neil: don't look now, but this immigration bill is falling apart, and if it keeps up like this, it's going to fall apart for republicans too. welcome, everyone, i'm neil can view toe. let's just say conservatives in the house are not buying into immigration reform that conservative republican senators say they should. among them, representative louie gohmert of the fine state of texas. congressman, you're not too keen on this. what seems to be causing a substantial divide. where do you stand on this? >> well, the fact is, we could agree on an immigration bill, but we have to have border security first. 80 plus, i think, percent of the american people, over 60% of

hispanic adults, they all agree you've got to have border security. neil: but when marco rubio says there is that provision here, and you're not going to get the republican wing like in '86 when ronald reagan offered this, what do you say? >> i say i love marco rubio. he's just such a really sweet guy in the nicest sense of the world. he really believes that this administration's going to all of a sudden out of the blue start securing the border when they won't enforce their own obamacare that they passed without any republicans. i have a resolution, and, neil, it just says with all the whereases, the things they haven't done, the border's got to be secured. the house is not going to pass an immigration bill until such time as the southern border is secured as confirmed by the four that's what we need. and once that border is secured as confirmed not by janet

napolitano, we couldn't trust that, but by the board of governors or legislature, whatever they want to do, then we can move forward very quickly on the rest of this immigration bill. but we can't trust this immigration to maybe the president will all of a sudden for the first time really start following the law when it comes to security of the border. neil: so you don't buy the teeth in the law, the enforcement of the border comes first, you think that fool me once, don't even think about fool me twice, that's where you're coming from, right? >> i believe it's in the law, neil, that the senate has passed, but this president already has secured the border in the law. that is part of his obligation, and he is not doing it. i mean, the border patrol, the patrolmen themselves, the unions, i mean, they're saying it's increased three to five times. we're not catching but a fraction of them regardless of

what secretary napolitano says about 84, 87%. they're not catching a fragment of the people that are coming in. and it's the most scary part of what are termed otms, you know, we don't worry about mexicans coming in to create problems. i welcome hispanic immigration. but it needs to be legal, and we need to root out those people who are coming in illegally that want to destroy the country. we've got to secure the border. once the president will do that, we'll work out an immigration bill immediately thereafter. that will not be a problem. there won't be a civil war. but i really regret -- neil: but you would rather no bill than this bill, and this bill or nothing you would just say, well, nothing. >> no, i want a bill, and i will agree on a bill, but not until the border's secure. because until the border's secure, we're enhancing and increasing, aggravating the problem. we're not fixing anything. we're making it far worse.

even under the conservative cbo scoring.% that says it's going to add, the senate bill will add millions more on top of what we're already going to give amnesty to. so this is not a fixed proposing. it's going to exacerbate the problem. our solution, secure the border. you don't need any more laws to do it. you've already ignored those. i mean, there were billions spent for virtual fencing, this administration said, no, we're not going to do that. neil: all right, congressman, thank you very, very much. >> thank you, neil. neil: so that's what it comes down to, are republicans risking the latino vote if they go ahead and scrap this? well, that depends on who you talk to because mary katherine says it will not. we debate and you decide. all right, so your argument, kirsten, is that this is going to hurt the gop. explain. >> yeah.

well, at this point i think no matter what they do they're going to be hurt. first of all, the bill probably won't ever pass ultimately. if it does pass -- so if it doesn't pass, it's going to hurt them. if it does pass, it's not really enough to help them, and they've done so much damage to themselves during the process, i doo't think that latino voters are really going to forget what has happened and the kinds of things that have been said from republican members of congress. neil: well, you could flip it around, mary catherine, and say is it patronizing that latinos would vote only on this issue? >> i don't think that there's no danger here. i do think it's part how you speak to the latino community, but they're split up in different groups to whom gop candidates can do things. the idea that federal legislation is a proxy for caring is something democrats are good at selling, but it doesn't mean a party should vote for something they don't believe is ultimately good for the party. neil: i'm sorry, mary, but how

would you reverse what has been a trend of seven out of ten latino voters going for the democrat? how would you reverse that? >> i think you have to go into your individual communities as an individual politician and do it. i don't think passing giant legislation which, as we've seen with obamacare, doesn't necessarily fix the problem you're working on is necessarily the way to do it. it's a harder path sometimes. this can be a shortcut to earning people's good graces, but i do think if you're not, you know, honestly for it, then you have to go and find other smarter ways to reach out to people. and it's not an easy job. neil: kirsten? >> i agree with that. i don't think the republicans should vote for something they don't believe in. and i don't think federal legislation is a proxy for caring. so i don't agree, you know, with that, if that's what people are saying. i just think that it's unrealistic to think that a group of people who feel the republican party often describes them as sort of inherently criminal, you know, are really going to be attached to them. neil: they don't call them inherently criminal.

>> yeah, they do. there are -- neil: not all hispanics are criminal. >> you don't think that they're portraying all of these people who are illegal immigrants as being inherently criminal? neil: they're saying more legals could get over the border and that could be criminal, and there is a distinct dishes because our -- difference because our system can only support -- hat is not the only concern. neil: you're saying they all find hispanics to be -- i mean, come on. you know better than that. >> you just said -- first of all, i did not just say all -- neil: you just racially cast them. >> i said -- you lost me now. i mean, i don't know what you're saying. i have not used the word "all." i said that there are republicans in the republican party talking about them as if they're all sort of inherently criminal because they keep saying they broke the law, they came into the country -- neil: they're not saying that about all of them. mary catherine, what do you -- if that perception is right, fine, but if that perception is

out there, then how can republicans even some who are against this bill for -- >> but that's my point is that when you have people in your party -- neil: fine. mary catherine, what do you think of that? >> let me counter that i think the tone as compared to 2007 has been smarter. there are republican leaders, even those who are not necessarily for the bill who are very active in saying this is a smart way to talk about this, do not do it cavalierly or in any way that insults folks. so i think it has been a smarter approach. the other thing is i think the gop gets a little less credit than it should for trying to get something that's passable to the american people -- neil: but do you think it will hurt, to your colleague's point here, do you think this will hurt them that if the perception is out there even among some, that it will hurt them? >> no. i think the perception is damaging, and it has to be counteracted. a lot of the perception is going to be there regardless. i think partly the media is not interested in giving credit to the gop which, by the way,

politico headline today on the house immigration stuff, gop reaches out to democrats. if they're not willing to go for a piecemeal approach here and try some stuff, show that they can actually be trusted, then nothing's going to get done. but i don't think that's the way to fixing things. neil: bottom line, ladies, it is a mess, and it's still up in the air. thank you both. i appreciate it. >> thank you. neil: we've got some good news/bad news for you. the good news, a lot more jobs. the bad news, well, most of them are temporary jobs. we pick it apart, you decide. is l this recovery real? a better opportunity for your business, better legacy to leave the world. we have always believed in this rsuit, striving to bring insight to everynvestment, and integrity to every plan. we are morgan staey. and we're ready to work for you.

neil: well, don't look now, folks, but we've got a jobs boom going on. the flipside is it's a temporary job boom. any job is percent than no job, but are these kind of jobs what we really want for recovery? didi, you first, what do you think? >> i think rick unger really would prefer to work in retail and sell dresses -- [laughter] >> what? neil: he is sartorially splendid. >> temporary jobs it's tough because you don't have the benefit, the scheduled to, and plus you don't have the ownership in the job. you're always going to do a

better job if you belong to a company, so it is a problem. neil: why are they having these temp jobs? >> let me first say for the record i have sold women's shoes very successfully. neil: you know, i could see you wearing -- >> i knew there was something going on there. neil: i'm kidding. go ahead. >> okay, look, i actually think this is better news than it might readily appear. there's no getting around the fact we're coming out of the worst recession since the great depression. there's also no getting around the fact we've gone through a long era of jobs being shipped overseas. a, the economy's improving, jobs should come with it. but i think we're seeing a situation where employers are starting to see the benefits of bringing jobs home. we shouldn't be surprised that they're putting their toe in the water starting with temp work to see how it works out. if it works, if they are right, watch those turn into full-time jobs. same as the economy gets better, understandable an employer might want to slowly bring in part-time work. life keeps improving, they'll

make them full time. i think this is all good. neil: guy, what about you? >> well, anytime an american gets a job, that's something we should all celebrate, especially considering that the job picture has been so sluggish for so long and still is, by the way. 3.6% -- 7.6% unemployment, would be in the double digits if we were in the same work force participation rate before the depression, the u6 number getting ugly again last month. but trying to figure out why is that, why is the improvement largely in that area, i know we're going to revisit the subject later on in the show, neil, but obamacare -- neil: really? i had no idea. go ahead. laugh after. >> exactly. >> we have an extra a year now of up certainty because part of this thing has been delayed. the employer mandate for medium and large-sized businesses. so a lot of people are wondering, gosh, are we going the keep these hiring freezes in place, for instance, and people aren't willing to commit to a full-time or even necessarily a

part-time worker, you'll hedge your bet withs with temp workers and see where obamacare heads -- neil: well, it would be a safe strategy even if you think the whole thing's going to work out -- >> he's wrong. neil: well, of course he's wrong. in all seriousness, why would you go out on a limb and hire a bunch of full-time folks for whom you're obligated? >> it's the magical medical mystery tour we're on. none of these employers need -- neil: that's a beatles reference. >> this always amazes me, everybody wants to come up with all these reasons why people hire or don't hire. you know why people hire people? they need more man hours at work. if you're not selling your products, you're not going to -- >> no, it's obamacare. it's obamacare, rick. that's why they're not hiring. >> when you need them, you hire them. exactly. we're on that way. you know, sometimes people just don't want to take good news -- >> it's not good news. >> it is good news. >> it's obamacare. people are afraid to hire. >> in this has nothing to do

with obamacare. i think obamacare's responsible for me stubbing my toe this morning. neil: i would agree with that. >> you guys make obamacare responsible for everything. >> i agree. neil: do you think that now the direction that we're getting on on this hiring is that, yes, to rick's point, the economy's obviously picking up, these guys do feel confident to hire, but they're being cautious in their hiring plans which is also a reflection maybe not of health care, but not quite sure whether this recovery holds? what do you say? >> exactly. there's a sense of uncertainty and wait and see. we are in no way entering some giant jobs boom. there are a lot of people who are very worried and still sort of standing off on the sidelines. they're not sure where this cup's headed next -- country's headed next. rick can say it has nothing to do with obamacare, but that doesn't make any sense just in terms of common sense. but it also isn't reflected when you look at polling of his owners and small businesses. they have said 41% according to gallup of small business openers have frozen hiring, and a lot of

those business owners tell pollsters it is because of the health care law. you cannot get around that. it's not political, it's reality. neil: what do you think of that? >> i think it's nonsense, i truly do. [laughter] people hire people -- actually, what you said strangely made more sense. i can -- neil: that's very hurtful. [laughter] >> what i'm here for. if you didn't go with that shoes crack, i might have been -- [laughter] neil: you know, you're exactly right. i had it coming, yes. >> but who wants crummy, part-time jobs? nobody. >> it's not about that. people hire when they need people. it's got nothing to do with obamacare. i'll tell you what. if two years from today if people are laying people off when business is good because they don't want to deal with obamacare, i'll listen to what you're saying. >> okay, then it's the crummy obama economy, you're right. you're exactly right. >> we're not there yet. it hasn't even kicked in yet. >> well, you're right. we're five years in and still bad. you're exactly right. >> obama kay is not the cause -- obamacare is not the cause. neil: i think you're the cause.

when we come back, we're going to look at yahoo! right now and feel so guilty about so many of its customers feeling bad that it snooped through their records, that it wants to -- the government won't let 'em. not yahoo!.

neil: all right. when we found out that the nsa was spying on us and taking our records and hitting up all these technology companies for their records, you had to ask yourself, why did they go along? yahoo! wants to get the record straight and let its customers know they fought them now and then, but the question is why the government won't let them tell that and won't let them detail what happened when they did. we've got brett coffin joining us, the aclu national security project big wig, and i'm

wondering, what does that say and does it give the company any more cover because the damage is done? >> well, what yahoo!'s trying to do is go pack to 2008 when it was party to secret proceedings in the foreign surveillance court and with a challenging order it received under a predecessor to the law that now authorizes the prism program, and the quarter review actually released its opinion interpreting the fourth amendment and denying yahoo!'s challenge. it did so by redacting yahoo!'s name, and it released that opinion in 2009 to inform the public about what it was doing. what yahoo!'s doing now is something that's very encouraging, it's pushing back against government secrecy in these matters, and it's something that all the providers should be doing and, frankly, it's something they should have been doing a long time ago to push for more public information. neil: it's all obvious now, right? why doesn't government just say, all right, go ahead and detail the times we hit you up for that

information. >> well, the government maintains that all of this information needs to remain secret. it has concepted to allowing yahoo! to -- consented to allowing yahoo! to challenge the order in 2008, but it's still maintaining that much of this information needs to retain secret, and that's simply inappropriate. yahoo!'s asking the court to review those claims -- neil: what do you think's going to happen? do you think yahoo! is going to be able to do that? >> we're hopeful that they do. the fisa court has been receiving many requests from providers including microsoft, google and including the aclu to make more information public about the laws that it's interpreting in secret. finish it's essentially interpreting fourth amendment principles that govern a huge area of americans' lives, and it's doing so in ex parte proceedings, and that's just simply not the way the law's supposed to work in the american justice system, and it's not the way the fisa court's supposed to work. neil: have we gotten any early evidence that a lot of customers

at any of these operations that were hit up by the nsa or requested to give information over to the nsa whether back door channels or what have you, to quote mr. snowden, how many were constantly complying with that? in other words, constantly offering it? >> well, neil, that's a big question, and it's something we don't know. and that's why the companies shown b pressuring finish should be pressuring the government to release information. microsoft and google filed motion in the fisa court to be able to speak publicly about the kinds of requests it gets and the kinds it complies with. that's entirely appropriate. we believe that even more information should be released about the kinds of data that the government's requesting, the authorities it's requesting it under and how many customers are affected by these orders. that's something the public is clearly entitled to know, and it's good to see the companies now competing on these privacy matters because they know that customers care, and they know it's to their advantage to protect the privacy interests of

their customers. neil: brett, thank you very much. also have to watch republicans. when we come back on this whole idea of the health care delaying the employer mandate, now they're saying we've got to delay the individual mandate. is this just a tactic to delay the whole thing and maybe kill the whole thing? republican senator be roger wicker after this and robert wolf will determine on whether that's a smart strategy in the long run. it be a question of blood flow. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you cabe more confident in your ability to be ady. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph like needing to go frequently or urgently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immedte medical hel

for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or sion, or if you ha any allergic reactions such as rash, hives, if yswelling of the lips,crease or lotongue or throat,sion, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a 30-tablet free trial. do you mind grabbing my phone and opening the capital one purchase eraser? i need to redeem some venture miles before my demise. okay. it's easy to erase any rece travel expense i want. just pick that flight right there. mmm hmmm. give it a few taps, and...it's taken care of. this is pretty easy, and i see it works on hotels too. you bet. now if you like that, press the red button on top. ♪ how did he not see that coming? what's in your wallet? [ whirring ] [ dog barks ] i want to treat mo dogs. ♪ our business needs more cases. [ male announcer ] where do you want to take your business?

i need help selling art. [ male announcer ] from broadband to web hosting to mobile apps, small business solutions from at&t have the security you need to get you there. call us. we can show you how at&t solutions can help you do what you do... even better. ♪

neil: well, republicans must be smelling blood or something, because now they're pushing to delay the entire health care law that the president can't willy-nilly just push the employer component that demands they provide insurance for their workers, that it's got to be extended to individuals that they've got to provide insurance for themself, just push that back a year too. senator roger wicker joins us now, is that a strategy to kill this thing? >> well, that's exactly what we need to do, but the bill was supposed to go forward in one piece, and now we see bit by bit by bit parts of obamacare are crumbling. what the administration did last is on the 5th of july on a friday when most people weren't watching, he makes an announcement through some blog saying we're not going to abide by a major portion of his signature legislation. neil: but a lot of you guys are recommending that because a lot of your constituents are saying it was feasible for them to do it, so he did what you wanted.

>> the president, if he wants to change the law of the land, needs to come to congress and say i'm not able to do this by the end of the year, would you work with us to change the statute. now, in a democratic republic, that's the way things are supposed to work. neil: where do you think this is going, senator? >> with the postponement of the whole thing, there's no question about it. for him to say the individual mandate goes through when we don't have the exchanges ready when the individuals are either going to be taxed or fend for themselves, that puts the revenue in the stream without another major portion of the law being enacted, and it's wrong, and it's contrary to the way we're supposed to do business in a country that abides by the rule of law. neil: all right. so in the house it doesn't look like this thing has much of a chance right now as far as making the same push. maybe it does. but is this law on automatic pilot? i mean, because you always hear these daunting numbers. it's very, very tough to change

a law already in place however unpopular, however enormous. what do you say? is. >> well, that's what we knew all i a long. -- all along. in the senate, yes, it's tough. the house, i think, is voting on doing away with the individual mandate even as we speak if you'll flip over. but, basically, what we -- my best hope, neil, is that we can defund the irs enforcement of in this. that's the one part of this law that has to come back before the appropriations committees each year for additional money, and to me, it's our best hope of really stopping this law that is not having the intended effect. it's the absolute opposite of affordable care. neil: senator, thank you very, very much. now, to a guest who says, you know, in the end it's going to be the economy that saves this, whatever controversy a good economy will float all boats,

even rickety ones like this, huh? >> nice to see you. neil: what do you think? >> listen, i think it's a pragmatic decision that we -- neil: it wasn't a political decision? 2014? >> i think you have to look at it this way, it's 18% of our economy. it is big, it is large, it takes time. you have two separate things. you have the individual mandate which is making sure we insure the uninsured. that takes time. the state exchanges are going to take time. i like the idea that we're focusing on that first. most businesses are not disappointed that we're delaying it. they want to make sure they understand the regulation, they want to understand the costs. why, why isn't it pragmatic to say let's focus on the -- neil: so you think it should be applied to the individual as well? delay it for them too? >> no. i think that, listen, i think the whole thing is going to be -- it's not an easy enactment. but i like the idea that we're taking a bit of a piecemeal approach when you have that much of the economy, okay, involved. i think it's important we get the uninsured insured.

i think it's important we get health care affordable, and it's important that we make sure the employers understand what this mandate is. if that means we have to prolong some to get it right, that seems pragmatic to me. neil: if you think this would have been approved if people knew the problems that would crop up? >> i think anytime that you're speaking about near 20% of the economy, there's going to be significant bumps in the road. it's very difficult to see how you smooth this out without taking time. so i think it makes sense that we take the time. i think arguing whether we're going forward with it or not, that's already been decided. we're proceeding. so let's figure out how to proceed the best way. neil: so you don't buy the argument that you can't change a law midstream by moving the deadlines. it's one thing to change the enforcement provisions, it's quite another to change the dates on the participation provisions. >> i think if you change dates because it's going to make implementation better, you change dates. neil: so you don't think it's a big deal. >> i don't. neil: what if the economy doesn't improve?

what if the gdp numbers that are okay but not great just kind of peter along? >> yeah, listen, i'm concerned. i mean, we are kicking along at 2%, if not under. exporting has slowed down. yeah, i would say that most people are very concerned about the economy right now. neil: are you? >> yeah. neil: in the long term? >> i am concerned, but we're doing better here than almost anywhere else in the world. neil: that is our saving grace. we might suck, but the world sucks more. >> well, you have to hope that foreign direct investment into this country which is only 13% of gdp increases dramatically. we need -- neil: you don't think the health care issue is a reason to give we were discussing earlier this temporary hiring that's going on, robert, doesn't dissuade you? >> no. i think hiring is demand driven, okay? i'm with ceos all the time -- neil: you mean part time. >> part-time hiring is normal. you increase first the average hour wookweek which, by the way, other the last few years has

gone up by about two hours. so you have to first get the slack out of the system. we still even have more slack. number two, once you get the slack out of the system, then you start hiring full time. you have a lot of businesses that don't think they need the full-time labor, haven't seen the demand. remember, when you have global growth slowing down and you're hopping along at 2%, it is not like we're ringing the bell singing god bless america. we are drivingga great economy. we are going slow right now. we just happen to be going faster than, you know, the rest of the economies around the world. neil: all right. and that does count for something. robert wolf, the former ubs america's chairman. when we come back, remember blackberry? i think more like black and blue berry. this thing is imploding, after this.

neil: remember when blackberry ruled the earth? not now. remember when costco was in

charge of saying second fiddle to walmart? not now. and remember when a certain other airline never really bothered you with fees? not now. blackberry more like black and blue berry that it is going ahead and laying off a couple of big executives on the heels of some disappointing sale numbers. jonathan hoenig joins us, al lewis joins us. johnny, what do you think? >> neil, blackberry has dropped the ball. there's no monopoly in a free market, and blackberry whose stock was, what, at $230 back in 2007, it's at nine today, it's a great example. they have been usurped while they pioneered the smartphone market, they have been usurped by other competitors and, thus, the stock has really become dead money as you're pointing off, more layoffs, more weakness in the stock, and while i think it could go higher short term, there's a lot of talk about the intellectual property, i think it's a stock that most investors should avoid. neil: al, what happened here? >> i think he's right on. they're never going to be able

to lay off enough executives to turn this company around. they came out with these new phones in february and said, oh, by the way, they'll be available in the u.s. in march, and you knew that was a funny announcement. they're cool, but guess what? they're just way too late. this company probably needs to change its name to beta max because that's the way it's going. neil: a lot of people already have phones. the demand has been sashuated. do you buy that? -- safeuated. do you buy that? >> no. the improvements are going to be incremental, so it's not like let's camp out in front of the apple store and get a new iphone. those days are gone. neil: good. >> and, neil, if they had a real dynamic leader, i mean, this feels very much like apple was before steve jobs came back and turned that company around. you know, blackberry's essentially been left for dead. if they got a real dynamic leader that could come in, show some vision, it could make a comeback. so far that simply hasn't happened. neil: all right. talking about comeback and talking about reflecting, maybe a good economy underneath costco

is on fire, sales advancing far better than expected, and it's putting walmart in the dust. johnny, what do you think of that? >> people love costco, neil. rich, poor, every race, color, creed, socioeconomic level, people love costco. they fight to have one in their neighborhood. it's a tremendous economic success story and, again, demonstrate how in market there is no no moply. this is -- monopoly. this has been a major threat to walmart. they're succeeding, and i think it goes higher as more and more people realize this is a company that provides a tremendous amount of value not only to its customers but to its employees and shareholder as well. neil: it's not across the board. not doing as well as some of the middle and not doing as well, so what's the trick, al? >> i think people go to costco to stock up, and i think people stock up when they're worried about their futures. neil: oh, really? >> yeah. why do you need 96 rolls of toilet paper unless you think i'm getting laid off?

[laughter] costco is an excellent company, as jonathan points out. they do a lot of things that walmart doesn't. they pay their employees well, and they don't draw all the criticism that walmart tends to -- neil: are they unionized? >> i don't think that they are. walmart's not either. neil: all right. so they get a little bit less of a -- >> well -- neil: -- resistance. >> well, sure. but they pay well, and they treat their employees well, and they don't, like i say, draw all in the criticism. they do some of the same things that walmart does. neil: we're going to get into that. alaska air joining, in fact, upping the ante on these baggage fees whether you have one or two or three. in fact, by the third one, you're paying more han the cost of the plane. what do you think, jonathan? what's going on here? [laughter] >> neil, i know you love to complain about the airlines, about the nickel and diming. i wish you'd start complaining about the government, because it's their regulatory system that's prompted all these nickel and diming fees to have to take

place. the airline industry is regulated on every level from the design and construction of the plane to the ownership of the airports to the number of slots airlines can send out. so they have to try to make money on this essentially nickel and timing. buttive ooh got to tell you -- i've got to tell you, if you're hauling another hundred pounds of weight onto the plane, you might have to play a little -- pay a little extra. neil: i do know what you mean, and i hate you. [laughter] >> you know what's not regulated? the price. they can raise the price of a ticket. neil: none of these guys do. >> you know why? because they're in a death match for market share. they're hitting you with this sneaky little fee. you know, i wish they would just put little coin slots in the armchairs when you want to put your seat back, you put a quarter in. you want a tray? 50 cents. how about a pay toilet? i'm afraid they might be watching. neil: don't give them ideas. >> even with all these fees, though, the cost of domestic air travel is still lower when adjusted for inflation than it was in the 1970s.

neil: that is true. so what do you think of that? in the scheme of things, you're doing better than you were in the '70s. >> i'd rather they charge me full price -- neil: but they cannot do that. they can't and won't do. >> it's going to get to the point where everyone has to fly naked, and i want to start this business where you rent clothes at the airport. you get on the plane naked, they don't have toosearch you at the tsa, you go buy or rent some clothes, you don't have to carry a bag. that's where we're headed. neil: viewers, we're very sorry we did this to you. that was unintentional. laugh-we'll never do it again. when we come back, walmart really wanted to give folks a break in the nation's capital, but in the land of lincoln, something's stinking, and for customers, it's actually reeking. the pursuit of a better life for our children is something we all share. but who can help prepare them for the opportunities ahead?

who can show them how to build on your success, but not rely on it. who can focus on making your legacy last for generations to come? that someone is a morgan stanley financial advisor. and we're readto work for you.

neil: well, charles payne warned you that they would do this, and apple did this after the d.c. city council went ahead and approved a jump in the minimum wage for large big box employer retailers -- pretty much only walmart -- walmart is moving out of d.c. >> not a surprise. it's just heartbreaking, and i'll tell you why. washington, d.c., i guess in a certain way, is feeling its oats. it's a boomtown. why? they don't drill for oil, they don't manufacture things, they collect taxes from the rest of the country. tax revenues have gone up, spending's gone up 100% in the last ten years. but their pockets -- there are pockets of neighborhoods in washington, d.c. that are extraordinarily poor. neil: and no one's thinking about them, the customers. >> i looked at the voting, and i saw 8-5, and i saw marion berry

jr., for instance, his district has a 38% poverty rate, 94% blacks -- by the way, the poverty rate is the highest it's been in 30 years, and why he would vote on something that could come into his district and perhaps create jobs for people who voted for him, it's just -- people are calling it an ideological agenda that's really right up there with communism. the idea is that walmart is rich. they're talking about how much money is the ceo of walmart makes. your focus is on improving the lives of the people that put you in office. neil: so walmart leaves, then what happens? >> well, walmart leaves, you know, and both sides will call it something of a victory. i think for washington, d.c. it's a period victory, to be quite frank. right now they have the third highest income inequality in the country. liberals tell me that's an important thing. nevertheless, the top one-fifth of people in d.c. make $450,000 a year. the bottom fifth 9,000. even at $8.50, that would be

$17,000. so we're talking about an opportunity 2,000 jobs, 2,000 people could have had a chance to perhaps double what they're making now or maybe even not making anything at all. it's a horrible sign, it's a horrible thing that rich liberals would deny this opportunity for poor people in their neighborhoods. neil: and you think it was a union shot when this happened? >> they already said it's not union grocery stores, it's not fast food companies. it was directly -- it was specifically, to your point, targeted at wal-mart, and i guess they feel like they've taught walmart a lesson, but this is a great big world, and walmart's going to create jobs somewhere else, and people who live in those neighborhoods will have cheaper groceries, flat panel tvs. they're going to have a whole lot of things that, unfortunately, the people in mr. berry's ward and those other seven wards aren't going to have. neil: do you think that the bottom line for retailers going forward is this isn't about how much business they do, this

isn't about how affordable they make their products, this is about whether they're friendly to democrats? >> right. there's a political war against some of these retailers. we know it's been going on for a long time. but i've got to until you something, it's one of these things where in the end, in the end it's just like higher tax policies. a lot of these draconian sort of policies that are aimed and targeted at the so-called rich, we've got to bring them down a notch. invariably, they always hurt one group of people most, and that's the poorest of the poor. neil: so what if the mayor overturns this, how likely is that? >> i think it can happen. you know what? mayor daley in chicago, from what i understand, he never vetoed anything, but they passed something similar, and he was smart enough to veto that. it would be a brilliant move to do that because, again, it's not hurting anyone. of realistically, it's hurting except the poorest people in washington d.c. by the way, who are being left behind in this boomtown. this is an amazing boomtown. you go down there a lot. you see how amazing washington is. but it's become an elitist

paradise. they'll. neil: and a government paradise. >> and by the way, we outside of d.c. are paying for it. they haven't become the new% silicon valley. they haven't drilled for oil to. they haven't invented anything. they're getting the money from the taxpayers of america, and they're gypping their poorest people. neil: well put, charles payne. when we come back, the health care law is in serious trouble. as you know, all of its key foundations for funding being frittered away. do you think they're out of options? we'll take a look at your wallet. they'remy looking at it too. axiron can restore t levels to normal in about 2 weeks in most men. axiron is not for use in women or anyone younger than 18 or men with prostate or breast cancer. women, especially those who are or who may become pregnant and children should avoid contact where axiron is applied as uneected signs of puberty in children or changes in bo hr or increased acne in women may occur. report these symptoms to your doctor. tell your doctor about all

medical conditions and meditions. serious side effects could include increased risk of prostate cancer; worsening prostate symptoms; decreased sperm count; ankle, feet or body swelling; enlarg or painful breasts; problems breathing while sleeping; and blood clots in the legs. common side effects include skin redness or irritation where applied, increased red blood cell count, headache, diarrhea, vomiting, and increase in psa. ask your doctor about e only underarm low t treatment, axiron.

>> don't attempt to adjust the tv, neil didn't want to deal with these next three people because of all the rowdy canness -- [laughter] earlier in the show. by the way, he's going to be on early vacation, so you'll get used to seeing me. let's talk about this, the health care law. it's imploding. all of this really means that, well, when ou're going to pay for it, it might start to wither

away. already we see younger workers are not signing up for it, low-wage worker are not ponying up for it, even the uninsured are not taking it up, and now employers pushed back a year on enlisting up. so where to get all -- if you're going to have a law where costs are spiraling out of control, how do you even pay for it? didi, rick and guy. guy, let's start with you. >> well, there's the question, well, are they going to raise taxes more to pay for this, and harry reid just a few weeks ago said we need more money for obamacare because $2 trillion apparently wasn't enough. and republicans on capitol hill, rightfully, pretty much just laughed in his face. that's not happening short term. but in the long term, this is the real problem, charles. one of the most disturbing things that the administration has done is they have effectively waived for at least a year the verification elements to make sure that people who apply for these expensive subsidies in obamacare actually qualify for them. and as a result, you're going to get a lot of fraud and abuse.

their goal is to act as a magnet, get as many people onto government health care as possible reliant on the government for their health care -- >> right. >> because their long play here is sickle-payer, government-run -- >> that's cynicism. >> if that comes, then say good-bye to american health care exception amism and say -- >> american health care exceptionalism. charles: you've got to admit, rick, he makes some points there. >> he made some great points. charles: you can already go down to social security and say this economy's so bad, i need a disability check, and you can be 26 years old, strapping, strong, healthy x they'll pay you to sit on the porch all day. we're going down that path, but this is expo exponentially wors. >> i say something? charles: are you willing to admit it now? >> no, i don't think so. [laughter] the first clue that somebody is being foolishly doctrinaire is when they start with the american health care exceptionalism. we have great health care here. we do. but guess what?

there are other countries with great health care, there are other countries who have better results than we do. i wouldn't trade ours. i'm very happy with my health care -- charles: but you just had to -- >> well, hang on, you think it is exceptional. >> this is never going to go anywhere if we don't stop with this nonsense and have a serious conversation. charles: let's have a serious conversation. >> actually, guy said somethiig that was right..3 charles: okay. >> let's talk about this. >> i said a couple of things that were right. >> no, actually one thing, and that is that we are waiving the process of checking people to see if they qualify. he's right about that, we shouldn't be doing that. charles: well, what about paying for it? rick, what about paying for this? penalties against employers, that was going to be like $8-$10 billion. they budgeted for this money to come in, so where do you pay -- >> basically, look, one thing we can all degree on, we can take the tax question off the table because there's not a cannes in hell that the house -- chance in hell that the house is going to

allow a new tax. so guy's right about two things, guy. >> hey, the list keeps growing. >> there's not going to be any more taxes. what i don't understand is there's no pleasing you guys. you didn't want this to go into effect, you've got companies like walmart or that are pushing all of their employers on to my taxpayer nickel -- >> rick, what are you talking about? >> you didn't want it, you didn't want it, and now when it gets delayed a year, now you want to get angry about that. i know what you really want is for it to go away, it's not. >> it needs to go away. we need to repeal obamacare. this is not the american way. americans should not be forced to take anything. >> right, great, terrific. >> they're rebelling. democrats, too, because they know they're going to lose their elections at midterm -- >> and yet -- >> so depress what? they're playing poll -- guess what? they're playing politics. obama knows it's a very bad idea. let's push back politically because it's terrible policy. we need to get rid of it of it's a disaster. >> when are we going to have a serious conversation?

it's not going away. >> you don't know that. >> yes, we do. democrats aren't going to lose the house next year. charles: i've heard democrats say it's right up there with the emancipation proclamation, so you're right -- >> i never said that. >> so how -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] charles: right before our very eyes though, guy. >> it hasn't even -- >> it hasn't started yet. >> they're pushing it back because it's a disaster. >> you think it's never going to happen, right? >> let's hope not. it's not working. charles: okay, listen to this. a pipe and a pancake, a -- [inaudible] [laughter] there's just no pl but, guy, okay, we know that the democrats aren't going to necessarily abandon it, but certainly they're taking it apart piece by piece, and to me it's something of a mea culpa by saying, you know what? this part of it doesn't work, maybe other parts don't work. >> many hey, rick, i believe the question was directed to me in this case. [laughter] so if the democrats -- i'm just going to reclaim my time as they say in the senate.

but here's the thing and, charles, you're absolutely right. if democrats want to vote against a verification enforcement mechanism and say that, hey, we have to actually follow the law, make sure who people who are getting these subsidies are eligible, they need to explain why they would vote against that. it's in the law. the president's waived it, why is that? by the way, if we're giving this one-year waiver to big businesses that have all sorts of, you know, lobbyists and that sort of thing -- charles: right, financial resources. >> why not give them to individuals and small businesses? charles: guy, i'm glad you brought that up. rick, a lot of people said the president made a pretty smart political move to push this back, but the individual out there, they, you know, even with the subsidy that they don't need id for, a lot of people are going to be hit and dinged pretty hard while employers aren't paying, and they're wondering why again does this big, crowning achievement fall on the individuals' shoulders to pay for?

>> did you hear what bob wolf said? what amazes me is so many of the arguments that i hear are precisely, i mean, precisely what you heard when medicare and social security went in. and what happened with those? they were often modified in congress as we put it into play -- charles: were they modified before they were even implemented? >> but, no, neither was this. it was delayed. one segment for a year. charles: delayed, modified -- >> terrible policy. >> let me get this in because the fantasy -- charles: well, get it in. >> nothing has been modified in the law. it was delayed a year. in your mind is that a change in the law? >> it's a failure. it's a huge failure because it's not working. >> we'll go with the silly stuff, or we can get serious. i never knew you could have a failure before it happens. >> they're all going to lose because it's unpopular, and they're playing politics with -- >> you starting a business next year? it's a failure. yet. charles: guy, real quick, i just need to say, you know, we've

seen things delayed before like one year, two years, three years, four years, doctor fixes, i think, is on its 26th year of being pushed down the road. >> congress does that though. charles: yeah. so here we have the president, by the way, who changed his own law. how rare does that happen? there's something wrong here, and at some point i think the white house is probably going to have to deal with even their own party with this. >> and by the way, rick is wrong that there's been no part of the law modified. another thing they've delayed for a year is the small business exchange which was going to be a panoply of options for people to choose from. that's been reduced down to one option starting in 2015 rather than 2014 which the law requires. he keeps demanding a serious conversation. democrats are 100% responsible for this law. >> yes. >> everything in it. >> i'll gladly take responsibility. >> sorry. >> americans suffer because of it. >> i have a very hard time with how you define modification. i think even people who agree with you would have a very hard time with how you define modification.

delay is not modification. there's actually been one -- charles: would you agree -- >> i just explained it's a delay and change. charles: maybe defeat? >> no, i don't think it's defeat. charles: all right, guys, we had a quasi serious conversation. photograph. [laughter] thanks for watching, see you tomorrow night. >> don't wait, call me today. >> lawyers are making money off this man who says he's too injured to work and this woman who says she can't walk. >> we are the good guys. if you fight her. >> you are completely screwed. john: says the trouble. that's our show tonight when. ♪ >> and now john stossel. ♪ [applause] him. john: and eric and a half h