Sen. Cassidy: Biden tax hike won't come close to paying for infrastructure

close

Video

Sen. Cassidy: Biden tax hike won't come close to paying for infrastructure

Louisiana Republican discusses the president's multi-trillion dollar spending plan on 'Your World'

This is a rush transcript from "Your World," May 6, 2021. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

NEIL CAVUTO, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: The pork is back, lawmakers proposing about $6 billion worth of pet projects in a FOX News exclusive.

And it is coming, by the way, from both parties, whether it's millions for smartphones to track buses or close to half-a-million bucks for meditation and restorative yoga, millions more for pickleball and fitness circuits, nearly a million bucks for distance learning at a community college, just one college.

Not since the days of the shrimp on a treadmill -- I miss that shrimp -- have we seen pork barrel spending this out of control. The big question is, can we afford it? We decided, you know what, we're going to get into it.

Welcome, everybody. I'm Neil Cavuto, and this is "Your World."

And we keep track of all the money going in and going out. And a lot is going out right now. And the argument that we can cover it with new taxes for money coming in doesn't come close to covering all of this.

Hillary Vaughn in the Capitol keeping track of all these other little extra bits of spending that are already adding up into the billions of dollars.

Hillary.

HILLARY VAUGHN, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Neil.

Well, earmarks coming back to Capitol Hill means that the next budget bill could be served up with a big side of part -- of pork, because earmarks went away after some of the pet projects a decade ago were considered politically scandalous.

But, today, House Democrats are leading the comeback and promising to build back trust among taxpayers to foot the bill for special projects, convincing them that Congress should spend billions of taxpayer money on projects that not all taxpayers will get to benefit from.

That might be a challenge, because some of the requests already coming in are a little unique. One request from lawmaker Al Green in Texas, $6.4 million for a Gandhi museum. Another request, $400,000 to put toilets along a hiking and biking trail in Texas, and another $400,000 in Wisconsin requested for a cranberry research station.

But others putting -- other requests are more -- considered more politically scandalous by conservatives, who have concerns that they are pushing progressive priorities. One request, $742,000 for a program that features healthy discussions around difficult issues such as racism, gender discrimination, and cultural bias.

Over $160,000 requested for the development of an equity and inclusion program at Lincoln University in Pennsylvania, and also $2 million to revamp and remodel two Planned Parenthood facilities. But it is not just Democrats that are putting these requests in. Republicans are too. There is one request from Congressman Chris Jacobs in New York. He wants $1.2 million to pay for a trolley.

And one other request from Congressman Don Young in Alaska, $18 million to rebuild a fire station there. And, Neil, these requests are vetted. They are not automatically approved. And they're going to have to make the case to the House Appropriations Committee to convince them that they should be one of the pet projects that are approved, because there is not unlimited money for this -- Neil.

CAVUTO: You know what's interesting about what you have been reporting, and great reporting at that, Hillary, is that whatever you think of earmarks, they are really the down payment that a lot of these congress men and women get to vote on bigger legislation.

This is the cost of that vote. So, actually, when you look at all these measures that are out there, trillions of dollars' worth, this is the means by which you secure the votes for that stuff.

VAUGHN: Yes, Neil.

And what's also interesting is the case that Democrats have made for bringing back earmarks is, they think that the White House has held too much of the spending power. They want to put some of that power back in the hands of Congress and give them some more control over the purse springs -- purse strings and decide where the money, taxpayer money, is actually spent -- Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, great reporting, as always, Hillary Vaughn in the middle of all of that.

Now, let's keep in mind that the backdrop for all of this is the price of all of the stimulus measures that are out there for families, for kids, for infrastructure. It's all under huge umbrellas here, that, all combined, were originally priced at around $6 trillion.

We have since seen that, as people began crunching the numbers at Wharton and then other institutions, that it's actually closer to $7 trillion. Measures like this that bring back earmarks to support still more specialized spending bring it up and up and up.

Let's go to Kristal Knight, the Democratic strategist. We have got Kelsey Bolar joining us, the Independent Women's Forum, and Kelly Jane Torrance of The New York post.

Kelly Jane, the fact of the matter, when you add up these numbers pretty quickly, they obviously get bigger and bigger and bigger. And we realize that that's part of the way Washington goes. But when they're this big, they get eye-popping. What do you make of it?

KELLY JANE TORRANCE, NEW YORK POST: It's really incredible, Neil.

I mean, he's been -- President Biden's been in office a few months now. And he's already proposed over $6 trillion in new spending. And that's what his American Rescue Plan, his American Jobs Plan and his American Families Plan.

That doesn't even count his budget, which would see a $1.5 trillion increase over the current budget. So this is a lot of money we're talking about. And this, of course, is just as the economy is getting going again. There's not really any need for this kind of aid, maybe a year ago, when the economy was at a standstill, but now? No.

CAVUTO: Yes.

TORRANCE: And when you look at what the money's going to, especially in his new bills, it's going to create, I think, a lot of new unionized workers, who will be paying union dues, which will be spent to elect more Democrats.

I mean, just in his infrastructure bill, the first one, which isn't really an infrastructure bill, there's $400 billion for new home care workers under Medicaid. These people are represented by the Service Employees International Union, which, of course, supported Biden and spent millions to get him and other Democrats elected.

CAVUTO: Bottom line, it's a lot of money.

And we did want to update you on this $6 trillion figure. It actually is now a little bit over $7 trillion, because it is a moving and changing the target.

We're going to rifle through some of the more egregious things here. And, again, while it does seem to sort of focus on what's happening with this Congress, the fact of the matter is, this is a pattern that's built up steam, but now it is on steroids.

I told you about the smartphone push. That's -- you're talking three million bucks for that. The restorative yoga thing, you're talking #436,000 for that, the $2 million thing for pickleball, fitness circuits. I'm going to rifled through some of the others.

But, Kristal, as a Democratic strategist, and looking at this, I have to imagine that some Democratic candidates are getting worried, the closer we get to the election, that this is going to come back to bite them. What do you think?

KRISTAL KNIGHT, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, Democratic presidents have a history of helping this economy recover after a crisis.

We can look at Clinton during the '90s. His job creation -- his economic investments created over 22 million jobs in eight years. He invested in people, much like what President Biden wants to do, investing in community college and investing in early childhood education.

When we have a more educated work force, our work force is able to compete globally in the global economy. And that's absolutely what he wants to do. We can also look at FDR's plan during the New Deal. That plan, in its first implementation year, grew the economy by 10.8 percent. It also grew the economy in its second year by 8.9 percent.

So, spending absolutely works. It's -- there's a pattern of it. There's Democratic...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: No, no, you could be right on that.

But I would beg to differ with you, Kristal, that we were in a crisis, given some of the economic numbers we have been seeing over the last few months, some going back to periods that predate President Biden. The economy was really picking up steam, considerable steam post the pandemic, and it still is.

So, Kelsey Bolar, you could almost say, all right, whatever your views and politics on this, we can cease and desist, we can slow down, we can stop these trillions, and let's just see the impact of the money that has already been committed. What do you think?

KELSEY BOLAR, INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM: Absolutely.

I think Democrats are living in denial about how strong the Trump economy was performing just a few years ago, before the pandemic hit. We know the recipe to get us there. It's tax cuts. It's less regulation on business. And it's less government spending.

All the policies that President Biden is pursuing are taking the country (AUDIO GAP) direction. And I don't know if anybody saw the news this week, but U.S. birth rates are at a 40-year record low. We are below our population replacement level.

The revenue proposals that Biden (AUDIO GAP) the American Families Plan, for example, by $1.5 trillion, well short of what's actually needed.

CAVUTO: All right.

BOLAR: And now we're learning we're not going to have enough babies to pay off all this borrowed money.

CAVUTO: All right, well, as long as I can skate through, that's a problem for you guys, a younger generation.

But it is. It's looking dicey.

Guys, thank you very, very much for that.

We do want to bring you up to date on some other developments. Border crossings are already, as you know, at a 20-year high. But what I didn't realize is, deportations, they're at a record -- they're at a record low.

Why is that?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, border crossings are booming. But get a load of this. When it comes to deportations, well, they're not. They're at a record low. What gives?

Chad Wolf is the former acting DHS secretary.

Secretary, I have never seen a chasm like this in monthly data. What do you make of it?

CHAD WOLF, FORMER ACTING U.S. SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Well, Neil, what I will tell you is, I'm not sure that the numbers are altogether that surprising for those of us that follow this.

This is exactly what happens when you tie the hands of law enforcement. You're going to see arrests go down. You're going to see removals or deportations go down as well.

So, what the Biden administration did in really the early days of the administration back in January was to issue guidance to ICE law enforcement officials, really restricting them on who are the types of individuals that they can target for removal.

And so now, under that guidance, you essentially have to be a terrorist or a suspected terrorist, or you have to be a convicted felon, aggravated felon. And so, essentially, that takes about 80 to 90 percent of all of the targets off the table for ICE law enforcement officers.

And so you see the result of that in the data and the numbers that you just showed. Numbers and arrests and deportations are down across the board.

CAVUTO: Now, what's odd about this, there was a time, when Barack Obama was president, that some groups were calling him the deporter in chief and didn't like that the rate at which he was deporting those who crossed the border or were just at the border.

His vice president at the time supported that effort. Now he's president of the United States, but he is not continuing that effort. I wonder what you make of that.

WOLF: Well, a couple of things.

And I think what's most concerning is, obviously, we see the situation going on at the border, not enforcing the rule of law on the border. But now we are also seeing them not enforcing the rule of law in the interior of the United States, right?

These are individuals that ICE comes across, targets or comes into contact with. These are individuals that have no legal right to remain here in the U.S. And, in most cases, they have gone through a due process. They have gone before an immigration judge in most cases, and they have been ordered to be removed.

And so ICE is effectuating that order. And for the Biden administration and officials at DHS to simply tell them to ignore the law, it puts law enforcement officers in a very, very dicey situation, where they have to choose between their career and following that advice or adhering to the rule of law and what they signed up to do to enforce the law.

CAVUTO: We do know that the vice president, Kamala Harris, intends to go to Mexico, elsewhere, to get what she says is the start and what causes this, the root causes of this.

Part of that will involve giving potentially billions to that neck of the woods. I'm talking beyond Mexico and Central America.

WOLF: Yes.

CAVUTO: We don't know all the details yet, Secretary, but we know enough. A lot of money will be involved. And I'm just wondering whether that will do the trick.

Are you worried that will be good money after bad?

WOLF: Well, I'm certainly concerned.

And I think you certainly need to put a number of strings attached to that funding. You can't simply provide it to them without any of return on investment for the U.S. And that's what we did under the Trump administration. And we held them accountable for doing and implementing the things that they said they would do with that funding.

And at the end of the day, we were able to sign 12, 14 different security agreements with them. But that alone is not going to do it. And so the idea and the strategy that I'm looking at is, the Biden administration is encouraging Mexico and the Northern Triangle to do more to enforce their borders.

But yet they are not enforcing law on our Southwest border, on our own border. And that's concerning, that you're going to continue to see numbers that we saw in March and we see an April continue to come across that border if we don't actually enforce the rule of law on that border.

You can do all you want. You can you can provide funding to the Northern Triangle. But if you're not going to hold people accountable, those numbers are going to continue to come.

CAVUTO: All right, Chad Wolf, thank you very much, the former acting DHS secretary.

We have got a couple of other developments we're following, the whole job search issue for so many businesses, particularly fast food concerns, restaurants in general.

I want you to meet one who's decided to offer $500 bonuses to come to work for them -- after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: President Biden in Louisiana today.

He's trying to drum up support for his infrastructure plan, and he thinks he can woo the state's Republican senators, including Bill Cassidy, who was there to greet him.

Bill Cassidy is here next to say whether he's wooed him.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, you know, a lot of restaurants have had a devil of a time right now finding workers.

There are a variety of reasons, a lot of people who are extended benefits for whom going to work for someone, no matter what the pay, generally doesn't compete with those benefits, especially the federal add-ons.

Enter Cleve Mash, the PapiChulo Tacos co-owner in Palm Beach, Florida, who had a novel idea: How about if I pay you 500 bucks? Will you come then?

What kind of response is he getting?

Cleve, very good to have you.

Well, what kind of response are you getting?

CLEVE MASH, CO-OWNER, PAPICHULO TACOS: Thank you for having me, Neil. Big fan of the show.

Unfortunately, we offer the $500 bonus. And, at this time, we have only had two applicants come in to apply for it. And we did hire them, because we're so short on staff, we had no choice.

CAVUTO: Do you mind if I ask you, what do you pay an hour?

MASH: Well, it depends on the different jobs.

You know, we -- this -- we offer this for the back of the house, from line cooks to the dishwashers. It ranges from $13 an hour to 20-something dollars an hour.

Unfortunately, I'm a small business owner. And it just doesn't take a genius to realize that this is not a political issue. It's not a science issue. It's really an economic problem that needs to be fixed. And I'm not sure if the viewers understand that, with the Florida unemployment at $300, the federal government gives you $300. That is $600 pretty much tax-free.

So, in order for us to compete with the federal government and with the state, we would have to offer $18 an hour with -- in order to net the same amount. It just doesn't make sense, because we're competing with our own government. And these individuals aren't paying into the system.

This money is tax-free, where, if they were working, they would be paying their taxes into the system, which would help those who really need it.

CAVUTO: You know, when I crunched the numbers myself, Cleve -- it might differ in Florida -- so, if you have got state benefits, and you have got federal benefits on top of that, it would be the equivalent of earning over 21 bucks an hour.

Again, it is depending on the state. But the fact of the matter is, that's a lot to compete with for you. So, even the $500 bonus, tempting though it sounds, I can see why you're running into trouble people taking you up on it. So, what's your next step if this doesn't work?

MASH: Well, I mean, you can't blame individuals for wanting to stay home and collect the money.

We have created this -- this issue during a time when, obviously, we were going through a pandemic.

CAVUTO: Right. Right.

MASH: But the reality is, Florida is open for business. We are booming.

And there's two ways to fix this problem. I love what the governor of Montana did recently, when he stopped the federal aid. I think that's one way of solving this problem. The other way of solving the problem is number two, which would be to enforce the rules when it comes to unemployment, they you must go out and actually look for a job five times a week.

If they get offered a job, they must take the job. The unemployment benefits are for those people who cannot find a job, not for those who just don't want to work. And I think that's the big difference.

And people here in Florida, we're not lazy. They want to work, but it's got to make sense. If you're getting $600 for free, tax-free, why would you want to go to work for 40 hours a week? Whether you're making $100 more, you're still working the 40 hours.

CAVUTO: Yes.

MASH: So, it just -- it doesn't make any practical sense, doesn't make any common sense.

And I'm hoping that our great governor of Florida, he will look out for the best interests of everyone. And what's best for Florida, I think, is getting everybody back to work.

CAVUTO: Well, you have got a boom going on and booming business. So, the irony is, because of that boom, having workers to address it, you can't. So, you're in a catch-22.

Cleve Mash, please keep us posted on this. You have got a fight on your hands, but you have got a lot of loyal customers as well on a very good reputation.

I think, in the end, that will...

(CROSSTALK)

MASH: Thank you so much. I really appreciate you listening to me.

CAVUTO: No, thank you very much, Cleve. Thank you very much for that.

All right, in the meantime, do want to let you know about the president's trip to Louisiana today. He's trying to woo the state's two Republican senators, including Bill Cassidy.

I wonder how that -- how that worked. I will ask Senator Cassidy. He's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, President Biden with a delegation that included Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana.

He was in the state -- that was the president -- to drum up support for an infrastructure program, thinks he can win over Senator Bill Cassidy to support it, as well as the state's other Republican senator, John Kennedy.

Senator Cassidy kind enough to join us on the phone right now.

First of all, Senator, thank you for being here.

But how did it go when you were talking to the president?

SEN. BILL CASSIDY (R-LA): Very pleasant. The president's always nice.

One thing I made -- and he pitched his infrastructure plan. Of course, Republicans want to double the amount of money, and spend only about as fourth as much, so I think ours is the better plan. That wasn't the place to debate it.

But I think there's common ground. We can get infrastructure. We just think we have a better plan.

CAVUTO: All right, now, your plan, the overall plan, is a little bit north of $600 billion. It's targeted for infrastructure, infrastructure only.

Did you get any hint, Senator, from the president that he was open to that?

CASSIDY: I think the president mentioned some projects that may not be included in ours, but nothing was, like, non-negotiable.

And, again, our plan spends twice as much money and spends a quarter as much. We could add some things for energy, which he's concerned about, which so am I, and still have a more reasonable bill that would be less than 50 percent of what they're currently spending.

CAVUTO: There's a move in the middle of all of this to sort of recalculate all the president's initiatives, which, if you included for families and kids and education and infrastructure, was originally around $6 trillion, as you know, Senator, now north of $7 trillion, this with a backdrop with the House removing the ban on earmarks, or all but removing them.

This looks like a situation that could get out of control, just the spending part of it. What's going to happen?

CASSIDY: Hey, Neil, you think?

Already, we're seeing inflation, which, if annualized at its current rate, would be the highest inflation we have had in some time. So, I think the spending that they are contemplating, if it is for infrastructure, it'll be great.

If it is for something besides infrastructure and just floods the money, it floods the economy with more money, we're going to be battling inflation. That's why I think Republicans have a better plan we're targeting.

CAVUTO: All right, so when you talk about infrastructure itself, Senator - - and the president, obviously, and you and Republicans and Democrats in general are quite far apart. He's at the $2.25 trillion, $2.5 trillion mark on that, and you're at the $600 billion, $650 billion mark on that.

But if he were to push for a bipartisan deal that would urge Republicans to raise taxes to pay for that, and not user fees and some of these things that he says could not and wouldn't come close, would you be open to that?

CASSIDY: The taxes that he's talking about will not come close to it.

So, if you pare it down to a range in which Republicans find reasonable, I think you can do it without raising taxes. If you have to, let's talk about what taxes they are.

If you're speaking about what he's talking about, you're clearly going to have to raise taxes, and you still won't pay for it, which is one more reason why I think Republicans have a better plan.

CAVUTO: Senator, over in the House next week, they're debating the future of Liz Cheney. She could be out for speaking out against the president and the election and the big lie, as he calls it. She calls his response to it the big lie.

What do you think of that, if she's forced out of her job?

CASSIDY: However it is interpreted among the House members, it will be interpreted by the general public that she is being forced out because of her position on President Trump.

Now, there's about 25 percent of Republicans, according to a recent poll, that actually agree strongly with her. If we're going to appeal to everybody, those who support the president and those who don't, then we have -- they -- each side has to see their view at least listened to.

I support Liz, but I also think that, if we're going to win in 2022, we have to consider that very strongly.

CAVUTO: But some of your colleagues are very worried about the Trump wrath, and that to challenge him is to be done in by him. What do you think?

CASSIDY: I think that the only wrath we have to be concerned about is the wrath of voters who feel as if they are not heard.

If we hear, we will win, and parties are about winning. It's not about one person, even somebody such as former President Trump. It's about the individual voter. As I mentioned, there's about 25 percent of folks who strongly agree with Liz in the Republican Party.

They need to be heard too if we're going to do well in 2022.

CAVUTO: Senator Bill Cassidy, thank you very much for taking the time. We appreciate that.

CASSIDY: Thanks, Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, Senator Cassidy.

The great reopening continues across the country. That, you have heard. New York Broadway shows to resume this fall at 100 percent. So they say. If you want to see the Mets and the Yankees, 100 percent is OK there. Pretty soon, they will even separate those who've been vaccinated against those who have not.

Then there is Alaska, beautiful place to go, if you can go there, because certainly not on a ship, not on a cruise line. And, right now, for that state, it's getting pretty icy, and people are getting pretty angry.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, well, a lot of the big cruise lines are optimistic that they will be able to be back operating in business maybe later this summer.

No guarantee, by the way. The CDC has been inconsistent on that. But Alaska doesn't have a lot of time to waste. You see, the cruise season there is crucial, because it's good for all of about, what, four or five months tops, and time's running out right now. And there are no ships setting sail right now.

And doesn't Connell McShane know it, in the middle of all of that, what is normally a very busy port in Seward, Alaska -- Connell.

CONNELL MCSHANE, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: It is normally very busy, Neil.

And it's funny almost. Every day of the week, it seems like we do a story in some part of the country about the economic rebound. And even to your point, the cruise industry, maybe they get going by the summer in other parts of the country.

But here in Alaska, it's more complicated, the way the law is written. It states that foreign ships can't go directly between two U.S. ports. And because most of the cruise ships are registered offshore, they're considered foreign ships. They normally would make a stop in Canada, but they can't do that now because of COVID restrictions.

I spoke this week to Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski about the economic impact.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI (R-AK): If you look at the state of Alaska and our overall revenue loss from last year, we're number one, number one in the country. That's nothing to be proud of, over a 30 percent loss in revenue last year as a state.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MCSHANE: Now, in port cities like this one, Seward, where we are, the impact is obvious. It's severe.

Murkowski proposed a waiver to get around the cannabis stop, but her bill is still stalled in Congress. Even as you head inland, though, to Denali National Park, as an example, where we visited with a company called K2 Aviation, the cruise customers have left a big hole.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUZANNE RUST, OWNER, K2 AVIATION: We're getting a lot of independent bookings, and we're actually -- our independent bookings are up from 2019.

That won't replace all the cruise business by any stretch.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MCSHANE: And therein lies the problem. This is such a beautiful place to visit.

And you take a look here. It doesn't get much better than this. And although some people are willing to come in here by plane, the cruise business has just been the backbone of this area for so long. And so many small businesses rely on it.

It looks like they're going to have another tough summer with very little activity -- Neil.

CAVUTO: Amazing.

Connell, great reporting on this.

Connell McShane in Seward, Alaska. That guys has been all over the country, all over the world.

By the way, we will have the Norwegian Cruise Line holdings CEO, Frank Del Rio, on. This is the guy who led the effort to make sure that every passenger on board his ships, as well as everyone working on those ships, is fully vaccinated. He's been very aggressive at that. He has reminded the CDC about that.

And now signs that the CDC was impressed enough by that, that it's all but green-lighted cruises. His thoughts, at least in his neck of the woods for Norwegian, tomorrow.

All right, in the meantime, we have got Dr. Amesh Adalja joining us again from Johns Hopkins University.

Doctor, there is this sort of split read on when you can resume life, so to speak. Different strokes for different folks with regard to cruising and where and cities and how fast. And I'm just wondering if that is sending mixed signals to, like, the general public. What do you think?

DR. AMESH ADALJA, INFECTIOUS DISEASES SOCIETY OF AMERICA: There definitely is some mixed signals going on.

And what I think the most important point to remember is that, if you're fully vaccinated, if you have waited two weeks since your second dose of the Moderna or Pfizer or two weeks after your J&J dose, you really can reclaim your pre-pandemic life.

And I think that you have to remember that public health guidance is going to be cautious, it's going to take baby steps, but the steps are going to be in the right direction. And it's often going to lag what people are doing.

So, I tell my patients, even in my own life, to try and reclaim what you put on hold for over a year now that you're fully vaccinated. And I think you will see cities and states following suit as we get more people vaccinated, as cases fall, as we basically have removed the ability of this virus to threaten hospitals.

CAVUTO: You know, Doctor, I never want to look at some promising developments that just pooh-pooh them. All of these developments and the reopenings in the country are all great, great things, and I hope they continue.

Well, then I see what's going on in India, and I see what's happening in other countries where the spikes are happening, nothing like, obviously, the tragedy of India. And I wonder, is there any threat of those various variants coming here?

ADALJA: You have to assume that these variants are already here. All of them basically have been identified, including the variant in India. The 617 variant was found in Iowa.

But what's important to remember about the variants is, is that they might be more contagious, but when you're fully vaccinated, they still are not able to cause serious disease, hospitalization and death. And the solution to these variants is to vaccinate as fast and as broadly as you can.

And we need to get more people vaccinated in the United States, so that these variants don't pose a problem for us. I don't think they will, because we have got our high-risk populations so heavily vaccinated, but we want to get as high a vaccination level as possible, so that there's not even any concern about it, that there's still not disruption from these variants and the virus.

But we're really around about a third of the U.S. population fully vaccinated, I would like to see us get over 40 percent, just like Israel did, and then, hopefully, we'd see a precipitous decline in cases.

CAVUTO: Dr. Adalja, thank you very, very much, the Johns Hopkins University infectious disease specialist, Dr. Amesh Adalja.

All right, we have a lot more coming up, including what's happening right now with, well, voting laws that are taking effect, or they're pondering taking effect, in various states. You know the drill. Georgia comes up with one. Corporations pounce. Now Texas is coming up with one. Corporations pounce.

How far does the pounce go and who gets pounced?

After this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, you can almost time this like clockwork, right?

Texas getting down to the final throes here of a new voting measure, much like what we saw in Georgia, Florida also looking on the side at doing something like that to change the voting laws there. The immediate impression is, it's going to be limiting voting, it's going to be racist, and all of that. Companies pounce on that. Some of the companies then already saying that they do not like that.

They haven't seen anything that's coming out of Texas on this measure, much as they didn't really see out of Georgia. But, be that as it may, it's a familiar theme, where companies gather, make huge pronouncements. And then they have to live with the consequences. For a lot of these companies, it can be a backlash. A lot of people get annoyed they're weighing in to anything like this or to any issue like this.

Gianno Caldwell joins us, FOX News political analyst. We have also got Tom Bevan of RealClearPolitics, and Kristen Hawn, the Democratic strategist.

So, Gianno, let me begin with you.

We don't know all the details on what they're finally going to come up with in Texas. We do know that a lot of companies are making the case they don't like what they're hearing. What do you say?

GIANNO CALDWELL, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes.

And we're talking about 49 bills that have been filed this year over in Texas.

So, the truth be told, at this point, especially after Georgia, when companies see election integrity bills, they begin to make a fuss. And I don't even listen to them anymore, because, quite frankly, after Georgia and after the facts came out, and after people begin to raise how it wasn't, in fact, marginalizing to people or disenfranchising people, companies like American Express and others, they pulled back and said, hey, well, maybe everybody should just come to the table, which is something they should have at least said in the beginning or not said anything at all.

So, at this point, people are doing a lot of shouting and screaming, when there's no details to shout and scream about. Come to a compromise bill, because we have to protect our election integrity, and move on. This shouldn't be a partisan issue.

CAVUTO: It will be that, Tom.

I'm wondering what the corporate impact is, though, on the corporations that decide to take a stand. Depending on your point of view, it might be principled, it might not be, but there are ramifications for that as well. What do you think?

TOM BEVAN, CO-FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE EDITOR, REALCLEARPOLITICS.COM: Well, I think the ramifications could be significant.

I mean, you have already seen Republicans in Washington, Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, basically saying, hey, stay out of this, or we're going to stop supporting you, we're going to call for boycotts and the like. So, I think -- and you have certainly seen among conservatives boycotting companies and other things in response to this.

I agree with Gianno. It should not be a partisan issue. The problem is you have -- on one side, you have got the Democrats and the media and corporations that are literally resistant to any form, anything that would -- any sort of election integrity reform. They're saying -- framing it as if it's a right-wing effort to suppress the vote.

And a lot of these things, quite frankly, the public, overwhelming majorities of the public agree with, for example, having to show an I.D. to -- when you show up at the polls. That's not something that is a radical idea. It's embraced by much of the public, but even that is now seen in a partisan light.

CAVUTO: Kristen, it's often seen in a much harsher, racist light.

And I'm just curious. As a Democratic strategist, do you see a form of I.D. to vote as racist?

KRISTEN HAWN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I'm not necessarily hung up on that piece of it. I agree with the panelists earlier that there should be ways we can come together on this.

I think Texas, with some of the bills like S.B.7, went a little bit far, which allows poll watchers to film voters and limiting places -- and polling places in large urban communities.

To the corporate side of it, it's a very interesting thing to see, actually, because I have worked with a lot of Fortune 100 companies. And this isn't new. You saw Indiana with the kind of anti-LGBTQ stuff. There was some blowback there with some companies based in Indianapolis.

This isn't new. So, you have large companies with leaders and CEOs. And these large companies do good work. We have seen it through COVID. They do good work in their communities. They become more involved in, like, the social impact of what they're doing.

So, it's not surprising that not just their employees -- and some of these companies have tens of thousands of employees -- and their surrounding communities see them as leaders and want to see what they think about things like this.

So, a lot of these companies are seeing the pressure to do it, but...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Yes.

HAWN: ... step out and do it. So, I -- there are benefits and drawbacks. But I think that there are some benefits in speaking.

CAVUTO: No, I can see your point, Kristen.

I just wonder -- yes, I just wonder if it goes a step too far. And these companies that take harsh measures, like Major League Baseball pulling out of Georgia, out of Atlanta for the All-Star Game, whether, when they're found not to have actually read the bill at hand, that they leave first, read later.

And do they look, Gianno, in your mind like they're posturing too much, because it comes back to bite them?

CALDWELL: Yes.

I mean, what we saw after George Floyd is companies saw value in aligning themselves with these particular issues. They saw that if -- Uber Eats, for example, if they have a black-owned section in their Uber Eats, that black folks will go and they will support them. They see a marketing advantage to saying, hey, we spoke out.

Whether it be factually correct in terms of what they're speaking out or on or not, they see dollar signs.

CAVUTO: Yes.

CALDWELL: But the problem is, they're going to get folks that are going to say, I disagree with any company or this particular company speaking out, especially when the facts aren't the same.

And they're going to get backlash from this, especially as they continue to raise their voices on issues, and there's no facts even to discern. Especially in Texas, there's no bill that we're even negotiating at this point. There's 49 bills. Which bill are you talking about? What does it do? We don't know.

So that's the problem with companies jumping out and making a stink on something, when they know nothing about it.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Tom, I will raise this with you.

I do want to hear from you. I do want to hear from you, Kristen.

But I did want to get this other subject in. I want your reaction to this as well. But first to Tom, this comment we heard out of Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana on the Liz Cheney situation, and he regrets what's going on. He thinks a lot of Liz Cheney, that she shouldn't lose her leadership position. And she's worried about the party, the Republican Party.

What do you make of that? How bad a schism is this, Tom? How -- and how bad could this get?

BEVAN: Well, I don't know how dire it is.

And, certainly, it's always a situation when particularly Republicans are willing to criticize other Republicans. They become a big story, right? And Liz Cheney -- I think that's ultimately what this is about. It's less about her vote on impeachment. There were plenty of other Republicans who voted for impeachment. She didn't suffer any consequences from that.

But it really rankled her caucus, the way she went about that, by releasing a statement before the vote. And in subsequent weeks, instead of trying to sort of smooth things over, she just kept going out and kept criticizing Republicans. And I think that really rubbed folks the wrong way.

That's not what her job is as conference chair. And so she's not really doing the job that she's been elected to do there in the Republican -- as conference chair of the Republicans.

So, ultimately, I think that's what caused the schism that we're seeing now. But I'm not sure it's -- it's not as dire as it's being painted to be, as that this is some sort of schism that's going to split the Republican Party. It's not that.

CAVUTO: I just wonder. I mean, you talk about calling names. The president, it's fine for him to call names of Liz Cheney and all these others, Mitch McConnell and all, but it doesn't go the other way around.

That does confuse me.

But, Kristen, one of the things they talk about, the parties that have these divisions. Now, the Democratic Party is with that super progressive wing that's pushing up the cost of these programs, and even changing the president's view on bringing refugees into this country and making them citizens eventually, I'm just wondering, is that the Democrats' problem?

Because there are many who are looking at the midterms and saying, it's that that's going to cost us at the polls, that whatever Republicans are doing with -- whether they're the Trump party or not, that the Democrats have that to deal with. What do you think?

HAWN: We have a lot to deal with.

The one thing I was going to say is, like, to say that -- the assertion that the companies don't know what's in these bills, I just didn't agree with. So, sorry for the interruption.

But on -- we have a lot of challenges on the Democratic side going into the midterms. The messaging on the Republican side, we saw it, will continue to be that we're all socialists. That won't stop, no matter what we do.

I think you have always got the faction on the left of our caucus. There is a significant number of people in the middle. They're going to continue to fight for, I think, on the infrastructure package, a bipartisan compromise, because there's such narrow margins. The House isn't going to do anything that the Senate can't pass.

So, we have got a lot of challenges. Redistricting is going to be challenging for us in a number of different states.

CAVUTO: All right.

HAWN: So I wouldn't say it's just one thing.

We have got to get together our ground game again, now that COVID is passing. So, there's a lot of stuff, a lot of challenges we have ahead.

CAVUTO: All right, guys, final word on that. We will see.

Fighting just does seem to be systemic, though, in this country with the parties. I don't think it's an awful thing. It's an historic thing. It's actually kind of a routine thing.

That will do it here. We will see you tomorrow.

Content and Programming Copyright 2021 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2021 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.