tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC March 12, 2013 1:00am-2:00am PDT
that has been out there, but this new experiment gives it a little bit more weight, doesn't it? >> it does give it more weight, because what it does is it not only identifies a vehicle that could bring the organic compounds to the planet, but it also shows that they could not only have developed in space, but that the cosmic radiation in space is a catalyst for making these elements come together to create these building blocks of the amino acids. we are sort of putting this piece together with another piece together that makes it possible for us to create, let's say, a scenario that could possibly have caused this to happen. >> another recent study says that it's fairly common for both comets and planets to exist together around other stars. what is the significance of that? >> well, there is a couple of piece that are significant there, ed. it is that, number one, we are now allowing for the possibility that there are many more planets in our galaxy than we ever thought of before. in fact, it now seems unusual to consider a star without planets. now, the comets and the planets
together everywhere around the galaxy means there are many more chances for the possibility of these organic molecules to be delivered to another planet and perhaps providing other material that could develop into other planets into more complex organic materials that might eventually develop into life. we haven't seen anything like that yet but at least it opens the possibility to a much more broader possibility for this kind of development to take place other than earth. that is, if we can find a suitable location. >> quickly, is our research getting better, i mean, with these telescopes that are just fabulous technology? how far have we come in the last five, ten years with that? >> my goodness. the advances that have been made with astronomical telescopes the last two decades are like the
difference between using galileo's telescope one day and using hubble telescope today. an amazing achievement. >> derrick pitts, thanks so much. i'm ed schultz. ezra klein is filling in for rachel maddow tonight. >> thanks to you for joining us tonight. rachel has a very well-deserved night off. we begin tonight with election day. you remember election day when democrats put their plan for taxes and their plan for spending up against the republican plan for taxes and the republican plan for spending? election day. the democrats said we should raise taxes on the wealthy and make targeted spending cuts. republicans said no new taxes at all and cut programs for the poor like medicaid and food stamps and housing system and so on. these were the competing approaches in 2012 on election day. barack obama and joe biden versus mitt romney and republican budget guru, paul ryan.
president obama won on election day. he won with just over 51% of the vote. it wasn't a huge margin but significant and enough we do not have to stay up half the night waiting to results. you want to see the big winner on election day? the idea of raising taxes. on election day more said they should raise taxes than voted for barack obama. 60% said we should raise the revenue for the good of the country and 50% said we should make the rich pay more. another 13% said make everyone pay more. the no taxes, no way, no how, never, huh-uh, crowd did not come close. no one should be surprised that americans say they want higher taxes. as unpopular as the idea of writing bigger checks to uncle sam might sound, in the abstract, americans have been saying that is what they want. at least that is what they want from rich people for a long time now. they have said this over and over and over again. in poll after poll after poll.
from july and august. 2012, 65% of americans said we should raise taxes the way democrats proposed. 32% margin over the no taxes position. in the same period, 44% that responded said raising taxes on the well off would help the economy and only a third said it would hurt the economy. a couple of months later, october, 64% liked the democrats plan for raising taxes on the rich and like it by, a 35-point margin. that is not a poll on taxes. that is a baby slough. we threw there it for fun. they always win the internet. back to taxes. another poll on tax from october 2012. look at this. asking the rich to pay more gets support from 55% of the voters. the margin is closer but 19 points in politics is not all that close. right after the election, a new poll, 60% support higher taxes on the rich and in case you're wondering what message voters said in the election what they meant when they said not mitt
romney, check this out a december poll in which 65% of those asked said president obama has a mandate to raise taxes. likewise that same month, 57% said we should let the bush taxes expire and raise taxes. last month on the other side of the equation on spending, 82% said do not cut medicare and more people said don't cut social security. 87% wanted social security left alone. except for foreign aid they weren't into cutting much of anything at all. with all of this evidence showing the americans prefer the democrats approach to the federal budget to the republican approach, you would think the last thing republicans would want, the thing they would be most afraid of is another fight between the democratic and republican budgets. republicans have the clearly less popular position here. but after the election when they had lost it at every single level and decided to back down in congress over the debt
ceiling the one thing they wanted and something they have wanted for years now, the one thing they demanded is for senate democrats to give them a budget. now something important to note here. white house has been hanged out a detailed budget year after year after year. there is not a year they have missed. republicans, every single year, republicans in congress hate it and they oppose it and say it raises too much in taxes and doesn't cut spending enough but it's there. house democrats have also put forward budgets but that is not enough. republicans in the house say the senate democrats, the senate democrats are the folks who need to give them a budget. for some reason, republicans have become really fixated on this idea. senate democrats must produce a budget. it is always winning. house speaker john boehner is so excited about the prospect of the budget that is coming now from the senate democrats, he thinks the moment this happens people will see how much more popular republican policy is.
mr. boehner tweeted this morning americans want spending cuts, quote, are not in a mood to increase taxes. then he linked to this poll. this poll right here. just relieved yesterday. it is about the mandatory spending cuts in the sequester and whether people are noticing them yet and it does include this, quote, generally voters by 53 to 37 prefer to reduce the deficit by cutting programs and services than mostly by raising taxes. one saying, quote, voters are in no mood to increase taxes. that is a real poll that shows finally the republican budget strategy, the republicans want congress and the president to slash spending and not raise another dime in revenues. right? that after months sharing the public wants to raise taxes than take a weed whacker to the budget survey after survey thinking taxes should go up here.
finally a poll saying fire up the weed whacker. go for the spending and no more taxes and fiscal cliff deal was enough. that would be very cheering news for republicans. you would understand exactly why speaker boehner is excited except if you read the poll. this poll, the poll that john boehner really wants you to see, is actually just like all of the other polls. now it's true. voters would rather cut spending for energy than raise taxes and rather cut unemployment insurance than raise taxes which seems to me to be a shame. in those two categories, voters would rather cut money than raise new revenue. but voters say they would rather raise taxes and cut money from medicaid and prefer cutting taxes to money for roads and bridges and transportation. voters say raise taxes instead of cutting money for medicare one of our most popular programs. by an even wider margin voters say we should raise taxes rather than cut social security. grandma and cat food not a popular idea. by an even wider margin than
that, voters say we should raise taxes rather than cut money for schooling. apparently, people like the future. despite john boehner's belief that they are in fashion, this new pole he champions like a lot like the other ones. what do republicans want to do has not gotten more popular. so senate democrats will give them a budget this week. they will get a budget from senate democrats. christmas now. it will be a budget that follows all of this polling with the mix of tax increases and moderate spending cuts that the voting public has time and again said it wants. the polling says spending cuts are by and largely popular and people prefer taxing the wealthy and making fewer cuts to medicare and other programs but republicans seem to convinced themselves deem and seem totally persuaded of something that is not true. in the same way they thought mitt romney was 100% going to win the election in the same way they were with the election republicans are excited about these budgets and persuaded with their approach of dealing with
government spending and deficits they are constructing a reality in which they believe the broad public, the majority feels the way they do. but everybody does not feel the way republicans do. they do not like the republican budgets. it's just not a true fact that they do. so this week, republicans are going to, once again, as it did in the election when they put paul ryan on the ticket, once again, they will get exactly what they want. a fight between their budget and democratic budget. the question is why that is what they want? what is convincing them? this is a good idea? joining us is melissa harris. your name is easy to remember. good to see you. >> nice to see you, ezra. >> why? what is behind the intense republican desire to see a budget from senate democrats and have this fight again? >> well, i suspect there my be a couple of things. one, remember that house republicans are the group of people most insulated from the realities of sort of what the
electorate wants. we remember the electorate wanted president obama over mitt romney and president obama won. they preferred more senate democrats over senate republicans. senate democrats are in control. the public also preferred house democrats over house republicans and yet house republicans remain in control. why? because in 2010 when they redrew the district seeds, they created for themselves very safe and often very skewed districts. so i think when they go home, particularly in the far right, in fact, are hearing from constituents the same echo chamber cut spending, cut spending, cut spending. because they are relatively they can have this fight with relatively little cost to themselves in the 2014 midterm. >> when you poll republicans,
when you break the republicans out of the poll and ask them do you think we should raise taxes as part of a reducing the budget, do you think we should raise taxes on the wealthy or cut medicare or social security, they say raise taxes. something is going to me house republicans are further to the right of their constituents. second, they seem unafraid. of these polls. typically, politicians are afraid of having a lot of people disagree with them particularly when they have just lost an election. you are a professional political scientist. have you a degree in telling me why this would happen. why aren't they more afraid of the majority position here? >> there could be two possibilities. one is let's go back to the baby sloth for a moment. >> i would love to do that. >> remember, the baby sloth the reason we showed it a couple times there i assume is because
it's extremely popular but no one thinks that the american public by liking to look at baby sloths or puppies or panda bears or whatever, they don't think of that as reasonable. many leaders will say, well, sure, the voting public wants this but that is because the voting public is childish and they don't realize you have to cut spending to bring down this deficit so we will give them the medicine they need and they may want to look at the baby sloth all kay but they want to have their cake and eat it too but we have to cut that spending. i think some of them see themselves very brave. certainly we heard that from paul ryan. i think the other thing that that come 2014 when they get to the midterm election cycle they know a way they can spin this and i think it's in that maris poll. you ask about the specific policies people want to keep their medicare and medicaid and keep their education and roads and bridges, but you can say government spending in the
context of, for example, campaign commercials, and you can get support for that. when we hear government spending we have this 1980s versions of the welfare queen who is living high off the hog and i think that is part of why that desire to cut the unemployment insurance, that senses some people aren't working hard and therefore, we shouldn't be extending government assistance to them. a political strategy possible and we're better than our constituents and we will lead them to something that they need. >> melissa harris-perry, i think a very good diagnosis. thanks for being here tonight. one prominent republican does have a plan but it leeches on to president obama's success to reach its goals. that is next. this is america. we don't let frequent heartburn come between us and what we love. so if you're one of them people who gets heartburn and then treats day after day... block the acid with prilosec otc and don't get heartburn in the first place!
i have been looking forward to this week two for a very long time. it is my favorite time of year. my favorite week. it's budget week. it's budget week. the beginning of budget season. that time of the year when americans gather together and wear their traditional week garb pocket protectors and things like that. eat their budget week meal and includes an extremely rich dessert. it's budget week. festivities kick off on the hill tomorrow with the official release of the house republican
budget. the following day, wednesday, senate democrats will celebrate budget week by releasing their budget. there will be dueling budget proposals. appendix tables. what is not to love? the reason why i've been looking forward to this budget week in particular, this republican budget in particular is this. >> we're committed to doing a budget and a ten-year plan to solve our budget crisis and to balance our budget. and, frankly, i think it's time for the senate and the white house to produce a budget that will balance over the next ten years. >> a balanced budget in just a decade. and, of course, the guy in charge of crafting the republicans house budget is paul ryan. congressman ryan is also the chairman of the house budget committee and the reason why it was so exciting to learn the republicans plan to balance the budget in ten years, is because this is way faster than paul
ryan's original deadline for balancing the budget. in congressman ryan's last plan, we wouldn't have had a balanced budget for 25 years, until almost 2040. when i learned he plans to do the same thing in a mere ten years, that he has shaved 15 years off that timetable, how? what was he going to cut? what new things would be in his budget? what sort of cuts were we in for and what did i have to look forward on budget week? today on budget day eve we have learned some details how he plans to do it. it turns out paul ryan is balancing his budget in ten short years, in large part, by letting president obama raise taxes. watch. >> the plan that you're going to release tuesday would balance the budget in ten years, not 25 years, like your last one. how do you do that? do you have to make even tougher, deeper spending cuts? >> actually, not really.
>> let's look, congressman, at a couple of the reasons that you don't have it make big changes in this new budget to balance it in ten years. you include the 600 billion dollars as you just mentioned in tax increases that came from raising rates from the fiscal cliff debate. you also include 716 billion dollars in medicare cuts through obama care that you opposed in this last campaign. question. is it fair to say that at least those parts of the president's policies make it easier to balance the budget? >> it is fair to say that. >> it is, indeed, fair to say that. paul ryan on fox news sunday with chris wallace. he went on to say his budget assumes the repeal of obama care and that statement from him that he is going to repeal obama care in his budget got a lot of headlines today and caused fox news anchor to do a bit of a double take in the interview. >> are you saying that as part of your bug, you would repeal, you assume the repeal of the obama care? >> yes. >> well, that's not going to happen.
>> well, we believe it should. that is the point. that is -- this is what budgeting is all about, chris. it's about making tough choices to fix our country's problems. >> paul ryan, though, he is not actually repealing all of obama care. he is repealing the part that gives people health insurance but keeping as he has in his other budgets the tax increases in obama care and the medicare cuts. those same medicare cuts that he and mitt romney ran against in the election. he repeals the care part and keeps the costing you more money part. when you put all of that together and you add in some tactical stuff about how congress's budget and score keepers have made the underlying estimates a bit optimistic when you put that together mr. ryan won't have to do much at all to balance his budget in ten years. all he has got to do is make peace with a bunch of obama increases in medicare cuts a number of times he and his party have bitterly opposed. that is the irony of ryan's budget this year.
the reason he can get it anywhere balance any time soon is republicans have passed a bunch of policies including tax increases and medicare cuts that ryan's party have sworn to. it's an interesting take on bipartisanship. i will denounce your policies in public but then i will use them in my plans. but in budget season, the happiest and most surprising time of the year, anything can happen. joining is peter orszag. peter, it's good to have you here. your family must be very excited about budget week. >> you have your mom here for this great event! >> indeed. >> everyone is celebrating. >> i want to talk to you about the goal here, balancing the budget. this has become a big thing for chairman ryan. what is the -- what is the argument for getting the budget balanced in ten years? i think intuitively we should have a balanced budget but a lot thinking hitting the target is
not that important. >> probably hitting it that soon is probably a mistake. what we want over time is get our fiscal house in order, by which i seen debt is no longer exploding as a share of the economy and that doesn't actually require balancing the budget and doesn't require it over a ten-year window. >> and what happens? you're saying that if you balance a budget or if you cut the deficit too quickly it can be counterproductive. what do you mean by that? what do you expect to be the consequences of the budget here? >> well, the problem with cutting the budget too soon when the economy is still weak and unemployment rate is high is that that can exacerbate. we want more stimulus up front and coupled with a lot of deficit reduction phased in gradually over time and gradually put us on a slow path and not the combination we will get from the ryan budget tomorrow.
>> i doubt it is. one of the things i thought was striking in that interview he did with wallace, was when it came to obama care, he said for at least the coverage side of it what he wanted to do is get it out of there. he thought the right policy is not have it there and as such that policy is reflected in his budget. when asked about the fiscal tax increases he said he didn't want to revisit that. that is settled law. it seems to be an admission the awful things republicans have been saying will happen if we raise any taxes in this economy are not happening, will not happen, at least from this level of tax increase. and actually at this point they are happy to have that extra money in the budget so they can get their budget where they want it to be. >> i think that's right. although you have to remember, i mean, the ryan budget will have a series of magic asterisks in it. a massive assumption what happens to medicaid spending and medicare and nothing which is
going to happen. what they are doing by xeping the revenue is dialing back ever so slightly the size of the magic asterisk. >> he is a "wall street journal" op-ed out tonight where they talk about it they want a tax reform that brings the it down to two rates only. 10% and 25%. he is not going to say in this budget how. he says forthcoming showing how. that seems to be a very difficult thing to do in a mildly progressive way. >> it's mathematically possible to bring down rates for high earners when you move to a rate structure like that without raising rates on low and middle income people if you're going to keep revenue constant. it's just not mathematically possible. so the trick in all of these tax plans is typically that there are some hidden, you know, shell somewhere because you can't accomplish all of the objectives at the same time. either it's a massive revenue loss or increase in revenue from
middle and lower income taxpayers period. >> i want to just ask you about this sequester quickly. we have in the coming months, we have these resolutions to fund the government and stop the government shutdown and after that we have another debt ceiling question coming up in the summer some time. do you think that one of these will actually force some sort of replacement for the sequester or do you think we are actually going to have this policy going forward? >> i think the level of spending under the sequester may be perpetuated but with reallocation across the categories. even the democrats, be clear, even the democrats are locking into a revenue base that implies pretty steep redeductions in spend in the part of the budget set by 2018 and 20. i think it's hard to make the numbers work even under their approach. it's even worse under the republicans. >> but it's true there is a substantial shift on the right in the democratic party on taxes in recent years, and i think locked in the fiscal cliff deal. >> that's correct. >> peter orszag, thank you for
we are here at the favorite, my favorite part of the show. it is the part where i get to explain anything i want. even things my producers don't really like. in two minutes or less. and, today, tonight, i'm going to tell you about one close to my heart as a californian. how the senate has become one of
the least democratic legislatures in the entire world. all right. do i have my clock? is my clock there? my clock is there. okay. we all know the old civics lesson. the senate is part of the grand messy political compromise it created the united states of america and that compromise as expressed in the constitution is this. the senate of the united states shall be composed of two senators from each state. that means each state no matter how many people live in it, they get two senators and two senators only. not one, not three, not five. so it's not one person one vote in the senate. it is one state, two votes. but as "the new york times" points out today when we founded the nation the united states was composed of $4 million, not 300 million and the difference between the biggest state and the smallest was 11-1. 11-1. today, the difference between the biggest state and the smallest state between california and between wyoming is 66-1.
from 11-1 to 66-1. i want to make this clear how unbelievably ridiculous this will get. the population of connecticut, of iowa, mississippi, arkansas, kansas, idaho, hawaii, maine, new hampshire, north dakota, alaska, vermont and wyoming kind is 38 million people and they have 42 senators. the population of california is 38 million people. they have two. they have two senators. this is an unheralded gap. there is nothing like it in britain or canada or france or denmark. the only countries anything like it according to so robert daal are argentina and russia and brazil. that is it. we are done. i have plenty of time. before we californians start feeling too bad and because i
come from california, i do feel that feeling. i now live in washington, d.c. we don't have a single vote in the senate, much less two. if you get me started on that, it will take me way longer than two minutes. [ male announcer ] if she keeps serving up sneezes... [ sneezing ] she may be muddling through allergies. try zyrtec®. powerful allergy relief for adults and kids six years and older. zyrtec®. love the air.
do you remember a guy named tim plenty? as you may recall he was a republican candidate for the presidency in the not so distant past. tim pawlenty or t-paw as the kids like to call him. he crashed and burnedas and did not do as well as people thought he would. he dropped out of the race really before it began. after placing a incident third in the ames, iowa straw poll he called it quits. the reason he was even considered as a candidate for president, pawlenty tried to rebrand the republican party before many republicans even realized the party needed a rebranding. tim pawlenty came up with a very clever slogan to describe the future of the republican party. a future that cared more about the working man and he tried to i don't that slogan as a
launching point for his candidacy. >> we want to be the party of sam's club, not just the country club. in other words we have to expand our party out by connecting with people in a different way. >> the party of sam's club. not the country club. tim pawlenty wanted the republican party the party of the people and not elite people and said it should represent the common man and not business interests. an entire book is written about it. the republican party loved it. in the republican party in the last decade was the idea put forward by ross and ryan of sam's club republicans based on tim pawlenty's formation. a funny thing happened on the way to sam's club. tim pawlenty, man of the people and man of the middle class interests, not the business interests is now head of the financial services round table. tim pawlenty went from touting sam's club republicanism to
heading up one of the biggest lobbying groups on wall street. oh, t-paw! but he was not the party's only hope. in 2010 the republicans scored an astonishing win during a special election in, of all places, massachusetts. they took back ted kennedy's senate seat. a republican took ted kennedy's seat. that republican was scott brown and he did it driving around the state in his beat up green pickup truck. >> my name is scott brown. i'm running for the united states senate. this is my truck. i put a lot of miles on it during this campaign. >> i love this old truck. it's brought me closer to the people of this state. i want to speak to them as their next united states senator. >> love that truck. scott brown, man of the people. sam's club republican. everybody said scott brown is a kind republican. you would like to have a beer with. he probably would come in his truck. scott brown had the same kind of appeal for the republican party that tim pawlenty did. he was moderate. he could appeal to blue collar americans in blue states who
didn't see themselves as liberal, who wanted somebody that cared about them and their sacrifices but maybe felt the republican party didn't, they felt maybe line the republican party was a bit too close to banks and business interests. scott brown, like tim pawlenty, he could talk to maybe those folks. cot brown eventually lost his senate seat to elizabeth warner and announced now the next chapter in his life. scout brown man of the people and man of the business class interests mr. i drive a truck announced today he is joining a boston law firm where he will cater to wall street clients. the job will allow brown to cash in on his contacts with the, quote, financial services industry on wall street. so there is scott brown smiling ear-to-ear on his first day on the job today. >> i'm scott brown from -- i'm scott brown! i'm from ranthun and i drive a truck!
>> scott brown, you have come a long way. the republican party is in sort of a difficult position right now. because the argument they want to make about democrats is that democrats have become, that they are the party of wall street bailouts. they have gotten into bed with big banks, the financial interests and they have enshrined the idea of too big to fail. republicans, on the other hand, republicans are against too big to fail. no more bailout for the big banks and what republicans want to argue. what we have seen is the banking industry is really, really loving the republican party right now. in 2008, employs at the big wall street banks heavily supported barack obama in his presidential campaign. in 2012, having seen how democrats wanted to regulate them, they completely flipped. they went all in for mitt romney and the republicans. seven. mitt romney's top ten donors were big banks. and wall street didn't just donate to republicans in big numbers. they decided to go out and hire them too. so the issue here is not simply that these populous republicans
turn onto it to be pro bank but the banks turn out to be pro republican and should make you worry a little bit. if you believe as i believe and a lot of people believe the democratic party is too friendly to the banks. the fact the republican party has positioned by becoming even friendlier and republican party is the favorite choice of wall street should cause you probably to become a little alarmed. joining is eliot spitzer. thanks for being here. >> my pleasure to be back. thank you. >> what does a guy like tim pawlenty or scott brown what does he bring to the banks? why do they want to pay him to work for them? >> access. the banks have much at stake here. it's calculated the guarantee for the too big to fail institutions is worth $83 billion per year. about the entirety of their profits. when you line up a tim pawlenty and scott brown and a slew of democrats as well, you can
shroud any statue that has passed and tie it up into a pretsle so a vocal rule that would be important still hasn't been implemented. the banks get toob too big to fail with a guarantee. we found out last week they can't be prosecute and play with everybody's money. >> so what do they want right now? right? because, as you said, that 83 billion dollar number which is calculated by bloomberg, it's in the context even of dodd/frank. and i actually have some concerns about that number. even so, a real feeling dodd/frank was much too light on the bank but they are not coming to democrats and celebrating about it. they are furious. when you talk to them on wall street they feel like their business is being destroyed by washington. so what is it that they think they can get here? >> a bit of acting goes on. in other words they put on public pretense of being upset saying dodd/frank is going to destroy us. recognize what is the same.
the larger banks control a larger share of deposits than before. they have an explicit guarantee. they are better positioned to weather the next storm with taxpayer money than they were before. they pretend they are being beaten up but, in reality, they won the battle when tim geithner said we don't want structural change. barney frank pushed for it. where they are right now is balancing off the allegiance of senior democrats and senior republicans all of whom coalesced to essentially preserve a status quo i think is dangerous for the economy but that is a separate debate. both parties participated in this effort to preserve a structure. >> one thing i think is interesting in the republican party recently is that while you do these sort of pawlenty and brown movement. david vitter, to become talking about breaking up the big banks and say what we have now is uncompetitive.
>> the president of the -- had a great op-ed in the "wall street journal" saying break them up. he is a conservative voice. a strain of populism. it resides in both parties. i think that is where you see the convergence between a vitter and brown or elizabeth warren and i think all are correct. there is that populism. >> what do you think needs to be and what do you think needs to be done about too big to fail? >> i think we should end it. i think the policies that are articulated by fisher in the op-ed today saying you must raise your capital there will not be a guarantee and say to every customer of your banks you must sign a statement knowing you will not be bailed out. so that if your deposit, anything above $2506,000 or
you've bought a credit to fail swap you will not be guaranteed. customers know that they will not be guaranteed. the banks will have to pay more for capital and force them over time to slim down and do you what we did for 50 years, set numerical limits on the size of the asset bank of particular badges to shield the economy from the downside risk of failure. these things are easily done and should be done and i think when we did it for 50 years we didn't have a banking crisis. >> thank you for being here tonight. >> thank you, sir. you couldn't possibly thought i'd get through the show without breaking down one, right? that's never how i roll when i come here. chart illustrates life is straight ahead.
a ban on gun ownership for people accused of domestic violence crimes and expanded background checks. the bill on background checked is headed to the governor. a gunman opened fire on a theater last december in aurora. big changes are happening. so far at the state level. at least in places with democratic control of both chambers as well as democratic governors. we will see what happens at the national level in washington. you can watch this space for more updates. we will be right back. introducing olay fresh effects' unstoppable skincare! when every day is a new adventure there's a new skin care line-up that can keep up. start fresh and finish sparkling 24/7 with new olay fresh effects. ♪
newly minted secretary of defense had his first day off as defense secretary. on the first foreign trip, chuck hagel arrived to terrible news, genuinely terrible news american contractor had been killed by three people in afghan military uniforms. they got on a base in the eastern part of the country and opened fire. they shot and considered an american contractor and wounded others hours before the secretary of defense landed in afghanistan. the following day, one day later, a big deal ceremony was planned to coincide with the secretary's visit. a year ago, the u.s. agreed to hand over control of a big prison to the afghan government. that's the only prison
technically run by the united states military. it is designed to imprison people long term. the u.s. was supposed to hand over control of that prison saturday. that was in the works for a year. journalists gathered for the ceremony, everyone was there. then suddenly it was cancelled. the military isn't saying why exactly it cancelled the handover of the prison. this week, karzai said he wanted to release a lot of those prisoners. the u.s. military says they have things to work out with the afghan government. then after that, they work that stuff out, they will hand over the prison at some point eventually. then on the same day while chuck hagel was in his first high level meeting, there were two suicide bombings, one south of the capital, one in the capital, close to that meeting. that bomber was on a bicycle, detonated his device in a crowd of civilians waiting at a security check point. secretary hagel was nearby, close enough to hear the blast.
the taliban took responsibility for the attack, saying, quote, this attack was a message to him, him being secretary hagel. the next day, president karzai accused the united states of finding common cause, of finding common cause with the taliban, saying the u.s. and taliban wanted to destabilize afghanistan. in other words, the afghan president accused the u.s. of essentially colluding with the taliban after the taliban dispatched suicide bombers that killed almost 20 civilians. that's what the afghan president said sunday, which probably made this meeting a couple hours later between the secretary and the afghan president a little uncomfortable. they did not disclose any specifics from the closed door meeting, and a joint press conference was cancelled due to security concerns. not every stop on that premier visit was off script or filed undergone horribly awry. hagel, the first war veteran to be secretary of defense presented two soldiers with purple hearts.
an honor the secretary himself received twice when he served in the military as an infantryman. secretary hagel met with general joseph dunford, new commander of troops in afghanistan. he is the 15th guy to have that job, 15th. if the withdrawal of u.s. troops goes according to plan, he will also be the last person to have that job. so after a green on blue attack friday and two suicide bombings on saturday, then a cancelled transfer of control over an entire prison, also saturday, and then having to deal with the afghan president accusing the u.s. of working with the taliban, secretary hagel finally left afghanistan early this morning local time. hours later, another apparent insider attack, a member of the afghan national security forces shot and killed two americans, one of whom was a green beret. last month, the u.s. led military command announced it was wrong when it said taliban attacks were declining. it said in 2012, the number of
attacks went down, but that was incorrect. they blamed clerical errors for erroneous reporting. after announcing there were just as many taliban attacks in 2012 as in 2011, u.s. military now says it is simply going to stop reporting on this all together. they're going to stop counting taliban attacks. secretary hagel arrived in afghanistan to news of an insider attack that killed an american. left to news of an insider attack that killed two americans, and in between the attacks were twin taliban suicide bombings. you don't have to rely on the u.s. military count to know that afghanistan is still a very dangerous and very war like war zone. this weekend, our new secretary of defense, secretary hagel, got to see that firsthand. [ male announcer ] from the way the bristles move to the way they clean, once you try an oral-b deep sweep power brush, you'll never want to go back. its dynamic power bristles reach between teeth to remove up to 76% more plaque than sonic
in hard to reach areas. oral-b deep sweep 5000 power brush. in hard to reach areas. you know, from our 4,000 television commercials. yep, there i am with flo. hoo-hoo! watch it! [chuckles] anyhoo, 3 million people switched to me last year, saving an average of $475. [sigh] it feels good to help people save... with great discounts like safe driver, multicar, and multipolicy. so call me today. you'll be glad you did. cannonbox! [splash!]
[ tylenol bottle ] me too! and nasal congestion. [ tissue box ] he said nasal congestion. yeah...i heard him. [ female announcer ] tylenol® cold multi-symptom nighttime relieves nasal congestion. nyquil® cold and flu doesn't. this photo was posted on the inter web last week taken at a donut shop in new york city.
it is a little fuzzy, but the gist of what it is telling customers comes through. if you want a hot and sweet and chocolatey beverage coming to this fine establishment because you want them to make it hot and sweet and chocolatey for you on your behalf, then very, very soon you're only going to be allowed to get it in small and medium. if you want it in a size bigger than small or medium, you need to add your own sugar on your own and your own flavoring. the rules are different for cold drinks which is confusing, we're not going to actually get into that. but that this sign exists is because of new york city mayor michael bloomberg whose administration passed new regulations limiting the sales of certain large, sugary drinks, but not all large sugary drinks, but not at all establishments around the city. all of that wiggle room, here, not there, this but no