Skip navigation

The Ed Show for Tuesday, August 26th, 2014

Read the transcript to the Tuesday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

August 26, 2014

Guest: James Hoffa, Bob Shrum, Jane Kleeb, Tiernan Sittenfeld, Scott Paul

ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good evening Americans and welcome to the Ed Show
live from New York. I`m ready to go. Let`s get to work.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: An American fast-food king is poised to gobble up Tim

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is rare to see a deal that doesn`t have tax angle.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In an effort to lower the company`s tax rates.

of herd mentality, I think is something we want to avoid.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have it your way. Have it your way.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Burger King still would be run out of Miami.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You cannot going to move overseas to get tax break.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The political fallout played a role on Walgreen`s

OBAMA: It`s almost like the holy grail of tax avoidance schemes.


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

You know, we are country that wants everything to work. We`re a people
that can correct things when we want to make things work. This story
tonight is classic example of how our tax system must be adjusted. Can we
use that word?

We need to make some adjustments. We start tonight with big financial news
that could cause you some money. Now if you`re in business and someone
comes to you and says, "Hey, you`re business account, your treasury is
going to have to come up with $20 billion over the next 10 years to meet
all of its obligations." You`re going to be thinking, "Wow, we better
raise the rent here."

Somebody`s got to pay. Now keep that in mind, in the context of the story
that earlier today, Burger King announces planning to buy Canadian fast-
food chain Tim Hortons. I`ve never eaten at Tim Hortons, I just haven`t.
I`ve had a few wafers as you can tell, they`re good too.

Now this deal is going to be $11 billion. Tom Hortons is the largest fast-
food chain in Canada. Now if this deal is approved, it would create the
world`s third largest fast-food chain. I mean this is going to be a bid
deal in the fast-food industry. Now the Canadian government, what they
have to do is approve this merger.

You see they protect their workers. They want to know what`s in it for
them, for their country, for their country. OK Burger King, you want to do
this deal, what`s in it for Canadian`s? That`s how they view it.

Now Burger King is obligated to make the case that this deal would be
beneficial to the Canadians. Now the mega burger deal is being backed by
Warren Buffet. That`s right, Berkshire Hathaway, he`s throwing in $3
billion into this merger. He thinks it`s going to be profit center, and
when good ol` Warren talks, a lot of people listen.

Now originally both company said that the new global headquarters would be
in, uh oh Canada, leaving the country. This news instantly spark outrage
in the United States, Burger King would have joined the growing list of
U.S. companies moving overseas to do what? Avoid paying taxes. This is
where the adjustment has to come into.

Senator Sherrod Brown is worked up about it. One of two, I hear Bernie
Sanders talk about it. Sherrod Brown of Ohio was even calling for a
boycott of Burger King. He released a statement saying, "Burger King has
always said, have it your way. Well, my way is to support two Ohio
companies that haven`t abandoned their country or customers". That says an
awful lot, abandoning the country.

Burger King is setting the table to make a bunch of money in country and
yet avoid paying taxes. Well, it looks like public pressure and that kind
of talk got to Burger King because the company released a statement today
saying wait a minute, "We`re not moving, we`re just growing -- our
headquarters will remain in Miami. The Decision to create a new global
quick service restaurant leader with Tim Hortons is not tax-driven. It`s
about global growth for both brands. Burger King will continue to pay all
of its federal state and local taxes. The whopper isn`t going anywhere."

Well, that`s good to know. But for them to come out and say it`s not tax-
driven, you got a pretty good communications director in that outfit
because that`s a hard sell. That statement caused confusion on Wall
Street, earlier today CNBC speculated only operational headquarters would
stay in Florida.


SARA EISEN, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: Part of this deal is to move the actual
headquarters to Ontario from Miami which is where Burger King is
headquartered. In the statement, believes are making clear that
operational headquarters are going to stay in Miami.


SCHULTZ: Operational, non-operational, who`s calling the shots, who`s not
calling the shots, who`s paying the money to the treasury? Only time is
going to tell where the Burger King will move their actual headquarters to
another country. But one thing is clear, if Burger King skips out of
paying U.S. taxes, the backlash is going to be severe.

Earlier this month, Walgreens pharmacy well, they got rid of plans to move
their headquarters overseas after public outrage. President Obama, he`s
not too happy about all of this, this growing number of U.S. companies
dodging taxes. A few weeks ago President Obama called out the corporate
tax evaders.


OBAMA: It`s not fair. It`s not right. The lost revenue to treasury means
it`s got to be made up somewhere, and that typically is going to be a bunch
of hardworking Americans who either pay through higher taxes themselves or
through reduced services.

And I think it`s something that would really bother the average American,
the idea that somebody renounces their citizenship but continues to
entirely benefit from operating in the United States of America just to
avoid paying a whole bunch of taxes.


SCHULTZ: Well, that`s a long way of saying we need to make some
adjustments in our tax code. Let me emphatically state, I`ve got nothing
against the whopper. And Burger King is not breaking the law. Burger King
is doing what we`re allowing them to do. These corporations are doing what
we`re allowing them to.

This is more of an ethical story and loyalty story, the country and workers
than it is anything else. The president is exactly right. Someone will
eventually have to pick up the tab for these what some might call
unpatriotic companies. Now pick up the tab, in other words if the country
is going to running, if we`re going to have these obligations, somebody`s
going to have to pay.

Well if these corporations are allowed to go overseas and we`re going to be
shorted $20 billion, it`s estimated that if nothing is done, tax inversion
will cause this country, the treasury $20 billion over the next decade. If
you`re in business, can you come up with that money? Somebody`s got to
pay. So, what does this lead to? Income inequality, because there`s going
to be a greater burden on the wage earners.

Corporations claim that their taxes are too high. Although the government
accountability office says the United States corporations really when you
throw them all together pay 12.6 percent, that`s the effective tax rate
when, you know, do all the loopholes that are set out for them. One in
four corporations in this country pay zero tax.

You think that`s fair? Back in 1952, we`re going back half a century and
more, the corporate tax in this country accounted for about a third of the
total revenue that came in to the treasury. That number today, it`s less
than 10 percent. So this is adjustment I`m talking about. You want
Medicare, Medicaid, social security, you want to be able to fund education,
you want to be able to do infrastructure, where is the money coming from?

We have set up a system for us to turn poor. We`ve set up system without
any adjustments -- our lawmakers aren`t touching this, to be third world
country. Keep in mind, the fast-food industry is a low-wage industry.
Many employees qualify for a government assistance, where is that money
coming from? Corporate profits, how is Wall Street? Pretty good as of
late, record numbers again and again, profits are through the roof while
wages have flat lined over the years.

We`re having a hell of a conversation over that whopper aren`t we? This is
just another example, how we get income inequality in this country. The
adjustment that has to be made is that our law makers who are ideologically
driven and don`t want to do anything for workers and families in this
country, who refuse to go back to Washington and compromise and be able to
pencil out -- and most of them have never run a business.

And pencil out exactly, OK, where is the money coming from? The Republican
answer is, "Well, let`s just cut the hell out of everything, let`s have no
government, let`s not do any of that stuff, let`s just get rid of it, it`s
easy, in fact that will be our way forward". That`s not right, this isn`t
right. Burger King is not wrong. They`re playing within the rules.

They`re making, I think an unethical and unpatriotic decision if it unfolds
this way. But we`ve allowed them to do it because these corporations have
cash whip, big time, they can pay to keep right people in office so they
set up the tax system so we allow them to do this. And voter turn out is
going to be down in the midterms, give me a break, we ought to be outraged
as a country that this possibility is even on the table for a corporation.

Now reverse this for a moment. What if this opportunity was on the table
for you? You make $60,000-70,000 a year and tax guys says, "Hey, I can cut
your obligation in half". Human nature is you probably jump up at that.
There has to be an adjustment. We got to get real. We got to have a
serious conversation about our tax code. And it ain`t a 25 percent it`s
not at 35 percent for the corporations. It`s down below 15. Just look at
Mitt Romney`s tax return.

Get your cellphones out. I want to know what you think. Tonight`s
question, "If Burger King moves its headquarters to Canada, will you able
eat another whopper?" Text A for Yes, text B for No to 67622, you can
leave a comment on our blog at We`ll bring you the result
later on in the show.

For more, let me bring in James Hoffa, president of the International
Brotherhood of the Teamsters. Mr. Hoffa, good to have you with us tonight.


SCHULTZ: Does the story set the table for average Americans to feel the
pinch of something isn`t done? Your thoughts?

HOFFA: Well, the money has to come from somewhere. We have to run this
country. And when you see somebody like Burger King, try to pull this --
where they`re going to move out. They might burn their passport, that`s
what they`re doing. This unpatriotic, this is wrong. This is like not
paying your taxes. General Electric pay has no taxes. This is a new
wrinkle, now you move out of the country and you don`t pay American taxes

This is ridiculous and it can be solved so simply by congress. Now, the
Democrats are against this, the president is against this. Where are the
Republicans? Why aren`t they saying this is wrong? They`re Americans,
they should be as angry as you and I are to say this is wrong. This money
has to be made up. It`s going to come out of the skins of average
American, a guy that`s working two and three jobs.

This is a wrong thing and we got to stop it. And hopefully the pressure
we`re putting on them right now. And you made a good point. The
operational headquarters, what does that mean? What does that mean? It
means they`re going to have another headquarters which is the corporate
headquarters not the operational headquarters. They`re playing word games.
I hope this is dead because I think millions of Americans like you said,
we`re not buying anymore whopper.

SCHULTZ: Well, you mean you would advocate a boycott of Burger King if
this continuously.

HOFFA: Well absolutely. This makes me angry. I think I`m going to get
some whoppers and mail them to the corp. or the CEO and say, this is it and
I didn`t eat these, something like that. But I think this is something
that shows the outrage, and one of things that worth saying is, that we`ve
got elections coming up on November. And everybody says, "Oh, the country
is going over". Where`s the outrage about something like this?

Where is the outrage that says, "I pay my taxes, who are they not to pay
their taxes? Who is General Electric or Boyd not to pay their taxes?"
Walgreens` got the message, they stopped. There was another company that
moved to Ireland, they`ve bought some company that made pills in Ireland
and move their headquarters to Ireland to pay a lower taxes. This is
another loophole that`s got to be stopped and we`ve got to step up right

The biggest problem we have now is income inequality. The answer is the
rich are getting richer, the top CEOs are making 330 times what the average
person makes at their company, and it`s going through the roof right now.
They`re making the money and everybody knows people out there right now
that work at Burger King and work at McDonald`s, they`re basically working
two jobs. They`re working 20 hours a week and they still can`t make it.

That`s the outrage that we should have right now and it`s time for
corporations to stop this nonsense and for congress to close this loophole
and say, enough is enough.

SCHULTZ: Well, it`s very clear, the way Burger King responded today and
backpedaled somewhat and found the verbiage that you alluded to, meaning
the corporate headquarters or the operational headquarters. I think that
kind of underscores that they`re a little touchy about this. And shouldn`t
this be a signal to the lawmakers that, you know, people do want change.
They do want fairness put into the tax code that`s going to help the wage
earners. And so, you have written a lot about income inequality. Is this
the framework that takes us down that road?

HOFFA: Well, this is part of this, the huge discussion of what`s going on
in the country about -- right now everything you read is, that wages have
stagnated and we`ve recovered from the recession but yet, people are
working more and more. They`re getting two and three jobs but no one is
moving up. I mean the only way you can get a raise today is -- and maybe
the states are basically slowly, moving up the minimum wage. The president
moved up the minimum wage on federal workers at some parts and that`s the
only way, could people can get a raise.


HOFFA: That`s ridiculous. I mean there are so much money being made in
this country right now that they should be proud to give these raises to
keep good people working.

SCHULTZ: James Hoffa, good to have you with us tonight sir, I appreciate
your time. Thanks so much.

Let me bring in E.J. Dionne, Washington Post columnist in MSNBC
contributor. So, if I go to Burger King am I eating an immoral hamburger
here or an unethical hamburger here? Look, I don`t like this tax code, I
don`t think it`s fair, but have we become so politically exhausted E.J. in
this country that we don`t get outrage about anything anymore? That maybe
people have thrown up their hands and say, "We can`t change this and our
Congress ain`t going to do anything, and this is just the way in the world
right now". What do make to all of this?

E.J. DIONNE, WASHINGTON POST: I think that`s a real danger now, but I
think this Burger King story could end up being a good news story because
what you`re seeing here is genuine outrage by consumers who have some real
power here over Burger King. I mean, it`s average Americans, it`s all
kinds of Americans who eat whopper and all the other stuff they observe at
Burger King. And Burger King looked out there at these protest and said,
"Wait a minute, this could be a problem".

And, you know, a personally -- I have a soft spot for Warren Buffet and I
hated the idea that he was involved in the deal that was primarily about
tax inversions and it looks like it`s not, I mean, let`s hope that this is
going down the road that they suggested later today.


DIONNE: That this is about merging two successful companies to make a more
successful company and not tax inversions. But one other point which is --
I think you hit it exactly right in your intro, Ed, when you said this is
an ethical story and a loyalty story, because how do corporations make
money? Yes, they make money by producing good profits, but it`s like that
old Elizabeth Warren speech, people drive on roads to get to Burger King.
A lot of the Burger King employees qualify for government benefits. People
have money in their pockets because they are here in the United States of


DIONNE: And I think this corporate inversions issue affects not just the
liberals, it`s -- I think a lot of conservatives say, this is an issue of
patriotism. If you make money here in the U.S., you ought to share in the
burden of financing the government that provides services to America.

SCHULTZ: But how do you write into a law? I mean it`s very simple, I
think. You can`t park offshore and do business in our shores and make
money of our people. I mean, I think that`s pretty easy. Lawyers can come
over the right verbiage on that. One profound thing that is different
between Tim Hortons and Burger King, Tim Hortons` employees, they have
guaranteed healthcare. In America, we just have access to it. They don`t
have to buy it. Correct? No doubt?

DIONNE: No, and that`s a -- that`s a very big deal, OK. Canada has had a
single-payer system for a long time. It is not something that workers in
Canada have to worry about.


DIONNE: And that has to be where we`re going. Obamacare is a step in the
right direction. It`s a substantial step especially for lower income
Americans but it also hurts the corporate bottom line. I mean the -- we`ve
said for years that there is more healthcare money in the American car and
there is in steel. And so we`ve got to think about how...


DIONNE: ... we get farther than we are now in providing healthcare. And
the Canadians have shown us a good example.

SCHULTZ: The global economy, I mean the genie is out of the bottle,
there`s no question about that, but there still has to be a sense of
fairness as to where you make your money, where the soil is in and who`s
got to pay into the system. And we have set and we have allowed the system
to be set up for things like this to happen. That`s where the adjustment
has to come in and I think it`s an election issue. E.J. Dionne always,
great to have you with us tonight, I appreciate your time.

DIONNE: Good to be with you, Ed.

SCHULTZ: Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the
screen. Share your thoughts with us in twitter@edshow, like us on
facebook@wegoted, thanks so much for doing that. We got the podcast for
you there, too.

Coming up, Congressman are skipping out of town, skipping out of Washington
D.C., and skipping out of their town hall meetings this summer. Bob Shrum
tells us why members of congress are afraid to face the folks back home.

A new study sheds light on how dangerous the Keystone XL Pipeline really
is. Jane Kleeb of Bold Nebraska and others join us, coming up, stay with
us. We`ll be right back on the Ed Show.


SCHULTZ: What`s happening? What`s hot and what`s not? Time now for
Trenders social media. This is where you can join the Ed team.,, and in You can get
my podcast, it`s there everyday at,, and free on iTunes, free everywhere, 24/7 access to it.
Now, I did a podcast today about Burger King with Senator Bernie Sanders if
you want to hear it.

The Ed Show social media nation has decided we`re reporting, here today`s
top Trenders voted on by you.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, money down.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The number three trender, not a cheap suit.

SCHULTZ: Boehner`s lawsuit is nothing but a big dog and pony show.

REP. JOHN BOEHNER, (R-OH), HOUSE SPEAKER: And not only does president
regularly ignore the law, he brags about his willingness to change it, you
know, unilaterally.

SCHULTZ: President Obama has issued the least amount of executive orders
in recent history.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It just seems to me like an enormous waste of effort.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s outrageous, egregious, preposterous.

SCHULTZ: The GOP`s empty lawsuit has a $350,000 price tag. This is just
wasting more taxpayer dollars.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`ll take your case but I`m going to have to ask for
$1,000 retainer.

BOEHNER: It`s in my view our responsibility to stand up for this
institution in which we serve.

SCHULTZ: He`s willing to take your money and sue the President.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The number two trender, game on.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Madden football season in America is a competitive

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In the video games, this is a big event.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fans sack stores for the latest Madden game.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It comes out every year, there`s always a huge changes
in Madden.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Madden NFL has consistently ranked among the top video
games in America, bringing in $4 billion dollars for electronic arts.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: New roster, lineup, new animation.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is where legends are made.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And today`s top trender, skipping town.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Town halls are becoming increasingly rare.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have a great vacation.


JAMES PINDELL, WMUR POLITICAL ANALYST: About five years ago, they stopped
being -- what we think of town halls and become political shoutfests with.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Image-conscious congressional members, means town hall
theatrics like these...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`ve got a lobbyist with all kind of money just stuff
at your pocket.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hear our voice. Here our voice.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... are a thing of the past.

SAINT ANSELM COLLEGE: They`ve become gauche moments for political


SCHULTZ: How can the truth be a gauche moment? Joining me tonight, Bob
Shrum, Democratic Strategist, Professor of Politics at the University of
Southern California. Great to have you with us, Bob.

It is very clear what`s going on here. You have Congress who`s rated in
the toilet. You got Citizens United, these guys really aren`t worried
about their bank accounts because they got corporate money rolling in, like
they`d never seen before, so why going to talk to the public? Unpack it
for us. What`s happening here?

BOB SHRUM, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, first I think you`re absolutely
right about that. And the districts now are gerrymandered in a way they
weren`t in 2010. In 2010, Republicans for example had to go out and try to
harness all those Tea Party folks to take back the congress. Secondly,
these town meetings are dangerous especially for Republicans because the
Tea Party types are going to say something. They`re going to force
candidates to say something, to get those candidates in trouble.

For example, they`re opposed to a certain forms of birth control. They`re
put in a position where they`re either going to offend the base or hurt
themselves in a general election. And third, I think when you look at the
dynamics of these meetings that if ordinary people show up and ask real
questions, a lot of these members of congress especially to Republicans,
don`t have any answers.


SHRUM: What are they going to do about Burger King and tax inversion?


SHRUM: We know they don`t want to do anything. Where is their jobs plan?
They don`t have one. What are they going to do if they repeal Obamacare?
About protecting people against lifetime limits on their insurance, denial
because of preexisting conditions, or how are they going to replace the
coverage for millions of people? They can`t answer those questions.

SCHULTZ: It still jobs and the economy when you talk to lawmakers about
what they`re hearing from their constituents and what kind of feedback
they`re getting. Bottom line here is, is that Citizens United has really
set the table for these lawmakers to not to have the pressure to go out and
win over the hearts and minds of these people. It`s better to suppress the
vote and just take the corporate money, and Adelson money, and the Koch
brother money, and everything else isn`t it?

SHRUM: Sure, and that`s reinforce by the way, the district lines are drawn
and nothing is going to be done about that, at least until 2020. So a lot
of these guys are sitting in safe districts. They have tons of money.
They don`t need to go to the town hall meetings.

And senators, who are in the position where they could actually lose
because they`re voted on statewide, don`t want to subject themselves to the
kind of questioning that`s going to get them to make the kind of mistake
that Richard Mourdock made for example in Indiana in 2012. So people just
want to dock this stuff. So there`s one other factor here that I think we
ought to recognize.


SHRUM: . and that is that once again, social media can profoundly reshape
the political dialogue. Today at town hall meeting can be a Twitter feed.
I mean a candidate can -- without all of the extra noise and all of the
attention, conduct the kind of interactive conversation with constituents
online and without running a hall. So I think we`re going to see fewer and
fewer town halls. I think it`s regrettable. I understand why a lot of
Democrats don`t want to do this.

I mean they don`t want to go and just be yield at by crazy people who show
up. But I think it`s regrettable that we`ve lost the conversation or
capacity for a kind of civil conversation where people say, look we`d have
a recovery, it`s a Wall Street recovery. The unemployment rate is down but
people, a lot of middle class people are still hurting, wages haven`t gone
up. What would you do about that.


SHRUM: . member of congress? Those are the kinds of things that ought to
be happening in August and they`re not.

SCHULTZ: Do you think they have become gauche moments?

SHRUM: Oh, I think they`re lot of gauche moment. And I think
unintentionally so, because you have folks show up from the Republican
base, who think they`re going to help their candidate, who asked the
candidate a question, that puts the candidate in a very tough position.
That`s especially true for the statewide senate candidate.


SHRUM: Secondly, I have people who come, who have no interest in the kind
of serious conversation we`re talking about. They want to get up and say,
"Don`t you know the president wasn`t born in the United Sates?" Or, "Don`t
you know the president is advised by the Muslim brotherhood?"

All these crazy stuff that is out there in the atmosphere and that tends to
come into those town meetings and infects them. Maybe, 4, 8, 12 years from
now after the Republicans have lost a couple more presidential elections
because of the kind of campaigns, they run the kind of positions they take.
Maybe we`ll get back to a space where the differences between the two
parties are not so great.


SHRUM: That it becomes very difficult to have a really decent

SCHULTZ: If I could parallel what we`re talking about now and what we let
our program with last night when DREAMer went up to Paul Ryan and asked him
a question and the answer was read my book. I mean that`s a kind of
politician we have right now.

I am not going to answer anything. I`m not going to answer any of this
stuff. In fact, why don`t you just go read my book and that`s you need to
know and he doesn`t have any answer for him and of course, that really is
the operational procedure now for a lot of elected official. "I ain`t
messing with the public. I just needed enough votes to stay in there."
Bob Shrum, always, good to have you with us, appreciate your time tonight.

SHRUM: Great to be here, Ed.

SCHULTZ: Still ahead, new information, Keystone XL Pipeline could be even
more dangerous to the environment than what was first reported. There`s a
new survey out there, a new study out there. Rapid Response Panel joins me
with the facts.

Plus, our friends across the street attempt to define feminism, Pretender
is coming up. I got your questions next, Ask Ed Live here on the Ed Show
on MSNBC. We`ll be right back.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. I appreciate the questions. Only
time for one tonight, we`re in a hurry. Ask Ed Live. Here we go, question
comes from Dave.

"Should unions claim to be people just like corporations do?" No, I don`t
think so. No, unions are about representation and fairness on issues, not
about personal thoughts, OK? Corporations? No, they`re not people and
neither are unions.

Stick around, Rapid Response Panel is next.

Market Wrap.

Stronger than expected economic day boosting stocks, the Dow is up 29, the
S&N up 2 and close above the 2,000 mark for the first time, the NASDAQ adds
13 points.

Meanwhile, durable goods order surged past expectations, rising nearly 23
percent last month, a 7.5 percent gain was expected. The conference board
latest read on consumer confidence also came in ahead of targets, however
report on June home crisis was weaker than estimate.

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


SCHULTZ: And we are back.

Advocates for the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline have been spreading
misinformation about how we would transfer clean, safe oil through the
bread basket of America and they`ve been doing it for months.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The critical in view, piece of infrastructure that
will transport safely the cleanest barrel of oil produced in North America
contrary popular belief.


SCHULTZ: Hold the phone on the one. The truth is building the Keystone XL
is dangerous. There`s a new study out there that says it is true, it is
very dangerous. Two researchers of the Stockholm environmentalist did a
scientific research organization founded by the Swedish government analyzed
the global impact of the pipeline on oil supplies and the resulting
greenhouse gas emissions.

The study says, "The Keystone XL Pipeline could produce four times of more
global warming pollution than the State Department`s report said earlier
this year. The findings published in the Nature Climate Change journal
factored in the financial impact of the pipeline would have on the global
market. Now, we have invited the authors of this study to come on this
program but they declined saying that they don`t want to be mistaken for an
advocacy group.

However, the study clearly and completely supports what we`ve been saying,
building the Keystone XL Pipeline would add to the United States` growing
dependency on oil. And the pipeline would radically contribute to our
growing carbon footprints. Joining me tonight on the Rapid Response Panel,
Jane Kleeb, Executive Director of Bold Nebraska and Tiernan Sittenfeld,
League of Conservation Voters, great to have both of you with us tonight.
Jane, you first. How critical is this information coming from an impartial

JANE KLEEB, BOLD NEBRASKA: It`s absolutely critical. You know, these
State Department report was actually written by industry consultants. And
so we -- in the environmental side obviously has our fact sheet as well.
And so that`s when you have scientist coming into the middle saying,
"There`s actually some gray area here". And so, we refused to accept the
promise that this pipeline will not increase carbon pollution. We know it
will and now we have an independent scientist group telling us that same
thing that we`ve known all along, Ed.

SCHULTZ: Tiernan, is the Keystone XL a factor for congressional candidates
in this upcoming midterm election. I mean is this truly a hot button issue
in the middle of the country?

question, Ed, and I`m definitely glad to see you calling attention to this
incredibly important study which shows that clearly the State Department
vastly underestimated the carbon pollution and just how devastating the
Keystone Pipeline would be. You know, it`s really interesting that
proponents of the pipeline try to go after clean energy champions and
proponents of addressing climate change in the 2012 election cycle,
literally throwing millions of dollars, all kinds of negative. And really
this, you know, these untrue ads at clean energy champion.

And I am pleased to say that not one clean energy champion lost their race
or did not get reelected because they opposed the Keystone XL, Tar Sands
pipeline. In fact, we believe that the politics of climate change have
really shifted and it actually as we`ve seen. amidst all of the extreme
weather and the devastating impacts that we`re seeing climate change all
across the country whether at it be droughts or the devastating and tragic
forest fires or the algae bloom in Toledo, Ohio. It is both good policy
and good politics and absolutely necessary to address climate change to
reduce carbon pollution as the Obama administration is really starting to
do in a really major way.

SCHULTZ: Jane, has there been anymore information out there for the
pipeline? Say in the last six months, has there been any studies out there
other than the State Department and the oil industry throwing in their two
cents on all of this? I mean, I don`t need to pick on Senator Landrieu,
but for her to make the statement that it is the cleanest barrel of oil, I
mean, I don`t know how she says it with a straight face. And we have asked
her office in the past to give us the source.

What is your -- I want to interview these people that are claiming that
this is going to be the cleanest barrel of oil coming out of North America,
what about all of that?

KLEEB: There has never been an independent scientific report that the
other side can point to that actually backs up their claims. And so you
have the industry written State Department report that clearly they use
that has misinformation all throughout it. And then you have essentially
front groups like Nebraskans for Jobs or Americans for Prosperity putting
out this "fact sheets" that folks like Senator Landrieu use in their
talking point. And they`re absolutely based in only the industries`
perspective and that`s we need more and more pipelines to essentially
become "energy secure".

And they will never have enough pipelines Ed. And that is the major
problem. So if we let this pipeline cut through the Ogallala Aquifer in
the Sandhills, there`ll be another pipeline right behind it. They will
never have enough pipeline, that`s why it`s critical to say no to this
pipeline and really start moving towards clean energy.

SCHULTZ: Well, I go home to the Midwest and I turn on the radio and I
listen to these talk shows and all they`re talking about is moving oil.
They`re talking about pipelines, they`re talking about, there`s too much
oil on the trains, you know, "What are we going to do, how we`re going to
handle all of these". The farmers in the Midwest are upset because they
can`t get their products on the trains, I mean this is how much oil this
country is pumping out right now. And this is what the lawmakers are
hearing back homes. So, I guess we better build this pipeline. Thernan,
what about that scenario playing out?

STTENFELD: You know, it`s to stop the fear mongering. This is clearly
about padding the profits of a foreign oil company rather than doing what`s
best for the American people. And I think the elections this fall are
actually going to present the American public of the real opportunity. Are
they` going to support champions of clean energy who want to address
climate change, people like Gary Peters, he`s a great congressman from
Michigan who`s taken on the Koch brothers and got -- disgusting dirty
mountain of petcoke which is a toxic byproduct to Tar Sand moved from the
Detroit river.

Or they`re going to support someone who has actually denied the existence
of climate change, his opponents. So, I think that they are -- we have a
real opportunity here. We`re kind of at crossroads when it comes to our
energy and future. And it`s not about whether this dirtiest oil in the


STTENFELD: . is going to go by rail or pipeline but are we going to move
toward a clean energy economy?

SCHULTZ: Jane, let`s go to the court room. What`s the latest in Nebraska?
What`s coming up?

KLEEB: So, September 5th we actually have a major court hearing in the
Nebraska Supreme Court. Our side will be defending our position. We won
in the lower court. The court case is actually not about, is Tar Sands
good or bad or is Keystone XL good or bad.

The court case is all about this Governor Heineman essentially abused his
powers and being able to -- essentially avoid the public service commission
which is the entity that should have been approving the pipeline route all
along. As well as, you know, Governor Heineman, a Republican Ed, gave
imminent domain powers to a foreign corporation before they even had a
federal permit. So, it`s going to be a big day for us and I hope everybody
tunes in. You`ll be able to watch it unfold in

SCHULTZ: We will pay attention to it, no doubt. Thanks so much. Jane
Kleeb, Thernan Sittenfeld, I appreciate your time tonight. We`ll stay on
the story. Coming up, the tire industry in America is under attack,
tariffs have been lifted and the Chinese are dumping cheap tires on America
and it`s affecting American workers. Punch Out, coming up. Stay with us,
we`ll be right back.


SCHULTZ: And in Pretenders tonight, the Fox News mystique, The Five.

The panelist tore apart Beyonce`s performance at the video music awards,
The Five say her presentation of feminism isn`t cutting it.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: During the performance last night, she had the word
feminism on a big screen and she was rapping. Now this is after she had
all these women swinging around stripper poles and gyrating. And the
message was we don`t teach our little girls if they can be sexual, we don`t
teach them that they can achieve the same things as men, in what universe
is she living in? We teach our girls to be sexual, that`s half of the

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And I think she`s also auditioning for a future
husband, to be honest with you...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`re consumed by fake symbolism and hypersexuality
disguised as freedom. This isn`t just a different kind of jail.


SCHULTZ: Fox news loves to define how women can present herself, right?
Well, they wouldn`t even let women on their own network wear pants.


BRIAN KILMEADE, FOX NEWS RADIO HOST: Guess who just walked in? If you`re
watching, if you have the podcast, Gretchen Carlson`s in, dressed kind of,
very nice.

GRETCHEN CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST: Wait a minute. Nobody`s going to
recognize me because not only my dress is casually, I have on pants.

KILMEADE: Wow, pants.

CARLSON: OK? Now pants, were not allowed on Fox and Friends, remember?

KILMEADE: Yeah, what happened with that?

CARLSON: This is something that you always said on Fox and Friends. You
always like to be shirtless.


CARLSON: Yeah. And sometimes you actually suggested that for me?



SCHULTZ: Feminism is about women defining themselves without bowing to
cultural expectations. Fox News is about defining a woman by her outfit.
If The Five thinks feminism means following to their lead, they can keep on


SCHULTZ: And finally tonight, this is the story for the folks who take a
shower after work. More Americans are planning to travel this Labor Day
weekend than in the past six years. Estimates say that over 29 million
Americans are going to be traveling by car. Labor Day is supposed to be a
celebration of the American worker and their contributions to this country.

So, this weekend, when the rubber hits the road, I want you to just take a
moment to think about those American tire manufacturers, because as a
result of unfair trade practices those American workers are now struggling
to keep their jobs. We`ve heard the story before from 2004 to 2008 China
flooded the United States market with tires, cheap tires. China`s share of
the American Market grew from 4.7 percent to 16.7 percent costing thousands
of American jobs in this industry.

So, in 2009, what did President Obama do? He imposed a 35 percent tariff
as he should have on tires imported from China. The Section 421 Tariffs,
what happened? They have expired. They expired in 2012, three years later
after that. So from 2011 to 2013, China doubled its share of the U.S.
market by 9 percent to 18 percent.

China imports were up from 24 million in 2011 top 50 million in 2013.
According to the steel workers of this country, the American market share
fell from 47 percent to 40 percent in that same period of time. So the
numbers don`t lie folks. Chinese tire imports are decimating another
United States industry.

The steel workers have petitioned the International Trade Commission to
investigate and take up. But the process of course takes time, costs jobs,
lots of money. And so as you are preparing to head out this Labor Day
weekend, if you need a new set of tires, some people in congress understand
what this is all about, buy American.

Joining me tonight, Scott Paul, President of the Alliance for American
Manufacturing. Scott, good to have you with us tonight, is this a clear
example of how tariffs impact the market? It doesn`t take away the free
market but it protects American workers and everybody gets a fair shake at.
How does this break out? What does this story tell us?

and that`s exactly right. Tariffs help to level the playing field, nothing
more and nothing less. We know that on a level playing field that the U.S.
manufacturers and workers, particularly in the tire industry can be
competitive in our domestic market. And we know that people are familiar
with a lot of the American brands.

However, when tire dealers are stocking their shelves with tires from China
that are sometimes priced below the cost of the raw materials and the labor
that goes into it, you add on the government`s subsidies from the Chinese
government in the form of a currency manipulation, energy subsidies, lacks
environmental enforcement and the result is a lot of Chinese tires as you
indicated, downward pressure on wages for workers, and potentially layoffs.

SCHULTZ: Sweatshops -- Could sweatshops, they`re putting tires together
and dumping them in America. So the tariff expired why? Why were the
tariffs allowed to expire in September 2012 just before the election?

PAUL: It`s one of the weaknesses in our trade laws, Ed. If you imagine
our trade laws as a security blanket, in this case, that blanket is very
threadbare and the 421 relief, as it was called, only allowed tariffs for
three years and then they were set to expire. So, under out trade laws and
again, this is kind of crazy and it`s really the only system in the world
that operates this way. We have to show again that Chinese tires were
surging into the market, that there was harm caused to the industry and to
the workers all over again to get some tariffs put back in.

It doesn`t make any sense, I mean, these trade laws could be a lot more
effective if we could apply them proactively because we know when the
surges are coming and that`s what really gives these workers, these
companies a chance to get back on their feet. To compete for that market
share and to create those good middle class jobs. And Ed, I`ll tell you,
I`ve been to a lot of tire factory towns, this tend to be small
manufacturing towns...


PAUL: ... in rural areas and once you lose that manufacturing job -- if
you get another job another at all, you`re going to be lucky but it`s
certainly going to be paying a lot lower wages. And that has an effect on
your family, on the community, and eventually on the entire country. We
hope the administration will do the right thing, will take a look at this
case, will put the tariffs back in place. But it calls out the need to
have better trade agreements and a better model of trade enforcements so
that we can regrow the middle in those jobs.

SCHULTZ: It`s like we don`t get the competition. We set the table for the
competition to take our jobs apart. For instance, the numbers, 2011, 24
million tires, less than 24 months later, 50 million tires. Now, China
clearly knew when the tariff was going to go off, and they were ready to
respond to it and they know in our system that we`re like molasses when it
comes to moving stuff like this. And so now, here we are again, we`re
going to see a wave of probably layoffs in an industry because we got a
lousy trade agreement.

PAUL: That`s exactly right. And, let`s put it this way, every other
country that I know of, operates in the real world and they`re looking out
for their own industry, for their own worker, some do it through legitimate


PAUL: ... some, like the government of China, do it through subsidies and
through dumping. We operate on some mythical philosophy that it was in the
textbook in the 17th century, we`re the only nation that does that...


PAUL: ... we need to get in the real world.

SCHULTZ: Got to run. Scott Paul, always, good to have you with us,
President of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, keep up the fight.

That`s the Ed Show, I`m Ed Schultz.

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


<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2014 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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.>

The Ed Show Section Front
Add The Ed Show headlines to your news reader:

Sponsored links

Resource guide