Barrasso: Schumer surrenders after misguided shutdown

This is a rush transcript from "Your World," January 22, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: All right. They’re late. They’re confused. There’s supposed to be a vote going on in the Senate. So much we don’t know, followed by a vote possibly in the House, the government reopening.

Wall Street already concluding it’s a done deal, the government will reopen, and likes what it sees. The Dow sprinting ahead well into record territory, 26,214, up 142 points, and again largely an optimism that we’re but hours away tops from a three-day government shutdown ending.

Mike Emanuel on Capitol Hill on what we can look forward to now -- Michael.


Yes, it’s expected the Senate and the House will give final approval and this brief government shutdown will be over in a matter of hours. Earlier, the Senate had an 81-18 procedural vote on a three-week government funding extension.

The House is then expected to proceed once the House gives its final approval. A Senate Democrat says some progress was made on immigration during this government shutdown.


SEN. BILL NELSON, D-FLA.: Before this agreement, they had no protection. And we were not getting any help from the White House, we weren’t getting any help from the House, and we really weren’t getting any help from the Republican leadership in the Senate.

But now we have a path forward, in which we can work a bipartisan solution that will take care of the dreamers.


EMANUEL: This continuing resolution would fund the government through February 8. It would provide health insurance to an estimated nine million children for six years and it would postpone some unpopular Obamacare taxes.

Democrats insisted on a deal for the so-called dreamers now, the young people brought to this country illegally by their parents. The issue has a March 5 deadline. But Democrats wanted to force the issue now. Top House Republicans say they’re open to talks, but not bound by any Senate agreement.


REP. STEVE SCALISE, R-LA., HOUSE MAJORITY WHIP: Ultimately, we have got to see how both sides can come together. Let’s see if the Senate can come together with something that President Trump can support.

And I think there’s a deal to be made, but, in my mind, it would not include amnesty. And it has to include real border security and funding of the wall.


EMANUEL: We had about two dozen moderate senators trying to work on a deal over the weekend. Even if the Senate cuts a deal, they will need buy-in from the House and White House for it to become law -- Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, Mike, thank you very, very much.

Speaking of the White House, Kevin Corke is there with how all that went down today.

Hey, Kevin.


Listen, the White House is not exactly doing a victory lap over the so-called Schumer surrender, but I think it’s fair to say that they felt like they made this a very simple issue to follow up for the folks at home. If you’re inside the Beltway, you may understand all the nuance.

But if you’re out in the Barcalounger somewhere in Dubuque, you just want to -- make it simple, citizens vs. noncitizens. That’s the way they framed this argument about the shutdown.

And it seemed to be fairly effective, as Democrats ultimately did seemingly capitulate. Let me share just a bit what Sarah Huckabee Sanders said today, the White House press secretary, in the briefing this afternoon about why she felt like the opposition was facing a losing battle from the very beginning.


SARAH SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Democrats realized that the position that they had taken frankly was indefensible, and that they had to focus on first funding our military, protecting Border Patrol agents, funding vulnerable children through the CHIP program.

These were things that they didn’t disagree with. They agreed with everything that was in this C.R. The president stayed firm. Republicans stayed firm. And Democrats I think realized that they had to move past that piece of legislation and so that they could focus on the conversation.


CORKE: And that’s the key, what is the conversation going to be like?

Now, Democrats are quick to point out they did make some progress here because they moved up the timeline to address an incredibly important issue.


SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y., MINORITY LEADER: Shame, Mr. President, that the American people and the Senate have had to endure such hand-wringing, finger-pointing, stridency, to secure a guarantee that we will finally move to address this urgent issue.

It’s something the majority could have avoided entirely, a concern the president could have obviated if he were only willing to take yes for an answer.


CORKE: What’s the old saying? You have to know when to hold them, and when know when to fold them, when to walk away and when to run? Neil, looks like the folks wearing D’s on their jerseys have decided to walk away in this case.

CAVUTO: That’s a song.

CORKE: That is a song.

CAVUTO: That’s a song.

All right, thank you very, very. You’re right. Who held and who folded here? They will figure that out.

Well, Wall Street not folding, in fact, liking what it was seeing, in fact, even holding its own even in the middle of this drop-off and expectation of drop-off, but then celebrating when it never came to pass or at least passed that long.

Ashley Webster with more on that.

Ashley, what happened?


I don’t think Wall Street pays a whole lot of attention what’s going on in Washington. Despite all the uncertainty, the market is doing very well indeed. How well? Well, let’s check it out. The Dow finishing up 142 points to finish at 26214.

By the way, here’s some numbers for you, Neil. That is the eighth record close this year. It’s the 79th record close under President Trump and the 96th record close since Election Day. Put those three things together, not bad at all. Yes, there’s some uncertainty about a government shutdown.

But if history proves anything, the last three government shutdowns, the S&P, which is a broader measure of stocks, went higher. In fact, the last one in 2013 lasted 16 days. And during that period, the S&P actually gained 3 percent.

I was speaking to Steve Forbes about this earlier today, and he goes, you know what, I don’t care if the government is shut down. There’s less capacity for those people to do bad things. And apparently Wall Street agrees.

We saw a number of the tech giants hitting new highs today, including Microsoft, Google and Netflix. We had some mega-mergers to talk about in the insurance industry and the insurance industry. All of this, Neil, points to positivity for the economy, for the markets themselves.

And, of course, now we focus on earnings, and with tax reform and corporate earnings apparently gaining strength, all signs are very healthy for Wall Street, despite what crises happen in Washington or what, rather, doesn’t happen in Washington. Doesn’t seem to matter to Wall Street these days.

CAVUTO: No, it does not.

Ashley, thank you very, very much, my friend.

WEBSTER: My pleasure.

CAVUTO: I want to take you to the floor of the United States Senate right now.

You know the earlier measure today. That was the one that was passed 81- 18, easily passing the 60-vote threshold to set this up, this simple majority vote right now, to effectively reopen the government. This is essentially the same thing the House will take up in due course after this. It’s expected to pass.

You don’t want to say it’s a done deal, but close to a done deal.

Wyoming Republican senator, big influence in leadership, John Barrasso, he’s the chairman of the Senate Policy Committee.

How do you think this is going to go, Senator?

SEN. JOHN BARRASSO, R-WY.: Well, Neil, we’re going to vote to reopen the government after the Schumer shutdown. It’s turned, of course, into the Schumer surrender, because the strategy they had from the beginning was very misguided.

You don’t shut down the government and the nation’s security and services for American citizens in order to provide services and security for noncitizens. The American people were never going to buy that. We’re going to reopen the government today.

CAVUTO: All right.

Now, I noticed that what is being done now is what was envisioned in the beginning, taking up DACA, immigration reform, down the road, I guess, in the next few weeks, if not a little further. This keeps the government going for another few weeks, potentially a little further. But how did we get here?

BARRASSO: Well, we got here because the Democrats refused to realize that this is something that we were working on from the beginning. We were working on this in a bipartisan way, both the House and the Senate, to deal with this issue of young people who were brought to this country illegally, but at a very young age.

And what I’m hoping that the president does during the State of the Union next week is addresses this issue and says, I will sign a bill to prevent the deportation of these people as long as I get the things that the American people are asking for, which is security at our southern border, which is an E-Verify systems that works, which is an immigration system based on not a diversity lottery, but based on the skills that individual workers have who want to bring to the country.

That’s what we need to do.

CAVUTO: But, Senator, it sounds like we could risk some problems again, right?

Because Mitch McConnell was willing to hold a vote on these other immigration measures, including DACA, as long as Democrats agreed to reopen government. That appears to be the case. But everyone has to be on the same page of these issues, or could we indeed face this yet again?

BARRASSO: Well, that’s why I say the president has an opportunity next week during the State of the Union to talk about what he’s willing to sign and how people can work together in a bipartisan way, both the House and the Senate, to come to a solution that provides the national security we want, the border security, the issue of reforming chain migration.

And he can lay out to the American people what is a sensible plan, consistent with what he’s campaigned upon. And I think that will solve the problem between now and the date when we hit this next day, February 8, where this resolution from today expires.

CAVUTO: You know, a lot of people look at this, Senator, and understand the anomaly here of having the Democrats. You need their votes certainly in the Senate for this type of thing, but they also marvel at the fact that Republicans do run the show.

You have all branches of government. You knew about this approaching deadline. You knew about this stuff a long time ago. And everything was a scramble in the last minute. So, doesn’t this look just as bad for Republicans?

BARRASSO: Well, I don’t think so.

I think the American people and the calls certainly we have gotten from Wyoming are saying, why would anyone shut down the government when the things that are so critical are in this bill, like funding the children’s health care plan, funding services for our veterans, for our military, for the current members of the military who are serving our country and keeping us safe and keeping us free?

So what the American people did not understand is why we would ever shut down the government for services for people who were not here as citizens and take that priority over people who were citizens. So this stop, this shutdown stopped funding for the issues of the opioid crisis.

So, you cannot stop those things. You need to continue on those things. You need to have -- a mature governing body keeps a government open. Doesn’t stand out like the Chuck Schumer and the Democrats did and say, if we don’t get our way on everything, we’re going to shut down the government. It’s completely irresponsible. The strategy they had was wrong.

CAVUTO: Well, fairly or not, Senator, fairly or not, that was the rap against Republicans and Ted Cruz-inspired shutdowns a little more than four-and-a-half years ago. Right?

BARRASSO: Well, I voted against that shutdown then.

CAVUTO: Yes, you did.

BARRASSO: I voted against this shutdown today. I think a mature, responsible governing body keeps the government open, continues to work on problems.

And this issue of immigration is an issue we have been working on in a bipartisan way for quite some time with both the House and the Senate. I think we can get a resolution in the near future. And I hope the president addresses it’s in the State of the Union.

CAVUTO: We shall see.

Senator, thank you very much for taking the time. We will see how this vote goes in a little bit.

BARRASSO: Thank you.

CAVUTO: That vote will ensure soon. It was via simple majority. They have to agree on that. Then it goes to the House. No sure or signed deal there.

A lot of Republicans are balking at some of the allowances it made, spending and others, on this. But, again, it’s expected to pass.

There are a lot of historical anomalies here, people will tell you. And Chuck Schumer himself was saying, this is rare, for a party that has the run of the town to shut the government down.

He forgot a simple fact, though. It has happened before with Jimmy Carter, three different times.

We will explain.


CAVUTO: All right.

Now looking live at the floor of the United States Senate, where by a simple majority vote, you don’t need 60 votes, certainly they got more than that, 81, earlier today on the measure to set this up.

This is going to be pretty much a clear for takeoff thing, we’re told, after it’s approved here, and it’s expected to be. It goes to the House and then some time later tonight, the government reopens.

The lessons from all of the above.

Larry Sabato, UVA Center for Politics, multiple bestselling author.

Professor, here we go again. You know, government reopens, markets soar. They were doing fine even as this was looking dicey. What do you make of all this?


The midterm elections are in November. I have been reading all of these predictions on Twitter and Facebook and other places about how this is going to affect the elections. It’s not. It’s way too long in the future, unless this is recurrent, like it was under Carter and Reagan. This is the 19th shutdown, as you know, since Gerald Ford.

CAVUTO: You know what is interesting about this? They keep pushing the same idea that this is the first time with a single party in power.

And this happened -- of course, it did happen multiple times with Jimmy Carter. I know we didn’t have the furloughs, but we had shutdowns and all of that. So there’s something maybe intrinsically wrong with our system or maybe this -- someone was telling me earlier on FOX Business this is actually a very transparent way to do things.

What do you think?

SABATO: Oh, I don’t think it’s any way to do business.

And, look, there’s really two ways to divide this up. Under Ford and Carter and Reagan and George H.W. Bush, these shutdowns were very short, a week or a few days and they didn’t have furloughs. They didn’t have major consequences for the most part.

It changed under Bill Clinton dealing with the Republican Congress. That’s when it became sometimes a month-long with massive furloughs and terrible political division. And that continued really to the present day. There’s been four of them like that.


SABATO: Have we learned one thing, I think, from this, Neil, and these shutdowns since Bill Clinton? We have learned that it doesn’t work. It doesn’t do anything for the party instigating the shutdown. Both Republicans and Democrats have done this. And it never helps them.

Maybe somebody should write a note for the future. Don’t do government shutdowns.

CAVUTO: But timing is everything, of course, and this could be all be forgotten by the midterm elections.

Less so is the impact of those tax cuts. And it’s something I wanted to raise with you, because we’re seeing people rally around this or certainly the approval numbers of these tax cuts or people feeling potentially good about them have increased.

Do you think that should be a worry for Democrats, who here have seen it as sort of like a class warfare battle, one that they were going to get the upper hand on? What do you think?


Well, Republicans are planning on spending a lot of money to focus on the good aspects of their tax cut, to sell those tax cuts, because, after all, most people really don’t know what is in there. They haven’t focused on it. They haven’t paid their taxes under the tax cut bill and won’t until April of 2019, though they will see additional money in their paychecks.

So, Republicans are right to focus on that. That is their hope for not just doing better than expected in the midterms, but also maybe pulling Trump’s approval level up somewhat. It won’t be dramatic. But if it’s a point or two a month, it would make a difference by November.

CAVUTO: And one of the things we have realized with the Reagan tax cuts, too, and, of course, some of those were staggers in, but when people start seeing it in their check, no matter what they are hearing in the media about them, that tends to counter whatever that cynical view is. In other words, they see it in their checks, they like it, right?


You know, in the polls, we often ask, how are you feeling about the economy generally? And people have a view of that. And then you say, well, how are you feeling about your personal economy, you and your family?

There can be very different answers. And you’re right. Most people care a lot more about their economy than they do about the national economy or the economy in this state across the country.

CAVUTO: All right, well said. All right, very good seeing you, Professor. Thank you very, very much.

SABATO: Thank you.

CAVUTO: Again, to the professor’s point here, we’re waiting on this vote in the Senate and then it goes to the House. The whole idea is to get this done so the federal government can reopen.

This is one of the shorter shutdowns we have experienced and they were concerned this could have dragged on and could have gotten to be a big problem.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats must have been watching the premiere of our "Cavuto Live" on Saturday to help close this deal.

And we will explain, because I might have saved the nation. You’re welcome, America.



CAVUTO: People don’t like these government shutdowns, but it didn’t play out the way typically they have.

MARK PENN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I think that there’s a little risk here the Democrats are taking, because let’s face it. They have been leading in all the polls and in their election position.

And now they do a shutdown over a single issue, DACA. Here, people are saying, yes, we support DACA -- 77 percent do. But I don’t know that they would have shut the government down now. And so there’s some risk for the Democrats.


CAVUTO: All right, Bill Clinton’s Svengali, the pollster extraordinaire Mark Penn saying, on two very big issues -- two very big issues, I should say, maybe Democrats sort of stretched their luck here, not only on pushing a government shutdown over DACA, immigration reform, but even on the tax cut thing, every single one of them voting against it, when numbers seemed to be showing Mr. Penn that support for those and maybe anticipation for those has been rising.

This as the Senate is taking up this measure to reopen, and we should have a vote very, very shortly.

The Hill’s Bob Cusack is with us, Democratic strategist Michael Starr Hopkins, and the Independent Women Forum’s Patrice Lee Onwuka.

Patrice, what do you make of what essentially Mr. Penn was saying, that, you know, Democrats might have fumbled on these two key issues?


If you read the progressive headlines this afternoon, they’re saying that Democrats caved on principle. And they’re taking a lashing from their base for that.

You know, there’s even a vigil for DACA recipients, because they feel like they have been run over because of this deal. So, I think Democrats, you know, we have seen their lead in even generic poling evaporate from double digits to probably five points right now. They took a really big risk and they realize now that it really wasn’t worth it.

CAVUTO: All right, by the way, we’re noticing that Senator Elizabeth Warren appears to be a no vote, voted thumbs down on this issue.

So, not everyone is going to be for this, even though it got 81 votes early, the procedural effort that sort of paved the way for this.

Michael, as a Democrat who wants to sort of find a reasoned middle ground, was this it?


The idea that we -- and we being both Democrats and Republicans -- allowed the government to get shut down, and then now we don’t have a DACA agreement still?

Listen, it’s time for Democrats to grow a goddamn backbone at some point. We had -- we offered up the wall to President Trump. We made concessions. And to still walk away without 800,000 Americans having a protection that was promised to them, if Democrats don’t want to fight, then let’s find some people who will, because there are people like me and there’s people all over the country who were determined to make a principled fight.

And Democrats caved on this one. She -- they’re right.

CAVUTO: All right, well, you better watch your language, young man.


CAVUTO: But, Bob, the one thing I might look at here is, this is essentially the same thing that Republicans and Democrats were looking at a little more than a week ago.

BOB CUSACK, THE HILL: Yes. That’s right.

CAVUTO: Let’s get DACA on the table. Let’s talk about it. Let’s commit to doing something on that. But let’s not shut the government down over this. Let’s reopen it and do that.

So, on that point, Michael has a point.

CUSACK: Yes. No, you think about the votes.

On Friday, this bill, only five Democrats voted to advance it. And basically the same bill today, over 30 Democratic senators voted for it. They didn’t get much out of it. Now, Democrats won the shutdown battles of Clinton and Obama, but -- and maybe that’s -- maybe Democrats were a little overconfident, because Republicans won this shutdown battle, without a doubt.

CAVUTO: You know, Patrice, I have another crackpot theory. And you all have all endured them over the years.

But one is that, on the tax cut, I do see the sentiment shifting a little bit. That’s not surprising. Tax cut sort of views go from cynical to a little bit more positive as they work their way through the system, particular when people see them.

And I’m wondering whether that is something, to Mark Penn’s point, that Democrats should worry about. Not a one of them voted for it, and it might come back to hurt them. What do you think?

ONWUKA: I think it’s possible.

You know, the challenge is that Democrats didn’t expect companies to respond in the way that they did when you look at the bonuses.

CAVUTO: Yes. By the way, that is a very important distinction. They expect the market -- but companies, with such a curse of riches, they are sharing in ways unimaginable.

But go ahead.

ONWUKA: Exactly.

And so when Americans read in their favorite outlet that this company added this many jobs or it gave away $1,000 bonuses to thousands of their employees, even small companies who expanded their worker base by one or two, all of a sudden, it pushes back on the narrative that they heard from a lot of Democrats that this was going to be doom and gloom.

And we all know Nancy Pelosi’s comments about these being crumbs. But for a lot of people, a $1,000 bonus is not a crumb, nor is a $2 pay increase. And so I think Democrats really went out on the wrong limb, and they didn’t have a positive, forward-thinking message.

Empowering people, giving them more money is a really positive message. Being anti-Trump is not.

HOPKINS: Well, let me just point out I will agree that the tax bill will be successful once we see wages increase.

Average Americans aren’t invested into the stock market in an overwhelming majority. So, when average Americans start to see increases...

CAVUTO: Well, actually, you’re wrong about that, Michael. Average Americans take advantage through their pension and everything and their security in their own plans at work.

HOPKINS: Through mutual funds.

But I’m talking about private investors, just the average American feeling like...

CAVUTO: Well, what about the three million-plus Americans who are getting bonus checks out of the blue? It hasn’t even hit, filtered to individuals yet, and the companies are doing it.

HOPKINS: Which is true, they are getting bonuses. But they’re seeing their health care costs. They’re seeing other costs increase.


CAVUTO: And that wasn’t happening under Barack Obama?

HOPKINS: Not happening at the same level, so now we’re going to have to look at a long term. We can’t just look at a snapshot. Let’s see in six months, in a year, 18 months, where we’re at.

CAVUTO: All right.

Well, Bob, I’m looking at all of this. And my own view -- and I could be out to lunch -- but, again, this is the same guy who said that I could see Donald Trump winning the presidency, and people laughed at me. So, you better not laugh at this.

I don’t see the Republicans losing the House or the Senate. In fact, I think they more than hold on. What do you think?

CUSACK: I think it’s going to be a challenging fall, no doubt. They’re going to lose seats. It’s just a matter of how many.

CAVUTO: All I’m saying is they will keep control.

CUSACK: I think the Senate is probably going to stay in Republican hands. The House I think is a tossup.

But it all depends on the popularity of the tax law.

CAVUTO: Absolutely.

CUSACK: And I think Democrats are going to have to answer the question, if you’re running the House and/or Senate, would you repeal those?

CAVUTO: All right. We will have to watch it very closely. But that will be instrumental to see.

We have a long way to go, as all of these folks would no doubt remind me, until November. But I’m telling you, the consensus all runs one way and is looking very cynically toward November. I don’t know.

All right, guys, thank you all very much.

CUSACK: Thanks.

CAVUTO: Meanwhile, looks like we’re on the brink of a deal to reopen the federal government.

The question I have is, why do we keep doing it this way? Maybe because we’re always so last-minute.


CAVUTO: Forget shutdown. Netflix up 8 percent after-hours, easily beating earning and sales expectations. New subscribers growth off the charts.

Something tells me folks like that company.

More after this.


CAVUTO: All right, it is looking -- I stress looking -- like the Senate does have the votes to end this government shutdown, albeit for only three weeks, before they potentially could revisit all of this.

Remember, this goes to the House then, and they weigh in on that.

North Dakota Republican Senator John Hoeven with us right now.

Senator, play this out for me. What happens next now?

SEN. JOHN HOEVEN, R-N.D.: Well, we’re voting right now. The measure will pass, the funding measure, and it will go over to the House. They will concur, and then the government reopens. So we will get it done today, late this afternoon.

CAVUTO: You know what is a kicker, Senator, is this is essentially the deal that was on the table a little more than a week ago, right?

HOEVEN: Yes. Yes, it’s the same measure. The only difference is, we had it set to go out to February 16. Now it’s February 8. But, otherwise, it’s just the same.

CAVUTO: What happens on February 8?

HOEVEN: Well, the key is that we get our appropriation funding bill done before then, so that the government is funded all the way out to September 30. That’s the objective.

CAVUTO: I know this happens a lot. It’s happened under Republican rule and Democratic rule and mixed government and all.

A lot of people have the impression that single party shutdowns are only unique to you guys. The fact of the matter is, they happened several times under Jimmy Carter when Democrats ran the show. So, there is a history to this.

But I think the problem, Senator, is both sides waiting too long, thinking that maybe they can come together and do something sooner. But they never do. So, everything runs late, late, late. What do you think?

HOEVEN: Well, that’s the problem is, we moved -- I’m an appropriator. We move the bills through the committee, but we’re blocked from taking them to the floor because the Democrats are blocking them, because they want these other things.

CAVUTO: Right.

HOEVEN: In this case, it was DACA, without meaningful border security.

So we have got to find a way to break through that. We’re looking at doing things, for example, maybe being able to advance appropriations bills with 51 votes, rather than the filibuster, 60 votes.

CAVUTO: How do you feel about that? I know the president has been pushing that. Some of your colleagues, sir, worry that be careful what you wish for, because, if that happens with Democrats in control, you can kiss your chances to impact legislation away.

You say?

HOEVEN: Right. The concern is that, without 60 votes, for example, if the Democrats are back in power, they could raise taxes, put in cap and trade, go to single-payer health care, something like that, with only 51 votes.

That’s the concern. But we have got to find a way to address the appropriations process, so we could at least proceed to the bills with only 51 votes. That might help us force some Democrats to deal with us and vote with us on the floor if we can get on those bills.

So we’re looking at those kinds of changes, so we can get into regular order and the proper budgeting process.

CAVUTO: Your colleague Lindsey Graham had expressed early on, sir, some frustration with the president and the mixed signals he was ending on this DACA thing. Remember that famous Tuesday meeting that was beamed live to the world -- not live, but on tape to live.

And it looked like they were -- he was inclined to accept whatever deal they came up with. They did. And then he changed his mind. We really don’t know the back story. So I think it’s lethal to try to recreate it, but that he might have sent mixed signals and contributed to this.

What do you think?

HOEVEN: Neil, I think he’s laid out his four principles.

One is that, yes, we have to address DACA, but we have to have border security at the same time, so we’re not back in this same situation again, and also that we need to address chain migration and also make sure that we end the visa lottery program.

He’s laid those four things out very clearly. If you look at the House bill that’s been put forward but House Judiciary and Goodlatte, that has those four principles. And so that’s what we need to focus on and get to something that the House and the Senate can both pass and the president will sign.

CAVUTO: All right.

So, when Chuck Schumer was talking about the fact that the president couldn’t take yes for an answer, he was talking presumably about some of those measures that would allow a wall or something like it. He threw it in there. Do you think that will be in the final piece, whatever is agreed on?

HOEVEN: Those measures weren’t in there.

For example, he talked about funding for border security, but he talked about an authorization, not an appropriation. We need the full $18 billion to $20 billion appropriation.

You also, in addition to border security, enforcing immigration law, you need to address chain migration, and also the visa lottery system.

CAVUTO: Senator, thank you very much for taking the time. Hopefully, they get this wrapped up, resolved in short order.

HOEVEN: Thanks, Neil.

CAVUTO: Meanwhile, a lot of big companies, right, are giving a lot of money back to this country courtesy of those tax cuts.

Now some California lawmakers want some of that money for themselves, for their state -- after this.


CAVUTO: Looks, looks, looks like a done deal in the United States Senate. On to the House we’re told now in about 30 minutes. I could be off a little bit here.

Charles Payne joining me now on these developments.

On the same day we had Wall Street soaring to a record, tax cuts, of course, have been one of the big, big, big reasons why.

And now there’s an effort, Charles Payne, for a couple of California lawmakers who want those companies to share the loot in terms of higher taxes, at least there.

What do you make of all this?

CHARLES PAYNE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: It’s the same sort of progressive craziness that you didn’t build that. That’s the same philosophy, that somehow they like to socialize profits.

And the idea really is that corporate profits are part of the -- the public domain. And we have seen this before. It’s disastrous. But it does underscore a truism that California is in trouble, Neil. And it’s been all of these sort of policies, the high taxes, the high regulations.

And that’s why they have had a spike in homelessness. And they’re in dire straits. You have got very rich and very poor people there. It’s a cautionary tale for the rest of the country. I hope it doesn’t go through.

CAVUTO: But I do see a pattern here that will emerge, because a lot of these companies that are getting all this money, a lot of states hungry for money themselves are going to say, hey, give some to us.

PAYNE: They might.

The good news is that you look at what Amazon is doing. Right? They are saying, we’re looking for a second headquarters, and everyone is auditioning by offering billions of dollars. These companies know that they can get up and move at any moment. And so states may not have the leverage that they once did. These companies are pretty mobile these days.

CAVUTO: If you don’t mind me veering a little bit to the whole shutdown thing and everything else, this was really a waste of time, if you think about it.


CAVUTO: In all seriousness. I’m not taking sides here, but think about how this started is the same way it’s going to end, in other words, a vote, a delay on dealing with DACA and immigration issues, all that, apart from a potential government shutdown.

PAYNE: Neil, if they were really serious about getting -- really serious about doing the people’s work, they would rid of continuing resolutions.

It’s not the shutdown that is a problem. It’s great to have something looming this that puts a fire underneath you. The problem has been over 160 continuing resolutions that kick the can down the road. We could be at this same point three or four weeks from now.

So, if Congress ever found a way to get rid of continuing resolutions, it would force them to do their job, and I think we would all be a lot happier.

CAVUTO: But they don’t.

PAYNE: They don’t.

CAVUTO: And we’re going to revisit this again. In fact, it could happen in just a few weeks, because Democrats are holding Mitch McConnell to his word that he is going to raise these issues. And he will. He will make good on it, I’m sure. But it might not be to their liking. And the finished package might not be to their liking.

And then we will revisit this all over again.

PAYNE: We will, but we know it’s incumbent upon both sides, leadership on both sides.

They know the issues. They know the bargaining positions. Everyone already understands this. And the irony here is that everyone says they want to get a deal done. Both sides say we want to get a deal done on DACA. Both sides say, OK, we will acquiesce, we will do the wall. Both sides understand we need immigration reform.

This is amazing. Everybody understands and to a degree admits that they’re OK with everything on the table. So if they can’t get this together, then it’s a pox on both houses.

CAVUTO: You have been talking a good deal on your show on FOX Business and elsewhere about the tax cuts. And they look better and better the more people start looking at them, particularly the corporate tax cut, which wasn’t thought to benefit individuals certainly right away.

A lot of them are benefiting. How is this all going to fall out?

PAYNE: It’s working tremendously.

On Friday, Michigan -- University of Michigan came out with a sentiment reading. They said 34 percent of respondents spontaneously mentioned the tax cuts, and 70 percent of them in a positive manner. Only 18 percent thought they were negative.

It’s starting to permeate through society. And one thing that we have seen since the election of Donald Trump is that this sort of optimism morphs into reality. And I think it’s going to continue. Wait until people start to see it their paychecks come next month.

CAVUTO: All right, Charles, always good, my friend.

PAYNE: You got it. Thank you.

CAVUTO: Look forward to you a little over an hour right now on his fine show, "Making Money With Charles Payne."

In the meantime, did any of you see this?


CAVUTO: Well, I guess you can tell me what you thought of my new two-hour live show this past Saturday, one that replaces our four taped "Cost of Freedom" programs. For good or bad, you let me know.

Karen via twitter: "Love your new show."

Carol e-mail: "Nothing like a government shutdown to get a great jump on things. Not bad, Cavuto. Not bad at all."

Skip via "D.C. day care ridiculous. Congrats on the new show. Watching."

Then Bridgram e-mails: "Cavuto Live. Great show this morn. Would prefer that you weren’t on that open-air balcony."

Anthony in New York City: "Cavuto Live? No offense. I would just prefer Cavuto dead. Horrible show. Horrible, self-absorbed anchor who has the horrible idea to name the whole monstrous thing after himself. Horrible idea. Horrible person. Horrible. Horrible."

OK. What did you really think?

Anyway, Charles writes: "Please quit, retire, and let us be free of your mouth."

Lizzy e-mails: "I loved the show. I loved how you seamlessly kept up with breaking news and financial developments. My kids say you’re not much to look at, but I keep telling them neither was Cronkite. But he did OK."

Yes, I guess.

Then there’s Sassy in Boston. "Tom Brady, you’re not. But you’re ageless. And there’s no harder-working anchor on television."

Anthony tweets: "Neil, I watched the COF for so many years and thought you were a genius with the concept. But I’m really disappointed with this new or actually not new, but same as your daily shows. I was skeptical. I was right."

T.G. visa SBC: "So among your great gets for your debut show, Michael Dukakis? Are you kidding me? Jane Fonda wasn’t available?"


CAVUTO: The idea of still going through with a surtax on millionaires, would you do that?

MICHAEL DUKAKIS, D-FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNOR: Well, we’re going to have it on the ballot in Massachusetts shortly. And I’m certainly going to support it.

CAVUTO: So you don’t think any of those people will be chased away from the state because they will say, oh, the hell with it?

DUKAKIS: No, no. That’s a myth. That’s a myth.

CAVUTO: It wasn’t a myth in Illinois, right? It wasn’t a myth there, right? It wasn’t a myth in Connecticut.

DUKAKIS: Well, if you look at the numbers, it’s really not significant.


CAVUTO: Got a lot of e-mail on that, including Tom, who says: "Neil, Dukakis is a moron. Look what happened to the state of Maryland when the then Governor O’Malley got into the wealthiest pockets. Mass exodus."

Paul via Metrocast: "Tell Dukakis to get back into his tank."

Jack in Atlanta: "Thank God for the far bigger and better names you brought on, such as Senator Tim Scott or the VA secretary or even that dweeb from the Freedom Caucus, Mark Meadows. They at least balanced it out with things of substance, somewhat."

Then there’s Calvin, who writes :"I will say this, paisan. You do get big guests and they clearly do respect you, or they wouldn’t come on in the middle of a Saturday morning. So, I will give you an A for effort. How’s that?"

Well, I can live with that, Calvin, if you just stick around and stay with me. So, how is that?

Then there’s Candy, a registered nurse, who writes: "Neil, I know of all your medical issues, the heart surgery, M.S., cancer. What are you trying to do, kill yourself? Be careful. My whole family worries about you. So, why are you killing yourself like this?"

I do it for you, Candy, and I do it for America. You’re both welcome, by the way.

Tina via Yahoo: "Neil, your voice still sounds rough. I’m worried about you. Someone get that man a hot toddy. And someone tell all of these Trump protesters to get a clue."

Susan via Yahoo: "These women don’t like higher pay, more jobs, lower unemployment? I thought that was what feminism was all about. Are these women revolutionaries against everything good?"

Tennessee via Yahoo: "I don’t know what was worse, the sound of their whining or the sound of your hard voice reporting on their whining. I was praying for you to fall off that roof, preferably on to some of those marching. No doubt you would have taken out a good many.:

Now, that hurts my feelings, Tennessee.

Myron via Yahoo writes: "What a ridiculous idea, moving Bulls & Bears and replacing with it Cavuto on Saturday mornings. My favorite time of the early morning was watching FOX & Friends followed by the team of Bulls & Bears. Look, I love Cavuto, but we see him all week. Give me back my financial gurus on Saturday morning."

Well, those gurus were on, my friend, from "Bulls & Bears" and all of our weekend biz block shows. Their insights were live with breaking developments, helping make sense of these fast-moving events with real-time events and real money ideas.

Still, Sandy at AOL is withholding judgment: "You seem like a very honest and fair guy. And it’s clear you work very hard. So I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that next week’s show won’t suck as much as this week’s one. That’s how much faith I have in you."

You know, it’s not always better late than never, because if you’re really late, you never get anything approaching even kind of good. That’s the problem with doing everything at the last minute.

Whatever you come up with looks like it. This whole government shutdown thing is the latest example of the dangers of dawdling. Me, I hate doing things last-minute.

In fact, I panic waiting for anything. I was that way in high school, in college and grad school. I always liked to get my assignments done early, not because I was a stellar student, but because I knew I would be a far worse student if I didn’t think things through early, again, not because I was fast, but precisely because I wasn’t.

Plus, I hated the idea of a big project just sitting over my head like an anvil. In fact, I dreaded it.

So, if the professor gave me a few weeks to work on a term paper, I would try to get it done in the first week.

Now, there’s a risk to that, too, I know, in that you can rush a mediocre job just as much as you can a last-minute one. And, believe me, I had some doozies even being early.

But the benefit of at least thinking early with a clear head is, you avoid the potential of scrambling and creating a clear mess.

Plus, I’m a list guy. Chalk it off my list, because I know I will be able to at least go through the key assignments without any surprises and chores that will invariably pile on when I least expect it. So, complete the ones I know right away.

The same applies to group projects. And I had more than a few of those in school. Few thought my way, because, well, most of my colleagues and friends, they had lives, particularly social lives. I didn’t.

So, it seemed, by comparison, I had all the time in the world to get cracking, and fast. To me, again, it’s about time management. And the more time you spend on something well before deadline, the more you will craft something that will stand the test of time and that deadline, not all the time, but I think most of the time.

It’s not as if Congress doesn’t know the dates when things are coming due, when money in this case is likely to run out and when everything will probably hit the fan.

I say avoid the fan, avoid the fuss, get everyone in a room, craft a fix, or you risk being in an even bigger fix.

You would think that history would teach us that not all projects get better with time, especially when you have wasted so much time. Yet we’re always late and we’re always shutting things down.

It’s as if we think things will get better this time, until we realize once again we’re out of time, once again producing something half-hearted, half- witted and eventually just plain off half-ass.

My friends, we can do better.

Good night.

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.