tv NOW With Alex Wagner MSNBC June 5, 2012 12:00pm-1:00pm EDT
have for you is on the ground in wisconsin, how have you seen a change in attitudes towards big labor in the last couple months, if not year? >> well, i think it started out as a small protest. one of the early weekend in february. and it has just snowballed into a national narrative against workers. i mean, scott walker has taken some real radical ideas and put it into the budgeting process and has hurt a lot of middle class wage earners in this state, and it's evolved into a real fight about labor. collective bargaining. but also what people bargain for. are they going to be able to keep snit? and what does it mean for future negotiations. this has recaally sprawled out into other states and other budgets and has become a forum for attacking organized labor which karl rove has set is a voting bloc that the republicans would like to get rid of. this has mushroomed into a much
greater issue than just wisconsin and just a budget in a particular state. >> and it's also refocused the national consciousness on labor and what it means for the economic health of this country. i thought this was a great op-ed in "the new york times" today, quoting timothy noah, who is author of "the great divergence." draw one line on a graph charting the decline in union membership, then superimpose a second line charting the decline in middle class income share, writes noah, and you will find that the two lines are nearly identical. richard freeman a harvard economist, has estimated that the decline of unions explains about 20% of the income gap. as we have seen, national union membership has dropped 20% from 20% to 13.3%. this is beyond just a discussion and argument over big labor and collective barg ning, this is
over the middle class and what is a fair share. >> there's no question about it. a rising tide lifts all boats. when you have collective bargaining, when you have negotiation in the workplace with employees and management, what you are going to have is a bar that will be set, whether other employees, whether in the organization or not, are going to seek out. if you destroy that bar, if you destroy that union, which the republicans have been trying to do for the last 30 year in ths s country, it will obviously hurt other wage earners. the lines that i talk about i show quite a bit on the "ed show." you can parallel middle class wages and income with union membership in this country. and right now 80% of union membership in america is concentrated in 16 states. the republicans with citizens united are throwing as much money as they possibly can to
defeat that last great voting bloc and organizational infrastructure that the democrats have got. and when it comes to the economy, we are losing our power with the middle class because we're losing our membership in unions across america and, of course, they call it the global economy, the free market, i like to call it the destruction of the middle class. and i think it's a very vital issue for us to address as a country. if we don't have a thriving middle class, i don't think we're going to have a thriving economy. it will only be for a few. >> it's also worth noting -- and i want to bring in the panel here -- beyond just the question of income, unions have been at the forefront of major pieces of legislation. the civil rights act was passed in large part because unions got behind it. medicare, social security. these are landmark pieces of legislation that in many ways were powered by unions. the fact that they have been -- i won't say gutted but undermined in large part, wisconsin is an incredibly
important bagttleground. should the president have gone to wisconsin? >> i understand why he didn't. and i can think of the specific example that i have in mind is massachusetts in 2010 when there was a special senate election there and -- not elizabeth warren, warren might actually win. martha coakley. and the stakes were national because health care seemed to be on the line. and the white house sent obama in, if the obama is going to work, it's going to work in massachusetts and it didn't. not only did they lose that race, but that really exacerbated the political fallout for the white house going in and doing that. i understood why they stood back here. in the polarized situation in wisconsin, i'm really not sure if you saent guy like obama in there, it's going to make a difference. people really have strong feelings out there, am i forewalker, am i against walker, am i for obama, am i against obama? i don't think it would pull to people.
>> it's worth noting that he began tweeting about it yesterday and just a few hours ago, minutes ago depending on what kind of clock you use, the obama re-election campaign released this new video encouraging people to get involved, make phone calls. ed, what's the feeling on the ground over there? is there a sense of indignation? >> no, there isn't. i was in veiabou, wisconsin, i was in racine, north milwaukee, i've not heard one person -- and i've been to six different rallies to cover them. i haven't heard one person complain that the president is here. they understand this is their ground zero, their fight, their budget. and there's a lot of misinformation that's out there. i want to emphatically state that the right wing has done a great job of infiltrating the media. this state does not have a budget surplus. it does not. i don't care what you read in "the new york times." it's not. the fact is they've not erased a
$3 million budget deficit. they've kicked the can down the road with some accounting gimmicks and put obligations off on future budgets. and they do not have $150 million surplus. and the people know this. that's what they're focused on. they're not focused on whether the president's going to show up. they're focused on making sure their backyard is right. there's no doubt when scott walker talks about reforms, he's talking about cuts. he's talking about cuts to workers, he's talking about making school districts taking it out of the hides of the teachers. i will tell you all across wisconsin, it's been the teacher that have been at the forefront of these rallies and also the teachers who have really been on the ground doing a lot of the work because they really feel education, which has been a real focal point of acceleration heritage and tradition in wisconsin that it's being attacked. it is all for a budget and, of course, the collective
bargaining issue comes with it. they've done a great job. think about this. scott walker has 27 million more dollars than his challenger, and he might lose. that's how passionate this state is about the issues. so whether president obama were to come or not, it doesn't -- i don't think it really matters to the folks here. it was nice to see bill clinton here. he strategically went to milwaukee where they've got to have the turnout. but i think that on the ground, it's about wisconsinites. >> the reality of this, though, ed, is that the money disparity that you cite is totally fallacious. we both know that this issue is about scott walker striking union in the pocketbook over compulsory union contribution. there are many adults working on the ground in the labor movement. i'd be surprised if the republicans are close to parity. you see the spending on television and see the disparity. the grassroot ground operations that are going on in the state you well know costs millions and
millions of unreported dollars that will be funneled and charged by the unions. you know that. that's totally true. >> no, i don't know that. no, it's not true. if you're trying to equate the money that has come into this state to boots on the ground funding that is two different worlds. the unions have spent a fraction of what has come into this state. it's not even close. and so that's a pretty good attempt to say that it's a level playing field. it simply is not. >> it is certainly a contentious race in wisconsin. it is not -- i don't know, ed. we've been talking about recount all day. we'll see whether that actually happens. certainly we'll be discussing the implications of the results for some days if not months and weeks to come. thank you for your report live there, your insight and wisdom. we can't wait to get you back to new york city and pepper you with even more questions. >> thank you. >> be sure to tune in for the latest news out of wisconsin. "the ed show" will be live there tonight at both 8:00 and 11:00
p.m. eastern time. ed schultz, thank you, sir. up next, should the president be running against mitt romney or the republican party? we'll debate that next. [ male announcer ] when this hotel added aflac to provide a better benefits package... oahhh! [ male announcer ] it made a big splash with the employees. [ duck yelling ] [ male announcer ] find out more at... [ duck ] aflac! [ male announcer ] ...forbusiness.com. ♪ ha ha! more than 50 times a day? so brighten your smile a healthy way with listerine® whitening plus restoring rinse. it's the only rinse that makes your teeth two shades whiter and two times stronger. ♪ listerine® whitening... power to your mouth.
it is recall day in wisconsin, and we're just getting into the middle of a heated debate about what that actually means for labor and the middle class. you were making some points about what's happening in wisconsin. but i want to ask from the perspective from the republican party. >> sure. >> because we really don't know what's going to happen this evening.
>> definitely not. >> if walker is recalled -- >> yeah. >> -- is that not a repudiation of sort of the republican party platform at present in terms of how to deal with the economy? how bad it is for the party if he is, in fact, recalled? >> the recall scenario for scott walker is an untenable thing for the republican party, and that's why you're seeing our leadership across the board for a long time being extraordinarily engaged in trying to help this good man who has helped commonsense reforms in his state win. i don't want to go down the path of whether we could win or lose, clearly this will be a close race. but it will be a major setback for leader in this country who are trying to address structural budget reform challenges facing states that need to be faced. these are hard decisions. these are not easy things to do. pu the implications of a walker loss are unthink anl as much as our belief is that these kinds of reforms he's made are critic aal to modernizing the one size fits all broken bureaucratic
mentality. it has broad implications. >> a lot of people have criticized walker -- for a number of reasons. even people who agree that harsh cuts have to be made saying they were on fairly on the back was of democratic principles and maybe if he'd taken a bipartisan approach or the cuts had are more fairly distributed then there wouldn't have been as much outcry. i wonder if that's a piece of wisdom that republicans -- >> maybe the state senators shouldn't have fled the state to not show up for the debate. here are some basic facts. at the core he's asking state employees to contribute 5.8% of their salary up from 1%, to pay 12% of their health care insurance premiums up from 6% and don't make joining a union compulsory and have your dues taken out for political purpose ps. those don't sound radical, they don't sound crazy. these are commonsense measures that will insure fiscal
responsibility for his state. with respect to ed, he's balanced the budget, what's not to like? that's why i think he'll win this race. >> let me say something, because what's interesting is that collective bargaining and labor issues have not actually dominated the faceup between barrett and walker because folks are maybe on the fence. barrett's had a hard time getting out the labor vote -- or at least getting the support of the labor movement because a lot of them are sort of questioning how he will handle the budget crisis if he were to become governor. >> another reason you haven't heard so much about it is it's been happening so long. you were talking about graphs and lines, this destruction of the labor movement in the u.s. has been happening since the 1970s. another line that you can lay on is the shrinking income and the labor share of the pie which has been on decline since the '70s now at a record low. in terms of what this means for republican economic strategy going forward, i don't see how you can have a thriving u.s. economy when the 70% of people
in the middle don't have enough money to spend. so i think that that is a core issue here. i'd also just -- i love the point you made about unions earlier and another thing they brought us was the weekend. i think we can all appreciate that. >> i thank the unions for that. jonathan, you were talking about whether or not the president should have gone to wisconsin. you know, how this plays out on the presidential stage is very interesting. gerald sibe writing in "the wall street journal" saying that mitt romney can run independent of the gop, the gop is seen as obstructionist and maybe having draconian poll sis and americans aren't sure whether they like or not, mitt romney exists above that. until recently, team obama strategy has focused more on mitt romney, his character, his background. is it a good idea to start to begin to tie him to the broader republican party? >> sure. >> especially depending on what happens in wisconsin. >> mitt romney can try to float above it as long as he can, but he is the titular head of the
republican party. what people do in statehouses, what people do in the house and in the senate -- when i say people i mean republicans -- it reflects on him. we talk about the social bills that are coming up in the house. those are headaches for mitt romney. he doesn't want to talk about those things. if he could, i bet he'd love for everyone, every republican in this country to talk about the economy, only the economy and only on the message that he wants them to talk about. and that's just not going to happen. and i think it would be smart and i think we are going to see the obama campaign yoke mitt romney and the congressional gop and other gop leaders doing all of these, you know, not just called crazy things, tie them around his neck and link the two. because that's the only way they're going to be able to slow the momentum that romney has. >> let me ask you something, phil, because this is always good and fun to play bill clinton sound on this show.
listen to that groan or was that a cheer? i don't know. bill clinton yesterday giving some, i think, actual strategic advice to the obama re-election campaign in terms of how to deal with the europe question. >> who would have thought after years and years and years even decades in which the republican right attacked old europe that they would embrace the economic policies of the eurozone? austerity and unemployment now at all costs. i mean, after all, their unemployment rate's 11% and ours is 8. we can get right up there if we just adopt their policies. >> that's it, right? >> right. >> that was -- the republicans have talked about europe in terms of socialism, but what's happening in europe is an economic crisis, which you could argue has been brought on or exacerbated by austerity measures. >> which is predicated on the lack of any kind of economic growth driven by a bunch of
european country that are dependent on social welfare and government spending programs, right? if you look at the outsized growth of government spending and the tentacle in a lot of these eurozone countries, that's a preview of coming attractions we want to avoid. how do we get there? we create an environment that lowers regulatory burden and cuts taxes and failure to create jobs. >> i have a lot of issues with cut taxes -- in the 1950s we had a lot higher taxes and a lot higher growth. that argument doesn't work. it is much more complicated than we hear it expressed. germany is a high growth country and it is part of the problem as well. it has a complicated relationship about w its neighbors. you got spend in the short term in europe to grow. they're going to do that. they'll have to change tacks. that's an excellent point for clinton to draw out. >> in terms of attack for the president to take, here it is,
tying mitt romney to the republican party, tying him to the plan to -- the paul ryan budget effectively, the evidence, hard evidence, painful evidence that austerity hasn't worked depending on how you spin it. do you think that that's something that team obama will take up with gusto? >> yeah, not just team obama tying romney to this stuff, it's the congressional republicans, the republican party base and the sort of thought influences voices on the republican side who will tie mitt romney to this stuff. romney has an unusually small amount of latitude for a republican nominee to break with his party. the paul ryan budget is a good example. it is political poison for the republicans, but mitt romney has no choice but to say that he embraces and he supports and as president he would sign the paul ryan budget or something like it. that's music to democrats' ears. democrats aren't making him do that. mitt romney has to do that because if he does not send the signal to the republican base that you are getting an
authentic conservative president who will sign authentic conservative legislation, they'll go sleep on him. >> it has been character assassination across the board. the reality is if you look at the right direction, wrong track in this country, it's 58-33, of the 33 who think we're going in the right direction, president obama's doing great. we won't win that vote. of the balance, mitt romney is leading 3-1 with those thinking the country is going in the wrong direction. people are listening for alternatives. and the mitt romney challenge is starting to articulate what an administration would look like while in the peanut gallery you have president clinton -- >> ha. i just gave you a chris matthews style ha, because nobody puts baby in the corner. we hear your point. we'll be discussing more about that divide between americans. a new poll is showing that we as a country are more divided than ever? we're going to unpack that bad
and also to build my career. so i'm not about to always let my frequent bladder urges, or the worry my pipes might leak get in the way of my busy lifestyle. that's why i take care, with vesicare. once-daily vesicare can help control your bladder muscle and is proven to treat overactive bladder with symptoms of frequent urges and leaks day and night. if you have certain stomach or glaucoma problems, or trouble emptying your bladder, do not take vesicare. vesicare may cause allergic reactions that may be serious. if you experience swelling of the face, lips, throat or tongue, stop taking vesicare and get emergency help. tell your doctor right away if you have severe abdominal pain, or become constipated for three or more days. vesicare may cause blurred vision, so use caution while driving or doing unsafe tasks.
common side effects are dry mouth, constipation, and indigestion. i've worked hard to get to where i am... and i've got better places to go than always going to the bathroom. so take charge of your symptoms by talking to your doctor and go to vesicare.com for a free trial offer. oh! seriously?! ♪ [ male announcer ] hunger getting to you? oh... [ male announcer ] grab a ritz crackerfuls. made with real peanut butter and whole grain. mmmm [ male announcer ] get hunger before it gets you. that's good morning, veggie style. hmmm. for half the calories plus veggie nutrition. could've had a v8. we love theme parks but with four kids, it can just be too expensive. yeah, so to save money we just made our own. oh no! what could be worse than ninety-foot swells?! typhoon! first prize!
it's a cheese grater. wooooo... this isn't scary. are you kidding me? look at that picture of your mom's hair from the '80s. there's an easier way to save. wooohooo... geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. a new pew finds that americans are more divided than in the last 25 year. they asked values questions on social safety nets, environment and administration. republicans averaged a ten-point gap. that gap has been steadily increasing to now stand at 18 points. steve, i'm trying to come up with a positive spin on this, but there actually isn't one. we know this election is going to be incredibly close largely because it's going to be a sliver of folks that the democrats and the republicans
are going to be fighting over? >> yeah what this reflects is just a long-term historical trend that you see the top of the political world. look at congress. there use to the be ideologically fluid in congress, conservative democrats, under the same party banner. bob taft guys, they'd be in the same party, too. so there would be a lot of mixed messages coming up on questions of ideology so for the average voter it was possible to pick and choose, i agree with this party here, that party there. they've really kind of synced up now where the democrats have a clear ideology, clear unified positions on most issues, a few outliars. the republicans are a cohesive idyll idylliccally strong party with a strong relidge ow influence. people watching this are really going to pick sides and you'll get the kind of division -- >> i would say there are a couple of thins that work the enhance that.
mann and ornstein in their book talk about how it has disproportionately gone to the right. you look at how the system works whether through the jer remandering of election districts that they can only get re-elected if they appeal to the base and the influence of money in politics. >> and here's another factor. the middle is gone. the middle has been driven out both in the democratic party, the blue dogs, remember, during the health care fight, pushed out. and certainly republican moderates are like the dinosaur now. they are almost extinct. i think of susan collins and might be the only one who's left. so now you have, particularly in the republican party, the far right tea party ideologically driven folks in the congress and they're being elected by people who are ginned up on these far right, far left extremes. >> phil's going to stay quiet on that one, i think. >> were your eyes crossing? i just want to know.
>> no, i largely think our country has, you know, gone on a partisan split, and it's unfortunate, okay? i'm one of these -- my personal view is that a romney administration would bring in a new president who actually would work with democrat in good faith, republican in good faith to bring some big solutions, but the polarization of politic in this country is a trend that i hope is not a permanent trend in our country because it's not healthy for accomplishment of broader goals. >> even watching speaker boehner and the trouble he's having keeping his caucus together to follow his lead, you think a president romney could succeed where speaker boehner can't? >> i do. based on his work as governor, i do. >> working with democrats, we haven't seen what it's like working with hard core republicans, but who knows we're going to see that work in action. coming up, a reported drone strike on a top al qaeda leader is serving as fresh reminder of the obama administration's use of covert military operations. we'll discuss the president's secret engagements when david
sanger joins the panel. for three hours a week, i'm a coach. but when i was diagnosed with prostate cancer... i needed a coach. our doctor was great, but with so many tough decisions i felt lost. unitedhealthcare offered us a specially trained rn who helped us weigh and understand all our options. for me cancer was as scary as a fastball is to some of these kids. but my coach had hit that pitch before. turning data into useful answers. we're 78,000 people looking out for 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare.
i would not say i'm into it, but let's see where this goes. [ buzzer ] do you like to travel? i'm all about "free travel," babe. that's what i do. [ buzzer ] balance transfers -- you up for that? well... too soon? [ female announcer ] fortunately, there's an easier way with creditcards.com. compare hundreds of cards from every major bank, and find the one that's right for you. creditcards.com. it's simple. search, compare, and apply.
the economy needs manufacturing. machines, tools, people making stuff. companies have to invest in making things. infrastructure, construction, production. we need it now more than ever. chevron's putting more than $8 billion dollars back in the u.s. economy this year. in pipes, cement, steel, jobs, energy. we need to get the wheels turning.
i'm proud of that. making real things... for real. ...that make a real difference. ♪ u.s. officials are working to confirm if a drone strike in pakistan monday killed al qaeda's second in command. pakistani officials report the libyan-born abu yahya al libi was in the north waziristan house that was hit by two drone missiles. "confront and conceal" is a new book out today about drone strikes and cyberwar. joining me now is the author of the book, chief washington correspondent for "the new york times" david sanger. david, great to have you on the show. >> great to be here, alex. >> a lot to talk about. let's start with the drone strike since that's relatively new. you talk about the obama doctrine in the book and you say when confronted with the direct threat to american security
obama has shown he's willing to act unilaterally in a targeted get in and get out fashion that avoids at all costs the messy ground wars and lengthy oupgs that have drained america's treasury and spirit for the past decades. you call the drone strikes the dark side of the light footprint. do you get a sense that there is a debate within the administration about the morality of this? >> i think they're pretty well past that debate. i think that in the early days of the obama administration, there was a lot of discussion about whether or not you could do signature strikes, which was something that the "times" broke back in 2008. this is where president bush determined that if you saw a motorcade that looked suspiciously like it was an al qaeda group, you could strike the motorcade without knowing exactly who's in it. they're now sort of going back a little bit in that direction. i think the argument within the obama administration right now is how far down do you go into
the al qaeda leadership -- >> right. >> -- before you're killing who is somebody's driver and then gets promoted? and how much of a direct threat do you have to show that they pose to the united states? >> what's interesting, you also make this point sort of about the president's position, his stance. i wouldn't say the lack of transparency although that goes without saying that on matters of national security and counterterrorism there needs to be a certain veil of secrecy. but obama has left the matter for others to argue about and has often hidden behind the secrecy surrounding both programs. in doing so he's left a hole in the middle of the obama doctrine and lost an opportunity to explain why america acts the way it does around the globe. i thought of that, then i also recalled "the new york times" story i think it was about a week ago talking about the kill list. mr. obama is a liberal law professor who campaigned against the iraq war and torture and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding kill list poring over terrorist suspect' biographies on what one
official calls the macabre baseball cards of an unconventional war. >> this is the paradox of the obama administration. you have a law professor who thinks pretty deeply about these. he thinks about the kill lists. and i think one of the reasons he has asked to make sure that he goes through these lists, particularly for yemen, a place where, you know, there's some more doubt about who you're hitting is that i think he wants to sort of rein it in. but in the drone area and the cyber area that i write about, he was raising questions, how do we limit collateral damage? how what kind of precedent does this set when someone strikes back at us. one day someone will have a drone they bring into united states territory. people have cyberweapons and they're attacking the u.s. every day. not in the way that olympic games, the program against iran attacked iranian infrastructure, but they still do attacks.
so i think he is conflicted by these, but i do believe, as i wrote in this, they hide behind the secrecy of both programs particularly the cyber program to not discuss it. so the united states has never acknowledged ever using a cyber weapon. for drones, you can't deny it. i mean, you see the result. >> yeah, but it's also a question as to how the president's constituents deal with this. steve, we've talked about the very uncomfortable position i think this puts a lot of folks on the left. there have been to some degree a lack of discussion about this i think because it's hard for people to wrap their heads around. this idea that president obama's continuing and in some cases amplifying the programs put in place by the bush administration on -- >> he amplified all of them. >> or all of them. >> it seems like you talk about missing the opportunity to have the discussion with the american people to explain some of these things, and part of me, sort of the cynical part of me says
that's to avoid what you are talking about, if you expose this, if the democrat party base was revolted when all the revelations about george w. bush came out really grasped some of the things going on -- he had that kill list store pep an item in there that said when these drone strikes take place and time to tally up the amount that were killed, any male usually, any male in an area of come watt is considered an enemy combatant. you don't know how many of them could possibly be innocent. you're just saying if you're male, you deserved it. that's the accounting system we're using for tallying these things up. i don't know that people on the left or anywhere really know that. >> and to your point cyberwar far is something the administration does not acknowledge public include but is absolutely happening. the cyberattacks on iran stole data about the nuclear facilities but also destroyed thousands of centrifuges. >> that's right. and that's the fascinating element of what president bush handed to president obama.
it was a program that stretches back over four years. it was a way to get inside the computer system that has really walled off from the rest of the world. and it did manage to destroy the centrifuges. now, the question is how long did it set the iranians back? and the cia estimates are 18 months to two years. part of the effort here, alex, was simply to bring the israelis who are working on this project with the u.s. into something that would convince them that there was an alternative to bombing iran. >> as you also mention, part of the reluctance to acknowledge that cyberwarfare was going on because once you tell people -- once you acknowledge you are conducting cyberwarfare, you increase americans' vulnerabilities to -- >> that's right. the idea is that the u.s. does this under restricted rules, the chinese, some russians, some hackers sitting in romania, they may not follow those same rules. but it's very hard to convince people about rules of a program
you aren't convinced exists. >> i'm sure those hacker in romania have found my computer. the book is "confront and conceal." david sanger, honor to have you on set. >> delighted to be here. >> a great book. recommended reading. >> thank you. after the break, democrats and republicans spar over fair pay while mitt romney stays mum. i'm a marathon runner, in absolute perfect physical condition and i had a heart attack right out of the clear blue... i'm on an aspirin regimen... and i take bayer chewables. [ male announcer ] be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. he's my success story. [ laughs ]
and how much the people in your life count on you. that's why we offer accident forgiveness... man: great job. where your price won't increase due to your first accident. we also offer a hassle-free lifetime repair guarantee, where the repairs made on your car are guaranteed for life or they're on us. these are just two of the valuable features you can expect from liberty mutual. plus, when you insure both your home and car with us, it could save you time and money. at liberty mutual, we help you move on with your life. so get the insurance responsible drivers like you deserve. looks really good. call... or visit your local liberty mutual office, where an agent can help you find the policy that's right for you. liberty mutual insurance. responsibility. what's your policy?
really? 25 grams of protein. what do we have? all four of us, together? 24. he's low fat, too, and has 5 grams of sugars. i'll believe it when i--- [ both ] oooooh... what's shakin'? [ female announcer ] as you get older, protein is an important part of staying active and strong. ensure high protein... fifty percent of your daily value of protein. low fat and five grams of sugars. see? he's a good egg. [ major nutrition ] ensure high protein... ensure! nutrition in charge!
what if i can't lose the weight? what if weight watchers can't help me? what if i'm not ready for change? what if i fall back into old habits? what if i lose control? what if i gain it all back? what if there's always an excuse why i can't? what if i can't follow through? what if i fail? shhh. there's only one voice worth listening to and that's the one saying you can do this. i'm standing here still in control of my weight with weight watchers, telling you to believe in that voice. join for $1. weight watchers. believe. because it works. it really disturbs me, rachel, when i hear people that's voted in to office in washington and they will vote against something that would help most american families across this nation. >> that was fair pay advocate lily ledbetter on the "rachel maddow show" last night. she questioned whether lawmakers are protecting half the people
that put them into office. it will be put to test when discusses a procedural vote to reduce the pay gap between men and women. democrats support it but republicans are vowing to dead it. joining us democratic senator from maryland, barbara mikulski, the bill's main sponsor. great to see you. >> hi there, alex. we've got a big day here and a big vote. >> you do indeed. let me ask you off the bat, are you surprised at the republican resistant to this? or are they surprised at how they haven't really been able to spin it that well? >> well, i've been -- i've been surprised at how they don't support equal pay for equal work, how they continue to muzzle their more moderate members who often seek a bipartisan solution and how they would hide behind procedure to maintain the status or the stagnant quo in the issues
around wage discrimination. i thought every american wanted to be sure that you got equal pay for equal work if you're doing the same job, have the same education and the same seniority. >> senator, i got to ask you on the flip side, of course, critics are saying this has become a game of tit for tat between those in congress who are putting forward bills they know have no chance for package but in order to win political votes. it's a chance to draw out republicans and make them look like they are in fact continuing the war on women. how do you respond to that? >> i'll tell you why i brought this bill up. i've been fighting for this equal pay for equal work for a long time. june 10th will be the 40th anniversary of the equal pay for equal work. in the civil rights act. in those 40 years we've only gained 18 cents. we now make 77 cents, we women,
for the same job that men do who make a dollar. in 1963, we made 59 cents. 49 years later we are pretty mad about this. we are stymied because there are so many loophole in the bill and the paycheck fairness bill closes the loopholes. for example, if you even ask the person next to you how much they're making who's doing the same job, you can be retaliated against, you can be fired, you can get a pink slip. that's just not fair. we want to close that kind of loophole. >> i want to open this up to my fellow panelists here. when the senator talks about those figures just how far we haven't come in terms of equal pay for the same job, you know, how do you make an argument against -- proposals like this, the lilly ledbetter fair pay act? we've watched mitt romney's delicate ballet around this
issue. we'll talk about that in a second. but this is something you would thing there could be some amount of bipartisan agreement on? >> that's too much to hope for. i would imagine that a republican argument might be this is extra regulation, more red tape. it's particularly urgent because women only gain 16% of all the jobs created in the recovery. that's not down to bad obama policies, let me say that, but because of money spent bringing manufacturing back and those jobs have disproportionately favored men. but this is a particularly important moment to make sure that women are receiving equal pay for equal work. >> senator, i want to play some comments made by your colleague harry reid regarding mitt romney's position on this. let's hear that sound. let's take a listen. >> even mitt romney has refused to publicly oppose this legislation. he may oppose it, but he's afraid to say anything about it. why? because it's obvious why.
he should show some leadership. in my opinion governor romney, and tell his fellow republicans that opposing fair pay for all americans is shameful. >> now, senator, the romney camp released a statement yesterday saying, of course, governor romney supports pay equity for women. in order to have pay equity women need to have jobs and they've been getting crushed in the anemic obama economy. as president mitt romney will create a pro jobs business climate that will put all americans back to work. we use the phrase "delicate ballet." how has the romney campaign handled this issue over the last months? >> i believe there's words and there's deeds. if romney was really serious about equal pay for equal work, he'd be working the phones today. he'd be on the phone with mitch mcconnell, the republican leader, saying let's move this bill forward, let's put this issue to rest. he would be calling wavering
republicans and saying, look, when i'm president, i want women to get equal pay for equal work, but let's start now. vote for this bill and let's get our economy going. instead he's out there giving speeches and we're on the floor advocating legislative remedies. we're the deed people, they're the word people. >> you know, jonathan, we look at what happened on the student loan debate, which is to say that mitt romney came out and said, the interest rates can't go up. and effectively republicans in congress had to fall in line. he could theoretically as a senator say, i am for pay equity, and this should go forward and, of course, co-signing to a democratic piece of legislation is not something he's likely to do, but in terms of the issue and saying this is a priority, we've got to account for the discrepancy between women's wages and men's wages as long as they're unfair. >> well, this is the one issue where you called it a delicate ballet that the governor has been dancing on this issue. this gets back to something we
talked about earlier in the show where you're trying to tie what senator reid, majority leader reid said in that clip about where is governor romney and senator mikulski saying where is governor romney working the phones, tying congressional action to the titular head of the republican party, linking him to something that he clearly doesn't want to talk about, but what's interesting, this is an economic issue, this is about paychecks, about families, this is about putting food on the table, which plays to the wheelhouse that he's been pushing, governor romney's been pushing, yet his actions, it makes it seem as though he's viewing this primarily as a social issue than an economic issue. >> that is the problem. senator barbara mikulski, thank you so much for your time. we'll be following the passage, the fate of the bill, as it unwinds today. coming up the prop 8 debate.
minutes away from a key court ruling on california's same-sex marriage ban. ♪ i'd like to thank eating right, whole grain, multigrain cheerios! mom, are those my jeans? [ female announcer ] people who choose more whole grain tend to weigh less than those who don't. multigrain cheerios tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 let's talk about that 401(k) you picked up back in the '80s. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 like a lot of things, the market has changed,
tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and your plans probably have too. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 so those old investments might not sound so hot today. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 at charles schwab, we'll give you personalized recommendations tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 on how to reinvest that old 401(k) tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and help you handle all of the rollover details. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 so talk to chuck tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and bring your old 401(k) into the 21st century. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 that's good morning, veggie style. hmmm. for half the calories plus veggie nutrition. could've had a v8.
welcome back. we're getting breaking news about an appeals court ruling on california's prop 8. pete williams is live in washington with the details. pete? >> well, a federal appeals court has decided it will not hear the appeal of an earlier court decision that found prop 8 unconstitutional. what that means now is there's nothing standing in the way of the proponents of proposition 8 now asking the full supreme court, the u.s. supreme court to hear this case. if the supreme court were to agree to take this up, then it would likely be argued probably next spring, some time perhaps maybe february or march, but let's talk about some more immediate impacts. so remember the history here.
2010, a federal judge finds prop 8 unconstitutional. that's the voter-approved proposition that found marriage in california to be only a man and a woman, amended the state constitution. the judge struck it down. then a federal appeals court earlier this year agreed that it's unconstitutional. the proponents of proposition 8 asked the full 9th circle court of appeals to hear this case. we've just learned that the full court has decided not to hear it, the majority of the judges decided not to hear it. interestingly, the order says only one judge would have heard the case. we don't know if that means there was only one judge, but only one judge noted that he would have heard the case. however, the court also said it's putting the effect of its order today on hold for at least 90 days. so that means that marriages in california cannot go ahead in spite of this ruling for at least 90 days and that if the proposition 8 proponents decide to ask the supreme court to take
the case, then that stay would continue until the case is finally disposed of by the supreme court. >> pete williams, thank you for the update. we'll be following this story as it develops. thng, to phil, jonathan, rana and steve. that's all for now. see you tomorrow. andrea mitchell reports. she's here now. she has the queen's speech and has been following all the pomp and circumstance. we can't wait to see it. good day to you. >> good day to you, thanks so much, alex. i'm andrea mitchell live in washington. we continue our special live coverage of the queen's diamond jubilee. we'll hear her address to parliament in a few moments. she'll be addressing her subjects. but day four of festivities and tributes only slightly marred by, of course, the sudden illness of the queen's husband prince philip. earlier today the queen and the family attended a service at st. paul's ka theed ra. afterwards they rode back to
buckingham palace in an open carriage processional. thousands greeted them when they emerged on the palace balcony. the morning began with a display by the forces red arrows. joining us now martin bashir, host of "the martin bashir" show. andrew, first to you, talk to me about what went on today, what we saw, what we didn't see and the significance of the queen's jubilee? >> most fantastic day. a really, really successful day, despite the weather. what we didn't see, of course, was prince philip who has got a bladder infection and has been unwell since he stood for four hours in the rain on sunday watching a thousand boats go down the river thames. we also saw last night an amazing pop concert, a firework display, 4,000 beacons from one
side of the country to the other being lit. and today we also saw around a million people braving the rain in order to come here and to cheer the queen on her 60th anniversary of her coming to the throne. >> and martin bashir, you've lived here, you've lived there. talk about this queen and what she has meant to people on this side of the atlantic. >> oh, she's been a remarkable public servant. today the archbishop of canterbury in his address at st. paul's cathedral, the service of thanksgiving today talked about the life of duty, service and sacrifice. those characteristics have marked the entirety of her reign. it's worth remembering that the first time she was on the balcony at buckingham palace was with winston churchill, her first prime minister, and then today, of course, she was seen with other close members of the royal family out there today marking the fly past by the royal air force and the 60-gun
salute by the king's troop, but she represents, in a way, stability and the robustness of public service. remember, that this is somebody whose life has been given not just to the united kingdom but also to the commonwealth of which something like 14 or 15 nations still regard her as queen. and because of that she's revered and respected. it's been a life of sacrifice and dedication. and i think that's why people have such a high and warm regard for her. and if you look, andrea, at the latest opinion polling, it's been all about -- sorry. she's speaking now. >> and now to the queen's address. >> such a happy atmosphere. prince philip and i want to take this opportunity to offer our special thanks and appreciation to all those who have had a hand in organizing these jubilee celebrations. it has been a massive challenge,
and i'm sure that everyone who has enjoyed these festive occasions realizes how much work has been involved. i hope that memories of all this year's happy events will brighten our lives for many years to come. i will continue to treasure and draw inspiration from the countless kindnesses shown to me in this country and throughout the commonwealth. thank you all. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> as we