starting right now. [captioning made possible by fox news channel] >> today, a simple and fair picks? just charge people who live unhealthy lifestyling for for mile an hour health insurance. >> get n my belly. >> we're getting into the controversy that's dominating america. and it's another outrage alert. we may have uncovered the most blatant waste yet of your taxpayer bailout money. this one's the biggest shocker of them all. plus -- >> what is this mcdonald's? >> knowing he works there. >> my son works? >> the job losses that could help the economy. yeah, up heard right. why pink slips for a certain kind of worker could put america back in the black. all that and -- >> i've been smoking since i was born, mafpblet i could

smoke anything, man. >> forget raising income taxes. is it high time to tax marijuana instead? hear the radical idea that some say could make determining's debt go up in smoke. your money, your life, your show to stay ahead of the game. "cashin' in" starts right now. taupe a new fix for healthcare? a lifestyle fix? if you have unsafe sex, eat too much or smoke, then you should have to pay for more health insurance? that is what one law maker is promoting. is he right? i'm kerry keenan, and welcome to "cashin' in." here now to debate that, our "cashin' in" crew, wayne, jonathan, john, and tracy. along with the founder of pit bull economics, mike. jonas max ferris will be back next week. ok, john, should folks with risky lifestyles have to pay more? >> i hate to agree, but absolutely. you get a discount if you're a good driver, if you have car insurance.

you have a discount pickup take well with a credit card company. if you have some big fat guy who smokes too much, sits on the couch all day, he better be charged higher interest rates than me. yes, it's a way to quant few risk. terry: tracy? >> i agree, but the problem is how are you going to figure this out? we're going to need obesity czar, we're going to need a high sugar czar. we're going to need a sex czar for people having excessive sex, i guess, or dangerous sevpblgs i mean, who knows? i mean, congress alone will be paying half this tax, quite frankly, based on their experiences. so i think they'll be the first team to boycott this whole thing. terry: we're going in the opposite direction, because the obama plan would allow people with preexisting continues to get health insurance. >> yeah, i mean, look, the spitzer thing was a good joke, but it's exactly the point. it's a lot different talking about a private company like an insurance company giving you good points. where does it end? i mean, they come in, they're watching what you eat. they're looking at how you're

having sex. come on. what's crazy here, and i think what's ignorant, is that the government is not constrained in how much tax revenue it takes in, it could pay for this system, and the idea that we need to somehow find the money to do it, that's what's hurting this whole thing, and that's what's going to end up causing it to be a healthcare plan that is really health rationing. terry: but could we pay for this? could we have the healthcare fix by charging more for risky lifestyles? >> well, you could, i suppose, but it doesn't make any sense. all insurance is risk-based. that's the berth of insurance many, many years ago. in london, it's based on risk. and if you don't base it on risk, if you don't have a risk element in the insurance, you might as well throw it out the window f. you're going ask healthy people to pay for unhealthy people, that's crazy. it's not incentive based. it's got to be incentive based. terry: butter what is what obama cares about, jonathan, right? everyone's going to get health insurance. >> about? terry: the healthy people and unhealthy. >> that he wants the problem.

your proposal is everyone pays the same no matter what the preexisting conditions are, no matter how unhealthy they've been with their own health, that's not insurance. you know, that's an entitlement program. that's exactly what's going to be built in this country. i mean, this expectation that you have a right to healthcare, you know, regardless of how many packs a day you've smoked for 20 years, you know, honestly, and not have to pay extra for your insurance is ludicrous. >> i'll disagree on this point. i think human beings are part of the capital of the nation, a very important part of the capital of the nation. it constitutes the human capital. nothing gets done without human beings f. we spend money to take care of our infrastructure of roads and bridges and other things, doesn't it make sense to maintain your human capital? i mean, that's an investment. >> but mike, that's the whole point. mike, all -- >> return in spades -- >> i go to the gym four times a week. >> so do i. >> i'm i eat are salads and

vitamins. if you're unhealthy, higher premiums is the price you pay. >> your theory is -- mike, if i may, your theory is based on the fact that somehow the government is responsible for roads and our health and everything. the government is not responsible. you have some individual responsibility, and if you don't take care of yourself, why should you ask me to take care of you? >> but to wayne's point, this should be -- this should not be the government deciding that, at 10 pounds overweight, i'm ok. but a11 i become a risk to society? so i think this should go back again to private sector. private sector wants to take me on as a client, great. you take me, you sure me. if you don't, you think my 11 pounds is too much, send me on my merry way. that's what it should be. it should not be president obama deciding whether or not you're obese or not. terry: if you build a house on a fault line, your insurance is going to go up. >> absolutely. and what the administration is trying to do is they're trying to make everybody eat equal. that's bringing successful people down to unsuccessful

people's level. the government should not mandate anything, but if you're a big 400-pound guy walking in with a cigarette in your mouth, you should be charged a higher premium than somebody else by the private enterprise, not by the government. terry: and mike, we should note this was a congressman's idea. take all of i also want to say i agree with what trace and i john are saying. however, look, this is a public policy issue. we just had an election, if you don't like the idea that the government is now getting involved in healthcare, well, 63 million people voted for president obama. this is a public policy issue. if you don't want it, if you want a private sector approach to health insurance, you have to change it through the political system. that's what it's all about. it seems to me when 63 million people put this guy in office, they want something. terry: you get what you vote for. we're getting it. ok, coming up next -- we bailed them out, and what did they do with our money? using it to try to get even more of our money. plus, states giving the boot to government workers. !ow it could give a booth to

america's news h.q. now back to "cashin' in," only here on fox. terry: ok, get this -- remember all those companies that we bailed out with hundreds of billions of our tax dollars? well, many of them spending millions to lobby congress to get even more of our money. wayne, he is not happy about it one bit. wayne? >> i don't think anybody in the united states should be happy about it. i mean, the fact of the matter, is you have over 15,000 registered lobbyists in

washington, d.c. they were paid over $3 billion last year of taxpayer money to go and lobby and bribe, if you will, congressmen to do something that they wanted to do. we have three ex-speakers of the house, leaders of the senate, who are not even registered who lobby. tom daschle is not even registered, yet he got paid by austin over $2 million last year just to be an advisor. i mean, this is outrageous. it's a corruption of the law. it's a corruption of the congress. and we're being massively cheated. terry: jonathan, this is an administration that promised to put an end to these practices. >> put -- to lobbying? well, i mean, terry, there wouldn't be any lobbying -- the reason people lobby is because we give government that ability to regulate and control our lives. i mean, if government stuck to the proper role, simply protecting our rights, there would be nothing to lobby about. the question is, should the becameout money go to lobbying? again, we're back to the problem with the bailout money. honestly, i don't care if the

bailout money going to orthopedic -- orphanages and a place with solar panels on the root. it's immoral to begin with. >> the point is they gave them money without stipulations, limitations, expectations, and they pretty much said do what you got to do with it, and unfortunately, lobbying has become an expensive doing business. companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying every-year. they gave them money to run their businesses, and that's exactly what they're doing with it. like it or not, that's what they're doing. terry: this money is fungible, john. it doesn't go from one pocket into the other, but bank of america, $1.5 million spent on lobby so far this year. should they be using it for better purposes? >> no, they shouldn't, and i'll tell you why. if i can spend money and get some crooked politician and it's legal for me to do that, for my business, then i will spend that money every single day of the week. the problem is right, it is wrong. swayne correct. but the problem, it starts, stops, and ends with congress.

if you couldn't buy these crooks, you wouldn't have lobbyists, and that's where we need to focus. terry: it always amazes me how little money you need to pay off these people. >> bought easy, right? >> you can't say that $3 billion is a small amount of money. i mean, to corrupt the congress, if you say $3 billion, you know, i could be corrupted for $3 billion, and i'm sure everybody in the congress could be. it's outrageous. >> but wayne, at some pointed you need to change the system. the system is what allows this. these guys are doing what is legal. it shouldn't be legal. i agree with you. but it starts with congress. >> yes, but they have -- they have -- you know, they passed a law satisfying you have to get registered, but then they got around it. i mean, they've got every trick in the world. they can fool us as long as we want to be fooled. terry: jonathan, even a bankrupt company like general motors spending more than $5 million to lobby this year. it seems to work out well for them. they got rid of the delphi pensions. >> well, them don't exist in reality, terry, and that's the problem. these companies that live only

on bailout dollars don't have to deal with reality. but i don't have any more objection to spending it on lobbying than citi group's place or a.i.g.'s trips to vegas or bank of america's super bowl advertising. i mean, the problem isn't how the money is spent. in any machine, it's that bailout money was given in the first place. >> say one thing to add to what jonathan said before, because he said the role of the government is to protect us. in the preamble of the constitution, yes, it says provide for the common defense, but promote the general welfare. at the risk of sounding repetitive here, again, you know, government exists for the public purpose. if they bail people out, there mve a public purpose or thought to be a public purpose behind that, so people then used the money to lobby, like john said, if you want to change it, change the system. but if they're going bail it out on the idea that they're helping somebody, people are going use the money to lobby. terry: well, companies were bailed out because they thought they were too big to fail. >> i mean, microsoft spent $2

melion last quarter. at&t, verizon, $4 million lobbying. i mean, google is -- it's not, but this is what companies do. they lobby. john's right. if you don't like it, change the system. terry: wayne? >> mike, you don't honestly believe that the founding fathers had in their minds that we would be lobbying the congress today to the tune of billions of dollars? please! i mean, i love you. i think you're a bright guy. but i know you don't really believe that. >> you know, the founding fathers, i'm sure a lot was going on back in that day whole. this is the whole horse trading. this is part of sailsmanship. the government is 1/3 of our economy. the idea that a business is not going to somehow spend some money in marketing to try to get influence with the government, i think it's naive. of course they're going to do that. >> well, it is naive, but that doesn't make it right. it's corrupt. there's corruption going on all over the united states. do you want to support it? >> it's 100% corrupt -- it's

horrible business. look, the cigarette makers lobbied the government. they change wanted the law. they changed the law to help the big cigarette makers. this is the problem with lobbying. it influences legislation, which is wrong. deal with the congress, though. they were the crooks that are being bought. >> but you can't get ahead, unfortunately, without it. that's the problem. >> it's true. so the system is wrong. terry: the system is certainly messed up. coming up next -- trimming government workers in order to trim state budget. it is happening all across the country. and someone here says it's the best thing for our job market.

welcome home, man.

terry: jonathan, you say this is actually good news for the job market. ok, explain this to me. cutting jobs, good for the job market. >> well, terry, state governments are super bloated. i mean, just look at california. they were able to cut costs without increasing spending. and basically balance the budget. and i have to think that there's tons of people on the state level who are filing files over and over and over again or running these social welfare programs. you know, we don't just want zwrobs. we want people doing productive things. that's generally not found in government and certainly not found when government gets into all this other business with running insurance companies and banks and all these things they shouldn't be involved with in the first place. terry: wayne, you spend a lot of time in california. you agree with jonathan? >> no, because i don't think one thing has to do with the other. you can say laying off everybody in the whole economy is going to help the job market. it's not going to help the job

market one iota. it has nothing to do with the job market. that's a separate subject. up to the talk about the fact that whether government states are bloated, of course they are, and particularly in california, where the entitlement, if you will, the entitlement programs have gone berserk, and they've got to do something about it. terry: but this is an area where we're seeing job creation, and one of the few in the entire economy. the cities that are the strongest are the state capitals. >> yeah, and i think it does help the job market long term, because it makes these state governments and the federal government more solvent. these guys have got this huge bloat right now. does it do anything short term? no, it hurts you, because you lay off people. but somewhere they've got to have checks and balances, and they can't just keep raising taxes. somewhere they've got to find a way to stay within their budget. >> and there seems to be to be some entitle at some time a government job. you have a government job, you get pension for life, big, fabulous benefits. terry: good healthcare. >> good everything, right? just because you work for the government? i mean, it's almost unfair. so i think in a lot of ways there is a lot to be cut, and

to your point that they're hiring, maybe they should back off the hiring a bit, open the office doors, and figure out what's going on inside first. terry: we're seeing taxes go up in about 2/3 of the states at a time when we're in a deep recession. >> well, state governments are strapped. they don't have the unlimited spending capacity of the federal -- look it's an accounting identity that national income equals national product. and i mean, it's a circular flow. if people are earning money, it doesn't matter really what jobs they're in, that money equates to income, to vendors, and producers, and it's a circular flow. terry: so you don't care if they're doing nothing because they're going to spend many money? >> if the employer of -- wait -- wait. if we go up against 10% unemployment rate and the employer of last resort is the government, i'll take it. >> but they're not protective, mike. you're asking -- you are asking the productive people in the society to pay for the nonproductive people. >> how are we paying? >> it's wrong. >> have you seen my state taxes sets in that's what i'm paying

for. i'm paying so people could file. >> at the state level, you're absolutely right, because states are constrained. but if he federal level, there's no limit. >> so you're saying estimate late by increasing jobs. go ahead, jonathan. >> the states never get into trouble is because of fixing the potholes or paying for the police and the courts. it's the entitlement programs that mike loves so much. it's the medical. iments the school. that's where the money is pissed away, in my opinion. >> promote the general welfare, that's what i love. >> promote it with your own money. >> i really think welfare in that state is not considered welfare, it's considered well-being, and well -- >> that's well intent in the preamble of the constitution. >> mike, what you're talking about -- >> john, is it better that we have 10% unemployment in this nation, and we have 10%, that's a better situation? >> would you take those people and just say, ok, we're going pay you to sit at home? that's what you're saying. >> no, there's plenty of productive work that can be done. we need teachers, doctors, engineers, construction workers. >> but we have to get rid of

the bloat first. >> you're willing to -- >> there's no reason -- there's no reason why they shouldn't have a job right now. there's nothing wrong with -- the comme can get blown up. the economy didn't get blown up. we didn't get hit by an astroid. >> lch, i can't get a job, how about i become a teacher or firefighter? >> those are productive jobs. the states can't. we did that. we did that. >> the federal government can't afford to keep the lights on these days. come on, mike. it's a mess. >> the federal government can spend any amount of money it wants. the only constraint -- the only constraint is a political constraint. we're not on a gold standard where we need to have gold in the back. >> printing it makes no difference. this country will never be lowered as far as credit rating or anything. terry: wayne, wayne, settle this, ok? >> well, i can't. if mike is insistent on having nonproductive people, people who are sucking things out of the society, being paid for by

the productive people -- let me finish -- being paid for by the productive people in the society, there is no solution to that. if these people are entitled and i have to produce to pay for that guy, it's a waste. it's a total waste. just because he's there? terry: thank you, wayne. and mike, we know where you stand, so we're going to leave it there. >> i love wayne anyway. terry: and thanks to mike for joining us. coming up next -- keeping income taxes low by making it legal to get high? well, it may will be to happen in one state. someone here says it could be the cure for

terry: time for "what do i need to know" for next week. trace i? >> healthcare reform is coming, although it will not come till next year. but the taxes that will come with it probably not to 2011, big. so prepare yourself. terry: well, we're getting ready for it. ok, jonathan, i know you don't like that one, but what do we need to know? >> well, oakland, california,er it think past week became the first city to institute a tax on medical marijuana, specifically on medical marijuana. and we've got more and more of a population, including a president, who's grown up with the chronic. i think you'll see a real push to decriminalize and tax marijuana, which is good, right? i mean, it's going to raze a lot of money, and it protects the individuals' right to put whatever substance they want in their body, including cannabis, mary jane, or giggle weed.

terry: but is that fair, john? people who are on chemo need this marijuana, and this is the thing that they're taxing? >> well, i think bad jokes and cupcake sales are going to go through the roof on this legalization. no, i'm not sure the best thing to do, but there is this huge drug war and they think this will alleviate it. i'm not sure it's the thing to do. terry: ok. what do we need to know? >> zappos, doesn't sell cowboy boots, but they are a proven online retailer. they're being being bought by amazon. this is a terrific model. this changes e-tailing forever. amazon frs cut out the middle man, now they're cutting out everybody. their margins go through the like. terry: apple zonl had disappointing sales this week. >> but the way they're changing this, they're going to look for more acquisitions. and you can buy and sell it yourself. terry: especially with their high-priced stock. and wayne, you're the last up. >> well, i think j.b.l. is on to something in the long run. i don't think so in the short run. no, my pick, is i'm concerned

about the recovery here in the united states, so i'm going overeast. i like central european distributing corporation. they have the largest distributor of vodka in poland. terry: got to leave it there. thanks, wayne. that's