tv Cavuto Coast to Coast FOX Business June 1, 2017 12:00pm-2:01pm EDT
across the globe. the now, the question is, whether the president will make good on that campaign promise here or could he change his mind like he changed his mind on nafta, not repudiating more like fixing it, a few moments ago saying he doesn't want to reestablish the israel in jerusalem, more like the present location in tel aviv. he is open to being flexible on this subject. and the devil is in the details. whether he will find a middle ground on all of this. he is being pressured on both sides. we'll devote next two hours on what is at stake. there is a twigs within the administration, the president is known to string people along, make them think one way, boom go the other way, like varney with the citizenship thing but that is another story. we have former goldman sachs
senior partner, peter keirnen and democratic gift david bernstein. let's pick what we have here. right now the president could opt to say i'm out of this. i've been promising during the campaign. it is damaging u.s. jobs. i'm not a big believer in the whole campaign. during the campaign he said it is chinese hoax. stepped back and said the science is still spotty. what if he finds a middle ground here, rex tillerson secretary of state, said maybe staying inç this aagreement you can exert more pressure and leverage on other members. what do you think? >> that is path of least resistance for him. if he stays in the accord he should absolutely negotiate better terms for the united states. it's a very lopsided deal where the greatest burdens placed on the united states with respect to reducing emissions
aggressively. it is costly. it will saddle our business and energy sector with enormous regulations that kills job while china, india, two of the world's largest polluters, including russia, by and large get a free pass. the way the accord stands right now it is not a good deal for america. if president trump decides to make that middle path, i strongly encourage him to renegotiate the better terms for the united states. neil: peter, as far as i understand, even if the president formally opts to leave this, you have to wait three years from the point which to be committed, 2016, then another year that would carry you past the next presidential election by one day. so that, if he left today, opted to leave today. >> i like the analysis that was ju mentioned. i think stay and renegotiate is better, do i stay or do i go? resolves itself in bunch of caveats. there are reasons apart from the
environmental to really worry about this we produce now, we are a major player in the production of oil. we produce multiple of the gas that saudi arabia does. as producer we should care what goes on in that room. secondly, china has already cemented its lead as player in alternative energy. they spent hundreds of billions of dollars every couple years. neil: but they're the biggest emissions violator of thea% planet. >> perfect example. they are addicted to coal. they spend so much on coal. they are the number one trading partner with saudi arabia. they said the greatest new innovation, new opportunity for jobs and profits a lot of things republicans likelies at feet of alternative energy. we'll spend 130 billion a year to try to chase it both in their own country and abroad. they spent 30 billion last year on alternative energy projects abroad. china is the one to watch here. neil: david, say you have the position, say you have the
position, not that you do, go ahead, mr. president, leave, you could argue that the downward trend in emissions that has been spearheaded by cheaper natural gas, clean energy in this country would continue regardless. and our emission levels which are down already 15% from when this went into effect from those 2005 levels, you could argue, well it is doing the trick or, we're well on that way without a worldwide edict. >> well, sure you could certainly make that remarkment. neil: i just did. >> right but i think that the question here is, is peter point out, about simply more than just the environment here. so regardless of what is actually happening with emissions there are lots of reasons why we want to be at negotiating table in this room. opting out of this agreement as i think people rightly pointed out leaves us with a group like nicaragua and syria. neil: you have a problem with nicaragua? >> is not a group united states is used to be in.
make as statement where we're saying we want to put our priorities. neil: we share disproportionate share of burden financialwise, that goes with being richest country i understand that. >> yeah. neil: china not so much. many years out. to peter's point. they can preach yet not have to deal with the dirty little detail of exercising. >> trump has talked a great deal wanting to put more pressure on china. we haven't seen a tremendous amount of results on opportunity to do that. opting out of agreement doesn't give us the opportunity to do that. neil: maybe peter is really right to talk about the leverage issue,eing in this, i come back to global market forces themselves. certainly internally in the united states, whether you're talking cleaner, more environmentally friendly fracking procedures, what is going on with natural gas, belonging to a club, agreement, whatever you want to call it, there could be very little
rationale behind it. i understand others are part of it, you're not, you want in, but in for what? what leverage when you are trying to get what it is happening already and we're doing it already, even if we opt out what do you think. >> you're absolutely right. neil: really? i literally just made that up. i'm kidding. >> but what i want to say, i know, you know, people are saying oh, do you want to join nicaragua and syria only two countries not participating, but reality if the united states pulls out, the thing may very well fall apart. we'll have many more countries also exiting the agreement. i'm not so concerned who we're keeping company with. i do want to say that donald trump, when he campaigned he made promises to the american people he would be a jobs president. he was going to cut regulation that is throwing wet blanket off economic recovery and by injecting ourselves, by sticking in this accord, you know, itç s
undoubt he hadly going to be hurting us economically with gives big economic advantage to china. it is no wonder wants the united states to remain in the accord gives them advantage. neil: not that i'm pro or con. i don't think the president can make a bad decision on this certainly fears raised, i agree with david in that respect, but, peter, one of the things i see here the trend is actually the president's friend here. play out the possibility he says no, i'm sorry, france is going to -- i'm not going to do this. i don't see any valid reason to do so. i'm more interested in american jobs. i think it was even gary cohn his economic advisor if the president had to choose a clean environment and jobs he would pick jobs every time. maybe that is what it comes down to. >> if it boils down to something that simple, of course he will go with jobs. look how this thing was formulated t was done in final closing weeks of obama administration. this is not ratified by the
senate. this is not broadly approved by the american people. it was -- neil: like the iran deal. >> very like the iran deal. done in a small group. the difficulty is, what i think the president doesn't want to do is get painted in a corner by obama. what he could do is go renegotiate the terms. those terms, we're not going to meet them. we can't do coal. we want do some of the things with natural gas and fracking and meet those terms. neil: he could play with the goal numbers. how would you feel about that, let's say he does that? that come up recently like a middle ground. i will stay like he did with nafta, i will he renegotiate the whole thing but how would his supporters look at that? how would the rest of the world look at that. i guess they would be pissed he is changing what we agreed to but he is at least is not opting out? >> in terms of selling things to donald trump's supporters he has pretty good ability to sell what he wants to sell to his own supporters. regardless whether he stays in or not, i'm sure he more than cape ab, one thing he is very
good making argument going on. the important thing when it comes to jobs though, look at number of ceo's across the country who are responsible for huge pieces of american job growth who said this was important thing to do. look at rex tillerson, who probably knows more about the state of oil in this country i would argue vast majority of people says it's a good idea. neil: exxon ceo's two out of three make this a part of your thinking. >> important to look at, not just as simple there is regulation here, is that -- neil: look at all the u.s. manufacturers are not keen on this and think it will hurt them, right? a lot of unions who represent those jobs. >> but also we know that big parts of the future job growth are not necessarily going to come from those industries despite what trump is saying and promising, right? important to look at totality of the american business community who come to the consensus this is important thing for the future of america. neil: real quickly then,ow do you think, your opinions notwithstanding will weigh in on this? >> i think he ultimately decides
to pull out with the deal. >> out with a lot of caveats hanging on. that will be disappointing for everybody. that is what he is going to do. neil: adriana? >> he will pull out and honor his promises to the american people. neil: since, i don't think he pulls out, find as middle ground and surprises folks. i will destroy this tape if i'm wrong. >> i hope. neil: thank you very much. european countries and others are fume something that a bad thing? so senate environmental and public works committee senator james inhofe. senator, always good having you. senator my own views, i could merely be wrong and parrot the wisdom of my guests, call it my own, one of the things the president proven on couple crucial matters he is pretty good reversing himself but not making it look so obvious. nafta, renegotiating it. even on tel aviv versus
jerusalem thing for israel, we'll keep our embassy. that was very big deal and he campaigned almost throughout saying, jerusalem is where it should be. so, what i'm seeing from that disparate examples both, that he will change on a dime. what do you think? >> i don't think that is quite fair. i never, don't recall ever having a big disagreement with you -- neil: that is okay. this is your last visit anyway but go ahead. >> says, he still wants to move the embassy to jerusalem but isn't ready to do it right now. neil: now isn't the time. >> i would suggest that you start looking at some of the things he's done. if you want to go to my website you can see, inhofe.senate.gov, we listed all the regulations, 47 he has been able to undo that were very damaging to america. but on this thing that is coming up, i was listening to your previous segment and i think he is going to pull out. i think he made that commitment.
i think he will do it. neil: he can say, senator, you mentioned those regulations and things he overturned, many are environmental, that were underpinnings of barack obama's accord in this climate keel deal. he can say, staying in it i have taken onerous teeth out, by executive action taking away those burdens on business and claim that it's aç win-win? >> well, neil, first of all i think he is going to pull out. neil: okay. >> i sent a letter signed by 22 senators last weaken couraging him to do it. i believe he is going to do the. i think that -- neil: you don't agree with rex tillerson, secretary of state and others, ivanka trump in there too, hey, you lose a lot of leverage when you do that with these guys? >> ion't agree with them. i talked to them about it. that seat at the table they keep talking about, that was established in 1992. that was called the, united
nations framework convention on climate change. now every year they have this big party, the united nations does, the last one of course was the paris agreement, where the paris party. now they, what did the president say, commit on behalf of the united states at that time? you and i talked about this two months ago, the clean power plant. and that was, we will reduce our emissions co2 emissions by between 26 and 28% by 2025. now there are two problems with that neil. first of all, it can't be done. his own epa at that time said this is impossible. we can't do it. the second thing he would have to have concurrence of congress. 192 countries meet every december are not aware of our form of government. they assume president says we'll do something we're going to do it. we're not going to do it. we can't do it. around it is not going to happen. neil: you could argue the emission levels were already down 15%. >> sure they are.
neil: justifying that, for the accord. i'm saying the market forces at play in this country, cheaper, cleaner alternative fuels, natural gas among them, has already had the desired effect whether you're part of this agreement or not, even if the president were to reject it to your point t trnd might continue. could he use that, not trying to politicize it here, could he use that as a reminder, if he pulls out, that look, cleaner air is still on the way, whatever? >> well, i think you got to keep in mind in this country right now, this, the president, previous president, obama, has had a war on fossil fuels, that is coal, oil and gas, in addition he didn't like nuclear either. our countries is dependent on coal, oil, gas, nuclear, for 89% of the power we generate. how did you run this machine called america if you pull that out? the answer is you can't. your previous guest was talking about china. let me tell you, we know what
the president said our commitment is even though something we can't do, but china is being honest in saying you know, we're going to continue cranking out one new power plant every 10 days for the next, until about 2025. then we'll consider reducing our co2 emissions. what kind of deal is that, neil. neil: for them very good deal. very little call to do anything. >> then you talk about india, another one of our, big polluters out there, if they want to call that pollution. they want $2 trillion. everyone comes to the table thinking they can go to the meeting, big party every december, somehow, i have talked to people in africa go there just for the purpose of trying to get in line to get all this money that has been promised by the previous administration. neil: will be trillions of dollars, you're right. who gets it what they do with it is anyone's guest.
james inhofe, you argue your point so well, we'll have you back. >> read my book, greatest hopes you find out. neil: very good seeing you, senator inhofe. news on james comey. he is is set to testify a week from today. indication he will implicate the president of the united states, donald trump tried to force him to go slow on investigation of general flynn, whole russian collusion thing. could be some fireworks a week from today, after this. think again.
♪ neil: this has makings of a pay-per-view event. former fbi chief james comey is expected to testify and confirm what is long been rumored in memos that leaked out allegedly not from mr. comey we're told but those close to mr. comey, other republicans say from mr. comey that donald trump asked the fbi head to simply back off the michael flynn probe and let the whole thing go away. blake burman with the latest from the white house. reporter: neil, must-see tv indeed. we have a time and place. the senate intelligence committee making a few minutes ago incomes thursday, 10:00 a.m., before that committee, the former fbi head, jim comey will testify.
a couple of notes on this. 10:00, that will be the public testimony. meaning it will be before the camera, live, comey sworn in, for the entire country to see. after that, 1:00, is when he goes behind closed doors with more intimate session with those senators. former fbi head can't detail everything out in the open public. that is when he goes behind closed doors. when you look at timing, appears this will be on camera, out to the public to see for at least several hours. the hadline or the title of this hearing is quote, russian attempts to interfere in the 2016 u.s. elections. what we believe will dominate, whether comey felt freshsured by president trump to drop the investigation against former security advisor michael flynn. the president said no, no, tried to brush off the topic to the
reporter who asked him, next question. the memos comey apparently detailed suggested indeed the president tried to have comey sort of back down on this investigation. we will hear from the former fbi director himself one week from today. as for this white house, neil, they are not commenting on anything at this point related to jim comey. the white house press secretary sean spicer asked about comey yesterday and he said at this point all questions relating to comey and russia need to go to the president's personal attorney, that being mark kasowitz officially brought on board within the last week. the president did send out one russia-related tweet on this day. it came earlier this morning in which he said, quoting from the president's twitter feed, the big story is the quote, unmasking and surveillance of people took place during the obama administration. that relates to several agencies here in town that were sent subpoenasver the last day involving severalç high-profile
officials within the obama administration, that being susan rice, john brennan, former u.n. ambassador, samantha power. neil, back to you. neil: blake burman, thank you very, very much. if a lot are confused by this, especially what we're hearing from comey and his people now, versus what we heard about a month ago saying that nobody was asked hiking for an investigation to be ended, remember this? >> is the attorney general or senior officials at the department of justice opposes a specific investigation can they halt that fbi investigation? >> in theory, yes. >> has it happened? >> not in my experience, because it would be a big deal to tell the fbi to stop doing something without appropriate purpose. neil: all right. remember this is in early may. and it occurred a few months after that famous dinner with the president, two of them, one room there, this supposedly
happened. of course comey was taking notes on all of this. so that would certainly come to mind. he was very quick in that reaction. attorney heather hanson, "washington examiner" correspondent sarah woods worth. he will have to explain that answer how it jibes or clearly in this case doesn't jibe, sarah, what he i alleging in a memo. what do you think? >> right, i think itill be hard to reconcile not just his past testimony with these reported allegations in the memos, but even that of his successor, acting fbi director andrew mccabe testified after comey's removal there had been, quote, no effort to impede this russian investigation. we don't know what is exactly in these memos, what exactly comey is going to allege the president said in that oval office meeting because we haven't heard directly from comey himself. we heard from anonymous people who are supposedly close to the former fbi director.
but either way, this will be a test for the white house. they have enough time to prepare for this. they were blindsided by comey's firing. supposedly they had less than an hour's notice. now they have more than a week to prepare to the response that the allegations that he may or may not make on thursday and it will be a real test to see how well they do when they have all the time to get ready. neil: heather, you're an attorney, a very good one so maybe you can help with this. president is saying one thing happened in the room, comey said another, unless there is a tape or recording of that conversation, it is he said, he said, isn't it? where is this going. >> that's a good question. it will depend upon what he testifies to. i don't know whether the testimony he gave last time actually contradicts what he h anticipated to say because the last time he was specifically talking about the what th attorney general of the department of justice did. however he will have to work his way around that, neil. neil: i termed as that, i am an
administration response. he would be distinguishing, splitting hairs, wouldn't he? to say, yeah, the president did this but not as ag. i'm confused. go ahead, i'm sorry. >> you're right. those are the hairs he would have to split. same way he would have to split hairs i think according to memos that leaked what he said trump said, i hope you give up that investigation. perhaps he will say that is different than actual political pressure. he will have to split hairs if he doesn't contradict himself. if he contradicts himself he loses credibility. to get back to your point, when it is he said-he said, neither side can afford to lose credibility. only thing comey may have for his regard there was allegedly documentation done at the time that lends credibility to someone who does something at the time. but it is he said-he said, comes down to credibility between the president and comey. neil: sarah, we do remember,
with watergate it was the cover-up, ultimately brought down richard nixon. i don't even want to make the watergate analogy. not even remotely fair or in the league, but that is what obviously a lot of democrats will go after, what did the president know, when did know it? when was he obstructing and obstructing it. assuming some sort of obstruction is going on. my question would be, how is the white house, you mentioned about getting ready to address this one week out getting proverbial ducks in order they will obviously argue with what comey is arguing but they are also going to once again argue that general flynn was and is a good man. that he did nothing untoward or illegal. so how do they walk that line? >> that's the million dollar he question. they haven't been able to address these questions about russian interference adequately in the past. in a lot of ways they
perpetuated the controversy by not necessarily being forthcoming when these questions arise, there have been meetings with russian officials that took place that didn't come to light until they wereç leaked. there were contradicting statements about obviously flynn's conversations with the russian ambassador that led to his ouster. every development since they have struggled to come up with a explanation. that has only hurt them. so at this point, the hope they can learn from the past mistakes and know that they do need to be ready to rebut these allegations and not just by dismissing the fact and the source, this is not anonymous source. this is coming directly from the mouth of fbi director james comey. they won be able to hide behind that. they have to have the explanation ready to put the questions to bed. neil: very quickly, heather, mueller, the former fbi director, chief counsel role, you could argue cynically, he and comey were tight, worked
together. there might be kinship there, both fbi guys. it might be to the detriment of the president or the appearance would, what do you think? >> i think that, if you talk to anybody who has served uneither one of those two gentlemen, everyone by rule says they are fair -- neil: how did her feed go down just talking about the president of the united states and maybe someone at fbi? i will leave you to figure it out, america. i actually have no idea. nancy pelosi getting in the middle of this whole texas immigration fight. remember they were coming to fisticuffs in the chamber there but the rationale she used for taking sides on this about what she said about texas' crackdown on sanctuary cities, that she is much more worried about the cities, i don't know, the constitution? ♪ at angie's list, we believe
>> sb 4, what an act of cowardice, what a legislative act of cowardice. [applause] neil: all right, sb 4, this new texas law that cracks down on sanctuary cities, nancy pelosi calling it act of cowardice. we'll talk to the texas state lawmaker at center of this controversy, caused a bit of a dust-up in the chamber of the texas congress there, but what is evenore interesting is the fact that the dust-up is not being fairly covered. it is sort of been viewed as you know, bigots running the asylum there. megatv news anchor he will vira salazar, if this law should be spread nationwide. we'll hear from the representative very shortly in the next hour. but, i need your help understanding what really is going on here. this simply would allow authorities to question
individuals within saying wear cities,-off simplifying it, but explain the position here. >> hi, thanks for having me. this is a major mess and it is an exercise in futility, i will explain to you why. back in 2016, arizona, the supreme court of this country said to arizona that what they were doing which was same thing, to ask the local cops to ask people that sound and look like me, where are you papers? it was not constitutional. nancy pelosi is there, just gaining and scoring political point. she is blaming everything on the cities. she is blaming everything on the feds. reality is, this is bunch hypocrites and hypocrisy going around. let me share with you something that will be amazing this information. in december of last year, the texas tribune reported that there is an underground railroad, all right, to bring mexican illegals to texas bese there is a constructi
boom and the agricultural moguls and construction tycoons need illegals. so, you see i'm just telling you that it is a very major problem that we want a solution. neil: to get as many illegal mexican workers to help out with this, illegals? >> that's right, illegal people because the construction moguls need people, illegals, yeah. illegals. neil: as far as i understand it, if you can help me with this, would allow for steep daily fines if these sanctuary cities fail to cooperate with federal immigration guide lines. on the surface that doesn't sound heinous but what do you think of it? >> i believe it creates fear and at the same time solves a problem. the problem is that everybody is being put in the same bag. the political, the police captains of texas, including dallas and houston are saying they don't like this law because
what is going to happen, it will make their boys look like the enemy. then at the same time, i need to add, that this law and this sanctuary city movement making us hispanics look like bunch of imbeciles and idiots. why? it projects to middle america we want to protect criminals but we don't want to do that. the murderer of kate steinle could have killed my daughter. it is not rational. neil: it is gone to get pretty violent, dust-up in texas chamber is reminder that the catalyst behind it is congressman rinaldi had argued that he saw protesters there were shouting they were illegals being protected, he said by a number of democratic lawmakers. he called i.c.e. on them. then everything, all hell broke loose. do you think -- >> that is not good either. that is not right either. it is not right. it is not right. then, what we're doing, we're
flaunting the that we are illegals. that is not correct either. neil: was he right to call, i will ask him, was he right to call i.c.e.? >> absolutely. you, i.c.e. is everywhere, whether it is sanctuary city or not. federal government as you know, it is on the books, has the opportunity, has the right to go anywhere in the country and detain those that areillegal. now, those are the bad hombres.ç i'm following what president trump said at beginning of his presidency. go after the bad hombres and rapists and murderers. cleaning ladies or people picking up jalapenos or oranges in florida should stay until a immigration reform law. that is what we really need. immigration reform -- neil: try to follow that rapist orderer, and you go into a sanctuary city, you're inquiring about local officials those illegally there, is that going too far? that is what nancy pelosi is
saying? >> that is not going too far. we need to define what type of crime. that is where it gets complicated. what type of crime, rapists murders, absolutely. somebody picked up working for economy. in texas you have 1.5 million illegals lived there more than 10 years. those people are part of the community. those people have friends, kids, homes, cars, churches. those people, they haven't had a brush with the law, then i believe they deserve to stay without a criminal record. wait for immigration reform law and give them some type of a legality, which is not citizenship. that is why now, republicans have a golden opportunity. neil: we'll see. >> house and senate. neil: it's a mess. >> it's a major mess we need to work -- neil: much more than it appears. >> it is simple. very good to see you. thank you for having me. neil: we'll talk to that representative in question who had to deal with the dust-up
♪ >> look i take responsibility for every decision i made but that is not why i lost. so i think it is important we learn the real lessons from this last campaign. neil: that does seem to sound like a hillary clinton who is already in 2020 mode. this has joe biden is launching his own pac. mike bloomberg says the democrats are getting in their own way, and that could mean the re-election of donald trump. red alert politics editor ron meyer. what do you make of all these developments? beginning to look like the cocoon club, what is going on? >> grab your popcorn. when it comes to 2020, joe biden
is the democrats best bet more similar to donald trump. hillary clinton is donald trump's best bet for 2020, let me explain why for both of these. first of all with joe biden. remember, joe biden is democrats closest thing to donald trump. he comes up as authentic. appeals with the populists in the rust belt. can appeal to people in rural pennsylvania and michigan. appeals to those voters for donald trump. that would be tough race for donald trump. that would be best thing for hillary clinton or chelsea clinton. "the view" is pushing chelsea clinton. he has already beaten hillary. people are tired of her. p democrats are tearing themselves apart, trying to leave the clinton wing and move into the sanders wing. there is big fight in the core of the democratic party. neil: this was strongest run, former secretary of state hillary clinton has sounded about the election, how it was rigged against her. she says she takes responsibility for her decisions but no responsibility for that
loss. i mean she should have won in a walk against a candidate like donald trump at the time, especially after the "access hollywood" tape and she still lost. i wonder how this is resonating across the country. she is now leading the resistance. calling into he question whether, you know donald trump was duly elected and is a legitimate president of the united states. i could see many on the left saying that but she was the person who lost to him in electoral vote which is how we elect our presidents. doesn't that strain our republic? >> yeah. well, you know person leading the resistance defending taking massive checks from goldman sachs, not exactly sticking to the system and man. hard to feel sorry for hillary clinton at this point. people are starting to roll their eyes at her. neil: do you know where the money is gravitating? biden might do well? he has higher positives than hillary clinton. or is the party turning r
turning to younger fresher faces or as mike bloomberg says torpedo its own chances? >> if hillary clinton says she made no mistakes, tell me one thing she ran on. i don't remember a single platform. she didn't run on anything. they're looking for someone to run on something. that is why bernie sanders you don't exactly want to support this old babbling guy running for office. he ran on ideas young democrats, young socialists got excited. that is where young democrats look to. with bloomberg he saying same thing. you have to n something. you can't just run on hating ump. that is the thing. two democrats, local state representatives in maine, left the democrat party. they're bernie contracts. they can't sit with the democratic party. they can't stand for anything except against trump. democrats are having their own problems. 2018 will not be a landslide for the democrats unless they figure out what they're about and positive messages and right you now there is none.
neil: ron, red alert politics editor ron meyer. apologize for that. meantime apple is back at it again with a new product. not that new phone slated for this year, something you have seen before, a lot. after this. ♪ think again. 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 there's nothing traditional about my small business.
so when it comes to technology, i need someone tha understands my unique needs. my dell small business advisor has gotten to know our business so well, that it feels like he's a part of our team. with one phone call, he sets me up with tailored products and services. and when my advisor is focused on my tech, i can focus on my small business. ♪ our 18 year old wase army in an accident.'98. when i call usaa it was that voice asking me, "is your daughter ok?" that's where i felt relief. we're the rivera family, and we will be with usaa for life. there's nothing more important than your health. so if you're on medicare or will be soon,
you may want more than parts a and b here's why. medicare only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. you might want to consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like any medicare supplement insurance plan, these help pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and, these plans let you choose any doctor thesor hospital that acceptshat medicare patients.pay. you could stay with the do or specialist you trust... or go with someone new. you're not stuck in a network... because there aren't any. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide and find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. there's a range to choose from, depending on your needs and your budget.
rates are competitive. and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. like any of these types of plans, they let you apply whenever you want. there's no enrollment window... no waiting to apply. so call now. remember, medicare supplement plans help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. you'll be able to choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. whether you're on medicare now or turning 65 soon, it's a good time to get your ducks in a row. duck: quack! call to request your free decision guide now. because the time to think about tomorrow is today.
neil: all right. this is a big problem right now what is going on in venezuela and calling into serious question whether socialism itself is at play here, dissolving in a country that used to promise cradle to grave benefits for any and all. to venezuela immigrant eric brennan. this gets very little coverage to the degree it should. does that worry you? >> hi, neil, thanks for having me. it does. it worries me a lot. it is an indication how little the media understands the gravity and relevance what is going on in venezuela for our own economy here in the united states. neil: what, when you were in venezuela, it all deteriorated, one thing to say oil came off its highs, venezuela a big oil nation couldn't fund all the promises it made going back to hugo chavez but it is bigger than that, isn't it? explain. >> it is much bigger than that.
the fall in oil prices simply exacerbated situation. at core situation happened in venezuela has to do with first and for most a set of principles say that government knows best in the economy and how to regulate as to generalize prosperity. once you accept this as a matter of principle the gernment in better position tdefi what the economy ought to be doing than the free market itself. you open doors to crone anyism, corruption, misapplication of good intentions lead to very inefficient economy and a economy susceptible to special interests moving things away from gal prosperity, more toward particular special interests of special interest groups. it starts that way. you open the door to higher governmental intervention. it eventually, inevitably disintegrates to the situation you see in venezuela day, now apparently much of this is being blamed on u.s. money interests, u.s. companies, another
nationalization effort to do that. and that is what is being sort of bought, hook, line, sink are are -- sinker on many support socialism, not failure on this part but greedy american money interests. what do you make of that? what do venezuelans make of that? >> listen in the best-case scenario that is naive misunderstanding of you how socialism actually take place in reality. not the way which it is written in a textbook comfortably as academic or ideal it, thinking of ideal outcome of so-called socialism. reality is, that the utopian version of socialism is extremely unstable and never stays at that ideal point in timehe somehow all of the policies are value maximizing, all politicians well-intended, carrying their roles out appropriately. it never stays that way.
at best there is a certain degree of naivete with that position. and i think, in another extreme, there is, there is a lack of courage to actually evaluate one's ideas against facts on the ground and how they have been turning in history time and time again. you just stuck in a certain ideology and not willing to look at the facts. when the facts in front much you as the case in venezuela demonstrate socialism doesn't work, then you ignore it or don't at least call it as such. neil: or hope it goes away. erick, thank you very, very much. big decision on part of donald trump what he will do with the climate accord, be part of it, in, out, two hours away. more after this.
neil: we've got the markets in another session highs right now. s&p 500 and the nasdaq hitting new highs. about 100 points away. we are following all of that and a lot of issues bouncing back including financial issues under pressure. remember, they've essentially given up the year's games before calling their way back a little. technology dominated the mass back, advancing nine sessions here in a trend that continues to go virtually unabated. the climate announcement is the big deal today that we are expecting around the white house. donald trump will make it official whether he wants to be
part of that accord earlier to adam shapiro at the latest. >> a common meal. we should channel the group the clash and the song should i stay or should i go. president trump had campaigned and promised to cancel u.s. participation in the paris climate accord. it would take until 2022 complete u.s. withdrawal. forces up in the administration are lobbied president trump not to withdraw. several republican senators including mitch mcconnell and epa di or scott pruitt and advisors steve bateman had recommended the president keep his promise and cancel u.s. participation in the accord. secretary of state rex tiller said have lobbied president trump to stay in the accord as have several u.s.-based companies. companies like chemical, jpmorgan chase and coca-cola to name a few.
president trump says the paris accord is unfair to the united states. countries that signed the accord roughly 200 countries agreed to meet voluntary cuts in carbon emissions and requires $100 billion in funding from developed countries like the united states to help developing countries though the renewable energy resources. trade to adam q-quebec thank you very, very much. a number of corporate interests they distribute that a minister president. elon musk saying we do that, he went out of the presidency cannot account well. others hitting the same. it would be a mistake to pull out now on loser leverage. that is pretty much the position others in the corporate community are taking. not all u.s. manufacturers would welcome severing ties with europe and much of the world on this. patrick michaels, former epa official against small business owner louis labatt appeared let
me get your take on how the president might play this. let's say he doesn't pull out but wants to renegotiate the terms, the crackdown of the emissions andards are so onerous that they will cost a lot of jobs. so you will spread out the pain or change those my checks. would that suffice it with the global community still go not? can you here me? really? >> yes. >> are you doing? >> good comic thank you. definitely a lot of certain tea in the global stage right now because having a seat at the table with 200 countries that have agreed to do this have power. yes they may not agree with some of the element is not in self-imposed goals that do cost money for us here in america running business and paying
taxes. the opportunity cost could have a global repercussions that have a long-term effect from the ability to have an opinion house energy is valued or regulated in the global stage. i would give up that power. neil: that's not what i was talking about. you heard me late so i apologize. you are not leaving it. you're renegotiated the terms the little bitter revisiting it. the middle ground is on the president take. he has reversed himself on nafta. negotiating it when it comes to the jerusalem taken ashore by lego. for now we'll stick with our embassy in tel aviv. so he is so good. what do you make of that? >> well, i got an e-mail from the white house an hour ago inviting me to be there when the president announces we are exiting the paris accord.
that ship has sailed. neil: is the former epa deputy associate under barack obama, that is not welcome news to you. >> well, i think there's a misunderstanding misunderstanding about the paris agreement. it's actually very flexible and if the president wanted to change the terms or change the targets that the u.s. committed to, he could easily do that without renegotiating anything. the goals are completely voluntary and self-imposed. neil: what would be the big deal if you left it? this sounds like one of my diet clubs. you've got to hit ballad and you don't but it sounds good. >> the force of the agreement comes getting information and the peer pressure involved. neil: can the chinese get information? can you trust them ) don't
approach them for another 10 years? >> we've spent a number of years trying to build a transparent date and the paris agreement. but one thing we will lose his access to information it will lose access his access to site agreement about investments in new technology and basically feeding all of that leadership to china. they are going to make lots of money on this. dominate the solar energy market which re-created in the united states but have now given away a lot of economic and strategic political leadership by leaving. we get nothing in return. >> you could make the argument and i mention this earlier in the broadcast of natural gas and clean alternatives here that are all the rage, with or without the marketing this accord those
omissions are going down. so you don't need to be part of an accord for a club to get that result, do you? >> yes, definitely two things that play appeared at the end of the day with president trump tries to do after this decision is critical and important for us to continue to operate at the best often the way can in our country is as determined by their own regulations or aspirations to stay clean and prosperous and grow as an economy. like i said earlier, the opportunity cost of leavg e seat at the table is what concerns you the most. i do trust we are making the best economic decisions for the country today. as a small business on red lake when deregulation happens. at the same time we need to make sure we are not impacting the clean tech industry and the researchers on the brands we have in america right now working innovations that do matter for competitiveness globally.
it is a trade-off and we will see what he does after the announcement. neil: you were speaking then maybe you can help me with this, pat. there have been some of the threats raise if this doesn't go the way a lot of environmentalists wanted to go. most of the nations to steal once. you can forget about global cooperation on trade. the fact that europe would increase my line of thought to take as earlier point of view with china or other nefarious element and all of a sudden we are an island. what do you think of that? >> i think that's not true. i can tell you our emissions will continue to go down. he hit the nail on the head a couple of minutes ago on that. getting out of paris allows more of a transition from coal to natural gas for electricity production which emit a lot less co2 than coal per unit energy. neil: all of a sudden if they
were to drastically tumble we would hear back and not and environmentalists fear that becomes a dirty or feel a choice. >> i don't see that happening anytime soon because natural houseplant is also cheaper to run in cheaper to build. there would have to be major changes in coal. coal will be exported. there's no doubt about that. some of it to germany where they are by coal-fired power plants with their shutting down their nukes to meet the paris accord. this is very funny. we will continue to lead the world in emissions without paris. neil: do you think the emissions that have gone down to the degree, 15% for the 2005 levels and i will ask you this. do you think that would've happened even without this accord, all these market forces? >> of course. with so much natural gas.
neil: do you agree with that? >> it is primarily market force. the paris agreement is not inhibiting us from doing anything we want to do. that is why the department of defense and commerce and energy and department of state all want us to stay in. if trump ends up announcing a departure is because he is taking bad advice from people in the white house. neil: also the epa administrator and some other folks. they areot ao, right? >> i am not saying that anybody is a doofus. what i am saying is there's nothing in this paris agreement that inhibits the epa from doing anything that would otherwise want to do. what is going -- neil: they don't have it. it doesn't do any of this stuff, voluntary you can do what you want to change levels, all of that.
>> what is important is to be at the table. status with a base point is. you want to be at the table. you want to be able to plan with the rest of the world what this new low carbon market is going to look like and you want to be on the site deals. you don't want to say i'm not going to negotiate in the interview with anybody. neil: what you think of the argument theme you want to see this even though it's not such a great table. >> even if they may not like everything happening around the table, i can at least know what discussions has been around issuing credits for those doing the right thing at a.b. penalties for those that are not that i can be there to raise my voice. the last thing i want is for this to impact trade in the longer term and are american made products being worked on so hard here for us to create and build and prosper are going to be impted by some tariffs imposed externally because we
are seen as the non-responsible ones. neil: i want to be at a table where someone else is picking up the check. those are the tables i preferred. in order to appetizers, get a couple of desserts. >> is people writing checks for trade deals around the table. >> if we are going to be reducing our emissions anyway, we should be getting credit for it. we should be able to get some economic benefit out of doing that by being part of this agreement. >> we are enjoying it now. [inaudible conversations] >> natural gas and displace coal. >> i'm all about selling natural gas in louisiana. neil: you argued -- [inaudible conversations] >> you are going to need trade agreements with the people you can make.
>> thank you all very, very much. you heard by now the former fbi there james comey will testify on capitol hill a week from today, just as the unmasking of his coming out. when you look at this in the media today and who has been focused on here from the above administration, barely a reference to it. much more so when trump votes than obama folks. then again, that could be just me and not the 48 newspapers i read today. think again.
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 when heartburn hits fight back fast with new tums chewy bites. fast relief in every bite. crunchy outside.
tthat's why at comcast,t to be connected 24/7. we're always woing to make our services more reliable. with technology that can update itsel and advanced fiber network infrastructure. new, more reliable equipment for your home. and a new culture built around customer service. it all adds up to our most reliable network ever. one that keeps you connected to what matters most.
neil: a big event next week via james comey to testify next thursday, week from today. the house intelligence committee has so many hearings and investigations going on with the former fbi robert mueller. the house guys looking into three of whom proved the so-called unmasking. connell mcshane pathologies.
>> the subpoena should be interesting to hear what we hear on the unmasking. we have that in the intelligence committee. that will be in open session. he will be asked about conversations with president trump and he goes out there and testifies that he was pressured to stop an investigation is the former national security adviser mike flynn that his past testimony may be called into question as well. he was asked one of the times he testified to say the attorney oj oppose an investigation. could they stop it? he said he had come in theory they could, but it hasn't happened in his experience. what about next week? what will we hear that and will we hear anything at all? something of an open question. some speculation the president could think about invoking executive privilege to prevent mr. comey from testifying. on the subpoenas. seven of them related to russia.
individuals targeted, general flynn of course you'd expect the personal lawyer michael cohen. the unmasking of the people during the obama administration. three subpoenas were at nsa, fbi, cia about the unmasking. they are looking, once again we are told three separate individuals there. suzanne rice has one former national security adviser in the u.n. ambassador, samantha powers. perhaps we'll find out why these individuals asked for those identities of americans to be revealed and we think we will hear from comey the week from today. neil: thank you very much. connell mcshane.
beyond -- collision talk when we talk about all the subpoenas that went out yesterday. i'm not saying the media have refused to cover the whole story. they just buried what was an interesting item in that story that three of the subpoenas went out to farm out barack obama officials including some big heavyweights they are. chief of staff chip rate. one of the things we discover and all of this, it's just maybe the nature of the beast or the media ignoring a problem that isn't there. former ambassador the united nations come to samantha power got a subpoena. his rice, national security by his or her. job ran into the cia director, obama administration officials. they want details on this and asking request and why they remain. i guess what i'm asking you is why that dori, those subpoenas
were buried? >> thank you for having me on. i find it troubling all the focus has been on the so-called seclusion with jerry kushner, when in fact the meeting everybody's talking about, which happened after the election in december seems to undermine the whole story of collusion in the first place. andy mccarthy wrote a great piece on that today, making the point if they were supposed to have this long-standing collusion going on, why would you have a meeting to open the channel of communications after the election. the whole story seems to be getting turned on the head. i think that is purposeful that they are working with the real problem is, which is the unmasking. the fundamental problem is you are talking about the u.n. ambassador here. this is the somebody who is at rumbling in the chain when you talk about pfizer records. it goes to the heart of american security in the world right now which you know we are at a place
where we've got people who really want to harm us. the fisa process is a way to get information to prevent harming american business undermined american state in the system when they findovernmen collecting information and using it for polical purposes. neil: i'm not here to have anyone be a media critic, least of all myself. i find it interesting that as a fair and balanced on all sides, they recited resolve this story on the seclusion guide whether it's pixar doesn't stick and then let the trail where you want it to go, where it ultimately does go. i guess what i'm wondering is the story could ultimately involve more than just the trump administration. it could go back to the prior administration, even the administration before that. but it could also involve a pattern of leaking that is escalated unless you're of course during the race that mattered a great deal.
but to a lot of democrats. i am wondering where you think this is going. >> see, that's the interesting question. when i talk to republican lawmakers off camera, the one reason they were so excited or reassured bob mueller was passed up being special counsel is keep in mind when you have a special counsel, you can go wherever the facts taken. the one crime is committed is the unmasking or leaking of classified information to reporters. people who read the information are guilty. bob oler is one of those leaders who can get to the bottom of that and that is what they are hoping will come out of the investigation. neil: if it turns out that ends up being the big story here. >> well, exactly. it's a case that the careful what you wish for. when we look at this subpoenas the house intelligence committee passed out, according to "the
wall street journal" story and my sources on the hill, democrats on the committee did not sign off on the three subpoenas that were related to the unmasking. neil: how do they agree with that? i always thought it was a quaint pro-quote. the republican is going to say i can't just subpoena trump folks. you've got to go along with me to go after these. >> one would think that. if you are the chairman of the committee, you do have subpoena power. so mike conaway could subpoena those. neil: the ranking member, he might be annoyed about it. >> you can make it to the press. >> that's a very good point. i wish we had more time, but the one thing we thought is wait a minute, this could get a much more involved in widespread than was initially thought.
i cannot imagine mueller would be keen on this committee subpoena aimed at everyone and his uncle and providing for his task and what is up to. in other words, these guys could be tripping over themselves. >> that's right. one of the things we were trained as he's got to have evidence that center what you're doing. mr. mueller is going to be looking into this. a lot of people have faith in what he's doing. if you think about subpoenas, it doesn't necessarily mean you know there's been a mayor, but you've got to have a good faith belief if you issue a subpoena. they clearly have concern about why the united nations ambassador with having something to do with the unmasking information involving american citizens for potentially political purposes. >> keep in mind and be time on trade in between the time comey is fired, he was actually -- you
went before the house intelligence panel behind closed doors that was there for about four or five hours. they were following up on questions that had to do with unmasking. the questions he could not answer in public and obvious in front of the press and whatnot. subpoenas could be based upon what they heard from him behind closed doors. neil: all right. very adjusting. i learned a lot. it's debatable if he learned anything here. as these fine folks are talking, maybe we can keep them around longer because the market was going up, up, up based on what they are saying. they look at a fair and balanced investigation and it not only for nutrition but how late that night is gone. who knows here. but it's very, very clear here is growing optimism, the economy chugging along. financials have been beaten down by the way they were were at the beginning of the year are now moving forward.
neil: might have seen the video. this texas representative democrats accusing him -he had the nerve to say you kno what, if you're illegal you shouldn't be here in the chamber, let alone the country, so i'm going to call i.c.e. for that he was getting death threats, a lot more, texas state representative matt rinaldi with us right now. sir, very good to have you. >> thank you for having me, neil. i appreciate it. neil: what happened exactly?
i gave quick overview. texas already passed the cracks don on sanctuary cities, the law signed by governor abbott, correct? >> correct. it is one of the strongest in the nation. i had a strong part of it. it keeps criminal aliens, murderers, rapists, child abusers from being shielded from federal authorities. immigration authorities. neil: this was a discussion on that or, they saw you come up to the lecturn and then they just went nuts? tell me what happened? >> no. you know what it was? it was the last day of session. the law is already signed into law. they had a huge protest at capital. they had hundreds of protesters. me as lawmaker on last day, i come in see many of them holding signs, undocumented and here to stay. and similar signs to that, basically, admitting they're breaking the law. that said, i go into the house chamber, and protest turned into a mob. they were breaking house rules. they had to shut down the house chamber. they were resisting law enforcement at that point.
neil: they weren't targeting you at that time, last day, last formal session for the texas legislature and they're not happy with that law, essentially, right? >> correct. and in the house chamber they're being unruly. they're chanting. they're jostling law enforcement. at that point the democratic representatives were encouraging the mob behavior. so i had called i.c.e. i remembered the signs when i came in. i thought, you know, somebody is admitting to breaking the law. that is probably something federal law law enforcement woue interested in so i made the call. neil: admitted breaking the law, these were illegals in the room that had posters that said that? some of your democratic colleagues sir, said that was not the case. >> no, it is the case. there are pictures from the march protest they had very similar sign. some of them brought them to this protest. as i was walking in we clearly saw them. other lawmakers saw them as well. they were chanting in the
gallery, ho, here to say, words you don't say if you're illegal immigrants. neil: you called i.c.e. on the illegals. did i.c.e. come? >> no, they didn't. it was a tip line. it was just what i thought my duty was as a citizen, as a lawmaker, seeing someone admitting to breaking the law. when my democratic colleagues and i told my democratic colleagues i did, that is when everything started to happen. neil: so one of those is this representative pancho navarro, hope i got that right, democratic colleague. now you had said, he had threatened you? explain what happened. >> well, let me give you the timeline. so i called. the gallery is being cleared out. the democratic representatives who were inciting mob, bragging how great it was, what just happened. i didn't think it was great at all. i saw one law enforcement officer get pulled down the stairs. no it is not great.
in fact i called i.c.e. as soon as that happened those representatives became part of the mob. they swarmed me and pushed me. as you saw from the video, i didn't do anything back. i put my arms to my side. neil: representative, he said that of you, he said he is a liar and a hateful man. got no use for him. god bless him. glad he added god bless him. but, what happened -- with this threat that he kind of knew where your car was? because he argues he never said that. >> yeah, he said it during the jostling and then when i retreated to my desk, sat down to get away from the situation. he reiterated a few other people around me, then to me myself, that he would get me on the way to my car, i had to leave sometime. that is -- neil: this is huge story. i'm sure you all know. so i want to continue going. now, representative, one of the things i was wondering about,
this law that went into effect that caused this great dust-up, abbott signed, what does it do? to hear the other side tell it that it is heinous and racist. as far as i know correct me if i'm wrong, subjects law enforcement agencies to steep daily fines if they fail to follow immigration guidelines. they go so far as those opposed you concerned about what you're doing, it is bigoted in nature and it is a witch-hunt and a crackdown on people who are simply trying to work and better their lives. you say what? >> now the sanctuary city law allows 99% of the cities in texas to continue operating the same way they have been. for those few cities that are harboring criminal aliens and shielding them from federal law enforcement, ignoring immigration he detainer orders for those individuals, that is what the sanctuary city law prevents.
like the city of austin. this law -- neil: what you're looking for rapists or murderer, they argue, no, no, they keep saying that. this is about targeting illegals period. is it? >> well, it is about target being illegals but just so happens to be targeting illegals -- neil: sir, does it have to be initiated under guise of looking for a bad guy, bad woman or donald trump said, bad hombre or meaning time, or can you anytime in texas go into one of the cities where illegals are usually shielded and ask a federal officials there or ask local officials there to honor the rules? >> you know, it is illegal to, for a state officer to stop somebody simply on suspicion of breaking immigration law. we're talking about people in the criminal justice system on different crimes. that is what this law talks about. neil: obviously you made yourself a target for a lot of
these left-wing groups. i know you won district hillary clinton won n there is a close fight. they're targeting you again. they say you cursed at people, threatened them and they're ready to raise holy hell with you. what do you say? >> well i didn't do that. there has been a lot of lies in the media about what actually happened. however, what i do know in the state of texas illegal immigration is the number one issue in poll after poll. i will continue to fight illegal immigration in the state of texas as much as i can. neil: just to be clear, sorry if i was just confused here. were you threatened, was your life threatened? >> i believe it was, yes. neil: by representative navares. >> yes, what we discussed earlier. neil: when he came around said you threatened him, did you? >> well, what he said to me was i will get you, you have to leave sometime.
he he reiterated to everyone around me a after everything calmed down. he wanted to make it specifically clear he was going to get me. so i simply said, if you do, i'm armed and will defend myself. neil: have you heard from the governor? >> no, i haven't. neil: do you think you should. >> he is business you sy. no, i don't expect to hear from the governor. i was just going to work one day and doing what i thought was right, and i will continue do that. neil: nancy pelosi inserted herself new law in texas, sir, by saying it is cowardly. what do you say? >> i don't think it is cowardly to protect people from criminal aliens. i don't think kate steinle's family would think that is cowardly. i think it is our duty to keep people safe. it is our duty to enforce the immigration laws. democratic thinks we should not only enforce our immigration laws or anyone who thinks we should enforce them should be
♪ >> i'm nicole petallides live on floor of the new york stock exchange. another day of records. the s&p 500 has broken through to new intraday all-time highs. so has the nasdaq. in fact the dow, nasdaq, and s&p, all three of major averages are looking at report closing levels. this as all 10 sectors are to the upside. what is bringing the optimism here to wall street? we're not soaring but all 10 sectors have been higher. two element today in particular helped to boost this market. one was the adp report, private sector jobs report, came in 68,000 more jobs than anticipated that could be a prelude to tomorrow's monthly jobs report. we saw strength in businesses and services. that is where the jobs were
added. coupled with oil. oil saw a draw-down in the build that we've seen in the inventories. oil has been down a couple sessions but now really stablized. it is in fact at 48.97. all 10 sectors are higher. we spoke with scott red new money is coming into this market for the month, neil. neil: a lot of new money. thank you very much. nicole petallides. will the new economy keep coming in when buyers start realizing the time to get everything done including the russia probe and all of a sudden get the health care thing through and the tax cut thing through, what if time is running out? yeah, we've run out of money. it is september. after this. think again. 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 say carl, we have a question about your brokerage fees. fees? what did you have in mind? i don't know. $4.95 per trade? uhhh. and i was wondering if your brokerage offers some sort of guarantee? guarantee? where we can get our fees and commissions back if we're not happy. so can you offer me what schwab is offering? what's with all the questions? ask your broker if they're offering $4.95 online equity trades and a satisfaction guarantee. if you don't like their answer, ask again at schwab.
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.
mattress firmness? fortunately there's a bed where you both get what you want every night. enter sleep number and the semi-annual sale going on now. sleepiq technology tells you how well you slept and what adjustments you can make. she likes the bed soft. he's more hardcore. so your sleep goes from good to great to wow! only at a sleep number store. now it's our lowest price ever on our temperature balancing i8 bed, save $700. ends sunday. go to sleepnumber.com for a store near you.
♪ neil: all right. what them worry? not investors. corner of wall and broad still buying up stocks. dow on record. s&p and nasdaq in constant territory here. not concerned about a legislative calendar could delay if not deny some things they want to see like more effective health care law and those tax cuts. they're waiting.
it is about 31 legislative days until the end of this fiscal and calendar congressional year. eric werner, dan shaffer, and rasmussen reports political analyst, amy holmes. amy, if the agenda is dicey, getting truncated, spell out how republicans pick through what they can do and what they can't do? >> i think they still try to get tax cuts if not comprehensive tax reform. and, neil, i was always a little skeptical actually about what i considered the irrational exuberance to borrow a phrase from alan greenspan, by the stock market at the election, the election of mr. trump and having a republican-controlled congress because just legislative process would tell you with only 52 republicans in the senate, that was going to slow thing down. they will need to pull democrats on to this legislation. obamacare that would be a tough sell in the united states
senate, to be repealing or reforming obama's legacy. so i think the stock market did get a little ahead of itself. neil: dan, maybe it is not about any of that. what do you think is going on? >> neil, as you know, good to see you again, it is just a lot of very, what i consider money manipulation the public is not aware of. if you look at price of the stocks balance sheeted with the federal reserve and money put in, we've been talking about over five years, yet this came continues to go on. neil: what is the game? what is the manipulation? >> the game, money flow is going into the system. we don't know exactly where it is goings. that is unwith the issues but the federal reserve has a huge balance sheet they pump money into banks. money is lent out to whoever is pushing up these stocks. a lot of companies are buying back their own stocks at very low cost. we've seen this in the 1920s. we've seen it at different periods in history. neil: i know what happened after that. are you saying we're in for a crash? >> i think we are.
if you look at velocity of money, he don't want to get too technical, the velocity of money collapsed before 1960 levels. it is not exchanging hands. it is in hard assets. not just the stock market. but the housing market and you have all the bubbles all over the place. a matter of time, everybody says there are no more buyers and we get the big selloff. i think companies earnings are not keeping with company's stocks. that is my opinion. i think trump will have difficulty too. neil: one of the things we have seen, despite all of those worries and concerns, earnings have been robust, maybe even with those robust earnings better than expected numbers coming out of much of corporate america, it doesn't justify a market at these levels. do you agree with that? >> well, i think we are justifying where we are right now, neil, in that every time something happens in the white house or on, or on congressional hill the markets
take a little teeny pullback and then trundle right on ahead. you're right, the corporate earnings best year-over-year growth since 2010. we're hearing good news out of europe. nine straight quarters of increasing, increasing manufacturing numbers. there are things supporting this. just one last point, markets really don't die from all-time highs where we have good breadth. where lots of stocks are participating. we could have many so, go down from here over months but not in the short term. in the short term we're seeing continued strength that should carry us through the summer. neil: we'll see. erica, you follow congress closely, but i do think baked into a lot of this expectation is that we're going to see tax rates go down. they might not be effective this year. they might be effective next year at the rate guys are going but they will still get them. what are you hearing on that front, whether if they get same mid in the health care thing they move on to the tax cuts,
can they do that, what happens? >> frankly, neil, i'm not sure why anything going on capitol hill right now or on wall street give anyone else much cause for optimism. they're stuck on health care. they're on recess right now. come back next week. just seven weeks left until the long august recess f they can't finish up health care in the senate, at a certain point they have to fish-or-cut-bait. neil: why aren't they cutting bait now? i heard, the way mitch mcconnell is talking it will be herculean task this health care thing. why don't you junk it now or -- >> they ran on it for seven years. that is all they talked about. neil: you're right. >> to say junk it. i think they want to put a little more effort into it before they make that call. maybe even take some votes to show -- neil: he have revenue from that. >> right. neil: let me ask you, about that, aim he my, say it does fall through, i don't mean to be
cynical or jaded, is it your sense people you're talking to, they're not worried about markets or falling, that underlying economy is very good, very strong second quarter, earnings are coming in okay, that that will keep this going, tax cut or no, even if it is delayed? >> one can hope so. certainly donald trump has been conduct regulations that have been very helpful to the economy, particularly with, at the epa when it comes to carbon emissions et cetera. but i think the big question for republicans on capitol hill whether or not their tax cuts need to be revenue neutral. they're having debate around that. i know from grover norquist, president for americans for tax reform, he is advocating it shouldn't have to stick to revenue neutrality, they could move on from obamacare and implementing tax cuts. neil: roll of the dice. thank you, very busy breaking news day. just as we were speaking dow at session highs.
s&p and nasdaq doing that. if they're worried about i in of this stuff they have a funny way of showing it. that doesn't mean the market telegraphing perfection. it has been wrong many, many times. the sentiment now seems to be we see all the stuff happening, more to the point we like companies whose stocks we're trading. they keep happening, keep performing, keep doing. keep with us, after this.
president trump on this climate group and whether he's going to stay a part of that accord. patrick michael who was here a little while ago, might have tipped his hand saying he's been invited to that event, a big proponent of that event. he's one of the few selected to the rose garden today. relinquish regan, to you. trish: thank you so much, neil. we're one hour away from the president's big decision, big announcement on the paris climate accord. will we stay? will we leave? or will president trump try to work out a better agreement. we are going to find out from the white house, from the president in just 60 minutes from now. all of this as the stock market heads to record highs, perhaps investors might like the idea of getting out. i'm trish regan. welcome, everyone, to the intelligence report. here we are watching the market right now at record highs. the s&p and nasdaq hitting all-time highs today. you can see the market up 112 points right there on the dow jos