joining me today, radio host, kurt andersen, and author of "true believers," msnbc political analyst, former dnc communications director and columnist for the hill, karen finney. msnbc political analyst and former rnc chair, now without a mustache, the notorious michael steele. we are not letting that go throughout the entire show. and katrina vanden heuvel, editor and publisher of the nation. >> without a mustache. >> there will be a third party in the general election race this year and its name is the u.s. supreme court. thursday's decision on health care and the latest rulings on immigration and campaign finance laws present a clear opportunity for the president and governor romney to define themselves. yesterday, romney's spokesperson gave an exhaustive nonanswer. >> what does he think about the policy in arizona? is it fair to say he has no opinion? or that you are refusing to give us an answer?

>> arizona, like many other states in this nation, take it upon themselves to craft policies for their own specific states. >> does he have a reaction as to whether he agrees with this decision? >> the states have the right to craft their immigration policy and the federal government has failed to do so. we have to get going. >> what would governor romney have done? >> romney later said at a closed door fund-raiser quote, i would have preferred to see the supreme court give more latitude to the states, not less. there are states now under this decision that have less authority, less latitude, to enforce immigration laws. michael steele. >> yes. >> are we seeing -- i mean, look, can we start calling him stonewall romney? why not anything? something about two huge pieces of legislation as far as immigration? >> i get the push to get the sound bite or the position in the moment but i think one of the strategies that the romney

team has put in place, and it's an interesting one, is they're doing things on their own terms. we haven't really seen a presidential candidate really come out of the box and just not take the bait every time. i get what the next point is going to be on this in terms of saying, you know, you're running for president, you got to respond to all this stuff -- >> it's a supreme court decision. is it bait? >> but it's not bait from the supreme court. it's the bait for those putting cameras in their faces trying to get reaction. i will give the romney team the latitude to see once this whole week rolls up how they begin to address all these points in the context of what he wants to do as president. i think in terms of the folks i've talked to inside the campaign, that's kind of their approach to this. it's not necessarily going to be every time a microphone is there, we're going to have a rush to judgment. >> that answer would carry a lot more weight if it wasn't for the fact that he seems to be perfectly happy to share his

opinions behind closed doors to big donors in these hushed settings, as you said. that's why it's a problem. >> it does seem the whole talk of etch-a-sketch, there's a weasel etch-a-sketch but he's also like wallenda on a tightrope because the party is divided. you had jeb bush come out two weeks ago, who knew a bush could be a heretic who said you're making this party too extreme, mitt romney, and those who have catered to a base, which is any immigrant. it's not just on this issue. karen's right, he's willing to talk behind closed doors to the plutocrats of america but is unwilling to speak on any issues, what tax loop holes he would close, you know. >> exactly. >> i take all of that but i say to everyone this is june, and so we've got a lot of campaign before we get -- >> fair enough but this is a pivotal time. mitt romney can make a statement

away from people shoving microphones on his campaign airplane. i think it is amazing, kurt andersen, that they have done this delicate dance over immigration and the campaign was happy to release a statement on kevin youkilis and the fact that the president mentioned kevin youkilis at a boston fund-raiser last night and got booed. that is a priority for the romney campaign? >> i mean, i take your point totally about not rising to every bit of bait, but then the clock begins ticking and within a fairly short period of time, you have to do your grand vision about immigration and you can't just say oh, the president in 2010 should have been more of a leader to get the legislation that the republican caucus and the senate entirely killed passed. you really have to say what's what and how -- what you will do as president. >> i agree with that. i think the clock is ticking, particularly with these decisions coming down this week. certainly in light of the president's actions last week on immigration, i think it really

puts the pressure on the front end of the strategy as opposed to how i think they like to see it play out leading up -- >> what kind of debates do you think are going on inside the republican party at this time? >> i think -- >> it is a divided party. >> you hit on a salient point. i think there's a legitimate bait that seems to be emerging and led by jeb bush which i'm totally 100% behind that we cannot shut down this party, we cannot be insular, we cannot look at americans and say you're not like us. we need to look at americans, say we are like them and embrace that. i think that's kind of the tension in the debate. the resistance to that is no different than it was in the 1970s for the democrats when they were coming through that same, after the '72 campaign where they went through that sort of -- >> but the difference is this country's changing. the country is changing demographically quickly. you're seeing it generationally, ethnically and the party is potentially doomed -- >> you're not going to get an

argument from me on that one. i was inside. i know. >> he's got the nomination. he doesn't have to worry as much about -- >> no, he does. because he needs his -- he still needs that base to turn out. >> here's the reality. the crass political reality is that this issue is a very tricky issue for the republican party. we are about to become a majority minority country. you cannot go around with the tone of the kind of debate we've heard from the republicans on immigration to exactly what you were just saying. people feel like there's no place for me in that party with some of the things that are said. >> karen, the crass political reality is that you cannot win the office of president when your numbers with hispanics are below 36%. >> you can win in certain districts, that's how we got the tea party, but you cannot win a national election without some por portion, african-american, latino. >> the party to a vast degree really isn't going to do that. >> in terms of how each side

handled this, i was surprised the president did not come out and make a statement on the supreme court ruling yesterday. >> but he did make a statement. >> come out and actually say something. he released a statement. he's going to be in florida later today. we may see more. do you think in terms of response, do you think he needs to be more vocal about this? >> i don't. also in his character, it's no drama obama. i think he knows he's on the winning side of this issue, if not on the winning side of history, and i think what he did with the dream act piece of it, what he did with executive order fully within his constitutional authority has put him forward in a way that the supreme court decision just amplified. who knew what they were expecting. i think roberts and the position he came down with is fascinating. who knew that justice scalia had a hack partisan radio operative but the roberts decision squarely said on states' rights, it is a federal prerogative on immigration. but it's a court that is states'

rights, no. corporate rights, yes. in there, obama has a winning hand. >> interestingly enough, on both the montana decision and the immigration, sb-1070 decision, the court went for the powers of the federal government over the powers of the state which will be interest tog see how they contort themselves if they go in the opposite direction on thursday. >> with justice roberts siding with the liberal wing on these two big decisions, i think it was correct for obama to kind of keep it on the down low. it was an ambiguous decision. what was he supposed to say? >> to your point, karen, you've got to be careful. you can't make a one-for-one correlation between sb-1070 decision and health care. because this was more about states' preempting federal law as opposed to the federal government preempting states' rights. >> i'm making a broader point about who's got the power between the fed and the state. one last thing. the most important thing the

president said in his statement was sort of the end of the statement where he basically made the point in terms of racial profiling, nobody should have to undergo that. you should never feel like just because of how you look, you're going to be under suspicion in this country. that to me was the most important thing because to those latino, african-american and young voters, he said i get it. the republican party has not been able to say i get it. >> that's nice but it's still not immigration policy after four years. >> the reality is that racial profiling in the arizona immigration law will continue to do a tango in the months to come for sure. coming up, what's the difference between offshoring and outsourcing? can you offsource something? we'll discuss, next. [ barking ] i'm your dog, holding down the fort while you're out catching a movie. [ growls ] lucky for me, your friends showed up with this awesome bone. hey! you guys are great. and if you got your home insurance

where you got your cut rate car insurance, it might not replace all this. [ electricity crackling ] [ gasping ] so get allstate. you could save money and be better protected from mayhem like me. [ dennis ] mayhem is everywhere. so get an allstate agent. are you in good hands? [ dennis ] mayhem is everywhere. how mbefore you do constipation do yosomething different?... when you feel your first signs, try miralax. unlike other laxatives, miralax empowers the water you drink to do more. drawing water into your colon to unblock your system naturally. which gets you back to being you. don't wait to feel great. miralax.

constipated? phillips' caplets use magnesium, an ingredient that works more naturally with your colon than stimulant laxatives, for effective relief of constipation without cramps. thanks. good morning, students. today we're gonna continue... thanks. high schools in six states enrolled in the national math and science initiative... ...which helped students and teachers get better results in ap courses. together, they raised ap test scores 138%. just imagine our potential... ...if the other states joined them. let's raise our scores. let's invest in our teachers and inspire our students. let's solve this.

no, mitt, corporations are not people. people have hearts. they have kids, they get jobs, they get sick, they love and they cry and they dance. they live and they die. learn the difference. >> that was elizabeth warren at president obama's fund-raiser in boston last night, referring of course to this moment from the primary last august. >> corporations are people, my friend. we can raise taxes -- of course they are. everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. where do you think it goes? >> warren used the argument to frame this election as a broad ideological choice but "washington post" argues that both candidates may be falling short of making that argument. this is a campaign of immense consequence and paradoxically,

torpor, as if it is being run by men who cannot or will not control events but are waiting for events to control them. they campaign dutifully but dully, going through the motions until election day. kurt andersen, what do you make of that? we have talked a lot about this being a high stakes election, a fundamental argument about the american social compact. do you think the candidates we have are living up to the nature of that argument? >> not yet. it's still june. the thing doesn't really go into, you know, advanced gears until august, september, october. for now i think that's a fair statement. i was in egypt a couple months ago and similarly, it was the highest possible stakes and everybody was eh, i'm not interested, i don't like it. i think -- >> that sentiment obviously has changed. >> but i think that's definitely true this time, that the concept partly because neither candidate is willing to address the nature, the precise and particular nature of the stakes

directly. >> let me take a different cut at it. i agree and disagree, because i think we're living at a time where the movements of our time are driving a different kind of politics and i think the movements are driving issues into this election that aren't fully on the agenda of the candidates but they must be. the gross inequality of income, wealth and political power in this country, the issues of fairness, the joblessness is the real crisis of our times, the corruption, a sense that millions of americans have that congress is not on their side, that government is not on their side, it is rigged for special interest, money interests. but instead, i wrote about this in a piece for the nation called the politics for the 99%, instead of giving up on government, sitting back, movements people should try to reclaim government so that it works for working people, ordinary people. i think those are the consequences of a truly important election. but the candidates do seem tethered to their two parties in ways that don't allow for a full airing. >> i think you make an excellent point. i would augment that point by

saying for those of us on the right side of the aisle, we look at everything you just said and say yeah, that's all good, in addition to we are concerned about the growth and expanse of government. we're concerned about the spending of government. we're concerned about the role the government should play or may play in our lives when it comes to decisions like health care and things like that. so i think at the grassroots level, at the everyday mom and pop level, these are the kinds of questions from the right, the left, the center, wherever they happen to be, that are driving the movement of politics and the candidates are kind of sitting there observing going okay, maybe i jump into that, maybe i don't. i think to your point, they will, kurt, when you get to the conventions and certainly beyond. >> karen, i want to get your thoughts on this. we're talking about sort of the elevated themes of this campaign but then the sort of small ball tactics, and there's been a lot of back and forth between the romney campaign and the obama campaign regarding mitt romney's career at bain, offshoring jobs, outsourcing jobs. this is vice president joe biden a few moments ago on the

campaign trail talking to that point. >> bain and their companies, they made a great deal of money facilitating this outsourcing, and offshoring american jobs. yeah, they made a lot of money but in the process, they devastated, they devastated whole american communities. you got to give mitt romney credit. he's a job creator. in singapore, china, india. he's been very good at creating jobs overseas. >> the bain attacks. we thought they were made r.i.p. they seem to be back in the ether, certainly a talking point for the vice president. do you think it's a winning line of attack given where the conversation is right now? >> i want to go back for one second and think there's also responsibility in the media in terms of how this campaign is covered. particularly in the twitter era, how many days do we spend on ridiculousness that gets tweeted out and that back and forth instead of a conversation about

some of the things you guys are talking about. i think we need to challenge ourselves to do a much better job of asking tough questions. to the bain question, the polling that i've seen is it knocks it out of the park. i'll tell you why. it never went away. the strategy has always been if you look at the narrative where you say okay, you are a business guy and it's not about bain, it's about mitt romney saying that is a justification for him as a job creator when the deals were structured in such a way that he made money no matter what, sometimes his investors didn't make money but romney made money even though they lost their pensions. people look at those folks and say that could be me, that could be my neighbor. hold on. then the second piece of it is -- >> put in your place. continue on, karen. >> just because the strategy goes, people get that, then you say okay, he applied those values to his role as governor and actually outsourced as governor as well. okay, so what's he going to do as president? when you take people through

that narrative which we will see over the course of the next few months, it's quite devastating for romney. >> well said. the thing is, over the last 30 years, america and all of us have bought into the idea of the absolute global economy where labor and capital are entirely fluid. that is the world we have chosen for better or worse. mitt romney's problem is that he embodies that. his political -- [ speaking simultaneously ] >> but the deals that -- >> i'm sorry. >> the deals that romney did were done in such a way, it wasn't venture capital. he never took the kind of risk that real venture capitalists do. >> private equity must exist in this economy as well. >> to pick up on what you were saying, it's been 30 years of a globalized economy that has worked for private equity but not worked for workers. it's 30 years -- >> it's worked for the chinese. >> i think the fundamental debate that we should be having is what kind of capitalism we are going to live with. ironically, rick perry and newt

gingrich launched that conversation. do we want a vulture capitalism emblematic of what bain stood for or do we want a humane capitalism that shares the prosperity of this country? >> i agree, although demonizing it as vulture capitalism -- >> exactly. >> private equity rests on the premise that the risks will be transferred to the workers and communities and this folly of carried interest tax which allows people -- >> i'm not going to defend that. >> katrina, it's an important argument to make but there is no way that you can really argue that the president is not skating a very, very thin line between alienating business interests on whole. there is a new ad out from the campaign talking about mitt romney's role in a factory, asking workers to effectively build their own coffins. you can't say that's not an indictment -- >> i'm all for business but there's responsible business, there's small business which in many ways is voted against, it's self-interest. there's a chamber of commerce that is a multi-national

corporate power. many chambers of commerce around this country, in south carolina, for example, have left the chamber because it doesn't represent real businesses' interest. >> i'm not disparaging that line of argument. the white house or the obama re-election team is trying to effectively have it both ways. we don't think there's anything wrong with this kind of capitalism, but -- >> when a capitalist shouldn't be president. >> a capitalist shouldn't be president. >> it's from the obama super pac. let's take a look at it. >> as long as i'm getting your donations it's all good. >> no, no, no. >> let's look at the ad. >> let's look at the ad. >> mitt romney made over $100 million by shutting down our plant and devastated our lives. turns out that when we built that stage, it was like building my own coffin. and it just made me sick. >> i'm not saying that's not an

incredibly powerful argument, very hard to turn around and say nothing wrong with what bain capital does. >> that is true. there's nothing wrong with having a sterling record as president clinton said as a venture capitalist. but does that qualify you to be president? that's the question. >> as much as being -- >> you have to worry about the people who lost their jobs and their pensions. >> as much as being a community organizer, where -- >> oh -- >> don't sound palin-esque. >> you guys like to have it both ways. on the one hand you want to sit there and do this dance on the grave of capitalism but at the same time, you've got obama running up to new york sitting there, you know, lining up for the capitalist -- >> i'm not dancing on the grave of capitalism. >> to make sure he gets his fair share. >> people are writing checks knowing exactly what he stands for. >> the dnc is hemorrhaging cash because they decided in their wisdom they don't need corporate money so they're $26 million in

the hole. the reality is you can't have it both ways. >> fdr saved capitalism from its excesses. that is what at best president obama might do with private equity and these hyper-financialized entities that weren't part of capitalism 30, 40 years ago. >> good point. >> whenever you hear the old community organizer chestnut, you know the debate is just beginning. we have to go to break but we will bring you more on all of this, next. sfx: sounds of marching band and crowd cheering sfx: sounds of marching band and crowd cheering so, i'm walking down the street, sfx: sounds of marching band and crowd cheering just you know walking, sfx: sounds of marching band and crowd cheering and i found myself in the middle of this parade honoring america's troops. which is actually quite fitting because geico has been serving the military for over 75 years. aawh no, look, i know this is about the troops and not about me. right, but i don't look like that. who can i write a letter to about this? geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.

sven's home security gets the most rewards of any small business credit card! how does this thing work? oh, i like it! [ garth ] sven's small business earns 2% cash back on every purchase, every day! woo-hoo!!! so that's ten security gators, right? put them on my spark card! why settle for less? testing hot tar... great businesses deserve the most rewards! [ male announcer ] the spark business card from capital one. choose unlimited rewards with 2% cash back or double miles on every purchase, every day! what's in your wallet? here's your invoice. so yesterday his advisors were asked about this and they tried to clear this up by telling us there's actually a difference between outsourcing and offshoring. that's what they said. you cannot make this stuff up. >> no word on the kevin youkilis statement which i'm sort of

obsessed with as you guys can tell. kurt, i go back to the question of small ball. is it too much to be talking about mitt romney's campaign tactics or is this fair game? >> i think it's as a passing comment, fair game, but again, you want -- it's a presidential election. you want the big, important, you know, crossroads issues raised and that doesn't do it. >> not the literal -- >> existential issues. >> karen made a terrific point. it's also up to a media to ask the big questions and because of the 24/7 media environment we live in, we get fixated on the insta small bore. there's a false equivalence that plays in the media where the republicans, sometimes living in a post-truth environment, not always, don't get nailed, don't get nailed as they should and then that spreads into the media

ecosphere. i do think another institution we were talking about, everyone seems to be waiting for the court, has been waiting for the court. that's not new. it happened in the roosevelt period where there was a confrontation between congress, the executive and the court. i would argue the federal reserve has become an important institution. we keep waiting for smoke signals from them. to me, the central issue of this campaign is the kind of economic future this country will have and jobs at the center of it. with a congress gridlocked or roadblocked because of i think republicans unwilling to let jobs go through -- >> oh, please, you know. i've taken two shots against the gop but it's better than living in the fantasy land that actually, we have done something over the last four years as 23 million americans are still trying to get a job and still trying to turn the economy around. the reality of it is both parties have stepped in it big-time and this election will be a big election to your point, kurt, about whether or not either of these two men who want to be president have the cajones to get it done and be honest

with the american people, look them in the eye and say as the president noted at his great speech, we're not red america or blue america, we are something bigger and better than that and we haven't seen it yet and hopefully it will come. >> that's a steele spin. >> polite spin. >> coming up, what's the best thing to do when three million jobs are on the line? go after the attorney general of the united states. luke russert joins us next. an accident doesn't have to slow you down. with better car replacement, if your car is totaled, we give you the money for a car one model year newer. liberty mutual auto insurance.

the president and first lady are scheduled to host a white house picnic tomorrow with members of congress. no word on the menu but one thing is for sure, there will be a food fight starting on thursday. in just two days, house republicans are expected to vote to hold attorney general eric holder in contempt of congress

over the fast and furious investigation. on saturday, transportation funding is scheduled to get cut along with three million construction jobs. on sunday, lower student loan rates will double unless lawmakers reach an agreement to extend them. joining us now from washington is the sage of capitol hill and my celebrity doppelganger, nbc's luke russert. what's the word? >> good afternoon, alex. good afternoon. congress is like you and college, leaving it all up to the last minute. >> wow. wow. you didn't even know me in college. but you speak the truth, sir. last time we talked to you, the big question was chicken caesar wrap or tuna fish. tell us the latest about the holder fast and furious decision. is there any chance we are going to reach a deal before thursday? >> most likely not. the reasoning is as follows. today, darrell issa sent off a very sharply worded e-mail to president obama essentially accusing president obama of either obstructing a

congressional investigation or having direct knowledge of the fast and furious cover-up. the white house has said no, the use of executive privilege by president obama doesn't necessarily always have to pertain to white house papers. it can go throughout the administration. so that battle is still very much head-on. who is directly involved in that battle, well, it's the battle of the house gop versus the white house, mr. eric holder. as of right now, the contempt vote is scheduled to happen thursday. now that's also the same day the health care decision's going to come down so there won't be as much media attention focused on the eric holder vote which is pleasing to both sides because the gop leadership, while they have gone along with this fight and thrown red meat to their base, it does distract from the message of the economy as well as it hurts mitt romney's ability to talk about the economy. so eric holder, the contempt vote most likely will occur. it looks that way now. neither side is really celebrating it but the rank and file of the house gop, they are very excited about it because they wanted blood in the holder situation for some time. >> michael steele, when we talk about the timing, certainly not

just a coincidence that the contempt vote will be held on thursday. speaker boehner's office released a memo that said we didn't ever suggest there was collusion between the white house and doj. as luke sort of intimates, is this leadership saying all right, guys, you've had your fun in the sun, let's get this over with and keep it moving? >> i think luke has it exactly right. the leadership is looking at the health care decision from the supreme court to be that pivot point to get back talking about the economy, because of all the economics around the health care decision. i think luke has it exactly right in terms of, you know, issa's play here, in terms of pushing back against the white house to save face, quite frankly, because he saw some slippage, issa did, from among republicans who were last week going well, okay, enough's enough. i think this is a very interesting moment. thursday is going to be a lot of fun. it's going to be sort of the denouement.

>> and the ramping up of another conversation. do you think there's any sort of collateral damage here in terms of his reputation? the "washington post" says this presents an immediate practical challenge. holder's appointment of two prosecutors, talking about the leaks here, one an obama campaign donor to investigate the national campaign is damaged before it begins. >> that's what i would expect him to say. look, if the facts were actually able to come out in terms of fast and furious, part of the reasons the republicans are backing off is during the bush administration, they took the opposite position. communications at the white house, communications among agencies, those can be protected. they knew they were on slippery ground there. the vote is going to happen and go away but don't forget there's a conspiracy theory underneath all this that actually, the obama administration, chairman issa said this over the weekend, said it to the rna, this is really about fomenting violence

in mexico so we can get assault weapons ban done and weaken your second amendment rights. that's crazy town thinking but i don't think it's going to go away. >> you know what crazy town thinking is? luke, talk to us about actual crazy town which is washington, d.c. this transportation bill, three million jobs on the line and yet the house and senate can't come to a deal. >> it's quite striking. this is just the apotheosis of a jobs bill and it's something that harry reid on the senate floor earlier today, there's better than a 50/50 chance of it getting done but it's hung up on a few issues. number one, the senate passed a bipartisan deal, had 74 senators two years, $109 million, it would then have the certainty and trust for the job creators to take those funds to hire people. well, the house said that wasn't good enough because they wanted a longer bill and wanted the keystone pipeline in there. now there's this big conference committee, barbara boxer said it's on the half yard line about

to go over. what's the holdup? we still don't know what exactly is going to happen with the keystone provision. however, senate democrats supposedly have watered down some environmental permitting regulations to get enough house republicans on board. the ball will really be in speaker boehner's court after it comes out there's some sort of agreement as to whether they will get it on the floor in time and pass it forward. so far, the house and speaker ba boehner have said let us try to do a six-month extension. this deadline is coming up on the 30th and if they don't get it through the parliamentary process, you very well could see a temporary extension, not the full two year one. however, what senate democrats are doing is now there's the idea of attaching the student loan interest rate issue to the transportation bill. so follow me here. when you are doing a transportation bill it's usually funded by the federal gas tax. however, there's more money in there that needs to be paid more, about $12 billion in this case. the student loan bill costs $6 billion. they need to find offsets for that. there is talk between

republicans and democrats about finding $18 billion in offsets through different things they can do, the transportation bill and student loans bill, coupling them together and getting it through congress so everyone loves it because no one wants to be against student loans, no one wants to be against construction workers. we'll see if that happens. >> that sounds like that stuff, the tortilla wrapped in the enchilada with the guacemole on the outside. one thing is for sure, you will not be watching baseball this weekend. i have a sneaking suspicion you are going to be in the halls of congress. thank you as always, luke russert. >> good to see you. after the break, the moral hazards of calculating one's worth. former bp claims administrator and compensation guru ken feinberg explains, next. people with a machine.

what ? customers didn't like it. so why do banks do it ? hello ? hello ?! if your bank doesn't let you talk to a real person 24/7, you need an ally. hello ? ally bank. no nonsense. just people sense. that's a good thing, but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, they pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and save you up to thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs. call today to request a free decision guide to help you better understand what medicare is all about.

and which aarp medicare supplement plan works best for you. with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients... plus, there are no networks, and you'll never need a referral to see a specialist. there's a range of plans to choose from, too. and they all travel with you. anywhere in the country. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it. call today. remember, medicare supplement insurance helps cover some of what medicare doesn't pay -- expenses that could really add up. these kinds of plans could save you up to thousands in out-of-pocket costs... you'll be able choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients.

and you never need referrals. so don't wait. with all the good years ahead, look for the experience and commitment to go the distance with you. call now to request your free decision guide. this easy-to-understand guide will answer some of your questions, and help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that's right for you.

a new study by the financial times shows that bank ceos saw their pay rise by nearly 12% last year. another sign that wall street is recovering much faster than main street. in 2009, compensation for some ceos actually declined after ken feinberg reduced pay levels for top executives at seven firms that received the most bailout money. three years later, he writes did the program have any lasting impact on wall street's compensation incentive structure? reducing the likelihood that executives would incur excessive risks in pursuit of huge personal gain? probably not. joining us now is ken feinberg, author of the new book "who gets what." fair compensation after tragedy and financial upheaval. ken, so great to have you. >> great to be here. >> let's talk about that bit first. are banks back to their old bad, evil ways in terms of executive pay? >> i don't think you can paint with too broad a brush. if they're back to their old ways, look to dodd-frank as a way to stop it, look to the

s.e.c., the federal reserve. what i did was really a congressional populist revenge on t.a.r.p. bailouts. if we're bailing out these seven companies and only these seven, we ought to fix their pay. so it was a very narrow mandate to begin with. >> but you talk, the book is fascinating. one of the things you talk about is almost the psychology of ceo pay. i will read an excerpt. you write compensation mirrored individual fulfillment, that without generous pay, company officials would view themselves as failures. individual success could be determined only by comparing oneself to the competition and dollars paid would be the deciding factor. by comparison, family, friendship and community respect paled in significance. when something is that deeply ingrained in a culture, you know, katrina, i would love to hear your thoughts on this, how does regulation even compete? >> that's what made it so emotional. it wasn't just about another car or another summer home or sending your kids to private

school. it was like my money, my compensation, mirrors my value, my integrity, my self-worth. >> right. >> that's what made it so emotional in dealing with each one of these executives. the money is sort of the litmus test and made it very difficult. >> mr. feinberg, in terms of incentives, you need the regulation. you've talked eloquently about the regulation, with elizabeth warren you have a candidate talking about not left versus right but right versus wrong, the need for a cop on the financial beat to work for ordinary families, people. but how does one change an incentive structure that has become so ingrained and imbedded in american capitalism so that we have a different culture of ceo, a different culture of business that does care about communities and not the next car? >> well, that's a philosophical as well as practical question. one thing we did, we made it clear with our pay determinations, you're not going to get paid for risky incentive,

you're going to get paid over a number of years and your pay is going to be tied to the success or failure of the company for whom you work, so there's no guarantees, there's no contractual assuredness. this is all about earning and earning reflected in corporate -- your corporation's growth. >> but we talk about money and sort of its incentivizing ability. the other thing is it's a balm, of course. you know this better than probably anybody else. you worked on the compensation fund for 9/11 victims, for victims of virginia tech and of course, the gulf oil spill and the role that money plays as sort of, you know, this is how we commiserate with you. this is what you get in return for your loss. but also, you were speaking earlier today about the sort of public policy implications of that being sort of the fairness of that which is to say victims

of the earlier world trade center attack in 1993 got nothing or victims of katrina didn't get what the gulf oil spill victims got. how do we wrap our heads around that? how do we account for that? >> these programs ought to be exceedingly rare and they are. they should be reserved for situations where the public acting through their official, elected representatives, where there's a sense that we want to do something from our perspective as a people to commiserate, to empathize. yes, 9/11. yes, bp. no, oklahoma city. no, katrina. that's the dilemma here. you -- bad things happen to good people every day in this country and there's not $2 million tax-free available. so you better use these programs not as precedents for anything, but as situations unique in response to unprecedented events like the 9/11 attacks. >> i just want to say about ken

feinberg, because no one else has so far, is that in addition to being philosophically coherent about these important central issues in society and in addition to having implemented time after time, most especially in the gulf coast case, effectively showing that government institutions can be effective, he in this book says that he was an idiot to come out and say this will be taken care of in a couple of weeks. and what a model for political leaders to actually both be effective and say i misspoke, i couldn't deliver what i initially promised. applaud, america. >> we would be far better off. >> you have said repeatedly you don't get thanked for doing this work and the expectation of sort of laudatory remarks or some sort of praise being heaped upon you, that's not part of this game. >> wish my mother could hear this. >> you can give her the tape.

you know, i wonder when we talk about fairness in society, we have a lot of data that shows mobility is decreasing in american society, there's a greater gap between rich and poor, you know. we talk about some victims get some things, others get nothing at all. where do you think we are headed in terms of fairness and american society? are you bullish or bearish? >> i worry, like everybody else worries, about fairness. i mean, the growing gap between those at the very top and those not only middle class but those less fortunate, not even middle class. so you have to be concerned as a citizen. this isn't about a compensation or a special compensation program. one thing i learned with my role at treasury in determining compensation is that you look at the huge gap that continues to grow between those at the top, wall street and the fortune 500 and the senior business community, and the line workers and the people who are laboring in the vineyard every day, and

it is problematic. now, what the solution is, i'm wide open to suggestions. >> that's the next project. ken feinberg, a true joy to have you on set. the book is "who gets what, fair compensation after tragedy and financial upheaval" on sale today. ken feinberg, thanks for your time. coming up, governor romney just weighed in on the supreme court's immigration ruling, kind of. we will have that for you next. yep. the longer you stay with us, the more you save. and when you switch from another company to us, we even reward you for the time you spent there. genius. yeah, genius. you guys must have your own loyalty program, right? well, we have something. show her, tom. huh? you should see november! oh, yeah?

giving you more. now that's progressive. call or click today. constipated? phillips' caplets use magnesium, an ingredient that works more naturally with your colon than stimulant laxatives, for effective relief of constipation without cramps. thanks. good morning, students. today we're gonna continue... i don't have to use gas. i am probably going to the gas station about once a month. drive around town all the time doing errands and never ever have to fill up gas in the city. i very rarely put gas in my chevy volt. last time i was at a gas station was about...i would say... two months ago. the last time i went to the gas station must have been about three months ago. i go to the gas station such a small amount

that i forget how to put gas in my car. ♪

so the supreme court had to step in because states had to step in. states looking to find a way to solve the problems he didn't address, tried to address it in their own ways and now the supreme court's looked at it. what we're left with is a bit of a muddle. what we know is the president failed to lead. he failed to do what he said

he'd do. >> that was governor romney speaking in virginia moments ago, reacting to yesterday's supreme court decision on arizona's immigration law. michael steele, i feel like it's a little bit like candidate mad libs, blah, blah, blah, blah, end with president fails to lead. is that -- >> no, it's not. it's more like the charlie brown wa, wa, wa, not the blah, blah, blah. i go back to my earlier point, that's a stump speech, obviously. i think romney's team has their own timeline, their own way of approaching these issues, and you know, i think to the point that kurt made earlier, i hate to repeat myself, i really think this thing, the early setup, the game begins labor day after these conventions and then the proof is in the pudding. the president will, as will mitt romney, have to lay out concretely how you are going to address the debt and deficit, the spending, taxes, the issues that relate to real people who are struggling in this country right now, and he who does that

will win. he who does not will lose. i think about as philosophical as i can get. >> to be the republican party that prevented a republican reform of immigration, again and again and again, and then say oh, and he failed to lead, i mean, you cannot have that kind of instant revisionism. >> they also were attacking -- >> i'm not going to argue that. >> you can't have it both ways. either he did too much or did too little. not both. >> he doubled deportations. >> we will see if -- >> the only thing he is clear about is corporations are people. >> katrina vanden heuvel gets the last word. we did not talk about michael steele's mustache. maybe we can show the split screen as i thank everybody. i don't know. i don't know which i like better. okay. thanks again to kurt, karen, chairman steele, mustacheless or no, and katrina.

that is all for now. see you back here tomorrow at noon eastern, 9:00 a.m. pacific. "andrea mitchell reports" is next. good afternoon to you, andrea. i think we like michael steele with and without, either way. >> andrea. you're my girl. >> coming up here, there is a passionate debate over one of the fastest trending stories online. the atlantic magazine's cover story, why women still can't have it all is the title. former state department top official anne marie slaughter joining me to explain why she went back to princeton and how she came to this epiphany, next. don't go over 2000... 1200 calories a day. carbs are bad. carbs are good. the story keeps changing. so i'm not listening... to anyone but myself. i know better nutrition when i see it: great grains. great grains cereal starts whole and stays whole. see the seam? more processed flakes look nothing like natural grains. you can't argue with nutrition you can see. great grains. search great grains and see for yourself. for multi grain flakes that are an excellent source of fiber

try great grains banana nut crunch and cranberry almond crunch.

of single mile credit cards. battle speech right? may i? [ horse neighs ] for too long, people have settled for single miles. with the capital one venture card, you'll earn double miles on every purchase, every day! [ visigoths cheer ] hawaii, here we come. [ alec ] so sign up today for a venture card at capitalone.com. and start earning double. [ all ] double miles! [ brays ] what's in your wallet? can you play games on that? not on the runway. no.