>> Jon: WELCOME BACK.
MY GUEST TONIGHT, REPUBLICAN
STRATEGIST, FORMER CHAIR OF
THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL
COMMITTEE PLEASE WELCOME
BACK TO THIS PROGRAM ED ED
GILLESPIE.
SIR!
NICE TO SEE YOU AGAIN.
>> GOOD TO SEE YOU.
THANK YOU.
(APPLAUSE)
>> Jon: HOW ARE YOU?
>> I'M GOOD, THANKS, HOW ARE
YOU?
>> Jon: THESE ARE BUSY TIMES
I WOULD IMAGINE.
>> THEY ARE VERY INTERESTING
TIMES IF YOU ARE A
REPUBLICAN WATCHING THE
PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY.
IT'S EXCITING.
>> Jon: YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE
COME OUT, ARE YOU PARTNERED
WITH KARL ROVE IN THIS CROSS
WARDS.
AND KARL HAS COME OUT AND HE
HAS SAID THAT THIS TRUMP
DEBATE OVER THE HOLIDAYS
SHOULD NOT TAKE PLACE.
DO AGREE WITH THAT?
>> I WOULD-- THE WAY I WOULD
PUT IT IS IF I WERE A
CANDIDATE I PROBABLY WOULD
NOT ATTEND THE TRUMP DEBATE.
FIRST OF ALL DONALD TRUMP
HAS SAID HE IS CONSIDERING
RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT
HIMSELF AS AN INDEPENDENT.
WHY WOULD YOU SUBJECT
YOURSELF TO BEING POSED
QUESTIONS TO BY SOMEBODY WHO
MAY RUN AGAINST YOU.
>> Jon: LET'S SAY ARE YOU
NOT A POLITICAL STRATEGIST.
LET'S SAY YOU ARE A COMEDIAN.
(LAUGHTER)
WHY WOULD YOU TAKE THIS AWAY
FROM ME?
AND COULD YOU PLEASE MAKE
THIS HAPPEN FOR ME?
>> I AM HOPEFUL FOR THE
EMERIL MODERATED DEBATE ON
THE FOOD NETWORK.
>> Jon: TRUMP IS GOING TO
BRING YOU DOWN, BROTHER!
>> PROBABLY.
>> Jon: SOLIS ENBARACK OBAMA
IS GOING TO RUN FOR
RE-ELECTION ON THE IDEA THAT
WE HAVE HAD AN ECONOMY NOW
WITH 21 STRAIGHT MONTHS OF
GROWTH.
NOT THE KIND OF GROWTH THAT
WE WOULD ALL WANT, THAT HIS
STIMULUS WITHOUT IT, THE
ECONOMY WOULD BE EVEN WORSE
THAN IT WOULD BE.
BUT THAT THINGS ARE MOVING
IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
WHAT SAYETTE YOU TO THIS?
>> I THINK THAT WHEN ARE YOU
AT 8.6% UNEMPLOYMENT WHICH
GRANTED IS BETTER THAN 9.1%
UNEMPLOYMENT, BUT STILL TOO
HIGH, AND THE FACT IS THE
GROWTH IN THE JOBS THAT WERE
PROMISED FROM THE STIMULUS
HAVEN'T SHOWN UP.
WE'VE, IN FACT, ARE SEEING
CYCLE JOB CREATION I THINK
BECAUSE OF THE PRESIDENT'S
POLICIES, TOO MUCH
REGULATION, IN OTHER WORDS,
THERE WAS A PIECE TODAY
ABOUT CARL'S, JR., THE
HAMBURGER PLACE, THEY ARE
SPENDING TWICE AS MUCH TO
MEET THE HEALTH CARE MANDATE
AS THEY SPENT BUILDING NEW
RESTAURANTS LAST YEAR.
>> Jon: WOW.
>> I TALKED TO A BANKER
TODAY IN TENNESSEE WHO SAID
THAT HE HAS MORE COMPLIANCE
OFFICERS THAN LOAN OFFICERS
WORKING AT HIS BANK RIGHT
NOW.
>> Jon: WHAT IF WE GOT A
CONSUMER PROTECTION BOARD,
THAT COULD REALLY OVERSEE
THIS KIND OF STUFF?
YOU KNOW, I THINK THEY VOTED
ON THAT TODAY IN THE SENATE,
DID THEY NOT?
WHAT HAPPENED WITH THAT?
>> THE NOMINEE-- .
>> Jon: I'M SORRY, WHO DID.
>> THAT WOULD BE THE
REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE.
>> Jon: OH, OKAY.
(LAUGHTER)
>> Jon: SO THE-- SO THE
PERSON THAT WOULD MAKE MAYBE
PERHAPS COMPLIANCE EASIER
GOT SHOT DOWN.
>> WELL, I THINK THE POINT,
JON, ACTUALLY IS THAT THIS
PERSON WOULD NOT MAKE
COMPLIANCE EASIER.
THE FACT IS, WHAT THE
REPUBLICANS WANT TO GET IS
GREATER OVERSIGHT THIS IS A
BOARD OF-- OF THE CONSUMER
PROTECTION BOARD IT SHOULD
REPORT TO CONGRESS.
MOST AGENCIES DO.
AND IT SHOULDN'T BE SOMEONE
WHO IS SET UP TO YOU KNOW
REGULATE WITHOUT OVERSIGHT.
THAT'S NOT THE WAY THE
PROCESS WORKS OR SHOULD
WORK.
>> Jon: IN YOUR MIND, IF I
MAY, BANKS ARE
OVERREGULATED.
BUSINESSES ARE OVERREGULATED.
THE ONLY THING WE REALLY
NEED TO REGULATE ARE THE
PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE
REGULATING.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YOU KNOW-- .
>> Jon: IS THAT RIGHT?
>> I DO THINK THERE'S-- YOU
KNOW, THIS, THE DODD FRANK
BILL KICKED OUT OVER 300
REGULATIONS.
I DO THINK IT'S CAUSING
BANKS NOT LEND AS MUCH
BECAUSE THEY ARE VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT THE
COMPLIANCE.
AND LOOK, I DO THINK THAT
THE FOUNDERS ARE RIGHT TO
HAVE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH BE
SUBJECT TO OVERSIGHT BY THE
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.
I WORKED IN THE BUSH WHITE
HOUSE.
WE WERE SUBJECT TO PLENTY OF
OVERSIGHTS ON THE
LEGISLATE-- BY THE
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.
>> Jon: SIR, YOU DON'T WANT
TO GO THERE I'VE GOT SOME
EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAT WERE
SIGNED THAT WOULD PERHAPS
TESTIFY TO THE OPPOSITE OF
THAT.
>> AND YOU HEARD ABOUT THEM
IN CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS.
>> Jon: THAT'S PROBABLY
TRUE.
BUT YOU KNOW, THE
INTERESTING THING TO ME IS,
I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT.
YOU KNOW, REGULATION IS A
PROBLEM.
IT GETS TOO BUREAUCRATIC.
THEY NEED TO SIMPLIFY IT.
I THINK THEY HAVE
SUNDAYSTEIN WORK ON SOME OF
THAT.
IT SURPRISES ME THAT PEOPLE
CAN'T GET TOGETHER ON THAT
BUT WHAT'S MORE SURPRISING
TO ME, IS JUST LIKE WHAT YOU
SAID, WOULDN'T IT FREE UP
BUSINESSES MORE IF WE
DECOUPLE HEALTH CARE FROM
BUSINESS?
>> YES, ABSOLUTELY IT WOULD.
>> Jon: SO YOU ARE FOR
SINGLE PAYOR.
>> NO, I'M FOR-- I'M FOR
SAYING THAT THE FACT IS
HEALTH CARE AS A-- AN
EMPLOYEE BENEFIT IS AN
ANACHRONISTIC SYSTEM IT WAS
ADVISED TO GET AROUND WAGE
CONTROLS IT WAS IMPLEMENTED
AT A TIME WHEN SOMEONE MIGHT
GO TO WORK AT GENERAL MOTORS
AND WORK THERE FOR 25 YEARS.
NOW PEOPLE MOVE, YOU MOVE 8,
9 JOBS.
>> Jon: SO HOW CAN WE DO IT,
HOW CAN WE REMOVE IT.
>> I THINK IT SHOULD BE
BASED ON THE INDIVIDUAL.
YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO RISK
POOL OUTSIDE YOUR EMPLOYER.
ONE OF THE REASONS THAT
EMPLOYERS ARE SO
IMPORTANT-- .
>> Jon: LIKE AN EXCHANGE.
>> AN EXCHANGE, YEAH, I
WOULD MAKE A PRIVATE SECTOR
EXCHANGE.
YOU COULD HAVE A STATE
OPTION.
BUT THERE SHOULD BE MORE
FREEDOM FOR PEOPLE TO CHOOSE,
MAYBE IT'S YOUR ALUMNI
ASSOCIATION.
MAYBE IT'S YOUR PROFESSIONAL
ASSOCIATION.
BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO
RISK GOING ACROSS STATELINES
IN IN MY ESTIMATION AND WE
SHOULD MOVE THE DEDUCTION
FROM THE EMPLOYER TO THE
EMPLOYEE.
I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF
REFORMS THAT YOU COULD DO
THAT WOULD BE MARKET
ORIENTED THAT WOULD HELP
MAKE HEALTH CARE MORE
AFFORDABLE.
>> Jon: DO YOU THINK-- WHAT
SHOULD WE DO FOR VETERANS
WITH THEIR HEALTH CARE.
WHAT COULD WE DO FOR THEM.
SHOULD WE PRIVATIZE THAT AS
WELL.
>> I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD
PRIVATIZE.
I THINK THE GOVERNMENT HAS A
OBLIGATION, A RIGHTFUL
OBLIGATION TO OUR VETERANS
TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE
HEALTH CARE.
THERE ARE PROPOSALS THAT
WOULD SAY-- .
>> Jon: DO YOU THINK THEY
GET DECENT HEALTH CARE.
>> I DO, YEAH.
>> Jon: SO THE GOVERNMENT
PROVIDES THEM WITH PRETTY
DECENT HEALTH CARE.
>> YEAH, I'M NOT SAYING THAT,
YOU KNOW, THE GOVERNMENT
DOESN'T HAVE A ROLE IN
HEALTH CARE IT DOES.
BUT I DON'T THINK-- I THINK
WHAT YOU ARE SEEING IS A LOT
OF PEOPLE AS A RESULT OF THE
MANDATE THAT WAS IMPOSED BY
THIS BILL, IN PARTICULAR,
I'M NOT SAYING WE SHOULDN'T
HAVE HEALTH-CARE REFORM.
I'M SAYING THIS HEALTH-CARE
REFORM IS HAVING AN ADVERSE
IMPACT.
>> Jon: BUT YOU UNDERSTAND
WHAT I AM SAYING.
>> IT IS RAISING THE COST TO
EMPLOYEES.
>> Jon: THE KPLINT ABOUT
HEALTH-CARE REFORM IS YOU
GOT GOVERNMENT INVOLVED IN
HEALTH CARE AND THEN YOU
FLIP THAT AND SAY WELL
VETERANS DESERVE THE BEST
HEALTH CARE AND I THINK WE
HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO
PROVIDE IT FOR THEM.
AND IT DOES MAKE YOU WONDER,
WELL, RIGHT, WHY CAN'T WE
DECOUPLE HEALTH CARE FROM
BUSINESSES, ALLOW THEM THE
FREEDOM THEN TO HIRE IN A
BETTER WAY, BUT MAYBE SET UP
A SYSTEM SIMILAR TO WHAT WE
HAVE DONE FOR VETERANS.
MAYBE NOT TO THE SAME EXTENT
THAT WE DO, BUT THAT COULD
GIVE PEOPLE MAYBE THAT
PROTECTION.
>> A COUPLE THINGS.
FIRST OF ALL, THE VETERAN'S
HEALTH-CARE BENEFIT IS A
BENEFIT THAT ACCRUED TO
SOMEONE WHO SERVED IN
GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN OUR
ARMED SERVICES.
AND SHOULD BE-- .
>> Jon: I DON'T QUESTION.
>> BUT IF ARE YOU IN THE
PRIVATE SECTOR WHY WOULD YOU
WANT TO IMPOSE ON THEM THAT
THEY HAVE TO HAVE A
GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH-CARE
SYSTEM.
WHY NOT KEEP A PRIVATE
SECTOR SYSTEM, I'M NOT
SAYING.
>> Jon: YOU CAN KEEP A
PRIVATE SECTOR SYSTEM.
I'M JUST SAYING, THE
ARGUMENT HAS ALWAYS BEEN IF
YOU GET GOVERNMENT INVOLVED
IN HEALTH CARE THEY WILL
DESTROY IT.
IT'S SOCIALISM BUT WE DO IT
FOR A VETERANS AND WE DO IT
NOT PERFECTLY, BUT I WOULD
SAY PRETTY WELL.
AND WHY NOT PROVIDE THAT FOR
CITIZENS AT A LOWER LEVEL?
AND THEN ALLOW BUSINESSES
THE FREEDOM TO THEN HIRE
WITHOUT THAT BENEFIT.
>> BY THE WAY, I WOULDN'T
OPPOSE HAVING VETERANS ALSO
HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE A
VOUCHER THAT ALLOWS THEM TO
GO TO OTHER HOSPITALS OTHER
THAN VETERAN'S HOSPITALS IF
THEY WERE CLOSER TO THEIR
HOMES.
SO I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD
HAVE TO BE INSIDE AN ENTIRE-- .
>> Jon: PRIVATIZE IT.
>> I AM NOT SAYING PREVIOUS
ATIZE THE VA HOSPITALS.
>> Jon: DO YOU HAVE FIVE
MINUTES, SIX MINUTES.
WE'RE GOING TO GO TO THE
COMMERCIAL.
THE REST WILL BE UP ON THE
WEB.
THANK YOU FOR COMING BY, ED
GILLESPIE, AND THEN WE'RE
GOING