Sign in to comment!

The Five

Does Obama care more about entitlements than US military?

This is a rush transcript from "The Five," February 25, 2014. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

ANDREA TANTAROS, CO-HOST: Hello, everyone. I'm Andrea Tantaros, along with Bob Beckel, Eric Bolling, Dana Perino, and Brian Kilmeade.

It's 5 o'clock in New York City. And this is "The Five."

(MUSIC)

TANTAROS: So, does the commander-in-chief care more about entitlements than our military?

The Pentagon announced yesterday it wants to shrink our Army down to its smallest size since World War II as part of an effort to cut costs. The decision did not go over very well with former V.P. Dick Cheney.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

RICHARD CHENEY, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT: Obviously, I have been a strong supporter of Barack Obama, but this really is over the top. There's enormous long term damage to the military. He would much rather spend money on food tamps than a strong military or support for our troops.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

TANTAROS: All right. So, Dana, it does appear that President Obama is getting what we talked about yesterday, a long term goal was to shrink down our defense and expand the welfare state.

Here's my question. What do you think the American people care about most, the military or the welfare state?

DANA PERINO, CO-HOST: Oh, I think there's competing priorities, and that American people elect leaders to represent them and that this isn't necessarily what America would want. Of course, it's not easy to make cuts in any regard, and in fact, they did some military cuts to pension growth in the future, just in December. Two months later, the Congress restored those cuts. So, it's very difficult to do any sort of cutting.

I do think that Jay Nordlinger of National Review wrote a great piece today about President Obama's goal to shrink the military overall. And that he wanted a Republican secretary of defense to oversee that draw down as cover for his upcoming budget, which does definitely expand not just the welfare state, but spending on lots of different things, domestic programs. The priority, I think should be -- I'm always for more defense, I understand there could be cuts here and there, and there's waste, fraud, and as Bob has pointed, some of the programs needed to be pulled back and some of the equipment.

But I'm for a stronger defense. I think America constantly has to relearn the lesson and I don't want to do it again in the future.

TANTAROS: Very good point.

Eric, General Odierno, the Army's chief of staff, he came out and he said this soldier level would be absolutely way too small. He also said that we'd be at high risk to meet one major war.

Isn't the best way to prevent war to keep the strongest military?

ERIC BOLLING, CO-HOST: Yes, I do, and this may surprise a lot of people, but I'm OK with this. I'm OK with a troop drawdown. I don't like the fact we're not becoming -- draw them down. Listen, we don't want to be boots in the ground in other countries anymore. We want to defend our soil, American interest abroad and here.

But let's do it smarter. Let's do it with drones, with air -- with the Air Force. Let's do it with submarines. I'm -- I think this is actually probably a smart thing to do.

My only problem is when you dig farther into what they're proposing is they're saying, freeze admiral and generals' pay. Slow down housing allowances at all levels of the military. Increase contributions for some former -- no longer active marines and other military service people.

So, in other words, it's going to cost you more if you're an ex- service person for health care, but if you're, you know, you're a kid sitting on your parents' couch, we're going to subsidize that.

So, let's make our military smarter, stronger, and we could do it with fewer actual troops.

TANTAROS: So balance the budget on the backs of those who have served and who have suffered.

Bob, I try to hold this together before you explode, and I want you to answer this honestly. The language that the president used when he explained the cuts and the language that Secretary Hagel used, he played into a little bit -- that war fatigue when he was talking about permanent war. I think he did this because even some libertarians may agree that this is a good idea.

So, it was interesting the way they phrased it as a lot of people would agree, we don't want a permanent war, all this democracy promotion.

Is that what they're trying to do here?

BOB BECKEL, CO-HOST: And for good reason. We have been at war long enough. And we keep going over. And we're the policemen of the world.

We no longer need a 600-fleet Navy. We do not need to cover -- listen, one of the things, we've got 1,000 generals and admirals. There ain't no boats for the admirals so they sit there and draw pictures of things and do -- you know, I mean, it's an enormous waste of money over there.

They have tanks. The Congress forced tanks. They didn't want tanks presumably. The last great tank battle was Patton in the Second World War.

PERINO: But, Bob, that's not what we're talking about there. He's talking about cutting payments, salaries and benefits. Not talking about equipment.

BECKEL: No, no, they're talking about the F-35. They're talking about the F-35. They're talking about the new tank that they want to force down everybody's throat.

TANTAROS: How about the tanks we gave the Muslim Brotherhood, those Abrams tanks. That would be a good way to start cutting.

BECKEL: We have got -- you keep talking about all the places where there's terrorism. Eric's put his finger on it. We can no longer go over and be the policemen of the world. Let's protect our interests, protect our allies' interest, but we do not have to circle this globe with United States military presence, and a lot of that budget, it's doubled.

(CROSSTALK)

TANTAROS: Brian, isn't that two different arguments?

BRIAN KILMEADE, GUEST CO-HOST: While we are going to draw down because we're going to focus on ourselves, our enemies are getting bigger, stronger, and meaner. And our allies, sadly, we don't have a say in their budget. They are not building up.

So, we have to deal with the Navy with a set of 52 ships. We have 32 ships. Instead of 450,000 -- 522,000 people guarding 300 million people, we can't afford to keep up. We have to cut down to 450,000 people. We have to cut another $600 billion out of the Pentagon budget.

This is the third major cut to the only part of the government that is working efficiently. These guys need to be bolstered. These guys need to be brought up. This health insurance needs to be re-enforced.

These guys and these women deserve it. You want to look at other areas to cut. This is the only area I would not cut.

BECKEL: Brian, what are you talking about? $600 billion cut, it's only $603 billion --

KILMEADE: Over 10 years. Another $600 billion over the next 10 years.

TANTAROS: We have the full screen, Eric, if you want to walk us through. There's mandatory entitlements versus military spending. Look at the biggest difference here. Where does all the money? Entitlements.

BOLLING: And the most part of that is continues to increase on the entitlement line, but the defense budget, the number keeps, coming down from 2010 to '12, it's down $18 billion.

BECKEL: Why can't you call right now for Social Security and Medicare to be cut? That's what's in there.

BOLLING: Look at the last one -- a huge drop in defense right there from $670 billion to $603 billion.

Here's the point, I would agree with you on we don't need to be policing all these other areas and we definitely shouldn't be the ones to go in places like Venezuela, Syria, Kiev, Ukraine, because it's their battle, it's their war.

But when some of our allies like Israel starts to get a little nervous about what's going on in Iran, then you have to help. But you don't do it
-- you can do it smarter with drones, with aircraft.

PERINO: Can I disagree, though? On Syria, actually, our intervention earlier in Syria would have helped our ally, Israel. I mean, it's all interconnected. And we don't get to decide who is going to attack us in the future.

TANTAROS: I've got to play a Bolton SOT, and you can react. That goes -- that actually goes to Dana's point.

(CROSSTALK)

KILMEADE: He's a diplomat.

BECKEL: He's diplomat your ass.

TANTAROS: Bob?

BECKEL: Sorry.

TANTAROS: He's a contributor and friend and he has an amazing mustache. At least give him that. Here's Bolton.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BOLTON, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: I think the president wants to reduce the size of the military, to reduce our international capabilities. This has nothing to do with budget savings given the extraordinary increase in budget expenditures on the domestic side. This is about the president reducing American power, doing it consciously and systematically.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TANTAROS: There's a big difference, though, Bob, in sending troops into war and being the world's policemen and maintaining a strong military at home and taking care of those who have served.

BECKEL: We have plenty of military at home. Bolton doesn't know what he's talking about.

(CROSSTALK)

PERINO: Are you for cutting military pay?

BECKEL: No, I'm not for cutting military pay.

PERINO: OK.

BECKEL: I'm for cutting the number of military people. I think you should take the number of troops down and you sure should get rid of admirals and generals.

(CROSSTALK)

KILMEADE: Listen --

BECKEL: They don't have a boat for some of these admirals to be on.

KILMEADE: I have no idea about the breakdown of officers as opposed to --

BECKEL: I'm telling you. There's 1,000 of them.

KILMEADE: I'll go back to your point.

PERINO: Thank you.

KILMEADE: The president of the United States wanted to get a Republican secretary of defense. He had no idea how unpopular and unqualified Hagel would come off during these hearings. He tried to do it with Gates and Gates said essentially in his book, if they tried to do this with me, I would have resigned. So, he did a pre-emptive cut because he agrees with you. There's a lot of waste in the military and there's a lot of redundancy there.

But he wouldn't do it. Rumsfeld wouldn't do it. Cheney wouldn't do it. I wouldn't think Panetta would even do it.

So, he goes and gets Hagel out there to make the most contradictory speech I can remember. We have more threats and we have different threats than ever before, so we're going to accelerate the drawdown, fantastic.
Let's make sure we're definitely not ready for the new challenges.

BECKEL: I'm sorry, you just said that our enemies, our big enemies are growing and growing. Our big enemies is Russia and China and North Korea.

BOLLING: Iran.

BECKEL: And Iran. Combined, they don't add to up to half of what we spend in defense. Combined.

KILMEADE: Do you understand what we do now has everything to do with
--

BECKEL: That's the problem, I don't.

KILMEADE: In the next five years and the next 10 years, who were setting the table for now is using our technological advantage to get the most advantageous weapon system out there to keep our people safe for the maximum amount of money. So, if he can explain how R&D is going to save us boots on the ground, go ahead and do it.

TANTAROS: And, Bob, haven't you railed against the Chinese before, how they're growing in size and strength.

BECKEL: Absolutely.

TANTAROS: The world is not becoming more safe. It's more dangerous.
Why would you draw down the military now?

KILMEADE: According to James Clapper, he says that.

PERINO: And a lot of that is coming from the cyber terrorism world.
And part of the thing I think is important is recruitment. We need really smart young people, engineers that are willing to go into the military, and they need to be assured that they will be able to get the pay and equipment.

But that -- this proposal does not tell any young person at MIT they should choose the military as a career. Even if they want to, they would probably look at this type of trend in the United States and think that's not where I want to be. But we should want them to be there.

BECKEL: You're exactly right about that. We should do that and we should take a look at what the future looks like. And that means not having people on the ground everywhere. We don't need all these soldiers.

TANTAROS: Two different things, Bob. I think a lot of us would agree with you on that point, but that's not what we're debating.

BOLLING: And I do agree with you. I think you're right. I think Dana is right. I think you're kind of saying the same thing, that the future battlefield shouldn't be a dirt road in a foreign country. The future battlefield is the Internet.

KILMEADE: It's not our choice.

PERINO: I agree.

BOLLING: Well --

BECKEL: What's not our choice?

BOLLING: Well, I think it is our choice. I think we can become, you know, instead of losing Ed Snowden, make sure we have more Ed Snowdens that are smarter than the rest of the world.

KILMEADE: Ed Snowden is probably the worse example.

(CROSSTALK)

BECKEL: You want to go to Ukraine? You want to put boots on the ground in Ukraine?

PERINO: Who in the world is suggesting boots on the ground in Ukraine? Do you want diplomacy, you have to back it up. Do you want to be respected in the world? Do you think the Chinese -- they're probably laughing. Bob, the enemy you talk about, they're laughing about this.

KILMEADE: The headlines around the world are America's decline.

TANTAROS: They're not just laughing, they're reloading and they're planning and they're seeing us get weak by the minute.

BOLLING: Reloading and aiming at us on American soil.

KILMEADE: Iran is building intercontinental missiles that can hit our shores, according to Israel, in the next 18 months.

(CROSSTALK)

TANTAROS: Well, we had the Boston marathon. We had a number.

BOLLING: Boots for a military to attack Iran --

KILMEADE: If you told me, if you were the secretary of defense and you said, listen, I'm going to have less troops and more missile defense, if you said, I'm going to work more on cyber terrorism.

BOLLING: That's what they're saying.

KILMEADE: What I'm saying is but all we're hearing is drawdown, draw back, cut back, and deal with it, Pentagon. That's what Hagel announced.

BOLLING: To Obama's credit, he's using drones more aggressively than anyone has ever used and I think that's the right strategy.

KILMEADE: We like it, but we stopped in Pakistan, and that's where we need to do most.

BECKEL: Stopped in Pakistan.

KILMEADE: I love what he's done. I love what he did. We have stopped bombing in Pakistan.

BECKEL: Oh, I see.

PERINO: You can't do -- there aren't enough drones in order to protect us long term.

I also think Secretary Gates said in his hearing before, the last proposal, that those would be catastrophic cuts. Sequestration has been something that even the administration said that has caused austerity. But now, the actual cuts come on the backs of the military.

Now, interestingly, in that chart you showed with the domestic spending entitlements versus the defense spending, the entitlement piece, that can only go up because of the situation in our country. So, now, again, if you ask me about priorities and what do Americans want? They should want the administration, the elected leaders, to deal with that problem so we don't have to have this fight about defense.

TANTAROS: We have to move on. But I would --

(CROSSTALK)

BECKEL: For the people who put together the boards, you didn't put the fact that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, which is about 90 percent of the budget.

BOLLING: Those are accurate. Those screens are accurate.

BECKEL: Why don't you say what they are? They're not a bunch of hand outs to welfare people.

TANTAROS: Bob, even if we gutted the entire military, we'd still be over a trillion dollars in debt.

(CROSSTALK)

BECKEL: That would be a good start, and the admirals.

TANTAROS: OK, we've got to move on. And we'll talk about why. I do believe the president is trying to gut the Department of Defense, coming up, so he can get something in exchange with Republicans.

But this just in from the department of gibberish. Samantha Power tweeted this over the weekend. Very strange. She tweeted out, "Daniel Pearl's story is a reminder that individual accountability and reconciliation are required to break cycles of violence." She's the U.N.
ambassador.

Dana, what was she trying to say there?

PERINO: Well, OK, so last night, when I tweeted one of my favorite sayings in PR is if you're explaining, you're losing. What I was talking about is her Twitter situation. The Daniel Pearl story is one of atrocious violence against an innocent person. If you use him and his story in a tweet, and you better make sure you know what you're talking about.

This goes to my theory that I don't believe that anybody in a position of power and influence in Washington, D.C., or on government, should do their own Twitter accounts. You Twitter to monitor the news, whatever, but if you don't know how to use 140 characters appropriately, should do everyone a favor and stay off it.

TANTAROS: Eric, she tried to amend the tweet, but this is a woman who has likened U.S. foreign policy to those of the Nazis. She said that we need a historical reckoning, which sounds like reconciliation in there, and she said instituting a mea culpa doctrine would enhance American credibility.

BOLLING: What we ran there was her tweet --

PERINO: Correction.

BOLLING: Was the correction. The original tweet was Daniel Pearl, blah blah, which is basically the most insulting thing you can possibly say to, (a), the pearl family, (b), The Wall Street Journal, (c), anyone, journalists and Americans.

This guy was murdered. This guy was murdered. She's blaming him for the murder?

BECKEL: It was a terrible thing to say, but where did she say about Nazis, comparing us to Nazis? That's just ridiculous.

TANTAROS: Oh, she did. I have a list of all her inflammatory comments --

BECKEL: She compared the United States with Nazis?

TANTAROS: Yes, she did.

BECKEL: Show me that, will you?

TANTAROS: She made anti-Israel comments. I have a binder on her. I have binders.

(CROSSTALK)

BECKEL: I'm absolutely shocked.

TANTAROS: Quickly, Brian.

KILMEADE: I will say just real quick, I read the whole speech. You're right. (INAUDIBLE) Daniel Pearl and pointed out that his foundation does something, not getting revenge, talks about forgiveness and openness. And I think that was the gist of what she was trying to get in 140 characters, to give her the benefit of the doubt.

But if you watch her, the way she says "I love the country, the greatest country on Earth", and kept saying it over and over again to Senator Marco Rubio, who was asking about the inflammatory statements --

TANTAROS: And she did say it after it was an award -- the Daniel Pearl Award and they defended her, however, the word reconciliation with her past --

KILMEADE: Bizarre.

TANTAROS: -- strange.

Before we go, tomorrow night on "The Five," a TV legend is going to join us right here, who is "Jeopardy" host Alex Trebek. He'll be right here at this table and we'll have plenty of questions for him this time. It's going to be a lot of fun. So, don't miss it.

Coming up next, "The Factor's" Jesse Watters hit the beach to get an update on -- remember him -- President Obama's most infamous food stamp recipient.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JESSE WATTERS, "THE O'REILLY FACTOR": A lot of people do survive on minimum wage. Are you still eating lobster with the food stamps?

JASON GREENSLATE, SURFER: If it's on sale. I eat whatever is on sale.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TANTAROS: More on how surfer dude is faring in America's welfare system when we return.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BOLLING: Welcome back to "The Five."

Remember the surfer dude who is dining on lobster and sushi with your money from food stamps? Jesse Watters caught up with little Spicoli.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WATTERS: Some people say, listen, you're a mooch.

GREENSLATE: Obviously, they don't know me. Because anybody who knows me, I'll give you the shirt off my back.

WATTERS: Do you know how much debt America is in right now?

GREENSLATE: No.

WATTERS: Seventeen trillion dollars. Do you think you taking food stamps is contributing to that debt? Because it is.

GREENSLATE: Do I have to apologize for the way the system is set up?
I don't feel like I need to apologize for it. It's just the way you're wording it kind of seems like I'm getting kind of the ruler on the hand, you know?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLLING: So, funny thing is he's kind of right. He's playing the system. He's stretching the rules to their limits.

But what would you expect with $105 billion program that's almost tripled under Obamanomics. That's what you expect right there. Take a look at it.

But what's next? Strip clubs, liquor stores and pot dispensaries?
That's already going on, folks. Welcome to Obama's America.

(LAUGHTER)

BECKEL: God Almighty. Did you write that?

BOLLING: I did.

BECKEL: You did? Welcome to Obama's America?

TANTAROS: Are you surprised?

BOLLING: So, the last year of the Bush presidency -- the last year of the Bush presidency, we spent $39 billion on food stamps.

BECKEL: OK. If I had a camera and money that our executive producer has, well, I could find you plenty of people, the 98 percent who use them for food on the table to feed people.

BOLLING: He uses his EBT card, he walked in the supermarket and he bought lobster --

BECKEL: So, everybody is like that. Everybody buys lobster, everybody buys pot?

(CROSSTALK)

BOLLING: So, let's bring it around.

BECKEL: Oh, yes, there's an example.

KILMEADE: So food stamps are at $17 billion in 2000 and now they're at $79 billion. To put a face behind the numbers, I thought it was important that John Roberts talked to him two months ago? And you would think he got so much backlash, he would say I'm going to put a shirt on, stop smoking, stop driving around with my Escalade and probably get a full time job. Instead, he's not, and he embraces this interview, which is absolutely incredible.

What I also find quite interesting is that he's having all this success without any regret. And I think that if you could find a way to turn him around, Eric, you work with him, and you get him a part-time job where he has to wear a shirt and doesn't smoke cigarettes until 3:00 in the morning.

TANTAROS: Can we play the video?

BOLLING: He's the representative of literally millions of Americans.

BECKEL: Oh, come on. I can't believe you would say something like that.

BOLLING: Bob, look --

BECKEL: That's so outrageous. John Roberts went out and found somebody to use food stamps to feed their kids?

(CROSSTALK)

BECKEL: He found somebody like this.

BOLLING: Have you looked ahead in the packet what's the second half of this block is about.

BECKEL: Going in and buying pot using ATMs.

(CROSSTALK)

BECKEL: I'll tell you what? Why don't we go to a house where they use food stamps to feed their kids?

(CROSSTALK)

BOLLING: We have New York and Colorado representative at the table.
Ands, in New York, to their credit -- by the way, the way it works is the states administer the EBT program, but it's federally funded. So, $105 billion was 2013.

But New York says, you know what? No more using your EBT card in strip clubs, liquor stores or anywhere else like this.

TANTAROS: Yes, they really are. You know, they tried to bring this bill to the floor twice before, but the liberal senate leader, Sheldon Silver, blocked it. They didn't want any accountability on this program.

Finally, the Republican senators said we've had enough. We're going to lose all the food stamp money for the people who actually do really need it. So, we're going to get our books in order.

I do disagree with you, though, Brian. The bear may change his fur, but he never changes his mind. You can put him in Jesse Waters' salmon colored polo, he's still going to be the guy. And it's generous to give the shirt off his back, but I don't think I want it.

KILMEADE: If you see him in his pants, he does not wear a shirt.

BOLLING: So, Dana, the other part of the story is in Colorado. They found last year that a lot of people were using their EBT cards --

BECKEL: Ooh, lots of people.

BOLLING: -- inside pots -- to the tune of $2 million.

TANTAROS: It happens all the time in New York.

(CROSSTALK)

BOLLING: Whatever.

TANTAROS: I see it all the time.

BOLLING: They're using their EBT card, getting cash and buying weed with it.

PERINO: Well, even though I'm not necessarily against the legalization of marijuana, I never did pot. I don't understand it. I don't -- I understand medical reasons, all that. I'm uncomfortable with the whole thing.

And even yesterday when we were talking about, what were we talking about?

BOLLING: Legalizing --

PERINO: Anyway, this whole pot experiment, to me, is just a little bit beyond the pale. The guy here, just because you can take advantage of a system doesn't mean you should. And I wonder where his parents are.

KILMEADE: Right.

PERINO: I hope they're embarrassed.

BOLLING: To my good friend, my good liberal friend here, the SNAP program, it's not called food stamps anymore. It's called SNAP -- supplemental what? And nutrition. What about liquor, lap dances, and pot is nutritional?

BECKEL: Let me just say, all these millions of people who get it, they're all going into pot stores and then they're going gambling, they're all going out for lobster.

BOLLING: Not all.

(CROSSTALK)

BECKEL: Why don't we have somebody in who --

(CROSSTALK)

BECKEL: They don't want to put it on.

(CROSSTALK)

KILMEADE: But in Colorado, they had a Fox affiliate reporter go out and check the ATM cards in the liquor stores. There's over 100 EBT cards in those things. Now, they say, OK, we're going to regulate it. They go, yes, but on private ATMs which are located in most liquor stores and pot dispensaries, they do not have to go with that regulation.

TANTAROS: Can I finish my thought, please?

BECKEL: Yes.

TANTAROS: I have been in food emporiums which are nice grocery stores in the city and have seen women using EBT cards with a man's picture on it. You can use EBT cards, Eric, at the organic market in the East Village. You can get organic salmon, wild salmon. It's insanity.

BOLLING: Which is questionable in itself.  Dana --

PERINO: I would say two things. I think there should be a technological fix for this where you can figure out a way to limit what the card can be spent on.

But also, Bob, I think -- I understand your anger, but I also don't understand why liberals aren't more angry at him, because he's the one that is making a bad example for the rest --

BECKEL: I am.

PERINO: I don't think it's John Roberts' fault for finding him. I think it's his fault for being --

TANTAROS: I don't blame the guy. I don't.

BECKEL: People like that and people who buys organic salmon is out of their mind. Organic anything, they're out of their mind.

(CROSSTALK)

TANTAROS: It's not the servant's fault.

BECKEL: You're right, I wish we would make it clear that the vast majority of people do not take their ATM cards and buy --

BOLLING: No question about that. No one doubts that. The problem is
--

(CROSSTALK)

BOLLING: By the way, you want to limit some of it, don't use your EBT card for cash. Stop allowing EBT cards for cash. Use it for stuff -- food.

All right. O'Reilly has a no-spin zone, but "The View" might be the full spin zone. Uncle Joe Biden playing role of spin doctor with the lovelies of "The View". The topic: the huge success that is ObamaCare.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PERINO: Joe Biden made his way back to "The View" today, this time to try to convince Americans to sign up for Obamacare before the deadline of March 31st. He didn't seem to want to talk about the CBO report that determined the health care law would cost the equivalent of 2 million jobs.
Instead, he said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSEPH BIDEN, VICE PRESIDENT: This is about freedom. How many of you are single women with children in a dead end job.
You're there because of your health insurance.

Now, you'd be able to do, make an independent choice. You want to stay in that job even though you can get health insurance absent that job?
And it gives women a great deal more freedom.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PERINO: All right. Andrea, so I can see good strategy, I think, from a White House standpoint to put Joe Biden on "The View", but is what they're saying nationally at all in accordance with the things people are reading in their own newspapers?

TANTAROS: No, and I think the facts he had to go on "The View" shows they desperately need women to sign up. And the fact he said single women, it was a life of Julia all over again. Single women become dependent on the government.

And I also think it's a bit out of touch because it means single women out there are sitting around worried about birth control and that's the number one issue that they're thinking about.

I don't believe that to be true. However, I was shocked in the last election they came out and voted in droves for President Obama when he said that he's willing to subsidize their sex lives.

So, look, I think that ObamaCare is in trouble. It's a nice play. Joe Biden did follow that up, Dana, by saying the vice president doesn't have a lot of power -- I thought, what the heck are you doing on "The View", Joe?

PERINO: Whoa, Frank Underwood might disagree with that.

KILMEADE: "House of Cards".

PERINO: "House of Cards" watchers should know that.

Brian, today, Secretary Sebelius had a little response on CBO. Take a look at this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, HHS SECRETARY: Seven million was not the administration. That was a CBO Congressional Budget Office prediction when the bill was first signed. I'm not quite sure where they even got their numbers.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What does success look like?

SEBELIUS: I think success looks like at least 7 million people having signed up by the end of March 2014.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

PERINO: OK, Brian. Am I just living on a different planet? I think their explanations are getting more and more inexplicable.

KILMEADE: How could you move the goalpost and how is that permitted by your boss? I mean, you said it, 7 million is out there. I'm sure it wasn't on a big post like the deficit clock that keeps on flowing about two blocks from us.

But you have Kathleen Sebelius say, hey, it's not 7 million but we can get close, then we got to look at, OK, wait a minute, when we're talking about the CBO, and the program that now she feels strong enough to trump it, let's talk about the 30 million people that are still going to be uninsured when it's said and done. Let's talk about the thousands of jobs, according to the CBO, that still, they're going to be lost because of it.

And also, let's talk about what Joe Biden was talking about, the freedom. The freedom that sculptors are going to have to not have to wait tables, so they can get health insurance or they can paint, so other people can go and carve and do other things.

What about the fact that there's money there that has to be but put there so people who choose not to work no longer anchor to a job have to go into a pot, that horrible 1 percent is going to have more money in the pot, so that woman or that sculptor or that artist can do what they want to do without having another job.

TANTAROS: It's the opposite of freedom, too. It's saying, let us be your sugar daddy. Rely on us.

PERINO: Let me ask, Eric, here. Let's just say -- let's just say she can rewrite history and they only need the 3 million. I mean, is it -- is it possible their math could add up? That this program could be whole?

BOLLING: No, and the other problem is they're counting enrollees and not paid enrollees. They're talking about anyone who signs up, which we're finding out, somewhere around 4 out of 5, or maybe 3 out of 4 are Medicare, Medicaid recipients. So, they're taking from the system. I find it interesting when they originally scored ObamaCare and were trying to push it through from bill to law, they said it was revenue neutral and that was a CBO scoring.

The left thought it was the smartest thing they heard. They scored it neutral and they made a lot of changes and now, they don't like the way it's turning out, so the CBO is the most ridiculous group.

And pushing back on, Joe Biden saying 2,000 jobs -- 

PERINO: Yes, I don't know where he got that.

BOLLING: A million jobs. He said -- his math is really bad.

PERINO: Bob, Democrats I think on Wednesday, tomorrow, are going to start a full-court press to try to do some good PR about ObamaCare. Do you think it will move the needle for them?

BECKEL: Not much, but I will say that if you dropped in from Mars and you watched this show so far, this is what Obama wants. ObamaCare, he wants to support women's loose sex lives, he wants food stamps to be used to smoke dope --

PERINO: True.

BECKEL: -- buy lobster and buy an Escalade.

PERINO: True.

BECKEL: He wants to apologize to the Nazis and he wants to destroy the military. I say that guy ought to go.

TANTAROS: All those things are true.

(LAUGHTER)

BECKEL: Unbelievable. Leave here one day and it gets even more outrageous that it normally is.

PERINO: But you know what's good? There's no politics for the rest of the show. So, got to stick around.

Still ahead --

BECKEL: Do you have a bad night, Porter, or what?

KILMEADE: Who is Porter?

BECKEL: Porter is the one who runs the show, I think. He's a right winger from Oklahoma.

PERINO: We've got to go.

We are going to talk about Cassius Clay and will the sport of boxing change forever when he had the match that stunned the world, Mohammed Ali.
His legacy, I know nothing about boxing. So, stick around.

KILMEADE: It's Earth-shattering news from 50 years ago.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KILMEADE: It was one of the greatest sports moments of the 20th century. I'm talking about February 25th, 1964. A young 22-year-old boxer named Cassius Clay knocked out champion Sonny Liston, supposed to be unbeatable, to win the heavyweight title. He renamed himself Muhammad Ali the next day.

Today marks 50 years since that day. No one could have predicted how that match would end, not even the greatest's own ringside team.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NARRATOR: Hardly anyone gave the challenger a chance against Sonny Liston, a cold, brutal ex-con with a devastating left hook. Even Clay's ringside physician, fight doctor, Fergie Pacheco, was concerned.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You were really worried Liston was going to hurt Cassius Clay.

FERDIE PACHECO: Not hurt him, kill him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KILMEADE: But it didn't turn out that way at all. Here's Ali after the fight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MUHAMMAD ALI, BOXING LEGEND: So great, I don't have a mark on my face. And I upset Sonny Liston, and I just turned 22 years old. I must be the greatest. I am the king of the world.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hold it, hold it.

ALI: I'm a bad man. I took on the world. I took out the world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KILMEADE: See, that fight had everything -- politics, civil rights, and race all wrapped up into one. It really got the '60s up to that roaring start.

But here's the big story today. The Washington Times had a freedom of information request and they got it. It turns out the FBI believed that that fight was fixed, and they have all different types of characters from the mob world, Barnett Magids, a big gambler, Ash Resnick, and Meyer Lansky, all involved in this.

Bob, you're a big boxing guy. You watch that fight, all eight rounds
-- as upsetting and shocking as it was, was it fixed?

BECKEL: If it was -- look, it may have been fixed. But there was no question he was beaten. Ali killed the guy. It wasn't -- there was no fix in this thing. If anybody had it fixed, they had a pretty bad bet on their hands because Ali was right, he didn't have a mark on his face.

Liston looked uglier than when he went in the ring. He's pretty ugly when he's in the ring. Ali was the single greatest fighter in the history of this world, and he knocked the hell out of him. It wasn't fixed.

KILMEADE: And he was at his best at the time, but, you know, he quit on his stool, Eric, with a torn shoulder, and X-rays revealed he had a torn muscle.

BOLLING: Yes, anyone who thinks professional boxing isn't fixed or wasn't fixed, maybe not now but then, is foolish. Yes, Ali was the greatest fighter of his time. Then, came along Mike Tyson. Clearly, in my opinion, the best fighter ever to step in a ring.

You want to talk about fixes. Find Tyson losing to Leon Spinks and Buster Douglas, those are two fixed fights.

PERINO: When that happened --

(CROSSTALK)

PERINO: When that happened, I was shocked.

KILMEADE: You were shocked? Andrea, do you want to weigh in on that?

TANTAROS: I mean, I remember that day well. It was riveting.

KILMEADE: You were minus nine at the time.

TANTAROS: Yes, more than that.

KILMEADE: I will say this, it's just amazing if you think about that fight at that time and boxing be the number one sport in the world at that time. You have Liston who is unbeatable, against Ali who comes out and talks like only Jack Johnson did prior. There's been 60 years since there's been an African-American said I'm the greatest, I'm the best. He gave a whole bunch of people --

TANTAROS: You run around the building saying that every day.

KILMEADE: Listen, I was so into Ali, I wanted to change my confirmation name to Muhammad. And I actually put --

PERINO: How did that go over?

KILMEADE: It didn't go over good, and my compromise was Cassius. And that didn't go over either.

BECKEL: Do you realize that he could not stay in hotels in Miami, because they would not allow blacks in.

BOLLING: And he spoke up about it.

BECKEL: He spoke up about it.

BOLLING: You're saying, I'm sorry, Ali at the top of his game and Tyson at the top of their game, you'd take Ali?

KILMEADE: Ali could adjust to different styles. Mike Tyson had one style. It was straight ahead. He could never understand and deal with somebody with reach, and no one could take a punch like Muhammad Ali.

BECKEL: I would disagree. I mean, I think that would be one of the evenest fights you've ever seen. I think there would be no favor to that fight.

KILMEADE: Did you see Holyfield fight Ali?

BECKEL: Yes, I did.

KILMEADE: Did you see -- did you see Buster Douglas fight Mike Tyson?

BECKEL: Yes, I did.

BOLLING: I don't know what they're talking about.

KILMEADE: During his prime, Ali would have knocked out Mike Tyson.

TANTAROS: All I know, Brian, is this. I don't think anyone is really willing to say that the mob was behind all this unless are you going to start my car after the show?

BECKEL: You know who the fixer was? It was Don King. There's a thug that should are been in jail.

KILMEADE: That's a non-sequitur.

BECKEL: I wanted to get my shot in at the squirrely-haired punk.

PERINO: Oh, my goodness.

KILMEADE: A lot of those fighters ended up broke.

BECKEL: Because he also took their money, stole it, and killed people.

Oh, sorry. I'm getting yelled at. Sorry.

KILMEADE: I'll move ahead. Fourteen minutes before the top of the hour. Next, big news in the world of gambling. Bob's got it when we return, only on "The Five."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECKEL: Gambling history has just been made. This morning, the governors of Delaware and Nevada signed the first interstate gambling framework in the country. Under the deal, residents of those states will soon be able to play poker against each other online. It's a move that could potentially bring in millions of new revenue a year for both states.

Dana, let me start with you. You're not necessarily a big gambling fan. What do you think about the idea?

PERINO: So the idea, the appeal of this type of gambling, online gambling doesn't -- I don't understand it, personally, but I do think it is good that you have two governors facing up to the fact that this is going to be happening anyway, so they might as well cooperate and get the framework of a policy together so that they can make sure that they can manage it appropriately, to the extent possible. Online gambling, I guess, is -- it's the new Wild West.

BECKEL: Huge. Yes.

PERINO: So I think that the governors should be commended for working together on it.

BECKEL: What do you think?

BOLLING: I'm not going to tease you. I'll finish what I said.

TANTAROS: I think Delaware has been flirting with online gambling for a long time, and admittedly, I don't love gambling because I do think it's a pretty dangerous addiction that tears up families, but I don't think the government should tell people what they should do with their money.

Also, if they're allowing gambling, I fear some of these states are acknowledging that the business community has failed in the state, and they need to prop up their budgets and the resources and their economy by gambling, and I think that's a problem.

BECKEL: That's a very good point. What do you think?

KILMEADE: I worry about it. I worry about it, because most people I know can't just gamble just for fun once in a while. Now it's going to look to maximize revenue. I would love to see something a bit more productive.

I hate the idea of a lottery. I think it takes advantage of the very people that it's supposed to be -- supposed to be helping. It's bringing more revenue in for more social programs. I think, you know, if they have to talk to each other to maximize the gambling revenue, whatever.

BECKEL: I'm saving the libertarian for last.

BOLLING: No, no. This is a good thing. I push back on some of this because, like Dana, I agree. It's inevitable. But what is going on is people want to gamble now, and they have to go offshore to go do this.

PERINO: Yes.

BOLLING: So that's great. Bring this back -- let us handle the gambling, the business of it, the taxation of it, and the profits of it, rather than these guys are literally making tens of millions of dollars in Bermuda and some of the Bahaman countries. And there's no -- there's no regulation. There's no way. These people are stealing our fellow gamblers' money.

BECKEL: I think you're exactly right about that, but you know what?
I'm a big poker player. And one thing that worries me about this, I'm all for it. But normally in poker, if you're a good poker player, you look at the other guy's eyes and see what they -- look what they're hiding (ph).
You can't do that online. So...

BOLLING: The best online poker players are the ones who win the tournaments when they're looking face-to-face.

BECKEL: Exactly right. That's the one thing. I wouldn't do it if I couldn't see my opponent's face, and I wouldn't want to play poker against them, particularly if it was to a meet (ph).

"One More Thing" is up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TANTAROS: It's time now for "One More Thing." And I will kick it off. So finger-gate is no longer an unsolved mystery. Remember this infamous picture from the State of the Union of Joe Biden?

Well, last night, Biden was on Seth Myers' premiere of his late-night show, and Myers asked him what he was pointing at. The vice president said that he ran into one senator, who he didn't name, on the floor who said, "Hey, here, go to this guy."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SETH MYERS, HOST, NBC'S "THE LATE SHOW WITH SETH MYERS": So many finger guns. If there was an NRA for finger guns, you would be the president.

BIDEN: As we're walking over, a senior senator said, "Look, Joe, I know you and Barack are friends, but don't stand up for every damn thing he says." And I said, "All right." And then I counted. Seventeen times, this particular senator stood up in front of the president. So I went like this. I pointed at him. Talk about a suck-up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TANTAROS: Seth Myers said if there was an NRA for finger guns, he'd be the president. My question is, why is he counting how many times the senator is standing up?

BOLLING: What else are you going to do, Andrea? It's so boring.

TANTAROS: Eric.

BOLLING: OK. So, the next -- or about to be approved forever stamp, take look at this stamp. Do we have the full-screen? There he is, Mr. Charlton Heston, who ran the NRA about from 1998 to 2003 and made that one comment, so infamous, when he held up the gun and said, "Mr. Gore, from my cold, dead hands."

TANTAROS: D.P.

PERINO: Last night, very exciting, we've been waiting for this moment. We got to go to Dierks Bentley's screening of his documentary for his new albumthat is out today called "Riser," and we got a little peek
at the documentary we can show you here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DIERKS BENTLEY, COUNTRY MUSIC STAR: It's just like writing a song, editing it all down from this story into a book. It has chapters. It really sums up who you are and when you read all those chapters together, ah, man, I know exactly who this guy is. I'm writing it to figure out who I am, as well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PERINO: So the documentary is a chance for you to get to know him a little bit better. You've heard me talk about him, and if you don't like country music, just try out this album because I think it's really, really his best.

TANTAROS: He should hire you.

PERINO: He should hire me.

TANTAROS: Roberto.

BECKEL: Yes, first of all, I want to say to the person I'm about to speak about to his family, it is a tragedy indeed, but a fellow who was in Michigan was showing his girlfriend how safe guns are, handguns. He brought three guns that were unloaded, and he put them to his head and he said, "Let me show you why these things are so safe."

One didn't go off. Two didn't go off. The third one killed him. The
-- I would just say that this is one of the problems with handguns in homes. People die, and it's a tragedy.

TANTAROS: All right.

KILMEADE: On a different note, a lot of people say to me, what do we get you for your birthday and for special events? Like Fawkes Rebellion Day? And my answer is this. George Washington's letter just got put up for sale. The year is December 30th, 1778. "The British just decided to give up Philadelphia, go back to New York." The letter pumping up the Americans -- what would be Americans that we can win this thing, win out. He wrote the letter. The letter is available for $120,000.

Originally, the signer of the declaration, Cesar Rodney, he had this; he gave it up. Now it's available. So if you want to surprise me.

TANTAROS: How much?

KILMEADE: A hundred and twenty thousand.

BOLLING: You book -- your book, I read it. It's terrific. And everybody ought to buy it.

TANTAROS: Don't you have a birthday coming up? Maybe for your birthday?

Don't forget to set your DVR so you never miss an episode of "The Five." We'll see you right back here tomorrow. "Special Report" up next.

Content and Programming Copyright 2014 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2014 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.