don't get mad (bell mnemonic) get e*trade and get invested ashley: market up 37 points. the march to it 3-k goes on. neil cavuto, take it away. neil: thank you, my friend. president having a meeting in the white house. pow-wow with senator mitch mcconnell first direct one-on-one since the dust-up whether the senate majority leader was doing enough to help with the republican agenda, ie the trump agenda. there could be a i stress, a budget that could clear the way for tax cuts. you have to have that in place before you pursue it. the 1 1/2 trillion dollars here over 10 years and cost of the tax cuts now is substantially more than that a lot of details have to be sorted out. blake burman to do just that.

hey, blake. reporter: neil, full cabinet meeting at the white house on going. several members of media were allowed in. president made very brief comments off the top. let me tick through some of the items. the president says the iran deal, termination of the iran deal is very real possibility. he went on to hit the cost of prescription drug prices saying they are quote, out of control. saying that the drug companies, quote, are frankly getting away with murder. he talked about reducing government spending. of the wants to look into the possibility of tackling welfare reform as well, saying that is something, quote, we are looking very, very strongly there for at welfare reform. you have the meeting going on right now with the president. all of his cabinet, here at the white house. we expect that tape to come out. i'm sure you will play it here momentarily. after that, in about half an hour from now, is the big pow-wow as well, separate one, between the president, and vice president mike pence and senate majority leader

mitch mcconnell. those three will all meet together over lunch. you got a whole separate host of issues. mcconnell's office saying they will talk about the three hurricane relief, for example, judicial nominations, the budget and of course, tax reform. you know the backstory to this, neil. with the president sniping at mcconnell earlier this summer saying he failed on obamacare. he wanted him to get back to work. a little bit of an icy relationship this summer. now mcconnell comes here to the white house soon. neil. neil: thank you very much, my friend, as blake was talking we're getting some details happening in the general cabinet pow-wow, which the president says he wants to look a after poor people with changes to health care policy. calling for taking away several billion dollars providing insures for providing coverage to those folks. president is calling to republicans to try to make short-term fixes. he is open to those fixes rand idea. the president saying recent changes to the affordable care

act ended gravy train for insurance companies. the insurance companies balked didn't use money for anything else to provide coverage for those who wouldn't be able to afford it otherwise. president says no such thing as obamacare anymore. government is working on a short-term fix. with all that going ons "daily caller" editorial director, vince collagnese. the president is trying to position this as not destroying health care but fixing it. in so doing, he is portrayed as a guy trying to unfix it who get benefits through system of benefit enhancements companies receive. take those benefits away they don't get insurance. how will this play out? >> predictably, constantly will be accused most nefarious version. look at daca debate, when he decided to hand it over to congress, he was accused

throwing out every daca recipient. the president deciding same thing. removing the power of from executive branch. congress handle subsidies. handle something constitutional and both parties agree to. he. he doesn't want to see obamacare implode. he keeps saying it will implode unless something is done, extending those subsidies as temporary stopgap measure. he is hoping to lose measure to get concessions he wants, things like graham-cassidy, block grants to the state. neil: i'm wondering timing, meeting with mitch mcconnell at white house to bury the hatchet. a lot is heightened by his on again, off again battle with corker, of tennessee. >> yes. neil: is he concerned he might have gone too far? that he is sort of alienating folks who could very well make a difference on tax cuts, or does he care? >> i think he cares. i think they're going to have very sincere conversation today as mitch mcconnell sits down with donald trump for number of reasons. steve bannon over the weekend

calling for mitch mcconnell to be fired. you had ken cuccinelli, other conservatives last week calling for the same. looking for assurances from the president, that the president is not on board with that plan throwing mitch mcconnell out just yet. president will look for assurances that the senate can get this critical budget resolution passed that vehicle is essential for getting tax reform done. sounds as they whip the votes they're very close to 50. all eyes on the senate. susan collins suggested she could vote for this thing. rand paul golfed with the president, might vote for it as well. mitch mcconnell in a victory that would make the president very happy. neil: we'll hear from the president at this cabinet meeting ahead of the meeting with mitch mcconnell. pressure to get a yea vote for the budget laying groundwork for getting tax cuts done, is there any sense thaw have, that might

not materialize? this could be harder sell than people have been anticipating? >> well, people i ask have not suggested a wide degree of optimism but i think that is because some people especially on the right are stung by the obama repeal and replace bush. john mccain giving thumbs down to the vote when they had a real shot actually passing that. here there is a lot of cautious optimism they can get to 50 votes to do this other thing on tax reform thing, for the most part it's a good plan, but things that rand paul is concerned about, middle class may face a little bit after tax hike in some cases, that is stuff they're working out. sounds like the president is willing to be flexible as he tries to get tax reform plan through. that may be why rand paul comes along and says yes, i will vote for the thing. neil: we could be hearing from the president any second here, they want to be flexible on the timing of this, to make numbers crunch. delaying corporate tax cut to 20%. doing it in stages.

what do you make of that? >> that seems to be a way to obviously to make it palatable. the key here is, talk to anybody on the trump team. their belief, as president said, that the tax cuts will be economic rock wet fuel. their -- rocket fuel, their hope as they bring tags cuts in, deficit projections that don't score this thing we call dynamically, they women be destroyed by all this economic growth. if they can get to 3% economic growth every year that i think will have really meaningful impacts for revenue they generate for the government. neil: i think you're right, vince. president meeting with leaders on capitol hill at the white house. >> okay, thank you very much. today we're here to discuss at the cabinet meeting critical domestic policy issues. i'd like to basically provide you with an update as to how we're doing for the american people and we're doing a lot of great things. the unemployment rate is let am

17-year low. stock market soaring to record levels. we're near hitting a new high today. optimistic for doing business in our country. gdp growth reached 3% last quarter. other than hurricanes would have done phenomenally this. something will have to be taken off because of the tremendous problems of the massive hurricanes that we've had to endure. and now i guess you can probably add the wildfires in california. but the economy can not take off like it really has the potential to do unless we reduce the tax burden on the families, businesses, workers of our country. and we'll be able to do that i think we're getting tremendous receptivity from the people. i hope we get the same receptivity from congress. but we are getting tremendous accolades for what we're doing, having to do with both reform and with the massive tax cuts.

it will be largest tax cuts in the history of our country. we're one of the highest-taxed nations in the world right now, costing us millions of jobs and trillions and trillions of dollars. time to restore america's competitive edge and pass historic tax cuts to the american people. one point in gdp could be $2.5 trillion. think of that in revenues. one point, we go up from 3 to 4, and when i began, we were in the ones. and now the last quarter, 3.2%. we're going up higher, if we went as example from to 3 or 3 to 4, talking about $2.5 trillion. we're talking about massive jobs. we're reducing government spending. we're working on cabinet meeting today. as we head no next year's budget season i asked director mulvaney

to find various savings in all the departments gathered around the table which is everybody. i need, my cabinet to work with director mulvaney to fight these spending cuts, fight for them, and make sure they happen. we want to make the departments as lean as efficient as possible. at the same time we'll be departments with is lots of heart, lots of heart. one thing we'll look at very strongly is welfare reform. that is becoming a very, very big subject. and people are taking advantage of the system. other people are not receiving what they really need to live. we think it is very unfair to them. but some people are really taking advantage of our system from that standpoint. we are going to be looking, very, very strongly therefore at welfare reform. it will be a very big topic under this administration. it started already. we have a lot of recommendations that we're going to be making. you will be hearing about them very shortly. the other thing we're doing,

that relates to people's lives, is the prescription drug prices are out of control. the drug prices have gone through the roof. if you look at same exact drug by the same exact company, made in the same exact box and sold someplace else, sometimes it is a fraction of what we pay in this country. meaning, as usual the world is taking advantage of the united states. they're setting prices in other countries and we're not. the drug companies frankly are getting away with murder, and we want to bring our prices down to what other countries are paying, or at least close and let the other countries pay more, because they're setting such low prices we're actually subsidizing other countries. that is not going to happen anymore. that has been going on for years, where our people are paying so much more -- i don't mean they're paying 2% more. they're paying double, triple, quadruple, saying so much more that it is very unfair to the

united states as usual. last week i also sent a letter to congress outlining my administration's top priorities for immigration reform. this was a bottom-up effort driven by dedicated law enforcement professionals. they took a big oath to protect our nation, justice department is doing a fantastic job on the border and with regard to immigration. more than anyone has seen from a justice department. thanks very much, jeff. it really had an impact and very positive impact. now we'll take it to five steps further. our proposal closes dangerous loopholes and vulnerabilities that enable illegal immigration, asylum fraud and visa overstays. the visa overstays are talking about numbers nobody even knows what they are, they're so out of control. we'll take care of that. when you look at what is going

on in mexico, mexico is having a tough time right now in terms of crime. more than ever, we need the wall. we have drugs pouring through on the southern border. they're literally pouring through. we have to have the wall. we're going to have the wall. if you look what is happening on other side of the border with the tremendous crime, and tremendous problems going on, we have a very good relationship with mexico, but there are a lot of problems. we don't want the drugs. and we don't want the crime but we need the wall. we have asked congress to insure any proposed immigration reform ends chain migration. one person comes in brings everybody in his family in with him or her. we have to end chain migration, which it is critical for creating a system that puts american workers and the american taxpayer first. last thursday i proudly nominated kirstjen nielsen to

serve as department of homeland security and urge the senate to confirm quickly this tremendously qualified nominees. i ask for my other nominees. we have approximately half the number of nominees confirmed by the senate. frankly the democrats have terrible policy, terrible, and they're very good really obstruction. one thing they do well, their policies are no good, i'm not sure they're even very good politicians because they don't seem to be doing too well, and that could be because of their bad policy. they are great at obstruction. we have half the nominees that president bam had at this time. very unfair. taking everybody right on the final moment, many cases confirming them with tremendous majorities but bringing them out purposely, bringing them down to the final, we have people totally qualified, they will pass but they will have to wait a long time because of total

obstruction. i can say same thing with our judicial nominees. our judges. we have most qualified people. "wall street journal" wrote a story about it today, that this is some of the most qualified people ever, and they're waiting forever online. and it shouldn't happen that way. it is not right and it is not fair. i want to thank acting secretary elaine duke for her leadership in responding to the catastrophic storms that have struck our nation and our territories. we also issued a disaster declaration in california in response to the devastating wildfires like we've never seen. and we mourn the terrible loss of life. we have fema, first-responders there. we have our military helping. it is, it is very sad to watch how fast, how rapidly they move and how people are caught in their houses. i mean it is incredible thing. caught in their houses. so we have a lot of people

helping government in california and made a lot of progress in the last couple of days. but, we're a little subject to winds and what happens with nature but it has been a -- it is very sad thing to watch. we also continue to pray for the victims of the mass shooting in las vegas. we can not erase the pain of those who lost their loved ones but we pledge to never leave their side. we're working with them very much so with the fbi and law enforcement, the department of justice and it is, i guess a lot of people think they understand what happened, but he is, he was a demented sick individual. the wires were crossed pretty badly in his brain. extremely badly in his brain and it is a very sad event. in each of these tragedies we have witnessed however, a tremendous strength and heroism of our people. each one of these tragedies that

we have had, we have witnessed such strength and such heroism. when americans are unified, no destructive force on earth can even come close to breaking us apart. we have a lot of work to do on behalf of our magnificent country and our extraordinary citizens. a great trust has been placed upon each member of our cabinet. we have a cabinet that there are those that are saying it is one of finest group of people ever assembled as a cabinet and i happen to agree with that. of course i should agree with that but i think we have a extraordinary group of people around this table. this is a tremendous amount of talent and i wouldn't say i wasn't necessarily looking to be politically correct although i ended up being politically correct because that was the right thing to do in every sense of the word, however, we have, we have just gotten really great

people. i'm really proud of them. we'll work with all of those things i outlined and many more. you know we have the iran deal, but right now it is being studied and i think a lot of people agreed with what i did. i feel strongly about what i did. i'm tired of being taken advantage of as a nation. this nation has been taken advantage of for many, many years. for many decades, frankly. i'm tired of watching it. but the iran deal was something that i felt had to be done and we'll see what phase two is. phase two might be positive and it might be very negative. might be a total termination. that is a very real possibility. some will say it is greater possibility t could turn out to be very positive. we'll see what happens. i thought the tone of the iranian leaders was very modified. i was happy to see that but i don't know if that means anything. they're great negotiators. they negotiated a phenomenal deal for themselves but a

horrible deal for the united states. and, we're going to see what happens. the, health care as you know is moving along. knocked out csrs. that was a subsidy to the insurance companies that was a gift, that was frankly what they gave the insurance companies -- just take a look at their stocks. look at where their stock was when obamacare was originally approved and what it is today. you will see numbers, anybody, if you invested in those stocks, you would be extremely happy and they have given them a total gift. they have given them, you could almost call it a payoff and it's a disgrace. that money goes to the insurance companies. we want to take care of poor people. we want to take care of people that need help, with health care and that's what i'm here to do. and i'm never going to get campaign contributions, i guarranty you that, from the insurance companies but a lot of other people got them. you look at democrats.

take a look at that. look how much money has been spent by democrats and by health companies on politicians generally, but take a look at the covers of the democrats. so the csr payments has actually brought republicans and democrats together, because we got calls, emergency calls, from the democrats, and i think probably the republicans were also calling them saying, let's come up with at least a short-term fix of health care in this country. and, the gravy train ended the day i knocked out the insurance companies money which was last week. hundreds of millions of dollars a month, handed to the insurance companies for very little reason, believe me. i want the money to go to the people. i want the money to go to poor people that need it. i want money to go to people that need proper health care, not to insurance companies, which is where it is going as of last week, i ended that.

so we have a lot of interesting things to do. i am meeting with mitch mcconnell in a little while for lunch. i think we'll say a few words on the steps after that. i know you won't have any questions. and pretty much that's it. enjoy yourselves. folks. i will see you out there with mitch mcconnell. thank you very much. [shouting questions] >> steve is very committed. he is a friend of mine. he is very committed to getting things passed. look, i have, you know, despite what the press writes i have great relationships with, actually many senators but in particular with most republican senators. but we're not getting the job done. i'm not going to blame myself, i will be honest. they are not getting the job done. we have had health care approved and then you had surprise vote by john mccain. we've had other things happen and they're not getting the job done. i can understand where steve bannon is coming from.

i can understand, to be honest with you john, where a lot of people are coming from. i'm not happy about it and a lot of people are not happy about it. we need tax cuts. we need health care. we'll get the health care done. in my opinion what is happening as we meet republicans are meeting with democrats because of what i did with the csr because i cut off the gravy train. if i didn't cut the csrs, they wouldn't be meeting and having lunch to enjoy themselves. right now they're having emergency meetings to get a short-term fix of health care where premiums don't have to double and triple like obamacare. obamacare is finished i it is dead and gone. you should even mention it. it is gone. there is no such thing as obamacare anymore. and i said this years ago it's a concept that couldn't have worked. in its best days it couldn't have worked. we're working on some kind of a short-term fix prior to the -- maybe with some democrats, again

it is obstruction, maybe with some democrats to fix health care permanently. so i think we'll have a short-term fix with republicans and democrats getting together. and after that, we're going to have a successful vote because as you know, we were one vote short, and i think we have the votes right now. whether through block grant or something else. block granting the money back to the states, which does seem to make sense. where the states run it, because it's a smaller form of government. it can be more individually sensitive. that will happen fairly shortly. as soon as we the have next reconciliation. i think we get the next vote for that. i think we already have the vote for health care. sadly the democrats can't join us on that, which would be a long-term fix. but i do believe we'll have a short-term fix because i think the democrats will be blamed for the mess. this is an obamacare mess. when the premiums go up, that has nothing to do with anything other than the fact that we had

poor health care delivered poorly, written poorly, approved by the democrats. it was called obamacare. but i think we'll have a short-term fix, then we'll have a long term fix. that will take place probably in march or april. we will have a very solid vote. it will be probably 100% republican, no democrats but most people know that will be a very good form of health insurance. so that will be it. okay. any other questions? no. thank you. see you in a little while. >> thank you. [shouting questions] >> i know how he feels. depends who you are talking about. there are republicans frankly should be ashamed of themselves, most of them, i tell you what, i know the republican senators. most of them are really, really great people that want to work hard and want to do a great thing for the american public but you had a feel people really disappointed us. they really, really disappointed us. i can understand fully how steve

bannon feels. thank you very much. thank you. neil: president making a little bit of news when it came to the new health care repeal effort, talking a lot about csrs. they refer to cost-sharing reduction payments what he cut out last week, denied $7 billion of federal funds typically go to health insurance companies to underwrite poor people getting coverage. it has been sort of a boon to the insurance companies, but not to people that need it most. certainly not to the american taxpayer. he also on another tangent talked about drug prices he said way out of control. you will pay for a lot of live saving medicines and treatments in country you wouldn't with the same exact medication and treatments abroad. he says that is not fair. that is not right. that too shall end. he did not tie it to any sort of change on what would happen on the health care front, but he made it very, very clear. he thinks there is bipartisan support here. maybe was forced on particularly

democrats by cutting out funding to these insurance companies that would provide for lower-paid workers. but of course the devil is always in the details. and how that is corrected. it is what provisions are made to make sure folks like that receive coverage. again on the price fixing front here, if that is how it is deemed, not everyone argues that it is price fixing. others in the medical industry, that is result of high cost and research and development reflected in the early years of a given drug or treatment, so the argument goes back and forth, but the president made a very good point, but that same treatment abroad sells fraction of the cost. arizona republican congressman, house freedom caucus member, andy biggs. thank you for your patience through all of that what do you make of what the president is saying first on the health care front and payments we're making to insurance companies to cover folks? he wants to stop it. >> yeah he does. what he is doing is the right thing because i think he is

providing motivation or incentives. i'm a big believer in incentives. he is providing incentives for congress to get back to work on health care reform and repeal hopefully. i think that is a good thing. we'll see how it plays out in the market. i believe what he is doing providing incentives in congress to bring people together and get something done. neil: you're in the house, congressman. he put onus on the senate. even in mitch mcconnell succeeds keeping 49 of 52 republican senators in line, which by percentage is incredible achievement, if he loses three he loses the battle. do you think the president will apply pressure shun on those that will not go along? >> i think he is doing what he needs to. he is woodshedding people, getting some together as individuals. i think that is a good thing. i think he is using the bully pulpit. that is also a presidential ploy

as well to get something moving. so i applaud him on that. i think that is good leadership. i think that needs to happen. neil: sir, i heard earlier part of his remarks, he is still keen on the wall. you're keen on the wall. don't forget the wall. others saying everything going on it is not realistic. you're saying what? >> no, i think you have to build the wall. we get distracted with some other immigration issues, first issues brought him to the front of the campaign and was very important to republicans is to build the wall, secure the border. you need to do that before you start doing some of these other programs because it shows two things. number one, integrity and commitment. the other thing is, allows you to then have a rational discussion without all emotion that goes with an immigration issue. neil: you're closer to this and i am, congressman. i get the feeling that passage on any of these things from your budget to ultimately tax cuts, whatever final version is out there for a vote, is a lot easier in the house than it will

prove in the senate, dicier looking at senate budget vote. i'm beginning to wonder whether that could signal problems? because i'm already seeing a lot of key parts of the tax measure being debated or, talk of spreading it out, like the tax cut in corporate rates from 35% to 20%. maybe don't do it all at once, stagger it. there is history and precedent to that, with the reagan tax cuts and have you, but how do you feel about that? how flexible are you on that? >> well, i think it is a mistake to delay any part of tax reform. you want to provide relief for families and individuals but at the same time you have to provide relief for corporations. we have the highest tax rate in the world and pass-throughs. you need to reduce those down, because they're the job creators. they're ones on main street building jobs, creating the economy that is going to help the individuals and families as

well. i just think that separating it out would be as confused as putting hemorrhoid cream on your own toothbrush. doesn't make sense to me. neil: thank you for that imagery, congressman. we appreciate it. i do know where you're coming from. thank you, very, very much. good seeing you. >> thank you. neil: that is the new battle royale. interesting development on the tax cut front. how to make these sellable, pal atable to democrats who are worried about tax cuts in general. spread them out. anything to get a deal done. as one republican was telling me. it doesn't have to be perfect, as long as something we vote on gets done and we can rack up a victory. after this. d administrative pap, your days of drowning people are numbered. same goes for you, budget overruns. and rising costs,

wipe that smile off your face. we're coming for you too. at optum, we're partnering across the health system to tackle its biggest challenges.

>> health care as you know is moving along. knocked out the csrs. that was a subsidy to the insurance companies. that was a gift that was

frankly, what they gave the insurance companies. just take a look at their stocks. look at where their stock was, when obamacare was originally approved, what it is today. you will see numbers, anybody, if you invested in those stocks, you would be extremely happy. neil: technically the president was right about that, those csr, those cost sharing reduction payments made to health insurance companies to provide support or reimburse them for signing up those who can ill-afford health care coverage under obamacare get sort of ripped in the media. the as mat of fact their stocks did soar with the backstop being the united states government. we're looking at that and a lot of other issues with barrons.com editor, jack otter. the not first time government has done that for number of groups, staying out or coming in. it is disproportionate here, you take that away, then next question, becomes what comes in its place, right?

>> exactly. "rocket man," all these other tweets, when you really unpack this one, i think it mate be the strangest tweet ever from donald trump. there is some layers to it. but start with the csrs. so, yes they were a subsidy. but what is actually going to happen is more money will leave the u.s. treasury as a result of this, because all of these people will get tax deductions for higher premiums now. neil: that is interesting. more than the 7 billion if we're accurate? >> actually increasing the deficit a little bit. but if you step back, think about why we have this whole system, right? the rest of the developed world all has single-payer systems. taxpayer gives the money to the government, the government pays the doctors. we in this country decided not the way we wanted to do it. we wanted something more capitalistic. this obamacare came out of heritage foundation report in the '70s.

people would take responsibility for health care and mandate their insurance coverage. it got complicated and over regulated and. neil: government had a very prominent role. >> too prominent role. still, it what it was. when you take it away, what will happen? costs go up for the government. hospitals will get fewer patients, but ones who go without health insurance, taxpayer will pick up that or hospitals will lose money. there is nothing to brag about it here. if trump produced a better plan than obamacare. neil: maybe he is forcing the issue. >> let's hope so. neil: you were away, jack, all of sudden compelling people, oh, my god we have to scramble we come up with something. you're worried about the cost of replacement? snooped current law, premiums go up, you have to cover the cost. those are subsidized by tax breaks so we're not helping

anybody. neil: he is talked before about this, jack, high drug prices. they can be very high, high here, same treatment. costs abroad. he was saying it is rage just. that is very popular appeal, the drugmakers or should say insurers are feeling right now. >> what is interesting, hillary tweeted something about biotech. ibb, index fund, excuse me, the etf that covers biotech stocks plummeted. it took it a long time to recover. the markets is not really reacting to the trump stuff about drug prices. i guess, the market doesn't believe he will do anything. i don't know. it is interesting that he is not having that effect. neil: mitch mcconnell, meeting with the president later on, it has been a lot of reports of bad blood between the two. ex--- with bob corker, is he trying to mend fences? golf came with rand paul and

lindsey graham, what do you think? >> i sure hope so. those guys within a room with no reporters, we to say to each other, guys, we have a huge opportunity to have a big win taking us in 2018, give people reason to vote for it, or with complete republican control of government and continuing to do nothing and basically write the democrat campaign ads for them. neil: if they don't get tax reform or tax cuts done, i guess we're past reform stage, what happens? >> the only good news for the republicans is, i don't know what the democratic replacement is, do you? neil: no. >> do you know any great candidates coming up? do you know any great plans? not really, they sure will have nothing to show for two years in power. neil: you want to show that at least. jack otter, bear's.com editor. iran deal, president wanted to deer is is fight or rewrite

it whatever you want to call it set off -- french are upset, british are upset, italians are upset. when i heard the tall -- italians are upset i said game over. we have margaret thatcher aid, nile gardiner. iran's foreign minister ironically says the u.s. can not be trusted, signing on to a deal that a future president can tear up on a whim. what do you make of that? >> we have seen a huge collective whine from the european green -- union, particularly from the french and germans, complaining about president trump's decertification of the iran deal. this was completely expected. the european union has a lot of at stake here. the iran deal is global power projection for the european union.

secondly, there is also a lot of money at stake. you have huge financials deals being negotiated with european companies, together with the iranian regime. the total oil deal, for example, to exploit iran's gas fields that is worth a billion dollars. -- $5 billion. there is much at stake here for, if sanctions are reimposed at the united states, those sanctions would target european countries. it is expected you would have the eu and the big european union players actually fighting ferociously to keep this deal in place. neil: if you think about it, france's leader macron was not even part of that iranian nuclear agreement but wanted to honor what a prior government committed to. i'm just wondering now, how that changes going forward. what do you think?

>> macron is still committed to the deal. he has expressed some, i think criticism of aspects of the deal. neil: right. >> i think interesting thing here is that if the united states goes ahead and reimposes sanctions against iran, which i think congress should do, effectively that takes the united states out of the iran nuclear deal but what are the europeans going going to do abot actually? i think eventually the europeans will have to accept any u.s. decision as they have done over the paris climate accord. this will not break the transatlantic alliance. the u.s. concerns over the deal are very, very deep-rooted. they are far stronger than the concerns of the europeans but, a u.s. break from the deal, which could be the end result, is not going to fundamentally alter the trajectory of u.s.-european relations and at the end of the day europe needs the united states on some levels, not least

of course to defend europe against threats posed by places such as iran and also by the russians as well. so i don't think that this is going to, you know, hugely damage u.s.-european relations in the long run, despite all the bitter complaining coming from european capitals. neil: i'm wondering what is the political climate in europe these days? reason i ask, this 31-year-old ended up becoming austria's new leader, he is part of this so-called new right movement that espouses more of the look out for ourselves over the fortunes of europe. as such he is europe's youngest leader but he is not in keeping with the tone we get out of a lot of european governments these day, save the fact that he is not establishment, that is for sure. what do you make of that? >> that's right. a big development in austria, election of sebastian kurz,

foreign minister of the country, only 31 years old, leading a conservative peoples party, which is very, very hard-line on immigration issues. immigration, the refugee crisis, was the dominant single factor in the austrian elections. this was rejection of angela merkel's open door policy which allowed in up to two million migrants from, from the middle east and africa into germany. many found their way into austria as well. a huge issue. what we're seeing rejection in austria and european countries of the old sort of political establishment, rejection of the open borders approach. certainly mr. kurz is similar to leaders in eastern europe, especially poland and hungary. leaders strongly rejected angela merkel's approach on the refugee crisis. neil: so far right problems in places like france is not indication what is happening

across europe because of this guy's victory, right? >> i think actually, sebastian kurz is pre mainstream in austria. the fact there is overwhelmingly opposition in many european countries mass migration and altering societies and has security riches -- risks. nile, thank you. you heard all the problems tesla has been having about disappointing car sales and the like and they weren't up to snuff. doesn't waste a nanosecond getting rid of quite a few workers. try hundreds of them. sales don't meet expectations, there is the door. it happened, after this. is this a phone?

or a little internet machine? it makes you wonder: shouldn't we get our phones and internet from the same company? that's why xfinity mobile comes with your internet. you get up to 5 lines of talk and text at no extra cost. so all you pay for is data. see how much you can save. choose by the gig or unlimited. xfinity mobile. a new kind of network designed to save you money. call, visit, or go to xfinitymobile.com.

neil: between the fires and disappointing, sales figures, maybe, employee reviews weren't up to snuff, a lot of employees are gone at tesla. hundreds of them. deirdre bolton with details. reporter: the company is under pressure. some reports indicating 400 people were fired from tesla last week. keep in mind the company has 33,000 workers.

tesla not confirming that 400 number. it released a full statement. here is part of it. i shortened it. like all companies tesla conducts annual performance review. this includes constructive feedback an recognition of top performers. performance reviews also occasionally result in employee departures. many see the staff decisions in the context of tesla falling short of its own production targets for that model 3 sedan. it is supposed to start around $35,000 per car. the move into this price point in the market is really important for tesla's growth. this is basically the first venture into the entry level luxury mass market. last week tesla reported completion of only 260 examples of this model 3 cars. words of workers moving hands on. less computers, just trying to crank these cars out. the company's goal was 1500 in

september, already much less. 10,000 cars by december, 2018. elon musk blaming short fall on production bottlenecks. tesla has orders on the books for roughly 455,000. so they really need to pick up the pace. there are some die-hards though, neil, no matter what. fooling around on craigslist a little earlier. there are a few reservations for anywhere between $1,000 and $4,000 for a virtual spot in line for a future model 3 car. i don't know if tesla is involved in that process. doesn't seem so. or if they will even honor those. but the 4,000 was, in the bay area. so there are some die-hards. they don't care. they will wait a long time. they will pay what is takes. neil, back to you. neil: they are rabid. that fan base tend to be very, very rabid. if they're disappointed -- reporter: people only wait so long. neil: deirdre, thank you very much. meanwhile the wi-fi router at

your home could leave you open to hacking. the set up in your house, what happens? >> neil, pleasure to be with you. not just wi-fi router in the house but also work place too which is a bigger concern. security researchers found just today there is new exploitation a, a new vulnerability, dubbing it crack, which stands for key reinstallation application. that means a generic protocol in every modern wi-fi device can be easily exploited. neil: what are they doing what can you do to protect yourself? >> problem that this basic protocol, sending security researchers into a tizzy it is what enables encryption. encryption and coding basically, so that all of the traffic that goes across your home wi-fi router, every activity you take part in over the net and at the work place is hidden and

encrypted. this protocol once attacked allows everything to be read, so it is no longer a secret. the other issue, for some devices, depending on network set up they can send malicious code and enable malware. neil: that can shut down company whole systems, personal systems at home. how advanced and who is doing it? >> there is no specific company or vendor to blame. this is a core protocol almost part of every wi-fi enabled device. what consumers and employers can do, shut off the wi-fi. just basic internet connection, or you can wait until patches, updates come out and everybody should be patching all of their devices on a regular basis. now this is such, at a severe level, that we really need to accept those patches as soon as they come it. most major manufacturers will release patches to fix the protocol. it is across every sort of vendor you can think of in the

technology space. for now until it is patched, shut off wi-fi. that is only way to protect yourself. neil: but the problem, a lot of people depend on wi-fi, they can go back to direct internet connections. if you're home or business that can be cumbersome, especially at home where you share internet with family members, what have you? >> certainly neil. the real key to keep in mind, your home router probably isn't going to be targeted because most of this technology, you will to be real close physical proximity to the affect it. at home probably not issue. at work place definitely an issue. employers we'll see stories from the news after this announcement of employers having problems, companies having problems especially with all the privacy and security concerns and news now. neil: everybody thinks like equifax and that type of stuff but that might be an unique example? >> might be but everybody can be hit. neil: lose sachs thank you very

much. i appreciate it -- leeza. >> thank you. neil: president and mitch mcconnell had a naysty relationship along with senator bob corker, but how can he make sure to gather the 50 minimum senate votes he will need? you notice i say there is not a lot of wig gell room. he will rely on min mitch to deliver those numbers. there are a number of republicans even now, concerned about some tax cuts that are being bandied about, including rand paul says if it amounts to tax increase for some in the middle class he can't be for it. president golfed with him over the weekend to make nice there. maybe make persuasive cases. we don't know if that succeeded. he continues to work charm offensive with mitch mcconnell. this should be interesting. more after this.

. neil: all right. everything has to go. just so in order to get everything the republicans want to get done, including the wishes of the president of the united states, not the least of which those tax cuts. that requires having a firm reliable budget on which everyone can agree. certainly, within the republican party. the president making it clear a short time ago, he's going to have to rely on probably exclusively republican votes, and even there, it's not a sure thing that he has them. adam shapiro with the very latest on capitol hill. hey, adam. >> hey, neil and, of course,

everybody is watching the senate to find out what's going to happen with the vote on the 2018 budget resolution. expect that vote later this week. now, the other issue, though, is what the president did last week with health care. essentially giving congress a new task, which is finding a way to either fund the mandates for comprehensive coverage for people who can't afford it because he's pulling back the $7 billion, which had been sent to insurance companies. and democrats clearly very upset about this because senator lamar alexander and patty murray, the democrat, they have been working on some kind of compromise for health care. well, here's what the president said just moments ago about what they need to do. >> they're right now having emergency meetings to get a short-term fix of health care. where premiums don't have to double and triple every year like they've been doing under obamacare because obamacare's finished. it's dead. it's gone. it's no longer -- you shouldn't even mention.

it's gone. there is no such thing as obamacare anymore. it is a -- and i said this years ago. it's a concept that couldn't have worked. in its best days, it couldn't have worked. >> so, of course, the president is having lunch with leader of the senate, republican mitch mcconnell. you can imagine that this will be a discussion. the procedures, as they move forward on all of this. but the key this week in the senate is that 2018 budget resolution. it must pass the senate if this congress is going to get onto the work of tax reform. neil. neil: all right. thank you very, very much, adam. as adam rightly pointed out, it's not so much in the house where this battle royale could be building up, it's in the united states senate. there's not much willing room here. you have a 52-48 majority favoring republicans right now. the most you can lose is then two votes. after that, even having vice president pence be the tiebreaker won't seal the deal. so you have the budget that lays the ground work for getting the tax cuts, and even that budget doesn't really build in the total price of

the tax cuts. so over ten years, what are you talking about to make adjustments for that? washington times columnist also liberal commentator danielle mcglaucoma in. welcome to both of you, the numbers we're hearing is stagger them. that is on the corporate front, maybe don't rush right away maybe move the reduction not for everybody but start it at the upper income. maybe 400,000 and above. what do you make of that and the fact that republicans are kicking these around? >> you know, i think it's something that will definitely be talked about. but when we talk to american people across the country, i think so many of them want to see that cut down to%. and we had the study come out showing it is a potential for 4,000 and 9,000 to be added to every family's income every year as a result of these cuts. so this is something something that the american people can benefit from. it will benefit our economy.

and as we talked about before, we haven't seen comprehensive tax reform since the 1980s. it's time. it's time for the tax reform. it's time for the tax cuts. and it's sad that we had to kick the can down the road for so long, congress had to kick the can down the road for so long to get to where we are today to where we are in a rut and we don't have much time to get this done. neil: danielle, what are your thoughts on democratic support? the president hoping he can get some, but he seemed doubtful in that cabinet meeting there a few minutes ago. so what's your sense? >> well, democrats want tax reform and tax cuts for the middle class. that's what donald trump complained on. and about 70% of americans want to see that as well. so i think what democrats have said is we'll come to the table, but we want to see is working people, middle america, people who elected donald trump as a populist to do the work to put more money in the wallets of the middle class. and to madison's point, you know, we haven't seen tax reform for 30 years.

and 1986, ronald reagan, of course, and bill bradley, the problem is there's so much partisanship. i don't know if they're going to get it done. neil: yeah, sarah, i want to bring you into this. white house correspondent. what's the concession that the president might make to get the ball over the end zone? >> well, one of the roadblocks we're seeing republicans run into is the fact that there are some conservatives in the senate who are wary of adding anything to the deficits and others who think that just pushing tax cuts through will help the economy expand enough to pay the bill and erase those deficits. that's not necessarily an impact that's going to be easy to get over, and it is made even more difficult by the fact that the senate budget, the vehicle for tax reform is expected to come up this awake while a reliable "yes" vote is out of washington sick recovering from an illness. that means that mcconnell has

one less person to fall back on. he already had a very thin margin. can only lose two republicans. while there are doubts about whether the likes of john mccain or bob corker are going to support a budget that increases the deficit. so these are some really tricky things for the white house to have to navigate. it's one of the reasons why mitch mcconnell, the senate majority leader is sitting down with president trump today. neil: madison, what are your thoughts on how that's going to go? you know the thinking of the president and the people working with the president. he is having this event, this luncheon with mitch mcconnell. it seems like a buffer zone is going to be the vice president also in this luncheon. how do you think it's going to go? >> you know, i think the president recognizes how important this lunch is going to be. and mitch mcconnell recognizes how important this lunch is going to be to potentially his future in the congress. neil: so why is the vice president there if you want to just mono, is the vice president a peace maker? >> well, he's an important party here, and he's someone that can also potentially relate and connect with mitch

mcconnell. and when we look forward to 2018, many senators, including senator ted cruz recognized that if nothing gets done on tax reform and owe issues, that this could be a bloodbath for republicans. so i think they all have similar interests in mind when we look at the big picture, and they will come together today, and i think they will get something done. neil: you've touched on it before about what it would take for democratic support. but i'm sure democrats are equally leery of looking like they're obstructionists because their approval numbers are not that hot either. now, a lot of that can change in the dynamics of the 2018 campaign. but is their strategy going to be we will vote "yes," as long as the rich don't get something. in other words, the president opened up the possibility of a fourth right beyond the 35% personal rate. you just might get them onboard. >> i think that will help. i think arguments over the estate tax, for example, it's going to be a no go for democrats. you know, 5,000 or so estates pay that every year. that is a benefit for, you know, the top 0.1% or even

less. so i think, you know, for them, the democrats are in the minority; right? so i think part of this is rhetoric. the president is going to say they're obstructionists, they're obstructionists, but at the end of the day, republicans have the house, the senate, and the presidency. so i think that's more of a campaign line than it is a -- rather than fact. neil: all right. it might be a campaign, but i am wondering just going forward here, how republicans get this done in the time they have to get it done. if, for example, we're not doable this year, are they getting really nervous about whether it's even doable next year? >> absolutely. because the agenda for early next year is already getting full. and once we head into the summer, it's midterm election season, and you won't be expecting to see congress accomplish very much. the spring has already been set aside for health care reform and tax reform is supposed to be done by the end of the year, but there's less than 30 legislative days left in the calendar and with absences, with there's still discussions about the broad

strokes of what tax reform should look like, doubts about democrats getting onboard, this is still looking very far from the end zone. neil: well, all of you are going to be working christmas eve when i'm told the house will vote on this. so wheels what happens. i'm the. but i understand that could be a possibility. guys, thank you, all, very, very of. i do appreciate it. all right. this was just a matter of time. colin kaepernick now accusing the nfl of collusion than the a single nfl team has hired him. does that have to do with his stance on kneeling during the national anthem? does he have a case? or could it be that he's just not that great? they don't think he would add much to the team. but they really wouldn't care one way or the other, his views on the national anthem or the flag, if he were really a great football player, an incredible quarterback, no one would bat an eye lash, and they would hire him like yesterday. what's the truth? we know. we know it exactly. after this ♪

there's nothing more important than your health. so if you're on medicare or will be soon, you may want more than parts a and b here's why. medicare only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. you might want to consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like any medicare supplement insurance plan,

these help pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and, these plans let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you could stay with the doctor or specialist you trust... or go with someone new. you're not stuck in a network... because there aren't any. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide and find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. there's a range to choose from, depending on your needs and your budget. rates are competitive. and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. like any of these types of plans, they let you apply whenever you want. there's no enrollment window... no waiting to apply. so call now.

remember, medicare supplement plans help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. you'll be able to choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. whether you're on medicare now or turning 65 soon, it's a good time to get your ducks in a row. duck: quack! call to request your free decision guide now. because the time to think about tomorrow is today.

. neil: all right. harvey weinstein is out of the academy now. that rarely has ever happens. i think the last time it happened was, like, decades ago for the actor on godfather, that was for some screening cheating or something like that. now the company boss is going to try to petition to save not only himself but potentially his company, which could be up for sale. so much happening so fast. keeping on top of all of the

latest developments. hey, tracy. >> hey, neil. here is the latest. the weinstein company -- the company that harvey weinstein founded and was fired from last week is in toss with capital for a potential sale of its assets. they will also provide the company with immediate cash, a financial lifeline as the studio faces this growing scandal. meanwhile, as you said, weinstein, a once dominant force in the academy awards has been kicked out of the academy of motion picture arts and sciences. the academy's board which includes steven spielberg, tom hanks, and whoopi goldberg cited allegations of sexual harassment. the academy's board said in a statement "we do so not simply to separate ourselves from someone who does not merit the respect of his colleagues. but also to send the message that the error of willful

ignorance of sexually predatory behavior in workplace harassment in our industry is over. and get this: filmmaker woody animal who has faced his own share of misconduct allegations is speaking out about harvey weinstein. told the bbc that he is quote very sad for everyone involved. allen went on to say "you also don't want to lead to a witch hunt atmosphere. an atmosphere where every guy in an office who winks at a woman is suddenly having to call a lawyer to defend himself. that's not right either. and, neil, here's the cover of the new york post today. it reads witless for the defense with a picture of weinstein and allen. neil: surely he's not saying that a guy who winks at the woman is the same as weinstein. i mean -- all right. whatever. >> yeah. neil: i gotcha. all right. thank you very, very much, tracy. all right. emily joins us right now. attorney, former nfl cheerleader on all of these

latest developments. wendy patrick is here as well. trial attorney. ladies, thank you, both, for coming. i was looking at this and weinstein trying to say that this is essentially a pile on. wants to save himself, if not his company. legally, legally can he? or is he beyond the beyond right now? >> it's beyond the beyond. i find it absolutely ridiculous that he is attempting to challenge this right now. now, it's true are that california courts are especially loathed to find contracts invalid. they do. the to preserve it intact. however, they're not going to find their support behind a preservation of something that is essentially a crooked intent. hear that clause to protect him essentially would render him immune to anything short of an indictment or charges. he's arguing here "oh, there were no allegations post 2015. but that's totally irrespective of the fact that the board can terminate him for intentional misconduct. now, granted, it could go to a mediator or arbiter, but no one is going to find in his

behavior because, again, it was to render him immune, essentially, from these illegal allegations. that's totally corrupt and the courts will not stand for it. neil: you know, wendy, i was talking to a lawyer over the weekend that was telling me his argument will be that he didn't do anything extreme. even the rape allegations. but that what he did and, you know, trying to pick up women and all the rest was well-known. they joked about it on award shows. it was the kind of stuff that was hollywood for which he was well-known. and then all of a sudden they're piling on here unfairly, unjustly. does he have a legal argument to make here? because it's so difficult progressive a lot of this stuff. >> that's exactly right, neil. the board chose to fire now and ask questions later. and they did that. they took three days to decide which kind of public statement to put out about exactly why they were firing him. and here's what they said. in light of new information.

now, that brings us full circle, doesn't it? to the what did they know and when did they know it, provision? remember, this contract has a crime fraught exception. while it's truer has arrested and convicted in the court of public opinion, not so yet in a court of law that may be coming. but was it fraudulent? in other words, they claim not to have known. as incredible i know that seems of what was going on between weinstein and some of these victims. if that's true, then they were allowed, according to the contract, to fire without first going to arbitration or mediation. because, neil, that last provision is what's an issue according to weinstein. neil: gotcha. emily, another thing i heard and maybe you can help me with the legal parameters here. is that this contract had the abuse built into it. i heard since that was not the case. but because he paid a lot of these women off and surprisingly small sums over the years, but he did. it was not as if he left the company on the hook for any of this. it was his payments to these

women that seemed to indicate -- again, i have not seen the contract. maybe you people have. it would exonerate the company and exonerate him. what do you think? >> well, there are few arguments here. so first, in the state of california, if there is intentional misconduct on the part of the board member, then he can be held personally liable in addition to professionally liable. so you're right that the board might be able to argue that separation and that they took the steps of mitigation of terminating him. but the counter to that is that the hr department of the weinstein company investigated two of those settlements alone. so that goes to what wendy was saying where it might not be as plausible that they have this deniability. however, if they did reasonably rely on a false statement on his behalf that he made to them concerning this -- these payments, then, yes, they do have a case that they were materially misled and thus it led to fraud. but the bottom line is the company's assets have totally tanked. we're headed for a fire sale. so all of them are basically

on the hook and in terms of his contribution to it,est one that's on the hook personally for the defamation of his assets. neil: and he is the very definition of the company. so out or in, it means that the company's future is problematic. let's switch gears, if you don't mind, ladies. and, of course, i want to raise this with you. colin kaepernick now filing a grievance claiming the nfl owners colluded against him that because of the kneeling during the national anthem, saying that he has become sort of like a hot potato and all of the owners sort of agreed not to hire the guy because of that. now, other football fans alike told me, no, it has nothing to do with that. he's not a great quarterback. and then that was the reason. if he were an exceptional quarterback, beyond just a good back up quarterback, for which he might be considered, they would happy endure the controversy. but he's not. what's the case? >> he's a radioactive hot potato right now. but that is not what is an

issue with this grievance. what's at issue is whether or not there was collusion. in other words, is the failure to sign him a coincidence or is it a conspiracy? . neil: but wouldn't that involve -- i'm sorry, wendy, just to be clear. wouldn't that involve all of the team owners talking or, you know, about, hey, don't even try to sign this guy. that would be so blatantly colluding that they would almost wince at even the phone call, wouldn't they? >> well, they only need two. so it doesn't need to be a listserv situation. only two or one team conspiring or colluding with the nfl. so here is. neil: what is collusion? just saying don't hire this guy? it's not worth it? >> interfering with his ability to be employed. he's not even able to practice with the team. so there's an issue of optics and evidence. it looks bad. but does that mean that that is circumstantial evidence progressive that degree of collusion? it's an uphill battle. i know mark geragos.

he's a great lawyer, but he has his work cut out for him because that's going to be a tough standard to prove. neil: all right. i hear there are far lesser, far less talented quarterbacks among the 89 or so that are either lead or back up or back up to the back up quarterbacks and surely he would fit in that group. and the fact that he's not is curious. what do you think? >> people have made that argument. what's important here for viewers to know is that you need to have hard evidence of this case for a case of collusion to stick. now, in the grievance, it was totally vague. it didn't reference hard evidence at all. . neil: what is hard evidence, though? what would you need as hard evidence? >> e-mails. notes. actual audio. something between two or more teams that allude or cite specifically, yes, we have a grieve not to hire this specific person. now, vague directives, they cite that they succumb to president trump's comments. neil: but you say two or

more. so could get away with as few as two or three teams, and that would be collusion, even if the other 33 or so had no part in it. >> correct that is enough for the clear preponderance of the evidence. notice he's not hired but what's also important for the viewers to note is that that's not all what football is. it's not only relegated to statistics. so you're right as you stated that there are quarterbacks that have less impressive stats than he does that are employed, but they are -- they are evaluating the player as a whole. and so unless there is specific evidence, again, as to collusion, it could be simply that he was that radioactive hot potato that you cited and no one wants to pick him up. neil: is that a justifiable reason to say as talented as you are, we just don't want to deal in the greeth in hiring you. >> neil, it is. if you got the teams acting on their own, and that's the issue here. and emily raises all the right points. if the teams came to that decision of their own accord without consulting or agreeing is what you would need with the other teams, it's all

good. even though he hasn't been hired. neil: emily. >> right. absolutely. everyone has their own choice to hire, as long as it's not with collusion and evidence. again, i find the optics here totally curious and, frankly, i think it is just for optics that he's firing right now. again, the language for the grievance, it sites his social platform. not the evidence. neil: all right. just to be clear then on that point, emily, if i'm saying "no" to colin kaepernick, i don't want the grief and the controversy in my stadium because i can ill afford it, especially now, am i doing anything wrong? am i being unfair to him? i certainly haven't colluded. i've established that on my own. >> you are not doing anything wrong. the collective bargaining agreement specifically states that if a player brings an injurious behavior in any way decreases the value of the team, if it affects the relationship between the team and the public, any of the above, it's your prerogative. in fact, if he's already employed, you can actually

terminate him. so you can totally decide not to hire someone that you see as a divisive player because it might bring down the value of the team or more importantly, the camaraderie that the team depends on to win games. . neil: all right. thank you, guys, very much. it is confusing, but you did a lot of clarifying there, emily and wendy. thank you very, very much. and, again, we should know shortly if there's any there this for the collusion. time that the lawyers say he just wants to play. meanwhile, stocks continue with their record run. but what happens if there's a delay in the corporate tax rate cut that they're really banking on? that would at least get in the way of the quick bang for the buck that they're anticipating; right? or maybe it has nothing to do with the corporate tax rate structure as it is now or will be in the future. maybe these guys are running at their own accord having nothing to do with taxes. we're on it. after this what powers the digital world. communication.

that's why a cutting edge university counts on centurylink to keep their global campus connected. and why a pro football team chose us to deliver fiber-enabled broadband to more than 65,000 fans. and why a leading car brand counts on us to keep their dealer network streamlined and nimble. businesses count on communication, and communication counts on centurylink. when you're close to the people you love, does psoriasis ever get in the way of a touching moment? if you have moderate to severe psoriasis, you can embrace the chance of completely clear skin with taltz. taltz is proven to give you a chance at completely clear skin.

with taltz, up to 90% of patients had a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. in fact, 4 out of 10 even achieved completely clear skin. do not use if you are allergic to taltz. before starting you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you are being treated for an infection or have symptoms. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz. including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. now's your chance at completely clear skin. just ask your doctor about taltz.

>> welcome back to cavuto coast to coast. a record day on wall street for the dow, nasdaq, and s&p. right now the dow jones industrial average up 58 points. had been about 55 points away from dow 23,000. taking a look at the markets. this here the, in fact, the best of the three. up almost 23% this year. the s&p and other record there may see its $53 record close since the election. apple and others on the move a couple of upgrades this morning from gbh insights. the analysts there putting $190, $200 target. you see it at 159. just saying the cycle looks good for the u.s. and china to upgrade for iphones, and that will be a catalyst. stocks moving to the hot side. and then there's netflix. all-time high, again, for netflix. right now 19.92. had been over the 202 mark. but they're going to record after the bell. we're going to be watching for the subscriber growth of

4.4 million. the guessers of 5 or 6%. a little bit less than what we normally see. also the price hike. how will this be digested going in november? and you can watch all of this after the bell right here on fox business. we'll break it down for you. it has been a real winner this year, neil, up. . neil: all right. thank you very, very much, nicole. look forward to that. in the meantime sources are telling fbn that lawmakers are considering maybe some dodging and weaving to get this whole corporate tax thing through. maybe not doing it right away. doing it in stages. of course, the goal part of the trump administration and leading members of congress is to take the top corporate rate now around 35% and bring it to 20%. but to make fit within the deficit parameters that they have, do it over a number of years. not just one year. to market watch, and national taxpayers union executive vice president brandon arnold. what would you think of that? >> well, first of all, it's another day, and it's another way for congress to try and

screw up tax reform. frankly, the whole idea of trying to keep things revenue neutral is silly. the president and congress have all complained on reducing spending. so they should be reducing spending. once they do this, you have to understand it's going to take some time for it to filter through the business cycle. you don't make these tax cuts and all of a sudden see the benefit in the next quarter. so they need to man up and get this done right away, neil,. neil: all right. but better something that's closer to what you want than not getting it at all. and the argument seems to be, brandon, that this might be the only way to get it done. could you live with that? >> we could live with that. i don't think we're near to that point yet because right now, we are still groove as pro growth of tax package as we can possibly get. that means making the rate take effect immediately and making it permanent. but, unfortunately, there are a lot of lobbyists in washington right now that are working their tails off to try to get carve-outs and preserve their deductions and preserve their credits as they're successful in doing so, it

means the price of the bill increases. that needs to be offset somehow. hopefully, we don't get to that point. but one of the considerations for how we offset that increased cost would be to delay the corporate tax rate implementation. that's nowhere -- that's something that nobody wants to move towards. the big six, any of the authors of this plan do not want to go in that direction. neil: but it's sort of like something in their back pocket. if it comes to that. but, carol, you said something that i think is profound to the outside here of what would be big? and if you water things down and if you come on and worry about tax cuts, there is a camp certainly within the republican party worrying about them that they be paid for. but by definition, that makes the tax cuts themselves not exactly reaganesque; right? >> well, you know, i think we're in a different time period, and i think we have to do things in a way that makes sense for the time that we're in in 2017. and i do think, you know, there is a time lag any time you do these things. what they need to do on one

hand is the curbing their spending. that's the promise that we're going to drain the swamp, and we're going to -- neil: well, good luck with that. they have not shown any. >> and, neil, they need some help with that, i am available to go line by line and show them where this is available. because you and i both know there are plenty of places where there's overspending, and they could easily pay for it. neil: no, absolutely. and one of the things to carol's point. democrats have failed at this. republicans are failing at this. this idea to reign in even just the growth of government. i mean, you are even if you're just trying to contain the growth of a treasured benefit program or even when it comes to the military. and i'm just beginning to wonder if both parties are so aligned to the sacred cows that they won't curb that, then where are we going here? >> yeah. the tail on spending is not a happy one, and we've seen that time and time again. even when congress is committed to reducing spending like it did in 2011 with the budget control act. they walked that back on

numerous occasions and there's talk about eviscerating it all together. so that's a sad tale to tell. but what we need to do is separate the tax spending conversation. if we bite off too much from that, we're going to get by the. yes, we have to accept some imperfections, we're not going to get as much growth out of it as we would like. but if we're going to get this done, we have to accept the imperfect and not be the perfect the enemy of the good. neil: all right. guys, i want to thank you real quick. before our next story on where the dow is on this, optimistic that they'll get over these hurdle differences. the dow march is toward 23,000. and run here. but largely on a lot of very good earnings news from companies, optimism that that improvement will continue. interest rates. but, again, a little bit of, you know, anxiety that used to be there is gone now for the prospect of tax cuts. that they will materialize. they might be late, but they

will materialize. all right. in the meantime, california residents are still dealing with these devastating wildfires. now one for the history books. hillary vaughan in santa rosa california with the latest. >> neil, 15 wildfires have burned through 200,000 acres of land taking out neighborhoods, strips of businesses, really, anything in its path. this is just one neighborhood of many that has been reduced to rubble and devastated. you can see this is a garage door that was essentially melted to the ground from the heat and inside, you can see a washer and drier still standing but a lot of what's left is just the chimney or the fireplace in all of these homes. now, i want to give you a larger perspective of where we are. this looks like a rural area, but it's not. all of these homes were stacked up one by one. and now, as far as the eye can see, you can see street after street, home after home buried underneath ash and rubble.

the damage from these fires, neil, could total more than $85 billion. and if the fires are not contained in the next few weeks, the total economic impact could reach 100 billion. property analytics firm estimates over 172,000 homes in napa and santa rosa are at risk of damage. 66% of those wiped out. and the cost of that could top $5 billion. 11,000 firefighters working to push back the flames made big progress over the weekend. two of the big fires atlas are now both nearly 70% contained. evacuation areas are slowly opening back up. power has been restored for about 90% of the community. but still, there are 99 people, neil, that are still missing. i talked to some firefighters that were putting out a small fire just over here, and they said they're clearinghouse by house to make sure none of those people are left behind.

neil,. neil: hillary vaughan, incredible and great reporting out there. hillary vaughan in california on the fires that just won't end and all of the problems. by the way, we just received news here that the white house briefing room cleared out a little bit. it's not that the briefing is off. it's just they've been asked to go out to the rose garden where presumably they're going to be able to talk or hear from mitch mcconnell, who had lunch or will be wrapping up lunch with the president of the united states. of course, whether they bury the hatchet or the appearance of the hatchet and the nastiness between the two, maybe that's overdone. the two, of course, are going to put a show of force here for republican legislative agenda is on and now the white house briefing room is empty because they're going outside to hear it from the parties themselves. we'll have more after this this woman is laughing

because she's listening to audible. and this woman is pretending her boss's terrible story is funny. experience the comedy, not your commute. dial star-star-audible on your smartphone to start listening today.

♪ can i kick it? ♪ yes you can ♪ can i kick it? ♪ yes you can ♪ can i kick it? ♪ yes you can ♪ well i'm gone

>> three years ago, i was equally liked by republicans and democrats. and then republican numbers went way down, like, 30% or whatever and, you know, as a talk show host, that's not

ideal, but i -- i would do it again in a heartbeat. >> good riddance? . neil: is he playing with fire? is jimmy kimmel simply writing off republican watchers of his show don't like the fact that his politics are getting in the way of them liking him. radio show host, media research center president brett. what he's more or less saying there is "i hate to lose you. but if i'm going to lose you, goodbye. what do you think of that? >> well, listen to the constituency that he's going after. he's not talking to the public. he's talking to hollywood. this is what hollywood wants, and he's delivering. i think it's a huge mistake. initially, in a society, it's going to be fine because the left will go to him because, you know, for hero worship purposes. but just ask the dixie chicks how well that worked against george bush. it won't last, and he's going

to had hurt. look, 50% of the country is with trump. this is a no-brainer. neil: you know, i look at it, though, and i'm thinking all of these late night hosts have been richly rewarded for bashing donald trump; right? and i'm wondering. there's got to be a market out there for some late night comedian to at least balance it out. but apparently that's not the case. now, maybe it is for good laughs and other talk show hosts in the past have gone after presidents, no matter who they are. this just seems so one way now. but what are your thoughts on all of this and what kimmel is saying? >> yeah. i think we also need to talk about the fact that jimmy kimmel is a dumb sock puppet for democrats. when he criticized the health care plan, so he did with talking points from the schumer office and coordinated with them to put together and bragged about it later. so i think we need to acknowledge the fact that, you know, he's not coming up, necessarily, with his own ideas or his own criticisms of things that are happening on the right, but he is asking the left, hey, can you make me

astudge and make me your little sock puppet? and the left apparently is more than happy to do so. and i also think that we need to look to espn to see what happens when someone gozo vertically political. i mean, they've been hemorrhaging viewers and laying off people left and right because they are turning more and more political, and i do think you were right in that, you know, there are every single late night talk show host, every single saturday night live included, you know, is going after donald trump in every single episode, and i think, you know, maybe if they held it back and only did it four or five episodes, that would be appreciated for a healthy portion of the country that wants to tune in. neil: and if you're going to go after the president of the united states, that's fair game. he is the most powerful man on earth. that comes with the title and the office. butios anything approaching balance on it. and even if it were, you know, three negative stories on trump and one negative on a prominent democrat, maybe. but what do you make of it?

>> yeah. well, i think we have to get our facts straight here. jimmy fallon had the highest ratings before the election because he was being relatively nonpolitical. jimmy fallon has the lowest late nitrating right now after the election because he's not going political. neil: you're right about it. there's no denying it. you're following the ratings gravy, and that is a consistent pattern here. >> and on top of it all, let's be clear. i mean, late nitrating are on a long-term downward trend. so when my fellow panelist wanted to say end of the earth-type stuff. but let's be clear. artists throughout human history go after people in power. they actually went after obama too. saturday night live made fun of him regularly. neil: nothing like this. you have to admit. nothing like the disproportionate attacks. nothing like this. >> well, we never had a president like this. neil: go ahead. finish that thought. >> the center for public

affairs. president like president trump saying such strong things about people mexicans are racist, talking about black people. we've never had a president. neil: all right. fair enough. so what do you think of that? he has it coming. he has sort of set this up himself. what do you think of that? >> well, sure, you can always go after an incumbent. that's fine. but the center of media public affairs did a study looking at the first 100 days. 1535 jokes on late night television against donald trump and his family. 95 against the entire democratic party. it's not even close. but to your friend who says, well, look at the downward trends, this sounds like the excuse the nfl is giving for their ratings. it's the same -- it's the same thing going on over there. with this constant left wing political correctness, their ratings are down 18% from two years ago. and they're going to say downward trends. neil: i don't want to interrupt you for the aforementioned president of the united states and mitch

mcconnell addressing in the rose garden. the president. >> quite a bit of time inside with the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, who has been a friend of mine for a long time. long before my world of politics. early into his world of politics, i think. but we've been friends for a long time. we are probably now, despite what we read, we're probably now, i think, at least as far as i'm concerned, closer than ever before. and the relationship is very good. we're fighting for the same thing. we're fighting for lower taxes, big tax cuts, the biggest tax cuts in the history of our nation. we're fighting for tax reform as part of that. we are getting close to health care. we'll come up in the early-to-mid- part of next year. we're going to have a vote. i think we already have the votes. we feel confident we have the votes. you pretty much know what the plan is. i believe republicans and democrats are as we speak working together very hard right now, working together to do an intermediate plan, a

short-term plan because obamacare is a disaster. the rates have gone up, the premiums have gone up, the deductibles have gone through the roof. i mean, it's terrible. you look at the deductibles unless you really have a problem. you're not going to be able to use them. so we have -- we have been working together long and hard. we think we are in good shape for the budget, we hope. and we hope to be in good shape with, again, the largest tax cuts ever passed in this country. it's going to spur business. you look at other countries what they've done, and we're competing with other countries when china's at 15%, when i hear that ireland is going to be reducing their corporate rates down to 8% from 12. but you have other countries also reducing -- we can't be at 35% and think we're going to remain competitive in terms of companies and in terms of jobs. so we worked on that. i was very honored to see a man that i've had a lot of respect for.

james lee whit of the clinton administration, the head of fema, he gave us an a-plus. i just see it just came out, and i've always had respect for him. he gave us -- he's the fema director of the clinton administration, gave us an a-plus for how we responded to the hurricane aftermath, all of the hurricanes, and that includes puerto rico. so i just want to thank mr. whit, wherever you may be now. wherever you may be listening, i just want to say i very much appreciate it. because that took it out of the world of politics in that he was with the clinton administration and i'm sure remains loyal to the clinton administration. i hope he does. so just to finish off my relationship with this gentleman is outstanding, has been outstanding. we are working very hard to get the tax cuts. we will continue to work hard to get the health care

completed. i'm going to be surprising some people with an economic development bill later on, but i haven't even told mitch because i want to focus on tax cuts and some other things right now. one of the unspoken elements that we discussed at lunch, and it's just not talked about. yes, we got a great justice, justice gorsuch into the united states supreme court. he is going to be outstanding, hopefully for many, many years. but something that people aren't talking about is how many judges we've had approved. whether it be the court of appeals, circuit judges, whether it be district judges, we have tremendous, right now, under review. the democrats are holding them up beyond anything -- beyond comprehension they're holding them up. i mean, frankly, they have terrible, terrible policy. terrible policy. and perhaps they're not even good politicians, but they are good at obstruction. so i looked at some of these numbers between the judges,

and i want to say that we will set records in terms of the number of judges. and if you read the wall street journal, i have to give them a -- a little bit of a person, a writer, i won't mention names, but you can see who has really been a really fair person, wrote an article or wrote an editorial in a sense saying how well we're doing with judges and appointments. i think it's one of the big unsung things of this administration. in addition to the fact that we have had a lot of legislation passed on the va and lots of other things. but the judge story is an untold story. no one wants to talk about it. but when you think about it, mitch and i were saying that has consequences 40 years out, depending on the age of the judge. but 40 years out. so numerous have been approved. many, many are in the pipeline. the level of quality is extraordinary. and i just wanted to say that we're working very closely on that also in getting really

great reviews from this people and in many cases scholars that have been studying it. there has never been anything like what we've been a little bit together with judges. so with that, i would like to have mitch say a few words. and if you want to do a little question and answer, we can do that also. thank you very much. thank you. >> well, thank you very much, mr. president. i want to underscore what the president said. we have the same agenda. we've been friends and acquaintances for a long time. we talk frequently. we don't give you a read out every time we have a conversation. but frequently, we talk on the weekends about the issues that are before us. obviously, passing the budget, which enables tax reform and tax reduction comes next. then the supplemental to take adequate care of those who have been harmed by the natural disasters we've been afflicted with lately. and, of course, the senate's unique role that seems to me a

lot of people forget. we're in the personnel business. there are 1,200 of the president's nominations, subject confirmation to senate. the house is not in the personnel business. we are. the single-most significant thing this president has done to change america is the appointment of neil gorsuch to the supreme court. but it's not just the supreme court, there are a lot of vacancies that both the circuit court and district court level as the president's indicated. young, conservative, and when we say conservative about a judge, what we're talking about here are the kind of people th the president's appointing to the courts believe that the role of a judge is to try to rule based upon what the law says, not what they hoped the outcome would be. justice scalia used to say if the judge is not occasionally unhappy with a conclusion he reached, he's not a very good judge. or as justice gorsuch put it

down in my state a couple of weeks ago, judges don't wear red, they don't wear blue, they wear black. and this are the kind of people the president is sending up to the senate to be confirmed. many of them, as he pointed out, why you didn't that will be on the bench for a long time and have a great deal to do with what kind of country we're going to have far into the future. legislatively, obviously, the top priority is tax reduction, and i think what the president and i would both like to say to you today, contrary to what some of you may have reported, we are together totally on this agenda to move america forward. >> john. >> mr. president, timetable for tax reform. the speaker said he wants to get it done by the end of this

year. he would make the house stay in christmas break to get done. and said they would get it done this congress. would you be okay if taxes wouldn't pass this year as opposed to next year? >> well, i would like to see it done this year, john. we won't go a step further. if we get it done, that's a great achievement. but don't forget, it took years for the reagan administration to get taxes done. i've been here for nine months. a little more than nine months. i can say the same thing for health care. if you look at obama -- first of all, you look at clinton, they were the able to get it done. you look at other administrations -- they weren't able to get it done. president obama after a long period of time was able to finally push it through. but push through something that has now failed. really failing badly. but, again, we're meeting democrat, republican are meeting right now and right now they're working on something very special. but i have to tell you, i really believe that we have a really good chance, and i think mitch feels the same way

of getting the taxes done, hopefully fairly long before the end of the year. >> can i just add? let me just add what the president said. the goal is to get it done this calendar year. but it is important to remember that obama signed obamacare in march of year two. obama signed dodd-frank in july of year two. we're going to get this job done and the goal is to get it done by the end of the year. trump: just to finish up for mitch. and we're nine months; right? so we could have a long way to go. but that's okay. [question off mic] >> said the only problem i have with mitch mcconnell is that after hearing repeal and replace for six years, he failed. >> well, that's go to the second part of your question with me. again, we've been doing health care for, really,

seven months. and probably six months, if you think about it because we started in probably a total of six months. others were two and a half years and much more than that. others were eight years, and they didn't get it passed. this man is going to get it done. okay? and i think get it done long before anybody else, and i think it's going to be a great health care. as far as tom morino, he was a very early supporter of mine. great state of pennsylvania. he's a great guy. i did see the report. we're going to look into the report. we're going to take it very seriously because we're going to have a major announcement probably next week on the drug crisis and on the opioid massive problem, and i want to get that absolutely right. this country -- and, frankly, the world has a drug problem. the world has a drug problem. but we have it, and we're going to do something about it. so i'm going to have a major announcement on that problem next week. we're going to be looking into tom. >> thank you, mr. president. i would like to ask you, do

you support the plan by people who previously served in your administration such as steve bannon to primary republican candidates by 2018 to republicans who be the president who do not support your agenda? >> we have a very good relationship with steve bannon. steve's been a friend of mine for a long time. i like steve a lot. steve is doing what steve think so is the right thing. some of the people that he may be looking at, i'm going to see if we talk him out of that because, frankly, they're great people. what mitch will tell you is that maybe with the exception of a few and that is i have a fantastic relationship with the people in the senate and people in congress. our house of representatives. ii have a great relationship wih political people. if you read the papers, i'm like on one island and they're on the other. that is not the way it is. we have a fantastic relationship. i am friends with most of them. i don't think anybody could have much of a higher percentage. i'm friend with most of them. i like and respect most of them

and i think they like and respect me. so you understand the republican party is very, very unified. when we get things approved we have to go through hell because we have no democrat support, we have nobody. we don't have a vote from the democrats, as an example. massive tax cuts, we may not get any democrat votes. we may also get three or four. but we may get no -- for massive tax cuts. we're highest taxed country in the world yet we may get no democrat support. that is because they're obstruction its. they basically want us to do badly, but that is not going to happen. yes, go ahead. >> opioid crisis -- [inaudible] >> right. yes. reporter: [inaudible] >> we'll look at that very

closely. reporter: [inaudible] >> well he is a food man. i have not spoken to him. but i will speak to him. i will make that determination. if i think it is 1% negative, to doing what we want to do, i will make a change, yes. [shouting questions] one second, yes. reporter: national emergency. you talked about -- >> we'll be doing that next week. by the way, you know that is a big step. by the way, people have no understanding of what you just said. that is a very, very big statement. it's a very important step and to get to that step, a lot of work has to be done. it is time-consuming work. we'll be doing it next week, okay? [shouting questions] reporter: did you have a chance during your lunch to discuss the comments steve bannon made this weekend and what do you