right now. seriously. i just think there's a story out there with apple not letting samsung have people connect their phones. just trust me. >> i have no idea what you're talking about. >> they don't want to let go of their business, so you can't -- >> if it's way too early, thomas, what time is it? >> "morning joe." >> what time is it now? >> time for "the daily rundown" with nicolle's tv husband, chuck todd. tragedy at ft. hood. again. another shooting shakes a military community and the country. we'll have the latest from the scene on the shooter, the victims, and the questions about how it could happen again. also this morning, a big supreme court campaign cash decision, and as republicans are jumping for joy, democrats calling foul. find out what it really means from the top obama and romney campaign lawyers. and part one of our tdr

interview with louisiana governor bobby jindal, one of the fewer republicans that has decided to put out his own health care plan. are republicans still calling for repeal? listen to jindal. good morning from washington. it's april 3rd, 2014. this is "the daily rundown," i'm chuck todd. let's get to what's going on down in texas. we're learning more about the man that u.s. military officials have i.d.'d and said to have opened fire last night. this is the same army base in southeast texas where another soldier went on a shooting spree back in 2009. this time, the u.s. military says army specialist ivan lopez started firing a .45-caliber smith & wesson automatic handgun inside a medical support building yesterday evening. the base, of course, was immediately put on lockdown, but the military says lopez walked into another building and started shooting again, exchanging shots with a military police officer before finally turning his gun on himself. this morning, we're hearing some

of the radio traffic during the confusion. here's a little taste of it. the gunman killed three people before taking his own life. he wounded 16 more. three of those 16 are in critical condition. the rest are being reported as stable. the army's been extremely forthcoming about the man they say was the shooter, pretty quickly, actually. military sources say army specialist ivan lopez was 34 with a family. they had just moved to the area in february. lopez served four months in iraq in 2011 at the time of the withdrawal. but the army says he was never wounded.

>> he was not diagnosed as of today with ptsd. he was undergoing a diagnosis process to determine if he had ptsd. that is a lengthy process to be confirmed with ptsd. there are reports that he self-reported a traumatic brain injury previously coming back from the iraq war. he was not a wounded warrior. he was not wounded in action to our records. no purple heart, not wounded. he was on medications, that's correct. he was undergoing behavioral health and psychiatric treatment for depression and anxiety and a variety of other psychological and psychiatric issues. >> last night's shooting scene is relatively close to the spot where nadal hassan gunned down 13 people and wounded 30 others back in 2009. a senate report called that shooting the worst act of terrorism on american soil since the september 11th attacks. this time, investigators say terrorism is not suspected at

all. ft. hood was taken off of lockdown late last night, and the wounded are recovering at a hospital in nearby temple, texas. the president had this to say to the ft. hood families last night while traveling in chicago. >> obviously, our thoughts and prayers were -- are with the entire community, and we are going to do everything we can to make sure that the community at ft. hood has what it needs to deal with the current situation, and any potential aftermath. >> governor rick perry released a statement saying, the state's first priority is caring for the victims and their families. he also said that ft. hood has proven its resilience before and will do so again. nbc's charles had it lock has the latest from ft. hood. we'll have that in a moment. we want to start with our pentagon correspondent jim miklaszewski. and, mik, in many ways, you tell me, pretty remarkable how quickly the army gave out so much information about this soldier so quickly.

>> reporter: well, quite frankly, the army did not, as surprisingly, officially give out the information. it was more federal authorities who were providing the information, and then some defense officials were confirming it later. the army -- the military is under the system that they have to wait to reveal anything publicly, officially for 24 hours after notification of next of kin. as a matter of fact, if you walk into the army today and ask anything about this suspect, they look at you and say, "who?" >> interesting. now, last night, obviously, we did get a lot of information. what more are you hearing about his personal mental state, and this issue with ptsd? >> reporter: well, chuck, this is the big question of the day -- did ivan lopez, specialist ivan lopez, somehow slip through the cracks? now, as you heard brigadier general -- i mean, lieutenant general millie say a few minutes

ago, he was -- there was a diagnosis under way to determine if he suffered post-traumatic stress disorder. he was being treated for anxiety and some behavioral matters. he was on meds. but post-traumatic stress is associated primarily with combat-related incidents. >> right. >> reporter: and trauma. and in this case, this lopez was deployed to iraq for four months in 2011. and i talked this morning with some officials who were in iraq at the time. it was the time of the withdrawal. there was very little combat. and we were told that lopez's service record does not include a purple heart, does not include any combat ribbons or any indication whatsoever that he saw combat while in iraq as a truck driver, chuck. >> all right. jim miklaszewski at the pentagon. mik, thank you very much. we want to go to texas now. my colleague charles hadlock is there.

charles, we're learning a little bit about when he purchased his gun. it wasn't very long ago that he purchased the gun that he used. >> reporter: no, according to the commanding general here at ft. hood, the man that bought the gun at a local gunstore just a few weeks ago. now, it's not illegal for a soldier to have a gun on post, but he must register it with the army. and that's something that this man did not do. this gun was not registered. it was a .45 semiautomatic pistol he used to go on his rampage through two buildings at ft. hood. finally, he confronted -- was confronted by a uniformed military police officer who told him to put up his hands. he did. but then lowered his hand, reached into his jacket, pulled out the gun, and shot himself, ending the rampage here. this is just a few hundred yards, as you mentioned, from where major nadal hassan

committed about 13 murders and wounded 32 others during that rampage just four and a half years ago here at ft. hood. >> charles, during the sort of the breaking coverage last ni t night, there had been some reports of what might have triggered this, that it was an argument. do we know anything more about what triggered the rampage? >> reporter: we don't. the army here has not said anything about what happened leading up to the shooting. but we do know that the soldier lived near the base at an apartment complex. nbc news went there last night, talked to some of the neighbors, one of whom was with the man's wife when she heard the news on television, naming this man, mr. lopez. and that's when she just went hysterical. the neighbors say that they can't believe that this man, who they only knew for just a few weeks -- he'd only lived there a short time -- they can't believe he's involved in something like this. he was always -- seemed to be in a good mood, smiling and waving, as he came and went from the apartmentment.

>> all right, charles hadlock, thank you very much. i'm joined by the two congressmen whose districts cover ft. hood and the surrounding communities, republicans roger williams and john carter. gentlemen, good morning to you. >> good morning. >> congressman williams, i'll just start with you, and congressman carter, the same thing, the ft. hood community had to go through this five years ago. you look at this. i assume you're just shaking your head, "not again, how could this have happened?" >> well, that's true. it's just fresh out of our mind what happened five years ago. but ft. hood is very strong. they'll get through this. and that's why we call it the great place in texas, through general milly's leadership, i think things are beginning to get back to normal as they can. >> congressman carter, are you concerned -- here, i have to ask this question, it's another shooting, another mental health situation regarding the shooter, a person just purchased this gun. is this a case where you're wondering should the military have shared some of this information with the system that

would have provided the background check that might have prevented the sell of that gun? >> well, first of all, we don't really know what the facts are. you're making some presumptions that we don't know. in texas and i personally support the right to keep and bear arms, and we have a right to carry permit, and those who are licensed have the right to carry a concealed weapon. and i support that completely. the army gets to make their own rules. the army gets to make -- it's their family, that post is where their family resides. and they get to make their own rules about what goes on on the post as far as the weapons are concerned. mental health issues have been in turmoil since the '70s because of some court cases. >> right. >> and we ultimately have got to look at mental health issues across the board, not just the military. in fact, i would argue the military does a better job than most. >> well, i was going to say, congressman, this is, again, and you wonder, will it spark the larger conversation, how many more -- how much more evidence

do we have to have of somebody -- somebody with a mental health problem gets their hands on a weapon, they're mentally ill, they're going to do harm. how do we cut back on this? >> well, i think as congressman carter said, we have to address the mental health issues, but also, i think we have to begin the dialogue on at least talking about whether these soldiers should be armed on the base or not. i mean, there's a side that says if they'd have been able to have their guns at the time, this tragedy might not have happened. >> there's another argument that could say, though, that it would have increased the amount of gunfire back and forth. >> well, i mean, probably that's true. but, also, it would not have been one-sided. and that's the debate we need to have, and that's always the debate you have when you talk about something like this. but if you're going to be in a fight, i think you want it to be -- you want it to be an even fight. >> congressman carter, do you feel as if -- are you looking back now on some of the security changes that ft. hood made five

years ago and wondering did they make enough of them? did they make the right ones? is that something you want to look at? >> well, i was -- you know, i was involved -- in fact, it was almost exactly the same scenario yesterday as it was when this happened in '09. i got a call from my guy on ft. hood, and he told me he was there, and told me what was happening. again, that happened yesterday. so it was almost deja vu. but the reality is that you're talking about a gigantic, massive post, and that post's security is as good as anywhere in the country, but securing that post is the job of the military and one of the things that's important to the mental health of all of our soldiers is the free access of their -- of the public -- >> of course. >> it's part of the freedom of being an american soldier, and they don't want to be to treat the public as if they're

outlawed from our post. we want them to be there. >> right. totally understandable. congressmans carter and william, my condolences to your community down there. i know it's a very tight-knit community, and in ft. hood, very, very important down there. thank you both for coming up. >> thank you. >> thank you. well, the supreme court decision that's rewriting the rules for funding campaigns. making the rich and powerful even potentially more powerful. we'll get reaction from the top 2012 campaign lawyers from both sides of the aisle, bauer and ginsburg. they're next. we're expecting to hear from the chief of staff of the army in a few minutes, who was already scheduled to be on capitol hill for testimony to -- in front of the senate armed services committee on the army's budget, but we suspect we'll hear something from him on ft. hood. we're also expecting to hear from a few others, potentially in this hour, and when we do, we'll bring that to you live, as well. we'll be right back. wife beats rock.

and with two checks a year, everyone wins. [ female announcer ] switch today and get two safe driving bonus checks a year for driving safely. only from allstate. call 866-906-8500 now. [ dennis ] zach really loves his new camera. problem is...this isn't zach. it's a friend of a friend who was at zach's party and stole his camera. but zach's got it covered... with allstate renters insurance. [ female announcer ] protect your valuables for as low as $4 a month when you add renters insurance to your allstate auto policy. call 866-906-8500 now. what are you doing? we're switching car insurance. why? because these guys are the cheapest. why? good question. because a cut-rate price could mean cut-rate protection. you should listen to this guy. [ female announcer ] with allstate you get great protection and a great price, plus an agent! drivers who switched saved an average of $498 a year. call now and see how much you can save. just a few more ways allstate is changing car insurance for good. [ female announcer ] call an allstate agent and get a quote now. live in the same communities that we serve.

people here know that our operations have an impact locally. we're using more natural gas vehicles than ever before. the trucks are reliable, that's good for business. but they also reduce emissions, and that's good for everyone. it makes me feel very good about the future of our company. ♪ because you can't beat zero heartburn. woo hoo! [ male announcer ] prilosec otc is the number one doctor recommended frequent heartburn medicine for 8 straight years. one pill each morning. 24 hours. zero heartburn. frequent heartburn medicine for 8 straight years. these days, everything is done on the internet.

and tomorrow you'll do even more. that's what comcast business was built for. slow dsl from the phone company was built for stuff like this. switch to comcast business internet. then add voice and tv for just $34.90 more per month. and you'll be ready for tomorrow today. comcast business. built for business.

back now with this morning's "first read" and perhaps the biggest story in american politics, at least for the last few amongs. make no mistake the supreme court rewrote the rules for financing elections. pushing political parties and candidates to devote their time almost entirely to finding and securing the country's most rich and powerful as donors, and it means the potential, arguably corruption, of an american democracy in a way that's very troubling to some. between 1974 in the wake of watergate in 2002, when mccain-feingold gained critical mass, washington set out to try to rein in the influence of very wealthy on political campaigns. in the last 12 years, things have changed dramatically in favor of the big donors. exhibit a, last weekend's first-ever billionaire-sponsored

cattle call in las vegas, where potential republican presidential candidates gathered to woo one man, sheldon adelson, and his healthy checkbook. watch the art of the suck-up as practiced by ohio governor john kasich. >> sheldon and i were kind of talking about the backgrounds. sheldon and i owned a restaurant together, so in ohio, we're no longer (unintelligible) over sheldon. hey, sheldon, thanks for inviting me. >> the influence of the superrich has created a financial arm's race between the two parties. in 2000, bush and gore spent a combined $260 million on their general election campaigns. in 2012, obama and romney together spent over $1 billion. and that doesn't count the political party spending that added up to basically another $1 billion, also exponentially higher. now, the same growth we've seen on the presidential level is probably coming to a congressional race near you. for years, there were two sets of limits put on individuals so that no single wealthy person could exert too much influence. at least, that was the attempt at the reform.

yesterday, the supreme court struck down one of the limits, getting rid of what had been a ceiling of $48,600 in donations to all candidates for federal office, and $74,600 to political parties and pacs. for a combined total of $123,200 in any two-year election cycle. in a 5-4 ruling, the majority said political spending is a form of free speech, and chief justice john roberts said, quote, the government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse. in an unusual oral dissent from the bench, justice steven breyer warned, if the court in citizens united opened a door, today's decision may well open a floodgate. now, republicans believe this is a big win for them in the short term, and in the short term, it is. the history of campaign spending tells us, if one party has an advantage in one cycle, in the next cycle, the other party catches up in a hurry. in the long term, it means

mutually assured financial arms race. this is not an "r" versus "d" issue. this is is a populist versus elitist issue. special interest groups, people like -- become the keepers of the big donors and candidates, arguably will have to kowtow to the groups to find the superrich donor. what's the remedy? basically, two realistic options for those trying to regulate campaign finance. one is a constitutional amendment. the supreme court has equated money with speech. if you're going to carve out an exception for money, you would have to amend the u.s. constitution. good luck with that. not the kind of issue that would inspire a full-fledged campaign to do everything you need to do and actually survive through the steps necessary to make an amendment happen. the other option, and the more realistic one, comes in the form of disclosure. think of nascar. if we are headed to a system where money is speech and the direct unlimited contributions to candidates probably are the

next barrier to fall, then disclosure laws potentially can encourage limits. we already have, for instance, stand by your ad clauses, there could be a disclosure reform that says any donor that gives more than $100,000 to a candidate has to be verbally disclosed in every tv ad. so you would hear, for instance, the candidate to say, i'm joe, and i approve this message paid for by john smith, sarah jones, tim michaels, et cetera. what would happen? the most likely result, most folks would want their names mentioned, and suddenly they'd be writing checks, and you could start down the road of a free-market limitation to the system. but that's just one thought out there. joining me, bob bauer, former white house counsel for obama, and ben ginsberg. ben, let me start with you. what the court did yesterday, and i understand in many ways the arguments in favor of it, but did the court arguably make

it harder for an individual candidate and campaign to have control of their campaign? >> i think what the court did yesterday will not have a basic impact on our current structure, which is that outside voices are the greatest -- the greatest voices in a campaign. and candidates are still not going to have sufficient funds and resources to be able to control the messages in their campaign. so i think in that sense, the opinion yesterday is not going to have a great impact. >> so you don't see it as a huge game changer. bob, do you see it as a huge game changer? it seems like political parties have the ability now to potentially court more of the superdonors. >> well, setting aside the question of the role of superdonors, there's no question it was a step in favor of the parties after a long drought. and the court has a lot to say about parties and the centrality of their roles, and with the elimination of the ceiling, there's more money for the

parties to raise. in that sense, it's an opinion that sits well with the parties. i agree with ben. i do not think it is a game-changing opinion in the sense it is going to reverse the relationship between parties and outside groups. >> because the outside groups still are going to have exponentially more money. >> that is correct. and considerably more latitude to raise more money, and obviously in some claess, avoid disclosure. >> in his majority opinion, justice roberts used the phrase, the corruption clause, in sort of maintaining the individual limit. now, this was never a question that was asked in this case. one could argue that there is some donor some day that may bring that specific case and say, why am i limited in the amount of money i can give to that candidate when i'm unlimited to a super pac? do you think that was a strong rationale as a lawyer when you read that opinion? do you think chief justice roberts had a strong rationale for keeping the individual limit? or this is just simply an evolution and that's what's coming next?

>> i think it's an evolution, and that's what's coming next. i'm not sure that it won't actually come from congress, because i believe that members of both parties on the hill are realizing that the candidates are not driving the messages in their campaigns and -- >> -- losing all of this, right, are the candidates. correct? >> yeah, they should be -- they should be the ones who get to drive the agenda. they can't do that now. the way that you fix that is actually to realize that the current statutory framework in place since the 1970s has been a failure. and in reality, if you want to give candidates a larger voice in their own campaigns, you have to give them more resources, especially as long as there are robust first amendment decisions like yesterday's and like citizens united. >> now, bob, i guess the question is, did anybody think we needed more money in politics? >> i don't know. >> they're saying a lot of money -- and campaign reform advocates have been crying about money in politics for a long

time. but the arguments of soft money in the '90s seems so quaint. this is -- this is a multibilli multibillion-dollar industry. >> campaign costs have been rising dramatically for decades. so the exact interaction of the law and this increased spending is a little bit unclear. but this much i'll say, i think we find that how much money thinks should be spent in politics is depending on how much money at any moment they want to spend. when the goals are very, you know, very profound for groups, then they want to raise a great deal of money. and so, we find that, you know, that's going to continue to be the case. >> bob -- ben, back on the -- sort of the sugar daddy aspect of this, the fact that everybody needs to find their own billionaire and super pac. what is the reform for that? is it striking down the individual limit? >> well, i think that's helpful, and i think increasing the role of the political parties, and what they can do for their candidates is an important element.

>> how would you do that? striking down the limit on contributions to parties, as well? >> sure, absolutely. and potentially even allowing other sources to give to the parties. in other words, money legal under state law. mccain-feingold took away the ability of the state parties to use money legally under their own state laws to help with party building programs like get out the vote. that's helped to create the vacuum into which the super pacs and large donors have been able to run. >> bob, what would you tell a campaign finance reform advocate today to concentrate their resources, what's realistic, given what the court has said about free money of speech, i'm guessing it's full disclosure. >> yeah, it is. they continue to talk at least in principle retain fidelity to the notion we need disclosure. let me say a couple of things. i don't necessarily agree with ben that the individual contribution limits are next to go. >> you don't think that?

>> i don't read that into this opinion. i do agree with ben that at some point something has to happen here. there's an odd part of the opinion -- maybe not odd, but striking part of the opinion that roberts wrote for the plurality, in which he talks about different things congress could do if it was concerned about this sort of spending you're talking about here, with the elimination of the aggregate limit. >> quite the activist -- quite the activist thing to do for a justice -- to propose legislation. >> -- without telling you whether it would be constitutional if it came before me. >> right. >> congress has not been heard from in a long time on this subject. at the end of the day, ben is correct, parties, candidates will have to give some thought to how they would design this program, this campaign finance system, rather than let it sort of evolve in this herky-jerky way. >> i have a lot of confidence in the congress to come up -- >> yeah, yeah. >> well, you guys will be busy trying to figure this out. i have a feeling there will be a lot of new committees that are suddenly started up in the next six months. you guys have some work.

thank you both. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> we'll continue to follow the developing news of the iraq war veteran who opened fire yesterday at the ft. hood army base in texas. it's the second mass shooting there in less than five years. we're expecting to hear from army chief of staff ray on orneirdo in a few minutes. and today's trivia question -- you have to be the first person to tweet the correct answer to win the on-air shoutout. [ female announcer ] who are we? we are the thinkers. the job jugglers. the up all-nighters. and the ones who turn ideas into action. we've made our passions our life's work. we strive for the moments where we can say, "i did it!" ♪

we are entrepreneurs who started it all... with a signature. legalzoom has helped start over 1 million businesses, turning dreamers into business owners. and we're here to help start yours.

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. some live pictures here on capitol hill where senator armed services hearing and the army budget is about to get under way. of course, we expect to hear

more from ray odierno about the ft. hood incident. we'll bring that to you live, plus barry mccaffrey will be joining me. [ engine turns over ] [ male announcer ] the 2014 nissan altima. with 270 horses... ♪ ...blind spot warning... ♪ ...and advanced drive assist. ♪ nothing beats an altima. except another altima. ♪ nissan. innovation that excites. ♪

nissan. innovation that excites. these days, everything is done on the internet. and tomorrow you'll do even more. that's what comcast business was built for. slow dsl from the phone company was built for stuff like this. switch to comcast business internet. then add voice and tv for just $34.90 more per month. and you'll be ready for tomorrow today. comcast business. built for business.

live pictures here on capitol hill where senate armed services hear something now under way. in fact, carl levin kicked things off, saying "we lead today with heavy hearts." let's bring our msnbc military analyst, general mccaffrey, jack jacobs. general mccaffrey, i may cut you off quickly, the minute we want to hear from general odierno on what he has to say, but i want to get your reaction as a retired general. >> well, you know, it's mental health and access to live firearms. ft. hood, texas, a giant concentration of troops and military families. one of the safest communities in america. again, jack jacobs and i were on five years ago commenting on this. >> i know.

>> one key difference is five years ago we had an obvious self-generated jihadist, domestic terrorism. this time, that wonderful lieutenant general mark milley, very straightforward, objective, well organized, no-nonsense in dealing with it. >> you know, colonel jacobs, the army being very -- very disclosing, very open about the fact that this shooter had mental health problems, which then, of course, calls into question what should a gun store know, the background checks? what should be shared? i feel like we're having the same conversation about mental health and a gun -- and a lone gunman and a mass shooting that we've had, unfortunately, nearly a dozen times in the last five years. >> yeah, well, weapons and mental illness are mutually exclusive. but clearly, that's something that needs to be dealt with at the governmental level. a military post, even one as

large and as sprawling as ft. hood, guns are not much in evidence, weapons are locked up. people don't tote guns around. with respect to his mental illness, he was -- evidently he was under care. he had recently moved from another post where ostensibly he was under care, as well. that calls into question the same -- the same issue that existed in the hassan case where he was perceived earlier to be a problem, and then was shipped someplace else to cause bigger problems. >> yeah, general, i assume -- general mccaffrey, i assume that's going to be among the sort of -- and part of the investigation that the army does of itself is sort of trying to understand did he slip through the cracks? did this shooter -- >> yeah. >> -- should there have been more red flags, more yellow flegs? >> well, you know, one then we should put in the table really early on in the discussion,

ptsd, which is real, and widely diagnosed, and multiple combat tours -- by the way, not necessarily related to combat -- but for sure we don't want military personnel to be perceived as dangerous, violent, armed. this is not normally the case. we have treatment modalities. we need them to come forward, and so, i think this was more serious mental health disorder, and access to guns, as jack jacobs says. >> he self-reported, colonel jacobs. he was not yet -- they had not made the determination whether he did or did not have ptsd. but, you know, we're talking about this, and colonel jacobs, there was a stunning study in the "washington post" that's been taking place of a large survey they did of military veterans. and, boy, we certainly have an issue going forward that this is going to be a challenge for the military over the next ten years, particularly the v.a., when dealing with a military

that was stretched so thin, dealing with two wars over a decade. >> yeah. general mccaffrey is correct, you don't actually have to be in combat to suffer some form of stress, but it's interesting to note that both of us are acquainted with very large numbers of people who were in actual armed combat, in threat of imminent death or injury, many, many times over a long period of time, and most of them are just fine. indeed, general mccaffrey and i were down at ft. bening, georgia, a couple of weeks ago on a panel, and the panel following ours were -- was four p.o.w.s who spent more than five years each in the hanoi hilton, as p.o.w.s were, in solitary confinement, often, tortured regularly, with no expectation of ever going home. and they were just fine. so this requires further examination. >> there's no doubt.

general mccaffrey, colonel jacobs, you guys are going to stick with me. i want to quickly get in another break while we wait to hear the first comments from general ray odierno. so ally bank has a raise your rate cd that won't trap me in a rate. that's correct. cause i'm really nervous about getting trapped. why's that? uh, mark? go get help! i have my reasons. look, you don't have to feel trapped with our raise your rate cd. if our rate on this cd goes up, yours can too. oh that sounds nice. don't feel trapped with the ally raise your rate cd. ally bank. your money needs an ally. (music)

defiance is in our bones. defiance never grows old. citracal maximum. calcium citrate plus d. highly soluble, easily absorbed.

as a police officer, i've helped many people in the last 23 years, but i needed help in quitting smoking. [ male announcer ] along with support, chantix varenicline is proven to help people quit smoking. chantix reduced the urge for me to smoke. it actually caught me by surprise. [ male announcer ] some people had changes in behavior, thinking, or mood, hostility, agitation, depressed mood, and suicidal thoughts or actions while taking or after stopping chantix. if you notice any of these, stop chantix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of mental-health problems, which could get worse while taking chantix. don't take chantix if you've had a serious allergic or skin reaction to it. if you develop these, stop chantix and see your doctor right away, as some can be life-threatening. tell your doctor if you have a history of heart or blood-vessel problems or if you develop new or worse symptoms. get medical help right away

if you have symptoms of a heart attack or stroke. use caution when driving or operating machinery. common side effects include nausea, trouble sleeping, and unusual dreams. i did not know what it was like to be a nonsmoker, but i do now. [ male announcer ] ask your doctor if chantix is right for you. turning to health care where it took all of 48 hours for the other shoe to drop once we got past the enrollment deadline. on wednesday, bobby jindal did something most republicans have not done. he's offering his own alternative to the aca. here it is in a nutshell. in it, he proposes repealing the current law and replacing it with a mix of subsidies, block grants and state incentives as an attempt to lower costs. among the ideas, replacing tax-free health benefits with employer contributions taxable income. consumers would offset the new taxes through a standard deduction. in order to help low-income

americans, or those with pre-existing conditions, jindal's plan would propose a $100 billion pool that states can use to subsidize coverage, over a ten-year period. according to the cbo, the affordable care act sets aside, by the way, ten times that much money, more than $1 trillion for subsidies over that same period of time. in addition, jindal wants to turn medicare into what he describes as a premium support system, in which seniors pick their coverage as opposed to getting it from the federal government. and medicaid would be turned into a block grant program in which states get a fixed amount of money from the government to handle their medicaid customers, but no other ways to do it and let the states experiment with how to do it. but there's no word on how much money would be -- and how that formula would be determined and which states would get it. with me is the author of the new plan, the freedom and empowerment health plan, governor bobby jindal.

governor jindal, good morning to you. by the way, kudos, there are not a lot of people putting out plans, so kudos to you. >> well, thank you, chuck, for having me. i agree. there are a lot of republicans who think we can run against obamacare between now and november, and that's a mistake. we have to tell the american people what we're for. i'm certainly for repealing the obamacare law. we need to show the american people we've got a better plan to lower health care costs and do what the president promised he'd do in 2008. >> let's dig into your plan, because you look at it, and in many ways you would shake up the health insurance market even more than president obama's plan on this one big key proponent -- key component, which is this idea that the health benefits, health insurance benefits we get, if you get health insurance with a company, the company right now gets a tax deduction, the individual does not. you would make the health benefit taxable income for the individual and replace it with a deduction for the individual, and i understand that.

but over time, doesn't that disincentivize companies to even provide health insurance? >> no, chuck, i'd actually argue is what we're doing is what the president said in '08, when he said he was opposing the mandate senator clinton proposed, bending the cost curve down, providing the standard deduction provides fairness in the tax code. right now, if you try to buy health care away from your employer, you're using tax disadvantage, post-tax dollars, where if you get it through your employer, and let's make that fairer, if folks change jobs, they can keep their health care. >> well, let me stop you there, though. this is where, going through this, it seems like you're trying to come up with a way to help the 10 million people on the individual market, say 5 million to 10 million, about 5 million now on the individual market from before, by changing the way some -- some 100 million people get health insurance. >> well, no, but the reality is, right now there are a lot of people job-locked that can't

change jobs, can't move across state lines. we want to help them. we want to help folks who have employer coverage. if you set the deduction high enough up front, this won't be as disruptive to the market as obamacare is. the concern is under obamacare, you saw the study this week, that thousands of dollars it will cost employers per employee. i think you'll see more and more employers having to drop coverage, faced with the mandates and high costs under obamacare. we're actually trying to stabilize the employer-provided coverage, but giving folks a voluntary, more gradual transition, giving them the choice. this is really about giving individuals more choices, saying if you want to buy health care through your employer, you can continue to do that with a generous deduction. if you want to buy that through a multistate purchasing pool, through your church, unions, whatever, social organizations, you can do that through association plans, as well. we want to improve the individual markets so if folks want to buy through that market. if you combine the state incentives with the standard deduction earlier estimates have estimated this would bring down the cost of insurance for an average family in the individual

market by approximately $5,000, compared to where we are today. so it actually reduces the cost of insurance, gives more power, more choices to the consumer, without disrupting the employer-provided health insurance market. in the short term, most people in the employer-provided market will continue to get their health care coverage through their employers, but over time, this gives them more choices, and it also gives them an incentive. >> so you want -- you're hoping -- >> -- they can keep their dollars, the standard deduction -- >> you're hoping that over time that we've decoupled insurance from employers. >> i think over time we need -- >> that's what you're hoping your plan would do, which is essentially get rid of employer-provided insurance? >> no, it's not getting rid of it. it's giving individuals more choices. >> well, you certainly disincentivizing companies to do it. >> not at all. it continues to be -- companies' expenditures on health care continue to be deductible on their taxes, for the individual they continue to get a generous standard deduction, but the idea

is over time, you do want to give individuals, one, an incentive to get efficient health care by allowing them to keep the differences, and secondly, by more choices. it shouldn't be that you get affordable health care through your employer or if you're healthy. the president was right to say before, in 2008, before obamacare, there are problems in the individual insurance market for those with pre-existing conditions, for those that can't afford it. but what he was wrong was trying to force everybody into a government-mandated system with a lot of bureaucracy and higher taxes. what we're saying is, let's give individuals more choices. >> all right. i'll have a lot more on that interview. we do want to cut it short. we do have six more minutes. his ideas of medicare, medicaid, all of that tomorrow. we'll now go live now to capitol hill, general ray odierno has addressed the shooting, excuse me, secretary mccoo made the

first comments, still waiting to hear from general ordinary yadi well. i have colonel jacobs with me, and general mccaffrey, the after-action report that's going to take place here, you expect new attempts at creating new security measures at fort hood or at the end of the day, the security measures are there and you can't do much about somebody that becomes mentally unhinged? >> i was were a little disappoint secretary hagel said obviously something went wrong and we have to find out what it was. i'm not too sure that there's any realistic notion of checking tens of thousands of cars coming on and off post on a daily basis. in this case, the law enforcement reacted apparently in a superb fashion. a young woman confronts the shooter. stops the mayhem. medical care responded. so i don't think it's realistic. the question is, how do we get

mental health linked into law enforcement so we prevent access to weapons? doesn't seem realistic that's going to happen either. this is not just a military problem. it's across the country. >> right. this has been the frustration, i think, for a lot of people. colonel jacobs, it's the same story. navy art shooter, mental health issue. aurora shooter, mental health. gabby giffords, mental health. virginia tech, mental health. i think we know the problem? >> yes. it's clear as soon as you have a mental health problem you couple it with guns you have a real problem, and no amount of security anywhere is going to stop that. what one needs to do is decouple the availability of weapons and people who can use them for something other than sporting purposes. that's a real problem. it's -- political will. people have to come together and be convinced that this is is a problem that needs a solution,

but that's a political exercise and not a security exercise. >> it is. a dip in here, army secretary mchugh. >> -- go where the facts lead us and possible extremist involvement is still being looked at very, very carefully. he had a clean record in terms of his behavioral, no outstanding bad marks for any kinds of major misbehaviors that we are yet aware of. so you know the conditions of those who were involved in the incident. there were three victims who have tragically lost their lives. the other killed in action in that moment was the shooter who took his own life when confronted by a military police officer. a female. 16 others wounded. three that were considered critical. the other it's -- the others of

varies severity but considered by and large stable, but we obviously are going to continue to make sure they get the best of care, because we want to ensure absolutely that no bad thing comes out of this, more than already has. so that is pretty much what we know at this moment, chairman. >> thank you very much, secretary. >> and if it's appropriate, i'll yield to the chief for the frnlg posture comments. >> general? >> gentlemen, if i could add a few comments. first, once again we talk a lot in the army that we have an army family and we've lost young people who are part of our army family and we take that incredibly serious. for me, this hits close to home. i've spent a lot of time at forthood personally. i was a brigade, division commander and corps' commander at fort hood.

i understand the resilience of that community, the rezsilience of the people there, how proud the soldiers are and what they do. we will do everything we can to ensure they continue to move forward. i would just say i believe some of the procedures put in place following the incident 4 1/2 years ago did help us yesterday. the alert procedures that were in place, the response, the training that has gone into the response forces that responded, i think, contributed to making this something that could have been much, much worse. so we will continue to monitor the force of the army and the resource of the army will be behind fort hood. we are very confident in the leadership of mark miami lley, many of you know, just returned from afghanistan as the commander of the corps over there, and is a very experienced commander, and we will continue to support them. the only thing i would add to

the facts that thing secretary provided, that this was an experienced soldier. he spent actually nine years in the puerto rico national guard before coming on active duty. so he's a very experienced soldier. had a one year kwooe deploymeye deployme deployment's to the sinai and the last four months, in iraq, the end of 201 1, from august to december 2011. we will continue to work and work through this issue, and continue to investigate and as we do that, we will provide information to all. the only other thing i would say, there's great interagency operation. the fbi provided significant assistant as well as the state of texas, as well as the veterans affairs, as the secretary pointed out. so we will continue to work this. we have an incredibly talented,

resilient army. we will continue to be incredibly resilient and move forward, but we will also reach out to our family. the victims and the families of our victims of this tragic incident. and that's all i have. if you want me to continue, i will continue with my statement. >> thank you you. i think that would be appropriate to give us now your posture statement. >> chairman levin, ranking member imhoff and -- >> i want to bring back general mccaffrey, colonel jacobs, probably the most newsy part of what the general said, the reforms made for security procedures in 2009 at fort hood helped the situation yesterday. >> yeah. i'm sure. throughout the armed forces, not just army now, they've organized themselves to deal with these active shooter situations. one comment, though, because both the secretary and the army chief talked about this guy didn't have any red flags in this background necessarily. i would be curious to know why

did he only serve for month foun iraq and why would nine years service, 34 years old as an e-4. something did doesn't track here. this guy was a problem, and a i wonder how long that's been going on? >> well, and colonel jacobs, that goes to the hassan case, the same thing. there was evidence in the after-action report that he had been i.d.'d as somebody that had some problems, that had some issues, and yet for a host of reasons potentially, maybe just simply stress on the system, he fell through the cracks. it looks like we could be of a similar situation here with mr. lopes? >> another interesting facet of this is that life in a millary unit is at very close one. people work together, they live together, and even when they live apart off-post, they spend lots and lots of time during the day together. they know each other very, very

well. it's difficult to invision how somebody who had problems, those problems would not have been detected by people around him, his fellow soldiers, and/or the chain of command. so much more needs to e revealed in this regard. >> colonel, i remember having this conversation with you a while ago. the procedures for accepting new soldiers, have they been upped? >> well, it's interesting you should ask that. we had a huge requirement for soldiers, sailors, armymen and marines for a long, long time and now we don't. the military service, the manpower is getting very, very small. we will soon have an army that is, will be smaller than the total strength that existed before the start of the second world war. the military establishment can be, and often has been, extremely selective about who it brings in. during the period of time in the last ten years when we had a large requirement for troops and we had soldiers coming in from

guard and reserve, the standards may have slipped, but there's no need now for us to do anything other than bring absolutely the best people we possibly can into the service. >> there's no doubt. well said there, colonel jack jacobs, thanks, ablnd general mccaffrey, franck. i hand over to mycolleague chris jansing. >> thanks so much, chuck. good morning. we begin with breaking news. for the second time in five years, there's been a deadly shooting at the fort hood military base. this time three people were killed. 16 wounded. three in critical condition. a female military officer confronted the gunman, identified by officials as 34-year-old ivan lopez, and we just learned this about him. this is john mchugh, secretary of state of the army, enlisted in 2008, he was deployed twice bp once for four months to iraq. he saw a psychiatrist are as recently as a month ago and there were no signs of any violence.

now in 2009, army major hassan went on a rampage, and be president obama had a conference call with his national security team. >> any shooting is troubling. obviously, this reopens the pain of what happened at fort hood five years ago. we know these families. we know their incredible service to our country and the sacrifices that they make. >> again, just a short time ago, army secretary john mchugh told this to the senate. do we have it? no. all right. let me bring in msnbc military ant lift and medal of honor recipient retired colonel jack jacobs and nbc analyst and former fbi agent and criminal pro filer chris van zandt. good to see both of you. we learned a little more about the 34-year-old shooter ay