m left for your tweet. >> mine is corps corps are not peeps. corporationscorporations are not people. get over it. >> hash tag watch viewpoint with e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e ♪ >> good evening i'm eliot spitzer. this is view point. the labor department released its april unemployment figures today and as disappointing the top line numbers were, the underlying numbers are even worse. a net of 115,000 new jobs created in april well below expectations. the unemployment rates still dropped by .10% to 8.1%. don't be fooled. the drop in the unemployment rate was due to the 342,000 people who dropped out of the labor force in april.

that caused the labor force participation rate, the percent of the population over the age of 16 were actively employed to reach it's lowest point since 1981. the president tried to stay positive. >> after the worst economic cries since the great depression our business versus now created more than 4.2 million new jobs over the last 26 months. more than 1 million jobs in the last six months alone. [applause] >> joining me now is noble price winning economist professor at princeton university, "new york times" columnist and author of the new book "end this depression now," paul krugman. he has been proven right time and time again more than any economist i have ever encountered. i don't know if that's more important than the noble prize to you sir but for those of us who consume and read, it's

always important to see and hear your thoughts and i wish the president had listened to more of them. to that, nobody imposed upon you. what do you make of today's numbers? how bad are they? >> it's not terrible. step back, monthly numbers jump around a bit and there has been way too much obsessing is it better or if not? the real story is since basically the end of 2009 we have been moving sideways. the economy is not getting worse, but it's not getting better as we create jobs fast enough to keep up with population. that's not good enough. it's a terrible situation out there. >> to put numbers--i'm a geek. i like numbers. we created in the private sector 425 million jobs. the government sector lost a million jobs. we're moving sideways but certainly not up. what would your prescription be? what is the macro-answer we should be pursuing? >> the problem with our committee.

it's not that we don't have the right skills. that's a minor issue. it's not that we lost technology. the problem is economy there is not enough spending. there is not enough demand. the reason why there is not enough demand, the private sector ran up big debts during the bubble years pulled back, someone has to step up to the plate and what we really need is for the government to be spending to support this economy instead of pulling back. >> this is jarring to me. is sounds to me like you believe cain was right. >> a lot of what he wrote in the 1930s, except for a couple of britishisms and the way he wrote, it sounds like it was ripped out of the headlines. cain describe a depression when the economy is neither recovering nor plunging but seeing stock with inadequate level of jobs. that's what he was analyzing that's what we have. yes, cains was right. we have given it that--think

about the policies in a lot of the world. cain was say those policies would hurt the economyies. other people say no, no it's improved confidence, but look what happened. >> as i've said on the show ad nauseam. europe rejected cains. we don't believe in government spending and they're in a double dip recession, and spain's numbers are staggering. here minimal stimulus. sufficient to bring us back, but not as far as it should have gone. >> in practice we did have that stimulus in 2009, and faded out after 2010. at the state and local level because they haven't received the aid they needed from washington they've-laying off school teachers and laying off--that's in the report. we've been doing a fair bit of austerity ourselves but not as bad as the europeans. >> we've been treading water going sideways and keeping pace with population growth but not

increasing. we'll come back to other numbers in a minute but one that is fascinating, of all the talk with president obama being the big spender the reality is he has cut a million government jobs over federal and state combined. over bush's year we added a million-plus federal jobs. >> that's right. if government employment had grown as rapidly under obama as it did under bush, 1.3 million more people would be working right now directly because of those government jobs. i think probably more than 2 million which include the indirect effect. >> what economists call the multiplier, it goes through the economy. having said all that there is a lot of chatter today in particular about something called the workforce participation. i used to use this phrase and people would look at me, their eyes would glaze over and they would say this guy is geeky. could we have the chart. explain to people what this is and why it matters in the broader societal level.

>> the number of people as a fraction of the population who are either working or actively looking for work, which is the definition of unemployment is. it's way down. what that is telling you is that people have given up. a lot of people have basically are not actively looking for work because they see no sign of work or because they have become--they'ven unemployed so long they figure they can never be employed again. that is a sign--something that i push in my book--this is continuing damage that we're doing. we're endangererring the long run because we are pushing people out of the labor force many who will not come back. we'll reducing our future ability to employ people. >> now it also to a certain extent explained this mathematical, what appears to be a paradox. we're not creating jobs because the unemployment rate keeps dropping because people in that denominator is getting smaller faster than the numerator. fert the math, people are dropping out and less money

being earned predominately by middle class people. >> it means the cutting spending right now is self defeating even in pressurely purely budget terms. you're driving people out of the labor and in the future they will not pay taxes. >> pushing participation rate to 63.6. if had been 67% that's 90 million people, a lot of folks withdrawn from the workforce. >> this is huge. even of the people who are actively searching, the unmr.ed 3.9 million have been out of work for more than a year. how many of these people are going to stay in the labor force if this goes on? so inflictinge nor husbanding enormous damage. >> the harder you're out of work, the harder it is to get back in. your skills get tired and emotionally you begin to feel

distressed you cannot find a job. >> we have a jargon in history if the economy stays down for a long time, it never fully springs back which is a reason to be aggressively creating jobs, which we're not doing. >> in your article you said something that i find fascinating. there is talk of a structural shift in the economy. trade, new globalization globalization because of the cataclysm of '08, people are shifting their hiring-- >> there are stories that people tell. all these construction workers where will they go? when you look at the numbers you see that jobs have not been lost because of the bubble they're ordinary sectors. there is some mismatch of workers and skills but no more than usual. this is a comforting story for some people or a reason not to act. but this is not true. this is just a lack of demand. it's a depression because we're

not spending enough. >> in the answer as you said, old fashion stimulus, spend the money now. the federal government can give money to the state to hire back the cops and teachers and build infrastructure, what else could we do? mortgage relief? >> definitely. it's infuriating because we have as it happens we have a very simple way to allow a lot of mortgages government mortgages through fanny and freddy, they should be refinanced at lower interest rates. but lot lots of people don't have enough equity to qualify. we could temporarily waive that qualifier, and the agency has been drags its feet. but that would help. >> now let's stay on that for just a moment. i and many others as well, we were very critical of the bailout of the banks not because we challenged the notion we need to bring them back to solvency but because the other half of the equation was not followed through, mortgage reform. why should the administration have been sensitive to this and they have not done what you have

articulated. >> they came in to solicitous to wall street. >> there were exceptions. >> but there is the cultural affinity they are comfortable with wall street. the guys are very impressive. they're smart funny, they have great tailors. >> the tailors are the important part. >> really. but you can see in the first year and a half of this administration, the president and people around him listened much too much to those people. since then they've had little political room for maneuver but they could do more. in spite of the fact that they almost destroyed the world these guys must know something and they don't. >> look, you're being more polite than i have been. the white house still believed that the same people who created the crisis knew how to get us out of it even though the ones who got us into it did not believe that they had gotten us into it.

but you had tim geithner, who never understood the need for financial reform and if you followed the banks everything good would follow that. >> there was a nature of misdiagnosis. this was temporary panic then everything would be fine. it's not like that. >> i have got to point out. there was one loud dissident voice. that was yours. >> it was really hard for the bearded college professors to convince the white house that we knew better than the bangers but we did. >> eventually the white house preferred to listen to the same guys who brought us over the precipice. more paul krugman to come >>the dominoes are starting to fall. (vo) former two term governor, jennifer granholm, is politically direct on current tv >> what should women be doing? >> electing women to office.

uh, i'm in a timeout because apparently riding the dog like it's a small horse is frowned upon in this establishment! luckily though, ya know, i conceal this bad boy underneath my blanket just so i can get on e-trade. check my investment portfolio, research stocks... wait, why are you taking... oh, i see...solitary. just a man and his thoughts. and a smartphone... with an e-trade app. ♪ nobody knows... ♪ [ male announcer ] e-trade. investing unleashed.

>> with less than thrilling job numbers out, mitt romney took the opportunity to say that the president had failed. he tried to paint a picture of the economy under a romney regime. >> we should be seeing numbers in the 500,000 jobs created in a mop. this is way, way off of what should happen in a normal recovery. >> how he would do something that has only happened four times in the last 50 years is not clear. perhaps the closest thing to a romney economic plan is the paul ryan budget, which mitt romney described as marvelous, one of the harshest critics of ryan's budget is paul krugman. >> i think i have three certainties, death taxes and

krugman's criticism. >> i guess you heard that little sound back a thousand times so far. a badge of honor? >> yes, in general. if i don't get attacked then i haven't used the space well, but especially from paul ryan i'm obviously bothering him a little bit. >> explain to us why his budget is a fallacy built on charade built on quick sand. >> he says i am deeply concerned about the deficit. so step one in dealing with the deficit is let's have big tax cuts for corporations and rich people. then step two let's have cuts on the poor. but if you look those spending cuts don't fully offset the tax cuts. steps one and two is reverse robin hood. take from the poor, give to the rich and then step three we're going to find money somewhere. we're going to close loopholes but we won't tell you which ones. we'll cut government spending

but we won't tell you how. it's a fraud. it's a decrease in budget that is distributing income from the poor to the rich and then there is talk about nothing. >> let's take a couple of those pieces. step one, cut taxes for the wealthiest, the republican rationalization other than the social agenda, which you can debate at a moral level, these tax cuts has been disproven repeatedly. >> the number i've been thinking about, given today's jobs report, which was not good, but let's take the first seven years of george bush's administration. leave out the catastrophe at the end, how many jobs a month did he create with all of his tax cuts. the answer is not 70,000. this is the wonderful result of tax cuts? bill clinton who raised taxes on the rich, he was the only president in recent memory who had the kind of job growth that romney is talking about.

>> you and i look at the numbers, rational people look at the numbers and draw that same conclusion. why is it that this notion of the sort of breaking this pseudo pseudolinkage can't get through the republican dogma or a large part of the public. >> there is a lot of money that has been spent and continues to be spent on putting out the line that the tax cuts to the rich are good for us. a lot of money spent by rich people. we actually have--there is a network of think tanks media organizations and then at this point entire republican parties that are dedicated to pushing this line. and the we you should ask is is it right because it isn't but who benefits in getting people though think that it's right. it's a small group of very wealthy people who have created this thing. >> as you pointed out in today's column in "the times." it's not the top 1%. but the top .001%. >> to a great extent overtaken

the entirety of republican party ideology. >> yes, i've been in this business, sorry to say for a long time. i got out of grad school in the 1970s. if i think about what i hear from the republican party as a whole these days, it's what you hear from cranky billionaires 35 years ago. what has happened, the doctrine supported by angriy old white men have become the official dogma of the entire party. and it has been bought. >> not to stray into pure politics but there is a perk article that documents how the republican party has moved so far to the right and become the party as you say crank ideology. >> evidence really does not get through. that's the thing. you could have all the evidence that nothing good has happened from these big tax cuts. nothing terrible happens, it doesn't matter.

just like their economics doesn't work has not gotten through. they don't care. >> when you describe the paul ryan budget, three pop sayses. tax cuts. the transfer of poor to the wealthy and the usury rates of loopholes. this is one of the problematics of it. loopholes that no one will identify. in theory there are loopholes that should be closed. >> there are three big ones. the special tax rates on capital gains. basically the rates that let mitt romney pay less than 15% tax rate. paul ryan is not going to take that one. >> never close it. >> the home mortgage interest deduction. all right. >> you'll never persuade politicians to vote for that. >> then the deduct ability of employer contribution for health insurance which we should not get rid of because that's serving a purpose. it's holding our healthcare together. that's not going to happen.

that's imaginary. >> the principle that everybody embraces lower rates for everybody which is easy to embrace simply can't happen in the real world. >> the amount of loopholes that are closeable and the loopholes that the republican party would consider closing which is hardly any, but it's small. it's not just a lot of revenue. which means this whole notion is a fraud again. >> it's akin to conversations back last fall that i would have with dick arm and others who would say we'll balance the budget by defunding apr. what are you dealing with? you're not dealing with equivalency in the orders. let's talk about mitt romney's economic plan. does he have one? >> no, he doesn't have one. it's really amazingly empty. but there is a reason for that. romney is not a stupid man. >> right. >> he's--he's got economic advisers who i may not like very much, but they're not stupid, either. but what they believe is

probably not too different from what i believe but he can't say that. he probably can't do it, either. the best--the best romney slogan he doesn't mean a thing he says. >> that's comforting. >> the trouble is he won't have a chance to do anything but republican orthodoxy if he does win. >> would he be able to bring a congress that is in equilibrium or dominate republicans, and the answer is no. >> no, the republican lobbyists have said the only thing we want from romney is his fingers to hold a pen to sign the legislation that we put in front of him, which is what i think it will be. he does not have a plan. whatever he believes it doesn't matter. it will be paul ryan's economy. >> i agree with, mitt romney is a very smart guy. he was a moderate governor in massachusetts. if he could governor without the constraints of the republican party or congress, what he would do probably would not be far from what barack obama is doing

right now. >> except for the epah think epathy. but it doesn't matter. no one knows what mitt romney believes and we don't care because his party believes stuff that just isn't true. >> which is why it was so fascinating when he was trying to contrast his plan with president obama. he said whatever he does i'll do the opposite, which is foolish foolishness to articulate. but that's the further he has gotten in expressing a plan. the role of trade and globalization in the crisis we've got right now. you're saying even with globalization, all those factors, we still with sufficient demand would bring back employment? >> trade is important but it doesn't--most of what we sell we sell to ourselves. most of what we buy we buy from

ourselves. even that made in china thing, a lot of price is domestic value added. trade complicates matters but not as much. we're not as different from the economy we used to as many people imagine. >> but it had a depressive effect on labor's capacity to negotiate that has had effect on wages. >> canada, sweden, they still have vibrant labor movements what happened here we had a political system that rushed that labor movement. >> what should we do to revive the capacity of wage earns to reclaim a great percentage of the wealth they created? >> a lot of it i think we need to recreate an environment in which union organizing is possible. unions are not perfect but now that we don't have them we realize how much we lack because of them. we need a counterweight to power to big money and we need to bring labor back. >> could we do it by raising the minimum wage? is that sufficient?

>> that is sufficient, that is part of it, but it hits only the low end. we should do it, definitely. but we should also guarantee health insurance. all of the things that would make life a little less insecure for the american worker would increase that worker's bargaining power and redress this power in society. >> the book is "end this depression now." the wizard to tell us how to do. the professor of princeton university. economist and always right. thank you. >> thank you. >> when it comes to saying dumb things, ted nugent is a habitual and we don't stick to party lines. >>people who buy politicians got to cover their bets. >>we are the investigators fiercely independent, and we don't hold back. >>we're here because we're independent and that's what we love. >>...and we don't do talking points. >>i think the hypocrisy is so blatant. >>and above all...

and there's only once place you'll find us. >>weeknights on current tv. it takes people with real knowledge to build and maintain a race car. polymers, hydo-carbons, thermal plastics, math and science? you bet it is. many kids don't understand how important these subjects can be that's why time warner cable developed connect a million minds. to introduce kids in our communities to the opportunities that inspire them to develop these important skills. how can my car go faster? maybe your child will figure it out. find out more at connectamillionminds.com >> this might make you drive right off the road. it's my number of the day 270. well i-270 as in interstate 270 in chicago. if you look up while driving you might catch a glimpse of this. a billboard with a picture of the unabomber ted can kaczynski.

it says, i still believe in global warming do you? they're planning on putting up other pictures of osama bin laden and fidel castro. i guess climate change is false because a few psychopaths believe in it, along with most american scientists. the heartland institute might as well say charles manson loves tax reform. if this is the heartland new 5 rpm gum. stimulate your senses. ah, claim trouble. [ dennis ] you should just switch to allstate, and get their new claim satisfaction guarantee. hey, he's right man.

[ dennis ] only allstate puts their money where their mouth is. yup. [ dennis ] claim service so good, it's guaranteed. [ foreman ] so i can always count on them. unlike randy over there. that's one dumb dude. ♪ ♪ the new claim satisfaction guarantee. dollar for dollar, nobody protects you like allstate.

[ mocking tone ] i'm ms. brown. i'm soooo chocolatey. i'm giving away money to make people like me-eee -- is what he said. and i was like "you watch your mouth. she's my friend." friend is a strong word. [ male announcer ] chocolate just got more irresistible. find the all brown bag and you could win! >> coming up, the unhappy affair between president obama and wall street. but first anderson cooper versus rush limbaugh, and ted nugent versus sanity. when it doesn't fit anywhere else, we put it in the viewfinder.

>> what happened when you were shagging that ball in the outfield? >> what happened, i was doing what i love to do, shag, i love to do it. >> now rush limbaugh is a broadcaster of the highest caliber knowing to take a well thought out approach to each top topic he tackles. >> anderson cooper. he's reported in the gossip columns to be in the gym or bar than in the studio. >> stop the presses. i do go to the gym. mr. limbaugh, i can only hope that you're taking care of yourself as well. try the gym from time to time. >> i feel sorry for liberals who can be that brain dead. they asked me if i threatened anyone? i said never. couldn't wouldn't. i wouldn't waste a breath threatening.

>> i'm a perfect human being. >> in politics these guys rib they tease, they make robo calls saying the other guy denied kosher meals to holocaust survivors. it's all in good fun ♪ what is going on ♪ we got it going on ♪ three four ♪ we got it all together ♪ [applause] >> brooklyn's own nca sorely missed by many. president obama struggle to if you have an opinion, you better back it up. >>eliot spitzer takes on politics. >>science and republicans do not mix. >>now it's your turn at the only online forum with a direct line to eliot spitzer.

>>join the debate now. home of the brave. ♪ ♪ it's where fear goes unwelcomed... ♪ ♪ and certain men... find a way to rise above. this is the land of giants. ♪ ♪ guts. glory. ram.

>> nick confessore has been in the belly of the beast. where money and power converge, and both are corrupted. he writes about it in his spectacular article in "the new york times" magazine section this weekend in an article titled "obama's not so hot date with wall street." he joins us now. nick confessore, political reporter for "the new york times." thanks so much for being here. >> mm-hmm. >> nick, let me see if i get this right. this seems almost to be an abusive relationship. wall street hates the president. they give him money because they need influence. the president doesn't like wall street, but he takes the money because he needs it. am i capturing the dynamic between two parties that are dancing together? >> that's certainly the case in the macro sense. but as the article points out he's getting less wall street money than he used to. the contributions are way down. the people who are still giving,

frankly, are the ones who are true believers or have other agendas, but for the most part they're on the team because they're on the team. the money that has fled from him to mitt romney is money that was in the middle and money more transactional to begin with. but there has been a startling turn around. i can't think of a comparable example of a constituency of donors or people who have swung so hard from love to hate in just a few years. >> i want to pick up on that. one of the themes that runs through the article is that there is a venom on the part of wall street directed towards the president, and the comments are some of them have become notorious dan lobe who compares the president to nero. schwartzman who carries the effort to tax these awful loopholes, he says that's the equivalent of hitler to poland. why do they feel they've been

manhandled this way? >> you have to break it down a little bit. the guys who work at hedge funds like dan lobe, these guys are big personalities. they're kind of icon class on wall street because they've left the established institutions to make money on their own. if you work at a hedge fund you think to yourself, i didn't sell cdos to clients. i didn't lie to my investors. i invested the money of wealthy people in hedge funds and i make them a lot of money. why am i roped into this. if you're the private equity guys i talk to a lot of folks who agree and can see that the carried interest thing has changed, but they still feel kind of targeted. i mean, it's a policy that happens to target their particular form of compensation as well as that some real estate partnerships. then there is the rhetoric of pointing to the things--the rhetoric that wall street regards as unacceptable and

unfair i think the white house and the administration regards just the barest hint of what the public feels. >> i think that's the point. the rhetoric out of the white house has in truth been very mild. he used the term "fat cats" once. and substantively have defended white house. many felt that a more fundamental reform was needed, paul krugman and people in from the new york sometimes called for a more reform effort from wall street. wall street understanding the transaction that the president gives us ugly rhetoric but he has not been that harsh on us. i'm confused why they didn't embrace that transaction, go with it and don't push back too much. >> it's interesting, if you talking to the lobbyists for wall street, they'll tell you it's not been that bad privately. it's been a whisper. truthfully the new regulations

are not that bad for us. business is not very bad. the folks who are most outspoken with the lice who are not tightly regulated. it's an ironry. hedge funds they have less to lose by speaking out. but there is no question that they're channeling the actual sentiment of their colleagues in other parts of the industry. >> folks who run hedge funds have too much testosterone running through their veins. that's why they trade the way they do and the profits go way up and go way down. but the political question folks ask why is the president not doing what he's being accused of, which is to run against wall street. why not embrace the populous of the moment. why hasn't he done that? >> you know, i'm not sure that it's a legitimate policy position or their temperament institutionally in the

president. i think their substantive view is that there were bad actors on wall street. they took the right steps they believing to after the bad actors. they're going to depend that policy. they're not going to endure complaints to say that it was unfair or mean. but as you point out there are people in the world people who are experts who say more should be done. but it does reflect the administration's policy and temperament towards the whole constitution. >> tim geithner who has been wall street's guide for wall street and the guide for wall street he has not believed the extravagant claims of those i included or paul krugman, those

calling for reform, he embraces wall street, but tim geithner did not want fundamental reform. the white house has been unfairly attacked by wall street. but they've found other reservoirs of money. where have they gotten the money at the end of the day. >> all kinds of different industries are giving less. they have found others who would give more. hollywood is raising more money for the campaign. you've seen reports that george clooney is about to have a fundraiser that could raise as much as $15 million. i'm not sure what the single event record is. i vaguely recall that george bush set it in 2004. that's certainly a lot of money. i think that the gay community is really important on the fundraising side and activism side for the obama campaign. they're looking for that group of donors to step newspaper a big way. and then the text sector.

i heard a joke that the facebook ipo is the best news for the obama campaign coffers in months. they really hope to tap into tech money if they can find some of those younger entrepreneurs who are younger now and newly minted who have not attached themselves yet to a candidate. perhaps this could be a source of money for the obama campaign. >> nick, i think what you're pointing out is exactly the case. wall street at one point was the primary reservoir of money for both parties in terms of large events large donors, it's losing its capacity to play that role. as you pointed out hollywood the text sector, so many others are filling the coffers. nick confessore, thanks so much for your time tonight, and a great article. >> any time, thanks. >> major corporations

our conversation is with you the viewer because we're independent. >>here's how you can connect with "viewpoint with eliot spitzer." >>questions, of course, need to be answered. >>we will not settle for the easy answers. and everyone likes 50% more cash -- well, except her. no! but, i'm about to change that. ♪ every little baby wants 50% more cash... ♪ phhht! fine, you try. [ strings breaking wood splintering ] ha ha. [ male announcer ] the capital one cash rewards card. the card for people who want 50% more cash. ♪ what's in your wallet? ♪ ♪ what's in your...your... ♪ hershey's chocolate syrup. stir up a smile.

i have the most common type of atrial fibrillation, or afib. it's not caused by a heart valve problem. i was taking warfarin, but my doctor put me on pradaxa instead to reduce my risk of stroke. in a clinical trial, pradaxa® (dabigatran etexilate mesylate) reduced stroke risk 35% better than warfarin. and unlike warfarin, with pradaxa, there's no need for regular blood tests. that's really important to me. pradaxa can cause serious, sometimes fatal, bleeding. don't take pradaxa if you have abnormal bleeding and seek immediate medical care for unexpected signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. pradaxa may increase your bleeding risk if you're 75 or older, have a bleeding condition like stomach ulcers, or take aspirin, nsaids, or blood thinners, or if you have kidney problems especially if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all medicines you take any planned medical or dental procedures and don't stop taking pradaxa without your doctor's approval as stopping may increase your stroke risk. other side effects include

indigestion, stomach pain, upset, or burning. pradaxa is progress. having afib not caused by a heart valve problem increases your risk of stroke. ask your doctor if you can reduce your risk with pradaxa. >> coming up, what is becoming my weekly conference with gay rights advocate tico almeda. but first jennifer granholm in "the war room". what is on tap tonight? >> it's no accident that president obama and mitt romney are focusing their campaign on virginia emerginged a one of the pivotal swing states. we'll deconstruct the electoral maps and look at the possible tabs of victory for each of the candidates and for their margins of error. it's friday, too and we'll kickback and have fun as well. all at the top of the hour. >> i forgot about that friday. you drink something which has--liquor in it.

>> i have my midwestern pop in my detroit tigers cup. we'll be offering our guests wine. >> we'll have to do something new yorkish to match you on friday night. >> sushi on the set. >> something. we'll come back and good news for president obama that virginia is even in play. that's why my prediction still very, very excited about that and very proud of that. >>beltway politics from inside the loop. >>we tackle the big issues here in our nation's capital, around the country and around the globe. >>dc columnist and four time emmy winner bill press opens current's morning news block. >>we'll do our best to carry the flag from 6 to 9 every morning. >>liberal and proud of it. jennifer granholm is politically direct on current tv. >>the dominoes are starting to fall.

(vo) granholm is live in the war room. >> what should women be doing? >> electing women to office. (vo) she's a political trailblazer. >>republicans of course didn't let facts get in the way of spin. >>do it, for america. >> still to come, the continuing struggle to get president obama to recognize the rights of lgbt americans. but first here's my view. it's not the crime, it's the coverup. the old saying brought to mind again with three major companies embroiled in scandal. walmart top executives covering up massive overseas bribery. news corp, murdoch and his son covering up massive hacking and bribery. bp, executives seemingly oblivious to reality and still denying and trying to cover up the magnitude of the gulf oil

spills while junior executives obstruct justice by deleting hundreds of e-mails. what to do? let's admit it. figuring outs to sanction companies and senior executives can be tough. fines do nothing. they're paid by somebody else. and sometimes it is hard to pin a criminal case on the ceo or other senior executives because as i discussed yesterday gauzy memos were pliable lawyers provide a shield that can be tough to pierce. just to be clear i do believe the three companies i just listed should be indicted and news corp should lose it's fcc licenses. but when it comes to ceos and companies lines this, the british parliamentary committee that investigated news corp may be on to something. they concludeed that rupert murdoch is, quote not a fit person to serve as steward of a major public board. maybe we need a public board

that is to empowered to get rid of ceos and senior management even when there is no crime we can prove. when they have ignored wrongdoing and violations of clear ethical mandates. because i can tell you after many years as a prosecutor unless and until these guys lose their jobs and their money they will not take any of this stuff seriously. when companies and their boards fail to act to uphold the simple preliminaries of integrity that have to guide the marketplace we need a way to get change at the [ male announcer ] this is corporate caterers miami, florida. in here, great food demands a great presentation. so at&t showed corporate caterers how to better collaborate by using a mobile solution in a whole new way. using real-time photo sharing abilities, they can create and maintain high standards from kitchen to table. this technology allows us to collaborate with our drivers to make a better experience for our customers. [ male announcer ] it's a network of possibilities -- helping you do what you do... even better. ♪ ♪

[ female announcer ] e-trade was founded on the simple belief that bringing you better technology helps make you a better investor. with our revolutionary new e-trade 360 dashboard you see exactly where your money is and what it's doing live. our e-trade pro platform offers powerful functionality that's still so usable you'll actually use it. and our mobile apps are the ultimate in wherever whenever investing. no matter what kind of investor you are, you'll find the technology to help you become a better one at e-trade. so, you guys grew up together. yes, since third grade... what are you lookin' at? not looking at i anything... we're not good enough for you. must be supermodels? what do you model gloves? brad, eat a snickers. why? 'cause you get a little angry when you're hungry. better? [ male announcer ] you're not you when you're hungry™. better. [ male announcer ] snickers satisfies. the gavin newsom show is a search engine for solutions and that's the focus. we want to focus on solutions and ways of bringing people together. collective action is the only way we're going to solve the world's great vexing problems.

♪ >> the long art of history may bend towards justice but there are bound to be speed bumps along the way.

advocates of lbgt with victories from same-sex marriage in new york to the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. the fight is not finished for the lbgt community. the president refuses to sign an executive order at this time that would formerly band federal contractors from firing federal employees on the basis of sexual orientation even though 86% of top 50 top contractors already prohibit such a practice. and mitt romney would prefer to talk jobs as he hit the campaign trail this week but he forced the resignation much richard grenell, and the failure to respond in his defense took center stage. let's bring out tico almeida thanks for joining me once again to assess where we are in the struggle of equality and

fairness. what strikes me over the last number of years there has been great strides stateside, yet in washington not so much. what plains the divergence, and what is the psychology that differs in each one? >> i agree when it comes to our movement for gay civil rights and transgender civil rights, if seems to me that it's the best of times and the worst of times. in the last year we passed bills in new york maryland, washington state giving gay the right to marry. but then in congress there were bills in place. >> it's easy to blame congress and we should. but the president won't sign an executive order that frankly he should sign as well. it's at both ends of pennsylvania avenue, but is there something different between the washington and federal government versus the state government that prevents this discord? >> i live in washington, d.c.

i sense a lot of risk aversion among my peer who is are lawyers, lobbyists who work in government. d.c. is a place where people go to get long thinking about their career rather than progress. there aren't enough people who push hard in washington, d.c. >> i have viewed the issue of gay rights and lbgt rights as being generational. it's almost inevitable at a certain point we'll have a tipping point and those under a certain age will say and i take my kids as an example, of course same-sex marriage should be legal. then there is a middle ground where, eeh we don't know. we'll get there. is it possible that the politics of new york and california are sufficiently different where we can make real progress where in washington you have risk aresolutioner and block assertion by constituents where in d.c. they have more power than in some of the states. >> i think the pollsters in d.v. have failed to receive the

amount of progress on gay rights. every day in america somebody's brother comes out of the closet or somebody's cousin say they're gay or transgender and people struggle. they shrug. they want their relatives to be streeted as everyone else whether they're gay or transgender. >> new york congresswoman, tea party voice from the hudson valley, won an upset. this is her first term. she as a gay son and she joined one of the advocacy groups on capitol hill. yes, you see relatives reform their views. >> we see gay rights are more and more bipartisan. i've been working closely with friends of mine who lobby within the republican party to make progress on gay rights and transgender rights.

i will tell you at my friends have been scratching their heads where president obama would not sign an executive order that 73% of the american voters support and that mr. obama when he was a candidate promised in writing that he would sign. everyone in d.c. is scratching their head how they botched this so badly. >> i agree maybe he'll do it. you're predicting that he'll do it. >> i'm more optimistic now than a week ago. >> why? >> there was a report in the washington glade that the white house is engaging the human rights campaign which is the largest and wealthiest in america. and they're seeing progress as an offshoot of the white house. i think they're smart people who work there and very good people and they're pushing back hard. they're pushing back on the white house to fix this mistake. that gives me hope that there's

going to be a reconsideration really in the next few months. >> look, i also am surprised that mitt romney did not use this situation that he encountered this week as a way to make a statement. he's at a point in his campaign where he needs to broaden his base and some how look at the conservative right and say yes i know you're here but also i stand for something different. he instead caved immediately. >> i am at a loss to explain why mitt romney bleaches on this issue, and a whole host of issues. 15 years ago when mitt romney ran against ted kennedy, he promised to do a better job than ted kennedy to protect the workplace. fast forward he moves to the radical right. he wins the nomination and one week later he hires an openly guy richard grenell who is exceptionally qualified and tonightedtalented and the best person for the job but the radical base goes nuts. >> was it a pause in the breeze? maybe there is a lull in the

weather pattern, and he was stuck in in the theological right. it makes no sense for him to bow down to the right at that point instead of broadening his base. i was mystified about i think it shows that mitt romney will cave to anyone. >> which does not give anyone comfort of any political stripe as what he will do as president of the united states. paul krugman was here, and he said we don't know what he believes because he has said so many different things at different points of time. you think president obama will do something that is helpful? >> the buck stops in the oval office, that's what harry truman said and the president can overrule his staff who made this mistake and he can sign this policy in the next few months. >> you think the president was not involved in the first decision not to sign it? >> i don't know either way. but i know staff misca