committee. stuart: probably behind closed doors. >> yes. his wife of course worked there during the summer and fall -- stuart: his wife worked for gps. russian dossier. >> to find dirt on donald trump at the time. stuart: wish we had more time but we don't. neil. neil: it is yours. lucky you. neil: how can that billionaire dude not know whether he filed an estate tax? >> good question. neil: i don't know. stuart: put him on your show. neil: it was a great exchange, if you're that savvy you know when you file estate tax and you know you haven't. that was really, really good. thanks, my friend. markets are up, stuart indicated a lot has to do with some allowances made to the florida senator marco rubio. now whether it fully goes as far as he wants the effort might be enough to close the deal. that's why we're well into record territory again at 24,659 and change. fox business's connell

mcshane. glen hall. independent women forum had hadly heed manning. what time frame we're looking at. >> looking like it is going in his direction. so much hundred unusual that whether it would get done -- minutia. they want this thing finalized by today. you start debates next week. midweek the plan still is to have the president signing into law which is interesting because once you get to the end of next week, it is not talked about as much today, again we're talking about all the details of getting this particular bill passed, you run up against the other deadline, making sure the government is funded, not shutting down next friday. still trying to get you will of that done before then seems to be the rule. neil: i hear you. glen, one thing you immediately hear of, as soon as one

concession to made to senator to keep him in line you tick others off, right. >> you will hear others how we pay for it. neil: corker, why he was a no vote going in. might remain a no vote. >> that is the challenge. they have to keep it under the $1.5 trillion cap. that is the budget bill. those are restrictions that are real. that said, this new move up to 1400 per child from 1100, crosses that 55% threshold that marco rubio tweeted about this morning. 70% of the old number which was 2,000. if he is in, wonder, they to the two votes to work with, right? in terms of losing anybody. neil: who are the two votes? susan collins potentially. >> not just those. but also the risk from john mccain and thad cochran's illnesses whether they can vote as well. neil: hadley, we don't know how we got up to the 1400 credit both these gentlemen referred to. is there any other news we're

missing here? either the top rate won't go down to 37% or the corporate rate won't settle at 21, maybe high, do we know? >> well it will have to be one of those options or some other creative solution that we haven't mentioned yet. i angles are the political one and policy one. from the political perspective i think senator rubio is negotiating in good faith. another issue to be a no vote and another issue to have an issue what it takes to get your vote. this is political win for him if he get this is. policy side is different. more than one way to do tax relief for low income families. child tax credit may not be best way to do that. tradeoffs are involved. we'll see what ultimately republicans -- >> interesting point that hadley make. at this point the bill is closed off. there won't be more changes to it. neil: i would think. >> if we don't know the tradeoffs now, someone opposed to tradeoffs, correct me if i'm

wrong, wouldn't know either and wouldn't have a chance -- neil: they're votes on blueprint of something, right? this is what we agreed to? >> this is conference committee bill. they are putting it out there. members of the conference committee signing off and intend to release it by end of the day to keep the timeline intact. neil: senator johnson wanted better treatment of smaller businesses pass-throughs et cetera, i find out it came out of my hide or changed -- we'll find out until the last second? >> you are going to change your vote then. neil: i see. hadley, i don't envision any of this happening. i think there is such enormous pressure right now to get this done, that you know, each side will argue those, you know, who pushed for concessions got what they wanted. what do you think? >> yeah. ultimately republicans i think have learned a hard lesson from the debacle was their attempt at health reform this summer. they understand ifer this a no

vote on this, making perfect enemy of the good. don't think about the tax reform bill be all, end all, comprehensive sy reform. we can look at capital gains tax reform or removing unfair treatment green energy companies enjoy. this current bill doesn't take those things on. neil: you can't take them on if your majority is whittled down or you don't have a majority. that is the real fear. >> they need a win, neil. that is why they need a win. >> two-vote majority slims to one vote come the new year. neil: that alabama timing of election and doug jones coming in. >> chad pergram talked a lot about this, government shutdown deadline being next friday. so then congress, you know, supposed to go on their regular christmas recess after that. say the government, it is not out of the question it would shut down that is thornier issue getting votes for tax cuts. do they come back to work on that the week after, by that

point, day after christmas, the result in alabama would probably be certified. doug jones could theoretically be sworn in, which would take to your point one vote off the margin the republicans have 51-49, instead of 52-48. neil: part of the complication of tax cut would be help republicans beg legislative victory and wind at their back and they feel it. what if they don't? big tax cuts historically gone to votes with minority the americans liking them. at least going into them. they appreciated them after the fact. ronald reagan's but this might not be felt by november. >> one obvious way the big personal deduction. it will simplify tax code for many people. they have itemized options. neil: but you don't take that deduction until doing taxes after next year?

>> that's right. they will not know it this year. neil: next year you're going through the midterms. in other words -- >> i understand your point. neil: i'm not trying to trivialize the argument, when do people feel it, net in paycheck. >> it will be in the paychecks. if they can see the paychecks going up a little bit. they will feel satisfied. if they don't see that. if it takes longer to implement. that is a whole big challenge itself that could delay. i think they feel it in their paychecks before we get to voting season. neil: within usually six months after a tax cut, it depend to all our points when certain things are phased in, but we do see a smile on a lot of peoples faces. hadley you hope a lot of people are smiling but what if they're not? >> i ultimately i think this is going to come down not just changes in individual tax code but changes on corporate side. people aren't wrong saying biggest change in the tax code will be reduction of corporate

rate from 35 to 20, 21%. we don't have the advantage living in alternative unpercent we see what happens if the tax reforms end up failing. there is expectation built into our markets and built into our businesses we'll see some kind of tax reform. and republicans are going to have the make the case this is beneficial not just to shareholders and people who have pensions and people who depend on those invests but to workers themselves. we know corporate tax rates are cut in other countries, workers see increased wage growth. we want that in the u.s. as well. republicans have to make that happen. >> there so no agreement that might happen. he said making a trillion dollar mistake, largely based on the fact corporations don't, quote, unquote, need the money. so if they were going to spend their money on their own businesses to hadley's point raised wages they would have already done it. there is a lot of money already on the sidelines. he says adding more money to

that doesn't necessarily agree they will do that there is no incentive. neil: what if the worse they do plow back into the stock. >> exactly. that might, shareholders -- neil: cynicism what we feared. >> we've seen in the market. when they looked like the tax bill was under threat, we saw it hit the market. we see it going back up because it looks like it is coming through. that translates into the economy writ large. if that momentum continues i think you see positive impact. >> strengthening the financial picture for big employers like big businesses, this tax bill would include changes for small businesses that could be beneficial as well. if you ask majority of americans if they would rather work for employer in good financial shape or a poor financial shape, they would say the better financial shape is the place where they want to be at work. that means more security their employment. neil: that is a very good point, if they had their druthers would i like my boss financially stable or not. that is interesting way to frame

it. >> the left is going to pull the you know political class warfare card as soon as this bill gets signed. that will be the number one talking point. neil: people on the left do like working for a boss who is fiscally sound, whether boss is conservative or liberal. we'll watch it closely. hadley, connell, glenn, thank you all very much. the dow is up 350 points. we're 340 points from 25,000. this is incredible. charlie gasparino, speaking of incredible, breaking news on justice department suit against at&t and time warner. what did you say, bud? >> you say my taxes are going up, that is class warfare argument? neil: just you. everyone else's are going down but yours is going up. go ahead. >> the time warner at&t, opposed by government. the government is comprising a witness list. the witness list is comprised major telecom companies, disney, dish, cox. here is one other name that may

appear on the list at some point, not on now. twenty-first century fox. why is this important? it is important because these companies, the government will rely on these companies as expert witnesses. also these companies are involved in mergers. disney just bought fox's assets. here is where it gets interesting. if disney does become a witness, they are on the preliminary list now, if fox does agree to be on the list, it is not on it now, there will be a case made by at&t that these companies are trying to curry favor with the government to get their deal approved which needs approval by going after this deal which is the at&t-time warner deal. the government's attempt to block it. we should point out this is a developing story. it is going to be very controversial. we have a write-up on foxbusiness.com, should be posted imminently. we should point out press officials from the companies had no comment. twenty-first century fox has no

comment. the white house has no comment. sources close to the justice department antitrust division are telling fox business they do have this list. it is comprised of major telecom and media companies involved in these mergers we're reading every day. the list includes disney, dish, cox. comcast on the list ironically. they did a similar deal to what at&t wants to do, and it was approved. government will put them on the stand because they believe they have data proves the opposite that such deals are not good. that is irony fully explained in my story. neil this will be pretty controversial story once the government compiles the final list. we should point out that companies have been contacted. the government feels they have gotten favorable feedback from them. that doesn't mean ultimately they will all agree. this is not final. we'll note the final list the government has in a few weeks. industry experts. academics and rifle companies. where this -- rival companies.

this gets interesting notion you have merger in the medial telecom industry. you have sales. this is a big story. we sold our assets to disney. that needs government approval. as the sale is going on, the government asks disney. disney on the preliminary list. we are not. they are asking us to help them scuttle the at&t time warner deal. it is pretty fascinating story the we'll see what happens. this is developing. nothing set in stone here. but the government is reaching out to these major media players. back to you, neil. neil: at very least sounds like the thing could be dragged out long. >> i don't think so. they have expedited trial date. the trial is set for march. i could wrong about that. they want it done sometime in april. the witness list will be out there. i hear free market guys say it

is not compelling. there interest smart people on government side putting it together. at&t says it is vertical merger, unloo like fox and disney which combines two similar entities, right? disney is buying similar entertainment assets. this is vertical. it is two different assets. government saying even if it is vertical, guess what, given changing media landscape, when you combine that much distribution and that much content, guess what, you can jam consumers. so i would read my story on foxbusiness.com. it is up. gives you all context. neil: weekend thing to do, you know. thanks, buddy. charlie gasparino. meanwhile the president at the fbi. the same fbi that had a lot of questions over its credibility. the president didn't miss that. he actually talked a lot about that, after this.

♪ 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. ♪

wifiso if you can'tday. live without it...t it. why aren't you using this guy? it makes your wifi awesomely fast. no... still nope. now we're talking! it gets you wifi here, here, and here. it even lets you take a time out. no! no! yes! yes, indeed. amazing speed, coverage and control.

all with an xfi gateway. find your awesome, and change the way you wifi. neil: all right. want to take to you kevin brady on capitol hill answering reporters questions where all this stand. >> states who asked for help, local sales income tax, properties capped at $10,000. >> what about americans be afraid they will see taxes go

up. >> they won't. they will see the taxes cut. >> americans see tax rate. >> middle-class americans will see tax relief. and they will be better off with higher paychecks because now american companies will be able to compete with anywhere in the world including home. >> highlights or anything like that earlier in the day? is there any way we can get information -- >> let us look at that. on priorities there. we'll be briefing our members as well throughout the day, and so again, it will go live at 5:30. >> thank you. neil: all right. kevin brady man runs house ways and means committee. instrumental in the house. part of the conference committee thrashing differences between the senate and house package. one meant to accommodate, accommodated concerns that senator marco rubio had about cuttings downsize of child tax credits down to $1100 when they got high as 2,000 in the senate.

back up to around $1400. that seemed calm senator rubio down. no guarranty he is a yes vote. not looking so much as a sure thing of a no vote. they're keeping track of that they hope to have this all sorted out and settled early next week on the president's desk, sign, sealed and delivered. kevin brady we joined that mid progress. they're making great progress. keeping eye on that. keeping eye on this. president trump talking to academy graduates saying he will help build the fbi to better fbi. blake. reporter: couple different messages relates to the fbi today. he was at the national academy speaking to graduates where he was highly complimentary of their profession. did not take any swipes whatsoever at current leadership and past leadership. before he boarded marine one to head to quantico, the president suggested that the fbi needs to

be fixed. >> it's a shame what has happened with the fbi, but we're going to rebuild the fbi. it will be bigger and better than ever. it is very sad, when you look at those documents and, how they have done that is really, really disgraceful. you have a lot of very angry people that are seeing it. reporter: moments later after that i asked the president if he feels the special counsel is biased? the president did not engage on that possibility though he did use it as a launching pad to tear into the fbi's investigation into the hillary clinton email. >> whatever you want to call it, you will have to make up your own determination but they found tremendous things on the other side. when you look at the hillary clinton investigation, it was, you know, i've been saying it for a long time, that was a rigged system, folks. that was a rigged system. reporter: what you have here, happening here, neil,

white house trying to build up the argument that the rank-and-file within the department of justice and within the fbi are sterling professionals. however they also very clearly take issue with some of the top level investigators and also clearly jim comey. neil? neil: blake, thank you very, very much. to "washington examiner" commentary writer right now, emily. jashinsky. mueller will have a report. he might be done at least at interviewing stage. no way to know that for sure but what do you think? >> we're seeing this progress continues to be made. what we saw with paul manafort. what we saw with pop --. we heard jared kushner might be next with charges being filed. difficult to know where this is going. this is something that bothers the president and bothers the

white house, probably understandable. that is something that where you see a lot of republicans questioning the scope of the investigation, questioning where it is going, trying to throw maybe a little bit of more, tougher questions likes we saw just this week when rosenstein testified before congress. neil: do you think there is any possibility mueller could be fired? >> it's a tough question. i don't think so. i think that would set off just unimaginable fury in a way distracting and damaging to the president. people understand that. they probably learned the lesson from james comey. i wouldn't expect he would be fired. i do think we can expect to see especially what happens this week with the text messages. republicans in congress continuing to attack perceived bias of the special counsel investigation. neil: so that whatever decision comes out of that investigation they can go back and say especially, if it is unfriendly one to the administration about

this pattern deceit and clear biases, right? >> yes, that is exactly it. public opinion is going to be key to whatever decision robert mueller makes. if the public already perceives this some sort of illegitimate investigation because of bias, that's a huge problem for him because people are not going to accept the results of the investigation. now to be fair, so far we haven't seen many complaints about republicans about charges filed against paul manafort, rick gates or michael flynn. but if something touches president or popular figure in his administration, the perceived bias in the public where there is lacking, obviously there is some credibility this fbi needs to rebuild with the public, that will be a serious problem. neil: yeah. all right, emily, thank you very much. >> thanks, neil. neil: speaker paul ryan going to great lengths talking about.

his dismissals, we got the reporter who broke the story after this. how can i download an e-file? virtual tours? zip-file? really big files? in seconds, not minutes... just like that. like everything... the answer is simple. i'll do what i've always done... dream more, dream faster, and above all... now, i'll dream gig. now more businesses, in more places, can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network.

>> thank you very much, everybody. appreciate it. [inaudible]. neil: you heard there paul ryan dismissing, had to do this a lot speculation he is leaving. here is woman who started speculation going, two political reporter rachel bade broke the news. very good to have you back with us. he is dismissing it. i distinguish between that and denying it. what are you hearing? >> listen, we went into this story knowing full well that there was going to be some public pushback on this story. speaker paul ryan can't be seen as a lame duck right now. he has a bunch of negotiating to do with democrats and coming weeks. that would undercut his hand if he committed to be retiring at end of next year.

not only that. if he wants to do entitlement reform like he is talking about right now, can't acknowledge that he is leaving that really undercuts his political capital. if you look at statements coming from their office. look at comments coming from him, they're very much not deny ing this. speculation and saying the speak sister not going anywhere right now. our story does not say that. it says he is going somewhere at end of the year. neil: would that mean he is still runs for re-election to his house seat? >> yes. neil: next year. >> that is exactly. that is exactly right. from our understanding he is going to run. he will help the house try to keep the republican majority and try to get a bunch of stuff done this year. the question i have is, can he do that? right now he will be doing deals with democrats in the coming weeks on spending, on immigration. what to do with the "dreamer" population. a lot of people think he is going to strike a bipartisan

deal. that is going to potentially really anger his right flank in the house already itching and talking about potential motion to vacate the chair, what they used with john boehner to push him out. neil: i remember that. is there any, question that he steps down from the speakership but stays a congressman? >> i very highly doubt that. neil: really. >> sounds like paul ryan wants to go home and spend time with his family. hard to sigh how you stay in congress and after being speaker. the big question here, if the conservatives move against him, does he just step aside earlier? i know there are a lot of people on the hill both very high up in leadership but also down to the rank-and-file, who are wondering if they say we're going to motion to vacate the chair? does he retire in january? we'll be watching closely for that. however i think he has a lot of stuff he wants to do next year and will stick around and then resign in perhaps december of next year. neil: you know i always thought

he was a riddle lost in a conundrum here. he was mitt romney's running mate. he didn't expect and often spoke out early on about the emerging donald trump candidacy, some things, policies, words that questioned criticized. like the good party soldier, you work with your president and party winced the criticism he was hearing from the white house over himself. certainly mitch mcconnell, maybe he, is that eating at him? what do you think? >> it is really interesting. just a year ago i was writing stories about how conservatives were trying to look for a smoke signal from the white house whether president trump even wanted to work with speaker ryan. they had such a tense relationship. neil: right, right. >> on the trail. paul ryan used to call him a joke in private. he talked about potentially withdrawing his endorsement at one point after the "access hollywood" video came out. from what we understand, and

from what we've seen, the relationship has gone a lot smoother than a lot of people anticipated, such that after the story came out yesterday, we understand president trump called speaker ryan, said are you leaving right now? speaker ryan said, i'm not going anywhere right now. the white house basically said that the president would be quote, very unhappy if paul ryan were to retire sooner. so that is like a huge difference in their relationship. i actually wonder if it might protect the speaker for the next year from a mutiny on his far right. neil: that is very interesting. rachel, would be remiss if i didn't get your take where the tax cut battle stands and where the spending battle stand. both are kind of joined at hip of late. what do you think? >> i think they get tax reform done. i think rubio, marco rubio, has obviously come out said he is going to oppose the tax plan in recent days because he wants a bigger child tax credit for your average joe families. and i think he is going to get something for that.

i think that this is someone that leadership believes they can win over. i do think that we'll see a tax bill signed into law by christmas. spending is totally different issue. republicans are focused on tax reform right now, they are not talking about the other piece of this. neil: yet, that is so crucial -- >> pretty much all over the board. neil: think about it, rachel that is so crucial, many deals with wink and nod to get tax cut done were done on promise of addressing senators concerns. john mccain about military spending. susan collins about doing something to protect people by losing the individual mandate, about those whose premiums might go up. you know? >> that last one you mentioned, i think could be particularly interesting next week. you are talking about the obamacare subsidies. mitch mcconnell promised susan collins if you vote for this bill, we will enact obamacare subsidies into law by the end of the year. now the house, republicans will

go absolutely nuts over there if speaker put as bill like that on the floor. it will be really be bad. mcconnell, ryan will have to have serious conversation about how do they do this. what you might see is sort of everybody, there is some sort of goodwill agreement privately that we're going to address all these things in january. so, a lot of us thought december would be this aweful, horrible month of breaking news, deal this, here and there, but i think a lot of this is kicked into january, both on spending, both on perhaps csr payments, obamacare subsidies, definitely on "dreamers" it sounds like. i think january is now where we're all going to be focusing. neil: amazing. we kicked the can for two weeks. now coming on the vern of an agreement that will kick it for another couple weeks. that is when you get serious. sounds like one of my diets. rachel, great seeing you again. thank you so much. >> thanks for having me. neil: rachel bade, incredible

reporter for "politico." those are non-denials. i don't know about you. but i parsed language here. looking at so-called net neutrality repeal been portrayed in the media as the end of the internet as we know it. really? really? and i take trulicity once a week to activate my body to release it, like it's supposed to. trulicity is not insulin. it comes in a once-weekly, truly easy-to-use pen. the pen where you don't have to see or handle a needle. and it works 24/7. trulicity is a once-weekly injectable medicine to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. it should not be the first medicine to treat diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis.

do not take trulicity if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, if you have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you're allergic to trulicity. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or symptoms like itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your risk for low blood sugar. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, and indigestion. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. to help lower my a1c i choose trulicity to activate my within. ask your doctor if once-weekly trulicity is right for you. ♪ ♪ think has exposure to energyfund infrastructure mlps? think again.

it's time to shake up your lineup. the alerian mlp etf can diversify your equity portfolio and add potential income. bring amlp into the game. before investing, consider the fund's investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses. read the prospectus carefully at alpsfunds.com/amlp ...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.

♪ neil: all right. well never one to under state news the latest daily news calls it net brutality, ending of so-called net neutrality measure that makes the newspaper wonder whether we have internet going forward. until these new rules were in place the internet was doing just fine. each and every year after was building and expanding at rapid pace. oddly enough started slowing down that building, slowing down expanded after this became the law.

why should i trifle with facts. deirdre bolton getting into all the backlash and fallout and details. what do you have? >> neil, remember yesterday i said we vote the was just the starting line. i should have said the vote was finishing touch on boxing event, long story short, fight is it just beginning. nearly 20 states attorneys general lining up to sue the fcc, calling the agency move a violation of the law and serious threat to free exchange of ideas. so that is the map. you can see it there. tech community, also going bonkers. facebook's cheryl samburg, microsoft's brad smith, execs from google, airbnb, the whole list speaking out in fact netflix tweeted this statement. i will read it directly. we are disappointed in the decision to gut net neutrality protections that ushered unprecedented ear of a creation, civic engangment. this is beginning after long

legal battle. netflix stand with innovators large and small to oppose this misguided fcc order. other companies are taking stand against the vote on principle because as service provider such as verizon or comcast or at&t charges netflix more money because netflix using more internet capacity when we all bing watch our shows, it doesn't matter. netflix has the money and can pay. the reason big tech fighting fcc decision because it says vote kills innovation. tech companies say if there is future competitor to google, amazon, facebook, netflix, trying to build it sell up right now, a fledgling company would not be able to get off the ground, would not be able to afford the fees vote would permit, verizon, comcast, at&t the power to demand. now the fcc chairman, ajit pai he says silicon valley are a bunch of hypocrites. here sort part of his argument. >> companies like facebook and amazon, netflix, google became

global giants precisely because the government wasn't involved. part of reason why this so much hysteria is simply misplaced. we'll see going forward, getting this regulatory system rights means better, faster cheaper interaccess for all americans across the country. >> so the fcc chairman, a known libertarian, less regulation for him equals better. probably, neil at the end of the day, long story short if the vote stands we'll pay for tiered internet service a lot like people used to pay for tieredded cable. back to you. neil: deirdre, thank you very, very much. in middle of all of this media hype, hand-wringing. neil: editor, free marketeer jonathan hoenig says repeal will help not hurt. good to see you, my friend. what did you think of all the dust-up on this? >> this is real positive step. internet is not a free right. it was not a public utility. it was created by private companies as fcc commissioner

alluded to. companies that spent billions of dollars not only creating it but now maintaining it. it is theirs to control and price. what you will see is more innovation, tiered options as alluded to, makes sense, neil. why should netflix which uses 33% of all internet traffic pay the same as individual who only uses a tiny bit? this is step forward, not only for property rights but see more innovation for consumer, ultimately lower prices as well. neil: you heard the argument doing this now, means netflix role as dominant player is assured. it cries crocodile tears is feels for smaller up start players it can well afford whatever excess fees it might pay as result, what you do you think of this. >> fa if we don't have government control monopolists take advantage. think of something like telephones. it is in at&t's interest to call

t-mobile subscribers or verizon sub desires. it is in country's interest to have happy customers. you won't see type, not surprised netflix is for this type of regulation. it prevents competition, neil. if fcc go whole hog, they should not just get rid of net neutrality, get rid of regulation on telecom, cell, cable. you will see real competition and lower prices across the board. neil: big worry is, isn't so much what is going on now, but i think addressing your point, jonathan what could happen down the road, if you treat the internet like you do your utility that provide your gas or electric, first of all they're very, very different. secondly you do by almost definition take out a lot of innovation, zeal to expand and operate. we've seen in the last two years these big companies cutting down and cutting back. some cases dramatically on their internet infrastructure. >> yeah. neil, the real golden age of

internet came before so many of these regulations, that were put up not just during the obama years but even some during the bush years as well. let's get back to the sphere of innovation. what the internet look likes five or 10 years ago, it will look completely different especially with mergers in the entertainment space and experience for consumer, neil, has gotten better, more choice, more options, lower choice. getting rid of regulation will continue that trend. neil: when it really got big and explosive in the late 1990s to 2015 when they slapped these rules on, internet was doing pretty well, you know? >> yep. i mean, as you said, so much for the innovation occurred before the rules. neil, this is real step forward because so often once we see regulation instituted, it is just impossible to get them removed. what you will see, even something benign when bill clinton deregulate ad lot

of investment banks neil in the mid 1990s, you saw tremendous innovation, more recently with cannabis, that industry being regulated. neil: very good point. >> same thing here with telecommunications and internet as well. neil: thank you very much, my friend. jonathan hoenig. >> merry christmas. neil: to you as well. some of you might have heard new "star wars" movie is out. you believe this, a lot of lightsaber action. that i didn't see coming. >> it will light the fire that that --

♪ neil: all right. this is a very big weaken for christmas shopping, travel, airlines. are prepping for at least 51 million passengers. that goes through january. today a free shipping day for some, not all retailers. shoppers look at spending more than they have since 2011, you would like to probably get an idea what are they spending all the extra dough on? jeff flock in chicago with some of those shoppers. hey, jeff. reporter: neil, they say it is the most wonderful time of the year. look at these people all adorned in santa claus costume. this is the marshall fields, legendary windows at marshall

fields. marshall fields is now macy's. tremendous news. retail sales up yesterday. about 6%. department stores like macy's up, big time, also. and this is free shipping day for anybody who is not coming to the store but wants to shop at home. take a look, it is 965 different retailers today alone offering free shipping. most of them with no minimum. actually amazon, walmart, are two big ones have a minimum. most of the stores on the list don't have a minimum. it's, you know, it's a big day for shipping. why is this going to be such a big holiday season? well, i think it is bus unemployment, number one. take a look. this time in 2009, unemployment was almost 10%. we're now down, half a percentage point in the last year as well to 4.1%. the dow, obviously has had a big run. people have money in their pockets. and department stores like this,

look at, i have to show you the legendary clock here at marshall fields now macy's. macy's in the last month alone up 25%, the stock. obviously things are going well. the other big thing at holidays, travel. we think that travel is going to be all-time high. it has been for every other major holiday. despite the fact gas prices up about 20 cents i think compared to this time last year. so on the rise but, still, people apparently have money. i leave you, neil, with a look at one of these legendary windows. looks to be, what do you call that? a, i don't know what the heck? i'm trying to say, pinball, pinball. you get old these words go right out of your head. that is the ferris wheel in chicago and the great christmas tree at marshall fields, now macy's. oh, to be a kid again.

neil. neil: huh? what is that you say? jeff, thank you very, very much. little old joke there. there could be competition for shoppers though. like movies, like this one. latest "star wars" flick, bringing in $45 million in the first debut night. thing looks stupid to me. apparently a lot of people who like the whole "star wars" franchise. i see a lot of light sabres that has not changed since 1970s since jimmy carter was president. fox news contributor, kevin mccarthy. much hipper. what do you think of it? >> i seen the film. lukewarm on the film to be honest. i've been a "star wars" fans. i loved "the force awakens" opened up two years ago, brought in $2 billion at box office. this particular version of the franchise, this is number eight now. i liked this film but i did not love it. i have a lot of reasons for that specifically the tone.

unnecessary comedic quality of some of the scenes in the film. it's a little too long, a little too slow in the beginning. on the positive side though, the action scenes are absolutely incredible. mixture of effects are amazing. performances are fantastic. i love how they honored carrie fisher as well. it's a good "star wars" film, but not overall a film i loved in the "star wars" franchise. neil: they're clearing the decks for this. any other moves attempting preview, that isn't happening. disney extracting big demand. you have to keep it there in the theater for a while, right? >> numbers are insane. $45 million is what the movie did last night, thursday night previews. compared to $57 million two years ago with the force awakens. i will say this. i don't think anybody expected this movie have a big opening as the force awakens, there was so

much build up. 425 million is around the box office for "the last jedi." big number definitely. two years ago the "force awakens" made 500 million in worldwide opening. that is interesting perspective. it will make a ton of money. merchandising will be huge. i don't think the film will ultimately reach 2 billion-dollar mark that ""the force awakens"" met. neil: looks like a mess. thank you, my friend. great job. >> thank you for letting me wear a r2-d2 suit. neil: i didn't want to comment. disaster, is it? more next.

. .

>> i'm confident at the end of the day that the senate will approve this conference committee report because no one should be defending the status quo in this horrible tax code, americans have had to live with for too long. neil: tax cuts happen, will they? [laughter] neil: a lot of angry people do not like my views on star wars. i haven't begun, folks. stocks at record high. the star wars controversy exists only in my head not with standing, tax bill change promise apparently for marco rubio, maybe enough to seal the deal. we haven't gotten an automatic yes from him.

what was done to sort of cater to him and does he like it? >> well, we are told that what they did was boosted the child tax credit from a thousand dollars to $2,000. officially, we haven't heard from rubio's office saying i'm in but kevin brady, the chairman of the ways and means committee had all the signees, everyone expects to move through the senate without any problems. one to have biggest issues that they're looking at, though, whether or not everyone they need to be in the senate next week will, in fact, be there. they are looking at john mccain, they are looking at chhocre, in that the house house of representatives should go back and come back to house of representatives for a final vote, but this bill is done. it's closed. they closed the text last night. they can't amend it on the

floor, they can't change it or open conference report. that's the state of play right now. kevin brady, the chair of ways and means committee, they will file this on the house floor at 5:30, the house comes into session at proforma session. could be later to make sure they dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's, people are able to look at the text and see what's in the final bill. neil: but they can't change it at that point? >> no, they can't. neil: how it was paid for to accommodate marco rubio and you don't like those allow answers or -- allowances to satisfy him. >> if you're kevin brady of the ways and means committee chair, speaker ryan and mcconnell, make sure that you have everybody on board that you have something that you believe can be passed. i talked about this a couple times before. an energy bill back in early

2000's, senate pass the bill, they merged them together in conference report and they had trouble passing the final conference report. you can't reopen a conference. you can go back and put the genie back in the bottle. they ultimately didn't have to do with the energy bill. the bill is edged in stone. neil: wow. sounds like a star wars movie. do you like star wars movie or no? >> absolutely. neil: really? >> i haven't had a chance to go yet. in particularly i like rogue 1. neil: okay. i'm done with you. >> this place is like the bar scene in star wars. neil: that's the kind of guy you are, thank you chad, thank you very much. trump hispanic advisory steve cortez and finally dagen

mcdowell. dagen, on star wars most importantly, are you a fan, is it indicative? >> i'm a star wars fan. i would much rather have a drink with any of those aliens in the bar than marco rubio at this point. neil: whoa, oh, no you didn't. dagen: yes, i did. neil: on the tax cut, it does look like they are trying to get this whole settled and done, i am wondering, though, whatever allowances were made to get marco rubio to be a yes, vote, some one somewhere is going to be ticked off or no? >> well, perhaps. look, i don't like us that he took us to the praecipes. i do like that he was advocating for child credit.

having children is very expensive. i have four of them. thiel neil child tax credit is going to do that? >> it's part of the equation, sure. expensive to have children. dagen: can i -- neil: if you're debating of age and having kids, honey, i don't know -- >> in the last great recession. dagen: neil, i have to stop you both. this is not about the child tax credit. we knew that it was going to be doubled to $2,000. this is about making more of it refundable to individuals, going from $1,100 refundable to $1,400. let's be clear about something. that's welfare. it's social engineering through the tax code and quite frankly i think steve you should be ashamed for yourself that you are advocating for that. this is for people -- >> dagen, hold on. if you get a personal exemption, why wouldn't you get a personal

exemption for dependents as well. it just makes sense, it's not welfare. by the way -- it's not welfare to take care of children. it's not welfare for individuals who are investing in children and education. neil: lee if you can pipe down here a second. where do you think this is going, dagen, that's an interesting point. fact of the matter is that this child credit whether you're afford or against it it's off of payroll taxes, if you really want to address tax burden, you might have gone to payroll tax but i do see the ideas behind it. what i'm wondering about is whether the votes are there to get this wrapped up as the president hopes and keeps saying before christmas because you carried this into january with, you know, one less republican senator, you got some diceyness ahead. >> well, first of all, i love dagen, but i don't consider this welfare because these are people who are working and we've had

all of the income growth over the past decade gone to the top 1% of the country and a lot of that is due to atrocious trade deals have made. you can look at this as trade deals which have collapsed wages at the bottom in addition to costing jobs. i'm all for the refundability. adding a couple of $300 to that, i'm sorry, it's not a big deal. i wish they had not lowered the top income tax rate, given how well -- i'm a free market guy, i love rich people that invest and -- and help make the economy strong. neil: you could lower rates to everybody without adding guilt but dagen, they did not do that. dagen: no, they didn't do it. neil, i will point out that richard ruben is the tax reporter for wall street journal who has done an amazing job on this. he's reporting that they basically paid for this by applying it to children under the age of 17 instead of under

the age of 18. that was the change that they came up with this. i'm just talking about social engineering through the tax code where it's have's and have not's, i cannot fathom how you call this tax reform when they keep incentives. it's like washington is telling us how to behave, you should have children, you should buy 750,000-dollar house, listen, people in the northeast are taking it on the chin with the state and local tax deduction going away. that's fine, but i want some of the other handouts to go away and they are not, in fact, marco rubio pressed for an increase in this refundable child tax credit and dog on if he department get it and i don't think he can call himself a republican. neil: the argument for this and -- >> he's prowork. >> that's very republican. neil: steve, do you think in the end that the argument for this, all the criticism, a lot of individuals polled on this don't like this, the corporate rates are permanent, ours are not. you've heard that and we heard

this typically in other prior tax cuts that they go out the gate not very popular, ronald reagan was less popular than these going out the gate, do you expect that this tax cut once it's passed, if it's passed, it's going to enjoy popularity later that hits it? >> yes, absolutely. i'm glad you mentioned the reaganageology, they weren't popular at outset. they were popular once the fruitions in america. two things -- neil: he didn't rock it in the midterm elections because of delay in that impact. i mean, republicans lost a couple dozen seats. >> right. i'm not so sure. the economy is accelerating economy mainly based on what president trump is doing with regulatory relief and confidence that taxes and growth are going to come. neil: do you agree with that, lee, that they can obviously -- you know, he's quite right about that, what steve says about the market running up in

anticipation of this, maybe reflected in a lot of the shopping numbers and all, do you see that continuing? >> well, it looks like it. i'm no better as an economic prognosticator than economists that get paid a lot of money and get it wrong every time. president trump's dramatic rollback in regulations, with the tax reform it element -- almost, i like helping pass-through business but they have done a terrible job of telling a story about tax reform, bad story because the middle-income tax cuts expire which is ridiculous and what they ought to do pass this thing and conference can't be reopen as chad said, if i were president trump, i would impose 10% trade tariff on goods,

import in the country that would yield over $2 trillion over the next decade and congress immediately pas a change to this tax bill that ends at sunset so all middle-class tax cuts -- neil: that's not happening. it's not going to happen. we do see and i understand your point but they will never let the cuts expire, it's easier said than done. they just did this for budgetary purposes right now to make this fit. so i can't imagine when we get to that point, five years from now when the first wave of them expire. dagen: they will end up expiring -- >> they were taken away. neil: after more than ten years. dagen: they'll take away any benefit that's so-called rich people got and that's my issue with marco rubio is it plays into the class warfare language of the left.

>> they lowered top rate to 37%. dagen: higher earners in blue states are getting it to them. >> i agree with you. dagen: i want it and i want it now. if you don't give it to me, i will not vote for your bill. that's what we have. neil: a character like that in the latest star wars movie. very unusual for george lucas. >> they are punishing the republicans who didn't vote for high-taxed policies, they are punishing them by lowering the salt deductions so i agree with dagen on that, what they should have done cap all deductions at $30,000 and let individuals determine -- neil: would have, should have, could have. it is what it is. guys, thank you all very, very much. i thought it was a good

impression, obviously dagen doesn't agree. why i hate it so much, why i fear it is ruining society whcold sore.et you? grab lunch? cold sore. when a cold sore takes over, campho phenique's topical anesthetic plus anti-microbial action soothes pain fast. what's for dinner? meat loaf. campho-phenique on, cold sore pain gone.

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.

>> there is absolutely no collusion. i didn't make a phone call to russia. i had nothing to do with russia. everybody knows this. that was a democrat hoax, excuse for losing the election and it should have never been this way, they spent all these millions of dollars. >> i was at one point a lone voice in the wilderness calling mueller to be fired based on conflict of interests, evidence to me several months ago and now a chorus of republicans that seems to see more evidence of this bias. neil: no doubt from congressman that there are more republicans right now and a couple of democrats who don't go on the record on the subject that at least some of mueller's people investigating donald trump had a distinct bias against them. one of them was let go but how many others might still be there, attorney and former missouri state senator, senator, if i could begin with you, it's very clear that the president

believes that he's getting treated unfairly, do you? >> absolutely, i think the whole thing was based on a false premise from the get-go. it's ridiculous. this needs to end. neil: okay. paul, take it from your perspective here, you can argue that fired this guy, moving on with the team that might or might not like the president, we hear from judge napolitano that they don't get that stuff get in the way, but how can it not? >> well, it hasn't for the entire history of the fbi. fbi agents are people too. this agent in particular, he didn't like anybody. we are now reading -- neil: that's a really good point. >> he thought bernie sanders was a moron. he hated chelsea clinton and hillary clinton. neil: i do get your jest. it's all over the top, but, you know, he's a man who is

bantering with the woman who he is having an affair, the thing that he should be most critiqued for, a senior fbi agent who is having an an affair, that would be my reason for firing the man. whether or not that he has bad judgment, that doesn't have anything to do with investigation being done by professionals who have done it and brought forth indictments and convictions guilty pleas that implicate the president in some form -- actually the president's campaign, let me be accurate, the president's campaign in coordinated activity with the russian government. neil: the interviews stopped and they do stop around those officials who might lead to other officials, i guess, but is your concern, john, that they are doing with distinct bias that might be use as counter argument whatever judgment is needed by bob mueller later on, might be soon or not soon,

they'll go back to that, well, you have a pattern of going far field here? >> well, think about what the core of this issue is called justice. it's not got-you, we shouldn't be looking to find anything, any charge, any accusation, any process crime you misled -- we don't want top officials in our government to be taken out because they said one thing to one fbi that wasn't exactly the same thing -- neil: all investigations are on track, who would have imagined that ken star's investigation would morphed into an intern relationship, right? >> a lot of us cheering for ken, getting nailed for something -- neil: but my point on that, i'm not picking sides, that had nothing to do with the original intent. you have to accept wherever an investigation might wander,

right? >> yes and no. neil: well, you were happy with the way that one wandered into an intern and -- >> and i was probably wrong. neil: okay. >> i was probably wrong. neil: paul, where do you think this goes on? this has to do with business transactions that i'm not aware of, but they do go often times far field, what is your sense of this one, where it's going, if we were right in interviewing is done, what does that generally mean? >> if we are right that it's done and not just pause, then, i think that a lot of the wandering of field pieces is -- is just fantasy. it seems to have been a pretty tightly focused investigation, the papadopoulos plea, the flynn plea both tied to efforts to obstruct that investigation, the investigation of contacts with russia. we haven't gotten to the bottom of that yet, i have no sense of

whether or not when we find the bottom of it, we will find actual collusion or not but that's the -- that's the charter and seems to me that they are focusing on it pretty quickly. i mean, to put it -- your comparison to the stern investigation that i served on, useful one, the stern investigation ran for four years, the mueller investigation is now -- is still less than a year old and they are kind of reaching point where they are starting to -- to issue judgments and show the evidence publicly. neil: near the end where we are, immersed in the beginning of this? >> well, i think we are not at the beginning, i don't care we are near the end, for one thing, the investigation is not going to end until the manafort case is revolved and his testimony is taken. and, you know, white-collar criminal trials like that, big ones with $73 billion online, that's going to not come to trial at six months at a

minimum. we are not going to see the end of this tomorrow. neil: all right, but, john, your point is that you do not think given the tone -- more difficult for people to get a sense on substantive investigation is going more than the tone and some of the dismissiveness that's been reported, albeit a couple of people that there might be a built-in bias against the president, that's your concern? >> my concern is not only that there's a built-in bias, they want to get this guy for something. i mean, the fbi is part of the resist movement. it's terrible. the credibility is shot so badly. we need a president focused on doing his job, we need the people around him focused on doing his job. how many hours a day are each one of these people that are leading our country stopping their -- their actual work and meeting with lawyers to plan their defense of what might come next. this mueller thing, if we had -- if we had one smoking gun, if we had an election, if we had a

state that was swung because russian operatives were -- were manipulating voters in that one state, then we might have a crime that's worth this kind of effort and this kind of distraction from the presidency but we don't. neil: paul, the only thing that we have to go on who did what for the election, but who did what to -- to obstruct or possibly, possibly toward an investigation of that, right? >> that's right. that means that there's something to floor. i have to smile when i listen to the senator that was the exact same statement that was made by every democrat that was opposing the clinton investigations, it's distracting, we need a president that's focused, we don't -- you know, the situation emphasis here is unfortunate, we should all want the truth to come out and we should all respect the process that that brings us the truth, involves criminals investigation and the chip wills fall where they may and part of

where they will fall is people trying to obstruct the investigation. they will get indicted for that as much as anything else. neil: or those who tilted it. we will see. guys, thank you very much. in the meantime, we are getting word here from the wall street journal that, you know, the president wants to reformulate how they take on iran and treat iran. well, it could empower a very big deal that we've seen a big, very big deal involving boeing and the sales of planes to that country. it's a little too early to tell whether that's going to dramatically affect the stocks, we don't see it certainly at boeing. when the president cracks down, the stocks could get cracked. a little more after this.

:

i used to have more hair. i used to have more color. and... i used to have cancer. i beat it. i did. not alone. i used to have no idea what the american cancer society did. research? yeah. but also free rides to chemo and free lodging near hospitals. i used to maybe give a little. then i got so much back. i used to have cancer. please give at cancer.org. . >> welcome back to cavuto "coast-to-coast," i'm nicole petallides on the floor of the new york stock exchange. heavy volume, heavy trading,

and a record day again on wall street. the dow and the s&p 500 have broken out to new intra-day highs, likely where they would be, yet another record close. the dow jones industrial average up 140 points. the s&p up 22. taking a look this week, you can see both nasdaq and the dow up more than 1% as the s&p 500 up nearly 1% on the week. some of the best performers are names that are hitting all-time highs. take a look at these names, that is mcdonald's, united technologies, boeing, all with up arrows, all-time highs, a lot of optimism on wall street as it looks likely the tax overhaul is under way. the child credit under way to satisf syators rubio and lee, and looks like we'll have fou weeks of gns for the dow and the s&p straight. neil? neil: nile, thank you vy, very much. to the progress we're making on tax cuts, setting sights on 2018 and maybe the next battle

royale, infrastructure, and where they could get a lot of bipartisan support. republicans and democrats keen on that. we're told a trillion dollars over ten years. let's get the read on former undersecretary for transportation ray lahood. >> thank you, neil, good to be with you. neil: let me get your sense on the infrastructure thing, you can make the argument they should have started with it, it would have promised some bipartisan support. that was then, this is now. we're told infrastructure will be the next thing teed up now. what do you think? >> i think it probably will be particularly if the tax cut's passed. they spent way too much time trying to get away with obamacare. i agree with you. we're looking for a new year and with the new year there's optimism. the infrastructure bill needs to be bipartisan because infrastructure is bipartisan, it needs to be big, it needs to be bold and needs to be paid for. and if it is, a lot of

americans are going to go to work and america gets back to being number one in infrastructure but takes time to do it. neil: it is going to take money, to your point, secretary. one of the issues i heard bandied about when you were in office and when president obama was in office the idea of making it a private partnership. it was very close or akin to a sallie mae deal on the educational front and the lending front in real estate where it would be a partnership between the government and private enterprise. i'm not quite sure that's the thinking now, but what do you make of that approach to this? >> yeah, neil, look, i think that's a good idea, and i think the trump people are thinking along those lines. there is a lot of money that's ready to be invested. a lot of infrastructure opportunities, but it will take more than that, neil, it takes increase in the gas tax which hasn't been raised since 1993. and if we do that, we get back

to a big pot of money, the infrastructure needs a big pot of money, public-private partnerships will help. tolling helps. although people don't like tolling. the infrastructure bank will help, but in order to really send a message, i think ten cent a gallon increase in the gas tax while gas prices are low. 25 states, neil, in the last three years have raised their own gas tax, they're not waiting for washington to do it, and nobody's been thrown out of office as a result of it. and some very conservative states like wyoming all republican. utah, all republican, iowa, all republican. neil: in new jersey, with governor christie. you are right about that. i always worry and raised it last time when you were here, that's the way to go, that's fine. how do you police that the moneys are going where they're supposed to be going? you slap a tax on a gallon of gas, half the states have done

it at the local level. how do you make sure it's going to that intended focus? >> you know, neil, that is the problem. the american people are worried if they raise the gas tax, they'll spend some of it on deficit reduction and some of it on maybe salaries for law enforcement or something like that. neil: it's happened in my state of new jersey. >> i know it, and happened in other states and people become very disillusioned. politicians need to bite the bullet, raise the gas tax, and then the people in charge like at d.o.t. and in the administration, need to spend the money on infrastructure so people see results and people go to work. there just has to be that commitment to do it. maybe you put it in a trance portation-infrastructure lockbox where it says this money cannot be spent for anything other than transportation or infrastructure. that sends the message it's

used for what it was intended for. neil: others have mentioned the idea of the modern-day equivalent of the war bonds. there are a lot of possibilities out there. you raised just a few. ray lahood, thank you very much. >> thank you, neil, merry christmas. neil: to you as well. the former secretary of transportation under barack obama. is the new "star wars" film getting way too much hype? i say it's got to stop. i say they need to just clear the path so other promising filmmakers can come forward and see the sabre thing, because that technology itself featured prominently in the movie i haven't seen but going on reliable authorities who tell meet promos indicate as much. it's time to update this. but they're not. so good-bye. after this. >> this is not going to go the way you think. [vo] when it comes to investing,

looking from a fresh perspective can make all the difference. it can provide what we call an unlock: a realization that often reveals a better path forward. at wells fargo, it's our expertise in finding this kind of insight that has lead us to become one of the largest investment and wealth management firms in the country. discover how we can help find your unlock.

. neil: all right, i'd have to ask my colleagues here, the reason for stocks moving up are indications that marco rubio has been satisfied here, that changes have been made in the tax measure, in that conference report, that will come out later on today. about four hours from now. accommodation that will switch him from what seemed like a no vote to a yes vote. stocks are racing on the idea the tax bill is happening. not everyone so happy when it comes to boomers, always bitter, always angry, always searching for the milk of magnesia. that would include charlie gasparino, steve leeb, charlie grady. charlie want to end with you, you are the numbers svengali here. everyone keeps saying the numbers are racing ahead, if the tax cut goes through? >> yeah, seeing record highs today for the dow, the s&p, the nasdaq, you know broad market indices hitting highs. neil: that continues after the tax cuts assuming they do get done. >> what you see with the tax cuts finally getting done, this

happens the day the editorial came out talking about dow 24,000 and the trump effect and how that was a great opportunity when it fell, what this indicates is the next time we get a dip and certainly will be done, it may be a buying opportunity because of the tax cut reform and all that at the back of the market pushing it. neil: what do you guys think? >> i -- well, couple of things, one, i don't think trump was elected to make the market go higher. i think that's great and i'm very, very happy that it's happening, but he was elected because you had a lot of disaffected people in this country. and they are not really receiving any of these benefits. now there is a hope, there is a hope, neil, in the tax bill, there's a hope by cutting the corporate tax rate to 21%, is that the latest number, 24, 25, right around there. maybe we'll get the kinds of capital expenditures in infrastructure spending that trump ran on. he wasn't allowed to get any of that in, but if we do get that,

i think we could have a very happy country. i'm not betting on that. neil: what do you think? >> i think steve's right. i'm for a lower corporate tax rate. if you're at 35 and the rest of the world is at 25, you got a problem, and that's kind of where we are right now. now, let's be real clear, this is not a panacea for all our ills. if you cut it to 20, 21%, i don't think factories are going to start cropping up in upstate new york and the depressed areas across the country. not initially, we were going to get massive stock buybacks which is why the market is going up. >> some of it is good for the economy but doesn't directly affect the base trump voter. here's where i think the problem gets into that trump could face and republicans. okay, so there's a tax increase embedded in here, too. there are average people that live in high-tax states, if you make 200 grand in new york, it

doesn't sound like average for the rest of the country, it's average here. >> it's below average. especially in manhattan. >> long island or families in california, those people are going to get hosed on this. they're going to get a huge tax increase. and the people on the low end that are getting the tax cut, i keep getting them on my facebook page, twitter page, $20 a week is big for me. >> it is. >> but it's not enough! >> no, it isn't. neil: but it's obviously -- to -- i think when grady started out on this that the idea it's obviously proppelling the markets, takes a while for a tax cut to be filled. ronald reagan's was far less popular coming out the gate than this one is, but you got to see the return on that immediately, right? >> this tax plan seems to benefit companies much more than individuals. this is what we're seeing. people who don't pay taxes, it benefits a lot.

they pay payroll taxes and corporations, it's an odd plan in the sense that, you know -- neil: do people feel grateful if it comes next november? >> reagan lowered it for everybody. neil: keep in mind, he lost a lot of seats in the midterms, in the first wave. do you think this will have an impact? >> i think it could have a big impact, but ironically -- neil: you have your doubts? >> ironically, neil, the reason it may have a big impact is because how poorly a lot of this country is doing. some of the most striking statistics that i've seen recently have been comparisons, and i did this myself, and i may be wrong, but i compared how people were doing in let's say the year 2000 with how they're doing today. i don't care what other numbers tell me about median income. neil: enough to make a dramatic difference. >> right. people today are eating less protein than they did in 2,000.

neil: tell me where you're anything. >> what? neil: please tell me where you're going. >> people are so depressed that the point, they can't afford to buy cars. >> the millennials eat a lot of oo dong. neil: i want you to stop and think about "star wars." another one is out. and when we were kids, we were all roughly the same age, the first one came out when jimmy carter was president. nothing has changed. >> it's the same show but a little more -- >> as you recall, i thought you were making an analogy. neil: please let's go back to taxes. you are okay with this? the "star wars" are redundant but you are okay with it? >> yeah, i'm okay if you like "star wars," totally okay. neil: same thing? >> it's an excellent franchise. neil: you don't think it's getting long in the tooth? >> no, they do freshen it and

keep it alive. >> wait a second, wait a second. neil: wait a minute. >> you have a hidden bias and you're not disclosing it. neil: i just disclosed it! >> you're a trekkie, trekkies hate "star wars." neil: a human being, you guys seen the saber thing? it's not a dance. >> you're a trekkie, they want to hurt "star wars" people. neil: trust me, i have no agenda. >> can we bring james bond into the argument. that's a franchise that's been around as long as i have, which is forever. >> you're a peppermint spiced trekkie. neil: you're okay with it? >> great entertainment, i plan on bringing the kids around christmastime. neil: really? >> it is great entertainment. >> i don't like the fact that you're not disclosing the relevant parts of this that should be disclosed about it. neil: not on corporate deals, mind you. >> as i'm watching my

12-year-old daughter not cringe. neil: there is that. >> can they still do "star wars"? neil: highlights here, guys, the sabers. i understand that. will you just try to stick to this! [laughter]. neil: they are great guys, all my friends, and we've all lost our minds. we'll have more after this. cannot live without it.

so if you can't live without it... why aren't you using this guy? it makes your wifi awesomely fast. no... still nope. now we're talking! it gets you wifi here, here, and here. it even lets you take a time out. no! no! yes! yes, indeed. amazing speed, coverage and control. all with an xfi gateway. find your awesome, and change the way you wifi.

. >> those on the other side have literally nothing to peddle other than hysteria and fear for the light touch approach we've had for the internet's existence. i hope the people focus on the facts, again, given what's transpired over the last several week, not surprised at all. neil: that is fcc chairman ajit pai to end the net neutrality. the impact really is drastic says some of these media reports claim. former fcc commissioner says consumers are not at risk or the internet itself being destroyed as some of the papers seem to indicate especially in cover stories like the one you just saw on the daily news. robert, i do remember the internet alive and thriving up to 2015 when net neutrality came into being, and i remember

since it coming into being, all the big boys start cutting back on irastructurend the like. building and ireasing every ere, sin then it's been going down, why is that? >> thanks for having me back on the show. neil: good to have you. >> the title 2, the communications act called title 2 brings economic regulation primarily, and every independent wall street analyst i've walked to, marcy at wells fargo, craig moffett and many others and have no dog in the fight, they're just analyzing, that damocles of economic regulation over broadband providers did curtail investment, if you look at wireless broadband, the fastest growing segment of the broadband market, just that in the past two years since that order, capex declined 17 almost 18%. that is significant as we try to jump to the next generation of 5g wireless technology. neil: this is the reason?

that's the argument. this is the reason. but i always think -- the consumer argument has been, well, now the government can't shield us from these guys trying to gouge us, you say what? >> that's a big myth, it makes for great click bait. you have three strong federal statutes, one on the beat, the federal commission act puts the federal trade commission on the beat. neil: the ftc would rule this activity, if you try it, you're in big trouble. >> the federal communications commission now the ftc is back on the beat. plus the d.o.t. with the clayton act and the sherman act. the parade of horribles, every component is illegal, the blocking, the throttling, all of that would be illegal under a variety of statutes that we could cite if you want me to. neil: the proponent of doing things said you have to go through hoops to prove that case, let's say you are trying to stream a service that isn't

available because of a company you use for internet service doesn't own it. however business relationship with it, and the mysteriousness of it is getting slowed if it's coming to you at all. how do you act on that if you see it? >> right, and that's one of the common arguments. neil: right. >> which is it didn't happen, no systemic market failure when title 2 is imposed, as you pointed out in the lead. what was the legal framework that worked? and some say it's expensive for entrepreneur start-up to bring a lawsuit. they don't have to. the chair said it has 640 lawyers and 70 dhp economists and they look for things like this in very complex corners of our economy. that's number one. number two, the d.o.j. does the same as we're seeing in a big lawsuit right now that's kind of related to this in a way. so there are a lot of cops on the beat and that's why it worked so well.

the clinton-gore commission that we were defending, which is light touch regulatory framework, and we defended it because it worked. gave us the wonderful internet echo sphere that we enjoy today. and title 2 was a stark departure from the unanimous -- neil: what happens now? the death nell stories, the end of the internet as we know it. i know there's a lot of hyperbole in the press, what do you think happens now? >> i think you're going to see a great explosion of entrepreneurial brilliance, we need to spend about $300 billion over the next decade on the next generation of wireless, which will be faster than cable speeds are. cable is very concerned. but you're going to see that unleashed in a more robust full throated way rather than a tentative way. that means mobile future faster. you're going to see the hd movies downloaded to your mobile devices more quickly. more choices. the average american consumer or actually 9 out of 10

american consumers have a choice of four mobile broadband providers and there's a licensing spectrum as well which helps to remain a competitive threat against the big carriers, so prices are falling, innovation is increasing, content is increasing. neil: see what happens. >> produce more content. it's going to be exciting, it's going to be good. neil: robert mcdowell, former fcc commissioner. just another view, markets still ahead here on indications that marco rubio will indeed be a yes, for senators flake and corker still undecided. it's getting really tight. more after this.

. .

neil: so much we don't know but ashley webster knowing everything about it. he is in for trish. ashley: thank you, neil. finalized version of republican tax bill a few hours from now. lawmakers making last minute changes, specifically the child tax credit, following senator marco rubio's to vote no on the bill if the credit is not expanded. it is unclear if this is enough to secure a yes vote from rubio. we'll talk about that. uncertainty over tax reform having little impact among the markets. we have a nice rally. dow up 156 points, 24,664. remarkable. good afternoon, everybody. i'm