you better watch, when chuck schumer appears on the screen the cat is trained to hiss. my time is up, hey, niel, can you beat that? [laughter] neil: so your spectacular ratings are boosted by animals? stuart: if that's what it takes, yes. [laughter] neil: i needed confirmation of that. boy, all of my thoughts that i am not going the say i will leave it at that as well. we have a lot going on. following up on the growing sentiment that the tax cut and what to read of ceo pow wow here. we will be talking, steven, black stone founder. all of these gentlemen cited by the president just about an hour ago. so when they come out and talk

to us, we will be there talking to them here and only here. now what's gotten all of the attention and run-up in stocks, a lot has to do with the president deciding despite all of its talk about scaling back the financial regulations, doing something that was much talked about right after his collection, cutting taxes, that is not off the table but to the issue at hand right now and redoing dodd-frank, not killing it, but changing it, possibly dramatically. blake berman at the white house with more on that, hey, blake. blake: hey, niel. very important point. not killing it. white house officials are making the point. this is not undoing of dodd-frank. this is an executive order that the president is expected to sign here any moment. this is very tailored in nature. what it does is direct treasury secretary and those dealing with regulations throughout agencies to look at dodd-frank within the

next 120 days, come back to the president with the report on seeing that necessarily they don't feel should be in there on issues surrounding dodd-frank specially on issues with regulation. this has been a theme here from the president, from the administration over the last couple of weeks trying to deal with regulations and pair them back. we heard the president say he thinks as many as 75% of regulations all across the government could be rolled back but this one order will deal with regulations and dodd frank. there was also another memorandum that we are expecting the president to put out at some point here in the next few minutes dealing with the fiduciary role that would have been rolled out by the department of labor dealing with client asset management and expected to be rolled out in april, the president will put temporary halt on that. 90-day halt to study that and, again, come back to him as well so when executive order, the headline here most certainly the

unwinding, the starting of unwinding of certain portions of dodd-frank, niel. neil: the key one, the one about shifting clients of big broker into most expensive accounts, a lot of consumer groups liked the idea. this is the president's way of saying, we pounce too quickly on that. that the jest of that. blake: a complete miss with the obama administration and now they are going to say, let's pump the brake on this, 90 days, we will report back. neil: we will be going back to blake on that. many raisedded included steve with the best of intentions he was among those saying this -- this financial fix could get us all in the fixed if we are not careful and create another financial crisis unbeknownst to any of the people who came up with it. i will get his take on that when

he joins us later this hour n. the meantime to the cato institute fox mitchel gary willis on how the markets are responding to the notion that tax cuts aren't dead. it began from a tweet from the president that he was going to follow up with tax and health bill soon on top of what he's doing now with the financial regulatory overhaul but that it's not forgotten and he echoed it in person with the ceo's and the markets like that. >> absolutely, what he said specifically on twitter was health care and tax bills are drafted now, exclamation point, exclamation point. in fact, i am told yet again that it is on the table, they are working to do both pieces of this. remember it was a conversation about whether we would separate out individual taxes from corporate taxes. i'm told it's going to be done at the same time, brady today speaking at georgetown law is

pumping the idea of having a border tax. this is something donald trump does not like and the republicans think can fund their tax cuts but is very controversial, could be hard for consumers to deal with, but good for companies that export refusing taxes on them. so that's why you're seeing this market go up like topsy here is because people are starting to hear more about tax reform in particular because that's what corporate america wants, less regulation, helping the banks, you're looking at those stocks right now so good news. neil: much of this to darren's point fueling the tax cut with import tax, border tax and that upsets a lot of the big ceo's who fear that it could be counterproductive, we will be talking with the billionaire investor, products sold all over the world including the united states, he's concerned about that as many others. how big a battle wilthis be? >> it's a huge battle because

you're pinning importers against exporters and very frustrating for a lot of people who have been waiting for tax cuts an waiting for tax reform. why did the house republican take provision and suddenly throw it into the mix. it's going to slow down good policy and could even sabotage it in the long run. now, i think they have their hearts in the right place. they want to finance a bigger tax cut but why not trim the growth of government spending. neil: i felt the same thing. i find it where questionable when we are paying for tax cut with a tax hike. leaving that aside, was it your sense that since the president isn't keen on this that i assume he's still not keen on it but he might be okay with it if it's a means to end and get big tax cuts? >> that's the question i wish i knew the answer to because you would think this house border

adjustable provision which taxes import and exempts exports would appeal to trump because trump is a bit of a tariff guy. on the other hand, it seems that trump wants tariff that is he can selectively impose on china, on the mexicans not across the board tariffs or import taxes on everything. so we still have no idea what's going to happen and action on capitol hill is not going to be able to go forward without some definitive sign from trump on where he stands on this. neil: you think if he had a choice, big tax cuts or kill this other thing, this import, border tax because they seem to be joined at the hip, if you want one, you have to like the other? >> well, i do think he does not like border adjustment and for many reasons. in addition to that it's complicated and people are still trying to work on the impacts. we have seen him already say he was backing up on one of his

main ideas for corpora tax, right, he wanted to ing it at 15%. republicans say no, it's got to be 20% and basically the president has said, okay, i will go with that. you have seem some willingness to negotiate, we just don't know how he'll come down on this. neil: by the way, ge and boeing are among those companies forming a coalition supporting a tax on u.s. import. we heard from former ceo jack welch who will be joining us in a few minutes, doing something, anything that would simplify our tax code, whether he would take the spray leap of using hike in taxes like this to pay for corporate tax reforms, simplify taxes, individual tax rates, anybody's guess. i will ask jack, to a guy worried about what he has seen and tit for tat could come to bite us, cofounder john paul, he imports a lot of products from méxico, they are going to be passed along to the consumer

that would be you and me so be careful what you wish for. john paul, good to have you. what's your worry here? >> well, the concern is that it's not the companies are going to pay for it, it's the consumer. for example, tequila, france champagne, italy, wines and so forth, right now you pay tax for alcohol tobacco and firearms. if they raised, you could only make tequila in méxico f they--- if they raised it we have to pass it onto consumers. i don't think it's such a good idea because the consumer is going to be paying more. also you have to look at a different way, if he's doing it to raise revenue or punish companies that aren't fair with us, he could use as a bargaining chip and i think that's what they're doing, be fair with our exports, have fair as you want us to be with your import. i think lai to really look at that wasn't because the 20%

increase on all import is going to affect the consumer, i believe there was a report turned in recently by best buy that says we make a billion dollars a year, but if there's 20% on all import goes into fruition, son of a gun, we will lose $2 billion a year which means that's a big organization, a lot of employees, best buy can be going out of business and others could the same. neil: if we have a system that there's tax goods that leave our country and goods bo the -- into the country, how do you rectify that? >> well, that's not fair. it should be fair both ways. if they with not taxing there, they should not be talking us either. it should be a lot fair either. i don't agree with all of nafta. it was slided toward the people in another country. neil: and countries.

this is all countries to a varying degree. let's get back. obviously the markets and i know you have always reminded me and warned me not to seize on one day's market and always been wise to recommend that, but the markets jumped on the notion that maybe the president hasn't forgotten the tax cuts, they are still being planned, maybe corporate relief been married with individual rate relief but that isn't forgotten. the devil, you know, is in the details, border tax is one of the means of which they are looking at, what do you make of that, this rush to get tax cuts on the table, the thinking being that republicans have to seize this initiative in the brief time for the time being, they control all branches of government? >> i believe that the reason the stock market went up a little bit is because the fact they're talking seriously about tax cuts will affect l of americans not just companieso they feel,

wow, that affects all americans, there's more money for all americans that they'll spend more and the economy will go higher, that's what i think. the border, the whole thing was sending jobs abroad. a u.s. company is a u.s. corporation méxico that's making their products and they're also making them here in the united states it's more unfair because when they bring it in is bringing mexican labor. why don't they look at putting a little bit of a tax on the import from the companies, u.s. companies making thicks already in the united states that would be close to equaling what they would be pay if they made in the united states, that way they make it fair because there's no great advantage of doing that. neil: interesting. you lose whatever advantage you had with the cheaper laborer what have you. >> exactly. even if you lost half of that. more revenue for the united states. gives more of an incentive like lower corporate taxes will be

more incentive to bring business to the united states. we want everybody to benefit. neil: good see you, my friend. a lot going on. 171 points the dow jones back to 20,000. thicks are picking up at least on the prospect of certainly simpler easier regulations when it comes to revamping dodd-frank, the financial law, seems to be the focus today, two big orders on that that are going to be addressed moment airily by the president. those would be his 11th and 12th major executive orderers. over 20 if you include executive actions and memoranda, don't ask, i don't know the difference. a lot of pieces of paper being signed. we would also get a read of how congress is responding to developments. keep in mindhen the president is meeting with these ceo's he's certainly wrapped up meetings with house and senate leaders specially those in charge of these tax cut initiatives so it

is very clear that the president is focused on that but they have big differences how they'll go about it. we will explain after this

why pause a spontaneous moment? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis.

i've spent my life planting a size-six, non-slip shoe into that door. on this side, i want my customers to relax and enjoy themselves. but these days it's phones before forks. they want wifi out here. but behind that door, i need a private connection for my business. wifi pro from comcast business. public wifi for your customers. private wifi for your business. strong and secure. good for a door. and a network. comcast business. built for serity. built for business.

>> we are bringing back jobs, we are bringing back your taxes, we are getting rid of regulations and i think it'll be very exciting time. we are doing and coming up with a tax bill soon, a healthcare bill even sooner. neil: all right as soon as he said that, as soon as word got out that he said that, those comments were delayed until we officially saw the video here, well, the markets were running up. my buddy who follows the markets brilliantly was reminding me, i have no way to check the accuracy of this. it's saying that this is a market advance, 170 plus market

advance largely by financials including american express, goldman, american express, visa, 170 points that we have there. you can see it's a weighted on the financial community which is not a big shock but it is what it is. we have house commissionary on what he makes of it. obviously you and the president are on the same line. is it a spring development, summer development, what do you think? >> well, i think that's coming in a few months. it's hard pinpoint right now because of developing exactly what the tax reforms are going to be, it's in great discussion right now as you know but he's getting a great start on regulatory reforms and encouraged by that and we did the same thing in the house, we passed eight bills in the house

before he was sworn in as president dealing with things like the act so that majorly expensive regulations have to come back to congress for up or down vote. the midnight rules relief vote cut down on massive amount of regulations that president obama jammed in at the very end of his presidency. a lot of those will be dealt with the congressional review act votes. we have been doing those this week in the house, but the president is going to come out with one this afternoon, we understand dealing with a portion of dodd-frank and as you know, dodd-frank was a major legislative from obama, jammed through the congress and major costly problem for the financial service industry. neil: i want to -- we are watching as you're speaking, sir, the executive, the ceo's who are leaving the white house now. several of them are going to be talking to us shortly on what happened in there but the one issue that's come up is how you

pay for tax cuts, border tax has come up. let me just step back, not what you think of border tax, but do you have to pay for tax cuts? do you think you treat them like spending, so, yeah, as big as they are you have to make spending cuts that equal that. >> well, you do have to pay for tax cuts and you should do it with dynamic scoring with taking into consideration what the green eye shades people will say will be the economic impact of the tax cut. they will encourage a lot of offshore money to come back to the united states and be taxed at allower rate. the scoring should take that into account because that makes it a lot less expensive than say you're cutting taxes and come off with offsetting spending. you should be able to do spending cuts coupled with recognizing that a tax cut can

generate economic growth. neil: that's what worries me and i differ to you and your colleagues, you're the experts on the matter, i find it kind of weird to pay for a tax cut with a tax hike which essentially regardless of border tax and enormous revenue it should raise is just that, it's a tax hike to pay for a tax cut, right? >> well, that is something that has to be looked at very carefully because while there is an unfairness at the border right now with regard to taxes, with regard to u.s. products being treated unfairly in other markets and other market products from other countries getting coming into the u.s., obviously we do not want the u.s. consumer to face a major hit as a result of that. that has to be looked at very carefully. we are doing that in the congress right now. neil: we do appreciate it. >> thanks, niel. neil: ceo's are out of the white house now.

as they get out there, they will be talking to us. we will get the read on what the president is thinking and what they're thinking and what they're recommending. also on the administration responses into iran and the missile test early last week. we do know sanctions being planned for at least 25 different entities. we don't know how it breaks down between companies and individuals. it is targeted all those associated with that missile technology. we also know and have heard that the uss cole is patrolling off yemen after rebels atalked the saudi ship about a week ago. all of this occurring at the same time

achoo! (snap) achoo! (snap) achoo! achoo! (snap) (snap) achoo! achoo! feel a cold coming on? zicam cold remedy nasal swabs shorten colds with a snap, and reduce symptom severity by 45%. shorten your cold with a snap, with zicam.

neil: all right, iran has been put on warning here and the notice is being received amid talk that the white house has targeted 25 different iranian entities for sanctions this on

the same day we are getting word that the uss cole was now patrolling on the coast of yemen after iranian-backed rebels targeted and virtually destroyed a saudi ship. so obviously working on a variety of fronts on what he makes of all these developments. secretary, what do you think? >> w lot going o a lot of sgo's as we say. basically we are looking at sanctions which are pretty much opening shot on iran. the 13 or 25 entities, 12 people, whatever it is, they are being subjected to some trade barriers and travel barriers but it's really not a big deal. i think it's a warning shot to iran. they are not going to be able to get away with a lot more but they will continue to press and do what they want to do. iran, of course, is responsible for the houthi rebellion in yemen which is -- pardon, me, being patrolled by the uss cole which has the unfortunate history of being victim of a

bombing some years ago and that ship is not going to be sitting back and just relaxing, they are going to be very much on alert and i suspect strongly that if there are shots taken at the cole which is pretty likely maybe a missile shot or two, that they will respond with some considerable force. all in all, things are going pretty well. i would like to give mr. trump a little more time before i start criticizing because, well, the guy has only been in office two weeks and 30 minutes. neil: you're right. things occur for a reason and more than just coin kiddental, for -- coincidental and overwhelming response to the use of nuclear weapons. he was referring to north korea, but he could have just as easily applied that to iran. so an overwhelming response would be what? >> well, an overwhelming response in each context. i mean, obviously if there's a north korean invasion or north

korean missile attack on south korea, we respond with our missile force and probably nuclear weapons, i think that message from secretary mattis is pretty clear. if iran shoots off another couple of missiles, frankly, i would like to see us shoot them down. testing missiles is not going to increase the stability of that region. it's going to beoing just the opposite. we ought to have forces there that are capable of taking down an iranianian missile if they try to shoot another one and you and i talk about iranian nuclear weapons agreement and it's a disaster. i think mr. trump, i hope building up to forcing iran into a position where it's going to break it rather than us breaking it and at that point, we will just say good-bye to the agreement and act accordingly. neil: you know what worries me and you keep track of this more than i, there's not been widespread condemnation on the part of the united nations that the iranians have and swear on stack of qurans that they had no nuclear capability or intention.

so by that, they seem to be saying, we didn't violate any un resolutions or violated the american agreement, could we find ourselves, secretary, alone in our response? >> well, i think we will. i think that's certainly going to be the case. the europeans, well, frankly even too many american companies are selling to the iranians billions of dollars of equipment aircraft and so forth and we are going to be alone. that's the point. we are going to be a leader and trying to take apart the agreement and tell the iranians it's no longer in effect. quite frankly it's never really been in effect. we have been following anyway. they have been cheating as they always do. at some point very soon, mr. trump is going to say, no more, no mas, we are not going to do this anymore and other nations will follow us. that's what it means to be a leader and that's what mr. trump wants to be rather than leading from behind like mr. obama did. neil: thank you so much. >> thank you. neil: a little bit of action in

the white house briefing room. sean spicer is ready to talk. we will go there and interrupt it by only ceo's that are walking out of the white house, jack welch among them, mike, global and chairman, all of whom will be chatting with us moment ly. we are also getting word to this sort of revamp of dodd-frank of that true to what he said he would do. the president has ordered the labor department to delay fiduciary rule by 180 days, restricts financial advisers from selling clients expensive products simply for higher commissions. the obama administration thought that was kind of sleazy and the financial industry responded by saying, you don't know, this is part of a pack of the services we offer. the president seems to be saying, well, let's sit back and review this. nothing is canceled or nothing has stopped. it's all delayed

neil: you know sometimes i'm grateful you're not here. [laughter] neil: commercial breaks. anyway, we are waiting for sean spicer. they will give us an update on the administration's latest efforts to crack down on iran. sweeping response so we will get a response to that. we will also get a response to the administration outlining its revamp of dodd-frank. big financial reform law, he met

with a lot of ceo's who will be chatting with us shortly. so we will see how that is. they will be chatting with us. connell mcshane. connell: the priority from wall street's point of view is to have the conversation, go back to fewer regulations and lower taxes and what do you know, sean spicer comes out and that's exactly where the conversation came back and the market is doing well. neil: when ceo's come out we will be doing that as well. we are going to be doing that simultaneously. >> happy friday, another busy day at the white house and athe trump administration. the first job's report under the president's administration was released this morning. it's national wear red day highlighting the importance of preventing heart disease, national catholic school's week

and the president is going to be signing executive order delivering much needed relief to lenders and borrowers in the next few minutes. we are finishing up the second week here really strong. yesterday was another great deal reached with lockheed martin with a purchase of new lot of f-35's, a total of 90 planes for a lot of 90 planes, 55 were purchased for u.s. military that added 455 million-dollar savings for u.s. taxpayers from a previous lost with reduction, another big win. neil: all right, we are monitoring this. i would be remiss if i didn't go outside the white house right now. we will find one of the greatest ceo's in american history. he had a chance to meet with the president of the united states jack welch. jack, very good to have you. >> hi, niel, how are you? neil: what was the mood like in that room? you talk about who is who cast. what was the consensus among

those there about what are the priorities, what you want to get done first, what do you want to see the president do first in. >> well, there was a lot of excitement about what the president is doing and there was a lot of encouragement for him to keep going faster and we are all excited. we had a hell of a meeting, niel. this is the first presidential meeting i've ever had where it was right talking to a peer who is deeply engaged in every subject with everybody in the room. it was fantastic. neil: you know he seems much more president talking to business guys on business issues than almost any other issue. i noticed even when he was at the trump tower as president elect when he would meet with business tans, that was the stuff that got him jazz, he would go down with jack or others -- >> yeah.

neil: to the lobby with them because he enjoined their company and exchange of ideas, whether they voted for him or not. i wonder if there were any in that room that were keen on tax cuts and redoing dodd-frank, but others worried about this talk of a borderer tax or what have you. any consensus in the room on that? >> no, but there was good give and take on the subject, back and forth. we talked about everything you can think about on taxes, on regulatory reform, on the women's issues and the workplace, we talked about everything you can think of came up and steve ran the meeting with the president and then it was like a staff meeting where everyone was engaged. it was different than the formal president, us listening. this guy was rolling up his sleeves and talking about the

issues and his depth of knowledge on every issue was amazing. neil: you know, jack, one of the things that steve, a blackstone fan has been saying about the financial regulations, dodd-frank as they are know, as soon as the ink was dry on them, he was warning with the best of intentions and always complementary of then president obama, we could be planning the seeds of the next financial crisis with the very fix for the last one, do you agree with that and do you agree that dodd-frank has to be dramatically fixed or even junked? >> i think that was one of the discussions about how many regulations per square inch -- [inaudible] >> and slow the economy. there was detailed discussioned with jamie diamon, steve, a lot

of people talked about the implications of that. there was no consensus reached. the president wanted to know everything that was troubling. neil: did you get any sense from the president, jack, that he is keen on tax cuts but that they'd be paid for, that as mitch mcconnell said neutral, one of the reasons why have been championing border tax, that's a way to pay for them. what do you think? >> the revenue neutrality issue did not come up today. neil: interesting. how do you feel about that? there's been argument that tax cuts are different than spending. how do you feel? >> well, you get involved in the border tax, you get involved with it does to retailers and the dollars, it's a complicated issue. some love it. if you're a big u.s. big

manufacturer, you love it. if you're a retailer bringing a lot of your stuff in, it has ramifications for you. it's not a simple issue. neil: let me ask you, one of the things the president said, jack, because i'm going to follow up with tax and health bills soon, you didn't assess fie what soon will be, many have said that taking on this repeal and replacement of the affordable care act, better known as obamacare, was too big a hercule in task and the priority should be on the tax cuts rather than junking that and then eventually finding a replacement. what do you think? >> well, there was no prioritization. neil: how do you feel? i'm asking you if you had your priorities set? >> well, i think health care could throw the whole wheel down.

neil: yeah. >> the democrats own this issue. the republicans have to be careful that they don't end up owning pretty quickly. neil: the president has been critical of the press, meetings like this one are always turned into a negative press story if they're covered at all in much length and i wonder if someone in your days as ge, which includes the nbc and cnbc and other media entities, how do you feel about that argument that comes up, the media, not those specific ones i mentioned, in general is not fair to this president? >> well, they are sure giving him a tough run and it's his job to show that he can create the economy that we all dream of. making it inclusive for everybody. he, i'm telling you, niel, if you were in the meeting today, you would have absolutely loved.

a guy deeply involved in the issue. it was real, it was straightforward. a lot of laughing and humor and a lot of serious talk, but it was a staff meeting at fox or at ge or at private equity meeting. it was just an honest discussion of the issues. neil: finally, i know that you have to go. do you feel any heart pain lost with the tumbling ratings of cnbc and the soaring ratings of fox business? >> congratulations, niel on your wonderful numbers. [laughter] neil: you know, always a gentleman to me and i wanted to say what you would do to that but you gentlemanly punted as they say. >> nice to talk to you, niel, take care. neil: they don't come any nicer and smarter here. by the way, i have been getting a lot of e-mail, niel, where is

your red for national cancer day. all right. so i apologize to anyone if i have offended you. do i wanting to back to the white house here. we are showing spicer is honoring national heart day by wearing red and dealing with the media. >> is this the full extent of the punishing action that is we are seeing right now and are military options still on the table in response to the administration saying that all options are on the table? >> thanks for the question. i think wasn't of the things that the president has said throughout the campaign during the transition and since becoming president he doesn't like to telegraph his options. i'm not going to go to the full extent. today's sanctions really represent a very, very strong stand against the actions iran has taken and make it very clear

that the deal that they struck previously was not in the best interest of this country and that president trump is going to do everything he can to make sure that iran has stayed in check. >> it is possible that there are more actions coming, though? >> i would never rule anything off the table. i think the president has made it clear throughout his time that that's just going to happen. jeff. >> i wanted to ask about one of the members that has been announced as being part of the president trump's team, gina, senator has written to the president saying that her background makes her unsuitable to be the cia deputy director and what he was specifically referencing was her role in the enhanced interrogation program that the cia had during the course of the bush administration. do you believe that this background is a disqualifier for that position? >> i think she has had distinguishably career as

operative and basically gave that to come up and serve in this role at the request of director pompeo and, i think, she has been a very distinguished serve -- servant to the american people. josh. >> thanks for taking the question. a lot of people up here hoping that happens as well. get to go business, for more than two years number one public safety threat facing the state is heroin and opioid crisis, during the campaign the president promised to be swift and aggressive when it came to this problem, stopping the flow of drugs, increasingly know the problem lies in synthetic labs in the northeast. what is the administration doing on that front as well as the treatment aspect of addiction and secondly if i may, with the understanding it is a state issue, new hampshire is poised to become right to vote state,

right to work, is it actively engaged in that effort and if not, what is the general message from the white house. >> first on the opioid crisis that is a major problem for not just new hampshire but for so many states across the country, i think one of the things beyond the health issue is -- is to make sure that we are looking at border use and flow of heroin through southern border is something that the president obviously -- that's part of his whole strong immigration stance, strong border security. having that wall built, having additional assets on the southern border will go a long way to stem the flow of illegal drugs into the country to southern border up to the states. as you mentioned a big issue that he made in new hampshire throughout the primary and continued so on the campaign and something that as soon as tom price and others are confirmed throughout the department, this has got a health component, border issue to it. so there's a multigovernment approach that needs to be taken to the opioid crisis.

with respect to right to work, i think you actively portrayed it. the president believes in right to work. he wants to give workers and companies the flexibility to do what's in the best interest for job creators. obviously the vice president has been a champion of this as well, it's something that is a big deal in indiana and something that he has championed as well. blake. blake: i want to ask you about dodd-frank. beyond the executive order that's going to be signed here moment airily, the administration is planning or working on certain portions of e?e law itself? a full repeal of dodd-frank is actively being considered or not? >> there's two aspects of this. there's the administrative piece which he's starting to address through executive action and then there's the legislative piece that i think we are going to work with congress on.

i would go back to what i said earlier, dodd-frank has been both a disaster in terms of the impact that it's had but also hasn't achieved the goal. the impact that it's had and it's not an either or. it's frankly just not doing what it's set out to do. and so i think we are going to continue not just to act through administration -- administrative action but through -- through working with congress and figuring out legislative effects. >> sean, meeting with the australian embassador yesterday, can you describe what that meeting was about and did the administration make a commitment which we heard from state department yesterday that, in fact, all of those subject to the obama administration agreement are still possible refugee resettlers. neil: all right, we are monitoring this. one thing that interests us is

hearing from the white house that when it comes to dodd-frank, nothing has been ruled in or out as far as whether to be junked entirely or dramatically revamped. the fellow said at the very at least it has to be fixed because despite the best intention of creators it could be laying ground work for some problems do theoad. he joins us and was one who called for this meeting today of these powerful corporate titans. steve, very good to have you, thanks for coming. >> well, thanks, i'm glad to be here. neil: what kind of consensus was there in that room on dodd-frank and on a law that -- that many argued have gotten complicated? i think many have said that despite good intentions it could invite problems. what was the consensus in there? >> well, the consensus in the room without referring to any

one in particular, there needs to be some significant modifications, for example, liquidity in the system is down in large part because of dodd-frank prohibits what were traditional market makers from really doing that with the confusion between market making and proprietary trading. that's one of many areas and one of the things that was noted is that even if you modify or -- or eliminate dodd-frank, there's still the same regulatory people there with that philosophy and so even if you got rid of that law, you have to address the managerial componentses. neil: do you believe if we had

another crisis, magnitude of 2007-2008, that bank of america, citigroup on the brink, that we wouldn't rescue it? barney frank said that there's no longer too big to fail, is that true? >> well, i think that was the theory behind a lot of the reregulation that happened in 2008 to 2010 period. one would have to see in the future. there are certain type of scale issues without sort of enabling companies to just take risk, would endanger a system. i think it's actually on a practical sense very hard to have a -- a living will with companies of a certain scale. i think it's a good idea to go through that exercise and, i

think, it's a good idea to have regulation as a type that was not in place in that 2005 to 2007 period. we have all learned a lot, both financial companies and regulators. neil: you were in the meeting and not watching but when the president said i'm going to follow up with tax and healthcare bills soon, the markets which were already up 25 points soared over 150, now up 175. i guess on the perception of relief that we are going to see tax reform, we are going to see tax cuts and in fact, they could be married to corporate tax reform as well. did -- did that come up -- is that the sense that you have, is that what you like to see as well?

>> well, i think it was generally a very forward, leaning, positive that a lot of the important things that have been articulated like tax reform and deregulation, sort of different types of trade approaches would be occurring and that they would lead to good outcomes. i think this group from just being at the meeting, the president in particular but also the other people from the administration who were there basically pretty much everyone, certainly from the white house, want to achieve a higher way to growth, they want to have more people with higher paying jobs. they want to make sure that people have a good shot and everything gets looked at

through that lens. and so as we suggested, probably over the period of two hours, at least a hured different initiatives, there was enormous alertness and enthusiasm and yes, of courses, that makes sense so when the time we finish, the issue is implementation of some things that are very obvious that can help everyone in america. neil: now, a lot of the ceo's in the room -- the travel ban, delay that the president said, elon musk is a critic and showed up anyway. i wonder whether that came up, whether people were for or

against it, distracted from what they want to see, tax reform, economic improvement. what transpired there? >> first bob wasn't here because he had a board meeting and -- neil: that that was an excuse. >> when you run your own board you have to be at a board meeting. that's why you're employed. neil: you think that was a legitimate excuse that he wasn't trying to dodge the meeting? >> i know he wasn't and i know bob a long time. he's very disappointed. originally this was on thursday. neil: that's true. >> and, you know, he was very enthusiastic about being here and then when the white house moved the meeting for other reasons to friday, he called me and said, jeez, i'm really sorry, i was looking forward to doing this. neil: did this travel ban come up? >> oh, sure.

one would expect that and general kelly who runs the homeland security was there and brought people up to date on the changes that had been made and, you know, there was obviously concern by different people and explanations and, you know, that issue had to be covered and was covered. neil: do you think going through and getting -- checking the pulse of ceo's of corporate community at large that you have to pay for tax cuts, that one of the ideas republicans came up with the idea of border tax, that there has to be a way to pay for it and mitch mcconnell said they have to be revenue neutral at the end, is that a consensus that whatever the president comes up with, they have to be revenue neutral? >> i think there are so much on the table in the tax area that

it's almost at this point difficult to figure out what the impact of everything would be. first, you have to find the areas that -- that are suggested to be changed and see what it totals up. i don't think there was -- there was not a discussion of exactly revenue naturalty given the wide range of different things that are legitimately being discussed and i think that weighs for another meeting. neil: one of the things we heard from steve mnuchin, the man most likely confirmed for treasury secretary, the rates will come down, they will be offset by eliminating their deductions to the point that there will be no net tax for them. how do you think that will be greeted by that group and do you think that's right the way it should be?

>> well, we didn't discuss that. you know -- neil: i understand, how do you feel about that? >> you have to look at a full package of things. if you want to overall reduce rates it's going to have to be divided in different ways and, you know, i think people who are looking at not just what's good for them but what's good for the country. neil: those in the upper 1%, if they are looking forward to a tax cut and it's offset just to reflect, how do you think wall street populated by such folks would respond happens with the rest of the economy.

it created a progrowth positive type of world and people would look at that in a certain way. and there were things to the country too, look at the package, a really huge winner. neil: one last question on the markets. they had a heavy advance since donald trump's election, and it covered 20,000. do you inc. the markets have gotten ahead of themselves? too frothy and priced to perfection? >> a lot of people who havbeen buried answering questions like that, i frankly prefer to stay above ground. neil: i was trying to sing you

but i failed. stephen schwartzman, most influential financier on the planet. to sean spicer, the spokesperson for donald trump taking questions from reporters. >> is the president's policy continues to be an active, for all the hysteria regarding his efforts to protect the country, to ensure the american people are safe, what we did have was a very high response from the american people in support of that. 's policies continue to do it, the president understands this is america, not flint. getting people back to work, protect this country, poll numbers will act in accordance. >> richard cordray is the head of that agency. >> i don't have a staff announcement on that but we will see.

i think we will have further updates. that is an area we need to work with congress on. >> you said something about trump talking on facebook, that he was going to talk about black history month and issues pertaining to the african-american community. a couple days into the administration i asked you about the agenda that he has formulated or is formulating. neil: we don't mean to be rude but we are monitoring what sean spicer is saying, back to ceos who had a chance to chat with the president of the united states incding chairman and ceo mark weinberger, thanks for coming. i know you have been concerned about a lot of things including this travel band, the president says it is not a band but you said this would have an impact

on our ability to work as a global organization referring to your own -- the greater corporate sense that it could be an active boomerang. did that come up in the meeting with the president? >> yes. this was a topic that was brought up, a good discussion about it, a lot of businesses talking about the importance of mobility and the free flow of people coming in and a lot of people in the us work outside the borders and a lot of people outside the borders come to the us, there's clearly a recognition of a need for improved security, moving people around and not anything that would inhibit our view of the world view of us to be a good citizen, people want to create jobs and great dialogue around that. >> you don't want to break confidence but with the president receptive to the argument you and your colleagues

are raising? >> he was receptive, he heard how they affect businesses, talked about process improvement, future announcements could be made and listening is future decisions are made. a lot of opportunity to affect this further before final decision is made on the policies. >> is it your sense that once the president talked about getting tax cuts out there and soon, he married it with talk of healthcare repeal and replace, paraphrasing here but the market seemed to like that and they still do. do you think, is it yr sense that tax reform, tax cuts are very much a near-term agenda? >> this was another topic. women in the workforce is another important issue. this one, the message was clear, we need to do tax reform, the expectations i there.

it is not going to be easy. it never is to do tax reform, that is why we haven't in 30 years but the house plan that is out there, the president had a plan, the senate, the real message from the business community as we need to move fast on this process, have lower rates and more competitive international system that doesn't create penalties for bringing cash to the united states for businesses and we are willing to work with you to get there but we got to get it done this year. neil: was there any concern expressed by anyone there about divided or distracted initiatives, traveling might be one of them. the clumsy rollout of healthcare in the republican party how to go about that, taking away from things that were more important? >> really good point. there is a recognition they got a lot on their plate to take on a lot of things, a lot can be done to create jobs here and they have to prioritize. they can do something through

executive order and conclude that but they have to work with congress and the health care bills and tax bills going through the recreation process have to move through those committees and that takes time. there was discussion about trying to prioritize what could be the most impactful in the short-term and lacking different points of view, you can't do it all at the same time and they will do that. >> was he receptive to a border tax, by republican colleagueto pay for the tax cuts. can you share anything on that? >> what effect would a border tax have on the company's in the room. how would it affect the exchange rates and prices and how would it be structured? does it need to be part of the package. all that discussion, you would expect it in this kind of meeting where you are talking about tax and trade for 15 or 20 minutes there are decisions made but the right questions were asked by the economic policy

team members, the vice president and others, their focus on this issue and what can we do to get a more competitive tax system and get rates down low enough and get it all pooled together and they have to work through that with the senate and house over coming months. neil: how do you feel about that personally and from your corporate view that you need to pay for these tax cuts and one of the ways to do it is a tax hike? >> clearly there will have to be some sort of tax increase to pay for the tax cuts because while it may not be revenue neutral in every year, it will be hard to make it revenue is revenue neutral anytime, over the long-term many people think you ought to balance it out but how low can you get the rate? you try to at the incentives and credits to try to offset that cost and clean it out and make it simpler system, coming back,

you need provisions to prevent based erosion. all those were in the next. border tax is a way to deal, it raises a host of questions about what effect it will have on prices, exchange rates, how does it apply to the financial service industry, applied to services and tax-exempt, these are worked on over the next several months and without his answers it is hard to do complete analysis. neil: what about steve mnuchin, their rates will come down but it won't be a net savings for them. they won't be seeing a tax break for sale. the idea being for them it would be essentially revenue neutral. paying less in taxes, that was

the crowd in the room, how do you think it and they would respond to that? >> the individual side and rate cuts come up in the meeting today they can craft a system. whatever the rate comes out, the plan put together by the administration was the starting point, they got to figure out how the math will work, and something else, very important, i talked about the woman in the workplace, this is a huge issue and tax issue, and the primary or sole income voter is a woman, it is $10,000 more than in-state

tuition, they did not make decisions, has to be part of this debate too, not a corporate debate getting workers back to work as part of a equation and that is in the tax plan. neil: when you look at the markets and how they responded to the president's election they stand you a little bit but are backn all cylinders, largely optimistic his agenda is focused again on these things they want, do they get ahead of themselves or are ahead of themselves or where they should be? >> if you're going to ask me for stock advice i won't be able to help you. where the markets are, what it is going to mean, right now there is so much energy and excitement and optimism about what is coming that at some point you have reality hit that it is hard to get this done, priorities matter. things are not getting done as

fast as people hope, what effect that has on the market. neil: the goal of this thing, and one of the largest in the world, that is partly a relief. >> we have a lot of responsibility, take it very seriously, our of trust and confidence to capital markets on attack side, help all these new changes to be complied with. the good news may be for those, should have this much work if -- being measured differently. and free us up to do other great things. neil: how is the president doing? >> two week as president of the united states. >> i would not want anyone to get a two week report card

because it is hard, he is raising a lot of issues, a lot of things to the forefront, a lot of energy, engaged with the business community, i love the energy and excitement. we have to see what gets done and give a report card. neil: thank you for the time, it is a crazy day. a little accounting joke, let's get a sense of what is coming out of this meeting. consensus from all the attendees, the more prominent ones, tax cuts are coming, revenue neutrality, is a goal. the read on all of that with connell mcshane, lindsay, what did you think of the collective read from those guys? and painstakingly detailed, what

did you make of that cute >> it is a positive response. their regulatory burden, tax burden, and jumpstarting the recovery to a true recovery pace is very positive and the president is speaking to the business community about the implementation and changes that will impact businesses. a lot of times we have political leaders make decisions without talking to a business -- a positive direction. very few specifics out of the white house as of yet but the focus, the direction is positive for the economy. neil: it seemed a consistent view that they don't want the president -- a travel ban is that. they seem to be indicating, this

has to be thought through, it could affect their businesses. if they had their druthers, mark weinberger, that shouldn't have been even out there. it is distracting. >> may be interfering, the businesses from many different corporate leaders, for their own employees affected by that. that they have the focus beyond what lindsay is talking about, tax reform and fewer regulations which we heard about today, it was while you were interviewing jack welch, he was getting it to the point of dodd-frank saying it didn't do anything to stop too big to fail, didn't accomplish goals of being put in place. in addition to being burdensome and talked about the fiduciary

role, inside baseball or inside wall street, that was a solution in search of a problem. this is where brokers have to go and certify the investments, being the best interests of the client they are representing, sounds good but very expensive so rolling that back this is the type of thing business leaders want to hear. we knew we would get pushback, looking at elizabeth warren's twitter feed, the senator from massachusetts, she is all over it as you would expect her to be, talked a big game about wall street. to bash all we are seeing today. neil: lindsay, i am wondering, your industry, and at the very least fixed. that you're here could cause the

next crisis it was intended to fix. the president whats to fix it or junk it? >> he is very interested in looking at the details of what was implemented. the vast number of agencies, regulators and enforcers put in place, taking a step back and saying is this making us safer as consumers or is it building up an industry of billions of dollars in terms of regulation, let's make this smarter, simpler and take sure we are making consumers better off or on the flipside are we restricting consumers access to credit and financial products, consumers that need those products the most so a lot of this is more a price game and in many cases, from a financial services standpoint the cheapest option

is not always the best so again taking a step back, digging through thousands of pages the trump administration has intention of fixing what was thrown at the financial industry. neil: i could be misreading something but i try to get each of the ceos to get me an honest answer on this but they dodged it cleverly. if citigroup or bank of america were on the brink, we have this thing, no longer too big to fail, if you fail you are on your own, i cannot see that being the case, either of those institutions were hiccuping. is it your sense, the people you talk to that that wouldn't happen under president trump? >> probably not. it is interesting because the argument if you're going to make an argument for rolling back or repealing and replacing, to use the analogy used in another part of the political discussion for

dodd-frank, to say it is burdensome or to talk about the fiduciary may not be enough, but if you make that other argument you are making you get further. if you say this didn't achieve the goal, we want to make these banks too big to fail and they are still not, we would be in the same situation we were in in 2008 of the same thing happened again and that is a better political argument that we need not only a regulatory system that is not as burdensome or expensive for those participating but one that works better, rules that make more sense that wouldn't put us in the same spot we were if goldman happened all over again. neil: what do you think? >> the problem with that argument many on the other side of the aisle would argue we don't need to repeal dodd-frank. we need to extend dodd-frank. of dodd-frank wasn't enoug make a safer will we need more regulation? the convertions going to be fruitful at the white house to draw that delicate line between

keeping a safe, making us safer against the next financial crisis but also keeping regulation in check and keeping costs in check and not impeding the underlying economy from growing. neil: on that, i ask people, you are used to the minimum with such lines of questioning, the market loves what it is hearing today, the prospect of taxes, front and center for the trump administration. it would almost justify the market at these levels in the run-up that has been sustained since the president's election. are these acceptable, perfectly normal levels for what is going on right now? >> it is acceptable if you look at what the market is looking at and the market is very much cherry picking between the trump policies focusing on the ones that are progrowth, focusing on

the idea of rolling back taxes, reducing regulation that the market seems to be ignoring the more isolationist or protectionist policies the trump administration has put forward. when you talk about a 20% border sector tariff on goods coming to the us that will hit consumers. the largest component of the us economy. that will hurt consumers where it hurts most, their pocketbooks. when we talk about raising taxes, raising prices, restrain the consumer, it boggles the mind the market is reacting so positively to segmented policy proposals that haven't even come into place yet. the market may be ahead of itself. neil: that is the battle, if you get an improving economic environment it is not so pricey. that is what they are clinking to. >> other things in the market today, let you know more about them but on the jobs report being a strong as it was, puts

the fed in a better spot. more accommodation there but lindsay's choice of words, the administration's policy, more growth, fewer regulations, the conversation might change the border tax going the other way, tough to do day today. neil: as expected the president signed an executive order, the us financial system better known as dodd-frank. it did more harm than good. at the very least he was going to change it and met with wall street corporate titans representing a broad swath of corporate america including the

heads of ibm, elon musk was there, schwartzman, big takeover artist, all of whom saying to a man and woman change it, fix it, not necessarily kill it but start working on it. that is not being greeted favorably by the likes of elizabeth warren that the fatcats have won. we have more after this. ♪ you know how painful heartburn can be. for fast-actinglong-lasting lief, try doctor recommended gavisn. it quickly neutralizes stomach acid and helps keep acid down for hours. relieve heartburn with fast- acting, long-lasting gaviscon.

neil: this travel band issue come up? >> there were concerns by different people, that issue had to be covered and was covered. neil: it was a front and center issue that was a horny one for ceos and other corporate titans, uk parliament for john brown on concerns over that. it was hurting their businesses.

i don't know how it was resolved but the president heard them. what do you think of all this? >> it does have an effect. the fundamental cultural change. which that reverberations around the world and one of them is in immigration which most people believe countries should be able to control their borders and this is just a short-term freeze in order to get control. neil: in england, it was criticized in almost all european capitals so even our friend are against it. is that fair? >> they are and of course, teresa mack, has to be very careful because she is also speaking to a domestic audience but she thumped corban for

trying to get her to interfere in the domestic policies of the united states, she said you can run a demonstration. i am running a country and he was smashed. that is the attitude. her job is liaison with the united states to get a 3 deal fundamentally, to reestablish the special relationship and get american assurances over nato and she achieved all three and she has to defend it in a domestic situation which is difficult and she did extremely well, she stressed it was under the obama administration these countries where restricted, not under trump. he copied obama's intelligence. neil: in palm beach, florida, do you feel your european friends will feel better? i want you to think about that because the president is detailing this. >> great scott.

>> today we are regulating united states financial system which right? >> we are returning the american people low income investors and retirees there control of their own retirement savings. this is about main street and a labor of love for me for four

years as chairman and this is a big day, big moment for americans. >> she means that so much. >> we should send -- hand appended a special person. >> anything to say. >> are they expecting more? >> they are not behaving. >> thank you, guys. neil: they are not leaving. just to explain what the president is directing, that rolled back financial restrictions, financial reform law that limited wall street

banks and their use of financial advisors, selling expensive products that hike their commissions, unbeknownst to said clients. others interpreted this as the industry's way of getting it way and argued they are going to completely take advantage of this and tried to push expensive product down there clients throats. the truth is somewhere in between. and to reassess things. itnope does not sell or torpedo dodd-frank, this directive alone has prompted elizabeth warren coupled with the fact they had this largely wall street how well at the white house but the fatcats have won in the eye of the proverbial beholder, globally a lot of populist governments taking hold. they want to detangler

governments from controlling their markets. easier said than done. >> very complex industry, highly regulated but at the root, certainly in america the abolition by congress of the glass-steagall act. when banks which had to be secured by their depositors started getting involved in investment banking, a disastrous step that got into a speculative product and dealing and things like that and i the reintroduction of glass-steagall, divided banks corporately from investment banks should spread to britain and other countries because it takes the speculation out of banking and the need for the government to stand behind with taxpayers funds which leads to more speculation. work ambling with clients money and the ghost of the taxpayers money. huge profits for these banks was the problem is the prices of banks are so high because they reflect these very exotic

financial instruments which have high returns and to get back to dear old banking is going to be tough on earnings. it is unpopular but the only real solution to have glass-steagall introduced. neil: i don't know if that is in the cards. you mentioned that led to their stocks going up. this new trend said we will keep doing what we are doing and disentangling financial rules that were set up after the financial meltdown. could something like that happen again? >> yes. the temptation of money is huge and the deregulation is good if it is correctly managed but it will be very difficult. you see some of this gambling and how many people went to jail? billions, trillions of dollars

were wiped out. it comes down to individual investors who lost their hold savings and some their whole 401(k)s. it is disastrous. due to the unscrupulous nature, temptation in the financial industry which has to be controlled and i have sympathy for that and there has to be a strict division between these industries. neil: we might be going the other way. the overwarm, still some sort of rules out there to avoid. >> i am all for deregulation but some of these industries particularly when managing other people's money does, history proves, requires regulation. why that should spread the whole banking activities entirely do to the fact that glass-steagall was abolished. neil: thank you, former uk parliament member. i want to pick up with former virginia governor and presidential candidate jim gilmore. one of the things the president is putting pen to paper on in this order, announcement, was

banks or brokerage houses can't steer you into products that simply for the commission or get more exotic ventures, that unbeknownst to you or you don't need, that is always in the eye of the beholder. i am not saying financial institutions are crooked or you should automatically assume the worst but when that goes away, the supposition is they are being honest, you have to be a little careful. >> there is almost a consensus in this country that dodd-frank needs to go away or be dramatically altered. it is a burden on the banking system, adding enormous costs, some of the costs are related to accountability, there ought to be accountability, the community banks are telling me dodd-fnk is breaking with incredible expenses so there has to be a balance on this and dodd-frank

has the financial community and business community out of bounds. neil: what do you think of the likes of elizabeth warren, the administrator, the countdown to wall street, countdown to maybe have the prior administration heard from them, and not vilified them, that things might have been different. i don't know where you stand on all this, but what do you think? >> i think senator warren is a bit of an ideologue. i think she has a tendency always to go a little to the extreme. i think cooler heads have to prevail. but ultimate goal of the united states has to be to spur growth and get more and more activity and business opportunities for people and young people with careers and better jobs and more churning into the economy and movement in the economy. dodd-frank put as lid on that. so i think we have to recognize that balance. neil: you know, governor, we do know that in the administration is putting together a strong

response to iran and this missile test about a week ago. talking about 25 various sanctions that would target companies and individuals that have direct relationship to this missile technology. separately, we do know that we have the uss cole ironically enough off the coast of yemen, not too far from where a saudi ship was attacked by iranian-backed rebels. what's going on here? >> i think the iranians have an obligation to provide for some stability in the area. i think president obama made his deals, not only to stop the nuclear program but in the hopes this might open up better opportunity for cooperation with iran and a new day. that has not occurred. iranians continue to be stablizing. they're adversarial. firing of a missile is a clear statement they will go their own

route. i think it is correct for president and general flynn to call a halt. if you disruptive and kill people and against interests of any civilization we have an obligation as americans to lead and say this is wrong and we're going to do something about it. i think the president and general flynn are right. neil: so, is this enough? if it ends for now just sanctions, sweeping though they may be, and that doesn't deter their behavior, would you be open to all military options as well? >> i don't think anything like that is going to be necessary. but you know a lot of that is in the hands of the iranians. what they're trying to do is create a dominant situation for themselves and their neigors the middle east, some of whom are our allies don't think ts is a great thing. this is disruptive time, neil, no doubt about it, but the united states strong leadership may inject stability more into the middle east. what happened with president obama is his pullback and softer

approach has in fact encouraged bad behavior, particularly by the iranians. neil: we'll watch closely. always good having you, governor. thank you very, very much. >> my pleasure, neil, thank you. neil: we're keeping track, foreign policy development. that is the border tax and this idea something like that would raise a lot of money to pay for a lot of things here including a tax cut. maybe a big one. jack welch on that. reaction to his reaction that we got to be careful with this sort of stuff after this.

. .

neil: all right, called the border tax. it could raise a lot of money. some ceos like it. others are worried that it gets to be sweeping and global in nature, can boomerang on you. jack welch, his thoughts.

were any in that room keen on tax cuts and renewing dodd-frank, but others worried about this talk of a border tax or what have you. any consensus in the room on that? >> no, but there was good give-and-take on the subject, back and forth. we talked about everything you can think about on taxes, on regulatory reform, on the women's issues in the work place. this guy was rolling up his sleeves and talking about the issues, and his depth of knowledge on every issue was amazing. neil: do you notice how deftly jack welch did not answer my question whether it was a good idea or not. i know this fellow well, john stossel, fox business network star, big libertarian. john, this notion, and this is where i get a little confused, a big border tax, a tax hike would pay for these tax cuts. that is the gist of it. how do you feel about it?

>> i suppose that's possibly true, that this complicated border tax will bring in money. you can lower other taxes. but, it is a terrible idea. and i can see why boeing likes it and other american manufacturers because it is corporate welfare for them. neil: why is it a terrible idea? >> because what raises economies up and makes live better forradt all these complications. trump for natalie is talking about reducing regulation. the border tax, deciding what will be taxed, one of your earlier guests pointed out, it is complicated. how do you tax financial services? that drags the economy down. what really creates prosperity when entrepreneurs can just say, i'm going to sell this as cheaply as i can and don't deal with the regulators and tax schemes. neil: you know, between that and the talk on dodd-frank and revisiting all the rules and laws and regulations that were

put in place, post the meltdown, john, the argument has always been, you need to more aggressively police all of those foxes on wall street. because you can't trust them not to get into the same trouble again. now you have a president who is trying to dial some of those rules and regulations back, maybe entirely gut dodd-frank. how do you feel about that? >> gut them all. yes. sarbanes-oxley, after enron was going to fix all the scandals. well that didn't. then dodd-frank was going to do it. now, it just drives smaller banks out of business and concentrates more of this power in washington. your british guest says no one was arrest. they weren't arrested because there was no obvious crookedness. everybody was caught up in the frenzy i don't invest in these mortgages, everybody else will beat me. neil: right. >> now we're going to have the regulators in washington didn't see it coming.

now we want to give them more power? no. let's regulate through competition. stop bailing people out. then when they make bad decisions and go bankrupt they lose their own money. neil: i raised this to a number of guests, bank of america or citigroup is on the again, john stossel seas them go? >> right. tell everybody you have fdic insurance for $200,000 but your money isn't protected. maybe you ought to read some of these best guides see how my bank is ranked or spread your money around. neil: i hear you. if a message from the trump administration that is kind of the direction we're going to go -- >> yippie. neil: so i'm saying that, admire unfettered capitalism as much as the next guy but there is some real, you know, slight meisters

that could take advantage of it. let them. >> you have to. i was a consumer reporter for 30 years, and cheered on regulation that was supposed to stop these cheaters. it never does. they always find ways to lawyer up and slime around the rulings. the regulations burden everybody. the best regulation is to let people know, you got to protect your money, spread it around. some people will cheat you. you can't stop it. neil: this been a debate, we touched on at the beginning about this border tax, that that it would be needed to pay for tax cuts which just, at that level alone bothers me, that you need a tax hike to pay for a tax cut but in this debate, that has been the issue. we have to pay for tax cuts equating it to spending. what do you make of that argument, that you treat both the same? >> i just wish they would simplify the taxes. say we have to impose new taxes

to pay for cuts seems awful. we already have a 350% tariff on tobacco. what is the point of that? 126% on paper clips from certain countries. this doesn't help us be free or prosperous. neil: but if everyone else is doing it and we're not, you say? >> i say, that if china wants, playing unfairly as trump says, and that means they're subsidizing this industry and they export to us, good. that means they're screwing their people to give us cheaper stuff. we win. in exchange, they take pieces of paper with dead presidents on them. this is not a crisis, this deficit. this is a good thing. america has done better economically when we have not run trade surpluses. neil: even if they're taking all of that money with the dead presidents and amassing this military juggernaut that could come back to kill us? how do you like the way you framed that.

>> i did like the way you framed it. more likely are, they will spend them, have all the paper. they will buy a building here. when the crisis comes are they going to repossess the building to haul it back to china? neil: touche. very good response. great catching up with you my friend. appreciate it. >> thanks. neil: john stossel. dow up 160 points. comfortably over 20,000. a lot of relief tax cuts are back on. regulatory relief is back on. that the president is engaged to the guys that like green. a guys like there, some red, some blue, some republicans, some democrats. but they're all united on the almighty quest for more money. money! after this.

hi my name is tom. i'm raph. my name is anne. i'm one of the real live attorneys you can talk to through legalzoom. don't let unanswered legal questions hold you up, because we're here, we're re, and we've got your back. legalzoom. legal help is here. legal help is here. why pause a spontaneous moment? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis.

neil: tax reform, very big topic at the white house today you about the idea that had to be revenue neutral, that is where not everyone was sort of joined at the hip. take a look. is that a consensus you, among your colleagues as well, whatever the president comes up with, they have to be revenue neutral? >> i think there is so much on the table with, in the tax area, that it is almost at this point difficult to figure out what the impact of everything would be. first, you have to find the areas that, that are suggested to be changed and see what it totals up. i don't think there was, there was not a discussion of exactly revenue neutrality. neil: did you get any sense from the president, jack, that he is keen on tax cuts but that they

be paid for, that they be, as i think mitch mcconnell said, revenue neutral? one of the reasons why some republicans have been championing this import tax, border taxes, as a way to pay for them? what do you think? >> the revenue neutrality issue did not come up today. it is a complicated issue. some love it. if you are a big u.s. manufacturer, and exporter, you love it. and if you're a retailer, bringing a lot of your stuff in, it has ramifications for you. neil: for them it would be essentially revenue neutral. and, it would be, pay more in taxes, not paying less in taxes. that is a lot of crowd that was in that room, and that's a lot of wall street running to the races. how do you think it and they would respond to that? >>well, first of all, to be honest, the individual side and rate cut for individuals didn't come up at the meeting today. you know, they can craft a system however they want. neil: right.

>> so whatever the rate comes out and they can make the rate a little higher. the plan put together by the administration was a great starting point. the house is a great starting point. they have to figure out how the math is going to work. neil: well that is the problem, right, how the math will work. to a man and woman they're interested in the fact tax reform is coming. they want to see it come. how it should be paid for and whether the tax hike at the border should pay for tax cuts for everyone else, game on. they're into it. that is one reason why wall street is. >> it. dow back over 20,000. pest who is leading the way? financial stocks, as my buddy gary kaltbaum put it, if not for them, the finaial guys, this rally wouldn't be close to what it is. it accounts for 120 plus points much this 170-point rally which is wall street's way of saying, we'll take it. after this.

achoo! ...answer it. with zicam cold remedy. it shortens colds, so you get better, faster. colds are gonna call. answer them with zicam! zicam. get your better back. now in great tasting crystals. ♪ [vo] quickbooks introduces rodney.

he has a new business teaching lessons. rodney wanted to know how his business was doing... ...so he got quickbooks. it organizes all his accounts, so he knows where he stands. ahhh...that's a profit. way to grow, rodney! visit quickbooks.com.

>> do you feel any heart pain loss with the tumbling ratings of cnbc and the soaring ratings of fox business? >> congratulations, neil, on your wonderful numbers. [laughter] >> all right. being classy. of course in his day he owned nbc and msnbc and cnbc where i also worked, cnbc and the gentleman then, a gentleman throughout. arguably one of the greatest ceos we have ever known and that would expla him being in this small powerful group of movers and shakers counseling the president of the united states on things he might want to pay attention to and other things he may not want to pay attention to and not get too distracted. jack welch is happy to hear that tax cuts are back at the table that repeal and reform of the health care laws back on the table. and that we appear for the time being to be responding very strongly to iran where

the violating of un resolutions and our own nuclear agreement. we have already talked about at this point imposing restrictions on a number of individuals, including u.s. individuals and entities helping regional terrorist groups in retaliation for this activity. now, that is how iran is going to respond to our getting with them. so this tit for tat that was widely expected continues. also the president himself will be leaving maybe within the hour where he is going to be doing a lot of weekend business and meeting with a lot of people as he outlines that tax plan. he says that is coming very soon as well a lot of the initiatives he's making to sort of take a lot of the punch and burdens out of that financial reform law, known as dodd-frank. no indications that he wants to kill it but certainly wants to change it aggressively. that without a doubt has the force of the likes of elizabeth warren furious and one that was supposed to

protect individuals has now gone back to protect the very individuals. that is her opinion. i don't think that is the president's. all right. ashley webster, this guy has been working, like, 24 hours straight. continues now. ashley. >> thank you, neil, very much. president trump signing two executive actions short time ago both aimed at scaling back financial services regulations as neil was just talking about. the actions come as the president met with some top business executives at the white house today where he vowed to bring back jobs and, oh, yes, cut taxes. good afternoon, everyone, i'm ashley webster in for trish regan and welcome, everyone, to the intelligence report. another packed hour. stay right there. president trump has promised on the very start of hideous campaign that he's going to get rid of all unnecessary regulations. and today, he's one step closer to scaling back the 2010 dodd-frank financial overhaul that he says good news for both the banks and you the consumer.