Guest: Elijah Cummings, Rep. John Garamendi, Bob Shrum, Karen Hunter, Tony Blankley, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Lizz Winstead, Louie Miller
ED SCHULTZ, HOST: Good evening, Americans. And welcome to “The Ed
Show” tonight from Minneapolis. These stories are hitting my hot buttons
tonight. Mississippi‘s republican governor is downplaying the oil
disaster. Haley Barbour doesn‘t think the spill‘s really all that bad. I
think the fishing industry would disagree with him. We‘ll have a lot on
that coming up in a moment.
Plus, a live update from Biloxi, Mississippi, in just a moment.
Now, we‘ve got the best job creation numbers in four years. Those
numbers came out today. But the righties, they are accusing President
Obama of waving the white flag on jobs?
And Lizz Winstead has something to say about family values,
conservatives, who make their living bashing gay people when they‘re
actually renting them for sex. That‘s coming up in “Club Ed” later on
tonight.
With this of course, is the story that has me fired up tonight. A
major spin war is raging in this country over the gulf war oil spill. Now,
the first—the—at this very minute, oil is lapping up on to the
shoreline of Louisiana. As the righties keep gushing their BP. talking
points. Listen to Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. HALEY BARBOUR ®, MISSISSIPPI: There is not certainty here that
this is Armageddon. That something terrible is going to happen. We may
have a, as secretary said, we may be hit by sheen, which is negative
impact, but not a great big impact. Certainly not a catastrophe.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: OK. Good ole Haley Barbour just keeps spewing out the BP
bullet points to minimize the damage because he doesn‘t have the character
to own up to what‘s really going on and going down in the gulf. He‘s doing
everything he can to make it easy for his oil buddies, instead of fighting
for the people of Mississippi. Barbour thinks the real threat to his state
is me. Earlier this week he said, “Some in the media keeps forcing this on
the public as the equivalent of the Exxon Valdez. Well, the difference is
quite enormous.” Really? The only thing enormous is his ignorance to the
situation right now. The Valdez spilled a finite amount of oil. We know
how much is in that tanker.
The leak in the gulf is coming from an enormous, well, that nobody
knows exactly how much is going to be coming out. The media isn‘t your
problem, Haley. Your problem, Mr. Barbour is oil. If you weren‘t so
beholden to the big oil companies in this country, you‘d understand the
magnitude of this mess that‘s on our hands down in the gulf. Haley Barbour
has made a living protecting the oil industry. In 1991, he founded one of
the most powerful lobbying firms in Washington, D.C., and you got it, he
represented big oil. Maybe that‘s part of the reason while Haley and his
buddy, Rush Limbaugh, want you to believe that the spill really isn‘t that
big of a deal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUSH LIMBAUGH, AMERICAN RADIO HOST: We‘ll take care of this on its
own if it was left alone and it was left out there. It‘s natural. It‘s
just natural ocean water is. Even places that have been devastated by oil
slicks, where was that place when the guy was drunk, ran a boat—Prince
William sounds. They were wiping off the rocks with dawn dish washer
detergent and paper towels. The place is pristine now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Oh, the place is pristine now. Good show prep there, Rush.
Either Limbaugh is a flat-out liar or he is the college dropout that we
always thought he was. Limbaugh isn‘t worried about the facts. He makes a
living defending the drill, baby, drill crowd. The conservatives need the
dragster and the right wing network to minimize this entire crisis. The
leak is anything but small. Heck, it might even outdo the Valdez and total
spill gallons by the time this whole thing is over. This just in, the
associated press reports that the 100-ton dome to divert the oil is now in
place. But there‘s still a lot of work to be done in order to get the
spill under control.
This is the best news we‘ve had so far. And BP deserves some credit
for getting that done, but will it stop it? Now, let‘s get to the money.
Because it is really all about the money. Congress can‘t let BP. write a
check for $10 billion and then just let everybody go home and be happy with
the way things are. Nobody has any idea how much ecological and financial
damage this leak is going to cost. So, I‘m really arguing, and the
argument should be unlimited liability. Members of the Congress are
starting to wake up to this. Here‘s speaker Nancy Pelosi.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NANCY PELOSI, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: This bill can do great
ecological damage to the Gulf States and, of course, it affects fisheries
industry, tourism and the rest in this $10 billion goes a long way to
addressing that. Depending on how much incidents are involved in these
particular spills, it can be more than one $10 billion liability. But
you‘ll be hearing more about that as the committees take that up.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Well, in my opinion, the speaker, the president and the rest
of the Congress needs to stop all this talk about $10 billion. It‘s going
to be a lot more than that BP. and Transocean need to make the people of
the gulf coast whole again with some guarantees. Nothing short of that
would be good enough. The other thing democrats need to do is start
fighting big oil. Right wing talking points, Rush Limbaugh, Haley Barbour,
they‘re all out there. They have no clue what they‘re talking about on
this. They‘re just protecting big oil. They have a history of doing that.
And the bottom line in all of this folks is that I think this is up to you
and me.
We‘re the ones that really control this mop-up. We have to put a lot
of pressure on the senate. We need to put a lot of pressure on the house
members to make sure that they follow through. That there is no time left
unturned. And we all have to realize that $10 billion to the oil industry
is chump change. Let‘s start at maybe $500 billion and go up from there,
but for some reason, those in the Congress are afraid to use the term
“unlimited.” It‘s nothing for us to go ahead and put $33 billion to the
war in Afghanistan and, say, well it cost $33 billion. And that‘s the end
of it. But here we can see what‘s happening onshore. We can see people
potentially losing their family business. We can put a pencil to that.
I want to know how they came to this calculation of $10 billion. Who
did the math on this? Let‘s see. You‘ve got Texas, you‘ve got Louisiana,
you‘ve got Mississippi, you‘ve got Alabama and Florida. Oh, everybody gets
$2 billion for the mop-up? Is that how it‘s going to work? Have they
checked with tourism? Have they checked with the Tax Commissioner‘s Office
to see what receipts are coming in? They are to be able to figure this
out. But to arbitrarily take a $10 billion figure out of the sky and say,
well, this is what the liability limit is going to be for incident, I‘m
telling you it doesn‘t go far enough.
All right. Get your cell phones out, folks. I want to know what you
think about this. Tonight‘s text survey question is, do you believe
conservatives are minimizing the damage in the gulf to protect bill oil?
Text a for yes, and text b for no to 622639. I‘ll bring you the results
later on in the program.
Joining me now, as Maryland Congressman Elijah Cummings, he heads up
the subcommittee on the coast guard in maritime transport. Congressman,
good to have you with us tonight.
REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS (D), MARYLAND: It‘s good to be with you, Ed.
SCHULTZ: I want your response on the dome. That‘s the latest news
moments ago that it‘s in place. How hopeful are you that this is going
really be the ticket to stopping all of this leaking?
CUMMINGS: Ed, I am praying that the dome does work. Because we‘ve
got to stop this leak, and you are absolutely right, this is—and I don‘t
know where—what planet Rush Limbaugh is operating from, but this—this
leak spewing out—these leaks spewing out 5,000 barrels of oil a day is
no light matter. And Haley Barbour, I exactly say the same thing for him.
We‘ve got BP and Transocean are going to be eventually be responsible. But
in the meantime, the Congress I think has to do everything that we can to
clean this mess up and working with BP And even if we have to get
reimbursed by BP, the key is to save those jobs, to save our environment.
This is our watch, Ed. This is our watch. And it‘s our duty to address
this issue. Effectively.
SCHULTZ: Congressman, are you willing to say tonight that we just
can‘t put a dollar figure on the cleanup? I really think that that‘s what
the folks in the gulf really deserve to hear, that we really don‘t know
what this is going to cost and BP better be ready for that, Transocean and
all the other companies down there better be ready for that. Are you
willing to go down that road?
CUMMINGS: No doubt about it. We‘ve been—being the head of the
coast guard and hearing from them on a daily basis, I know that it is truly
a mess down there. And I don‘t even know how you compensate, Ed, for all
of the loss of life, the various species, the tourism, the fishermen who
are watching us right now who are not—can‘t even figure out how they‘re
going to make it over the next month. We have got to do everything we can.
This is our watch, and so, yes, I think the liability is unlimited. And I
think BP needs to be prepared to pay and to pay up to the nth degree.
Whatever it takes to clean up this mess.
SCHULTZ: Congressman, you head the subcommittee for the coast guard.
CUMMINGS: Yes.
SCHULTZ: We‘re not hearing much about the coast guard. Not much
conversation. What are they doing? How are they doing? Are they doing
everything they can do?
CUMMINGS: They are doing absolutely everything they can do. From the
very beginning, on the 20th of April, they were on the spot. Of course, if
you‘ll remember early on they were in a rescue mode, trying to rescue the
11 folks who sadly perished. And then, they were surveying the scene
constantly and around about the 24th, I think it was, they began to first
notice the leaks and then later they discovered even more and they‘ve been
working very diligently.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: Have they done all what they can do?
CUMMINGS: All that they can do and they continue to do it. And they
continue to do it, Ed, right now they‘re doing it. And I‘m very confident
of that. The coast guard is one of our best-kept secrets. They are our
line of defense at sea, and they‘re doing a great job. And they just have
to continue to do what they‘re doing.
SCHULTZ: Congressman, I commend you. You‘re the first one I‘ve heard
saying, we can‘t put a price tag on this. I appreciate your attitude. And
Americans need to hear that. I appreciate your leadership tonight. Thanks
so much. Thanks for joining us.
CUMMINGS: Thank you, Ed. Thank you.
SCHULTZ: You bet.
CUMMINGS: Joining us now is Louie Miller, he‘s the Mississippi
Director of the Sierra Club. He is in Biloxi, Mississippi, and that
beautiful water is behind him tonight. And that oil is not far offshore.
It hasn‘t hit Mississippi, but it has hit Louisiana. Mr. Miller, what are
we looking at right now? Some positive news. The dome has been placed
over the leak. What do you think?
LOUIE MILLER, MISS. DIRECTOR OF SIERRA CLUB: Well, I hope it works,
Ed, but I want third-party confirmation that it‘s working, obviously,
because BP‘s credibility as far as I‘m concerned is in the toilet.
SCHULTZ: In the toilet, why? I mean, they‘ve got the dome on there
tonight. I need you to tell us exactly what you think they‘ve done wrong
after the spill.
MILLER: Well, just about everything. It‘s been a—our concern at
this point in time, Ed, is that hoping this will go away, which seems to
be Governor Barbour‘s contingency plan, is not a contingency plan. You
know, we‘re facing a situation down here, and we‘re just sitting back
saying, well, we hope it will miss us. That is not a contingency plan that
anybody in the state wants to subscribe to. You know, the governor‘s
saying, hey, we don‘t want to panic people. You know, these people of the
gulf coast are resilient, hardworking people. They‘ve gone through
hurricane Camille, they‘ve gone through hurricane Katrina.
You know, we don‘t panic down here, but we do prepare, and right now
we‘re not seeing the kind of action that we need as far as preparedness
goes. We‘ve been out there. The booms are not there. We know for a fact
that Chandelier Island has now been hit. It is the Mecca for sport
fishing. The Mecca for sport fishing. And there‘s oil all over the place.
You know, that—if they will sacrifice Chandelier Island, the Mississippi
Coast is just around the corner.
SCHULTZ: OK. So, you think that Haley Barbour is doing a disservice,
not only in his reaction to this in responding to this, but he is
misleading the public in trying to minimize this? You believe that?
MILLER: Oh, absolutely. I mean, the press conference yesterday was
deplorable, and in which he said, well, you know, don‘t worry, be happy,
this thing is probably going to miss us. Oil comes up through the floor.
You know, all the Rush Limbaugh BP talking points. Yes, we heard them
yesterday. And that‘s unacceptable. It‘s unacceptable to the public. On
this gulf coast, the fishing industry, the shrimping industry, the tourism
industry, the gaming industry that all depend on a clean environment, and
this is the economic engine of the State of Mississippi, and right now,
we‘re in the bull‘s-eye of where this spill is headed.
SCHULTZ: Mr. Miller, good to have you with us tonight. Keep up the
fight. I appreciate your time so much. Good luck to you.
MILLER: Thank you so much for keeping on top of this.
SCHULTZ: We will do that, my friend. Thank you.
Coming up, Eric Cantor‘s righty think tank? Well, it sunk. After
failing to produce, no surprise here, one good idea in a year, they‘ve
thrown in the towel. I‘ll get some rapid fire reaction to that at the
bottom of the hour.
And John McCain‘s fallen so far off this Maverick Rocker, the gigs at
Princeton have made a science project out of it.
And of course, “The Beckster” races his way into the zone.
And “Daily Show” co-creator Lizz Winstead, headlines, “Club Ed
Tonight.” You‘re watching the Ed show from Minneapolis right here on
MSNBC. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: The president refuses to take a victory lap, but this should
not go unnoticed. 290,000 jobs were created last month. That‘s the
biggest hike we‘ve seen in four years. I‘ll tell you what this means with
Peter Morici and also I think Robert Gibbs ought to apologize to the vice
president. That‘s next. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: Welcome back to “The Ed Show.” And thanks for watching
tonight. Got to give credit to Vice President Joe Biden, couple of weeks
ago, he made a bold prediction at a fund-raiser in Pittsburgh. He said
that the economy would create as many as 200,000 jobs in April. Of course,
the Vice President got kicked around for that comment. Robert Gibbs tried
to back away from it, saying that the vice president was overly optimistic.
Well, today, we learned that Vice President Biden actually didn‘t go far
enough. The economy created 290,000 jobs in April. That is the best month
for job creation we have seen in this country in four years.
Righties, what do you think about that? For more on this, let‘s bring
in Peter Morici, the economist, and professor at the University of
Maryland. I like the numbers. Let‘s give credit where credit is due.
Professor, you predicted this a couple of months ago. What are we seeing?
Are we out of the recession completely now? And do you think this is going
to continue?
PETER MORICI, ECONOMIST: We are out of the recession. We‘re creating
jobs. And we‘re creating just about all over the place. There‘s still a
few weak spots but by in large this is an across the board recovery.
Manufacturing, nonresidential construction, a lot of the service sectors,
and we‘re going to see more of this. We‘re going to see steady jobs
creation. Now, we‘re not going to see the kinds of job creation, we‘d like
to coming out of such a deep recession so we get that unemployment rate
down. But it‘s a beginning. And the stimulus package has helped. Now we
can move beyond that. The energy policy, the trade policy with China.
Let‘s get that stuff straightened out, so we get the five, six, 700,000.
SCHULTZ: Is this the stimulus package working? What do you think?
MORICI: Oh, the stimulus package is part of the puzzle. It certainly
is working. Only a fool would say it didn‘t play a role. The private
sector on its own, though, is recovering and only a fool would say that‘s
not playing a role. So, it‘s everybody hands together.
SCHULTZ: This is the president talking about the unemployment
numbers, which did go up just a little bit. Here‘s his response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The unemployment rate
ticked up slightly from 9.7 to 9.9, given the strength of these job
numbers, this may seem contradictory but this increase is largely a
reflection of the fact that workers who had dropped out of the workforce
entirely are now seeing jobs again and are now seeking jobs again.
Encouraged by better prospects.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Professor, is the president correct on that? Is it just
people coming out looking for jobs after not doing that? What do you
think?
MORICI: Oh, he‘s mark-on. Exactly what‘s happening. Folks that were
discouraged before, now are seeing a brighter future. So, they‘re getting
out there, they think they can find a job. So, it‘s not necessarily bad
news when the unemployment rate goes up. You know, if it‘s because people
that were discouraged before are reentering the economy, it means that
things are getting better in a tangible way that we can‘t easily measure.
SCHULTZ: Peter, when you take a look at the graph, and we have seen
an increase. We were, you know, losing, you know, five, 600,000 jobs a
year ago this time. We‘ve completely turned that around. Now, we‘re
adding, what if we were to stop the stimulus package, because we did want
to spend anymore the money, we had become fiscally really responsible right
now. Do we need to finish with the stimulus package in your opinion?
MORICI: We need to finish the stimulus package. You know, the
patient has gotten out of bed but it still needs support from the nurses
under his elbows to walk down the hall before he gets robust again. Now,
the stimulus package I‘m hoping this year will help construction get going
and then next year as we reach capacity, that we‘ll start to build new
capacity. We‘ll get more business investment, more structures built.
Things of that nature. We‘ll get residential construction going again in
2011. So a stimulus phases out, those aspects of the private sectors
start to pick up some steam.
SCHULTZ: Peter Morici. Professor, great to have you with us tonight.
Thanks so much and we should point out that unemployment at 9.9 percent,
still lower than when Ronald Reagan was president.
Coming up, the same guy who said President Obama has a deep-seeded
hatred of white people, is talking race, again. And he‘s taking it to a
whole new level. I‘m going to school him in the zone in just a minute.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: And in “Psycho Talk” tonight, the Beckster‘s cranking open
the Tea Party textbook again. The guy who said that President Obama has a
deep-seeded hatred for white people treated us to some more of his
expertise on the history of racism.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GLENN BECK, FOX ANCHOR: I find it really fascinating that the only
time that we have rounded people up and put them in jail for either their
skin color or for their points of view, Progressive Democrat Woodrow
Wilson, Progressive Democrat Theodore—I mean Franklin Roosevelt, the
most racist people to ever live in America were the progressives. Really
radical. Awful. Awful. Racist people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Really, Glenn? You want to talk about rounding people up?
Your hero, Thomas Jefferson, got the ball rolling on the idea of Indian
removal, which ultimately led to the trail of tears where more than 40,000
Native Americans were rounded up and forced to leave their homeland.
Thousands of them died on the way. Was that progressive? And then there‘s
that little group known as the KKK. There are a lot of words I could use
to describe those folks. Progressive is not one of them. Glenn Beck,
continuing his smear campaign against progressives, by calling them the
most racist people in history is simply “Psycho Talk.”
Coming up, this guy isn‘t afraid to tell it like it is. Congressman
John Garamendi, he‘s making a move to permanently ban offshore drilling on
the west coast and he‘ll drill the righties because they don‘t want to do
that.
Plus, the Senate proves they are owned by the banks. Eric Cantor runs
out of ideas, and “Daily Show” co-creator Lizz Winstead hits Michael Steele
right where it hurts. You‘re watching THE ED SHOW on MSNBC. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: Welcome back to THE ED SHOW. Thanks for watching tonight.
I guess you could say enough is enough. That‘s what California Congressman
John Garamendi is saying. He‘s calling for a complete ban off offshore
drilling on the West Coast. Garamendi is stepping up and showing some
leadership, and I sure wish the rest of the Congress would to the same
thing, including the White House, show some intestinal fortitude on this.
The Garamendi bill has support of many members in the House, as far as
the Democrats are concerned, including Speaker Pelosi. Congressman John
Garamendi joins us tonight from California. Good to have you with us.
REP. JOHN GARAMENDI (D), CALIFORNIA: Thank you.
SCHULTZ: John, be very clear here. You want to stop offshore
drilling on the West Coast? Is that correct?
GARAMENDI: Well, the bill actually would prohibit any new federal
leases on the federal waters off the coast of California, Oregon, and
Washington. Existing leases, those are contracts, it would be awfully hard
to stop those unless you want to buy the drilling rights, and that‘s going
to be very expensive. The idea here is, enough already, no more, no more
leases off the West Coast of California.
And if we took that same amount of money, Ed—listen, that BP
disaster down in Louisiana, there‘s about a billion dollars right there,
the rig, the drilling that‘s took place, any future drilling, the cleanup
and everything else. Spend a billion dollars right behind me, the
University of California campus and the research that‘s done there, and up
at Lawrence Berkeley labs. You put that billion dollars into the research
that‘s there and you‘ll get far more energy and it will be renewable.
SCHULTZ: Congressman, is this going to be a big fight amongst the
Democrats? There are some Democrats who are part of the drill, baby, drill
crowd. There are some Democrats who simply do not want to put any more
regulation or restriction on offshore drilling. In fact, they were
ecstatic when the president, not long ago, said we‘re going to go into
areas that have been protected. What kind of fight is this going to be
amongst the party?
GARAMENDI: I don‘t expect a big fight amongst the party. It‘s going
to be a hard bill to pass. There‘s no doubt about it. A lot of people are
going to say this is going to take away our energy future. I go, no, no,
as long as we depend upon oil, our energy future is locked into the fate of
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, and the Gulf Coast.
We have to take a different path. We have to break our addiction to
oil. Now‘s the time to do it, by saying, no, we‘re not going to drill
more. We‘re going to take the same am of money that would be used for
drilling and put it into the renewables, into photovoltaic and wind and
even wave action and, of course, the renewables in cellulosic and biofuels
and the like.
SCHULTZ: What about when it comes to restitution? Would you say it
should have an unlimited amount? No matter what the damages they pay, they
wouldn‘t have any liability limits? This, too, is also becoming a fight in
the Congress. Where do you stand on that?
GARAMENDI: I believe that there ought to be unlimited liability. If
you or I were to go out and drink too much tonight and we hit somebody on
the road, we would have unlimited liability. And the oil companies sure
hit a problem at least there in the Louisiana area. They should also have
unlimited liability.
Whatever it costs, folks, clean it up, economic damages, clean up all
the rest. They‘re on the hook for all of it.
SCHULTZ: Congressman, great to have you with us tonight. I think
you‘re showing real leadership by doing this. We‘re not going to move the
energy debate forward in this country at all unless we start putting our
foot down and not let these corporations just run over our environment.
That‘s how I see it.
It was the Gulf that really spurred you to do this, or were you going
to do this anyway?
GARAMENDI: I‘ve been at this fight a long, long time. I got into a
huge brawl with Governor Schwarzenegger. He wanted a new lease in the
California area. I said, no, no way. We got into a huge brawl. He said,
drill baby, drill. I said no. And ultimately he backed off, probably
because he saw the extent of damage that could occur.
California, Oregon, Washington coast is unique. The waves—all of
the geology is unique. And we heavily depend—our economy depends upon
that, not only the ocean resources, but the tourism and the other resources
at the coastline.
SCHULTZ: No doubt about it. John, good to have you with us tonight.
Thanks so much.
GARAMENDI: Take care.
SCHULTZ: In the Senate, now, South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham
says it will be impossible to pass a climate change bill now because the
offshore drilling issue is just too hot? No, this is the time to do it.
Florida Senator Bill Nelson has already said that any climate bill that
includes new drilling provisions will be dead on arrival. What kind of
thinking is that? The White House is playing it close to the vest.
They‘re not saying much on this. The president says he won‘t make a
decision about future offshore drilling until after the investigation into
the disaster is complete.
For more on all of this, let‘s bring in veteran Democratic strategist
Bob Shrum, also professor at New York University.
Bob, I tell you, the politics of this is fast and furious. I want to
show you a poll that was recently taken of folks down in Florida, Florida
voters on drilling. Back in June, well, they were at 55 percent in
support. Now they‘re at 35. The same number opposing it, 55 now, but it
was at 31. What do you make of this? Doesn‘t this just beg for
legislation and reaction from Washington?
BOB SHRUM, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Sure, it does. There‘s going to be
a reaction. The fact is that drilling offshore now is politically toxic in
Florida and California. You do the electoral arithmetic. No president of
the United States—you‘re not going to get elected without carrying at
least one of those states. No president of the United States is going to
move forward with any serious, broad program of offshore drilling.
It‘s just at this point politically toxic. People like Haley Barbour,
who by the way should probably not have an R, Mississippi after his name,
but an R oil industry after his name, are speaking not for the interest of
their state and the environment of that state, and even the economies of
that state, they‘re speaking for the interests of the oil industry, which
often funds the Republican party.
SCHULTZ: You know as well as I do—you know better than anybody
that everything in Washington is political. Where‘s the political gain
here? Now, we know, you know, the money is going to be a fight. The
ecosystem is just being trashed. We know all the damage that‘s taking
place. Where‘s the political victory here? Where‘s the upside? Where‘s
the opportunity?
SHRUM: Well, the opportunity here is, as John Garamendi said, to move
forward on alternative energy. This would be a fight worth having, and
maybe even some of this would be a risk worth running if offshore drilling
was a solution to our energy dependence. It‘s not. The only solution long
term to our energy dependence is the development of renewable sources of
energy. That‘s where we ought to be going.
SCHULTZ: Where do you think—what do you think the president‘s
reaction should be to Bill Nelson saying anything on a climate bill is dead
on arrival? Lindsey Graham says this oil spill is too much of a hot issue.
They can‘t get anything done on climate change. Is that a safe move? What
to you think?
SHRUM: I think Lindsey Graham moved away from climate change because
he‘s mad at the Democrats for saying they might move on immigration reform.
He‘s trying to protect his friend, John McCain, who was one of the original
architects of immigration reform, and now trashes it as he panders to the
right in Arizona.
I think Bill Nelson, you have to be careful, what he‘s saying is that
a climate change bill that includes offshore drilling just can‘t pass. I
think he‘s right about that.
SCHULTZ: Bob Shrum, great to have you with us tonight. Thanks so
much.
SHRUM: Thanks, Ed.
SCHULTZ: You bet.
Now let‘s get some rapid fire response from our panel on these stories
tonight. An effort to break up the big banks—I can‘t believe this has
failed in the Senate; 27 Democrats joined with three republicans to protect
Wall Street? Can you believe that?
And a Republican ideas group, started by Eric Cantor, is dead after a
year. The righties are blaming liberals for killing it.
And the RNC is accusing President Obama of waving the white flag on
jobs, even though April was the best month for job growth since 2006?
With us tonight is Karen Hunter, journalist and publisher, and also
Tony Blankley, nationally syndicated columnist. Great to have both of you
with us tonight.
Karen, let‘s talk jobs first if we can. Why isn‘t President Obama
coming out spiking the ball on this, saying this is the best numbers we‘ve
had in four years?
KAREN HUNTER, JOURNALIST: I don‘t know. I have no idea why; 290,000
new jobs created? And the flip side to this is, you know, there are
probably millions of jobs that will never come back because I think the
president might need to focus on shifting America‘s focus on creating and
making stuff. We don‘t make anything in this country anymore. Everything
is made someplace else. In the long run, that number, 290,000, is not
going to be very good.
SCHULTZ: Tony, earlier tonight, Peter Morici said that the Stimulus
Package is working. Would you agree with that?
TONY BLANKLEY, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, of course it‘s working to
some degree. There‘s no question. I was actually in favor of a bigger
stimulus package a year and a half ago, and a better target on job
creation. The question is how many jobs are we together producing. As the
professor indicated—I think he indicated that at this rate of job
production, we will be staying between nine and 10 percent unemployment
literally I think until 2014.
We need to be producing I think about 700,000 jobs a month to get back
to where we are in a few years. So everything‘s good about creating
290,000 jobs, but it‘s not enough to bring unemployment down to a level
that allows the average working man to have a job.
HUNTER: That‘s exactly what I was saying.
SCHULTZ: Let‘s talk Wall Street for a moment. Karen, why in the
world are the democrats getting cold feet on breaking up the banks? Isn‘t
that what this is all about? Are you surprised at that vote last night?
HUNTER: No, I‘m not. They don‘t work for us. Most of the people in
Congress are not working for the people. It‘s not for the people, by the
people. It‘s for big business by big business. They‘re serving their
constituents, the big banks.
SCHULTZ: What do you think, Tony? This is a victory for the right.
It‘s a victory for the conservatives.
BLANKLEY: I think when both Republicans and Democrats agree on
something, either it‘s absolutely evil or it probably makes sense. I think
it‘s the latter one this time. Here‘s the reason, because the reason we
have very big banks, the reason we got rid of Glass-Steagall under Clinton,
with a Republican congress, bipartisan again, was because we were trying to
compete with the big European and the big Asian banks.
If we could have world regulation of banking, I think it might make
sense to try to reduce the size. Since we can‘t have that, if we‘re not
competitive with Europe and Asia, the money will leave America and we‘ll
become a poorer people.
SCHULTZ: Let‘s talk more about the economy, again. Earlier tonight,
Chris Matthews had a very strong interview with George Pataki, the former
governor of New York. And either Governor Pataki doesn‘t have his facts
straight or maybe he‘s just misleading. He said this comment, and I want
to play it. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE PATAKI, FMR. GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK: He has borrowed trillions
of dollars at a time—and raised taxes on the private sector,
particularly small businesses. And where does job growth come from? It
comes from small businesses.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: All right. I want some response on this from both of you.
Raise taxes on the private sector, particularly small business. I heard
that. I know it‘s wrong. We called the White House. They said that‘s
absolutely wrong, and I‘m surprised that Governor Pataki said that. Karen,
your thoughts on that? I mean, the right-wing sound machine is out there
trying to discredit this economy and the president.
HUNTER: It‘s more of the misinformation campaign, and the reality is,
under George Bush is what I was talking about before, we created a system
where we would not make anything, meaning most jobs are going overseas.
Most of the wealth is going overseas. While we have this new 290,000 jobs
this past month, in the long run, it‘s just not going to happen because
this economy is driven by manufacturing. We don‘t have it here.
SCHULTZ: We don‘t. Tony, the president has not raised taxes on small
businesses. That‘s it.
BLANKLEY: Well, look, the president during the campaign said he was
going to raise taxes on people making over 250,000 dollars. He‘s planning
to repeal the part of the Bush tax cut—or not bring back part of the
Bush tax cut that‘s going to end at the end of this year for them. The
problem is that most small businesses pay taxes as individuals, and they‘re
exactly the ones who get hit.
But small business creates about 65 percent of all the new jobs in
America. By taxing more heavily the people making between 250,000 and
400,000 dollars you‘re taxing small business and destroying jobs.
SCHULTZ: But George Pataki was wrong in his comments. He has not hit
the private sector with tax increases. He hasn‘t done it. The president
has not raised taxes on small businesses. He hasn‘t done it.
BLANKLEY: The health care bill that the president passed includes
taxes requiring business to make payments on health insurance—
SCHULTZ: That is—you have a choice. That‘s not a tax increase.
(CROSS TALK)
BLANKLEY: OK. You want to stand on the proposition that a fine is
not a tax? That‘s fine with me. But I think that people, if you pay money
to the government, it‘s a tax.
SCHULTZ: No, it‘s not. Not a fee. Not a fee at all. Great to have
both of you on tonight. I appreciate your time. Thanks, Karen. Thanks,
Tony.
Coming up, Senator Bernie Sanders is hot on the trail of two trillion
bailout bucks for the banks. And he wants to audit the Fed. You won‘t
believe who‘s on board. That‘s next on THE ED SHOW. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: And in my playbook tonight, the Senate is on track to pass a
measure requiring the government to audit the Federal Reserve. They want
to find out what happened to two trillion dollars of emergency loans the
Fed has doled out since December of 2007. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders
introduced the legislation, and it has support from across the political
spectrum.
The White House came on board late yesterday, after the proposal was
changed to make sure it wouldn‘t interfere with the Fed‘s authority on
monetary policy. Independent Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders joins me
now. Senator, great work on this. It‘s long overdue, as you well know.
And you‘ve been leading the charge on this.
This is all about the Fed wanting to make sure they maintain
independence and there‘s no government meddling. Is that fair?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I), VERMONT: Well, not independents. I think
they should be independent. But independence is not secrecy. There‘s just
far too much secrecy and lack of disclosure. For example, Ed, as you
mentioned, during the bailout process, the Fed lent out at zero or near
zero interest rates over two trillion dollars to the largest financial
institutions in this country.
Do you know who got that money? You don‘t know. I don‘t know. The
American people don‘t know. I asked Ben Bernanke that. He said not going
to tell you. If we pass my amendment, they will have to tell us. It will
be up on—on the Internet and everybody in America can know that. Second
of all—
SCHULTZ: Are you disappointed—OK. Go ahead. Second—
SANDERS: Second of all, it seems to me—and the GAO needs to
investigate this, whether or not there are just some very outrageous
conflicts of interest. You got the heads of the largest financial
institutions in our country sitting down with the Fed. And at the end of
the day, they end up receiving billions of dollars in low-interest loans or
other programs. That does not seem right to me. I think we need to know
that as well.
So, bottom line is we have to lift the veil of secrecy off of the Fed,
and we need to see what‘s going on.
SCHULTZ: Do you think the White House has been strong enough on this
issue?
SANDERS: No. Well, quite the contrary. As you just indicated, until
yesterday, they were in opposition to our amendment. Their argument was,
which I don‘t really accept—they thought that what we were trying to is
get into the day-to-day functioning of the Fed, monetary policy, have
Congress dictate what interest rates would be. That was never, never, ever
my intention.
What we want is transparency at the Fed. The American people have a
right to know. And I‘m glad, frankly, that while the Fed, itself, remains
in strong opposition to what we‘re trying to do, at least now the White
House is agreeing with us that we do need that transparency.
SCHULTZ: And senator, on another note, the vote that took place last
night on the amendment by Senator Sherrod Brown from Ohio, the too big to
fail amendment, to break up the banks, what‘s your comment on the Democrats
not doing this? I mean, I was told on this program last summer by Dick
Durbin that the banks own the Senate. Well, last night I‘d have to say
that he was spot-on. Are you surprised that amendment went down?
SANDERS: No. No. I am disappointed, but certainly not surprised.
Look, let‘s face it, remember, you had many Democrats and Republicans
voting for deregulation. Let‘s remember that last year the financial
institutions put 300 million dollars into lobbying, alone. They have huge
capabilities in terms of campaign contributions. They are enormously
powerful. They get what they want.
What Sherrod Brown and Ted Kaufman were trying to do is beginning to
move in the right direction. When you have four large financial
institutions that have over seven trillion dollars in assets, over half the
GDP in this country, when those four large banks write two thirds of the
credit cards, half of the mortgages, absorb 40 percent of the deposits, you
have a very dangerous situation. Of course you have to break them up.
SCHULTZ: I just can‘t—I can‘t believe that the Democrats ran on
change, and after the biggest financial mishap we had in the history of
this country, they can‘t suck it up and do the right thing and vote for
some regulation and also vote to break up the banks, so we won‘t have this
again. It amazes me. Senator, great to have you with us tonight. Thanks
so much.
SANDERS: Good to be with you.
SCHULTZ: Final page in the playbook tonight. It‘s been
mathematically proven that Senator John McCain of Arizona is no longer a
maverick. The Princeton PHD students did a statistical analysis of members
of Congress to find out who the true mavericks really are. And John McCain
did not score very well. He was quite the maverick back in 2001, when he
voted against the Bush tax cuts. But since then, he has plunged back into
the party hack territory with a below-average rating.
The actual top mavericks of the Senate for this year are Russ Feingold
of Wisconsin, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Evan Bayh of Indiana. How
about that? It‘s almost like a game show in Washington.
Coming up, “Daily Show” co-creator Lizz Winstead weighs in on anti-gay
activists who rented a boy online. Can‘t wait to hear this one, Lizz.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: And welcome back. If it‘s Friday, it‘s time for Club Ed,
with Lizz Winstead, co-creator of the “Daily Show.” Tonight she‘s doing a
benefit for Waggie Tail Rescue at the Bauery (ph) Poetry Club in New York
City. Tickets are only 10 dollars and all the proceeds go to help small,
unwanted and abandoned dogs.
LIZZ WINSTEAD, COMEDIAN: Don‘t read this. Go, go, go. Who cares
about where I am in June.
SCHULTZ: OK. You‘re all over the place. All right.
WINSTEAD: I know.
SCHULTZ: What do you make of George Rekers, the co-founder of the
Family Research Center? He‘s been a longtime gay basher. First of all,
he‘s on RentBoy.com and then he happens to pick up a guy and travel with
him. What do you think?
WINSTEAD: He‘s got that nice ‘70s stache. So it should have been a
clue right off the bat. I always wondered what the Family Research Council
actually researched, and what family wanted him to research RentBoy.com.
It‘s sort of awesome.
I think what we learned this week, Ed, again and again we‘ve been
learning that it really is gay prostitutes who are the unsung heroes of
investigative journalism. They just get in there and they expose things,
so to speak, and they get it done.
Here‘s what I think we need to do, though, Ed. I think what we really
need to do is just get this collection of homophobic Republicans who keep
ending up in gay relationships and just start a master document and call it
Larry Craig‘s list.
SCHULTZ: And with that, that‘s Club Ed tonight.
Tonight, our text survey question was, I asked you, do you believe
conservatives are minimizing the damage of the Gulf to protect big oil?
Ninety three percent of you said yes; seven percent of you said no. That‘s
THE ED SHOW. I‘m Ed Schultz. “HARDBALL” with Chris Matthews starts right
now. We‘ll see you Monday night.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.
END
Copyright 2010 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.>
transcript