tv Forbes on FOX FOX News April 7, 2012 8:00am-8:30am PDT
but i love emerging markets. >> guys, all have a very safe, holy weekend and viewers as well, as we continue with the holy quest for money, more on fox. on fox. >> you think president obama's comments about the nations highest cost are striking a firestorm? wait until you here this. some say it isn't just about the fate of the healthcare law, but fate of all business in america. hi, everybody. i'm stuart varney. let's go into more on this. dennis, you say private businesses have a huge stake in all of this. >> they really do. let's remember, from the obama administration, the way they have demonized wealth creation, demonized capitalism and suspicious of big business, we cannot trustee selected politics
to affect the basic pursuit of property. we have to trust the courts. courts of really born to step in and stop a bureaucracy from running amuck the way the fcc has done and others going after businesses and ignoring court precedent. thank goodness the court is there. sometimes politicians don't want to protect business. >> all right. steve, do we need a strong supreme court to protect private business from anti-business laws? >> the supreme court, stuart, should not be a chamber of commerce. the laws should be constitutional, period. some laws are heightened, some student. if they are high regulations, high tacks, throw the bums out that put it in and change the laws but the supreme court should add here to the constitution and not be a special advocate. >> where are you on this? >> i agree with steve. basically the courts doesn't have term limits and they are unaccountable. the founding fathers will say
that they wanted a judicial review, alexander hamilton and james madison said that in the federalist papers. but the supreme court has weighed in on decisions from the epa, for example that's correct affect businesses or decisions that affect, you know, basically generic drug makers, but then the congress has stepped in and reversed and done its own legislation to back out what the supreme court has done. it did that in 1991 and 1998. i see this as all part of checks and balances. >> okay. rick ungar. >> i like what steve forbes had to say. what a great line. the supreme court is not the chamber of commerce. look, when you say strong, is that another word for activist? for years conservatives have railed against an activist court. this isn't the team for it to start. the supreme court is there to interpret laws to make sure that they exist in accordance with the constitution. if big business has a problem, take it up with your super pac, take it up with your
congressmen. it is not the job of the supreme court to look after your interests. >> morgan, where are you coming from on this? >> i actually completely wholeheartedly agree with that. it is not the job of the supreme court to protect or not protect businesses. the job of the supreme court is to protect the constitution. marbury versus madison, it's a 209 year ruling and it's there for a ruling. if you really -- if businesses want to be protected, they need to go to congress. that is the job of congress. if those laws that congress puts in place, economic regulations, are unconstitutional, then is goes to the supreme court. a strong supreme court is one that protects the constitution, not businesses. >> dennis, people are saying, look, the supreme court is not a chamber of commerce. do you think it is? >> you know what, the supreme court is there to make sure that politicians don't screw it up. and that's what politicians keep doing. you know, let's think about this. it was a law that stopped companies from being able to exercise their free speech rights and make campaign
contributions. it was the u.s. supreme court issued rulings that said you can't stop a company from doing that and it was our president obama who criticized the u.s. supreme court at the state of the union address right as they sat there in the front row. something that no modern president i don't think had ever done and that marbury versus madison precedent, that's the one that let the courts second guess what lawmakers passed pap larry, and that is what flew in the face of obama's comments when he decided a court should never overturn a popular elected body's law. >> but not actual economic regulations unless they relate to constitutionality. the last time the supreme court voted one way or the other specifically on business regulations, as they affected the economy as a whole, was the 1930s. it was the new deal. the last one was carter versus carter -- >> hold on a second. >> 1930s the last time? i don't think that's right. >> specifically looking at how government regulates the economy, yes. everything else since then has been -- >> hold on, everybody.
the supreme court surely is not pro capitalist or anti-capitalist or pro-business or anti-business. the surely, bill baldwin, pro constitution. >> thank god there's a supreme court. it elected wal-mart from being looted by from trial lawyers who had no case at all and thank god it decided citizens united. that said they have first amendment rights. thank god it did it or we would have congress enacting laws saying the wall street journal can't publish articles criticizing wall street journal. thank god there is a supreme court. >> and the free speech, property rights, sometimes they stray from that, but if it helps business, sobeit. if it hurts a particular business, sobeit. we tend to think business is one thing but it isn't. you take rent control, you take
trusts. so they interpret the constitution but the basically thing is they have to uphold basic rights like property rights. >> liz, come back into this. i think the supreme court has been doing a pretty good job of keeping us free over the centuries and you say -- >> i agree, stuart. it has been doing a very good job. it is highly unusual for a sitting president to come out and criticize the supreme court before the supreme court has ruled. george w did criticize the supreme court in 2007, but that was on prior rulings. we've never seen this in modern history. >> last word bill. >> he didn't do that. >> i think the threat of the first the first amendment is not an idol one. steve, didn't the fcc go after you for running editorials? thank god we have that system. >> rick, i'll go to you for the last 20 seconds. go. >> there's way too much agreement breaking out here. i would love to be more controversial. let me just point out that president obama has not criticized the supreme court as he said. >> oh, yeah, he did. >> what? >> no, no, he did not.
>> at the state of the union, baby. >> he criticized them and they haven't ruled yet so he didn't criticize them. >> hold on then. >> what do you call it then? >> liz, the last word. >> he absolutely did criticize them and attempt today in tim indicate the supreme court. >> you want argument, you will get it. >> you can't intimidate the supreme court. >> you want argument, you are going to get it. >> this is america, not venezuela. >> you want argument, you will get argument. forget about wisconsin voters giving mitt romney a big win this week. forget about that. are they getting ready to give taxpayers in every state a big win? you will decide next. um...this green line just appeared on my floor. yeah, that's fidelity helping you reach your financial goals.
could you hold on a second? it's your money. roll over your old 401(k) into a fidelity ira and take control of your personal economy. this is going to be helpful. call or come in today. fidelity investments. turn here. [ male announc ] you plant. you mow. you grow. you dream. meet the new definition of durability: the john deere select series. with endless possibilities, what will you create?
mine was earned off vietnam in 1968. over the south pacific in 1943. i got mine in iraq, 2003. usaa auto insurance is often handed down from generation to generation. because offers a superior level of protection, and because usaa's commitment to serve the military, veterans and their families is without equal. begin your legacy, get an auto insurance quote. usaa. we know what it means to serve. >> live from america's news headquarters, hello, i'm juli. rescue teams saying everyone is accounted for after a navy jet crashes into an apartment complex in virginia beach.
this unbelievable aftermath caught on camera. flames seen spewing out of the buildings' windows. the jet sliced into pieces. amazingly no deaths reported so far. seven people injured. they believe the jet experienced a catastrophic mechanical malfunction during take off. nuclear plant is out oflili commission indefinitely until crews can figure out what's wrong with it. the plant has been shut down since this winter when radioactive gas escaped from a steam generator during a water leak. officials say there was no harm to the public health but can't identify the problem as of yet. i'm juli. see you again at 1:00 p.m. eastern. we are hosting there for one hour. hope to join you. now back to forbes. >> this week's primary vote in wisconsin, an important win for mitt romney. but some hearsay wisconsin's upcoming recall vote will be even more important for taxpayers everywhere.
public unions there want governor scott walker out for pushing through deep spending cuts and a law reigning in union power. it's getting so nasty, this is what you hear when you call the secretary of state's office. >> hello. this is secretary of state doug. welcome to the office. unfortunately because of the governor's budget passed by the legislature, the services offered by the office of the secretary of state have been significantly changed. >> all right. steve, you say if republican walker and ice cost cutting moves are recalled, taxpayers everywhere beware. >> absolutely. it's not the cuts themselves. other states have done it without this hoo-ha. it's whether taxpayers are there to be served by public servants or whether taxpayers have to phoney pup for unions. cot walker, who he wanted to be voluntary whether you join a union or not be forced to do it.
you decide year whether you want the deuce used tore political purposes or use the money yourself. what is wrong with that choice? is that anti-union? no, it isn't. it's giving americas a choice. that's what it's about. >> i suspect rick ungar wants to tell us what is wrong with that. >> if tharpe the days, the federal court would not have strict than part of the law steve is referring to this week, returning the deuce collectability back to the unions. let's lose the spin. here is what the agenda is really about. if scott walker was really worrying about the taxpayers, he would have said yes when the public unions came to him to accept the deal he offered them, but before walker pushed through his anti-collective bargaining legislation. he wasn't interested in waiving money there. if he was interesting in saving money, he wouldn't have exempted certain public unions from the anti-collective bargaining bill, and if he was interesting in saving taxpayer money, then he would not have given a huge tax
break to big business in wisconsin as his first act as governor. >> go ahead, liz. >> the tax breaks to businesses to the state of wisconsin, look, i mean, i need something for what rick is saying here. what happened is the governor came in, he saw the municipal compensation costs were exploding and drowning with red ink. it was so bad, stewart, the prior governor raided transportation funds illegally to pay for these costs. wisconsin workers got cushy retirement, cushy health coverage to the point where some districts they didn't have to pay for their health coverage. with they also had to use a union-run plan that was actually costing the state. what you are seeing is the land of make believe accounting in the state of wisconsin. the governor was trying to fix all that. >> bill baldwin, what do you say? >> i think scott walker's vicious personal attack on the unions is backfiring. he should have let the union
have their crummy deuce. he should have made the battleground just this, working to gradually replace those lavish pensions with a 401k style pensions which is what your taxpayers have to put up with in their lives. he should have made that the battleground and then the public would have been behind him. >> let's get back to the central question. if the recall is effective, he is recalled, does that affect taxpayers everywhere, not just which? everywhere. >> i think scott walker will end up being a hero. he took the $2.7 billion deficit and turned it into a surplus and all he does was have the public employees pay a small fraction toward their pensions and a small fraction toward health insurance. things most people don't have. he stood up for the working families in his state, and if he gets replaced, the contrast will be sharp and it will be negative toward his replacement. >> john, i want to know the effect on taxpayers everywhere outside wisconsin, all across the united states, if governor walker is recalled. >> well, it can potentially be broad if this vote predicts
something else, something bigger across the country. public employee unions work for the taxpayers. the idea that they can vote themselves higher benefits turns democracy i think into tyranny. if the wisconsin voters vote the wrong way and this goes national, it will be a scenario americans work for the government rather than the government working for the people. it's a very dangerous signal. >> do you reject that completely, mr. baldwin? >> i don't. in his hometown he's basically working for the police chief because the taxes are so ridiculously high. i'm in favor of cutting lavish pensions. i just don't think you should turn it into a vicious battle that's going to make the public turn against the crusaders for cost cutting. >> the truth that no one wants to talk about on the other side is this. the unions are quite willing to accept reduced pensions, reduced healthcare benefits as long as you left the deuce alone. why? because that's a source of
political power. why shouldn't workers have the choice of saying i'll pay an extra thousand dollars a year in deuce, if you want to play politics, union leaders, or i want to keep the money. why not give them a choice? >> and you know the issue too here, stuart, the taxpayer is always the afterthought. they aren't really up front and center what the hits are to the taxpayer for the exploding lofts. you see it in stockton, california, in detroit, in rhode island with even the capital state drowning in red ink. where does it stop? in wisconsin the governor did exempt cops and firefighters as he gave that as sort of a way to get the unions to come to the table. >> there you have it. >> he did that as a political payback. >> come on. >> all right. telling apple it must hire low income folks before it gets a tax break. the cash it in gang looking into what some are calling a government shakedown.
huge college admission during his twitter town hall on rising tuition costs. a student asking the vice president if he ever thought about lowering education costs by cutting government subsidies. and the vice president tweeting back, fascinating. it could reduce costs, but it would eliminate millions of students from college. and that's against our national interest. but mike says it's in our national interest for the government to get out of the subsidy business. mike. >> that's right, stuart. the student knows more than the vice president. we have had increasing government subsidies that increased the costs of tuition and increased debt and increased tacks to pay down the debt. the student is right, the vice president is wrong. >> the vice president says you cut subsidies and, yes, you would cut costs, but we around going to do it because the white house doesn't want to. and you say? >> well, it's a complex question. i think i understand what the
vice president was going for here. look, you certainly can, if you take more kids out of the pool going to college, you would in fact reduce tuition. there would be more competition among colleges for students. here's the part we aren't talking about. go to any major campus in this country and what you will see is an ever increasing number of foreign students who want to come in to get their education here and they pay more. i think the vice president's concern is by removing americans from the system the schools will finish to fell up with foreign students who will get a great education, go back to their countries and compete with us. not the best thing in the long run. >> so you should subsidize all products or american nationals can't buy them and only foreigners can buy them? doesn't make sense. why are you segregating among various classes of people? it should be a free market. >> maybe that's true but that's not what i said. >> that's exactly what you said.
>> i want to bring this back to the money. the vice president said you cut subsidies. he agrees, you cut subsidies and you will lower the cost of college and then he says but the white house won't do it. let's ask the money question. if you did cut subsidies, would you cut the cost of college? >> you would cut the cost of college, you would have a new paradigm of education which would make college available to more students as a more affordable costs, not have students leave college after four or six years with a mortgage-like debt. you would see things like a three-year undergraduate court instead of four years. why take the whole summer off when you can do it in three years. this would be good for students. it would float the administrative costs of colleges and higher tuition wishes is twice the inflation rate of healthcare. it's more administrative blow, not good for the kids. >> morgan. >> i agree but this is a two part problem with a two part answer. i think federal government should be cut out, especially where the lending business is concerned so we don't see
another housing-like bubble inflate and collapse that. being said, tuition, though, for tuition to go down, we also need to make sure states still fund and subsidize state colleges and community colleges because we see major cuts there over the last couple of years, and that, too, has increased tuition. >> dennis, you've got to get in. last word. >> three key numbers to build the case for getting government out of the college aid business. $140 billion a year. that's what our government spends every year on college aid. it's a 55% in ten years, guys, state college tuition up 40% almost in ten years. we've decided that it's worth taxing every member of our society to make sure that kids go to school from kindergarten through age 12. that was a worthy cause. are we now deciding government should get involved in taxing every member of our society to make everyone go to college? it is not a government responsibility. it is your job to put yourself through college. >> yes, sir. all right, everybody. coming up, three investments.
>> time to put their money where their picks are. dennis with the funds. >> fidelity growth fund up 16%. up over 7% per year for the past five years. >> elizabeth, do you like it? >> do you like it. 90% of it's holdings are in stock but i like this fund. >> what are you buying? >> i like anheuser-busch. solid cash flow, great presence in the u.s., great presence in latin america, including brazil. great brands like beck. >> bill, what do you think. >> heineken is a better stock and a better beer. >> what do you like? >> okay, my daughter had summer earnings so i was able to stuff herh