• With: Eric Bolling, Matt McCall, Caroline Heldman, Gary B. Smith, Jonas Max Ferris

    DISCLAIMER: THE FOLLOWING "Cost of Freedom Recap" CONTAINS STRONG OPINIONS WHICH ARE NOT A REFLECTION OF THE OPINIONS OF FOX NEWS AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON AS INVESTMENT ADVICE WHEN MAKING PERSONAL INVESTMENT DECISIONS. IT IS FOX NEWS' POLICY THAT CONTRIBUTORS DISCLOSE POSITIONS THEY HOLD IN STOCKS THEY DISCUSS, THOUGH POSITIONS MAY CHANGE. READERS OF "Cost of Freedom Recap" MUST TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN INVESTMENT DECISIONS.

    PUSH TO TAX EVERY MILE YOU DRIVE GAINS MOMENTUM IN D.C.

    Eric Bolling: A tax on driving every single day of our lives, now that would be bad. Because the tax on driving means more money out of our pockets and by the way, this could be one of the dumbest things out of the Obama administration, the CBO, the Department of Energy, and the EPA. How about this you cut your spending so you can pay for the roads you're talking about, instead of trying to tax driving in addition to taxing gas which you already tax too much already?

    Matt McCall: Yeah, what really hurts is that it hurts the middle class which are typically the people that are going to be driving the most. Why would you want to work? Because it's going to cost you so darn much to get to and from work, it's almost better to be unemployed and sit on your bee behind and takes away the motivation to get out there and work and so many people buying less cars, that rolls down to GM, Ford, less jobs, less consumer spending and blows up in the face of the economy and exact opposite what they're trying to achieve with the tax.

    Caroline Heldman: First off, we're years off from this technology being able to do this. It wouldn't shift things much at all. It would be taking the place of a gas tax. The proposal as it stands now. The issue is that cars are becoming more efficient so that the money going towards infrastructure which presently comes from gas tax, those revenues are going down and looking for ways to pay for a decaying infrastructure nationally. The idea would be that you would tax miles driven instead of gallon. I think there are privacy issues and disincentives for buying cars that are fuel efficient, but they've got to come up with some other way to generate revenue.

    Gary B. Smith: I don't even mind the pay as you go thing, if you will, as long as it they got rid of the gas tax, that's fine. The problem that I have with it, it's at the federal government level. The same federal government that brought you -- among other national highway projects -- the Big Dig, $12 billion over budget and 20 years late. That's the problem. This all should be in the hands of the states and privatized. In fact, one of the problems is, another problem, only 60 percent of that money that goes to the national highway trust fund is actually spent on highways. This is another land grab by the Obama administration to divert it to high speed rail, bicycle paths and the silly stuff that again should be in the hands of the local constituencies or the states.

    Jonas Max Ferris: Yeah, because we already have a very good system called the gas tax, that's federal and hasn't been updated since the early Clinton years and is not keeping pace with inflation and certainly not keeping pace with the cost of fixing roads, and not keeping pace with the price of fuel which is rising the most. That's what's dumb. Fix that and make it higher. Someone has to pay for these roads. The federal government gave us the highways, there wouldn't be any highways in Eisenhower highway program and yeah, it's going to hit the middle class and not yacht owners on the roads. Who is it supposed to hit? Somebody without a car that doesn't use highways? That's what happens now. The same with general tax revenue, they're not making enough to pay for the roads.

    WHITE HOUSE BUDGET OFFICE WORKERS FILE PETITION TO UNIONIZE

    Gary B. Smith: This is a real hoot, isn't it? Just as background. The OMB is the largest office in the Executive branch. They just don't move numbers from column A to column B. They prioritize all the funding and they are the gate keeper for the money that the government spends. Now, here is the problem. If you become a union shop as they might do, you right then have the fox guarding the hen house, how can they be neutral, which is one of their jobs? It just, it's ludicrous.

    Matt McCall: With grievances, average pay is $145,000, the reasons behind this was their working conditions. Most Americans are rolling off their couch saying they make $145,000, but those are bad working conditions? That blows my mind. Now, you have that bias in the administration that's already pushing big unions and think about this, the amount of money they put into the OMB, the amount that we spend on unions actually at the end of the day costs us jobs and this could be a job killer down the road as well.

    Caroline Heldman: Well, I actually have a very different take on this. So the 400 employees at OMB who would be unionizing are the career bureaucrats and there are two types of folks at the OMB. There are political appointees that shift with each administration, Republican and Democrat, and lifetime appointees and this would actually give them more power, so it would take politics out of the equation, more so than it currently is.

    Jonas Max Ferris: Look, these guys do a lot of numbers for the government and come to the conclusion, when you look at the numbers it means you can work less and make more money and there sick of the White House saying you got to work Saturday and figure out the budget. They don't want to work weekends, they want to get paid more and that's the bottom line. Fortunately, it won't be a huge budget buster, but it's not ideal for the employer, which is the White House in this case.

    Eric Bolling: Who cares that they're mad they're working weekends and late nights. They're the ones that got us in the mess in the first place they should be working late nights and weekends. By the way, Trumka is sitting back in his chair, spending time in the white house and he's been unionizing the workers, see how it feels, Obama?

    MCDONALD'S FOOD POLICE FIGHT SEEN AS HELPING JOB CREATORS

    Matt McCall: This is great for free market and capitalism. The only thing oversized here is the government and the government wants to keep getting bigger and more obese, what it means now, companies are actually standing up to the government. By standing up to the government, they're concentrating on making money. Ronald McDonald makes McDonald's money. The more money they make, the more they hire and better for the economy. If you're fat stop eating McDonald's, that's the bottom line.

    Caroline Heldman: I think the organizations pushing for this have achieved their goal. We are talking about how fast food contributes to child obesity and the obesity epidemic. Instead of food, McDonald's sells us packages of addictive chemicals. He is more recognizable than the white Jesus Christ at this point.

    Eric Bolling: I don't let my son eat at McDonald's. The only clown in the story is the bozo that Cavuto argued with the other day. They'd rather use regulation than personal responsibility. So me I don't let my son have McDonald's, I just don't do it. That's the answer not having someone tell me what my kids should eat.

    Jonas Max Ferris: I'm not sure how great it is for the job market. Ronald McDonald the concept works because it gets children to want McDonalds; other companies have used cigarettes as a marketing tool. I'm not saying McDonald's is as bad as cigarettes, but it's not healthy. I don't know if making more sales to young people of fattening food is good for the force in general.

    PREDICTIONS

    Matt McCall: Soda Stream International (SODA)

    Jonas Max Ferris: Tiffany & Co. (Tif)

    Gary B. Smith: Fortune Brands (FO)

    Eric Bolling: Gold