>> university of iowa got 1 million dollars to study snail sex, and there's nothing to do in iowa, but watch that, build a bunker, up 20%. >> snails up, gold down. >> brenda: that's it. neil, take it away. >> neil: think you're paying a lot for gas now. and make a buck 40 a gallon more, maybe soon. when an international body called for it and american members of that body don't raise actions to it, let's just say they're of all so imf. and welcome, i'm neil cavuto. the international monetary fund calling for $1.40 tax in the us of a. and protesters are ready to put the kibosh on the keystone pipeline they say to save the environment. what is weird is how their saving can be so selective.

they're not quacking about a thousand dead ducks showing up in a chinese river, little more than a week after 16,000 just as dead pigs showed up floating in another chinese river. no, a far, far bigger polluter gets a pass, we get a kick in the, well, the gas. to ben stein, charles payne, dagen mcdowell along with charlie gasperino, what do you think. >> imf, they're bloated, arrogant, more harm to the third world than you can imagine and now trying to do the same to us. by the way, when did they get in charge of the environment? what's going on. they want a trillion dollar tax to save the environment and it's all-- it's regressive, repressive and stupid. and the sad thing is no one says anything, so it might not be a good idea. >> neil: you don't think it's a good idea? >> put me down in the no column. >> neil: what do you think?

>> what do you expect outf the imf. anying worse than the local environmen bureaucrats are imported ones from europe. and we should point out that most of the environmental bureaucrats really don't care whether people work or not. they have a sort of straightline view about saving the environment and they don't care what kind of economic damage that would cause. can you imagine if this actually happened? as you said a regressive tax, hurts poor people which they don't care about or the rich people. it really is a sick, disgusting state of affairs. >> dagen? politicians though, give them all credit, right or left. this country knows it's regressiv and this is the tax tt makes every single voter in this country mad and they will not do it, why the president talks about infrastructure spending, never talks about raising gas prices and we know these are imf officials and imposing their will--

i know, they want to impose their will on us, our gas prices aren't as high as in europe. >> ben, where do you think this is going? >> i don't suspect fair, but you never know. >> i think this could be the boost that the republican party needs. this is our worst nightmare as free america, is thoroughly b bolc bolchaize. >> you had me there, on the bolc bolchaize. >> you had me there, on the button-- >> it's unbelievable, such a nightmare and i have to say that charles nailed it exactly. repressive, reigressive and plain stupid, but plot to take over the united states. >> neil: would it be nearly as

objectionable if they cast aspersions on everyone, and went into china and india and do the same, two of the world's biggest polluters, but it was singling the u.s. largely out. what do you think of that? >> i don't think that they singled out the u.s. because they've levied a lot of criticism on other countr't s. including places in sub saharan africa. but china and india didn't get a gas tax suggestion. >> no, no, i'm not sure we read the same report. the report i read, neil, was not written by a bunchf environmentalist hippies, it was written by smart economists who-- >> and in-- >> so say you. >> hippies and smoke-- >> and charlie. >> charl's go ismead, go ismead. >> look, charlie and the rest of the crew here, and i know many of the viewers, we all want to get government out of our lives, right? and the fallacy is that by

avoiding these taxes, you're keeping government out. it's the opposite. what the imf reports was the way that gew ernments not just the u.s. government, but govements across the world subsidize energy in all kinds of ways, some in ways that we can't see. what they said is if the united states actually made the cost of energy equal to the real cost of sort of pulling that eneuy out of the ground and paying for the pollution along with it and the roads and all that-- >> i can answer this directly becase i read it, i read most of this report as well and this so cost of fossil fuel that the imf talks about, most of this cost, which is close to 2 trillion dollars, was in estimates on the damage that fossil fad l does to the environment and-- so they're estimates, a bunch of nerds who don't smoke dope who are sitting around runni the numbers. >> neil: maybe they should try. >> that's my point, we should

point out that they go in this with preconceived notions how they do these reports. precoleveived reports that america is evil, that we pollute the world and go out and try to prove that three econometrics. and it reminds me of the thing, remember the u.n. human rights commission used to be populated bye guys from libya and china. >> neil: in countries where the gas tax and gas price is higher than it is here in this country, they drive any less, drive any slower, save any more? because if it is the case, then, the imf might be making a case. but i don't know if that's the case. >> that's not the case and of course neurope we know it's excessively and be careful if you want free stuff. the only way to get gew ernment out of our lives, they finally

take all of our money in one fell swoop and leave a carcass and don't have to be bothered any more. other than that it's ridiculous and here in america, the obama administration does this a lot with coal and come up with an estimate how much is saves and assumes this a human life is worth 400, ho0 or 500, ho0. i don't know if you know how much it went from bush to obama to pass through this es uch. we're going to s is dollars. how, when all of these people d't , it's just ridiculous st wef to push charlie's point. they have a preconceived goal and all they do is put this st wef around it, mort they already know what the goal is. >> and that money would be used, ben stein, wouldn't that money be used ostensibly to make for cleaner eart50 whatever they're d3 mng to cut-- you know, on-- >> and, but it's ostensibly be used for that, mort we don't know if it will really work. we don't really know in detail what the effect of burning

gasoline in cars is. we don't really know all the costs of global warming or glbotal pollution, that's to many scientists, an open question. reminds me of a safe that we hippy-economists say, there's no science without measurement, and if you can't measure something, measure it anyway, and measure it to allow you to take over the lives of americans. >> that must have just not the gotten to the floor at yale, and told that joke. (la0 hter) >> charles payne, does this get to a point where we start to say, when bureaucrats ask for moneque even if you have a purpose that's desirable, it never gets to that desired purpose. be l is ry of that. whatever the value here, it won't get to that. >> and we might h is in if yection point and ben brought up the point with the g.o.p., some sort of gift to them, and not uow ike sequestration, that the world going to implode.

that america was g3 mng to collapse overnight and spending cuts with the author of went thro0 50 the notion that somehow our government can't cut 2% of spending out would destroy the entire countrque it didn't destroy the company. >> the market is washing wonders driving up gas prices because demand has b is n falling on its own and we've adjusted without gew ernment intervention. >> the media suld do some work on the imf. they don't h is to elping countries and prevents them from pro growth strategies. taken from the source, this is the imf. they should have been high when they wrote this. >> neil: okaque we are g3 mng to take a quis. food for thoughts. m heatherdek

to cavuto on business. >> neil: stocks are at an all time high, so are food stamps. nearly 48 million americans are getting them makes you wonder how the dow and folks on the particular dole can effectively double under the same president. dagen, i have to say weird. >> not weird, scary, this is clear evidence, but-- >> and scary-- >> i'm frightened by this, clear evidence that the government is getting bigger withouany new laws passed, just by tweaking laws that already exist. >> neil: what did it do, make the policy more liberal so more could get it. >> yes, exactly what's happened in recent years, the states have relaxed the income

tax and also the asset test and pushed people to enroll, encouraged by the obama administration, in fact. there were 17 states in '09 that relaxed the environment to get on food stamps and another 11 in 2010. you have 16% of the american population on food stamps almost double what it was just 40 years ago. this is as the recession ended four years ago. you have unemployment has been falling, but you have a government entitlement program that is getting bigger and bigger and bigger and it's frightening. >> neil: the argument, charles payne, was that once you get them, it's hard to stop them. so, the benefit is there, and in order to take the benefit away, the more people are getting them. then it expo tensionally grows. >>here's absolutely no doubt about that. that there's this idea that, you know, between the food stamps and the child tax credit and the local programs, you know, it gets a little comfortable with being in poverty, you know.

listen, no, listen, i've lived it firsthand and seen where people don't go to work because they get offing paid for them. the incentive is not there. >> these are the not growing-- happy times aren't here again. before we beat up on poor people taking food stamps. >> and it's not al >> neil: and 48 million people, they're all deserving, just saying, 48 million. >> a ridiculous question. >> and i understand no one here is saying, you know, the poor people shouldn't get food stamps. you know the real unemployment rate is 14%? just asking. >> neil: 48 million, does that number strike you as high. >> yes, here is the thing, we have a very difficult economy and i will tell you this, if you're talking about the stock market, the reason why the stock market is up, the fed is printing money. why is the fed printing money? >> because the real economy is not doing that well. >> i don't care though, and just, what is it 48 million alone strikes as a high number. >> now want to know something, a lot of people need. >> hold on a second the question wasn't about the economy.

you asked about people getting stuck on it and that's the important-- different question. >> the program should shrink and historically gone down as unemployment falls, if the economy improves the program shrinks. >> our economy is n not improving. >> neil: ben stein, what do you make of this. what is accurate to you, you've said any good caring government looks after those who are the most needy. is it in your mind accurate to say that 48 million americans are in need of food stamps? >> when i was at the santa cruz, many kids fromealthy families could go down to the local government office, agriculture department i think at that time and apply for food stamps. there was he no checking they would use the money they saved not have to buy groceries to buy drugs. and i've always been somewhat against food stamps for exactly that reason. what level of fraud is there in the food stamp program? what level of dependency are

we fostering in younger americans, middle age americans, older americans for the government stepping in and buying their food? we don't know, we don't want any involuntarily hungry americans. what i remember i'm the oldest on the panel, lyndon johnson had the war on poverty and the war on hunger. the war on hunger seems to have been won overwhelmingly because we now have a war on obesity. either the kids are not fed enough or too much. something is wrong with this picture. >> neil: and-- >> the number of people collecting food stamps is surprisingly pretty much exactly in line with the number of people who are actually poor in this country. and setting aside the people that ben taught at uc santa cruz and we know about them. but the fact of the matter is, charlie makes a great point, the real economy, which is not something you're going to see in tv studio in scottsdale arizona or new york city, if you drive out and actually go

out into the world, you discover there are a lot of people hurting out there. for a little while, yes, it's going to take a long time to get them back to full employment. dagen is right about the unemployment's coming down, but the real unemployment rate is actually quite high. >> and that number-- >> want to step back-- yes, it has. >> neil: dagen. >> that number has fallen and it has come down. >> 15 to 14. >> who cares? let me back up and make it clear. this program continues to grow and it should shrink maybe in lock step with the unemployment rate, but it should become smaller and it has not. >> we had a financial crisis that devastated our economy. listen, i'm all for checking and not having rich, spoiled college kids go out there and buy beer on food stamps, i'm for that, but i'm telling you before we attack and indict poor people, think about this, this economy is still bad and-- >> we're not denouncing the real issue.

if you tell me that 48 million people are deserving of this in this economy when the president was running for rehe election, the truth of the matter is things are bad. >> ins not good for poor kids who are born on this and die on this. >> and proves that obamanommics doesn't work. >> neil: the more you weigh the more you pay, extra tax to cover fuel costs and the forbes gang ready for takeoff and sticking their stomachs

>> all right. in order to keep more of your cash more americans are moving to so-called red states. it's not about politics, dagen, it's about opportunity, i guess, what do you think of it? >> it is about opportunity. the states with no income taxes are jumping on in such a big way, florida, texas, nevada and this is going to keep going. you hear entrepreneurs talk in california and there have been two giant retroactive tax increases that have happened in just the last few months. the government going to claw back people's money and they are headed for the exit. >> neil: stephen, what's going on? >> i moved from a blue state, high tax illinois, red state,

low tax arizona and it wasn't for the taxes and it wasn't for the public schools here, we have to send the kids to private schools. a private tax that aren't counted. i say it's largely bunk. >> neil: we're doing a segment on it. (laughter) charles? >> i think it's obvious the finding. big states that promote nanny states and dependency and they need giant taxes that drives out innovative job creators. >> neil: some of the right to work states aren't all on fire. >> no, all you have to do though as a general rule go to upstate new york and see what a ghosttown it's become. some of the highest most punitive regulations in the world here. >> neil: ben stein? >> it's very hard to tell what are the effects or various causes, there's less traffic, generally speaking in the red state and climate is generally better in the red states and the schools are not often

better. a lot of reasons, less crime, an awful lot of reasons why people change locations, that's all. >> neil: could be the weather. >> well, and florida, texas and nevada. and you can get a suntan any day of the year. >> all right, guys, i want to thank particularly charlie and dagen, blessedly, they're done. (laughter) stocks might be rocking, but charles payne is knocking it out of the park. the best picks for

>> three new winners from charles. he has three today. >> american rail car. replacement cycle flying off the roof. tell double two years or lest . main street is going to jump into this. they will do very well and guide wire software. they have a software suite that takes care of that. >> what do you think? >> i am concerned about rad in. they have been losing a lot of money. that is much too risky. >> the other two you are okay with? >> not bad. >> and ben, what do you think? >> i love anything that charles said but i am not