tv Your World With Neil Cavuto FOX News November 29, 2017 1:00pm-2:00pm PST
go to your governor and they're going to say, governor, please go see the president. we can't stand winning so much. remember i used to say that? right? [applause] i used to say it. that's what's happening. [applause] that's what's happening. and then the governor is going to come to that beautiful historic oval office. he's going to say to me, mr. president, the people of missouri cannot stand all of this winning. they don't want to win so much. they love the old way. where they had lousy job numbers, lousy economic numbers. they loved it. please, mr. president. please. and i'll say, governor, i don't care what the they say in missouri. we're going to keep winning and winning. remember? that's right. [applause] i used to say that.
i had fun with that. but we are winning. we're winning a again. we're winning a lot bigger than anyone ever thought possible for such a short period of time. for too long, our tax code has incentivized country to leave our country in search of lower tax rates. it happens. many, many companies are going to ireland. they're going all over. they're going all over asia. but they're stopping. because they now want to take advantage of what is happening and what we're about to pass hopefully. my administration rejects the offshoring model. in other words, let's build a factory in another country. fire everybody and let's build a product and send it in without tax back to the united states. that model doesn't work for me. never worked. shouldn't have worked for any of our other past presidents. believe me. our new model is the american model. call it the trump model.
where we build it here. as much as possible we build it here. simply put, our tax plan is anti-offshoring and 100% worker, 100% pro america. [cheers & applause] under the american model, we're reducing burdens on our businesses as long as they do business in our country. okay? do business here. now, we love mexico. it's a wonderful place. i don't like when our car companies move to mexico, fire everybody, build the same car in mexico, send it through our borders with no taxes, no nothing and we buy the car. same price. we buy the car. in the meantime, what do we get out of it? no tax and we got unemployment all over. that's stopping. so now the plants are starting to move back.
now there's a price to pay when they do that little number on us. that is how we all succeed and we grow together, as one came one people as one american family. [applause] this week's vote can be the beginning of the next great chapter for the american worker. to summarize, our plan cuts taxes for the working and middle income families. it nearly doubles the amount of income tax at the rate of zero. it lowers tax rates. it expands the child tax credit. it provides relief for the estate tax also known as the death tax. it cuts small business taxes. it reduces the corporate rate from 35% all the way down to 20%. and it provides a one-time low
tax rate to return corporate money parked overseas. trillions and trillions of dollars. this is the right plan, this is the right time. we have a moment in time, the republicans have the senate. the republicans have the house. the republicans have the white house. it's very unusual. very unusual. [applause] this is our chance to free our economy from our workers, from the terrible tax burdens. we have workers that are so burdened with taxes. we're freeing our workers from those terrible burdens. republicans in congress campaigned on cutting taxes. we also campaigned on repeal and replace. it's going to happen. it's going to happen. take your time. it's going to happen. it's going to happen.
many democrats have promised tax cuts that don't mean anything. because they really want major tax increases. senator claire mccaskill, have you ever heard of her? [booing]. is doing you a tremendous disservice. she wants your taxes to go up. she's weak on crime. she's weak on borders. she's weak on illegal immigration and she's weak on the military. other than that, she's doing a fantastic job. but now comes the moment of truth in the coming days the american people will learn which politicians are part of the swamp and which politicians want to drain the swamp. if you make your voices heard and call up your congressman and they've been terrific and call us your senators and they have been totally terrific, most of
them have been incredible, they are, they're friends of mine, they're incredible, but it doesn't take much. that's why we need more. most have been incredible. call your senators, call your congressman. we have no choice. we have to act. we have to act. as a country. this isn't good for the republican party. this is good for the country. that's ultimately what it's all about. [applause] so this week hopefully the senate can join the house and take that strong stand for middle class families and for business and for jobs and for competition and for bringing money back. together we will give the american people a big beautiful christmas present. [cheers & applause]
and remember, i was the one when i was here last time, i said we're going to have christmas again. i was the one that said you go to the department stores and you see happy new year, red, snow, all of these things. you don't see "merry christmas" anymore. with trump as your president, we're going to be celebrating merry christmas again, and it's going to be done with a big beautiful tax cut. thank you, everybody. god bless you. thank you. thank you, everybody. thank you very much. [cheers & applause] >> neil: you are continuing to look live in st. charles, missouri where the president of the united states made an all-out frontal attack on those that doubt his tax cuts and what republicans are cooking up. to the right of your screen, what they are cooking up. the united states senate where we could be minutes away from beginning what could be a
20-hour debate, a marathon, to go ahead and let everybody speak their mind on these tax cuts. the president said they will be the largest in american history. technically it's not right, but we worth dither over details. what we will say is what he's planning to do will come to fruition in the senate in the form of a parliamentary procedure that gets the debate going and maybe after 20 hours gets a vote going as well. that will be up to 100 senators, namely the focus on 52 republicans. right now the indications are that it could be close. he will not get any democratic support, but that could change. he's putting heavy pressure on people like claire mccaskill of missouri and others to try to get a couple of democratic converts. but they would be brave if it looks like republicans have the vote. this procedure which seems rather arcane, but the fact of the matter is, they're going to set in motion here, even though mark warner not a fan of what
the president is proposing, what will be a 20-hour marathon beginning this hour and that could be completed by week's end with a vote on this tax cut. kevin corker in missouri on how the president's push for this works. kevin? >> well, i don't mind telling you, neil, you and i talked about this a number of times dating back to the campaign season. he really knows how to strike a cord in this part of the country, in particular here in missouri. i feel like this speech was incredibly well-received. of the 1,000 or so invitees, i don't know that i saw, neil, three people sitting down during the speech. it was literally the entire crowd stood for the entirety of the speech. i noticed two things. number 1, he hammered home this idea and claire mccaskill in particular, you heard him mention the missouri senator there, he said listen, if she's not backing this, she's anti-tax cuts. she's not doing what is right
for the people of missouri. i shared that to say this. the message was clear, it was forceful and at least in this crowd and in this setting, he really seemed to hit it on the mark in making his pitch that tax cuts will benefit the middle class. we'll see what they say on capitol hill, neil. >> neil: thanks, kevin. meantime on capitol hill where the battle royale is on right now. that's where it's all going to be decided. you can make the pitch across the country. a lot have, including president. but it's going to be up to those 100 senators. the 52 republicans more to the point that will decide this ultimate fate. mike emanuel is there. >> good afternoon, neil. the president says he wants tax reform on his desk by christmas and limited time to get it done. so the next move as you pointed out is a motion to proceed to take up the bill. that would set off 20 hours of debate. all the republican sources i've talked to say they expect they have the votes to take up the bill. then the question would be a
final passage vote by the end of the week. there's some republican senators with a range of concerns and gop leadership sources say the concerns are being addressed. let's take a look at them. susan collins says a lot of her concerns are being addressed. bob corker has concerns about the debt. steve daines is concerned about small businesses. jeff flake worried about the debt. ron johnson worried about small businesses. james langford, concerned about the debt. and then there's john mccain who has voted against tax cuts before. the senate finance chairman is defending his bill. >> for example, i expect we'll hear that this bill is a massive give-away to the rich. that's always the claim of the democrats. it's a gift to the so-called rich. oh, gosh. give me a break. i get so tired of that. phony argument that they make all the time. >> so orrin hatch is frustrated that democrats have not gotten
more involved. democrats say they have not been invited to the table. chuck schumer fired back at hatch. >> who are we kidding? who are we kidding? this has been a very partisan bill. that's why it's not a great product. that's why the other side is rushing it through. this is not a proud day for this chamber. history will show that. >> with that, tempers starting to get a little bit flaring a bit. we expect the vote on the senate floor sometime this hour. neil? >> neil: they are optimistic by the end of the week, possibly, a full fledge vote on this? >> yes, that's what they're going for. that's what the they're aiming for. they say they're trying to address the concerns. they say there's a limited pot of money so limited things that they can do to the bill. that i have a $1.5 trillion cap. but we're trying to get there to
show in good faith. they're hopefulliful to get it across the finish line by the end of the week. >> neil: thanks, mike emanuel on capitol hill. an important vote on all of this. 52 senators, the 52 republican senators, always hope spring eternal that a number of democrats could vote for it. the pressure is on the grand old party members. there's 52 of them. with the case of alabama election, might be 51 if it doesn't go the republicans way. no way to know if roy moore wins if he would be a yay or nay vote. that could be a moot point if you speed this up before the december 12th special election. let's get a read on this with shelly moore. senator, thanks for taking the time. >> sure. thanks for having me on. >> neil: how does it look to you? >> looks very good. we had lunch today. we talked about the differences that remain. we talked about some of the movement that has occurred when
several members had raised concerns. i think there's a real willingness on everybody's part to do something big and bold for the american public and that's tax reform. i'm feeling very good about it. >> neil: good enough that a vote could happen by the end of the week? >> yes. i think we'll vote probably within the hour to move the bill on to the floor and have the 20-hour debate. amendments will be offered. they'll be good faith amendments and have the debate on that. i feel like at the end of the day, whether it's friday, saturday or sunday, we'll have a major victory here. >> neil: your read on some of your colleagues. i know it's been tough. but allowances have been made to certain members for certain things. i know senator ron johnson was here yesterday. assurances that they would do something to address small and medium size businesses that he felt were getting the shorter end of the stick. others like susan collins of maine on the individual mandate. she was concerned about that doesn't want it in there.
where does this wheeling and dealing stand in your eyes? >> i know you've heard threading the needle. that's what we're trying to do. at the same time, these are very strong opinions that are held and heartfelt. so i think in terms of the pass-through business issue, the finance committee has been working with ron johnson and found a pathway forward. also on the issue of removing the individual mandate, which i think is a really good idea, i think we have some assurances that we'll be working towards keeping the premiums low so that is an unwanted after effect of that. so these things are all things that are very much within the realm of reality and that's what you'll see. >> neil: so nixing the individual mandate is very likely in the final measure? >> no -- oh, yes. excuse me. nixing the individual mandate will remain in and i'm hopeful the house will accept it. yes. >> neil: seems like there's been provisions will to protect those who premiums would be increased
or forced out of healthcare. >> we have other provisions moving forward in the alexander murray bill and others to help stabilize the exchanges. i want that. many of us do want that. we have assurances from the president and from others that we'll have a chance to make that a part of a package, not the tax package but here later in december. >> do you have any indications how your democratic counter part feels, joe manchin? >> you know what? the way i look at this in west virginia, it's a win for working families. 83% of our people that file don't even use the itemized deductions. so this is doubling that standard deduction. this is a no-brainer for west virginia. i hope he joins me. >> neil: do you feel in order to expedite things, assuming it's passed, could be a leap, but that the house then would vote
up or down on your plan or would you do this reconciling back and forth? >> you know, that was raised at lunch today. i think there's a strong feeling we'll go to conference. we have some major differences, the individual mandate being one. these needs to be worked out. that's the way you get the compromise and that's what you'll see happen. we won't skip a conference, i don't believe. >> neil: thank you. we'll watch closely. appreciate it. >> thanks. >> neil: the president mentioned that the senate did surprise a lot of folks, that we're getting good economic news prior to this already happening, prior to the tax cuts coming to fruition. the economy growing at a 3.3% clip. that is a .3 higher than originally reported. the reason why we mentioned something this seems arcane on top of the 17 year hire in consumer confidence, that .3% would be more than enough averaged over ten years, that .3%, to more than pay for the
tax cut revenues that would be compromised here and the cost of them, if you will, over ten years, which is the kind of thing that wall street likes to see and why we're at record territory today. let's go to fox news contributor, john layfield. john, the president talks about them. you like the way things are going now, the tax cuts go through, katie bar the door. what do you think? >> i think he's probably right. i think we don't get the tax cuts through, we'll have significance problems. about 7 to 10% baked in the market when it looks like the presidents will get this done. if we get the uncertainty that tax cuts are going through, the market heads higher from here. >> neil: do you ever worry that they go ahead and get bit up on the rumor, selling the tax? >> yeah, sure, absolutely. i think in this case, the republicans have promised
several times. they promised by july 4, by august. starting in august it looked like they would get it done. that's when you have seen the run up in the dow. you have companies like verizon, t-mobile, home depot with the majority of the earnings in the united states. this corporate tax cut and especially for small businesses which creates over 50% of the jobs, this tax cut is good for american businesses. >> neil: no doubt it's good for businesses. they have seen their rates slashed. could go from 35 to 20% overnight if this comes to pass. we know a lot don't pay at 35, but it would be significant nevertheless. individuals that we've seen in a lot of polls though, you raised it, have -- aren't getting the same deal. i know the argument that was good for business could be good for america, et cetera. they don't though. polled on this subject, average americans feel they're getting the shorter end of the tax cut
stick. how is that resonating with investors you talked to, average folks you talk to? >> it's resonating okay. it's politically unpalatable that individual tax rates will come down. it's almost impossible. four major tax cuts in the last 100 years but reagan and bush increased gdp. we're in a different environment now. we cannot lower individual tax rates because it looks like they're lowering tax rates for the rich. if they get the corporate tax cut through and repatriation, that's what the market is betting on and that's what the market wants. >> neil: what if those same guys plow that back into stock or plow it into their dividends? they're free to do that. but would you be disappointed if that's all they did? >> i would be. yes. that's pretty much happened when bush had the repatriation. however, it's their money. as you pointed out. but you have something like g.e.
they have $31 in unfunded pension liabilities. $83 billion in cash overseas. they can shore up their balance sheet completely. they make that company look stronger. you'll see a lot of that. you'll see a lot of share buy backs. but imagine if a companies that cash sitting in a bank in america already. to force them to say you have to spend this on cap eggs? i don't think that resonates well. i'm not sure why it's different if you're repatriating money. >> all the possibilities. we don't know. good seeing you, my friend. john layfield.we want to let you know of other developments today. charlie rose and matt lauer. you know they're both out in a flash. lawmakers, that doesn't happen in a flash. and that's created an uproar.
can you fit in there? i got this... that's the new man, huh? yup. getting kinda' close to my ride. wow... now, that's how you make a first impression. they're going to love you... that's ford, america's best-selling brand. hurry in today for 0% financing for 72 months across the full line of ford cars, trucks and suvs! and just announced...get 0% apr for 72 months plus $1000 cash back! take advantage of these exclusive holiday offers during the ford year end sales event.
>> neil: all right. you're looking at senator carver. a lot of democrats are not fan of the tax cuts. all of these are opposed to it in the senate. nevertheless, they're getting ready for the procedural vote. the clock would start on that moment for 20 hours. don't ask me why they do it. they just do it. follow along. what you do then, you add amendments, talk it up, yap nonstop, you can do it. then they vote. if it's a yay, it has to bounce back to the house and then we have a tax cut. if it does happen, matt bevin hopes it does happen.
governor, great to have you. >> great to be with you. >> neil: how likely do you think it is, governor? >> i think it's likely. just the commentary that came from chuck schumer. when chuck schumer sits there with a sad face and says it's a sad day in washington or whatever his phrase was, it's indicative of he knows where this is going. it's overdue. a lot of commentary over the fact that if it doesn't happen, it would reflect on the president, nonsense. you saw that in missouri. it would reflect on congress. there's an expectation across the board from the american people that something get done. i think the likelihood is very high that that is exactly what will happen. >> neil: you talk about what people expect or don't expect. yet you've seen polls on this. i can relate a little bit to what the president is saying here. the full story and the math doesn't come out. a lot of people, many in your own party, the senators have been saying we're concerned about this worsening the
deficit. do you think they obsess too much about that? >> yes and no. i've been saying a long time. we have $20 trillion in deficit. i wish these same people were worried about the deficit since 1998. the reality, is will probably in the short term increase the deficit by 1.5 trillion, which is a lot of money. it is. depends who is scoring it, depends whether you use dynamic scoring or assume a vacuum or outside variables. no question you'll see a deficit. but in the out years you'll see a repayment on that and the infusion of capital will have a positive impact. we're seeing it in the markets. as your previous guests noted, maybe not get spent in capitol expenditures but it will go
somewhere, payroll growth, payroll increases, keeping prices at level because profitability will go up. who does that benefit? it benefits the consumer on the street. so repatriating money for overseas, cutting the taxes that employers pay is good for employees and that's what america needs. >> neil: in order -- there are deficit hawks and to your point. they make sense. they were complaining and worried about this. some have built in a plan here that calls for tax increases if it turned out they're that revenue shy. what do you think of that? >> yeah, nonsense. there's some people for whom a time for tax increase is always now. there's some people -- we talk a lot about the opioid problem in america and not switching gears on you, but as i explain to people, so many people in government are addicted to opium. it's opium. it's other people's money. so many people are addicted to
opium. we have to stop this nonsense. this idea that a little bit more of the taxpayers money will fix all that ails washington. it's not. >> neil: and we have the trillion in lost tax revenues. nobody is saying boo about the roughly $9 trillion additional dollars added through sheer spending. it is what it is. what do you make of that? >> your point is well-taken, neil. that's where we need to be smart. start to get more men and women that made pair roll in their lives making decisions in elected office, you'll see people minding the dollars more easily. it's easy to spend other people's money. it's a lot more difficult when it's your own capital that you earned. if we trust the people that earn the money, we'll have a better roi on that money than if you send it to washington or a state capitol somewhere and allow an elected official to decide how the money gets spent.
>> neil: you're referring to return on investment. you mentioned about the president, that if this fails, it won't be on him. you don't want to see it fail. i understand that. but would any of it be on him if it does? >> whenever something hits the ground and there's a splash, anybody will get splatter on them. it will reflect primarily on who would drop this. that would be the u.s. congress. i don't think they're going to. they have the votes. it came out of the house. the senate is doing the work. you can tell by the optimism and the dismay on the other side, they have the votes to get it done. >> neil: we shall see. thanks, governor. >> thank you. >> neil: these guys already lost their anchor chairs. you probably heard about this. this could be the start of a new wave. i want you to meet the democrat that wants to know why these guys still hold theirs. 75 million of us suffer from the gritty and frustrating symptoms
ones that make it fast and easy to analyze and take action? how about some of the lowest options fees? are you raising your hand? good then it's time for power e*trade the platform, price and service that gives you the edge you need. alright one quick game of rock, paper, scissors. 1, 2, 3, go. e*trade. the original place to invest online. >> neil: you're looking at the avenue of arrogance outside of our building here where the annual christmas tree lighting will be going on without matt lauer who was supposed to lead that. he's gone. why so many on the hill are not?
repeatedly. so with the house approving a resolution requiring sexual harassment training for all members, is that enough? so far amid calls for congressman john conyers to resign, technically he's not. but it is a very different way they handle things there versus in corporate america. don't know if that's a good or bad thing, but it's a consistent thing. peter doocy has the latest. >> neil, this afternoon for two hours on the fifth floor of the congressional office building, the black caucus met behind closed doors and decided they wouldn't ask john conyers to resign. the congressional black caucus chair said he wants to see conyers, that is back home in michigan with his family, back on the hill when he's ready. he wants due process for the longest serving member of the house. that's different than the tone struck by another democrat, kathleen rice who i talked to this morning as she was leaving
a meeting with leader pelosi early. rice says that pelosi wasn't talking enough about what she called the elephant in the room. the harassment issue. >> we show no moral authority whatsoever as a body. this is why only 6% of americans think that congress is doing a good job. you can see the actions that cbs and nbc take when there's allegations against well known men in positions of power. we don't do the same. it's a disgrace. >> now, rice, the democrat from new york, is one of the sponsors of new bipartisan legislation that was rolled out last hour that would stop letting members of congress and their staff use tax dollars to settle harassment cases and it would disclose the amounts used in tax settlements along with the accused lawmaker's names. >> if you're somebody that is in power and you can miss behave, the taxpayer will bail you out and keep it secret from everywhere so your constituents will never know about it.
that is wrong. >> one issue though, the sponsors of the bill including congressman desantos, they say they don't know if there's a list of those that have used taxpayer money to settle sexual harassment claims over the years. so there could be a $17 million mystery for a while longer, neil. >> neil: nobody knows who controls the money or how it's dispensed. it's amazing. peter, thanks very much. all right. as we've been reporting, nbc wasting little time firing matt lauer. there's other allegations emerges. we're getting reports from vanity fair and others say three more women making such claims. the fact of the matter is, he's already out. what a lot of people don't know is why it takes congress to deal with the same thing. let's ask the gabby and judy. judy, there's a difference in the way it's treated there. maybe there's a proper middle
ground how to handle this versus the quick response in corporate america. but it is noticeable. what do you make of it? >> noticeable indeed, neil. look at the timeline. charlie rose gone after 24 hours when cbs apparently learned of the allegations in "the washington post" report on him. matt lauer seems to have been gone in 36 hours after this unnamed woman went to nbc h.r. about her allegations. but then take a look at congress. senator al franken. two weeks since those sexual harassment allegations. he's apologized, but he says he has no intention of stepping down. john conyers says -- is hanging on essentially despite multiple accusations. >> neil: he's doing more than hanging on, by the way. conyers is out. his attorney saying that the lawmaker has no plans to resign with all of these sexual harassment allegations. by the way, gabby, i misspoke.
vanity fair had new allegation revelations against matt lauer. it's variety. but in the case of conyers, his attorney says he's not going anywhere right now. >> it's the difference with a public official and somebody in the private sector that can be fired immediately or terminated from a contract. i think there's a number of women in that variety story that just broke moments ago that said they brought this to the attention of executives at nbc and were ignored. so that does need to be taken into account. they allege that there were reports of sexual misconduct by lauer for decades but they went protected. what is happening on the hill is different and despicable. if you contrast the firing of matt lauer this morning after that report was filed yesterday
by an unidentified woman, last night the congressional black caucus meeting after weeks of allegations against congressman john conyers and determining they wouldn't ask him to resign, it's unreal that this is happening on capitol hill and taxpayer dollars are used to contribute to a hush fund to ultimately keep the victims of this type of behavior silent. >> neil: it is a little odd, judy. i mentioned the glass house here at fox. we've had our own incidents. i can understand where people say they weren't aware. i wasn't aware of the stuff going on around here. doesn't make me an einstein. i'm just clueless. i can understand in these organizations how they can be unaware. but it is going to raise questions in congress, i think, about moneys that were given to pay off settlements and the like. i talked to congressmen and
senators on both sides of the aisle. number knew about this. chuck grassley here, the guy run as judiciary committee. he's a big one. so how is that possible if there's a pool of money that must be settle aside for this sort of thing? someone is in the know about it somewhere. >> somewhere. you'd think, you'd hope. there's certainly big transparency issues here, which i think congress is now going to be forced to address to some degree. it boils down to the problem is, you can't fire these people when it comes to congress. other politicians, other lawmakers can turn on some of their own and call for them to resign amidst the allegations and some certainly have. but the real people that can do the firing on the voters. they can instead of in a board room fire lawmakers at the ball lot box. >> neil: so does it ultimately go? we'll likely get more revelations. sadly, that's the way this type of stuff goes. but in the case of congress,
just more hearings. >> yeah, absolutely. i think the important thing here is to see what evidence comes up in this ethics investigation. surrounding congressman john conyers and an franken to see if there's any additional evidence that emerges to call for their resignation. i think the legislation moving through the house, backed by both republicans and democrats really needs to be taken seriously. to see if there is some list that existed somewhere as peter mentioned that would give us a sense of how many and who have -- how many lawmakers and which lawmakers have been accused of sexual harassment or assault. >> neil: yeah, the difference between the corporate events as you both point out and what happened on capitol hill, that's taxpayer's money. doesn't mitigate anything.
that's our money. >> and neil, we're seeing the media is changing. hollywood is changing. the business world is changing. the look on values is changing. congress is the last holdout on its own private island. >> neil: you're right. again, congressman conyers for just tuning in says he's not growing anywhere. the longest serving member of congress expects to stay that way. when we come back, north korea has fired off another missile. you didn't have to wait a nano second to know what the u.n. is doing. you know the also. i'll tell you after this. [vo] when it comes to investing, looking from a fresh perspective can make all the difference. it can provide what we call an unlock: a realization that often reveals a better path forward. at wells fargo, it's our expertise in finding this kind of insight that has lead us to become one of the largest
us. it's what this country is made of. but right now, our bond is fraying. how do we get back to "us"? the y fills the gaps. and bridges our divides. donate to your local y today. because where there's a y, there's an us. >> these massive tax cuts will be rocket fuel -- hmm! little rocket man. rocket fuel for the american
economy. he is a sick puppy. >> neil: and now the rocket man is going to be facing another u.n. security council emergency meeting because of that missile launch. anything come of these meetings? you can time them after every meeting. claudia, what do you think happens this go-around? >> i think we repeat the ritual. we go nowhere. they've been doing this since 2006. i think it would be as effective to hop in a circle on one's foot. >> neil: i'm trying to picture that. i can barely walk in a circle on two feet. they're wasting their time. everybody worries, we don't want to go to the next level that we're talking a military option here. that is kind of where we're at. >> yeah, neil. the problem is the u.n. has no power to enforce its resolutions. that depends on individual member states.
a lot of them cheat. i think china, on the evidence, is not interested in enforcing these sanctions, not in any important way. russia, same problem. they don't actually work. they have not stopped this nuclear program. i don't see any reason why that is about to change. it really depends on what the u.s. leads the way to doing. sanctions, again, may cost kim jong-un a lot and his people far more, but they're not going to stop this nuclear program. >> neil: you always want to raise -- if all of these traditional methods have been used again and again and the administrations have not worked, what would work? >> unfortunately, neil, this is the huge question. it's a very scary one. nobody wants another hot war
with north korea. the same time, the only solution here is an end to the kim regime. that really is the only answer. i think the mission needs to be for the united states, make that the goal and then ask how do we get there with minimum cost. rather than trying to manage the situation or go to the u.n., which is a ritual nothing. it won't solve it. it's a way of looking. it's dangerous in the sense that it looks like we're doing something and we aren't. that needs to be the mission. if the u.n. wants to do something useful, start by kicking out north korea. that would tell me that they are trying to do something. they could do it out of respect for the u.n.'s own charter, in which north korea is in gross violation. >> neil: a very good point. you know, the one thing that i thought of, too, what china is doing to help here. i'm sure they were given a heads-up about this missile launch yesterday. >> yes.
>> neil: maybe they passed it along to us. you know, i know they supposedly have frozen all banking transactions with the north koreans. how do we know? >> we don't know. neil, even if they do it today, it's a dynamic process. sanctions erode. people find way around them. china can enforce everything today and back away and return to another thing next week. on the evidence of mother than two decades of china's behavior, i would say that while they say unlessly they're gravely concerned about north korea's booming nuclear missile program, they have not stopped it. and i don't think they're going to. i think that they're quite glad to see us bedevilled by this horrible things going on with north korea. for that matter, the russians are, too. they sit on the u.n. security council and sign on to sanctions resolution after sanctions resolution and they both look the other way or allow their own
people to cheat. china is not going to help us. i wish they would, but they won't. >> neil: they just promise too much. thanks, claudia. good seeing you, i think. in the meantime, forget consumers. you ever wonder whether the so-called consumer financial protection bureau is more about, well, protecting liberals? i'll explain. no matter how the markets change... at t. rowe price... our disciplined approach remains. global markets may be uncertain... but you can feel confident in our investment experience around the world. call us or your advisor... t. rowe price. invest with confidence.
was an agency created in the wake of the financial meltdown, and elizabeth warren was inspired to come up with something that she thought she would add to, wasn't given the opportunity. looking at consumer interests. it overlooked and missed the whole wells fargo thing. that's another issue. i want to show you something that cuts to the chase. the matter who runs this, look at the financial donations that have been made by staff. 593 giving to democrats, one to republicans. i believe this one was to mitt romney in 2012. that's kind of lopsided. and it does the attention of a former doj official. tom, what do you make of that? rather startling. >> i had the exact same reaction.
i was shocked by the numbers. my heart goes out to the lonely romney voter. i think what goes on here is one of two things. either in the hiring process they are screening for partisan affiliation which they should not be doing or it's a situation where no conservative wants to work at the bureau. i can understand that. i think working at the consumer protection bureau is probably not a dream job for most conservatives. >> neil: we all want to make sure consumers are protected, taxpayers are protected and bank customers are protected. a lot of them were getting gouged. we do have the agencies that weren't doing their jobs. securities and exchange commission. fbi. i don't know if more cops is the answer. just better cops. now the question comes as to whether they will be fair arbiters. now you have a case of multiple agencies shouting multiple orders at multiple institutions.
>> that's true. you have an alphabet soup of regulatory agencies here. you can't really blame the regulated parties when they look around and they are getting competing and in some cases conflicting mandates from their government masters. >> neil: who do they answer to? if you have mick mulvaney saying all right, i want to do this and the self-appointed director leaves and appoints his deputy to run things and she is barking orders, you can't blame the agencies involved or the banks and institutions, lending houses, from being a little confused. they are going to be violating someone, right? >> that's a fair point. the first step is to figure out who the real director's. we know that from yesterday, the federal judge, it appears to be more veiny. that piece of the puzzle is solved but it doesn't solve the larger problem which is that in washington we have so many different agencies are all trying to regulate and often overlapping and sometimes conflicting ways. i think can make it very
difficult to figure out what the lies and what you need to do in order to comply. >> neil: you and i have discussed this. bias is in the eyes of the beholder. mick mulvaney thought this whole institution was a waste of time and that it was redundant. he was saying that as a congressman. now he is heading it. he's not the guy to be in that role yet you could argue that those who populate the agency are just so much, they would be blind doing things that would be germane to what they want to do. i'm wondering where all this goes. >> no question this was an agency in need of a change of direction. i think mulvaney's decision is going to be can the agency be reoriented along a path that adds value to the american economy and fulfills its original mission of protecting consumers in a way that doesn't hurt business and cost us jobs.
that's the challenge. >> neil: it has its own budget. deals with the federal reserve, not accountable to congress. >> i agree. don't get me started on the constitutional flaws of the agency. that's probably a discussion for another day. >> neil: always good to have you, you always make sense. right now, to tom's point, mick mulvaney, budget director is having twin duties. running the agency in the budget, now in the middle of a tough time here we will keep an eye on it. also keeping you abreast of what happening in washington. before we leave here, i want to let you know that procedural vote in the senate is expected to start soon. mike emanuel is telling us a leadership source has told him no drama going on on the motion to proceed. they are dealing with technical issues with the parliamentarian. that's just what i was telling my producer a few minutes ago. this sounds like technical issues with the parliamentarian. and that settled it.
once they get those technical issues with the parliamentarian done, we are off to the races, folks. 20 hours. it's like a neil cavuto family reunion. and then the vote can ensue. more after this. >> kimberly: i'm kimberly guilfoyle with juan williams, jesse watters jesse watters, dana perino and greg gutfeld. it's 5:00 in new york city, and this is "the five" ." this morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern, another stunning announcement. >> good good morning. breaking news overnight. matt lauer has been terminated from a nbc news. >> kimberly: matt lauer fired from nbc for alleged inappropriate behavior in the workplace. the news chairman released a statement that says a complaint was filed last night by a