06/02/2017 100 Days


As President Trump takes office, Katty Kay in Washington and Christian Fraser in London report on the events that are shaping the world.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 06/02/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



The White House goes to court to try to enforce its immigration ban.


Donald Trump attacks what he calls the "so-called judge"


This stage is now set for a constitutional clash between


The President is addressing servicemen and women


in Florida now - we'll have the latest.


"You think our country's so innocent?" says Trump


when asked about Putin's alleged crimes.


Are the US and Russia's actions morally equivalent?


I would not wish to issue an invitation to President Trump to


speak in the Royal Gallery. The Speaker of the House of Commons


has hosted the Chinese President and the Emir of Kuwait,


but he doesn't want the US President addressing


Parliament on a state visit. And how is President Trump


going to breathe new life I'm Katty Kay in Washington,


Christian Fraser is in London. President Trump in the last hour has


been speaking to members of the US Armed Forces in Tampa, Florida. This


is his first addressed to troops as their Commander-in-Chief and he has


been speaking in particular about Nato.


We have your back, every hour of every day, now and always. That also


means getting our allies to pay their fair share, they are very


unfair to us. They strongly support Nato. We only ask that all of the


Nato members make their full and proper financial contributions to


the Nato alliance, which many of them have not been doing.


Our North America Correspondent, Nick Bryant, is here.


You were sitting with me in the studio, there is President Trump


making what seems like a recommitment to Nato, having once


said not so long ago that nature was obsolete. One of the ringing phrase


from the election campaign. And the fact that he regards a lot of Nato


members do not pay their way and members are supposed to pay 2% of


GDP to finance the defence. And the Secretary General of Nato saying


they should do exactly that. Yes, he is clearly saying America is not


prepared to underwrite your defence any more, unless you stump up the


cash yourself. He has also been talking about the threat of


terrorism and of Islamic State, it is very symbolic he is at CentCom,


the place that has run the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and some of the


activities against Isis. And he said that terrorism has got so out of


control, it has led to the point where the press does not even report


on some of it. He said about the very, very dishonest media, don't


even report on some terror attacks. He has recommitted America to the


fight against Islamic State. He has also spoken about this controversial


executive order at the centre of this legal battle and he said he


wants to allow people into the country who love America but do not


seek to destroy it. So given everything that has happened over


the weekend, and we will get onto the legality of this executive order


in a moment, but how much of the political problem is this for the


White House at the moment, this immigration ban? It is a huge


political problem at the moment because it has seemed to be rushed


through, been worded imprecisely and it has been seen to open up the


administration to this kind of legal challenge. At the moment, the judges


in the west coast particularly are holding, they are actually agreeing


with the opponents of the order in saying that it should be stopped at


the moment so that people from these mainly Muslim countries can enter


the country. So it has created a problem on that level, but there are


many people, Donald Trump supporters, who are strongly behind


this executive order and polls show the nation is divided but some of


the polls suggest there is majority support for this executive order,


for what they see as Donald Trump doing what he promised to do during


the campaign, to stop people from mainly Muslim countries coming into


the country. How did we can's events look to use in London? I was picking


up on the papers over the week and I just want to show viewers what the


papers have been looking at, the New York Times. The headline speaks for


itself. Maybe you and Nick could give us a view on this. Because the


perception is from the papers I have read, this very small team around


the President, in the view of the media, the perception is nine tenths


of the law, they are getting it wrong. Well, all administration have


turf battles when they first come into office. All the West Wing staff


are trying to get the influence of the Oval Office. It is different in


this instance because these battles are being fought very angrily and


very publicly on the front pages of some of the nation's most


influential papers, like the Washington Post and the New York


Times. One person in particular is attracting a lot of attention, the


chief strategist at the White House, Steve Bannon, very controversial


figure, seeing as a very right-wing figure who has the ear of the


President. He was seen to be one of the key authors of the executive


order, who wanted to rush things through. He has spoken about doing


very big things very quickly. But over the weekend, there was an


indication that Donald Trump is trying to slow down this


policy-making machinery hand to give more control to the person in the


West Wing who ordinarily is the kind of chief enforcer for the President,


the chief of staff, Reince Priebus. It also seems President Trump wants


to have more of an influence earlier on in the executive order drafting


himself. It seems in this instance he was presented with a document


that he signed with a flourish of his pen and have not given it the


attention that perhaps he would have wanted. So make you are a historian


who has studied American history and political history and you know more


about this than I do, but it seems to me that we are at a moment where


something new is being tested, and that is the ability of these


populist movements together. If we see this as the beginning of that


process, and the question about this White House is, you have Steve


Bannon, who is by nature a disrupter, an insurgent, can you


marry that with more traditional governing processes? We have


somebody like Reince Priebus, who is trying to put in position systems to


make sure executive orders are vetted before they leave the White


House, does that take some of the disruption out of it? This is the


power struggle that at the moment is playing out within the West Wing.


Steve Bannon has made no apologies, he is coming to Washington to


figuratively blow this place up, that is what he believes that Donald


Trump's mandate is from the voters, do not act like a normal politician


or a normal President, to defy those conventions. And Donald Trump has


been doing that with the hurtling pace of the administration so far.


But you get the sense that the President himself want to put the


brakes on a little and to give more authority to somebody who is more of


an establishment figure. Reince Priebus was the head of the GOP, a


Washington insider, and the tension between those two people, Bannon on


the one side and Priebus on the other, will be interesting to watch


and it will be interesting particularly because it might define


the nature of the Trump administration and the nature of


governance in this new era. Nick Bryant, thank you very much. We are


watching all this play out in real-time on the front papers --


front pages. Let's get more about where we are on this trouble ban. --


travel. With us is now is Doni Gerwitzmann


from New York Law School - he's an expert in


constitutional law and theory. Where does the President stand, and


the White House stand, on the legality of this right now? So, the


President has defended the ban by pointing at something by the plenary


power doctrine, it is a law that this agreement court has set up


giving the US Government wide discretion and authority to


determine who can enter the country. In addition, the President is


relying on the provision of the immigration and nationality act,


where Congress delegated power to the President to deny that any alien


or class of aliens the ability to enter the country if the President


believes they are detrimental to the national interest. So, in about four


hours' time, the Justice Department has to go back to the appeals court,


making its case for this suspension of the ban to be lifted. How can the


Justice Department argued against the appeals court, which is saying,


and the judge in Seattle saying that actually, if we reinstate the ban it


will cause chaos? The Justice Department I think will argue among


other things that non-residents located out of the United States do


not really have rights under the Constitution. They will argue for a


very strong vision of executive power and a very strong vision of


the power of the United States Government in the area of


immigration. They will argue that the immigration law is different in


that the US Government can do things to non-residents located outside the


US, that it cannot do to American citizens. When you have one party


that controls the White House and one that controls the Senate and the


idea of those who favoured the Constitution was that the court


would be there to provide checks and balances and it seems that in


attacking the judge, the President is undermining the hostage usual


system. Without question. -- the constitutional system. There are a


number of emergency brakes that framers put into the system to


prevent the Executive becoming a tyrant, doing whatever he wants. One


major emergency brake is Congress, which can always operate to check


the President. In a situation where Congress and the President come from


the same political party, it might be that we will need to rely on the


courts to play a much more aggressive role in telling the


President Noel. I do not think President Trump did himself any


favours by personally going after the judge in Washington over this


decision. If anything, I think it may have cost the judiciary to be


more aggressive in checking him. So you know judges, you spend all your


time with them, I will assume that if President Trump calls a member of


the judiciary eight so-called judge, that is then going to lead other


judges and potentially even Supreme Court justices to side with the


judiciary, do you think? Judges are professionals and they will issue


decisions based on the law. I do think the personal attacks Trump has


made members of the judiciary sort of change the atmospherics


surrounded the executive order. The issue of judicial independence and


the ability of the judiciary to act as a check on the President really


moves front and centre won the President goes directly after a


federal judge. -- when the President. This is complicated, so


thank you for unpacking all of that! And one other update -


Apple, Facebook and Microsoft are among 97 American tech


companies to challenge The group has filed a legal


document stating the ban affects operations


and, in their words, "inflicts significant harm"


on business. The document was filed


in Washington on Sunday. We have also been taking a look at


the President's tweets. He's been tweeting again,


early morning, his time, about what he perceives


as fake news. But it is begging questions, this,


about his temperament, because we are getting used to him firing from


the hip, and some of them, we can ignore but some of them seem a


little bit petty. Some of these attacks against the


fake news is entirely political and you wonder whether it is not


symbiotic as well because Donald Trump is calling journalists from


what he calls those fake news organisations on a very regular


basis. He speaks to the main White House reporter from the New York


Times and the Washington Post and even speaks to CNN, which he also


calls fake news once or twice a week! And by the way, fantastic for


their ratings, the New York Times's subscription doc-mac the failing New


York Times are doing particularly well!


I think the question here that is a more serious question is, what


happens if Donald Trump is attacked by somebody more powerful than a


news organisation, somebody for example with access to military


weapons or even, God forbid, nuclear weapons?


If he says something on Twitter, other countries will say, that is


his view and we need to react. If it is China or North Korea, how


will he respond? It is a thing that worries countries


away from the US, let me tell you. There are other leaders watching


these tweets very closely. Here in the UK, the Speaker


in the House of Commons, John Bercow, has said he would not


wish President Trump The Speaker told the Commons


the President's views on immigrants It looks like he has overstepped his


mark. I would not wish to issue an


invitation to President Trump to speak in the Royal Gallery. I


conclude by saying to the honourable gentleman this. We value our


relationship with the United States. If a state visit takes place, that


is way beyond and above the pay grade of the Speaker! However, as


far as this place is concerned, I feel very strongly that our


opposition to racism and sexism, and our support for a quality for the


law, and an independent judiciary, are hugely important considerations


in the House of Commons. APPLAUSE


. Let's go live now


to Westminster in London and speak to our political


correspondent, Eleanor Garnier. You had better start for our


international viewers, just setting out who John Bercow is. The Prime


Minister has made it clear she wants the state visit to go ahead so, does


he have it within his power to stop him addressing Parliament? Everyone


has been taken by surprise, even politicians who are in the House of


Commons as the Speaker stood up. The Speaker of the House of Commons is


basically like a referee in the House of Commons. They are in charge


of MPs when they are in the House of Commons and therefore, they are in a


neutral position. That is why this is so unprecedented and it really is


a sort of dramatic snub, if you like. He attacks the President has


effectively being racist and sexist and for having a lack of respect for


judges. There were even Cheers, as we heard, when he made the comments


in the House of Commons. We know there has been this growing


opposition to the planned state visit later this year, more than 1.8


million people have signed a petition outside Parliament, so


there will be MPs in the House and also people among the public who


will be pleased that John Bercow, the Speaker, has been so outspoken,


but his critics will say he has overstepped the mark and gone too


far. We were talking last week about some of the pools surrounding the


state visit and plenty of people here in Britain are keen for it to


go ahead and they might also make the point that if you look at the


list of people who have come here, that he has hosted in the


Parliament, they include the President of China, the Emir of Q8,


they are hardly paragons of virtue and some of them. And I think that


is why this has been such a surprise to everyone, and so unprecedented.


And we have had the likes of Mandela, that is why people have


been taken by surprise but the key thing is, John Bercow is one of


three people who have the keys to handing out the invitations to the


great and good to come and speak here in Parliament, and because he


has said he does not want President Trump to come, he has basically


vetoed any chance for President Trump to come and speak here. So


that means that if something cannot really go ahead, because the Prime


Minister, and wouldn't you like to be a fly on the wall in Downing


Street tonight, she does not have the power over the Speaker's


decision-making on this issue. So it is not up to the Prime Minister and


we can imagine that people in Downing Street this evening will not


be happy that John Bercow has been so outspoken after all that


extremely public wooing that we have seen, that huge presidential, the


huge visit Theresa May just a couple of weeks ago, where she has publicly


tried to, you know, work hard on that new special relationship. So


Downing Street will not be pleased at all. What a tightrope she has to


walk. It was Super Bowl weekend


here and the Patriots' stunning, last-minute victory isn't the only


thing people are talking about. To mark the occasion,


President Trump gave an interview to Bill O'Reilly of Fox News,


which was broadcast as part And in it, he sparked some


controversy by defending He was also asked how well


he thought the travel restrictions and the vetting of refugees entering


the US had been implemented, I think it was very smooth, you had


109 people out of hundreds of thousands of travellers and all we


did was vet those people very, very carefully. You would not do anything


differently? A lot of people didn't really know what the order was. But


is not what General Kelly says. He said he totally new, he was aware of


it, and there were 109 people. Putin is a killer. We have got a lot of


killers. You think our country is so innocent? I do not know of any


government leaders who are killers. Take a look at what we have done,


made a lot of mistakes, I was against the war in Iraq. Our


mistakes are different. But a lot of people were killed, a lot of killers


around. Since that interview aired,


Mr Trump has been criticised Now the Kremlin has weighed in,


calling for Fox News to apologise for calling


the Russian President a "killer". Putin's spokesman,


Dmitry Peskov, told journalists: With me is Brigadier-General


Mark Kimmitt, who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary


of Defense for Middle East Policy under Defense Secretaries


Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates. Thank you for coming in. Let's start


with Russia. And the spat that arose because of the interview that


President Trump gave the Fox News. Is there anyway that the White


House, that the President can suggest that America and Russia are


the same level when it comes to this issue? No well, let us be clear,


there has not been a President since the end of the Cold War that has not


started the administration by saying, let's do a reset. George


Bush famously said, I looked into his eyes. So it is another President


who has clearly said, let's try to re-establish the relationship with


Russia and move forward. But to put a moral equivalence between


President Putin and the United States, are you comfortable with


that? Not really, do not think anyone wants to point a finger at


the country. Factually, there are some situations where Donald Trump


may have a point, but I think emotionally, no country wants to


have their fingers pointed in their eyes. How can you account for the


President's reluctance to criticise Vladimir Putin? I cannot. But at the


same time I think he would have a reluctance to criticise the Chinese


Premier. A number of world leaders that he would be... He has been more


critical of China than he has of Russia. Not to the extent that he


has were some of us would believe that China is a far greater threat


than Russia at this point. We could debate this all day. I think it


really goes to the point that he is trying to reset the relationship


with Russia and move forward. I was hoping you might put your former


State Department hat on and talk to us about Iran because the British


Prime Minister is hosting the Israeli Prime Minister today and by


all accounts, she is saying, the Iran deal is not perfect but it is


the best option we have on the table at the moment. Would you agree? I


think so, Andy, administration has been very clear, at this point they


are not looking at tossing of the agreement. -- and the


administration. There have been situations in the past few months


where the Iranians have flagrantly violated the terms of the agreement


and what the top administration is saying is, we will draw a red line


on this, and if the Iranians are unwilling to adhere to it, we will


look into it. But there is an election coming up in Iran and the


concern is in Europe that the President might be undermining the


more moderate forces. Well, I think they are doing a pretty good job


themselves of undermining the moderate forces by launching a


ballistic missile into the Persian Gulf and off the coast of Yemen. OK,


I want to ask you about some the President has just said at CentCom,


that seemed to be a reinforcement of Nato. He said, I strongly support


Nader, I just want European countries to say more. -- Nato. I


imagine that something you are relieved to hear. I am, and the


burden sharing has been going on since 1947. It is one that every


President has made. So at least he has moved from the position of that


it is an outdated institution, to one that does have a value, but


people need to come to the table and pay their 2% of GDP. Thank you very


much for joining us. Well, back here in Washington,


we look set for a close vote coming in the Senate tomorrow,


with members still divided on whether to approve


Mr Trump's controversial pick The billionaire and GOP donor


Betsy DeVos is facing criticism from the labour unions


and the teaching organisations. Two Republicans say they will side


with Democrats in the vote - if there's one more defector,


Mrs DeVos would not Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch,


heads to Capitol Hill later to try and win over the Democrats


who will be involved in his Mr Gorsuch is due to meet


with Senator Diane Feinstein. She's the highest-ranking Democrat


on the Judiciary Committee and will lead the party


during confirmation hearings. By the way, the Democrats, I was


speaking to a senior Democrat, and she was saying this is something the


Democrats are really going to fight but they do feel that Neil Gorsuch


is very Conservative and they have decided to make this a battle they


are going to have. He is doing to be doing a lot of


work in the next few months. You're watching


100 Days from BBC News. Still to come for viewers on the BBC


News Channel and BBC World News... A big part of Donald Trump's


pitch to American voters was the pledge to create jobs,


a message which resonated Now he is President,


how will he deliver on the promise The weather is pretty horrible in


some parts of the country. We have got heavy rain and strong winds.


Blowing a gale in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Gusts of wind


approaching 70 miles an hour that a 70 mph, although to this massive


area of low pressure. The centre is out in the North Atlantic. This is


the front that is extending across us and look at the weather we have


across northern parts of the UK. Some of those upper-level routes


getting a covering through this evening. This is just a selection of


some of the gusts of wind we will experience through the course of


this evening. Further South, not so bad but it is soggy and it will get


wetter and wetter particularly across eastern areas. We have a


heavier rain in the West early on and now that front is pushing East.


There will be some ice around as well particularly across the more


northern areas, especially around Scotland later on tonight. Let's


have a look at tomorrow morning. There is a chance of a little bit


more rain in south-western areas, especially in the afternoon, but


even in the morning, you can see the rain here, some of these showers


will be quite heavy eventually. But for the most part, I think the


morning of across the bulk of England and Wales is looking dry.


Dry also in Northern Ireland, but these Eastern counties remain cloudy


and wet, it will still be windy there in the North East of Scotland.


So that is the morning, let's see what happens in the afternoon. Not


an awful lot with this weather front, it just sticks around and


grinds to a halt, it literally stops in this position here, and it is not


planning to move any further East. It will just sort of rain itself


out. The rest of the UK, some sunshine and again, these showers


could be hail or thunder. So a mix of weather on Tuesday in some


south-western areas. Wednesday, the weather calms down. This high


pressure from Scandinavia sends easterly winds on our direction.


These blobs of blue, still that same front dying away but it should rain


itself out by Wednesday. Then a fair bit of cloud and the temperatures


are dropping stock towards the end of the week, a cold easterly wind


and the chance of snow flurries. Welcome back to 100 Days


with Katty Kay in Washington, President Trump gives his first


direct address to the US Armed Forces since becoming


their Commander-in-Chief, saying he strongly supports Nato


but wants all Nato members He promised to breathe new life


into US labour markets but how We'll speak to a key


economic advisor to Egypt is the most


populous Arab country - and a long time ally


for the United States. Some in the region reacted angrily


to the travel restrictions that currently bar Muslims


from travelling to the US - but you won't hear much condemnation


from the Egyptian government. The authoritarian President,


Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, was one of the first Arab leaders


to congratulate Mr Trump President Trump said his Egyptian


counterpart was "a fantastic guy". Orla Guerin reports from Cairo


on a peculiar alliance. A first meeting and apparently the


beginning of a beautiful friendship. Egypt's strongman leader


Abdel Fattah Al Sisi sat with Donald Trump


when he was still They had good chemistry,


Mr Trump said. Hardly surprising when you


spot the similarities. The red ties, the hand gestures,


and the hard-line stance. So the regime in Cairo expects fresh


momentum in relations with the US. Though other Arab states


are facing new roadblocks. Elsewhere in the region


there are serious concerns But for president Sisi and his


supporters he is a welcome change. The two leaders speak the same


language about defeating Islamic extremism and there is common ground


in another area, neither has much to say about the need


to safeguard human rights. Critics fear President Trump


will push the region And play into the hands


of extremists. This liberal activist


says his travel ban, He is antagonising the majority,


nearly all Muslims worldwide. And that is exactly what Daesh


and other extremists and terrorists groups want to do,


push towards a confrontation and send the message


that the two religions, the two civilisations,


cannot coexist. President Obama, centre stage


in 2009 with a seminal speech I come here to Cairo


to seek a new beginning between the United States


and Muslims around the world. One based on mutual interests


and mutual respect. In the great Hall of


Cairo University which echoed to the soaring rhetoric,


we sat down with two of those They said President Obama did not


deliver what he promised and his successor is off


to a bad start. There is concern here in the region


particularly from Muslims from the seven Muslim majority


countries that were banned and also other countries that might be


included in the ban as well. I think we are all just


trying to brace ourselves And we will all just


watch carefully. Look at the US Constitution


and stick to the American values of freedom and democracy


because what you're doing is very dangerous not only


to the United States If he came to speak in this hall


would you want to listen, The Egyptian leader on the other


hand is eagerly awaiting the red-carpet treatment


at the White House, something But he and President Trump


are marching in step, whatever the cost to democratic


values in the region. You are having a trip down memory


lane because in 2009 when President Obama gave that speech in Cairo you


were our correspondent in Egypt. If we think the Obama administration


might, what will President Trump do? might, what will President Trump do?


I was there and it was one of his first big foreign policy speeches


and did a lot in terms of healing after the Iraq War. He spoke about


freedom and democracy and of course two years later he embraced the Arab


Spring. Against the wishes of secretary of state Hillary Clinton


who was much more circumspect about it. She could see when President


Mubarak was gone but was only the Muslim brotherhood and Mohammed


Morsi. Morsi was then deposed and then in came this new strongman,


President Sisi. America learnt a lesson from that but it Egypt is to


peace and security in the East. You cannot apply shock therapy to


country like Egypt without the more country like Egypt without the more


considered plan so many people will be hopping when Donald Trump looks


towards Egypt he goes back to what they were doing at the end of the


Mubarak era, exchanging money and aid for Democratic and political


reform. A big part of Donald Trump's


pitch to American voters was the pledge to create jobs -


a message which resonated Mr Trump said that if


he became President, Our business correspondent


Michelle Fleury is at He is going to shift from service to


manufacturing jobs? That has been his message, trying to bring back


those manufacturing jobs. I was going to the numbers to try to


figure out whether it is possible to bring back 25 million jobs in the


next decade. It seems the tall order. Looking back I could not find


a period in recent US history when there had been a 10-year street when


that many jobs have been created. Perhaps the closest was in the


Clinton era in the late 1990s. Another way to look at it is that


the American companies would have to add about 208,000 jobs every month


for the next ten years to try to achieve that goal. Worth pointing


out what exactly is the Labour picture about Donald Trump is


inheriting. Take a look at this. In January we had the employment report


released last Friday, with some good news for Donald Trump showing that


the unemployment rate was 4.8%. That is close to full employment. The


number of people actually employed rose by 227,000 per month, putting


the figure ahead of that 208,000 per month goal already. The question is,


Donald Trump has questioned the reliability of the unemployment


figures and so there is another figure I want to show you which


perhaps he could like. It supports the theory that there is plenty of


room for improvement in the economy and that is the labour participation


rate for men aged between 25 and 54. People who are either working or


actively seeking work. As we can see it is falling, and has been for more


six of these men are either six of these men are either


unemployed or out of the workforce altogether. The total is about 10


million men and so the challenge is how to get these people back to


work. These forgotten men. It is a problem that previous presidents


have failed to address. The question is with Hill 's policies on


deregulation, taxation, immigration, how will that help the economy.


Diana Furchgott-Roth was economic adviser to the Trump Transition team


she is also a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.


What are the chances do you think that Donald Trump can do what he


says especially in the manufacturing sector and bring back jobs to the US


given what we saw in the jobs report last week, that many jobs are coming


back but in the service sector? Was he manages to lower the corporate


tax rate to 15% or 20% as Congress has proposed, and move the tax


system to a territorial tax system rather than tax on companies on the


worldwide income, then the discrepancy in the tax regimes will


disappear and more companies will come back. Right now the American


corporate tax is up 39%, way above the UK tax rate of 20% and the OECD


average of 25%. That is one of the factors and the other is


executive order on that. But he has executive order on that. But he has


not finished, he has only signed executive order is on one relatively


small regulation, there is a lot more the individual agencies can do


as soon as the Cabinet secretaries are confirmed. And the markets and


businesses are happy about deregulation and about revising the


corporate tax rate. Less happy about the possibility of protectionism in


the US. How do we waive these two sides up? It is not clear that


there's going to be protectionism because Donald Trump has taken a


strong stand against the theft of intellectual property that some of


our competitors are doing. And when that has gone away I do not think


there is going to be a need for protectionism. He wants fair trade,


not the theft of intellectual property. And I think we can have


more trade and fair trade that will be a benefit to American companies.


For example... They do not like the idea of terrorist that those


concerned they do not like the idea of tariffs, foreign countries do not


like the idea of terror is either and they could stop some


intellectual property thefts such as falls Apple stores in Beijing that


are so realistic even the employees think there working for Apple. No


one has tried to stop that before President Trump. He is going to try


to stop that now. Talking about reducing corporate tax rates,


Congress set a debt ceiling which almost doubled to $20 trillion under


President Obama. If he starts to cut taxes and build more infrastructure,


the debt ceiling is going to go up even higher? That is not necessarily


true because a lower corporate tax rate can result in an influx of cash


back to the United States. Multinational companies are holding


over $2 trillion in earnings overseas. That would be a tremendous


stimulus if even 25% of that came back and was invested in the United


States in enterprises that then create tax revenue. And there are


many opportunities for growth that would then achieve tax revenue.


Thank you very much. That is going to be a very interesting story. Much


of his popularity is going to depend on getting those jobs back.


That's 100 Days for today - I'll be on Facebook live


with Rajini Vaidyanathan straight after the show.


And we'll be back at the same time tomorrow, be good