tv Cavuto Coast to Coast FOX Business May 2, 2017 12:00pm-2:01pm EDT
single largest increase in border security, funding in ten years. more money now than we've gotten in ten years. the democrats at no time tell you that. they forgot -- didn't them you that. they forgot to tell you that in their notes. with enough money to make a down payment on the border wall. i thinkç they'll go back and which can their papers. this includes swiftly replacing ineffective and failing fencing and walls with an unbreakable barrier. so we're putting up a lot of new walls in certain areas, we're putting up a tremendous amount of money to fix the existing structures that we have, some of which we can keep into the future. they're in good shape, but we have to bring them back to the highest level. we'll be doing that with this payment. and make no mistake, we are beginning to build the wall, and we will keep out the gang
members, criminals, drug and human traffickers that threaten our citizens and that threaten our security. [applause] any member of congress who opposes our plans on border security -- and i know these folks didn't -- is only empowering these deadly and dangerous threats. and we will not put up with it, and the public won't put up with it. this bill also includes important health care resources for our great coal miners who have not been treated well. but now they're being treated very well. and continues to make funding available to inner city children here right in the nation's capital can go to the school of their choice. [applause] choice is so important. after years of partisan bickering and grid lock, this
bill is a clear win for the american people. we brought lawmakers together from both sides of the aisle to deliver a budget that funds the rebuilding of the united states military, makes historic investments in border security and provides health care for our miners and school choice f our disadvantaged children. very importantly, there is no long-term bailout for the insurance companies that the you will learn about donors. i used to be a donor. used to get everything i wanted. this is what winning looks like. something that you folks really know a lot about. what a record. the falcons had 10 wins and only
three losses, a tremendous achievement. they played tough, tough teams. [applause] and they played some teams that were slightly larger, right, coach? >> oh, yeah. >> coach is saying boy they're big but you beat them. right? >> we did. >> you beat them. he knows you how to win. spoke to bob kraft of new england patriots. he gave awe pep talk and he is a big fan too. we know one thing, as good as this coach is, he says he is not replacing belichick, is that right? someplace else. you better stay right where you are, coach, right? [applause] don't let him sign him. better never leave us. he better never leave. and the falcons not only that, but finished very strong. you ended the season with six
straight victories, including a win in the arizona bowl, which is a big deal. who did you beat? >> south alabama. >> south alabama. good team too. but we all know the games that you're most proud of. i shouldn't say this, because i love these teams too. should i say it? [shouting] i thought they were great americans, coach. >> they are. >> the games were, they beat navy. good team. [applause] do i have to give the score? >> yes. >> beat navy 28-14. and you beat west point 31-12. [applause] does anybody feel guilty that you made me do that? no? it's a great privilege tore me, for the first time to present you the commander-in-chief's
trophy. my first time. established in 1972, the commander-in-chief's trophy has been claimed by the air force academy, this is pretty hard to understand, you did go under the radar, coach. really an amazing thing. a record, listen to this, 20 times. you have the record. more than any other of the service academies. [applause] pretty amazing. as the united states air force celebrates its 70th birthday this year, this trophy will serve as point of pride for the academy's cadets, graduates, all the members, past and presence of the united states air force. that we love. [applause] i love the air force. i love those planes. i love buying planes at a reduced price. i have been negotiating. i have cut billions, they can check, right, martha, i have cut
billions and billions of dollars off plane contracts sitting here. do they give me credit? no. but that is okay. we can either do one of two things. we can buy more planes or cut the budget. what do you want to do? she says buy more planes. think you're right. you now adays i think you're right. as proud as we are of your achievements on the field, we are even more proud of you, and all of those who attend our service academies in general. for your distinguished service on behalf of our great nation. when ever a air force crewç flies, you will fly a powerful symbol of american strength and american prestige. from the a-10 warthog, this is what she flies. she said, please, please, mr. president, order more. you think that is just a great plane, right? it does some pretty big mage, i know that we're working own
that, okay. she loves that plane. to the f-16 viper, not as good? not as good. to the b-2, a little different, but still no, pretty good though. our proud aircraft and airmen fill our friends and you wouldn't believe it, with the level of confidence and think really truly strike fear into the hearts of our enemies. and i'll tell you, we have some of those planes coming in. we have planes coming in from all different corners and all different sizes and speeds and with different capabilities. you're going to be very proud of what we're doing with the air force. and wherever -- thank you. [applause] thank you. and wherever our space and cyber airmen operate world class systems for modern warfare, the full might of america will be on display for all to see.
with the new budget increases we have achieved in our spending bill, we'll be able to purchase greatest planes ever built, including f-35. that is some plane and the next generation of military aircraft. we will maintain and expand our superiority in the air and our ability to protect and project america's vital security interests. just across the river, not far from the white house, stands a soaring tribute to the men, and women, of the united states air force. the three arching spires of the air force memorial represent the core values of this noble branch of our armed forces. integrity first, service before self, excellence in all you do. for 70 years the united states air force has embodied those principles. i know each of you will uphold
these standards with devotion and dignity throughout your military career. and i know that each of you will coinue to make your country proud. their great people. i met everybody in the oval office. they actually said this is the first time you've been invited into the oval office. actually the new england patriots said that last week, they were not invited in but we invite them into the oval office. i think we should invite them into the oval office, right, don't you think? [applause] we're very, very proud of you coach. together the five branches of the united states armed forces, army, navy, marines, air force and coast guard, are the greatest force for peace and justice the world has ever known. and believe me, getting stronger and stronger and stronger by the day. one of the reasons that i was elected, one of the reasons that i'm standing here is called,
people want their military to be strong, not weak, you but strong. really strong. [applause] you keep us safe, you keep us strong, and you keep us free. thank you all for your service. and congratulations again to the winners of the commander-in-chief's trophy, the great air force falcons. thank you. congratulations. [applause] with that, i'd like to invite coach troy calhoun, a great coach, loved by his players by the way, i said do you love him or dislike him? by the way some coaches are pretty well disliked but i this combination. a great coach, troy calhoun, congratulations, folks. >> appreciate it. mr. president, we're overwhelmed with the graciousness of you and your staff.
this certainly has been an unbelievable trip for our young men and young women that have been able to come along. and we're so you proud. only three weeks under your command, they will become commissionedded and second lieutenants in our united states air force. what they will bring is courage, integrity, boldness, and unquestionably, they're champions, more than anything else, they're abs you absolute winners. ladies and gentlemen, the young men and young women of the united states air force academy. [applause] at this time we have a couple of momentos we would like to leave for the president. i will say this, our commander-in-chief, you look at our roster. we never have anybody that is ever worn jersey number one here in the last nine years. i think we got a new tenant
holder to that spot. i invite up westin steelhammer and jacoby owens to present a little gift to you. >> thank you very much. you. [applause] >> that's so great, thank you. >> come on up here. >> you how about our members of congress come on up. >> to commemorate from world war ii, the flying tigers as well. [inaudible] >> come on.
get up here. come on, si)f you hold that. you hold that. >> got to see the side. >> good picture. [applause] no thank you all very much. great honor. [applause] neil: all right. you've been watching the president drsing the u.s. air force academy here on aay he didn't fail to remind them that he is pledged 12 1/2 billion dollars more for the military, to let part of his latest budget. as you know there has been a back and forth on this whether republicans had the better taken
from them on democrats but not when it came to the defense spending t was less than the president was looking for but it was still more for the defense budget, 12 1/2 billion dollars, reminding those young men and women that this is something in their interest and to keep the nation safe. with me you now as the president defended that budget is the republican senator, tim scott, from the beautiful state of south carolina. senator, much has been made back and forth of that budget agreement and we're told that the president wanted to remind the folks there as well as on tv that look, i mean, say what you will of more funding or increased funding for the environmental protection agency, what have you, when it came to the things that matter to me, paraphrasing the president, defense spending, i got what i wanted. republicans were not had. what do you make of that? >> well there is no doubt when you look at increase in spending from the military standpoint, homeland security border security the president has done
a good job negotiating. in addition we've been last six or seven years, every time you want more money for our nation's military, for our nation's security, you had to trade that off for non-defense domestic spending this year we didn't do that. no question in my mind, the president has a strong leg to stand on as it relates to increasing military spending as well as national security issues around border security as we as homeland security. these have been real victories for the president. unfortunately there is still funding embedded in the proposal on health care. there is still some funding in there for planned parenthood. neil: how did that happen, senator? that is what -- again this might be shot down with a vote in the house or the senate, doesn't look like that, but republicans have run of the city, they have the senate, house, the white house, and democrat seem to be gloming on to the point they got bert of white house, better of republicans again, increase in defend spending notwithstanding, what do you think?
>> you think it is important for the president to lay his cards on the table what his priorities are. miss priorities are national security. god bless him for that. the fact of the matter we have more resources available for necessary responsibilities. that is our primary responsibility as members of congress from my perspective. how the negotiations occurred, why we see some funding for areas that we would personally like to see pushed out, i can't answer that question. i'm happy that we have the military funding increase in this. neil: can you ask you about that, senator, i don't know the parliamentary procedures if that is the right term, you need 60 votes in the senate to aprevious these? the house seemed to feel we had to make these concessions fully recognizing the limitations of the process and winning over democratic votes and all of that and this is the way to go about it? >> certainly, neil, there is no doubt that lack of a reconciliation tool of 51 simple majority hampers the ability for
the white house and our house majority to negotiate with the democrats. neil: on budget items, on budget items, there is no such thing as reconciliation, you need 60 votes. >> 60 votes. only way to get that negotiate position we're in, but better position we have been but not as far down the road as we would like to move this conversation. neil: senator, thank you for taking the time. i appreciate it. >> yes, sir. neil: charlie gasparino is at this milken conference going on in los angeles. charlie, i'm sure that is an issue coming up among investors there, whatever the rationale behind accepting what seemed to be big domestic spending initiatives championed by the democrats it looked like republicans caved. i know that is a little bit simplistic but that is how it looks. what you do you think? >> yeah, listen, this place, i would say, neil, myopically focused what they do.
and what their myopically focused on business conditions and cutting business and corporate taxes. that is one thing they're also -- that is one thing they're focused on of the other thing they're focused on is the carried interest tax which is a tax on pivate equity when they buy something, keep it for a long time. that is what private equity does. take stuff private and sell later. they allegedly fix it up and sell it, that they get a tasks benefit. those are two things they look at. carried interest deduction is one of the things for trump administration to pay for tax cuts and other issues. the spending they're doing is trying to zero out that deduction. that is what they're looking for here and anything to keep those two things, namely getting the corporate tax rate down to 15%, keeping the corporate tax, keeping the private equity deduction. you're going to see some pushback on private equity. listen, sounds like a benefit to fat cats, but let me tell you something they will make a economic rationale for it.
why private equity is good, they own 10 to 20% of the american workers, work for companies owned by private equity. private equity often buys companies when they're in distress and fixes them you up and sells them later. they obviously sell them for a profit. sometimes they don't. but they will try to make the economic rationale for why that tax break is needed for private equity to buy. so that is what is going on here. and i think, the point you make about the budget, you know, not much you cuts here, there is obviously no entitlement reform which, at some point we'll have to get our arms around that. that puts more pressure onç the need for deductions to be capped or eliminated. neil: right. >> that is some of the stuff you're hearing here. very interesting that -- neil: i'm sorry, to jump on you. you have an update on the marlins situation now and jeb bush? what can you tell us? >> what is fascinated jeb bush came out, by the way great
interview between jeb bush and terry duffy the head of cme. terry duffy might have a future in the tv but he pressured him on the marlins sale. he said i will handle the business side. derek jeter, yankees shortstop, will handle the baseball operations. they have tremendous support from the city of miami and investors. if you look back what we're reporting on your show around foxbusiness.com, jeb and jeter have to raise cash, something like one billion dollars or 800 million and a billion dollars to secure this deal. that is very hard. a lot of people are you doubtful bit. what he was saying today he was striking an optimistic ton that he could raise that money. remember they bid 1.34 billion. major league baseball demands mostly cash, not a lot of debt. the marlins, the team, already have a lot of debt. he sounded pretty optimistic. the flip side, jim gray is at
milken conference, sports commentator and reporter, will interview all commissioners of four major sports including the baseball commissioner. he will ask them, point-blank, are the marlins which loses money really worth 1.34 billion? what is going on here? we're going to see, exactly we'll get the other side of the story later on. obviously i update that for you tomorrow as well. neil: thank you very, very much. charlie gasparino over at the milken conference in california. by the way, there was another bit of drama today. it was in washington this time. united's ceo facing tough questions over tough treatment of passengers. what about that overbooking policy where airlines typically book more tickets than there are seats available? even after a guy gets dragged off and embarasses the airline with how it was handled, apparently the signal from united airlines we're going to
♪ neil: we do know later this hour, in fact the next half hour the president is expected to talk on the phone with vladmir putin of russia. we don't know what he will be doing with the air force academy in the oval office or whether he will usher them you out. we doç know the call is coming. at same time think about it, the president showing willingness to talk to the north krien leader as well -- north korean leader as well as have rodrigo due -- due tar day have in this rogues list of leaders changes how you deal with rogues.
cia analyst claire lopez these are not as threaten or dangerous as you think. explain. >> neil, this president likes to deal directly with foreign leaders by telephone or in person and likes to take america sure of foreign leaders who we have to deal with one way or another directly. that is his approach. neil: talking about the whole asian community or theater and philippines and not exactly always friendly to the united states is there a risk he could be look like he is being used by them? >> not if he handles the imagery correctly. not if he handles policy. and the public statements and the way that these are, you know presented in the media, if he handles that well. i think that is also important that he lays down in advance of such visits and such meetings what is u.s. policy?
what are our key, compelling national security interests in each of these places. with that as a framework laid out ahead of time, then i think that the meetings themselves can be placedded in the proper context. neil: you know, this is just me analyzing things a bit too much, always dangerous when i try to do yr job because you're much better at , claire, i wonder whether the president, especiallily with calling for, chatting with the north korean leader, he was trying to send a signal echoed by prior comment, saying we're not into regime change into north korea. we're not interested in toppling the dictator there. just that he not fire off the missiles or develop a nuclear capability. is that subtle or is that as you know, blatant as you get? >> well it depends. if you're kim jong-un, who is a very insecure young ruler, a top of a very insecure regime, that
stays in power only by overwhelming terror and force against its own population, a phone call or an invitation to meet from the president of the united states, most powerful country on the face of the earth, might not seem welcoming or friendly. i think that, i would be surprised if kim jong-un actually accepted an invitation to meet with president trump. neil: even if it means that the u.s. is kind of giving its blessing to his staying in power in the event that he makes some concessions on these weapons? >> i don't think we've seen that at all yet. that hasn't been stated. i certainly hope that's not the policy. neil: do you think it might be? do you think that is what the president seems to be hinting at we're not trying to topple him? >> i think this is he opening move. neil: i gotcha. >> this is not the endgame in sight yet. i think this is the opening play. neil: all right. >> we'll see how it plays out. i would say that the north koreans nuclear weapon program
is exceptionally dangerous. it's a direct threat to the united states of america. in particular ability to put emp, electromagnetic pulse weapon above our country and the collaboration with the regime in tehran, in iran as well. neil: all right. clare lopez, former cia operative. thank you very, very much. interesting hearing on capitol hill involving airline executives and classic overbookings of flights that caused one embarrassing incident after another. adam shapiro on that. hey, adam. reporter: neil, 40 you thousand people were bumped against their will next year. it was incident aboard united airlines express last month which enraged passengers and congress. dr. david a dao was injured after he was removed from his seat. he told the house committee on transportation and infrastructure that his airline,
united committed a serious breach of public trust because employees did not have authority to do what was right or use common sense. >> i'm personally sorry for the fact that my immediate response and the response of our airline cast inadequate to that moment. no customer, no individual should ever be treated the way mr. dao was, ever. reporter: you united now offers up to $10,000 to a customer willing to give up a seat on a flight which has been overbooked. they have a new, no questions asked, 1500-dollars payment for a passenger whose luggage is permanently lost. another indent on american airlines enraged a ssenger when flight attendant hit a mother holding a baby with stroller. american airlines senior vice president, american will no longer remove a customer already boarded. the committee asked several questions about airline practice of overbooking a night. southwest airlines eliminated the practice but other airline executives, are you ready for this, they need to continue
overbooking flights to keep ticket prices low. william mcgee, neil, aviation consultant with consumers union, he told committee packed cabins and tight seats on airplanes show the airlines disregard for concerns of passengers and utter lack of respect and the committee seemed to agree. neil: in case of the united airlines ceo was he saying we won't do this once you're seated on the plane but we'll still, we still have overbooking policy, right? >> they still -- neil: when your fannie is already on the seat in the plane? reporter: you united will no longer remove someone on the plane but they do have an-off booking policy. they claim it keeps ticket prices low. but they will compensate up to $10,000 to get people to give up seats. neil: adam, thank you very much. president trump dropped a bit of a bombshell in an interview with bloomberg, that he was open to gas tax presumably for infrastructure. we have the ceo of acon, one of
the world's largest infrastructure companies. he thinks we should keep all options on the table including a gas tax to do just that very good to have you. the president could easily said this might be a way of paying for these tax cuts i'm considering but he did seem to come back to infrastructure there. is another talk that money held abroad that companies have, trillions of dollars worth have a lower tax on it, use that for infrastructure. are you open to either, both, what? >> neil, first of all thank you for having me. we should be open to all options. there is no one silver bullet to solve all issues we have with a $3.5 trillion infrastructure gap here in the united states. so we need all the arrows. the gas tax is one of them that should be on the table. rao paytry ages of international profit -- repatriation of international profits should be on the table. incentivizing the private sector to bring private capital into the public/private partnership model. neil: doç you ever worry, michael, that is tempting fund
that could raise billions of dollars, trillions over the years but we spend, depending on numbers that are reliable here, between gas taxes already in place, state and local levees and transportation, excise related taxes over $100 billion a year on presumably infrastructure spending. and yet almost everywhere you go bridges are falling down, highways are in bad repair. is there any way to make sure that this money, that is targeted for infrastructure goes to infrastructure? >> yes, neil, there are many ways. first of all, we should understand how much we're actually spending on infrastructure here in the united states. we spend 2 1/2% of gdp on our infrastructure where other developed countries around the world, europe, canada, spending 5% of their gdp on infrastructure. we are underspending first of all. to the second questions how do we ie theoney is wholly dedicated toransportation?
first of all the gas tax does that. the highway bill and the gas tax is wholly dedicated to transportation. we've seen many states around this country that have implemented wholly dedicated sales tax for transportation initiatives. we're seeing it here in los angeles where we had a ballot measure in november that raised $120 billion over 40 years, with a dedicated sales tax to improve surface transportation in this city. neil: all right. so your belief is that if you raise it, they will wisely spend it. it is not always the case but there are are ways or guaranties to better police it? >> no question we can always improve the efficiency of delivery. one of the things we're talking about and the current administration is talking about how do we form more public/private partnerships where the public sector and the private sector are coming together, investing together to more efficiently deploy
infrastructure. there is a solution there. there is a solution to reduce the bureaucratic process and regulatory burdens on implementation of infrastructure. we heard yesterday at the milkem the white house that they are interested in taking the 10-year regulatory process for infrastructure and reducing it to two years. that will significantly increase the efficiency and deployment of the capital that we're talking about. neil: michael burke, ae could. om ceo. >> thank you for having me. neil: after the bell we'll get apples earnings news. the interest this day could be on the cash hoard piling up in excess of $250 billion. half the countries in this planet don't have that much money on hand. apple will. the question, what it is doing with that? after this.
i use what's already inside me to reach my goals. so i liked when my doctor told me that i may reach my blood sugar and a1c goals by activating what's within me with once-weekly trulicity. trulicity is not insulin. it helps activate my body to do what it's supposed to do release its own insulin. trulicity responds when my blood sugar rises. i take it once a week, and it works 24/7. it comes in an easy-to-use pen. and i may even lose a little weight. trulicity is a once-weekly injectable prescription medicine
to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. trulicity is not insulin. it should not be the first medicine to treat diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take trulicity if you or a family member has had medullary thyroid cancer, if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to trulicity. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms such as itching, rash, or trouble breathing; a lump or swelling in your neck; or severe pain in your stomach area. serious side effects may include pancreatitis, which can be fatal. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your risk for low blood sugar. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, and indigestion. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may make existing kidney problems worse. with trulicity, i click to activate what's within me. if you want help improving your a1c and blood sugar numbers with a non-insulin option,
neil: nasdaq, as you probably understand has been on fire of late, again in record territory today. a lot of big names like facebook, microsoft, alphabet, apple, in and out of all-time highs. high expectations for apple with the closing bell today when it is expected to report boffo earnings. getting a lot more attention for likely $250 million plus cash hoard it is amassing. what happel likely does with that money because that is a lot of money and a lot of tech guys are in the same sort of footing here although not quite as large. what you do you think they do here? the big, you know, attention has always been on, what incentives can be made to get that money largely offshore on this shore. i guess this will be renewed attention to that after these numbers come out tonight, no? >> absolutely. with the new administration's focus on this tax plan, that could allow these companies to have a discount to bring the
cash back into the u.s., really three things that apple could do with the cash if they did that. one they could repurchase stock and boost dividends. they could look increasing u.s. manufacturing, perhaps adding another plant in the u.s. the third getting the most buzz, maybe what we'll talk about here today, they could make big-time acquisition of other tech or entertainment other companies. neil: now they don't do that. they make a dozen or so up to two dozen relatively small acquisitions. for apple, couple billion dollar range. rarely not much bigger than that. there is talk about oh, maybe a hookup with disney, all of that. do you envision anything like that? >> they do send towards these safer, smaller, easy to integrate bets, but the biggest one they have is the $3 billion purchase of beats for their music division. i think, what apple, people are clamoring for, for apple to
demonstrate the inno he vision, right? they're saying innovation is lacking from apple. this is really an opportunity for them to demonstrate innovation by perhaps purchasing innovation, so something like tesla to boost their autonomous car market, that apple's stake in that is very interesting. neil: you know, in the past, steve jobs's, i'm sure you know better than anyone, shana, they made their own revolutionary technology. they had not to buy it from others. maybe that is harder today. i remember distinctly a decade ago people were laughing at steve jobs with this iphone concept saying it would never be anything like the big moneymaker laptops and imac an some of these other offerings were. he proved them wrong but again that was homegrown. i'm wondering if a signal towards more acquisitions that maybe tim cook is running out of ideas. what you do you think? >> i think they demonstrated they're struggling to find the
foothold of this next big product. the apple watch didn't do as well as perhaps they opened for. the apple tv is not, picking up steam as much as they hoped. seems publicly there is a struggle that, again if they put some cash into it, they could boost -- they made announcement around autonomous -- sorry, suspected to have moved into autonomous vehicles and focus in there on some innovation they're lacking. neil: what about becoming like netflix without buying netflix? apple tv, they stream a lot of good stuff. could they become a lot bigger in that sphere? could that be a sign they have the means and equipment and technology they could offer a lot of content? >> they're eyeing original content. so there is the sense that, they are trying to enhance their apple tv offerings. one of the biggest problems, you
have apple tv, everything you did, you pretty much had to you buy movies and things like that from apple. it really wasn't useful to people. so if they could continue to create new content it, would be a more attractive proposition for people to turn on their apple tv and tune into the new content they created. neil: do you ever worry, apple, notwithstanding, a few players, alphabet, apple, alphabet, facebook, maybe intuit a little bit, amazon, and they are the lion's share of the technology run-up and technology attention, that it is centered on a few big names or is it wider than we're just led to believe? >> i think it is wider than we're led to believe. they have a massive pr machine behind most of these companies. neil: that is true. >> they can get attention for relatively small divisions of their company. especially think about autonomous car technology with companies like deaf -- delphi,
creating centerss you can fit into a regular car to make it a autonomous vehicle. there are companies innovative, pushing the envelope. they're just not getting quite the attention. neil: you're right about that. this is simplistic question but i ask many such questions. when you hear about the appeal of apple, and a lot of people looked at a the enormous run-up in the stock, they say how much more running room is there here, is it one of the long-term holders, like holding a tech mutual fund, that it is so die first and such upward potential to it, that it's a good long-term bet, as far as echoing technology growth and possibilities? >> i think that it is. i think what you're seeing investors believing in that as well, holding their positions in apple, feeling like it is a relatively safe investment. and you know, iphone continues to dominate the market. they're going to have more announcements regarding that
later this year. celebrate the 10th anniversary. it's a safe bet. we hope to it see more innovation from them that could potential itly take them to the next level with their investors. neil: shanna, thank you very much. fascinating stuff. >> thank you. neil: meantime president trump is going to be holding a phone call, might be going on right now with vladmir putin. a lot has gone under the bridge here since t two lt chat how is this ing? after this. ♪
neil: there is a new report you out right now, some by democratic strategists worried that a lost obama voters turned -- a lot of obama voters turned to donald trump after the election and not going to democrats at this point. that is very early. everything can change. we have a former sanders backer turned trump backer. democrats are still making same mistakes and betting on the wrong horses. she joins us right now. i find that kind of interesting, the breakdown of this, as i'm sure you did, a lot of people that left the democratic fold to go to donald trump are not dissuaded by some say stumbling start around not getting
everything he wanted in first 100 days. they're not running back to the fold. what do you say to that. >> i would say god bless you, god bless america. what i would say is this, the democratic party got consumed with power and donors and hollywood and corporate interests and everybody else's interests except the american people's interests. and that's what happened on election night. the people forgotten, left behind. the people voted two times for our former president barack obama, said enough is enough. and, basically with the president in office right now we know that we have a neophyte in office. we don't have a politician in office. we have a people -- tician. of course he doesn't know all the lay of the land. he is learning as he goes. we expected that. we expect some stumbles. we expect some problems but we do know that he is a hard worker. he is a builder. he will recover. and that we do know. so, no we're not running back.
neil: he enjoys as you know, brunell, core support from his pace 96% say by and large they elect him. he would win popular vote if election was now. he still has that going for him. solid democrat voters are still solid democrat voters, solid republican voters are still solid republican voters. what would it take for him to get above that? some critics is quit talking to your base as he did in pennsylvania. what do you think of that? >> i think our president can unite the country. part of it is he has to get some of the legislation, some of the things that he has promised, like the health care and tax reform, and things like that, jobs, jobs, jobs. i can't say it anymore, jobs. those have to start to come to fruition, because what will happen is, when people are working, when they can get a
good education, which is the school choice he promised, when the promises begin to be met, people will really watch him seriously and really take a real good look at him. it won't be talking the talk like the former president obama. he would be walking the walk. i believe that once we start seeing the fruition of, the fruit of what he has said comeee people will look at him, not just republicans, but democrats and more independents as well. neil: do you look at what is going on right now and acknowledge that donald trump does need to rack up a victory here? could be that he is legislatively, that is a tough call. are you frustrated with republicans with the run of washington have not been able to do that? and some argue this latest budget deal is a good example of that? the democrats got better of the president, what do you think? >> i believe that the republican party has to get behind this president. there is division.
a lot of it is just straight hating. they're angry that many of them sat down there 40 and 30, 10 years and here they feel like he didn't, you know, didn't have to go tough what they went to for him to be president. what they have to do is suck that up. the one thing about the democratic party, that i'm a democrat, the one thing about the democratic party is, we don't fight each other usually. i mean it is like, everybody's falling in line, rank-and-file. you do what you're supposed to do. what happens with the bernie supporters is the way that they rigged it against bernie sanders. so that is what a lot of democrats fell out of favor with the party. i'm still out of favor with the party. and so i think that he just simply has to keep his word. if he can do that, if he can keep his word and follow through on the promises, i believe that he is going to be in a good place. neil: all right. often times it does come back to delivering the goods, right?
>> but republican party also has to get behind him and stop failing the people or we will vote you out in 2018. you will get voted out. neil: thank you, strong words. good seeing you again. >> yes, god bless you. god bless america. neil: to you as well. meanwhile the white house is on defense. the budget director is on period in half an hour. mick mulvaney outlining in a briefing, rare time he will speak before reporters what is at stake on this budget and address concerns that the president or republican ins general might have cavedded. he has a slightly different view of that after this. i love that i can pass the membership to my children. we're the williams family, and we're usaa members for life.
which is what we do. crowne plaza. we're all business, mostly. neil: all right, the president a short time ago speaking to members of the air force academy, invited them into the oval office at the same time taking its own call from vladimir putin. we let you in on all that appeared in the meantime, the president taking a little criticism and little criticism that tr republicans in general might have caved on this budget agreement. if that is indeed the criticism, remember it is one thing to get a majority behind u.n. something, but in the senate you need 60 votes on budgetary items. if you don't have a budget come you do want to shut down and you do have problems. blake urman at the latest from the white house on that and so much more. reporter: hi there, neil.
not only capitol hill from republicans on this day, but here at the white house as it relates to this bipartisan spending bill that was struck. on sunday night, but now fast forward some 36 hours and you are starting to get the sense here from republicans in washington that they need to go on the offense on this one and try to explain what they feel they were able to win. either way, the president sent out a tweet this morning that was very clearly a bit on the defensive as it relates to this spending agreement and it was a tweet that custom eyebrows because here's what it said. quoting president trump, the recently negotiated between republicans and democrats that we need 60 votes in the senate, which are not there appeared a week am he goes onto say, either ect more republican senators in 2018 or change the rules to 51%, meaning a filibuster. our country needs a good, quote, shut down in september to fix the mess. what exactly the president means
by a good shutdown, we hope to hear from the white house press secretary sean spicer at his briefing in a little while. wanted to go, president trump is the be air force football team. there is a presentation in the rose garden. they give a chance to talk up the spending bill for $21 billion in funding is coming your way. he also touted the $1.5 billion that will be going towards border security. listen. >> we achieved to largest increase in border security, spending in 10 years. so we have more money now for the border than we've gotten in 10 years. the democrats didn't tell you that. they forgot. in their notes, they forgot to tell you that. with enough money to make a down payment on the border wall. reporter: so neil, when you talk about this pr push from republicans, the tweet from the president. mick mulvaney briefed reporters as well. then there was a president
talking about this and sean spicer will be joined in the press briefing room by mick mulvaney. just kind of them up with the republicans they look, we want to hear the argument, but now they try to get out front and center on this one. sure into thank you very much, blake berman. defense over the budget deal, but not on defense itself because they were able to guarantee $12.5 million for defense spending. so that they seem to think it's a victory reaction. chief political correspondent, the name of the rally. what do you make of this skittishness on the part of republicans who once again don't like the way democrats are playing this as a win for them and come in as they after some other pr battle here that they feel they are getting the short end of the media coverage stick. >> yow well, republicans need to pick the right battles.
this is the right battle to pick. let's start with paul ryan, for example. are we 042 with this guy? first it was upon the care they couldn't do anything with that, now the spending bill. paul ryan set the table for this to be a priority, neil, to not shut down the government, which by the way is nonessential government activity. i also think president trump should have insisted on language in the spending bill to really penalize sanctuary cities. this would have put democrats on notice. this would've blamed democrats for the government shutdown and also would have put the spotlight on democrats who are covering for a legal or medical -- criminal migrants instead of safety and security for innocent americans. they should've cranked up the pr machine on that issue alone. >> right now, to that point, the democrats are seizing on what they get versus what republicans do not get.
they got no-caps in sanctuary cities. no cutbacks in the environmental funding for anything at the epa. planned parenthood and its budget continues to receive federal funding. nothing cut hair. they go back and say when it comes to puerto rico in medicaid funds available to puerto rico, and they tried unfair. they know how to run the government even in the minority role than republicans in the majority role. what he think of that? >> you know, neil, this is a bipartisan area. in a bipartisan victory of small victories and defeats on both sides. that is what i don't understand. i knew that the democrats -- the democrats got a little bit they would spend us as trump's weakness for the fact that the gop -- neil: you know, the media is saying you got to be bipartisan. you've got to reach out to the other side good low and behold
he does, they do and not the sign of weakness. they can't win. >> they can't win it all. bipartisanship is what we all want as americans we elect leaders to where we can have a bipartisan movement. you know, each side give-and-take. what you have is a give-and-take on each side. the rabble cans -- republicans with school choice, no new money for obama karen's so forth. but still, it is looked at the mainstream media spends that as the republican party is in shambles and the gop. how are they going to do this going forward? it is great. it is great because we have a bipartisan victory. for once, both sides of a government shutdown. if the government would have shut down instead of blaming it on democrats come every time the government shutdown, they blame it on republicans.
>> treats you i do remember the last government shutdown was blamed on reining in spending. never democratic in terms of wanting to continue spending. i guess that is just the way it is. republicans felt that they were burned although there's very little little polling on that is to suggest it hurt them at the polls. >> that is correct. also, look at the fact that what republicans really need to do was to continue to rise that wave of momentum from the presidential election. the trend is your friend. ride that momentum from the election to the fact that 96% of americans voted for trump and still support -- would vote for him today and still support president trump. excuse me. they are missing a huge opportunity to fight. americans did not put republicans in the house-senate in the white house just a rollover. they didn't do that. neil: real quickly on the health care thing in the tax cut thing, there's an argument to be made among lawyers.
i don't know if either of you are lawyers. because this would go outside the tenure window, that is particularly the tax-cut stuff, it is going to be beyond a simple majority to get what you want republicans you're going to have to go for much bigger numbers in the senate. would that be a problem right now for republicans if it comes down to that? >> you know, trump said this in a tweet and i think he meant it. when you get a tweet from trump, it is his immediate reaction from his immediate thought. that's why i like him so much on twitter. most people hate it. we need to get more republicans elected in the senate. let's get 60. and so, i really think going forward if you look at it, the way you put it out there, it is imperative that we get our act together and more republicans if that is what you want, if what you want us to overwhelmingly pass everything the way they have it and you have to do that.
neil: ladies coming thank you area, very much. the white house is still wishing for this health care bow, but a lot of it comes down to whether preexisting conditions would still be covered. i didn't get necessarily straining at their other republican mike kelly on what role the states would play defining what is exactly the significance. take a look. >> preexisting is one of those things i don't say. but it still comes down to the business model of insurance and how you construct it. we really do believe the state should have some sovereignty. they should be able to put together what they think is best for the people. neil: one of my state says no to cover for preexisting conditions? >> a lot of people feel that is sent to the states to decide. neil: that's an important distinction. if the state can save you because you've had a prior condition might not get coverage for us or might not be as generous, could that be a problem and for republicans, could that change the way moderate republicans who up
until now have been opened to some of the changes they've seen other conservative members in their own party. reaction from house caucus member. what do you make of that? i'm a little confused. do you stand by -- two republicans still stand by coverage for preexisting condition? >> the issue is resolved. the american people have spoken. we want to stand for preexisting condition. a lot of people get confused between the states ability to waive some of the obamacare mandate. they confuse that with some how preesting conditions being taken away. they are two totally different things. if the state tops out at the mandates from obamacare, they must still provide for preexisting conditions in their state. there are filters in here, individuals with preexisting conditions are going to be protected. neil: all right, but would it
vary from state to state? could they decide this preexisting condition is different than another preexisting condition. that is confused at congressman calley. it didn't sound like a a significant read on that in some states might interpret that differently. >> certainly we want states to be able to be states, rather than everything come down from the federal government. to some extent there will be some variation from one state to the next. neil: congressman, virginia, how it defines a preexisting condition and how my state of new jersey, they should both be on the same page when it comes to that kind of stuff. >> they will be on the same page so far as they will still be required to show that they are covering people with preexisting conditions. some of the details as to how that plays out for one state to the other may vary somewhat. people with preexisting conditions will absolutely be covered in the states will be required to do so. neil: the president went on a
little bit on this event at the air force academy for some of the congressmen and women who were there ever going to get a health care bow. i'm paraphrasing here, but in other words, applying the not-so-subtle pressure here to get a vote soon to move this to the senate soon. he's not going to be a happy camper. what do you make of that? >> cap, absolutely. we want to take care of this health care issue soon. that's the american people sent us here to do. the longer we drag our feet, the worse it is. obamacare is absolutely a disaster. we all know that. i am not on the team, but we are being able to have the numbers and i think we look at it across the finish line. neil: when you think that will happen? >> hopefully this week. we are within days rather than weeks. i felt very confident. neil: a sound that the battle is in the senate. if you've got a squeaker and passes in the house, presuming
that's what she got to get, the real battle could be in the senate. >> and what is new about that? we are all getting tired of the senate making all of us dysfunctional. get their act together and the ball across the finish line on their side as well. neil: all right, congressman, thank you for taking the time. >> thank you for having me. neil: around piling on united on this over on this over booking a flight the fact he was a piñata today on capitol hill. by jonathan haldane is defending united. united after this. what powers the digital world. communication. that's why a cutting edge university counts on centurylink
to keep their global campus connected. and why a pro football team chose us to deliver fiber-enabled broadband to more than 65,000 fans. and why a leading car brand counts on us to keep their dealer network streamlined and nimble. businesses count on communication, and communication counts on centurylink.
>> essentially, you represent for regional monopolies. so you've been able to do everything you want to. >> it's an absolute joke there is a competition within the airline industry. >> a problem with the flying experience is across the board. we all know it's a terrible experience. neil: all right, that is a tough place to be when europe had not a with a congressmen and women zeroing in on you for being all the same problems here jonathan, defending the airlines and jms case, they might be focusing on themselves rather than the guy
they are targeting in the case of the united ceo. jonathan, your view is white when it comes to overbooking or other steps that airlines like united take to get a handle on costs, they should do so, right? >> this is the thing about united. this has become this annual event in american politics, this public flogging, this would be no successful american business. whether it's car companies, oil companies, pharmaceutical companies. it wasn't a long-ago bfb printmaker was in in there. not the airlines turn to comment and explain profits, policies. this congressmen, u.s. congresswoman. it's humiliating and it's all over control of her private business in both parties are guilty. they have nothing to explain government has no role in the airline industry. neil: with the exception of southwest to your point, there's taking with this overbooking policy. obviously a lot of people who must cancel it cost them dearly
when that happens. the only exception united is making already on the plane come you are safe from being kicked off the plane unless you ask a good limited. what you think of that? >> i don't work in the airline industry. either to you, neither do this congressmen and women who want to lecture executives about how they should be running their businesses. the fact of the matter is airline satfaction is that a 20 year high. who's going to say about the airlines? people are as happy as they been for decades and as many pointed out, prices have gone down dramatically. they are lower than they were to fly domestically than when i was in high school. all of this venom is stirred up by politicians and the only people they can find approval ratings lower than theirs or executives. neil: that's a very good point. when you have an incident like what happened with the doctor on the plane, these are few and far between they greet you. it sort of get the venom going.
people see that and say it's great. you think that airlines can barely be -- voluntarily take these issues? >> sure come you know who is not stealing the airlines the dr. being dragged down the aisle. he settled. but when we see these types of video, it prompts politicians to do exactly the worst thing. it prompts them to say we've got to do some thing. if you listen to the testimony today, eight out of 10 comments from both sides of the aisle was about how we could further regulate the industry. before politicians decided to dip into the airlines until these folks had to run their businesses, what about looking at amtrak or the post office or friday or family for the $19 trillion of debt that they're responsible for in the private business allowed. neil: that's not so bad. that's not so bad at all. they are not good at accounting for their money.
jonathan, good to see you again my friend. >> only vip. neil: we are awaiting this white house briefing with the budget director, nick baldini joining sean spicer and outlining the budget agreement. you know, they've got that voted on in the house and senate. hence a lot of the concessions republicans made to get e 60 votes. you don't hear mh talk about that. after this. 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. 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. gave us the power to turn this enemy into an ally? microsoft and its partners are using smart traps to capture mosquitoes and sequence their
gary gerri willis has the details i'm not in the store and this is creating. >> that's right, neil. higher gas taxes as the president's latest idea for feeling infrastructure investment. right now drivers to 18.4 cents and 27 cents a gallon versus 27.3 cents a gallon in state gas taxes. the people of america for tax reform wrote ridge improvements could be paid for without even lifting the federal gas tax a penny. how so? repealing the 1931 act would give the government more flexibility in paid workers by dumping laws require that are bailing wages. according to ap are coming getting rid of the 1931 law would allow the feds to increase bridges and miles of roads by 20%. the heritage foundation point out 30% of spending from the gas
tax gets allocated to projects that have very little to do with the highway system. like sharing programs of recreational trails. it has become a flash fun. while trump is open to gas taxes, the truth is he's been beaten to the punch by state to raise gas taxes as of january 1st. bottom line, making the government more efficient would allow tax revenues to go a long way in making our nation's roads and bridges safer. i send it back to you. you need to understand the government is collecting 40 billion in the highway trust fund each and every year over the next five years. how much are they on past 10? 55 to 60 billion. the math just doesn't matter. neil: they need more money they argue. more better accounting of the money they are spending. thank you area, very much. charlie gasparino at the conference over in california. what are you hearing, charlie?
resource for capitol hill saying this thing might not be dead on arrival, but it's pretty close to it. they basically say this thing is that coming out for you though. conservatives in congress just that against freezing anytime the tax, particularly which as you know rich people essentially as much as poor people. poor people more. rich people can take their planes to work poor people have to drive their cars. we get a gas tax through and it's very little support. house speaker paul ryan has been against it in our unofficial thoughts business survey done by me here with talking to people, legislative people at the conference. my producer brian shores pulling conservatives up in congress. this thing ain't happening to how much the president pushes it and how much pressure he put the republicans. this is close to be away.
the club for growth is against this. just about every republican in congress aside from a few, but most can evidence think this is one of the worst ideas to come out of the trump administration. we should point out that jeb bush is against it. he was sakingoday ahead of the cma where he was talking about some of the good things and bad things about the trump white house in his first 100 plus a few days in office. the good thing if some of his deeds have been very good, appointments. a supreme court appointment of mr. gorsuch has been good. he is singing his tweets are so good. they create a level of instability. brought up what is damaging them of the stuff he said about north korean dictator in what he has recently said about a government shutdown is supporting a gas tax, something that jeb bush mentioned that president trump
when he was candidate trump was again on the campaign trail. there you have it. a lot of pushback on the gas tax like pushback on everything. if the president wants to go there, be there for a battle. neil: charlie gasparino coming thank you goodenow to connell mcshane. north korea regarding what we want to connect in the area. calm all. reporter: nothing new out of north korea. some comments from the north korean some extra attention and fair to say. the u.s. military missile defense system now operational in south korea. a big story out there today. in addition to that coming u.s. bombers conducting training missions in the region and those treating the mission appear -- listen to this, from the north korean news agency. this is the reckless military provocation is pushing the situation on the korean peninsula closer to the brink of
nuclear war. all of us on the heels of the missile test from kim jong sub for his government. still another one that went forward. the north korean foreign ministry yesterday saying they will speed up efforts to help its nuclear program as it describes a maximum pace. the trump administration what is described as mixed signals to the president talking tough himself saying we can't allow north korea to better develop missile launching capability. he and his advisers certainly have not taken a military option off the table. on the other hand, the president in his interview said he'd be willing to meet with kim jong un, that he'd be honored to do so under the right circumstances. neil: thank you very, very much. much has been made about donald trump talking about is all eventually getting about 3% growth in this country.
it is 50% more than we been averaging in the last eight years. so that would mean presumably 50% more revenues from washington. 50% worse than a list to the economy. 50% more of everything, right? maybe. your parents have been talking about you for years. sorry about that. they're all about me saving for a house, or starting a college fund for my son. actually, i want to know what you're thinking. have a seat. knowing that the most important goals are yours. multiplied by 14,000 financial advisors, it's a big deal. and it's how edward jones makes sense of investing.
neil: all right, you always hear as we wait for the white house briefing, including comments from mick mulvaney, white house budget director we can get 3% growth. it would be 50% stronger growth than we're experiencing now. so it doesn't seem like herculean leap to get to that level but it's a herculean leap to get to that level. market watcher scott shellady, so much goes to the growth concept. you get that growth, it can pay for a lot of things. do you buy that? >> yeah.
i mean the way we started off his presidency we have great consumer confidence, a lot of folks believe in him, but at the end of the day, put your hand over eyes, take out good jobs number, these numbers are obamaesque. he has to get on his horse. first quarter gdp is paltry. we haven't shown any good signs of life. we have to get going. neil: that you're right, that was .7 of growth. first quarter can be dicey anyway. i think federal reserve is out of the stimulus business, right? it is up to washington in terms of fiscal policy to change that. tax cuts only game presumably in town here. some worry about deficits getting worse when you do that. what do you think? >> well i think it will not be revenue neutral. i think right now between 2 1/2 trillion and nine 1/2 trillion what they're looking at as far as tax cuts could bring in deficit. it will have to be a tax cut. that what it will have to be.
exhausted monetary policy central banks shown what can be done. doesn't work either. we haven't had the growth. we're starting to see wages pick up. we need to do a tax cut and do it now. that is it one thing that maybe will rescue us, give us a chance at 3%. neil: what do you make of the fact that the bond market held up pretty well? rates have been constant if not lower even as stocks have been soaring? it is a anomaly to put it mildly but it is the best of all worlds. how long does that last? >> i think right now the bond market is the truth serum. these rate hikes have not come down to the high street banks or main street banks. nobody is getting interest. they're still being forced to the bond market. bond market is, show me what you got lately. we value equities different scale, much more touchy-feely, but truth serum is the bond market. neil: if the truth serum is right, the bond market doesn't anticipate much stimulus coming? >> i don't think so.
i don't think we'll see a ton of growth. i would love to see a huge tax break make the difference here. it has to get done and done quicker than people think. neil: do you think budget deal that showed a lot of bipartisanship which the media would commend both parties but interpreted as republicans caving and getting had. leaving that aside though, it doesn't auger well hire for a health care rework or for that matter tax cuts, democrats are smelling blood. they're convinced they will win on that as well. what do you think? >> i think they're being led better. i'm not nervous. i'm angry. you know we've got an opportunity, conservatives have the opportunity here they're slowly but surely squandering because they want to stick their chest out and pound it because they have been in the dark ages the last eight years. th is something they can't lter at the rst fence. that looks like what they are doing. they need to be led better.
they need to get going. i do think the democrats are getting over on them. not nervous. just angry. neil: are you angry if it turns out the tax cut if it might be coming it won't be as big, sweeping comprehensive as billed? it might still be, i don't want to trivialize it but have probably a 10-year sunset as part of the budget reconciliation process but it will be smaller than thought? >> yeah. look, i don't want to be debbie downer here. we're not doing well. these numbers have not turned around. this aircraft carrier is going in the same direction, take out the one good jobs number. neil: right. >> we need something sweeping and radical. if we don't get that, we'll continue to slip back into the numbers we saw unobama. then we'll be wondering what you now? that is going to be problem. we need something broad and sweeping and we need it earlier rather than later. neil: no appetite it seems for even anything approaching spending restraint.
i'm not saying go crazy and address all entitlements at once but nothing to curb the growth of government? >> we need to do that too. i thought it was really interesting when mnuchin was pressed on this, hey, these tax cuts could make the deficit balloon. well as percentage of what we think gdp will be, it will be a lot better than it is today. he almost gave up the fact that he think that will balloon a little bit. he thinks gdp will be much freighter and subscribing to of laffer on that. neil: you're referring to the art laffer, the last tax cutter under ronald reagan. if it doesn't pan out as generous as timely, that is the tax cuts than has been anticipated or maybe baked into the market pie, then what? >> well it will catch up to our gdp. the last three you mention is not good. paul tudor jones is icon in the industry, that the fed should quote, terrified with the
valuations in equity market compared to our gdp. we can't continue to sit around talking about weir going to great a economy. we have to get a great economy. it has to be from stimulus and tax cuts. fiscal policy will have to be tax policy. monetary policy from the fed doesn't work. we need the boost and need it now. we haven't seen any significant turn around in any economic numbers since he has been in office. yes, consumer confidence is a lot better, but we're expecting a lot. we can't go downstairs and buy a beer with high consumer confidence number. neil: how do you think the president is doing? all these back and forth notwithstanding. >> i'll tell you this, i think, i was excited to see a new change and see a new administration because i have been pretty frustrated the last eight years but i could never envision even his own party stalling him and putting up their hands at every turn. the guy has got really nobody
pushing him forward -- he has wind in his face the entire time. i could not have envisioned how much that would be the case. so he just doesn't have anything in his bark giving him a boost. it will be a long hard slog. if that is the case, we'll slip back where we were last eight years. we'll not get anything done. who wins from that? neil: that would point to a serious correction or worse in the stock market, in that event, right? >> well, i mean, like i said, i'm not debbie downer but we need some numbers come in to boost the valuations. funny enough, we have 12.5% letter than last year on earnings. we were looking maybe 9%. most of that is coming from overseas earnings. neil: all right. >> the conglomerates, global conglomerates are up 19%. guys at home are up 9%. we're starting to look at numbers, this economy is not getting any better very fast. neil: all right. >> with that .7 gdp last quarter, anything coming around the corner anytime soon will not get us where we need to be.
neil: scott shellady, thank you very much. sean spice hears the budget director in tow. let's listen. >> keep our border safe. ironically when the secretary is done he has to get to meeting with president at that talk about the wall, efforts to drive down immigration and illegal border crossings. after he is done, director of management and budget mick mulvaney will talk about the status of the president's priorities in the funding bill and then take your questions. without further adieu, second hair of homeland security john kelly. >> thank you, sean. well i talked to many in the media over the last 100 plus days about the things our department does on a daily basis to keep our nation safe. in past 100 days we're incredibly successful enforcing the you law and dwindling the nation. i believe this budget will help us begin to improve the way we do business and how we
accomplish our goals to make this country more secure. the department's base discretionary budget authority is $42.4 billion. we can never in my opinion invest too much in the security of our citizens and in our communities, we will be able to both sustain our critical security operations and make improvements that will make us all safer. that includes hiring i.c.e. agents, inproving cybersecurity, funding grants that support state and local communities, funding coast guard operations at $344 million above the fy-1budget request. as promised the budget will secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws. border security has three factors. you need people, you need technology and you need infrastructure. this budget begins to provide, begins to provide all three. it will help us replace he see-through steel wall along the southwest border. it will help us put more enforcement aircraft in the skies.
it will help us to deploy more technology to stop illegal activities crossing our borders. it keeps us moving in the right direction, to a more secure secure united states. we accomplished so much with the resources we already have. if i may remind you apprehensions of illegal immigrants and criminals at the border are down significantly. but we need more to keep moving forward. this is our government's largest investment in border security in 10 years. we are getting the tools we need, beginning to get the tools we need to make a change. but frankly i am shocked at the behavior of some individuals in public service or public office that instead of celebrating how they have managed to reduce the amount of money for border wall, a wall that will make us more secure, that will prevent drug smuggling, they're rejoicing in the fact that wall will be
slower to be built, consequently our southwest border und less control than it could be. these apprriations provide a solid investment in the people, equipment and technology that helps our department protect the homeland. we face a variety of hazards with man-made and natural factors in this budget begins to help us confront them all. i would like to thank as i always do, all of the men and women of dhs who take on this often thankless, often dangerous and very, very difficult job and they do it every day superbly. i am proud to lead them. most americans appreciate what they do and thank them every day. most public officials also appreciate and defend them but there are many who hold them an apology. many in public service owe them an apology, frankly many in the media how they did disrespect t, disrespect them for what they do and how they serve us every day.
with that i would like to introduce the director of omb, mick? >> let's get the important things out of the way first. thank you for being here. sean says i can't do this but today is my anniversary. my wife is actually watching for a change. hey, pam, love you very much. 19th anniversary. good. got that out of the way. believe me i wish i were home not here as much as i enjoy you people. you can't be home -- those of you who know me that it's a miracle i have been married to anybody for 19 years. we're here today to talk about the bipartisan spending bill, okay? i want to focus on that description first before we go into the details. a lot of folks asked us over the course of the last 24, 48 hours, with republicans in charge of the house and the senate and the white house, why do we need a bipartisan spending bill? one of the things i think is not being discussed as openly as it should is that this is one of
those bills that requires 60 votes in the senate. lth care bill. we have to have at least eight democrats support this in the senate. which is why we've been working with democrats in the very beginning. yes we could have passed a republican bill out of the house, but it would have never passed out of the senate and we would be accused of not being able to function and run the government. so there is a very good reason that we were working with democrats on a bipartisan bill, that is because we must, until those rules change, that is the environment we're going to continue to operate in. the, the dems have been trying to claim victory on this, which i think is a very strange way to look at a bipartisan discussion. if you're in bipartisan meeting i think it is unusual one group to spiking football, we won, we killed the other guys. it certainly doesn't bode very well for future discussions but since the democrats have raised issue, trying to cast this as democrat victory i think it is important today and only fair to
show you what is really in the bill, and how the president actually cut a tremendous deal for the american people. at the end of the day who we think won in this discussion and in this negotiation, not the democrats, not the republicans, but the american people. first the list of things that republican got in the negotiation. you heard a bunch of different numbers about the top line defense number. i heard as low as 10, 12 1/2 billion dollars. the number is 21 billion, okay? that is what additional defense spending is, $21 billion. made up of two numbers. $15 billion in stand alone oco overseas contingency operations account. 6 billion hardwired into the underlying dod aprops bill. this is omnibus bill, which is made up of different bills. one of the bills that become part of the omnibus is the defense appropriations bill and in that bill is $6 billion worth of oco spending. take the six in the underlying
bill, the 15 was added as supplemental. that is how you arrive at $21 billion. the 12.5 billion number is wrong. the 15 billion-dollar number is wrong. you could talk as high as 25 billion, compare it to fy-2016 but you could never go below $21 billion in that analysis which is full 2/3 of what we asked for in the beginning. i talk a little more about the dhs number, the $1.522 billion of additional spending by the way. that is not all of the spending on border security. the total dhs number by the time we're finished willing north of $42 billion, okay? one of the largest, excuse me the largest funding levels for border security in the last 10 years what we'll have at the end of this process. that is where this negotiation has taken us to the largest spending on border security in 10 years. we'll go over details of that in a second. miners health. one of my favorites, democrats walked out the room, they protected miners health. so did the president.
president has been asking me since the day i got here for a way to fix the miners health issue problems that they have in appalachia. we were simply waiting for the opportunity to give it as part of a bipartisan discussion so we could get something in return. we marked this as one of our victories in this particular bill. every single second amendment protection that we wanted and democrats wanted to get rid of is still in the bill. every single pro-life protection we wanted to keep in the bill the democrats wanted out is gone, okay. most importantly, those in the room, folks who take the tile to watch this during the day, understand this is follow this business very closely. we broke parity. for those covering this area, know what that means. past several years, ever since spending caps came on, the sequester went in, unwritten deal for capitol hill, every dollar of defense spending republicans wanted they had to give one dollar of non-defense spending to the democrats. that was the deal that president
obama was able to cut during his last years in office. we got $21 billion of new defense spending for less than $5 billion of non-defense spending. we didn't go dollar for dollar. we got 21 billion and only gave 20 cents for defense secretary. that is tremendous development for this president and huge win from negotiating standpoint. think about that for a second. dollar for a dollar, a dollar for just 20 cents. plus part of that 4.5, $5 billion is stuff we like. miners health is included in that number. even some of the stuff we gave away supposedly to get the defense spending was stuff we liked in the first place. what didn't the democrats get? the obamacare bailout money in package. i read that in newspapers couple different times i seen that in the news. go find it. it is not there, but democrats are telling you about that is false. there is absolutely no language in this bill that requires to us make any obamacare bail youout
payments, any csr payments of any way, shape or form as a result of this deal. okay? why are the democrats saying that? because it is what they told they base would deliver and they failed to do that for their base. that is not in the bill. there is no new money for puerto rico. you hear democrats crying out they got $295 million for puerto rico. not a penny of it is new money. all of that money was already spent. it was actually part of obamacare under previous agreement. that money was sitting there unspent and all we agreed to do was agree to let them move it from one place to another. did not cost the taxpayer a penny. they wanted new money. they wanted a bailout. weouldn't vet them. we gave them money already appropriated, already spent. no reyou knewable energy subsidies. they wanted at last minute they through in demand for renewable energy subsidies for wind and solar. we kept those out. what they really didn't get is this, this is what they wanted.
they want ad shutdown. we know that. they were desperate to make this administration look like we couldn't function, like we couldn't govern. we know that a large part of their base, especially left-wing base want ad shut down. certainly didn't want them to cut a deal with us. that is why they're crowing about their success in order to cover up the fact they cut a deal with president trump and president trump did a tremendous job. what are we talking about? more money for spending, excuse me, more money for defense. more money for border security, more money for school choice, another thing we got. those of you here in march saw me introduce our first version of our budget blueprint saw me talk about the president's priorities. what were they? defense, border security, school choice. the president delivered on his promises and got his priorities funded and that is what the democrats don't want you to know. they want you to think they won. but they don't want you to know the american people won here because the president simply outnegotiated them.
want to come back to one thing. take questions. if i can bring pictures up now, that would be great. you heard me talk a lot last couple weeks, television, there is no bricks and mortar, there is no bricks or mortar for a wall. we'll build this. there are several hundreds of millions of dollars for us to replace cyclone fencing with 20-foot high steel wall. several hundred millions dollars, bring up other photo. do very the other photo? several hundreds of millions of dollars to build levee walls along the southern border. many know vulnerable areas where we have places along rivers we desperately need levees to pridprotection for southern border. we're building ts now. there is money in this deal to build several hundreds of millions of dollars to build this to replace this. that is what we got in the deal. that is what democrats don't want you to know.
this stuff is going up now. why? because the president wants to make the country more safe. this doesn't stop drugs and doesn't stop criminals from crossing border. it doesn't stop hardly anything from crossing the border. this does. that is what we got in the deal. we're so excited about the opportunities we have to follow through on president's promises to secure the southern border. unless we have the other picture i take the -- >> how do you say fence will keep drugs coming from over the border. they tunnel under the border -- >> this is the wall by the way dhs said they wanted. sat in the oval office with the president. talked about bricks and mortar and talked about concrete walls. this is what dhs wants. why? because it actually works better. you can tunnel under anything. i will answer your question. you can see through this one. it is safer. we have this in place now, we do, it is safer for our border patrol agents. you can talk to dhs about details. there has been dramatic
reduction in attacks on our border control agents where they see through the wall. nobody is throwing anything over the top at them. this is what dhs wanted. it is half of the cost so we can build twice as much of it. this is huge win for border security. >> nick, the president tweeted out this morning looking at fiscal year 18, a shutdown may be just thing needed to clean up budget mess. can you expand on that? >> i have been through a couple shutdowns. it is, let me answer that question this way. that's a good discussion to have in september. i think president is frustrated with the fact that he negotiated in good faith with the democrats and they went out to spike the football to make him look bad. i get that frustration. that is terribleosture it for democrats. if we prove people washington different, we figure out ways to work with them, do that to this president, i would have taken offense at that doesn't surprise me at all frustrations manifested in that way.
we goat a lot to do between now and september. i don't anticipate a shutdown in september. but if negotiations, if the democrats are not going to behave any better than they have last couple days it may be inevitable. reporter: how would a you shutdown clean up the mess? by going dollar to dollar and getting something new, okay? that may help us change town a little bit. in november, if it's business as usual and nothing changes and takes a shutdown to change it. i have no problem with that. gentleman in the back with the red tie. >> thank you, mr. director. happy anniversary. >> thank you very much. i'm sure my wife enjoys spending it this way. >> reporter: few weeks ago,
governor graxas of mexico chairman of their governor's association said that the effort to get appropriations in the budget meant that the administration was giving up on having mexico pay for the wall as the president promised. and other mexican politicians have repeated what governor graxas said, what is your response to that? >> i've taken that question before, same answer. taken an opportunity to move quicker than expected because president obama was not able to sign a full term cr we got a bite at the 2017 apple. think about that for a second. if president obama had been able to pass a 12-month cr we wouldn't be there, all of this would have been dealt with and none of this would be available. the additional spending for defense, the additional school choice for the border, none of that would have been there, president obama would have never signed that. we got a second bite at 20917