the speaker said this is it a special moment. we are going to make our economy boom for the average family much four. median income earner in american making 59000 we are talking 1182 in your pocket. what does that mean in your life. you know, as i travel around eastern washington and visit town and communities and receiptly down in north carolina and michigan. you think $1,182 for someplace who is living paycheck. and someone in kettle faums, that makes a difference. or like sterling heights, michigan, maybe they can put money to the mortgage and victor, a restaurant owner in michigan. we pay our taxes first and people second and bills third.
squeezed. you know, about half the country today is living paycheck to paycheck and a lot more people are about a paycheck away from living paycheck to paycheck in this country. this is going to help give people relief. the tax cut and jobs act will deliver real relief for people in the middle. people who are also striving to get there. with this plan, the typical family of four will save $1,182 a year on their taxes. for many families, having an additional $1,182 more will make a real difference. that $1,182 more covers about a year s worth of gas for your car. it covers your family s phone bill for the year. depending how much data your kids use. that $1,182 more, it could help you pay down your debt faster. it could help you start and renovate your home faster nap $1,182 more for the average family, that will help you put
actions speaks to that. melissa: you know, richard seems to make the point at the ban is not big enough part of that it should include, not sure that that is what he was trying for, but he made the argument. should it include more countries in saudi arabia, certainly a country that is muslim without question, so i don t know. his argument is falling on itself. i will give you a crack at it. i might actually agree with richard, perhaps we should add more countries, but this is absolutely not a muslim ban coming into one of your points in terms of people cannot get in, that is not necessarily true, richard. when you think about it, exclusions can be made. you can be a person that can be excluded. if this is a 90 day issuance, ban, or on people that are receiving visas, and 100 day 20 days for refugees. the president is well within his authority by eight 18, 1182
judiciary subcommittee on russia last week. while many democrat senators praised her actions she faced tough questions from republicans. are you familiar with 8 sus c-section 1182. not off the top of my head now. it is the binding statutory author to the executive order you rfrzed to implement and led to termination it certainly it a relevant not a terribly obscure statute. i m familiar with that lass familiar with a additional gigs of the ina says no person shall receive prefrps or be discriminated in issuance of a visa because race nationality or place of berth that i believe was promulgated after the statute you quoted. no other president has been denied his authority under that 19529 provision who stopped visa to iranians during the crisis i guess the question did you go too far. i don t know we had a situation where the true intent
defend. you thought about resigning? absolutely. i went back and forth. two former attorney generals say you should have resigned if you disagreed with this order and that essentially you were grandstanding looking to get out in a way that would set you up for a political career. putting that aside, i think it s a fair question to ask why didn t you just resign. that s something i grappled with during that time. sort of the bottom line is that i felt like resigning would have protected my personal integrity but it would not have protected the integrity of the department of justice. from the time she was fired, sally yates didn t speak publically until she was asked to testify in front of the senate judiciary subcommittee on russia last week. while many democratic senators praised her actions, she faced tough questions from republicans. are you familiar with eight us c-section 1182. not off the top of my head. it is the binding statutory authority for the executive order