>> conservatives face a similar tension today, how do you deal with the complaining lector at and stay relevant. >> we're going to see that answered. neil: well, who says the white house doesn't talk about stuff that's illegal. that's not so. the president's been talking 5 lot about illegal immigrants and finally making them legal and russia holding edward snowden still saying, well, that's illegal, but when it cooes to a certain irs scandal or justice department scandal or a pattern of health care department related scandals, not only does the word "illegal" come up, not a one scandal comes up, not ever. be careful about a president who picks and chooses what he finds illegal. history suggests the real events ultimately determines what is. welcome, everybody. i'm neil cavuto, and as we end this week, this just seems weak, a pivot that, well, makes me

vomit. a president deciding when a legal issue is so big he'll talk about it, yes, if it's the supreme court ruling on gay marriage, yes, if it's the same ruling on voting rights, and, yes, if it's voting on illegal immigration bill. all illegalities have to be addressed in society, but not the others bubbling in his own administration. now, good lawyers now how to deflect, and this president is a good lawyer, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a good many scandals. now, some that look awfully illegal to me, but then again, i'm no lawyer, slicing words, i'm just a voter wanting answers. to larry on whether this pivot is indeed a pivot, and if we should be worried about it, or just an example of yet another president choosing to talk about the legal issues that matter to him and not the legal issues that coull be clearly damaging him. larry, what do you make of all

this? >> neil, you hit on it when you said you were a voter because ultimately it's a political judgment by the voters, but the next election's a year and a half away. presidents don't talk about things -- unhappy things unless they are forced to, and he can only be forced in two ways, a full-blown press conference, that he rarely has, and even in those cases, call on friendly reporters who don't ask the questions or ask them in a nice way, and an election. the election is november 2014 for the senate and houue. neil: just running out the clock to see if it loses steam? >> of course. presidents always run out the clock on bad news. that's part of the trick of the job. neil: you told me as a great historian you are, you rub it in my face when i get you ice cream when i'm wrong, that history rewards those presidents who get in front of something, even if they are not responsible for it. john kennedy comes to mind after

the bay of pigs disaster, he was willing to take the blame, his poll numbers shot up. history rewards presidents who try to get ahead of something, doesn't it? >> yeah, assuming you have the answers, neil. look, the voters, people generally love nothing better than a president or a politician who's willing to admit they were wrong or to take responsibility for something whether they personally did it or not. you know the people, nemo. they are pretty big egoed and they don't do that often. neil: i have it with the big egoea, and that's what i love about myself, but, anyway, do you feel this is going to come back to bite him, though? by singling out, playing tongue-in-cheek to say, all right, these illties the supreme court's addressing, the senate's addressing, they matter to me.

the other clear illegalities do not. -eople at home just don't say, wait a minute, you're picking and choosing here. >> well, if they pay attention, they might do that, neil, but, look, you're talking about hypocrisy, and we've had the conversation before. hypocrisy is the life blood of politics. neil: tuche my friend. good to see you. >> thank you, neil, take care of yourself. neil: you too. ignore the man behind the curtain. the great oz. was an old dude pulling a crank. remember that? whether the president is doing the same thing and it's getting old, and melissa francis on investors who say we got it wrong. he's not the real crank and he's nots the real oz, and someone else is, and if he screws up, we go down. mary katherine, the pivot, way do you think of it in >> i agree with larry that this is self-preservation of politicians, and the president's

particularly good at running out the clock, i think. that's why you didn't get the obamacare regulations until three years after the bill was passed because he knew if they did that, people react before the election. he's good at this thing. he also has a way of lecturing the rest of us how we should not jump to cop collusions unless he wants to jump to conclusions, and if it's trayvon martin, what have you, he's happy to act poetic about whatever it is and jump to plenty of conclusions, but we are not allowed to if there's a bunch of political terms for conservatives to target people from the irs. neil: looking at the markets generally, melissa, they are not interested in what he's doing, but what the real as is doing. >> that's federal reserve chairman, ben bernanke, focused on everything he does and says, and we saw as he hinted that maybe, maybe the punch bowl might be going away at the enof the year if things continue to be okay, which they are not, by the way, if you look to gdp, it's smaller, and the economy

grows slower than we thought. that's bad news for regular people. neil: what do the markets think then, to that point, if it turns out whatever selective memory the president has about illegal acts, they really fester and they really come bacc to bite him, and that it gets to be a real worry, then what? do they start paying attention? melissa: maybe they pay attention, but it could be a good thing. one thing that happened is it distracted the president more or less from doing more damage to business. he came out making the speech about the environment, and that destroyed coal stocks for that day, but as long as he's distracted in doing something else, i mean, i had a banker say recently every time they stick their head up, they are pistol whipped by washington. they try to do as little as possible. that's not good for the economy, not good nor growth, business, or regular people who need jobs. neil: mary katherine, what do you think of the argument, though, there's a sort of

strategy to it, that might not be too stupid, and that is deflect, wait it out, deflect, wait it out, and before you know it, we're through the summer, through the worst of it, and we still got a year to go to the midterms >> yeah, i mean, it works well for him sometimes, and i t sometimes, unfortunatelily, because the media is happy to let him play out the clock here. you know, i think -- neil: explain that. i didn't want to jump on you, mary, i apologize. >> no, go ahead. neil: you mentioned a profound point. the media dropped this irs thing very quickly when they got word or appeared to get word, and melissa's point of fact it was not what it appears to be, liberal groups were included in the witch hunt, and that gave them a cover to drop it. what do you think of that? >> yeah, i think it did. the irs comes out again saying, well, okay, there's six -- the actual data shows six liberal groups in hundreds and hundreds of conservative groups. it doesn't fly. they are happy to let him swim

along and avoid things. on benghazi, for instance, would we have gotten questions answwred unless republicans and a few reporters had kept asking question, and they were, of course, trashed by other people in the media. i think asking these questions is key, and part of the key is fixing these problems so that people have some trust, maybe occasionally, in the federal government making all systems work better. at this point, a lot -- neil: no, no, that's interesting because to your point, melissa, that what scares me the most is how much the media tires of these various scandals, and doesn't really want to dig that much in it because it's just -- i almost see them dragging them, oh, i got to uncover this, and when you got word of the liberal things, oh, good, we can drop it. without doing what you did to find -- >> no, look to the bottom. it was a small number, and their names were just put on the lookout list. it was not --

their application for the tax exempt status was not held up. thhy didn't actually receive the same abuse -- neil: the media takes that and says, oh. >> they are tired of the story because it's not playing the way they want to. they feel there's balance in there. both sides get it, which was not theecase, and it's okay to drop it and move on to something else. neil: mary katherine, final word. >> yeah, thank they don't want a story that makes the administration looks like they fulfilled the worst nightmares of the tea partiment they want to act as if it's pair know ya, but it's not what they get you, and that's what the story shows, and in order to fix it, you have to figure out that that's the problem, and you have to shine a spotlight on it. whhn he's able to run out the clock, we don't get solutions to the problem. it can happen in the future. neil: ladies, thank you both. it knows who you call and e-mailing, and when you thought the nsa snooping scandal couldn't get worse, ha, it gets

worse. ♪ you hurt my feelings, todd. i did? when visa signature asked everybody what upgraded experiences really mattered... you suggested luxury car service instd of "streth traing with patrick willis." come on todd! flap them chicken wings. [ grunts ] well, i travel a lot and umm... male announcer ] at visa siature, every upgradedxperience comes from listening to our cardholders. visa signature. your idea of what a card should be.

neil: you know, i really think the nsa is turning into me. the house guest who will not leave. i'm that guest. i am the nsa.

what they are doing is worse than what i did at your house being a couch potato, listening in on your calls, and even learn, well, what your e-mails are about, read every single one of them. that's what the irs is charged with doing antensa more to the point mining millions of them to see who sent what and when. snooping that's getting exhausting. liz? >> here's the problem. i mean, americans really want to catch terrorists. they support the government, saying, yeah, catch terrorists, it's great, let's do it, but when you do it without really indicating to congress what you're doing, and then going after the fact to get congressional review of what you're doing and when it's e-mails, e-mails bother me because they show your location, also, what about what you write in the subject line of your e-mail because the nsa says we didn't view the content of the e-mail. they use subject lines all the time, and what bothers me about the story too is senator wyden asked the director of

intelligence, james clapper, are you collecting data on millions of americans, and he flatly said no, and now we have an e-mail controversy popping up. neil: they say there's no news here. >> no. neil: what do you think, james? >> i'm flattered they are reading my e-mails. you know, most of the time, i send them, nobody responds back. when i make a list of, like, the top 50 things that are, like, on my mind today, my problems, nemo, you know, i mean, you know, problems with a specific customer today, i have a big softball game sunday, worries -- playing on the softball team, and whatever the government is reading in my e-mail, believe me, read whatever they want. if it's helping them protect us and provide that security, it's just not on my list of the 50 things i'm worrying about, and it has not been. neil: okay. adam, is it on your list of worries? >> well, no -- well, yes and no. first of all, it's a joke to say it's fine if they read my

e-mails. we should be clear if what we know so far they are not reading our e-mails or listening to our phone call, but looking at the data and trying to mine something with it using algorithms to try -- neil: you're right, you're very right. you know once you have all that stuff, the next step would be eavesdropping, the next step is reading all of the above, and by the way, just collecting the e-mails leads me to believe they are not just sort of sitting on a desk or on a computer. >> well, nemo, the next step you raise is the least troublesome of all because the next step would be, you know, old-fashioned going to the judge and asking for -- neil: i don't think it does. the history of the government, i don't think they bother with the judge, and liz's point, it's after the fact for this stuff, it concerns me. that's the concern. >> that's where i said i'm concerned, neil. i completely support that we, you know, we investigate this, write about it, make sure that they've got permission.

>> the thing, too, is who has security clearance to do this? the thing is, they can say they are making -- that they are not reading e males, but -- -- neil: i don't believe a word i'm hearing. >> it violates the fourth amendment. neil: exact limit it's only a few conservative groups turned to be hundreds. we never went after individuals, but it was several big donors. everything you've told me, government, irs, is a lie. when we first up covered the ap reporter targeted, that was it, only a few, but it extended to a fox news reporter and executives. i don't believe anything you say. i'm never confident that anything you say ended. that's the point. >> i understand that, neil, but when you -- neil: you're too busy playing softball, and you're willing to let the government continue to play hardball. >> i've not been hitting well recently, and it's on my mind. neil: keep playing, running around the bases, and they are running and destroying the country.

>> when i think about security, does the government have the resources to read my and liz's -- >> sure they do. neil: yes, they do! >> you're a nice person. >> you're a nice person. >> don't take it the wrong way. they don't care what's in your e-mail. neil: oh, really? how did james rosen get caught up? >> it depends on who the person is, and, look, there's 3 # 30 million -- >> she's one of the most celebrated reporters in america. no, serious. i'm just saying, and adam, this worries me. when so much -- neil, come dawn, don't be worried, i mentioned on the show, the twilight zone episode where all the guys from planet earth run into an alien spaceship, and it's a cook book and they get the ingredients in someone's salad. your answer. >> well, what i'm saying is, neil, don't calm down, go ahead, be worried, but that we want to work with the government to do this well. >> seems worse after the fact.

neil: very understanding. >> i'm understanding, but i'm trying to -- >> understanding to a degree. i don't like that it's worse after the fact. the news comes out, and it's worse. neil: next's week's team is blaming the irs also. >> no fly balls, hit it on the ground. neil: in the meantime, gobble up, pay up. how washington wants a bite from your wallet for every bite you take, period. ♪ aalec, for this mission upgraded your smart phone. ♪ right. but the most important feature of all is... the capital one purchase erase i can redeem the double miles i earned with my venture card to erase recent travel purchases. with a few clicks, this mission never happened. uh, what's this button do? [ electricity zaps ] ♪ youequested backup? s. yes i did.

what's in your wallet?

neil: that's going to cost him because in washington, taxes on

home or loan pay down the entire national debt. a new government sponsored study showing a calorie tax helps cure the obesity crisis to resolve our financial crisis. now, an agriculture department official is agreeing. they are calling this a fat tax. the attorney says fat chance. ashely, what do you think? if you tax food based on its calories or by some extent how bad it is for you, you make a killing, and you can stop bad behavior, make the government some money, just like cigarettes, what do you think? >> right. well, the last thing we need is more taxes so this is just a bad idea all around. you can't tax someone to force them into good behavior. it didn't work with cigarettes or alcohol. neil: they argue with cigarettes it did. i agree with you, but they argue that, you know, smoking is way

down, and we've madd it so prohibitive for smokers that look at how life has changed. >> you know, though, i don't agree with that because if you look at the socioeconomic classes of smokers, it's not the rich people necessarily the majority of smokers, and so i disagree that the tax has anything to do with that. i think education had something to do with that educating the people how horrible cigarettes were for us, and we sort of had public osarrizing of smokers not allowed to smoke in airports or eating establishments with food served, things like that. kneel noel i didn't think of that. good point. be careful what you start with here because what goes with forbidding smoking or making it more costly leads to prohilting in establishments. i could actually be arrested for eating a twinkie at the corner of 48th and 6th, which i've done many times, by the way. that's an interesting extension of that. >> right. it's free choice.

i think it's free choice what you decide to put into your body is your free choice in the neil: the smoking thing is different in this case, that that could, secondhand smoke is dangerous, all that, and i'm not hurting anyone outside of my myself eating all of this bad stuff. they might be offended by how i eat. i tend to be a sloppy eater, but that's not compromising hair health. what do you think of that? >> right, definitely. there's a flip side. if we tax calories, we hurt people who are doing the right things, some athletes, i run some distance races in the past, and i had to consume more calories. why should the people doing a healthy activity be punished with the calorie tax? neil: the problem as well is what you start taxing, you don't stop taxing, and cigarette smokers found out when fewer of them appeared, the tax all the more on those still smoking so

it's, you know, it has an unending nature to it. where's all this going? >> i think it starts at home. what we should do is there should be more education and parents should teach children how to eat healthy because the study was based on childhood obesity, a horrible epidemic, but the more education we have, then the better off we're going to be and able to make better food choice, and maybe we ought to help the farmers so that fresh fruits and vegetablee are easily available, readily available, and less expensive than taxing other types of food that we don't want people to eat. encucialg good eating, but discourage bad eating, but not with taxes. neil: very good. thank you very much. >> thank you. neil: short, sweet, and ends silent. silent for now, why lois lerner may break her silence soon because of this. ♪ >> i have not done anything wrong. e.

but who can help you find your own path? who can build you a plan, not just a pie chart? who can help keep your investments on course, atever lies ahead? that someone is a morgan stanley financial advisor. and we're ready to work for you.

♪ neil: lo iring's s, please see us. still not talking, but house republiians want to be sure she does dragging her back to capitol hill again to get her to talk a little longer, again. the house oversight committee voting today to do just that. congresswoman, many of your colleagues argue, some of your democratic ones as well, that she did leave herself open to this because with that introduction statement of her, she took all that pleading the

5th nonsense away. is that your take as well? >> that is my take. she said she broke no laws, didn't do anything wrong, that she didn't violate irs rules and regulations, and that she did not provide false testimony to congress, and then she invoked her 5th amendment right. we have believe she waived her fifth amendment right against self-incrimination when she made those assertions. it's to the extempt of what the did say. we have the right to cross-examine her. neil: have you heard back from her? >> we have not, but we did pass a resolution today saying that we believe that she waived her rights, and now -- neil: what if she says no? >> if she says no and, again, comes in and invokes her right against self-incrimination, then we'll have to make a decision about wheeher to hold her in contempt or not. neil: what if she says she's not coming at all to invoke the

right, been there, done that, not doing it again. >> well, then i believe we have the option to explore whether or not to hold her in con temperature. if held in contempt by the committee, it goes to the vote in the house of representatives, then a u.s. attorney who then takes matters to a grand jury. plenty of legal rights still to come. neil: can you update me on the lab rail groups targeted as well? hearing there's not that many group, and they might not have been targeted to the degree certainly conservative one wrs. what do you know about it? how big was it? >> we don't know the extent of hog it was yet, and that's why we want to talk to more people from the irs who were involved in making the decisions about these be on the lookout memos that were sent around within the agency saying, hey, be on the lookout for people who have tea party or patriot -- neil: way about the liberal ones

with the words "occupy" or "keystone" in the name? were they -- >> occupy? neil: was that any of them or just a ruse, what? >> we don't know yet, but there's targeting of conservative group, and whether or not there was targeting of liberal groups we have to know because as you know, neil, the page is turned on this. you can have a conservative administration go after a liberal group or vice versa if we allow the irs to run amuck. neil: that's the bigger point, isn't it? whether this turns out to be true or not, that liberals were targeted even to the degree, it's not what the irs should be doing. >> targeting is targeting. liberals, conservatives or somes other way out group. that's not the point. the point is do they deserve tax exempt status and when do they deserve it?

in a timely manner, at least a decision when they deserve it should be made in the timely manner so they can appeal that decision. neil: congresswoman, thank you. >> you're welcome. neil: skinny jeans, fat controversy, the war over slim jeans that could change my weekend wear forever. the skinny, next. 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 areat thing. but even though we're ving 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 eoy all of the ars. ♪

neil: the drama over den anyone. the european union dramatically increasing a tariff on american skinny jeans. i'm not talking big baggy mom jeans up to your chin, my weekend wear, by the way, but jeans tapered so tight they look lick denim stockings. the california manufacturers behind them are scrambling to deal with that figuring the european forms are perfect for their stuff, other than the french. to the business blitzer on

europe piling on on the blist against america. what do you think? >> it's great as long as you have less competitive industries abroad, but what they are signaling is we want to protect our own industries. skinny jeans, if they are catch shes there, they pay whatever it takes to look good. neil: al, i didn't know about skinny jeans, i wonder why, but i -- i wonder as well what the europeans have against them, assuming they make plenty of the same. >> well, this is a retaliatory strike. we raised tariffs, they are raising them back. the whole world is engineered by banks from dropping money from helicopters. the strong dollar makes it harder raising tariffs, this is what happens. it's one thing leads to another. frankly, i'm surprised they fit in them after eating our mcdonald's hamburgers.

neil: what's outrageous is the video bringing me up to date on this issue. i think we have to keep rolling this, guus, extremely slowly, frame by frame to get to the bottom of it, but you say, keith, we're not going to make progress? it goes on and on and on and away for the europeans to ensure they never get there? >> we've seen this time and time again from the 1920s, 30s, and 40s. it doesn't matter, agriculture or jeans, doesn't matter. there's high unemployment in europe, costs out of control, and we know from history that protectionism hurts the consumers they try to protect. the arguuent is a very socialist one is who you are informing. are we protecting the manufacturers or the consumers? i don't know the answer to that, but it will continue. neil: i don't know who put this together either, but i'll find them. in the meantime, nike just doing it in the u.s., but just in the u.s.. anywhere else, not so much. the sneaker make r out with good numbers here, and it's not exact hi sppeading out there.

al, is the rest of the world nike's achilles heel? what's going on? >> it's hard for american companies to grow if europe is slowing. well, we got used to that story, but china is slowing. where are they going to sell? well, the answer is in the u.s., there's a boom going on here, and hopefully that lasts. i don't know how long the american economy can continue to, you know, turn out healthy consumers when, you know, the company's can't grow, so i don't know. i think nike had a pretty good report, but, you know, i think the stock is reacting to the fact that there's a lot of uncertainty. neil: always the same old thing with the companies. they got cautionary warnings; right? nike's to be taken seriously with great reserve, what? >> you know, i think nike gets a big fat timeout here. you know, the fact of the matter is that they've been there, they've done that, not just doing it anymore, and the competition in china, i think, is the real issue, it's not that

sales are slowing, but chinese brands make serious impacts into otherwise fickle consumer base, and i think it's only natural, unfortunately, they are caught in the middle of this. neil: hated the advertising campaign, "just do it," i will, i will, when i feel like it. as we get to our third issue here, no need to walk to the bank when the bank is in your pocket. go bank is the first one designed to be used on mobile devices. here's the twist, only mobile devices, no such physical structure to go to. it's a bank game changer, is it? >> i hate the word "game changer" because then yyu wonder what the game is. neil: so do i. >> me too. neil: do you think it's a game changer? >> i remember the first internet bank. i don't know what it was, but -- neil: ing; right? >> it was a game changer. if they succeed, everybody knocks them off, and it's not a game changer, but a new game.

i like the company. i get press releases from them and there's research and surveys, and they are a clever bank. the idea people pay what they want, 0-9, see lounge that lasts, you know. they say, yeah, we work for tips. i don't know what banker works for tips. [laughter] neil: keith, to the point that you can offer people maybe even jeans you can order online, but that you can really drastically reduce your costs if you don't have much of a physical structure that costs >> right? >> well, you know, that's a great idea -- sorry, al. there's a great idea in here making people pay what they want to pay, but this remind me an awful lot of what happened in napster when it was legit. it's a consumer base, free banking clients are not the multimillion dollar clients banks want. it's easy to move from one free offering to the next.

i wonder if it's ever profitable. neil: the mobile device botching a blackberry come back. shares falling as much as 26% today after the company's first quarter earnings really missed the mark. al, what do you think of this? >> a big disappointment. you know, i have a column back in february about how they are coming out with new phones, a cool phone, but it was way late to the markets, and then, you know, after they announced it, and, you know, sent it off, they were not sending it off here, you know, basically, they are getting clocked. they were clocked by apple, now apple clocked by samsung, and improvements seen in the technology are so incremental, nobody has to run out, wait in line, you know, for a new phone so this doesn't surprise me at all. i think blackberry's -- they are going to be in trouble. neil: what i do notice in the cases, keith, is how quickly the leads changes like the american league east in baseball, boston, baltimore, the yankees, but it's

that tight. don't assume it's your birthright to stay on top. blackberry used to own it. apple came in, and now, you know, samsung with the array of phone products is a threat. my point is that, you know, blink, like the weather, this too shall change. >> well, this is like eastern airlines, palm computing. remember those? the first end of the market doesn't necessarily survive. it's easier to become number one than to stay number one. blackberry's extension, and they are the only ones who don't know it. neil: really? you think this is it? >> i do. it's a company in the death throes controlling less than 5% of the market, droid took over the market. if you don't see guys controlling the toys and stereos with anything else with a blackberry, but apple and samsungs. that's the center of the universe and existence for 20-30 years, and blackberry's not there. neil: guys, thank you both very much. >> thank you, neil. neil: from the nba to jay-z,

nobody is fair to push this health care plan. are the stars keeping their distance because they don't think there's anything to pitch? ♪ she's still the one for you - u know it even after all these years. but your erectile dysfunction - you know,that could be a question of blbld flow. cialis tadalaf for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you n be more confident in ur ability to be ready. d the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph, like needingo go frequently or urntly. tell your doctor about all your medical conditis and medications, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexuaactivity. do not take cialis if you takeitrates for chest t pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. sideffects 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 yohave any allergic rctions such as rash, ves, swellingf the lips, tongue or throat, or dficulty eathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask ur doctor about alis r daily use and a 30-tablet free tal.

neil: could i see that graphic again, guys? ♪ neil: says it all. the g.o.p. pressing the nba and nfl to think twice on promoting the health care law. so bad now we have special graphics assigned to it that are

expanding. the digital health records, huge and expensive part of the law, found to be riddled with errors, ann in the rush to conform to the law, the errors have absolutely resulted now in the death of some patients. that is the reason among many for everyone to run away from this, including those famous athletes. doctor, it's ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. >> run and run faster. i can't believe, neil, they are trying to recruit the nba and the nfl to put their names against something that's completely hollow. what do they want them to sell? there's no insurance exchanges up, nd people have no clue in terms of what they are going to sign up for, and i find it hard to believe they are trying to recruit such famous people or today's students or librarians. it's a ridiculous effort to --

neil: i see the method in the madness. you want to seek out young people, and young people watch football, young people watch basketbbll, ect., so you're see if by seeing wonderfulce and things about the health care law, they sign up. we need young people to sign up, you know, to pay for the older americans who are leaving the work force and really responsible for much of the costs of health care. >> well, if any of the basketball players like cob, kobe bryant understands the health insurance law to sell it to somebody, i want them to sign up too. neil: i think he's not aware of it, but he'll say, for all i know, there's a health care law insignia they might have patched on to the sures, whatever, and that's it. kobe likes it, i should like it, i should sign up for it. >> that's the target audience they got to go after. you're right. they have to focus on the younger audience betting on the

fact the younger folks will sign up for the insurance, and they probably don't need, probably can't afford, to make up for the losses that are going to be incurredded because the insurance companies need to cover everybody else. neil: all right, if they can't do that, they have -- the simple math works against them in the hope they had by now to cover everyone with preexisting conditions and cover all americans, period, you need young people signing up to support this. >> yeah. neil: and they are not. furthermore studies show they are not eager to, and add to that the fact that a lot of poor americans don't think they can and won't and the or ensuredded completely don't think this is worth their while. what the hell did we have the health care system to do this? >> with the hope we get to a single payer system because this fails, i think. kneel they'll there was a goal to do just that?

we might get that? >> we might by default, and we have talked about this. remember even sitting on, you know, the rooftop of the museum as the law was being passed. neil: i remember. >> and, yeah, that may ultimately be where it's going, but you mentioned, you know, the whole failure with the electronic medical records, and look at the hundreds of millions oo dollars that have been spent. hhs just released a report to congress this month about the adoption. the adoption rates look promising in terms of the number of doctors and hospitals that are complying, but when you look at the numbers you just talked about on the flip side of the disasters that are happening, either because the systems are clunking, because people don't understand the technology and they are making mistakes, and within the report, and i've got props here, the bigger problem is that right now, the obama administration is implemented a

system that sort of looks like this. it's a mishmash of systems that came together that don't connect. neil: what is that? >> it's legos that stack upon each other that don't connect. the i want system we goat to is this. remember the tinker toys? they don't make them anymore i don't think, but we create a connected system where information flows and information's accessible, but guess what? the epics of the world have made a killing in terms of selling their systems, but the problem is nobody's willing to give up the data. every -- we built these thiefdoms where they don't communicate. neil: i don't know what concerns me more, the health care law or the toys you brought with you. good seeing you, very well explained. >> thank you very much, neil, good to see you. neil: from hacking back to lawyering up, still laughing, china? i don't think so.

♪ to fly home for the big family reunion. you must be garth's father? hello. mother. mother! traveling is easy with the venture card becase yu can fly airline anytime. two words. dble miles! this guy can act. wanna play dodge rock? oh, you guys! and with double miles you can actuay use, you neve miss the fun. beard growing conte and go! ♪ win! what's in your wallet?

neil: i just show the graphic we're not forgetting health care because we move on to another segment. show that one more time to show you -- ♪ the end of the health care crisis, and if it gets more than that and a life and death thing, it moves on. just so you know. anyway, this is what i call fighting fire with fire, bringing out the lawyers and filing suit after suit, and it is true, and china's going to find out fast and the hard way. you keep hacking, we keep suing. i find all this tift for taft refreshing because a week after we vowed to hack back, we are lawyering up. what do you think? >> how american can you get? if we don't get our way, we sue the pants off them. neil: what are they going to do? >> my opinion is you got as much

chance collecting as many chinese companies as you do from tony soprano. you can sue and sue and sue, good luck with the money. neil: especially now. liz? >> i agree. the thing is, we can't sue them. the government -- nobody in congress has the wherewithall or gumption to do it because they are sitting on foreign reserve equal to the size of germany. we are panicked about the fact they own so much of our debt and angering them over hagging. yeah, that's a problem. you know, the hacking issue is a problem. 250 billion loss in intellectual property out of the u.s., 5 lot stolen by china because china has no soft economic power, no name brands they are interested in. that's why they are stealing ur stuff. neil: adam, the only alternative is if they waste time with the lawyers, just continue to hack, hack back, in other words, do what you do, but in space, what do you think? >> it's rare, but i disagree with rare, but i completely disagree with what she said.

we should sue, hack back, we should pursue deploam sigh, we should per sue military, you know, mac hacking options, everything. we have to defend ourself. i'm not the least be concerned or feel that we should be concerned about going after the chinese. i mean, we've got their money, not the other way around. you know, if -- are we concerned they will repatriot every investment in our money? i don't think so. neil: they can do what they've been doing, stop additional buying, and we seem to survive that well. you might have a point. >> well, ann on the contrary, someone did a story this week about how the chinese are buying trophy properties in the united states the same way the japanese did in the 1980s. this is just the beginning. they want to invest in the united states, and we're going to tell them, essentially, if you invest in the united states, we have the legal system here, and if you break our laws, we sue you. >> i hear that. i hear your points. listen, i'm not saying no to

suits, but what i said was i don't think anybody in congress would do it. by the way, a lot of foreign investors are running away from the 30-year bond, and so that you see that yields gyrating. china is saying, wait a second, we may not buy anymore .s. debt. neil: if they are stupid to buy $95 million pent house in central park, have at it. >> do you think the chinese stop hacking because of the lawsuits against them? neil: in all cases, the point is, have to get tougher. what we have to realize, and i know it's like donald trump here without being so blunt. they need us as much if not more than we need them. how do you get the point across whatever they do, continuing to do this is not this their interest? >> you have to fight, instigate lawsuits, show distracted employee my, and talk tough.

do you think the chinese stop hacking? no, they are not. the big -- neil: we just hack in space. >> biggest defense -- >> i disagree. >> protect yowrg and then, you know -- neil: why do you disagree, adam? >> because there's two aspects to this, commercial and military. neil: they hack both. they are hacking both. >> right. that's why you have to -- you use a crude metaphor. you have to get in their face at every opportunity. neil: wait, white, wait, wait, wait, woah, if issadam saying, "in your face," and this is what a gentleman you are, adam. >> i try, neil, you know i try. neil: that's me in the morning, and i elevate from there. >> we tried to get in their face in two decades. they don't respect us. treat it like, you know, get out of here. it's like the same issue with us saying, hey, opec is a cartel,

and we have not done anything about opec being a cartel and fixing prices in the oil market. i don't think a lawsuit has impact whatsoever. they are just going to break it off. >> they are not breaking laws in the united states. we have a good marketplace here and the chinese clearly want to be a part of it. neil: i don't know. they are go nowhere. here's what i worry bout because i want you to be aware what a crisis this is ongoing, switching gears back to this. ♪ you know, the guys here slip in special graphics, and i don't appreciate the hard work they do to get that out there, but we can see that again, time and energy wept into this. ♪ that is the goofyist graphic i've ever seen mocking the crisis that's out of control, but it may be pieces of the said crisis. what do you think of how this is getting out of control? you're hinting at not the

graphic, but there's reports of more abuses, reports hitting up the nba, the nfl, right after, weeks after hitting up companies, private companies to pay for promoting it. it's out of control. out of control. worse than our graphic. what say you? >> no further comment on that. neil: are you a lawyer? >> not in the least. neil: good thing. adam, what do you think? >> if i don't have to -- this is the effort to give 20-30 million more americans access to health insurance, is that what you refer to, neil? neil: many who don't even want it which is odd that we up ended everything for them, and they don't want it. isn't that weird? by the way, that necessitates the dramatic graphic development. take a look [laughter] ♪ neil: run a crawl there, people who got it, don't want it. >> health care, the reform, yeah, we wanted help insure what adam is saying, but it's about

to explode on the launch pad. maybe the graphic is about to explode too. neil: like a launch pad mobile devices tiff. >> the graphic designers do a fine job. they work hard, it's an excellent graphic. neil: this one, guy, weigh this, look at the graphic again. i'm not a fan. ♪ i don't think it says battle to me. i don't think it says this crisis and on the brink fear that ifer enough. ♪ >> it's just a red asterisk. neil: you'll get kicked in the asterisk, good point. time thoughts? >> on thacking the chinese, try to get insurance rather than giving up. neil: getting in everybody's face, getting crude. >> trying. neil: i'm told that all graphics are being removed from the neil cavuto show as is any mention of neil cavuto period.

that'll do it. remember if it's a crisis -- now that's a threat. that one's a threat. see that! the flag, end of the world. have a great weekend. ♪ ♪ gerri: hello,verybody, i'm gerri willis, right to the top story. the woman at the center of the irs scandal may be forced to come out and speak. lois lrner refused to anser qution about the targetingof conservative groups declaring she did nothing wrong. the house oversight committee today ruing she waived he 5th amendment rights and can take her to federal court f she refuses to answer for her ctions. joining me, director for public notice. gretchen, welcome to the show. great to have you here. did she