tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC March 6, 2014 12:00am-1:01am PST
good evening, from new york, i'm chris hayes, the situation in ukraine remains tense as the stand-off continues. secretary of state john kerry met today in paris with russian foreign minister sergei lavrov but could not convince him to meet directly with the acting ukrainian foreign minister. meanwhile a senior u.n. envoy was threatened at gunpoint by someone in a prorussian crowd that demanded he leave the area. on the ground the situation remained extremely tense as russian forces continued to occupy ukrainian military installations, and maintain their blockade of ukrainian military ships in crimea. in the eastern part of the country meanwhile, scuffles broke out between pro russian
demonstrators and those who support a united ukraine. back in the united states, conservatives had a message of their own, as complicated and worrying as the situation in ukraine may be, it is also a perfect justification for everything they already believed. >> this is a symptom of a greater problem, it really in many ways started with benghazi. when our consulate was overrun and our first ambassador was killed in 30 something years in the line of duty, not one person's been held accountable. you're sending the wrong signal to our foes across the country. putin is not going to stop until he feels disdain. >> it always comes back to benghazi. even when you're talking about something that has nothing to do with ben gasdy. senator graham's bizarre attempt to link benghazi and ukraine, was too much for michelle malkin, who tweeted you are an embarrassment who all who truly care about benghazi. the rights effort to attach
pre-existing talking points to a global crisis has gone far beyond benghazi. the same person who coined this phrase -- >> drill baby drill. >> is now using the ukraine crisis to make her case for more drilling. >> while all this got all the attention. >> look it, people are looking at putin as one for wrestles bears and grills for oil. they're looking at our president as one who wears mom jeans and bloviates. >> according to sarah palin, this could have been avoided if america would just drill. >> i'm right when i talk about that link between energy and prosperity. >> this position goes way beyond sarah palin, with the most prominent voices on the right announcing that what it takes to stop the russians is fracking.
>> he picked up his phone and used his pen and have the energy department approve these applications. >> i think we should move forward on natural gas exports quickly. i think we should approve the keystone pipeline. >> one of the best ways to do it is to let the europeans know we're going to export lng to europe. >> think about what the situation would be if more u.s. oil were out in that global market. >> the one thing that gives russia on their neighbors is the amount of natural gas and oil that they produce themselves and to their neighbors. >> even if you ignore the fact that republicans are just taking their pre-existing fossil fuels agenda and using ukraine to advance it, there's a huge problem with the argument they're making.
russia's fossil fuel dominance didn't work. russian troops aren't in ukraine because putin succeeded in buying off ukraine. they're there because he failed. when the ukrainian president cow towed to putin, the ukrainian people took over and kicked him out. it turns out that basing their geo political influence on a corrupt fossil fuels industry does not produce good political and economic results. that doesn't stopped the right from suggesting the u.s. should solve the putin problem with a little black gold. >> build keystone you can start pumping out tons of natural gas. we'll win the new cold war the way we won the last one without bankrupting russia without a shot about. >> the more oil and natural gas the u.s. and canada can produce and distribute, the weaker russia becomes on the world stage. >> how do you say drill, baby, drill in russian? joining me now, sam cedar, host of majority report with sam cedar, and jim deckers.
dan, you work in the hydrocarbon markets, you've been a trader on those desks. this critique, the argument coming from the right which,you have to drill more, that will reduce, that will disempower putin, what do you make of it? >> the russians have a major control, major influence on most of eastern europe through natural gas. we have to distinguish between natural gas which is a gas and crude oil which is a liquid. if you want to move a liquid from one place to another, you put it in a dixie cup, and move it anyway you like. natural gas has one way of being transported, through a pipeline. >> hi, we're poland, we'll take our natural gas -- >> the only other way you can get it across is through what we call lng which is liquid natural gas. it needs to be cooled, to be transported as lng needs to be
cooled to minus 260 degrees fahrenheit, then put it carefully into select containers that you can transport overseas. this costs a lot of money. >> right. >> this is why permitting, you can permit all of the natural gas exports you want. there are very few energy companies we're going to take building these things. they cost $2 billion to convert an import plant into an export plant. 5 or $6 billion to start. >> we're not turning on the taps overnight, and all of a sudden it's like. >> nobody wants to. most of the energy companies in this country are running headlong away from -- >> ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. >> there's one that's operating right now. there's another one that's permitted that's probably going to go forward in maryland. and all the others, the 6 or 7 others that were permitted. everyone's standing there and not moving forward in making these plans a reality. >> here's the other thing about this, the right is basically saying, we need to drill.
we have never created more fossil fuel in this country's history. i think we have the chart right here, this is hydrocarbon production. u.s. production has increased since 2009, a significant amount. look, it is -- i mean, we -- it's not like barack obama -- i wish he were in fact standing in the way of the oil rigs and the fwraking wells. >> of course not. i think the republicans deserve some credit for not tieing in acorn or fast and furious into this. >> fast and furious has not come up. >> it's true. >> and -- but the reality is, the situation over there is very complicated, and this is a very easy thing to talk about. simply say, keystone which is obviously an issue that is going to be -- >> become near and dear to their hearts too? >> and so that's what this is about. this is so untethered from reality, that it really is, it's laughable. >> one of the other interesting things i think here is, we've seen this weird kind of
mirroring happening. people talking about the cold war. they're winning, we're losing. we have to do more like putin. part of that is, he's got influence from his fossil fuels. but look at the russian state, it's totally dependent on the revenue it gets. you can be dependent as a consumer. >> you can see that in the russian stock market which got absolutely pummeled in the last three days, because the threat is not only that the europeans will be cut off from russian supplies, but that the russians will be cut off from european sales, it's nearly as dangerous for the russians. >> there's an old saying about, you know, you owe the bank $100,000, they owe you. you owe the bank $100 million, you own the bank? my favorite detail in all this, while this is going on, the nationalized russian -- vlad
pleer putin national gas company is cutting a deal with ukrainian gas, they'll be in the midst of this to float them a loan, they need the buyers and the pipeline space. what i find ironic is conservatives pushing for the u.s. to look more like russia and saudi arabia. >> this is an excuse to get on television and launch an attack. >> i'm taking this too seriously? >> yes. there's no way in a million years that lindsey graham thinks that this is a function of benghazi. that vladimir putin is saying, i see an open door here. >> i think he does, actually. >> he must also think that what happened in lebanon under reagan really opened the door to benghazi. and they keep going further back. there's -- it's sheer lunacy that putin is sitting there going, no one's been held accountable for benghazi, let's head to crimea. >> and he even insighted the wrath of michelle malkin. who is the voice of reason.
>> the other aspect of this that never appears in any of the conversations is climate, is the fact that we can't just -- there's going to come a time when some of that stuff is going to have to stay on the ground. the reality of that is starting to dawn on some of the companies. it's starting to dawn on some of the investors, it's not dawning on anyone in politics right now. >> the natural gas question is the one that really speaks to it so directly, especially in eastern europe. part of the issue, and why the russians have so much influence in eastern europe is because the europeans have forgone tracking in every way. the europeans have decided that they do not want to see fracking at least in their own backyard. the dependency is going to become the united states becomes this fracking mecca. in the midst of the fact that while they're pursuing something with renewables. the whole thing -- >> solar sales up 41% year over year.
that news came in today. what marco rubio and john boehner is saying, you americans, we're going to rip up every one of your little league fields, every one of your parks, so we can take that and ship it off to europe at some point in the future, so vladimir putin doesn't have dominion over poland. >> i'd rather be a consumer in europe under that than -- >> of course. nobody wants it in their backyard. >> right. >> and it's -- >> so we will subsidize, we will come to save you by fracking ow backyard for you, europe. >> that's right. >> thank you both. >> thank you. today a hearing on the irs closed like this. >> mr. chairman, you cannot run a committee like this. you just cannot do this. this is -- we're better than that as a country. we're better than that as a committee. i have asked for a few minutes to ask procedural. >> that part where the mic got
a so-called scandal with the irs had long since devolved into ultrapartisan warfare at least on the hands of the republicans investigating it. house oversight committee chairman darrell issa had no idea what he was in for. that's next. need help keepingr digestive balance in sync? try align. it's the number one ge recommended probiotic that helps maintain digestive balance. ♪ stay in the groove with align. ♪ [ female announcer ] some people like to pretend a flood could never happen to them. and that their homeowners insurance protects them. [ thunder crashes ] it doesn't. stop pretending. only flood insurance covers floods.
house of representatives today. a breaking point finally reached while the cameras were rolling. we'll get to that in a minute. it's been three years since darrell issa took over the house oversight and government reform committee, three years that he has used that position to basically co program with fox news, one blown out of proportion faux scandal after another, from fast and furious, to benghazi, to the supposed security flaws in the obama care website. to the now largely settled scandal at the irs over his treatment of tax exempt political groups. today issa drags the women at the center of that investigation back in front of his committee to give fox some prime time ready tape of her once again pleading the fifth and then going home. but the ranking member on that committee, democrat elijah cummings who has watched this unfold over the last three years could not take it any more.
that played out in dramatic fashion, as he found himself shouting into a silent microphone, arguing with issa over whether or not he was entitled to speak. >> i have no expectation that ms. lerner will cooperate with this committee and, therefore, we will adjourn. >> chairman, i have a statement. >> we're adjourned, close it down. >> collusion of -- [ inaudible ] >> before our committee -- >> thank you. [ inaudible ] >> effectively and lying about enduring the election year. >> mr. cummings. >> he continued -- >> you heard your question. >> if you will sit down and allow me to ask a question. i am a member of the congress of the united states of america. i am tired of this. >> well -- >> we have members over here,
each who represent 700,000 people. you cannot just have a one sided investigation. there is absolutely something wrong with that, and it is absolutely unamerican. >> here, here. >> joining me now, matt cartwright from pennsylvania. he was there today, in fact it was his voice you heard at the end of that clip saying, here, here. >> have you ever seen a scene like that in congress? >> well, chris, i guess we're done with the sheer lunacy part of your show, we're now on to the unadulterated lunacy part. the answer is no, i've never seen anything like that, i've never seen anything like that in the congress. i've never seen anything like that in my 25 years of trial practice. you know, i come from northeastern pennsylvania, chris, where we have these fanciful motions of fair play and free speech. i understand other americans feel the same way. those notions were trampled upon today in the oversight hearing,
and the great irony, chris, is that our ranking member for the democrats is elijah cummings out of maryland. and mr. cummings started off, you know, when lois lerner first came to testify in congress, and when it was russell george who showed up last year with his detailed report about unfair targeting of certain political groups, mr. cummings was outraged and he expressed his outrage vow sieverously, and he was ready to reign down hellfire on whoever was doing this at the irs. >> that's an excellent point, a lot of people, we on this network, i remember doing the show that night, the initial indications were something truly, truly screwed up happened there, the question was how far up it went. i want to play elijah cummings talking about the extent of investigations that have already happened. take a listen.
>> we have now interviewed 38 irs employees, hundreds of thousands of pages of documents from the irs have been reviewed. $14 million plus and counting in man-hours have been expended in addressing the various investigations with regard to the irs. >> people are going to look at the tape that we played at the top of the show, what happened in that committee and they're going to say, this is partisan rancher, this is polarization, and this is basically both sides doing it. one guy cuts the mic, the other guy shouting into the mic. what do you say to people who see this, two sides yelling at each other, equally to blame for this situation? >> good question. the answer is, you have to understand house rules provide for both sides to have equal time. and so ranking member cummings
was supposed to have five minutes to make a statement or ask questions or both. and it was just astonishing to see the chairman, mr. issa not only cut him off but physically reach over and push the button to turn off mr. cummings' microphones. we had never seen anything like this before. >> this is the ranking member on the committee. for folks who are watching, i've covered congress. and even at moments during intense discord. the ranking member and the chair tend to work together. they have to just to get the committee running. their staffs work together. i've never seen anything get this heated. >> we understand that this committee is really up to -- it's just a grandstanding tool for mr. issa. we get that, but at some point have you to ask the question, how effective is that to the people, you know, the swing voters in america, who like to have a little more meat on the bones than just shouting irs or
between ghazi? how effective is this kind of tom foolery to the average american voter who could vote either way? >> i don't think it's been -- the answer to that is, it's not been very effective, in some ways, not very much of use has come out of that committee, and it's a committee that has produced lots of useful things in the past. congressman matt cartwright, thank you so much. >> you bet. >> everything you wanted to know about drugs but were afraid to ask, next.
experienced mind expanding powers of acid. it's psychedelic, baby, that's what it's all about. bob was not impressed. he didn't know much about lsd, but what he had heard he didn't like. acid seemed like a lot more trouble than it was worth. you are told what the establishment wants you to believe and you just eat it up. we have a long and colorful history when it comes to experimenting with lsd inside and outside of the lab. for the first time in 40 years there's a controlled trial of the drug's effects, results are not what you may think. a newly published survey tested the drug on people who were terminally ill, lsd significantly reduced their end of life anxiety.
fund-raisers are working to bring had a loosen hallucinogens back into mainstream. some of the things we talked about was the notion of a casual crack user, the relative harm of tobacco and crack ingestion for pregnant moms and the differences between meth and adder ol which are basically, well, you'll see. in a short time, dr. carl hart managed to do what the title of his book says it will do, challenge everything i thought i knew about drugs and society. >> one of the things that we were interested in. we wanted to know whether or not crack/cocaine users could say no to crack/cocaine if they were offered the drug, and offered some alternative, in this case, the experiment that we did, we
offered them $5 as an alternative. what you see, the crack/cocaine users, we're talking about a nice dose of crack/cocaine, they will take crack on half of the occasions and money on the other half. if you increase the money to something like $20. they almost never take the drug, they always take the money. that's rational behavior, and that's what you would expect. >> anyone watching this would say, every single person has had someone in their life that does cause them to be deeply irrational. to be deeply destructive things? to make choices in which they will walk away from what they should take for the substance? >> to be clear, these people are addicts, they meet criteria for drug addiction. that's one of the requirements to be in the study. they are addicts, the person you described, the one who will do irrational behavior to receive
their drug certainly that is a person. that person is probably doing irrational behavior, not only in regard to the drug. but other areas in their life. when we think about, just think about a former lover or someone you had a difficult time leaving for whatever reason, you did some irrational behaviors while you were in that relationship. the same is true, some people do that with drugs, but it's not like the drug is controlling the behavior to the extent that we believe -- >> i've read the book, i talked to you, i even just had this, i feel like it doesn't jive with what i've seen. it feels like it's making some assault on what i've seen. i've seen people ruin their lives with a substance, i've seen it. >> that's a great point. it's an excellent point. everyone has seen what you just said. the thing is, is that they've really haven't seen what they
think they've seen in that, when we think about addiction, people are addicted for a variety of reasons, some people have -- many people have psychiatric disorders, they're depressed, they have schizophrenia, they have anxiety, all of those play a role. other people, no job, lack of options or attractive options. you have all of these reasons, before we can attribute the behavior solely to the drug. we have to tease apart all these other things. >> i think the kind of takeaway here is that we -- there are a lot of tangled thinking about what are the causes and the effect. >> absolutely. >> the cause is the drugs and the effect is joblessness. the cause is the drug and the effect is an emotional relationship or broken relationships. >> when we think of the from that perspective, it's a lot more new answered and complex. and it takes away some of the sexiness of the stories that we tell in our tv shows.
breaking bad, one of the number one shows in the country. that means that all those shows now have to be more new answered. who wants new answer in their drama. >> many of the children who are the so-called classic cocaine babies were premature babies. the symptoms that were seen on the videos, the television, the tremoring arms and all that, that was prematurity. you could have taken any prema door baby and gotten the same image. >> there's a lot of literature after the media hysteria, we all knew about crack babies, it did not seem crazy, if you are pregnant and you are smoking crack, that's going to mess up your kid. it turned out it wasn't necessarily messing up kids or not nearly to the extent we thought it would? >> mind you, nobody is staying that people should go out and
smoke crack during pregnancy, the point is, all the evidence came out, the effects of crack/cocaine or cocaine on a pregnant woman -- on the fetus was the same as the effects of tobacco on the fetus. exactly the same. and these kids, they might -- >> you're saying that to me, and i still don't believe it. i understand -- i'm being totally honest here, like i know you're saying that, i know that's what the literature, i've seen the citations in your book, but there's part of me that's like, that cannot possibly be true. >> yeah, you know, when -- i get that a lot, as you know, and i don't know what to say to that. i deal in evidence, and if everybody -- one of the things that we want to -- ien want to do with the book is increase the tones around the discussion of drugs. in order to do that, we all have to play by the rules of evidence. if people are allowed to have their faith-based beliefs. >> that can't possibly be true. >> i can't do anything about that, so i just -- so i'm trying to speak to the people who believe in evidence.
>> you think we are repeating what we did in the late '80s, early '90s with methamphetamine now? >> we certainly are. we punish meth more harshly than any other drug besides crack. there's virtually no evidence for this dental decay that we see, these pictures that people show. >> virtually no evidence. when we think about methamphetamine, think about adderol, same drug, nobody's talking about -- >> it's not the same drug. >> it's the exact same drug. the only difference is that methamphetamine has a methol group attached do it, we did a study in which we tested the effects of a drug like adderol or methamphetamine, they produced identical effects. they're almost identical chemically. we have these wildly different narratives surrounding these drugs.
that's what i'm trying to do, i'm trying to stop the miss tear ya, so we don't make the same mistakes. >> we have put the rest of my extended interview on our website allinwithchrishayes.com. something we want to do more of. you should watch the whole thing if you have a chance. meanwhile, an absolute contemptible outrage today in washington that almost no one is talking about, we're going do talk about it next. you've tried to forget your hepatitis c. it's slow moving, you tell yourself. i have time. after all there may be no symptoms for years. no wonder you try to push it to the back of your mind and forget it. but here's something you shouldn't forget. hepatitis c is a serious disease. if left untreated, it could lead to liver damage and potentially even liver cancer. if you are one of the millions of people with hepatitis c,
you haven't been forgotten. there's never been a better time to rethink your hep c. because people like you may benefit from scientific advances. advances that could help you move on from hep c. now is the time to rethink hep c and talk to your doctor. visit hepchope.com to find out about treatment options. and register for a personalized guide to help you prepare for a conversation with your doctor.
a despicable shameful scene in the united states senate today as president obama's nominee to head the civil rights division of the justice department was voted down, 7 democrats, these seven senators you right now see on your screen, those individuals cravenly joined all of the senate republicans in voting against a man who by any reckoning, boasts a stellar resume for the job.
born in the bronx. raised by a single mom, his family battled not only poverty but homelessness too. then he had a nine-year turn as an adorable child on sesame street. he served the naacp for a decade as a civil rights lawyer of tremendous acclaim. defending the voting rights act in front of the supreme court twice. he was voted down because of another man he once defended. that's not the whole story. the organization that he worked for, the naacp legal defense fund represented a man on appeal who was convicted in 1982 of killing a philadelphia police officer. that man was convicted when adigbule was just a kid. and he worked on the case for
the naacp as it challenged in appeals the constitutionality of the jury's sentencing instructions. and they won. the court ruled in favor of the naacp which resulted in jamaal's death sentence being vacated. he's now serving life without parole. that single appellate representation was then transformed into the basic kind of demagoguery on fox news. >> he volunteered to help out this man, who was convicted of murdering a philadelphia police officer in cold blood. >> there's a very racial past of pushing racial politics through actions inside the law. >> this is something who
represented a nonrepen tent cop killer. >> you know what you just saw, right? and that worked at least so far. somehow, one can't help but wonder if this is a standard that only applies to a civil rights lawyer, trying to head the justice department's civil rights division, as msnbc points out, supreme court justice, chief justice john roberts, once offered pro bono legal representation on behalf of one of the most notorious serial killers in florida state history. a man who tricked his way into a woman's home, bound and shot six people. then killed two teenagers on their way to church while under indictment. one of the men who wrote our constitution and went on to become president defended in a court of law, the british troops who fired on and killed americans.
because john adams so strongly believed in the sixth amendment that people have the right to defense. the president today responded with an uncharacteristically strong failure, calling the senate's failure to confirm adigbile -- the fact that his nomination was defeated solely based on his legal representation of a defendant runs contrary to our fundamental system of justice. it most certainly does. so shame on all of you who voted it down.
for paul ryan, 2014 is the year that the republican party will finally start talking about poverty. >> republicans have been shy about talking about poverty, they've now shifted. >> let's talk about how to cure poverty. >> you have paul ryan also talking about poverty as an issue. >> paul ryan says it's a poverty trap. >> we have the highest poverty rate in a generation. >> there are things we can do to improve people's lives, to get poverty addressed. that's what i'm focusing on right now. >> paul ryan delivered on his promise, releasing a 204 page report entitled, the war on poverty 54 years later.
the reviews of ryan ace report from experts have been mixed. the center on budget and policy priorities found the report misleading with research which it uses to portray the safety net in a negative light. they went and talked to some of the experts whose work ryan cites. she was surprised when she read the paper, it seemed to arbitrarily chop off data from two of the most successful years barbara's wolf said ryan's report studying the effect of housing assistance on labor outcomes. the report has been corrected to reflect that mistake. here's the thing. there are millions of americans in poverty. paul ryan is right about that, there are some real tested solutions out there. not reverse engineered reports,
but real policy proposals, with actual political strength behind them. some of which are included in the president's budget announced yesterday, which would expand for instance the earned income tax credit and calls on congress to raise the minimum wage to 10.10 an hour. today the president went to connecticut to sell those solutions. >> this should not be that hard, you'd think. because nearly 3 in 4 americans, about half of all republicans support raising the minimum wage. the problem is, republicans in congress oppose raising the minimum wage. now, i don't know if that's just because i proposed it. maybe i should say i oppose raising the minimum wage. they'd be for it, that's possible. >> joining me now, dan malloy of connecticut from central connecticut state university where president obama spoke earlier today. i was reading in a local connecticut paper they described
you as lukewarm a few years back about raising the state's minimum wage, it was raised despite your alleged lukewarmness. you are now pushing to raise it even further. what is your experience been in a state that has raised the minimum wage above the federal minimum? >> first of all, it's the right thing to do, and i was never lukewarm, what we did when i first became governor was to pass an earned income tax credit which nobody had been able to get passed for 25 years in the state of connecticut. the second thing i did was to pass paid sick days. another important program for people who are working. you certainly don't want sick people serving you your lunch or dinner or working taking care of your children. we then wanted to digest that, and i got on board with doing the next thing that makes sense, and that's raising the minimum wage. let me assure you the minimum wage raised by 45 cents this last january 1st, would not have happened without me. we have a second plan coming this january of 30 cents.
i'm trying to get that changed. so by january 31st, '17 will be earning $10.10. something roughly equivalent to what was available in 1968. >> there is, of course, a lot of arguments from republicans and conservatives, the minimum wage is going to cost jobs. there's the cbo report that came out, that indicated some restriction of jobs, it would lift people out of poverty, it would reduce employment by roughly half a million workers, what has been the employment effects you have seen in a state that is running this experiment >> we aren't seeing anything akin to that. i was told if we passed paid sick days, restaurants would go out of business. you know, there are studies out there that have studied 532 counties in the united states. that were right alongside of
accounting that did not see a raise in the minimum wage, one saw it. there is no evidence at all that the county that raised the minimum wage had anything but success in doing so. there's no indication that people lose jobs as a result of past increases in the minimum wage. quite frankly i think they're making this stuff up, because they don't want to be for anything. they don't support an increase in the earned income tax credit. they don't support minimum wage increases, they don't support poverty programs that have proven records, they want to cut back on aid to states, on the education side. they want to disband the department of education, this is a bunch of people who are at war with the middle class of america, and those who aspire to be in the middle class. >> it's interesting you mention the earned income tax credit. sometimes the minimum wage and earned income tax credit are looked at as competing policies, there are some conservatives that say, the minimum wage distorts the labor market. do something with the tax credit.
it's a frictionless approach. did you get republican help in your state to raise it in your state? do you see republicans supporting that nationally? >> if there was any republican support, it was slight. they were against an increase in the earned income tax credit. that's who they are, that's what they are, it's a matter of national policy. at least while this president is president. some of the republicans who argue against the minimum wage increase today, voted for one in congress when george bush was president. there is this gap between what they're willing to do to help america with a president obama as opposed to what they thought they were doing to help america when there was a president bush. >> thanks. we're going to have someone who defends at least part of the paul ryan report. we're going to hash it out after this. metamucil. and this park is the inside of your body. see the special psyllium fiber in metamucil actually gels to trap some carbs to help maintain
what grade would you give -- >> i'd give -- >> in the past 50 years on the war on crime? >> i would give us a fail. >> for the first time, josh barrow. and author of promises betrayed, waking up from the american dream. josh, defend your boy, you love nothing more than paul ryan. >> there are three big things this report gets right. our approach to poverty is too complicated. you see this from the left, give people more money, makes them less poor. >> one example, we have women with infant children, wic, food stamps. >> they're both programs to give food to people who are poor. >> you can imagine a situation in which you give a larger benefit to women with infant children?
>> yeah, there's a real problem, when you combine these programs together and phase them out. they get close to 100%, it makes it hard for people to climb out of poverty. >> i can take this job, it's going to pay me more. i'm going to qualify out of some program that's currently helping me. and the income i give up, means it's not worth it to take the job? >> right, and i don't know we would expect people to work more when it's going to require them to have more income. when you dig into this report, there's good things to say about the earned income tax credit, the program that helps people with hiv, this is the conversation republicans and democrats should be having. >> what works? >> what do you think, bob? >> listen, if you care about poverty in this country, it's a waste of time for a bunch of rich people to be parsing paul ryan's report. it addresses nothing. we have poverty in this country
because of an unequal distribution of wealth. whether it's food stamps or earned income tax credit. even if that happens to lift someone above poverty. >> the poverty line is not -- >> if you take the food stamps away, you fall right back below the poverty line. >> you're making the paul ryan argument? >> no, no, no, no, no. you should be alleviating suffering, i'm in favor of these programs, because they help people, but they're not the answer to poverty. the answer to poverty is employment. and if you care about poverty, we should all be obsessively pursuing the jobs of every type. >> i think all three of us agree on the full employment thing, we all -- i think everyone -- i
want to see a 3% unemployment rate basically. >> i want to see 1%. >> push it as far until -- >> the other thing i want you to say. i think it's in bob's comment. to me, my feeling is like yes, some of this stuff is in the report, some of it is not. the political collision you are heading, let's be honest, it doesn't -- there may be people in it, who genuinely care about poverty. as a coalition, it places no priority in this, there is no traction in it. >> criticize republicans for that, this report, i think in a lot of ways points them in the right direction. republicans have been saying about the minimum wage increase, don't raise the minimum wage. raise the earned income tax credit which is better. this report -- >> i don't like that, i don't like the earned income tax credit. >> it helps people certainly. >> you were just talking about relieving suffering. >> i'm not going to be opposed to did for that reason. i don't want to get rid of it for that reason, we never should have had it, it's a wage subsidy for corporations. that's why the republicans aren't in favor of it, because
it helps the corporate. >> there's two arguments here. two things to do, you can raise the minimum wage or say, you pay me $8 an hour, the government is going to pay them another 1 opinion the 50 an hour. >> why should taxpayers subsidize walmart? >> they would make the argument you're subsidizing the worker. >> no, you're subsidizing walmart. they're paying disgusting wages, keeping people in poverty. walmart, mcdonald's, that sort of thing. you care about poor people, if you want to alleviate poverty, you have to put people to work at a decent wage. >> we'll come back to this again in the future. do the republicans support the doubling of the earned tax credit in the president's budge sunset. >> they should. that's the big test, put it all aside about putting their cards on the table. thank you for joining me. > thanks to you at home for joining us this hour, we have an
exclusive story tonight out of texas. something that is happening in texas tonight as he speak. we are reporting this here at this point, nobody else in the country has this story except us. i'm going to explain that news in a moment. but it relates in a way to the headlines that you may have already seen today out of texas, the political news out of texas is about the primaries that just happened there. the big national headline out of the texas primaries is george p. bush, of course, jeb bush's son and george bush's nephew, he avoided a runoff and became the republican nominee for land commissioner in texas. which is a powerful job in that state. hey america, get ready for more bush family politicians. also, the two members of congress who were facing tea party challengers in their primaries, john cornyn and pete sessions, those veteran