time. >> actually not a bad idea. it was that or talk to bill. >> we have eight seconds left. >> thank you, sandra, bill, kurt, nice job. jonathon, you filled a seat. that does it for me. i'm greg gutfeld. . >> juan: the o'reilly factor is on. tonight: >> we are going to fight, and we are going to struggle, and we're going to finish what we started in 2008. >> president obama is fired up on the campaign trail. but a number of not-so-fired up democrats are skipping the democratic national convention. is the president's popularity slipping within his own party? we'll put that question to congressman chris van hole alan. >> did you ever think you would be choosing two people running for president one of them a swiss bank account. >> continues to slam the class warfare drama. is their message resonating

with the american people? we'll debate it. >> would you look at margie? she looks amazing. >> well, she told me that food stamp benefits help her eat right and she stays active, too. >> sounds like the federal government wants more people on food stamps with taxpayer dollars going towards this advertising campaign. what's going on here? caution, you where to enter the no spin zone. the factor begins right now. >> juan: hi, i'm juan williams in for bill o'reilly. thanks for watching us tonight. no talking points memo because we want to get right to the top story. the house of representatives has scheduled a vote tomorrow on whether attorney general eric holder should be held in contempt of congress for his role in the fast and furious gun walking scandal. as you know, the attorney general has refused to turn over some documents pertaining to the administration's political response to the

operation. as of now, there are five democrats who say they will defect and side with republics in the contempt vote and that number may go as high as 35. and speaking of defecting, a growing number of democrats are skipping the democratic convention. so far, these nine democrats have said they will not, not attend the convention in charlotte this september. should the obama administration be worried about the no show list, joining us now from capitol hill chris van holland, a democratic congressman from maryland and a surrogate for the obama campaign. congressman van holland thanks for coming in. i'm sure you heard today steve israel the chairman of the democratic national campaign committee he said to his members, you know what? you don't need to go to the convention. now, i know congressman van holland you said something like this back in 2008. now we are seeing it's becoming like a drive for five. everybody is going that way. what do you take from this?

are they trying to get away from obama? >> absolutely not, juan. as you said, when i was the irthat of the democratic congressional campaign committee back in 2008 and 2010, what we advised members, especially those in the toughest elections was to spend time in their districts talking to their constituents. you are not going to find your constituents in charlotte, north carolina and so you should be spending your time back home. this has nothing to do with not going to the convention to send a message to the president, nothing of the sort. this has to do with maximizing the time you spend connecting with your constituents. >> chris, i just can't buy, come on. wait a second. you mean this has nothing to do with claire mccaskill the senator from missouri wanting to distance herself from the democratic brand and democratic president? sn now that democratic ticket is going to be led by that democratic president and you are telling me somehow it's in her best political interest not to be associated with the celebration of his renomination to be president of the united states? >> juan, listen, i haven't

talked to senator mccaskill. i don't know what her considerations are in making her particular decisions. all i know is that when the democratic congressional campaign committee steve israel and previously myself provided advice to our members, we are very focused in making sure they are on the ground talking with their constituents. it's valuable time in september, august time period. and that's the justification for it again, i can't speak for any individual member and whatever assessment they make. but in terms of the dccc advice it's on that basis. >> congressman van hollen we know of five democrats going it vote to hold attorney general eric holder in contempt of congress tomorrow. why are these five democrats defecting and acting in an historic manner to hold the attorney general in contempt the first time any attorney general will ever has been held in contempt by the congress of the united states?

>> well, here is the situation, juan, as you know, congress has an appropriate interest in trying to gather information and the attorney general eric holder has provided that information. thousands of documents he has testified before congress, nine times. in fact, darrell issa has rejected democratic requests to have the previous atf administrator come testify in public to get to the bottom of this. what's happened is this has now become a very political issue. it's not about trying to get to the bottom of it from the republic perspective. it's about getting eric holder. and to get your question, the national rifle association, has weighed in on this issue. there are lots of districts in the country where they carry a lot of sway. and so, again, i can't speak to the individual judgment members reached on this. but i do know from talking to many of our colleagues, that the fact that the nra decided to make this a political issue, has influenced some

people's approach to this question. >> well, what strikes me is you are making my point because you are saying this act, holding the attorney general in contempt is not going to produce more information and, yet, you have got democrats saying yeah, we will go along with it. maybe because of the nra's scoring it and saying they will take points away from candidates who don't vote for the contempt ruling but you see them turning their back on a fellow democrat and on the president's man, chris, congressman van hollen. it seems you have got democrats running away from the president and the attorney general. >> well, yuan, -- juan, what i think you have and i'm not judging any particular member's decision but what i have think you have got in a lot of these close races we were just talking about close races in the earlier conversation we had. you have got members from very close races, where the nra, for better or for worse, can carry a lot of sway. i think the fact that the nra weighed in on this thing shows

a crass political motive to get eric holder. they, in fact, sent a letter to darrell issa and others saying that they had a big beef with eric holder. not about this particular but in general. they have turned this into a -- this is about them out to get eric holder and of course ultimately the president. >> let's move on to the other big news coming tomorrow. tomorrow is is a mega news day because the supreme court ruling on healthcare is due. now, if the supreme court rules its unconstitutional to have an individual mandate to buy healthcare, congressman van hollen, what exactly is the primary key legislation accomplishment of the first four years of barack obama? what's he running on. >> first of all i should say i believe the court will uphold the entire law after all it's worth remaining everybody that obama care is based on the same principles as romney care. the idea being that you need to get everybody into the

insurance pool in order to do to things number one prince prohibit people from being discriminated against. undriving down the costs three not taking responsibility for the healthcare we pay for it. >> juan: if they rule against it, what happens if they throw it out. >> i have got it i don't think that's going to happen. if they were to do that, is there are still other major provisions in this law. the republicans in the house have said they are going to go to work then and try to repeal all the other provisions. for example, the provision that says you can stay on your parent's policy until you are 26. >> juan: he will go to all the consumer friendly elements? that's one option. we will see how it goes, congressman. >> i's important, juan, pa people know what the republicans say even if they everywhere to get rid of the individual mandate they want to come back and get rid of all the other stuff. >> juan: i hear you. >> consumers against insurance. >> thanks for coming in tonight. we appreciate it? >> thanks for having me. >> vice president biden says

mitt romney is out of touch with the middle class is that an attack resonating with any voters? later, the federal government is spending your money on advertisements telling penal to sign up for food stamps. talk about an entitlement nation. right back with those reports. [ male announcer ] if a phone rings at your car insurance company and no one's around to hear it, does it make a sound? [ meows ] or if a tree falls on your car and no one's around to answer your call, do you make a sound? the answer is probably "yes" [ growling ] and "like a howler monkey." unless you're calling esurance. they have live humans on the phones to help 24/7. so you might make different sounds, like happy human sounds. esurance. insurance for the modern world. click or call.

kay men islands? all kidding aside, did you ever think you would be choosing between two people running for president. one of whom had a swiss bank account? one of the things i resent about these guys is they talk about us middle class guys and i don't live a middle class life anymore. i live in a beautiful home. i have a great -- they fly me around, you know. [ laughter ] no, you know what i mean? that's where i come from. >> juan: the obama campaign is also hitting governor romney on his bain capital record in a new ad. >> "the washington post" has just revealed that romney's companies were pioneers of shipping u.s. jobs overseas.

investigating in firms that specialized in relocating jobs done by american workers to new facilities in low wage countries like china and india. >> so, is this line of attack going to hit home with voters? joining us now from washington, d.c. fox news political analyst kirsten powers and michelle fields from the daily caller. kirsten, it looked to me like joe biden was having an out-of-body experience. one minute he is saying hey, the rich are taking advantage. what's this romney guy doing in the next minute he is saying i'm one of the rich. what's going on here, kirsten? >> i think biden is sort of doing the heavy lifting here on going after romney on this line of attack, which is to paint him as a rich guy who is out of touch, who was sending american jobs overseas. and, in terms of whether it's working or not, it seems to be working quite well, there is a few polls that have come in just in the last couple of days that have shown in the battleground states where they it are running these ads

against romney on the bain issue that they had seen a major change among independence. i think as a political attack, it actually is working very well. >> juan: michelle, let me come to you on, this when you see this attack, the class warfare angle being used by president obama. do you think it's actually to his political benefit? >> look, this is completely insulting to middle class americans. for him to say that he is part of the middle class is so insulting. middle class americans right now are suffering to put food on the table. they are trying to find a job. yet, he lives in a 2.8-million-dollar home and made, what, $400,000 a year with his wife last year? it's insulting. he either thinks the american people are stupid or he is really that out of touch with americans. >> juan: michelle, let me come to you on this. what strikes me over the last week, you talked about those poll numbers that show the president doing slightly better. what strikes me is the mainstream media may be helping president obama. you have got the "the washington post" talking about jobs going overseas. you have got the "new york

times" talking about junk bond king mike mill kin, you know, sending jobs overseas. that was actually the "boston globe." and then you had the "new york times" saying seven firms under control of bain while romney was there. went bankrupt, but romney's guys still made money. seems to be now chorus all around the country. >> yeah. but if you read the "the washington post" today, just a few hours ago, jennifer reuben had a great piece up that explains that obama is actually the one who is shipping jobs overseas. 79% of the funding that went to green jobs were for foreign companies. and most of the money went to a company in australia. so if anyone is shipping the jobs overseas, it's obama. >> juan: wait, don't get off the point, michelle. don't get off the point. this kind of clamor that we are getting from the mainstream media saying bain was up to no good, is it helping obama? >> well, sure, yeah. it's the mainstream media is on obama's side which t is and it was back in 2008 then, yeah, it is helping him.

is it true? no, it's not true. >> is it true, kirsten. >> look, i think that the response of republics and the romney campaign was huh-uh, look at obama. isn't really going to help romney. i think the point is that there is already a preexisting narrative on him. very similar to john kerry, you know, this idea about him as this kind of, you know, upper class, rich, out-of-touch businessman, so anything that feeds into that is going to harm romney and help obama. the stuff that michelle is raising is important. i don't want to say that it isn't, and if the media pays a lot of attention to it people are going to be upset. it doesn't feed into a preexisting idea about obama the way these attacks feed into romney preexisting idea on him. >> juan: what strikes me is you get bill clinton you get cory booker, all these democrats who in the last few weeks have said we don't feel comfort with the attacks oen bain capital and people making an effort to create something

to build something in america. yet, the two of you say this may actually be working. flocking to obama. >> the two examples you just gave are people who get a lot of money from those people. bill clinton and cory booker. >> yeah. it's not surprising. bill clinton gets it for his foundation and cory booker is in new jersey. the idea that steve rattner comes out and defends them. shocking. you have a bunch of people who are very invested in these group of people for their own sake coming out and saying that. across the board most democrats don't have a problem with it. >> juan: i don't think americans are going to buy class warfare. i could be wrong. >> i think romney really needs to seize on those opportunities with clinton, with booker. he needs to explain, look, being a businessman is actually a good thing right now in this economy. you want someone who is a businessman who knows how to fix the economy. not someone who was a professor, you need someone who has business experience who can create jobs and help

this economy. >> you know what, we have some polls at fox we're going to talk about them later in the show. the polls indicate that americans don't think romney has laid out you can already hear the response. michelle, where are we going? >> when did we try this? we didn't try. this we have high taxes right now. that's why our businessmen have accounts out in different in the bahamas because there are too high of taxes. >> don't mention offshore accounts. ladies, thank you very much. directly ahead, brand new polling on the presidential election. we'll show you how obama and romney are doing in key

battleground states. this is critical. and then, a supreme court insider joins us with a look ahead at tomorrow's obama care ruling. and what it means for you. that's upcoming.

>> juan: good news for the president on the polling front. brand new fox news poll asked registered voters if the presidential election were held today, who would you vote for? 450 percent said barack obama. 40% mitt romney. joining us now from asbury park, new jersey, independent pollster scott rasmussen and from washington, d.c., margie omero, a democratic pollster. let me begin with you, scott, and say it's somewhat surprise to go ahead me on the healthcare law something we

are all anxiously awaiting for the supreme court. on the healthcare law you have 38% of americans saying they would overturn it 30% say uphold it and 21%. the president's job approval 51% disprove. i'm not getting its that not making sense to me. if they disprove why uphold it or keep most of it? >> when you say uphold t or keep most of it, the mandate is part of it that most people want to go. nearly 70% would like to see it overturned there are other provisions in the law that people are unhappy with. overall, if you just give people a straight up choice, repeal it or keep it. 54% say repeal it juan, whatever the court decides, the healthcare law is doomed. it may be repealed by the court. t may be repealed by the elections. sooner or later this law has already lost in the court of public opinion and it will

disappear. >> margie, let me ask you in these terms what we have are poll numbers that say 49% of americans oppose the healthcare law. 39% favor t. so, no matter what the supreme court decides tomorrow morning is it a loser for president obama? >> >> i think it's important when we look at these poll numbers to look at what's a question measuring the sense that people have about the healthcare bill or their sense of what repeal -- what's a good idea what it might bring and how they feel the specifics about actual reform itself because if you look at some of the key proponents, a the love the key proponents, they are overwhelmingly popular. mandatory maternity care coverage. mandatory breast cancer coverage. letting kids stay on their parents' insurance until they are 26. preexisting conditions, obviously. there is a whole host of incredibly popular things that poll after poll shows. i think it's important to make sure that we're looking at polls looking at the individual, very popular

proponents that now you are going to have a lot of republics say they are against or the total package which admittedly there some confusion about. >> margie, does it help him run against the supreme court and say hey, i don't like the supreme court if most americans say the supreme court made the right decision. i didn't want this law anyway. >> i don't think it helps to really bring the supreme court into the debate. i think it helps for the president and democrats to talk about what this bill does for american people. what are some of the really popular things to make sure people understand a lot of the specifics. it's confusing. i mean it's a confusing topic. there is a lot -- >> juan: scott, i want to get to the numbers that we talked about at the top the horse race, right now you have president obama up in the horse race but what's critical , what's absolutely critical is if you look at his favorables, president obama 48 to 38. mitt romney, his favorable was only 33%. and then, if you get into the swing states, florida, ohio, pennsylvania, right now, despite having what i think

was the rough last month, the president's up four points in florida. nine points in ohio. six points in pennsylvania. what's going on, scott rat muffin? >> let's start, juan with the president's job approval. that's the single most important number out there. job approval at 48% on election day. he will get somewhere around 48% of the vote. mitt romney and everybody else, even the healthcare issue don't measure up to the importance of this being a referendum on the president. now, i is ahead of almost every poll of registered voters in our poll of likely voters, the president is down by a point essentially a toss-up. that's because the people most interested in the campaign republic leaning constituents, they are most likely to show up and vote. when you get to the swing states, absolutely critical. this election is close? we will be watching florida and ohio and virginia. mitt romney needs to win all three. right now those states range from a toss-up to maybe a little bit in the president's

direction but they will stay in the national polls. >> another defining of the poll. the fox poll was who has the clear plan to improve the american economy. scott, this knocked me out, 53% say obama no plan to it improve the economy but 55% say romney has no plan to it improve the economy. i mean, 55%, that's why romney is running, i mean, what's going on here? >> look, two out of three americans trust their own economic judgment more than they trust obama's or romney's. americans don't trust republics or democrats. they want both those teams to lose but it can't happen. so right now they are saying we're looking at this a lot like we did in 2006, 2008, 2010. we're unhappy with the choices. it's a lesser of two evils. and maybe we're going to throw -- >> juan: margie, when you say to people what about president obama's performance on the economy? 52% disapprove. i mean, how do you make sense

of the fact that they say romney, not only doesn't very a plan they don't see that he is making an effort. >> yeah, i mean, the rest of those numbers show that 47% think that obama a plan or has a clear plan and 21% say the same about romney. romney is really running behind obama significantly on that. and i think part of this for both candidates, the challenge is making sure swing voters are getting message. and swing voters, you know, are reading the newspaper every day. they are just trying to get through the day. and takes more communication. >> juan: all right, margie, scott, thank you very much. plenty more ahead as the factor moves along tonight. the government spends millions on ads to encourage more people to sign up for food stamps. we'll tell it you what's going on. and a california city filing for bankruptcy. is this a warning sign for the country? we hope you stay tuned to those reports.

>> juan: in the factor follow up segment tonight, the long wait for the obama care ruling almost over. all eyes will be on the supreme court tomorrow morning when we expect the decision to come down. a new fox news poll shows that nearly half of voters oppose the law. 39% favor it. with us now on the eve of the big ruling, stephan ingle, former clerk for justice anthony kennedy who is likely to be the swing vote in this decision. steve, thanks for coming in. i saw today that most court insiders, former clerks, lawyers before the court, think that the individual mandate will be ruled unconstitutional. is that what you think? >> i think the conventional wisdom in washington is probably it's a 60-40 bet that the individual mandate is struck down. as we seen before the conventional wisdom in washington was wrong. >> juan: t was wrong earlier this week on immigration. if it is struck down, what do you think is the role of the man you worked for justice anthony kennedy? >> look, justice kennedy gets

one vote just like everybody else. speculation is that there is four to his left. there is usually four to his right. if that's the case, then his vote may be decisive. it couldvel be a a-4 decision in which justice kennedy cast the deciding vote. >> juan: give insight what you think his background is on this issue of using the commerce clause as it applies to having americans, all americans buy health insurance? >> sure, justice kennedy is committed to brains pell in our constitution called federalism which basically says that the federal government does some things and the state government does some things. justice kennedy believes that splitting sovereignty between the federal government and state government leaves us more free than when it's consolidated. that's the question here. has the federal government gone beyond proper boundaries by seeking to force people in commerce when they are not otherwise in there. >> juan: in the oral arguments with done that, the solicitor general. he seemed critical at points but then he would come back and say don't all americans have healthcare need have a

rational -- isn't there a rational basis for saying everyone should have health insurance if we are going to reduce the cost of healthcare. to me i wasn't sure in listening to kennedy which way he was leaning, although i think oral argument went terribly for the obama team. >> justice kennedy had tough questions for both sides. certainly obama team wasn't the happy with the kind of questions he asked at the beginning from the solicitor general. he had some hard questions for the government. isn't anybody -- everybody in market healthcare. find out the answers tomorrow. >> you don't think that in the conference where just you have the justices there you don't think that he has been making the case one way or the other? >> well the conference real solid a place for the justices to explain each other's views more so than it is to try to persuade or debate really. justices sit there -- i wasn't there for this one and really it's only the justices who are there. they go back more and they vote, basically.

>> juan: let me suggest something to you because i think people who are watching tonight say okay, he strikes down the mandate. the rest of the law stays in place. isn't he creating a mess for the insurance companies and for me it might drive up my premiums because the insurance company is going to pass the cost along to me and you? >> that's an important question. a question that the court is wrestling with right now. in addition to considering is the mandate constitutional, the court scheduled a separate argument on what do you do if the mandate is struck down? does the whole act fall? is it just the mandate? or is there somewhere in between where the court can sever the mandate from the other provisions operative under the act? how they do that is going to effect your and my healthcare premiums, no doubt. >> juan: question is then the court just makes a decision, they go on holiday and they don't deal with the mess. >> i think it will be up to congress, really, to fix whatever mess is left. but then again, whether they take one action, or not, there may be a mess regardless given the cost of the act. >> juan: that's the thing. if they sever the mandate and simply say the mandate is unconstitutional, it's possible then that you could

have other funding mechanisms put in place. even aa tax. >> it's certainly possible congress could take that up if that proposal had support in the congress. my clients, the american action forum in this case crunched the numbers. >> juan: they are opposed to the health care act. >> they are oppose to the health care act. mandate to the insurance industry to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. if the mandate just structure struck and the rest of the act is in place we could see everyone else's healthcare premiums rise as a result. >> juan: thank you for coming in and giving us insight into the man who will be center staining tomorrow justice kennedy. >> thank you, juan. >> juan: most controversial storing of the evening. federal government using taxpayer for ads to get people to sign up for food stamps. is this a giant waste of money? we will debate it after these messages.

in the unresolved problem segment tonight, despite the fact that one in seven americans are already on food stamps, the federal government is encouraging more people to sign up for the program. take a listen to this radio ad paid for by your department of agriculture. >> would you look at margie? she looks amazing. >> yes, she sure does. >> i wonder how she stays so fit? what's her secret? >> well, she told me that food stamp benefits help her eat right and she stays active, too. >> oh, i didn't know they helped people our age. >> oh, food stamps help lots of people, people you know. [ laughter ] >> wait, you use it, too? >> yes, i do. [ laughter ] now that i'm retired fixed income, food stamps are a big help. they help me eat right when money's tight. >> oh. >> juan: ads like that one are running in seven states as

part of a campaign to encourage groups like the elderly unemployed to enroll in the safety net program. the price tag? an estimated $3 million. now, is that a good use of taxpayer money? here to analyze deneen berrellly a tea party member and author of the book backlash and rich benjamin a senior fellow, a liberal think tank. did he neon, what did you hear when you heard that ad. >> i think this is outrageous, we should be reducing the number of americans on government assistance. this advertising really is a classic example of bait and switch politics. and if you are an unemployed voter and obama knows his policies have failed. if you are unemployed voter, you are less excited and motivated to support president obama he he is using food stamps to get votes. this is what is going on right now. >> juan: rich, what did you hear. >> i think it's outrageous what you just said.

al slander on poor people. reality 49 million people will be mal-nourished this year meaning they are skipping a meal because of financial circumstances. so i think it's wise for the president to advise people of their rights in using this program. it's healthy. we want a country of healthy fed people. >> juan, the program has been expanded to the effect is you are not eligible based on your income. you can be living in a million-dollar home and getting food stamps. so there is a lot of waste, fraud. >> juan: how is that possible? >> that is how they do the eligible testing. it's not based on your income but -- so you could be someone in a million-dollar home just like i said and be getting food stamps. people are abusing the system. this is something that should be addressed and no one should be starving in america. i totally get that and understand that but there are people should be gainfully employed. and as i said at the launch, obama ha's policies have failed. we have way too many people who are unemployed.

gainfully able bodied people should be working and not relying on the government. >> juan: let's leave obama's policies out for a minute. i'm sure we could go back to bush policies, obama's policies. if somebody is out of work, and you have a child in need. why wouldn't you want that child to be well-fed. >> that's not what i'm saying. i'm saying they are expanding this effort where there are people who are being eligible to get food stamps and they should not be getting them. i'm not saying that people who need the safety net should not be getting the safety net. but what we want to do is have people employed so that they can provide for themselves and for their family and not have to rely on the government. >> that's a separate conversation. we want people employed. but if they are not employed and if they are applying for food stamps, it seems to me well, okay, but, at the same time, isn't this about government expanding big government getting bigger, we're building an entitlement society? we're telling people, you know what? we're going to take care of you?

the government will take care of you and potentially to come to deenen's point president obama will take care of you. >> well, juan i want to really say i'm so glad you took her to task for perpetrating these frauds that people are bicing the system on a million dollars. >> eligibility. >> that's all discredited. that's discredited all. we have had that. discredited old welfare queen driving a cadillac. it's just not true. >> t is true. >> to your point i think and i know poor people do not want charity. they want jobs. and that is the objective number one. number two is that because people are definitely need in the social safety net. why not inform them of their eligibility. and we don't think conservatives like you discrediting medicare and medicaid. and that's because food stamps often associated to poor people in a way that medicare tea party never took medicare

or you go after food stamps. [talking at the same time] >> juan: hang on, you two. >> come on, really. >> juan: rich, i asked you about entitlement and big government. because isn't this sending a signal to people that the government is going to take care of you when we should be sending a signal get out there and find a job. >> no more so than other programs such as social security. such as medicare, such as medicaid. people are not more likely to depend on government just because of food stamps. >> juan: you say somehow -- >> -- most people don't want to be on food stamps or depend on food stamps. >> juan: people want a job. how do you know this, rich? >> absolutely. bill. >> juan: making a political point. >> how can we slam the poor people like that. it's just not fair to assume that they would -- >> juan: hang on, deenen. >> it's not fair to sit here. >> juan: i'm not trying to unfair to anyone but you are saying people want a job and they want to do it. deenen, i don't see any evidence of that. >> absolutely people are clamoring for jobs and the

republic -- >> juan: hang on give deenen a chance. >> numerous people on youtube who are getting these entitlements and they are able bodied people who should be working. that is the example i was trying to make to you, the other point is obama's deplorable energy policy. why would you impose regulations that will cause significant economic hardship on people who are already struggling. >> juan: we'll come back to energy policy. thanks for coming. in in a moment, talk about out of coal spending, a california city goes bankrupt. will this be a wakeup call for all of america? we're coming right back.

>> in the back of the book segment tonight, major economic problems in the state of california.

as you may know, stockton, the city of 290,000 residents carrying a 700-million-dollar debt is about to file for bankruptcy. making it the seventh municipality in the u.s. to do so this year. and an estimated 20% of california cities appear to be teetering on the edge of bankruptcy by the end this year, 2012. california is the most indebted state in the country with a budget gap of more than $15 billion. joining me now to put this in perspective from chicago joan than hoenig a hedge fund manager and from los angeles mark sawyer a ucla political science professor. jonathan, let me begin with you. who is to blame? >> well, it's certainly not bankers, juan, it's not nefarious hedge fund manager or evil financiers. progressive agenda in california's government that's prompted cities like stockton, to borrow row, spend and to cowell to unions.

stockton biggest bankruptcy in american history. huge compensation. 8 a% of the budget. just like g.m., airlines forcing artificially high wages firemen in stockton making $160,000 a year that get 90% of their pay when they retire at age 50. that can't persist. that's why california, some cities are going bankrupt. >> juan: mark sawyer you have a different perspective. i want to ask you the question, who is to blame. >> our pension funds here in california were doing fine until we handed them over to guys like jonathan who crashed the stocketd. really what's going on here is agencies have not properly put money in when times were flush and they were promised these huge returns by people like jonathan and all of the sudden the market crashed because they have been making crazy bets on things. and taking away people's pension funds my parents live in chicago they are on a pension. it's a form of wage theft they work for 30, 40 years they expect to get something back. we can't have firefighters who

want somebody 65 years old to run and save new a burning building. >> juan: jonathan, i want you to respond he says it's personal. he says it's you, a hedge fund manager who crashedz -- >> -- that was me, juan. juan, you didn't understand that was me alone. jonathan hoenig capitalist pig. in stockton it was city officials who made the unreal his expectations. in fact, spend public money on arena. spend public money non-privatizing the developing downtown. they made outrageous promises to pensioners that couldn't be met. >> juan: here is the heart and soul of what i heard a moment ago from mark though. he says his parents are hard working people who made a deal with the government and part of that deal was that they would get a pension. it might be a lavish pension some politicians sign on the line to give them the pension. why would you hold those people blame for this crash in

stockton? >> first of all, i think it's disingenuous for marc to argue for more government spending in california. marc is the direct recipients of government spending in california. professor at ucla making at least what i understand a pretty tidy 6 figure income. so, yes, of course it's in his vested interest to argue for more government spending. juan, reality exist and it if the piper can't be paid whether in the private company or public sector you have to make changes. >> juan: how do we fix it? do we put those pensions. >> we have to cut the pensions. cut them now or cut them later. >> if you don't cut them now. in greece. california has been called the next greece for months. it wasn't the private sectors in greece riding them in the streets. it was the public sector unions that's what they could see if we don't impose real austerity in the state of california now. >> juan: marc, austerity, cutting pension, cutting spending. you have got to do it or going to be greece. what do you say, marc?

>> os stearate is exactly the wrong way to go. exactly what will crash our economy and end us back recession. we have seen this in europe. and got to be pro-growth and shore these things up. california has a revenue problem. ever since prop 8 particularly on real estate gave a bunch of money to private develop torres build arenas and redevelopment and commercial things and didn't care care of the workers and the people who provide a good service of stockton. taking away pensions from the people who work for them is a form of wage theft. my parents work for the chicago transit authority, they put in their time. they sometimes didn't take jobs in the private sector that might have paid more with the expectation of a pension. >> juan: don't have the money, mark, how you can say go ahead and grow out of it when you don't have the money? right now no growth, no money, bankruptcy and you are saying go ahead and pay them anyway. >> we have got to get the feds have to get involved in this. i mean, we don't want to go back to the what the private companies like the ones dealt with romney did dumped all the

pension funds pension control board and taxpayers bailed them out. >> juan: go ahead, jonathan. >> that's his point. this wasn't private industry that had bankrupted towns like stockton. unfortunately the flef of the governors of the leadership of that town. it's a philosophy that in my opinion exemplified by the president who wants, of course, to fund and to be involved with every element of the private sector. failed at the marine in stockton. $700 million of debt for less than 300,000 people. how can that exist? >> jonathan, you are saying we have got to have cuts and cuts even to pensions for people who are retired and mark, you are saying no cuts, just pro-he growth. gentlemen, i don't know what's going to happen here but this is a tough one. >> how is more spending more growth? it hasn't worked thus far? how will it work in the future? >> juan: gentlemen, thank you so much. pinheads and patriots on deck. jon bon jovi and buffet. a musical you don't want to miss. p and p over two minutes away.

>> pinheads and