sun. you can get ahead of the next alternative ener bubble. >> brenda: okay, toby, you like a tan. bull or bear on that. >> too late, baby, i'm a bear. neil on business up next. neil, take it way. >neil: growing scandal surrounding the white house. grillings of white house officials plastered across the news. sounds like wt's going on today, but naturally they're not talking about what's going on four decades ago to the day. hi, everyone, and welcome. i'm neil cavuto. talk about a little bit of deja vu. it's the date of the watergate hearin beginnings, beaming into tvs across america, captivating a nation and crippling a market. walwall street saw a lot of red during that summer. with several hearings on tap for this summer, are we about to see another great 1970 show all over again? to ben stein, charles payne, dagen mcdowell along with adam

and charlie. charles payne. >> you know what? i'm not sure. it depends. the hearings this week started off with fireworks. they're going to continue. no doubt about that. if we look at some of these scandals, wate watergate, iran contra, monica lewinsky, the economies did well throughout all of those. >> neil: not watergate. >> well, the gdp wa was up for e most part. toward the end, it was a complete meltdown. that's what happens when the president leaves in that kind of disgrace. you know, i will say that there's a good side to this, too. the idea of stopping the anti-business agenda of this administration, i don't think the market is unhappy with that. >> neil: charlie? >> i think it's -- listen. watergate, as you know, was in the middle of stagfliation. monica was in the middle of the tech boom. i don't think this matters that much. i don't think this scandal imperils the presidency.

the market doesn't care about the president, only the head of the fed. they're printing money. that's what this market cares about. if obama resigned tomorrow, the market would probably do nothing. >> neil: as long as bernanke stays. >> until joe biden steps up to the podium. >> i still think it will do nothing. >> neil: dagen? >> i worry what this irs scandal symbolize about this unwieldy government, a government that's gotten so big. you're overweaning politicians, and that's how our taxpayer money is beining spent. i don't know what will reverse that. that is not an environment where this country can prosper, where this coury can continue to grow, and it foments the skierss of the american people to start new businesses. >> neil: i know you were around during that time, ben stein. what are the big differences? there e mumen multiple scandalst

only the irs, but the justice department targeting the ap, hitting companies to promote the health care law. i could go on and on and on. i think there are a lot of these that could differentiate from watergate. what do you think? >> watergate was a totally different situation. first of all, the media was against the president. in this case, the media, except for fox news, is for the president and is laying down their lives to defend him despite a slight showing of rebellion in the white house press room. the main thing as charlie said, in watergate we were facing very big inflation and stagflation because of the oil embargo. demand was falling rapidly. earnings per share were falling rapidly. that's what the market cares about. it doesn't care about humiliating mr. obama. it wouldn't care one b if mr. biden took over and chuckles the clown took over after him. it cares about earnings per

share, adjusted for inflation compared with other investments. these earnings have nothing to do with that. >> neil: by the way, chuckles the clown, no offense to you in the joe biden comparison. here's what i want to know, adam. i always think the president can skate by crises if the backdrop is a good economy. i think that saved bill clinton. in large part it helped get ronald reagan through iran contra. night and day differences, i grant yo but because the economy was as bad as it was and we're dealing with inflation and oil embargoes and the rest as 1973 ensued, it was the wind facing richard nixon, not his back. i'm wondering if this relatively improving economy, not gangbusters economy, could help this president no matter how these hearings evolve. >> well, i don't disagree with anything you said. i'd make a stronger statement. >> neil: i thought mne was pretty strong, but that's okay. [ laughter ]

>> nixon even probably could have survived if it didn't rn out that his fingerprints were on the problem, and i think that's the critical difference, you know. present reagan was never flas terred directly -- plastered directly with iran cora. clearly president obama is not directly involved in any of the quote, unquote scandals yet. >> we don't know that yet. >> neil: we don't know that yet. >> benghazi is not a scandal. it's inat the a incompetence anl mallfeasance. the irs has low level people that acted badly. >> don't blow off the political ramifications of this. let's face it. we have mid term elections coming up. i don't think this has a big impact on the economy or the markets for the reasons i laid out, but this is a political problem. the incompetence of the obama administration where one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing, where the president appointseople that are idiotic, make idiotic mistakes. when benghazi is clely just a

horrendous example of incompetence. that will reflect on the president and that will hurt him politically. >> sir, with great respect -- sir, with great respect to my colleagues, benghazi is not incompetence. benghazi is outright malfeasance, criminal cover up. >> i agree with you. >> that is so true. >> neil: go ahead, adam. >> what we're u all agreed on is there's a thin connection between thesecandals across time and the economy, and the's a thin connection between the actions of the president and the economy. >> no way. >> having said that -- well, having said that, there is no suggestion of criminal behavior with this benghazi situation, and charlie -- >> neil: there was no criminal behavior associated with watergate at the outset.

>> there's perjury and that's a crime. >> neil: charles payne, if we can forward this a bit. my big thing is we've gone from an administration that was very hands on, detail oriented to hands off and saying i know nothing, and so after one isis after another, the only defense is ignorance. the only defense is i was out of the loop. that alone raises questions on so many different scandals that the best defense you have is that you didn't know what was going on? i think that falls into this idea off competence in the white house and competence in our leadership, and that will get to be an exacting problem. >> investors should beappy in the sense, and i do thin charlie, this iedes the president's agenda if not for now. >> neil: you would welcome that. >> the market welcomes it, too. it's certainly a speed bump. to your point, steven miller could tell you it wasoor planning, it was nonpartisan, and by the way, we were trying to be more efficient making it a

heroic action. he couldn't remember anything else. >> why isn't anybody scared to death about the fact that this scandal is in the irs? we're increasingly at the mercy of this police force. it has greater and greater power. >> the system works, dagen. >> we've got a whole i new set f tax brackets. >> this isn't about the tax code. >> by the way. >> it's going to have to police the health program. >> do you really think those tax-exempt groups that they targeted, i know they're right wing, do you think they should be tax-exempt? the problem is they're focusing on one type. those groups are politic action committees. >> hold on one second. >> wait a minute. >> that's not the argument here. >> i agree. i know all that. >> let's be honest before we start casting aspersions. they went after groups that chanticleeshould not be tax-exe. >> said who?

>> why shouldn't they be tax-exempt? >> they were looking to find out who was onhe political action committees. >> they're non-profit groups. they're non-profit groups. why shouldn't they be t tax-exempt? >> neil: that is wor knee o worf another show, but unfortunately we' out of time. in the meantime, irs officials at the heart of this mess are getting big bonuses. the forbes gang is on top of that at the next hour. meanwhile, she needs money to implement the health care law. now she's hitting up health care companies for it. we report ... you

headlines always available on foxnews.com. >> neil: all right. kind of ancillariry, getting serious about selling the health care law. the head of the health and human services department is hitting up priva businesses with money to promote the law, some of the very same firms her agency oversees. some companies are happily paying up. were they really freely giving a hand or getting strongarmed. charlie? >> obviously getting strong armed. it's a huge conflict of interest. it almost seems political, that it should be along with campaign finance. listen. this is a whole political thing. you're essentially forcing businses to turn over contributions to promote a political agenda which is health care. >> is also financial, though, neil. we have no idea how much this thing is going to cost ultimately, and health and human

services doesn't have enough money to implement the exchanges. congress has said no. they've been dipping into other parts of the health care law like the prevention fund. health and human services have taken a half a billion dollars out this year for that purpose. they have no control and no idea what the ultimate costs will be. >> neil: i wondered charles, how the phone call will be. are you able to maybe wor fork r a few bucks? just wondering. >> should we send someone over? listen. it's so wrong on both levels. there's absolutely no doubt. people are sort of seeing this kind of stuff coming. lobbyists wrote this. we saw waivers for certain corporations, certain unions. insurance stocks blew up a month ago because all of a sudden things weren't so bad for them. believe me, there's a wink and a nod here. the people that should be really upset about this are the people watching the show. ultimately we'll bear the brunt of this.

to day dagen's point, it will ct more than any of us can believe. >> neil: one of the arguments for doing this is the republicans have stymied us on funding this and slow boating a lot of funds we need to implementthis, so this is what we had to do. what do you think about that? >> it's a straight chicago style machine politics shakedown. it is nothing but a protection racket. they come into your store, they threaten that they're ing to burn down your store. they say we'll sell you protection. the owner of the store says protection from whom? they say protection from us. it's just a straight machine politics-style shakedown. it's a disgrace. >> neil: adam? >> look. i don't -- i don't love this. i'm not going to be a cheerleader for what she's doing here, but i hate to be forced into the position of being the reagan optimist as i so frequently am on this program and point out to you that we have a long history of cooperation. >> neil: you're drinking, aren't

you? >> between the government and the private sector. the military works with private groups to support our armed forces. the faa works with airplane manufacturers. >> these are like taking campaign contributions from people you regulate. that's illegal. >> it's saying we need to help to make sure that people are working to get this going. >> i've got to tell you. adam, whenever you bring up the optimism thing, i always think you know what? walk up to someone who just got hit in the head with a brick at an atm. you would say look at the bght side. you' still alive and they're always tomorrow. >> thank you for pointing that out. > >> neil: i'm wondering what if the companies had said no? what if they said no? >> you know what? i think probably in the past they might ha said no and they might have paid some sort of price for it. it's one of those things where people don't say no. maybe down the road they'll be

able to go back and say listen -- >> this is sticking their fingers in the dike, though, in the short run. >> maybe, maybenot. >> this is trying to keep the water at bay and move ahead with the implementation of th law before everything explodes in their face. >> you want a contract? give me $100,000. >> neil: i think it was more subtle than that if it can be. i think to ben's point at the outset here, i think when it comes to what they did with the irs, what the justice did by going up to the ap reporters, it's done with aink and a nod and a veiled reference, just searching, just curious. >> isn't it liken illegal tax as well? they're kind of like throwing an extra tax in here. pay us now, please, to implement this. >> neil: the enties that paid have a vested interest in getting something out of it. >> ultimately it's a quid pro quo. >> neil: i didn't understnd the h&r block. what was the upside for them? >> how many government contracts

did they get? >> neil: they get government contracts for the paperwork. got you. now i know. when we come back, a walkingut to get a 100% pay hike. more workers are doing it, but many say the rage is not about that. it's about the unions.

♪ (chanting) >> all right, it is happen

nothing milwaukee, folks working in burger joints. they don't want a litt incrose. they want double the wages they are making now. is the unions cooking up more trouble? >> what do you think? >> i thin what is going to happen, they will get replaced by other workers tha will work for more normal pay. and they are asked to be thrown out in the streets. this is trouble making by people who don't understands economics. >> it is a low margin business and american people want cheap fast-food. if they are unionized, it means fewer jobs for everybody. >> i don't eat the garge. >> theyy have salads.

>> they are horrible and a lot of sugar in the salad dressing. >> what about the mcrib? >> can i make my point. >> people -- it is the salad dressing. >> my only point is that people eat hamburgers with all of that grease and grime. >> if they overshoot, free market works. that's the point. detroit is a right to work state. >> it is already working. nfree market? that is political black mail. they are led down the wrong path. the idea of paying twice as much for afree market wage. >> they understand. >> they don't understand it. >> and it is a top and that is

that is not extortion. and ts week also. it is not extortion. >> it is 300 million. >> let me have m point. >> let charles finish. >> 300 million. and the city went on heavy- handed unionization. not only pricing themselv out of the car market but the city is dying. >> be careful what you are wishing for. a dam? >> charles just changed the subject. we don't know the right rate. >> but they are getting paid the right rate. they could fill those jobs tomorrow! >> why are we blaming the unions for recruiting more members. >> double. >> they are going to lose

members, my friend. >> it will be losing and then theyill get a lower increase. >> the strike is nothing like this. >> to charles's pot in a state like michigan, people will have the option of payin union dues and right to work. >> and blessedly you two are leaving but they do have a good point. i is not out other anchor tapes. mull over that one. >> and the stocks are like so much, so much and they are

>> eating your own cook asking charles has s stocks he is cooking. >> i like the stocks and i love it a lot. >> what do you think of tha adam? >> it is okay. if i were to go in machinery, i would take caterpillar. charles is a great stock picker. >> that is a put down, what do you think? >> walmart with things that are looking so about. walmart will be around a long time especially as the economy continues to recover. >> ben? >> i love walmart although they have to do something about their stores. they are a wreck.

i like it just fine. i like the index sdy dividend part of the standards and poors. >> stores are wreck? whadid he mean by that. that will do it? >> if you are outraged by the evidence coming o that of the irs was bng used as an idea logical enforcer, you may be outraged that some of those responsible for paid bonuses at work with your tax dollars. i am dave asman. what a week. we'll go with moshing an and mike and sabringa and rick. >> rick, this is usually steve forbes job but do you believe that the individuals who skewed up deserve