Trump Unveils Economic Plan; Questions about Clinton Foundation; Dealing with Iran - Part 1



Dealing with Iran - Part 1>

Michael Graham, Cliff May, Arash Aramesh, Barry Rosen>

Detroit; Policies; Hillary Clinton; Iran; Nuclear Weapons; Middle East>

ERIC BOLLING, FOX NEWS HOST: Hi, I'm Eric Bolling in for Bill O'Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight. Let's get right to our top story. Today's big economic address by Donald Trump. Republican nominee spoke at the Detroit Economic Club where he not only delivered a refreshed plan to jump start the nation's economy with a focus on reducing taxes. He imagined to hammer Hillary Clinton's focus on economic proposals.


DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: All Hillary Clinton has to offer is more of the same, more taxes, more regulations, more bureaucrats, more restrictions on American energy and on American production. More of that. If you were a foreign power looking to weaken America, you couldn't do better than Hillary Clinton's economic agenda. My plan will reduce the current number of brackets from seven to three and dramatically streamline the process. For many American workers, their tax rate will be zero.


BOLLING: Joining us now with reaction from South Hampton, New York, Trump's senior economic advisor David Malpass. David, thank you for joining us, importantly. So, a lot of us have been waiting for specifics. I have got to tell you I'm a conservative and I heard a lot of specifics today. Let me just start -- with what I think is the most refreshing of the four. He had four areas. The tax reform. You guys talk about a 15 percent corporate that's tax down from 25 percent. Deduct child care expenses from taxes. Ten percent repatriation and the debt tax goes well. I think this are going to resonate with conservatives. It certainly is with me.

DAVID MALPASS, TRUMP CAMPAIGN SENIOR ECONOMIC ADVISER: Hi, Eric. And it should. Because they do cause growth. You know, I was really happy with the results of the speech. The room was warm. People were receptive. There was a lot of clapping. And that's because I think there were a lot of specific policies that people could really relate to. The big question is how do you create more prosperity? And you do that by unleashing the economy and so Trump laid out ways to do that and I think it was really well received.

BOLLING: Let me dig in to these if you don't mind, David. I have an economics background. So, you go from a 35 percent to a 15 percent corporate tax. You're going to lose a lot of tax revenue if things were to stay the same. Everyone talks about growth bailing them out. But what kind of number are we talking? We're talking, I'm guessing, close to a trillion dollars in lost revenue if everything stayed the same, right?

MALPASS: Well, I don't know that that's -- what the scoring would be, but the economy is going to change a lot. One of the things that happens now is corporations avoid taxes by either moving offshore or they don't earn as much. They don't report the profit. And so if you have a lower rate, you're going to -- you're going to create more investment within the U.S. economy. That's the goal. You want to bring people in to the labor force. And it's not just on corporations, but the -- there is also going to be a reduction in unincorporated business tax rates. You know, Hillary Clinton has hers going up. And it's very mysterious how you could ever run an economy if you are taxing businesses more.

BOLLING: I have a lot to get to so I'm sorry I'm going to pepper you with some of these stuffs. The deduct child care expenses from taxes. Does that apply to all levels? Or everyone who is has a child doesn't matter if you are rich or poor?

MALPASS: Right. That's whether you itemize or don't. And so, you might call it before the line. Or it's a -- there is also a cap at $13,000. So it's going to play very well with middle income people.

BOLLING: Uh-hm. Okay. The 10 percent repatriation tax. Meaning when companies are in profits overseas, and they want to bring it back, they were subject to that 35 percent tax bracket here. But you are going to bring it down to 10. How did you come up with 10?

MALPASS: That's exactly right. Well, you know, we have had some of those in the past and they work quite well. So, 10 percent, I think, is a number that will allow companies to bring it in and induce them to bring it in. And it also brings in revenue to the U.S. government. So, it's a win-win kind of a situation.

BOLLING: All right. Death tax goes away, estate tax goes away. Personally I love this. I don't think enough Americans realize how much money the government takes from us for the second time.

MALPASS: That's right. And also, it causes lots of people to have to hire a lawyer to do estate planning even if they don't in the end up using it. And so, that should go away and that makes the economy more efficient.

BOLLING: All right. Let's talk about trade a little bit. Donald spends - - Mr. Trump spends a lot of time on trade, quite a bit of time on trade. And he talked, the one that he really went after was trade enforcement with China. You talked about maybe a trillion dollars in, I don't know, net revenues or net money coming back to the United States. Is it really that big?

MALPASS: Well, we don't know how big it will be until the economy grows faster. The idea is to put, to create more manufacturing jobs to have a real economy that creates entry-level jobs for a lot of workers. We have been losing a lot of those jobs to China because it's cheating on its trade agreements. China does a lot of stealing of intellectual property.

BOLLING: See, that's a good one, David. That's a great one. We know that it's rampant. Trying to stealing our intellectual property costs us hundreds of billions of dollars. I would agree with that. I'm just trying to figure out, he says he wants to apply tariffs against China cheating. How so? How do you apply a tariff? First of all, as a free trader, I hate tariffs.

MALPASS: Right. And so here's the key. You have to find a way to negotiate with somebody that doesn't want to negotiate with you. China has been entering into agreements and then not following through. Arguably, they might say, look, it's very hard for us to do that. But, that's tough. You've got to have a way that you can -- that the U.S. can negotiate and get a better deal than what we're getting right now from China. That's going to create a lot of jobs, and I think it still is in the context of free trade and more commerce. We want to have more fair trade going between the two countries.

BOLLING: Do you -- did you put a number -- in other words, what's your growth rate have to be to break even on this in the tax revenues perspective?

MALPASS: You know, I'm kind of skeptical of all of those economic models. And people, you know, you will going to hear a lot of people throwing --

BOLLING: You need that. You need to come up with a growth number whether it's three percent, four percent, or five percent to say hey, this plan is really good for America. But we also have a lot of expenses.

MALPASS: So I think this plan will cause four percent growth, and I think we need that because, otherwise, what's happening is the middle of the economy is getting left out. A lot of people are dropping out of the labor force. Millions and millions of people dropping out. And they have to be brought back. So, the four percent, I think, is achievable. We know when Reagan did.

BOLLING: For how long? I mean, listen, I agree with you four percent, Reagan had four percent coming out of the recession/depression --

MALPASS: He had eight percent.

BOLLING: But it didn't last that long.

MALPASS: Yes. That's right. But the average, the goal here is to lift the average growth rate over the last seven years it's only been two percent. I think we can get 3.5, four percent average growth going forward.

BOLLING: Honestly, it's not unreasonable.

MALPASS: No, no, I agree with you. It's really not unreasonable and given history, we have had such underperforming growth for the better part of 10 years now it's not that farfetched to see a four percent average growth.

David, I have to leave it right there. Thank you very much.

Next on the rundown, another view of Trump's big economic address today. Right back with that.


BOLLING: Continuing now with top our story. Donald Trump's big economic address today, how is the left reacting to the speech?

Joining us now is Eric Schoenberg, a member of the Patriotic Millionaires Group which advocates for higher taxes on the wealthy. Thank you for joining us.


BOLLING: You didn't like the plan? The tax economic plan?

SCHOENBERG: Well, I would certainly like to see a lot more details. And the one question that comes immediately to mind in his speech Donald Trump talks about, you know, fairness and we're a group that's concerned about inequality. The growing inequality in America and its impact on our economics and our politics. And in the speech he talks about, you know, what is in this for you and your family? And the question I have is, what is in it for Donald Trump and his family? I would really be interested --

BOLLING: You are worried about one guy? You have 318 million people and you are worried about how this affects Donald Trump?

SCHOENBERG: It's very representative of the overall impact.

BOLLING: Eric, you like this idea deduct child care expenses from your taxes? Do you like that?

SCHOENBERG: I prefer it to be a credit because when you deduct you are giving larger amounts of money to richer people. This is a no benefit to people who do not pay substantial amounts of income taxes.

BOLLING: Well, it applies to every level. Hey, I just asked David Malpass, he said it applies every single level up and down the food chain?

SCHOENBERG: Yes. Again, there are --

BOLLING: You know what? You are not liking this, deduct child care expenses from taxes. I'm not sure why you wouldn't like that. Do you like or dislike this 15 percent corporate tax rate down from 35 percent?

SCHOENBERG: Our perspective is that at a minimum the government should be increasing the overall level of inequality in the system. And the problem with all of these proposals is that's exactly what the impact is going to be. We don't know what the impact of this will be on the income taxes of Donald Trump because he hasn't released his income taxes.


BOLLING: Why are you focusing on Donald Trump? How about the other 309 million, 999,000 --

SCHOENBERG: Let's talk about item that actually has impact which you just said in last segment you're fully in favor off, the elimination with the estate tax. One thing we can say with certainty is based on Donald Trump's estimate that he has $10 billion fortune. This plan is going to save him $4 billion.

BOLLING: You are suggesting that Donald Trump put together this tax -- this economic plan, wide sweeping, wide ranging economic plan so that he can save money on his own taxes so he could leave his kids?

SCHOENBERG: Four billion dollars. And my question for Donald Trump is why.

BOLLING: Why am I taxed for the second time when I leave my -- whatever I have earned to my son? Why is that a good idea?

SCHOENBERG: Your prior guest said, you know, there are lots of people spend time worrying about the estate taxes. The state tax affects two out of every 1,000 Americans. The very richest .2 percent of the population. These are not people that I thought Donald Trump was expressing great concerns about.

BOLLING: I'm not sure that's accurate.

SCHOENBERG: It's absolutely accurate. Two out of 1,000 people.

BOLLING: Anyone who leaves money to an heir is going to be affected --

SCHOENBERG: Only if they have an estate more than $10 million.

BOLLING: I think it's $5 million.

SCHOENBERG: It's $5 million as an individual.


SCHOENBERG: Again, my question is, I would love to see Donald Trump and explain why it is in the interest of the average American worker for his family to save $4 billion.

BOLLING: Why are the Clintons allowed to use the Clinton Foundation to cover their travel, a lot of their expenses, some of their housing? You don't think they are dodging taxes with the Clinton Foundation?

SCHOENBERG: Well, whether they are dodging taxes or not.

BOLLING: Just yes or no.

SCHOENBERG: Well, one thing that's open is the information about that. You know this information.

BOLLING: Just yes or no, Eric. It's a yes or no.

SCHOENBERG: I do not believe they are dodging taxes.

BOLLING: They are not dodging taxes by using that foundation to travel to in some places, to pay for some of the housing debt they have. They spent $7.8 million in travel on the Clinton Foundation and a lot of that is their own travel. How is that not hiding behind the tax code?

SCHOENBERG: It's not hiding. That's the point. It's out in the open. We don't know what Donald Trump is doing.

BOLLING: Donald Trump is not doing anything illegal either.

SCHOENBERG: How do you know? You haven't seen his tax return.

BOLLING: Okay. All right. You know, he is under audit. I don't necessarily disagree. I'm saying that at the elite level, Donald Trump, the Clintons the same thing is going on. But you are calling Trump out. You are not saying she is doing anything wrong.

SCHOENBERG: But this is the important point. He is arguing that this plan is in the broader interest of the American worker.


BOLLING: Well, I can see it is. I could see it is. I could see a lot of these things --

SCHOENBERG: But if you actually look at these proposals, the beneficiaries are going to be the wealthy people. Let's go back to the question you asked about lower tax rates on corporations. Now, I happen to have -- I'm the chairman of the board of corporation which is an S corporation. As I understand it, although the details aren't very clear, he also intends to lower my tax rate to 15 percent on that income. And I'm asking a simple question. Why should I pay such a lower rate on my income than the average American worker who pays on their own income?

BOLLING: It will stimulate you and other people to start businesses to start to create jobs. This is an economic, conservative economic plan. Last thought, lower prices for energy. You're against that?

SCHOENBERG: Again, in the abstract I don't have a problem with lower prices for energy.

BOLLING: Well, Donald Trump's plan lifting restrictions on all forms of American energy. You like that part of the plan then? Because lifting restricts would create more energy.

SCHOENBERG: You know, I am not an energy expert. My area of expertise.

BOLLING: You're an economic guys, right? The more of the products the price goes down.

SCHOENBERG: Lower energy prices are definitely good.

BOLLING: I will give you a maybe on that one. Thank you very much, Eric.

SCHOENBERG: Thank you.

BOLLING: Coming up. Donald Trump steps up his attacks against Hillary Clinton now questioning her mental health. We will debate that tactic when we come right back.


BOLLING: In the "Impact Segment" tonight, brutal personal attacks in the presidential campaign. Over the weekend, Donald Trump used one of Hillary Clinton's own expressions against her as he escalated his attacks.


DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: She took a little short circuit in the brain and show has got problems. I mean, if we had real people, this would be a real problem for her. But I think that the people of this country don't want somebody that's going to short circuit up here. Okay?


Not as your president. Not as your president. So, she is a dangerous liar who is disregarded the lives of Americans and who has put all of us at great, great risk with what she has done. While supporting economic policies that have destroyed our economy. She is a totally unhinged person. She is unbalanced. And all you have to do is watch her.


BOLLING: Tough rhetoric to be sure. But what impact do these increasingly personal assaults by both sides have on voters?

Joining us now from Boston with reaction, Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh and from Washington editor Katie Pavlich. Mary Anne, he was just using her words. She said she short circuited with Chris Wallace.

MARY ANNE MARSH, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: He is using them out of context. But I think the real point here is, Eric is that Trump has decided to react to this plummeting poll numbers by launching personal attacks against Hillary Clinton. And the more negative he can make this campaign the less likely it is for women that they will vote. Historically that has been true. The problem for Trump right now is, as you see in the polls, he is now viewed less favorably than Hillary Clinton. He is viewed as less honest than Hillary Clinton. And less trustworthy as Hillary Clinton. And therefore voters are unlikely to believe these personal attacks. And the biggest shift has come with women with college degrees which has really hurt Donald Trump in these latest polls.

BOLLING: Okay. Katie, but Hillary Clinton does the same thing -- she uses the attacks and sometimes personal attacks.

KATIE PAVLICH, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Sure. But unfortunately there is a double standard between Democrats and Republicans and what they can get away with. And Mary Anne is right in the sense of women, I think that especially in this case when you have negative campaigning, women are not going to turn out. They are going to turn out in favor of Hillary Clinton to defend her because they feel like Trump is attacking her. But on this issue, look, we have been talking for two weeks now about how Donald Trump needs to focus on the economy.

He did that today in his speech. I think that he had some really good points. He talked about eliminating the death tax. I think he can get personal in the sense of what you just mentioned there in the previous segment. In a sense of talking about the Clinton Foundation. How Hillary Clinton was very selfish to use the State Department to essentially benefit the Clinton Foundation. I mean, there are all kinds of ways to get personal without sounding immature by even using the same words against her.

BOLLING: Except, except guys -- and I'll go to you Mary Anne on this. Except this is such a wide open area of vulnerability on Clinton's part because, I don't know, everyone keeps saying well, when she lies, it's Clintonian unless you exploit that and say, hey, it's not Clintonian to lie, it's lying.

MARSH: Well, I think the difference here Eric is what Katie just mentioned, the foundation, her record, other things, that's substance and that's fair game. But what isn't, is when you go after her personally about her mental health and other things. That phrase was totally taken out of context. And here's the problem for Donald trump. He risks overplaying his hand because he will lash out because his poll numbers have gone down or it's because they start to rise. He will become more personal and more attacks. And that's exactly what happened in her first Senate race.

Rick Lazio made the same mistake. Women came out in droves, she won that race by 12 points. That's exactly what their race is right now. And I don't think Donald Trump can help himself. With 91 days left to go, he is trying to cut into the difference in the polls before Labor Day. And I think he is going to overplay his hand by being far too personal, far too reckless and the attack the likes of which we haven't heard will end up hurting him more than Hillary Clinton.

BOLLING: You know, Katie, and I hear and I think you are agreeing with Mary Anne on this issue. However, Donald Trump's poll numbers started to go down when he got involved in this satellite attacks with Mr. Khan and some of the other satellite things. When he focuses his attack whether it's personal or not -- his poll numbers have risen.

PAVLICH: Well, actually I vehemently disagree with that. Because we've seen now that Donald Trump is down by something like 10 points at this point.

BOLLING: He is all over the map, Katie. He has been talking about other things instead --

PAVLICH: Eric, not after the convention.

BOLLING: He was after Paul Ryan, he was after John McCain. And now it looks like he may have turned the corner and focused on what people have said. He should do Hillary Clinton the opponent.

PAVLICH: The only direction his poll numbers are going right now are down. We're not turning a corner in any sense of the word in terms of Donald Trump.

BOLLING: Katie, he just started turning yesterday towards Hillary Clinton.

PAVLICH: Eric, and now people believe that Hillary Clinton is actually better at managing the economy than Donald Trump because he has gotten so distracted with the personal attacks not just on Hillary Clinton but on other as you mentioned satellite figures. And that's a problem because he could win on that issue. He can win and he is not focusing on it the right way.

BOLLING: Mary Anne, when he stays on things like Hillary Clinton and pointing out the fact that, there are a lot of questions about her ethics, about her trustworthiness and honesty. We know her numbers are under water on all of those. When he focuses that, look, I think it will turn around. You don't think his numbers are going to up from here, now that he stops with all of these other issues and focused on one person?

MARSH: I'm not saying the bounce is going to last the way it is now. But here's the difference Eric, when he goes after her record, the things she has done in her life professionally, fair game, go after it, what he did though is go after her personally and a very personal way and I expect he is going to make even more personal attacks. And he lost in one fell swoop white women with college degrees. The hardest women for him to win back. But more women she gets, she wins this race period, in the Senate.

And that's the miscalculation he's in. Go after her Senate record, go after her as secretary of state. All of those things are fair game. But when you start talking about her mental health, when it's A, not even accurate and B, a context a phrase way out of context. That's when women and other voters are going to rally to her side.

BOLLING: He may be a master at picking up a grain of opportunity and exploiting it and it feels like that's what she did. She herself said, I short circuited, what is short circuiting in the brain. Well, think about this for a second.

MARSH: Short circuited it. Meaning the question. Short circuited it.

BOLLING: Didn't sound like it. Sounded like she short circuited her answer because she couldn't answer properly.

PAVLICH: My question to you, Eric, would be, how does that comment affect every day Americans.

BOLLING: Here is how. Here is how.

PAVLICH: Let me just finish my point, Eric. Let me finish my point.

BOLLING: -- before she makes a decision whether to send a nuclear weapon somewhere.

PAVLICH: That is why she is vice president and Tim Kaine I'm sure we'll do a fine job.


BOLLING: Come on -- you make the same argument as Donald Trump.

PAVLICH: Eric, let me finish my point. How does continuing to attack Hillary Clinton by using the short circuited line affect families at home or sitting and listening to his economic speech today and going, you know what, it sounds really great that he wants me to allow me to keep more of my own money so I can provide for my family. That's what he should focus on. He sounded presidential today in that speech. He doesn't sound presidential when he attacks like he did last week and continuing into this week.

BOLLING: Okay. I have got to go, guys. Thank you so much. Great debate. Mary Anne and Katie, thank you very much.

PAVLICH: Thanks, Eric.

BOLLING: Directly ahead. A big surprise within a GOP dynasty. You won't believe who is now saying it's time to vote for Donald Trump. Moments away.


BOLLING: In the "Unresolved Problem" segment tonight, a last ditch effort by the Never Trump Movement. Today, Evan McMullin, the former chief policy director for House Republicans and the former CIA agent announced an independent run for president. But, despite the surprise third party bid, Trump is getting a boost from an unlikely source, George P. Bush, son of Jeb, has told Texas Republicans it's time to start rallying around the nominee.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: From Team Bush, it's a bitter pill to swallow, but you know what? You get back up and you'll help the man that's won and you make sure that we stop Hillary Clinton.


BOLLING: Well, wasn't quite the endorsement, but considering the source it is a big deal.

Joining us now to analyze from Washington, a writer with the "The Weekly Standard" Michael Graham. Michael, let's start with that if you don't mind. George P. Bush, emphasis on Bush says, vote for Trump.

MICHAEL GRAHAM, "THE WEEKLY STANDARD" WRITER: And you know, what I like about this is that it shows that there's a real divide among sincere honest people about what to do about Donald Trump. Obviously the Bush family didn't even show up for the convention and now you have a rising star you could argue in the Bush universe who is out supporting shall we say Trump. And I'll tell you what bothers me most, Eric, about the entire conversation. He's got two groups of people insist that the other side or total dirt bags for either A, not supporting Trump or for supporting Trump. No, people of goodwill, you know, who were trying to do the right thing can come to very different conclusions as is in the Bush family.

BOLLING: How is it the right conclusion if Hillary Clinton is elected president if you are a conservative or GOPer? How is that the right conclusion?

GRAHAM: How is voting for a big government liberal from New York who supports Planned Parenthood and gave money to Democrats?

BOLLING: That's Hillary you are talking about.

GRAHAM: No, I'm talking about Donald Trump, obviously and this is my point --

BOLLING: I understand. I heard all the arguments. I know where he came from. I do that. I have known him for 15 years. This is always the killer. The one that just destroys that Never Trump argument. Hillary Clinton will fill the Supreme Court with liberals. She also appoints federal judges with a liberal bent to them. And if you want your kids and George P. Bush kids, if you want a liberal judicial branch of government forever, then vote for Hillary.

GRAHAM: And that's a very powerful argument. And for some Republicans it's enough for them to get past their --