a debate worth having. we need all sides. and i appreciate you being here. take it easy on me on twitter. i will see you there after we do this segment. i ll take silence as acceptable. thanks for charles cook being with us. look, you have to have everybody involved in the conversation. you like some ideas. you won t like others. if it s not a conversation that includes anybody, be we will get nowhere. the past is prologue. all right. another tostory we have to tell you about. horror in syria. the latest in a live report next. dial your binge-watching up to eleven. for a limited time, get four unlimited lines for thirty-five bucks each. woah. and with netflix included, you can watch on any screen. prrrrrrr. .at t-mobile.
officials don t want that. this is a huge partisan football, it is being used for certain propaganda purposes. there is an element here of just opening up a process that the american public frankly rarely gets a glimpse into how these warrants are presented to the court and what the over sight is. if republicans truly cared of fisa reform, you may see some actual proposal put on the table, okay, how can we prevent any kind of american citizens being targeted based on phony evidence before the court. their ideas out there from the obama administration and you can have an advocate for someone that s targeted which exists of the court. i have not seen any of that put forward by the people who are pushing this memo. that s a debate worth having in terms of fisa reform. is there going to be a serious setback for u.s. intelligence gathering and cooperating of friendly foreign intelligence services or maybe a loss of some sensitive sorts of
united states stil soon see a 51st state. so fed one liberals running their state they are pushing to break away and form a new california. well, it s been ungovernorrable for a long time. high taxes, education, you name it we are rated really i think 48th or 50th from a business climate. brian: here to react is a guy new to california at least to the los angeles area next revolution host steve hilton he moved to california after serving strategy director former u.k. prime minister cammeron and joins us live. steve, this is a debate. do you think this is a debate worth having? i will tell you what a debate worth having is the complete mess that the liberal coastal elites that run california have made of the state not just the last few years but the last few decades. look what s going on. highest poverty. there is a housing crisis. people can t afford anywhere to live. brian: rash of illegals
and anything below the amounts doesn t get taxed at all. in terms of the number of people affected, that 0.2 of 1% actually paying the tax works out to about 5500 estates in 2017. that s according to estimates from the tax policy center. it s a similar story with farm owners and small businesses. an estimated 600 estate tax bills will fall on businesses and farms this year, but only 80 of them are small family enterprises. 8-0. so why is president trump talking about millions of small businesses and farmers? look, maybe paying a tax to transfer our wealth to our heirs offends a lot of people. that s a debate worth having. it s clear, though, that the estate tax isn t a tax on the middle class, it s a tax on the wealthiest americans. and those wealthiest americans are not rocking up to h & r block to have their taxes done. they have the most sophisticated, the most
departments. as part of their comprehensive immigration reform, the president went after gang of 8, went after marco rubio for his involvement in it during the campaign. do you see this bringing forth something like that again, or is it going to be a vastly different version where republicans try to force through merit-based immigration rather than this lottery system? it doesn t seem to be any closer getting to a topic of immigration reform. it s almost no argument at this point because there is no gang of 8 doing anything at this point, and there s absolutely nothing happening near the house when it comes to comprehensive reform. in fact, the house never took up a bill. that was a one-house bill. if it was taken up with the house, it would have been a different version. we would have come back and compromised at some point. in some respects, it s not even a debate worth having at this point. i think what the president needs to focus on is uniting the united states and not dividin