fraud. you're supposed to represent us, your audience. not those guys. unfortunately, they totally misunderstand that. funny enonononononononononononononononononononononononononononono eliot spitzer is next. >> eliot: good evening i'm eliot spitzer and this is "viewpoint." the latest attempt by democrats to stem the flood of secret donations, polluting our political campaigns has gone down to defeat in the senate. twice. once monday and once this afternoon. the disclose act they championed would have simply required nonprofit groups to disclose the names of donors contributing $10,000 or more. business lobbies including the u.s. chamber of commerce fought back claiming disclosing their contributions could expose them to and i quote retaliation against unpopular or unfavorable political views which also

infringes constitutional rights. in other words the rights of corporations to make secret donations to secure influence ranks above the rights of citizens in our democracy to know who's influencing the people they put in office. or in the words of majority leader harry reid before monday's vote -- >> if this flood of outside money continues, the day after the election, 17 angry old white men will wake up and realize they just bought the country. >> eliot: among the 17 senator reed had in mind, all g.o.p. supporters. casino owner sheldon adelson foster frees bob perry and buyout investor harold simmons. their legislative ally mitch mcconnell insisted the act was intended. >> to create the impression of mischief where there is none. and to send a signal to unions that democrats are just as eager to do their legislative bidding as ever.

>> eliot: and yesterday with republicans voting in lock step with the disclose act failed 51-44. senator reid voted no as well to reoffer the bill today. when debate began arizona senator john mccain joined mcconnell and claimed the bill was a gift to the unions but new york senator charles schumer insisted republican objections had been accounted for. >> we tried to make it as narrow as possible. we tried to deal with all of the objections we heard about labor unions and other things. >> eliot: good try chuck but no sale and vermont senator bernie sanders, my guest in a few moments had it right when he described what the act's defeat would mean. >> billionaires say look, it is great that i own an oil company. great that i own a coal company. great that i own gambling casinos. but gee, i could have even more fun by owning the united states government. >> eliot: gotta love bernie.

53-45 without a single republican vote. barbara boxer to ask the republicans opposition to this common-sense measure begs the question what are they trying to hide? >> for more on the disclose act's defeat, let's go to senator bernie send aers, independent of vermont. senator, thank you for joining us. >> my pleasure. >> eliot: a sad day down in the capitol when an issue the disclose act that goes to the heart of the integrity of our democratic process can't get 60 votes in the senate. what happened? >> well, essentially what happens is republicans know they got a good deal going. they have billionaires who are pouring millions and millions of dollars into candidates for the republican party. it is working for them and they don't want to change it. the truth of the matter is, eliot, the bill before us today the disclose act, was a very, very modest bill. very modest. all that it is said is if you're going to be spending $10,000 or more, you have to have immediate

disclosure. people have got to know who is paying for those ads. i don't think that's too much to ask for and it is a sad day for american democracy not one republican supported that approach. >> eliot: it is hard to see anything other than rank hypocrisy. they pretend, they say over and over we believe in transparency, we want disclosure then as you say, a simple bill that simply says if you spend this much money, tell us who you are and lock, stock and barrel, every one of them votes against it, even john mccain. how can john mccain vote against this? he had been iconic about -- >> he was going on, this is really not fair. it is pro-union and so forth and so on. you're right in saying that throughout the years when we have fought for real campaign finance reform and i believe by the way in public funds of elections. that's where we've got to go in terms of citizens united, no question in my mind we need a constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united.

this is very, very far from that. the point you just made a moment ago is true. over the years what the republicans have said, we don't want real campaign finance reform. all we need is sunshine. all we need is transparency. all we need is let the people know who are making the contributions. well that's what we did today. we didn't get one republican vote. >> eliot: that's right. this does not repeal citizens united. this does not save people, corporations cannot speak or create a super pac. it merely says let us know who is funding it. a very simple proposition which is unambiguous proper, legal constitutional, yet not a single republican vote. i'm hoping you and others will take to the flohr and say over and over again hypocrites. >> they don't want real campaign finance reform. all they have ever wanted was disclosure and transparency. that's what we gave them today and they said no. look eliot what this is about and what really frightens me is not just a disastrous nature of citizens united. but the whole trend that we are seeing lately economically,

et cetera of moving this country toward a form of government. what you have right now is incredibly unequal distribution of wealth. i just saw a figure. this will amaze people. just came into my office today. the walton family of walmart itself owns more wealth, one family, than the bottom 40% of the american people. >> eliot: that is shocking. >> it is unbelievable. you've got that reality out there. then what's happening now with citizens united is about is these guys are not content to own the economy. to own the wealth of america. they now want to own lock, stock and barrel, the political process as well. they want to be able to make huge campaign contributions without any disclosure. it is a very frightening day for american democracy. >> eliot: i agree. a stake through the heart of the reform movement. what do you do now? obviously you said you compromise this down to the -- in the hope you can get

republican support. that didn't work. what is the next step? >> i think the next step, eliot and i think it is happening is to put these guys on the defensive politically. there have been editorials all over the country attacking republicans for their hypocrisy. there have been, i believe six states now that have gone on record calling for constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united there. have been cities and towns all over america including many in vermont, i believe new york city that has said we need a constitutional america. you go out to anybody of any political persuasion and you say to them, you think american democracy is about one family, ie the koch brothers spending at least $400 million in a campaign to elect their friends and defeat their opponents. vast majority of the american people say no, that's not what american democracy is about. i think we need to wage a strong grassroots movement on this issue. >> eliot: the other angle on this, you are so right on the

substantive effort. i hope you'll lead that crusade. within the senate rules itself, all reform efforts are being killed by the filibuster. is there going to be some renewed effort hopefully when the next senate term begins, to change the filibuster rule so that the majority is not defeated by the nisty of getting to -- the necessity of getting to 60 on every one of these votes. >> i hope so. we have seen a record number of filibusters since obama has been president. virtually every piece of legislation of any significance has been filibustered and clearly that is not what democracy is about. minority rights have got to be protected. you can't trample on the minority in the senate. but on the other hand, minority is not supposed to rule. majority rules. that's what elections are about. >> eliot: that's exactly right. let's hope both on the substantive issue you have been leading the charge on which is disclosure which is so necessary and also filibuster rules. let's hope both can be dealt with if not before november

certainly after january and the some new senate term. senator bernie sanders independent of vermont many thanks for your time. >> thank you. >> eliot: for more on the politics of today's vote and who benefits from the disclose acts defeat, let's go to ken vogel. thanks for joining us. >> great to be with you eliot. >> eliot: simple question, who wins, who loses by this outcome. give us your take on how this plays out in the public arena not just amidst talking heads and those who follow it the way do. how does this play out in public over the next few months? >> certainly, there are polls that show that requiring disclosure of campaign contributions is popular and the amount of money coming into the political process from rich donors, special interests corporations, is unpopular. and so that was the real purpose of this vote was to get republicans on the record opposing additional disclosure and additional steps to regulate the flow of money into politics. and so to that end, it was successful. however, that's really all it

could have accomplished because even if this legislation was passed then passed by the house which would be even more unlikely considering it is controlled by republicans then signed by the president there's no way it would be implemented in time to have any real impact on the amount of money or the types of money or disclosure of the types of money flowing into thes were before 2012. nonetheless, i think there will be an effort by democrats to hang this around republicans' necks headed into the fall election and suggest republicans are the party of this big unlimited special interest and secret money. they rye try that in 2010. if obviously wasn't successful. republicans retook the house. it will be interesting to see whether public distaste has grown to the point where it will be a message that will resonate at the end of vote -- in the voting booth in a way it didn't in 2010. >> eliot: you're framing the issue perfectly. for all of the excitement, the fervor you hear on the democratic side of the aisle in favor of the disclose act

clearly the republicans who voted against it aren't shaking in their boots saying i'm going to be voted out of office because of this. they must have polled and looked at the landscape, shrug of the shoulders, the public will care more about other issues. all of this is inside the beltway chatter. are they wrong in that calulous? is this going to be a repeat of 2010 where the public says a pox on all of you all politics is dirty. we don't like any of you. >> i don't think republicans are wrong if that was their calculation. even if it was their calculation, the extent this could hurt them being seen as voting against additional disclosure or voting against regulation of outside money would be offset by the amount that they could benefit from that outside money flowing into the process helping them by attacking their opponents or boosting them in election ads of the sort we're seeing. potentially record numbers here. >> eliot: one of the arguments against the bill, you heard mitch mcconnell say it over and over, this was a pass for unions. is there any truth to that at all? were unions in any way carved

out? was there any way to interpret this bill was somehow giving them less -- requiring less disclosure of them than of anybody else? >> potentially less real time disclosure because the threshold for mandatory disclosure of a contribution to one of these groups would have been $10,000 in unions, primarily take the money they use for political activity from dues which are substantially less than that but the dues are reported to the department of labor in which -- which makes the report available in public form. however they are less frequent than the reports to the federal election commission which would be required by this. but that kind of obfuscates the real point here which is the money that unions use for their political activity is from the workers who support the unions and that's -- these are smaller donations that are not the sort that were from democrat's perspective, real time disclosure because they run the risk again from democrats perspective of potentially

corrupting influence over the politicians that these contributions seek to benefit. >> eliot: those are union dues that are reported through a multitude of different reports over time and due course whereas i think if this number is correct, half of the contributions to the top nine super pacs were in excess of $1 million. we're talking about truly gargantuan contributions here of a scale that had been unimaginable until a couple of years ago. and none of those currently mandated to be disclosed. so we're talking about a black hole in terms of disclosure for the american public right now. >> yeah and the super pac actually, we should be clear. they are required to disclose reports with the federal election commission on a regular basis. it is the partner groups that they had. the nonprofit groups that are registered under section 501c4 so-called social welfare groups that do not report a dime of their political -- of the money that they take in and only report vague explanations for

how they spent the money and then only years at least months after the spending actually occurs. so that's the real issue here. when senator reid talks about the 17 old angry white men who will buy the election, if he's referring to sheldon adelson and foster friess, their donations are disclosed. we don't know how much they're giving through the 501-c4 groups which will be on course to spend more than super pacs in 2012. >> eliot: the 501c4s are adjuncts to the super pacs. correct in that distinction. they go hand in glove for purposes of how they run their communication strategy. real quick because unfortunately time runs short. the filibuster is at the foundation of the democratic party's inability to get any of this change. the democratic party had a chance to change the filibuster rules back last january when in the first 48 hours or two weeks of the senate session. will they come to rue the day they didn't do that? >> sure but they will also --

they would eventually come to rue the day they did do that if they lost the majority here upcoming in 2012. basically, no one wants to go there. once these members get into office they want to be able to have the ability to -- if they're no the minority, have some sway over the process and eliminating the filibuster would eliminate their ability to have any control of the minority party. >> eliot: can you point out exactly the calculus people make even though we convey against the filibuster and at the end of the day everybody is protecting against the downside risk of being in the minority and wants to have that to hang over the side. ken vogel, politico's chief executive reporter. many thanks for your time tonight. >> thank you eliot. >> eliot: republicans are desperate to redefine the president. they're back to saying he's not really american. you've got to be kidding! more "viewpoint" coming up next.

when a carpet is clean and fresh, it's irresistible.

experience this in your home with resolve deep clean powder. its moist powder penetrates deep, removing three times more dirt than vacuuming alone while also neutralizing odors at their source. it's a clean you can see smell, and really enjoy. resolve deep clean powder. don't just vacuum clean, resolve clean. admitted that that look, we were able to keep a lot of the folks because of the stimulus. >> bill: absolutely. again, do you great work, judd. thank you. all of your colleagues at think progress. we'll see you again next and everyone likes 50% more cash -- well, except her. 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: our number of the day is 102. the number of countries visited by hillary clinton since she became secretary of state and it is a record. >> no other sitting secretary of state has visited that many countries or even close. last month she blasted past madeleine albright's total of 98 and sec clinton will still be racing around the world for at least a few more months no matter which way the vote goes in november. imagine the sheer number of booster shots and inoculations she needs to live and work in so many climates. that doesn't count the shots from foreign leaders when she defends democracy in china or speaks up for human rights in egypt even while someone throws

tomatoes at her. but hey, this is hillary clinton we're talking about. she's had worse and nothing stops her. last we heard, she was taking a breather and then she'll be on her way >>it's the place where democracy is supposed to be the great equalizer, where your vote is worth just as much as donald trump's. we must save the country. it starts with you. it's go time! >>every weeknight cenk uygur calls out the mainstream media. >>the guys in the middle-class screwed again! i think you know which one we're talking about. >>overwhelming majority of the county says: "tax the rich don't go to war."

i just wanted to clarify. >> eliot: over the last month, president obama's campaign has worked to define mitt romney by his time at bain and how he handles his personal finances. the romney campaign has done everything it could to change the subject. they thought floating vice presidential news would change the topic. it didn't. that means it is time for 2008 attempts to paint the president as not like us. >> he has no idea how the american system functions. and we shouldn't be surprised about that. because he spent his early years in hawaii smoking something spent the next seven years in indonesia and another set of years in indonesia, there has been no experience in his life in which he's earned a private sector paycheck that meant anything. >> eliot: then in case you

thought that was too subtle -- >> i wish this president would learn how to be an american. >> eliot: governor sununu has since apologized for that outrageous comment but that didn't stop mitt romney from getting in on all of the fun. >> romney: celebrating success instead of attacking and den gating makes america strong. this course is extraordinarily foreign. >> eliot: for more, let's bring in juana summers from politico. thank you for some of your time tonight. >> thanks for having me. >> eliot: has the etch-a-sketch run out of ink? has mitt romney's ability to define himself as a new person disappeared and he's being portrayed effectively by the obama white house as bain plus a swiss bank account? >> you know, what we have been seeing from the obama campaign and from the president himself is a very, very aggressive effort to take the focus off of the sluggish economy and instead put it on anything else, as you know, the economy is the central focus of mitt romney's campaign.

so instead they're talking about bain. they're talking about the swiss bank account show me your taxes. anything but this economy. i think you're seeing some of the aggressive push is working but mitt romney is constantly being confronted and having to kind of switch off of his message or at least his surrogates certainly as you saw today with john sununu's comments. >> eliot: john sununu's comments clearly beyond the pale sununu apologized later on. they realized you can't say that. way, way beyond what's acceptable political discourse. even people in the republican party now calling on mitt romney to release his tax returns. this is the drib, drib, drib, the death by a thousand cuts that prohibits it, doesn't permit it to get on message. >> that's absolutely the case. we saw earlier today the editorial board of review that endorsed romney during the 2008 primary now says it is time. you have to release these things. you've gotta release the tax

returns. i think what you're seeing now is with the more time that elapses, something is not released, i think there's become a fear or concern among some folks there might be something particularly lethal in these documents that aren't being released as opposed to just a general standing on principal and saying this isn't something i need to do. i think there is a concern among some in the republican party of what's in the documents that aren't being released. >> eliot: even republicans are saying release them because everybody believes you're hiding something. that's death to his argument based on principle he had released a year, enough is enough. if he had been forthright way up-front in release hing two years and said that's enough. because everything has been dragged out of him over such protest, now he's in an impossible position where my guess is that at the end of the day, he's got to release them or deal with this continuum badgering even from folks within his own party. is that the sense out there? >> you make a great point. it still remains to be seen what

exactly he'll release. let the romney campaign and some romney backers tell us though that they want to focus on jobs and the economy and that most americans don't care about issues like these tax returns. you talk to an average guy on the street, he's gonna want to know how he's going to get a job. not what mitt romney's tax paperwork says. they argue obviously he's a high profile guy. he had been doing anything illegal, it would have come out by now. something would have happened with the taxes. they would argue this is an essential part of the campaign and president obama and his surrogates and his campaign are just working to distract and bring in irrelevant issues from an economy that hasn't favored them and from three and a half years of a presidency that hasn't lived up to the hope and change promises he made during the 2008 campaign. >> eliot: all of that is correct and it could well be coming middle of october we'll look back and say remember the hot summer days when people were discussing tax returns. none of it matters. the unemployment rate is going up and all of this seemed somewhat distant and irrelevant.

on the other hand, the backdrop against which mitt romney will make his argument is one in which the very notion that we have of him the image we have of him is no longer that of the various effective ceo corporate who did well, lived the american dream. he is surrounded by a sha roved ambiguity. that doesn't help come october. >> that's the tough part is because mitt romney's argument is i'm a guy who can get america working again. i'm the ceo. i'm successful businessman. as bobby jindal said, you don't want to have an unsuccessful businessman in the white house. there is that cloud over that. i think that mitt romney will be forced if this line of questioning continues, if there is not some other large event that comes along to move this to the wayside. he will be forced to answer questions of his tenure at bain and his backing in a new light so he's able to get back to substance because the obama campaign does not seem to want to let this one go.

>> eliot: look, all that's being said, the campaign is still within the margin of error of most of the polls out there. david brooks had a fascinating column in today's new york times in which he said if in fact mitt romney can create an imagery of an economy of capitalism, of how capitalism should work, that stands in juxtaposition to the imagery that president obama has created then mitt romney will finally have a platform upon which to run but notably, mitt romney has not laid out his understanding and consequently, our understanding of what makes capitalism work. i'm waiting for him to deliver that magnum opus, that big speech. when is he going to do it? >> that's a great point. it seems like mitt romney's attention over the next few weeks, he's about to embark on a foreign trip, isn't focused on telling the story and creating the narrative that might draw people in. as we end up in the runup to the convention, it seems like there will have to be some new telling of how he feels capitalism works and how he feels he's the best person to restore the american economy. i would expect that you would see that soon.

look, the guy's over on the romney camp, they're very smart. they've been through this before. they know what sticks. i would suspect they would start to preview the message as we look toward the convention in tampa in august. >> eliot: i think everyone should have a swiss bank account and own a nascar team. that will be his play to the populous. juana summers of pretty -- politico, thank you for joining us tonight.

what makes hershey's s'mores special? pure chocolate goodness that brings people together. hershey's makes it a s'more... you make it special. pure hershey's. hey joe? yeah? is this a bad time? no, i can talk. great -- it's the 9th inning and your hair still looks amazing. well, it starts with a healthy scalp. that's why i use head and shoulders for men. they're four shampoos for game-winning scalp protection and great looking hair... go on, please. with seven benefits in every bottle, head and shoulders for men washes out flakes, itch and dryness. and washes in... confidence. yeah it does. [ male announcer ] up to 100% flake free scalp and hair with head & shoulders for men. you want to save money on car insurance?

no problem. you want to save money on rv insurance? no problem. you want to save money on motorcycle insurance? no problem. you want to find a place to park all these things? fuggedaboud it. this is new york. hey little guy, wake up! aw, come off it mate! geico. saving people money on more than just car insurance. double miles you can "actually" use.

but with those single mile travel cards... [ bridesmaid ] blacked out... but i'm a bridesmaid. oh! "x" marks the spot she'll never sit. but i bought a dress! a toast... ...to the capital one venture card. fly any airline, any flight, anytime. double miles you can actually use. what a coincidence? what's in your wallet? [ all screaming ] watch the elbows ladies. >> eliot: coming up, a warn from ben bernanke if we go over the fiscal cliff, it is a long way down. but first bain, bain, won't go away and jon stewart and stephen colbert weigh in. when it doesn't fit anywhere else, we put it in the viewfinder. >> the hot political story of the moment is mitt romney's old venture capital company. which happens to bear the same name as the most frightening concurrent batman villain.

>> mitt romney's unsolvable bain problem. >> did mitt romney have operational control of bain capital from 1999 to 2002? >> governor romney left bain in 1999. >> i do think he was chairman, president and ceo of bain for those three years that he said he was gone. >> the bain attack is the bain of their existence if you'll pardon the pun. >> bain capital. >> at bain capital. >> bain capital. >> questions about bain. >> bain. >> bain. >> bain, bain. >> when it comes to bain, it is on. >> obama is now attacking romney's record. it is like he's hell bent on making the word bain synonymous with a source of harm or ruin. [ laughter ] >> i had no involvement with the management of bain capital after february of 1999. >> i was just -- the guy with the smoke screenish yet still legal title of ceo and managing director who was paid at least

$100,000 a year to do what, according to me, mitt romney was nothing. [ laughter ] >> i don't -- i don't -- >> yeah. >> who knows what's true. it is a simple case of he said, he filed s.e.c. documents that contradict what he said. >> does truth matter anymore at all in the political process? >> either romney is misrepresenting his position at bain to the american people or he'ses are representing -- he's misrepresenting his position of bain to the s.e.c. which is a felony. not true! lying to the s.e.c. is not a felony. it is an entire industry. >> eliot: finally somebody who told the truth. the fiscal cliff are democrats and republicans 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. in your jeep grand cherokee. and when you do,

you'll be grateful for the adaptive cruise control that automatically adjusts your speed when approaching slower traffic. and for the blind spot monitoring that helps remind you that the highway might not be as desolate... ...as you thought. ♪ ♪ >> eliot: approaching the cliff with no parachute.

with the country set to go over a fiscal cliff on january 1st including the expiration of the bush tax cuts and the massive mandatory spending cuts resulting from the failure of congress to reach a deficit reduction deal last summer, chairman of the fed ben bernanke testified in front of the senate today about the potential results. >> fiscal cliff is allowed to happen as is now programmeds into law, it would probably knock the recovery back into a recession. >> eliot: this doomsday prediction has not deferred democrats notably patty murray from taking a hard line with republicans who continue to refuse to let the tax cuts expire for those making over $250,000. >> if republicans won't work with us on a balanced approach, we are not going to get a deal. because i feel very strongly that we simply cannot allow middle class families and the most vulnerable americans to bear this burden alone.

>> eliot: a threat that prompted a pained response from mitch mcconnell last night. >> look, i don't think playing russian roulette with the economy is a smart thing to do. >> eliot: unless of course it is exactly one year ago and you're mitch mcconnell gambling about the debt ceiling in which case "what we did learn is this, it is a hostage that's worth ransoming." joining me now is a man who heard chairman bernanke make the grim prediction. democrat from oregon and member of the senate banking committee senator jeff merkley. senator, thank you so much for your time tonight. >> you're welcome. it is good to be with you. >> eliot: so it seems to me we've got a negotiation here where each side, in a way thinks it is holding a hostage. neither side is budging. how do you game this out between now and november? is any compromise possible? >> well, it is absolutely possible. let's be very clear here. even the folks who earn more than $250,000 are going to get a huge tax break as folks who earn up to $250,000. the only question is are you

going to have the bonus breaks for the best off in our society? those bonus breaks might be $150,000 per faction payer. that's outrageous in this period of deficits and challenges that we're facing. >> eliot: look, on the substance, i don't think there's any question certainly from me or most rational folks that you're exactly right. on the other hand, we have seen hypocrisy of the republican party, under the disclose act where not a single republican voted for transparency of elections. mitch mcconnell taking a hard line. if he does not budge where do we move and how does the economy react between now and november? >> well, i think we're going to see ordinary citizens just start to pressure the republican side. the fact that they are still under this situation where under sequestration, so many working family programs would be affected. certainly the payroll tax break would be affected. unemployment insurance would be affected. so are they really going to take

the knives to the programs that affect working families across this nation to get these outrageous bonus benefits for the top 2%? i don't think so. so i think it is bluff and bluster. it is unacceptable. and it is going to take them right down the tube on the election front if they persist. >> eliot: it sounds to me as though look, i obviously agree with you both analytically as to the impact on the economy the programs that are at stake through sequestration but it sounds to me like this game of bluff or potential bluff on both sides probably will take us toward november because neither side wants to cave to its core constituencies between now and november in which case you wonder whether chairman bernanke's statement it could move the economy toward a recession, merely the threat of this begins to kick in. >> we do have to be concerned about. we should be immersed in negotiations right now. it was in the budget committee. where conrad said let's create a bipartisan bridge as a starting point for conversation. when i was en route to the budget committee hearing i

stumbled across a republican press conference saying how outrageous that the democrats should propose a bipartisan bridge and a bipartisan conversation. how outrageous. i just thought oh, this is amazing. that we're now at the point where when you reach out and you try to have a foundation to bring the conversation together, knowing that the whole nation is waiting for us to act waiting for us to come together in a rational way that suddenly that's toxic as well from of some my republican colleagues. >> eliot: i don't think there's any question that they're outrageous but we'll have to figure out a way around this. can we divide and separate out the issue of the bush tax cuts versus the sequestration? not to get too down in the weeds here but is there a way the senate and house could agree let's at least not begin cutting back on the very programs you referred to a few moments ago. let's delay that for six months even if we can't agree at this point on the tax cuts. >> i think that's a very rational approach. when i looked at the

sequestration side, i voted against the deal by the way because it would be 15% cut to programs that go to the heart of america. in a deal that provided no tax loopholes being closed at all. and i thought that was so unbalanced to begin with as to be unacceptable. now we have it. it did pass. i think proposing we set aside the sequestration and work for a balanced plan makes a lot of sense. i also think that after january 1st, when a lot of these tax loopholes go away, you have more ability to negotiate because from the republican point of view now they've been negotiating to reduce taxes rather than increase taxes even though it is the same deal on the table. >> eliot: i think what you just said is very important. in a way it will be easier to compromise for both parties the vantage point will shift after january 1st. on the other hand what harm will the economy incur between now and november or january because of the uncertainty and because we'll be living in limbo between

now and then. i think that's what ben bernanke was hinting at when he said guys you have to resolve this. >> no, i think he's absolutely right. he recognizes that monetary policy has run its course. he's emphasizing the need for us to provide more financing strategies for families that are underwater as a way to provide purchasing power to the middle class as an issue i'm deeply involved in. he didn't go on in some other areas, certainly we can move our energy dollars home here to america, that would help our own economy tremendously as well as improve our national security so there's quite a lot we can do outside of the tax strategy. but there's been such resistance to do common sense solutions in order to essentially hold the president hostage up through the election. i think that that is really unacceptable because we should be here solving problems. but hopefully there will be a change of heart after november. >> eliot: i think that's exactly right. you can almost see in chairman

bernanke today, a sense of despair as you pointed out senator, monetary policy has done everything. interest rates are at zero. you guys on the hilbert figure out what we can do on the fiscal side. senator jeff merkley, thank you for your time tonight. >> you're welcome. take care. >>the dominoes are starting to fall. (vo) former two term governor, jennifer granholm, is politically direct on current tv >> what should women be doing? >> electing women to office. [ male announcer ] peppermint that cools as you chew. stimulate your senses. 5 gum. now in micro pack. while you're out catching a movie. [ growls ] lucky for me your friends showed up with this awesome bone. hey! you guys are great. and if you got your home insurance

where you got your cut rate car insurance, it might not replace all this. [ electricity crackling ] [ gasping ] so get allstate. you could save money and be better protected from mayhem like me. [ dennis ] mayhem is everywhere. so get an allstate agent. are you in good hands? there she is ! hey, i got a leak ! yoo hoo ! wait a minute, come back ! um, miss ? up here! right. like 85% of us you have hard water stains and that cleaner's not gonna cut

it. truth is, you need something powerful. you need lime-a-way. it's 4 times more effective at removing limescale than the leading bathroom cleaner. because lime-a-way is specially formulated to conquer hard water stains. for lime, calcium and rust... lime-a-way is a must. i just want to give her everything. [ whistles ] three words dad, e-trade financial consultants. they'll hook you up with a solid plan. 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. >> eliot: what did the federal reserve really know about the libor scandal and when did they know it? first let's go west to the "the war room" and check in with jennifer granholm. what have you got for us tonight? >> jennifer: we've got an all-star line-up tonight. i'm joined by shannon o'brien? she ran against romney for governor of massachusetts so we're going to get her insights on what went on at the time,

where he was living, all of that. then we're going to get insights on what may be in his tax returns from the great david cay johnston of reuters. we'll talk about mitch's outsourcery with michigan senator debbie stabenow and tammy duckworth who has been attacked by that wild tea party guy, joe walsh. it will be a jam-packed show, all starts at the top of the hour. >> eliot: sounds spectacular. that's an all-star show. i can't wait to see mitt romney's tax returns. >> jennifer: i'm just sayin'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. >> this court has proven to be the knowing, delighted accomplice in the billionaires' purchase of our nation. >> and you think it doesn't affect you? think again.

v