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.
UNIONS MAKING ALL OUT "POWER" PUSH AS JOB MARKET STALLS
Jack Welch: It is the last dance and they're trying to use regulation since they can't get it done with legislation and they're doing crazy stuff, this Boeing thing is over the top. No matter what party you're in, this is insane. Boeing builds a plant, they spend a billion dollars and hire up to a thousand people and they say, oh, no, go home. You can't do it here and it's nuts.
Dagen McDowell: Unions are losing power, but increasingly desperate in their attempts to make sure that they stay relevant. Private unions were dying for decades and it looks like the public sector unions were going to be the savior for the union and the American people wake up and realize, oh, my word, you're taking our tax dollars and retiring with the generous benefits and you're going to bankrupt the states and towns just like you did General Motors, but if you look at Right to Work States, they've grown faster in the overall economies, in payrolls, in population, you name it, they have been better places to live and start businesses in the last decade than forced union states.
Charles Payne: We're talking about the unions as being some sort of wounded animal; they've got the most powerful man on the planet pushing their agenda. The NLRB takes down Boeing, the biggest exporter in the country, don't feel sorry for these guys and they're coming at you with both barrels, one of the most dangerous things in the economy if this is established as precedent. What if the large companies, what will small companies do? Ironically enough it could he actually back fire in the union states, ultimately because who would ever want to start a business there.
Charlie Gasparino: Look what happened with Wisconsin. Do you think that the public in Wisconsin is 100 percent behind Governor Walker thereafter he made those dramatic cutbacks and called for those, for those union concessions? No, I mean, it's a pretty rough political climate out there and I tell you, anybody who thinks that the American public is dead set against unions, I can't remember, someone made a point before that, and seems that that's completely wrong and I'll tell you this, why isn't the American public dead set against unions, whether its private sector and people's wages are coming down, it's hard to make a living.
Adam Lashinsky: Charlie is cutting to the heart of the matter. This isn't about the movement as Dagen said a moment ago. People in unions, the union leadership thinks it's about the movement, the future, the labor movement, but that's not what the American people care about and that's not what Charlie is talking about, they care about things like rights to organize. They care about things like having power, some power, against their employers.
NEW TEXAS LAW LOOKING TO CUT OUT COSTLY LAWSUITS
Charles Payne: I love it. Listen, small businesses pay 105 billion dollars a year on this tort litigation. And listen, even beyond that, this whole thing has created this, all of these frivolous lawsuits create a society of sloth and victimization, people looking to fall in front of a big box, it's a brilliant thing to do if we can get it nationwide.
Dagen McDowell: Eighty-one percent of the tort liability costs are shouldered by small businesses and if you can reduce the annual cost by $20,000 and add it up and think about the possible job creation.
Jack Welch: Look, anything that can tamp down plaintiff's bar is good for America, period. Anything you can do to tamping down, of course there were bad apples and take care of them, but tamping down the frivolous suits is a huge impact on corporate America, and the small businesses as Charles and Dagen pointed out.
Adam Lashinsky: Except for the fact, Neil, it's almost definitely unconstitutional. I mean, it violates the 7th amendment. You have a right to a jury trial and anything that makes it more difficult to get a fair trial. So, for example, Charles, your beloved small businesses, if they go up against Jack Welch's beloved GE, who do you think is going to be in the position of power there if you can spend as much money, on litigation, but the loser has to pay? Do you think a small business is going to sue GE for any reason under that circumstance?
Charles Payne: If they feel they're wrong I think they'll sue them and the idea is people who don't have a legitimate beef will stop suing those small businesses that we really need to be in this recovery.
AARP SHIFT ON SOCIAL SECURITY SPARKING NEW TAX HIKE FEARS
Dagen McDowell: The plan that they've been pushing so long is just hiking taxes, to save Social Security and now, they're kind of saying, we are we are open to discussing cutting benefits, and the president's fiscal commission suggested two-thirds in spending cuts and one third in tax hikes and I would doubt the AARP would accept anything more than a third of the overall plan and spending cuts. It would be about tax cuts.
Jack Welch: You saw this week, we had ethanol subsidies wacked. The world is coming around and we've got cuts some costs. So, the AARP I think, is trying to get ahead of the curve and trying to get the best deal they can by getting in front of the curve. So, in my view, they'll push means testing which I totally support and they'll push moving it up for those that are back a-ways, and 45 or under or something like that. It's easy fixing.
Charles Payne: I agree with Jack, although I think that Dagen is right. The concession will be so small on the retirement age part and really, the focus to me is the tax hikes, you know, I don't think they're going to move too far away from that. They even admit they felt like somehow they weren't being involved in the conversation, hard to believe the most powerful lobbyist group out there, nevertheless, you know, I think that's what it is. I don't see anything really different about what they're doing and they're trying to support the president.
Charlie Gasparino: Yeah, I think the bigger issue is this debate hurts their position and I think that once the general public starts focusing on, just how expensive the programs are, how kids coming out of college, you know, realize that, you know, taxes are going to have to stay high and may have perpetual 9 percent unemployment to pay for the massive welfare state. When we have that debate, I think it hurts their position, because people are going to start talking about the cuts and more cuts and yes, they may have to concede, but they're going to have to concede a lot more. I don't think this is a good debate for them.
Adam Lashinksy: This is a tremendously popular development. I'm proud to remind in 2005 I was on President Bush's side when AARP torpedoed his plan and they were very involved in the debate and they killed it. The fact that they're involved at all is important in solving the problem.