sit back and prepare to be entertained. >> from the team that brought you the midterm massacre and false reform to wall street and health care, it's "minority report" starring nancy pelosi, stepny hoyer and jim clyburn. if you loved how they caved into the republicans before, wait until they really don't have any power. pelosi versus boehner, pelosi versus the tea party, pelosi versus reality. >> i believe that we will win. >> nothing says new like the same old faces. democrats 2011, just like 2010, except one year later. >> let's see what our panel thought of our thrilling trailer of the year that is to come. alicia menendez, senior adviser for the ironically named new democrat network. dave weigle, slate's political report and msnbc contributor and

ari berman, with the nation, aught over "herding donkeys, the fight to rebuild the democratic party and the reshape american politics." alicia, how do you keep the exact same people in power in a sweep election that was theoretically a rejection of status quo politicians and yet both the status quo republican and status quo democratic leadership entirely intact? >> listen, first of all, i think this is a very insidery d.c. issue that only people like us and washington are talking about. to the average american, this doesn't make a whole load of difference. you keep these people because they are effective at doing their jobs. >> you made a very interesting point no one in america cares except for guys like me and msnbc and pundits. if the point of voting and maybe i'm wrong but if the point con separately of voting, particularly when you are rejecting the incumbent politician even though they have got 75% of the districts, jerry mappedered, have the money and

all that, 10 to 15% of the districts aren't totally rigged are potentially competitive, if the point of doing that is not to change the leadership and the political parties but just to have the exact same people do the same thing they were doing as before, what's the point of the election? >> the point is to send a message that your policies aren't working and that you actually want democrats to stand up and deliver a stronger argument. the point is not necessarily who you have courting those votes, making sure that you're keeping your coalition together on the hill. i think in many ways, they are actually entirely different issues. >> okay. dave weigle, do you agree that keeping the -- let's say you have got, i don't know, the emperor of rome and the policies keep getting worse and worse and worse and the emperor just changes -- like changing your team or changing your laundry, you go from majority to minority, minority toage jurority. to alicia's point, the same person can keep their hands on power for decades, perhaps, as long as they listen to the electorate who rejects them s that fair? >> you are getting he at the

root the problem with this. i don't think this is a sign that democrats are doomed for the next two years. once this was defined as a fight between the blue dogs led by heath schuller and nancy pelosi, it was obvious that she was going to win, progressives blame the blue dogs for what happened to them, they really should pay more attention to the reforms the democrats didn't make when pelosi took over. the problem was not adopting things the republicans would say, shaking up who would run coast not just giving committees to people who had the most seniority but cycling people out every couple of terms and a big problem in 2009. the appropriations committee crafted the stimulus which defined whether obama would be success and it was not very inventive and innovative and no one with was punished or -- punished for t. >> ari, does it make sense to you to have a sweeping change election where the exact same them people that were in the room making the screw-up decision, perpetuate the health care monopoly, insuring the too big to fail banking system, goal

on and on, you keep the same people in the same room no matter how disrun if the election and change who sits in which chair and make sure everything changes is -- am i missing something? >> great set, dylan, i can't see you right now and i really think there is obviously a whole lot wrong with the democratic party now but i don't think pelosi is their number one problem. i think she was pretty successful what she did. obama hand herd his entire agenda and she passed it. so, i don't think the democrats lost the election because of her, even though she is easily demonized. i think the problems go with the people in the white house and the people running the senate. i think the house was the least of democrats' problems in the last two years. >> alicia, there was -- somebody was writing analysis that agrees with what ar riff saying, which was there is no way pelosi was going to step out of this because they believe it is the obama white house that screwed this out and pelosi the only one that did what the democrats wanted and for her to step down is the only one who was fighting on their behalf, is insane.

is that the case? >> there is so much finger pointing going to on right now in washington, i'm sure everyone is blaming someone different and the truth of the matter is that everyone needs to take a bit of the responsibility here but more importantly, dylan, instead of looking backwards what democrats need to do now is look forward, find a northern star and actually make an argument for why they are the ones to take america in the right direction. all of this finger pointing is silly. >> yeah. i agree. i would think -- i spent a lot of my time, as you know, talking to people whose houses are foreclosed upon, lost their jobs because of the economic policies created under bill clinton, expanded under george bush and perpetuated by barack obama. maybe we will -- we will get jobs now as a result of the same people in different chairs? is that a possibility, dave? >> well, no, this is a good job for nancy pell lows? i some ways because she doesn't actually have to do anything

except marshal democratic votes against what republicans are doing and there will be things republicans try do which don't seem like they are going to create jobs and republicans are talking right now about one of their immediate priorities being defunding npr. if republicans start making those -- no really. if republicans start making soi the culture war instead of concentrating on jobs, you have the potential for pell lows toy is make the argument they are distractedsome that very likely? i don't know.remember, pelosi was not brought down by a scandal. the biggest scandal i can think of with her is her criticizing the cia or using a large plane to go become to california. this isn't a situation like newt gingrich or denny hastert or bob livingston if we want to get really obscure, her party didn't create jobs. for her -- >> let stop there for a second, dave, her party didn't create jobs or that both parties, as i argue are completely bought off by the financial industry, the

health care industry, the military industrial complex, the six industries that control them and that the democrats are more -- no more likely to end the extraction through the trade policies, energy policies, health care mon no his and too big to fail banking system then the republicans are, so maybe it doesn't matter if you change who's there because obviously, party leadership on both sides is in favor of giant banks, health care mon no his and trade extraction. no? >> matter a little. there was an opportunity for a democrat who was worse on those things to take this job than nancy pell lows cism ari makes good point. fuhr progressive who thinks that the priorities of the obama administration that would have made the recovery come quicker, that would have had more -- demanded more accountability, you are not angry at nancy pelosi, that was all screwed up by chris dodd, that was manhandled by the white house, she prassed everything progressives want to pass. replacing her i don't think would have gotten to the goal

you were talking about? bad for the democrat these didn't have somebody waiting in the wings that could replace her? sort of. i don't think the fight whether you are able to tar somebody as a popular public figure is as interesting as what you are talking about, which is how you shuffle around leadership who will actually be unincouple berred by these special interests. i'm not sure that -- >> what strike mess is the -- when you look at the collapse in lending, collapse in job creation, educational system, extraordinarily expensive health care system, all of which is empowered by, again, institutional interests, health care mon no lows or whatever, protected by these politicians, it just strikes me funny, ari see a changed election no matter what anybody says, after the changed election, the same people bringing met monopoly extraction of my country are still here. >> pelosi came closest to laying out alternative agenda you wanted compared for -- >> i didn't want it. >> she draws the contrast with boehner more strikingly than anyone i think in terms of -- she wanted the obama

administration to be more aggressive, not less aggressive on these fronts. so, i don't think the democrats lost the election because of had her. she is not the reason that democrats don't have a spine that is really not her fault. you can place the blame with a lot of other people, including one of the people that ran against her, i would say, heath schuller. >> listen, let's move on to this meeting. if this is a nonsensical lead, eye leash sharks disstra ax to talk about democratic leadership staying the same, municipal bonds and housing markets tetter under the weight of the extraction, is it even stupider for me to bring up this bipartisan meeting between the two parties where they obviously don't want to deal with any of these problems anyway? >> let's do it. i mean, listen, you we need these two parties to come together. >> they are together. >> finally have an opportunity for them to talk. no you have the republicans invited to the white house. >> backe rolled by the same

corporation. >> dylan, you want to talk about the same movie, you constantly come back to the same argument and i understand it but i would like to know what you want to do to fix t if we want to talk about the role of money in politics, talk about campaign finance reform, when people want to hear about jobs and putting food on the table, you really think -- >> yeah, listen -- >> that is what they want to talk about? >> teddy roosevelt was right about that, wasn't? he again, people didn't say to teddy roosevelt, hey you can want to talk about rockefeller and carnegie and jpmorgan using the railroads and standard oil to extract this country when people don't have a job? well, hey, guess what wake up, the reason they don't have a job is because you have extracting mon no his in power by the corrupt government. >> not every answer can go back to this. >> going to create jobs. >> fundmentally ignores where we are in the conversation. >> i disagree with that the

conversation, from my perspective here at msnbc, i'll not a political operator, is try to be an information dealer to enlighten a little bit my audience to the fact this baloney shar laid between the two political parties is being on conn ducted at their expense. >> i get that you see no shades of gray between the two parties. you think they are one in the same. >> a little bit of difference on gay marriage and i will say that the democrats, the very least, are willing to print a bunch of money to give health care away but not actually reform the monopoly or address it. >>ky jump in here for a second? >> sure, please do. >> i think there are distinctions between the parties, we will see them, but the point you made is a good one there are these structural problems, imbalances in washington that neither party is talking about, that was a missing message the last two years of the obama administration, how he was going to change washington. same with pell lows cism and they got punished for it accordingly in the last election and republicans are going to get punished for it again going forward if they don't talk about it, too. >> that, alicia, why i think this is so important. when i look at the structural

extraction of the monopolies in this country and present it with pretend political solutions that do not break up the health insurance monopoly that do not actually resurrect investment in this country and that do not honestly deal with the fact that money is leaving this country on an ongoing basis every month and that that is a major problem and the reason it is happening is -- >> no one is arguing it is not important, all i'm saying is this one fundamental thing which i do agree is fundamental it can't obscure everything else that goes on in washington. it can if that is the reason nobody has a job or a house or food. >> could i say quickly -- >> quickly. >> the president doesn't need bipartisanship. he needs to talk to someone with an idea. he should talk to ron widen about his tax reform plan that would get rid of tax breaks. bipartisanship -- qualified bipartisanship is useless. he needs a concept that makes sense for what you are talking about and democrats who have them and i would suggest ron wind the first on the list. >> as you know, i'm a big senator wyden.

alicia, thank you. thank you. what could china do with a u.s. cyberattack and is there anybody in this country working to protect us from it, from the pentagon to google, how the next battle could be fought online with extraordinary consequences. we are back after this. yellowbook has always been crucial to your business,

but now, to get it really cooking, you need a little website development. some transparent reporting, so you know it's working. online ads and 1-on-1 marketing consultation. yellowbook's got all that. yellowbook360 has a whole spectrum of tools. the perfect recipe for success. visit yellowbook360.com and go beyond yellow.

so you think your kids are getting enough vegetables? yeah, maybe not. v8 v-fusion juice gives them a full serving of vegetables plus a full serving of fruit. but it just tastes like fruit. v8. what's your number? [ male announcer ] don't let aches anslow you down. morning introducing bayer am. its dual-action formula delivers extra strength pain relief, plus it fights fatigue. so get up and get going with new bayer am, the morning pain reliever. i think there is a -- there is a huge future threat and there is a to considerable

current threat. the only defense the united states has, i think against nation states and other potential threats in the cyberworld is the national security agency. >> well, defense secretary robert gates breaking down america's new battleground, the internet. a new report to congress highlighting the growing threat that we face from hackers in china, including the chinese government itself. as we mentioned on tuesday, for 18 minutes on april 15th -- in april, i should say, 15% of the global web traffic was suddenly routed through china, including websites for the secretary of defense, nasa, private companies like microsoft, ibm and last december, chinese hackers broke into google servers and reported swiped the company's source code. that would be the holy grill of computer code in the world today. so, is the new cold war a cyberwar and one that is u.s. versus china?

joining us now a man following this longer than almost any reporter in our country, joe mann, financial times correspondent and author of "fatal system era, the hunt for the new crime lord those are bringing down the internet," an update of the book out on paper back with new information on china. joe, put the threat in context for us, how big is it how real is it? >> it is very real and it is very big. there's lots of stuff going on now and the problem is that it is asymmetrical. you have a nation state on one hand and private companies on the other and they are not equipped to defend themselves. if the company as sophisticated as google can have his holy grail taken, as you put it any other company anything the chinese might be interested in should assume they have already been hacked as well. >> it specifically china v u.s. as we set it up or is russia involved, other venues of cybercrime or cold war, if you will, on an electronic basis? >> it is going on in multiple

fronts at the same time, the russians are actually very, very good. in terms of she ofs of shear nu have to give it to the chinese, number one in cyberspace. >> what are they trying to do? >> everything, a vacuum cleaner. they are getting defense stuff. they are all over, all over washington. everyone assumes that they are bugged in washington. and they want our intellectual property and get it one way with or the other, either a company that wants to do business there that has to make disclosures or else employees walk out with what they have physically or they go the cyberroute, probably the easiest of them all. >> you mentioned the cyberroute. just had the fall screen up, maybe we can kick it back up this is a measure of malicious cyberactive the trying to hack specifically the pentagon, which seems very telling just in terms of the rate of activity. in 2000, the total number of hits or cyberhits on the pentagon from an outside source recorded at 1,415. nine years later, it is 716,616

hit percent year, the numbers are. do we know how many are chinese and is the scale of those hits something that would apply to more than the pentagon? >> it actually applies to more than the pentagon. the pentagon is just one attack surface. i was talking to somebody who does a lot of very good investigations of these activities and after google disclosure, they were called in, said, hey do we have this problem? no, but you have four other problems coming from china, you have been hacked eight ways from sunday, happens all the time. virtually every major company is being hacked by chinese. >> what is the defense mechanism? >> the defense mechanism? what you should do is air gap your crown jewels, 2 or 3% of what you know that you really can't afford to have out should not be on a networked computer. it is a hard way to do business but that's the number one thing you have to do. tough assume you have been hack

and put in pretty sophisticated behavioral tracking and forensics to log what's happening and make sense of it after the fact at least make sense of where the damage has occurred. >> what about national security beyond institutional security to web functionality to our financial systems to the functionality of our power grid to worst case scenario, the cap facility to intervene and assume control or interfere with military functionality? >> the part i'm not sure about how much damage they could do to military functionality, you know, in the field, a missile launch that kind of thing. i don't think -- i would like to think they couldn't do much there. everything else is pretty much fair game. they could do bad things to our power grid. we could do things to their power grid. az as senior intelligence official told me of the book that is true of nukes, doesn't mean we are going to do it. it would be in the context of some broader conflict, very definitely a factor. i don't think they could wipe out the whole power grid but do pretty serious damage to it.

the financial system is extremely vulnerable, nobody seems to want to talk about that. >> so my last question to you is what can we do to help you draw more attention to this? what is not being done that could be done in the private sector or by the government? >> to me it is amazing there has been a couple of decent senate bills put together boy harry reid at least put the u.s. government in charge of protecting private companies that have major operations on the internet and nothing has happened on the house on that. it's -- when you have an enemy going after our asset which is happen to be in private hands, we, as a government, still have an obligation to protect those people, right now, there isn't a legal basis for it. >> listen, joe, a pleasure, thank you so much, joe menn, financial times, the "with fatal system error, the had hunt for the new crime lords" out in paper back, not paperwork, not paperwork, a paper back. thank you, joe.

>> thank you. the dumb comment of the day, other than my own, the guy in charge of the tsa saying passenger screenings have gotten more invasive. you don't say? but does anyone plan to address these inspections are not actually designed to stop terrorists? and on tomorrow's show, will he or won't with he? congressman and rumored presidential candidate mike pence answers the burning question, or at least we will ask the burning question. find out tomorrow, 4:00 eastern, right here on "the d.r. show." trust me. trust me. ya i like that. trust me.

bankers are known to be a little bit in love with themselves. are we going up? we can get the next one.

i'd like to get your advice on hedging - risk... exposure. what makes us different? for 300 years we've chosen to focus on our clients. what a novel idea.

whoa! that achy cold needs alka-seltzer plus! it rushes multiple cold fighters, plus a powerful pain reliever, wherever you need it! [ both ] ♪ oh what a relief it is! i'm frankly bothered by the level of these patdowns. i have seep them firsthand in airports in florida. i wouldn't want my wife to be touched in the way that these folks are being touched. i wouldn't want to be touched that way. >> that is senator george lemieux today voicing his concerns over the busy pingers of our friends over at the tsa. tsa chief john pistole testified

about the controversy exploded around patdowns and full-body scanners which he admits are more invasive but argues are necessary. [ inaudible ] the debate sparked in part by a cell phone video of a traveler righteously protecting his "junk." some air passengers calling for a scanner boycott the day before thanksgiving in a national opt-out day. but you know a story hasn't officially arrived until the taiwanese media get ahold of it and turn it into a cartoon this animation, complete with sexy searches and a flightful of naked people, of course this whole debate misses the actual way to catch terrorists as we were informed on monday by the former head of security at el-al. the best measures of prevention are behavioral profiling and aggressive questioning of the individuals flying on the airplane, not spending billions of dollars on technology that is

awarded to god knows who so that you can act like you're doing something while you're actually doing very little but not to go become to the beginning of the show but whether it is health care or financial reform, our government seems to specialize in spending a ton of our money pretending to solve the problem than invading our lives. anyway, one way to live. still ahead on the dr shock the real reasons why earmarks may be worst than you think, even if they are a small piece of the puzzle. is that the bribe money that turns all those health care monopoly votes-to-too big to fail banking policies and war votes from no to yes? if you vote my way, i will give you a couple of bucks for your hometown, senator. plus, lay off the money but show me the money. cenk uygur is exposing yet another hypocrisy in the american congress. unusually, he is fired up, i hear, for the daily rant, still ahead.

i want to emphasize that chase strongly prefers to work with borrowers that reaches a solution that permits them to keep their homes. >> that's lie! that's lie -- >> to borrowers. >> borrowers here -- not have that perjury. >> chase home lending ceo dave loehmann drowned out by hecklers at a senate hearing on tuesday on foreclosures. fast forward today on a plan to ease foreclosure crisis on the street level. the "washington post" reporting that lenders and states attorney general are working to create a fund that they say would compensate homeowners who can prove they were improverly foreclosed upon says nothing of the violation of property rights that's intrinsic in this entire conversation but then again, who needs property rights when you have the banks and the government? bank, of course, hoping to avoid long, expensive legal fights with all those property rights issues. hoping to get at least some relief in the states for those

who are wronged even though, again, the banks run the federal government. of course, such a fund would not address the larger scandals in the housing and financial markets that these foreclosures ultimately through their shoddy practices are making easier to cover up really and joining us now is bethany mcclaine, used to work at goldman, author of "all the devils are here, the hidden history of the financial crisis." i should also point out bethany also best-selling co-author of the enron book, "the smartest guys in the room" which i only bring that up because you have a suggested familiarity with the system of those who get very rich and then act like it was an accidentful. >> amazing that it is the same story playing itself out again. >> how similar, from your perspective, you look at the man nip pew lakeses of the past and you look at this -- the manipulation of the financial system was -- exposed to be, encouraged by our president, how

similar is it? >> enron was the canary in the coal mine from the sort of knitty guilty issues like offshoot balance accounting, such a role in enron's collapse and such a role at the near collapse of citigroup. we all knew there was a problem, outcry, what are we going to do about the both rating agencies, nobody did anything. to the story of human nature of enron and financial crisis this is less encouraging in the sense it is a story of self-dell delusion and it is hard to prosecute. >> if you were to look at how deeply this whole sort of mythology has penetrated our country, the world's richest man, your good old uncle warren was out today with a letter in the "new york times" thanking uncle sam for helping us out. warren didn't mention that he has a huge position in goldman and ge, two of the biggest

beneficiaries of the bailout or more importantly's source of capital for moody's, ratings agencies, correct me if i am wrong, exquisitely central to perpetrating this entire fraud, correct? >> absolutely. >> i didn't have the time to write the counterletter to buffet today but barry riddles did, entitled it dear uncle sucker, give you the buffet rebuttal letter. dear uncle sucker, i siddenly recalled who it was who allowed the banks to run wild in the first place, you. your behavior before, during and after the rights can cis was the epitome of a corrupt and irresponsible government. you rewarded incomp pency, created moral hazard, punished the prudent an engaged in the single biggest transfer of wealth from the citizenry of the united states to the wall street insiders who created this mess in the first place.

it is clear that people can't pay their mortgages. they don't understand why people are so mad. >> what piece of information, for those who don't understand, think this is a sidebar, who don't understand the amount of money paid out to people running the rating agencies, the amount of money paid out to the individuals on the boards and ceo chambers of the banks creating so many of these instruments, the amount of money that continues to be made as a benefit of accounting lenience and underwriting lenience that allows the banks to this day present that the asset base is worth something that there is no evidence that it is, how do we bridge the information gap because god help this country when the rest of the country understand what is you understand and i feel like i understand and many others do, you really learn what is going

on around here, seeps you can get a lot of really angry people. >> i'm not sure it is an information gap so much as understanding gap. banks take refuge in the whole notion of personal responsibility that is a really compelling notion and important notion, that the closer you look at this crisis you can the more you realize that people were sold loans, they didn't buy loans. then why is it that people have all the responsibility for themselves in a world where financial institutions have no scruples and no shame? >> how can you have a banking system where the rewards for the bankers, riesing management, are privately retained by the executive but the risks they decide to create yait, their only job, how much risk should we create sam, how much risk should we create, janwe create,,

we are printing money do what we tell you. take everybody's favorite fill vil laps, fannie mae and freddie mac, said all these, fannie and fannie have an implicit government guarantee, bailed out if something goes wrong, they say, you do too, big banks and they were absolutely right in the end. we everged from this. >> you give me hope. we work for years. >> i'm a sunny, optimistic type. i have plenty to write about, you have plenty to talk b >> the title derived from shakespeare. tell us where the title from. >> from the shake pear "the tempest," "hell is empty and all the devils are here" there is a whole cast of characters involved in this decades-long story. >> same basic recurring characters? >> same basic recurring

characters. >> full employment for you. >> you, too. a small part of the budget, a flea on a dog's ass, i like to say but enabling to the big to fail banking votes, health care monopolies, the wars? should we really be setting our health care financial and war policy based on whether a congressman is willing to change his vote in order to get cash to build a new school in his school district? is it that bad? jimmy williams pushes back on the hypothesis, after this. "you just beat the widow-maker." i was put on an aspirin, and it's part of my regimen now. [ male announcer ] be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. go see your doctor now.

i won't. ♪ [ female announcer ] clear some snow. ♪ or spread a little warmth. maxwell house gives you a rich full flavored cup of coffee so you can be good to the last drop. my professor at berkeley asked me if i wanted to change the world. i said "sure." "well, let's grow some algae." and that's what started it. exxonmobil and synthetic genomics have built a new facility to identify the most productive strains of algae. algae are amazing little critters. they secrete oil, which we could turn into biofuels. they also absorb co2. we're hoping to supplement the fuels that we use in our vehicles, and to do this at a large enough scale to someday help meet the world's energy demands.

>> ♪ >> ( laughing ) >> yay! no! no! no! no! aah! >> that's your water? it's bad water. isn't that right? >> healthcare that goes everywhere. everyone has someone to go heart healthy for. who's your someone? campbell's healthy request can help. low cholesterol, zero grams trans fat, and a healthy level of sodium.

it's amazing what soup can do. when it comes to investing, no one person has all the answers. so td ameritrade doesn't give me just one person. questions about retirement? i talk to their retirement account specialists. bonds? grab the phone. fixed-income specialist. td ameritrade knows investors sometimes need real, live help. not just one broker... a whole team there to help... to help me decide what's right for me. people with answers at td ameritrade. get up to $500 when you open an account.

cut the pork. in today's fall of the money, why we need to take a cleaver to earmarks, not for the reasons you have heard. earmarks make up only a tiny fraction of our overall spending and liabilities, the impact that they can have on our country is massive. as folks on the hill will admit in private, funding for small hometown projects that are critical to specific politicians is routinely used to twist arms to get bigger votes that are important to the special interests that fund the parties. in the process, you can use a little money to change no votes into yes votes on votes that count by the trillion, everything from health care to too big to fail banks to the wars. also dart ardly in this is the way the add-ones are slipped into the legislation, often behind closed doors, frequently

at the end of the process, people just want the deal done, who can fight the fact that so-and-so from such and such wants an extra few billion in the funding inserted into the massive bills the lawmakers aren't willing to vote down simply because of a couple million tax dollars, let's say, for a bridge ensures you get the bucks. right now we, as a people, are on the wrong end of a very good deal. the return for industries who seek to influence to our government is immense, pennies return billions, but the earmark dollars sent back home, a pittance compared to that which is given away in the course of the legislative process. and joining us now, washington insider, lobbyist jimmy williams. jimmy, i understand you take a little bit of issue, perhaps a lot of issue with the way i have set this up. i'm hoping that it's a spirited debate, at best. but tell me where my analysis falls down, in your view. >> dylan, first of all, you bring something to the forefront

and it's important to talk about it. here's where you're dead wrong, wrong in the water, you're floating like that carnival cruise ship with no power. it's not that they are being bought by industries for appropriations projects, that's not it. and i cannot -- >> let me be clear, that's not what i said either, let me be clear what i perceive it to be and tell me whether i'm still wrong. i'm a republican. it's 2004. george bush wants to pass medicare part d, $4 trillion, an obvious play for the vote going into at he election, i'm a conservative, no way i'll vote for a trillion dollar medicare give away, i'm a republican from a conservative district and please don't insult me, i have my principles. somebody from the republican party comes into my office and says, hey, rat began, i hear you have principles all worked up, vote no on the medicare part d routine. i say that's right. guess what you know that bridge

that we were gonna give you the earmark for, i guess we are not gonna do that anymore or if you want to get that earmark, maybe you should change this no vote on the multitrillion dollar give away to a health care insurance monopoly to a yes vote and give you a couple of bucks for whatever your pet project is back home. you're saying that never happens? >> no, not saying it doesn't happen. i'm saying to assume it's all bad and that everyone is being bought by their leadership or by -- >> but i'm not saying that again, i want you to refute what i'm saying not what you think i'm saying either. what i'm saying is earmarks strike me as dangerous because they seem to be the bribe money that is used to pay off politicians to get them to turn a no vote to a yes vote on major policies that i view as dangerous to this country from the the giant banks to the health care monopoly to the wars and how do i get votes of real integrity on multitrillion dollar issues when i can co-opt a given politician's vote with a little earmark money? >> i tell you how you stop it how you get rid of it you take

money out of politics. you and i have had this conversation umpteen times. here is a great example. when the democrats took over in 2006, right, the first thing that they said in the appropriations process was, okay, going to publish them, you will see what the earmarks are, why they are there whether or not the money is brought become to the district, what it's for and what effect it will have on the budget, ie, how much it will cost. then the democrats also said it can't -- you are not allowed to ask for an earmark if you are an appropriator or member of congress if it is for a for-profit company. it only can be for not for profits like cancer hospitals, children's hospitals. >> doesn't that bypass the issue of bribing -- if the problem with this country different. >> dylan, here is the problem, you are assuming that all leadership bribes all the time only with appropriations project. i would look at it differently. i don't think that is the case. if you want to get rid of bribing, then you take money out of the politics and then there is no bribe, because, listen, my

problem is not with earmarking, the constitution is terrifyingly clear when it comes to the issue of the power of the purse that is congress' job, not the white house's job and the judiciary's job. that is congress's job t is their job to spend the money, and people don't like that, they can deelect them and get them out of office that just happened november 2nd it is not like the republicans haven't done it, too. >> of course, clearly. one thing you were saying earlier, a time when this process was not viewed, the amou optics like someone like myself is not so cynical. i understand you brought show and tell. >> i have a clip and think we are going to play this from the 1986 tax bill, largest tax reform bill in my lifetime and it shows when it passed the senate finance committee about 2:00 in the morning and you had a junior senator on the

committee on the democratic side who lambasted his ranking member, who was russell long from louisiana, do you want to roll it and we can look at it and then i will talk about it afterwards. >> we will take a gander. >> what we are doing here is establishing one rule for every american business, every american interest, except oil and gas, and then a special rule for those in the oil and gas business. i can no see no justification for that. >> we are the lawmakers. we are supposed to know who we are helping and do it dip rattly and no who we are h.e.l.p. hurting and do that deliberately. why do you think we just got through to pass a bill to give your state relief, the textile people nothing for my fishermen in louisiana? helping one group and not helping another. >> that was better, not the good

old days? >> they were out in the open. the '86 debt bill had a billion debts that bill came back to life 75 times. odd junior member of the committee who was lambasting russell long from louisiana. russell long put in provision notice '86 tax bill thatted h h his constituents. that is russell long's job. every senator's job and every congressman's job. i voted against my member of congress this election cycle. do you know why? >>. i don't. >> he doesn't ask for federal money. he doesn't ask for earmarks. i live in a county that is 326 square miles it has less than 7,000 people. i pay taxes, i don't have kids in the schools and i'm okay with paying more tax, i want him to bring me new bridges and roads and hospitals and better schools. that's his damn job. and members of congress, until they figure this out, you got

these tea party crazy people saying i don't want earmarks and mitch mcconnell who has got 1 billion in the last two years for the commonwealth of kentucky now doesn't want any money from the commonwealth of kentucky, what is their job? their job is to bring it home. the biggest problem is the pirk the piece of the pie. shrink the pie, reduce the spending and then let them have oversight and how they can spend their money. >> i still think they are bribes. nice to see you. >> then take the money out of it. get rid of campaign contributions. >> i would if i could, james. >> would, too. yes. >> thanks, nice to see you, jimmy williams following the money right to his own home county, in fact. coming up here on "hardball," a change election resulting in the same old faces. i think we have this conversation, right? democratic leader john larson joins michael sher connish in the moments to comes. kings and queens of the welfare state. cenk uygur fired up for his daily rant and those sucking

uncle sam instead of working. [ rattling ] [ gasps ] [ rattling ] [ laughing ] [ announcer ] close enough just isn't good enough. - if your car is in an accident, - [ laughing continues ] make sure it's repaired with the right replacement parts. take the scary out of life with travelers. call or click now for an agent or quote. but now, to get it really cooking, you need a little website development. some transparent reporting, so you know it's working. online ads and 1-on-1 marketing consultation. yellowbook's got all that. yellowbook360 has a whole spectrum of tools. the perfect recipe for success. visit yellowbook360.com and go beyond yellow.

whoa! that achy cold needs alka-seltzer plus! it rushes multiple cold fighters, plus a powerful pain reliever, wherever you need it! [ both ] ♪ oh what a relief it is!

time for the daily rant, today, cenk uygur's turn. he noticed a bit of inconsistency on the part of some republicans. who would think it, when it comes to federal money, no less. mainly because some people who say lay off the money are faithfully cashing checks from uncle sam as quickly as they can. cenk, the floor is yours. >> thank you, dylan. today, i want to talk to every bbt new welfare queens. these folks get a hell of a lot more money than the old welfare queens. so let's list some names for you guys first.

representative elect from missouri, representative michele bachmann, a big one, from minnesota, representative elect from south dakota, representative elect fincher from tennessee why are they the new welfare queens? well, look at the subsidies they have gotten over the last set of years? representative elect hartz letter's family got $77 to 0,000. >> family? to their families? >> it is to them and their families, they all have different situations. bachmann got, more than this, it was actually $250,000 to her family farm in the ironically named independence, wisconsin. representative elect christie nome in south dakota got $3 million over 15 years. for example, dylan, there she divested before the election, said it is not my farm, she didn't give the 3 million back, shockingly enough.

and finally, representative-elect steven fincher in tennessee, he got $3.2 million over ten years. now -- >> man. >> those are some big numbers. let's look at overall numbers. how much do people get in farm subsid chills are look at that, from '95 to 2009, $245.2 billion. if that ain't welfare, i don't know what is. it goes to the top 10% or farms, the cooperatives, get 74% of the subsidies for just five different crops that's it. a a lot of these farmers are actually in new york city, okay? edgar brafman senior or junior is the guy who is a billionaire and he lives in new york city but he got farm subsidies. >> can we get those? >> you know what, you can do it, because i'm not sure you -- >> you need to have a farm or -- >> senior, by the way.

but not just farm subsidies, handouts of different persuasions, you have the rickets family, joe rickets formed the group taxpayers against earmarks, the dad, says, okay, i don't like earmarks york like this pork barrel money going out. in fact, very animated about it. let's watch a clip. >> think is a crime for our elected officials to borrow money today to spend money today and push the repayment of that loan out into the future on people who are not even born yet. >> that is a crime. a crime. and the whole point of the group, taxpayers against earmarks, don't get the subsidies, et cetera. >> a good point. >> i like that point. i have been defending that point, giving republicans credit on that all week long at 3:00. >> yes, you have. >> so his son, joe rickets, ounce the cubs and is asking the good people of chicago for $300

noll redo wrigley field, okay? so, what happened? i thought you were against handouts. turns out your 300 million, you loft handouts, the guys against taxpayers against earmarks, an explanation. here is their quote from the president, brian baker. he says -- i want to end on this note of a regular guy farmer, one of the farmers talking about, his name david youngerman from monsieur voice, mad, he put up this sign on his trailer. are you a producer toer a parasite, okay? and he pro-eight cueses the