>> i know, it is not fun. >> disaster, you hit on it. doug schoen might be right, the emergency declaration might be the play politically. we will see if that happens. >> in the meantime maybe they will sort it out on bulls & bears which starts right now. david: the shutdown showdown reaching a boiling point on day 19, fireworks in key meeting with president and top congressional leaders of both parties. we are live at the white house with the very latest. i'm david asman thanks for joining us today. joining me is the panel today. well, the president apparently walking out of a bipartisan meeting this afternoon with top congressional leaders. let's go straight to edward lawrence at the white house. what happened >> it was a tale of two views of this same meeting. president donald trump did walk out of the meeting that he had called with house and senate leadership. the house minority leader kevin

mccarthy says the president asked one simple question on if democrats would negotiate at all. >> politely asked her, okay, nancy, if we open the government up, in 30 days, could we have border security? she raised her hand and said no, not at all. the president calmly said, i guess you're still not wanting to deal with the problem. >> and the president working today to try and get democrats engaged. he actually went to capitol hill for the republican senate luncheon today to make sure that senators remained unified -- republican senators that is. he says they are unified in this. then the president came back for that meeting that you saw which lasted just about 20 minutes. >> if you don't understand financial insecurity, then you would have a policy that takes pride in saying i'm going to keep government shut down for months, for years, unless you totally agree to my position.

>> and president donald trump tweeting about the meeting, as you can guess, he said, quote, just left a meeting with chuck and nancy, a total waste of time. i asked what is going to happen in 30 days if i quickly open things up? are you going to approve border security, which includes a wall or steel barrier? nancy said no. i said bye-bye. nothing else works. and the president wants a deal with this. he's trying to get the democrats engaged. republicans saying let's do this all together in one package, open the government, deal with border security. the democrats saying no, open the government, and then we can possibly talk about border security. back to you guys. >> edward, steve forbes here. how long are the democrats going to feel -- pelosi and schumer feel that they can actually make a deal satisfying the base that they did everything they could to resist the wall? when are they going to say the dance has to stop? and conversely, are republicans going to shake? i mean they had that meeting

today, but several republican senators are indicating they may get wobbly as margaret thatcher said. >> yeah, you know, it is interesting, the republicans first senator murkowski from alaska came out and said that we're starting to feel the pain. you know, showing signs possibly of a -- there, but then she said she's willing to stick with republicans and the administration on this, see this through. that question has been asked, what is the threshold for both republicans and democrats where this just becomes too uncomfortable for their base? it does seem nancy pelosi says they are dug in. they are ready to go. when asked that question, they turned it around on the administration saying well, when the president opens the government, we can talk about all of this. when you ask republicans this, they say well, democrats just need to engage at all. said they are basically nonexistent, showing up to the meeting but not talking about or negotiating anything. >> i mean, is there no room on the part of democrats to negotiate here? look, i personally look at this wall and i say it's a bit sqaund rouse, but they are looking for

5 billion dollars. -- squanderous, but they are looking for 5 billion dollars. you can get a couple walls on that, steels, slats. why not give the president his 5 billion dollars, let him get started on the project, and then we move on with life, unless there's some sort of moral or philosophical objection to 100 miles of wall, but we already have that now. >> that's the conundrum. ten years ago the democrats say they were willing to spend 8 billion dollars on border security which could have a wall there, president bill clinton talked about having a physical barrier there. so, you know, this is something the democrats in the past have supported as well as republicans. you know, it seems like this is all about politics. they are looking forward to 2020 and they are saying, you know, even at the rallies, the president goes to, they are saying build the wall, build the wall. democrats just can't have the republicans have the win on. >> is there any possibility they could do a daca deal with this and then pledge that when they get in, if they get in 2020, they will tear the wall down or

something like that, to appease the base? >> i haven't heard anyone talking about tearing the wall down. the president today even at the signing ceremony of the bill he had, he said he's willing to do a comprehensive immigration reform, you know, alluding to the fact that daca would be involved in that, but he wants to work this out. and opening the door to possibility of an immigration reform. democrats have closed that door up to now. you know, saying that they are not willing to talk about anything until the president opens the government. >> edward, is there -- >> most of those government shutdowns have lasted three to five days, so the first few days, maybe it's cute, but now we're entering almost record territory, and there's hundreds of thousands of paychecks that will not be received this friday. are any of these three feeling any pain whatsoever in knowing that constituents around the country may not have any money to spend on things this coming weekend?

>> you know what, at the moment they are talking about it. 800,000 federal government workers will not get paid checks coming on friday. you know, they may not feel it right now, but after friday, they are certainly going to get the phone calls. they are going to start hearing the grumblings, on both sides, republicans and democrats. you have republicans saying call your democratic senators or representatives and get them to change the stance on this. you know, democrats saying hey, call your republicans, get them to change, so right now, both sides are dug in and not really -- you know, they are talking about the hurt that's coming, but they are not really feeling it, i think. you know, after tomorrow, you are really going to start to see it. we will see what happens on saturday, sunday and monday. that will be the real test on whose resolve is better on this. >> edward, is there any rumblings about any other types of bargaining chips or negotiating points that the democrats could potentially bring to the table because i don't see how you have a negotiation when one side is just unwilling to say or offer up anything whatsoever?

>> yeah, at this point, it's a total stalemate for the democrats standpoint. the democrats are saying simply, and they've been unified in this at every meeting they have attended, starting with last weekend, saying, you know, open the government, then we'll talk about border security. but as you saw today, the house speaker apparently saying no, she would never vote for a wall as part of border security. so, you know, i don't see how this impasse is going to get rectified any time soon. you know, tomorrow matches the record, 21 days, back in the 90s for the longest government shutdown. david: this is a partial government shutdown, and this might be a partial solution to the partial government shutdown, edward. it's just coming across the prez, my producer -- across the press, my producer sent it to me, a majority of the u.s. house has voted to approve a bill opening the treasury department and several other agencies. it is a partial, partial reopening of the government. have you heard anything about this? that presumably would allow some

of the checks to go out. >> no, i have. you know, that bill is actually going to be doa when it gets into the senate. senator mcconnell has already come out and said that we are not going to piecemeal this together. he said he's standing with the administration. the series of bills that the democrats will pass out of the house are really going nowhere. senator mcconnell has said a couple days ago that it is just a waste of time. today in fact, he reiterated he won't bring them up for a vote at all. >> edward, is there any possibility as a weapon trump could use other than national emergency, to take existing wall, we have miles of existing wall and threaten to name it after schumer and pelosi? [laughter] >> i don't know, that is is on the table. the national security declaration is still on the table. the president saying he's looking at it, but not saying he's ready to do it yet. it feels more and more we may be ed hed that direction -- headed that direction. if that does happen, you can expect legal challenges to it almost immediately. again, the president leaving that on the table for the

military to somehow build the wall. >> senator manchin, who's a democrat, he's kind of the single moderate democrat, it seems in the senate, he actually said on fox news yesterday that if there was a declaration of national emergency, he could at least go along with it in order to get the government fully reopened again. so there's one democrat who has spoken out not necessarily in favor of it, but saying he could live with that. >> you know, and i think you have democrats, some democrats sort of sending out feelers. a senator was here at the white house today. you know, there possibly could be an opening there. he's said in the past on our air in fact that he's said that he was -- wanted to hear what border agents had to say in person, which i don't know if he's actually had the chance, but, you know, opening the door to possibly -- senator doug jones in his interview sort of opening the door saying hey reach out to me, maybe there's something could be done there. there are some democrats maybe on the edges or in red states that might come along with this. what do they need, seven votes

from the democrats. >> the sickening thing about this whole thing is every day we spend as a federal government 12 billion dollars plus, and they're trying to tell us over 5 billion dollars -- 12 trillion dollars plus, and they are trying to tell us over 5 billion dollars they are holding 800,000 hardworking people and their paychecks. it is an embarrassment. it is a sin. i can't believe they can't get together for the country. it seems to me they are basically defending their own base and screw the american people. >> they are talking about potential downgrade of u.s. debt going forward. if this thing continues and starts to push up against the debt ceiling, no matter what you think about fitch's opinion about the u.s. credit rating, there is some precedent for investors caring about that. >> the fact of the matter is it's purely symbolic. nobody believes that the u.s. is anything but a triple a credit, that the government is not going to make good on its debts.

it is a nice gesture, gets publicity. >> if we are talking about just repayment, because we make our own money here. but if we're talking about repaying it in dollars that are just as valuable, not using inflation to get away with the debt, i don't know if i would have a triple a now, have an investment grade, not triple a. >> the u.s. defaulted back in the 70s and several times before if inflation was a metric. in the real world it will be triple a like it or not. david: thanks gang. we have to move on. u.s. trade delegation on their way back from china, right now bringing with them a possible major breakthrough in the trade talks. details coming next. as a fitness junkie, i customize everything -

bike, wheels, saddle. that's why i switched to liberty mutual. they customized my insurance, so i only pay for what i need. i insured my car, and my bike. my calves are custom too, but i can't insure those... which is a crying shame. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ moving? that's harder now because of psoriatic arthritis. but you're still moved by moments like this. don't let psoriatic arthritis take them away. taltz reduces joint pain and stiffness and helps stop the progression of joint damage. for people with moderate to severe psoriasis, 90% saw significant improvement. taltz even gives you a chance at completely clear skin. don't use if you're allergic to taltz. before starting, you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection, symptoms, or received a vaccine or plan to.

inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz, including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. for all the things that move you. ask your doctor about taltz. it's not there's it's mine, mine, mine. and it always will be forever and ever. the rx 350l with 3 rows for up to 7 passengers. experience amazing at your lexus dealer.

david: good news, stocks continuing their winning streak for a fourth straight day. the markets somewhat encouraged by what they are hearing out of beijing, as trade talks wrap up there. chinese delegation may travel to the u.s. on january 22nd, for additional talks. that as the u.s. trade reps office released this statement today, saying that part of the trade talks, and i'm quoting now, focused on china's pledge to purchase a substantial amount

of agriculture energy, manufactured goods and other products and services from the u.s. so is this a major breakthrough, gang? >> look, call me skeptical, i have a little announcement here from december 1st, from the white house, and i think the news that was today came out december 1st, and here's the problem with china. they lie and they steal. and they steal and they lie, and there are rules on the books now that they don't listen to, and all these organizations, like the wto and all the alphabet soup that's supposedly overseeing it say nothing, do nothing. it happens to europe also, they say nothing, do nothing. we're the only one talking. i'm just worried we're going to be nice to try to get a deal done, but there will be no meat in it at the end of the day. i hope i'm wrong. >> i think you are actually probably right, gary. i think the president is highly focused on metrics where he can say that he's winning. obviously the stock market is something he's very focused on and he realizes that trade is a headwind here.

so i can see sort of a situation where he decides to part and parcel this out and maybe into part one, part two, part three. part one is pledge to buy some more stuff but maybe we never get to part two or part three. my concern is we have had this entire tariff and trade overhang and we don't really get anything out of the deal at the end of the day but trump gets to say he got a win >> what they are doing now is they are doing the easy part, which is buying stuff. china needs natural gas, for example. woint be surprised if you -- i wouldn't be surprised if you see a ten year deal regarding hundreds of billions of dollars, great for the energy industry. those things are easy to monitor. they either buy it or they don't. the real crux is going to come can they make any headway on stealing intellectual property, forcing partnerships with people who operate in china, one way they may try to get around it, the chinese is to create opportunity zones the way they did before, where if you go in that zone, no partnerships, no

forced transfers or something like that. bring the europeans in. i think the chinese want a deal. they will try to figure out a way to do that. and so we'll get a better feel tomorrow, beijing time, on whether they are going to do the purchase part. but the key thing is free trade zone in china. david: the u.s. team right now is on a plane coming back. as soon as they come back tonight, which is morning time in beijing, they are going to issue a statement, a joint statement with the chinese. >> i'm coming dangerously close to optimism on this. i feel like the tone sounds a little different. [laughter] >> look, we're not going to solve every problem with this; right? >> right. >> what we want is enough progress so that we can move on with our lives, so the company chiefs can do business and invest. i'm hopeful this will be -- maybe it is like the nafta thing where it is not quite a totally different thing, pretty much the same with a few tweaks. maybe we get some improvement and we can go on. >> the key thing is removing those tariffs, those sales taxes, you take those off, that will be a huge win for the

global economy and moreover, a huge win for the u.s. economy. >> i can guarantee -- >> steve, i want to go back to -- >> i can guarantee -- >> i was going to ask -- >> the rhetoric is going to be positive from both sides. china, i have been watching their markets. i see what's going on with their economy. and politically, their poll numbers are heading farther south than root canal at this point in time, so they know they've got to get something done, if their economy heads south, but again, it just seems to me that each side is selling themselves and what may get done. i think we will see a bunch of partial stuff and hopefully the market takes it the right way. >> one of the things i think will come out of this is there are going to be reforms of the wto on enforcement because china has found ways to run around that. we reform the old trading system in the 90s. i think we will see a move among our trading partners to reform it again to have better enforcement in this digital age. >> building on that point, and getting our allies involved, why haven't we pursued ip in a

different way? we know that china is filing all these patents. they want to be a technological leader. why don't we band together with our allies and say you know what? we're not going to enforce any of your intellectual property rights unless you do the same? why haven't we gone that route instead of the route of trade and tariffs? >> that's a question i have been asking for a long time. i don't know why they didn't do that at the beginning. tariffs are sales taxes. we're punishing american consumers, american businesses. we should have gone to it at the first place and not hurt ourselves in the process. david: steve, what about this metric that the president keeps insisting on, that somehow a trade deficit with china is a bad thing, and therefore, we have to work towards a balance? do you think that's helpful at all? >> no, because in the real world, every time you go dinner tonight, off trade deficit. -- you have a trade deficit. if you look at the amount of cash leaving the u.s. versus the amount of cash coming into the u.s., it balances out. people invest in this country,

even though we're the biggest in the world, people still want to park their money here, whether they're chinese, english, or whatever, we're the best place to be. david: we're praying for a deal here folks. meanwhile house democrats are looking into ways to establish a single payer healthcare, laying the groundwork for medicare for all or socialized medicine. how will they pay for it? former cbo director sounding off next. a luxury car more teched out than silicon valley? with a cockpit fit for aspaceship. hang on. radar that senses things the human eye can't. busted. and the ability to make a thousand decisions before you even make one. was all this, really necessary? what do you think? ♪

when it comes to managing your type 2 diabetes, what matters to you? step up to the stage here. feeling good about that? let's see- most of you say lower a1c. but only a few of you are thinking about your heart. fact is, even though it helps to manage a1c, type 2 diabetes still increases your risk of a fatal heart attack or stroke. jardiance is the first type 2 diabetes pill with a lifesaving cardiovascular benefit for adults who have type 2 diabetes and heart disease. jardiance significantly reduces the risk of dying from a cardiovascular event... ...and lowers a1c, with diet and exercise. let's give it another try. jardiance can cause serious side effects including dehydration. this may cause you to feel dizzy, faint, or lightheaded, or weak upon standing. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. symptoms include nausea, vomiting, stomach pain,

tiredness, and trouble breathing. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of ketoacidosis or an allergic reaction. symptoms of an allergic reaction include rash, swelling, and difficulty breathing or swallowing. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. other side effects are sudden kidney problems, genital yeast infections, increased bad cholesterol, and urinary tract infections, which may be serious. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you have any medical conditions. so-what do you think? well i'm definitely thinking differently than i was yesterday. ask your doctor about jardiance- and get to the heart of what matters.

david: breaking news we told you about this, we have a tally of that house vote that approves reopening the treasury and the irs which would allow some checks to go out. the bill has passed 240 to 188 in the house. 8 republicans jumped the aisle, but the democratic caucus chair had predicted they would get double digits of g.o.p. defectors. we wait to see how that turns out. again, throughout this hour, we will keep updating you on what's happening on this issue. house budget committee chairman democrat is requesting the cbo

report on various proposals to establish a single payer healthcare system in the u.s. of course it would be a major first step towards medicare for all or socialized medicine. so how would they pay for it? he told neil cavuto earlier today that higher taxes would do the trick. >> what we're going to do in the hearing is explore the options that are available to the country to expand healthcare to everybody, through a medicare-like program, consider the varieties of how we could do that, and what the impact on the budget would be. neil: what are the ways you would pay for it, so you understand, i know you espoused raising the corporate tax rate from 21% it was low cored to 28% -- it was lowered to to 28%, would that be one way to pay for that, or what? >> well, i think that would be a possibility. david: well, for more on this, let's bring in the former cbo director who knows a thing or two about cbo reports, douglas holtz-eakin. you know, increasing the corporate rate to the extent that they are saying wouldn't begin to pay for that. i mean, this is obama care on

steroids. would a cbo report reflect that? >> cbo is going to give them a very very straightforward reading of the kolss of their proposal -- reading of the costs of their proposal. that's the important thing here. so far in this debate, we have had a lot of great names, single payer for all, medicare buy in, medicaid buy in, medicare plus x, no one has had a proposal. what does that mean? if you look underneath the hood, it's ranged everything from little expansion of obama care to take over the entire healthcare system like the british national health service. what's interesting, for the first time somebody is going to have to write it down and say this is what we are going to do so the cbo can give them back the answer, how much will it cost. but i'm with you, if they do anything on the scale of the rhetoric, 800 billion dollars which is about what they would get out of the corporate tax increase isn't going to come close to footing the bill. >> doug, jack from barron's here. we're talking about federal spending here, but don't we in

fairness have to also include in america, the money that people pay for their healthcare premiums, the money they are paying out of their pocket, they are paying taxes, they are paying three ways for healthcare, when you look at other countries that have a universal healthcare system, they are paying one way, we are spending 20% of gdp on healthcare here, other rich nations are spending half that and getting better health outcomes. we are going to get sticker shock when we look at the federal budget et, but aren't we going to save when it comes to premiums and out of pockets? >> i don't see any real reason why you will save dramatically. in the end, the national healthcare bill is what it is, 20% of gdp. and most of these proposals are different ways to rearrange that bill. instead of having private insurance transfer for one person to another, use the federal government to take the money from someplace to pay someone's bill. it is the underlying costs that's the issue. so a second way to think about these proposals is, what problem are they trying to solve? is it about coverage, in which case you would just write

checks, very big checks, or are you going to try to change the cost of care? if you are, how does the proposal do it? things have been thin on that front so far. >> doug, steve forbes here. one of the things that happens when you have a single payer system, of course is you destroy medical research. you look at europe, can cbo factor that in a way, that we will have less good healthcare and less of it in the future with the single payer system than what we have today? >> they certainly can. i think there are a couple of things that cbo is going to recognize right away that are hard to quantify. i mean, number one, you have your point which is we have the finest medical science. you may not think we have the finest healthcare system. but we certainly have the finest medical science, and that's not an automatic birthright. germany used to have the finest medical science and they lost it because of the nature of their healthcare system. so i would worry about that a lot. the second thing is if you take something that is done in the private sector, say employer sponsored insurance and you suddenly move it on to the federal budget, you have to levy

the taxes to cover that bill, and the taxes are in and of themselves damaging. it is not damaging for an employer, employee to figure out how to compensate for work. it is damaging to involuntarily take money from the private sector. i worry a lot about those impacts over the long-term >> doug, let's talk about the execution piece here. we currently have a government that is shut down over 5 billion dollars. we have a government that does not run anything well outside of perhaps the military, and we know that there's even a lot of waste in the military. so even if we could find the fantasy money somewhere to pay for it, the reality is, why does anybody think that our federal government could actually execute this for 300 million plus people? >> i think that's a really good point. if you roll the clock back, say, five, ten years, a lot of folks on the left were saying hey, i don't understand why these conservatives hate the idea of single payer. we have a va system that's fantastic.

it delivers high quality care to deserving -- [laughter] >> what do we think about that now? that doesn't look so good anymore. i'm with you. i think there's a real issue here in execution. we have a reliance on private sector entities, whether they are hospitals, medical device companies, pharmaceutical companies, you know, to actually deliver the care, and if you nationalize that, i think you are really creating a big problem. >> another problem along va lines is native americans. the healthcare system for them is an atrocity as well. >> douglas, i have a rule of thumb with government, when they tell you a billion, it is 2. when they tell you it is 2, it is 4. and we're hearing estimates of 32 trillion dollars over ten years. if we do this, from dollar one we'll be taxed up to 75, 80 percent which will kill the economy and destroy everything in its wake. what do you guys prepared to do as far as messaging about what i

consider being about as big a nonsense that i have seen in a very long time? >> well, when the first medicare for all proposal came out, it was senator bernie sanders during the previous presidential election, and, you know, we did analysis on that proposal and we came up with numbers that were in the 30 trillion dollars range. and at that point, that was enough sticker shock that really i think the debate dropped off. i think now to my surprise, that's not scaring people on the left. they think oh, fine, so it's expensive. it is go big or go home time. so you need to look inside that and start asking questions like, well, do you understand that in that proposal, as written down in law, it would be illegal to own private insurance? >> where the competing ideas on this from republicans? all i hear is that, you know, democrats are going to spend too much money on healthcare, but i look at the rest of the world, we're spending so much more than everyone else already. we can't just stick with what we're doing. who has the best competing idea out there that you have seen?

>> i think a fair criticism of republicans is that they have failed to develop a consensus proposal that they can support. we saw that when they tried the repeal and replace in 2017. the house had done its homework. it passed something out. and what you liked it or not -- whether you liked it or not, they got to the point where they got the votes and got it out of the house. but the senate never landed on a proposal. david: they had a chance to vote for it, but there was one vote that came in. we know who that came from and that changed history. >> i know a lot about that vote. that's not a fair characterization. there was no proposal. that was a vote to come up with a conference and maybe come up with a proposal. david: okay, all right. >> the problem has been they never get to consensus. david: they did have their time, and unfortunately, the republicans didn't do it when they had both the house and the senate. >> i agree. david: doug, we thank you very much. great stuff, doug. i really appreciate it. come back and see us again. appreciate it. >> sure. david: think about this the next time you're on your phone. some cell phone service

providers are still letting third parties track your location without you knowing about it. this is in real-time, and it's despite promises they made last year to stop it all. is your phone at risk? details coming next. i'm a bunch of wind. and just like your stomach after that strip mall sushi, well, i'm a bit unpredictable. let's redecorate. whatsyamatter tanya, i thought you loved being spontaneous? i do. and if you've got the wrong home insurance coverage, i might break the bank too. so get allstate, and be better protected from mayhem, like me.

but when i started seeing things, i didn't know what was happening... so i kept it in. he started believing things that weren't true. i knew something was wrong... but i didn't say a word. during the course of their disease around 50% of people with parkinson's may experience hallucinations or delusions. but now, doctors are prescribing nuplazid. the only fda approved medicine... proven to significantly reduce hallucinations and delusions related to parkinson's. don't take nuplazid if you are allergic to its ingredients. nuplazid can increase the risk of death in elderly people with dementia-related psychosis and is not for treating symptoms unrelated to parkinson's disease. nuplazid can cause changes in heart rhythm and should not be taken if you have certain

abnormal heart rhythms or take other drugs that are known to cause changes in heart rhythm. tell your doctor about any changes in medicines you're taking. the most common side effects are swelling of the arms and legs and confusion. we spoke up and it made all the difference. ask your parkinson's specialist about nuplazid. david: despite pledging to stop selling their customers' cell phone location data, a new report now claims that at andt, t-mobile and sprint are still doing it. according to one report they were allowing real-time location data from your friends to get in the hands of third parties some of whom are reportedly selling it on black market. all three cell phone providers say they are currently looking into this report's claim. is this more proof that maybe more regulation is needed to keep our data safe? what do you think? >> well, you know, i always say that privacy will be the luxury

of the future. that being said, certainly something needs to be done about it. i always get very nervous when the government is the one to create that solution. i don't think that they have the domain experience, if you have heard any of the testimony before them about technology, they certainly don't understand it very well. david: yeah. >> there's always unintended consequences any time they legislate anything. i think this is a really tremendous opportunity for different companies within the tech sector, whether it's in mobile or other areas to differentiate themselves based on privacy and let the consumers say how important it is to them by voting with their dollars. >> what clearly doesn't work is companies coming up on some agreement which you have here and they go back on their agreement. if there is not a law against this already, there ought to be. maybe the cellular players can participate in the technical details of that, you know, the writing of that law and how you do it, but clearly you need someone to tell these people to

stop doing it because they are not stopping now if that report is true. >> if you want zuckerberg on the hill and some of those questions, you will know these people in washington don't have a clue about technology companies. i have a simple rule when you have bad behavior. you fine them. if they keep doing it, you fine them more. this is insane. they can't continue to tell us what they are not doing and then find out what they are doing. i don't think we should let it go by the wayside and say it is part of the future. it is something that should be addressed going forward. >> the danger is that it is going to be addressed, this being addressed on the state level which is going to create a regulatory structure, so i'm afraid since the telecoms can't seem to do it unless they do it quickly, you are going to need a national law on it or national regulation or else california and others are going to take the bit and you are going to have an

intolerable situation where if you place a call from new york to new jersey it can't go through because they have different laws. david: maybe lawsuits will solve this. as you suggested, maybe people suing other folks, suing the at&t or whatever, providing this critical data to a black market, you should be able to sue them. maybe that would solve the problem >> the only people that get rich are the lawyer when it comes to the class action suits. david: as long as it stops. >> i've done a few, when i win i get 7 cents when the lawyers get tens of millions of dollars. i'm not sure that's the answer. >> if they are breaching the contract, absolutely they should be taken to court, but the reality is that a lot of times we sign our privacy away, and in certain cases there are things that just aren't necessary that we do. i think we as consumers need to take a broader role. i hear what you are saying, steve, about the patch work, but at the same time what is the good law? you know what happens. they put these very broad laws

in place. they have these unintended consequences and then it ruins competition for things that consumers may not care about. do you have a law that you think might make sense here for privacy? >> i just want to add, this woern won't help, they reportedly paid $300 to learn the location of people. it's terrible that it happened but if someone wants to pay me $300, i will tell them where i am. david: we will keep that tape, jack. facebook is working with big conservative voices like grover norquist to help combat political bias on their sites. he will be joining us next.

comcast business built the nation's largest gig-speed network. then went beyond. beyond chasing down network problems. to knowing when and where there's an issue. beyond network complexity. to a zero-touch, one-box world. optimizing performance and budget. beyond having questions. to getting answers. "activecore, how's my network?" "all sites are green." all of which helps you do more than your customers thought possible. comcast business. beyond fast. willy davis, who has alzheimer's. i decided to make shirts for the walk with custom ink. the shirts were so easy to design on the site.

the custom ink team was super helpful and they just came out perfect. seeing my family wearing my shirts was such an amazing reminder of all the love and support that everyone has for my dad. - [narrator] check out our huge selection of custom t-shirts and more, for teams, businesses, and every occasion. you'll even get free shipping. get started today at customink.com.

david: facebook and twitter fighting accusations of political bias against conservatives. they are now consulting with some prominent conservative groups and individuals including grover norquist. he of course is president of americans for tax reform and he joins us right now. grover, good to see you. you met with twitter ceo jack dorsey. what has the process been like and are you optimistic about any change in their policies? >> good question. i chair a meeting every wednesday. we had one today, 150

conservatives, and we meet similar meetings in 41 states and 23 nations. it is a pretty good network of conservatives, activists, business leaders, trade associations, think tanks, and some find had some trouble wi with -- trouble with twitter and facebook. one thing they have done is reached out saying what's bothering, what have you seen going wrong? the answer is there have been some problems. i'm glad the questions have been asked. i would prefer not that they come up with some good way to censor or critique but simply leave those areas open for ideas to compete, however rough and tumble it gets. >> do you think that's realistic? first, that's nice they are meeting with you, but you look at youtube which is discriminating against a university, which is refiling

another lawsuit about that, you think that would be an easy one just tell their people, stop it, whatever your algorithms are going to do. why not have a system as you suggest, if it is not illegal, the provider, twitter and others can say these are not our views, but here they are. >> yeah, look, my advice to each of these companies, if you don't take a hands off position, and you edit or censor or limit some of them, you own everything that you haven't censored. you therefore endorsed everything that you didn't censor, instead of saying hey, we're a platform. take what you like. view what you like. produce what you like. but if you're going to choose what goes on your platform, you own and have endorsed what's there. and the politicians are not going to keep hands off if they don't take a neutral position. if the companies don't. >> grover, what are these companies saying they are going to do? i mean, they have already shown

they have a clear lack of control and when you have tens of thousands of employees with their own feelings and obviously leaning left, one would think human nature, you know, you get the results we have been seeing. what are they saying they are going to change? >> well, i think what we have seen is they are stating that some of that has been individual employees putting their own biases into some of the decisions they make. that needs to be stopped. you did see some of the leadership saying guys, knock this off. but that needs to get down through -- all the way through the company. it needs to be taken seriously. somebody needs to lose their job for having messed around with the algorithms, and there have been some serious cases. i gave a couple cases directly to the twitter people that really look pretty awful to me because i was asking around, i'm going to go meet with the head of twitter, what problems have you seen? and i shared some of those challenges there. there is a challenge. there is a problem. it needs to be fixed. i think the only safe way for

them to do it is to have what they used to have, an open debate and otherwise the government is going to come in and say no, no, we don't like the way you are doing it. we'll do it. >> grover, i've got to switch a little bit here. i know you have a great op-ed about some of these proposals of little higher taxes, so i decided to bring in the 1975 tax schedule with 24 tax rates, the highest 70%, and that was at 200,000, and it just seems to me out of the left right now, the norm is much much higher taxes, and they just simply don't care about the taxpayer. what are you prepared to do? what kind of messages are you trying to send out to make sure this doesn't happen going forward? >> sure, i think the most important thing that could happen is to have the republicans in the house and the senate, specifically president trump say on the corporate rate 21 is not moving.

i think that would be good for a rather significant jump in the stock market. the stock market started to go funny not just because of china but also when it became clear that the democrats were likely to take the house and the 21% corporate rate was at risk. the companies that most have benefitted from the lower rates and be most damaged by the rates drift up are the ones that are being hurt today. i think we need to make it very clear to the markets 21% is not moving. >> grover, that's playing defense. good defense. >> yeah. >> why don't the republicans come out with their own version, like a flat tax, propose big tax cuts and simplification instead of debating whether it should be 70 or 80 percent? >> i was talking today to brady who was the republican chair of the ways and means committee is now the republican ranking republican, they're actually spending the time coming up with what do we do next? they don't have the votes to pass it in the house. but there will be an argument

being made starting now about the direction we should be going in. you are quite right. we should be talking about 15% as a good next step, not taking 21 up to 28. but we do have to play a little defense. we have to make it clear, we're not going backwards. we're not going to go back up. the idea of going to 70% which was raised by one democratic congresswoman, no nation in the world is at 70%. the french aren't there. the communist chinese aren't there. >> first of all, we're going to be going further in the hole by about a trillion dollars each year pretty soon. so that's a good reason i think not to look at lowering taxes. but i want -- my republican friends all sound so aggrieved right now whether we're talking about facebook and twitter or we're talking about the dancing congresswoman and her tax proposal, she's been in congress about five minutes so far. i look at republicans i see they control a majority of government with a minority of votes. what's to be so upset about here? there's nothing that's going to get done with a 70% tax rate

right now? >> i don't think we will go to a 70 percent rate. i think it is very interesting that -- and the americans for tax reform, my group is now asking all the democrats in the house and the senate whether they agree that 70% is where they want to go, because we haven't seen a democrat yet stand up and go that's crazy. i would feel much more comfortable if the democrat party were willing to do that. the democrats in 92 had the presidency in both houses, they raised taxes, lost congress in 94. then in 2008, they had the presidency and both houses, they raised taxes, they lost the house and then they lost the senate. before they are even in their seats, they are back at the american taxpayers' throat threatening tax increases. i think they are giving away the house in two years. i'm glad for that, but i don't think the markets and the economy and peoples' jobs should suffer by the uncertainty of these threats. david: grover, we have run out of time.

we need to have you back. come back and see us. >> i would love to. >> jeff bezos announcing today he and his wife are getting divorced after 25 years. what dividing the fortune of the richest man on earth will be like. details next. (engaging uptempo music) - with tripadvisor finding the right hotel at the lowest price is as easy as dates, deals, done. going on a work trip? dates, deals, done. destination wedding? dates, deals, done. because with tripadvisor all you have to do is enter the dates of your stay and we'll take care of the rest:

searching over 200 booking sites to find you the best deal it's as easy dates, deals, you know the rest. (owl hoots) read reviews, check hotel prices, book things to do, tripadvisor. i needthat's whenvice foi remembered that my ex-ex- ex-boyfriend actually went to law school, so i called him. he didn't call me back! if your ex-ex- ex-boyfriend isn't a lawyer, call legalzoom and we'll connect you with an attorney. legalzoom. where life meets legal.

♪ ♪ move to the enterprise-grade cloud that's built to handle all your apps. ♪ ♪ the ibm cloud. the cloud for smarter business. the ibm cloud. if you have postmenopausal osteoporosis and a high risk for fracture now might not be the best time to ask yourself are my bones strong? life is full of make-or-break moments. that's why it's so important to help reduce your risk of fracture with prolia®. only prolia® is proven to help strengthen and protect bones from fracture with 1 shot every 6 months.

do not take prolia® if you have low blood calcium, are pregnant, are allergic to it, or take xgeva®. serious allergic reactions, like low blood pressure; trouble breathing; throat tightness; face, lip, or tongue swelling; rash; itching; or hives have happened. tell your doctor about dental problems as severe jaw bone problems may happen or new or unusual pain in your hip groin, or thigh, as unusual thigh bone fractures have occurred. speak to your doctor before stopping prolia® as spine and other bone fractures have occurred. prolia® can cause serious side effects, like low blood calcium, serious infections, which could need hospitalization, skin problems, and severe bone, joint, or muscle pain. are you ready? ask your doctor how prolia® can help strengthen your bones.

what are the chances that have not already ironed out the details? that is a lot of money at stake. don't you think they have gone into this and pretty much have it figured out at this point? >> i would think so. they probably spent a great deal of time before making the announcement that they wanted to make sure the impact it will have on company and -- >> steve forbes here, guy one time called screeching at us.

he did not debate how much he was worth. he was furious that his wife would know know how much he was worth. he was divorcing her. so maybe we can help jeff out. or her out! [laughter] >> i don't think either of them will need help when you're talking about $160 billion. >> let me say i don't feel so bad for a guy that would be worth $80 billion instead. i think he has enough cake for the rest of his life. i think the happiest person today is steve wynn. because here the most costly divorce before this. >> i assume that $100 billion, how is there a marriage problem that cannot be solved with that kind of cash? he is happy, he's rich. i just wonder, it will make it awkward for me deciding which of the two to stay friends with after this. but i'm sure i will figure it out. >> how much of a cut, if you do not mind me asking, is a lawyer going to get? percentagewise i mean, whoever adjudicates this is going to be quite a wealthy person, no?

>> probably. most states will limit the ability to take a percentage. it's not like a personal injury case is usually based on -- >> he is available at they want him, thank you, brad! >> he asked speaker policy would you agree to my wall? and she said no. he got up and said there's nothing to discuss and walked out. >> we not only facing a partial shutdown but humanitarian and security crisis. >> what the president is claiming in the border is not solved by a wall. >> we want to come to an agreement. we believe in border security, we haveif