remember you can take it with you. back. >> whoa, is that real? you're out of control. i want my $15! >> we want 15! >> protesters taking to the streets demanding 15 bucks an hour, and hillary clinton's in, and she's weighing in, tweeting her support for the protesters. these are union-backed protests. are unions trying to supersize their membership, not workers' pay? i'm brenda buckner, this is "bulls and bears." gary b. smith joe mass max ferris, john layfield along with ashley pratt and emily

tish-sussman. ashley, the union backed protests, just a way to bump up their membership, not people's pay? >> the unions do not care at all about increasing the minimum wage for workers. they tried to make this look like an organic effort when really over the past two years the seiu funneled over $50 million into nonprofit groups to make it look like it's organic done by the workers. if you saw some of the protests, young college students being paid money by the unions to stand out there. they weren't actual fast food workers and that's the real issue that you wachbt tont to debate. why this issue is going on when workers aren't the ones really advocating for it. >> gary, why do you think this is? tens of millions of dollars a huge campaign and most union workers don't make minimum wage. >> exactly, brenda. it's very clever actually on the part of unions. they're looking altruistic but what they're really doing is

looking out for their union members. as you point out, most union members aren't paid the minimum wage. they actually make higher than that so what happens is when you raise the minimum wage for the non-union members the less skilled members, you're actually raising the bar. you're knocking them out of the marketplace, so then the company says well i need to hire the more skilled union people. what happens then? the more they demand those unions, the more the union people make so they're looking out for their union members for sure but this $15, that's a trojan horse to get more pay for the unions. >> emily, you support this campaign why? >> what the unions were doing in organizing i'd like to point out the reason that these protests look diverse is because they were diverse. they were not paid to be there, there were students community, out there on their own, fast

food workers out there striking because this impacts them, they need it but the reason this took such, the reason this blew up in so many ways and brought so many people out together is because people are really saying that the minimum wage is not enough for them. they understand there's a recovery they're not feeling it. >> and jonas, there has been some growing consensus we've seen seattle we've seen oakland, different cities raising the minimum wage and also some major employers walmart, target mcdonald's. so this has had, the pressure has had some effect. >> definitely and i kind of side with emily. i don't think it's such a clever, organized scheme so much as the unions are jumping on a populist movement to kind of get the brand benefit. little to gary's point they're taking a lot of hits for boosting middle class workers' salaries with ridiculous health when it fits and pensions they have a bad reputation with the public and trying to gain it back latching onto the group

which has not had massive health and pension benefits and work hard don't get two-hour lunch breaks like autoworkers might get. it can be dangerous, because imagine a world with a $30 minimum wage hypothetically. you have a lot of unemployment less members for unions and why be in a union if the wage is $30. you pay union dues, how much more will they get you to pay more? it's defeatist thing but it was done to get the positive public perception of the blight of the underclass workers. >> isn't this the union's last gasp. they haven't been able to organize much. the hiring is a non-union jobs lately. they're looking for any way to increase their membership. >> yes, they are. they've been dying for the last several decades and they're pressuring mcdonald's over alleged tax evasion problems in europe. they're trying to pressure them everywhere they can to unionize mcdonald's, unionize walmart.

this is about survival. gary b. is right. this has nothing to do with the minimum wage. this is about increasing their membership roll. why $15? it's because it sounds god. that's the only reason. unions do not want and neither do politicians a permanent fix to the minimum wage because if you index it to inflation, that would kill unions because the only way unions are gaining membership is because they're paying people, spending tens of millions of dollars. we'll get you $15 an hour. why $15? it was $10. because it sounds so much better. unions are dying here and using this as a way to recruit. >> emily, give us some feedback on that. >> look, i do think it is incredibly cynical. are unions advocating on behalf of their members, yes, that is what we do. are they trying to unionize more shops? yes, that is what they do because then they have collective bargaining in the places and a better chachbs for the workers to actually get a living wage.

$15 gets them to a living wage, if you wanted to get them to take people out of poverty on a regular amount of hours working that would be $10.10. we want people out of poverty working people. >> it should be -- >> hold on. >> i don't want to be disrespectful but why say living wage $15? that is as deep as a wading pool. they're saying living wage and saying $15. they were saying $10. they have arbitrarily picked $15. you say why $15? it's a living wage. why is that a living wage? because the unions say so because they're dying and want to get more members. >> and gary b., bottom line, again, a fixed minimum wage or raising the minimum wage through the government is the government telling business what to do? is that their role? >> exactly. i don't know where in the constitution it's government's responsibility to determine what people get paid, and in fact,

every time the government gets involved in this it actually works against it. when the minimum was raised the last time, the unemployment rate amongst black teenagers who are most affected by minimum wage sky-rocketed. the other thing when people making minimum wage, making everyone get paid the same, doesn't the fries guy at mcdonald's, doesn't he have more skills than someone who is maybe at the cashier something like that. we want wages to fluctuate so people can have an incentive to contribute more to the bottom line of companies. this minimum wage thing always gets it backwards. >> ashley, do you agree with that, basically, if we raise the minimum wage that the economy and workers get hit? >> they do and we're going to see lots of jobs and essentially what will end up happening, no more jobs left for these workers so what the unions are doing right now really will come to backfire. for example in seattle they're looking to do away with tipping

in some restaurants and that's a union pushed thing because they want workers to unionize. they want franchisees to unionize. franchisees should be the ones making the decisions and that's why mcdonald's situation corporate did that. so it wasn't all of their restaurants. it was just the select few that the corporate ones, the local franchisees still retain their right to pay their workers whatever they wanted and what they could afford to pay them. worker center watch is out there advocating on behalf of franchisee control and i think that's something important, when you're trying to battle these huge unions that are out there spending millions of dollars, i mean, reports came out that over $320 million of their budget they spent close to $80 million of that in all of these fight for 15. it's arbitrary like the fight for 15 it sounds good, it's sexy and appealing but really they're not fighting on behalf of workers. they're going to cost them their

jobs. >> that has to be the last word, thanks, guys. "cavuto on business" about 20 minutes. what have you got? >> hillary clinton hitting the campaign trail but the economy is about to hit her if someone here is right. and i want to you look at this, this is your future buckle up and suck it in. you may now board. we will see you soon. >> thanks, neil we can't wait for that. up here first iran's president telling our congress to butt out on this deal. proof we shouldn't lift sanctions as part of the deal? wright.

back to "bulls and bears." the new threat from tehran a roone's president saying he doesn't answer to our congress, and if all sanctions aren't lifted on day one, the deal is off. gary b., you say this is more reason to hit iran with more sanctions. >> exactly, brenda. sanctions are kind of the modern day smart bonl.mb. the devastation it's caused the country. the economy is about by all estimates 20% smaller than before the sanctions. unemployment rate is 20%, inflation is about 25%. there's $80 billion in currency that's tied up in other countries that they can't get their hands on. look, brenda, these are really horrific numbers. we're talking like depression

numbers back from the '20s and '30s in our time. if that hits the country and continues to hit the country, only one thing can happen. the people will rise up and overthrow and put in new government. that's exactly what we want. >> that's the hope for regime change, that that would end the nuclear weapons threat. emily, what do you think? >> look i think there's something real positive that has come out of this. even though the senate, even though senators on both sides of the aisle and actually across the spectrum had questions about how this deal was moving forward to begin with, there's been a lot of cooperation here and they reported out a bill from corker and carding on the right and on the left. 19-0 reported out in a positive vote so i actually think this is really good. everyone thinks the framework for the deal is very good. the senate is supporting the way that it's happening. i think it's one of the best things that's come out of this we're seeing normal order when it comes to the state of the

u.s. but the issues we're dealing with right now john, is sanctions, and if the sanctions weren't hurting, iran wouldn't be saying no sanctions, no deal. >> they have no negotiating power right now. they need to come to the table. these sanctions have got them nailed down. what gary b. has said is absolutely correct. you talk about being overthrown worried about that, 70% of iranians are under 30 years old, ripe for a revolution double-digit unemployment who% inflation. these guys need to come to the table. john kerry and president obama have been outnegotiated by every person they sat down with. there's no reason to raise sanctions and let the guys hide a nuclear facility on their military grounds. we're going to make them the richest country in the middle east if we lift these sanctions right away. >> jonas is it time to hit them with even more sanctions?

>> i think the white house isn't going far enough. i don't want to start with the ayatollahs here but two other countries should have had regime change, cuba, north korea, there's a regime when we create the problem, it's blamed on us by their regime and people are like i'm broke because of america's sanctions. we give them an easy out where they would blame their leaders who are awful they are burning american flags all the time in the streets not to mention if we had tariffs instead of sanctions the other time with this terrible idea, we would be the ones sending military equipment to them and making money from it, instead russia is shipping s-300 missiles to iran which gives money to the russian military 500 missiles we are going to take out with expensive equipment, that money should rightfully be americans defense industry. they're doing deals with china and russia and creating this powerful economic military

entity we have to reckon with five, ten years down the road because we think sanctions have worked. we add with the clinton administration, taken hurts european and american businesses which are the good guys and helps the russians and the chinese. >> ashley, i want to get to you. the sanctions are our leverage basically. they are the reason that iran came to the negotiating table. >> exactly. the sanctions are why we're in this position in the first place and if those sanctions weren't put there by congress in 2010, which is why again it's important for congress to be at the table on this, and i do applaud the senate on the 19-0 passing of that legislation, because of the fact that they need to be at the table and they know that the president, you know, he has some foreign policy blunders under his belt in this administration, and we saw john kerry deadline after deadline passed with iran in these negotiations and it's because rouhani knows he can play hard ball with us. he can come out swinging and pretty much give us the middle

finger. you know what? i want the sanctions gone, and what happens when we negotiate and those sanctions go away? it will be harder to put them back in place and that's what i fear. ultimately the end goal should be not to have a nuclear iran and that should be the focus of any type of legislation moving forward. if that means slapping on sanctions or slapping on more sanctions because they haven't been agreeable to concessions in the past that's what needs to happen, because that's what brought them here to the negotiating table in the first place. >> thanks, guys. just over an now from now, eric, what do you have? >> going cuckoo for clinton. the media treating hillary like a rock star how that can make our economy hit rock bottom. plus this ceo is giving his workers 70 grand. is he crazy or compassionate? up next, we know we're not deporting illegals but can we at least stop releasing criminal

illegals? >> you're coming in here today telling us that one of the top priorities you have is getting criminal gang members out of the country -- >> that's correct. >> -- who are here illegally but yet you can't tell the committee you have the data to tell them how many of them you released.

i would appreciate you not yelling. i'll answer your question as much as i can.

>> i'd like an answer. >> there's a reason to yell. the director of immigration and customs enforcement coming under fire over some 30,000 criminal illegals released from prison last year. john, you say america deserves an answer to that question. why? >> this person shouldn't be yelled at. this person should be fired. 25% of these people released committed level one crimes that's murder that is sexual abuse of a child, that's rape. these are released back. we're not just talking about people that are here illegally committing a crime. we're talking about people committing crimes against society being released into that very society and going back to being predators. they're not americans. they're absolutely insane. ship them home. >> emily their homes don't want them. can you defend this? >> nobody can defend letting out level one offenders. 75% committed traffic offenses like a broken tail light. >> not true. >> if the president's executive

order in november said the department needed to focus resources on deporting the worst offenders first and congress didn't fund fund it. they need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform. >> gary is the government failing us here? >> you know i'm a big fan of the government and all -- [ laughter ] the one thing i think the government should do is protect us from evil both outside the borders and inside the borders. this is their job. this is their role. of course they screwed it up and of course, you know, the ladies on the panel and has no answers. someone should be accountable and too often in d.c., no one is, and they're let off and they go back and do the job. they probably get their budget raised. it's just incredible. >> jonas you say focus on dollars and cents here quickly. >> yes, look i'll defend level one people. if we put them back in their countries, they already got here once, they come back they're on the streets anyway.

might as well release them if they're going to come back. if it cost money to put someone in prison than they'd use in public services. food stamps, couple hundred a month, maybe 1,000 in health care that's less than prison. it cost taxpayers, prisons is almost never the best solution unless they're more dangerous than dollars than the cost to put them in prison. >> ashley, last word. >> the issue here is the big government issue. there's no accountability and as gary b. was saying, this is what we see happening again and again. there are officials who cannot answer simple questions as to what is going on in their administration and the dea is a perfect example. we can't apparently fire agents who went out and supporting prostitutes with drug cartel money. this is a government issue here. >> okay, thanks, guys. and thank you to ashley and emily for joining us. we appreciate it. it turns out puppy love is a real thing, and we've got the name that could give you a topic

to love more than ramon. yes, it really is possible. wait for it. ♪ and .ú.úññññññoññ

predictions gary b.p. >> oil is bottom. buy exxon up 20% by the end of the year. >> john your predictions, please? >> harry ford as han solo and

chewbca back together? >> new research says looking dogs in the eye is good for humans as well, that's the largest global company in veterinary medicine. >> ramon will replace one of you guys. >> all of us. now that hillary clinton is in, it will be the economy that does her in. welcome, everybody, i'm neil cavuto and the line that bill clinton was in the white house, it's the economy, stupid, team hillary's biggest fear that this recovery just stops and her, well her chance of becoming president stops right along with it. also here ben stein, charles payne, dave mcdowell, adam liczinski. what is the biggest regret or concern? >> this is from wall street democrats i speak to and as you know, president -- >> three of them gathered in a