lis wiehl, faith jenkins. that is it for lou dobbs. thank you for being with us. the president releases his budget tomorrow. we'll assess it very carefully with the chairman of the house judiciary committee, congressman bob goodlatte. stay with us for that. good night. neil: if we're being told everything is hunky-dory why do i get the feeling the feds are bracing for something scary? it is not what they're saying. it is what they're demanding. why i'm worried because after what i share i just found out, why you're going to be worried too. welcome everybody, glad to have you, i'm neil cavuto. riddle me this, batman, if the banks just passed with flying colors we're told as late as stress test. why is it congress are forcing banks to hang on to at least a half a trillion bucks? i thought banks already had more than enough cash on hand to weather any storm, even a doozy of a meltdown like the one we had back in 2008. why this call for putting up still more cash now? what is it these guys in

washington are seeing now or more ominously fearing now? then it got me thinking which is always dangerous. why does the federal reserve keep putting out reassuring statement, bond buying program won't be ending anytime soon, relax, relax even as it insists economy is doing just fine? me thinks maybe things are not so fine. i'm telling you congress wouldn't be telling banks to set aside more cash or the fed is not going to put the punchbowl aside unless they were worried about something big, maybe something soon. to nuveen funds financial maestro, bob doll, and former best buy ceo brad anderson on whether something smells here. bob, what is it, do you worry? >> i'm always worried when we have the deflation airy outcome we saw when the credit bubble burst three years ago and the cleanup after that. your observations are correct but i wonder how

much is politics he is deck -- especially the credit part? fed will tell us things are getting better. they want us to believe that and increase confidence because that is part of their job. the congressional part are they really seeing something we don't see or playing politics? i vote for the latter. neil: you're probably right about that but, brad, i see a little bit of you know what covering going on here. you can always say if everything hits the fan, well, we kind of warned you, right? >> yeah, i think that's true but i also think they're seeing other things in the economy, some of the things banks being asked to do are actually, entrusting the economy with things slowing us down. it is hard for a banker to what they are trying to clean things up a little bit, putting another $500 billion, basically freezing it in banks doesn't to me be doing anything productive. they that that is safety. i don't think that is

safety. there is also in the bill some intent to make things cleaner and get at some unintended consequence what is they did last time to try to prevent another 2008. neil: you know, bob, i always feel sorry for the banks. i know i sound out of step with the popular media lore that the banks are embodiment of evil and by extension that would apply to mutual fund and you bob, but i don't feel that way. i feel that banks are damned if they do, damned if they don't. if they put more cash aside that means less money to lend. the same congress demanding that they push the cash aside, boy you cheapskates got to lend more, they can't win for smiling or frowning, no? >> they are in the way. a lot went wrong of the one of the scapegoats is the banks. look the banks didn't get it all right but neither did congress. neither did you and me the borrower. everybody is a little bit guilty. neil: i'm not, bob. you might be.

i have no guilt here. i did nothing wrong. but i do see your point. do you think they risk compounding the problem by putting banks into this corner? >> well, certainly could because what's happening of course as you point out is the money just sitting there. and feds kind of got pedal to the metal trying to provide liquidity and a lot is going to banks and sitting there and there is not incentive or too much fear at the bank to turn around and lend it. so it compound or lengthens the problem. we need a magic wand called confidence to fix a lot of this mess and that will be slow to come. neil: the magic wand up to now, brad has been the federal reserve providing all of this free money and forcing these rates down low. so that's been a tonic for the markets and leading to yet another record in the dow today. how long do you think that lasts? >> look how long it lasted in japan? i think we haven't really

addressed the, for all of us except for you, neil, that were responsible this, we haven't addressed the key causes so we keep putting this candy into the system to try to keep it boeing. and because we're not getting robust growth at any corner they will have to keep doing it as far as the eye can see. we also have this chronic problem with the deficit. neil: brad, to that point, ceos like you and guys in the know and corporate honcho types, they have been buying back a lot of their shares or buying out competitors but very few of them to my memory are actually, i will address it with bob right after you, brad, expanding into new businesses or expanding abroad or expanding anywhere. so when they do tap whatever money they have they're not dog things that would -- doing things that would indicate confidence in the economy or the future for that matter. what do you make of that? >> they don't know how. big companies don't know how to stimulate growth. that is the reason we need small entrepreneur hal enterprises to get started

and to aerate the soil. part of what we see here our banking system, et cetera, is making it hard for the small entrepreneural guys to get going and big guys don't know how to stimulate. not that they don't want. they just don't know how to stimulate growth. neil: bob, i know smart guys reminded me over many, many years we've known each other the markets climb a wall of worry. i appreciate that. i understand that but there are a lot of worries there and they just keep climbing. is it waiting for godot thing, what is happening? >> they climb the wall of worry can last a long time. i think brad had it right. we need small businesses who are the long-term job creators to have the incentives to go there. neil: well they're not doing that, bob. they are not doing that. >> absolutely right because we're not getting the policy out of washington, d.c. so the monkeys is on the fed's back. every other time ben bernanke speaks, you hear him say, guys, help me. fiscal policy, i need you to help. we do need some help there. in the meantime aside from

the recent slowdown the economy is irregularly improving. not good enough because we still have deleveraging in the system. neil: you know, i always refer to you guys the experts, brad, a lot people ask me to explain why is our market doing so well, i would say that by comparison we look pretty good. so that is sort of like being the tallest midget in the room. you're still a midget, but you just a tad taller and more appealing than the others. that is hardly ringing endorsement but it is what it is. europe's mess what they are. that's what we face but i don't know how long that kind of thing can last? >> as an investor though i think as you look at other choices as bad as choices may be here i think we're quite a bit taller than the other midgets in the room. neil: two inches, three? >> could be six. >> to add to brad's point, cash return is zero.

10-year treasury is returns 1 and 3/4. i buy a stock and returns --. neil: bob, you could have done that for years. what is changing the sentiment now? there must be something genuinely going on now to encourage people to wake up, you know, this is a gift we've got here. this is easy money? >> somehow, neil, i think somehow people turn the calendar page from 12 to 2013 and i'm tired of zero in my cash buy me a stock or two. but by me a safe stock. that's why the defensive names led the way. we have not gotten to the aggressive part of the market. neil: how important, gentleman, will the president's budget be released tomorrow? i know a lot of this is politics and theater? i did find constructive this notion he is going to address at least social security, reining in its growth by changing the inflation formula. not every conservative loves it. a lot of liberals don't love it at all. but it is a step toward addressing entitlements. so does it encourage you,

bob? >> it does on the one hand of a part of me pinches myself, bob, you're just being naive. that is he putting something out there so he can say he went there and republicans don't agree, i did what i could and they wouldn't go along. the optimist says, you know what? this is bargaining chip and republicans will have to come back they don't want and if they get something it will be something we all don't like very much. neil: if everyone is dissatisfied, brad, wouldn't that be encouraging event for the markets, that at least we're making progress? >> i think it is real encouraging. it is a relatively small step but the first real substantive step in the right direction. neil: guys, thank you both very much. always good talking to you. in the meantime, we come in peace to serve man. i didn't believe it for a minute. when those eight-foot aliens said it in that famous twilight zone episode. turns out they weren't here to help us. they were here to eat us.

now the government is using the sail line. don't believe for a second they're here to save us. from the woodshed to giving everyone shed, david stockman unink hadded. here's a treat. ronald reagan's former budget director is on a tear, here, next. everybody, duck. we went out and asked people a simple question: how old is the oldest person 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. ♪

neil: well the next time you see the government snooping around your bank account, relax, they're not hacking, they're helping. it is just a test. calm down, they're doing it to protect you. once more house lawmakers that rolls out the red carpet for them to do so. all under the guise of stopping cyberthreats and outsmarting the snoops. but in so doing, aren't they snooping? since the bill would grant companies access to data now supposedly classified, and the government access to companies customer data that is supposedly off limits you do have to wonder whether

everything about you, from your internet searches to your bank accounts, your e-mails, are all big brother fair game. so the judge whether i'm judging too harshly. what do you think? >> i think you have your finger right on the problem. look, this proposed legislation being supported by republican house leadership, would basically say, to the government, we need you to protect us against cyber attacks. so major computer servers, major telephone providers, major media outlets that have customers, and transmit information to those customers, would say to the government, we need you to help us out. so, show us your secrets how you can help us. then of course we'll show you what you need to know about us and about our customers. now right now the government's secrets are classified. right now the customers information is protected by privacy law. the companies like, verizon, or google can't give that information to the government. but soon the government will demand it.

in return for the services it claims it will he provide which is safety. so this is the age-old adage of trading liberty for safety. we'll give up our privacy in return for keeping you safe. but government will keep us safe from cyber attacks? private enterprise will do a far better job than the government and protect our privacy at the same time. neil: you know what i worry about too, judge, not that i would be guilty of this, what if they discover something suspicious going on in this so-called test? in other words i'm selling pot out of my home, something like that? >> that's a great question, neil. the government will then use what is called the plain view doctrine. so the plain view doctrine reduced to its most basic level there's a fire in your house. the firemen come in the house and they see evidence of a crime. can they turn you into the police? yes. even though they're there without a warrant they're there to put the fire out. same thing with the government. if the government supposedly is protecting the cavuto household and whatever company the cavuto household uses to provide data to it

and take data from it, if it is protecting them from cyberspace but they discovering something else going on in the cavuto household, can they prosecute you for it? yes. would they be in the cavuto household were your telecom provider not giving them access to your personal information? absolutely the no. this is a vast opening for private behavior and private thoughts for the government to march one of its trucks. neil: i worry about the under the guise of protecting us they're zooming one past us, once in they never leave. >> well you're right about that. the same thing happened with the patriot act, for example, which let federal agents write their own search warrants. they will only use it to protect us from terrorists. you know how many self-written search warrants, search warrants where fbi agents authorized themselves since 9/11 to search for documents, without even telling you? over 50,000. neil: is that right? >> yes. yes.

how much information will the government acquire about us under the guise of keeping us safe from cyber attacks? limitless amount of information. neil: i understand. all you need is a huge cyberattack, all you need is another 9/11, god forbid to bring all this stuff back again, all the behavior intrusion back again. i'm worried, let's say there is a financial cyberattack and wipes out people's accounts, god forbid. you hear what i'm saying? they will say keep doing it, keep doing it, protect us. >> what causes us to turn to the government for protection? the government can't deliver the mail. the government can't have a budget. neil: just for this you will not get any mail. >> my local postmaster is my friend but not the people that work for him. why do we think that the government can keep us safe? you have a great man coming up as a guest after me, david stockman. he will tell you how the government itself caused the financial crisis that we're now in. why would we repose safety and freedom into their hands? neil: nobody likes david.

>> i love stockman. the book is a doorstop but i couldn't put it down. neil: he is amazing. he is coming up. as are you, judge, amazing. thank you very much. >> pleasure, neil. neil: tomorrow is the day. everything exposed. not north korea's missile test. i'm talking the president's budget dare. the dare has both democrats and republicans screaming that the president has gone too far. why ronald reagan's aforementioned budget director says they're all being asses. he didn't say that. i did. not a one of them he says is going far enough. it is david versus all the goliaths, next. protein in jelly, impact life expectancy in the u.s., real estate in hong kong, and the optics industry in germany? at t. rowe price, we understand the connections of a complex, global economy. it's just one reason over 75% of our mutual funds beat their 10-year lipper average. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. request a prospectus or summary prospectus with investment information, risks, fees and expenses

to read and consider carefully before investing.

neil: well at least this time it is not just the president taking him to the woodshed. now pretty much all the powers that be are, let as you just say the official reaction to former reagan budget director david stockman's latest sacred cow

bashing best-seller, the great deformmation is now mass indignation. everyone from republicans who call him a turncoat to democrats who call him heartless to wall street giants who say he is clueless. the stockman cure for what ails us ain't for the payment of heart n a damning ripping critique of both parties and their giant pet causes and programs, stockman spares no one. warns if we don't get a handle on our spending and our corrupting capitalism, you might as well say good-bye to america. here now the man behind this very, very and balanced bashing of every single human being on the planet, david stockman. i exaggerate but it was a great book. a great read. >> thank you. neil: did a great job. you made minutes meet of every -- mincemeat of every great american that we know. it goes back to your days in the reagan administration and cap wine merger in defense and spend, spend. even then you were harboring

real concerns what was going on. >> that was just the beginning. now it is 30 years later. what we've done --. neil: i can't believe that. you're right, 30 years. >> it has drifted, drifted, drifted. we've gotten to the point where both parties are addicted to the keynesian medicine. the democrats have always been for spending and so forth. republicans do it in disguised way. they say they want to cut taxes. that is a great thing in the abstract but when you riddle the tax code with loopholes to encourage this particular case for your lobby or that one or green energy or black energy or any of the others in between and you're not really trying to focus on the accounts spending and revenue and balancing them, you end up playing the same games. so if you have two parties playing keynesian game, one with the tax code and riddling it with loopholes, the other defending every dollar of spending, you end up with what i call a fiscal doomsday machine, a budget

that can't be stopped. everything in there is a jobs program and tax code you can't change it you say it is a jobs program. spending obviously. we're now heading i think towards some kind of a denouement that isn't very good. neil: when you say not very good, your argument if republicans remain resistant to revenues, they gave in on revenues raising rates as they just did, president wants more, democrats are very resistant to even the president's proposal to tinker with social security as he will do tomorrow then what happens? >> they're talking about pinpricks, okay? the social security cola thing is fine. it is 110 billion over the next 10 years. i think the size of the problem is 15 or 20 trillion. if you have an honest forecast of the economy going forward, not --. neil: talking about the debt, collected debt? and our unfunded liabilities which add more? >> i haven't even gotten to that. but the cumulative deficit

for the next 10 years. even if they do this and democrats scream we can't, it is one or 2% of the problem. there are so many myths built into this now after all these years that it is hard for the system to even function. the democrats say social security isn't part of the problem. who are they trying to kid. social security is running a $50 billion cash deficit every year right now. the trust fund is filled with confetti. those aren't real assets. there is no money in there. it has all been spent on cotton subsidies and fighter aircraft and everything else over the years. so --. neil: threw all the stuff out. took all the stuff out. republicans are opposed to, get rid of that. republicans say they might even do all of that if democrats are serious about cutting spending. you argue they would have to do all of the above on steroids. >> yes. if you take the so-called social insurance, it isn't means tested, 55 million people get medicare and social security disability combined. it costs $1.5 trillion a

year. and a lot of people who don't need it are getting it. and i'm saying a little pinprick like cola is not even beginning to face the problem heavily. neil: entitlements. >> social security and medicare i would means test it heavily. take off millions of people or cut their benefits back dramatically who don't need it. reserve it for what we can do for those who have no other source of income. neil: that should go over well. >> but the point is. i know it won't happen but the reason i'm saying it is to provide a marker as to how far off base we are. if we don't do big things like that or have a major demobilization of defense or have some new revenue source like some kind of a sales tax on consumption, which we really need --. neil: all those taxes you hint as much in your book, be depressant in and off themselves? >> yes they would. neil: you wouldn't get the revenue you think. >> in the long run, in the economy, the middle term the economy will suffer because there is no way you can

withdraw all the deficit spending by raising revenue and cutting spending without slowing down the economy. we're living on borrowed time. we're passing out money. neil: you slow undo the economy and slow down the revenues. >> that's where we are. in other words austerity is where we are. neil: no way we can boom our way out of it? >> there is no way to grow out of this. the debt burden is too high. the gap in the budget, 24% on spending maybe, 16 or 17% on revenue, is so vast if we keep rolling forward this debt, we have now at 17 trillion will go to 30. it will go to 150% of gdp. sooner or later --. neil: people will say they have been saying that for years. what is the big deal? >> we've been drifting toward that every year and fed is buying all the debt or half of it right now. if you think you can print your way to salvation, if you think $85 billion worth of bond buying a month is sustainable, then, don't worry about it. neil: keep a bandaid on a gaping wound, right?

even that is debatable. neil: can i ask you? when did you get this religion? when you came to john ronald reagan as his budget director, after, a storied career as very young up-and-coming congressman, when did you just say, wait a minute, this isn't adding up? >> well, when the numbers started not to add up. neil: when you presented that to ronald reagan, what did he say? >> well i mean i laid that out in my first book. he just didn't want to believe it. he thought quickly it would get better when the recovery came the recovery came. the deficit was still 200 billion. neil: but the boom more than offset the concerns about the deficit? >> no, it didn't. neil: that was the argument. >> that was the argument at the time but it led to very terrible legacy that deficits don't matter. cheney actually said it explicitly. the republican rank-and-file adopted it. i don't know if they really believed it but it was convenient. neil: what is worse, to build deficits based on tax cuts if that is your argument, or excessive spending? >> there is no way that --.

neil: there is no red, right? >> there is no way a deficit doesn't become a tax increase sometime down the road. we are burying the next generation in debt. they will have --. neil: we're burying it with only a select few we're taxing more and half the people pay no federal incomes at all. isn't that disproportionate? >> the whole system is out of kilter. as we get down the road and finally the day of reckoning comes and we have to begin to manage this debt which is totally out of control, we're going to be taxing everybody. middle class --. neil: what do you think that happens? >> i think we're getting close to the point where the fed can no longer buy all the debt. neil: next couple years? >> yes. i think the bond market --. neil: the end of the obama term with look like what. >> some major dislowlation. the -- dislocation. neil: major dislowcation? tumult or depression. >> we're in biggest bond market in history because it is held up by fumes but few people left belief the fed

will keep buying and propping everything up. the minute they lose confidence that the central bank can prunt our way into permanent salvation. neil: then what? >> they will sell bonds. others will sell the bond. there will be no bid. there will be a cree shepd dough --. neil: money siphons away from us go is it? >> it gets liquidated. this is debt on debt. this is no bond. they borrow 98 cents to buy it. neil: u.s. loses or whole world suffers? >> this is giant ponzi scheme. it really is. it is debt on debt on debt. nobody has any equity left in the system. neil: why don't we do a argentina declare bankruptcy like they did? >> i don't think the largest economy in the world can easily declare bankruptcy or default on its is run debt. neil: what do you think of our defense to keep our aaa rating, the defense is we always can print money, that is why we have a aaa rating? >> that were true i don't know why we're working hard all these years to save, to

sweat, to build, to produce, to work if it was so easy you have a central bank print enough money for everybody, drop it out of a helicopter, and tell people pick it up once a day and party on. you know that isn't workable. you know that is kind of crazy economics, but effectively that is where the fed is taking us today. neil: do you think though that the reaction you're getting from republican who is are really pissed at you, democrats say you're heartless and callous and your own wall street friends who say you're just crying fire in a crowded theater, how do you feel about all that? >> well, you know, i sort of let the chips fall where they may, okay? it is all part of the same syndrome. a lot of people who don't believe this bubble on wall street today, we're at a point where we were 13 years ago, same point. dot-com crash the they reflated it under greenspan. 2007, 2008, crashed again. now we're back to the same level, 15, 16.

neil: people look at multiples in markets and say it actually pretty cheap. >> no, no, the market is dangerous. it is not cheap. neil: where do you put your money. >> in the mattress or under it as the case may be. neil: really? >> no, i think it is unsafe to be in the markets. all the risk markets are basically being inflated by the fed. they're trading on the fed there not discounting future earnings whenever they say about the multiple. if the fed put out a sign said gone fishing for six weeks there would be calamity in the markets because everybody who comes on daily to tell you buy, buy, buy, why? mainly because the fed is, you know, injecting the heroin. got your back. and as long as they're doing it keep buying. the minute the fed stops, the whole environment changes. the confidence changes. the psychology changes. and the bubble is revealed. this is the greatest bubble yet. neil: all right. on that happy note, if you have a syringe at home, now stick it in your eye. i want to thank david,

because, you know he does make you think. left to right he makes you think. he takes both sides apart. the great deformmation, the corruption of capitalism in america. it is a page-turner and a heart turner at that. david, thank you very much. >> thank you. neil: from stockman to get a load of this transition, strip clubs. at least david is trying to make you see straight. try getting those google glasses on at strip clubs. let's say they will set you straight. let me prephrase that. they will stop you from setting anything straight. let me rephrase that again. they will, they will just have you notting gel with google, let's go to break. i will explain. 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 in your walle told you i'd get half. are you still sleeping? just wanted to check and make sure that we were on schedule. the first technology of its kind... mom and dad, i have great news. is now providing answers families need. siemens. answers. you know it even after all these years. but your erectile dysfunction - you know,that could be a question of blood flow. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph, like needingo go frequently or urgently. tell your doctor about all

your medical conditions and medications, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or if you have any allergic reactions such as rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a 30-tablet free trial. hoo-hoo...hoo-hoo. hoo-hoo hoo. sir... i'll get it together i promise... heeheehee. jimmy: ronny, how happy are folks who save hundreds of dollars switching to geico?

ronny:i'd say happier than the pillsbury doughboy on his way to a baking convention. get happy. get geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. neil: the skin and the skinny. or from revving your engine to revving lots of engines. in a moment why google is being told to strip the glasses in certain clubs. but first, to the head of the car club. you would never guess or actually you might, what company do you think has the top selling car on the planet right now? ford. that's right, ford. for the first time since the model t, it has the hottest selling model of all, the focus. ford is selling over a million of them. fm not even cracking the top five. to scott martin and todd wilemon with a high-five for the one automaker that didn't get a bailout. scott, what do you make of that? >> neil, it goes to show you the government should not be in the business of trying to pick business winners and losers.

you made the point exactly. they didn't gifford bailout money. gm, chrysler got it. look, other cities and states, neil, that paid for, if you will, via tax credits and tax breaks, business, from gm and chrysler. those cities and states got screwed over as well in the process because gm and chrysler, never delivered on those promises either to poor cities and states that didn't get jobs or revenue. the government should get out of the business completely and let free markets decide it. neil: todd, you know very well, and ford's ceo was here many times he was for the bailout with his colleagues because if they had not got enit and it would have hurt the entire industry. what do you think of that? >> maybe neil, maybe not. on the bileout it was important for president obama to have the government come in to bail out gm and chrysler. i think they both would be restructured out government financing. what that did it helped out one of the president obama's largest campaign

contributors, the united auto workers. they gave them him 40 million in campaign contributions. the president turned around and made their pension and their health care fund whole. you know, transferred about 20 to $25 billion in the bankruptcy reorganization process for both gm and chrysler. it helped out the united auto workers. which is fine if you're united auto worker member. all other workers we had to pay for it. it is not fair. neil: auto industry expert, scott, i think a lot of this is luck, like a movie house has a good run of surprising hits. that doesn't apply to 20th century fox. everything we do is a hit. you know what i'm saying? like sometimes you have a good run. ford is having a good run of vehicles that are getting good buzz, good sales but, how much of that is contingent whether it was rescued or not? >> i don't know. it is hard to say. if you look at ford sales, neil, one of the reasons they have sold so many focuses if even that is a word, because international. the chinese love ford cars.

neil: you're right about that. you're right about that. >> all of sudden, do they like it neil, because they didn't get the bailout money? i don't know. your point is well-taken. if ford makes enough cars there is a chance they will make a string of them that are good like movies people like. yeah, i think the success is well-derived here -- we'll deserved here. neil: switching gears, we're talking about topic of engines roaring how about things you shouldn't do in strip clubs to get your engine roaring. like the google glasses. have you ever seen these things? the clubs say take them off. this is coming from strippers themselves who already have everything off. this is weird to me, todd. but obviously the fear is that they're a little too revealing the glasses. and, i guess they just freak outstrippers in the establishments but, what do you make of this? >> i tell you, i want to get a report from scott, my good friend in chicago. report back to him, from the

clubbing experience there, scott, please. it is amazing how far spectaculars come from 250 years, neil, buy focals to ben franklin time and you have to take them off to go into the strip club. what about people that can't see that well without their glasses, neil? neil: not x-ray vision kind of a deal. you're in a strip club. a lot of them already have their clothes off you don't need them. i was arguing a philosophical point and going nowhere fast. scott, where does this go? for google, it's the first challenge to a technology that could be very, very big. we joked about it here but a lot of folks who find this whole thing a little creepy. what do you think? >> yeah, could be big or small, neil. because these could be glasses that are an bad in more places than you can actually wear them. and they're pretty pricey. they're over a thousand bucks. what kind of use will they have if you can't go anywhere with them on? you mentioned the word creep. the name of the shooting is

like creep shooting or creep shotting taking pictures of the girl which i think is hilarious. todd is wrong. neil: seems to be very familiar with this procedure. >> strip clubs here stink. i know that very well. they're not that great. if you're trying to go in there to take pictures of girls at the strip club, you have a unabout of problems that you should not be taking pictures of. neil: like going for hooters for the chicken wings. i see your point. it is well-taken. todd, this comes at time for google where people get uncomfortable about spying on us about video they're taking about maps and everything else. what do you think of google itself and now, all the controversy it seems to generate? i always think with strip clubs turn on you you've got trouble. >> you do have trouble. remember when google was just the 800-pound gorilla? now it seems to be behemoth and everywhere into everything, our e-mails and strip clubs to what we eat. i'm sure mayor bloomberg will be using them to spy on

us and make sure we're eating our vegetables. but i will tell you one thing, neil. those google glasses they were not made with government funding i bet. neil: well, you know you're right about that. that is a very profound point. todd, i want to thank you. scott, amazed me how we carry this off without being aware of strip clubs which says volumes about all of us. in the meantime, government agencies spending billions on new mapping data without checking whether another agency already has the same exact map. the navy developing fancy uniforms without sharing the technology with, i don't know, the army. forget fraud and abuse. california congressman darrell issa says, let's focus on the waste. you will quickly discover washington is not only out of control. it has lost control. thank you orville and wilbur... ...amelia... neil and buzz:

for teaching us that you can't create the future... by clinging to the past. and with that: you're history. instead of looking behind... delta is looking beyond. 80 thousand of us investing billions... in everything from the best experiences below... to the finest comforts above. we're not simply saluting history... we're making it.

your chance to rise and shine. with centurylink as your trusted technology partner, you can do just that. with our visionary cloud infrastructure, global broadband network and custom communications solutions, your business is more reliable - secure - agile. and with responsive, dedicated support, we help you shine every day of the week.

neil: 23 different federal agencies each one pushing its own renewable energy program. each branch the armed services developing its own camouflage uniform without sharing with other services. just two of the 162 areas which agencies are duplicating efforts and costing taxpayers billions of dollars. all adding up to 95 billion bucks in redundancis. redundancies might not have ever picked up had "usa today" not gotten ahold of the report and printed it today. to california congressman darrell issa has been bemoaning government waste for lots of days, actually lots of years, he joins me right now. it is this redunn ansy -- redundancy thing, con man, you have gotten into it before. and how amazing agencies do the exact same thing with taxpayer money. you would think logic would say let's pool our resources and they don't.

>> logic wouldn't tell you that. you have to understand how you build a bureaucracy. you build a bureaucracy by expanding what you do in your little part of the world. if you're at the department of navy, you're happy to do uniforms for the army but they're not going to let you. so you do uniform for yourself and keep it a secret. the mapping thing. somebody had a budget. some i-t manager got paid $160,000 to oversee it and so on. the thing that is really crazy, most of what was exposed today by the gao, a branch of congress, in fact was, were things that are completely within the administration's control. they can work smarter. the office of management and budget exists to prevent this kind of duplication. they're just not doing their jobs. neil: i was going down the list, congressman, of some of the things going on. individually, a lot of these projects aren't bad. duplicated dozens of times among dozens of agencies it starts getting bad. >> oh absolutely. neil: who is in charge of that? is that a gsa thing? is that within the office of

management and budget at the white house? is that cbo thing? who? >> basically 23 different cabinet levels have 35 offices and 80 programs out of just 35 offices on renewables. gsa is one of them of course. one of the problems everybody wants to be good and green and renewable but you end up with 35 offices headed by $35200,000 people. you end up with all this redundancy. this is part of the gao, the gao is not going to make a decision whether renewables are good, whether solar energy is good but they will see where the process is wasteful. to be honest they call out both the executive branch and congress. the executive branch for not implementing what they could, congress not forcing reorganization, not mandating some reconsolidations, and to be candid we need to do both. neil: we had david stockman here, congressman this, is, i would assume, part of this, part and parcel of the big

spending where the numbers get so out of control this sort of stuff is routine. and, there is going to be hell to pay. both parties will pay dearly for it. what do you make of that? >> i think both parties deserve some blame, they really do. but organizationally, if we do nothing, both parties should be, should be thrown out, but guess what? you're not throwing the bureaucrats out. you're not throwing people out who perpetuate this. if you want to make a change, you don't worry about replacing the president or replacing congress. demand that we have a hoover commission. demand we in fact reorganize government to eliminate these kinds of things. that kind after process that worked in the past is what is long overdue again as our government has grown. give you an example of one that most people don't know about that came out today in the hearing. the irs, if they simply checked, if you will, other sources of data, could eliminate, or let's put it better, they could collect some of the 16% of taxpayers who don't pay their taxes but should. that is a great example

where you could catch the tax cheats if they, not if they audited those of us who file but if they in fact look for people who don't file and found out why they don't file. you mentioned it on earlier segment along with touting the great ford motor company. neil: that's right, the great ford motor company. congressman, always fun having you on. thank you very much. >> thanks, neil. neil: darrell issa. all right. well, before you cash this check, pein this cup, maybe in this arkansas, and got unemployment benefits there, a drug test may be sooner than you think. we're americans. we work. we plan. ameriprise advisors can help you like they've helped millions of others. to help you retire your way, with confidence. ♪ that's what ameriprise financial does. that's what they can do with you. let's get to work. ameriprise financial. more within reach.

neil: well in arkansas, pretty soon if you want that unemployment benefit, better prepare yourself for a little test, a drug he is it. it will be random, but if a bill just passed through the arkansas senate gains traction it could soon be law. supporters say it cracks down on those taking

advantage of the system. critics argue it takes advantage of the constitution and worse, it set as dangerous precedent. with me, jewelry roginsky, rob and. >> not into it. why are they treated like criminals because they're unemployed. i don't have to be tested for drugs. you don't have to be tested for drugs when you come to work. if they're unfortunate to lose job. neil: it is random. doesn't matter. >> i don't like it. up fringement on people's privacy. just because you're unemployed that you're drug addict. why are they tested? i don't like it. neil: sherry? >> 80% in that state of the state employ east are subject to random drug testing. i don't see what the problem is. in this abysmal economy and we got a bad jobs report, neilings as you know, the news is really bad, anything we help people stay on the straight-and-narrow and staying off drugs and alcohol for that matter. we can't test for that.

i think we should do it. makes good sense. not expensive to do. and again, if you're employed you often have to do that. so i don't see what the problem is. neil: rob? >> if, employers are responsible for paying into the unemployment benefits and state kicks in their share, why in the world would the state, and individual employers pay for people that are knowingly taking drugs? i have zero problem with this state and many other states who already enacted this law like mississippi and florida and some other states in the nation, that this has been going on for a long time. now i understand that now they're saying after you receive the benefits, you're all of sudden you will get tested many. makes no difference. i'm a small business owner. i don't want my money paid for somebody's drug habit. whether they're unemployed or not. >> who is paying for the drug test much, that's what i want to know? that costs too. >> the state of arkansas says it will cost only $30,000 a year. $30,000 is not a lot of money. >> that is the point i made. i think it is compassionate

because again in this economy, news is very bad and, there's a lot of debate about whether or not unemployment causes people to abuse drugs or if drug abuse causes people to become unemployed. either way this works as compassionate idea. >> i'm sorry. i have family members who lost their jobs, somebody got laid off after working for 24 years and received unemployment benefits as a result. i guaranty that 64-year-old woman is not toking up because she is unemployed. she happens to not have a job. >> you could say that for every employee. say that a government --. neil: hear you sherry. >> a government employee who is also subjected to random drug testing. neil: julie, do you think as a taxpayer, your dollars should be going to someone who is on drugs getting benefits? >> do i think as a taxpayer my money should be going towards somebody who is alcoholic? there --. neil: you do not distinguish? >> i don't distinguish. neil: whether they are unemployed or regardless taking or shooting that is

fine? >> if you're a drug addict and you commit a crime related to that drug habit, go be prosecuted. but until that happens, if i were to god, forbid if i lost my job and had to be unemployed or any of us why would i, would the assumption be i'm a drug addict? neil: what if you are? what if a random discovers that you are? i say i'm not going to give you anymore federal benefits. >> anybody that works at any job, then? why aren't we all -- social security. people on medicare? they're getting federal benefits. why aren't they being tested? >> there is not in the constitution you have a right to unemployment benefits. >> you pay into it. neil: is there constitution you have the right to be tested to get those benefits. >> that is good question. i would say it is not written in there in that format one or another. neil: are you sure our forefathers didn't say -- >> government employee, why would this be any different? state government employees are subjected to the same thing. >> i don't like that either. >> well i'm sure they don't

like it but i think it might be necessary and probably i think it is good policy. >> why is it necessary? what is the presumption of criminality. what is this presumption of infringing on people's rights? neil: random test were to prove none of this to you or they proved everything to you, every test they did, proved that they were high as a kite? >> well, but you're assuming that. neil: no i'm not. what if that were the case. >> every person on unemployment was high as kite? neil: no. everyone given the random test disproportionate number of people who did have drugs in their system. >> is it precluding them from finding a job? what kind of drugs are we talking about? >> that is parsing. drugs are illegal in this uncould i interest. and -- >> a lot of things are illegal. why are we testing --. neil: you're afraid where it leads, right. >> i'm afraid of a precedent you're setting you have assumption of criminality from people who absolutely not doing anything wrong. why are you assuming these people are going to be high. >> giving somebody a test is not presumption that they're guilty. >> it is. >> that is not a fair

argument much they're not making this assumption. they're not making assumption about state employees but they know there are certain percentage who might. trying to clear that up. and for our safety and those jobs are coveted jobs. i don't think it is a the at all unreasonable for the random testing. no unusual for those people that are employed and employed by the state. assuming unemployment people -- >> people on the subway? neil: if you know they're going to get another bottle of jack daniels, are you okay with that? how do you know where it is going? >> because i actually only do it legitimately if see see them with kids. horrible, feeding a bad habit. neil: do you? >> occasionally but you know, many times i've been scammed. that old trick at airport, sobbing kid next to you. reality --. neil: no, i will give them the money but they have got to watch fox news. >> i give them food if i have any. neil: i will never give food. >> i gone and bought food.

neil: thank you all. trying to put this in perspective. but, if you're looking to get anything from the government that, i think the way we're going to go. we will see now. you better be ready. >> i'm always ready.