tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC July 9, 2014 5:00pm-6:01pm PDT
you the mandate to do something once you're there. that's a huge hurdle, so is being a great president in the 21st century. that's hardball for now, thanks for being with us, all in with chris hayes starts right now. tonight we are all in. >> are folks more interested in politics or solving the problem. >> the crisis at the board. the president and rick perry meet in texas as the political circus continues in washington. >> they can't stay. they cannot stay. >> republicans hammer on border securi security. >> come together and secure the border once and for all. >> what if the crisis exists because the borders are secure? then, who we spied on, now we know which americans were under surveillance by the nsa. >> i was a conservative reagan loving republican. >> ben greenwald is here and he's naming names. >> the hobby lobby flood gates. democrats unveil their plan to
fight the supreme court decision. and free lunches for every public school student. >> there's no such thing as a free lunch. >> why chicago's big decision makes so much sense. all in starts right now. >> good evening from new york, i'm chris hayes. president obama emerged from a roundtable discussion with texas governor rick perry, and local leaders and addressed the ongoing humanitarian crisis at the southern u.s. border. the meeting came after a handshake with the texas governor on the tarmac in dallas. a handshake the governor had initially balked at being a part of. >> the president urged congress to pass a $3.7 billion emergency appropriation to address the surge in child migrants from central america. and also referenced the political criticism that has been leveled in his direction. >> i want to emphasize to the governor, the problem here is not a major disagreement around
the actions that could be helpful in dealing with the problem. the challenge is, is congress prepared to act to put the resources in place to get this done? another way of putting it, and i said this directly to the governor is, are folks more interested in politics or are they more interested in solving the problem? if they're interested in solving the problem, then this can be solved. >> the republicans have criticized the president for not visiting the border during his two-day fund-raising trip in texas. rick perry cast it as a reflection of his concern of what's really going on. the president said he's intimately aware of what is happening at the border. >> this isn't theater, it's a problem. i'm not interested in photo ops, i'm interested in solving the
problem. >> congressman cuellar whose district runs from san antonio to the border and this could become obama's katrina moment. henry cuellar joins me now. that comment struck me as hyperbole. what kind of point are you trying to make? >> the point is, there is a real humanitarian crisis at the border. the last month we had about 48,000 people that crossed the border into texas that border patrol detained. 9,700 of them were kids with no parents. and that's the humanitarian crisis. when you see young kids hungry, scared. it's a humanitarian crisis that we need to address. >> and i think everyone agrees on that point. it is a humanitarian crisis that needs to be addressed. the debate in washington, political circles has centered on whether the president will show up physically in the space to look at the border as opposed to what the actual solution for the problem is.
>> you know, certainly the president already made a decision, he's not going to visit the border at this time, but i certainly hope that at some time in the future, he does visit the border. again, you have to see the young kids. i visited the facilities where they're at, and when you see young girls and boys that have crossed the border, you have to see the problem in person to understand the magnitude of what we're seeing there. remember the numbers are not stopping, they still have 48,000 people that have crossed the texas border, 38,000 of them crossed the southern part of texas, that's a humanitarian crisis, and homeland security issues we have. >> when you distinguish those numbers they're distinct from the -- there's people that cross the border, which is something that happens every day in america. some of them are detained, some of them get through. that is distinct from the surge of unaccompanied minors and sometimes with their mothers
from three central american countries that is producing this kind of humanitarian crisis? >> that is correct. the numbers i'm giving you were the numbers that were detained by border patrol just in texas, 48,000. 38,000 were just in the southern part of the state of texas, and that's where the flooding, where they're coming in from south texas, huge numbers. >> the president today really put the onus on congress. there's a strange situation in which it seems like republicans are telling him to act unilaterally, at the same time they're suing him for doing so. what do you think about the $3.7 billion package that, the ball is in your court in congress. will it solve the problem? will it get passed? >> the court is -- for congress, the appropriators, under the constitution, we're the ones that will be appropriating, and we're going to be looking at this very, very carefully, there are things that we need to do, there are things that we need to fund. we certainly have to look at the details. certainly the person that needs to continue working with us, so
we can come up with the right approach to address not only the humanitarian crisis, but how do we return those kids and those families safely to their countries. >> this is what everyone i heard is talking about how to return them. it is possible they have good asylum claims. i mean, it seems to me strange that people further removed are passing a kind of judicial judgment on the validity of actual legal cleems to possible asylum under u.s. law by people that are possibly fleeing for their life or fleeing persecution. >> well, let's understand what the law is. the law says that contiguous countries like mexico, border patrol will screen those individuals and if they want to be returned voluntarily, we can do that. we've been doing that with people from mexico, kids, families, for a long time. nobody has said anything. if somebody claims a credible fear or asylum or they're a victim of a sex crime, yes, we should have the immigration
hearings. the problem is, the immigration hearings for kids are taking up to two years to even have a hearing. we need to expedite the time so we can have the hearings as quickly as possible. >> thank you for your time tonight. >> thank you so much. why you might be asking yourself is all this happening? what is the source of this surge of children showing up at the border. republicans say they've found the answer. >> if we don't secure the border, nothing's going to change. we have to do something about sealing the border and ending this problem so that we can begin to move on with the bigger question of immigration reform. >> to hear the republicans tell it, the humanitarian crisis is the president's refusal to enforce the southern border. >> what needs to be addressed is to reinforce the southern border. you know that, i know that, the
president knows that. i don't think he particularly cares whether the border is secure. >> republicans are using the rising number of unaccompanied migrant children apprehended at the border by border patrol to argue for stronger border patrol. those calls ignore the unprecedented buildup at the border in the years since president obama took office. >> right now there are more border patrol agents and surveillance resources on the ground than at any time in our history about. >> under this president, funding for immigration and customs enforcement and customs and border protection has steadily increased. there are more cbp agents patrolling the border now than under any other administration. in fact the budget for customs and border protection has doubled since 2005. under president obama, the number of people deported has reached record highs, with almost all of that increase coming from deportation at the
border. not in workplaces or homes, but at the border. the border has never been more secured than it is now. in some ways, the humanitarian crisis along the southwest border is actually a result of that security. >> the issue is not that people are evading our enforcement officials, the issue is that we're apprehending them in large numbers. >> the border was not well staffed and protected. agents probably wouldn't be there to apprehend the unprecedented number of unaccompanied minor children who would show up. we aren't see iing children comg into the country largely undetected. calling for more border security is the only way republicans can talk about immigration. it's what their base demands. the problem is, those calls could make the crisis even worse. joining me now, reason
congressman from texas, michael burgess. do you agree whatever you think about border security, this is not a border security problem? >> well, it actually started as a border security problem, because if you begin to relax the laws and change the laws as the president did, with an insecure border, with a porous border. >> what do you mean by that? how did he make the border more porous. >> when the president unilaterally deferred adjudication for childhood arrivals in 2012, you knew at that point that something was going to give. >> if that is driving -- if deferred adjudication or deferred action was driving this, why wouldn't we see kids show up from mexico. we've seen no real increase of kids showing up from mexico. >> no, you do -- >> well, not -- >> his point was exactly right. 38,000 people last month in the rio grande valley, and that is an overwhelming number. >> wait, 38,000 let's be clear.
who were apprehended. >> correct. because they're not trying to evade. >> that's right. but that's the whole point, is that -- >> they're holding their hands in the air. >> if i could -- >> i want to make that clear, because i want you and i to disagree on the facts of the matter here, i feel that's been getting lost a little bit, when people talk about border security. what is happening at the border, is that people are going to border patrol agents, right? just so we're clear, there's not masses of people sneaking through and getting by people, it is precisely the presence of border -- >> masses of people who are crossing the border illegally, and then it is quite okay with them if they get apprehended because they have been told once they get apprehended and processed they'll be released for a court date, and that's basically their free ticket in. the message has gotten out, into those countries in central america that if you can get here, the president is going to let you stay. now, the president said he's not going to the border, i do not understand that, i cannot imagine president johnson not going to the border. >> i have to say --
>> i cannot imagine president clinton not going to the border. if the president went to the border -- chris, hear me out on this -- and said very clearly, into the camera and said do not send your children to texas. >> he said that. >> no, sir. >> he did. he said it tonight. >> it was a throwaway comment in the rose garden, i watched the comments tonight, i was uncon advice vinced, he needs to be clear and unequivocal. >> here's the thing. >> look at what bill clinton did -- right before he was inaugurated and he went on voice of america with a translator and said, if you come to this country you will be sent back, i will not change the policies of the previous administrations. >> but congressman -- >> clinton did that. >> the law under which these people are being processed which is a 2008 law, which was unanimously approved by both houses of the united states congress signed by president bush, the president cannot unilaterally overturn that. i know republicans are talking
about deferred action. >> well, that is the procedures -- >> there are expedited procedures that can be followed. i was just there last week, and the border chief down in said, we are starting to implement the pilot, we will try to get people back within eight days. i think that's a good thing. >> so the president's point is that this $3.7 billion emergency supplemental request is basically, he said this, that this is the way to essentially create the capacity to process these people faster, at the texas delegation is on board, we can move this and get it done the next week. you remember that -- >> conveniently, he's forgetting about the $40 billion we gave him at the beginning of the fiscal year, and the $40 billion we're about to give him for the next fiscal year for homeland security. there are the funds within the department to do this, they just choose not to. so he's made a political -- >> you think they're choosing -- >> absolutely many. >> why are they doing that, congressman? >> i have not any idea, but
right now, the representative cuellar used the term, flood the zone, that's exactly what's happening here. >> it's your position -- >> of the rio grande valley, and heaven help us if there's a hurricane down there during the season. >> it's your impression the president has decided to starve the necessary agencies funds to process these people for what reason? >> look, i don't know if i've had a full accounting of the last $40 billion we gave him. >> why would anyone do that? >> i don't know, i haven't seen the particulars of his request, i mean, that's -- >> no, the request is -- i'm talking about -- i'm talking about right now. >> why did he decide he was short of money. look, when i ask people on the border, when did you know this was a problem? when did you know this was begin? the answer is somewhere between november and january of this year, if you knew it was a problem then, why are you waiting until 24 or 48 hours ago to say i need something -- >> you're not going to move on the supplemental? >> i haven't seen the details of it. >> all right. >> any appropriations bill that
comes to me, obviously, i'm going to look at. look at from the confines of my committee on energy and commerce. i'm also on the rules committee, i'll be deeply involved in it, but just the fact that the president said he needs more money, i don't know if i buy that, chris. he's had plenty of money, he's had plenty of time. he's had plenty of warning. >> record spending. >> he is -- >> record spending at the border. >> thank you for coming on, i'd love to check back in with you on this. >> any time. >> why are gay rights employers discriminating against lgbt people? i'll tell you next. take them on the way you always have. live healthy and take one a day men's 50+. a complete multivitamin with 7 antioxidants to support cell health. age? who cares. if your denture moves, it can irritate your gums. try fixodent plus gum care.
it helps stop denture movement and prevents gum irritation. fixodent. and forget it. and prevents gum irritation. really... so our business can be on at&t's network for $175 dollars a month? yup. all five of you for $175. our clients need a lot of attention. there's unlimited talk and text. we're working deals all day. you get 10 gigabytes of data to share. what about expansion potential? add a line anytime for 15 bucks a month. low dues... great terms... let's close. introducing at&t mobile share value plans... ...with our best-ever pricing for business.
down, and we think we're the best place in the country to grow a business raise a family. a lot of people, tax refugees are looking for places to go, come to kansas. >> we're checking in on how that's all turned out ahead. that we serve. people here know that our operations have an impact locally. we're using more natural gas vehicles than ever before. the trucks are reliable, that's good for business. but they also reduce emissions, and that's good for everyone. it makes me feel very good about the future of our company. ♪ that's keeping you from the healthcare you deserve.. at humana, we believe if healthcare changes, if frustration and paperwork decrease... the gap begins to close.
so let's simplify things. let's close the gap between people and care. have you ever looked at someone and right away thought you know exactly what they're like and what they believe in? well, odds are you're wrong. what's on the outside and what's on the inside can be very different. the more you know. there's an underappreciated consequence to the lobby lobby decision the supreme court handed down last week. the total legal chaos and uncertainty it has left in its wake. the decision that allowed for profit corporations to exempt themselves from the birth control mandate and the affordable care act have left lower courts with such a mess of unanswered questions that a circuit court judge took to his
blog to post this. the court is causing more harm to our democracy than good by deciding hot button cases that the court has the power to avoid. it's time for the court to stfu. not something we even put in scripts on our humble cable network. there are a bevy of cases the supreme court has agreed to reconsider due to the hobby lobby case. one in which employers object to all forms of birth control, all forms of contraception. it doesn't end with those cases. religious organizations are using religion for a whole host of things. they're on the wrong side of the opinion of the majority of the country now see religious objection as their way from exempting themselves from the
juris prudence of the law. it already passed the senate and would have expanded protections to gay, lesbian and transgender workers. fearing in the wake of the hobby lobby decision the decision will render the law meaningless. talk of hobby lobby opening the flood gates was nods overstated. democrats tried to close them again, which would ban employers from using coverage for any benefits guaranteed under the affordable care act. also specifyies it's not ground for refusal. >> women across the country are outraged, they're demanding a change, and today by introducing this new legislation with a strong coalition behind us, we are here to be their voice. and it's not just women who want congress to act. people across the country understand that if bosses can deny birth control, they can
deny vaccines, hiv treatment or other basic health services for employees or their departments. dependents. >> joining me now, the director of the american civil liberties union. >> it's nice to be here. >> we're pleased with the legislation. we're supporting the legislation, we think there can't be a fast enough action to correct what happened with hobby lobby last week. >> the irony here is that what happened to bring us to hobby lobby was a supreme court case that found that people smoking peyote for religious regions could be fired. the congress didn't like it, so they passed a bill. it's that law which got us to hobby lobby, and we're using another law to correct the supreme court decision. >> that's true. but that said, i support this, we should correct this. >> you think it's the right thing to do? >> yes, we have a situation that's unpress tented. an employer could invoke its religious beliefs to deny its
employees a benefit guaranteed by law. we've never seen the law interpreted that way before. >> there's a whole host of questions about how far this goes, that the lower courts are going to have to sort out. >> there's a host of questions about the contraception cases and there's a host of other kinds of cases out there in the courts including businesses that try to turn away people, turn away lesbian and gay couples for example, because it's against the owners religious beliefs to serve those couples. many, many questions about the scope of the religious exemptions playing out in courts and legislatures all across the country. >> walk me through the way the hobby lobby decision interacts with the decision that was already in the law, enda, which is seeing support from the equality community and the lgbt community hemorrhage in the wake of hobby lobby, because they think the exemption can be used to blow the whole thing up.
>> i'm here from the aclu, we care deeply about religious freedom, we have opposed the exemption that existed before. what enda does is prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation gender identity. it had an exemption that said, it's true for everybody unless you're a religiously affiliated employer. those institutions didn't have to abide by the law. they could continue to discrimina discriminate. we oppose that all along on the theory that you have a right to your beliefs, you don't have a right to discriminate in the name of religion. >> catholic hospitals, notre dame university. large evangelical institutions. >> employers that are hiring and serving people of all different faiths, arguing they have a right to continue to discriminate. we've seen this playbook before, this was true in the context of race, it was against their religion to integrate for example, and we rejected that as a matter of history and statute and courts. >> the supreme court ultimately rejected that as well?
>> exactly. we're saying here, congress should reject that here, and we do hope that the courts will similarly reject claims like that in the context of hiring. >> do you think there is a conservative look at liberals talking about hobby lobby, they think they're being overly dramatic or excessive or hyster hysterical? >> do you think there's a rising tide of kohlessing around the religious exemption fighting back against a shift in public opinion? >> yes. i think this is a moment of culture change, and what we had was, many of the groups that are seeking exemptions oppose the changes opposed the contraception rule in general. oppose enda in general. now, when the tide is shifting, such that there are now rules requiring nondiscrimination, they're asking for a carve out. as i said, this is not uncommon in terms of moments of social change. be it either in terms of the social rights act. >> you don't think enda is worth
passing with the current carveout? >> no. >> that's really something. and the human rights campaign and a whole variety of gay organizations are of that opinion as well? >> exactly. think about it in another context, in terms of the laws we have, the discrimination hiring, based on race or sex, we don't have this religious carveout in that context, why should we say that lesbian and gay people have a lesser status. it's a second class iteration of nondiscrimination. >> thank you very much. >> thank you so much. a little over a year ago, we learned the u.s. government had been spying on americans. >> new details are breaking about widespread government surveillance of americans. late today we learned of a separate and what could be a far more explosive government program tapping into e-mails and computer traffic. >> today we learned who the government has been spying on. as in the names of people. and you might be surprised to see who they are. movie night. i get 2x the points on streaming movies and takeout from restaurants
with my citi thankyou card. everyone wins. you mean you win. yes i do. the citi thankyou preferred card earn two times the thankyou points with no annual fee. to apply, go to citi.com/thankyoucards. wouldn't it be great if hiring plumbers, carpenters shopping online is as easy as it gets. and even piano tuners were just as simple? thanks to angie's list, now it is. we've made hiring anyone from a handyman to a dog walker as simple as a few clicks. buy their services directly at angieslist.com no more calling around. no more hassles. start shopping from a list of top-rated providers today.
angie's list is revolutionizing local service again. visit angieslist.com today. [ jackhammer pounding, horns honking ] [ siren wailing ] visit tripadvisor miami. [ bird chirping ] with millions of reviews, tripadvisor makes any destination better. in the nation, the safest feature in your car is you.
i just misspoke in that earlier segment about the sport of the human rights campaign, they still do support enda in its current form as passed by the senate. my bad. when i was growing up in the bronx attending public school, there were two lines in the school cafeteria. on one kids who were poor enough to qualify for free or reduced lunch. on the other, the kids who could afford to buy lunch. now thanks to a smart decision
that will no longer be the case in chicago public schools. starting this september, chicago public schools will begin offering free males, lunch and breakfast to all children enrolled in their schools. chicago joins at least six other large cities already participating in a federal program that now allows schools and school districts to offer breakfast and lunch at no charge to all of their students if more than 40% of that student body, if their families are approved for snap. cities like dallas, boston and detroit have enrolled in the 4-year-old federal program which recently opened nationwide out of good economic sense as well as moral sense. children were already eating up hundreds of thousands of dollars from school budgets. many of these school systems, a vast majority of students already qualify for federally subsidized free lunch. there are many whose parents make just above the income cap which is 130% of the federal
poverty level to qualify. or folks that would be enrolled if the paperwork weren't so daunting. this system removes the paperwork, ensures kids can concentrate on their work instead of their hunger and takes away the stigma of being a free lunch kid. 90% of chicago's school children come from households making $30,000 a year or less. so do 89% of dallas public school students and 87% of detroit public school students. the reason we spend so much money in this country feeding the poor, and we still don't spend enough. is because too many people are poor. poverty in america is a policy choice. and it's one we keep choosing over and over. yeah, they're really choosy about what goes in. so, only certain cuts of kosher beef meet their strict standards and then they pick the best from that. oh man! what'd we do?
they're all ruined. help yourself! oh no, we couldn...okay thanks. when you hot dog's kosher, thats a hot dog you can trust. hebrew national. ♪he cadillac summer collection is here. ♪ during the cadillac summer's best event, lease this 2014 ats for around $299 a month and make this the summer of style. ♪
you know that dream... on my count. ...the one where you step up and save the day? make it happen. (crowd) oh no... with verizon xlte. hey guys, i got it right here! we've doubled our 4g lte bandwidth in cities coast to coast. so take on more. with xlte. on the largest, most reliable 4g lte network. for the first time since snowden released the largest back of documents. we now have names. he revealed a massive
surveillance program to collect electronic communications and metadata of millions of americans. what we didn't know until today were the actual names of the americans being spied upon. thanks to a three-month's investigation, we now know of five americans all civilians, all muslim or from muslim backgrounds whose e-mail accounts were monitored. as early as 2005 and at least up until 2008. the targets included according to intercepts and investigation. five who led outwardly exemplary lives. including a former hill staffer and prominent attorney seen here shaking hands with george w. bush and hillary clinton. and the kicker, a former policy adviser in the department of homeland security with security clearance under president george wachlt bush and a one time
republican candidate for the virginia house of delicates. >> how does it make me feel that i was sur veiled by the government? that's a very good question. i guess my big feeling is, i just don't know why. i mean, i've done everything in my life to be patriotic. i served in the navy, the government, in a political administration, i was active in my community. i was a very conservative reagan-loving republican. i just don't know what's in my background. if somebody like me could be sur veiled, then you know some other people out there i could only imagine who are under surveillance. >> joining me now, glenn greenwald, edward snowden, the usa and nsa surveillance state. i read through the piece, which i thought was well done. two or three times, i can't figure out whether i'm being dense or it's just not there, whether these people were being sur veiled with the presence of a fisa warrant or without a
warrant. can you help clear that up for me? >> the entire time chris that we were talking to the nsa trying to get comment. they kept urging us not to publish any names on the grounds that any spying we do is done under the ages of the fisa court. we were scheduled to publish our story at the last week, at the last minute, doj officials started telling media outlets that someone was sur veiled without a fisa warrant. we asked the nsa, they refused to tell us whether there were warrants on all these people or not. we tinkered with our story to clear that was uncertain. we know they were spies. whether it was subject to a fisa warrant or some other theory is unknown. >> it seems to me, though, legal implications and policy implications matter a fair amount about whether a fisa warrant was there or not. it's a question whether the fisa process is working or whether it's just being -- there's an end run around it, right?
>> well, so there are two issues. one is that before the 2008 fisa law that was passed by a bipartisan congress. what that law mostly did was increase the government surveillance powers by legalizing what had been the controversial bush cheney eavesdropping program. one of the protections it provided was it said any time you want to target americans, whether they're on the u.s. soil or not, you need a fisa warrant. prior to that law in mid-2008. the nsa believed they could sur veil americans outside of u.s. soil simply by getting a certification of the attorney general. it's possible prior to this law they target ed amwa. >> it's striking that the five people that have been identified in these files are all either muslim, practicing muslim or of muslim heritage or backgrounds.
there's this crazy memo, a 2005 document, how to properly fill out internal memos to justify fisa surveillance. identity mohammed raghead what's your reaction to that. >> yeah, you know, i think that provides crucial context to the story. spencer ackerman, when he was at wired in 2011, uncovered a bunch of similar training material that taught fbi and other intelligence community officials to regard even moderate muslims as being serious threats to national security. you know, when we think about the 60s and 70s and surveillance abuses then, we now think of it as clearly wrong, because they were spying on people like anti-war protesters. at the time, there were a lot of people who believed that those kind of people, civil rights activists, anti-war protesters were a serious threat, and wanted them sur veiled, and i think that mind-set has shifted after september 11th to our fellow citizens who are muslim,
i think there's an institutional ethos invading the community that says when muslim americans exercise their political rights guaranteed by the constitution, you should regard that as threatening. >> are you worried that you have now invited all sorts of hit jobs on these five people who are going to be like, well, they were up to something no good? >> you know, one of the important factors that we took into account when deciding who we were going to report on is whether the people wanted to be reported on, you know, there are a lot of people who i thought about reporting on who simply didn't want to be identified as a target because of that stigma. all five of these americans to their great credit said that they wanted to come forward and defend their rights. and it was purely by consent. >> glenn greenwald, thanks so much. >> thank you, chris. two years ago, the governor of kansas signed a bold piece of legislation that had republicans raving, now he could lose re-election because of that piece of legislation. how sam brownback is repeating
what he sewed ahead. (vo) ours is a world of passengers. the red-eyes. (daughter) i'm really tired. (vo) the transfers. well, that's kid number three. (vo) the co-pilots. all sitting... ...trusting... ...waiting... ...for a safe arrival. introducing the all-new subaru legacy. designed to help the driver in you... ...care for the passenger in them. the subaru legacy. it's not just a sedan. it's a subaru. the summer that summers from here on will be compared to. so get out there, and get the best price guaranteed. find it for less and we'll match it and give you $50 toward your next trip. expedia. find yours.
i make a lot of purchases foand i get ass. lot in return with ink plus from chase. like 50,000 bonus points when i spent $5,000 in the first 3 months after i opened my account. and i earn 5 times the rewards on internet, phone services and at office supply stores. with ink plus i can choose how to redeem my points. travel, gift cards, even cash back. and my rewards points won't expire. so you can make owning a business even more rewarding. ink from chase. so you can.
the state of kansas is broke, extremely broke. revenues were down 7.3% the first half of the 2014 fiscal year. that'sed second biggest decline in the entire united states. job growth in kansas lags behind the rest of the country. moodies has downgraded the state's credit rating. kansas had been uncondy tugs ali underfunding its schools. so what happened to bring the land that produced dwight eisenhower the paragon of balanced budgets to these dire straits. what happened? this happened. >> what do you want to do with
the state income tax? >> get it to zero. the whole thing. >> the whole thing. kansas governor sam brownback didn't actually make it all the way to zero, but he came close. in 2012, kansas passed a tax bills that cut the state's highest income tax rates and completely exempted small business income. the state general fund is now projected to be over a billion dollars in the red by 2019. at some level, none of this should be surprising. many kansas republicans ran on a platform of slashing tax revenue, the people elected them, followed through and slashed tax revenue, and now the state is broke. thanks in part to the fiscal fallout, governor brownback finds himself in trouble. it's an election year, and he trails his challenger in three out of the four most recent polls. it's not just brownback who's dealing with the tax cuts, it's the citizens of kansas. the lack of funding has some very real consequences. >> we lost the 7th and 8th grade
three years ago, and then we lost our fourth grade last year. and budget cuts just seem to be coming down. >> this budget cut is closing the school. when the town loses its school, you lose the town. it's just kind of hard to put into words, because it's just like you're losing a part of your family. like a part of your family is being torn away from you, and so it's a -- an extreme loss, it really is. >> joining me now, kansas state democratic senator anthony hensley. how bad is it in kansas? >> it's pretty bad, chris, unfortunately, in this past fiscal year, we had a 7$700 million revenue decline, and you can compare that with the great recession in '07, '08 and '09 where we had a decline in three years. >> so in one year the tax cuts took out more revenue from the
state budget than three years of the worst financial crisis in 80 years? >> that's exactly right. those are the figures we've been given at 700 million versus 600 million. in one year, it's a 600 million revenue decline. >> the governor was on with our colleague this morning. defending his record, this is what he had to say. >> this really stimulated investment, it stimulated people coming into the state, we've got a record number of new businesses, we've got a record number of people working in the state of kansas. so it's working overall. it's just these things take some time, and it's moving us on forward. >> what's your response to that? >> well, i don't see the growth that the governor's referring, to and when he talks about a record number of businesses, in reality, it's small business who are changing their tax status so they can get the return of no -- paying no income taxes, i think that's the increase in the businesses that we've seen, they
just changed their filings. >> so people are changing their filing because taxes on small businesses were zeroed out or cut dramatically? you're seeing people now file as small businesses if they can, so they can get the tax benefit? >> that's correct. and that's why i think it's rather disingenuous to think we had an increase in businesses in fact it's just existing businesses that have changed their tax status. >> you're a teacher, is that right? >> that's correct. >> as a teacher, and someone who's in the state senate, what does this look like on the ground level in terms of kansas' education, which has been hammered by cuts to try to balance budgets in the face of this revenue decline? >> we've already seen a cut of $550 per student on our base budget per pupil. we're going to see more cuts in the future because of these income tax cuts that the governor has pushed through the legislature, and the real concern i have is the bottom
line with our general fund. the projection is, by 2019 we will have to cut the budget by some $1.2 billion. and in a small midwestern state like kansas, that's going to be devastates in terms of meeting our general fund obligations such as k through 12 education, higher education, corrections, highways, social services and all of the rest of it that we're obligated to try to help people. >> what's the solution? it's striking to me that your party, democratic party's nominee for governor, running against mr. brownback doesn't advocate going back to the tax rates before the tax cuts. so if you don't want to raise taxes, what's the solution here? >> right now, the candidate for our party is advocating that we at least freeze the income tax cuts at the 2015 level. and that would certainly improved the out years when you look at 17, 18 and 19. >> am i right, quickly here,
that there were also tax raises on the lowest income earners in your state? >> the governor had to try to pay or lessen the revenue reductions as possible and pay for these tax cuts. what we actually did was we eliminated a program that had been on the books for years, for income eligible kansas ans, disabled and elderly who received the state food sales tax rebate. the idea is that when you hear the word tax cut, you think good more money in your pocket. what if it's not the case, what if tax cuts have made everyone poorer? that's ahead.
you mean you win. yes i do. the citi thankyou preferred card earn two times the thankyou points with no annual fee. to apply, go to citi.com/thankyoucards. discuss the basic argument for cutting taxes goes something like this. >> for families with children to raise, and debts to pay tax relief will lift burdens and ease worries. for small businesses, tax relief means more customers and improved cashflow. more money to hire more workers. more money to expand benefits. more money to invest in new technology. tax relief will create new jobs. tax relief will generate newellth, and tax relief will open new opportunities. >> is that really the indication?
what if tax cuts actually have a negative impact on the economy. reducing prosperity and making it so individual people end up with less money? david k. johnson argues that's precisely what's happened over the last decade and a half thanks to tax cut after tax cut starting under george w. bush. americans have lost out on $6.6 trillion of income since the year 2000. that's an average $48,000 per person in the united states. david k. johnson joins me now to explain. >> the case is if you look at how income was growing until 2000, and what's happened to it since. there's $6.6 trillion in missing income that would be in people's pockets if things continued the way they were going in 2000, right? >> if we had just stayed stable at the level of 2000, we didn't have the falling incomes and i accounted for inflation and the growing population. it's $48,000 per taxpayer or household, not per person. >> then the question becomes
what happened, is there a case to be made not just that tax cuts didn't deliver on their promise of prosperity, which it doesn't look like they have, they created or helped create the conditions that led to these declines in income. >> yes, i -- and my al jazeera columns i've written a number of these. we've reduced our investments in the future of america, we radically cut spending for education and infrastructure that makes the economy more efficient. we've reduced food inspections so we have much higher food born illness rates than other modern countries. we've had deaths of babies or babies who are never going to be fully developed because they're not given proper medical testing. these cuts are costing us money, damaging our economy. private wealth creation requires huge investments in commonwealth to make that possible. >> is that -- you know, that's an argument that i've heard
democratic politicians try to make in various venues. infrastructure, the president, the recovery act. but it never strikes me that it necessarily resonates politically or has not yet. >> i'm not a politician, i'm an investigative reporter that believes in holding people accountable. these tax cuts would lead to us being better off than we were in 2000. the campaign spokesperson said when is your starting point? i don't know, ten years or so. we now have the data to look back and see what happened. in ten of the first 12 years of the bush tax cuts, incomes went down. $48,000 per household is so much money, we could pay off all student loans, all car loans, all credit card debt and people after their taxes would still have almost $18,000 per household they could put in the bank. >> wow! >> and get -- there is something
about tax cuts which also does something really insidious. it lowers the baseline, and after a while it becomes the norm. it's a one-way ratchet, we're seeing it in kansas. in kansas they're not running on raising taxes, once you cut them, they're harder to raise than they are to cut. >> that's exactly right, and what we're seeing in america today is that our country is falling apart. we are not maintaining it, we are not doing the things we need to do to continue to have our government. the answer we have is, we need more tax cuts. you know, what are we going to do, bleed ourselves to death? it just didn't work? if it had worked i would be saying, this is the greatest idea ever, look how fabulous the results are. we have not seen any evidence that they work. in california, where they raise taxes significantly, last year, roughly a third on million dollar plus earners, california
had more job growth than the rest of the country. >> this is something we don't grapple with, what produces good economies is so multivarian the. and our policies end up tax rates. david cay johnson, thank you. good evening, chris, thank you. it's sometimes easier than others. >> rachel maddow. the person i toss to every night. >> i just referred to myself by the wrong name a few days ago about don't worry about it. for the 2012 presidential election, republicans held their convention in florida, then in that election they lost florida. in the presidential election before that, 2008, republicans held their convention in minnesota. and then in that election, they lost minnesota. the election before that was in 2004, republicans held their convention that year in new york, and then in that election that year, they lost n