after hitting a healthcare milestone, president obama turns his game face to the fight over the minimum wage. it's wednesday, april 2nd. this is now. >> the president is already shifting the focus to the economy today. >> pushing another important domestic issue for democrats. >> time for 10.10. >> wants double his workers wages saying it would be good for business. >> the minimum wage has not kept pace one, with inflation. nor has it kept pace with worker productivity. >> the president might have an extra spring in his step. >> by the way 7.1 million americans have now sign you had up for coverage. >> what republican don't understand is if you raise the

minimum wage you have more money to spend. >> this only gets people out of poverty. >> they're saying you should be paid a poverty wanl. >> either you succeed in the min wage or you succeed in making republicans look bad. >> nobody at this time should be raising their family in poverty. >> i'm luke broussard in for the great alex wagner. president obama is now on the road, departingmi ining any min an evening in his hometown. first a speech about minimum wage. the president invoked one of the titans of industry. >> it was here in michigan a hundred years ago that henry ford announced he was doubling worker's wages. he understood it was going to be

good for business. not only boost productive and increase turnover and make workers more loyal to the company. but it meant that the workers could afford to buy the cars they were building. >> and not just henry ford. in michigan the president has a state that is already higher that be the federal minimum. michigan also has a statewide campaign to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour. same thing he proposed today. while he says this should be a quote no brainer, the wage hike could come down to the states due to the republican opposit n opposition. >> we're trying our utmost to cooperate with republicans. they are doing their best to divert and delay everything we do. this gets people out of poverty

is all it does. >> they degrisagree with. that. they say it would kill jobs. saying it would be doa in the gop controlled house. mike, now i want to start out with you. the reality is the president is pushing this issue the minimum wage. something where democrats don't necessarily have to talk about the healthcare law. but by pushing in michigan, he's connecting it with the statewide ballot to get the min raise up. is this a smart strategy to tie the minimum wage to local fights like you have in michigan where you have a senate race coming up in november. >> absolutely.

and clearly he's trying to help not just national democrats but also help democrats in certain environments of the state legislatures to push through some of these agendas at the local level. because republicans always make the arguments, the fallback if nothing else, that let the states decide. this is a 10eth amendment issue if you will. put it before the states and let them ultimately decide. so the president is saying all right, let's go there. and let's bring this national discussion to the local level. it creates a lot of energy on the ground that often leads to turnout of your vote. and elevates the argument from the bottom up as opposed to just coming from the white house or the reed on the senate side. >> i want to get your point of view of what this means for the economy. when you have a minimum wage going up to $10.10. it does have a good effect. we talk a lot about

manufacturing, but it is to a degree service-based and consumer-based. >> right. i mean, 70% of our g. double play -- gdp is consumer spending. in europe it's 55%. so we do engage in considerable spending which drives the economy forward. and we know minimum wage workers have faced a tough wage front for a long time. the minimum wage is a very direct way to help them in that regard. and sure, some of it feeds back into the economy in terms of higher spending. and by the way, some of it also off sets this inequality problem that the president has elevated. so in many ways the a very big plus. at to that the politics i thought michael well articulated and you have a pretty important

policy for the president right now. >> i want to raise something about the president's push on minimum wage. >> in fact it seems that the president wants to hide these problems behind a minimum wage debate. because the proposed rate increase barely covers these losses from the obamacare 30 hour rule. the answer to these lost wages isn't more lost jobs. >> can republicans really attach the minimum wage increase to the healthcare law like that? will that work moving forward. >> i think it's a continuous connection. i don't think a lot of americans will get that connection. americans are looking at obamacare by itself. how it affects me. my healthcare is not tied to how much i'm making per hour. it's not tied to how much i'm making every other week except for the fact that i pay for that through my employer exchange os are whatever the employer has taken out each week in

healthcare benefits. so the reality for a lot of the republicans is how do you make this connection between the minimum wage and a healthcare bill? i think it's going to be a harder connection to make. because people see them as separate issues. >> to jump in on that, sure. i live in this world. i think about healthcare and minimum wages and economy and their interaction. i could not understand what erik kanter was just saying. and if i can't follow him i'm not sure others not as deeply steeped in these things would be anyone to. i think what he was doing right there was a bit of a trial balloon saying, hmm, the minimum wage helps democrats. discussions of the obamacare maybe will hurt them. let me try to put them together in some kind of coherent way. it wasn't that coherent to my ears anyway. >> a 2.7 average increase in employment. compared to -- those who kept

their policy unchanged. so we see this debate really up in the last few months. even if congress does not touch the 10.10, which they will not. and you see moves towards that. have the seeds been planted for the minimum wage to be a large issue heading into 2016. is this something democrats will play up for a while and try to spark substantive change? >> i have to believe that is the case. and polls are very strong. and not just among democrats, by the way. above 50%. and i thought michael made a very good point lately. the president has said -- i'm sort of riffing off a point, michael made. the president has said there are things i can't get through congress. so then talks about executive orders and rule changes. that tends to be small bore. but when you get to states raising minimum wages you're helping a lot of low wage

workers. i think it makes sense in politics and economics and that intersection isn't always available. >> michael, in terms of the base. you're hearing well this could put us out off business because it is going to drive up the wages and suppress profit asks we won't be able to continue to employ folks. but if you go to a lot of people, that sounds oh that is not a bad idea. it is fairly low. it does necessarily cover the cost of things that i need. do you see a time where republicans seem mo move a little bit maybe not 10.10 but let's meet somewhere in the middle. >> i think it does have potential for steam down the road. but i think it has potential now. and this is an issue i don't think republicans should run away. i grew up in a minimum wage household, so i know first happened how you live within those con fiemts. but the reality is how we should

talk about how to break open the opportunity to use minimum wage towards greater employment or greater opportunity. not to talk about it in the case of the fear that a might have to cut back or. i don't think in the large scale that happens. i think employers are looking at ways of okay, we adapt. as all good employers do. and they can help talk about inflation and all the steps. so we county have do this dance. this is not an issue i think republicans can run away from and talk with language people just don't understand. >> one thng i find interesting. in light of michigan raising its minimum wage. it seems like going forward outside washington where the only place substitute change can

happen. what happens where you have a minimum wage of some states with 10.10 and others that are considerably lower. >> at that point it largely becomes a southern issue. it's hard to imagine some of our most southerly states taking these initiatives on themselves relative to themies and the connecticut and the illinois etc. it seems to me the federal minimum wage may hold as the southern minimum wage. >> let's chekeep in mind also t the minimum wage to jarrett's point is also a training wage. a lot of this has to be skill based. this is a wage that we are going to pay those who have less skill in a particular area of work. so the idea that the employer can be somehow incentivized to

create a larger base for folks to come in and get the skill and training, that minimum wage goes away because then they move into the professional rates and you see it for what it really is, as a training wage. not a literal wage for people to say on for the rest of hair lives. >> thank you so much for being on the show. just ahead a major new decision from the supreme court that could provide another blow to campaign finance reform. nbc's pete williams with the details on another 5 to 4 ruling. and joining me for what it means to look at the future's money and politics. joining first is ted cruz payday. a new book deal and could cause a little jealousy among partners. he's getting paid handsomely. that's next on now. (dad) well, we've been thinking about it and we're just not sure.

(agent) i understand. (dad) we've never sold a house before. (agent) i'll walk you guys through every step. (dad) so if we sell, do you think we can swing it? (agent) i have the numbers right here and based on the comps that i've found, the timing is perfect. ...there's a lot of buyers for a house like yours. (dad) that's good to know. (mom) i'm so excited. bob will retire when he's 153, which would be fine if bob were a vampire. but he's not. ♪ he's an architect with two kids and a mortgage. luckily, he found someone who gave him a fresh perspective on his portfolio.

and with some planning and effort, hopefully bob can retire at a more appropriate age. it's not rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade. [annpurina pro plan can can help him achieve it. ♪epic classical music stops ♪music resumes purina pro plan's bioavailable formulas deliver optimal nutrient absorption. purina pro plan. nutrition that performs.

ted cruz no longer stands in the shadow of the mama grizzly, sarah palin. cruz has received a $1.5 million advance for his upcoming memoir eclipsing the 1.25 million sarah palin received for his epic grow rogue. addressing students at virginia university, the world largest christian union. today cruz warned of assault by the obama administration. >> the religious liberty, the

very first liberty in the bill of rights, the very first protection we have has never been more imperilled than it is right now. >> while cruz may have received a warm welcome at liberty university, he ran into a less receptive audience on his facebook page after asking to weigh in on obamacare. they were saying quote, not only am i better off, but my friend are better off. yes i have ms. i wouldn't be able to get any insurance due to my preexisting condition. yes, thank you, president obama. >> a world to the wise. if ted cruz wants to sell books to more than just a conservative audience he may want to stay away from the topic of the healthcare on his facebook page. >> a earth quake rocks chile.

the death toll and the damage and previous warnes next on now ...all day relief. hmm. [bell ring] "roll sound!" "action!" warnes

you want a loan to build a factory in america? you can't do that. nobody builds factories in the us anymore... you can't do that. using american raw materials makes no sense... you can't do that. you want to hire workers here in the states? they're too expensive, you can't do that. fortunately we didn't listen to the experts. at weathertech we built american factories, we use american raw materials and we hire american workers. weathertech.com, proudly made in america. quality like this...you can't do that.

but with so much health care noise, i didn't always watch out for myself. with unitedhealthcare, i get personalized information and rewards for addressing my health risks. but she's still gonna give me a heart attack. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare.

big campaign finance news out of the supreme court today. this morning in a 5 to 4 decision, the court struck down a 38-year-old ban on the total amount of money an individual is allowed to spend on political candidates and parties. from 1976 to today if you were an individual donor there were three overall limits to how much you could donate over a two year period. no more than 38, $600 to political candidates, capping about 123,000 dollars. today the supreme court justice ruled those so called aggregate limits were unconstitutional and a violation to the first amendment. the court did leave in place the 2600 dollar base limit.

now you can donate to as many candidates as desired. between candidates, pacts and political parties you can hypothetically contribute as much as 3 and a half million dollars in a single cycle. taken together with -- the white house said it was disappointed by the decision. but not everyone felt that way. republicans seemed to rejoice. >> that is victory today for people who want to see political parties and candidates on the same playing field are a little bit closer as to the same playing field as the first amendment was intended to allow us to be. >> well i think this means is that freedom of speech is being upheld. i'm all for freedom. congratulations. >> joining me now from outside the supreme court is nbc news justice correspondent pete

williams. pete, thank you so much for being on the show today. >> you bet. >> i want to start you, what kind of legal precedent does this decision set for future of campaign finance reform and finance politics? >> well it's based on the supreme court's 40-plus-year-old holding. that spending and contributions in political campaigns is the equivalent of speech. now what the supreme court said is, under this limit that was struck down today, you could give the maximum to nine candidates for congress, but not ten or eleven. what is the constitutional justification for that? the court's majority asked. and they said that congress can no more tell an individual donor how many candidates he or she can donate to than it could tell an individual neuron editor how many candidates he can endorse in the paper. so there is a free speech restriction. and court said the only justification for this limit would be to curb quid pro quo

production. i give you money, you give me a favor. if it stands this way, you don't have a problem. so the problem that you are drowning out the sources. all the big money is going to come in and swamp the system. i would have hoped that the court took a step further and simply striked down contributions altogether. only one supreme court justice seemed to go that way. but every time looked at the this issue of the campaign spending, it has found it wanting. what's next, i don't know. it certainly won't be -- i don't think this court is prepared to strike down the individual contribution limit. some limits will stand stand. there is still a limit on how much you can give to an individual candidate or party or pact. >> elaborate on that point.

every single time some aspect of the campaign has been struck down by the robert's court. why is that right now. >> this conservative court is very pro first amendment. that is the basis. others who criticize the decision will say it's political. whether it is the progeny of citizen united, it is a entirely different question. citizens united as you know removed the consideration of how much corporations and labor unions can spend of their own money to support candidates. this is much you can give to candidates directly. that is what was involved here. so while both of them as justice buyer said open the flood gates to money and politics. they are too entirely separate things and two entirely separate sources of money to two entirely separate recipients. >> thank you for joining us.

joining us now michael waldman. thank you so much for being on the show. from your initial read ofrg this decision, who defendants the most in one says big donors, state parties. seems a lot of those political entities got a big, big boost today. >> this seems very clearly going to be a decision that will benefit above all else big donors and the elected officials who want to hit up those big donors for contributions. and unfortunately the corrupting nexus between big money and governmental decision making is going to get more and more significant. wheth what we see here that is new is the supreme court said for the first time with stark calculala that the only possible rational for a -- is if it's like a bribe.

if you have an american hustle type situation where people are on video in costume holding over a suitcase full of money, you can still restrict that. but laws previously upheld by the supreme court said look, if you have ways where an elected official can say hey would you give money to these ten friends of mine, don't be surprised they may give it back to me. that was called sur couple vengean -- circumstance circumvention. it was a way that had a impact of a different kind. >> interestingly enough. senator john mccain said there is no way there not be a scandal now with so much money pointing around. what is to stop those other candidates from eventually flowing it back to the primary

person. from your reading how much time is there before some sort o major scandal. there is going to be some day of reckoning. there is just too much money in the pot. >> well i think we're in the middle of a major scandal right now. we just don't know what it is. >> right. >> these laws were passed after water gate. they were passed because of the massive campaign finance scandals. and certainly people want things out of government. members of congress have no choice now but to go and ask for millions of dollars from people who want something. and we've already seen in citizens united this flood of huge spending and contributions outside the parties and outside the elected officials themselves. now you are going to see the worst of both worlds i think. because you will still have sheldon adelson and people like that giving this outside money. but now the elected official gs will be able to tap these donors

for millions of dollars. >> formalizes the process to a degree. >> it formalizes it. but it sure isn't, in my mind, the robust free speech we all want that the founders envisioned. >> on that point, something i found quite interesting in reading this and put on my constitutional law hat. he says quote, money in politics may seem repugnant to some but so does much of what the first amendment vigorously protects. if it protects flag purn burning fuel ran pro tests and a nazi parades. it surely -- i read that as robert's knowing the public is going to say what, seriously? we're going to allow this amount of money in politics. if he equates it under our system you can burn a flag and have a nazi rally, it's apples to apples. >> and he was one of the most effective advocates before the

supreme court before he was on the supreme court. >> empire. >> and that is a little piece of the advocacy there. the fact is there are so many ways and we want to protect people's way to talk to their government, to support candidates. the problem is saying that huge campaign contributions to elected officials is like standing on a soap box and saying your peace. we would recognize it something that could lead directly to corruption. and could also drown out the ability of the ordinary citizens to be heard who also, i would argue have a right to speak. it's absolutely true that the last few years the robert's court has been very aggressive in striking down previous campaign law, much more so than the previous course. the previous actually upheld these. and there is not a whole lot left of the campaign finance laws. between citizens united and this a lot of other rulings that have

been made. >> on that point if you study the constitution and you look at what the conservative argument has usually been regarding it, is that it's a dead document. it's what the founding fathers intended was written out there clearly. we should uphold ourself to that standard. but when you think about the finding fathers and the fact they didn't like political parties and did not like all the power being concentrated in the hands of a few. essentially that is what the revolution was about. how does the constitution evolve, in a sense, to where we are at this point? >> you are exactly light. justice scalia says the constitution is not a living document. it is as he say, dead dead dead. and he always gets a a big laugh. but the framers were quite clear. they didn't know about pacts and superpacts and didn't have corporations. but they were very worried about corruption and worried about what was called factions that might come to dominate the government.

if you look at the federalist papers. very worried about small groups of people having undue and proper influence on the legislative branch. and they talked about it a lot and endlessly. and if there is anything we can imagine they would care about it's the idea that the government has to have integrity and the public has too trust the government has integrity and they are going to hear the voices of the people. that's why they had frequent elections and things like that. so many things have changed. not everybody could vote and so on. >> sure. >> but they cared a lot about this stuff. >> and it's fascinating how it's voefd. quote. by construction did not mean quid pro quo alone. much more common usage was corruption as in improper dependence. impropriety had nothing do with any quid pro quo but everything to do with the wrong incentives

allowed into the system because of that improper dependence. >> right. and when you look at the early debates, james madison who of course was behind the first amendment and the bill of rights. they were very worried about the bank of the united states, which was the sort of first big private company. because it would maybe bribe or influence legislators. some of the same issues where there in different forms. i'm often skeptical of trying to read the minds of the framers what they would do now because it's such a different time. >> when it comes to that. >> when it comes to that, they wanted robust political speech and people to be able to talk back to their government and the idea something any of the rest of it would regard as a near bribe cannot possibly bewhat they had in mind. >> thank you so much. we appreciate it. coming up a great american company faces questions about it gs off shore hold gs.

alex mcgillis. just ahead. you don't want to miss that on now. hey kevin...still eating chalk for hearburn? yea. try alka seltzer fruit chews.

they work fast on heart burn and taste awesome. these are good. told ya! i'm feeling better already. alka-seltzer fruit chews. enjoy the relief! i'm taking off, but, uh, don't worry. i'm gonna leave the tv on for you. and if anything happens, don't forget about the new xfinity my account app. you can troubleshoot technical issues here. if you make an appointment, you can check out the status here. you can pay the bill, too. but don't worry about that right now. okay. how do i look?

♪ thanks. [ male announcer ] troubleshoot, manage appointments, and bill pay from your phone. introducing the xfinity my account app. some brokerage firms are anbut way too many aren't.ne. why? because selling their funds makes them more money. which makes you wonder. isn't that a conflict? search "proprietary mutual funds". yikes!! then go to e*trade. we've got over 8,000 mutual funds and not one of them has our name on it. we're in the business of finding the right investments for you. e*trade. less for us, more for you.

the fund's prospectus contains its investment objectives, risks, charges, expenses and other important information and should be read and considered carefully before investing. for a current prospectus visit www.etrade.com/mutualfunds. today chile's president declared disaster zones in northern part of the country following last night's 8.2 magnitude earth quake. struck just off the coast and the capital of the santiago. aftershocks registered over magnitude 5.0. people returned to their homes early this morning after authorities called off tsunami warnings. just four years ago a similar earth quake killed more than 500 people in chile.

the state also recorded the last largest recorded earthquake at 9.5 in history. and the latest on today's congressional hearings and gm's new hire next on now. create a three course italian dinner with olive garden's new cucina mia for just $9.99.

first, choose unlimited soup or salad. then create your own pasta with one of five homemade sauces. and finish with dessert. three courses, $9.99. at olive garden. humans. we are beautifully imperfect creatures living in an imperfect world. that's why liberty mutual insurance has your back, offering exclusive products like optional better car replacement, where if your car is totaled, we give you the money to buy one a model year newer. call... and ask an insurance expert about all our benefits today, like our 24/7 support and service, because at liberty mutual insurance, we believe our customers do their best out there in the world, so we do everything we can to be there for them when they need us. plus, you could save hundreds when you switch, up to $423.

call... today. liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy? (agent) i understand. (dad) we've never sold a house before. (agent) i'll walk you guys through every step. (dad) so if we sell, do you think we can swing it? (agent) i have the numbers right here and based on the comps that i've found, the timing is perfect. ...there's a lot of buyers for a house like yours. (dad) that's good to know. (mom) i'm so excited.

anybody have occasional constipation, diarrhea, gas, bloating? one phillips' colon health probiotic cap each day helps defend against these digestive issues with three types of good bacteria. i should probably take this. live the regular life. phillips'. do you give her credit for holding that meeting and do you find her to be sincere? >> no. no on both answer irs. again, it was scripted. there was no dry eye in the room, except mary barra. >> congress held second hearings tonight on the gm safety recall. over 6 million cars have now

been recalled due to a fault switch to prevent air bags from inflating. it's been liked to at least 13 crashes and and deaths. facing barrage gm ceo mary barr ra passed had buck for the second day in the row. >> you knew nothing about this when you were executive director of the manufacturing and engineering. >> correct. >> you knew nothing. how about when you were vice president of the manufacturing and engineering in '08 to '09. >> correct. >> you still new nothing when director of human resource. >> correct. >> you are really an important person to this company. something is very strange that such a top employee would know nothing about this. i'm really disappointed, really, woman to woman. because the culture that you are

representing here today is the culture of the status quo. >> we now know that the difference between this switch and one that would have worked is the difference between life and death. and do you know the other different? the other thing this we now know, that it would only cost $2 to repair. >> $2 was seemly hoo high a cost for general motors moving forward, they hired kennett fine berg to advice the company. after the break the pentagon nearly doubles its budget in the search for maldsia air lines flight 370 while officials warn we may never learn the why behind the history. details first but domonic choew.

i see your autism pin there. >> great to see all of us supporting such cause. here is how stocks go into tomorrow. dow closed at a high. and the nasdaq composite gained eight points on the day. big news on the technology front. amazon is launching a new service called fire tv. the company is saying fire tv will predict movies and tv shows that users will want to watch and queue them for quick payout. the set top box will be priced at $95 per unit. [ male announcer ] what if a small company

became big business overnight? ♪ like, really big... then expanded? ♪ or their new product tanked? ♪ or not? what if they embrace new technology instead? ♪ imagine a company's future with the future of trading. company profile. a research tool on thinkorswim. from td ameritrade.

to prove to you that aleve is the better choice for him, he's agreed to give it up. that's today? [ male announcer ] we'll be with him all day as he goes back to taking tylenol. i was okay, but after lunch my knee started to hurt again. and now i've got to take more pills. ♪ yup. another pill stop. can i get my aleve back yet? ♪ for my pain, i want my aleve. ♪ [ male announcer ] look for the easy-open red arthritis cap.

your chance to watch full seasons of tv's hottest shows for free with xfinity on demand. there's romance, face slaps, whatever that is, pirates, helicopters, pirate-copters... argh! hmm. it's so huge, it's being broadcast on mars. heroes...bad guys... asteroids. available only on mars. there's watching. then there's watchathoning. ♪

malaysia police have ruled out the involvement of any passengers in the disappearance of missing malaysia airlines flight 370. >> as we have said earlier, only the passengers has been cleared. the rest, no. >> in fact investigators now believe the plane was deliberately diverted from its planned route. though they have not ruled out mechanical problems as causing the disappearance. the search area occupies some 85,000 square miles. nearly a thousand miles off the coast of australia. earlier today malaysian officials met with passengers. it was closed to the press. up next. iconic company and the heavy

equipment manufacture does little to high that fact. some of the billion dollars the company is making is being held in swiss bank accounts and it's all totally legal. alex mcgills joins me next to talk about this fascinating story next on now. 

way back in early 2009 with

the economy in free fall and president obama hitting the road to sell the stimulus, he chose as one of his first venues, the american icon caterpillar, that company located where else but in peoria illinois. where he wanted to lay out a plan of action and praise the virtues of one of the america's greatest corporations. >> what's happening this the company is also -- you can measure america's bottom line by looking at the caterpillar's bottom line. >> the reputation of that most american of companies took a massive hit this week, with the release of a report saying they failed reporting over 2 billion in taxes by shifting parts to a parts company in switzerland.

>> caterpillar is an american success story that produces iconic industrial machines buts the also a member of the corporate profit-shifting club that's transferred billions of the dollars off shore to avoid taxes. >> also includes apple, hp and microsoft. in their response caterpillar officials testifying before the committee testified everything the company does is within the letter of the law. >> caterpillar complies with the u.s. tax laws and we pay everything we owe. >> that defense found allies on the committee amongst some of the republicans including kentucky senator rand paul who said caterpillar should be praised, not shamed. >> thank you, i'd like to take my time to apologize to caterpillar for this proceeding. i think rather than having an inquisition we should probably

bring them here and give them a award. they not only pl employ so many but pay 600 million in taxes every year. >> but that wasn't enough. >> of course it pays taxes. that wasn't the question. the question was whether or not it properly avoided paying 300 million dollars a year in taxes. which is a result of the strategy. this is the question. >> joining us now the alics mcgillis who wrote about this. thank you so much for being on the show. >> thanks for having me. >> whose at fault here? is caterpillar or the u.s. for allowing this to be legal? >> i would say both. >> but especially caterpillar. no question our tax code is broken and that's why there's been a lot of talk about tax reform to make this kind of situation less likely. so companies say, look, we can't

help pull these kind of stunts because the tax code is basically asking for it. it's so complicated. our corporate tax rate, our top rate is too high. so we're almost forced to go to switzerland and pull these kind of stunts, these kind of schemes. at the same time yes while a lot of companies do this sort of thing, there is a question of scale. and i think what you have seen with apple and now with caterpillar is companies that went to extreme lengths to really get around the system and save just a ton of money. $2.4 billion over ten years is a really serious chunk of change. one thing that came out in the senate report this week was this scheme was so extreme that people both within caterpillar and with pricewaterhouse coopers, the company that paid so much to come whereupon this scheme felt a little

uncomfortable with this. facilitate felt it was going too far. >> hp, microsoft and apple. a research that showed 30 billion to 90 billion loss of revenue from this type of operation under this tax code. >> exactly. and it's one reason. let's step back and think about this. one reason we've got annual deficits that we worry about all the time and that we can't invest to pay for other things that we'd like to invest in this country. r and d. you name it. we're losing a lot of revenue in these schemes. when president obama said in that quote you just played that you can measure america's bottom line by caterpillar's bottom line. he was more on target a than he realized. caterpill caterpillar's bottom line went

up by 2 billion in the last years by this scheme. and america went down by that much. so you can measure by that. >> walt street's, canceling all fundraisers for the party until -- that's about chairman of the ways and means committee daift camp a republican that put forward a bill that upset people because it dealt with this by closing loopholes. this is a very difficult thing to move in any capacity even if you are a republican. >> exactly. and what ice ironic here or sad, depending on how you look ate t is the corporations always say look you are asking us to do these kind of schemes because the code is so messy and the corporate rate is so high. and then along comes somebody like david camp who tries to fix the problem. it wasn't perfect, but he tries to fix the problem. and does he have a huge rallying

cry of support from these corporations? no. you have the lobby yis ists rea slice it up. >> we appreciate it. great report. keep them coming. >> thank you. >> that's all for now. alex returns tomorrow at 4:p.m. and remember to catch her when she fills in for chris hayes tonight. the ed show is up next. i'm luke broussard. thanks so much for watching. let's get to work. good evening americans and welcome to the ed show live from new york. let's get to work. >> he doesn't get what people are complaining about. >> i got to admit. i don't get it.

>> when republicans push back against a program he is outraged. >> what do you say to something like that in. >> i think at this point it is abundantly clear this isn't working. >> but the worst imaginable thing has happened, millions of americans are going to get healthcare. >> is this going to make them say oh boy i want to go vote democrat in the fall? i don't think so mega nl. >> a thing where we're well meaning but incompetent. >> and repeal obamacare. there is little chance your bill is going to become law. >> we're not going to give up on destroying the healthcare system for the american people. >> well meaning but incompetent. >> when are you going to run for president? >> say that again? >> good to have you with us tonight folks. thanks for watching. i'm still giddy. i have to admit it. have you noticed that we always like to put a label on people when they group together and they have a