2017 was the year of donald trump. america's businessman president who brought fame and infamy to washington politics like nothing we've seen before. >> that's for sure. it has been wild and crazy from health care to taxes while all the stock market refused to quit. so this is your year-ending recap, "velshi & ruhle" style. >> i'm ali velshi. >> and i'm stephanie ruhle. welcome to a special year-end edition of "velshi & ruhle." you know what we're talking about, president trump. he's a bona fide media

sensation. in 2017 it seemed like he was at the center of every single news cycle. >> when it comes to the economy, this president has taken bold and brash moves in equal measures meant to score a victory on taxes, change the immigration system and rework health care, so that's where we start. most of 2017 was consumed by donald trump's drive to repeal obamacare, even though that effort failed. the president has vowed to try again in 2018. both democrats and republicans agree that something needs to be done to improve costs and coverage in our health system, but nobody is talking about the quality of care that americans receive. so for facts sake, this is why we should. >> despite the current debate over health insurance in the united states, the country's health system is considered the envy of the world. that's the company line anyway. but closer scrutiny says otherwise. figures crunched by the commonwealth fund, a medical research group, compared u.s. health care to ten other peer

countries, developed economies with similarly advanced health systems. when it comes to quality of care, the u.s. ranks fifth out of 11. britain is number one. when it comes to access to care, the u.s. is number nine. again, britain is number one. when it comes to health care equity, people receiving similar care regardless of income or geography, the u.s. is dead last among peer nations. sweden is number one. and this one is crucial, when it comes to healthy lives that people lead, the u.s. is again last on the list. france is number one. overall health care in the u.s. ranks last among its peers. britain with its public single payer system ranks number one. switzerland with its private insurance system but guaranteed coverage for all comes in at number two. take your pick, public or private. this appears to be a correlation between universal coverage and health outcomes. and on one crucial measurement

of outcomes, life expectancy at birth, in the u.s. it's 78.8 years. compare that to the average for all 35 developed countries in the world, it's higher at 79.3 years. one more thing and then i'm done. the average annual cost per person paid for health care. the u.s. pays more than double the rest of the developed world and doesn't even get results that are as good. okay, but america is the envy of the world when it comes to developing innovative and cutting edge health treatments. cancer survival rates in the united states are higher than in the rest of the world. but overall, we pay more for less. that's the consensus of numerous studies comparing health care around the globe. say what you will, but america's health system is no longer the envy of the world. >> that's the key to remember, because a lot of people kept on saying the reason we don't want to go to universal health coverage is because our health system is the envy of the world. it's not. it's just not. it's really good in a lot of places. in cancer research america does better than everyone else. but if you don't want a public

system, if you don't want a medicare for all type system, switzerland is entirely commercial privatized system where the only requirement is that everybody has insurance. >> but switzerland and the united states are not a comparison. it's not all of europe versus the united states. the population of switzerland is roughly the size of the population of new york city. >> right. >> so to scale what they're doing here, it's just not a one-to-one. >> right, i agree. but we're the only rich country that isn't doing something about it, so there are lots of approaches to universality. i'm biased about this. i grew up in canada. it's a system that actually works despite the things you hear about canadians coming to the united states for health care, it's not really true. the point is when we looked at some of those outcomes like the age at which you die, could be a lot of other things involved in that. >> when you look at that, it could be americans work longer hours, we take less vacation, we eat more fast food so it's not just about our health care. >> but health care does seem to be at the heart of what you want to fix, largely because it is

still the single biggest cause of personal bankruptcy in the united states. in no other developed country is that the case. in most countries you don't go bankrupt because you have an ailment. >> well, there is a positive here when you think about the innovation. the amount of research and innovation that you see here in the united states -- >> that is huge. >> -- is a big positive, especially for those who aren't well. >> and that's what we don't want to stifle. well, the summer of 2017 was taken up by health care. well, president trump spent the fall touting the biggest tax cuts in years with promises of an instant boost to americans' take-home pay and growth that lifts all boats to new economic highs. even though the president says his plan will benefit the middle class, his critics, and there are many, say the real benefits will go to americans that are the wealthiest and that run the biggest businesses. now, back when trump was starting to ramp up his sales pitch for the gop tax plan, he peddled something very bold.

>> my counsel of economic advisers estimates that this change along with a lower business tax rate would likely give the typical american household around a $4,000 pay raise. that's money that will be spent in our economy. >> for facts sake, is that really going to happen? president trump is making a big promise to americans under his new tax plan. thousands of dollars extra in their paychecks every year by drastically slashing corporate tax rates. that comes from a new study published by the president's have economic advisers. the chair says cutting corporate tax rates from 35% to 20% will boost wages substantially, depending on where you are on the income ladder. he says the booth will add between $4,000 to $9,000 a year. but does his math actually add up? for supply side economists on the right, it's an article of

faith that lower taxes on businesses and the wealthy reap benefits that trickle down to the rest of us. they argue that the extra money that companies get to keep increases demand for workers and drives up wages, but history shows us that cutting corporate taxes does not guarantee higher wages. back in the '80s during another anti-tax drive under president reagan, the corporate tax rate was slashed from 46% to 34%. but instead of boosting wages, they actually fell for five straight years by as much as $3,000 in today's metrics. contrast that with tax increases in 1993 and 2013, neither of which got in the way of growth. the premise also flies in the face of earlier conclusions made by the treasury department and the congressional budget office. a laundry list of economists call the cea report everything from ridiculous to fatally flawed. former treasury secretary lawrence summers goes one step further, calling the $4,000

figure absurd on the face of it. that is in part because research suggests companies are more likely to pass their tax windfalls to shareholders, not workers. but in the end, trump's plan is trickle-down economics plain and simple, which an overwhelmingly majority of economists think doesn't work. >> so if you don't want to look that far in history, let's look to the uk that did it much more recently. over the last decade they cut rates from 30% to 19%. what happened? wages fell. so you're creating a huge tax cut and you might not get wage growth. >> right. the concept is if you have a tax cut that generates economic activity so that it's either revenue neutral or revenue positive for the government, lower taxes but more people are paying it or something like that, we've shown that using tax cuts as a lever for wages, there's just no connection. the two things are not clearly connected. the issue here is that during the election, there were a lot of people, particularly in the president's base, who liked the

idea of things that he was going to do for them. i don't remember any sign that says cut corporate taxes. we are in an economy where corporate profitability is high, stock market performance is very high, interest rates are very low, capital is available. so just call it a corporate tax cut and let's not pretend that it's going to make house holdho richer. >> this is clearly a win for corporations, they're clearly getting a cut, but it might not help the average american. if it doesn't, it only exacerbates this awful income inequality issue that the country is plagued with. >> there are ways to help the average american. expanded child tax credit. you can even cut the lowest brackets even further because i think we accept in a plrogressie income tax system that the lowest earners are not supposed to be carrying the burden. as you earn more, you carry the burden. >> and those lowest earners, who may be eligible to get those credits, need programs and need to be taught how do they file

their taxes? in our public school educations where budgets have been slashed, there are no courses in personal finance or tax preparation. these things matter. president trump got elected by exploiting divisions on immigration. since taking office he's pushed that agenda. in the spring he endorsed the raise act. it's a bill that would cut legal immigration by half and change the way immigrants are admitted into the country. trump announced the end of daca waivers. now, stephen miller, we haven't seen him for a while, trump's lead immigration policy advisor, insists that these moves will directly benefit american workers. here he is in august selling the idea. >> we've seen significant reductions in wages for blue collar workers. massive displacement of african-american and hispanic workers as well as the displacement of immigrant workers from previous years who oftentimes compete directly against new arrivals who are being paid even less.

>> for facts sake, is he right? president trump rescinding future protection for 800,000 d.r.e.a.m.ers in september and his vacillating since is part of a larger plan to rework the immigration system as we know it. the president wants to cut the number of legal immigrants coming in by half and only admit those with high-level skills. that's because the administration argues low-skilled immigrants flood the labor market and drive wages down. stephen miller cites an economist that studied the large influx of cuban immigrants into south florida during 1980. local wages dropped as much as 30% among high school dropouts as a result of the influx, but a rival study disputes that. labor economist david card, now at cal berkeley, says he studied a bigger sample of low skilled

workers and card found almost no effect on local wages and unemployment after the immigrant influx. borhoss is a conservative, card is a liberal and you could chalk up their differences to ideology but the cato institute decided to examine the work. they founding a net wage increase for native born workers in south florida's largest city, miami, after the immigrant influx. now they are defending the d.r.e.a.m.ers program warning that it would cut tax revenues by $280 billion over ten years. whatever the case, the trump administration is calling for a sea change in america's immigration policy based on a premise that just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. the truth is that low skilled immigrants continue to work jobs that most americans don't want to do. whether it's meat processing, food delivery or agriculture, these industries depend on immigrants to function. saying you want to cut the number of immigrants into this country is one thing, let's have

that debate. but insisting that you want to do that to help american workers is something else. that's the definition of a false premise. >> and let's look at what our country looks like. demographics are changing. this country is getting older. people are living longer. and immigrants help keep the workforce young and are supporting that older population. >> you need younger people working to support an aging population. really the big issue is there's just no proof that immigration has a negative effect on wages or jobs. in fact the proof all resides on the other side, that it is necessary in a modern wealthy country where our birth rates are very low and our population is aging, immigration is the only way to keep that workforce going. so this might be more about eth ethnocentrism. >> oftentimes excuses just aren't true. coming up, the stock market, no way ems to say it, gang buster year and president trump

has not stopped taking credit. should he? while 2017 felt like three years rolled into one, we have proof that covering the economic policy with my partner here, it's a lot of fun. >> three? it feels like ten years.

welcome back to a special year-ending edition of "velshi & ruhle." president trump had the good fortune to inherit a good economy. >> markets, jobs and wages have only continued on their upward trajectories since his election more than a year ago and americans are certainly benefitting. the question is how much? >> benefit of all. >> donald trump was elected president on a promise of economic growth. >> we have a great economic plan. >> more than a year on, the president is still trying to deliver on that plan, including tax cuts. america's economy is humming, with growth topping 3% in back-to-back quarters.

>> i happen to be one that thinks we can go much higher than 3%. >> yet annual growth is still below that, in line with the general trend going back to the 1990s. >> i think if we continue to create jobs at levels that i'm creating jobs, i think that's going to have a tremendous impact. >> 1.7 million jobs have been added to the u.s. economy since the president took office, and unemployment has fallen to just 4.1%, the lowest in 17 years. still, wages have room to grow. they're only up 2.5% year over year, not much of an improvement. more dramatic is the 33% climb in the stock market since donald trump was elected to office. >> under this pro america system, our economy boomed. >> but the fact is the president inherited an already booming economy. anyway, the stock market is a

poor barometer for how most americans are doing in this economy. 80% of market gains only benefit the top 10% of earners. critics are warning that the president's tax reform package will benefit businesses and the wealthy. >> what the middle class really does need are jobs and wage growth. the whole trickle-down sales job has been belied by every historic example of these cuts. >> the white house disputes that, citing its own research that slashing corporate rates will increase worker incomes by $4,000 a year or more. whatever the case, it's clear that president trump is banking on big business and the country's rich to grow the economy even more for all americans. it remains to be seen if he will succeed. >> lots of people who were involved in trickle-down economics in the '80s and '90s have come out and said it just doesn't bear out that it works. the idea of it is that if people at the top end have more money, they spend in a way that creates demand and economic activity and

it trickles down to everybody. i think the fairer way to describe the way the economy works these days is that a rising tide lifts all yachts and a lot of people live in dinghies and things like that. in kansas at the tried this trickle-down policy. growth slowed. they had to actually reverse it and go back to a more traditional taxation policy. >> and we have to make it clear that the stock market is not the same thing as the economy. it was actually, dare i say, a mistake that president obama made in his state of the union address in 2016. he was touting the extraordinary stock market because we had a steady climb since the crisis in '08, but he had said anyone who says this hasn't been a great economic recovery is peddling lies. you know what that did? it fired up people who don't own stocks. people who said my wages didn't go up, i lost my house in the subprime crisis. what gives here? that led to the rise of the trump voter. now president trump makes the same argument. now, he has supercharged the market.

>> no question, but wages are what is most important to working americans. what we've seen is stock market, real estate and all sorts of things do very well. regular people maybe own real estate, maybe they have their house, but generally speaking they don't. their wage increase is the most important. >> if you talk to ceos, they did not feel like the last administration was pro business. trump certainly is pro business in the deregulation game plan, but is it going to help everyone? that's unclear. if you like the market, thank janet yellen. how about those interest rates. 2017 was a whirlwind to cover a sitting president to the chagrin of all the other news out there. >> and who knew how much fun it would be. it's all about this guy. our lighter moments, next.

all right, welcome to our last edition of ""velshi & ruhle" of 2017.

i promise we're coming back in 2018, but for this year, it's been a biggie. >> all right. while business and economic policy can often be dry and boring, those words are not in our vocabulary. >> not to us. >> here's some proof. >> you're watching "velshi & ruhle." >> bitcoin, it's one of ali's favorites. >> does it look like this? >> no. >> this stuff makes my hair catch on fire. i would really like to average a weight loss of five pounds per month but i'm not buying clothes in a smaller size just yet because that would be wasteful. imagine i had a full head of hair and i was 20 pounds lighter. >> an entire segment of america's workforce is choosing, are you ready for this, video game playing. >> this isn't my gameboy. >> to my sons, i want you to study harder and i don't want you living in my basement. >> this is insane. wrong. >> no. >> i don't think so. >> please don't get crazy on us

on twitter about this. >> if we're wrong, if you'd like to discuss it further, come on over. >> we're great friends and good at telling each other we're wrong. >> this is the age of hypocrisy, simply saying they felt this way and now they feel that way, that's everybody all the time. welcome to 2017. ♪ ♪ >> wow. i really don't have any rhythm. >> i'm so focused on look at all those weird, bad hairdos. you never have to think about that. you can just focus on the content. >> on the moves. >> he has them. >> i want to just say this has been an amazing year, a great opportunity to be part of the show because there is so much news in the news cycle you don't often get to dig into things. but with this guy wanted this audience, we do. >> thank you to you and thank you for your support all year.

you can catch us together every weekday at 11:00 a.m. >> and find me monday through friday here on msnbc at 9:00 a.m. >> and you can find me monday through friday on msnbc at 3:00 p.m. eastern. have a very happy new year. we'll see you in 2018. >> bye-bye.

♪ prices of the season' on the only bed that adjusts on both sides to your ideal comfort your sleep number setting. and snoring?

does your bed do that? it's the lowest prices of the season on the queen c4 mattress with adjustable comfort on both sides. now only $1199, save $400. plus, 24 month financing available. ends monday. visit sleepnumber.com for a store near you. good day, i'm sheinelle jones in for alex witt in new york at msnbc world headquarters. it's 1:00 in the east, 10:00 out west. here's what's happening. out of the loop. how white house aides got caught off guard by president trump's unscheduled interview with "the new york times" and why the winter white house is trouble for those trying to control him. the russia probe, where is it now? where is it headed? and in what event would president trump fire robert mueller? >> there's new evidence coming in in the form of bank records, in the form of thousands of e-mails. >> when it's in his interests to fire mueller, he will figure out a way to do it, unless congres