the better it is. that's my "2 cents more." that's it for tonight and "the willis report." thank you for joining us. it. a great night. good night from new york. >> the president means it when he is says it is a phoney crisis as we hear those conservative groups of targeting are still going colin and they are still targeting the tea party groups three months after the first one down there not let teeing up and with these implications of the house ways and means committee chrman says they're still the focus what the irs agent called up the secondary because the agency has not come up with any new guidance on the concept of a follow-up on that tax status of such groups for

now pretty much just much just conservative groups for now. with this same harassing it is just a phony scandal. said this is a phony. he is the one it keeps suing. it just kept running -- growing and growingnd growing. what do you make of this latest thing? >> it's amazing. we heard from the administratn early on to mothers day that ms. lerner annnunced, tomorrow marks three months since ms. lerner started this scandal when she answered what i think was a phony planted question by a friend of hers other legal convtion here in washingto three days laterou get eric holder calling for a criminal investigation. president obama the next a dert of the acting commissioner and replace simmons as we will get to the bottom of it. now we find out they told us then, remember, it was over in may of 2012, completely done.

we still have letters may 6th of 2013, just a few months ago. neil: have any of your clients -- i'm sor, jordan. were you getting news for many of those that you represent that this was continuing? >> we knew that. starting in 2012, about mar we started representing most of these groups. some are new with the new lawsuit, but most we have been representing cents over a year or close to a year-and-a-half. these groups were still waiting. we have a group, the albuquerque party. this group has been waiting over 1300 days. they applied december of 2009, and we are finding a from the irs it you were to apply today he would face the same kind of problems. what does it mean? they cannot solve correct. the irs does not what to do with these groups. we rejected that offer to get self approval that they try to offer the groups that were suing them, the ones we represent. and this is why, becausehe irs

needs to be able to figure out how to answer the applications. yes or no. they refuse to. what this new testimony shows is that they still cannot do that. we're talking now months after. neil: we tried to get them to come on and talk to us. lacking that, i have to try to get maybe what could be there point of view. i have no idea. i am investigative journalist. if you find the actions that you were taking were justified when you question any group's tax-exempt status, you cannot just cease and desist. right? i mean, you have to keep doing it. maybe not be look like you are targeting just a conservative groups. to pursue that, with this was about the irs, whenever this secondary screening is covered for, the irs way of saying we are still very vigilant about policing anyone's tax-exempt status or request for tax-exempt status and justifying what was

their behavior before by saying, th was all about saving you money. >> the problem is the targete political point discrimination, which is unconstitutional. whathe agent has testified to, not that they scrutinized groups. in fact, what we said is, our groups deserve an answer. donnelley is also an answer,,but they do not want to own that answer. neil: these and other liberal groups that were supposedly questioned as well. every liberal i have on thehow says, you know, everyone has been questioned on this. i put out please. please come on. and if they lied about that, that is an even bigger problem on their hands. >> that is another agent -- issue. this agent did not say every group that comes through that would possibly political goes to a second level of scrutiny. neil: that is what i want to know. you raised another good point. this secondary screening is just about screening more than the

same conservative groups you have compounded the problem and dug an even deeper ditch. >> that is why we agree all along that wind up president tried to take these actions and now is very clear that the administration tried to play and often some kind of phony scandal by the way, the sixth irs offici retired today. another one, the head of the technical adviser. the assistance of ms. lerner has retired and is being replaced by someone from the cincinnati office who signed off on releasing the group's tax-exempt applications befor they were grand status. she is now being replaced. they're saying it is better because the -- she is in cincinnati. if there is no scandal ms. lerner does not take the fifth and that would have figured out by now, you would think, if we are supposed to believe what they are saying that one year or 15 months or even free months later with a new acting irs commissioner how to answer people's applications.

they are still using the same process. that is what this agenda said. again, why we are getting some much more information constantly out of this is because a lot of these irs officials were sick and tired of the administration trying to blame lower-level folks when it was all coming from the top. neil: thank you very muc i invite the other side come on at any time. we always request. you're always welcome. i just want to find out where the hell you are. meanwhile, house and even have this targeting will ever stop. it never does appear to stop. and fact, if anything, it appears to accelerate. >> you know, i have to tell you, you calle this. a remember going back to the veryeginning of this. use and i bet nothing will ever be done, and i actually thought, there is no w that this administration can be this arrogant and not call for the heads of these people.

rather than now we have seen is one cer-up after another. the president calling this a non scandal, i guess, like benghazi and some of the other horrible things. we have seen holder perjure himself and still have no answers and they are still doing it. the president at this point is the implicit in this, and i think that is what people need to start screaming about neil: you raise a good point. it did more into a genuinely real investigation or so we're told by an outraged president at the time. did not seem like sony rage there when he said he wanted to get to the bottom of it. yet this so-called investigation has yet to yield inquiry to any of the gro's that were targets. some meetings there is no investigation going on. >> that is pretty amazing. we're learning now is by definition scandalous. whenever you have a political entity targeted for their political beliefs by the irs to the exclusion of every other political entity on the other side of the aisle, i think that

is scandalous. we're also seeing is stunning managerial incompetence of the irs. you'd think that after the scandal broke it would try to correct the situation, but fremont's after words nothing has been done and there are still targeng. if you look at the transcript, they asked the agents, what if you saw this, no political activity by this group, would yostill give them more scrutiny? they said, yes because we don't have how to handle tea paaty groups. we would still give them extra scrutiny even if there was no evidence. to me that is stunning and shows the behemoths barack -- bureaucracy is out of control. neil: at face value of these events and was going on and i am looking you, you still have a target on you. >> absolutely. everyone really does because if this administration gets away with this, this change is completely out politics i done forever. this is bically the executive branch of this government is exerting its power over people.

neil: but the it is even worse than that. composite media. i mean, bottom-line, it would be allowed in and no one would say boo, but by and large the media is giving it a pass. what do you think of that? >> well, i think -- >> well -- neil: to regina first and then you. i apologize for not being clear. >> a composite media is to be short. there is room here. there is an ethical democrats out there that says, hey, mr. president, shouldn't you be doing something about this? shouldn't there be someone helping. i have to say, i am not seeing a whole lot coming om republican leaders about this. let me assure you. if the situation were reversed the democrats would be raising holy cain about this, and you and i both know it. neil: i think you are right, and certainly almost forced out of office. but that is not happening now. phony scandal are not, do you

think the presint has just gotten a past? >> of the media is kind of buying his line that these are funny scandals. while it is true and i think we have to admit in fairness we do not have en directed to the white house, we have to the chief counsel's office which is run by a political appointee, the investigation. i think those are the facts, but the investigation is still ongoing. and ve well could tied to the white house. the president is out there calling it a phony scandal and what i think he should be doing if he believes it does not go any higher is, let's get all the facts o there. let me prove that is not a phony scanl by, you know, providing the information that is requested by congress, but even a docrat in the senate, max baucus, says that the irs has not provided documents in the way that he has asked them. neil: to your point, whether i goes to the white house or not, more pointing to that it might. if that is the standard or the litmus test, then you would have

never had the pursuit of watergate, never read the pursuit of iran-contra, never hathe pursuit of the whole savings and loan cris because there would have been an unwillingness on the part of the media to follow up because it would have said, well, if the president does not look like he is involved, we might as well drop it now. that could be a very slippery slope. >> she h time to speak up. he had time topeak up about mr. martin, time to say that the dream nine should have no responsibility for breaking the rule of law in our country. he had time to speak up on a lot of issues. is silence speaks volumes on this. neil: nothing points to the white house, but by dismissing it, something it off, and saying the investigation is not going there or there is no use going there, i think, it begs credulity. i wanted thank you both. i look forward to having you both back. well, if you have had it with

that guy, what did these your mind at all if it were hal? remember how? may be a machine is buying nine new. that is what they are trying. are you buying?

♪ >> mind your manrs or you will lose your lens. warning. warning. fire ii the port fuel cells. ♪ neil: the only one toemember this, but i want to a shout out to the robot from lost in space. this still does not compute because the nsa is replacing human beings with computers to be senseless new bond people does not mean the agency still is not stepping on people. what it is saying is that a machine is not going to leak such news to people. are we not missing here's something? the agency is still spendg on people. we are supposed to feel better because it is a machine. it is not human. i am tellingou, it is in human. it is still a mess. what do you think of it?

>> move like -- moves like this areesigned to high accountability. when youemove people from the equation, you can silence people and control them to some extent, but they're is a kind of randomness to people. when you assign machines to do al the information transfer in to manage this you run into problems with the people that the nsa did not know what is going on. look at what is happening with hamper frequency trading were the traders running those algorithms, programs don't always know exactly what they're doing and how the interactions or. you collected things like the bidding bought on amazon that controls the price is in which you have sometimes instances in which books bore little courts were electronics will be b up to 6,000, 8,000, incredibly ridiculous prices because y have these two algorithms that are set to top each other by $1 keep going and going and going. this stuff starts to spiral out of control which is really the kind of thing that you should -- we should be afraid of with

moves like this. neil: you lost me there and algorithms. my worry is it was not individuals human beings to way to a file. when they collected tse phone records, and million of them. they are sitting on a desk or in our hard drive for a human being to seize or to act on, should he or she feel it is necessa? i feel very little comfort, especial for any fans of 2001 space odyssey that the machine will b any less lethal because, as i remember, it was the mission would not open as certain door, not good for the astronaut who wanted said bob door opened. so if we are looking for this to be a reflection of a more open nsa we have another think coming. >> this is out a move toward

transparency. this makes it harder to tell what is going on. what is funny, the nsa director gave a speech that as cyber security conference this week. he ended it by sayin if you guys -- you should make up your mind and get all the facts yourself. which would be great if they would give us the facts, but what uc was moves like this to order to increase their own lack of tnsparency, their own internal protectns to make sure that there permission cannot give up, what you see is they're making moves to ensure you connecticut informaon. neil: i called that. a very astute observation. you are not telling us the facts. it is ver hard. forget it. thank you very muc meanwhile, no surprise, the president would be doing a little behind the scenes palin. privately with big technology

executives. we are told it will put their minds at ease. no one is talking about what is happening at this meeting of what is said, not exactly putting my next guests mind that these. always good to have you. what are we to make of this? when authorities tried to tell me come down, look at the facts, that the present the facts, they keep telling me to calm down and i get more revelation that they are looking into what is supposedly just phone calls in the beginning to e-mails and text messages and where i sve, i am not coming down. >> most american peoplend those around the world are not at this point either. that is a public relations nightmare to say the least. you have the meeting the president obama had or of the founding fathers of the internet. good to have those meetings. there are so many different

things that these people can talk about and can keep that cooversation confidential and to keep it out of the public discourse when, in fact are really there is a need for more public discourse at this juncture to. ne: you have always been on the inner circle of guys, you know, crunching things and all. i am always on the outside looking in, and it bothers me -hen i see a closed door. what is going on, especially if it concerns me? and i am paying the guys behind the closed door or i am a shareholder of the guys behind the closed door. they are having a closed-door meeting with the duly elected presidt of the estates and there not telling me squad. >> and it is in a docracy that is anbsolute or rita people have to have. the thing -- the crux of the matter is, internal to the nsa one of the problems that they have had is that they have gone from a need to know mentaty

which was keep everything secret d everything under wraps to a need to share mentality. because there was so much sharing a lot of disinformation was getting out. on the one hand it is good because there i is the public debate about what is going on and why it is going on. on the other hand, there are the source and methods issue from an intelligence perspective, how do i protect what i am doing as long as it is legal so that the bad gu did not know what i am doing it we an still catch the bad guys. there is always th problem you run into. neil: i don't know, but it is always good having you. >> my pleasure. neil: it just bothe me on the level of calmed down. everything will be all right. don't worry your pretty lite head. they don't fool me because my head is not pretty or little, but i get the point. calmed down, masses. something is wrong. something is wrong.

that is just me. meanwhile, if you wan to take a hike in california, they tried it and wondering how it is then missed it. sales taxes.

>> plenty of money. neil: it turns out that democratic congressman was not just some tax as bender, but just more honest about it because come to california my friends were politicians are cooking up taxes that would make e congress and proud. ter all of this it did not bring in enough sales taxes. in fact, it brought in less. so now that trip to the dentist.

clever, b costly. very costly. you say not a smart move because it is a zero sum game. explain. >> it is also not a surprise. this happens all the time when states and countries try to raise taxes on various services or products or income. big projections that they throw out there, rosy projections saying this is the panacea. our problems. it is this one thing, this last time and we are done. surprise surprise, projections don't bear out and the revenue goal is not met. they sit around looking and think what happened and start scrounging for more tax increases. it is a spiral that goes down or which is why california has seen so many people and businesses leaving because it is just open

season on businesse and successfuleople in that state. neil: turn around and say, at least rihanna looking at praise and state income tax. what do you think? >> i find it ridiculous that a family in los angeles already has to pay and 9 percent tax livi in l.a., the city tax. add that on to their rent and food and health care. how is it that a family -- neil:he food is exempt. what they're talking about is over a certain amount it might not be. >> absolutely not. california has a $407 billion debt, over $10,000 per citizen of california. the family has to make a budget and a lot to the give more money to a state that cannot manage its budget or expanding or instead. they don't have the money. that is why the sales tax is a working. if californians had the money, i'm a californian, we like to spend the money. if we don't have it we will be buying things. they will try to jab them even harder.

neil: i do mind it. i'm not going to get into that. what i find odd is that far more creative coming up with ways to tax you than to just cut back on the spending. >> let's just get some proper context year. we are talking about is two years ago a bipartisan group of kind of california wise men including many business leaders came together and said we have to deal with the state fiscal situatn because we keep having these ss. what it proposes to of restructure and broad the sales tax whicright now just hits goods and we now have an economy where some much money is spent on services. ne: you're right about that. but he's not saying service has been replaced. >> exactly. only half of california's $2 trillion economy and all sales of goods. and so that sales tax which was created back in the 40's is missing a lot.

neil: i will even grant you that >> with a also want to do is cut back the personal income tax. neil: that part they have not done yet. i hear it the wording. i am old enough to remember when the first pured the value-added tax. it was only going to be small. and then they would eventually lead to removing country's income tax. now we know tt inany countries it is north of 20 percent, closing in on 30% and those income-tax rates have not gone away. fat is the pattern with this sort of thing. they parents, taxes on goods will stay and that taxes on the underlying servicee will state. the double whammy wl stay. >> that is what the play. it is a trade-off. we will raise this tax to daybed don't worry, tomorrow we will reform matt lower. and then, hey, actually, the

revenue did not work out so well, so we won't touch the second part of the deal. the problem in california is not that hf of their goods and services are not being taxed enough. the problem is they're not competitive. people don't want to move there are open businesses there because it is not a place where you are rewarded for that sort of business which grows the econy. completely dominated by -- they have the second worst credit rating. number one -- number 50 agassi should say is illois. neil: but wod you agree that if you are going to update the tax cut and look at how it did not reflect and does not reflect the times it may be that that is aood way to go out it. my only fear and distinction is that they don't draw the same type of distinction with cutting spending.

>> they are not cutting anything in california. the problem they have is a $400 billion debt. and i hear politiciansalking about trying to squeeze citizens for more money, that tells me they are not paying attention to the needs of the citizens. they just raised it. proposition 30 was passed by the people and is not working. it appears to show that people are not spending because they don't have revenue. the state is being unfair to citizens. people leaving. governor perry has appealed to the state and brought many businees out of califora. they're fleeinthe state. it has become an entitlement state. neil: i was justn california, and for some reason i still saw a lot of people there. it's beautiful. i take nothing away from the state, but when you are a businessman and hear what is going on, the shifting around, if you had your choice and d not know where to move to, looking at california, texas, all i know is that california is

a mishmash of various taxes, excise fees, so many things. my accounts will be up 24 hours is trying to figure out. >> the strongest part of the u.s. economy in rect years has been a tight economy which has been based in large part in california. start-ups all the time. neil: a lot more in taxes. >> this idea that california is not cutting spending. they have draconian spending cuts under governor brown and it has raised taxes. and now have a balanced budget. this is a good example of what the fedel government needs to do. neil: wait a minute. you're using california as a example? >> once upon a time before we had a strong republicans the way you banced budgets was raised taxes and cut spending. neil: once upon a time before we have extreme liberals we had an openness to cutting taxes. >> kneele, i am just saying, look at the example of

california that has a balanced budget and the example of washington, the federal government, which does not. neil: a junk debt state. >> california has more millionaires than every state that mitt romney won together. neil: we couldrgue it forever. we will have you guys back. i don't know. inhe meantime, what is the fference between jumbo shrimp and it is congressmen's undocumented citizens line. one was funny and the evi

♪ il: the president cannot call a terrorist terrorist. >> make no mistake, we will work with the libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people. we will bring to justice those who tk them from us. there should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice. neil: but now republicans cannot call illegal immigrants illegal immigrants. >> i think and documents of -- citizens should have to come forward, have to sell to identify, pay a penalty in back taxes. neil: getting heat for calling illegal immigrants undocumented citizens at a town hall of event. but multitrillion-dollar immigration bill limning, time

for political correctness in overdrive? pricing, never really solve any problems. he was trying to save, let's move on to solve this problem, but by calling an illegal citizen or undocumented citizen, you are not a citizen if youre undocumented. he compounded the problem. >> it is scary, troubling, and i will tell you why. big, giant, mega movement. we're talking about redistribution of wealth. some house someone who's back into america illegally has become the victim. someone who has been able t live off the system, put the kids in the school, obviously live better here than they could in their own home country has become the victim. this citizen victim, the undocumented citizen victim that somehow details of turned and we have to treat this whole thing with kid gloves. one of the reasons we have not beenble to come up with any sort of comprehensive agreement as we are not being honest.

someone committed a crime. they have done enough to redress that, that's one thing. they are not citizens, b we would like to fix that. neil: the same thing that drives us to want to double the minimum wage. the hike may be, but had troubling not. becomes a laughingstock. to even pursue how you pay for that or even fixing the illegal immigration mess, how you pay for that. all lost in the sauce. >> political correction gone amok. just really amok. no one is thinking -- really the narrative wholeheartedly the president believes that there is so much money in this country that there should be shared wealth. neil: you are we afraid of defending? >> potential voters. neil: when you use lines like undocumented citizens, intends to learn not to are you afraid you are going to tick off latino voters illegally?

>> if you know when to medic -- mexiity and right now there's a long liner we cut in front everyone in their mind to provide would lose their mind. everyone would go crazy. neil: but you would be t mop. >> the point is even people who have done it the legal weight, the narrative have been such that they have sympathy for others to hop over and have not done is illegal way. i find that to be very interesting and compelling. overall i would love to see the balance of the population fix this because i guarantee you, if it is not heavily latino now, they must be on their way there. this is also a former pandering. believe me. i am one to tell republicans all the time, be careful about not pandering. i say all the time coca-cola is the best non brand in the world, but in china they sell the product and mandarin. you want to tellour misses to a group of people in the way they understand, but this is a form of pandering.

neil: : ranger in spanish. >> there would not be a line. neil: good point. my buddy. all right. well, are you serious? of big green light for online piracy. the guy behind the game of thrones telling pirates if they want to steal his show, go ahead.

♪ >> he's coming for everyone and everything. neil: well, if they want to watch and apparently left t steal, game of thrones is t most illegally demoted show up there. this show isecond. anyway, -- [laughter] neil: go head and laughed all you still can't. the ceos said that is helping

hbo make money. the more pirates down loaded the more people talk about it, the more time-warner makes from it. does this make sense to you? >> $0.0. isn't this the same thing we heard we backwind when the music industry said, no, you know, free. that will hurt our business. the newspaper business, youan get newsver the web. that won't hurt our business. i don't think free is a very good business model. neil: maybe he's thinking the more bombs is gets the more people are curious. that i can understand, but you could apply that to any phenomenon. the iphone was a big deal and the beginni. i don't know. >> what he is saying is it reduces and lowers your advertising cost. i tell you something, even the cae industryas angry about the zillow it -- freeloaders and

piracy. you have to stop china from copping and stealing movies and shows. this is a real reversal for time warner executive. down in washington st. you have test of this digital stuff and the piracy. neil: facebook new video, only one thing stopping. mark, that facebook ceo, turning off a lot of users sti estimate -- make money somehow. as the weighted do it. he's just afraid to turn them off. >> there will limit. the thing with ads, you hav best market. young viewers. tv sws or die for that. the most sought after. fifteen seconds and once a day

hits, but if the extends -- neil: to cover the entire page? >> it just pops up as a video. you can unpopped it, and you don't have to listen to it. no sound, but if you move beyond that a lot of people will start losing facebook. neil: what do you make of it? >> i agree. i find the video popup even if you have to wait, and normally you have to wait some specied amount of time like ten or 15 seconds. it is like that annoying time in this hour, you put the conditioner on and have to wait a minute. >> for you? [laughter] >> well, i don't use much conditioner, but back in my day. my point is, even that is so annoying. >> it is annoying. neil: and you'll never get that back. you will never get that conditioner time back. >> i think he is making the right call in this case. neil: finally, from cradle to grave.

commercial free, calling for a crackdown on apps. claim that applications will increase learning skills when there is no evidence to back it up. crying over nothing? >> one of the creepy as trends out there. the american academy of pediatrics says do not do this. it will actually run language development and is not good for babies. if you need a babysitter, instead of your smart phone, hellebore refurbishing the baseme and have your children down there. neil: so that toddlers are using it. how is that different than a little touch device? >> probably the same thing. in other words, screen time has proven to be bad. >> i thought was was a very faithful libertarian. i find her matal in a free-market. a lot of stuff that is junk.

this boy spaceless that have copper in the those don't work, but there is not up for. it's one step away from some nanny group dictating how fisher-price is going to run their business. neil: what is dangerous to the kids? a toddler uses this stuff. >> but they need face-to-face interaction. neil: with this stuff come they become cold, distant? >> government bureaucrat father. >> i guarantee when liz's rents raised her they put her in a crib and center in front of the television for five or six hours per day. neil: not so. here we come. >> my parents had eight children and we all shared a button. i did not talk t people until five years old. my mother thought i was deaf. >> mine give me outside the door

and a milk carton. thank you. a guy runs up to your bedroom window and stabs a picture of you and whomever in bed. think he can do it? add judges ruled that he can. artistic expression. so why are you giving me a one finger expression

♪ neil: think about it. short of murder and torture, you can do pretty much whatever you want in the privacy of your own home. it is, after all calling your castle. now a judge has ruled if a guy comes up to your home and starts snapping pictures through your window he has an out, so you better cover-up. artiically expressin himself. get some clothes on because you look with attic.

let me be brief. put something over those briefs. our legal eagles are year. the judge had a right. the artist cut wrong. this is stupid. it is a violation of privacy. explain to me how this could even be allowed. appointed this it is a major invasion of privacy. >> is absolutely ridiculous. neil: this judge. >> a judge finding that it is not an invasion of privacy for a photographer to actually people in your bedroom to take pictures is absolutely ridiculous, and to do it without consent of the subject. neil: you're saying -- the same, the judge, it is an artistic expression. >> absolutely not. pictures of individuals in their bedroom. absolutely creepy, insane, actually, to have someone

peeping in your bedroom taking pictures but if you have your child and he takes a picture of your child and you don't consent to have him post these pictures and stuff profit on this without a person being able to sign off, approve it, and have compensation. >> his question and simply incorporated. neil: your argument was it is a balance, obviously. it is art and the first amendmen. >> i understand where at first blush you might say this is crazy, but the reality is the particular images not unless i'm missing something, did not share the people's faces. that's critical. neil: and he did not walk up to the property. from a distance. nonetheless, with the technology we have toy you can do a lot with that. >> and other big point in his opinion. the judge really could have ruled that the whole thing was moot because right in the decision the artist it filed an

affidavit saying, and taking it out my website and facebook, not posting in anywhere else. >> but the right, is setting a principal for and to move forwd. >> that is a very good point. neil: the same rights. >> if it was something risque the decision would have been different. >> but now we don't know. >> it is a good argument, but the reality is this judge was fact specific to these images. that line -- neil: all we know we're talking about today, that person has artistic expression, so that is wide latitude for others. >> exactly. >> i would give him a little legal advice. they are at their own peril because you could very easily draw another decision exactly. >> and now it is illegal for anyone who wants to do this. >> lower courts. >> i think it is ridiculous.

>> the lower court. >> but it gives someone tte ability to people in your bedroom, peeping tom to creep in your bedroom and took pictures. neil: from warrants. me having for bowles. >> we don't want that. >> a picture of you having serial. >> it could be. you never know. at five in the morning it is. neil: whatever happens in your home stays in your home. it's weird. in the meantime, think the avengers with tattoos. when unions are joining forces, may be run for cover.

♪ neil: i have never seen that graphic before. beautiful. want to take on the chin. , a sense of urgency. if you could join forces and make the other guy the chump because don look now but a battle of unions are assembling

an army to fight major battles on health care. the united commercial union rejoining. several unions that also led them back is to 2005 return. they said the strength is in numbers. very clear that the big unions are not taking any chances. dave callahan. our union is worried? >> this is a great development. this is all about caring and to take on the retail and fas food industries. some strikes recently. those industries are doing great. mcdonnell stock quadrupled in the last decade. workers have barely seen anything from that. they deserve a raise. the unions in to help them make that happen. neil: deserve a doubling of minimum wage? >> look at australia where they actually have a $14 minimum wage

. neil: so you are for doubling the minimum wage? >> i think troubling may be going a bit too f right now, but there is plenty of pfit to be made at higher wages. neil: we willll see about that. the bottom line is they're not making any chances. whether it is a push for higher minimum wage. >> this is only about their dues and their political power. the reality is in the last 50 years unions used out 30% and now. mo businesses have not succeeded. lookup toyota has grown and gm has loan. and we look at theirline industry. jet blue has blossomed of twa and pan am a other business. unions protect people all the way to the unemployment line. in a fe-market people should be able to negotiate their ron salaries or work elsewhere. that is where freedom and democracy is about. neil: with the make of this? tting ready for major battles.

>> we just heard the numbers about how private-sector union is scraping the bottom of the barrel a starkly in the u.s. rather than trying to fight these battles of, consolidate and hang on to some degree of cloud, albeit diminished overall. i hope that if these unions are going to join forces to might as well do something constructive like continue to fight obamacare which is a relatively new phenomenon from these folks to spend billions of dollars. neil: a sore point for the president because they might not like how they're going stag get stuck. >> all of a sudden they are shocked. >> i don't think health care's the big battle. it is about those -- neil: a very big battll. on pleasant surprises. >> an explosion of low-wage jobs driving the recovery. most of the new jobs being created. and you know the problem. workers are not making enough.

neil: jobs are part-time because of health care. >> they're not ming enough to drive demand. neil: you're not hearing me. it will come back and maybe talk again. thank you. we will see where ♪ v. ♪ lou: citibank, everybody. thank you f being with us. tonit you're looking at the capitol of yemen, the city's residents there on edge. the army is on high alert after a united states drone strike took out for suspected leaders of al qaeda following a u.s. warning of imminent terror attack in the region with considerable focus on potential targetin yemen. on your screen now the u.s. embass close after the white house ordered the brought evacuation of american citizens and u.s. personnel. although the obama