access.wgbh.org announcer: from washington, "the mclaughlin group", the american original -- for over three decades, the sharpest minds, best sources, hardest talk. john: issue one -- buoy bye budget. >> just look at the president's budget that he just put forward. it's not so much a budget as a manual for the progressive left's vision -- higher taxes, more debt, bigger government. john: coming in at $4.1 trillion and bringing tax increases of over $2.8 trillion, president obama's final budget is not small. over 10 years it would increase funding for democratic-favored

$400 billion for infrastructure and green energy projects. but while liberals are celebrating the president's budget, republicans are furious. they say the new spending and taxes represent a liberal wish list lacking bipartisan support. notably, conservatives also slammed the budget's failure to address ballooning entitlement costs and the growing federal deficit. according to the white house, the president's proposed 2016-2017 spending would add, get this, $62 billion to the deficit. question -- why did president obama propose a budget with no hope of passing? is president obama playing politics with the country's budget? i ask you, pat. pat: the president wants to lay out what would be his agenda if he could get it.

it's dead on arrival. the republicans aren't even going to hold hear osgood n it. the more interesting question is donald trump, the winner of the primary down in louisiana went after the republican ohio state and republican senate for having basically capitulated last year and for collaborating with obama and for not fighting, which means he's reaching into the ted cruz wing of the party, which is not necessarily his own. in order to broaden his base for the south carolina primary. loork the real battle here is not tren -- between the president and the republican congress. it's going to be inside the republican party between now and the end of the primaries. john: yell knorr? eleanor: that's right. this is a battle within the republican party about the president's budget. the budget is modeled on the

october to atchplaushgs apparently and for all the talk about dead on arrival there are several initiatives if that budget that are likely to pass. one is more money for cyber security. another is more money for the cancer moon shot and also an expanded earned income tax credit for meanwhile who work who don't have children, to reward work. and those are things republicans and democrats agree upon. so you have to discount a lot of the rhetoric but i think it's incredibly disrespectful to this president that for the first time in 40 years they are not inviting the budget director to testify on capitol hill. they're just dismissing it. i don't think that serves -- that doesn't serve democracy well. tom: john, i think one of the problems here with the been is there is no entitlement reform in it and that's a big problem with the c.b.o. curve saying the federal deficit is going up in 2017.

there if those programs are not reformed. they should be able to pre-- pro tech the people at the bottom but also make changes for those who are more wealthy so it's sustainable. i think the republicans should have invited the white house been director to come to the ongoing -- congress and make the case as to why this isn't a serious budget in terms of spending. the president makes the case that the more you spend shall the more equitable society will be and when it comes to it, that's the real debate between left and right about government. john: are you saying that the president's final budget is a political manifesto, not a starting point for serious negotiations? is that your view, tom? tom: yes. yes that's correct. eleanor: i can't stand it. i have to respond.

agreement the republicans and october. they agreed to raise dollar for defense programs. i think extending preschool is not a democratic liberal idea. that's something everybody can approve on. clarence: this is part of the problem trying to do serious year. pat is right, we're talking about a conflict within the republican party. what is interesting to me is the republican front runner, donald trump, is in favor of preserving, protecting social security, medicare, those entitlements which means like everybody else he respects that as a third rail issue that is not going to be easily solvetdle pat: not only not going to be easily solved, it is not going to be touched! not this year. loork, the republican constituency -- clarence: but i think social security could be made solvent

simple -- simply raising the caps, a bernie sanders idea, and agreed to by a monlart -- majority of blerns in -- pat: but bernie will lose 49 states if he comes out for reforming social security. look, trump vunning for the republican nomination for president. they're not going to touch social security sand medicare. eleanor: and the fact that it's not even in the budget so it's not worth talking about. tom: tate debate you have to -- in an election year -- pat: no, you don't have debates in election years, you have win elections! eleanor: but the party is running for re-election. he's not going to throw his body across the train tracks! clarence: all this frustration is buoying up trump's campaign thope because there are a lot of especially working class

by congress not getting things done. and whether you agree with the stance or not at least trump is bringing it out to the front of public debate. eleanor: he's saying what working people want to hear basically because they've gotten the shaft on a lot of these issues. john: both -- will democratic house and senate candidate campaign on the president's budget? pat: if it will help they will, if it hurt, they won't. eleanor: you know, the budget is like a one-day story, the document there be -- are going to be lots of other things. but the ideas, yes. democrats are very much going to run on these. you saw it in the debate, bernie sanders and hillary were fighting over who supports

tom: look, i just think it's disappointing that the candidate who came to washington ir -- inspiring young people is leaving washington failing to have reformed those programs that hurt them more. john: issue two. president obama: it's right to do it now when gas prices are really low, and they will be low for quite some time to come, so it's not going to be a destructive factor in terms of the economy. john: president obama supports increased use of renewable energy, and he opposes the use of fossil fuels. and this week the president announced plans to introduce a $10 per barrel tax on oil. the white house believes the tax would raise up to $32 billion a year in revenue -- money, the president says, for clean energy relationship and

spending thebut while liberal advocacy groups have praised the president's plan, not everyone is happy, nmely, republicans in congress. speaker of the house paul ryan says his proposal is, quote, dead on arrival, end quote. and republicans also disagree with president obama's claim that the tax would hit oil companies rather than drivers. they fear that oil companies already stretched by low prices will transfer the tax to drivers. question -- is this a pipe dream or a serious tax proposal? pat? pat: lacrosse an oil import fee is an interesting idea. sort of abe tariff idea. but the republicans are going to oppose it rightly because barack obama wants to use the money for what he wants to use it for and they're not going to go along with it. but the whole idea, if you have

you redisde other taxes, the u.s. government could scoop off revenue that's would otherwise go to opec. but, johnson, as a practicalal matter right now this thing is as dead as it could be and on this one ryan is right. eleanor: the president wants to use it to fund infrastructure. this country's infrastructure is in sore need of improvement. the tax that funds infrastructure, the gas tax, hasn't been raised for i think 16 or 18 years. this $10 a barrel fee would be phased in over five years and then indexed for inflation. the oil companies would fass on to the consumers, which would add up to something like 18 cents more a galron. i ghazz ohio last week. gas was under $1.50 a gallon. if you can't raise money now with a user fee on people who drive and who use gasoline, when can you do it and how do

projects that we need? pat: we'll find out. clarence: it is a situation though where the republicans are married to the idea of no new taxes. even when it's a reasonable tax for something everybody wants. infrastructure improvement. pat: let me say this. if you came in and put tariffs on and, say, cut all the taxes on small business income i would be with you 100%. tom: but the american driver has to plate escalating price. there is still fundamentalal doubt in the idea mining lot of people and if you are taking money out of people's wallets, say 18 to 25 cents, the analysts say would be the increase. that's a bad idea to take that money out ate time when the economy is beginning to uptick -- eleanor: phase in over five years? [all talking at once]

other. pat: the oil import fee will raise the price of oil and your shale will go back to producing. the problem is we'll start using our own rather than the foreign oil. john: please, watch the overtalking. it's very tough on the eardrums. clarence: sorry, john. john: is it smart to tax the oil industry in order to subsidize green energy? yes or no, pat? pat: no. the answer is no. in -- if the green energy wants to come along, windmills and all the rest becomes cost competitive, fine. why subsidize it? eleanor: the tax isn't to subsidize it. it's to go and build infrastructure. pat: it's to raise the price of the other form of energy. eleanor: no, to build infrastructure. tom: i think democrats are

their own making in the sense that green energy at the moment is not competitive and it's going to drive up american energy bills. eleanor: actually it is. it's very cope. clarence: it's growing on its own. it could grow faster with subs dyes. --subsidies. but really more important and urgent is infrastructure. how many more bridges have to collapse before we get serious about this? john: the exit question, take one out of three. the supreme court barred p president obama's newspaper rules on carbon emissions from taking effect until legal challenges are heard. is his climate change plan in peril? yes or no, pat? pat: i think it is. eleanor: no. it's a pause and five states have already stepped forward and say they're going to continue with their plans to phase out coach the coal industry is diagram regardless of any obama regulations. tom: but the shale industry is growing exponentially.

the next. will define american climate change policy necessarily. clarence: it's not going to get done in an election year but at least people need to talk about it. john: will -- will democratic presidential and congressional candidates support president obama's oil tax, yes or no? pat? pat: i think -- well, bernie sanders would support something like that. the question is hillary. i'm not sure hillary would go all out for that. eleanor: anything that has the word "tax" attached to it is going to be handled delicately on the campaign trail. clarence: in other words, not a tax, it's a revenue enhancement? tom: that's right. john: where exit three out of three.

clinton? pat: i just think it's dead for this year. clarence: dead and doing the best we can the that's something i think people wouldn't notice with the oil prices low. john: it is a killer in the general election.

ingjohn: the panther and the super bowl. performing halftime at last sunday's super bowl 50, beyonce knowles-carter made a big impression. leading her black beret-wearing dancers in x-shaped homages to malcolm x and raised fist salutes, beyonce seemed to endorse the black panther movement. the dancers also posted a photo in support of black lives matter, an advocacy group campaigning against perceived racism in the u.s. justice system. some welcomed beyonce's linkage between the 21st century black lives matter and the 20th century black panthers, made famous by leaders such as huey newton, bobby seale, and stokely carmichael. but others were less amused. these critics argue the black

little to advance equal rights, and some say the black lives matter movement fuels community tensions and deters effective policing. question -- was beyonce wrong? i ask you, clarence. clarence: well, first of all, beyonce was engaged in a massive publicity campaign for her next record album. they're not recalled -- called record albums any more. c.d.'s, whatever. number two, the black panthers and black lives matter movements are very respected by a lot of people in this country, especially those who buy hip-hop music. it's not a history lecture, show. i thought it was pret eentertaining and afterwards i found out it was controversial. eleanor: same here. i thought it was terrific and i didn't really get all the

she did a beautiful job of tracing black history from the middle of the last century on up to today and also drawing a tension to rail shooting of a young man right around where the super bowl arena was. he was shot 15 times trying to surrender. so there are some real issues here. the people who have trouble with it are basically the right wing media, rush limbaugh and the law and order giuliani. that's about it. pat: the black panthers were a group of killers. they murdered people. eldridge cleaver was famous for his book about raping white gafments this was a stupid thing to do by beyonce, who is a great entertainer normally. but the real star of that super bowl was lady gaga. and i'm not a groupie. but her rendition of america's national anthem was one of the

she put heart and soul into it and i think she helped herself even with the far right. clarence: she's a star. but i got to say the panthers, like black lives matter, say very lolly oriented group. there were some members especially in president oakland chapter during a horrible period there but a lot of other panthers registered people to vote and engaged in social action as well as political action quite legitimately. there were so many abuses against them by j. edgar hoover and the f.b.i. that a number of the survivors of the panther leaders in chicago received a big legal settlement tom: if you look at the legacy of civil rights in america i have to say this is why i have this. there was far too much of a criminal he willel in the black panthers -- clarence: you weren't around then, son! tom: i absolutely wasn't.

when learn by the u.s. from booker t. washington and martin luther king and -- clarence: that's just like when -- with black lives matter. until somebody raced a fuss there wasn't -- john: talk over one another. we've got four people all talking at the same time. this is a record! pat: you made a mistake in your opening. stokely carmichael was not a member of the black panthers. he was the one that talked, made black power, he was at sncc. he became a marx ivel -- marxist and he went over to africa and he died. clarence: not in the panthers. you may have him mixed up with huey newton or eldridge cleaver. but he did help inspiret black fan thers. there was a black panthers chapter in alabama which

worked on other issues. eleanor: the people in the black lives matter movement look back on some of these figures and take pride in what some of them did. not all of them. pat: what does that do for the black panthers that they take pride in them? eleanor: i think clarence just pointed out what the black panthers did. it was assertion of emerging power in a society that had really marginalized them and i think that's what we're still arguing about. pat: look, it should be a celebration. it's a celebration of america. flags, "star-spangled banner," "america the beautiful," and all this. it's a very uplifting thing. what are we getting ourselves back into the 1960's and the panthers for? clarence: i didn't even realize it was tofrle until it was over and rudy giuliani was complaining. they formed and x on the field

you know, i have a beret and i used to have an afro. i don't think i'm a criminal. eleanor: the panthers were the cultural underpinning for some of the reactions we're seeing today and she did a brilliant job of sort of tracing 65 years of initiative a ivende -- kind of sensational way.

practically. prediction. pope francis' plans to meet with illegal immigrants at the u.s. border with mexico next week to show his support for open borders. it will embroil the vatican in u.s. presidential politics. yes or no? pat: yes. it already has and it's foolish and provocative. eleanor: it's human rights. it's what pope francis does. tom: yes. clarence: i would say yes. john: the answer is question.

>> today, a legend returns from retirement. a world champion bucking bull's back. >> do you want to see explosive? >> best season is young. the story is yet to be written. >> he steps up. >> the risk remains the same dangerous game. the challenge is a world title. >> j.b. mauney mauney, you need