[captioning made possible by fox news channel] david: nearly $30 million to buy ham and cheese. it's the latest pork that's been discovered in the stimulus bill, and someoner these ham and cheese sam less sandwiches are great for america's bottom line. hi, everybody. i'm david asman. welcome to "forbes on fox." let's get "the flip side" with steve forbes, elizabeth mcdonald, and a long with kay and mike. and mike, let's start with you. $28 million for ham and cheese is a good investment? >> it's fantastic. it's food for hungry people. this is basic stimulus spending and exactly what we need. what's really amusing to me is people are criticizing this. i mean, it's just proof that someone will criticize every penny a stimulus money is spend.

i say give the n.i.h. a grant and let them study the involuntary nitpick-itis that's taken over. david: so we're nitpicking if we think ham and cheese is going to stimulate the economy? >> oh, sure, and at twice the price. how about buying a subscription to "forbes" magazine? david: we should mention, by the way, ham and cheese was selling at twice the price of what you can get at the local supermarket. >> that's right sorblingts they overpay in the name of helping the hungry, but people are paid off, and you want real red meat, buy a subscription to "forbes" magazine. david: there gulf nice plug in there. >> and by the way, why not, instead of buying that you will stuff, go on a diet and stop spending? hello. david: but even if you think it's good to hand out food, it's not necessarily stimulative, is it? ought a no, it's not. good point you make, and it's ridiculous that they're paying it twice the price. i'm for helping the poor, sexenk it's important. i do support these expenditure tours, but for example, we're spending $100 billion for the

i.f.m. for what? a lot of foreign aid for what? we need to take care of our own. we're talking lower case m. but you make a good point. obama was always putting lipstick on the stimulus package that's loaded with pork, and now he's saying healthcare reform is deficit neutral. and after just passing, not so a deficit-neutral stimulus plan, loaded down with pork. david: isn't mike literally putting lip stick a pig with this? >> we're talking about ham and cheese. we're talking about canned pork. how is that creating jobs? that's creating heart attacks, which leads to one other kind of still police, which is a pacemaker. we should be giving them healthy food, not healthy. this is just going to add to increased healthcare costs in the end. david: john, is this good for the economy and stimulative of the economy? >> baloney. only in america could you have a fat tax and free cheese for people. this is an automatic motion machine. look, there's no theory i know that links mozzarella and job

creation. this is old-fashioned politics. somebody in the dairy states needed a stimulus politically. they got money in their pocket. yay for the farm lobby, but this is baloney economics. disappoint mike, we got to get real here. that's what was going on here. this was a payoff to somebody in a farming state to vote for the stimulus bill. >> well, we actual have the wide subsidies for a variety of crops, including sugar, which i assume he would criticize as well. we've always had an agriculture policy -- david: doesn't mean they're right. >> by the way, in italy, they also do subsidize cheese manufacturing, especially there. dime and look how well that government runs. >> but it does happen, and this is part of agriculture policy. why wouldn't it be part of the broader stimulus? david: it doesn't stimulate the economy, and you've never been in favor -- you've never been in favor of these sub siddies. >> and we had a president who was supposeding going to bring new politics into town, not calling ham pork or pork or ham

or whatever they're doing. and 10 allowed these porksters to write the bill. why didn't he write that bill and exhibit real leadership? hello. that's what we're paying him for. disappoint again, this is just the tip of the iceberg. you go through the stimulus package, and find countless examples, $600 million for the digital conversion when we already paid for that. >> great point. they basically passed the stimulus bill to give themselves an excuse to pass all sorts of nonstimulative spending bills. but the real issue is don't focus on what's the poor. aye, attack the costs, paying double is wrong. but we need to help the poor attack really what is the pork, and that is parking lots for little league facilities or green golf carts or snow machines. that's ridiculous. that's not stimulative. that's not the correct still leaverb. >> i like the snow machines, but this program is actually quite inefficient t. gave $150 million in funding, $100 million of which went to the food, $50 million went to administrative costs. david: but john, this just shows what happens in

washington when you come up with some billion dollar plan. it's the lobby whoast take over pieces of it, and it's payoffs to those lobbyist. it doesn't stimulate the economy. >> you're right, david. you know, this is cheese wiz economics. somebody has to carry all that cheese back and forth between all the states. there's your $50 million. but look, $10 trillion is what the deficits add up to over the coming years. we can't argue this one out by saying which piece of the spending is better than which other piece. we need to schrenk all of it. david: is there anything in the stimulus bill you would consider to be wasteful? >> anything in the stimulus bill? >> yes. >> i thought the entire wall street bailout was wasteful, and that isn't part of the stimulus. but i think that anything that has come up, you know, that was specifically for financial engineering has been wasteful. i do agree, i think we've talked on this program about horses and things like that. yeah, sure. we can all nitpick. but the point is you really

just need 5% of g.d.p. spent to move the economy, and all the little nits don't really matter. >> mike, name one big stimulus bill in history that's revived the economy and put it on a sustained path to growth. ought a the new deal, the new deal. >> inquiring minds want to know. >> i give it all to f.d.r. and the new deal. david: but mike, even the treasury secretary of f.d.r., at the end of the 1930's, said it didn't work. he said all this spending hasn't worked. >> yeah, the u.s. did worse than britain, canada, and france in recovering from the depression at the beginning that have decade, our american workers earned 30% more than a british worker doing the same work. by the end of the decade, they were even. disappoint let's give mike the last word because he's holding up one side of the argument. go on, mike. >> we're still getting the benefits from the infrastructure built by the civilian conservation corps to this day. every time you go to a national park, you see it. every time you can get to the national park, you see it. it paid off in the long run. >> we're doing that kind of

infrastructure spending. we've always done that kind of infrastructure spending. but massive spending to pull us out of the depression did not work, 15% unemployment. i hope we don't have that kind of recovery this time. >> you and i agree on that. david: hillary clinton apologizing for global warming while in india. india. have you seen the smog in india, and we are apologizing. that has someone here saying, madam secretary just smacked american capitalism right in the face.

when morning comes in the middle of the night... rooster crow. ...it affects your entire day. to get a good night's sleep, try 2-layer ambien cr. the first layer dissolves quickly to help you fall asleep. and unlike other sleep aids, a second dissolves slowly to help you stay asleep. when taking ambien cr, don't drive or operate machinery. sleepwalking, and eating or driving while not fully awake with memory loss for the event as well as abnormal behaviors such as being more outgoing or aggressive than normal, confusion, agitation and

halluciations may occur. don't take it with alcohol as it may increase these behaviors. allergic reactions such as shortness of breath, swelling of your tongue or throat may occur and in rare cases may be fatal. side effects may include next-day drowsiness, dizziness, and headache. in patients with depression, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide may occur. if you experience any of these behaviors or reactions contact your doctor immediately. wake up ready for your day-ask your healthcare provider for 2-layer ambien cr.

>> hi, everyone. from america's news headquarters, i'm jamie colby. president obama's pushing the healthcare overhaul plan in his weekly internet and radio address, saying a new white house study shows that small businesses pay far more than big companies for employee health insurance, and he says that has got to change. >> this is unsustainable. it's unacceptable. and it's going to change when i sign health insurance reform into law. >> meanwhile, republicans are dismissing the new report, calling it political propaganda. in their weekly address, washington congresswoman kathy mcmorris says small businesses will pay a high price if democratic healthcare reforms are enacted. she says the democratic proposals would destroy a million more jobs than the economy has already lost. i'm jamie colby. we get you back to "forbes on fox" now right here on the fox news channel. and check out foxnews.com.

>> we acknowledge now with president obama that we have made mistakes in the united states, and we, along with other developed countries, have contributed most significantly to the problem that we face with climate change. david: secretary of state hillary clinton apologizing in india of all places for america's role in global warming, the same india that's one of the most polluted places on the entire planet. and the same india telling the world it won't cut its own carbon emissions. but that's another story. steve says the real story is secretary clinton did more than just apologize. she just slapped american capitalism right across the face. how so, steve? >> well, 5% of the world's population, we produce 25% of the world's output. we've done more to fight poverty than any other nation in history in giving people opportunities. india's begun to get on that

path. so what is our response? it's not so say do more free markets, get the economy growing, pull these people out of poverty. it is put in restraints that are going to hurt your economy. this is colonialism. this is not just a slap at capitalism. this is saying to india, don't grow because we don't want you to have carbon dioxide. david: and free markets can actually reduce all the pollutants? >> yeah, they can, and i don't agree with apologizing, putting the u.s. on a back foot. the real key now is just yesterday, india' rejecteding scientific findings that carbon emissions do add to global warming. the united states does have the lion's share of carbon emissions. that debate is still on. the key is do you want to upend the economy with all these bills making their way through congress, while india and china won't do it? so if we upend our economy and adopt these changes, it will have little impact if these two countries don't move forward on that end. david: particularly we might not have global warming, we may

number global cooling right now. >> man-made global warming is bunk. they're right to reject this evidence we talk about. look, this is not about science. temperatures in the last 10 years have actually declined. this is about politics and money. there's huge money to be made on this global warming stuff. clean air and water are great. i consume both of them most every day. but look, intentionally lowering output and people's incomes in order to satisfy an untested computer model is insane. david: bill, the key is if the indians and chinese -- the chinese the biggest polluters -- if they don't go along, it doesn't matter what we do. >> that's true. and i think hillary clinton should be apologizing for being part of an administration that supports a corrupt and untransparent carbon trading system instead of a clean and transparent carbon tax. now, john is right that the evidence is very thin that

we've got global warming. but you've got to tax something, right? david: so you think we need a tax in this economy? >> i would rather tax something that might be barksd even a one in 10 chance, carbon, than something we know is good, work and savings. david: so jack, a tax is the answer? >> look, i just think hillary clinton talking out of both sides of her mouth. i certainly don't remember on her being on the campaign trail in places like michigan and pennsylvania talking about america's history of polluting the planet. those places certainly contributed to the industrial revolution in this country. but it is a slap at capital. . if you look at the yained's ability to grow the economy, they have the opportunity to lead the global economy into the next 20 years. david: and capitalism goes two ways. yes, capitalism can produce pollution, but also clean up pollution, because it makes people richer and they spend some of that money on reducing pollution. >> the economic theory there is it happens well after the fact. you get per capita income up to a certain level, and then people feel comfortable enough

to start worrying about things like veermental purity. that's the theory. now, the question is do we have time for that in an age of rapid industrialization, and what the secretary was acknowledging is that when we were ramping up, we didn't give really any concern to any of this. she's acknowledging the hypocrisy of that, but times have changed. but times have changed. industrialization happened in a much different rate than 21st century industrialization does. so the environmental damage could be really compounded, and she's saying, look, we acknowledge our history, we still want to be leaders in this tri-- david: hold on, mike. because mike does bring up a point, which is we are developing much more rapidly. but we have means of reducing pollution now than far more scientific. >> for example, lead in the air, we know that's bad for you. we've reduced that 97%. if she's so concerned about having a clean atmosphere, not having carbon, how about going full blast on nuclear power? hello. i didn't see her pushing that

and apologize. she should be apologizing to indians. we apologize for not pushing nuclear power in the u.s. david: but the point is to afford these modern means of reducing pollution, you need more money, and capitalism makes more money, so you need capitalism. >> i agree with that. up don't hear any talk about us being big polluters on the campaign trail, just like you don't hear about them blowing out the deficit by $3.6 trillion no. one would have won an election doing, that but the key, is and bill brings it up, what are they doing now? cap and trade surgery that's the thing that's hypocritical, because you're giving away carbon permits for free to their buddies in congress. that's what henry waxman did. david: well, al gore is talking in his book. >> oh, no, this can be political give and take there. there's going to be some exrain contributions. listen, steve, support my carbon tax, and your nuke friends will do nine. david: nant million years, right? >> why this love of taxes? why this thing we have to have taxes? my goodness, the puritans were

bad fluff. why are we doing this? >> but opposition to cap and trade does come from both the left and right. steve and i would agree that the real worry is that the whole system will be gamed, middle men will take a lot of profit and we'll get no benefit. >> but how do you get india and china to the table? that's the big issue. you're right to show the smoke stacks. i was in shanghai and trees were scorched. it's pathetic. and they've got a two-mile high cloud of pollution over that country. they know there's a problem. but how do you bring them to the table? >> absolutely, you have to look at a way not to hamstring their economy, but bring them into the conversation and try to get them on board with something that could actually boost the global economy. india sees what politicians like barack obama and hillary clinton cannot. the proud legacy of the american economy and the ability to increase prosperity through robbed industrialization. david: last word from jack.

states cutting government jobs to save money, and that's great news? sounds leak a forbes "flip side," but stick around for the contrarian "cashin' in" crew for that one. up next, a legal prison break of sorts. tens of thousands of criminals about to get a get out of jail free card. çwçww?wçwwçñcçñwñ

david: tens of thousands of prisoners may soon be walking the streets of a neighborhood near you.

broke states like california and michigan getting ready to release thousands of criminals to help balance their budgets. and for good reason, state spends nearly $50 billion a year on keeping bad guys behind bars. but should our safety trump saving money? jack? >> look, i encourage everyone to go to california's website and check out all of the facts and figures in the california state budget for fiscal 2010, because look, it's a travesty that they're spending $10 billion on welfare, $10 billion on prisons, and they're going to cut the prison program, which actually keeps people safe instead of the program that pays people not to work. they've got plenty of fat to cut out of this budget, and they're going after something that's an important part of keeping the citizens of california safe. david: so there's fat to cut before you start releasing prisoners? >> putting aside the fact that i think that may be the case, i would like to see prisoners releapsed into work fur loews where they clean up roadside litter. both california and new york are known for, a, their littered streets, b, their loony sentencing statutes.

you know, three strikes you're out for nonviolent offenses. so take the nonviolent criminals, allow them to work, get experience, and show up for work f. they don't show up, double their sentence. david: so let out the nonviolent ones, but put them to work? >> well, lot of them have pled down to nonviolent offenses from violent offenses, but it's exactly as jack sasmede it's a basic government service to keep the citizens safe. this is going to cast more money. 70% of early release prisoners split another crime within three years. that then cost $18,000 to arrest and prosecute, so it's going to make people less safe and cost more money in the long run. david: so it's a bad idea? >> no, it's a fine idea. all of these releases will be looked over by an agent of the judiciary who will darn well know if anyone pled down from a violent offense. we're just going to release some people who probably haven't hurt anyone and who probably have even committed arguably victimless crimes anyway. who cares? i'm fine with it. david: but eve got to rely on judges who made a lot of mistakes in the past, steve.

>> by that cry criterion, bernie madoff should be released. he committed a nonviolent crime. so if they want to release prisoners, i hope they make room for putting in california legislators and politician who is got into this mess. and how about -- david: and half the people that serve in new jersey, right? >> and new jersey legislators and mayors and congress as well. and how about releasing bureaucrats instead of prisoners? david: what about the point that a lot of the so-called nonviolent prisoners have pleaded down and they may have been convicted for nonviolent crimes, but they are bad people? >> i wouldn't release those bums. i would release the nonviolent ones, not bernie. do you remember the movie "cool hand luke"? paul newman is a great prison work gang member. david: jack? >> this shouldn't be about getting which criminals should be let go and which shouldn't. you look at the california state budget. they've got $12 million for a horseracing. they've got $4 million for the

chiropractors board. there's plenty of stuff to cut out. you don't have to release 25,000-plus criminals. >> look at the corrections budget, let's get rid of the tv sets and tennis courts, get refused salt and pepper. david: mirkse that's the point. a lot of the way these prisoners are treated can be cut back, and you can get your savings right there. >> but here's a way to look at the big problem we have, which is that we have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, and it's a waste. so why not cut back on that? it's a good opportunity. david: last word for mike, the dow jumping back above 9,000 this week. the big question, is it going up to 10,000 or will it drop back down to 8,000?

david: dow is to 9,000, but is 10,000 next or 8,000 next? john rutledge, first to you and apple. first of all, where do you think the market is going? >> it's going up, david, 10,000 end of the year. loorks it's the wall of money created by the fed breaking through. it has tock up. apple is the stock. blowout earnings last week, analysts are raising the price tagget for $150 to above $2 hundred. three category killers, macs, ipods and iphone. iphone apps behind that. this phone is going straight up. david: iphones are going way up, but sales of the other stuff are not so high. >> that's not my problem with it. apple is cool, matches the personality of steve jobs. three other personality attributes, it's secretive, manipulative, and paranoid.

i think that's going to catch up with its someday. david: but it's selling a lot of stuff. but talk about bomplingt you're for munis. >> let me tell you why. i think the market is going to go down 5% between now and december 31. and i got a stock that's going to scoot up 5%. david: in a down market? >> in a down market. it's the shares from muni bonds, m.u.b. very works you're going make 5%. david: you like it? >> very boring t. may get 5% bit end of the year, but i don't like the municipality this is invests in. it's really dodgy stuff. towns aren't in great shape right now. it's a bad time. david: you're going for an exciting stuff, general zime. >> the fed debases the dollar. but look, the big thing now, biotech is specializing on drugs and other specialty diseases, and there are serious possibilities it could rebound. david: and john, the stock is very low now. >> taxes. taxes are going up. they're going to attack the biotech firms.