we know nfib is very aggressive on the half of their agenda. thing, you led t the fight i the supreme court to try to block obamacar if the republilicans win control of the senate, there are questions about whether that will be the opportunity to overturn obamacare. if the republicans win, is that a priority for you? >> i think they wowould have a majority thais very small. compromise is going to be necessary. you bring out obamacare, we talk about reform at can happen now. dayouou are not going to, one, say, it is time for repl. >> i think we need to be realistic. we need to control health care costs. at the end of the day, we need immediate relief for sml business owners. access, what products are being sold in each state. it is not so much about the big picture anymore. >> whawould d you push, and how would you do it? would it be piece by piece, or you try to put forwa a bill that could tackle all those issu? >> what remains to be seen is tuesday, how many seats. >> you know w whatou are goi to roll out as soon as tuesday happenens. we want

under the nfib case that's not the case. states are the gatekeepers of the expansion of medicaid congress, the iris come in and say well congress really wanted to cover as many people as possible in the language in the law says 100 to 40% of poverty but never contemplated that states would refuse to expand medicaid and never contemplated the nfib case and therefore we have administrative agency's regulatory body can infect expand those subsidies. no one has even thought that would be possible and yet under the principle of looking at the overall intent that is where we go. why would that not be valid under the circumstances even the language of the statute limits the subsidy from 100 to 400% of poverty. so this is problematic. further there's no provision in the statute that suggests that the iris as a specific gap filling role. in order for there to be a gap filling role it's not enough to look at the overall context of the statue. you have to look at the particular issues the supreme court said with a particular context an

under the nfib case, that is not the case.an congress -- can the irs come in and say congress really wanted to cover as many people as possible in the language in the loss is 100% to 400% of poverty, but it never contemplated states would refuse to expand medicaid and never contemplated the nfib case and therefore we estimate an assertive agency as a regulatory body contact expand the subsidies. no one has even thought that would be possible and yet under the principle of looking at the overall intent, that is where you go. why would that not be valid under circumstances even though the language of the statute limits the subsidy from 100% to 400% of policy. this is problematic. further, no provision suggest the irs has a specific gap filling role. in order for there to be a catholic role, if done enough to to look at the broad overall context. you have to look at the issue the supreme court has said are there particular context. the particular context of a particular issue, there is nothing that suggests congress contemplated

one of the biggest concerns they have according to the nfib is sales. sales. here we're coming up to the holiday. and also manta.com did a survey, small business online community and platform, they found in their community none of those small businesses plan to hire for this season for the holiday. >> sales are not an issue. 11 percent said sales an issue. it was as high as 30 percent. it's improved dramatically. above that regulations. every time you come on, these small businesses can't get loans. 2 percent said loans are concerned. i don't believe it. >> i will tell you, matt, they don't want the loans. matt: 2 percent are concerned. >> it's not a concern because they don't want that. matt: you always said they can't get them. charles: what are you saying hitha. >> it's getting a little bit easier now. >> they don't want it. charles: why? >> they don't believe -- the confidence of the country is coming back. they're not going to go into debt. charles: by definition, scottie, when you are a small business, you take certain risks. if you don't strike -- here'

he's talked about the nfib and chamber the commerce. look at the survey that the nfib came up with. one of the things that's on there is raising the minimum wage. he opposes it. i support it. that's why i'm not on their list. another thing that's on it is regulations the clean air act and clean water act. i think we need to support the clean air act and clean water act. my opponent opposes it. >> senator shaheen, your opportunity now to ask a question of your opponent. >> the five biggest oil companies last year made over $90 billion. yet you voted twice in the senate to support over $20 billion in subsidies to the oil companies. now, why should a waitress or a cashier at market basket have to pay through their taxes to subsidize the five biggest oil companies? how would you respond to a cashier market basket who asked you that question. companies last year made over $90 billion. >> i'm very glad that market basket is back in business. that's where we do our shopping. that being said, senator ayotte and other democrats voted against that bill, that you keep referring to and running

we know according to the nfib that taxes and government regulations are the two key things that are keeping small businesses from rebounding. and i think, you know, if you don't listen to that and you add more regulations on there, it is the choke hold that is suffocating small businesses. david: chris, there anything the new congress can do about this. >> several things. you can make sure no aappropriated rules are spent on these green gas rules. a sense-of-the-senate just like before kyoto, the president is freelancing. or our courts, the rest of the world should not take this as a sign that we're committed to anything. he's speaking for himself, not for us. that would cut this off at the knees and this paris kyoto two would be a dead letter. that would be first in my mind. change the law to make sure it says -- every time they amended the clean air act, which is they rejected regulating carbon dioxide. they were given the opportunity. make sure the courts can't rewrite these laws and the president. >> my concern it seems like obama understands or thinks he's been owner aided king and he

along with october's nfib optimism index out next week to see if the low prices in the fall helped thelook in optimism. back the you. >> thank you very much. we're joined by two small business owners. president and ceo based in reno, nevada and larry moker runs a plant of air power systems in tulsa, oklahoma. to both of you, welcome back. great to get the real view of what's going on at the coal face spo sort to speak. joe, as a food manufacturer, you send your candy around the nation. i'm sure you use a lot of fuel. how's the lower gas prices impacting as you a? >> mandy, good afternoon from sweet nevada. it affects us in every way. it goes all the way back to the farm. it goes back to planting the seeds. and what we find is that if for us as a manufacturer we're having to bring products in to nevada, we're having to truck them in. we have to -- we manufacture our candy products and ship them all across the united states. and the shipping costs in some cases are up to 20% of the value of the commodity that we make. so i think that with lower -- if lower gas prices continue and energy

weehave nfib lisa g.oez. this is small business. ii want to start with you, bob.ou're out in north carolina with hotly-contested senate race kay hagen is democrat leaning toward here. with sean haul the republican. that is exciting. what is the most exciting prospect you hope to see? what would you love to say to either one who wins, when it comes to what you as a bussness leader wants? >> you know, liz, we heard so many politicians claim they create jobs. in real world, small businesses create jobs with new investment. i would like to see reduction in the marginal tax rate. think of a small business with marginal tax rate over 40%. endless relations with the human product, go down laundry list as you know affordable care act is not affordable. let me push to ask, if one thing, corporate tax rates end at 40%. belgium and france are lower at 31 to 33%. that is really not okay to have us, losing business to those countries because they're just lower? >> liz, if we cut corporate tax rates five to 10% it would gives hope and money would be flooding into this country.

many states have not expangded medicate as a result of the nfib decision, tennessee being one of them and as a result there are folks who have income under 100% of poverty who do not qualify for medicaid, they don't get a subsidy, they don't qualify for a subsidy. so what are the requirements for subsidy? under section 1401, there are bafblg two. that the exchange must be established by a state, and secondly, it must be established by a state under its authority under section 1311. both elements, by a state, not on behalf of a state, but by a state under section 1311 are expressly enumerated and limiting terms in section 14101. there is no comparable subsidy for those enrotted in an exchange established by the government under section 1321. so at the eptd of the day, that's all i should really need to say, i should sit down and that's really the end of the discussion. but that's not the end of the case. the irs as was stated earlier, adopted a lul that the subsidies apply to both federally run and state run exchanges, even though there's no express statutory authorizizations for that,

we got the nfib, small business jobs report. a decent gain in small business jobs. should help the optimism for tomorrow. looking for 233,000 tomorrow. >> thanks, steve. quick question on draghi. some are wondering what is within the legal mandate for draghi to do now they is sowing the seeds for more action? >> i think what you're alluding to is this dispute whether they can legally buy sovereign bonds. i put that question to some ecb officials a few months ago. they said hey, we did it already. we've done it. it's within our legal purview to step forward. they feel it's within their legal authority to go that next step if they want to do quantitative easing. you point out the covered bonds are sovereigns. >> it's a moot point. >> i don't understand what you mean, simon. >> whether or not they can legally intervene. >> they've done it and it was not overturned. >> we are waiting for ruling the beginning of next year. >> there is no ruling right now. >> not yet. >> okay. thanks. >> let's talk more on what all this means for your portfolio. are you hoping mario dragh

in the nfib case the state's challenge the aca, the states did tee up an overruling of the garcia case. the supreme court denied cert on that issue. that was in the cert petition and the court didn't take it up. i think garcia is not going to be overturned easily. on the other hand, there are some distinctions from what the indiana case is bringing up. and the the garcia case. garcia basically says the federal government can pose working conditions, minimum wage, maximum hour on the states. this is actually different. this is imposition of a tax on a state, not just requiring complix but actually penalizing in a certain way, and that is a nontrivial distinction. so i think if jonathan is right it probably will not result in overturning garcia but this is a nuance that arguably can put this more into the commandeering category than into you must live by the rules as every employer must. >> anyone else? >> my name is todd. i write a blog free market monkey.com and also contribute to watchdog wire.com. in the state of pennsylvania. i'm sorry i don't have my source to cite my source but wh

in the nfib case the states challenged the aca. states did t. up in overruling of the garcia case. the supreme court denied search on that issue so that was in the cert petition. in the court did not take it up so it can garcia's not going to be overturned easily. on the other hand there are some distinctions from what the indiana case is bringing up and the garcia case. garcia basically says the federal government can impose working conditions minimum wage laws on the state. this is actually slightly different. this is actually imposition of attacks on the state not just requiring compliance with actually penalizing it in a certain way. that is a nontrivial distinction. so i think jonathan is right and that probably will not result in overturning garcia but i think this is a nuance that arguably can put this more to the commandeering category rather than into you must live by the rules as every employer must. >> anyone else? >> my name is todd kiefer. i have a blog free-market monkey.com and also contribute to watchdog wired.com in the state of pennsylvania. i'm sorry i don't have

and a lot of the surveys particularly from the nfib saying, you know, companies that have planned tompensation are starting to kick in. so i agree that we don't have a boom, but we're starting to see this stack up to get a little bit more of a lift. >> and liz ann, do we talk enough -- and maybe we fail in this respect -- about the impact of the job market on investing. as millions go back to work over the past years, a percentage of those people again will once again begin contributing to their 401(k) plans. if we have 2 million people contributing to 401(k) plans in the next five to ten years, that's going to add some change. >> i agree with you. i think that's one of the missing pieces of people who do analysis and focus on the baby boomers. sometimes the way the questions are asked, you think once the last baby boomer retires, that's it. there's nobody left. and the echo boom is not only $8 million to $10 million bigger than the boomers. but we're nvtsing at a younger age. when i started in this business in the mid-80s. i had to make a decision to become an investor by opening an