plan for high school kids? what do you like about it? >> everybody pays taxes, whether they own a home or not, whether they have children or not, everybody pays for education, and every year they get worse education and it costs more. we've dumbed down our school program to rush kids through the system. why not do it the other way? why not had let the achieving kids rush through the system and get away from this burgeoning ed accuracy? beyond that, we're spending money on things that aren't being productive for our economy. let these achieving students, send them the message that if you achieve you will be rewarded. the idea we're going to get any of this taxpayer money back is kind of a mirage. taxpayers never get any money back. it will move on to the next boondoggle. i think it's a good idea. >> half of property taxes go to schools to be fair. tracy, the kids issue, you can get them out of your house two years earlier. what do you make about that? >> you know what, the money issue to me is separate from the academic development issue. i don't think these kids should

be rushed through school. i do think there's a reason they need these years to develop as people. when you do look at the dollars and cents, there are a lot of people that live in towns that don't even have kids in the school system. close to 50% of their taxes are going to the schools that are not spending the money properly. if you can get a kid that can take advantage of every dollar given to them, they can get through the system and take advantage, why not? >> sally cohen, at the same time taxpayers are saying why not on the other end of the spectrum, because it's not just property taxes going to schools, but also look at all the fights we've had about teac teacher pensions and teacher salaries. get more kids out of school faster, save money. >> as taxpayers we pay for a lot of things because we think they're in the general interest, not just self-interest. and public education is obviously number one on the list. we could let the kids graduate two years earlier, they could have guns and we could fire

police officers. that doesn't mean it's a good idea. we could help public services that help middle-class families, we could talk about millionaires and billionaires paying the same tax rate as the middle class. >> we're talking about billions of dollars. >> yeah, billions of dollars and accelerating smart kids probably wasting their time in public schools. i got to tell you, i agree with jim. the less time a guy spends in the public schools on average probably the better, especially the gifted ones. hold them back. grade skipping used to be common in this country. in the '70s, the 80s, this whole egalitarian policy that you got to cut down. the government monopoly incent incentivizes kids stay. let gifted kids move on and save taxpayers money in the process. >> todd, wouldn't you rather have kids, smart enough, willing

enough to get out in two years, you would keep programs like gym, home economics, programs they've talked about cutting. this is a way to save those classes perhaps. >> maybe, but you're assuming that you'll have so many kids in this accelerated program. look, it's not a linear number. in other words, you just don't say in two years this is it and they're done. you'll have a big percentage of kids that still have to be there for four years. it's a revolving number. plus, you'll have some that are held back. what do you do with all the kids out of school already? you don't even have the jobs that are there for them already. look, you'll see property taxes go through the roof because the counties will have to hire more people to baby-sit all the kids that you just graduated. >> the thinking is they would go off to college, even if it was a community college, or stay a couple years, get even more smarter. there could be serious benefits. >> if we're separating out the educational benefits, i was a

product of public schools. i like public schools. i believe in public schools. kids doing well in public schools, ready academically and emotionally to go on to college, good for them. we should encourage that. but to do it out of the argument, not of their educational advancement and best interest, but because of some notions that it will save people money and -- >> no. here's the thing. i think jim made the best point thus far. you're not going to see that money back. i mean, just because we let these kids out two years earlier does not mean your property taxes will go down. the states will find a way to waste money in a different area. we have to focus on our educational system. not every kid is as lucky as mine to be in an awesome public system. most are not. maybe there's a better way to do this other than rushing them out the door two years early. >> hold on. they're not rushing people out the door. >> jim, you're a money guy. states are on notice, big-time notice, they've got huge budgett

deficits. >> right. >> why wouldn't this help the state's bottom line? this is happening in arizona, where property taxes are next to nothing anymore, because there's no housing market anymore. why wouldn't this be a good thing? >> it is a good thing. i haven't heard one single good argument why not to do this. you're not rushing kids through, you're allowing them to rush through if they so desire. that's what this is supposed to be about. kids that can advance should advance if they want to. if it saves money all the better. why not save money if you can if it's improving the lots of kids that want to achieve. we should reward achievement in this country. this is a good way to start. >> nobody is saying you shouldn't do that, jim. >> todd? >> jim, that's great. nobody is saying we want to destroy success. we get that. however, you have to assume with property taxes, you saw a population growth. to think property taxes would

actually drop because you subtract two years from a high school education -- >> i agree with you. they're not going to drop. >> that's not -- hold on a second, guys. jonathan, i'm coming to you. that's not quite the argument i was making here. the argument is this is one example of a way for states to save money. i'm not saying it's going to bring down everybody's property taxes, but it's one example of righting the wrongs of a state budget. >> maybe it leaves behind more money for those kids at school that need the attention. maybe you keep the money in the school system and put it where it needs the attention. let kids that don't need the aattention achieve and move on. >> jonathan? >> if you really wanted to help the taxpayers and kids, you'd privatize the tax system. that's never going to happen. >> is there anyone wondering the true agenda? they don't want to fix public schools, they want to destroy them. right there, you heard it. >> absolutely, because you've got $600 billion in state and federal funds that as the panel

has pointed out gets flushed down the toilet year after year. accelerated kids have always performed in social and -- >> let's talk about new jersey for a second. 60% that pass to be advanced. what's the criteria for these kids? what, a 60 and you advance them after two years. give me a break! >> tracy, you've got to respond. >> that's my worry, i get jim's point, celebrate success, but there's someone looking at the bottom line saying, we got to get more kids out, because we don't have the money, push these kids out, too. as it is, we're falling behind in math and science throughout the world. the states are broke. i get them. i'm not sure we shoulder our kids with the burden. >> jim, last word before we go to break. >> these are not mutually exclusive. it will save monies that can be saved. it will push kids through the system that should be pushed

through the system. even if you aren't going to divert that money elsewhere, it will leave more money to give those kids that need the attention more help. >> all right, guys. great discussion. very interesting discussion. thank you very much. well, coming up, everybody, get out your checkbook and maybe life preserver. a new report showing a titanic size bail-out may be sink taxpayers. talk about a food fight.

>> forget the titanic. a new report saying that u.s. taxpayers are heading toward a $2.9 trillion iceberg. that's how much state pensions are underfunded. jonathan, is this the next bail-out to hit america? >> well, it's already here, cheryl. you've got legislation underway in michigan for bail-outs. it could easily happen in california, in illinois, where they've underfunded the state pension plan for years. so, yes, i mean pensions are dramatically underfunded. we'll be hearing all about the needy teachers and policemen and firemen, and greedy wall street bankers and the 1%. they didn't cause the mess, but it was the progressive government and sweetheart deals to unions. it's going to break down the economy, but society. look at greece and spain.

those rioting in the streets, throwing molotov cocktails are members of public unions. i fear if we don't solve the problem, that will happen here as well. >> jim, fair enough. we don't want to be greece, but at the same time we'll have to bail out the pensions. >> the bail-outs are coming. it's not just the public side. private second has unfunded pension plans on their side as well. baby boomers are hitting retirement. 40% of corporate pensions are underfunded, and basically all the states are underfunded. we'll see fights between public and private sector bail-outs. we'll see fights between union and nonunion bail-outs. they should treat everybody the same. one reason all these pension-- one reason -- are underfunded is federal reserve policy that's kept interest rates so ultralow that these pension funds can't get a return on their fixed income. >> okay. those are fair points.

sally, i want to stay on the issue of public pensions, if you don't mind, because the public pensions create the most ire, in the most danger right now. should we bail them out? >> look, two points here. first of all, you know, we even use the language of bail-outs it tends to evoke what we did for the banks. bailing out a bunch of private sector big banks because they took reckless, risky bets -- >> should we bail out public pensions? >> right. we have these public obligations to public workers, to teachers, who we said, come take this job, get underpaid, work long hours, deal with our kids that we don't want to deal with during the day, and in exchange we'll give you a good pension. oops, we're starting to depriving that pension year after year instead of paying taxes, and not help you have a secure retirement. i'm sorry, that's our obligation we made to public workers. there's nothing wrong with it. >> tracey, we should be treating

the public workers different than the private workers. what do you say? >> my god. promises, promises. how many broken promises are sitting at this table? we have so many marriages sitting at this table we don't know what to do with ourselves. it's looney tunes. we don't have the money. you can't keep printing money to bail these people out. this continuum has got to stop. our children are the ones that are going to be dealing with this. just stop it! you do not have to live happily ever after on our pension. >> these are government workers who get a pension -- teacher pension of $43,000 a year. you think that's ridiculous, offensive? meanwhile we have billionaires paying the lowest tax rate in our country -- >> that's a totally different debate. that's a totally different debate. guys, please. >> guys, let's bring it in here. first of all, sally is right, though. you can't break -- you can't

change the rules in the middle of the game. first of all, there are life-changing events, people have stayed with these careers. we were guaranteed these pensions. yes, they need to be there. however future employees should not be given these great golden parachutes. i mean, these great, great golden pension plans, everything else that's given to them, healthcare for life, and their family, survivor benefits, everything else. that's not right. that's where the change has to take place. you can't change the rules in the middle of the game right now, guys, because you once you do that people will revolt. >> hold on, jonathan. jim, here's an economic question for you. what would it do to the economy if we don't bail out these public pensions, in particular when you do have states facing trillions of dollars in debt right now? >> well, the money's not there. so you either have to bail them out or not bail them out. if you don't, the states run out of money, it ends up in the court, and it's an absolute economic moras. the other thing i want to address here is the idea that wall street took all these reckless bets and made all these

reckless proms and governments didn't it idiotic. a lot of pension funds you can work for 20 years and be fully vested for the next 40, 50 years of your life. it's just like greece. none of them make economic or mathematical success. government has made reckless bets, too. you can't change it in the middle of the game, but you have to change it now. >> jonathan, i'll give you last word, but i want to make this point that these were investment vehicles just like in the private sector. you know investment vehicles in the private sector. >> in the private sector people have to take their lumps, but in the public sector we're all in it for the common good. all of a sudden i have to pay for these union sweetheart deals, or taxpayers have to, that were given away. that needs to change. joe six-pack has been tightening his belt for years now. it's time for government to wake up. either have the pain now or later. believe me, it's much worse later. bail-outs always fail. they're impractical, immoral. they need to stop.

>> all right. a lot of caffeine and sugar on today's panel. coming up, everybody, fed up, famished and fighting back. students you are saying the government's new lower calorie lunch program is leaving them hungry. too bad or time to get the nanny state out of school cafeterias

>> announcer: meet mary. she loves to shop online with her debit card, and so does bill, an identity thief who stole mary's identity, took over her bank accounts and stole her hard-earned money. now meet jack.

after 40 years, he finally saved enough to enjoy retirement. angie, the waitress at jack's favorite diner, is also enjoying his retirement. with just a little information, she's opened up a credit line, draining the equity in jack's home. unfortunately, millions of americans just like you learn all it may take is a little misplaced information to wreak havoc on your life. this is identity theft, and no one helps stop it better than lifelock. see, ordinary credit monitoring services tell you after your identity has been stolen. they may take 30 days to alert you-- too late for jack. lifelo has the most comprehensive identity theft protection available. if mary had lifelock's bank account alerts, she may have been notified in time to help stop it. if jack had lifelock's 24/7 proactive protection, he could have been alerted by phone or e-mail as soon as they noticed an attack on their network, before it was too late. lifelock has the most comprehensive identity theft protection available, guarding your social security number, your money, your credit, even

the equity in your home. while identity theft can't be completely stopped, no one works harder to protect you than lifelock. you even get a $1 million service guarantee. that's security no one can beat. you have so much to protect and nothing to lose when you call lifelock right now and get 60 days of identity theft protection risk free-- that's right, 60 days risk free-- use promo code: notme. order now and get this document shredder to keep sensitive documents out of the wrong hands-- a $29 value, free. call the number on your screen. [♪...] >> students taking to the internet to protest the

government's new school lunch program. the kids say they're going hungry because the rules require lower calorie meals. now republicans are introducing the no kids hungry act to repeal the rules. tracey, you say we need to get the government out altogether. >> yeah. i made three lunches this morning. some need more food than others. there are kids out there that this is sometimes the only good meal they get for the day, but we can't do this one-size-fits-all, everyone only gets three pieces of broccoli and two fish sticks. it's not enough for some kids. quite frankly it's more unhealthy, because then their blood sugar levels fall and they're dragging, they're not doing as well in school. >> todd, they're creating a black market for sweet stuff. i mean, those kids. >> yeah, that's a great idea. [laughter] the calorie idea getting i get,i understand that.

maybe they're getting a full meal with the vegetables and fruit, but they're not. they have a potato chip bag and holding a king size snickers. these kids need a diet, need good discipline, and they're not getting it at home. that's why the program works right now. >> jim? >> look, this needs to be decided on the state and local level, not the federal level. they're trying to control every movement we make. i think it's a bad idea. i think calorie counting is a horrible idea. >> i disagree with you. jonathan, what do you say? >> well, we've come to see a school lunch as a right in this country, cheryl. you know it was only in the 1940s when the national school lunch program even started. it was started as a means of propping up food prices because we had farm surpluses that year. so it's another example of how government controls always leads to more government controls. to tracey's point the responsibility of feeding a child, let alone educating the child, rests with the parents,

not michelle obama. >> they only lowered the calories by 20 or 30 calories. this is an effort by our government to help kids develop healthy habits, which is not a socialist effort to redistribute calories. >> i don't know, guys. these teenage boys can eat bowls of cap'n crunch, and not gain weight. good to have you on the show. coming up, remember this promise? >> we're going to work with you to lower your premiums by $2500 per family per year, and we will not wait 20 years from now to do it or 10 years from now to do it. we will do it by the end of my first as president. >> well, new numbers are.

>> it is time for what do i need to know for next week. tracy? >> promises, promises. president obama said our insurance premiums were going to go down $2500 by the end of his first term? up $2400. >> all righty. todd? >> sam adams oktoberfest hits the stores today. a big winner. stocks up 20% by thanksgiving. >> you had to get the beer in there. jim? >> i think the iphone 5, one of the best ancillary plays on that is sprint. you could see a 25% increase in sprint through the iphone by christmas. >> without the maps would be nice. jonathan? >> israel is a first world in a sea of tribalism and destruction. eis rows as netanyahu spoke at

the u.n. i'm looking at it long term for my fund. >> neil cavuto will kick off his special coverage at the presidential debates live at denver beginning 4:00 p.m. eastern time on fox news, then at 8:00 on the fox business network. for neil, it's about red and green. come on. with these debates, we are on it. >> wall street banks have recovered from the meltdown four years ago but the woman who ran fdic says we are still at risk of another major financial crisis. we are talking the inside story of the big banks and the risk they pose to us right here. right now. >> from the fox business network headquarters in new york city, it is' the "tom sullivan show" with your host, tom sullivan. >> here is what i have at the stop, she was there on the septembe