enk. i want to you say and watch eliot spitzer and "viewpoint." i want to take a moment and say mom, happy birthday. i love you. have a good weekend, everybody. [ music ] >> eliot: good evening, i'm eliot spitzer, and this is "viewpoint." it was a bad end to a bad week for president obama. it started last friday's dismal jobs report and continued with tuesday's recall defeat as governor scott walker held his seat in wisconsin and an unforced error during the news conference on the economy. >> obama: the most important thing we can do is make sure we have a strong robust recovery. the private sector is doing fine fine. >> eliot: he's rivals were first to pounce john boehner. >> president obama, take it from

me, the private sector is not doing well. >> then g.o.p. mitt romney. >> romney: he said the private sector is doing fine. he said the private sector is doing fine. an extraordinary miscalculation and misunderstanding by a president who is out of touch. >> eliot: mr. obama then tiled back his comments a few hours later. >> obama: the economy is not doing fine. there are too many people out of work. the housing market is too weak and homes are still underwater. that's precisely why i asked congress to start making some steps that would make a difference. >> eliot: steps like aid to state and local governments to rehire teachers, police, firefighters. infrastructure repairs, and tax breaks for local businesses to for hiring and mr. obama insisted

that the economy had it's bright spots including profits of $1.5 trillion and 4.3 private sector jobs for an average of 158,000 a month. not enough to change the narrative in what has been an awful week for the democrats and in the white house. with me to discuss the president's gaffe gillian and ben white, ben let me begin with you for a political question. it seems to me the whole rationale for having a press conference on friday afternoon after what was a bad week was to rewrite the narrative of a week that had been only down beat negative for the president but he tripped all over himself. that was one gaffe after another. it seems that he's dodging responsibility. is this as big of a disaster as it seems to be. >> it's a big disaster. the last thing you want to do is

suggest that the private economy is doing fine. it undermined everything that he wanted to do in that press conference, discuss europe, and other messages and what we talk about is the private sector is doing fine. what he meant was that the private sector is adding jobs while the public sector is slashing jobs. that's why he wants congress to pass this measure to give more aid to states. he's not wrong about the underlying facts, the private sector is doing better than the public sector in losing jobs. but he ends the week where he started it in a terrible place. >> eliot: jillian it seems that the narrative that he wants to project is gradual and slow progress. and what he wanted to focus on the private sector is begin to go show life, but then he fumbled it. >> he's trying to walk a very difficult, very slippery tight rope. on the one hand he doesn't want

to pretend that there aren't problems because there clearly are. there are big issues with china which damage the u.s. economy and the u.s. committee it is has big domestic problems. but in the meantime, they don't want to dampen voters' mood by being too negative, and they don't want to be blamed either. what they're trying to do is actually the road we've taken in supporting the economy, there is more to be done to boost growth, but some of the biggest threats are not our policies but overseas. >> eliot: on the one hand he's trying to do what george w. bush was doing when the crisis was brewing for years ago which was to speak with a tone of optimism. but on the other hand he's trying to point the pink some place else and say things are not as good as they might be. it's europe, it's china

everyone else. it's congress, don't blame us. these factors converged, and he seems to be dancing too quickly. >> absolutely, the white house spent a lot of time in the early months talking about finance and economics, and the psychological impact on the economy when voters feel depressed, happy or whatever. no one wants to dance in spirit dramatically, but they have to build consensus if they want to build consensus to some kind of action to address this. >> he also has to send a message to europe. what he was trying to do is say to germany and others, you need to take sweeping decisive actions to stall any banking problems. it's a risk to be seen as telling europe what to do. it's probably because he has to do it. if the u.s. tanks he has got to do it, and this message is lost in all of this. >> eliot: we'll get to europe in a minute, but first is congress.

it's a lot more important for him to point the finger at john boehner who is proximately for mitt romneyproxy to mittromney. to makeso congress is jumping all over him right now. >> it's friday. everyone is tired, and i think it was a rather silly slip of the tongue. but again it does indicate a much bigger issue in the back of the minds of the people in the white house right now there is real certain about what is happening in the euro zone and what is happening in china. by comparison to that, what is happening in the private sector in america is not good, but it's not as bad as what is happening to the euro zone. >> eliot: i want to get to china and europe you're the brit, you love to talk about that. you want to get home and talk about the european economy, or maybe not, but i want to pick up

something that you said. it may be friday, and the white house may be tired, but they called a press conference out of nowhere and they should have been prepared for it: for the president to is have specific words to come out ready and down pat it's surprising to me. even to use the word "robust" is not where i would think the white house would be. >> they have not really been healed after the first year and there is a lot of mistrust on both sides. over the last months they've been trying to reach out to business, and to say that the economy is doing fine. is another way of saying that there are businesses out there creating jobs, but yes it plays badly on the wider fiscal-- >> the whole narrative--sorry--i'm not the big wall street guy. i'm not the big business guy

i'm for main street. to say that everyone is fine, he undermines that in one word, and he seems out of touch. >> eliot: the numbers he threw out were accurate. he did not use the 4.2 million private sector jobs. but that is the reality. it's a good number in terms of where we've been. it's not translating into jobs. jobs are what we care about not profits. >> the degree to which manufacturing sector in america is enjoying. exports are doing well and that has not been seized on to the degree it should have been. but as you say, good exports is not creating jobs for people. >> that gives the significant way to what you want to talk about, europe. this past month, the trade deficit shank but shrank because

trade is down and europe is in a serious recession. china is not growing as quickly as it can be or must be to maintain gross across the global economy. the entire global economy is slowing down and that's dangerous. >> absolutely. exports are up at a high level for america. they're going to places like australia, middle east, and europe is in problems. it's not just the issue that the economy, and there could be a possibility that that it's a financial contagion. there is a big risk of handing over the markets over and concentrating on the minds in the white house. >> the last thing that this administration needs is a crisis. it's going to be a 50/50 election. it's very close. our economy is on on the cusp of moving forward or going

backwards. he want to make sure that spanish banks don't fail. make sure there is not contagion. if that happens, the chances of obama's re-election are cut in half, maybe more. >> eliot: what is the answer. i'm not an international economist. i read the papers every day. i see the spanish banks and the spanish government has no money. they're going to germany and the european central bank. they don't have money or they don't want to lend it. is there an answer? the only people with money is the chinese government. gillian, you're the economist. >> that's not true. >> eliot: educate me. >> europe has enough money inside the euro zone borders to deal with these problems. but the problem is germany and to what degree does germany want to do marshall plans for europe. >> eliot: germany thee readcally has enough to bail out spain and

the spanish banks, but if it goes to france-- >> i think the idea is to stop it before any of that happens. there is an existing bail-out fund and it could have more. it needs to have more and it could be leverage leveraged to a higher degree. they're saying take this bailout fund. make it bigger and make it overwhelming so the market sees it and says no way are these countries going to fail. >> but the issue right now which will play out in the next 48 to 72 hours is very much what will happen with spain. the expectation of the market now is that spain will have a bailout with the banking system. if you simply want to put another band aid on the wound, if you like, people are talking about $40 billion euros. if you want to be proactive or aggressive, you need $90 billion or more to put concerns to rest. that's something that will come out soon. are they simply taking one more step to stem the bleeding or are they ready to engage in radically surgery and deal with

the underlying problems. >> eliot: as one who has watched from the outside it seems each of these is an insufficient band aid. here is another question. who is in charge? it used to be after world war ii there was a sense of economic structure, inf the world bank and the president of the united states would call the shots. right now nobody able to call the shots. angela merkel unable to put money behind it. as you say they theoretically could do it. china says, not our problem. is there anyone who could unilaterally make a decision and guide us forward. >> that is the problem. there is no one in charge. in terms of america's role, if you go back to the financial crisis, people joked about the people who would save the world. it's always impossible to imagine america to play that

role right now because america on the world stage has significantly diminished. >> that what they're trying to do. talking about american efforts they say they're in an unique position to gather people these together and broke arrest deal. there is not one person in charge, but the administration-- >> the reality is--the americans haven't even supported the i mt initiative fully. if you're looking for a solution, america is not in the position-- >> eliot: sometimes when i go to dc and drive in constitution avenue and pennsylvania and i see these big imposing buildings i have the sense of the roman empire that have failed. people think they can still push buttons and things will happen, but they're living in a dream world. do they understand howdies tonight they are from the capacity to solve the problems? >> i don't think they do. i don't think they think they can solve the problem. i think they think they can play

a constructive role, bring people together and because of the experience we had with our own debt crisis and how we dealt with it with the tarp program and take massive measures to make sure there are no bank failures. that's why tim geithner goes to europe and sends his deputies. he says, we have experience in this. and to some degree, they are receptive if not privately. >> i think differently. they're sufficiently intertwined to be impact the euro zone, but not to change it. >> eliot: i think they have the capacity to create the illusion that they can do something between now and november to make sure that the crisis doesn't get worse but after november, i don't know. ben white, morning money gilli gillian tett. thank you. has barack obama become captain

of the kill list. more "viewpoint" ahead.

>>the dominoes are starting to fall. (vo) former two term governor, politically direct on current tv >> what should women be doing? >> electing women to office. >> eliot: who really won the wisconsin recall election? well, governor scott walker kept his job, of course, so he didn't "lose." but the people who won were the campaign professionals which brings us to the number of the day, $8 million. that's a rough estimate of how much was spent on wisconsin's recall elections. that's not even including last year's senate recalls. several sources are still compiling data for an exact number but so far they've

already accounted for at least $63 million spent. that alone makes it the most expensive election in the state's history. obliterating the old record of $37.4 million spent on wisconsin wisconsin's last gubernatorial race. with everything at stake in wisconsin it's no surprise that so much money flooded into the respective campaigns from outside interest groups. but is this the new normal? it certainly seems that way. every contested election in our country has become and will remain a budgeted battleground. perhaps that's one reason why the economy is proven in political swing states like pennsylvania and ohio. is campaign spending turning into a major force in the economy? if so the residual benefits will be appreciated by those reaping the rewards but at what cost to our nation's democracy? focus on solutions and ways of bringing people together. that's the only way we're going to

solve the world's great vexing problems. >>(narrator) the gavin newsom show tonight at 11 eastern/8 pacific on current tv. 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. >> eliot: the constitution allahal law professor has now become an one-man war machine. he individually decides who lives and who dies in the covert drone war increasingly being carried out in pack san, yemen and somalia. in his latest book, "kill or capture: the war on terror and the soul of the obama presidency," investigative journalist daniel klaidman documents how are president obama has transformed and embraced and expanded america's secret drone program. joining us is the author of that

groundbreaking book, "kill or capture: the war on terror and the soul of the obama presidency"." daniel klaidman, thanks for your time. >> thanks for having me, eliot. >> eliot: this book has had a remarkable impact. it has been the window into the emotions, the psyche and thinking of a president who we had imputed all sorts of peace-nik notions. >> the interesting thing is during the campaign what most people heard barack obama talk about when he talked about these issues was rolling back the bush-cheney foreign policies. the excesses of that time, whether it's guantanamo, torture torture, warrantless wiretapping. the one thing you did not hear barack obama talk a lot about was drones. the reason is that intuitively he supported the program. here's why. barack obama wanted to end the wars of 9/11. he wanted to bring the troops back from iraq, which he has done. he wanted to win in afghanistan and bring those troops back, but

he understood there were threats out there. the drone program was in line with his basic m.o. you go after the threats in a targeted way, but you don't put boots on the ground. it's complicated because there is more violence. >> eliot: go back to your first premise. we heard what we wanted to hear. that's why he was so brilliant, he could capture the hope for change and emotion without giving us in excess detail what it meant. that's why he came in with a mandate that he thought momentarily. on the other hand there appears to be more continuity than change in many aspects of the foreign policies. in other aspects there has not been a lot of change. >> it's true for a lot of reasons. presidents, there is campaigning and then there is governing. and any president who occupies that seat will tell you about the transformation you go through on national security issues. you assume really that awesome

responsibility of protecting the country. i'm sure his views changed in terms of his responsibilities. there is also politics. i think he under estimateed our toxic the politician were on these issues. also, he made choices. he flinched in some respects. >> eliot: give the best example of the flinch. >> guantanamo. when he came in, there was one thing that the administration needed to do to make it ease your to close down guantanamo. that is take in some small number of detainees who were there so then you have the moral stature to get the europeans other allies to take--to take the detainees and that didn't happen. >> not only did it not happen but the pushback came from within his own party. >> absolutely. >> eliot: you can fault this as a failure of domestic white house politics or not, but when they began to talk about taking

the detainees from guantanamo and taking them to other facilities in the united states-- >> there were very few profiles of courage. but look, they made certain priorities. governing the white house, you do triage. they chose healthcare. they were worried these other issues would be distractions. the question was could barack obama walk and chew gum at the same time. i think he could have. >> eliot: it's hard to know. coming back to your point, you have significant constraints in the latitude you have to move the needle on foreign policies. and coming back to drones which i find so fascinating. it's a john f. kennedy answer to a narly problem. the sort of easy anti- antiseptic answer. >> there is no form of weaponry that is entirely precise. you can't lift the fog of war

entirely. you depend on at the end of the day you depend on huge intelligence to make sure you're hitting the right targets. and so yes, there have been been--there has been collateral damage to use the euphemism. >> eliot: that is we're killing people. >> the third day in office, january 23rd, hours after he had signed the executive orders rolling back some of the bush policies, guantanamo torture. john brennan his adviser, he said mr. president, the first drone strike of your presidency hit the wrong guy, a tribal elder who was a pro peace guy and much of his family was wiped out. obama was pretty troubled by this and disturbed. called in the c.i.a. what happened. he's learning three days after

he becomes president about this concept of signature strikes. this is where you fire missiles at a group of military-age males. you don't know what their identities are. you know they have certain signatures, they have the characteristics of terrorism. >> eliot: they are hanging out with the wrong people. i'll give you the analogy. going back as a proper. she had the associates. they were found having coffee with the wrong people. >> guilt by association. >> eliot: and now they're dead. >> and now they're dead. he in the end approved this policy in pakistan. the theory was that they had been operating here so long. they knew the area, every inch of the territory. the human intelligence was very good. it was an effective and reasonable policy. but the president then decided that he was not going to approve these kinds of signature stripes in places like yemen and somalia. he pushed back against the

military for most of his three years of his presidency. he has begun to relent. >> eliot: it seems that the flood has opened. what's interesting is that the process has become an unilateral decision-making process. it's the political and public support of having a congress stepping in and saying we are with you on this. >> that's the real criticism and the legitimate criticism of this program is that it's so shrouded in secrecy and at this point it doesn't need to be. this administration needs to understand that they would maintain more credibility for the program if they exposed it to more sunlight. >> eliot: sunlight is the best disinfectant as the famous quotation goes, but what they don't have is congressional votes to asay that we approve this as an act of war nor do they have a judicial system that has reviewed the evidence to reinforce the decisions he's unilaterally making. >> then he'll rely on article

two of the constitution that commander in chief clause, do you really want the congress meddling in targeting decisions. >> eliot: time runs short, but one question, there have been no prosecutions related to torture by this justice department. which people look at as something of an abdication as the president who as a constitutional lawyer who was going to reclaim our legitimacy and innocence. was that the right decision. >> there have been no pro cushions of anybody from the high level. there were c.i.a. officers who were involved in the program and went beyond what the justice department's legal advice was. >> eliot: that's getting a low level vote. nothing at the top. >> look, you're a prosecutor these would have been hard cases to make. >> eliot: probably impossible cases but the political-- >> politically-- >> eliot: has been difficult within certain--devastating no,

due difficult in certain communities. >> yes. >> eliot: it daniel klaidman, his book "kill or capture: the war on terror and the soul of the obama presidency" is none our shelves. critical reading for all of us, thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> eliot: what is pot without soda? the viewfinder is next. unwrap your paradise.

soft, sweet coconut covered in rich, creamy chocolate. almond joy and mounds. unwrap paradise. [ voice of dennis ] switch to allstate. their claim service is so good now it's guaranteed. [ normal voice ] so i can trust 'em. unlike randy. are you in good hands?

and who doesn't want 50% more cash? ugh, the baby. huh! and then the baby bear said "i want 50% more cash in my bed!" 50% more cash is good ri... what's that. ♪ ♪ you can spell. [ male announcer ] the capital one cash rewards card. the card for people who want 50% more cash. what's in your wallet? ha ha. ♪ ♪

>> eliot: still to come there are only two things certain in life, death and tax inequality. chris rock stalks economy, and stephen colbert goes after the times. when it doesn't fit anywhere else we put it in the viewfinder viewfinder. [ music ] >> if this bill passes and you get caught with all this you get a 100-dollar fine. meanwhile if a business sales you a soda that size, that's a

$200 fine. >> in case you didn't know it, it's national best friend day. >> yes it is. >> gosh, i wish our best friend were here. >> they're not. >> stop on by, we'll give you breakfast and a free show. >> even if you're going to school, forget school come by. >> the thing about obama the economy is getting better every month for two years and everybody is complaining it's not growing fast enough. that is like complaining that your team keeps winning by one. >> just to be clear. [laughter] >> this soda is twice as illegal as this much weed. [cheers and applause] >> he thought he would take my flag and run back to his car. all is well. >> every section of the "new york times" is out to get mitt romney. i mean, just look at today's style section. putting together the perfect look that screams jerk.

or just look at dining in, romney puts cilantro on his guacamole. what an a-hole. [laughter] [ singing ] >> here is the sad thing. they go together so well. [ laughing ] >> eliot: good stuff. coming up author david cay johnston tells us how little the rich pay in taxes. that's next. hollywood icon oliver stone. >> i'm not an activist, i'm outspoken. i'm a dramatist.

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! "vanguard" new episodes coming soon. only on current tv.

>> eliot: in 2009 taxpayers with the 400 highest incomes which average $200 million paid an average income takes rate of just under 20%. to put that into perspective it's the same rate as a single worker who made $110,000 that same year. $110,000 is no small amount, but it's not as much as $544,000, which is what the top 400 taxpayers made on average each day. it doesn't take an economist to see something is wrong with this system. joining me now david cay johnston whose latest column entitled "the fortunate 400" releasing irs data detailing the effective tax rate of the 400 largest incomes in the united states. david, thanks for some of your time tonight. >> glad to be here. >> eliot: in this article does not outrage people and make their blood boil i don't know what will. tell us what you found, and tell us what your conclusions are?

>> well, the average income of the 400 highest incomes reported on tax returns not the highest incomes in america, just the highest in reported. six of those made zero federal income tax. another 110 paid less than 15%. they paid between $1 and 15%. if you're a single worker and you make $610,500 you pay 15% just in federal income taxes not counting social security state income taxes or any other levies. only 82 of the 400 paid 30% or more, which is the buffet rule standard being discussed. this is the first time in the 15 years they've done this report that in the past either all 400 or 398 or 399 paid the tax.

it's now 6. it's part of a trend where more and more high-income people are paying little or no income tax. >> eliot: if there is any set of date that that gets people outraged about the inequality this is it. i thought this was designed to make sure everybody paid something. how do these six people escape paying zero. what allows them to do this. >> we don't know how they do this. the irs is under pressure from congress not to put out this kind of information. these reports under the bush administration was kept under lock and key. we don't know how it's done. the alternative tax is widely thought to apply to investors. that was the minimum tax we had from 1969 to 198. the alternative minimum tax that we have today is really a tax on married couples with two or more children who own their home and

live in a realtively high-tax state like new york, california, massachusetts or virginia. it's a family tax that congress will not get rid of. >> eliot: we basically have two tax codes. one for people who really earn their income and pay the tax rates that we think of every day, up to 35%. then for people who earned their money from investments capital gains which are taxed at lower rates for which there are all sorts of exemptions and loopholes. interest is a fundamental inequity. if you could eliminate one one tax loophole, that would it be? >> only one thing, i would go back to ronald reagan's principle that all income is taxed at the same rate, it shouldn't matter if it from, dividends, capital gains interest, it should be paid at the same rate. but one important point about this eliot these incomes are the highest reported on tax

returns. if you're a multi billionaire you can borrow against your assets and report no income at all and live an incredibly good life. >> eliot: i want to put that aside because that's even more complicated than i wanted to get into. but your distinction the capital gains rate which is now 15% at the top, only half, less than half of what people who actually go to the office, go to a job on the assembly line, people who earn their income, they've been given the enormous preference. ronald reagan was opposed to it, but mitt romney is one of the big ben fisheries of it. that's why mitt romney own pace 15% of his income in taxes. that's where we want some equity in taxes. >> if we lower the capital gains rate it was going to create jobs. well, we've got nine years of experience now. where are the jobs? if this is a good strategy, we should be in a country where we're desperate to find enough

workers instead of having millions of people out of work. it's a failed strategy. the evidence is in. congress needs to act. >> eliot: and look, you're saying two things here that are so critical. one, the evidence, and we've had nine years of evidence. lowering the capital gains rate simply did not increase investment that generated job creation. point two, ronald ray gran who is the ultimate icon in the republican party for tax cutting, he well recognized what you said, income is income, where it comes from, how it's derived, it doesn't matter. it should be taxed at the same marginal rate. is there anybody in the republican party who will stand up and embrace the formula you've just articulated? >> no, the recent movement of eric canter suggesting we need to raise taxes on the poor. >> eliot: well, that was awfully robin hood-esque of him. where do they come from raising taxes on the poor whereas you point out the 400 richers are

paying tax rates on average of 15%. i just don't understand. but how do they counter your argument. you made what i think economists would few as a most fundamental argument. lowering the tax rates on capital gains simply did not generate job creation. how did republicans respond to that argument? >> oh, they say we should be lowering if not eliminating capital gains entirely. these are the job creators. and they're not creating jobs. well, you know i'm also chairman of a board of a little company with 25 workers, i'm a job creator. i never in my life said if you lower my tax i'll hire another worker. i hire another worker when i have more customers i have to serve. >> eliot: what you're say something what paul klugman has been saying for years. if we have more demand, job creators producers like you will hire more people. the marginal rate has zero impact.

i wish more people would read your column. david cay johnston thank you for your time, your work your columns should be read by everybody. >> thank you. >> eliot: coming up, my view on how we can start to fix the tax code. 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. tonight at 11 eastern/8 pacific. only on current tv. [ train whistle blows ] [ ball hitting paddle ] [ orbit girl ] don't let food hang around. yeah! [ orbit trumpet ] clean it up with orbit! [ orbit glint ] fabulous! for a good clean feeling.

really? no. it comes with a hat. see, airline credit cards promise flights for 25,000 miles, but... [ man ] there's never any seats for 25,000 miles. frustrating, isn't it? but that won't happen with the capital one venture card. you can book any airline, anytime. hey, i just said that. after all, isn't traveling hard enough? ow! [ male announcer ] to get the flights you want, sign up for a venture card at capitalone.com. what's in your wallet? uh, it's ok. i've played a pilot before.

[ nervous ] i hope no one recognizes us... you...you think these disguises will... no. [ male announcer ] salty. sweet. and impossible to resist. >> eliot: tonight on "the war room" with jennifer granholm, a deep dive into the obama war room. summer strategy details on the president's campaign punch list with tim dickinson of rolling stone, karla marinucci of the

san francisco chronicle, and karl frisch and much more. more "viewpoint" is straight ahead. >> eliot: here's what we can say about the u.s. tax code. never have so many done so much for so few who need so little. never have the wealthy gotten away so easily. as david cay johnston just told us, in 2009 there were 6 families with incomes over $200 million a year who paid no taxes at all. and the average rate of the top 400 families who averaged $200 million in income is a mere 19.9%. that compares to the 35% paid by the average top bracket tax

payers who earn something around $375,000 a year. if you think this isn't just unfair but also counterproductive, when we are running big deficits and can't afford basic investments in education, join the club. to clarify my conversation with mr. johnson, much of the advantage the wealthyiest tax payers get is the result of the fact that we tax capital gains invest income, at 15% but ordinary income at rates up to 35%. this loophole is the key reason why mitt romney only pays about 115% of his income in taxes. so here is a modest suggestion. eliminate the capital gains differential, tax all income the same way. this is hardly a radical idea. as you heard, the ronald reagan supported it, and the bipartisan bowles-simpson commission did as well. the argument rolled out by those givens this is we need to create an incentive to get people to invest.

but there is no evidence at all to support their view. none. they are simply wrong. hence reagan's support for our view. those who take the other side are like the russian economist who opposes an idea by saying it works in practice, but it doesn't work in theory. well, they are wrong in practice and theory. and here is a little data point that proves it. even with all the incentives we've given to those who control capital there is only 2 trillion-dollar sitting on the sidelines not invested. the so-called job creators haven't created jobs. instead, they've pocketed the cash. why? not because of the tax code, but because you don't hire people to produce more widgets if nobody is buying them. this is a demand crisis. demand drives investment, not the existence of a lower capital gains tax rate. so let's strike a blow for fairness and the economy and eliminate the biggest gaping loophole in the tax code, reagan bowles-simpson, and a lot of tax payers would be

happy. that's my view. fall. (vo) former two term governor, jennifer granholm, is politically direct on current tv >> what should women be doing? >> electing women to office.

[ female announcer ] with the all-new e-trade 360 investing dashboard free streaming quotes, all your investments positions, and even your trade ticket are all on one customizable page. see the all-new 360 investing dashboard at e-trade. 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.

she thought allstate car insurance was out of her reach. until she heard about the value plan. see how much you could save with allstate. are you in good hands? >> eliot: george w. bush said it best. is our children learning requested well maybe not best but the sentiment was right. however, despite all the time politicians spend talking about the next generation, the culture in which our children are being raised may be thwarting their chances of success. this is especially true in the case of young men.

here to shed light on the discover we're doing on you are next generation is the author of "swagger," mass joblessness and thug culture lisa bloom, thank you for joining us. wow, that is a terrifying title. it's grim out there. >> the first half of my book is the wake-up call for parents about how grim it is for boys today. i was surprised to find that boys are four times more likely to be expel from preschool. >> eliot: preschool, like pre-kindergarten? >> yes who knew anyone got kicked out of preschool. >> eliot: did i, but we won't go there. >> we have a culture that is not serving our boys. boys tend to be wigglier. at age three they can't sit still in their chair. we're eliminating pe and recess, and so boys who are wiggly, they think they're not fitting in and not welcome.

>> eliot: go to the teen and the notion of swagger and the sense of puffing out the chest and being so dominate, that's where we're running. >> girls are outperforming boys at every level in school and in every subject. this is a brand new day for gender equality and girls outperforming boys. it's really staggering. boys are dropping out of high school in record numbers. the majority of our african-american and latino boys drop out of high school. why is that not a screaming headline every day. >> eliot: it should be. >> it should be. it couldn't be a worse time for boys to be dropping out of high school when there are fewer and fewer jobs for high school dropouts. i call the book "swagger," not because it's a book how to swagger. >> eliot: but that's the danger. >> swagger is the most popular song theme. >> eliot: i have to confess until i started reading your book, i didn't know that swagger captures the ethos of what we're

putting in our boys. >> the problems is when it crosses over to arrogance. boys are 25th in world countries in math, but number one in one area confidence. i ask parents to replace swagger with humility. that's an old value. who teaches their children to be humble any more. even in the old testament with humility comes wisdom, and modern social science bears that out. you have to work hard and earn something before you get to brag. if you brag at all. >> eliot: how do you do this? i mean, you're right. i think it's an an incredibly important mention. i'm glad to say that i have three daughters so i didn't have to deal with that side of the daughter. >> that may be another problem. >> eliot: that may be true but how do you teach the teenage boy that sense of humility? >> i have scripts in the book how to have these conversations with your son. i think it's very important to

speak out loudly and often about your values. when you see a music video and you should watch the things that your kids watch, watch it with them. if it disrespects women and girls, and music videos that has illegal drug use, which is up six-fold in the generation. >> eliot: say that again. >> advocating illegal drug use is up six-fold. >> eliot: no kidding. >> the rihanna video where she and a handsome man are popping prescription pills and this drug-induced haze. what is the message? hey, kids, all beautiful people are popping pills. >> eliot: that has been a persistent critique of hollywood--,and its getting worse. >> it didn't used to be so bad. 20 and 30 years ago rap and hip-hop said don't do it. if you do drugs, don't do it it's your fault. now it's a different attitude. some of the biggest stars today

advocate-- >> eliot: you have lessons for teaching humility. what else should a parent think about in terms of saying to a son, here's what i want you to do. >> hire is one of the most important things. your son has to be reading efficiency by the fourth grade. or he'll probably drop out of high school and have an adulthood of unemployment and potentially incarceration. >> eliot: read by fourth grade or you're going to go to jade. >> those are the fact. we incarcerate four times as many boys and young men as when i was a kid. we're building new prisons all the time. there is not a parent out there who wants that outcome for their children. you have to advocate reading. oh, he's not a good reader, boys will be boys, let him play. let him have his childhood. we can't have that. reading is critical. >> eliot: when i was in office, and our entire educational system determining what are the

predictors, determining the likelihood of success, the vocabulary the kid had at age three was the best predictor. that's the single most important skill to teach a child to avoid all the ills. >> there are those who say you can plan prison building ten years out based on fourth grade reading scores. there is that direct of a correlation. the second half of my book are tips and guides for parents. i have a 12-page list at the end of the book. books boys love. i think it's our job to connect boys with books they like. too many boys say reading is for girls. that's an idea out there. we got to counter act that. get them reading turn off the screens. it's critically important. >> eliot: time has run out but unfortunately these are critically important messages. lisa bloom author of" swagger," thank you so much for your time. i hope every parent buys and reads this book. >> thank you so much. >> eliot: thanks for coming