issue one, south of the border. ♪ ♪ >> we're here at the border today, everybody recognizes the system is broken. the question is, will we finally summon the political will to do something about it? >> president obama took his case for immigration reform this week to the border of the texas town of el paso.

he laid outs his vision, killing a 21st century immigration system. here are the key building blocks. one, border security. increase the number of guardsmen and immigration agents patrolling border a jays i. more electronic surveillance. two, talent retention. encourage foreign students to stay in the u.s. after graduation and work here. three, citizenship path. motivate illegal aliens to register with the government, pass a background check, pay taxes and penalties and learn english. four, employer accountability. crack down on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. >> businesses have to be held accountable if they exploit undocumented workers. we're going after knowingly exp break the law. >> question, is president obama

using immigration as a wedge issue for his presidential re- election campaign to win hispanic voters. >> of course, he's sagging among practice teenso. he needs them for re-election. they're disappointed partly because they're so gullible and believed his overpromising on immigration in 2008. but one of the key absurdities in this speech is how he vastly oversold his enforcement effort. he says the border fences basically completed, when only 2% of it is the double fencing envisioned in the secure fence act in 2006. so if you really had a serious effort at the border, e-verify at the point of employment, and you really saw an attrition of the illegal population, then the politics of this issue would change. now amnesty is a complete impossible. >> you don't think he's held off on the technology to be able to create a latino entrance? >> i think the one infrastructure project in the united states of america that

liberals have no interest in is the border fence. >> by reason of the liberalism? >> they have no interest in cracking down on illegal immigration. it's a sign of how far right this debate has moved that obama has been force toads undertake some enforcement measures, but his heart is in in it. >> do you agree? >> new york i don't. this president has done far more in terms of security crackdowns than george w. bush did. >> that's not true. >> it is true. >> barely more -- just barely more deportation. >> let her finish. >> you used up your time. my turn. and i think he does have a good record to the point where he has liberals complaining he's cracked down too much. he got two-thirds of the hispanic vote in 2008 of he may get it up to 4/5 because he's the most prominent official on the democratic side talking pro immigration and you have governor jan brewer on the other side, sending out very negative attitudes when it comes to hispanics. so i think sure, there's a

political benefit here for the president. but if he could get comprehensive immigration reform tomorrow, on the lines you outlined, he would love it. he can't get it because republicans are opposing him some it's a clear political divide and i think hispanics know which side, which party is on their side. >> i don't think he's trying to work at all with republicans. he didn't invite jan brewer. he did not invite texas governor perry to the white house to talk about immigration. >> who is jan brewer? >> the governor of arizona. and to show seriousness, who did he invite to talk about immigration? rosario dawson and eva long or why. he brought in actresses. he is not serious. he wants to induce republicans into arguing against immigration if call them racist 3 push him up to 40% of the solutions. >> polls say that the real level in the immigration cutoff

is 61%. of the public. not the 45% routinely reported by gallop. this is alexander of uc berkeley, in combination of miller mckuhn magazine may-june 2011. do you know the publication? >> i do know it, yes. >> is it reliable? >> hopefully, yes. >> that's a consensus of what americans want, immigration cutoff. >> i wanted to pick up on -- i agree this has turned into a political football but there are issues at stake for america's economy. i was an illinois a few weeks ago talking to companies and they say they have [not understandable] now because students who were being educated in the u.s. don't have to go home at the end of their degrees. they're pleading for reform to immigration policy. in between that, what obama said in terms of focusing on the talent issue and trying to get it on the table is welcomed. the tragedy is as you say, it's really turned into a political

wedge that is really not going to get very much constructive debate. >> do you think if rick perry was invited to the white house, that would have been a serious discussion about -- >> i think he does that every day. and the difference -- [everyone talking at once] >> he wants -- >> he should have gone -- companies about the families they face [everyone talking at once] >> what about the role of employers and what they should do to verify the status of their future employees? how much responsibility do you want them to have? >> it's huge because it's not just the bother derek it's the point of employment. as long as people can get jobs routinely, you're going to have people staying illegally in this country. lamar smith and the house has a bill to make e-verify the system to check the stat us of every employee, mandatory. and until you do things like

that, all this is just smoke and mirrors. want employers to become police officers? >> of course. of course. i want them to be able to know -- >> you want them to take the wrath? >> i want them no know whether they're hiring legal or illegal people. >> see the papers? yeah, of course. >> how far does that go? >> it don have to go far. you just check whether they're legal or not. >> do they have to check become with washington? >> yes, there's a database that hooks into the federal government, and you find out. and until you have something like that -- [everyone talking at once] >> unless you have something like that, employers in a double bind because they don't know whether they're hiring legal or illegal people and then the federal government comes in and enforces on them and -- >> my heart -- may heart beats for the poor corporations who are -- and poor employers who have gotten a free ride hiring people for less than they're worth. >> that's true. i agree with that.

>> what is the other way? >> we agree -- [everyone talking at once] >> are you going to invest them with the authority to do all of that inquisitioning to protect themselves? >> it's not my position -- [everyone talking at once] >> i think the most destructive idea is not to e-verify, but a guest worker program where you come over just to work for particular company, and because that gives the employer the power of deportation. rich is talking about, i don't know if i agree, but it's not giving them power and authority, it's giving them responsibility. >> one new wrinkle in the argument the president made is he was saying this is about our economy, and it is good for the american economy if we have a systematic way to legalize the -- >> let me ask -- >> and people who have the skills [everyone talking at once] >> went to great britt britain i'm noticing your accent, can teach us with regard to the

importation of labor? >> well, we also in the u.k. have hof health workers. >> do they go through a lot of anxious at the administrative level in trying to make the determinations we are now imposing on employers? >> absolutely. we've had this debate for a long time. >> and actually, america has done better dealing with immigration than europe. i put in a good word for american -- >> i agree. [everyone talking at once] >> turning away people who want to do business in issue two, newt hits the trail. >> president obama should be ashamed of himself. for the president of the united states, a year and a half before an election, to deliberately use dishonest scare tactics, it demeans the united states of america. >> that was the opening fire of the newt for president 2012 campaign. the former house speaker

announced on wednesday he would seek to be the republican party's official candidate in next year's presidential race. and the chance to make barack obama a one-term president. but for now, it's not looking good. a recent poll has obama vows ting gingrich by 15 points, even before the osama bin laden execution. observers now say that commander in chief obama is now seen as a successful war president. question, how strong is newt gingrich's grassroot support. >> it's not strong. the difference between him and mitt romney in addition to supporting a single pair and the wall street bailouts, newt gingrich also supported medicare part d and individual mandate in health care and global warming cap and trade. so he has lots of ideas. i don't think he has any convictions. he is like mitt romney, a managerial guy without any core beliefs and he's not like mit

nit mitt romney in that he doesn't have the picture perfect family. i think that when you saw the tea party, you grassroots, people getting riled up. half of what they got riled up at last election was republican offenses against limited government. and medicare part d was -- it wane as big as the wall street bailout, but medicare part d and no child left behind are things people in tea parties wouldably up. republicans say this is part of the problem. and newt was onboard, lobbying the right at the time. coming to conservative meetings and coming to journalists saying you've got to go along with the prescription. >> does that make him a time server? >> a time server? >> a timeserver is someone who doesn't the policy to the immediate needs of the moment. >> absolutely. >> it doesn't make any differences which side it's on. >> absolutely. >> there's no fundamental belief on either side, it's wor >> again, it's like "american

idol." you seek the limelight. >> you think it's limited? >> not quite. i think he likes being center stage. he's got a lot of interesting ideas. he likes talking, whether he can actually con -- any grass roots is questionable. it's not just his family issues. it's also his network of business interests, which will come under a lot more scrutiny now. >> you think he could talk his way out of a county wrap? >> he has a great talker. >> he's on my show. i've interviewed newt. and what i think is what i think. >> he's a master of reinvention. i first met him in the 70s, when he was a self-described rockefeller republican. he has been everywhere on every issue. he has supported -- he did public service commercials with nancy pelosi on climate, the need for addressing climate change. and now i guess he thinks that warm air is just hugging earth. but i think he will add an

entertainment value to the republican debates and they're sorely in need of it and it will be fun to watch him challenge the others and -- >> what about -- what is -- >> he's doing it mostly to keep up his fund-raising [everyone talking at once] >> him and trump together would be fantastic watching. >> have you done any exploration on newt inc.? >> i do know what newt inc. is, and i think it's very important issue. because that's been a lot discussed about his family issues, but that's not the only thing that will be under the microscope now. now that he's running. >> what is the story on newt inc.? >> it's unfair to suggest this is all about newt pink making more money. >> what is newt inc.? >> the nut work of newt gingrich organizations. >> how much money does newt have? >> i don't know. >> 35 million? >> okay. >> derived from newt inc.? >> not all. lot of speaking, tv contracts. this is a problem with newt, i think. he's been around in washington

forever. so he doesn't have the fresh new thing going for him. at the same time, he doesn't give off the sense of gravity and solidity you expect interest from someone with so much experience some he's caught in that bind. but he is smart, he's compelling, he's creative, and perhaps overly creative. >> endorse him as your candidate for president? >> i don't speak about our endorsements. i would say until the time comes, but he has -- the problem with newt, it's temperament. >> exit question, who is the g.o.p. presidential front-runner in the g.o.p. now? still mitt romney or has newt edged out mitt romney. >> maybe none of the above. it's not sure it's mitt romney. he's an accomplished capable man but has an albatross that just doubled in size this week. >> if he can get through the

primaries when he did in massachusetts with health care reform is -- would be an asset. and i think he did the right thing not to walk away interest it. i want to say one more thing about newt. remember the phrase, buy one, get one free? it was the clintons in '92. newt is bringing his wife can lisa and they're very much a duo in this race. and i don't know that will be where -- >> i think -- >> why, why y? seems to me that's -- [everyone talking at once] he's very up front about his personal life and the divorce. >> think of giuliani, was she an asset in that presidential campaign? the women are wonderful wives, but i don't think the voters are necessarily looking for a package deal when they're voting in the primary. >> he's looking for what, suburban women to vote for him? >> i don't think she will attract that. >> we don't want to know the bum rap. >> i'm not -- you know, [everyone talking at once] >> republicans should remember how democrats and liberals a praised john mccain to high

heaven until he got the nomination. and then he was public enemy number one. any praise that you get from the liberals and from eleanor about romney care, he will be public enemy number one. so -- don't listen to the liberals. >> i heard a -- >> i sent another bum rap. i wasn't referring to you. that was opaque, another. you follow me? >> key issue is the question, is there is no front-runner right now, really and that's a problem. >> of those two, which is front? >> it's not a beauty contest. it's an ugly contest right now in terms of their problems. and i've got -- >> romney is still the one beat? issue three, the big dipper. >> which could have a double dip. the economy should be growing in 7 -- >> a double dip recession.

that's what economists like pete are almost predicting for the u.s. economy. a double dip recession. so, with one period of six months or more in which the country's gross domestic product are we at risk of double dip recession or are the fears overblown? i ask you, give me a 12-second answer. >> i think there's some risk but we're probably just continue to bump along with the economy that's growing, but the people don't feel good about

because personal incomes are stagnant, unemployment is high, and the values of their homes are stagnant or declining. >> we're going into recession, there will be another crash. we've been trying to inflate our way to growth but inflation is not wealth. the government debt is getting too high. we can't repay. we'll either hyper inflate or have to contract. another crash is coming. >> job numbers have looked pretty good. but the hole we're dig out is so deep that the country doesn't feel good about itself. but i don't think there's a double dip nastier. >> people don't appreciate the degree to which activity is propped up. and right now the federal reserve is threatening to run that in. i think there are risks but markets are pretty fragile. unemployment is high. the housing market is very weak, prices are falling, and that's a pretty -- outlook. >> commodity prices just dropped across the board, slack demands from china.

gas prices probably peaked. consumer spending rose on 0.5%, even under pressure. home sales are plummeting. so certainly looks like a double dip recession, doesn't it? >> well, basically the patient has come off in the form of cheat consumer debt, gone on to morphine in the for. of government dedebt and right now there's a crunch coming when they have to rein that in. >> will there be a housing bubble? >> i housing 91 right now housing prices are going down. i think the bigger question something, how much more, how much further do they have to go before america starts to reap a clearing price where they know the bottom has been reached? we'll have -- [everyone talking at once] >> she's talking about the dangers of the government artificially pumping money in, art fishily low interest rates, free market is not allowed to operate or recover. >> double dip or no double dip? >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> quickly. >> yes! >> yes? >> yes. >> double dip?

>> yes. >> i think it's a issue four, cut the complex. >> we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, weather sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. >> this year marks the 50th anniversary of the famed military industrial complex speech. that speech was delivered by president dwight d. eisenhower. his three days before the ends of his second term. eisenhower used the term military industrial complex to describe the union between lawmakers, defense contractors, and the u.s. military. the republican president argued this coalition could gain so much power that it would affecteddively take control of american democracy.

the year eisenhower delivered this address, 1961, the total defense budget was $226 million. today the total defense budget is $891 billion. some of these costs include, item, tomahawk missile, $1.5 million permission ill. f-22 fighter jet, $150 million per jet. item, literal combat ship, $362 million per ship. item, stealth bomber jet, $2.1 billion per jet. question, is the military industrial complex in for a trim? do you believe? >> i think it has to be because the scale of the debt facing america means that there will be cuts right across the board, and any way they're the debate going on right now about the effectiveness of the military power.

if you look at what is happening in afghanistan, a special operations forces which only 1.6% of a total military budget in some ways is achieved a lot more than some of the other, more comfy parts of the military operations. >> interesting. >> the defense secretary bob gates identified $78 billion in cuts, which really isn't very much. but he wants to get rid of some of those big, expensive weapons systems that you running up get the congressional objections because they have jobs and all the various congressional districts which is how they've managed this industrial complex to go forwards. it's too painful for lawmakers to cut these programs. i'd like to believe that they're going to be meaningful cuts, but when i look at the republican side of the agenda, i see ron paul, but he's really a libertarian. and haley where haley barbour made comments but dropped out

the race. >> you think should come back in? >> no. [everyone talking at once] >> haley should come back? a lot of people do. the way he is conducting himself with his ravaging mississippi river down there. >> well suited to that and i'm sure he will be advising other candidates. very savvy politician. but i don't think -- >> he's a savvy politics? >> not a likely presidential candidate. >> some members of the appropriations committee, jeff flake, come traves and george -- moving to cut spending vote to go cut spending, introducing -- amendments to cut military spending. and the question is whether the democrats will give up their sacred cow, which is planned parenthood funding, now the republicans are willing. >> i can make a point? >> bin laden -- [everyone talking at once] >> i can make a point? were you playing into ladies, to of the speech. everyone focuses on that one line. and he was wrong about. that. military is stronger -- is

smaller in terms of the economy than in 1961. he was right where warning about the powers which rose up to best and brightest and jfk's administration they stumbled in vietnam, then successors created the great society, and the growth of 80 billion versus 20 billion. that growth is really not that point to what you said. there's a good point to it, that there's not -- but i would hold your predictions, rick? >> elizabeth warren gets a recess appointment to formally head the consumer finance board over memorial daybreak. >> the u.n. general assembly will less the creation of a palestinian state. >> barack obama will raise a billion dollars and outrage republicans from the drug industry and from wall street and he'll still run as the anti-

big business candidate. >> the only part of the u.s. military budget not subject to discussions about cuts is the seals and special operations. >> we'll seek and win the united states wisconsin seat in next year's election. on another note, our thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of william j mccarter, the president of wt taxes w in chicago. bill was key in the creation and networking of the mclaughlin group. his a very dear friend to and

kcsm needs you financial support. you can pledge at any dollar level that is comfortable for you. at the 50 dollar level, you will receive the kcsm polo shirt. whenever you wear it, you'll show your support of kcsm, the bay area's independent public tv station. this 100 percent cotton shirt features the kcsm logo on the front. it's a great way to show your appreciation for your local independent public tv station. also to say thank you