>> of course. lou: appreciate it. that's all for us. thanks for being with us. good night from new york. ♪ >> oh, no, the singer against fracking, but we just had a crack in her argument. ♪ welcome, everybody, i'm liz mcdonald in for neil cavuto. 2.8 million, that's what a new study says how many jobs, the number of jobs fracking adds to the state of california alone, but environmentalists like yrk oko ono and daryl hannah are so vocal about the alleged dangers of drills as democrats in congress warm up to the idea, and todd wildman says if the president wants a boost to the economy, make drilling a priority. he's joined by simon, todd, take

it. >> it's important for the economy to grow in the energy sec foras a main mover of the economy, and this is a wonderful thing. we have natural resources that we can tap safely because we've been fracking since the early 50s, and then we have a huge proven reserve to put people to work, half a million people work in the next three years. you'd have up to 2.5 million people working in 2020, massive amounts of tax revenue, billions of dollars flowing into the state coffers that need it really bad here in california, and it's a win-win-win. realize that even lisa jackson, the former epa administrator, says there's no proven case where fracking affects ground water. liz: simon, what do you think of that? >> i think the economic benefits are real, and i think that the governor of the state said he wants to do everything he can to make sure california realizes the benefits. two things. we got to protect public health,

do it properly, and second thing, there's other business interests here, agricultural, tourism industries want to make sure nothing done could disrupt their businesses too, but i think california's well on the way to being a major supplier of new gas and oil in the united states helping us become energy independent in ten years. liz: craig, huey, seems like californiaments the oil revenues without the oil in all of the issues around it; right? i mean, let's go to the number quickly for the viewer. we're talking about california possibly having two-thirds of all of the continuous 48 states reserves, oil reserves there. that's double the shale in south dakota and eagle ford in texas comet bin -- combined. what's the problem? why doesn't california go after it? >> it's hard for people to understand because we talk about massive prosperity. talking about massive amount of jobs, talking about a state that's losing people, actually people coming back to california. we're talking about a situation

where the liberal democrats in sacramento have bills right now to put a moratorium for the next ten years on being able to do fracking while they study it, and, really, what they want to do is kill it. here's the thing, this fracking will create prosperity for small business owners such as myself. it will create prosperity for people who right know are desperate for jobs. you know, it creates an economic boom that is huge, and the risks are very small, but the upside potential is incredible. liz: you know, here's the issue, about getting people on board. you know, todd, there's a growing number of democrats in the washington, for example, who are coming around to the idea of the keystone pipeline, there's 17 who have now joined 45 republicans saying, you know, it's the way to go. if you don't have the pipeline, it ships that oil via truck, via other more polluting ways, you know, or by train, and you're

going to send it to, what? china has no polluting standards, pollution standards rather, and isn't the the same issue at play in california? >> pretty much, liz. environmentalists created this wonderful story about how fracking makes your tap water light on fire, makes it combustible. the truth is that's naturally occurring methane gas. environmentalists say fracking is destroying livestock and farmland. it's not true. it would make sense in a sense when you look at fracking and chemicals used, but realize that why that frack and they inject hydraulically inject fracking solution into the ground, it's going thousands of feet down. ground water is within a thousand feet. while it makes sense to the environmentalists, they would just cool off a little bit, step back from it, and actually look at the facts, they would be for fracking, for the pipeline, and they would be for cheap energy to help us grow our economy and

to grow our wealth here in the united states. liz: what todd says is about the fluid used for fracking. i know it's heavy. it tends to congregate below the formations there and not get into the ground water. the epa, but, simon, what's missing in the argument is earthquakes. i mean, california is no stranger to earthquakes. oklahoma, earthquakes in arkansas and tremors in tennessee, states that do fracking. is that an issue for the state of california? >> i think that's why some in california are saying we just got to be careful and do it right and make sure we know way we're doing before we go ahead. that's the responsible job of people in government. it's not their job to let it go willie nilly, but do it right so public health is protected, the tourism industry is protected, the ag industry, if there was a catastrophic polluted ground water in california, a state with little water to begin with, you know, has enormous economic consequences so i think jerry brown sets the right tone.

a democratic president has got out of the way here. be clear the democratic party as a party is not against fracking or domestic production in the u.s.. obama is out of the way, seen the explosion of domestic production on his watch setting the right tone, i think, for the country right now. liz: craig, do you agree with simon the president got out of the way? >> well, the president is not helping the issue by ignoring the issue, and here in california, we got a situation where it's kind of like we have a california lottery winner, and the democrats are trying to stop redeeming of that ticket. we have an incredible economic boom ahead of us to solve a lot of economic problems. wash's not helping, and the politicians in sacramento, they are trying to stop it, so i'm really worried that we're not going to see the progress that could be made, and we're not going to see a path to success

that could happen if we allow this. liz: craig's point, todd, is it a matter of a leap of faith that technology can be done right, todd? i tell you something, estimates out there are that natural gas will save american energy costs, american households in terms of energy costs more than the payroll tax cuts. you wonder if they want to come deer and engineer the economy that the nat gas revolution is out of their hands. is that the problem too? >> it could be. environmentalists don't like us getting wealthy and hydrocarbons hurt mother earth. you heard ono, too bad, sing, and len nonsing, which was good, but, you know, the key here, though, is reality, and it's not a leap of faith, it's a leap of faith that fracking is not safe. liz: todd, these are the same group of celebrities, daryl happen -- hannah and others who agree with

them saying, listen, we have to get off middle east oil. this is the best way to get off the middle east oil. what are they complaining about? you could do it right here. go ahead. >> it's emotionalism, negative publicity, like gas land, the documentary based on lies and not truths, and so, you know, they are not scientists. they are actors, singers, these peians. they are not rigorous science method type people. they don't look at the facts, but go off on emotion, but it would be a huge boom to us because we would be energy independent. we wouldn't ship massive amounts of money to countries that don't like us and treat women like dogs. it's like a win-win-win. people have jobs. energy costs come down. that's a huge tax cut to the whole economy. you know, when gasoline goes back to $2 a gallon, trust me, you'll have more money to spend, and as you spend money, the economy grows. liz: and $5, you'll hear more; right? gang, terrific, thanks so much

for the time. >> sure, thanks, liz. liz: next up, you won't believe the story next. teachers and superintendents cheating, and tax players learned aless sop about government waste, and why it's costing you big bucks no matter where you live. also, when you shop, retailers are shopping your personal information. give your zip code? they unzip all your secrets. ioat's next.a simp quest ♪ you've known? we gave people a sticker and had them show us. we learned a lot of us have known someone who's lived well into their 90s. and that's a great thing. but even though we're living longer, one thing that hasn't changed: the official retirement age. ♪ the question is how do you make sure you have the money you need to enjoy all of these years. ♪

liz: welcome back. this is a controversial story up next. make the grade, then you make big bucks. 35 atlanta educators have until midnight tonight to surrender to police. a bunch turning themselves in, and everyone from a former superintendent to teachers accused of rigging test scores for students to score bonuses for themselves and federal education funding for their schools, and critics say it's another example of the

government throwing money around and unable to keep track. guy benson and david here on that. mercedes, what do you think of the controversial? >> well, i think it's the educators being a bunch of bad apples, plain rotten, i got to temperature you. i mean, it is so unfortunate that these educators are the examples for our children, which, really, it was a parent who was a whistle blower who came out and said my kid can't read, but she aced the standardized test showing that we need to have incredible oversight and looked more from the state level when they did this investigative panel to ensure that they really look and see where the federal money was going to, and in essence that they cheated the system. at the end, a horrible example for the school system and what the parents do, that at the end of the day, it negatively impacted the children. liz: david, even the office of the governor said there was cheating going on and test

scores going back in 2011 #. it cheats the students in a way to go get extra help; right? >> a sad case, but, you know, that investigation identified 17 -- 178 teachers and principals imp kateed. it's not a question of bad apples, but a rotten system. what's rot p about -- rotten about is it the system of carrots and sticks. if you don't make the grade, you're fired. if you make the grade, that's a financial reward. that's a recipe for cheating. it's performance pay. those who do well, get good grades, get a bonus pay, and the governor of georgiaments more performance may and merit pay for teachers, and that's going to result in more cheating. liz: guys, about a tougher teacher evaluation, is that behind cheating? >> i disagree that encouraging good teaching is a problem. i think the problem is dishonest people. here you have 200 people involved in a huge heating way

all the way to the top. not just appalling behavior, but stupid. there was one from 24 #% to 86% in a year. that's sending alarm bells. they were not clever about the way they cheated which makes me nervous is there more going on in a subtle way? there's a tragic element here which is rather than teaching kids who need to be educated based on those horrendous test scores, they sat around plotting how to enrich themselves with pizza parties where they corrected test scores, and the whole thing is just sickening. >> you know, the superdidn't was charged, and here's the thing. we know the superinten didn'ts get big, whopping six figure sal

-- salaries calling themselveses ceos, and assistant superinten didn'ts get cars and all the like. is a merit push, a push because of teacher evaluations, or just corruption? >> you need to reward teachers that are making a difference in the classroom. i believe with guy. you want the merit pay and be able to allow teachers to not just teach well, but reward them for doing something good. obviously, from the top down, her leadership was just bad and wrong what she did, and she pushed along the other teachers to support her really criminal behavior in essence. when you look at that, you do want -- you know, don't take the approach of the unions which is just keep rewarding bad teachers and keep them in the system, so i think you do want to have those inacceptabilityives --

incentives, but you need oversight. liz: corruption in the school system across the country, and why is it that -- in other words, taxpayers are treated as not allowed to ask questions like you can't of why doctor. it's not the thing to do. isn't that a poise to change because our property taxes go towards their, you know, towards the salary. p >> well, absolutely, should be more oversight, and they kicked in coi understand didn'tly after no child left behind kicked in, called no teacher left honest. as soon as the testing regimes took effect in 2003, we have cheating scandals in the atlantic case, cheating started in 2004. it's not just atlanta, but eel l paso, chicago, city after shy as a result. liz: just another way, though, to game the system to get money? supers have been ringing money,

and the administrative office have been taking money out of the school system, going back to the 50s. we've seen corruption on that level. is this just a new way to play the game? >> you know, what the teachers caught in atlanta said they were afraid of losing their jobs, and, in fact, a lot of principles had been fired for not doing well enough on the standardized tests so you have principals afraid of being fired, teachers afraid of being fired, and that's a big incentive to cheat so the problem is not just the big carrots for the winners, but the sticks for the losers. liz: guy, way do you think? >> what we heard is the super was threatening teacher who is refused to go with the cheating. those who were hoppest and do the right thing are punished, a stomach turning element to the story the the idea that teachers are constantly, especially tenured teachers within unions and public schools are constantly fearful of losing their jobs just dpsh i don't think that's a fair assessment. there's a lot of americans not

in unions without tenure where they lose a job based on poor performance. we can measure these things better. i don't think no child left behind was correct to put it lightly. the problem is corruption. throw the book at the people and make examples of them. liz: guy, how were whistle blowers treated in this case? >> well, the whistle-blower was a parent because was culture of secrecy and quiet among the teachers not to rat out friends and colleagues, but, again, reports read indicate that the honest teachers were retaliated against by the administration, by the administrators lining their pockets issue and it's just unforgivable. liz: really appreciate it. good stuff there. next up, massive unemployment, crumb ling economies, bank runs, riots, and europe is worried about google? why europe's privacy concerns could worry you.

liz: welcome back. here's how you know google is wrong. even the land of endless riots want to end the privacy problems. we've got france, germany, italy among the e.u. countries pressuring google now to change its privacy policy. tech expert says it is very telling when countries who can want fix problems tell google to fix its privacy mess joined by privacy advocate, christopher. what do you think of that? i don't get what you're saying. >> well, look, i think google's an attractive target, but i think that the problem goes way further than google. people decide every day to use google's products. there's tradeoff with the choice. liz: wait a sec, so, chris, you know, the viewer doesn't like

their e-mails, passwords, addresses, photos, their information has been picked up, case after case, saw a big one, google settled with 38 states over the mapping software that picked up the personal information. i mean, to the point, saying, you know, go on google at your own risk, is that the way the viewer should think about this? >> google tracks you everywhere on the web, whether ewe use a google service. they are present through the ad network or youtube, and be my viewing websites, google collects information about that. the 38 states settling, in this case, they drove around people's neighborhood and collected information about the web browsing in the homes and businesses without consumers using google services. they had not interagented google, but they drove around and decided to collect the information without their knowledge or consent. liz: what's interesting about this case is that google uses teenagers. they use college students 20 take the photographs of your

home. i mean, suspect that kind of like, oh, i'm not comfortable with that. >> well, look, i think we don't complain when we are lost and, you know, up state and trying to find directions to a certain location. we see the picture of the building we go to, and it takes an army of people to take these pgs, and like with any technology, you use it for bad or utility. liz: the point is do you think google should use your personal information as a goal line to profit from it >> >> i think that they -- it? >> i think there should be limits, but if they do that and i'm able to do gmail for free and surf on youtube and get search results when i need data i couldn't -- liz: you're okay with going on google having your kids' photographs on the interpret or used or shopped around or sold? >> i don't think they are selling your kids' photograph. >> they could. that's the issue. >> they could, by i don't think they do. you need a level of trust that the company that retains you as a customer couldn't do something

so stupid that you wouldn't come back. if they do, i'd leave as well as 30% of the market share. liz: interesting. those are the questions; right? about google, about what that are they doing in the information. >> correct. liz: chris, you know, listen, the engineer rigging going on with data map is a big deal, but the fines involved are small. when they are smack, it's an hour of profits in terms of the dollar fines they pay up to the united states; right? >> so google was fined $22 million for violating a cop sent order with the federal trade commission. i used to work there. the problem is that e -- we don't have a set of effective privacy laws in the u.s. to govern the activities. the ftc fined them for lying to the exend in which sciewrm u consumers were tracked, and fined by the fcc for delaying an obstructing the investigation. we have do not have effective privacy laws in the united states. the university peens do. they have regulators who are

passed of protecting the privacy of the citizens. it's not surprising the regulators go after google. here in the united states, we don't have that. the federal trade commission doesn't have the word "privacy" in the mandate or authority. they are in the space, good they are there, but it's better if they had regulation. liz: i want to follow up on that. what government agency is charged with protecting the privacy of interpret users in the united states? >> the federal trade commission took it upon itself -- liz: but it's not in their mandate. what's interesting is forest research analyst, forest has information to the likes of google, this individual says, hey, it's great that france as opposed to case with google because they are tough about privacy. one idea over there in france is saying, you know, essentially, google should show everyone all of the information they have on users. is that doable? >> yeah, i think there's technology out there that will come out more in time, hopefully by another industry that's

another multibillion dollar driver to the economy, to help explows some of the profiles that are -- liz: but should google show us? should google show the viewer what it has? what information it has on each and every viewer and delete it if it is requested to be deleted? >> i think google should give you the option. i dope think it's on them necessarily to do that ahead of any regulation or any other company or service that allows that already does it. for instance, going to a hotel, we never complain when they know the room preference. they track the fact i like a queen sized bed and a notary public-smoking room. liz: still creepy. >> the hotel, to them, when you fill out the profile, you say i like queen beds, these kinds of things in my room. with google, there's things they monitor and data mining that's not information you are knowingly communicating. you don't tell google to save them in the future. they just follow you everywhere on the web and collecting everything and storing everything without your knowledge or consent.

liz: time word, and we have to go. go ahead, final word. >> look, i think google could do a better job, yes, but i don't think that the costs of their tracking outweigh the benefits of the services provided us. liz: guys, terrific. thank you so much for insights here. if you're fed up, but thinking of moving south? young people are fleeing to florida to catch a break, but not this kind of break that you see on the screen. they are thinking of a tax break. it is spring. can i gethe smith contract, ease? thank you. that's three new paper shredders. [ boris ] put 'em on my spark card. [ garth ] boris' small business earns 2% cash back on every pchase every day. great businesses deserve unlimited rewards. read back the chicken's testimony, please. "buk, buk, bukka!" [ male announcer ] get the spark business card from capital one and earn unlimited rewards. choose 2% cash back or double miles on every purchase every day. told you i'd get half. what's i your walle

liz: welcome back. it's spring, flowers bloom, and red states booming. places with fewer regulations and lower taxes expect budget surpluses for the year, and republican governors push to give tax cults with the extra cash to staples cofounder who is -ot surprised because it makes perfect sense. tom? >> well, you know, i think there's been a phenomena that people look at what it costs to operate wherever they are, and that operating cost includes wages, includes represent, occupancy, and whether you talk country to country or state to stay, i think over time businesses will migrate to lower operating costs, and thus places

like florida are doing quite well and places like california, despite a favorable climate, are not doing as well. liz: tom, i want your reaction, judgment on this. the numbers coming out of the census bureau about the ages of the people who leave new york for florida are younger and younger and younger every year. we're talking 18-year-olds, 19-year-olds, 24-year-olds. what do you think of the fact that the workers who leave new york are under the age of 60? >> well, it was the myth that just retirees move. the fact of the matter is today when you look at the place like new york or california, and you add up the new york's income taxes, the new york city taxes if they apply, the incredibly high sales taxes, in fact, when you add now the obamacare taxes to that and the so-called investment tax of 4%, you literally are talking tax rates

that are barely competitive with sweden and germany, and that's the kind of thing smart people move away from, and as soon as the government and the states and legislature figure it out, the better off they'll be. liz: you know taxes are an issue, jobs, of course, another issue. i mean, young workers leave new york state even for places like delaware or north carolina, but is this an issue, too, that politicians who, you know, are about doing things like big gulp @%das, is there fear out there, a dramatic change, something happening in the population, is there a reaction if they do nan tie state things, the thinking is they are not particularly sympathetic to the tax bill. >> well, you know, and, again, just you emphasized regulation as well. it's not just taxes. it's how business friendly a state is a given state, and a state like delaware has made its

business to be good to business, so delaware from a whole variety of perspectives is the sales tax is an attractive place to operate. certainly, north carolina, for years, ump democratic and republican leadership has made it attractive for businesses to relocate there, and that's one of the reasons it's thriving. here in massachusetts, thank god, under republican leadership of mitt romney and others, we have gradually lowered the tax rates and the democrats have not yet been able to raise them to make us uncompetitive, which is why massachusetts is doing fairly well. liz: tom, the states with budget surplus have huge government retiree obligations. do you think the american viewers out there, and even the younger crowd, are getting it? that the way in the balance, where you want to live, work, do you think that people are waking up and saying to themselves, hey, wait a second, this state or that state has very high taxes, very high government

worker obligations, and it's got a lot of debt on their own state balance sheets. do you think the american population says, hey, i don't want to live in the state, but i want to move here instead. >> the only guy i know who is willingly moved to california to take on taxes is mitt romney. most folks i know make it a point of not spending more than six months and day in california, even if they have beautiful residences there because they can't afford the taxes, and i think in the california, they realize they can't raise the rates on declining tax base because over time, it's going to get them in deeper and deeper trouble. you asked about public servants. we all know what a great service firemen do for us, and i've been a long time supporter and admirer of what the firemen do. having said that, when you read in your local newspaper that in your state, california, firemen retire in their 40s making

between a hundred and $# -- $2 # 00,000 a year, and you struggle to make ends meet, that's a tough pill to swallow. liz: thank you for your time, appreciate it. next up, you're making money, fannie, may we have the money back? the judge on why after rebailed it out, fannie may is taking the taxpayer money and running.

liz: bailed it out, and now it is making out. fannie mae with the biggest profit in history last year, and this is the same company that taxpayers bailed out to the tune of $116 billion. it still owes u.s. taxpayers 81 billion of the sum. the judge says good luck getting the money back. judge, you don't think we'll get it back? >> the taxpayers absorbed the

losses from fannie and freddie, and taxpayers enjoy the profits. if you combine the two of them, the number is larger, close to $200 billion that the federal government invested in these, the investment consistented in paying their debts, and then acquiring ownership, so these are wholly owned by the federal government. the $16 billion in profit is a good thing if you believe the federal government should even be in the business of financing housing. liz: right. they agent like off balance hedge fund sheets. the u.s. taxpayers owns a big stake, nearly 80% of fannie and freddie, and the preferred shares, and what's going on here with the profits directed back, they were just paying interest costs on the equity stake. that's what's going on. fannie and freddie pay the interest costs the loan they still owe into the government. >> yoir right. this is not money going into the treasury which saves taxpayer's

dollars, but a transfer on a ledger sheet. doing the research for this, we came across just speculation that the new secretary of the treasury wants to invest more money in fannie and freddie, so -- liz: for what purpose? >> the purpose was not stated, but you know the attitude of the present administration is they like to own the means of prurks. i know that sounds terrifying, but they do, and for them, this is a means to produce financing for middle america. it's a calamity as a producer of financing because it puts the taxpayers at risk. i love middle america. i don't want to have to pay for their failed mortgages. liz: yeah. >> and the federal governmenn shouldn't be in the business because the constitution doesn't authorize them to do it. >> i mean, the size of -- tell you, the size of fannie and freddie equal the size, i think, of two frances, but what's interesting here to your point, and that is that there's know a bill in congress to stop the use

of fannie mae and freddie mack fees they get for backing mortgages on government spending of the it's so below the screen, the media establishment is not reporting on the use of fannie and freddy as raising money for other government spending. >> well, that's because they put the government in such a hole there's never going to be cash from anything fannie or freddie does. if a homeowner or borrower pays a fee to the federal government through fannie or freddy to receive a mortgage, i don't know what happens to that actual cash. it probably goes to the treasury to reduce debt they have. i don't think it goes into a pot to be spent. liz: there was a push, an idea in the white house, to use -- actually in the administration, to use the fee money for other government spending. to the flip side of this. >> go ahead. liz: since the government, the u.s. taxpayer owns effectively fannie and freddie, is the

thinking possibly it's easier to break the two up? >> well, sure, the federal government could break the two up. the federal government, which owns, as you say, 80% of them, can do anything they want. these are corporations, wholly owned by the federal government which basically means that the secretary of treasury. i have to look the the enabling legislation, but he probably has the authority to do this on his own. liz: way are we waiting for? >> again, the attitude of this administration is that federal government is a safety net for you, for your physical health and for your fiscal health, and this is the way you buy a home, even though it's a disaster, even though it costs us billions, we're still in the business. liz: scwuj, should they be on the government's books, period? >> no, and in the opinion of those of us who believe the constitution means what it says, it's not in there. the framers never intended for the federal government to be financing the purchase of the private property. liz: it would give truth to what

the deficit is, more than 20 trillion on the books. >> you're right. liz: i don't know -- >> when you say "on the books," should the debt be carried on the government's books or should the government own it? liz: should the debt be carried? >> absolutely because it's real debt the taxpayers should know about. liz: as long as we own nearly 80%. >> you know the rule, it's 79.9. we probably own 79.9. liz: that's why it's not on the books because it's under the 80% threshold. >> right. when we bail out aig, we hit 79.9%, and you hit 80, you carry the debt on the books. liz: thank you. >> pleasure to be here with you. liz: happy easter week to you. >> same to you. liz: a zip code, harmless enough, but news today with the just five little digits, stores are unlocking everything about you, zip codes unzip, and that's next. thanks so much.

liers liz welcome back. we've been there before. after a simple purchase, the sales clerk asked you for the zip code. well, you know what? be careful because consumer affairs.com editor warns doing just that reveals a lot of information about you. jim, so what happens? you go into the store, enter the zip code, and what happens? >> you think it's a simple purchase, a new laptop; right? they sold you a warranty, but then you get to the check out, give the lady your card, runs it, asks for the zip code, well, maybe it's to help the credit card authorization process. that's possible in some cases. by and large, they collect information to sell you some roar things later on and sell that information or trade it to

big data in the sky that people who build the huge data bases to track this. liz: what happens is what you're saying is they get your zip code and find out your home address and then send you, what? what happens then? >> well, you get catalogs in the mail, fliers, you know, invitations to things, you get calls, and you get more e-mail about certain promotions, and it all gets added into the huge data base of consumer preferences and habits. you know, there used to be a thing called reverse directories looked up by street address, and find out who lived at what address. well, now, big data is sort of that, only a million times bigger. take who bought what, and you put it together, and once you get the zip code and maybe the credit card number and one of the pieces of information, you can crunch it together. liz: is it a junk mail problem or bigger than that?

>> depends how much you look at it and how much of a problem you think it is. no one will abduct you or burn the house down, but certainly it can affect credit. liz: what do you mean "can affect credit"" >> your credit rating is built on elements like your behavior as a consumer. liz: a lot comes to the door, and that affects the credit score? >> not the catalog, but the data gathered by retailers and online sites and added to the massive -- liz: i see what ewe are saying. so the retailer activity shows up on my credit report. >> absolutely. you think you are just buying something from the retailer and making money on the laptop, but, in fact, they make money on selling some of your data or trading it and hoping to sell you other things. liz: you say, t.j. maxx or macy's or just because there's a query about you and where you

lived, is that how it works? >> yes, and, you know, it goes back to what the previous guests talked about too with google and mapping consumer preferences and where you did on the web. add to that where you go in the physical world and what brick stores you go to, where you live, the car you have, and, you know, a lot of people know a lot of things. liz: five seconds, just retailers, or who else is doing it? >> any place you buy something this is going on. >> asking for the zip code. >> you don't have to give it to them. liz: good point. thank you so much for your time. >> you bet. liz: appreciate it. today, a stunning admission from the president. >> investments don't always pay off, but when they do, they change our lives in ways you could have never imaginedded. government investments don't always pay off, and wait until you hear what we invest in now. that's next. don't go away. from capital one, bjorn earns unlimited rewas for his small business take theseags to room 12 please.

[ garth ] bjors small busiss earns double miles on every purchase every day. produce delivery. [ bjorn ] just put it on my spark card. [ garth why settle for less? ahh, oh! [ garth ] great businesses deserve limited reward here's your wake up call. [ male announcer ] get the spark business card from capital one and earn unlimited rewards. choose double miles or 2% cash back on every purchase every day. what's in your wallet? [ crows ] now where's the snooze button?

liz: orksz -- omb, omg, the white house office is furloughing staffers this year. that's nearly the size of the entire work force of the omb, but mercedes says this is actually a good thing, and guy benson and david call happen are back also. mercedes, this is a good thing? >> well, i think when you look at the white house taking the chance, the opportunity to reduce costs to basically create better efficiency in the white house, i mean, absolutely. you're looking at them, having that opportunity to almost take a lesson, you know, from the private sector where we can't continue having this sort of out of control federal spending, and, really, honing in on how to make a government agency, in this case, the omb, the white house, more first time. in this furlough, it's 68 special assistants to the president, two calligraphers and the first lady's staff.

you can say in that sense that it's not -- it's something that's not going to be a huge loss, although, the people in the offices will be affected. liz: 5125 -- 512 works, what are they doing over there? >> wellings that's a very good question. i mean, you talk about the number of people working at omb, it's the office of management and budget, and by law, they need a budget by the first monday of february. we are now two months later, and still no budget. we might get one next week from what we understand. more than two months late, so, i mean, it's like the guys were furloughed for the last two months. liz: what do you think of that, david? >> the omb has a detailed budget every year. the problem is that congress doesn't pass it. it's not that they do a bad job spelling out where they spend the money. liz: you need 512 people?

>> government spending is out of control, and we have more people doing the budget. >> sequester is a crazy way to do budget cuts. nobody likes it, you know, it sounds great, and it is until you sit in the airport because you can't get a flight because the control tower is closed, and you take the kids to the national park and the park is closed. liz: it's only by small airplanes for rich people. it's not affecting. >> the customs department, all sorts of people are going to be furloughed to affect a lot of ten days out of the year. liz: mercedes, back to the point at hand, as they said, no budget for two months, is that counted as a furlough? >> look, they should have taken out, you know, furloughed the political staff over at the white house instead of omb. you know, again, it's going back to the efficiency question. it's going back to the back to

the president believed this would create a huge backlash by trying to blame the republicans on the sequester cuts, and now he's letting it go into the fact, and, really, the american people say it's just fine. you're cutting federal, you know, furloughing employees, but how does it impact me. it's not impacting the american people so he did an approach that did not work. liz: the next issue, next up, president obama announcing 100 million to study the brain. that's right, the brain, and even the president admits investments like this are a risk. >> we just don't attract the best scientists and entrepreneurs, but continually invest in their success, and the investments don't always pay off, but when they do, they change our lives in ways we could have never imagined. liz: david says investment like these create jobs while the other panelists are not sure. david, you're saying this creates jobs? >> well, look at the past big

investments, the human genome project costs $3 billion produced $700 billion worth of economic benefits. the internet creates a lot of economic benefits to say the least. sign is a great investment. >> guy, way do you think? >> i think republicans and conservatives have targets when it comes to wasteful spending in washington, d.c.. the big issue, of course, is entitlement reform. that's what we have to do, but when it comes to waste and duplicity and duh publictiveness in dc, there are tons of studies showing reasons to cutment i think that scientific advancement and medical research are appropriate area for government investment. i think the work done, for example, the nih is important, and it's a mistake to focus on these particular types of spending projects to focus on them saying they are somehow inappropriate. i think that this is something the government should be

spending money on frankly. liz: mother mercedes, what do yu think? >> i agree with guy. it's a well worthy cause tackling autism, brain injury, all that affect so many american lives, and secondly, you got to look at the wasteful spending, talking about $700,000 given to a new york company to have a climate change musical or how about 300,000 for robotic squirrels. that's where you target the 42 billion in wasteful spending and really invest money in projects that are well worthwhile like the brain initiative. liz: david, last word, so, i mean, there's been no number of jobs put out by this, the report about the hundred million to study the brain, there's studies going on out there, though, the private sector doing it, and do we need the government in here? >> well, i mean, the private sector does a lot of research, but not enough. that's why leaders like bill gates called on government to double spending on scientific

research because the private soak sector is not doing the fundamental scientific research, and that's what the brain research is about. >> president george w. bush, and you know, we don't see a lot of criticism about, you know, i'm not saying the brain project is pie in the sky. i think it's permly -- personally a good idea, but we don't see the backlash against the president and what he's doing with blowing out the budget as he has. >> there's a difference between colonizing mars when there was relatively low deficits versus trying to study alzheimer's in an age of high deficits. i think you have to make priorities. the problem newt gingrich had running for president in 2012 is he talked about mars projects. we have no money. what are you talking about? come together, talk about a public-private partnership to study the human brain and cure major illnesses that affect millions of americans, something the government can get involved