estified on call toll hill. mitt romney by a money slide including to politico's sec filings, mitt romney's campaign of the super pac supporting it raising $37.1 million from financial sector donaries. obama and his super pac have raised $4.8 million. that massive disparity leaves 19 major donors to obama's 2008 campaign who have now sweeped allegiances. here to exam obama's shrinking wall street donors,.

>> henry bl odget. >> when he steps back from it, he has been so kid glove in his treatment of wall street. they're bigger, more powerful. no meaningful reform. he has done nothing but to offend them. >> eliot: but i want to be more cynical than that. i thought there was a transaction there that they both understood. i'll call a few names but give you what you want. you can pretend to be upset but you'll support me in the long run. didn't they get this was the sophisticated way to play the game. >> if that's the way it has worked out they have shifted allegiance. they don't even want to be bashed. >> eliot: but it's suggesting that they're that weak emotionally and raises for me the question. i presume that they're smart when it comes to finance and economics, do they believe what mitt romney is calling for lower taxes deregulation, precisely what led to the last

cataclysm, do they think that will help them in the long run? >> i think bankers are perpetually optimistic about the future. when you're betting that much money you have to believe you're going to win and you won't make the down side mistakes. it was the old idiots who did that. it will never happen again. over history we have these market cycles that repeat. as you've seen and everybody has seen again and again and again. i just think it's optimism. they like to be free to make their own mistakes. no one wants to be constrained. they don't want congress saying you can make that trade and you can't make that trade. that's understandable, but wall street will blow itself up. >> eliot: i like optimism but intelligence tied to it couldn't hurt. >> the intelligence is nine times out of ten i'll make a gazillion dollars. one time maybe we'll lose money. i could get fired. go to a hedge fund and i'll make more money than what i'm making

here. who pays for it? shareholders and taxpayers. >> eliot: the ultimate moral hazard that really became a cliché over the last four or five years, heads we win, tails we lose. we socialize the risk and privatize the game. >> that's exactly it. if you look at one thing that needs to change, congress needs to agree that we need to do away with the too big to fail. fine if you want to let the banks gamble as long as you're willing to step in and make the shareholders and the people who lent the banks money pay the price, which is what we didn't do before and that screwed the whole system up. >> eliot: that's what we did not do this time around. >> actually. taxpayers. >> eliot: we did not do what you just said. we raised capital requirements, we're peddling around with a volumevolcker rule, but nothing with the reform going forward. >> you go in, take the bank over. make sure that the shareholders

and the bondholders who lent the company money lose money. that's capital lymph.ism. once you strip that out. >> eliot: let's go back to the president. he's giving a speech tomorrow. it's being billed as a major street. can he say anything to change the trajectory between now and november. >> i don't think he can do anything to change the trajectory. he had the gaffe where people don't want to hear that the private sector is fine j you don't things are fine? >> it's better than the public sector but not much. but. >> eliot: in terms of how things the trajectory of the economy, you point this out in a spectacular slide show, corporate profits of all things, way up since he took over, and that has not been reflected in the house in jumping houses or employment. why not? >> we have an extraordinary problem in the country is that

inequality has hit a level that we have not seen since the 1920s. it took the depression and everything to bring that out and we got back to normal in the 1950s. right now disparity in incomes and corporate profits are the highest ever. that money is not flowing to the people who work for the corporations. just to the top. i think that is a fundamental problem with the economy. most the spending power comes from the middle class. it's not from rich people. >> eliot: middle class consumption is what drives the demand for goods and then provides the demand for more labor. that chart is so powerful. one corporate ceo should like the president because he has presided over a complete rebound photographer corporate profits. and then what could be done to those ceos since they're sitting on those profits warren buffet's statement the other kay notwithstanding, how do you you get them to hire people. >> consumers still have debt coming out of their ears.

we are still working off the little up. that is happening. debt is coming down. that's good. that will free up spending. but that's the thing that all companies are facing. they could build five more factories. >> eliot: you're not going to produce more widgets if no one is buying them. >> so what we need to figure out is how to get corporations to invest more in people and pay them more, walmart everybody the average is $12 an hour. walmart paid people $20 an hour, their profits would go down but those people would have more money to buy stuff from walmart. you get the money circulating. >> eliot: time is short. jamie dimon has been testifying it's all over the news. did he win? did he lose? did he burr initial his reputation? >> i thought he did a great job. being called in to get beaten up by congress is never a happy event. he handled it well. the handshakes before the event

was like a country club, good to see you. and i thought he deflected it very well. >> eliot: he won because the senators are a bunch of idiots, can we say that? they didn't even ask him the hard questions. >> the real frustration that i had, congress is okay at asking questions on tv. they have done nothing, four years no reform. that's the problem. >> eliot: they're bought and they're bought cheap. i hate to say it, they're bought and bought cheap. the house will give jamie dimon round two. my prediction, even worse. editor in chief henry blodgett. thank you. >> thank you. >> eliot: mike tyson sings and he has not caused this much hearing damage since biting evander holyfield's ear.

desk top, lab top, ipad. iphone. >> pleasant your hearts. >> the big one. >> stephanie: all i know, the little flower is there and it means go to meeting. i love go to meeting.

>> eliot: coming up for the obama administration, the leaks keep on coming. first george hw shows his sox

and mike tyson and bill o'reilly and colon powell show their vocal range. when it doesn't fit anywhere else, we put it in the few finder. >> mitt romney, mitt, our buddy is going on a six-state bus tour and mitt is very excited because he's never been on a bus. >> romney: i met a guy yesterday, 7 feet tall. i figured he was in sports. he was not in sports. >> the tall man was not in sports. neither bounce ball nor oblong leather zip lynn kind. >> the nba final. pros okc stands for oklahoma city. cons mia, stands for lebron james in the fourth quarter ♪ lebron james

♪ oooh ♪ >> there's current tv. >> you catch current watch this show. we're current. >> i like a colorful sock. i'm a sock man. >> and they've been comparing your socks to that of justin bieber. >> is he a sock man. >> he is evidently is a sock man. >> i don't know much about the bieber. >> baby, baby boop, boop, bop. >> is that his song. >> i don't think i would like it ♪ i just met you ♪ and this is crazy ♪ but here's my number ♪ so call me ♪ baby ♪ >> or the standards expressed. [ cell phone ringing ] ♪ here's my baby ♪ don't call me may be ♪ >> i figured he had to be in sports, but he wasn't in sports.

>> eliot: i said it before, the most awkward politician in history. the white house leaks more prone promises. "viewpoint" straight ahead. jennifer granholm is politically direct on current tv. >>the dominoes are starting to fall.

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!" phhht! 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: we will not negotiate bilateral trade agreements that stop the government from protecting the environment food safety or the health of its citizens. those were the words of candidate obama in 2008. but president obama may have done just that. a leaked document realized by public citizen outlines a

portion of the deal the president is negotiating as part of the transpacific trade pack. a pack that seeks to open trade among countries bordering the pacific association. joining me now director of global trade wash which first released the leaked document. thank you for your time tonight. >> eliot: thank >> thank you. >> eliot: first explain to us what is in this document and why would it violate an essential pledge that he made in 2008. >> so the document is one of 26 chapters of what has been branded as a trade agreement. but as this particular chapter leaking shows trade is really the least of it. in fact, the agreement would require the u.s. as well as other countries involved to, quote, conform their domestic laws, regulation and procedures to all the attached chapters. only two of the 26 have to do

with trade. the one that leaked sets up limitations for the u.s. government not to regulate companies operating here and subject disputes between the u.s. government and foreign investors to international tribunals. the foreign investors would not have to meet our laws or go to our courts. while domestic courts were, and this violates a number of obama's pledges agreements like this one would no give greater rights to foreign firms rather than domestic ones. >> eliot: this would allowed companies to circumvent our legal framework and go to a tribunal standards. >> it's even a step worse. the rules in this leaked chapter explicitly for bid certain kinds of government policies.

for instance, you're not allowed to use capital controls. very important financial regulation mechanisms, or you're not allowed to band a financial instrument no matter how risky. if you do that, the foreign investor can go to one of these tribunals, sue you directly, not your law not your court and demand unlimited payments of our treasury fund to make up for their expected lost profits. the so-called judges are three private sector attorneys no conflict of interest rules and we submit to the jurisdiction to the tribunal. >> eliot: there are two discreet areas that are enormous. the substantive set of issues that we're ceding thise nor us this enormous capacity for our own always, relating to dodd frank, for example, or legal or environmental standards, and second, this has all been done in secrecy. getting numbers of congress, and

senator wyden in particular terribly upset. the white house will not give him this information perhaps because they know how injurious it is if we understand what they're negotiating. >> let's put this in perspective. senator wyden is the chairman of the trade sub committee. that is the committee in the u.s. senate that has jurisdiction over the so-called trade agreement. they will not let him or his staff see the text. so when this text leaked this was the first time in three years of closed-door negotiations that the public, the press congress, got to see what is being done. now, there are 600 official u.s. corporate trade visors who have been in this process. so it's not a shocker though disgusting that you have such an extreme tax that would handcuff government and have this parallel corporate court system meanwhile something like that count happen if we had a look at it. we need to get all of the text

out because who knows what is in the other chapters. >> eliot: i want to make sure that everybody understand what you just said. there are 600 corporate representatives who have had full access to this, yet the chairman of the sub committee that is supposed to pass judgment upon it has been told he can't look at it. >> as well as all of us who live with the results but yes, the chairman of the committee as you pointed out on the intelligence committee, security clearance, the corporations have clearance, too. but they get access to the text and the senator doesn't. it's that process is why we have such an extreme substantive rules. it's not just financial regulation. it has to do with land use, a requirement that there is a guaranteed standard of treatment for access and natural resources resources, fights over western land contracts for mining and timber under the process would go to these tribunals not u.s. law and courts.

the foreign company special treatment. >> eliot: lori, very quickly because time runs short unfortunately, this represents to me the reality, the unfortunate reality that the white house is buying into the entire paradigm of trade in a has destroyed middle class wealth, driven down wages, is that what this represents? >> it's spot on, and this agreement makes it much easier to move jobs off shower because of all the protection for investors an this includes vietnam, the low-cows alternative to china. there is a snow job. they brand these for trade but the majority of the rules have nothing to do with trade. this agreement would ban the use of buying merge procurement. what is that doing in a trade agreement. >> eliot: we have to cut it there. realities of tv. we'll continue this conversation downtown. lori wallach, thank you for your

time. >> thank you. >> eliot: syria is now in a civil war and russia may be part of it. that's on "viewpoint" coming up. jennifer granholm is politically direct on current tv. >>the dominoes are starting to

i look at her, and i just want to give her everything. yeah you -- you know, everything can cost upwards of...[ whistles ] i did not want to think about that. relax, relax, relax. look at me, look at me.

three words, dad -- e-trade financial consultants. so i can just go talk to 'em? just walk right in and talk to 'em. dude those guys are pros. they'll hook you up with a solid plan. they'll -- wa-- wa-- wait a minute. bobby? bobby! what are you doing, man? i'm speed dating! [ male announcer ] get investing advice for your family at e-trade. the airplanes are going to get from one part of the country to the other without any air traffic controllers. i mean this is ridiculous and mitt romney ought to know better. i stand with our public employees and cops and firefighters and their teachers? >> high priest of voodoo economics is arguing the only way he can with false number. but first let's check in with jennifer granholm. what have you got for us?

>> really, it's more about what the vatican has been doing to quiet them and how courageous they're being and not taking it. >> eliot: that is a fascinating story. we'll watch more "viewpoint" coming up next. et journal.

>> it says lowering taxes races more revenue and less government spending generates an increase in demand. an only numbers fabricated through the looking glass world will support it. the article claims that, i quote, the most amazing feature of the nearby chart which is rarely ever noted is when spending declineed sharply the economy boomed under president clinton. the chart they show has a nice declining line. the chart is not about spending. it is about spending as a percentage of gdp. spending did not go decline during the clinton years. go to the congressional office numbers, the bible for this type of data. spending an increase of 27% and

it increased every year. not the decline they fabricated. government revenue went up from $1.5 trillion to $2.2 trillion $2.02 trillion. why? clinton raised taxes. spending went up. taxes went up and the economy grew sending a percentage of gdp down that's what the chart shows. spending helped, taxes helped. the economy flourished. this is opposite from their false claims. the larger point is this. these guys will distort whenever they want or need to. history fails them. economics fails them. the only answer for them is to did hetodeceive. it's time to call them out. that's my view.

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.

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. gaeme inc. thank gaemezilinsky, thank you for joining

>> yeah, i think it seems that the administration is confident that the intelligence on this is

rock solid. what i don't know is the significance of these new helicopter deliveries compared to the helicopters that syria already owned. it's not like this will be the first time that syria had attack helicopters. but the new ones for all i neat could have better night vision technology, that could be better for evening or nighttime confrontation accurate weaponry that sound more humane but in reality it makes them more useable. maybe the previous helicopters were nowhere near accurate enough to be used in an urban setting. now there is a pretense that it's selective in its target. i don't know the significance of the new helicopters, but it does appear that they're being shipped right now from russia to the assad regime. >> eliot: and as you alluded too before, russia has no interest in withdrawing support from assad in any effort to pressure him to diplomatic resolution.

that has was poked the ire of the united states and hence this tension. are the maskers continuing unabated? >> yeah, i'm afraid so. i think the question is what produces them. and are they going to continue indefinitely or does the assad regime have a strategy in mind however brutal and heartest it may be. if it does a few more of these it has persuaded some how it will prevail. it has not done this out of complete disregard of human life. unfortunately, in addition to that kind of a calculation bean extremely callous and cruel i think it's wrong because i think that the syrian opposition has proven it's not going away.

this the point that vladimir putin missed as well. he might have helped that this would be the simplest thing the best thing for russia and arguably a few months ago it may have seemed the best thing for the syrian people compared to the chaos. but at this point it's too late to put the genie back in the bottle. we'll have to have some kind of power sharing or this will not end in the near future. that's point that i hope putin reassesses. >> eliot: you're right. it's hard to imagine that this continues without some pause or without some resolution down the road. assad cannot continue to masker its citizens. nor could we permit them for the foreseeable future. >> i'm not going to be encourager here, i'm afraid. one thing we have to bear in mind is that militarily speaking

everything situation is different. some of the arguments applied more or less successfully in libya year ago are noting if to work in syria where the population is so interpercented and there aren't these long stretches of highways, and the syrian government is well organized. >> i don't thinks that going to work. >> and it's going to help make the war worse. but it's of course, assad's fundamental cause and responsibility for that.

and over time we hope the syrian regime reads the writing on the wall. they'll have two choices. let the war continue to get worse or let assad goes into exile and do a power-sharing arrangement with his regime and the option policed by some kind of an u.n. and arab league force. those are the only two choices that i can see apart from this thing turning into the next lebanon or somalia. which wish there was a happier storyline. the regime is too strong. the opposition is growing in strength. there is a sectarian and ethnic point to this, too. it's a mess. it's not going to get better by an immediate magic bullet that i can envision. >> eliot: the only way to sum it up is bleak and bleaker. senior fellow, coauthor" bending