updated 3/7/2014 10:50:36 AM ET 2014-03-07T15:50:36

THE ED SHOW
March 6, 2014

Guest: Jane Kleeb, Jan Schakowsky, Diane Ravitch, Michael Eric Dyson,
Elijah Cummings, Bernie Sanders


(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: I don`t think America needs to take this
risk.

UNDENTIFIED MALE: American families and American farmers will bear
all the risk.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It is literally in our backyard.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oil companies will get all the reward.

UNDENTIFIED MALE: Our customers continue to say that they need this
pipeline.

ART TANDRUP, NEBRASKA LANDOWNER: If there`s a crack or leak and it`s
going to be in that water.

SCHULTZ: It will leak.

UNDENTIFIED FEMALE: There could be significant climate impacts from
the pipeline.

UNDENTIFIED MALE: People are coming around to the reality that this
doesn`t make a lot of sense.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight folks. Thanks for
watching.

Well, I guess I`m America`s new flip flopper.

Here`s how I viewed it. In case you`ve heard, I have made the move, I
am against the pipeline. Well reasoned I believe and very profound.

Ask yourself the question, pick an issue that you, I don`t know,
you`re affable about, you`re kind of in favor of something. Is there any
information that could come to you that would make you change your mind on
a subject that might be rather a hot topic? Do you want to have the same
knowledge base tomorrow as you have today? And that was the question that
I ask myself. Do I know everything that I have to know about this project?
And clearly the answer was no, because there was such divided loyalties and
such difference of opinions from experts I might add. So I`ve made the
move.

Now, last night, I`ve made the announcement, I didn`t think it was a
big announcement. It`s just what I believe. I`m a cable guy, I`m a radio
guy.

Tonight, I`m recruiting. If you are for this pipeline, I would like
you to join me because I think it`s bad for America. On the pipeline, I`ve
made the turn, you can make the turn, we`re Americans we have freedom,
right?

I do not think that President Obama should approve this project
because there`s just too much at risk. I think the risk, the risk more
than outweighs the reward to the United States of America and the globe.

Now, originally, I thought the Keystone XL Pipeline was a pretty good
idea, OK? You know, kind of conventional wisdom. Yeah, it`s a pipeline.
We got tons of pipelines around. One of my main arguments and position
statements was that well transporting this oil by rail, well, by rail was
more dangerous than a pipeline.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Both groups I think need to realize is that the alternative
of shipping oil on railways or in trucks is extremely unsafe.

On December 30th, there was a very large derailment near Casselton,
North Dakota about 20 miles outside of Fargo. Proponents say that it`s a
safer way to transport oil. This does not mean the country is going to be
consuming more oil based on safety. I think the president should give this
project the stamp of approval.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: I made the turn. I`ve reversed. I do not think the
president should give this the stamp of approval. And I`ll tell you why.
On rail and any kind of transportation, we can take safety measures, we can
reduce, we can regulate, we can change the way we`re doing it, we can
invest in infrastructure, but a pipeline located over the aquifer? No.

In the following weeks, I had a number of guests on this program who
were opposed to the pipeline. They knew a lot more about it than I did. I
kept reading and I kept talking to folks and there were some heated
moments. Some ridicule involved but that`s OK, that kind of goes with the
territory the fish bowl.

I certainly got both sides of the story on the Keystone XL Pipeline on
this program and on my radio show. That was the mission. I didn`t think
it was going to change but I wanted to know more and I want you to know
more.

At that stage, I still wasn`t completely sold. I wanted to get people
on the ground. You got to go to the story. I mean, I really believe that.
I`ve always believed that. That street tape is so important. What`s in
the gut of the people? The people who were on the ground have got to know
more about this. I wanted to get on the ground in Nebraska and talk to the
landowners who would be directly affected by the pipeline.

Well, the weekend of February 22nd, I arrived in Nebraska. I heard
the concerns and I saw the risk of where the pipeline would run. No one
wanted to sleep a couple of hundred feet away from a pipeline pumping
800,000 barrels a day of toxic sludge.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: If Barack Obama was standing here right now, Shannon, what
would you say to him?

SHANNON GRAVES, NEBRASKA LANDOWNER: Personally, I would ask him if he
would willingly sleep 275 feet away from a 36 inch pipe of sludge in poison
day after day after day after day, if that`s something that he really would
feel comfortable doing. Personally, I don`t.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Would anybody feel comfortable doing that? Maybe a few
Americans.

One of the biggest concerns is this. The Ogallala aquifer, this is a
big body of water underneath the ground. It`s one of the largest aquifers
in the world. It`s a natural treasure to this country. It`s the second
largest body of water in North America next to the Great Lakes.

This aquifer, you know what it does? It provides water to farms in
eight states through the farm belt, the breadbasket of America. It
provides water to roughly a quarter of our nation`s cropland. It also
supplies many local drinking wells. You want to drink some of that stuff?
It`s great water. That`s because it`s unspoiled.

This water source has turned the dry plains of America from a desert
to the breadbasket of the country. In some places, the water table as I
said last night, it`s not 10,000 a feet. In some places, the water table
is so high from the aquifer it`s exposed at the surface.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RANDY THOMPSON, NEBRASKA LANDOWNER: So right here, we have -- this is
an example of how high our water table is. This is ground water here.
That stays that way year round and there`s numerous places out through our
pasture land here where we have standing water from the ground. So when
you`re talking about burying a 36 inch pipeline out here, you know, it`s
going to be submerged right into that water supply.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: So, what is this aquifer? This aquifer thing, it is a great
filtration system that just gives us so many nutrients and it cleanses the
water that comes from the sky. And this is one of the reasons why we have
the most productive farmland in America here.

Make no mistake, this water source is critical to life on the Great
Plains, to the people in the heartland and they are very worried about the
aquifer being contaminated from an oil disaster.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TANDRUP: OK. The pipeline comes in kind of on the Northwest edge of
my property. We`re in a very fragile soil. We have sand and well right
over the Ogallala aquifer, you don`t have to go down very far until you
start hitting that water. There`s a vast amount of water right there. And
in the sand and gravel mixture, if there`s a crack or leak anything like
that is going to get into that porous material and it`s going to be in that
water very rapidly. As a matter of fact, I really believe in most cases in
like Terry`s soil or my soil, we`re going to not see any evidence of that
leak for a while above ground.

SCHULTZ: So contamination could be permeating throughout the whole
system before people could realize exactly what`s going on?

TANDRUP: Exactly. And somebody`s going to be dead or some livestocks
going to be dead and they`re going to wonder what the heck happened here
and it`s going to be bad water from all the chemicals and so forth that are
in the water.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Why in the world would we put ourselves in that position?
If the aquifer is contaminated, the fallout would be devastating. It would
be devastating to local Nebraskans, but it would also threaten agriculture
at levels that we have never seen in this part of the country which is
vital to our strength as a nation.

This is totally unnecessary. It is an unnecessary risk to our natural
resources. There are two sides to every story but there are absolutes and
I tweeted out today, this is really what I believe in all of the research,
in all of the reading and all of the interviews. Bottom line, no expert
either side can remove the distance of absolute danger to the clean water
supply in relation to the pipeline. That`s an absolute. You can hang your
hat on that until the cows come home.

I say it`s not worth the risk. President Obama, yes I do believe, I`m
not trying to sound arrogant or grandiose. I do believe that if he went to
Nebraska and talk to these folks and saw this water and saw where this
pipeline is going to go I think it would influence him.

Listen to the concerns of the people America. Listen to the concerns
about the water supply. Listen to the concerns about the risks involved in
this pipeline. I`m selling hard tonight because I believe it, we need as a
country to make this turn.

President Obama, he is the perfect president at the perfect point in
history to make the call and reject this pipeline, make a symbolic
statement to the world that Americans do have influence when it comes to
climate change. History`s on his side. He campaigned on it. He talked
about climate change in the State of the Union address. He has all the
information needed to make the call to reject this and turn the tide of
history. This is when America is going to make the move.

Big Oil is not going to get everything it wants just because they put
several billion dollars into something that they think the American people
will buy. There is no downside to saying no to this. It will not make us
less secure, it will not affect our energy independence, it will affect the
environment, but most of all the risk, the risk at the -- for the
president, well, he`s not running again is he?

The Democrats will be able to go out and say, "We stand for the
environment. Our president proved it." And we prove to who? The kids.
The next generation.

Well, here they are. Fourth of July at Auntie Lynn`s house on Eagle
Lake in Minnesota, that`s Wendy and Ed Schultz`s grandkids. That`s eight
of 11. And I can tell you when they come to the lake they eat everything.
That`s why we got three refrigerators.

What are we going to tell them? You ever think about what kind of
world are we going to leave them? What kind of message are we going to
send? Now, we`re teaching the kids that America is a wonderful country,
it`s Fourth of July, they`re jumping in the water, they`re going to go hang
out on the raft, they`re going to wave the American flag and I can tell you
they eat all the food.

What do we tell them? Oil is going to be the focal point of your
energy source in the future. We say yes to pipelines, we give big tax
rates to big oil, we take it whatever they want or do we want their
generation to be different from ours? That`s why President Obama, you hold
all the cards, you can be the hope and the change that the parents of these
kids voted for. Say no. I`m recruiting tonight and when there`s a
demonstration in Washington, I`m going to be in the crowd with a tremendous
amount of pride.

Get your cellphones out, I want to know what you think tonight`s
question. "Should President Obama go to Nebraska?" Text A for Yes, text B
for No to 67622, you can always go to our blog @ed.msnbc.com. We`ll bring
you the results later on in the show.

For more, I want to bring in Jane Kleeb of Bold Nebraska.org. Jane,
thank you for joining us tonight.

How big ...

JANE KLEEB, DIRECTOR, BOLD NEBRASKA: Thanks, Ed. If I wasn`t hooked
up to things I would be standing up and cheering and given you a thumbs up.
So awesome. Awesome intro.

SCHULTZ: Well, I appreciate that but it certainly isn`t about me or
my position. It`s about the information. It`s about the risk. It`s about
the future of the country.

How big a threat is the XL Pipeline to the aquifer?

KLEEB: It`s a huge threat. And so even in the State Department
report, they actually never study the worst case scenario, but the spill
size that they did study they said that a localize spill could be up to a
half a mile and then the chemical plume could travel up to 250 miles.

And so you`re talking about devastation not only directly for those
farmers or ranchers that live near where the pipeline would spill, but then
people who live downstream as well.

SCHULTZ: TransCanada has run a television commercial in Nebraska
downplaying the risk to the aquifer.

I want to play a clip of this and get your reaction. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIM GOEKE, HYDROLOGIST: I spent my career drilling holes to and
through the Ogallala formation. I`ve probably seen as much as the Ogallala
than anybody. There`s a misconception that if the aquifer is contaminated
the entire water supply of Nebraska is going to be in danger and that`s
absolutely false. If people recognize the science of this situation, I
think that should elate (ph) a lot of the fears.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Jane, your response to that.

KLEEB: You know, before Dr. Goeke started to do ads for TransCanada,
he actually whined (ph) in front of our state senate and told them that he
actually doesn`t know what a spill could do because he didn`t know what
chemicals were mixed with tar sands. We still don`t know because
TransCanada refuses to tell us the amount of Benzene and other chemicals
that are in the tar sands that would be traveling through our water.

And I would tell you, nobody had said that one spill would contaminate
the entire aquifer. But one spill will devastate that family`s future
forever. We know that a spill will be in that water for decades. We think
it`s impossible to clean up. Nobody`s given us a plan to clean up a tar
sands spill.

SCHULTZ: So no one has come forward and said, "Not a problem. If
there`s a major spill, we`ll be able to save the aquifer." No one has done
that.

All right, now on Tuesday, TransCanada CEO Russ Girling said that this
is the next pipeline that`s going to be built, you`re reaction to that.

KLEEB: He`s been saying that for the last five years. Every six
months he essentially comes on to the air waves and says, "This is going to
be build. We`re going to hear and answer in the next 30 days." And he`s
always wrong. And I will tell you not only tribes, landowners, farmers,
and ranchers, citizens from the entire country will be standing on the line
of Nebraska and we will not let this pipeline in our state. We have the
will and determination, we are proud people and we`re not going to let this
pipeline risk our futures.

SCHULTZ: OK. All right, Jane Kleeb, I stand with you on this. I
appreciate your time tonight. Thank you so much.

I want to bring in Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky of Illinois. Well,
Congresswoman, can Congress influence the president to say no to this
project?

REP. JAN SCHAKOWSKY, (D) ILLINOIS: Well, I`m glad you asked me that
because tomorrow is the last day for comments about this pipeline, public
comments.

So, yes, Congress can weigh in. I certainly have weighed in. But the
public has until tomorrow. So, Ed, all those people that you`re convincing
to take their heads out of those tar sands can sit down and write a letter
and tell the administration that they don`t want to see that pipeline. I
would hope that people in Mayflower, Arkansas for example, it`s almost a
year since the pipeline spill in their community and there`s been hundreds
of them around the country will also take the time to write and say that,
"No, this is not a good idea."

SCHULTZ: Do you have the sense of where the president is going to
come down on this?

SCHAKOWSKY: Well, I think we still have time to influence the
president. And by the way, in the Summit, today Senator Whitehouse and
Senator Boxer just wrote a letter asking for a health study because now
there seems to be evidence showing the downwind from where these -- the tar
sands are, that extracting the oil that there`s mercury and carcinogens,
cancer causing agents in the air.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

SCHAKOWSKY: And actually a higher rate of cancer. So that`s another
problem.

SCHULTZ: Are stability -- does our energy stability does not -- is
not going to be determined by this pipeline?

SCHAKOWSKY: Absolutely not.

SCHULTZ: And it would be a generational statement to say no would it
not?

SCHAKOWSKY: Well, look, absolutely no because we have no assurance at
all whether or not any of that oil that would be refined in the southern
part of the United States whether that would stay in the United States or
go right out into exports. When we ask the head of TransCanada, could you
guarantee that that oil will stay in the United States? He said no, he
couldn`t, he wouldn`t. So ...

SCHULTZ: Congressman, yeah, this is going to be a fight. I expect
the Democrats who care about the environment to stand up and say no to
this, and say, tell the president to say no. It`s going to -- I think it`s
going to take a real statement from elected officials in the body to let
the president know exactly where they stand on this. Not just a few in the
House and a few over on the Senate side. I think there really has to be
push if we`re serious, if we`re serious about the future and the next
generation. Congressman Jan Schakowsky ...

SCHAKOWSKY: Thank you.

SCHULTZ: ... thank you so much for joining us tonight.

And some of you may remember this. The Conservative push to privatize
education is introducing in a new form of segregation.

The Rapid Response panel joins me to discuss why investing in public
schools is the only way to ensure equal opportunities for all children.

But first, House Democrats have had enough of Darrell Issa`s abuse of
power. Congressman Elijah Cummings joins me after some action taken in the
House today. We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: All right, time for the Trenders Social Media Nation at
work. Here`s where you can find us Facebook.com/edshow, Twitter.com/edshow
and ed.msnbc.com. Hot topic about the pipeline on the radio Sirius XM
Channel 127, noon to three, Monday through Friday, you can get my radio
podcast at wegoted.com

Ed Show Social Media Nation had decided and we are reporting. Here
are today`s top Trenders voted on by you.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Get in loser.

SCHULTZ: The number three Trender, pack mentality.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It is a new place to be for Conservatives.

JON STEWART, THE JON STEWART SHOW HOST: Sort of political action
conference.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In America, it`s a clown car.

SCHULTZ: The conservative clown car unloads at CPAC.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When you look at the list of speakers.

SEN. TED CRUZ, (R) TEXAS: If you`re at CPAC you`ll believe in the
future of America.

REP. PAUL RYAN, (R) WISCONSIN: Sometimes it`s hard to tell who`s here
to start a career and who`s here to serve a cause.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not to look around (inaudible).

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It`s kind of hard to figure out how they`re
defining conservative.

STEWART: Best of good luck in 2020.

SCHULTZ: The number two Trender, Benghazi blitz.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R) SOUTH CAROLINA: This is a symptom of greater
problem.

We have a weak and indecisive president that invites aggression.
Really, in many ways started with Benghazi.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not this again.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You say the word Benghazi, it is red meat for
the Republican base. You know that.

SCHULTZ: Lindsey Graham stands by his critic at the president`s
response to Putin.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How on earth is -- what`s happening in the
Ukraine a result of what happened in Benghazi?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That doesn`t make sense.

GRAHAM: When he tells people, there will be consequences and there
are none. It sets the motion of exactly what you see.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It`s not going to work.

SCHULTZ: And today`s top Trender,end game.

LOIS LERNER, FORMER IRS OFFICIAL: I respectfully exercise my fifth
amendment right.

REP. DARRELL ISSA, (R) CALIFORNIA: I can see no point in going
further.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Zip it.

ISSA: I have exhausted any possibility of her speaking. At this
point, we may dead end with Miss Lerner. I`m glad that`s over, aren`t you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Zip.

SCHULTZ: House Dems have had it with the oversight committee
Chairman`s, Issacapades (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And just when you think you have seen it all.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Chairman Issa, who`s behavior has been outrageous
but even for him this crossed the line.

REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS, (D) MARYLAND: Chairman cut off my microphone
because he did not like what I had to say or he though I might say. Mr.
Chairman, you cannot run a committee like this.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Chairman Issa`s abusive behavior by March fifth
is part of a continuing pattern.

CUMMINGS: Closed it out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Joining us tonight, Congressman Elijah Cummings of Maryland,
the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee.

Congressman, great to have you with us tonight. There was some
activity in the Congress today. But I want to get your take on this from
your knowledge base of the rules. Did Chairman Issa violate House rules?

CUMMINGS: He clearly violated House Rules. Ed, we have what`s called
a five-minute role. And keep I`m mind -- and that means that each side has
a -- each member has to have five minutes to speak.

In this instance, this was a continuation of a hearing, Chairman Issa
actually spend about 15 minutes and then when I asked for five minutes to
basically address an issue that would have helped us get more information,
he cut me off and he said that it was based on what he thought I was going
to say.

So he did not -- he put us in a position, Ed, where he prevented us
...

SCHULTZ: Well ...

CUMMINGS: ... or try to prevent us from even uttering one syllable in
a hearing.

SCHULTZ: Well, this is the fear. I think from a taxpayer and from a
democracy standpoint, what if every committee in Washington was run like
this by the majority? Now, the House Republicans table the resolution the
Democrats put out today. Congresswoman Marcia Fudge of the Congressional
Black Caucus, she brought it to the floor today to condemn Congressman
Issa`s actions. But do you think Issa got away with this?

CUMMINGS: I do. I think it`s very unfortunate that anybody could get
away with this kind of activity.

One of the things that in order to press (ph) the function, Ed, we`ve
got to have, you know, some type of a way that we can get along and there
has to be rules and there are rules and those rules must be adhered to and
one of the main rules is that you want to make sure that the minority has a
chance to assert its, you know, its views.

And in this instance, if Chairman Issa makes a decision that goes
against the rules and basically sets off the mike. That is not the first
time, Ed, that he has done that.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

CUMMINGS: He did it to one of my colleagues, Congressman Tierney a
few weeks ago, just shut it down. And I reminded him that each one of us
represent over 700,000 people and ...

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

CUMMINGS: ... that is not American. It`s not the way we do it in
America.

SCHULTZ: So if he violated the rules and the Speaker of the House
John Boehner said he had no problem with it basically. Where does that
leave us?

CUMMINGS: That`s -- it leaves us in a very unfortunate situation
because I think basically what Boehner is saying is that there`s nothing
wrong with that.

So therefore, I mean I guess anything goes but I can tell you I`m not
going to sit around and be some silent person on a committee. My
constituents and the constituents of my colleagues sent us here to uplift
the lives and nobody`s going to shut me down, nobody.

SCHULTZ: The Congressional Black Caucus wrote a letter to Speaker
Boehner today asking for Issa to be removed as Committee Chairman, is this
a realistic option?

CUMMINGS: I think that -- and probably not particularly based on what
Speaker Boehner has already said. But, Ed, you`ve got to keep in mind,
you`ve been making this point very clearly. Ed, for the last nine months,
the Republicans have been investigating the IRS, they have -- we`ve had 38
IRS witnesses come before us and, Ed, to this day, not one scintilla of
evidence had been put out the air to show that even the White House
involved in this designating of certain roots on the sea floor and there`s
been no ...

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

CUMMINGS: ... evidence of political involvement.

SCHULTZ: Well ...

CUMMINGS: And I think that`s what they`re trying to get to.

SCHULTZ: OK.

CUMMINGS: That`s where Issa is trying to go.

SCHULTZ: OK. But I do have to ask you. What is your take on Lerner
who is person in question -- that was being asked the question? She took
the fifth. What`s your reaction?

CUMMINGS: Well, first of all, she legitimately took the fifth, but
keep in mind Lerner we just found out at the hearing yesterday that Lerner
had asked one week postponement and it sounded like she was willing to come
in and testify.

SCHULTZ: OK.

CUMMINGS: But I don`t know what she`ll do now because Issa --
Chairman Issa refused to give her a one week postponement to come in and
then come and testify. So, I`m wondering what`s being hidden. Why do they
want to hear from her?

SCHULTZ: Congressman Elijah Cummings as a friend and as a tax paying
American, I`m sorry you had to put up with this. I would expect more from
our government but then again there`s Darrell Issa in the middle of it all.

Congressman, thanks for your time tonight. I appreciate it.

CUMMINGS: Thank you, Ed.

SCHULTZ: Coming up, the for profit education industry and the
conservative effort to destroy the public school system in America. If you
think it`s not happening. You`re wrong. You`ve come to the right show.

The Rapid Response Panel weighs in on the fight to save public
education.

And later, Senator Bernie Sanders joins me to discuss why he thinks he
might be the right fit for 2016.

Next, I`m taking your questions, Ask Ed Live, right ahead on the Ed
Show on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Thanks for staying with us tonight. We love the questions
our viewers coming in with the segment of Ask Ed Live.

Our first question comes from Karen. She wants to know "What was the
tipping point that made you change your mind on the Keystone Pipeline". I
don`t think you roll out of bed and just "Hey, I`m changing my mind". It
was a series of things. Was there any real tipping point just now to a
collection of information with the aquifer security? Certainly had a lot
to do with it, and of course, pillow talk goes a long way too.

Our next question comes from Sheryl (ph). "I can`t tell if your
accent is Southern or Northern can you confirm, please?" Well, how do you
want me to sound? Sheryl (ph), I grew up down there in Norfolk, Virginia,
although that`s not real Southern. It just has a twang of draw to it. And
I was educated at the Midwest. So, between Virginia and North Dakota and
Minnesota, you got it.

Stick around, Rapid Response Panel coming up.

SHEILA DHARMARAJAN, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Sheila Dharmarajan with
your CNBC Market Wrap.

Stocks rise on promising news about the labor market. The DOW gains
61 points. The S and P is up 3, and the NASDAQ falls 5.

Unemployment lines were shorter last week. Filings (ph) for first
time jobless claims fell by 26,000 to a three-month low.

Meanwhile, a separate report should planned layoffs dropped more than
7 percent in February. Now, this all comes one day before the government
closely watched jobs report. It`s expectation (ph) of payrolls growing by
149,000.

That`s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Progressives are up against a
generational effort to destroy public education in this country. This is
an issue that will affect every family in the United States. New York City
Mayor Bill de Blasio is working to show the -- to slow the growth of
charter schools and improve public schools. His commitment is being met
with criticism in a slew of conservatives who love the idea of diverting
taxpayer money from public schools to charter schools.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo rallied in everybody in opposition to
the de Blasio effort on Tuesday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. ANDREW CUOMO, (D) NEW YORK: We are here today to tell you that
we stand with you. You are not alone. We will stay at charter schools.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Eva Moskowitz, the CEO of Success Academy Schools Network is
angry. Mayor de Blasio was refusing to grant three of her school space in
city school buildings.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EVA MOSKOWITZ, CEO, SUCCESS ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOLS: Parents are very
determined and it`s actually just morally wrong. He`s trying to close the
highest performing middle school in Math in the entire State of New York in
fifth grade. I don`t think of anyone can get away with that. It`s a 194
kids who`ve been with us since kindergarten. They have a right to a great
free public education.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: What`s an issue here, Moskowitz is expecting to be giving
free space to run her charter schools and bring in a huge pay check for
herself. Charter school administrators may cry poverty over the threat
that de Blasio will charge them rent for their spaces. But the people who
run charter schools raking the big box, at least 16 charter schools CEO`s
including Eva Moskowitz earned more money than the New York City schools
Chancellor Dennis Walcott in 2011-2012 school year.

You see, conservatives love charter schools because it`s
privatization. Many liberals think charter schools are new form of modern
day segregation where they`re picking and choosing kids out of
neighborhoods. The lack of investment in public education is the major
concern when it comes to equal opportunity for children.

Joining me tonight for our Rapid Response Panel, again, Diane Ravitch,
Research Professor of Education at New York University, and Dr. Michael
Eric Dyson, MSNBC Political Analyst and Professor at George Town
University.

Michael, I want to ask you first. Is this a form of segregation --
modern day segregation? Not every kid gets to go to a charter school.

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, it`s even worse
than that, absolutely. The reality is that not only is that a former
segregation but with cherry-picking the kids that will survive. So this is
sort of like Sophie`s (ph) choice in the ghetto. You make a choice between
saving your children by going to public school so that all of the resources
there can be democratized, or in the phase of shrinking resources in the
inability of this government to foster critical resources and direct them
to our public education, you want to bail you kid out of a failing school
and put that kid in a charter school. But the reality is, unless we begin
to redirect those resources to democratize education and to make equal
defunding in resources for all of these schools, we`re having a two-tiered
system where de facto segregation is organized...

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

DYSON: ... around the dollars of the public and we are asked to
cosign that as opposed to -- in your case and in, I think Ms. Ravitch`s
case, to resist that and say -- as Professor Ravitch would say to engage in
a more democratized form of education for all.

SCHULTZ: Diane Ravitch, you have got the words morally wrong. That`s
what Moskowitz is saying. Your response to that.

DIANE RAVITCH, RESEARCH PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION, NYU: Well, I think
that hurt charters are suspect because first of all as Michael Dyson said,
they do not take in every child who applies. They exclude kids with severe
disabilities. They exclude kids who don`t speak English. They`d cherry-
pick. They have a very high attrition right and the number of kids who
come in shrink because they don`t replace the kids who leave. They are --
they choose the schools. They choose the children. And it is what where
we`re heading with schools like Eva Moskowitz`s is towards having a dual
school system -- one for the kids who`ve been chosen by the charters and
another for everybody else.

SCHULTZ: She says that parents should be able to get the resources.

RAVITCH: Well, the parents who aren`t getting the resources -- now,
what we need in this country is what the other high performing or what the
high performing nations have. What high performing nations have is no
charters, no vouchers, a great teaching profession, and great public school
such what you see in all the nation -- the world`s highest performing
countries.

SCHULTZ: Dr. Dyson, it`s very clear. The schools that don`t get the
resources end up failing. So, is that the key?

DYSON: Of course. I mean, look, when you have disparities between
suburban schools that have $60 to a $100 million new schools where you have
high speed internet, where you have zoological experimentation, where you
have aquaria. And then you have intercity schools that are being virtually
starve (ph) when you can even get firsthand textbooks or running water,
then you`ll see the disparity there.

If you`re spending per capita on students, a thousand or 2,000 more
per student and...

SCHULTZ: So...

DYSON: ... in some cases much more than that on suburban schools and
intercity schools, of course she`s going to get a different kind of product
(ph).

SCHULTZ: So charter schools are making it worse?

(INAUDIBLE)

SCHULTZ: Charter schools are putting to squeeze on the fundamental
system of education that would have brought this country to greatness.

DYSON: Well, there`s no question about that. Imagine if Thomas
Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, you know, and some of the other founding
fathers that people are likely to lift up had been subject to such an
arbitrary distribution of educational resource. Of course we`re creating a
two-tiered system as Diane Ravitch has just indicated. And the problem is,
those students who are poor people, people of color, and other people
without the sufficient means of the ones who are beginning left behind, in
a time when we need rapid proliferation of technical education as well as
humanities and they`re be...

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

DYSON: ... left behind in the process.

SCHULTZ: Diane, why does Governor Cuomo love charter schools?

RAVITCH: Well, it`s very simple. And this has been printed in the
newspapers, he has received $800,000 in campaign contributions from hedge
fund managers on Wall Street and Wall Street -- and hedge fund managers
love charter schools because they like privatization. They like the
market. And what their pushing for is a market-based form of education
where the schools -- there is consumer choice. They do not believe in
public education. They don`t send their own children to public schools.

SCHULTZ: So, they think they are entitled to taxpayer buildings?

RAVITCH: Yes.

SCHULTZ: That`s what it comes down to.

RAVITCH: Right.

SCHULTZ: For free that they shouldn`t have to pay.

RAVITCH: Right. And bear in mind, in New York State, 3 percent of
the children are in charter schools. Governor Cuomo is responsible for 100
percent, not 3 percent.

SCHULTZ: Well, if you listen to the proponents of the charter
schools, you think almost every kid is in the charter school and then De
Blasio is putting the share after long time (ph).

RAVITCH: I mean, De Blasio did not attack charter schools. He was
asked. He was given 49 approvals that have been forded to him by Mayor
Bloomberg...

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

RAVITCH: ... who is very pro-charter being a billionaire himself like
all the other billionaires. De Blasio approved 39 out of 49 new charters.
He gave even Moskowitz three new charters and he denied her three and she`s
on a work path taking up full pages in the New York Times, going on
television spending millions to say "I can`t pay rent."

SCHULTZ: And if -- Professor Dyson, she makes a half of million
dollars year herself and acts like a victim because she isn`t getting free
rent. What do you make of that?

DYSON: The privatization of education is the undermining and undoing
of American education for those who are stuck at the bottom and those who
are most vulnerable. Of course, if you are extremely bright and you
standout in the crowd, you will get chosen. But many bright people don`t
get chosen, and beyond that, those who don`t...

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

DYSON: ... mature until later will get left behind. This is...

SCHULTZ: Right.

DYSON: ... a radical inequality that needs to be contested.

SCHULTZ: Diane Ravitch and also Michael Eric Dyson, great to have
both of you with us tonight. Thanks so much.

DYSON: Thank you.

SCHULTZ: Coming up, we`ll hear from a potential challenger to Hillary
Clinton for the 2016 presidential race. Senator Bernie Sanders joins me
next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: And in Pretenders tonight, master of disguise, Jeff
Steinborn. Who`s Jeff Steinborn? Oh. Oh yeah, Jeff Steinborn. He`s a
cameraman who showed up at this meet and greet for Governor Rick Snyder`s
major road block for reelection put on by former Congressman Mark Schauer.
You see, Steinborn what he did, he wore a bright orange CNN cap, explaining
that he was with the network. The problem is, CNN says, they never heard
of that guy. But, you know what, we sure have, he worked on this little
number.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Some called him a nerd, but Michigan now calls him
the "comeback kid." Michigan is coming back because our governor loves
budgets, ignores politics, and brings us results.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: If I was responsible for that political commercial, I think
might try to hide my identity too. Jeff Steinborn can disguise himself,
but if he believes he can disguise Rick Snyder as a better candidate, he
can keep on pretending.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to Ed Show. This is a story for the folks who
take a shower after work. Don`t you think it`s about time that they get
you table issues are really getting some serious discussion on Washington.
Progressives need a politician to take the lead on issues when it comes to
income inequality, minimum wage, healthcare, and making sure corporations
and the wealthy pay their fair share.

The effort is there, but will it intensify? According to a New York
Times CBS poll, an overwhelming majority of Democrats, they want Hillary
Clinton to run in 2016. The number is 83 percent. But Clinton might not
be the choice for progressives looking to back the status quo according to
a survey release this week. 40 percent of Americans say they don`t believe
Hillary Clinton is offering "new ideas."

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders isn`t sure Senator Clinton -- Former
Senator Clinton will be the one to rock the vote in Washington for the sake
of the middle class in this country. In an interview with Time Magazine,
Senator Sanders called Clinton a very, very intelligent person. No
question about it. But if you talk about the need for political revolution
in America, it`s fair to say that Secretary Clinton probably will not be
one of the more active people. What does that mean?

Senator Sanders is the longer serving independent in congressional
history and a proven champion of the people. He`s not ruling out or run of
his own. Sanders told Time Magazine, we need candidates who are prepared
to present the working families of this country -- represent the working
families of this country, who are prepared to stand up to the big money
interests, who are prepared to support an aggressive agenda to expand the
middle class. And I am prepared to be that candidate. Quite a statement.

For more, let`s turn to the senator from Vermont, Independent Bernie
Sanders. Senator, good to have you with us tonight.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, (I) VERMONT: Good to be with you.

SCHULTZ: I guess I don`t know how anybody else is taking it, but I`m
taking it as an announcement. I`m glad you`re seriously thinking about it.
But the comment that got me is you said that you would be a better
president than Hillary Clinton. I want some clarification here, sir.

SANDERS: What we`re talking about is ideas and this country today
faces more serious problems that anytime since the great depression.
Middle class is disappearing, more people living in poverty, and the gap
between the very, very wealthy and everybody else is growing wider and
wider. What we need in America is not politics as usual, we need a
political revolution.

What is that mean? It means that the tens of million of people who
are working longer hours for low wages, the people who don`t have
healthcare, people who can`t afford to send their kids to college, the
people who is seeing their jobs go to China and Vietnam. We have got to
come together and say that with increase technology, increase productivity.

The middle class in this country should be expanding. We should be
moving in a more egalitarian direction not in oligarchic way. We had a
handful of billionaires with so much economic and political palace (ph).
We got to shake that system up.

SCHULTZ: Senator...

SANDERS: And that`s what the political revolution is about.

SCHULTZ: Senator, are you concerned that Hillary Clinton is politics
as usual?

SANDERS: Look, I have known Hillary Clinton for many years. I like
Hillary. I respect Hillary Clinton. But this -- and I don`t know if she`s
going to run, and if she does run, I don`t know what her agenda is going to
be. But what I do know is that we need people, and it`s certainly not just
me Ed, we need people to say that there is a war going on against working
families. We got to stand up. We`ve got to fight back or we`re not going
to have much of the country left.

SCHULTZ: You are prepared to be that candidate, how would this work?
You`re an independent. You caucus with the Democrats. How does this work?

SANDERS: Well, that`s a good question and I don`t know the answer to
that. There are advantages and disadvantages about running independently
or running within the Democratic structure and contesting the primaries.
Obviously, there is so much profound discussed with a two-party system that
being an independent works well.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

SANDERS: On the other hand, you have to build an entire political
infrastructure that is very, very difficult to do. But the bottom line is,
now, the working class, the middle class of this country needs to have a
voice standing up for them, prepare to take on big money.

SCHULTZ: Well, no one can take issue with your voice on those issues.
There`s no question about it. But, speaking of infrastructure, we have
seen the big money packs thrown their support behind Hillary Clinton. Are
you worried that she possibly could go unopposed? Is there a chance that
no one will step forward because of the infrastructure that the Clinton`s
have been able to put together?

SANDERS: Well Ed, that is my fear. I mean, it would be a very sad
day if we did not have a vigorous debate on the important issues. And just
because some folks have access to huge sums of money should not exclude all
the candidates raising important issues. So, I do think it would be
unfortunate, you know, if she was uncontested. This is a democracy. We
need different voices out there. We need different ideas being heard.

SCHULTZ: Senator Bernie Sanders, thanks for your time tonight on the
Ed Show.

SANDERS: Thank you.

SCHULTZ: And that`s the Ed Show. I`m Ed Schultz.

Politics Nation with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now. Good
evening, Rev.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.
END

Copyright 2014 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 Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>