15% in a year. >>ary b., bull or bear? >> i love shakira. that's all i'm going to say. brewing up a great debate. ca-neil cavu "cavuto on business." shutdown panic because taxpayers aren't panicking. chars payne in for neil cavuto. and so much for all of those cones and barricades because the partial governmenthutdown getting hyped for bringing the pain doesn't look too painful a lot of americans. so asife goes on, can america move on with a smaller government? ben stein, david dowell, and gary k. >> all evidence is we're a ok. we have hundreds of thousands of furloughs. we're still running just fine. for me, i've been saying for years. the bottom line is government is an overbloated blob with too much waste. if i got in there, i'd knoc 15%

off the top and we'd still run very well. that's something that needs to get done. unfortunately, it never gets done. >> probably people are at home saying that 15% sounds small. i never knew there were 800,000, quote, nonessential workers the government. >> well, more than 80% of the outlays are still in effect even with the shutdown. you kn, social security, the military, and the like. so we -- but i do think that this gives us a chance to prioritize what we want out of government. and to analyze what these bureaucrats really do. the "wall street journal" had a great editorial about the federal register of new rules made by the government, looking back in september on any given day. yowould have 500 pages, 400 pages of new rules. >> a day. >> yeah. in the federal register that came out. and if you look after the shutdown, u had like 12 pages or six pages of new rules. so i think that lack of gornment burden is reli and refreshing. >> i know that sounds like relief to the business

community. >> ben, you actually worked in government. you saw first-nd. is it as bloated as we s it is or many people believe it is? >> i say it's much more bloated. i can say i was one of those nessential workers. it was great. they paid me modestly well. they got incredibly good medical befits. i liked it a lot. but on the other hand we are only missing those peop foa couple of weeks so far. we'lsee what it's like when we have missed them for a couple of decades. >> right , it does feel like life has gone on. and same thing with sequestration. the government spends less moy. the deficit come down. life doesn't change that much for the average american. so far, to ben's point, tha been the case also with the government's partial shutdown. well, i find the tone of our conversation sad, quite frankly. be makes exactly the right point, charles, which is we dot know what it feels like. if you break your finger, charles, and i hope it doesn't happen to you, but it would be relavely minor, right? you would feel a little pain.

you could go a little ile without treating it. eventually it would heal, bu it would be disfigured. and that's what we're going through. we can do without these people for some time. you can do without having yosemite national park open for sometime. but is that the kind of government you want? for the future, to have yosemite closed for all time? think about that as a metaphor. there are a lot of things like that, that the goverent does that may not be essential but are part of who we are as a country. feeding poor children, as a example. for example. >> go ahead, gary. >> ben -- >> let's talreal-world numbers here. in 2000, our government spent $1.8 trillion. just fe years ago, $2.8 trillion. and we are up to $3.7 trillion. $900 billion the government is spending more than just fi years ago. where is it going? wh is it for? we have no clue. that's where all the bloated. it's got to stop.

that's how you get the $17 trillion in debt. i know the markets are acting find here. i am so worried one day the market is going to wake up and see all of this is not act fine. and all hell will break loose. >> let me go bck to -- >> wait one second. dagen, i'll picky back off of adam's example. if i lst a finger, yes, but what if i grew 15 fingers? what ii had 25 fingers years from now? then if i lost one, it wouldn't hurt so bad. i wouldn't be so disfigured. >> this gives us the opportunity to prioritiz and decide are these people and beaucrats useful to us. isn't it ti to call the herd, so to speak. i want yosemite to be open, adam. and we've lrned how critical some of these people are, like at the cdc with the salmonella outbreak. you had people brought back from furloughs to run thecomputer network that tracksdisease across the country. so we're realizing their value. but what about t people who

have little to value who work in the governnt? dagen, i have no problem with what you just said. >> we're talking about nonessentialeople. not that. and dagen, i have no problem with what you just said. we should always be prioritizing. like any good business, the government should also say, are these people essential? are they useful? and reasonable people caagree that a lot of the things that we're not doing over the past couple of weeks are tings that we should be doing. and, gary, the markets spoke last week. wh it looked like we were getting closer to an agreement, to getting the government runng again, to avoiding the debt ceiling crisis, the markets soared. >> i'm going to jump in here. because what we're really talking about, ben, is everyday people. people watching this show. were their lives changed? were theirives impacted? just like sequestration. i don't know. we might be finding out we can live with a smaller government. >> except for this. except for this, charles, which is that the heads of every

uniformed service hasaid they cannot defend the united states in the eventf serious military problems. d that is a real crisis. that is not a joke. that has to be taken very seriously. >> gary k., listen, everyone has their own pet area of the government that they'd protect, that they love, that's essential. t, again, i'm not making up this word. 800,000 nonesstial woers. and we all either worked in the government, we know someone who worked in government. let's be honest aut it. it's not run like the private sector, to adam's point. it run like something else. >> and, look, those of us who really want efficient and effeive government are told we are extremists and we don't like the poor, and we don't like children. and that's just got to op. all we care about is goverent beinaccountable. it is our moy they are spending. and they are castrating not only our tax dlars, but our kids' tax dollars and their kids'. something has goto give. t you're talking about last week in the market. i don't care about the short-term. i care about the long-term.

>> as i've said many times, it's our money, as you say, gar and our government. charles, i promise you that all corporations have nonessential people too. people they could get ang without for a few days, for a few weeks. but they needed their employees for the cporation. the government is no different, gary. >> adam, i can promise you if you hired somebody like aack welch to walk into d.c. and really streamline it, he can cut 10, 15, 20% ougt of it, and everything would be ok. and i don't disaee with that. i don't disagree we should try our bestst to proritize. the question is, do w need these nonessential people? yes, we need them. for all sorts of reasons. >> the question is, has it impactedamerica? would it impact america -- >> in many ways, charles. to keep the government as bloated as it is? it grows faster than the rate of inflation. we all know there's redundancy and waste. we kw that. meantime, everyone watching this show jt about in the last fiv years had to tighten theirown

belts. they had to make adjustments in their open liwn lives. the only thing that's grown is the government. we can do without a bigger governme. >> there are a lot of officials of corporations getting paid enormous amounts who are also nessential but who t it through cronyism. cronyism is a fact of human life. it's not just a government phenomenon. it's a fact of human life. as a stockholder, i'd like to see that too. >> but you have the right to not owpart of that company and that business. as taxpayers -- >> but i do own it, dagen. and therefore i believe i shoul have a right -- >> but you have a choice to sell it. >> i know that. but it my corporation. it's not the board of directors' corporation. and i think i should have a vote on whether or not they culthat rd. >> i think you have more of a vote in private business as a stockholder than we, the

american taxpayers, do right now. >> i disagree. >> we migh throw them all out office, but i thi we can live with smaller government than we have rig now. forge about having trouble getting on the obama care exchan. the real problem starts after you do log on. we'll explain at the top of the hour. > but up next, forget about any pain from a government shutdown. if this union ader gets his way, get ready for some pa at the pump.ññññññ?z?z?7

♪you fill up my senses ♪like a night in a forest ♪like the mountains in springtime♪ ♪like a sleepy blue ocean ♪you fill up my senses ♪come fill me again ♪come let me love you let me always be with you♪ ♪come let me love you ♪come love me ain

business" on fox.

talk about a kick in the gas. a top union leader wants to hike the federal gas tax. the head of e laborers international union in north america saying we ned more cash for roads and business. this as consumers are getting a break at the pumps, down more than 40 cents since the beginning of february. >> i would tell mr. union to take a hike. the bottom line is that every penny o gas tax hike is $1.8 billion out of an economy that's still getting off its back. this is not the right time. government has plenty of money. go back to the president and ask him why he didn't spend the money he promised during the stimulus on infrastructure. th i ha they have plenty of money out there for th. >> a gas tax is never going to be popular, but is it necessary to hike it? the unio have a sweetig

here. they get the government to extort money from the taxpayers to pay into them, the union, and they say it's in your bes interest. it's le the mafia coming to the people in the dry cleaners and say, you need to provide protection, and you safrom whom, and you say it's us. >> i have no idea what he' talking about. >> ting the money from the general public and lining their pockets, it might be pretty beneficial, huh, dagen? >> it might be. nobody has the right to bitch about their roads needing repaed, their potholes, unless you' willing to step upnd pay for it. >> every day we pay gax taxes already. >> i can talk about the gas taxes until the cows co home. the gas x hasn't gone up. the federal gas tax has not gone up for 20 years. and the cost of road construction and repair has gone up by 55% over that time. it is a usage fee. it is a tax on those people using the roads.

now i will say, if you're happy with the state of the roads, fine, don't raise it. but if you nt the roads reired, you either have to raisthegas tax or talk about switchg to a roa usage fee, which isomething that weave talked about. but people driving have to pay for the roads. >> wdo pay gas taxes already. on e local leveederal level, state level. in fact, i think that the government agencies make mo moy from our gas taxes than opec does. >> well, this is one of those issues where i look forward to agreeing with dagen ery time we discuss it, because not only do we pay gas taxes, and not only is a user's fee, but it's a successful user's fee. the federal gas tax is what has funded so much road construction over many decades. and as dagen pots out, not only is it low for us, but it's low in mparison -- our gas prices are incredibly low in

comparison to the rest of the developed world. >> hold on one second. you do understand that as you tol the virtues of this,ou actually don't. in other words, if they are building so many roads and they are so successful, why do we have to hike it? in addition to all of the tolls we payin addition. >> fst of all, we haven't raised them enough. dagen has alrey explained.seconn specific. and they work too. toll roads rk for where they are. >> dagen, you're the one who says that government needs to prioritize. so thiss important, start prioritizing. >> right. at's what i'm saying. if you're not willing as a driver to pay for road repair, like if you're roads are in bad condition aroundhere you live and if you're happy with that, that's fine. then keep the gas taxes exactly where they are. but, am, i want to say something to adam's point about this, the gas tax has been very successful. it's actually declining source

of revue because of the fuel efficiency of automobiles these days. people aren't buying as much gasone. so in thelong run, as a nation, we have to come up with a way to pay for road repair and construction. whether it's usage fee, higher gas taxes, that's a decision we'll be forced to make. >> ga k.? >> i said earlier, we're spending $900 billion a year more than we did five years ago. take some of that money. fix the roads. not somebodyho comes out with these big books every year of ridiculous actually comedic government waste. get rid of all of that, and i adds up hundreds of millions of billions of dollars, and earmk is to the roads and bridges that need to be done. >> adam? >> gary, federal tax -- a federal -- incase federal gas tax dollars go directly into the econy, to the point that you said earlier, it would hurt the economy, no,t goes directly into the economy by improving the nation's infrastructure. that helps commerce. it helps in every way. it's not wasted money in the

least. especially because it's being paid for by peopleho are using that infrastructe. more people are -- >> more tas directly t of consumers' hands, andlso -- >> users, customers. this is capitalism. >> if you're taking the bus, you're a consumer taking the bus, it doesn't hit you. no directly. if your taking public transportation, it doesn't hit you. >> but the bottom line, guys, it does feel like we hear- >> it hasn't gone up because it is regssive and people hate it and theyitch about it. so it's been 20 yearsand that hasn't gone anywhere. >> a lot of money h been thrown at it. thanks a lo guys. > thisight have you calling for a different kind of shutdown. t only is the

informatioon innocent americans for to 75 years. ben stein? >> wl, i assume that i have no privacy at all anymore. i assu that i'm talking on my car phone, e-mailing, people are listening to me all of the time. i assume that -- sorry, that it's 1984 already. and that big brother is watching every sile thing i do. and i'm ing to get in a lot of trouble. >> yeah. well, you may have to call in a few markers.

gary k., 75 yrs boggles the mind, doesn't it? >> yea! it's just one big gigantic colonoscopy at this time. we're watched by an adminiration who railed against the last administration for its watching and probing. who knows where it ends? i got news for you, we don't even know one-tenth of what they're doing. they onl allow us to know what they nt us to know. >> maybe it's 750 years. ad, doou have a problem wi this at a? >> i will admit to being conflicted. here is my conflict. we in theedia should do everything we can to expose the method that the government is usi. we have should be on their case on it and make sure we understand and that we bless it having said that, i think that the security agency should do everything they can to keep us safe. if that includes collecting and holing on to data so -- holding on to data so they can analyze and protect the

country, yes, i support their right to do it. >> 75 years you have to analyze it after someone has been dead 50 years? realistic -- >> we can joke but maybe there are patterns there they can learn from to prevent the next terrist attack. i'm willing to say within ason and with oversight that they shoulbe allowed to go to great lengths to keep us safe. frankly, i'm surprised you don't agree with that, charles. >> the government couldn't even find this guy who had a ment health record, many arrests, be shooting at people, owing out their tires. they couldn't keep him from going in the navy yard and killing people. what is going on? analyzing patterns -- >> no. you are just pointing out how diffict its to find and analyze this data. you make it sound like it's easy. it's not easy. >> it is easy. it is easy. >> hold on. bring dagen in. we're talking about piling on extra data. 75 years worth, everybody in america. c'mon, we do draw the line

someere. >> do we? i dot know. i'm with them, though. i think it's sad, distressing but i fully expect the government to behave is way. unfortunately -- >> do you accept it? >> i will be dead and gone. i hope they look at my data when i'm dead and in the ground and say, "that girl was crazy!" >> they will confirm what we already know. >> you know what? when i'm gone, have fun with it. >>y thanks to daigen. stocks continue with the highs for the year but we have picks

[beep] [indistinct chatter] [kids talking at once] [speaking foreign language] [heart beating] [heartbeat continues] [faint singing]

[hearea music playing louder] ♪ i'm feeling better since you know me ♪ ♪ i was a lonely soul, but that's the old me... ♪ announcer: this song was created with heartbeats of children in need. find o how it can hel frontline health workers bring hope to millions of children at evereatmatters.org.

stocks that are down and not out and ready to break out. gary k.? >> i like starbucks. we're a cafaffeinated world. howard schultz knows it and he is finding every nook and crannyo put stores. i expect big things going forward. >>ou like it, adam? >> i do but i will point out a risk. he is expanding the menu greatly. it's an opportunity and also a risk. that is someing they could screw up. >> the breakfast menu didn't work out. what do you like here? >> schwabs total stock market index fund, charles. this is a perfectxample of why investors should just keep investing a prudent amount consistently in the market. what happened la week, the market was down and then way up. this is how you succeed in that environment? >> ben, what do you like? >> i like lots of things. mostly daigen, but you can't buy stock from dagen. i like e.e.m., the emerging

market index. that to me, it got kicked hard but now they are coming back. i love emerging markets. >> i le it as well but i love you better. lace for business.ntinues fox. ♪ ♪ so forget about all the rhetoric and the wrangling in d.c. get to the heart of the debt battle. out-of-control entitlement spending. the biggest chunk of the budget by far. republicans leers say if don't deal with it, we will never stop raising the debt limit. some liberal democrats drawing a line in the sand, saying don't touch entitlements ever. so who is right? hi, everybody. i'm david asman. welcome to "forbes on fox." steve forbes, rick unger, mike, bill baldwin, sabrina schaefer, hn tandy. $2 trillion out of a $3.5 trillion budget. more than the majority. how do you avoid dealing with it? >>ventually you will have deal with it.