>> dickerson: welcome back to "face the nation" we're here with chuck schumer. start with puerto rico a lot of criticism of the federal response. but the administration and marco rubio has said puerto rico is special case it's not like texas and florida. they wereness existing challenges in support reco, a weak electrical grid those kind of things that are part of evaluating what's happening there. >> well, first of all, the president instead of tweeting against the mayor of san juan who is watching her people die and just made ally for help, roll up his sleeves and get to work here. the bottom line is, at least for the first week and a half the effort has been slow footed, disorganized and not adequate. that's not just me saying it.

general buchanan said he doesn't have enough troops or materials. the secretary, acting secretary of hhs within she visited said that things are not good. and so the bottom line is, that we need more help, we need marco rubio is right we need control and command, that means many more military troops. let me give you an example. in haiti, there were 22,000 troops after two weeks here. right now there are 10,000. those are very, very recent. so this has not been a good response. it needs the president to stop calling names, stop downgrading the motives of people who are calling for help but roll up his sleeves and get to work. by the way, he should have gone to puerto rico earlier than two weeks, we'll be tuesday, that's good. but two weeks after it hit he was in texas twice after that, obama was up at sandy two days

afterwards, they say logistics get in the way. but the president going makes a huge difference and logistics didn't get in the way in the past. >> dickerson: that puerto rico is different case than florida or texas but let's move on here to tax reform quickly you've been talking to the president about making deals with the presidents this something you can do a deal with the president on? >> well, look, we democrats sent a letter to the republican leadership and the president, said that here were three things that we thought tax reform ought to have. one, tax breaks ought not to go to the top 1%. but ought to be focused on the middle class. two, ought not blow a hole in the deficit. three, ought to be done in bipartisan way not through reconciliation. unfortunately the republican plan doesn't agree with any of those. first, it's completely focused on the wealthy and the powerful not on the middle class. second it blows a huge hole in the deficit third, they said

they're going to do it with through reconciliation, that's a partisan pros, it excludes democrats, the same process that led to the demise on health care. let me just address one thing, john. speaker ryan kept -- keeps saying helps the middle class. that's not true. what he's saying and what the plan is are totally different. let me go over three quick points. one, they get rid of the estate tax, the only people who benefit are the very wealthy, estates over $11 million. 5,000 estates will get over $3 million each. second, they lower the top rate from 39 do 35, that affects the wealthy. they raise the lowest rate from 10 to 12 that affects working people. >> dickerson: that knocks them off the rolls, no long are have to pay taxes which means that's good for them. >> they already don't have to pay tax but to lower the top rate and raise the bottom rate does not make any sense at all. and third, here is what the tax policy, 80% of the tax breaks in

their plan are aimed at the top 1%. the top .1%, the people who make over $5 million who are one in a thousand, get a tax break of over a million dollars. the middle class at the same time is hurt just one more point here. the achilles heel, there are many. in suburban, fairly well off districts republicans throughout the states like new york, california, illinois, new jersey, those people even with the standard deduction will pay a lot more. >> dickerson: but why should - should --er. >> -- it should be real test of their congress people who vote with their constituents or they vote with the hard right ideology against state and local deductibility. >> dickerson: argument is why should alabama subsidize new york. but it sounds like you're bakesly out now to stop this bill not to shape it? >> we'd like things to change.

we'd like them to really say to the deficit neutral instead of using these fake numbers that say, there will be huge growth. they tried that in can california that's charles koch's state this was the great experiment. they dramatically cut taxes said there's going to be growth and increase in the surplus. well, after they did it, they predicted the surplus wag up 300 million it went down. the deficit went down0 7 mo0neyr schools and infrastructure then they had to put- n - iddi last year its growth was .2% verse u.s. growth at 1.6. this idea that cutting taxes on the rell thee this trickle down economics which republican party loves, does not create growth it never has. does not reduce the deficit it never has. george bush, his tax cuts, 2001, 2003 they said after ten years the did he have kit will go

down. it went up by cbo's 1.6 trillion this is fake numbers. helping the very, very wealthy, ignoring the middle class. what ryan said and what his pre pose alls are totally different. >> dickerson: we're out of time, senator, thanks. >> i feel strongly about this. we want to work with them if they will change. they have to consult us they captain just put down the plan say bipartisanship. >> dickerson: you've been talking to the president, i bet you'll give him that message,e thanks, we'll be back with our panel. panel. don't go away. or this john smith. panel. don't go away. or any of the other hundreds of john smiths that are humana medicare advantage members. no, it's this john smith. who we paired with a humana team member to help address his own specific health needs. at humana, we take a personal approach to your health, to provide care that's just as unique as you are. no matter what your name is.

why should over two hundred years of citi history matter to you? well, because it tells us something powerful about progress: that whether times are good or bad, people and their ideas will continue to move the world forward. as long as they have someone to believe in them. citi financed the transatlantic cable that connected continents. and the panama canal, that made our world a smaller place. we backed the marshall plan that helped europe regain its strength. and pioneered the atm, for cash, anytime. for over two centuries we've supported dreams like these. and the people and companies behind them. so why should that matter to you? because, today, we are still helping progress makers turn their ideas into reality. and the next great idea could be yours.

>> dickerson: now try to analyze this. amy walter is national editor at the "cook political report." ben domenech is the founder and publisher of the federalist and ezra klein editor in chief at fox.com. i want to start with you rico, s the blame here, obviously there's blame to go around, where does it lie? >> i think there's a significant blame to be placed on a lot of different place but just first off my family is puerto rican we have many friend and relatives who are there, they're going through incredibly challenging time. puerto rico is different in a lot of key ways from florida and texas, you can't just get the debris out of a place in the same way when it is an island. i think that one of the biggest problems that puerto rico has their infrastructure was not in good position even before this storm arrived. part of the problem in puerto

rico is that the politics of the island has been entirely driven by the question of status, what your position is on statehood versus commonwealth verse independence, that led to lot of different people getting elected politically who can take a position on that and argue for it in a fluent way. but aren't necessarily the kind of infrastructure minded, diligent workers that you want to be in place when cries like this comes to bear. clearly the aid got to the island in a lot of different place but did not get to the people who needed it. it hasn't been delivered that last mile. that is going to require, i think, a lot more effort than what you might see for a domestic storm in similar situation, in part because the people who are there on that island have not had the experience of having to deliver with such a heavy lift in the past. >> dickerson: that is the local view. on federal issue, marco rubio said that the problem with the response was they were planning for certain kind of disaster it turned out to be are more tricky. in puerto rico. isn't that the job in a disaster

to adapt at the federal level know that puerto rico is differenting from florida and texas and there for be able to basically adapt, that was the promise of having a businessman in the oval office. what is your sense of that? >> predict and focus, things they said about how it's different, it is different. but what donald trump says is that it's island in the middle of the ocean, that was preexisting knowledge, we knew that before the hurricane hit. there was a real lack of focus in the white house. every bit of reporting weaver seen so far, also what we saw publicly from donald trump during the critical first days after the hurricane have shown this. it was predicted, hit puerto rico in much the way we thought. they didn't have a high level white house on this for six days, during that period it's not like donald trump is out there talking incessantly about puerto rico or focusing on puerto rico, he was playing golf, picking fights with the nfl, focus in any white house giving number of things they

need to do is scarce key qualities, you need to be -- need to have people running on these prog folks you're going to be able to adapt and bring to bear amount of resource you need to. this was at the very least a failure of management and failure of focus. >> dickerson: focus in part from the president has been on the mayor of san juan. how is that a help? >> it doesn't. short answer. i think that has been the challenge for the president all along, which is when there's criticism that comes at him his response is to lash back. even those who are supporters of the president say, i wish you would just stop tweeting start to ezra's point, keep focused. fundamentally i think unfortunately what this does it brings you back to this place where if you are on a certain side of the aisle you're going to side -- you put on your jersey you side with the mayor, if you're on the other side you put and side with the president. once again we're back to taking something that is really serious humanitarian crisis and it's become now a political -- a test

of your political, are you in this tribe or this tribe. this is where we are at this place in time also what so many voters hate about where we are at this place and time. that the unifying theme that should be we're in a cries let's all get together loss now become test of who are you in alliance with. >> dickerson: switch to taxes here. chuck schumer just given opposition view, i don't think he took a breath. what is your sense of both -- start first with policy in this. what do you make of the unified republican framework? >> i think that republicans are obviously far more comfortable talking about taxes than they are talking about health care. they are happy to run into the teeth of any kind of oppositional argument on tax policy issue because they're so used to making these arguments, become so natural. one of the taping chuck schumer brought up that will be critical question is this issue of state and local tax deductibility. there are number of different

republicans who come from blue or purple states that are in these subject you are an areas that have benefited from this state and local tax deduction in the past. that's a lot of different house members who are in states like california, who are going to have tough time going to their constituents saying, yes, i'm willing go to remove this out of an act of fairness as you said to the taxpayers of alabama. but they aren't owe look by the taxpayers of alabama. this could turn out to be one of the stickier subjects that they have to deal with in terms of the debate within their conference. >> dickerson: where do you take ahold of this plan? >> right now i think it's important to say the plan lacks a lot of details, for instance, we don't -- three or four tax brackets. but given what we have the tax policy center which does best tax modeling work, there are three numbers worth thinking about. so far republicans say deficit neutral and retain the current codes. looked at the plan made what assumption, if you sort of do

the best model you can, this plan is going to give the top percent tax cut of 130,000 on average each. people in the middle class tax but of about 660, very hard to look at those numbers say that's a progressive plan. then cost about $2.5 trillion. somehow if you have deficit neutral you have to pay for that. then as progressive as the current code somehow change deductions and put in a bracket and do a lot of things and really shift that. i am very step particular call. >> dickerson: you are fixing the deficit plan, you don't have any money to pay for underlying deficit which they talked about in the past. amy, let me -- giving the numbers thats ' could rocked about the president campaigned for the forgotten man, the little die, how do you think that plays out within the numbers are disparate and political, democraasre gts mking to the top. >> couple of challenges republicans have.

first is, as we've seen with health care, being the opposition party was very easy to craft a message on health care. when you're the party in charge actually have to pass something, where there is give and take, put this coalition together much more difficult. tax reform will fit in that same boat. it is something that is much more unifying for republicans, but they still run up against, i think ben is right on the issue of state and local tax issue, as well as other issues that are going to come up as we're putting this framework together. second is that the being driven by the clock and calendar more so than dooper policy arguments. you talk to republicans who are very upset they didn't get health care through, we have to get tax reform done. it's almost a nonissue about what it look like as much as we got to get this done. we go into 2018 without a tax cut, without anything to tell our constituents we're going to get killed in the mid term elections. i don't think that's a great way to make policy is being worried about running out of time for

budget reconciliation and before mid term election. >> dickerson: took two years in 1986. >> they are rushing to get this done with the mind on what's going to happen in 2018. one of the things that's not going to happen in 2018 obviously is that bob cork is he not going to be running for re-election, that -- i think that story is actually one of the most significant stories that happened this past week which had lot of significant store rears. step one of wave of retirements, people deciding not to run for re-election within the 18 and 20 cycle. there's a number of republican senators who have had enormous influence over that conference for a long time. but they're now all in their 80s and approaching that point where they that have to decide whether they isn't that to stick around. the fractiousness. it increases likelihood that they can it. >> if they don't pass a tax cut this is what a lot of republicans are worried about on the house side that you are going see wave of retirements come january, february, folks said we were here for a year,

had total control, we didn't get stuff done, i don't know if i want here longer that is very big concern. >> dickerson: and alabama primary where these issues are playing out. >> looks like it's only going to be more fractious. i think one thing about the tax effort which is, there was a deal here. i was talking to top democratic staffer for the kind of democrat they need to get in the senate. we could have done corporate for infrastructure, middle class tax cuts and corporate tax cuts, democrats would have been involved in that. think about trump administration, they don't try. they could try to get bipartisan support an go for the partisan bill if that fails but don't try at the front end. going to be much more fractious plan, by the end if it doesn't go well, democrats are not going to need to come on board. that's a political mistake. >> consider why moore is the nominee because mitch mcconnell decides that brooks,

conservative congressman in the ted cruz, also a critic of mcconnell, needed to be destroyed in the primary. getting rid of conservative candidate thinking that moore would be easy candidate for strange to beat. strange was too conflicted giving his relationship to the governor of alabama and appointment that happened. that ended up dragging him down that's why you end up with someone like moore instead of potentially a more traditional but problematic conservative. >> dickerson: we'll have to end it there because bob schieffer is here. he's coming up next, stay with us.

>> dickerson: we're back with the one and only bob schieffer. he is a cbs news political contributor author of new book "over load" finding the truth in today's deluge of news. welcome back, bob. so, you set out with this book to figure out whether we are belt are informed or overloaded, you talked to reply stars -- reporters,. >> we're overwhelmed. we've never been through anything quite like this, probably since the invention of the printing press. we talk about the invention of the printing press how improved

literacy, caused reformation, counter reformation but there is also 30 years of religious wars that followed the printing press. it took about three decades for world to finally reach equilibrium. we're at the very beginning of what is going on right now in this digital age that has taken the place of print. affected nothing more than the way we get the news and our politics. let me just give you one little stat here, john. in 2004, one reporter in eight lived in new york, washington or los angeles. that number is now down to one in five live in those three place. in a lot of parts of the country right now, it's not a question of bias news or too much news it's a question of no news. 62% of people are now getting their news from social media,

from facebook. while those are great vehicles, they don't exactly follow the same standards like we did in the mainstream media and still do. we don't print or broadcast something unless we check it out and find out if it's true. so there's always news out there right now. you don't know who to believe, is it true, is it not true. that's what we're sorting our way through right now. >> dickerson: and so the new medium is shakier in terms of standard and also fewer reporters out in the real part of the country, in other words, everybody is in their bubble now. >> yes. and we're no longer basing our opinions on the same data. if you listen to one channel you get one set of facts. if you listen to another channel or read another publication you get another set of facts. so what's different now we're basing our opinion on different data, it's not the common data that in the old, more orderly

days what i call the gatekeeper era where you have three television stations and one newspaper in every town. maybe you didn't agree with the editorial policy but you took pretty much for granted that what was on the front page or what walter cronkite said was true that he had gone to the trouble of checking it out. now there's 700 channels out there, rear bombarded with so much information, we simply cannot process. >> dickerson: so the facts are more in question and also you have great quote at the start of the book about attention span. that is another huge challenge of our current moment. >> it certainly s. when we have gone to 30-second commercials on television that has reduced our attention span. it's also reduced our patience. it's also made us less patient with things, it's made us, i think, a different kind of society. we talked -- you and i have talked about this about the dialogue in the 2016 campaign

how crude and rude it was. i think a lot of that has to do with social media, because the dialogue in politics this year was much like the thread on a blog post. somebody posts a blog then somebody else says, that's stupid. then somebody else says, you're stupid, then it's blankety-blank stupid. from the in a in that to the profane. i'm not sure that we have improved our knowledge. >> dickerson: what can we do in the press if you're giving advice to a young journalists what is your advice how to navigate this? >> you have to remember what the role of journalist is, basically we're not the politician. the politician's job is to deliver a message. our job simply to check it out and find out if it's true or if it's false. then report the results of that. we're not going to run the government or run politics, we're here to report on the

people who are involved in politics and government. and if we do that right we have performed a service that is crucial to democracy as the right to vote. we can't have a democracy like we have unless citizens have access to independently gathered information that they can compare with the government's version of events. and when they do that, we've done our job. >> dickerson: so we have about 30 second left. what then is the consumer's job here in looking at this whole swarms there something they can do better? >> buyer beware. trust the sources, depend not on one source but as many source as you can to come to your own conclusions about what's going on here. >> dickerson: our trusted source, bob schieffer, thanks very much. >> thank you, john. dickerson: congratulations on the book. we'll be right back.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

>> dickerson: you can keep up with the news of the week by subscribing to the "face the nation" diary podcast. find us on apple podcasts your favorite podcast platform. that's it for us today. thanks for much whatting. until next week, for "face the nation" i'm john dickerson. captioning sponsored by cbs captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

- [narrator] the following is a sponsored presentation for the nv real estate academy's fortunes in flipping system. (triumphant music) are you ready to learn how to make money and achieve your financial goals through real estate right in your own backyard? imagine being your own boss while building wealth and financial freedom for you an your family. if that sounds good to you, then listen up. over the course of this program, nick vertucci, self-made real estate millionaire, is going to show you how to get all of that and more by investing in real estate. - hi, i'm nick vertucci, and for the next 30 minutes, you're gonna meet some of my students, hear about my systems, and hear about some great opportunities for you and your family. so sit back and enjoy. - [narrator] as one of today's most trusted real estate experts, nick has been featured on television, in print, and was the host of la's number one real estate radio show, the real estate investing hour. over the years, nick has coached and advised