This is a rush transcript of "Your World" on October 21, 2021. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

CHARLES PAYNE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Rounding the turn.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi signaling that they are -- quote -- "in the final stretch" on that massive social spending bill. The price tag might be coming down from $3.5 trillion, closer to $2 trillion. But let's face it, that is still a huge number.

And who's paying? Well, reports today that moderate Democrat Senator Kyrsten Sinema is saying no to a tax hike on businesses.

Coming up, we will talk to Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn about all of this and a growing crisis at the border.

Welcome, everyone. I'm Charles Payne, in for Neil Cavuto.

And this is "Your World."

To Peter Doocy at the White House with the very latest -- Peter.

PETER DOOCY, FOX NEWS WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Charles, this all fits together.

The White House wants a transformational human infrastructure package worth several trillion dollars, at the same time that the nation's supply chains are all backed up. So, a few minutes ago, I asked Karine Jean-Pierre in the Briefing Room how that's all going to work.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DOOCY: President Biden does not want to raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year.

But there's a new FOX poll that finds 83 percent of registered voters are noticing bills for groceries and everyday items increasing. So how is that any different than a new tax?

KARINE JEAN-PIERRE, WHITE HOUSE PRINCIPAL DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY: I will say this.

We're dealing with a historic and evolving pandemic that is impacting our economy, right? We have seen it for the past year-and-a-half. That's what people have been dealing with. And it is having an outsized impact on our global supply chain. This is why we're trying to pass the president's domestic economic policies.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOOCY: Behind the scenes, Democrats are trying to figure out what exactly can fit into a package roughly $2 trillion in size.

They claim, like she did there, that nobody is going to -- nobody making under $400,000 a year will see a nickel in new taxes. But Republicans doubt that that's possible, with Mitch McConnell going so far as to say he thinks this is just all about getting people hooked on government programs.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): If the game is to shrink the cost, start a whole lot of programs and claim that it doesn't really cost that much because they expire in a year or two, and the goal, of course, is that they all become so popular that we get them forever.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOOCY: A lot of what President Biden has said about these negotiations is happening off-camera, but he has been in Washington, D.C., for a long time. And something that he said against the backdrop of this process earlier today was very profound.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I know the progress does not come fast enough. It never has. And the process of governing is frustrating and sometimes dispiriting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOOCY: We had been hearing that tomorrow a framework for how many trillions of dollars Democrats want to spend, what exactly the money will go towards could be ready, but it doesn't sound like that's going to happen at this point -- Charles.

PAYNE: Peter, thank you very much.

So, if tax hikes are scrapped, who's going to pay for all of this?

Well, let's ask a GOP strategist Lauren Tomlinson, along with Sarah Norman, a former adviser to Kamala Harris.

All right, Lauren, where does it come from? Where -- we keep being told that it's going to be zero, that this will cost us nothing, adds nothing to the federal debt. And now, of course, if you can't tax corporations, where does the money come from?

LAUREN TOMLINSON, GOP STRATEGIST: Well, any time you have the big spending bill like this, and they say that it's going to be paid for, you only have a few options in the budget to actually make that happen.

You can reform entitlements and cut spending that way. You can cut federal programs and reduce the overall budget of the United States, or you can raise taxes, or a final one, implement fees.

There's a lot of small provisions within this bill as it currently stands that would result in tax increases for people under $400,000, things like tobacco hikes or additional taxes in various provisions, that would result not in the big top-line corporate tax hikes, but lots of smaller cuts that are really going to impact Americans' budget at the end of the day.

And they may not even notice how much it creeps up. And that's where we have to be careful when we're looking at these proposals or this new framework that comes out of whatever negotiations the White House is having right now.

It's not only, what are those big numbers that they're going to be selling, but also what are the smaller provisions that are going to result in a lot of small tax hikes for the American people?

PAYNE: You know, Sarah, Ronald Reagan once said that, with respect to government, if it moves, tax it.

It looks like now, if it doesn't move, tax it. We're hearing about unrealized gains being taxed, buybacks being taxed. I mean, it looks like anything's going to be taxed, assets that aren't necessarily put in the bank just yet.

Is there any limit to where this can go?

SARAH NORMAN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Yes.

And I have to disagree with you a little bit. Yes, it is correct that no one who makes below $400,000 will be taxed an extra nickel. It's more heavily people way above $400,000. And, remember, billionaires have made trillions of dollars during the pandemic, while the rest of America has been suffering, and we should tax them higher.

And I'm not sure if everything that Biden wants in the tax bill will be passed, but it will help this country, not just what was said earlier about social welfare programs, but everything else that we need to pay for, including our debt.

PAYNE: You do realize that we are right now, at this very moment, cashing in on record amounts of revenue for the federal government with the current tax system. We are setting brand-new records every single quarter.

Massive amounts are flowing into the government. Why not just leave the word is?

NORMAN: Well, I mean, I could ask you, do you think right now that income inequality is fair in America? Do you think that this is the best we can do?

I mean, it's...

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: Well, you are asking a question. And I don't want to digress too much, but I'll answer it.

Income inequality is awful, especially in blue cities and blue states, where you have a lot of taxes and a lot of regulations and poor educations. So, yes, I think that's an issue. But I don't think the tax policy can change that. Our education system could and maybe lower taxes, where everyone's got a chance to start a business and succeed.

And, by the way, if I'm the first person in my family to ever have a legitimate shot at making money, don't take it from me when I die, so that my heirs got to start from scratch. That's my answer.

Let's go to another topic.

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: No, I got another thing for you that you're going to love, Sarah and Lauren.

There's a new poll I saw today. By the way, it's from a liberal college; 52 percent of Americans believe that democracy is facing a major threat. Only 7 percent of folks had high trust in the government, 14 percent for the Democrats.

So, again, let me start with you, Lauren. What do you think? I mean, to me, this is a mind-boggling thing. Again, it's from it's from a 150-year-old liberal college. They do this great work. And it just says to me that Americans are concerned about where this country is going.

TOMLINSON: Yes, absolutely concerned.

And it actually tracks closely with another Pew study that they release every year that says the same thing, that Americans have been slowly losing faith in federal officials, in our federal government for the last 70 years, really, ever since Jimmy Carter.

And it's a disturbing trend, because you really can't have democracy without trust in the systems, trust in democracy...

PAYNE: Right.

TOMLINSON: ... and the fact that the federal government can come together and solve big problems.

And so I think it's concerning. I also think that it's concerning that people have lost so much faith in the news media. And that's something that we need to address as well, people's faith in the information that they're getting is true. And that's something that we all have to come together and work on as a society.

PAYNE: Well, I'll say pox on the news media.

Here's another thing, Sarah. I'm going to give you the last word, but I'll toss this one in too. The thing they say, that people should be free, absolutely free to do, you know what was number one? Become wealthy.

So where's this country going? People want to become wealthy. They don't hate the rich, but they are distrustful of government.

NORMAN: Yes, our country's super distrustful of government. And that poll saying that only seven Americans -- 7 percent of Americans have high levels of trust in the federal government makes complete sense.

I mean, that was Republicans' entire plan. Trump lost and then spent the next year whining like a kid on the playground: I didn't lose. It was unfair. Don't trust it.

And, eventually, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you hear enough, it wasn't fair, don't trust it, you start to have your doubts.

So it's no surprise that this is trending with less trust in our federal government. But I agree we absolutely need to address this.

PAYNE: Well, we got to get to Washington, D.C., for some major news.

But now President Biden has a chance to fix that. So far, it's not so well.

Ladies, thank you both very much.

NORMAN: Thank you.

PAYNE: Again, folks, right now, the House voting to hold Steve Bannon in criminal contempt of Congress.

Bannon, as you know, refusing to comply with a subpoena to appear before the January 6 committee.

Chad Pergram is following a story on Capitol Hill. And he joins us now -- Chad.

CHAD PERGRAM, FOX NEWS CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good afternoon.

Well, the vote is still open right now, but the House, in essence, has voted to hold Steve Bannon in contempt of Congress. The vote right now is 228 yeas to 202 no's. There are nine Republicans who have voted with the Democrats to hold Steve Bannon in contempt.

A congressional contempt resolution goes to the DOJ. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MERRICK GARLAND, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: If the House of Representative vote -- Representatives vote to refer a criminal contempt matter to the department, we will review it and act according to law and the facts, as the principles of prosecution require.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PERGRAM: But congressional powers enforcing subpoenas are limited.

Congress could compel reluctant witnesses to testify via something called inherent contempt. Congress used to enforce subpoenas on its own.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SARAH BINDER, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: There doesn't seem to be a lot of stomach in Congress for actually try, in a way, to haul -- send out the sergeant of arms, arrest Steve Bannon, bring them to the House and throw him in jail. Where would you throw him?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PERGRAM: The GOP says Democrats are focused on the wrong things.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MICHELLE FISCHBACH (R-MN): A legitimate legislative purpose would be issuing subpoenas to the leaders of the D.C. National Guard and sergeant at arms.

I'm deeply concerned about the precedent being set here today by the majority, yet again embarking on another investigation in search of a crime.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PERGRAM: Now, so far, nine GOP members have voted to hold Steve Bannon in contempt. Those Republicans may be those who supported the creation of the 1/6 committee and those who voted to impeach former President Trump earlier this year -- Charles.

PAYNE: Chad, thank you very much.

Attorney General Merrick Garland is in the hot seat in Washington today on Capitol Hill, with lawmakers going after the multiple controversies that DOJ is facing. And, well, let's just say they had plenty of sparks, and they were flying.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GARLAND: This memorandum is aimed at violence and threats of violence.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I understand your talking point. You're not answering my question, Mr. Attorney General.

With all due respect, will you submit to an ethics review of this matter, yes or no?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: Tensions flaring today on Capitol Hill, Attorney General Merrick Garland facing questions on everything from rising crime to his controversial school board memo.

FOX Business' -- FOX News' own David Spunt at the Justice Department with more -- David.

DAVID SPUNT, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Charles, this hearing went on today for more than five hours. It took only about 10 minutes or so before Republicans and Democrats began arguing in public about playing a video that Republicans wanted to show dealing with school boards.

It's all about this October 4 memo put out by Attorney General Merrick Garland to the FBI, to other law enforcement agencies. It directed the FBI, Charles, to investigate threats to school board employees and others. Many parents have worried they are being labeled as -- quote -- "domestic terrorists."

Republicans today multiple times said the Patriot Act is being used in the aftermath of September 11 attacks, may be used at the school board meetings. But today was Garland's first time addressing this issue on camera directly.

His message to parents, plain and simple, those speaking up at school board meetings, do not worry unless you get physically violent or threatened someone. Listen to the attorney general.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GARLAND: The Justice Department supports and defends the First Amendment right of parents to complain as vociferously as they wish about the education of their children, about the curriculum taught in the schools.

That is not what the memorandum is about at all, nor does it use the words domestic terrorism or Patriot Act. Like you, I can't imagine any circumstance in which the Patriot Act would be used in the circumstances of parents complaining about their children, nor can I imagine a circumstance where they would be labeled as domestic terrorism.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SPUNT: Charles, the memo does use the phrase other forms of intimidation and harassment a couple of times, does not specifically give a definition there.

But the DOJ's message, including the top law enforcement officer here, parents, don't worry, but if there is a threat of violence, law enforcement may get involved -- Charles.

PAYNE: David, thank you very much.

The migrant surge at the border another big issue coming up at today's hearing. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. TOM MCCLINTOCK (R-CA): It is a federal crime to cross the border outside of a port of entry, is it not?

MERRICK GARLAND, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes, it's a misdemeanor. That's true.

MCCLINTOCK: Well, your job is to prosecute federal crimes. How many have you actually prosecuted of that 1.7 million?

GARLAND: So the Justice Department doesn't make those arrests. Those are made by Homeland...

MCCLINTOCK: No, no.

But the Justice Department is responsible for prosecuting them. How many are you prosecuting?

GARLAND: I don't know the answer to that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAYNE: Well, that question coming from my next guest, California Republican Congressman Tom McClintock.

Well, it's been a little bit of time since you asked that question. Did they get back to you with that answer yet?

MCCLINTOCK: No.

And I suspect the reason is because the answer is they're not prosecuting the 1.7 million who've illegally crossed our border. It's a misdemeanor to cross the border outside of a port of entry, but it's a felony to cross after you have been deported.

And I don't think they're prosecuting any of that. The fact of matter is, he doesn't know and doesn't seem to care. And that's what I find particularly galling, particularly after the news of yesterday, where we have now have had more illegal crossings this year than in the entire history of our country.

PAYNE: And, if they're not going to be prosecuted people obviously -- I mean, it's a deterrent, right? We know that's what it's all about.

And if that's not going to be a deterrent, then, certainly, it's the equivalent of putting up a welcome mat and a welcome sign.

MCCLINTOCK: If you don't enforce your immigration laws, you have no borders. And if you have no borders, you no longer have a country. We simply become a vast international territory between Canada and Mexico, both of which, by the way, do have immigration laws they really enforce.

PAYNE: It was obviously a pretty passionate hearing, to say the least.

What are some of the other things, some of the more important issues that the folks who didn't get a chance to watch need to understand about today?

MCCLINTOCK: Well, he seemed to be totally disconnected from reality. He knew nothing about the storming of the Interior Department here in Washington a few weeks ago or the Loudoun County father who was arrested as he protested the board of education covering up the rape of his daughter.

He didn't know about the president's executive order that forbids ICE from enforcing court order deportations. He knew nothing of the prosecutions for illegally crossing the border or hiring illegal aliens, which is also unlawful under federal law, or overstaying visas.

It reminded me of John Banner's character Sergeant Schultz, who kept himself out of trouble by being very sure that he knew absolutely nothing about anything.

(LAUGHTER)

MCCLINTOCK: That was the impression I got from this guy. And I think it was disingenuous, to say the least.

PAYNE: Yes. Yes, I'm chuckling, although it's not a laughing matter.

Neither is this whole thing with the parents who are very concerned about what their kids are being taught and the memo that went out. I like the word he used, vociferously, with respect to people having these rights, but it is nebulous to a degree.

The memo was up for interpretation. And, essentially, you can conflate parental concern and turn those parents into -- and suggest that maybe a passionate concern, someone else may say, hey, I was threatened or I felt threatened by that. And that can trigger a whole lot of things that nobody wants to happen.

It's just -- why should -- why did the DOJ weigh in on this in the first place?

MCCLINTOCK: Oh, I think for the same reason the IRS under Obama went after the Tea Party 10 years ago, to intimidate people from joining in, to chill speech that they don't agree with.

Here's the basic problem. The attorney general says, well, don't worry, we're only talking about violence or the threat of violence.

PAYNE: Right.

MCCLINTOCK: But the parents I have talked to are concerned, if they even go to a school board meeting and a fight breaks out, suddenly, in the middle of the night, they're going to get a knock on the door from the FBI or see their house surrounded by a SWAT team.

PAYNE: Sure.

MCCLINTOCK: That's happened with the -- with a lot of folks who came to Washington January 6 just to hear the president speak, and now been hunted down because a group decided to storm and break into the Capitol Building.

PAYNE: We're getting tight here on time, but I have to squeeze this in, breaking news, the vote on holding Steve Bannon in contempt.

Your thoughts on that?

MCCLINTOCK: Well, the Congress' authority to subpoena is -- there's no check on it.

If -- any other subpoena, a prosecutor has to go to a court, show probable cause to believe that a crime has occurred. Then they get the subpoena. Congress doesn't have that sort of a check. So, that's why its investigatory powers are very limited. It's limited to oversee the operations of federal agencies.

It has the authority to investigate matters to inform its own legislative powers. But the courts have consistently ruled Congress has no authority to investigate criminal matters or to investigate just for the sake of investigating...

PAYNE: Right. Right.

MCCLINTOCK: ... to find out who did what to whom.

PAYNE: We...

MCCLINTOCK: And that's what the members of this committee have said they're doing.

It's clearly beyond Congress' constitutional authority. And I'm sure it'll get thrown out in the courts.

PAYNE: Representative McClintock, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Meanwhile, In-N-Out, well, they have got a beef with vaccine mandates. The iconic burger chain, let's just say they're fired up. And we have got the dish coming right up.

And the ship still hitting the fan at America's logjammed ports. And doesn't our William La Jeunesse know it? He's camped at the Port of Los Angeles -- coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: A border crisis that isn't going away, with FOX News learning tens of thousands of migrants could be crossing into America any day now.

Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn is coming up.

And we will be back in 60 seconds.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: Holy ship.

You are looking live at the Port of Los Angeles, where a shipping backlog doesn't look like it's going to end anytime soon. Now, one state is looking to help out when it comes to this port mess. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. RON DESANTIS (R-FL): We in Florida have the ability to help alleviate these logjams and help to ameliorate the problems with the supply chain.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAYNE: Well, my next guest is a major player in the Sunshine State's port industry.

Michael Rubin is the CEO of the Florida Ports Council. And he joins us now.

Listen, everybody else is going to Florida, right? You have got all of America, small business, medium business, Wall Street. Why not the ports? It does seem like a logical choice.

MICHAEL RUBIN, CEO, FLORIDA PORTS COUNCIL: Absolutely.

That's what we're trying to tell everybody, that Florida can be your pier to the world. Investments that Governor DeSantis and certainly secretary of our transportation, Kevin Thibault, and our port leadership have made in this state, we're ready to handle a lot of those containers that can come through here in the state of Florida, not only hit the third largest domestic market in the country, but within one to two days, you can move that cargo into the Midwest and the Upper West areas.

PAYNE: Yes.

RUBIN: So, we're ready.

PAYNE: Yes.

RUBIN: We want to show why we're the better location than trying to stuff everything through California.

PAYNE: Yes, we know already that we're hearing that some of these ships now have been docked outside the California coast longer there than it took for the voyage all the way from China or Vietnam or wherever they came from.

So, certainly, whatever time it might have taken for them to go to Florida would seem like a bargain. What are the obstacles right now? I would suspect you have got political obstacles and maybe some infrastructure obstacles and things like that.

RUBIN: Well, there's also some long-term contracts over there.

And, really, we're trying to get them to change not only those contracts, but their mind-set. And you're absolutely correct. They're used to take that short route from Asia over to California. It doesn't work so well when that short route means you're sitting off the coast for three weeks to over a month now.

It'll take you seven days, if you're going through the Panama Canal. There's also now shipping lanes, a number of shipping companies going through the Suez Canal to bring product to Florida. So it is a little bit political. But it is about changing that mind-set.

Instead of using that old route you may have been used in since the 1970s, look at a new option. Look to -- look at Florida. We have been building the capacity here. And we certainly have a -- as the governor put it on Tuesday, not only are the ports ready to work with you, but we got trucking companies, we got labor, and we have got any terminal operators out there.

Some of them have moved over from other areas over in the West Coast as well. So it's a different business climate in Florida as well. We're willing to work with you to move your product to its final location.

PAYNE: Earlier this year, there was a bidding war for Kansas City Southern rail.

I bring that up because they actually had -- they actually go into Mexico and Panama, and everybody wanted a piece of that action. That's where it's all is. And it just tells me -- it tells us that things have shifted. You do have some now action moving to some other ports outside of California.

RUBIN: Yes.

PAYNE: And I look now. You have got the Port of Tampa, the Port of the Everglades, Port of Jacksonville, of course, the Port of Miami number 10.

So it seems like it's a logical call. Have you had anyone kick the tires yet, any major companies start to say, hey, we will take a look at this?

RUBIN: Well, the governor made the announcement in Jacksonville because Hapag-Lloyd announced that they were moving some of the European shipping lanes to Florida for -- because of this crisis.

Port Everglades got two major lines coming out of the Suez Canal going there. So we're seeing the initial kicking of tires. That's a good way to put it. And then we have to prove ourselves, obviously, to those companies out there.

They have seen Florida as the end of the road for back 10, 20 years ago. We're proving to them now that we're the beginning of the road, and Florida can be the pier to the world.

So it's just a matter, again, of changing that mind-set. You're absolutely right. It is a competitive market out there. But they need to look at it, not only -- again, not only to bring product to Florida, if that's where you're going to it, but we can also provide that movement of that discretionary cargo to the Midwest and the Upper West area as well.

And we will continue to invest in our infrastructure.

PAYNE: Yes, I got 30 seconds. Let me just throw thing at you -- 30 seconds.

The composition of business in this country, this whole port thing and also what happened with America during the COVID crisis, when we didn't have access to emergency things, emergency items, feels like this is a great opportunity to build the distribution centers, warehouses, bring back manufacturing.

I mean, that to me, in an area like Florida that's growing like crazy, also seems like an amazing part of your story.

I mean, the entire infrastructure of this, from the ships to the warehouses, to the distribution centers, it just seems like a layup to me. I think you are going to be very successful.

RUBIN: We appreciate that.

And I think there's a history in Florida in the international business market. I'm down here in Miami today, which is -- really has been the center of international relations and businesses for the entire Caribbean and Latin American market.

PAYNE: Yes.

RUBIN: So we agree. Florida is the place to conduct business.

PAYNE: Yes. All right, Michael, I got to let you go.

But good luck with it all.

RUBIN: Thank you, Charles.

PAYNE: Obviously, it's a golden opportunity for everyone. We will talk again real soon.

In the meantime, folks, Democrats looking to lower the price tag and reach some sort of an agreement on that social spending bill. Will Republicans be on board if it cost, let's say, $2 trillion?

I will ask Texas Senator John Cornyn. He will tell us. He's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: Democrats looking to lower the price tag for their social spending bill to around $2 trillion.

So, how will Republicans react? And what happens if it's still tied to that $1.2 trillion infrastructure spending bill?

Let's ask one of those Republicans. Texas Senator John Cornyn joins me now.

Senator, first, the new price tag, between $1.7 and $2 trillion, is that low enough? Does that start to whet your whistle a little bit?

(LAUGHTER)

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): Well, pick a number, any number.

It started at 6. And then it came to 3. Manchin said no, 1.5. I mean, this is not just about spending money, although it is about spending money. This is about a plan for the Democrats to transform our country, permanently change our tax system, and turn us into a European welfare state.

So, there's a lot embedded in this. And the strange thing is, the bill hasn't even been written yet. So, the Congressional Budget Office can't score it. We don't really know what's in it, other than just some general outlines.

PAYNE: So, in the meantime, I am getting word now, according to sources who are familiar with the situation, that now, apparently, Senator Sinema has agreed to a tax provision to pay for President Biden's spending package.

We know we started today with sources saying she was against higher corporate taxes, and an array of ideas were thrown out there, taxing assets, unrealized gains, stock buybacks.

I know, obviously, this news is sort of breaking, but you know what must be going on with the negotiating process. What could -- what do you think we're at right now there?

CORNYN: Well, there's a lot of crazy ideas out there, like taxing unrealized capital gains, for example, a lot of problems with that, trying to figure out, OK, if you have a capital loss, do you get your money back, or do you get to take a deduction, and just the administrability of something like that.

But this is a search-and-destroy mission for more revenue to grow the size of government. They're not particularly concerned with the technical -- technicalities of how they get the money. They just want more of it.

But, at the same time, they want to do things like take your tax dollars and subsidize rich people buying electric vehicles, for example. They want to eliminate the cap on state and local tax deductions, which has created a level playing field across the country. Essentially, by removing the cap, want to subsidize millionaires and billionaires in blue states.

PAYNE: Right.

CORNYN: So, it's a real hodgepodge. And it's hard to know, from the outside, where they really are or whether this is just part of the rumor mill.

PAYNE: Yes, the average, by the way, tax benefit for the rich on the SALT would be $25,000, the E.V. vehicles at least $13,000, $15,000. And then, of course, let's not forget the student loans, which is another big gigantic - - it could be up to $50,000.

So, the Biden administration, though, apparently now backing down and changing this proposal on the IRS, right? We started at $600. And this is, by the way, accumulated action in bank accounts. It's not a one-time transaction.

Now they're saying, OK, if we go up to $10,000, that's a great way to make sure Jeff Bezos is paying his fair share. I mean, is that still too much money for it in terms of for the average American out there? It feels like it's an excuse to snoop on everyone.

CORNYN: Well, I think they have gotten huge backlash by getting their hand caught in the cookie jar.

We all report our income to the IRS. But we're also guaranteed or should be guaranteed some privacy about our personal financial activities. Now they want to know how you spend your money, not just how you earn your money.

And, to your point, they're talking about cumulative payments over a period of time. And it's easy to see that let's say you pay $1,000 on your mortgage or your rent each month. Then, eventually, that's going to add up to now the $10,000 cap they're talking about.

But I think it's a bad idea, no matter what the figure is.

PAYNE: So more details on Senator Sinema.

Again, this is from sources. Apparently, there's going to be four areas of revenue category, international domestic corporations. We know about that international tax hike. High net worth individuals. And this fourth one kind of worries me, tax enforcement.

It's along the lines of what we just talked about, the idea of $40 billion to raise an IRS army, and ostensibly to go after Jeff Bezos. But we know, again, if you unleash that on the American public, A, I don't think they will ever raise the kind of money they're saying they will raise, but I think it actually could discourage a lot of people.

CORNYN: Well, I think you're right in terms of the size of the army that they want to hire to go after American taxpayers.

But, to me, one of the things I find most offensive about this reporting requirement, first at $600, now at whatever, $10,000 cumulatively, is, essentially, they're assuming that Americans are guilty of tax evasion until proven innocent.

And it's just -- to me, it's a reversal of what we have always enjoyed as private -- privacy rights...

PAYNE: Right.

CORNYN: ... the requirement that law enforcement obtain a subpoena through a neutral third party or a search warrant showing probable cause.

This really puts civil liberties on its head.

PAYNE: It really does. It's tough in so many ways.

Senator, thank you very much. And thanks for working with us on this news that was just breaking. We appreciate it.

CORNYN: Thanks, Charles.

PAYNE: Well, think voters aren't worried about inflation? Think again. And guess what? Democrats in Washington might be worrying too.

We will explain next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: From sticker shock to a shock poll.

New numbers from FOX News showing just about nine out of 10 voters are either extremely or very concerned about inflation. Is that a problem for Democrats in the upcoming 2022 midterms?

Well, let's get the read from Susan Crabtree of RealClearPolitics.

The number absolutely shocking, although it's hard to imagine that it would be any different. Anyone who steps outside, steps into a store or gets any guests, they know. This is crushing Americans, isn't it, Susan?

SUSAN CRABTREE, REALCLEARPOLITICS: It's absolutely true, Charles. It's great to be with you again.

It is a -- what I'm calling the network Democrats' catch-2022. They have this big moment, this window of opportunity to pass all this legislation, this big spending, social spending projects, to the $2 trillion -- the tune of $2 trillion about. That's what we're talking about lately.

And yet they're not connecting this to the rise of inflation, the increasing prices that consumers are seeing at the pump, the largest gas prices in California history at the pump right now. The last time there was a record high was 2012, when it was the Obama administration again, yet they're not connecting this.

So they're living in sort of this just sort of fantasyland. But you had the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco today, or this week, come out and say these two are definitely connected.

PAYNE: Sure.

CRABTREE: The Democrats $2 trillion COVID relief bill passed earlier this year without any Republican votes did stoke this inflation.

PAYNE: Yes, I mean, we had three major COVID bills, the direct money, the direct money; $867 billion, that last chunk that you just referred to, 50 percent was spent down on bills; 30 percent of it was saved.

What happens after that? You go out, and if you want to spend money, it doesn't matter. You know, someone sent you the check. If you don't want to go back to work, it doesn't matter. You have got money in the bank. They created their own problems.

So maybe they do know about it, Susan. They don't want to talk about it. But then now here's the problem. The public knows. Did you see that CNN poll last week? About 25 percent of folks said that if both of President Biden's spending plans are passed, it would help their families, but over 30 percent said it would harm their families?

You're on the political beat. You understand this. Some Democrats must be murmuring or worried about this in private.

CRABTREE: Well, absolutely.

You have had the NRCC. The Republican Congressional Campaign Committee has been running ads hitting vulnerable Democrats on this since July 4. And you have had a private memo come out shortly thereafter saying these are some of the most effective ads that the Republicans have run and that the Democrats need to come out and talk about the benefits of passing the Build Back Better plan.

And that's why you see Joe Biden doing that right now. But it is a definite disconnect, because you had the deputy White House press secretary today when she was asked why Biden's poll numbers are plummeting on the economy, she just kept saying that they're trying as hard as they can and they believe that more spending is the answer to get us out of this rut and in this -- in spiking inflation.

PAYNE: Yes.

CRABTREE: So it's really -- she really was stumped on that. And it wasn't a great answer.

PAYNE: No.

CRABTREE: And most of the press corps was still questioning it as they were leaving.

PAYNE: Yes, the irony is, most folks now don't trust government spending, down to 19 percent.

So, we're hearing now rumors it may be a $2 trillion deal. Apparently, maybe Senator Sinema is on board. So, no matter what, despite what the polls say, they're still going to ram this down -- they're still going to run this through, aren't they, Susan?

CRABTREE: Well, you still have Joe Manchin out there.

And I heard it described as like a nine sort of piece teeter-totter. One time -- if somebody -- one Democratic priority goes down in the dirt, another one goes up. It's just -- it's really difficult to figure out if they can make their deadline. They have an October 31 deadline to figure out whether they can get a reconciliation deal passed.

And you had Joe Manchin just a couple days ago, there were threats that he was going to jump ship and join the Republican Party. He quickly tried to put those out.

PAYNE: Yes. Yes.

CRABTREE: So, I'm not -- it's not clear right now;.

PAYNE: Well, he shot those guys down in a Joe Manchin kind of way, the way the American public is shooting down all these plans.

Susan, thank you very much.

So, In-N-Out burger throwing jabs, this after San Francisco shut down its location for not checking that customers got a jab. Now, when it comes to vaccine mandates, has the government bitten off more than it can chew?

Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: San Francisco is on the outs with In-N-Out, the city temporarily shutting down one of the burger chain's restaurants for not checking if customers were vaccinated.

Now, the company put out a statement reading in part: "In-N-Out Burger strongly believes in the highest form of customer service. And, to us, that means serving all customers who visit us and making all customers feel welcome. We refuse to become the vaccination police for any government."

So, are vaccination mandates just another added business -- burden for businesses?

Slapfish restaurants founder and chief executive Andrew Gruel joins us, along with FOX Business' very own Kennedy, here to weigh in.

Andrew, you operate these restaurants out there. You were an amazing force during the pandemic last year helping your fellow restaurants stay open. You know, the vaccination police, this is a real thing. How are you handling this?

ANDREW GRUEL, SLAPFISH RESTAURANTS: Yes, that's a great question.

And, look, I go back to this idea of the law of the hammer, right, and in this case kind of kind of Maslow's principle here. The government's got one tool, and that's the mandate, right? That's the hammer. And to them, everything looks like a nail. They want to manage. They want to operate this by virtue through the mandate.

And every single business is different. It's unique. There's different situations, different scenarios. You have got fast casual, full-service, casual businesses just in the restaurant space. You can't manage this with one fell swoop, one large mandate.

It's dangerous to the business and it's dangerous to the employees. And as what we have seen here with In-N-Out is that they have taken a stand and it's important. The irony, I think, is that they have done it in San Francisco, and you can actually go in and steal a Double-Double and not get in any trouble, but if you don't show your vaccine card, then you're going to get arrested.

(LAUGHTER)

GRUEL: So, $950 worth of Double-Doubles and you're walking off scot-free.

PAYNE: Kennedy, yesterday, Chili's, the parent company, Chili's, reported, and they don't have enough workers. The stock got hammered. They can't fulfill orders.

And imagine having to hire someone. A regular person is not going to want to do that job. You got to ask people for this. And then they get upset. I mean, it's a dangerous -- to Andrew's point, it's also dangerous gig, and it's expensive for the restaurants.

KENNEDY, FOX BUSINESS ANCHOR: It is.

I mean, you have seen some of the assaults in San Francisco. And to chef Gruel's point, you're not going to get arrested for any of them. But there are giant homeless guys beating up female cops. It's become a very dangerous place.

And we have seen all the mask fights on airplanes. So, yes, there are businesses who are like, we don't want to deal with that in our restaurant and we don't want to have to put our employees in between an angry customer and God knows what else.

One of those french fry-making things that you could easily put a human hand in and turn it into confetti, like, that wouldn't be good for business, Charles.

PAYNE: No.

KENNEDY: I love In-N-Out. I love In-N-Out for a number of reasons.

They created a model where fresh is king. They don't have freezers. They have a very limited menu. Everyone tries to copy them. And then they sue different restaurants. Their fries are not as good as Shake Shack, but their burgers are the best in the country.

And I will -- I will die on that hill. I will take an In-N-Out burger over any other fast food burger in the world, Protein Style, Double-Double with Animal Fries. Thank you.

PAYNE: Andrew, I think you may have to send Kennedy some of your food, my man.

I don't know if she's had any of your grub, but I will hook you guys up later on, because Andrew is a pretty -- he's a magician in there.

Now, apparently, San Francisco's relented a little bit, or someone has.

In-N-Out, this location, outdoors is back, and they have reopened for takeout. But, again, this just -- this heavy-handedness, particularly in California, it just hurts so many small businesses, doesn't it, now, Andrew?

GRUEL: Yes, of course, it has.

And the thing is, it's not working. That's the point. And you look at California, you look at all of these mandates and you look at the businesses, and you say OK, right now, supply costs are up triple digits. Labor cost is up triple digits. We're losing staff. Customers, every single morning, they wake up they're getting injected with fear, fear, fear from legacy media.

So we have lost our customer base because a ton of them are hiding under the sheets right now. And we basically -- we have got six people to serve.

PAYNE: Yes.

GRUEL: Three of them are sleeping on the streets in San Francisco under a tent, and now we're allowed to serve in that outdoor area. Thanks, San Francisco.

PAYNE: Yes.

Kennedy, after a hard day of shoplifting, you want to go in an In-N-Out Burger without any sort of a hassle.

KENNEDY: It's tough.

PAYNE: And then, all of a sudden, someone's asking you to follow a rule.

(LAUGHTER)

KENNEDY: Yes, follow rules and pay for your food?

PAYNE: Yes.

KENNEDY: What in the world is going on? I thought this was San Francisco. I thought everything was there for free for the taking.

And it's in Fisherman's Wharf.

PAYNE: Yes.

KENNEDY: Like, that is a tourist destination. People come from all over the world. They hear about In-N-Out. They want to try it for the first time. And now they're going to have long lines.

They do take care of their employees. They always have.

PAYNE: Yes, and, apparently, their customers too. I really appreciate the stance they have taken. And I will visit after I go to Andrew's place first, though, next time I go out there.

Hey, that's it for us today. Thank you so much for watching.

Of course, you can catch me tomorrow 2:00 p.m., FOX Business, "Making Money."

The S&P closed at a new all-time high. I hope they have been listening. I hope they have been watching, making that moola.

Now "The Five." I took care of your wallet. "The Five" will take care of everything else next.

Copy: 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.