tv Your World With Neil Cavuto FOX News February 18, 2014 1:00pm-2:01pm PST
try to resolve this crisis but it was unclear whether the meeting would take place amid the ongoing violence. in other words this meeting is to begin in five second. outbursts of violence in ukraine. we'll break in when news breaks out. here's neil. >> ready, set, hike? not quite. did the president's push to hike the minimum wage just suffer a shocking blow? welcome everyone, i'm stewart varney and this i "your world." on a day when a new poll finds unemployment is the number one issue for voters, the congressional budget office showing a hike in the minimum wage will send more workers packing. the fox business network's peter barnes with the latest. >> the cbo report just out found that the increase in the minimum wage that the president supports would cut the work force by
500,000 jobs by 2016. now, this is the proposal that the president supports to increase the minimum wage from the current $7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour by 2016. but the cbo also found this wine crease wages for 16.5 million people. the impact on the budget deficit, cbo said it would shrink at it bit in the first few year as more people pay higher tacks, but increase the deficit slightly but a it didn't provide any specific numbers on the impact on the deficit. but the partisan reaction was swift. the top ranking democrat on the house budget committee said, quote, today's cbo report confirms that raising the minimum wage is in the best interests of our country because it would give a direct raise to 16.5 million workers, and as for those projected job losses, stuart? he would only say, quote, the cbo acknowledges its findings on
job growth are very uncertain. back to you. >> got it. thank you. questions mounted today is the white house in denial? because the cbo also said, obamacare will reduce the incentive to work. that translates to the equivalent of two million fewer jobs. how is that health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius says this? >> there is absolutely no evidence, and every economists will tell you this, that there is any job loss related to the chaz affordable care act. >> really? jonathan begs to differ, and jamie richardson, the vice-president of white castle who is seeing the impact on jobs first hand. john, you're an economist. kathleen sebelius just said no economy wisconsin will say that obamacare kills jobs. you're an economist. what do you say? >> i would say her statement is outrageous, and the cbo estimate is actually very modest, and the
better estimates would put the job loss at twice that much. more than the equivalent of more than four million jobs will be lost. >> let me put the cbo thing aside and look at number of workers who will be forced into part-time work or actual job losses because of obamacare. forget the cbo for a second. i know that there are several major companies saying, we will hire more part-timers and fewer overall workers. as an economist, can you back me up on that one? >> absolutely. everyone i know, every employer that hires below average wage workers, is doing exactly that. the cbo was talking about the supply side of the market. you're talking about the demand side, the employer side. if you combine those two effects, and when they add together, we have major, major job loss. >> jamie richardson, you're at white castle. tell me the impact on jobs at white castle of obamacare.
>> stuart, from a white castle perspective, it's microeconomic because we sell small hamburgers. before the affordable care act was passed we have 416 restaurants. today we have 400. and we hear about up equality. there will be inequality of scheduling if congress doesn't act to restore 40 hours as part-time. >> i take it the workers at white castle don't feel they've been liberated as the cbo suggests, they've been liberated from the rigors of work. >> we have the most increme people dnr incredible people in the world. one in four have been here for ten years or more because they get great pay and a great health care plan in place since 1924. they know we're in the neighborhoods where we live, work and raise our families. we want to provide more opportunity for more people. that's what we're hopeful that
congress can act because only congress can change it. >> jamie, what's the response of workers when you, at the employer, tell them, fewer jobs, fewer hours? >> you know, it's a struggle, and i think what they found first hand is that we're doing everything we cook provide as many hours to as many people as possible, and we're in this together. we have incredible loyal people. but it's discomforting. looking at the long haul, we want be to around another 90 years as family-owned businesses. family businesses everywhere are suffering because of the affordable care act. so we're hopeful the definition of full-time can be revised so it is 40 hours a week, not 30 hours. >> john goodman, economist, where kathleen sebelius guess the numbers and the idea that no economist believes that obamacare is a job kill center where did that come from? >> making it up because it's not true. every economist i know, knows if you rates the tax on labor, you
get less labor, and that is what is happening here. the cbo is producing very conventional estimates, and, again, i think the real estimate is twice what they're saying. >> john goodman, economist, jamie richardson, white castle. thank you, gentleman. >> the white house going all out to defend its $800 billion stimulus program five years later. now saying it didn't cost a cent and kept five million people out of poverty. is that stretching the truth? let's ask former presidential candidate rick santorum. what do you make of the white house defense of the stimulus plan? >> well, sounds like kathleen sebelius and her ethics have been bled into this. simply -- they just make it up as they go along. there's almost no way to prove they're wrong because it's hard to say, well, but for this, you
have a huge economy, a very small piece of it, and to say, well, that it didn't have or -- it's hard from an economic point of view to prove it. but that is the point. what we can see is that unemployment didn't go down, that the things that were predicted by the obama administration at the time they put the into place didn't happen. so, to say now that could it have been worse, that doesn't meet the standard the set when they passed it. >> would you be at all chartable to the stimulus plan and say, at best, it saved us from a catastrophe? >> i don't think so. first off, the amount of money that was spent -- as you know, stuart, that money wasn't spent right away. the old shovel-ready jobs, they weren't shovel-ready. that money was spent over a period of years, and so when we were at at the most difficult te when the economy needed a jolt, this stimulus package did not provide it. i don't think you can honestly
say it saved us from the catastrophe. particularly against the fact we had double-digit up employment. that's catastrophic for a lot of folks. >> i want your reaction to the other cbo report that we ran a few minutes ago, which suggested that if you rates the minimum wage to over ten dollars an hour we would lose 500,000 jobs. your reaction to that. >> the reaction is that if you dramatically increase the cost of labor, it's going to have a ripple effect, and here's the point. what we have seen from president obama is that his policies, while he talks about the middle class and how much he tries to help those who are hurting, all of his policies hurt low-income workers can hurt people trying to climb the ladder and in fact creates disincentives to work as we saw with obamacare, and the folks he is helping with dodd-frank and a host of other policies, are the folks who are the top one percent. you eave seen their income grow,
ifor a real estate holder, you made a lot of money but at the bottom end of the income scale, you're getting -- all for great ropes you're helping but you're really hurting them in their efforts. the president doesn't understand how the economy works. >> do you think the next election, this year or the presidential election in 2016, is going to be fought on the economy, on employment, debt, and obamacare? are those the -- is money the economy, is that the focal issue this time around? >> i -- in reverse order of what you mentioned. obamacare will be the big issue. i think president obama's delay of the mandate shows how worried he is about its full implementation and what ill witness mean. most americans have gotten a pretty good indication this is a very, very harmful piece of legislation that lots of folks are losing their insurance policies, they want -- they're paying more for what they have, and a lot of opting out of the system altogether. the only folks you see in large
numbers flooding into these exchanges and medicate are old -- medicaid are older and circumstance workers, and if your pool of folks in the insurance are older and sicker, your policies go up even more. so there's more disaster pending next fall, prior to the election. >> just prior to the election, okay. last time around in the last campaign you made a big push and you won the iowa caucuses. this time around i understand you're making a visit to new hampshire. can i conclude from that you're running? >> i don't think you can make any conclusion other than they fact -- >> why are you going to new hampshire? >> i want to stay involved in the mix. i'm concern about the electionup upcoming and have left my options on the table for 2016, and you have to get around and see people. >> last time around, i got the impression your focus was very much on social issues.
this time around, would you try to reverse that for every -- every killed has to have a focus. will your focus this time around, whether you're in the race or not, is your focus the economy and not social issues? >> i'm going to take issue with you that the focus of my campaign was social issues. anybody that really traveled around with me saw that what i talk about was foundational values of the country and i focused most of my campaign on obamacare, and the fact that we needed a candidate that would take on president obama in 2012 on the issue. that was the ron i want, was obamacare. i said that in every speech. i would not be in this race if it wasn't for obamacare. that's not changed at all. still think that's the biggest issue confronting the country, not just economically but with respect to religious liberty and personal choice and taking care of those who are the least among us. >> what do you make of senator rand paul bring upping the monica lewinski issue in attacking -- just bringing up
the issue, vis-a-vis hillary clinton. good strategy not? >> i haven't gone through that -- in the united states senate, having salt in judgment of the president, i'm willing to put that issue behind us and move on to things that are of concern to the american public and there's a lot of things going on that we need to be concern about other tan what happened 15 years ago. >> may i take issue if you. last time around you did focus somewhat on abortion. and you were character crisissed as being part of the war on women. how are you going to avoid that this time around? >> well, what i would say on the issue of abortion, i did talk a lot about moral and cultural issues from the standpoint of the importance of the family. yes, of course, i always -- talk about the dignity of all human life and we need to treasure all human life from conception until natural death, but what i talk about a lot 0 on the trail was the importance of the family
from the standpoint of improving the economy of this country and giving people the chance to rise, and we have seen now a lot of data come out over the past few months that validates the point i was making. i remember dartmouth college and the debate no one talked about the family as an important economic unit and what we need to do to strengthen marriage and the role of fathers in families as a provider. that's something i'm continuing to be concerned about, and now we see other people coming along for the ride. >> tell me again, sir, when are you going new hampshire? >> oh, i'm going to both new hampshire and iowa next month. i can't tell you the dates right off the top of my head but i'll be in both states. >> that tells us a lot, sir, rick santorum, former senator. thank you for joining us. >> my pleasure. >> an instant bank account for everyone. the democrats' latest money handout? that's got charles payne going out of his mind.
here he comes. ♪ ♪ ♪ ben! ♪ [ train whistle blows ] oh, that was close. you ain't lying. let quicken loans help you save your money with a mortgage that's engineered to amaze. like carpools... polly wants to know if we can pick her up. yeah, we can make room. yeah. [ male announcer ] ...office space. yes, we're loving this communal seating. oh, it's great. yeah. [ male announcer ] the best thing to share? a data plan. ♪ new at&t mobile share value plans for business. our best value plans ever. for example, you can get 10 gigs of data to share. and 5 lines would be $175 a month. plus you can add a line anytime for $15 a month.
sharing's never been better for business. ♪ sharing's never been better for business. iwe don't back down. we only know one direction: up so we're up early. up late. thinking up game-changing ideas, like this: dozens of tax free zones across new york state. moveorta srt a newhere. he.er.. and pay es for y10ears. with new jobs, new opportunities and a new tax free plan. there's only one way for your business to go. up. find out if your business can qualify at start-upny.com
(announcer) scottrade knows our and invest their own way. with scottrade's smart text, i can quickly understand my charts, and spend more time trading. their quick trade bar lets my account follow me online so i can react in real-time. plus, my local scottrade office is there to help. because they know i don't trade like everybody. i trade like me.
i'm with scottrade. (announcer) ranked highest in investor satisfaction with self-directed services by j.d. power and associates. >> the latest news here is that ukraine's opposition leader has just arrived at the presidential palace. yanukovych's office. they're going to talk, and the violence continues. >> at home, 500 bucks for every baby born in america? a top senate democrat pushing a plan for what he calls universal savings accounts. charles payne is here. he is, as we say, charged over
this one; what's wrong? wait a second. >> okay. >> everybody baby born in america gets $500, according to ron wide 's possible plan here. that is at least an attempt to deal with poverty from the get-go. what's your problem? >> i think we learned that handouts don't fix poverty. we have learned. from the 50th anniversary of the great society, we've learn from all of the welfare programs instituted over the last few years, all with the special deal that you get. it can make poverty more comfortable, backfiring and making it harder for people to get off the dole. >> it would give them a stake. i'm not saying this is a wonderful thing. i'm voicing what the democrats are saying. >> here's the thing, okay. the $500, let's say 10% over 20 year period, you can't do a lot with that. you created a false sense of --
a false hope, if you will. the same people that are at home saying, my kid's okay, take taken care of -- this fund will be another gigantic unfunded liability that will only grow, grow, grow, maybe be borrowed from occasionally. the number don't ad add up. we want to help poverty, let's help these kids out of the gate, help them be smarter, understand the american dream, help them embrace the american dream. the promise of throwing money of this, never works. >> do we know where the $500 would actually go? i don't the we know that. >> we don't know that. i think any of this stuff would be smart to say, fortunate 500 company you -- when we talked about doing it with the stock mark under bush, bush's ratings plummets. people said, we told you so, when the market crashed. anywhere you want to chart the
stock market from the great depression until now you tell me anything that is a betterñrñr investment, but instead another false promise, another false prom, another empty unfunded liability and won't take us anywhere. >> it's a vote winner. here's what i'm doing for you. a poverty problem in america. $500 for every child born in this country. that's at least a start and relatively cheap to start with. what it would cost, four million babies a year, that's 2 bill. that's peanuts. >> you are buying votes but you are burying opportunity, pushing people you proclaim to help further and further away from the american dream. you want happen these babies? have them be born, and after their born let's give them some educational ewans. stop shutting down charter schools. so many things we are moving
backward from. >> i would give it a 50-50 shot of passage. >> depends on the district. nationwide? >> nationwide. this is federal level. >> the republicans caved on the diet -- the debt ceiling. it's not real honest american dream. there's a lot better ways to sell this than this phony fund. >> you say it's not going happen. >> not going to happen. not even in california. >> you've made your point. see you tomorrow. , it any wonder democrats keep pushing global warming amid the freezing? they're in for some cold hard cash. yeah. we'll explain this one in one minute. she's kind of special. she makes the whole team better. he's the kind of player that puts the puck, horsehide, bullet. right where it needs to be. coach calls it logistics. he's a great passer. dependable. a winning team has to have one. somebody you can count on.
somebody like my dad. this is my dad. somebody like my mom. my grandfather. i'm very pround of him. her. them. instead of paying too much for an ipad, i got the surface 2. first of all, it comes with office and outlook. then, with free skype calls to phones in over 60 countries, i can talk to my cousins any time. and then, i got 200 gigs of cloud storage -- free -- so i can get my photos and stuff almost anywhere. others charge for that. surface is such a great deal. i feel like i should tell somebody. hey! ♪ honestly ♪ i want to see you be brave ♪
and chicago already going for a record. so, why are democrats continuing to pound global warming? to jamie winestein who says $100 million could be the rope. explain that's one, jamie. >> well, tom stier, a wealthy billionaire from san francisco, hedge fund guy who left his hedge fund two years ago to get very involved in democratic politics, and his big issue global warming. antikeystone pipeline and global warming, trying to prevent thee. he is putting in $50 million and trying to raise another 50 million two into $100 million superpac to support candidates in 2014 and 2016 that kind of support his issues. he is looking in florida and iowa and other states but its looking to make a big name for himself on the democratic political level. >> do you think that $100 million -- is that kind of a bribe to say, mr. president, get back on the global warming
trail? concentrate on climate change or you don't get in the 100 million? >> he is trying to throw his weight around. he has been involved in democratic politics. poke at the 2012 democratic con sense. even floated as a possible replacement to secretary chu at the energy department. may run for senate in california. so i think this is maybe one way for him to get involved in politics and put his name out there. there's a big way to do so when you raise $100 million through your own money to influence elections. >> a recent fox poll, number 19 on the list of concerns, number 19 out of 20, was climate change. it's right down there virtually at the bottom of america's concern. it's not a winning issue for democrats, is it? >> this isn't a very smart issue. i agree with you. to start trying to focus on going into 2014 elections. the democrats are trying to take
the focus away from barack obama kaz. obamacare. it's interesting to point out he ran ads last year against the keystone pipeline, and the ads were so dishonest the "washington "washington post" fact checkers said these were below the lowest campaign ads. so honesty is not one of the beg campaigns. >> see you soon. from the focus on|)f÷ democs in 2014 to too much focus on one democrat in 2016. ed henry is at the white house story. ed? story. >> this all kicked off with david axlerod telling the "new york times" today he is worried, kind of finding a wakeup call, if you will, to fellow democrats that he is deeply concerned they're focused too much on the
2016 presidential race, not enough on these mid-term elections where not just the house but the senate is up for grads. washington, the republicans are likely to hold control of the house and the senate could flip from democrats to republicans.k+ that would have massive implications. david axlerod never mentioned hillary clinton but we spoke to other democratic strategists today who say their fear, like axlerod, there's too much focus on 2016, not 2014 among democrats and too much focus on hillary clinton. >> there's excitement for her and presidential elections are just sexier than mid-term elections. people are excited to look forward towards it. but we can't be missing there is still an agenda to get forward, and we have to hold the senate to be able to do it. >> now, why all this matters? that if democrats wereh52#1 toe control of the senate way would lose both chambers and the president's second-term agenda
would be dead, which is why jay carney insisted they believe they're going to hold the yóp6"tq up)q a listen. >> he's not going to -- the democratic party is not going to lose control of the senate and are that's opera precisely because of the policies he and democrats support that are focused on expanding opportunity. >> one policy that is likely to be front and center, the healthcare reform, raising debate within the democratic party as well as to whether that's going to be an asset or albatross in this campaign. >> interesting debate, ed henry. thank you very much. i why should companies get all the health care delays? we have the law-maker trying to delay it for everyone. and i quit smoking with chantix. when my son was born, i remember, you know, picking him up and holding him against me. it wasn't just about me anymore. i had to quit. [ male announcer ] along with support, chantix (varenicline) is proven o help people quit smoking. it reduces the urge to smoke.
chantix didn't have nicotine in it, and that was important to me. [ male aouncer ] some people had changes in behavior, thinking or mood, hostility, agitation, depressed mood and suicidal tughts or action while taking or after stopping chantix. if you notice any of these, stop chantix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of mental health problems, which uld get worse while taking chantix. don't take chantix if you've had a seris allergic or skineaction to it. if you develop these, stop antix and see your doctor right away, as some coue life threatening. tell your docto if you have a history of heart or blood vessel problems, r if you develop new or worse symptoms. get medical help right away if you have mptoms of a heart attack or stroke. use caution when driving or opating machinery. common side effectslude nausea, trouble sleeping and unusual dreams. i had to qt smoking to keep up with this guy. [ male announcer ] ask your doctor if chanti is right for you.
>> now that the cbo says hiking the minimum wage will crush jobs, is the push for higher manipulatec⌜í -- minimum wage cd put a? one says it is, rick unger says focus on the wage rate do you think the president will end the push for higher minimum wage? >> he has an indefensible position now. half a million jobs gone so that 16 million other people can get a little increase? we're not talking about redistributing the wealth. you're taking away from the one percent. you're taking away from lower
wage working people to give to other lower wage working people. it's not going to fly. >> rick, your response. >> you know, i haven't had a chance to dig in but it's troubling to see something like that. i have to admit i'm confused. you would argue i'm always a bit confused. >> no. >> the reason i say that is if you look at the states who have already raised their minimum wage to these levels, they, from everything i've seen, are not experiencing job losses. in fact they're seeing job gain. so i'm curious to know how the cbo arrived at it. >> they've teen a theoretical position you. raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour and x number of jobs will be lost. the democrats are trying to put a spin on this and say 16.5 million people will be getting more money. that's a positive. but that's spin. you can't ignore 500,000 job losses. >> taking the money from the 500,000 people and giving it to
others, that's simple math. this president has no idea how?r to grow the wealth in this country, how to increase jobs. he is tiking -- taking the pie and shrinking it and playing one set of people against the others and not doing anything to improve the economy. >> for the second time in ten days the cbo has thrown a real rock at two of the president's policies. the cbo said there'si$há a disincentive from obamacare to work. that's negative for obamacare. now they're saying you hike the minimum wage and you lose a half million jobs. you're very much on the defensive here. >> what you have to do is dig in. we saw this with the first one. i'm first glance everybody was $2.5 million. then we realized that is not what it is saying but you raise the issues, it could be
incentivizing, but some people are going to do what they want to too which is go off and shsf business. no, no. this is the -- this is the line that the president -- they're going to say the cbo is either lying or half million people get to spend more time with their families. >> let me finish the point. >> that's what the president said. >> no no. >> do you think obamacare liberates people from the rigors of work? that's what the cbo said. you're liberated. at my expense. >> some people at your expense but will improve the economy with respect to those people. i wrote about it. i said not everybody and nobody should be disincentivized to work. >> are you comfortable going into the mid-term elections with obamacare around your neck, and now a policy of raising the minimum wage which loses you a half million jobs? >> i'm going to take a little closer look at that. if i turned out the logic
makes -- you must be very happy -- >> between now -- i'ä]w! not hay that we have a president who is advocating 500,000 people losing their jobs that he can increase the funs to the income for 16 million other people. i'm not happy about that. i think that he has a real problem with this. he has to say the cbo is wrong, they have made a mistake, or he has to telephone tell a -- has to tell a half million people their jobs don't matter. >> i'd like you to answer these questions. we have been hearing for weeks how it's only three to five percent of the working population that are affected by the minimum wage. this has been a big thing going on, -- conservative groups. itself it's only three to five% how is massive impact? >> you would0ñte something called automation. if i have to pay somebody $10 an hour instead of $7 an hour i
might automate that job out of existence. give my people an ipad. 0w, think that's going to happen? >> be able to -- that's what employers do, business owner does, fine a way to cut costs so they can accommodate the obama policy, yet another policy that puts people out of work so they can spend more time with their families. >> she didn't answer the question. only five% of the working population and a half million/í iss -- i acknowledge to you% massive -- >> how many of -- >> big of an -- >> how many jobs loss is okay with you? >> none. i don't want to see any jobs loss but traditionally no jobs -- >> well, cbo says you do -- [overlapping speakers] >> "the new york times," your bible, die believe -- >> not mine dish. >> in the 1990s and 1980s, was saying in itsed toll you're
pain, you race the -- you raise the minimum wage and -- >> they were against if about they -- >> if the discussion is how much lost jobs are okay, that's where the discussion is, the republicans are in good shape. >> i think you're right. >> it was fun. thank you very much. sherry, rick. republicans say the white house health care delays should not just be for companies. congressman from louisiana has a bill that would delay the mandate for individuals as well and he unions us now. this is -- he joins us now. >> the fair act by myself and susan brooks from indiana. >> however, if you abandon the individual mandate, essentially, you have gutted obamacare, and i think, sir, you know that. don't you? >> well, stuart, the president is acknowledging that obamacare done work. it's unworkable, it's destroying jobs and taking away good health care for people.
that's why he keeps going out and trying to suspend different parts of it for people that he picks and chooses. the president shouldn't be picking winners and losers and say this group can be reprieved from obamacare but taxpayerses p%= get the same reprieve. we brought forward the fair act that says everytime the president tries to delay for one group of people it triggers an automatic suspension of obamacare penalties for regular taxpayers. >> it would gut obamacare? >> i think the president knows his laws are not working for anybody. he wants to keep punishing families and say i'm going to give big business a reprieve but hard, working families you're going to lose your health care. we want to say nobody should lose your health care. i don't want doctors and patients to have to literally ration care and have the government come in and interfere. let people have fair treatment under the law. that's what our bill does.
>> if this goes through the house, and i'm sure it probably would go through the house and citied -- it might not good through the senate. but even if it did pass the senate, the president would never abandon his signature legislation. he is not going to do it. >> stuart, i don't know. the president is suspending the penalties for big business. he is picking winners and losers and saying his signature healthcare law is sound workable he is willing to set it aside for certain people. what i angering so many americans, why the numbers are tanking, because they see he is not treating families fairly, not treats hard-working tax fairs fairly. our bill says if it's good enough for big business, give the same treatment for hard-working taxpayers by spunking the envied mandate. >> how do you feel about senator ]cysysle not have bailouts for the insurance companies. >> absolutely. i am a cosponsor or a bill and our bill does the exact same
thing that senator rubow is doing there should be no bailout of insurance companies. i opposed the bailout of banks and car companies and shouldn't be bail ought insurance companies under obamacare. we ought to get rid of that. >> run from louisiana -- republican from louisiana, thank you for being with us. if your kids skip out, get ready to shell out. pay my bill. phone: your account is already paid in full. oh, well in that case, back to vacation mode. ♪boots and pants and boots and pants♪ ♪and boots and pants and boots and pants♪ ♪and boots and pants... voice-enabled bill pay. just a tap away on the geico app. ♪ huh, 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. yup, everybody knows that. well, did you know that some owls aren't that wise. don't forget about i'm having brunch with meagan tomorrow. who? seriously, you met her like three times. who? geico.
>> illinois, california, texas, and it's legal because under state constitution, law enforcement has a need and a right to protect the welfare of children. >> coming at me with a pointed finger there. i'm frightened here. so you say that it is absolutely not= legal. you can't do this despite precedent established here. >> they've done lots of things that are not legal. what this ordinance is doing is making it a crime, because it's a misdemeanor and they're saying that schools can go into people's private homes and fine them for children missing school. >> we should add that you get fined $100 ifhtz÷ you find a trt child, as we used to called them, in the home. that transfers responsibility, i guess, to the parents. >> of course. >> if the kid's at home, fine the parents. >> and it's a crime so it's 1. unconstitutional.
>> and? >> well, she is correct, there have been arguments it is illegal under the eighth amendment, cruel and unusual. these are excessive fines. but the issue is the state, again -- they are required by law to protect children. if a child is not in school, where is the child? what if something happens to the child? the state has to make sure the child is going to school, and this is the way they're now forced to do it. >> forget the law for one brief shining moment. i know you're both lawyers. forget the law. is it a good idea to stick the parents with responsibility and liability? because that would ten to keep kids in school, would it not? >> responsibility, yes. parents have a responsibility. a criminal liability and a fine? absolutely not. it's such a slippery slope. i'm a health nut. are you going to fine families because they give their children mcdonald's in. >> that's a stretch. >> it's not. the whole argue. is this is educational neglect. where in the constitution are we saying, states have to protect children from physical abuse, but this is really u --
>> a form of neglect. if you are not going to school and held become, taxpayers have to foot the bill and it's a big issue. a lot of states have this and feel this is the only thing that works. now, there are alternatives, situations where you can have children still gojncú#uz schoold you don't have to impose fines on parents. some states think this works for them. >> supposing for a moment that the parent fined 100 bucks refuses to pay. does the parent go to jail? >> can't happen. >> that does happen but --y, pay. that's the issue. >> you send the parent to jail for nonpayment:çxñ of 100 tuesdy fine because because they have c kid that didn't no to school. >> happened in some states. >> do you provide of it. >> i'm not seeing i approve but it happens use i. >> you have a smile on your face. >> how is that constitutional? we're saying that you can throw a parent in jail because they can't afford to pay -- let's talk about low-income
families -- because they can't afford to pay the fine because their child didn't go to school. how is that benefiting children? >> i'm going to die digress. my mother never made my go to school. but i did. we appreciate you being with us. >> thank you. >> you only have to worry about the nsa keeping tabs on you? why the government could soon be on your tail, and i mean literally. er ] nearly 7 million clients. how did edward jones get so big? t me just put this away. ♪ could you teach our kids that trick? [ male announcer ] by not acting that way. it's how edward jones makes sense of investing.
in fact, they depend on a unique set of nutrients. [ male announcer ] that's why there's ocuvite to help protect yr eye health. as yoage, your eyes can lose vital nutrients. ocuvite helps replenish key eye nutrients. ocuvite is a vitamin made just for youeyes from the eye care experts at bausch + lomb. ocuvite has a unique formula that's just not found in any leading multivitamin. your ey are unique, so hp protect your eye health with ocuvite.
lotes them to the database and check them. that has privacy advocates very worried. what is the problem? >> why don't we just take a dna foodprint of your entire being? >> that's a stretch. >> what's wrong with taking a picture, up loading it, and finding out if they're in breach of the immigration rules? >> there are immigration checkpoints, 70, 80 miles within the border of this country. you can go to san diego. san diego is what, 90 miles from los angeles? you know, 20 miles from there, you're so far away from the border and you still get it. >> what is wrong with checking the license plate of someone who is driving along and finding out if there's some kind of problem with that car, with that person driving the car? i don't understand the problem with that. >> they do it all the time when they suspect someone has done something. if i haven't done anything wrong, you shouldn't be collecting my information? >> you can't even check the license plate?
>> no, if you have probable cause to think i have broken a traffic law, then fine, run my plate. >> are you serious, kennedy? that's illegal search and seizure if immigration checks the license plate of my car and they say, he's got a green card. he's okay? >> yeah. >> there's something wrong with that? >> if you don't have your green card when you go to a constitution free zone that are 90 miles from the border, you can get thrown in jail. >> but if you have not broken -- >> you don't have to break the law. you have to show your paperwork if you have a green card. if you don't have it, you could go to jail. >> what's wrong with the police finding out that i am an illegal immigrant or i don't have my paperwork with me, as the law demands? what's wrong with that? >> why don't we have people come in our houses? if you're complicit with everything the government might do to one day find out you could maybe do something wrong, it's this weathering away of our civil liberties that leaves us
with a clump -- a moundless clump of nothing including no rights. >> a moundless clump of nothing with no rights? >> that's right. >> a slippery slope. >> there's nothing more slippery than a mound of clumpness. >> how about your show? i believe on friday this week, the title of your show is going to -- the subject matter of the show is going to be you're on drugs. >> exactly. >> if i'm not mistaken, you're going to propose the legalization of all drugs, correct? >> no, we'll talk about the hypocrisy of some drugs legal and encouraged and others being fully criminalized where you could land in jail? >> what's your position, legal az the lot? >> right now, on this show, we're trying to take stock in why we have this drug policy. >> you have an agenda. you want to legalize the lot, don't you? >> legalize all drugs? personally, if you're asking me -- >> if you're a libertarian, that's your position, isn't it? >> no, not all libertarians have
the same position. some are very pragmatic, some are very law enforcement, many think that all drugs should be totally legalized across the board. others think some drugs like meth and heroin and crack, that they shouldn't be fully legal. >> will this get a full airing on your show on friday night? >> no, the show, you're on drugs, is about the hypocrisy, because you could be on drugs right now. you could have had a red bull. you could have had two cups of coffee, you could have chardonnay tonight but somehow think performance enhancing drugs, steroids, and heroin are all immoral. >> are you equating caffeine in coffee with stimulants like amphetamine? >> yes, if you take enough red bull, it will do the exact same thing as something as methamphetamine would do. >> on the fox business network, i believe? >> a place you're very familiar with. >> yes, indeed. i shall watch the show, and you
are totally wrong about the license plate checks. but hey -- >> i am not. >> great to have you with us. >> so much safer, like the tsa. >> this is your world. i'm sitting in for neil cavuto. i'll see you tomorrow on the fox business network at 9:20 a.m. eastern. uhhh. no, that can't happen. that's the thing, you don't know how long it has to last. everyone has retirement questions. so ameriprise created the exclusive.. confident retirement approach. now you and your ameripise advisor can get the real answers you need. well, knowing gives you confidence. start building your confident retirement today.
hello, everyone. i'm kimberly guilfoyle along with bob beckel, eric bolling, dana perino, and greg gutfield. it's 5:00 in new york city, and this is "the five." the show must go on. can america survive if americans don't know anything about our country? check out this new presidents' day prank pulled off by jimmy kimmel. one of his reporters on the street notified people about the death of fda. >> president roosevelt passed away due to natural causes at a very old age. do you have condolences to give his family?