tv Your World With Neil Cavuto FOX News February 8, 2017 1:00pm-2:01pm PST
more than 100 million people have been involved with the scouts here in the united states. after a good deed led to the boy scouts of america more than 107 years ago today. neil cavuto's turn. >> neil: >> that's all we needed that image, that altercation, that silencing. and then the fallout. take a look. >> they hate trump, and i think that's a fair word. you don't hear them behind the scenes. >> people around the world throw chairs and punches. i ask, how does that make you feel about those countries? there's no confidence in that. i'm not anywhere near that tonight but we're flirting with it. we're flirting it with this body and flirting with it in this country. >> if we could erase last night
on both sides, america would be better. great nations, great republics don't die by murder. they die by suicide. that's exactly where we're taking this country right now. >> neil: you know how this started, folks? good to have you. i'm near near. you're watching "your world." i'm tell you how this started. a vote with jeff sessions to be the next attorney general of the united states. the appearance of letters more than three decades old to show the point that he shouldn't be the next attorney general of the united states. regardless of your views on this subject, it's set in a parliamentary tit for tat that has this body considered probably the most select club on earth, all but paralyzed. i'm not talking about a pending snowstorm. i'm talking politically paralyzed. an attorney general vote we're told could be hours away. we're told. but notice is a given in this environment. the fox news senior call top
hill producer chad pergram. what is the latest, chad? >> we'll have a vote about 6:50, 7:00 to confirm jeff sessions as the next attorney general from alabama. it's all over but the shouting. he has the votes to be confirmed. but the talking from elizabeth warren is over. this was the scene where the senate voted to suspend her speaking privileges. you don't do that in the united states senate. the senate is a body of unlimited debate. when you neuter a senator they can't talk, bacon without eggs, batman without robin, it doesn't happen, you have to go back 66 years to 1951, february 1, william benton a senator from connecticut who had his speaking privileges suspended. so this is very high profile.
at the end of the night, they'll confirm jeff sessions. elizabeth warren has been getting a lot of attention. democrats are hammering the republicans and that's what they want to do. >> neil: nevertheless, she was not allowed to say what she wanted to say. mcconnell stopped her, disparaging a colleague or whatever the language is. at least four democratic senators got to say what she wasn't allow to say quoting from this letter, coretta scott king raising serious concerns about jeff sessions for a judgeship in 1986. so senator tom udall can speak, sherrod brown can speak, bernie sanders can quote the same passage in the same letter that she did. that i don't understand. how were they allowed to do it? >> i noticed after this big brawl last night on the senate floor, i was in the chamber for several hours and i noticed chuck schumer and the republican
leader, the majority leader, mitch mcconnell went off to the side and had a one-on-one chat. one of this is a tree falls in the forest, nobody is there to listen. some of these comments were made at 2:00 and 3:00 a.m. there was an interesting exchange i think between mcconnell and schumer where they said, okay, let's calm everybody down. let's not try to escalate this any further than it has been. there was an interesting moment where mike rounds, republican senator from south dakota, was asked by sheldon whitehouse, a democratic senator from rhode island, if you were speaking the truth about a fellow senator, even if it was impugning that senator's integrity, could you say that? senator rounds said no, you can't. that's the interesting part of rule 19 about the senate rules. it doesn't matter what the circumstances are. it comes down to the eye of the beholder. generally the senate has given leeway when it comes to impugning the integrity of other
senato senators. in 2015, ted cruze called mitch mcconnell a liar. nobody called him out on it. and you remember orrin hatch, being the most senior body on the majority said, he said we need to cool off here. he did the same thing last night. senator hatch did. he said if we don't get into this, we'll be in a jungle phase in the united states senate. >> neil: and beauty can be in the eyes of the beholder to your point. i remember when senator cotton said of harry reid that his leadership was cancerous. so democrats shot back, you guys have done worse. i don't know what the litmus test is to enact this. but do you think it would have changed things either way as far as the vote that is coming up later on or moved a single one of those senators as to whether they'll support jeff sessions
for attorney general? >> not really, this is on a glide path. the democrats are going through these macinations every 30 hours. they can make a lot of noise but it doesn't matter. then we're on to the next nominations. immediately after jeff sessions, we'll have a procedural vote to break the democratic filibuster on tom price, the republican from georgia who is up to be the hhs secretary and democrats are afforded under the rules 30 hours after that vote, they plan to keep the senate in session all night again for the third night in a row and all day tomorrow and probably have a confirmation on tom price as they get important to repealing and replacing obama care probably 1:00 or 2:00 a.m. friday. so i think that's really what is causing a lot of these florida flights because let me tell you, neil, nerves are frayed, people
are sleep deprived, yours truly included. and it's been a couple of wild days here on capitol hill. >> neil: i know what you're like without sleep. ugly. thanks. i appreciate it. >> any time. >> neil: so this protocol, this decency, how you treat people, talk about people, was anything broken here? is it a case of pot calling the kettle black? you know the drill. south dakota senator, john, very good to have you. is this much adieu about politics? in other words, it's not going to change anything, but it's going to distract? i'm wondering if that's what this is about. >> well, i don't think there's any question, neil, that this is all about politics. for elizabeth warren, it's about november of 2020. that's her motivation in a lot
of this. i think it's the fog of the election hanging over this place. the democrats have not gotten over the fact that donald trump won. he's naming people to his cabinet. they're trying to drag that process out. so i hope at some point this normaliz normalizes. right now it's delay on the democrats in the united states senate. at some points you have to say enough already. obviously last night it got spirited. look, this is -- these are united states senators. we expect to come here and debate the issues. i hope that going forward we'll get into a constructive discussion about the issues and about the nominees and their records and not make personal attacks. that's not what the senate is about. >> neil: again, i know that hillary clinton more or less emboldened this and i think i quasi phrasing elizabeth warren, what she did, is it fair to say
that elizabeth warren knew and was given a attempted to quote this entire coretta scott king letter that she would be censored or whatever you call it? >> i think she knew going in that she was skirting that line. i think too, neil, that the kennedy letter that was a letter that got the stronger reaction. it wasn't the coretta scott king -- >> neil: you're talking about the late senator ted kennedy who had doubts about the judgeship this mr. sessions was up for. >> right. she was reading from that, also over 30 years ago. there were more direct attacks in that particular letter than there were in the other one. neverthele nevertheless, they were violations -- clear violations of rule 19. the question of whether or not you invoke rule -- >> neil: would you have invoked it, if it helped elizabeth warren fund-raising, galvanized liberals and those that think that democrats should go right
back at republicans? you mentioned the bitterness since the election. it's not eased. would you have pushed this point? >> i don't know that i would have. the point is, senator mcconnell was defending a member of the senate who was being attacked on the floor. in violation of the rules. so this was -- i think the important thing here to remember, too, neil, this wasn't a one-off incident. this is something that senator warren has been warned about repeatedly multiple times. most senators, when they get a warning, adhere to that, heed that and sort of change their behavior accordingly. a lot of this, like i said, she's running for president. that's her prerogative. the truth is, we have things to get done. i hope that we can get back to a norm normal atmosphere in the senate, consistent with our tradition. hopefully you know, discuss these issues in a constructive
way that will lead to results for the american people. that's what they want to see and all of this infighting and posturing that goes on on the senate right now isn't constructive and conducive to anything that i think the american people want to see happen fro their elected officials. >> sean spicer mentioned coretta scott king today and said if she were alive today, i'd hope that she would support jeff sessions. do you think she would? >> i think a lot of people have different opinions about jeff sessions. arnold spector said that was the thing that he reflected most, that he voted against jeff sessions in 1986. jeff sessions is somebody that has been elected not once, not twice but three times to the united states senate. he saved as a u.s. attorney. he has a distinguished record of safe to their state and their country hand deserves fair consideration. i think deserves to be respected
by their colleagues. and the language that is used in discussing his record on the floor of the senate needs to be respectful. you know, this is a colleague. the senate is built upon rules. that's what makes it different than any other legislative body in the world. if you don't at some point say, okay, look, when somebody violates the rules, it needs to be pointed out and then we'll continue to see the place deteriorate and it will end up like other places around the world like we don't have the same opportunities in a civil wait. >> neil: do you worry this is taking attention away from things that i'm sure you want to do and see? nat grudge, the internet conservative, i think it's fair to say, republicans should be sued for fraud over action on some of these things that people elected them on. tax cuts, obamacare.
it's been reflected in the markets as well. frustration that maybe this all -- all this other stuff is distracting from your message and what you want to get done. >> well, of course it's a distraction. that's what the democrats want to happen. that's why they're dragging the nominations out. this is the slowest moving -- >> neil: and can you feed the beast by getting stuck on particliamentary order when -- >> it's helping her become the face of the democrat party. i'm okay with that. if she becomes the face of the democrat party, it's not going to represent where the majority of americans are. >> neil: what about grudges and other worries like that, that republicans are getting the eye off the ball? >> there's no question we need to stay focused.
there's no question that we have to lessen the regulations and lower tax reform and obamacare. getting a supreme court justice on the bench. those are things that we're very focused on. those are legislative priorities. you're right. we shouldn't get easily distracted. it's hard when you have to press the number of nominations that we do who are still not over the election. we have to do our best to manage it. >> neil: senator thune, thanks. >> thank you. >> neil: donald trump has five cabinet members at this point. barack obama had 12. something is amiss. something is a mess. well this here's a load-bearing wall. we'll go ahead and rip that out. (husband)yeah? it's going to cause a lot of problems. totally unnecessary and it triples the budget. (husband)mmmm. wouldn't it be great if everyone said what they meant? the citi® double cash card does. earn 1% cash back when you buy, and 1% as you pay. double means double.
yeah...ya-ha... just one dose of the prevnar 13® vaccine can help protect you from pneumococcal pneumonia- an illness that can cause coughing, chest pain, difficulty breathing, and may even put you in the hospital. prevnar 13® is approved for adults 18 and older to help prevent infections from 13 strains of the bacteria that cause pneumococcal pneumonia. you should not receive prevnar 13® if you have had a severe allergic reaction to the vaccine or its ingredients. if you have a weakened immune system, you may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects were pain, redness, and swelling at the injection site, limited arm movement, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, joint pain, less appetite, vomiting, fever, chills, and rash. get this one done! ask about prevnar 13® at your next visit to your doctor's office or pharmacy.
that has to do with the security of our country, which is so important. i think it's sad. it's a sad day. i think our security is at risk today. >> neil: some interpret that as subtle pressure to get those three circuit court of appeal judges in san francisco to go his way and assess his rights to do what he did by this travel ban, better vetting, whatever you want to call it. others say he might have doomed that. i don't know who is accurate. i do know that this fellow is worried about our security regardless. he's retired four star ash -- army general, jack kent. good to have you here. we'll know how they rule tomorrow. it will probably go to the supreme court. but that means that we would be waiting that long for this to be enacted, right? >> it's a sad commentary.
i don't think judges should be making judgments about the security of the united states. that is something that we clearly give to the executive branch. he has access to all of the information largely classified information from our intelligence sources to be able to make judgments as he has made. it's certainly the american people that can comment on what those judgments are, but i don't think a judicial system should be anywhere nearly involved with this. >> neil: general, i'm no lawyer. i talked to those that are that say that the line of questioning, the tone of questioning coming from at least two of those judges seems to indicate that they will not do what donald trump wants them to do, which means it gets kicked up to the supreme court, which means it's a 4-4 court, which would default back to a tie. i'm getting ahead of myself. only to mention the point here that this keeps this open-ended
for quite a while. >> yeah, that's unfortunate. the facts get trampled on here, too. the focus has been on the seven countries. you know, neil, we take in about a million immigrants a year in this country. >> neil: that's right. >> mr. trump has not said that he is going to decrease those numbers at all. so we still would be the number 1 intaker of immigrants in the world. number 2, the refugee program averages between 50 and 100,000 over the last six or seven years. he has cut that to 50,000. it's still within the margin of the refugees that we normally take in to the country. what he has said is i'm concerned about our vetting process, particularly coming from seven countries where the governments we know do not exist as governments because they're failed state or we know they don't have an adequate vetting process to give us any assurances that those coming out
of those countries are indeed who they say that are. that is reasonable for a president to make that judgment. the congress has made the same judgment and his predecessor made a similar judgment about those countries. it's unfortunate because there's so many anti-mr. trump in this nation that we have lost sight of what is truly happening. >> neil: bottom line is, you now have many people looking at this and saying, america doesn't have its act together on terror issues. is that a fair rap? that seems to be the read you're getting from abroad. >> no, absolutely. there's no country on the planet that has a better counter terrorism program and better intelligence on what is taking place with the radical islamists than the united states. every country in the world is envious of us. the only country that compares to us but their problem is
considerably smaller in scope is the israelis. that i have a clear fidelity with what the they're dealing with. given the fact that we have to deal with the globe, nobody compares. >> neil: thanks, general. when we come back, the supreme court pick that is looking good. where's frank? it's league night! 'saved money on motorcycle insurance with geico! goin' up the country. bowl without me. frank.' i'm going to get nachos. snack bar's closed. gah! ah, ah ah. ♪ ♪ i'm goin' up the country, baby don't you wanna go? ♪ ♪ i'm goin' up the country, baby don't you wanna go? ♪ geico motorcycle, great rates for great rides.
>> neil: president trump will be meeting with key democrats tomorrow. so this thing is still going on, the bipartisan outreach here, including this next fellow that is among those that is willing to consider a vote for neil gorsuch to be the next supreme court justice. john tester. thanks for coming, senator. >> a pleasure to be with you. thank you. >> neil: same here.
you are meeting with the. . did he request the meeting? enlighten me. >> no, he requested a number of us. i don't know who all is going. eight or ten of us are heading over. i'm sure we're going to talk about a myriad only -- of issues including neil gorsuch. we're going to talk about my problems in montana with medicare and the cms agency and my office and i'm going to talk about the hiring freezes with the v.a. and veteran benefits. we have the backlog to cut down on. i'm look forward to the meeting. i've never met him. i look forward to meeting president trump and talk about montana. we'll see where the path goes. i look forward to meeting the president. >> neil: it comes at a time, you're aware of the dust-up over elizabeth warren and not speaking on the senate floor and your colleagues quoting same letter that she was not allowed
to quote to, back and forth. what do you think of the tone in the senate right now and whether you're party is pushing things too far, whether republicans are. what do you think? >> i don't think the tone is good. people are quite frankly sick of the shenanigans in washington d.c. and have been for some time. what happened last night happened last night. we've had other things that happened all the time, whether republicans are in control or democrats are in control. the bottom line is the job that we have to do as senators, in this case, cabinet nominees and with the supreme court justice moving forward. there's things that are problematic with sessions, the patriot act and the fact that he would allow government to get into law-abiding citizens private communications. that's a problem. in the end, everybody needs to weigh the candidates and
nominees out for what they are and do what is best for their state and for the country. move forward. >> neil: there's a concept. let's get your read. i know there's eight or nine like you, democratic senators who are open to hearing out judge gorsuch. many of your colleagues are still wincing about the way republicans they say treated merrick garland about a year ago and they're not letting that go. what do you say to them? >> i think you have to move forward. what is done is done. there's plenty of arguments that can be talked about, merrick garland and how he was treating. each senator should give gorsuch a fair shake and make a determination based on what they know about this potential supreme court justice. this may be the most important job as senators.
i take it seriously and the people i serve with, too. so we ought to act like adults and do what is right, get the information we need to make a decision and vote him up or vote him down. have the reasons why whichever direction you're going you are. it's a matter of work, getting the research done, getting our due diligence and meeting with the man and hearing him out. >> neil: would you prefer the senate stick too old rules and not do the nuclear option and 60 votes on the justice, or as the results have hinted maybe go back to simply majority and say, harry reid started this. what do you think? >> i think we ought to stick with the 60-vote margin. i don't want the senate turns into the house. i'm a senate guy. i've served in the senate, not the house. i think the senate is a spectacular body that the forefathers set up to be deliberate and thinks things through before we make a decision. that's the basis behind the
60-vote margin. >> neil: do you think judge gorsuch can get the 60 votes? >> we'll see. it's entirely possible. it depends on how we do our work here in the senate and check into his past practices and his writings and decisions. >> neil: senator, thank you. i hear you've had little sleep and i've had plenty. good having you. >> thank you. >> neil: hope springs eternal. maybe they can get stuff done and move on. meanwhile, republicans seem to be tipping their hand on tax cuts. but not everyone is buying that. after this. [vo] quickbooks introduces jeanette and her new mobile wedding business. at first, getting paid was tough... until she got quickbooks. now she sends invoices, sees when they've been viewed and ta-da, paid twice as fast! see how at quickbooks-dot-com.
>> i know we had our caucus meet with the chairman to talk about not only the border adjustment tax but overall tax reform. the chairman hopes to have a bill to vote on that by this summer. >> neil: was it your understanding and the chairman's understanding that you would we'd the corporate tax relief with the personal income tax relief at the same time? >> i think you have to, neil,
when you look at comprehensive tax reform. it's an all-inclusive from the business standpoint. some of that flows through to individuals depending on what type of corporation they have. so you have to made it all together. >> neil: pay close attention to that guy. he's the head of the 40-member house freedom caucus, a conse e conservative group that convinces between on a cusp of getting something done with taxes. kevin brady is orchestrating it all and working hard on a tax cut that will satisfy those that don't seem to think there is going to be one. scott brown on this. fox business networks chargely ga gasparino. we're right on this. despite complaining about the
republicans losing and getting their eye off the ball on this, who is right? >> i think that as my mom would say, the proof is in the pudding or the devil is in the details as it were. at this point, you know, the folks from the freedom caucus saying they're speaking to the ways and means committee that has jurisdiction over taxes. this is a campaign promise that republicans need to fill. they do need to get off their duff and get things done here. that need to do it before the federal fiscal year ends, september 30th and that it's paid for. in my opinion, i know the gentlemen from the freedom k caucus indicated that it would be neutral. all of this happening at the same time with individual and corporate tax reduction, i came from a state legislative background. we have to pay for things.
we can't print money. i'm concerned to make sure that, you know, regardless of what they do, that it is paid for. >> neil: you'd be one of the few democrats that i talked to that is concerned about such issue. touche. but scott brown, you've seen what has been happening on capitol hill and people walking out of meetings and not going to confirmation hearings and promising not to vote on a judge and on and on. i'm wondering whether matt grudge is on to something when he says this is the stuff that irks him. >> yes, that's why people supported donald trump. with respect to the tax cuts, if i'm not mistaken, neil, he's been there 18 days. he doesn't have a treasury cabinet secretary to help move these things forward. the fact that he's done so much in the 18-day period is quite frankly remarkable, especially with the mainstream media, the
democrats, the things you just referenced. i know they're going to do a tucks cut and they'll pay for it by repatrioting all the offshore money, maximizing the waste full dollars that are there. you can have a flux plan to give the corporate and individual tax rates and have partial pay-fors with the expectation that when the economy gets screaming we'll have the money back. but to think it's 100% paid for, since when do the democrats -- >> neil: guys, we can quibble back and forth. but i will say and scott brown raise as good point. we're applying a hard standard to this president who in a little more than 18 days has been a busy bee keeping to his promises. today he had an oval office from intel. going to build a $7 billion facility in arizona, hire 3,000
workers. that's not shabby. >> no, democrats never talk about how they're going to pay for the gazillions of program that led to budget deficits -- >> speak for yourself, not me. >> your leadership. the people you vote for. the big thing is, i spoke with congressman mccarthy at the super bowl. he said they're going -- >> neil: you were at the super bowl? >> yes. i mentioned that ten times on the air today. they're going to have something by the spring, i believe. here's where it gets interesting. what will that something be? will it be the 15% corporate tax or the 25% corporate tax. >> they're combining the corporate -- >> here's where the rubber meets the road. can you do the full-on tax cuts that he ran on plus those individual rate cuts and build the wall and do the infrastructure and that's where it's going to get interested -- >> and you have your doubts.
>> yes. charlie is correct. there's so many different variables here. i mentioned the aca and how that ultimately impacts deficit reduction and the like. so i think it's going to be difficult. i do agree that we won't see something 100% paid for out of the gate. it's going to be -- >> why should we pay for it -- >> neil: now scott, you point, it's dynamic accounting and -- scott, is that your point? >> of course, neil. the fact that they haven't paid for stuff in so long, the democratic party and all of hillary's and bernie's proposals would have added trillions to the debt. >> two wrongs don make a right. >> i love listening to you and i loved your presentation but more importantly, obamacare is a pay raise for every employer and every individual. so you know, you get rid of that, it's an automatic pay raise. >> and tax cut. >> there's so many things you can do -- >> and a tax cut. and a tax cut.
>> neil: all right. i can't believe -- i'm just more annoyed that charlie gasparino went to the super bowl. i watching picture and picture chopping and -- guys, thank you very much. meantime, we are waiting to hear what a court is going to rule on what donald trump wants to do about vetting people who try to get into this country. then what happens? the legal battle with the judge. i love how usaa gives me the peace of mind and the security just like the marines did. at one point, i did change to a different company with car insurance, and i was not happy with the customer service. we have switched back over and we feel like we're back home now. the process through usaa is so effortless, that you feel like you're a part of the family. i love that i can pass the membership to my children, and that they can be protected. we're the williams family, and we're usaa members for life. call usaa today to talk about your insurance needs.
and this is they like lobster party.y, red lobster's lobsterfest is back with 9 irresistible lobster dishes. yeah, it's a lot. try tender lobster lover's dream and see how sweet a lobster dream can be. or pick two delicious lobster tails with new lobster mix and match. the only thing more tempting than one succulent lobster tail, is two. is your mouth watering yet? good. because there's something for everyone, and everyone's invited. so come in today.
listening to the judges and the questioning that they might not go along with the president on this one, right? >> before the oral argument, i was convinced that they were going to dismiss the case because the state said washington and minnesota cannot show that they as states were harmed by anything donald trump did. that is a precondition for bringing a case in federal court. that the plaintiff can show harm caused by the defendant. but after hearing them yesterday, they're far more interested in the policy issues of why president trump did this, which is an inappropriate inquiry for the courts. their job is not to second guess the president. not to say if this is good policy or bad policy, if it's grounded in evidence or not. their only job is to say whether or not his behavior was consistent with the constitution and the federal statutes.
under the constitution, the president and the president alone establishes foreign policy. >> neil: i never thought of it this way. they were harkening back and inflating things he said on the stump and not actions taken as president. >> i have never seen this before. two of the questions thrown at the lawyer from the justice department was, didn't your clients, referring to the president, didn't your clients say this, and did his advisor say that? these were statements made before he was the president in the rough and tumble of a campaign. that i have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the decisions that he made as president and it's highly inappropriate for judges to inquire into this. yet, when they do, neil, it gives those of us that watch these things an indication of which way they're going to go they're going to substitute their judgment for the president's. he has every right to be as furious as he was this morning
when this comes down. >> neil: does that hurt him when he says that sort of stuff or what? how does that go? >> the things that they want to use against him are the statements he made about radical islam and if he has this view about radical islam, is his executive order intended to bar muslims. if it is, it's unlawful. it can be used to bar a religion. if it's intended to bar people from parts of the world from which terrorists have come, then it's absolutely lawful. and they are ascribing to himidd as candidate months ago and i have never been seen this and i suggest it was highly inappropriate. that's the argument i made to imus. the other things i said, if i said it now, you won't have me
on the show. >> neil: you're so smart, it's scary. i cheated off of people in school. you would always shield yourself. >> i don't know where it's going but i'm less optimistic today as i was yesterday. >> neil: very interesting. we should know tomorrow on this. the newly elected missouri governor, edward brighton just named missouri the 28th right to work state. what is he in for? we'll ask next. what shall we call you? tom! name it tom! studies show that toms have the highest average earning potential over their professional lifetime. see? uh, it's a girl. congratulations! two of my girls are toms. i work for ally, finances are my thing. you know, i'm gonna go give birth real quick and then we'll talk, ok? nice baby. let's go. here comes tom #5! nothing, stops us from doing right by our customers. ally. do it right. whoo! look out.
>> great to be here. >> you joined the right to work camp. could be a tough uphill battle. the campaign will begin that you're out to gut unions and the working man and woman. i dealt with this with scott walker that was one of the early leaders of that charge. what do you say? >> look, it's very clear, neil, our job and our mission that the people of missouri sent us to accomplish is more jobs and stronger paychecks for the people of missouri. we signed right-to-work because it is clear it leads to more jobs. the union bosses will fight us on this. they spent millions against mow in the campaign. trying to restore the work i did with veterans and being a navy seal. we're happy to take on this fight. we want more jobs and higher pay. we're not just taking on the union bosses. we're ready to take on trial lawyers and career politicians and the special interest
insiders. anybody that stands between us and more jobs for the state of missouri, we're ready for that fight. >> neil: as you know, governor, the unions come back, the private and public sectors, saying we negotiate these deals that benefit all members and people can opt out of paying dues and still get the benefit of the deal that we put sweat equity into and the governor endorses that. you say what? >> the facts are so clear, neil. you look over the past 25 years. job growth in right-to-work states has been twice as high as in nonright to work states. before missouri signed right to work there were 27 other states that were right-to-work states. right-to-work states people earn on more in missouri. the facts are so clear. this will lead to more jobs and higher pay for the people in missouri. we look at indiana, michigan, both of which signed right to
work and they've been leading the country in new factory job growth. our mission has been very clear and we're happy to make that case to the people of missouri. >> neil: i was reading -- switching gears, governor, if you'll indulge me. there's a politco survey out that shows among democratic voters that the majority of them would want to see their representatives really make life difficult for republicans when it comes to protesting choices the president has for his cabinet by extension all the way up to the supreme court choice. make their life as difficult as possible. that's the gist of it. what do you make of that and how republicans should respond to that? >> look, i can tell you exactly how we're responding to that, neil. we were sent by the people of missouri to fight for them. the fact is, we're willing as i said, to take on not just the special interest insiders and the lobbiests and political opponents that will stand in our way of mission of safer streets and better schools.
we're going to put their interests in front of the state of missouri. we're ready to take them on. the people send us -- i'm an outsider. they sent us to get results. that's exactly what we're going to do. these insider games, people are sick of it. they want results. that's what we've done from day one. >> neil: governor, thank you. eric greitens, beautiful state of missouri. former navy seal as well. thank you, sir. good seeing you. >> good to be on with you, neil. >> neil: all right. i want you to look now at new york city. if we can. looks beautiful, right? snow will be up for the top of the empire stay building at this time. i'll explain.
the weather is kind of like my favorite football team, the patriots. watched the super bowl, kind of worried but i didn't give up. that's the way it is this winter. you were talking about how beautiful it was today. we are not going to give up on winter weather because we have quite the storm that's going to be rapidly rolling up the east coast. the only saving grace for us, the storm is moving along but this will give us a major hit. by the time you wake up in the morning, it's already going to be snowing. you are going to be scraping away of your car is not in the garage. winter storm warnings, blizzard warnings are in effect. long island, southeast mask. 4050-mile an hour winds. -- 40, 50-mile an hour winds. there's going to be some thunder and lightning as well. when all is said and done, can you believe this? over 12 inches of snow fall.
get out your weapon of choice. i like this one. get ready. >> neil: you bring a lot of extra stuff. we appreciate that. that's what makes you who you are. a patriots fan. see you tomorrow. >> hello, everyone. i am eric bolling along with kimberly guilfoyle, bob beckel, dana perino, greg gutfeld. this is "the five" ." the fate of president trump's temporary travel ban is still in question as a liberal ninth circuit court of appeals takes another day to decide whether to uphold the ruling or strike it down. the court announced there will be no decision today. the president still staunchly defending the need for his executive order. >> it was done for the security of our nation, the security of our citizens. so that people come in who aren't going to do us harm.