$10. >> and eric. >> and brenda, they celebrated 6 trillion dollars in spending, pass that down. and champagne, so, when you spend like that, you devalue the dollar and things go up like agricultural commodities. >> pull the plug, eric. >> let's do it. >> boy i tell you the story of bolling's life. >> here you go. >> cavuto on business is up next! this show is over. >> just say no to the gaitway drug, president obama's debt commission calling for a ban on all congressional ear marks. and now, republicans senator jim demint will be seeing if his own party has the guts to do it on tuesday. critics of the crackdown say it's only going to save about 16 billion bucks and saying nothing of the three adepositional government programs, and that 16 billion helped secure. hi, i'm neil cavuto. and charles payne, dagen mcdowell, add laam lashinsky of

making earmarks, everyone keeps saying it's a drop in the bucket and yet no one has the will to let it go. let it go, the people have spoken. i find it interesting that this would be a big problem with in the republican party. >> big worry to me. >> a lot of the big republicans are saying if we don't, if we don't keep this, then the president has it. the message was to everyone on capitol hill, no, none of you have it. none of you have the right to spend this money anymore, that's what the people said. >> and i believe mitch mcconnell used this language the legislative blank check if you don't preserve the ear marksou're essentially handing that power over to the executive branch and to the white house. why are they fixated on 2% of spending, why not focus on the other 98% of spending, the real concern in this country other than being fixated on the mon they can get their hands on. well, you know, ben, i hear of 16 billion it's chump change

and i guess the times that we live in that it is, but i'm saying if it is chump change you're not going to miss it. >> and exactly right. he think charles nailed it. if you guys were saying it's live yal, just as charles said, let it go, but the point is that nobody ever seems to grasp, this is some hard earned person's money. someone is out there out to school, stamping metal parts, tilling the field in the hot sunday and his or her money they're spending and it isn't free money, when will they ever learn? >> adam, you know, senators and others say in support of ear marks, if we didn't have ear marks, we wouldn't have the hum-vees and armor for troops in afghanistan and the military drones and my argument is, well, if these various projects and incidents are so valuable they could stand a stand alone legislation. why do you need to glom them on? if they're in their own

measure valuable? i don't understand the earmark value. >> you don't. you don't need to do it that way, neil, you're absolutely right. there is no value to them. having said that, i just want to sort of-- >> that wasn't the way to-- see, that was not the-- a whole other follow-up for that. continue, continue. >> i mean, i do subscribe to the school of thought that it's a-- because it's a relatively small number it's not worth getting too hot and bothered by. having said that, if it is symbolic, it is-- if these things are worthy, they should be part of other legislation and furthermore, you know, the debt commission having included in their report that they put out is so sensible that that tells me that it doesn't have a chance in heck of any of it getting supported politically. but ben talking about people worked hard for this money and charles saying the message was you know, get your hands off of my money.

i reject that completely. congress's job is to spend our money, it's a side show. >> well, they're doing a very good job of it. >> adam, adam. >> and the difference in san francisco, but believe me, the rest of the country that was a message loud and clear. >> neil: adam. >> and adam, we just want them to spend it sensibly and carefully and as a bribe to constituency. of course it's their job to spended money. >> now we're clear. >> we want them to spend it responsibly. >> neil: and dagen, what about, it is the gateway to securing votes for much more expensive legislation, a trillion dollar health care bill that becomes law $3 trillion dollar stimulus package and it's the way that we buy all kind of things. >> absolutely, there's the issue of abuse of the money, and waste, but also, it

potentially changes the way that lawmakers do their job, but it's all about, i'm going to get my hands on this money and get myself reelected so they're not thinking about, particularly the senate, the common good of the country. they're thinking about the common good of their own livelihood. so it can potentially change the way that people think about representing their constituents and the economy. >> furthermore, neil, i think what's going on with the republicans are fascinating. we are going to unilaterally say that we don't, we don't want to do these things anymore, i think that would be a great act of statesmanship. i would like to see them succeed. because not only would it show them their own party-- >> yes, i do. >> it would shame the democrats, too, and with people, politicians might just start doing things because they think it's the right thing instead of you know, what's best for getting reelected and i think both parties should do that and i think the president should do it and he has done it. >> well, you know, i agree with that you on that count, but when i hear it's intended.

>> i'm sorry, when i hear it's intended and saying it's a time honored tradition. well, simply because it's been going on a long time doesn't make it any more effective. you've been acting like an ant and what i think happens here, is we accept it as part of just the way we do business. and what i fear about all of these, you know, bright-eyed bushy tailed tea partiers coming into party, some guy putting an arm around youngman, young lady this is the way we do things here and sucking the life out of it. >> this is dove tailing what dagen said, it's called corruption, the word. they have been corrupted by power and would like to corrupt the younger guys and gals by the same power. and that power is so seductive. even though we're talking about a small amount of money we're still talking about the same center of power and not give it up. you can argue whether it's old school, unconstitutional. it doesn't matter. by the way, yeah, we sent

representative elect and spent team to congress to spend money, but not to spend all the money and not to spend money we don't have and that was-- >> you know, ben, what worries me the most here clearly, was we send very aggressive, you know, got to do it or die cabinet to washington and something happens, it's like a st stepford wife thing the spark and sizzle is sucked out of them. they look great at a party, but what happens? >> well, imagine you took somebody who is a shop girl and you gave her a million dollars and then you said, okay, after a year you have to go back to being a shop girl and work behind the counter selling hosiery. she wouldn't like it too much. she likes staying there as a millionaire. that's sort of the way it is with the used car salesman who become congressmen, they will do anything to keep the job. it's prestigious and glamorous. they'll do anything to keep

the job. >> neil: we're not talking about mrs. stein here, just to be clear. go to foxnews.com/cost of freedom and should the debt commission permanent began the pork projects. and popular tax breaks like biggies for mortgages and college tuition. the forbes gang says why stop there, get rid of all of them. how many of you remember this? >> if you make less than $250,000 a year your taxes will not increase one single time. one single dime. one single dime. >> that was a lot of dimes ago. then candidate obama setting the bar for what it means to be rich, but now, did we just find out the new rich is more like $100,000? yellowbook has always been crucial to your business,

but now, to get it really cooking, you need a little website development. some transparent reporting, so you know it's working. online ads and 1-on-1 marketing consultation. yellowbook's got all that. yellowbook360 has a whole spectrum of tools. the perfect recipe for success. visit yellowbook360.com and go beyond yellow.

>> hi everyone. live from america's news headquarters, i'm jamie colby. president obama calling on congress to live test projects. in the weekly address the president is saying the u.s. cannot afford unnecessary spending right now. >> chance to advance the interests not of republicans or democrats, but of the american people. to put our country up past a fiscal discipline and responsibility that will lead to a brighter economic future for all. >> and in the republican weekly address, oregon congressman greg wall done saying the incoming house majority is looking at ways to cut spending and reform congress. >> we're also tracking down every last rule and roadblock, ready to keep government spending binge on autopilot. if we're going to change the

broken status quo we need to make it easier to cut spending and harder to increase it. >> i'm jamie colby on the fox news channel. >> neil: first it was a million and 250,000 and now the new rich making a hundred grand and even 50 grand and the insurance premiums 14% for workers pulling in over 100,000 a year and vant built university jacking up rates on employees and taking home at least $50,000. >> well, we've seen it. this is class warfare and et cetera in some ways working into the private sector and at least it is the private sector making these decisions with some of the health care plans and you charge more to wealthy people and then charge for their footing the bill for the lower paid workers of the company, but the danger is, don't you think that the white house is going to say, oh. >> bank of america says. >> bingo, it's 100,000 and you actually heard some of that from president obama speak

being in asia at the g-20 summit where he seemed to suggest, you know what we're going to cut some. we're not going to cut what i like and maybe we're going to have to raise taxes on everybody. he didn't quite say it that way, but he is certainly suggested it. >> a lot of people read the whole statement and he said, showed it to me, i didn't understand any of it. what he said. >> because he's a politician. >> neil: i thought it was sort of me. but charles, i mean, it's private enterprise is lowering its definition of what is considered rich, you can't tell me any self-respecting congressman or politician, if i could combine the two, isn't looking at that, saying, hey. >> no doubt about it. but i think that bank of america and citibank are special exceptions because the government still has their hooks into them and i see-- >> didn't they give all the money bank. >> i think that bank of america still owes quite a bit of money, but they've been playing nice with the administration for a long time and not only have we reclassified what rich is,

this is classic redistribution and you're taking from me and i'm paying the other guy and it is very frightening in so many respects because it's-- >> as long as you were taking it from-- >> because people are going to say you know what you're making making 100 grand and only 10% make 100 grand and 42 million on food stamps. >> you're about that. >> what happened. >> you know, ben stein, i find that in all the races a couple of weeks ago, the one that really gets to me, it wasn't a race, but a referendum. not too far from washington state. where voters were looking at an is your tax, vote yea or nay on an surtax and they rejected it and these weren't the rich guys rejecting their own increase. are we not or are politicians not getting that? >> i think what we're under-- what we're making a slight bit of confusion here if i may

respectfully say so to my dear friend dagen and you and charles, i don't think it's class warfare if a private employer said upper income employees are going to pay more. i don't think it's class warfa warfare. i think it's clearly the plan of the administration to go down and down and down get to tax revenue. i don't see a way around it. i think it's in the recession to do this, but i think this is where we're heading. >> neil: ben, next time i'd like you to just go along. if you don't mind. [laughter] >> adam, what if this were a trial balloon. and if it works for citigroup, maybe it will work elsewhere? >> well, it is, i suppose it will work elsewhere, neil. i think i'll amplify what ben said. we're using awful backward logic, you raised it in the question to charles, neil. the private sector has spoken on this. they're not saying these people are rich, they're saying this is the level of-- above which we're going to charge you more, as our

employees. charles, this is the free market speaking. this is an employer saying this is what we think we can afford and what we don't think we can afford. >> it's bank of america speaking you're absolutely right now. i don't know what kind of favors they're going to get as far as implementing this so-called trial balloon, but it is defining one group of people-- and other money-- >> looking beyond their expenses. >> charles there are-- charles, there simply are people with more ability to pay than other people. >> but you can't say that on 100 grand, they may have a bigger mortgage, more kids. >> and may be supporting many, many, people as i am. but, but, that person may still have a greater ability to pay-- >> and also-- >> at least in the private sector, if you work for one of these companies you have the choice of leaving. but in this day and age, people are having policy and tax policy shoved down their throats by the democrats. >> well, all i know is that

ben and adam did not play along, but they will not be coming back. we'll have charles-- >> and me. >> neil: charles and dagen maybe and me with some family slides. [laughter] >> but going green, the white house with another program making homes more energy efficient. other green programs didn't work, but this one will? >> i would like to survive long enough to see the effects of global warming, i have an inside tip it's all about your crab. [ advisor 1 ] what do you see yourself doing one week, one month, five years after you do retire? ♪ client comes in and they have a box. and inside that box is their financial life. people wake up and realize i better start doing something. we open up that box. we organize it. and we make decisions. we really are here to help you. they look back and think, "wow. i never thought i could do this."

but we've actually done it. [ male announcer ] visit ameriprise.com and put a confident retirement more within reach. how'd you do that? do what? it tastes t good to be fiber. you made it taste like chocolate. it has 35% of your daily value of fiber. do it again. turn it into somethintasty. this guy's doing magic. there's chocolate chips in here now. how'd you do that? right! tasty fiber, that's a good one! ok, umm...read her mind. what's she thinking? that's right! i'm not thinking anything! [ male announcer ] fiber one chewy bars. cardboard no. delicious yes. . >> neil: didn't we just do this. the government pushing back to make low interest loans to go more green. when will they learn? he said a big winner

>> talk about risking green to go green. going low interest loans to home owners and up to 25,000 smackers to make the house more energy efficient and then i guess we didn't learn anything from the first credit, but here we go again. >> the wall street journal has a series of editorials brilliant on this subject pointing out the way of subsidizing green energy and green energy production is gigantic expensive boon dogle. the cost you pay for limiting one ton of emission is breath takingly larger than any other technology means of doing it and now we've learned most bet on this, they're the world leader and producing new technology, energy gathering and producing equipment. i don't see the point of taxing a coal miner or an oil production worker for a farmer in wisconsin to pay for some architect or some hippy in boulder colorado to use solar power.

what's the point of that and why are we taxing-- >> if any of these technologieses, green technology, you would not need the government being in the middle of it 7500 credit to buy an electric vehicle? we can go on and on about how taxpayer money is being flushed. >> neil: there goes our hippy demographic. [laughter] >> yeah, right, charles, what do you think of that. and we're where we transfer a credit from one to another. >> some would call these reckless loans. i'm not going to say who, but we're going to give you taxpayer money to fix up your house and by the way, you've got 20 years to pay it back. how long does the average person even stay in a house these days. it's just-- these are risky crazy loans we were warned by the government, wall street should have never made and they're paying a big price for it and they're nefarious for doing it and by the way the government is going to put a seal on your house once you get it done

like if someone comes and looking at buying your house and the neighbors you've got the seal on it, yeah, green. >> and insert a camera and watch you, too, right, charles. >> i tell you what, adam, this is really, to hee what this is also taking us toward is a point where if we're all going to have to do this, one at some point mandatory and we're all going to want that seal and have to have that. >> so, adam, as a liberal. do you feel guilty? [laughter] >> you've offended all of my hippy friends already and-- >> that wasn't me. >> and now show my-- let's not get carried away here, charles, certain things do become mandatory, like catalytic converters in cars, that was probably a good thing. we have some good history with this sort of thing, but i would not equate this, i would not call this a risky loan alongside-- >> come on. >> all of the-- >> you've got to be kidding me. >> the things that happened in the crisis. >> and the solar panels that are expensive and you've got

20 years to pay it back? >> no, they will add some value to your house. now, we can debate whether or not they're going to help global warming, i'm not going to get into that. i agree with what dagen said about electric cars, but they're not going to bring down the financial system as we know it. >> adam, do you have kids? adam, do you have kids? >> i do. >> neil: all right, are they teenagers? >> no. >> neil: try giving them. >> four-year-old daughter. >> neil: see how that goes. it's a risky project. we'll take a quick break. you were listening to this guy six months ago you'd be buying this guy a drink. a pick from charles payne up over 80%, and find out the next big winners from the big fella. [ technician ] are you busy? management just sent over these new technical manuals. they need you to translate them into portuguese. by tomorrow.

[ male announcer ] ducati knows it's better for xerox to manage their global publications. so they can focus on building amazing bikes. with xerox, you're ready for real business.

man 0 man, remember that one? too bad you don't. charles payne picked aruba networks at the end of may. he's giving us 3 new names ready to hit new heights. >> let's start with level 3. this week we signed a huge

contract with one of the hottest companies out there, netflix. it will be a huge winner. >> what do you make of level 3 as a pick? >> well, i think it's already in the news that they signed a contract with netflix. this is a company that's already selling at a very high price. i'm not sure it has meaningful earnings, actually. good luck with it. >> that's a very con descending slapdown, i think. >> charles, what do you think? >> i love these shell plays, a lot of accusations, stocks down a lot from the all time high. i love the risk reward on it. >> adam? >> you'd be better off with oil features which has done better than this one. >> charles, your final pick? >> see if i can make anyone happy. >> cloud computing, digital technology, just missed the earnings estimate but incredible potential for this one to go up.