dismal. hold on a second. here is the answer. because we ve seen this before. we saw it with prisons. what did the private industry do? they came in and creamed the top. they took the medium and the low security and the most expensive job, the most important job which is keeping people like us and our families safe for the maximum security prisoners, those they didn t want to touch. that becomes the concern. if you wind up helping private businesses make money but not getting the job done from an efficiency standpoint. we have a lot of examples of privatization of infrastructures that work well. a lot of public roads funded by tolls. i believe in the user pay system. the people who use the infrastructure have to pay for it. i ll give you an example why you don t want the federal government funding these things. you ve got this absurd $60 billion high-speed rail system that nobody is going to ride, the biggest white elephant. why should federal taxpayers pay
and take no prisoners approach is now apparently waving the white flag a bit. it looks like the deal that s coming up, we re going to raise the revenues, bust these spending caps. are we seeing the beginning of a more reasonable paul rye jan? a more reasonable republican party? will you support paul ryan when the crazies come after him? let me applaud the speaker for a classic newtonian description. continued hats off. on the issue of competency, if you and i went to dinner right after this show, van and i paid with my visa card or american sxres card, we would have a charge that would be instantly registered almost 100% accurate and on my doorstep invoice 28 days later, it s almost always accurate. people look at that and go, why can t government do something even close to that from a competency, accuracy, efficiency
nlrb rule could slam the brakes on others doing the same. and larry is joining us now. larry, how did that hearing go today in terms of being able to convince the folks that this is not a good deal for labor in general moving forward? guest: good morning, chris. i thought the hearing went very well. hopefully we get our point across that the union the way they do their strategy to be recognized as a bargaining committee is not working and the new laws will increase that ability to do that. what is the reasoning given by the nlrb to increase the pace? guest: they say it is for efficiency standpoint. efficiency? why? this is a major step for any plant to take in any group of workers so why would it make sense to do it in a week or two
there was actually nearly an agreement on the rate for corporate taxes. donald trump would go lower and i think that s fine. the republicans and democrats were hovering between 25 and 27.5%. you can probably work a deal somewhere. and i m all for that. regulations, obviously that s hampering business. that s another thing you could do. the other piece i think that is missing from this idea is the education and job training. one of the things ibm said was we will keep some jobs, we will invest more but we want federal money for job training and retraining for workers whose jobs have been automated. that would be my third point. ceos, and he wants to be the ceo of america, they think ten, 15, 20 years ahead for their businesses. thinking that far ahead for america and also the world is that these jobs, just from an efficiency standpoint, will go away as technology improves. so how do you retrain those workers in order to keep jobs in america not from going overseas