another 10%. >> john, quickly. >> facebook finds aay on monetize. video will help them. >> bull or bear? >> too much of a run up. i'm a bear. nevelet a scandal go to waste. and when it comes to the nsa, don't do millions know it. hello, everyone. this guy is proof wneed more governnt workers. accordinto a new report, they're ready for a new fight against hiring outside contractors ile pushing for are more federalorkers and security jobs. that have you feeling a little insecure? gary what do you think? >>here is no proof that contractors do a ba job for us with o security. this is an outlier event, one that should be arrested. i do not want any union

employees put down o throatses in the security business. that will affect us going forward. i wantood people running the show. >> theres also a report out friday that says even though the nsa has rule order h hane our communications, there are so many gray areas or wiggle room, if you will, tha 's all kind of spooky anyway. >> it is. and i will borro something i know adam might very well say. of course the unions will try and increase their ranks. which theorecally if you had more government workers versus private contraors, that would happen. actually i totally agree with gary this is a one off. you n have people whoeak confidential information even if they work for the government. you call h a whistleblower, i say private bradley. >> i've done a lot of reporting about the whistleblowers.

they're all insane to a certain extent, so we should expect that much different from this guy. i do have a little bit of problem, though, farming this sort of essentia stuff ot to to contractors. i think we don't farm out the police department. we don't farm out the fire departme. why should we be farming out surveillance. there is a degree of extra control -- >> if they were federal workers, could all sleep well at night? >> i'm not saying that. i'm saying we have moreontrol in-house. there isore control of the police and fire departments because it's in-hoe. >> bep, hn, how do you feel? >> i could not agree more. the guy that these guys outside contractors have access to phone records of every single person in america if not the tire world is insane. and i think they should at a minimum be government employe and subject to whatever laws, including la of -- >> all i was saying is whether

they're within the gvernment o outside contractor, if they're not properly naged, then they're going to leakanyway. >> let me jump in there. there's one mo level between the government supervision and the contractor than there is if th were correct government eloy direct government employees. >> adam, you have me momenm in your favor. >> i could not agree more with the last two. rst of all, this this is of course asverybody knows has nothing to do with unions. we might renamehe program bash unions weey because that's the set up for this segment. >> no, adam, hold one second. this is a play book of the tsa. in other words, it's a big body, it starts out independently, but you go after it and we've seen

this playbook working before. >> let me just speak to that. because that's exactly what you would expect in an organizations leadership to do. point here is what we can make a generalization about in this country is that we have let this idea that you should farm everything out to contractors run amuck. it is not always the best thing to let the market decide how these things shoulde done. a key function of the government should be done by goverent employees. that's thpoint here >> we're lking about things running amuck. what's running amuck is not that they aren't unionized, but e abuse of you power and all the gray areas that the nsa seems to have these ys. >> it that has nothi to do with unions or nonunions. >> all i'm interested ins the best people in this job. our security is the number one most important thing this country needs at this point in

time. m saying -- listen, i'm not saying they're not. if it's from there, fine, give me the best people. my issue is when they use this as a wedge to get in there and get more of thr employees in to the nsa and these other places. >> and to that point, the irs, all these scandals going on, $70 million in bonuses this is what happs. so maybe you have less layer of accountability with respect to managent, but certainly when the unions take over, you can't fire anybody. and they always get paid. $70 million in the midst of this cris for the irs. >> you don't need to -- basically you can be screwed up and be managed by the government, witness this irs. and i would argue that when you put sobody's prits and you put their business at risk, those companies moving forrd that arerite contractors by the government, if the government bears down on them,

you better damn well be sure that they are going to prevent people from -- >> just the oppose. >> the anti-union sentiment is such a thin read. it's a saw man. e fact i the unions will benefit from this, there will b more union workers if it they move it in-house. that is a consequence. >> it's not reason why wre doing this. >> and by the way, we should point ouwhen you farm out a lot of stuff, farm out prisons, which they have do, a lot of abuse occurs because there is a dividing line between government and private business. >> i just saying that you have about a ird of top secret -- top secuty clear answers that are outside contractors right now. i don't see the harm in that despite this one jerk who is in hong kong. >> outside contractors also do lousy jobs at background checks. th're among the worst around. >> go ahead, ben. >> do you not see th there is

this missing layer of accountability? surely a woman as brilliant as you se this misng layer of accountability. these guys are party animals. i kn these ivate contractors. they're party animals. >> but i'm not a believer that we will do a better job at surveillance, at fighting terrorism if you basically make all of these wrkers 100% within the government. >> why is it such a foregone conclusion that by aegd the bureauacy of government that it's actually going to make the program better? beuse i have lost much faith and i think the viewers share the sent niment in government-run things. >> i understand, but we're in the realm of opinion. so she said if yohire a contractor, you can hold their feet to the fire.

i would say you hold a contractor, they're motivateto make the best profit they caas they should by the way. they will cut costs in order to do that. >> unles you lose all government revenues becae you screw up. >> does the policeepartment did a great job? they do areat job here in new york this is anssential service. >> the army does a good job and privatemanning leaked classified information. >> what is the argument that an essential service just because it's a government, just because it might happeto be with a union, will do a lousjob? >> gary, you have the last word on this. >> the argument is simple. we just want the bes people whether it's from the unions or not. the issue is using the political side of it, going after one guy who we already called him a few names and using them to get more of your people in there. i don't want that. i want things dne right. i want the best people for the

job. >> all right. and i think we all agree on that. we'll agree to disagree with respect to wheth unions bring accountability. we'll see. hey, how about this? a ee pass for companies passing out your private information to the government. that's wt the nchsa wants. up here next, when it costs to e new immigration bill, critics are saying don't believe @í0x;ñt

hernandez's home.

now back to cavuto on business. > while a key government report says it would reduce the deficit over the next ten year, it's also say wages would actually decline for all workers. ben. >> well, of course wages wiill decline. influx of lower waged workers. historically the purpose of looser immigration laws has been exactly that, tout pressure on s downward. and that will do that this time, too. but let's remember that a lot of the jobs these guys will be taking are jobs that americans don't want to have in the first place. so iteally wouldn't matter what you want to pay. not ny harvard chickensill want to pull the lungs out of chickens. so although i imagine that's how they feel about a lot of their professions.

but the whol purpose is to lower wages. >> i find it interesting because we've tablished a society where americans don't have to do those jobs because they can sit at hope and collect checks. at's the alternative. if they didn't have that alternative, they would be o there catfish farmsms and doing whatever job they could. it's a luxury in this country not to have to wor >> the longer you stay home, the more you get checks. it's amazing to watch and we've seen the newspapers on the checks that are being sent. as far as the wages go, you add a ton ever people tohe pie and you have a certain amount of money, fixed amount of money, wages are most ctainly going to go down. and this is ging to be the outcome. got another big bill with the immigration thing. and i'm not against it, but the way they're doing it, i ve a birry about how it will affect the economy. and to hear the cbo which i call the conessional bull crap office with their numbers say it will helphe economy and they say it will help the ecomy and

lp the deficit, i don' think so. >> hard r me to believe that, too, chlie. every me the cbo scores something anall of these things where we spen trillions of dollar, somehow we save money at theen just baffles me. >> li obamacare. >> exactly. >> i'm trying tohink of an anti-union angle here. i mean, i wanto correct benon one thin he made the point before that immigration is basically to to meet demand for labor. not to drive down the cost of labor. so- >> among other things. >> what's odd about this is that we don't have a demand for hard labor. and they're still thinking about bringing people in. and this is what i don't get from the left. they say they're for the poor and everytng, to give benefits out. and basically help the poor. this doesn't helphe poor, this hurts the poor. it drives down the base wage ra. >> it actually if you look at the cbo report, it says that

wages will drop slightly for lower income americans and higher income -- it's the middle group that will nothave a negative. and i have the union argument. if you unionize like mcdonald's, your prices will go up if the wages go up. if you keep wages flat or low, that means pris at restaurants and retailers that we all go to will remain steady. >> they went into hard labor. but by the way, that was this 9 1920s when there was a need. we don' have the need now. >> we will also bring inore skilled hier -- >> let's bring in the guy who i in silicon valley right now.

adam,er intellectill all answer went er my head. sostraighten me up. >> at the high end, boo-hoo for the w wealthy who will face new competition. therectlly is -- >> what competition are you talking about? >> that's not what this argument is about. there is a labor shortage. this argument is notbout the high end labor. there islenty of jobs out there for technicians and -- >> let adam finish. g guys, hold on. >> the two things that the repo addressed, it would depress wages at the high end. we'vascertained, agreed, we don't care about that so much. >> so wha do we care about? >> the impact would be tiny. i mean, statistically relevant. >> that ak no sense. >> and it won't reallyrive down wages. it will drive wn -- >> finish, adam. >> iwill dve down recorded wages. because right now these 11

million people are not being recorded because they're not official. >> here is the thing, though. how could you be so cavalier to say whe wages shou gdown and whose shouldn't? you're talkingbout americans. and you're like i don't care if this guy's wages go down because he or she makes x amount of money. isn't that a crazy way of looking at it? >> he asked me at thehigh end this is good competition. silicon valley companies need more people. >> nobody cares abouthe hig end. this is not an argument about the high end. >>hat was my point. by the way, the latest news on the immigration bills that the republicans want more security, military-like security on the border. that's what it will take to get their vos. that's going to cost a lot more money. >> that' not whate're arguing here. if you have an influx of low skilled workers, will that depress wag for poor people. yes, it will. it has to. >> the bottom line is it wil i think everyone has to agree that it will. and we should all care about

at. by the way, caree about all americans' wages going down and i also care about the ft that they don't have to te these jobs and that's why we're in this debate in the first place. up next, let's call it electric sticker shock. why the latest from the white house could ve you paying more green for energyills. >> looks like tomorrow i'll be shoveling ten feet of global rmg. >> it can cause both extremes, hot ancold. >> so you're saying warming

♪ >> green and turning red. the white house set to announce a new global warming push taeting power plant with stricter limits on emissions. critics say it will hit consumer with higher energy costs. monthly billsup 40 perce i the past ten years, can we afford it? >> we couldn't. look, i can give you an example look at the chart of the cal stks after they put regulations on these companies. electric companies will raise prices on the consumer and our costs will go up. that will affect the economy. it is a big cost to the consumer. >> ben, it seems tough that we are asked to pay so much higher

in electricity costs in a time when the count i trying to struggle out of the abyss that it is in. >> there is no cost to high to save the earth. the really problem is do we know it is hurting the earth. the scientist are not 100 percent unanimous. despitwhat they tell us. the sig are not clear on this. just don't think we should go all out on this. >> adam, getng rid of 43,000 megawataugas of power and replace it with what? >> just having come back from china where the air is disgusting, i am glad to live where the air is cleaner, we have not had a increase in electrity demand for five years. it is morebout the economy. >> but prices are up and you mentioned we haven't had demama. imagine what happens, adam, what

happens when we take 280 coal fire plants off line. what happens to our bills? >> our bills will go up if we don't put anything else on line. >> that is the natural gas dropping it down. our emissions are in theowest levels in 20 years. >> you want to know why the market went town 5 or 600 points. it is tough like. this oba economy and minus the monetary crack. relation and higher taxes and nonsenseike this. >>very time ben bernanke speaks,it is this. dagen, now doubt there is a better way. the way it is going through is hams iffed. nnatural gas promote the exmroration and that will drive down the co2 emission. >> my thanks to charlie and dag big ben may be saying good bye

to allf that money. our gang has

>> afraid higher interest rates might slam your stocks? our gang said don't be afraid of their pick. >> tbt. special rates go up this go up. >> adam what do youlike? >> xlp. charles it is less special rate

censative. people have to keep eating no matter what. >> ben, what do you like? >> if you are on the same team sign up >> he's been w writing and freedom continuesor a place for business. that is alys right, fox. >> you help us and we'll help you. head of the national security agency asked in congress to give legal immuneitty to pivate companies. should angry customers like you able to sue those companies if they are wrongfully targeted. >> h everybobody. welcome to forbes on fox. we'll go with steve and rick and rich and elizabeth and sabrina and john. john, ould customers like us be able to sue in >> yes, we should be. companies should not be helping the federal government to snoop on us. we have to ask ourselves how