now begins the test of selling their tax reform to the public which poll numbers show has a very low opinion of the bill for analysis of this and what the tax bill actually provide to american workers i'm joined by chris lou served as deputy secretary of labor and white house cabinet secretary in the obama administration and is presently a senior fellow at the university of virginia miller center and longtime d.c. and republican party inside and former congressman chris shays of connecticut he served on the house homeland security committee was also ranking member of the house subcommittee on national security and foreign affairs both gentlemen joining me from washington as we have to chris's so as i ask the questions oh use a last name chris lou the tax bill is passed i know from previous appearances you were against it any change in your thinking not at all to the extent that the changes were made at the last minute these are ones that continue to skew the bill

in favor of the super wealthy this is going to be not only an economic challenge for the republican party it's a political challenge as well you know we've spent weeks discussing what this bill does or doesn't do the challenge going forward is what their republican fix can successfully sell this to the american voters before next november's elections than frankly this was a gamble they had to take given the head went that they're facing next november but in the short term chris shays on most people are going to see an increase in their paychecks. i think they'll see an increase in their paychecks and i don't think republicans are as concerned as democrats about making the case because i think that you've got a whole year almost a year before the election and. the trade deficit i think will be positively impacted i think there will be some economic engine to it you know am i

disappointed it's not bipartisan of course i'm i disappointed that they're not looking at the the expense side of the equation you know as you're cutting taxes but you're letting your spence's go up higher you know it's a counterbalance it's not good so are you do you favor the bill or not you know i don't know if i would have voted for the bill because it didn't deal with the spending side but i do think it will be a positive impact of a positive impact on our on our country and i do think having a corporate tax is high as it was was just foolish and stupid. about the deficit. well i think that's an interesting question you know the people that voted for this bill have been long time deficit hawks and they seem to have put those principles aside to vote for a bill that is costing one and a half trillion dollars and you know there are differences about how much economic growth we created but i don't think anyone believes you're going to make up

a trillion and a half dollar deficit with greater economic growth nor do people think that this is really going to grow the wages that the president has been talking about and so this is going to lead inevitably to cuts in entitlement programs down the road a speaker ryan has already said that and i think that's one of the challenging messaging issue for republicans that you're running up the federal credit card more and then you're going to use that to cut programs that serve average americans you know when we balanced. larry we balanced the federal budget with on a bipartisan basis with president clinton but what we did was we froze discretionary spending for one year and so from that point on it built on a lower base and then we slowed the growth of entitlements i'm not troubled by an effort to slow the growth of entitlements we've got to do that but then them republicans have got to be willing to get more out of defense and not just say we

got to spend more and more and more like so many are advocating we've got to spend our defense budget a lot better a lot wiser. to know what actions do you think. you know republicans were already facing a significant headwind and i think as i said this is a gamble they frankly had to take but the question is whether the average american voter will see any tangible benefit to themselves before november of two thousand and eighteen look i worked in the white house in two thousand and nine when we passed an eight hundred billion dollars stimulus package in many respects the tax breaks and that stimulus package were more heavily weighted to lower class a lower and middle class workers they didn't feel it and we paid the penalty ultimately in the two thousand and ten midterm elections and so i think ultimately this is going to be about the messaging and right now as you pointed out larry the american public is deeply skeptical about the benefits of this bill chris shays

this bill appears to attack people in new york new jersey illinois and california do you agree well i think i agree that they're the ones impacted it's funny i don't support you know i'm not enthusiastic for the bill but i find myself becoming defensive from my fellow republicans and the reason i do it's not an attack on new york it's not an attack on california it's a recognition that those are states that have high. taxes and so they benefited disproportionately than other americans for tax cuts so in one sense is trying to say you know enough so i understand it now i come from connecticut and it would have been difficult to vote for me in part for that reason but it's not an attack on those states it's just that they have higher taxes. trump says the tax cuts in the bill really rocked the economy and he thinks that

democrats who voted against it will be heard in the elections where you think crucial to. oh i don't think so at all i mean you know we already know that american corporations are sitting on two bill a two trillion dollars right now that they could be using to for investments united states to grow wages to hire people i think most of the benefit of this is going to go back to their shareholders in terms of buybacks or in terms of higher salaries for their executives i think history will prove that this is not a well thought out tax bill and what's notable is how unpopular to this is right now it's not only the most unpopular major piece of legislation in about thirty years it's actually the most unpopular tax legislation this is even more unpopular than the tax increases that president clinton and president bush pushed through.

chris shays the government funding is first up let me say hey i agree with chris in large measure i mean this is it's like my fellow republicans have been kind of stone deaf to the fact that there is a big gap between the very wealthy and the rest of americans and we've we've contributed to that both republicans and democrats the difference between republicans and democrats the republicans are willing to take the heat and say yes i'm going to help business and i'm going to help wealthier people who will hopefully invest and the democrats are willing to to accept a tax write off so they don't have to tell their democratic constituency that they're helping the rich but both parties have been helping the rich over a long long period of time. trickle down never worked. well if you look at george w. bush's tax cut in two thousand and one or the tax cuts that were pushed through in the state of kansas in two thousand and twelve neither of them led to the kind of

economic growth that the proponents pushed for and congressman shays appropriately pointed out the surpluses that we had under the clinton administration those disappear with the two thousand and one bush tax cut and so frankly if we're going to spend one trillion dollars i would rather have spent it on a infrastructure bill that would have actually created jobs grow wages and really help speed up commerce in this country. it disappeared in two thousand because we got rid of grand rudman in the other elements that when you cut taxes if it didn't if it wasn't revenue neutral then you saw slowing the growth of spending our problem was we just lost track of spending and i take responsibility as a republican under the bush years i don't look back fondly at how we were dealing with spending under george w. gentleman so both you mitch mcconnell says he won't do you think he'll be

a government shutdown friday night. chris new first i don't think so by all accounts they're working on some type of short term a spending measure that really kind of kicks a lot of these hard decisions to january i think i'm troubled though by the fact that whether it's the chip program which is supported on a bipartisan basis or the dream act kids and there's a bipartisan desire to fix that these are getting pushed down the road you already have states right now that are notifying people on the chip program that they might lose their health coverage and again this was an important thing that's going to affect nine million people that frankly should have got it figured out before now and the end of the year but i don't think the government's going to shut down is the government won't shut down and both those issues that chris rightfully points out should have been addressed will be addressed before the deadline so you know it why we put people through the suffering of wondering is this not

a good thing but it will be dealt with a gentleman for caching is the hardest thing in the world like this would. be easiest thing and it's these if they just make it up. chris who are going to be like. politically i think twenty eightieth's going to be a great year for democrats and that's not just because of the history shows what happens to a president in off year elections but i think in terms of just the spirit right now of the antitrust movement i think that's going to certainly put democrats over the top in the house and i think there is legitimately now the senate is now in play and i think the potential in states like nevada in arizona there are pretty good democratic pickups i am struck frankly larry that that all of the red state senators who people think are endangered every single one of them voted against this tax proposal and these are very smart political folks and so they they believe that they can sell this vote to their constituents. it's not going to be as good

larry as democrats think in part because roy moore thank god last. i mean i can imagine being an incumbent congressman republican having to live with him being the senator from alabama in fact that he loss was a great gift to the republican party so it's going to favor it's going to favored democrats but i think the democrats are going to overplay their card you know you can talk about impeachment trial and then just. thank you both for your time today thank you when we come back resume interims newly announced national security strategy rather after the break stay right there. i.

you know the palestinians have used the united nations as a weapon of war against the future of peace both for palestinians and israelis the

united nations general assembly has passed more resolutions against the democratic state of israel that it has against north korea and iran and syria combined so that you know it is a bubbling cauldron of hatred and anti democracy. the confidence and the fiance system is collapsing and there is no turning back this is the collapse of the nation state and the central bank and the fractional reserve money system big coing is to banks what the printing press was to the catholic church it collapsed it in many ways this is the end of this era this is the new beginning this is about everyone having autonomy and sovereignty with their own money. will get back to politicking taking

a back burner to the political hoopla over passage of the g.o.p. tax reform package is president trump's recent on veiling of his administration's national security strategy summarized as an american first it received both a claim and criticism for what is considered a radical departure from tradition and from the policies of previous administrations let's start with robert siegel bryan he's the former u.s. representative to the u.n. general assembly during the administration of george w. bush he's the author of while america's. leadership to a world in crisis oh it's a pleasure to welcome him back thank you very much great to be back let's think i would do you make of this new national. security who do you regard as the most significant as you know you the most significant aspect i think it's a i disagree a little bit with your introduction because while it's called america first it really returns american foreign policy to where it was prior to president obama it

really goes back to the broad bipartisan consensus that the u.s. needs to lead and we need to stand up against our adversaries and support our allies and so i see this going back to reagan peace through strength which is discussed in the document going back to even clinton and bush's foreign policy president obama was lead from behind us a little away from our traditional american foreign policy so i see this returning us to to where we were prior to president obama taking office surely you don't see it as a radical departure from american tradition i don't but i do see it as a radical departure from the obama administration where we reached out to the iranians did everything we could to get a nuclear deal with them there was some great reporting in politico that you probably saw this week about the obama administration turning a blind eye to hezbollah taking over the world drug trade so that he could get the deal with iran the kowtow into north korea the russian reset all of

those things took place during the obama administration the distance ourselves from our allies in japan and taiwan in israel in the u.k. so those things are going to change in that in the trump administration and again so i see it as a radical departure from obama but going back to a more traditional american foreign policy that obama sold more digital than the president the more than all presidents combined he droned more people than any president ever. well look he's a he would he could be aggressive to well he could be aggressive but it but but to what effect so while he was you know using the drones to take out some terrorist isis grew and took over a very big chunk of the middle east isis has been defeated in the first nine months of the trumpet ministration big. as he changed the rules of engagement he turned our military forces loose and we won the war against isis now they're still dangerous there are still isis cells around but very different from the obama administration approach and with respect to israel look i think one of the great

things that we're going to look back on just like we look back at the truman administration recognizing israel at the time it didn't seem like that big of a deal president trump moving the is saying is going to move the u.s. embassy to jerusalem and recognizing jerusalem as the capital of israel that's going to be something that is going to be part of president trump's legacy and it's something that as americans we're going to appreciate more and more over time if you think a lot about trump is the way he does things the bellicose said it to me against you the tweets. personality wise you know i look i think. it's a very different style from past american presidents i was the reagan defense forum a couple weeks ago up in simi valley where you know your old friends were you know running nancy's to put their one of the great presidential libraries and my pump a i was asked that same question he said you know it was interesting is that once in a while the at the president's tweets help. but i you know look it's got to be tough for general kelly to get up in the morning and deal with the tweets and deal

with the style but having said that you know the president is willing and you know he's he's making some cases passed tax reform he moved the embassy to jerusalem he's rebuilding the military so people may disagree on style but when you look at the record it looks pretty good why such a low popularity you know i think we're a polarized country larry and i don't think any president's been under attack from the media the way president trump has for you know he's was stood a year of broadsides and that's you know so that that is. the key he's got a style that's different than other presidents and that's that's going to take some some getting used to for some people but i think what we need to do is focus on the policies over i'm glad you had doing the have the conversation today on the national defense strategy you look at the people that put that together not just the president but general mattis who's just a first rate man general kelly first rate general mcmaster i've seen speak several times about strategy. not

a shadow dina powell i mean these are first rate foreign policy strategists and they put together a great document and it's something the press and you got to give the president credit for that people can get a hard time about the tweets and that sort of thing but at the same time you got to give him credit for the team he put together if america first is a misnomer in a sense but he used the term. you know. that's a good question because when you look at the document you know i think maybe what the president means by american for america first is different than what. people ascribe to it i mean what president trump is talking about the strategy documents rebuilding the military getting close to our allies whether it's japan or taiwan or israel or the u.k. work in concert with them to defeat threats like iran and north korea that's a pretty traditional american foreign policy and let me that's america first that doesn't mean we don't work with our allies or we don't stand up to our adversaries . but i think maybe the you know folks are using that as a pejorative in

a way perhaps the president doesn't intend to play it was pretty rough on russia yet the president is never personally or it's what do you make of our policy toward russia. crushes an important power and i'm glad that the president has a relationship and can talk to the russian president i mean we need that they've got enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire world as do we so we have to have open lines of communication so i don't think needless bella casa the is is helpful in a relationship whether it's the russians or the chinese may be different for the iranians north koreans but with the russians and chinese we have to have lines of communication with them but at the same time we've got to let the russians know we're moving army units into europe that we haven't had there for many years we're going to stand up told we're not going to tolerate them invading a nato country we're not going to tolerate them interfering with our elections or the elections around allies and so we have to be tough and resolute but at the same time i don't think there's any you know there's no reason to poke the bear

unnecessarily the strategy is says that diplomacy is indispensable. to developing solutions to conflicts. but the white house is cutting the state department's budget isn't that contradictory to the document you know the state department can be a lot more efficient i say that having been there and when i heard that. the russians were kicking out seven hundred fifty. diplomats or someone more local employees. i didn't realize we had seven hundred fifty people they could be let go in russia and still have a full complement there there's a lot of waste and fat inefficiency not just at the state department but any government agency the key is having effective a policy it's not having a big state department it's having effective state department and we need to nurture the young foreign service officers are coming up through the ranks we need to find our best and brightest there make them and asters and make and give them policy roles but we don't need the bloat at the state department so i think there's

a difference between having an effective nimble state department and having a big state department. attitude very believe maybe what might be going on behind the scenes to have north korea. with north korea's a real problem and you know if they would start a war they might they'd they just might i don't i don't trust kim jong un and now that he's got i.c.b.m.'s this was all theoretical and you and i have talked about this over the years larry when when they didn't have a delivery method method for their nuclear weapons it was one thing but now that they can hit l.a. and san francisco and chicago and maybe even washington d.c. it becomes another. my point on north korea's we've got to do to them what was done to rhodesia and people remember a lot of people will remember rhodesia was the name of the country before it became zimbabwe it had a white minority rule in rhodesia and the world said hey this has to end and you've got to give the vote everyone in one thousand nine hundred six kissinger went to the south africans who also had a white minority government and told prime minister forester president forrester at

the time you got to cut off the road asians and if you know if you cut them off we will give you some time to work out your problems but you have to cut off the rhodesians now and when the. south africans cut off the rhodesians cut off their oil cut off their gas very quickly the regime change they entered into negotiations and eventually you had majority rule not didn't work out very well with robert mugabe but. we need the chinese to do to the north koreans what the south africans to the rhodesians we have to have full comprehensive sanctions we have to cut them off from the international community that in my view is the only way they're going to avoid war at look we don't want war on the korean peninsula i think the way to do it is to is to have very effective sanctions and told you're an advocate of a three hundred fifty five ship u.s. navy president trump has made this a goal but no money has been locked in for it because it's just words right now unfortunately right now it is just words now the president promised it to the american people as campaign is sex the navy sector spencer has promised it but

there is not money for the three hundred fifty five ship navy and that means the president's going to have to sit down and work with congress we're going to have to get rid of this defense sequester ation this idea that the defense budget can't increase unless the domestic budget increases we've got to get more money for our war fighters because the results that we've now seen with the mccain of the fitzgerald crashes with the groundings of other ships we're putting our sailors in harm's way they're dying with was seventeen young men because we're not they're being stretched too thin they don't have the equipment they need to do the job we've asked them to do in a modern world with missiles and nuclear. what's the need for a huge navy. or american to have battles at sea you know we're it's a very good question but we're a maritime country and most of our trade passes through the straits around the world and passes over the seas five trillion dollars passes through the south china

sea if we don't have presence there if we're not enforcing the rules of the road so to speak on the high seas that trades and get very expensive other countries are. step into the breach pirates are going to step into the breach we can we build very effective ships that can defend themselves and that can threaten other ships and other actors that would harm us and so we've just got to build the right mix of ships that can defend against the missile threats the anti access area denial strategies you're talking about we can do it but we can't do it on the cheap and we can't do it with two hundred or two hundred fifty ships when we need three hundred fifty or four hundred what do you think of the recent revelations about our government's program research in u.f.o.'s you know is it's money it's money it wasn't all in the big scheme the defense budget i think was about twenty million dollars so it wasn't significant money but it's what that's real money as you know the old saying if you million here and a few million there are the end up with real money. you know we got to do space

exploration we've got to do we got to explore the the universe the galaxy and all that sort of thing you know i'm not i'm pretty skeptical on on u.f.o.'s but. you know to the extent there were some reports in the mainstream press over the past week of some f. eighteen pilots of saw an aircraft that they couldn't explain maybe it was one of ours it was experimental maybe it was chinese we don't know but we do have to investigate went to our pilots see something that they can explain we've got to investigate it so i'm i'm not opposed to the money but i'm you know i'm i'm somewhat skeptical on the you know if i was or source and things. are ok do you expect to listen to us to. just it's just hard to know i think he's i think there are people that were expecting him to go last summer there were people expecting him to go in the fall he seems to. maintain a relationship with the president you know he's he's out there is as our secretary of state so you know there are rumors about palm pale coming over i've even heard

removing the rumors that you know mitt romney is being considered again but having said that rex tillerson is the secretary of state and i think he's doing a good job and and so i could accept him to stay until the president wants somebody else to. they're always facing the other thank you sir. and thank you for joining me on this edition of politicking remember you can join the conversation on my facebook page or tweet me of kings things and don't forget use the politicking hash tag have a great holiday and that's all for this edition of politicking. i

. played for many clubs over the years so i know the game inside i see. football isn't only about what happens on the pitch for the final school it's about the

passion from the fans it's the age of the superman to just kill you narrowness and spending to get to the twenty million a one player. book it's an experience like nothing else not to because i want to share what i think what i know about the beautiful game played great so one more chance for. the base this minute. the headlines here on r.t. pro independence parties looks set to keep that absolute majority in the council on parliament hill that would likely lead to renewed political conflict with the spanish government. the u.s. suffers a stinging rebuke over its recognition of jerusalem as israel's capital and the un

general assembly voted overwhelmingly to condemn the move. the use of the to obstruct the security council shameful but even me police in violation of the rights promise to america will put our embassy in jerusalem this is. not. in about one hundred countries ignore the intense pressure from washington and threats from the u.s. president and the ambassador.