that before, you referred to that very specific example that he gave in your first answer, but will the governments argue this is a federal issue, the states can t overrule us, it s our job, it says so in the u.s. constitution, how do you react? well, i think that argument that the government makes will not win. the president made those remarks before he read the statute and you now knows that what he said was wrong, and before it s wrong, because there s an explicit prohibition on racial profiling and there is no authority to stop someone simply because you think they might be in the country illegally, i don t think that the judge will enjoin that particular part of the statute. bill: we are going to talk to a sheriff s deputy next hour, an what we re hearing is that different jurisdictions, different police departments, are interpreting this law in different ways. so we ll see how this is being applied next hour in our broadcast. there s another story that s popping this morning, a
you. i m doing well, good morning to you. bill: america needs ideas. what s ours? we do need ideas, in particular ideas that will reduce spending. what we have concluded and it s note a new revelation, bill, there are 26 committees in congress that spend the people s money, we think there needs to be a committee that actually cuts spending in washington. one of the things that my legislation would do is create a committee on deficit reduction, a joint committee that would have both republicans and democrats, members of the house and senate, it would be a permanent standing committee of the congress whose sole mission it is to reduce spending and the deficit. that is one element go ahead. bill: specifically you want a line item veto. correct. bill: there is a house senate panel for cutting government spending and you want to trim 10% off the deficit every year until it s gone, do i have that right? well, we do. this as we ve said this is a starting point. obviously we are not
but what has this bill done on that front? they really clamped down. to the extent that banks in the run-up to the crisis were making big bets on weird real estate securities that no one knew exactly what they were doing, they limit how big the bets can be, and one of the provisions we re most hopeful for is that it brings derivatives trading so some of the most risky things out in the open so they have to trade it and people can see what they re doing. is this the most effective consumer protection? what does it do? it s hard to put your finger on what it s going to be because it all about getting the right person in place. there will be this new chief regulator. there is about to be a fight over who it s going to be, and some of the provisions we think would be really good, there will be so much ruling involved before we get to what those provisions are, so it s going to take some time. just the fact there is someone
analyst team, so that s somewhat reassuring. if we don t grow ourselves out of this place that we re at well enough, if we don t grow fast enough or, some people talk about a double dip recession, mainly because of what s going on in europe, in other words, if ye we re not going gangbus terz in the economy, what pofts are likely to hold up during an off year? once you go into bonds, you look to companies who can sell their wares no matter what s going on. people are going to buy toilet paper, they re going to take their medicine no matter what s going on in an economy, so you want to look at probable cause ter procter & gamble, places like that. we ve got a bill now that means more people are going to have to consume health care so they re going to continue selling what they make. right, so that s a relatively
will change anything on the ground. do you think it will? look, there are good things in this bill. because of this bill, there will be an audit of the feds for the first time ever. there will be changes in the lending standards for mortgages, there will be a creation of the new financial protection agency to help predatory lending. there is good stuff in the bill, there is no denying that. but the big ticket items, the stuff that really would have stopped the crisis the last time around, the stuff that would have addressed the fraud, too big to fail, derivatives. almost all those measures are either rejected outright or watered down to mere meaninglessness. i think wall street feels it dodged a bullet with this bill. they re going to complain and say it s an onerous view of speculations, but i think in reality, they re going to be pleased they didn t get off much worse with this bill. gillian, let me ask you this. if you go back to 2007 and 2008, are there provisions at the moment