romney you had super pac and the the congressional committee, and that's how they get richer and we get poorer. "viewpoint" is next. themes. >> eliot: good evening, i'm eliot spitzer and this is "viewpoint." the usually understated ben bernanke is sounding a lot more like dr. doom athletes days. as today he once again traveled to capitol hill to make it clear that the fed has done everything it can do, and it's up to congress to avoid the upcoming fiscal cliff for the second day in a row the federal reserve chairman ben bernanke is the

before the congressional committee to discuss monetary policy and state of the economy. he tried to stress how disastrous it would for the economy and told congress only they could stop this fire from being lit. >> the best way to address this is to attack the long-run sustainability issue seriously and credibly, but to do it in a gradual way that does not have such negative effects on the recovery. i think both of those goals could be made to correct broad approach for addressing our fiscal situation. >> eliot: joining me now the ranking members of the house budget committee congressman chris van hollen. thank you for joining us. >> it's great to be here. >> eliot: giveing a stern warning saying we got to do something. we're marching towards the

fiscal cliff, and then it's hostage versus hostage how is this going to happen. >> it's not really hostage versus hostage. we have two big things to be moving on right now. one is the president's jobs plan which has been sitting in the republican house of representatives since novembers. it calls for construction on our roads and bridges, that seems to be a no-brainer except our republican colleague don't want to allow a vote. second, our president has asked us to take action right now on extending tax relief for the vast middle class. 98% of the american people. the very top get a tax cut compared to current law. that would be something that we could do right away to provide greater certainty, and if the republicans want to fight about the other stuff do it later but don't hold 98% of the

american people hostage to providing tax breaks to folks at the very top. >> eliot: certainly there is not any logic but with everything you've said, the republicans would rather vote for the 33rd time on repealing what they call obama-care to distract us. right now there is an enormous battle over whose tax marginal rates should be extended. there is talk right now we should just let them expire and next january come back in and extend them only for those below $250,000 or below. does that make sense as a strategy to you? >> well, there has been some confusion. what the president or what senator murray said the other day said we would like to act now immediately on extended tax relief for 98% of the american people. even some for folks at the top. but if republicans refuse to move on that, if they insist on

holding 98% of the american people hostage to providing tax breaks to people at the very top, then they're the ones allowing the clock to tick. the president has been very clear we got to get our budget house in order and deal with the fiscal issues. if we don't ask folks at the top to pay more we're going to sock it to medicare, seniors will have to pay more. you'll cut investment to our roads and bridges. if republicans insist on holding 98% american people hostage until they get the tax breaks at the top they're allowing the clocks to tick. i don't see why the american people who are watching this, i think pressure will build on republicans every day that goes by. if they're the ones who carry it to january that's their decision. >> eliot: that's correct. the best policy is to vote for the extent for those with income

below $250,000. that even applies to those who are even wealthy. that peace of their income below $250,000. however, if the republicans are unwilling to do that, letting them expire and then in january extending the tax cut only to those below $250,000 seems like a no-brainer and compromise and the politics of that moment may permit that resolution to gain some traction come january. >> that's right. it's their choice. my point is we would like to move now immediately in terms of tax relief for 98% of the american people. if they choose to continue to hold the vast majority of people in this country hostage to the holy grail of giving tax breaks to folks at the very top, people like mitt romney, that will be their decision. then come january their position will be so obviously untenable because at that point all the taxes reset and they will then have to vote against what will very clearly be a tax relief for

the vast majority of the american people. we prefer to deal with it sooner than later but if they want to let the clock tick, i don't think it works to their advantage. it doesn't work to the advantage of the american people, but there is no reason that we should not deal with the deficit realities through the tax piece because as we know from their budget the house republican budget that mitt romney has adopted, because they ask nothing of people at the top they whack everybody else in the country. >> eliot: that's absolutely right. the other piece is beyond the tax extension and the see sequestration, cuts to programs that we care about, and cuts to the defense programs how does the piece quick in automatically

and how does that play in reaching any type of compromise. >> i think the cuts on defense and non-defense are too deep, and they're indiscriminate. you can't even make targeted carts in defense or other areas if you wanted. once again the republicans hold this in their hands. we put together a proposal that would replace the sequester some cuts but some revenue generated by asking folks at the very top to pay more, and asking more of oil and gas companies this is what we've seen to our republican colleagues, this is a way to prevent the across the bothered cuts from happening. they said no because 98% of all republicans have signed this pledge to grover norquist saying that not one penny of additional revenue can be raised for the purpose of reducing the deficit

or for the purpose of preventing the sequester from taking affect. >> eliot: grover norquist perhaps the most powerful person in the republican party, he calls closeing loopholes absolutely reserve in the face of lodge be. thethe other day day to disclose who their contributers were, something that the republican party pretended they were for but then went against it. moving this through the house and getting it on the record opposing this idea. >> that hypocrisy is mirrored in the house. as mitch mcdonnell talked about the importance of disclosure, and now he has done a 180. john boehner of the house was

for disclosure now he's against it. i filed a discharge petition that says we will allow the full house to vote on the disclosed bill which has been introduced over here in the house republicans have not even allowed a hear approximating. here is a bill to promote transparency and opens. no hearing despite repeated request, and not even a vote. the discharge position is a tool to draw more attention to this issue. we hope republicans and democrats alike will sin sign the petition in a short period of time. we got over 150 democrats to sign the petition. that's growing. we would like to have republicans come on board. we thought that they supported the idea that voters have a right to know, that they want to end the secret money. it turns out not to be the case. they like a system where the money remains secret. it's not good for our democracy and i hope they'll change their

mind. i know we'll win this in the long run. the question is when. >> eliot: i hope you're right about winning in the long run. the secrecy is a terrible consequence. switching gears all this would change if the democrats take back the house come november. you knowhow do you assess the land skype right now? what is the likelihood that the democrats and your party will take back the house of representatives? >> well, here is the situation. we will pick up seats. we will win seats. right now we believe that the projections are going to pick up somewhere between 10 and 15 seats and growing. the magic number we need to get to is 25. and if the president not only wins, but does win with a good margin, we can certainly do it. steve israel, the current chairman of the democratic congressional committee is doing an absolutely terrific job and as he said momentum is growing

but obviously we got a long way to go between now and the finish line in november. >> eliot: steve is a friend from way back, as the old cliché, the trend is your friend and the trend right now is in favor of more and more pick up. last question very quickly and we'll talk more about this on the show later this evening. the report that the fda was intercepting e-mails and communication between its own scientists and many other folks, including you, you were number 14 on their list of targeted individuals or individuals whose intercepts were intercepted by them. what do you know about this? is this upsetting to you and does this bear inquiry? >> well, yes, it does. this is a very troubling report. this is way over the top tactics that appear to have been used by the fda to target about five of their scientists. i've asked secretary sebelius to conduct an independent inquiry

to get the facts. the most important thing to do right now is to get the facts and find out what happened. we do not want people to discourage people who believe they've witnessed abuse or wrongdoing, we don't want to discourage them from coming forward. the kind of methods that apparently were used by the fda in this case sends this terrible signal to potential whistle blowers not to come forward. we want to encourage whistle blowers to come forward so we can examine their claims on the merit. in this case the tactics used could have a chilling effect. >> eliot: we don't want to pre-judge until the facts are known and clear but based on the report in "the new york times" this past weekend the issues are troubling raised that the fda used to gather information about the scientist who is were objecting to some of the conclusion they reached.

congressman chris von hallen. thank you for your time. >> thank you eliot. >> eliot: the boy scouts did a little soul searching about their ain't anti-gay policy and decided not to change anything. that's coming up.

>> eliot: we all want the strong national defense but we want to make sure that our defense budget is spent wisely. when we hand over massive amounts of dollars it makes you wonder. that brings us to the number of the day. $135 million. that's how much the national

guard has spent sponsoring a nascar team and they plan to keep on spending even though the army said they would no longer sponsor a team, the national guard will keep at it. maybe this gets a few dale jr. fans to enlist requested but $135 million? i doubt it. i'm a fan of nascar. my brother-in-law works for dale jr.'s team, i like it as much as the next guy, but not on the public tab. this is no place for our tax money.

gooply gay americans can now serve in our military to protect the country but they cannot serve in the boy scouts and earn a merit badge. the boy scouts announced they'll maintain their don't ask/don't tell preventing openly gay leaders from joining the organization. the decision was made after a two-year review. i quote the vast majority of the parents of youth we serve value their right to address their issues of same sex orientation within their family, with spirit visors and at the appropriate time and at the right setting. i guess that means that the boy scouts will continue to discriminate. joining me via skype is the founder of scouts for equality

and author of "my two moms" zach wahls, by the way, zach was also an eagle scout. zach as always, thanks for joining us again. >> my pleasure, eliot. >> eliot: give us the backdrop to this. you brought a petition of hundreds of thousands of signatures what happened and what led up to today's decision and what was the process? >> that's right. there are a few different pieces we need to be conscious of as we figure out what this all means. this is the petition delivered back in june, thousands of signatures that the boy scouts, encouraging the boy scouts to end their policy. then earlier this week on monday we had the vice president of boy scout of america executive committee, their board ceo randall stephen stand up and say, boy scouts of america should end this policy. immediately after that on tuesday the boy scouts chief

spokesperson darren smith said that they were affirming their decision, whatever that means. there are different questions that this raises. if there was an internal review going on when we made this petition delivery, why didn't they say we're looking at this policy. we'll deliver it to you during the appropriate challenges? with an organization of 11 million members there where is a secret panel, and why were they setting the policy. a lot of questions. >> eliot: you know there is dissention among the senior ranks of the boy scouts, but we no nothing about the process by which they conducted this so-called review or how they came to this decision. >> that's right. darren smith said that this was a report that this body put together. we need to see this report. we need transparency and accountability. you have a group of people speaking for over 3 million

members of the organization, we need to have answers and we're getting none. >> eliot: that's why your petition saying ending the policy. your petition you raised recently says please tell us how you made this decision and any organization of this size should do. >> absolutely. bob masuka saying there was vast majority of families who support this case. if that was the case, they would not go to a 11-member panel. they're so confident, they wouldn't do this through an elective process but through an unnamed panel. >> eliot: do you know if in was pressure brought on by the boy

scouts organization, who was pressuring the organization, if you know, to reach this outcome. >> there was a change.org petition started to publicly support their--publicly state their support for ending this policy. it happened with both ceos. what this looks like to us is simply the psa trying to run interference after a few members of their board has come out and stating their believes on this discrimination. >> eliot: you say very public, very high profile companies whose leaderships is represented on the board they probably don't want to be on the side of an organization that is still discriminating. is there any way to go to at&t or ernstin young and say you have a responsibility to explain

what happened and distance yourself from this perspective? >> that's right. we're examining different ways we can move forward. that is one possibility. later this month i'll be at one of the honor groups of the bsa marshaling support among eagle scouts, boy scouts and try to get a sense of how much grassroots support do we have? young americans are far ahead of our older counterparts on this issue in particular, so my hunch is that among the actual rank and file members of the boy scouts we're going to see an incredible amount of support compared to where these people sitting on the border are. >> eliot: my intuition is that you're exactly right about that. we've seen that in the political context, younger voters way ahead of the older voters on this issue. wouldn't you think that the group, the secret 11 who made a decision good for the organization long run we want to stay ahead of the curve on this

member, otherwise they run the risk of becoming an antiquated group that no longer reflects the values. >> that is the risk that they're maintaining with this policy. i love the boy scouts of america. i grew up in the organization. i consider myself to be a man who really does appreciate the time that i spent with the scouts. however, the longer they maintain this policy, the less they mean to a generation that has by and large scaredded this issue away. >> eliot: that will be a major issue for them. zach you've been on the show a couple of days. always a joy. give us an update. >> i just got back from a & r i'm keeping the boy scouts bus eyebusyand moving this along. >> eliot: i think you're going to win this one in the long run. >> i hope so. >> eliot: zach wahls founder of scouts for equality and author of "my two moms." take care. >> yes, take care.

>> eliot: what does trump want from president obama? his college application. i'm not joking. view founder is next. 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: coming up, is the fda spying on its own scientists? but first biden's new campaign slogans, obama's on the kiss cam. and when it doesn't fit anywhere else, we put it in the viewfinder. >> let's go back to the pick of joe biden. joe biden has been unbelievably important to president obama. >> vice president joe biden has been trying out several new campaign slogans of his own. >> we don't have dreams. we don't have aspirations. >> america's future is not as

bright as it's past. >> american workers are part of the problem. >> it will be about a year, and i promise i promise i'll pay you back. >> how does obama win a state like nevada? >> one word, latinos. that's what this whole ballgame comes down to. [ speaking spanish ] >> oh no, i've gone hispanic. don't panic. >> michelle and barack obama were caught off guard on the kiss cam. >> a moment ago. a presidential smooch. >> meanwhile mitt romney was caught off goodbye the show us your tax returns cams. >> they're talking about tax returns. you know this, i've been saying it for a long time. obama should give his college

applications and records. >> if your brain is working in the correct way so you don't vote republican and stuff like that. >> i think george w. bush's history will judge him far better than the editorialists and the pundits. there are many things that george bush did that are quite admirable. >> the eight years was awesome. i was famous, powerful, but i have no desire for fame or power any more. >> eliot: it may have been awesome for you but not for us. is the fda begin to go act like the fbi? that's next. >> 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.

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.

>> david: the right to privacy is one of the cherished rights in america. put as we continue to find out it's also one of the most violated. on this program we continue to highlight instances of the government treading on privacy of u.s. citizens. "the new york times" on saturday had an exhausttive story alleging that the food and drug administration improperly spied on some of their scientists. the scientists were preparing to file complaints about the medical devices that the fda was going to approve. they were going unexpectedly fired, suspended or denied promotions and subsequently learned that the fda had used tracking software on their computers to collect their e-mails on both their work and personal accounts. six of the scientists have filed a lawsuit against the fda. i'll read a statement from the

fda momentarily. joining me now is stephen cohen thank you for your time tonight. >> good afternoon, eliot. >> eliot: let me ask you this, question. who was intercepted pursuant to what authority and because of what actions taken? give us the basic outlines of this. >> sure, you're talking about a group of doctors and scientist who is raised very serious safety concerns regarding a colon cancer and breast cancer detection devices. when they raised these concerns they were not popular, and fda decided to do what they call targeted monitoring where they selected this group for super sophisticateed spyware and to watch them based on the fact that they were embarrassing the agency by talking about devices that should never have been

approved. >> eliot: just so i'm clear about this, the scientists whom you're representing believe that the fda was considering or was approveing devices of which they had serious medical concerns, and then fda began monitoring them to see who they were communicating these concerns. >> exactly. you find the whistle blower and then you find the whole group. one of the devices gave the victims of it 800 times the dosage of radiation of a chest x-ray. this device was not as effective as a non-radiation dose angle device already approved. this wasn't minor stuff. these were major medical issues raised by national and international experts on the subject. >> eliot: put aside for the moment the merits of the concerns that your client had and i will accept that they were

absolutely correct. i want to think about this as a legal matter right now, because i, like many people, read the story and thought oh my goodness, this is or orwell, "1984". do they have the legal powers to monitor the scientists who work for them. do the scientists waive their right to privacy when they work for the fda and use fda computers. >> not at all. they could do non-targeting monitoring. but the moment they select a group of people for specialized highly intrusive spying because of their protected activities, they're whistling whistle blowing their "viewpoint," they crossed the line. in this case the inception crossed the line, then they started looking directly at communications which by law are

guaranteeed confidential. the government has a program where all government employees can raise abuse. they went to those communications to learn about what the whistle blowers were saying who they were communicating to and then targeted those whistle blowers. >> eliot: not because i disagree with you, but i want to understand where the boundary lines are. if the fda believed that the scientists were leaking confidential information if they were going to call their stockbroker and say, fda is going to give approval of a drug by this particular stock if the fda believed that was going on, then the fda would be authorized to do some sort of surveillance, i presume. >> yes, if they had probable cause, and they did it properly, they could do it. but here's what happened in this case, this makes it so

egregious, they made a criminal referral straight up. the inspector general for the department of health and human services wrote back and told them that there was no confidential information leaked, and the communication these whistle blowers were having were protected under federal law. even if the agency could behind hide behind an initial justifiable pretext, they were told by their own ig that these communications were protected. instead of shutting it down, they escalated it. >> eliot: i want to make sure folks understand. there would be a proper mechanism for the fda to begin the surveillance process if there was probable cause or went to the ig's office and established some legal threshold that mandated the inquiry. they tried to make that showing

failed, and they went on spying nonetheless. >> that's exactly what happened in this case. >> eliot: how far did this raid kuwait? who was includeed? elected members of congress? who he is else were included other than the scientists themselves. >> scientists journalists congressional staff and a member of congress. this is not limited to leaks. it has snowballed into a highly invasive retaliatory investigation. >> eliot: you called it an enemy's list. >> they called it the target list and categorized 21 people with descriptions about how they were working target, and these became the people that they searched for their communications during the surveillance. >> eliot: how far up in the fda did this go? >> no doubt it went to the top. we've seen e-mails that has gone

to hamburg the commissioner, and it was reported in today's paper that the council of hhs approved it. >> eliot: what is next? you filed a lawsuit. what will the next steps be? >> we're going to challenge this as aggressively as possible. do we live in orwellian state? do we have whistle blowing rights? or can you be targeted for outrageous monitoring simply because you raised concerns related to the public safety. >> eliot: stephen cohen, thank you for your time. we'll need to follow this story. >> thank you. >> eliot: we offered an opportunity for the fda to sent a representative to this program. they sent this statement and i quote. the fda takes very seriously our responsibility to safeguard the public. the monitoring was limited and

intended to determine whether confidential commercial information was leaked to the public. the else's monitoring was limited to the government's-own the computers five employees and was only intended to identity disclosures. only five people were monitored not 21 individuals as stated in the article. it did not accurately portray the limited scope of the monitoring. the only individuals who's e-mails were monitored from the fda employees. we will continue to cover this story and give full opportunity for both sides to give their say. voter i. i.d. laws that are designed to make it harder to vote. and i.d. laws designed to make it harder to get i.d.

coming up. and then the baby bear said "i want 50% more cash in my bed!" phhht! 50% more cash is good ri... what's that. ♪ ♪ 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. ♪ ♪

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. so, you guys grew up together. yes, since third grade... what are you lookin' at? not looking at i anything... we're not good enough for you. must be supermodels? what do you model gloves? brad, eat a snickers. why? 'cause you get a little angry when you're hungry. better? [ male announcer ] you're not you when you're hungry™. better. [ male announcer ] snickers satisfies.

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: coming up, modern day mccartyism. michelle bachmann hits a new low. but first let's head out west to "the war room" and check in with jennifer granholm. governor, what have you got for us tonight? >> we've all been looking at this bain capital issue and tax returns of mitt romney. we're going to reveal tonight the next shoe to drop with a guest who knows all about it. and it has to do with a certain young congressman who is popular with the tea party, and then we

have a nominee from the green party. the question is are the greens going to be a spoiler in this election cycle? those stories and more at the top of the hour for political jumpingjunkies. >> eliot: i was having that debate the other morning when i was out on a 6:00 a.m. run request a friend. that's history. if mitt romney didn't pay any taxes when these returns come out, is that going to be a big thing for him. >> absolutely. when you look at how people respond and when this happened with richard nixon there are no doubt that people would be outraged if that is, in fact the case. i don't think he's going to release them. >> eliot: at the end of the day he has got to. i bet he does. spontaneous bet does he do it or not. >> nope, someone does. >> eliot: more view point coming up next.

ttv