>> mcdonald's was a great call six months ago, gary. nei [captioning made possible by fox news channel] >> we have to have a review stream to make sure the bill is paid for. if we don't need it we can use it to reduce the deficit. neil: what? did you hear what i heard? >> we have to have a revenue stream. if we don't need the money we can tuesday to reduce the deficit. neil: i thought i heard her say that. tax hikes that were supposed to goer healthcare are now going to pay down the deficit? where is the lock box? where is the sanity? hi, everybody. welcome. let's get reaction from my crew.

charles payne, dagen mcdowell. adam will shins ski. what is going on, charles? all the rich folks tax we are slapping on you will be to pay for the healthcare. one congresswoman says you will get it back if we recognize the savings. >> you used the right word, scare. this is nuts but what i'm starting to feel is that a lot of these plans, the tax of all the people, first we know the brunt will hurt small businesses. i think the subplot is really that nancy pelosi and barack obama really want to dissuade people from being you will rasual because that is what this will do. making a certain amount but more than $350,000, more than $1 million that is a little too much and you should put it back in the communal pot. because that is what she is talking about. neil: only you could smoke pot because that is pretty much

where we are going. this she could not have checked. i talked with steny hoyer who seem add little surprised. he was saying that is among the options that we could look at. but clearly they are changing the rules mid game and i'm not here to debate the pros and cons of the hike but when you say it is one thing and take it for other things where is this going? >> she opened the co-momono and said what they plan to do. it is not -- taxes are not going up to pay for healthcare. they are going to go up, period, because this government is spending twice what it is taking in in tax revenue and in order to shrink the deficit they will raise taxes. and i will admit right here i was dead wrong. i said tax rates -- the highest rate won't go up beyond the

clinton era levels. but it is because under this plan it will go up 10 percentage points just at the federal level. factor in state taxes you are looking at close to 60% taken by the government if you live in some states. >> adam, i know you are a big fan of everybody paying taxes. if you had it your way they would pay everything to taxes -- i'm joking, but you are such a good person. but here is what is interesting. we have 39 states that will have a tax rate north of 50% if this goes through so charles is look at sweden looking pretty good. but how can that be helpful? is that how you get healthcare rationed out, you -- people look at their tax rates and do that? >> we put a slightly finer point on the 50% figure and dagen was looking at you when she said

you. she meant everybody but it people who make a lot of money, who make a real lot of money who will be in the tax bracket. not everybody. as far as the comment that nancy pelosi made, i read it as a business journalist it is not unusual for a company that is doing a major project to raise, pick a number, $600 million, turns out they only needed $400 million to complete the project. what do they do with the other $200 million? use it for other corporate purposes. neil: give it back. this is mas is like when we had state lotteries and it was going to go to the schools and i thought after a while every kid would have a gold-plated math book and the schools are still hurting and suffering. so money that has a way of being channeled for distinct purposes can go other purposes. it is just government ways and that is what i'm worried b.

should i be? >> you should be worried about it. look at hank paulson and the trouble he got in today talking about tarp money. like when was in college i would ask for moneyor books and go on a vacation. neil: did you really? i thought i was the only one that did that. >> worked for a while. but he got wise to it and that is what will happen here and the american people are getting wiser the more we are taxed. >> i want to get back to what adam said. when a company raises money they raise it from people who are willing to give it to them. you are talking about a government that essentially is hitting its citizens over the head with a brick. along that same line, that is how nancy pelosi is thinking. this is communal. throw it in the pot and see what happens and if we don't use it for this we use it for that. >> great point. you have narrowed the debate in a useful way, charles. when i company raises money it goes out to willing investors and when a got raises money

through taxes it is doing the people's bidding and going out to willing taxpayers. now there will be unwilling taxpayers and after the messy democratic process is through it will be tough look for the people -- tougher luck for the unwilling. neil, i agree, i'm an enemy of lotteries. the reason they are so bad is that it is a regressive tax on the poor people who can't afford to buy the lottery ticket. a tax is an appropriate way to pay for a program that we want to do as a government. neil: but hear what dagen said at the outset. you admit a mistake and you should never do in this business but one thing you mentioned that is interesting and we talked about this in the campaign last year that i always think that tax rates are a moving target. when you look at where the top rate is bounced round in is 90, 72% 80%, then whatever. i heard one congressman tell me,

a democratic congressman who said the top rate used to be 90%. we have a long way to go. in other words, saying even at a top combined rate of 55, 56, 58, maybe 60% we have a long way to go. now the top rate i was talking about was a 90% federal rate and we were told that this deficit relief would come in large part by tax being the upper income. now they have changed it and said that is not going to quite do. that worries me. >> it should because the sky is the limit on the top tax brackets and i guarantee you that the cost of healthcare reform is not going to -- this isn't going to self-finance in terms of cost reduction with the healthcare overhaul. it will be a great deal higher. the cost of medicare was mated to be $9 billion for 1990 and it was $100 billion so you see where i'm going. i think that the danger is you are going to have a brawl like

value-added tax on the middle class because just hit the rich won't do it. neil: absolutely and everybody says you are un-american. i'm for reforming healthcare but this is not the reform to do it and where in our past has in shown that government efficiency exacts the savings to the magnitude they are looking at here? >> i'm still looking. if you find it first, let me know. neil: well, i haven't found it. we have another few minutes. we will see. did you see vice president biden saying america has to keep spending to keep from going bankrupt? will someone explain to me the logic to that? up next, who knew that the first car czar would be harmless. now we have a union guy at the wheel. could someone toss me an eleven sixteenths wrench over here? here you go.

eleven sixteenths... (announcer) from designing some of the world's cleanest and most fuel-efficient jet engines... to building more wind turbines than anyone in the country... the people of ge are working together... creating innovation today for america's tomorrow. thanks! no problem!

are more than words here. it's personal. i have diabetes. rodney's kid too. so we're so proud to manufacture... the accu-chek® aviva meters and test strips... here in the u.s.a. plus, we've proven you'll waste 50% fewer strips... when you use our meter, which means greater savings... for people with diabetes, like me. now that's a true american value. accu-chek® aviva. born in the u.s.a. you'll never go back to your old broom again. now a song for mary... from a mr. broom.

♪ don't you want me, baby ♪ don't you want me, ohhhh new swiffer sweeper is redesigned... to clean deeper into corners. dry cloths trap and lock 50% more dirt, dust and hair than a broom... with a new dirt grabbing texture. the all new swiffer sweeper... cleans better or your money back, guaranteed. >> hi, everyone. fans, former colleagues and president obama are all paying tribute to legendary anchorman walter cronkite this morning. he died last night. he anchored the "cbs evening news" often called the most trusted man in america. president obama recalling cronkite as an industry icon. >> for decades walter cronkite was the most trusted voice in america.

his rich baritone reached millions every night and in an industry of icons walter set the standard by which all others have been judged. he was there through wars and riots, marches and milestones calmly telling us what we needed to know. through it all he never lost the integrity he gained growing up in the heartland. >> he was 92. more headlines straightaway. now back to cavuto. neil: we have a new car czar. ron blome in. slightly more video of ron blome. and he is a union guy. charles, union guy to help car makers? >> come on. let's be honest. absolutely not. but what is interesting, the management there i don't think is going to help a lot because when the management starts coming out saying we will rebuild the company and this is a new company and make fuel ever cars, it is not going to work.

it doesn't follow what americans want right now. essentially what we are seeing is the companies will be run in a nonprofit sort of way and as long as they have of cover of the government and unlimited access to taxpayer dollar but when it comes to competing i don't see how they can be truly independently publicly run corporations with so heavily stacked to unions. >> i will choose to be optimistic. first of all, ron blome is not a union guy. he is a career investment banker. as far as my optimism, the key fact that we need to remember is g.m. and chrysler took billions of dollars off their balance sheets. that will help them be more competitive. they have professional managers. the task force is to keep the eye on it. >> doesn't anybody see a nightmare the fact that u.s. government owns 60% of g.m.

it will make a week with your in-laws look look a love-in compared to the nightmare -- neil: not that would be bad. >> it is more of the same. it is classic american government at its best that we would get somebody from the unions. it is ridiculous. if the whole industry wasn't in critical condition it will remain on life support. >> i don't understand why they don't get business people involved in these. why everyone is an academic -- >> they named ed whitaker to be the chairman. they brought an experienced business guy in. wasn't that good? neil: of at&t. you are right, you could find talent in other spheres but you probably would not want to hire me as a brain surgeon as an example.

doing a sleazy commercial possibly. but we are hiring people, a lot of the car czars, radner's only knowledge of cars was from the back seat of of a limo so what are you bringing? >> they need an alfred p. sloan guy and bringing lack lutz is a problem. they need somebody with an entrepreneurial spirit who has been 3 the industry who has the energy and vitality and won't be afraid to go against the administration and unions to say -- neil: won't happen. would you go against the person feeding you? >> that is the problem. it won't be a legitimate turnaround because the hottest selling car the camaro, the f-150 and chevy silverado.

they have serious problems. do they make the small cars and hope we will want them or try to go with the flow and make money and ultimately i will be optimistic and pay us back. >> you said administration and unions but you forgot the lawmakers and congress because they got this week. they want those 3,200 dealers that g.m. and chrysler tried to cut, they want them reinstated so they are in the mix. >> and thankfully that will go nowhere because the administration will step on that one as they should because that was the right thing to do and i think this the four of us could agree about that. neil: i don't know. i thought the vintage monument was the car dealers meeting with politicians. it was like a mutual instruction deal. when we come back wall street seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, run-up in stocks tort week. what is the message for washington? god enough to leave alone? mmmm... what are you eating?

multigrain cheerios. -so trying to watch your weight? -no, why? nothing. it's just the box. it says it's low in fat. do i look like i need to watch my weight? no. no. no. it just says it has 110 calories per serving. yeah, but there are other reasons why i like it. i know. i know. it's the box. what else does the box say? box says, "shut up, steve." multigrain cheerios cereal. because it tastes good. try new banana nut cheerios, with the great taste of real banana.

neil: what a week for wall street, huge gain for the dow. a lot of companies saying things are looking better, seeing a light at the end of the tunnel. should washington stop spending? >> absolutely they should quit spending. we are taking a breather, people are getting good news with i.b.m. and j.p. morgan and what do they come out with, taxing us more? neil: so you argue to go slow and see how it pans out? >> yes. neil: they have been arguing you

wait too long then we're back in a pickle. you disagree? >> absolutely. the american people right now are going through such a rough time and if you look at c.i.t. group that will be the death of retail and retail this christmas. and retailers are going to use that as a pothole on the road to a rough christmas. w neil: why? >> it does a lot of factoring so they help smaller companies get financing to sell their goods and services to retailers out there. so, right now is a critical time when they are placing orders for fall and holiday. >> one thing that was worrisome is the fact the government backed away from the second bailout of c.i.t. because their loans are going bad so quickly even uncle sam didn't want to touch them. if it is happening at c.i.t. you know -- neil: isn't that a reason to rescue them or are they saying this isn't leaving.

>> good money after bad. neil: we have been pouring god money after bad for a long time. >> but they are drawing the line and if the loans are going bad that fast at c.i.t. it is bound to be happening at other lenders. >> here is the bottom line. keep your powder dry. there is the business cycle. we have gone through this before. of course sometimes it is harder at the bottom than other times but the notion that we have fallen off the sort of cliff and we were never going to come out of this abyss, i think, has been nothing but a smoke screen to push through a bunch of programs that otherwise level-headed people in congress and in the public would say wait a minute, why do we have to have two or three trillion dollars of health bill done or cap in trade. but remove that fear, you can't get that stuff done. neil: this reminds you of the environmentalist's explanation of when it is getting warmer in

the winter it is global warming, when this gets colder in the winter it is global warming. so i'm hearing more reason for more stimulus. when we were having the lousy numbers you need more stimulus. you can have your cake and eat it, too. >> yes, now is a good time to give a pat on the back to the bush administration and obama administration for having acted prudently. i have been a believer all along that paulson did the right thing. we were looking into the abyss. we have not fallen over it. that is one reason wall street is doing betterment neil: maybe it is just a cycle, we are trying to reexamine this and things go in cycling. >> it is really good news that the powers that be have decided that c.i.t. doesn't present systemic risk. lehman brothers did. a.i.g. did. neil: i am just looking thinking we will never know because everybody says had we not done this we wouldn't see this.

there is no way to prove it. there is an appetite for more federal spending and there a rush for it. is there? >> is there a rush to spend? absolutely, on the government's side. i don't think it is necessary and i don't think the american people think it is necessary. it being spoon-fed to them under the guise that it is good for you. but the people that will be stuck holding the bag are you and me neil: on healthcare particularly why rush something when the c.b.o. and others are saying there are problems when we mentioned early on with nancy pelosi the tax money might not be allocated to the intended purpose, why? >> it is a diversion. the economy is such a major diversion you can push these things through like screaming fire in a crowded theatre. it is nuts because we don't have a price tag. the c.b.o. comes back and says it is going to be more expensive. >> they don't want the american

people to catch on that it is not going to work and then it is not about bringing down healthcare costs. this could be trillions more. neil: don't they know if it whacks the economy that screws them. >> that is a long time down the road. >> and to your point we have a lot more tax hikes that we can do to probably cover that whatever the problem will be. without of doubt it will be more. neil: then they will be beholden to you. like it or not healthcare is coming. you might as well make money on it. our pros will name the names.

ok. oomph. i'm a mommy. i love kids! i'm responsible, loving, nurturing. oooph. momma's coming, baby! [panting, grunts] ah! ah! ahhhh!

all: mamma! [baby dinosaurs laugh] sid: [laughs] ha ha, no, stop, stop. neil: stocks set to soar. healthcare comes fast. charles? >> baxter makes a lot of medical supplies and instruments. i think that baxter would be poised to make a move. neil: they have to spread the wealth but they are bringing more of their stuff. >> exactly. neil: what do you think, adam? >> i like it a lot. i would rather have had it before last week's great earnings report. i want to say whatever our differences on whether we need healthcare reform i agree we are moving too quickly and should go slowly. neil: that could be a fox news alert right there. i'm kidding. what are you doing, buddy?

>> wal-mart. they are playing this public policy debate to a fare-thee-well. they know it will raise the cost for competition and they have all these clinics which is a remi reminder it won't be government run it will be wal-mart run healthcare. >> i love the concept for wal-mart but i would rather see a b.j. or costco. if i go in to pick up a script i'm likely to pick up a higher margin item. neil: charles? >> that happens to me all the time. neil: we will know soon enough where in is going. kristen, quick thought on the healthcare debate. you think we will have a health care package by the fall? >> i do. and i think one of my best picks is community health systems. i bet on the hospitals big. neil: that seems to be the play