ured a further drop in the workforce participation rate now a 30-year low the economy appears to be reaching a stalled speed. ben bernanke announcing an easing to qe 3. this time it will remain open until they believe the crisis has been addressed. in the next few months they'll

buy $40 million in mortgage-backed securities and maintaining the current low interest rates through 2015. the feds action gave mitt romney an easy chance to shift the answers back to the economy. >> what bernanke is saying is what the president is saying is wrong. the president is saying progress is coming and the economy is coming back. bernanke is saying no it's not. we have to print more money. i don't think they'll get the economy going. >> eliot: let's bring in ben white, author of money morning column and deputy editor joe wiesenthal. thank you for coming in. let me begin how bad is it? for the fed to react way one almost gets a sense of panic. they say they're opening the

floodgates to the maximum point. >> i don't think it's quite like that. in the middle of the crisis, absolutely. in qe 2 almost as bad. this is different in its tenor. the economy is not quite as horrible. but what the fed is say even this slow growth is not fast enough to get unemployment to a level that we're happy with at the pace we're going. in the past where the qe programs came when the markets were down. now the markets are highs. >> eliot: you're right, there is a schizophrenia in the economy. the stock market profit, those who are doing well are doing spectacularly well. and the rest, not so well. this is the slow boil the corrosive employment, wage growth that is stagnant or negative, and the fed saying no one is doing

anything, we'll do something. >> they said we'll continue to act and stimulate the economy until we see the unemployment rate come down significantly. i think that's what is most interesting about what they've done. not to put a specific target on it, we want 7% unemployment, but that's our goal, to get this down significantly. we'll pump money in the system until that happens. >> eliot: ben bernanke is saying we're not stopping until we decide we're stopping. let's quantify this since its call the qe 3. how much will rates come down. you buy all these bonds and interest rates come down. by how much? interest rates are almost close to zero. >> there are two ways to think about it. interest rates are very low. if you think about it in terms of lowering rates then it's not going to have that much of an impact. the future commitment to keep rates low

when you are a bank and you feel confident that you can lend out at these rates then it becomes more attractive to lend out at this rate. this is why the open-ended aspect is important. it's not about some day after we do this slug of qe and then we let rates rise. it's saying we're going to keep rates low so you can feel comfortable making decisions at this point without rates jumping up on you. >> and you're not that worried about inflation. if you're sitting on a whole lot of cash as an corporation or individual you're more inclined to use it when inflation is low than when it's higher and money is worth less. on a 30-year mortgage rate they're looking to knock it down to 3.2 3.2. you get a couple of extra bucks a month to spend in the economy. >> eliot: i don't want to sound like mitt and say what's a couple hundred bucks.

that's real money but corporate is already sitting on millions of cash, and you're saying this is a psychological planning. in your long-term planning, rates will be low and we don't care about inflation. there are inflation hawks out there who for years have been saying oh my goodness we're going to have double digit inflation if you do this, and none of that has happened. >> the fed has expended the balance sheet massively and people predicted hyper inflation and so forth but nothing close. >> eliot: i saw one headline a couple of days ago producer headlines were going up at a rate that was measurable. >> yes, but by you historical standards, it's really nothing. food has gone up with factors going into that that is not regulatory policy. but the fed would like to see that. they would like people to the inflation.

>> eliot: explain why inflation is a good thing in terms of getting an economy going. >> it can cut down on people's debt. if they have more money the debt they have now is easier to pay off. >> eliot: one way to deleverage inflation. >> and forces people to use money now. if you have something and you think prices are going up, you'll buy that tv set now. >> and you can instantly see why the inflation is so bad. if you're saying this is going to be cheaper a year from now, why would i spend anything. >> eliot: you sit on cash and its getting more valuable because commodities are going down. you want to get people spending. qe 3 we're all glad its happening. let me give a choice. which would you rather have in terms of impact in our economy here. would you like to have china's economy grow at 2% per year faster or qe 3? >> i'm going--that's a tough one. i'm going to say qe 3 because china growing its probably put

pressure on commodity costs. >> i would probably want china growing faster because you need a growing middle class there to sell more things there. if our currency is going down, and they have middle class growing, that's good for us. >> i change my mind. i like that. >> eliot: in a way, factors outside of our control, which is the rate of growth of china's economy, will do more to determine our own economic future than what we can do domesticcally. >> the real game changer is europe. >> eliot: that's my next question. >> you take the disaster scenario off the table so it seems. >> eliot: well, they still might not make it. >> you never know for sure. more than anything, more than the qe 3 anything happening in china, europe turning the corner and european central bank.

what is much more powerful than qe 3. europe has the biggest economy in the world, and they're saying we're going to make a serious move so it doesn't collapse. >> a bigger thing than qe 3 is taking the fiscal cliff off the table. >> eliot: let's talk politics. is ben bernanke doing this because of political pressure? >> no, it's the only thing he can do. he has to move. there is no political pressure. >> if you're making a political addition, he wouldn't have done anything. >> eliot: the three of us decided. it wasn't motivated by politics, but who does it help? >> it's not going to effect the economy. the stock market--that booms that helps obama. it's controversial, mitt romney uses it to talk about the

economy. >> eliot: i think it helps obama a little bit stock market and people vote based on the stock market. it helps him in that regard. but mitt romney says everything he has done has not worked. so maybe a slight help in obama. >> eliot: all right, ben white editor of politico, and wiesenthal. thank you for your time tonight. >> the president is getting support from snoop dogg. view

what we need are people prepared for the careers of our new economy. by 2025, we could have 20 million jobs without enough college graduates to fill them. that's why at devry university we're teaming up with companies like cisco to help make sure everyone's ready with the know how we need for a new tomorrow. [ male announcer ] make sure america's ready. make sure you're ready. at devry.edu/knowhow. ♪ ♪

>> eliot: coming up, congresswoman sheila jackson lee on the non-existent problem of voter fraud. but first obama gets a key endorsement, fox news anchors get in an argument, and when it doesn't fit anywhere else, we put it in the viewfinder. . >> an electrifying endorsement of obama.

>> you need to give obama four more years. [ bleep ] bush got eight years.clinton. [ bleep ] had eight years. you didn't give him a clean house. the tv didn't work. >> could that endorsement mean a win for president obama. >> i think it will be a world of good for barack obama with this endorsement. >> how about reacting that the memos that went forward from the embassy while riots were taking place. >> most of the news media out in washington and the campaign trail focused on mitt romney and his comments rather than the substance of the comments. >> why are we worrying about a memo that was sent out from the country. >> yeah, but they're asking the question, not mitt romney. >> he was holding it about the memo. >> but the reporters could have asked all those kinds of questions, but they didn't. >> look, it's on the candidate to hold--i don't know--i'm not getting in an argument about

this. >> i'm debating the issue. >> well, i'm not debating. >> the campaign slogan is g.m. is alive osama is dead. they're ramming it down the throats all over the world. that's why, in fact, in fact. we might even conclude, ladies and gentlemen if we're going to accept this notion that hurt feelings inspire terrorism that maybe obama is responsible for this. >> you're absolutely crazy. >> this nickname that they called you stretch. >> they called me stretch, which was remarkable in terms of how they came up with that. [ laughing ] >> you're a tall human being. >> i'm a tall man. >> they also called you dancing man. >> dancing man yes.

[ ♪ music ♪ ] >> dancing man yes. >> eliot: all right, tv edits best. the attack of voter i.d. laws there she is ! hey, i got a leak ! 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.

if you have an opinion, you better back it up. >>eliot spitzer takes on politics. mix. >>now it's your turn at the only online forum with a direct line to eliot spitzer. >>join the debate now. >> david: the many voter i.d. laws passed are fraudulent answer to a none exist kent problem. while courts strike many down are uninstitutional we still way the outcome. earlier this week we had a chance to speak with sheila jackson lee of texas about the state of restricted voteer i.d. laws nationwide. >> eliot: i don't think woman, thank you for joining us. great to have you with us rather than over a tv screen. >> welcome to washington.

>> eliot: thank you. one of the things that is troublesome about this election cycle is the voter suppression bill. it seems so anti-democratic. how do you push back. >> it's really an epidemic. just a few hours ago we held a hearing on the question of abuse power by the president, and this president in particular. one of the items raised was because of the activity of the department of justice going into places and into states where there are clear actions of voter suppression. this came about through the 2010 election. i really think it's a throw-back to the massive turnout in 2008 when a number of tea party states turned the laws upside down and decided to alter the redistricting structure after the, of course, 2010 census. and then of course work on the antiquated voting bills that really in some instances equated to poll tax. i'll use texas as an example.

how can you insist on a voter i.d. when you eliminate a student i.d. but you allow a gun permit? how can you allow or call for a massive voter i.d. for the state of texas when from 80-plus counties do not even have the dps, department of public safety office for rural citizens and others to access that particular process. >> eliot: the good news--it turns if back. >> eliot: the good news in texas the federal court said the statute there is unconstitutional. so a little bit of glimmer. >> a little bit of glimmer but-- >> eliot: you're so right. the overall storyline is one of the statutes exploding and becoming the go-to strategy for a republican party that does not want people to vote. >> it is absolutely the case. and in particular our attorney general didn't just accept the decision of the federal court here in washington, which by the way was a bipartisan court. he then ultimately went to the fifth circuit court of appeals to stop voter registration in a

certain form. what i'm saying, they're not giving up. the ultimate goal is to have voting rights declared unconstitutional. this is going across the country. the people of florida have reached out to attorney general holder. they're purge 1 million voters. in my own state citizens have been receiving all right, we are told you are dead. if you're not dead, let us know. these are senior citizens who are intimidated by these governmental letters. >> eliot: the entire notion is based on an outbreak of voter fraud. >> they only found 80 incidents across the--across the nation. most people do not impersonate another voter at the voting booth. this is a question of intimidation repression,

suppression, and i'd like to think that we stand for voter protection for all voters. the voting rights act is about one person, one vote. not about african-americans or hispanics or angelos as defined in texas caucasians or any other group. this is one person, one vote. passed a very bad bill. the state acknowledged they had no evidence of any instance of voter impersonation and therefore a better judge would have thrown out the statute. we didn't get there unfortunately, ultimately we will. the thing that mystifies me, the republican party is so intent on chasing voter fraud that doesn't exist but has no intention of chasing fraud on wall street that does exist. >> you're right, wall street is one example. from your leadership experience, you know it. we all love the capitalistic system and we want people to

thrive, but we want to protect consumers. foreclosure, when americans by the millions lost their homes. or for example if you will look at the way the criminal justice system in some instances may work, the whole issue of dna and determining whether people are innocent or guilty. in this but we can certainly suggest that behind every american there is a fraudulent voter. that is not the case. >> eliot: it really is not american. i want to switch to another area of civil rights that you care deeply about that is bully. there are kids subjected to bullying, and you're trying to pass a bill to protect them. >> hr 6019 is a statement of humanity. it allows the juvenile block grant funding which would give $200 million over five years that is open to a myriad of activities that individuals and

non-profits and others can apply for to help their communities. what we did is to reemphasize the idea that we want to prevent bullying and give communities teachers school districts the ability to promote programs to in their particular area and make a national statement that we want to stop bullying now. >> eliot: are you getting bipartisan support? >> fortunately we had bipartisan support, but we have a bucket to overcome suggesting one agenda versus another agenda, one group of kids against another group and interfere with parents rights. that's not the case. it's a bill that we, once the bill is signed, care about this new phenomenon, how shall i call it, it's not just the recess bullying by its cyberbullying

it shows intolerance. aren't we better americans. >> eliot: it speaks to tolerance and being decent to our kids. any parent who has had a child come home that has been the subject of bullying will embrace this bill. >> thank you. >> what has congresswoman

sir... excuse me, excuse me... can i get you to sign off on the johnson case... ♪ we built this city! ♪ don't let food hang around. ♪ on rock & roll! ♪ [ orbit trumpet plays ] clean it up with orbit! [ ding! ] fabulous! for a good clean feeling... eat. drink. chew orbit.

>> eliot: in washington, d.c. you need to be wary of what hides behind borey language. that's head. but first a programming note. the program of jennifer granholm airs at 10:00 eastern. and governor granholm will examine why they're acting like children and why congress takes the ball and runs home every time they don't get their way. something tells me there will be

some mention of a 1970s television game show, have you seen this hair folks? that's coming up on "the war room" at 10:00 p.m. eastern. but ahead my view (vo) always outspoken, now unleashed, joy behar. >> on my next show, the panel and i will try to find the humor in today's political climate. think we'll have far to look? >> eliot: beware neutral sounding phrases as one example, cost benefit analysis. why would anyone oppose assessing whether the benefits of an action outweigh the cost? of course we're in favor of that. but now comes along a bill sponsored by senators rob portman, susan collins and mark warner given the white house under the guise of cost-benefit analysis like the sec, fdic and

the fcc. this bill is being pushed by republicans who want to stop any regulations relate to go financial reform. they're trying to create another hurdle an opportunity to intervene before the already delayed dodd frank regulations check in. these lawmakers are using the responsible-responding buzz-sounding buzzfeed. well, the cost of the economic cataclysm of 2008 has now been calculated to be about $12.8 trillion. see the careful and thought report by group better markets. the cost of regulations surely would have been less than the cost we incurred by not having them. and do we need to debate the benefit to society of the disaster.

the independence of these agencies should not be sacrifice. but my dear republicans be consistent. at the same time the republican party is pushing to stop any rules or regulations relating to the financial markets where we know fraud is still rampant they've passed all sorts of voter i.d. laws that pose enormous cost and burdens in our society yet they cannot shows any circumstantial evidence of voter impersonation fraud. they are hypocrisy is outrageous, and expecting logic and consistency from a party whore standard bears an image now to my point. (vo) jennifer granholm ... >>for every discouraged voter, there are ten angry ones taking action.

trickle down does not work. in romney's world, cars get the elevator and the workers get the shaft. that is a whole bunch of bunk. the powerful may steal an election, but they can't steal democracy.

>> eliot: since 1993 representative lynn woolsey of california has been a welcome voice in congress. as cochairs of the progressive caucus to being one of the outspoken voices against the war in iraq we've been fortunate for her distinguished services. i had a chance to talk with congresswoman woolsey as she prepares stepping away from her seat. >> eliot: thank you for joining

me rather than a tv screen. you've been here during a period of tulmult, when you look back over the 0 years what have you seen and what do you expect to happen. >> i remember thinking how nice people were to one another senior members would help junior members make a stand and be heard. but the negative surprise was our schedule. under the democrats it was so terrible. we never knew if we were going to okay now 20 years later, it's flipped. people just aren't able to negotiate or to compromise. we're not mean to each other. we still like each other and laugh in the elevators, you know but it's false.

>> eliot: at a substantive level there is no engagement. >> no engagement. >> eliot: there is no intellectual engagement. parties are talking past each other. >> right. >> eliot: why is that? are there two different ideologies that people can't speak to one another? >> ideologies is part of it. but we're in a spot where if republicans do anything that makes a democrat look okay they're not going to be able to defeat obama. the whole everything about them is to defeat him. it's so shortsighted. but i have to tell you we're going to home and we have home long times because they don't expect to get government business-- >> eliot: the lack of depth in the way we analyze it. >> i have a perfect thing to honor the classified employees the non-teaching staff and it's

very bipartisan, and i cannot get them to bring it forward. i said, butdown but john, we could improve onproveto the country we can agree on something. >> eliot: not interested. >> not interested. >> eliot: this goes back a little farther, but if you look at richard nixon's agenda. he was viewed as a conservative, but today he would be viewed as a liberal. >> yes. >> eliot: how do you feel the political spectrum has moved so the core issues that you deal with have been left behind to a certain extent. >> i was chair of the progressive caucus for six years, is good solid progressives fewer and fewer than there were, and if we talked about everybody getting together, we would start in the middle and go to the right. there is very little room for left or center.

that too is a mistake. the country is not that way. >> eliot: and it leaves many of us confused. we look at the actual economic and historical record, and we see the data and what is happening towards society should support those who want a progressive agenda yet they're not seeing it that way. >> the electives are not seeing it that way. we're way behind the general public in not wanting to go to iraq. we were way behind them now when they want us out of afghanistan. are we out? no. but you know, you said would make the great difference? it's money and politics. if we don't get money out of politics, we're going to lose our democracy. >> eliot: all i can say is we've cherished your 20 we are solely miss you and the optimism i can still hear in your voice even though it's dark at levels, we will we appreciate you. >> thank you.