a lot of action sides politics panel joining me tonight are marc harrold zoe carpenter and huey news so let's get back to it. yesterday the d.c. circuit court of appeals heard arguments in a case that has the potential to shape the future of the internet and the ways that we use it lawyers for the f.c.c. said that the f.c.c. is new controversy i don't know that neutrality regulations. they were being challenged by of arise and so the this was before the street judge panel we don't have a huge ruling yet we just you know have the arguments the supporters say the net neutrality preserves an open internet everybody has access you don't have to pay you know whether you're sending something out if you're the new york times or if you're a little tiny blog same cause to send stuff out you know to pay to pull stuff in whether it's coming from the new york times or whether it's coming from mark's blog

and or the nation. and that seems logical to me that seems reasonable to me that's the kind of common carrier argument that we use with trucking companies and telephone companies and these kind of things so here we were do you think this is going to you know i think that this will this will continue to be a growing growing growing problem the two sides to a right you've got the legal privacy and legal problems the control regulation issues that are going on but you've also got the corporate commercial interest that are going on as well this kind of interesting to see how those two are colliding here with rosin stance but i think that what you'll find is that they have to see will win over without. and that in the discovery question for me is ok what starts to happen in terms of regulation which up to this point with we've we've seen the benefits of more or less free wide open internet in terms of political openness the rise of the tea party can be you could arguably be placed on the fact that the

internet has been you know less regulated regulated if you will so what where does some lose some of the slippery slope problems and risks that we could see there's the interesting debate inside the tea party on this and i want to get your take on this market being a tea party guy because you've got some folks in the tea party who are the the like . you know corporations can do no wrong and so verizon wants of arisan should get it they don't the government shouldn't be running the internet and then on the other side you've got people saying wait a minute there wouldn't be a tea party if we could all communicate with each other i mean there's all these little tea party groups you can throw a web site up and say here we are and if the rise in decided a that they didn't like them or be hey we can make a buck off these people they might not exist and so even within the tea party there's a there's a fairly clear split at least from what i'm seeing you tell me yeah i'm a little bit more of a libertarian than all up on all the tea party politics but i can say the problem here isn't you know you look at this i'm against a lot of government regulation the internet i think the open market the free market both of ideas in the free market economically after all the internet i really don't

think the government says two things in conflict they are in conflict and when the but when the government gets in there and they can when the government can control or regulate the medium to some degree of the slippery slope at some point they can get to the message and that's what i'm worried about well that's you know and i really think that the the laws the other thing too is if you've seen the sausage made in the regulations not just the laws which are usually more aspirational the deep pitted that is the c.f.r. the code of federal regulations when you get into regulatory process and you think about what's happened in tax and other environmental heavily regulated areas being imposed on the internet even if it started out as sort of a benign thing the slippery slope is that that regulatory framework it will stifle the internet later know it used to be back in the fifty's sixty's actually from the thirty's right up until the eighty's maybe ninety's it was a federal law to swear over the telephone i mean if you said on a telephone right you committed a federal crime. it may even still be the law although i don't think it's in force obviously is that i was definitely not in for. i mean they were been to my house

yeah but i mean the other argument the argument is when any ten year old can get porn maybe it's time to start looking at those things maybe not i'm on the more on the side of maybe not you know and do the triple x. domain and just let everybody be over there but but the that typically is. the realm or that are that regulate the internet argument comes into play it's from concerned parents of america sure. you know we'll just see how that plays out i mean i was only your thoughts on all this i don't know there is. much connection but you know and i don't know there's much pushed behind to to get now you're telling down that slippery slippery slope or to get regulations down the slippery slope from net interest from protecting net neutrality to. you know prohibiting what kind of porn people watch i think that the debates are connected in some ways but i think that from a regulatory framework there are not as close as we would think tony perkins is

working on you know that you know those who are there are conservatives who want to say you know you you can't have certain certain kinds of things on the internet and already i mean already there's there's child porn and there's terrorism you can do those two things on the internet without have a god coming down on you. so no i mean it was always did you make a very good point none of it was always the idea the gradualism is dangerous so you think about it in terms of once you start to say ok we're going to break there are certain things that we have all of us is not a child porn clearly. is illegal so putting on the internet is illegal but to say that certain things that we're going to say this or that is are not going to be an internet problem is that you know one administration next administration one decade makes the next thing you know we're blocking but it's not just you know the final word moderators option or whatever privilege i would trust people that are answerable to my vote before i would trust a multinational corporation that can have me arrested if i protest too much in

front of the building and so that's that's just where i'm coming down in that any county judge in indiana has ruled that the that that state's right to work for less law violates a provision in the state constitution that bars providing services without compensation it's against the law basically in or against the constitution in indiana. to go to a lawyer you're a lawyer you know that you go to a lawyer and say you must represent me and by the way i don't intend to pay you don't ever want to pay you and if you don't represent me i can sue you and that's the situation as a consequence of the taft hartley law this is the situation that unions in right to work for less states find themselves in they are required under the wagner act the nine hundred thirty five national labor relations act unions are required to provide legal services to anybody who's in that shop and yet in a right to work for less state under the taft hartley one hundred forty seven act the the individuals who are getting those benefits can refuse to pay for that and can say on a company you know you do this and this actually happens

a lot and one of the union busting techniques that's used is to plant people in employee in workplaces and have them demand lots and lots and lots of services very expensive services from the unions to the unions that they have lots of lawyers on staff constantly and they get no revenue for it so isn't doesn't this this case in indiana this before judge johnson dhea lake superior court he said this is a violation of the of the you have to pay somebody if you're going to if you're going to demand work from them doesn't this show mark what a scam right to work for less is there really is just a union busting technique and really a pretty weird one at that yeah and i don't know the specific article in that constitution that they found in conflict or maybe a situation where the constitution just doesn't really you know as it existed and he the judge is right even though the outcome did not say i think the services were out conversation but you know that the right to work at all is very interesting because it's a some degree the first glance you would say well there's an association problem there you know that's the part but when i look at these laws when i think that the

employers do have the right to make those agreements with the unions and that to me is involves the contract clause so i think a lot of people would say well you must think this because of association rights but i think that these really as long as it's not the government's not involved in refereeing all these these employees and you employers and unions can collectively bargain and come up with this. and they should have the right to make those agreements in my opinion and i see it as a car right to a private contractor more than rather than help rather than rolling back to have terribly you'd roll back the wagon i thought i think is the way to raise money and i know that i protected in that right no no absolutely have the right to unionize and i believe that the unions can make the agreements with the employer that everyone has to be union that's all i mean whatever that again it's i don't want to be involved in any way you know the government i'm just saying that they have a right in the rules of the game right and that's what they need to stop doing what i'm saying is i see this is a contract right between the companies and the unions and whatever they come up with even i think i signed by law i mean you have to have actual interpreted by law but not necessarily defined by law and there as they have into

a clause contract and always have to resist within within a legal framework you have to have you know she was on track for anything that's illegal of course but the way that they're structured is usually up to the parties to do a large degree unless you again unless you get these different acts in there that artificially try to manipulate what's going on between employers and employees which i think the free market has to take care of so your thoughts on the right to work and in fact if i could before you start let me just show you two maps this is the first is is a map of where both to go ok great look at this graphic this is the right to work for less states are the states in blue and the republican one for romney states are the rate states in red on the right so blue is red but what you see basically is that all the right to work for less states are all the republican states and they're also oddly enough the states where poverty is highest childhood poverty is highest use of food stamps as high as is the take are states not the maker states these are the states where where workers make last i mean when

spending a drop for americans i don't know when it's going to drop but i think it's pretty clear that right to work is a measure and it's alec sponsored and we know that workplace safety standards of living wages are lower when unions are strong we know that strong unions are good for workers and they're good for the larger community. and so right to work doesn't serve any of those purposes which is why i always call it right to work for us because that's really what it is you know if i play on words i like to think the converse of the argument the whole idea that forced to pay union dues if i live in a non right to work state and so that's the challenge that i think that people that are right to work have to think about but you know the democratic element to that if more than fifty percent of all the workers in the workplace say we don't want this union here anymore it goes away you're not forced to pay the dues so the dues are the result of the democratic process how can you be opposed to that but i disagree with that concept because you think about it i have a relationship with my employer. but i do have

a relationship with my employers so you're saying that i have forced forced to have the union. represent only if you and fifty percent of your peers if agreed to it holds a little worse if it and fifty percent of my peers are very important so you think about it from a standpoint of ok we live in a democratic society but the but the trade between me and my labor and my employer you as a receiver of that labor is can be a personal relationship but think about the nun right to work states how you know you have floor stores a floor that are getting you know get something in the in the mail this is ok you are you are obliged to join this union never heard of it you've never seen it you never got never thought about receiving services from the union and the tons of stories like this so there's another side to the argument where you know the obligation to pay these dunes and be forced to take on these services even if i

don't meet them don't want that has to be addressed as well but it's an interesting conversation marc always great to have you and thank you is. coming up washington d.c. is providing all americans with a cautionary tale of privatization or. in a mock also explained that story needs daily to.

live. cross talk rules in effect that means you can jump in anytime you want. i know c.n.n. the premise n.b.c. and fox news have taken some not slightly but the fact is i admire their commitment to cover all sides of the story just in case one of them happens to be accurate. that was funny but it's close in for the truth and might think.

it's because when full attention and the mainstream media works side by side the joke is actually on here. and our teen years we have a different right. ok because the news of the world just is not this funny i'm not laughing dammit i'm not god. i'm if. you guys sort of jokes well handled it makes sense that i'm. in screwed news the free market is going nuts with our food supply so we shouldn't know what's in our food we shouldn't worry about contaminate somebody dies well

somebody will tell somebody else and everything will be five self-regulation right there's this very interesting conversation going on right now about this issue and joining me now for more on this is tony corbo senior lobbyist with the food campaign for food and water watch tony welcome thank you tom the u.s.d.a. has come up with this scheme to essentially you know this is happening only in pork plants are starting out or plants right no actually they say it's farther along and poultry plants really yeah it would tell us the story give us the give us or the baxter in the late ninety's. during the latter part of the clinton administration they proposed setting up three pilot projects to test a private and inspection privatization scheme where most of the responsibilities for inspecting poultry. and pork would be turned over to company employees who would have one remaining inspector. in the slaughter line and the logic

was that. the company employees would be dealing with quality defects you know for example if if it had visible fecal contamination or if if the machine had had. sheen had had gone amok and there were still dangling intestines from the chicken carcass that was the responsibility company because they considered that to be a quality defect so what they did was they set up three pilot projects. and it involved twenty chicken plants. five turkey plants and five hog plants the companies who participated in these pilots self nominated themselves this was not a right this was not a random selection of companies volunteered to monitor ourselves we promise we'll find ourselves good that's right and so and so the plan all along

by u.s.d.a. and as i said it started during clinton but you know bush bush was really interested in moving this this process along and actually wanted to do it in two thousand and six and two thousand and seven but got got got stalled but but in the end the poultry plants in the in the twenty chicken plants and then the five turkey plants. they say u.s.d.a. was allegedly collecting data to prove their point that if you have the company employees doing the quality defects you could then focus the remaining u.s.d.a. inspection personnel to look at food safety they would do sampling for salary melanin but what what happened was that the u.s.d.a. was not collecting enough data so in two thousand and one the the then

general accounting office which is now the government accountability office did an analysis of the pilots and said u.s.d.a. you really can't move forward to expand this beyond. the pilot plants so. nothing nothing happens nothing happens that the pilots still go on and then the obama administration in late two thousand and eleven starts to make noises that they want to expand the the pilot in the poultry plant so why would the obama administration presumably a democratic and relatively. progressive administration want to be advancing a libertarian republican policy i mean that's that's a good question but again this this all started during the clinton administration and of course tyson big contributor from arkansas bill clinton's home so so tyson and his dogs and their tyson chicken it's because that yes there are some tyson

plants participating in this in the in the chicken pilot and so so so anyway so in two thousand and eleven ministration makes noises that they want to expand this pilot to all poultry facilities have we have just a minute to wrap but so so anyway so anyway congress one senator senator kirsten gillibrand from from from new york asked for a new g.a.o. study and lo and behold last week the g.a.o. comes out and says not only are you not prepared to move ahead with with the poultry plants the hog plants you don't have the data to support anything to expand it in the pork plants as a matter of fact in the pilot plants there's more contamination than that than the in the plants that receive traditional inspections so the headline for the should be would you like a little pig poop with your with your right absolutely and so and so the thing is our organization has been opposed to this from from the get go the inspectors union

haven't had challenge that legally back in the early yet to thousands they had to make some minor modifications to the to the pilots but the obama administration is hell bent on its least with the with the poultry plant i'm moving forward with this even though you have this new g.a.o. report and independent analysis saying you can't use this can't possibly move forward ok well tony thanks for taking us all right thank you thank you very much. it's the good the bad in the very very nascent koren asli arguably the good move clock move the michigan base burger chain is already one of the most generous

employers in the country pain its entry level yes entry level workers a wage of twelve dollars an hour come october it'll start paying those entry level workers even better job or first all move clock more employees will start earning a base wage of fifteen dollars an hour action the demands of the past the workers who took to the streets this summer in cities all across america to demand a living wage moves c.e.o. brian parker told daily beast that we always wanted our wages to be at fifteen dollars an hour it just feels human to do it parker is really fifteen dollars is more newman it's time for a national living wage good luck move for leading the way the bad seaworld unfortunately not every employer can be like clock move sea world the theme park made famous by sheer movie the killer whale has announced that they are cutting hours for part time employees so they won't have to provide them health insurance plans as mandated by obamacare although sea world's profits have taken

a hit over the past year it's still a multi-billion dollar business that has more than enough money to pay for a boy health. plan to cut workers' hours is just cheap political grandstanding at its worst and the very very ugly george zimmerman a few months ago the n.r.a. is prodigal son barely escaped prison time for killing trayvon martin it hasn't stopped him from getting into any trouble since then however on monday zimmerman allegedly threatened his the strange wife and father in law with a gun prosecutors have declined to charge zimmerman but safe to say that if he's still up to the sort of stuff even after his brush with. justice earlier this summer and he apparently hasn't learned these laws that it's just for the theory of .

the second president and states john adams once the government is instituted for the common good for the protection safety prosperity and happiness of the people and not for the profit honor or private interest of any one man family or class of men since the founding of our nation there's always been a strong and clear distinction between public space and private space between things that are done by the government and things that are done by businesses in the private sector these distinctions are at the very core of our democracy and frankly of capitalism in america which operates in that private space for example capitalism requires an impartial court system over here in the public space so that they can enforce contracts obviously if this court system was run by the corporations themselves wouldn't work that's why it's run by the government

unfortunately over the past several decades the lines between the public in the private space between corporations and government have become blurred as more and more things that have traditionally been part of our commons controlled by the government are being sold off to the highest bidder in endless waves of privatization. one of those things is x. collection the power tax collection should always be a power afforded to a government that's answerable to we the people because it involves the use of force guns and jails it shouldn't be a power this transfer to private corporations but as the washington post brill brilliantly points out that's exactly what has happened we're right here in our nation's capital in an experiment to privatized tax collection and not surprisingly it's an experiment that's having disastrous effects just as many call on the seventy six year old veteran who thanks to d.c.'s tax lien privatization program had his one hundred ninety seven thousand dollars house foreclosed and taken away

from him all because of a one hundred thirty four dollars property tax bill that hadn't been paid all months home was taken away from him as part of the d.c. government's program that uses private investors to help it recover unpaid taxes until recently the nation's capital placed liens on properties one homeowners failed to pay their tax bills and then sold off the liens of public auctions to small investors who would charge interest or buy the house or whatever it was paid back but now d.c. is tax lien program has been taken over by big time corporations which quickly turn minor tax bill debts like betty coleman's hundred thirty four dollars debt into thousands of dollars of debt which individuals and families just can't afford to pay off and which inevitably leads to foreclosure and for the corporation's windfall profits bernie call ins initial one hundred thirty four dollars debt had increased to nearly five thousand dollars warriors fees and costs you know before

his home was taken from. corporate investors have bought liens all over washington d.c. and charged homeowners thousands in legal fees and other costs the balloon their existing debts between twenty five two thousand five thousand and twelve the district of columbia sold thirteen thousand tax liens to corporate investors since two thousand and five tax lien holders of foreclosed on around two hundred homes with twelve hundred more waiting in the wings for foreclosure of the nearly two hundred homeowners who have lost their properties since two thousand and five one in three had liens of less than a thousand dollars through our from the value of their actual property and to add insult to injury many of the homes foreclosed on were taken by corporations whose employees and representatives that are to been caught breaking laws in other states to win tax liens. yesterday d.c. mayor vincent gray said he would push for emergency legislation to reform this predatory lien process announced that the city would stop selling liens that are

under a thousand dollars but it's a little too late for people like benny coleman and it's only a temporary fix that does little to address the bigger picture all the washington post only talks about the district of columbia's predatory takeover tax liens if the libertarian dream of privatization of our commons continues to spread unchecked homeowners all across america will be jammed deeper and deeper into debt as their homes are taken from them many call in wasn't just a cautionary tale he'll be the new normal the commons particularly functions like tax collection should belong exclusively to we the people and not to corporate millionaires and that's the way it is tonight tuesdays number ten twenty thirteen don't forget democracy begins when you get out there get active take your seat of.

the new world strong arm and watch these. faces i think you're right. a pleasure to have you with us here on t.v. today i'm sure. will. technology innovation all the latest developments from

around russia we. covered. it was a little very hard to take a. look again on. that matter that would that make their lives. appear.

today on larry king now kevin smith the filmmaker actor and author on his last feature film if i can bring in thing new to the game and i'm sure you are not there's no point in me stepping up to the plate on why he started smoking marijuana i like to i was when i was smoke and i was like him i'm more free in my garden stuff way more open that's what i like to be i was the person i most wanted to be in life on but coming up comic book nerd it just warms your heart a forty two a still well up when i read the dark knight returns the first miller's graphic novel i got to me that was not my literature or that was my my passion that's today on larry king now. welcome to another edition of larry king now kevin.