given the congressional budget office foresees unemployment in just over 6% in four years. romney and his fellow republicans insist those taxes are job killers, that take money out of the hands of the job creators. namely the 1%. an orthodoxy that was challenged in march by venture capitalist nick hanauer. in dress for the ted conference, a web seminar series that boosts of the rivetting talks by remarking people hanauer insists mid class consulars are the real creators, and that our tax system which favors the rich has it exactly backwards. joining me

nick hanauer, thanks for joining us. >> happy to be here. >> eliot: first, let's get this out of the way. what happened with ted. they're known as as a come positive tore of great speeches. why wouldn't they post it, and what's the outcome? >> well, the speech i made and the arguments i made are an attack on the economic orthodoxy that a lot of people have a huge stake in. obviously if everyone believes that rich people like me are job creators, essentially the center of the economic universe, the extraordinary privileges that we enjoy like a tax rate which is you know, 50% lower than the taxes on ordinary work are reasonable and justified, right? you can't get to a situation where i get to pay 15% on cap

gains, dividends and cared interest, and ordinary americans pay the top rate on work without dei defying capital lists. >> eliot: and it does challenge the orthodoxies accepted by conventional wisdom. when i first heard about this, i said it makes no sense. i greed with the entirety of your speech, but i was surprise when the ted conference would not post it. then i want to move onto the substance of what you were saying. >> i know that chris anderson cares about economic and equality. i think he misjudged how strongly people feel about this issue, and the salients and persuasiveness of the argument i made. as soon as the human cry got loud he released it to youtube, not on the website, but at least people got to see

it. >> eliot: a lot of people are watching it, and for good reason. i as well. i look at you, and i'm a venture capitalist, you created companies, and you say the real pressure for job growth and the energy for jobs is the middle class not the top 1%. explain why, what are the economics that under lie your theory? >> yeah, all traditional economics is rooted in some 19th century assumptions about how human social systems work. they assume they're lineared a mechanistic. we know that's not true. we know with scientific certainty that human social systems like economies are ecosystemmic. we know that the economy is not an ecosystem. it is literally is an ecosystem. once you get there, you realize it's characterized by feedback loops that is fed by ecosystems. in that sense jobs are not

created by rich people having money poured into them like an incredible. it's an ecosystemmic feedback group mean customers and businesses. the more our customers buy from us, the more people we have to hire and more prosperity is created. a rich business person like me calling themselves a job creator is like a squirrel who claims to created evolution. it's the other way around. >> eliot: i like that metaphor. a squirrel tried to sell that to me the other day, but i didn't buy it. you're like henny ford understood this. >> absolutely. >> eliot: henry ford, we learned in our history books said if i build cars and no one can afford to buy them, there would be no business model. he realized he had to pay his workers enough to meet the demand. it's the opportunity for jobs to

be created and the world we're living in is-- >> it is. it's political and economic decisions we've made. it's essentially creating this death spiral of falling demand. the thing about complex systems, eliot, they're characterized by positive feedback loops and they're virtue of cycle or a death spiral. and we are in a death spiral of falling demand as the economy essentially all the money in the economy accumulates in the hands of the tiny minority of people. call it 1,000 times as much the median wage, but i don't buy 1,000 times as much stuff. my family owns three cars, not 3,000. i buy a few pairs of pants just like most american men. i can't make up for the falling demand of the tens of millions of million class americans who are out of work or even greater number who are under employed.

they can't afford any new cars or meals out. that's the problem. >> eliot: and it's interesting because economists of all stripes. i don't think even the most conservative economist disputes what you just said which is the percentage of democratic used for consumption declines as income increases. you're earning $1 million, you still only buy a limited number of shirts. go out to dinner a limited number of times. the rest of the money sits in a bank and that in of itself will not create jobs. we need to pump up demand. how can we do that in this economy. >> how do we do that? >> eliot: yes. >> you start with reasonable tax rates on wealthy and corporations again. tax rates on the super wealthy and on corporations have fallen precipitous ly over the last 40 years. if there was a shred of truth to the idea that the lower the tax rates on the wealthyier more wealthy got or more profitable the corporations were the more

jobs, we would be drowning in jobs. yet we're at historic levels of corporate profitability and wealth for the wealthy, and unemployment and under employment. that's because, look corporations don't hire more people because they have an an abundance of profit. they hire more people when they have the abundance of more customers. the only way to get this fly wheel moving in the right direction again if we tax the people to be enough to invest in the bottom. things will get better. there are a bunch of other policy choices we made that are wrong. for instance, letting china as being as predatory as they have been with respect to our products and workers, but of to tax the top. >> eliot: let's keep it domestic. we'll have the trade discussion another day. we need to have that, but the capital gains of 15% versus the

35% that ordinary taxpayers pay is contrary and counter to what you would say is good economics? >> yeah, i do believe that the capital gains rate should be differentially lower than the top tax rate to give people a reason to invest, but it's not just capital gains, eliot, it's dividends and car carried interest. people like me pay very little tax at the very tippy top, and you have hard working middle class americans who are paying 35% or more. it's backward and crazy and not economically effective. all i do is accumulate money and hedge funds and other things and it's not in the economy. >> eliot: and then you pointed out in your speech this was the data point i had not heard. if income distribution had stayed where it was several decades ago, median family income would be up to $92,000. give us the numbers, and most of

that differential would be spent and consumed. that's the feedback loop that you were talking about. >> since 1980 the share of can income the top 1% of americans has gone from 8% to 24% while the share of income from the bottom, fallen from 18% to 12%. here's the really scary part. if the current trend simply continues, the top 1% will have 37% share in another 30 years and the bottom 50% of americans will share just 6% of national income. you don't have a capitalist democracy any more at that point. you have a feudel society. >> eliot: we were talking the economic impact of disperty of wealth, but the fraying of our social fabric will not be far behind. >> yes, the economics will be--exactly. the economics will be the least of our problems at that point.

you know, so my argument, in ever inequality is unfair whereas my nine-year-old loves to say, it's mean. but that's not the best reason to fight against this rising inequality. the bigger problem is that it's terrible for business. the more customers business people like me have, the more successful we will be. it is a small price to pay to pay a little bit more tax to ensure that the middle class and the working class thrive and grow. >> eliot: could not gray more. nick hanauer, thank you. we have a big, big hour and the i.q. will go way up. >>tv and radio talk show host stephanie miller rounds out current's morning news block.

if you have copd like i do you know how hard it can be to breathe and what that feels like. copd includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. spiriva helps control my copd symptoms by keeping my airways open a full 24 hours. plus, it reduces copd flare-ups. spiriva is the only once-daily inhaled copd maintenance treatment that does both. and it's steroid-free. spiriva does not replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms. tell your doctor if you have kidney problems glaucoma, trouble urinating, or an enlarged prostate. these may worsen with spiriva. discuss all medicines you take, even eye drops. stop taking spiriva and seek immediate medical help if your breathing suddenly worsens your throat or tongue swells you get hives, vision changes or eye pain, or problems passing urine. other side effects include dry mouth and constipation. nothing can reverse copd. spiriva helps me breathe better. does breathing with copd weigh you down? ask your doctor if spiriva can help.

♪ >> eliot: you may have noticed i was not here for the last two days. i was off having a wonderful time with my family celebrating my oldest daughter's college graduation. which is why our number of the day is so disturbing. 52. that's the percentage of jobless workers who are over 24 who have either goodated from college or have gone there for some period of time. it's not that the college degree makes someone less employable. it's more that more and more of the workforce has either a degree or some time in college. so those credentials are less influential as distinguishing factors. what is beginning to matter more, majoring in something practical. even comedians have figured that out. listen to andy samberg at my daughter's graduation. >> andy: math and science majors, you're cool. finally. >> georgia you can't miss with the tech majors. but the highest unemployment is

among those who have some college. 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. >>(narrator) gavin newsom, lieutenant governor of california, and former mayor of san francisco is on current tv. >>every night on cable news networks everyone's focusing on what's wrong. i want this show to move past that. i love creative people, and with all the vexing problems we have we need creative thinking. >>(narrator) with interviews with notables from silicon valley, hollywood, and beyond. >>at the end of the day this show's simple. it's about ideas. ideas are the best politics. ideas can bring us together.

>>(narrator) the gavin newsom show. next. only on current tv. >> eliot: wind baby wind. it's not as catchy and sarah palin's drill baby drill but it was the message that president obama brought to him yesterday at a wind manufacturing facility. >> this industry , thanks in large part to tax credits have taken off. today we have nearly 500 facilities in 43 states, employing tens of thousands of americans . >> eliot: despite his praise for wind and other alternatives energy, the president still isn't necessarily against drilling. in fact, just the opposite. even after the exxon valdez and bp disasters possibly two of the largest environmental disasters

in u.s. history, the president is designing support for offshore drilling in the arctic. according to a story in the week's "new york times" quote, in blessing she will's move to the arctic, mr. obama continues his efforts to balance businesses and environmentally interests. the president is writing a new chapter in the nation's unfold be energy transformation. in this case the benefit of fossil fuel producers. meanwhile, the families load into their cars for the memorial day weekend, gas prices are slowly but surely coming down. the national average price for a gallon of regular gasoline yet was $3.67 down become $0.30 from where it was easterly april. suddenly the other side doesn't seem to be so adamant that the president controls the price of gas. joining me now, bob cavnar and

john hofmeister. all the to come of the gas going up and now it's coming down. was this just a boogeyman's politician roll out. >> it's no different than oranges future, traders have a role to play. they present to the buyer an opportunity, the buyer can say no or yes. i don't say its manipulation. it's the process. >> eliot: i've been a prosecutor for many years, i wonder why politics don't talk about when prices go down. anyway, let's put manipulation i agree with you. i don't think that's why price gas up or down. is the president right to do some of everything? all of the above if he likes to say the renewables wind, solar drilling in the arctic or is there a lack of focus that leads us

wandering aimlessly. >> there is a generation of electricity which we use use. and we're all looked on oil because of december sal engine. there are no substitutes in the mass market, not yet, for alternative mass transportation market. the president needs an all in, all of the above strategy. >> eliot: you are supportive of drilling the arctic simultaneously pursue the wind and other alternatives. >> if the u.s. does not drill in the arctic, then we're dependent dependenton standards set by others. >> eliot: you've been critical about policies in the gulf. you said we're not prepared then, we're still not prepared. it's another case of here we go again, hoping that the public has forgotten and there is a disaster in the arctic and then

we rue the day that we made this decision? >> the challenge is eliot, is that we use the same equipment that was in the gulf of mexico when the bp well blew out. the challenge is not where we're drilling, whether it's in the deep water or arctic, it's well control and safety. the devices that we use today, they're essentially the same technology that has been around for a number of years. there are new generations of blow outs being designed and tested but those are not being deployed. in the permit for shell in the offshore architect there is redundancy and backup so that helps. but that's an awfully challenging environment to be drilling in the offshore. >> eliot: so bob, if i hear you properly, as critically as you have been of the way we drill and have drilled until now, if we were to put in place the proper technology you would say let's go for it? it makes sense as part of a coherent energy policy? >> you know, i think it's beyond that, though, eliot.

the whole challenge we have here is comprehensive energy policy. we as a nation burn more oil per person than any other industrialized nation in the world. as john pointed out we're very dependent on engines for transportation. without that energy and encouragement of alternative energy, we're forced into these environments. we're fortunate that shell is a great company that is very, very safe in drilling of offshore but they're dependent on current technology. i don't support offshore especially in the arctic, but our energy security is very, very important to us, also. it's a trade-off, and that's what the obama administration is focused on. >> eliot: john, let me come back to you. it sounds reasonable an oil company, any company will use existing technology as long as

the profits are there, and there is no necessarily incentive to embrace new technologies. what would it take for the oil industry to move to the next generation to make is safer and perhaps more productive, and flip side, do you think that we could and should have regulations demanding greater mile per gallon output for cars? >> one of the beauties of the oil and gas technology is that it's technology industry. it lives on thrives on technology. it's always coming up on new innovations and new ideas. bob makes an point on old designs, and companies are moving on. what shell would like to do off the coast alaska, they've been doing off the shores of another way. you learn not to take risks. for the wells, and frankly, this process started when i was still at shell many years ago, it took them seven years just to get to

this point for just a couple of experimental wells. they'll only drill when the ice is gone. they'll only drill to a point in time when the ice returns so they won't be facing arctic conditions. these are just experimental wells to see what is under the earth. this is not going to be producing wells. there is still years ahead to get the best of technology and innovation as to when they get to the production point. >> eliot: to get back to the harder question, what is the spur? what will create the incentive for shell or exxon or competitors to come up with that technology. is there an affirmative role to be played by a government regulatory system that says you must meet this safety standard or industry safety and then you'll invest the dollars. >> eliot: there is not a government on earth that knows as much about energy technology as what exists in the oil companies. so what the oil companies do is they consult with the government to look at and debate and quite open forum what are the best technologies.

then the regulators get to work laying down those technologies as part of regulations. then the american petroleum plays a big part-- >> eliot: in bp, where was the big failure there as bob pointed out on this show and elsewhere there was an old technology and failed technology being used at the time. where was the failure in that chain of command or in that decision process that permitted that to happen then? >> there were multiple failure steps along the way just like a plane crash there are generally multiple things that once. one of the issues was they got rid of one blow-out protecter and brought in another one. it was out of warranty redesigned, it had not been tested at adequately or regularly. the equipment should have been pulled, forced by the government to pull that piece of equipment. >> eliot: there should have been a regulation at the government

level to pull--bob, you guys are buddies, i don't want to put you against each other, do you believe that shell would have made that same mistake? >> i think shell is the gold standard for off- shore drilling. their technology, well design and well control and management is much better than bp, and they've proven it with their performance. but there are still issues. i beg to differ with john in a couple of areas. one is the api, the american petroleum institute has been a standard institute for decades. unfortunately, it's it's moved into a lobbying organization. the api now gets in front of the industry lobbying against safety regulation. we have to remember that there has been no legislation, no permanence of new procedures butt in place by the legislature since the bp plowout. build out. a lot of has been improved as

far as internal procedures especially shell, testing and back up and those kinds of things, but the government itself has not stepped up that effort to improve the safety performance that i think we need, especially in environments like the arctic. >> eliot: do you believe the government needs to pass through legislation new standards in terms of safety in the aftermath of bp? >> i think not. i think not because the regulations are tough enough. if people execute. if people don't make the foolish adjustments that were made on that rig in the bp instance i don't think legislation itself-- >> eliot: this is more enforcement than legislative failure? >> that's my view. >> eliot: we'll continue this some other evening if you'll come back and join us again. >> love to. >> bob cavnar and john hofmeister, thank you for joining us tonight. >> thank you.

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... ♪ [ female announcer ] e-trade technology can help make you a better investor. our new e-trade 360 investing

dashboard shows you where your money is, live. e-trade pro is so usable you'll actually use it. and our apps are the ultimate in mobile investing. become a better investor at e-trade.

the chill of peppermint. the rich dark chocolate. york peppermint pattie get the sensation. [ 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. ♪ ♪

>> eliot: obama and romney turn their targets to working class whites. but first randall calls mitt romney a wuss and chris matthews called newt gringrich a snake, and meg began mccain calls herself a mutant. when it doesn't fit anywhere else we put it in the viewfinder. ♪ >> many people in the republican party treat me like i'm a freak that there is something wrong with me and a mutant and original design. >> loaning the way i learned chess. it's a thousand miles in great britain. i was afraid of nuclear war the whole time. i've ridden an ostrich. i've done a lot of things. >> focused on lower gas prices

american energy, lower taxes and creating jobs. >> our campaign is going to stay focused on lower gasses, lower gas prices lower energy. >> falling prices could be the sign of looming global economic crisis. the good news, it's memorial day weekend, the prices are down for the underlying reason for it is a negative. >> is that a yes or no. >> our campaign is going to focus on lowering gas prices creating jobs, and lowering prices for the american energy. >> you got 15 minutes to live. the attack like this. >> you have a more ruthless approach to politics than i do. >> our focus is lowering gas prices, creating jobs, and >> what is barack obama's qualitycation for being president of united states of america? i don't know yet.

>> is mitt romney a wuss. >> yeah, i think he is. ♪ >> eliot: why china is kicking our ass! >> the reason number 933. >> what is that? is it dance party friday? is it? how did that happen? ♪ >> those are news broadcasters. they're there to tell us what is happening in the world. >> eliot: still true to politics is the best spectator sport in history. our wealthy president and >>(narrator) gavin newsom, lieutenant governor of california, and former mayor of san francisco is on current tv. >>every night on cable news networks everyone's focusing on what's wrong. i want this show to move past that. i love creative people, and with all the vexing problems we have we need creative thinking. >>(narrator) with interviews with notables from silicon

valley, hollywood, and beyond. >>at the end of the day this show's simple. it's about ideas. ideas are the best politics. >>(narrator) the gavin newsom show. next. only on current tv. 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... ♪

>> eliot: have you ensnared those middle class votes. for mitt romney, by pivoting onation reform. and for president obama by bashing his rival's profit-maximizing philosophy. while romney made an overt appeal for minority voters this week, laying out his vision for a voucher-run education program and referring to education reform as the civil rights issue of our era, president obama playing on us-versus them politics in his swing through california, colt, and iowa seizing on the romney's at the arrested ship at bain capital mocking his g.o.p. opponent for saying corporations are people. even though national polls have kept obama at a slight advantage over romney, a new "washington

post" "abc news" poll shows 58% of struggling middle class white voters say romney would do more to advance their families economic interests. only 32% chose obama. voters across party lines agree that romney who would do more to advance the interests of wall street. let's bring in nia-malika henderson, national political reporter for the "washington post." and david schuster current tv correspondent. the numbers flip when go to the other side, anybody who isn't white, is this a racial divide or economic divide or both? >> well, i think it's a little bit of both. i don't think the obama administration, the obama campaign would be surprised at this divide, nor would any democrat who for the last 20 years have grappled with how to attract these voters lower middle class white male voters, folks who work with

their hands, those kind of people. that's why you see the strategy focusing on african-americans, latinos, women, because they feel like if they can swell the voter world in those demographics, then they have a pretty good shop. barack obama in 2008 got 43% of the white vote. that's what bill clinton did lower than what jimmy carter was able to do. he got 46% of the white vote. they feel they have enough avenues, and kuwait frankly the demographics of the country are changing in such a way that it probably favors democrats in the long run. >> eliot: look, it's always better when you're in politics to be playing on your opponent's turf. how bus president obama appeal--i'm a huge nascar fan, i% have been long before i was in government. how does president obama appeal to what people call the nascar vote, white middle class lower-month old class folks, as

mia-malika said, folks who work with their hands. >> rather than appeal, you hear the obama campaign talk more about trying to suppress that vote. they believe that white middle class voters are the ones successible, and would stay home on election day so they can raise the voting rates among women and latinos as nia just said, and keep down the voters from going to the polls, that's a victory. >> eliot: you said the white house was trying to suppress the vote? is this some sort of-- >> let me be perfectly clear. the negative ads, we're going to see a barrage of negative ads, that's not designed because we want to energize the energize the obama voters, it's to lower that category of voter from going to the polls and that will help president obama.

>> eliot: i never thought that the white house would stoop to that level. nia, you always want to play on the other turf. george romney, going back decades to his four, govern romney gave a fascinating speech about civil rights, defining it as an education issue. do you think he'll win over african-american votes or is this a larger effort to change the narrative so he's viewed differently by suburban voters who would feel more comfortable to vote for him. >> it's both. they're realistic about their chances in terms of attracting any sizable portion of the african-american vote. george bush did decently 11% across the board. 16% in ohio, which was a pretty good thing for his campaign, and some people credit that with him being re-elected. but in terms of turning towards african-americans, turning towards latinos to a certain extent, the real strategy there is coming across as

as a compassionate conservative. you saw george bush doing that and that's what you see mitt romney doing it. he didn't get a very good reception yesterday in philadelphia. he went to a poor plaque neighborhood, a school, a charter school was not received very warmly there by people, shutting get out romney. obama has got our backs. it's going to be tough for him but they've hired a couple of folks. they have rob page, an education consultant. he has a bit of a checkered past. they brought in a public face of the campaign, working with communication strategy and outreach strategy. we'll see what they're able to do. i think, a, it's about appearing compassionate and getting some of the black vote, but this goes out to voter suppression. it's more if they hammer away on barack obama and say, listen

this is a guy whose administration has rot 13% in the black community, 17% under bill clinton, is this someone that you really want to reelect? is he going to mean anything healthy, good, and hopeful for your communities at this point. i think that's also a strategy that they're looking at. voter suppression. >> eliot: it's interesting putting aside the voteer suppression issue, we'll come back to that. but you use the phrase compassionate conservatism, and george bush gave it a bad name in the aftermath of his tenture of presidency. i don't believe that the romney camp can genuinely believe they'll make serious inroads in the african-american community. i think they're hoping in the latino community, on the other hand, to have a significant up take in what he gets. if he doesn't, he won't be able to succeed. david, do you think that the romney campaign knows that it has to use education as the wedge issue to do that? immigration is a dicey issue. he risks using his very conservative base if he does

anything that speaks to compromise on immigration but he can on education. >> the visit to philadelphia was not for african-american voters, but it's more to appeal to suburban women outside of philadelphia. i think the romney campaign is crazy if they think they can win pennsylvania. they don't, and they feel education is one of those issues that can get them away from, oh, romney is a venture capitalist. it's a campaign to appeal to women. >> eliot: let's talk about his education policy. he brought out the voucher word, which has not been uttered in the white house, it's a dirty word in the white house. it's a dirty word to the education establishment, the unions in particular. do you believe vouchers have any future regardless mitt romney is elected president? congress is not likely to fund a voucher program, is this more politics or he really believes vouchers will work and have a place in our educational establishment?

>> right, i think it's politics. this is the conservative line you hear on education, this idea of vouchizing the system, having kids who go to public schools get vouchers and go to private schools. but of course, teachers unions public school are advocate, and aren't happy with that and it won't necessarily go anywhere. i think david is exactly right. this idea of talking about education is a soft issue trying to appeal to black folks. it's really an indirect appeal to those suburban women voters who will decide this election, not so much in pennsylvania because i don't think that a republican is going to be able to win that state, but you're going to see that in states of virginia, ohio, and to a certain extent, florida. >> eliot: we're still at a stage in the campaign where each of the campaigns are trying to flesh out how the public sees them, and the sound byte of bain capital, we should not forget that congress has not been able

to move forward on the reform of "no child left behind" which was a piece of president bush's domestic policy. it's an issue we need to talk about at length, but we haven't any made real progress on it. nia-malika henderson from the "washington post," and david schuster, current tv, i appreciate your comments tonight. vanguard: the documentary series that redefined tv journalism. >>we're going to places where few others are going. >>it doesn't get anymore real than this. >>occupy! >>we will have class warfare. >>i'm being violated by the health-care system. >>we're patrolling the area looking for guns, drugs, bodies. >>we go in and spend a considerable amount of time getting to know the people and the characters that are actually living these stories. >>the award winning series "vanguard" new episodes coming soon. only on current tv. [ 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. ♪ ♪

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.

>> eliot: facebook may have had the worst week of its life at week of its life. that's later in the show. but first let's go out to jennifer granholm and "the war room." what do you have for us? >> we're heading into the memorial day weekend. we'll put the focus where it should be, that's on our veterans. we'll exploit what the president has been saying on veteran affairs, and spotlight where it is needed and the key voting blocks, veterans, yes, but including millennials, we'll show some mind-blowing numbers. that's at the top of the hour right here in the war room. have a good memorial weekend. >> eliot: you, too, and thank >>(narrator) gavin newsom, lieutenant governor of california, and former mayor of san francisco is on current tv. >>every night on cable news networks everyone's focusing on what's wrong. i want this show to move past that. i love

creative people, and with all the vexing problems we have we need creative thinking. >>(narrator) with interviews with notables from silicon valley, hollywood, and beyond. >>at the end of the day this show's simple. it's about ideas. ideas are the best politics. ideas can bring us together. >>(narrator) the gavin newsom show. next. only on current tv. 1cccm05865