THE ED SHOW
December 12, 2013
Guest: Sheila Jackson Lee, Matt Cartwright, John Nichols, Bob Shrum, Tom
Perriello, Mark Schauer
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN.RAND PAUL, (R) KENTUCKY: When you allow people to be on
unemployment insurance for 99 weeks, you`re causing them to become part of
this perpetual unemployed
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was greedy and foolish and now, I`m left with no
one. Wrinkled and alone.
ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Republicans are on a mission to take and make
poor people even more poor two weeks before Christmas.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well come on, what do you want? A snot ride?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These are working family struggling to keep the
heads above water.
SCHULTZ: They got ice in their veins.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s all about the money boys.
SCHULTZ: And of course, we certainly don`t want to raise the minimum
wage. Merry Christmas.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight folks. Thanks for
watching.
You know, in every deal, there are winners and there are losers,
whether it be business, whether it be politics, whether it be hunting. You
know, some guys come -- hey what, gets skunked, you know.
This guy, he just got muscled big time.
Let me tell you about this deal that the house is about ready to vote
on. I advocate a No vote and I`ll tell you why.
First of all, when you do a deal, you don`t go home bragging about it.
And notice how both Patty Murray and Paul Ryan have come out and basically
said the same things. But behind close doors, I guarantee you the
Republicans are thinking they just took the Democrats to the cleaners, if
they could just get a Yes vote in the house on this budget, because you
see, this guy right here has been a problem for the Republicans.
And if they can get a budget deal for the next two years where the
budget`s not an issue, they`re not going to have anymore shutdown politics.
So what happen here is that the Republicans are getting shutdown
protection. They`re getting circus protection because they have disarmed
the rogue senator from Texas, Ted Cruz.
Here is the bottom line. The Republicans are going to be able to go
home and say, "Guaranteed, there`s not going to be a shutdown the next
couple of years. Actually, that`s good for us because we can`t be blamed
anymore. The last shutdown we did, that won`t a good deal for us."
So they`ve got election protection. They don`t need this guy going
off on the rails before the midterms. Or do they want to send a
Presidential candidate out on the road having to talk about shutdown
politics? This was a protectionary measure for the Republicans.
The next thing they`re going to be able to do is go home and say, "We
didn`t raise your taxes." They`re also going to be able to go their
corporate donors and say, "We protected your loopholes." That`s all they
need. This is a grand bargain for the Republicans. They got exactly what
they want to win the next election. The table is set for them. They don`t
have any major problems coming up. They can go back to obstructing Obama.
Democrats, what you need to do is make them bring something to the
table. And on this deal they have to bring unemployment benefits. You
see, there`s a real cultural difference here.
This guy, he wants to win elections. The Republicans want to win
elections. The Democrats, they`d like to have a budget. And they`re at
the point where they do just about anything to get it. In fact, they would
kick those unemployed people under the bus say "Yes, but, yes, but, yes,
but, we got this, no, you didn`t."
Now, you were going to let the Republicans go home then they`re scot-
free with a kind of bullet points to tell their people why they should be
re elected. Well, I didn`t your raise your taxes. Well, we got the tax
code the way we want it. And oh, by the way, we can guarantee, we`re not
going to shutdown the government anymore.
So what are the Democrats have to do? They have to go home and
explain why they`re going to let 1.3 million people go off the unemployment
roles when they`ve got looking for a job for over 99 weeks.
Qualified people, people in their 50s, you know, there`s some age
discrimination going on around this country right now. Oh, you`re over
qualified. That`s really not the MBA we were looking for.
Meanwhile, we have some breaking news tonight. We`re expecting to see
a vote at about 5:30 Eastern Time. The bipartisan budget deal, they`re
still talking it over and when the vote happens, we will bring it to you
live.
The deal is a rare show of what some people call a compromise between
the Republicans and the Democrats. Why are we so anxious to get a deal?
If it`s not good, walk away from it. Make the Republicans fight for
something. Make the Republicans the grinch of Christmas because Democrats,
you have everything in your corner to put them in that position.
The budget is expected to cut the deficit by $85 billion over the next
decade and fund the government for the next two years.
There is no long term extension for unemployment benefits in this
deal, whatsoever, which is bad. It`s heartless. On one hand, the
Republicans say, "Well, the economy`s not doing very well under Obama but
on the other hand, we`re just going to stick it to the folks who were
looking for jobs."
Starting December 28th, 1.3 million Americans are going to stop
getting unemployment checks if this bill passes within the next hour or so.
Make no mistake. This is going to put some people out on the street.
Earlier today, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi made a heated case to
extend the unemployment benefits.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D) CALIFORNIA, DEMOCRATIC LEADER: It`s absolutely
unconscionable that we are -- could possibly even consider leaving
Washington D.C. without extending those benefits. And work ethic is strong
and respected in our country. And if the people losing jobs through no
fault of their own and an economy that has people with master`s degrees
going to entry level jobs just to be able to have some incomes so they can
stay in their homes. It`s a remarkable thing why would the Republican not
just automatically do this. It`s our responsibility to do this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Nancy Pelosi is exactly right. People on unemployment are
there through no fault of their own. For every one job in this country,
there are three applicants. Of course the job market, they love to see
that, those who are doing the employing because heck, we got a lot of
applicants here. Many Democrats understand this dynamic including
Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison. Ellison went to back for the
unemployed earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. KEITH ELLISON (D) MINNESOTA: We don`t want to have another
shutdown, on the other hand, you know, we have literally over a million
Americans who risk losing any kind of sustenance of who are unemployed,
through no fault of their own. And historically, when the unemployment
rate is about 7 percent or above, you know, we have not required an offset
for an unemployment insurance assistance. So, the fact, you know, this is
the talking point of the Republicans as really -- that is a historical.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: That is a key point. When unemployment is above 7 percent,
we`ve never had this talk of offsets in the past. Republicans are like
always concerned about offsets. All they care about is money, not
unemployed Americans. The cost of extending these benefits for one year
would be about $25 billion and here is the offsets, where is the offsets
for that righties? Well you already spent it. Republican government
shutdown cause the economy $25 billion. Paul Ryan complaining about
offsets goes back to his failed Vice Presidential run. The devout Catholic
has still hell bent on election on attacking the so called takers.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. PAUL RYAN (R) WISCONSIN: We`re coming to a country where we`re
getting more and more takers than makers in America. And we need to have
more makers and less takers in America because if we have more takers, then
we`re denying people of their ability to make the most their lives.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Democrats should be throwing the $25 billion. Republicans
wasted on the shutdown in Paul Ryan`s face every chance they get. This was
a heartless move by the Republicans. Meanwhile, known plagiarist Senator
Rand Paul thinks unemployment makes it harder for people to find jobs. The
guy lives on the moon.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RAND PAUL (R) KENTUCKY: When you allow people to be on
unemployment insurance for 99 weeks, you`re causing them to become part of
this perpetual unemployed group in our economy and it really -- well, it
seems good. It actually does service to the people you`re trying to help.
You know, I don`t doubt the President`s motives but black unemployment in
America is double wide unemployment and it hasn`t budge under this
President.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: So, everybody who goes beyond 99 weeks are up to it are all
black. Give me a break senator. You are so out of touch with where this
country is. All you have to do is listen to liberal talk radio and you`ll
hear people call in saying, I went back to Community College. I got an
MBA. Now, they`re telling me I`m over qualified. I`ve been looking for
job for a year and a half. It`s one turn down after another and there`s so
many applicants.
Rand Paul couldn`t be more wrong. Unemployment insurance helps people
find jobs. It`s an easy way to find the job. You know, it`s easy to find
a job when you`re in your home as opposed of being out on the street. We
should also point out to Rand Paul that the nonpartisan congressional
budget office is extending unemployment benefits would help the economy.
Another report, report assistance from the White House shows extending
unemployment benefits would save 240,000 jobs in this country.
Extending unemployment insurance should be a no brainer for Congress.
Democrats need to stand up and they need to vote no on this budget even if
it hurts because the Republicans aren`t bringing anything to the table.
They are giving up nothing to get this done. They are giving up nothing to
get this done. They are giving up nothing to get this done. I`m sorry,
I`m kind of stuck right here.
Bottom line here folks is that there`s no new revenue on the table.
There is election protection. There is circus protection. And they can go
home and just tell people that well, we didn`t raise your taxes and of
course that has a big influence on people. Oh by the way, we have private
sector job growth and the reason why we`ve had private sector job growth is
because I was involved in cutting the budget. That`s what we got out of
this. This is a grand bargain for the Republicans. The Democrats need to
get some intestinal fortitude on this and I believe that they should vote
no.
Get your cellphones out. I want to know what you think tonight`s
question. Do you think Republicans want to eliminate unemployment
insurance all together? Text A for Yes, text B for No to 67622. You can
always go to our blog at ed.msnbc.com. We`ll bring you the results later
on in this show.
For more, let me bring in a couple of Congressional members. I don`t
know how they`re going to vote. It`s up to them of course. I hope they
vote no. Congressman Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania and also
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas. Great to have both of you with
us.
REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE (D) TEXAS: Thank you.
SCHULTZ: Congresswoman Jackson-Lee, why wasn`t there a bigger flight
from democrats to include the unemployment extensions?
JACKSON LEE: It was a big fight Ed. It was a big fight. We went
into the rules committee yesterday with a very important amendment that was
paid for. The Van Hollen Amendment with other members joining in on it and
the sneakiness of the rules committee, the upside down process of the rules
committee in which Republicans are the majority fix the doctor fixed --
help the doctors which by the way help seniors. So, I`m not fighting the
doctors.
And sneakily, if I might, eliminate it and would not allow the
amendment of that would help in this emergency crisis situation that we`re
in help the 1.3 million Americans pick 200,000 in 20,000-40,000 jobs.
68,000 people in Texas and going in 2014, almost 2 million uninsured. We
have the amendment. The fight was there. But the Republicans basically
decided to vote against the people who they don`t really add to their
contribution.
SCHULTZ: So where does that bring -- where is that bringing your vote
tonight?
JACKSON LEE: Where that brings me tonight is which I said on the
floor of the House during the rules committee, excuse me, during the rules
debate is that we should not go home. We can cast to vote yay or nay and
maybe a symbolic vote tonight. There is nothing in the bill that would
provide for unemployment insurance. We should not go home. The amendment
that was rejected yesterday should be a free standing amendment on the
Florida House tomorrow, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and
then go to the Senate and we should make sure we get this done before we go
out of here.
So what my proposal is, is that we do not go home, that we come back,
it is also to ask the President to take leadership and to call the Senate
and indicate that this is in essence putting people out on the street. It
is putting 2 million children out on the street.
SCHULTZ: OK.
JACKSON LEE: I want action. I don`t want symbolism. So my answer is
let`s get to work and get that amendment as a.
SCHULTZ: So.
JACKSON LEE: . free-standing bill to vote for.
SCHULTZ: So, I`m hearing that you would vote yes on this budget if --
that you can get a commitment that they`ll stay on Washington and work for
the unemployed to get something else done.
JACKSON LEE: If to undo this budget, I can get the unemployment
insurance in. I`ll look at it that way.
SCHULTZ: OK.
JACKSON LEE: If it does not do that, then I want a free standing vote
now before we go home or call us back into work.
SCHULTZ: OK. Congressman Cartwright, where do you stand on this?
What do you see on the mix right now?
REP. MATT CARTWRIGHT (D) PENNSYLVANIA: Well, I want to agree
wholeheartedly with the gentle lady from Texas. A free standing vote on
the extension of the unemployment insurance is absolutely essential. It`s
why I voted absolutely no on the rule as splitting that off. We have no
business leaving Washington D.C. because when we leave, we`re leaving for a
holiday break, a Christmas break. And on December 28, we`re cutting 1.3
million Americans off of unemployment insurance. And we`re -- in
Pennsylvania alone, we`re talking about.
SCHULTZ: Yeah.
CARTWRIGHT: . 87,000 Pennsylvanian`s and then it goes into next year.
We`re talking about another 3.5 million Americans.
SCHULTZ: So.
CARTWRIGHT: . over the course of next year.
SCHULTZ: So, you`re trying to find a way to help the unemployment but
you two will vote yes for this, correct? You`ll vote for this budget that
doesn`t have any loop holes closed, doesn`t have any new revenue,
whatsoever and it also guarantees that their fringe group will be
threatening a shutdown for the next two years.
CARTWRIGHT: Well, that`s right. We -- the danger of a shutdown is worse
but it -- remember, we`re going to keep talking. If you don`t think folks
like Sheila Jackson Lee and Matt Cartwright are going to keep their voices
raised about protecting the uninsured. You got another thing coming.
SCHULTZ: Well, that`s very true.
CARTWRIGHT: I mean.
SCHULTZ: . but the fact is that if you kept talking for healthcare
and John Boehner voted 45 times to get it out of the law and to repeal it.
So, how can you trust the Republicans on this budget deal?
CARTWRIGHT: And that`s a basic problem is you can`t trust them on
this because they don`t understand the big picture when we talk about how
this are real Americans that are out looking for work, that aren`t just
slacking, and they don`t share that. They don`t share our values Ed. They
think about the 300 lousy dollars that people get and they think they`re
living high off the hog on that. It just isn`t so. And when you say
240,000 jobs will be lost because of the failure to extend this, it`s
because that`s money that goes right back into the economy.
SCHULTZ: Exactly.
CARTWRIGHT: .is not going into their brokerage account.
SCHULTZ: And Congresswoman what did the Republicans give up here?
What are they bringing to the table?
JACKSON LEE: Well, first of all let me say I want to join with my
good friend to say back to you Ed. First of all, thank you for the fight.
I`m not even going to say for the passion, for the fight and say to you
that no, we`re not stepping away from this.
Frankly, I`m angry. I`m unhappy. But I will say to you that the
Democrats and others are frustrated by government shutdowns and frustrated
by inaction.
If Democrats can contribute in a small measure, to getting us moving
forward and then keep the fight going. And I don`t want this to be a
symbolic fight. I want to do what you want us to do.
I want to get this uninsured moving forward for people to be able to
have the uninsurance -- excuse me, their insurance continued for the
unemployed which by the way is not a hand out these people have worked.
SCHULTZ: Yeah.
JACKSON LEE: And I was on the floor of the house when the budget
debate begun. And I don`t like the words of my good friend, the chairman
of the budget committee, when one of the points that yes we want the
Democrats guy. One of the point was made, we`ve stopped the criminals from
getting unemployment insurance. Obviously, that`s going to cause to roll
up our sleeves even more.
SCHULTZ: Well, it is not only the unemployment insurance. There`s no
job creation. There is no big infrastructure investment here, whatsoever.
JACKSON LEE: Well, you`re right. But let me just say this Ed, as you
well know, one of the most dastardly aspects of the deal that we make in
2010, 2011 on the so called sequestration was sequester. It is devastating
for child care dollars, for housing dollars, for health care dollars, and
to move that out.
SCHULTZ: But congresswoman, don`t you think that`s a fight that you
can win at home with your constituents? But look what the Republicans are
doing, they want to shutdown the government. They want to hurt the
unemployed. They got corporate profits through the roof. They`re after
workers.
I mean I just think that there are so much to Democrats have. You got
the healthcare law that is really starting to work now with the website.
And now the Republicans go home, no new taxes, loop holes not closed, no
shutdown, they`ve got election protection.
Look, I respect both of you. I love the debate. I love the fight. I
know exactly where you heart is. But I just think that no vote is an order
here. Make these Republicans come back and bring something to the table.
They got nothing on the table right now.
JACKSON LEE: Well, I will tell you that we will not give up the
fight. We don`t know which way the vote will go. If the vote to take it
down is there to make sure that we have unemployment insurance, we`ll be
there.
However, I believe our free standing vote Ed is what we need to get
right now to help these people.
SCHULTZ: Congresswomen Sheila Jackson Lee and Congressman Matt
Cartwright, I appreciate the conversation and your time. Thank you so
much. I appreciate it.
Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the
screen, share you thoughts on Twitter at Ed Show and on Facebook. I want
to know what you think, tell me on Twitter at Ed Show. What are the
Republicans bringing into the table in this deal, nothing.
Coming up a right wing radio host as the first amendment protects
Christians only, plus Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson tries to back track on
his comments on the Affordable Care Act.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: Trender Time. Time now for the Trenders, it is social
media. This is where you can find us and I love it. Facebook.com/edshow,
Twitter.com/edshow, and ed.msnbc.com. You can find me on the radio live
noon to 3 PM series XM127 and of course, you can go to my website at
wegoted.com. Find out about the Ed Tour 2014. First stop Fort Lauderdale,
February 8th and we`re going to be in Seattle on the 21st to February.
Ed Show social media nation has decided. We are reporting here at
today`s top Trenders voted on by you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He is the most interesting man on the world.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The number three Trender, Honorable Mention Pope
Francis has been named Time Magazine`s Person of the Year.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He`s given so many people so much hope and
inspiration. No one else has done that this year.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Beck questions, Time`s Person of the Year pick.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He seems like a remarkable man however, he makes
me a little concerned on his Marxist Tendencies.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And gives Ted Cruz an even bigger honor.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think the obvious choice is Ted Cruz.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The reason why they didn`t pick Ted Cruz is
because they don`t want to give him anymore power.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am (inaudible).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The blaze has selected unbeknownst to the blaze
man of the year, Ted Cruz.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wow. So unexpected. I didn`t have speech
prepared.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Congratulations Ted.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The number two Trender, Writers Block.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hey, do you know about the USA? Can you tell me
about the Constitution?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right Winger redefines the first amendment.
GEORGE CARLIN: If by religion, you mean anything, you have no way to
tell a signus, you can`t have your monument. If we don`t understand the
word Religion to mean Christianity as the founder`s intended it, then we
have no way to stop Islam. We have no way to stop Satanism.
SCHULTZ: And today`s top Trender, ill-advice.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You said you were not opposed to state base
exchanges.
SCHULTZ: Now, we`re saying that state exchanges aren`t all that bad.
REP.UNIDENTIFIED MALE, (R), WISCONSIN: That is being mistypified.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do you mean?
SCHULTZ: Ron Johnson rose from his healthcare comments.
There must have been a frog in his throat or something?
JOHNSON: The state exchange that they`re constituting under
ObamaCare, I`m totally opposed to those things.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Since the state base exchanges were a Republican
and a conservative idea.
JOHNSON: Is there some way you can utilize and structure and yet
still preserved the freedom and choice of Americans took and this time
about this -- the concept of, you know, certain types of marketplace that
can help individuals access the free market?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Joining me now is John Nichols, Washington Correspondent of
The Nation Magazine.
John, I`m still looking this word up. I can`t find it. Mistypified.
Is that a Wisconsin word or what is that?
JOHN NICHOLS, THE NATION MAGAZINE: You know, I`m a 7th generation
Wisconsinite and I`ve never heard it. All right, it`s new to me, as well.
SCHULTZ: We got that off to table. All right, it`s a new on the
senate, I guess. All right, is this a reversal by the senator from
Wisconsin who was been so hard on the President when it comes to health
care reform?
NICHOLS: Absolutely. This is a guy who was elected, who was
literally created politically as a militant foe of the Affordable Care Act.
He beat Russ Feingold in 2010 focusing intensely on this issue. And he has
been on radio, on television, on the floor of the Senate, virtually
everyday since his election talking down the Affordable Care Act, talking
about it is a horrible thing and then suddenly, he gets in a room with some
of his conservative buddies or at least some conservative folks up in New
York and he say, "Well, we could maybe use parts of it." I would say
that`s a reversal.
SCHULTZ: Well, that`s the key word here. He told the national review
online the state exchange is useful.
Now, that`s like saying ObamaCare is useful which flies in the face of
everything that he has said everywhere.
NICHOLS: It`s exactly right Ed. This is -- look the point of
ObamaCare has always been to create a more rational structure for
delivering healthcare. It is not what I would like. I`d like a single
pair plan but that`s not what we have here.
SCHULTZ: Yeah.
NICHOLS: What we have here is a structure for making it easier to get
healthcare to people and I think that Ron Johnson when he thought he was in
a more private moment was acknowledging what many Republicans do that lot
of this makes sense. It makes sense.
SCHULTZ: He also said that interview with national review online that
repealing ObamaCare they lost that battle. So, we will markup Senator Ron
Johnson from Wisconsin as the first to surrender on ObamaCare. How is this
going to be received in Wisconsin?
NICHOLS: Well, he`ll takes some hits from some of his base. There`s
no doubt of that. But as you can see here Ed, he is already spinning in so
many circles that I presume you`ll be hearing in condemning his own
statements of yesterday or the day before.
So, he may get away with this, but I do think he has telegraph where a
lot of Republicans are really going. At the end of the day they are
starting to accept parts of this plan.
SCHULTZ: John Nichols Washington Correspondent of the Nation good to
have you with us tonight. Thank you so much.
Coming up, Senate Republicans will pull an all nighter to get in the
way of the President of the United States. Still ahead Fox News host
Meagan Kelly maybe getting a lump of coal for this year for her comments on
Christmas. She lands in tonight`s Pretenders. But next I`m taking your
questions Ask Ed Live just ahead stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Love hearing from our viewers,
love the questions tonight in our Ask Ed Live segment. First question
comes from Tom. "Will the President Obama ever be transparent about the
TPP?
Well, I hope so, because if he isn`t, it`s going to be part of his
legacy to say one thing about transparency and then the do deal like this.
Here is a key that we have really not touched on about the TPP and the
President. He has executive authority over the trade negotiators. I think
the President should be saying a heck of a lot more about the TPP.
Our next question, comes from Doug Sailer. "If you were John
Boehner`s secret Santa, what would you buy him?
Well, I probably get him whatever the way Santa would get him. I get
him a gift card, discount hour happy hour, you know. Stick around Rapid
Response Panel is next.
SUE HERERA, CNBC HOST: I`m Sue Herera with your CNBC market wrap.
The DOW had a very tough day it plunged 104 points, the S and P lost 6 and
the NASDAQ was down 5.
Retail sales low top expectations in November up .7 percent, driven by
strong sales of cars and also electronics.
This boost to the economy was countered though by the weekly job less
claims. The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment
benefits jumped 68,000 last week.
And the rate on the 30 year fixed rate mortgage dropped to on average
of 4.42 percent last week.
And that`s it from CNBC, we are first in business worldwide. We`ll be
back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. That`s Sheila Jackson Lee live
on the house floor as the bipartisan budget bill is being debated right
now. The vote could take place within the hour. We`ll bring it to you
live if it`s happening here on the Ed Show, you`ll see it.
The 133th Congress is an exactly known for putting in long hours.
This was set up now to be the least productive in Congress in modern
history. Senate Republicans are doing their share too. They`re willing to
pull an all nighter if it means they can further obstruct President Obama`s
agenda. Republicans are still upset.
Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, invoked the so called nuclear
option meant to speed up the confirmation process for Presidential
nominees. Republicans vowed to use all other procedural tactics to slow
down the process. True to their word, they`re now refusing to yield back
time during votes on judicial and other appointments. Due to the delay,
the first vote came shortly after 1 AM this morning. Harry Reid made it
clear -- enough is enough.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. HARRY REID, SENATE MAJORITY LEADER (D) NEVADA: If we have work
the weekend before a Christmas, we`re going to do that. If we have work
Monday before Christmas, we`re going to do that. If we have to work
through Christmas, we`re going to do that because I know the game that put
up plan. They`ve done it before. The only impediment to holding votes
without delay and at reasonable hours is blatant partisan Republican
obstructions. It`d difficult to imagine more pointless exercise than
spending an entire week wasting, and waiting for a vote. This is a
foregone collision what`s going to happen -- every one of these votes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Joining me tonight on our Rapid Response Panel, former
congressman, Tome Perriello and democratic strategist Bob Shrum.
Gentlemen, good to have you with us. Bob, what`s going on here? Why are
the Republicans doing in this?
BOB SHRUM, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, it`s, you know, it`s kind of
a weak chinned temper tantrum. They can`t believe that Harry Reid who has
by the way proved to be a very effective, very powerful Senate majority
leader actually did the nuclear option so that the President`s judges can
get confirmed, people can get confirmed to the executive branch. And so,
they`re going to do everything they can to obstruct this and to make noise.
But I`ll tell you, they got a lot of one nighters ahead of them if they
keep going down this road.
SCHULTZ: No doubt. The nuclear option invoked to avoid just this
kind of stuff. Tom Perriello, is this the new normal?
TOM PERRIELLO, FORMER CONGRESSMAN, VIRGINIA: I think this is more of
a last gasp. I think this really proves the point to begin with that these
guys are not advising and consenting. They`re obstructing and delaying.
They`re not talking about the merits of these candidates, they`re not even
trying to win on the merits, they just don`t want the positions filled
which is not they`re constitutional obligation.
So by throwing the temper tantrum, I think it makes the point all
along that it was they who forced the rule change. And we`ve got to get
these positions filled so that we can have great consumer advocates like
Mel Watt in there. We can get these judges in and do the people`s
business.
SCHULTZ: So this is just a procedural get back you`re going to wish
you had never done this before you Democrats, Harry. We`re going to make
it work all night. And of course, Harry comes back and says, "We`re going
to go through the holidays if we have to. It`s kind of childish in it,
Bob. I mean this is the epitome of the not liking one another.
SHRUM: Well, actually the Republican party in the House and the
Senate for most of the past year has appeared childish whether they were
shutting down the government, threatening the full faith and credit of
United States with the debt limit, blocking everybody that they could.
There`s a fundamental underlying reality here.
These folks do not accept the legitimacy. A lot of them don`t accept
the legitimacy of Barack Obama as President of United States. So they`re
going to use every tool they can to try to disable this administration.
And they don`t even care about whether or not what they say is remotely
truthful.
I mean the Republicans kept saying, "Well the federal circuit, that is
the D.C. circuit, doesn`t need anymore judges because their case load is
comparatively light. That`s not true. They have the most.
SCHULTZ: Yes.
SHRUM: . complicated cases in the entire federal judicial system.
Then, once we`re finally putting judges on there, they say, "Oh, we don`t
like this because this is going to change the ideological balance of the
court." Well, guess who won the election in November 2012 -- the
President. And he is entitled to put qualified people, as Tom said, on the
courts and in the executive branch.
SCHULTZ: Well, they`re whole mission is to deny all of that as well.
But who actually won the election? All right. Let`s look at the House
floor. They are debating right now -- the Bipartisan Budget Bill. You see
Paul Ryan, he was the quarterback for the House on this as he`s the
chairman of the House Budget Committee. Tom Perriello, how tough of vote
is this going to be for the Democrats to vote yes on this budget deal
that`s going to leave 1.3 million behind, 1.9 million behind in the next
six months dealing with unemployment benefits where the unemployment rate
is over at seven and arguably over 7 percent?
PERRIELLO: It`s an incredibly difficult vote for Democrats to make.
You`re talking about an overall budget level that is below the original
Ryan budgets that we all considered far few conservative to ever be
seriously considered. You don`t have the unemployment extension in there.
At the same time, you do put back some of the absolutely devastating
sequester cuts and you get an actual budget for two years which creates
more certainty and more political space to focus on immigration, pre K, and
maybe a transportation bill.
So it`s an extremely difficult vote for Democrats and unfortunately,
they are the ones continually forced to be the adults in the room. We`ll
see how many Paul Ryan can call into action with this.
SCHULTZ: Yes.
PERRIELLO: They`re showing of statesmanship. We`ve seen them the
last couple of days.
SCHULTZ: Bob, it`s not only the unemployed it`s the federal workers.
Again, they have to take a hit and there`s nothing in this budget for job
creation, nothing in this budget that`s big for infrastructure. So this
vote really allows the Republicans as I`ve said earlier in this broadcast
to go home and say, "You know, we didn`t raise your taxes, we didn`t close
any loop holes, and we`re not going to shutdown the government, so we don`t
have to worry about Ted Cruz doing his circus work anymore, we`re actually
in pretty good shape in the next two years if we can just hold off the
Obama agenda. I mean that`s what I take out of this. If to me -- Bob
Shrum, it doesn`t seem like the Republicans are bringing in anything to the
table. Your thoughts?
SHRUM: Well, they did agree to raise the overall level of the budget.
Tom`s right it`s still too low, way too low but did they agree to rose --
raise the overall level of the budget. There are programs like head start
that have been defunded that are going to start getting funded again. So I
think this was about the best Patty Murray`s -- Senator Patty Murray of
Washington could get in any negotiation. But I want Democrats to go back
there at the beginning of the year and fight, and fight, and fight for
those 1.3 million unemployed workers.
What kind of political party is it when they have an economic program
who`s principle platform plank right now is to deny the kind of life
sustaining help that people who are unemployed get to feed their kids and
pay the rent on their houses. I think it`s a moral outrage. I think we
ought to make a big issue out of it. And then, I think we had to also move
on to immigration and really force them again to confront these very
difficult issues where the party professionals know they ought to do one
thing.
SCHULTZ: I respect what you`re saying, Bob. I respect what you`re
saying but Boehner has no credibility dealing with the Democrats.
SHRUM: Well, I agree with that.
SCHULTZ: And this is a time where the Democrats have got to put their
foot down and say, we`re not going to get gained anymore. You`re not going
to do this kind of stuff. You got to have -- you got to bring some thing
to the table in this budget. It`s a grand bargain for the Republicans
because they get election protection.
SHRUM: Well, the problem is if you don`t pass this, you go to the
sequester. If the unemployment compensation stops they`ll.
SCHULTZ: That will be blamed on the Republicans.
SHRUM: No, I think if Democrats stood against this, the blame would
be -- would go all the way.
SCHULTZ: OK.
SHRUM: . around. But I agree wit you, it`s a hard vote. It`s a
more.
PERRIELLO: And we got to get on the votes like the minimum wage as
well. And there`s got to be.
SHRUM: Yes.
PERRIELLO: . the top of the agenda again the next year.
SCHULTZ: You think that Boehner will bring a vote on the minimum wage
to the floor, Tom?
PERRIELLO: I think he has no desire to. The question is whether we
can create a political environment where there`s no choice. The
immigration debate was considered dead weeks ago and a group of courageous
people have been out fasting in the fast for families and have woken up the
consciousness of many progressives that we can`t let this slide. So we
can`t narrow our sense of what`s possible too much too quickly. But sure,
it`s going to be hard as heck to get any of these things in front t of the
House.
SCHULTZ: All right. Let`s -- we are told -- that`s Paul Ryan live.
He is just wrapping up and they are going to start voting right now on this
Bipartisan Budget Deal. Tom Perriello, Bob Shrum, great to have you with
us on the Ed Show tonight. Thanks so much for joining us.
SHRUM: Thank you.
PERRIELLO: Thanks.
SCHULTZ: Coming up, Michigan governor Rick Snyder turned his back on
union members and workers last year to sign a bill he promised would create
jobs. Now, the Michigan job market is worse. We`ll break it down when we
come back. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: And in Pretenders tonight. Megyn Kelly is dreaming of a
white Christmas. The Fox News host set a panel discussion. An essay
written by a black woman who suggested maybe just maybe Santa doesn`t have
to be white all the time.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MEGYN KELLY, FOX NEWS HOST: For all you kids watching at home, Santa
just is white, but this person is just arguing that maybe we should also
have a black Santa. But, you know, Santa is what he is. And just so, you
know, we`re just debating this because someone wrote about it, kids.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: But Megyn didn`t stop there. She make sure to put Christ
back in this Christmas conversation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KELLY: Just because it makes you feel uncomfortable doesn`t mean it
has to change, you know? I mean, Jesus, he was a white man too, you know,
it`s like we have -- He was a historical figure. I mean, that`s a
verifiable fact, as is Santa .
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right.
KELLY: . I just want the kids watching to know that.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah.
KELLY: But my point is, how do you just revise, you know, it in the
middle of the legacy of the story, and change Santa from white to black?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: If Megyn Kelly thinks she`s being Santa`s little helper.
She can keep on pretending.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. You`re looking live at the
House Floor Debate in Washington on the Bipartisan budget deal which is
going to cut $85 billion out of the budget over the next two years.
The House is expected to vote within the hour. They have been
debating the doc fix and other issues. We`re waiting the House vote. When
it happens, we`ll bring it to you here.
In other news, Governor Rick Snyder approved right to work laws in
Michigan one year ago with the promise of radically changing the state`s
business climate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICK SNYDER, GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN: And I think it`s very important.
It`s about giving workers choice and a freedom to choose. It`s being pro-
worker, not anti-union. And it`s going to bring a lot of jobs to Michigan.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Well, he was wrong. Right to work has done very little to
bring jobs to the State of Michigan.
In December 2012, Michigan`s unemployment rate was 8.9 percent.
Today, it is at 9 percent of 3rd worst in the nation. One year ago,
thousands of union members and workers protested outside as office building
but Governor Snyder ignored them and signed the law that prevents Michigan
companies from signing labor agreements requiring mandatory dues by
employees in union workplaces.
One of those protesters who is a former democratic congressman from
Michigan is now campaigning against Snyder in a run for governor.
Joining us now is Mark Schauer, former Congressman of Michigan.
Congressman good to have you with us tonight.
MARK SCHAUER, (FRM) CONGRESSMAN FROM MICHIGAN: Thank you Ed.
SCHULTZ: Why is Michigan unemployment number so high? Where has
Snyder failed?
SCHAUER: I`ll tell you things would be a lot worst if it wasn`t for
the resurgence in the auto industry and I was in Congress to help rescue
the auto-industry in the entire supply chain and many -- thousands of
manufacturing jobs in Michigan but, you know, right to work or right to
work for less which is actually is was -- is another one of Rick Snyder`s
failed economic policies in Michigan.
This governor that said that he was all about jobs, a business guy
who`s resume is very much like Mitt Romney came in and cut a billion
dollars from education, half a billion dollars from our universities, raise
taxes on retiree pensions on families raising kids and the lowest wage
earners, all to give a $2 billion tax cut to corporations. It wasn`t tied
to creating one job, and then he said he wanted to be like other right to
work states including neighboring Indiana said this - the clip plated would
create jobs in Michigan.
SCHULTZ: Yeah.
SCHAUER: Rick Snyder and his economic development team can`t point to
one single job that`s been created as a result of right to work or one
business that`s come to Michigan, and you said it, our unemployment rate is
the 3rd worst in the nation, 9 percent, it`s higher than it was a year ago
when right to work went into effect.
SCHULTZ: Well, if he is giving on these tax breaks in these
companies. Why aren`t companies flocking the Michigan if there`s a lot of
workers who were looking for a work. What`s the problem?
SCHAUER: Well, I can point to a number of companies that have left
Michigan including some manufacturers that went to Indiana ironically .
SCHULTZ: Who left?
SCHAUER: . since right to work for last was passed. But you know,
the governor`s got it wrong. I mean one of the reasons why -- an economist
have said this that Michigan`s economy is growing more slowly than the
nation`s economy is that he`s raised taxes on individuals that are living
month to month. He`s taking money out of their pockets that otherwise
would be going into the economy. I mean I guess that`s the reason why Rick
Snyder opposed.
SCHULTZ: And.
SCHAUER: . my plan to raise Michigan`s minimum wage, to put more
money back in people.
SCHULTZ: How does he raise taxes on the people that you`re just
describing right now? What has he done? What taxes are we talking about
here?
SCHAUER: Well, you know, Michigan`s economy was starting to come back
when he took office in January of 2011. There was a structural budget
deficit at the time because we still were digging out of a deep hole.
SCHULTZ: Yes.
SCHAUER: But he made it worst. He cut as I said about 1.5 billion in
total from education in order to give a corporate tax break. But then,
what he did was to pay for it in addition to education cuts, he created a
new retiree pension tax. People who`ve been promised this retirement
income, he created a new tax on them. He also did a way with something
called the child tax credit that for parents raising kids receive the tax
credit to pay for.
SCHULTZ: So those are two things he did. He got.
SCHAUER: . you know, will free some gasoline.
SCHULTZ: Two things he did right there.
SCHAUER: And then, Ed.
SCHULTZ: He put a tax on pensions and he also got rid of the child
tax credit which of course would affect people`s returns and their money
coming back to them and their tax returns?
SCHAUER: Exactly. And.
SCHULTZ: So he did that to middle class.
SCHAUER: And he also had tried to -- he tried to do away with the
state`s version of the earned income tax credit and dramatically reduced
that again taking money out of the pockets of the lowest wage earners in
our states. All things that are terrible with the economy that combined
with right to work. You know, the experience from other state is done
nothing but drive down wages for all workers.
SCHULTZ: So your governor, what you going to do.
SCHAUER: Terrible economics.
SCHULTZ: You`re governor, what are you going to do different for --
in this unit from what Snyder has done?
SCHAUER: Well, I`m going to start by signing in the law repeal of
right to work. It doesn`t work. It`s bad policy. It makes it more
difficult for us to have a training skilled workforce.
SCHULTZ: Sure.
SCHAUER: I`m going to repeal the retiree pension tax which is
actually driving some people out of the great state of Michigan. We need
to have a fair tax code in Michigan. But to me the number one investment
we can make in building a strong economy, strong middle class is education.
And, you know, so we need to -- I will commit as governor to keeping our
constitutional guarantee of a quality education for every child. And this
governor`s done just the opposite.
SCHULTZ: How would you have handled Detroit? Quickly. Would you
have let the city go bankrupt, would you have sought federal help? How
would you handle Detroit?
SCHAUER: Well, I certainly, you know, would have been a much stronger
partner with the City of Detroit in our core cities. Many promises have
been broken to Detroit in our core communities.
SCHULTZ: Do you agree with the financial management`s.
SCHAUER: . and absolutely I would.
SCHULTZ: . power? Do you agree with the financial manager`s power?
SCHAUER: No. I mean this current law provides, you know, cart launch
authority. And I will give you an example. They have -- with this
governor`s approval, put cuts to retiree pensions of Detroit police and
fire fighters, public service workers...
SCHULTZ: So you would have not have circumvented local elections and
you would have not put a fire -- emergency financial manager into Detroit?
You would have done it totally different.
SCHAUER: You know.
SCHULTZ: . because that is fundamentally what is unfolding.
SCHAUER: I mean.
SCHULTZ: All right.
SCHAUER: . we -- Detroit now has a very capable new mayor, new city
council. They need to be given the keys.
SCHULTZ: All right.
SCHAUER: . to run the City of Detroit. And you don`t build a strong
economy by cutting retiree pensions.
SCHULTZ: All right. Congressman, good to have you with us tonight.
Mark Schauer running for Governor in the State of Michigan. And of course,
the breaking story at this hour is the House is about ready to vote on the
Bipartisan Bill. They have started to vote. It looks like the Bipartisan
Bill Budget Deal which is going to leave some unemployed people behind and
their benefits to run out.
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 2013 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.>