issues. stuart: most interesting story to me, so far today, a few seconds left that tesla is worth more than the ford motor company. catching up on general motors. who would have thought that. that is incredible. my time is up. neil cavuto it is yours. neil: stuart, thank you very, very much. we'll see what comes up with the meeting with the president of the egypt. he has been brand ad dictator by his critics. many are wondering why he would have a meeting here but he is leader of a foreign country. he deposed mohamed morsi. a lot of attention to that, even though morsi at the time was democratically elected, there were questions back and forth whether he was really democratically elected. that is neither hehere nor there. they will have a brief meeting inside the oval office to let us

in on reporters and questioning. the next big pow-wow is leader of china. a busy week for the president. all of this as we're waiting to hear what the judiciary committee is going to do with president's supreme court pick neil gorsuch and whether they can avoid a calamity here. a simple majority or will the judge have 60 votes necessary to avoid so-called "nuclear option" talk. chad pergram joins us on the phone, capitol hill senior producer. what are you hearing? >> there are unannounced senators here. we had a cryptic statement from michael bennet, democratic senator from colorado. he introduced neil gorsuch, opposed the filibuster. kept his powder dry. did not what he would do confirming gorsuch. he is from colorado and cointroduced neil gorsuch in his confirmmation hearing. that said seems pretty unlikely, regardless how the remaining four or five senators come out with statements here that they

will be able to get 60 votes to avoid a filibuster. a successful filibuster has never happened in the history of the united states with a supreme court nominee. abe fortis in 1968 was already on the high court. this was issue to prohim chief justice of the united states. he was successfully filibustered. here is what we think will happen. they will formally start debate on the gorsuch nomination on the floor. at the same time mitch mcconnell, the majority leader will file cloture this is effort to end a filibuster. that has to lay over for two days. you have the procedural vote to see whether or not they get0 votes on thursday. thursday seems to be the magic day in this process. if they can't get 60, that is where mitch mcconnell may light the fuse on the nuclear option but what happens here, if you have a failed cloture vote, this getting a little bit in the weeds but it is very important. if you have a failed cloture vote, you can't have anymore debate on issue. you're stuck in this

parliamentary cul-de-sac. at that point this is throbbing with political isotopes. where mcconnell could ask whoever is presiding over the senate, mike pence, anybody else, we believe, make a point of order, we believe it should only be a simple majority to overcome a filibuster for supreme court nominees. the chair would rule against him because that is not the senate precedent. then mcconnell would ask the senate to appeal the ruling of the chair. if he has more than 51 votes, which we largely think he would, then the senate would vote to establish a new precedent. th they would te, invoke cloture vote to cut off the filibuster then. then by rule, you get 30 hours after you cut off a filibuster. probably sometime friday night. regardless if they do the "nuclear option or don't do the "nuclear option, that is when neil gorsuch would be confirmed to the supreme court friday night. neil: let me ask but the last time, closest vote we ever had in recent memory supreme court justice of course was

clarence thomas. 1991. that was 52-48 vote. >> yeah. neil: did they have these byzantine rules in effect then? >> they had these rules, but it was sort of granted somebody could get past 60 votes because you have someone who votes to end the filibuster does not necessarily mean they will vote confirmed. a lot of senators regardless of the issue, even if they oppose a bill or they oppose a nominee, they are willing to vote to end debate, let the process run its course. that is what is unique here. neil, we come back to this problem with justices and how the democrats back in 2013 kind of opened pandora's box. they did something in very parliamentary gambit i just described here on all other types of executive branch nominees, judge, cabinet officials, you name it, they lowered that bar from 60 to 51 establishing that new precedent. i want to underscore this, this

is not a rules change. this is precedent change. the senate operates on precedent. neil: if harry reid made the precedent change on cabinet appointments, they didn'tly said it does not apply to supreme court appointments. is it a big deal that it is? >> that is a business deal. it took supermajority to do things. lowering the bar on executive nominations that cut into the senate's right of debate a little bit there. if they do the "the nuclear opt" this week on supreme court nominees, that cuts into it a little further. the real problem, do they completely get rid of filibuster on all types of legislation? that is always been the pristine province of the united states senate. it is hard to believe, if they do the "nuclear option this week on supreme court nominees that they don't toss the filibuster eventually on all types of legislation. neil: we'll keep a close eye here. one way or the other, looks like

a committee vote later today. it is a fairly safe bet that gorsuch will survive that one. probably along party lines. he has three confirmed democrats with him right now. possibility of another two are teetering. but the full senate vote on friday would likely need a majority, would vote for him and probably by about a 55-45 vote. way too early to tell. i do want to look at this weighing on stocks a little bit here today, down about 124 points. weighing in this respect. that it is complicating the atmosphere in the senate and in congress for a lot of the trump agenda items. i think that is a leap because there are other factors in play here, including reports came out a little better than expected but sh a slowing in economic momentum. that could be weighing on stoc as well. i will get into this a little bit later, but the political fallout with all of uva center for politics director, larry sabato. he has a new book out about the

election trawled "trump." larry on the fallout on this, if we have to get as nasty as some say it will get, that it is just a simple majority that confirms gorsuch on friday, what is the fallout from that? >> well, it suggests, reduction in comity, c-o-m-t-y in the senate. the comedy in the senate will still be there. the comity in consensus which we valued. chad brought up a very interesting point back in 1968 he mentioned the filibuster against justice abe fortis who was nominated to become chief justice during lyndon johnson's last year of president. of course he didn't get it because of a corruption scandal. back then, it took 67 votes to cut off a filibuster. in the mid 1970s, the 67 was lowered to 60.

by the end of the week, as chad suggested correctly it will be lowered 50 plus the vote of the vice president. this has been going on for a long time. i may regret it. you may regret it. others may say it is a decline in consensus tt we used to have in our system but it's reality. neil: you know, some have likened it to the end of the edge of the senate. in other words, this is where you found consensus. this is where you bridge the divide. this is where two sides work together. otherwise you might as well be a six-year congressman, a six-year representative, because that is what this comes down to. do you buy that? >> well, i do think that there is something to what many senators on both sides are saying some publicly, some privately, they're asking what is the difference going to be between the u.s. senate and the house of representatives? you just said it. it is a six-year term, rather than a two-year term but they're operating on the same partisan basis. and you know i think that is a concern. the founders had a different

vision of the senate and its role in american government. if we're losing that, then i think that's regrettable. i do disagree with chad on one thing. i don't think this will immediately or anytime soon lead to the abolition of the 60-vote rule for legislation. both majority leader mcconnell and minority leader schumer say that they do not want that to happen and they know of very few senators who want to give up on that rule for legislation. now maybe it happens in 10 years, i don't know but i don't think it will happen anytime soon. neil: but wouldn't it also go through with this, "nuclear option," whatever you want to call it, it would-be hoof whoever is in power to get the most strident justice they possibly could? democrats in control, all you need is simple majority, liberal as liberal can be, if republicans are in charge, conservative as conservative can be if no other reason to appeal

your base and you got -- >> you got it. this is another intense polarization we've seen develop since the 7 '70s, and '80s, this is going on for decades and keeps getting work. it is like one nation indisvisible, we're becoming a two nations disvisible. neil: you have a future as a professor. >> thank you very much. neil: anything i can do. best-selling author, professor extraordinaire. meantime we are getting a gauge how president trump feels about this one of his single greatest accomplishments in the eyes of his critics and those who love the guy, the gorsuch appointment was solid choice, depending on your political point of view but he continues to tweet about this and other mats in his interest. if you think he will dial back those tweets, indications are that he is not, telling "the financial times" he thinks

it is way to bypass the so-called fake media. former bush 43 speechwriter, charlie fern. charlie what do you make about this, the president stands by this approach he keeps stating, state his views and tweet them out because they're unfiltered that way? >> good afternoon. this is nothing new in the history of american presidency. the goal has always been to speak directly to the american people through as few filters as possible from the very first radio address through television -- neil: we didn't have tweets back in washington's day or lincoln's day. maybe this is the means you do >> whistle stop tours. neil: okay. >> speeches were delivered by phonograph. they made records they would distribute. the speed at which these messages are transmitted. whiplash we get from a lot of messages and limit of amount of information out in the tweets, causes a lot of confusion or

initial reaction. we saw in the very beginning of the campaign and even beginning of the presidency was a lot stronger reaction to some of the things trump was tweeting. that sort of swung back to the enter. people are more wait and see, especially the american people to see what happens next. neil: yeah. >> i don't think it makes our job any easier in the media. neil: no, it does not. >> makes it highly entertaining. neil: it does. i was going to say. you read my mind. steve, one of the thing that comes up with this, the president is free to tweet, who am i to judge, i do think he veers off course and goes inside diatribes and sues nothing to do with e agendat hand. he can use the tweets, and i think quite effectively to augment his argument on issues of the day to keep laser-like focus on things he wants to get done. i feel he goes off the rails when he gets into these other things he invariably he tweets about. that is my view. what do you think? >> i agree with that. charlie worked in the

white house. used to the president speaking to the american people. do it in a way coordinated, voices to amplify the message. the problem i looked this morning, 50% of the president's most recent tweets have nothing to do with anything he is trying to accomplish something in washington. for somebody working in the white house, i can't imagine day-to-day to manage the message all of sudden your president spouts off on something you're trying to get done. it takes away the ability to ghetto your goals. neil: his goals right now, obviously wants to do a health care rework, charlie. he is looking at doing that. he hasn't given up on that. despite the reports you have seen in the media but it was he who went after fellow republicans, conservative caucus. that wasn't fake news. that was his, tweeting displeasure with a lot of conservative caucus members. don't his tweets go against his very argument here? >> actually, it's a double-edged sword, isn't it, trying to speak directly to the people, but doing it in such a quick way he

can be either emotional or misinterpreted. neil: right. >> i think one of the examples from the bh admistraon were, we would go out on tours and want to speak to local media, rather than through the news services associated press and sufficient. so the message was being given directly to reporters. there was time for thoughtful distribution and agreement. even surrogates were on message at that time. now again, anytime we're in this great experiment of media and democracy, there are going to be challenges. obviously impressive that a0-year-old man is using twitter to begin with -- 70-year-old. less than 10% of twitter users are over the age of 65. there are definitely pros and cons using this medium. neil: i don't know if you heard this internet thing will be huge but i die guess. -- digress. steve, the president is criticized for being thin-skinned but i look at mainstream media reaction to him they seem pretty thin-skinned

about his caricature of them. i wonder if it comes back to bite him? because they have long memories and get out of sort so easily, they're doing the nixon thing, waiting, waiting, waiting, prepared to pounce. what do you make of that? >> well i think everybody is trying to figure out their way in this new world. president trump, say what you want about him, completely changed all the conventions that existed prior. neil: true. >> i can't imagine anybody in obama's white house, obama acting like this. i'm sure charlie looks at this sometimes and saying no way my guy would do this either. people are trying to figure out what their place in this new world is. i think it is strange to be in the briefing room and have the president tweet your name directly and how you respond to it. neil: meantime, we're waiting for this meeting with th tian leader. he haseen ried for even meeting with him, charlie. that comes up. he says he will meet with leaders of countries. that is just what presidents do. what do you think of that?

>> it's great to be with the president of egypt. i will tell you president el-sisi has been close to me from the first time i met him. i met him during the campaign. we both met and hopefully you like me a lot more. it was a very long, it was just supposed to be a quick brief meeting. we were with each other for long. i want to let everybody know if case there was any doubt. we're very much behind president el-sisi. he is doing a terrific job in a difficult situation. we're very much behind the people of egypt and the united states, believe me, backing and we have strong backing.

we're still talking and building up our military to the probably the highest we've ever had. plane orders, ship orders. aircraft carrier orders. we are rejuvenating our military to the highest level. i think in these times, probably more than ever before, or certainly almost more than ever before, that is what we need. i want to say to you, mr. president, you have a great friend, ally in the united states and to me. >> thank you very much. [inaudible] [speaking in native tongu

>> translator: your ex-is len sy, allow me to express your appreciate my appreciation to your kindness to me. this is my first state visit to the united states since my integration and as a matter of fact, this is the first visit in eight years from a egyptian president to the united states. >> great. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]

>> your excellency since we met last september, have had a deep appreciation and admiration of your unique personality, especially as you're standing very strong in the counterterrorism field. to counter this evil ideology that is claiming so many lives, bringing devastation to communities and to nation, and that is terrorizing the innocent people. your excellency, very strongly and very openly you will find egypt and myself always beside you in the, bringing back effective strategy in counterterrorism. [speaking in native tongue]

>> translator: the second point, your excellency, that we're firmly supporting you very strongly and very ernestly in finding solution to problem of this century. i'm quite confident that you will be able to bring a solution to this issue. >> we will. that i tell you. we will. thank you very much. we will do that together. we'll fight terrorism and other things and we're going to be friends for a long, long period of time. we have a great bond with the people of egypt and i look forward to working with the president and we have some interesting conversations going to start effective immediately. then we're going into the cabinet room and we're going to meet with your representatives. so, again, thank you very much for coming, and i look forward to a very long and strong relationship. thank you. [shouting questions] neil: i was waiting to see if anyone was going to ask any questions out there.

let's listen in a little bit. [shouting questions] >> thank you. thank you. >> thank you, guys. neil: all right. yeah, i was listening, obviously peppering him questions about russian explosion in st. petersburg, russia. it claimed 10 lives. looking more and more like a terrorist attack. they can't be sure. one. trains they found a detonating weapon. again we'll keep you posted on that. again the president meeting today with the egyptian president, abdel fattah el-sisi. he was deed a dictator, because he toped the democratically-elected regime of mohamed morsi. that gave him the cold showedder from barack obama at the time. the argument then the toppling

of that regime that el-sisi was not a democratically elected leader. he and then president-elect trump, candidate trump hit it off at a september meeting when they were in town for a u.n. confab and continued to it off. president meets later this week with chinese president xi xinping at mar-a-lago. the president is sort of expected to give him his piece of mind how to deal with north korea. he says it is up to you to handle north korea. if you don't we will. that is left open what that will mean and what a unilateral president trump will do in all of that. stocks are done on a rocky note. much is being made trying to find reasons for this. market watch is clinging to numbers being played out that include key support level that might be broached today. it's a way too early to tell. we've got market watchers, gary kaltbaum, keith bliss.

gary what are they anxious about? we had a heady first quarter where stocks advanced on average 5%, all the major aggregates. what is going on here today? >> i think there is a couple of things. number one earnings come out in earnest starting friday with the financials. if they're not up to snuff, i do not think this move can last. the other part of the equation, inaction of legislation. not proposal, not talk, not yapping, but the actual enenaction of legislation, talking tax reform, regulatory reform. that has got to get done. i think the markets made a very big bet on it. neil: all right, now, do you look at this, keith, when you see the markets they're poised for this so-called perfection? things have to go just to plan, health care rework has to work, tax cut rollout has to rollout just right, and that anything shy of that, anything that goes slightly, not to form, is

growing to kill stocks? what do you think? >> well, i don't think it will kill stocks and i don't subscribe to the viewpoint that we don't have everything to be wrapped up by a nice pretty bow by summer recess for congress. neil: even if that is the expectation, keith? >> you know expectations aside, what you're seeing today, neil, what you're seeing along the lines in the equity markets, it is true they got a run-up because of pro-growth agenda items on president trump peace policies what he wants to do, but what you're seeing today is a reaction to some strong macro date that didn't come in as expectations. biggest thing to me that could take the market down, if earnings don't meet expectations, and we're looking nine to 10% year-over-year earnings growth for a lot of earnings. auto sales were weak. the auto sector looks poised to be in some trouble for some time. defaults are going up. lease inventory is skyrocketing. that is a major component to the economy. if that doesn't stay healthy, in the housing sector that creeps

into the constituent industries that service the auto industries. you will see market react here. i still subscribe we're deeply oversold inside of the equity indices. we need traction on that. as long as we're buffetted between hard data like auto sales, gdp, manufacturing data, which was eh today, and this bifurcation of hard data versus soft data, people aren't spending a lot of money, we're not seeing it backed up in the growth data you will see the market wax and wane. we're getting the wane day, i like that eh, technical term. pretty good. gary, quickly, transports are breaking down. some people who follow the dow theory say that is harbinger of not great things to come. breakdown of small cap stocks and the like and financial stocks of late, what do you read in all of that? >> for me it is the financials, neil. on november 9th they broke

out of a major trading range with monstrous volume. they are now leading markets down. we're only down a couple of percent but if that continues i will all but guarranty you the market will follow. just remember, we have not had more than a 2% correction. it is normal to have 5% correction plus in the course of a bullish phase. i think there is a pretty decent chance that we're in the midst of one right now. i would not be surprised that the reaction to earnings are not going to be that great. i suspect we could go down a few more%. i have to mention something about autos. they are acting terribly. ford, gm, breaking down badly. i think that is noteworthy. but for me again, i have to say it one more time, the financials led up. looks likehey'retarting to lead down. i uld watch those first and foremost. neil: guys, thank you both very, very much the dow is down about 86 point, starting quarter off on a bit of a bumpy note. another 3 1/2 hours to go on this trading day. meantime the president now

says that it is the media, the fact-challenged media is making a big deal over friction within the republican ranks, particularly when it comes to a rework on health care. if that is the case, why are we hearing that the administration wants to set up primary challenges to those like well congressman amash who have not kindly of the president's criticism of some of those members of the freedom caucus? after this. ♪ but i keep it growing by making every dollar count. that's why i have the spark cash card from capital one. with it, i earn unlimited 2% cash back on all of my purchasing. and that unlimited 2% cash back from spark means thousands of dollars each year going back into my business... which adds fuel to my bottom line. what's in your wallet? at crowne plaza we know business travel isn't just business. there's this.

'a bit of this. why not? your hotel should make it easy to do all the things you do. which is what we do. crowne plaza. we're all business, mostly.

neil: all right. we're just getting some tape in they weren't done. president trump was not done addressing reporters and some of their questions meeting with the president of egypt. let's dash back to that. oh, we're waiting for it. you know who we're not waiting for? this guy. it is the gaspo. charlie gasparino. sorry i screwed that up, charlie. the president shows sort of stick your thumb in the nose of the critics by meeting with the

egypt shun president in first place, doesn't he. >> he can be incredibly diplomatic and on message and effective like he was during the state of the union address. that, there is dichotomy of donald trump. it is tweeting, the crazy stuff. neil: this stuff. hold on. this is the president. >> start right now. we have many things in common. we have a few things that we don't agree on and i think that this is going to be a very productive day and it's a great honor. and a great honor to meet you folks. thank you very much for coming. appreciate it very much. [. [speaking in native tongue] ]. [speaking in native tongue]

>> thank you very much. thank you, everybody. appreciate it. thank you very much. appreciate it. thank you very much. [shouting questions] neil: well, i'm glad we went to that because, did any of you hear what he said? i feel like, huh? it will be a busy day for the president. we're waiting to hear of the gorsuch thing out of committee of the does it make any difference with the wall street whether it is simple majority or 60 votes? >> i think so. the way this is getting translated now, the markets are off a little bit, simply this. if they can't get democratic help on gorsuch, like none, using "nuclear option," 51, what type of democratic help will they get on tax cuts and infrastructure? as we've been reporting on your

show a lot, there is continued feud with the freedom caucus. we've been talking about that. we've been doing a lot of reporting. neil: very dramatic on the president. he loves them. media is making a big deal. they are loving each other. justin amash, they want to primary him. >> they believe, his chief of staff, reince priebus, who is princably behind this, long-standing feud with conservatives in his party, a big sort of supporter of paul ryan and obviously the health care plan which he was directed they're against it. they think this begins and ends with reince. they have a lot better relationship with -- neil: where is the conservative caucus, individual members how they voted on certain things or would have, they stood by him in the darkest moment? >> i wonder if trump reels lies that. if priebus realizes that. i wonder -- neil: all the leadership guys did not. >> pence didn't go on tv. kellyanne conway disappeared. rudy giuliani did. very few --

neil: a lot of them, even amash, were smarting at this. i'm wondering if the president is tweeting out we're all getting along and everything is fine, yet, by his own blessing pushing a primary challenge to amash and maybe others what do you make of that? >> they think reince is behind that, not necessarily trump even though it is his twitter handle. neil: do you think anything is done without the president's knowledge, in the administration? >> no. certain things have to be, because he can't, unless he wants to be jimmy carter, controlling the times on the tennis courts. here is the thing, neil, if he is at war with the right-wing of his party, this is why the markets are skittish today, if he is not going to get any democratic support, even someone eminently qualified like this supreme court justice, whether you agree or disagree, he is eminently qualified, very quality judge, neil gorsuch, if you can't get any democrats, you're warring with the right-wing of your party, how are you going to get consensus on a fiscal policy?

that is something that is hovering over the markets recently. why the markets traded off somewhat. trading off somewhat today. i think that's where -- neil: do they doubt they will get some of the things they want? is that it? all this gets in the way of things they like? >> listen i've been you can talking to a lot of sophisticated investors with lots money in the market, running money, if you can't get people in your own party on certain things and can't get democrats, the thing stalls. there are technical factors why stocks go up as well. low interest rates we still have. the fact there are half as many stocks available on listed exchanges, 10, 20 years ago. guess what? money natural flows from pension funds to stocks which provides a floor. that said, dow 21,000 is essentially predicated on a pretty significant corporate tax cut as we were talking about on your show this weekend. neil: tax cuts, do individual rates later, they will be okay with that? >> if it's a good one, yes.

market is pricing corporate stuff, not necessarily the individual ones. the reason why? because it redowns to earns immediately theoretically. neil: just disagree with that. i do. i think a lot of these guys want to see a tax cut themselves and don't see it i -- >> i like lower -- i don't think it is the government's money. it is my money. i almost said something else. it is mine. i don't want the government to have it. neil: you sound very selfish. >> yes, i'm doing for greater good i would, i would give up my personal tax cut and let corporations reap the benefits of capitalism. neil: if you're watching, irs, you heard that, gaspo would gladly pay more taxes. we're on that after this. this actually makes sense. now on the next page you'll see a breakdown of costs. what? it's just...

we were going to ask about it but we weren't sure when. so thanks. yeah, that's great. being clear and upfront. multiplied by 14,000 financial advisors, it's a big deal. and it's how edward jones makes sense of investing. 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.

gave us the power to turn this enemy into an ally? microsoft and its partners are using smart traps to capture mosquitoes and sequence their dna to fight disease. there are over 100 million pieces of dna in every sample. with the microsoft cloud, we can analyze the data faster than ever before. if we can detect new viruses before they spread, we may someday prevent outbreaks before they begin.

♪ neil: all right, blake burman at the white house where the president is meeting with the leader of egypt.

he has been deemed by critics as sort of a hands off relationship for barack obama being what they call a dictator but he is the leader of egypt and that is the role which he comes to the white house. blake, what are you hearing? reporter: hi, there, neil. that was part of the criticisms from critics of the president el-sisi, the past administration as well, that the dictatorship label gets thrown around, human rights abuses that the past administration and some take issue with. there is clearly a reboot. that is the way u.s. officials are trying to describe what is happening right now inside of the white house between the relationships of the current u.s. government and president el-sisi. you saw a little bit of the first exchanges between the two moments ago as it was el-sisi describing president trump as somebody with a very engaging and quote, unique personality was the way he put it, saying he has an appreciation for that. and president trump saying he has full support, el-sisi does, of the current administration and it is an ally that the

united states will stand behind. take a listen here to the president just a little while ago. >> we'll fight terrorism and other things and we're going to be friends for a long, long period of time. we have a great bond with the people of egypt and i look forward to working with the president and we have some interesting conversations going to start effective immediately. reporter: neil, the focus here is on fighting isis, pushing back against the muslim brotherhood. that is part of the reboot the administration sees. all of this comes among a rather busy week for president trump as it relates to foreign relations. as you know at the end of this week he heads down to mar-a-lago for that summit with xi xinping, the chinese president. neil: who schedules this? that is pretty aggressive foreign leader meeting week. would i have spread it out a little bit but -- reporterthis on monday. that on friday. meeting with the president as well. sprinkle in neil gorsuch, health

care, taxes and the like, welcome to the white house i guess. neil: exactly. this seems to be working. blake burman, thank you. former white house national security council staffer gillian turner on what to make of this busy schedule first off and whether it suits or in keeping with the president's schedule anyway. what do you think? >> i agree with you, neil. it is quite a big lineup for three foreign heads of state in one week is a lot. but i also think president trump and the administration feel as certain degree of urgency when it comes to these three countries in particular. a lot of folks have said on social media and on other places they're surprised to see egypt makes the list of the first 10 countries, that get to have an official white house visit. the reason, the reason here is twofold. number one, is that president trump really wants to establish better relations with countries he feels the obama administration sort of neglected, particularly our more

moderate arab allies in the middle east, one of which is egypt. the other is jordan. so that is the explanation for those two. i think what blake pointed out a few minutes ago is right. there is this really weird tension here comes down to the fact that he el see see is legie although through a coup and they want to fight the muslim brotherhood. neil: maybe it suits him brilliantlyif everyone is saying don't do something he has got to do it. conversely if everyone says he has to do something, the hell if i will do that that is almost his driving kind of style. what do you make of that? >> i agree with that? i definitely can get on board with that i think he lights to play against expectation. i think he also likes to surprise people. he likes to definitely surprise his critics, that is one of his hallmarks or his trademarks at

this point. one thing i would say. i do think there is a little bit of surprise in store with him for his he will see see visit. --alhe is coming here with moref and ask, to ask the president to help them financially strengthen their economy. finally on the up swing for many years. he will ask for increase in u.s. investment and aid. how president trump will respond, i don't know. maybe he will surprise us. my guess he will be too thrilled bit. neil: whether you guy this is a dictate or or not, with whever he did to pose morsi. we had dicey relationship with morsi. >> for good reason. neil: for good reason. we might from ourselfish perspective this guy is more

closer to our interest than the last guy, right? >> absolutely. a reset to, through diplomacy is always something that i think people should get behind, if it has real chance. if it has the potential to really take on legs because these are the kind of relationships we really rely on around the world. people who are, not quite allies but definitely not adversaries. in a sense it is kind of a week of that. if you think about egypt, jordan and china, these are all kind of frenemies in a sense. china is a competitor, rather than an ally. these other two countries are not competitors but they're sort of, they're allies but only in really the defense area, in the defense space. it is interesting, this is first real test. president trump is dealing with these foreign leaders. we're getting our first glimpse now in of aftermath of the el-sisi meeting.

maybe give peace a chance. neil: i like that. gillian, i will run with that one.ain. >> thanks, neil. neil: as we kick off the second quarter after 10 straight up quarters in a row, six i should say in a row, likes of which we hen't seen in 10 years. give-back, some pause is probably in orr. but what is behind this pause today? what if i told some economic momentum kind of losing its momentum. after this. ♪ [ engine revs ]

[ screams ] [ shouting ] brace yourself! this is crazy! [ tires screeching ] whoo! boom baby! rated pg-13. [ screams ] [ [ screams ] ] [ shouting ] brace yourself! this is crazy! [ tires screeching ] whoo!

boom baby! rated pg-13. [ screams ]

♪ neil: wow. that, i like that. i wanted to see it again. lots of market movement in the short term. you always hear investors say kick off another quarter, don't be upset about quarter to quarter movements. think long term. begs another question, what is long term? former morgan stanley chief economist vincent reinhardt. first off what do you consider long term these days? >> long-term growth is what an econy can achieve in the next three to five years. bad news is, estimates of that long-run growth has come down probably a percentage point over the past 10 years. we're only growing 1 1/2% a year. neil: it is interesting, if you were to talk to an investor at

the market heights back in 2000, make a 10-year bet on this market 10 years later, maybe excluding dividends and capital gains you would not have seen much growth at all in your portfolio. so a lot of people soured by that experience of the financial meltdown are leery to come back into the market now. what do you tell them? >> i tell them there aren't many places to pick up return and one of them is in the equity markets. the other is in u.s. fixed income markets and maybe a little in emerging markets. that growth is associated with the long-term expansion earnings and the ability to service balance sheets. the best way an economy delivers that, is by, having increases in hours worked and increases in output per hour. there is no mystery to it. you have to get potential output growth through productivity growth and more hours worked. neil: vincent, when you look at markets right now, you hear they're poised to run up and

have been running up, largely on optimism that the trump agenda is investor-friendly agenda, whether you're republican or democrat, conservative or liberal, that is buoying the markets, notwithstanding the end to the last quarter notwithstanding that is what people look forward to. low taxes. regulatory environment. that is what is guiding this. do you agree with that? >> i think search for return is pretty bipartisan. neil: well-put. >> i think the hardest question in finance when you're looking at prices of assets is, how much is already priced in and how much is more to come? i, there is a sense, particularly in equity markets in november and december and beginning of this year, that, people got a little ahead of themselves about expecting more out of washington quicker, than the clunky machinery of american politics actually can deliver. do think they will deliver. but, you know, first on my list

actually is regulatory relief, that president has been doing that already in terms of the sick tiff orders he has been signing. as they change regulators that will have material effect on opportunity to save and invest. next comes tax policy. capitol hill has to get itself in order and get on the same page as the president. that i think will happen this year. it just won't be a pretty process. neil: might happen, we're having this debate internally at fox business and fox, that the markets definitely want corporate tax reform, if that is all they get, they might be dissatisfied and sell off that, a lot are individual taxpayers themselves and want their own tax break f it doesn't materialize they might stomp and get very angry. what do you think? >> the reality is the recent taxes don't get reformed very often. the last real one was in 1986. it is complicated. neil: right. >> a lot of infrastructure gets

crusted around the tax code by special intests. the problem just changing the corporate income tax, i agree with you here, is that there are some, so much of u.s. business activities run through the personal income tax system. neil: right. >> you can't change one rate and have higher rate sitting there in, on household side when so much of what we do is still at the good ol' 1040 form. neil: you're right. vincent reinhardt, thank you. former morgan stanley chief economist in boston. that and the whole gorsuch showdown is coming to a head with a committee vote and friday, it just could be a simple majority. that is the best you can hope for. but it would make it interesting. my name is pam. i'm 51 years old. when i was diagnosed with

pneumococcal pneumonia, it was huge for everybody. she just started to decline rapidly. i was rushed to the hospital... my symptoms were devastating. the doctor said, "pam! if you'd have waited two more days, you would've died." if i'd have known that a vaccine could have helped prevent this, i would have asked my doctor or pharmacist about it.

..

neil: we are right now wait a judiciary sadness committee vote on neil gorsuch. not much of a 30 along party lines. he will be out of committee approved now for a full senate vote scheduled friday. therein lies the details there may be a new crisis for these guys get the simple majority 60-vote. adam shapiro at the very, very latest. hey, adam. reporter: you are right. he is expected to get out of committee and open the door for judge gorsuch to be the next supreme court justice. senate democrats led by chuck schumer, they vowed to filibuster or provide the debate andefinitely on judge gorsuch

denying him an up or down vote. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell needs 60 votes to bring about closure, which would end a filibuster in the debate and clear the way for an up-and-down vote on the judge. senate majority leader mcconnell needs the 60 senators to vote yes on cloture to end the filibuster and end the debate and do all of that. only four democrats will vote yes when the filibuster. west virginia joe manchin, heidi heitkamp, joe donnelly and colorado michael bennet. bennett, the sun from judge gorsuch home state has not said if he will vote yes or no when they get to the up-and-down vote. democrats undecided on all of this for the filibuster. one option is for senator mcconnell to change senate president, which a lot of people called the nuclear option good republican senator lindsey graham expects that to happen. >> this will be the last person that will be subject to a filibuster. which was in effect in 1988.

the senate traditiontradition s are going to change over this man is >> the nuclear option is the parliamentary procedure that would lower the threshold and 60 votes needed to end the filibuster to a simple majority vote at the one. this is exactly what democrats did in 2013 when they controlled the senate and they changed the president to run filibusters on executive branch nominees. judge gorsuch to begin tuesday. senator mcconnell to file a cloture petition to end the debate tuesday. the nate could vote as early as friday on the judge. back to you. neil: all right, adam. thank you very much. we are getting word now that delaware senator cruz is set to make a statement in the next 10 minutes or so. he has not publicly come out for or against judge gorsuch. if were to come up for him, he

would be the fourth democrat to do so. joe manchin has done so, joe donnelly, heidi heitkamp of north dakota. no indication what coons's announcement would mean. democrats are in the same mentality as republicans hardening their positions. they say chuck schumer says for the 60 votes distinctive outcome of their fear republican majority will do what they say to that. this could be a sign of maybe a softening of that. it would still mean that in that case if they go for 60s that he's got to have at least a democratic votes, assuming all 52 republicans vote. that's not such a sure thing at the right might point out that he would need at least that. we're watching that very closely to former justice scalia. michael can nearly come nobody make of this latest developments in where this is all going for friday? >> to be honest with you, i'm

shocked we are in this position. judge gorsuch you have a nominee is exceptionally well-qualified. the american bar association gave him their highest approval rating unanimously. president osama acting solicitor general come out in a long line of his colleagues, former coeagues, former clerk and lawyers in front of him who have attested to his wonderful temperament. the fact that he can be fined through this process of run support is surprising to me. neil: you know this stuff far better than i., but i always think whenever one calls the nuclear option, like the nuclear option to me is i don't think you can equate anything also to what we do with nuclear weaponry. having said that, i'm curious why such a big deal when in the past we've seen the likes of clarence thomas approved after a raucous committee hearings by a 5248 vote.

so how has it elevated to the point now that it has? >> i'm not sure how this sort of discourse on this issue i've gotten to the point where people repeat the idea that supreme court justices have to get 60 votes. the reality is you haven't had a alabaster, successful one of the supreme court just days in 50 years and that was justice abe fortis and the filibuster there was bipartisan. and andersen said that they have an ethics concerns. you've never had a filibusters and then. we something really unprecedented. both justice thomas was confirmed with less than six yes votes and justice alito was as well. neil: where does this go? you could argue simple majority is all it takes. the nuclear option notwithstanding, would it be whoever was in control of the senate to take the most extreme judicial nominee possible so if republicans are in charge of those conservative candidates,

if democrats -- the most liberal candidate, we look at delaware senator coons who might kick the stand shortly on what he wants to do. this is going to make for more extreme judge choices in the future. >> well, i do think the part of having the filibuster out there as presidents to think about it when they make their nomination and if you don't have that anymore, that won't be there. i worry that as this process gets more and more politicized as it seems each cycle it does as soon it will be impossible for presidents to nominate a justice unless they also -- the party also has control of the senate. neil: all right and i thank you very, very much, michael. i'm looking at senator coons right now. is he saying anything? >> the law of our land were loving couples can affirm their commitment by the opposite not for same-sex mac. other cases like dred scott,

plessy or dormont to have listings that have outlasted the service of anyone justice. since justice antonin scully a pastor way february 26 and, i have reflected on the importance of our supreme court in the senate's responsibility to evaluate the president's nominee to fill the vacancy. just over 25 years ago, i was myself a law student intern on the senate judiciary committee nomination unit for then chairman joe biden. and at that time, i heard from them long serving senator is a record of grievances that misunderstanding, a file committed one party against the other in a variety of confirmations and hearings in the bush and reagan administrations in before. and i am struck that half of the committee serving here today hasn't previously participated in any supreme court confirmation on this committee. when justice scalia died, i called on president obama to

nominate a consensus candidate to the court that would help the spread chart deep partisan divide and enhance the legitimacy of the court on which our rule of law so profoundly depend on president obama did just that. he nominated chief judge merrick garland by any account. one of the most centrist and can her mobile nominees ever nominated to the supreme court. but instead of healing the wounds left by partisan battles long since passed, new unformed. republicans held the seat open for over 300 days without regard for the damage of doing so to the court or to this body and i appreciate my colleague, senator franken's defense of the speech once given by my former boss on this committee, senator biden. that may be clear, this action by my colleagues was fun except well and has scarred this process and this body. i senator corn in previously remarked, ere has never been a partisan filibuster a supreme court nominee in history and

while technically correct, i question what a seven month refusal to hold a hearing or vote is if not the longest partisan filibuster on this committee other. i haven't forgotten the injustice done to justice merrick garland and neither have any of my colleagues. do we simply cannot move this body in this committee forward if we simply endlessly obsess over past grievances and revenge. and so, unlike the majority leader, who announced before there was any nominee for president obama, that he would get no hearing. i pledge to treat president trumps nominee, judge neil gorsuch to engage in this process and make it though. i have kept an open mind. after reviewing judge gorsuch record, after meeting with him twice, after participating in four days of very well-run senate judiciary committee

confirmation hearings, said many questions and getting feedback from literally thousands of delaware ends. i have decided that i will not support judge gorsuch nomination of the judiciary committee today. i appreciate that judge gorsuch is an intelligent jurist, an engaging writer. i admire his comtment. neil: therhave been signals here that senator chris coons at delaware might be one of those democrats to go ahead and vote for neil gorsuch if for no other reason than keep the distinction with the united states senate to require a bipartisan push that is separate from the body in the house and go ahead and vote for gorsuch. he will not join three of his democratic colleagues supporting him. looks more and more likely the republican plan to approve a simple majority votes in the senate, the so-called nuclear option on friday is very much the likelihood. he will likely clear the

judiciary committee along party lines today. abn 11-9 vote, but that is still in the works here. someone who i've been rumored to be torturing over this and might vote for him now is no one gorsuch. we are also following the president's comments as well as we look at this unfold with the health care rework of the repeal effort that the president says is still moving forward and he is still very confident. this next hello as serious concerns about a. dr. mario molina opposed to the original gop health care plan hasn't been the details of any rework said the plan, but the doctor joins us now. good to have you, sir. >> thanks, rick for inviting me. neil: you are concerned about the herd, lower income beneficiaries to the health care plan, obamacare plan by going after medicare, medicaid funding

on the finance and a lot of poor folks for those not as wealthy get to maintain their insurance. that is the gist of it, right? >> that's correct. we don't care what the cbo says. 24 million people lose their insurance coverage under the proposal recently withdrawn from congress. neil: so what do you want to see republicans look at this again? >> well, you know, there are two issues here. one is the marketplace and marketplace stability. i think that congress needs to get themselves some time to develop a bipartisan solution. the best way to do that is to continue the funding for the marketplace for 2017-2018. that means finding the csr's, which are subsidies that help low-income people pay the co-pay .-center-dot the bulls. and then we need to address medicaid. the issues run medicaid or the high cost of medicaid and the fact that so many high cost

nations are in a fee-for-service environment where there is no oversight or management of their cost in the program has a lot of fraud and abuse. neil: would you ever consider whether it's obamacare as it stands out where we were to grant under what republicans consider not just abandoning, get out. >> well, yes actually we would. if the csr are not funded for 2017, we would consider that a breach of contract and would probably withdraw from the market in 2017 and 2018 at yankee with ta collapsed. these are decisions that can be made by the president and by the house republicans to stabilize the marketplace and they need to be done to them because we have to submit our rates for 2018 and may appear without knowing how they will fund the program or what is and and what is out, we can't develop those premium rates.

neil: dr., it seems they are not sustainable. the map is not sustainable as things are now. if the caret stays in place exactly as it is, wouldn't you face the same dilemma? >> well, there are clearly issues with the affordable care act and there have been since it was first passed. but what we really need is to buy congress some time to develop a bipartisan solution. what we saw with the ahca was a partisan attempt that failed. you can argue the same thing about the aca. but we really need is for congress to come together. if i were the president, i would find the csr and then go to leaders in the senate like senator hatch and ask them to lead a bipartisan effort to reform the health care system. neil: would you leave -- i mean, united states, california, florida, michigan, ohio, texas, utah, wisconsin, what would you

do with the 1 million or so members part of this marketple? what would happen next? >> well, 70% of our members are covered under car sharing reductions or csr. we can't absorb the loss in funding. if it's withdrawn, that would basically be a breach of our contract for the government to provide health care would have to give our members noticed amid the marketplace. neil: i'm sorry, sir. united health care, some of these others want to be for different reasons that financially unsustainable for them in a different sense for you much the same. it is possible here that the financial underpinning for the affordable care act, even as it now stands is in question. >> well, i think this is really up to the republicans in the president what they want to do. if they want to stabilize the market place and buy some time to create a replacement.

otherwise, you'll see tremendous disruption and millions of people could lose their insurance this year. so i am hoping cooler heads will prevail. neil: i just want to be clear. when you say this or that is whether they come up with an alternative plan or not. >> that's correct. the csr right now are funded through may. there is a court appeal going on and the funding has continued while that decision is being appealed. there has been talk about some solution to continue the funding of the csr in 2017. without them i don't think we can continue and many other smaller not-for-profit plans participating, some of the single state blue cross blue shield plans might withdraw as well. there is a near-term crisis coming to send a message time. neil: one way or another. dr. mario molina, thank you are taking the. >> thank you. neil: which is an interesting read. we thought we would share that

with you from someone whose the from someone whose the front lines on this. something's got to be done even as it is now. but they like what republicans are planning or not. as it stands now, what we thought might not be sustainable. beyond the big boys then leaping the exchanges, the smaller players who ensure to back up those not quite as well off who could also see themselves off the radar on this. switching to washington, chris coons of the fine state of delaware indicating he will not join three other colleagues in supporting neil gorsuch for the supreme court seat once owned by antonin scalia. but that all seems to mean right now as these and is that judge gorsuch will certainly cleared the senate judiciary committee along party lines us, but of almost assuredly as well and friday be a simple majority of senators and republican-controlled body that will see him as the next supreme court justice. not 60 votes, more like as things stand now, 55.

a little bit more after this.

don't let dust and allergens get between you and life's beautiful moments. flonase allergy relief delivers more complete relief. flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances that cause all your symptoms, including nasal congestion and itchy, watery eyes. flonase is an allergy nasal spray that works even beyond the nose. so you can enjoy every beautiful moment to the fullest. flonase. 6>1 changes everything.

please repeat the objective. ♪ thrivent mutual funds. managed by humans, not robots. before investing, carefully read and consider fund objectives, risks, charges and expenses in the prospectus at thriventfunds.com. your insurance on time. tap one little bumper, and up go your rates. what good is having insurance if you get punished for using it? news flash: nobody's perfect. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. and if you do have an accident, our claims centers are available to assist you 24/7. call

for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance neil: all rights, by now you know that donald trump is our richest president since george washington. but he also has come and i don't know if you knew this, the richest cabinet in american

history to become up all the billionaires in this cabinet. even adjusted for inflation, richer than jfk, richer than franklin roosevelt, richer by extension. cabinets weren't nearly as big back in those days. is that a problem? a lot of trump folks say you want successfupeople running things. others not so surth they'll be emotionally detached or they won't really care. former new york congressman hayward, former hillary clinton campaign, hillary pan and charlie gasparino. you don't have a problem with this? >> i love it. a lot more rich people in government. business leader should be in government. the founding fathers were bottom businessmen. i think this is good for the country. where the disconnect comes in is that the guy at the top is disconnected and if he doesn't know how to run things or if you support manager. i think the problem with this administration is not the people under him so much.

wilbur ross is eminently qualified to be commerce secretary. so is steve mnuchin. he's not a very good manager at shows and that could be a problem. neil: very bad rich managers and that poor managers. what he think of this debate? >> people are more concerned about their own wealth in the wealth of the cabinet. the question is not really what this means today because i think people really love to look at people net worth. the question is in the future of the trump administration doesn't improve the wealth of people generally, it could become an issue that back buyers. if they do, it will prove the point. it is not an issue today, but it could emerge as one in the future depending how successful trump is or is not with the economy. neil: that's a good point mark raises. that's kind of a moot point. he beat aliens from space.

jenner and in the good economy, you don't care where they are from or how rich they are. what do you make of that? >> i think that is eminently true. we know that the not wealth of american families on average decline during the obama years. net income declined and that was under a set of policies that made the cost of living higher for american families, that made hiring more costly for small businesses. you're exactly right, mark. this is the kind of philosophyet cabinet. president trump is deeply bonded to those working families and middle-class families that that's how he got elected. >> although we have to play now, i don't agree with his policies as president obama's policies. neil: you should hear what he says about you. >> use incredibly effective at getting them passed. one reason he was affected is because he was a good manager. i think one of the problems that is emerging is only 100 days and

how maybe you could see the signs that donald trump is not a very good manager. people covered business to remedy that. he was an excellent brand icon a salesman. he was not a good manager. neil: hope springs eternal on that front. others on both sides have said that. i'm not making this whole sordid media indictment here, but i do find it odd that much was made, maybe it was back in the day of fdr and his wealth and his cabinets well, certainly as doubts about, but not so much as cabinets well. it gives disproportionate attention when its republicans versus democrats. brownback run notwithstanding and alexa grandeur, or just look at how it's covered and i find it disproportionate with wealthy republicans. >> i don't know. neil: i think you know. >> people's wealth has always been of interest to the american public. neil: more so when its

republicans. >> john f. kennedy was seen as a very wealthy guy. first, the public is more concerned about whether people are wealthy after public service than before. neil: that's a good point. >> deal, you are so right. if you look at the coverage, what they're really saying in a sort of almost masturbatory stories -- neil: be careful they are. >> they are republicans. they favor business and self-enrichment. that is the theme here. it's completely wrong because trump also wants to cut individual taxes. he wants to put people to work. keystone pipeline. but every worry about trump and wealth is about personal in richmond. there is evidence wilbur ross needs to be personally in charge. neil: a land with the this. this notion that i don't have a problem democrat or republican

of the wealth you had before coming into that office. i wince a little bit when you seem a lot wealthier after you the path is. >> you know, as margaret thatcher said, we want everyone to rise as opposed to trying to equalize and let things go down. if this cabinet is effective and already put in executive orders to lift burdens that the obama administration created. so he's on the right track. if he does things right, we are all going to prosper. the key thing is the working families in the middle-class prosper. at wealthy americans prosper, to that's okay if we are all doing well. neil: we are not red or blue. we are just green. we all like money, money, money. in the meantime, building on capitol hill doesn't look like neil gorsuch is going to be the next supreme court justices 60

votes. it's looking like he will become the next supreme court justice. they call that a calamity. but it is in. after this.

. .