that's it for us tonight. i am dana perino and will be back here tomorrow at 10:00 p.m. ♪ >> tucker: well, good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." one of the most striking features of the debate over immigration in america is the fact that it's not much t of a debate. you will notice the failure, indeed the refusal of our elites to grapple with what exactly it means to allow millions of low-skilled workers from around the world to move here. when it comes to details about that, they quote the statue of liberty and they move on quickly. m maybe they don't really want to know much about the effects of their policies. maybe they really believe that every immigrant is a high school valedictorian or some world class stem talent who is only prevented from founding b the next apple or curing cancer by the h bigotry of native-born americans. maybe they really think that. either way, facts rarely enter into the conversation. it's wholly emotional.

but facts still matter and tonight we have some. a new study by the federation for american immigration reform finds that this country's i approximately 11 million illegal immigrants cost taxpayers about $135 billion per year in medical, education and law enforcement expenses. there is an offset to this: taxes. yet according to the study, these illegal immigrants pay only about 19 billion a years, in taxes. that leaves a deficit which youl pay of 116 billion. even by washington standards, that's a huge number. to put it into some perspective, americans spend only aboutilta 70 billion every year paying tuition at public colleges and universities. if you eliminate the expenses of illegal immigrants, we couldin make every public college in the country tuition-free and still have nearly $50 billion left over to, i don't know, i fix decaying infrastructure or subsidize health insuranceti for the middle class or probably a lot more. so it's worth considering, as we debate border control andd amnesty, these numbers. we also have another set of

numbers. these from the center for immigration studies on chain migration. when advocates in new yorkes or washington tell you about immigration, they always pretend as if there's an economic rationale for it. it's important, like every immigrant is a high-qualified expert in a coveted field and needs to be here for the sake of our economy. in fact, according to the numbers, government numbers, f your typical immigrant to the u.s. is simply related to somebody who is already here, usually a previous immigrant. according to dhs data, in recenl years, every so-called "initiating immigrant," the first one, has brought an average of 3.5 family members into the country with him. for some countries, the rate is even higher. each legal immigrant from mexico has brought an average of more than six additional family members here as well.ch many of these family members have little prospect for contributing economically. for instance, 24% of immigrants are older than 50, so if they become u.s. citizens they can become eligible for social security and medicare despite paying very little into those programs. none of this is an attack on

anyone as an individual.so we're willing to believe that most of these people, these immigrants, are good people because they likely are good people. but it's still an extremely expensive proposition for america, far more than most people understand. all this ought to weigh heavily on congress as it debates passing an amnesty for daca beneficiaries. supposedly these will only benefit a small group, a limited group of illegal immigrants who came here as kids. but if 700,000 daca recipients become legal citizens, of course they will bring many more. estimates suggest millions more including parents and siblings who may also have entered this country illegally. wherever you are on this question, these are serious matters. they deserve a serious debate in congress, and yet, don't count on that happening. on the left, the only interest is admitting as many immigrants as possible for the sake of getting and holding political power. that's the whole game right there. on the right, many republicans only care about pleasing theg business interest that fund

their campaigns who would like to see laborit costs as low as possible. low-wage immigration certainly does that. the concerns of regular voters who worry about their ability to stay afloat with stagnant wages, pay their mortgages, send their kids to summer camp, pay off their car loan, fear losing their cultural cohesion of their country, no one cares about them. if they think about those worries at all in congress it's only to tell voters their concerns are silly, illegitimate and they are bigots for having them. joining us now, two men behind the studies we told you about.em mark krikorian, the executive director of the center for immigration studies. dan stein is presidentd of the federation for american immigration reform, fair, and they are both in the studio tonight. thank you both for joining us very much. dan, first to you. you produced a study we just referred to that estimates the cost of illegal immigration. it's very different from the estimates that i hear from people i talk to on the show who are proponents of illegal immigration. tell me how you got these. >> it's about assumptions. they often mix legal and illegal

immigrants and they parse the data to try to produce these results. we went down and scrubbed the basic raw data from states, local governments, from pew, estimates from the center for immigration studies and put them together for updated assumptions. taking a look at criminal justice costs. the children of illegal immigrants cost tremendous amounts in educational care. that's part of the reason whyof they underestimate the cost.ll they don't look at education costs, particularly for children -- of illegal immigrants who are u.s. citizens. >> tucker: they don't even count it? >> no, you have to include those. they tend to overestimate the taxes. tucker, low skill immigration is inappropriate to our u.s. economy. we shouldn't be importing lowhe skill immigrants. most immigrants, average income $36,000 a year.dn negative federal tax liability. what you are doing is privatizing profits and accommodating costs on the taxpayer. it's a net loss for the community, for the american community to be allowing illegal immigration. >> tucker: it's a net gain for rich neighborhoods 'cause you get cheap help. >> the problem is, as mark steyn

likes to say, eventually you run out of neighborhoods. >> tucker: [laughs] totally true.ua the other assumption that drives me crazy, mark krikorian, is that when advocates for illegal immigration say we will grant amnesty to x number of people, that that's the actual number. and your study suggestss the real numbers are much bigger. >> clearly much bigger. it'll over a period of years but if, for instance, congress juste amnestied to the people who have this daca amnesty that obama illegally gave out. 700,000 people. we are talking at least a million and a half people over the next number of years that would be coming in after them. but that's actually the narrowest possibility. senator durbin and senator lindsey graham have a bill that would not just look at those young people who are covered by this daca amnesty but would open a whole new can of worms from scratch. >> tucker: we admit aboutre i think about 1.1 million legal immigrants a year.

and that's the number i always go with, but that's not the real number, it sounds like. >> in a sense it is, but it would be going up if we legalized more people. >> tucker: because of chain migration, which applies to all legal immigrants, that means you have a net gain of a lot more people than just that every year.l >> the long-term effect is enormous. for instance, the amnesties in the senate they are talking about, dream amnesties, they would amnesty 2 to 3 milliononre people, bigger than even the reagan amnesty of 30 years ago. double that number for the future over the next, say, ten or 20 years would come in because -- it's like -- remember there was an ad back in the '80s, a shampoo ad where a girl loved the shampoo so much she told two friends. they told two friendslo and so on and you had these multiplying images of her, that's what this is. this is, we give a green card to an immigrant. he sponsors two relatives. they sponsor two relatives. >> tucker: it's so dishonest. dan, how can people get away with saying that low-wage

immigration is an economic benefit to the united states? are they lying or are they misguided? >> it's about redistribution. the elites on top obviously are the ones who benefit from the redistribution. the employers benefit from the reduced wages. and the american people, average americans, american workers, what used to be the middlee class, they get hurt. they are at the bottom. it's a complete scam, and everything about our labor force shifted to this postindustrial superpower information economy. suggests that massive illegal immigration tolerated on a long-term basis or chain migration that deskills the labor flow, gives the american people incredibly bad -- poorly served. >> tucker: sounds that way. when hear people defend it, what they're really defending is their own prerogatives. rich people, when they defend it, they are basically defending it because they are getting a lot out of it, but you are not. >> in the '80s, when i had hair for shampooing, everybody knew people who actually had relatives doing the work,ot the hard work. social distance has increased to the point where elites are

completely detached by the tremendous terrible impacts,s, systemic illegal immigration and chain migration are having on the american people. >> tucker: totally agree, thank you very much, both of you.ra are immigration advocates are concerned with the prospects of chain migration creating a de facto amnesty or hundreds of billions instead of funding college of infrastructure, simon rosenberg, an advocate for immigration and he joins usd thanks a lot for coming on. >> good to be here. >> tucker: you can debate the numbers but what you can't debate is that the numbers matter. i can say from first-hand experience, having had dozens, scores, hundreds of these debates, you never meet anyone on the left was because here's the economic justification for these policies. the statue of liberty tells us it's a country based on immigration. it's like facts don't play a role in this debate on the left. >> let's talk about the report you referenced. you presented a balance sheet,

there was income and expenditures. they left out a big benefit on the positive side of the balance sheet, which is gdp. talk about illegal immigrants make up about 5% of all workers in america which is close to a trillion dollars a year of productivity coming out of the united states. the cost, which i think are wildly inflated, i could debate this with you for a long time,s. the net benefit to the country is still in the hundreds ofou billions of dollars if you have an honest balance sheet. >> tucker: no, actually, >> tucker: no, actually, o your accounting clearly was in washington a while. using gdp is the measure of prosperity -- >> a matter of productivity. >> tucker: it doesn't matter how much you make, it matters how much you make minus what you spend. >> business also has a net worth so part of the whole premise of gdp is that the workers of the united states, not the businessr the workers create a certain amount of wealth. $18 trillion a year in the segment of that that is made up by undocumented immigrants in

the united states is close to a trillion dollars of value a year. >> tucker: okay, you are assuming, what you are leaving out, you are assuming that where they to leave those jobs would not be filled. you have almost 100 million americans at working age not working. i wonder if that has an effect, if that is affected by immigration. >> this is basic economics 101. >> tucker: no, you are engaging in washington-based economics, everything is fine. >> you asked me to come on to talk about the study but what i'm saying to you is the balanc> sheet that they present in the study is not accurate. >> tucker: so are you saying that having 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, almost all of them working for low wages, almost all of them with low education is a net -- who are working -- and sending a huge proportion of what they make abroad to foreign countries. >> a portion. >> tucker: a big portion. the single biggest cash flow into mexico.

you're saying it's a net economic gain for the united states? >> there's no question. the report -- >> tucker: there's no question? >> based on economics 101. we are talking about a trillion dollars worth --o >> tucker: i'm starting -- >> let me finish. as you know, hispanic immigrants in particular have the highest worker participation rates of any demographic group in the united states. if they don't work, they don't get welfare. if they don't work, they have to go home.e. >> tucker: they do get welfare in a lot of ways. their kids go to school. >> that's not welfare. >> tucker: publicly subsidized.. >> but that's not welfare. >> tucker: call it what you want, it's something you didn't pay for you're getting free from taxpayers. >> studies show undocumented immigrants to pay taxes. >> tucker: you've noted a couple of times you got a phd in economics 101 as you put it. the law of supply and demand, which you will acknowledge is a law.

if you have an overabundance of something, its value falls. if you bring in over 1 million low-wage workers every year into a country with a finite population, what do you think happens to the value of work at the low end of the scale, do you think it rises? do wages go up when you do thatk >> i think the debate that you're trying to have here is a good one. what is the right number for people to come in. >> tucker: no. what you're saying is just kind of silly, actually. >> please, tucker.us >> tucker: i'm serious. >> we have one of the lowest unemployment rateses in the modern history. incomes have gone up now at a very rapid rate two years in a row, they are coming back from the great recession that took place.ow a a the highest stock market in the history of the country, the economy is not suffering in the way many representatives -- i would argue in a time we have very low unemployment rates, incomes are going up high as they've ever been, the highest stock market in the history ofwo the country and high corporate values. >> tucker: what you were saying -- you are going on and

giving me this propaganda points that i hear every day. they don't reflect the conditions of the country outside of the zip codes you and i live in. >> that's not true. >> tucker: 95 -- they are not working. the unemployment rate -- >> the unemployment rate is wisconsin is 3.7%. >> tucker: the unemployment rate is different from the reality of work. if you have 95 million people who are not working, and some cases for good reasons, a lot of cases they are on disability, that is not good for your country. it may not be reflected in an employment rate, it's reflectedt in the death rate of opiate o.d. >> is that immigrants' fault? >> tucker: people have seen their wages decline at the lower end. workers.born immigration is one part of that. why don't you just admit it? >> what we know from studies that we've done, my own organization has done is that the impact on the lower end of the workforce with the rates of immigration we had is demonstrable, there is no question about it. >> tucker: then we agree.

>> can i finish? >> tucker: of course. >> overall net net for the economy is that for the country as a whole, the rate of immigration we've had has produced far more benefits than costs. that's indisputable fact. >> tucker: now you are filibustering. hold on. you said it, i'm going to make the obvious point, thosese benefits, like all economic benefits in the last 40 years have not been evenly distributed. parts of the country are dying. our part is thriving, and i think we should admit it. >> i write about this all the time, are we done? >> tucker: he's telling me i have to go, we've got to go. we'd spoken a lot in the last couple of days about the nfl, currently the central figure in the war of respect due to our flag may seem like it's got nothing to do with you if you don't watch sports, we wanted to tell you how much you are paying the nfl every year if you are a taxpayer. according to watchdog.org, in the past two decades nfl teams have received 7 billion in

taxpayer support for their stadiums. the stadiums, often privately owned, operated for profit, are routinely financed by s tax-free bonds usually reserved for public infrastructure. the nfl enjoys a special exemption, you pick up the tab and they mock the things that you care about, just so you know. meanwhile, president trump has continued to lob attacks at the league, the football league, predicting imminent disaster if they continue to let protests happen during the national i anthem. >> the nfl is in a very bad spot. you cannot have people disrespecting our national anthem, our flag, h our country, and that's what they are doing. in my opinion, the nfl has to change or, do know what's going to happen, their business is going to go to hell. >> tucker: mark steyn knows something about powerful organizations going into to decline. he's been writing about europe for decades. mark steyn joins us tonight. mark, it does seem like a kind y of perverse system where u.s. taxpayers help make nfl team

owners richer while they allow their employees to give the finger to the country that subsidizes them. how does that work? >> i think the owners actually are giving the finger too. the joining hands and taking part in this subversion of a civic ritual. the justification for these subsidies by taxpayers for football stadiums, which i don't agree with, but the justification is that somehow it is a public, civic event in which the entire community can participate as a community. that's the justification for these subventions which haveic made these people enormouslyca rich. you can't have that and then for these organizations to strike at the most basic civic ritual, which is standing up for the national anthem. a national anthem can be a national anthem or it can be an opportunity for self-expression.

but it can't be both. the subversion of the most basi civic ritual of all by these and enormously wealthy people, privileged beyond belief, is absolutely revolting. >> tucker: has there ever been a country where the elites, thed people who are supposed to be running the country to whom the rest of us mere plebes look on in awe and ask, how should we live? we take our cues from you. has there ever been a country where those people attack the basic symbols of the country? it seems so perverse and decadent to me. >> what's interesting to me about this, there are people -- i spent a lot of my time in the province of quebec where the lieutenant governor enters for the first half of "god save the queen" and the last half of "o canada." neither of which secessionist quebecers care a hoot for but they still all rise reluctantlya to their feet and at least kind of look semi-bored as

they are standing up for it. malcolm turnbull, the prime minister of australia, ran a campaign to get rid of the the australian flag but he still stands up for the flag. what is going on here is absolutely extraordinary where people are actually taking the most basic act a citizen can do, rise to his feet when he hears the first bars of the nationalen anthem and have constructed an entirely different ritual around it. and to listen to people saying -- as you said yesterday, the free speech argumentnt is completely disingenuous. these are the same people who say that if ben shapiro or the head of the imf comes to an american college, it's so traumatizing you have to have a safe space for them. these same people will defend the hollowing out one of the few communal acts remaining in a divided nation and they

will defend it on free-speech grounds, completely disingenuous. >> tucker: what do you think would happen if nfl players did this to the mexican flag? if they said mexico has a long history of mistreating its minorities, which it does, as you know. we are not going to stand for the mexican flag and we will talk during the anthem. how do you think msnbc would respond to that? >> they would regard that as absolutely disgraceful. the point here is identity politics is all about the old leninist thing, who, whom. who is doing what to whom? it is all right to trash icons of the american inheritance. in the same way that for the dallas school board to propose getting rid of anything named after madison, jefferson, and franklin is fine. so it's okay to come up with your own way of respectingan the american flag. it's nothing to do with whether

they have the right to do it. it's nothing to do with whether it's legal or illegal.hi it's just that in the realm of manners where most of us live, where we don't require a policeman to tell us we can do something, this is disgraceful. >> tucker: it is. mark steyn. always sums it up perfectly. thank you. >> thanks a lot, tucker! >> tucker: up next, the left is obsessed with defining racism everywhere. we will explain why if they want to find bigotry, it may not be where they expect to find it. also, hollywood has become obsessed with the politics of donald trump and russia, a new documentary about armenian genocide is being shunned inin los angeles because it's "too political." rheumatoid arthritis. before you and your rheumatologist move to another treatment, ask if xeljanz is right for you. xeljanz is a small pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well. xeljanz can reduce joint pain and swelling in as little as

two weeks, and help stop further joint damage. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you were in a region where fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. xeljanz can reduce the symptoms of ra, even without methotrexate, and is also available in a once-daily pill. ask about xeljanz xr. [he has a new business teaching lessons. rodney wanted to know how his business was doing... ...so he got quickbooks. it organizes all his accounts, so he can see his bottom line. ahhh...that's a profit. know where you stand instantly. visit quickbooks-dot-com. with steak and shrimp? more shrimp.

and you know what goes great with that shrimp? you guessed it. more shrimp. steak and unlimited shrimp, starting at $15.99. only at outback.

♪ >> tucker: it wasn't that long ago that calling someone a racist was a big deal. it was a devastating attack on a person's character, if not blood libel. now everywhere you look, people just barely to the right of c al gore are being denounced as white supremacists, white nationalists, neo-confederates. it happened to us last week. on a website called media-ite, blogger justin baragona wrote a piece called "tucker carlson isn't even trying to hide his white nationalist leanings anymore." his evidence for this? a segment that we did pointing out that the democratic partyid has basically given up trying to appeal to the american middle class and has started openly encouraging illegal immigration. we didn't mention race at all because it's irrelevant. stagnant blue collar wages hurt black americans in st. louis every bit as much as they hurt white americans in des moines. how exactly does that qualify

as white nationalism? justin baragona didn't explain nor did he accept our invitation to come on the show and lay out his reasoning because, like an awful lot of name callers, he's a coward. too bad. it would've been interesting to hear someone tell us exactly what a white nationalist is and how we qualify. he's not the first person to make that charge, by the way. it's absurd and untrue, not to mention conveniently imprecise. typically we just shrug it off on the theory that it's pointless to argue with demagogues. but there's enough of that kind of libel flying around they country right now that we thought it might be worth taking a second to lay out clearly what this show believes on the question of race. above all, we believe that skin color is not the most important. thing about a person. what matters most is how you live, the choices you make, what you love, what you hate, how you treat others. that puts us at odds with the modern left, which classifies people first and foremost by their race. we think that's unfair. your race is one thing you cannot control. a

you were born with it. that's why it's wrong to judge people on the basis of it. it used to be the very definition of racism before liberals changed the rules to exempt themselves from it.o this show is based ino washington, d.c., the most democratic city in america, so we know and like a lot of people who call themselves liberal.n many of them are decent human beings and are motivated by noble impulses. some of them sincerely believe that tribalism empowers people. they are wrong. tribalism diminishes people. it makes their unique qualities irrelevant. it lumps them into a pile with a lot of other people who just happen to look alike.. it's dehumanizing. it erases the individual.li unfortunately it's also politically hard to resist. groupthink and race hatred arehe remarkably efficient organizing tools, as both parties have proved over the years.pt and so tribalism flourishes in this country. in the workplace, the academy, the media. the left has created systems c where people are judged,

punished, and rewarded solelyia based on their immutable l characteristics. this is bigotry, the very definition of it. yet in an orwellian sleight-of-hand for which they've become justly famous, o the left now claims that all who complain about this are themselves bigots. the most remarkable part is how quickly progresses have forgotten the lessons of the worst things this country ever did: slavery and segregation.n not everyone who looks like is alike. collective punishment is immoral. if you find yourself generalizing about entire groups, stop. it never ends well. more than anything, people are more important than tribes. everyone of them is an individual created by god. treat them that way. we are all equal but not everybody thinks they equally deserve the right to say what they think in public. a student op-ed in ohio suggested speakers ought to be barred from campus if their rhetoric annoys leftists. we will talk to the author of that piece just ahead. author of

that piece just ahead what started as a passion... ...has grown into an enterprise. that's why i switched to the spark cash card from capital one. now, i'm earning unlimited 2% cash back on every purchase i make. everything. what's in your wallet? 83% try to eat healthy, yet up to 90% fall short on getting key nutrients. let's do more. one-a-day women's. complete with key nutrients we may need, plus it supports bone health with calcium and vitamin d. one-a-day women's.

>> tucker: omari garrett is a student at denison university in granville, ohio. he recently wrote a piece for the student newspaper in which he said people shouldn'tve try to play devil's advocate, shouldn't ask demandingl questions for the sake of understanding opposing views. doing so leads to "the security of hate speech under the guise of free speech which normalizes and makes space for micro-aggressions, segregation, exclusion, and prejudice."

it's easy to make fun of that, hard to understand it but we must say omari garrett was brave enough to come on tonight. we are grateful for that. good to see you.de >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: first off, it seems to me the key phrase in the paragraph i just read is hate speech.st not a constitutionally recognized idea, as you know. there's no such thing actually as hate speech. tell me how it's interpreted on your campus. what is hate speech? >> well, hate speech is speechpe that comes out of the rhetoric that targets certain groups or individuals because of who theyf are or their social location in society. what's more about hate speech ie that it usually incites violence and brings harm to these people who white nationalists and white supremacists often target. >> tucker: it is speech that targets groups because of their immutable characteristics?gr if you were to say, for example,

i don't like you because i think -- i don't know you but i see your skin color. you are a beneficiary of white privilege. i is that hate speech? i'm attacking you because of your membership in a group. it could incite violence. would that qualify as hate speech? >> most definitely. when we are attacking people because of who they are and where they are situated in society, we don't look at where we can change that and how we can reshape society. >> tucker: right. okay, i agree with you that that is wrong. we did a segment on it about 3 minutes ago and i sincerely agree with you on that. it's wrong. it happens a lot in our society and i don't like it. the question though is, should you try to prevent people from expressing their views even if you dislike them? so, like, do you think it's okay to keep somebody from talking it you disagree with that person?

>> no. >> tucker: you don't. >> these aren't simple disagreements that we are talking about here. often times when we are talking about topics of hate speech and free speech and the way in which rhetoric and speech has become so important is because of the demagoguery that has been witnessed throughout the recent election. oftentimes, historically the university has been a place of politics, debate, and speechm and so this is nothing new. we know that people like to espouse white nationalist and white supremacist views at campuses around the country, even around the world. >> tucker: hold on. that's a debatable point that you just made, but the first point you made is not debatable, that traditionally colleges have been a place where people can say what they think, even if other people disagree. what's new, and i'm old enough to remember it, is that now students like you are saying no,

you are not allowed express those views. >> it is a new thing and it's because we are now at a space in society where we are concerned for the safety of people, right? we have a change in society where we are no longer allowing groups of people to be targeted and come under the harm -- >> tucker: i've been to denison in granville, ohio. how many people have been killed by white supremacists on your campus recently? >> nobody has been killed by white supremacy, but i'm sure that there are a lot of people living under the stress of white supremacy. >> tucker: so if i make you -- >> there are plenty of white supremacists on the campus of denison, and if you speak -- >> tucker: hold on, hold on. hold on. you said that there was the fear of imminent violence but you are conceding there hasn't actually been any a violence, so the standard is if i make you uncomfortable.nc

>> it's about enabling people to carry out micro aggressions, whether that be the use of the n-word, the use of different speech. we are not just talking about people who -- >> tucker: hold on. when you watch television and you see like in berkeley people with black handkerchiefs over their faces hitting other people with chair legs or spraying them with bear spray. that's actual f violence. i think you would agree. they are on the left, does that challenge --ir >> antifa and the violence that occurred from the left has been entirely reactionary to the white nationalist violence that has come from groups like the kkk and white nationalists. >> tucker: okay. okay, we're out -- so it's -- >> white nationalists are completely invested in violence. >> tucker: i wish we had time for me -- i don't want to be mean because you're just a kid but i wish i knew who taught you this stuff. tell your professor, whoever taught you the stuff, to come on the show because i would love to

talk to him. you are brave to come on and i appreciate it. we are out of time sadly. thanks, omari. republicans have revealed their plan to overhaul the tax code. the budget chief from the white house, omb director mick mulvaney joins us next. i can do more to lower my a1c. and i can do it with what's already within me. because my body can still make its own insulin. and once-weekly trulicity activates my body to release it. trulicity is not insulin. it comes in a once-weekly, truly easy-to-use pen. it works 24/7, and you don't have to see or handle a needle. trulicity is a once-weekly injectable medicine to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. it should not be the first medicine to treat diabetes or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take trulicity if you have a personal

or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, if you have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you're allergic to trulicity. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or symptoms like itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your risk for low blood sugar. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, and indigestion. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i choose once-weekly trulicity to activate my within. if you need help lowering your a1c and blood sugar, activate your within. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity.

grandma's. aunt stacy's. what are the reasons you care for your heart? qunol coq10 with 3x better absorption has the #1 cardiologist recommended form of coq10 to support heart health. qunol, the better coq10. >> tucker: after months of wrangling and talking bout of the republicans have unveiled their tax plan. if passed it would be the biggest tax reform, the biggest change to the tax code and morer than three decades. the proposed bill would cut corporate taxes quite a bit, increase deductions and otherwise simplify the code substantially. mick mulvaney is the director at the office of management and budget. he joined us tonight. >> for having me. >> tucker: there's always a winner there's always a loser, who are the winners and losers? >> the winners are probably the middle class, they will end up paying less tax and it will be easier for them to pay it.

it's a simpler, fairer system, about 90% of households right now i think actually hire somebody else to do their taxes. that's families paying people, ordinary folks are paying somebody else to do their taxes and we let them pay less and pay it themselves, and i thinky that's a big win for people. i think that the economy writ large as the other big winner here. that's what's driving the corporate tax, hope we get a chance to talk about that. a big piece of this, central piece of this is the corporate tax rate reduction. we do that to try and drive productivity, drive investment in america, drive economic growth, economic development. i think the two winners here are individual families, ordinaryy americans, what some people call the middle class, everybody considers themselves to be middle class and the overall economy because we are sort of revitalizing the american machine. >> tucker: who are the losers? >> i think right now if you probably make a lot of money at the very high-end and have a very extensive house in new york

or california you're probably ar loser because the one of the proposals is to remove the reduction for state and local taxes. and if you are living in a $2 million house in los angelesa california, you're going to be paying more tax.s. >> tucker: the idea is -- they are almost all blue states that have these -- in new jersey, california, new york, very high property taxes but they are in effect subsidized by the rest o, the country under the current code because they are deductible. >> we can talk about the economic impact of a lot of these things and i hope we do but from a general policy, getting rid of that state and local tax deduction is a great policy because you're absolutely right, folks in places like south carolina have been subsidizing folks who live in new york city for a long time and it's just not fair, that's why we talk about a more fair tax code and getting rid of those types of -- >> tucker: you say very rich people will pay more, what's the threshold for that? >> it depends.s. everybody has learned that we've gone through this is that there is no ordinary american family,

there are so many different moving pieces and parts.hr you can live in a fancy house making a lot of money in a low tax state. the treatment will be very different if you are living in a house in a high tax state. you asked me who the losers were, folks were making a lot of money living at her expensivete house and california, the winners are a lot of other folks but it is sort of hard to say in between. >> tucker: if i go to work every day and live off the wages that i make -- >> you are a lot better off. >> tucker: i'm taxed at one rate. if i inherit a bunch of money and live off the dividends and the investments of the money i've inherited and taxed at a lower rate. why is that fair and will not come closer into balance? >> i didn't follow the question. >> tucker: our taxes on labor are far higher than the tax on capital. if i inherit a bunch of money and live off the dividends of my investments i'm paying a lot less than somebody who works. >> if you're making 50,000 in dividends, is it really going to

be different than $50,000 in earnings. to a certain extent perhaps butd keep in mind we are increasing the standard deduction here to take it to i think $24,000 for a family. that's a lot of money to be earning in interest if you have inherited but if you are a family making $24,000 a year of your effective rate is zero on that. i think that's what's more important. >> tucker: we tax thingsk based on whether we think they're good. cigarette taxes are so high and solar panel subsidies are real. i never understood why we tax investments at so much lower rates. >> i think we are trying to move away from that. f clearly we don't get rid of all of those discrepancies, but we do move away from the tax code that is driven towards behavior. most of the deductions arero go. most of the loopholes are gone, in fact, i think the only ones that we're really sort of pushing right now are the charitable deduction and the mortgage interest deduction. everything else pretty much gone.ha the tax break you got for buying a solar powered something or other, all of that tax code, the use of the tax code, we try to

get rid of because we don't think it's fair. >> tucker: quickly, the corporate tax rate, 35? >> 35 now. large corporations. >> tucker: bring it down to 20. if you do that, what percentage of companies will actually pay that? >> again, we think more will pay that rate then pay the 35% rate now because we get rid of all of the deductions. keep in mind, one of the things -- again, back to the policies. 35% tax rate, a fairly stiff tax rate, the highest of any developed country in the world, right? the power that lobbyists have to go and get a special tax credit or a deduction is pretty severe. >> tucker: i'm laughing because i live next to them and they all have bigger pools than i do. >> when you take that rate down to 20% the ability to stuff that we can give away goes away, the leverage goes away. >> tucker: that's a totally fair point and if you live here you see it. i know youou have. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> tucker: up next, the great dean cain is here to discuss

hollywood's newest obsession with russia and the political standards that govern what art is allowed. stayay tuned. i was playing golf days ago... love golf. i used to love golf. wait, what, what happened? i was having a good round, and then my friend, sheila, right as i was stepping into the tee box mentioned a tip a pro gave her. no. yep. did it help? it completely ruined my game. well, the truth is, that advice was never meant for you. i like you. you want to show me your swing? it's too soon. get advice that's right for you. investment management services from td ameritrade.

♪ ♪ >> tucker: a group of executives in hollywood recently got a two hour briefing on the moscow project, an effort to find and expose collusionhe between donald trump and vladimir putin. actor dean cain is from l.a. he grew up out there, knows everybody and of course stars in and makes his own movies. he joins us here. what is this? >> i'm going to go see the movie when it comes out. i can't imagine what it is. there's a lot of people who are very upset that donald trump is president. they will not accept it. they will overturn any rock and even probably make up stories to

find collusion at this point. i think that oliver stone should probably direct it because he's pretty good at revisionist history. >> tucker: point of fact, i talked to oliver stone about it. he doesn't buy any of it i don't think. he doesn't. i'm not speaking out of turn but i don't think oliver stone believes this at all. >> i don't think anybody believes it. it's been so long. t where's the proof? >> tucker: you've made a movie on the armenian genocide, god bless you for doing that because it's an important thing to remember and learn from.es but you are having troublen getting it out there because why? >> we had trouble in glendale, california, a huge aremenian population, the diapora there, population, the diaspora there, it's the second largest armenians in the world. outside of armenia, it's the first, the largest group. and they wouldn't let us advertise because they called it too political and we ended up making a big stink about it, got the media involved --ro >> tucker: too political? >> they say it's political and we argue, i argue completely it's not political at all.

it's a human rights story, there's no politics. is the holocaust political? no. the problem is our government hasn't recognized the armenian genocide. 47 of our 50 states have but our federal government hasn't and i think it's because we have an airbase in turkey and we are trying to keep things nice.. >> tucker: it implicates the ottomans, the turks.ic and speaking a foreign influence on our domestic politics, the government of turkey has an effect on decisions ourei policymakers make. >> absolutely, i think this is one of those situations. i've been lobbying congress the last couple days to say look, look at this. what we are trying to say is call it genocide. acknowledge that it's genocide because if you don't, genocidere denied is genocide continued and it allows other things to be happening today in south sudan, iraq, in syria to the christians there. t it's happening now. >> tucker: no one ever says this, it wasn't just the armenians being killed by the ottoman turks. it was a christian minority being slaughtered by a muslim majority. do you think that makes it

harder for people to it was genocide? >> i think absolutely it does. that's why they are not acknowledging it today. >> tucker: what a shame. i'm going to watch it. i'm glad you made it. thank you.. talking to sean hannity next, he's in washington. we will be right back. in washington. washington. we will be right if you could book a flight, then add a hotel, or car, or activity in one place and save, where would you go? expedia

my frii say not if you this protect yourself.ary. what is scary? pneumococcal pneumonia. it's a serious disease. my doctor said the risk is greater now that i'm over 50! yeah...ya-ha... just one dose of the prevnar 13® vaccine can help protect you from pneumococcal pneumonia- an illness that can cause coughing, chest pain, difficulty breathing, and may even put you in the hospital. prevnar 13® is approved for adults 18 and older to help prevent infections from 13 strains of the bacteria that cause pneumococcal pneumonia. you should not receive prevnar 13® if you have had a severe allergic reaction to the vaccine or its ingredients.

if you have a weakened immune system, you may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects were pain, redness, and swelling at the injection site, limited arm movement, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, joint pain, less appetite, vomiting, fever, chills, and rash. get this one done! ask about prevnar 13® at your next visit to your doctor's office or pharmacy. >> sadly, the hour is over. >> tucker: sadly, the hour is over. went so fast. like life itself. tune in every night at 8:00 to the sworn enemy. dvr eight if you haven't alread already. professor allen -- he is telling us tomorrow what happened. two special contestants. unless you want to play along from home. time for a third night of sean hannity at 9:00 p.m. massive ratings monday and tuesday. broke the nielsen meter. congratulations.

>> sean: i'm only one studio over from tucker and i can hearn you. all right, tucker, thank you so much. welcome to "hannity". we're broadcasting from the swamp, in other words, our nation's capital, washington dr. sebastian gorka and we made a promise to you. we'll hold washington accountable and why we're here. our exclusive sit down interview with speaker of the house paul ryan and ask him about the new tax plan, president trump's agenda and more.ul first we're following two major breaking news stories tonight. the president unveiled the gopst tax plan that calls for massive cuts, sweeping reform. is it enough? will it help you? we'll explain what it means for you and your family. the president is not backing down in the nfl anthem controversy and brand-new comments from the president. we'll play that and he spoke exclusively with "fox & friends." we'll play