i think. everybody. should you know the press is the only industry specifically mentioned in the constitution. that's because a free and open press is critical to our democracy. and i'm this show we reveal the picture of what's actually going. to go beyond identifying. rational debate real discussion radical issues facing them. ready to join the movement and welcome. i'm sam saxon for thom hartmann here in washington d.c. and here's what's coming up tonight on the big picture. drones drones and more

drones shoppers all over the country are buzzing about the possibility of remote controlled amazon deliveries but what about the privacy concerns and why does it seem like corporate america gets a free pass when it comes to spying to talk about that and more internet it's big picture politics panel and the u.s. is on the brink of finalizing a historic deal with iran but republican lawmakers in washington don't seem to want to give diplomacy a chance why i'll tell you in tonight's daily tag. so today's tuesday it's actually a pretty unique tuesday and it's unique because it's sandwiched right in between two major labor strikes there were the black friday walmart strikes which took place in several cities around the country last friday and there's the coming

nationwide fast food workers strike scheduled for this thursday and one hundred cities that's right two major labor strikes in. merican in just seven days and just one week now to show you just how rare that is take a look at this the average number of work absences due to labor disputes going all the way back to the one nine hundred seventy s. so forty years ago there was an average of about two hundred ninety work stoppages involving one thousand workers or more every single year those are workers walking off the job demanding better pay better benefits better working conditions and usually successful in getting their employers to comply at least somewhat and on average there were two hundred ninety of them every year in the seventy's that's a lot but that number fell dramatically over the next decade or so thanks in large part to the destruction of labor unions in the private sector economy by the one nine hundred ninety s. there was an average of only thirty five work stoppages every year and in recent years there's hardly been any in two thousand and nine there were just five

stoppages and here we are today looking at two in just the last week and this is indicative of a larger trend we've seen over the last two years as not just fast food workers have repeatedly walked off the job along with wal-mart workers but also teachers in chicago poor workers in baltimore truckers in oakland slow but steady we're seeing the reemergence of the confrontational labor class this chart showing massive downfall and large labor actions it's actually trending up. which is what you would expect given the current economic situation in america given the historical in destructive levels of wealth inequality where and as a percentage of g.d.p. corporate profits have never been higher and workers' wages have never been lower and the low wage industry is now becoming the foundation of our new post-recession economy fifty eight percent of new jobs created since the recession are low wage jobs and economic policy institute estimates that more than

a quarter of all americans will work low wage jobs in the next decade so this is a labor class that can't be ignored. this class isn't really demanding all that much other than the ability to survive on their full time job you know make a few dollars more than the seven twenty five an hour the current minimum wage and given that the fifty companies that employed the most low wage workers also paid their c.e.o.'s an average of nearly ten million dollars last year you think something could be worked out but the intransigence we've seen recently on the part of these barons of low wage labor is astonishing a complete unwillingness to make any sacrifice to shareholders or c.e.o.'s on behalf of improving the lives of their much larger class of workers and in the end it's these corporatists who may suffer the most because what's going on right now these levels of inequality this gulf between how c.e.o.'s compensate themselves and how they compensate their workers can't sustain itself and this uptick we've seen in strikes recently around the country is a sign that

a breaking point is near and it has to be and when we reach that breaking point whatever it looks like a nationwide general strikes walk offs boycotts or as history has tragically shown at times even violence it's it's the employer who will feel the brunt of it let's hope it doesn't get that far. but if it ever does these corporatist will probably regret not settling up with their workers today after all what's the minimum wage at the end of a pitchfork. right for more on that joining me for tonight's big picture politics panel are david director of communications for the new york republican state committee and eight sweet progressive commentator and francesca chambers editor and publisher regular politics thank you all for joining me so let's get started you guys heard my rant off the top david the so with you are you concerned at all about what sort of

backlash we might see in the near future as as these corporations these barons of low wages. labor continue to squeeze their workers more and more and more do you see a breaking point in the future. well look i'm very concerned and i empathize a great deal with anyone who's trying to fight for a living wage and to fight for a higher salary but look there's something that you guys don't consider often enough here he unintended consequence of employment reductions and of layoffs when you rage when you raise the minimum wage is very serious and the people that get hurt the most are exactly the people who you want to help by raising the minimum wage i'm talking about unskilled workers young people in many cases underprivileged minorities these are the people who so often can get hurt by policies even when your heart is in the right place so the real point is going to. start to raise the minimum wage yeah exactly i mean i think it's typical that republicans whenever you

hear that there is some talk of raising the minimum wage they bring up the same arguments but time and time again we've seen that despite these private case in prognostications of doom it never really pans out but what to me is so interesting about what's going on now and the sort of things you brought up in your intro rant is that the last time we saw this sort of concerted labor action simultaneous with massive inequality of wealth was probably the gilded age at the end of the nineteenth century and out of the confrontations you know the haymarket square riot in chicago and some of the other labor actions of that period there was a concerted effort to develop some the most important progressive legislation in the early ninety's and the early twentieth century and in the long term that conflict of the late nineteenth century and the legislation that came out of it gave birth to the new deal you know the culmination of all those progressive fights of the latter half of the nineteenth century so i think in the long term although there's the possibility of violent confrontation between workers and employers and i'd agree with you i hope it doesn't get that far i think there's a lot to be optimistic about because i think we could see the creation of a new deal sometime so in the next new deal in there for just the argument that

employers would be best to try and settle up with their workers now rather than supported. here is that this sort of inequality leads to a progressive backlash as we as we see in the past someone who's a conservatives don't you don't you see my argument here you've been arguing that these workers aren't asking for much i would call asking for a double in the wage that they're currently being paid asking for a lot a lot of these workers that are striking or asking for a fifteen dollar minimum wage that is absolutely outrageous first of all who are here full time jobs should get a wage that they can survive on for context fifteen dollars an hour is the amount that most companies in washington d.c. or new york would pay skilled workers per hour they are asking for the same wage that you are paying calling people who have a college degree on it who are skilled workers and there's an idea of negotiating and i know that president obama is one of the worst negotiators in the world but maybe these workers are going to go shaders you go you throw something out there

fifteen dollars maybe you walk away with twelve dollars at the end of this or ten dollars at the end of this what i'm saying is the point is seven twenty five is not anything anyone can live on we can see that and i don't think you're going to argue that point with me do you think that people can live on seven twenty five an hour well i certainly made that much when i first moved to washington d.c. which is the most expensive city in the united states if not in the not the most expensive and the top three so i as you desire only means that at the time i do certainly think that's possible also in most areas of america are not as expensive as washington d.c. might i add however going back to my point though about the fifteen dollars an hour if they would like to see movement on this perhaps they should temper their expectations on what they expect to get i think by going down that really turns off conservatives more to their argument it's an outrageous amount for most one of the next topic here this is about this is a decision that came out of the f.c.c. this week there were plans of the f.c.c. was going to make public corporations tell their shareholders when they're involved

in electioneering spending when they're getting involved in political causes they should inform their shareholders about it yes you see. decided they're going to drop this proposal they're not going to pursue it as of right now meaning corporations can continue to spend what they want to not have to inform their shareholders about this interesting thing here is this is a requirement that labor unions have to agree to they have to inform their members when they're what sort of money they're spending on political causes david shouldn't corporations have the same restrictions same rules apply to them as these labor unions when it comes to political spending. actually yes i do think they should and i'll say right off the bat i don't think anybody should be allowed to spend money on a political endeavor without having to disclose that they're doing that and you know we call this money dark money but let's go back to the root cause why is this dark money dark money in the first place it's dark money because mccain feingold forced it into the shadows out of the light by imposing on corporations and individuals these arbitrary spending caps and look we can't regulate our way into

some sort of mystical fair election utopia let's roll back the regulations and make everything open and disclosed to the public let's not tell anybody that they can't support a candidate or a cause that they believe in this is america anyone should be able to do that i want to read a quote this was from anthony kennedy and this was what he wrote in his citizens united decision in two thousand and ten euro with the advent of the internet prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters so as he's making this decision to allow corporations to spend unlimited money he's assuming that there's going to be transparency of this that these corporations are going to tell their shareholders about it. don't you think we should take these assumption and make this happen so that we do have this need to transparency here's the problem with what the as the sea was trying to do as a bureaucracy they do not have the authority constitutionally to do anything about this you know who does the supreme court and the legislature legislate or regulates

unions here right however right but however the problem is that if democrats. i want the f.c.c. to regular this then they need to pass a law which is the constitutional way to go about doing this telling the as you see to regulate this in a different way. ok not up to the f.c.c. to make it a priority and to make this decision without constitution or without the constitutional advisement of congress are you in favor of the department of labor having the authority to force labor unions to disclose their political donations from i am absolutely in favor of the why didn't you say you know that i mean there seems to be some wiggle room in the executive action where sort of exert executive actions they can take and force a wise regulation would sort of funny about what you just brought up though is that was my next point is that unions have actually benefited the most from the citizens united decision in my opinion. i would go it's pretty controversial plan to read more of tonight's big picture politics panel right after the break.

we'll. see technology innovation all these developments around russia. the future covered. cross-talk rules in effect that you can jump in anytime you want.

and we'll come back with me for tonight's politics panel or david last night sweet and francesca chambers thank you all let's get back to it let's talk about amazon c.e.o. jeff bezos made headlines again this week when he proposed that amazon may soon use drones to deliver products to their customers this has congress all up and it has

a congressman ed markey said this quote before drones start delivering packages we need the f.a.a. deliver privacy protections for the american public should never trump constitutional protections before our skies team with commercial drones clear rules must be set that protect the privacy and safety of the public so the concern is as of course as it has on his flying drones around the country they might also want to look at you know what kind of cars people are driving what kind of how do you know furniture they have in their backyard they get tons of marketing information from this as well francesca does does this concern you this move do you think there needs to be a lot more privacy protections in place before we let i begin to really love it when you talk about drones because germans is an area where we can have a lot of agreement and i say i'm absolutely concerned that they could you know be looking at those sorts of things thing that sort of information and i'm also very glad to see that democrats now care about my constitutional protections. they've

david i have i see this false dichotomy brewing a lot that. when we talk about police agencies using drones or the government using drones i know francesco agrees with me on this so this isn't universal but you get this huge outrage about government spying and that's a legitimate outrage especially with all the n.s.a. leaks and everything that we've seen about the government but typically nobody spies on us more than corporations everything we do online is being collected by corporations and the internet. but corporations are where people do spying on us and you don't see the same sort of outrage directed at corporate spying as you see directed at government spying. but look i for one welcome our new amazon dot com overlords privacy is one thing i'm also pretty concerned that an enemy of mine could start sending me drone after drone of nickelback albums right to my door that i can't get rid of but seriously though yeah i mean look with the internet and with google it's a brave new world they're mapping every place we go online and they use that data they say data they sell it to advertisers is there

a point at which this doesn't fringe on our constitutional privacy i don't really know but it's something that we do need to consider because they are watching us and yet it does make me a little uneasy whether it's corporations or the government. you know i think it's interesting that there's a sort of resignation in david the voice there when he talks about corporations having this much power and this much it's created an ability to invade our private space and for me that's been something very frustrating as a progressive when we talk about the n.s.a. leaks or you know amazon drones in general but there's been so much focus on the government's ability to infringe your private rights and you know rightful outrage about that but when we get to the issue of corporate infringements on our privacy rights there's you know this sort of step back and try to figure it all out but i think it's important as progressive says i guess you and i are sam that we need to be hit corporations just as hard on this issue of privacy rights as i mean there isn't a very important distinction when i go to amazon dot com and i give them my personal

information i'm knowingly giving them that information. i am knowingly checking a box saying yes i recognize that you may hear that share this with other people when the government gets into my e-mail and takes out information that they had no right to come in there and take those are two very different things i mean when you check that box are you aware though that amazon could be flying a drone over your house and getting information about all the things you buy to put around your house to get marketing information are we aware that when we. share a lot of these corporations like to put certain things whether they're in these long hard to read disclaimers and all that stuff so generally people are not aware and are not consenting to the sort of data phishing that goes along with corporations when they do business with yeah i mean you have these terms in a week you have these terms and conditions that people sign on to when they when they get an account but oftentimes they're so verbose so confusing that nobody actually really knows what they're agreeing to and their private information over to and that can get used in a whole multitude of ways that you're unaware of just as it is by the n.s.a.

i think there's really no there's a lot to quibble over the last word on this oh you know even even though it's difficult there it's your responsibility as a citizen to read through that and i don't know that there's any reasonable expectation to privacy when you're said using amazon and selecting products that you like online for amazon to file that away and then sell it to advertisers i think there's a much more reasonable expectation of privacy when you're making a phone call in your private home or setting an e-mail in your private home and the government is spying on that i think there is a difference but there's also the neighbor of the guy who's getting the drone delivered to or who knows what sort of stuff he did consent to anything and you can have a drone flying over it and i just say very quickly though that basan said that if the f.a.a. allowed it then amazon would be doing it not that they're doing it now or that they have any plans to noted let's talk about the pope he released this mission statement which even if we railed against free market capitalism and i want to read a quote from it. i encourage for the financial experts and political leaders to

ponder the words of one of the cities of antiquity. to share one's wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood is not our own goods which we hold but there's. francesco i want to just know who the obviously rush limbaugh is come out outrage other conservatives have come out called the pope a socialist who's the bigger socialist the pope or president obama. well i think that's a completely falls twice and i will say i haven't read the entire fifteen thousand word manifests never a good hour. and i haven't you know i haven't gotten a chance to do that yet you know i'm always so busy watching your show instead of by from what i have seen about it i will say that tithing that's not controversy giving to the poor that's not controversy oh but i do take offense and i can see why the conservatives do with him making statements about things like economics and terkel down economics and i don't know that that's the church the church is job to

be weighing in on things political systems david why is it so outrageous when people talk about. the problems with free markets and how we should maybe reconsider free market capitalism and yet it's not outrageous or controversial when you have members of congress members the republican party wanting to completely get rid of the new deal when you completely change the way government works and adopt this very radical believe in free market capitalism seems to be there both ends of the work i think. oh yeah i look i think it's always fair game to talk about our system of economics and government absolutely but look i'm not indignant at what the pope said i'm indifferent at what the pope said i want to hear a lecture on economics from the pope about as much as i want to hear a lecture on high renaissance art from snooki that's just not his area of expertise and i'm happy that this pope is focused more on the poor and on the charitable endeavors than the church of the church than on say hating on gay people like many of his predecessors were but let him focus a little bit more on charity i mean this is a guy who lives in

a palace an actual palace a veritable palace i don't we. we care what this guy has to say about the poor as long as he still lives in a real life palace i don't agree to expect the pope to just tear down the palace and over there he has done some things when it comes to the excesses of the vatican and he hasn't been the pope for very long but i mean the does the pope have a legitimate say in this he does control all he does is the voice of lots of people around the world and we are seeing the problems in the last few years of free market capitalism and these are the actual crushers well i think the pope absolutely has a voice and in these sort of affairs as he was the archbishop of buenos aires before he became pope francis the first and when he was the ship of one of sarah's you know he saw firsthand some of the ravages of shock doctrine capitalism as it affected argentina but i think more than that the republican party could really take a cue from pope francis the first this is a guy who went in there he was on pretty much any other issue yeah it's ironic if i'm not taking their cues from a religious figure for once but here's a guy who inherited one of the most conservative institutions in the entire world.

that's been very reticent to change the last pope is way out in some ways opposed to vatican two reforms in the one nine hundred sixty s. and now he's trying to expand the church and you know welcome new groups into the fold i think the republican party can to really take a cue from that and try to change the way it is these letters of the separation of church and state is let's go back no i'm serious. separation of church and only what exactly democrats should absolutely agree with and agree with the argument that i'm about to make that sort of church leaders from speaking of the pulpit about political issues. but that's the but that's the argument that the reason that there's a separation of church and state is that a long time ago that the political the political issues were coming up in the catholic church and that was that was partly to blame for some of the laws that were coming out so that's why we have this i don't know you really want to make the argument that religious leaders lose their first amendment rights when i'm not saying that religious leaders lose their first amendment rights they have a right to say those things however should the church be dictating political policy

do you really. what the church like dictating what laws are political policy is and that's a dangerous situation i don't know necessarily dictating political policy i think he's dictating church policy i'm just concerned it should be more than happy about it seems to me that he's trying to rethink the role of the church and see the church as something supplanting the inefficiencies of the new liberal order and you know i don't necessarily think that something conservatives would disagree with since they talk so much about churches fulfilling the role that government should be ok let's move out of stater ground here this standard castle doctrine whatever you shoot first laws whatever you want to call them they jumped into the national debate after the killing of trayvon martin but now there's this other story about ronald westbrook here's the story. first of all funeral services will be held tomorrow for a seventy two year old all timers patient who was shot to death in north georgia ronald westbroek had been wandering around and twenty degree weather at four am.

when the shooting happened he was lost and had been walking for almost four hours in the cold when he found a house with a porch and i don't you wrong the doorbell and woke up thirty four year old joe hendricks authorities say hendricks went outside with a shotgun and despite several commands to stop westbrook kept walking toward him expired four shots and one hit westbrook in the chest killing him welker county sheriff steve wilson says he has no doubts that hendricks felt threatened during the encounter and no charges have been filed so the sheriff in this town to sit your ground laws may apply in this case. trayvon martin was the the only person who's been killed and the person is used and i know that defense wasn't necessarily used in the trayvon case but we see these sort of killie's where people feel as though they have the right to shoot first rather than retreat or rather than work the situation out in any way possible and we're seeing upticks in violence as

a result aren't these laws and saying david. look what happened there was a terrible tragedy and our laws must be written to prevent people from taking police action into their own hands and punishing those who do but one thing i think is important to keep in mind here is that people americans who live in rural counties don't always have immediate access to police and for police protection take for example that australian baseball player was murdered in cold blood in oklahoma it took over half an hour for an ambulance to reach him i think it's tough for us to tell americans who live in rural areas they can't defend their family and their home from a home invasion but in this case and this tragedy there's really little and the story goes on the books for people who defend them so yeah i mean i don't think anybody here is disagreeing i'd least i don't disagree necessarily would be idea of a castle doctrine i think there's a very fair argument that if you feel like your home is actually being threatened by someone with a loaded weapon or with a firearm with any other sort of dangerous device that you have

a right to act with force that wasn't the case then the case around of us but if you actually look at what happened this hendricks guy left the house we did around for nine to ten minutes and when westbrook didn't respond because it was all simers patient he decided that that was enough reason for him to shoot and kill him that's not the castle doctrine that somebody feels empowered by stand your ground and overtreat laws are just going to get you in brought out of this break we'll come back right to this topic more tonight's big picture politics but it all after the break.

i would rather ask questions to people in positions of power instead of speaking on their behalf and that's why you can find my show larry king now right here on our t.v. question more. wealthy british. time to. markets. come to. find out what's really happening to the global economy

with mike stronger for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into kinds a report on our. prostates rules in effect that means you can jump in anytime you want.