you? >> verizon. strong in wireless, cheap at 13 times earnings and it pays a 4.4% dividend. >> that's it for "forbes on fox." have a great weekend. keep it right here. "cahin' in" and eric bolling is up next. [ gunshots ] new calls to put body cams on all police officers around the country following this deadly shooting. it would cost a pretty penny, but would it help save lives? hi everyone. i'm eric bolling. welcome to "cahin' in." our crew this week, wayne rogers, jonathan hoenig, lisa booth and our favorite liberal tarian, juan williams. dashcam video before the shooting. cop cars are cameras so would it make sense for all officers to have cameras too? what do you think lisa? >> well, look, this is obviously a horrific tragedy that took

place here. and, look i'm all for body cameras as long as it's happening on the local level and as long as the police departments are okay with it. this isn't something that should be federally manded. one-third of police departments across the country already have body cameras. i think we let this happen at the local level. contrary to what people in washington, d.c. think this one size fits all governing doesn't work. look every city across the country's different. every cop's beat is different. i think we need a way, the cost/benefit analysis, look at the numbers the facts and make a conscientious decision instead of a knee-jerk reaction. >> wayne? >> it may help law enforcement officers as well. they're under a lot of microscopes and scrutiny lately. >> well of course it helps, eric. anytime you get at the truth it helps. if the camera is the truth and that's what we see of course that helps. the other thing i think it avoids is all the problems that

occur after these things. when somebody sues the police department or the police department is under fire, it clears all of that up. when you have a camera there, everybody can see it they see what happened you know what it is, you trust your eyes. you know, who you going to trust, my lying eyes? no. you'll trust what you see on the screen. >> i want to get to my real libertarian, not my fake one. so hold on one second juan. john a violation of fourth amendment rights to have a camera on every cop? >> i don't think so, eric, but that should be up to the cop and the law enforcement agencies themselves. the politicians should set the goals. but the generals, you know, in this case the police chiefs, they should set the policies. there's 18,000 local law enforcement agencies in this country. they're all different types of communities. and i worry that this top-down approach like obamacare basically just wants to turn law enforcement into coin-operated machines that accept their orders from washington on high.

>> what about the citizens? you've walking arnold, there's a cop walking the beat, the street. a lot of libertarians say he's violating -- having every cop with a camera is a violation of my privacy rights if i'm doing nothing wrong. >> i'm an objectiveist not a libertarian. in chicago there's cameras on almost every street corner watching people. i don't think from my perspective i'm not a lawyer that that would be a violation of anyone's rights. >> i've been out there saying i think this is greatest idea. i think every cop for the sake of cops should have a body cam so people stop pointing the finger at them claiming brutality. what say you? >> well, i think that the key here is that it's proven. it's proven to be the case. i think it's 87% fewer citizen complaints, almost 60% fewer instances of use of force. so it does make a difference. but to lisa's point the federal government is simply encouraging by offering grant money.

they're not compelling anybody. it's up to local government, to the department to make that decision. i do think that there is a matter of liberty involved because, you know the tape doesn't always show everything. the tape starts at some point ends at some point. something may have happened before. in the case in south carolina there was separate dashboard camera. it showed a lot before. we see the video of the police officer shooting the man. so you have to be careful with tape. it doesn't always tell the whole story. >> here's the thing -- >> lisa, let me just do this. it sound like everyone's in agreement that the body cams are a good idea. let me bring it arnold. lisa, $800 to $1,200 per camera is what police departments are spending around the country. where is the money coming from? >> this is why i think we need to have a bigger debate here. it should be part of a broader conversation. this should .a knee jerk emotional reaction to obviously what is a horrific tragedy. but look the statistics that juan quoted come from one city.

the point i am making is the fact that every city is different. every cop's need is different. every cop has a different beat. so there isn't this one size fits all cure-all approach to this problem here. there is a huge financial cost as well. we're talking about 900,000 cops across the country $900 at least for these different devices. in addition you're talking about the cost of storage as well which is around $45,000. and also potentially hiring new people. >> gentlemen, wayne so president obama offered somewhere around $75 million over the next three years as a 50% match. in other words he'll put up 25 a year for the next three years each then police departments around the country will put up the same amount of money to get the matching dollars. that becomes a federal program. are you okay with that? >> yes i'll tell you why, eric. in spite of the cost of whatever it is, all you have to do is have one lawsuit that accuses the police of overreacting and doing something like that. and you wipe out millions of

dollars. so the cost of putting a body camera on somebody is minuscule compared to what the risks are on the other side. >> go ahead john. >> police officers should be insulted. there's this implication of all this that without a body camera every police officer would be out committing these horrendous crimes. if you really wanted to solve crime especially at a local level, you should decriminalize drugs, it doesn't cost a penny, and it would reduce so much of the violent crime local law enforcement faces every day. >> i put it on twitter and asked specifically law enforcement to weigh in. i would say close to 100%, maybe a handful here and there were against it, but almost 100% of law enforcement officers said put a body cam -- we're in the day and age where people are pointing the finger so dramatically at cops the al sharptons of the world saying every time a cop pulls over black kid he's going to violate his civil rights. >> so i think in that case if you get such strong support from the law enforcement community,

eric, let's go for it. i will say to my mind from a citizen's point of view and from a black citizen's point of view, i think there is an advantage to it. i'm very sensitive and curious that jonathan didn't have any civil libertarian issues with it because i think that some people in terms of the local communities do question whether or not you want to be on camera every time a police officer is looking at you. >> i'll tell you what, though, i bet bad actors act less bad when they know they're being filmed every second of -- >> i also think -- this conversation also needs to happen surrounding facts and data and making sure that it financially makes sense as well instead of, you know, my problem is that i feel like this is stemming from a broader, you know anti-cop sentiment that is permeating throughout the media right now and with people. i think quite frankly that's sad. so i want to make sure this is happening from the correct -- >> what about -- >> but what about the dead person? >> right. >> in this debate, this debate

is sparked because a bad cop in south carolina, you know, allegedly murdered a victim over a traffic -- over a broken taillight. >> -- after the mike brown incident. >> got to leave it there guys. hashtag topic today. are we down to a bush versus clinton for president? towards the end of "cahin' in," i'll show you how that's worked having a president bush or president clinton 20 of the last 26 years. tweet your thoughts and use your conservative favorite to join the conversation. coming up tasty news for taxpayers. states looking to stamp out food stamp fraud and abuse. could be people ship all kinds of

things. but what if that thing is a few hundred thousand doses of flu vaccine. that need to be kept at 41 degrees. while being shipped to a country where it's 90 degrees. in the shade. sound hard? yeah. does that mean people in laos shouldn't get their vaccine? we didn't think so. from figuring it out to getting it done, we're here to help. i bring the gift of the name your price tool to help you find a price that fits your budget. uh-oh. the name your price tool. she's not to be trusted. kill her. flo: it will save you money! the name your price tool isn't witchcraft!

and i didn't turn your daughter into a rooster. she just looks like that. burn the witch! the name your price tool a dangerously progressive idea.

waging war on welfare, fraud, and abuse. lawmakers in kansas approving a bill that limits what folks can buy with taxpayer cash. tattoos, massages, cruises, you name it, basically all nonfood items are off-limits. it also limits atm cash withdrawals to $25 a day. lisa, should all states do this? >> 100% without a doubt. taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook for welfare recipients spending money on spa treatments and, you know getting tattoos. we should be giving people a hand up not a handout. but that's not what we've been doing. what we need is a broader assessment of welfare as a whole. since lyndon b. johnson launched

the war on poverty 15 years ago, we spent $16 trillion building an entitlement nation. we have over 200 state and federal means-tested programs spending about $1 trillion a year. but here's the kicker. the poverty rate hasn't changed. >> the poverty rate is the highest it's been in decades actually inching up. and every time you give something, a handout things can get better and none of the money comes back. do you not like this program? >> i don't like this program. i'll tell you why. it's just another imposition of putting a regulatory group together who's going to regulate what they're already trying to regulate. what they need to do is cut the program to be a limited in time, limited in the amounts of money and say that's it and enforce the program. you don't need another group of federal regulators to come in and tell you what you can eat and can't eat. hey you have so much for this -- it says, by the way, starts with the word temporary. so temporary is what it should be. >> they always start as

temporary. i mean, the whole war on poverty, welfare started as a temporary assistance. there is no fix for this. there's no fix for welfare besides getting rid of it. how many times have we heard we have to stamp out waste fraud and abuse? i tell you these laws no booze, no cigarette laws are even worse because to wayne's point now you have government monitoring what you can buy, what's good or bad and what does that do to self-esteem of anyone receiving these so-called benefits? it doesn't teach you how to think. >> doesn't teach you to get out there and get a job and help yourself. juan, quick thought. i want to bring up another topic. go ahead. >> as i want to say as the true libertarian on this panel i'm so glad to hear my fellow panelists say we should not be telling people who are poor how to spend the money. if you want as a government to be sensitive to be a caring conservative, give the money to the poor and let them go. i can't oversee -- >> you have to money. >> take the money and give

money. that wouldn't be libertarian. >> we need substantial reform. >> it's not a matter of give if you have starving children. that's a matter of maintaining society for good business so we can do business. >> one step further. >> not massages. >> there's something our friend the surfer dude won't like. a gop lawmaker in missouri has introduced the surf and turf bill if passed making it illegal for food stamp recipients to use their benefits to purchase seafood, steak cookies, energy drinks soft drinks chips off-limits. lisa, should the government be telling people what they can and can't eat with the money they're given? >> we should be reforming welfare as a whole. i think we need to take it -- paul ryan is a member of congress who's introduced at least a plan to kind of roll in the federal government's approach and empower states to spend certain money and to really kind of, you know, slow down some of these programs. we need reform. >> and while we're at it, let's

stamp out the waste fraud and abuse because god knows i've never heard that before. the only way to reform sit to get rid of it. if you want to help someone who you think is deserving help them. it's immoral to take from one group and goich another and welfare's disaster has been the net result. >> you're shaking your head. >> we just went through a terrible recession. right now it's about $500 a month for a family of four about $14 a day. you know what you have to understand is we could be living in brazil up on, you know mountaintops going to work in helicopters and downtown office towers if we had mass craziness in the street, that kind of power. it's in our best interest to take care. >> how many tens of thousands would you give away during the great recession? hundreds of thousands to help people. >> i gave lot if you're talking about personal charity. >> the bottom line is it's not working. >> you should continue to do that. >> the splim these programs aren't working. >> we would agree, and the other

bottom line is they never scale them back when things get better. >> exactly. >> last thought from you, wayne. is it okay for people to use food stamp money for steaks? >> it's crazy. all of that regulation of saying where you can spend the money and how you can eat and all of that is just more gobbled ddygookgobbledygook. say i don't care what you spend it on, but limit the money, that's all you get. >> 46 million people. out of control. coming up president obama bashing christians butwell.

>> and now a new battle underway

for the alamo. join us. >> sometimes when i have listened to left and loving expressions by christians, i get concerned. >> president obama under fire for criticizing christianity again, this time at an easter prayer breakfast. here is what he said at the national prayer breakfast. >> and lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place remember that during the crusades and inquisition people committed terrible deeds in the name of christ. >> shouldn't the president be less concerned with christianity and more concerned with radical islam? >> islam is moral. it's peaceful and righteous.

it's those of us here in the west, we have overstepped our bounds and this is multiculturalism at large. the whole idea here is that here in the west we're not so special. we've all committed evil. christian americans jihadists we're all the same. that's that anti-american exceptionalism that i think seethes from the president day and night. >> it really burned me. when i heard him say that on the holiest day of the year for christians, it drove me crazy. but yet he's walking on egg shells around islamics. why the anger? >> i don't think it's anger. he's a christian. i think the issue here is that he wants to avoid making it out that the united states is engaged in a religious war against islam. for me and you, i think there is a real importance for -- to hear somebody say you know what? the other day in kenya, 150

young people were killed because they were christian. we see christians killed in libya because they were singled out as christian. but these muslim terrorists and vigilantes are killing more muslims than christians. >> but the president won't say that. if he used the same terms for christians and used the same examples for muslims, maybe i would have a little respect for where he is on this. what about using the same words with radical islam? >> well, i don't think this is about christians and muslims. i think this is about freedom of peach and about freedom of religion. if you want to pray to a tree it's your business. it has nothing to do with what the public or government speebs. freedom of religion is in our constitution and we should believe in whatever we want to believe in and not necessarily go and impose it on anybody

else. >> i think a juxtaposition between president obama attacking christianity but refusing to condemn the individuals that are committing genocide against christians is jarring to me. >> you know, part of any individual's job is to judge, to make that judgment. it's almost as if the president is saying israel, they overreact but islam is rooted in morality and justice and that's the sense you get from the president. >> we're going to have to leave it right there. coming up, hillary clinton is expected to hop in and jeb is

>> i want to say thanks to our cast and crew for joining us. we had a couple of birthdays this week. you guys can finally drink a beer now, you're old enough now. >> congratulations. >> you can head over to fox news.com and see wayne and johnathan's stock picks. whatever. anyway. time to wake up america. the office of the president of the united states is supposed to go to the man or woman who generates the most ideas to make america better. it's supposed to go to the man or woman who has the leadership skills to stimulate the economic power house we have here. it's not supposed to go to the most inevitable or the one whose

dad brother or husband was president. hillary clinton set to announce her presidential run this weekend and jeb bush is sure to announce after. are we so devoid of men and women with values and leadership skills that we're down to a bush versus clinton choice for the next? wake up america, the last 25 years or so have been brew tan on america's standing in the world. we were number one and now wu rank number 12. now, we create jobs and service the united states is now ranked 14th in education. our kids lag countries like uk and russia. we have had a bush or a clinton in the white house for 20 of the

last 26 years. do we need more of the same? i will vote for the most conservative candidate for president but i hope my choice doesn't come down to a bush or a clinton. we >> announcer: the following is a paid advertisement for the new shark rotator powered lift-away from euro-pro. looking for a better vacuum? talk to someone who owns a shark. they'll tell you the new shark has more suction and cleans carpets better than a $600 dyson. >> my shark makes my home cleaner and my job easier. >> announcer: the all-new rotator also has shark's amazing lift-away feature for super-lightweight and portable above-the-floor cleaning, and incredible anti-allergen complete seal technology. now the new shark goes from upright to powered lift-away to bring superior suction and a powered brush roll where other uprights can't go. >> there's no place dirt can hide from my shark rotator. >> announcer: the powered lift-away is the total transformation of the upright vacuum. shark -- more 5-star online reviews than any other vacuum