>> you were not even astay with. you never know what could happen. liz: "money" with melissa francis is next. melissa: i'm melissa francis and here who's made money today. warren buffett and investors in berkshire hathaway, they all got plenty to celebrate today. berkshire's class-a shares, hit an all-time high, climbing more than 1%. buffett owns more than 350,000 class-a shares of berkshire. that means he made, wait for it, $660 million today. not bad. also making money, anyone who owned boeing. deliveries ofts 787 officially resumed today. japan's all nippon airways received the first dreamliner since they were grounded. boeing also won a $7 billion deal with turkish airlines for 77 -- 737 jets. boeing's stock closed at a record high, gaining more

than 1%. good for them. if you want to spend money this weekend look no further. a rare beatles guitar is up in new york city. the boss guir was played by john lennon and george harrison during their magical mystery tour is expected to sell for at least 200 grand. wow! even when they say it's not, it is always about money. melissa: our top story, tonight, new details on the bloomberg spying scandal keep coming in and goldman sachs may be in a position to capitalize on the events. the "new york post" reports that goldman is looking at creating a new way for traders to send encrypted messages to one another in order to bypass bloomberg's controversial im system. so are blmberg's days at king of the finaial data platform numbered? joining me with more,

spencecer patton, steel vine investment chief investment officer, a bloomberg terminal user. bart, fr ceo of full contact. and doug burns, a former federal prosecutor. bart, what i want to talk to you first because this is a goen opportunity for someone to finally come in to challenge the terminal. look at goldman, jumping on the arbitrage opportunity like the place that reallies how to make money that it is. how hard is it to build another system? when i look at companies out there, hedge funds, qua funds, building high frequency trading machines and platforms, seems like you could duplicate it. the problem, that bloomberg had the name brand which they may not anymore. how hard is this problem, do you think, bart? >> from a technology problem it's difficult but it's not that difficult right? you cld pour enough money into it and enough resources into it. goldman and other banks certainly have enough funds to do . it is really about whether there can be open platform

created around this, a consortium, if you will to take out bloomering about. if y look at technology industry, it is just, a history, history has proven over and over again, that open platforms ultimately win versus closed platforms. every closed plat tomorrow ultimately becomes an open platfo. melissa: what does that mean to the average person that is out there? what does that mean? >> think bill. phones vsus androids, right? iphones is only happel hardware. google android is sort of on every type of hardware imaginable. so that is sort of open versus closed right there. melissa: which is better? >> ultimately open wins. technology indust has proven that time and time again. melissa: isn't closed more secure? isn't that one of t problems we're having right here? we were talking recently on the phone how andro phon getacked all the time and youan download apps that take over your phone and steal your contacts but it doesn't happen on apple. spencer, let me send this to you. maybe what you're really looking for here is security and maybe bloomberg doesn't offer that any longer. what do you think?

>> bloomberg has a real problem here and if they're not caref it can really spiral out of control. goldman is kind of like maybe even a bigger vampire. the problem is because the last person you want seeing is goldman sing all your trades because they have had a long history of being accused of trading against their clients. so you know i think what you have toook at maybe look at a platform that's separate from goldman but altero bloomberg because this is one chink in the armor for bloomberg they have to get on top of quickly or else you will start having their platform divided into multiple pies. messaging over here, analysis over here and that is not what bloomberg wants. melissa: doug, there is a lot of nonsense going on in washington today, distracts from everyone is spying on you, apphone records scandal, whether the irs. whatever it is bloomberg, this situation is out there as well. did they do anything wrong from a legal perspective? what do they face going

rward? >> i would break it do into sort of a the-part stepladder. you have something out of my bailiwick, journalistic ethics. should you use information we'll call it proprietary, not available to the average reporter. >> froa business point of view it was really stupid because 85% of the their revenue comes from the terminal. why would you jeopardize that to bolster your stories? >> that is a huge legal point and let me break it down how it is a huge legal poin they lease 315,000 machines. 20,000 a year i pulledut my large calculator because the small one couldn't accommodatit, $3 billion. 85%. their 2012 revenue. the point is what that tells us lawyers inferential alley people at top would never want to compromise that over this lesser thing. melissa: yeah. the bank of england piling on today, i think we have a statement saying what they did, i think they called it reprehensible. we have that somewhere along here and it just really shows that there is apiling on around the world all of their customers. bart, i'll ask you, it just

seems like a huge business opportunity for whoever can pounce on this and get started. don't you think? do you have people hard at work on this right now? >> i wish i could say i did but, yeah, igree. i think that, you know, the funding is there. the business opportunity is there. they're plenty of startups in silicon valy, new york d colorado. they would love to take this on. meliss yeah. absolutely. spencer, what would it take to get meone to trust a new system? because bloomberg, you know, people talk about thomn reuters as not really being comparable in terms of what it can offer you. if you go to traders and you go to hedge funds bloomberg until this point has really been unparalleled. do you see that potentially changing? >> ultimately i do think bloomberg will recover from this because part of issue with bloomberg when you sit down with a terminal it is like learning a whole new language. it is very complex and takes a long time. melissa: yeah. >> you have to invest a lot of resources in it. they have a lot of people that are trapped within

their system but, i think they can put o this fire. they will be very motivated to come up with a lot of differensystems to do so and i think their architecture can withstand it but they really need to --. melissa: spencer what would they have to do to make you feel better? if you're worried yesterday we saw potentially people's instant messages may be leaked onto the internet. it seems like there have been so much breaches or potential breaches that it, for anyone who is using your imination goes wild how much spying is going on. i mean, the machines are in the white house. they're, you know, at the treasury. >> yeah. melissa: they're at the fed. what would they have to do to make you feel tolly confident again or is that a st cause? >> you know, i think the need to do a couple things. they need to get very vocal. they need to get in front and have full transparency. because the worst thing that can happen there is another issue that comes up or some trading was done based upon the information. melissa: right. >> that would be disaer. they have to get it all out. melissa: that would be the

thing that is really a death knell if anybody traded or profited based on what they saw. that will be interesting to see going forward if that happens. gentlemen, thanks for coming on. >> a pleasure. melissa: time for today's fuel gauge report. european authorities raided european offices bp, shell and statoil. people are suspecting the manipulationf oil prices. the three oil giants allegedly colluded to rig oil prices more than 10 years. sounds like libor. oil futures fell for the fourth straight session fueled by worries of high supply and weak demand this is the longest slide of the year. venezuela is one of the world's biggest oil producers but it has become a net importer of gasoline. that is according to a new report by pedro vase is a, the country's state-owned oil company. blames surging domestic demand and growing problems with the refinery industry for the supply shortage. next on "money" the uproar spreads over the

justice department seizure of associated press phone records. we'll tell you how the scandal may shred the core of the news business. it m be one of the costliest good-byes ijamie dimon leaves jpmorgan. one analyst says it would wipe out $20 billion of the stock's value. should investors be ready to sell? more "money" coming up. ♪ .

>> i've been a prosecutor since 76 and i have to say that this is among, if not the most serious, it is within the top two or three most serious leaks th i have ever seen. it put the american people at risk. melissa: hmmm. does that make all this okay? attorney general eric holder on the seriousness of the leaks surrounding a foiled terror plot last year. the justice department says that is why it grabbed ap phone records for20 different lines over a two-month period. this fight isn't ending anytime on but what's the bigger message? that our only option for actual privacy is oat mooing to talk on the street? thats what it feels like.

joining me are the "wall street journal's" james freeman and fred tecce a former federal prosecutor. >> thanks for having me. melissa: fred, let me start with you. as a reporter this certainly makes you very nervous, makes you feel like no one will ever talk to you again because if they know the government can go look at home phone records and cell phone records and evy phone you might have possibly used you would think twice about talking to reporters. from a legal point of view is this a first amendment issue? does it interfere with freedom of the press? >> this is a first amendment issue. melissa, let me tell you something, the word they teach you in law school is, a chilling effect. what can have a more chilling effect on our first amendment rights? one of the most proudest days of my life and the day i put my hand on the bible when i swore to uphold the prosecution when i became a federal prors tore. i'm embarrassed by this thing. i'm outrageous by what i see.

the irony, the press basically allowed the adminiration for the last five years, in essence create ad frank steen monster and when they're to be surprised when the monster turned on them. everyone saw the original movienew boris carl love would get dr. frankenstein. melissa: along the lines it was very different tone for ja carney when he faced the press. they we ferocious. here all over him. they let the ap reporter go rst, w basicay asked if the president will take any responsibility for any of these things? i will play what jay carney had to saynd get the reaction on the other side from you, james. >> i can not and he can not comment on specifically on ongoing criminal investigation or actions at investigators at th department of justice may or may not have taken. it would be wholly inappropriate. melissa: i mean do you see the beads of sweat forming on hi eyebrow? he was tap dancing so fast his feet were a blur there >> i think, sure you don't want him commenting

sensitivdetails of an investigation that aren't publbut, you also don't want the president, or his spokesman to avoid responsibility here. the white house likes to pretend, whether it is irs, the department of justice, that these are independent agenes of the government they're not. they're not like the sec o the fcc where you have republicans and democrats making independent decisions. these people all work for the president. he is responsible and accountable. melissa: that's a great point. fred, where does the buck stop on this? >> well you know the buck stops with the president. i'm sorry, eric holder is an attorney general, he sits around the table with the president at a cabine meeting. now, what i want to know why am i getting information in dribs and drabs that supports the administration? i learned eric holder recused himself from this issue. melissa: right. >> we have a letter fromhe deputyttorney general trying to explain himself but nobody explained to me because we can't get, we only get half the story why this thing was so broad in scope and so wide? i don't care what the guy

says, i thought they were incredit i over reaching. melissa: does he survive this, eric holder? >>he problem i, if he loses his head, barack obama skates which i think i'm sorry, the president has got to be held responsible. an making him a scapegoat doesn't solve the problem. melissa: james, how, outrageous is this from a journalism perspective? >> it is a huge break with tradition and, i thin people in our business are going to be pretty paranoid now as well as the people on the other end of the phone who probably won't want to share information that in many cases the public really ought to know. the, mr. cole at the justice department, the deputy who signed the subpoena is saying that this followed their rules, which say that investigations, subpoena has to be very narrow, very targeted. it is hard to see how that can be true, given it is all these phone lines, four-week period, lots of employees pulled into this dragnet. >> point is there are specific ways you're suosed to go about, if you really wanted to get the information because you thought it was a national threat, there are ways to do

it where the ap would know about it and come out to challenge it or imminen national security threat. seems like from legal scholars this meet that criteria. >> ap has done everything they should have. they went to the government. they held off publication because of national security concerns and this is the way they're treated. >> fred, last word. >> how am i supposed to know what cole says is true? i need to look from underneath the blankket he is talking about. i don't have to take his word. none of us as amecans. we have to look at this to find out to see what he is saying is true. melissa: that's right. that is what the country is all about. thanks for joing us. if jamie dimon leaves jpmorgan, a top analyst says it will wipe $20 billion off the market value. is it time for investors to hedge their bets. move over, opec. a new report says the u.s. is about to be the top oil producer.

we'll tell you how to cash in because you never have too much money. ♪ .

melissa: no matter what time it is money is always on the move. shares of agilent technologies are gaining after-hours. it says it is increasing its stock repurchase program to one billion dollars. it is also laying off 2% of its workforce or 450 job that is part of a restructuring program. you can see the stock moving up there. a new potential wrine for jpmorgan and its shareholders in the midst of calls to split the chairman and ceo roles. a banking renowned analyst ke mayo says doing so could backfire on the bank and cost th big-time. mayo says if dimon leaves as a result of stripping him of his chrman title jpmorgan's stock could drop 10% causing a loss of up to $20 billion. that is not good. kyle harrington runs an

investment advisory firm, harrington capital management. kyle, thanks for coming on. >> thank you, mlissa. melissa: mike mayo did the math but he is not alone in the numbers. what do you think about that? does that sound right to you or does that sound gigantic? >> no, i think i does sound right. remember, melissa, you're talking about close to $200 billion market capitalized company. so 10% is $20 billion if the stock price was to trade off like that. now you're talking here about jamie dimon. this is a very, super astute man. knows the financial arena inside and out. he is veryeef-assured. this is, this is going to be a vry interestg discussion whether or not they split the chairman and ceo title. and i think part of this discussion has, as a result of what took place in london where they lost significant value. melissa: right. >> they did have the ability to do both jobs. melissa: -- as that

happened. you know, the stock is up 25since he has been in the chair. >> right. melissa: i think he is doing very clever thing by floang this idea maybe if they take away his chairmanship why should he stick around? he made a zillion dollars for hims. he is 57 years old. he has been doing it for a long time. maybe he doesn't need the previous if they will not give him full power to run the company. clever move. >> i think that's right and you do as a jpmorgan sharehder, as an investor where we invest capital on behalf of clients, and we actuallyown jpmorgan, you have to be very careful, you have got to be very careful here to not get too far under someone like his skin because he will walk away. now e thing about both jobs, if there is somebody, melissa, that can do both jobs, it actually jamie dimon. i mean he has made it very clear in shareholder meetings, talking to the inveor public but the fact that he just simply loves what he does.

he loves running a global financial institution. melissa: yeah. >> so if i'm, if i'm the board, i'm looking at this and saying let's give him some runway to do both positions, to see if in fact he can do this going forward because, again, melissa, this is a very tenuous time in the financial aren all eyes are on --. melissa: you're a shareholder. >> yes. melissa: how do you respond to this? because you have to think knowing jamie the way this would work out, if they did take away the chairnship, it is not like he would say, go to hell, i'm quitting tomorrow. he would announce at me point down the road i'm going to retire within the next year or two. he would start grooming a successor. >> right. melissa: would the stock still drop of immediately? as an investor are you setting up ahead of the meeting next week in case something happens? how are you reonding? >> no doubt about it. there is no question, melissa. melissa: are you selling ahead of the meeting? what do you do? >> i don't know if you're selling ahead of the meeting, melissa, entirely but you're definitely trimming

positions. remember this is the problem. you have wells fargo, you have citigroup, you have other global financial institutions that you can take positions in and move away from jpmorgan. so i'm in favor, in short i'm in favor of keeping him in the position to see how the stock behaves over a course, over the near future. melissa: interesting. kyle harrington, thanks for coming on. >> thank you, melissa. melissa: up next on "money," a stunning new report shows that the u.s. oil boom is getting so huge it is about to shock global energy markets and we're going to ll you how to make money off this energy revolution. plus a radical plan to throw entitlements out the window and give everyone a universal basic income instd. which would you rather have? 're going to debate it. "piles of money" coming up. ♪ 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 much is the official retirement age. ♪ the question is how do you make sure you have the money you need to enjoy all of these years. ♪

>> the fact of the matter is we use 20% of the world's oil and even if we drilled every squaree inch of this country we would still only have two or 3 or 4% of the world's known oil reserves. melissa: hmmm, maybe not. while the president is fixated on the oil reserves that we don't have, a new report by the international energy agencyays the u.s. is setting off an oil supply shock that will completely change the global market. it could be a total game-changer for you at home and for your money. with me are energy experts,

steven schork of the schork report and david croetzer from the heritage foundation. always great to have you on the show. stephen, let me start with you. this report is a based on all the shale and oil fracking around the country and saying 50% of the growth of oil supply in next six years would come from north america. is that a big deal? >> it is absolutely a big deal, unfortunately for the president he is once again demonstrating his disorder regard for the ability of the market to solve high prices. if the president looked at what his own u.s. geological survey said the other week the upper plains of the united states now sit on the 20th largest oil reserves in the world. for crying out loud the state of north dakota alone produces more oil on a daily basis than two opec members. melissa: yeah. >> therefore, now we have the ecutive director of the ieae, telling us we're talking in terms of north america production going to provide supply

shock. melissa: it is anmazing game-changer. absolutely. now imagine if wead a president who actually didn't think he was smart he than the collective knowledge of the market. melissa: he is having a hard me stopping the market. he is trying to do it. it is ironic under this president we'll have this tremendous oil boom. david, it makes me wonder should everyone who is thinking about going out to buy an electric car not do it because we'll have this much more oil? how big of a game-changer is it? what does it do for electric cars? >> i don't know that it does much for or against eltric cars. they didn't make much economic sense up to now. they may at some point in the future whether we have more oil or not. wee never had to get electric cars. what we have here though is the game-changer. let's go back to that president's statement. it was nonsense on a variety of levels. in 77 we ha 31 billion barrels of proved reserves. the study he is pointing to now. since 1977 we've actually produced 88 billion barrels.

started with 31. we produced 80. now we have 24 according to statistics that are nonsense. melissa: a lot of it does have to do with the fact that technology ha changed. so reserves we had here in the u.s. that were there weren't necessarily obtainable based on the current technology. so there has been a cnge. stephen, let me ask you, states around the country, we talked to people from oregon yesterday, they're scrambling to figu out how to make up for the fact that people are not using as much gasoline. they're not getting tax revenue they need from the gasoline. does this change that math equation? if gas is cheaper because there's more oil, will people start driving more? because there has been this huge trend in the country. we were inking that demand maked awhile ago. ople were buying more recently. people were buying more fuel-efficient cars and the were driving less because it was so expensive. if we have more oil and more gasoline d we start driving more again, does it turn around that trend, what do you think? >> we'll certainly drive more. the mark is going to respond to these lor prices but we also have to

keep in mind though, part of the argument moving to a better mileage car is from an environmental standpoint. so it is certainly a valid reason. so from a social standpoint i think it will be difficult for us to wean ourselves o the priuses which we've gone so fond of last couple years and start moving back to the chevy suburban. melissa: yeah. >> from that standpoint the demand will be strong but an argument from an environmental standpoint i ink we have turned corner on that level. melissa: it is terrible news for the middle east because they have a economies that e completely dependent on oil revenue. i mean whether they are our friends or our enemies depending where you're looking arouound the world, is this a big enough deal to change that dynamic or change the direction of it? >> sure. it is going to gi us increased production which will lower price which is good for us, bad f them. it will increase spare capacity so we're not likely to see the huge price spikes. it makes us less worried about every little coup or politil disruption in the middle east.

so, they're going to lose their power to the extent that we gain a more stable mark which we will from these finds. melissa: real quick before we go, stephen, let's not forget natural gas. the boom in natural gas helps us produce cheaper electricity as well and a better fossil fuel for the environment in terms of co2 emissions. >> indeed. natural gas now actuay predated the oil. remember natural gas prices were well above oil prices 10 years ago but again, the market was allowed to respond. we responded to these high prices. we've got t supy, enough supply, 50, 100, 200 years, talking depending on geologist you talk to. we respond to that. natural gas prices now have crashed. the same thing hapned in oil prices. melia: we have got to go. >> a great boom for all of juice thank you. breaking news i want to get to. "wall street journal" is reporting that the ceo chairman split proposal is getting more than 40% apoval right now. not all votes have been cast.

the last votes will likely determine the outco. we'll watch this story very closely the reason why we point out the 40% number, that is the mark they were at last year at this same question this same meeting of the it is a nonbinding propal, but a lot of people have said if they get above 50 that is when the board is under a lot of pressure to act. 40 wch is ahead of this meeting coming nt week, that is significant. there is no doubt the northmerican energy boom is here to stay, we were just talking about it, but will it be enough to turn our economy around and how can you cash in big on the energy revolution, because that is what matters, right? here to tell us about it, is cabot money investment officer, rob lts. it is interesting, because it is bad for oil companies, more oil, more supply the price goes down. is it? >> there is a good and part part to it. melissa: okay. >> the relbeneficiary of this innovation and real revolution in energy it is impacts positive for the entire country. consumers, businesses profit margin. melissa: good for the

onomy because your input costs are lower. people can go out there with more efficient and economy gross were lower energy. >> higher growth rates are coming. melissa: we need that. >> why is the stock market hitting new highs. this is one of the reasons. melissa: you think? come on, it is. bernard:. ben bernanke. you can't consume other things and no one benefits from higher oil prices other than oil countries and outside. >> i don't "huff" seen the low prices yet. i think they're still coming. >> how can i take advantage as an investor? how can i make money off this. >> first is manufacturing, industrial companies and transportation companies, all of them are going to benefit freightlyrom this. the leading blue chip companies likeoeing, like united technologies, caterpillar they're both consumers of a lot of energy melissa: interesting. >> and their customers are as well. these are really good places to benefit. that is driving the dow right now. those are companies that are perfming. >> interesti.

so how do you feel about oil companies in general? we were saying it can be booed for them but there are those that take advantage of this. big shale producers for example. >> sure. we're underweight energy generally in my firm. however there is a company called dril-quip, drq is the symbol. this is one of the high technologies that works on deepwater drilling. they're going to still have to, we're not getting off of oil. there is still going to be oil around and it is harder to get oil today than it ever was. so these companies are well-positioned to grow. we have positions in that company. melissa: what would you stay away from here? >> a company like exxon is got a difficult, this is the not the same exxon in the last 10 years. they're a great allocator of capital and a great management team. when you get a lower price it makes it more difficult for all energy companies. melissa: rob lutts, thanks for coming on. >> great. melissa: coming up on "money," get rid of entitlements all together and replace them with universal minimum income. you've goto hear this

controversial new proposal and it is gaining momentum and one of its top backers and biggest opponents debate it. that is coming up next. at e end of the day it is all about money. ♪ .

♪ . melissa: here's a radical idea to cut gvernment spending and get rid of poverty. the government gives each adult$10,000 a year and takes away social security and a laundry listf entitlements. it is called universal basic income. it is becoming a hotly debated topic right now. obviously not everyone agrees with the principle. here to explain it are mike from roosevelt institute fellow and our favorite economist, peter morici. mike, go first. why should we do this? why does it mak sense. >> three reasons. it would end extreme poverty. let people lead fuller and freer live lissa: on 10,000? >> absolutely. protect against extreme bad incomesn case they have job loss. give them capital for entrepreneal. we do some version of this, through food stamps housing assistce and a bunch of other programs that become

clunky and stack on one another in piecemeal way. melissa: right. >> and way economy is evolving toward greater quality, more automation, computers will be better world. we'll be richer but may be very difficult to build a middle class life. melissa: peter, i love the way thiss so efficient. do you like this idea or you hate it? >> i think it is a terrible idea. melissa: oh. >> any meaningful number, $10,000 a year to give everybody in the country $10,000 a year would require $3.3 trillion which is more money than the u.s. government collects in taxes right now. this would be means-tested. comes down to a negative income tax. that's a problem. the second problem, where all the disincentiv to work to go with it. the second problem is, right now poor folks get health care through medicaid. the federal government and the state they negotiate the price for them. and they get a good deal. can't see these folks individually negotiating the same prices for them. and i don't have confiden that very poor people will really provided adequately for their children in terms of health care.

melissa: mike, you want to go ahead andackle those points? go ahead. >> absolutely. health care is its own topic and big problem in the united stat. melissa: but the idea as a group they have leverage to negotiate things. individuals with $10,000 in your pocket you do less. >> absolutely. people do negotiate about medicare and medicaid. for instance, food stamps. we're giving people a coupon saying we don't trust you to feed yourself and your kids. tough use th coupon. wh not give them cash? there is lot of other programs. melissa: we're trying, not doing it that well trying to prevent them from using it in strip clubs and buying drugs and everything else with it. there is idea, there some sort, you're saying it doesn't work anyway. >> people create black markets for food stamps. milton friedman proposed a negative income tax in the '60s and other people have as well. a real powerful way of inducing market activity and freedom and allowing people to loot full lives as they choose to lead them. melissa: peter, would you like it if you thought it would work? is your main problem with it would be too hard to get

rolling at this point? if we had a clean slate to start over wouldn't it make sense? >> it is very noise for academics to talk about th. milton friedman was a theoristician's theoristician. in reality it doesn't work that way. the putting health care aside, one of the principle benefits we give poor children access to health care. if you're not putting that into the program, you will not have very much money to prefor this. melissa: that's a great point. >> you're just not. melissa: let mike respond to that what you do i this about that? >> education is also a thing we want to mandate people have to pay for and send their kids to. we can't simply look at people with kids here. there are a lot of people who don't have kids. a lot of peopleave their own lives to lead. this would give people basic income to save it. even with veryoor work participation and build you will collateral to invest in their own business. there is lot of knockoff effects that induce better market activity. melissa: it is interesting, peter when we try to break it down, when we give everybody $10,000 it

wodn't buyhat you need to get and wouldn't buy what you're already getting but at the same time we couldn't afford to give everybody $10,000. what is wrong with the math? how much are we spending on all these things. get all that math together. >> right now the u.s. government collects $2.7 trillion in revenue. would toive everybody $10,000 a year you would need.$3 trillion. clearly youan't not give everybody. you can only give to select few. you get into number that would double the social lfare costs for united states government. who would pay for that? would require enormously progressive income tax which would likely shut down grrwth. if we set aside health care and education. we pretty much have that program already for the elderly in social security. that is becoming increasingly something we can't afford. melissa: michael, give you last word. free stuff doesn't work. can't get money from other people and give it to other people. the math doesn't work out.

>> lve health care out of it. the money which spent on income support is easily 2 to $4,000 a person. we can do this. that would prevent extreme poverty in our country. melissa: interesting discussion. thanks to both of you. appreciate your time. here is our "money" qif of the day. should everyone get $10,000 enstead of entitlements? it started a great conversation on facebook and twitter. check it out. you guys said some real live smart things. we want to hear from you. facebook.com/melissafrancisfox. and follow me on twitter @melissaafrancis. all this talk about government stressing you out? y about a swim to the east river? yuk. this is coming to the notoriously gross waterway. hope they took out the dead bodies. that is coming up in "spare change". you can't have too much money. ♪ .

♪ melissa: time with fun wit spare change joined by monica. better all the ime, and adam. >> thank you. >> this i awesome. melissa: firs up, big news, ang -- ang lee that jolie said it was

preventative finding out she carries thegene that increases the chance of developing breast cancer. she made the announcement in effort to inspire other women fighting the disease. everyone is talking about it today. do you think her message is successful? i mean, this is the money, shall we spend $16.5 billion a year on prevention and care. we spent more on prevtion, less overall, probably, i wod think. >> no, i hink this is a really important message, especially for women, although men experience breast cancer too, just not at the same rates for women. for somebody like her, so dynamic and gorgeous and known for her physical presence, her body, beauty, her sex appel to say, look, this was my medical choice, made it because my mother and -- her moth died young at 5 because of breast cancer so when she found out, everybody has these two genes, by the way, the braca1 and 2. when there's a mutation, a lot

is her red tear stuff, whe it mutates, it's more difficult to treat those cancers so she aid she was on track for this sayig, women, if you afford it, because a lot of insurance companies don't pay for that, a lot of the tests are very expensive, couple hundred to $3,000 for the test, but if you can afford it, and if you have this kind of genetic predisposition, be teste melissa: isn't that the ise? all prevention in tests to ee where you are, bt they are no always covered by insurance. >> not always, but you talked about, in these cases where they do this, you know, preventative ma sectmies, i know three women who did this because their family have the history. that's the big thing. doctors say if you had a history in yourfamily, then you go

forward, but it's going to be more of a burden for a woman who might not have the financial ability right now ifter insurance doesn't cover it. i don't know if obamacare covers it going forward. we are trying to figure out what they are doing. melissa: let's move on to something lighter, i hope. francements to tax smart phone tablets and all internet-linked devices, up to 4% of the sales price to fundart, films, music to protect france's, quote, exceptional culture. i don't know. i mean, what impact do you think it has? >> you know, if the french want to tax themselves out of existence, go for it. it's a money grab. they are going -- french film, fine, have at it,o at it. be careful. the devices allow you to stay in contact. >> this is so french. melissa: it is.

>> so french and so socialist as well. the president of france is a socialist, and when i read the story, they are going to levy the smart phone tax as a way to correct imbalances in the digital economy. this is another shot of wealth distribution. if you take it to its extreme, what they want to do is make sure people don't pirate digital cotent so companies like ours, which produce content then put on, say, a youtube, which might steal it, technically, the devices on which you watch it pay for us to create conten that's what france is about to do. melissa: interesting. here's one to make a splash. three young entrepreneurs trying to raise a million dollars in new york city to build this floating olympic sized pool in the east river. the water would be filtered from the chemical ridden east river. they have raised $41,000. i can't believe that. who wants to go first here?

>> well, yeah. melissa: yeah. >> it's the private sector in action, and if they raise the money, it's not taxpayer dollars. melissa: great point. >> they say they need a million to make it work, if they rase the money and get the idea work, more powr to them, but it's u to the free market people wanto invest in this, a good idea or -- melia: i don'tment get closer tothe east river. nowhere near letting it slosh on you. >> they brought pools there last summer, they brought a pool over that they were able to use. the whole thing about filtering the water. did you read? it has membranes that do this to help the river, that's 500,000 allons of water a day. no way you can clean up the east river with 500,000 gallons a day. be careful with the money if you invest in this. melissa: yeah, wow. hipsters beware. 27% of americans think you

should be taxed just for being your hipsters.ay the lifestyle s so offensive,they should pay an extra tax. i'm not in favor of anyne paying extra taxes, but are they that irritating? >> they are, but we shouldn't say the story to loud because the obamaadministration could get the idea of levying taxes on business anchors. >> they are trying to tax conservatives. >> exactly. they are already well down the road. >> silly to tax people because of the life choice, but today's hippster is tomorrow's six figue income salary with two kids to go through college. they will not be hipsters for long. melissa: there's a newwaffle taco, comes with a side of syrup. as big as the dorritos tacos? i love it. are you getting it?

>> no. melissa: totally getting it. that'sll the money we have for you today. we'll see you ack here tomorrow. you guys ♪ >> in the '50s,@ there was a nesound. >> @♪ wake up, little susie @ ♪ wake up @ >> it had rhythms and lyrics that spoke to us. >> @♪ maybellene ♪ why can't you be true @ >> and all across america, radio stations gave us the latest hits. @♪ well, you can rock it,@ you can roll it ♪ ♪ do the stop and even stroll it at the hop @♪ >> there was chuck berry,@ jerry lee lewis, buddy holly,@ and of course, the king. >> @♪ well, since my baby left me ♪ ♪ well, i found a new place to dwell ♪ ♪ well, it's down at the end of