reach. >> jonas? >> i say this is it a champagne food economy with the beer. >> we like that. >> okay and the freedom, the number one business bloc on tv tips, cavuto on business. the are latesmoney message from the president? >> this growing inequality, inequality of opportunity, ducingnequality, little more incattle, inquity is both inevitable a and just. inequality will coinue to increase. >> during his major speech on the ecomy, president obama using the word "inequality" more than "growth." is that any way to get america growing? hello, everyone. i'm charles payne in for neil cavuto. charles gas perino with his no shirt or tie, because clarlly's new book "circle of friends" in stores, online, everywhere. >> want to see the gold chains,

too? >> we'll start with gary so everybody will have a chance on the show. >> look, my president knows inequaty because he's been president houlshd median income is down about 5%. the problem with this ineqlity is that he believes t fix it, to get people wealthy, is to ke from the wealthy and give ito others. and it just dsn't work. you need to incentivize people to get to work, work harder, and instead of putting down the successful and the wealthy, how about putting them on a pedestal and showing people how they got there? he's just doing theopposite. >> dagen, it feels like a condemnation really of capitalism in a certain way. i mean, people who work hard, succeed, if you don't necessarily work hard, you fall behind. and the person who worked hard doesn't owe you anything. >> if you look into the speech, here's the essential message, that the rich are to blame for businesses having fewer customers, the rich are to blame for the housing bubble and ultimate burst, and the rich are to blame for basically undermining the fabric of this

nation. and toary k.'s point, this has been his message about taking from the rich and redistributing it to o the middle income. he's had 4 1/2 years. the economy is actually growing slower than the average over that 4/2 years, and median incomes are falling when adjusted for inflation. so not working! >> charlie, can the government actually control the outcome -- the outcome o something, the quality of outcome. how can anyone -- if you and i get in a race, if you're faster than me, simply you're faster than me. >> right. i should point out i didn't see the entire speh because when i got into it a while, it th was among the most least substantive economic speeches i've seen in a long time. if george bush was giving this speech, there would be front pagetories about the moron he was. >> i thought it was inflammatory. >> i'm saying substantive. i'm not saying it wasn't -- >> it depends on your goal. >> substantive in terms of how to fix the economy. >> oh, sure. >> it was not a serious speech. >> oh, sure. >> the government can help.

it can hurt. it gets to gary's point, which i'll put even a finer point on. under this president, the rich have gotten richer, the poor have gotten poorer, the inequality gap has grown tremendously. when that happened on the ronald reagan and george bush watch, front pagetories in the "new york times." where e the front page stories about the inequality gap wit this president? >> so, adam, the income and inequality gap, could that be the president's fault? i mean, the president is suggesting it's everyone's fault but his. he took this major victory lap before starting this speech, but doesn't the buck stop at his door? >> i don't think he's saying it's everybody's fault but his. by the way, he's not necessarily saying it's anybody's fault. >> he's not saying anything. >> the president has a bully pulpit and stands up -- >> you didn't listen to his speech. >> -- here's what i care about. do you care about the same things or not? the answer with everybody on the panel is, no, i don't care about the same things. don't care about inequality.

and the president is saying that's a major concern of his and the american people and i thin that's an appropriate subject for a lly pulpit. >> what did he say to improve the economy? >> since wh do we judge presidents by the substance of their policy speeches? >> he do. and we attack them when they're not. what did he say southbouubstant about the economy? nothing. it's actually scary. >> the question, charlie -- charles likes to frame things as, well, this isn't capitalism. and charles what i'd like you to think about is, if you want to use annflammatory language, we've had a socialist state in this country for decades, since franklin roosevelt. we all know that. the question is how to ke the government work best, not just how to eliminate i >> no. >> hold on. >> gary, gary -- >> the idea is to get the government out of the way and let the economy flourish without thr it encumbrances. i have news for my president. he's out there talking inequaty and people are too wealthy. the bottom line is, he raised

taxes. that doesn't affect the wealthy. it prevents other people from becoming wealthy. >> let's take-- >> it mandates regulations, tamps down the economy, prevents the middle class from moving farther up. so everything he'done has stopped things from improving. >> here's what's really scary and what adam won't address. let him be a socialist. but give us the socialist solutions. that was -- there was nothing there. >> oh, please. >> that was way -- >> hold on a second dagen, i think the president was trying to sayay tohe masses, let's rise up againsthis inequality. >> based on what? >> let's rise up against this inequality which is morally wrong, his word. to me it was like, we've got to have some sort of a revolution in this country to officially, adam, become socialist. >> it would be a -- it would have to be a government revolution, but i think it's a y of him saying, i want to do more owhat we've been doi in the last 4 1/2 years even though it's not working, and that is raising xes on the highest earning amicans and creating

mandates and regulations that get in the way and more taxes that get in the way of job creation. i agree with you, though. i don't think that -- >> what was it? >> that you talk about income and inequality. nobody wants the haves have more and the have nots have ss. nobo wants that. wait. the answer is, how do you fix that? he didn't come up with a viable way that was even cialist to do that. >> here's what's scary. the liberal media will not hold him accountable for being not substantive on the economy. if he wants more infrastructure spending, say it. give us a number. >> why don't we be substantive right now, charlie. >> you made a statement about no one on the panel caring about income and inequal. those are the bombs that the president throws out there. that's the incendiary thing. i didn't think was an economic speech. i don't think many of his speeches with economic. i think it's ideological but he's trying to stir it up.

that's why he does it at colleges with young people. think he's trying to stir up a hornet's nest. by the way, the irony is, wherever you haveiberals in charge is where you have the greatest amount of income inequality. >> i don't mind the hornet's nest at all. i am not saying that you, for example, charles, don't care about income inequality. i'maying what we choose to emphasize is important. you'd rather emphasize growth. i understand that. >> right. because -- >> you think growth will b the solution to everything. well, it hasn't worked soell for a lot of americans, including people watching this program. not just for 4 1/2 years but for 30 or 40 years. i men, it's what the economy-- >> we've been ina recession for 30 or 40 years? >> no, no, no. >> gary k., so adam is essentially saying that capitalism has failed. i don't think it has. >> i didn't say that. i said it's not enough. >> i think it's the graistest country in the world. >> soo i. >> our poor people are richer than many of the countries. >> cuba is doing really well

right now. lookpeople who move from the middle class more toward the wealthy it does not happen by accident and it does not ppen by handouts. it happens by hard work, sweat, toil, smarts, tenacity, persistence, all the great qualities that have made people successful. that's what the president should be talking about, not the fact -- hold on a second. not the fact that if you're rich you're bad and you make too much and you have to give it to somebody else. >> dagen? >> i'm sorry that i'm bothered by the skyrocketing number of people on welfare and disability in this country because you know what? when youe relying on the governme to support yourself, there is no sense of self-worth there. and i'm bothered by that. but that's what's been happening in the last 4 1/2 years. >> i think this is even worse xs i think this is a guy who doesn't have a clue about the economy. when he gives economic speeches he's incredibly superficial because he really doesn't know enough. he has some broad plans about how to redistribute stuff but he really doesn't -- >> good thing the economy is

growing under his watch. >> of urse it's growing. >> it's grown at an average of a little more than 2%, and it grew less than that in the first quarter. >> one second. listen, we don't have a lot of time left in this segment. i'll give the last word to adam. but i want to say, how come the president never applauds the greatness of america, the greatness of upward mobility and how wonderful we are? because the things he tal about, when i close my eyes, i think it's 1920. hurry up, just quick if you can. >> i don't agree that he does it d i certainly do applaud america, charles. >> let's leave it there. the white house continuing to call the irs mess phony and fake but when the tax agency is targeting groups for their political beliefs, the forbes gang debating it at the top of the hour. up next, how is this for hypocrisy, a government who can't save a dime is now going to force you to do it. >> but i can pay for it myself. i've been savin up from all my part-time jobs. >> that's smart of it. sometimes i do part-time jobs

leadership took control of the country earlier this month. i'm kelly wright. now back to "cavuto on business." let's talk about forced savings. lawmakers in california moving forward with a plan that would force work hes into a retirement savings program. now, the money would go into a guaranteed state-run fund with the golden state often a trendsetter for the united

states, other states could see this down the road. doesn't seem like anything could go wrong, huh, dagen? >> because theederal government has been so great in managing social security -- >> in california special. >> social security is goingto run out of money in 2033 and then you get 75 cents on the dollar thereafter. according to the trustees' report, then you look at california, they are awesome at managing a budget and having a sound pension system. what could go wrong, right? >> charlie, you'll have a lot of money coming in from another best seller. how about letting the state run it for you? >> listen, they're obviously responding to a real problem. pele retire broke. i mean, that is an issue. here is the problem with this plan. they're essentially forcing them to save as part of a system that is essentially a ponzi scheme. it's legal, but the state pensn fund systems are uer water, too much money goes out, not enough goes in. they're forcing people to be part of a ponzi scheme that probably can't repay them when

they retire. >> gary k., here's the part that really scared me. not only do they say y'll get your money back but with interest. they're guaranteeing us a profit. >> how do they know tha >> that's what i'm asking gary k., the mney man. >> yeah, gary k. last time i looked i heard california is in debt to the tune of $800 billio so let's trust these people. if you notice anything the last few months on a broader scale, there's been trial balloons about taking all of our retirement money, giving it to the government, letting them dole it out to us. i think california is trying to be theseterhere but it comes to a word trust and another called lockbox. what happened to the social security lockbox. if you tnk your money is going to be around, go give it to them. i wouldn't. >> adam, charlie kind of alluded to the fact that there is a crisis, a savings crisis, particularly amongst lower earners. so california a nanny state or doing the right thing here? >> well, we need to remind everybody sort of dagen implied

we already have a mandatory tirement savings plan, it's called social security. which by the way is not going to run out of money, dagen, because we'll save it. l there are relative live easy fixes. nancy pelosi going to fix it? there's no problem according to her. >> i don't think that a state-run mandatory plan is probably the best way to go, nor will it succeed politically. a voluntary one probably is a pretty good idea. >> i know what you're going to say. >> just that, that a voluntary one would be a good idea. >> we should point out it's passed the -- >> the preliminary haspassed. this is also california. >> jerry brown? adam, you guys are the self-infliblgted economic wounds you go through boggles the mind. >> we should be debati the pension system, the ste public pension systems in this country, jpmorgan put out a report last year. the major ones are underwater. there is a real problem with unfunded liebltds. guess what you're doing. you're forcing people tout money in what's essentiay a

ponzi scheme, money comes in, more goes out. >> that will be one of the topics later. but i think right now dagen the idea is the government actually say, we'll step in, tell you what to eat, tell you what to drive, we'll save you money for you. where are we crossing the lines where we don't do anything for ourselves? >> i think to the point of obesity and savings in this country, unless broadly speaking american people step up and do the right thing for themselves, the goverent will step in and take over because they're going to say people eat too much, they're overweight and health care costs -- it's going to happen because it will fall on the federal government to pay for them. it's your choice now. they'll take over. >> gary k., go ahead. >> the bottom line, you'd be entrusting more money to people that couldn't freaking balance their own checkbook. >> of course. >> and to me this is kind nefaris. they're going to use the money for other things, then they're going to end up giving an iou

with social security. >> let me point out, corporations have ran pensions well conservatively for decades. there's no reason we couldn't do it well, especially hang learned from our mistakes. >> adam, adam. >> i don't think mandatory is the right way. >> adam -- >> there's no reason we can't do it well, w have they failed for the last 50 years? it's not like they're learning. they are ponzi schemes. they promise t much. public union workers force them to pay them too much because they vote them out of office if they don't. it's designed to fail. >> and companies -- by the way, companies hav stopped offering pensions, adam, because they couldn't r run them well. >> by the way, is there any -- no one believes that there will be the -- the money will be there anyway, right? the money will be plundered. they'll have to raise taxes to replace the money. it will be a nightmare. everybody knowshat. speaking of nightmares, there's a woman, she falls to her death on a roller coaster in texas, that's it right there. now demo

>> in wake of the woman falling her death on a roll coaer in texas the massachusetts senator edmarky is calling to regulate all a municipalment parks nation weed. >> not at all. i live in the theme parkapitol and they do a terrific job in

safety. sense the last big sdy, the 400 parks in the country, the odds of being injured one in 24 million. the state's cover this and the theme parks and those cooperations cover it and they do a wonderful job for safety. no need for the federal coming in? >> why is ed marky getting involved. he is a u.s. senator from massachusetts and thk he had bigger ambition, global warming, i don't know. >> he is proposing this regularly since 1999. >> this shows his little mind. i continuing is a state's issue and number 2, 6 flags has no incentive for pem to do i in the amusement park. >> no matter what it s. whether the bp oil spill. there no one wants a fine to lose their customers.

>> it is in the best interest of the parks and theyknow that and cope the people who visit the parks safe and 33 of the states have agencies that oversee park safety and the federal government does over see the traveling carnivals. >> and those need to overso those. and marky proses legislation on that, i would join him. adam, is this a federal government over roach? >> it is emendously informative especially about the traveling circus. >>ou didn't know that? >> thank you, dagen. i know it is a fetta foreand too much regoulgz. we need good regulation. but federal regoulgz for a municipalment parks probably not as long as t states are doing a good job. >> just say no, we don't need it. look, i know the people. >> gary, i am trying here.

>> i know people and that work in the companies, the number one thought on a daily basis is safety. throw hundred million people go through the gates every year throughout the country and if there is trouble and a lot of injuries, that is bad press and hurts their business. they want to stay on top. >> please no carnies or relatives of carnies send me nasty twitter messages. i love them. >> and businesses do lockout for their best interest. up next, it is time to put up and stock up.

>> adam >> charles, the van guard emerging market etf. i am a fan of diversifying yr assets. and everybody has to have investments. >> gark, it so manies like they are a popular play. they are down so much, do you like them? >> no, when the u.s. is so much stronger you don't have to go away from here. >> what do you like it? >> facebook, i was a bear but they prov big, big earnis and gas up on a huge vol oum and big money crowd will jump all over this. >>adam, you had a bigweek, is

this an exception. >> it is a very good company. i wouldn't make a simple company stock pick. no. >> tell you what. chase us. the cost of freedom continues on the place for business fox. >> an endless parade of distractions and political posturing and phony scandals. >> the phony debates and nonsense. >> the phony scandals that consumed so much attention here. nphony scandals and fake scandals. >> phony and fake. conservative groups say it is very real and so does the irs inspector general and house speaker john boehner. it is clear that the president never tock the irs scandal as seriously as he claimed. the house will continue t the investigation in this matter because the americans deserve to know the truth. welcome to for