tv Cavuto Coast to Coast FOX Business April 28, 2017 12:00pm-2:01pm EDT
stuart: regrettably we're down to our last 10 seconds of "varney & company" it is fading fast. only three seconds left. neil, take it please. it's yours. neil: let me hear this back. we're fading, the last three seconds. and i got to the italian afterwards, if that is your thing. [laughter]. that is the business -- gist of it. who is the rich guy wants to pay more taxes? stuart: eric schoenberg, one of the patriotic millionaires. neil: it was terrific interview. got your point across without being nasty. stuart: okay. neil: what is he going to do. stuart: he stormed out. studio very upset. that is not true, no. he is still pushing for higher estate taxes. neil: right.
stuart: making people pay estate tax. he wants higher capital gains taxes to match rate of tack on income. i totally disagree with that, but that is the man's point of view. neil: bridging a gap, billionaire and on his investment income he is paying stuart varneyare, does that throwing it out there? stuart: no. are we done? neil: let's see. embarass him. is he still a u.s. citizen? is he, i think we got everything covered. you're joining me tomorrow. stuart: am i working with you tomorrow? neil: you are indeed. very happy to hear that. stuart: i'm glad your happy. neil: irs provided all your documents so we should be ready to go, my friend. stuart: thank you. neil: as he paves way now to me, economy appears to be fading in first quarter.
you probably heard from stuart we grew all of .7 of a percent here. we'll flip this around, it could actually help the president's case for dramatic tax cuts across the board here. if we're growing this anemically, i know the first quarter is its own weak anomaly, tends at that to be weakest year, but it is even lower than thought t could pave the way for taxes down the road, even the president's taxes even though the house broad blew print differs. vince, begin with you, end with you, a report like that, anemic as it was, not blaming the president now or president before him will help the case for tax cuts, what do you think? >> i think so. it's a call to action. any boost to the notion they need to grow their way out of anemia, will rally republicans
behind a plan to cut taxes. republicans long believed tax cuts are away to stimulate growth in the private economy. i think you're right, this ends up in column for giving trump energy to get his tax plan pushed through congress. neil: michael what do you think? >> i don't think republicans need motivation. they were on board with general ideas of tax reformer i love having you on, michael, they were on board with need to revamp and replace obamacare. that is where it ended. >> exactly. that is the bigger problem for the republicans and white house, how do you get this through? what are specifics and details? the white house will have listening tour. that could muddy things a lot and make it more difficult to get it through congress. the big problem here, the big issue, can they do this and remain sort of deficit neutral? because that is the best way to get any sort of significant tax reform through. you have to get it through on reconciliation, through the senate. and those are the rules.
so that is i think the biggest hurdle. the white house is going to have to, do some leadership here and sort of lead on finding a way to get this done. instead it looks like they're crowdsourcing this. and that is i think will be problematic. neil: things can change, you reminded me in the past. vince, we're getting word, it is official, there won't be a government shutdown at least in the next week. so they have sort of staid that potential crisis off and found a way to keep government lights on at least another week and beyond that how do you think that is ultimately settled here? i'm always amazed this is even an issue when republicans are running the show? >> yes. but i think there is no bravery in washington to get an actual budget passed. they are constantly suspending the debt ceiling, passing it down the road, continuing resolutions. democrats and republicans have become satisfied operating with government without too concerned passing a meaningful budget.
neil: that is idiotic. happened under prior president as well. we don't do budgets. rob peter to pay paul. limp to the next debt extension. averting the next government shut down. if businesses were run that way, they would be out of business. >> yeah, i think it is foolishness. we've gotten to the point -- neil: we're used to it. >> lawmakers generally don't want to deal with this question. they want to push it down the road, they can continue to fight not pass other things. neil: you're right. >> this tax plan will run into a lot of props. it will really test the swamp here, neil. all of these lawmakers want to keep various deductions in place because they have special interests pushing them to make sure those things stay. it will be a real test of trump's ability to really drain the swamp here. neil: final question, michael on the tax thing, separating the conservatives from the budget no restrainers who are saying we love tax cuts but we don't want to bust the deficit even in the near term. we're not big fans of doing that
it will win out on this argument? >> well, i think if the white house can forge some kind of an agreement to get rid of a number of these deductions so-called loopholes, that's probably the best political way to find a tax reform plan that can get the approval of those conservatives and budget hawks, really sort of necessarily need this to be deficit neutral. but again, as vince says, there is a lot of people in washington who are lobbying for this particular loophole or that particular loophole. this is where i think leadership from the white house, a real sort of heavy push, from even the president himself can sort of weigh in and tip the scales in one direction. sort of leave the he deductions, only deductions that really are the most difficult to take away, the mortgage interest, and charitable de--s, leave those intact and really clear out the rest. neil: you're right to say the president plays a crucial role here. i was rereading luke cannon's
biography, first one of ronald reagan, intricate role and detailed role he played in the tax cuts, especially in eight he at this one, he was on the -- '81, he was on the phone to multiple southern democrats and women, bow weevils. you see skits on saturday "satut live," ah, shucks, there you go again, behind the scenes he is entry cattley involved. that is what you need. you need that out of the president. guys, thank you very much. >> thanks, neil. neil: i got charlie gasparino my buddy, best business reporter on the planet bar none. we have couple developments, one thing here speaker ryan had to push off health care revote on this attempt it rallying a lot of freedom caucus conservatives, right, but apparently ticked off a number of moderates? >> there are troubled waters ahead for speaker ryan. i think -- neil: they're blaming him for
this. how about blaming themselves for their overall enentness? >> at some point, someone in the executive sort of position which he is as speaker, needs to lead. i think that is what is coming down here. i'm not, i'm not saying i agree with this line of thinking -- neil: you throw it out there to alienate people. i admire that. >> i have a good producer, brian schwartz, helps me with that. neil: he does all the work, doesn't he? >> no. no. neil: i'm kidding. >> only 90% of it, but he does do his channel checks every day and the, there is a again, i mean this runs in spurts. it came out when the health care vote failed the last time, ryan was getting a lot of heat. neil: just like boehner used to get. >> i'm telling you we're hearing it again, brian's reporting, my reporting, if taxes don't go through, even though the president, got his name on it,
the man at the top, there will be a lot of heat on speaker ryan. this is very fractious republican majority. neil: more so than they ever seen. >> democrats get in line. nancy pelosi cracks the whip. neil: but didn't used to be that way. it was opposite. >> she is like a drill sargent. she says do it, everybody does it. neil: they're trying to reconcile the notion, satisfy conservatives who want to cut down the size and scope of obamacare. >> right. neil: whatever concessions made to them, win their 30, 40 votes -- >> house freedom caucus being one of them. neil: moderates freak out, right? they shelved it because the votes weren't there, bottom line? >> they're not there. here's the problem, your last guest was right it has to be deficit neutral, i don't know how it should be deficit neutral. neil: it shouldn't be. >> it shouldn't be. we're here in some we are world. neil: you don't have to pay for
all up top. if you want to pay, even ardent liberal will argue they create revenue. you don't have to get all the revenue right away. >> what ryan has to do get something on health care passed, because there are savings there, that you can offset. neil: that is what you're hearing? hell or high water they will settle health care thing first. >> they have to. if he can't do that, he can't do this, probably, and satisfy, you know, the fractious republican party, in the congress, he is, i'm telling you i'm not saying he is out definitely, i'm telling you there will be a scalp to be had here and it will not be president -- neil: but can any speaker handle this? or do they just bang heads? reagan was famous, rereading this luke cannon book, you realize he was putting onus on himself, not the republican leader in the house. he was putting it on himself. >> but remember, he utilized tip o'neill.
neil: brilliantly. >> by the way, again a lot of democratic votes. >> what i'm saying tip o'neill did the job, i hate to say it better than what ryan is doing right now, because tip o'neill religion endairy democrat from massachusetts. ryan will have to fill that position. if he doesn't, he will be considered a failure. i'm telling usually not donald trump's red hair on the scalp. it will be paul ryan. neil: blondish. >> like fluorescent. neil: stop it. are you joining us tomorrow? >> yes, i will be there. neil: okay. we're live. charlie, the party can start like now. special live edition of "cost of freedom." we're taking stock of 100 days of donald trump on fox news, begins at 10:00 a.m. goes right through noon. we have big, big surprises. charlie gasparino. you already know stuart varney. i am not legally able to share some of the other names that i have. just not. we have lawyers who are
fine-tuning things right now. saying -- >> saying joe piscopo? neil: i can not say. maybe that big. >> richard simmons? neil: maybe. stick around. you're watching fox. why pause a spontaneous moment? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis.
neil: what to could about about north korea, president made it very anything could happen. armed conflict is not out of the question. issue i took up with homeland security secretary john kelly, who has been noticing provocations of late of north korea. saying we have no choice but to act. >> he is on the march. clearly his intent is to get a missile that can reach the united states and he is no secret that he is weaponize a nuclear device. when those two come together, parts are at grave risk. neil: is there a timeline on that, that you have, chinese have to do something? >> not to put words in his mouth. let me say i think the administration, secretary of state and others are confident that the chinese will do the
responsible thing. it is not in their interests at all to have a nuclear capable north korea. it is cerinly isn't in their interests to hostilities break out. probably their greatest fear that you would have a mass migration out of the peninsula, out of north korea. neil: all right. following up on those remarks, secretary of state rex tillerson has been saying that we're looking into further sanctions, much stricter as he speakses in the united nations. we have a former cia analyst specializing in north korea. only difference she says right now, is the fact that it is a different president handling same provocations. you're assuming that we are upping the ante here? is that right and is that a mistake? >> it is not a mistake that we want to put maximum pressure on north korea and china. what the trump administration is trying to do is, raise the cost
for china helping giving a blank check to the north korean regime. not really coming through in sense of reining in north korea, what we're looking at probably secondary sanctioning against chinese entities and banks down the road. neil: would that work? >> we have to try, but while i share secretary kelly's hope, i, i'm not that optimistic because china's priorities, they don't want regime collapse or regime instability in the north korea. they want the buffer. neil: yeah. >> i hope so, but i'm not that confident honestly. neil: as a former cia analyst you know the region very well. the argument has been, they have been this way, north koreans, with republican presidents, democratic presidents, they have broken agreements or we have been part of large-scale agreements that they violated, they're very fair and balanced when it comes to offending
administrations so what is the difference that you fear here? that the trump administration could be sabre-rattling too much and pushed in the corner to act militarily, that could blow up the whole peninsula, what? >> that problem goes back to the early 1990s, clinton era, this is not a democrat problem or republican party. neil: that's right. >> the north koreans are to blame, they are closer than ever befo having a essful icb test. icbm with nukes that could reach new york or washington. so i can't -- can understand the trump's administration urgency issue. neil: the fear is that one ever these days they will mean it and it is too late. >> once we get to that point where north korea successfully tests an icbm, the administration would be under enormous pressure to then, even consider a military strike or intercept of a missile. neil: what if we were to strike
down a missile over the korean peninsula, but in the water, not over land? some distinguish that is not an act of war. it wouldn't be deemed an act of war, provocative to put it mildly, what do you make of that? >> i think the kim jong-un regime will respond. we don't know for sure how he will respond. intercept is safer option from the trump administration perspective than a missile strike. neil: i'm sorry, but knocking down one of those missiles, over water, is still as bad as knocking over land? you have provoked the north koreans, even if we gave the chinese a heads up what we're going to do if they do it again? >> still true. but different from striking something in their country. neil: right. i love to have you back. >> absolutely. neil: interesting read. meantime the president is vowing right now to deal with this situation but also the countries
looking after south korea, he is vowing to go after them economically if they keep violating what he says is trade pact that they're taking advantage of. connell mcshane with the latest on that. reporter: interesting what you guys were talking about with north korea. this is big week for trade anyway. comment made by president trump south korea, similar what he said about nafta. we have to renegotiate the deal we have. if that works we have to get rid of it completely. the president was interviewed by reuters in the oval office. a lot of news came out in the interview. one of the things he came out blasting chorus, free-trade agreement with south korea. even blamed secretary of state who in office that was signed, quoting the president, it is unacceptable. it's a horrible deal made by hillary. it's a horrible deal and we'll renegotiate that deal, or, terminate it. now vice president pence is just back from his trip to asia which included talks in south korea, much that we would think, and
we've been told was about north korea. by the numbers, trade, north korea, is one our larger trading partners. look at list. last year from the figures. china at the top. nafta countries, canada, mexico, two huge allies in japan and germany. that is it, south korea at number six. so what is next? well, south, some government officials weighed in on this. the official stance is wait and see. that is what they said after hearing the president's comments about chorus. that great agreement, and other free-trade agreements were supported by republicans in the past but there have been critics, looking up past criticism of this particular deal. this deal doesn't say much about service industries which is a strength by the united states. an imbalance auto trade, steel, u.s. steelheading into south korea. there have been some complaints. we'll see if those things can be worked out in renegotiation like nafta, or if the president looks to scrap it all together.
neil: the timing whether justified or not, is this the time to do something like that with a potential war that could he erupt on that peninsula? >> seems like the president is trying to separate the two. trade is consistent what he talked about for so long and went after nafta. funny when he went after nafta more made he didn't want to get rid of it completely, he wanted to renegotiate, it was seen as soft but now tough talk with a volatile asia nation. neil: canadians to make the call, checked what could be renegotiated. thank you very much, connell mcshane. look at corner wall and broad. the dow is down a little bit. will finish a good month. nasdaq looking at one of its stronger performances. this is climb for nasdaq and technology shares thinking about the ride. nasdaq crossed 5000 for the first time in early 2,000, this
neil: whatever you may think of the president's politics or what have you, technology grouping including amazon, big beneficiary since donald trump became president, to be fair to amazon, this has been long term upward trend. jeff bezos himself has become $10 billion richer as part of the latest wave since the president's inauguration. you have to start stepping back, look at amazon, look what is going on with alphabet and facebook, near all-time highs here, separation of politics and just sheer momentum. "making money" host charles payne where the money is going. this has to be a market leading
group, yet as a group not keen on the guy who is in the white house. what is driving what here? >> it is the new age, right? we've entered the so-called knowledge economy which is driven by the computer, computers and knowledge. they're at the forefront of it. i bet you use the word to add up all the market share lost, all of the market valuations lost say retailers in last 10 years. neil: right, right. >> you probably come up with a number very close what is added to amazon. there has been a direct correlation, shift in the way we do things. we are have to give these guys credit. they are the new maverks. they don't listeto their advisors, right. neil: you and i were talking during the break. all critics of bezos, why are you spending money building pricey facilities, foolish takeovers. he kept plowing money in. >> how many analysts for the last decade come on, they're not bringing anything to the bottom line. neil: right, right. >> this guy was building for the future.
elon musk picked up on that. he is doing the same thing. he is not concerned about earnings. building on to different things. neil: let me ask, as an investor, alphabet google don't split the stock. they are pricey stock. do your average investors say, charles, love to be in on that but i can't? >> the average investor says that. of the top three mistakes, that is vying for number one and two. neil: is that right? >> frustrates the hell out of me. neil: what do you tell them? >> a lot of people think 2-dollar stock is cheap but $100 stock is expensive. share price has zero to do how relative value they are. i get it. neil: appreciate, with more shares. >> i get it. i understanded that is human instinct. neil: doesn't appear that you do. >> i get it, i have a very hard time articulating, please, that is first mistake you make. people do to your point.
if you buy the company and you understand valuations, you can't be afraid to share the price. i believe majority of stocks over $100 are underpriced and majority under $5 a shear are overpriced. i leave that for people. neil: what about technology as a group, charles? it has had a heady advance. nasdaq looking for fourth record close. it has double run up dow and s&p this year. getting a little long in the tooth for you? >> could be. certain names like amazon, facebook, apple, my own retirement account i never contemplate selling there will come a time. there is a stock i have today down 5% but i'm up 140% so i don't care. when you get to a certain level, own the stocks long enough, you built in the cushion you don't have to be a slave to knee-jerk reactions or panic. neil: but you also can't get too cocky? >> right. neil: what happens pigs get
slaughtered. how do you void that? if you're alphabet or apple shareholder made lots and lots of money? >> gone to number one mistake of investors, to number two mistakes of investors, that is shedding names at the peak or absolute losers. we know it. you don't have to be professional analyst. company missed on guidance. they did that two quarters ago. the stock es breaking down, you know it. pride and ego so you don't admit it. neil: you tell holders whether they get in now or had it a while with a nice run-up these are long haul invests? >> if you want them to be. this is how you based selling. if you bought a stock buy and hold you believe in the long-term potential try stick with that guideline. if you bought it at 100 bucks and down to 90, missed earnings by a penny, you sell it, you missed your own goals.
if you bought it for a trade, trade it. know going in how you get out. that will be perfect guidelines. if you start to mingle them, people do, people say i want to been investor, i got a stock we have, mtz. about 44.50. i put it out late last year at 37 bucks. 20% some odd gain. i went through my list, subscribers own it, i would say 12% sold it already. 12%, 10% sold it at a loss. but they knew going in we would hold this three to six months. so tough, neil. so tough. that is why individuals lose money in the market. not that they can't pick stocks. they can't deal with the emotional side of it. neil: so your general market advice is, don't be so fanatical about it? >> if you want to be a long term investor it is not as hard as you think it is. neil: long-term for me is like tomorrow's lunch. >> that is relative as well.
but you can't let the three-month earnings things dictate how you feel about a company longer term. neil: okay. >> western digital is up huge today. i took profits on that. it pulled back six bucks, i felt like a champ. it is 20 bucks higher then i feel dumb. i felt good because it with went down when i sold it. people do these games no matter who you are. as far as these guys are concerned, real quick so the audience knows, amazon first quarter, 199. revenues 16 million. 10 years later, first quarter, revenues, 3 billion, wow. this last quarter, 35.7 billion. i don't know when you sell it but it's a juggernaut now. neil: it is a juggernaut. someone says online retailing makes ten% retailing. 90% are still brick-and-mortar guys. >> got a long way to go. neil: if that is the message. >> some brick-and-mortar guys are starting to catch up.
neil: hickory farms do stuff online? >> just the smoked sausage, that is fine. that is good. charles payne, thank you very much. "making money" is the name of his show. boy, does he make it for you hand over fist. meantime we know what the meet yaw says a lot about the president's tax plan, even fellow republicans say a lot of president's tax plan doesn't add up. gerri willis is following the reports. a lot of cynicism following the reports. what is interesting, gerri, if you go back in history, consensus wisdom on big tax cuts, ronald reagan's or bill clinton or george, jr.'s, very similar type of dissing. >> dissing and also complete misunderstanding. you can tell the washington reporters are accepting that we're all very, very smart, they don't really understand the numbers, don't understand the tax code, major problems with the reporting and major bias. start with the "new york times." here is a headline that caught
our attention. trump tax plan would shift millions from u.s. coffers to the richest. really? take a look at the plan. what does it say? guess what, standard deductions get doubled, doubled in fact. so i don't see that as something for the richest. it benefits everybody, but especially those with low income. high-end, folks getting state and local tax deduction taken back. 80% who use that make $100,000 or more. that isn't helping the rich. statement from the same story, outline mr. trump offered on yesterday overall plan, costly cuts with no price tags attached, rushed out by a president staring down his 100 day mark in office. calls for tax reductions of individuals of every income level as we as business large and small. this wasn't made up on the fly. we have known all along for something that was transformational.
this is what this plan is. it is tax reform, not just tax reductions. there is a ripping away of a lot of deductions, fewer tax brackets, down from seven to three. that is tax reform. and so, it seems to me "the new york times" just doesn't get it. let me show you other headlines out there. these are just crazy. president trump's tax plan would help trump, would slash trump's taxes. trump's tax proposals would be ridiculously good for the rich people. the reason they're stuck on this because the plan does away with the estate tax and amt you know what that is, the alternative minimum tax. but in reality these taxes are really stung, really hit small business operators and middle income people. so, the folks at "the times" and other news outlets they can't get their head around what is real tax reform? that is what we're looking at right now. keep in mind the highest tax bracket is not getting as much
of a bang for the buck as trump originally wanted. they're reducing it to 35%, not 33. so i'm just saying, i think they got it wrong here. be careful what you read. look at the facts, right? neil: we should point out state and local taxes have essentially doubled since that last ronald reagan attempt and he brought the top federal rate down to 28% eventually. right now, they're just bringing it down to 35%. but perspective like you say, gerri, is always in order. thank you very, very much. >> thank you. neil: meantime, some good news to pass along to you. george h.w. bush just discharged from a houston hospital after being treated for pneumonia. expected to be doing quite well which was obviously a concern. we're told that a big catalyst for him was to catch our live coverage, "cost of freedom," beginning at, well, you know the story, 10 a.m. eastern time through noon on the financial implications of tax cuts which he knows quite well.
this is the new new york. we are building new airports all across the state. new roads and bridges. new mass transit. new business friendly environment. new lower taxes. and new university partnerships to grow the businesses of tomorrow today. learn more at esd.ny.gov ♪ predictable. the comfort in knowing where things are headed. because as we live longer... and markets continue to rise and fall... predictable is one thing you need in retirement to help protect what you've earned and ensure it lasts. introducing brighthouse financial. a new company established by metlife to specialize in annuities & life insurance. talk to your advisor about a brighter financial future.
>> does my spirit good to be with people who never lose faith in america. who never stop believing in our future. and who never back down one inch from defending the constitutional freedoms that are every mile-per-hour's birthright. [applause] neil: all right. that is from ronald reagan speaking before the national rifle association some 34 years ago. now for the first time since then a
when he does we'll carry that live. news to pass along in the economy. growing all of .7 of a in the first quarter. it was expected to be week but not week. this is fueled an argument for how you turn that around. if for example the federal reserve, maybe tax cuts is the answer. americans for prosperity tim phillips in meetings about the tax cuts. maybe he can update us. tim, they had to have some idea that the economy would be slower in the first quarter. traditionally is. but now, this is raised concerns that it could be pointing to something more worrisome. a, do you agree with that? do you get a sense of people you were talking to were worried about that? >> we spoke with secretary mnuchin and gary cohn and there is a realization if they to get the economy moving again along with regulatory reform, tax
reform is the way to do it. gary cohn actually said they're fast tracking every effort on tax reform hoping to get it done this year. that is good news i believe. this is a good bold plan, neil, they put forward a couple days ago and it does offer the best chance to get this economy moving again in a meaningful way. neil: as you know there is some problem with this deficit issue here. some republicans who insist dynamic accounting or no, we need to pay for these, make them revenue neutral from the get-go. we can't even a afford a slight dip in revenue while we make the revenue to come in. is the administration worried about that and what could be another health care, you know, kind of a back and forth debate fiasco? >> they know the history of tax cuts, both under the reagan years and during the george w. bush years when tax cuts, lowering the rates actually increased government revenues. they know the history, they know that works. they do i think and hope
understand need to get spending under control. mulvaney, the omb director, his initial outline was good on discretionary spending. it kept within the defined spending limits in place since 2011. i do think they understand the need for that. the health care bill would rein in and reform medicaid, along with medicare and social security are the three biggest drivers of spending at the government level. i do think they understand that. we urge them, they agree, don't be chained to that. go big on tax cut. understand the history that lowering rates does increase revenues. work to get spending under control. neil: a lot of people agree with that, tim. i'm worried could be another health care deal. already looked earlier this week there would be broad agreement among number of freedom caucus members were rallying around a rework of that repeal and replace of obamacare. and then apparently when kaboom!, whatever, either moderates didn't like it.
i can almost envision the same act playing itself out here. what do you think? >> bell the biggest point of contention could be this border adjustment tax, neil, which in our view is a consumer tax, over trillion bucks. house leadership proposed it. president, secretary mnuchin, cohen, smartly did not include it in the plan, that could be a big point of contention if the house leadership consists of that. i believe that is dead. the votes are not there for the bat. neil: it comes back to that and other groups, saying here is our down payment on our tax cut? >> you get it with spending cuts, especially medicaid reform. that would be enormous cost saver. if they get the health care deal done, actually get the medicaid reform. you know what that means. neil: gotcha. >> you covered that before. it block grants it. lowers the amount of money. more importantly changes formula how much per patient medicaid will spend.
it's a dramatic cost saver. we applaud a lot of deductions that the trump plan starts raining in. -- reining in. make it simpler, fewer deductions get spending under control. we urge them, don't be chained to that. be big and bold and changing revenue because of big tax cuts. neil: play off the ol' reagan line, go big or go home. tim phillips, americans for prosperity. influential had the debate that just starting if you think about it. i always like to think that fbn is the best in the galaxy in it. leave it to the hollywood star in the upcoming galaxy movie to confirm it. you always pay
your insurance on time. tap one little bumper, and up go your rates. what good is having insurance if you get punished for using it? news flash: nobody's perfect. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. switch and you could save $509 on auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance. neil: you know, michael tammero, is our marketing guy, right on our floor, now known as a big-time hollywood in guy but what michael managed to do, saying this in all respect, they used to see fox guys coming, they would do like the crucifix thing.
but all these big stars talk to him, and go on and on with him. obviously got "guardians of the galaxy volume 2". i'm only interested in things that affect me. >> i know that about you, neil. neil: one of the stars, kurt russell tell you something, i immediately said book tammero. this is why i requested it. take a look. >> no, i'm a fox business news watcher. really interesting, i started watching in 2008, of course when everything was going crazy. what was fascinating to watch cnbc and fox business news. it was really interesting to watch fox business news versus cnbc and you begin to quickly get the slightly different approaches. >> who do you like on fox business? >> i really like, i like dobbs a lot and cavuto. neil: i like dobbs a lot. >> there was love for you. neil: then, the other guy, what's his name?
>> on my way out, he was still thinking, oh, yeah, liz claman. tell her i said hello. i'm like, done. neil: this is interesting, we kid bit, interesting interview. i don't know what you think pressure on that movie to be another big performer, don't think of the stars, they do a lot of things we all do. they have their news interests what have you, that struck me as odd someone like that you associate with the hollywood left. >> gold did i watch both channels actually. growing in the fox business direction. neil: i like that. i like that. we're zero politics here. >> to walk into a room, setting is, you walk into a posh beverly hills hotel. neil: that is how it goes? >> actor is waiting there. questions and agenda to go out. to have that reaction. sometimes in the political climate the reaction -- neil: i'm not blowing you smoke. talk about it during the break, used to be a time where that wasn't the case, if someone from fox came in, business network
and news, they had garlic and incense and everything else because they hated us. i notice with you you, they're very forth come. talk about all the stars of this flick. they, they spend a lot of time, i'm sure they go over there allotted time. >> we have to be approved. sometimes we go over allotted time. one case i was interviewing oprah winfrey. four minutes went to five, to six, to eight. person telling me to cut it off. i'm not interrupting oprah winfrey, i'm sorry. neil: how do you overcome -- i don't think they're monolithic anyway, but what is your impression of that whole community? their view of -- >> right now it is very hot. politics and pop culture are on a collision course on daily basis. a lot of people start to realize my angle, we want to cover the movie, the process, business of it, all of that. i will not get into politics necessarily. neil: right. some of them volunteer. >> some will volunteer, great.
if not, talk about the movie. they're starting to realize that fox news channel provides them with the largest platform in cable news. neil: and fox business. >> fox business is starting richest. neil: richest. they have a lot of money. i don't mind people red or blue, they like green. but you're very nice, i think it made a word of difference. we'll make him secretary of state. i think michael could settle entire north korean thing tomorrow. >> i'm on it. neil: can you imagine? buddy, great, great job. michael tammero. you have another full-time job. we're not paying him one dollar more. stick around you're watching fox business.
. neil: all right. of course we are live tomorrow, looking at donald trump's 100th day in office. that begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern time on fox news, and we continue right through noon. but ahead of that, the pressure right now on the white house to deliver the goods. now, depending on your point of view and executive orders and memoranda, the president already delivered a lot of those goods. but, again, they're looking for a legislative win here. will they get it? how soon. adam shapiro, the latest from the white house and what will be a busy next few days for the president. adam. >> good afternoon, neil. that's right. the president's on the road right now, in fact, there's a live shot, i believe, of atlanta where air force one is expected to arrive at any moment, and then the president will be addressing his supporters at the national rifle association at a gathering in atlanta as well. but here in washington, the
attention is on the repeal and replacement of obamacare, the affordable care act. now, there is a compromise between the different parties within the republican party, the tuesday group, the moderates, as well as the more conservative freedom caucus led by mark meadows. they don't have the votes yet. but they're close, and we're expecting something next week. according to gary cohn, the economic adviser to the president who was on fox business this morning. >> we feel like we're very close to a health care bill and hopefully that gets done, you know, over the weekend or next week, most likely next week. if that doesn't get done, and i don't think -- i think it will get done, we have also put in the tax plan the repeal of the 3.8% additional obamacare tax on capital gains and dividends because it is a big deal. >> so that's gary cohn talking about the fact that we might see this legislation voted upon next week. of course, they have passed the continuing resolution, so crisis averted right now.
we have a one-week short-term funding situation. president expected to sign that when he gets back from atlanta later this afternoon. neil. neil: all right, buddy, thank you very, very much. adam shapiro and, again, when the president speaks in atlanta, we will be there. meanwhile the freedom caucus is onboard with health care reform, but just as we were telegraphing on this show, to win their votes, ticked off a lot of moderates that are indicating he doesn't have their vote. congressman andy joins us now. congressman, it's always these conundrum you guys are in to win over guys like yourself and walk away. how bad is this divide, if you want to call it that? >> well, i think what you're seeing it normal legislative process, and you've got it right. people push -- it's a push me, pull you. so you pull some people on, you push others off. but i think there's actually -- it's really close to having -- coming to completion. there's some things that i'm not happy about. i'm still trying to see if i
can get some stuff in there to make some changes to at least simulate a repeal if you're not going to keep the promise on repeal. i think we do get something done next week. neil: all right. something done on the health care front, that's what you're saying? >> yeah. neil: done and voted on next week? >> i believe so. i would be kind of surprised if it doesn't come out next week. neil: are you mad at speaker ryan? do you blame him for any of this? >> i'm not mad at anybody, actually. i do think that what we -- neil: you have to be mad at somebody. you guys are always mad. >> well, you know, i'm mad at my dogs sometimes who chews my shoes. but, no, i'm not mad at anybody. but i do think this is bewildering sometimes when you think we have the strongest negotiating position, the republicans have had in a decade. and we could have done the straight repeal, let's just do it and get it out early on, and we didn't quite get it done. and we started negotiating against ourselves, and we continued to negotiate against ourself today. that's bewildering to me. neil: congressman, do you need a health care vo in place
and approved to oceed then with the tax thing? or do you get to a point where you say we're going nowhere fast on this health care repeal and replace. let's go right to plan b and not at the tax cut? >> i'm not sure you actually have to have it, but i do know that some people are trying to use it as funding for some of this tax plan that they have. so that's really the issue, i think, and that's the bear in the woods on this. neil: yeah. many have said that the president wanted to get a deal on this health care thing by the time he would be looking at his 100th day by tomorrow, obviously, that's not going to happen. and many are saying despite his blitzkrieg fashion of meeting with ceos and executive memoranda and the like, no shortage of effort on his part in that regard. but no legislative win. obviously, they leave out neil gorsuch, which was a big win getting him on the supreme
court. but what do you think of that and the media now and others to say his first 100 days have not been that great? >> i think that's a false narrative. first of all, i think the 100 days deadline is a false narrative in and of itself. . neil: but he started it; right? he said he was going to get cracking. >> every president has 100-day plan. but to get neil gorsuch, that's a huge win, number one. number two, what the house has done is we've passed 17 straight repeals of regulatory constraints in the system. that -- in history, that's only one had ever been done. so those are big wins, he has signed this. i think the fact that he has introduced this tax plan, and we're going to be working on that, that's big. i think the regular -- antiregulatory schemes that he's engaged in, the legislatures engaged in are what i heard is it's already produced ol' billion dollars in savings to the economy.
that's -- those are huge. they're just not getting reported. neil: all right. congressman, thank you very, very much. enjoy the beautiful weather. good seeing you. >> good to see you. neil: in the meantime, as we get to this 100-day marker, and we get to all of this stuff the president's doing on trade, which gets very little attention, montana has been substantive of what he has gotten a lot of countries to do and exceed here to subtract trade concessions, that he says will be beneficial to u.s. workers. we've got john on whether that does go unreported. down today but up aappreciatably this month and since the president was to say nothing since elected. the markets seem to be doing well but what do you think, john? >> the markets are saying everything. look, the market was pretty much flat from november 2014, november 2016. the only thing that changed was president trump being elected and the markets have continued to show that appreciation of this perception of a business
friendly administration. i think the talk with nafta, at least the renegotiation is a welcome sign to the markets. not sure what's going to happen in south korea right now, but you have a window next week where you can actually review and even terminate this agreement or renegotiate this agreement if you want to. neil: now, i know much is made of the first 100 days and obviously, that started with fdr and his first days and congress was in concession then and we're showing here in the president's 100 days. be that as it may, the president himself did set high expectations with the comment of, like, you're going to get tired of winning and all of that. should he have done that isn't retrospect? should he now move forward trying to limit expectations and overdelivering the goods? what do you recommend? >> i think a lot of that was campaign rhetoric to get elected and surprisingly he did. and then he followed up on that to keep the euphoria going, and i think from that, you don't have the low expectations, and he set a very high bar, and i think
that's the problem going forward because the corporate tax reform is the biggest thing on the table right now. neil: what if it gets really pushed back, though? the only reason i say that is we telegraphed on this show that the group -- like the freedom caucus to get that health care thing through, you're going to tick off some moderates and low and behold, that's exactly what happened. and you're going to get push back and since they're getting tax cuts through, that could get push back sop what if the tax cuts are significantly delayed or maybe not even a 201 2017 development? >> i think that's a real, realistic possibility, and i think the markets are starting to accept that right now that that is a possibility. neil: i don't know. you think they accepted that? i think they don't want to accept it. but when the reality hits that that could happen, i mean, seriously, happen, do you think they would tank or no? >> i think they go down. up 13% since the president was elected back in november.
the market has a breather here and i don't think corporate tax reform happens. i think you have to take the estate tax out, the amt, and probably some of the personal income stuff out. and that is very contentious with republicans. to get the whole thing passed. neil: technology has been rip roaring lately. amazon and alphabet and facebook and apple. i mean, if you look at some of those big names, they account for half the gain in nasdaq and technology as a group. what do you think is doing all of this? especially when you think the ceos of a lot of these companies don't like donald trump. >> i think it's just technology itself. irrespective of the president. they like the fact that the president has met with a lot of these ceos and continues to meet with them on a regular basis. but you look at amazon, their cloud service has gone up quadruple in the last four years. so these companies are growing -- you know, facebook is not just facebook. it has become a media
business. and amazon is not just selling books anymore, obviously, it's becoming a cloud business. and some of these companies are just coming huge conglomerates because of the scale of size. neil: do you ever get as a shrewed investor, do you ever get a little nose bleedy worried when you take a look at amazon, you take a look at just since, you know, in the last couple of months, you know, bezos has increased his self-worth by billions. similar stories across the technology sphere that this has a froth to it. or is it such a belated froth because it took a long time to go from 5,000 to 6,000, 17 years. so if anything, the nasdaq was slow to catch up. what do you think? >> i think that the -- if you're investing in amazon right now, you'll be very happy in 20 years. i was scared at amazon at $550
and now it's at 900, so i've lost a lot of money because of my fear. but i would rather be in amazon right now rather than ups or anyone who wants to compete with them. i will not invest with a company right now that competes with amazon because amazon is a retail killer right now. neil: a lot of people say these are issues -- charles payne was here earlier among the issues for the long-term that they become sort of like portfolio for that. long-term is always in the eye of the beholder. but how do you feel about that? that these are hold and keep them stocks? >> you look at a company like apple, i think steve jobs would be very shocked if he were still alive, and i wish he was because no telling what he would have done with apple television by now. neil: can you imagine, yeah? >> but the value stock. you've got a great dividend, you have a lot of cash, and you're becoming a media company. which i don't think anyone would have associated apple with that in the 1990s. it's the changing dynamic.
neil: you know, i can remember my father say of apple in the early days it's a technology mutual fund. i mean, he was way ahead of himself, but that has exactly what it has become. great seeing you. >> thank you. neil: you may have heard once or twice tomorrow is day 100 for donald trump, and we figure that since it's a big deal across the board, it's a big deal for us to be there live for us for you, and we will be there 10:00 a.m. eastern time right through noon. we've got eye popping, guests. i'm not one to brag, but we've got some eye popping guests. more after this why pause a spontaneous moment? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure.
xfinity x1 lets you access the greatest library of billboard music awards moments simply by using your voice. and thank you so much. the billboard music awards. sunday, may 21st. 8, 7 central. only on abc. . neil: i know you're trying to address this right now. annual into office that it is so much illegals as much as those who had either extended or gone beyond their visa. how do you police that? >> well, a couple of variations on this and believe me, that my one take away 98 days on the job our immigration system is so complicated, almost unworkable, and we need to somehow simplify it. . neil: all right. that was homeland security secretary.
and he said that was one of the most alarming things that he discovered, not so much the folks that are sneaking into this country but those who wore out their visas and had been here for years and supposed to leave the country. he says that's the one thing that no one covers but ice and others have discovered in the case of this young mexican that isn't so young anymore that he overstayed busy visa by 14 years. apparently that is not exactly uncommon. one of the things he's trying to do to keep us safe. meanwhile president trump is -- and i'm quoting here, major conflict with north korea as his secretary of state with the united nations pushing much more sweeping sanctions against north korea. >> failing to act now on the most pressing security issue in the world may bring catastrophic consequences. we must increase north korea's financial isolation. we must levy new sanctions on dprk entities and individuals supporting its weapons and missile programs and tighten
those that are already in place. neil: all right. i don't know what the heck is going on. i'm at a loss explaining our next step, i go to former cia analyst, the guy's brilliant. maybe you can step back and give us some perspective because i already thought north korea was among the most sanctioned country in the planet. so when we talk about phil, more sweeping sanctions, i guess have at it. but this is a country that has ignored sanctions in the past. maybe because of china helping them out. but what do you make of that approach? >> well, neil, there really are more sanctions that could be imposed on north korea that could be cut off of energy, there could be a cut off of trade, we could put sanctions barring flights of its airline. i think these things could make a real difference. but i think we can change the whole calculus of this threat by making it clear to regional states that as north korea continues to develop more powerful missiles and nuclear weapons, there's a possibility
of catastrophic accidents with missiles landing on regional states or possibly a test of nuclear device underground that suffers a came the failure and leaks radiation into the atmosphere. this is something china should be very worried about, and we should be making that case to beijing. neil: now, i assume when i hear this kind of stuff from smart guys like you, fred, that there are other smart guys in the cia and other places saying the same thing and echoing that and passing it along to the chinese. yet do democratic and republican administrations alike, presidents who have played the china card to try to get the chinese to deal with this nutcase that all those arguments, what happens? >> it's a real problem, and i was watching the security counsel session today that tillerson chaired, and i heard the chinese ambassador say he wants both sides to meet halfway. no, i'm sorry, neil. our position has to be denuclearized the korean peninsula. there's no meeting halfway on this, and you're right.
the koreans have played this game for a long time. we need to make the case to them that right now korea's program is a bigger threat to china than they are to the u.s. neil: all right. now, i guess the chinese are concerned that if north korea were pushed to the brink, then obviously it led to just that they've got millions of refugees flooding into their country. but what do we offer them? i know we've been offering the carrot stick approach of keeping them off bad trade lists that they rig their economy, which they do. we're working that angle. but is that enough for the chinese just stringing us along? sometimes they're so good at this, i just wonder if they're laughing at us. >> yeah. i'm not really sure where china is. i'm cautionly optimistic if it's true as tillerson said that china will impose an energy embargo if there's
another nuclear test. that will be good news but i don't know if that's true. the chinese won't confirm that. but we really have to make the case that there's a growing threat here that really faces every nation in the region. neil: now, if we help the south korean defense for something, that is seen oddly enough as a provocative action on the north korean's and the chinese. so how do we deal with that in places like the un where this keeps coming up and just to protect the style from what could be a crazy guy, you know, doing crazy things. that is deemed as provocative as the act that wandered that response. >> the chinese don't want to see antimissile defenses positioned in japan and south korea. they think that endangers them. the fact that south korea is going to take these missiles is a sign at china that these missiles are changing the security situation in asia to its disadvantage. it's always been hard to work this issue in the security council because china vetoes any resolution that is in any way tough.
maybe we're approaching a situation where that will change. . neil: all right. when the president's kind of threatened that all options off the table, that we're getting close to something really bad, could you picture this leading the war? >> you know, i hope not. i was discussing this with my dad this morning. he was in the korean war, and he was talking about the devastation to korea he saw, how seoul was utterly flattened. he's worried there's going to be another war, and i think the trump administration is very well aware that north korea could just level seoul very easily with all the artillery and missiles -- neil: you would have to know in doing so it destroyed its own annihilation. >> and since we're not so sure how sane the leader of north korea is. this is a concern. we have to find a military response. that might involve shooting down north korean missiles, especially if they go near japan. but beyond that, a military
response is just unthinkable because of the possibility of retaliation by the north. neil: all right. but if we shoot down one of the missiles whether they're over land or sea, that would be deemed provocative; right? >> that would be provocative, but there's going to be a moment where we have to decide is that missile a test or is that missile aimed at one of our easily? i don't think we can take a chance it's just a missile test. neil: thank you very much, my friend. i didn't know that about your dad, but it says a lot about you. >> he's watching right now. neil: i'm very honored. >> with my mom. neil: and he should be very proud. thank you very much. >> thank you. neil: we're mentioning president trump just arrived in atlanta. he's going to be addressing the national rifle association but no doubt moderating events half a world away. by the way, he would be the first president to address the nra since ronald reagan did in the early days of 1983. was then a very different presidential approach to a group that has been the most loyal to him. rifle owners. after this
>> being a part of this group, you know that good organizations don't just happen. they take root in a body of shared beliefs. they grow strong from leadership with vision, initiative and determination, to reach great goals. neil: all right. 1983, that is the last time we had an american president addressing the national rifle association. ronald reagan very popular with that group. donald trump, who is following up on that, very popular with this group. among been owners, as a group if you will, support for the president is overwhelmingly, 96% of them, 9% -- 96% would vote for them again even with all the stuff in the media. they are as loyal of a group as you can get. the president is happy to meet with them. even though others have said, this is not a good idea. may drive a wedge. show extreme views.
he is having none of that. they are important. gun ownership is important. freedom to bear arms is important. and they as a very loyal group, doubly important. there he is now arriving in atlanta for this event, juggling a couple other big events as he is in atlanta, going into the weekend where we celebrates 100 days in office. you heard all the expectations associated with that. depending on who you talk to a very productive 100 days. others say missed opportunity. always in the eye of the beholder. we have different metrics to keep track of that, if you use the market as a gauge, very good metric. more for this president, more than any other president, most robust wall street we've seen in a president's first 100 days. that read we're getting from lori rothman who has much more to report on the pace of earnings as well at the new york stock exchange. hey, lore remember. reporter: hey, neil, when you
talk about the market, how far and fast it has come really since election day, you have to zero zero in on technology. it has been a blowout. look at perfmance of these names, alphabet, apple, goog. all of us here on thought amazon would totally miss earnings. the company spent so much money. guess what. they blew it out of the water. operating profit was something like one billion dollars. a son has 12 or 13 analystp grades, if you ask the question, neil, will tech continue to lead the rally? there is question marks. obviously technology, typical growth companies. what happened this morning, gdp came in lot weaker than expected. first part of the year got a really slow start. .7 of a growth, not impressive. you have contrarians. speaking of amazon, you have two notable downgrades.
this is about as good as it can get from amazon of the not a lot of running room here, pacific crest. another analyst from raymond james, another significant firm, citing concerns about amazon's valuation. the big scene here, i will leave it at this, these guys are at record highs especially companies with significant position in cloud computing, amazon, alphabet, microsoft. these three reported last night that is what is leading the charge, money turning over from the cloud business. this is making up for weaker units. back to you. neil: lori, thank you very much. a read from two market pros, what to read from the first 100 days and how the next few years look in this administration. carl roth. did i get that right? >> close enough. neil: i understand. people call me cavato. if you're kurt russell, you're waiting for it to come to you. ladies, thank you both for coming. i'm looking at this, looking at
this run-up, technology was a life force of its own even without donald trump but obviously more the wind at investors back. when you see that type of technology run-up, when you see someone like a jeff bezos see his market worth appreciate by billion dollars in little more than 10 weeks, do you ever say, all right, this is getting a little headdy, i'm getting a little worried? >> this is the market. it has ups and downs. as long as it doesn't fall much lower when it start ited growing, the market has a lot of reasons to be excited about the promise, i mean the unique promises, extraordinary focus on deregulation we've never really seen before. neil: right. >> promise of tax reform, there is a lot of things that the market rightfully is excited about. now the question how you turn excitement about real things
tern gdp around. yeah, even if the economy is growing, there will be ups and downs. the things you want to avoid are like big, big swings. if he delivers, in the president and congress deliver on these, even if they just get income tax reform and deregulation, i mean, this economy will be, will be on much more solid ground and we'll have much less to fear about the big boom or bust. neil: you i am glad you mentioned, carol, pick up with you on a regulatory front, that the president hasn't had any legislative victories, he got majority approval in the senate on regulatory overhauls, little-nouns and with little fanfare. businesses from 80 to $100 billion over the next 10 years. we live in multitrillion dollar world where we say that is chump
change but significant chump change by that definition. what do you make of that? >> it is significant chump change as you put it, neil. you're part of the confidence and part of the pro-growth environment right now being created for businesses. businesses have the type of confidence that they are willing to make investments we haven't seen on a capital basis in a long time. that will benefit sectors like technology that have not only the cloud, but lots of growth in the cloud ahead of them but things like internet of things, artificial intelligence. those will be propelled and having that type of regulary reform is going to boost the environment for small business perspective or big business perspective. neil: my apologies, carol, i interrupted you anyway. what if we don't get the tax cut thing as soon as we want or for that matter the health care thing straighten out or worse yet, that is put off to next
year? >> i think that will have a big effect on the market and economy. from a market standpoint not only expecting stacks reform to boost that type of capital spending an consumer spending but things like repatriating all the cashing companies have overseas that come back in terms of dividend or investments, i think that is a huge expectation. if we don't get that reform, this to me is on congress, congress needs to get it done, because if we don't, that will have a negative effect on the market, it will have a negative effect on consumer psychology and business psychology, and becomes the self-fulfilling prophecy that put as damper on wonderful confidence for the economy. neil: when you look at this i'm always impressed how the market advanced even with these delays, on a with this decision and even fighting among republicans. either they're cockeyed optimism and betting real money it will work out or they're just high as kite. what do you think? >> i mean, maybe a little too
optimistic but i am not sure but i think, come on, if i had to put money whether there will be tax reform, i would and i'm not a betting person. i think they will, and that would be the biggest missed opportunity if they don't. we've already got some deregulation that is really important. one of the aspects that we don't talk about is the change in the way the administration compared to the other is thinking about innovation. you have, i think that technology industry, understand that this administration is probably more likely to think in terms of -- innovation, go do and stuff you have to do, rather than this precautionary principle where we have to kind of actually stop you before you do anything to prevent every risk. that alone i think is powerful drive for investors.
now, they have to deliver again. there is, what they feel and excitement they feel, but there is a moment where they need to turn it into real economic growth. neil: all right. we'll see if they do. because you're right, in order to keep this going, they have to have a convincing reason that it should. >> yeah. neil: ladies, thank you both, very, very much. on this whole 100 day thing, i flip around watch a lot of news here and other networks, usually all one way or the other or everything about donald trump or neanderthal a jerk, a loser, will be the worst president millard fillmore, others say we can't do anything wrong. we have a lot of time here. i do two hours here and another hour on fox news, i do two hour special tomorrow, i have time to get it all in there. some great things he is doing, not so great things. it is not red or blue argument, friends. one thing i love about covering money, people place bets.
they don't care your politics. remember, they did very, very well under a guy named bill clinton. they just want stuff done they think will be advantageous to their greedy little capitalist world. that's the magic of covering wall street. i just wish sometimes the media would get it on main street. we'll have more after this. this actually makes sense. now on the next page you'll see a breakdown of costs. what? it's just... we were going to ask about it but we weren't sure when. so thanks. yeah, that's great. being clear and upfront. multiplied by 14,000 financial advisors, it's a big deal. and it's how edward jones makes sense of investing.
>> are you disappointed republicans handled issues. there was some suggestion it might happen today. now it will not happen? >> i'm disappointed it doesn't go quicker. i like them a lot. i have great relationships. most i didn't even know. many of them like the freedom caucus. we love our president. we are doing this for our president. you look at that. look at moderates the same thing. i'm disappointed. i'll tell you. paul ryan is trying very hard.
it's a very tough system. neil: he is is did appointed. martha mack, interview, last of the 100 days show. charlie, you said this as well, frustration between two ends of pennsylvania avenue, he just illustrated some of that. >> might want to read the book of his, art of the dial, how do you bring in warring factions together. neil: he didn't anticipate they would be this warring right? >> i don't know what he anticipated. he could walk around in the white house, with edict do whatever he wants. i covered wall street for a long time. got to. i knew a ceo, tough wall street ceo. these politicians are 40 times tougher. they're nasty. they have to raise money.
they have to get stuff through. they are tougher than any ceo. that is what donald trump is running into. he is noticing that these guys at freedom caucus, they couldn't, they love them, l happy he is president and not hillary. he is not going to wag their tail. he will not tell them what to do. neil: interesting in that exchange, connell, with martha, this notion that the president had, elsewhere said in reuters interview, wouldn't know he would be this tough. obviously appreciating enormity of the challenges of the job, winning people over. boom we will do this. they don't all follow in lockstep. how is this going now with pressure to get health care deal done, tax care thing might get pushed back what are you hearing? >> number one, on comment, he didn't know how tough the job would be, get every single president on the record from washington on down i'm sure they
are surprised that way. i don't think anybody walked in the white house, no big deal, i got this. this is part, he answers these questions when he is asked. charlie is right, difference between businessman and politician, it is interesting the way they rolled out the tax plan, focusing on corporate taxes, more than individual rates. individuals especially on higher income might pay more net-net in the end. in terms of trying to get things through, looking at things they could get passed, maybe going big with health care, it seems like they're realizing that a little bit. neil: you hit a point going to be weird ah-ha moment. when reagan tax cuts hit, charlie, everyone did the napkin numbers, wow, i'm going to do okay. >> right. neil: now they're doing connell's point, napkin numbers,
i'm not doing okay. >> right. neil: i'm wondering for whatever legitimate reasons, deficits not the least of which, one thing would be. >> president confirmed the job is tougher than i thought it would be. if you look at it, very little planning and strategy here. almost seat of your pants stuff. remember, first it was health care. dropped out. then it was taxes. then taxes -- neil: whose fault is that? >> i don't know. taxes supposed to be revenue neutral. now they're not. taxes come after. we will do health care reform. throw that out, let's do taxes again. they're all over the place. whose fault is that? that is the president's fault. it is the president's fault because he has horizontal management structure. he does not have a real chief of staff. reince priebus is not a chief of staff in reality. he is nominally a chief of staff.
but there is no organizational structure like the reagan had jim baker, or whoever, right? i can't remember. neil: it began with ronald reagan. >> right. neil: began with his vision. one of the things reagan said going into office. i want to make the defense stronger, our government smaller. it was almost simplistic in its approach and walter cronkite and john chancellor, made a big deal. that was basic treatise. government had gotten too big. our defense was too old and antiquated that made as you laughingstock. so should the president be more actively engaged to the point of bringing in the other side, as i think charlie mentioned earlier in the last hour. ronald reagan did with tip o'neill and the democrats? >> i think maybe one thing we'll remember from the transition to now, that it surprised some people. this does fall on the president, is is the relationship, to some
extent, at l.e.t. beginning of it, relationship between president trump and minority leader chuck schumer, all stories were written how the two new yorkers work together on certain things and infrastructure all the rest. first words out of the president's mouth right in the time of the inauguration or just after were personal insults towards chuck schumer. next thing that chuck schumer wouldn't work with him on anything not that he might have anyway. neil: chuck schumer started it. we know how that goes. >> you're right. neil: i do wonder whether the two will ever get back in sync with each other? >> maybe on infrastructure, right? neil: much more divided than it used to be. >> you hit it on the head. ronald reagan had theory, knew how to implement it. neil: will not get -- >> washington smaller, paycheck big egg. wanted to cut taxes. reduce the size of government.
neil: in the face of criticism didn't buckle. >> but he had an ideology. what is trump's ideology? i don't know. i still don't know. i think he wants to do things, okay. i get that, but is he really in favor of a smaller government? is he in in favor of giving more power back to individuals as opposed to federal government? we don't know that. his supreme court pick would suggest he is. neil: yeah. >> his pick for head of national economic council running economy gary cohn would suggest he is not. neil: i want to bounce this off