26

zer 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: they'd rather agree to disagree, even on something they claim they agree on. despite both political parties stating desire to extend the bush tax cuts for all households that earn less than $250,000, today house republicans voted down a democrat-backed plan that had cleared the senate to do just that. instead, the house republicans passed their own plan that would extend the tax cuts for everyone, including those households over the $250,000. this plan, of course, has no chance of passing the senate, thus leaving all american households with continuing uncertainty. the tax cuts are set to ex-ings pier for all on january 1st, and

congress wonders why its approval hovers in the low teens. meanwhile, the congressional progressive caucus announced a tax plan oh to ensure the richest 2% pay their fair share closeing high school hopes, and investing in american. frightening concepts to be far right. joining me now keith ellison. thank you for joining me on tonight. >> hello. >> eliot: with the republicans voting down the senate bill and knowing they're creating head lock. >> i don't think it's typical political fear. it's an expression of their values. they're very concerned about the top 2%. very much so they're willing to sacrifice the 98%.

today i don't think it's just an expression of political gamesmanship. i think what they're telling the american people is that they would rather have everybody lose than have the top 2% lose. they're sending a message of who their allegiance is. >> eliot: i agree with the values they demonstrateed with their vote. we're in in a gridlock that would have extended the tax cuts. procedurally what will happen next? might this be resolveed before november or is this going into a lame duck session and into january. >> we're about to go out tomorrow and then we won't be back until september. who knows what will happen, it's up to john boehner if we come back at all. the fact is if they're going to do something the time is now to do it. they can pull a rabbit out of the house.

you know the legislative process as well as i do, but the fact is it does not look good. they walked past an opportunity to do what republicans and democrats agree on, or we say we do to maintain the tax breaks to beam below the $250,000, and let it expire for people above that threshold, the top 2%. i think that this may well be, you know, the end of it, at least until the election. all the tax cuts expire at the end of the year. a lot will turn on the election. if we win the election, as i believe we will, if they expire, then we'll pass the tax cut and get our way any way. of course, that's a high-stakes gamble. i wish we could settle on what they say we say agree on now. >> eliot: that would be great. as i said, there is an agreement that the republicans refuseed to shake hands on it, and now we're off until november, december, january, and the harm to the

economy and the harm to families between now and then is significant. describe for us the proposal you have put on the table, what your caucus the progressive caucus describe that for us. >> let me describe it. it's called "the deal for all," and it's sort of modeled after our budget which is called "the budget for all." at www.budget4all.com. you can check it out. it centers on four principles. any deal we have has to protect social security, medicare and medicaid. we've got to ask the defense department to share in the cuts. their budget has doubled since since 2001. we could certainly find savings there, and they have to share in the cuts. and we need to boost jobs. we need to grow ourselves out of the economy, not just through austerity. it's based on these four basic

principles that any deal must include. >> eliot: i think those are four principles that i think--i don't want to speak for anyone else, but i'm certainly in sync with those principles. how much can you tell us exactly or the order of magnitude what cuts are appropriate in the defense department, and what is the republican position on this? >> i think we ought to be able to get a $500 billion budget, i don't see why we should spend more than that. since i've been in congress it has been as high as $709 billion, i think we can get $500 billion and lower than that. retiring of cold war weapons systems, things like that, we can get down there. we had a rup hearing, which is an informal hearing where we had a number of experts who just

came together to talk about whether the savings could be had. we had republicans participating, too. so this is not just a progressive caucus thing. it says we can find real and significant savings out of the defense budget. >> eliot: look, i think it's important for folks to understand the bol simpson, a bipartisan report with very conservative voices signing on agree that fundamental cuts in the defense department were necessary and appropriate as part of an overall package it may seem like a mainstream thought of the progressives only to the far right but put texture to the words. >> let me do that. for example if we extend the tax cuts for everyone, including the top 2%, that is going to be an expenditure in the order over the course of ten years of $600 billion. that's a lot of money.

we can't afford to let those folks do that. so they're going--the folks at the top end of the income scale will have to pay a little bit more, which is fine. you know what, they have the money. but not only that, these folks most of them are patientic american, who i'm quite sure would do whatever they could to help their country along. but not only that, we need to close loopholes. there are $110 billion worth of loopholes that just go to the fossil fuel industry alone over the course of ten years. bp was able to write off the cost of cleaning up the gulf. they're allowed to do a whole number of things that don't seem right to write it off. you know well, $4 billion alone is tied up in people's private's jets and stuff like that. the fact is there are ample savings to be had by closeing corporate loopholes, and by asking the people at the top of the income scale to pay their

fair share. there are more savings to be had, but those are good starters. >> eliot: congressman, i'll come back to bol simpson because it was such a mainstream report{^l"^^}. they talked about closing the capital gains loophole, which would do a long way of what you're doing eliminating loopholes that you're talking. you're spot-on in terms of what is right and that would be good policies. i want to come back to the infrastructure and safety net the next time you're on the show which i hope is soon, but i got to ask you michelle bachmann said horrific things about you and others. suddenly there is an u-turn. is she extending an olive branch wanting to work with you on medicaid reform, what is going on? >> it has never been personal with michelle and i. it's not really between me and her at all. it may be between her and john mccain and john boehner and a

whole host of others who said making allegations based on specious evidence is wrong. it's not me versus michelle thing, but look, i'll work with her. if it makes sense and i agree w i don't have any problem. but i'm not going to stand by and allow her to divide americans on the basis of religion and engage in some mccartyistic witch-hunt. i never told her not to ask questions about national security or the deep penetration that she alleged. i asked her to proof prove it. she could not do it. >> eliot: you're 2-for-2. do not stand by when people make accusations as she did. they're unfair, wrong and unamerican. your open spirit and kindness of heart to work with her. representative keith ellison as always, thank you so much for coming on the show. >> thanks, eliot. >> eliot: today is chick-fil-a

appreciate today. more accurately, today is show your disdain for 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. 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.

with lysol kitchen soap hands are healthy. with lysol kitchen soap, washing dishes is easy. with lysol kitchen soap surfaces are clean. hands. dishes. surfaces. the lysol no-touch kitchen system: the only all-in-one kitchen soap. try it for yourself. lysol. mission for health.

>> eliot: coming up, the state of texas cruises further to the right. but romney back on american soil. colonel sanders defends gay marriage and when it doesn't fit anywhere else, we put it in the viewfinder. >> mitt romney back on u.s. soil. i sense that. >> yes yes. >> what happened? what are you talking about? >> i thought oh, there's something mitty. >> best of all romney has checked three counties off the list of 1,000 places to offend people before you die. >> i saw one report where the reporters were yelling i think it's a holy area. there was something from the romney camp who said that was

inappropriate. >> the fact of the matter is the staff and the reporters living together 24/7 often get a little bit testy. >> show respect to. [ bleep ] >> you. [ bleep ] >> no, you're not on a holy site. [ bleep ] >> everything is a holy site over there [bleep] >> shut the. [ bleep ] up. >> this presidential campaign may be the uglyiest i've ever seen. both candidates attack each other. >> our president apologizes for america. he made it clear that the era of american exceptionalism is over. >> the outside groups are even more egregious. it has made it the nastiest campaign and we still have 100-some days going. >> they're fighting hard-- >> the unofficial chick-fil-a appreciation day. a buy-cott to that chick-fil-a faces when catcy came out and

spoke about his opinion. >> don't forget, chick-fil-a is a great choice and being gay is a bad choice. >> let it be known that colonel sanders loves the gays. >> he has his own wave. [ circus music ] >> get me a ladder. >> eliot: is that the one that is >> 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.

[ beads rattling ] [ male announcer ] spearmint that tingles as you chew. stimulate your senses. 5 gum. now in micro pack.

>> eliot: when the texas republican party put in their official platform that they reject the thinking of critical thinking there didn't seem to be more room to move to the right. but that's what happened when dewhurst defeated cruz in may's primary. but because do you huhs did dewhurst did not receive 50% an election was

necessary. cruz has never held an elected office and seemed like a likely tea party candidate. he won support of sarah palin and jim demint and tea party super pacs. dewhurst suddenly looked very mainstream drawing support from like mike huckabee and texas govern rick perry. with for on what last night's results mean james moore director of "progress texas pac" as well as coauthor of "bush's brain" thank you for your time tonight. >> you bet. >> how far is he stretching it? >> well, he makes rick perry look pretty moderate, eliot. in fact, ted cruz is one of

these guys who believes that the united nations has a conspiracy to take away our sovereignty to get rid of paved roads an outlaw golf courses. he wants to privatize social security in a radical way that gives your social security payments to wall street and let's them do with it what they want. he's against the dream act. there has been a number of issues where he has expressed himself very clearly and that is what is animated the tea party here in texas to go crazy for him. >> eliot: it seems that every time you get a new voice that embraces the tea party rhetoric, the tea party runs and puts this man or woman on pedestal. dewhurst is no moderate voice himself. but cruz became the lightening rod of all the energy and passion in the tea party. the tea party we thought had gone quiet but there it was in

full force last night. >> i think it's important though, that we understand a couple of things about circumstance in this particular case. remember that texas redistricting effort by the republican majority in this state was appealed to a federal court, and it took this march primary that we normally have, drags it out to may and that gives ted cruz a chance to really make his case. he force this is run off extends it even further to here we are in july. he has got this time. then the external forces in this campaign that we're seeing in texas and around the country which are the super pacs, external money comes into texas and blows ted cruz up and puts him on an equal footing with a very wealthy lieutenant govern of texas do you hisser. so he'sdewhurst. he's able to compete dollar-for-dollar. but if this election were held in early march as would have been the case without this

appeal on the redistricting you and i wouldn't be talking about ted cruz. david dewhurst would have won this nomination handily. but pac money comes in, super pac money comes in and we end up with ted cruz. >> eliot: but around the nation and there are significant number of states where tea party candidates have unseated traditional mainstream republicans from senator lugar on down so by the most recent count there could be, and we don't know how some of these election also turn out, but there could be as many as 13 tea party united states senators which would fundamentally change the senate, play that out for us. what do you think that will look like? >> i think eliot, what has to happen we have to consider the notion that the extremist that we see getting elected might

consume the republican moderates. it's not about building an army and destroying the other side, so we end up with a republican party that is extreme. if we are going to get past this if the american public is going to get a government that works, we got to avoid this some how. by avoiding it, that means we have to address the whole idea that all of these super pacs, instead of playing on the national field are coming in and distorting races at the state level. we have to look at this. our democracy is not really a democracy any more. it's more about who has the money to make things happen, and force things into a position that would not otherwise existed without this infusion of tons of cash into state and local races. it really, really ought to be disturbing to everyone who believes in the power of their individual vote. >> eliot: look you're exactly right. there is polarization in washington, on the republican side you see the moderates from

the republican party quitting from senator snow, saying we don't want to live in this highly partisan, mean-spirited environment, and they're throwing in the towel saying we've had enough. what that leaves you with is this extreme republican party that makes it impossible for governance and leading to gridlock every day. what will it do for mitt romney? will he be able to run a campaign without being tethered to the tea party? >> he has an additional problem. everyone has him flip flopping, now he has got to keep a foot in this world and a foot in this world. he has got to move to the right because these people have money and influence. he's trying to campaign from the center, and trying to attract as many people as possible. but the animated forces and the money in his party are on the far right and way out there on the edge of the cracker. it will be difficult for him to

keep a foot in each one of these worlds. i don't know how he can do t but i do not believe he can excite turnout that he needs to win but not going over to the right and addressing with the tea party lines. because they've increased control over the republican party. >> eliot: james, i think that's exactly right. i never heard that metaphor before, right on the edge of the cracker. did i hear that properly. >> you heard it properly. >> eliot: i'll give you credit the next time i use it. i'm not sure what it means but i'll give you credit for it. james moore, thank you for your time. >> you >>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.

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

ask your doctor if spiriva can help. >> eliot: did you want to know mitt romney's core believes, look at his tax plan but first let's check in request jennifer granholm in "the war room." what have you got for us tonight. >> look at his tax plan, who can see it? what are you talking about? tonight we're going to look at the data that the president actually is building a sizable lead in a number of the key swing states. we want to know why. is it the ad message or romney's gaffes? we'll have mark melman who will drill down why we're seeing this swing state shift. and there are two political rising stars in the lonestar state. we'll go to texas to look at ted cruz and julian castro.

we'll have the lay of the land from the ground. a lot more stories at the top of the hour. >> eliot: mitt romney's tax plan, i know, you may not spend a whole lot of time--it's lift all yachts. >> oh, i thought you meant his tax returns. >> eliot: we have those, too. we have those too. you don't have them yet? >> oh, yeah, we got the inside, you just can't believe it. watch at the top of the hour, you'll see a preview of mitt romney's tax returns. >> eliot: we'll now all be watching. thanks a >>you couldn't say it any more powerfully than that. >>it really is incredible. >> eliot: compared to what? that's the question that barney

frank wisely suggest we asked when evaluating different pieces of legislation or for that matter any answer to a policy issue. that question seems especially appropriate today when tax issues are back on the table before congress. house republicans rejected the senate-approved plan that extended tax cuts for individuals with incomes under $200,000 and couples with incomes under $250,000. but let those with incomes above those levels revert to clinton-era tax rates a boost of 4%. at the same time, we now know more about the proposal republicans will support. the proposal for mitt romney, thanks to an analysis done by the brookings institution and the tax policy center to emanant outfits with ideologies of either side. it would raise taxes on the 95% of americans with incomes below $200,000.

that's a tax increase of $500,000 per household. in contrast, romney would lower taxes for the 5% of americans with incomes above $200,000 by about the same $86 billion. that's the republican plan. now we know the answer to barney frank's question, compared to what? the republicans will vote down the plan that lowers taxes for 95% of the population and raises taxes a small bit with those with income above $200,000 yet vote for a plan that lowers taxes for the top 5% and raises them on everyone else. think about the lack of logic on that choice. it's backwards. we need desperately to drive consumption up. the best thing to do is to get funds to the middle class where consumption spending will be triggered, not raise taxes giving money to the wealthiest, the so-called job creators who have clearly have not been

creating jobs but putting new found cash into savings. it'sit's a decision they're free to make if they want to make the wealthy and less wealthy divide even grater. polls showed a 3-1 margin, the public favors the democratic plan. which is one of the reasons why romney is trailing in key states of pennsylvania, ohio and florida. the republican vote and the new analysis of the romney plan sure clarifies the choice we're making. thisthis is about economic growth and economic justice. these are the choices that matter. that's my view.

septic disasters are disgusting and costly, but avoidable. the rid-x septic subscriber program helps prevent backups by sending you monthly doses right to your door so you will never forget to maintain your system. sign up at rid-x.com.

>> eliot: the verdict is in. the world is getting warmer and humans are largely to blame. this even according to former self proclaimed climate change

skeptic berkeley physics professor richard muller who created the berkeley earth surface temperature project nearly three years ago to study and resolve any lingering doubts about global warming. last fall muller published his results concludeing that global warming is real. that must have been a disappointment to the koch brothers who opened their checkbook to donate $150,000 to the project. and muller now going a step further. humans are almost entirely the cause. i hope that the berkeley earth analysis will at the point settle the scientific debate regarding global warming and it's human causes. then comes the difficult part, agreeing across the political and diplomatic speck strum about what can and should be done. joining me, richard muller physics professor at uc berkeley and author of the new book

"energy forture presidents: the science behind the headlines." we appreciate you being here tonight. >> you bet. >> what were your conclusions. >> it was one hard slug going through 1.6 billion data points. my younger colleague robert road roady deserves a lot of credit for having done this. putting it all together, making sure that we directly address each of the legitimate criticisms that have been raised by the prior skeptics. rewound up getting a data curve showing the temperature back to 1753. that to me was amazing that we could do that by using the best methods, the most appropriate methods of statistics. that was before the american revolution. we now have that record. it shows volcanic eruptions that are shortly lived. we look for the pattern that you would expect from sun spots and solar variability. to my surprise, it's absent. the sun changes and the sun did

not seem to be driving this effect. finally among other things we tried atlantic currents, el niño. they fit but do not give the overall rise. we tried carbon monoxide smack-on. it came a shock to me. i didn't know that that's what the answer would be. that's the best explanation for the rising temperature is the human-caused carbon monoxide. >> eliot: i looked at the charts, and people should go to the website and we'll post a link on our website. in fact, i'm not sure we'll get it on the screen momentarily but it is incredibly persuasive. you tracked the data and the co2 emissions and volcanic eruptions would drive it down because they block some solar heat.

>> that's exactly right. >> eliot: i learned something on your website. that was not efficient. it did not explain the overall curve. give me the order of magazine attitude. how much will temperature rise if we continue on the same co2 emission track that we're on right now. >> right now the u.s. is decreasing the co2. that's our switch from coal to natural gas but china is shooting up. by the end of this year they will have twice the emissions of the united states. if they continue on this track of he hadding one new gig watt of coal, then it will be very severe within the next 20 years. >> eliot: is there a point of no return? is there a point where the environment of the nation some our crisishow crystallizes or mesetas sizes. >> nothing has held up to scrutiny.

what's frightening is that we have a point of no return, but everyone has a new one that we have to study. i worry about the one we haven't found yet. >> eliot: i got to ask you and i hate to mix politics and science. we try to keep them different. the koch brothers had funded your project presuming that you would be a skeptic and continue to be a skeptic. what has been the response been from those who had been skeptics and were disappointed that you looked at the evidence and drew a different conclusion. >> their skepticism was on solid criticism in the way the data had been selected, manipulated and poor station quality. we addressed each one of those in turn. i don't sense disappointment. they wanted to put it on solid foundation. if it turns out there is no global warming fine. if there turns out to be global warming, fine. i saw no disappointment. >> eliot: was it attributed to

them a political perspective? have they looked at the data and said, previews, you win, we are now with you. >> i don't expect the instant turn around. no one is going to say muller changed his mind so now i will. but we put our papers online and we have an unprecedented case of transparency. our computer models are online and we're getting peer review. if they look at it and disagree with us, well, where did we go wrong. i think it will take place over weeks to months, but the work we did was solid. there are five really good papers. they have to study those before they can be convinced. anyone who can be convinced overnight is not thinking about it overnight. >> eliot: i think people will be persuaded because you have changed your view. not only because you have credibility but because you were a skeptic. professor muller, thank you for