here is to understand that i as a physician, and many other physicians, like to use e-cigarettes to help smokers quit. guess what flavor i like? tobacco flavor. guess what kind of e-cigarette i like? the one that looks like a cigarette. i say to somebody instead of a cigarette, use this e-cigarette and you know, it helps -- kristina: the ones that literally look like a cigarette. they're not that popular. >> literally tobacco flavored.

of course they're not popular. if you were 16, wouldn't you rather have something that tastes like krcreme brulee? again, the survey is asking them, they don't even know there's nicotine in these things. >> can i ask, what is the big deal about nicotine? first of all, first of all, the lasterson diedrom this vaping-related mysterious illness was not a teenager, he was 50 years old. it seems to me the most incredible priority right now is finding out what's killing people, what's making them sick. it seems like it is additives, possibly something to do with cannabis or whatever. that seems to me like the big push the government should be on right there. secondly, though, i keep reading about nicotine, kids accessing nicotine. fine, but they're not smoking cigarettes. it seemed to me a heartbeat ago we were thrilled that people were not smoking. >> everything you just said, extremely smart. let me answer it. let me try. number one, vaping involves heating a liquid. when you heat that liquid, you are putting chemicals into your lungs. even a regular e-cigarette, juul

or another e-cigarette, we haven't studied the long-term effects of that, and some preliminary studies suggest they may lead to early emphysema. b, they have to be better than regular cigarettes. c, you're right that people are smoking cigarettes less when they go to e-cigarettes but guess what they do down the line? four times more likely to turn to conventional tobacco if you started with e-cigarettes as a teen. we are not completely off the hook here. we end up addicting people to nicotine. why should a 13-year-old be addicted to nicotine? i see no medical purpose for that. >> you make a very good point, doctor. that is we should not ban vaping. it's the abusie of vaping we ar discussing here. vaping is a great way for people who are smoking cigarettes to get off cigarette smoking. i know a number of friends who tried everything. kristina: that hasn't been proven yet. >> easier said than done. kr kristina: hasn't been proven yet. >> cigarettes are going to do, i

guarantee you, far more harm than vaping in terms of -- >> if you go to the american lung association and their website, you will be scared out of your wits when they tell you what's in these e-cigarettes. it starts with the word heavy metals and carcinogens. >> they want to equate it to cigarette smoking. two different things. kristina: we will leave it there. guys, let's talk about the white house now. you have white house aides that are on the ground in california looking for a solution to the state's homelessness crisis. does the administration really need to step in and fix the problem for california? we debate. >> it's actually become a national embarrassment. people around the world are looking at what's going on in california, in those cities, and saying what the hell is the matter with this country that they have these terrible third world type situations on their streets in the richest country

in the world. this is the age of expression. but shouldn't somebody be listening? so. let's talk. we're built for hearing what's important to you, one to one. edwardones. it's time for investing to feel individual. why accept it frompt an incompyour allergy pills?e else. flonase sensimist. nothing stronger nothing gentler. nothing lasts longer. flonase sensimist. 24 hour non-drowsy alrgy relief "have you lost weight?" of course i have- ever since i started renting from national. because national lets me lose the wait at the counter... ...and choose any car in the aisle. and i don't wait when i return, thanks to drop & go. at national, i can lose the wait...and keep it off. looking good, patrick. i know.

(vo) go national. go like a pro. all right brad, once again i have revolutionized the songwriting process. oh, here we go. i know i can't play an instrument, but this... this is my forte. obviously, for auto insurance, we've got the wheel route. obviously. retirement, we're going with a long-term play. makes sense. pet insurance, wait, let me guess... flea flicker. yes! how'd you know? studying my playbook? yeah, actually.

here, hello! starts with -hi!mple... how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! [ camera clicking ] wifi up there? -ahhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your xfinity store today.

kristina: help for california's homeless. president trump reportedly sending a dozen aides to look into the growing homeless crisis in california. a white house spokesperson telling "new york times" quote, the president has taken notice of the homelessness crisis, particularly in cities and states where the liberal policies of overregulation, excessive taxation and poor public service delivery are combining to dramatically increase poverty. liz, do you feel -- it's no doubt an issue. do you feel the administration should be parachuting some aides in to come up with a quick fix? >> i think somebody should do something. there are 130,000 people in california that are homeless, most of them living without any shelter whatsoever. this is a blight on the

neighborhoods, particularly in l.a. and san francisco. by the way, it's a health hazard for the entire country. there are outbreaks of diseases, medieval diseases like typhus taking place because of rats overrunning these filthy encampments. this is a true story. not sounding hysterical about it. someone needs to do something. i don't know if the federal government will have some solutions, having studied this. certainly the local governments which have raised about $1.5 billion to try to come up with some solutions have failed miserably. so i would say politically, probably the president is hoping to shine a light on what is absolutely a disgraceful situation and humanitarian aid really should be considered h e here, or some sort of fix in terms of adding to housing in the neighborhoods or whatever. i don't think this is something that the federal government should ignore. >> well, i think it's also the aid of mental health help because i think that's one thing california has ignored. you guys talked about the money

that they have raised, it hasn't made it to these folks, one way or another. the social service delivery. one of the issues, maybe california just wanted to turn a blind eye to it or whatnot but a lot of these folks out there need mental health help, if anything to get off the streets to get somewhere where they could get recuperated. so in the sense of the federal government coming in, if they know that going in, maybe that's the better solution than what california has been trying or not trying to do so far. >> well, clearly there's a mental health issue but also, it's a housing issue in the sense of zoning. it's made it impossible in california and elsewhere in this country to put up affordable housing. some cities, surprisingly chicago, you do have a variety of housing there for people with different incomes but in new york, california and elsewhere, they make it artificially expensive. then why don't the cities do more to make sure the people aren't sitting on the streets? why don't they provide temporary

shelters? they are ignoring it and then they blame washington. give us more money, we know the money goes to waste. kristina: gary, do you feel like it's the right answer to be putting the homeless population into government facilities? because that was a proposed solution and then the fear, this is based off commentary i'm reading online, the fear is that the administration is going to treat the homeless like asylum seekers and just p them into these buildings and push the problem aside. >> i think private/public partnership here in central florida we have the coalition for the homeless that does a marvelous job of at least getting them off the street, getting them into housing and getting them some meals. this is an absolute sin that you can fill almost one and a half rose bowls with homeless people in california and it just seems, look, i'm sure they don't want homeless, but it seems nothing's getting done. if i was the president of the united states, i'm not so sure i would send 12 people ther

i may send 50 people there, because this is an absolute sin that one person is living on the street when you are california and you are such a rich state with so much wealth and the job is not getting done. kristina: okay. we will give you the last word. we have to move on. we are remembering the 9/11 attacks. today we honor the victims, the survivors, the brave first responders and the families that are still waiting for justice 18 years later. judge andrew napolitano on why the mastermind behind the worst attack on u.s. soil hasn't faced trial yet and where things stand right now. that's next. all money managers might seem the same, but some give their clients cookie cutter portfolios. fisher investments tailors portfolios to your goals and needs. some only call when they have something to sell. fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions whether you do well or not. fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better.

maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. like very high triglycerides, can be tough. you diet. exercise. but if you're also taking fish oil supplements, you should know, they are not fda-approved, they may have saturated fat and may even raise bad cholesterol. to treat very high triglycerides, discover the science of prescription vascepa. proven in multiple clinical trials, vascepa, along with diet, is the only prescription epa treatment, approved by the fda to lower very high triglycerides by 33%, without raising bad cholesterol. look. it's clear. there's only one prescription epa vascepa. vascepa is not right for everyone.

do not take vascepa if you are allergic to icosapent ethyl or any inactive ingredient in vascepa. tell your doctor if you are allergic to fish or shellfish, have liver problems or other medical conditions and about any medications you take, especially those that may affect blood clotting. 2.3% of patients reported joint pain. ask your doctor about vascepa. prescription power. proven to work. 2,000 fence posts. 900 acres. 48 bales. all before lunch, which we caught last saturday. we earn our scars. we wear our work ethic. we work until the work's done. and when it is, a few hours of shuteye to rest up for tomorrow, the day we'll finally get something done. ( ♪ )

when i walked through a snowthat's when i knewtte, thei had to quit.ally get something done. for real this time. that's why i'm using nicorette. only nicorette gum has patented dual-coated technology for great taste. plus intense craving relief. every great why, needs a great how.

we cannot erase the pain or reverse the evil of that dark and wretched day, but we offer you all that we have, our unwavering loyalty, our undying devotion and our eternal pledge that your loved ones will never, ever be forgotten. >> it's been 18 years since the terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people on u.s. soil. mourners gathered in lower manhattan at the world trade center, the pentagon and in shanksville, pennsylvania to remember those whose lives were

lost, but survivors and families of the victims are still waiting for justice after all this time. fox news senior judicial analyst, judge andrew napolitano, is with us now. judge, thank you for being here. khalid shaikh mohammed, the mastermind behind the attacks, is still awaiting trial. why? >> so under the constitution, you have a right to a speedy trial. this is the longest delay in american history between the commission of the crime and the happening of the trial while the defendant has been incarcerated. so there's a couple reasons. one, took the supreme court three cases and seven years to conclude these people have the same rights as if they were americans being tried on the mainland, because the provisions of the constitution that regulate due process pertain to persons, not just citizens. therefore, wherever the government goes to confine and try people, the constitution goes with them. second, the government tortured these people and extracted

information from them as a result of the torture. what's the due process ruling came in, all the torture information can't come in. so the government had to reconstruct its cases and find ways to get this information before a jury without using the statements these people made under torture. three, perhaps the most scandalous of these, is a rogue fbi agent who answered a newspaper ad to become a paralegal for the defense team. he got the job without revealing that he's an fbi agent. he spied on the defense team and revealed to the government, not the prosecutors, but to other agents, what he learned. when this was discovered, he was fired, the government cleansed its playbook of whatever he told them, the defendants were so furious that their own lawyers had hired this rogue fbi agent, they fired them and hired new lawyers. you want to know why it's taken 18 years? because every time a new lawyer came in the case, they had to reexamine the case from scratch. the trial is scheduled for two

years from now. i don't think it's going to happen then. >> the defendants going to file, this has been going on so long and this is outrageous, unconstitutional and ask for release, would they get it? >> i don't think they would get it. i wouldn't blame them for making that argument. as i said, this is the longest one on record while the defendant is confined, where the delays are caused by the government. these are not delays caused by the defendant. shenanigans will come but they haven't yet. >> why does it take two years? why not do it next month? >> because the judge now is hearing the government's version of the confessions uainted by torture. here's what happened. after these guys were tortured and before they were actually brought to gitmo and charged, the government, fearing that there might be this kind of ruling, that information delivered under torture wouldn't be admissible, sent fbi agents tointerview them and talk to

them in a very friendly way, and they discussed what they said to their torturers. the government wants to introduce that evidence to the court. the court has to hold a trial to decide whether or not that evidence was freely given or tainted by torture. that's what's going to consume the next two years. >> so the great englishman was right, the law's an ass. >> in this respect, yes. but the biggest mistake the government made was sending them to guantanamo bay. if they had been indicted by a federal grand jury in new york they would have been convicted downtown, where the government does lose cases and they are basically fair and the southern district of new york was prepared to try this case. they would each have 3,000 life sentences, as absurd as that sounds. that's what they would have had in super max in florence, colorado. instead they are still in gitmo. the trial is nowhere near ready to go. the prosecutors are ready to go but they are pulling their hair because the court has too much work to do before the trial can start. >> judge, this is gary kaltbaum. i don't know if i have a lot to

add, except where is the influence of this was 9/11 and there's many families that were affected by this heinous act by this scum who hopefully rots in you-know-what down in gitmo? is there any influence whatsoever or is this pure straight down the middle a legality thing? >> that's a great question, gary. one of the problems with everybody being in guantanamo bay is they are more or less insulated and isolated from the type of sadness and remembrance we are all going through today. so there is no influence by the families. in fact, some of the family members who were scheduled to testify have died, and some of them have lost heart, so to speak, because the case is taking so long, they don't want to have anything to do with it anymore. >> judge, this is scott martin. we are seeing more domestic terrorism, even certainly as well as international terrorism here in the united states.

i mean, what can we do as far as a groundswell, getting it together to get maybe some other judicial processes in place, for instances like this? our country is under attack internally and externally. why can't we get these trials and processes moved along faster via some amendments or whatnot? >> well, domestic terrorists are tried as criminalendant in federal district courts in the united states, and it rarely takes longer than two years or the most i have heard of is three between the commission of the crime and the happening of the trial. it is too late to remove this case from guantanamo bay to a federal court in new york, since these 3,000 murders took place in new york, because the trial events have already started down there and dropping one and starting another would implicate double jeopardy issues. the biggest mistake was made by the bush administration when they said we will send them to cuba where the constitution doesn't apply and we can use torture and we don't have to

have unanimous verdicts and we don't have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. that was before the supreme court said you're wrong, wherever the government goes, the constitution goes and wherever the constitution goes, due process goes. >> unfortunately, we have to leave it there. >> wait a minute. >> we're out of time. i want to know why go through the torture process if they knew from the get-go they couldn't use that material? >> good question. best question i have been asked today. >> hopefully it was good torture. >> no torture is good torture. it's all unconstitutional and criminal. >> yeah, i know. i know. okay. >> we have to leave it there. thank you very much for joining us. we'll be right back. fact is, every insurance company hopes you drive safely. but allstate actually helps you drive safely... with drivewise. it lets you know when you go too fast... ...and brake too hard. with feedback to help you drive safer.

giving you the power to actually lower your cost. unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands?

president trump is switching his long-held stance on federal reserve interest rates, tweeting this morning the federal reserve should get our interest rates down to zero or less, and we

should then start to refinance our debt. interest costs could be brought way down while at the same time substantially lengthening the term. the president also blamed federal reserve chairman jay powell for keeping interest rates high, calling him and other members of the federal reserve, he calls them boneheads. very subtle. gary, should we have zero interest rates or lower and if you say yes, i'm going to be very disappointed, because you know credit markets, so don't disappoint me, gary. >> you know where i stand on this, big steve. look, let me harken back to when the president wasn't president. he railed against the bernanke/obama zero interest rates and the printing of money. let me harken back to the president talking about china playing with their currency. well, if you take things down to 0%, you are playing with your currency. let me harken back to the president on interest rates. you are screwing the savers. your people, your americans, that want riskless income

investment that you are telling them they are not going to make a dime on their savings. not good. hate it. don't do it. unfortunately, he's going for the easy money, the easy way out. >> i think more than that, i think it's a political decision on his part to sort of tee up the federal reserve as a possible scapegoat if the economy slows down between now and the election in 2020. but really, the president should be celebrating the fact that interest rates are not zero in this country. he should be celebrating the country's good economy and the fact that alone amongst the developed worlds just about right now, we can have 2% interest rates and don't have to go to zero. the answer is i think this is a foolish tweet. i do think that we should be taking advantage of these very very low rates and moving out the average maturity of the treasury holdings, the treasury borrowing, not refinancing the debt. that's not really possible. but we should be extending the maturities because that is

possible. that would save us money down the road, assuming we get at some point back to a more normal interest rate environment. >> canada's interest rate is also not in the negative. but one of the points, do we foresee such large cuts given, look at the markets, look what we saw today, then possibly the s&p 500, you think all-time high next week and the fed cutting again? do we really think that will continue to happen or will we see maybe a quarter rate cut and that's it? >> it will be a quarter rate cut but the real question, fortunately the democrats are complicit so they won't ask the question, is if zero interest rates, did they work in europe, no. did they work under president obama, no. so why do we think they will work now? >> or did they work in japan. that's what i don't get, right. we have the greatest economy in the history of america, yet we need zero interest rates. we want to refinance our debt, yes, but if we get our interest rates so far down, that's not

going to curb any kind of spending habits from congress, that's for sure, if they get the debt for zero. lastly, the one thing trump, i'm surprised he actually let slip, was he doesn't want any inflation. guys, inflation that occurs naturally that is somewhat under control is good for the economy. it's good for stocks. that was -- yes, it is, steve. >> it is. it stimulates growth. when you -- it's all about the psyche. you think prices will increase in the near term that stimulates you to buy now. if you think deflation is coming you hold off. that ultimately slows down the economy. >> it's a measure of value and it works best when it's stable. currencies have the best long-term rates have stable currencies -- >> you can still have -- >> it's like saying -- kristina: let me -- >> -- by increasing the number of ounces in a pound from 16 to 32 while it all goes down 50%. kristina: you say the central bank is wrong? >> absolutely. >> all central banks are wrong. look, the president keeps

whining and complaining about how germany's rates are lower. they are lower because their economy is suffering. our economy isn't. >> that shouldn't even be in the business of setting interest rates. but they are. [ speaking simultaneously ] kristina: can we all agree maybe this is just a political play by the president ahead of 2020? >> no. it's his belief. he wants lower rates. he wants zero rates. kristina: but now to say negative? to put that damage on the economy in the long term, to really do that? like you said, the savers? >> somebody whispered in his ear this would be good for the economy. larry's got to whisper into his ear no, it won't. >> guys, if the slowdown is coming trump wants to fend off by saying hey, i told the fed what to do, they didn't do it, therefore the slowdown came, it's not my fault. >> exactly right. >> the elephant in this room is trade. that's what's slowing the economy. >> the markets are doing the job. we don't need the fed at this point. let them take a powder for six months, go to hawaii and lay on the beach and leave us the heck

alone. >> clearly we're not going to solve the fed problem tonight. we have to come back some other time. but democrats are trying to put an end to offshore drilling in the name of the environment. republicans claim this will do more harm than good. a member of the house natural resources committee, congressman tom mcclintock, will explain his position, the right position, his arguments for this is not a good idea. wait for it. you'll learn something. even if they won't in california. >> supporters of this amendment are seeking to increase the chances of an environmental catastrophe that could do irreperable damage to my constituents' communities and our local economy. ♪ all right brad, once again i have revolutionized the songwriting process. oh, here we go. i know i can't play an instrument, but this... this is my forte. obviously, for auto insurance, we've got the wheel route.

obviously. retirement, we're going with a long-term play. makes sense. pet insurance, wait, let me guess... flea flicker. yes! how'd you know? studying my playbook? yeah, actually. their medicare options...ere people go to learn about

before they're on medicare. come on in. you're turning 65 soon? yep. and you're retiring at 67? that's the plan! well, you've come to the right place. it's also a great time to learn about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. here's why... medicare part b doesn't pay for everything. only about 80% of your medical costs. this part is up to you... yeah, everyone's a little surprised to learn that one. a medicare supplement plan helps pay for some of what medicare doesn't. that could help cut down on those out-of-your-pocket medical costs. call unitedhealthcare insurance company today... to request this free, and very helpful, decision guide. and learn about the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp. selected for meeting their high standards of quality and service. this type of plan lets you say "yes" to any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients.

there are no networks or referrals to worry about. do you accept medicare patients? i sure do! see? you're able to stick with him. like to travel? this kind of plan goes with you anywhere you travel in the country. so go ahead, spend winter somewhere warm. if you're turning 65 soon or over 65 and planning to retire, find out more about the plans that live up to their name. thumbs up to that! remember, the time to prepare is before you go on medicare! don't wait. get started today. call unitedhealthcare and ask for your free decision guide. learn more about aarp medicare supplement plan options and rates to fit your needs oh, and happy birthday... or retirement... in advance.

maybe they don't know that offshore drilling threatens nearly 746,000 jobs and nearly $53 billion in gdp along the west coast. however, i've seen that devastation. i visited those small businesses and i'm well aware of how many jobs could and would be lost if we suffer from another spill along the pacific coast. the road to venezuela leads through california and i would urge the rest of the nation to ask themselves is that really a road they want to take. we went down that road in the 1970s. >> democrats and republicans clashing in congress today over a bill proposed by democrats that would end offshore drilling in parts of the gulf of mexico, the arctic, the pacific, the atlantic and every other sea from shining sea towards albania, claiming the drilling presents a serious environmental danger. however, republicans such as

california congressman tom mcclintock disagree. he joins us now. congressman, tell us why you disagree and thank you. >> well, i watched these greens gone wild policies turn my native state of california from the golden state to an economic basket case. these are the same policies that were pioneered 15, 20 years ago by jerry brown and arnold schwarzenegger. they have now produced among the highest electricity and gasoline prices in the united states, they create artificial shortages. in the case of today's bill which is really the first plank in the green new deal, they would shut off all of america's vast offshore petroleum reserves, even to exploration. can't even look for more. and it's ironic because of this administration's pro-growth policies, for the first time in our lifetimes, america's now energy independent. we are the biggest petroleum producer today on the planet. we have now exceeded both saudi

arabia and russia and that is helping to fuel the dramatic economic expansion that we have enjoyed under this administration. the democrats would turn all of that back to the 1970s and those old enough to remember those days when people were lining up for blocks to get gasoline, where every meeting of the organization of petroleum exporting countries was a national crisis for ours, those are days we should not be going back to. they are recreating them in california. we shouldn't let those policies destroy the progress we've made here across our country. >> congressman, i couldn't agree more with you. thank you for joining us tonight. i fear we've gotten complacent about energy resources, energy availability, because we have had such a huge boom in fracking and production across not just offshore but onshore, too, surprising every industry analyst i have ever talked to. the issue i think is not the 30% of our reserves today come from offshore, or lie offshore.

the question is the availability of unproven reserves, as you point out. if we're not even going to explore, we don't know what that looks like. people have no idea that it takes 20, 30 years sometimes to bring on an offshore oil field. we need to know what's out there. but i think also, people just need to be aware of the fact that 70% or 80% of our potential energy resources may be offshore. can you talk to people about that and kind of spread the word? >> it's not complicated. the more we look, the more we tend to find. what the democrats' bill does is to prevent us even from looking. that shuts down energy production for the next generation and puts us back on the road to the energy shortages of the 1970s -- energy dependence on countries like saudi arabia and russia. which is what we finally overcome in large part because of fracking technology and because of this president's

policies. >> congressman, steve forbes here. how do you overcome the emotional argument, the pictures from santa barbara decades ago, louisiana a few years ago that somehow this is inevitable? how do you overcome that? >> well, that's the paradox of the seen and unseen. for 22 years, i represented santa barbara channel in the california legislature so i know the devastation of the 1969 spill but you have to keep that in perspective. all of the damage it did was fully compensated, the environmental damage healed within a year or so and what you don't see is the enormous amount of prosperity that offshore drilling brought to the channel islands communities that i represented and the legislature for so long, year in and year out, pumping millions of dollars into the economy, providing for thousands of jobs. just the development of california's offshore resources is estimated to produce another i think it was 65,000 jobs and billions of dollars going

directly into a state that desperately needs that economic activity, considering the fact that california now has the highest effective poverty rate in the country. >> congressman, this is scott martin. the technology has improved, true, with those drillers, the safety records have improved since those terrible spills you just talked about that steve initiated, and that's the thing. in the sound that we played, the democratic congressman said if this happens. i mean, go back to the wright brothers who flew for the first time and they say oh, if the plane crashes, we're just not going to take off, we're not going to do it ever again. henry ford, if the transmission fails i'm just going to stop and never rebuild the car. i mean, is that the right way to live in today's society, saying if x, y and z happens, we're just not going to do it anyway? kristina: ten seconds, unfortunately. >> when there's an accident we figure out how to fix it. >> and make it better. >> we make it better. and the recovery takes a couple of years. i don't want to sugar-coat it, but it's overcome. kristina: because of the lack of time i have to say thank you.

i do, scott, to your point, want to point out that sometimes you can't reverse the damage oil drilling does cause. we will move on. he>> t golden arches making a big announcement today that could change your next drive-through experience maybe for the better. possibly for the worse. you have to listen to find out. ? audrey's on it. eating right? on it! staying active? on it. ..ea heart risk? [sfx: crash of football players colliding off-camera.] maybe not. jardiance is the number 1 prescribed pill in its class. jardiance can reduce the risk of cardiovascular death for adults who also have known heart disease. that means jardiance can help save your life from a heart attack or stroke. plus, jardiance lowers a1c and it could help you lose some weight. jardiance can cause serious side effects including dehydration, genital yeast or urinary tract infections,

and sudden kidney problems. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. a rare, but life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this bacterial infection, ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. lower a1c and lower risk of a fatal heart attack? on it... with jardiance. ask your doctor about jardiance. the type 2 diabetes pill that's on it. learn more at jardiance.com i come face-to-face with a lot of behinds. so i know there's a big need for new gas-x maximum strength. it relieves pressure, bloating and discomfort fast. so no one needs to know you've got gas. gas-x. "have you lost weight?" so no one needs to know you've got gas. of course i have- ever since i started renting from national. because national lets me lose the wait at the counter...

...and choose any car in the aisle. and i don't wait when i return, thanks to drop & go. at national, i can lose the wait...and keep it off. looking good, patrick. i know. (vo) go national. go like a pro. the world is customized to you. built for you. so why isn't it all about you, when it comes to your money?

so. what's on your mind? we are edward jones, a 97-year-old firm built for right now. with one financial advisor per office, we're all about knowing what's important to you the one who matters. edward jones. it's time for investing to feel individual. reporter: burger king's automate are technology will offer an automated agent who will take your order. they say their agent will never sound tired or angry. do you think this will be better or worse? >> i think it will be worse. i love tech advancement in fast

food, but i have enough trouble with the kiosk getting my order right. i miss the interaction with the people. >> i think that's right. this is an opportunity for a service company to provide service. the fact that they are never going to sound unhappy or border. or -- or bored. who. nothing is going to change. >> it shows what minimum wage is doing. that's why they are -- they are hastening this move. >> what if they treat it like echo, they start taking your voice. >> at least my voice will be useful for something. my kids never believed that.

>> we have an audience listening to you. that does it for "bulls and bears." thank you for joining us. come back tomorrow. liz: democrat jerry nadler says impeachment is on. nancy pelosi and steny hoyer say no, it's not. critics in the republican part are you are asking, are the democrats misleading the american people? will this ruin legislation for this fall like nasa 2.0? to the 2020 democrats and their bold land to stay in power by raising taxes on