his budget chief ill balance in 10 years but in washington the democrats and republicans are already crying over the right and plan. here we go again. >> democrats had a big enough problem that this version balances the budget in the next tenures in not raising taxes so it comes from spending cuts, repeal health care, also an taliban reform for the 55 engender that he would create the new medicare system called premium support others call it the voucher system but after push back the ages 55 and younger. officially released tomorrow

the for the first time in four years senate democrats has said negotiating position on wednesday when they unveiled there budget. neil: republicans caused dry and the most grief by not signing on to what he was doing. how much trouble could he have? >> it could be difficult depending on the specifics as long as there is a revenue increase. others want to balan the budget closer in the next 10 years. we already got pushed back for the medicare proposal over 57 years old so he has an easier time than senate democrats who has a tough time with this super liberals on one side to

placate. neil: rich jensen. we will havel covered for you. "money" with melissa is next. melissa: here's what is "money" tonight. getting hammered at the pump? limit on ethanol. record prices, short supply, we have a debate you haven't heard. plus u.s. companies part 100 billion in profits abroad. it saves tens of billions in taxes, but it may be ending. a crackdown on the budget hole. and pinups may not be worth the per theye printed on. a landmark ruling has a judge shred a prenup and it means they may all be useless. the woman at the center of it all joinss on our fox interview first. even when they say it is not, it is always about "money."

all right, first let's start with today's market moment. why settle as for when you can be at five? the economic data uld not stop the historic rally. marching to a fifth straight record high in seven straight session games. nasdaq in a 12 year high, and the s&p 500 is now nine points away from all-time record close. we start tonight with a budget preview. by this time tomorrow we will know paul ryan's plan. it is said to balance the budget in 10 years and chances of passing our little slim to be fair, but is it even a realistic target? we have an all-star money panel here to dig in. cofounder and chief investment officer, and steve moore is here with the "wall street journal."

steve, i will go to you first. what do you think we will hear tomorrow, and is it a good starting point? >> i don't think this will be significantly different from the budget paul ryan has passed over the last couple of years. melissa: than what is the point of it is the same that things haven't gone through? speak of the problem has been, as you know, paul ryan in the house republicans have done their job of passing a budget out of the house, that is the constitutional responsibility. it has been for years since the senate passed a budget, so that puts more pressure, i think, on the senators. a senate controlled by the democrats to come up with a blueprint so we can start negotiating. melissa: do you agree with that? >> the senate will be releasing their budget on wednesday as well, so we're going to see an opportunity for just what steve wants to occur. for your original question, does the ryan budget feasible, practical or necessary?

the answer to all the above is no. melissa: why? >> the same policies the we hada national referendum on a few months ago. to repackage that again shows he willfully stubborn or contemptuous of the american people. melissa: david, do you agree wi that? >> no, i don't, melissa. you have an example of polarization at work over the debate is here instead of washington. it is on your show, effect of the matter is we have two sides, busy fighting out the congressional election next year to see if the democrats can get the house of representatives in 2015, and the republicans have realized they cannot be obstructionist. melissa: i have a feeling you aryou'reright, a lot of people r audience are saying the same thing. in the meantime they are not getting anything done in washington, so what is the take

away from the market, what do you do? >> my clients from all over the country are disgusted with both parties, would like to throw them both out and start all over and don't know what to do about it. the fed is a game in town giving an upward bias to the market in spite of washington, not because of it. >> i disagree with that. my investors believe it is important for this country and the financial future that we do sothing about balancing this budget. i don't agree with everything in paul ryan's budget, but he has a document that in 10 years will balance the budget. i will bet a steak dinner the senate will not be able to get a budget passed because i haven't done it in four years and they don't have the votes to get anything through the senate. one party has done a constitutional responsibility, the other hasn't. it is simply aruth. melissa: what about the idea

republicans have already bought tax increases to the table, we've gone through that road now we want to see some serious reform of medicare and entitlement spending? >> whad an election on that, that was actually reformed. melissa: americans don't want reform of entitlement and health care? >> paul ryan actually wants to repeal the affordable correct but keep the savings that have been cooked into it. >> are you saying the affordable correct will save life? it is going to explode the health care system. melissa: go ahead and respond. melissa: he is booking $700 billion in savings from medicare expansion, excuse me, medicare spding, booking that into his own budget. melissa: let me get david back into this discussion.

if they balance the budget, that is what you are debating, however going to get our books in order, does it matter to be americans? >> i think the market's best opinion is a divided government on both the houses. 10,000 air miles in the united states, bunch of speeches and had meetings and every time i said to the audience we should throw themll out and start over, i got rousing applause. both sides are faulted, we haven't had any budget prediction that has a long-term trend come within hundreds of billions anytime within the last years, and nobody believes washington and nobody believes washington arguments on either side, there is no credibility left in my view. melissa: i will make that the last word.

that would just open up a whole can of worms. thank you for coming on. >> thank you, melissa. melissa: get ready to make to be facing aot of pain at the gas pump very soon. all tied to the ethanol mandate we told you about here on "money." refiners forced to follow standards, but is there any way around it? here to debate it, thanks to both of you for joining us. let me start with you. this is a really interesting quandary because what happens is ethanol makers produce ethanol, they get a credit down the road if you aren't using it much ethanol as you are supposed to, substituting it in. i would'vnow we have gotten to t those credits are in high demand. >> what the epa is mandated is a certain volume of ethanol that has to be used despite the fact gasoline demand is going down.

try to understand refiners are forcing a certain amount of ethanol even though there is not enough gas. there are so many gallons each year, and goes up year after year while we keep increasing demand goes down because of better efficiencies and so on. there is a move toward not only ethanol, but to these bio diesel fuels. another mandate the epa is increasing. it is for an ethanol because our corn-based ethanol doesn't meet the new requirements, so basically what is happeng is the big subsidy going from the sugarcangrowers, that is what is going on in this program. melissa: you can see as if we're being forced to blend ethanol higher than 10% at a time when aaa is warning that is dangerous to your car, you shouldn't use it. >> let me first respond to something he said. refiners are not forced in any

way to purchase these critics, nobody is holding a to their head requiring them to purchase these credits. when it comes to compliance with the renewable fuel program, they have a choice. they can buy a gallon of ethanol and physically blend the gallon of gasoline or purchase a credit. melissa: i don't think that is different from what he is saying, to be fair. but go on from there. >> they are not forced to purchase a credit, they have an option to buy ethanol blended with gasoline as 10% ethanol up to 15% ethanol is legal and approved for use in 75% of the automotive fleet today. melissa: let me stop you right there because aaa has warned it can be harmful to vehicles that were made befe 2012. many warranties are voided if you use it if they are not

flexible. if i don't trust aaa, wh whom i going to trust? >> first of all is a vehicle is older than five years old, it is out of foreign to you anyway. melissa: pre-2012. >> the reason they were not warranted is because is was not available in commerce at the time so why would an automaker included in the warranty or owner's manual? melissa: this means people are being offered fuel they can't use. >> that is not true. there are two dozen retail stations today that are offering e15 to consumers. one just opened this morning, and so it is catching on. there is a demand for it. and so we are seeing that happen. the idea it is not available and can't be made available.

melissa: go ahead and respond. >> the demand is subsidized by program that grows larger each year that goes by a larger mandate for these kinds of biofuels to be blended in. refiners do not make ethanol, they are not that happy about making e15. they want to make gasoline because that is what they make money on. what they want to do is have less of it in their fuel, not more. something the refiners are going to do, they're going to start to export their gasoline as opposed to being blocked into using their gasoline in this market for us to continue to increase the amount of one. the end result is less of a supply and a lot higher prices. melissa: jeff, go ahead and respond. >> ethanol is not to refine its product and that is whether going to great lengths at capitol hill to keep the product on the market place.

in fact when congress passed the energy independent security act of 2007 a 2007 established this program, refiners knew that some period of years down the road are going to need to blend fuels above e10, 10% ethanol yet they didn't make any investments whatsoever in those higher-level blends. that was six years ago, the writing was on the wall and they did not make a move in terms of invement because it is not their problem. melissa: thank you both of you for joining us. time for today's "fuel gauge" report. possible changes to the oil industry, he said interim president will keep the oil policy. because that has worked out so well. the minister says venezuela pushing to increase oil output by 500,000 barrels per day this year. iran and pakistan broke ground on a major natural gas pipeline. we attended a ceremony today. u.s. vehemently opposes the

project. they say it will damage the impact of sanctions on iran. a weakening u.s. dollar pushed up oil futures for a third session. climbing $0.11 settling at a 2.06 per barrel. up next on "money" from u.s. companies are moving profits offshore at a record pace, the tax revenue could play a big role helping balance the budget. we have the dails. more "money" coming up. this is america.

we don't let frequent heartburn come between us and what we love. so if you're one of them people who gets heartburn and then treats day afr day... block the acid with prilosec otc and don't get heartburn in the first place!

[ male announcer ] e pill eachmorning. 24 hours. zero heartbur

♪ melissa: a startling report in the "wall street journal" shows 16 u.s. companies $166 billion overseas, 60 companies, and they are allowed to do it but it amounts to half of those companies profits and they are saving billions of taxes. the government is missing out on billions of tax revenue. a fraction of that money could cover all this years sequestered cuts for example. joing me now. this is one of those things that has washington looking and salivating. they would love to get their

hands on that tax revenue. if it came back they be tax-free, to stimulate the economy, people would spend it, there may be hiring. what are the odds it would ever come back, what would have to happen to the tax laws? >> we tried that nine years ago, congress lawyer 2004, almost tax-free, 5% on tax and what subsequent studies fnd was a didn'itdidn't generate a lot of, didn't generate a lot of business in the u.s. companies mostly used it to buy shares back and pay out vidends. it is an enticing idea and maybe would work next time but didn't work the last time. melissa: are still paying it out to people, just like going through the economy. that is good. >> that is true. in his complaint from executives this money is trapped offshore. so the 166 early in we found

that they parked offshore was just for last year, so in total those 60 companies are holding $1.3 trillion. offshore and some of which they say they might be willing to bring back if they were able to have it taxed at a lower rate. melissa: wa what is it doing ovr there? are they putting it to work? >> the best evidence we have on it is a study done by professor wharton and two others last year. they went through a lot more reports than we went through and figured out about 43% of it is sitting in cash, the rest has been invested into real assets overseas. some of that are hard assets, like equipment, others of it are license and patent rights which help facilitate companies moving the income offshorin the first place.

we didn't get much of a breakdown beyond that of where the rest of the money is, but their best estimate was slightly less than half of that, so we would be talking about $600 billion or so in cash held by foreign subsidiaries. melissa: it seems to prove money is going where it is treated at best, staying offshore because it doesn't want to be hacked, that is the best return on it. so if you try to taxes, bring it back and tax it, would that work? it seems companies would find another way around that. >> that is the alternative they have now. and some do. avon just announced they would bring some of it back. there were about a little bit of a cash crunch. other companies have found ways to bring it back where they have existing tax credits, so they have to pay more taxes, so companies bring some back. they can bring it back tomorrow.

melissa: president obama always talks about ending taxes for companies that create jobs overseas and that is a roundabout way of saying nobody is try to keep corporate profits here and tax them, is there any way to achieve best t that to ge money back? can he change the tax code? >> there are people in corporate america that say the number one way to do th is to cut the corporate tax rate. our 35% is higher than most other countries in the world. a few places it is higher than it is here, but it is higher than in most other countries, so i think business groups with a one way to get it back here is to lower tax rates. and then the difference between the rates overseas and the rate here if they brought some of the money back would also be lower. but you have other people saying that might not work either. melissa: thank you for coming on, appreciate it. >> thank y for having me.

melissa: call it a win-win bringing jobs back home giving them to the nation's heroes, one entrepreneur puts her money where her mouth is and she is here to explain. can you ever have too much "mon"?

♪ melissa:alk about a woman on a mission, something that talked about here on "money," but in your program does double duty training young veterans for job testing software and bringing these very jobs back to the u.s. with me now is a woman behind it all. welcome to the show, first of all. >> thank you for having me. melissa: you have invested $250,000 of her own money. this is a business you weren't previously in. tell me about it.

>> we were more on a server-side, but we turned around and realized with all the veterans committee on employment, these are regimented individuals. they understand the mission and deliverable. we chose to bring in the first class of 15. we trained them into software testing. giving them an opportunity to work as a community. work as a unit as opposed to putting them in individual positions, we are bringing jobs typically that has been outsourced offshore back to america. melissa: what is amazing to me if you are just doing software development and you thought what could we do to put veterans to work. it is a related business, but it isn't what you were doing before. >> it is the right thing to do.

i am watching the unemployment, i am watching these students and i have to tell you it is so inspiring. about we, not about me. they're so ready to step up. one veteran said to me afro sweeting said thank you, is the first time i have ever been offered a career. it is moving, i implore everybody to sit with these young people. if you're not moved, check yourself. melissa: tell me what they are doing. >> first of all most of these young veterans are all software savvy. what there depends on the unit. working on gps systems or bridge systems or mathematics, something along those lines. they present themselves well, they were willing and able, and half of the court.

melissa: how do you help them find a job? >> they come to us. the most important thing is to keep them as a unit. i don't want to put one person out. they have to pull each other up and gathered on any project. we are looking to solidify. melissa: how much has it grown, what is the response like? your hopes are high, obviously to keep it going. >> we're hoping to have 200 veterans and train the trainers, learn to move on as project management. subject matter expertise. melissa: how can they do it, your company is called sharp decisions. >> people who want to get involved, they can contact us and we talk about how we can help them in a quality assurance for a start.

melissa: we appreciate it. >> thank you for having me. melissa: coming up, a judge's ruling on prenups. the wife behind the historic move is coming up. piles of "money" coming up. ♪

♪ melissa: talk about a "money" story. this could be a game-changer for soon-to-be married couples. a new york judge does the unthinkable, he rips up the couple's prenup. she says her prenup doesn't count because she was forced to sign it days before her wedding and her husband promed to rip it up once they had kids. a court agrees with her. so what does this mean for everybody out there who think they have an ironclad enough? she is here with her lawyer. now for first on fox interview. let's start with you. this is sort of the unthinkable because it was not like there was something wrong with the actual prenup, it just got tore up. it seems like a game-changer. >> it is no longer the unthinkable. at this point it is a game-changer. they have now made it clear that any prenup is up for review.

if they find it was somehow obtained through circumstances that don't need to be standard imposed by the law, can be vacated like any other contract. melissa: was at the bottom line to you, you were coerced to do it days before your wedding? >> in fact, duress and unconstitutionality were thrown out. my only cause of action i was able to prove at trial is the inducement. it was difficult for my attorney to prove that he did in fact prove. melissa: what does this mean for us non-lawyers? >> what it means is he has to prove, we had to prove at trial the time my husband made the promisepromise to me he never id to keep the promise. melissa: at the time he made that promise he would tear it up. >> he never intended to keep his promise. melissa: did he admit he said

that? >> i said it in the past and again, he is a good guy, a great father, unfortunately the way things were written in the way the prenupas written in the fact he didn't want to follow through with promises, it ended our family and marriage, it is sad. melissa: so the judge believed your word he told you he would tear it up. >> it wasn't just verbal, what he found was a pattern of behavior that proves or shows the judge i was a credible witness over my husband. the pattern of his behavior before the prenup was signed and directly after the prenup, it just showed. i asked for a jury, didn't have a jury but i wanted a lower court, supreme court and the appellate court. took seven years altogether. melissa: this sens sends tremorl across america.

the average prenup costs $2500 to put together, both of them cost a lot more than that. it feels like there is undermined contract law. >> the decision in this case is not any different than what would apply to any contract. establish a contract was entered into on the fraudulent pretenses reviewed by the court and vacated. that is what happened in this case. melissa: what would you say to other women? or men. what would you say to other people on the verge of getting married. >> i would say come to divorce preparations experts. a company i started. melissa: you're going to make money off of what happened to you. >> absolutely. know your rights before you sign any documents, know what can happen in the event you don't get the right representation or maybe you are too young and too naive to know. find out beforehand.

melissa: on a scale of one to "money," what does this for the value of pinups? does it make them worthless? >> a prenup is still something everybody getting married should consider, but the way they should be looked at is after this decision it is no longer etched in stone, they are subject to court review and vacating it entered into unfair. melissa: so what was your numb? >> one. melissa: you spent seven years battling this? >> about seven years. my husband would love to have an amicable stlement at this point. melissa: was it worth it? >> i knew i was going to win from the beginning. he didn't think so, but i knew i was going to come i felt it and i knew wh was right and i fought for justice, that is why i am sitting with you here tonight. melissa: thank you for coming on

and sharing your story. our "money" question of the day, will this make prenups wohless? they want to hear from more of you. follow me on facebook or on twitter. coming up on "money," try to spark a revolution for working women. do we need one? or are we all going to forget this story tomorrow? and at the end of the day it is all about "money." ♪ my mother made the best toffee in the world. it's delicious. so now we've turned her toffee into a business. my goal was to take ide and make it happen. i'm janet long and i formed my toffee company through legalzoom. never really thought i would make money doing what i love. [ robert ] we created legalzoom to help people start their business and launch their dreams. go to legalzoom.com today

and make your business dream a reality. at legalzoom.com we put the law on your side.

>> were held back by institutional barriers, lack of sensibility, terrible public policy. were also held back by ourselves. we are held back by the fact we continue to the majority of the housework and childcare. our partners are not yet partners. in order for women to do so, have to get men to sit at more tables in the kitchen. melissa: we make up 51% of the u.s. population only accounting for 4% of corporate ceos. her new book "lean in" is

causing an uproar. do we need a revolution? or are women choosing what is right for them? will anything even change? or will we forget abt this story tomorrow? to women who have fought their way up the corrate ladder. monica crowley. and lisa, ceo. welcome to both of you. monica, we will start with you. she makes interesting points. she says the women's revolution has been stalled and we have to reignite it. >> she makes interesting points talking about women, women are still conditioned to be liked more than respected and even feared, which is how men sort of operate in the business arena. she talks about how in order to start change, we have to work on men so they are more sitting at the kitchen table. good luck with that.

even though she makes legitimate points, one of the bigroblems i have is this kind of an old-school leral view. where is overlooking basic biological differences between men and women. men and women are not the same, they don't perform the same in a corporate environment, they don't perform the same at home. can we have some changes? yes, but it is an individual thing. we don't need a revolution. when you're going up against human nature and the biological differences between men and women you are fighting a losing battle. melissa: one of the things i feel sheryl discussion has a lot of great points but it ignores everybody makes their own choice and you have to respect i make my choice, she makes her scummy respect the choices everybody around is making. talking about how 4% are occupied by women. but 16% of women who work only 16% of women at home said they would like to go work according

to a study. so maybe everybody doesn't want the same thing. >> i couldn't disagree more that it is a biological issue. how do you explain women like the three of us if that is the issue. i don't think we have the gap, we have a power gap. i am not happy only 5% of congress being women. are you? 4% of ward rooms being filled with women? where the majority of voters and majority of consumers. should have a major role in what products we develop so we can determine policies. melissa: i don't look at it as flat percentages. i don't want to run for congress, so don't know what i can tell people to run out and run for congress, i don't want that job. >> i think sheryl is getting great advice for those women who want to go head-to-head for the top job. also a conversatio the conversaf

family-friendly policies because i ow this as a mother. if you give a choice between taking care of her children d taking good care of her job, something is going to give, and i know which way i would go. were the only industrialized country without paid maternity leave. my children are not cancer. melissa: still, we were talking about this, it is still portraying women as victims, and i think we have come so far over the last 40 years that i find that a little offensive or so thanks as victims somehow of the system or of men. we have all those policies, still we are in this place. the question is do you need another resolution to try to counter what we are dealing with. women are in the workplace and there is no kind of second-guessing about it, we are just here. it is all about choices, isn't that what the feminist movement was all about?

to stay home to work? melissa: one of the things she talks about monica has addressed is women come into the office and leaning back rather than leaning in and not speaking up and not pushing themselves to lead. there is somethi kind of insulting about her characterizing all of us like that. no? >> i think it is important to read the first four chapters, which i have read all double times. they very squarely put the burden of achievement on women. she is looking at the chicken and the egg, the policy and the whole system. and her point is women who want to achieve and women who can achieve, those of us who have had the benefit of excellent education have the real responsibility to bring other women up, creating environments where women are respected.

i hope this conversation can be including women who are lower down on the corporate ladder or policies and power structures don't support them. exactly. melissa: thank you so much for coming on the show both of you. grt points. monotheistic and run for "spare change." coming up, the sweet taste of freedom. where is my freedom? there it is. new yorkers saved from the iron hand of mayor bloomberg. a state judge just became my personal hero. i will tell you why. you can never have too much money or too many giant sodas. ♪

♪ melissa: time for little fun a n with "spare change." we're joined by an all-star team. what a gentleman. giving up the soda. we have a "money" update on one of my favorite stories and that is why we're sitting here with our lovely sodas. a judge has tossed out mayor bloomberg's ban on sugary drinks in the city.

he says we believe your city health he has legal authority and response body to tackle causes of obesity epidemic which kills 5000 new yorkers per year. in other words, he is not done with us. he plans to appeal. you know what, i am drinking my soda right now. this is to you, mayor. it is so delicious. so refreshing. this judge looked at michael bloomberg and said man, i'm going to let your people go. >> this was so absurd that actually gets to the very point about the role of government. should government involved in every nuke and cranny of your life? to the point they're telling you what size soda you can have. that is exactly what the soda ban was all about. >> for the people who live outside of new york city, this is just one of multiple measures

he has tried to change your behavior. remember the cigarette ban? all the businesses that this will kill us. it didn't. i would even argue right now when i smell smoke walking through a room or a restaurant i don't to go around that area. prior to that i perhaps would have gone in there. i understand h his trying to tackle obesity in america, but when you go to the deli on 47th street and you see the 20-ounce lime gatorade, you can no longer buy it, something is a little off. melissa: and the trans fats and the salt and the soda, what is next, styrofoam? bubblegum? hairspray? >> the problem is we have government focused on these relatively small issues, they are not doing the bigger stuff like getting the city budget under control are dealing with the public education crisis in

the city. they are not tackling those kind of issues. >> if you go back to that cigarette ban it may have started in california and swept across the country. this, however. >> it dies here. melissa: i cannot injure anyone but myself with soda. by the way, there is no way i could drink all of this if i had it for three days. daylight savings isn't saving us any money according to one study. in fact not only lose an hour of sleep, americans are also losing out on $434 million. how is that possible? if you factor in heart attacks, workplace injuries. those of us in the eastern part of the u.s. are paying more for the time change. how did you make it through the day, did you get up on time? >> so far. i think i'm ging to do all right. but i will tell you when you

spring forward, it feels like spring, doesn't it? melissa: you are so cheery and optimistic, you don't need a soda. >> i had a horrible night last night. i did not fall sleep until about 4:30 in the morning. i am working on about two hours of sleep. my productivity today except for here on melissa francis is a show. it has been worse. melissa: heart attacks, how are we tying heart attacks to it? >> lack of sleep. melissa: all because of that one hour? >> the study said lack of sleep will cause more workplace injuries. i don't know how they get $40 million, but i am liking it. melissa: this time retirement securities, turns out we are right 19th best country to retire in. behind places