>> tom donnell and is here.

was the champion of so-called pivot to asia. the president is in asia through a full country swing. vice president joe biden was in ukraine or other this week. the situation seemed to worsen. a military response in east ukraine remains on the table. we will talk about both asia and ukraine in this conversation. >> thank you, charlie. >> tell me what the president expects to accomplish in asia on the strip. >> you recall that his last trip to asia was canceled last fall in the wake of the government shutdown. that was costly, frankly. >> because he was back here dealing with the budget. >> and he had planned on that trip to go to two summits and it had to be canceled. >> and the chinese had a real chance to make their case while he was gone. but thenk that's right,

miller important point is he didn't have the opportunity to really work some of these issues and have the regular presence which he has had in asia. so this trip allows him to step out there am i to be very present to asia, to go to northeast and southeast asia. in northeast asia, of course, the theme will be allies. he will meet with japan and korea in northeast asia. those alliances are in quite good shape. the relationship between them is tense and the president made some progress in moving them closer at the hague last month in a meeting that he pulled together. the first time that they had seen each other. he will continue to work on that. we have an important trade negotiation underway, which is the most important trade negotiation going on in the world. the key internal negotiation in that is between the u.s. and japan. >> you believe this will govern trade in that way for century. >> i believe this is their

charity for the united states to gain economic benefits. it is a portent, strategic initiative by the u.s., u.s. leadership in them need -- in them region, the most dynamic place in the world, putting together the rules of the road, putting together the rules for the 21st century. -- the 21st is an investment treaty with europe if we can get both of them, that places the united states should chiefly in the middle of the two biggest negotiations in the world. if we don't do it, somebody else will do. >> in respect to japan, who side are we on? >> japan is our ally, number one. number two, the islands that are under dispute are subject to the treaty and align subrogation is that we have with japan.

what the united states wants is to have reduced tensions between china and japan over these. the united states rejects intimidation and coercion. it rejects unilateral attempts to change the facts on the ground. and that is really the role that we play. we don't have a claim here. but we do have obligations to our allies, japan. >> which means, in fact, if they are attacked in any way, we will come to their defense. >> they are subject to the treaty. we would meet our obligations, charlie, to the japanese. what needs to happen here is that that needs to be avoided, obviously. it is neither in the interest of china nor japan to have a conflict over this. i don't think either side wants a conflict. sides have nationalist sentiments around this issue and the danger is in the stake or a miscalculation or an accident the train -- which would spin

out of control. nochina will make compromise, no concession, no tree in the conflict with japan. that is stifling which. itit is tough language and is not a good situation when the number two and the number three economies in the world are not talking to each other at the political level. we should do what we can to move that forward. there needs to be a way to break the ice between japan and china because what can happen here, if we do have an accident, if we do have an incident, and you don't have a conversation underway, if there are no countervailing forces, it is very fiscal to climb down -- very difficult to climb down. but the theme of this trip is allies in northeast asia. >> that brings me to this question. -- someone in china said we will go -- we don't want the united states coming over here and training some kind of

nato with asian countries that somehow has as its mission containing us. and they fear that. you know more than anybody because you spent a lot of time talking with them. >> i say three or four things about that. number one, the u.s. presence in asia for the last 60 or 70 years has actually been the platform economicasian social benefits have taken place. number two, we do to it -- we do have obligations with our allies but a rebalance of error asia strategy is intensive interaction and engagement with china. that is a central part of our asia policy. our allies on partners in the region certainly expected to meet our obligations. they had -- they expect us to

help out and be there when they need us, but they also expect us to run a constructive and productive relationship with china. do you feel that china may be aggressive? >> there is demand for u.s. leadership in the region because we have a history of 60 or 70 years. of china'sn this mix rise, history, nationalism, territorial disputes that are unresolved, it's all the more the reason for the united states to be there. inthe containment thing, terms of containment, we know what containment looks like. we ran a successful containment policy with respect to the soviet union for half a century. it doesn't look like a $500 billion a year economic relationship with china. that's what we have today. this is a much more committed relationship. and by the way, this is a policy of integrating china into the

world economy, into the world political system that has been the aim of every president since richard nixon. >> what do you think they want? wantthink mainly what they us to continue their social and economic of element. i think the chinese leadership knows that that has to be there first, second come in third priority, right him and to continue their he economic and social development. >> i countries only with a friend of mine who saw xi jinping. he told the three things. our economic prosperity, dealing with corruption, and doing something about the awful pollution problem we have, those are the three priorities. >> those are all about the survival of that regime and it is about their continued economic and social development. and they have really immense challenges ahead of them. they are trained to pursue a very aggressive and important reform agenda right now. and the conflict with the united states is the thing that would

take that most off course. yes, there are tensions with issues andthe island historical issues generally. yes, there are tensions with the philippines over territorial disputes in the south china sea. what is important is that the united states be present there because that is the conflict that china knows it needs to avoid. >> stay with china, when you look at how they see themselves laying a role in the world, do playernt to be a global in terms of influence, influence in the middle east, influence with the types of conflict we have in ukraine now with russia or do they want a hands-off, let america be pr to part with that and will just do with our own mandate here? >> they typically have not been involved in issues that are far away from them. in pursuit of natural -- >> with power, they do seek more

influence. china does have more interest in its periphery. force thate an armed is increasingly well-funded that engage in missions and they do real interest in providing resources and getting the resources from around the world to continue their economic development. they are a dependent power. to continue their social and economic development, they are did and and on bringing commodities and resources from around the world. which is the point that i made to them directly, which in this -- in respect to the maritime disputes, as they look at their needs over the coming decades, they have a big interest in freedom of navigation and having these rules of the road to melt rules of theed -- road develop and be followed. >> they need to turn from an economy to a consumption economy

and that is not something you do overnight. >> the challenge that xi jinping has taken on our immense. you laid out a couple of them in the partition you relayed. they are trying to shift the emphasis from an expert economy to a consumption economy. they have real issues about corruption. and they have quality-of-life issues. a place where you can't drink the water or breathed the air or even food safely is a place that is not going to be stable and they know that. >> a conversation between a president and a chinese officials about cyber espionage from the public or the private sector, are we making any progress on that? >> a couple of things on that. pushed this issue directly with the senior leadership in china and the key there was this. it was indicated to the chinese that this was not going to be a

free shot. the quality of the relationship between the united states and china was going to be affected by their conduct in the cyber realm. and arecular, we were quite focused on one particular type of cyber security threat and that is the state-sponsored cyber theft of intellectual robbery come a which is a huge problem between the united states and china and when that we need to continue to put at the center of this. the chinese have pushed back on this, especially in the wake of the snowden revelations, with respect to nsa programs. it is important for the united states not to accept equivalency or. espionage happens between countries and always will. what we are talking about here is of a very different. we are talking about a big economic relationship that is affected by something which we don't do and which has to be off the table, which is economic stuff. >> defined the u.s. relationship

with russia today. >> a couple of things i think. i saw the president putin the night before he was inaugurated. it was clear then that we were stalled with respect to major issues between the united states and russia. like syria come out like arms control. on iran, they have been a in ourctive participant efforts with respect to iran. they have been supportive of the sanctions regime. they have been important players in the negotiations. to date, i think that's a continues. activity with respect to the searing chemical weapons which, as of today, we have 90% of them out of the country. >> but new reports of use of chemical weapons in the country.

>> but with respect to the weapons that were identified by the u.n., we are about 90% done with it. but how do we characterize the relationship? it is stalled i think with respect to specific issues. very moved to a posture different from when he had my job as security advisor for boris johnson and very different from where russia was under president medigap -- as a medvedev -- president medvedev. the russia perspective was something they would describe as opposition to the united states. a lot of elements here to why this happens and a lot of it has to do with president putin's domestic policies. this is about preserving his regime and it is in autocratic regime. we have seen the most oppressive

russian regime since -- >> breast on the crackdown -- express on the crackdown of opposition and the media. so where is it today? i think we are in for it -- this is nothing like a cold war because we are not ideologically standing off against each other. but we are in for a cold period here where russia will define itself in opposition to the united states. >> you mean leaning towards a different direction down the west in its own identification. >> yes. i think it is leaning back from the west frankly and trying to carve an independent stance, if you will, basically defined in negative terms of the west. the domestic picture that putin a decadentda team is place, russia standing tall after a period accumulation after the fall of the soviet

empire. and that is the direction he is taking. not in a corporative mode obviously and i think it will be a bit of a hostile mode for a period to come. although we continue to work on issues together where they see it in their interest. >> like iran? >> like iran and syria. but overall, think we will be in for a cold period. a lot of it depends on what putin does. they have troops on the ukraine border. they are in charge of a destabilization effort, covert operation in ukraine. >> john mccain is here attacking the obama administration saying that they don't even believe in american exceptionalism, that to president appears weak vladimir putin and therefore he think he can take chances and we have done nothing to persuade him otherwise. -- weon't think it is all

have engaged in a coordinated set of efforts here to support ukraine. we are supporting them politically. vice president biden has been that the last two days. we have organized support for ukraine economically. we did a billion dollars, $15 billion from the imf. it needs to be there quickly. the united states has been behind this. >> that is $16 billion right there. >> plus additional money from the europeans. >> go ahead. >> third is that we have been engaged expressly in reassurance of our nato allies. >> but that's on the treaty. >> but we need to reassure -- by the way, there is a lot of second-guessing here about nato expansion and whether or not this was [indiscernible] youme tell you, today, if sit in the baltics or use it in

poland, you are glad you have this. >> and you would be glad you had if you're in georgia as well. but it's not going to happen. >> i think the president's response and the response of the west is more forceful than it was with respect -- in comparison to summer 2008. >> somebody told me on this program that the russians went through leningrad. you're not going to break their back on sanctions. >> i don't think that comparison is correct. here is the deal. russia can stand strident and finally back politically, which is what putin is doing. but in a globalized economic world, he can't stand back from the global economy. he has large companies. they are involved in the comedy straight around the world and they are vulnerable to sanctions. i led the sanctions effort, as you know, for four and a half years with respect to iran. and i can tell you that there

can be a high cost that can be imposed on russia with respect to continuing bad conduct in ukraine. >> tell me how. the same kind of sanctions that we have against iran? tohe will probably continue try to destabilize ukraine. they have leverage, historic penetration, geography -- there is leverage that russia has and we have to acknowledge the facts. but i think there is a price that can be paid. you can increase the list of people on the sanctions list and you can go through all the sectors in the economy. the energy sector in the financial. >> why don't you do that now? >> franca, my recommendation would be, if in fact russia does nothing to comply with the commitments made in geneva last with that lab rob made secretary kerry, my recommendation would be to go to the next wave of sanctions. anythingi haven't seen

that the russians have done to implement that agreement. >> so you should go to the next wave of sanctions. >> i think he will do an assessment with respect to russian conduct and go to the next level. >> if you look at each of -- if the sanctions are ratcheted up and you believe it will work, what if it doesn't work? what if they begin a deeper destabilizing of east ukraine? >> you increase the cost. >> how far are we prepared to go is the question. >> we are not going to engage in a military operation. >> ukraine is not worth a military operation by the united states? engagere not going to militarily. we will continue to support them economically and you can increase the pressure for russia. at that point, a continued effort to destabilize the ukraine will continue their political isolation. the russian economy is quite vulnerable.

they are energy dependent but their stock market, their currency, the financing of their various companies, they are -- a high cost can be imposed here. comes back.stion comeback -- it's a two-edged sword. if you don't sell, you don't get paid. >> no sale, no revenue. >> in terms of u.s. strategy, what this also has done has really caused europe and the united states to think hard about steps we can take to increase the diversity of supply to europe in energy and increase their independence. and we can't let this go. we need to focus on this and get ourselves in an increasingly better position in europe with respect to energy and we can do that. preparede allies today

to be led by the united states and to be supportive of the united states? >> i think so. >> you think? do you have any questions about whether you might be out the mystic -- too optimistic? >> we lead when we came into office. if you had said we were going to be able to put together a six or seven-year effort in afghanistan, people would have had doubts about that in 2009. we have been able to work with our allies on the libby operation. importantged in negotiations and trade. >> an interesting historical note, there are some people who his presentin, in thinking, is influenced by a couple of things. kosovo and he is very much opposed to that and yet he is doing the same thing with crimea. two, libya.

somehow, he feels like the united states or the security council, that they pulled one over on him and that those two things have influenced his own mind. >> i say couple of things about that. first of all, it is a bad analysis to think that this has to do with syria. i just think that's wrong. >> you mean he is too savvy to read that into it? >> this is more fundamental. this is an important aspect of what he regards as the russian sphere of influence. he has tried in his mind to or construct this eurasian union, a counterweight to the european union. but without ukraine, it's impossible. , it'sya and kosovo important. i don't think it's historical. i think he is principally driven posture andlogical his political needs at home. that's first.

but on the foreign policy side, i have actually sat with him and had this conversation where he will say he will take you in a conversation from kosovo to iraq to afghanistan to libya. and you get to serious and this iswhere -- to syria and this where the russian federation was when to stand up and not allowed the u.s. to use -- >> he basically said, i don't want that to happen again and he --d, with the spec to syria with respect to syria, i am going to show you it's not going to happen again. >> right. is part of the whole piece of him standing back and defining rush as separate from the west, not integrating with the west, and objecting to western conduct. i think that the point there -- i think he is wrong about this

obviously, but you identified a strain in his thinking which is not historical. its current in his thinking. let me make two points. john kerry has been involved in syria. it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. ? syrian conflict is a tragedy and a solution doesn't the there -- doesn't appear to be in front of us. >> two, palestinian negotiations doesn't seem to -- >> will sue it happens is we get to the deadline. i don't think the announcements that president abbas made in the last couple of days -- >> the fact that the

reconciliation between hamas and fata? >> the first i was going to mention was disbanded the palestinian authority and give the keys back to israel. that is not constructive in a negotiation. and then the announcement today of reconciliation talks between fata and hamas. >> i don't understand why that's not good. they speak with one voice. they could make a deal with one voice. >> first of all, we have seen these announcements before and there are fundamental, ideological, and political differences. hamas, in, thomas, -- order for us to deal with a combined entity, hamas will have to come aboard with the core principles of recognizing israel and that engaging in violence and meeting the obligations of the palestinian authority's. and to date, they haven't done that. this is a big problem. >> great to have you.

tom donnelly, former security advisor. back in a moment.

she left harvard for

washington in 2000 and eight to oversee the bank bailout package. as part of that work, she would create the consumer protection bureau. the new york times recently reported that america no longer has the world's richest middle-class. much talk about that in more about the middle class, u.s. economy, and about income equality. i am happy to have elizabeth warren back at this table. how do you like this and nothing? -- how do you like this senate thing? >> i like it. i really do. there are a lot of tools in the toolbox when you're in a place like the united states. one of the things i learned is, for example, there are a lot of banking regulators out there and a letter banking laws. but if the regulators won't pick

up the laws and use them, than the banks can kind of go off and do what they want. if the regulators will actually use those laws, then we actually have a safer system. so the united states senate has oversight responsibilities over those bank regulators through the senate banking committee, which is where i sit. >> which is where you wanted to sit. >> that is exactly right. >one of the things i could to do along with my colleagues is remind our banking regulators that they don't work for the industry they regulate. they work for the american people. >> you believe they think that. >> you know, i believe they have to be reminded of that. that the waymember it works in washington is that, for a long time now, those who have money and those who have power make their voices heard to the highest volume.

and everybody us just kind of gets left behind. it's also true when we are talking about these regulatory agencies. >> as you know, money talks in politics. >> boy, no kidding. loud. loud. >> at the same time, dodd-frank was tougher than the banks wanted it to be so it did not go as far as they -- they tried to block portions of it. so their money didn't achieve all of the objectives they wanted to achieve. let's talk about this for a second because this is actually one of the major chapters in the book. i talk a lot about my own life story early but i talk about the fights. and one of the fights was the

fight to get the consumer financial protection bureau. so just a reminder, what had happened by the early 2000's was that the biggest financial institutions had figured out that they could build a profit model around tricking people on mortgages, on credit cards, and basically there was nobody who would call them out. out -- hey kept handing >> who should have called them out? the radio -- the federal reserve? fed, theic, the regulators should have been out there and call them out. here was the problem. >> this one from administration to administration to administration. >> it did. this really started in the 1980's when the watchword -- think about it this way. we have come out of the great depression amp up tough new banking regulations in place.

it works for about 50 years. we build a strong middle class. starting in the 1980's, starting with the reagan administration, deregulation becomes the watchword of the day. and there is less and less oversight. it continues through the clinton years, continues, continues. and then what happens is they -- sold theved large banks enough toxic mortgages to bring down millions of families and they package to them and sold them out into the economy into pension funds and all kinds of other places. >> you make an interesting point. we thought of the crisis is about shaking the financial system to its core. it was shaking lives to its core. >> that's the reminder. all the way through this book, i talk about the big banks. i talk about after the crisis how it was that they fought back

against the relation. do you know at one point they were spending more than a million dollars a day in order to lobby against financial regulation. and this was after the american people have already bailed them out. but what was at the core of this and what i talk about in here for the families who just got slammed. >> easy credit and then couldn't afford it. >> it was worse than easy credit. remember, i was doing studies all the way through this. serious, empirical studies, had good co-authors at universities around the country. and there is one person in particular that i talk about in this. an older woman who was in one of and she hadn 2007 called the office -- she had been in the study and picked up because she had filed for bankruptcy. she explained her story how she and her husband had moved to this little town in the south. he had passed on now but she was getting along ok.

she could manage on her social security. then the nice man from the bank called and told her he could lower her payments. and at least the way she understood it, she said to him, but what if the interest rates go up later on? and he said, i'm a banker, i will know these things and we will put you back in your old mortgage. and then she said he never called. and so the payments shot up. they were bigger than her social security check. she tried borrowing to hold it together. but here was the part, charlie -- she called because everyone who participated in the study did a long questionnaire. we offer them $50. they would get a check and the check had to be mailed after it was processed, sometime down the line. she called us to say she was going to be moved out of her home in a few more days and she

would be living in her car. and she wanted to know how she was going to get her check. that's what the economic crisis of 2008 meant. it was people like this retired and atho lost her house least for a while and it up in her car because some banker made quota by calling her and selling her an exploding mortgage. >> i totally agree. and not only that, i know people who rent -- who ran small businesses. >> i talk about this and small business lending because you know what gets me about that story? that was happening when the united states taxpayers were shoveling money into these huge financial institutions to stabilize them and here was the big mistake. doing it on a notion is attached basis so the money came in from the taxpayers and the big financial institutions, we were

told they would turn around and lend it to the small businesses, would turn around and help people like the homeowners who were in trouble. instead, they held onto it. you know what some of them did with the money? they bought other banks. they expanded their reach rather than using that money to help heal the american economy. big financial institutions that we were told in 2008 were too big to fail, today, they are 38% bigger than they were back then. >> clearly that is what happened because all of things we talked about during those years, especially in 2008, of what had happened with derivatives and all the other kinds of things that happened. but then you had first the bush administration, paulson, bernanke, geithner are. then later you -- geithner. then later you had, geithner or, and fed chairman bernanke,

then whoever was at the new york fed at that time. they getting a lot of credit for saving the economic system. do you agree with that? that what they did in an emergency situation, they made hard choices that had to be made. do you agree with that assessment of what those people did in those two administrations? , when there clear was only so much time and so much money to go around, they saved the largest financial institutions. focus on american families and small businesses. >> so not the banks amid the loans. we're talking about what happened with a financial disaster that affected everything. what should they have done? >> they should have put that money into the banks with strings attached. let me put it this way.

whenever a big corporation gets into financial trouble outside this crisis, when big financial corporation gets into trouble and new money comes along to be put in, whether the company ends up going through chapter 11 or not, the new money always says there have to be changes here. what kind of changes? you wipe out the old shareholders. you make the old debt take a haircut. you change the management and you make sure they've got a new and different business plan. why? because it disciplines that company to run a different kind of organization. and it's a signal to everybody else. ceos, if youen, run your business so that you are going to need outside money, then it's going to be your job that is going to be on the chopping block. that didn't happen in the bailout in 2008. basically, henry paulson followed by tim gardner -- tim

geithner said take our money, please. >> have you ever met a banker you liked? . >> i meet a lot of bankers i like. >> do you think wall street is part of the problem? there is athis time, lot of things that we are trying to do. yes, we are tying to make a profit, but it is not as brutish as elizabeth warren would make us -- >> all i can say is they continue to fight the regulations. they continue to fight to create as many loopholes as they can in every thing that gets written. >> that happens in every industry, doesn't it? the money that talks are financial institutions also talks for automobile companies, for a whole range of other companies, pharmaceuticals, oil. >> absolutely, that goes back to the hard -- >> money talks in politics and

in washington. you have to get elected. >> that is the heart of why i wrote "a fighting chance." we now have in washington concentrated money, concentrated power, making its voice heard day after day after day on issue after issue after issue. and you are exactly right. it's not just in banking. that is where i experienced it up close and personal. but it happens across a range of industries. and ordinary families, regular families, hard-working people across this country are playing on a plainfield that is increasingly -- playing field that is increasingly tilted against them. >> it clearly influenced you. >> it did. i grew up the baby, the late in life baby. three brothers by the time i was 12 are often the military. my dad was selling carpets. he had a heart attack.

it turned our family upside down financially. there was a long period of not working. the bills lined up. family station wagon, right on the edge of losing her home. my mom was 50 years old. she never worked outside the home. and i remember the day, going into her bedroom, she had her best dress laid out. she was crying. she pulled that dress on, pulled that zipper up -- the dress was probably about 15 years old -- she rubbed her eyes, put on her high heels, and went out the front door to apply for a minimum-wage job at sears. because back then, a minimum-wage job would at least help you make the mortgage payment. she saved our house. she did what needed to be done. now there is no 12-year-old who sees that and it doesn't change

your view of life forever. but here's the thing, charlie. there's no money for college and my family. there were no opportunities that were going to come like that. i end up in the united states senate and how did that happen? i got married at 19, dropped out of school. i ended up going to a commuter college that cost $50 a semester. i ended up going to a public law school. i grew up in an america that was investing in kids like me. whole period in america, about half a century, when the first thing that our politicians in washington worked on and thought about was how it grows the middle class, does investments made in education, in a g.i. bill, and loans and state universities. those investments in infrastructure, the highway astem, the power grids that

small business could get started and there was a good infrastructure to back it up. the fact that we believe this is what made us special, to build a big pipeline of ideas. medical research and scientific research and engineering research because we believed out of those innovations there would be opportunities for kids like me and other kinds of kids. and that's what happened for 50 years in america. as our country got richer, and families got richer. as our families got richer, our country got richer. i had a fighting chance. iran for the united states senate. -- i ran for the united states and i wrote this book because that is not where we are now. we have got to get back. >> will get back to that. you have created this as part of the financial -- the new financially h system, a consumer

protection. that was your baby. you wanted to run it. the president did not appoint you because i assume he did not think you would be confirmed. >> it turned up the good. i now have the incredible honor of representing the people of the commonwealth of massachusetts and i sit on the banking committee where i have a chance to help protect that agency. it kind of worked out. >> fair is fair. and the man you defeated is thinking of running for the senate in new hampshire. how about that? >> all i can say is he still has his hands full with [indiscernible] she's good. >> it is also said that you have become the great hero of the left in american politics. is that accurate? >> i think that is pundit talk. what i do believe is true though -- >> regardless of where it comes from, is a true? >> what i believe is true is

that there are a set of issues that we need to stand up and fight now. this comes back to this core notion of the rich and powerful are calling the shots in washington. they've got money. they've got power. all we got on our side is our voices and our votes. so it's time to level the playing field. consumer agency am a good first start. but there is a whole lot more we need to do. let me tell you a key one. colleges, starts with me, my $50 college today. most kids who are going off to college do not come from families where some he can just write a check and pay for college. so the united states government comes in and says we will lend you the money. i think that's great and what they should do. but here's the deal. they say we want you to pay us back, not just the cost of the funds and the administrative cost and the dead, but we want you to double that, in some cases triple the amount of money to produce billions of dollars

in extra revenues for the united states government. so in effect, what we have right now is a system where the united states government is making billions of dollars in profits off the backs of kids who are trying to go to college. that is seen. that ash that is obscene. that is wrong. next month, we have this thing scheduled. we are going to be out there talking about it. we have to refinance the student loan debt that is outstanding, bring the interest rate down. people refinance their homes when interest rates are low. >> what is the supply and demand equation today in terms of housing stock? >> we've got a problem. young people -- this is how the pieces are tied together. young people are not buying homes. at the rate that we would predict. so when they hit 30 years old,

when they kind of start to buy, they are not doing it. you know what studies show? the reason is too many of them are weighed down with student loan debt. a lot of these kids have to pay off the equivalent -- [indiscernible] >> not when you charge too much, not when you choke these kids on student loans. it's reaching a point for a lot of these kids -- they've got to pay off the equivalent of one full mortgage before they are dead flat broke. >> the income inequality issue. the pope is talking about it. the president is talking about it. what is it in its most of noxious tone for you -- not the language, but the essence of income inequality? has gotten rich and richer and the other 95% have not kept pace, 99%. >> that's right. the hardest part for me is the

people at the top have all the chances in the world to build what they want to build. and nobody else even has a fighting chance. i had opportunities. i was the daughter of a maintenance man and i had opportunities. and i worked hard. but i grew up in an america that was creating opportunities. it was investing. >> we are no longer creating opportunities? >> no, we are not. >> secondly, when you look at this, do you blame capitalism? brand ofcan capitalism, is it part of the problem? do we need to have more regulation? do we need to have a hard look at what capitalism does and how it works? >> we always need to have a hard look at all of our policies in this country. >> i'm not talking about washington now, the essential

economic system that has brought the united states to the place of economic leadership that it is. are thehat in part rules in washington that make the difference, charlie. you put a cop on the beat on main street, it means nobody steals your purse. you put a cop on the beat on wall street, that means nobody steals your attention. the decision -- your pension. the decision to have a cop on the beat will profoundly affect how much stealing those on. we've got to have their roles, whether or not we invest in our schools will determine whether or not kids will have real opportunity. if we invest in infrastructure will determine whether or not small businesses have a chance to grow. >> most people understand that --lding that investments investments in infrastructure, investments in scientific research, investments in human resources are essential to arkham -- to our competitive place in the world.

>> so then the question becomes -- so why are we cutting back on all of those? think about that, charlie. you are exactly right. everybody understands that we need to make those investments. >> you are in the congress, you tell me. >> i will tell you exactly why. because the rich and the powerful are hanging onto their privileges. we need the money to be able to make those investments. so we propose closing some of the tax loopholes, terrible tax loopholes -- the oil industry makes 170 billion dollars in profits last year, the big five, and still sucks down billions of dollars in subsidies. at the same time that we can to get refinancing for our college kids. >> do you believe that the ,rinciples that you believe in what might be called a populist agenda, is the majority opinion in the american body politic?

>> oh, i'm sure of it. >> then why does it look like -- may very well to plug very well elect a republican congress, a republican house for certain, and may be a republican senate as well? >> because money talks in washington. it talks in elections. the supreme court just said it can't talk even louder. that is the heart of it. >> money is politics. >> it is. >> the book is called "a fighting chance." thank you. good to see you. >> good to see you.

>> this is "taking stock" for thursday, april 20 4, 2014. i'm pimm fox. today is deemed "fresh ideas." microsoft is pushing to the cloud and they say it's paying off for the bottom line while amazon.com chief executive is pumping money into services for future growth. we will examine both of these technology giants. and the regulatory look at e-cigarettes. th