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.
On Saturday April 3, Brenda Buttner was joined by Gary B. Smith, Tobin Smith, Pat Dorsey, Eric Bolling and Richard Goodstein.
Companies Taking Financial Hits From Health Care Law; Will It Cost Jobs?
Eric Bolling, Fox Business Network: Right now, companies are estimating a $3 billion hit from health care. There are some estimates saying this could rise up to $14 billion. These companies have two options -- either cut benefits for retirees and what they're due, or they have to lay people off or stop hiring.
Richard Goodstein, former Clinton/Gore campaign adviser: Health care reform is going to be good for jobs in many respects. These companies are losing a subsidy they've received from the federal government thanks to the prescription drug bill back in 2003 and realize they can no longer deduct it. So we're getting rid of a benefit for companies being paid for by taxpayers. These will be short-term losses. Over the long term, these companies are going to save tens of billions of dollars due to health care reform.
Gary B. Smith, TheChartman.com: No matter how badly we may want the government to create jobs, it just can't, at least not efficiently over the long term. It can move money or people around from one place to the other, but it can't do real job creation. I think we're going to see a huge escalation is company write-downs due to health care that will be far above current estimates. The money to pay for health care reform is going to come from entrepreneurs and businesses, and they're going to spend a lot more than they're going to save.
Tobin Smith, NBT Media: This $14 billion write-down estimate for companies is going to have to get paid in some way. But we've already see the empirical data for Obama-care -- it's Romney-care in Massachusetts. That plan has destroyed a huge number of jobs. Costs have skyrocketed. It takes 44 days to get a doctor there. Many doctors are pulling out of accepting state-backed health care plans. Health care reforms are going to raise premiums and hurt jobs.
Pat Dorsey, Morningstar.com: The government is closing this $3 billion loophole for companies. It was the equivalent of the government paying your mortgage and you getting to right off the taxes. Most of the companies announcing these write-downs are major industrial businesses with loads of retirees supported by relatively few active workers. There isn't a tech company, retailer, or health care company that has announced any write-down like this -- as in the most dynamic areas of the economy. We shouldn't get our shorts in a knot over closing a tax loophole for companies.
Will Taxpayers Pay More If Unions Don't Accept Givebacks?
Tobin Smith: Research my group has done shows that almost 300 cities in the U.S. will have to declare bankruptcy over the next 18 months if they don't get unions to make pay and pension concessions. Everybody has pulled back in the economy due to the recession. People are taking less pay for more hours and increasing their productivity. Yet unions keep demanding more and more, in terms of raises, benefits, etc. It's insane.
Richard Goodstein: It's unfair for cities and states to try and break deals with unions previously negotiated. But certainly, unions have to play a different game given the economic situation. But, if you're a cop, a teacher, or a firefighter, having to make benefit concessions on your previously agreed to contract doesn't make a lot of sense. We have hedge fund managers makings incredible amounts of money who scream bloody murder because their taxes might go up a bit. We need to somehow show some equity here.
Gary B. Smith: Democrats always play their firemen or policemen trump card. They never talk about the sanitation worker or the civil servant who's in charge of moving paperwork when you need some lousy permit cleared. I get the union's game. They signed these contracts, but hey signed them in good times. They were made on the assumption that economically, things were going to stay good. Clearly that wasn't the case. These unions want to keep their pay and benefits regardless of everyone else, and as a result, a lot of municipalities are probably going to have to declare bankruptcy.
Eric Bolling: Municipalities are under a lot of pressure to get unions to play ball and renegotiate these contracts. And it'll probably be too hard to break them. If they don't, taxpayers are going to pick up the tab. These unions have tremendous political power, and these municipalities have a very thin tightrope to walk along. Forcing unions into contract renegotiations could have serious political consequences down the line.
Pat Dorsey: The people who deserve the most blame in this are the elected officials at the municipal level over the past 20 years who've made unsustainable promises. They operated on the assumption that times would almost always be good. If you think you can keep upping property taxes and rely on ever-increasing revenues, then you can keep raising benefits till the cows come home. Things just don't work like that. When it comes to government jobs, pay has to be variably based--as in, when times are bad you get paid less, and when they're good, you get paid more. Unfortunately, there's just not a whole lot that can be done right now to save these municipalities.
Would Taxpayers Be Better Off Without President's Drilling Plan?
Eric Bolling: This "plan" is a deal. We'll open up a little bit more of these off-shore sites, most of which used to be open until a moratorium was put on these areas a number of years ago. But now they're opened up and a little bit more drilling will be allowed so moderate Republicans will get behind cap and trade legislation. The legislation would be a horrible idea. President Obama's plan is to give a little to get a lot. Cap and trade legislation would be a $600 billion to $1 trillion hit on our economy every year if passed.
Richard Goodstein: Right now, we're getting our clock cleaned by China and other countries who have committed themselves to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by virtue of investment in renewable energy and efficiency. The only way we can catch up is putting a price on carbon pollution to help reduce emissions and make our economy greener.
Gary B. Smith: There is no quid pro quo in all this because there is no quid! We're making a big deal about off-shore drilling in Virginia. This deal was already in the works. Unfortunately, the most potentially productive off-shore drilling areas are still off-limits. And much of these areas they are opening up are subject to congressional approval. President Obama gave up nothing in this, and what we'll get is this cap and trade tax monster.
Pat Dorsey: We're getting some drilling with this. It's not like it's going to do much good, given the amount of oil it's going to take in. Oil is a globally traded commodity, and just because it's closer to us doesn't make it cheaper. I don't think this will affect oil prices one iota over the long-term.
Tobin Smith: The big potential off-shore sites are in California and Florida, and they aren't being opened up. This is a totally bogus offer.
Gary B. Smith: We love drama and gossip! "GOOG" uncovers 15 percent gains by 2011
Pat Dorsey: Flashy profits! "KLAC" drives up 50 percent in 2 years
Tobin Smith: GM's $1B bailout repayment means "F" will drive up 50 percent in 1 year
Eric Bolling: Biden's "big deal" turning into big profits for "HBI"; up 30 percent in 1 year
On Saturday April 3, Neil Cavuto was joined by Charles Payne, Dagen McDowell, Ben Stein and Leigh Gallagher.
Who's Using Health Care Scare Tactics: Democratic Leaders or CEOs?
Ben Stein, author, "The Little Book of Bulletproof Investing": This is a scandal. The law is clear. If a corporation incurs a cost or knows it's going to be hit with an oncoming cost, it must report this as a charge or write-down against income or capital. The government is trying to McCarthyite and bully them into not taking these charges. The government is trying to make these companies bear false witness.
Charles Payne, WStreet.com: Without a doubt, this is intimidation. First, the government is bullying businesses and putting them in a negative light. The notion of profits is really coming under fire. Honestly, I think the Democrats think this is the best move they have in their playbook. They pretty much bully their way into getting whatever they want and need. And it certainly seems like they're applying the same tactics with these businesses announcing these health-care related losses they will incur.
Dagen McDowell, Fox Business Network: Where are the Democrats going to stop with this? There are about 3,500 businesses that offer retiree drug benefits that could take a hit due to these new health care laws. This really raises the question of, where does it all end? This won't just be some small, select group of companies. To what extent are they going to go to prevent estimates about premiums going up? Or estimates about taxes going up? Their goal is to silence any and all critics, and this will only get worse.
Leigh Gallagher, Fortune Magazine: Closing this tax loophole isn't really going to affect things that much. Companies were able to double dip as a result of it by deducting both the cost and government subsidy of the prescription drug program. When the prescription drug legislation passed, this tax loophole gave companies a reason to promote this prescription coverage. Now, since the government is taking it away, these companies are using scare tactics just as much as Congress.
Are New Government Jobs Keeping Companies From Hiring Workers?
Charles Payne: We just keep throwing money at all the new government programs and stimulus. Government jobs continue to rise, despite the huge number of private sector jobs the economy has shed during the recession. All these government jobs are costing an increasingly smaller pool of taxpayers more money at a time when they can't even afford it. We've see this trend of government workers making more money than their private sector counterparts. It's unsustainable and it's going to come to a head at some point.
Leigh Gallagher: These numbers don't concern me because the numbers that came out this week showed positive signs for the private sector. Private sector employment is actually up and hit levels we haven't seen since 2007. The number of census-related hires was lower than everybody thought, meaning less government jobs. Given the trends, I think we can see that private sector employment is coming back.
Ben Stein: It's good that we've actually seen job creation. Of course it's bad we have a huge deficit too. But with private sector employment making an increasingly fast rebound, we should feel better about things. Granted, the jobs aren't in particularly high paying sectors of the economy, but they are jobs, and it's certainly better than losing more. Hopefully we'll begin to see unemployment trending down to its levels during the Bush years.
Dagen McDowell: We've seen a significant trend in the creation of more government jobs and bigger government. Whether through stimulus, establishing new fuel economy standards, health care laws, etc. It sets the tone for years of government job creation. As a result, the government sucks vital resources away from the private sector. Be careful what you wish for.
Apple, Toyota Proving Government Should Stay Away From Economy?
Dagen McDowell: This isn't going to get in the way of Democrats spending money. They have the Trojan horse in place--the stimulus package. Stimulus, with all its add-ons included, is going to cost at least a trillion dollars. Existing programs are being extended, adding new programs, etc. and will continue to until someone says no more. The government shows no sign it'll stay away from the economy. I think down the line, we'll see a push to create a value-added tax to pay for all this.
Charles Payne: People are underestimating our economy. It's a $14 trillion economy. This recession certainly caused economic pain. But if you want to goose the economy, let people and businesses keep more of their money. Give them a break through tax cuts, and incentivize hiring right away. Then you'll actually see sustained growth. The right incentives give you tremendous results.
Ben Stein: We're in the midst of a business cycle, and we're finally coming out of the recession. There's no point in spending money we don't have. The debt has gotten so enormous, I don't think there's much of a way out of it other than massive inflation. We've already hit our breaking point. The private sector is showing it can rebound on its own, and the government has got to stay out of it.
Leigh Gallagher: We are seeing a recovery. Look at the stock market alone. There is an enthusiasm and confidence returning to the market and the consumer. We have to be careful though of just pointing to a company like Apple as a model. It's been incredibly successful, but it also lies at an extreme. For every Apple, there's a Mervyn's or Christian Lacroix that went of business. The government stepped in with spending to make up the decline in spending from the private sector. Since we're coming out of the recession, I think we'll see the government pull back on its spending.
Charles Payne: Quicksilver (ZQK)
Leigh Gallagher: Broadridge Financial Solutions (BR)
Ben Stein: iShares Japan Index (EWJ)
Forbes on Fox
On Saturday, April 3, 2010, David Asman was joined by Steve Forbes, Rich Karlgaard, Neil Weinberg, Quentin Hardy, Victoria Barret, and Dan Gerstein.
In Focus: Will Government Takeover of Student Loan Program Mean Taxpayers Will Pay for Everyone's Higher Education?
DAVID ASMAN: It's the latest government takeover—the nation's student loan program. The White House says it'll save taxpayers nearly $70 billion over the next ten years but someone at Forbes says it'll soon have taxpayers paying for everybody's higher education. Steve, will this plan save us all money?
STEVE FORBES: No, it'll cost money. The government can't run anything right. Just look at Fannie, Freddie, the Post Office and a few other things. It will also mean higher costs in education. When the government subsidizes things, costs always go up, so students end up with an even bigger burden of debt. And this is the first step in taking over higher education, first by making it a freebie for community colleges, then they'll go to universities, and then to governance of universities, including admissions. If you want to go to Harvard, you have to get Obama's permission.
QUENTIN HARDY: This is good. The banks were getting money to basically convey loans between the students and the government in the end anyway. What the government is doing now is cutting out the middleman. That's more efficient and it's good to have efficiency in the student loan program. There are now 25 million college students in China. We have to compete with that. We have to lower the cost of this. Getting out the middleman did that. It ends a free ride to the banks on Wall Street. I'm good with that.
VICTORIA BARRET: What this does is essentially say, if you graduate from college and go into a well-paying job, you have to payoff your loan in its entirety. If you graduate from college and you don't go into a well-paying job, don't worry about that loan. In my mind, that's not a loan. That's a grant, and that's taxpayer money going to someone to put them through college. We're also seeing this in private schools and what they're doing is tiered pricing. If parents make over $100,000, they have to pay a $50,000 tuition, which is astronomical. If they make under $100,000, they'll be given grants and the kid won't walk out of the school with more than an $8,000 loan. It's tiered pricing and I don't like it.
DAN GERSTEIN: There's no doubt that this is going to save money by cutting out the middleman. This was a boondoggle. It was corporate welfare and it was totally inefficient because we gave guaranteed subsidies to the banks and the federal government assumed all the risk. This was a government program where we had rent-seekers rigging the game so that they would get money from the government and ripping off the taxpayer.
NEIL WEINBERG: If removing the middleman always made sense we wouldn't have brokers selling anything, anywhere. Yes, there was a certain amount of corporate welfare here but is the government going to run this more efficiently? I don't think so. The other problem is that there's a little bit of backdoor socialism here. While President Obama is saying these are loans, they're not. He's making it so that you don't have to pay them back. If you're in the private sector, after 20 years, no matter how much you haven't paid off, you're done with it. And for bureaucrats, it's 10 years.
Flipside: Best Friend of Business? President Obama!
DAVID ASMAN: The best friend to business, President Obama! Someone at Forbes says it's true and the jobs number proves it. The unemployment rate is stuck at 9.7 percent but 162,000 jobs were added. That's the most in three years. Neil, you think President Obama is good for business.
NEIL WEINBERG: I don't think he's all that bad. He's got tax credits to hire. He's got tax credits for the home market. He's got the stimulus bill. He even wants to privatize NASA. I don't think business can say he's all together against them.
STEVE FORBES: Stimulus for more government workers—boy that's a real strong foundation for the future. His policies have slowed the recovery. Given the magnitude of the fall we should have had a much more vigorous snapback. The prospect of a weak dollar, higher taxes, nationalized health care—it's led to a slow recovery and it's hurt small businesses. They're not willing to make investments if they have the money and those who need the money can't get it from the credit system today.
DAN GERSTEIN: I don't think there's any question that the stimulus bill had a positive effect. I will agree with a lot of the critics that it was poorly constructed and it could have had more of a boost in terms of job creation. I think it should have been bigger but it should have been targeted at economic growth, instead of at paying off democratic interest groups.
RICH KARLGAARD: He is bad for business. When you look at comparable recessions like 1982 you see the snapback following that with 7 percent-8 percent GDP growth. This time we're going to have about 4 percent--not bad, but not anything like snapbacks before. And, Obama's own Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said unemployment was going to remain unacceptably high for years.
QUENTIN HARDY: I think it's so great that Geithner actually spoke the truth. You shouldn't compare this to recessions, you should compare this to financial crises, and that would indicate based on the average overtime that the Dow should have fallen from 14,000 to 6,000 and the unemployment rate should be 12 percent to 20 percent. We didn't get that. That's a really good thing.
VICTORIA BARRET: I think there are a lot of things the government did to save us from a great depression and I give credit to both administrations. But when you look specifically at jobs, the best thing he's done, arguably, is this hiring tax credit. But my problem with this tax credit is that it is temporary, and if you are a business owner, you can not make decisions on hiring, which are long-term decisions, based on short-term, gimmicky tax credits. Carter tried to do this in the 1970s with a hiring tax credit and it didn't work. I think these gimmicks here and there don't do as much as removing barriers to hiring like implementing long terms tax cuts.
Should Government Stop Bailing Out Flood Zones With Taxpayer Money?
DAVID ASMAN: We have flood waters still ravaging big chunks of the east coast this morning. The National Guard has been called in and federal money is already heading to water-logged states, including Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island. But Rich says, Uncle Sam needs to stop paying people to rebuild in flood zones.
RICH KARLGAARD: This is not a black and white question. It exists along a scale and at some point we have to say, when we are running a deficit that is 11 percent of our GDP and our indebtedness is going through the roof, where do we draw the line? And the fact is, there are private mechanisms to take care of these victims. One is insurance, and the second is charity. I think we should move the needle more towards charities and insurance rather than government.
VICTORIA BARRET: I disagree. This is an unprecedented catastrophe in the area and it's not like these schools, homes and businesses were built in floodplains. This is a case where the government should step in and frankly, as a taxpayer, I'm happy to send my dollars over there. That makes me proud to be a taxpayer. I agree with Rich that we have a deficit problem and we should be cutting back, but this isn't an area to be cutting back.
NEIL WEINBERG: We should have a safety net when lives are at stake. But this is what Ronald Reagan would call moral hazard. If you encourage people to do things that are risky because they aren't going to have to pick up the bill, obviously they will do that. I don't think we should encourage people to live where there are brush fires or live on a coast this is going to be flooded. If you want to do that, you should pick up the cost yourself.
QUENTIN HARDY: Margaret Thatcher said there is no such thing as society; there are only individuals and families. And she was never more wrong. The people in Rhode Island affected by this flood paid for the people affected by hurricanes in Florida. The people in Florida help me out if I have an earthquake. I help out people who have floods in the Midwest. That is a net good for all of us because all of these places also contribute by having people live and work there.
STEVE FORBES: I think here you have to make a very sensible distinction. People who deliberately live in floodplains should take their insurance and take their chances. But a state like Rhode Island sees this once in 100 years. In those kinds of disasters, the government does have to step in. There has to be a distinction between living in an area that you know is going to be hit every couple of years with a disaster, versus an area that will be hit every hundred years.
Informer: Stocks That Will Have Better Comeback Than Tiger Woods
DAVID ASMAN: Tiger's back on the course this week but our Informers say their stock picks are set for an even bigger comeback than his:
NEIL WEINBERG: Toyota (TM)
VICTORIA BARRET: Digital River (DRIV)
QUENTIN HARDY: Iridium (IRDM)
President Obama's New Flex Worker Plan: Best or Worst Thing for Economy, Job Market?
John Layfield, www.nutritionmarket.com CEO/owner: This does absolutely zero for jobs. This is something that was created by a bunch of naive idea also logs who never had to run a business. The flexible work schedule has been in existences since the first caveman hired the next caveman. It has always been there. What we need right now is simply a work schedule. The jobs number was decent. You don't want to mess with the most productive work force in the world when all they want is to go to work period. You have one out of six Americans work for state or federal governments. One out of five males age 20 to 54 that are unemployed. We don't need to wear flowers and sing Beatle songs. We need jobs and this is another waste of government money.
Christian Dorsey, director, Economic Policy Institute: Because we want to be even more productive. And, you know, we have a work force built on an ad from the 1940s where you have a man going to work and a woman managing the home. Now, women make up half of the work force. Many families where to earner families and you also have single parents. They have real home responsibilities that get neglected and when they can't take care of home they are really not fully present when they are at work. If you promote flexible schedules you make employees happy, you make them more productive and that is better for the bottom line of American businesses. This is a great thing for America.
Wayne Rogers, Wayne Rogers & Co: I don't think -- I think you have to divide it up. Piece work can be profitable under certain circumstances. In other words, if you have a flexible schedule and you say to sober house, take, for example in the garment industry whether you say to the woman here, take this garment home and work ten it and bring it back and pay her on the basis of the work done not on the hourly basis. You have to distinguish that. I don't think you can put hourly people on a flexible schedule. That you cannot do.
Tracy Byrnes, Fox Business Network: The government doesn't have a good record when it comes to anything these days and the last thing we need the government doing is telling us how to run the businesses. I'm all about flexible schedules if it works for the business. It is a busy business decision and they need to make it in their own little private corporate suites. The government does not need to be making the decisions.
Jonas Max Ferris, www.MaxFunds.com: I wanted to do this from home on a web cam but can't because the government doesn't mandate it, I couldn't do it. I don't understand how they could want a company to make you work harder. If they could figure out how to make you work two hours more they could do it. If anything the government subsidizes commuting to work with public transportation. Most government work places, schools included are the most old fashioned least modern least productive because of the way they run the employees.
Jonathan Hoenig, CapitalistPig Asset Management: Your point is right on and the government knows, of course, because the President is an expert on everything. Every day you turn on the television or reopen the newspaper. One day it's banking and then the environment and then education. Businesses are very good about promoting efficiency and productivity. Telecommuting is up 75 percent in the last five years alone. Businesses are very effective at using privately created technology I might mention to be very effective to the bottom line.
Best Health Care Fix: Junk Food Tax?
Christian Dorsey: As you are all fond of talking about on this show taxes discourage behavior and junk food links to diseases like diabetes which add to the health care cost. It is a smart way to discourage that behavior. It makes no sense that this bottle of water costs more than a can of coca-cola. I'm not saying this is going solve the health issues but it is part of a strategy to make sure that people have every opportunity to eat healthy food.
Jonathan Hoenig: That is your determination and every individual's determination. Every day we make decisions about what to put in your our bodies and we have to decide do I want the Apple or the Cheetos. Unfortunately when you make health care a right, you give government a vested interest and give them a right to tell you what to put in your body.
Tracy Byrnes: You put ice cream in front of me, I would eat it all day, too. As Jonathan said you make smart decisions. Either way this is moot. This is coming because everyone is broke. The federal government, our states they are looking to tax anything and this is one of the last places they will get pushed back. So you will see tax on your Cheetos, Jonathan, I'm sorry to say.
Jonas Max Ferris: Smoking is down but you got to really tax the crap out of something. They really taxed cigarettes. It is not like a five cents or ten cents tax to a two liter bottle of soda and make America thin. It is not going to happen. You don't tax bullets, you make murder illegal. Having junk food is not the problem. It is eating lots of junk food and I do think we need a fat tax and, not a junk food tax. The health care plan, government subsidized in some cases where there is no rewards for being healthy and they had an opportunity to do that.
Wayne Rogers: I'm lost as to why you should be able to do any this of. This is not about health. This is about freedom. If I want to go out and eat dog doo I should be able to eat it. You cannot legislate what people eat. This is not about health. And if the people want to be unhealthy they have a right to be. If I want to go out and get drunk I have a right to go out and get drunk. If I become a public nuisance there are laws about that but things have to do with freedom here. This is not about health.
John Layfield: This is not about health. I own a nutrition company. I understand the epidemic of diabetes, cancer and obesity. It has more to do with the deficiency of omega threes in the food supply than it does with junk food. This is a bogus argument. They are trying to raise taxes and put themselves into Americans lives. It has to do with potato chips and fat kids and not going to solve the health crisis.
Home Prices Still Falling: Are Government Programs Making Housing Market Worse?
John Layfield: The programs are not working. Let's boil it down. The government owns Fannie and Freddie and issues debt and buys the debt; and pays itself interest on a debt it owes itself. We have 6.6 Million homes in default right now. 25 percent Of those have been not paid rent for over a year. The housing that has been modified, a very small percentage. 40 percent Of those have already re-defaulted. Until the government lets this system work it out, we will have foreclosures probably over 4 million homes this year until this works its way out we will never have a true recovery.
Wayne Rogers: Housing is leveling out. I don't see that we are going to have a double dip. That's number one. Number two, John is talking about currently, but if you go back in history and look at the history of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they have done a good job. All of this was for public housing and those were successful programs. It is when our good congressmen got into the business of trying to make Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae buy all of the paper that we got into trouble this time.
Jonathan Hoenig: They poured hundreds of millions down the drain. Help for homeowners and hope for homeowners. Housing prices still corrected. All the modified mortgages still re-defaulted and people only like prices when they go up. Housing needs to correct and all the government intervention prolongs the process.
Tracy Byrnes: Why should I may my mortgage if the government going bail me out? The government needs to back out and let it run its course.
Jonas Max Ferris: The only thing keeping homes from falling under 30 percent is the government. A mortgage today would be at a 9 percent interest rate. I want to get the government out of homes, but it has to be done over 10 years. Do it overnight and you will have a disaster on your hands.
Christian Dorsey: Look, we bailed out banks when they got in trouble because of the housing market. To call on the government to leave homeowners and ordinary Americans when they have still not recovered from losing trillions of dollars of wealth and their actual homes is unconscionable. We can't get out because the ones who will hurt of ordinary folks.
What Do I Need To Know?
Jonas Max Ferris: The iPad situation is dangerous for other tech companies like Adobe and Microsoft. It has the potential to rub out profit margins in all the mini monopolies that exist in the tech industry. I'm phasing back and going into the utility spider which is the anti tech. My pick is Utilities Select Sector SPDR (XLU).
Tracy Byrnes: We got more proof The Nanny State Doesn't work. New York City tried it. It was called Opportunity NYC. They are paying people to make good decisions and the people aren't making good decisions. The government needs to stay out of our lives and then we will make smart decisions.
Wayne Rogers: Discretionary spending is beginning to come back and the gaming stocks some did good. I like (LVS) Las Vegas Sands and I like my friend Steve Wynn.
Jonathan Hoenig: McDonald's opening McDonald's University in Shanghai, China. Should be good for business in China and got for McDonald's stock (MCD).
John Layfield: Invest alongside the government. An increase in Solar energy means Applied Materials should benefit. (AMAT) is the way to play it.