shows bit with the lights. >> i like it simple. spray spray paint noel on windows. charles: david asman is next. >> you only pay after half this in jersey, after the tax hikes come in jersey tax hikes. welcome to cavuto "coast to coast." i'm david asman in for neil today. president trump is in florida putting d.c. on notice to get more done. next on the agenda, one trillion dollar infrastructure plan. blake burman at the white house with the very latest on this i'm sure they're adding up figures saying all the possible tish shuns how can you get it done? >> this is the next top of the again today item, david at least when they get into 2018. president trump continuing to enjoy down time in florida. the white house continuing to signal that infrastructure is their next big item. over the weekend the white house legislative affairs director

mark short revealing the president plans to sit down with paul ryan and mitch mcconnellç at camp david next month. after that, roll out this big bill. >> i think you will see the president roll out infrastructure plan in january. and the president has already invited leader mcconnell and speaker ruane to camp david officers weekend in january to make sure what our priorities are in 2018. >> not a lot of details with this one, david. but we sort of know the general themes, a trillion dollars. when you break undo the numbers the administration wants $200 billion in federal money. the other 800 billion trying to incentivize local governments to build up public/private partnerships as well. they think they can bet democratic support with this because infrastructure is normally bipartisan. democrats look at different prism as well. they want some, a trillion dollars in federal money. there is a bit of a gap there. when they roll this out come

2018. we well see how the politics shake out. >> a lot of republicans remember the obama stimulus. there are naysayers on bothç sides. blake burman, thank you very much david: we have art laffer. you had two major roles in 35 years and i don't know any economist have done that. >> thank you very much, david. i think this one will be turn out to be great.

david: first one was good. does anything tickle your brain worrying that won't work out as well as the first one? >> let me be very straight with you david. i'm much better forecasting the past than i am the future. you never can tell what is going to happen. i feel confident and comfortable about what is going on here. i believe we'll have a very good economy for a number of years. this is just the beginning. it is like the '81 tax bill, which is kemp rot we got to the '86 act. we have a lot of ways to go here. i think this prosperity should continue for years and years and years. david: even the '81 deal had some problems with it. first it was delayed too long. recession in eight sy one had it got kicked in immediately which it wasn't. >> correct. >> the top rate was only brought down to 50%. it wasn't until '86 it went down to 30. is it conceivable, we could have

some same kind of problems with this deal? >> no, i don't think so. i don't think that is the thing. the rate was brought down on unearned income in the 81 tax bill. the earned income did not change. highest marginal earned income tax rate did not change which is the lion's share of the marginal tax rate. it was not dropped and they shifted brackets out and they laid it f you delay income tax breaks what will you do this year. delay all the income. that is why the boom started. this bill does not have the delay feature. it almost did. it almost did. david: we were very close. did you haveç anything to do to prevent the delay from taking place? >> i have in idea. i talked to all at length about it. yes, i believe i had some. david: good for you. >> that is one thing that would kill you. other people, the arguing other way, they were saying david, can

you believe this expense something much better at 35% tax rate than it is at 21% tax rate. david: why? >> therefore we should delay the tax cut. so my view was, if that is true raise the rate to 95%, then expensing is even better, delay the tax cut for 40 years. we'll have the boom of the century. how stupid are their arguments? david: thank god their argument didn't win. we have history is indicator what would happen. when you delay tax cuts, businesses delay the business decisions and economy delays growth. >> they sure do. david: one thing that changed dramatically from the 1980s, is the whole economy, the whole global economy, particularly technology. the fact so many businesses partly because of tax distortions have hundreds of billions of dollars overseas. let's start with apple, $300 billion. this tax codeç is meant to address that. how is that going to change our economy? >> what that is going to do corporations will be headquartered in the u.s. rather

than other countries which have much lower tax rates than we do, but they won't on january 1st. that will change the calculations for companies to keep their headquarters here and move them back here. that will give us far more tax revenues, even though it may not increase output employment production. it will give us far more tax revenues because they won't use shelter of income by having the corporate headquarters abroad. so that means the revenue losses will be much, much less than these silly people that the congressional budget office suggested. david: there are worry warts worry about growing too fast. they claim that will cause overheated economy. which i say look, we tried underheated economy. hasn't worked well. rather have overheated economy if i have to choose. the problem with all the cash coming back even less than a trillion is that it is going to cause inflation to go up. it might hurt the dollar, et cetera. what do you say? >> that is just not true. now a lot of that money is already here. but what it is here in is

subsidiaries, foreign incorporated subsidiaries of american compa's, have the funds in t-bills or whatever else they might be. all we're going to do is change the ownership of those deposits from the foreign incorporated subsidiariries to the mother company because that tax rate differential has been removed that will happen for most of it. now some of it will go into production, out put employment production. don't think the 400 billion or $3 trillion will all go into new building and construction. it is not. it will change the name who owns the account. that is what will happen but some will go into new plant and equipment, believe me, but it won't be 100%. david: talk about what was ronald reagan's favorite part of con mixer the entrepeneur, the individual who makes company grow. if that is really what he wanted to focus on with his tax plans, creating opportunities for small businesses, first individual, then small businesses, to create bigger things in the economy. of course you look at what happened in the 1980s with the

development of companies like apple and microsoft, you see what was really possible, do you think this bill does enough to help small business? >> yes. i think this bill is great for small businesses. a lot of small businesses are clients of largeç businesses, c-corporations have been declining disa matally because of our tax rate. now what will happen c-corporations will come back. don't think, dade, all c-corporations are large corporations, they aren't. a lot of small companies are c-corps and they will do well the corporate tax rate deduction and you will find a lot of people benefit feed on effects of other companies growing and return on investments. that is win/win for everybody. tax revenues will not decline as a result of this bill. they will not. david: i'm worried about the naysayers. you say it is good for everybody. there are certain individuals who say it will not help them.

there are people like "the wall street journal" editorial board, you and i talked there was not enough done to bring down the top rate. will there be a trump tax cut part two, the way there was reagan tax cut part two in 1986? >> yes. you remember john f. kennedy, you say i can never do enough for this? that is true. unless we get the jerry brown flat tax 13% across the board for everyone, no deductions exemptions orç exclusion unless we get that they can always cut tax rates more. i personally totally agree with that but i don't think you want to blame this bill and curse it because it didn't cut personal income tax rates enough. david: yeah. >> this bill is great. maybe they could have been better. maybe they could cut personal rates more. i could bo along with that there will be second bill, third bill, fourth bill, you will sign a lot of little bills along the way. you start feeding frenzy of

economic growth. if my projections are correct you see economy doing well, democrats join with us. and see economy going another 20 years of prosperity. david: holy cow. art laffer, you can't blame the guy for being excited. he is the architect of two tax overhauls 35 years apart. you must have been 12 years old forethe first one, right? >> i was ancient back then too. i'm like yoda. david: you don't show it, my friend. art laffer, with the gipper himself. there is art and ronald reagan. great to see you, art, thank you very much. have a great new year. we'll see you. >> you too. david: big news out of the u.n., ambassador nikki haley announcing 285 million-dollar cut to next year's budget.ç former u.n. ambassador john bolton reacting on our air to this earlier. take a look. >> well i think the defunding certainly is a move in the right direction. exactly what it does and how it worked out is hard to say. david: to "daily caller" editor katy fraists from the fallout of

all this. the fact it is such a specific number about, 285 million, maybe ambassador haley was working with john bolton, other people familiar who knew where the bodies were buried, who knew where the waste and fraud was, and that is what that number indicates, no? >> this is 35 million more than the 250 cut they have been looking for. ambassador haley did absolutely the right thing. the united nations is bloated and incredibly inefficient. their budget is over $5 billion. so cutting this 285 million is an excellent step in the right direction toward efficiency. david: here is the question. you had administrations like we were talking about ronald reagan, who knew what the unwas up to. george w. bush, who hired john bolton, if anybody knew what it was up to, all the corrupt brook tests john bolton and he stillç does. if they couldn't reform it why do you think trump will be able to? >> he is willing to throw

punches no one his. perhaps former presidents who were not willing to take steps necessary to get the united nations in line. when you have a budget that is five billion and have entity that large, there is going to be inefficiencies. there will be wasteful spending. there is going to be corruption. i'm so happy to see haley attacking this. on top of this, we spent what, 22% of their operating budget is from the united states. david: yeah. >> they spend all this time drafting resolutions and attacking the united states left and right when they're the ones who put saudi arabia on the women's rights commission. i'm happy to see we have a president taking a step back saying why are we spending so much on you guys? you don't seem to be doing anything for us. david: we have a president who knows manhattan real estate better than anybody in the world. a big chunk of that real estate is occupied by the united nations. if anybody knows how they misused that privilege is donald trump. so he -- there are some people at u.n. headquarters in new york

who must be afraid, owe, my god really knows what we've been up to? >> well, look, five billion you have, the more you get, the more you request does not mean things are more efficient. looking at this, i'm so happy to see this retraction of the 285 million, that cut. using money efficiently, having more accountability, it will scare people. maybe people will feel fire licking at their heels. it's a step in the right direction. you will get complainers. hey, other people need to step up then. david: all right. great to see you, katy, thank you so much. have a wonderful new year. so what is fueling the best holiday spending surge in six years? you hear about that rumor that retail is dead? not so. wait until you hear the figures of that coming up. ♪

you owned your car for four years. you named it brad. you loved brad. and then you totaled him. you two had been through everything together. two boyfriends, three jobs... you're like nothing can replace brad. then liberty mutual calls... and you break into your happy dance. if you sign up for better car replacement™, we'll pay for a car that's a model year newer with 15,000 fewer miles than your old one. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

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.

david: today is a big day for returns of course but retailers seeing a big spending boost. fox news's anita vogel with very latest. great news. >> great news, great to see you, david. the truth is retail spending has been really going strong since black friday, since last month. the cash registers continued

ringing all the way through christmas day. some of theç major credit card companies are saying that many retailers benefited this year from christmas falling on a monday, giving shoppers a full weekend to open up their wallets for the last-minute buys. experts add high consumer confidence and robust job market boosted u.s. retail sales during the holiday period. rising at the best pace since 2011. according to the national retail federation, seven years ago sales were at 528 billion. in 2017, take a look at the chart. the estimate for this holiday season, $682 billion. a spokesperson from mastercard says, overall, this was a big win for retail this year, with a lot of the boost coming from online shopping. but for brick-and-mortar stores, the days leading up to christmas are vital. 20% of traffic into those stores during the season happens in the week before christmas. so they did all they could to roll out the red carpets for the

shoppers. retail experts also say 53% of consumers and that is about 126 million people, were taking part in last-minute shopping. on what is being called super saturday, that is that last saturday before christmas. and david, just think, it is noç over yet. there are those bargain shoppers out there who wait until right now, this week to go shopping. they will be shopping all the way up until new year's eve. back to you. david: can you imagine getting a package, opening saying you will get what should be in this package the week after christmas because it is cheaper. i wouldn't do that. i am saying. some people who do. god bless them. >> don't blame anybody. david: by the way, one company not doing so well today is apple. they lost over 2 1/2% as you can see. there was some indication that the iphone x that everybody has been talking about, i happened to buy a couple for my family, the first quarter shipments reports are not good. it is down. that equals, by the way, about

$27 billion of market capitalization. they could make it back up again tomorrow. a big drop for apple because of the iphone x sales are not what they thought it should be. so where does retail go from here? retail watchers monica mehta and hitha herzog. great to see you. it has been a while. monica, i thought retail was in trouble? the figures today don't sew that no retail is in trouble for, but the web is completelyç shaping retail. having a great season is will for retailers. they will have more money in their pocket. it doesn't change the fact so many of them are saddled with debt. this debt is causing them to really feel the pain. they're to the able to adapt to all the changes. david: one christmas season will not make up for all the debt they have and other troubles? >> no. i think it will take a couple more of these gang buster seasons and more quarters on top

of that to rectify the situation. to monica's point. i wouldn't say they were in trouble. a shift in the way people are shopping. i mean, as, parallel it to the way there are all the cruise ships down the hudson right now. retailers moved that same pace. they're very slow to change. so that is why you're seeing brick and mortars not able to change the way that they're able to sell merchandise in the fast way that the consumers are expecting. david: a lot of the mall stores, and the shopping stores that we have on madison avenue did pretty well. macy's did very well. even the gap did well? >> right. so apparel did better than expected which is wonderful for them. the tax cut is a huge christmas present for them. retailers are actually, one ofç categories really benefit from the tax cut to see their tax rate go down from 35% to 21%. it will be a lot more money in their pocket. goes back to refinancing debt that they have. a lot of debt is coming to maturity right eow, 2017, 2018

and being able to work through that. that will give them the ability to recatalyze, reshape their business. david: monica, a lot of investors pulled out of retail, particularly past couple years. recently in the past few months, investors are getting back in. they're seeing prices come down on a lot of these stocks to the point where there are bargains there. they must be pretty happy, those investors? >> i would think so. look at amazon numbers. they reported that four million people signed up for amazon prime to take advantage of shopping. david: the cheap thing you can talk into. >> amazon echo that i have in my home. david: $39. they're trying to undermine all their competitors. >> go back to the way the consumer spending, paypal reported that 80% of people are using mobile devices in order to shop over the season. it is easy to go ahead, buy your merchandise, buy the mobile device, buy the ipad, you're talking around. because of that ease that is

giving thoseç retailers especially those with infrastructure ready to do online shopping they're good to go now. david: there is one problem. our family was thinking about it. instead of giving gifts we're giving experiences, right? theater tickets or even for somebody very close, willing to spend a lot of money on, travel tickets. >> lessons or yoga classes. david: that hurts those companies that sell things. >> absolutely. david: you're seeing more of these gifting experiences happening. that is a problem for retail, right? >> that's a problem for retail. that is shifting nature of the consumer. something retailers have to roll with. one stat in the u.s., we have six, we have six times the amount of retail space per capita that they have in europe. so to a certain extent we have expanded over the last 20 years to a point a little bit unsustainable. there will be a natural pullback from that. now rising interest rates in 2018 are another factor we have it look at thinking about investing. david: what happens to the malls? there are all the malls that seem to be dying?

store after store after store is closing. you just can't continue a mall if only half the stores are full, right? >> post recession, retailers thought that the spending was going to rebound at the rate we were spending prerecession 2008ç so they expanded the store square footage very quickly. we saw that in the malls. we are seeing a little bit of consolidation. now we go to the mall maybe to go to the gym or to the doctor or entertainment. david: a lot of wasted spas in those malls these days. good to see you both, ladies. happy new year. south korea saying north korea could be ready for talks. is this proof tougher sanctions may be working after all.

david: south korea is now predicting north korea will be open to talks to the united states next year. is this a sign tougher sanctions are working? former national security advisor to vice president dick cheney johnç hannah.

john, talk, discussions, dialogue, however you want to put it never got us very far changing the way north koreans do things, have they? >> no. it's a pretty sad history, david. on one hand i give the trump administration a huge amount of credit, especially for those three very tough-minded, unanimous u.n. security council sanctions resolutions. on the other hand, everybody has a deep, sneaking suspicion that it is all too little too late. we, a decade ago when i was working on this issue we were talking about stopping north korea from developing any kind of nuclear weapons capability but today as we all know, not only is he already able to wreak nuclear devastation on both south korea and japan, he is standing on the threshold of being able to deliver nuclear-tipped icbms to virtually every major american

city. david: it is his only ace in the deck. that is why the south koreans who did by the way say there may be dialogue possible, they also said if that dialogue tried to dissuade the north koreans from nuclear, their nuclear ambitions, giving up what they have nuclearç it is going to fail. that is not in the cards. i imagine you would agree with that? >> yeah, i think, from kim's perspective these weapons are absolutely essential to his survival and to his regime's survival. for him, any negotiation at this point is really about the united states recognizing him as a full-fledged member of the nuclear club. that is just haggling over the price, whether in sanctions relief or in outright bribes, what it is going to take to get him to even consider limiting or capping the size and scope of that nuclear program and the threat that it poses to the united states and our allies. david: you know, his survival does not necessarily mean the

survival of north koreans. that is, he doesn't care a darn about how many north koreans have to die through sanctions. whatever else it is, even through warfare, if it means he stays in power. that is his goal. doesn't care at all, very difficult to deal with a leader who doesn't care about his people. >> he doesn't care if he starves that entire nation to death. the only way that sanctions begin to work is if they get so severe they threaten hisç survival even more than a military attack from the united states and that probably means that it has got to fracture the elite, the intelligence and security officials around him who maybe with the help of china can force him to change course or more likely get him out of there through a coup. david: i don't want to be so completely negative because there are some signs, if you believe in chinese statistics i cans, a lot of people don't, but in november, china exported no

oil, zero oil products to north korea which is very unusual and that they imported no coil or iron ore from north korea. that looks like progress, no? >> no, it definitely looks like progress. we all know the chinese have been playing both sides of this equation for quite a long time. there is no doubt that under pressure from trump they're beginning to tighten the screws more than they ever have before. only remaining question whether it will be enough, in enough time to force the kinds of fractures amongst the north korean elite that will be required to really bring them to their knees, get them to change course. david: john, i want to change subject a little bit, even though north korea is a terrorist state, it hasn't quite gone to this extent where weç e finding out that terrorists and possibly even isis have been using bitcoin in order to launder some of the money that they send around the world. what can you tell us about this? >> well, what i can tell you

this, is all based on research done by a colleague of mine at the foundation for defense of democracies but we're finding not surprisingly as the profile and publicity to bitcoins and other kinds of crip cocurrencies increases, terrorist organizations looking for money trying to get into this game. don't forget what we saw with isis and social media and their ability to, and proficiency in exploiting new technologies in the cyberspace in particular to advance their dangerous ends. that is what they want to do with cryptocurrencies. they they're able to circumvent the standard, international financial systems to have anonymity to raise money outside of the view of national governments. it is very dangerous. our guys need to get on top of this very quickly. david: virtually no regulation with regard to a lot of these cryptocurrency exchanges.

so it is -- money laundering isç really the achilles' heel of terrorists and drug dealers, gunrunners, all bad folks in the world. kind of a two-edged sword to the whole bitcoin thing. john, great to see you. appreciate you coming in. have a wonderful new year. >> thank you. you as welshes david. david: thank you. speaking of the new year, will we hit 25,000 on the dow before the end of the new year? we're now down about 23 points on the dow but that is still less than 300 points away from 25-k by year's end. do you think we'll make it? we'll talk about that coming up. (daniel jacob) for every hour that you're idling in your car, you're sending about half a gallon of gasoline up in the air. that amounts to about 10 pounds of carbon dioxide every week. (malo hutson) growth is good, but when it starts impacting our quality of air and quality of life, that's a problem.

so forward-thinking cities like sacramento are investing in streets that are smarter and greener. the solution was right under our feet. asphalt. or to be more precise, intelligent asphalt. by embedding sensors into the pavement, as well as installing cameras on traffic lights, we will be able to analyze the flow of traffic. then that data runs across our network, and we use it to optimize the timing of lights, so that travel times are shorter. who knew asphalt could help save the environment? ♪

david: last week of trading ofç 2017. the dow is on pace for its longest monthly winning streak since 1959! to nicole petallides at the new york stock exchange, with the year's biggest winners and losers. wow, these are records we

haven't seen for 40, 50 years. >> we have had exciting time being together on the closing bell every day watching one record after another, another stellar year at that. the dow for the year is up 25%, 35% since the election we've had a great run. since month of december we've been up 2%. the month of december makes ninth straight months of gains. since 1959 we haven't seen that in the dow and 1983 for the s&p. today it is to the downside on reports from taiwan's economic daily, demand for iphone x could come in below expectations. it is hurting suppliers and chip-makers that go along with it. with that news today it lost over 27 billion in market cap on reports about weaker shipments. we'll watch for apple going into the close. what rose the dow? caterpillar, unitedhealth, 3m, just to name a few.

o push dow up to levels. we're watching for 25,000. we'll see whether or not that happens. look at names that came under pressure. ge with restructuring also cutting the dividend really weighed on general electric, for the year down 44% for 2017. when we just look at some other favorites that everybody has, david, names like groupon, tesla, all up more than 50% this year. other winders, fedex, google, microsoft, they have been great up more than 30% here for this group. a lot of good news on the economy and the tax plan. big picture, great for the markets. david: nicole, thank you very much. how does all this play into politics? the white house is at odds over strategy going into to 2018 on midterms. carrie chef -- sheffield here. quick question, will republicans lose either the senate and house

in 2018. >> in terms of house, looking electorally there is good chance they will hold it. in this environment -- david: spell it out for our viewers, democrats have to hold 28 seats in 2018. republicans have to hold just eight seats in the senate. so it looks like theç odds favr republicans, right? >> absolutely. the democrats, 10 were in states that trump won including five he won by double digits. so you know, as much in general generic, whoever party white house being held, sometimes the off year can hurt them but in this case because there are, numbers are just so much more in the republicans favor. david: you think people like bill nelson, in florida, for example, florida seems almost more heavily pro-trump now than it was before, particularly with the tax changes. so, republicans still, democrats are kind of licking their lips saying oh, boy, we'll sweep the republicans on this but they have got a tough road to hoe? >> i think there reading too

much into alabama what happened there. they think they can overcome this enormous deficit they came from to defeat roy moore. this was an outlyer. i think if democrats are going to be overly, they will be get a rude awakening. david: the house is tougher one. all 435 sights in the house are up for grabs. democrats need 24 seats to win. 23 of those gop seats are if states where hillary clinton won the election. so the house looks much tougher epublicans, right? >> it is tougher although i will say that the house in general, you look what has been happening the last 10 years, it has become consistently more and more republican. so i think that, it's a little bit safer there in that respect when you look at actual districts themselves, intensity, intensity is deeper for republicans. >> but anti-trump intensity in states voted for hillary clinton also has grown, hasn't it? >> that is true.

there is up-and-coming millenial candidates democrats are starting to recruit. i think republicans should not rest on laurels. what i woion of civil war. when you hear things like senator jeff flake saying there might be a challenger in 2020, that sort of language i don't think is helpful. i was someone not a big fan of president trump in 2016 but i have come a long way to say you know what? look at book coming apart by charles murray, what he said son son -- social logically there is a divide and establishment has not done enough to bring in people from all walks of life, especially rural americans into the fold and have voices heard. david: talk about the fights in the republican party, certainlyç exists, there is a question what the democratic party is now. bernie sanders and president exchanging, excuse me, email fights over the texts. if bernie sanders a socialist is now the flag holder for what the

democrats think about taxation, i think they got a problem. one, he is a socialist. and two, he is pretty old. >> you're exactly right. and i think that bernie sanders was more of a natural kind of coronation for a barack obama world view versus clinton world view. there is no secret there was bad blood between clinton and obama leading into 08. bernie is more of the natural ally. if you look how you are going to win and how the republicans won in '16 it was not getting hard left. it is about, also using identity politics. that is something that really troubles me. just as an american to say that there is future democratic party, look who the chairman of democratic party is right now. he wants to use, race, gender, all these sort of checking the boxes to divide people. if that strategy -- david: bernie, it could be argued liz warren and others in the democratic party want to use capitalism as means of hitting republicans on the head,ç frany

i think most americans favor capitalism over socialism. >> what bernie says the system is rigged. what i would say to them yes, the system is rigged. david: what donald trump said too. >> unrigging the system. bernie wants to unrig the system adding more government which would rig the system even further. david: very quickly as we know economics trumps everything in politics. do you think, let me put it that way, do you think the economy will turn around enough by the 2018 elections in november to give the republicans the advantage? >> sure. well you have the great conversation with art laffer earlier talking about money coming back from overseas, being reinvested. to what extent that is debatable. looking at unemployment at record lows. even african-american unemployment, looking at population struggling under the recession. that is at a 17-year low. you know, stock market record

highs. so these positive, you know, facts, facts first, i'm so glad that people like you, david, are reporting these facts because so often they're getting caught up in the noise and distraction. david: there is another fact, iç the past eight years of progressive administration that pushed policies like bernie sanders enjoys, we have had a greater divide between the poor and rich than anytime in my lifetime. those policies don't help to do what they profess they're designed to do which to bring america together. >> absolutely. look with the cfpb, dodd-frank, all types of regulations who wins in that scenario? big incumbents and big lawyers. who loses? small business, mom-and-pop, main street. that is how you drive inequality having more regulation. that is what republicans should talk about, about how repealing and removing regulation will help actually bring us together economically and also politically. david: let's hope. carrie sheffield, good to see you.

>> happy new year. david: with no generic drug competition, one cancer drug is seeing a massive price increase. no doubt you heard the story, we've got the fallout coming next

david: one cancer drug on the market is soaring. it is up 1400% since 2013 with no generic to challenge it. hillary vaughn with the details. >> david, one drugmaker is being accused of price gouging after the cost of their cancer treatment shot up 1400% in the last four years, after a small miami company bought the rights to sell the drug. the drug treats brain tumors and hodgkin's lymphoma and only drug of its kind with no alternative. lets the biotechnology raise cost for patients unchecked by market competition. lomastine used to cost 50 bucks per capsule for the highest dose the price is now $750.

the drug is waved on weight and some patients need more than one capsule per dose, make the price point out of reach. the treatment has been around 40 years. but on come exists have a renewed interest in the drug after combining with chemotherapy can help patients battling brainç tumors live longer. approving generic drugs is top ibb for fda the commissioner tweeting on christmas morning, the fda approved drugs from january to nerve. fda gave 771 full and 168 tentative generic approvals. approving generics is not the only roadblock for patients. getting companies interested in drugs that only help a small amount of patients could be impossible. they have to spend costly time winning over regulatory

approvals and some drug companies david, say it is not worth it. david? david: hillary vaughn, thank you very much. sticking with health care now, trump tweeting out quote, based on the fact that the very unfair and unpopular individual mandate has been terminated as part of our tax cut bill, which essentially repeals obamacare over time, the democrats and republicans will eventually come together and develop a great new health care plan. obamacare's sign ups have not slowed down. they are matching now last year's sign-up-rate. so is the law really imploding? toç conservative commentator ga loudon, former dehe is democrat ic party chair scott bolden. good to see you both. scott, first to you. do you think it is possible to do what the president said, get any democratic support on health care reform? >> it will not be possible to get any democratic support in 2018 but here is the news flash. it is going to be impossible for the republicans to do anything

with health care as divisive as it is with the backdrop being the 2018 midterms. not going to happen. now there probably should be changes to the obama bill but the individual mandate, they pulled that back, but several other options are still in that. david: i want to talk about those options, but, gina, first to you, it is hard to imagine, particularly over the past couple months what the democrats and republicans could agree to on health care? >> well, perhaps we could start looking at facts rather than feelings as we've been trying to convince the democrats to do ever since the election. we could talk about what deregulation has done for our american economy. if you apply that same template to our health care, it will give americans more choices. it will boost their power in thç market and it will lower costs forker -- for everyone. it is common sense, economics is 01. a lot of times democrats don't want to listen but that is the

answer. david: scott, you said ending individual machine date would be problem, some people think, some democrats think it could lead to serious programs for obamacare including representative pascrell, he designed and wrote up obamacare. i will quote him now. he said they, referring to republicans, obviously couldn't kill it, so they're trying to starve it slowly. that doesn't sound like good news for those of you who are in favor of keeping obamacare. >> that is, that is one person's opinion. the reality is this. if the individual mandate gone away the results of that we'll have to take a look what happens in 2019. here is the problem for democrats and republicans. if the individual mandate had the impact, you have healthy people not signing up because they won't get penalized for it. you will have a very significant insurance pool of sick people. that is going to drive the premiums up. david: that is true. sounds like you're describing an

endç to obamacare? >> no. what i think the government is going to do and what mcconnell will do, this is their republican government. they're in control, they will have to support and financially support these insurance markets because otherwise, not only are premiums going up but -- david: i don't think that is going to happen. go ahead. >> in any event they will have to financially support it in some way. mitch mcconnell believes that. while they may be divisive. that will simply have to happen. otherwise millions will be off the insurance rolls. david: gina, people are concerned that republicans are too close to corporations. if they were to bail out insurance companies to save obamacare, that wouldn't fly, would it? >> they're saving -- david: that is for gina. go ahead. >> that is a bad why, this is the problem with socializing anything. it doesn't work. the market doesn't bear it out. when you have a free society where 20%, just imagine that for a moment, sometimes we forget, how much of our economy is all involved in this whole obamacare

but 20% of our economy is all wrapped up in essentially what is socialized it doesn't work. if this whole premise will never work in a free society. we need to further reduce the corporate mandatp that is the answer. and then we will see the lack of regulation plus the free market thrive and, everyone will be doing better including insurance companies but most importantly including patients. one additional thing. remember that, more than 80% of the people who ended up paying fees with obamacare make less than $50,000 a year. this is not helping them. david: scott, i promise i, i wanted to hear your opinions of where republicans and democrats could agree to tweak the health care system to make it better, quickly. >> you know what, i'll be honest with you. there is so much political bad blood between them. they have to figure out how to keep those insurance premiums down and reasonable so you don't have the spikes and what have but america is choosing obamacare, including very voters

that the republicans want to vote for them. they're choosing it. david: scott i started with you, i want to end with gina. what specifically could republicans and democrats agree on how to tweak obamacare? >> i think taking a look who is really being hurt by this, that is the poor and middle class. they are the ones bearing the brunt of it. it is six people, because they will not have healthy people in the pools. those are things we can agree oç to move forward, free it up based on what we just did deregulating economy. >> obamacare is not going anywhere. david: good to see you both. thank you very much. why recent budget cuts may only be the start of things to come from what the u.s. might do. stay tuned for that.

david: welcome to hour two of "cavuto coast to coast," or i'm david asman. the gop looking to seize momentum, the white house is expected to release an infrastructure plan in january. president trump is pushing a bipartisan fix for health care. here with us is independent women with's forum senior fellow patrice, scott hodge and brian reidl. thanks for coming in. scott, what are we first going to notice in terms of the effects on the economy of the tax plan just enacted? >> the biggest changes will be coming on the corporate side where the united states is going from having one of the worst,

least competitive tax systems in the entire world to having one of the most competitive tax systems. and i think you're going to see a lot of companies starting to bring cash back from overseas, make a lot of investments here in the united states because they get full and immediate expensing of their capital investments. i think you're going to the see 4-rr'vestments leading to higher product it and wages. a lot of big changes in the economy -- david: what do you say to the naysayers who say they're only going to buy back their stock and dui out big -- give out bigger dividends? >> well, if you have a 401(k), that's pretty good. i think we will see a real effect on capital investment, and that's great for the economy overall. david: all right, patrice, let's talk about the individual side of this. i understand that $40 a week, which is what most people are probably going to be getting, doesn't sound like a lot of money. on the other hand, i had dinner on friday night with a single mother who works very hard to take care of her child, a special needs kid so it costs

extra money. $40 to her is an extra bag of groceries a week. that means a lot to her in particular, and i would imagine millions of people all over the country. >> it absolutely does. you know, i had a similar conversation just yesterday with, defending the tax cuts and really explaining, you know, for many meshes it -- for many americans it is difficult to come up with $400 in case of an emergency. if it's an extra $100 a month, that is something americans can put aside for discretionary spending or those things that pop up that are really difficult. andç unfortunately, the media s done a great job of denigrating this tax bill and spreading misinformation and, frankly, lies about it. so when americans start to see their paychecks increase, hopefully as early as february, i think that'll dispel a lot of the lies. david: brian, there was a lot of concern by deficit hawks about tax cut saying you have to find a way to pay for it. it's our money, so i don't think you have to find a way to pay

for them taking less of our money, but the one thing that does concern me is when these deficit hawks start talking about infrastructure spending and saying that's the last thing we need right now, is to spend billions more in infrastructure or for infrastructure when we didn't get much of a boost from the obama stimulus. what do you say? >> well, i think that a smart way to do infrastructure, and that's public/private partnerships, state and local governments including the private sector. indiana's done innovative things. what we don't want to do is redo what they did with the stimulus where you just take hundreds of billions of dollars, you pour it into projects that basically benefit donors and funders. you end up getting projects like solyndra. we don't want this to beç micromanaged out of washington. infrastructure should happen from the bottom-up, it should be planned by local communities to see what they need ratherren than dictated by congress -- rather than dictated by congress based on doe or nors. if you can do that and have more

private involvement, have it a little more grassroots, you can do this in a better way than top-down washington. david: scott, is there a way to use the tax system to incentivize companies to do that, to pay in a private sector way for infrastructure? >> well, there's certainly ways in which you could use like the expensing provisions will allow a lot of companies to invest in capital investments. we could go a step further and allow them more expensing for, say, buildings and larger infrastructure projects. that was put off on the table because it was seen as too expensive. now, we may actually have to look at funding those infrastructure projects by raising the gas tax. david: oh, god. >> no one wants to talk about that. david: no. >> but if you want to pay directly for roads, you're going to have to raise the gas tax. david: patrice, that's something that would cut directly into the middle class. >> it absolutely would. i think people would feel that very immediately. we are looking at an economy that's strong and resilient, we're looking atç low

unemployment overall, so hopefully americans would be able to absorb a little bit of a tax when they go to fill up at the pump. but, you know, they're getting a bigger paycheck, better paying opportunities because of a market that's, like, on fire, and they're seeing their 401(k)s and retirement growing, so maybe it'll balance out. david: brian, it's true, most americans don't own individual stock, but most americans have some kind of pension plan, retirement plan, 401(k), whatever it is. do you think that they care about what happens with the stock market? >> i think americans care a lot what happens with the stock market. i know a lot of people who spend a lot of time, me included, looking at your 401(k) -- david: well, you're kind of a numbers tweak though. i'm talking about folks who, you know, are at the factory all day. >> of course people look at their 401(k)s. i think that's a common thing, and it's been a good few years, and i think this has made a lot of families a lot more savvy about making sure that we do things to keep their 401(k) doing well, we keep the economy

moving, we make sure that businesses have the ability to invest capital and to do better because when they do better, your 401(k) does better. david: scott, how high do you think this tax cut program is going to allow the market toç rise? >> i'm not sure about the stock market itself, but when we model the tax plan, we found that it would boost -- at least in the short term -- the economy from, say, 2% annual growth to 2.4-2.5% annual growth over the next five years. it will begin to -- david: what happened to that 3% number we heard from donald trump? >> well, it's going to take a little bit more like regulatory reform would be a big step in helping to unlock some of the pent-up business that are being us frustrated by these regulations. david: all right. guys, i want to move on because u.n. ambassador nikki haley has signaled a major cut to the u.n. budget and saying this $285 million a year is just the beginning. brian, we have been, you and i have been up close and personal

with the way the u.n. does business for decades now. what do you think about this? are we finally going to see some real reform here? >> hopefully. because this is a legitimate cut. right now the u.s. funds 22% of the u.n. budget. we fund about $600 million a year out of hair $2.7 billion -- their $2.7 billion budget. by the way, we also put a couple billion dollars into actualç peace item keeping and stuff like that across the globe. for the budget we fund 600 out of 2.7 billion. this will help. hopefully, the u.n. will start to realize if the united states is going to be funding so much of their budget, perhaps the u.n. shouldn't exist just to beat up on the united states and israel. david: right. patrice, one of the reasons why more government spending doesn't work is because of accountability. it's much easier to hide your mistakes be you're in the public sector because us taxpayers bail out those mistakes than -- in private sector you're fired. in public sector you just keep

making mistake after mistake. the only thing worse than a bure with rock city is an international buick record city. there, which is what the u.n. is, it's impossible to make for accountability, right? >> oh, my goodness. the united nations is bloated, it's inefficient and inebbfective. you know, you've got dictators who are barely allowing their people to survive and eat on a daily basis telling us what we should be doing as a sovereign nation, particularly most recently this vote on where we should locate our u.s. embassy. you know, i think this is an important step. it sends a message to other countries that, yes, you should be able to vote with your dollars, so to speak. and hopefully, other countries who haveç felt, well, you know what? we just need to go along with the agenda to be popular will take that message and follow along. david: right. and, scott, of course, you see these pictures that they put out of unicef babies that are being helped and everything. there are some good causes at the united nations, but the actuality is -- and, again, i've

seen it up close and personal. i've lived in manhattan for over 30 years now. you see all these u.n. personnel at $500 lunches drinking fine bottles of wine. i know they don't have a provision in accounting, but at the same time money is fungible. if people, if americans knew that their tax dollars were being used to pay for $500 lunches, they might be even more angry. >> the bloat and the largess are legendary. brian has documented that extensively during his career and others. and the fact that they put dictators on the human rights council, things like that, they're pleatly out of touch. and -- completely out of touch. and i think this will be a big wake-up call to those international bureaucrats that we mean business. we want some accountability, and this ought to be a wake-up call to the world health organization, the oecd and others that have really lost touch with the people that are funding them.ç david: although, brian, you know, we've seen other administrations try to do this,

and some really -- with some really good players like john bolton, like jeane kirkpatrick, dan patrick moynihan, both democrats and republicans trying to reform the u.n., they've all failed. is it conceivable unless you just get rid of the organization or send the headquarters to some place like timbuktu you won't get real change? >> i think the reason we haven't got real change was because in the past we talked about it and complained about it. i think once you pull back $285 million from their budget, that's a little more of a wake-up call. i think that might help a little bit more to get their attention. david: can they do it, scott? do you think they'll succeed? >> yes. i think it's a first step, and it's going to take nickly haley to continue to badger them to get the kind of results we're expecting. david: and, patrice, again, when you think of what people in america need right now when they haven't seen their salaries go up in ten years, when you see the single mother that i was talking about before very happy abouting being able to get an ea

$40 a week for an extra bag of groceries and then you think of how these people that are getting billions of dollars from taxpayers just waste the money, it really infuriates, no?ç >> it absolutely does. now, i will say, though, there are a lot of females in particular who are probably doing better financially, and so we also have to make the case to them why this tax deal is a good deal and why also pulling our money out of the u.n., if it's not being used effectively, is also important. david: yeah. scott, i just want to get back to one thing, because i talked at the beginning of this program back at 12:00 with art laffer about whether there's going to be a tax plan part two that would focus a little more on individual rates which we didn't get enough of in this round. do you think that's going to happen? >> well, we're going to see a move toward fixing some of the mistakes or problems that were in this bill through what they call a technical corrections bill early next year, and that may open the door for some additional -- david: i've got to ask you, that

talks like bureaucrat-ese. what does that mean? [laughter] >> we're going to fix some of the writing problems. what's really important is a lot of these individual tax cuts expire after about six years, so they're going to have to revisit and make them permanent. that's one of the reasons why our models show this plan didn't get as much economic growth as it really wanted to, because they had these temporary provisions. david: brian, when i think of theç 1986 permanent bill of ronald reagan, that didn't last through the clinton administration, so nothing is permanent inside the beltway, right? >> well, we'll see. i mean, the reagan tax cuts in the 1980s did have some permanent effects. the corporate tax rate stayed down at 34%. the individual rates bumped up a little bit. and unfortunately, as long as there's lobbyists in washington, we recomplicated the tax code. hopefully, this time around the low rates will survive, the corporate tax reform should survive, the doubling of the

standard deduction and the child credit will definitely survive, so i think we're going the see a lot of long-term positives. david: thank you very much. happy new year the you. coming up next, will tax cuts be an even bigger boost to the retail sector? ♪ ♪

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. call 1-800-494-4357 today. your contributions to the american cancer society fund valuable research. but that's just the beginning. a cancer diagnosis can kick off years of challenge. and that's where your donation truly shines. you help us fund free rides to treatment. a live 24/7 help line, free lodging near treatment centers. and even efforts to expand access to insurance. so, please - donate today at cancer.org and help attack cancer from every angle.

david: it was in the "wall street journal," to it's got to be true, retail getting a big boost this holiday season so will consumers spend even more when they see an impact from tax cuts? a market watcher joining us now. first of all, do these retail m surprise you, heather? >> no, they don't, david. this is one of the best years ever. i believe the $862 billion is the expected holiday sales number this year which is a big boom for the economy, and consumers are feeling very confident right now. david: when they see a boost in their paycheck -- if, in fact, it comes to pass in february -- what do you think happens? does this help the retail sector even more in. >> oh, it does, for sure. and not just that, but the tax rate on the retail sector, they pay some of the highest u.s. effective tax rates of any sector. and when you look at these chain stores like walmart, target,

kohl's and macy's are up big on the day today, but next year lower and middle income americans that have more money in their paychecks as a result of this tax cut will benefit those chain stores as well. and that's what they're betting on. they've david heather, you know what concerns me and the fact that i live in new york city, which is crazy, i know -- >> i'm sorry, david. david: i i know, i know. [laughter] a lot of people are are sorry about that. no more so than when i buy something in manhattan have to pay all these taxes. i'm thinking that if these tax people like the mayor of new yfrk city or andrew cuomo, the governor of new york, see there's a lot more activity in the retail sector, they may try to boost up taxes even more. >> oh, my gosh, i hope not for your sake. i mean, i can't see that happening to states like new york, new jersey, california and those that were just hit especially by not being able to deduct most of your state and local taxes. david dvd right. >> so i don't think that will

happen. the public would have a big outrye if they tried to do that. david: that hasn't helped so far, i've got to tell you that. we tried with the outcries, it ain't working. >> i hear you. david: let me ask you about goldman saks, because they came out with a prediction which i think is kind of lowballing, that 2018 and 2019 are going to be higher growth but still under 3%. now, we have seen in the past three quarters a 3% rise. is it unreasonable to expect 3% growth for the whole year of 2018? >> no, i don't think it's unreasonable given that the trend is over 3% growth gdp across the board. the economy is firing on all cylinders, and i think we could get a pullback in the markets in january that will be a buying opportunity, but i think in this case goldman has it right that the economy will be perhaps 3.5% for next year, david. david: now, what's really exciting about what they say is the up employment rate -- unemployment rate is going to

come down to levels we haven't seen since 1952, 3, just over 3%. i mean, these are extraordinarily low unemployment rates which means that if companies are going to expand and if companies are going to use some of that cash to hire more people, they're going to have to pay a lot more cash which means salaries will go up, but doesn't it also mean that inflation is going to go up? >> you right. inflation is a problem. one thing keeping inflation low, though, is the fact that the federal reserve is still on track to continue raising rates next year, and while companies are going to hire workers and increase wages, we've heard as a result again of this tax plan from wells fargo, bank corp., i think that may tamper inflation expectations immediately are, again, because we have a very strong dollar, and the federal reserve is at least on track to normalizing interest rates. david: you know one good thing that might come of that, another big thing besides putting more people to the to work, i think a lot of people went many to retirement not early, but before

they felt ready to, and they had a lot of experience, they could do a lot ofç mentoring in their work force. these people might be persuaded to come back into the work force. what do you think? >> oh, yes. and they are, david, but they have to. and you have to sympathize with the baby boomers and the retirement community because they're not getting anything on their savings rate. i mean, a cd or a money market is 0 or 1%. so they're forced to go back to work because interest rates are so low, david. it's not good. david: it might not be a bad thing. a lot of these people, frankly, are driving their spouses crazy -- [laughter] by being at home. heather, great to see you. thank you very much, appreciate it. >> you got it. david: u.s. home prices surging in october. to the nicole pit lee d.c. at the new york stock exchange to see what the benefits are for stocks. nicole? >> reporter: hey, david. overall, home building, the confidence of the home builders, the new home sales all of it has been pretty good news. we're looking at these stocks right now, toll brothers, dr

horton, all higher at the moment, pulte up about 1%. the group has done well for this year overall. for example, her taj, the 45%, toll brothers up more than 50%. dr horton to the downside. the big picture here for this home pricesç number that came n surging 6.2% versus a year ago, they're saying that they're seeing strong demand for people to buy the homes and the supply has been shrinking. in fact, if you look at the entire 12 months, the market of available homes has shrunk about 10%. that being said, we're waiting on pending home sales tomorrow, so we'll watch for that economic news. late last week we got new home sales actually raised more than a ten-year high. so home builders overall have been feeling extremely confident, and for those who do want to sell, you probably get a pretty nice penny. david: nicole, thank you very much.

and still ahead, why the rnc is telling the white house some voters are slipping away just ahead of the midterms. stick around for that. ♪ ♪

david: well, government is planning subsidies for the coal industry, so how will that affect consumers? market development group director at the american petroleum institute joining us now. well, todd, first of all, rick perry's our energy guy. former governor of texas. he knows energy better than any governor in america. so one would assume that he knew how to still rate production of energy -- stimulate production of energy, fossil fuels in america. did that cross the line, though, into subsidies? >> well, david, as you look at the proposal that is being put forward by the department of energy, they're really asking for subsidies to be given to two particular fuel sources, coal and nuclear, and it's really putting in jeopardy some of the successes that have been discovered and really put into place by natural gas as a result

of the low cost that exists and how we are able to to use that to lower consumers' prices. really that's jeopardizing the low cost customers are paying -- david: okay. full disclosure, coal would be your competitor. you're a natural gas guy, so you've got a horse in this race, no? >> certainly, we do. and we think it's important that folks understand thatç we're an all of the above organization. by that we mean we understand that all sources of fuel are going to be part of the american portfolio going forward and, in fact, america's fuel generation portfolio is more diverse now than it's ever been. and we think that's a good thing, because it's provided resilient and reliable fuel and energy to customers across the country. david: now, nora brownwell who we've had on before, she's a former g.w. bush appointee, former energy official, she does call what's happening now for coal companies to be cash for cronies; that is, these are coal companies, some of whom, again, have been here as guests on fox business, but who have been very

supportive of donald trump, and this is payback. would you go that far? >> i think really we would differentiate. we would just say we think that it's important that we retain the market solution as way to achieve good outcomes. natural gas has a great story to tell in america. it's reduced emissions and carbon emissions are down to 30-year lows. we have lower prices for consumers, and we've seen the entire supply chain benefit from the exploration and development of natural gas resources, and that's a success story across the country. david: now, "the washington post" had a big piece on all this, and i was trying to find out exactly how coal companies were beingç rewarded. the most i could find, there's this new provision that if a coal company has 90-day reserves, they are given sort of extra credit from the energy department. can you elaborate on that? >> sure, david. it's part of the proposed rulemaking that has been put forward by the department of energy and handed to the federal energy regulatory commission, or ferc. and they've been evaluating that proposal now and are expected to

act by mid january to come up with a solution. but it does reward generating sites that have 90 days of on-site fuel storage which would be coal and nuclear units based on the size of the coal pile that would exist or the fact that they have fuel rods on site and would be a direct detriment to natural gas because we operate in more of a just in time fuel deliverly mechanism. david: even though you a competitor, you look at what's happened to coal over the past seven, eight years, specifically, of course, during the obama administration, they were beaten down like bandits. i mean, time and time and time again we saw the market cap of most coal companies go down sometimes 90% or more. don't you feel that they should get some kind of leg up when you see what has happendt to them in terms of overregulation? >> david, in the ping, customers are already benefiting because of the low cost of natural gas.

while certainly there have been environmental rules that were put in place that were not beneficial to the coal industry, what's really driving many of the investment decisions and the change in fuel generation is a result of the low cost and large supply of natural gas that's available. and it's not merely a function of overregulation, it's actually lower costs and better environmental outcomes for consumers that are why natural gas is the single largest source of generating capacity in the country. david: right. but aren't there some kinds of regulatory relief to the coal companies, specifically allowing them more freedom to export to other countries, isn't that a good thing not only for those countries to whom we're exporting, but also for our country's economy? >> certainly. we won't disagree with if a coal company wants to export their product, that's a business decision they should make and, in fact, at least one company has said that's benefited their bottom line tremendously this year, and we think that's a great use of america's resources. david: i agree with you, i don't want subsidies where they don't belong, i'm not for crony

capitalism at all. if it's just a matter of deregulation of what theç coal companies have had to deal with, the overregulation they've been summited to, you're not opposed to that. >> i think what's important is that we keep in mind the perspective of consumer benefits and low cost. and the system is reliable as it's ever been with, and energy is as low cost as it's ever been, and that's a direct result of natural gas. david: well, it's the direct result of an administration that's also a lot more favorable to fossil fuels than in the past. >> i would agree. david: thank you for being here, appreciate it. coming up, new fears that bitcoin, get this, is being used to fund isis. boy, that's a rain on your bitcoin parade, huh? details coming next.

♪ ♪ david:!íew fears out there that terror groups like isis may be using cryptocurrency to do business. to expert david kennedy on whether or not there's any legitimacy to these fears. you know, already there are these suggestions, david, that

isis has been using it to launder money around. is there truth to that? >> well, with on line currency, and we hear cryptocurrency, it's definitely possible. if you look at how law enforcement used to track bad guys, it was basically looking for money laundering, how you would send money from different locations. it's very hard to identify where the source of the money's coming from and where the destination is coming from. it's almost impossible unless you know the destination and the source in the first place. so law enforcement has a very, very difficult time with cryptocurrency and actually tracking individuals and finding them. it's one of their largest problems they face and something that is absolutely being used. you're talking terrorism, sex trafficking, drugs, bomb-making materials -- dave dade all the evil doers in the world immediate to dissociate themselves from the bad business they're doing, the business that gets them money. and the fbi has a huge department, the department of treasury has a huge group of investigators, expert at tracking money and very often that's why we get theç bad guy.

they are throwing up their hands saying there's no way we can track this stuff. >> yeah. i mean, the fbi is really having a tough time, and the fbi also is overwhelmed right now on the whole cyber front. going out and finding bad guys both from hacking into our infrastructure to tracking where money's coming from and where it's going. it's definitely a pressing issue when it comes to law enforcement and what capabilities we have. the good news is that they are developing techniques and trying to find where this money's going to and trying to find them, and bad guys typically mess up every once in a while. you saw the dark web infrastructure where the fbi was able to find a post several years back and trace them back. there are still ways of tracking these folks but typically not through the actual transaction pieces they've used before in the past. david: i'm a little mixed mind in bringing up this whole subject. on one hand, i don't want the bad guys to do their business, on the other hand, i hate regulations. and one of the things that the folks who are pointing this stuff out are saying is that we

need new regulations for bitcoin and other clip to currencies like it -- cryptocurrencies like it. we're kind of opening a pandora's box because regulators don't know when to stop, right in. >> that's right.ç there's always a delicate balance, and it tends to go overboard. james comey a number of years ago was trying to place a back door in encryption of iphones, and there's slippery slopes an all these different methods that they're looking at, and they're having a tough time dealing with the technological breakthroughs. regulation probably isn't the issue. because i mean, you know, bitcoin, cryptocurrent currency's not going away. it's not bad, it's just it can be used for malicious purposes -- david: so how would you regulate it? >> i don't know if i would do additional regulation. i would try to find other ways of trying to identify these attackers. we already do tracking if you go to coin base, for example, and you put in your information, that's all tracked, you know,

it's for tax purposes. there are ways of tracking, it's just when it starts to move into different locations and geographies is when we start to lose it. david: well, that's the problem, is that you can create phony locations, right? >> absolutely. david: you can create all kinds of virtual locations that allow you to bypass these reporting responsibilities. >> absolutely. and that's not going to change anytime soon. and so, you know, the current thought of law enforcement is, you know, can we figure out a way to, you know,ç attract thee individuals through putting some sort of regulations in place, some sort of technology in place that can allow us to track all these transactions, or do you allow it to be free and open as is the internet typically. and i lean more on the side of keeping it open and free and leveraging other methods of tracking bad folks and putting more and more regulation -- david: one final question to you about bitcoin itself. some investors -- and, frankly, these are the least sophisticated investors -- what they're doing is leveraging up all kinds of things, some even mortgaging their houses in order

to buy one bitcoin. what would you tell these people? >> yeah. it is such a versatile market, and we don't know what this means. i have a number of bitcoin, i got in very early on, i got lucky -- david today how much did you buy it for? >> i think it was 70 cents all the way to, like, i got in to $70, so i have a lot of bitcoin running around. david david wow with. i'm just curious, did you ever think of selling, like, a half of it right now in order to make a huge profit and become a millionaire? >> i have. you know, and it's definitely something that you can go and do. david: just sell half of it. don't sell it all, just sell half of it, bankç that and go n from there. maybe every week sell half. >> but what happens in a year if it's worth, you know, $50,000 or $100,000. david: now you're talking greed here, my friend. [laughter] >> it's a gamble. this is vegas odds. david: think about your future. all right, once you've had a couple of years, you'll do that. good to see you, david; thanks

so much. dade kennedy. >> happy holidays. david: attorney general jeff sessions is ordering a probe into the obama administration's handling of hezbollah's activities. blake burman is at the white house. >> reporter: hi there, david. and the a.g. has asked the department of justice to look into the handling of project cassandra. this project came into light last week during a lengthy political article, lengthy political investigation about project cassandra which they say was launched back in 2008 to try to stop the trafficking of narcotics from hezbollah. now according to this political article, it was the obama administration who then tried to stifle this project cassandra investigation, it says so that the administration would not sort of have any disadvantages in trying to strike a deal with iran over its nuclear program. that has caught the attention of the attorney general, jeffa&c% sessions, who's now asked the doj to look into this. and he said in a statement the

following: quote, while i'm hopeful there were no barriers constructed to allowing dea agents to bring full appropriate cases under project cassandra, this is a significant issue for the protection of americans. now, when senator ben sasse read that article shortly after, he called for an investigation, and now he says in a statement, and i quote: terrorists don't get a path to exploit drug addiction here at home and use american dollars to fund their global violence. these are serious charges that deserve a serious response. as far as responses from former senior obama administration officials, david, a come offing -- a couple of them weighed in calling this manufactured from flawed sources and anti-iran deal propaganda. david? david: it should be mentioned, by the way, it came from politico which is about as far away from being pro-trump as any publication i know, so just put that out there. we'll wait and see how it all settles. blake, thank you very much. appreciate it. the republican national

committee reportedly warning the white house about losing women voters just before trump endorsed roy moore.ç to two fox news contributors, good to see you both. kat, if the economy takes off, all of this won't matter, will it? it's the economy, i mean, that's what it boils down to, right? >> yes and no. i think this could have some impact when you look at exit polling from alabama which found that more than 50% of voters did believe that the allegations roy moore were true, and 60% said that did impact their vote. so it wasn't just the economy. it impacted their vote. and this is alabama where people are, i don't know if you know this, guys, but super conservative generally in alabama. so to have president trump whole heartedly endorse someone like that, i think that certainly could hurt with the women vote. david deafd well, christy, he was for roy moore's opponent during the primary. does that matter? >> no. i think really if he wants to really target women and kind of get them onboard, we're going to have to do a better job at

getting some of these frivolous claims, showing how frivolous they actually are and then really stressing those successes he has like the economy because that is such an important issue for women. they want to see a thriving economy, and he has that to back him up and say, look, this is how we're winning -- >> the roy moore -- david: the bravery of you to come on with a voice where you are struggling, you areç doinga great job. [laughter] >> thank you. i'm sorry, that's just my voice. david: go ahead, kat. >> are you saying roy moore claims are -- >> i'm saying those -- >> that's about as credible as you can get. >> a lot of the sources, for example, the person who forged the yearback been -- >> she added manager at the bottom. there's a huge difference. more than 30 corroborating sources before the yearbook? i don't believe all these people are lying. daf david just to get away from that for a second because i think it's -- in the end, i think most people greed that much of that was horrid. but the fact is that the president himself did endorse the opponent of roy moore in the

primaries. does he get any credit for that? >> i think that the polls show otherwise. i think that people did care about this issue. i mean, to have a democrat win in alabama, i don't think that the fact that a democrat won says something in itself, because that was an outlier race. however, i think the fact that the president did endorse roy moore was a huge mistake. david: after he didn't endorse roy moore. >> but i think the fact that he did was a huge mistake, and i know that a lot of people agree with me on that. and i bet if he could go back in time, he might not have done it. david: what's extraordinary is how closeç the race actually ended up. >> right. i do agree i think it was an outlier, but that is something we have to consider going forward when we're strategizing which is what the white house is doing, they're looking at every single individual race if looking at what they can do. david: by the way, we just had a harvard poll that came out, millennial poll showing millennials are now the largest single group of voters when you look at age in america.

and it's 2 to 1 democratic. the millennial vote. how does that play into all of this? >> i think a lot of people vote on social issues which i guess i get. it's harder to put in the effort to try to understand how the economy works. it's easier to say, okay, well, this social issue, i know how i feel about it, so i'm going to vote based on this which is part of the reason why, again, i think sexual assault is something that's really big right now, and we are talking about it -- which i think is a great thing for women and humanity in general, and i think president trump's enforcement really is going to hurt some of those social issues voters. david: but, christy, if i'm a millennial living at home and suddenly because of the fact i've just been offered a better job because the economy's getting better or and i can move out and get my own apartment, i may putç one and one together d say, gee, it's because the economy's percent under donald trump that i'm able to move out of my parents' house. >> we hope they're going to think of it that way, but i agree with kat that they're just

really into the social issues. they may not think about that as much as they should. and another thing is actually getting them to the polls, you know? that's great that they have all these thoughts and they care about the social issues, but are they motivated to do anything about it? >> also if you look at alabama again, 60% in alabama saying that the roy moore allegations did influence their vote. not just that they believed them, but it did influence their vote. if that's alabama, i think the fact that president trump made this endorsement is absolutely going to come up again in the midterms, and it will impact -- david: what do you think happens in the midterms? >> i think that it's going to be real tough for the gop. i think -- david: you think they'll lose the senate or the house? >> i think it's entirely possible. i think it absolutely is. david: it is a big haul, we talked about this earlier for the democrats in the senate, because they have, i think, 26 or 28 seats that they have to defend whereas the republicans only have to defend 8, and there are some democratic senators that are very liable to good

opposition like senator nelson fromç florida. >> right. i'm thinking our chances are in the senate -- in the senate are better, but you don't want to rest on that. you have to focus on every single one of these races, because they are all important. >> and make sure the gop runs good candidates. no more of the nonsense that happened in alabama at the very least. david: good to see you both. president trump saying the battle to fix obamacare is not over. who he wants to work with him to help find a solution, that's coming next. ♪ ♪ 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.

♪ ♪ >> president trump pushing for a bipartisan solution to obamacare. former u.s. small business administrator hector barreto is with me now to talk about this. hector, we saw this tweet that he came out with saying he's hoping to get democrats supporting some tweak on obamacare. what do you think, will it have any effect at all? >> i hope so. look, we learned that when one party tries to get health care done, it doesn't work. we'd love to see some democrats reach over, work with the president, especially on the areas they agree with. and i think there's aç chance going into a midterm election you're going to have some

democrats wanting to work with the administration and trying to at least be part of the solution and not just be part of the problem. david: even if the grand goal of the democratic party is for single payer? >> well, you know, they won't anytime that, but one of the things -- admit that, bun of the things they keep saying is they don't want millions of people to lose their coverage. this is their opportunity to step up to the plate, to work with the administration, to work with congress to make some fixes. i don't think they're going to get a big, comprehensive health care bill, but i think they can do some things to protect people, make sure that they don't lose their coverage and provide more flexibility to small businesses. david: well, we remember very clearly that president obama, before he was president, he made a comment in front of unions saying he wanted single payer and that's what this process was leading up to. of course, bernie sanders wants single payer, and he's in many ways the flag bearer for the democratic party nowadays. so how does the president work this? does he try to split off those

moderate democrats who are worried about this socialist move by the democratic party or what? >> well, i think you're going to see, you know, you were talking in the last segment about how manyç democrats are defending their seats especially in the senate, some in the house on districts or states that the president carried. so it's either going to be much more sensitive going into this next year to not just be seen as obstructionists. look, the majority of american people do not want single payer. what they want is private sector solutions, and we haven't had that with the mandate and with some of the other things that were inflicted upon americans, especially small businesses. we were promised a lot of things. those things didn't come true. now i think we have an opportunity to go back and fix what wasn't working before. david: well, now you do have an obamacare mandate for individuals removed, but you still have the business portion of that mandate intact. how much of a problem is that for small business? >> well, especially for those businesses that employ maybe 50

or more employees -- david: right. >> -- it is an issue, and costs are an issue. we want to see things that the administration, especially the president, talked about during the campaign. we want to see the expansion of health savings accounts, we want people to be able to buy coverage across state lines the way the big companies do, we want more incentives for them to provide health care to their employees, and we want more choice and more flexibility. all the things that we didn't get underç the affordable care act. david: well, are there -- forgive me, but you're an inside the beltway kind of guy. you're used to dealing with both sides of a to the -- sides of the political aisle. do you know personally of democrats now in congress that could work with you and with small businesses to come up with a free market plan for changing obamacare? >> look, you have some more moderate, maybe conservative democrats. not very many of them, but you have folks like joe manchin and others who have said that they want to work with this

president, they're just looking for an opportunity to be able to provide some of their ideas. but -- david: so would they define -- forgive me, hector, would they defy the kind of leadership that you now, it's kind of an ad hoc leadership, people like nancy pelosi who don't want to deal, would they be willing to directly defy them to work with president trump? >> look, david, i don't live in washington, d.c., but one thing i do know, it's about survival for these guys. and if they think they're not going to win because they are holding the company line which is the democratic line, i think that you going to see a couple of those folks at least getç closer to agreeing on some of the things that the administration and the republican congress are putting forward. you've got to look at that on a case-by-case basis, but a lot of democrats are very nervous about their prospects for next year. i think the senate is going to be very tough for the democrats to take next year.

dave: you must be so happy you were able to move out of washington, aren't you? get back to l.a. just for the weather alone. >> it's great out here. i invite everybody. david: all right. we're beginning into single digits this week in the northeast, by way, just to make my point. hector, thank you very much for coming in. appreciate it. >> thanks, dade. david: coming up, apple down on reports of lower than expected iphone x first quarter shipments, so how how do they recover, or is this just a blip for apple? more on that coming up. ♪ ♪

. .

no matter how the markets change... at t. rowe price... our disciplined approach remains. global markets may be uncertain... but you can feel confident in our investment experience around the world. call us or your advisor... t. rowe price.

invest with confidence. david: coming up in two hours after "after the bell," former u.n. ambassador john bolton weighing in on the trump administration cutting u.n. funds. you don't want to miss that. you don't want to miss trish reagan it is all yours. trish: thank you, david. president trump in the winter white house in florida. despite all the warm weather he is setting his sights on aggressive 2018 agenda i'm trish regan welcome to@&c @&c% "the intelligence report." i hope you had a wonderful christmas. what is next for the president as we head into the new year? we know his trillion dollar infrastructure plan is at the top of the list. what about health care and welfare reform? we have info straight ahead. investors looking to build on the record year on wall street. stoc