budget vote very narrow. what have you have to say. liz: it was down to the wire. stuart: it was a horse race. that is what it as was i didn't know it would pass and didn't think it was so narrow. liz: i don't have enough metaphors. stuart: neil, its yours. neil: it's a done deal. maybe a lot closer than thought. 20 republicans not going along with this. senator marco rubio kind of expected it, but happy we passed it. >> you surprised the how close senate budget. that doesn't leave a wig fill room? >> the vote was a few minutes ago. i haven't seen the vote tally. it passed that is the good news. people say it will grow the debt. the economy will more than pay forfeit you want to use that

term. neil: much more from marco rubio in a few minutes. connell mcshane, how it went down, went down by the skin of their chin-chins. reporter: too close for comfort. republican cost lose 22 of their own. lost 20. that is how close the vote ended up being. it ended up passing, they are on course to move forward with tax reform. that is what this is was all about. to answer the senator's questions why people voted against that we know that as well or most of it. there are republicans reporting from high-taxed states, who are concerned and upset about losing possibly the federal deduction for local and state taxes, and that really came up today. just spoke right before came on with you in the hallway here with congressman peter king of new york, one of those republicans. the ringleader, some might say. i said how will this end up when it comes to tax reform? i don't know, but i think we got their attention. we got their attention.

now in terms of what is next here. they can move forward both in the house and in the senate. with some republicans on shaky ground, you start to think about the democrats, likely not much help there for the republicans. but if they do get any, might come from this guy, senator joe manchin. listen. >> i think there has to be some adjustments. i'm willing to sit down, i can't wait to sit down if we find a pathway forward. i look forward to meeting with the white house to try to find the balance if we can. we'll see what happens but i'm willing to work. reporter: we'll see what happens. let me bring you the timeline now that this passed. next week, chairman of house ways and means committee, kevin brady says there is introduction of tax reform bill. the week after that the ways and means will mark it up, write the actual bill, get their he had its in, what have you, and following week, possible house action before thanks giving. that is the thinking, neil. they know this state and local deduction issue has to be worked

out. chairman brady told us he is working with lawmakers, his quote was, we want people to keep more what they earn, regardless where they live. neil: connell mcshane. thank you very much the debate continues over the deductions, how to pay for these. marco rubio, you will hear from him in a little bit, said we shouldn't stress over paying every penny of this thing and haggling over deductions near and dear to all americans is not the way to win friends and voters. all of that. charlie, you looked at this as possible stumbling block along to way of getting this approved and it still is. >> it still is. representatives and congressman from the high-taxed states, peter king a congressman from long island, they were supposed to meet with the house leadership. that meeting got canceled. they pulled out last minute and looks like tabling tax thing later on close to thanksgiving

when they will produce the actual bill itself is. that is definitely a stumbling block. as peter king said they got their attention. this passed by razor-thin margin. neil: absolutely. >> you see if they have to go for another vote if they have the actual bill, this could run into problems. the senate is actually really interesting too. so, you know, you have, john mccain who is deficit hawk, probably not going to vote for it. he will probably get susan collins or push sues can collins and murkowski from alaska, other republicans to vote against it. neil: you really think so? >> that is what i hear his gameplan is. he hasn't told me but that is the fear. a lot of people in the administration fearless about flake and corker than they do that scenario. they think in the end flake and corker will do the right thing and vote for tax cuts. they are conservative republicans so. neil: so mccain could leave you guessing, that he voted for the senate budget itself.

>> yes. neil: you could argue, maybe there is precedent there. he also voted, even though he voted against george bush's two tax cuts, he voted against president obama's efforts to bring the top rate up again. so he is a riddle in a conundrum. >> this thing may pass with flying colors. one thing, one intangible here is the president himself. you see the margins are so thin, i think he has to lay off the personal attacks. i don't think you do anything that, i mean, i've been talking to political consultants all the time. listen, okay, these people, these republicans idealogically committed to lowering taxes but is there an intangible, do they want to give trump a victory at all costs. if he ridicules them or little marco or little corker, whatever his name is, if he will start ridiculing these guys on personal issues, you could see them thumb their nose at him on this this is razor-thin stuff.

neil: corker said earlier this morning, on one of the morning shows, whatever differences he has with the president wouldn't affect his views on this. >> that is what he said. neil: you have doubts? >> i'm saying, at the margins. i'm not saying he is going to vote against it. neil: i think you're more right on growing consternation paying for this. i am wondering if peter king, you know him better than i, he would be inclined to support a tax cut that phases deductions out for upper income? >> i think that peter king is a conservative, particularly on budget issues. neil: one of the most high-taxed districts in the nation. >> long island. we know it well, right? neil: right. >> but you know, he has pocketbook issues with his voters. i think the, there was one scenario heard thrown out there, you could write of 70% of your state and local taxes and remaining 30% get taxed at some higher rate than it is now.

neil: another thing they're kicking around, this is just couple hours ago, is is you have a choice between writing off your property taxes or your state and local taxes whichever is higher. >> yeah, listen. neil: but that is not the whole shebang. >> they're willing to do deal with this the problem with the republican plan, particularly on the individual side, if you want to end loopholes, theory bringing rates significantly down. if you keep rates as they are, which trump is essential isly doing, the white house is essentially doing on individual side, you took out loopholes that is not really tax reform. i studied what art laffer and what ronald reagan did and what conservatives pushing for, jack kemp, i read a lot about jack kemp back in the day, the notion, you can ask steve forbes about this, the proponent of the flat tax for a long time. the notion of real individual tax reform on individual side is to compress the rates a lot.

and then get rid of the loopholes. then you make economic decisions based on you know, your pocketbook. neil: let me ask you about the corporate rate. >> they're not doing that here. neil: it is 35% now, but the prevailing rate, what did you say, people on average? >> something like 27%. neil: i've been hearing a number of networks saying 16 or 17. it gets down to 20%. it is big differential. if it starts getting up into the mid 20s, not so big of a differential. >> right. this is where it becomes politically interesting, they're looking to pay for big corporate tax cuts squeezing rates down like art laffer said on individual side, looking to do this by taxing people on the individual side. it is so clear to me. we haven't seen all the details in the budget f you're not taking down rates that much, particularly for high income people and screwing them on their deductions you're actually raising taxes on individuals to

pay for what looks like a very significant corporate tax cut. politically dicey. neil: there is not a lot of wiggle room there. charlie, thank you very much. i was toying around with this here, with the joint economic committee and democrats rely, a lot of republicans rely on it, depends if it is friendly to their point of view, put the average rate to low to mid 20s, what average companies are paying. cuts across all industry, not just fortune 500, but the average corporate rate. a lot big companies pay the statutory rate which of course at 35% is highest you can go, but it is important to show that is not politicized number. not everyone pays that rate but average is not in the teens, my friends. wherever that is coming from, i've been hearing from a lot of folks, not so. not right or left thing. the president hates me. i'm telling you what is the fact, not that he should hate me but i'm just saying that is not

fair and not bad. >> exactly. neil: we're getting new details, not only on this, but this russia trump dossier. marco rubio weighed into this. he thinks this could be anything they're accusing the president united states of. blake burman has latest. reporter: a group campaign legal center, taken aim at republicans and on the other said taken aim at democrats. their main issue, payments from the hillary clinton campaign and democratic national committee for this dossier were not listed on fec reports to fusion gps. instead they were listed too an intermediary, this being a law firm. this is the complaint. this cuts to the core of it, i quote in their complaint to the fec, the purpose of some portion

of the payments to perkins coy, that is the law firm, was not for legal services. those payments were intended to fund opposition research. the false reporting clearly failed commission requirements for disclosing purpose of disbursement. president trump said yesterday, he thought the payments for the dossier against him was a quote disgrace. press tex sierra leone raw sanders, took it a bit further this morning. listen here. >> if proves if anyone colluding with the russians to affect the election look no further than the clintons and look no further than the dnc. this is hypocrisy at highest level and may be a new low in american politics. reporter: back to the complaint, neil, right or not, when you talk to people about how campaigns, politicians set up organizations work, this kind of funding setup, is not necessarily uncommon. neil? neil: thank you, my friend.

meantime, president trump likely ordering a gag order lift on the informant, letting him testify before congress. letting him settle it once and for all. in washington it is never just for once and never for all, after this. ♪ ♪ 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 ♪ can i kick it? ♪ to all the people who can quest like a tribe does... ♪

aggressive styling, so you can break away from everyone else. the bold lexus is. experience amazing.

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: president trump ordered a gag order lift on this informant , if given the green light can testify before congress on the whole uranium deal if it's a big deal, settle it once and for all. we have congressman chris stewart. congressman, where do you see this going? >> oh, my gosh, there are so many unanswered questions right now. speaking broadly, if you're one of the people who lie awake at night dreaming president trump will be impeached for collusion, you will have to keep on dreaming. there is no evidence of that. you will be sorely disappointed. many of my democratic colleagues realize there are very important questions that need to be answered. in many case this is is shining a real bright light on democratic operatives and things they have done. it will be interesting to see where this leaves. neil: do you know whether the former fbi director leading leas investigation has said he will pick up the baton on this one as

well? >> well, even if he does, the house committee is going to work on it as well. i suppose the senate will. we're not turning this over to special counsel mueller, you run with it, we'll step back. not at all. neil: would that give the opportunity to say it is not politicized that i know we live in a hotly-politicized world, this warrant attention, look every bit as aggressive as he looks at collusion charges? >> he should. neil, i said earlier on i believe we should have special counsel. one of the good things about the tell against committee in our past, we haven't been as partisan. we didn't manipulate and grandstand for the cameras because most of the work we did was behind closed doors. unfortunately we lost some of that. many would like to reclaim it. i was saying we should have a special counsel. we should have someone looking

at this not through a political lens but at the same time there are important questions that those of us on the committee want to have answered. i think we should pursue them as well. hopefully we do it in a way till the american people the truth, we don't hide anything, we don't turn a blind eye away from anything but we do it as quickly as we can so people have a chance to know. neil: hillary clinton already said she knew nothing about this and it is not a big deal anyway. i'm vastly oh simplifying, but what do you make of that? >> of course that is what she is going to say. i would point out, our target is not hillary clinton of the thing that concerns me about this is not hillary clinton, it is the department of justice under the previous administration. the fbi some decisions they made under the previous administration. you look at it, and say, that makes no sense at all. how could you have a putin-friended company working through canadian intermediary,

buying 20% of uranium? at same time you have a investigation going on about kickbacks and bribery. for fbi not making those making a decision about the uranium not aware of that, makes no sense at all. neil: congressman, you're closer to this than i am that the russians were actively involved potentially in our election, playing both sides, almost like a fiddle? i'm beginning to wonder whether steps are taken, should be taken to avoid that on either side? because they seem to easily ensconce themselves in respective camps, not necessarily changing the election results, i'm not saying that because that is pretty clear that didn't happen, but involved to the point they damn near succeeded doing that? >> that is the whole key to this. i was in moscow last summer. i came open and i said there is no question they will mess with

our elections. people asked me who did they want to win? they didn't care. i still say that, they didn't care. neil: do you think the stuff with hillary clinton proves the point that their only agenda was screwing around? >> certainly should indicate to most people. on the intelligence community, being so definitive saying they were trying to help donald trump. i am telling you i looked at the intelligence. i looked at every piece of it, there is not that conclusion. neil: this transaction clearly benefited the clintons. this transaction clearly benefit ad good relationship with the clinton initiative, democratic donors, a lost the material was paid for and ultimately passed along to the dnc. so it is safe to say they were early beneficiaries of this. >> no question about it. how could anyone know what we know about the dossier but say at same time but yeah, russians wanted trump to win? it is illogical on its face. this is so important. they want to breaks down faith in institutions. they want to break down faith in

democracy and electoral process. those guys have to be smiling ear to ear. here we are a year later still talking about it, still asking a question, how do we stop them from doing it in the future? that is the primary thing, isn't it? how do we stop them from manipulating us, manipulating media and public opinion in such a dramatic way. neil: congressman chris stewart from utah. serves on the house intelligence committee. to the congressman's point, no matter how you feel about the specific issue, if it is germain, it should be girl main, certainly you should make note if donald trump, jr., is meeting with russian folks at a restaurant, you argue that is noteworthy, then it should be north worthy, when democratic officials are helping to gather dirt on the opposition under the same guise of digging up dirt on the other guys. dirt is dirt, right? when we come back, marco rubio, his thoughts on all of this. the close vote in the house on the budget that paves way for

tax cuts, so hopes. after this. hi, i'm the internet! you know what's difficult? armless bowling. ahhhhhhhh! you know what's easy? building your website with godaddy.

get your domain today and get a free trial of gocentral. build a better website in under an hour.

right in the heart of the was in his financial crisis, and saw his portfolio drop by double digits. it really scared him out of the markets. his advisor ran the numbers and showed that he wouldn't be able to retire until he was 68. the client realized, "i need to get back into the markets- i need to get back on track with my plan." the financial advisor was able to work with this client. he's now on track to retire when he's 65. having someone coach you through it is really the value of a financial advisor.

neil: all right. the house narrowly passing a budget that clears the way for tax reform. senator marco rubio reacting to all of that just a few moments ago. senator, welcome, were you surprised by the closeness of this house vote on the senate budget, 216-? >> some people argue it grows the debt. what is interesting to me, it doesn't, because the economy will grow when you do this, more than pay forfeit you want to use the term a lot of people are pointing to but the other thing is, $1.7 trillion over next 10 years, raise, 1.7 trillion in taxes or borrow $1.7 trillion

for use it for infrastructure spending the democrats would love it, would support it. we're saying give it back to people to grow the economy. now all of a sudden they're debt hawks. that is disingenuous. we'll get it done. keep our head down and eye on the target which is passing tax reform. neil: senator, most 20 republicans who opted not to from this came from high-taxed states like new york or new jersey, that would be most affected or they argue, their constituents would be most affected if deduction for state and local taxes were removed. is it your sense that that provision will be in the final tax package, should it be, what do you think? >> that is what they work through on the committees. it is not a reason to vote against the budget. the budget is a vehicle being used for tax reform. that might be a reason to come out against tax reform or change details of tax reform but that

shouldn't be a reason to vote against the budget. there will be real committee hearings here in front of the public and debate and votes. we'll get to a place we need to get to. we have to get it done. there is no alternative. you can not let sort of the enemy, the perfect be the enemy of the good here. we have to do tax reform. neil: one of the things you espouse as senator mike lee, is the idea to significantly up the child tax credit from $500 to $2,000, but what struck me with that, maybe i misread it, senator, would that apply to families as well who don't pay any federal taxes at this point, federal income tax? >> i want it to apply towards payroll tax, here is why. number one, family is most important institution in society. parenting is most important job any of us will do. something mike lee talks about. there is a parent penalty. when we retire we want social security, we want

medicare. who pays for that? today's workers pay for today's retirees. when i retire, tomorrow's workers pay for medicare and social security. if i have four children and another has no children and i retire, i spent a quarter of a million dollars per child to raise four taxpayers for your retirement and you have no children. the tax code should account for that. the 2,000-dollars per child doesn't come close to making up the gap. it accounts for increase, most certainly a way to help families move ahead. if we don't do the child tax credit, don't make it refundable, you will see middle-class families get tax increases. the president will not sign that, people will not support a middle tax increase. it won't pass. neil: you think it opens up very best of intentions, senator, but slippery slope we end up giving tax breaks to those -- you're quite right, they pay fica related taxes. they don't pay federal income

taxes but we're in battle to provide for those not kicking into income tax. >> first of all, they take the money out of the paycheck, doesn't matter if it is income tax or fica, that is less money. that is tax to the federal government, just different bucket. number two, hopefully growth in the economy, the other big part of this tax reform will move people into income brackets over time they will be making more. they will be not because rates are higher but will be in the brackets paying income tax at lower rate because we'll do that as well. that is the second part. the third party, you don't get it unless you're working. you have to be working. it is a pro-work endeavor here. it is certainly, not only better for families, for our countries, than staying home and be eligible to collect government benefits in amount quality greater than. neil: if this were included would you be a no vote? >> if this credit was not included, not refundable, would

raise taxes on middle class families, the president would not sign it. it is a non-starter. we have to do it. neil: it is in there now. >> it is in the framework there. is no bill. the details will be worked on. neil: next week it will be in the details? >> it will be there in the end. because i believe the president will not sign it, the president will not sign a tax increase, especially on working families. of that i'm confident. neil: how is your relationship with the president? reason why i asked, you addressed with reporters, the dust-ups he had with senators flake and corker. you said, i brief it was yesterday, hope i got the date right, the republican party is going through a moment of realignment internally, an internal debate what the party will be about and what it will represent in years to come. are you saying those senators are the old party and donald trump is the new? what are you saying? >> no, i'm saying that is what everyone is going through. the rest of that statement was, so is the democratic party. so is media, academia, virtually

every institution in our society. the world is changed. the economy has changed. it challenged us to reexamine roll of our institutions are, the right way forward. neil: they may not like the change in that direction, that the president is debasing the party and nation. do you agree? >> everyone will express themselves. jeff flake is a friend of mine and someone i admire. we agree on a lot of things. we disagree on a few. that is the way it is. the president if i agree with him i will support him. if i disagree with him i will tell him try to change his mind. he was elected president. i will work with him for the good of our country and we'll try to get good things done and in the end i try to focus all of my time helping peel watching me, not the people covering this i know for many, sort of daily back and forth is interesting and everyone has a right to do it, and some of it is very valid stuff talked about but i choose to spend the majority of my time trying to get tax reform done.

when we got the va reforms passed and strengthening military, helping pediatric cancer issues and florida recover from a hurricane. neil: this tit-for-tat even on president's part is counterproductive? >> i think it wastes a lot of time on things not relevant to what we should be working on. that is what i believe. everybody will do what they will. i want control what other people do. what i try to do anyway is focus on what you people have sent me up here to do, make the country and their lives better. neil: senator, there is a lot of back and forth on legitimacy of this growing scandal around hillary clinton and barack obama regarding the so-called uranium one issue, whether the russians were able to curry favor in the obama administration more in the role of hillary clinton as secretary of state, benefited clinton initiative and clinton foundation. do you think she had to have been aware after aware of a lotf

these details she says she was unaware of? >> i don't know. that is in the scope of mueller's special prosecutor investigation, that had role in election. that should be investigated. anything -- i don't know. i wouldn't know. i don't know. i think if he doesn't look at it, they better have a good reason why they didn't look at. they're independent for a reason. they don't coordinate what they're looking at. they don't tell what they're working on. i believe it should be a legitimate issue. suffice it to say if that were us or about the trump administration, there would be tremendous amount of coverage on it right now on some other networks. kind of seeing it as i see it there. neil: quickly sir, on the same issue, the number of democrats, no equating latest charges with donald trump, jr., meeting with russians for a meal and discussing dirt on his opponent. republicans argue, well that is essentially what is arguing here. your thoughts? >> i don't know who said that. i don't know.

deal to purchase radioactive material and in exchange for cash, and other things i think is little bit more relevant in my view. that doesn't make anything else irrelevant. i think that is a pretty big deal. certainly more important than opposition research in a campaign in my view. neil: senator, this tax package, timeline seems to be since the house went ahead and voted on senate budget, that some days to get this done, are you confident this will get done by the end of the year? >> i am. not going to be easy. it shouldn't be easy. tax reform, it is big and important, so it should be hard. it should be debated and should be well-understood. we don't want any unintended consequences. i'm confident we can get it done. i can't imagine not getting it done. what would that mean to the economy. why are we here? why would you elect majorities in the house, senate, white house, who support tax reform, can't do tax reform. people have a reason to ask, what is the point? i can't imagine not doing it.

i think it would hurt our economy and confidence. i think it would be devastating politically as well. i imagine most people around here understand that. neil: in the end, two things kicked around like deduction for state and local taxes. deductions for 401(k) contributions, are you opposed to either or both? >> somebody is out there talking about what are options. what are things you could go after. they start floating these, to see what reaction to them are. in the end i want tax reform passed. to do that we have to make difficult and unpopular decisions. president said he doesn't want the 401(k) thing. maybe house produces something different that has it in there. in the end that will be debated through. there has to be things other people don't like. i don't think it will be 401(k) provision. that is what the debate will be about. in the end not doing anything is not an option. there is no way this tax reform will have everything i want, it's not but the question does it make things about iter or make things worse? if it makes things better i will

be for it. neil: senator marco rubio. thank you. >> thanks for having me back. neil: very telling comment from senator rubio, this fussing or fighting every single dime of this tax without is paid for. we might be overdoing it here. we might an playing the wrong groups. that is interesting discussion going forward republicans get a tax cut going forward and leave it at that that could cause infighting and outside the fighting putting it mildly. you can't tell on corner of wall and broad, relieved the measure passed. the house essentially approving the senate budget. that is all this was, okaying blueprint that will then be used to go after tax cuts aggressively. the details, brackets, who is in, who is out, who will get a surtax, we'll know in a week. more after this.

whoooo. you're searching for something. like the perfect deal... ...on the perfect hotel. so wouldn't it be perfect if... ....there was a single site... ...where you could find the... ...right hotel for you at the best price? there is. because tripadvisor now compares... ...prices from over 200 booking... ...sites ...to save you up to 30%... ...on the hotel you want. trust this bird's words. tripadvisor. the latest reviews. the lowest prices.

neil: you heard this tit-for-tat even on the president's part is counterproductive? >> i think it waste as lot of time on things that aren't relevant. i can only control what i do. what i do anyways is focus on what people sent me up here to do. that is make the country and their lives better. neil: marco rubio saying whatever difference as couple of his senate colleagues, namely corker and flake, might have with the president, nastiness developed between all of them, in the end they all have a job to do, in this case try to get tax cuts done, maybe done by the end of the year. the markets seem to be optimistic that will happen, despite all the personal differences that seem to get disproportionate amount of media attention. not so much on the other side. but plenty of, disaffected politicos no matter where you

look. we have former nevada gop chair, tarkanian, and gary kaltbaum. you remind me, the markets are not red or blue. they loved bill clinton. didn't want him impeached if my memory serves. they want this to happen, the tax cuts to happen. >> you have combination of this, combination of better economies around the globe and massive easy money around the globe doing the trick. there is no doubt in my mind, that markets want to change the trajectory. the opposite of what we've seen over many years and that is higher taxes, regulations, mandates, fees, fines and you name it. so anything to roll that back is good. we're already seeing that without legislation, as far as regulations and let's hope it continues. neil: amy, are you worried though all these little dust-ups, they're limited, i understand, but that the president should just ignore them? if someone in the senate

badmouths him, he is president, leader of free world, don't engage, go on, what do you think? >> you could go either way but i do know his base, they enjoy it. that is his style. neil: but the base, the base isn't going to close the deal for you? >> well, that is not going to close the deal for you, but that is why you have people like kelly ward and danny tarkanian running for u.s. senate. they are people that are going to replace those folks that have pretty much, you know, stalled the situation for the president. so -- neil: yeah. you might be right. amy, while i have you here, we're getting news out of washington, that the republicans just had a meeting in the house on this state and local tax reduction. apparently they could not find compromise. maybe they're going to table it, meet another day. this is coming from chairman brady's office. the man that runs house ways and

means committee. that is a tricky issue for them. that is reason why we had a lot of no republican votes, a lot from the issue from high-taxed states. i wonder if this will be tougher than thought to get resolved. what do you think? amy? >> i'm sorry. i thought you were talking to the other gentlemen. >> no, he bothers me. no i'm talking to you right now. i'm kidding. >> thanks. >> no, i apologize. no, so, it is going to be interesting, absolutely. i was not aware of that. so i'm just now learning of it as well. neil: so, gary, let's say they can't resolve that. let's say they, in the end they decide, we'll keep this feature in. one of the things i kind of gleaned from marco rubio, let's not stress about this, let's not pay for all of this. he didn't say that i want to be very clear but he seemed to intimate he will not lose a lot

of sleep over it, that there is enough boom from the tax cuts, you need a lot of boom to pay for it, what do you think of the all the keeping provisions in place, state and local deduction for income tax, full writeoff ability for 401(k) contributions, don't fiddle with that, what do you think? >> i'm worried. when i hear today the floating of a gas tax. when we heard in the past about a wealth tax. neil: yes, yes. >> now we're hearing about a bunch of new jersey and a bunch of new york would not vote for this, that is meaningful going forward. because marco rubio says one thing or thinks one thing, other people are thinking other things. they represent states. they have to deal with that. so that is something has got to be worked out. for me though, i heard paul ryan talk this is so good and greatest. they still voted on a 4 trillion-dollar budget that will be 5 trillion in couple years. neil: you're right. >> if they don't change that trajectory, all heck will

eventually break loose because, neil, we talked about this a thousand times. the deficits, i keep hearing, well the market keeps going up, don't worry. well, if you study history of the world, eventually, heck will be paid, and i don't see any changes in this whatsoever. i would love to see somebody say, we're doing something about the spending side. taxes, they get plenty of money. start doing something about the spending side or else. i don't see anything in there whatsoever just yet. holding out hope. neil: amy, real quickly, amy, we're getting a sense from chuck schumer he really fields the senate can turn next year. given dust-up among establishment republicans, renegade republicans, whatever, the bannon republicans it will be a good year for democrats. is he getting ahead of him seven? >> he is definitely getting ahead of himself. historically republicans, at least here in the state of nevada, we turn out for every election. even in the off years.

so, we're going to do just fine. neil: okay. amy, want to thank you very much. sorry for the confusion earlier. all gary's fault. it is all gary's fault. >> i apologize. neil: thank you both, very, very much. former defense secretary, chief of staff, leon panetta has interesting ideas about handling north korea. i will give you a hint. he doesn't like the way its being handled right now. not what you think when you think of that, because not the way democrats have handled it in the past either. after this. ♪ 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

retail. under pressure like never before. and it's connected technology that's moving companies forward fast. e-commerce. real time inventory. virtual changing rooms. that's why retailers rely on comcast business to deliver consistent network speed across multiple locations. every corporate office, warehouse and store near or far covered. leaving every competitor, threat and challenge outmaneuvered. comcast business outmaneuver.

neil: north korea, many critics including republican senator flake and corker, have faulted the president for heightening the tensions, and maybe making matters worse. >> there is no easy military solution here. any military solution involves a serious risk that hundreds of thousands of lives would be lost in seoul and south korea and perhaps a nuclear war would break out on the peninsula and in the world. so, i think the key right now is to lower the volume of rhetoric going back and forth. and focus on tightening the noose around north korea.

neil: but again, leon panetta also acknowledged all the democratic presidents he worked failed to do just that so what is the answer? former deputy assistant of the army, van hipp. here we are with a president gets faulted for too tough in his language and threats against north korea. but north korea is is in position it is, largely because, we did everything that was conventional with north korea. you know, squeezing them economically. trying to use the chinese and others to, to put sanctions, and, here they be. what do you think? >> first of all i like these old harry truman kind of democrats like leon panetta. unfortunately there are not too many left anymore. almost a distant memory. in 2006, vice president walter mondale, said president george w. bush was not tough enough on north korea. i wish we had more harry truman democrats today.

this president inherited a mess, but i would say this, as far as tightening the noose, i would say this to secretary panetta. that is what president trump is doing. consider the following. you have, we're on verge right now of putting our nuke-armed b-52 bombers on 24-hour alert status. this is the first time since 1991, the end of the cold war. three carrier strike groups are in the pacific. we have a nuclear armed submarine, carries 154 tomahawk cruise missiles and known for carrying special operations troops. this president has gotten more out of united nations i thought possible. beefed up our allies, missile defense capabilities this president is leading. he is tightened that noose. so i would say he is is doing

exactly what secretary panetta suggested. neil: i think, senator panetta was getting into terms like "rocket man" or i will attack you, all of that stuff, it agitates the situation. i don't know how much more agitated it could get regardless, but your thoughts on that? >> neil, there are some things you can change, some thanks you can't change. i don't care if you're his wife or his kids, you're not going to stop the president of the united states from getting up at 4:30 in the morning and tweeting. there are some things you're not going to change. he is is leading. i think he has gotten in kim jong-un's head. i think that is one of the reasons why you see china do some things they have done in terms of shutting down the money laundering going on through chinese banks for years. neil, this trip next week, november the 2nd, president trump heads to asia for 12 days. this is a very critical, very important trip. secretary mattis is there now in the region, laying the groundwork. neil: yeah. >> this is a very important

trip. neil: do you think he should go, van to the demilitarized zone? it is not officially on the schedule but journalists would be surprised? do you think he should go? >> he wants to go but up to his security. there is unintelligence that kim jong-un might do a icbm launch with nuclear warhead to get publicity. depend what is the latest intel and security is at that time. there is no question that the president wants to go. vice president pence went there in april. he wants to go. do security people let him. neil: i have a feeling. van hipp, thank you very much, my friend. >> thank you. neil: the dow is up 82 points. no worries again, we have budget cleared and ready to go again. maybe "too affordable and fast." what if... "people" aren't buying these books online,

but "they" are buying them to protect their secrets?!?! hi bill. if that is your real name. it's william actually. hmph! affordable, fast fedex ground.

that's it. i'm calling kohler about their walk-in bath. nah. not gonna happen. my name is ken. how may i help you? hi, i'm calling about kohler's walk-in bath. excellent! happy to help. huh? hold one moment please... [ finger snaps ] hmm.

the kohler walk-in bath features an extra-wide opening and a low step-in at three inches, which is 25 to 60% lower than some leading competitors. the bath fills and drains quickly, while the heated seat soothes your back, neck and shoulders. kohler is an expert in bathing, so you can count on a deep soaking experience. are you seeing this? the kohler walk-in bath comes with fully adjustable hydrotherapy jets and our exclusive bubblemassage. everything is installed in as little as a day by a kohler-certified installer. and it's made by kohler- america's leading plumbing brand. we need this bath. yes. yes you do. a kohler walk-in bath provides independence with peace of mind. ♪ traders -- they're always looking for advantages. the smart ones look to fidelity to find them. we give you research and data-visualization tools to help identify potential opportunities. so, you can do it this way... or get everything you need to help capture investment ideas

and make smarter trading decisions with fidelity for just $4.95 per online u.s. equity trade. fidelity. open an account today. ♪ neil: this tax package, the timeline seems to be since the house went ahead and voted on the senate budget that saved some days to get this done. are you confident this will get done by the end of the year? >> i am. it's not going to be easy. it shouldn't be easy. tax reform is big, and it's important, so it should be hard, and it should be debated, and it should be well understood, and we don't want any unintended consequences. i'm confident that we can get it done because i just can't imagine not getting it done. what would that mean to our economy? why we here? why would you elect people to majorities in the house, the senate and the white house who support tax reform and they can't do tax reform? i think people have a reason to

can is, well, what's the point? neil: the party said the same when it came to repeal of obamacare, and you know how that one went. to bree peyton and charles millard. welcome to you both, and thank you for coming. so, bree, obviously hope springs eternal, but a meeting that is going on in the house right now to deal with this issue about how to handle deductions in state and local taxes broke off without any compromise agreed to yet. that isn't too shocking, but it is a reminder, i guess, how tough it's going to be to settle this issue. >> yeah, i think you're exactly right. it's nice to hear marco rubio act so on optimistic about it a, certainly, the budget that we just passed is a key and integral step in doing that because now they can pass this with a simple majority instead of the 60-vote rule. but i think we should also be talking about the fact that we just passed a $4 trillion budget. half of it's going to go to

entitlements that i'm never going to get a penny of by the time i retire -- neil: well, that doesn't bother me too much. that's just the disadvantage of being young. you're that negative really? you don't think it's going to happen for you? >> no, it's not going to, and i know it's not. you know, i'm fine to paying entitlements to go towards my grandparents, but -- neil: how about just cutting off me? no? i guess -- >> no, no, i think you should still get your entitlements. i think we can include you, yeah. i think we should be planning for the future and say, look, we can pay for the old people now, but we need to have tough conversations and let young people know they shouldn't expect things, and we're going to trim the budget back accordingly, and we're not seeing any of that. neil: one of the things marco rubio was getting into, the in-fighting and losing sight of the prize that is getting these tax cuts approved, but even when it comes to, you know, the nickel and diming over paying

for them and that if he had his druthers, keep the 401(k) exactly the way it is and the provisions and contributions remaining tax deductible, the same with this fight over deductions for state and local taxes, keep them the way they are there. if you're in a mad rush to raise taxes in another area to pay for tax cuts in one area, you're kind of wasting your time. i think i'm representing what he said correctly, but what do you make of that? >> well, i thought that senator rubio made a very, very good point, distinguishing between kind of name-calling and the, you know, the flake-corker dust-ups with the president and what's going on between, let's say, congressman brady and the president which is the real hard work of legislating. we've got to figure out how to pay for the tax cuts, and -- neil: do you think, charles, do you think you have to? there are certain constrictions in getting this all done -- >> i think that's a great point. up to a point. ofobviously, you have to pay to them for -- for them to some

extent, but i never felt the key was a balanced budget. i think what we need is growth. and people should understand these kinds of tax cuts generate growth, and we know that from the kennedy and reagan tax cuts -- neil: but enough, growth, charles -- enough growth, charles, to pay for the whole enchilada? >> if we had growth in gdp at 4% instead of 2%, that's $5 trillion into the federal budget over ten years. neil: that's a very good point. bree, you know, what comes up in this discussion though is whether they are going to get any democratic votes at all. part of the overtures that republicans have made to consider another bracket, a higher bracket for rich folks is that they don't get away with not paying their fair share or that this skews away from being a middle class tax cut, etc., etc. but won't it be a kick if in the end it didn't get so much as a single democratic vote, and they went through those to hoops for nothing? >> well, you know -- neil: first to bree on that, and

i will come back to you. >> yeah, that would certainly, that would certainly be, you know, an interesting development in this. i mean, they don't need any democrats to vote for it the way they are going into it and the way this is structured and the rules are right now. they can just pass reconciliation. but i do think you are right in that it is frustrating to watch republicans tell us things and then lie and not do them, right? i mean, i've continually been told by republicans that they're going to cut entitlements, that they're not going to raise my taxes, that they're actually going to cut my taxes and keep everything funded, you know, accordingly, the necessary things, and they're going to cut back waste and spending u but that's never happened. they end up raising taxes for people, and this plan is going to end up raising taxes for people like the middle -- in the middle and have to cough up a larger sum of money to pay for waste and entitlemented i'm never going to see -- neil: you know, you are very jaded. [laughter] what happened to you? what's the matter? >> i covered government waste,

fraud and abuse for a couple years, so i think definitely watching the government spend money on shrimp running on treadmills -- [laughter] neil: but they're young shrimp. [laughter] charles, very quickly, i mean, let's say this doesn't happen, that it's close but the republicans fail at this. the president has already indicated he's not going the take the blame for that. so there could be just open warfare within the party, right? what do you think? >> if it failings it would be a disaster for the party. it's the last chance to accomplish something where you have the majorities in both houses, and you have a genuine middle class tax cut, you have a business tax cut in front of you. you now have a majority in the house even though some of the high-tax state republicans voted no, you have the ability to get it passed. i'm confident that it will pass, but i think senator rubio was right, it's going to be messy. the 401(k) issue and the state and local tax deductibility issue are not going to go away. neil: i think you're right on that.

bree is too, fair and balanced. although you both kind of bummed me out in a way. thank you both very much. >> thank you. neil: in the meantime, he's one of my favorite guests on this show -- [laughter] but what i love is the fact that he can be very prescient on things. this is from the last time he appeared on this show in february. listen to this. >> i would be pretty bullish for the u.s. economy in the next two to three years because i think of infrastructure spending, i think of reduction in tax rates, deregulating -- neil: is there any spread-over effect for the world on that? >> well, there will be. neil: all right. let's say you just bet on that, bet on the dow. it's up over 13% since that time, close to 3,000 points. of course you did that right after the interview, so it's a moot point. [laughter] back with us now is the big cheese over at that fine firm, morten sorrell. >> little cheese. neil: all right, sir, good to see you. >> good to see you.

neil: what did you see then and do you still see it now? >> in relation to the u.s.? neil: yeah. >> well, put the stock market to the side for one minute. underlying i still, i would remain bullish because i think what the president is trying to do in terms of tax and, again, deregulation and infrastructure spending holds true. now, how long it lasts for is another, another question. i mean, you would see probably a nip up if the tax bill -- a flip up if the tax bill is passed, if deregulation continues, infrastructure spending continues or develops momentum, because it does take a lot of time to implement that stuff, you would see, i think, positive momentum in the real economy for another i would say couple of years. then there is the question about whether we get overinflated, because as a lot of people point out, this has been a boom cycle or an up cycle since lehman which was, what, september 2008? 2009 was a big down year, our revenues were off by 8% -- neil: almost a nine-year

uninterpreted bull market -- >> which is -- neil: long in the tooth. >> very unusual. neil: so does that part worry you, that alone? >> well, worldwide growth is about 3-4%. it's low inflation. it's very little pricing power for our clients and, therefore, focus on costs. and then you see draghi today at the ecb saying we'll reduce bond buys, but we'll extend them. so there was something for everybody in that. those people -- neil: european central bank is looking to curtail all these purchases, forcibly delay that, right? >> absolutely. there's something for everybody. people worried about things getting out of control get a bit of ammunition. those people who are worried about, that the economy will be de-stimulated by interest rates rising and there being a drag on growth get something out of it too. so it's a very, i think, very clever the way that he's dealt with expectations and concerns. neil: but we still live in a central bank world, don't we?

they call the shots. >> it's creating distortions. you look at the s&p 500, where's the growth coming from? coming from tech companies and a little bit from hmos. and the multiples, last time -- 22 times earnings with tech companies going about 8% and 22 times earnings for package goods companies, you look at most of them, fast-moving consumer goods companies that have reported in the last few days including today, you see very little volume growth, a little bit of pricing from latin america or parts of asia, but basically it's a very tough road. we see that in the context of the spending of our clients. package goods clients are under tremendous pressure. there's also distortions -- neil: affects how much money they give you to advertise. >> right. it's a variable cost. we think it's an investment, not a cost. neil: right. is that a more difficult pitch these days? >> more difficult pitch, but in the long term it's getting more traction because one of the central issues for the packaged goods companies is they're not getting the volume growth.

and if you speak to anybody on your show who has a history in packaged goods, the warning bells start to ring when volumes are flat or not growing significantly. if all you're getting is a little bit of price -- neil: we're already getting that now. >> yeah. so that is a big warning bell. now at the same time, you have the disintermediation or the disruption caused by a google and a facebook which now account for 75% of digital advertising, and digital advertising is about 30% of the worldwide market -- neil: is that where all of you do you think in the future is going? >> well, a lot of it's gone already, and then you have the question about what amazon is going to do for brands or against brands -- neil: right. >> -- birdies intermediating or disrupting distribution too. so if you're running a big business at the moment and you have production from robots and 3-d printing, disruption from media, google and facebook, you have disruption in distribution with amazon and alibaba, it's a rather confusing world. and i think that's made people

focus on the short term, and that's been exacerbated by cheap capital, low-cost capital and zero based budgeting -- neil: but does it bother you from just a pure valuation standpoint that it's getting frothy? >> i think there are bubbles forming. neil: yes. >> i mean, i go back to how can 8% in tech be 22 times and 2% in packaged goods be 22 -- something has to give. neil: right. we've seen a remarkable thing in the u.s. market. i haven't followed european markets springily to that -- individually to that degree, but we cycle in and out of favorites and sectors with relative ease. i don't know if that's a good or bad thing. >> yes, to some extent. what's driving the economy, you see in this the chinese markets as well and the real market as opposed to the stock market. i mean, chinese technology is becoming more and more potent. when you look at companies like baidu is reporting shortly, ten

cent and alibaba, they're both half a trillion dollar companies. i mean, there are five, the big five, apple, amazon, facebook, google and microsoft are all half a trillion plus. alibaba and ten cent are also that a trillion -- neil: after the chinese congress meeting, they're tightening their government grip. >> does it worry me? i think the question is does it worry them -- neil: no. >> i'm not suggesting you watch all three and a half hours of president xi's speech, but that comment about chinese standing tall in the east which reverts back to what chairman mao said many years -- neil: he's now on his level, now on mao's level. >> he's now on the constitution. mao said the chinese people would stand up. that is a strong signal, because belton road and the asian development bank initiatives are all initiatives the chinese are

taking to fill that vacuum that's tending to be generated by a policy, firm policy under the obama administration and to some extent the trump -- neil: but i read -- maybe too paranoid here -- but clear military, you know, implications from that. i mean, look, i mean, he's now at mao's level and going to mao extremes. >> well, china's on the march. neil: right. >> the ig big issue is a $10 trillion economy growing at 6, 6.5%, when does that catch up with a $19 trillion economy growing at 2? neil: yeah. >> inevitably, a lot of the chinese see the last 200 years as a blip in history. go back to the, what was it, the 19th century, and the chinese economy was one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful in the world. so this has been a 200-year holiday for them. neil: you talked about our growth. the president's very convinced,

martin, that we're going to have much faster growth if the tax cuts go through. there's nothing to stop it from growing at least 3%. we just had a guest that said 4% isn't out of the equation. how do you feel about that? because taxes were cut in britain substantially, upper income, and the argument was that they didn't see the kind of boom for the buck. >> well, the laffer curve, i think is what it was under president reagan, i think this is the reher generals of that. i have some sympathy. in the u.k. we're seeing reasonably strong growth despite brexit and the uncertainty. why is that? because people are unwilling to commit to fixed capital investment, so they see marketing investment as a variable cost. we think -- neil: so you don't think cutting taxes as a sign that it's a zero sum game -- >> no, i think cutting taxes will be stimulative to the economy. the question in my mind is how

long it lasts. look at the s&p 500. since lehman, just after lehman s&p 500 was paying back its shareholders in dividends and buybacks about 60% of retained earnings. it's now at or around 100% which is what management is saying, we'd rather give shareholders the option rather than make the decisions ourselves. neil: that would be discouraging news. >> yes. but if tax rates come down, of course, that gives you a little more flexibility -- neil: what if they don't use it for building plants, commitment -- >> well, it'll flow through the economy in one way or another. if it's redistributed back to others, to shareholders, redistributed -- neil: but if it isn't, do you think there's going to be political hell to pay for the president? well, you just gave -- >> i don't see president trump's base shrinking at the moment. despite criticism from you, i read. [laughter] neil: do you think that it's going to get to be a problem for him though? >> what? neil: oh, the in-fighting that he's experienced? that's not new.

presidents have had that, prime ministers have that all the time, but that it's pronounced? >> i hesitate having seen the result here a year or so ago, having seen the brexit result, the german election result, what's happened in catalonia, i hesitate to make predictions in this bubble that we exist in on the east or west coast of america. i'd rather focus on what's happening in the center and where the traditional trump constituency is. and i'm not sure -- i don't think that has been eroded at all. if anything, it's probably being strengthened. neil: so how do you think donald trump is doing as president? >> well, if you look at the markets and economically, a strong tick. i'd say it was pretty good. i mean, employment growth could be better but prettied good. stock market's reflecting what may happen in the future. neil: so this stock market is responding to that agenda. >> the paradox is as we were

discussing yesterday that you have political instability at the same time as you seem to have reasonable economic growth. it's not strong. it's not strong enough certainly in the context of our business to suit our taste on a worldwide basis, putting the u.s. to one side for a minute. but having said that, it's the political issues. it's what's happening in the korean peninsula -- neil: right. >> -- it's what continues to happen in the middle east, some of the things we see going on in europe, it's brexit, all these political issues. it's the nafta issue, the trade issue that are worrying people to a certain degree. but the underlying economy, and i hear people say china's growing a little bit. we don't see quite that. japan's getting better. well, yes, a little bit better, but in a historical context, not that significant although i think the psychology is feeling a little bit better. but by and large, i think economically the world's in a reasonable place. it's the political issues. i can't remember a time when we've had these, these number of

political issues at the same time as the economy as a whole has been in reasonable shape, although i'd like to see a little bit more inflation, a little bit more pricing power for our clients. neil: right. >> because at the moment they're looking -- they're very cost-focused. look at some of the results that you see today. there's quite a variation between those -- neil: increases across the globe, they're paltry. >> and real wages have been in decline which is one of the reasons why we've seen the political developments that we see. neil: what's the biggest boom in advertising? >> tech. neil: where's most of the money? still? >> packaged goods under pressure, some pharma, a little bit of pharma growth. tech, financial services very variable, volatile. but tech is where we see it. neil: real quickly, the last time you were in talking about the boom you expected, do you still expect that boom to continue? >> well, i didn't say boom, i said, you know, growth -- neil: we had a boom. >> and i think it will -- you're

talking about stock markets or real life? stock markets -- neil: you were very bullish. you didn't say maybe the boom word, but -- >> i remain where i am. depends on what happens with the tax bill, depends what happens on infrastructure spending, depends -- neil: if we were to get together in another 6-8en months, you wouldn't be surprised if we were up -- >> i think it's a good background for the midterm elections and maybe even the election coming up in 2020. neil: interesting. sir martin sorrell, very good seeing you. all right, the house is looking into this whole uranium deal, the senate too. they're not letting go of this. so whatever you're thinking about the markets, could this be a factor or a black swan development? we're on it next. ♪ ♪ building a website in under an hour is easy with gocentral...

...from godaddy! in fact, 68% of people who have built their... ...website using gocentral, did it in under an hour,

and you can too. build a better website - in under an hour. with gocentral from godaddy.

i'm vern, the orange money retirement rabbit, from voya. i'm the money you save for retirement. who's he? he's green money, for spending today. makes it easy to tell you apart. that, and i am better looking. i heard that. when it's time to get organized for retirement, it's time to get voya.

neil: you know, it did pass, but 20 republicans voted against this senate budget that was up for a vote in the house including my next guest, florida republican congressman matt gaets. thanks for taking the time. >> good to be on. neil you're from a no-tax state, but you still voted against it. >> i'm very proud that florida has the lowest per capita state taxes in america, this budget doesn't cut a dime in spending. the house of representatives sent a budget to the senate that

cut $200 billion in spending, and the swamp creatures over in the senate, they don't have the guts to cut a nickel in spending, and i think we need to send a message we need spending cuts to take the wet blanket off of this economy and get us moving again. neil: a number of your colleagues have said when it comes to tax cuts, don't necessarily price them out, cost them out. you say what? >> this was not a vote on tax cuts. this was a vote on the budge. and when voting on the budget, we should be able to highlight areas where we should cut spending. one area that was very important to the house was to stop spending money on able-bodied, childless adults who could go to work but choose not to. if we can't do that basic spending reform, i'm very concerned we won't be able to deal with this mounting debt. if we do not take action to cut spending in the next ten years, we're looking at upwards of a $30 trillion. all the tax cults in the world won't save this country if we build debt at that level.

that's what we do in florida and it sure works. neil: it's not going to be a budget measure so much as a tax cut measure that you'll be presumably voting on in a few weeks. we'll get the details at least of the broad blueprint next week. all things being what you hear now -- a ten-year plan that might not be fully paid for -- what do you do? >> well, i'm going to vote for tax cuts if those tax cuts move the economy forward, and i just didn't go to the nancy pelosi school of governing where you had to agree to vote for something before you actually read it. we've got a commitment from our principal author of the tax package, mr. brady. he'll be filing that tax cut legislation on monday. and i'm hopeful that it's consistent with the blueprint that lores the corporate tax rate, lowers the individual tax rate -- neil: let's say it does all of that, congressman, i'm sorry i wasn't clear. it does all of that, but the likelihood is it's still, you know, drives the debt higher. the combination of all our

deficits higher ten years from now. would you still vote for it? >> well, my plan is to keep fighting for spending cuts. look, i want to vote for tax cuts, and the if there is a temporary increase in the deficit that we ultimately offset down the road with economic growth, i think all americans could support that. what i don't support is a budget that doesn't cut a nickel in spending because that doesn't reflect conservative priorities. but, yeah, i think we could take a short-term increase in the deaf fit -- deficit if we get the type of dynamic economic growth that the obama economy never produced. neil: so, congressman, if in the end that meant that given the likely closeness of this vote, part of the overtures to democrats to hike rates on the well to do or find an additional bracket for the well-to-do, would you be for that? >> look, i think we should lower taxes for all americans. and i think that that really is the rising water that raises all boats. i want to cut the individual tax rate for every american, i want to cut the corporate tax rate so

we no longer have the highest corporate taxes in the world, and i think that ultimately will get us to the type of growth that really can help us solve all of our problems whether that's the debt or meeting the needs of americans or insuring that we get the type of wage growth that is absolutely necessary in this country. neil: congressman, thank you very, very much. very good seeing you. >> thank you. neil: all right. the dow is still up about 100 points right now. this is really not just sort of a tit for tat on taxes though. we've had some remarkable earnings coming out. ford a lot better than expected, we've been seeing twitter staying much the same, comcast even with some problems there, but across the board industrial sectors, new media sectors, the high-tech sector that martin sorrell was talking about, all of those very real catalysts, very real momentum in the balance sheets of companies that have been cut to the bone, and now the growth from that level -- it doesn't have to be much to surprise on the upside. i should emphasize as well we're about halfway through this process with third quarter earnings, and 76% are coming out

better than we thought they would. now, these guys sometimes can kind of engineer it this way to make them look better than otherwise thought to be the case, but this is a much stronger case than anyone thought would be the case, and that is with the possibility of taxes going down. we'll have more after this. how'd that go? he kept spelling my name with an 'i' but it's bryan with a 'y.' yeah, since birth. that drives me crazy. yes. it's on all your email. yes. they should know this? yeah. the guy was my brother-in-law. that's ridiculous. well, i happen to know some people. do they listen? what? they're amazing listeners. nice. guidance from professionals who take their time to get to know you.

♪ >> welcome back to coast to coast. the dow and the s&p 500 slightly higher, the nasdaq as well. one stock i'm watching is twitter moving higher after the company reported earnings that beat estimates thanks to cost-cutting measures. it expects to turn a profit in the fourth quarter. one wrinkle though, the company overstated the number of users for the past three years. twitter mistakenly included certain third-party apps, so it is addressing the way it counts user growth. twitter along with facebook and

google promising to become more transparent about who is buying what ads on its site. so the company announced it will no longer accept advertising from any account owned by russian-backed news outlets rt and sputnik. executives from twitter, facebook and google all heading to capitol hill next week to testify about russia's influence via social media. be sure to tune in to fox business, 4 p.m. today. amazon, alphabet, microsoft, intel, all those earnings after the bell. it will be a very good show. back to you. neil: thank you very, very much, deirdre. meanwhile, the dnc with the dossier news, where is the same outrage over donald jr.'s russia meeting? kim strassel on all of that. they're of equal weight or at least curiosity, right, kim? >> oh, yeah, absolutely. i mean, i don't see how you can breathlessly report about the donald trump jr. meeting -- which, by the way, nothing ever came of it.

he never actually obtained any opposition research, never paid for it, and then not think that it is a big deal that we now know that the dnc and the clinton campaign, through a series of middlemen, essentially paid a foreign agent to gin up accusations from russia which got injected into our election. neil: but, you know, it is interesting seeing how this is treated, and a lot of people say, well, you know, it's fatigue with all of this russia stuff. but the one takeaway from it is that, you know, russia might have been, you know, an unabashedly, equal opportunity go-getter, right? going after anyone and everyone to exert some influence in this election. but in some case, in pay-for-play as well. >> well, you know, there has been this narrative out there pushed by a lot of the media saying that somehow we know it was putin's ambition to help donald trump. you know, that's an estimated guess from our intelligence community. what we do know beyond any doubt and which everyone agrees on in

the intelligence community is that putin's main goal was to sow distrust in american democracy and turmoil. and, you know, if that was the goal, look, how much better could it be than potentially having a dossier that the fbi ended up using to start an entire investigation into a sitting u.s. president and the scandal that's engulfed that presidency for a year? it certainly has caused a lot of turmoil. neil: and if you think about it too, i mean, if the idea was to curry favor with the new president, he seems to have a cozier relationship with the head of france, macron, than he does with the guy who supposedly bought and paid his way into the white house, vladimir putin. but leaving that aside, i am wondering about the uranium part of this deal because that changes the game a little bit. leaving aside monies that made their way to the clinton foundation and initiative, what were we doing?

>> look, i think the bigger question there -- first of all, there were republicans all the way back when this sale was happening that were violently protesting against it -- neil: right. >> -- saying it is simply not a good idea to be transferring 20% of our uranium reserves to one of our biggest global to opponents. but in addition when you factor in the news that we knew the justice department and the fbi had credible evidence even before this agreement was made to transfer that there were, that the american arm of this russian company was engaged in money laundering and fraud and extortion and that no one was made aware of this, that is very much worthy of investigation. and is one good news start is that the senate is going to be, it looks now, setting up an interview with this november plant that protry -- inform hasn't that provided -- >> i notice that adam schiff, of course, the minority leader in the house intelligence committee has pooh-poohed this whole thing

as just a distraction pushed by the white house. he goes on to say on fox and breitbart normally when you see that happening, it then gets to be labeled a politicized event. so where is all of this going? >> well, i would just say with regards to adam schiff, he's also spent the last five months pooh-poohing the republican efforts in the house to find out who paid for this dossier saying there's nothing -- neil: very good point. >> it's all a distraction. well, turns out that's not exactly the case. and i've been writing about just how much the democrats have been trying to protect fusion from having to answer any questions, and i think one has to ask themself if some people weren't aware of who the funders of this project were in congress and were trying very hard to protect that information from ever coming out. neil: kim, great reporting. you've been on this before anyone was. thank you very much, i appreciate it. >> thanks, neil. neil: all right, in the meantime, back to just domestic

politics here and getting tax cuts through. when you can't get the things that are going to pay for those tax cuts through, are 401(k) limits back on the table or not? deductions for state and local deductions back on the table or not? it's confusing. more after this. "volatile markets." something we all think about as we head into retirement. it's why brighthouse financial is committed to help protect what you've earned and ensure it lasts. introducing shield annuities, a line of products that allow you to take advantage of growth opportunities. while maintaining a level of protection in down markets. so you can head into retirement with confidence. talk with your advisor about shield annuities from brighthouse financial established by metlife.

right in the heart of the was in his financial crisis, and saw his portfolio drop by double digits. it really scared him out of the markets. his advisor ran the numbers and showed

that he wouldn't be able to retire until he was 68. the client realized, "i need to get back into the markets- i need to get back on track with my plan." the financial advisor was able to work with this client. he's now on track to retire when he's 65. having someone coach you through it is really the value of a financial advisor. neil: all right, are they on? are they off? 401(k) limits and whether you can deduct them or not just to pay for these tax cuts, to fox business' gerri willis and mark madsen. gerri, what are you hearing on this? >> i think, you know, this is serious talk about dramatically changing what is the biggest responsibility program in the united states of america. it does not surprise me that congress wants a piece of the $5.8 trillion action in retirement savings. what shocks me is that republicans want to do this. after all, this is americans taking care of themselves and

the idea that they would reduce the amount of money that you can set aside pretax to $2400 rather than to $18,000 if you're under 50 or 24,000 if you're over 50, to me, is asson you shoulding. neil: you know, mark, i always think they throw this out there, but like the state and local tax deduction that's bandied about, i think all of this stuff is phased out except for the upper income. and that they're the ones who will still have to, you know, pay the piper on this when it comes to 401(k) contributions, they're limiting what they can write off and the same with the state and local tax deduction. what do you think? not that i think that's wise, by the way. >> it's a head-shaker. yeah, exactly. what i can tell you is for the average american if they did do it, would be disastrous. that's an 86% reduction in how much people can put in their 401(k)s. and consider this fact: fox did a poll and said 88% of americans

said retirement was critical to their american dream. the average american only has $1,000, 69% only have $1,000 saved for retirement, and half of all americans have zero. so we should be incentivized, they should be raising them, not lowering them -- >> absolutely. >> -- so people can be accountable for their futures. >> and this is a popular -- [inaudible] >> pension plans, 401(k)s are the only thicks left. >> it's a very popular program. 80 percent of americans who are eligible to participate in a 401(k) do. unfortunately, many of them don't test the limits here. they're not even close. the average contribution each and every year is a little over $9,000, so look, we've got a long way to go. don't hit us in the gut when we're just trying to get the job done. you know, the whole idea that they're even talking about this to pay for what? i don't even know. the whole process is closed. you know, the american people aren't allowed to hear what's going on in those house ways and means committee hearings when they're sitting around talking

about how to do that, that should be open. you're talking about money that is the american people's money. why aren't they part of this conversation? neil: well, you know, matt, we're debating paying for tax cuts with tax hikes, essentially. and that's why some, you know, supply-siders, i don't know where you fall on this, say treat tax cuts differently than you treat spending. what do you think? >> the average american lives 20 years into retirement. even if they had a million dollars, that's only $40,000 a year, and that's if they make zero mistakes in investing. the average american's going to run out of money within two or three years of retirement, and this is disastrous. and as far as, you know, supply-side economics, art laffer says, you know, you reduce the rates, income goes up and you create more taxes. i believe that's where the additional taxes should come from, not from attacking 401(k)s. this is one of the last bastions to help americans plan for their future. don't kill it, that's

ridiculous. neil: all right. go ahead, gerri. >> nobody knows how long it will take to implement, so the savings they want to see now wouldn't even happen right now. in my view, they don't have their arms around the details quite yet, and once they do, it could be pretty darn scary. neil: we shall see. again, all of this, one of those things that's been bandied out there to pay for tax cuts which i know to a lot of folks sounds weird, but it is what it is in this day and age. all right. it's been better than half a century since john f. kennedy was gunned down in dallas, texas. now the final files related to that, many of which have been sealed and kept away since all of that time, well, they're coming out. donald trump allowing them all to come out. what will we learn? after this.

my "business" was going nowhere... so i built this kickin' new website with godaddy. building a website in under an hour is easy! 68% of people... ...who have built their website using gocentral, did it in... ...under an hour, and you can too. type in your business or idea. pick your favourite design. personalize it with beautiful images. and...you're done! and now business is booming. harriet, it's a double stitch not a cross stitch!

build a better website - in under an hour. free to try. no credit card required. gocentral from godaddy. whentertaining us,es getting us back on track,hing? and finding us dates. phones really have changed. so why hasn't the way we pay for them? introducing xfinity mobile. you only pay for data and can easily switch between pay per gig and unlimited. no one else lets you do that. 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: all right, we're not that far away from the president directing the government to declare an opioid crisis, a nationwide public health emergency. he's going to put his money where his mouth is here and see this as a national commitment. you might recall it first got a great deal of oppress and attention in the new hampshire -- of press and attention in new hampshire. and it was touted by then

presidential candidate chris christie who gave a sense to have breadth and problems involved in this crisis. we're told that the governor has been very instrumental in presenting this on a case-by-case, state-by-state in terms of files made available to the president to sort of get this down to a strategy to combat this early. as well as those companies that are involved in this, sometimes innocently enough with the manufacturing of basic drugs for pain and the like all the way up to those that hook you and then never, never unhook you. the president's going to talk about a seven-tier plan to deal with that and to deal with the crisis right now that has claimed more lives in the past year than auto accidents and cancer combined. i don't know if that can be right, but anyway, that's some of the numbers you're hearing. when the president speaks, we'll go there. in the meantime, we're also getting the details of which files are being released, the jfk assassination files, as they're called, kept under lock

and key for the better part of 53 years since, of course, the former president was gunned down in dallas, texas, november 22, 1963. now, most do not expect that the information made available now is going to change the basic operating theory that it was lee harvey oswald acting alone who killed the president of the united states from a perch at the dallas book depository as the president passed by. but what we might be able to get is what he was doing, what exactly lee harvey oswald was doing. just a few weeks before he was in mexico city, and we're told these files include who he was meeting with, we're it would as well soviet officials and cuban officials which, of course, begs the theory that a lot of assassination conspiracists have that he had help. we might not know all those details, but we'll know enough to start dotting is, crossing ts. it won't bring jfk back, change what was, but it might give us a better inkling as to how it all

went down that day and why. we'll have more after this. val. and at $4.95, you can trade with a clear advantage. fidelity, where smarter investors will always be.

. . . . six in the morning.

she thought it was a fire. it was worse. a sinkhole opened up under our museum. eight priceless corvettes had plunged into it. chubb was there within hours. they helped make sure it was safe. we had everyone we needed to get our museum back up and running, and we opened the next day. neil: it looks according to our charlie gasparino that president might be succeeding winning back democratic ceos. charlie, what do you have? >> ceos in general. making rounds today. having dinner, lunch at san pietro which is the cafeteria

for the ceo set is. they boycotted president trump after protesting his charlottesville remarks. i'm getting a different story. now that the particularly 20% corporate tax rate where he wants to bring it, looks like it might just happen, down from 35%. that is something all the big ceos have been railing about for years. it makes the u.s. uncompetitive. it also hits their bottom lines if they have to move overseas to get lower tax rates. i'm getting a different story now. donald trump, they are warming up to trump, big time. i will say this, neil, for all the stuff you want to criticize donald trump about, his tweets, his petty feuds with corker, with senator corker or whoever,. neil: and you. >> and me, and you, if he gets tax reform done, i am telling you, this guy will be buying a huge, huge, dose of goodwill and, it will be a, he is going to be tough to beat.

he will have money that he can raise from corporate america. the stock market is trading off of this thing as you can see. it is up 95 points today for no other reason than progress. neil: what is the gaming on this, those ceos notwithstanding it will happen, won't happen, close? >> people think by hook or by crook, very good chance, never say definitely it, can happen. today's vote was very narrow as you know. they have to go to the senate where there is not just animosity, thin gop margin that hate donald trump in gop senators. some of this stuff could play here at the margins. but they think, it is rite of passage for gop for tax cuts. they think this is going to happen. we'll see. neil: we'll see, buddy, thank you very, very much. charlie gasparino. i want to take you before i go to trish regan for a quick peek at corner of wall and broad

we're up 97 points. that because of tax cuts, that same old drill you here, but more than not, better than expect earnings, it is steady drum beat by all the developments that is helping a lot. to trish now. trish: yes, neil, it helps. we're looking new records almost every day. breaking we're waiting on the president. president trump will deliver the remarks from the white house declaring a public health emergency to address the opioid crisis sweeping our nation. all of this as we said as markets move higher, after the house passes 2018 budget framework for tax reform, we're up 100 points. i'm trish regan, welcome, everyone to "the intelligence report." two major obama-era scandals breaking at that. justice department lifting a gag order on a former fbi informant who could deliver new damaging information on the russian uranium deal.