tv Cavuto Coast to Coast FOX Business October 13, 2017 12:00pm-2:00pm EDT
got to tell you, right now it doesn't look great. we have hospital stocks. health insurance stocks. not a good day for them. but perhaps for the american people. neil cavuto in seattle. neil. take it away. neil: thank you very much, if any sector of the economy benefits from talk of tax cuts, charles, it is technology. we are at its mecca today, in seattle, washington. this is the home of amazon. this is the home of microsoft and on and on and on. some of the biggest names in and outside of technology if i focus on the technology names they pay at advertised rate, they pay at top rate. that is the way it is. not all of them but very close it all of them when it comes to financial, federal tax obligations. when we hear talk bringing corporate rate down to 20%, whether you get close to that, those are guys that see the
impact right away. speaking of amazon, latest things for prime lures and retailers get on the site, they're talking about expanding harrassment issues have its entertainment chief suspended. roy price, evolving sort of a dilemma here for amazon, how far does this go? the corporate board, corporate area. roy price, all the company released, roy price is on leave of absence effective immediately. he was charged by a producer after amazon program some years back, "man in the high castle," for lewd and lascivious comments. he is out on suspension. this is the talk of the town that would be otherwise focused on revenues, earnings expectations the stock, we'll keep eye on that. this expanding issue how far male-dominated work place,
harassing women, whether it goes beyond amazon, other technology players, his ties to harvey weinstein, a lot of business together. very close relationship, that didn't necessarily extend to amazon but i do want to say here, it comes at a time when these type of incidents, you're not imagining it, are expanding. they're getting a little thornier here. keeping on top, big news, international news, mere minutes from now, the president effectively saying about the iranian nuclear agreement, no, we don't like it, doesn't mean it will be ripped up and there is language it will be changed. it is causing hackles the world over. adam shapiro and what the president is about to do? adam. reporter: president is sending this to congress, he will not certify as require every 90 days, the accord with iran over the nuclear program. when he does not certify it, throws it to congress which will
have 60 days to act. the president outlined a new strategy to bring iran into compliance with the program but as you pointed out, this is not a ditching of the program. there are no new sanctions being imposed. congress could do nothing, in case nothing would happen. but the president by doing this will be sending it to congress. this is one of the promises that president trump made during the campaign. about two hours ago, president trump was speaking to value voters who gathered here in washington. he gave them a speech they loved. there were several standing ovations. during that speech in the last 10 months he said we have followed through on one promise after another. the iran deal, not certifying it is one. and president issued an executive order and announced that the administration will not make billions of dollars in subsidy payments to insurance companies which prop up the
obamacare plan, the affordable care act. here is what the president said about the need to do that. >> one by one it will come down and we'll have great health care in our country. we are going to have great health care in our country. [applause] we're taking a little different route than we had hoped because getting congress, they forgot what their pledges were. so we're going a little different route, but you know what? in the end it will be just as effective and maybe it will even be better. reporter: so, neil, as i wrap up with you, the president will speak within the next hour. he will deliver a speech where he outlines the new strategy as he would like to see congress enact towards iran. perhaps some kind of a new trigger mechanisms, ballistic missile program which would allow the united states to fully decertify the accord and reimpose sanctions. as of right now, what the president has done not certifying, has not ripped up the accord, he essentially thrown it to congress. keep in mind, this was a promise
to the president. the president speaking to the value voters kept reiterating he keeps his promises. he was getting standing ovations. back to you. neil: adam, thank you very, very much. just to explain what adam said there when you were looking at the health insurance stocks they are all getting hit right now on the notion they won't have anymore gravy coming from uncle sam. the u.s. government, you as taxpayers, fork over $7 billion to these guys to help those just above the poverty level, even though that doesn't go just at the poverty level, afford health insurance. if that money to the insurance companies goes away, the argument is that the insurance companies are in a world of hurt and can't provide such coverage to the poor. now, again, the devil is in the details and those have been ironed out whether the 7 billion is taken away immediately or later on. but it's a mess. this was a sig obama program, the signature of the deal of the administration internationally
was iran deal that would make sure iranians were going to not become a nuclear power. and that we had their word and their writing and at least four or five other western powers signing on to it. it was not done typically as many deals with approval vote in congress. well the president say later on, it doesn't count, it is not real. be that as it may a number of foreign capitals are poised at ready to hit send to voice their indignation if the president is reaching a deal like that. erin mcpike, independent journal review, ben kiss sill, radio show host. if you talk about the one-two punch the administration is refuting triumphs or perceived triumphs of the last administration, take away a key funding the health insurance companies enjoyed, that is a big
tear. what they want to do on iran, what do you think of that one-two impact. >> that is a lot, and a lot for this particular week, especially president trump has had a bad couple weeks to put it mildly. on iran deal itself, ben rhodes, deputy national security advisor to president obama says that the trump administration decision here is arbitrary. of course they have certified it twice before. this seems like it is coming at a time they shouldn't be doing it because trump officials have said so far iran is in compliance but trump is trying to maintain some semblance of a campaign promise here which is why he is doing this now. as adam said, it is very possible that congress could do nothing but, tom cotton, someone that the president has met with several times about this, obviously wants to see a lot more happen. he is working with bob corker on this. so i'm sure we will see a lot activity in congress. whether or not they actually do something. neil: you know, she raises a
good point, chris, and a couple of things the president is wont to do, whatever they signed and delivered on i don't see the iranians doing what they should be doing. i see them being agitatetores but it doesn't mean i'm told, that he is going to kill the deal. might rearrange the deal. nor does it mean he would necessarily impose new sanctions or bring old ones back. i'm at a loss what this would mean. we'll get details i guess in a bit, but what do you think this means? >> i'm with you. i'm at a loss as well. as erin pointed out, congress could do nothing, if that is the case, doesn't mean a lot in immediate future, but it's a campaign promise, and donald trump is getting a lot of pressure to live through campaign promises. if you look back, barack obama said he didn't need a congress because he had a pen and phone and that stays there in the oval office when a new guy comes in. obama played a dangerous game
building his legacy through executive orders. what we're seeing right now, those executive orders are being repealed by donald trump. you're seeing slow deterioration, actually a quick deterioration of a lot of obama legacy, talked about in health care and iran and regulatory level and you will continue to see it, because as president trump is not able to get congress to act, taking actions in otherwise own hand, frankly the same way barack obama did over the last eight years. neil:ed world always gets in a flutter when these things happen. whether it was done the normal way a deal, is a deal, is a deal. the president signed on with four or five other powers, england, france, germany, for example, and to step back from that would be dangerous precedent, one in the future would call into the trust factor with the united states signing on to any deal. what do you think?
>> well, first off, i want to congratulate donald trump on his 50th executive order. whatwhat a day, total milestone. it is misnomer he was, the pen, the press president who used pen the most is simply not. this is the illusion of governance. this is going to do absolutely nothing. congress at this point couldn't even order lunch. they can't do anything. so i am in agreement with secretary of state rex tillerson, and "mad dog" mattis, when it comes to, hey, why are we doing this right now? we got north korea going absolutely bonkers. we have people in puerto rico suffering. neil: were you of that opinion, were you of that opinion when barack obama signed these executive orders? >> congress is broken. neil, executive orders are worth paper they printed on. >> as long as we do not go through the democratic process
we'll have paper presidents. that is exactly what obama's legacy is written on, and why so easy to do away with. neil: guys, thank you all. we have a lot of breaking news. we'll get details of that iranian agreement out soon and whether this president will start from scratch. indications this might not be as much of a political or international earthquake as it is deemed. the president simply taking upon himself and administration not to start from scratch, to sort of big apart more onerous parts of the deal he doesn't think iranians lived up to. what is going to stick however, revolutionarily guard being deemed a terrorist group in the eyes of the international community, that, that tehran really hates. they see that as a legitimate organization, now we're saying, no, you're terrorists. we have more on that impact of that, stocks racing to new highs. then all of a sudden harvey weinstein. just when you thought it was just harvey, now in the community i'm in right now,
seattle, it is amazon, it is growing, it is festering. what the heck is going on, when moguls behave badly and it doesn't stop? ♪ zar: one of our investors was in his late 50s right in the heart of the financial crisis, and saw his portfolio drop by double digits. it really scared him out of the markets. his advisor ran the numbers and showed that he wouldn't be able to retire until he was 68. the client realized, "i need to get back into the markets- i need to get back on track with my plan." the financial advisor was able to work with this client. he's now on track to retire when he's 65. having someone coach you through it is really the value of a financial advisor.
neil: all right. stop me if you heard this before. wondering why are we only hearing about it now? amazon in this city making huge news. huge employer, one of the most profitable companies on earth. the stock is still up despite all of this, suspending its entertainment chief roy price over allegations of harrassment and other lewd behavior dating back couple years. examining his business relationship with one harvey weinstein, who we're also told had a unique contract. if what we're hearing it is true, it would allow for harrassment he was leading, if, if, he was paying off the women who were harassed. it sounds crazy but connell mcshane is doing a lost digging around. what did you find out? reporter: it is crazy. we have a number of developments you talked about. amazon is one, woman inspired by the harvey weinstein news to come forward to talk about the executive. to this issue about the weinstein contract with the
company weinstein company where he was just fired is unbelievable. "tmz" has a report, that the firing may not hold up legally. if it does, it would be because of that contract which was renewed in 2015. listen. >> it tolerates sexual harrassment, not one instance, not two, but infinite number of cases. i have seen the provisions of this contract. i don't know they had a right to even fire him the way this contract was written. reporter: to the way it was written, "tmz" report says way it was, if mr. weinstein were to be sued for sexual harrassment, or any other misconduct that results in a settlement, all he would have to do is pay for the settlement himself and he would be good to go. there may be, may be a dispute. did weinstein have to tell the company about those settlements? if so, did he tell them? adding to that "the new york times," interviewed his lawyer, the famous david boies, he says the company was told about three
or four settlements when they were negotiating the contract of if that is right, they knew. so we have all these questions about the weinstein contract. we also heard from police departments here in new york and over in london looking for new evidence as more allegations have come in. on those questions, the statute of limitations, neil, may play a role. legal experts tell us there is no statute of limitations when it comes to rape. this story is far from over legally and many other areas. back to you. neil: just to be clear, i want to make sure i got this, he would have a contract if he is paying off these women and entering into settlements with them, on his dime? he doesn't have to tell the company or even if the company knows about it, he is safe? >> i haven't seen it myself. the "tmz" report is saying yeah, if he pays it with his own money, the way they say it was written, then he would be okay as crazy as that sounds. neil: wow. >> obviously the question does that tell you they did know about it.
is that the reason it was in the contract to begin with? go back to the times report, bois comments are interesting. they told him about the settlements when they netted the contract, same deal in 2015. neil: amazing. some other charges in the case of this amazon executive, they go back a few years. obviously in a lot of these cases whether they're proven or not, not something that happened last week, we can before, or even last year, sometimes years old stuff. it getting back to what connell was saying, folks, when did hollywood know and when did the entertainment executives know and how much were they covering up? it was considered a standard inside joke, wasn't so inside. hollywood community, award shows would joke about harvey weinstein joke about this. antonio somebody sabato, jr., running for congress in florida. we reached out to the democrat
incumbent. hopes sprigs eternal to talk to her. antonio, i can't grasp the dimensions of this and how wide and how many people it affected and how many supposedly knew about it. how does that happen, antonio? >> lis disgrace, i ask everyone in hollywood, come toward me, with me, work together at voteantonio.com so this does not happen again. this was going on for years and they didn't do anything about it. neil: how would you stop it? >> i would really talk about this. i would try it reach as many people as i clan in higher place, the work we have in
hollywood this does not happen again. we have to protect people, open up about things like this and not be scared, if they're not going to get their job or their contract will be canceled. we can't allow this to happen. this is too serious of the it affected a lot of people. a lot of people are in danger. we're talking about rape and nobody talked about this hollywood. they call themselves wave of the future, we want to help everyone, peace this and that. this is serious. if people want to fight and up there in hollywood, come with me and let's fight this fight and win it. it is important. neil: would you push for, would you push for any actions or laws against this? there are laws on the books to prevent this but what would you do specifically? >> neil, i would specifically ask everyone that would be contract in place for any of this conduct happens, doesn't matter who it is, if a actor, producers, executive producers, owners of the studio itself, whatever we have to protect, we have to put people in place in
studios watch over people getting sexually harassed on daily basis, especially on sets. neil: thank you, antonio. >> my pleasure. neil: the actor running for congress here. to any and all entertaining president, including incumbent julia brownley, we love to have you on here. meantime, you insurance companies are not welcome here, at least 7 billion bucks you were planning on. with the stroke of a pen, donald trump said $7 billion ain't coming to you. this system we have to provide monies to the insurance companies so they can cover the poor, so that they can get health care, it is all screwed up. donald trump wants to stop up. even some republicans are concerned he is going too far. if people get kicked out of policies, will it be on the grand ol' party and have a grand ol' headache itself. more after this. ♪
and at $4.95, you can trade with a clear advantage. fidelity, where smarter investors will always be. and at $4.95, you can trade with a clear advantage. essential for vinyl, but maybe not for people with rheumatoid arthritis. because there are options. like an "unjection™". xeljanz xr. a once daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well. xeljanz xr can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection.
tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you were in a region where fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. needles. a must for vinyl. but for you, one pill a day may provide symptom relief. ask your doctor about xeljanz xr. an "unjection™".
and allows us to attract the world's top drone talent. all across new york state, we're building the new new york. to grow your business with us in new york state, visit esd.ny.gov. to grow your business with us in new york state, my "business" was going nowhere... so i built this kickin' new website with godaddy. building a website in under an hour is easy! 68% of people... ...who have built their website using gocentral, did it in... ...under an hour, and you can too. type in your business or idea. pick your favourite design. personalize it with beautiful images. and...you're done! and now business is booming. harriet, it's a double stitch not a cross stitch! build a better website - in under an hour. free to try. no credit card required. gocentral from godaddy.
neil: you know in this neck of the woods they pay the sticker price. you know what i mean by that? when it comes to taxes they pay the prevailing corporate rate. if it is 35%, it is what it is. they pay that rate. technology companies can't whittle that down much, it is for what it is. not for all of them. but for these guys it is. hence they are soaring a lot on believe comes down a lot. comes down to 20% from the 35%. you can do the math, wall street can do the math. all of sudden these stocks look very appling. in this neck of the wood where amazon is king and is very friendly financial neighbor, prospect of taxes cut in half or at least a lot, looks promising. the progress on capitol hill is mixed. rand paul said he is not sure he
is yes vote. concerns that john mccain who voted against the bush tax cuts twice, not once, but twice, might be a no vote as well. so into that mix now, you have a lot of people saying you know what? we could have serious problems with this thing, including talk that speaker paul ryan want as christmas eve vote. that would mean, maybe we'll work on christmas eve, you realize that? good for them, he says. he is not going along for the ride here. joe borelli, new york city councilman, minority whip. if that corporate rate, forget the individual rate, corporate rate gets cut down to that, they are paying sticker like sticker price on a car. most people don't pay that, but some who do. when it comes to the prevailing top rate, a lot of companies, particularly in the technology world do. so if that is taken away from them, not their stock rise is dependent on that, but taking it away could be a problem, couldn't it? >> yes, absolutely. this is hugely important for
these businesses out there, and for the economy in general to get these rates more competitive with other countries, it's huge. to bring back your point about the senate, you can't really count on them. it remains to be seen if they get their act together. president trump said yesterday, you have some grandstanders, we'll see if rand paul and mccain will get on board with this, but they have a very tight window which is, you know, paul ryan says we're going to vote on christmas eve. hopefully they can get it done. i'm more confident in the house than i am in the senate in that regard. neil: i agree with you on that, liz. there is more wiggle room than the senate where you don't have two votes, you don't have a deal. john mccain interests me, he has been an independent spirit when it comes to tax cuts. he was against them with george bush first introduced, two years later followed up. he voted against the move on the part to rescind them because he
said, people got used to them. later on in the obama administration, so don't do them right now. but he is enigmatic on this how would he go? >> it is tough to say where john mccain will fall on any issue. that is his modus on -- rand pal wants to move to the yes vote and comes down to the mechanics between the rates and income levels. senator cruz was on air earlier today he believes everyone in the gop could be a yes vote. that is promising to someone like me. neil: they said that last time about repeal and replace obamacare. >> sure. neil: and thin they argue over the details, whether, wait a minute, not everyone is getting a tax cut. wait a minute, not everyone is getting a writeoff. everyone getting writeoff for state and local taxes is unfair. you can find half a dozen
reasons where any one-half of a dozen of republican senators can suddenly walk a way from this. >> sure, always easier to vote no on anything than vote yes but this is part of normal sausage-making of legislation. don't forget, we still have outlying democrats who are in states -- neil: you're right about that. >> that may vote yes. tough for a lot of people that take standard deduction in north dakota and wisconsin, would be tough to hear their senator now on the ballot voting no against that. i would have to say err on side of this passing. i think the gop has to get it right. this will pass within one year of the upcoming midterm elections. while you -- neil: in other words you don't see it happening, you don't see it happening this year? liz, that is something i heard from number of people given timing of all that, it would be problematic to get it done on the callander this year. kiss your idea of retroactive
tax but what is your best idea you heard? >> cruise -- ted cruz said might not be late this year but early next year. it is important for republicans to go back to voters next year, in an election year, don't expect them to get much done. if they haven't gotten any major legislation through, think that will be a huge problem for them. i think what ted cruz -- neil: liz, do they hold their nose on things they don't like? cruz was mentioning something, not generous enough. rand paul is saying not generous to all. >> right. neil: so you could each make your arguments. i think john mccain is in the don't bust the debt camp as bob corker who had his own contentious relationship with the president. each had his or her own reasons to ball, right? >> right. they shouldn't let the perfect be enemy of the good here. you've seen that with health care. neil: right. >> so many chances to, you know, to do at least big things.
it is not perfect, but to make good on their promises to voters. honestly i don't know what they're so afraid of. why don't we go big and bold, more than 1.5 trillion? this is what they run on, their principles, cutting taxes across the board, lowering rates, the economy will boom. that is what they stand for. i really don't understand why it should be that difficult to get them all together on this, but as we've seen before, it is never easy for them. neil: yeah. joe, i think if they fail at this, kiss them good-bye? >> i couldn't agree more. i think they run the risk more looking impotent. i know i said this couple times, to do something is more critical than doing nothing once again. >> right. >> we have to come up and meet at least one of the goals. congress has to come through on one of the president's major agenda items. i think this has best chance. i think we should be optimistic. the gop has to do a better job streamlining, being concise in their message, most people in
the middle class, vast majority in the united states will see more money in their pocket as a result of this proposal. neil: you both hit on a key point. whatever you think of the details on the tax cut, whether you're pro or against it, it is fair to say if republicans can't get votes on this, one of the promises they made along with repealing and replacing obamacare, they're finished. this could be a generational disaster for them. but we'll see. thank you both very, very much. another thing the president delivered on because he said congress would not and could not, revamping obamacare. this is more than a little revamping, my friends, when he had the moment signing executive order, memoranda, i understand there is very big legal distinction, outside after fualaau shows on tv i do not know what it is. but i do know this, $7 billion a lot of insurance companies get right now to subsidize the poor and those who also have low incomes, not necessarily poverty rate, to afford health insurance, take that away. then what happens?
obviously the insurance stocks are feeling the heat and a lot of those people who get coverage right now could soon feel rejection letters. doctor shows us is with golden shore medical group. he is the big cheese there. president of the medical group. doctor, good to have you. >> thank you. neil: let's talk a little bit what is at stake here. how do you feel what the president wants to do, we don't want to prop up a system that overly depends on government subsidies? at its core that is bad idea, whether you're republican or democrat, conservative, liberal, big government, small government, what do you say? >> you know the people get hurt in this middle class. people with employer sponsored health care will be fine. people that are poor covered because of subsidies and medicaid. the middle class getting squeezed in all of this. what the president has done laid out guidelines what he wants to see done in the future but there
will be no immediate change. the health insurance companies anticipated all of think, how would it affect you? you have a lot of medicaid-managed care. how would that portion, how would that business be after effected by what donald trump is envisioning? >> it probably won't be affected. it really affects people getting individual coverage through the marketplace that really overall, very small part of entire health care insurance business. some of the biggest insurance companies like united, aetna, already dropped out. it hasn't hurt them. so i think that we need to look at this in the long term. in the short term there will be no changes. the president hopes that this will spur competition but it could do the opposite. health insurance companies in 2019 could say we have had enough, they drop out of the individual market because they worry about the risk pool split into two. president will allow freedom for skin my plans, healthy people will want. that means more people in obamacare will be sick and high cost and premiums will go up.
now this is not easy solution. neil: i understand what you're saying. part of the drive to fix this was the vast majority of americans who are well, not burdened with preexisting conditions yet, important distinction, want more flexibility in their health plans. the let's of those folks you alluded to doctor, those with preexisting conditions or considered greater rick, in a pool amongst themselves paying higher rates. the question is how much higher? do you think significantly higher? >> i do. i think we'll see health care stock premiums spiral upward as we go into the risk pool of the healthy and sick. neil: a lot of people's premiums have been rocketing right? >> they have gone up this year because insurance companies were sure that the president was not going to fund the csrs. so they built in big premium increases for that reason. neil: so, if he is taking that
away, idea of government protection away, the insurance companies have better reason now to leave, right? then what are we left with? >> i think that is a real danger. that the individual market melts down. you have employer sponsored market and you have a medicaid market for people who are poor, but the middle class will be left with fewer choices. that is a real possibility. neil: but the other possibility what we have now just grows and grows and grows. more subsidies to more insurance companies to prop up something private commerce only at behest and benefit of the government, that too is a little screwed up, right? >> i think there is no question, even democrats realize we have to do something to stablize the individual market for the middle class, and that is where the aca has failed. if you're poor you're covered. if you have good coverage through employer, you're
covered. but the individuals and middle class are ones that are suffering, and we need a solution that is going to address them. i'm not sure that the president's outline is going to do that you have to realize, this is not an immediate fix. what he has given us are a set of guide lines or principles. but insurance companies are regulated at the state level by insurance commissioners who may have their own political agendas. this is something that will play out probably over next two years, not over the next six months. neil: all right. doctor, we'll watch it very closely. thanks very much for taking the time. north earth shattering development here. talk about donald trump rocking a lot of boats at the same time. you hear what he is doing on health care front. you hear what he is pushing on tax cut front. he wants something soon and won't tolerate any failure like they have on obamacare and revamping that. he took power into his own hands, pen signing hand on this $7 billion swipe of a pen to get
rid of all those subsidies. now iran's turn to feel the wrath. that agreement the president criticized along the campaign trail he will outline shortly at the white house, why he wants to effectively decertify it, not rip it up. this language is very particular, decertify. iran is not honoring the agreement anyway. why don't we change isn't why don't we stop their provocative behavior? why don't we rein them in on things we should have reined them in before? a lot of european countries part of that deal including england, germany, france, got wind of this, have their response statements. all they have to do is hit send on the computer. i don't know what the french term is for very unhappy but i think it goes, very unhappy. after this. noid, but d'ya think our recent online sales success seems a little... strange?
na. ever since we switched to fedex ground business has been great. they're affordable and fast... maybe "too affordable and fast." what if... "people" aren't buying these books online, but "they" are buying them to protect their secrets?!?! hi bill. if that is your real name. it's william actually. hmph! affordable, fast fedex ground. approaching medicare eligibility?
you may think you can put off checking out your medicare options until you're sixty-five, but now is a good time to get the ball rolling. keep in mind, medicare only covers about eighty percent of part b medical costs. the rest is up to you. that's where aarp medicare supplement insurance plans insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company come in. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they could help pay some of what medicare doesn't, saving you in out-of-pocket medical costs. you've learned that taking informed steps along the way really makes a difference later. that's what it means to go long™. call now and request this free decision guide. it's full of information on medicare and the range of aarp medicare supplement plans to choose from based on your needs and budget. all plans like these let you choose any doctor or
hospital that accepts medicare patients, and there are no network restrictions. unitedhealthcare insurance company has over thirty years experience and the commitment to roll along with you, keeping you on course. so call now and discover how an aarp medicare supplement plan could go long™ for you. these are the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. plus, nine out of ten plan members surveyed say they would recommend their plan to a friend. remember, medicare doesn't cover everything. the rest is up to you. call now, request your free decision guide and start gathering the information you need to help you keep rolling with confidence. go long™. ♪
neil: all right. we are seconds away from hearing from the president of the united states which he will detail how will decertify this iranian nuclear agreement. we have ambassador james woolsey joining us former ci aft director, so many other titles. but ambassador, what is ad stake here? do you agree with what the president is going to outline? >> from what i can tell it sounds like he is going to outline a wise, overall approach that undercuts this terrible agreement. what is really important for people to realize is, that this is important enough to be a treaty. under any other circumstances it would be a treaty. then under article ii of the constitution, it takes 2/3 of the senate to approve it. that's not what the obama administration and senator corker and some others did. they fiddled around with the cloture rule, the length of debate rule for the senate, and
said they could use that in order to make it only 1/3 of the senate that was required to approve this agreement, which, i think should be called a treaty because virtually everything else in american history that is anywhere nearly as important as this in international relations would be a treaty, not an executive agreement. they can not, however, as far as i think, most cost constitutional lawyers would state, they can not make the constitution substitute 1/3 for 2/3 and get a ruling on the validity of this treaty or this agreement, treaty, with only a 1/3 vote which is what they did back two years ago. so i think that -- neil: let me ask you about that, ambassador. just to be clear. let's say the rest of the world doesn't know intricacies of our system and president obama, excuse me, sir, went too far.
all they're seeing we're abdicating an agreement, right? >> well, we're saying that the obama administration sent the wrong thing to the u.s. senate. they should have sent a requirement for a 2/3 vote but they were violating the american constitution. so they only said they needed 1/3. and, i don't know that is too complex to lay on foreign governments. neil: let's sort of play this out. the president is not saying he will reimpose sanctions. he is not saying, ambassador, he wants to start from scratch. >> right. neil: what i don't understand what he is saying. i know the part about the revolutionary guard, referring to it as a terrorist group. but beyond that, what is changing here? >> well, it is hard without having heard the entire speech but it sounds like what he is doing is saying that the overall
approach is, something that we have to take in hand as a way of stopping, contributing to stopping the revolutionary guard. they are at war with us. we can't kind of nod and smile, tip a hat to them, let them profit by our own machinations in the rules of the senate. neil: we'll wait for the president. could be speaking any moment. we'll try to squeeze in a quick break. quick update, we're told the president will outline the nuclear agreement under president obama back in 2015. it will mean that the administration sees iran as not complying with that nuclear agreement. it will take iran to task for its missile tests and supposedly supporting violent groups. it doesn't mean we are pulling out of the deal. it doesn't mean we're imposing new sanctions or reimposing old
that's why xfinity mobile comes with your internet. you get up to 5 lines of talk and text at no extra cost. so all you pay for is data. see how much you can save. choose by the gig or unlimited. xfinity mobile. a new kind of network designed to save you money. call, visit, or go to xfinitymobile.com.
neil: reading "the financial times," like we're walking away from honored agreement. we never done that before in history. markets don't seem to care. keith fitz-gerald why the markets don't seem to think it is, don't seem worried if that is what materializes. keith, good to have you. you might be interrupted by president of the united states, my friend. what is driving the market. in fact you can't answer that because here is the president. >> my fellow americans, as president of the united states, my highest obligation is to insure the safety and security of the american people. history has shown the longer we ignore a threat the more dangerous that threat becomes. for this reason upon taking office, i have ordered a complete strategic review of our policy toward the rogue regime in iran. that review is now complete.
today i am announcing our strategy along with several major steps we are taking to confront the iranian regime's hostile actions and to insure that iran never, and i mean never, acquires a nuclear weapon. our policy is based on a clear-eyed assessment of the iranian dictatorship, its sponsorship of terrorism, and its continuing aggression in the middle east and all around the world. iran is under the control of a fanatical regime, that seized power in 1979 and forced a proud people to submit to it is extremist rule. this radical regime has raided the wealth of one of the world's
oldest and most vibrant nations and spread death, destruction and chaos all around the globe. beginning in 1979, agents of the iranian regime illegally seized the u.s. embassy in tehran and held more than 60 americans hostage during the 444 days of the crisis. the iranian-backed terrorists group, hezbollah, twice bombed our embassy in lebanon. once in 1983, and again in 1984. another iranian-supported bombing killed 241 americans, servicemembers they were, in their barracks in beirut in
1983. in 1996 the regime directed another bombing of american military housing in saudi arabia, murdering 19 americans in cold blood. iranian proxies provided training to operatives who were later involved in al qaeda's bombing of the american embassies in kenya, tanzania, and two years later killing 224 and wounding more than 4,000 others. the regime harbored high-level terrorists in the wake of the 9/11 attacks including osama bin laden's son. in iraq, and afghanistan, groups supported by iran have killed hundreds of american military personnel. the iranian dictatorship's aggression continues to this day. the regime remains the world's
leading state sponsor of terrorism and provides assistance to al qaeda, the taliban, hezbollah, hamas and other terrorist networks. it develops, deploys, and proliferates missiles that threaten american troops and our allies. it harasses american ships and threatens freedom of navigation in the arabian gulf and in the red sea. it imprisons americans on false charges and it launches cyber attacks against our critical infrastructure, financial system, and military. the united states is far from the only target of the iranian dictatorship's long campaign of bloodshed. the regime violently suppresses its own citizens. it shot unarmed student
protesters in the street during the green revolution. this regime has fueled sectarian violence in iraq and vicious civil wars in yemen and syria. in syria the iranian regime has supported the atrocities of bashar al-assad's regime and condoned assad's use of chemical weapons against helpless civilians including, given the regime's murderous past and present, we should not take lightly its sinister vision for the future. the regime's two favorite chants are "death to america" and "death toes israel." -- to israel." realizing the gravity of the situation, the united states and the united nations security council sought, over many years,
to stop iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons with a wide array of strong economic sanctions. but the previous administration lifted these sanctions just before what would have been the total collapse of the iranian regime through the deeply controversial 2015 nuclear deal with iran. this deal is known as the joint comprehensive plan or action or jcpoa. as i have said many times, the iran deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the united states has ever entered into. the same mindset that produced this deal is responsible for years of terrible trade deals that have sacrificed so many millions of jobs in our country
to the benefit of other countries. we need negotiators who will much more strongly represent america's interests. the nuclear deal through iran's dictatorship, a political and economic lifeline, providing urgently-needed relief from domestic pressure the sanctions had created. it also gave the regime an immediate financial boost, and over $100 billion its government could use to fund terrorism. the regime also received a massive cash settlement of $1.7 billion from the united states, a large portion of which was physically loaded onto an airplane and known into iran -- and flown into iran. just imagine the sight of those huge piles of money being hauled
off by the iranians waiting at the airport for the cash. i wonder where all that money went. worst of all, the deal allows iran to continue developing certain elements of its nuclear program and, importantly, in just a few years as key restrictions disappear, iran can sprint towards a rapid nuclear weapons breakout. in other words, we got weak inspections in exchange for no more than a purely short-term and temporary delay in iran's path to nuclear weapons. what is the purpose of a deal that, at best, only delays iran's nuclear capability for a short period of time? this, as president of the united states, is unacceptable.
in other countries they think in terms of 100-year intervals, not just a few years at a time. the saddest part of the deal for the united states is that all of the money was paid up front which is unheard of rather than at the end of the deal when they have shown they've played by the rules. but what's done is done, and that's why we are where we are. the iranian regime has committed multiple violations of the agreement. for example, on two separate occasions they have exceeded the limit of 130 metric tons of heavy water. until recently, the iranian regime has also failed to meet our expectations in its operation of advanced centrifuges. the iranian regime has also
intimidated international inspectors into not using the full inspection authorities that the agreement calls for. iranian officials and military leaders have repeatedly claimed they will not allow inspectors onto military sites even though the international community suspects some of those sites were part of iran's clandestine nuclear weapons program. there are also many people who believe that iran is dealing with north korea. i am going to instruct our intelligence agencies to do a thorough analysis and report back their findings beyond what they have already reviewed. by its own terms, the iran deal was supposed to contribute the regional and international peace and security. and yet while the united states
adheres to our commitment under the deal, the iranian regime continues to feel conflict, terror and turmoil throughout the middle east and beyond. importantly, iran is not living up to the spirit of the deal. so today in recognition of the increasing menace posed by iran and after extensive consultations with our allies, i am announcing a new strategy to address the full range of iran's destructive actions. first, we will work with our allies to counter the regime's destabilizing activity and support for terrorist proxies in the region. second, we will place additional sanctions on the regime to block their financing of terror. third, we will address the regime's proliferation of missiles and weapons that
threaten its neighbors, global trade and freedom of navigation. and finally, we will deny the regime all paths to a nuclear weapon. today i'm also announcing several major steps my administration is taking in pursuit of this strategy. the executioning of our strategy -- execution of our strategy begins with the long overdue step of imposing tough sanctions on iran's islamic revolutionary guard corpses. the revolutionary guard is the iranian supreme leader's corrupt personal terror force and militia. it has hijacked large portions of iran's economy and seized massive religious endowments to fund war and terror abroad. this includes arming the syrian dictator, supplying proxies and partners with missiles and
weapons to attack civilians in the region and even plotting to bomb a popular restaurant right here in washington d.c. i am or authorizing the treasury -- i am authorizing the treasury department to further sanction the entire islamic revolutionary guard corps for its support for terrorism and to a apply sanctions to its officials, agents and affiliates. i urge our allies to join us in taking strong actions to curb iran's continued dangerous and destabilizing behavior including thorough sanctions outside the iran deal that target the regime's ballistic missile program in support of terrorism and all of its destructive activities of which there are many. finally, on the grave matter of iran's nuclear program, since the signing of the nuclear agreement the regime's dangerous
aggression has only escalated. taunt, it has -- at the same time, it has received massive sanctions relief while continuing to develop its missiles program. iran has also entered into lucrative business contracts with other parties to the agreement. when the agreement was finalized in 2015, congress passed the iran nuclear agreement review act to insure that congress' voice would be heard on the deal. among other conditions, this law requires the president or his designee to certify that the suspension of sanctions under the deal is appropriate and proportionate to measure and other measures taken by iran to terminate its illicit nuclear program. based on the factual record, i have put forward, i am
announcing today that we cannot and will not make this certification. we will not continue down a path whose predictable conclusion is more violence, more terror and the very real threat of iran's nuclear breakout. that is why i am directing my administration to work closely with congress and our allies to address the deal's many serious flaws so that the iranian regime can never threaten the world with nuclear weapons. these include the deal's sunset clauses that in just a few years will eliminate key restrictions on iran's nuclear program. the flaws in the deal also include insufficient enforcement and near-total silence on iran's missile programs.
congress has already begun the work to address these problems. key house and senate leaders are drafting legislation that would amend the iran nuclear agreement review act to strengthen enforcement, prevent iran from developing an -- this is so so totally important -- an intercontinental ballistic missile and make all restrictions on iran's nuclear activity permanent under u.s. law. so important. i support these initiatives. however, in the event we are not able to reach a solution working with congress and our allies, then the agreement will be terminated. it is under continuous review, and our participation can be canceled by me as president at
any time. as we have seen in north korea, the longer we ignore a threat, the worse that threat becomes. it is why we are determined that the world's leading p sponsor of terrorism -- leading sponsor of terrorism will never obtain nuclear weapons. in this effort we stand in total solidarity with the iranian regime's longest-suffering victims; its own people. the citizens of iran have paid a heavy price for the violence and extremism of their leaders. the iranian people long to and they just are longing to reclaim their country's proud history, its culture, its civilization, its cooperation with its neighbors. we hope that these new measures directed at the iranian
dictatorship will compel the government to reevaluate its pursuit of terror at the expense of its people. we hope that our actions today will help bring about a future of peace, stability and prosperity in the middle east, a future where sovereign nations respect each other and their own citizens. we pray for a future where young children -- american and iranian, muslim, christian and jewish -- can grow up in a world free from violation, hatred and terror. and until that blessed day comes, we will do what we must to keep america safe. thank you, god bless you, and god bless america. thank you. >> mr. president, why -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] neil: all right. you have just heard the
president of the united states decertify the iran deal. i say decertify because that language will be very important going forward here. he has not rejected it outright. he also rejected the idea of snapback sanctions, those that would be reimposed as they were prior to this deal. he is leaving it up to congress to come up with a deal that his secretary of state, rex tillerson, has said would provide more teeth in it. i told you earlier that many of the european partners we had going into this, going in with president obama when he constructed this with some of the prominent western european nations' support, are not keep on what he's doing here, even recognizing the fact that this was not handled as a treaty would normally be handled, through the united states congress. david o'sullivan, the ambassador to the u.s., is saying we will stand by this deal, it is a good and fair deal. other european capitals, those in germany and in france and england, have also echoed the
fact that this deal and its broad constructs is fine. renegotiating key provisions is fine, walking away from it is not fine. but again, the president has simply said now it's time to step back, look at this, look at the provocative behavior of the p iranians since that was signed and what they've been doing behind the scenes and sometimes not behind the scenes, even influence in north korea and his diplomatic view was enough is enough. we have got the former state department official, we've got rebecca hine ricks, hudson institute fellow. rebecca, he's walking a fine line here. he's not ripping it up, but he's saying, essentially, try it again? help me with this. >> no, it's tough, it's clear and i think it's prudent. what the president is saying i'm not going to walk away, we're going to enforce it the best that we can, and we're going to look at the areas that should have been addressed from the beginning. the missile program, the missiles are what a nuclear weapon would be put on.
north korea figured out the nuclear part, the hard part's the missile part. the president now has an opportunity to prevent iran from becoming the kind of problem that we're dealing with right now with the north koreans. so we're going to focus on the missile part. and then we're going to look at the irgc. this is -- they conduct terrorist activity, so we're going to put the screws on the irgc and try to get them, you know, to stop their terrible activities throughout the region. so this is taking a holistic, comprehensive strategy towards iran and not just looking at the specific, narrow nuclear part which is what the obama administration did. so i think that this is exactly right. and, frankly, you know, what the europeans want is american leadership here. i do think they're going to get onboard, and i think we're going to end up with a better strategy than what we had priestly. neil: all right -- previously. david can, that might be so, but obviously it's raised concerns in europe and the international community. that can be a good thing as well, but i want to quote from a financial times article, european and russian officials telling them if the u.s. sought
to renegotiate or even unravel the accord, it would severely damage efforts to stop the proliferation of atomic weapons in north korea and elsewhere. what do you make of that, that this would send just the opposite signal that the president would want? >> one thing almost everyone agrees on is that iran is complying with the deal. now, what the president is trying to attempt to do here is to tinker with the deal. but what's extraordinary is that he is not doing it himself, he's not having the administration do it which he easily could do. he has the ability to try to change this deal. he's kicking it back to congress which is very strange. it suggests he's too indecisive and too ineffective to make these changes himself. he's pushing it to congress and trying to blame congress. congress is unlikely to be able to do anything on this as well, which will leave us in a vacuum. and i think our allies are right, that we are not going to be able to convince them and iran to change this deal. so if we want to confront iran,
we ought to leave the deal in place -- which is flawed -- but use other ways to cop front iran. some of the things that president trump mentioned are good like putting more sanctions on the revolutionary guard, like pushing back in the places where iran is supporting terrorism and supporting hezbollah like in yemen, like in syria. but the act of not certifying and pushing this to congress is an extraordinarily weak act for a president who claims he's strong. neil: well, you could argue just as well, right, david, that his predecessor going about this unilaterally without involving congress, maybe for perfectly good reasons, couldn't get congress to get its act together, at the same time, it's one bold act defying another bold act. i will, rebecca, raise an issue that david raised as well about whether the iranians are complying. the president made it very clear he doesn't think they are, and they want to check it out, re-examine this and have a better way to button this up and to prove they're doing what they say they would be doing.
but again, a lot of diplomats in europe are saying that this could, could be a slippery slope. however hastily this was arranged, not that the 2015 agreement was hastily done, but it was done without congress. that in the eyes of the diplomatic community, all they know is that the u.s. is changing a deal or walking away in some part from a deal, something we've not done. and they think that sets a bad precedent. even though i think to your point it wasn't done in the conventional sense. but people will only see it and hear it in headlines in the european world community congress, they'll say the u.s. abdicates its commitment, its promise. what do you make of that. >> >> well, this is why the president should have negotiated as a treaty. that's why the constitution has congress involved. the senate is supposed to be involved. all these people who were in favor of the iran deal were in favor of this paper-thin, easy to knock over if the next administration doesn't like it deal. that's why you go through congress. it's going to be stronger if you
have buy-in from the congress which, by the way, is buy-in from the american people. they're the ones that are actually in charge here. so it's going to make it stronger, and our allies should know that. look, this wasn't negotiated as a treaty, it was an agreement, and so the next administration can come in and take it down. neil: what do you make -- no, no, it's an important distinction here because vladimir putin's spokesman has said u.s. abandonment of this pact would without doubt security and proliferation worldwide. i know that could be a case of the pot calling the kettle black here, but what do you make of that? >> vladimir putin is a great propagandist. his country is in violation of the inf treaty. they violate treaties as a matter of course, so i don't really take his criticism seriously. the point is the united states staying in the jcpoa, that's the iran deal, we're going to try to enforce it the best we can. but the iranians aren't even letting the iaea look at military sites.
one of the problems with this deal was that the americans knew the iranians had a different interpretation of several provisions. so if you're walking away from a treaty thinking you've got a good deal even though you don't have all of the parties even understanding the terms, you're going to have problems. neil: okay. all right, guys, i wish i had -- i understand, i'm jumping on you, i'm being rude, and apologize. we have all this different news, word of a press conference coming out of las vegas as well. do want to let you know rebecca was referring to the iaea, the international atomic energy agency, that is sort of the scorekeeper here on whether iran is sticking to this deal or not. the iaea has said they are, others say, yeah, but by the time they get in there, iran could have changed a lot of things, hidden a lot of things. who knows? the president has gotten involved and said that old deal, forget about it. i don't think he said forget about it, but forget about it. we'll have more after this.
>> welcome back to "cavuto coast to coast," i'm nicole petallides on a record-setting day on wall street across the board. taking a look at some of the key bank earnings that we uncovered today, bank of america, pnc financial and also wells fargo. we did see bank of america, what's interesting the cfo saying they're not waiting around for tax reform and actually feeling optimistic. it was a beat on the top and bottom line, stock's up 1.2%. a little weakness in fixed income which is exactly what we heard from both jpmorgan and citigroup the prior day. also looking at pnc which is to the downside right now, they did see growth in commercial lending, but where they fell short was on -- [inaudible] wells fargo found an 18.5% drop in profit. they've been dealing, obviously, on the heels of the scandal, the stock is down 3% year the date.
as has turned into the red with the move that we've seen ultimately today. here's a look at the financials this year. bank of america up 16%, pnc financial up 15%, and as i noted with the move down, neil, you do see wells fargo to the downside. ultimately, they're not counting on tax reform as much anymore as we heard from the cfo, just really liking the fundamentals. neil? neil: all right. thank you, nicole, very much. nicole petallides. in this rage of one harassment case that -- age of one airport case after another, the amazon story you're not hearing but you'll be hearing a lot more about. tracy has more on that. >> reporter: hi, neil. amazon programming chief roy price has been suspended following sexual harassment accusation ises from tv producer isa hackett, a producer for amazon's the man in the highs castle. she told the hollywood reporter that price repeatedly propositioned her at a company party in july of 2015.
hackett says she reported the incident to studio executives who brought in investigators to look at the allegations, but that's as far as it went. the allegations came just as actress rose mcgowan called out amazon's ceo jeff bezos for, quote, funding rapists saying price ignored her claims that harvey weinstein raped her. mcgowan tweeted: i've told the head of your studio that h.w. raped me. over and over i said i. he said it hadn't been proven, i said, i was the proof. i forcefully begged studio head to do the right thing, i was ignored, amazon won a dirty oscar. an amazon spokesperson telling fox business, quote, roy price is on lee of ab -- leave of absence effective immediately. we are reviewing our options for the projects we have with the weinstein company. neil, this just seems to be the tip of the iceberg. we can see this touching all of the major hollywood studios.
neil: yeah. like you say, this goes back a couple of years, if true. all right, thank you very much, tracy, appreciate it. also want to keep you up-to-date on those california wildfires right now. if you think about it, they weren't an issue last week. it all of a sudden roared to life last weekend, sunday, more to the point, and now just a mess. robert gray with the latest on that. hey, robert. >> reporter: hey, neil. we are standing here at the staging grounds where a number of the firefighters are staying, 8,000 firefighters battling blazes across the state, hundreds, if not more than 1,000 camped out here. they're fueling, so it is a little bit loud. actually, there's some cautious optimism today. some of the largest fires, the atlas fire nearby here, is now up to 27% contained. i talked to a fire chief just a few moments ago, and he said where they are they've been in the same spot for a couple of days, they're feeling a lot better about it as long as the winds don't kick back up. that is the wildcard. it wasn't as windy as feared last night, they have a better
grip on that. also the tubbs fire, 25% contained right now. as we know, at least 31 folks are dead, hundreds are still missing, more than 20,000 evacuated. as far as the big economic drivers here, we've been following the wine and tourism business. obviously, it's a $13 billion business, 100,000 jobs. and i talked to carissa crews earlier, the president of the sonoma wine growers, and she came over and was saying, actually, you know, some wineries are burned down, but the vines will survive so they can rebuild the buildings and the grapes will go on, the industry will go on. they're worried people will cap sell their reservations. -- cancel their reservations. she was pleading for people to still come by to help them rebuild. just now hearing from the gallo family, saying that they are going to donate a million bucks to the fire aid relief, and they're going to match employee donations two for one. so we're starting to see corporation stuff in. stone brewing, which was going to open a small brewery here,
neil n december, is going to be leading an effort of all the 30-some indie craft beer labels, and they're going to donate a portion of their proceeds from the month of october, looking to raise at least 50 grand there which will help out also some of the local brewers here including bear republic and their master brewer telling me he had to evacuate his own home in sonoma county, neil. was tearing up saying he had to watch his 5-year-old choosing which of her stuffed animals she was going to take with her as they had to leave their home, and they've had to shut down operations because their employees were all looking out for their family and their own homes. they are donating, neil, to their brew pubs which are not open to the public trying to help out the firefighters and first responders battling to save those homes and businesses. back to you. neil: robert gray, thank you very, very much from. one natural disaster to another in puerto rico this i'm and the funding that is -- this time, and the funding. some bumps along the way.
deirdre bolton, what are you finding out? >> almost 3.5 million people in puerto rico have been affected by this humanitarian crisis caused by hurricane maria. fema has been spending supplies, so meals, water, generators, cots, fresh water and ore necessities -- other necessities to reach vulnerable people. but those items may be getting stuck with corrupt local officials instead of getting to the elderly, the ill and children. so as of now the fbi is aware of six municipalities among puerto rico's 78 where this may be happening. so one fbi special agent told us some people who work for mayors in puerto rican towns are supposedly withholding goods and supplies instead of handing them out to people who really need them. there are claims that local officials are assigning these goods to their buddies, first to people that have voted for them or people that contributed to their campaigns.
u.s. federal prosecutor, by the way, on the island says she is looking into these claims, she is ready to go with criminal prosecutions the anyone who withholds relief. also the u.s. attorney has made it clear anyone who is caught mishandling fema supplies will be prosecuted. and, neil, could face up to 20 years in prison. back to you. neil: all right, deirdre, thank you very, very much. any of you remember the co-chair of the debt commission, alan simpson, the former senator from the great state of wyoming? his big concern with all of this was just debt. forget tax cuts, forget spending, just watch the debt. we get that under control, we're all off to the races. the only thing he sees racing is that red ink. he's next. ♪ ♪ copd makes it hard to breathe. so to breathe better, i go with anoro.
♪go your own way copd tries to say, "go this way." i say, "i'll go my own way" with anoro. ♪go your own way once-daily anoro contains two medicines called bronchodilators, that work together to significantly improve lung function all day and all night. anoro is not for asthma . it contains a type of medicine that increases risk of death in people with asthma. the risk is unknown in copd. anoro won't replace rescue inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be used more than once a day. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition, high blood pressure, glaucoma, prostate, bladder, or urinary problems. these may worsen with anoro. call your doctor if you have worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain while taking anoro. ask your doctor about anoro. ♪go your own way get your first prescription free at anoro.com.
neil: all right, we are getting word t of las vegas that there's going to be a press conference on the part of officials there. it might have something to do with this new timeline where they're trying to find out who knew what and when went jesus campos, the security guard who encountered stephen paddock and had a run-in with him, paddock ends up shooting him in the leg. then the question is when did this security guard notify the security office and/or police, because it turns out it was before the shooting began. some say it precipitated the shooting six minutes or so later and, hence, the legal interest because a lot of lawsuits could be filed on the idea that, well, that was time to at least have prevented paddock's carnage. we'll know in about 24, 5 minutes or so when officials come to that microphone. in the meantime, the president taking away a big part of obamacare, the affordable care act, made affordable because of the $7 billion in revenues it provides subsidies as they're known to insurance companies to provide that
support to help poor folks get health care coverage. gerri willis has more on that. what's going on here? >> hi there, neil, that's right. followingen an executive the order aimed at gutting the affordable care act that was released yesterday, the white house, late last night, said it will end billions of dollars of payments to insurers, the so-called csrs, unless congress can reach a bipartisan deal on health care. the payments, which are made in monthly installments and would total $7 billion this year if paid, go to insurers to offset subsidies to low income consumers and have been the subject of intense speculation among insurers. now, those insurers have said that without the payments they may exit the obamacare exchanges in 19 -- 2019 or raise premiums even more. the administration maintains the payments are not constitutional because they were not authorized by congress. reaction has been swift. attorneys general from california and new york city, they are preparing to sue the trump administration to protect
health care subsidies that the white house said would be cut off. new york attorney general eric schneiderman had this to say, quote: again and again president trump has threatened to undermine our health care system and force congress to the negotiating table. that's unacceptable. now according to "the wall street journal," the president has told at least one lawmaker that the payments will continue if a deal is reached on health care. one such deal is being worked on by senators lamar alexander of tennessee and patty murray of washington. meanwhile, america's health insurancen plans and blues cross blue shield association are saying this today: we need constructive solutions that increase consumer choice, lower consumer costs and stabilize local markets. terminating the critical program will do just the opposite. this will actually make it harder for patients to find access to the care they need. costs will go up, choices will be restricted. neil, back to you. neil: gerri, thank you very
much. all right, you know, we have the battle back and forth about more spending or more tax cuts, this next gentleman really focuses on the debt. it's been piling up and ever since he was chairing the debt commission years back with some pretty cogent ways to get it hacked down to size. of course, it has done nothing but increase. alan simpson, former co-chair of the debt commission, the former senator from the beautiful state of wyoming with us right now. senator, first off, it's always good having you, thank you. what do you make of the tax cut push? what do you think of that? are you for that? do you think we need tax cuts? >> well, erskine bowles and i suggested that, and i could come down from my guru temple high on the mountains here in wyoming and give some tremendous answer, but let me tell you, you can't get a tax cut that's revenue-neutral. there isn't anything there. we set out a 60-page report in english using phrases like going broke and shared sacrifice,
everybody ran for the hills, pulled up their socks, ran for blocks, and you can't get it, and whatever they're planning right now is costing billions. and yet they're on the right track to reduce the corporate tax, that's the biggest one in the world. if you can do something and get in there and do something with the big stuff, then when these politicians get on their hind legs and say we can do this without touching precious medicare, precious medicare, precious defense and precious social security, get on your hind legs and say they're doing a term no logical cat tuesday and nail them because you can't get there without playing with the biggest stuff. they're not playing with 25% of the american budget, fiddling around with the tax code, and you're never going to get that. got 180 tax expenditures, every one of those has a building in washington. the one on state and federal tax
deduction, try the others, home mortgage interest deduction, for god's sake, municipal bond interest, charitable contributions, you know? you name it, parking for employees -- neil: yeah, i don't know what's going to be left in there or what deductions would be takennen away because even the one for state and local taxes, that looked like a brave move but, obviously, it's causing enough of a dust-up that it doesn't look like that's going to happen. so you're not in the camp that says dynamic accounting or whatever they call it, that the revenues created from tax cuts go a long way for paying for it. you don't buy that. >> we have a name for dynamic systems out here, and this is a family show -- neil: there you go, exactly, that's a family show. >> whoever invented that was looking for another gimmick. they're just looking for gimmicks -- [inaudible conversations] neil: they're not going to address entitlements, they're not going to address defense, growing all of the above, and they want tax cuts. it sounds to me like we have a
good potential to see this debt get really out of control if it isn't already. >> well, it is, neil. and then add the things that are so appropriate and humane, you know, 5.5 billion here for the hurricane, 10 billion here, puerto rico, nobody's keeping -- this, nothing's talking about pay as you go. all those things add to the debt. the deficit, if they could clear their minds and know that the damn deficit is not the same as the debt. the deficit may go up and down depending on revenue, depending on this. the debt is on automatic pilot, and it's not being touched. and the interest on that baby is about a $240, 50 billion. and where it's going to be, it's going to be about $750 billion. and that's for the guys who loan us the money to do things for their education, their infrastructure. well, we're just drawing a blank. neil: you know, for years that we've had this, alan, the argument has always been, well,
it hasn't exploded under democrat or republican presidents, it habit exploded. and we have this cocky view of whistling past the graveyard. what would it take for it to uptick severely? just a nominal uptick in rates could add hundreds of billions. i mean, so what's your biggest fear? >> well, in the commission dick dick durbin of illinois, he's not of my faith, but he kept asking the point where is the tipping point? the tipping point is very simple, it's where the people -- we owe $21 trillion say we want more money for our money. you have a dysfunctional government, you're addicted to debt, and we want more. and then inflation will kick up, interest rates will go up. i mean, it's not going to stay at 2 or 1.5 or 3, it's going to go to historical places like 5. and when it does just a hop like that, i mean, that just rubs out -- i'm going to tell you who gets it in the shorts, the
little guy. that's who gets it. neil: can you imagine if we ever got back to an early '80s phenomenon and we had, you know, double-digit rates? >> yeah. well, i remember when i started, i came in under jimmy carter. i enjoyed him, worked with him as president, i think interest rates were 22%. neil: right? remember that? could you imagine -- >> [inaudible] neil: you're not optimistic -- well, i join you on that. you're not optimistic on what you've seen thus far. >> no, no. it's all gimmicks. i mean, as long as they use gimmicks and dynamic things and this and that and rate of growth, 3% or 4 gdp, i mean, it's just, it's just -- they're just throwing a big shovel full at us all. neil: we'll see how they handle it here. they hope to have some sort of agreement. always good having you, alan simpson. be well. >> a delight. you bet, thanks, neil.
neil: if this is all such a worry, if right now we are ripping up an agreement -- or to that's how the severe interpreters say the president is doing right now on this iran thing -- then why are stocks up so much, and why is it the markets don't seem to care about any of this? maybe we're missing some stuff, maybe we're not. we'll have more of a read after this. ♪ ♪ ♪ can i kick it? ♪ yes you can ♪ can i kick it? ♪ yes you can ♪ can i kick it? ♪ yes you can ♪ well i'm gone
>> i am announcing today that we cannot and will not make this certification. we will not continue down a path whose predictable conclusion is more violence, more terror and the very real threat of iran's nuclear breakout. neil: all right. so the president outlining a rework on that iranian nuclear deal. i've already told you what a number of leaders are saying on the wires, we like the deal as is, we can work within its parts here, but the president must be carriful going forward. ambassador john negroponte, former deputy secretary of state, so much many. ambassador, secretary, i know that europe's concerned, and they're saying, you know, the united stateses risks walking --
united states risks walking away from an agreement, and that would be a black eye on the united states. but then i hear the purists on this stuff say, well, the way it was constructed in 2015, without congress and all that, it's not really that. what is it? to you, what is the move on the part of the president signifying today? >> well, think a couple of things. first of all, i think it reflects a desire to try and renegotiate some parts of the agreement. i think, for example, there's concern about the sunset provisions. you know, after 10, 15 years, what happens? does then iran have a, sort of an open, a free ticket to continue its nuclear program? and then the other part, which i think is a source of frustration for a lot of people who look at the question of iran, is the things that the agreement did not cover; namely, iran's hegemonic and terrorist-supporting activities in countries such as iraq, syria, yemenen and so forth --
yemen and so forth. which was not intended to be covered by the agreement, but i think for those who look at iran holistically, there's a concern there that the agreement didn't deal with those very important issues both in terms of our relationship with iran and the concerns of all the other countries in the region. neil: all right. the president is no doubt going to comment on some of this. let's listen in. >> what do you say to critics who say -- [inaudible] csrs, the subsidies under obamacare, will throw the markets into chaos? >> what it's going to do, it's going to be time to negotiate health care that's going to be good for everybody. that money is a subsidy for insurance companies. take a look at their stocks. look where they are. they're going through the roof. from past. i don't know about today, but the insurance companies have made a fortune. that money was a subsidy and almost you could say a payoff to insurance companies. and what we have to do is come up with great health care. that's what i did partially yesterday. that's going to cover a big sell segment.
but now for the rest, we have to come up with -- [inaudible] whether it's going to be block grants or something else. and we just about have the votes. now, if the democrats were smart, what they'd do is come and negotiate something where people could really get the kind of health care that they deserve being citizens of our great country. [inaudible conversations] >> why not just end it now? >> because we'll see what happens over the next short period of time, and i can do that instand town yously. just -- i like a two-step process much better. >> why? [inaudible conversations] >> no, because i think what we'll do is we'll be able to renegotiate so that everybody gets. we just took care of a big chunk, and now we'll take care of the other chunk. what would be nice, if the democratic leaders could come over to the white house, we'll negotiate some deal that's good for everybody. that's what i'd like. but they're always a block vote
against everything. they're like obstructionists. if they came over, maybe we could make a deal. but the subsidy is really a subsidy for the insurance companies. that's not going to people. that's making insurance companies rich. john? >> mr. president -- [inaudible] you called it -- >> well, i may do that. i may do that. the deal is terrible. so what we've done is through the certification process we'll have congress take a look at it, and i may very well do that. but i like a two-step process much better. john? >> [inaudible] >> yeah. >> [inaudible] >> got great support. >> is that a way for you to put pressure on democrats to say, look, come to the table and negotiate? >> well, they've already lost a big chunk because, as you know, that's a big chunk, and it's very popular. and you will have millions and millions of people sign up under that. you could say, i mean, i'm not doing that consciously, i will say this, john, i will say that
the democrats shuled come to me -- should come to me, i would even go to them because i'm only interested in one thing, getting great health care for this country. that was a big chunk, and as far as the subsidy is concerned, i don't want to make the insurance companies rich. if you look at their stock price over the last number of years, take a look at what's happened with those insurance companies. they're making a fortune by getting that kind of money. yes. >> how long -- [inaudible] still a possibility -- [inaudible] >> we will see what happens with iran. we're very unhappy with iran. they have not treated us with the kind of respect that they should be treating. they should have thanked barack obama for making that deal. they were gone. they were economically gone. he infused $100-$150 billion into their economy. he gave them $1.7 billion in
cash. they should be, thank you, president obama. they didn't say that. [inaudible conversations] >> so we're studying national emergency right now. believe it or not, doing national emergency -- as you understand -- is a very big statement. we will be doing that. my wife, melania who happens to be right here, finds that subject to be of such vital importance, and she's very much involved. and as you know, she's on the -- [inaudible] neil: okay. that's that. we'll see what happens to iran. that's the point that, obviously, is going to get, you know, a good deal of follow up here. ambassador john negroponte who i interrupted for the president -- thank you for your patients, ambassador. what do you think happens now? iran obviously not pleased with this. it says it has honored that agreement. what do you think? >> well, i think, first of all, i think we need to -- people need to keep their powder dry. this is just one procedural
step. he says he believes in a two-step process. he's handing it over to congress now to debate it and look at it and examine, make recommendations. when you think about it, the agreement was approved previously by sort of a default process. congress didn't override the agreement, but it went in, it went into effect basically on the executive branch's say so. so i think now you can expect a thorough debate. and then you've got the issue of managing relationships with europe and others and seeing if there may be parts of that agreement that iran might be willing to renegotiate. up to now, of course, they've been saying absolutely, no, they won't, because they didn't want the president to take the step that he took. neil: yeah. >> but now that he's put it, you know, he's put the subject on the table, they're going to have to think hard about what their interests are. and also i do think the president's got a point about their behavior in some of these other places like yemen, iraq, syria and so forth which have been very problematic not only
for us, but for the other countries in the region. neil: now, of course, iran is also involved in north korea, we are told, and north korea has threatened to up its sort of military might and respond maybe soon with more tests and the like. is this move he had with iran to deal with this a signal you think he is sending to north korea as well? >> well, i mean, certainly in terms of the firmness of his policy and his determination to deal with non-proliferation issues. we ought to also remember that that syrian reactor that was knocked out by israel back in 2006 that was being built in syria was being built by north korean workers. and i'm sure that their access to syria was facilitated by iran. is so there has been in the past and there may well continue to be a nexus between iran and north korea. neil: yeah. so far the president has not talked about any additional sanctions or reimposed
sanctions, sir. i mean, is that his way of saying i'm not going to jump the gun and do crazy stuff here, but i could? >> i'm sorry, i didn't hear the last part. somebody was interrupting. pardon me. neil: i apologize. >> no, no. neil: he has so far held off on additional sanctions or reimposing sanctions. what do you think >> he said if congress can't act, he will take those steps himself. i think he is advocating more sanctions as soon as possible against the iran revolutionary guard corps and iran's sponsorship of terrorism. i think he would like to take quick, immediate action, as far as the action on nuclear agreement, i think he is waiting for reaction from congress. neil: real quickly. i know you're not a market guy. you follow wait at thisser international issues.
if they are waiting for some international crisis, the markets, are they naive or what? >> if you look at issues around the world, i would not rate the issue vis-a-vis iran and united states up there at this particular point in time. it's a problem, a longer standing one. i would put the korean peninsula higher on that scale. as you noticed, even there the markets seemed so far to take, to take that situation into stride. if there were ever any kind of more hostile activity to take place, then i should expect you would see the markets price in that risk pretty quickly. neil: you might have a future as a market watcher if you ever want to take the pay without, ambassador. >> pay cut? give me a break.
neil: i will leave it at that. >> you guys are rich. neil: there we go. i will play along. thank you, sir, very, very much. trish regan coming up right now. markets continue running up, fast and furious and technology companies that dom night behind me. trish: thank you, neil. las vegas police are set to announce new details about the october shooting any minute from now. we'll bring you that live as soon as it happens. you're looking at the podium there where the las vegas press will appear. still right now, we don't have a motive for the shooting. there has been a lot of questions regarding the timeline of this event. it created a whole lot more confusion. in other words did the gunman shoot the hotel security guard six minutes before he went on that rampage? if so, why did it take 18 minutes for the first officers to arrive on the scene? do not forget that mgm disputed that timeline.