before. and we know much more about this president and this president likely wants to talking about running the senate out of >> here's a wage hike i like. blase company is deciding it. not the federal government forcing it. edna is boosting its minimum wage to 16 bucks an hour to attract talent. it's true. competition is keen in this business so he wants to attract the best for his business. let's just say he can afford it. total cost for the wage hike as well as more generous health care provisions for those workers will cost edna about $14 million. that's this year. maybe 25 million next year. but seeing as edna's operating revenue is at least $62 billion

and it's operating profit north of $2.4 billion, edna like many of its rivals in the industry is in a position to step up and pay up. now, what do my fox all biz all-stars think about whether others are so suited. let's ask veronica and tracy. >> i love this idea, neil. this company is taking control of this problem by itself. it has the money to do it. the government has nothing to do with it. this will attract people. i think people will want to work for edna. this is a company that is willing to offer more for good people. neil: now, steve is also joining us right now from office depot former head. you like this blase companybecauseacompany is deriding this ondeciding thison on their own.

>> if just one in five people don't leave and they retain them, this pays it out in spades. the most important part of this though, that there isn't some government agency telling them to do this. the market is working here. and as the excess labor is absorbed into the marketplace, we ought to see more of this with companies paying up with wages gradually rising. and you would much rather see the market work than see some government legislating another minimum wage hike or telling businesses what to do. neil: but health care isn't fast food. right? >> in some restaurants, wmd notnot in fast food. but some are adding a surcharge for health care. i read about a health care owner, instead of paying them below the minimum wage letting his employees get tips. he decided to pay them 35,000 a year. that includes their health care benefits and he has a profit-sharing program for him. that works for his business.

once again, it's not the government mandating it. would that work for most restaurant owners? i don't think it's a sustainable model. it's his business. if he can pass the cost along, good for him. most small businesses can't pass those costs along because they can't compete. >> it's the businesses. it's welcome news for workers who haven't seen wage growth. we haven't seen wage growth in america. for these workers to be rewarded, i'm sure they're thrilled. this is good for consumer spending as well. more the you get paid, the more you have to put in the economy. use it for dinners out. vacations. things like that. neil: sounds like you're advocating the minimum wage. >> not to mention. pr angle, neil. the banks should go do this because they've been vilified lately so much. go out and give everyone a raise and take control of everything yourself. the pr surrounding edna

is over the moon. they're willing to pay people more money. >> a bunch of companies are sitting on a lot of cash. it will be extremely harmful for a small business that has to absorb this. >> you're talking about minimum wage increases. >> right. business owners around the country are saying where is the money tree? where do we find money? we'll have to cut costs somewhere. the increase in the minimum wage means fewer jobs. it hurts the very people it's intend to intended to help. >> edna, to tracy's point, had its own interest in mind to do it. not everyone is so blessed. right? >> that's right. edna has the money. it's a small increase in them. only a small percentage of their workers. look, i think this is a good sign because it's one more sign that the economy is starting to improve that the unemployment levels are starting to come down and that wages will naturally increase. this is what you want to see in a healthy economy. question is whether all these workers that have

been sidelined over the past half a dozen years will start to come back in the market. we don't know that yet. this is at least one of the early signs, you know, with a large business stepping forward and raising its floor -- neil: their minimum wage is closer now to $13. so it wasn't a huge leap for them. >> no, it's not a huge leap. and when you're talking about the recovery. we're seeing so many of these low-paying jobs coming back into the job market. the labor participation rate is the lowest it's been since 1978. we're not seeing good wage growth in this country. we might get one or 2% this year. we need a three to 4% wage growth. >> but edna has upped the ante. the next insurance company will come up $17 an hour. that's why people who are for minimum wage they're not even doing the math right. capitalism will raise the wage instantly. edna started the ball rolling.

neil: steve, stay for this next subject. in case you're worried that market forces are getting a little contagious here when it comes to the government, think again. from pushing free college last week to cheap internet this week, the president arguing the case for more power government never goes away. what do you think of that steve? >> here, again, in washington they want to direct everything from here. they think that every solution is a government solution. i think it comes to the lack of experience in business among the people here in washington. you have to let the markets work. you know, why do we want to provide this and that. why do we want to keep promising free things? i understand it's great from a votes perspective. who will pay for it? how will it make a difference in the quality of education? all these things are not being discussed. it's just another free by being thrown out there. and it sounds popular but it's not necessarily the right move.

neil: maybe he thinks these people will spend money. >> he thinks these people will vote for him. (?) or his party then. >> the problem with the government program it never goes away. it's here forever. you will never stop approximate t. we can't afford to pay for it. we're creating citizens that expect handouts. none of this is good. (?) >> i don't have a kid. if you raise a kid, no parent wants an entitled child, they want someone who will stand on their 2 feet. when the day believes and the parent isn't there to help out, the child is able to work and earn their own living and stand tall. i think there's a risk, however, if the government keeps giving handouts. >> if you look at the statistics of people who go to community colleges they fish to

the finish rate is very low. what will they do with it? steve hits the nail on the head. they are out of touch with what we need. the business solution would be to look at the problem. skills gap in this country. what are the skills we need. pay for vocational education. pay for people to go through and get the skills thrve to they need to work in manufacturing jobs. 6,000 manufacturing jobs. instead of throwing money at the problem, in this case $60 billion. once again, where the heck will that come from. >> why do we have to pay for everything? i do pay my kids off to do things. >> no tracy. >> but the government shouldn't be paying for anyone's food. albeit college or education. generic >> these people say wait a minute if i choose to do two years here, even though i was going to go to this

private two-year school, i'll postpone. now it will hurt the colleges. >> you have half of the post secondary students in community colleges. but there's a study out that says actually this free approach and all the loans are actually increasing the cost of colleges because it's putting more people in there and it's allowing the colleges to then charge more and more. we have to step back. the approach is for businesses and community college and technical colleges to get together and to match up the needs of the businesses with the skill sets being provided and the education being provided so that the jobs come together at the end of it. that's the criteria that we need to -- to have success in this faction. neil: bottom line, we don't have any money. >> that doesn't seem to bother them in washington. neil: it doesn. meanwhile, the president is pushing a cheaper internet. how about first you focus on a safer one. after this.

neil: well, instead of worrying about a cheap internet should the president be really worried about a safe internet? to former cyber czar schmidt, the president is pitching to stop hacks. well that's not hacking it. what is he doing wrong howard? >> well, i think we have a long history going back to 1998 through the strategies we've done in 2011 2003, and it's just not being executed. we're talking about the same thing or as i say all the time, we're admiring the problem without putting things in place that will change it. approximate part ofpart of it is congress.

congress is so difficult to deal with. i met with sides of the congress. everybody was saying, yes, yes yes, we need to do this. the bottom line is: we're still not getting the things in place that we need to. neil: and yet i always think we're setting ourselves up for something bad. what do you fear? >> once again what i fear is something that i've seen recently, but actually having an impact a serious hack that takes place in concert with a physical event that takes place whether a terrorist event or some kind of destruction, not only can you not communicate but you can't respond to things. the bottom line is that many of these things from a technology perspective, we can fix a lot of these things just by being dedicated and say yes we'll make changes for passwords and encryption and all these other things. instead, there's these other priorities to take

place. neil: i wonder if we have it backwards. president talking about making it cheaper. even free internet for some. first of all let's nail this thing down and make it safe. >> well, and that's the issue. i mean, free is great. and cheaper is great. i think none of us would argue with that. if we'll be getting something that's less secure that puts us more at risk. particularly those that have not had access and the ability to get on the internet and see all the benefits there, they're the prime victims. we've it around the world. we'll see it here. so let's focus on getting this more secure getting things in place, and then when we wind up getting new customers that haven't been on before, they have a level of security they don't have today. neil: we keep getting set up for something big, that you alluded to i'm wondering whether these are dry runs. whether you play with centcom's tweets.

play with the defense contractors emails. where is all this going? >> well, there's two pieces of this. one, there's the trust we have in the infrastructure. when we see things like centcom, by all accounts, that was not a big deal. someone captured someone's password for their twitter account or youtube account. that could be fixed. it does give us concern. if indeed it was isis or an affiliate, it gives us less trust in the environment. you look at sony. we're sitting there thinking, wow, if they can do something like this, what about the power system. the telecommunication system itself? so we really have to focus on the things that really make a difference. and that's the things that we're losing in the long-run with the trust in something we should trust every day. neil: you know these paris attackers apparently knew that the paris police their security

officials whereabouts on, like a grid. an online grid pick up take.you take that online grid out the authorities don't know where their men and women are. correct? >> that's correct. and that's what we depend on. the ability to access a grid or not access a grid. the ability to really understand where data comes from. i mean, a lot of these cases, people communicate, and it looks like it's coming from kansas and bangkok. in reality, they're somewhere in paris. all these things really contribute to some of the things we've seen take place in paris that really keeps people from their ability to do their job. neil: scary stuff. howard, thank you very much. privacy advocates hoping for less surveillance might be out of luck right now because former nsa official says these attacks are proof that the nsa is here to stay.

probably in this environment. is that a bad thing? what do you think? >> no. i don't think it's a bad thing at all. obviously you want to make sure that nsa has and operates under the right privacy and constitutional safeguards, but what this shows us is that nsa's mission is vital. it's absolutely here to stay. the reports of its death are, quite frankly greatly exaggerated. neil: that bothers a lot of free speech advocates. they immediately say well they'll just go back to their own overspying ways. is there a balance in this environment? do people even care now? >> you have to watch the pendulum swinging from one side to the other. we tend to like one extreme than another. i think in this particular situation it's clear that some degree of surveillance will be necessary in order to catch people like the paris attackers, to catch

people who are going after sony, for example and to catch people who are doing other nefarious things such as the home depot attack or the jpmorgan attack, and that's what we're really trying to do. it has to be a confluence between the intelligence agency, the law enforcement communities, and the private sector. neil: are you ever worried that because they know our fears these authorities the nsa and others will overdo it in the name of keeping us safe? >> you always have to be careful with that. that's why the safeguards need to be exceptionally stringent. and the rules used for these data collection efforts have to be tailored in such a way that you take the technology into account, but you also take the constitutional freedoms into account. what you need is a balance, that basically says given a warrant or a modernized form of a warrant, you can search these things.

the vacuum approach to data collection is not the right way to go. but we have to find the technology that allows us to do pinpoint intelligence without comprising people's safety and not comprising their liberties. so it's a fine balance, but it has to be achieved because our safety depends on it. neil: your argument against what you just said is that none of these existing technologies would have been able to help us find these paris attackers or stop them early. that's the rap you get from the free speech folks. what do you make of that? >> that is actually untrue. because if the right data had been correlated the travel movements of the kouachi brothers the types of you know things like airline purchases. the fact they have -- you know had problems with the law. at least one of them had problems with the law. all of that stuff can be fed into a database. once that stuff is in

there, you can say okay, this might be a problem. right now we don't see them acting this way. but let's take a look at this guy. that helps police forces with strange resources such as the french police look for these folks. that's what you need. you need to leverage big data in order to find folks that are bad or are going to be bad. neil: well-put. you think the bad guys in paris lost. i want you to check out a change in show time's plans. show time. right here in the usa.

neil: all right. time for neil's spiel. and this one, i just found odd. forget "showtime." maybe they should just call themselves showstoppertime. the edgy network is pulling itself back from the edge all, but promising next year's homeland will avoid any muslim terrorist angles.

susan, there will still be terrorists, but just not muslim inspired. >> people were outraged on my facebook. no way. they can't do that. that's what this show is about. once we start allowing these terrorists to dictate to us how we conduct ourselves. this is entertainment. neil: the shows creators say it's not the case. it's odd it comes to light now. >> we don't shop shows on drug trafficking, murders, or violence. it makes no sense. >> they're looking for other creative angles. neil: the italians. >> the sopranos part three. >> they may even bring it to the u.s. which i don't know why they would want to do that. >> close to home. it is odd. maybe at the same time they're assessing their risks. they need to think about their viewers. it could make the viewers angry.

if there's a lot of risk in carrying out this story line and maybe there's a similar story line, it wouldn't be as risky. from a business standpoint looking at insurance premiums. is it harder to insure productions that have controversial content. are actors -- is hollywood pushing back. >> they've already been criticized by pakistan and israel. those countries have come out against this show. maybe everyone across-the-board is afraid. neil: how do you solve that, tracy, with different bad guys? >> see, we have to sue more as italians. >> that's right. neil: it is weird. maybe we're doing things out of fear, period. >> i think there is fear there. but once again, i think people think if you put this out there and people are watching it, that it will raise the

fear factor. i think people can see how bad these people can be. not something you catch on the news. they see it play out in an entertainment way. neil: i don't think it would jeopardize the audience for homeland, or would it? >> my husband loves the story line, but i think the viewers would push back. from what i understand, there's a lot of -- neil: it's unsettling that your husband is into violence. >> that's right. i think he likes that other weird stuff. i think there's a lot of unfinished -- >> i love chuck. >> loose plot end or whatever they say. there's a lot of viewers that will be frustrated. >> remember george clooney came out with the sony hack. tried to get signatures. couldn't. you have to wonder now. especially since he looked so darn good the other night. >> he did.

>> step up to hollywood. neil: back to being just a girl. >> i had people literally saying it is the best show on television. that says to me, don't go messing with it. if it ain't broke don't fix it. neil: they may be messing it for other reasons. >> assess their risk. maybe there's a cyber risk to this. the company that puts it out. "showtime" may be worried that they'll be hacked too. this sony thing is burned into a lot of company's minds overall. they're worried, hey, if i say something wrong i'll become a target too. >> we cannot let them -- >> you cannot let them see you sweat. >> you have to consider your risks. >> if we let them do that to us, we lose our freedom. neil: we can't let them control the stuff we make up. >> that's right. [laughter] >> that's right. [laughter] neil: i'm on cold medicine.

meanwhile, no wonder mitt romney is contell mecontemplating another run. he got a lot of stuff right. except one. i'll tell you what that will be after this.

neil: three times the charm for mitt? the year the former presidential candidate says it may be president the year the top economic guide tells, he'll have a booming economy that he'll be likely running against. austin, is the good economy going to give all the g.o.p. contenders a problem even in 2016. what do you think? >> i think it will probably give them a little bit of a problem. i don't think it will be booming gangbusters like the most extreme years. like the year 1984. like the '90s.

it will be a solid economy. as a talking point that is slowly erasing itself. look, the economy is not growing. neil: i agree with you on this. by then it will have some traction. many people can debate the size of the recovery. but there will be no denying that job gains have been steady. economic improvement has been real. we can talk about sluggish wage growth, very dour workers and all that. i think there's something to that. but i don't know if it will be enough to close the deal. >> i agree with you. and, you know, just put it into context: when mitt romney was running in 2012, he was laying out his jobs plan, and he got criticized by the press for saying that his plan would create 11 million jobs. eleven to 12 million jobs over the next 12 years. they said that's too ambitious. you can't do that. the economy is on path to generate almost that

exact number of jobs per month. so i think it's going to be at least an uphill slog on the economic front. neil: that it will be north of 11 million total gains. >> he was aiming for a two 150,000 per month rate. people thought that was aggressive back then. (?) but we have been over the last six or eight months averaging about 250,000. neil: you're right about that. you go back to that argument. anyone who wants to challenge hillary clinton will probably raise this. that the gains have not been thorough or sweeping enough that americans feel it. now, i don't know in two years, whether that will still be the case. but how does this break down two years from now? or actually a year and some months from now? >> my view is the rest of the world is in the dumps, at best. we're borderline

financial crisis in europe. china dramatic slowdown. japan major slowdown. any of those three could have an impact on the u.s. if we had a downturn, another recession, i think it would be a great help to republicans, but not for the country. neil: the duration of this recovery for the economy is getting along. you could say that it's by -- by just sheer historical forces and time, it will peter. >> if it's all random, you're 100% right. wow, the probability of another recession is probably coming down the pike. the average recession lasts only 11 months. and the recession we had was really quite savage. lasted a long time. was very different from normal. so the recovery probably is going to be different from normal too. neil: all right.

you might want to be guarded here because i agree with that as well. austin, it's always good seeing you. thank you. gas prices plummeting. the timing of this is a little odd. gm unveiling a chevy bolt. the plug-in sales have yet to see much of a jolt. plug-ins are the future. when gas was at four bucks a gallon decidedly less so now. steve, you're not buying that this is something that is just a timing issue here? >> no. for the electric car industry, this year will be the worst year that johnny manziel had in the nfl. when you see these gas prices plummet as they have neil, it takes all the economics out of electric cars. these electric cars might have made sense if you're talking about a

scenario with four or $5 a gallon. but if we stay in the 2-dollar to 2.50 range it doesn't make a lot of sense economically to buy an electric car. the only way, by the way, it makes sense neil, is if the government continues to lavish subsidies. 10,000-dollar rehabilitate ifrebate ifyou buy an electric car. no, it won't work. neil: that's assuming that gas prices stay where they are. margie, you're betting that longer term that's not the case. right? >> yeah. i'm betting like death and taxes. gas prices will go up again. i think what the auto companies acknowledged when they supported the mandate to try to get gas mileage down to 54 miles a gallon, 13 automakers said we're betting on that. they know that innovation will be absolutely fundamental to keep up with the

market. if gas prices go up, we saw what happened in years past. everyone needs that smaller more efficient cars. when they started innovating apple iphones, it didn't make a lot of sense. now we've seen apple getting out ahead with innovation and dominating the market. tesla has also proven the case. they've shown the electric cars can be sleek and sexy and practical. neil: steve, what do you make of that. >> yeah, there's some truth to that. people buy teslas because it is sexy to buy one. there's allure to it. you're going green. a lot of people like that on their tag. i would say this, it is true that congress and a lot of industry people made a bet, you know, six or seven years ago that gas prices would continue to rise. what they didn't see coming neil and nobody saw coming was shale oil and gas boom. we're just at the very tip of this. we have three times as

many oil and gas today than we thought we did six years ago. yeah, the price of gasoline fluctuates all the time, you're right about that. but the long term trend will be downward because the massive increase of supply. neil: margie, you could say a lot of these plug-ins have value. some like tesla have a lot of sex appeal. they don't need the help from government. right? >> that's true. there's a market regardless whether there's a government mandate. i think this is where innovators and automakers will go. whether or not you like savings, i do. and $8,000 a year in gas savings is nothing to sniff at. i'm a texas girl. i like big trucks. in d.c. you can't park a truck. you learn more efficient vehicles is actually the way developers are going and the way we design cities as well. businesses like google and microsoft are also having that electric parking spaces. they're pushing this

innovation. this is where the world is going. >> neil, i'm all for this. i'm in total agreement with what you just said. my only point is: let's get rid of the subsidies. let's let these technologies compete with each other without subsidies. if that's the case, i'm all for electric cars. neil: we'll watch closely. thank you. theif the check was too small, why the heck did she rush to cash it and so fast?

>> i'm maria bartiromo reporting from the jpmorgan health care conference in san francisco, the ceos of myelin will join me to talk about the booming health care sector that led stocks higher and last year. i'll have more with jpmorgan ceo jamie dimon as his company reports earnings. right here on the fox business network opening bell. 9:00 a.m. neil: let me be brief. tycoon harold hamm's

ex-wife is appealing her divorce settlement. even though she cashed 975 million-dollar check. cashing that monster check may have ruined her case. kelly, you don't think it did. but if she wanted more, shouldn't she have held off doing that? >> sure. there's the theory that she shouldn't accept that and that could be the consideration. she has exorbitant expenses. why should he have control over the money the court has adjudicated to be hers. appeals can take years. i'm sure she talked about it with the attorneys. she's make the argument that it's not fair that this man was controlling what equates to $95,000 a day in interest. for her to cash the check, it seems to be good business sense. neil: i think if anybody goes

through the trouble to write a number that takes two lines to do it, the very least you could do is cash the damn thing. having said that, how will it hurt him, or her? what do you think? >> neil, she got $975 million. she cashed the check. it's done. she's waived her claim. mr. hamm acknowledged her wowrk. he acknowledged the fact it was a long term marriage. he acknowledged the fact she contributed to the company. the reality is he started in the oil business when he was 18 years old. he's a self-made billionaire. enough is enough. neil: what if she says yeah, i appreciate this check as a start, but i need more. >> it doesn't -- neil: he's talking about how much he's hurting with the cost in energy prices. maybe she felt, i better cash this thing now.

>> i think you're right neil. neil: go ahead. >> it's called a court in satisfaction. except for very limited circumstances, you can't accept what you're awarded, the $975 million that the trial court gave her her fair share of the estate, you can't cash it and ask for more. if she wanted to appeal, and i think her chances were bad anyway, if she wanted to appeal, she should have never cashed the check. i doubt her lawyers advised her to do this. i don't think she would get more anymore. she should go home happy, a wealthy woman. >> i disagree. he hasn't dropped his appeal. i wrote you a check, but i want money back. she's saying, i contributed to the $18 billion of the net worth, i deserve more. she has to pay expenses. she shouldn't have to depend on him for support. regardless of whether they're happy with the outcome, they always have the right to

appeal. there are limited circumstances like this. why should he control their net worthwhile they're fighting about whether she deserves more? neil: it's not about whether to cash the check or not. >> neil, it's not about him controlling her net worth. it's the fact that the court made the decision. it's an 80-page analysis. the judge decided. remember what's fair isn't what's equal. he was worth multi million dollars before he married her. she doesn't get a share in all that. >> he was worth 50 million when they got married. he was worth 80 billion collectively when they got divorced. somehow or other she walks away with 10% of the net worth, she should fight for it. you yourself said she contributed to the success. he agreed to that. so she's entitled to 10%? no way. he's being cheap. regardless, take out the big numbers. the millions and the billions. neil: his worth has collapse in

the meantime. >> well, his worth is now less than 9 billion versus 18 billion. but when that goes back up, he wasn't going to say, you know what honey, let me write you three times the award. no, he wasn't. and he wasn't being fair. they could have settled it ahead of time. >> 100 million would would have been easier to write. when the world is rallying around, a stupid frenchman to make you realize well, not all of them.

neil: in tonight's biz blitz the media adding to all this terror madness. a french regulator now investing whether the

media's around the clock coverage comprised getting the terrorists at all. effectively, he's saying that news organizations hindered the -- >> it's crazy. the media has a right to investigate whatever they want. the police and the french law enforcement have to come to terms with the fact that the social media is here to stay. you can't pull twitter down because you're in the middle of an investigation. this stuff is out there. they have to learn to live with it. neil: are they surprised the media would be all over a story like this. >> it's an interesting conundrum. you have anybody with a smartphone who can be a journalist today. you can't shut it down. you have good journalists out there for the most part covering these events trying to do the fact checking. getting it out there right. the media is 24/7. you want to be the first one with the stuff on the air.

neil: do you accept the good with the bad? you get some who are just armed with a phone. clark kent. >> and that could comprise the hostages. when you're in that situation, these people who may not have journalistic standards or training, that could be dangerous for people's whose lives are on the line. how do you handle that? it's a new world. social media is not going away. you can't restrict it. how does law enforcement learn how to use -- this for their own advantage. neil: police don't look too -- >> when it gets out there like that, you jeopardize the safety of the law enforcement. you're tipping off the criminals who are following the social media. >> you can have some smell on the corner who caught the robbery and saved the day. you have to take the good with the bad. neil: putin is hurting.

the collapse in oil prices and the country's collapse in currency is our fault not his. is he had a is he dreaming? >> no, he's trying to assuage the fears of his population. i disagree with the administration, they think these sanctions are bringing russia to its knees. this won't get putin to sit up and mind his p's and q's. we'll see more of his antics. neil: i don't know if the sanctions are having any effect. it's the real pallable drop in oil prices. >> we won the cold war because we hit his economy. he hit his own economy. he is all talk. no bullets left. he had natural gas and oil, now he has nothing. neil: he made us to be the villain. >> there is unrest

building within that middle class. we're hearing more of that especially the younger population is getting frustrated. more protesting. (?) so i think that is a momentum he needs to watch and be careful of. in the meantime though, it's the russian people who will be suffering. their currency is worth a lot less. they can't get the goods and services they used to be able to get. not the billionaire friends. >> i think we'll see a lot of businesses go out of business. effectively the interest rate has been as high as 30%. you can't sustain that in the economy they're in now. >> he's going through cash. $100 billion to cover his currency. neil: now, he can't even cover his hiney. >> not even a bottle of vodka. neil: mitt romney almost in. these business guys. who do they really want? it used to be everyone is coalescing gas crowd around bush. now what? >> i have to say, i like

mitt romney. i like jeb bush too. but what i really like about mitt romney is he has a business head. he is a very good ceo. and i've said all along, if you can get businesspeople in this government who could look at it from a business perspective and i know we're not comparing oranges to oranges. you have to look for spending. ways to cut. smart decisions. not just throwing spaghetti against the wall. neil: the argument is been there, done that twice don't want to go back. >> the public may not gravity stategravitate to that. it's too early to tell. >> we've talked about here on your show. you have to spread the wealth around. right? everyone will get a little bit. neil: that's what romney was trying to do. stop it from going all to bush. >> there's officially no room on the stage for the first republican debate. there's no room. there's no room.

neil: forty-eight podiums. >> we'll put it on "showtime." neil: that's right. they're looking for it. that will do it here. thanks for watching. see you tomorrow.

if you suffer from a dry mouth then you'll know how uncomfortable it can be. but did you know that the lack of saliva can also lead to tooth decay and bad breath? well, there is biotene specially formulated with moisturizers and lubricants... biotene can provide soothing relief and it helps keep your mouth healthy too. biotene, for people who suffer from a dry mouth. no super-slow-motion footage of trucks splashing through the mud. no cowboy hats, horses or hay bales. just a ram 3500 that head to head can out-tow ford's f-350 by more than one and a half tons.

get more facts at ramtrucks.com. she inspires you. no question about that. but your erectile dysfunction - that could be a question of blood flow. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. 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 medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain as it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision or any allergic reactions like rash, hives, swelling of the lips tongue or throat

or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a free 30-tablet trial. coming. good night. kenn . kennedy: hey, there i'm kennedy, and welcome to a very special show. the best of "the independents." our holiday edition, it's been a while since we put together our favorite moments on the best of show. we're going to share some of our favorites from the last few months. i'm going to cuddle with former u.n. ambassador john bolton. the choppy waters of the "topical storm," and once again, i get to relisten to your hate mail with human resources director bernie maxsmith. fans of the show know one of my favorite things to do is hit the streets of new york and mix it up with the characters i run into right around fox headquarters.