MARIA: .

WE WANT TO BRING IN GROVER

NORCHRIS.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE L.

YOU'RE HEARING THE CONVERSATION.

WEIGH IN HERE.

THE PRESIDENT IS WEIGHING

OPTIONS TO SPUR THE ECONOMY LIKE

POTENTIAL CAPITAL GAINS TAX,

LIKE A POTENTIAL PAYROLL TAX.

WHAT'S YOUR VIEW.

>> HE PUT TWO THINGS ON THE

TABLE.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM IS

THAT INDEXING CAPITAL GAINS SO

YOU DON'T TAX INFLATION IN

CAPITAL GAINS CAN BE DONE

UNILATERALLY BY THE PRESIDENT.

THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT IN

120002.

SO -- 2002.

SO THAT'S NO LONGER A LEGAL

QUESTION.

THE PRESIDENT SAID YESTERDAY I

CAN DO THIS MYSELF.

THE TREASURY SECRETARY COULD DO

THAT.

THE ADVANTAGE THERE IS ONCE YOU

DO IT, HALF OF AMERICANS PLUS

OWN HOME, HALF OF AMERICANS PLUS

ARE IN THE STOCK MARKET.

YOU CAN'T ARGUE THIS IS A TAX

CUT FOR THE 1%.

IT'S A TAX CUT FOR EVERYBODY

OVER 55 WHO HAS HELD HOMES AND

HOUSES AND AN IMMEDIATE TAX CUT,

VERY QUICKLY, BENEFITS ANYONE

WHO IS 2 A 5 AND STARTING THEIR

LIFE BECAUSE THEIR ASSETS ARE

WORTH MORE.

IF YOU GO WITH A TAX CUT ON

SOCIAL SECURITY AS A SUGGESTION,

THE DEMOCRATS IMMEDIATELY GO

SURE, WE'LL PAY FOR IT BY

RAISING THE BUSINESS TAX, THROW

IT RIGHT BACK.

SO BECAUSE NANCY PELOSI HAS TO

AGREE TO ANY CHANGE IN THE

SOCIAL SECURITY TAX AND THE

DEMOCRATS HAVE NEVER DONE THAT

WHEN THEY HAD THE POWER TO DO

IT, THEY WOULD JUST PLAY

POLITICS WITH IT.

THE PRESIDENT WILL LIKELY GO

WITH THE THING WHERE THE

INFLATION INDEXATION -- HE CAN

DO THAT BY HIMSELF WITHOUT NANCY

PELOSI'S PERMISSION.

>> HEY, GROVER, STEVE MOORE

HERE.

GREAT TO SEE YOU.

>> HI, STEVE.

>> LOOK, YOU SOUND VERY

CONFIDENT THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS

THE UNILATERAL AUTHORITY TO DO

THIS AND HE HAS THE LEGAL --

THAT SEEMS TO BE AN OPEN

QUESTION.

I WANT TO DIG IN, GET YOUR

REACTION TO -- BECAUSE YOU SEEM

LIKE IT'S AN OPEN AND SHUT DEAL

THAT HE CAN DO THIS.

I KNOW THE DEMOCRATS WOULD

PROBABLY CHALLENGE THAT.

SO THAT NUMBER ONE.

NUMBER TWO, WHAT I LIKE ABOUT

THAT IDEA OF INDEXING CAPITAL

GAINS TAX AND TELL ME IF I'M

WRONG ABOUT THIS IS YOU GET AN

UNLOCKING EFFECT.

NOW PEOPLE COULD SELL THEIR

STOCKS AND MOVE INTO YOU NEW

COMPANIES AND NEW INVESTMENT

OPPORTUNITIES.

WHAT IS YOUR REACTION TO THAT.

MARIA: BY THE WAY, BEFORE YOU

GET THERE, YOU SAY COULD HE DO

IT, DON'T FORGET, OBAMA INDICT.

THE PAYROLL TAX WAS CUT UNDER

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IN 2011

AND 2012 TO 4.2%, REDUCING TAXES

BY MORE THAN $100 BILLION EACH

YEAR.

IT WAS ENACTED TO ENCOURAGE MORE

CONSUMER SPENDING.

>> THE QUESTION IS CAN THE

PRESIDENT DO IT WITHOUT

CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.

THAT'S THE ISSUE ON THE TABLE.

>> LET'S TAKE THAT IN THE ORDER

IN WITH WHICH YOU ASKED.

ONE, CAN THE PRESIDENT DO IT.

THERE WAS A DEBATE ON THIS IN

1992 AND SOME SERIOUS LAWYERS

SAID ABSOLUTELY -- LIKE CHUCK

COOPER, OTHERS SAID WE'RE NOT SO

SURE.

SINCE THEN THERE WAS A SUPREME

COURT DECISION IN 2002 WHICH

ANSWERED THE ONLY QUESTION

BEFORE, IS COST AN UNAMBIGUOUS

TERM THAT AN AGENCY CANNOT

ADJUST.

THEY SAY IT COULD BE HISTORIC

COST, WHAT DID YOU PAY FOURTH,

REAL

FOAL

FORL

FOR IT,REAL OF COST, COST PLUS

INFLATION, AND REPLACEMENT COST.

THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO DECIDE

WHICH ONE TO USE.

THE SUPREME COURT SMACKED AWAY

HARD ANY DEBATE.

SOME PEOPLE THINK THE COURTS, A

MORE CONSERVATIVE COURT MIGHT

WANT TO REDUCE THE ABILITY OF

AGENCIES TO MAKE THOSE

DECISIONS.

A MONTH AGO WE HAD A DECISION

THAT SAID NOPE, WE'RE NOT DOING

THAT.

SO TWO SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

COME IN THAT SAY AGENCIES HAVE

THIS AUTHORITY.

THEY HAVE THIS AND COST

SPECIFICALLY IS NOT AN

UNAMBIGUOUS TERM.

THAT'S WHY WE CAN SAY WITH

CLARITY THAT THEY'LL POLITICALLY

WINE

PLNE

PLIGHTWHINE ABOUT IT BUT NOT HAV

PLIGHTWHINE ABOUT IT BUT NOT HAE

SUCCESS.

THE BIG BENEFIT RIGHT AWAY IS

ONE CEO, FORTUNE 500 CEO TOLD ME

THERE'S $7 TRILLION OF STICKY

CAPITAL WHICH IS LAND,

BUILDINGS, OTHER COMPANIES THAT

CORPORATIONS ALONE, NEVER MIND

INDIVIDUALS WHO OWN HOMES AND

STOCKS BUT CORPORATIONS OWN

$7 TRILLION OF STICKY CAPITAL

MUCH OF WHICH WOULD BE SOLD.

IN FACT, ALMOST ALL OF WHICH

WOULD BE SOLD WHEN YOU'RE

LOOKING AT THINGS THAT ARE FIVE,

10, 20, A 50 YEARS OLD.

THAT WOULD RAISE A LOT OF

REVENUE IN A SHORT PERIOD OF

TIME AND TAKE TRILLIONS OF

DOLLARS AND REDIRECT IT TO

HIGHER AND BETTER USE.

IT'S DEREGULATION FOR PAST

PURCHASES OF ASSETS AND IT

RAISES THE VALUE OF ALL ASSETS

IN THE UNITED STATES NOW GOING

FORWARD.

THE ONE COMPANY THAT CALLED ME

ABOUT THIS EARLIEST IS AMERICANS

FOR TAX REFORM, THE GROUP

STARTED TALKING TO EVERYBODY IN

THE WHITE HOUSE.

EVERYBODY IN THE WHITE HOUSE IS

FOR IT AND UNDERSTANDS IT.

THAT'S NOT A BAD PLACE TO START,

BEGINNING WITH THE PRESIDENT.

THEY KNOW PEOPLE EMPTY CLOSETS

AND ATTICS OF ALL OF THIS

BASEBALL CARDS AND ART WORK THAT

THEY'VE HELD ONTO BECAUSE OF THE

TAX ON INFLATION.

>> IS EVEN STEVEN MNUCHIN IN

FAVOR OF THIS.

I HEARD IN THE TREASURY THERE'S

DOUBTS ABOUT THIS.

>> THERE'S ALWAYS MNUCHINS IN

THE TREASURY THEY SAY IT MAY NOT

WORK FOR THEM.

HE SAID I'D LIKE CONGRESS TO DO

IT BUT I MAY HAVE TO DO IT

MYSELF.

AND HE HAS TOLD ME

AND HE HAS TOLD PEOPLE THAT HE

KNOWS HE DOES HAVE THE

AUTHORITY.

AGAIN, IT'S CLEAR IN LEGAL

TERMS.

MARIA: DID YOU SAY THERE'S

ALWAYS MUNCH KINS IN THE WHITE

HOUSE?

>> I'M SORRY, MUNCHKINS FROM THE

WIZARD OF OZ, NOT MNUCHIN.

MARIA: THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.

MUNCHKINS.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MNUCHIN.

>> THE MUNCHKINS ARE BAD ON IT.

MARIA: WHAT'S YOUR STANCE ON

THE ECONOMY?

DO YOU SEE A RECESSION ON THE

HORIZON.

IT'S GOT ME BAFFLED.

I THOUGHT THINGS WERE GOING

REALLY WELL.

>> THINGS ARE GOING MUCH BETTER

THAN THEY WERE.

WE WERE GROWING AT 3%.

IT'S NOW MOVED TOWARDS 2%.

THAT'S NOT A RECESSION.

RECESSION IS LESS THAN ZERO.

IT IS SLOW GROWTH, SLOWER GROWTH

THAN THE ECONOMY DESERVES.

THERE'S OBVIOUSLY A LOT OF

CONCERN ABOUT THE TRADE WAR WITH

CHINA AND WITH TARIFFS.

TARIFFS ARE A TAX ON THE

AMERICAN CONSUMER AND THEY HURT

THE ECONOMY AND THEY TELL EVERY

PRODUCER, WELL, YOU DON'T KNOW

WHETHER TO INVEST TODAY OR NOT

BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT

PRICES WILL BE AND YOU DON'T

KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING BECAUSE OF

ALL OF THE UNCERTAINTY.

THAT'S WHAT'S SPOOKING BUSINESS

INVESTMENT.

AS SOON AS THAT GETS SETTLED, WE

COME TO SOME AGREEMENT WITH

CHINA AND HOPEFULLY WITH THE

EUROPEANS, THAT I THINK YOU'LL

SEE THE ECONOMY TAKE OFF BECAUSE

THE FUNDAMENTALS ARE QUITE

STRONG BUT WHY NOT TAKE

ADVANTAGE OF THE LEFT CLAIMING

THAT THE ECONOMY'S SLOWING TO

PLAY THE CARD OF INDEXING

CAPITAL GAINS SO WE NO LONGER

TAX INFLATION.

I SAY LET'S TAKE THOSE MARBLES

OFF THE TABLE AND THANK THE

DEMOCRATS FOR THE HYSTERICS

ABOUT HOW WELL THE ECONOMY'S

DOING.

>> GROVER, IT'S VERONICA FROM

WALL STREET JOURNAL.

IF YOU DO THESE MOVES NOW,

THOUGH, DOES THIS LEAVE YOU WITH

A LACK OF FIRE POWER WHEN THINGS

ARE ACTUALLY REALLY BAD?

YOU NEED THEM.

>> WELL, YOU CAN ALWAYS DO MORE

TAX CUTS IN THE FUTURE.

YOU COULD ALWAYS WORK WITH THE

FED TO DO A BETTER JOB.

I WOULD START NOW BECAUSE IT

TAKES A WHILE FOR PEOPLE TO SELL

A $50 MILLION BUILDING IN

CHICAGO.

THAT P DOESN'T HAPPEN IN TWO

MONTHS.

BUT I THINK YOU'LL SEE PEOPLE

MOVE VERY QUICKLY TO SELL OLDER

ASSETS AND MOVE THEM TO HIGHER

AND BETTER USE.

SO I WOULD DO THIS NOW AND GOING

FORWARD THE NEXT TIME THERE'S A

TAX CUT, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE

THAT THIS CHANGE BECOMES

PERMANENT AND IN LAW, NOT JUST

REGULATORY.

WHAT WILL SPEED UP ALL OF THIS

ACTION IS THE DEMOCRATS WILL

ANNOUNCE WHEN I'M PRESIDENT I'LL

TAKE IT ALL AWAY.

SO EVERYONE PLANNING ON SELLING

IN THE NEXT 30 YEARS SELLS IN

THE NEXT YEAR.