HAPPY HOUR for November 24, 2009 - Part 1

Emanuel

xfdhe HAPPY-HOUR-00

<Show: HAPPY HOUR>

<Date: November 24, 2009>

<Time: 17:00:00>

<Tran: 112401cb.222>

<Type: Show>

<Head: HAPPY HOUR for November 24, 2009 - Part 1>

<Sect: News; Domestic>

<Byline: Eric Bolling, Cody Willard, Tracy Byrnes, Rich Edson, Mike Emanuel>

<Guest: Mark Kirk, Tom Schatz, Mike Papantonio, Sarah Schaffer>

<Spec: Military; War; Health and Medicine; World Affairs>

ERIC BOLLING, CO-HOST: Hello everybody and welcome to HAPPY HOUR. I'm Eric Bolling along with Cody Willard and in for Rebecca Diamond is Tracy Byrnes.Today on HAPPY HOUR President Obama says he's ready to present his plan for Afghanistan to the country, but more troops means more cost -- the head of House Appropriations Committee threatening a war tax for the rich.

The battle for health care heating to a fevered pitch along party lines with both sides gearing up for war -- is there any way to stop the American people from becoming casualties of war?

The table is set with fine China for the Obamas' first state dinner. In attendance the prime minister of India and a guest list that includes Hollywood bigwigs -- wait until you hear who wasn't invited.

And all the cool kids in town are logged on to FoxBusiness.com/HappyHourLive. If you're not there, what are you waiting for? We'll check in on the live discussion going on there.

But first President Obama says he's quote, very confident the American people will support the path he chooses in Afghanistan . The president will address the nation next week on his plan and is indicating he'll increase the troop level significantly. White House Budget Director Peter Orszag has suggested it could cost the government a hefty $40 billion per year to send 40,000 new troops and that leaves the question how are we going to pay for it congressmen?

David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat and the chairman of the very, very important powerful House Appropriations Committee is calling for a war tax aimed at the rich. All right, quote, this is what it says. Because if we don't pay for it then the cost of the Afghan war will wipe out every other initiative that we have to rebuild our economy.

(CROSSTALK)

BOLLING: You know, every other initiative, you know.

CODY WILLARD, CO-HOST: Every other initiative is.

BOLLING: Stimulus.

WILLARD: I went -- I actually went and did some homework on Obey today. You know we're all a little familiar with him, but I went and did some homework on his voting record. This guy's been in Congress for 40 years. He voted for every stimulus bailout, et cetera. If we're going to carry a war tax I think we need to create an antirecessionary stimulus tax on the rich too.

BOLLING: Tracy?

TRACY BYRNES, GUEST CO-HOST: I'm just -- why are we constantly picking on these so-called wealthy. I mean they're proposing another wealthy tax on people who make anywhere from 200 to 250,000 -- why does the burned constantly fall on the upper class?

BOLLING: Well.

(CROSSTALK)

BOLLING: We just so happen to have Representative Mark Kirk --he's a Republican from Illinois. He's also on the Appropriations Committee from the Republican side and he joins us now from Chicago. Thanks for joining us Representative. The first question is.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You bet.

BOLLING: You know Tracy points out it's always tax, tax, tax. It seems to be that Representative Obey may be pushing his political agenda here by throwing out that tax word, you know we -- if you don't know and maybe our viewer doesn't know but Mr. Obey has said that he would rather have us pull out of Afghanistan rather than send additional troops. What do you say?

REP. MARK KIRK (R), ILLINOIS: I say Afghanistan is essential to the security of the United States and everybody who watched what happened on 9/11 knows that. Also when we think about this Congress as the tax and spend Congress. But it may be more accurate to call it the tax and tax and tax and spend Congress.

BOLLING: Representative, $40 billion sounds like a lot when you talk about $40 billion in and of itself, then when you put it up against TARP, Trouble Asset Relief Program, $700 billion, stimulus plan, $787 billion. It gets worse you know when you look at GM and Chrysler failing businesses we gave them $60 billion.

Why not just take some of that unspent stimulus. I there's $500 billion laying around. Use some of that. I mean for most of the American people they would rather have that money spent on you know troops being safe in Afghanistan than some failing businesses.

KIRK: Absolutely. The national defense in making sure that 9/11 never happens again is the first mission of the federal government. Also, this Congress is spending at a furious rate. Spending control is what is necessary. It is also what markets want to see to reassure investors of our future.

Remember also in the trillion dollar Pelosi health care bill there are 10 new federal taxes in that legislation alone. This other tax being proposed by Congressman Obey would be on top of that. In the teeth of the great recession where unemployment, for example in my state of Illinois is already over 11 percent, that's the wrong way to go.

BOLLING: All right Representative where do we go from here? We have on the Senate side Senator Carl Levin looking at possibly a similar tax. They would bring that as well to the appropriations side from the Senate. If Obey does bring this, do you have the fight, do you have the power to say hey listen enough taxing people. This is money we should be spending anyway. Appropriate this money. Don't tax to appropriate it?

KIRK: Yes, I will fight this tax increase tooth and nail. I think it's exactly the wrong way to go. We need to build jobs in America and not government jobs -- jobs by real businesses, especially small businesses that employ half of all Americans. Remember, Obey is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee so he doesn't control tax policy under his own committee. My guess is that there is a strong majority in the Congress, mainly Republicans but some Democrats who would join me in absolutely voting no on an additional new tax.

BOLLING: Well, let's talk about that real quick. We're running out of time but didn't this come up a couple of years ago. Didn't Obey actually bring you know an Iraq war tax bill to you guys and you turned it down, right?

KIRK: That's right. Actually it was Chairman Rangel that brought up a tax. He also wanted to bring back the draft and then was humiliated when he voted against his own bill. And remember it's Chairman Rangel, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in charge of tax policy that is now under investigation on five different counts in the Ethics Committee. This is man, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee that wants to raise your taxes but he hasn't paid his.

BOLLING: All right, Representative Mark Kirk thank you very much from the great state of Illinois. Thank you.

KIRK: You bet. Thank you.

BOLLING: Cody.

WILLARD: All right let's now turn to Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste who has an opinion on the so-called war tax. Tom, you know, we just heard from a Republican who voted for bailouts, voted for TARP, voted for stimulus throughout the last few years and he's saying that we -- government should get out of things. We've got a war tax talking. What do we got here going on Tom?

TOM SCHATZ, CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT WASTE: Everybody in Washington likes to spend money. When the Republicans were in charge they liked to spend money on their programs and it seems to me that right after 9/11 President Bush should have said we're cutting everything else in half except national security and we wouldn't be sitting here talking about the need to spend more money on the wars because we would have saved enough through cutting out all of these other programs. I'm waiting for the first list from this Congress of spending cuts. All we hear about is let's go spend more money. They now have a second stimulus even though they're not calling it that because the first one is such a failure.

WILLARD: The third or fourth stimulus technically.

SCHATZ: Right, right and they tax the quote, unquote rich so many times over. Just take everybody's money above 250,000. Why let them keep any of it.

BYRNES: But that's the point Tom that I don't truly understand because many of our congressional leaders fall into this 200,000 plus category so they're essentially taxing themselves. I'm not sure why they seem to think that just because you make that amount of money you've got spare change around to give back because that seems to be the trend.

SCHATZ: Oh of course and it means if you take that money away the government is making the decision about what to do with it. There was a lot of talk about helping small business. A lot of small businesses have revenue above 250,000. They don't keep that much of it because they pour it right back into the business. They employ people. You may recall a number of years ago they had a tax on luxury yachts and what happened, the rich kept the money, the luxury yacht makers went out of business.

(CROSSTALK)

BOLLING: Tom, this is just -- honestly look, when you think about it -- take a step back -- $25 billion was given to seven different banks to make sure that they were healthy a couple of months ago.

WILLARD: Each.

BOLLING: A hundred and ten billion dollars to Fannie and Freddie just to make sure that we can make lower priced loans to people who may not be able to afford a house right now, $75 billion if you want to mitigate your mortgage. This is absolutely outrageous to keep America safe, to promote freedom around the world and frankly not just America, other countries are going to benefit from a safer world. Forty billion dollars and we're talking about taxing everyone. Talk to me about it here. Am I wrong?

SCHATZ: You're absolutely right. I'd like to see Chairman Obey give up some of his pork. You know he's a big pork-barrel spender. He doesn't dissuade his colleagues from asking for these projects -- $17 billion last year. More than $200 billion since we've been keeping track of pork in 1991.

Every year there's a discussion about reducing earmarks, getting rid of some of this waste. They just don't do it because they love spending the money and we need to hold them accountable for what they're doing to the country. National security is first. It is written in the Constitution -- a lot of these other programs are not. Where is TARP in the Constitution?

WILLARD: We're just asking. We simply want laws enforced in this country and we want to protect ourselves from invaders and instead we get this guy -- Representative Obey voting yes on $192 billion additional antirecession stimulus spending, yes on the TARP, yes on modifying bankruptcy. Every bill that you just mentioned Obey himself Eric voted yes for. Final word Tom -- how do we fight this? What do we do?

SCHATZ: I think we need more people out there talking about this. You guys came on right way and talked about it. I mean everybody needs to say don't even go anywhere. There are trial balloons here in Washington. This one needs to be shot down right now before anybody else talks about it.

BOLLING: All right, Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste. Thanks for joining us.

SCHATZ: Thank you.

BOLLING: All right everyone pick up your laptops. Chat it up during HAPPY HOUR. Log on to FoxBusiness.com/HappyHourLive and join the discussion.

On Tap the health care debate rages on. We dive into the latest with our own Rich Edson live from the White House when HAPPY HOUR continues here on FOX Business, the only business network in true HD.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WILLARD: Is the battle over health care turning into a game of chicken -- conservative and liberal Democrats making threats to vote against the bill. Let's head down to D.C. -- Rich Edson has the latest -- Rich.

RICH EDSON, FOX BUSINESS: Well, the moderates are dug in. The conservatives are dug in. Think about the map for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. He's got about maybe two or three Republicans and about 60 Democrats and out of all that 62, 63 senators. He needs to come up with 60 votes.

Let's take a look at the Republicans here who are still really in the hunt here. Democrats are trying to get them to vote with them. Republicans are trying to get them to vote against the Democrats. Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine. They have really been the only two Republican hopefuls for Democrats for quite some time and they're trying to get them on board but they're going to have to make this bill a little more conservative when it comes to issues like the public option, government -- the government run option when it comes to funding taxes and fees and that's really the issues you're seeing with the number of the moderate senators. One Republican analyst says it also comes down to public opinion. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't think that they're buying what the administration and the Democratic controlled Congress is selling them which is that this is a jobs bill. It is not a jobs bill. In fact, many folks consider it a job killer simply because of the fact that it's an increase in the entitlement programs and it's all funded through increased taxes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

EDSON: Two senators -- the two Independent senators here. Let's take a look -- this is really I think exemplifies what Senator Harry Reid has gotten himself into here. You have got Senator Joe Lieberman -- he's insisting that he will not vote for a bill with a public option. He says he won't and the other Independent, Senator Bernie Sanders says he will vote and insist on a robust public option -- back to you.

BYRNES: Rich, thank you so much -- as always you're on top of it -- Happy Thanksgiving if we don't talk to you.

EDSON: Thanks -- you guys too.

BYRNES: All right, well it's become -- it's become such a partisan issue how can the Democrats bring in the Republicans and make the American people really believe this is something for all the people not just politics.

Mike Papantonio, Ring of Fire radio host for Air America -- all right, what are your listeners saying on the radio -- I mean because we've heard it all now. From the Louisiana Purchase to you know we're buying boats here again.

MIKE PAPANTONIO, RING OF FIRE RADIO HOST: I tell you what they're liking -- they're liking the fact that insurance executives are kind of falling under the gun right now. The Senate version of the health care bill is going to limit tax deduction for compensation for insurance executives to $500,000.

Now so what ends up happening is the company, they can pay whatever they want. The taxpayers don't have to pay for fat cat executives anymore. They like the idea that there is a possibility that the McCarran-Ferguson Act might disappear where you have an insurance industry that doesn't get a free pass, doesn't get a free pass from jail every time they engage in price fixing. So those are two positive things that are coming out of this.

Right now I think the insurance industry is really on the ropes. They're fighting for things that are far more important to them than things like the public option. If they lost something, for example, like the McCarran-Ferguson Act (INAUDIBLE) the door. Right now they can do exactly what they want. They can.

(CROSSTALK)

PAPANTONIO: They can -- you know they can -- yes -- I'm sorry go ahead.

BOLLING: You liberals you have more problems than McCarran-Ferguson Act. Here's what you got -- you're up against. You're up against two Independent senators that won't vote for a bill with the government option. If somehow they pass the Senate you have to figure out a way to deal with all kind of the moderate Democrats in the House that won't vote for a bill with any sort of abortion funding. And there are a lot of hurdles for Democrats -- I mean there is such a wide range of Democrats here.

PAPANTONIO: Eric, Eric.

BOLLING: There's no bill that everyone's going to be happy with.

PAPANTONIO: There are hurdles but for example the public option. What you're going to see is a compromise. At the end of the day my projection is that you're going to come up with a trigger option. The trigger option really is meaningless to a large degree but at least it saves political face.

Issues like abortion and some of these other issues -- what you're going to see is you're going to see people try to compromise something for their jurisdiction. They're going to say look, I'll go with you on this but you're going to have to give me $100 million in pork for my jurisdiction -- we're already seeing it.

BYRNES: Yes.

PAPANTONIO: We saw it out of the Senate. We see these compromises that take place. But that's part of the process unfortunately and has been for 200 years. It still is part of the process.

WILLARD: Mike, you know.

PAPANTONIO: And unfortunately.

WILLARD: I'm not sure -- Mike, I'm not sure it's been that way for 200 years. I mean we're talking about a $2.5 trillion health care package and they're going to be banding about hundreds of millions if not hundreds of billions of dollars of pork-barrel, favoritism. I mean it's the strategy for every Republican/Democrat from here on out to just withhold their vote so that then everybody has to buy them in?

(CROSSTALK)

PAPANTONIO: Cody.

(CROSSTALK)

BOLLING: This is a Democratic bill here, so you can't say Republican.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLARD: It's the same difference, Eric.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLARD: I ain't playing that game.

PAPANTONIO: Cody, unfortunately -- Cody, unfortunately that is what's happening. As a matter of fact just to get this thing out of the you know the first round of the Senate vote you saw all kinds of deals being made behind closed doors. At some point you have to say to these people look, this may not be important to you because you get your health care paid for.

You don't have to worry about can you take your child to the hospital because they've been diagnosed with leukemia and need treatment. The average person out there -- now you know this is all -- it's all over the spectrum on what public opinion is. I've got to tell you this; public opinion is that they do want a public option because.

BYRNES: Yes, but Mike.

(CROSSTALK)

PAPANTONIO: Yes, I'm sorry -- go ahead Tracy.

BYRNES: But Mike, we're buying votes -- we're buying votes again. I mean this whole Louisiana Purchase thing is comical and she was actually proud of it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

BYRNES: Basically Louisiana is getting a Social Security patch because they're deemed disaster. They're the only state deemed disaster in the whole country.

PAPANTONIO: Hundred million dollars.

BYRNES: Hundred million dollars to Louisiana for her vote.

PAPANTONIO: Right.

BYRNES: She just bought that outright and then she's out of it.

PAPANTONIO: Well I got to tell you -- Tracy, I've got to tell you something. That's the story we heard about. I can tell you there are a dozen other stories we haven't heard about. But on every difficult process like that where the negotiation takes place there is that that goes on. We hear -- I was glad that that story was out there in the public.

We've heard -- there's been dozens we haven't heard. I've got to tell you something. Public option is the issue. Harry Reid is going to give it away. I can promise you he's going give it away by saying look we're going to have a trigger. If the insurance industry doesn't do what they say they're going to do, if they continue to delay coverage payments, if they terminate coverage for no valid reason, if they force policy holders to sue them just to get paid what they're entitled to, if they deny for irrelevant issues like preexisting illnesses, mumps and acne and measles, if they raise premiums without explanation, then we're going to put the trigger in.

(CROSSTALK)

PAPANTONIO: I got bad news for Harry Reid. You know what it is --they've been doing it for decades. They'll continue doing it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

PAPANTONIO: . because it is an unregulated industry that has nobody looking over their shoulder.

BOLLING: Pap, we're running out of time real quick. Is this a must win for Democrats coming up in 2010.

(CROSSTALK)

BOLLING: You have 435 House seats, about 35 Senate seats up for grabs.

PAPANTONIO: Eric I completely agree. They have to win this, especially on the heels of Obama who I believe is going to say we have to go back into Afghanistan. We have to spend more money. You're looking at one Independent who typically votes Democrat, who defends Democrats all the time that will be missing in action if those two things occur.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right.

WILLARD: Mike Papantonio, thank you -- On Tap we'll take you back to the White House as the Obamas get set to host their very first state dinner, the closely guarded guest list about to be revealed as those guests, many from the Hollywood clan are soon to arrive.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BOLLING: It's the most coveted invitation in Washington -- the toughest ticket in town. President Obama's first state dinner, the black- tie affair a White House tradition and while details about the menu and entertainment have leaked out, the guest list has been a closely guarded secret. What we do know it's going to be a mix of Washington heavyweights and Hollywood and just as interesting is who was not invited. FOX News reporter Mike Emanuel joins us from the White House right now as arrivals are about to get underway. What do you know Michael?

MIKE EMANUEL, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well Eric interesting, yes there's been a great deal of buzz here in Washington as -- you're right, politics and Hollywood collide for a state dinner tonight honoring the Indian prime minister. Interesting the Indian prime minister is a vegetarian so the celebrity guest chef Marcus Samuelsson coming down from New York has to accommodate a gentleman whose you know eating habits are vegetarian.

In terms of the guest list, we have seen some names leak out --Katzenberg, Geffen, Spielberg from Hollywood, Ari Emanuel, the brother of the chief of staff. Bobby Jindal, the Republican governor of Louisiana -- an interesting invite. It would be interesting to book him as a guest tomorrow perhaps to see how it felt to be a Republican at the first state dinner hosted by this Democratic administration.

And so a fascinating guest list -- about 320 people under a tent on the south lawn of the White House -- the tent it was felt like would provide a little bit more space for the 320 guests or so and we got a little bit of a preview of what it would look like, the tables. First lady Michelle Obama bringing reporters through today to take a look at the table settings.

We know the plates will date back to the Eisenhower administration for some of the plates the guests will be eating on, some for more recently George W. Bush's administration and so basically pulling out all the stops to show India that they are a critical ally to the United States at this stage and so all things Indian are hot today in Washington -- Eric.

WILLARD: Mike, to be clear Rahm and Ari, no relation to Mike Emanuel.

EMANUEL: No, otherwise I might have gotten a ticket to the event.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was wondering.

(CROSSTALK)

BOLLING: . walked in and picked up table 11 -- that's me.

BYRNES: All right.

EMANUEL: Emanuel here, I'm in.

BYRNES: Mike, I know everyone is way more concerned about who's eating -- any of the guest list. But let's talk just for a second about the importance of this dinner. I mean we're talking about a country.

EMANUEL: Sure.

BYRNES: . that is shedding its socialistic ways, meanwhile we're sort of going that way. We're talking about a country that's very involved in Afghanistan -- just quickly tell us how important this is.

EMANUEL: Absolutely vital and you know the president's going to a conference in Copenhagen in two weeks to talk about climate change. Well any time you talk about climate change you got to ask what is India doing about climate change. And so they say they made progress on that issue today but you're right there's concerns about -- India's worried about Pakistan and we want Pakistan to crack down on terrorism, so we're trying to get India to calm down about Pakistan and then there's obviously issues about jobs, the global economy and the idea that the two biggest democracies in the world could help counter the growth of China in the world so the U.S. and India could work together on that front. So a whole lot of issues and the president made it clear that they are a vital partner in the 21st century.

WILLARD: Mike Emanuel no relationship to Ari or Rahm in D.C. --thank you.

EMANUEL: Thank you.

WILLARD: Each administration has own style when it comes to state dinners. The Clintons were known for their large events while the Bushes preferred smaller gatherings. The Obamas certainly have tipped their hand about their style from the Inauguration Day festivities which looked more like a rock concert to the first couple's date night.

Here with a look at tonight's first state dinner, Sarah Schaffer editor-in-chief of Capitol File magazine. You know my first question to you is this -- it's a little confusing to me the Hollywood/India connection. Maybe a Bollywood/India connection might make more sense to me. Can you explain some of that to us Sarah?

SARAH SCHAFFER, CAPITOL FILE EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Well, as I've noted earlier India is a hugely important nation to the United States, so I think it is only natural that President Obama would choose to have this first state dinner to honor the Prime Minister Singh of India. And so look to see tonight at the state dinner maybe some Bollywood stars and maybe even some stars from Slumdog Millionaire and also some people who are prominent Indian Americans like Sanjay Gupta.

WILLARD: So Bollywood is in.

BYRNES: But Jeffrey Katzenberg.

SCHAFFER: Yes, Bollywood is in.

BYRNES: I mean Jeffrey Katzenberg, well you know what he was -- he was a big Obama supporter and maybe a little disappointed. So an invite to a big-ticket night might be a good way to get him back on the Obama good side. I mean do we have a little of that going on tonight as well?

SCHAFFER: I think there are -- everyone's looking for an invitation to this event tonight and there are only about 325 people attending. So all eyes are on the guest list and I think it is going to be interesting tomorrow once we find out exactly who was there. Once the press list and the guest list is released to find out exactly who they invited and why and it's a good chance for the country -- for the Obamas to show off to the country their entertaining style and also of course they're being very careful about who they invite because they want it to be a great inclusive crowd that's diverse that includes some political appointees, dignitaries, but also some Hollywood types, and they don't want to alienate anyone who was close to them on the campaign trail during the run-up to the election.