again with the polling indicator. >> there are times when you just don't say anything. >> can't get enough of that huggie bear, huggie bear ♪ "cavuto on business" is up next. >> president obama hammering home his new $586 billion healthcare plan this weekend and the big selling point, it pays for itself with something washington has never achieved before -- savings. hello, everybody. i'm charles payne in for neil cavuto. will the's get reaction. matt, the government saving

money. i can't even say it with a straight face. >> it doesn't make sense to me. in an ideal world we would cut the pork and be able to pay for this bill. however, the government has never done this in the past. if you look at the plan, he talks about cutting $500 billion. that's coming from medicare which is already in deep problems. he is shifting it from one area to another n my mind, there is no way they are going to save and it is going to cause a great deficit. >> ben, you are the resident historian here. has the government ever been able to save money on a plan this ambitious? >> never, and it is a sign of an amateurish politician that is saying he is going to take it out of waste, fraud and abuse in medicare. it will never happen. politicians would consider that a laugh outloud joke t doesn't happen. it will affect old people's health and welfare. there will be a bad relationship, a worsened relationship between patient and, doctor, all in the name of giving health insurance to a small percentage of the people

whom he just could have given money to to buy health insurance plans. it is a complete revamp of the american system to help a tiny amount of people. >> and $500 billion, it seems so unrealistic of savings. >> i have a question and a radical thought. my question is when did we become to be such pessimists? what happened to reagan-style optimism? this country? >> there is a difference between pessimist and realist. we're talking $500 billion. have you ever seen a government achieve anything that large? >> what makes us think, charles, that just because we haven't been able to do something before that we can't do it now? >> we're talking about an immense problem that has gone on a long time. do you really think it will

happenen? >> he broke that record and runners ran even faster miles in the ensuing years after records were broken. by the way, if we could get bipartisan support for whatever legislation we do have, then both sides of congress will be invested in this bill and helping do their constitutional job of enforcing the cost cuts. >> may i do my ben stein immitation once again even though ben is here. "politicians do not cut spending." they don't. they can't say no to anybody. witness medicare. nobody wants it touched. we have a -- at the best estimate, a $37 trillion hole with medicare over 75 years. >> this is what i don't understand. how come they are telling us they will cut this and why should americans believe him? >> because the way the bills are laid out, you need a ph.d. in mathematics to real lir figure

them out. you look at the ten-year spending. it's ten years of taxes only covering about 6 and a half, 7 years worth of spending so if you actually look out ten years of the spending that goes on in the baucus bill, it's actually closer to about one and a half trillion, not the numbers that you're seeing. >> i want to go back to you for a minute because here is my bigger question. let's say we don't get these savings. where does the money come from then? well, one of the unpleasant truths is -- let's come to the savings in a moment. we have to get the revenues. that's going to be very unpleasant. >> where do we get it from snr. >> where we get the revenues is from the taxes in the baucus bill on the insurance companies, and on the more expensive insurance plans. now, if we don't pass the legislation with those new revenue enhancements, taxes, fees, whatever you call them, it doesn't matter what you call them, we need the money for

this, then we won't have a man, we won't have this legislation. after, that we need to get the savings we don't get the savings, we grow the deficit and i'm wrong and you're right. >> isn't this too dang are russ to be won? i mean it is not about one upmanship here. we are talking about the government saving $500 billion and no one believes that can happen. even adam who would like to support this can't say it can happen. >> i agree. nobody believes it. look at the polls on healthcare, americans are not behind it anymore because they don't believe what obama is trying to sell us. they is given up on him. to go back to ben's point about healthcare getting worse, i agree. if we start talking the medical device companies, healthcare companies, there will be less innovation, worse healthcare and we will be waiting in line. at the end of the day, it will cost our government even more money. >> so at some point, though, let's just say the savings

number, they are going to keep that in there. do you think they can get away with any sort of savings at all, not $500 billion, but is it possible? >> they can claim savings? they will do lessening of reserves and other accounting things to claim savings. they can't get any real savings. we all love optimism. that's what we loved about ronald reagan but we are talking about the whole experience of the human race. we cannot expect the whole experience of the human race to be changed. >> here is where us american humans will get savings out of this. we had a doctor on the fox business network who pointed out that doctors don't like having the conversations with patients that you need this procedure or this test, do you have health insurance? well, doc, i don't have insurance, would i would rather not do the tests. that person gets sicker. that adds expenses into the system that are run necessary. the less expensive way to treat that patient is to do it right the first time. if we get people insured, then

we have a chance at saving money down the road. that's what this is about. that's why we have to do something now. that's why the president is expending his political capital on this. >> that is a fantasy. that is a pure fantasy. in fact, the doctors say don't make us do so many tests. what most doctors say is you are wreafting money on unnecessary tests. you have it exactly backwards. o i got to tell you, adam, you bring up something very important. the fox business network, if people don't have it, call your cable operators and demand it right now. >> now we're all in agreement! with the people who don't have insurance that you are getting it for, it brings it down to closer to 30 million. >> there are many ways that you can insure millions of people who aren't on medicaid who can get on it who just aren't on it. there are ways for you to insure

the uninsured, adam, to your point, without ripping up our entire health insurance system, which insures 85% of americans. >> by the way, do you think if we added 46 million more people to medicare and medicaid, that would create more fraud, waste and abuse? >> it certainly won't drive the costs down. >> costs will go up! >> all righty, guys. well, the one and only winner this new healthcare bill, steve forbes says it will be trial lawyers. he ain't happy about that. up next, we hate to say we told you so but we told you so. a new plan si was held on the

property for 18 years before being found. >> banker's salaries today, your salary tomorrow. a new thing by the federal government that says they have the final say on all bank employees pay. this worries you?

>> yeah, because you target one industry. who is going to be next? any business doing a lot of business with the federal government, who does that include? maybe the defense industry. you give the government a little bit of power. maybe it works. you know they will take more and there's nothing you can do to stop t. >> what's crazy about this is a lot of people smelled this coming for a long time and every time they said something about it, they were shot down. >> what is really crazy is the banking industry brought this on themselves. the finance industry has been paying themselves wildly too much for a long, long time, but i don't think that's true at the smaller non-money center banks, so i'm not sure what the fed is doing poking its big nose into that and it is very scary to think of the federal government regulating salaries, especially without legislation. there's no legislation authorizing this! where is the law authorizing this? what happened to the constitution? >> they went back through the federal reserve act and found one line, i think, that gave

them the authority. >> an obscure law they found somewhere going through the books, but here is the thing -- >> i don't think that will do it. >> here is the thing, though. we're talking about not just the top 100 guys at the tarp banks. we're talking about loan officers -- loan officers having the government look over their shoulders. how can they do their jobs? >> it started off with the bigwigs. nobody cared. but now it's going down to the middle class. it is a loan officer and what they're really going after here is risk. they want to lower the risk so they're not giving away bad loans so i understand that, but what is next? do we go after surgeons who do risky surgerys? is it all about risk? it will go from tarp to regular banks and then what industry? i'm scared. >> not only what industry is next but what about the little guy out. there if i'm a mortgage loan officer and i know the government is looking over my shoulders, am i going to give a loan to someone who might be on the cuss many? isn't the end of the day who

will pay the price of this the average person on main street? >> no, patently not, so we can introduce a segment with a sinister tone about what industry is next or talk about the facts which is that the fed has said that banks over a billion in assets, which is about 700 of them, are under the purview of what they're looking at here with their power and authority as the fed to regulate systemic risk. that's all they're looking at. they're not looking at defense contractors. await a second. help us understand in. how does the fed looking over the shoulder of a loan officer mitigate risk? it just makes this person do fewer loans. >> ok, i will. if there were a loan officer who had it in his or her power to make loans that got into the $20 billion range that could bring down the system, then the fed would say i'm stepping in to make sure that this person isn't making a ridiculous amount of money and taking undue risks with the system at the same

time. if that loan officer is lending money to a company down the street, the fed could care less. >> i think that there is a sense out there that this goes beyond, you know, just the banks. this is sort of punitive, that this is sort of -- people are making too much money, particularly bankers in general. this is a disguise to go in and crush or cram down on these sort of salaries. >> well, the wealth gap is not narrowing the way people thought it would, so if the government has the power or can find the power or maybe even ben's concern is create it to go in an reg hate somebody's pay, good or bad, i guarantee that the financial industry figures out a way around it, and as companies have in the past and there is the knock-down effect. you cap salaries like in the early '90's and companies came up with stock options which helped fuel the internet bubble. >> where does this stop, though, because it looks like it won't just stop with the banks? >> it will stop when mr. obama

is not in office anymore. this administration is determined to gab power wherever it can. $100 billion is not a big bank. even banks in north idaho are that big. it is a reridiculous idea. you might say the commerce department can regulate interstate commerce, so can now everything be regulated? this is a dangerous administration that has disregard for the law. >> first, if you don't like the news, maybe it is the person delivering the news and that%%

>> remember when president obama had that highly unusual meeting in the white house with the head of the congressional budget office? the same c.b.o. chief who argued that the healthcare savings didn't add up, you should see how the numbers are starting to change now. not only are they down, he actually finds they are going to reduce the deficit. do you think it is a coincidence? >> no it is not a coincidence. presidents try to browbeat bureaucrats all the time to giving estimates in line with the president's agenda. what is unusual is to have the congressional budget office be in on this. i remember reagan beating up the head of the office of the o.m. b, stockman, about his estimates

which contradicted reagan's estimates but that was not congress. it is the fact that congress is caving into the president that is so worrisome, genuinely scary, once again, a disregard for the constitution. >> matt, this is -- listen, this is not just a small change. we're talking about initially when this plan came out being almost a trillion dollars off to now savings in billions. that is an incredible flip-flop. >> i would be behind this change if they made a change to the plan that big. suddenly the numbers changed overnight. the head of the c.b.o. went in there and was struck like a teenaged girl sitting with her favorite pop singer. he was like, well, whatever you want, mr. obama. he moved over, pushed the numbers down. >> it is really sad. what is the savings, $49 billion? whoop de-doo! $49 billion out of a $9

trillion in additional debt that we're going to add over the next ten years. that's half of 1%, charles. yeah! that's not going to do it. >> even then, it seems a little scary. adam, something smells rotten here, ok. you have czars that are circumventing congress, at least a lot of people feel that way. you have the c.b.o. now coming in dramatically on what they feel about the healthcare cost of this bill. where is the checks and balances for the average american? i guess my nose doesn't work as well as yours does, charles. i don't smell the same odor you do. there are checks and balances. we, for example, provide a check on the executive branch. so does congress. i think it's insulting to say that this guy changed his mind because the president told him to. people are subject to persuasion. i dare say if you had a one on one with the president and he walked you through some of this thinking you just might modify your position a little bit,

charles, and i wouldn't criticize you for it. >> the danger is in believing in purity of government. >> also, adam, you remember at the time of the meeting how unusual it was for him to go up there. the c.b.o. the audience should understand is supposed to be neutral and for him to go up there, anything that comes out of him from now on seems suspect, particularly when he can make a 180 turn to this degree. >> there have been changes to the plan. we're talking about a plan that isn't even a plan. we're talking about legislation that is being amended and tweaked all the time. that may explain some of the changes in his numbers. >> ben? >> how can you give any estimate if there is no plan, adam? why are we even talking about it. there is no plan. why don't we wait until the president comes up with an actual plan? >> the bottom line, it seems like that was the main critic initially when a man came out initially and started to turn the tide for the public and all of a sudden the c.b.o. may be in

the president's pocket, adam, that doesn't scare you? >> concern would be a better word. i'll continue to trust are the guy. his bosses in congress will either continue to trust limb or fire him. i mean, remember, the democrats in congress go up against the president all the time. they don't march in lockstep on this, so we'll still get some research in an hour from now. >> the american people don't believe him.

>> in case the government goes after your paycheck, we have the stocks to help you make it all up. >> the rackspace holdings, making money in the cyber environment. it is a great long term technology play. >> very interesting company.

i don't think any individual investors should look at companies that trade for 40 times their 2010 earnings. it is too expensive to speculate in. >> what are you looking at? >> ford. that's the one that's not controlled by the government, charles, and i think ford is a proxy on the american economy. it is going to be one step ahead of the other automakers. >> which is why they're not controlled by the government. ben, you got to like ford. do you like this one? >> i'm puzzled. ford is trading and an infinite amount of earnings since it has no earnings but ford is a fine company. mr. mullally is a super chief executive. they make great cars. i think it is a good bet for the long term, a very good bet. >> what do you like, ben? >> i like efa, that index fund for the developed countries, europe and country. i just don't think individual stocks can be picked by the individual investo