tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News December 10, 2012 2:00am-3:00am EST
that gives us better lives, that's our show. thanks for watching, i'm john stossel. ♪ ghts. >> chris: i'm chris wallace, two big issues today. the fiscal cliff talk stuck in neutral and concerns syria will use chemical weapons against it's own people. with 23 days and more posturing, will the white house cut a deal. we'll talk two senators on the front lines of the debate. democrat charles schumer and republican bob corker. then the u.s. draws a red line telling syrian president assad not to use chemical weapons in that country's civil war.
we'll discuss the latest intelligence and fallout with michael oren. a fox news sunday exclusive. plus the supreme court agrees to take up same-sex marriage. we'll ask our sunday panel if the court is likely do decide whether gays have a constitutional right to marry and a final farewell to my best friend winston, all right now on "fox news sunday." hello again from fox news in washington. it's beginning to feel like groundhog day in the talks of the fiscal cliff. both sides dug in, no agreement in sight and we're 23 days from the brink. join us to break down where it stands, two leader senators, charles schumer and bob corker. house speaker boehner said friday another week has been
wasted. given president obama won the election and seems to have most of the political leverage, what's the realistic deal to be made in the next 23 days? >> first of all i think something's going to happen. i hope it's large enough for people who want to see entitlement reform to vote for. the president has leverage but the republicans have leverage with the debt ceiling, hopefully cooler heads will prevail. theorist are coming forward on how to deal with this. it's a unique moment in history where every developed country in the world, economists on both sides of the aisle know the greatest threat of the country is fiscal solvency. the minority party is trying to leverage the president into doing something great for the nation. i hope the president soon will see the light.
>> senator schumer, three weeks left. what's the compromise that both sides can live with on taxes, spending cuts and entitlement reform? >> i think we'll get a deal. everyone realizes how important it is, our economy is moving up some, not fast enough but some, and to go over the cliff would be terrible. i think we'll get an agreement. the reason i think we'll get an agreement, what's standing in the way is revenues, particularly making that top rate go up to 39.6 but we're seeing real progress in that regard in two ways. first, a good number of republican conservatives, people like colter and crystal, said we have to do it. last week tom coburn said it's preferable, cutting deductions and business leaders who support mitt romney, the head of fedex and at&t saying let it
happen. the president won the election on that issue and i think you will see our republican colleagues reluctantly say 39.6. >> let me interrupt and bring in senator corker. senator schumer's right, a growing number much republicans and conservatives, not a majority, but a growing number, are saying we have to cave on tax -- on raising tax rates, not just the idea of closing loopholes. would you accept returning to the clinton rate of 39.6% or would you accept something perhaps a midpoint, 37% or starting with people who made $500,000 rather than 250? >> chris, there's a growing group of folks that are looking at this and realizing we don't have a lot of cards as a relates to the tax issue before year end. we have one house, that's it. the presidency and the senate's
in the democrats' hands. i think it has merit, you give the president the 2% increase that he's talking about, the rate increase on the top 2%. and all of a sudden the shift goes back to entitlements. all of a sudden once you give him the rate on the top 2% it's actually lesser tax increases than what he's been talking about. the focus then shifts to entitlements and puts us in a place where we can do something that really saves this nation. so there's a growing body. i'm beginning to believe that's the best route to take to shift the focus where it needs to be, which is on entitlements. still, chris, the top 1% in our country taking 17% of the income and paying 37% of the taxes that are paid i hope will take a fax reform in a way that creates growth in our nation at some point. at this juncture we may be where
senator schumer says. >> all right. senator schumer, you just heard senator corker say i would consider and maybe i'll go for raising the rates up to the clinton rate, 39.6% for the top 2%. but we need spending cuts and entitlement reform. what -- what are you willing to put on the table? >> bottom line is if speaker boehner ends up where senator corker has said he is, we will get a large agreement. and -- but speaker boehner hasn't said that. so we democrats realize that there have to be two sides to this bargain. we're not going to go back to what we did in 2011, putting both revenues and cuts on the table and ended up with just getting the cuts because the other side couldn't accept the
revenues. so once speaker boehner calls for an increase in revenues to 39.6 and the other things the president called for, we've done a trillion dollars in cuts but where he -- we realize there have to be other cuts and there will be negotiations. we'll have different views, mine and senator corker's view is different but we'll have to find spending cuts and we will. >> in fairness, senator corker, senator coburn, a bunch of people, have said -- it's not house speaker boehner but you're not president obama. they've been willing to say we're willing to raise the tax rates all the way up to the clinton rate, 39.6%. can you give us some specifics of things you would consider cutting in terms of social programs and in terms of entitlement reform? >> the bottom line, chris, is that would be negotiating against ourselves. president obama agreed -- >> isn't that what they just
did? >> no. the bottom line is democrats, led by our president almost uniformly say here's our first 1.2 trillion of getting to the 4 trillion. revenues. it's up to the republican leadership prodded correctly and boldly by senator corker and others to say they'll go along with this and then we'll negotiating on the other side. it makes no sense to negotiate against ourselves? do you buy that, senator corker? >> look, chris. we have to have a $4.4 trillion solution. i know senator schumer, i've talked with him numbers of times. he knows what we need to do and most republicans and democrats do. i think it's time for the president, he knows that there's a growing body of folks willing to look at the rate on the top 2% but that's only -- could be $400 billion, it made be
800 billion-dollar and many of us are beginning to see we could end up with a lesser revenue increase by agreeing to that. the shift in focus and entitlements is where we need to go. it's a shame we're not sitting down and solving this but republicans know that they have the debt ceiling that's coming up around the corner. and the leverage will shift as soon as we get beyond this issue. the leverage will shift to our side where we'll do the same thing we did last time. if the president wants to raise the debt limit we get 2 trillion-dollar in spending reduction, hopefully oriented towards retirement. i don't want to kick the can down the road. senator schumer and i know what we need to do is solve this problem now. >> let's talk -- you -- wait a second. we'll get into that in a second. senator corker, you brought up the debt limit and you know part.
president's demand is he be given the right to raise the debt limit by himself unless congress disapproves by two-thirds vote in both houses. that a deal breaker for republicans? >> let me go back. face it, he has the upper hand on taxes. you have to pass that to keep it from happening. if we were to pass, for instance, raising the top two rates and that is it, all of a sudden we have the leverage of the debt ceiling and welch not given that up. the only way the debt ceiling i think is given up is if the president comes to the table, talks with speaker boehner about real entitlement reform. without that, there's no way in my opinion the debt ceiling is given up. then you go to january and february with a negotiation about spending reductions which is where we want to go. so look, he can decide, i agree with senator schumer, we're not going to go over the fiscal
cliff to use that terminology. something's going to happen before year end. hopefully it's a comprehensive package that solves our nation's problems then later, next year, we deal with tax reforms in a revenue neutral way. what i -- i'll stop. >> chris: hemorrhaginge >> this goes beyond the deal. why should congress give up it's constitutional authority over borrowing? we looked at your record when george w. bush was president. you voted at least three times against increasing the debt limit. why would congress give up that power? >> the bottom line is on debt ceiling, things shifted. i don't agree with bob corker on that issue. it shifted the way it has on taxes. senator mcconnell put on the floor a resolution that said it was his idea, not ours, that let the president raise the debt
ceiling. it's money congress has already spent and let congress by two-thirds override it. he thought we democrats would run from that scared as could be. within a half hour we had 51 votes, we called his bluff and he filibustered his proposal. the sure footed mitch mcconnell stumbled. i believe debt ceiling will be part of the agreement. and i believe our republican colleagues learned that to say the government will not pay its debt and hold it up for something else is bad substance and bad politics. i don't think they'll prevail. if they want to say we won't raise the debt ceiling unless we cut medicare, make our day. >> meaning go ahead and default the country? >> no, meaning that is untenable
and won't last. >> i want to go to other subjects. senator schumer, on the first day of the next congress in january, will democrats change the rules on filibusters by a simple majority rather than two-thirds majority you generally need to change rules in the senate? >> everyone knows the senate is broken and needs fixing. i think bob corker would say that. we have had discussions, we're friends. almost all democrats and all republicans believe that. i think it's also true our preference would be to do this by two-thirds in a bipartisan way. there are all kinds of discussions going on with all kinds of groups to try to come up with a agreement. the basic problem is republicans say we don't allow them amounts. we say they don't allow our bills on the floor. you can deal with those evenhandedly. if we can't come to an agreement, whether we go to the constitutional option, our caucus will have to discuss that in the coming weeks.
our hope would be to be able to come up with a compromise. there are interesting and productive discussions. >> let me ask about the filibuster. when democrats were in the minority a few years ago and you guys were filibustering george w. bush's judicial nominations you had a different view about the filibuster. >> the wisdom of our republic shows when the senate slows things down, when the senate does invoke checks and balances that the republic is better off. >> senator, what's changed except for the fact you're in the majority. >> nothing. that's exactly right. the filibuster, i'm not for going to a house of representatives where 51 votes decides everything but the filibuster has been overused. not just on major issues like significant judges, supreme court leaders or courts of
appeal, healthcare obviously shouldn't have passed by 51 votes. it needed 60. but it's used on trivial things and not by the minority. >> wait. i have to ask, didn't healthcare pass on reconciliation by 51 votes? >> healthcare got 60 votes. >> i thought it was a -- when it came back it went on reconciliations by 51. >> not until after it passed by 60 votes. >> on the changes it passed by 51. anyway, it's a technical point. what you're saying is that you think there has to be reforms. >> correct. >> quickly, then one last question for you senator. >> okay. >> number one, we're going to solve this, there's -- we will get the fiscal reform done this year. i think the president -- i think we're going solve this. the two parties will solve this. i predict we'll have a meeting
of republicans and democrats together. charles schumer is constructive on this issue. we're going to sit down together soon in the senate chamber and resolve this in a way democrats are not breaking the rules and we do it the way the senate as functioned and i think we're going to start the next year with a different spirit within congress. >> let me ask you, senator corker, we're overtime. one last question that may test that new spirit. you're going to be the new ranking republican on the senate foreign relation economy in the new -- committee. would president make a mistake to nominate susan rice as secretary of state? >> i do think that embassador rice is viewed as a political operative and i don't think he's going to nominate her. as i have said, i'll give any nominee a fair hearing and i
will in this case. but i think the president realizes on both sides of the aisle there are a lot of concerns there's a fact these a political operative and not viewed as a principal. >> let me just quickly -- you don't think she would pass the senate? >> well, i don't know what will happen. obviously there are many people like me that always give nominees a fair hearing. i don't think she's going to be nominated for a lot of reasons. >> senator schumer? >> yeah, the solution here, a lot of republicans don't want to vote for susan rice if she's nominated by the president. they shouldn't filibuster. they don't have to vote but don't require 60 votes. that's traditionally what is done with presidential cabinet nominees when a president is elected or regleeked we have to leave it there. senator schumer and senator corker thank you both. we'll watch for any sign of progress on the fiscal cliff or
the bloody civil war in sir i wouldn't took a por more ominous turn with the assad regime might use chemical weapons against rebel forces. joining us, embassador michael oren. there's a report in the sunday times of london that israel has spotters on the ground in syria. what is your latest intelligence about assad preparing possibly getting ready to use chemical weapons. is he still mixing the gas we
saw signs of this week or have the warnings from the president and secretary of state hillary clinton scared him off? >> we're watching the situation carefully. it's not new to us, syria has a varied, deep chemical weapons program, geographically dispersed. were the weapons to pass into the wrong hands that would be a game-changer. >> at this point any signs as to whether he's continuing to mix the gas or whether he pulled back? >> i can't confirm those reports but i can say we're watching it and we have a very clear red line about the chemicals passing into the wrong hands. imagine, hezbollah would get its hands on chemical weapons that could kill thousands of people. >> chris: the u.s. drew a red line this week which is different than israelis. it's if assad uses them against his own people, israel's line is if assad were to lose control or
give the weapons to extremists, which raises the question, how big a presence do jihadist and those allied to al-qaeda play in the rebels who oppose and fide assad and syria? >> we support the president's red line as well. the prime minister supports the red lines in syria. the jihady presence is big and getting bigger. the longer the conflict goes, the bigger it will get. >> do you worry about the possibility of losing assad but get a situation where you have al-qaeda factions running part of syria? >> we've long advocated for bashar al-assad departure. we came to the administration years ago and said bashar al-assad is too reckless. his father was -- he was reckless but predictable.
his son is reckless and irresponsible and ruthless and provided 70,000 rockets. tens of thousands of rockets to terrorists everywhere. he tried to create a military nuclear facility secretly. he had to go. he was a loose cannon through the region and danger to the entire region. if he goes now, we would view that as a positive development. he's an ally of iran, a ally of he hezbollah. if jihadist come in it wouldn't be good but it wouldn't be as bad as the current situation. >> turning to egypt, egyptian president morsi resended most of a decree that gave him sweeping powers but he's moving ahead with a referendum next weekend on a new constitution. does israel care whether egypt becomes an islamic state?
>> egypt's stability and democracy is important to us. israel has a interest in stable, peaceful and democratic egypt. we won't get into the internal politics just as we don't except them to get involved in our politics. egypt needs stability and peace. it's not just an israeli interest, it's egyptian, regional, a global interest. the egyptian israeli peace and we hope egypt overcomes the difficulties as appeal fully -- peacefully as possible. >> does the government, given his role in brokering the cease-fire in gaza, dow trust morsi to keep the peace? >> he says repeatedly to americans and others he has every intention of upholding the peace and he played a constructive role in helping achieve a cease-fire surrounding the recent fighting in gaza and we hope egypt continues to play
that kind of role. >> immediately after the palestinians a week or so ago were voted nonmember observer status as a state. in the united nations, your government, prime minister netanyahu, announced it will get ahead with plans at this point, just plans, for a new settlement on the west bank called e1. we'll put up a map and show it. here's a map of the project which the obama administration says would drive a wedge in the palestinians west bank and cut off east jerusalem from the rest of the west bank. my question is will israel develop that chunk or are you using that as a bargaining chip to say to the palestinians, you make trouble for us in the u.n. and international bodies, this is what we may do. if you don't, maybe we won't. >> the map is misleading. you saw the yellow chunk.
that's a suburb where 40,000 israelis live. it's less than two miles of baron desert road from that suburb to jerusalem. that's e1, the road. and we have to worry about a situation in the future where the suburb could be cut off from jerusalem. it doesn't cut off the west bank. you can get from ramallah to bethlehem in the south by going around e-1. if there's true peace between us and the palestinians the problem is solved by a cloverleaf or tunnel underneath the road that links them to jerusalem but it was a way the israel government set down a marker. the palestinians violated agreements with us and united states by going to the u.n. all agreements state there's no tuttle active to -- alternative to direct talks. we're ready to have them today.
if not we have to take measures that enable us to defend ourselves and citizens in the future. >> i just want to button up the issue of e-1, which you put your spin on it, the u.s. talks about it driving a wedge into the west bank and making it more difficult to have a viable, contiguous state. the question is, is israel necessarily going to build on e-1 or are you saying it depends? >> it's a preliminary stage that was announced last week. it could take years to fulfill that. let's see if the palestinians come back to the negotiating table. we're ready to negotiate today. here in washington and ramallah or jerusalem to work out the core issues. one is jerusalem and the question of settlements which are part of the territorial issue. we're willing to talk about all of it. >> i want to talk about a different negotiation with the palestinians, not over the final
solution but the cease-fire in gaza. couple weeks ago israel agreed to the cease-fire and through egypt, agreed to talks to try to settle the issues. they want to loosen the block aid. you want to stop weapons smuggled into gaza, missiles fired on israel. where do the talks stand and what do you make of the remarks of hamas's political leader who said he will never recognize israel's right to exist. >> talks are going on now and we're working out issues. the most important is stopping the flow of iranian missiles and weapons into gaza. >> has there been progress? >> we're discussing is openly. most the weapons, whether they come from the libyans or sudanese pass through egyptian territory into gaza. if we can stop that we can do a
tremendous amount towards reinforcing the cease-fire. the head 6 hamas was in gaza and talked about destroying the jewish state. there's no chance for negotiation. we're going to liberate tel aviv and get it from the paper mache model of a rocket. there's no better indicator of what we're dealing with with hamas than the speech by mashle. >> thank you so much for coming in. we'll continue to monitor the developments in the region. >> thank you. up negotiation, the supreme court steps into the debate over same-sex marriage. we'll ask our sunday group if a new constitutional right is in the making. sometimes life can be well, a little uncomfortable. but when it's hard or hurts to go to the bathroom, there's dulcolax stool softener. dulcolax stool softener doesn't make you go, it just makes it easier to go. dulcolax stool softener. make yourself comfortable.
four out of five, the people have chosen to either vote themself or their elected representatives to stick with traditional marriage. >> two views on the supreme court's decision to wade into the debate over same-sex marriage. it's time for our sunday group. bill kristol of the week by standard, kirsten powers from the daily beast website. kim strassel and juan williams. bill, what do you see as the significance of the supreme court deciding to take on this issue? >> i think they pretty much had to because there are serious issues at the supreme court level and they have to resolve situations where congress passed legislation and there's a fight at the state level in cal. i think the court will be cautious. they've learned, especially justice roberts court is wary of
roe v. wade and will not throw out arrangements in 30 or 40 states and will resolve the case. only section 3 is as issue. i believe the court does not want to be overturning arrangements throughout the country on something to delicate. they've learned a lesson that that's not the right role. >> that's talk about that. people are making the comparison to 1973, roe v. wade. 37 states, by law or in their constitutions now ban same-sex marriage but they're legal in nine states as well as the nation's capital, washington, d.c. a new poll, 40% say they approve same-sex marriage.
30% support legal unions, 24% say same-sex couples should not be allowed to enter in any union. president obama has come out in favor of same-sex marriage though he wants to leave it to the state issue. some people as bill suggested are comparing this to the 70s when opinion was evolving on abortion. the states seemed to work it out and the court came down with a big ruling and 40 years later we're having a holy war on the issue. how do you see the court reacting? do you see some creating a constitutional right or are they narrow and modest? >> it would be a surprise if they did a broad ruling. justice -- that map tells the story when you look at that many states who have banned it versus how many approved it. it gives you a sense of where
the country is. it's moving in the direction and i do expect at some point it will be -- the court will rule on it and rule it is a constitutional right, which is my personal view. but i think right now i would expect them to do something more narrow, maybe like the appeals court did in california. the lower court found it was a constitutional right and appeals court said no, you can't take rights away. >> chris: basically what you're saying is if they sided with what the circuit court did in california they would say in california, it's legal, but it's not legal in any other state. this doesn't apply. >> right, they're not ruling the which -- if they ruled the way the lower court ruled, saying it's a violation much the equal protection clause, i believe that's true. i don't think the court will step out on on that issue. >> what's the possibility the
court says look, congress has a law that says the federal government is keep benefits from -- in a state where -- that's banned same-sex marriage and keep partners in this case from getting an inheritance or for instance say look, you had prop 8 in california. people voted. what are the chances of going the other way and being broad ruling against it. >> they could do that. they could have a clear ruling. the complex -- there may be a muddled decision. those home for a clearcut finality may be disappointed. to go to row v. wade. we have a real world example of how this works in a good way and not on gay marriage. if you look up the massachusetts supreme court going out saying this is a constitutional right in the state of massachusetts, the next year 11 states had
referendums banning same-sex marriage because voters don't like to have these things imposed on them from the top. it's better when they take part in the democratic process and it gains legitimacy. after 32 defeats at the ballot box in this last election, you had three states approve it. that's because people had a chance to make these decisions on their own and vote. >> chris: juan? >> first let me say this is a significant step by the court to agree to take this case. this is something the whole country is focused on, as you pointed out public opinion as shifted. the court has affirmative action and voting rights case so it's a significant turn for the supreme court on issues of equality. when it comes to this issue, it comes down to you -- you said abortion, people are thinking about a 1967 case, loving vs. virginia in which they said it's legal for people of different races to marry. is it the case that a gay couple
has the same rights as a heterosexual couple. a narrow ruling would be seen as dodging the issue, kicking the can down the road. is it your constitutional right to marry the person of your choice in this country? this is an issue that is the way that the proponents of gay rights are putting it before the court is let's look at the states and allow the states to make the decision and if that's the case, i think they are backing away from the larger issue. the larger issue has to be that the court would say it's constitutional or not. >> chris: what about the argument that happened in abortion and obviously if you're pro choice you think that was great. but because of the court coming in and setting this rule from on high, you have had a battle for 40 years. >> i understand but the thing super wealthy can't say to a human being, you know, in certain states you have rights and in other states you don't. to me, that -- this is a
constitutional issue. i think that's what the supreme court is for. it's not to say you know what? we're going to fight the war on abortion. we shouldn't have ruled to broadly. abortion is a state's issue. a constitutional right? i don't see it. >> well, i would say i think that's the best analogy that you gave. more than abortion, because once you started seeing racial attitudes change it snowballed and that's going to happen with gay marriage. when that case was decided there were only 16 states that banned interracial marriage vs. almost 40 states. when the court is trying to get a sense of where the country is and they're concerned, they might see it differently. >> we have to take a break. up next, will the stalemate over the fiscal cliff hobble an already weak recovery? the capital one cash rewards card
gives you 1% cash back on all purchases, plus a 50% annual bonus. and everyone...but her likes 50% more cash. but i'm upping my game. do you want a candy cane? yes! do you want the puppy? yes! do you want a tricycle? yes! do you want 50 percent more cash? no! ♪ festive. [ male announcer ] the capital one cash rewards card gives you 1% cash back on every purchase plus a 50% annual bonus on the cash you earn. it's the card for people who like more cash. what's in your wallet?
>> businesses are making decisions about investment and hiring and if they don't have confidence we can get this done, they're going to pull back and we could have a rocky time in our economy over the next several months. >> chris: president obama drawing a link between the fiscal cliff talks and a still slow economic recovery. we're back with the panel. we got the new jobs numbers friday. let's put them on the screen. unemployment dropped from 7.9 to 7.7%. the economy created 146,000 new jobs. kim, yes, continuing recovery but not a roaring recovery. does that help one side more than the other?
>> they'll both have talking points. the president will say we're recovering, making progress like i said and therefore the economy is okay to have these tax hikes levied. republicans will say it's too weak for us to play a guinea pig with the economy. i think what is relevant about the job numbers is they're not strung. politics aside, presidents when they have a second term we know their lasting legacy is their stewardship of the economy. it's astonishing this president thinks given how weak the economy is that you can go out just impose new taxes, whatever that may come. if he's wrong and it has an effect, it's going to be hard to dig out of that. >> juan, 23 days and counting until we go over the cliff. do you see, and you heard senators corker and schumer, any sign that we're getting closer to a deal and it sure seems, listening to senator corker, like republicans are caving on
the top tax rates. >> you were listening carefully. >> chris: it didn't take that much careful listening. >> that's right. that's a sign. republicans don't have leverage. you look at the polls, it's not one or two polls, it's overwhelming, the american people would blame the g.o.p. the second thing to say is you look at people like corker, but beyond corker to coburn, sham bliss and senator crystal and say it's time to -- republicans don't need this fight. it's not a winning fight for them politically. the third thing, which people don't say, this could be damage to go president obama. he wants to begin his second term forward looking, not loss in a sea of economic fear and people would blame him for taking away unemployment benefits, no dock fix. letting taxes go up on everything. that's not what he wants. >> chris: payroll taxes.
>> right. both sides have strong incentives to make a deal. not to mention they want to get out of town for christmas. >> bill, given all of that, and you were one of the early people who said republicans -- i just felt we would remind those who may have missed it, you said republicans don't want to fight over tax increases for millionaires. what's the smart play for republicans at this point and how do they get -- because it's all about taxes. how do they get the deficit debate back to spending and entitlements? >> they can do that next year once taxes are off the table. these pass an extension of all bush tax cuts which republicans believe is best. >> before the end of the year. >> yes, before christmas. then pass perhaps a second piece of legislation as a fallback if the senate doesn't accept the better piece. it makes accommodations to president obama and allows a
hike up to 37% for millionaires. obama has a extreme position. 4% on every family making $250,000 or more. there are a a lot of upper middle class families that don't think they're wealthy if they're paying college tuition making more than $250,000 and less than 750 or a million. there's a tax increase going into effect for those families in obamacare, 1% increase on income and a big 3% increase surcharge on investments. so republicans can say best case, no tax increase, we'll also give you a responsible modest increase so you can satisfy yourself, president obama, that we're increasing taxes on millionaires, not families making $60,000 a year. republicans would save families from a worse tax increase then you can have spending and entitlements fights next year. there will be a debt ceiling issue, still the continuing resolution for funding the government. it's not as if everything's'
solved this month. >> kirsten? you seem similarly unimpressed by the scenario. >> as she so often i say, i have to say. >> the deal that seems to be on the table is the 37% rate. >> chris: let's -- the top tax rate is 35%. if the bush tax cuts lapse it goes to 39.6%, the rate under bill clinton. some say go to 37%. >> that's the deal that obama says he would come down to, 37. the republicans say raise medicare eligibility. the left is completing freaking out over raising medicare eligibility and the right is freaking out about the tax rates. so they have to decide. the administration is clear that the tax rates have to go up. obama has given in on this before and so there's pressure on him. there's a lot of pressure on house democrats so i think if
they can come to some sort of agreement on the rate and if republicans are willing to push the other stuff to next year, that's a deal. i mean -- >> but i think what argues against a big deal that includes any sort of cuts for instance up front on the entitlement side is republicans, if tax -- tax rates are going up either way either because you're going over a cliff or because the president will force you into a deal. they don't want to take responsibility for the economic fallout that comes. so if they agree to a big deal that includes spending cuts their fingerprints are all over it. it's likely they'll send something that extends the tax rates and say we'll see you next year at the debt ceiling debate. the middle class hostage will be dead and then we will -- we think we'll have more leverage for cuts. >> chris: juan, the president we just heard last week has a new demand. he wants unilateral authority to
raise the debt limit by himself unless two-thirds of congress, two-thirds of each house, disapproves of that. what do you think of the chances that republicans will give him that and listen to what the president said this week about the debt limit. here it is. >> i will not play that game. because we've got to break that habit before it starts. >> president seemed to be suggesting you want to bargain over the debt limit? i'm not going to do it. >> his argument, white house argument that i hear is look, the last time this happened, it was so much an armageddon and it was the first time it happened in american history that previously republican and democratic president were able to get a hike in the debt ceiling without this pressure from the congress in terms of spending and taxes and they don't like it, they don't want it and it is the one the point of leverage to reaffirm that republicans have over-the-president right now. >> they have one in manchester
because we have run -- march because we run out of money. >> that's more of a negotiation, but this is a specific point of leverage. i don't see republicans giving in. i see the president saying it's unreasonable. >> let me ask one question about what we will call the kristol scenario where if they pass this halfway cave, a limited cave on tax rates, that doesn't avoid the fiscal cliff, does it? >> it avoids the tax side. there's still a spending problem. the president has no interest in us having a strong defense so i guess we can litigate that next year. there are other opportunities to debate spending, defense and entitlements. get the tax issues off the table. >> so the fiscal cliff. >> let the president own it. >> it ends with a witcher, not a -- whimper, not a bang. >> yes. >> there you go. thank you, panel. check out the panel plus where
we pick up on our website, foxnewssunday.com and we'll post the video before noon eastern time. follow us on twitter @foxnewssunday. this program note. tune in to "fox news channel" tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern for fly me to the moon. chord by neil cavuto, a marks the 40th anniversary of the last time man walked on the lunar surface. next, some final thoughts about my best friend.
>>. >> chris: we've been getting totaling here on sunday mornings for nine years now. i hope you don't mind my sharing some personal moments with you from my wife's sunday soup to the passing of my dad. well, i have something new to tell you about. something sad. ♪ ♪ >> last week we had to put up 11 our labrador winston to sleep. it is nothing less than a death in the family. winston joined us ten years ago and he was wonderful. a furry bundle of life and joy. >> it's remarkable. >> chris: he took his place in family photos as our family grew
winston was still front and center. the he loved holidays. at christmas my wife put up a stocking for him which on he would stare at. when we would sang happy birthday he thought it was for him. he loved to play in the snow. he loved to get up on a couch and look at the traffic. he appeared in our two of our power players, when we profiled dog whisperer, i took him in for training. >> that is where we do it. >> and when lorraine wrote a book about our sunday soup tradition, had he showed what role he plays. >> he can't wait for his tasted of soup. is it your soup sunday? come on winston. there you go. >> more than any of that was his constant companionship.
he was good company. ♪ he loved to make us chase him around the house until he rollover. when my son went fishing, he went along. when we had children he welcomed the babies into the house as uncle winston. he only has been gone a week now but life is very different. he will always have lots of wonderful memories. so many memories, but why is our home so quiet and so empty without him? >> chris: since he died i have heard so many from you who have loved and lost pets. thank you for your kind messages. we like to think we take care of these wonderful little guys b