the wisconsin plant. tax increases on the rich from president trump. what am i missing? >> yes, buckle up. a lot of news. the trump administration slapping individuals in venezuela with sanctions including the head of the military. stuart: i'm utterly exhausted and my time is up, fortunately. neil, it's yours. neil: i have to ask you a question, i think your reaction was pretty much like mine. if you had heard, the "wall street journal" the president was going to outline a possible tax hike on the rich, say nothing about leaving them the same, a possible tax hike, would you envisioned the futures, the market being up like it is? stuart: no, absolutely not. i've been saying for a long time, you know what i've been saying here, neil, i'm surprised how much the market has been able to ignore the goings-on in the swamp and the political mess going on in d.c., and yet, look at this. rally after rally. neil: not only is all of this going to be delayed because

it's still a hail mary pass to get this done, just the tax stuff. for that wait, the well to do are going to have to live with nothing, potentially, or worse, a hike, and yet the market's up. it's wild. stuart: still shaking the head. neil: i know it's affecting your spending plans. stuart: i knew you would get to that. neil: thank god you're so cheap, otherwise this would have such an impact. stuart: it would have killed me. neil: thank you, my friend. it is amazing, stuart, that this market follows its own bullish trend and not being interrupted, even with the clear sign of no sign of progress on this health care rework or whatever they're going to try to call it, because they're going nowhere fast right now but trying, adam shapiro with the latest on capitol hill. >> reporter: hi, neil, where we stand right now is waiting for a vote on the rand paul amendment, a version of the 2015 repeal bill.

now this amendment would essentially be a repeal of the affordable care act. obamacare. but with a two-year delay before implementation to give congress time to figure out a replacement. so that's what they're going to be voting on within the next hour. not expected to pass, you never know. what's happening here is stripping out the bill that the debates are take part on. here's what rand paul said about the need to do this just moments ago. >> it's what we call a clean repeal. it's not cluttered with insurance company bailouts. not cluttered with this and that, new federal regulations, it is just trying to peel back obamacare. now while it is a clean repeal, it is only a partial repeal. why? it's only a partial repeal because we have the arcane senate rules that say we can't repeal the whole thing. >> reporter: there's going to be several amendments after

this vote on what to do with repeal and replace and to modify obamacare, but think of it much like when you see in a city when they're renovating a building and tear everything down except the facade. that's what's happening right now. they are tearing everything out of the house bill which they're debating, leaving the shell, the facade and trying to put something back in, the so-called skinny repeal which might repeal the mandates on individuals and employers for health care, that may be what actually comes to a vote by the end of the week, and that might be the something that they finally vote on. we're looking probably late, late friday. back to you. neil: and then they take that back to the house and presumably iron out whatever differences are there. not skinny but very light repeal, right? >> reporter: it's a jenny craig, all the way. neil: gotcha. all right, adam, thank you very much. how do conservatives feel about this and is there a backlash from them? they wanted full repeal in the beginning and said something

that would be very, very market friendly. this appears to be neither, but again, still early in this process. to former nevada gop chair, connell mcshane and chris bedford. so connell, to you first on what we're looking at here. a lot of people on both sides, you can argue the sign of problem, but others are saying, wait a minute, we fought so long and hard for seven years plus for a skinny repeal? >> the jenny craig special as adam says, that makes a lot of sense, that argument, they have every right, the conservatives to be angry if nothing gets done here. at this point, we've proven that mitch mcconnell can never be counted out. he was able to get that vote to bring the bill to the floor yesterday, but if you just stop and think about what really happened in that vote is that it was a vote not necessarily on a piece of legislation, but it was a vote to talk about the legislation, and it barely passed. they had to use everything they

had politically to get it there including the vice president. mathematically now, maybe he can do something like that again, but seems awfully tough. neil: there are groups dissatisfied, amy, in all of this, the result is very little change even if something is voted on. maybe they the nature of the beast, i think that a skinny repeal is not better than no repeal or no change at all. what are your thoughts? >> well, i would actually disagree with that. i am in favor of senator paul's suggestion of repealing this and then bringing everyone to the table for the next two years, including the democrats. neil: that ones, don't hear me wrong, i think that would be a good strategy, i just don't see the support for, it so if the end as a result what is looking like a vanilla version of that, what good is it? go ahead, i'm sorry. >> right, but it's disappointing to see even our own republicans and nevada senator heller not following

through with the original senate bill, barely making it through the procedural amendment or to move forward and have the discussion, and that way it would force everyone to have a seat at the table. that way there's no more obstructionists, you can't have people complaining on the republican or democrat side. everyone has to start over. neil: what we're left with, chris, is a watered-down health care measure, if we're going to get one at all and talked of a watered-down tax plan, that might not include tax cuts for everyone. so what is going on here? i thought these guys were in charge. they had the run of the table. what are they doing? >> you see the conservative groups in d.c. that have been pushing back against obamacare for years and fund-raising, a lot of money by the way. they're beaten down. i've spoken with them about the watered-down versions or compromised versions, do you like it? no, you fight against it. no, we're happy with anything. senators like alaska's republican senator should worry

about is donald trump won her state by 50,000 votes and people from alaska to massachusetts where they elected scott brown show the dissatisfaction among the voters with obamacare extremely high. skinny bill is the most likely way to repeal the individual mandate and some of the taxes and the corporate mandate and business mandate and get that through to start, it but the worry is republicans in the house tinker with it, republicans in the senate, and everyone is going to get fingerprints on a yes and no vote and go to the district ask say i tried, it's not my fault. neil: lisa murkowski along with susan collins voted against the procedural thing. susan collins is consistent, she did the same in 2015. murkowski is a change there. what are they coming down with the vanilla version and the tax cuts no less the president is saying put the emphasis on middle class, which ismine fine, but again, they weren't necessarily going to be across the board?

>> probably the biggest story of the day. big picture is the president's comments to the "wall street journal" about tax cuts for the rich and may end up being tax hikes for the rich. that's a big story given what the president came in promising to do. it's a new world now and from a market perspective, you and stuart were talking about it, interesting. markets can hold up and have held up and can in an environment that is business friendly, which is what this environment has seen. other things outside of that are still positive. corporate earnings, probably more concern about interest rate policy than anything else. markets can hold up in the environment. if you get rid of taxes related to obamacare, you cut the corporate tax rate and have middle-class tax cuts put in there. i do see the logic of the white house in that you still have a stock market that's holding up and an economy that is seen as doing okay, that's something you can hold onto here. take winds where you can get them, i think.

neil: amy, when i see that sentiment building here, something is better than nothing. something on the reform front with health care is better than nothing. presumably some tax cuts better than no tax cuts, even if they leave out a swath of wealthy folks. we're still getting tax cuts, so that's settling seems to be the theme. what do you think of that? >> yes, absolutely. here in the state of nevada, you will have 14 out of the 17 counties left without any options at all for health care. we're not seeing our premiums being lowered at all. i come from a family of six. our premiums have gone up 300%, our deductibles, 500% and copays for specialty doctors 400%. hard work middle-class families cannot continue that route. it's putting us in a hole we're not going to be able to climb out of. neil: chris, the strategy is

get stuff done. i can understand that, connell touched on that, just to put a win, a victory, something legislatively. i often wonder at what cost? the most substantial tax cuts in history have had the most dramatic market effect. whatever we're seeing on the tax cut front, leaving aside the health care debate for the time being, it won't be substantial, doesn't sound substantial. i'm not pooh-poohing it. it's not reagan-like or jfk-like. how would conservatives feel about that, especially going into the midterms? >> yeah, i think you're right. one of the issues we see terms tossed around like moderate republicans and applied to senator collins and senator murkowski who won't go for obamacare change or tax cuts or any bill that defunds planned parenthood or rolls back the mandate. they're called moderate but really they're liberal. that's what mitch mcconnell has to deal with. donald trump came in and said

listen, guys, he came in on the anti-wall street streak on a populist streak, people thought that was going to go away because he brought so many financiers and bankers into the administration, the question is whos hat power. it's going to be extremely difficult to get anything done. ronald reagan probably wouldn't have gotten anything done, had he not been shot and look, we have to pass something. it took a bullet to get things through. neil: you are absolutely right about that. he was shot in march, the tax plan was stumbling, and the rally and base and the southern democrats the boll weevils to consider a joint deal to get taxes down. history would have been different without that. thank you all very, very much. the eye on corner of wall and broad. the concern that this might be middling around here. the fact of the matter is earnings are ruling the day. far better-than-expected numbers out of the 44% companies in the s&p 500 that have reported.

three out of four much better than expected. that could be fueling this. also talk as well that in this environment, at least taxes aren't going up, except if you're very rich. more after this.

today, we're out here with some big news about type 2 diabetes. you have type 2 diabetes, right? yes. so let me ask you this... how does diabetes affect your heart? it doesn't, does it? actually, it does. type 2 diabetes can make you twice as likely to die from a cardiovascular event, like a heart attack or stroke. and with heart disease, your risk is even higher. you didn't know that. no. yeah. but, wait, there's good news for adults who have type 2 diabetes and heart disease. jardiance is the only type 2 diabetes pill with a lifesaving cardiovascular benefit. jardiance is proven to both significantly reduce the chance of dying from a cardiovascular event in adults who have type 2 diabetes and heart disease and lower your a1c.

jardiance can cause serious side effects including dehydration. this may cause you to feel dizzy, faint, or lightheaded, or weak upon standing. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. symptoms include nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, tiredness, and trouble breathing. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of ketoacidosis or an allergic reaction. symptoms of an allergic reaction include rash, swelling, and difficulty breathing or swallowing. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. other side effects are sudden kidney problems, genital yeast infections, increased bad cholesterol, and urinary tract infections, which may be serious. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you have any medical conditions. so now that you know all that, what do you think? that it's time to think about jardiance. ask your doctor about jardiance. and get to the heart of what matters.

. neil: all right, it was a

wide-ranging interview with a "wall street journal," and a lot of ping-ponging going on, on a number of subjects. the one that caught many and the market's attention is the president's approach to the tax situation right now, and whose rates he favors seeing cut and what have you. obviously the emphasis is on the middle class, but made a comment that stood out in a lot of people's minds, a lot of attention there. if there is upward revision it is on high-income people. that was it. he didn't necessarily say the rates will automatically go up, he did say he was open, not only to leaving their rates as they are, but maybe revising slightly upward to pay for the entire package. that was quickly read and interpreted. the opposite being newt gingrich was with us yesterday saying that, well, if corporate rates go down as slow as 15%, the rich will do just fine. those are newt gingrich's words with me. so the rich will be fine, and apparently investors fine with all of this, notwithstanding. blake burman at the white house on the fast moving

developments. blake, what's the latest? >> reporter: big questions about just exactly what the president wants to do with the tax rates for wealthiest americans after this interview he gave yesterday to the "wall street journal" in which he said the following. quoting here, the people i care most about are the middle income people in this country who have gotten screwed, and if there's upward revision, it's going to be on high-income people. neil, i asked a white house official moments ago before coming to the camera what exactly the president was referring to as it relates to upward revision. did he mean the current law as it stands with the highest income rates being near 40% or the proposal he's put out there which would be closer to 35%? and the white house official told me they believe the president was referring to the plan that is out there at 35%. either way, there was another anecdote within the "wall street journal" article which the journal relayed. when the president was having kinner with robert kraft, the

owner of the new england patriots, that kraft told the president to, quote, tax the rich people because the people of this country need to be taken care of, and the president responded to the journal by saying, quote, i feel the same way. interesting comments as the administration debates the best way forward on tax reform. also here at the white house, five hours from now, expected to be a major announcement on the jobs front. a white house official telling me this announcement involves fox con, and billions of dollars of investment. fox con, the chinese supplier in part for apple. in that same journal interview yesterday given by the president, he said of this of tim cook, quoting here, cook promised me three big plants, big, big, big. it's unclear if this announcement this afternoon has anything to do with apple or specifically just foxconn, the

associated press is announcing the plan to involve a plant and scott walker tweeted out already, neil, this will have an impact on the state of wisconsin. neil, back to you. >> i would imagine that would be an understatement. blake, thank you very, very much. news on capitol hill, pushing things back on the straight repeal bill, this is the one very close to what they voted on 2015, when all but one republican senator, susan collins of maine voted for that. now there are at least three republicans against such a straight repeal. i don't know how they're rejiggering it. they're adding amendments including the hyde amendment which would ban abortions. that will go nowhere fast even among the republicans sending this up and setting up a measure. this could push back a lot of things as well. in the meantime, the "wall street journal" editorial board member jason riley, author of

false black power with us as well. a lot of crazy, fast moving developments, jason. first on the health care rework. your thoughts on that and even now in the latest incarnation, delaying straight repeal vote. they're going to go through this again and again with a number of measures, where does it end? >> the basic framework of obamacare still in place. they're going to do tinkering to, it call it a victory and move on. neil: some tinkering being just maybe remove the mandatory care? get rid of the medical device tax? >> that might help, yeah, if they can't do that with doing tax reform, do it here now. neil: that would be the only tax that would go. [laughter] >> it's not looking good, and i think the delay that you just referred to is more evidence of this not going well. but the bill is unpopular. the bill is unpopular among republicans. i've come to believe that a lot of the republican voters in

states that trump won, in michigan, and ohio and pennsylvania and wisconsin don't want to throw out obamacare. they like a lot of the provisions in obamacare, they like the medicaid expansion because they now have insurance and didn't before, and the republicans have to reassure these people that whatever they're going to replace obamacare with, will not -- that will take care of them, and they haven't done that. neil: let me ask you, do you think those who voted for donald trump voted for him on the basis of tearing up obamacare or the promise of just draining the swamp, getting taxes down, regulations. what do you think did it? if it was health care and this is the response to that demand, if that's the case, this is disappointing? >> i think they voted for trump in many cases, his base, that is. strongest supporters. because they like his in your face style. i think that is what won them over and they are not necessarily looking to -- for

him to rack off policy victories on health care or tax reform or so forth. i do think they want a strong economy. i think they want a pay raise. i do think they want to see economic growth, and he's got to deliver on that front, and tax reform will help get him there. no -- neil: what about this tax reform, and the president's interview with your fine paper. >> it could. neil: he could dial it back a little bit. >> i think he's right to focus on the corporate side of, this first of all, nine years of 2% growth, we've had. if you look at investment and factories, investment in equipment and software, it's very soft and has been for a long time. particularly compared to the 80s and 90s. cutting the rate to 15% from 35% would bring in a lot of money, lead to reinvestment, so i think that's a smart -- neil: they see that as at least a given? >> i think that is a big deal. also small businesses will be aflthed by this, particularly

if they could use the 15% rate, in the outline that the white house put out in april. i think that's a good place to start. the question is whether -- you're only going to get one crack at this, and therefore, do you put off the individual stuff until later, the individual tax reform until later? i don't know. i'm a supply side person, i think marginal rates matter. i think there's a danger in the code getting too progressive. the top 1% already pay 38% of the federal tax. neil: and the rates everyone else goes down and widening it out. it's very progressive. >> he's also got a problem with the unpopularity. it's been 86 was the last time we did big tax reform. it's been a long time. there was no internet back then. we need a tax system for the 21st century. it's overdue. neil: this doesn't sound like tax reform to me. sounds like tax cuts, fine, it's better than nothing but gets dialed back as we speak. >> but he's got to sell it. he's got sell it.

neil: he doesn't know what he's selling. does he have something he's selling? >> one of the problems is unpopularity. in 1986 when reagan did this, do you know what popularity rating was? 60%. trump is barely at 40%. this is going to be a big hard slog. he's dealing not only with a divided country but a divided caucus. he's got to get things done. neil: he has to get things to democrats. i know different times and all of that. is it your sense looking at it they will get something on health care, might be meager but something and will get something done on tax cuts, it won't necessarily be -- might not on the marginal rates, it might not be that big, but the corporate move will be big, and that will be enough. >> on health care, i don't see things moving on the right direction for the white house. >> i agree. >> i wouldn't bet him getting anything on health care. neil: really? you think this is a wasted effort what's going on?

>> they might get something very small. call it a victory and move on. and i think at this point, they will probably better to do that. that's about the best i can do. they're more likely to get something on taxes done. i think they could get buy-in here. partly because the democrats want to do something on infrastructure and there's a deal to be had here if they play ball on tax reform. pushing back against the narrative will be the democrats have the health care victory in stopping obamacare repeal, and that's just emboldened them, and they won't play ball on anything, even tax reform is tough. but that's where we are. neil: in the end, do you think if the markets realize this is the best they get, or it's pushed back into next year. let's say the tax thing is pushed back in the next year, all these gains evaporate or what? >> perhaps. i think there's a good sense of that. the people i've talked to in

corporate america, they're not expecting tax reform this year. >> is that right? >> i don't know if the stock market can reflect that. neil: not corporate tax reform? individual? >> nothing major. corporate tax reform in particular, not something they're expecting this year. neil: whether you like big tax reform or not. we know when it's substantial, it has a measurable demonstrable difference. if it is not, it doesn't. >> yes, i would agree with that, yes. neil: scary, i literally just made that up. jason, thank you very, very much. a lot of republicans do not like the way they see a former colleague than senator jeff sessions being treated, now the attorney general. but this extends to republicans. i want to read a quote from senator thom tillis of the beautiful state of north carolina, what sessions is going through is unnerving, but there's no doubting his commitment to the rule of law. he's next.

introducing new parodontax. the toothpaste that helps prevent bleeding gums. if you spit blood when you brush or floss you may have gum problems and could be on the journey to much worse. help stop the journey of gum disease. try new parodontax toothpaste. ♪

potsc(in unison) drive russ, leland, gary: yes. gary: i have a ford f-150. michael: i've always been a ford guy. potsch: then i have a real treat for you today. michael: awesome. potsch: i'm going to show you a next generation pickup. michael: let's do this. potsch: this new truck now has a cornerstep built right into the bumper. gary: super cool. potsch: the bed is made of high-strength steel, which is less susceptible to punctures than aluminum. jim: aluminum is great for a lot of things, but maybe not the bed of a truck. potsch: and best of all, this new truck is actually- gary: (all laughing) oh my... potsch: the current chevy silverado. gary: i'm speechless. gary: this puts my ford truck to shame. james: i'll tell you, i might be a chevy guy now. (laughing) that's it. i'm calling kohler about their walk-in bath. nah. not gonna happen. my name is ken. how may i help you? hi, i'm calling about kohler's walk-in bath. excellent! happy to help. huh? hold one moment please... [ finger snaps ] mmm. the kohler walk-in bath features an extra-wide opening and a low step-in at three inches, which is 25 to 60% lower than some leading competitors.

the bath fills and drains quickly, while the heated seat soothes your back, neck and shoulders. kohler is an expert in bathing, so you can count on a deep soaking experience. are you seeing this? the kohler walk-in bath comes with fully adjustable hydrotherapy jets and our exclusive bubblemassage. everything is installed in as little as a day by a kohler-certified installer. and it's made by kohler- america's leading plumbing brand. we need this bath. yes. yes you do. a kohler walk-in bath provides independence with peace of mind. call to save $500 off bath walls with your walk-in bath or visit kohlerwalkinbath.com for more info.

. neil: president trump, on a day where we have a lot of different news items going ocontinuing attack on attorney general jeff sessions like this one --

with me now is north carolina republican senator thom tillis. senator, very good having you. and i know it's very difficult for you and your republican colleagues to balance, obviously, being loyal to the president, being loyal to a former colleague and friend, jeff sessions, but several of you, including yourself, sir, along with chuck grassley and lindsey graham and orrin hatch, mitch mcconnell, richard shelby have spoken highly of jeff sessions and unwavering commitment to the rule of law. let me ask you, do you think the president is going too far? >> not at all hard to be loyal to jeff sessions, he's a man of integrity. he made the right call with regards to recusal. i think the president should want a attorney general that's reestablishing the trust in the department of justice and the fbi by seeing this level of independence. it's a unique cabinet post. neil: clearly he doesn't want that, senator. >> i think that you see a number of us here in the senate

who believe that jeff is right for the job or a.g. sessions is right for the job, and we want to move beyond these distractions to get on the things that the american people expect out of us. a health care outcome, tax outcome, infrastructure, all the things you were talking about in the last segment. that's the work to be done in the congress, and now having senator sessions, now a.g. sessions there is work that needs to continue. neil: to me it looks childish, you don't strike me as a fella you have a problem with a staff member you humiliate them in tweets before saying it's not working, good-bye. the attorney general some say he's interpreted as his personal lawyer, i think that's a bit of a stretch. i think that it doesn't make him look like someone who would instill loyalty. and i'm wondering what the fallout from all this will be. regardless of what happens to the attorney general? >> first off, the president's

lawyer is in the white house, not the department of justice, this is a person sworn to uphold the constitution and the law, period, end of story. neil: senator, it makes it sound like he doesn't concur with the description? >> that may be the fact. what we need to do is make sure the a.g. is continuing to do the great job of being independent. getting about the russia investigation, the fbi moving with the new fbi director and let us in congress not be distracted by these things to get on with the important promises we need to keep. neil: all right, the president makes it difficult. i'm wondering given the constant embarrassment in the press, whether it's deserved or not, he should just quit? >> jeff sessions is a courageous man, he's going to be a great attorney general, and i expect him to be there for a while. neil: what if he isn't? if the president fires him, the president would have uphill fight getting anyone else aprefed in the senate. do you agree with that? >> i think there are going to

be problems, not the least of which is going through another nominations process when we have so many judicial appointments and other things i as a member of the judiciary would like to get onto. neil: switching to health care, and thank you for your indulgence on that, senator, is it your sense what would be a repeal measure, very close to what was voted on back in 2015, is a sign that there's not nearly the support this go-around. that too will go down in defeat? >> it may very well be. i think it's an important vote to have on the floor. it's very important for me as i did in 2015, to support the repeal. that doesn't mean the work is done. we still have to -- we have to build up a health care system that will provide a soft landing for people who relied on obamacare, for the states that configured health care systems around obamacare. if we get an outcome, the so-called skinny bill or any one of the other measures considered this week, there is so much work to be done and that needs to be done on a

bipartisan basis. neil: you talk about the skinny bill they guess would remove the mandate for companies and individuals to have health care, and i think the medical device tax, that's about it. john mccain famously said in his return to the senate floor yesterday, that the idea that something is better than nothing, i'm paraphrasing, sir, that's the in the way the senate should operate. yet it seems to be the way many of your colleagues are accepting whatever they come up with as a health care alternative to the president obama's health plan as something that is better than nothing. >> well, i think it's a start. neil, this discussion about where we go with health care has to do from what the point of departure is? i do not think can you build anything on the obamacare foundation. so this is more or less pouring the foundation and recognizing we're going to have a lot of work to do, and to the extent it doesn't get in the reconciliation bill, it means we're going to have to reach across the aisle and come up with common sense solutions but should be on a foundation we

think is sustainable and obamacare is not sustainable, you can't fix it. neil: how would a skinny repeal work? would that give you two years to come up with something better? how old that go? >> i think we're going to have to dual track, we're going to be having health care measures come before the senate at the same time we're trying to get onto tax reform, and i think a fairly long list of discreet measures. we've got the chip program which has health care policy in it. there's a number of places to get bipartisan consensus what the next stage looks like. here's the challenge, though. we've got to find something we can get votes on, and outside of reconciliation, thes votes come through bipartisan support, and have to produce an outcome, which may mean we have to listen more to the people who are willing to fix the problem and not be unduly influenced by either pole of the political spectrum. neil: well said, we have to

produce an outcome. that's actually genius. really quick, while i still can, your take on what the president told the "wall street journal" about tax package that would benefit the middle class, but when it came to the upper income, he said and i, quote, if there's upward revision, it's on high-income people. some have interpreted that as a sign he would accept higher taxes on the wealthy. as part of a tax package, would you? >> well, i think what it comes down to is there's not enough wealthy people to replace the revenue shortfall we have today. we've got to provide corporate tax relief and relief on small businesses and create the revenue that give a broader tax break to working families, but have to make sure, we've got to create an economic environment where we have growth to create the revenue to fund all of that. that's why to make corporate tax reform, small business tax reform has to be a top priority. we'll take the hits because when you talk about corporate tax reform or business reform,

people say you're only looking out for the rich. i'm looking out for the job creators, the people who will hire people who want us to lower individual income tax rates which have to be a part of the longer term tax reform. neil: do you think it should be revenue neutral and you're not in necessarily the camp of some of the real conservatives who say you're going to lose revenue up-front when you cut taxes substantially, but you're going to get all that back in the later years. are you in that camp? >> no, we used scoring models when i was in north carolina to make decisions. that's what we have to do here. if we have the modelling to convince ourselves that we're going to have the revenue, that we've got to take bold steps and, again, produce an outcome. i've been called a rhino, but i define that as a republican in need of outcomes. we need an outcome on health care, on tax reform and this is our opportunity and time to do it. neil: conservatives and tea parties, whatever you want to

call them, senator, say that means whatever senator tillis would produce would be very weak, very measured, very cautious, very tentative. >> and i would ask them to take a cursory look at medicaid reform in the state of north carolina. tax reform in the state of north carolina. i heard the criticism. we pinned our ears back, produced a result and why north carolina is one of the most vibrant, fastest growing economies, it works. we have to have the courage to shut out noise and get it done. neil: but you would be open to what the president is opened, to a tax cut that would not include the wealthy? >> i think so at first tranche. we should reduce the tax burden on everybody. doesn't necessarily have to be a first priority unless it creates economic activity to support the little guy. neil: would you go so far as to raise tax oats wealthy? >> to the extent to me and tax reform as we did in north carolina, everything should be

on the table, if we're producing economic growth for everybody in the country. neil: senator tillis, very good catching up with you. >> thank you, neil. neil: very interesting read on that. we are getting to see sort of a lawout where republicans are coming up on this. moderates, the rhinos, whatever you want to call them, the camp is saying don't go crazy on these, the conservatives are saying yeah, you go crazy, that's the only way you get a substantial bang for the buck. therein lies the difference. the numbers they don't have a lot of wiggle room here. 52 in the united states senate. that is virtually no wiggle room. we'll have more after this.

i needed something more to help control my type 2 diabetes. my a1c wasn't were it needed to be. so i liked when my doctor told me that i may reach my blood sugar and a1c goals by activating what's within me with once-weekly trulicity. trulicity is not insulin. it helps activate my body to do what it's suppose to do, release its own insulin. i take it once a week, and it works 24/7. it comes in an easy-to-use pen and i may even lose a little weight. trulicity is a once-weekly injectable prescription medicine

to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. trulicity is not insulin. it should not be the first medicine to treat diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take trulicity if you or a family member has had medullary thyroid cancer, if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to trulicity. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have a lump or swelling in your neck, severe pain in your stomach, or symptoms such as itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may include pancreatitis, which can be fatal. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin, increases your risk for low blood sugar. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite and indigestion. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may make existing kidney problems worse. once-weekly trulicity may help me reach my blood sugar goals. with trulicity, i click to activate what's within me.

if you want help improving your a1c and blood sugar, activate your within. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity. ray's always been different. last year, he said he was going to dig a hole to china. at&t is working with farmers to improve irrigation techniques. remote moisture sensors use a reliable network to tell them when and where to water. so that farmers like ray can compete in big ways. china. oh ... he got there. that's the power of and.

. >> i think at this time, in my opinion, my best judgment, at this time in american history, we need to make america great again! [cheers] >> i am pleased to endorse donald trump for the presidency of the united states. [cheers] >> all right, you know at the time, people forget, that i was reminded by my buddy and genius lee carter, that was a very important sign of support, an establishment figure, and a big name in the conservative community like jeff sessions, the alabama senator, who was being wooed by ted cruz, you name it, to go for donald trump, and it's criticism from the senate colleagues, wait a minute, and now everything that's happening. >> he was a really big deal when he did. that he took a lot of heat for it but catalyzed people to sigh

maybe there is something okay for donald trump to look at. between jeff sessions and donald trump's children, they gave him a lot of boost. neil: i'm wondering when donald trump dismissed that early sign of support, that it was such a no-brainer for him. 40,000 people would have been there anyway. it demeans him, and the other attacks continue. now the president's right to do and think and hire and fire whomever he wants. >> right. neil: but this is particularly bad. i'm talking not just on a personal level. it just sickens me. >> on a personal level, it doesn't have to be this public. if he's disappointed by jeff sessions, feels hurt any way, shape, or form, they should be having the conversations behind closed doors. i can't believe humiliating him in many ways, it is totally inappropriate. neil: what is it going to do to other cabinet officials. i don't want to connect dots

that may not be worth connecting. all of a sudden rex tillerson, he's on vacation, frustrated at state. close friends, big admirer of jeff sessions, is this having a spillover effect where others who entertain such posts, hey, will this guy do to me what he did to jeff? >> donald trump made a point at the boy scouts this week saying we need more loyalty in this world. look what he's doing there. it becomes very, very difficult for people to say, look, i know donald trump was going to be loyal, he is going to be loyal, i'll be loyal back. neil: ronald reagan couldn't do it in person, he'd have orrin hatch there, it's not done in public. >> or that person would resign, but you would not see that -- it's almost taunting in many ways and i think it's disruptive. i think there are a lot of people qualified that are looking at the administration, still a lot of empty posts saying should i or shouldn't i

do this. i'm not sure i would want to take the personal risk. the other thing that is fascinating, trump supporters love it. they love he's calling people out. it's the people in the middle that have trouble for this. there is a big swath of people that aren't sure what to believe about russia. not sure if there is something there or not. i'm not sure. one more reason to question what is going on. i don't think it's the most strategic move that the president could be making at this point. neil: i'm looking at that from a human being perspective, not right or left. not the way i'd like to be treated. >> no, and from somebody who did a lot for him. neil: well, you're a loser and you're sad. [ laughter ] >> kidding, more after this. your insurance company

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.

. neil: this rally knows no bounds here, look at this, the dow up better than 94 points here, a lot of it has to do with continued confidence, no matter what happens, the momentum will continue, nothing to stop at even if the tax cuts don't materialize or is big or sweeping as the markets envisioned. what do you think is riding here? >> i think really we have an

interesting backdrop of global economy, great u.s. corporate growth without tax cuts or health care plan changes. we were expecting double digit earnings growth. we haven't seen that in six years and expecting double-digit growth. 57% of companies are beating estimates. the economy is really healthy, even without extra boosts. and we really weren't expecting political regulation to come into effect until 2018 for companies's bottom lines anyway. things are looking good and don't have negatives on the horizon right now. neil: scott, you looked at vix, historical lows. the frustration and the concerns are not really there. the bullets, investor intelligence numbers, when you are north of 65%, you're in darn close uncharted territory, is it too much?

you could be saying at any stage in the rally going back to 2010. what do you think? >> and we've heard that, neil, from so-called experts, right? that's one thing i love the sentiment indicators when they get, and still, i see some of the bullish numbers and the vix, but i also talk to many investors, neil, on the sidelines from holding cash, five, six, seven years ago. erin is right. the backdrop is growth, the earnings growth in the s&p 500 companies is amazing, growth growth is okay, i wouldn't say good, it's not in the freezer like it was a couple of years ago. we have the numbers coming out, the interesting thing is we're getting into an area, we have different comparables how the earnings are so good. look a couple quarters down the road, have you tough comparables, that's an interesting spot when we need tax reform because that's when things could peter out.

neil: what if tax cuts don't happen at all. erin, quick thoughts on that? >> we're still looking at double digit growth even into 2018 right now. neil: with or without them. >> without taking into account tax cuts. neil: wow. >> wow. neil: another good year. >> comps are harder, not the next two quarters but 2018. we're seeing a change in leadership. xrees off the lows and keeping the market in stable corporate profit growth. neil: thank you, both. we have a lot of breaking news, they're pushing things back to more like 3:30 today on the repeal measure, it's not expecting to go anywhere, you never know, senator john thune, a big leader in the effort. we'll be back. copd makes it hard to breathe.

so to breathe better, i go with anoro. ♪go your own way copd tries to say, "go this way." i say, "i'll go my own way" with anoro. ♪go your own way once-daily anoro contains two medicines called bronchodilators, that work together to significantly improve lung function all day and all night. anoro is not for asthma . it contains a type of medicine that increases risk of death in people with asthma. the risk is unknown in copd. anoro won't replace rescue inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be used more than once a day. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition, high blood pressure, glaucoma, prostate, bladder, or urinary problems. these may worsen with anoro. call your doctor if you have worsened breathing, chest pain,

mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain while taking anoro. ask your doctor about anoro. ♪go your own way get your first prescription free at anoro.com.

neil: all right. take a look at the dow better than 92.5 points, even though there is talk of president of the united states would be open to not across the board tax cut. one that might not even include the well to do, in fact, one that could end up seeing taxes to go up for the well to do. and then we have this health care back and forth and amendments and offerings and alternatives, including one that will be calling for repeal, a vote, which is pushed back to later this afternoon. to the guy orchestrating all of this. trying to on the part of the leadership, south dakota republican senator. good to have you. >> thanks, neil. neil: are you for this repeal effort or a vote that's going

to be put up later today? >> i am, yes. neil: is close to what you guys voted on in 2015? >> yeah. it's similar to that. it's essentially the 2015 bill, and there's going to be one amendment prior to that vote. but essentially, it's to repeal most of obamacare and then create a transition period in which we could replace it with something better. neil: and that amendment, the so-called hide amendment, the abortion thing, and that is not expected to pass; right? >> it's not expected to pass. i would hope that it would, but it's not expected to. that's right. neil: okay. so where will we be? if this was rejected only by one senator, susan collins in maine a couple of years ago. at least three are opposed. where do you expect this goes? >> it's hard to say until we have the vote. i think we have members who have expressed concerns about voting on the 2015 legislation and want to vote on something than the only repeals but replaces obamacare right away. so we have members in different places. we'll see where the vote comes out this afternoon.

but the one thing we know is we've got to get by the end of this week and the conclusion of this process, neil, to a result. and a result that repeals as much of obamacare as we possibly can because obamacare is in a death spiral. we know that. and it's leading the skyrocketing premiums and collapsing markets. all you have to do is look at the numbers. and it's clear that this is a disaster that we've got to rescue the american people from. but we have to be able -- at the end of this process, reconciliation, we have all the amendments and all the votes and when it's all said and done and the dust settles and the smoke clears, have something that we can report out that we can go to conference with the house of representatives on and keep this thing moving forward. neil: but where and how would that work out? i mean, as you acknowledge here, this one would be an uphill battle. i imagine you just keep coming up with alternatives that are acceptable, and you keep hearing talk about the skinny repeal that would remove the mandate for companies and individuals to have coverage and maybe the medical device tax. then you work from there. presumably. is that what you think you'll end up with?

>> well, i think what we have to do is find that path forward that gets us 50 republican votes. we just don't have any margin for error. and we know that all of our members are for repealing the individual mandate, which forces people to buy insurance that they don't want and can't afford. the job killing employer mandate, the medical device tax repeal, and maybe there's other taxes that can be repealed too that are driving up the cost of health care in this country. we don't figure out what that package is. what that list of, you know, items is that we can put on, put into a bill, that when this is all done, all the amendments have been voted on, we could report out of the senate with the 50 republican votes and hopefully the vice president chair if necessary. that's the end goal for senate action, and then we will move to conference with the house of representatives, we'll take up that discussion again and see where that gets us. neil: but you would have presumably a while to then come up plan after repeal; right? i mean, something that

could be years or what? >> well, i think, no. i think that the repeal -- if we get a lot of the senate that repeals the mandate that we talk about in some of the taxes. go to conference with the house. the house, of course has passed their version of the bill. we want to get as much of obamacare repealed and replaced about something that's better as we possibly can that gets us, you know, with the math working, you know, against us in the senate that gets 50 votes plus one. so that's the goal, and we are committed to that. it's a promise we made to the american people. we need to fulfill it, and we're going to keep plowing forward. i think yesterday's vote was an important one because it allowed us to get on the bill. now we get to have the debate and at the end of the debate, hopefully we'll be able to report something out that repeals as much of obamacare as we possibly can currently in the united states senate with the votes that are available and gets us to a conference with the house where we can keep that process moving forward and hopefully get to a good result at the end. neil: is this a work through the weekend kind of thing? >> well, it could be for the senate.

we'll see how much the democrats try to delay or drag this out. we will at least be voting into the wee hours of the night on friday morning, and we'll see beyond there. but i would hope that the conference, if we can get something to the senate that we can go to conference with the house on would start to meet right away. because i don't think we have time to wait. i think that this is a -- we've got insurers who are trying to put out rights for next year. we've got markets that are in free fall, and we've got to move forward, and i hope that there isn't any delay or any time taken that isn't absolutely necessary to get this across the finish line. neil: switching a little bit here to the next battle, and that is over taxes and the president seems to be open to doing novel things on the tax front. but maybe not including the wealthy. that if possible, the stipulation where they could see their taxes go up. i want you to listen to your colleague senator tom tillis react to that. neil: but you would be open what the president seems to be

open to, a tax cut that would not include the wealthy? >> yeah. i think so. i think at the end of the day we should reduce the tax burden on everybody. it doesn't necessarily have to be a first priority, unless it creates economic activity that helps the little guy. neil: but would you go so far as to raise the taxes on the wealthy? >> to the extent to me and tax reform as we did in north carolina. everything should be on the table, if it demonstrates to us we're producing economic growth, which helps everybody in this country. neil: senator, what do you think of that? he is open to raising taxes on the wealthy. >> well, i hope we can get done with this, neil. i met with members of the president's team on the republican side as we lay out and chart the path forward on tax reform. there will be difficult decisions that have to be made. but the goal is to get rates down for everybody. now, it may be possible that in getting rates down that there's some deductions that go away that might impact high earners more than others and in the net, they end up with not a tax cut but the goal

here is to get rates down and more than anything else, generate economic growth. we want to get that growth rate back up to 3% or north of there. and we're going to be looking at pro growth policies. and one of the ways you get growth is reduce the rates across all categories and especially right now of course with businesses both with c corpses, we've got to allow for faster tax recovery. if we get to get the economy growing at a faster rate, get better paying jobs out there and raise wages, this tax reform effort has to be about growth. and that's going to be our principle focus. neil: real quickly, jeff sessions, the fixation that the president seems to have keeps mentioning him in tweets. a lot of your colleagues are concerned about this. are you? >> jeff sessions is the colleague we all know and trust, and he's as honest as they come, and he's doing a very good job under very

difficult circumstances, and i think that it would be -- it would be in, everybody,'s best interest if the president would leave him alone. but, you know, obviously, that's -- those are decisions that the president has to make and how he manages that relationship with people that he's appointed to his cabinet. but from our perspective up here, we believe that jeff sessions is doing a good job and just keep focused on the work he's doing. neil: so you just say as you're trying to get this stuff done on health care, move on to tax cuts that the president's hurting you? >> well, i just think that it's a distraction and obviously in the news cycle when we come over here, wherever we walk, we know we're going to a vote, we're going to a committee meeting. it's a question that the media is very focused on. so, look. neil: we're only focused on it because he keeps tweeting about it. >> right. and so that's what i said. i think -- i don't think in the long run it's helpful for him to continue to do that. and i would hope that they

would figure out whatever it is they need to figure out between them and move on for the good of the country. neil: all right. senator, thank you very much for taking time. always appreciate it. >> thanks, neil. neil: meanwhile, democratic candidate murphy was tweeting this. if the house bill or any variant of it, i'm sorry. very tough to see here. i really can't see it, guys. so you could see here where it said it's not hyperbole that people -- i think this is the one that they go bankrupt or die. it comes into effect. i apologize for that. can't read it all that clearly. but it was hyperbole about not going too far. former democratic congressman on this. the gist of that is that it's crazy; right? i mean, i think to say that people are going to die or there's going to be follow-up on the heels of remarks. but nancy pelosi and schumer, we're going to have -- chuck schumer are going to have violence in him. come on; right? >> neil, there are people out

there that if they don't have insurance, they're not going to go to the doctor. they're not going to get care, and when you don't get care, and you're sick, death is one of the possibilities. neil: so when this is being cooked up, just to be clear, were people dying left and right and then with a wave of the obamacare wand, they were suddenly safe? >> we have a health care system, which is really about sickness, not wellness. it's market-based, which means that the insurance companies win no matter what. neil, the american people are not being served here. this bill that's whatever bill comes up for the senate, it's going to have people not being able to afford insurance, people thrown off of insurance, people -- neil: they can't afford it now; right? >> well, you know what? you are exactly right. people can't afford it now. now, why is that? because insurance companies have to make money out of this system. and if they can't, they raise the rates.

if everyone knows that. so i'm very concerned that we've got this great debate going on and the american people are left way out of the debate. this is all about trying to meet the needs of the insurance companies, not meet the needs of the american people. neil: you and i agree on that. i always wonder, and i tell my staff this. that every time i see insurance companies are happy with a package they've cooked up. i'm not happy. maybe because of all the ailments. they're very slow at paying me back. but having said that, i wonder how it got to be this way where the success of a plan depends on if these insurance companies like it, because they're in it to make money. i understand that. but it's gotten to the point where they will back out of exchanges, back out of coverage if it gets pricey. so you have to do things to entice keeping them in. so senator cruz comes along and offers a variety of plans that they can offer, as long as they have that one-size-fits-all coverage. it's the president obama

favored that one maybe young people have the bear bones package. and yet, that was ripped by the insurance companies as well. no. no. so where's this going? >> well, you mention young people. if a young person does have health problems, and they have only a minimal coverage, they'll be in hoc for the rest of their life trying to pay the rest of their bills as they are with their student loans. so we have to look at what works for all the people in america and what works for everyone is what works for every other industrialized democracy, and that is that you have a single pair system. everyone's covered within nobody goes broke, no bankruptcies, people don't die because they can't get health care. we have to start looking at the bigger picture here and frankly, there aren't many people in either party that are doing it right now. it's all about, you know, how can you work it so that the insurance companies will agree? well, i'm sorry. that's not a way to take care of people in this country. neil: what's going to happen to this? i have a feeling that when these things are negotiated,

this is getting pailer and pailer, this alternative plan, this light version, whatever they want to call it. where it will -- it won't be marginally different than the plan we have now. i guess it's a jumping off point for them to work, you know, something else out with the house. but i don't see it being a repeal of obamacare, which brings me back to the notion why was that such a sticking point? republicans vowed that they were going to repeal it, which they haven't. democrats said they wouldn't get onboard if repeal was in there. no need to worry now. so ironically, they could have gotten a lot more democratic votes or something that really marginally changes the program we have now. >> well, the program we have now does have its limitations. it's still -- premiums have gone up significantly in the last couple of years. but if the republicans go forward, and they repeal obamacare without any replacement whatsoever,

there's going to be tens of millions of people who are adversely affected. and in the end, the concern of the american people have been paramount interest here. and frankly in all of this health care debate because of the tremendous economic influence of the insurance companies, i don't think the concerns of the american people and their health and their financial conditions are part of the debate. and i hope that it gets back to that, and i hope that if the senate does act, that they will come up with something that will meet the needs of all the american people. but frankly, with this market-based approach, i think there's an inherit fallacy in trying to believe that somehow we can let the market determine how much people pay, if they're going to be covered or not. that's a prescription for a country that doesn't take care of its people. neil: all right. congressman, very good seeing you again. thank you very much. >> thank you.

neil: all right. we're telling the tax rate negotiations and how for the upper income, they might not be getting the cut they wanted. furthermore be they might be getting a hike. charlie gasparino on that. also, on a white house briefing that is now slated for 2:00 p.m. eastern time on camera. get ready after this ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

the toothpaste that helps new parodontax. prevent bleeding gums. if you spit blood when you brush or floss you may have gum problems and could be on the journey to much worse. help stop the journey of gum disease. try new parodontax toothpaste. ♪ we danced in a german dance group. i wore lederhosen.man. when i first got on ancestry i was really surprised that i wasn't finding all of these germans in my tree. i decided to have my dna tested through ancestry dna.

the big surprise was we're not german at all. 52% of my dna comes from scotland and ireland. so, i traded in my lederhosen for a kilt. ancestry has many paths to discovering your story. get started for free at ancestry.com.

neil: all right. president trump, by the way, is still sticking with a 15% corporate tax rate. you've heard on this show and elsewhere. varney was apoplectic about it thought that the upper income could end up paying more in taxes. that was just thrown out there. oh, a lot of people are wondering exactly where the president's coming from on all of this. charlie gasparino has been doing some digging around. what's the latest? >> i can tell you that inside the white house, 15% is the number. the corporate taxes. it's unclear where they're going in individual taxes, that's a work in progress. the times, actually, new york times wrote a story that said the white house was conceding

20 to 25% would be the -- where it would end up. here's what i'm going to tell you. white house opening gambet and now we've got it confirmed from the president's mouth himself is 15%. the place where this gets murky is in the house. and house speaker paul ryan is indicating to members that he believes it's not going to be 15% that in these private meetings, ryan told members that he believes -- the rate will be brought down. the corporate tax rate will be brought down somewhere between 20 and 25%. that's probably where people are getting that 25% rate. neil: so that's where they're starting out. so that would echo what orrin hatch told adam shapiro. maybe it's 20, maybe 25%. but the legislative branch seems to be talking much higher. >> much higher. neil: bottom line, you indicated it's still a hell of a lot lower than it is right now. >> right. if you added the state gambet on top of that, it's, like, 37%. and the effective rate because

of the deductions and loopholes, it's 27%. so even this, the 25% would be a cut; right? 2%. neil: but ryan's view here is don't make the deficit worse. substantial tax cut. the revenue comes in later. so he is not a possible. senator from north carolina echoes that theme. that's a more prevailing little than we think. >> yeah. let's be clear. the house speaker paul ryan is a deficit hawk. okay? he's not a supply-sider. or he's not a true believing supply-sider. neil: and he's talking tax reform. not necessarily cutting everybody's taxes. but make them simpler. >> i've heard him bring it down. use hand language. bring it down, close the loopholes. neil: and he's not italian. when you notice. by th >> by the way, great guy if you've ever met him. so what i'm saying is this is

where tax reform. we're still in the middle of a bruising battle over health care. it may or may not get a new bill. a new redo of obamacare. this shows you -- and this is, like, kind of the simple part. that tax reform is not going to be that easy of a lift. that, you know, when you -- you've got a lot of people weighing in on where the corporate tax rate is. most people, conservatives believe it should be as low as possible. 15% is -- neil: there in lies the battle for these guys; right? >> now, think about what's going to happen if they're going to going to go over this where it's going to go with deductions. and there are several key deductions in these plans that are going to be -- that are needed, if you want, you know, plug the deficit or make sure the deficit doesn't explode. one is the exemption for state and local taxes. that's going to be very, very controversial. because even republicans from new york. if they're in congress, you can't vote for that to get rid of that exemption.

neil: high tax state. >> i'm sure there's at least one republican congressman from long island. i think his name is peter king. is peter kick going to support that? neil: unless they sold him the idea that it's going to be a lot better. stay here, buddy, because i want to bring, of course, former cbo director on this. doug, good to have you. what we're talking about back and forth is this battle, i guess, back and forth how big and sweeping can make the tax cuts. the first came from the president in the wall street journal interview earlier. that maybe they don't sweep all the way to the upper income that maybe they don't get a tax cut. that maybe they get a higher rate. now, still unclear as to whether he's talking about the agreed upon rate that was part of the trump plan or the rate as it is now. hard to say. but that other senator is, like, senate tillerson in north korea telling us on this show, yeah, i could see them leaving out of this. the rich. what do you think? >> i think it would be a big lift to raise rates on the upper end.

i think they've already signaled they're going to go after some of the deductions and loopholes in the upper end. if they're going to pay more, that's how they'll do it. i think the bigger battle is the one that charlie is talking about, which is is this going to be revenue neutral and thus permanent in reconciliation tax reform? or is this going to be tax cuts that they have to sunset and thus are temporary? and i think that's the big divide in the republican party right now, and it will be interesting to see how that plays out. >> but isn't that kind of a theoretical argument in many ways, doug? you know, who cares whether it's sunsets in ten years. who knows what's going to happen. if you have economic growth in ten years and the republican party is back in power. neil: but those are the rules; right? >> okay. good so sunset for ten years. you have tax cuts for ten years. neil: yeah, what do you make of that? it sounds like also republicans are at a point that not only scaling back health care but scaling back tax cuts. would make of that? >> i think it reflects the fact that they realize now how

hard it is to these big, sweeping reforms. and they are -- i think really taken back by the difficulty they face on the health care front. how hard it is to stay unified as a party and between the hill and the white house. and so when they look ahead to tax reform, they know that it's their best chance to get economic growth, and that's an imperative with the voters. so it's their best chance to solidify their position in 2018. they want to make sure they get something done, and they're worried about trying to bite off too much and failing. >> but, you know, the absurdity from this, aside from the whole it should be ten years or permanent. i think you should just go for the ten years thing. neil: take what you get. >> unless you get economic growth up to 3%, it's really hard to pay down the deficit. it gets more difficult with the -- with less economic growth. so you have to have some sort of growth -- >> something to -- >> if you get 3% economic growth, tax rates do come in at some point, and you can pay down the deficit more.

so it's like they've got to be able to you would think someone is whispering in their ear. neil: speaking of the cbo, cbo directors were claiming that, you know, the administration and republicans dumping on cbo figures was not taken lightly. and i talked to budget director mulvaney and others in the administration said, well, the cbo isn't the bible. they went back at you. i want you to react to mulvaney. he wasn't talking about you. but he was joining you and a group of people he didn't seem to like. react to this. where does this stand? >> look, the cbo has been wrong. they're challenged with a very, very difficult burden; right? they're supposed to sort of anticipate what a 20-trillion-dollar national economy is going to do. they're supposed to challenge with the methodology and how they're supposed to measure a particular piece of legislation. extraordinarily difficult. does not undo the fact, however, they're still using

jonathan's methodology to look at health care bills. the cbo is often touted by folks who oppose the bill, this nonpartisan entity, and they're certainly nonpartisan but the methodologies certainly have their weaknesses. neil: all right. i didn't understand what he said there. but i think what he said, doug, is that your methodology and you were the problem. what do you make of that? >> i think two things. number one, i think it's fair for anyone to question cbo's findings, their methods. that's part of taking the research, turning it into public policy. i think where the line gets drawn is when you assume that cbo's out to tilt the playing field in some way. they're opposed to the bill. he questioned their integrity of the professionalism. i think that's fair. i guess -- not in that interview. but he has in the past. look at this, charlie. charlie, let me finish. >> yeah. >> the other thing i would say is he needs to get a mirror and look at omb's performance, and then we'll talk about --

neil: oh, no, you didn't. >> he went there. >> but, you know, i think what he means by this, i know nick mulvaney, and i did private meetings with him. he's clearly not running around attacking the cbo every time he gets a chance. but i think what he's saying is there's an institutional bias to the c bo's methodology that it's not a supply -- it's not a supply side among them. neil: democrats complain about the cbo, republicans complain about the cbo. you always complain about -- >> but they do use ecstatic analysis. neil: you always blame the rest. >> i agree. but if you talk about supply-siders -- if you talk to art laugher or steve moore or neil cavuto, they would tell you that cbo doesn't believe -- they believe in static analysis. they believe that there's a supply -- they don't believe much in a supply side. neil: hard for dynamically account for it. that is a problem; right? that it tends, doug, to be very hard to quantify the boom

you get from tax cuts; right? have you mastered it by now? >> look, predicting the future's not hard. being right is very hard. so i have zero complaints with people they've been wrong on occasions. certainly my own record there, they're a mistake. i do think it's fair to point out that cbo tries to operate on the quote consensus of the research literature. art law enforcement officer is not a consensus guy. he has a strong point of view and one end of the spectrum. i happen to think art's a great guy and don't disagree with a lot of things. but you're not going to get a government institution there. neil: all right. looks like we have a battle brewing, brother. my way of handling this. a little more after this

neil: all right. the president once again tweeting about jeff sessions. you've seen a number of guests on the show saying cool it about this. whatever your opinion on the attorney general, it's not

helping the legislative agenda. to the wall street editorial board member. mary, what do you think of that? because this doesn't stop. >> well, i think the president is frustrated. he's frustrated at being accused of collusion with russia when, neil, there are has been no evidence of that. so you can understand where the frustration comes from. neil: absolutely. but this is looking ridiculous. >> yeah. look, if he would focus a little bit more on selling his legislative agenda, that would get him out of the white house. it would get him off twitter -- neil: he's very good at it. he's very good at it. >> he's very good at it, but, neil, i would add a little bit to that. he needs to persuade the american peel. it's not enough to talk about how republicans promised to pass obamacare repeal and replace. he has to explain why the republican program is better than what democrats have offered, and it's there i think where he has fallen down, i think that's why his plan isn't popular, and that adds to the frustration because, you know, he's several months into the job now, and he hasn't gotten the

major legislative accomplishment done. neil: you know, one of the things that i think maybe bothers him, and i'm no psychiatrist here. i don't think he wants to own a failure. but b by the same token, that will happen whether it's his fault or not. so i think when you're president of the united states and the legislative priority doesn't materialize, people are going to look at you. it's not fair, it's not right. sometimes presidents are thrust into things for which they had little preparation. john kennedy, the bay of pigs comes to mind. but he took the blame for that afterwards. the only thing i'm saying here is the president should own this, run -- he's very effective on the stump pushing this. that he did to get this procedural vote through. >> but is he effective on the stump, neil? because if he were effective explaining why we have to reform to get medicaid and get able bodied young men off of it and why it's not enough to reduce the cost of health care but actually increasing access to health care. neil: so you're saying the fact that he says -- i

understand what you're saying. so you're saying the fact he's saying obamacare is a disaster be it's imploding. >> not enough. neil: you have to explain what's going on here to say what you're offering instead. i see what you mean. >> yeah. not enough. and why isn't the white house team. why didn't they prepare congress with a one-page sheet and say this is what democrats are going to say. this is what you should say in response. why didn't the president give an oval office address, you know? there's a lot of. neil: yes. yes. >> there's a lot of should have donees here. neil: but it's not too late. a lot of you have been hearing back and forth about this whole health care thing. let me tell you. i'm not saying charts are the answer. but to say -- and we said even on this show, and i know you had guests a lot of times talking about it. the way it's going right now is not sustainable. so here's the math. here's the money coming in or the money going out. we can't keep doing this. so here's a republican plan to stop that from happening. but maybe like you said to do it via, you know, an oval office address.

i mean, that might be the answer. but to get sidetracked, i'm thinking at this time jeff sessions -- whether you genuinely feel ticked, embeds, clearly. or not. it's just getting in the way. and, by the way, it makes you look bad because you can't let go of this thing, and you're humiliating the guy on international tv. >> yeah. i don't think it's a constructive thing to do. i mean, jeff sessions was standing up for the integrity of the justice department. i think he did the right thing. neil: no lawyer in the world would have advised him to do anything differently. >> no. i don't think so. and you saw the reaction from republicans in the senate. he was their colleague. there standing up for him. neil: talked to eight republicans who support sessions saying he did the right thing. so let's move on to this, you know? if you want to fire, by all means, fire. but maybe some events there that say be careful what do you think is a replacement because that could take a long, long time. but where do you think this is going? >> well, i don't think it

sends a good signal to the current members of the cabinet who are out there trying to do things and push forward their agenda. if they see the president can throw sessions under the bus, they're probably thinking am i going to be the next person? i mean, let's imagine that sessions does resign. he hasn't indicated that he would. but if he does in the future, who's going to take that job? and will the senate confirm that person, whoever he or she may be? a lot of question marks here, neil. and in the meantime the most important thing that this president needs to do is get some wins on the board and force the press to talk about a win. obamacare repeal and replace. tax reform. immigration reform. something. but that has to be top of mind, and it is not enough to the gop. you have to make a persuasive case not just to them but to the public. and republicans also need to know. this president is not tied to the republican party. if they don't pass repeal and replace, he's going to go to chuck schumer, and he's going to do a deal with schumer. neil: oh, yeah, he's very pragmatic. they "they" ought to know

that, but they ought to be focused. and to your point, they're not. mary, wall street journal editorial board. i like the fact she always disagrees with me too. it shows spunk. that's that? lou, boss lou and mary said i like spunk but not when you show spunk. anyway, we have a lot more coming up with the white house briefing sarah huckabee sanders. it is going to be a televised affair, so, you know, get your -- get the recorder going because i have a feeling the whole thing with sessions come up, whether it implicates the rich not getting a cut. i'm telling you there's a lot going over today. after this

neil: is it your sense that this delay what would be a repeal measure i think very close to what was voted on back in 2015 is the sign that there's not nearly the support this go around. >> even if we get an outcome

the so-called skinny bill or any one of these other measures that are being considered this week, there's still so much work to be done, and that work needs to be done on a bipartisan basis. neil: is this a work through the weekend kind of thing? >> well, it could be for the senate. we'll see how much the democrats try to delay or drag this out. we will at least be voting into the wee hours of the night into friday morning, and we'll see beyond there. >> we have to move forward, and i hope there isn't any delay or any kind of taken that isn't absolutely necessary to get this across the finish line. neil: all right. to the wee hours of the morning to usa today congressional reporter who has now canceled her weekend plans, i'm sure. what does this mean? >> well, i have canceled my weekend plans. but what this means is that democrats are going to do everything they can to delay the process. we're in this 20 hours debate time right now. there's a few amendments being voted on but likely tomorrow

is when we will see that votearama where democrats are offering hundreds of amendments. i think chris murphy said he had 100 amendments alone. so we imagine this is going to go on for quite some time. neil: now, are they close to even a vote on this skinny repeal that would be really scaled down where most of the key points of obamacare are kept in place. say, the mandate and maybe the medical device tax. >> the skinny repeal is an interesting thing because it kind of became something this week. it was never something on the table before. this process friday morning say, look, we agree on the individual. neil: on friday morning, working the weekend, i'm worried about myself. are you talking friday morning going into saturday? or are you talking friday morning, friday morning? >> let's hope friday morning, friday morning. but -- neil: continue. >> right but it could go to saturday. you know, i would

be prepared to cancel those saturday night plans. but likely at all people get tired. that -- so that skinny repeal is, like, the last thing that's going to happen. that is they agree on maybe three or four small things, they push this over, and then they have to go talk to the house where they think they can make a fuller bill. that is not anything we're going to see today or likely tomorrow. right now, they're voting on these larger bills that are kind of expected to fail last night we saw one, the bcra, which is that bill they've been talking about for a long time. that failed pretty spectacularly. neil: but why do they do these amendments that they know will never pass. they're going to do upwards of 100 of them. and they keep try, try, try. and maybe somebody accidentally votes on something they didn't plan on. but they know that's a time waster, don't they? >> well, democrats want to waste time; right? they don't want republicans. neil: i see where you're going. >> and they want campaign ads. if they're on the floor railing against obamacare, and they're up in 2018, that's a

clip they can put on tv and, you know, that's politics. so, yeah, they're going to waste -- democrats are going to waste all the time they can. there's also a couple of votes like the full repeal that's going to come up today. not really expected to pass, but it's something they promised rand paul that they would bring up to get his vote. so rand paul also probably knows this isn't going to pass. but you never say never, so they might as well bring it up. neil: all right. if i'm working this weekend, you're working this weekend. >> we'll be working. neil: all right. i know you will. you always do. usa congressional reporter very close to what's going on there. or may not going on. whole foods is out -- i love this place because you know i'm mr. healthy eater. they've got earnings out that beat the street estimate of 36 cents per share versus the estimate of 33 cents. and whole foods adjusted revenue also came in a tad better versus the estimate about $3.373 billion, 3.72 billion, the stock is trading up not only right now. remember, amazon is scooping it up and taking over the world. we'll have more after this

neil: all right. we are getting word that a major supply for apple could be building some factories here in the united states, and these are the same factories that would essentially be making those hop, new apple iphones, which are pretty

pricey already. that's very cheap labor broad, how much would these be if they're here? anyway, gerri willis here with the latest. >> so we're looking at maybe $1,400 for this new iphone 8 that's coming out. unless it cleans my kitchen floor. that's a lot of money. if apple makes good on what donald trump says the promise he's got for the company to build three plants here in the u.s., could they keep their prices -- would that be the base? would that be low for them? or would they have to raise prices because american workers are more expensive than chinese workers? and what we know is that about 30 to $40 in additional production cost will come onboard with each and every iphone. so you have to think okay. does this company now lose its competitive advantage vis-à-vis competitors? what else happens? what are the other falling cards? so we're watching this pretty closely. when but the president promising three, big, beautiful plants from apple i

guess we'll have to see. this foxcon thing, nobody made this donald trump and announcement. supposed to take place in wisconsin, 10,000 jobs there. apparently according to the ap moments ago, liquid crystal displays, as you know that's what on the front of your iphone; right? neil: right. >> so we'll have to way wait and see. but if it comes to pass, that won't increase the price of an iphone? neil: think. now, again, i've heard 1,000 to 1400 on the new iphone when it comes out. its customers pay them. i mean, apple, they're very loyal. they will pay that. but would they pay substantially more than that if it was an american made phone? this always comes up if you could protect america jobs, would you pay more for the goods that are produced here? it's always been that conundrum, you know? >> i don't know if we've been able to prove people are able

to do that on many goods. on a harley-davidson, probably yes. people love to pay that premium for that brand name and of course apple is also a brand name. the question is just how good is that i8 phone coming out. the new apple phone. is it going to be great? neil: better be making my breakfast for that kind of charge. and mine is a big breakfast. thank you very much, gerri willis. in the meantime we are moments away from a white house briefing. and the federal reserve wrapping up that two-day meeting, which it is expected to outline how to unload that 4.5 trickling of debt it has cumulated after this at fidelity, trades are now just $4.95. we cut the price of trades to give investors even more value. and at $4.95, you can trade with a clear advantage. fidelity, where smarter investors will always be. and at $4.95, you can trade with a clear advantage. the toothpaste that helps new parodontax. prevent bleeding gums. if you spit blood when you brush or floss you may have gum problems and could be on the journey to much worse.

help stop the journey of gum disease. try new parodontax toothpaste. ♪ : hello, this is adt,

is everything ok? i could hear crackling in the walls, and my mind went totally blank. all i remember saying was, "my boyfriend's beating me" and she took it from there. when a fire is going on, you're running around, you're not thinking clearly, so they called the fire department for us. and all of this occurred in four minutes or less. within five minutes. i am absolutely grateful we all made it out safely. it's kind of one of those things you can't even... you cant even thank somebody. people you don't know actually care about you. to protect what you love, call 1-800-adt-cares

. >> all right, just taking a quick look what we are looking at. that's right, the white house press briefing room. we're going to be getting a briefing, and those are rare events. anthony scaramucci came in as the white house communications director promised more of these. whether we regularly return to the sessions, we'll see. speaking of sessions, as jeff sessions, that will probably come up. the president tweeting unfavorable things about him, and whether he has worn out his welcome. but the president hasn't said you're fired or could have talked to him in private. of course, we talked to a number of republican senators on the show the last couple of days. grassley, yesterday, tillis of north carolina today. the better part of that just to be careful how you're doing

this, sessions was a loyal by and had no other route than to recuse himself from the russia thing. the president unfestering anger and pointing out it's a distraction for him given the fact they are trying to do the heavy rifting for the party and the president and the health care reform and later on, on taxes. the advisers might outline whether the president was seriously talking about raising rates or at least leaving them the same for the upper income that struck some as a bit of a surprise but not dislodging the markets. ahead of all of those developments and the wrap-up of that federal reserve meet wearing they're going to talk about how they're going to unwind better than $4.5 trillion worth of rescue dough they're sitting on. trish regan to take you through all of that. trish: thank you so much, neil. we've got a lot going on. seconds away from the federal reserve's decision on the future monetary policy. we've got a market up 76 points right now. all of this as president trump

considers a major shake-up at the very top of the central bank. does it mean janet yellen's days are numbered? welcome everyone, i'm trish regan, the "the intelligence report". adam shapiro is standing by to give us the decision by the federal reserve. >> reporter: no change in interest rates, the fed will begin balance sheet, here is the quote on unwinding the balance sheet -- that is a change in language, they used to say before the end of the year. inflation has declined and is now running below target, 2%, they reaffirmed commitment to a gradual adjustment in the stance of monetary policy but maintain the federal funds rate at 1 to 1.25%. labor market continues to strengthen. however the concern about wages