for over three decades, the sharpest minds, best sources, hardest talk. >> issue one: widens window of opportunity. >> you go in there and drain the swamp. there have been something like 15,000 attacks changes since that last step. tax reforms. you go in there, clean that out and use the money to hold down the rates and encourage productivity. when they did that the first couple of years out of the box, we created something like 6 million new jobs. nobody can say they're due to tax reform, but it helped to set the climate, and i think it can do so again. >> america's tax code last overhauled in 198628 years ago

is holding back our -- 1986, 28 years ago is holding back our economy. between now and august 2015, there is a window of opportunity for a bipartisan tax reform, so said democrat ron widen, chairman of the senate finance committee, who in a recent political newspaper column, challenged john boehner, a republican, to join him in crafting comprehensive tax legislation. quote, my door is wide open, and there is plenty of work to be done on a bipartisan basis. unquote. the centerpiece of widen's tax reform proposal is lowering the u.s. corporate tax rate from 35% to 24% in order to make america more competitive with power and country. in recent months, a spate of u.s. forms relocated operations overseas through what are known as, quote, unquote, inversions to take advantage of lower foreign taxes.

widen's overture stems from an august point of view by the speaker urging president obama to get in the act, quote, president obama must get his allies on capitol hill to do their job. senate democrats, including senate major leader harry reid and senate finance chairman ron widen pay lip service to tax reform, but they have utterly failed to act. the president, the leader of his party, must actually lead it. unquote. the question, is momentum for tax reform building pat buchanan. >> it's building and widens a good man and it's a great idea and ought to be done. i don't think it's hopeful, john, for the reason there is antibusiness, anti-wall street sentiment in the democratic party and the house and the senate and it will be very lard to get them together on this. i don't think it's going to come. i was with ronald reagan in '86. i can remember on the plane to a tokyo economic summit when we got word that tackwood and others got together and bradley, they were going to cut the top individual tax rate

from 50 to 28% and i said go with it. this idea of simplification and reduced rates is a great idea. actually, john, the last analysis, you ought to do away with the income tax. corporations are the institutions that create jobs and why do you take away 35 or 40% of the seed corn of the american economy? >> we're going to get to that in a minute. eleanor. >> i think there is an opportunity here. i think widesen a wily legislator, talented legislator and worked across the aisle in a number of areas. he put forward a tax reform plan in the past, as you pointed out, and you have some republicans, the chairman of the weighs and -- ways and means committee. he's retiring, about you dave camp called the tax system riddled with with what he calls lobbyist loopholes, and i think the a version to how wall street operates in this country actually helps the cause of tax reform because people want to

see those loopholes stripped. regardless of which party wins the senate in november, neither party will have a commanding majority. they will either be a little over 50 or below 50, which is in a way, an opportune time to pursue tax reform together. they will probably start with something on inversion in the lame-duck session after the election because people are really disgusted by the notion of burger king taking their operations overseas. >> that is an a version. >> inversion. that is what i call it. a version? >> the company taking its operation overseas. >> like burger king denys there is an inversion. they're not moving their office, their headquarters or their actual operations. >> but tom -- [ overlapping speakers ] >> they have to move their operations. >> they don't -- . >> you merge it with a foreign company because so many forge countries have much lower corporate tax rates and you get tax at the level of the foreign company whereas america's law requires you to tax all of your income around the world at a higher rate. >> uh-huh.

>> it makes perfect sense in a business sense for a company to do this. >> who? >> many companys. >> burger king. >> burger king has won. 49 companys have done it in a few years. >> walgreens. >> after they got negative publicity. >> and pfizer tried to do it with astrazeneca in great britain and there was a firestorm, john. i can understand why they do it. it gets into the whole question of economic patriotism and economic treason, if you will. is it treeson for companys to get up and leave the company that nurtured them and get lower tax rates and make money overseas and leave their american workers behind? they have a tremendous number of issues. >> we need tax reform. there is no question about it. >> that's right. >> people on both sides; however, the problem is implementing it. everyone has their own sacred cows, you know, a poem about don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that guy behind that tree. that is still true. the lame-duck sessions is a good time to do it because that is when you have people who are

going out and have -- the next congress hasn't taken over yet. >> how many americans have inversion? >> 49? >> 49. >> they're just all over the place now, john. they're just moving abroad, moved their headquarters over there. >> i didn't know walgreens had reconsidered? >> yes. >> uh-huh. >> because there is a lot of public pressure on the companys. >> from where? >> from the public. from the press. >> why? >> why? economic treason, john. >> what pat said. >> because they want tax revenue here. the companys, of course, are saying what are we talking about? we have a very high tax rate compared to the rest of the world. >> if they come back here, they would probably increase their prices back here in order to accommodate the tax burden they carry here. whereas if they go overseas and have a lesser tax burden. hey would reduce their prices and be more competitive. what about that? >> there is another option they v. instead of reducing prices, increase their profits. i don't know why that is a possibility they would think about. >> have you thought about it? >> whenever i can.

>> have you invert? could you? >> no. >> john, you live in florida, not d.c., right, what is your residence. people do it there. why do people put their money in caymans and switzerland, in swiss bank accounts. they go from one state to another. >> so everybody is -- everybody is playing the system, gaming the system and it's all legal. that is why congress has to step in and make sure that the stuff doesn't continue. >> it's not going to get -- . >> start the -- the tax rate for 25%. ireland and these guys, i think ireland is 12%, isn't it? >> yes, and so many of the international tax rates are so far below the united states that -- . >> ours is the highest. >> that is what i'm saying. i'm sorry, they're much lower than the united states. i thought that is what i said. it's absolutely going to be a disaster for the united states if more and more of these companys. >> right. >> move their headquarters abroad. the tax rates are much lower. >> which is why it's likely that congress might act in december when they come back after the election. >> is obama going to get behind

this? >> yes. >> i think -- . >> ready. >> he's already promised tax reform. >> with this being -- obama? >> no. [ laughter ] [ overlapping speakers ] >> john, john. >> it would help. >> john, john. >> at the stage, to get through the congress. it won't get through the house. >> exactly. >> the republicans are not going to pass it. >> it's hostile to reducing rates on corporations a lot of corporation, going to fight and protect the loopholes in the law? what you need is -- if you have -- reagan was the last guy to do it. >> what year? >> 1986. >> that's correct. 1986. what happened? >> well, we had the blue dogs with us and we had a republican senate. we lost it that year after we passed the tax bill. >> and reagan got in behind it and pushed why it forward. >> i was on the plane and i heard, they said we're going to go to 28s are. -- 28%. i said i don't know what the terms are, take it. >> he grabbed it. >> and got it through congress. >> he took the rates all the way from 70% to 28%. >> that is the question. on a political probability scale, 0-10, what is the

likelihood there will be major tax reform next year. zero-10, pat buchanan. >> i think it's 3 to 4. >> eleanor. >> i give it five or 6 or seven in the lame-duck, only corporate tax reform. i think individual tax reform is a bridge toofaer for this congress, the coming congress. >> i will go down the middle, 50/50, better than now. [ laughter ] >> i think eleanor's right. corporate tax reform is a much more likely outcome than total tax reform, but that in itself would be a huge step forward. >> what is the probability, mort? >> i would say 49.4%. [ laughter ] >> not 50. fifty. >> reporter: don't want to go that far. >> always the pessimist. >> mort. he got it right. the answer is 50/50. don't forget, the mclaughlin group has its own website. you can watch this program and any program on the web at any time anywhere in the world at www.mclaughlin.com, could anything be simpler. when we come back, brazil, india, china, south

. issue two, banking on the brick. the sixth annual summit of the bricks country, brazil, russia, india, china, plus south africa was held at the lush brazilian beachside resort town of puerto li is, a. the bricks have a challenging mission: to decouple themselves from the

post world war 2 i'm international mop teary order forged the the new hampshire, brettonwoods united nations monetariy and financial conference of july 1944. the bricks declared they would establish an alternate to the world bank to be called the new development bank based in shanghai, china. the bank will have a $50 billion loan portfolio. $10billion from each brick member. first, however, the legislature's of brick states must approve and fund the new bank. china will running backer stamp the deal and the bricks will fund a $100 billion contingent reserve account to replace reliance on the international monetary fund, the imf. now, get this irony. four years ago, four of the five bricks received a combined $6,105,000,000 in foreign aid from the united states alone. question, why are the bricks creating their own

international monetary instruments parallel to the world bank and the imf, eleanor? >> each of these economies are big economies and they're coming of age at a time when the american economy is no longer the colossis on the world stage. they're buying influence around the world. china, really s the big dog here. they've got the money. they want the resources and you look at some of the projects they have in latin america and africa and you can see where they don't have all of the rules that the imf has. >> uh-huh. >> and the other international lending authorities have. they don't make people wither about the environment or impacts on the workforce. so people think they're getting a i great deal. i think there is going to be a lot of fallout because the chinese, in particular, go in, and they don't hire local people. they bring in their own workforces, but they do sir company vent the bureock -- circumvent the beaurocracy of the lending ages which have

been around a long time and are wary of the new projects. >> there is a lot of non-sense here. china and india are colliding over the areas china took. what does russia have in common with south africa? all they are is they're the non- western countries, the g-7. four europeans, canada, u.s., japan and they want to be the non-u.s. countries. this is something that was created, john. i don't think there is commonality to them economically. i don't think there is any threat whatsoever. i think they want to say we're not the west and we're the alternative to west. >> that's right. >> and they are not. >> the worlbank and the imf dominate. >> eleanor's right. china is the big dog. >> they dominate europe and the united states. >> and japan. >> and the bricks justifiably and predictibly have come to their senses and decided they're going to do this. >> what is south africa. >> is that fair? >> they want to be independent and make their own decisions. they're going to focus a lot of their resources on infrastructure in their own countries, and this is where

they want to have their own, shall we say, approval method. they don't want to go through the rules and regulations of the world bank. >> right. >> and that'll have control of enough money and focus on their own development and they will benefit from it. makes perfect sense. >> they have something in common, money, and that is the profit motive here. this is a new stage for the world economy. remember, the imf world bank was established after world war ii to rebuild europe. >> uh-huh. >> that phase is long, we're past that now. the countries we helped to develop in the past half century are now included in the new bricks nations. >> russia, russia doesn't give foreign aid. the chinese are all over africa. >> right. >> they're bleeding the countries of their resources. the chinese are the big players. >> china's not doing aid, pat. >> what is south africa doing as a country and an economy, doing in any major collection? >> providing -- . >> other than providing the s at the end of brick.

>> providing window dressing for what china is doing. it's china and a lot of countries that cover it and make it look like a benign international effort, when it's really -- . >> china's investing. [ overlapping speakers ] >> they're reaping billions out of africa. like eleanor said, they're not creating that many local jobs. >> yeah. >> and local development development and workers. >> i have to ask mort the key question here. that is does this pose any immediate challenge to use as u.s. interests? >> sure it does. it's going to have a completely independent source of huge amounts of capital that are basically focused on countries outside of the united states. so, we're going to lose some of the clout that we had in all of those decisions. not just in terms of lending but american investment and american opportunity. there is no doubt about it. >> it's a manifestation of people that don't want to be closely associated with the united states and the west anymore. the divergence is taking place before they got together and

called themselves bricks. >> chinese and russia plan to take over the world order through bricks. they will -- . >> i believe -- . >> sure. >> my belief is russia has sought repeatedly to join the west and we have virtually driven them back into the arms of china. what nixon broke up this recent presidents and administrations have put back together. >> how could bricks have been avertd? >> could have been -- on one level, can't have been avoided because you have one institution making the decisions and that is dominated by the united states and by england, the traditional sort of western capitalist countries. it doesn't work for everybody now. y there have different values, different ways they want to place their money and different ways to invest their money. >> it's totally understandable they would link together and try to give some push back to the west and show that their e

merging economies need to be treated like they're world powers, which they are economically. >> they have much larger economies. their economies have grown. china is a huge force in all of this. >> right. >> and they're going to have a platform, whether we like it or not. >> okay. >> from the environmental and labor regulations and all you have to deal with. >> that's right. right. >> a big plus. >> so the west has a fight on its hands to maintain. the west has a fight on its hands to man tape the world order we currently have. >> richard nixon, i heard him once say to a foreign minister, when you sleep with the devil, bring a long spoon. that is what they have to do when keel dealing with the chinese rather than the americans. >> issue three, a fair shake to salt. >> i have an admission to make. what is written about me is true. i love salt in my food. i put salt on my popcorn. as a matter of fact, popcorn without salt is not popcorn. this is not the healthiest habit in the world, it's not as bad as it sounds. >> reporter: former mayor michael bloomberg relaxed when it came to his salt shaker. a new study on low-salt diets

is prove. during his tenure as mayor, he was one of the country's leading aspect salt crusaders. under his nsri, national salt reduction initiative, dozens of states and cities banded together to pressure major companys like butterball, kraft, starbucks, and taco bell to cut the salt added to food. the goal was to reduce the average american's salt intake from 3400 milligrams daly to the 1,500-2300 milligrams advocated by noted health organizations. now, a major study recently published in the new england journal of medicine said that those low levels of salt consumption recommended by the experts and politicians are more likely to, get this, kill you, than help you. that is right. low salt intake can be lethal. the study tracked 100,000 people in 17 countries for

three years. those who consumed the recommended levels of less than 3,000 milligrams per day had a 27% higher risk of death, heart attack, or stroke, than those whose salt intake ranged between 3,006,000 milligrams. in other words, the average american's current salt intake of 3400 milligrams is healthier than the low levels recommended by the american heart association, the world health organization, and the food and drug administration. it turns out that micro-- michael bloomberg can have all the salt he wants on his food if this new england journal of medicine study is correct. >> someone said to me bloomberg should have egg on his face. if you're going to become an activist, you should be sure the change you advocate is beneficial instead of detrimental. >> who told you that, the salt industry? [ laughter ] >> you think i'm in the pocket of the salt industry? >> i'm asking, john. i'm just asking. >> with their minds -- >> the heart association, the fda, et cetera. they -- i will go along with

fair assessment. >> i think they have all been closed down. >> are they in the -- jar they in the leader of the senate's home district? >> you mean nevada? >> yeah. >> not that i know of. there is uranium and stuff out there, i think. >> you don't want to put uranium on your soup, i will tell you that. [ laughter ] >> you put uranium on your food? [ laughter ] >> now, my father happened to have high blood pressure and heart . we grew up in a family without salt, okay. literally. everyone said you had to cut it out. it doesn't mean i have a good taste of school, but so far so good is all i can say. none of my siblings have had any difficulty nor my sisters. >> you can throw out every salt shaker that you have and you absorb enough salt in processed food. >> right. >> they put salt in everything. >> uh-huh. >> i must say pat's been invoking ron ron and richard 96 -- ronald reagan and richard nixon. when reagan was president, he did an interview when he talked about the changes he made in

his diet and gave up salt. except for eggs, only a raccoon can eat an egg without salt. every time i eat eggs, i put salt on them. >> speaking of nixon, john. let me tell you a story late in life, he was told by his doctor he had to give up all drinking and called bb rivoso, his friend. bb said if i were you, i would get a second opinion. >> exactly. >> they cancel each other out. >> where do we read if e salt loses its savor. wherewith would it be flavored? >> itty a new testament. >> who said it? >> jesus himself. >> who did he say it to? >> to some jewish fellows, i think. okay? >> okay. [ laughter ] >> i have to confess now, i was there and it's exactly what he said. >> we'll be right back with predictions.

. >> prediction, pat. >> y there will try to do something about -- they will try to do something about inversion and corporate taxes and lame-duck session but it won't succeed. >> eleanor. >> the race for control of the senate is coming down to see many tight races that we won't know which party controls the senate until december when mary landrieu in louisiana will be in a runoff with her republican challenger. >> carl. >> watch for some big announcements on privatized space travel becoming a growth industry in the private sector much faster than expected. >> are you going to go up?

>> i'm thinking about it. [ laughter ] i am getting low in years but i wanted to do it. >> what does your wife said? >> she says to the moon, honey. remember the honeymooners? >> right to the moon. >> i have arranged for you to come with me. mort. >> i think the chinese are going to continue to grow as a major force in international business and international finance. the story that we covered here is just one example of that. >> obama care was a death nail for the democrats control of the house in 2010. i predicted if the democrats lose the senate majority next month, the clamor among remaining democrats in the house and senate to repeel obama care before the elects in 2016 will be deafening. bye-bye.

i wish i was in school. [overlapping chatter] if only i had a math test today.

i'll stay after class. i'll clean the chalkboard. i wish i was in school. man: school ends but free lunches for your kids don't have to. find your local feeding america food bank for help. ♪you may say i'm a dreamer♪ ♪but i'm not the only one♪ ♪i hope someday you'll join us♪ ♪and the world will live as one♪

welcome to government contracting weekly sponsored by aoc key solutions, inc. government contracting weekly is the only television program devoted exclusively to the competitive and dynamic world of government contracting, a world where coming in second place is not an option but where principle-centered winning is the only approach. good morning and welcome to government contracting weekly. i'm jim mccarthy, the owner of key solutions and the host of this show. regular viewers of our program know that we typically focus on the intersection between the government and the private sector but lest we forget there is also an important role that academia plays in the contracting arena especially as it relates to the increasing use of social media and the ever-present cybersecurity threats. joining me today