Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Putin Advocates Backing Syrian President Assad; Taliban Positions in Kunduz Hit by U.S. Air Strike; Trump Proposes Tax Plan. Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired September 29, 2015 - 07:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

NICHOLAS KRISTOF, COLUMNIST, "NEW YORK TIMES": On a hospital killing three health care workers, thereby, Assad is empowering ISIS. So the idea that you're going to fight ISIS by supporting the Assad regime is crazy.

[07:00:13] KOSINSKI: So in this rare meeting, they decided the U.S. and Russian militaries will communicate to avoid fighting each other in battling ISIS. And Russia has agreed to explore the possibility of a political resolution in Syria, Putin calling this face-to-face time with President Obama "meaningful" and "surprisingly frank."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KOSINSKI: So will this lead to anything more than just more dialogue? That remains to be seen. The U.S. is plenty skeptical that Russia's actions will necessarily match its words.

And as for the relationship between these two leaders, the White House still describes it as simply business-like -- Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: OK. Thanks for answering that question, Michelle.

Meanwhile, joining us to talk about all of this is Nicholas Burns. He's a former U.S. undersecretary for political affairs and former ambassador to NATO.

Ambassador Burns, thanks so much for being here. You say that Vladimir Putin has a very specific agenda. What is it?

NICHOLAS BURNS, FORMER U.S. UNDERSECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS: Well, Putin's agenda is to strengthen the Syrian state and specifically President Assad. He made a big point in that speech, where he had withering criticism for the United States and President Obama, that you can't fight the Islamic State, Putin said, unless you have a strong government in Damascus.

The problem with Putin's analysis is that the government of Syria has -- it has caused most of the casualties, the great majority of them in Syria over the last 4 1/2 years because of this vicious, brutal, barrel bombing...

CAMEROTA: Right.

BURNS: ... of civilian towns and cities. CAMEROTA: But isn't the other problem with Vladimir Putin's

assessment is that it's not working? I mean, Syria has been overrun by ISIS. It's now in control of 50 to 60 percent of the country. Assad is not working to fight ISIS.

BURNS: In a way, Syria has ceased to exist as a nation state. President Assad controls a decreasing part of the country. The Islamic State is very strong. Other terrorist groups are strong.

I think the point that President Obama has made is that there won't be any stability until President Assad leaves. Now, that's not going to happen immediately. So I think what's going to -- you're going to see now, after this war of words at the United Nations yesterday between President Putin and President Obama, they will try to piece together some start of negotiations that would include the Iranians. It has to include Turkey and the Saudis to see if limited progress can be made towards reconstructing a Syria, perhaps with a different leader.

But they've got to pay attention, first and foremost, to this refugee crisis, which is catastrophic and most profoundly disturbing in the world today.

CAMEROTA: Let me put up for our viewers what Russia is doing, it says, to strengthen Syria. Because they are moving machinery into Syria. They have 500 Russian troops. They have 45 aircraft. They have tanks. They have armored personnel carriers. They have surface- to-air missiles. They have fuel tanks buried underground. Do you believe that we will see Russian air strikes on Syria very soon?

BURNS: I think it's quite likely that the Russians, having now built this new airstrip and put jet fighters into the country, as well as surface-to-air missiles, as well as Russian technicians and soldiers, you'll see them in battle on behalf of the Syrian government.

Here's the problem. The Syrian government is really not directing their fire at the Islamic State. They're terrorizing Syrian civilians. They're terrorizing them so that they can expand their sphere of influence in the country. It's the most cynical policy that you can imagine.

If that's what Russia is going to serve, then Russia and Iran, this unholy alliance of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah serving the Syrian government is simply going to add to the fighting, broaden the civil war and add to the number of refugees. That cannot be the answer. I think -- I imagine that is the point that President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry have been trying to pound away at in their discussions with the Russians.

CAMEROTA: Well, let's talk about President Obama and Secretary Kerry. Because what is the U.S. plan? We've just laid out what the Russian plan is. What is President Obama planning to do about the crisis in Syria?

BURNS: I think here's the problem. President Obama has been very reluctant, ever since the Syrian civil war started back in 2011, to have the United States play a central role. And I'm not talking militarily so much as politically. Organizing other countries to try to help the Syrian people and staunch the spread of the Islamic State.

He now needs to make some decisions, and he needs to articulate a more comprehensive American policy about what we're going to do. Because he, in effect, has left a vacuum there; and President Putin, ever opportunistic, has filled it, at least for the time being.

So will the president decide to double down on arms for rebels, because, of course, you had a failure in the U.S. government plan to try to help rebels. We've only trained four or five, the Pentagon said, who are in the field.

Will we do more on refugee relief? Historically, the United States takes in about half of global refugees in any particular crisis. Germany's playing the lead. Other European countries, not the United States.

And will President -- President Obama make a commitment to try to create a stronger coalition with the Arabs in Turkey that can push back against the Islamic State? I think we need to see a more determined policy from Washington.

CAMEROTA: Michelle Kosinski just used a photograph in her piece, showing the moment that Vladimir Putin and President Obama were toasting each other. Maybe we have it again. No ice cubes needed. The frosty glare that President Obama is giving Vladimir Putin says it all. Are these two going to come up with some agreement for what to do in Syria or are they each going to do it alone?

BURNS: I think there is going to be an attempt made for Russia and the United States to pull together a United Nations diplomatic process to start talking about the conflict in Syria. This has to happen.

Nearly all wars, especially in recent decades, end on the negotiating table, not on the battlefield. This war is bleeding into Jordan, into Lebanon, into Iraq. It's now become a regional war. So it's really in the interest of the United States and Russia to see it. I think you'll see Secretary Kerry try to piece together a negotiation. It's going to be extremely difficult, but there really is no alternative to diplomatic talks.

CAMEROTA: OK. Very quickly, let's talk about other negotiations that are going on today at the U.N. That is President Obama, Raul Castro. What are you expecting out of that?

BURNS: Well, I think they're going to try to continue this rapprochement, if you will, between Cuba and the United States, the reopening of our embassy, the establishment of relations after 55 years. I don't think there are many divisive issues, although I hope that President Obama would be able to raise, in a very assertive way, human rights. Because Cuba, of course, is still a dictatorship where human and religious rights are denied.

CAMEROTA: Ambassador Nicholas Burns, thanks so much. Always great to get your insight.

BURNS: Thank you so much. CAMEROTA: Let's get over to John.

BERMAN: All right. Breaking news overnight, the U.S. unleashing an air assault on Taliban targets in northern Afghanistan. The attack comes one day after Taliban fighters seized the northern Afghan city of Kunduz. Afghan security forces have also launched an offensive to retake that city. This is developing right now.

Let's get the very latest from Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr -- Barbara.

BARBARA STARR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, John.

U.S. conducting the air strikes in Kunduz, the largest city the Taliban have been able to take control of since back in 2001 in northern Afghanistan.

Now, according to Afghan officials, security forces are on the ground now. Afghan security forces have been able to retake some key areas. But the fighting has been very nasty.

A prison was taken by the Taliban. They say they freed hundreds of inmates. The Taliban also saying they took a hospital, posting some pictures to show their control as they moved through the city.

Afghan President Ghani saying his security forces are now back there, moving through Kunduz, trying to retake control.

But this is where the Taliban have been so successful and continue to be. They move in when they see some vulnerability in local security forces, and they stake their ground.

So what now? U.S. air strikes could continue in an effort to push the Taliban back. The big question for the U.S., the future of U.S. troops there, there are 9,800 there right now. They're supposed to come out at the end of next year. But that is now open to discussion to see if more U.S. troops should stay to deal with the security situation across the country -- Michaela.

PEREIRA: All right. We'll continue to monitor that with you. Thanks so much for that update, Barbara.

California Republican and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy announcing his bid for speaker of the House. McCarthy is thought to be, by many, to be the front-runner for the position. So far, he will face off against Florida Congressman Daniel Webster, who we will speak with in just a moment here on NEW DAY.

The house GOP will meet this evening to discuss how they want to move on leadership.

BERMAN: Congress is close to passing a stop-gap bill to avoid an immediate government shutdown. The measure keeps government funding at current levels through December 11. Cleared a key procedural hurdle in the Senate on Monday and could be approved in the House as early as today. Again, this only lasts until December, where there could be huge

fights over funding Planned Parenthood, raising the debt ceiling and more. With new leadership in place by then, a shutdown becomes a real possibility.

CAMEROTA: On the same note, the head of Planned Parenthood testifying before a House Overnight Committee today. Cecile Richards expected to tell lawmakers defunding Planned Parenthood will immediately leave 650,000 women with reduced or no preventative health care. Richards says other health care organizations cannot pick up the slack if Congress strips Planned Parenthood of federal funds.

PEREIRA: Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump vowing to slash taxes for all, including the rich. In her wide-ranging sit-down interview with the Donald, CNN's Erin Burnett asked him if he would benefit from his own tax plan. Listen as he explains why he thinks his plan is the best option.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

[07:10:05] DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I think it probably will do even more than before, if you look at what's going to happen to the economy. The economy is going to just be absolutely like a rocket. It's going to go up. This is my prediction. This is what I'm good at. This is really my wheelhouse. And I think you're going to create tremendous numbers of jobs.

You know part of this -- and as you and I were discussing, I'm also going to bring a lot of jobs back into the country, because so many other countries have taken our jobs. They've taken our base. They've taken our manufacturing. So we're going to couple that with this tax plan, but we're going to have a country that really is going to rocket again. And we haven't had that for a long time, Erin.

You know, one of the things I mentioned during the news conference was that phony number of 5.3 and 5.4 and 5.5 percent unemployment. It could be 25 or 30 percent. Because you know when you stop looking for a job, they consider you, for statistical purposes, employed. They sort of...

ERIN BURNETT, CNN ANCHOR: They don't count you. They don't count you as unemployed.

TRUMP: No. We have millions, tens of millions of people that couldn't find a job; and they're now considered essentially employed.

So we're going to do something that's really great. And this is the thing I like the most. I'm going to put people to work. I'm going to make -- I'm going to be great for business. I'll be great for business. And we're going to have an economy that really is going to be hot.

BURNETT: You, will you pay more money? Will it be millions and millions? Hundreds of millions? How much more will you pay?

TRUMP: I will probably end up paying more money, but at the same time, I think the economy will do better. So I'll make it up that way. But I will probably end up paying more money. I believe in the end I might do better, because I really believe the economy is going to go forward.

BURNETT: Counting on growth. So there's a couple ways, when you cut a lot of taxes, you can make up for it, right? You can close loopholes and make money up that way.

TRUMP: Correct. We are doing that.

BURNETT: Right. And cuts in and of themselves can generate growth. You obviously believe that's important.

TRUMP: Growth is important.

BURNETT: Let's talk about these loopholes. Because I called up some economists who like your sort of plan; and one of them said, "I'm really confused by it. It's a bit of a mess." Because they want to know what loopholes you want to close. You took the mortgage interest loophole off the table? It benefits almost all Americans.

TRUMP: I was thinking about it.

BURNETT: How can you get there without closing them?

TRUMP: You have to do that, because I really would be very concerned if you do that. You're going to stop housing production. And housing has had a lot of problems that you've reported on it better than anybody over the years. But you can't take a chance on that. I mean, people need the mortgage deduction, mortgage interest deduction.

BURNETT: So where do you get the money if not that way?

TRUMP: One of the ways you're going to get it is, in my opinion, one of the ways you're really going to get it is, you know, many of your friends, they're hedge fund guys. And you have the carried interest deduction, and you have a lot of other deductions. And frankly, it's a joke. It's tremendous amounts of money, and it's money that they really don't need. They want it, because they're used to paying no taxes, OK, or very little taxes.

BURNETT: Fair.

TRUMP: But it's not money they need.

But the other thing so importantly -- and this is something everybody agrees on for ten years, for years -- the money that's outside of this country, nobody knows how much. They think it's $2.5 trillion. I think it's probably more than that. Nobody knows. That money, Erin, is going to come back into the country, and it's going to stay here and going to invest it here.

And frankly, from now on when people make -- when these companies make money outside of the country, they can bring it back in at a reasonable tax. The reason it stays there is the tax is so onerous, as you know. It's a massive tax. And you have to be crazy to bring it back in.

And by the way, I have a lot of money outside of the country. And the last thing I'm doing is for me, because it's not that kind of money. But I have money outside. You can't get it back into the country. You fill out forms; you do this. I think my people have been working on it for, like, a year and a half. When you make money outside of the country, you can't bring it back into this country.

BURNETT: So on the carried interest loophole, you're going to close it. Now look, I have, to use an appropriate word, campaigned about that on my own show. Right? It's a smart thing to do. It's the right thing to do. It's a fair thing to do. But it doesn't bring in a lot of money. It doesn't pay for very much.

TRUMP: Bur it brings in this. It brings in, psychologically, when you have a hedge-fund guy who's making $200 million a year, and he's got this huge loss against it, which isn't a real loss. He's got this huge loss against his income and he's paying a very low rate of tax. It's not fair, and I think it says a lot. I think it tells people a lot. And it's got to end. And by the way, I have friend...

BURNETT: How do you -- how do you get the money to make up for the trillions of dollars in tax cuts? Carried interest isn't going to do that.

TRUMP: Because -- right. I agree with that. We're bringing in tremendous amounts of money into the country, and we're going to create jobs. We're going to have an economy that's going to be robust. Right now there's no incentive for companies. There's just no -- actually, you're going to have the opposite.

In my opinion, if it states the way it is, you're going to have people, companies, big companies, and you know the ones that are talking about leaving. They're leaving the country. They're going to other countries to get their money, No. 1, and probably -- maybe that isn't even No. 1. It's because they have a better tax rate outside of the United States.

BURNETT: Yes.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CAMEROTA: Interesting stuff. I mean, you know, Erin asked great questions about doing math there. And he answered them, psychologically speaking, which was an interesting answer. And he gave specifics, as we've been talking about.

[07:15:04] PEREIRA: Well, that's the thing. That's so interesting is that we kept hearing him say, "I'm going to have a tax plan. I'm going to have this. I'm going to have that." Now he has it, for better or for worse. You can agree with it or not, but it's something to chew on.

BERMAN: He also talked about foreign policy in depth. I thought they had a real interesting discussion there, as well.

CAMEROTA: All right. So we are going to break down Donald Trump's tax plan.

PEREIRA: You're going to do math?

CAMEROTA: We are. We are going to do math here on NEW DAY. Yes, we are. Because we will compare Donald Trump's plan to Jeb Bush's and to Rand Paul's. Stick around and get the pencil and paper out. We'll be right back.

PEREIRA: Carry the one.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAMEROTA: Donald Trump laying out his new tax plan, and it's raising some questions. So how does it compare to his rivals Jeb Bush and Rand Paul? Let's examine it with the co-authors of "Jack Kemp: The Bleeding Heart Conservative Who Changed America," Mort Kondracke and Fred Barnes.

Guys, great to have you in studio with us.

MORT KONDRACKE, CO-AUTHOR, "JACK KEMP": Thanks so much.

CAMEROTA: OK. We're going to do math, but no calculator needed. You're going to walk us through it. Let's look at all of these plans, these three plans for high-income individuals. OK? Because Donald Trump just released his, and it's getting some attention.

So for all of them, the -- all of the highest income earners, their tax bracket will go down from close to 40 percent. For Jeb Bush, it will go to 28 percent, for Donald Trump, 25 percent. Rand Paul has the flat tax of 14.5 percent. Mort, tell us the difference. What do you see here?

[07:20:04] KONDRACKE: You know, on this whole -- over the whole thing, I think what Trump was doing was trying to one up Jeb Bush. I mean, Jeb Bush goes to 28, so he goes to 25. He -- we'll get to the corporate -- corporate rate later. But I think it's copycat stuff and meant to undercut Jeb Bush.

CAMEROTA: That's interesting. Do you see it that way, Fred? Did he just basically steal Jeb Bush's plan?

FRED BARNES, CO-AUTHOR, "JACK KEMP": Well, he did. But did something -- both are plans that Jack Kemp would have liked, because they're aimed at starting economic growth. And that was -- you know, growth was Kemp's favorite word. And so he would have liked both of them. But you have to lower the top rate in order to produce the growth.

CAMEROTA: That's what Donald Trump says. He's saying is that he's going to lower taxes for virtually everybody other than hedge-fund people, and that will bring in more in terms of the economy in revenue.

You know, I mean, not everybody agrees with that, but that's what he says. Let's look at what he's going to do for the middle class. Jeb Bush is

going to have them pay 25 percent maximum, OK? Trump is going to have them pay 20 percent maximum rate. Rand Paul, again with his flat tax, 14.5. How does it work, though, Mort?

KONDRACKE: Well, I guess it works. You're lowering -- you're lowering -- the whole idea is supply side. Trump, I noticed, was asked, "Is this a supply-side tax cut?" That was Kemp's specialty. That means lowering rates.

And the key thing, though, that's missing from Trump's analysis is what loopholes are you going to close? You know, you've got to close a lot of loopholes to make up the money that he's going to give in tax cuts. And we've yet to see what the loophole closures are.

CAMEROTA: Supply-side economics doesn't always work. Sometimes there has to be revenue somewhere.

KONDRACKE; Well, there does. But you do get -- when you cut the rates, particularly the top rate, which stirs investment and stirs growth, and creates jobs, you get some feedback effects, you know. I mean, you make -- the tax cuts may not pay for themselves immediately, although the Kennedy tax cuts in the '60s did. The Reagan tax cuts were actually Jack Kemp's tax cuts came close but didn't quite achieve it.

CAMEROTA: Sure. That was more of a mixed bag. Let's look at the lower income. This is very interesting. Once again, what the plan will do for those in the lowest tier.

Jeb Bush says that for -- that he will lower to 10 percent for people who make $43,000 or less. Look at Trump's plan, though. He's going to have it be zero for individuals who make $25,000 or less, which is virtually the same as we have now. And then Rand Paul is going to have zero for families for 50,000 or less. It's a little confusing, because Rand Paul didn't lay out what he does for individuals. For families, 50,000 or less, zero tax rate. Trump, 25,000 for individuals, 50,000, just like Rand Paul, for families. Mort, what do you see here?

KONDRACKE: Well, again, it looks like copycat stuff. But I would say that here is a question of whether you want to totally eliminate taxes for all workers? Don't you want to have them have some skin in the game so they understand what taxes are about and what government costs and stuff like that? So I would say having -- having everybody pay a little tax is a good thing.

CAMEROTA: Fred, wasn't that very argument that Mitt Romney was making last time around, which is that if 47 percent of the country doesn't pay anything in income taxes, that they're not sort of part of the conversation?

BARNES: Well, yes. Of course, he was wrong about that, because I don't think it was people that didn't pay any taxes. They pay Social Security. It was that they were getting money from the government, and he acted like they were on the goal. But this included, you know, military retirees and people like that who are actually conservative Republican voters.

CAMEROTA: Absolutely.

BARNES: So it was a big mistake on his part.

CAMEROTA: It was income taxes. And what he didn't lay out was that they don't make income or they're on a fixed income. So that's why they're not paying taxes.

BARNES: Yes, but Mort is right about that. You know, you want people to have some skin in the game so they won't just say, "Well, gee, I pay no tax, so let's raise taxes on the rich people.

CAMEROTA: But in other words -- in other words, Jack Kemp wouldn't like this idea of zero for under 50,000?

KONDRACKE: Up to a point.

BARNES: You know, you have to remember back in the days when he -- when he promoted this stuff, taxes were very, very high. And so he was lowering them, and he did knock a lot of people off the tax rolls.

CAMEROTA: All right. Let's talk about what happens now for corporations and for business taxes. OK, so the current plan is there's a top rate of 35.5 percent. Under Jeb's plan he lowers that for corporations to no more than 20 percent. Trump even lower, 15 percent and then again Rand Paul, even lower, 14.5 -- Mort.

KONDRACKE: Well, you know, the question is, does this all add up? Can you pay for it? How much does it cost? And again, since you don't know what deductions he's going to eliminate for rich people -- and he says he's going to eliminate a lot of them, but he didn't stipulate -- he ruled out mortgage interest, and he ruled out charitable deductions. So you don't actually know how the thing, the whole thing adds up. And again, it looks to me as though he's trying to do Jeb one better.

CAMEROTA: Well, I mean, Fred, this is the thing. Is that, if you're not bringing in tax revenue, you're just hoping that it gooses the economy.

[07:25:08] BARNES: Well, of course you are. But supply-side economics worked so famously in the 1980s and '90s with the Reagan tax cuts which Jack Kemp proposed, that you know, there's a good reason -- a very good reason to try it again, with these incentive effects. You don't need to -- look, you don't need to pay for all of it right away. I mean, that -- you have to choose. And Kemp would always choose. What was more important? Economic growth or the deficit? And he would accept a higher deficit if he got the growth and the jobs.

KONDRACKE: Right. Look, I think Trump and everybody, they're all right, that the corporate rate has got to come down. We've got an effective 40 percent tax -- tax rate on corporate income. It's by far the highest in the world, or maybe it's the second highest in the world. It's got to come down in order to stimulate investment. CAMEROTA: We were talking a lot about Jack Kemp, because you've just

co-written this book called "Jack Kemp: The Bleeding Heart Conservative Who Changed America." He, of course, the family supply- side congressman.

So what would Jack Kemp make of what we're seeing today and this campaign?

KONDRACKE: He would hate it. He -- he disliked insults. He all -- he never went negative. He was all about optimism and growth. And the idea of calling people pigs or calling them stupid, he is -- he is the absolute anti-Trump.

CAMEROTA: I mean, he was old-school statesman.

BARNES: Well, you know, he was very nonpartisan for a guy very conservative, and yet, he didn't use partisan arguments. He was always looking for allies among Democrats.

I'll tell you what he would dislike the most: the refusal of President Obama to change his policy and to cut taxes rather than raise them to generate growth. Instead, we've had 6 1/2 years of very slow growth.

CAMEROTA: Gentlemen, it's so great to have you both here and to get your take on all of this. Mort Kondracke, Fred Barnes, thanks so much for being in studio.

Also CNN and Facebook, as you may know, will host the first Democratic debate. That's two weeks from tonight on October 13. Do not miss it.

BERMAN: Not for a second. By the way, Joe Biden has right up until debate time to get in the race if he wants to.

Meanwhile, Republicans trying to determine who will succeed John Boehner as speaker of the House. One of the men who has thrown his hat in the ring, Daniel Webster of Florida. He will join us, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)