Sen. Paul takes clear position on education; When will stocks stabilize?

This is a rush transcript from "Sunday Morning Futures," September 6, 2015. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.


The GOP-led Congress not giving up the fight to stop the deal with Iran.

Hi, everyone, and happy Labor Day weekend. I'm Maria Bartiromo. Welcome to "Sunday Morning Futures."

President Obama gaining enough support in the Senate to prevent a veto of the bill against the Iran agreement. House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce on his plans to stop that deal from going into effect.

Plus, mounting problems for Hillary Clinton this weekend as more of her e- mails become public, and her former staffers begin to testify on the Benghazi attack before a House committee. Our panel on that and the latest in the 2016 race.

Plus, the stock market taking investors on yet another wild ride this past week. When will it stabilize, what's ahead, and where are the jobs? I will talk with former U.S. Labor Secretary Elaine Chao as we look ahead this morning on "Sunday Morning Futures."

The 2016 presidential race already highly contentious with the GOP candidates looking to set themselves apart from the field. Education is a way to do that, emerging as a major point of debate, particularly after the 2001 passing of No Child Left Behind.

Joining us right now is a candidate taking a clear position on the issue, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, Republican presidential candidate.

Senator, good to have you on the program.

SEN. RAND PAUL, R-KY., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Good morning. Thanks for having me.

BARTIROMO: Thank you so much for joining us.

So I want to talk about a number of your policies and how you are going to rise above the den of -- of the various policies out there and solutions from your colleagues in the field. But let me start on education because Kentucky was the first state in the country to adopt Common Core standards for English and Math back in 2010, but you have said it would lead to chaos. You said you would get rid of it all tomorrow. The Department of Education ought to be done at the state and local level and you would get rid of it. Explain your solution.

PAUL: You know, I grew up in a Republican Party that said that education was a state and local issue. In fact, when Ronald Reagan ran in 1980, he said he wanted to get rid of the Department of Education. That was part of the Republican platform from 1980 to 2000.

But then when we got sort of more Bush type of Republicans, they actually doubled the size of the Department of Education, were in favor of things like Common Core. And I think this is a mistake because I don't want a national curriculum. I think that there's a danger that bias will enter into it. Often a liberal bias could enter into the curriculum. And so I think it ought to be done more locally.

So I'd get rid of the Department of Education. I wouldn't have national testing standards. I wouldn't have Common Core. But I'd let it be determined by the states and the localities.

BARTIROMO: Has it not worked, in your opinion, in terms of the -- the testing and the impact on -- on actual student's performance?

PAUL: I think when you look and compare us internationally, we're not doing any better than we were. And, in fact, in some cases, people think we're doing actually worse than we were doing many years ago. I'm not against testing per say. When I was a kid, we had no Department of Education, but we still took a national test. We took a California achievement test or an Iowa standard test so we could compare ourselves to other states.

But no -- what happens now is, every state has a test, the federal government requires a test, and before you know it, the kids are taking 10 or 12 tests a year sometimes. The teachers feel that they are bound to teach to the test and they can't do the curriculum and teach it the way they would like to. So I would like to empower teachers, local principals, local school boards and parents to be involved in education, but I don't think it should be a distant bureaucrat in Washington.

BARTIROMO: I see. All right, I want to talk more about this, as well as some of the other policies, in particular jobs. How do you get jobs created in this country? So, stay with us, senator, a lot to talk about you with.

But first, we want to put this education story into context. Take a look at what the rest of the 2016 GOP field is saying about education. Fox News senior correspondent Eric Shawn with that angle.

Good morning to you, Eric.

ERIC SHAWN, FOX NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Maria, and good morning, everyone.

You know it was meant to raise educational standards and help the U.S. compete against China, India and others in the global marketplace. But instead, Common Core has become a lightning rod to conservative critics, a federal government overreach and an issue in this campaign.


DONALD TRUMP, R-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Jeb is very, very strong on Common Core. He likes Common Core. I don't. I think it's terrible. I think education should be local.


SHAWN: That is the debate when it comes to the controversy over Common Core. Governor Jeb Bush has been the most prominent candidate who has supported its goals. His education foundation backed it. But as a campaign issue, he now calls Common Core, quote, "poisonous."


JEB BUSH, R- PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, the important topic that I hear about is Common Core of (pH) the state's standards and there's a fear, correct in an incorrect way at least, that the federal government's encroachment on this is -- is wrong. And I agree with that. there should be no involvement by the federal government in the creation of standards, content or curriculum. And it ought to be prohibited by law.


SHAWN: Although Ohio Governor John Kasich has criticized those who oppose Common Core standards, but even the name has become a trigger in this race.


CARLY FIORINA, R-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Common Core doesn't encourage great teaching. It doesn't encourage responsibility in the hands of parents. Common Core, however it started, has turned into a federal government program that standardizes how teachers should teach and students should learn and that, over time, will crush ingenuity and creativity.

GOV. SCOTT WALKER, R-WIS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: No Common Core, no nationwide school board, take power and money out of Washington and send it back to our states and back to the people at the school board level where you can hold them accountable going forward.


SHAWN: Well, the irony is that Common Core was not created by the federal government at all but by governors and adopted by 45 states. Supporters insist America needs it to stay competitive, but clearly that concept has soured in the heat of this Republican campaign.


BARTIROMO: All right, Eric, thanks very much. Eric Shawn with the latest there.

More now with Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.

And, senator, I guess, overall, I mean generally broadly speaking, you just think government is too big and needs to be much smaller. That is the essence of your position, whether it be, you know, closing down the Department of Education or -- or anything else. Give us a sense of what that means in terms of spending and how you would change it in terms of budget issues.

PAUL: Well, you know, the one difference, the key difference between the state government and the federal government is, state government in general have to balance their budget. The federal government, we just print more money and we seem to be unconcerned -- or at least some people up here are unconcerned about the debt. So if you sent education back to the state level, states are bound by balancing their budget. There's a limit to how much can be spent.

The other thing we've found over the years, though, is that spending is not proportional to results. So the highest per pupil spending in the country, Washington, D.C., Baltimore, New York. But where are some of the least performing schools, Washington, Baltimore, New York. So what we have to figure out is another way to teach and also we have to understand that often we blame teachers and schools, but I tell people they need to get a mirror and look in the mirror because it's parents that are a big part of this or the absence of parenting, which is a big part of the problem we have in this country. But if we're going to compete in this next century, we're going to have to do a better job because of the rest of the world is hungry, they're competing, they're studying hard, they're working harder than we are and so our kids and our parents are going to have to realize, it's a world economy now and if you want to compete and you want to make money and you want to succeed, we're going to have to do better in schools.

BARTIROMO: Yes, sure is, and that's also the reason that you want to lower corporate taxes so that multinational companies, American companies, will bring back the money that they're sitting on overseas and perhaps help the economy here.

I want to get to how do you create jobs and all of that, and other issues that are important to the American people, but you've got a lot of ideas, senator, and the truth is, is it seems like Donald Trump, a couple of others in the GOP, are sort of taking all the oxygen. How are you going to rise above the den and resonate with the American people? Look at the polls. You are tenth, tied with Chris Christie right now. Are you expecting to be in the next debate?

PAUL: Well, absolutely. And one of the things I'll bring up in the next debate is my tax plan. I think that we lose American jobs overseas and we're losing American companies overseas because the tax code is so onerous, so big, so cumbersome. We have a 70,000-page tax code and I think we're chasing American jobs away. So I would eliminate the entire tax code and I'd have one single flat tax for everybody, 14.5 percent for business, 14.5 percent for the individual, and I think people would be beating down our door wanting to come home, wanting to bring jobs here if we had a friendlier business environment.

BARTIROMO: But is that going to bring in enough revenue, 14.5 percent tax rates?

PAUL: Well, in -- no. And I think that's frankly the point. I want a smaller government. I think the primary responsibility of the federal government is defending the country. But after that, a lot of what we do in Washington really is something that could be done at the state and the local level. So we have a -- we spend $3.8 trillion.

I'd like to spend a lot less. In fact, I think we ought to start by just spending what comes in. We have about $3 trillion that comes in. I think we could have a strong national defense with that and do a few other things. But most of what we're doing in Washington, we shouldn't be doing.

But here's the other thing. If you lower taxes dramatically --


PAUL: You'll actually ultimately increase revenue as business begins to boom again and we grow again and we become this great country again.


PAUL: We have to do it by lowering taxes.

BARTIROMO: I don't -- I don't disagree with that, for sure, actually.

OK, final question here on this Labor Day weekend, how do you create jobs? What's the most important lever to push in terms of job creation?

PAUL: I think the first thing you have to have is a debate over where jobs are created. I think they're created in the private sector. So that's why we, as Republicans, need to be for tax cuts, not just for revenue neutral reform. You need to leave more money in the productive economy. So that means my plans, which would leave nearly $3 trillion with the American people --


PAUL: That's a stimulus and that's how you create jobs.

BARTIROMO: Senator, good to have you on the program today. Thanks so much.

PAUL: Thank you.

BARTIROMO: We'll see you soon.

President Obama reaching the magic number to votes to avoid a veto override of a resolution against the Iran deal. We'll talk about it next with the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Back in a moment.


BARTIROMO: Welcome back.

Well, the deal now appears to be all but done. President Obama, this past week, securing the votes he needs in Congress for a veto-proof approval of the Iran nuclear deal after Democrat Barbara Mikulski of Maryland became the 34th senator to back the Iran deal. Previously, skeptical Democrats Chris Coons and Bob Casey also supporting the agreement last week.

Congressman Ed Royce is the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He joins us now with more on this.

Mr. Chairman, good to see you. Thanks so much for joining us.


BARTIROMO: Now that we see that the president has all of this support, is there any way for Congress to reverse this deal?

ROYCE: Well, one of the things I wonder about are the comments being made right now by President Rouhani, when he said on Saturday that we are -- we have formerly announced that we are not committed to the provisions of this agreements as it relates to -- to missiles. And so if Iran is announcing now that they're going to transfer to Hezbollah the precision-guided weapons systems and are going to transfer new rockets and missiles to Hamas, they are already out of compliance.

I'm going to bring up this provision in the -- in the Foreign Affairs Committee and on the floor of the House in order to overturn this deal. And what I am going to do is hold hearings over the next few days where we have U.S. generals and admirals come forward and testify. As you know, over 200 have come out against this -- this agreement. And testify as to what Rouhani is saying right now, and the ayatollah, about how they're not going to be bound by certain provisions. Let's have that discussion before we have this final vote and see if that doesn't change some minds of some of the members in the House of Representatives.

BARTIROMO: Well, I think that's a great point. So your resolution basically prevents implementation?

ROYCE: That is correct. And at this point we've had a good number of the -- of the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle come out against the provision. Now, I know the administration's working the phones trying to -- to get senators to block this in the Senate. We're going to bring this up in the House and pass it over to the Senate.

But I ask again, remember, 55 percent of the American public are against this deal right now, 25 percent are in support, as of the latest poll. Look at what they're saying in Iran. Look at what they're already doing. They're still chanting "death to America," "death to Israel," but they're putting it into practice in their new ballistic missile programs that they're announcing over there.

We have got to take action to make it clear that they will not put this new ICBM program and this new transfer program to Hezbollah and to Hamas into practice. My concern is the administration is not pushing back on this. We have to immediately.

BARTIROMO: And, meanwhile, we have four Americans that are being held hostage in Iran right now. Secretary Kerry is basically begging the Iranians to let these guys go. I mean in one -- in one exchange, Kerry, who, of course, negotiated this whole deal, is issuing the plea on behalf of Amir Hekmati, a former Marine held on espionage charges. He was in Iran to visit his grandparents and he was put in jail. And now apparently Kerry is saying he's been tortured, he's been held in uncomfortable positions by his arms hanging for hours on end, and the -- the -- a judge, Iran's top judge, tells the U.S. to butt out of cases involving imprisoned Americans.

ROYCE: We had hearings with the family members, including his sister, testify about the circumstances that these Americans are undergoing. And here's what's amazing. As that judge in Iran says that Kerry should butt out, and, remember, we didn't make this part of the deal. And the same time, what the Iranians did at the 11th hour in this deal was demand a lifting of the sanctions on their intercontinental ballistic missile program. And if you'll recall, our secretary of defense said, don't do it. He said, the "I" in ICBM stands for intercontinental, as from flying from Iran, flying into the United States. We cannot, said the chairman of the Joint Chiefs also, lift this arms embargo.

That was done in the agreement and yet we did not receive, you know, a homecoming for our four Americans who have been held, some of them tortured there. And this, again, shows the way in which the United States has been treated in this agreement, rolled on every single major provision in the agreement. And here we're asked to ratify this? No, this is why the House and Senate needs to give this a second look, and this is why I hope these hearings that I'm going to be holding next week will cause more of these members to reconsider. Remember, the American public, by a measure of better than two to one, are against this agreement right now. Let's get it to three to one.


ROYCE: Let's make them really feel the heat on this.

BARTIROMO: I mean it's pretty extraordinary, with all of the opposition to this agreement throughout the country, that that opposition is failing to gain any traction. Why do you think that is? And tell us how this vote plays out and what this looks like come September 16th.

ROYCE: I think that the reason that there is such difficulty is because the way in which the administration is personally working the phones here, especially on the Senate side. And I think that -- that what people are ignoring is the fact -- is that people are saying, well, Iran is going to change. Iran has not changed after this agreement. The ayatollah already gave a speech the other day in which he said, we are not going to change our adversarial position with the United States, nor with respect to Israel, nor Yemen, nor Syria, nor Iraq. In other words, they're going to continue their aggression.

But the other element of this that people are not focusing on is this $100 billion that is going to go out of escrow and now back into the hands of the Iranians. The companies have been taken over by the IRGC --


ROYCE: Which is the Revolutionary Guard. And so they're going to have their hands -- the Quds forces that are doing these assassinations overseas and these attacks and overthrowing governments like Yemen, these are the forces in Iran that are going to have the weaponry, right? So this is what we're asking members of the Congress to think about.

So the vote will initially come up on the House side. My provision will come up. We will pass it out of the House into the Senate and then we'll try to get the votes to the Senate to get it to the president's desk. That will be the first order of business.

BARTIROMO: All right, you've got a big fight on your hands, congressman. We will be watching. We so appreciate your time this morning. Thanks so much.

ROYCE: Thank you, Maria.

BARTIROMO: We'll see you soon. Congressman Ed Royce there.

U.S. markets continuing a roller coaster ride this past week due to the volatility in China. When will stocks stabilize? Where are the jobs in this slow growing economy? We'll talk with Labor Secretary Elaine Chao. The former Labor secretary gives us her take on where the jobs are as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures."


BARTIROMO: Welcome back.

Investors catching their breath this holiday weekend following several volatile weeks in the stock market, as well as new jobs numbers this past week. Stocks rising and falling last week over China's slowing economy, as global markets took a hit, renewing concerns over the growth slowdown in the world right now.

Elaine Chao is with us right now. She was the 24th U.S. secretary of labor from 2001 to 2009, the longest serving Labor secretary since World War II.

And, Secretary Chao, it's great to see you again. Thanks so much for joining us.


BARTIROMO: Without talking about what's behind the stock market fluctuations this past week, let me ask you to characterize where we are in terms of the labor market right now. How would you characterize the jobs picture for Americans today?

CHAO: Well, the nominal unemployment rate is decreasing, certainly from the highs of four, five years ago. But if you look at the fundamentals of the labor market, although it's improving, I think it's still very troubling. Number one, the labor participation rate remains at an all-time low. During the years 2001 to 2009, the labor partition rate from about 67.7 percent over a population -- working population of about 157 million people. Now that working population has only increased and yet the labor participation rate has dropped even lower. It's about 62.6 percent now. So I am extremely concerned about those workers who have left the workforce because they feel that they can't find a job and they are now out of the workforce. And the longer they stay out of the workforce, the harder it will be for them to re-enter the workforce. And that should be of concern to everyone.

BARTIROMO: Well, the other issue is wages, right, secretary?

CHAO: Yes.

BARTIROMO: I mean wages haven't moved in a long time, and I know that we're seeing this movement recently about the minimum wage moving higher, but that's the reason that most people do not feel that they are actually participating in their recovery because they haven't seen their salary change in so many years.

CHAO: What we are seeing right now is a lack of growth in wages. And -- and, frankly, it's been very puzzling. This has been one of the most slow - - the slowest recovery that we have ever seen. You know, we've been in a very deep recession and so the bounce back should be much quicker than what it is now and the wage growth as well. I mean until -- I think last week or the last two weeks where the stock market fluctuations, it was pretty clear and that the Federal Reserve was going to be increasing rates sooner rather than later and that they were certainly going to do it by year end. But now, with currently what's happening in the stock market, I think there -- there's probably a lot more concern about what is happening in the economy, what's really happening with the labor markets, and probably the Fed is taking another look as to when they should be increasing their rates.

BARTIROMO: Yes, we'll see about that because the next meeting, of course, is September 16th and 17th.

CHAO: Right.

BARTIROMO: And everybody expected the Fed to raise rates at that -- at that point, but maybe not. I'm sure they're watching the stock market and all those fluctuations.

Let me ask you about China. Can you connect the dots for us? Why is the market so nervous over China? And have we seen an impact to the U.S. from the slowdown in the economy in China?

CHAO: Well, you know, the stock market fluctuations is not necessarily reflective of the state of the whole U.S. economy. I mean the stock market is comprised of companies who are relatively larger companies, who have the ability to access international funds abroad. And also many of the companies that are in the stock market are also much more active in the international arena. So that is why we're seeing the stock market fluctuations. You know, it's partly due to China. It's also partly due to the slower than expected growth return in the Eurozone countries.

I think what's happening in China is very interesting because it finally is beginning to reveal some of the weaknesses in the Chinese economy. And I think the Chinese authorities thought for a long time that they can control the stock market, that they had enough heft and also financial resources with which to prop up their stock market despite (INAUDIBLE) which they know exist. And what they have kind of discovered in the last few weeks is that their economy, now the second largest in the world, is a lot more complicated, complex and harder to influence than they originally thought.

And so now with President Xi's visit coming up on the latter part of September, September 25th, with the president, I think the Chinese will pull out all stops to try to do what they can to prop up their stock market to insure that they put on a strong face when the president of China visits the president of the United States.

BARTIROMO: Yes, that --

CHAO: I don't know exactly what it's going to be, but I am sure that there will be a lot of effort to try to prop up the Chinese stock market and that may have some marginal effect in the U.S. markets as well.

BARTIROMO: To what do you attribute the malaise in the U.S. economy? As you said a moment ago, we should be a lot farther along in this recovery. It's not just China. What is the reason that we're seeing these tough numbers?

CHAO: Well, what's not being talked about as much and should be, you know, is the overhang of federal regulations. Federal regulations have been like an avalanche and they've been holding back the growth of this economy in all ways big and small. They include, of course, the Affordable Health Care Act, the actions of the EPA, the actions of the Labor Department and overtime regulations and all sorts of other regulations that by themselves may seem all right but the avalanche and the pile on effect just seems to hamper economic growth and drag down the employer's confidence in creating new jobs in going out.

And again, creating new jobs, a lot of employers are husbanding resources because they are concerned about the cost of compliance and they are husbanding their resources in order to be able to comply with federal regulations, which are, after all, very costly.

BARTIROMO: Right and not to mention Dodd-Frank is another, the financial services keeping executives sitting on cash.

Secretary Chao, good to have you on the program, thank you so much.

CHAO: Thank you.

BARTIROMO: We'll see you soon. Elaine Chao joining us.

Another Hillary Clinton email dump showing some compromising and classified data, the State Department once again has to clean up. Our panel scours through what the administration found in the former secretary of state's files this time as we look ahead on SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES. The panel is next.


ARTHEL NEVILLE, FOX NEWS HOST: Live from America's News Headquarters, I'm Arthel Neville.

Pope Francis appealing for help as he addresses tens of thousands of the faithful in St. Peter's Square. He is asking parishes throughout Europe to give shelter to refugees who are trying to escape from war and hunger.

The pope also saying the Vatican's two parishes are taking in families of refugees. This as thousands of people arrived overnight by train to Austria and Germany.

And here at home, California's biggest wildfire is still growing. The Kings Canyon National Park fire now scorching 130 square miles; it's only 25 percent contained and is expected to burn all weekend. The U.S. Forest Service is advising holiday campers to head to the mountains south of the fire, where the air is cleaner.

I'm Arthel Neville. I will see you again at noon Eastern with Gregg Jarrett for more news.

BARTIROMO: Well, the e-mail dump continues. Another Hillary Clinton e- mail dump and even more redactions coming from the State Department, which made more than 125 of those 7,000 messages classified.

The batch also showed more close ties to Clinton confidant, Sidney Blumenthal, as well as revealing even the I.T. staff at the State Department had no clue that Hillary was using her personal server.

Want to bring in our panel. Ed Rollins is former principle White House advisor to President Reagan. He has been a long-time strategist to business and political leaders. He is a FOX News political analyst.   Judith Miller is adjunct fellow at The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. She's a Pulitzer Prize winning author and journalist and a Fox News contributor.  Alan Colmes is the host of the "Alan Colmes Radio Show" and a Fox News contributor.

Good to see everybody. Thank you so much for joining us.

Let me kick it off with the staffer who set up the private e-mail in Hillary's home, who said he is going to take the 5th.

Alan, when says I'm going to take the 5th, it almost immediately makes you feel like, well, what are you hiding?

ALAN COLMES, RADIO PERSONALITY: Why should this person put himself in the middle of what is a political witch hunt against Hillary Clinton in a Republican Congress that continues in the middle of a campaign to want to go after her?

Furthermore, this notion is: simply because you take the 5th, you are therefore presumed guilty?

Shouldn't you be presumed innocent?

The Constitution clearly lays out what the 5th is supposed to mean. We should not just to a conclusion that this is somebody that must be guilty of something because he is doing what he is constantly allowed to do.


JUDITH MILLER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, perhaps he is doing that because, Alan, the Clintons have a great tradition of blaming the person under them for what they have done and sanctioned and they walk away and the other person is left in a very bad position.

Look, I think these e-mails are terrible, I think that when a staffer says I am going to take the 5th, you are entering Lois Lerner IRS territory and I think it's politically devastating for her to have 150 now identified e- mails as classified.

And the fact that somebody on her staff in the legal department changed the classification, altered them, it just raises so many questions that are not going to go away, even though Democrats say this is a witch hunt.

BARTIROMO: It's interesting you would say that history has shown that the Clintons blame the underlings, because people are zeroing in on Houma Abedin, her close adviser and right hand, and whether or not she is in big trouble?

MILLER: She might well be but she has been with Hillary so long it's hard to imagine that that is a bond that would be broken.

ED ROLLINS, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: And she will go to her grave. The only question you could ask the technical person is did they deliberately want to have certain classified documents or how did you set this thing up?

Certainly he has a right to take the 5th but when you start talking about the 5th Amendment, taking the 5th, you sound like a criminal; when you have the FBI investigating this thing, you sound like a criminal.

And at the end of the day here, before you got to after someone of the caliber of Ms. Clinton, this went to the top of the Justice Department and certainly went to the White House, and what you say is here is the evidence that we have, can we pursue this and obviously somebody said yes or someone let them come forward.

If the FBI comes forward and says we don't have anything, then she is fine, if they come forward and say, listen, there is some stuff there that is very questionable, it really is more than a few e-mails that --

COLMES: Isn't one of the issues also there's always debate among interdepartmental or interdepartmental, whether or not something is or should not be classified? That's one of the arguments in that the Clinton camp is putting forward.


MILLER: Yes. That's true. But she had knowledge. She was the secretary of state. She had been in government forever. She should have known that material was sensitive. That's just the common layman's reaction.

ROLLINS: Having spent 10 years of my career in the government and most of it in the White House, there's a document that you get when you come in that are rules and regulations, all documents belong to the government.  You don't have private documents that you can take home. It belongs to the government. And she clearly decided she was not going to play by the game.

BARTIROMO: Well, that's the thing. That's true.

ROLLINS: The Whitewater records that were lost for years and they find in the closet of the White House, and there's a long history of basically this behavior.

COLMES: And she is not the first secretary of state to have a separate e- mail, as we know that Colin Powell had one as well.

MILLER: No, but not for everything, Alan, come on, this is really hard to defend after a point.

COLMES: It's not unprecedented.

BARTIROMO: We'll see because it feels like it's impacting the polls for Hillary.

MILLER: It's impacting the press numbers.

ROLLINS: People don't think she's got integrity. And the first word that comes out of people's mouth when you ask what do you think of her is a "liar," that's not a very good thing to run on.

BARTIROMO: Yes, that was pretty damaging.

All right. Let's take a short break. We want to talk about the rest of the field. Jeb Bush taking several jabs at Donald Trump last week after taking political attacks from the leading GOP contender for weeks.

Is it enough to show he is not as weak as the Donald says? Our panel on that as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures."


BARTIROMO: Welcome back. We have an all-star panel this morning. First we want to see what is coming up at the top of the hour on "MediaBuzz," Howard Kurtz joining us.

Good morning, Howie.

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST, "MEDIABUZZ": Good morning, Maria. I have got Donald Trump and loyalty oaths. We will talk about Hillary Clinton breaking her TV silence and an interview with Carly Fiorina, where she talks about taking on CNN and winning and whether some of her coverage is sexist.

BARTIROMO: That is a hot show. We're going to be there. We will see you in about 20 minutes, Howie. Thank you so much.

Jeb Bush meanwhile finally firing back at Donald Trump after being harassed at campaign stop after campaign stop by the real estate mogul, who called him out as being a weak candidate funded by the establishment.

Jeb using this Web video to try and turn the tables on Trump by showing some not-so-conservative comments that Donald Trump made over the last two decades.

We want to bring back our panel right now, Ed Rollins, Judy Miller and Alan Colmes, will it work, Ed?

ROLLINS: No. It won't work.

First of all, Jeb is a lovely man, who is fighting by the Marquis of Queensbury rules against a street fighter, so every jab he throws, Donald fires back five right hands and four kicks in the head. So he's not the guy you want to get into a fight with at this point in time.

BARTIROMO: And that's why all the candidates, I feel like, are --

ROLLINS: Well, they need to let him run his course. And I think what he is doing is getting a lot of pressure from his financial supporters saying, fight back, fight back, fight back.

BARTIROMO: I thought it was interesting that one of the videos was Donald Trump basically saying how much he loves Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton, Judy.

MILLER: Right, exactly, well, at least somebody does at this point except for diehard feminists, who can't imagine anybody else but Hillary.

Look, I think Trump is so hard to handle, but Jeb Bush, whether he says it in English or in Spanish, it's not doing it, it's not working, because he was already permitted to be pushed to the Right.

He already said the words "anchor baby." He is already playing on Trump's turf and he was trumped, basically.


BARTIROMO: -- reacting to what Donald Trump says.

MILLER: He is not taking the offensive and it seems begrudging and it does not seem to be convincing.

BARTIROMO: Should he have just ignored, Jeb Bush --


ROLLINS: He should have.He needs to run his own campaign. When you start running someone else's campaign or getting involved with someone else at this stage of the game, it doesn't work.

What he needs to do, he has got a big debate next week, make some points there. The critical thing here is that Trump is going to run with this ball as long as he can, and he has a big debate also, and he came out this week in which he talks in turns of the Iran deal He made a statement that Judy may want to comment on.

He basically said in this agreement that people don't know about, if Israel attacks Iran, we have to come to the rescue of Iran, and that's pretty outrageous.

COLMES: Yes. He will be called out on that. But Jeb Bush, the worst thing you can do to a narcissist is ignore the narcissist, which is probably what -- but Jeb Bush finally showing a little bit of a pulse. I thought the most exciting about his campaign up until now was the exclamation point in his logo. Finally he is saying something.

BARTIROMO: Dems love Donald Trump, isn't that right?

Isn't that right, Alan?

COLMES: What is not to love?


BARTIROMO: Because you want Donald Trump --


COLMES: Trump-Palin, that's my ticket.

BARTIROMO: Trump-Palin, oh, god, you're --


ROLLINS: How embarrassed are you guys going to be when you lose to Trump- Palin?


MILLER: I'd like to deal with the point that Ed's made, the agreement calls for the United States and other NPT members to defend the nuclear civilian infrastructure of a country that has signed the NPT, which Iran has.

So if Iran is not cheating and Israel attacked them, yes, we would be obliged under the language of the treaty to defend them --

ROLLINS: I don't think that's a --

MILLER: But I don't think that's going to happen.

ROLLINS: And I don't think we would ever live up to that, Israel is our friend and our ally.

MILLER: I don't, either.

BARTIROMO: And by the way, speaking of Iran, it looks like the president has the votes needed; this deal will not be overturned.

Does the panel agree would that?

ROLLINS: They will certainly not overturn the veto. The critical thing here is that Democrats don't want to let it be voted on It's going to be voted on in the House; certainly going to be overwhelming.

They don't want to let the Senate to vote on it and they don't want to go to a veto strategy because you will have two houses of the Congress basically voting to override this veto and the country basically not being supportive of it.


COLMES: And it will be embarrassing if indeed we did not go forward with the deal because we -- almost every other major country is. We can't just pull out and say -- and Chuck Schumer says we should go back and renegotiate? That would mean our word is no good. We can't be in that position.

MILLER: Well, what's really interesting is that the president gave Bibi Netanyahu such a hard time when he, quote, "interfered in our politics."

On the other hand, I notice that they managed to get all the votes that they got from the House and the Senate Democrats to hold the line with heavy lobbying from England and France and Germany and the other supporters of this agreement.

BARTIROMO: Wow. That's a really good point.

ROLLINS: At the end of the day, France benefits by this, China and Russia will sell arms. Our allies, Saudi Arabia and Israel, basically are punished by it and we get nothing out of it.

COLMES: We still always have the military option if we want to.

ROLLINS: Why would we want a military option?

COLMES: It's always there.

MILLER: It's there if we need it and if we'd tried this and it doesn't work.

BARTIROMO: Let's take a short break because then there's the economy to talk about. The markets still shaky over the past week, over worries in Asia, worries over oil.

Could these uncertainties be helping any of the candidates for 2016? Our panel on that. Back in a moment as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures."


BARTIROMO: Welcome back. The latest polls say once again that the economy and jobs are the top concerns for voters.

While Donald Trump has been calling out China and ways to bring in jobs long before his presidential run began, Carly Fiorina has steered clear of her record as the former head of a Fortune 500 company.

While Hillary Clinton has been criticized for her close ties to Wall Street, Senator Bernie Sanders is looking to take down the 1 percent.

Back to our panel right now, Ed, Judy and Alan. We get new jobs numbers out this weekend and we continue to see an economy that's really going two steps forward and one step back and that's what we see from all the data that we keep getting.

Does that weak story economically speaking help any candidate?


ROLLINS: Well, I think the uncertainty leads to the disarray that's out there that Trump is tapping into. I think Trump has more authority because he attacked China in the past and he talks about creating jobs than any of the other candidates, whether he legitimately does or not. I think it gives him a great forum to move forward.

BARTIROMO: So it helps Trump, Alan.

COLMES: It helps the Republicans. As long as the economy is not doing as well as people want it to do, as long as there's a perception the economy is not doing well, it certainly helps Republicans.

But other than Trump, no one is really talking about the economy because he's taking up all of the oxygen. Carly Fiorina has no standing. She got rid of how many jobs at Hewlett-Packard? And no one else seems to be addressing the economy in the Republican field.

BARTIROMO: Yes, I have to push back on Carly Fiorina, actually. I think she's articulating things very well. You may not like her tenure at Hewlett-Packard but she articulates and communicates what could be done to actually move the needle on jobs more so than others.

COLMES: Her record doesn't seem to back up that, given what happened at Hewlett-Packard. I don't see how she even has a path to the nomination, although she may be surging for temporarily in a very small way. I don't see how she gets there.

MILLER: It's the flatness of the Earth around her and the fact that she's the only woman there and the Republicans desperately need her. She's articulate. By the way, I think that the weak economy helps not only Trump, I think it helps Bernie Sanders, who does talk about the 1 percent.

It helps those anti-establishment candidates, who really appeal and touch the fury that Americans feel about the lack of progress on the economic front that you've been talking about now for well over a year.

BARTIROMO: Yes. People are sick and tired of this.

ROLLINS: I like Carly; I think she's an important part of the game. But there's a Rollins rule based on 50 years of being in this business. You can't win your home state, you're not going to be a viable candidate. Her home state is no longer California, where she lost by a million votes.  It's now Virginia, where she thinks long-term to being governor.

COLMES: -- was heavily indebted at the end of her campaign, which does not speak well to her economics.

BARTIROMO: Knowing that you can't win without winning Iowa --

ROLLINS: No. You can win without winning Iowa.

You can't --

BARTIROMO: What about Ohio?

ROLLINS: Well, we can't -- Republicans can't win without Ohio and Florida.

BARTIROMO: OK. So Ohio, does that give John Kasich much more of a lead?

ROLLINS: It gives John Kasich a lead in Ohio, which is important, and he's got to win some other places. By the time you get to Ohio, he has got to have some other victories under his belt.

He's certainly going to be in the discussion all of the way through the V.P. or for presidential because of Ohio. We don't win without Ohio.

BARTIROMO: All right. Let's talk about the one thing to watch in the couple of weeks ahead. That's what we are going to do next with the panel on "Sunday Morning Futures." Back in a moment.


BARTIROMO: Back with our panel with the one big thing to watch for the upcoming week -- Ed.

ROLLINS: I'm watching the bit Iran anti-rally next week in Washington, D.C., led by Trump and Ted Cruz. The issue is over, just about, but they'll try to wrap this around Democrats across the country.

BARTIROMO: Wow, that will be big.

ROLLINS: It's going to be really big.

BARTIROMO: That's important. Thank you.

Judy, what about you?

MILLER: I'll be watching Iran but from the Ukraine because lest we forget, it's still fighting for its life against an emboldened Russia and Russia will benefit from the Iran deal, too.



COLMES: How serious is Donald Trump about loyalty owed to the Republican Party and can he find a way out once, he says you're not treating me right, OK, I'm not keeping my promise.


BARTIROMO: That's important.

And I'm watching September 16th. How important is this date? You have the Iran vote in Congress. You have a Federal Reserve two-day meeting where we may see an increase in interest rates and you've got the next presidential debate.

There you go.

Thank you so much for joining us, everybody. We appreciate it.

Thank you for joining us. Happy Labor Day, everybody. That's "Sunday Morning Futures." I'll see you on Tuesday on the Fox Business Network.

Content and Programming Copyright 2015 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.