realistic gas prices we do now, still is the king of the road. charles: believe me in this country king of the road. big trucks and suvs like the one my man neil cavuto drives. right, neil? neil: yeah. absolutely. you got me dead center on that one. charles, you think about electric engines, i don't know. i mean, i would at least hedge my bets a little, right? charles: i would also. listen, volvo, ashley is right, they're rolling the dice big time here. neil: i don't know. great two hours. three hours? how long was it? charles: i lost track. [laughter] neil: i will carry the baton here. thank you my friend. we have a lot going on with u.s. upping ante against north korea. they want a emergency meeting at u.n. security council. the question is, been there, done that, and nothing materialized. this time they promise things will be different.

adam shapiro at the white house with with the latest. hey, adam. reporter: this follows the testing by north korea of the intercontinental ballistic missile. this went out of the earth's atmosphere and reentered. the question could the north koreans weaponize this with a small nuclear device to survive reentry? the trump administration doesn't want to take chances to give north korea the possibility of developing that kind of technology. this morning president trump before he left for europe made two important tweets. the first, quote, the united states made some of the worst trade deals in world history. why should we continue with these deals with companies that do not help us? the reference perhaps there to china. then he followed it up with this tweet. trade between china and north korea grew almost 40% in the first quarter. so much for china working with us but we had to give it a try. the president has left for europe. he will talk about trade with

his european partners. specifically, for instance, trade regarding steel. whether or not china and other countries are dumping steel on the worldwide market. he will meet with vladmir putin. of course it was russians and chinese after the test of the north korean icbm which said both north korea needs to de-escalate and stop the missile testing program. the united states needs to remove some anti-missile technology from south korea. whether that actually happens yet to be seen but it is front and center, u.n., united states calling for that emergency u.n. security council meeting. neil: neil. neil: thank you, adam shapiro. we're getting more details on the launch from north korea. this is coming from jennifer griffin and our pentagon team. they did in fact, the united states watched the north koreans prepare for the launch in advance. we don't know how much in advance. they saw the missile being fueled. we're told this new icbm missile yesterday to be named, uses

liquid fuel, it takes time and less mobile than solid fuel used. suffice it to say technology a little more than a year ago we did not even think the north koreans possessed. the fact they're advancing, what appears to be rapidly kind of thing catches our next guest's attention. he was way ahead of the curve on this, way ahead on the curve of the whine niece how we deal with them. gordon chang, come collapse of china among these eye-popping details. gordon, we knew this was coming. we didn't know all the details what it would mean but it continue as spate of military exercises that the north koreans are not holding back on? >> this is their first icbm intercontinental ballistic missile launch, the missile can reach all of alaska and approach the main islands in hawaii. we also think they have three, maybe four missile that can

reach the lower 4states today but they haven't been tested or haven't been tested at full range, tapidon g&k h 8 and k-14. the united states is really behind the curve. neil: what do we do with the u.n. and we jawbone and complain about it, but once it comes to options we don't pursue any of them? >> the first things we need to do where the north koreans got the mobile launcher for the missile they tested yesterday because it's a chinese truck. neil: is that right. >> it is. reuters reporting this. there is chinese and chinese-looking equipment showing up in north korea ballistic missile program. some of these ballistic missiles look to be china origin. neil: they have blatantly ignoring us the chinese or stringing us along or what? >> they have been blatantly ignoring us and stringing us along and rest of it. they have been duplicitous.

with have not imposed costs on china for very dangerous behavior on their part. neil: we held off thinking they could help us with this. >> right. that is the approach of this administration up until last week. it has been the approach of the two previous administrations. it hasn't worked. what trump did he transitioned from carrots to sticks. he unplugged a chinese bank. he did a lot of other things, quote, quote, outraged the chinese. what he will do is really ramp up the costs on beijing. this is one approach we haven't tried in last couple decades. neil: we conducted joint military exercises or certainly joint missile tests of our own with the south koreans. that yet seems provocative on part of the chinese which i always find remarkable especially when the north koreans chime in and say, very provocative as if theirs are not? >> north korean military is forward-deployed on the militarized zone which separates two koreas. for get about their wmd, chemical, biological nukes. they have a very capable

conventional military. our exercises are conventional. so what we're trying to do is deter an invasion of south korea which the north koreans did in 1950. the chinese proposal for freeze in nuke tests for stop in joint exercises that is really bad thing. it means south korea at some point won't have capability to defend itself. because those exercises are absolutely critical keeping both militaries sharp. neil: being rough, mean, threatening doesn't get any results. being soft and understanding like new south korean president would entertain the north koreans share venue for winter olympics in south korea doesn't seem to work. >> that is crazy. neil: what will? >> what we have to do is unplug a large chinese bank. for instance, bank of china was named in a u.n. panel report last year for money laundering for the north koreans. he think what we have to do, look, you can no longer do

dollar is b can't do business in the u.s. in general we need to say to the chinese. you can do business with north korea, you can do business with the united states, not both at same time. neil: chinese come back, you see all the debt we have big chunk in your country, they will start unloading it. >> they unloaded middle of 2014. because they're trying to support the currency the renminbi. only way they do that is sell dollars. they will unload dollars anyway, neil. we don't have to worry about that one. neil: the threat or not could lead to sky-high interest rates which has not happened. you don't see that as a possibility? >> because the market for treasuries right now is so deep, countries want the dollar. this is the types of things that the united states needs to understand. china can sell its 1 1/2, two trillion dollars of dollars, it will not have that big of an effect. neil: the president is going to meet with his chinese counterpart briefly. we don't know how long the meeting will be. won't be same as mar-a-lago thing, right?

what does he tell him? the mood obviously changed here. the president more or less says you let me down. >> right. neil: what happens in that meeting? >> i think it will be very contentious. our relations with beijing going forward will be difficult. north korea, there are no, no cost solutions. it will be ugly. part will be increased -- neil: doesn't north korea realize that? the more provocative behavior, the more they risk harm to themselves? maybe they have to protect like you say in china, but surely they wouldn't entertain, seriously launching a missile on anyone knowing it would be certain death to them? >> right. that is clear. this regime -- neil: is it though? if you're a nut like this buy, is it clear? >> no the one thing that it clear. this issue will haunt us for quite sometime can we deter the north korean regime? there is a lot of turmoil in there. we saw this beginning of january, demotion of and detention of minister of state security.

execution of five of his senior subordinates. the assassination of the elder -- neil: people are saying nervous this guy is a nutjob but they can't take him on for fear of that. >> right. neil: beneath the dictator's surface there is group of even top military brass who want to work with the united states, who want to work with the west but they fear for their lives. >> i think they want to work with china rather than with us but nonetheless, they do fear for their lives. kim jong-un when -- neil: china doesn't fear for its life? >> excuse me. neil: china doesn't fear for its life, so why can't it do more. >> it can do more. we haven't giverren incentives to do more. i said we have to unplug bank of china. do a lot of things beijing doesn't like. say to china, these costs will only go up until you help us. that is the one approach, neil, we have not tried over last couple decades. it is only approach we haven't tried. we have obligation to try everything before we use force. the use of force could end up

with horrific consequences this is the thing president trump and successors will have to do without using kinetic options. neil: gordon chang, thank you very much. what are our options according to gordon's point. sanctions don't appear to be working. sanctions of chinese companies and two nationals for north korean dealings? is that the extent of it? then what? to lieutenant colonel tony shaffer. then what? >> look i like the way gordon framed all of this. we've seen diminution of use of military force since the '90s, clinton administration and the rule is appeasement. we had concepts i was aware of back in the early '90s regarding kinetic options. we were planning constantly for use of military force. we stepped away from that. the plan is 5027 they're now looking at for potential use. we have to dust off our old concepts of doing something. one of the frightening things

here we didn't face back then you do have the potential of ballistic missiles come off the north korean peninsula with nuclear weapons. one of the things you and i have spoken about is the fact that these nuclear tests they have had over the past seven years have been not to make bigger explosives but smaller, aperture explosives with great are effect. try to minute at that rise to put on -- miniaturize on missiles. if what gordon says doesn't work we have to personalize this to un. i'm with you. i'm not convinced he is sane. therefore you have to understand that, neil, any kinetic action will be danger seoul. seoul, south korea is undirect artillery fire under the north. millions of people panicking being in the middle of a firefight with the north koreans. you will not completely deter the north koreans but you have to make painfully clear, any military action that results in

provocations -- neil: what if he doesn't care. >> he does. neil: i assume he does but keeps doing these things. i worry about more tests go on, tony. the chance for accident or misfire or falling on south korean lands or worse japan anything can happen. >> precisely. we have to convince un we're serious use of military force. this is where i disagree with gordon a little bit. the north koreans are not convinced we mean what we say. the deterrent program we set up would result in military force being used. again the record since clinton, neil, we appease them. so therefore we are completely breaking the paradigm. president clinton started this. mt. trump stopping it. that means he has to hold chinese accountable, russians accountable too. the russians are behind the scenes helping them. one of the biggest adversaries we have is funding whole thing.

iranians. that is how they were able to expedite the program rapidly to do this. money infused with the irransians was sent to the north koreans for outsourcing of iranian program. we have to get ahead of this. we've been not thinking ahead of this. this is what mr. trump wants to do. get ahead of it. use all of our resources to actually bolster the fact we will deter this, we will do something. then work to counter those around north korea who are enabling them and making it consequential to their bad actions to support the north koreans. neil: all right. wild stuff but it is getting -- tony shaffer, thank you very, very much. >> thanks, neil. neil: if the markets are at all rattled by this, they have a funny way showing it. we're down 27 points right now. not much movement. if this escalates even into a potential trade war with the chinese that could very, very quickly change. that is why the president is so focused on tweets that have to do with this sort of stuff. what does that tell you?

after this.

neil: i always get this if i criticize the president on tweets that fear vair from issues. a lot of never trump per crowds

say you're a never trumper on steroids. i'm not against tweets. stick on topic. don't criticize anchor teams and lifting their ratings, last thing you want to do. stick to the subject. so when he does in a serious of tweets we'll show them talks about things near and dear to his economic agenda, good for him. on getting tough with the north koreans and chinese, good for him. a lot better than railing against cable tv personalities. so that is just my opinion. "new york post" washington bureau chief is here, poll licks editor ron meyer and former dnc deputy press secretary. end with you and begin with you. my argument on this the president is free to tweet but time and communication and surgely striking on issues is limited veer off of that you're hurting yourself. his performance on the latest tweets is oak with me. what about with you? >> look the president, neil, shouldn't be tweeting at all. he should work with democrats

and republicans to -- neil: no, no. tweet something okay. you tweet, right? you're a big deal. >> i don't know but thank you. he shouldn't be tweeting. you know what? if he is going to tweet he loses all credibility when it comes to be president of the united states. neil: you don't think abraham lincoln had that technology would be tweeting? >> he has been inciting violence neil, against women. neil: no, no. when he is off message bad idea. ron meyer, do you think on that, tweeting is okay, just off message part that rattles me to his point. >> absolutely i want him tweeting about the right issues. i'm with you, neil. i want him tweeting about getting tax reform done and getting health care reform done. trying to get people to move on these issues. senators on republican side stuck in the mud. people in the house same way. we have to get health care reform done. it has to be fixed. this current bill is garbage. fix health care bill. get tax reform done. focus on issues, why people got you elected as president.

i think a lot is overblown. especially cnn is bunch of snowflakes in my opinion making news about themselves. trump should do exactly what you're saying. stick to the issues. get the agenda passed. if he doesn't get the agenda passed by 2018 i think republicans are in trouble. neil: gabby, i think it is agenda, that agenda should be, when he veers off he veers off stuff he doesn't want people park about, not stuff he want people to talk about. whether msnbc anchor theme or going at someone else on another news network or even this network, he hurt himself. >> yeah. look, neil, i think twitter can be a effective bully pulpit he uses helping to shape policy and guiding these negotiations especially on health care now towards the outcome he would like to see but i do think there does come a point as you were

mentioning if we have to ask ourselves there are certain tweets that the president sends off, quote, really connects him with the american people as the white house likes to say. i don't think going after the morning anchor on msnbc or criticizing certain lawmakers is really an effective way of advancing his agenda or communicating or connecting with the american people. so, i do think that he needs to be conscientious of that. i think it would be a totally different discussion in the media today if the president was only tweeting about policy because, then we would be talking about the positive outcomes that those policies have had, instead of angry tweet here or there, that target as lawmaker or an anchor or whomever else. neil: now comes the big, you have to deliver on your second foreign trip here. the first one depending on the media's perspective, start out okay. ended up not being as okay but there is a lot more pressure on

this trip. meeting with vladmir putin. meeting with his counterpart,ed leader of the stakes are high here. this calls for serious focus. what do you expect to see next few you days? >> i hope he talks to vladmir putin why were you involved in the our elections in 2016. hopefully he does that. >> jose, you i love how jose, democrats focus more on the i 2016 election than north korea launching a missile. multiple guests on how they successfully tested a missile. yet what democrats, cnn all other people attacking want to talk about the election. we need russia and china to be on board going after north korea on the crisis before this happens. >> i agree with you. >> stop bringing up talking points.

neil: president tweeted on you, jose, former dnc press secretary, sad. he didn't say that. >> i hope he did. neil: that is another thing, all kidding notwithstanding, they raised a good point sometimes people enjoy being target of his tweets. look what it did to ratings for those two anchors on msnbc. it can be quite benefit to their careers. i'm not sure president's again dow but those two targeted. >> inadvertent impact, that we see playing out in the briefing room, when people are targeted by sean spicer or president during press conference, always seems to elevate that person to lend them celebrity status. that is why we're seeing people wanting to perhaps be called out by president trump on twitter or from the podium or wherever he is speaking. neil: guys, i want to thank you all very much. good sports as well.

all right. i have a little quiz for you here. illinois, maine, new jersey, illinois, maine, new jersey. i'm just going to leave it at that. when you've got... ...nausea, heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach, diarrhea! nausea, heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach, diarrhea! here's pepto bismol! ah. nausea, heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach, diarrhea.

neil: better than two years illinois has not had a state budget. that could be changing even if it means overriding a governor which is something that is very hard to pull off but they're on the verge of doing just that. jeff flock with very latest now. hey, jeff? >> would that be good news or bad news, neil? i think there is some disagreement about that. we talked a lot about the budget, democrats saying we are now experiencing fierce urgency of now. they came to the house today to override the budget. only 59 of 118 people showed you up. they didn't have a quorum.

they will meet tomorrow. so much for fierce urgency of now. we talked a lot about the budget, what does it really mean? in the budget we talked about tax hike, 12.95% in state of income tax. there are billions in cuts. 5% across the board. 10% in education. property tax, that is not in there. property tax freeze that is. workers' compensation reform the governor wanted not in there. pension reform. sort of it in there not really a meaningful way. democrats wanted this to be retroactive tax hike to the first of january. they gave on that. only takes effect on july 1st. they wanted a tattoo tax, a tattoo tax is terminated. democrats agreed to that. you talk about what the governor needs to do in order not to be overridden, keep all republicans on his side in the house. in senate, one of the republicans who voted against

him says this, he makes not a bad point. every dollar we throw on backlog of bills now, another dollar the next generation has to pay for even though we got to spend it. not a bad point. governor says we need to take strong action now. he says the bill doesn't straighten out illinois in the future. this is what he vote in the veto message. the package fails to address illinois's fiscal and economic situation. in fact makes it worse in the long run. so here is where we are, neil. actually the governor is coming to chicago in just another hour or so. we're going to follow him over to the south side. he will try to make the point that, listen, just passing any kind of budget really doesn't solve our long-term problems. although it will probably keep rating agencies from turning illinois bonds into junk. neil: jeff flock, thank you, very, very much. that is kind of story. better than $170 billion

unfunded pension liabilities. new jersey temporarily shut down, chris christie beach incident. you know about in connecticut what they're dealing with right now. he rescinding a tax on upper income folks. adding more to the taxes doesn't improve the tax base. maine avoid ad complete shutdown on some of the same problems. scott martin see as pattern here. we're so focused on what the federal government, we forget what is happening right beneath us in our own neighborhoods. scott, that is one thing i don't think markets come to appreciate or sense magnitude of. that worries me. what do you think? >> it worries me too, neil. you look at illinois as you mentioned. you look at corporate tax receipts, right? look at companies like caterpillar, boeing, that moved here in the last several years on how a lot of corporations there before the two companies came here have already left the state.

these are corporations traded on the new york stock exchange or companies in the s&p 500 that said, we'll move away from these states that are onerous from a tax and regulatory perspective. so far the market has been able to whistle by the graveyard with respect to those companies moving around but at some point as you mentioned, my friend, being the past 4th of july and everybody was traveling, depending where you like to travel or where you went, i went to pennsylvania, stopped in michigan too, most of the states have budgetary problems. corporations moving around strategically are running out of places to go. neil: what is interesting, especially talking about unfunded liabilities for pensions and the rest, they're off the charts. i dare say, you could tax the rich at 100% of these states. it wouldn't come close to addressing long term funding needs of just the public sector. so leaving that aside, washington itself, dealing exponentially with trillions bigger, when we talk about all the obligations, not just

20 trillion in debt being amassed as we speak, what is the way out of this? do markets why just assume we'll grow day by day, growth gets out? combination of growth and cutses get us out? >> sadly the market is getting used to this, neil. these budget problems especially here in illinois are not just new. these are things have been going on years and years. that is something jeff flock attributed in the lead-in. there needs to be give on every side. he talked about things structurally reform but not really with respect to the pension side of things. getting more from the corporate side, fine but taking regulations off. need to come from both sides. bruce rauner, a businessman, became governor in illinois, pledged to talk with the state democrats, we'll take a little bit from here and take a little bit from there. state democrats would not work

with him. madigan would not come to budgetary meetings he was proposing. these things are not happening in states like illinois. neil: what happens in all the other states suffering the same thing, if you are even trying to curtail growth of entitlement program it is seen as draconian cut and you're throwing granny over the cliff. to say this isn't sustainable we have to do something to curb the growth of programs, it is too draconian, too mean, tooty. republicans and democrats say, oh the hell with it. >> the messaging has not been good. the conditioning that the state people have been giving citizens is that well, you deserve this. you need this. this is what we promised you. neil: right. >> i get that. i believe promises should be held up. but as businessman in this state, a businessman that i am, what will happen the state will be in bigger trouble than they

expect because as browse -- bruce rauner said it will push more businesses out and private citizens away and lowers your tax base to begin with. neil: you're so right. i hope it explodes under your young life, scott, i think i can dodge this bullet. that is what we're talking about, folks, to scott's very valid point, it is not sustainable. unfunded obligations are not sustainable but we keep making promises you can not commit to, whether you're on the left or right, it is wrong. simple math. the math isn't sporting arguments. there has to be a come to jesus or your savior moment, where you step back and say, can't do it. the math doesn't sustain it. tell the american people what they'res facing, what we're all facing, sort of try to get these curbs in effect, slow the growth over the course of many decades, so that you doesn't hurt people right now, expecting some sort of a security. but down the road you're addressing reality that we can not ignore.

if that is wishful thinking, then i guess financial propriety. at this stage we don't have it. we're getting word from the pentagon on that north korean missile situation. we chose not to shoot it down because we apparently deemed it was no threat to north america or our allies. of course this refers to the icbm missile launch apparently indicates the north koreans are capable of launching something that would a hit alaska, around feeling was, well, not right now. after this.

neil: california democratic congresswoman maxine waters hitting hud secretary ben carson hard and he saying that ben carson doesn't care about people in public housing. he believes that if you are poor it is your own fault. he thinks when it comes to my committee i'm going to give him a pass, i am going to take his,

i know what you're saying there, apart. i asked ben carson last week what he made of that attack. she said that if ben carson should go back to being a surgeon she will take him apart when he goes before the house committee on financial services. she is ranking democrat. she is itching for a chance to get in your face. what do you think? >> you know, i think that i'm here for a purpose. and that purpose is to try to provide a nuturing environment that will allow people to become, you know, self-sustaining, and, you know, make america into the kind of place that we all want it to be. i don't respond to politicians who, you know, just say inflammatory things. neil: all right. congressman on racial equality spokesman niger innis right now. he says miss waters wants to seethe this circus with anger, i repel any chance to get folks out of poverty, that is her

basic thrust. >> she has been in power, as her constituents call her, mad max, otherwise known as maxine waters has been in power for decades. i doubt you can count three or four things that have gotten considerably better in her district over those decades of leadership. she is almost like a third world dictator, congresswoman for life. i think she ought to be careful what she wishes for, ben carson could come to that hearing loaded for bear, and turn the terribles on her and start asking her questions about what she delivered for her constituents. neil: he has brought up not only on my show, but prior shows this idea that we spent trillions on war in poverty and percentages are roughly what they were when we started. maybe it is time to try something new. that approach villaraigosafys him as reckless, heartless, you know the drill. what do you make of that? >> i know the drill. i can't think of a better hud secretary.

i had pleasure of seeing dr. carson. emceed lincoln day dinner down in florida, hillsborough, florida, he was keynote speaker. he was a rock star loved by the audience. i can't think of a better person to shepherd housing and urban development as the president seeks to dramatic i believely reduce size and scope of government. he wants to reduce hud spending by $6 billion. i can't think of a better person who actually came out of public housing and came out of poverty than dr. carson who was inspired by his mother to pick himself up by his own bootstraps, and achieve the american dream. neil: it is rackable, niger, so many new cabinet secretaries want to oversee departments that want to scale down or eventually put off the business. leave that aside, one of the things dr. carson stuck in the craw with a lot of liberals, for lack of a better term, there is

this mind set to poverty. that, it is that you almost will yourself to be and stay poor, and that is what got him the heartless rap. what do you think of that? >> i think that is nonsense. you have those of us who have been out there saying poverty, folk need to be liberated from poverty. they need to be liberated from a life of dependence on government, dependence on big nanny state. and find ways to climb back up that economic ladder of opportunity. those of us who have that philosophy often come, dr. carson of course is a part of that, often come at odds with those who have the believe system somehow charity begins at just giving poor people things every other day. well the problem is, as margaret thatcher's great quote is, the problem with socialism, you eventually run out of other peoples's money. best bet, as opposed to giving folks a fish, teach them how to

fish for themselves. that is philosophy, mad max, otherwise known as maxine waters out in california, they don't have that philosophy. neil: nigel, thank you, for catching up with you. niger innis from las vegas. >> thank you, neil. neil: oil continues to drop on opec exports beginning to rise. that maybe some opec members are cheating. they had been holding tight to reduced quotas. apa pierce some are snapping a little bit here. we'll keep an eye on it for you. remember the president's tweet featuring a professional wrestling clip? i want you to meet the ww legend who retweeted it, a lot of his fans are now wondering, why did you do that, next?

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. won't replace the full value of your totaled new car.

the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

>> oh, my gosh. neil: all right, you probably seen that video once or twice, but the voice there is my next guest. that tweet still causing a lot of reaction from both sides now. wwe hall-of-famer jerry the king lawler, was the announcer during that infamous match in 2007. very good to have you. you retweeted that. now a lot of your fans are

saying, whoa, whoa, jerry, you shouldn't have done that. what do you say? >> you say a lot. there were a few fans that took issue with the fact i retweeted it. i retweet i had it, as i said in my tweet. pretty cool to hear your voice in a tweet sent out by the president of the united states. that's all. neil: i hear where you're coming from. >> yeah. neil: that is the closest he comes to asking you a nasty question, because you could kill me with one hand. jer hery, you heard all the grief the president had over that. i could be wrong. i don't like it when his tweets go off subject. i think this is goof for me. it is funny. meant to make light of you know, a news network i think. and how they fake news. many people pointed out, you know, professional wrestling, i don't believe this myself, jerry, is fake anyway, i guess was the president's point. what do you think of all this. >> well i mean i don't think, i

don't think that the president was trying to, you know, put professional wrestling as being fake in the same bed with fake news that he likes to talk about. i don't think that was his intent. i think it was as you said, it was just a goof. it was something funny. i think people need to lighten up. come on, why can't the president have sense of humor? why can't we all have a little bit of a sense of humor? not take everything so serious. you know what i would have done if i had been cnn, instead of like it is end of the world, there is also some footage out there of one of our wwe's most famous superstars of all time, stone cold steve austin, actually giving donald trump a wrestling move a stunner, where he had laid out donald trump. if i had been cnn i would have gone back the clip and put the cnn logo over stone called steve austin. we would have had twitter mania. this could be something gone on forever.

it could be a lot of fun. neil: when you look at this, you remember that event, of course so many others in your i illustrious career, this billionaire, doing this event, doing a lot of professional wrestling events would be president of the united states and some day harken back to video as president of the united states? >> i absolutely did know think so. as you said wrestlemania 2007, i have called a lot of matches in wwe for 25 years now, this is one of the most entertaining fun wrestlemanias. all elements were there. you had two billionaires, who were on the top of the world in their professions at the time. and the thing about donald trump's hair was a big deal at the time. and you had both of these billionaires, vince mcmahon and donald trump, which everyone of their men lost the match, they would sit down in the

middle of the ring to get their head shaved. neil: i remember that. >> this was just crazy. it was one of the most entertaining wrestle manias i ever had a chance to call. of course donald trump's he guy won the match. vince mcmahon and did sit down and literally let donald trump shave every hair off of vince mcmahon's head. it was great event. it is entertaining. that is what wwe is all about. it is world wrest lynn anter entertainment. you will not two billionaires going at each other with their hair at stake in the match. neil: it was like a fight to the death. >> i was going to say, that is what is so great about the wwe. it is not about fights to the death. it is not, you know it is not like these movies that are show people blowing up and killing each other. hey, it is good ol' fashioned good versus evil and it is a bunch of great athletes, men and women go out there, they're competing and they're trying to

be the best. they're going after championships, that sort of thing. they do it the old-fashioned way. it is one-on-one. it is hand-to-hand combat, that sort of thing. it is, it is -- neil: people know it's a joke. back in the early '80s when you had that stunt, maybe wasn't a stunt with andy kaufman, the late comic. >> andy kaufman. neil: that was redone on david letterman, many people thought that was real, that was serious. now you can tell us. >> a lot of happened between andy and i was real, in the fact, when i slapped and you did i on the david letterman show, trust me i slapped him as hard as i ever slapped anybody in my life. i knocked him out of the chair. when i gave him two moves, pile driver in the match, he wound up going to the hospital. he stayed three days in traction. neil: i thought there was really bad blood between you two. was there? >> well, it started out to be bad blood between the two of us before we got to know each other.

as we started working together, having more matches and that sort of thing, more events together we did become friends. then later on in 2000 or 1999 we made the movie about andy's life with jim carrie playing andy kaufman. jim carrey and i had more bad blood than andy kaufman. when i slapped jim carrey during the movie sequence, it was one of those deals, he got up told the director, i hope you got that on one take because i can't do that again. neil: real quickly, jerry, your view everyone needs to dial it down? it might not be presidential. some of your fans, not many, when you retreated this you doubled down on something silly, you say what? >> exactly. i mean lighten up. that is what i say. i loved what donald trump said the other day, you know, hey, this is what a modern-day president does. i think we, we all want to look at the presidential office, i don't care who is in there, you

have to respect that office. that is at least the way i feel. you know, he hey, george washington, they said had wooden falls -- false teeth. i don't think presidents today would have false teeth. presidents tweet. we need to accept it's a new day and new president. neil: george washington a big wrestling fan. >> you know other presidents is in the wrestling hall of fame? neil: who? >> abraham lincoln. neil: i knew it. >> look it up. big-time wrestler. neil: absolutely. i forgot that. abraham lincoln, donald trump, that common bond. jerry the king lawler, nice having you. >> my pleasure. neil: only if we could do with the north koreans. i'm explain after this.

♪

neil: all right. this second go around when the president traveled abroad than his first trip, the president heading to the g20 summit, the president warning north korea is possibly at war and that indeed we would go to it if this keeps accelerating with missile tests that are deemed very serious, very threatening. experts a a lot of different paths that could get a conflict here through the former national security adviser to vice president dick cheney. john on that threat that is clearly escalating. i guess the question is now, job, what do we do? because it's clear that the north koreans think they can keep rattling the saber, and we say a lot of threatening things and say this is it,

this is it, this is it. but life goes on. what do you think? >> yeah. no, it's clear the chinese have basically ignored our warnings as well, and ignored the best attempts by the president to actually come to some understandings with them about exercising some real leverage on the north. . >> so what do we do there, john? because i guess we had deemed that this test was coming, and we did not interfere and try to shoot it down because we didn't think it would be a threat to us. it turns out that hunch was right, but eventually it will be. and what i always worry about is the possibility of a missile going offcourse or tumbling on land or escalating needlessly by the way of an accident something terrific. then what? >> yeah. no, that's always an enormous danger here. but the decision to take a shot at one of these things is also a great risk for the united states. first, you have to be pretty sure you're going to hit it because the miss, obviously, opens up all kinds of possibilities for north korea

and undermines the credibility of america's deterrent. i think, neil, here the move now by the president, and he's hinting at this, is to begin to come down like a ton of bricks on the chinese and basically be willing to really go after the chinese financial system and chinese institutions that are continuing to give the north koreans access to the global financial system. that's got to stop. neil: so i always wonder when you hear these types of developments, what we're going to do. i mean, the chinese have clearly either strung us along or outright lied to us. otherwise, you know, given 20% more this year versus last year to the north koreans. so if we get tougher on them, the fear is -- and i'm sure you remember back to the bush administration days, that, hey, the chinese have stopped

dying our debt, but they might stop selling more, and our rates go up. you know the drill. >> yeah. we really are coming to a crunch point, neil, here where there are no good options and and the decision is whether you're going to let this crazy regime hold hostage american cities and forever change the kind of calculus we've had geopolitically in northeast asia for 60 years. whether we can tolerate that or suffer some measure of economic pain. this is important enough to the united states strategically to be able to combat this threat that we're willing to go tow to tow with china and demonstrate that they need our access. they need the dollar. they need the american economic system more than we need china. it's like a real risk. it's going to come at high cost, neil. but i'm afraid we're getting to that point in that awful choice. neil: you know, you would

think that china would appreciate this, know this, understand the threat from all of this, yet all of it's actions have been in response to the joint exercises we had with the south koreans. that they are not going to relinquish this. they are not going to cool it on this. can you hear me? bottom line is this will definitely come up in the g20 summit. the degree of how it affects things, anyone's guess. but the markets are getting panicked by this, they have a funny way of showing it. the dow barely bundle on the day. so the market watcher christine and jeff. jeff, beginning with you, end with you, why are the markets ignoring this? because we've seen it again and again and again.

been there done that. never been bothered by it. what? >> i think that has something to do with it, but i think your previous guest was right. i think things are coming to a head over there, and i think he's exactly right when he says the chinese needs us more than we need them. as for the equity markets, earnings continue to come in better than people expect. infos have started into mutual funds. we think industrial production is going to pick up in the back half of this year, and that's going to lead gdp above 2%, and we think that's what the market's sniffing out. neil: when i see what the markets are telling, because these are people betting with real money, after all, so if they're caught wrong, they pay dealer for that with their own fortunes. but having said that, i don't think this is going anywhere. what do you think? >> in a recent poll, i think it was 50% of the investor responding said it would go on

for the rest of the year and 70% said it won't go on for the next two years. neil: well, they've been wrong. >> yeah. in the 25 instances since 1950 where the s&p has been up 8% in the first half of the year, 84% of the time, it has gone on to be up in the second half of the year about 1.8%. so if past is prelude, we're going to have a pretty good year. neil: christine, sorry about that. to you. do you get a sense that this should enter into the market equation and the market analysis -- i know it would be a black san juan development, something unexpected, but it's out there. it's real, the ante is going up, up, up. >> i think investors are waiting to hear what happens at the g20 summit this week. and maybe it's not wise for them to react right now. neil: what if nothing does, christine? >> that he is a huge possibility, and i think you're going to see many nations come to the table and propose economic sanctions verse north korea, which we know haven't done anything.

i think fumble a lot of the same proposals in the past, that haven't haltered north korea's ambitions, especially as it pertains to china on a tense trade relations there. that's something that they've been teeing up for not last several months, whether it be imposed tariffs against chinese goods, but we really do both rely on each other. it'it's a relationship. neil: what if the chinese think we have a weak hand? given the economic ties and the fact that we like all the cheap goods coming from china, that we really won't push them that much? that maybe they could be underestimating this president, that he means what he said. or they could be saying this is the fourth or fifth president what do has been bemoaning something we're doing, we really don't care.

>> i think that's a big mistake with president trump. neil: that's interesting. christine, what do you think? >> yeah. i think thicked certainly be calling our bluff right now. u.s. corporations, it would be crippling to lose this relationship. but as your previous guest said, that might be a risk we end up having to take. if you look at the s&p 500, they derive almost 10% of their revenues just from china alone. so the most of any country that we do business with. over 30 states here in the u.s. get about a billion in chinese exports. half a trillion comes in through u.s. companies, commercial engagements. and, you know, this engagements do lead directly and support american jobs, so this -- it's a very sensitive situation that we're dealing with here, so we have to deal with it appropriately. but as i said, it' it's a relationship. neil: as long as i've talked

to donald trump for many years even before he attained of running for president, he said the chinese were by far the biggest world threat. saying that they rig their currency, they rig their markets, they rig everything. and i found it interesting that one of his first acts was to sanction chinese banks that deal with and fund the north koreans. similarly, that we deem unfriendly, he has targeted them as well and promises more to come. so i'm wondering whether that's a signal of broader economic action against the chinese. whether we're hurt by it or not, and he is set to explain the american people hurting them is going to matter a lot more than hurting us. >> i think that's exactly right, and i think the chinese are playing a game of chicken. and i think they've picked the wrong president to play chicken with. neil: all right. we shall watch it. but, again, anyone's guess. the markets at a tight

arraigning certainly to both of these guests' point here. largely on expectations, we'll see what happens in that meeting. and then after that, decide accordingly. but if it is seen that we're not doing enough or that the chinese aren't doing enough, the threats are gone. then, of course, it could be a very, very different outcome. all right. why didn't republicans try this whole repeal first replace later from the get-go? what happened? because they're going back to the future, which was fine for a silly movie. but this is reality. ♪

what should i watch? show me sports. it's so fluffy! look at that fluffy unicorn! he's so fluffy i'm gonna die! your voice is awesome. the x1 voice remote. xfinity. the future of awesome. neil: all right. repeal first, replace later. should the republicans have done this from the beginning, because that's kind of where they're going right now, dave macintosh is fine with this. david, very good to have you. they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble of doing this months ago because it was an agreement on that. not so much on when to come up with an alternative or what alternative that would be.

but here they are. what do you think of it? >> i think they've got to get the job done. and if that means doing it two step, going back to the idea of repealing it now and replacing it later, do that. either way, the senate has to get to 50 and needs to get the health care repeal out of its docket and back to the house so that it can pass and be sent to the president. neil: how would it work? obviously, you don't want to repeal it immediately and all of a sudden these people who don't have insurance, have insurance. i forgot what the original measured called for at 2015. whether that repeal would be faced in or what. back then, of course, every republican senator susan collins of maine voted for that. barack obama, in particular refuteiated it. but what would it entail? >> it essentially would be about a two-year delay. it would say we'll keep obamacare for another two years, maybe one and a half years to the end of the session, and that would give congress the chance to go back to the drawing board and come

up with a replacement bill that hopefully would be bipartisan, that would actually lower insurance premiums, the taxes will already be cut, the spending will have been cut, so they can figure out how do we make health care actually work for average american families? neil: all right. now, when they talk about a repeal, that would be, you know, two years off, technically, brits finally served. what about the tax hikes associated with the law? how immediate would they be? what do you want to say? >> those would need to be repealed immediately. and one of the reasons there is that's a huge impact on the job market. i saw study last week that 135,000 jobs will be created if they repealed the core obamacare taxes of that 3.8% surcharge on investment. and there's more jobs for the rest of the taxes that are involved as well. so the tax cuts need to happen immediately. i would scale back the spending immediately, and then work on the regulatory systems to cover preexisting conditions during that

two-year window they have. neil: but if a tax, you know, hikes that are in there are taken out immediately, and yet the underlying coverage isn't maybe for a year or two, as you said, then you could have a bigger crisis on your hands, at least initially funding-wise; right? >> you've got a funding one. they'll have to deal with it in the budget on the deficit. but at least they'll get the pro growth tax cuts. frankly, they could still rescue the senate bill. if they put the cruz in and match the house cut taxes, we're ready to support as well. so they have two options when they come back. most of all, they have to get it done. neil: that's the pressure. do you think then they move on immediately? whatever replacement measure they come up with, concentrate on the tax cuts because that seems doable on the surface, but it's heavy lifting. >> it is. you would think it would be an easy thing for 50 republicans to vote for tax cuts that will

create jobs and grow the economy. i think, unfortunately, you've got several of them up there who -- once they start spending it, they like to keep the taxes. neil: but neutral or whatever you choose, that by definition would eliminate the size of tax cuts. >> we think they should get as large of tax cut as possible, mainly because it creates more jobs and economic growth. we've floated several ideas, like, take the budget window out for 20 years that pat tumi suggested and white house said they're open to that. the congress needs to cease the opportunity now, cut the taxes so we can see the economy grow, and keep the republican promise. we're going to make the economy better, we're going to create jobs for middle america so that people can get back to the american dream, working hard, and being successful. neil: are you surprised they've had such a difficult time doing anything? >> i think so. they get distracted with the

media here in washington. i see of a report that more senators went to afghanistan for the fourth of july than went back to town meetings to listen to their voters in their states. and they need to go home, and people will tell them what they told me. get to work, get the bills passed, and do your job. neil: seems like they would have a safer environment in afghanistan than their own districts. club for growth president. good seeing you. >> good to see you. neil: the push is going so far as saying our august recess, we don't have one. but then again, that's not everyone saying that. in fact, it looks very unlikely. wall street journal u.s. editor glenn hall with us now. i hear this come up every other year or so saying we're going to work through august. never happens. >> yeah. there's the sense there that they have to say something. they can't just go back empty handed to their constituents

by the end of fiscal year. so they're saying, look, we promise to get the job done. if that's what it takes, we'll do it. sometimes that's what it takes in the senate. neil: what do you think of the last club for growth president saying repeal and then replace, the devil's in the details. i can envision a lot of problems with, you know, repealing the taxes immediately waiting to repeal the law itself for another couple of years. i mean, that could invite some problems. but leaving that aside, how likely is that and how much does it pave the way for getting the tax cuts done so this taking august off isn't even necessary? >> well, looking at the repeal option, we see that they've got as big of a challenge with the votes as they do with the bill itself. so they have to keep pressing ahead to get the bill and the repeal and replace at once. the president was previously opposed to repeal and replace, but now he's onboard saying we have to get something done. and i think that's the challenge for republicans, neil, that they have this risk if they do and risk if they don't, depending on how it

works. neil: you and i chatted about this before. this was entertained in the very beginning, and they she would have it for this other strategy. so had they just done this months ago, you know, it's easy to say would have, should have, could have, but just weird. >> well, you know, doing that has a couple of things, like, think about the insurance industry and the risk that that puts in there want knowing what's happening. and as you mentioned, if the taxes are pulled out, then how do you fund it? that's another risk, so you're going to see premiums coming up more than likely if they go that route, and that's what people are going to be concerned about. because it's the same fear they have right now in terms of sending this bill that they're working on to the house. neil: yeah, i could imagine a scenario where all of a sudden premiums are going up a lot higher than the 20% feared in the senate measure. this is all bets off if they do something like this. so whatever they're pushing to just extradite things is going to come back to bite their hineys; right? >> that's the problem. we're seeing the uncertainty factor in the market about what's going to happen or not going to happen.

so if you go down that path of repeal and then replace in a couple of years, you can see the same thing of making insurers nervous again. neil: some people think that's going to be easier than the health care thing. i'm not sure so sure because there's a camp of republicans that say tax cuts have to be paid for, where others conservatives who argue the bigger the better, you'll get the revenue down the road, even if you make deficits and debt worse in the interim before things turn around. which side wins out on this? >> well, i think we're going to see the same battle lines drawn between the conservatives who want to go if all in and cut as much as possible and the more moderate members of the republican party who want to preserve some programs, want to preserve some of the funding for those programs. so i think we're going to have a very similar battle just rit large. neil: all right. so it sounds to me that tax cuts in the making might be smaller than he really envisioned, and it might not be this big reform, it might be tax cuts welcome to many, but not maybe as big

as we envisioned. >> it's hard to get ambitious with less than 30 days on the clock. they have to raise the debt ceiling and then finish the health law and then get to taxes. well, if that doesn't happen, and you're rolling in through closer and closer through the midterm election, taxes is a is a tough thing to take on with the election looming. neil: as the wall street journal editor, what is your colleague sense what happens to the market if that happens? >> well, you know, the market has had a long run without a lot of volatility in it. we may be seeing the same thing because as you know, gridlock is also the friend of the markets in a lot of ways, if you can count on it. neil: interesting. glenn, great seeing you again, my friend. thank you so much. >> always a pleasure. neil: all right. oil is slip sliding away today. so you would think in a environment like that, who wants electric cars? well, apparently volvo. in fact, they want all electric cars. now, is that a good call? maybe in this present environment, not so much. after this i had frequent heartburn, but my doctor recommended...

...prilosec otc 7 years ago, 5 years ago, last week. just 1 pill each morning, 24 hours and zero heartburn. it's been the number 1 doctor recommended brand for 10... ...straight years, and it's still recommended today. use as directed.

if you may have prediabetes. you can do it here. but i get it, you're busy. and busy people can't have prediabetes. ahhh, i read that wrong. they can. ok. just go to the site.

neil: all right. tesla in a little bit of trouble here. quarterly sales hit by production shortfall, and they have that cheaper i guess mid-sized vehicle coming out. so a lot of folks are wondering this might let up, so maybe go slow on all the rockets and all the other stuff that you're doing in the meantime. we have, meanwhile, trying to end now and committing itself to ending all gas cars by 2019. that's, like, a couple years from now, despite a lot of doubts by hybrid or electric car industry, but they're just cutting that relationship entirely. gerri willis on the thinking behind that, especially as gas prices are tumbling. >> i guess timing is everything. that's right, neil. here's the details. electric and hybrid car details may be disappointing but volvo, they see a future in plugin vehicles. in fact, the company says it

will stop making cars run only by an internal combustion engine by 2019. all volvos will be electric or hybrid. now, the move comes as the electric vehicles have really failed to achieve the market share once forecasted by the industry. ev sales hit a high -- get this, 4.1% of sales in the u.s. way back in 2014 but now they're just down to 3.2% of sales in april of this year. even so, volvo is hitting its future to the future of electric vehicles with ceo repeating the company's promise to sell is million electrics by 2025. he had this to say. this is about the customer. people increasingly demand electric cars, and we want to respond to our customers current and future needs. now, as part of the announcement, the company said it will launch five new electric hybrid vehicles between 2019 and 2025.

just how much influence volvo might have on the u.s. automaker market is unclear. the company is a small part of the u.s. market. less than 1% of monthly sales. demon senior said this quote it's not going to push the needle to force any major automakers to jump onboard with the same game plan. volvo is owned by the chinese investment company after being sold by ford in 1999, and i send it back to you, neil. i'm reminded of what one of my energy experts once told me. electric cars are the future of american transportation and always will be. neil: you never know. you never know. surprising developments could happen. all right. thank you very much, gerri. meanwhile, a look at these low gas prices. so why are some automakers pushing all hybrid, all electric in the future, like, the next couple of years? mark says this is the future of the industry. you know, with mark, i can see that when it comes to a hybrid vehicle

but electric only, i wonder. you know, i think the hybrid thing kind of covers you in both events. what do you think? >> well, the thing you have to understand about volvo's announcement is it's now owned by chinese company as you said, and the thing is they have massive pollution, and they have no oil. so for them, the natural solution is to have electric cars and the segue to that, the bridge to that is hybrid electric cars. and as you know the announcement that they made today was not so much that they're going all electric, but there's going to be an electric motor in every car that they make. and that is a transition to pure electric, which for them is really necessary. if you've seen ever been to china and seen the terrible amount of pollution over there, even the chinese government is realizing that, and they are saying we have to do something about that. and with the government like that, you can do it. you can just say everybody all of a sudden, we want you to drive electric.

now, i was in the city -- in one city over there, and what they did was they made a rule saying every -- all of your little scooters, two-stroke gasoline scooters are going to be gone, and we want you replaced with electric scooters. and when i was there a couple of years ago, all the scooters were electric. china can do that. they can just say that and bam, you follow what they say. neil: what about the energy demand that this puts on their utility clamps, though? >> well, the thing is that the grid, the electric grid that we have all over the world is evolving, and that is going to be -- like i'm talking to you here from california. if you fly over los angeles in addition to all the swimming pools, you see solar panels. this is something that is coming that's evolving, and it's going to be there. it's not there right now. right now, everybody can go to the corner and get gasoline and power their gasoline engine. the future has got to be something else at some point. neil: but is solar to the

point where it's a little bit more user friendly where even the panels themselves are smaller, more efficient. because the wrap against solar has always been is that the technology hasn't advanced maybe as much as the need. >> well, you can -- in my house, i have solar panels on the roof of my house, and i use them to charge an electric car, and i can get around los angeles just fine. so it works. right now, i think part of the problem is perception by the consumer. if you write down what -- how far you drive every day, you might be surprised to find that it's only 20 miles or 25 miles and that abelectric car could really meet your needs. and the same with solar panels on the roof of your house. if you put solar panels up there -- it's like having -- what i tell you people, it's like discovering oil in your backyard. so if you suddenly had an oil barrack and a refinery in your backyard, you would use it to power a car. why not do the same with solar panels? it's not all there yet, and it's getting better all the time, and it will get better in the future.

but right now, it's workable. it's usable, and we're transitioning toward that. neil: well, i can definitely see the use for hybrid vehicles. i have one myself, and i see its value. but i think when you cut and go all electric or whatever without the flexibility -- at least in this country -- it can be problematic. >> well, look at the new chevy bolt. it gets over 200 miles of range and a very reasonably-priced car after the incentives you get of i think price of $35,000, less than that, maybe. you can get cars much cheaper than that. there are great lease deals on electric vehicles right now. if you look at it not so much from an environmental perspective but simply from a economic perspective, electric cars make a ton of sense. you can save a bunch of money. electricity is much, much cheaper than gasoline right now, as you are finding out with your hybrid car, you're saving a lot of money. and if you went -- if you had -- if you made the next step and had a plugin hybrid, which is basically a hybrid

with a larger battery that allows you to drive on electricity for a set amount of miles, you would find that you can probably meet much of your driving needs with just electric. neil: well, they are quiet, i will say that. i do like to sneak up on people that i don't really like because they're so quiet, you can't even hear them and then boom. >> oh, come on. everybody likes you. neil: i'm kidding. very good to see you auto week west coast editor. by the way, recent stock drop is sparking a lot of fears that it's going, a lot of other tech companies are going. this could be the start of a big selloff of technology. of course it's very much contained right now and nicole petallides on whether that is a worry of folks on the new york stock exchange. >> everybody's watching tech. everybody owns tech, probably, in the 401(k)s and the iras. and don't forget that tech selloff we saw in june, it was the first down month we saw for the nasdaq since last

october. what's interesting about netflix, there's a one-month chart, it came off the june 8th high. it's down over 11% from that level. that is correction territory. and some would say, well, now what? and what happens here? a few people pertaining to netflix and don't forget, alphabet, google, and apple are about 7% off their recent highs. so not far behind. the feeling overall is tech is not dead. netflix may be facing some competition. also, costs, content costs, and the risks are there, so maybe we'll watch for earnings share in july '17. but the big picture here is that there is opportunity here. i spoke with keith. he is actually a fan of the netflix model overall. but the neutral price of 158 to 160, he doesn't think it's going away. here's a look at the tech titans. but you can see names such as facebook, microsoft, alphabet, google, all up 1%.

but i will leave you with this. while there was some selling, don't forget how frothy the group was. it was the best performing group of 2017. i know health care right behind it. but tech rules 2017 up until now, so with that, a little bit off the table. and the nasdaq, the best of the three embassies, no doubt. neil. neil: all right. nicole, thank you very, very much. nicole on the floor of the new york stock exchange. governor chris christie in new jersey says optics don't really matter to him. i want to show you a certain image that says maybe they do.

>> let's be really clear. that's our residence, and we have a right to be there whenever we want to be there. i don't apologize for it. i don't back away from it, and i think my poll numbers show

that i don't care about political optics. neil: all right. well, he's last on that last one because he has pretty bad poll numbers, the governor. he's got record low approval generating and images like this, again, the governor defending his way through what had been a temporary garden shut down in the garden state. but lee carter says this kind of stuff doesn't help. so maybe he's pushing for maybe. >> how low-key go? neil: how low can you go? >> it reminds me in many ways remember when the auto executives went to the bailout hearings and each one of them took their private jets? we have the right to think they're i idiots for doing it. and i think the governor, yes, he has a right to be on the beach. but if you're looking at a government shut down, you're supposed to be working for the people, it looks really bad when you're sitting on the beach with your friends when the rest of the state can't enjoy the same privileges. neil: and also, i didn't even know that we provide the

new jersey governor a beach residence. i knew about the one near princeton or whatever. but we've seen this before. over vp who ran the company who was the fact given the explosion in the gulf, and he had to delay his yachting and trip. >> i want my life back. neil: some of them wanted their lives back and a lot of them wanted their livelihoods back. but i mean, it just seems so detached. >> it's so detached, and i tell people it's not what you say, it's what people hear. it's not what you do, it's how people perceive what you're doing. what he did, he might have a right to do it, but we can look at that and say that's everything what's wrong with politics and politicians. this is entitled. he seems completely out of touch. and if he says i don't care about my poll numbers, let's take a look back. we were just talking about this. there was a time when we thought he could be the next president of the united states. people loved his straight talk.

he was a leader. he was reaching across the aisle. he was working with senator booker. he hugged president obama. he was really stepping up and stepping into a leadership role. and now, i can't explain what he's doing. has he just decided he doesn't care anymore? he's just riding out his term? neil: like you said, he's entitled to use that house, the timing of it and what he did was one thing. but had he just stayed in the house and never come out, would that have been okay? >> that would have been fine because it wouldn't have been public. and i understand he probably didn't expect there to be helicopters covering him in the star-ledger to have that kind of ability to find out what he was doing. but you have to consider when you're in public office, and you're in the public eye, every behavior that you have can and will be scrutinized. that's part of what you expect. that's the contract you make. neil: i don't like it when paparazzi follow me to a steek restaurant and say neil had the double eagle again. but i wonder when, you know, united airlines, that snafu with the guy who was dragged off the flight.

i always think united airlines ceo and although after that just by originally citing and commending the staff, he just seemed tone deaf. but this happens all the time, doesn't it? >> it happens all the time. i had tons of clients, we work in crisis response. when you look at the united issue, it took them five times to get it right. because what happens is these people are so often out of touch, they get on their heels and get defensive and say, look, we're not so bad. this is all fine. when reality says you've actually betrayed somebody else's values. you actually caused human harm to a passenger. he actually is showing that he is above the law, and he's above everybody else. and if you can't address that value that you're betraying, then you seem completely out of touch and in many ways, people have the right to -- neil: but people overreact and they can prove how shallow they are. like the kennedy, nixon debates. people who heard them thought that he won, people thought jfk looked smooth. you heard the rest.

that we are a little too shallow for this stuff. i'm not meaning to criticize us. actually, everyone but me. but what do you make of that? that sometimes we can be a little bit too into images. >> this is the world that we live in. and if you want to enter into the public eye, if you want to do good, you have to understand that's what comes with how people perceive you. we can like it or not like it. the kardashians are who they are because they project an image some people aspire to be. neil: but you know how they started. >> i know how they started. we live in a culture. neil: but it's the way the world is, and politicians should be aware of it. >> absolutely. optics matter. there's a reason why people look at melania trump and love how elegant she is, how poised she is, they look at ivanka trump in similar ways. we do live in a shallow society. people love beauty. but this isn't just about beauty. it's about optics and behaviors, and your actions can often speak louder than

words, and these kinds of actions show that you're completely out of touch. and in many ways, you're supposed to care about those people. that's the people you're supposed to be serving. that's why you're there. and this just makes it seem like put himself above the people in the job, and that's just something unacceptable i think as a voter. neil: sit down as a maybe on the governor. but, man, oh, man. i have to be very, very careful. but in the meantime president trump face to face with vladimir putin. how do you think that's going to go down? after this ♪ art. it can be sculpted, bringing to life beautiful detail. or painted in luxurious strokes. and in rare cases... both. ♪

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. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance.

neil: all right. you know we had a on a little bit earlier. this is like trump, putin, doesn't get any better than that, brother. people always say, neil, that doesn't sound like anyone. but i think it does. all right. we've got former trump transition team member on how the president should approach this meeting, which is like a big wwe event. the pressure's on. how do you think the president has to comport himself here? because we make a big deal of the body chemistry or how it looks. what do you think? >> i think he has to really

explain and clearly articulate with resolve his america first theory and his idea of prejudiced realism. and i think by that, he actually is hearkening back to ronald reagan when reagan talked about realism in negotiation, realism in strength. he's got to let his russian competitors know that he is resolved on the issues where we have vast differences in syria, on the one side, the russians, you know, want to see isis defeated, they say. but then on the other hand, they are doing all they can to prop up assad on this issue of north korea, the recent meeting between the russian leader and president chi where they had a set of demands in their joint statement that are clearly against the u.s. interest. i think the president has to continue to talk across the globe the issue areas where their differences means

business, that it will put its interest first, at the same time trying to build a coalition. neil: but how do you do that? how do you do that and look serious about it? because a lot of people in the media will look at the body language and say all right. is he just talking a good game or delivering the goods? much remember with the french president when wil le crone met with president trump, he was squeezing his hand which is that's macho valor to squeeze a 70-year-old's hand. everybody makes a big deal of the friction that appears to be the case of vladimir putin and barack obama when they met for the last time. do we overemphasize this stuff? can it be telling? and should it be? should the message be i'm going to give off vibes in the president's case i'm ticked. >> i actually think this vibes do matter in the photo ops. but really, more important than anything in the visual realm is what you say and how you say it with resolve and

how you back it up. and president trump goes into this meeting i think very strong. he had a highly successful first trip abroad that was complicated across many, many countries and many issue areas. but in this meeting, he is really coming even more -- in a stronger way to this trip because he's surviving the domestic politics that's attempted to undermine him, including the media. and despite that, he has on his side that he is leading a representative political system. david: but he can't win with putin; right? he can't win with putin. if it looks like he's getting along too cozy, you say haha. you know how the media is. >> no. but i think he's going to be talking -- neil: bets pushed into a corner; right? >> no. but i think he can look, quote, unquote, cozy, but he has to be very, very firm about what america's interest are, and what he has on his side is that he's got a politically-noisy country that

happens to be a democracy that has a level of transparency that the russians do not have. and despite all of that, he is stronger than his adversaries because of the fact that he comes from a system that is supporting him in the main. and i believe if he takes on north korea in the way that we hope he does going point by point against the joint statement between the russians and the chinese, i think they will get the message that he means business. neil: all right. very good seeing you. thank you. >> thank you. neil: stocks down two and a quarter points here, so obviously, they're just waiting this out, aren't they? we'll have more after this

. . . .

neil: is enough being done to help our veterans? 4:00 p.m. on "your world" on fox news channel. we will find from va secretary david shulkin, the fallout on this. we'll see ten minutes exactly what the fed thinking is whether it telegraph a height in interest rates. i don't know about consensus bets, cheryl casone. but thats seems to be it. cheryl in for chris -- trish regan. cheryl: i'm cheryl casone in for trish regan.

what should we do now. hello, everybody, i'm cheryl casone. i'm in for trish regan. we're about a few seconds away from the release of the fed minutes. this will give us insight into possible future interest rates hike. let's bo to adam shapiro live at the fed. reporter: the federal reserve appears divided when to begin unwinding the balance sheet. some fed officials want to delay starting unwind for them to assess inflation. from the minutes, several preferred to start announce of the process in several months in support of this approach. it was noted that the committee's communications had helped prepare the public for such a step. however some others emphasized deferring the decision until later in the year would permit additional time to assess the outlook for economic activity and inflation. a few of these participants also suggested that a near-term change to reinvestment policy could be misinterpreted to