what too you make of this, michelle? can the irs too do this? the fourth amendment requires a warrant to search everything somebody has a reasonable expectation of privacy. so the question do is we have a reasonable expectation of privacy over e-mail some the answer is, you bet your bippy. neil: what would make the irs take the leap? let me go back and say the irs can do whatever they want. [laughter] but at the irs thinks they can do this because they re the irs and there s an ancient electronic e-mail protection act dating back to 1986 that regulates electronic communication. i believe it was on the books for wire tapping, and in 19. 1986 e-mails futuristic, and
biggest bank uses why did hey meet with them? he does this periodically and used them as whipping boy in the past. they would go in there, he would beat them up, leak the story, and be able to promote his class warfare agenda. this time it was different and his people were foreshadowing. he was very conciliatory and they were conciliatory to him. they were in agreement on one thing. the president and the bank chiefs believe that the economy is poisessed for a robust recovery. they re looking at numbers that are the groundwork for a robust recovery. neil: same numbers that are getting weaker? but the word is poised. okay? neil: i m a coiled spring ready to run a marathon. that s the problem. they know that is in in cal policy the white house the taxes and healthcare laws, they know that is what is keeping the lid on the economy, from
opportunities for your state. i guess where i m at a loss how it would do that. let s say bars stayed open another couple of hours. would it make that big a difference? i can tell you that the number one employer in the state of california is the restaurant industry. the number three employer is the tourism industry. and travel and tourism and entertainment is the fourth largest industry in the state. in my district of san francisco, it s in the number one industry. we hosted 16 million visitors to san francisco last year, who spent over $8 billion in san francisco a lone. so this is a not an insignificant industry, and so the possibilities are, i think, great. neil: now, you ll get a lot of groups worried how dangerous this could be indeed. neil: drunk people on the roads. of course, and i don t take any of that lightly. that s why we have a community-driven process, and
why i overdid the explanation of it to you, which your eyes were rolling. so it s a very arduous and rigorous process because i take the public safety concerns seriously. it s interesting to note in the 4 states that already do this the 24 states that already do this, no one is considering reducing the hours of beverage service. so we can learn from other states don t see increases in duis on violence in the streets. in these 24 states that i would russ their hours if that were the case in washington, dc, it took put a toe in the water and allowed for service beyond 2:00 a.m. on holidays, and then they extended it to the time of the president s inauguration, and then they found there was no additional crime, and that all was able to work out. so i think in a thought. fashion we can do this. neil: senator, thank you very much. it was kidding about the
not to mention the costs to the consumer we re talking about with premiums going up, by covering preexisting conditions. what an expensive law. and by the way, haven t mentioned yet, the costs of expanding medicaid. not only the feds say, well, we re covering 95% of medicaid expansion but what about administer that on a state level. that s going to cost states millions, and most stith budgets are already in trouble. neil: when you look at this and hear the administration and others say, well, there are some rougher than expected up-front cost but once it s up and running, we re off to the races. you say what? i think the key here is that it s costing more than double than they expected. why is that? why can t they estimate anything properly? and remember medicare part d, when you is that right with