we'll look at the possibilities with a former federal reserve governor. and why shouldn't free market conservative david coke buy the l.a. times? he'll save the papers, improve the newsroom and put in a better editorial policy. we'll debate. "the kudlow report" begins right now. first up, marking the first 100 days of the second term, president obama met a much more combative white house press corps at a news conference today. he is tackling everything from the red line for syria, obamacare's rollout train wreck, and even whether his agenda is failing. chief washington correspondent, john harwood joins us with the details. good evening, john. >> good evening, larry. on your earlier question, he gave straight answers, but didn't much news. what the president was doing was trying to put himself in the narrative on a slow week in washington with congress out. and as presidents often do, especially in second term, he found himself defending against things that have proven more difficult than he thought, whether it's defining when to act against that red line crossing in syria, he defended the fact that it's been more difficult than he expected to close gitmo, although he said he wanted to. defended the fbi over the intelligence before the boston bombing. said the health care rollout may be difficult, but he's making some progress there. and he also had to defend this fix to the flight delay issue by the faa, and he said it was hardly a perfect solution. here's the president. >> giving us the option of shifting money that's designed to repair and improve airports over the long-term to fix the short-term problem, well, that's not a solution. so -- essentially what we have done is said, in order to avoid delays this summer, we're going to ensure delays for the next two or three decades. >> what the president said was that he can't force republicans in congress to enter into a negotiation with him on what he considers a more sensible solution to the sequester. on the issue of whether he has juice left in washington, the president did say to jon karl, our friend from babc, look at the immigration issue, one place where democrats and republicans appear they'll make progress. >> john harwood in washington, thanks very much. while we're still here in sequester stubbornness, maybe the president missed the memo, but lower government spending will not stop private sector growth. we had 4% in the last quarter. so it's spending cuts, not tax hikes, that spur the economy. anyway, here's cnbc contributor howard dean, former vermont governor and former dnc chair. and veteran republican strategist ed rogers. you know, ed rogers, i'm weary of the president's whining about the sequester. first of all, it was his idea. second of all, republicans offered many times to give him flexibility on managing these accounts. and third of all, he doesn't seem to understand the difference between wasteful and unessential spending and essential spending. what's up with that? >> yeah, the president is just blindly for bigger government, more government, more spending. whatever the question is, the answer is more government, more taxes. and there's been no effort to mitigate the sequester cuts whatsoever. there has been no effort to use presidential authority where he hasn't been shy in other areas about grasping authority for the presidency. he hasn't used any authority to try to mitigate the worst of what could happen to the cuts and how the cuts could affect the most people. and so congress just called his bluff on the air traffic controllers and the tsa spending and the lines where people are essentially being tormented and tortured by their own government for the president trying to prove some sort of point. but what has happened is, no one in the general public has noticed these cuts. >> right. >> and that's the worst of all worlds. >> except for the faa. >> except for that matter. but they called their bluff. heavily invested in saying this was going to be horrific. >> republicans said time and time again they would give more flexibility on these things. he didn't use it, okay? that's point number one. point number two, the faa fiasco could have totally been avoided. i don't know what he's talking about infrastructure. they did not take money from infrastructure. and the point number three, the public, howard dean, is furious at that, and obama's polls dropped ten points. >> look, this is just republican talking points and bupkis as they say. >> no -- >> really and truly. no, the fact of the matter is, the sequester was agreed to by both parties. this is a bipartisan screw-up and they did it. >> whose idea was it? >> who cares whose idea it is? i don't know anybody knows -- what difference does it make? they both voted for it and that's a fact. first of all. secondly, it is true that the sequester began to inconvenience a lot of people with the faa but that never should have been in a sequester in the first place. you do not eliminate essential services in a sequester. >> right. >> if you think -- >> right. >> a possibility -- >> that's my point. >> but they both agreed to that. both parties agreed to that. >> the proposers -- >> wait a second. just a minute. this is ridiculous republican talk. the republicans have been moaning and groaning about obama overriding their authority. now they want to give the authority to the president when it's politically convenient to them. it's plenty -- >> fiscally vent. >> fiscally nonsense. this is all politics, let's face it. i was for the sequester because i think we need spending cuts. >> me too. >> i also think we need revenue increases, as well. >> me not. >> where we disagree. the fact of the matter is, this is a spending cut, badly done, both parties agreed to it and it's a symbol of what's wrong with washington. but to delay this at the feet of the president of the united states is silly. >> i think ed rogers is taking his share of hits on this. he couldn't resist today blaming republicans and rich people for tax loopholes. now, we've already had a big tax hike this year, what, $600 billion. that's -- he's confusing the sequester with tax policy. i mean, the last thing you want to do with this sluggish economy is start jacking up taxes again. >> we don't have an economic growth problem where the answer is tax increases and just bigger government. there's nothing about sucking money out of the private sector that will answer any problem we have associated with economic growth. it's ideological with the president. he's blinded by it. he's committed to it, he feels it viscerally, an emotional item with him. he wants to raise taxes, punitively so. he wants to raise taxes in furtherrance of what he sees is fairness and that's actually dangerous. >> in fact, we did raise taxes on january 1st. a lot. and guess what? >> more? >> mr. rogers just pointed out, a 4% quarter. so to say that raising taxes on rich people is bad for the economy just is factually incorrect. >> but the good news on that, almost everybody got a tax cut except for the very, very top. and, you know, you should be growing this economy at 5 or 6%. but the point is, why go back and do it again? >> my view is, look -- my view is, this is a middle-class problem and the problem is the middle class in this country is used to the service level that was provided by bill clinton's tax rates. when george bush cut taxes without having the courage to cut spending, that's what caused this problem. 60% of the deficit projected in 2019 -- >> when you say services, governor -- >> all i want to say is, what politicians of both parties have to tell middle class americans, if you want the service level you've got now, you're going to have to pay the taxes you paid when bill clinton was president. otherwise we have to cut services. that is a fact also. >> i don't know why we just can't lower spending, which is good for the economy. and have pro growth tax reform, which is good for the economy. if it picks up a few revenues from economic growth, i think that would be terrific. i think the president is still trying to squirm out of this sequester. i think that's bad politics, and bad economics. i've got to get out of here. ed rogers, my friend, thank you very much for contributing. now, here's one for you. the koch brothers, they're willing to do what the liberals have been demanding for years, bail out the "l.a. times" and "chicago tribune." but wait a minute, now the left says reporters at these papers should quit if that occurs. so much for tolerance. we're about to debate this with media expert, brent boezle and steve pearl stein. howard dean with me. we're going to be talking about free market capitalism, which as he well knows is still the best path to prosperity. i'm kudlow. we'll be right back. [ lorenzo ] i'm lorenzo. i work for 47 different companies. well, technically i work for one. that company, the united states postal service® works for thousands of home businesses. because at usps.com® you can pay, print and have your packages picked up for free. i can even drop off free boxes. i wear a lot of hats. well, technically i wear one. the u.s. postal service®, no business too small. we know about the koch brothers eyeing to scoop up eight newspapers observed owned by the "tribune" company but this has liberals up in arms. steve pearlstein of the "washington post" "how the lcht a. times can stop the koches" and brent bozell. steve pearlstein, i was shocked to read your column. you're always so calm and rational and persuasive. and as i understand it, what you're saying is, the reporters in the newsroom should go up on strike or walk out, just because they don't like the politics of the owners who, by the way, will save the reporters' job? what's that all about, steve pearlstein? >> that's not what i said, larry. you've got to go read it. >> i read it. >> what i said was that the threat isn't from -- because they're right-wing, the koches, although they are. the threat is from any buyer who is an ideological buyer and wants to mike an ideological mouthpiece out of daily newspapers. and i would say that if the daily coast was trying to buy a tribune company. but they should make it clear that if someone who wants to take this newspaper, which is a vital part of the national conversation, these newspapers, and a vital part of their communities, and turn them into ideological mouthpieces of the left or the right, that they'll leave. and by doing so, perhaps prevent them from being bought by those kind of people. >> yeah, brent boezel when rup hurt murdoch took over, he kept the editorial policy, he left the newsroom alone. the paper improved itself. i mean, what -- why does the newsroom have to be influenced? the koch brothers would want to destroy the newsroom, which is the heart of the newspaper? i want to ask brent about this. this really bothers me. >> it gets to the nub of the question. the working assumption is that the evil koch brothers have these awful designs. if you're going to say that a conservative, a known conservative entity, like the koch brothers, should not be getting into the business of dictating what a news operation should do, what does that tell you about warren buffett, who is equally as left wing and who has put in $344 million in the last year, i believe it is, buying newspapers as well. what do you say about the solesburg family, the graham family request with the "washington post." ted turner and cnn. bloomberg and bloomberg? the list is endless. but this is free speech liberal style, which is to say liberals have free speech, conservatives don't. >> steve, what do you say to that? >> first of all, i think it's funny that brent wants to somehow prevent people who are working these newspapers from exercising their freedom of association, and freedom of speech, and their freedom to work somewhere else. for some reason, brent doesn't think they ought to have that right. and they shouldn't threaten to do something if they don't like the owner. so that's very interesting, brent. but secondly, you know, this is really about the perception of the newsroom itself and whether they're going to believe in professional journalism or not. >> what gives you -- what makes you think the koches -- this is the part of your column that bothered me, steve. >> i'll explain it. >> what makes you think the kochs, if they went through this, i don't know if they will or not. you've got a lost big newspapers here. the "baltimore sun," "chicago tribune," "l.a. times." they're not going to kill the newsroom. they want to have a first-rate paper so they can sell papers. what they will do, and i guess what you can't take is, they will change the editorial policy for both of those papers for more liberal to more right of center, and by the way, they ought to change the editorial policy. >> you've made several mistakes here, larry. first of all, i'm not liberal, just ask the liberals. okay, i'm a centrist. secondly, if i really thought that's all they were going to do, i wouldn't be concerned. and rupert murdoch has a track record of maintaining good journalism, which is why when he bought "the wall street journal" i didn't write the same thing. no. wait a minute, now let me -- these fellows, the koch brothers, spend millions and millions and millions of dollars every year now to try to win elections, to buy state houses to buy governorships to move the country in a direction that they think it ought to go in. and they have been very aggressive. that's different than the saltz bergers, different than the graham family, different than all of the other people that brent mentioned. these people are players. they want to win. and they will turn it in -- >> okay, okay. you've got all of the time. let me respond. number one, you hit the nail on the head. you said you think. in fact, you don't have, again, one scintilla of evidence that they're doing other than investing. in fact, you don't have a scintilla of evidence that they're doing anything different than warren buffett did. if you were you so concerned about manipulating the news, my friend, where are you with george soros? george soros is putting in $52 million every year into left wing journalism. you know how upset you liberals are with that? there are 30 representatives from 30 media organizations on his advisory boards. that's the collusion. that's perfectly okay. but just to think that the koch brothers might be trying to influence policy. and by the way, one last point. it's silly what you said about your analysis about me. i have never suggested people can't walk off the job. but the point is, i gave you a litany of examples from our perspective, and never once has anyone suggested that somebody shouldn't work at a newspaper owned by warren buffett. >> go ahead. >> first of all, warren buffett has a long track record as a director of the "washington post" company and is the owner of the "buffalo news" of not interfering in the newsroom. long, distinguished record in that regard. different than the koch brothers who have no record other than to be shown not only to be really rather thuggish in their political behavior, but even in the cato institute was going in a direction they didn't like, they fired the executive director. >> steve, what's their record in the media? there is no record. so you cannot as describe that to them. >> i think -- >> i think turner has given billions of dollars to left wing causes. are you ready to say right now he should never be involved in the media anywhere, ever again? >> no. because he keeps his hands off newsrooms. >> all right. i just think steve pearlstein, if it happens, if the koch brothers do this, you ought to give them a chance because these guys are good businessmen. and they know that a biased news slant is not going to sell papers for long. the editorial page is different. that's what rupert murdoch proved. other people are proving the same thing. i think, yeah, your reporters can walk off the job but wind up losing their job. why don't you talk to the koches, interview the koches. >> yeah, that's -- >> they're businessman. good businessmen. they're good businessmen, steve. all right, you know what, i just might. i just might. david koch is a friend of mine. i've got to get out. >> very quickly. i agree with steve. if they were to try to influence opinion on the news, steve is right. that shouldn't be allowed either. >> all right. i'm with you on that. i'm just saying, how do you know they're going to do that? that's all. steve pearlstein, thank you. brent boezel, as always. we appreciate it. now, what happened to the spring? i'm talking weather here. we're in the middle of one of the coldest spring seasons recorded in history. how cold is it? we have that story and much more just ahead. the ocean gets warmer. the peruvian anchovy harvest suffers. it raises the price of fishmeal, cattle feed and beef. bny mellon turns insights like these into powerful investment strategies. for a university endowment. it funds a marine biologist... who studies the peruvian anchovy. invested in the world. bny mellon. i've always had to keep my eye on her... but, i didn't always watch out for myself. with so much noise about health care... i tuned it all out. with unitedhealthcare, i get information that matters... my individual health profile. not random statistics. they even reward me for addressing my health risks. so i'm doing fine... but she's still going to give me a heart attack. we're more than 78,000 people looking out for more than 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare. the s&p 500 closing at an all-time high today, big jump in apple part of the reason. cnbc's bertha coombs has that and much more. good evening, bertha. >> good evening, larry. apple taking the first step in issuing debt, starting at $17 billion and maybe reaching as much as $55 billion over the next few years. apple is going to use the money for is to be buybacks. you say why do they need cash, they have a $100 billion mountain of money, but most of it is tied up overseas. the first u.s. based internet poker site, only good for players in nevada. new jersey and delaware have also approved online poker, but haven't launched sites yet. and we end with the weather because april has been a cruel month. the second-coldest on record for the u.s., and very snowy in many parts. cities in minnesota, south dakota and colorado all set april snowfall records. and the craziness doesn't end there. listen to this. lubbock, texas, today's high is 90 degrees. by thursday morning, the temperature will have dropped to 30 degrees below zero. that's right, 30 degrees. a 60-degree drop in about a day-and-a-half. wild, wicked weather out there. >> i'm going to ask my friend, howard dean, whatever happened to global warming? >> i bet you right now, i'll bet you the average temperature worldwide went up last year. >> how do you know that? >> because i actually looked it up. in anticipation of this very story. >> we haven't had any changes -- >> 2012 -- >> changes in so many years. >> no. we have. >> it's been discredited, hasn't it, honestly. >> larry, gore today sakes, the arctic air ice mass has decreased 35% or something. >> what happened to new york? freezing. >> i agree with you. cold spring in the northeast. but you can't look at one region of the world. >> you can't? >> no, you can't. >> what about all those phony numbers from liverpool or england, penn state? >> that was a breitbart fraud. come on, give me a break here. >> breitbart fraud, all i know is -- >> that was a koch brothers fraud, it will be in the news next week. >> i did play tennis outdoors and it was 65 degrees. bertha coombs, thank you very much. back to president obama's big news conference today. he was also challenged on the problems obamacare is facing as it begins to roll out across the country. are there more obamacare shocks to come? next up on "the kudlow report." i'm telling you right now, the girl back at home would absolutely not have taken a zip line in the jungle. i'm really glad that girl stayed at home. vo: expedia helps 30 million travelers a month find what they're looking for. one traveler at a time. expedia. find yours. tens of thousands of dollars in hidden fees on their 401(k)s?! go to e-trade and roll over your old 401(k)s to a new e-trade retirement account. none of them charge annual fees and all of them offer low cost investments. e-trade. less for us. more for you. [ agent smith ] i've found software that intrigues me. it appears it's an agent of good. ge has wired their medical hardware with innovative software to be in many places at the same time. using data to connect patients to software, to nurses to the right people and machines. ♪ helping hospitals treat people even better, while dramatically reducing waiting time. now a waiting room is just a room. [ telephone ringing ] [ static warbles ] [ beeping ] red or blue? ♪ call it the coming obamacare train wreck. it's not just those of us on the right voicing our concern. now even some members of the president's own party, like montana senator max baucus and west virginia senator jay rockefeller, they're saying, oh-oh, publicly. nbc's chuck dodd asked this. >> ostensibly helped write your bill, believed this was going to be a train wreck. why do you believe he's wrong? >> well, i think that any time you're implementing something big, there's going to be people who are nervous and anxious about is it going to get done until it's actually done. i think the main message i want to give to the american people here is despite all of the hue and cry and sky is falling predictions about this stuff, if you already have health insurance, then that part of obamacare that affects you, it's pretty much already in place. >> i don't know how he says that. we're going to have to debate this. let's welcome back governor howard dean, joining us health policy expert, betsy mccoy author of the book "beating oba obamacare" taking the president to task, betsy. you saying, he's saying, you have your own insurance today, you will not be affected, premiums, change your policy, is that true? >> the president is lying through his treeth teeth, and also used the politicians' f-word, free, claiming that the preventative care people are getting through their insurance policies is free. actually, they're paying for it up front in their premiums and getting a colonoscopy isn't so bad but having to pay for one whether you want it or not feels really bad. but the point is, that people who already have insurance will be very affected. the 25 million people in the individual market who already have insurance will see double digit premiums. somewhere between 7 and 30 million people who have on the job coverage will lose it. the congressional budget office says 7 million. mckinzy and company and others say as many as 30 million. about 3 million will have their hours cut because employers want to stay below the 30-hour full-time job mark. and the 50 million people who are on medicare, while they're paying for over half this law -- medicare cuts pay for over half this law. so, in fact, many, many millions of nerns americans will be affected. >> howard, this guy, kessler, argues today in the journal, uses the number 40 million. he said 40 million people will be changed and he cited some of the things betsy cited and also said they won't be able to see their doctors and also said it's going to be much more expensive. is he wrong? president obama ought to level with the american people. >> he's mostly wrong. first of all -- and there's a lot of stuff that betsy said that is not so. technically true, a lot of this is paid for by medicare, provider medicare, virtually none paid for by patient cuts. furthermore, patients -- >> untrue, untrue. >> well, we disagree. patients -- furthermore, patients get a better deal, because the doughnut hole gets closed on medicare. so they actually -- medicare patients actually come out ahead on this. >> can you just tell me -- i don't understand. if the providers -- talking about doctors, hospitals. >> right, hospitals. >> if the providers are damaged by this, how can the patient not be damaged by this at some point in time? that's the part i never -- >> ultimately, they will be. because cutting medicare or anybody else's provider payments is not the right thing to do. you have to fundamentally change the way we pay for medicine. you've got to pay by the patient, and stop paying by the procedure. otherwise no form of cost control is ever going to do any good. the fact is -- and i didn't support this bill. but there are some things in it that are going to be good. one, i would agree with betsy that 30 -- mckinz re is right, 30 million people will lose health insurance out of the private sector but go into the public sector with government subsidy and break the link between employment and health insurance. i think that's a good thing. the obama people disagree. but it's a good thing in the long run. >> betsy, this is a narrow point but important point. one of the reasons max baucus talked about a train wreck is that regarding these health insurance markets, these exchanges that they're setting up, the infrastructure is not there. it's not even remotely there. >> that's right. and the fact the department of labor originally told all employers to write letters to their employees last march 1st, alerting them to the existence of these exchanges, which were supposed to open october 1st. then the labor department more recently sent a letter to employers saying don't tell your employees about the exchanges, implying they won't be ready. >> when are they supposed to be ready? >> supposed to be ready october 1st. by the way, it's not just whether -- >> this is where -- coming into may. >> billed as providing a huge array of choices for people who need insurance. but, in fact, it's like going to a supermarket that only sells cereal. they only sell one thing. the government-mandated essential benefit package. >> that's untrue. actually not true. there's a minimum essential -- benefit package but also -- >> that's all -- >> gold, platinum and all this other stuff. >> i was just going to make that point. bronze, gold, silver platinum. not tiffany's. same essential benefit package, only the co-pays and deductibles differ. >> it's very good. >> you're forced to buy t. it's like being forced to buy a fully loaded cadillac. some people just want a honda. like being forced to buy auto insurance that covers oil changes. >> what we're doing is -- i did this, larry, in my state 20 years ago. we drove essentially the insurance companies that were charltons out of the market. >> it's taking choice. you say you're pro choice. >> we took the choice of buying crappy insurance from cheats away from the people of vermont. >> no, you should be able -- >> my market works. >> a 50-year-old couple has to buy maternity coverage? >> that's not ridiculous. because if you say that then you're going to be selling, you know, ridiculous products that -- >> straight arrow has to buy in-patient heroin addiction treatment? >> that's the thing. >> ridiculous. >> that's -- >> a 27-year-old, first job, would like to have some health insurance, but they would like to have the chevrolet model, not the cadillac model. you can't do this. >> the way you decide -- >> they're not going to come in until and unless they get sick later on. >> the bronze plan is going to be $20,000 a year for a family with three kids. and you're still going to have to pay 40% of your health insurance bills out of pocket. who can afford that? >> last word. >> okay. the lard word is this. this is not a train wreck. the states are going to do better than the states that bailed out, because it's going to be one single federal exchange. what the republicans chose to do by not doing this. and the exchanges were invented by mitt romney and the heritage foundation and i think they're going to work very well. this gives people more choices, not fewer choices. >> i don't like the plan myself. but i'll just say this. we're coming into may. this thing is supposed to start in october. the infrastructure is just not in place. that's -- >> it is in some states. but the federal exchange i think is going to be a problem. >> and we don't know what the cost is going to be. all right. leave it there. betsy mccoy -- >> i brought you a copy of my book. "beating obamacare." >> i'll commit it to memory. >> i think immigration reform is pro growth. i think it's going to lower the budget deficit. it's going to create new business. on the other, heritage foundation chief jim demint disagrees and about to join me and howard dean in what should be a pretty good debate. woman: everyone in the nicu -- all the nurses wanted to watch him when he was there 118 days. everything that you thought was important to you changes in light of having a child that needs you every moment. i wouldn't trade him for the world. who matters most to you says the most about you. at massmutual we're owned by our policyowners, and they matter most to us. if you're caring for a child with special needs, our innovative special care program offers strategies that can help. i feel confident that the bipartisan work that's been done on immigration reform will result in a bill that passes the senate, passes the house, and gets on my desk. and that's going to be a historic achievement, and i'm -- i've been very complimentary of the efforts of both republicans and democrats. >> that was president obama earlier today on the senate gang of eight's immigration bill. so will conservatives join together to pass pro-growth comprehensive immigration reform? we're back here with howard dean and joining us now is heritage foundation president, former south carolina senator, senator jim demint. senator demint, it's great to have you here. i know you're opposed to this, at least that's what i gather. what's your biggest beef with the rubio gang of eight immigration bill? >> well, larry, it's unfair, it costs too much and it's going to make the problem worse. you and i know, because we believe a lot of what milton friedman said, you can't have open borders and welfare state. unfortunately, that's what this amnesty bill is feeding into. >> one of the things that i gather, and i'm not an expert on all of the details of the bill, but there would be no public assistance for 13 or 14 years for immigrants who have legal status and are waiting in line for some more formal citizenship. nothing for 13 or 14 years. what's your take on that? doesn't that cover your objection? >> larry, i've heard a lot of promises about bills that have gone through congress. we heard them all with obamacare, dodd/frank, the stimulus. the only thing that i know about this bill is it's going to give legal status and eventual s citizenship to those who came unlawfully. the rest is promises and many are on the books and they have been ignored for years. the only way to solve this problem in a way that unites americans is to fix our immigration system in a way that works for americans before we try to deal with the problem that our system has created. >> all right. >> jim, one of the big issues here which divides the republican party, most chambers of commerce, including the american chamber of commerce, is for some sort of immigration plan. they believe this is going to help the labor market, which i believe as well. what about the division this is causing inside the republican party? >> well, i think, howard, what's happening right now is people are just beginning to see what's in the bill. and obviously, that's when we find all of the these 400 special favors that are in here and the things that don't need to be in it. if it was as simple as they said it was, it wouldn't be over 800 pages. so the division is between real immigration, lawful immigration and amnesty for those who came here unlawfully. lawful immigration is good for our economy. it's good for our culture. and that's what we need to make sure workses better in the future. . >> would you be in favor of increasing quotas for people from, say, central america? >> i'm for expanding our temporary worker program, expanding visas for those we need to fill high-tech jobs in this country, particularly those who get an education here. lawful immigration is a selective process where we bring people here that build our economy and create jobs for others. this amnesty bill is going to give legal status to those who generally are not going to add to our economy, and actually it's going to be a huge cost to the american taxpayer. >> so, all right. you don't believe -- this is where the issue boils down. it's sort of the old reagan camp now you have paul ryan and marco rubio. your view is that letting in the immigrants is not pro-growth. no sense of entrepreneurship or innovation or creating new business. you just don't think it's going to happen. >> any nominal growth that comes from this bill, larry, is going to be more than offset by the trillions of dollars of cost when these folks reach retirement age, get on medicare, social security. these programs are already broken. our country is already $17 trillion in debt. and this will be a net loss, a huge cost to taxpayers. and it's not fair to the 4 million people waiting around the world to come here legally. let's fix the system that caused this problem before we reward those who came here unlawfully. >> isn't one of the problems, though, we already have 11 million employed, undocumented people in this country, and if they are deported, you're going to have a situation like you had in hazelton, pennsylvania where the economy collapses because all of the small businesses go out of business because they're owned by latinos or in alabama where a school system nearly collapsed when they passed their law? the estimates are, it cost $1.2 trillion to deabort the 11 million undocumented people here already in the labor force. that can't possibly be good for american jobs if you're deporting people who create wealth. >> howard, we're not talking about deporting anyone. what we're talking about what caused the problem. let's fix our system, let's have a workable immigration system and operational control of our borders. then we'll have the trust of the american people to deal with those who are already here. >> senator, will you let the -- will you let the brainiac limit go up? will you let the students who train here stay around? that's just my last one. maybe that's a piecemeal approach. >> what we need to do in a step by step approach, where people understand what we're doing. and certainly those that have gotten masters and phds here in our country, those are needed in our economy. and even low-skill workers that come legally, larry, come generally or they're supposed to, on a system where they have sponsors or they have jobs. so let's get that system working, and actually prove that we can do what we say, and then we can figure out what to do with those who are already here. >> all right. we'll leave it there. thank you very much, former senator jim demint head of the heritage foundation. the market rally keeps going on. today the dow wound up 21 points higher and as the fed meeting continues, i ask this question. could more easing be on way instead of less? we're going to look at that intriguing possibility next up on "kudlow." clients are always learning more to make their money do more. (ann) to help me plan my next move, i take scottrade's free, in-branch seminars... plus, their live webinars. i use daily market commentary to improve my strategy. and my local scottrade office guides my learning every step of the way. because they know i don't trade like everybody. i trade like me. i'm with scottrade. (announcer) scottrade... ranked "highest in customer loyalty for brokerage and investment companies." is its own reward. but there's nothing wrong with enjoying a little extra reward. ♪ that's why southwest built a better rapid rewards program with unlimited reward seats, no blackout dates, and points that don't expire. rewards that actually reward you. we are southwest. welcome aboard. i work for 47 different companies. well, technically i work for one. that company, the united states postal service® works for thousands of home businesses. because at usps.com® you can pay, print and have your packages picked up for free. i can even drop off free boxes. i wear a lot of hats. well, technically i wear one. the u.s. postal service®, no business too small. today kicks off the two-day federal reserve meeting. so is it possible the fed will buy even more bonds because inflation is not a worry, and the economy is still soft? well, earlier today i had the chance to speak with former federal reserve governor frederi frederick mitch kin formerly an economics professor at university. here's his take. >> i think it's very unlikely. because they have been doing several things. they have been talking about tapering and part of the issue here, two real concerns that are worrying them about this big asset purchase program. one is that this build-up of the assets and the balance sheet could become a problem and mean there are some losses at some point in the future when interest rates rise and as a result they might be much less likely to sell off assets. so building up the balance sheet has extra costs. and so i think that from their viewpoint, they're nervous about that aspect and then the secretary problem they're facing is that at some point, they're going to actually have to raise interest rates. and they don't want that to have a huge impact on the market. so in a sense, they want to start being able to control their tool. and this is why they may at some point want to not just cut off these asset purchases, but slow them down slightly. so they want to keep that option. >> you've got a lousy jobs number, still close to 8% unemployment, 88,000. factory orders coming in weak, retail sales coming in weak. people talking about the so-called spring swoon, rick. you think the fed is going to make mention of that? you could have a fed statement that says, hey, inflation is lower than we want. and the economy is slower than we want. >> yeah, i think that there's issues -- there have been some weak numbers but other things positive. for example, the housing market. i think the inflation number, however, is very important. and that from their viewpoint, they want to make sure that people understand that the key part of their job is to keep inflation from being too low. that's, in fact, what was critical about their moving towards an inflation-targeting regime in january of 2012. which is the 2% number doesn't mean you're happy if numbers are lower than that. you're just as unhappy having numbers lower than above it. and right now our problem is not too high inflation, it's too low. and that means the fed actually wants to be more expansion area in that context. what this means, actually, the issue about how long it will be before they raise rates and also how long they will continue this asset purchase program at these very large levels, that actually, they're going to be given some indications that could be going on longer. >> much longer. >> than anticipated and that's the right thing to do. >> let me ask a couple other quick questions. fiscal versus monetary. i'm just going to say in round numbers, between the war demobilization and the sequester, government spending is falling at about $100 billion a . that's just a round number. now, the fed is adding about $1 trillion in reserves. is that an offset, in your judgment? are those -- is that the right rat ratio? is the fed doing enough to cushion the short-term fall in government spending? >> well, the problem is i don't know if i can give you a complete answer to that. but certainly the fact that the -- we're actually doing more austerity, particularly in the short run, when actually to me the real need is to have austerity in the long run. we have to focus much more on long-run fiscal balance and all of these arguments and fights and crazy things like the air traffic controllers. all of that stuff is really not the right way to think about policy, because our big problem is going to be our entitlements and really the crunch comes ten years from now. that's the really nightmare scenario. but the fact that we're actually having this tight ening of fiscl policy is something they need to offset. and that's one of the reasons, by the way, they have moved to these very unusual and strong nonconventional policies which are risky for the fed. look, the fed having this biggel balance sheet is something that puts it under a lot of risk. there is a lot of political risk from this, a lot of beating up on the fed, as you know. so this is something that they have done only because they felt they had to, and the key reason they felt they had to do it is because of the short term fiscal austerity and also the uncertainty created by the government not doing its job in terms of fixing long-run entitlements. >> last one. do you expect chairman bernanke to retire in january 2014 and do you believe janet yellin, the vice chair, will replace him? >> so i would say that i do think janet is the most likely person to replace ben for several reasons. one is janet's extremely good. she is a top-level economist. she also actually has really knows how the fed works, has been very successful inside the federal reserve. and by the way, we have never had a woman federal reserve chairman, and i think it's about time. so all of those issues, i think, are important. ben, you know, i don't have any inside information on this, but god love him, he has been spending eight years of his life being beaten up, done i think as good a job as can be done in dflth circumstances. give the guy a break. >> rick mishkin, thank you. >> you're very welcome. all right. so how stocks are going to react to bernanke's statement tomorrow. let's go straight to our market pro. here is art hogan of lez arrested capital markets. one of the things rick mishki nsaid, inflation coming in lower and the economying soier, 88,000 jobs. could find its way into the fomc minutes tomorrow. with the implication that the fed is in no rush to do any tightening. and in that sense might be easier. what do you think about that? >> i think you're hitting it right on the head. the last time the fed met we were at a different place. the economic data was much stronger. we had one of the best jobs numbers in the cycle. so -- six weeks, and you've seen the economic data stream, which has been significant, across a lot of different data points. and you mentioned most of them. and the q & a. i think that changes the statement. i think what we're going to get is a mention of current conditions. and current conditions -- >>ing soier. and inflation. they're going to put in the statement that inflation is coming in below their target. and i'm just saying, when everybody sees that, reads that, they're going to just say, no way the fed is slowing down their bond purchases. no way the fed is slowing down. and in a sense, in a -- in a sense, that's easier money. >> it is easier money. one of the trickier things that's going to happen next month with increase in tax receipts and is a cut in spending, the government actually has to issue less debt. and that's going to make the fed have to be a little more -- >> by ten minutes. because it's coming back in the third quarter. trust me. >> i agree. but in the next couple of months, you're going to have less supply, they're going to feel more aggressive with what they're buying. we'll see what that does to the ten-year. i think there are a lot of people waiting to see how that plays out. >> speed of the bond market. apple. talk to me about apple. >> it is amazing, isn't it, that the company with that much money actually has to issue debt? it's an environment where you can, right. obviously, a great rating so they can get it easy. it's the largest debt deal in u.s. history, and yet they were able to do it overnight. wasn't a lot of heavy lifting. but it does speak to the fact that a big part of the cash balance sits somewhere else and is punitive to bring it back. . >> right. offshore. want to give $100 billion over me, $100 billion back to their shareholders, buybacks and dividend deals. in fact, the dividend deal is almost exactly the same as the bond yields. >> amazing, isn't it? >> 240 or something. >> shows what you can do with that right now. >> is this a big plus for the market? >> it was a big plus, certainly was, when you think apple has gone from $384 to $422 over this span of a week. that certainly helped the nasdaq and s&p and a different kind of leadership now too. we spent the entirety of the first quarter looking at leadership being safety stocks. >> would you ride that horse, the apple horse? >> i think apple was very overdone. we're buyers of apple. we like it -- low .500s and we think they're going to get things right. the disappointing part, we don't hear about new products until the fall. the good news, they're going to do a lot of shareholder accretive things with dividends and buybacks and that's something that's -- >> gives the stock value, doesn't it? >> it does. it puts a floor. and brings a different investor into apple, too. when you think about it, it's a dividend investor. you know, those are very important right now. so, you know, there are a lot of investors coming over from the bond market but looking at stocks that look like bonds and they want to -- they want yield, and we have seen a lot of that. that's why we're seeing the dividend stocks doing well, utility stocks doing well. the more you can make a stock market have a good yield -- >> you still worried about correction? >> am i worried about correction? we have put so many things in front of this market that should have caused a correction and every time we pull back 2%, it's met with buyers. this may be the summer that it doesn't happen. i think you may be able to buy and be okay. i think it's going to be one of those summers where everybody is leaning in that direction. you can't find a person that won't say we need to have a pullback of 5 to 10%. it's universal. consensus calls usually don't come true. >> i think earnings are coming in a little better than people thought. >> very much so, yeah. >> and i'm more impressed with earnings than revenues. i think earnings are what really matter and the fed is going to be easier. tomorrow's statement is going to be read as easy money. good combination. >> you follow that up with the ecb. >> oh, they've got to. >> thursday. >> got to pump more reserves into the economy. all right. art hogan, thanks. as always, gets it out better than anybody i know with a great track record. that's it for tonight's show. we're bumped next three nights for the hockey playoffs. we'll see you monday evening. it's as simple as this. at bny mellon, our business is investments. managing them, moving them, making them work. we oversee 20% of the world's financial assets. and that gives us scale and insight no one else has. investment management combined with investment servicing. bringing the power of investments to people's lives. invested in the world. bny mellon. nbc sports welcomes you to the following presentation of the national hockey league. >> jeff carter was a key late-season acquisition a year ago and tied for the most playoff goals scored and help the kings capture the first stanley cup title. dave bouwmeester is a lake acquisition from the blues, he plays in the first-ever playoff game tonight. game one blues-kings next.