i would still advocate humans over technical systems at the moment. >> we'll keep the eyeballs in the cockpit. michael kay, thank you. >> that would be my advice. >> thank you very much for joining us tonight. democrats at war. let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews in san francisco. for seven years, the democratic party has held strong. neither the bad blood of that year's primary season or the day-to-day issues have cut through its unity, until now. until the battle that will rise up next week, the battle of international trade, as it has in each political generation, the matter of how this country deals economically with the rest of the world gets very local and therefore very personal, as it

has before, organized labor has sought to protect the jobs of those who have them, against the promise of new jobs offered by the champions of greater trade. and as it has before, as it did with bill clinton and now with barack obama and hillary clinton, the opponents of the latest trade expansion are headed to the barricades, and as before, they find their party's top leaders on the other side. president obama promises that any new trade deal with asia will have the greatest possible safeguards for both workers and the environment, but will this be enough to car the fight that begins next week? and will he and the country find hillary clinton standing at his side? david axelrod was senior adviser to president obama and congressman marcy captor is a democrat from ohio. let me start with congresswoman marcy captor. have you ever supported free trade? in other words, is free trade a basic battle for you and the working people of your area? >> free trade is a battle for the communities that i represent and the people and companies that reside there. i have supported the jordanian agreement.

i felt it was a stronger measure. but i basically believe in our constitution which says that the congress, not the executive branch, will have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. it doesn't say rubber stamp agreements that the executive branch negotiates and it doesn't say you can't amend. congress has to be able to fix what's wrong with these agreements and frankly, chris, in my area and the whole country, since these so-called free trade agreements have been signed and rushed through congress, under the fast track procedure, our country has lost net, 47,500,000 jobs. among them, over 5 million manufacturing jobs. the american people have lived these year after year after year of trade deficit. an accumulation of $9.5 trillion in the last 35 years. >> right, okay. >> equals lost jobs coast to coast. >> so you're saying we have

fewer people working today than we did before we started the free trade agreements? >> i'm saying -- well, the population -- >> because you've said we've lost 47 million jobs. do we have more jobs now -- >> that is correct. >> do we have 47 million less jobs than we have then? so what do you mean by then? >> by that number, i mean those are jobs that could have been created here, such as last year, we lost 16% of our gdp, our economic growth. because again last year, we had a massive $500 billion trade deficit. we've never had balanced trade accounts and the outsourcing of companies from this nation to others. look at huffy bicycle. look at maytag. look at what's -- >> i know wanted to maytag. i'm very aware of particular industries, and david, that's always the best argument against free trade. a point defense kind of thing. if you look in particular areas, a lot of midwestern cities have nothing less than a blockbuster and a diner left, if they have the diner, if they have the blockbuster. they're hollowed out cities. so when you look at trade that

way, city by city, section by section, it's a hard fight. if you look at the whole country, and you look at the silicon valley or 128 massachusetts, areas of the country which have boomed through high-tech and other means, it looks pretty good. how's it balance out to you? >> well, look, first of all, i have great sympathy for congresswoman kaptur's position, representing her area, because there have been big economic changes, not just because of trade, but partly because of trade. and they have felt the brunt of it. i live in the midwest, chris, so i have seen what you're talking about. but what's at issue right now is this trade promotion authority. whether this president will have every promotion that every president has had since nixon. now they've negotiated an agreement that has standards on labor rights and environmental rights and human rights. and gives -- there's a fail-safe provision that allows the congress to take that fast track

authority back, if those standards aren't met. so it seems to me, you know, there's an argument here, that you should let this president have at least that much authority, given the fact that these provisions have been put in this light. and we do have, we do have an issue. because, you know, asia is a rising market, huge market, and, you know, will -- american businesses and jobs benefit or lose result of this agreement? i think the president's going to have to make that case. and i think that's what will begin next week. >> let's take a look at what elizabeth warren has to say, because she's the firebrand in the party on this and other issues. big labor, of course, is with her. they staged a dramatic rally on capitol hill just yesterday, against the president's trade deal. they also railed against the authority of the president that wants to get the bill through. let's watch. >> we're here today to fight.

we are here to fight. are you ready to fight? are you ready to fight! all right! no more secret trade deals! are you ready to fight? no more special deals for multi-national corporations. are you ready to fight? are you ready to fight anymore deals that say we're going to help the rich get richer and leave everyone else behind? are you ready to fight that? >> i'm here today to say, not no to fastrack, but hell no to fast track. we are standing together to open up one gigantic pan of whoopass on anybody! on anybody that tries to take our jobs! >> well, others in the democratic party a fighting back against senator warren. democratic senator ron wyden is throwing his weight behind those supporting the president's fast track authority.

it would make strides in transparency, labor, and internet standards. and president obama today reiterated his goals for a deal. my top priority in any trade negotiation is expanding opportunity for hardworking americans. this deal would level the playing field, give our workers a fair shot, and for the first time, include strong fully enforce shl protection for workers' rights, the environment, and a free and open market. >> congresswoman, this issue, why is the american economy so darned strong, if our trade policies have been banned? i mean, what is working in america? why does it -- why do we have the booming gdp of the world that everyone wants to move here to live. everybody wants to get in the united states legally or not, and you say there's something fundamentally wrong with our economic policies. which is it? >> the you look at the middle class, chris. if you look at what's happened to people's incomes, for the majority of people in our country, they're going down. the average worker has taken a terrible pay cut over the last 20 years. and i heard what mr. axelrod

said about asia and so forth. we were promised with a korean free trade agreement, which i opposed, that we would have trade surpluses and more jobs in our country. exactly the reverse. we've had over 75,000 lost jobs now, already in our country, because of that korean deal, and it's only three years old. so there's something wrong with the fundamental trade agreement when you haven't had a trade balance in over three decades. that means lost jobs. it isn't just my part of the country. it's coast-to-coast. it's furniture jobs, it's textile jobs, it's agricultural jobs. it's, yes, industrial jobs. it's home appliances. it's everywhere in the country. and people's incomes are going down. the numbers prove it. >> okay. let me go to dave now. i want to go back to you with the same question. david, if you go to the average department store in the united states or any kind of store, you've got tremendous options. where i grew up, you had a couple pairs of pants from south carolina or somewhere, that were made from different kinds of fibers and they weren't that great.

now go to any store you want, everything's 100% cotton. the pants already have their -- what do you call it? the cuffs on them, in your size. there's so much consumer opportunity. the consumers do want free trade, i think. they seem to want anything to get their hands on the best possible price and the best possible quality in the world. day don't want to be told they can only buy stuff made in a nearby state. now, if you go back to protectionism, that's where you'd be, where we grew up. i don't know, it's a tough call. it's such a tough call. we need open markets, not closed markets. >> i think that, chris, people -- you know, congresswoman's right. people also want money in their pockets to buy products and there has been -- we have seen a flattening of wages. it's not just because of -- there are all kinds of forces at play. so the test for the administration will be to make the case as to why people will be better off. i'm not sure that we can draw,

in the 21st century, kind of put a mote around the united states of america and think that we're going to be competitive, but on the other hand, you do have to make the case. now, what i understand of what was signed today on this fastrack agreement is that, in fact, president can sign the agreement for, i think, 60 days, so that the agreement can be reviewed by everyone, including the american people, and then, if congress finds that it doesn't meet the labor, environmental, and human rights standards, they can rescind the fast track authority and amend it in any way they see fit. seems to me that's a reasonable compromise. >> let me go back to marcy kaptur for a final view. would we be better off -- i'm hearing from people in pennsylvania i grew up, very much anti-trade, going back to the beginning pb and i understand that. do you think america would be healthier economically now if we had closed the door on all these trade deals back with kennedy, long before clinton, we were having trade deals. do you think we would be better off the way we were with an

economy that's basically an american economy, rather than going worldwide and global? are you saying we'd be healthier? >> from the founding of the republic, we've been a trading nation, the problem is when you have closed markets like japan's, for example, or major markets in europe, only allow 10% of their goods to come from elsewhere, we become the dump market for the world. and that comes out of the hides of our people. and they've had it for too long. it's gotten to a tipping point and we have to address this with a new trade model. that's where we want to go. i believe president obama, i believe he can help us do this. >> okay. >> can i make a point, chris? the point is we need good -- we don't need no deals, we need good deals. and the question is, will this be a good deal? and that's the case the president has to make. >> he'll make it beginning next week. thank you, david axelrod. thank you, marcy kaptur of ohio. coming up, that postal worker who landed his gyrocopter on the lawn of the u.s. capitol is in court today. that flight yesterday may have exposed some holes in our security, of course, but it also made a bigger point about how

this country is letting big, dark, secret money run our politics. that was his argument. that's why he took the risk of flying into the capitol. plus, as the supreme court gets ready to take up gay marriage, we've got the fascinating story of justice anthony kennedy, the swing vote on the court, about closeted gay man who was his mentor and may have been his influence. and everyone knows income inequality is on the rise in this country, so why did the house of representatives just vote to give a huge tax break to america's richest 0.2%? they did away with the estate tax, that helped prevent a permanent aristocracy. and let me finish with the rank and file, america's quiet doves. this is "hardball," the place for politics.

here's a bit of good news for both president obama and hillary clinton. americans are feeling more optimistic about the economy. according to a new bloomberg politics poll, one third of americans say the economy will

get stronger, while just one fifth say it will get worse. the poll found more optimism about the prospects for jobs, housing, and health care costs compared to last june. the poll also found americans give president obama's handling of the economy its best marks since 2009. it's now 49% positive, 46% disapproving. not that great, but better than it was. that's for sure. we'll be right back. a moment spontaneously turns romantic why pause to take a pill? and why stop what you're doing to find a bathroom? with cialis for daily use, you don't have to plan around either. it's the only daily tablet approved to treat erectile dysfunction so you can be ready anytime the moment is right. plus cialis treats the frustrating urinary symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently, day or night. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain as it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache.

to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision or any symptoms of an allergic reaction stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. why pause the moment? ask your doctor about cialis for daily use. for a free 30-tablet trial go to cialis.com female announcer: get three years interest-free financing on brand name mattress sets. plus, get free delivery, and sleep train's 100-day low price guarantee. sleep train's interest free for 3 event is on now! ♪ your ticket to a better night's sleep ♪

welcome back to "hardball." angry over the now legalized influx of millions of dollars in dark, secret money into u.s. elections, a florida postal worker flew his one-man helicopter into washington's restricted air space, buzzing the washington monument, and then setting it down right on the lawn of the u.s. capitol on wednesday. homeland security secretary jeh johnson says the home-built craft traveled undetected. >> this individual apparently, literally, flew in under the radar, literally. >> were you satisfied with the response, i guess? >> well, again, i want to see

all the facts. i want to know all the facts before i make any conclusions or draw any judgments about yesterday's incident. >> i think we saw all the facts. anyway, 60-year-old doug hughes says the stunt was a protest against the country's campaign finance morass and he advertised in advance his intent to perform this act of civil disobedience with an interview with his hometown newspaper. >> i'm going to have 535 letters strapped to the landing gear in boxes and those letters are going to be addressed to every member of congress. i don't believe that the authorities are going to shoot down a 60-year-old mailman in a flying bicycle. >> well, talk about special delivery. joining me right now is u.s. cokeman, steve israel, democrat of new york, and author of the great novel ", the global war on morass," and also, author of "big money." it doesn't scare me one bit that this guy comes in on a flying lawn mower of his. so what? do you think he should be charged at all?

it looks like they let him off on his own recognizance. what do you think? >> i was in my office and when i heard that we had been invaded by something called the gyrocopter, i thought i was on an episode of "the jettisons." i didn't know what a gyrocopter was. but the fact of the matter is, he broke the law. there are other ways to deliver a message. but what concerns me, everyone is so focused on how he delivered the message, they're not focused on what his message is, and that is when the american people feel so marginalized, so minimized by the big money that is flooding into american politics, they're going to resort to stunts like this. i don't endorse the stunt, but i understand this guy's need to make the case. >> you know why i don't talk much about money on television? i want to get to ken on this, because it's a journalism problem. most people don't give money to politicians. they vote, they consider that their sacred responsibility and right and they get out there and vote and they read the paper, the people who watch this kind of program do, they read the newspaper and keep up.

they know something of importance about how they vote. there's a very small percentage of people who think, i want to go beyond it and kick some money in. maybe it's $500 bucks, maybe 5 bucks, maybe 50 bucks, maybe it's millions of dollars, but they don't know that percentage of people. ken, that's why it's very hard to talk about money on television, period. economics don't sell on television, that's more for print. but it's so alien to some people. they see a guy like sheldon adelson, or the koch brothers and kissing their butts or rings or toes or whatever and think, that is sickening that that guy because he's rich has a bigger say than i do, by the millions. your thoughts? i think that guy had a point, the guy who was flying that gyrocopter. he says, nobody talks about it. they've given up the fight. >> well, when they're asked about it, chris, they do say and polls do show -- >> when asked about it. >> that they're disturbed by this flood of money into

politics. so the folks who have been working to reduce the flow of money into politics is translating that sentiment into actual voting activity. because it's just not a top voting issue for most people. and we've seen efforts to make it a top voting issue, but it seems like just more of a sort of rhetorical thing that when asked about it, they will say that they're opposed to it, but we seldom see it rising to be a top issue in elections. and that's why it's so difficult to actually generate the political momentum to get congress or to get state legislatures to vote, to change the laws to make it more difficult for money to flow into politics. let's not forget, chris, and congressman israel, these are folks who have been elected through this system, that no matter how bad they think it is, it's still worked okay for them, on the last election day, for them to be the office. so it's very difficult for them to cast a vote that changes a system that works for them, even if they say oppose it. >> let me go back to the congressman. i want to direct it more pointedly at you.

as long as they say, you have an individual right to a gun. you can have a gun for any reason you want to. you can spend all the money you want in a campaign, because you got it. and once the court ruled that way, people like hillary clinton and you go, you can't blame me. we passed mccain feingold, we did our bid, and the courts overruled us. >> i'll tell you how you can blame. you can blame the republican majority in congress for not passing the disclose act. when that supreme court decision, which was an insidious and corrosive decision, that is destroying democracy, but when that decision was made, the supreme court actually said, we expect that congress will require that these contributions not be secret, that they be disclosed. how democrats offered the disclose act that would require transparency, that would require that these secret donors tell people who they are. and it was republicans who voted against and are keeping that bill bottled up. people have the right to know. let me say one other thing on ken's point. he's right.

when you look at polls, campaign finance reform doesn't really rate that high. however, when you make the connection between people's paychecks being squeezed and the fact that the special interests are dictating policy and squeezing their paychecks, people understand that's true. they think that the deck is stacked, and then they want campaign finance reform. >> so i didn't realize that -- you mean, the courts would not strike down a full disclosure requirement, congressman? if people on the hill got 50% of both houses and got the president to sign, and i think he would sign it, you think the courts would uphold a full disclosure act? >> the you read the citizens united decision, at least one justice based his support for citizens united on the assumption that congress would require disclosure. and that never happened. >> and you know -- >> ken, i had a fight the other day -- i had a fight the other day with another colleague of mine i respect. but the fact is, there's a casualness with which the media does this. they'll show a piece of an ad or the whole damn ad for free, and

i'll say, who paid for that ad? nobody thinks to put that on, even when they knew it. at least they say, it's dark secret money and it's the same people that produced that ad that produced the swift boat ads against john kerry, the same bad crowd of people. they're up to it again. the casualness with which people put free examples of advertising drives me crazy. but i'm glad to see that congressman said that. now everybody watching those now, you can write your congressperson, democrat or liberal or whatever, and say, look, a republican, say this, i want to know where the money's coming from when somebody gets elected. just give me that. give me squat, give me something. maybe i can't stop because of this right-wing court. into know who's paying for these stupid ads i've got to watch election time. last word from you, ken? >> disclosure was just one of the miscalculations that was embedded in that supreme court decision, citizens united ferris the federal election commission in 2010. the congressman is right. there was the assumption that this money flowing into the process would be disclosed. it hasn't been.

and in fact, people have taken advantage, groups have taken advantage of another part of the decision that allows corporations to spend, to use these non-disclosing, non-profit corporations to pump this money into the system. the other miscalculation was that this independent spending would be independent. that unlimited spending would not be done in coordination with the campaigns. we see with these super pacs, if they're not coordinated, they're pretty close. >> i've got an idea for congress in the capitol police. instead of charging this guy on the gyrocopter, why not give him community service. and his community service can be one hour. and his one hour can be used addressing a joint meeting of the congress. he should walk in there and tell them why he did that. that can be his community service and we can all watch. if they put this guy in jail, what a bunch of clowns that would be to do that. u.s. congressman steve israel, thank you, and good luck with your book. up next, when the supreme court hears arguments this month about the constitutional right to gay marriage, all eyes will be on justice anthony kennedy? you know why?

i think he's going to vote for it. and when we come back, the story of justice kennedy's mentor, apparently he was a closeted gay fellow and he may have had a lot of influence in his personal life and professional bearing on justice kennedy and the way he looks at individuals regardless of their individual orientation.

i win again. paul george the all-star. you still got it. play for the check? nope, with papa john's new payshare it already split the check for us. so, we wont be needing this anymore.

introducing payshare powered by venmo. new at papa john's. share your bill on any mobile or online order. like our philly cheesesteak pizza, with original philly cheesesteak company steak. a large for just $12. better ingredients. better pizza. papajohns.com welcome back to "hardball." as the supreme court prepares to hear arguments over whether states can keep same-sex couples from marrying, all the attention is focused on the one man who could potentially make or break the decision. i'm speaking, of course, of justice anthony kennedy. this week, the associated press writes, quote, those who have known justice kennedy for decades and scholars who have studied his work say he has long stressed the importance, of valuing people of individuals. and he seems likely also to have been influenced in this regard as a piller of the sacramento legal community, a closeted gay man who hired kennedy as a law

school instructor and testified on his behalf at his high court confirmation hearings in washington. that mentor of kennedy testified at kennedy's confirmation hearing in december of '87. here he is. >> i think he will have compassion and empathy for all those who present themselves. he'll do that without personal predilection, without a specific philosophical inclination, with an aim at consensus building. i urge a vote of confirmation. >> the supreme court decision on that same-sex matter is expected some time in june. mark sherman is the associated press press reporter who wrote this story and he joins us now. also joining us is paul henderson, a veteran prosecutor. let me start with mark and give us a sense of this. i've always had a sense about the court decisions of justice kennedy, about the idea of the individual, and the individual as a whole person. and yes, sex is part of that, sexual attraction is part of that, sexual behavior is part of that, but they're all part of

being a whole person, a person who can love other people, and a person who will act on that love physically. and the question that's always been a portion of who an individual is, not all they are. and therefore, i thought it made perfect sense that this article you wrote suggested that personal experience with someone else may have reminded him, as we all are reminded in our lives, of gay people and straight people being people first. your thoughts? >> well, that's right. there's probably no doubt that there are several factors that go into the several opinions that justice kennedy has written in favor of the support of gay rights in the supreme court. and lots of people i've talked to in sacramento, who widely believe that dean shafer was gay, say they can't believe that kennedy wouldn't have been influenced by his close friendship with shafer. >> and this gift, i have to tell you, i don't think it's nefarious, but it's kind of interesting. every year he would send him a gift of $400 worth of shirts. if those were brooks brothers shirts, that's about five shirts at the most, maybe four.

but that's a lot of shirts, and i always thought, what a strange gift. what is this shirts thing? have you figured that out? >> i don't know anymore about it than that it would show up year after year on kennedy's financial disclosure form, that he has to file on an annual basis. >> paul, give me your thoughts of this. why did he become the conservative. he was ronald reagan's personal attorney. he's the guy in the lawrence case. in the lawrence case, he gave the rights of -- he got rid of the sodomy laws. he said private behavior, sexual behavior, is part of being an individual, part of being a person capable of loving someone. let's drop it as a prohibition. but here it is on that same question. is it going to be the liberty clause, the equal protection law? what is it going to be? equal protection law is going to be -- what is it going to be in that 14th amendment that's going to give us -- >> it's going to be the 14th amendment and interpretation of equal protection and figuring out what the conflict is going

to be between the state decisions that have been made and the lower federal court with the states of kentucky, and tennessee, versus the individual rights, and we keep coming back to these individual rights, because i liken those arguments to the arguments that have been made in the past, with race, with marriage, with sexual orientation, and so that's what he's going to be deciding, and you are absolutely right, that these jurists don't make decisions in a bubble. they are absolutely influenced. they don't make the law, they interpret the law. but they also interpret what society is doing, what culture is doing, who their friends are, all of these things they value and they interpret as he has said before, as he values individualism, those things are what he uses as a lens to review the law is make decisions.

so i think you're absolutely correct and this article is spot-on in interpreting -- >> let me go back to the author of the article. i know it's not your thing, it's your reporting, but the fascinating thing about the old joke is the supreme court follows the election returns. i know that. but that's a fact. but also, if you look at the landmark decisions, and this will be one, like the brown case or the prayer in school or the roe v. wade, on abortion rights. they come out of some of reading of the constitution, which isn't in there. they find inherent values in there, when they find out that black school kids find out that white kids are prettier than black dolls, they think, we're sending the wrong message to our kids, so separate but equal is sending the wrong message and we have to stop doing it. that's an inherent perception. have you checked this out with anybody else who said, that the individual personal experience of judge kennedy with this mentor really did foster his

identification and empathy for gay people? >> well, i think it's really, it's probably a complicated answer. and it's -- and i did not say in the story, and i can't say here that that alone explains it. but the notion that it's a part of what helped him form his views, i think, is perfectly plausible. >> and by the way, just to give this straight for everybody, straight's the wrong word to use here, but clear for everybody, the minute you have a gay person in your close company, especially in your family, all of a sudden, people have different values and different interpretations. you know, all politics is local, a friend of mine used to say, and it's so true. the more local it gets, the more you empathize. paul henderson, sir, thank you for joining us out here in san francisco, and thank you, mark sherman, for a very interesting insight. up next, house of representatives just voted to get rid of the estate tax. well, that's great for some people. the quintessentially american philosophy, by the way, that helps prevent us from being a permanent aristocracy is having an estate tax.

it comes at a time when everyone is concerned about the income gap in this country and this would make the gap larger. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics.

welcome back to "hardball." republicans have long been

criticized for favoring that 1% of top earners in this country. but today, they're doing a big favor for the richest 0.2 of those 1%ers. they passed house resolution 1105, a bill called the death tax repeal act, which would bring an end to the inheritance tax. it's a reflection of republican priorities at a time when income inequality is a top concern among american people, and it runs contrary that wealth should not be passed down among an aristocratic class but should be earned. that's why we have the law on the books in the first place. we're joined by the "hardball" roundtable, howard fineman, associated press white house reporter, nejdra pickler, and republican strategist, john brabender. are you any of you people beneficiaries of large inherited wealth? because if you are so, you've got to raise your hand now and tell us why we will defend the system the republicans are putting in place. put your hands up if you're the

inheriter of a downtown abby estate. >> i'm give everything to you, chris, that i have. >> okay, let's start. >> remember how you talked about you have two pairs of pants when you were growing up. i had maybe two also. >> let me start with you, howard, my fellow pink-diapered baby. not exactly in either case. let's start with this. it seems to me that the country has held this philosophy, that we don't want to end up with latin america, with 17 families running a country, or europe or the germans or the brits with a few families owning all the land and all the money, because it just kept accumulating over generations. we basically say, you can leave a ton of money to your kids, but only a ton, and then it's got to stop. so the republicans don't think a ton is enough. $10 plus million is not enough to give to your kids, so how can they win that case and why did 11 democrats join them today? >> that's a mystery to me. i don't think they can win the case. if you look at the polling numbers generally, let's concede two points. number one, rich people are paying a greater and greater share of the taxes, but the reason they are is that they're making more and more of the money as compared to everyone else. number two, americans do like

tax cuts, but they don't, i think, like this kind. they're not going to like this kind, because there are maybe 5,000 people a year, at most, who can conceivably benefit frit. these are people who have, if they're married, have more than $10 million worth of assets to pass on in their estate. nobody's going to be sympathetic with them. and john may disagree, but i think the republicans are kind of, this is kind of like a reflexive thing. this is like you take, in the movie 2001, you take almost all the memory chips out and the only one left is the one that says, we've got to cut taxes, we don't care how we do it. >> one mistake having left that much money to their kids, they didn't get to spend it. why didn't they spend their money? they had time, why didn't they go spend the money? i'm just kidding. of course, i'm not kidding. but seems like a bad value -- cloth-cut republicans or 90% of the republican people or a little bit better than regular, they don't benefit from this kind of thing. >> well, and let me say two things about it.

one is, it is a bad tax. and sometimes because it's on a small number of people or they're very wealthy, we think, oh, then it's a good tax. no, it's a bad tax, it's an unfair tax to get rid of. but the optics of it, for the republican party, are terrible. especially coming into a presidential race, where what we're going to do is get hard-working families to believe that we're representing and fighting for them, and we become pavlavian almost for cutting taxes for wealthy people and we're opposed to $1 raise in the minimum wage. and hard-working families who aren't either affected by either of those just get the message that we don't understand their lives and we're not fighting for them. and i think that's the real mistake. >> this comes at a time that most people in this country agree that income inequality is getting worse. a bloomberg poll shows that 69%, seven out of ten americans show that the income gap among rich and poor is getting bigger. only 10% think the gap is getting smaller. but when it comes to the solution, the americans are

divided. there is a dime's worth of difference between parties. 70% of democrats think that they should implement policies to shrink the income gap. but 75% of republicans say the government should stand aside, even if the income gap grows. so, nejdra, just reporting on this, there is a difference in party approach. republicans say if there's a gap that grows because of inheritance taxes not being there so you can leave all your money to your kids and grandkids and great-grandkids and that raises the gap, fine, that's the way the market works. >> you can make the argument that this is a winning argument for both sides, because it's all based on how they frame it, right? the republicans are talking about a death tax. they're talking about these poor family farmers, not poor in money, but they're going to lose their land when they try to pass it on to their children. and then on the other side, you know, barack obama had an event yesterday on this, and it was just like pitching him up a softball. you know, he was in north

carolina and he talked about how this tax would only hit a hundred and some people in the state, versus the 44 million people that he could help if he had 270 million. >> you're right, they're both working their sides of the street. republican frank luntz led the effort to change the name of the estate tax, as it was previously known, to the death tax. here's how he defends the use of the term in his book. the notion of the phrase death tax is off mystic or orwellian does not withstand scrutiny. for one thing, it supposes that estate tax and inher tan tax are purely neutral terms. estate conjures up images of rolling green hills and vast real estate holdings of jr ewing or donald trump rubbing their hands together and cackling like corporate villains or toasting with champagne glasses. frank luntz admitting you have to call it a death tax, because estate tax sounds too evil.

>> first of all, the word "estate," estate in an estate tax is an old glib word if what gets passed to one generation to another. it doesn't mean a big, rolling estate. there's the case of the huge straw man that frank luntz built up so he could cleverly make it sound like someone's being killed if you apply this tax. you know, that's what frank luntz the good at. but the thing here is, if you want to really get down into the depths of this, independent voters, i think, in that poll and in other polls, are very worried about income inequality. i don't know where precisely they are on this. i bet they're quite skeptical on giving a few thousand people a year on low taxation on passed along inheritance. and the other thing this bill would do is get rid of capital gains on all the stuff that was accumulated by those people. and capital gains is a thing

they consider a double tax. so this in their framework is a triple tax. >> let's put president obama down for a veto on this baby. i think if it gets to him -- >> absolutely. >> don't you think? >> he said that. >> the roundtable is staying with us right now. up next, george w. bush admits, confesses, whatever, that he's jeb bush's biggest problem. but it's bigger than that. republicans don't want war. that's my theory. the regular republican, man and woman, father and mother, grandparent, doesn't want to see their kids going off to another w-type war. and maybe w's got this one right, he's at fault. the place for politics, coming back. my cut hurts. mine hurt more. mine stopped hurting faster! neosporin plus pain relief starts relieving pain faster and kills more types of infectious bacteria. neosporin plus pain relief kills the germs. fights the pain.

[ aniston ] when people ask me what i'm wearing, i tell them aveeno®. [ female announcer ] aveeno® daily moisturizing lotion has active naturals® oat with five vital nutrients. [ aniston ] because beautiful skin

goes with everything. aveeno®. naturally beautiful results™. the republican presidential field may soon be getting even bigger. we reported yesterday that ohio governor john kasich's interested in getting into the presidential race. well, today we learned that he's launching now a political committee that allows him to raise money as he considers his candidacy. the ohio republican won his second term last year in a landslide, and he could make some noise in this crowded field. i think he ought to make some noise. he's a pretty good candidate. we'll be right back.

we're back. it's been two months since president obama sent his proposal to authorize the use of military force for isis on capitol hill.

we are back with the round table. howard, for all the trumpery that is coming out of the republican party, as it was reported in the wall street journal, my theory the republican rank and fire is no big as hawk. >> no, they are going to say that barack obama and therefore hillary clinton are weak and naive in a way. they are not going to do it because the bitter memory of the american people.

>> there are republicans in the >> dick cheney. enter they fill the op-ed pages of the newspaper, they constantly talking about bombing iran. >> there are republicans in the base who feel that the top priority of government are to keep families safe -- >> what does it have to do with bombing iran? what does it have to do with

going to war this iraq? >> the belief is that iran has played us to build a nuclear bomb -- >> okay, okay, you're as big of a problem as the money guys. that's absurd. >> here is what i can tell you. >> and because iraq attacked us on 9/11? >> don't put those words in my mouth. but what i can tell you, about polling data, and when you ask about national security, the sixth issue three years ago to the second or third issue now. and a lot of that is iran, isis and in the world right now, there is a sense on of unease of safety in america. >> but i don't think it translates to a commitment by republican candidates to put troops on the ground. i think this time around they are going to be more cautious given george w. bush's wars.

>> i'm looking at what is happening on the two committees in congress and nobody on the republican side wants to fight this war against isis. nobody, nobody's doing it. your thoughts? >> well, the republican candidates are all over the map and it reflects where the republican voters are. we saw a year or so ago where they were shying away against war and poll numbers just last month said that three-quarters would favor sending in troops to fight the islamic state. so it is quite extraordinary. he did it in the midst of the horrible deaths of american citizens and allied citizens and it just sat there. there was supposed to be a hearing on it and they ended up debating iran instead. >> it's better to blow the trumpets on iran than fight the war with isis.

when we return, they are america's quietest doves. you're watching hard ball. i win again. paul george the all-star. you still got it. play for the check? nope, with papa john's new payshare it already split the check for us. so, we wont be needing this anymore. introducing payshare powered by venmo. new at papa john's. share your bill on any mobile or online order. like our philly cheesesteak pizza, with original philly cheesesteak company steak. a large for just $12. better ingredients. better pizza. papajohns.com

let me finish tonight with this. i believe the average republican voter in this country has had with it the hawks and the armchair generals including the chicken hawks who have taken us so stupidly into war. i know the money people, the

toes of which the presidential candidates need to kiss, are at talk with war in syria or iran. and talk is cheap. it doesn't cost a dime to send the soldiers racing back in the desert but those who vote republican on their own, sending the soldiers to battle has a price, it's their sons and nieces and nephews and they are worries. if you want proof of the republican rank and file, just check on what's happening with the proposal of president obama to authorize the fight with isis. it's not going any where. because the republican congressmen on the committee know that the people at home don't want us getting in a real war, a fighting war. they can live with blowing trumpets for the money guys, hustling off that to vegas, they

can live with the performance art. the republican people are saying, don't talk about using our kids has cannon fodder so the big shots can be at the next fund-raiser. that's "hardball." "all in with chris hayes" starts now. >> don't on the all in, no controversy over the pay to play deputy sheriff arrested for shooting a suspect and why it's about campaign finance. and to make the bible the state book. hillary clinton episode four, name gate. >> i never understood the depth of it. >> you're where? >> i'm inside a plane. feel it's moving in the air. >> and the day that chewbacca broke the internet.