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.
NLRB'S PRO-UNION RULES UNDER FIRE AMID STRUGGLING JOB MARKET
CHARLES PAYNE: The certainty is, it's pretty clear, that there are two things that matter most to the president -- the green environmentalists and unions. No matter what happens, whether you call it economic policy or redistribution of wealth into union pockets, 93 percent of private sector employees don't belong to unions. You're taking away their rights. You're forcing 93 percent of Americans do to something they don't want to do. We've gone from a point where we needed unions to now where the only role from unions that I can see is to get more from the bottom line of corporate America.
ADAM LASHINSKY: I don't think this is a big enough reason to keep your wallet shut. Charles materially misstated the case, which is a good example of how poisoned the debate is in this country. He said that you're forcing 93 percent of American workers to do something that they don't want to do. No one's forcing anybody to join a union with some of these rulings. Employers are not looking at a situation where their employees are going to be forced to join a union. They have to follow certain rules. This is really a sideshow debate because there isn't a lot of demand for union membership. Most people aren't in unions and most people in the private sector are not in unions. That's really not going to change.
CHARLIE GASPARINO: This is pretty disheartening because the unemployment news is not getting any better. Private sector jobs are non-existent. Businesses take cues from Washington and they prepare for the future. The market is forward looking and so are businesses. They say what is going to be like a year from now. We prepare for that. And what they're saying by not hiring is things are going to get worse.
KRISTIN BENTZ: It's a travesty. This Boeing South Carolina deal is absolutely horrific. This is the kind of stimulus we need. You have an amazing, American company that wants to add jobs now. That's what we need and we're having this organization smite them and try to block them from doing that. That's almost criminal, in my opinion.
DISMAL JOBS REPORT SPARKS NEW RECESSION FEARS
CHARLES PAYNE: The problem with the banks is that they're still too opaque, in my opinion. In April of 2009 we went back to a form of mark to make believe accounting. The bank stocks roared back, the stock market roared back, but that stuff simmering in their vaults never got any better. I will tell you, with respect to the double-dip recession, I've have a beef with the National Bureau of Economic Research because you go back to 1949 and take every recession until the last three, unemployment peaked within a month and a half of the recession ending. The last three peaked 12 months later. I don't know if they've changed this to help both political parties or what the new parameters are, but it's giving people a false sense of security and that hurts us in so many different ways. Too many Americans never got out of this. Banks, in my mind are still in trouble and people should be worried.
ADAM LASHINSKY: We know, on one hand, why there's been economic growth, which there has been and on the other hand there's unemployment problems persisting and that's because the housing situation hasn't been worked through yet. The president will undoubtedly have proposals about this. The housing situation hits people in all sorts of ways. The people under water are not spending money; nobody's buying new homes; no one's building new homes. This was going to take years to work out. It is taking years to work out. That's unfortunately what the situation is with housing.
CHARLIE GASPARINO: Corporate profits are still pretty good. That's only part of GDP. GDP is also consumer confidence and people don't spend money, consumption, unless they go to work and that's the problem you have. The real problem is -- and we might just stay like this which is not so good with nine percent unemployment for the next three years until we have a change in fiscal policy -- but if we do go into a double-dip, what does that mean for banks? I keep saying this. That's why the bank stocks are so crazy. I'm not saying we're hitting 2008 financial, Armageddon levels, but if consumers aren't working they are defaulting more on their loans. That hits bank balance sheets in a big way. That's why, no matter what Warren Buffet says, Bank of America is still in trouble.
KRISTIN BENTZ: A double-dip recession would require us to actually be out of the recession and I don't think that's happened for most of Americans. If you look out there you can see that. Forty percent of the households make up 60 percent of the spending in this country. You can see it evidenced in stock performance as well. So the high-highs are doing great and the low-lows are having a really rough time.
REP. MAXINE WATERS URGING PRESIDENT OBAMA TO TAKE ON 'GANSTA' BANKS
CHARLES PAYNE: No one wants to see anybody lose their house and I do find interesting the notion of calling the banks gangsters, but saying we should resort to extortion? I don't know why banks haven't modified more mortgages. I know they don't want to have to pay and cut grass for an empty house that's losing value. But the administration is throwing billions and billions of dollars at it. It has not worked. Really, there's a lot more nuance to what Maxine Waters was suggesting. She is suggesting that everyone, somehow, is a victim of the banks and capitalism, in a sense. That bothers me a lot. A lot of people she's talking about bought a house with no money down. They have no skin in the game. So, the notion that they worked so hard and they saved up for 30 years like people used to do and put down 20 percent is false also. So, there's a lot of different nuances to all of this. I don't know why the banks don't modify more homes. It seems to me the smart thing to do. Nevertheless, the idea that you can just go in there and take it from them is crazy.
ADAM LASHINSKY: For the record, I'm not in favor of taxing anybody out of business, although it worked pretty well against the cigarette companies. The question is, are loan modifications a good idea? Yes, they are good idea. The banks have not been very effective at doing it so far. A minuscule number have gotten modified all these years later. We cannot force banks and we should not force banks to do it, but there are a variety of ways we can help the banks get creative about how to do a better job. The more loans we modify and the faster we do it, the more money gets into the economy and the sooner we get out of the housing crisis. But, it needs to be done in a fair way and any deal that's available to one homeowner needs to be available to another homeowner too.
CHARLIE GASPARINO: Maybe they don't modify them because even if you modify them people couldn't afford it. There are investigations going on right now and possible settlements coming on how these loans were made. They were made fraudulently with people without jobs that had listed incomes. If you could modify it almost to zero and pay no interest, they still can't afford to pay it back.
STOCKS READY TO SNAP BACK:
CHARLES PAYNE: Joy Global (JOYG)
ADAM LASHINSKY: Vanguard Total Stock ETF (VTI)