-- >> i can say it more slowly. >> this is coming from a guy who can't pay the irs enough. adam, i want to thank you, ben, it goes without saying, charles payne thank you very muh. the cost of freedom continues with david asman on fox and only fox. well, iranians are clearing, so should we be worrying? hi, everybody i'm david asman, welcome to "forbes on fox." happy easter, everybody. iranians appear to be pleased with the outline of a possible nuke deal. their chief negotiator touting it would lift all sanctions on his country, but some here say we've seen this show before and it won't have a happy ending for america or the world. are they right? let's go in focus with steve forbes, rich carl guard elizabeth mcdonald, sabrina schaeffer, john tamny and bruce jackson. steve, when the other side is happy in a negotiation does that usually mean you've lost? >> absolutely. as churchill said about knew

nick this is an unmitigated disaster, will set the stage for a nuclear holocaust in the middle east egypt, saudi arabia and turkey have indicated they're going to go with their own nuclear programs. it's very simple either you have a nuclear program or you don't. the iranians have trk they're going to continue with it. one detail we know, not one nuclear facility has to be closed down and they can enrich uranium until their heart is content. this is bad all around. >> bruce i know the old phrase trust and verify that was a reagan phrase when dealing with the soviets, look at what past inspectors have said about their attempts to get iranians to open up their doors. we're still not in a position to conclude that all nuclear material in iran is in a peaceful purpose another one, nuclear material declared by iran was not being diverted for peaceful purposes. that was in 2014. does it make sense to lift sanctions against iran before it satisfies the inspectors is this and there's some question about whether that will be the case this time, bruce. >> well, i think that certainly

there's a lot of politics would have to play out in this country. if you go back to that clip and you see the clearing, there were also a lot of hard liners coming out of iran that did not like the deal, they thought that the west got too much. i think that's a good thing because it marge in a lies these hard liners in iran and in they don't like it that's a good thing and mabs them less important over there. >> i agree if they don't like it would be a good thing but i saw a lot of clearing and a lot of bragging on the part of the foreign minister, chief negotiator. when they let them step over -- there's some of the clearing that took place, very much government orchestrated for a lot of it, but when we let the so-called deadline pass, when we let that pass that's when i started to worry that, swreez, we're showing them a lot of weaken here. >> you know, i have mixed feelings about it. i think it's only concerning when you miss a deadline if your end goals aren't clear. i think that's what we're picking up on, this is an administration that hasn't been clear about what its end goals

are. it has been clear that it's reluctant to use any force, even when we're seeing violence erupting all over the middle east. i think something to keep in mind is that foreign policy and diplomacy is nuanced we have to consider ourself interest financial interest, military interest, there's a lot of egos going on. is john kerry really there thinking about the united states? or is he looking to get a nobel peace prize? all of this goes into what's coming out of this deal and that's where i think it's still unclear. >> well it's not unclear to the chief negotiator for the iranians and, rich here is what he had to say he said iran will participate this all the decisions regarding the nuclear planning and the united states will lift all the sanctions. it's absolutely clear to him who is right, him or us? >> well obviously if he said that and he feels that then it's probably been signaled to him that that's what's going to happen by john kerry or somebody else. i think sabrina said something really, really wise here and

that is that john kerry and president obama seem to be driven for very personal reasons, for personal glory. howard fine man had a piece on friday in the huffington post talking about obama's legacy. how narcissistic do you have to be to put the whole world in danger for your legacy. >> it's not about leg eights it's about what's good for the american public for us for so you are aeft and economy. and americans do not trust the iranians by a large majority, 55% say you can't trust anything, 28% say you can only trust a little of what they say. >> there's a good reason that americans smartly understand what's going on as indicated by the poll. listen, the iranians have cheated and lied. no deal is better than this bad deal. they can make these existing centrifuges 20 times faster which is the aim right now and basically have smaller enrichment facilities that they could hide. so the iaea is already saying

they only answered one of those questions right now what is regular mean does that mean unfettered access to inspect their enrichment facilities? and russia and china could veto any snap back restrictions that the administration is touting. >> the administration says this is going to be good for the economy because oil prices will come down. all that extra oil from the iranians will come online, when the deal was first announced oil did drop about a buck but then it came right back up again when people looked to the details of plan. i'm wondering if the oil market has any trust in this. >> well you know, the oil is going to flow into the u.s. regardless. this only becomes an oil story if the u.s. intervenes because that would be negative for the dollar. i guess my problem is once again why are we negotiating? i keep hearing that iran is a rogue state so any agreement whether strong or weak is not worth the paper it's printed on. at some point do we say that we

needlessly elevate these countries, cuba north korea now iran by negotiating with them in the first place. >> what do you think about that, steve? >> you don't negotiate with iran because it's going to get the bomb which has huge implications for the middle east, barack obama has this strange fantasy that iran should be allowed to dominate the middle east, recreate the part of the persian empire and it will work well with the u.s. it's crazy, but that's his vision. it's not ego so much as this is what he think the world ought to do. david, say it again if iran looks like it's going to get the bomb, others in that neighborhood will get it and the whole world will suffer for it. >> bruce to emac's point about legacy, it does appear that president obama has this idea that he could be like chris i thinker and nixon did with china, that he could bring iran into the real world, but aren't the situations completely different? >> well, i think they are different but i'm of the thought that nothing is lost until you give up and i think that what is shown here is that

you're shining for light on the teal, moving ahead. i think one thing that i am really dis a incompetent poed in is there was a pugh poll out in the last week that said only 27% of americans were even paying attention and knew these talks were going on which i think is really unfortunate for anybody who is declaring victory. >> i've got to say, emac, one of the reasons americans don't care they're more worried about their jobs, we had that terrible jobs figure, we're going to talk more about that later in the show. there are other things on people's mind, maybe they just don't give that much credence to this deal. >> i do think people are watching in america. i really do. listen, no agreement until everybody is in agreement. how about that. the economist magazine is saying, that too. by the way iran has cheated and lied all this time, other countries seeking the bomb could also cheat and lie, too, to international inspectors as katie mcfarland has said 70% of the population in iran is under 30. there was an up rising there that we ignored. why not toughen it out and wait

out the mulas until they get out. >> sabrina, the way the president puts it there's no alternative between either a deal or war either now or later. there is another alternative, as we mentioned before, ronald reagan turned around the soviet empire by empowering the people that were for freedom within that empire. we have done nothing of the same sort in iran, have we? >> no and i think what we really would like to see obviously sort of a gradual overturning of the regime rather than some kind of immediate revolution. part of that goes to the reason why we may in the best case scenario why we would, fact, negotiate with iran it's not because we believe they're negotiating in any good faith it's simply that we think we could work with them for our own best self interest. if they're able to put isis at bay or help keep syria at check this is good for us. this is this is where is becomes so complicated as to whether or not you go to the table.

>> quickly, steve. >> they say it's deal a deal and war, they got the deal they're going to get war. >> coming up next, doubling down on being green. the white house promising to cut our carbon pollution by nearly 30% in only ten years. some here say that will gut our economy way before then. are they right?

.ú.úññññññoññ 2:30

eastern with julie banderas. now back to "forbes on fox." the green crowd is going to love this one, but a lot of businesses may not. the exhaust just unveiling new regulation intended to slash carbon emissions in the u.s. by up to 28% over the next ten years. sabrina what would these new regs do to the committee? >> it would undoubtedly hurt the economy by driving up costs for americans at home as well as for businesses businesses. this is not the first time that the epa has suggested that they could do something like this without driving up wost costs but they're wrong. the clean power plan which we found from an independent research association said it was

going to be seven times for expensive than the epa wanted people to believe. this would definitely be a slap in the face to the economy. >> and bruce, we got those lousy job numbers on friday, at loi of that has to do with loss of jobs in the energy sector. >> well, i think go bold and go big here. we always here that this is going to kill jobs and going to do this and pain the jobs report wasn't so great, but we're still creating jobs and we have for months and months now. i just don't see it. >> well i think you can take out the word maybe, the jobs report was awful on friday. emac, look at what's happened to cold stocks by the way since the president has come in. the three cole companies, arch coal alpha, walter down over 90% since 2009. >> here is why, this is what epa chief gina mccarthy said about these new rules, if you add up what we will avoid between now and 2030 it's more than double the pollution of every power plant in america from 2012. that puts it in perspective.

she said it would be equivalent of canceling out two-thirds of all the cars and trucks on the road. >> is this going to hurt the economy or not. >> of course it's going to hurt the economy but that's precisely why it's not going to.had a. the obama administration is over with, it's been over with since the end of 2012 so no future president or congress is going to abide such a lousy deal. markets realize that and that's why they're rallying. no one takes this seriously. >> steve, i don't know. i think with the execution stuff going on there's a lot that can be going on in the neck two years. >> even though you can undo it after two years, in two years you can do a lot of harm. this is part of obama's war against prosperity putting on these extra costs on the economy is going to slow it down. we are the one big country where emissions have gone down. what's the problem? >> how many times have we finally begun to get back on our feet only to slip again like we did on friday is this this. >> okay. we might slip, but this is going to boost the economy.

>> how? >> if you make the mistake of counting only gdp not whether we're better on. world war ii boosted gdp because it kept people busy building bonds. the war on carbons is going to keep people busy tearing down power plants -- >> i think even bruce and steve agree on this one. >> it's not going to make us better off that's what matters. >> history lesson bill, about world war ii. we're making bombs you couldn't buy cars, were restricted on food, shoes, clothes. you got a piece of paper but nothing to buy it with and killing millions of people around the world thank you i think there's a better way to rev up the economy. >> sabrina go ahead. >> this is sort of a failed ideology but i absolutely think that there could be a lot of damage still done in the next two years. this is an administration who sort of is wetted to the regulations whether we're talking about healthcare mandates or workplace mandates or epa regulation. every single time it hurts the economy, hurts american families

and hurts businesses and for what? we might say is it justifiable if we're going to help the earth and preserve the environment. if you look at the numbers we're going to see maybe an 18,000 sandth of a change in temperature in 100 years. >> bruce, do you think hat president cares enough about it and is appealing to his base enough so he might find some executive action to get this rammed through is this. >> i don't think so. i think this is more of a way to get more countries more of a global play here. i do think that jobs -- some of these -- states in the united states need to look at this and stay it's not going away and diversify their work force and diversify away from cole even if it's a small amount and i don't think that's a bad thing. >> john, it is true that companies on their own were diversifying away from coal or at least the dirty coal. >> government intervention in

the economy is always going to slow it. beyond that the world war ii notion, the idea that that ended the grags depression or boosted the economy is easily the biggest indictment of the modern economics programs profession. it's not true. >> i want to make it clear that i kind of agree with steve, i don't think world war ii made people better on. no they couldn't live well and i don't think the war on carbon is going to make them better off. >> you know, here is the way i think the epa could get to that 28% cap. cap all the rhetoric coming off of congress over this rule. >> the "cashin' in" gang getting ready to roll at the bottom of the hour eric, what do you got? >> a firestorm over freedom of religion laws for businesses, is this new culture clash taking away the rights of business owners? and if you think letting illegals stay is a crime, wait until you hear this, we may be teaching illegals how to unionize when they arrive. see you at the bottom of the hour. >> we'll be watching, eric.

thank you. >> up here coming next, california taking drastic steps to cope with its water crisises, the one big group left out of that drastic plan may be proving crony

around here, we're all about fast. that's why xfinity is perfect for me. with millions of wifi hotspots all over the place - including one right here at the shop - now we can stream all things fast and furious. you've done it again, carlos! ♪ with the fastest in-home wifi and millions of hotspots xfinity is perfect for people who love fast. don't miss furious 7 in theaters april 3rd. the golden state is turning brown. that's why for the first time in california's history it is ordering a mandatory 25% reduction in water usage, but the farming industry, which uses 880% of the state's water, getting a pass from the mandate, even though farmer only produces

about 2% of california's economic output. steve, it looks like there's a little crony capitalism going on here. >> there is indeed. also shows utter miss bee gotten policies of water. massive subsidies what they should allow farmers to do if they have excess water sell it on the free market and try to get a real me frarkt in this and the problem would be solved. right now it's all about lobbying and some farmers in california can't get water. it's crazy. >> and to steve ease point that it's all about lobbying there are a number of very wealthy farmers, including one stie stuart resnick billionaire gave $569,000 to politicians in the last cycle. a lot of people think connection between their breaks and money given to the politicians. >> hollywood and is silicon valley give money, too. i think what's happening is this misguided romantic notion about farms and farmers you see it in

france an every four years in the united states in the eye with a caucuses when politicians of both parties have to bow to the corn lobby. as you pointed out if you look at 80% of the water 2% of the gdp the numbers are ridiculous. >> right, bill. >>. >> when it combs to crony capitalism i think the farmers have nothing on the greens to did two things, first of all they blocked the construction of if you reservoirs and is secondly they persuaded the government that the natural way to help would be to empty a man-made reservoir into the ocean. that's where the problem is. >> sabrina the point is whatever the cause of it there's so much government involvement in this thing it's making the situation worse. >> that's exactly it. it's kind of interesting to see the green fighting their own impulses, we've got jefr sewn yan america and they don't want to use any water. the explanation for this is simple. price controls, massive subsidies for farmers and a shortage of supply as bill is pointing out.

the end result is that water is cheap, it makes it easy to waste whether you're a resident or large farm and that's where the real problem lies. >> whenever you see government thinking they are smarter than mother nature i get concerned and usually the sideways gets worse. >> i agree with the governor that everyone has got to step up. i'm from utah we be i was a kid we had to watch our sprinkler use. but to ignore farmers is to ignore the massive jumbo sized elephant in the room. there was a report from the pacific research institute they found that farmers are 22% inefficient. that would solve their drought problem right there. >> rich, another thing is what they farm. they farm these products like the miss she owes and almonds which are very water intensive. maybe we should import them from some other place. >> rice and cotton. there is a lot of agriculture in california that's native to california, the ones you

mentioned are not. it at that. coming up forget water. is this an even bigger emergency? one in three adults have no emergency savings.

our informers and nare names to help boost your emergency funds. emac you like germany. >> this is an etf that is a big bet, a good bet on the german stock makt the da x is the best performing stock market beating the s&p and also hedges against the particular's strength. >> buy german? >> i like german stocks, don't like the fact that it's hedged because the dollar is really too high. >> scott here cal grow, why not. >> it's definitely going to make your garden grow and probably your port noel joe also.

>> it's like watching crab grass grow over the last five years. >> gang, have a wonderful easter. that's it for "forbes on fox." thanks for watching. here is eric bolling. >> buying into a business's business, religious freedom laws for companies creating an uproar across the country. indiana and arkansas lawmakers adding anti-discrimination protections for the customers after that huge uproar, but should the government be telling business owners who they can and can't do business with? hi everyone, we will come to "cashin' in." wayne rogers, jonathan hoe anything, lisa booth and juan williams. religious freedom laws are meant to prevent the government from infringing on business owners' ability to exercise their religious believes. lisa, are you okay with that? >> i am. look you know i think, you know, the important point to make here