international in the very heart of moscow. time same sex in for tom hartman in washington d.c. here's what's coming up tonight on the big picture. today the house approved legislation that if signed by president obama will put an end to all the flight delays caused by the sequester our elected representatives can find a way to make their trips home for recess a bit easier they screw up the other plan to keep toddlers in school we'll talk about this and more internets big picture rumble also why are extroverts favored in american society and are there any cultures across the globe that value introversion more time lask author and lecturer susan cain's nights conversations with great minds.

all right it's friday which means it's time for the big picture rumble joining me tonight are marc harrold libertarian commentator and attorney ben cohen editor of the daily banter and founder of banter media group and he knew some member of the national advisory council for project twenty one black leadership network and member of move on dot org mark. thanks a lot for coming on tonight so let's let's start by talking about the sequester we've seen the sequester we've seen the effects of the sequester take hold in local communities you're seeing these layoffs you're seeing furloughs we've seen two percent cuts to medicare those forced clinics clinics to turn away chemotherapy patients ten percent cuts to unemployment benefits cuts to rental assistance for lower income families cuts to wic congress has been fine with all that for the most part but as soon as we start talking about delays at the airports where they fly members of congress more than anybody pretty much every week. and of course rich

people fly pretty often then congress jumps in to do something about that the senate on thursday passed a bill to allocate funds to stop the furloughs of f.a.a. flight controller thing to make sure that all the flights were on time i want to play a clip here by study where he's a democratic congressman he voted against the measure in the house they passed anyway but he voted against it and this is what he said. i want to end these delays for passengers in maryland across the country i want to pose this bill because it fails to address the horrible impact of sequester let me share just a handful of examples of how the sequester will affect america's education head start seventy thousand children will be kicked out of head start nothing in this bill deals with them. so is this is the best congress can do here you know when it comes to the sequester and this is pretty much implicit. acknowledgement that government spending does have an effect on our economy and all this stuff and they choose to only focus on the part that affects rich people in themselves and this

pretty embarrassing mark well it's a bare this is just partisan politics is worse this sequester ations become a political football going back and forth i agree with you the fact that this is where the airports that they use obviously by the nature of their business they have to travel a lot to and from their districts they're going to shut reagan down at one point they left it open specifically because senators and congressmen didn't want to as far as we have to go through this sequester ation process it's a healthy process if it leads to cuts we need to make cuts what they're doing obviously is they've gone after things and i think the president's done this intentionally gone after you know high profile things that people see immediately summer travel white house tours but this is just become the real distraction from the real issue that led us to sweep crist ration which is that they cannot do their job pass a budget and get our debt down so i think that they're just using this in the public's eye as a political football to blame each other here we have how can members of congress justify passing legislation that will make their flight times a little bit better while people who need chemotherapy are being turned around at clinics because of the sequester you know i wonder how many people would have had to been turned away at those hospitals and how many of the seventy thousand kids

you know being turned away from head start now this is congress more you gave i wonder how many people would need to be reduced as far as the administration is concerned of those programs here in washington if you were to focus on that as opposed to the in the. polls at the end of the chain the kids the cancer patients and all of that if we focus on cutting the fat in the administration bureaucracy which we get for the hit in fact this is interesting because the president himself gave report a few years ago talking about that in redundancies in the administration in the bureaucracies but that never was the focus of the sequence when how how often do you have to keep government to there's nothing left what do you have to have we have. cut any government remember this is only twenty two billion this year anything less they don't want to lower the sequester cuts quite a lot of government officials and i mean you know it billion at a out of a budget of three point seven trillion it will get not on the face of this it just

people's health care you're going to have them i was asked a cut of his her salary when the payroll tax cut was real estate the reality is that we have cut spending faster rate spending faster any time in recent memory at this point we are at a stair levels that are as a percent of g.d.p. that are in comparison with europe right now and all this is going on at a time when we desperately need more government spending in our economy to create jobs what are you basing this on when do we cut spending or you cut talking about couldn't you could contribute in dollars and we need a billion dollars this year which is part of the sequester spending. but not one that's been one hundred thousand dollars and i say i was going to spend one hundred fifty thousand dollars next year but i actually kind of engine forty thousand dollars that's not a cut that's an increase and for some reason people characterize that as a cut that's not the case as far as government spending goes i forgot what member of congress it was who are senator yesterday when they passed sr like you know this is good that we came together to pass a measure to make sure that the sequester doesn't have harmful effects on our

commerce and travel and things like that connecting it to our economy how we need to pass this because harming our economy which is flight delays everyone hates government and so we need it exactly how can it how come how come the consensus in washington can come together and accept that government spending does affect our economy but only when it dies to them when it applies to their flights how come they can't see that government spending affects the economy throughout but you can't use that as a justification to grow government that's the whole point because government isn't doing its job passing a budget having streamlines in place you can't use that as justification ok knows what happens when government goes away doesn't do its job we did need to grow government i disagree with that argument well this is that these are ridiculous expectations that we're seeing in so many things because government's doing absolutely way too many. thanks they may feel that it's being cut and they don't like that but these are expectations that have been a risen by having government do so much more so who would you order that you regulate. the aviation industry would you would you have that be private i would have ties a huge portion of the aviation industry to totally over regulated and it cost more

for the consumers you're seeing that's in services but a lot of services the government should never been providing in the first place and then we have to retract and we have to go back to what the government absolutely needs to do course you have to cut all these programs that they never should have been doing in the first place and that's what we're seeing these ridiculous expectations of what government is and what it's supposed to do has led us to the point where needless programs get cut some are needless some are well intentioned but we don't need them or they're not constitutionally authorized and everybody panics the bottom line is the government does way too much and in doing that it doesn't do anything well i think maybe just a bit of perspective is needed when we're talking about this issue because from where the united states is a compared to every other industrialized nation on the planet along with it what it will take when it comes to government spending on things like health care and things like infrastructure you know the end of the spectrum in terms of how do you spend it's how the military spend you but you know so much more on health care you know it's been mostly infrastructure anymore it's a military that a lot of those other countries rely on to protect them an eye on our bill no i think we can all do agreement that the government can find places to cut and find

ways to cut nobody's standing in the way of that i think the problem is true that all that's being but no they're not all that's being put on the table right now are cuts to programs that affect working people and yet nothing is being put on the table to ask wealthy people to make in the barry sacrifice the small a sacrifice we're asking well to be able to make the sequester was this has made a little bit longer for their fellow i just never heard of this none of this has to do with cutting spending in the future it all has to do with cutting out it's been assuming we're not cutting anything we're just going to spend as much next year that's what else cuts are about this another about really cutting government they're about we're not going to expand government as much in the next ten years that's what you're calling a cut you know we'll see we also have more population of people growing which we've got to go he's crazy and he will be inflation because you're it's not about money that's nonsense. move on here earlier this week show cars are new if was given his miranda rights and this has upset some conservatives and i've heard some democrats question whether or not it was a good decision to give him his miranda rights he were where there was

a delay and he was arrested friday night over the weekend he was questioned for sixteen hours before he was given his miranda rights here's what mike rogers he's the chairman of the permanent house permit intelligence committee said about it. when you're talking about weapons of mass destruction this is as serious as it gets and we better err on the side of public safety but to have the court affirmatively push their way in is a i think it's wrong and b. we should have given the f.b.i. the time that they needed given the circumstances it's confusing it is horrible god awful policy and dangerous to the greater community and we have got to get to the bottom of this and we've got to fix it right now so we're talking about an american citizen here who is it ever too soon to give someone their miranda rights when they're being charged with a crime absolutely ministration had forty eight hours without it before it had to issue miranda rights in terms of public and parts of the public safety clause of the public safety terms if you will so if you look at it from that perspective they

question for sixteen hours but let me ask you will let me ask you a question. if you know that this person has shown an ability to kill people to get up his mass destruction and own top of that this person has shown that you know the weapons that he had you know get it from the c.v.s. down the street so how is it that you believe when he say is that he did not have backing from someone else this critical intelligence that you need if he's not telling the truth or that there are other weapons that doesn't fall into ok so there's a narrow definition of this public safety exactly as there is to make sure that there isn't a current threat under way as if i just was in one thousand and four when they created when they asked the guy where the gun was when they were arresting him right before they read him his miranda rights so i can understand or. i mean being like you know is there a gun in the city where is or is there was a bomb somewhere in the city didn't question him for hours after that about intelligence of other terrorist groups or what other information he might know like that that's definitely pushing the line on what this exception supposed to be my

question is it's terrorism which kills fewer people in america than have furniture falling on people's heads more people were just killed in west texas in a explosion due to corporate belligerence is terrorism worth it to be shredding or rather constitutional rights like right to understand what our rights are going to arrest if you're under attack from another entity the answer is yes we as a u.s. citizen but we don't know his ties to the foreign organizations that's the whole point is not if you have a presumption of innocence and we need to prove and otherwise a cool through a base that's a basic tenet of american mothers that the public safety clause in effect is that safety trumps that we can not and back to your zero point talking about you know it's a double digit so you think it's a dangerous route to go down there when you stop because that if you have government that power more. if we can we start arresting gang members in chicago and then not mirandizing them and then questioning them about the intricacies of the gangs in chicago and think that that's ok i mean how is that any different well

if you do that that evidence is going to be suppressed in the explosion or oh i mean it can be brought out because the way that was gathered thing here is we can't confuse the fact that we get the miranda rights don't give you a right constitution give your right american center a citizen has a right not to incriminate themselves the miranda warnings were originally a prophylactic measure they were something that we did to try to ensure the voluntariness of statements and the corals exception or that the public safety exception is very narrow but you have to remember one of the things i don't think is coming out a lot is in two thousand the supreme court in a surprising opinion by chief justice rehnquist and scalia dissented vigorously as you can imagine but it was one of those decisions they actually took the miranda warnings from being a measure to ensure a right to a constitutional rule and you can't that doesn't give you a right you have to mirandize someone if you're past the public safety the immediate threat and you're going to try to use the information against them and just as you see terrorism again being years as an extremism but we're out of time we're move out of the topic rhetoric coming up next. let me let me are going to let me ask you a question from. here on this man working his way around in the bank we have our

knives out. to do with this right it's a bad thing never again you're in a situation where being i don't even talk about the surveillance me. you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so for life you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else and you hear or see some other part of it and realize everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm trying hard luck and was a big picture. here is mitt romney trying to figure out the name of that thing that we americans call i

don't know. i'm sorry i missed the guy who cares an awful lot about my country you sir are a fool you know what that is my other terror cells in your neighborhood want to give us a new feature isn't the only liberal christian point just. really going to. you know that we're going to distract us from what you and i should care about because they're profit driven industry that sells a sensationalistic garbage he calls it breaking news i'm having martin and we're going to break that. looking to have a doc in the field that we won't find it here if you're looking for relevant stories unique perspective from top of my skin's to an end arts.

welcome back joining me for tonight's big picture rumble are marc harrold ben cohen and here we here in new sin welcome back let's talk about what's going on in bangladesh this week we had a garment factory collapse workers had notice cracks the day before the collapse of the building they were all told they have to get back to work or else they could be docked a full month of pay they went back to work in the building collapsed more than three hundred people are killed there are still people trapped in there this comes off the hills in november there was a fire lost last year in november there was a fire that killed a hundred twelve people in a bangladesh garment factory and this also comes after. a lot of the stores here in the united states like walmart were approached about coming together putting in some money and raising the safety standards of a lot of these factories that they're using that they're going through suppliers and having clothes made for them and they basically all rejected saying they could afford of course wal-mart is making billions in profits here at the same time do

american companies like wal-mart that contract with suppliers in bangladesh and use these factories have a responsibility to make sure that hundreds of people aren't being killed in the same factories mark while there's a moral responsibility in the way that you do work as far as whether they should i mean that is the question whether a company should look to their subcontractors of the people that they buy from and try to have fair trade these type of course yes there is shouldn't lead towards this holiday when they don't and we have these sort of tragedies here what is the recourse the recourse is in the free market they have the resort recourse is is a p.r. thing those companies will or will not be favored by the consumers i guess the question you're really asking is should the american government put in rules against companies that there are forced against foreign countries indirectly where they're sort of the super legislature i see that as a type of economic economic ethnocentricity we're going to save everybody else now i don't think we should do that there are. moral ways to conduct ever good corporate citizenship but i don't think there's any government action here to force

our rules on other countries i think this is a story. i'm surrounded by. i would think this points to the kind of inherent depravity of free market cap to the some of the costs where you can have written this tragedy to this and for corporations to still say you know what no video problems we're not going to regulate if you have a system is built on profit course at the expense of human life really at the expense of what you're saying is that the expense of human life and it doesn't really matter you've given up on the wrist and hope that consumers are not going to go boy crazy you know whoever it is i mean it's not. like an insane system with you we're also talking about stuff happening halfway across the planet i mean most american citizens are completely unaware i wonder if if if these factories are right across the border maybe in mexico when we're seeing these tragedies happen all the time just across the border maybe people care so much but global imbedded in globalism is that things are so far away that people don't even have any

understanding of i couldn't disagree more in this world that we live in now where. me that hit the indonesia if you think about a mess standpoint things happen instantaneously people not to know about it to social media this is a great time in which the consumer that we talked about before the consumer should be have some accountability for what he or she is dying because the consumer has the highest level of intelligence that we've ever seen the consumer have through facebook through twitter through all these mechanisms just isn't you know what about advertising of it's i was in exists to distract people from the realities of what i put i would look at where nike trainers at the might. sneak in so you know that's a lot on your hands i brought on one hand the other i don't want to know how these things were i'm sure they it was a horrendous process but i saw him in the store and i thought it pretty cool and i'm going to give the government your representatives to know for you and. on your behalf if you want to read about this what it was it hasn't made it has a story somehow found its workers rights where if i'm going to buy sneakers. some

break it and make your own decision you want government to make that same as your proxy but to look around the world and see what you shouldn't do what i'm afraid of what influences you i would not have this how about this rather than creating a safety standards or having the us government for safety standards on bangladesh or whatever what if we stop incentivizing companies here in the united states to move their their manufacturing overseas to these should we factory said that it would lower the corporate tax and would have cut off the tax breaks for people who ship jobs overseas something that's been proposed in congress here but something that's being were filibustered by conservatives in the senate i can fathom like fair tax flat tax anyway the shamy tax breaks for anything what people should just pay there to about it and about standards in the state would you agree that it needs to be some basic worker rights in the united states have a burn down and kill hundreds of people without it's that would not be acceptable wouldn't it regulation by the government the free market will take care of that by the work of the us i don't know problems with collective bargaining and how many

will have to dive into play as they mark it's going to take care of it how many people have to do that so my has to be held accountable the consumer has more knowledge now than he or she has a right but that's what i've been advertising exists as a distract people from that but that's the intent is to load the billion dollar industry but designed to fool you into buying stuff that has been created in these kind of into human condition and the government's going to save you from that mind control by putting in their own regulations i'm just saying what i'm saying is that they were right the reality is that people don't have time and don't know enough about what size you want to say to you i say if you don't trust people what's right not you'll know there really isn't even a free market here assumes that there's this awful smart consumer out there making decisions on behalf of that's not true we don't like there's only one of us they don't want to lead to a certain degree only freedom itself but you. can. throw off the right here every day let's. look at stark's new regulations here's. more regulations were dark on wednesday senator barbara boxer and congressman peter de fazio introduced

legislation called the genetically engineered food right to new act basically requiring that if force companies to label genetically engineered foods this is something that is very popular ninety percent of people of course that doesn't matter nowadays if something is supported by ninety percent of people are pretty much it's the kiss of death in congress but here's something else don't we have a right to know what we're eating what's wrong with this goes come on freedom may we have a right to know we're eating we can go seek out these companies if they say what we can only go to the companies that are willing to follow if there's a company that said tells you what your income is that doesn't the people who want to know this will gravitate towards that company i mean there's not going to be all these consumers out there saying i want to know what i'm eating and all these companies are like we're not going to tell you if it becomes a fiscal reality that they need to tell their consumers to make their product more marketable they will target i'm sure doesn't there's a hell of a lot of find out what i'm eating i don't i believe that sort of the emotions that are you whether it's growing our food processing our food our stuff you know delivering our food stock market our grocery shelves the market is basically four

or five big companies you know maybe a tiny handful small ones and there's a going to major all got billy in them in the food industry here so we're talking about competition which companies are going to put labeling on we're really talking about five or six companies here so much of a choice here is the question what problem we try to solve you know because we already have regulations in place to say when a food is harmful when the nutrition content of a certain food is changed we have labeling this already in place to do this. genetically modified food which you want to know you just the label that says this is genetic this is genetically modified would you like to know them but what does that mean what does that mean if i were are you going to raise your great in a laboratory it means that it's a type of food that's only been eaten recently that wasn't even by our ancestors the last thousands of years this is something that's very nice in the sciences still very new and in the sciences coming out it tests are coming out showing that this. g m o's could actually have harmful effects and we still haven't had long spectrum to study this because we're really the first generation this being we've

raised on this right i mean actually never seen you know it's interesting they owe to the d.n.a. you've gone to solicit and then that on us was took over the audit but we don't know who that you know the point of the dressing paul was to warn us about these kind of stuff but there's a danger in genetically altering species we don't really understand how that's going to affect the food chain how it's going to ecosystems we don't really know but also how it effects the already bodies what we ingest this stuff look i don't know these i don't know i would just like to know whether it is just a modified or not but i think that's a legitimate role for the government to comment and that is that we don't understand what the ramifications are but you can someone have a right to know that's the point not i don't want to i want to go the grocery store and buy food that that doesn't come from j m o's don't have a right to be informed consumer and look to the grocery store and be able to sniff yes and this will become something that the marketplace demands of these companies will put it out there because if they had they'll be five compensated because what

we've already put in one of them will do it to satisfy the market that says i want to know what's in it a lot of people they will care about is going to be on the i hear talk to the others who do a cost benefit analysis and realize that if they spend a few million dollars on advertising they can distract people enough so they went ahead advertising they were just going to see what the average trying to do the top of my website i mean he said as long as this thing will be five thousand words longer so you know it's one of the six saying the topic here there's a hearing in the house government reform committee is national security subcommittee on the d.h.s.s. department homeland security hoarding the ammunition and what could they possibly be using all this ammunition for. i want to play a clip here this was congressman john tierney of massachusetts criticizing why this hearing is even being held in the first place. to the extent that we here was the chairman to clarify the procurement policies to determine whether or not they're wasteful with or not there's been some abuse of the contracting policy that's fine to the extent that we're responding. to asperity theories or whatever really wasting everybody's time with a. reported. when you're buying like seven hundred fifty million rounds of

ammunition which prompted conspiracy nuts to say up government must be planning a seven year war on us they're going to put us into these famous concentration camps and it goes through the loop through the echo chamber there it's alex jones or glenn beck or whoever and then it somehow ends up in a house hearing our taxpayer dollars our elected officials focusing time on stuff like this and it seems to me that this is really only coming from the right ok so let me more than happy to take this one here's the problem with the start with a straw man argument you take the most ridiculous argument but it's chasin furious it's agenda twenty one it's ok all of these things he's always insisted within the say that is ok to buy seven hundred fifty million actions i want point six billion in forbes when i was doing my research on this to say that you need that many rounds of ammunition at a time when trying to cut everything else previously we talked about secret station cut people that are cancer patients out of hospital but yet you've got d.h.

led by fifty sixty seventy years worth of main mission in advance i agree there's a problem with how much ammunition or by but i think they're going to use it to declare some more it by the way maybe we wouldn't be buying this much ammunition if conservatives and a lot of democrats were constantly saying that we need to be scared to death of terrorism all the time that we need to train all these counterterrorism with these not troops when bush was in. putting forward similar proposals when bush was about it i don't think so the fact is there's a left wing black on the white house so that's why this is it's a complete. it's so ridiculous that off the conspiracy arguments you throw them on throw them out but yet again i'll say it again you still haven't justified seven hundred fifty million rounds were to be ammunition to remind us just what this is as as a political strategy let's talk about what the. market is for the shrimp. and you went on this i thought as a former police officer do they need to do that is the evolution here here's what

i'll say about this you know this is one of those things i tried to do my research on this too and i couldn't get anywhere near the same number in any story this i agree with you has become sort of a runaway information thing that caught momentum and i want to i think you always love your country inferior government i do believe that on this particular story i know you research and i research i couldn't find two stories that actually gave me a real idea of what's going on what the purchase is what the amounts are i don't know i think this is a pretty media driven thing i don't know if it's is as much about what ben says it is but it's one of those things it just cut its own life and i will say i don't know where it is what happens it is love america fear the government i fear the corporations mark we are going to be afraid of life in our banks coming up you've been told your whole life confidence in conversation are the keys to success but what if the secret to happiness was just to sit down and shut up next time we'll talk to author and writer susan tate about the power of introverts in tonight's conversations with great minds after. the same story doesn't make it news. pieces tough questions.

you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else you hear or see some other part of it and realize everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm tom harkin welcomes a big picture. of potentially deadly. blizzard taking aim for the northeast it's expected to hit stunning in a few hours from new york to maine we have team coverage of the storm. but

what we're watching is the very heavy snow moving into boston properly or today it was very sticky you can see it start to become much more powdery down he said the bottom line there's still a lot of snow out here a good place for snowball fight in. the senate is going to be pretty incredible day there and even record snowfall throughout much of it might still be a slog through drudgery and listens to the urgency here are exceptional. the worst you're going through. the white house to give it to the radio guy. minestrone hospital. quote good news if you've never seen anything like this on trial.

looking for every doctor on the field that well we won't find it here if you're looking for relevant stories unique perspectives from top class tends to end our. presidents conversations with great minds i'm joined by susan kane susan is an author like sure and former wall street corporate attorney she graduated undergrad from princeton universe.