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.

Bulls & Bears | Cavuto on Business | Forbes on FOX | Cashin' In

Bulls & Bears

This past week's Bulls & Bears: Gary B. Smith, Exemplar Capital; Tobin Smith, ChangeWave Research; Eric Bolling, FOX Business News; Pat Dorsey, Morningstar.com, and Mike Papantonio, radio talk show host.

New Aid for Jobless; Will It Keep Unemployment Rate High?

Gary B. Smith, Exemplar Capital: This is a terrible idea! Of course, this is bad for the economy as we've reinforced the notion of sitting on your butt, but that's another story. It will actually help: by increasing benefits, those who would normally have to go look for work, won't. That means more jobs for those who WANT to work.

Eric Bolling, FOX Business Network: Gimme a break... now we are giving people an additional 26 weeks of benefits if they go get job training or apply to school? Just another example of the Nanny state sprawl. Where is the incentive to go get a job? This will allow people to stay on the Nanny teat longer.

Tobin Smith, ChangeWave Research: Extending jobless benefits actually helps job market in short term; we'll have more retail demand and higher GDP.

Pat Dorsey, Morningstar.com: Extending jobless benefits won't affect things.

Mike Papantonio, radio talk show host: It will help the job market! Have we really become so callous and shrill that we believe a man supporting four children, scared to death that he can't pay rent, terrified that he can't feed his family, likely to lose his car, likely to have no safety net for health coverage if a baby gets sick — or he becomes ill? Have we really adopted such a conservative callousness that we are unwilling to take care of that neighbor by giving him every chance? This extension pushes them toward retraining and learning new job skills.

Should Freed Gitmo Detainees Receive U.S. Welfare?

Tobin Smith: We free terrorists into the U.S. and provided them with paychecks but we send an American soldier, Lieutenant Michael Behenna, to prison for 25 years for killing a known Al Qaeda operative while serving in Iraq? Basic humanity suggests that if we took an innocent person and kept him at Gitmo for years, then I think we owe them a ticket back to where they came from and some sort of settlement for false imprisonment… but that's it, period.

Mike Papantonio: Yes they deserve some taxpayer assistance! Answer to this issue begins when we understand that out of the 800 prisoners at Gitmo only two have been convicted since 2002. Only 23 have even been charged with actual crimes. A majority of them are there because people collected bounties for every person they handed over — Al Qaeda or not. Sixty have been completely cleared for release because the government said they are there by mistake - zero evidence against them for any crime. I know this is a financial centered show - but sometimes even Wall Street has to answer the question — even the irrelevant, dying leadership of the GOP has to answer the question: what have we become?

Gary B Smith: This has to be a joke, right? I am moving to France if I end up paying for assistance for enemies of our country.

Eric Bolling: Did you see "60 Minutes"? Turns out the Saudis released from Gitmo are given the royal treatment.... Ridiculous. These are criminals, terrorists... they lost their liberties when they chose to try and kill us. How about giving them a choice: waterboard or manual labor. Bet most would choose the spritz over the shvitz.

Pat Dorsey: Are "regular" parolees and former inmates allowed welfare? If so, that's the precedent we should follow — especially since may of the Gitmo folks were never even formally charged or tried.

Legalizing and Taxing Sin: Right Fix?

• Video: Click here to watch the segment

Gary B Smith: This is yet another tax gambit which will only increase the use of things harmful to society. It's very simple: if things are easier to get, then use goes up. (Think of it as having a tax on getting them removed.) Why condone and in fact, why encourage things harmful to society?

Mike Papantonio: Before legalized gambling, the only people making money gambling was the mob. Today, Vegas collects $80 million a month of gambling revenue. Atlantic City collects about $20 million per month. They live by that old W.C. Fields philosophy that it's morally wrong to let a real sucker keep his own money. How can stockbroker types ever be critical of gambling? What bigger gambles take place than the stock market? Gambling generates huge taxable revenue; some recent research from Price Waterhouse shows that 40 billion dollars in revenues could be generated over the next 10 years. And medicinal marijuana alone has hit 14 billion dollars a year in sales. Here's what they figured out: the sale of Marijuana is no worse from a health/safety standpoint than tobacco or alcohol.

Eric Bolling: First of all, I see no reason to legalize drugs under any circumstance. I have a ten year old that I worry about every minute. The biggest threat to him becoming a good successful teen is the drug threat. And I love to gamble but it's a choice I make because I can afford it. Legalizing it to capture tax revenue is not a horrible idea but that would make it available to a whole new generation of gamblers.

Tobin Smith: It's a great idea! Legalizing and taxing pot and gambling would take about 50,000 prisoners out of jail saving billions…taxes would raise hundreds of billions of dollars.

Predictions

Tobin Smith: Protect your home & portfolio with Dow Chemical (DOW)

Gary B. Smith: AF1 photo op "flop" helps Adobe (ADBE) double in one year

Pat Dorsey: RenaissanceRe a real steal! "RNR" Up 50 percent in 2 years

Eric Bolling: Summer pain for drivers & Manny! "TSO" up 50 percent before Ramirez returns

Bulls & Bears | Cavuto on Business | Forbes on FOX | Cashin' In

Cavuto on Business

This past week, Charles Payne was in for Neil Cavuto. Charles was joined by: Ben Stein, author "How to Ruin the United States of America"; Dagen McDowell, FOX Business News; Adam Lashinsky, editor-at-large, Fortune Magazine; Gary Kaltbaum, GaryK.com.

20,000 New Government Workers at Defense Department, After Adding 66,000 Government Jobs in April; Good or Bad Use of Tax Money?

Ben Stein, author, "How to Ruin the United States of America": These government jobs are mostly wasteful, yes. But I think overall the employment situation is getting a lot better.

Dagen McDowell, FOX Business Network: A job is a job, whether it's from the private sector or from the government. I don't worry about this kind of government hiring in the short term; the more damaging effect would be if this continues in the long term. We can all agree that America needs a strong national defense, but we do need to cut our spending. Where is it going to come from?

Gary Kaltbaum, GaryK.com: I do not believe this defense department case is the evidence...everything else is. Everything (and I mean everything) Obama has done... even though he says he has no intention... is for more government control. Banks want to pay back the TARP... and they can't. They (the government) don't want to run auto makers...and they do. This is centralized government... and my worry is that we are just at the beginning. Just wait until health care.

Is White House Creating Climate of Fear for Capitalists?

Gary Kaltbaum: If we are to believe what we are hearing... hell yes. Government dictating policy on who gets what at Chrysler, government threatening people to be on board... or else. I have news for you, this is how Chavez started. I have been saying all along the mainstream media hid who this person really is... and we are getting it and it isn't going to end... very crappy tactics... and the media is enabling him... and amazingly, the republican leadership sits on their hands.

Ben Stein: No, he is still a captive of old fashioned money politics. The powers around him are still Wall Street powers or pawns of Wall Street. And these kinds of tactics are not new — they occurred during the Nixon, Ford and Reagan Administrations (although not to the same extent).

Adam Lashinsky: He absolutely is "demagoguing" the investment world. I don't know that it expands to all free enterprise, but creating a climate of fear for Wall Street is bad government, bad policy, bad leadership and bad business. His words are unfortunate. However, it does not put him on a level with someone like Hugo Chavez.

Should President Obama Make Good on Promise to Drop 401(k) Penalties?

Gary Kaltbaum: For now, I would get rid of the penalties as I believe you need to be flexible during these times... or maybe make it easier to take a loan against it. Overall, I am not for making it easy because I believe employees need to have some forced savings... but right now is different.

Adam Lashinsky: No. The exemptions on penalties already are generous. Removing the penalties makes a mockery of the tax inducement to save in the first place. People need to understand that a rainy day fund is necessary on top of a retirement fund.

Dagen McDowell: If you want to experience a tsunami of trouble you get rid of the early withdrawal penalty. There would be a flood of money coming out of the stock market.

Blockbuster Stocks

• Video: Click here to watch the segment

Adam Lashinsky: Netflix (NFLX)

Ben Stein: Cohen & Steers Quality Income Realty Fund (RQI)

Gary Kaltbaum: UltraShort 20+ Year ProShares (TBT)

Bulls & Bears | Cavuto on Business | Forbes on FOX | Cashin' In

Forbes on FOX

On Saturday, May 9, 2009, David Asman was joined by Rich Karlgaard; Bill Baldwin; Neil Weinberg; Mike Ozanian; Quentin Hardy; Victoria Barret; Jack Gage; Evelyn Rusli; Elizabeth MacDonald and John Rutledge.

In Focus

David Asman: For the first time ever, Uncle Sam is the biggest source of money for states, thanks to the $787 billion stimulus package. But states keep jacking up taxes. Someone here says, "You take our bailout cash? You should kiss those tax hikes goodbye!"

Victoria Barret: This goes under the category of "enough is enough." We're going to get higher taxes on the federal level because of all the money we're spending. It's inevitable. Now, states are hitting us, too. Take California, which regularly wins the award for worst government management ever. We're likely to see $26 billion in stimulus flow our way. Thank you, all of the other states.

David Asman: You're welcome…

Victoria Barret: Meanwhile, Schwarzenegger is increasing our taxes. In April, we saw a tax hike in what we pay in sales tax. That was an effort to raise $10 billion. It's just too much at a time when everyone is feeling tight. And the fundamental problem is that a lot of states need to parse back their budgets and also do rainy day funds for bad times. They haven't done it because every time we get bad times, we do stuff like this.

David Asman: So Neil, enough is enough? If they're going to take federal funds, they shouldn't be hiking state taxes.

Neil Weinberg: I'm not big on raising taxes, but this is a Washington power grab, just as much as socializing health care.

David Asman: A Washington power grab?

Neil Weinberg: I'm shocked to see a power grab. That's why it's good for the states to raise taxes. I would much rather have a bureaucrat down the road, in the local papers all the time, raising my taxes and being responsible.

David Asman: Well Rich. What do you think?

Rich Karlgaard: Well, whether it's right or wrong, the result is going to be the same. And this is, for very expensive, high-tax states like New York and California, you're going to cause an exodus of upper middle class people. You know, $250,000, which is how the Obama Administration defines rich, is seen by most people as good upper middle class income in California and New York. And now you're going to tax these people more? The beneficiaries are going to be states like Washington and Texas with no state income.

David Asman: And New Jersey by the way, which has a little less than New York. Now, New York is going to be raising their state tax up above 10 percent in many cases. Shouldn't they be forced not to raise taxes if they're getting all of this federal income?

Quentin Hardy: No. We should be forced to fix problems. To this extent, I think it's interesting to think about where this money is going. The fed is giving money to the states. If you look at the programs, most of them are around law enforcement, and there is this big fund… 80 percent of which goes toward preventing teachers from being laid off. What about that? That's about the housing crisis. Because those are the two sectors that get built out. This is about trying to prevent a massive disruption in the two big employment sectors that got grown out during the housing crisis and adjusting over time. I think that's a good idea. By the way, the feds also gave a ton of unfunded mandates to the states and made them pay for them over the last eight years. Maybe it's a quid pro quo.

Mike Ozanian: Victoria is right. It's about run-away government spending at the local level. The average public employee now makes 43 percent more when you include health benefits and pension benefits then the private sector. These are secret programs where they put in these huge pensions.

David Asman: You say secret. What makes it secret? Is there a cover up?

Mike Ozanian: There's not accountability. Taxpayers don't know.

Quentin Hardy: People know they exist. It's not secret.

Mike Ozanian: People go to work for 20 years in the public sector, retire, get full health benefits, full pension.

Quentin Hardy: That's known.

Mike Ozanian: Then you get another job where you also get full health and pension benefits. People don't know about that. It's ludicrous!

David Asman: You guys at Forbes did a terrific study about people becoming millionaires based on retiring.

Jack Gage: Absolutely out of control — the spending on the local level. Though, the Spanish conquistadors in the 16th century were dubbed by natives forcing them to drink molten gold. Think about what would happen if we did that on the state and lower level – to make these bureaucrats running us into the ground pay the political price for raising taxes.

Forbes on FOX Debate

David Asman: $635 billion of your tax money to move us closer to nationalized health care. That's how President Obama wants to spend your money. But did Walmart just show him that the free market can improve health care with a lot less money?

Mike Ozanian: It sure did. We don't need Obama's socialized medicine. What we need is more being able to buy insurance outside of the state. We need more portability. We need to give individuals the same tax credits corporations get.

David Asman: Let's talk specifically about what Walmart is doing. They are essentially providing prescription medicine at a much cheaper cost by removing the middleman.

Mike Ozanian: Exactly. That brings in efficiency and lower prices. That's what moving towards the free market would do as opposed to Obama's plan, which would make it more expensive.

David Asman: And we already have Caterpillar taking advantage of Walmart. They have more than 700,000 employees. It's a terrific plan that makes it cheaper for the medications and Walmart makes money. So it's a win-win, no?

Quentin Hardy: In economics, we call this pricing power. Walmarters can get lower prices. Unfortunately, under Mr. Bush's prescription Medicare plan, that was prohibited. We should change that. But Walmart and healthcare - I love this subject! I went to their website. Fifty percent of Walmart workers are covered by health insurance. Unfortunately, that compares to a national average among big company employers of 67 percent. At Costco, 80 percent of workers are covered. Walmart, more than any other large company counts on the government for health care.

David Asman: And John, we know that the CEO has in some cases advocated more government in health care. But does it show that we don't need Obama's extra spending on health care because the private sector can do it?

John Rutledge: Walmart has done more for health care and medicine than all our government added together will ever do. I've had the misfortunate of being a vendor to Walmart. Walmart will break your spine on the price. Low prices and delivery on-site is what people need. That's what Walmart can deliver.

David Asman: It's not only Walmart. Walgreens and CVS are also involved in this plan.

Bill Baldwin: I worship the free market, except for when it doesn't quite work. The problem with Walmart's "I-can-get-it-for-you-wholesale" approach is it doesn't take into account differences in people's genes. Some people need $1 million a year in medicine to stay alive. Some people will be profitable clients for an insurance premium. What do you do about that? My answer is Obama comes up with subsidies. It's a lot of money for somebody. It's a little bit of money for somebody who has no medical problems. Then, the market takes over.

David Asman: No plan is perfect, but don't you think the market can come up with better solutions than the brainiacs inside the beltway?

Rich Karlgaard: Health care they don't. Why not? It's governed by the same technology except when the private market works, as in the case of Lasik surgery. My god, when I had it, it was $5,000. Now, I can get it from the same doctor for $2,000. That's called competition, innovation, technology.

David Asman: Elizabeth, competition works everywhere including health care?

Elizabeth MacDonald: You're right. I just find it ironic that they're offering $4 generic prescription drugs and $350, I think, on different types of drugs. At the same time, they're selling big blocks of cheese and hundred-gallon jugs of mayonnaise. There is an irony there. I think those blocks of cheese could choke a whale. What we're talking about, too, is cutting out the middlemen. If Walmart's plan grows, people will be helped.

Forbes on FOX Debate

David Asman: A new take on an extreme home makeover! Cities all over the country are using federal stimulus dollars to bulldoze homes, even entire neighborhoods, in an attempt to revive the housing market. Sound familiar? Maybe that's because months ago, our own E-Mac proposed it!

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP FROM Dec. 20, 2008)

David Asman says: Elizabeth says there's still way too many houses on the market... and if we want to start rebuilding housing, we have to bulldoze those unsold homes. It seems like such a waste.

Elizabeth MacDonald says: It does seem like a waste, but it's not actually.

Neil Weinberg says: I think this could win the lame-brain Olympics gold medal.

David Asman says: OH!!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

David Asman: Is it tough being so smart?

Elizabeth MacDonald: No, not smart. You're so gracious and generous. It wasn't my idea, but I love Neil and the "lame-brain Olympics." Creative.

David Asman: But that's true. I think we can put up the names of some of these cities that are doing this.

Elizabeth MacDonald: It's 14. It's growing — not just Flint, Michigan, but also Buffalo, Phoenix, Cleveland, Des Moines. What's going on is it's not about bulldozing communities. It's about protecting families. We're talking about families and children. What happens is you get an abandoned, foreclosed property and it becomes vandalized; drug dealers descent upon it, fires break out. I'm talking about rehabbing these properties or turning these properties into gardens, playgrounds, schools, parks. You can recycle the properties. Housing has gotten so bad in these areas, they're called rat courts. That's where we are right now.

Neil Weinberg: Maybe lame-brain was too much, but lily-livered by fit this case. Gardens and flowers is about as controversial as being for change, like President Obama. What I'd say to you, if you want to have a debate about this, is the question is not whether we want to raise crack houses. The question is when you have a house that may, because of a shortage of financing, not be able to be finished now, but in the future could provide productive parts to the community…

Elizabeth MacDonald: You're missing the argument.

Neil Weinberg: There is no argument.

Evelyn Rusli: No one wants to rip apart these cities. But for a place like Flint, Michigan, it may be their only solution. They had 200,000 people drop down to 100,000.

Informer

• Video: Click here to see this segment

David Asman: The Forbes investment guide is on newsstands right now. It's chock-full of great investment ideas. And right now, our Forbes Informers are about to reveal the funds you need to own for life:

Evelyn Rusli: Meridian Growth (MERDX)

Mike Ozanian: T. Rowe Price Small-Cap Value (PRSVX)

Jack Gage: iShares JPMorgan Emerging Markets Bond Fund (EMB)

Neil Weinberg: Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund Investor Shares (VTSMX)

Bulls & Bears | Cavuto on Business | Forbes on FOX | Cashin' In

Cashin' In

Who's in Better Financial Shape: Stressed-Out Banks or Bloated Government?

John Bradshaw Layfield, www.layfieldenergy.com: There's no doubt about it, the banks. Look at this. $75 Million of these 10 largest bank needs. This is going to be shuffling of deck chairs. They're going to take preferred, switch it over, sell a couple of assets, they're done. The problem with banks going forward is the $600 billion in potential future losses. But they're going to be bailed out by the government. They do have some competent management in Ken Lewis and Jamie Diamond. The government, on the other hand, who's going to bail them out? While President Obama may be confident these guys in Congress have proven they are not. They have no fiscal responsibility. Federal banks are not betting on this government, as much as I love this country.

Wayne Rogers, Wayne Rogers & Co: Well, you know, all we're talking about is the major money center banks. You're not talking about the 10,800 banks spread across the country. Last year we had 25. This year we may have as much as 100 or 200. That's still less than 1 percent. You're talking about a banking system. What they're talking about is Bank of America, Citibank, Goldman, etc., Etc., The ones that got us in trouble. They never would have been in trouble if Phil Graham and those guys did not pass that act. That act was separating the commercial banks from the investment banks. That's what ruined the banking system. They should break them up tomorrow. That would stop it all. We'd be out of this in a heart beat.

Rebecca Diamond, FOX Business Network: Sure, some have reported profit. They're saying maybe they can't continue that. But even though the federal government can raise our taxes to get more money, they can print more money. The problem with the federal government, they cannot control spending. I doubt that we'd ever see a balanced federal budget again in our lifetime.

Martin Frost, former Texas congressman: We did have a balanced budget in the late 1990's. We took some tough action. I don't know whether Congress is capable of doing that again. I hope they are. I don't want to see the size debts we have right now either.

Jonas Max Ferris, www.MaxFunds.com: Well if we had the tax revenues at a high percentage of G.D.P — in fact, as high as other countries, we would have a balanced budget and this would be over. I think even with the current recklessness of the government — If you can't cut spending. Look what happened this week. You have Congress people who didn't vote for this spending bill because it was a waste of money. Then they try to scale back one fraction of a percent of it. And the same people who were against the big spending don't want to have those cuts to their little programs. So, no, the government is not cutting spending. They're going to have to get better at raising money. They aren't going to cut spending.

Jonathan Hoenig, CapitalistPig Asset Management: The banks and the government are one in the same now. The government is the largest shareholder in Bank of America and Citigroup and GM and Fannie and Freddy and — Freddie and these other companies. We pour billions of dollars into them. What worries me is that we're running them now. The government, people like the Former Congressman are picking the directors, CEO's, determining business strategy, picking the favorite creditors and bankruptcy. That worries me moving forward. There is no free lunch. I think we will pay for this spending. But the government control over private industry is going to hurt us even in the long run.

GM's Lavish Retreat: Good Biz or Waste of Bailout Buck$?

Rebecca Diamond: This is such a bad idea — capital B. To put it in terms people can understand at home, I borrow money from you, you're helping me out because my business is failing or I'm before to lose my home and I need to pay my mortgage but instead of taking that money and paying my mortgagor helping the business, you know, something substantial, I'm going to party, take a little vacation, bring all my friends with me. Granted, they say it's clients. But you know what? You can also fly there or fly the client to you. Take them out to a nice dinner. Show them your cars in the showroom and say, here's the contract. Wining and dining them to a vacation? Is that going to make a difference of them signing a contract?

Jonathan Hoenig: We all have opinions about how these companies should be run, but this bailout madness started. Shouldn't have this bonus, we're all opining about how private business should be run. These businesses can do whatever they want. I just don't want to pay for it. But that's the problem. So we're always going to have an opinion about a better way in which bailout money should be spent. The bailout money should never have been given in the first place.

Jonas Max Ferris: If you're a fleet buyer of cars, the GM cars aren't really that great compared to the Toyota cars, you've got to put them in a $400 room or they're go with Toyota not GM. This is a business purpose. It looks absurd to us, but they're also advertising with hundreds of millions of dollars for these cars and we're not going to question that either. That's how you run the auto business, right or wrong. We are shareholders. I don't care.

John Bradshaw Layfield: As one of the only business owners here, I run a business. If you can tell me I can spend $2 million and bring in $60 billion in revenue from my clients that are going to be there, I will do it every day of the week and recommend that General Motors does it. These guys represent 27 percent of the cars sold. That's about three million cars. At $20,000 each, you're talking about $60 billion in revenue. They better get them lap dances, buy them hotel rooms, get them Eliot Spitzer's black book if they have to do it. This is naive for somebody to bash this. This is no different than advertising. But it's money well spent because you put them in a car, you sell them one-on-one. That's the way you run business in this country.

Wayne Rogers: They've got to run the business. You've got to put a guy in running the business, don't second guess him. Like Jonathan said, I wasn't in favor of this bailout, but you can't let the United States government run the automobile business. They don't know how to run their own business. They can't run any business as far as they good. I think they've never made a profit in their lives. I don't know what you would be doing letting the Governor run the business. If you can sell cars like JBL sells, spend $2 million making $60 billion, you're going to do that. The numbers speak for themselves.

Fire Lawmakers Missing Votes While Playing Hooky?

Wayne Rogers: I think they should all be benched. You can tell the entire Congress to take off four years, take off their entire period. They're not doing the job. They don't care about what they do. They don't take responsibility…this guy missed a whole bunch of votes. He's supposed to be there on the job. If you ran any business like this, you would be fired in a heartbeat. I'm in the military and I'm in a war zone and I say, oh, I just don't choose to go down and fight today, I don't want to do that, I'd rather sit here and not go to work today. That's crazy.

Martin Frost: This is a silly story. Let's be very clear what's going on here. He missed three votes. His flight was late. He couldn't get down there in time so he went and played hockey. What's wrong with that? Let me tell you, when I was a Congressman — I'm not in Congress anymore. We used to tell the new members of Congress, miss one or two votes at the beginning of the year so you don't have to worry about perfect attendance. There are six, seven votes cast a year. Maybe he misses three-on-one night. This is no big deal. One of the things I used to do, I'd go to picnics in my district and be the pitcher for both teams in softball. One time some guy hit one so far against me it went over off the playing field into the lake behind left field. He spent the rest of the year telling all his buddies how he hit one into the lake off the Congressman. It's a silly story.

John Bradshaw Layfield: You're damn right he's culpable. If it wasn't for redistricting, he'd probably still be in Congress. He is the exception. These guys, we are in the worst economic problem since the Great Depression. I do demand perfect attendance. If that was my company, I would fire him on the spot. If it was me, I'd want somebody to run me out. Yes, sir, absolutely. No excuse for that. Congressman, you never did that. So it's wrong for these guys as well. Hold them to the same standard whether they're Democrats or Republicans. Congressman, quit defending these guys just because you were one of them. Quit defending them. There is no excuse for these guys doing this. They're supposed to be running our country not playing hockey. This is a responsibility.

Jonas Max Ferris: The analogy is ridiculous because businesses do end have board meetings recognizing ships that were blown up 150 years ago which was one of the votes he missed. He's missed seven votes. There's a guy in California that missed over 100 votes.

Rebecca Diamond: So just note to lawmakers, if you are going to play hooky, don't go out and do something that public so us in the press can track you. Common sense.

Jonathan Hoenig: Well, voters are watching, Terry. They're keeping a close eye. I don't think missing a vote is impeachable, but his constituents are keeping an eye on him. What worries me less is that he's missed vote but that he's never really had any job experience. I think JBL is right. This type of behavior wouldn't stand in the private sector.

What Do I Need to Know?

• Video: Click here to watch the segment

Jonathan Hoenig: On Monday (May 11) two new funds will become public. They let you bet for the first time on a residential real estate. Major Metro Housing Up (UMM) or Major Metro Housing Down (DMM). If you think home prices are up, you buy a UMM. If you feel home prices are headed down, DMM. I don't think they're a growth area right now. So I'd more likely be buying DMM.

John Bradshaw Layfield: Driving season is starting with the summer. Higher oil prices. I think we're going to see that. Driving has been depressed so far. I think you're going to see companies like Exxon Mobile which I own as well.

Jonas Max Ferris: But oil prices are going down as are housing prices. Buy (TLT). I've been negative on housing for three years. I'm not stopping yet.

Wayne Rogers: I'm on TBT, Got it at $46, it's $53. I'm the opposite of Jonas. CMA, some of the banks that have come back, going through the stress test. I think the banks are going to be strong and are coming back strongly.