Guests: Rep. Barney Frank, Rep. Steve King, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Bill Nye
LAWRENCE O‘DONNELL, HOST: Thanks, Rachel.
Republicans led by John Boehner have been insisting since the election that voters, quote, “want us to stop all the looming tax hikes.” A new poll out today indicates the same thing that exit polls said on election night—support for low tax rates for the rich doesn‘t get above 40 percent. So, who should Republicans be listening to—the wealthy or everyone else? Today, the Democrats forced the Republicans to choose.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(MUSIC)
REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER DESIGNATE: I‘m trying to catch my breath so I don‘t refer to this maneuver going on today as chicken crap, all right?
MIKA BRZEZINSKI, MSNBC HOST: Fresh round of partisanship is sweeping through Congress.
BOEHNER: Chicken crap. Chicken crap. This is nonsense!
O‘DONNELL (voice-over): Incoming speaker of the House, John Boehner, furious after Democratic Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer force House Republicans to vote on a bill giving all Americans a tax cut.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everybody is going to get a tax cut.
O‘DONNELL: Your taxes, under $250,000 stay the same for everyone.
BOEHNER: This is nonsense.
O‘DONNELL: But everything earned over $250,000 gets taxed the way it was before President Bush.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I am confident that nobody wants to see taxes on middle class families—
BOEHNER: Chicken crap.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That‘s a very unfortunate term.
JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC HOST: I‘m not offended that Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi are taking a hard line against these tax cuts for wealthy Americans.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Republicans call it a gimmick.
BOEHNER: Chicken crap.
O‘DONNELL: Democrats reason: force House Republicans into a corner to choose supporting the wealthy over supporting the middle class.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Two million people here in this country had their unemployment benefits dry up.
SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, NBC NEWS: Fifty-three thousand in your home state.
Why doesn‘t that issue have the same urgency for you?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, it‘s a part of the discussion.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Talk about the poor, the little Baby Jesus in the cradle. I think you have to force the Republicans out in the open and take all their clothes off and let them stand there naked and say, we will not take care of the poor.
GUTHRIE: The bipartisan good spirit seemed to last but a moment.
BOEHNER: Chicken crap.
O‘DONNELL: Political shots aside, Democrats and Republicans are still working to compromise on taxes and reducing the deficit.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a moment of truth.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sober up or sleep in the streets.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There‘s nothing like the prospect of a financial apocalypse to focus the mind.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
O‘DONNELL: Good evening from Los Angeles. I‘m Lawrence O‘Donnell.
House Democrats today passed an extension of the Bush tax rates for income less than $250,000, which House Minority Leader John Boehner declared, quote, “chicken”—well, you heard what he called it. And Senate Republicans promise to kill the bill when it arrives in their chamber.
The White House applauded the House action in a statement, and then added, quote, “But, because Republicans have made it clear that they won‘t pass a middle class extension without also extending tax cuts for the wealthy, the president has asked Director Lew and Secretary Geithner to work with Congress to find a way forward.”
To which the White House critics on the left responded, quote, “At a moment when they could have celebrated victory, this White House incredibly chose to wave the white flag, signaling to Republicans that they will take any deal, no matter how bad, including borrowing billions to extend tax cuts for the richest Americans. This is a direct betrayal of a core Obama campaign promise, and the essence of political malpractice and negotiating incompetence.”
“Huffington Post” reporter Sam Stein and Ryan Grimm described Democrats in the Hill as sinking into despair, as the White House appears willing to negotiate away their other priorities, leaving them to fight for things like the START Treaty.
One top Democratic aide complained, quote, “The idea that the
Republicans would give us a vote on their”—oh, I wish I could say this -
“F-ing treaty—I mean, this was Ronald Reagan‘s treaty. We‘re just extending it. It‘s crazy.”
Joining me now is House Financial Services Committee chairman, Barney Frank.
Congressman Frank, this vote today was not as easy a vote for you as people might think. You‘ve got a lot of people in the top tax bracket in your district in Brookline and Dover and Wellesley. How do you explain to them that their tax rates should go up while everyone else should get a cut?
REP. BARNEY FRANK (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Frankly, most of them explained to me why it should go up. It‘s not the case that everybody who is doing well begrudges making a contribution. Many of these are fairly sophisticated people and they understand that if someone is making $500,000, so $250,000 of that will be subjected to a tax increase from 36 percent to 39 percent. That‘s 3 percent of $250,000. An increase in $7,500 in the taxes paid by someone making $500,000 has zero economic affect.
So, I‘m very lucky. Frankly, in many of the areas that I represent where people do well, you mentioned the town of Brookline, the city of Newton, the town of Wellesley, they all voted for me. And I think it‘s just a misconception that the Republicans try to peddle that everybody is selfish.
Of course, people also, say, in Massachusetts, one of the great concerns now, as in other places, is the fate of people whose unemployment is running out, because in this economy with growth being much slower than we like, they haven‘t been able to find jobs. And what we have are Republicans saying on the one hand that they cannot support an increase in unemployment benefits, an extension of unemployment benefits because it would add to the deficit. And we are, after all, a deficit situation.
But when it comes to taxing the wealthy, suddenly those deficit fears disappear. And, in fact, giving reduction on that part of income over $250,000 will cost far more than unemployment benefits. So it shows the hypocrisy of them saying they‘re against unemployment benefits because of the deficit.
They‘ve also said, well, you can‘t have a tax increase even on millionaires in the midst of a recession. That‘s bad economics, because it won‘t slow down what they would spend. But, in fact, if you are looking at what‘s most effective in a recession, it‘s unemployment compensation. Nothing is better countercyclical fiscal policy.
So, I understand why Boehner has lost it engaging in elementary school swearing. He‘s very frustrated by what I think is a pretty good exposure of the hypocrisy.
O‘DONNELL: There seems to be frustration within your caucus. Is it true that you‘re all very depressed at the White House‘s reaction to your vote today?
FRANK: To be honest, I didn‘t hear their reaction. At the time, in the immediate aftermath of the vote today, we were focused on the very sad situation involving our colleague Charlie Rangel. We were in a very solemn debate in which the House conducted itself procedurally in a very good passion.
So, to be honest with you, Lawrence, we were focused on the Charlie Rangel thing. Yes, I myself hadn‘t heard the White House reaction until now, and I‘m very disappointed in it. I think it‘s gravely mistaken, and I‘m sure my colleagues share that. But just factually, as soon as the tax vote was finished, we went right into the Charlie Rangel debate, and sadly that was—that was getting a lot of our attention.
O‘DONNELL: Does it—does it mean the White House reaction, which is to say OK, nice job, Barney Frank, and you guys, but we are in negotiations to compromise on this with Republicans—does it mean that the vote you cast today was a symbolic vote and all we‘ve ended up with is putting you on record and other Democrats on record as voting for a tax increase on the top tax bracket which, in the end, apparently will not occur if the White House reaches a compromise with Republicans?
FRANK: Well, I am glad to be on record doing that and showing that I‘m serious about trying to reduce the deficit. But I am, you know, it‘s not yet at that point. I am disappointed.
What the White House should have said was, look, as we go into these negotiations, we all understand that. Steny Hoyer said on the floor, we know this isn‘t going to be the final package. But what they should have said is we should see what strength we have. And I don‘t—I hope that that reaction is not going to be their negotiating strategy.
I‘m so glad that we did it. Look, it‘s important in a democracy for people to know what issues are and what divides the parties. And as I said, I think it‘s so undercuts their argument against unemployment compensation and their pretense that they care a lot about the deficit, they put deficit production behind helping wealthy people and also wasting money in the military and some of these efforts.
But, yes, it is up to the White House. Now, I hope by tomorrow they‘ll be saying, look, what we saw ourselves was doing was strengthening their hand in the negotiation. It is not too late for them to accept that support.
O‘DONNELL: And this kind of bill does come out of the House often where the House‘s version of something is stronger from a party‘s perspective than the Senate‘s version and it usually is applauded, as you‘ve said, as strengthening the hand of the Senate and the president. Given that there‘s obviously going to be some kind of movement, might it be on this threshold of $250,000 which was established as the top bracket back in 1993 in President Clinton‘s bill, which in real dollar terms going backwards, that‘s $165,000 now.
FRANK: There‘s room for compromise, you know, somewhere between $250,000 and nothing. And yes, many of us could be supportive of that—
$250,000 is not a magic number. If it went to $300,000, $350,000, you would still get significant revenues to offset that deficit. So, that‘s what we were hoping.
But can I also note, you know, people said, well, we have to have bipartisanship. I think, unfortunately, the capture of the Republican Party by the Tea Party extremist has made that very difficult because they punish people who try to cooperate. But, you know, people who are into this, well, let‘s all be bipartisan.
Look at the difference—John Boehner, as I said, sort of third grade swearing, chicken crap, or President Obama leaning over backwards. I just -- it just reinforces my view, the president needs to understand, you can‘t have unilateral bipartisanship by definition. It‘s “bi,” it can‘t be unilateral. You can‘t have him being always accommodating and the Republicans engaging in schoolyard rhetoric.
O‘DONNELL: Quickly before you go, Congressman, the prospects for the DREAM Act and “don‘t ask, don‘t tell” in the lame duck session.
FRANK: We have the votes for the DREAM Act now, but if we don‘t get the votes on now, they‘re not going to pass.
“Don‘t ask, don‘t tell” is particularly outrageous. There‘s a majority in the White House that‘s voted to repeal it. A majority in the Senate has voted to repeal it. The president says it doesn‘t work. Top Pentagon officials want it repealed and a survey in the field shows that there‘s no great opposition among most in the military.
I will say this—I hope that we can break that filibuster, but it‘s fear of Tea Party that is keeping some of the supposedly moderate Republicans from joining us. And so, if “don‘t ask, don‘t tell” repeal can‘t happen, I hope it‘s still can, and Harry Reid, to his credit, is trying hard. Speaker Pelosi has said we won‘t accept a defense bill that doesn‘t have that repeal.
But I would say to the president this—I defended the president saying he has a duty to defend the constitutionality of it even if he doesn‘t like them.
But if the House has voted by majority to repeal it, the president thinks it should be repealed, the Senate majority is for repealing it, if the only thing that saves it is this abuse of filibuster, then I think any claim that he has to defend it in court disappears. It has no more any moral force. And he ought then—if he can‘t get this done, and I hope Harry Reid can get it done as he‘s trying to do, then let the people who filibuster it try to defend it in court.
O‘DONNELL: Congressman Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, who represents the wisest top tax bracket payers in the country—thank you very much for your time, Congressman.
FRANK: Thank you, Lawrence.
O‘DONNELL: Up next: the Republican take on the tax rate showdown and today‘s vote. Congressman Steve King of Iowa joins me.
And tomorrow is the final vote for the bipartisan debt commission plan. It will take only a handful of no votes to scuttle the proposal. Democratic Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky says she‘ll be one of those no votes. We‘ll ask her why—ahead on THE LAST WORD.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: The stakes are high in this lame duck session on Capitol Hill. How will the compromise be found on extension of the Bush tax rates? Republican Congressman Steve King joins me.
And later, apparently, everything we know about life in the universe was upended today, because NASA found some bacteria in a lake here in California. Bill Nye, the science guy will do his best attempt to make me believe.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: When the House voted today to extend the Bush tax rates for middle and lower middle income Americans, three Republicans broke away from the pack and dared to side with the Democrats in support of the bill.
Congressman Steve King was not one of them. He has slavishly stayed on Republican message, demanding the Bush tax rates be continued for everyone, including the wealthy.
Joining me now from Washington, Iowa Congressman Steve King.
Congressman King, is this the first tax cut that you voted against?
REP. STEVE KING ®, IOWA: Well, I don‘t know that I have voted against a tax cut. I think I would be for most all of those things—
O‘DONNELL: Well, you do. Hold it, hold it.
(CROSSTALK)
O‘DONNELL: You voted against a tax cut—you voted against a tax cut today. Let‘s just get that settled. You voted against a cut in every single income tax rate going all the way down to the people who are paying 15 percent, 10 percent. You voted to keep—to allow it to go up to 15 percent instead of going down to 10 percent. You voted against after tax cut in every bracket except all those people in your district in western Iowa, which must be, what, I don‘t know, 25 of them, who make over $250,000 a year?
KING: I don‘t think anybody really believes that that vote today was against a tax cut. And it‘s obvious that I don‘t believe that.
O‘DONNELL: It was a vote against a—
(CROSSTALK)
O‘DONNELL: Hold it. If you don‘t believe it, then you don‘t—if you don‘t believe it then you don‘t know what the tax code is. Hey, you voted—you voted today to allow—let‘s talk about the bottom bracket, OK? The bottom bracket.
You voted today to allow the tax to increase from 10 percent to 15 percent for the lowest income taxpayers in this country. You voted for a 5 percent increase in that, what is a 50 percent raise for them in their tax bracket, that‘s what you voted for. Do you want to now pretend that you did not for that tax increase to that?
KING: I‘m going to say this. Everybody that‘s paying attention to this knows that this vote today was never considered to ever get to president‘s desk. It‘s a political vote. It wasn‘t ready. Twenty Democrats voted no on it as well. They understood that it‘s a political game. My constituents understand that and so well a thinking Americans.
I‘m not a bit worried about how that spin comes on. We need to hold out to get a better deal, and I‘m for making all of those tax brackets in 2001 and 2003 permanent. And I‘m worried about the estate taxes, too. There will be people laying on their death bed at the end of this year, watching as midnight comes deciding whether they‘re going to loved one on life support because we didn‘t address the estate tax today and that‘s a real disservice to the American people.
O‘DONNELL: Well, they are working on addressing the estate tax apparently in the package of compromise they‘re trying to negotiate in the Senate. It‘s true this vote is clearly going to come back to you. The White House indicated today that they want to continue negotiating with Republicans in the Senate to try to get a compromise version of this.
What compromise version of it do you think House Republicans could support? For example, as we just discussed with Barney Frank, what if that threshold of $250,000 was raised to $1 million—would you be willing to allow a possible raise in the rate on incomes over $1 million a year? And in your district, do you know if anyone in your district makes over $1 million a year?
KING: I‘m confident there are those in my district who make over $1 million a year. But I don‘t think I‘ll hear from them in that proposal. I just suggest this—let‘s extend them all. I would like to make them all permanent, but let‘s just extend them all so there can be plan-able capital investment that goes on.
Why not just take all the brackets that have been good enough for the last—since ‘01 and ‘03 and move them forward. I‘d make them permanent. But if they put a five-year plan out on the table for everything and we could address this estate tax, I‘d take a real good look at that. And I want to know what some of the others in my conference thought before I would actually sign on.
O‘DONNELL: I wanted to get to the DREAM Act with you, Congressman, because you have said, you have guessed, you have made up the idea that the DREAM Act would cost $20 billion and that the CBO was suppressing a secret report, where it could $20 billion. The CBO has reported today that it is, in fact, a no-cost piece of legislation, which is what everyone has been insisting on.
This is legislation—for the audience that might not realize it—to create a path for citizenship for people who have come into this country illegally at a very young age. If they join the military, if they‘ve come in before the age of 16, if they go to college in this country, they could find their way to a path to citizenship at no cost. So, now, are you willing to admit that what you were saying about the $20 billion cost and the secret CBO report is absolutely untrue?
KING: I said there are four versions of the DREAM Act out here on
this Hill and that they would narrow the definitions that they had in the
language in so that they would try to get that CBO score in under the $20
billion that was a number that was leaked out of the CBO office. And
additionally, I have a $6.4 billion cost on this that came from CBO. And
there are some offsetting revenue streams, but they did not charge against
it the cost of the family reunification that is a necessary result, or an
actual result of what would happen, when you see citizenship handed over to
2.1 million people.
This is dynamically scored in one version and it shuts off the costs to expand on this in another versions of it. So, it‘s a very, very tight definition in a bill that‘s tighter than the one that that is the original one that came out. But what this is it provides amnesty for 2.1 million people. And that‘s twice as large as the estimate when Ronald Reagan signed the ‘86 Amnesty Act.
O‘DONNELL: Well, would you call it amnesty when it provides a path to citizenship for soldiers who have volunteered and done service in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is that amnesty?
KING: I wouldn‘t call that amnesty, and we have a provision for them to have earn their citizenship. We don‘t need the DREAM Act in order to do that.
O‘DONNELL: But Secretary Gates—the defense secretary does support the DREAM Act specifically because of the incentive it would give for soldiers in the military going forward. So what does he not understand about the DREAM Act? What does the secretary of defense have wrong about the DREAM Act on why he thinks it is good for America and good for our military?
KING: I think what you‘ll see is that the secretary of defense, a number of the members that come from the Pentagon, high-ranking officials that had one opinion two or three years ago, have modified their opinions because they have a different commander-in-chief. I don‘t take their words at exactly the face value as I did before.
But what we really have here is that the 2.1 million people that would be receiving amnesty—and on top of that, here‘s the part about national defense that I‘d like to be ask Bob Gates. And that is—what do you say to the widow or widower who lost their husband or their wife or a child who lost their mother or father in Afghanistan or Iraq defending our liberty who is paying out of state tuition premiums while they‘re sitting at a desk next to somebody who‘s received amnesty and a de facto scholarship under this DREAM Act? It‘s completely unjust to do that and no one has been able to answer that moral conundrum that would be created by the DREAM Act.
O‘DONNELL: Congressman King, let me ask you—let me ask you what would you say to the family of Lance Corporal Jose Antonio Gutierrez? Do you know who he is?
FOR SUBSCRIBERSCBP leaders cut out of Trump ad buy decision
FOR SUBSCRIBERSA harrowing ordeal aboard an Israel-bound plane
KING: No, I don‘t.
FOR SUBSCRIBERSCBP leaders cut out of Trump ad buy decision
FOR SUBSCRIBERSA harrowing ordeal aboard an Israel-bound plane
O‘DONNELL: Have you ever heard of him?
KING: I‘m not sure.
O‘DONNELL: Twenty-two years old. He was 22 years old on March 21st, 2002, when he was killed in Iraq. He was one of our first casualties in Iraq. He came to this country illegally before the age of 16 from Guatemala. He was granted upon his death in service to this country, he was granted citizenship after he died. Is that a citizenship case that you object to?
KING: You know, I think I do remember that case, and I‘m not certain, but it seems to me that I supported a private bill to grant him posthumous citizenship and to honor him for his sacrifice.
O‘DONNELL: So, that‘s how—
KING: I have to check the records on that. But I think that‘s what we‘ll find out.
O‘DONNELL: OK. So that‘s when Steve King is willing to grant citizenship. If you can get yourself killed in combat for this country, then you‘re willing to step up and say, OK, you‘ve earned your citizenship now that we can bury you.
KING: I think what we have is 2.1 million people, estimated, to step in and receive this de facto scholarship and you‘re giving me an example on the other side of this. But no one is answering how you answer to the widow or widower who would be paying out of state tuition, sitting in a desk next to someone who‘s getting a discount on theirs who have come into the country illegally, perhaps the day before their 16th birthday, and perhaps as old as 30 years old.
O‘DONNELL: Out of state tuition applies to people out of state. In state tuition applies to people in state. And there‘s absolutely no distinction made on DREAM Act students in that bill for that.
Congressman Steve King, Republican of Iowa, thank you very much for your time tonight. I want to continue this with you when you have more time. Thanks for coming in tonight.
KING: Thank you.
O‘DONNELL: Democratic Congressman Jan Schakowsky is planning to vote no tomorrow on the new bipartisan debt commission plan. She says that too much of the burden in balancing the budget is being placed on the poor, the middle class and the elderly. She‘ll join me.
And later, Bill Nye the science guy gets THE LAST WORD on why some bacteria in a lake in California have suddenly revolutionized the search for life in outer space.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: Still ahead on THE LAST WORD: On the eve of the vote on the debt commission, all signs are suggesting there will not be enough support to get the financial road map to Congress. Democratic Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky is one of those in the “no” column. She‘s in tonight‘s spotlight.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: In the spotlight tonight, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform will vote tomorrow on the revised Simpson-Bowles proposal to reduce the deficit by $3.8 trillion by 2020. As of today, a majority of the 18 members support the proposal, though not the 14 necessary to formally recommend it to Congress.
Republican Senator Mike Crapo said the proposal is painful and will raise heartburn. Democratic Senator Kent Conrad said, “I certainly would have done some things differently if I were writing it myself.” Republican Senator Judd Gregg said it‘s got warts.
And yet despite those objections, all three will vote “yes” tomorrow.
Republican Senator Tom Coburn explained why.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TOM COBURN ®, OKLAHOMA: I would have written a totally different plan. I would have eliminated the income tax completely and we‘d gone to a national sales tax. And there wouldn‘t be a Medicare tax and there wouldn‘t be a Social Security tax. We wouldn‘t have done this at all. I can‘t have it my way. But our country deserves us to sacrifice, like the call we‘re going to make to everybody else to sacrifice to accomplish what we have to accomplish. And that is to get out of this hole.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: All three House Republicans on the commission will vote “no” because, according to incoming House Budget Committee chairman, Paul Ryan, the proposal, quote, “entrenches Obamacare.”
What about the objections from the left? Democratic Representative Jan Schakowsky will also vote “no” tomorrow.
Joining me now, Representative Jan Schakowsky.
Congresswoman Schakowsky, the one thing I fully respect about your position in voting “no” on this is that you‘re not just voting “no,” you have offered an alternative—an alternative that is a full package. The easiest thing for any one of you to do, I think, as the senators pointed out, is to find the different individual items in this package that they object to. The reason I ran Tom Coburn‘s announcement about what he would do if left in a room alone to do it is that it would be a very crazy plan that came out.
But we had Kent Conrad here last night, Democrat in the Senate, Budget Committee chairman. He says there are things in here he doesn‘t like, but in order to move an agreement forward, he got onboard.
What was it a prevented you from approaching this the way as Senator Conrad did, which is to say, accept some number of things that you don‘t really like, and by the way, would have the right to try to change afterwards, but add your agreement to the group in order for some momentum to move forward?
REP. JAN SCHAKOWSKY (D), ILLINOIS: Because this plan—the fiscal commission says that the nation is on unsustainable fiscal path. And that‘s true. They‘re talking about the debt and the deficit.
But there‘s another thing that is a very destructive path, and that is the squeezing of the middle class, the pain that the middle class is caused by this plan that it doesn‘t need to. We don‘t need to ask senior citizens to pay more for Medicare. We don‘t need to cut Social Security benefits. We don‘t need to cut nutrition and education and job training programs.
Lawrence, they talk about shared sacrifice as if everyone has to pay their share. Well, you know what? The middle class has more than sacrificed over the last 20 years, certainly over the Bush years where almost all of the increase in wealth in this country went to the top. Well, now they talk about shared sacrifice as if everybody has got to step up and pay for the party that only a few Americans really enjoyed.
And I think that‘s just the wrong way to go. That‘s why I offered a different kind of plan that said, yes, we can, in fact, balance the budget. We can reduce our debt and our deficit, but we don‘t have to take it out of the hides of middle and low income people.
O‘DONNELL: Now, you and others have made the point that the commission didn‘t really have to look into Social Security solvency in order to deal with balancing the budget over a 10-year window.
SCHAKOWSKY: No.
O‘DONNELL: But they did. And so, in doing so, now, let‘s for a moment—and I agree with that, they didn‘t have to—but let‘s talk about Social Security solvency going forward. Dick Durbin, I think, in a surprise, a Democratic progressive senator, has said that the commission‘s proposal to raise the retirement age to 69 by 2075 was not radical. He says it‘s acceptable to him. It includes a provision, an exception, for people engaged in manual labor to get an earlier retirement.
Do you think that it is possible in the package that will have to be done eventually for solvency for Social Security to include that kind of increase in the retirement age as a possible element?
SCHAKOWSKY: Well, the bad news is that not everybody does live longer. And if you‘re poor, you just don‘t. And if you happen to be a poor woman—in fact, poor women have lost years or have lost longevity over the last little while.
And so, I would say that looking at extend—at raising the age of retirement, making a janitor or a nurse‘s aid to work longer so that a hedge fund manager can live longer, because they‘re richer, I think again, is not the wrong way to go. But they do other things to cut Social Security like change the cost of living adjustment and put it downward.
And so, those people who are retiring some years from now could actually see a third decrease in their Social Security benefit from what they would get if it remained as it is today.
O‘DONNELL: Well, I‘m the last one to defend hedge fund manager, but it‘s worth pointing out when we‘re discussing Social Security that every one of them—every one of them—will pay into Social Security much more than they get out. So, they are not costing Social Security anything. They‘re going to be contributing more than they get out. We‘ve crossed that line in the system now where the top payers pay more than they get back. It is not a good deal for them to be in it at all.
But let‘s go over to the tax strategy that‘s going on in the House right now—that vote that you cast today, some say is a symbolic vote, you‘re going to have to come back at this eventually, with some kind of compromise coming out of the Senate.
What is the style of compromise you can imagine coming out of the Senate that you might be able to vote for on tax rates for next year?
SCHAKOWSKY: Well, I‘ll tell you one thing, I won‘t be able to vote for a package that doesn‘t include the extension of unemployment insurance benefits. I mean, it‘s just outrageous to even discuss keeping taxes lower for the richest Americans, and yet cutting unemployment—you know, not extending unemployment insurance benefits. And it‘s not just for the $2 million people that have lost their benefits. It‘s for our economy.
You know, it‘s going to be good to—they‘ll go out and spend the money.
O‘DONNELL: Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky—thank you very much for your time tonight.
SCHAKOWSKY: Thank you.
O‘DONNELL: On September 4th, 2005, police in New Orleans were dealing with hell after Hurricane Katrina, but no amount of chaos could ever justify what seven police officers did on a bridge that day. And today, a judge agreed. That‘s in tonight‘s “Rewrite”—next.
And later, what do we make of the news from NASA. Is this arsenic-eating bacteria a big deal or has the space agency that put man on the moon turned to PR stunts?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: In last night‘s “Rewrite,” I really wanted to use a word less harsh than stupid to describe Arizona Republican Congressman John Shadegg‘s notion that spending money does not drive the economy. I asked the viewers to suggest softer more gentle adjectives than stupid.
Dana Mackey (ph) suggests mental conservative. “Moronically erroneous” from James Schwartz. No, I don‘t want to use the word “moron.” That‘s worst than stupid. “Ridonculous” from Jason Green (ph). “Clueless” from Ray in Maryland. Yeah, movie titles don‘t sound insulting. “Reality deprived” from Mel B (ph).
These are all very, very helpful. Keep them coming. I‘m going to need them next time someone says something stupid.
Tonight‘s “Rewrite” is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: Time for tonight‘s “Rewrite.”
It is hard to imagine a more profound breach of public trust than what happened here—so said Federal Judge Sarah Vance yesterday in what the “New Orleans Times Picayune” reporter Brandon McCarthy called “a scathing soliloquy” at the sentencing of one of the New Orleans police officers involved in the Danziger Bridge massacre in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
There is indeed no more profound breach of public trust than police officers sworn to serve and protect, becoming tormenters, torturers, and even murders—as a gang of them did when they found a few unarmed, utterly innocent African-American men on the Danziger Bridge that day.
New Orleans Police Officer Michael Hunter was given the maximum sentence yesterday after pleading guilty to obstruction of justice and failing to report a crime. The crime he was involved in. James Brissette, 17, was killed by gun fire from police while on the bridge. Ronald Madison, 40, and mentally disabled, was killed by police shotgun fire.
The officers falsely arrested this man, Lance Madison, initially claiming that he shot at police. Several officers have now confessed that he was framed.
A New Orleans sergeant sprayed assault rifle fire at wounded civilians when it was absolutely clear they posed no threat to anyone. “Appalling perversion.” “Savagery.” “A moral outrage.” “Sickeningly brutal.” That‘s what Judge Vance called it yesterday.
Before his sentencing, Officer Hunter said that he, too, fired his weapon at unarmed civilians, but hit no one. Nothing more than his bad aim distinguishes him from the officers who accurately shot to kill.
In fact, most police bullets fired on duty miss their targets. It is the decision to fire that matters more than the luck or bad luck that determines where bullets end up.
Michael Hunter had no intention of ever telling the truth about this case. He and his police buddies beat the ramp on state court and it was only when federal prosecutors closed in on him that he came forward to admit the obvious in an attempt to reduce his inevitable sentence.
“Your decency is slow in coming,” said the judge, “and it came with strings attached. It is hard to find you very sympathetic.”
This story contains horrible particulars never known before, but sadly contains no fundamental surprise for African-Americans. This, all too often is their experience of police work in America. Most of what white America experienced police work only by watching men in make up with fake badges and fake guns on network television cop shows.
The reality is police shoot and kill unjustifiably every year. The reality is their victims are wildly disproportionately African-American and always have been.
I wrote the first book that tried to bring this problem to national attention 25 years ago. Much has changed since then and too much has stayed the same. What is still true is that most police cover-ups of these cases succeed. The truth is never known.
What is also true is that white America and black America experience these stories differently. White America considers every one of them a rare aberration that has never happened before and will never happen again. Black America knows they are only learning the details in the latest chapter in a continuing saga of the worst kind of injustice—police officers acting as police officers, prosecutors, judges, juries and executioners. In the instant, they willfully decide to unjustifiably end the life.
I‘m not talking here about the totally justifiable uses of deadly force used by police officers. Any police officer who genuinely believes his or her physical safety is threatened has the right and yes, the responsibility to use deadly force. And I fully support them in each one of those cases. This was not one of those cases.
“I was selfish and chose my career over my family and made some horrible decisions,” said Officer Hunter yesterday at his sentencing. “I apologize for not having the moral courage to do the right thing from the beginning.”
Apology not accepted. I would like to be able to rewrite Michael Hunter‘s statement into something more meaningful, something profound, but there are situations for which there are no words. There are some things for which an apology will never be enough.
Michael Hunter is to report to Bureau of Prison on March 14th. He must do his time. He must testify honestly in upcoming trials about the conduct of his partners that day, and he must make every day of the rest of his life a living apology for what happened on the Danziger Bridge.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: The announcement today of arsenic-eating bacteria from NASA fiercely divided THE LAST WORD staff. During our editorial meeting, things were said that shouldn‘t be said, allegations were made, punches were thrown, personal integrities were damaged beyond repair, several apologies and meetings with human resources later—things are better.
But the debate has not been settled, because when people hear the phrase, “big announcement from NASA,” there‘s a mixed reaction when that big announcement turns out to be arsenic-eating bacteria from a lake in California instead of extra terrestrial life. The debate is even dividing the scientific community with some chemists refusing to believe NASA‘s claim. Others outside the scientific community, meanwhile, are simply refusing to care.
But the scientists behind this study argue this could mean there are a lot more places to search for life in the known universe, which, as the video you are seeing now will demonstrate is really, really, really big.
I find myself in the—well, straddling but leaning towards the “so what” camp on this one. And now to explain the error of my ways, the executive director of the Planetary Society, Mr. Bill Nye the Science Guy.
Bill, I‘ve got to tell you, I‘ve been to the Mono Lake where this bacteria comes from. It is a six-hour drive in California from where I‘m sitting right now, five hours if you have a BMW. It‘s not the moon or mars. I‘m having trouble being impressed.
What did I not pay attention to in high school that would make me care about this?
BILL NYE, THE SCIENCE GUY: This might change the world, Lawrence.
These bacteria—you guys used the verb “eating.”
O‘DONNELL: Oh, that. Oh, OK.
NYE: I mean, it may not be a big deal to you, but if it changes the world, it might be a big deal. Is your life enhanced by knowing that the sun is the center of the solar system? Probably.
Is your life enhanced knowing that the moon causes the tides or about half of the tides? Yes, it‘s probably enhanced, right? Especially when you‘re talking on television.
And when you‘re talking on television, you‘re using integrated circuits, using things that are doped with arsenic. Arsenic has affected your life in every way. Yet, you cannot eat arsenic. Arsenic would kill you.
And you guys have used the expression, I‘m right there with you, arsenic-eating bacteria, but it‘s a little bit more to it than that. These bacteria have substituted arsenic for phosphorus, and yet, their DNA holds its shape.
In other words, the DNA, the deoxyribonucleic acid, is this double helix, this spiral next to a spiral. All good. And the railings of the spiral are held together by phosphorous. All right. For you and me, for every organism that we have ever thought of, or ever met, even my old boss apparently had DNA, just like yours and mine.
But these bacteria have found a way—I say found—they‘re able to use arsenic instead. And so, there may be a place on earth where there are naturally occurring arsenic bacteria, naturally occurring arsenic, other bigger organisms, and then this would give us a way to look for other types of life, other ways to construct instructions to replicate, to make new organisms. This could be a crazy huge thing. It‘s another evolutionary surprise.
O‘DONNELL: OK. So, I‘ve been taking notes here like a high school student. So, here‘s what I‘ve got so far. That we now—
NYE: Don‘t reporters take notes?
O‘DONNELL: Yes, but they have—it‘s much simpler spelling words. You don‘t know how to spell phosphorus if you‘re a reporter. So, when we search for life in the universe, will now be looking for other formulas where we didn‘t think there could be a form of life using that particular formula.
NYE: That‘s right, yes. It‘s remarkable. They‘re making a big deal out of it because it‘s this kind of subtle thing that leads to discoveries.
I mean, people have a sense about it that this—this is such a surprise -
this is so unusual that it could change the way we think of everything.
See, one of the big ideas these days in astrobiology is there could have been what people like to call a second genesis.
This is to say maybe life arose in a couple of different way or multiple different ways here on earth and we just have never gone looking in the right places or asking the right questions to discover them. And so, if we found another type of life, it would indicate that life is more likely than not and then—
O‘DONNELL: OK, Bill,
(CROSSTALK)
O‘DONNELL: You have completely won over and I want to hear a lot more. But now, we‘ve run out of time. Bill Nye, the science guy, thank you very much for your time tonight.
NYE: Thanks, Lawrence.
O‘DONNELL: You can have THE LAST WORD online at our blog, THELASTWORD.MSNBC.com, and you can follow my tweets @Lawrence.
That‘s tonight‘s LAST WORD from Los Angeles. COUNTDOWN is up next.
END
Copyright 2010 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>
PASTE THE TRANSCRIPT HERE, LEAVE THE LINK