>> we are back. mountain dew just releasing its breakfast drink. why do you like it? >> return fund i own it. up 19% last year. it's a little pricey, but there are smart guys that go to cash when they need to n morgan? >> thumbs up. this is a great option. but the holdings can be volatile. >> you like james smocker? >> i do. they had a solid earnings report. analysts have been upgrading. >> like smocker? >> i do. and conagra and campbell. >> that's it for forbes. keep it right here. "cashin' in" starting right now any wonder nothing changes inside. look what's happening outside. unions pushing lawmakers to keep on spending. guess you know why we're not

getting a handle on this. and off the hook, our hero soldier who killed bin laden, giving out free phones to people who don't need them. can you say disconnected? did he just chain you to higher gas prices at the pump? "cashin' in," fueling up right now. our "cashin' in" crew this week, wayne rogers, jonathan, trish shah and sandra smith, also joining us, julie. welcome, everybody. okay. so as the national debt continues to soar, unions telling washington they don't want to tolerate spending cuts. >> we won't allow cuts to social security or medicare or medicaid! we're going forward! this is our country! we built it and we're going to take it back! >> oh, boy.

jonathan, is big labor a big reason? we'll never x our spending problem? >> eric, unions destroyed the fuel industry, automobile industry, the public education and literally they're bankrupting government as well. they're only growing in government. unions account for about 36% of government workers. only 6% in the private work force. i tell you, the nerve of richard trumka and the unions to demand jobs. where do they get off with that? we have more government workers now than we had citizens of the countries founded in 1776 and so many of them have nothing to do with actually protecting individual rights. they're educators, library workers, researchers. they should be cut. we need to be cut. and unions need to take a back seat and actually put this country first for once. >> sequestration threatened some spending and unions say, hey, wait a minute. let's not go to sequestration. you might threaten some of our spending n guess what, mr. trumka is right. th is our country. god bless us. they're asking for more money? did you just see the debt clock,

over $16 trillion, eric. this country is in trouble. the money is gone. they're asking for more, but guess what? they've got a president that's willing to give them more. he's already proposing a 1% raise for all federal workers in 2014 on top of the one they're about to get in march. it's a mess. >> wayne, is there a spending cut a union is willing to like? >> i don't think so. you got to give them credit for what they are. they're a constituency. they're only interested in themselves. everybody who pesters washington and lawmakers are only interested in themselves, whether it's a union or a corporation or it's another political group. you can't blame them for that. you know. they're doing what they're supposed to do. representing their union members. they're not representing the country and they're certainly not representing the public. so they're going to make demands that are outrageous and expect us to pay them. jonathan was right when he says about the increase in federal workers. federal workers under obama have

increased over 120,000. that's an enormous number in that period of time. so the bureaucracy continues to grow. the federal government continues to grow. we have big government, big corporations, big labor, and they're demanding what they always have demanded. i don't expect it to change. >> what about it? we're broke. we can't afford more hiring, yet we're hiring more and more federal workers. >> couple things, one is federal government actually, the growth in federal government increased at the slowest rate under this president than since the korean war. so first, you got -- second, it's not just the unions who are opposed to sequestration. other people are all the republicans in the armed services committee who understand that you do this, you're going to plunge the country back into recession. you already have military being cut, civilians being laid off from the military time and time again. >> tracy, julie points something out. the increase is slowing down burks it's still increasing. >> it's still increasing. it's still unnecessary.

and it's still selfish. it is beyond selfish. it drives me insane that so many households have gotten their act and unions are asking for more. you know with a? you can't get more. the thing with big labor, which really interests me, eric, is that memberships are shrinking. it's almost like they're getting louder to make up for the fact that they're just not enough representation out there. e only people listening to these unions these days are the president. otherwise, everybody else kind of pushes them aside. >> hold on, julie. tracy makes a very good point, jonathan, that government is listening. the president is listening. why would that be? >> well, government is the only place unions are thriving because they have a monopoly and they have zero accountability, unlike the private sector. i mean, unions destroy wealth. they force higher than normal wages that basically cost the enterprise to go bankrupt. it's no surprise that all the massive riots we've seen throughout europe are being held by public sector unions. the most highly unemployed states here in the united states are also the most heavily

unionized states, like michigan, like illinois, like california. wayne, to your point, unions have every right to protest, but they don't have the right to use the course of power of government to protect their jobs, which they think are sacrosanct. >> you want to cut from everywhere, as long as it keeps your carried interest safe and keeps your -- the same loophole that mitt romney talked about closing, republicans don't want to less anymore. what happened? what happened to six months ago? , you would do anything. >> earth to julie, it's february now. the election was last november. >> yeah, what happened? >> hold on. let me go to smitty. for the president in the state of the union talked about raising the minimum wage from 7.25 to. unions love that. they loved that idea. >> of course. 'cause as wayne said, they're in it for themselves. they're not thinking about what's best for our country that we live in. they're saying god bless america. this is our country. but they're only acting in their best interest. raise the minimum wage in this

country, small businesses will struggle. and you will see fewer jobs than we're already seeing at 7.9% unemployment in this country. >> be careful what you wish for. >> let me get wayne in here. >> no, i was going to say, that's a good point. the unions say that they represent approximately 6 to 7% of the total work force and yet, they are demanding, saying this is our country? no. no. there is another 95% out there that don't belong to your country, mr. trumka. you just are interested in yourself. you're selfish. i don't blame you, by the way, for that. but, you know, it's not right for the country. don't precontinued that you represent all of us 'cause you don't. >> you know what's crazy, eric, is this all comes down to votes again, right? big labor gives money and we buy votes. that's what we've been doing, left and right. you know what? the president is done. maybe heas to take a step back. he can not be voted in again. stop playing the political game

and think about it. we have no money. >> right. julie, last word. >> well, i got to ask why you're bashing the unions but not the sa wall street interests that you wanted to close the loopholes on -- why not do something to close the carried interest loophole? what's wrong with that? >> go ahead. >> i advocate for flat tax. the president would never go for that. the fact is, the private sector, julie, is actually productive. they create jobs. union jobs -- they do. they create a mass amount of wealth. >> that's why they should be tax -- >> they create profits to themselves and for their investors. government unions create nothing! >> guys, we got to leave there. coming up, the government dialing up mixed signals as dc shells out 2 million bucks for free phones.

the seal hero who killed bin laden is struggling to make ends meet. is fairness being put on hold? that guy, a real pain in the gas s

>> talk about mixed signals, we're just learning the government shelled out over $2 billion last year to provide free phones to potentially millions of people who don't even need them. and at the same time, the former navy seal who shot bin laden says he's getting so few benefits from the government thate can barely take care of his faly and pay his medical bills. tracy, is that is this a fair way to spend our tax dollars? >> we're so backwards in what we do lately. all we want to do is probably give, give, give to people who probably could afford this stuff and forget about the people who have done amazing things for our country. look, you know this administration is trying to get everybody kind of under the old obama dole here. wants you to be on our phones, on our medical care, on everything under the sun. that way we can take care of you. that's the wrong way to go. >> nanny state on steroids. >> there is no accountability. that's the problem. the fcc went in and looked at

all of those that were on the cell phone program receiving these free cell phones and found that 41% of them could not prove their eligibility for these phones. this is government wasted dollars, just out the door and the government did not check on who has got them. >> wayne, the program didn't start under president obama. but it certainly expanded under him. what's going on? >> what do you mean what's going on? it's staggering! it's just nuts! the fact that i don't have a telephone and i could get one from the federal government, hey, i don't have an automobile! i want the federal government to provide me with an automobile. why shouldn't they do that? why shouldn't they provide me with a house? why shouldn't they provide me with all of these things? that's what's going on! it's nuts! the governme is out of control! unless you got a couple of million people in the washington mall protesting it, it's going to continue! they're just going to take -- then break the country. they're going that way.

there is no way to stop it. >> julie, what about it? wayne points out, what if people don't have a car, should they get a car start? >> wait, when did the program start? 1984. it was ronald reagan. if i'm a senior and i'm broke and a loft seniors are and i need a life line to get a ride to the hospital, this is a great problem. >> julie, please. let's talk about what happened. in 2008, it was 819 bucks. now it's $2.2 billion. kind of rings a bell, doesn't it? food stamps. in 2008, were39 billion. now they're over $100 billion. the programs are expanding. >> look what happened in 2008. we had the economy crash. of course you had more people unemployed. >> i thought there was an obama recovery going on. hang on a second. let me get to john. >> 2008 was a good year until halfway through, everything went to hell. you know that. >> jonathan, go ahead. >> julie said she mht need a phone, you might have to buy it yourself. >> i can afford one. >> julie, please, please.

let jonathan speak. >> then you should buy it or an old person should buy it. there is no such thing as a right to a phone of the the fact that our military action the constitutional parts of our government who are there to serve russ scrambling around for medical care is an abomination. every one of these entitlement programs, whether it's tarp, we talked about that for years, or food stamps, are chalk full of fraud. but the fraught sinned just giving out free phones, it's in taxing 30, 40 bucks a year to pay for those free phones. it's an unbelievable assault on individual rights. i'm sorry, there is no such thing as a right to a phone. i don't care which president it was started under. if it was started under reagan, it was a terrible idea back then. >> julie? >> i don't need a phone of the none of us probably needsne but if i'm a senior and broke, i would like my grandmother, if she's broke, to have access to a phone -- >> you buy her the phone! >> i would want my mother to have one, too. but that's not what it is now. when 41% of the people and if by

may, half emthem are probably walk the streets selling drugs or doing whatever the hell they're doing, are august the phones that are supposed to be going to my mom! >> shouldn't we make sure the people that get the phones need a phone? >> why? i mean, if i want my kid to go to harvard, is he entitled to go to harvard just because i can say to the government, send my kid to harvard. i need a car, i need a mercedes benz. i can't drive a motorcycle. i need that. somebody is going to pay for a phone, pay for the food. i don't care. after a while, you know, before 1984, julie, there were a lot of people who didn't have phones, who couldn't make calls. they made out fine. the country did very well for a couple hundred years and all of a sudden, you want to give everybody something because you think they're entitled to it. >> we got to leave it there. coming up, think gas prices are high now? these guys just getting started.

>> protesting the pipeline, then carted off by police, environmentalists like daryl hannah and rfk junior raising a stink outside the white house. they want the president to deep six the keystone. but with gas prices surging

another 35 cents a gallon in the last month alone, maybe drivers would rather deep six the protesters. what do you think? >> daryl hannah? what place does she have to be commenting on this? raising a stink might be a bit of a stretch considering 48 people showed up outside of the white house to join her on this, in this, whatever, protest, i guess you'll call it. here is the thing. they must not know exactly what exactly it is because this oil is going to go somewhere. so i'm not sure who they're trying to protect. but right now we're dependent on the middle east for a certain portion of the oil that we do consume in this country. eric, as we don't use it, it will go somewhere else. the smart thing to do would be to get this done. do theynderstand? >> jonathan, question whether or not president obama ever saw supply-demand curve because more supply, prices go down, right? >> prices go down and people's lives improve, eric. daryl hannah has been arrested six times in the last couple of

years for violating other people's rights. the pipeline violates no one's rights. in fact, it helps us. fossil fuel powers our modern world and helps us in every regard and those who oppose it, especially those who protest it, it like they love nature, but hate human beings. they do a real disservice to all of us. >> we're going to go to julie who, you agree with the xl pipeline and against president obama on this. >> i don't know if if he's against it. look, i actually think it's a good thi to create jobs. i don't necessarily think it's going to affect demand that much because as we all know, supply for that matter, as soon as this comes through, the opec can easily turn down the spigot and we'll have the same problem all oil again. it's trade road world wide market. i'm not sure how much it will affect prices. but i think it creates jobs, so i'm all for it. >> it will actually bring seven or 800,000-barrels of canadian oil into america and it won't have to come from the middle

east. go ahead, tracy. >> that's the thing, price also come down. 20,000 jobs approximately will be created and our reliance on foreign oil will come down. that's the most important part of this. wayne is always talking about this. it's national security that is at risk here, when we rely on these countries that hate us, eric. not to mention slap in the face to canada if we don't do this. who wins at the educational background of the day? china. really, that's where it's going to go. >> wayne, a special gift for you. the environmentalists say that the xl pipeline is not green. it will cause a lot of problems with the environment and they're worried about global warming. look at a cover from april of 1975, time cover that says, how to survive the coming ice age. if you lookdown, there is a story on mash in there. science on global warming has been debunked time and time again, has it not? >> yes it has. but eric, i'm not smart enough to understand it. i'm happy i'm on the cover of time. i have no idea what -- i don't think anybody really can scientifically say definitely

one way or the other. but that's not the point. i think the point is this oil is going to go somewhere else. it doesn't matter. so for the environment, it's going to hurt the world environment regardless because the chinese are going to shmutz the world just as much as anybody else. >> we'll leave it there. thank you so sandra smith and julie for joining us this week. >> thanks. >> coming up, notice a runup lately in your 401(k)? now some lawmakers are looking to get their greedy little hands on it. tracy tells you how to protect yourself from those greedy