it looks like. it was like gold if you. did you know the price is the only industry specifically mention in the constitution which says that's because a free and open press is critical to our democracy schreck help us. to make you know i'm sorry and on this show we reveal the picture of what's actually going on and we go beyond identifying. rational debate and real discussion critical issues facing america is ready to join the movement and welcome big pretty. well i'm telling hartman in washington d.c. and here's what's coming up tonight on the big picture. some time this week arizona

governor jan brewer up to decide whether or not she will veto her state's newest discrimination law at lausanne a bill ten sixty two has outraged gay rights activists and pro-business republicans alike would be the final straw that breaks up the marriage between the g.o.p. and bigoted social conservatives also this country was founded on the idea of no taxation without representation so does that mean welfare recipients shouldn't be allowed to vote some conservatives think so and the most recent snowden revelations show that it's time for a new church committee to tell you why and i'd still take. you need to know this during an appearance on fox news's an idiot last night former vice president dick cheney blasted defense secretary chuck hagel plan to downsize the military to pre world war two levels away every day if they're basically making

a decision that the obama administration that they don't want to be done. but on the street at the skies of that space they had their budget reflects to take over and of not good but it turned into a world circumstances it's a bit of a butt but if the rich but for the spirit the body on food stamps that it would have a strong military or support for our troops pretty frightening it does sound a familiar that's because conservatives say that kind of thing every time someone in washington proposes cutting defense spending but the truth is secretary hagel proposed cuts to the defense budget are pretty minor and we could afford to make even deeper cuts the most controversial part of the defense secretary's twenty fifteen spending plan is a proposal to cut the size of the army down to a total number of four hundred forty thousand four hundred fifty thousand active duty soldiers that as many conservatives have pointed out will reduce the army to its smallest size and style nine hundred forty that's really not as big of

a deal as this sounds that's because the size of the army has been shrinking for much of the past few decades and it's face bigger cuts than the one a bill is currently pushing and by cutting down the size of the army the obama administration and its defense secretary are really just acknowledging reality the fact is that wars of all types especially ground wars have been on the decline for the past seventy years and we now do with the single missile or a single drone what we used to do with a thousand soldiers from the primary purpose of a big military is self defense and if war is less of a threat than it was before the logical conclusion is that having a big military is a waste of money and money of course is really what we're talking about when we're talking about defense budgets right now the united states spends more on its armed forces than any other country in the world and spends almost five times as much on defense as does its nearest competitor china as recently as two thousand and eleven we actually spent more on our military in the next thirteen nations combined so

even if a goals plan cuts do go through the u.s. will remain the world's most. dominant and most expensive military force for a long time in the future he does want to cut some wasteful and outdated weapons programs but as a whole hegel's budget proposal will keep the american military industrial complex alive and kicking in fact fat cat defense contractors couldn't be happier stock prices for northrop grumman and lockheed martin hit a fifty two week high yesterday after the pentagon's announcement because proposed by chuck hagel are a good start but we need to go even further. we need a military that is appropriate to the needs of our country not to the needs of defense contractors and the needs of members of congress who have defense plants in their districts we need to take most of the money we currently use to pay for wars and for weapons of war and spend it on that homeland that neo cons like dick cheney are always talking about consider this

a recent study out of harvard university estimates by the time we're done paying for the last of the iraq and afghanistan war veterans and decades from now the final cost of bush's wars will be as high as six trillion dollars that's right six trillion dollars now what we could do what our government could do with an extra six trillion for starters about one one hundredth of that would be enough to pay for the six point five billion three month unemployment benefit extension the republicans are filibustering in the senate right now another tiny fraction of it would be enough to pay for the eight point seven billion that republicans in congress have cut from food stamps over the next ten years and there was still more than five trillion left over we could cover the cost of that pesky five hundred fourteen billion dollars deficit and still have more than four trillion left over so we can pay off the two trillion dollars we need to spend to bring our national infrastructure back where it was before the beginning of the reagan revolution and then we could spend another trillion dollars to pay off every student loan debt in

america in our intellectual infrastructure and still have a trillion dollars left over to build a national broadband system. it would bring us up to the standards of france or south korea we spend money on war we cannot spend that money on improving things at home for far too long we spend far too much money on a war and not enough on our so-called homeland as well haggard says it's time to put america first. with me for tonight's big picture politics panel are marc harrold libertarian commentator sweet progressive commentator and michael bass tash reporter at the daily caller thanks to all for joining us michael welcome panel first time expressing your name right yeah you did you good good thank you i usually don't. ok so as to start out neo cons like dick cheney are you know their heads are exploding over let's downsize the military it seems to me like this just makes sense in fact

that we're still you know we still have a bloated military and i think the proof of it was in the stock market only three out of all of the big defense contractors of course the wall street journal didn't see their stocks hit fifty two week highs yesterday after this announcement it's like you know all over washington d.c. they're going all over of on a. this is actually i think this this budget is too high you know what i think we're seeing here is you know there's the surface level concern that a lot of the conservatives are talking about in terms of troop levels you know that we're going to see if this budget goes through we'll see a decrease in the army will see some decreases in the marines but at the same time we also see increases in special forces and wall so see you know a raise in procurement and research development spending compared to levels we've seen over the past few years so although there's this conservative talking point that this is you know america's path towards the clients and decline and fall of the american empire it's not really it's the preservation of the american empire

whether you agree with the american empire or not by different means that you know that's the conversation market was a loose change is taking a cheap partisan shot if a republican had proposed this as republicans have in the past. you know he would have applauded well i mean we've got to remember these this defense the defense cuts that we're seeing really aren't actually cuts from much they're above what we were supposed they were supposed to cut in the sequester i think one hundred thirteen billion dollars but still less than the defense department wanted for they put in their budget well they always want more and more xander missing two trillion dollars they can't account for exactly and so i think that you know there are plenty there are places we need to cut all over the government including the military there are military contractors that do you know abuse their privileges but i think that the reason you said all but three of their stocks hit fifty two week highs is because they built these in to they've built the expectation of less defense spending into their accounting this this mark has become basically the

golden calf i mean these to do these contractors literally most of them have a plan in every single congressional district in america what we do about the budget and where you have to cut it look the business of america used to be business now it's government it's war and that's why we see this area here thriving within the beltway and even outside the beltway some of the richest communities. right around d.c. that's because we're in the business of war and war and business have become so intertwined you know you have to get back to the idea that the department of defense for a reason the constitution allows for a standing army and navy to defend this country what we've gotten into and it's not just president bush's words they're now president obama's wars when you're in your second term you're still at war and you're the commander in chief there you're wars as well we've gotten into this interventionist policy we're all over the kind we have bases everywhere anytime we go somewhere we stay forever we need to get this back is this too much or too little money first thing we have to know is are we focusing on defense of this country and that's what the constitution allows us to do have a standing army and navy and we look at them we say how much does it cost to defend this country what we're talking about is not just

a fence is this imperialistic you know interventionist policy and that's what cost a lot of money time and standing bases brick and mortar bases all over the world over sand you know i mean it's huge it's a uniter get over it is what you know that's we need to get back to the business of defense i think will simplify this and we could talk about some real numbers here what i think would be interesting but this defense but the defense budget proposal for fiscal year two thousand and fifteen is how many republicans in military districts sudden suddenly become impromptu kenyan's we're talking about this massive massive drawback of government spending which you will see by going to my district yeah i'm going to see unemployment go up right there's no question that it's going to hurt these districts but it should force people to really consider what kind of government spending well and enormous raises that really important issues if you want to go to the constitution or the sentiment of the founders the only spending in the entire constitution that is limited by the constitution is military spending and specifically they are the navy is not limited because there was the assumption that we would always need to defend our borders with you know

our oceans with the navy so during time of peace we would have a standing navy but there was this huge argument a constitutional convention that in part led to the second amendment that and jefferson and others were just wildly outspoken about this that during times of peace we should not even have a standing army there should just be. infrastructure of one and that's why article one section eight says that no appropriation can be made for more than two years for the army period so why should we be reconsidering even the idea of a standing army one think that's what's particularly concerning about this defense budget if that's what you're looking for you know although it does draw back these large standing armies you've had for the past few decades an increase in spending spending for things that are much more secretive cyber warfare and special forces things that are necessary out of the public consciousness and those that we can't discuss and the founders were concerned about militaries overthrowing michael your thoughts on this about the military you know they'd seen so many military coups they didn't want there to be a strong military and yet they didn't want

a military establishment to come out of this they didn't want something that would be beholden just to the president or just to congress they wanted to keep it limited just as they wanted to keep that a lot of the rest of the government limited as well this is the one area where they explicitly said two years that said charlie i mean you can have social security for over two years for the army but we've seen a conceptual stick shift even the way the military is marketed we now just don't see it as defense i know a lot you know you see something like the maybe the global force for good looking that may sound good but the navy is not a global force for good they are supposed to protect this country the idea is what we've packaged as military is to go out and support our democracy and that's not the same thing military and defense is not the same thing as spreading democracy as a crusade as a crusade or that's how we package it because people want to pay for that a global force for good and maybe supposed to protect america as more of tonight's big picture politics after birth.

if. i got a quote for years that's pretty tough. stay with substory. let's get this guy like you would smear about guys stead of working for the people most issues the mainstream media are working for each other bribery must be sure to. come as. they did rather. if it was a. very hard to take a. chance against. a play by patton that had sat with her thick

hair cut this. if if. if if if the public.

go back with me for that as big picture politics panel mark harold sweet and michael bass fashion guys let's get back to it last thursday a judge ruled that john rogers a resident of geneva florida could have his guns returned to him after he was acquitted by the way on the stand your ground defense of filling thirty four year old james do with it the only problem john rogers the guy who got his guns back is blind check it out. i'm happy the justice was done big case was bizarre john rogers a man who was legally blind went before a judge this afternoon demanding to get his guns back his guns were confiscated by

law enforcement after he shot and killed a man but rogers was acquitted. the judge said he had no choice but to return rogers can millimeter glock along with a rifle he used to kill thirty four year old james de witt and four years earlier rogers and fired off a bunch of rounds at his cousin was accused of you know that those charges got dropped as cousin didn't prosecute. i have been saying for a long time that you know the second amendment says a well regulated militia how do we know how do we regulate guns it's you when know when. cars started getting fast enough that they could kill people in the nineteen ots the nineteen teens we started regulating cars he said you've got to have they've got to be registered you've got to demonstrate proficiency to use one and you have to have liability insurance at the very least so if the kids at newtown had been hit by

a you know that same person driving a car geico would be paying out right now but because they were killed with a gun not that these families don't even get insurance and and if gun owners had to have. at the least liability insurance which is really cheap insurance if they had to have at least liability insurance then the marketplace would you know then you know geico or whatever the underwriter is would be looking at this guy john rogers and go on legally blind shot two people killed one of them i think is insurance rates are going to go up a little bit you have the marketplace involved in these decisions isn't that the sort of thing that conservatives would have worries anybody michael and well i mean theoretically maybe but the fact is you know this guy there was no law saying he couldn't have his guns back and so i don't see why any reason why he should be legally barred from it also he was a rabid anality i mean guy has shot two people and killed one of them and he can't and he's blind well i mean he was acquitted for doing criminal i mean if it's in

self-defense that's one thing but you know we can always make out like the extreme cases like this but i mean what if i mean when how are we going to choose who gets a gun and who doesn't i can see now buying guns and criminals and stuff like that but this guy is not a criminal he's a blind guy trying to defend himself and yeah ok he has accidentally shot some people you know one of them was a parent only in self defense i guess but you know what i mean they were going to then have deaf people can't have guns you know well be deaf people can see where they're shooting and i should say people can't drive cars either you know i think this shows that we have this strange attitude towards guns which really in a lot of ways are not that different than cars they're both you know. tools that have their purposes you know in a lot of ways very defensible items but there it comes a point when they're very dangerous and we need to take some sort of action to prevent people from good and getting into the wrong hands i don't there's actually though i mean why are cars cars actually have

a purpose which is transportation guns the purpose of a gun is either to kill or are you sure in a sporting context but if you want the sporting context you could or could do something or you could use something other than bullets but mark you're in you're a former police officer you're sort of it's not a fetish the reason that we treat guns differently is because we have second amendment if there was a right if the right to travel was a numerated in the constitution you would have more of a right to drive it is in article one section i don't know the right to travel is another numerator right by and large it's been interpreted under is a right to migrate and all that but look if there was if there was actually a right to travel let's say there was a right to drive we passed a constitutional right to drive and you couldn't get insured there would still be ways to do it what i'm saying is it's not fetish and we're not we shouldn't be bewildered is why guns are different guns are not different it is just that there is an explicit right to bear arms it's in the constitution or a right and while regulated militia obviously this guy is not being more of a militia you don't have to be regulated militia it's that the right of that then why does the second amendment say that the people is explicitly said in several

amendments the right of the people the first the fourth it's not clear that if there's any intention to make inroads in the fourth do not start out with in order to maintain right and if it was pay if there was different punctuation or you have a better argument but the supreme court and most scholars in my opinion i think on strong ground say that the right of the people the militia you're talking about is more akin to than that in the current definition of that a national guard and national guard that can be federalized by the president is not the type of militia of citizen militia that the founders were talking about some of the at issue the second amendment the right to bear arms is an individual right and that's why it's different it's different in driving in guns and guns do have a purpose and sometimes the purpose of a gun is to kill people that's what it's designed to do that's what i meant when you have a right to have it to defend yourself in bed so there's this idea that wire guns different guns are different. because of a specific right to celebrate and so it's not in this in the christian but if you go to the marriott in america it's not all about the rights of france it's about it's a be one of them it's a rise up against about not having a standing army it's about being able to know that it's not here and you have this other gentleman who is about preserving the if you know the balance here in me as

a conscious decision was not made to enumerate our rights it was made to limit the power of government that's why the freedom the right to bear arms shall not be infringed everybody there are all sorts of rights that are specifically laid out in the constitution the first amendment the right to free speech no it is one of the discovery that you have a very calm rational limits on because they have potential dangerous attacks that's why we have a constitution to be libel that's why you can prevent people from shouting fire in a crowded theater well he's all that shouting where you're allowed to shout fire if there's actually a fire but these are right around the constitution it isn't a great institution doesn't create rights it just acknowledges rights that already exist self-defense the rights within yourself against tyrannical government already exist if they do you don't get the right from the constitution the constitution knowledge is that the right exists it doesn't mean that you can't regulate something that falls within the area of a right as may pointed out we regulate speech we regulate these did regulate this man was it's founded to see if this man would have been convicted they would have taken his gun incarcerated but if that's the case if you'd be arguing about a regulations and one of them which you consider is perhaps you know offering some

mandating some sort of got insurance that seems like an intelligent regulation that would be in the personal but from what i can read what i heard of some insurance company find your uninsured well then you lose your and then a corporation takes away your constitutional right as i understand it right you have the right to bear arms but no one was sure you which is the decide in the boardroom you're not going to do loser right that was the spirit so you were at least acknowledged the constitution so you're right you really a lot of your will you go to the past more so constitutional rights that all small so you will go to the mat for the right of a blind guy to not just have a gun but shooter that's not what this case was about first of all he was acquitted this was about returning property of the judge was right there was no provision to take the property now there may be because he was black the bit that that's not codified anywhere in florida now is what he's saying the judge was correct and i think he did i think the judge if you watch it was very. has it that he obviously had had his call i know he was obviously it was crazy stuff you know but i don't think it is crazy absent some sort of law that you wouldn't give somebody the property back after being acquitted of a crime no one said he didn't have a right to originally i don't think oregon i think it would also argue that in a system moving along arizona governor jan brewer is going to decide by the end of

the week whether or not she's going to sign senate bill ten sixty two which is provides religious liberty to discriminate against gay people to businesses in arizona both jeff flake and john mccain both the republican senators from arizona have said veto this bill she has vetoed a similar bill in the past so should. will she votes. anybody think she will and she should know this is one of these issues that every single national member of the republican party i think mark and i were just talking about that has any sort of sway with the general public speaking out against it seems to be this last ditch effort by social conservatives to try to redefine their movement in the wake of the advance we've seen in gay rights and gay marriage or the transamerica years ago yet and it's just it's a strange effort that really isn't going well and i hope it is just disturbing that these these efforts are popping up in a number of states. going to look at it look at the political you know we're

heading into the midterms and the ultimate this is if the republicans cannot get that their house in order with this they cannot get these sort of the fringe what you're saying it is a bigoted what is perceived to wrest the country they will not be able to make any serious run in these next couple likes and i mean this this has the potential to hijack their entire agenda that's why you see national republicans coming out and saying this is no good she is going to veto this by the way i'd be shocked if she doesn't i would but the republican party seems to be getting constantly instead of being able to understand the issues they're over here they're over there along on a certain issue in ohio right now it's not just arizona you know this it's almost like it's about our bill or something i don't know your thoughts on this michael i think the bill is just kind of a dumb bill and i think it's largely inconsequential it's not saying that these people can't serve gays it's just saying they reserve the right not to which i think the bill is stupid i think she's going to veto it but most businesses why would they give up the money if businesses are self interested they want to make money they have no interest in making gay people feel discriminated against

especially if they're going to go i want to get lost or unless they've got a bigoted clientele on the news you know hey this is the this is redneck rally right here. who knows i want the one potential way or that this could become you know a long term issue for the republican party there's obviously a movement within the party to take it in a more libertarian direction i think we've seen rand paul emerge as the front leader of that faction within the republican party and he. himself has had some interesting children and all opposed to the voting rights act civil rights act. not exactly but what ever talk about not there he said some said he would interesting things what he said was that the caught the way that the underpinning the way that the courts interpreted to find that the commerce clause supported the nine hundred sixty four voting rights act is somewhat tenuous it wasn't it was basically came down to bbq sauce and interstate commerce at a barbecue place in birmingham out i understand that but he also said he wouldn't go to iraq and he said he wouldn't if you were a good solutions to those things and there are market solutions i. understand what he said was very nuanced and i don't want to assign the other one but i anyway i

think what's interesting about that is you know there's these conflicting trend within libertarianism in social libertarianism where you want to preserve the rights of these individuals to go anywhere they want but at the same time there's that business friendly or really absent property friendly libertarianism that wants to preserve the right of the business owner to discriminate against anyone they want and that's the type of libertarianism that rand paul has espoused those two groups are in conflict michel while i could be. i don't i don't know if those two groups are necessarily in conflict from what i understand libertarians pretty much in general support the rights of property owners to do what they want with their property but also the rights of people doing gauging commerce but that takes two people at least so you know if you didn't want to trade with me you know you wouldn't have to but i mean i think another point is if the if there were businesses that were going to discriminate against gays i really don't feel like they get there the types of places that gay people would want to go to in the first

place well that's that's you don't want to that was the rationale why people use it in the one nine hundred fifty s. to say you know we're going to keep black people out of our lunch counter because they would want to come here anyway because they're not really welcome and that's i don't think. that the government should not be interested defining classes of citizens and where they can go or allow in a situation like that to occur at all. so you're making the reverse libertarian are no i'm saying the government should not be in the interest of creating a situation whereby there are classes and citizens that can't go to certain areas. ok. i still you've got going to go out of people to scream to discriminate ok. that will wrap it up mark michael thank you for the. coming up unions and environmentalists are the bedrock of the progressive movement so why really buddy heads in kentucky.

we welcome erin made an abby martin to two of the coast guard t. network. it's going to give you a different perspective give me one stock never i'll give you the information you make the decision don't worry about it i'll bring you the said it's a revolution of the mind it's a revolution of ideas and consciousness. extremely new approach would be described as angry i think in a strong no. single. patients are forced. to. look at the finish line of the marathon. life.

i think. i would rather i asked 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. i think.

that i think. everybody. should you know the price is the only industry specifically mention in the constitution which says that's because a free and open press is critical to our democracy schreck i'll. go on. to make you know i'm sorry and on this show we reveal the picture of what's actually going on we go beyond identifying the truth rational debate and a real discussion critical issues facing america by the book i'm ready to join the movement and welcome in the big picture. bought a bag of big picture i'm tom arbonne coming up in this half hour five hundred dollars my pocket you only have fifteen years does that make me better than him why.