ttv

m in decades. it touched virtually every sector of our economy and saved us from a depression. yet it is universally maligned and denigrated by both political parties and moot. how did they all misunderstand president obama's stimulus bill, and how have they all gotten it so wrong? joining me now is michael shure senior national correspondent for "time" and author of the fascinating and critically important new book, "the new new deal: the hidden story of change in the obama era." thank you for your time and your

new book. >> thanks. >> eliot: how do you define success. you're saying clearly this thing worked, and everyone else is saying something else. >> the economic success. people don't remember because we had the financial earthquake but the tsunami had not hit the shore. gdp had fell to 9%. that's depression area. at that rate we would have lost canada in a year. the next quarter we had the biggest improvement in jobs in 30 years. of course today people are not happy we're gaining 150,000 jobs a month and gdp is only 1.5% to 2%. it's better than losing 9% and 800,000 jobs. >> eliot: one of the fascinating comparatives that you draw is the new new deal, and the new deal of president roosevelt in terms of scale, order of magnitude. explain to us which was bigger. >> the stimulus was bigger than

the entire new deal. the new deal went on for years and was a bunch of different bills. the stimulus bill poured more stimulus into the economy to revive demand. >> eliot: and to come back to the fundamental bottom line, it worked, which is a critical point we can't forget. but the sub text here, maybe not the sub text but an equally important argument. it's not just that jobs were created but there is an impact from the stimulus package that was hugely important. >> people say where is the hoover dam or the sky rise. what it had was when obama said this is change we can believe in. this is where he kept the campaign promises about energy, healthcare education race to the top. the largest infrastructure investment since eisenhower. the largest research investment. the largest middle class tax

cuts since reagan. clean energy is the best example where we've been spending a few dollars a year. and then obama comes in before he really even knows where the path rooms are in the west wing and passes $90 million the smart grid, cleaning coal advance biofuels, electric vehicles, the factories to make all this stuff in the united states. it's completely transformative. >> eliot: and its worked. you pointed out the hoover dam was physically there. you saw it. the roads were there you physically touch them and say aha, i understand it. these research projects are and will continue to be transformative. the tragedy is people remember silendra. that is what swamped the imagery

of the project. >> 1% of the campaign portfolio. john mccain has looked at the entire portfolio and it looks fine. the world's largest solar project. the world's largest distributed solar projects. thats are all game-changing projects that will change the way we use energy. are we going to see them every day and are we going to point to them and say those are the turbines that obama guilt? that will not be so clear. >> eliot: what about the nature of its passage, the political moment or marketing of it that has left it as an orphan on the steps without anyone coming to its defense until you. >> i think it's partly because it's tough to sell a job when jobs are falling apart. that made it easy for the media which doesn't like public policy any way.

when they is full of pork lists which is trips to disneyland, and it was easy for them to say sure especially when the democrats were saying no, this is full of energy, race to the stop and giving everyone an electronic medical record. they were saying no, it's too big, too small the tax cuts are not enough. it was a can calf phone and the only thing people heard was that it was a mess. >> eliot: nobody is ever satisfied. so the left attacked. the right attacked. the republican party was in attack mode. the new deal began when we hit bottom. this was on the way down, and it's an impossible task to say that it would have been worse but for. >> terrible bumper sticker. like we were wiley coyote. we were holding the anvil

jumped off the cliff looking around, and it was tough for people to understand. you can't put on a bumper sticker that unemployment is a lagging indicator. >> eliot: right. >> you have this incredible campaign of distortion. i talk in the book how republicans even before obama had taken office, they were always for stimulus. mitt romney of all the presidential candidates he supported the largest stimulus in 2008. but the second, january january 20, 2009, i don't know what happened, but suddenly stimulus became socialism, big government. >> eliot: it's hard to know what mitt romney has ever believed in but one point point this book is so important. the next time we have a crisis, we may get it wrong. michael shure the "the new new deal." a must read. thank you. >> thank you. >> eliot: what happens when you

pull a hippo's finger? viewfinder 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. [ train whistle blows ] [ ball hitting paddle ] [ orbit girl ] don't let food hang around. yeah! [ orbit trumpet ] clean it up with orbit! [ orbit glint ] fabulous! for a good clean feeling. ♪ eat, drink, chew orbit! ♪

>> eliot: still to come, robert reich on the ryan budget plan. he's not a fan. but first some comedians celebrate senior citizen day. a morning show gets rudely interrupted, and the five gets a phone call at an inopportune time. when it doesn't fit anywhere else, we put it in the viewfinder. >> national senior citizen day not to be confused with national senior citizen weeeek, the republican convention in florida. >> in honor of senior citizen day i ate a bowl of hard candy and pretended not to know what a laptop was. >> i don't hear it, do you hear it? >> no. >> the republicans let them have theirs in north carolina, and everybody can go to the mat. >> are we going to meet this?

>> i came up with this. it's self depourtation station. >> there's a lot of stuff in here. i'm oddly drawn to it. it activates the auto lock, and off it goes. >> you need to know when to hold them and know when to fold them. i have walked it before. i know when you have to hold that mantle and pass it to someone else. that's what i had to do in alaska. >> there go. >> hey pull my finger. [laughter] >> the new campaign commercial says president obama should not take credit for killing osama

bin laden. >> what barack obama wants you to believe he coordinateed top-secret precision assault that took out america's most hated enemy. what really happened? osamas was hit by a truck. >> eliot: i guess you could laugh about anything these days. you don't need an expert to take down paul ryan's economic plan, but we've got one any 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.

we know that back to school time means back to school germs. that's why lysol partners with schools all across the country providing resources designed to help teach healthy habits. so make sure you add lysol no touch hand soap and lysol wipes to your "back to school" list. that way, the healthy habits they learn in school will reinforce the good habits you've already taught them at home. to learn more, visit lysol.com/schools. lysol. mission for health.

>> eliot: there are precious few details in mitt romney's economic plan. but the etch-a-sketch candidatete has specialized in politically adoption and his v.p. choice paul ryan has lots of details in his plan. details that robert reich says could spell doom for our economy. >> his plan would race taxes on families earning between $30,000 and $4,000 by almost $500 a year and slash programs like medicaid medicaid, food stamps and children's health. what would ryan do with these

savings? reduce taxes on millionaires by an average of over $500,000 a year. >> cenk: here to tell us more robert reich himself, professor at uc-berkeley and author of " "beyond outrage: what has gone wrong with our economy and our democracy and how to"? >> hi, eliot. >> eliot: we'll post your site so people can get to it. tell us about jobs, what would the romney-ryan do to to our job job. >> they want to start major reduction. way before it started. we already has too much capacity underutilization capacity and too much unemployment. if you cut the budget already you'll have more unemployment.

estimates by the institute says if we use the ryan budget we'll have 1.9 fewer jobs next year, and 2.8 million fewer jobs the year after. on the jobs front it's a disaster. >> eliot: it's almost as though we're talking about a fiscal cliff which is economic. he wants to push us over the cliff by shrinking federal spending. it's completely wrong based on any economy theorist that you speak to. economic distribution. what would he do to income distribution. >> remember, we now have almost the most unequal distribution we've had in the past 100 years. the top 1% is taking home 20% of total income and the top 400 families own more wealth than the bottom 150 million americans put together. now what ryan wants to do is

make this even more extreme even more lopsided. he's going to raise taxes on people who are between $20,000 & $30,000 and reduce the taxes of millionaires. people above $1 million would get a tax cut of $500,000 a year. that's also including keeping the bush tax cut there permanently. you know this is not just reverse robin hood. this is a reverse robin hood torqued to an extreme degree. we haven't seen this kind of regressive budget ever before in this country's history. he wants to take us back--not to just before the new deal, but really back to the late 19th century. >> eliot: i want to go back a few years in history. when the bush economic george w. bush economic agenda was proposed a lot of people, you included, said if you follow through on this, you'll get mall distribution of income.

slow job creation, and am i right to say that you've been proven right. >> sadly. i'm sad to say that it's true. after the bush tax cut was put in affect. the lion share of that tax cut went to the very wealthy, we had fewer jobs than the ten years before, even the eight years before. we also had slower economic growth. it culminated in the great meltdown of wall street. we had absolutely nothing to show for that bush tax cut. the supply siders are wrong. nothing trickles down. >> eliot: what i like to say to people. put a aside ideology. look at fact. it's the same blueprint we tried under george w. bush. >> it's worse. the tax cuts they want to provide to the very rich are multiples of the bush cuts.

the cuts to the promise to the poor are much more onerous. 62% of the programs are designed for the poor. we're talking about head start food stamps, pell grants for poor students to attend universities. we're talking about everything that the federal government has tried to do to help people who for no fault of their own in most cases are poor or lower income in this country. >> eliot: it's george w. bush on steroids. the reasons for that is not only the tax policies that you laid out, but the spending time, they've capped 3.75% of gdp medicare medicaid, and defense associatesocial security. >> every time i hear that paul ryan, one thing that is on his side that i hear over and over again from pundits is that he's serious about entitlement

reform. that's baloney. he's a destroyer of entitlements. he wants to take medicaid and give it out to the states with almost no federal support at all. the federal support goes from one-half to one-third to one quarter of what it is right now. he wants to give medicare vouchers whose costs don't keep up with the cost of healthcare. that means the cost of healthcare is shifted on to seniors. in every respect this budget takes from people who are vulnerable and gives to the people in our society the small normal, whonumber who are wealthier than ever in history. >> eliot: it would throw them off. >> and on top of that they want to get rid of the affordable care act. so you're going to create 50 million--50 million additional americans will not

have any health coverage at all. >> eliot: quickly because times runs short. you wrote a persuasive blog on salon.com the fanatics taking over the republican party. why is that. the party used to have a grand tradition of creative and interesting thinking. now fanatics run it. how did this happen? >> look, we've seen it happen. it happened not only with the tea partyers, who were very widely and deeply financed by dick army's freedom works, koch brothers and others, but the gradual--the core of the republican party withered away in primary after primary tea parties put up candidates who were even more extreme forcing republicans who were already moving to the right to move even further to the right. before the tea party we saw newt gringrich and his crowd in the 1990s take over more and more of the republican establishment making it more radicalized and

more regressive. right now we have a party, the g.o.p. this may be good for the democrats in the short term. but i think it's bad for the americans in the long term because we need two sane political parties. we have a political party that is regressive taking from the poor give together rich, reverse robin hood. social car win darwinist. but they also bleep women who are raped should not have access to abortion--abortion should be banned. even in the case of rape and incest we have a party that continues to rail against immigrants and essentially allowing or encouraging profiling of hispanics latinos. we have a party that is mounting a major campaign and continues against gays in terms of equal rights and civil rights. we have a party in other words that is going after seniors after gays, after the poor, after latinos after women

after everybody in this society who basically is even slightly vulnerable slightly powerless. i take americans who don't fit in these categories are gradually seeing the light. they're seeing that this agenda is so extreme fanatical and right wing that it does not belong in the mainstream of america. >> eliot: that was extraordinarily well said but very, very depressing. i think there is still outrage in robert reich. >> don't be depressed. i think obama will win and progressives in this country will be electrified by all of this. >> eliot: i certainly hope so. from your mouth to god's ears. check it out on www.robertreich.org . thank you for your time. illegal spying on muslims by polilililililililililililililililililililililililililili

[ male announcer ] the inventors of twix had a falling out, so the production of twix was divided between two separate factories. left twix factory cascades caramel and chocolate onto cookie, while right twix factory flows caramel and chocolate onto cookie. today they share nothing but a wrapper and a driveway. try both and pick a side.

>> eliot: driver's licenses for immigrants. it's one of my old battles and california is doing it right. that's later in my view. at the top of the hour in "the war room," jennifer will sit down with the president of international brotherhood of teamsters to talk about the (vo) cenk uygur is many things. >>oh really? >>"if you ever raise taxes on >>the rich, you're going to destroy our economy." not true! >> eliot: all sorts of good things are flowing from the wise decision by president obama to grant some undocumented immigrants the right to remain in the united states for two years withthout the threat of depourtation. one example: california may be on the cusp of issuing driver's

licenses to undocumented immigrants. this would be a great step forward. a bit of garden ground. for many years states would issue licenses to undocumented immigrants who knew how to drive and could prove their identity, often with a foreign passport. the core reason was simple. it made the roads safer. fewer people were driving around without a license or insurance. that's why many leading law enforcement voices fully support this policy. even some conservative elected officials supported it, and preferred to keep the immigration issue separate. aside from the safety issue people with a license could more fully participate in the economy. this policy was in place in a fair number of states, both red and blue, until 9/11. but 9/11 caused significant push-back against any right or privilege being extended to undocumented immigrants and the ability to get a driver's license pretty much disappeared. in 2007 when i was governor of new york, i proposed that our state once again permit undocumented immigrants obtain a

driver's license. to say that it led to screaming and shouting was an understatement. the issue of granding driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants suddenly was a third rail with a 3,000-volt charge running through it. the decibel level of the screaming from those who wanted to stoke post 9/11 resentment especially the noise from lou dobbs is hard to exaggerate. despite that, when asked at a presidential debate in the fall of 2007 whether he would support the granting of licenses, then senator obama answered with a simple "yes." now several years later he has made that possibility a reality. he has taken a step that will permit those covered by his program to participate more fully in the wonders of our national economy and civic life the the president along with states such as california that areeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

>> we talk a lot about the influence of money in politics. it is the defining issue of this era. the candidate with the most money does win. this is a national crisis. 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.

the natural energy of peanuts and delicious, soft caramel. to fill you up and keep you moving, whatever your moves. payday. fill up and go! >> eliot: after nine years thousands of hours of illegal spying on muslims and millions of dollars spent the nypd's control of demographics unit failed to generate a single lead for terrorism investigation. this according to sworn testimony from the commanding officer of the nypd's intelligence division. thee demographics you want was

formed in 2003, and tasked with infiltrating and spying on muslim communities in new york to find potential terrorists. but in sworn testimony as part of the ongoing handschu civil rights case against nypd assistant chief thomas galati testified that information gain from that you want quote he has commenced an investigation. i don't recall otherwise other ones prior to my arrival. i'm not aware of any. let's bring in hilly shelton senior vice president for naacp, thank you for your time tonight. >> it's great to be here with you, eliot. >> eliot: this seems to be a stunning admission by the nypd a lot of faith positive press about this, they got nothing. am i missing something here?

>> no, you're absolutely right. this is one another one of those failed attempts by law enforcement very similar to stop and frisk. in which the intention was honorable, but the way they carried it you had not only under cut rights and policy but under cutting the program all together, no trust no support and quite frankly the tension this has created made it more difficult to do what they intended to do in the first place, that is to try to prevent a future terror attack. >> eliot: i don't think a single person would object toker for the nypd to do what is right and reasonable gather intelligence. you want them to do what is appropriate. but where is that constitutional boundary? we see references to eavesdropping and i don't know if there is wiretapping or not but what were they doing and where is the constitutional line here? >> you're absolutely right. what we have here is another issue not knowing exactly how

they did many of those constitutional issues would have to be looked into deeper. again, what we have is a program that was set up to protect the people of new york, to protect the people of this country. but when you have a program that was implemented the way it did it became more dangerous disastrous and ended up under cutting what they wanted in the first place. if you don't have trust as any law enforcement official would tell you between the people that you serve to protect and the law enforcement agency itself you cannot be effective in stopping crime stopping terrorist attacks or being effective in solving them once they occur. >> eliot: i'm not sure we're going to have access to this because of litigation, but it raises in my mind the judgment in continuing the program. if there was the case that there was not a single lead generated by all this, why was it being continued? what were the officers doing? where were they going? what were they listening to?

and what were those dosiers of information being used for and why would the senior commanders say let's keep doing this if it's not being utilized in a meaningful way. >> it goes back to the kind of unnecessary intrusions into people's lives that we experience in the african-american community. if you look at the effects of those and the disastrous effect of going about and subjecting yourself into their lives sneaking and peeking into lives we find where we are now. the costs of operating a program like this, and questioning whether we should have kept a narrowly focused law enforcement where we look for symptoms of problems rather than assuming that because of one's race or religion in this case or other

differences and then some how or another they're involved in illegal activities. it's problematic expensive and count productive. >> eliot: how do you change it? what are the remedies. going to court is something that lawyers like you and i often do. but it's hard for a judge to say stop unless you have authority and say this is what you should do. how do you change a culture within a police department so it has greater respect. take stop and frisk, the focal point here in the new york city and around the country. how do you change the culture of stops and frisks. >> you look at both sides of the issue. you look at those who are being spied upon. look at those who are doing the work of law enforcement officials who want to be effective. most law enforcement officials are great people. they're courageous. they put their lives on the line every day for us, and they want to go home at the end of the day. we appreciate that very much

about them. but we also know that they want to be effective. they want to do their jobs and carry out those responsibilities. when you have failed programs like these that interject themselves in people's lives by sneaking peeking, spying on good hard-working citizens you under cut the advantages that are necessary to be effective. time could be better spent to do other things that would be effective in solving crimes and stopping them, and the people of new york would feel better knowing that their lives their private lives are their own and they're not being intruded upon. >> eliot: i think that is exactly right. it's a careful balance. and one of the most compelling arguments against stop and frisk was that it did not net the outcome and results that the nypd thought it might. there weren't that many guns. there weren't that many criminals. there weren't that many arrests. the numbers say it didn't work. are we going to make real progress in that regard? >> i think we very well cooed. we've had conversations with

mayor bloomberg. he seems to understand the issues. he has reissued his anti-racial profiling, and we know as we look at these problems again when you have so few hits, that is the effect of doing the kind of broad net that is cast upon the people of new york. they have so few hits in response to that, you really have to rethink how you're doing it, and doing it differently. we know that we can actually carry out these responsibilities of law enforcement, and do it in a way that makes sure that every american, that everyone there is actually protected their civil rights are intact. they're not intruded upon, and the police officers are more effective and more appreciated in the long-standing process. both sides could have a win-win if we simply look at these issues and say we want to do what works. we want to do what is effective and we want to protect our constitutional rights in the process. >> eliot: i think that's right. and i certainly hope folks hear you and listen to