Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Tropical Storm Julia Drenches Southeast; Comparing Trump & Clinton's Child Care Plans; Fragile Cease-Fire in Syria Holding; Why Do Campaigns Criticize Media When Pressed for Answers? Aired 6:30-7a ET

Aired September 14, 2016 - 06:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:32:43] CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: Rain becomes floods and millions are getting drenched this morning in the Southeast by Tropical Storm Julia. The storm forming overnight now hammering Florida and Georgia with heavy, heavy rain.

What's going to happen next?

Let's get right to that with CNN meteorologist Chad Myers. He has the forecast.

What's the status? What's the concern?

CHAD MYERS, AMS METEOROLOGIST: You know, the status is it's probably going to be to be a 45-mile-per-hour storm. So, not a real wind threat. Not a storm surge threat but a flood threat.

The storm is off the coast of Jacksonville. It is moving and bringing rainfall on to Savannah, on to Myrtle Beach, on to Charleston. Places that have already seen an awful lot of rainfall this summer.

This is not a drought area like Atlanta or up into the Carolinas. This is where it is going to go. This is the cone. I don't truly believe it's going to be in here, I believe it will follow the coast.

That allows it to grab the moisture from the gulf stream, where we are right here, the very warm water from the Atlantic and pour it on shore. Charleston, Savannah, all those little towns that could flood so easily.

If you look at one little white spot here in Charleston and go back up here. That is 20 inches of rainfall possible with this rainfall event. Not a big wind event or storm surge, but it could be a significant flood event -- Alisyn.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: OK. Chad, thanks for keeping an eye on it for us.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump unveiling his child care plan. How does it stack up against Hillary Clinton's plan? We'll delve into the details of both, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:38:07] CAMEROTA: Donald Trump unveiling his child care plan last night in hopes of courting female voters. He falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton does not have one, but Clinton put out her plan more than a year ago.

So, let's break both of them down. We want to bring in CNN Money chief business correspondent Christine Romans.

Christine, I am not kidding when I told the viewers that you have spent hours analyzing both of these. So, you're the perfect person to talk to.

Tell us what you see in both of these plans.

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: OK. What I see is a starting point for family leave in this country. You know, the United States does not have federally mandated paid leave. You know, the rest of the world does. The OECD, the industrialized nations on average a year for a woman when she has a baby.

CAMEROTA: Oh my gosh!

ROMANS: Right. So, we're talking about six weeks for Donald Trump here. Maternity leave only six weeks, he says. He would pay for it with unemployment benefits. You would not get a whole paycheck. You would get jobless benefits for six weeks. Hillary Clinton has family leave, so that would be mom or dad, either parent.

Twelve weeks is what she's talking about here and that would also be substantial portion of your income, two-thirds of your income, but not your guaranteed six weeks.

CAMEROTA: When you say that you wouldn't get your whole paycheck on Trump's plan, how much would you get?

ROMANS: It would be whatever the unemployment. So, for example, when you are out of work, right? If you get unemployment benefits, you don't get exactly what your paycheck was, you get a percentage. So, it would be in line with that.

So, it would be partially paid leave both of these candidates are talking about. She's talking about 12 weeks here. He's talking about six weeks here.

CAMEROTA: So, maternity only meaning no paternity leave. Dads can't take off time.

ROMANS: No, he does not have that in his plan. His plan looks like it's geared towards working women when you look at that plan. I mean, he's really geared towards working women here.

We did ask those specifically, would same-sex couples receive benefits? The answer looks like it is, yes. If you are recognizing by the IRS as the same sex couple, then one of the partners would be able to get some leave there. CAMEROTA: Ivanka was heavily involved, we think, in crafting this

plan for him.

[06:40:00] So, who does this most benefit? Working class women, middle class women or upper class women?

ROMANS: It's interesting because the criticism from some of the working parents groups who have been advocating for stuff like this for a long time is that this looks like it's geared towards middle class women. But when you look at Donald Trump, what he's saying he's going to do here for lower income women, there would be this $1,000 you could put into a fund, right, and then $500 match from the government to help pay for child care. The criticism there is that really, you know, paycheck to paycheck, poor people don't have $1,000 to put into a fund.

There is also a tax credit. If you're not itemizing your deductions, and you're a low income earner, there's an expansion that you could get a little money back, too. So, the Trump campaign says that they are addressing everyone. Some of the working parents groups are saying, no, this feels like it's for working, educated, middle class, upper middle class women.

CAMEROTA: What are you analyzing here?

ROMANS: This is what we're talking about tax. The average cost of your child care would be tax deductible. So, if you itemize your deductions, for example, you would take -- whatever the average cost of child care in your state, you could deduct that. It's up to four children or an elderly parent for Donald Trump, as well.

So, he's talking about taking care of up to four kids, you would be able deduct that, or an elderly parent?

CAMEROTA: Hers including elderly parent?

ROMANS: She has, yes, she has some elderly parent stuff in there, too, broader. His income eligibility up to $500,000 for a married couple.

She wants to look at child care expenses as 10 percent of your income. She doesn't want you to pay more than 10 percent of your income on child care. She would do that through tax cuts and subsidies. And she's also endorsing universal pre-K. That's expensive.

That means every 4-year-old in America goes to pre-K paid for by the government.

CAMEROTA: So, there's no free lunch, as we know-how do both of them plan to pay for their plans?

ROMANS: So, Donald Trump says his plan would cost $2.5 billion a year and he would eliminate fraud in the unemployment benefits market. So, $3.5 billion in fraud.

CAMEROTA: That's how, do we know that? I mean, is that an accepted? ROMANS: These are his numbers.

CAMEROTA: But is there -- are there $3.5 billion loss?

ROMANS: Budget wonks say ridding fraud out of these programs is expensive to do and it's not as easy as they say, otherwise we would have already done it.

He says he can do it because he is a superior manager who knows how to do things. And he would do a better job than the government has.

Hillary Clinton, I don't know what the cost would be of hers and she hasn't told us exactly how much it would cost. She would have direct federal investments, so the government would bypass you and pay for some of your child care in some cases, and she'd also have a mix of tax relief for middle income and low-income families.

I can tell you when you look at Bernie Sanders very robust child care proposals, that's like $35 billion a year. They would pay for that with partially tax increases on the wealthy, which would be hard to push through Congress as well.

So, the devil is in the details. The conversation is so important. We need to figure out how to support working families better. These are two very different proposals.

CAMEROTA: Thank you for analyzing all of this for us. Really helpful to see them against each other.

ROMANS: You're welcome.

CAMEROTA: Let's get over to Chris.

CUOMO: All right. Did you see this dramatic new surveillance video that captures the scene at a Phoenix gas station? That car just plowed into three cops. What happened? Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:47:03] CUOMO: We are now in day two of a very fragile cease-fire in Syria. The truce does appear to be holding, that's the good news. But remember, this is only happening because of the desperate humanitarian situation there. There are still hundreds of thousands of suffering civilians literally starving to death.

CNN's Fred Pleitgen live in Damascus with the latest.

Fred, what's the word from there?

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, yes, Chris. Absolutely. The people here are happy the cease-fire is holding. The big question is, is that aid going to get to places like Aleppo. And certainly, there's a lot of hurdles still in the way.

The U.N. says they have 40 trucks packed with aid ready and waiting at the Turkish border, but they're not allowed to cross. The Syrian government is not going to allow any sort of convoys to get into Aleppo if they don't have that expressed consent of Syrian government, and so far, that expressed consent has not been forthcoming yet.

The U.N. also says it doesn't have security guarantees from the Syrian government or various groups. They are still working on that. Of course, this is a very high priority.

The U.N. however, does say a significant decrease in violence here in the country. However, there is still a lot of skepticism as well on the part of the U.N., but also on the part of the U.S. because, of course, this deal does require the U.S. to negotiate and to work together with the Russians unclear whether or not that is going to be of long term success, Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: OK. Fred, thank you very much for the update from inside Syria there.

Well, former Israel president and prime minister, Shimon Peres, is in critical, but stable condition after suffering a stroke. Doctors say the stroke caused lots of bleeding, but no need for surgery. This morning, the 93-year-old is in a medically induced coma and breathing with the help of a respirator.

CUOMO: All right. We want to get back to this video out of Phoenix. This car just plows at high speed into three cops at a gas station. One was hit so hard he was tossed into the air. That officer got a head injury. It was his first day of training. Another has a broken leg. All of them are alive at this hour.

Police say the driver identified as Marc LaQuon Payne intentionally crashed his car into the officers. The 44-year-old was booked on three counts of attempted murder.

CAMEROTA: Oh my God. That is terrible.

CUOMO: They're still soft on motive. They don't know if this was an instability or just evil at play.

CAMEROTA: Oh, my gosh. OK, we'll update as soon as we get it.

Meanwhile, the media, as you know, has been under fire for pressing the presidential candidates and their campaigns for answers. When they're not giving us answers, we press them. That is our job. So what about this criticism? Is it deserved or is blaming the media the new sport and the way to avoid answering questions?

Our media experts discuss this, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[06:53:28] CAMEROTA: Will Donald Trump release anything from the IRS proving that he's under audit?

KELLYANNE CONWAY, DONALD TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER: I don't know. Why? In other words, why are you calling him a liar?

CAMEROTA: We're taking his word for it.

CONWAY: Are you calling him a liar?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Were you?

Donald Trump's campaign manager Kellyanne Conway here on NEW DAY yesterday with a tactic that we've seen from his campaign and we've seen kind of reflected by all of these campaigns now. When you don't like a question, accuse the media of bias. That is the new way of skirting and it's working very well with you.

Let's discuss with CNN senior media correspondent and host of "RELIABLE SOURCES", Brian Stelter, and media columnist of "New York Times" and contributor to "New York Times Magazine", Jim Rutenberg.

Brian, let's talk about why this is effective first, OK? The L-word, let's remember where this come from. This is from the Paul Manafort playbook. When Melania Trump's speech clearly had proof of plagiarism, I forgot what that stat was that you gave me that someone had online, it was like one in a gazillion chance that it wasn't plagiarism.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: Right, right.

CUOMO: It was, what is you're saying? What are you saying we're lying about this? You're saying she's lying?

STELTER: Right.

CUOMO: It works. People don't like the word liar being used in these dialogues. Why? Why is it such a potent word?

STELTER: Well, it's uncomfortable. It's easy to say that Donald Trump misspeaks and says falsehoods. It is harder to say he or any of his staffers lie, because that means we're implying what is in their hearts and that's harder.

I do think we're -- obviously, we're in our tribe to this point. People who are on Trump's side or on Clinton's side, they don't want to believe what the press is saying critically about the other candidate. But I think viewers at home, they should see through the obvious tactics campaigns use.

[06:55:03] When they're beating up on us, because they don't want to hear what we're saying but acknowledge the truth of what we're reporting.

CAMEROTA: But, Jim, I mean, for those of us in the press, we don't have a horse in this race. We just ask or are supposed to ask the candidates when we hear discrepancies and hypocrisy and when we're looking for truth. You wrote a great piece about objectivity and how hard it is and the role of that in this race. What do you -- where do you think we are with journalism in this race?

JIM RUTENBERG, MEDIA COLUMNIST, NEW YORK TIMES: Well, I mean, it's hit this whole new level now that we're getting into the final weeks here. So, here, you are asking a question and suddenly you're calling him a liar.

You're just asking a question. That's our jobs as reporters. But, of course, we're not going to take our advice, sorry, political consultants. We've been trained. We, people --

CAMEROTA: We ask questions.

RUTENBERG: This is our job.

And there's been a lot of work done over the years to say that we're bias. But we're really here to ask the hard questions. It's not calling people names.

CUOMO: Here's what has been effective about it. The voters are very partisan. No open mind right now. It's one of the challenges.

STELTER: No open mind. I like to think some of our viewers are open minded.

CUOMO: No, I don't see it.

CAMEROTA: Chris has given up.

CUOMO: No, no, this is completely -- this is completely not out of my own head.

When you look at the polls of people's percentage chance that they would change their vote, we've never seen any higher. That's what I'm talking about. What we've seen is the use of this tactic is very effective with your base, which is why the media, I guarantee you, is less popular than Trump or Clinton.

STELTER: Which is why I'm glad we're having this conversation. We need to explain what we do what we do. We do need to in a way defend ourselves.

CAMEROTA: Journalism 101 needs to be reminded.

CUOMO: We only do it for them. There's no horse in the race. No upside to you if you get hit in the head b the Clinton people or the Trump people. You're still getting hit in the head.

You do it because the voters deserve the information, but that has been supplanted by this tactic. They now feel the media is against the voter, unless it's for their candidate.

STELTER: Which is why I should say we should look at the lens and when we're criticized in this way, the campaigns and the aides are using it as a shield. It is pretty obvious. Viewers at home I think and I hope should recognize it. RUTENBERG: They shouldn't want it, it's convenient when they don't

want us to ask certain questions when it's hurting their candidate, but shoe's on the other foot, it's a completely different thing. No one could keep sight on that. We have to ask these questions.

And what's interested me yesterday with Conway was, she said to you, you're badgering, you're badgering, that's not journalism. Watch any movie about newspaper reporters or reporters in general, we badger. That's our job.

CAMEROTA: I mean, asking a question twice or three times is not badgering, it's looking for the answer.

STELTER: Actually, viewers want that more than ever, because this is political season is so polarizing, so frustrating. There's so much anxiety and downright fear in this country. We should acknowledge how afraid a lot of folks on the Clinton side and the Trump side are. As a result, our jobs are more challenging, number one. Number two, we've got to be more aggressive than normal in terms of holding both campaigns to account.

CUOMO: Sometimes it comes down to our tactics, as well.

STELTER: What do you mean?

CUOMO: For instance, on taxes the Trump people say stop asking about the taxes. He said he's not going to get it, that's badgering. Sixty-two percent of his own supporters want the taxes. When you do it in that context, not about what I want to see. I don't want to spend my entire afternoon going through his taxes, but 62 percent of your supporters want to see them. You should put it out.

Now, it's not just the Trump campaign. The Clinton campaign plays its own version of this. President Obama, the biggest gun on the team that they have has spoken directly about this. Let's put up what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There are serious issues at stake behind this election, behind all the frivolous stuff that gets covered up every day. Let me just make a comment about because, look, I'm not running this time. But I sure do get frustrated with the way this campaign is covered. I'm just telling the truth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: And, also, the truth is, someone who covered the campaign in 2008, he was going after Clinton for a lot of the same things that Donald Trump is right now. He wasn't doing it the way Trump is. But their side, false narrative, you don't cover what matters. You only cover the circus of Trump. Is that fair?

RUTENBERG: I think it's a mixed bag? I mean, I think sometimes there's obviously real critiques of all of us and how we do our jobs, for sure. And sometimes a false equivalency that shouldn't be used in this kind of reporting.

STELTER: We treat Trump and Clinton like equal when Trump makes more misstatements, for example.

RUTENBERG: Right. Or if there's something that is factual and there's something is not factual, they're not on even planes. Like you can't therefore, his false thing needs to be spoken as well. However, at the same time, false equivalency gets thrown around when you're doing legitimate reporting, sometimes, it's used that way and seems more like working the refs, bullying tactic, but that's not to say some of the criticism is valid all around, of course.

CAMEROTA: The fact that we're frustrating both sides I think should be seen as a good sign? I mean --

STELTER: I mean, we are -- you know, listen, (INAUDIBLE) fall down on this job, but we are supposed to be working for the viewers and I think for the most part, we're asking questions the viewers want to have asked.