IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

The Ed Show for Friday, March 8th, 2013

Read the transcript to the Friday show

March 8, 2013

Guests: Jan Schakowsky, Peter Morici, David Cay Johnston, Colleen Kelley, Susan Del Percio, Michelle Goldberg, Eugene Iredale, Juan Carlos Vera

ED SCHULTZ, HOST: Good evening, Americans. And welcome to THE ED SHOW from
New York.

The Obama economy? What is it? It`s on a roll, and the Republicans hate it.

This is THE ED SHOW -- let`s get to work.


equation. Tax increases destroy jobs.

SCHULTZ (voice-over): Taxes went up and jobs went up. Tonight,
Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky on the surging Obama recovery despite no help
from Republicans.

And the failure of conservative economics with David Cay Johnston and Peter

The sequester cuts Arizona`s border patrol and now, Governor Jan Brewer is
crying for help. The head of the border patrol union joins me tonight.

First, Republicans voted against the Violence Against Women Act. Now
they`re trying to fool the public into thinking they supported the law. The
big panel weighs in.

Plus -- former Congressman Bob Ney of Ohio is going after his fellow
Republican, Speaker John Boehner.

And he`s the activist who dressed up like a pimp to expose ACORN

JAMES O`KEEFE, CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST: When I said I`ll turn tricks, I was
expecting them to like, whoa! But they didn`t really care. They just heard
it and it was business as usual.

SCHULTZ: Now, James O`Keefe is paying $100,000 to a victim of his stunt.
Today, ex-ACORN employee Juan Carlos Vera joins me for an exclusive.

O`KEEFE: I think this is the future of investigative journalism.


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

I remember when President Obama got elected and they did the stimulus
package and the Republicans just couldn`t wait to say, oh, this is Obama`s

You know, we show you this chart every month. The United States economy has
experienced three straight years -- that would be 36 months -- of private
sector job growth. More than 6 million jobs have been added after the worst
crisis since the Great Depression. The trend did not reverse this month.

Why is that significant? In this -- and this is what has me fired up
tonight because we couldn`t erase a right wing bullet point tonight.
Unemployment has been ticking down. It`s now 7.7 percent. It`s a four-year
low, by the way. The country added 236,000 private sector jobs. Experts,
they were expecting about 150,000 jobs.

But here is the problem: 10,000 public sector jobs were lost.

So we look at this chart. We just can`t forget what it looks like when you
add in the private sector job losses. Republicans talk about cutting
government spending all the time and shrinking the size of government.
Well, the price of this has been 740,000 jobs. This is how many government
jobs have been lost since President Obama took office. One government job
for every five private sector jobs has been created.

And let`s be honest about what government jobs are. They are teachers. They
are firefighters, police officers, first responders, public safety workers.

Republicans, you know, they are OK with losing these kinds of jobs. They
would rather protect the wealthy.

Now, remember what Republicans told us when taxes went back to the old
Clinton rates at the beginning of the year for folks who have got an income
over $400,000. They use the same old tired line that they always used.


GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: If you raise taxes on the so-called
rich, you are really raising taxes on the job creators.


SCHULTZ: Yes, you can`t raise taxes on the job creators. Oh, yes you can.

Republicans followed the lead of George W. Bush and said this fiscal cliff
tax increases would just crush the economy.


BOEHNER: Raising those rates on January 1st would, according to the
independent firm Ernst & Young, destroy 700,000 American jobs.


SCHULTZ: What firm was that?

John Boehner was worried about losing 700,000 jobs because of tax
increases? Well, sports fans, it just didn`t happen.

Instead, Republicans` slash and burn policies have cut 740,000 jobs. Now I
don`t know about you, but I`m starting to notice the real problem here.
Republican policies help lose jobs. The president`s policies help add jobs.

And the truth is hard for Republicans and conservatives to take at this


RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Anything positive happening in the
economy, if there are any positive numbers, they`re fake.


SCHULTZ: Fake for three years, Rushbaugh? Come on.

It`s important to point out the latest numbers don`t cover the spending
cuts from sequestration, which I`ll get to a commentary on that in a

We know these cuts will have an impact on the economy. A White House
spokesman talked about the impact of the sequester is having right now on
jobs within the White House.


of components who work here at the White House that will be facing pay
cuts, that will be facing furloughs, and again, this is the result of a
policy the Democrats and Republicans agree is really bad.


SCHULTZ: So Republicans may still succeed in slowing down our economic
progress, thanks to the obsession that they have with cutting government.
But despite what Rush Limbaugh says, the economy is not made up. Like it or
not, this is the Obama economy because Republicans have completely
abandoned any idea or any effort of helping out in any way, shape or form.

How many jobs bills have been on the table that they have ignored? They`ve
not helped create a single job.

Get your cell phones out. We want to know what you think.

Tonight`s question: will Republicans ever admit the Obama economy is

Text A for yes, text B for no to 67622. And you can always go to our blog
at We`ll bring you the results later on in the show.

Some experts tonight. First, we go to Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky of

Congresswoman, good to have you with us here.


SCHULTZ: You know, has a single piece of jobs legislation been brought
forward in the House for a vote?

SCHAKOWSKY: Absolutely to the contrary. Most economists believe that this
sequester and now carried through in the continuing resolution will cost
750,000 jobs.

So here we are on a great day. Of course, John Boehner won`t admit it. He
wants to remind people that Barack Obama promised lower unemployment, you
know, sour grapes all the time. And then continuing -- it`s just going with
a policy that could cost 750,000 more jobs to be lost.

SCHULTZ: Yes, and you expect these numbers to turn around because of the
sequester, correct? I mean --



SCHAKOWSKY: Oh, look, I had a meet with the FAA today. They already got
furlough notices.


SCHAKOWSKY: We`re hearing about small airports that are going to possibly
have to shut down or at least slow down considerably. This is real. And I
got an e-mail today from a woman, her name is Mary. A constituent that says
her unemployment benefit was just cut $200.

SCHULTZ: OK. And the backdrop of this is that we can raise taxes on what
they call the job creators. There`s still more that can be gotten out there
because of the income inequality in this country and the wealthiest
Americans who have really seen their incomes go up during this recession.

And so, is there more money out there that can be brought to the Treasury
from the wealthiest Americans and still keep the job growth going?

SCHAKOWSKY: You know, we were just doing a calculation in my office about
$1.5 trillion and what we call tax expenditures. These are tax cut, tax
loopholes. But it`s spending just the same as if it were in the budget
itself -- giving these tax loopholes to oil companies, to companies that
ship jobs overseas, letting people pay 15 percent on their dividend.

You know, if we were to do something about these tax expenditures, we could
save $1.5 trillion from the deficit. We could cut it, yes.

SCHULTZ: Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, always great to have you with us on

SCHAKOWSKY: Thank you.

SCHULTZ: Appreciate your time tonight.

Now let`s turn to David Cay Johnston, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and
professor at Syracuse University College of Law. And Peter Morici with us
tonight, economist and professor of business at the University of Maryland.

Gentlemen, good to have you with us.

Peter, you first. Can we admit tax increases did not kill jobs at this

PETER MORICI, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: No, I don`t think so. I have a burden
of having a degree in economics. I`ll tell you this. If you -- I understand
it doesn`t count for much here.

SCHULTZ: Yes, it does. It does, but, I mean come on now. We`ve added jobs
when we have raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

MORICI: Well, simply added less jobs is like jobs saved (ph). Essentially,
if you cut taxes -- you raise taxes, excuse me, you take money out of
people`s pockets that they could spend. If you cut spending, you reduce

So either way, whether you reduce spending or you raise taxes you`ll have a
negative impact on the economy. I find it very amusing, though, that some
of these estimates, the CBO says that sequester will result this year in
about $42 billion in less spending. Essentially, that`s about -- the
multiplier effects and all the roll-in is about a half a percentage point
to GDP. Each percentage point of GDP is worth about 150,000 jobs.

So we`re talking about losing 75,000 jobs, not 750,000 jobs.


MORICI: I would also point out there would be a much bigger number if you
apply the same analysis over on the tax increases.

SCHULTZ: All right. David Cay, I`ll ask you the same question. Can we raise
taxes on the wealthiest Americans and still create jobs?

things, when you raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans if they are
business owners, it provides them with a greater subsidy from the
government. They go out and buy a piece of equipment. The government
(INAUDIBLE) 40 percent rate is paying 40 percent of the tab instead of 30
percent rate.

And notice what`s happened here, we raise taxes on American families with
the end of the payroll tax cut. Most families had 20 bucks a week less in
their paycheck in January and February when these numbers are from.


JOHNSTON: And yet we added 236,000 jobs. We added 100,000 jobs more than
the growth and the increase of people in the labor force.

SCHULTZ: Well, about that labor force --

JOHNSTON: We could be doing even better --

SCHULTZ: David, I want to ask you about that labor force. Some job seekers
have left the labor force entirely. For instance, in January, 130,000
workers left the labor force. That`s a drop of 0.1 percent.

Is that a bad sign?

JOHNSTON: Well, it`s bad in the sense that we should be doing better. We
could be growing the economy faster. But look at the things that are going
to happen because of the sequester. This interference with air traffic and
other measures is going to make business less efficient. We`re not spending
money on infrastructure. It makes it less efficient to move goods around
the country.

Those all have negative effects on the economy. And so, yes, we can raise
taxes on a variety of people. We can reduce tax expenditures and have a
growing economy and a better growing economy.

SCHULTZ: Peter, what about these job trends, these trends in the job
growth. Support the president`s agenda, don`t they?

MORICI: Well, I don`t know that they do. I mean, if we compare this cycle
with the Reagan cycle, both presidents had unemployment peak above 10
percent. Mr. Obama, 10 percent. Mr. Reagan, 10.8 percent.

At this point in his recovery, Mr. Obama has had the economy growing for
three years at about an average rate of 2.1 percent, 2.2 percent. Mr.
Reagan had the economy growing at 5.2 percent at the same point in his
recovery. And he was adding about, you know, 300,000, 400,000, 500,000 jobs
a month.

Now, it`s different times, different circumstances.

We are doing better. I acknowledge that. But I think we could do a lot
better if we attacked some of the structural problems. I don`t think
there`s that much taxes that politically can be harvested by closing the

SCHULTZ: OK. David, you see it differently?

JOHNSTON: Yes, I do. First of all, the economic problems that Mr. Reagan
faced 30 years ago are a blip compared to the disaster that we are still
dealing with brought on by all the corruption, the unprosecuted corruption
on Wall Street.

And secondly, we have to remember that in this economy, because of that
disaster, we are laying off so many workers, over 700,000 public workers.
Ronald Reagan expanded government employment tremendously on his watch and
that`s one of the reasons that, at this point in his two terms, he was
doing much better. He had so many additional government jobs added.

SCHULTZ: Now, Mr. Krugman, who has been on this network and on this show,
says that we need a bigger stimulus package. Peter, would you disagree with

MORICI: Yes, I would. I think we`ve gotten the bang we`re going to get out
of stimulus.

I would like to do some things in the financial sector that might warm your
hearts, the good progressive that you are. I agree with them. Some
Democratic economists that maybe Dodd/Frank is a little overboard in my
mind. It poses too many burdens on small banks. And what`s really need,
instead is to stream line Dodd/Frank but to bust up the big banks, so they
don`t exert this monopoly power and create the difficulties and problems
they have.

A lot of stuff has gone unprosecuted and a lot of these guys still have
their jobs. You know, Blankfein still at Goldman Sachs. Jamie Dimon still
at JPMorgan and so forth. I`d like to separate investment from commercial


MORICI: We have five or six banks that have 60 percent of the deposits. I`d
slice them in half. Nobody gets more than 5 percent.

SCHULTZ: Glass/Steagall, you`d go back to it?

MORICI: Absolutely.


MORICI: Absolutely. I`m not against regulation, but I want to get it right.

SCHULTZ: David Cay, we might convert him before the show is over. What do
you think?

MORICI: I might convert you.

JOHNSTON: I think so. I am with Peter. We need to go back to
Glass/Steagall. That was a much better policy. And we need to break up the
big banks.

SCHULTZ: Gentlemen, good to have you with us tonight. Thanks so much. David
Johnston and Peter Morici here on THE ED SHOW, appreciate it.

Remember to answer tonight`s question at the bottom of the screen. Share
your thoughts on Twitter @EdShow and on Facebook, and everywhere you can
for that matter. We always want to know what you think.

Radical Republicans are already whining about cuts in government spending.
I`ll show you why and what`s happening on the border.


SCHULTZ: Well, they`re at it again. Republicans who voted against
protecting women are now trying to take credit for the bill. A very special
big panel weighs in tonight.

And the fake pimp who was out to get ACORN gets slapped with a $100,000
bill. The former ACORN worker who is making James O`Keefe pay joins me
tonight in an ED SHOW exclusive.

You can listen to my radio show on Sirius XM Radio, Channel 127, Monday
through Friday, noon to 3:00.

Share your thoughts with us on Facebook and on Twitter using #EdShow.

We are right back.


SCHULTZ: Thanks for staying with us tonight.

Well, it`s been a week since the cuts went into effect and federal spending
cuts, you know what? They just got real for Republicans in border states.
And tonight, they are rethinking their party`s position. Was this the right
thing to do?

A senior official with the Department of Homeland Security confirms all
60,000 customs and border protection employees are getting furlough
notices. Here are the furlough facts: all 60,000 border and custom control
employees might have to take 14 unpaid days off. Overtime is getting capped
and wages could drop 35 percent. They got to be excited about this.

But what about security? The furloughs go beyond paychecks for the workers
and could threaten security. One expert says smugglers know the agency`s
weakness and exploit changes in manpower.

Of course, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is a longtime advocate of the
corporate tax cuts and shrinking government programs. Always has been. But,
all of a sudden, she`s kind of changing her tune.

Brewer lashed out this week when federal spending cuts forced Homeland
Security to release 300 low risk detainees.


GOV. JAN BREWER (R), ARIZONA: They are releasing what we believe to be
criminal illegal alien.


SCHULTZ: Brewer`s spokesman calls the news about the furloughs outrageous
and, quote, "any cut that impacts public safety should be a last resort."

Then there`s Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio who is also questioning
this party`s spending cuts. Arpaio told a reporter, "You shouldn`t take
away resources when you still have a problem. It doesn`t make sense."

Where were all these folks before? It`s hard to feel sorry for the radical
anti-immigration crackpots whining about federal spending cuts. If the
Republicans had their way, they would drown government in a bathtub, right?

Maybe this will wake them up to just how dangerous their radical ideas
really are. Border security, well, with the Republicans it used to be kind
of a big deal.

Joining me tonight is Colleen Kelley, national president of the National
Treasury Employees Union.

Colleen, thank you for your time tonight.

How serious are these furloughs? What does it mean to security?

Ed. We are already seeing the beginning of the cuts from the sequester with
the decrease in overtime. That has already resulted in the beginning of
seeing a longer passenger lines when they are clearing international
flights. We`ve already seen news reports of that, and of cargo containers
having to wait for four and five days in the ports of New York and New
Jersey to be cleared to come into the country.

So the furlough notices, as you mentioned, will require 14 unpaid furlough
days. And they have not even started yet.

So the slowdown of the commercial traffic coming into the country, as well
as all of our seaports, airports and land border crossings, that will all
only get worse as the summer season, which of course is a big travel
season, increases.

SCHULTZ: OK. So will security be compromised? Are we less safe because of
these furloughs?

KELLEY: Well, we will have fewer employees providing that security, and the
department and customs and border protection will have to decide where to
put the staffing they have available.

Border security will remain a priority, I believe, for the agency as well
as for the employees. But that`s why the impact is going to be seen much
more so on trade and travel. And that is the other part of the agency`s
mission is to facilitate legal trade and travel into the country.

SCHULTZ: Who can take a 20 percent pay cut and go do something else because
the government doesn`t have the money to pay them? Will you lose employees?
Will the union lose employees because of this and people make career
changes? And then you have to go through training people all over again.

KELLEY: Well, I think the federal government will lose employees.
Obviously, all of this impacts morale and makes employees wonder why all of
this is being done to them. They did nothing to cause this. They want to
come to work every day and protect our country. That`s what they want to

SCHULTZ: Is Governor Brewer having to eat her words, so to speak?

KELLEY: Well, I think anyone who thinks that sequestration was the answer,
and that these cuts would not be felt by the country, they were just wrong.
And they are starting to see that.

But like I said, they really have not seen the full brunt of their
decisions yet. They will see that within 30 days or so.

SCHULTZ: So the situation we can deduct that it will get worse as time goes

And then the other thing that I wanted to ask you is about how people would
exploit the man hours. Is that a real thing?

KELLEY: The decrease in man hours?

SCHULTZ: Yes. I mean, people that want to get in and they would notice
exactly the shift in manpower and also notice the vulnerabilities.

KELLEY: Well, for anyone looking to do anything illegal, of course they`re
going to see it as an opportunity. What the front line customs and border
protection employees need is the staffing and the time to search for
illegal weapons for illegal drugs, for contraband coming into our country.

They need the time to do their jobs and the staffing. They`ve been
understaffed for the last couple of years. This sequester is just making
things worse.

SCHULTZ: OK. Colleen Kelley, great to have you with us tonight. I
appreciate your time.

So the world is definitely changing with this sequester.

Republican welfare for oil companies is so big, you can see it from space.
No kidding. I`ll show you that next, OK?

And over 130 House Republicans, what did they do? They voted no on the
Violence Against Women Act.

Now, some of them are trying to take credit for doing what? Yes, they say
they supported it all along.

Big panel on that coming up. Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to THE ED SHOW.

It`s the oil boom. It`s why North Dakota has a $3.8 billion surplus of the
state treasury and has a 3.2 percent unemployment rate. That is the lowest
in the United States. Oil does a lot of good, but then it also does some
very curious things to people when it comes to taxing.

Despite that surplus, the state legislature voted against giving just
$500,000 to a program that would provide 6,000 needy kindergarteners to
third graders with free milk during snack time. Yes, there`s poverty out
there on the prairie.

But the North Dakota Senate did approve a lower oil extraction tax from 6.5
percent to 4.5 percent. The bill now heads to the House. Republicans have
two-thirds control in both the North Dakota House and Senate, so,
obviously, it`s going to pass -- even though Democrats argue the bill will
actually end up costing the state more than $595 million in the first five

I want to show you a shot from satellite. This is from NASA. And you can
see, well, where the energy is being used in America, New York. Here`s
Chicago. Here`s Minneapolis.

And this in the middle of nowhere, is Williston, North Dakota. You can see
Williston, North Dakota? That`s the -- really what the oil boom looks like.
That`s oil rigs and oil flares in Bakken formation.

North Dakota now accounts for 11 percent of the nation`s oil production.
North Dakota is also the number two state when it comes to crude oil
producing in this country.

And Republicans argue that this cut is just necessary for the state to stay
competitive with other oil-producing states.

Are you kidding me? This is a classic example of how needy kids will go
without, but the oil companies just can`t get enough and the Republicans
will lay out the red carpet for `em. It`s another classic example of how
even on the prairie -- yes, they will take from the poor and they will make
sure the rich get whatever they want.


day of the advocates, the day of the survivors. This is your victory.


SCHULTZ: Republicans in Congress are taking credit for the Violence Against
Women Act, after they voted against it. The big panel tears apart their
deception plot.

A Republican former congressman steps out with the truth on speaker John
Boehner`s dirty dealings.

And activist James O`Keefe settles a lawsuit with one of the victims of his

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I want to come in and talk to you personally. It
involves some girls coming over -- overseas.

SCHULTZ: Tonight, ex-Acorn employee Juan Carlos Vera joins me for an
exclusive interview.


SCHULTZ: And we are back.

One hundred and thirty-eight House Republicans voted against the Violence
Against Women Act last month. Some of those no votes are now hoping the
public forgets where they stand.

See, Congressman Steve King of Iowa proudly proclaims on his Web site, King
votes in support of Violence Against Women Act. King says he understands
the importance of reauthorizing this law. But King didn`t vote for the bill
that the president of the United States signed into law. No, it was Steve
King who voted for the house GOP`s version of the bill, a watered down
alternative which left protections out of the key groups of people that the
Republican bill never made it out of the house. Just kind of a minor

Then, there is Congresswoman Vicki Hartzler. She, of course, another no
vote. She boasts on her Web site that she voted to protect women from acts
of violence. But just like Steve King, Hartzler voted for the Republican
bill that went nowhere and not the bill that passed the Senate and signed
by signed by President Obama. When asked about the mixed messages, a
spokesperson for Hartzler told McClatchy newspapers that there wasn`t any
intention to deceive here.

Of course, Hartzler and King aren`t alone. As the Maddow blog points out,
several House Republicans did the exact same thing. These lawmakers all
voted against the final bill, yet, they are taking credit for the passage
and hoping that you, the public, you just don`t see the difference at any
of this.

Let`s turn to Michelle Goldberg of "Newsweek" and "The Daily Beast." Also
with us tonight, Republican strategist Susan Del Pecrio and Karen Finney,
former communications director for DNC.

Susan, got to ask you first, I mean, what`s going on here? Is this a
communication problem here? I mean, you know, why would the Republicans
pull a stunt like this?

SUSAN DEL PERCIO, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I don`t know why a handful of
Republicans would decide to do this. Frankly, you should be proud of every
vote you take in Congress and you should stand up for it. And what they are
doing is downright cowardly. If you voted against it, say why you voted
against it. There`s nothing wrong with that. But taking that vote was --
taking that vote and manipulating the day the president signed it was just
wrong, plain and simple.

SCHULTZ: Karen, what about it?

KAREN FINNEY, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: But here`s the - well, here`s the
thing. This is, I believe, why John Boehner allowed the vote to proceed as
it did. Remember, we were all scratching our heads thinking, wow, has John
Boehner turned a new leaf that he`s not going to, you know, not use the
Hastert rule and et things come to the book? No. What he did was he let the
Republicans vote on their version first. Then, they voted on the Senate
version so that everyone could say, technically, they voted for violence
against women.

DEL PERCIO: And they also did it to avoid primaries on their right. That`s
why they voted no but they did, as Karen said, have a vote that said yes.

FINNEY: But Susan, how disappointing is it to say that in order to avoid a
primary on your right, you have to have a fake vote because you can`t just
come out and say that I believe in this country no woman should be abused,
assaulted, raped. I believe we should protect every woman in this country.
That`s what you have to go through now in the Republican party to not get

DEL PERCIO: Let`s make it clear. This was a handful of Republicans. And,
like I said, it is fundamentally wrong. It`s the problem with the
Republican primaries -- I`m sorry, the Republican candidates right now and
elected officials. They are afraid of their right. They should be doing
what`s right.

SCHULTZ: All right. Michelle, why don`t you sort this out for us? Why these
Republicans want to stick to their convictions?

MICHELLE GOLDBERG, NEWSWEEK, THE DAILY BEST: Well, it may be only a handful
of Republicans who are now kind of pretending they voted against - that
they voted for VAWA when they really voted against it. But it`s the
majority of their -- of house Republicans who actually voted against the
Violence Against Women Act. And in certain ways, that`s the bigger problem
and that`s what`s more indicative of the problem with the Republican party
is that you have a party that`s stuck between what the general public
wants. You know, violence -- protecting women from domestic violence is not
a controversial proposition in this country, whatever the far right would
like to think.

DEL PERCIO: And yet the majority of Republicans passed it in the Senate.

GOLDBERG: Yes, so -- it passed by 68 votes in the Senate. And yet the
majority of House Republicans thought that this was -- I don`t know, too
liberal. They are enthralled to a base that opposes even very kind of
common sense protections for women, for gays and lesbians, for immigrants.
I mean, that was a big sticking point that this is going --.

SCHULTZ: That was. The Republican bill definitely did that.

Karen, why would they not do that for native Americans?

FINNEY: Well, if you believe heritage and freedom works, it`s because,
really, Ed, the Senate version of the bill took away rights from men. And
heaven ,knows we cannot in any way shape or form infringe on the freedom of
men in this country.

I mean, literally, one of the posts that I think it was freedom works wrote
was now if you just irritate a woman she can call the police on you. I
mean, that just shows how disconnected they are from the reality, right?
They did not want to protect native American women. Why? Because what we
were talking about is nonnative men who actually go on the reservations and
abuse women because they know they can get away with it.

We are talking about women who are here illegally for a variety of reasons,
who are abused, who are afraid to come forward because they believe, you
know, they`ll get deported if they admit that they are being abused or
raped or, you know, worse. And again, these are the most vulnerable people
in our society. But I am glad it passed. That`s the most important thing.

SCHULTZ: I don`t understand why any of them would not vote for what was on
the table from the Democratic side. I mean, it`s --

FINNEY: Agreed.

SCHULTZ: It`s somewhat of a select society to exclude people, isn`t it,

DEL PERCIO: No. I`m with the 87 members of the Republican caucus that voted
for it. It should have been passed. It was a good piece of legislation.
It`s an important piece of legislation, and it was a renewed piece that
added a segment of the population that is vulnerable.

SCHULTZ: All right. We got job numbers out today, 36 months of private
sector job creation in this country. Are these numbers going to turn around
because of the budget cuts that kicked in a week from tonight, actually,
from, you know, a week ago tonight? Can they continue to keep these job
numbers going.

Michelle, your thoughts on this.

GOLDBERG: I mean, from -- people who know a lot more about this than me say
that these cuts are going to not turn the recovery around. But certainly
slow it down. And obviously, the Republican party, which is desperate for
any piece of bad news about the economy and there still are plenty of bad
pieces of news about the economy are going to seize on that and blame Obama
for any slowdown that comes about as a result of their own intransigence.

SCHULTZ: Well, this is Obama`s economy right now. We have to say that it
is. I mean, three years of this.

FINNEY: Well, And as you said in your first segment, like let`s give the
guy some credit, right? We`re having job creation, and again, the danger
here is that the sequester, as most economists believe, will slow down that
job growth at a time when we should be doing exactly the opposite, which is
obviously more growth.

And just kind of to tie this back to how well you support women or not.
Remember, that a lot of the budget cuts, particularly in Paul Ryan`s first
budget. We are going to see a new budget from him last week, who took the
brunt? And a lot of these programs that we have been talking about, it`s
women and children who tend to take the hit.

So, if you really support women, it`s not just about voting for some
version of violence against women but looking at the economic policies that
you support and how those policies actually impact working women in this
country and women across the board in this country.

SCHULTZ: Susan, I remember back in 2009 when the Republicans couldn`t wait
to say that this was Obama`s economy. Can we say that now?

DEL PERCIO: Absolutely. He is accountable. He`s held responsible. These
were great numbers that came out today. But that`s not to say that things
won`t, you know, that things will be steady. As Michelle mentioned, there
could be sequester problems with the sequester. But I think what is riding
the stock market, why it had such a good week, and I think what will keep
the economy going is that there`s hope for a grand bargain. If we could see
that, that could keep us in the right direction.

SCHULTZ: I hope there`s no grand bargain because it will be the big three
that will be on the table and that`s not what the election was about. But I
do agree with you that it is something to watch.

Michelle Goldberg, Susan Del Percio and Karen Finney, great to have you
with us on "the Ed Show" tonight. Thank you.

A former Republican congressman says John Boehner I more interested in
partying than politics in Washington.

And James O`Keefe gets stung by his Acorn sting. I will talk exclusively to
the man who made him pay up. Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: Donald Rumsfeld, remember him? Today he tweeted out the cover of
his new book "Rumsfeld`s rules," OK? Well, the book won`t be out until May.
And so, we just can`t wait that long. So we asked all of you for your
suggestions on Facebook.

Meg Baldwin Ulmes, she says Rumsfeld`s number one rule is to do unto others

Jolene suggests, do whatever we want to whomever we want because we are the
best and the rest of the world is evil.

And Joyce Graves writes, go to war without proper equipment and tough stuff
if you`re killed or maimed.

Go to our Facebook tonight and right now and you can share your
suggestions. And don`t forget that you can like "the Ed Show" when you
there are. We appreciate that.

We`re coming right back with the Boehner story you won`t want to miss.


SCHULTZ: What do you do when you get out of jail? Well, I guess you could
write a book. That`s what has happened here. A former Republican
congressman and convicted felon is trying to disgrace the speaker of the
house, John Boehner.

Bob Ney out of Ohio spent a decade as a congressman from that state and
he`s known Boehner for 25 years. In 2006, Nay pleaded guilty to corruption
charges stemming from the Jack Abram lobbying scandal. He accepted gifts in
exchange for votes and served 17 months in prison.

Now, Bob Ney going after his old buddy John Boehner in a brand new book.
Ney accuses Boehner of allegedly having an extramarital affair, heavy
drinking, taking thousands of dollars in gifts from lobbyists and just
being lazy.

I spoke today on my radio show today. He thinks Boehner`s past has a lot to
do with the gridlock in Washington.


BOB NEY (R), FORMER OHIO CONGRESSMAN: As we talk about sequestering and
fiscal cliffs, the advocacy money and the lobby money is flowing all over
the place to make decisions. And at the helm is a person, the speaker of
the house, that was involved in all of these things with Abramoff. And I
think people have a right to know what the third in line to the presidency
is about.


SCHULTZ: He also told me that Boehner is concerned about one thing,


NEY: At no point in time have I ever heard in 25 years John Boehner say,
Bob, that`s just not good for people or, that is good for people. This is
his personality. It is about his survival as speaker. So if he has to
obstruct, he will obstruct. If he has to cater to all the special
interests, he will cater.


SCHULTZ: Well, now clearly, Boehner isn`t real happy with his former
colleague. I don`t know if they are friends anymore. He addressed the
accusations on Thursday in a presser.


congressman who went to jail. He`s made a lot of baseless and false
accusations in order to try to sell a book. It`s sad.


SCHULTZ: What`s wrong with no comment? Why even address it if it`s all
wrong. Ney responded to Boehner on my radio show earlier today.


NEY: As far as sad, I think John probably cried when he heard some of the
things I said because he knows they are true. There will be people that are
Republicans. There will be people that, you know, are not deemed liars.
That will be, I believe, coming out to verify what I`ve said.


SCHULTZ: Wow. That will be a story. Only time will tell if these
accusations prove to be true. But we should note Boehner`s handed out
checks from the tobacco industry on the house floor.

Tonight in our survey, I asked you, will Republicans ever admit the Obama
economy is working? Two percent of you say yes, 98 percent of you say no.

Coming up, FOX News favorite pimp has to give $100,000 to a former member
of Acorn. He joins me next. Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to "the Ed Show." The big finish tonight, now, this
has to be a lesson to everyone. You play with a camera, you could end up
writing a check if you don`t know what the heck you are doing.

A hero of the right-wing James O`Keefe was on the losing end of a lawsuit.
And now, he`s finally paid. You know, James O`Keefe, the guy who made a big
splash a few years ago by posing as a pimp and allegedly insisting the help
of various Acorn employees to smuggle underage girls across the border.
O`Keefe used a hidden camera.


JAMES O`KEEFE, ACTIVIST: It involved some girls coming overseas.


O`KEEFE: From El Salvador. OK. My girlfriend here is a prostitute. She`s in
a unique line of business. She`s in prostitution. And we`re bringing in
some underage girls in from -- can I pull up a chair?


O`KEEFE: Can you -- this is confidential, right?


O`KEEFE: Thank you.


SCHULTZ: After O`Keefe left the acorn office, the employee in the video,
Juan Carlos Vera, called his cousin, a police officer.

Meanwhile, O`Keefe released a heavily edited video suggesting Mr. Vera was
trying to help him. FOX News, of course, jumped all over the story.


SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Now the man on this tape even offers to help
smuggle underage illegal immigrants into the U.S. for the purposes of
prostitution. Let`s take a look.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Logistically, is it better if it`s Tijuana? Is it better
if it`s somewhere inland? Where is the best place?


SCHULTZ: Well, Vera was fired from Acorn and O`Keefe`s videos were a big
selling point when Congress defunded the organization Acorn. Here`s
Republican congressman Trent Franks connecting acorn to President Obama.


President Obama, his entire career was essentially launched by acorn. He
ran a voter registration project for them. And he was one of their lawyers
in key cases. And now he`s in the untenable position of signing a bill to
defund the organization that launched his career and helped getting him
elected to president.


SCHULTZ: Well, Mr. Vera sued Mr. O`Keefe. And now, the case has been
settled with O`Keefe paying $100,000 to Mr. Vera. In the settlement,
O`Keefe regrets any pain suffered by Mr. Vera or his family.

I am joined by Carlos -- Juan Carlos Vera and his attorney Eugene Iredale.

Gentlemen, thanks for your time tonight.


SCHULTZ: Carlos, what`s was it like having your reputation trashed by a

JUAN CARLOS VERA, FORMER ACORN EMPLOYEE: Hi. My reputation, I feel, is in
the garbage when this action.

SCHULTZ: Are you glad this is over with?

VERA: Yes, I feel OK.

SCHULTZ: You feel OK about the settlement?

VERA: Yes.

SCHULTZ: Is this a victory for you?

VERA: Yes, I think so. Only I feel sad because ACORN not exist anymore and
ACORN, they have a very good programs. That`s why.

SCHULTZ: Eugene, explain the wrongdoing alleged in the lawsuit.

many states in the country, it`s illegal to tape record someone without
their permission. We have a section of our penal code that makes it a crime
to tape record someone without their permission.

Mr. O`Keefe, we feel, knew very well that the law in California prohibited
recording without consent. He had been involved earlier in the sting of
planned parenthood with a woman named Lila Rose (ph), and this very section
of the penal code came up.

The law also gives a private person who is aggrieved a right to file a
civil lawsuit which Juan Carlos did. And, of course, O`Keefe had no
defense. He illegally recorded, repeatedly in California, not only in San
Diego but in San Bernardino and in Los Angeles.

By the way, in Pennsylvania, there was a lawsuit against him which he
settled. This time secretly some years ago based on the same kind of law in
Pennsylvania and there was a case filed against him in Maryland for the
same thing.

SCHULTZ: It`s pretty habit forming it seems like for him.

All right, what about the dishonesty here. The editing of the tape that put
your client in a horrific position, tarnished his reputation and then, of
course, the capitulation. And this is what Mr. O`Keefe is saying in a
statement. He says the settlement admits no liability and there is no
benefit from extending this ridiculous lawsuit. What do you make of that?

IREDALE: Well, I`ll tell you. If he wants to get out of the settlement and
wants to fight us in court, we`re ready. Any time. We can go right now.

SCHULTZ: And what about the editing of the tape?

IREDALE: The tape was edited so that the early part of the tape, in which
Juan Carlos really didn`t understand because English is his second
language, was completely edited out. And the tape was selectively edited so
that it appeared that Juan Carlos was trying to help O`Keefe when what he
was doing was playing along to try to get information.


IREDALE: And, in fact, it`s not so much O`Keefe, but there was a
Triumvirate which O`Keefe was on part. Andrew Breitbart acted as the
liaison and it`s really FOX News which acted as the propaganda outlet that
was --

SCHULTZ: Yes. Hannity took it hook, line and sinker and ran with it as if
there was some kind of journalism done here. That is the amazing thing. It
seems like there`s no oversight with that guy.

Juan, go ahead.

IREDALE: You know, I was just going to say, there was no checking
whatsoever. There was no verification. In San Bernardino, for instance, the
Acorn employee was a woman. And she heard this ridiculous spill that
O`Keefe and his supposed prostitute girlfriend gave and she said, oh, yes.
Well is that all you guys do, underage prostitution? I killed my husband. I
shot him in the head. And, of course, that could have been verified one way
or another before FOX News put it out. And the San Bernardino police had to
wait until they heard it and then went and talked to both of her ex-
husbands who said there may have been problems in their marriages but both
of them were fully alive.

SCHULTZ: All right. Juan Carlos, you feel like FOX News was unfair in the
way they were portraying you?

VERA: Yes, I feel FOX News, they -- and my reputation is in the garbage.

SCHULTZ: OK. Well, it`s all ended well, and I appreciate both of you being
on "the Ed Show" tonight.

Juan Carlos Vera and also Eugene Iredale. Thank you so much for your time.

And that is THE ED SHOW. I`m Ed Schultz. "THE "RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts
right now.

Good evening, Rachel

great weekend, my friend.

SCHULTZ: I will do that, you too.



Copyright 2013 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.>