the grover norquist's ledge. pledge. it is better to cut education, it is better to cut military, support for seniors than to close a single tax loophole. i have dealt with the debt and deficit. no serious person has said, you have to look at both sides of the balance sheet. republicanss -- members of the virginia delegation have said that taking the grover norquist's ledge -- norquist pledge is an impediment to tax reform. since my opponent has only taken a pledge to grover norquist, he will not be able to fund education. >> this is another debate or senator warner has made a wrong statement. i don't sign any ledges. i have not signed pledges. i have not signed the pledge in terms of repealing obamacare. i have made a pledge to the people of virginia that i will not vote to raise taxes on the floor of the united states senate. senator warner has already voted to raise taxes. a lot of taxes hitting the middle class and small business owners. that is one of the reasons we have the lowest labor force participation rate in

that was grover norquist said. >> thank you so much for joining us.iate i. >>> fans of the avengeers apt new sneak peek. you better stick around. >>> barbara walters doing something she said she would never do again. imple? thanks to angie's list, now it is. start shopping online from a list of top-rated providers. . dvt and pe, with no regular blood monitoring and no known dietary restrictions. treatment with xarelto® was the right move for me. ask your doctor about xarelto® today. . >> hits keep coming after turmoil, the oracle of omaha's berkshire hath a way lost $2 million if two days him don't feel bad for buffet, his stock is still up. chump change, right. for all you avengeer's fans, next week's agents of shield offers the first trailer. don't miss that. >>> it's been almost 30 years since "back to the future" first hit the big screen. that is so hard to believe. we are getting old, bill. the film will be released in special theaters5edy accompanie a live orchestra so the musicians can play with the film, giving it a whole new experience. so if

i've got the letter from grover norquist. it said you will go up above and beyond the pledge. we should not vote for anybody who signs -- we would be happy to give you grover norquist complimenting you on taking the pledge and going above and beyond the pledge. let's go back to what the effects are. you will end up saying it is better to cut education, it is better to cut the military, it is better to get senior services rather than closing a tax loophole. you want to hire somebody with one hand tied behind their back. no serious group who has looked at our fiscal issues have said you have to look at both sides of the balance sheet trade what i did as governor and senator, there is a clear choice between the two candidates on this issue. >> we're going to go to our third question. >> social security turns 80 next year, and it is the basis of retirement for older americans. how would you protect social security for today's seniors and strengthen it for future generations? >> we have to start with the point you just made. we must protect social security for today's seniors. then

for democrats sing -- stand and what control of congress , versus focusing on someone like grover norquist. host: at this one, do you sense it will be a wave election -- at this point, do you sense it will be a wave election? guest: i think this feels a lot like this is sort of the beginning of a wave. you see candidates doing better. particularly in the senate, it seems like that wave comes much later in the cycle. this seems to be the time when we are seeing candidates take ahead and close people out. i think we will have a pretty good wave in both the house and the senate of picking up seats. host: do you agree or disagree? guest: i think it will be a little bit more in the tossup category. if democrats end up with 51, 46, 47, it wouldn't surprise me, but it is hardly a wave from what we are seeing. if you look at the governor's races, in a typical way the election, from top to bottom, one party or the other benefits. .t's all over the map democrats are struggling in massachusetts, maryland, the pga dgaputting money -- the is putting money behind the democratic candidate. i see this mor

he is gone and made this announcement, signed it over to grover norquist. spaghetti you believe that we shouldn't allow -- you want to end filibusters? systemic they are being abused and give us to know that. >> it should be limited to those cases where it's rare and necessary. when is the last time we had it? it was 30 years ago. headed up in the house ways and means committee it is a tough job made doubly tough if you have a split in the party between the house and the senate that is made impossible when you have to do the signing for the grover norquist tax pledge. if we are going to look at the tax code reform -- >> you've done an excellent job on this already but i want to give you the virginity to ask a question of each other. i would like to ask my opponent you said they should become the team party. you've been to the the rallies and accepted at the end were spent and when i look at the capernaum washington i don't see the republican party but i don't. the team party in washington opposes federal highway construction. they not only want to eliminate

i've got the letter from grover norquist. you will go up above and beyond the pledge. we should not vote for anybody. youould be happy to give grover norquist complement you on taking the pledge and going above and beyond the pledge print let's go back to what the effective at our. saying it isup better to cut education, it is better to cut the military, it is better to get senior services rather than closing a tax loophole. withant to hire somebody one hand tied behind their back. lookedous group who has have said you have to look at both sides of the balance sheet trade what i did as governor and senator, there is a clear choice between the two candidates on this issue. we're going to go to our third question. >> sus returns 80. basis for older americans. how would you protect social security? >> we have to start with the point you just made. we must protect social security for today's seniors. then we have to save it for future generations. with mend dollar are this evening. in will not be there for them. younger, you or are looking at your retirement point getting

votes.s 60 when we have senators who have taken the grover norquist tax pledge, they pledged they will never reduce any deduction or credit from the tax code. we cannot write tax code reform with that premise. made this announcement, signed another oath. >> you believe we should not allow -- you want to end filibusters? >> they are being abused and you should know that. it should be limited in most cases where it is necessary on big-policy items. i favor tax are from. the last time we had it was 30 years ago. it was headed up in the house ways and means committee. it is a tough job. it is made double he tough if you have a split in parties between the house and senate, made nearly impossible when you have people signing the grover norquist tax pledge. if we are going to look at this tax code, we should put everything on the table. to give you an opportunity to ask a question of each other. senator, would you like to go first? >> you said the republican party should become this tea party. you have been to their rallies and accepted endorsements. when i look at the tea party in washingto

have the letter from norquist that complyments him that says you will go and beyond the pledge. we will be to -- do you have a copy of me signing it. >> complimenting you the pledge. let's go back to what the effects of that are. you end up saying, it's better to cut education, better to cut our military, better to cut senior services rather than closing a single tax loophole. hire someone into debates with one hand tied behind their back. no serious group that has looked at us, and keags neal aa rmppmp on my efforts on entitlement reform that said you have to look at both sides. what i have said, again, there is a clear choice between the candidates. >> third question, the president of arch arp will address this question to mr. gillespie. >> social security turns 80 next year and foundation upon which older americans rely. social security provides 50% or ore of family income for older americans. how will you protect social security for today's generation and strengthen it for future generations? >> we must protect social security for today's seniors and not only those in retire

let's change with governor norquist said, the washington reagans. >> the logo is a very proud ipd generalogo should remain. >>> coming up, who are the wealthiest people in america? "forbes" just released the "forbes" just released the wealthiest names. you know what my business philosophy is, reynolds? no. not exactly. to attain success, one must project success. that's why we use fedex one rate. their flat rate shipping. exactly. it makes us look top-notch but we know it's affordable. [ garage door opening ] [ sighs ] honey, haven't i asked you to please use the -- we don't have a reception entrance. [ male announcer ] ship a pak via fedex express saver® for as low as $7.50. >>> a forbes 400 list is out, ladies and gentlemen. first, get the names to help you get on that list. >> this is boring conglomerate. >> it's like watching crab grass grow. it hasn't moved since 2011 levels. >> flow serve. >> we've got a lot of industrial and oil company execs on the list and they pump the energy sector. also, for water and renewables as the global economy grows so popular. >> this stock is way too

new political ad is placing the blame squarely on republican shoulders with more on this grover norquist president for americans with tax reform. great to have you here, grover. what do you make of this claim? is it true that the republicans take all the money out for any potential solution for ebola? >> it's kind of sad that the democratic groups instead of solve the problem is trying to exploit this crisis for political gain. step one. step two, let's look at the number. in 1980 the national institute of health had $3 billion. today it's time times that. 30 billion. the center of disease control that is supposed to be focusing on this stuff has 6 billion. it got an extra 4 billion over the last few years and turned around and spent 6 percent of that on infectious diseases. so the centers for disease control and the nah decided to make ebola and other diseases not exactly a top priority. they say if they had more money they would have done something, they had 30 billion. they had lots of money. and they chose to spend it other places. gerri: let's get to some of the things they've been

let's change with governor norquist said, the washington reagans. >> the logo is a very proud ipd generaleast the logo should remain. >>> coming up, who are the wealthiest people in america? "forbes" just released the wealthiest names. a simple question: in retirement, will you have enough money to live life on your terms? i sure hope so. with healthcare costs, who knows. umm... everyone has retirement questions. so ameriprise created the exclusive confident retirement approach. now you and your ameripise advisor.... can get the real answers you need. start building your confident retirement today. and u'll see just how much it has to offer, especially if you're thinking of moving an old 401(k) to a fidelity ira. it gives you a widrange of investment options... and the free help you need to make sure your investments fit your goals -- and what you're really investing for. tap into the full power of your fidelity green line. call today and we'll make it easy to move that old 401(k) to a fidelity rollover ira. >>> a forbes 400 list is out, ladies and gentlemen. first, get the names to help

norquist. as i said to mr. nader, thank you to you both for holding to the 12-minute limit that we imposed. so that we could have more time for questions. let's start with some questions for both of you. and some people say that the partisan divide is deeper today than it has ever been. did the two of agree and if to how do you think the gap might have been narrowed? you might have touched on this but if we could have a succinct answer to that question. do you agree and if so how do you think the gap can be narrowed? >> the partisan difference is much greater. nixon was president, he wanted the government to get bigger and ted kennedy wanted it to get bigger and they would argue every day and it got bigger. but always just somewhat bigger. very easy to agree if you're all heading in the same direction and just a question of speed but we have two parties, one wants larger government, one wants smaller government and they mean it. what would a bipartisan compromise be? there's no way to do that. they're fundament

. >> i will be speaking with grover norquist, a lot more americans are giving up their passports becausere concerned with new rules, and what they have to disclose as far as their foreign held assets. they gave up their past ts because of the taxes. >> the answer would be to change the tax code. but that is easier said than done. >> corporations are looking for ways to get out of this country, and no more and more citizens are looking for ways to get out of this country. democrats would like to change x code as much as anyone else, but they do not know about the reality. matt miller will be with us, thank you. dilma rousseff has been rea reelected. we will see she can fulfill her pledges for her second term. ♪ >> it is time for today's latin america report. dilma rousseff wins a second term. it was the closest run off the country since 1995. her pullrs that helped this election off, what were they? >> she had a fantastic campaign strategist. but she used the talking points against her opponent very effectively. they went after him, saying he away from money ordinary, hard-working brazili

starting with candidate eggman those republicans have taken a taxpayer protection plunge from grover norquist but yet there it paid for roads or public safety and other basics. should oakdale voters approve measure why? >> in a bigger scope at federal level to have our house in order to have our runaway deficits that stars by making sacrifices and hard choices. the balancing on the budget on the backs of our seniors were the most vulnerable is certainly the wrong choice. we should leave by a example that is what i have the no perks pledge if congress cannot pass a budget than they should not get paid if they shut down the government they should not get paid to get rid of the ridiculous health care pensions for life as well. that their own gyms and barbershops that regular people cannot use? we don't need that four members of congress. also a the big ticket items said gao says we waste hundreds of millions of dollars per year to agencies it is time to get serious and cut the red tape out of government. we also need to look at the defense budget we need a strong defense but we need this sparked

to walk into the office of grover norquist. designed and grover norquist tax pledge. to do what it says? [inaudible] spent i'm asking you to be in the majority part innocent and, therefore, so long, where is your tax reform -- >> filibusters. it takes 60 votes. when we have senators who've taken the grover norquist tax pledge, they have pledged that they will never reduce any deduction or credit in the tax code. you cannot write tax code reform with that premise. he has gone and made this announcement, signed another oath to grover norquist. >> do you support the use of nuclear option? >> i will tell you, they are being abused and you ought to know that. we will go back -- it should be limited to those cases where it's a rare and it's necessary on the policy items. i favor tax code reform. when was last time we had it? the last time we had it was 30 years ago. it is a tough, tough job. made doubly tough if you have a split in the party between the house and the senate. made nearly impossible when you had people signed the grover norquist tax pledge. if we will sit at

corporate status and is grover norquist calls it is a doctrine of supremacy. whatever status over the constitutionally from sovereignty of the people comprises of widening all-encompassing corporatist agenda. that leaves out the corporate culpability government. he downplayed the fact corporatism is an alliance between government and business and that needs to be more strongly seen. conservatives need to be much more wary of corporations. liberals need to be made much more wary of politicians and government. with that said, there's a couple fights that can win. the easiest way to do it when getting something passed is really hard. you might think that's good if you're a libertarian especially. by killing things a little easier, especially the way a lot of things work in washington is writes that could eat the real fight of a left right coalition against corporate welfare. the current price has to do with experts that city. at the end of the fiscal year, the export import bank expire. typically almost unanimous. in fact, there's been unanimous consent a voice v

corporate status and is grover norquist calls it is a doctrine of supremacy.tever status over the constitutionally from sovereignty of the people comprises of widening all-encompassing corporatist agenda. that leaves out the corporate culpability government. he downplayed the fact corporatism is an alliance between government and business and that needs to be more strongly seen. conservatives need to be much more wary of corporations. liberals need to be made much more wary of politicians and government. with that said, there's a couple fights that can win. the easiest way to do it when getting something passed is really hard. you might think that's good if you're a libertarian especially. by killing things a little easier, especially the way a lot of things work in washington is writes that could eat the real fight of a left right coalition against corporate welfare. the current price has to do with experts that city. at the end of the fiscal year, the export import bank expire. typically almost unanimous. in fact, there's been unanimous consent a voice vote

that kicked off grover norquist. >> can you tell us what a strong republican field is? >> ted cruz, ron paul, chris christie, marco rubio. scott walker. >> there ought to be a ticket, ted cruz and rand paul, i think that would be perfect. >> eric makes a very good point about trying to get through a republican primary, because you're going to hit him on the compassionate conservatism. open borders, he's going to get crushed on that. er eric's writing about common core, i think there's bush fatigue, period. >> before you go after last names, remember what rand's last name is. so that criticism to me is one dimensional. when you have a big primary fight -- >> but his dad wasn't president. >> but rand paul, you have to look at the other people in the race, what kind of politics they have, what they recommend, how they treat people, do they have a solid set of convictions. i think bush is a good guy, but i would like to see something different than what happened in the previous ruined where you have kind of a police line of people all really angling for talk shows. i want p

many of my republican colleagues now find that they must sign a grover norquist pledge when they run for congress. saying that they will carry out his goal to shrink government down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub. these are his words. these are not my words. and so, with this norquist pledge and similar litmus tests, these quandaries are only made worse by redistricting where a similar event has occurred before to enable legislatures to be owned by these same special interests. we say state legislators draw our congressional lines with little interest in fair representation. with small concern about protecting regional boundaries. or about any blink of consideration for any part of the voting rights act, which is, again, under attack. they operate simply in the interest and the making of majorities for one political party. and for achieving one particular set of views. as redistricting creates more and more safe seats, we see members focus only on winning primaries. not about the public interest, and not about real discussion of the concerns that members have or cit

that the file although each if the flights can be ones to benefit but with his training and grover norquist of who started this? is corporatism government controlling business or the question business controlling government? i think the answer is both and a lot of people on the left including historians still see the government culpability as strongly. it is not of fact a public trust. but corporatism is first and foremost, of supremacy the sovereignty of the people. i think that leads out the culpability to downplay the fact corporatism is an alliance between government and business. to make much more worthy of politicians. but that said the easiest way to do it they might think that is good. it is a little easier especially that we authorize temporarily. that is over the left right coalition but the end of that fiscal year it expires. typically almost unanimous consent to renew. this is the fight to somehow become chairman of the house financial-services committee despite not doing everything the banks asked us to do do. for the majority leader who was a champion about one month ago to be

george bush came here in 1999 and gave a speech attacking grover norquist, which i loved. he gave that kind of speech. the last couple of cycles, they have not been giving those speeches. my impression is the only person doing that is marco rubio right now. >> of the imaginable candidates, that is probably true. part of it is there are more ideas out there. in a sense, the policy vacuum on the right itself has been the fault for a long time of people like us. i think that is less true now because some of the some of the thinking has been done, and the working out of what it looks like as a political agenda has been done. the idea that if those things exist, they are on the ground, a politician should think at this point of speech i should say something about what i am going to do. we cannot think of ourselves as being on the cutting-edge of anything. i mean, look at us. but that is a way we can be useful. well, some of us. look at me. i think the ways in which people who think about policy can be helpful is by preparing the ground, making sure those ideas are out there and

because he is doing the same thing grover norquist is. this is just ridiculous that we are not raising taxes. the democrats are just the cowards, not fighting and not exposing. the only one exposing any of this corruption is bernie sanders. the economy will not grow without taxes. host: i will have chris chocola jump in. guest: the facts are these. we have an unsustainable burden that we know we have. take a number. one hundred trillion dollars, promises we made to americans in the future through our social security, medicare, and medicaid. other spending that we have no idea how we will pay for. you can confiscate the property, just take every car in every house in every bank account of every american in america and you would be 30% short of meeting the financial promises we already made. you can not taxed people enough to solve our problems. it is just impossible. the only answer is reform. we have to reform tiedemann entitlementr programs and get control and find ways to have a smarter and more efficient government. we have to get econ

but in 2009 you also signed grover norquist's no-tax increase pledge. while you have advocated for tax reform, would you oppose any tax reform deal that includes a dime of a net revenue increase from taxes? gardner: i don't think increasing taxes is the answer. i think the federal government has plenty of money. we ought to focus on ways we can actually reduce spending, make the federal government balance its own books, make sure the federal government is spending its money wisely before it turns around and asks the people of colorado for one more dime of their hard-earned dollars. look, if you look at a bill i introduced on wasteful spending, over $200 billion simply could be saved because we eliminate duplicative and overlapping programs. we must make sure that we are reducing spending. reforming taxes, we have to reform taxes, we have to make sure that small businesses are able to keep more of their own dollars in their own pocket to invest in job creation. that's why i support comprehensive tax reform, that's why i believe we can allow people of our

enforcement groups, different victim rights groups, we had support from -- we got a letter from grover norquistnd newt gingrich, and just different conservatives and others that you would otherwise think they were just completely against this, but i think that people are seen not only has our prison system been socially irresponsible, it has been fiscally irresponsible dwell. i was telling the group in the just this year alone, our legislature passed a budget of $9.8 billion for our 130on system, which serves plus thousand people. we only plat -- past $9.6 billion for the cal state system, which serves 500,000 two 600,000 students, and we are clearly on a path or have been on a path that we scare ourselves. in the 80's and the 90's, it was tough on crime. if you were elected if you said you were to -- you were elected if you said you were tough on crime. intoared the public believing all of these myths about super criminals and the whole deal, but i think now conservatives and democrats and everyone are saying, it you know what, it is no longer the idea of tough on crime. we actually need to be

george bush came here in 1999 and gave a speech attacking grover norquist, which i loved. he gave that kind of speech. the last couple of cycles, they have not been giving those speeches. my impression is the only person doing that is marco rubio right now. >> of the imaginable candidates, that is probably true. part of it is there are more ideas out there. in a sense, the policy vacuum on the right itself has been the fault for a long time of people like us. i think that is less true now because some of the some of the thinking has been done, and the working out of what it looks like as a political agenda has been done. the idea that if those things exist, they are on the ground, a politician should think at this point of speech i should say something about what i am going to do. we cannot think of ourselves as being on the cutting-edge of anything. i mean, look at us. but that is a way we can be useful. well, some of us. look at me. i think the ways in which people who think about policy can be helpful is by preparing the ground, making sure those ideas are out there and

because he's doing the same thing grover norquist did, and this is just ridiculous that we are not raisinges. and the democrats are just big cowards, not fighting, not exposing. the only one exposing any of these corruption is bernie sanders. the economy will not grow without taxes. >> host: okay, i will have chris chocola jump in. >> guest: the facts are these, that we have an unsustainable burden that we know we have, pick a number, $100 trillion, promises we have made to americans in the future through our social security, medicare, medicaid and other spending and we have no idea how we will pay for. you could confiscate the property, take every car, every house, every bank account of every american in america and you would be 30% short of meeting the promises financial we've already made. you can't tax people enough to solve our problems. it's impossible. they could take everything and we would still huge problem that we don't want to fix. the only answer is reform. we have to get government spending under control. we have to find ways just have smarter more efficient government. we ha

enforcement groups, different victims' rights groups, we had support from -- we had a letter from grover norquist newt gingrich, just different conservatives and others that you would otherwise think they're just completely against this. but i think people are seeing not only has our prison system been socially irresponsible, it's been fiscally irresponsible as well. i was, i was telling the group in the green room that, you know, just this year alone our legislature passed a budget of $9.8 billion for our prison system. which serves about 130 plus thousand people. we only passed $9.6 billion for our cal state system which serves about 5-600,000 students. we are clearly on a path or have been on a path that we scare ourselves, you know? in the '80s and the '90s, it was tough on crime. you were elected if you said tough on crime, right? we scared the public into believing all these myths about supercriminals and the whole deal. but i think now conservatives and democrats and everyone are saying, you know what? it's no longer this idea of tough on crime, we actually need to be smart on crime. and i

george bush came here in 1999 th and gave a speech attacking grover norquist, which i loved.e he gavehat kind of speech. the last couple of cycles, they have not been giving those thati speeches. >> o my impression, correct me if i'm wrong, is marco rubio right now. >> of the imaginable candidatesa that is probably true. part of it is there are more ideas out there. in a sense, the policy vacuum oi the right itself has been the f fault for a long time of people like us. i think that is less true now because some of the das the work has been done and somen of thed, thinking has been done. and the working out of what it looks like as a political agenda has been done. the idea that if those things exist, they are on the ground, a politician should think at this point of speech i should say something about what i am going to do. if there's this pile of papers in front of me, that helps. we cannot think of ourselves as being on the cutting-edge of bu anything. th i mean, look at us. that is a way in which we can with useful. well, some of us. look at me. look i think the ways in which peop

if i'm right larry, george bush came here in 1999 and gave a speech attacking grover norquist, which i loved. so he gave that kind of speech. the last couple of cycles, they have not been giving those speeches. my impression, correct me if i'm wrong, the only person doing that is marco rubio right now. >> well of the imaginable candidates that's probably true. but i think there is more of that kind of ferment going on in the party among elected officials than there was four years ago. part of it is that there are more ideas out there. in a sense the absence -- the policy vacuum on the right itself has been the fault for a long time of people like us. and i think that's less true now. because some of the work has been done. and some of the thinking has been done. and the working out of what it looks like as a political agenda has been done. the idea that if those things exist, they're on the ground when a politician is ready to think well at this point in my speech i should probably say something about what i'm going to do. if there's this pile of papers in front of them that helps. i

because he is doing the same thing grover norquist is. this is just ridiculous that we are not raising taxes. the democrats are just the cowards, not fighting and not exposing. the only one exposing any of this corruption is bernie sanders. the economy will not grow without taxes. host: i will have chris chocola jump in. guest: the facts are these. we have an unsustainable burden that we know we have. take a number. one hundred trillion dollars, promises we made to americans in the future through our social security, medicare, and medicaid. other spending that we have no idea how we will pay for. property,nfiscate the just take every car in every house in every bank account of every american in america and you would be 30% short of meeting the financial promises we already made. enough not taxed people to solve our problems. it is just impossible. the only answer is reform. we have to reform tiedemann programs and get control and find ways to have a smarter and more efficient government. to get economy incentives to grow so we can fix pro