tv MSNBC Live With Ali Velshi MSNBC May 20, 2019 12:00pm-1:00pm PDT
york. >> good to see you. have a great rest of your afternoon. >> you too. this is a public health problem of significant proportions. any minute, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell will introduce a bill on the senate floor, raising minimum age to buy tobacco and e cigarettes from 18 to 21, with no exceptions. the bill called the tobacco free youth act, and it is aimed at eradicating what the majority leader calls a public health crisis among teenage smokers. it allows states to enact laws with higher age restrictions if they choose to do so. 14 states raised the minimum age for buying tobacco to 21. as vaping is more popular with high school and middle school students. across the country, adolescents are more likely than adults to use e cigarettes. one in five uses e cigarettes. between 2011 and 2018 the
percentage of e cigarette users among high school students jumped from 1.5% to 20.8%. last year the surgeon general released an advisory that called teen vaping an epidemic. i want to talk about this with medical correspondent dr. john torrez. good to see you. this was thought of as really the advances in cutting smoking down was built around not having teens pick up smoking. that was thought to be the big game. taxes on cigarettes that made it expensive, rules about not selling single cigarettes. i had no idea vaping had become as serious a matter as it has for young people. >> it is essentially an epidemic, that's about what every expert calls it. what initially happened, it started off as an adult product, but children, teenagers picked up on it, adolescents, and if you talk to most, they say in
school it is essentially everywhere. they're able to sneak it into school, do it during classes. what we are finding out is for some adults, seems like it might help them stop smoking cigarettes which we know are very unhealthy, danger to your health. >> a way to transportation out of cigarettes. >> way to transition out. we are finding in teenagers and adolescents that it seems to be almost a gaeteway, and it makes them more likely to smoke cigarettes. you're seeing what's going on are the way the brains work adults versus when we're not adults, teenagers or adolescents. >> it is clearly established with smoking, if you prevent them developing in middle school and high school, chances of keeping them off smoking through life are greater. >> exactly. that's one of the reasons so many people are concerned. when they start e cigarettes, most of these contain nicotine, even ones that say they don't,
some have shown to have nicotine when they look at them. that changes the teenage brain which is developing quickly. changes it permanently and changes it to addiction type brain where they start to get addicted to nicotine which then jumps to the addiction to cigarettes themselves which we know are unhealthy. i tell people all the time, just because you hear people are saying it might be healthier than cigarettes doesn't mean it is healthy themselves. >> obviously lung cancer was an issue with smoke, tar and pictures and imagery of lungs which stopped many from smoking. what's the danger with e cigarettes. you mention nicotine. what's the health danger? >> two different areas, the brain and lungs. the brain itself, i mentioned the adolescents teenage brain is developing. the nerve endings are starting to form and they form differently if there's nicotine on board. that nicotine itself can cause addiction issues but they can cause behavioral issues and learning issues as well.
>> listen to mitch mcconnell. >> lead this charge. the tobacco buy out in 2004. but actually my long experience with this subject and commitment to farm families are part of what convinced me that now is the right time to do this. so i would like to say a few words about why. mr. president, tobacco has been deeply intertwined in our nation's history from the very beginning. native americans grew it and used it before european explorers ever arrived. john roth, the famous settler that married pocahontas kick started virginia's export economy using foreign tobacco seeds in 1612. by the eve of the revolution,
tobacco was a major export and huge part of our colonies' prosperity. many tobacco farmers were energetic early backers of independence. george washington grew tobacco at mt. vernon first at his primary crop, and benjamin franklin anewspap franklin's newspaper, some of the earliest ads ran alongside essays urging them to stand up for freedom. several million pounds of tobacco were used as collateral to secure loans needed from grants. years later, lewis and clark used it as a peace offering to tribes they met while headed west. >> we're going to monitor this. it is an interesting history lesson, starting in 1612, talking about tobin america. mitch mcconnell in addition to house leader is a senator from
kentucky, a state in which tobacco played an important role. i am with john torrez, talking about this. the point i think he is getting to, whatever this is, this is more important than the lobby that continues to work on behalf of e cigarettes, that there's an opportunity for the federal government to work in a bipartisan manner to come up with legislation that makes it harder for young people to get started on e cigarettes and regular tobacco. to that point, there's something of a resurgence in young kids in middle and high school smoking regular cigarettes. >> i think you are seeing a connection between the two. e cigarettes often times contain nicotine. it can form addictive behavior and they're addicted to the nicotine or switch to cigarettes. in studies, in some adults, helps them get off cigarettes.
but teenagers and adolescents pushes them toward e cigarettes. there are other chemicals involved, too. it can effect the brain. it causes addiction issues, can cause learning issues and other drug addiction issues and then the lungs themselves. >> unlike smoking, it is harder to detect if somebody is vaping. >> good to see you as always. nbc news medical correspondent. we will follow that development and bring you up to speed. try respect. it works. that's the message from iran's foreign minister to president trump. a series of counter tweets, he warned economic terrorism and genocidal taunts won't end iran. over the weekend, security officials said iraqi officials said a rocket landed near the u.s. embassy in baghdad. no one claimed responsibility for that rocket, but shortly after the attack the state department cautioned that it would respond accordingly if any of iran's proxy militia forces who are known to operate in iraq were involved.
hours later, trump tweeted if iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of iran. never threaten the united states again. then trump sat down for an interview with fox news with a slightly softer tone. >> i'm not somebody that wants to go into war because war hurts economies, kills people, most importantly by far, most importantly. i don't want to fight. you do have situations like iran. you can't let them have nuclear weapons, you just can't let that happen. >> this afternoon the president tweeted iran will call us if and when they're ever ready. meantime, their economy continues to collapse, very sad for the iranian people. tensions are only getting worse in the region. new reports from semi official iranian news agencies say iran has now quadrupled production of low enriched uranium a week after they announced they would stop commitments unlds the
nuclear deal. john brennan will brief the house and senate on the situation in iran. as congress demands more information on the threat there. trump's top lieutenants are building a case why trump may not need congress' approval under the use of force resolution from 2001. the president's mixed messaging and hawkish views of the administration have many critics at home questioning what the administration is trying to accomplish with respect to iran. for the latest from the iranian side, go to the tehran bureau chief, and from the latest at the white house, chief white house correspondent hallie jackson. let me start with you. that's the question to ask. what is the administration trying to do? there was an iran deal, the president campaigned against it. his national security adviser hasn't been in favor of that
deal. now president trump talks of threatening to them but talking to them, getting negotiation, getting nuclear weapons out of their hands. what's the end goal? >> reporter: this is classic donald trump, notably on the foreign policy front. the negotiating tactic with kim jong-un, fire and fury interspersed with being in love. it is similar with the iranian regime. the president in that fox news interview taped it last week, prior to the tweets talking about warning of the end of iran and that of course sparking the foreign minister's fiery response. it is mixed messaging and back and forth. this is a president as his advisers will say likes to keep adversaries off balance. this appears to be if you want to call it strategy, a strategy to do just that. there's also the personnel piece. you mention john bolton and his hawkish stance, something our
colleagues are writing about, laying ground work essentially to perhaps use military force against iran under the 2001 aumf fighting al qaeda essentially. here's the deal. donald trump knew who john bolton was when he brought him on board. he said privately and publicly he had to reign in ambassador bolton. that's also part of the tension and flash points you're seeing play out in public on twitter. >> and we had a letter sent by iranian united nations ambassador to the secretary general. her point of keeping the iranians off balance, donald trump is causing the iranian ambassador to the united states to respond. the response is that iran will never choose war but if war is imposed, iran will vigorously exercise the inherent right to self defense. what's the feeling in tehran, is there a war footing developing
because this is something that i think most people agree would not be a good situation for either country. >> well, i don't think the iranians want a war and i don't think they're the ones that will start a war, it would have little up side for the iranians. they could do untold amounts of damage to u.s. assets, to saudi oil fields in the region, but ultimately they will also get devastated, so that's not something they want to instigate, but they are saying they can defend themselves and that they're not frightened of a war. we have seen a lot of messages coming out while all of the heightened war rhetoric is coming out of the united states, the iranians have said their missiles, short range missiles in the region can hit that u.s. flotilla currently in the persian gulf. they made veiled threats of proxies in syria and iraq could
wreak havoc in the region, that they could hit u.s. assets, 5,000 or so u.s. troops in iraq amongst all those proxies in iraq that are loyal to iran, many of those proxies are saying we don't want u.s. troops here. the message from iran is we can arouse those people easily and make life very difficult for everybody here. but there's also a thought here in iran that trump is a bully but he doesn't want the fight. however, the people he surrounded himself with that are hawkish on iran do want to fight, and president trump may be the best option of getting one. >> ali arouzi, hallie jackson, thank you both. coming up, we're talking about the impact of president trump's newly unveiled merit based immigration plan and the effect it will have on the economy with someone that helped draft it. chairman of the white house council of advisers joins me
what you need and so much more. at wayfair, you'll find just you get to spend less time searching and more time loving every room, even the ones you never thought could look good. you get great deals on the things you need and actually want. you get fast and free shipping on thousands of items and finds for every home, and every style, at every price.
that's what you get when you've got wayfair. so shop now! here'sshow me making it. like. oh! i got one. the best of amy poehler. amy, maybe we could use the voice remote to search for something that you're not in. show me parks and rec. from netflix to prime video to live tv, xfinity lets you find your favorites with the emmy award-winning x1 voice remote. show me the best of amy poehler, again. this time around... now that's simple, easy, awesome. experience the entertainment you love on x1. access netflix, prime video, youtube and more,
all with the sound of your voice. click, call or visit a store today. at least 1712 additional migrant children may have been separated from parents before the zero tolerance policy put in place a year ago in may. the trump administration controversial policy resulted in 2800 children separated from families, the number proving to
be higher than previously reported due in large part to inability to track it before the policy went in effect. in april, a district court judge ordered them united with families and set a six month deadline. so far they reviewed the files of 4108 out of 50,000, thousands more migrant children could have been effected. new details of the extent of the family separation program comes as the president pushes a plan aimed at reshaping the legal immigration system. the plan calls for creation of a merit based immigration system that would prioritize the entrance of highly skilled immigrants over the current family based system but doesn't address the 11 million people currently in the country illegally, nor hundreds of thousands of dreamers brought to the united states as children. council of economic advisers kevin h kevin hassik one of those that
drafted the plan. good to see you. >> thank you for having me. >> tell me in broad strokes what you believe are the goals of the plan you put forward. >> what president trump wanted us to do is try to focus on legal immigration, craft a plan for the u.s. that would make us the gold standard of immigration policy, and big geeky team of people in the white house spent months and months studying best practices around the world, came up with a point based system that would add to economic growth and add a heck of a lot to growth for people at the low end too, we would be bringing in higher wage people that increase productivity of workers. actually i watched your hit with jennifer hunt from rutgers last week. the other thing we want to do is start a conversation about what a good legal immigration system ought to look like. you had an excellent session she raised some good points maybe we can address, that kind of
rational debate is something we need. we started at a place we all could agree. >> we have been concentrated on one segment of immigration and not another, skilled immigration. let's play something interesting that jennifer hunt said to me the other day. >> the way to think about this best, when immigrants come in and do different things from natives, allow everyone to specialize more in what they're doing best, that increases the efficiency of the economy, more output for everyone, increases output, gdp per capita for natives and benefits of course the immigrants as well. it is that contribution of the unskilled immigrants that people overlook when they push the so-called merit based or what's called in other countries point system. >> one of the problems we have in the country, we associate unskilled labor and immigrant labor, they're not necessarily
the same thing. >> right. >> there are a lot of low skilled, unskilled labor required in the united states, some of whom get temporary agricultural h 2 a visas. how does the merit system deal with that. there's merit having people that don't score high on a merit system because we need them. >> right. that's a great point. what this plan does, it is all about permanent residence, green cards, citizenship. we don't go into the temporary work visas and so on in the plan. we're talking about what we want to do for people that make permanent residence, how can we help the economy the most and help low income people the most. there's literature that shows in when you put in an engineer and put him in a zip code, they create more than a job for themselves. the other thing is increase the diversity of the griimmigrant p. if you're a kid in kenya, you have to hire a lawyer and you
don't have a shot unless you have a family member in the u.s. we want anyone on earth to go online, type in stuff, find out if they can get in or what skills they need to develop, take vocational training to get to the u.s. it makes america the land of opportunity again. and we're thrilled with the plan. and also with reception of the plan. jennifer had good points but gave us a relatively positive reception. >> talk about those visas. there's a system, many engineers in silicon valley work on that h-1b. they received over 201,000 petitions during the filing period for 65,000 visas allowed under law. another 20,000 to people with advanced degrees. there's a massive backlog of a system which only issues visas to skilled people. why isn't that an obvious fix? >> well, what we want to do is make it so that in the green card side what happens is that
you get points if you have skills that america's economy needs, also we address one of the points, we give more points if you basically get a high wage offer. one of the things that goes into our points based system is the wage people are paid. if it turns out that now the plumbers get paid huge wages, they would get a lot of points coming in. by determining the points in part based on market factors, we make sure things that are most scarce are things that go to the front of the line. >> one of the things you talked about and others talk about as appoints based system and refer to canada in many cases, the issue is that canada takes a much larger proportion of refugees and unskilled workers than the united states does. how do we deal with that. the u.s. have limited the number of refugees or unskilled workers we take. canada takes a lot of people,
high up in the points system and compensate by getting a greater mix of immigrants by taking a lot of people that otherwise wouldn't make it on such a system. >> again, our intent was focus on stuff that fair minded people ought to agree about. i am comfortable saying when this is legs latd, a lot of other things like temporary work visas and asylum would be on the table. we thought about those things and some parts of what we put out had some proposals. for asylum, make it a temporary thing. if the country calms down, maybe the person can go home. doesn't necessarily have to be a permanent thing. we have some ideas on that. but the main purpose of the legal immigration part of the proposal is to start a productive, change the tone of the debate as well. >> good to talk to you. thank you for joining me. chairman of the white house council of economic advisers. next, congressman justin amosh the first lawmaker to call
out president trump for impeachable conduct, recommending congress pursue obstruction of justice charges. we will walk you through the impeachment process after the break. you're watching msnbc. r the break. you're watching msnbc. iand i don't add up the years. but what i do count on... is staying happy and healthy. so, i add protein, vitamins and minerals to my diet with boost®. boost® high protein nutritional drink has 20 grams of protein, along with 26 essential vitamins and minerals your body needs. all with guaranteed great taste. and now try new boost® peaches and creme natural flavor. with 27 vitamins and minerals and 10 grams of protein. boost®. be up for life™.
hi, i'm joan lunden. when my mother began forgetting things, we didn't know where to turn for more information. that's why i recommend a free service called a place for mom. we have local senior living advisors who can answer your questions about dementia or memory care and, if necessary, help you find the right place for your mom or dad. we all want what's best for our parents, so call today.
we have breaking news just in. president trump is going to tell his former white house counsel don mcgahn to defy a subpoena from congress and skip tomorrow's hearing. mcgahn was a key figure in the mueller report. with me now with more, chief white house correspondent hallie jackson, back with me moments after we spoke. pete williams. what's the latest? >> reporter: i'll let pete go through the legal piece of it, ali. the idea that the white house and department of justice is invoking immunity, directing don mcgahn not to appear before the house judiciary committee. let me read this. this was sent simultaneously from the press secretary as the doj sending its legal opinion on why they believe they have a leg to stand on in essence. the white house says department
of justice provided this opinion that based on long-standing bipartisan and constitutional precedent, the former counsel to the president cannot be forced to give such testimony and mr. mcgahn has been directed to act accordingly. the white house continues this action has been taken in order to ensure future presidents can effectively execute the responsibilities of the office of the presidency. so the white house is invoking this argument that essentially if we have to do it now, have to let former white house counsel testify now, this could jeopardize future relationships between white house counsels and presidents of the united states essentially. why is don mcgahn important? the house judiciary and democrats on the committee have been wanting to speak with him, he was featured heavily in volume two of the mueller report, the volume that dealt with obstruction. he spent 30 plus hours with the special counsel team answering questions. was he says directed by president trump to have robert mueller fired.
that's the heart of what house members want to find out more about. there are a couple of questions i have, what will the house judiciary committee do. women they hold an empty chair hearing like a couple weeks ago or will they move on and will the legal fight continue to escalate. >> let's bring in pete williams. talk about the relate of all this. >> reporter: this is different from executive privilege. this is not executive privilege. this is what the justice department calls i mmunity from coming to congress to testify. these are co-equal branches of government, that congress cannot summon the president to a hearing room than the president could command members of congress to appear at the white house. justice department says basically since the 1970s, the justice department has taken this position that the closest
advisers to the president cannot be forced to testify before congress. it says this was first enunciated as a policy by william rehnquist when he was then a justice department official before he went on to become the chief justice of the supreme court. and the legal opinion, this 16 page, 15 page legal opinion has this quote in it. let me read it. it says subjecting a senior presidential adviser to the congressional subpoena power would be akin to requiring the president himself to appear before congress on matters relating to performance of his constitutionally assigned executive functions. who said that? janet reno, this says janet reno first said that in explaining why the clinton administration would not make someone available to congress, and the justice department in this memorandum says this is a position that justice has taken under both republican and democratic
administrations, under the clinton and obama administration and under the george bush administration. so they basically say you have to think about this as could congress summon the president himself to appear, the answer is no. and by analogy, the opinion of justice department has consistently been since 1970 that applies to the senior advisers as well. i guess there's some question about what mcgahn was talking about was part of the president's constitutionally assigned duties or not. that may be one place the white house may push back on this. the answer is this is the white house position, the justice department position. this is the executive branch's position. if congress wants to fight this, they have to go to court. this opinion of the justice department is an executive branch opinion, the internal view of the government. though it is consistent from
republicans and democrats, according to the memo, it is still untested in court, although the memo makes some reference to the supreme court nodding its head in the direction of this. but it does leave room if the house wants to go to court and fight this. >> thank you. that was very clear, a lot of detail. i appreciate that pete and hallie. let's bring in former assistant watergate special prosecutor and msnbc prosecutor who i wanted to talk to about something else, but jill, let's talk about this. this is important. this is an olc, office of legal counsel opinion. then attorney general william rehnquist in 1971 described the legal basis for it. it has been used in 1999 by bill clinton, in 2007 by george bush, in 2014 by barack obama
in directing certain people in the executive not to respond to a congressional subpoena. what are we to make of this? >> i think there's a difference between when you can and can't use any argument like this. and i would go back to the fact that you don't have executive privilege or immunity if you have committed a crime. if your constitution does not allow us to question a witness to a crime, then we are in a serious jeopardy for democracy, and what we learned during watergate, what the supreme court clearly ruled is that there's no privilege and it was executive there, not so-called immunity, but it was executive privilege they said does not exist if there's a criminal case pending and you need the testimony for that. the same would be true for impeachment. so i would say this argument
falls flat because this is a case where there is no exemption because the case involves the potential criminal acts of the president, and congress must under the constitution be able to have oversight and look into this. >> let's talk about the legal opinion that's been released. it says congress, and words are important, congress may not constitutionally compel the president's senior advisers to testify about their official duties. the testimonial immunity is rooted in the constitutional separation of powers and derives from the president's independence from congress. so the second part, the second sentence there we nonlawyers can understand. the first sentence requires some interpretation. congress may not constitutionally compel the president's senior advisers to testify about their official duties. are we looking to get don mcgahn's information about his official duties per se in the
historic sense or are we looking to see what don mcgahn did on behalf of the president, who may have committed either impeachable or illegal offenses. >> exactly. i think you've got it completely correct. good for you, without any legal training. it is exactly right. and that's what we're talking about here is that if you are being asked to do something that's against the law, against the rules, that violates criminal statutes, that is not part of your job and you can be asked to testify about it, but i would go even further because we need to be able to have, for example, people testify about the process of security clearances for staff. and the president is now preventing that going forward. that's part of congress' oversight responsibilities, see if people are getting security clearances they shouldn't get because they present a national security risk. and if you took his argument and applied it to that, you would
say the same thing, he would say you can't have anybody testify from my staff because i don't want you to. that would totally eviscerate article one and duties and constitutional responsibilities of congress. we have to have two co-equal branches, they have to talk to each other, they have to answer questions to each other. i think that it is just a bad argument. i have obviously not had time to see this memo and will be reading it astutely as soon as we're done here so i can comment more in depth on different legal cases, but i would say u.s. v nixon raises the specter that it would not be upheld, this argument would not be upheld by the supreme court. >> for the record, you have been able to give us this informed opinion on the basis of things that you heard in your ear or we read you. >> yes. >> which is how good you are. i know the jill wine-banks at
this many years would like to read the opinion. we'll let you do that. >> thank you so much. >> former assistant watergate special prosecutor. impeachment questions are back in the headlines, this time set off by a member of the president's own party. michigan gop lawmaker amash declared his belief that the president engaged in impeachable conduct. he wrote that attorney general barr deliberately misrepresented mueller's report. partisanship eroded our system of checks and balances and few members of congress have read the report. didn't take long for the president and allies to attack the congressman. michigan state representative jim lower declared he would run to unseat him in the coming election while reinforcing representative amash's last point parroting claims there was no collusion, no obstruction, while reportedly admitting he had not read mueller's report in as much detail. the president tweeted his
attack, calling him a total lightweight and loser, but there's a question whether all of this moved the needle on feelings toward impeachment and whether it change the math for democratic leaders moving their party away from those talks for now. from the district in western weather, shaquille brewster. what are you hearing? >> reporter: i will start by saying congressman amash has a new tweet thread in the past hour, ten tweets rebutting what president trump asked yesterday when he said how do you obstruct when there is no crime. we have the tweet for you. congressman amash saying there were several crimes, many crimes his words, revealed in the investigation, some of which were charged, some of which were not, but are nonetheless described in mueller's report. i tell you in his district, there's mixed reaction from his constituents about the position he is taking.
listen to some conversations earlier today. >> i think that the job that the president is doing is phenomenal. i think he has done a lot to help people with finding jobs and the economy and stuff like that, and i totally am for that. he has more people back to work than it's been in the last 15 years. the offenses that they want to impeach him on, it has nothing to do with what he is doing for this country. >> i don't support him on that statement. i think it is absurd but i think the whole political process is becoming absurd. trump says some weird things or tweets some weird things, but so what. i agree with most of his policies. >> reporter: ali, this is a conservative district. president trump won it by about nine points. the county we're in is one that
swung back and forth. in 2004, went for george w. bush, and obama won in 2008 and 2012, then back to trump in 2016. there's a mix of opinions, those that like and respect the fact that congressman amash is standing up with what he believes in, others who are ready for a new congressman. >> thank you for that reporting. the median wealth for black families is more than $150,000 lower than it is for white families. the 2020 presidential candidates want to do something about it. you're watching msnbc. you're watching msnbc. which led to the discovery that sometimes a little down time can lift you right up. expedia. everything you need to go.
has 20 grams of protein, along with 26 essential vitamins and minerals. boost® high protein. be up for life. more on the news that broke a few minutes ago. white house will tell don mcgahn to defy a subpoena. kelly o'donnell has more. what have you got? >> reporter: there's a volley happening, you have been outlining what it means legally. one of the questions, what will don mcgahn choose to do. sources close to him say they received the letter from the white house as well as office of
legal counsel opinion that asserts mcgahn's testimony because he was a member of the president's executive branch in close consultation with the president that the argument from their side is that he should not testify. that's being reviewed by those around don mcgahn who left the government employment and is a lawyer in private practice. one next step is what will mcgahn say, and in addition, waiting for the committees. the democrats in the house with the power of the gavel and the power of subpoena have to review this, see if there are next steps they can take to try to kpel don mcgahn's cooperation or look for some other way to get the information they want, reviewing from their point of view and with their own sort of legal advice, can they go forward with a concept citation we saw with william barr.
it is in the weeds, in the process. in all of that, the important power struggle playing out on capitol hill. as you articulated. don mcgahn is one of the biggest figures in the mueller report because of proximity he had to president trump at critical junctures, and the white house allowed him to testify for that investigation. this is a different setting in a different branch of government, that's part of why the white house is saying what was okay for the mueller report is not okay for congress. in addition, the white house is trying to turn the page. so we're waiting for the next big answers from gerald nadler, chairman of the house judiciary committee from the mcgahn team itself and to see what the rank and file members will say. we can expect democrats to be frustrated, although this is not surprising news given the way we have seen the white house take such a firm stand to try to bring things to a close by not allowing some of their personnel to testify and trying to slow walk many of the requests.
so we're waiting for reactions and tomorrow is the scheduled big day. what happens, will it be the empty chair scenario, will there be other steps. we'll keep you posted. >> thank you for drawing the discontinuing of the white house allowing don mcgahn to testify for the mueller report, a report that ultimately is part of the executive branch. kelly o'donnell. we will keep you up to date on developments in the story. switching to a completely different topic, democratic presidential candidates often bring up the racial wealth gap on the campaign trail, including the fact that a typical black family has only one-tenth the assets of a typical white family in america. that divide has grown larger in the past few decades. i want to take a deeper look into this. wept is total value of all assets, home, property, securities, bank accounts.
everything, all the assets you have. 20,920 for hispanic families. 17,409 for black families. what do families. new jersey senator cory booker is pushing for so called baby bonds. he's proposed giving every child born in the united states a $1,000 savings fund which they can use as an adult as it grows and compounds to pay for education, buying a home, starting a business. the fund would grow based on how much a family earns with the children of poorer households getting a larger contribution. massachusetts senator elizabeth warren has put forward a number of proposals, including her college education plan which calls for canceling up to $50,000 in loan debt for each person that makes less than $100,000 a year, warren's
housing plan also includes a proposal to close the growing gap in home ownership rates. she wants to create a down payment assistance program to help first time home buyers who live in red line communities, where the government denied access to affordable mortgages. people will receive a grant they can put down a down payment on a home. senator kamala harris is offering the monthly cash payments act. she said it will uplift 60% of black families who live in poverty. and the other candidates have backed the 10-20-30 plan. it calls for a minimum of 10% of federal funding to go to poverty per sis tent counties which are defined as areas where 20% of the population has lived below the poverty line for 30 years.
this is a major issue for us. i want to look with the ann price, the president of the insight center, a justice organization that works to ensure that all people become and remain economically secure. ann, this is structural. i'm not sure, i think the 2020 candidates mostly have their hearts in the right place. b structurely, inequality and wealth is because they've not been able to build the same wealth as white families. >> that's right. one they're moving away from this rising tide lifts all boat policy approach that focussed on class and did not focus on racial discrimination and segregation and they're countering a narrative that you
can pull yourself up by your bootstraps and you'll achieve economic success. they're addressing the deeper issues that have situated particularly black and latino families having $150,000 less in wealth than typical white families. >> you listed a lot of myths about the wealth gap. a lot of them i understand, but one of them is that greater educational attainment -- i know you're saying more work effort is not the issue. but why not educational attainment and home ownership, why are you saying that's not part of the answer? >> we long thought if people got a college degree we could equalize opportunity. basically our research doesn't bear that out. in fact, a family, a white family where the head has dropped out of high school has less wealth than a black family
who has a college degree. it's counter intuitive to what we think would be a solution to address the kind of disparity we've seen today. so education while it can help lift families up doesn't go far enough to address this large disparity in wealth. >> what if you could wave a magic wand and change something structural? what can have the greatest effect on closing the gap between black and white families in america? >> we're always looking for a silver bullet and a magic solution. there isn't one solution that will get us there. we need policies that address deep seeded and long standing and enduring racism and discrimination in this country. yes, we have to focus on housing discrimination and jobs and look at things like mass incarceration and how that's actually had a big impact on people's ability to build
wealth. so there's not really one solution. i think that's why you're seeing such diversity of solutions from the candidates this year. >> you're generally positive on the idea that there is diversity of solutions being discussed. >> yes. there are a number of great solutions being discussed. i think it reflects years of work in the field where people have really been really thinking through what can actually make the biggest difference in terms of wealth and equality today. >> ann, thank you for talking to me today. thank you for not answering my simple question with a simple answer you clarified there is not a simple answer to this one so we shouldn't ask it. coming up news that thousands of ford employees will be out of a job just months from now. you're watch be msnbc. hold my pouch.
ford motor company announced today it's cutting 7,000 jobs worldwide by the end of august, reducing management ranks by about 20%. the move is part of an effort to save the automaker $600 million annually. they were notified this morning, the first wave of the layoffs. the majority of the layoffs will be overseas. that wrapping up the hour for me i'll see you back here at 1:00 and 3:00 p.m. eastern and as
always you can reach me on social media. thank you for watching. "deadline: white house" with nicole wallace starts right now. hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. and then there was one. one republican member of congress willing to say out loud what any honest broker who's taken the time to read the mueller report would say, that donald trump's conduct described by robert mueller meets the threshold of impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors in any other moment in history would not be a debatable conclusion, but in this moment with this president who told his supporters not to believe what they see, what they hear and not to trust his own appointees at the justice department or fbi this one relatively unknown congressman has done something extraordinary, by reading the report that explicitly says robert mueller could not