outperform the market? >> i can't speak for all of them. >> not you, not you. david asman, "forbes on fox," right now. ♪ ♪ ♪ captioned by closed captioning services, inc >> david: hire government worker faster. that is the order from the boss. president obama this week telling federal agencies to speed up the hiring process, but the "forbes" boss says it will slam the brakes on america's economic recovery. hi, everybody. i'm david asman. thank you for joining us. welcome to "forbes on fox." steve forbes, elizabeth mac donald z rich, stephan fitch, quinton and victoria. steve, this would kill the economic recovery? >> you don't grow an economy by growing a bureaucracy, especially one that paid more for similar work than the private sector. this is just growing a bureaucracy, getting voters in for the democrats in november. it's called cash for clunkies but not a way -- cash for

flunkies but not a way for economic growth. >> david: you're for cash for flunkies, victoria? >> no. but give obama some credit. talking about what is described as a 19th century hiring process in the government agencies more efficient, making it, you know, happen more quickly. applications fall through the cracks all the time. applicants have to write essays instead of handing in resumes and cover letters. this is about efficiency. it's good. it will save taxpayers money. he's not talking about increasing overall jobs. in this particular instance. others, yes. but i applaud the efficiency. >> david: so rich, efficiency is good everywhere, in the public sector or the private sector. >> in theory, but this one really looks suspicious, doesn't it? why didn't obama come up with the plan when he took office in 2009? what obama is deathly afraid is a shellacking in november. if the election were held

now, republicans would take the house and the democrats would lution eight at least seats in the senate. get as many people on the payroll as possible, bring unemployment down so it's less of an issue in november and create more democratic voters. what is to lose? >> david: so rich sees a plot going on here. >> he has snakes in his head, i think. here is the thing. this is going to get us better talent. think of the chump that sits for 200 days, goes through all the essay writiwriting, interviews with the federal bureaucrats and accepts a job. this will get us better people, that's what we need. >> david: elizabeth, better people in private or public sector is good, right? >> i don't know about better people. when you walk around in d.c. or offices, you can talk to bolling balls down the hallway and not hit anybody. the study was done and the guys see this, and i agree with rich. 21% average more in pay goes to the government workers

versus a marketplace. we have 850,000 people who could be paid at market rates right now in the executive branch. you save $38 billion over five years. my favorite part of the story, david, is that the i.m.f. is saying that the e.u. sickest patients in the emergency room, they're telling them now if you want an i.m.f. loan you have to get out of healthcare, get out of transportation and get out of energy. in other words, get the state out of the marketplace to save money. >> david: but here in the u.s., quinton, would it be better or worse to improve better efficiency for workers getting hired? >> you ask if it's better to improve efficiency? i'll stick my neck out. yes, it's better to improve efficiency. obama has taken flak about the spending rate, the rate at which the government stimulus was paid out. maybe he learned something, rich.

maybe he learned about hiring faster. we talk about running government more than a business. in business, you hire fast and efficient. this is faster and more efficient. >> tell you something -- >> the principle -- >> it's true that the government could do it better, the u.s. budget would be in the black and we would not be $14 trillion in the hole. >> david: rich, quinton was throwing that to you. how do you respond? >> the difference is private sector creates wealth and the government administers bureaucratic dealings. adding people faster to the government payrolls, i don't think you create wealth. that's what we need in this country if we are going to get the unemployment down and get growth back to 4%. >> victoria, go ahead. >> rich, you're being too cynical here. >> with good reason. >> what you are talking about is common sense. one of the things is having managers more involved in the hiring process. versus someone who doesn't

know the job. that makes sense. >> this is why rich is absolutely right. when government sucks up all the capital in the marketplace to pay for jobs where people aren't working, it doesn't allow the capital to go to a more productive use in the private sector. >> the private sector and capital couldn't be good for private sector. hold on, quinton. this is for steve. go ahead, steve. >> why is it that the only time the government gets efficient is when it hires bureaucrats? again, you don't grow an economy by growing bureaucracy. >> it's not efficient. >> david: quinton? >> it's not efficient. you are making comments about pay structure, which are true, but are irrelevant. if he is hiring faster, he is acting more swiftly, getting better feedback. >> why hire before reforming a pay structure? why bring all the people in before reforming the pay structure? >> why introduce -- >> david: hold on. >> liz makes a good point about the pay structure. here is the thing. the only time people are

willing to put up with the wait and byzantine structure now is when they apply to ivy league schools or declaring bankruptcy. i don't want those people in my government. >> david: rich, what is happening specifically, he is trying to cut the time people have to wait to get applications from 200 days to 80 days. all he is talking about really is streamlining the process of getting government workers, not necessarily hiring more. >> david, that's because the election is about 165 days out. i mean you can do the math and figure that out. >> you you're paranoid. >> to get as many people on the payroll as possible. >> that's a conspiracy theory stuff. >> david: forgive us for being scynical but we have seen cynicism in the beltway before, haven't we? >> yes, and i'm usually very cynical can about these things but he is taking private sector lessons and applying them to the public sector. give the guy props for doing that. he does it all the time. >> only when it comes to expand the bureaucracy. government can't run things.

it doesn't create wealth. why make it grow? i wish it took 2,000 days to get the bureaucrats -- >> as taxpayer we're spending money to shuffle paper around and get people hired. >> david, rich in theory is they vote democratic once they're hired by the government. they wouldn't vote democratic any other way. that means you vote the way your employer votes. steve, i'm going to stick my neck out and say you vote republican as a rule. do i? >> i wouldn't venture an opinion there. but in terms of government, then you know you are on the seat of the government -- quinton, you're so brilliant, you can be hired anywhere. >> hold on. [ laughter ] >> david: on the other hand, rich, it ain't for nothing that public sector employees, 34% of them are members of the union and only 7% in the private sector, so there is a difference in the way people, people's attitude and the public sector is a private sector, right? >> yeah. it ain't for nothing that the most frequent visitor to the

white house is former seiu head andy stern. he and obama are like that. this is a plot hatched by stern and obama to try to drive more people under the payroll before the election. >> david: rich has the last word on this one. coming up, why spending billions of u.s. rescue dollars to greece means more big fat bail-outs in america. that's at the bottom of the hour. first on "forbes," the three things happening in d.c. right now that are setting the stage for $5 gas this summer. he energy business. but we're also in the showing-kids- new-worlds business. and the startup-capital- for-barbers business. and the this-won't- hurt-a-bit business. because we don't just work here. we live here. these are our families. and our neighbors. and by changing lives we're in more than the energy business we're in the human energy business. chevron.

[ speaking native language ] [ moans ] [ speaking native language ] ♪ [ speaking native lauage ] [ male announcer ] doctors have been saying it forever. let's take a look. [ male announcer ] but they've never actually been able to do it like this. let's ke a look. [ male announcer ] v-scan from ge healthcare. a pocket sized imaging device that will help change the way doctorsee patients. that's better health for more people. ♪

live from america's news headquarter, i'm kelly wright. fresh attempts to stop the oil from gushing in the gulf of mexico. b.p. technicians using d.c. robots try to thread a six-inch tube with a rubber stopper in the 21-inch pipe that is spewing oil. they're all -- they've also gotten the go-ahead to use chemicals under water to break the oil up. that's never been done before and some fear the chemicals could harm the sea floor. the sole survivor of the deadly plane crash in libya is now back in the netherlands. new video in fox news showing the medical plane carrying the 9-year-old as it touches down at a military airport. the boy had been treated in libya for multiple leg fractures. the child's parents and brother were among the 103 people killed in wednesday's crashed. i'm kelly wright. join me for a brand new hour of america's news

headquarters at 1:00 p.m. eastern. now back to "forbes on fox." ♪ ♪ >> david: oil prices dropping big-time, but fears of $5 gas rising and just in time for memorial day. some here say d.c. is cooking up three plans this week that are creating the perfect petro storm. a push to hike taxes on oil, off-shore drilling and the new climate change bill. lizzy, $5 gas? >> i'm worried about $5 gas and mostly worried about the climate change and the higher taxes on this. by the way, steven, i don't think congress is going to enact a lock box for the higher taxes on oil. for the off-shore drilling, oil is spongeable market. we can't bottleneck this more government involved in the way of the oil prices at a time when the economy is struggling. >> david: $5 gas? >> anyone talking about $5 gas might be full of gas themselves. >> ooh! >> when you look at this,

europe is going in a recession and the dollar is getting stronger, which pushes down the price of oil. mission to that, if you look at the price for the new york futures, the mercantile exchange, they are betting that next month it will be $2.17 a go lon. i don't see a problem here. >> david: the gas prices, and the taxes, it could go up. >> the government will try to work to make the speculator have $2.17 gasoline. they're raising taxing, limiting supply and the federal reserve is printing money which means inflation and higher gas prices. >> david: quinton, $5 gas, is that possible? >> if summer gas prices rocket up, the oil prices should decline because the chinese have been stockpiling and they're going to stop that means that opec will overproduce. that is the big packer in gas prices -- big factor in gas prices. let's stay with the facts. we know b.p. went in without the right wildlife permits, and they ignored the warning signs in earlier in the day

and they got the workers off the rig and tried to get them to sign papers saying they sign nothing. we saw them blame each other in congress and cap liability on this this before anything happen and miscalculate the amount loss by a factor of ten. i don't think government is the problem. i think greece is the problem. i'm for offshore drilling but we need to go about it the right way. >> david: rich, despite the allegations against b.p., why should consumers pay the price with higher taxes and higher gas prices? >> they may pay higher gas prices, including $5 a gallon. probably not, but there is a real chance. if you go to summer of 2008, oil was $147 a barrel. driven largely by fear. we are seeing fear in the financial markets today with gold over $1200 an ounce now. it hasn't hit oil yet, but remember what will drive oil up is not supply and demand but fear. it's just going to take one

mass hitting the middle east which could happen this summer and gas goes to $5. >> david: steve, there are people in the administration that want $5 gas prices so americans won't drive as much because they cars in america. >> but they don't want the money to go to oil companies or private sector, they want it to go to government. >> david: so they raise taxes on gas. >> that's why -- >> david: on gasoline. >> so they're trying to punish b.p. and that's more money for the government. that's what always happens. >> david: is that going to happen? >> they always get more money. >> i agree with steve. we already see $5 and $10 gas prices per liter in places like europe. >> sure. >> so if oil was priced in sterlings, the last five years, i think steve's dollar argument is right. it's a dollar issue. if it was priced in sterling, we'd be seeing $40 a barrel over the last five years or so on average. and the b.p. oil rig wasn't an issue, it wasn't a factor in the supply side of the

equation. there wasn't even part of the market. the markets say they weren't factoring the b.p. oil discovery. >> david: neil, the fact is the price of gas sometimes go in opposite directions of the price of oil. if you have a lot of extra taxes, you should see gasoline go back up. >> you could. but people worry about the price of oil and if you look, president obama has done things republicans should like. for nuclear pow ore and that will reduce demand for other form of fuel and go ahead with offshore drilling. >> david: do you think he will oil drilling? >> it takes years to happen and it makes environmental angry but it tempers the far right allot. it's a good position for him to take and he probably will. >> david: rich, do you think there will still be offshore drilling despite what happened in the gulf? >> whether there is or there isn't, you know, that's going

to have longer-term consequences. the immediate thing to drive up the prices would be fear in the financial market that we saw, you know, last week. and there may be other shoes to drop. that is going to drive speculators to commodities and drive out up in the short term. >> david: up next, force all americans to take a d.n.a. test to find out what diseases they may get. a "forbes" flip side to save lives and healthcare cost, and our own dr. cumer joins us, but she ain't buying the argument. she's here. thing as taking a chance?

as having to decide to go for it? at the hartford, we help businesses of all kinds... feel confident doing what they do best. by protecting your business, your property, your people. you've counted on us for 200 years. let's embrace tomorrow. and with the hartford behind you, achieve what's ahead of you. ♪

>> david: a new do-it-yourself d.n.a. test that is creating controversies. they say it can detect diseases you're likely to get. walgreens was supposed to start selling the test kit this week but put the plans on hold after the f.d.a. said it wants to approve it. why wait? the "forbes" flipside says uncle sam should force all americans to take it now. rich, you're making this argument? >> it doesn't like i'm a civil libertarian here, does it? if you take money from the government, if you are going to get free healthcare, you ought to be able, you ought to throw in your d.n.a. into the data base that will help bring efficiencies and improvements. if you have a pre disposition for diabetes, find out now, because that's a really expensive disease to treat once you've got it. >> david: dr. kumar, what do you think? >> i couldn't disagree with more with his view point. the reality is jennette rick testing is a very, very complex issue.

we need to take this carefully underneath guidance of geneticist and doctor who can interpret the result. >> david: don't go to drugstore for a test. >> right. once you test for genetic disorders is one thing, but testing for chronic diseases, diabetes, glaucoma and obesity, then you have to deal with environmental and genetic factors. you could still be preexposed due to the lifestyle and that could be a bigger issue. >> david: neil? >> i know not to compete with actual knowledge but i'll tell you it's scary to think that the government, in a government healthcare program or private program will require people to hand over the genetic code for their own bodies. that is a scary thing. >> david: victoria, as you see big brother encroaching more and more on the medical decisions you don't want to throw in the mix, do you? >> i don't think you do,

because as the doctors explained, we can't -- this is science, but we can't completely pinpoint yes, when you're 40 years old you'll get breast cancer. it's not that accurate at all. so you just end up giving people a lot of anxiety, about things they may or may not truly be at risk for in the end. you know, rich is right, we should be incenting good behaviors. certainly if you are taking government dollars for healthcare but we can do that without making everyone take a d.n.a. test. >> david: steve, how would it mix in the huge massive healthcare bill we passed? >> this is form of genetic totalitarianism. they get the information and won't tell you but will decide who gets treatment or goes in front or back of line because spending money on david, is hopeless, so let him go. governments, i don't worry about the consumers. they'll misuse it. but government will misuse it and hurt our health and then use it as excuse to tell us

what to eat, go to bed and that things. we're adults. they haven't gotten the message then. >> david: rich, you heard a lot of evidence against your argument. what do you say as a comeback? >> i say if you are taking the government money for free healthcare you have an obligation to dance to the piper's tune. if you have a predisposition to diabetes then let's find out and you start eating better and exercising. >> david: doctor? >> rich, honestly, it's such a complex issue and to say people should hand over the d.n.a. because they're getting money from the government is a wrong concept. as a physician where i take an oath of first do no harm, i'm saying you have to live with the information that may or may not hold true. you may test positive genetically for a diabetes problem but guess what? you may never get it. you may get hit by a bus before you get a genetic disease and now you're dealing with issues of depression, people living in anxiety, real anxiety and that will create more

problems. >> david: rich, it's still an inexact science and you can't make critical life decisions based on this. >> yeah, it's going to get better. a century ago people had doubts about fingerprints and ten years ago we had doubts about the d.n.a. testing for crime. the stuff does get better. i'm an armchair economist and i say first do no harm to the economy. the obama healthcare plan is going to tank the economy unless we bring technology, databases, efficiency and best practices in the mix. >> david: we gave you the last word because you hold up one side of the argument. coming up, they're hotter than the steamy photos taken for the miss usa pageant. there are informers for hot stocks. how about that for an excuse to show these pictures? that's next. @c okay, one more time. where do we stand?

less travel? more video conferences? limit theell phone minutes. that's not good enough. we're not leaving this room unless we can t something else. can they really keep us here?

what about all this stuff? what stuff? all this stuff. what does it cost to create all this? time, fort, people. how much? it could be millions. ♪ millions. [ male announcer ] save money. trust your business processes to xerox. xerox. ready for real business. >> david: we are back with the former stocks as hot as the miss usa photos. neil, vegas? >> las vegas sands, hot stock, casinos in singapore and beth le mem, pennsylvania and -- bethlehem, pennsylvania, and trading low earnings of projected growth. >> david: kim? >> i think the regulatory commission is considering new rules and regulations for casinos and they're possibly considering new taxes from the federal government. the s&p has an accelerating on this company, so i would say no, don't buy it. >> david: you're saying yes to warnico, a sportswear company. why? >> yes, they sell bras,

underwear and under the calvin klein brand. more conservative than what the miss usa contestants would wear but the company had a blow-out quarter. bullish forecast. if you look at the three-year chart, this is the time they see the gains -- >> david: quickly, do you like it or not? >> hell, no. they don't pay a dividedividend. >> david: you like arm & hammer or the company that makes them, church and dwight. why? >> they have the sexiest brand in town, trojan, including the trojan essential massager. >> david: vicky? >> no. too expensive. >> david: what do you like? >> i like energizer and they make stick razors. what is sexier than the close shave? >> david: that's right. energizer bunny. >> this is a battery maker losing power here. i don't see where the growth comes from. >> david: that's it for "forbes on fox." have a wonderful weekend. thank you for watching. keep it right here. the number one business block