just a few moments about the president's budget. the >> shannon: we will get more details on that and much more. a busy day on capitol hill. the president will soon touchdown in rome and gone to meet. "happening now" starts now. >> the deadliest terror attack in great britain. ice is now claiming for the bomg last night in manchester. there's a lot of news today. >> julie: i'm julie banderas and for jenna lee. he bombing killed 22 people and wounding dozens of others. many of the victims were children. please say the man who set off the explosive device died in the attack. investigators are taking forensics to see if he had any accomplices.

they have already arrested a 23-year-old man and connection with a terror attack indicating that the bomber did not act alone. the bomb did not go off until the end of the concert, obviously that was carefully orchestrated to wait for that young audience to stream toward the exits, creating a chaotic scene. >> i run for my life. >> julie: the scream of teens filled the arena. at 12 children under the age of 15 were among the injured. one of them killed was an 8-year-old girl. president trump is calling the terrorists evil losers. british prime minister may label them cowards. >> dozens of innocent people,

beautiful young children, savagely murdered in this heinous attack upon humanity. i repeat again that we must drive out the terrorists and the extremists from our midst. obliterate this evil ideology and protect and defend our citizens. >> this act of terrorism is a cowardly attack on innocent people. this attack stands out for its appalling, sickening cowardice. deliberating targeting innocent, defenseless children and young people. >> julie: rick leventhal joins us. >> we are just across the street from victoria station and the manchester arena where this attack took place. please have cornered off this area. the investigation is ongoing, in

fact, we saw a couple of police officers and tactical gear carrying automatic weapons. i want to zoom in to an area between the station and the arena through some glass doors. that's where i'm told this attack took place about 10:30 last night. as you mentioned, 21,000 people screaming out at that time after the ariana grande concert had just ended. police believe a suicide bomber had detonated an explosive device impacted with nuts and bolts and nails as shrapnel. police say they have identified the attacker but are not releasing his name. you've seen his name on social media, we are not going to report at this hour. she is a student described as someone with a big smile. she met ariana grande back in

2015 and posted a picture of the two of them on her instagram page. she had just got her driver's license the victim died last december. a second girl, eight years old identified. she also died from injuries suffered in the attack she was a beautiful little girl loved by everyone. her mother and two sisters were taken to the hospital with shrapnel wounds. the aftermath was a frantic scene with hundreds of kids stranded at the arena, parents -- police dominic dominic outside and in the arena, there were shoes everywhere. the >> there british intelligence agency released a statement saying it was revolted

by this disgusting terrorist attack. they are executing search warrants in a number of educations places. isis has claimed responsibility, but u.s. intelligence services have not confirmed that connection. >> julie: thank you. >> leland: as rick juster reported, the bombing happened just as ariana grande was wrapping up her concert. now we will show you what it sounded and looks like inside that packed and panicked arena.

chilling in every way. as i watched you watch that video, you got shivers down your spine. >> one of the things that is impossible to tell people unless you've ever seen people who have been involved in these situations is the panic, the abject fear that hits everybody. they're running out of the facility. that's what you see there. >> leland: it brings up an important point. this bombing happened outside the security court. typically you go into a concert, you are screened. it brings of the fundamental question, it's impossible to protect everywhere. >> security is not cookie-cutte cookie-cutter. we can't establish something. what happened here was they had preoperational surveillance. they knew the timing, they used the transit systems they could avoid detection.

there were people going in. the target was the people as they were leaving. the challenges the current security mindset. >> leland: we don't know and aren't going to speculate on exactly what happened here, but we put this together, suicide bomber who had to be radicalized, clearly a bomb that was well-built and well constructed, well thought out. as you just pointed out, pre-operation surveillance and timing to think about this concert at this time and front of exit. that tends to lead one to believe that this was more. >> they may have had training. pick this but because it's the best place. as you pointed out, they were outside the security zone.

and right by a transportation center. that sends shivers down our spine. >> leland: we saw this shift between the bush administration and the obama administration. the obama administration shifted toward homeland security. it will have a security everywhere. now it's shifted back toward taking the fight to the terrorists on their home turf. >> isis said they are going to create a caliphate. what's happening now as they are becoming much more orchestrated. they're saying let's continue

admission, but let's do it outside of the area of the caliphate itself. >> leland: that was a big part of president trump's message. creating that center. a little bit more on that coming up. >> julie: meantime, president trump wrapping up his visit to israel and now heading to rome, his final speech emphasizing america's unbreakable bond with israel and condemning the attack on manchester. parents, unable to find their children in the aftermath, fearing for the worst. >> i don't know where she is. i don't know if she's alive even yet. ready or not, here i come. ♪

anyone can dream. making it a reality is the hard part. northrop grumman command and control systems always let you see the complete picture. and we're looking for a few dreamers to join us.

>> julie: this is a fox news alert. mick mulvaney now about to

discuss the budget. let's listen in. >> the people who perpetrated this comeau dominic i took my son to his first concert when he was 11 or 12 i think all of us have children that age. it's something that hits especially close to home. we stand shoulder to shoulder with allies. we have the victims and families and our hearts. as we talk about these other things that somehow pale in comparison. let's talk about the budget. some of you were here yesterday. it will be a repeat, but a lot of folks were not here. let's talk about what this is. this is the president's fy 2018 budget. the name on the cover is the new foundation for american

greatness. as i read through it on the weekend, in fact, we've been working on this since before i got here, it struck me that the title should have been different. ed should have been a taxpayer first budget because that's what this is. as i was trying to reconcile those two things, it struck me that that was really new. it was one of the things that was new about this budget. we looked at this budget through the eyes of the people who were actually paying the bills. for years and years, we looked at the folks were in the back end of the programs, the recipients of a taxpayer money and we haven't spent nearly enough time focusing on the people who pay the taxes. i've got a couple questions yesterday. i will today about compassion. compassion needs to be on both sides of that equation. yes, you have to have compassion for the people receiving federal funds, but you also have to

receive compassion for the people who are paying it. that's one of the things that are new about this budget. what else is new? it's new in that it balances. we couldn't find a president obama budget that balanced ever. he tried a couple times to convince us that primary balance was balanced. we reject that. we get to an actual balance on this budget within the 10-year window. ed begins to reduce the size of the debt relative to the size of the economy in year one. that's how important it was and is to this president to try and bring in some discipline. if you're looking through the perspective of the people who pay, you would like to be able to tell them at some point in the foreseeable future, you're going to be able to balance. previous administration completely give up on that. as i've said before to the previous administration, if you

borrow money, if i take money from you, and i have no intention of ever giving it back, that is not debt, that is theft. that's one of the things that is new about this budget. the next word in the title is foundation. what is the foundation we are trying to build here? i summoned up this way. it is sustained 3% economic growth. every single time i am called into the oval office whether it's on immigration policy, tax reform policy, trade policy, the focus is sustained 3% economic growth. we have been attacked stunningly by some folks on the left, even the mainstream who state that's

not a reasonable assumption. just think how observant that is to have a 3% growth in american economy is to some people and absurd assumption. it used to be normal. ten years ago it was normal. it has certainly been over 3% since world war ii. the growth rates at the previous administration assume toward the end of the administration and the 1.9% growth rates -- we simply reject it. we reject that pessimism. we should have gone in and assumed three and a half or 4% growth because that would be aggressive. 3% growth is just getting back to normal. i said it before and i said

again. if you are 30 years old and you're sitting here, you have never had a job and a healthy economy. the difference is between 2% growth in 3% growth, it doesn't sound like much. i cringe and i hear people say it's only 1% difference, it's not, it's a 50% difference. that's math. the difference is tangible. 3% economic growth and a healthy american economy, if you don't like your job, you can quit because you know you can go get another job. if you get laid off, you can start your own business. these are the opportunities people have forgotten about and thesengs, the optimism in the country -- at what drives our economy. we will bring back 3% economic growth to this country and those

numbers are assumed. if you don't, the budget will never balance. if you assume 1.9% growth, my guess is you will never see a balanced budget again. we refuse to accept that that's the new normal in this country. 3% as the old normal, it will be the new normal again under the trump administration and that is one of the foundations of this budget. along those same lines, the budget speaks to a lot of the president's priorities. we've talked about this since march when we unveiled the budget blueprint. national security is a priority for this president. if border security, and other priority for him. the total plus up again is $54 billion over the congressional baseline.

the law enforcement gets a significant increase here. that's at the federal and state and local level as we follow through on our efforts to enforce the law. veterans see more money here. that's a classic example of looking at the budget through the eyes of the taxpayer. i put myself in the role of the person who is taking the money from you as a taxpayer and giving it to someone else in terms of benefit. if i can look you in the eye and say i need to take this money from you so i can help this injured vet, i can do that in good conscience, a clicking on the i and my guess is you're okay with that. i'm a lot less comfortable to say i have to give this money to this person over here who isn't disabled, but is getting a disabled benefit or this person over here who is supposed use the money to go to school, but isn't actually going or a program it is supposed to encourage you to graduate from high school or from college but is only 6% effective. that's the type of compassion we talk about and that's the type

of different perspective that we bring to the budget and it's one of the things that we talk about with the veterans. people don't mind paying their taxes as long as they know that that money is not being wasted and frittered away. we also increase spending for school choice. this president is the first president of either party to propose a nationwide paid parental leave program for parents and adoptive parents. there's $20 billion in that over the course of the 10-year window. i gave an incorrect number yesterday, 25. these are all campaign promises the president made. these numbers are sent by the president's policies put onto paper. we took the president's speeches, his priorities, we turn them into numbers and that's was in the document. it does not, not a single thing

in here touches at social security retirement or medicare. why? that's with the president said when he was campaigning, that he would not change those things. i sat in the presidents office with a list of possible reforms, the president at the end of list said yes, yes, no, no, no, and those were social security, retirement, and medicare. didn't change those at all because he promised people that he wouldn't. we can do all that and balance of the same time, because we look at spending differently. we are no longer going to measure compassion by the number of programs or the number of people on those programs, but but by the number of people we help get off of those programs. we're not going to measure compassion by the amount of money we spend, but by the number of people we help. that is how you can get 3% economic growth, that is how you can balance the budget in ten years, that is how you can borrow money from people while still promising and intending to

pay back. that's how you can help people take charge of their own lives. that is the part of the budget that deals with the american greatness. with that, i'll take questions. >> reporter: the president is not sticking -- how does he intend to square that with his supporters? the >> a couple things on medicaid. this is one of my favorite stories to tell about washington spending. keeping in mind, i know that you all probably get this. in washington, d.c., if you spend $100 last year on something and we spend $100 on it this year on that same thing, and washington, people call that a cut. 100 last year, 100 this year, you will call it a cut. i've seen several occasions where we spend $100 last year and $102 this year and many people will still call that a cut.

the budget is hardwired by the congressional budget office to go up every single year. if they say we spend $100 last year and we were supposed to spend $106 this year, anything less than 107 is a cut. i've heard 106 referred to as a freeze because it stays in line with the congressional budget office. a classic example of how washington speaks differently than the world back home. there are no medicaid cuts and the terms of what ordinary human beings were returned to as a cut. when we are doing is growing medicaid more slowly over the 10-year budget window then the cbo says we should or says we will under current law. why do we change it? we change it, or reach angels growth rates because of the american health care act which this president does support. we're looking forward and are working with the senate on

working with their health care bill, but we support the american health care act and that does change medicaid. it makes it a lot better and a lot more able to deliver the necessary services to the people who need it. medicaid is funded in large part by the states. our second largest item after k-12 education is medicaid. we look at it and say this will not work in south carolina. we think that medicaid is designed for a more urban population than a rural form. we would ask them every single year, the federal government, give us more control over how this money gets spent. we can do it better. we can either provide the same services to the same number of people cheaper or we can provide better service to more people at the same amount of money if you let us do it better and the

federal government always said no. the american health care act says yes. we give the governors a lot more control over medicaid. everyone is interested in seeing the truly needy and their state and in our nation get the care that we promised to them and medicaid. there is no better way to do it than under current law, that's what the american health care act does. >> reporter: you mention the previous a administration's stagnant growth and how that has doubled. a member of that administration went on the attack. i'm curious how you respond. he called it simply ludicrous that the administration is double counting the tax cut and the benefit from growth. >> i did get a chance to just see the piece that he wrote. the ideas were rushing into my head for what i might say to

larry. i went back and looked at some of the economic assumptions that the obama administration made in its first couple of years. i want to say, their assumed growth rate was more than 4.5%. this is the first administration in history -- it was the first decade not to have a 3% growth rate, yet they were promising us for a half% growth. if larry wants to talk about unreasonable assumptions, we talk about my 3% growth rate and has four and a half, and we'll talk about who actually is closer to reality. regarding double counting, i think a lot of folks have overlooked this. we did it on purpose because it's hard to count this and you don't want to make to any assumptions. you have to make assumptions about a budget. you're talking about a document that will look ten years into the future. both administrations from either party will make some assumptions. we didn't close any of the tax

gap. that's the amount of money we should collect in taxes every single year, but don't. 2016, that number is $486 billion. almost enough to close the deficit that year and we don't assume an additional penny of that being closed as part of our tax reform. wise and important? there's two reasons, three reasons why people don't want to pay taxes. there is a certain number of people who don't want to do that. number two, it's too hard for them to do. it's too complicated for them to do it. if it's a simpler tax code, people are more likely to pay, that makes sense. if you can really fill out your tax reform, tax returns on a single piece of paper, you are more likely to actually do it. it's also easier for us to pay the right amount.

a simpler code is easier for you to pay and easier for the government to see if you're paying the rent, which allows us to assume a reduction in the tax gap and we don't do a single penny of that. i'm aware of the criticisms. we can come back and say we were overly conservative. we stand by the numbers. we thought the assumption that the tax reform would be neutral was the most reasonable of the three options we had. we can either assume that our tax reform is neutral, it would reduce the deficit, we assume it would add to the deficit. given the fact that we are at this early in the process of dealing with tax reform, without that middle road was the best way to do it. reformat can you characterize the client science program? can you describe those as a taxpayer raise? >> you tell me.

they used your taxpayer money to fund a climate change musical. do you think that's a waste of your money? >> reporter: what about climate science? >> i'll take that as a "yes" by the way. you see my point. what i think you saw happen during the previous a administration as the pendulum went too far to one side where we are spending too much of your money on climate change and not very efficiently. we targeted. does it mean that we are antiscience? absolutely not. we are trying to get things back in order so we can look at the folks who pay the taxes and say we want to do some climate science, but we are not going to do some of the crazy stuff the previous a administration dead. you didn't say anything about the musical. >> reporter: what are your

assumptions for the budget in reference to the wall? congress has come on the record. what are your expectations? >> some folks are very much in support. i did read something and i was really disappointed yesterday. i don't know if anyone is here who broke the embargo. i read the article yesterday about how we supposedly dramatically reduced our request from the wall funding. that's not accurate. the 2017 request was $1.5 billion for border security and 3.0 billion and dhs funding. a much larger than 2017. i'm not sure how the person got to that number.

we are absolutely dead serious about the wall. in fact, after taking care of the national security, my guess it's in the top three. i know for a fact it is. we made that very clear to the folks on the hill that while we did not get as much money as we wanted for border security and the 2017 on the best, many of you were here for the presentation i gave on that and we will see increased border security between today and the end of the calendar year. by the same token, we continue to press on. we do think it's a role for technology, all of which we ask for in this 2018 budget request, but is absolutely priority for the president. >> reporter: you said the rejected not growing 3%. >> keep in mind, because there was a lot of numbers that were floated during the campaign, we

didn't start with any of those numbers and work back. we sat down -- in fact, it was myself, and a few others. what we did is we sat down and looked at the cbo baseline numbers and said what will our tax policy increased by? one of ranges? look at the ranges before that? what does repealing obamacare do for increasing gdp? their congressional budget office assumes that if you repeal obamacare, and will increase gdp because obamacare creates a disincentive to work. we went through the methodology item by item and arrived at the 3%. i also think that you see that as well and the ramp-up to that

3%. we don't assume 3%. our assumption for this year is 2.3 then 2.5, then 2.7 or eight then 3%. it's reasonable. the unemployment rates are defensible. we get a lot of questions sometimes about productivity. we see these stories about a business in utah that can't find enough people to work and people say how are you going to grow the economy at 3%? i'm going to pull the numbers up so i don't butcher these. as soon as i say that, i can't pull them up. the difference between the use six rate in the u3 rate, it was

in excess of 6 million people. the u3 rate is the unemployment rate. they use six is people who are looking for work. that difference is over 6 million people. we believe that we should be able to drive those two together and get those folks and to full-time employment and that's how you get productivity gain. >> reporter: you said you can have an equal to the u3 method. >> and a properly functioning economy, that would be the case. you want to work full-time, but you're not. you're technically not unemployed because that's not the technical definition, but you want to be doing more, you want to be more productive. we do believe we bring those people back to the job place,

they will end up adding to productivity. >> reporter: on the day he came down the escalator, he said we will save medicare, medicaid, and social security without cut cuts. i recognize that he will be saving social security retirement, but he's not saving social security disability insurgents which benefits more than 10 million americans. as the president keeping his promise on that program? >> thank you for that. yes. he absolutely is and here's why. the fact that the call -- we propose to do parental paid leave in this budget. the first president of either party to do that. we propose to do that using the tools that already exist on the unemployment insurance. that's all canada doesn't now. new york, new jersey,californiae parental leave. they do it through their

disability insurance program. that does not mean that parental leave is unemployment and it does not mean that parental unit is disability. it is a welfare program for the long term disabled. it is not what most people consider to be social security. >> reporter: will any of those individuals who currently receive ssdi receive less? >> there are people who are getting ssdi who should not be getting it. report back those people who should be getting it? >> oh, no. people who are really disabled. >> reporter: how do you determine who should and who should not be getting it? >> that's how we picked the administrative law judges because it's a lifetime appointment on day one.

to your point, it's an excellent one. we are not kicking anybody off of any program who really needs it. we have plenty of money in this country to take care of the people who need help. we will do that. we don't have enough money to take care of people who don't need help. what we try to do is look at these programs through the perspective of the people paying for it and say, 42 million americans, i thought it was 44, all take their word for it on 42. the high was 47 and that was during the recession. pre-recession, the numbers were as low as 28. at spiked during a recession which you would expect like food stamps. during bad economic times, more people will go on food stamps. it's completely within reason to look at that number.

it's a 44 or 42 today. here we are, eight years removed from the recession. we've had economic growth, albeit slow. we've had what we consider to be full employment with the limitations, why is the number still that high? if you are paying for it, isn't it reasonable for you to at least ask the question, are there people on the program who should not be on their intention to be up to the government to look at folks who are paying the taxes and say we did everything we could to make sure everybody on ssdi is really disabled? we don't think that's unreasonable. we think is the definition of compassion. a compassion that is balanced between the people who get the benefits and those who pay them. >> reporter: can you talk about that provisions and how to strengthen the federal government? >> let's talk about federal retirement. that's one of our largest changes. simply put, we try and make

federal retirement closer to the private sector. we increase the contributions that they make to their 401(k) programs. one program, we got rid of a cost-of-living adjustment, but keep in mind, those are folks who will also be participating in social security at the same time, which is a cost-of-living adjustment. we thought they were common sense reforms to try and bring the federal government benefit programs closer to the private sector. i'm a federal worker. i have a pension and a 401(k). raise your hand if you're in the private sector and you have a pension and 401(k). my guess is, did you really? she wanted to ask the next question. we're simply trying to get some common sense back into that program. we don't think that's unreasonable. it's the right thing to do.

>> reporter: can you talk about the money and border security? what will the american people say without money? >> to be clear, the 1.5 was the request for 2017. 2.6 is the request for 2018 reflecting the fact that there are 12 months and 2018 and only five months in 2017. all of the above. the replacement wall, new wall, land acquisition, infrastructur infrastructure. you don't automatically build a wall in the middle of nowhere, and build a road to get there, you also have to run utility services out to it if you're going to do lighting for example. it's all of the above and part of the president's commitment. we haven't decided on the best kind of wall.

i think we are going through a competition right now. it's either four or eight. there are different prototypes that are in the process of being designed and built right now as we try to figure out what the most appropriate type of wall i is. we fully expect different barriers will serve best in different areas. >> reporter: are you projecting out how much money you're going to need in the following years to complete the president's promise during the campaign? >> the way this works. keep in mind the federal budget is in name only. they called a budget because i don't know what else to call it, but it's got two big pieces. it has a spending proposal for the first year, and as we get a good bit of detail and then you have these policies and broader brush approaches for the next

year's 2-10. yes, we have specific where we would spend dh money and 2018, but as you go further and further away, get less specific. we do plug-in numbers for dhs. >> reporter: i want to talk about the reserve. how concerned are you that doing that with current domestic abuse and does the administration plan to break agreements with other nations? >> i can't speak to the oa cds. what i will tell you is we do not believe that the proposals we got will harm the domestic production ability. one of the reasons we believe we can reduce -- if you do it slowly, if you telegraph it over the course of time, there is a way to do it without having a dramatic impact on prices.

what she's talking about as we proposed to reduce the size of the strategic petroleum reserve which was put in place back in the 1970s. at that time, we recording over 6 million barrels of oil a day from the middle east and we had limited domestic production. that's why you do it. if we are going to rely so heavily on imported oil, then there might be a national security and certainly a national argument to not exposing ourselves to the risks. that risk goes down dramatically when we have increased domestic productions like we do today. he saw congress last year approved for the first time since the 1970s oil exports out of this country. we have the opportunity to do that. we also produce more oil because of hydraulic fracking. we think it's a responsible thing to do. it is no longer necessary.

i don't need to take this much of your money to bury it and the ground out in west texas someplace for domestic security and national security. thank you all very much. thank you for that. go ahead. i thought i answered this. >> reporter: you touched on it. from yesterday, you said you are phasing in the work requirements and i was wondering if you could tell us a little bit more about that process and how that will happen. and also if you could tell us what you would say to the able-bodied americans who say i want to work but i can't find work. the >> the answer to your question is i'm not familiar with the details of how we phase it in. in terms of what we say to

people is great. thank you. thank you for wanting to work. >> julie: you've been listening to mick mulvaney briefing reporters in the budget cuts, especially laying out a 3% tax growth over the course of ten years, talking about how this helps the taxpayer. he said this is the first time in a long time a new administration has written the budget through the eyes of the people who are actually paying taxes. adding this budget puts a taxpayer first. we have much more news coming out of manchester as well. we are watching breaking news there. the g.o.p. police force their will be holding a news conference from manchester. a suspect's name has been released. stay right here on fox, will be right back

>> julie: this is a fox news load on the bombing in manchester. the ap nonreporting british authorities have identified a suspected suicide bomber as a salman abedi. other reports identifying this suspect as 23 years old as a man who was apparently known to british authorities. we are also awaiting a news conference from the manchester police department. that is expected to happen any minute. when it does, we will go to a life. the bombing so far killing 22 people, injuring dozens more at a ariana grande concert last night. teenagers and children as young as eight years old among the victims. i'm joined by a former spokesman for the united nations. sorry to say we are discussing this today. it is tragic news and the news keeps coming out of manchester. we are hearing reports. not only doing all of the suspect, but apparently somehow,

this could have been a man who is under the radar of british authorities. when you hear that, what does that make you think? >> first of all, what makes me frustrated is that this keeps happening. we have to get to the point where we understand why this is happening. traditionally, diplomats in the u.s. reaction has been to tell arab leaders, muslim leaders to root out terrorism or to do greater intel sharing, i think donald trump touched on one thing that should transfer the state department. he touched on this idea of why this was happening and he really called it out as a religious, islamist fanaticism. what he did was he confronted why they do this and he said, we have to make very clear to those who are suicide bombers, to those who are doing terrorism that they cannot be rewarded for this.

they will be condemned. donald trump used the word condemned. when he was doing was cutting this through to why it's happening. we have a problem and that the fanatics, the extremists, believe they get rewarded when they blow themselves up, when they take out infidels. confronting this idea that you are not going to be rewarded, but actually get condemned to hell cuts into why they are doing this. i think this is a game changer. donald trump was very clear on why muslim leaders and arab leaders should confront this, how they should confront this. i think the state department should take this speech and every single post that we have, we should begin to talk about why terrorists are doing this and flip the script. let's show them that if you do this and work with the religious communities in the region, that

if they do this, that you will be rewarded, the religious consequences will be the opposite. >> julie: that is all the time we have. much more breaking news coming out of manchester. thank you very much. >> leland: coming up, we just heard from mick mulvaney on the president's budget. breaking this hour is what exactly is on the budget, what it means for the deficit that continues to grow. michael warren on the political implications for you when we come back

bp uses flir cameras - a new thermal imagining technology - to inspect difficult-to-reach pipelines, so we can detect leaks before humans can see them. because safety is never being satisfied. and always working to be better.

>> julie: moments ago we heard from mick mulvaney briefing reporters on the president's budget cuts and joining us now for reaction to the president's

budget proposal, michael warren puritan, sr., writer. i want to ask you, don't these cuts take a aimed at trump reporters? >> we should add that this is a requirement of the law for the president to submit a budget. everyone behind me on capitol hill says thanks very much, we are writing our own budget. this is a list of priorities from the president and to the question goes to a fundamental issue. there is infrastructure spending in here. there is an increase in defense spending and there's also cuts to welfare programs that some would argue do affect voters who voted for donald trump, things like food stamps and disability insurance. these are the things that politically, the house and the

senate behind me will have to deal with and grapple with very politically. >> julie: the president said he will not make cuts on medicare or retirement. there are a lot of cuts there obviously, but if you look at our deficit, the deficit was hundred and 6 million. it is $527 billion compared with 459 billion in the same in 2016. the proposal promises to balance the budget and the next decade, bring about his goal of 3% economic growth. specifically what kind of growth will this budget rely on? >> nobody really knows. it's guesswork at this point.

mick mulvaney said he is an optimist on this. probably very optimistic, but the bigger issue here, the one that i think you addressed about the campaign promise not to address social security retirement and medicare, that may be a campaign promise, but it doesn't -- and ignores the bigger problem, not just for the budget but the national debt. these are two programs, very politically popular, their spending is out of control. this is a president who doesn't seem to want to deal with it, certainly not for the democrats wanting to deal with it. they criticized paul ryan when he made efforts. mick mulvaney voted for those kind of reforms. when i asked yesterday if he pressed the president on this, he said he did in the president said i'm not interested. >> julie: michael warren, we have to leave it there. we appreciate coming on to talk to us. >> leland: we are still

waiting for the press conference out of manchester, already late tuesday evening in manchester, getting close to that time the concert started last night. >> julie: when that happens, we'll bring it to you. for now, we'll see you back here in an hour. to be 19 now. >> harris: we are awaiting the arrival of president trump and roam aboard air force one. he is expected minutes from now, his first visit to europe since taking office. we all feel it, the heartbreak over another act of terror. this time in great britain and this time, children at the center of it. the islamic state savages are claiming responsibility for killing at least 22 people at a concert packed with young girls and their parents. before leaving the middle east, our president condemned the slaughter of young innocence. >> so many young, beautiful, innocent people, living and enjoying their liv