>> from washington, the mclaughlin group, the american original. for over three decades the sharpest minds, best sources, hardest talk. >> issue 1, high tech fireworks. it's the 4th of july weekend and millions of americans are headed to the beach. so are droves of privately owned drones. remotely piloted aircraft like the quadcopter used last month to fly over andrea meres. >> stop, stop. >> is this your property? >> stop. this guy is taking pictures and trying t upload them from a camera. can you guys get here? he's taking pictures of people on the beach with a helicopter plane.

yeah, can you guys hurry? >> for hobbyists, drones are a harmless diversion but for others they are peeping eyes in the sky. high tech voyeurism. when he made four passes up and down connecticut beach, ms. meres became uncomfortable. she confronted him and called the police. and a physical altercation ensued. and meres, who called the cops, was arrested for assault and breach of peace. on july 9 a judge will rule on whether to dismiss charges against her. that will settle the physical assault matter but the drone matter goes forward. in june the national park service banned the use of drones in more than 400 sites, spanning some 84 million acres including federal parks and waterways. the ban takes effect august 20. drones have been used to harass wildlife like bears and bighorn sheep.

the park service disapproves of such harassment and also fields noise complaints and safety concern with good reason. this 2001 military drone operated by highly trained personnel have had more than 400 accidents and 194 of the 400 accidents caused $2 million in damage in each of these. this alarming drone action could be a forecast of coming havoc next year. with commercial drone use allowed under a new federal law. >> question, should drones be banned on beaches, in parks, over wilderness areas, over crime scenes or emergencies, where first responders are working, at funerals? who should decide? >> it depends on the particular area and incident. what these are are fundamentally instruments of surveillance. they can do tremendous good on watching our border, watching the seas against threats, helping police, and people speeding and things like that.

but at the same time they can also be instruments of harassment and invasion of privacy. and so what we're going to have to consider is state by state, locality by locality and even the federal government, this is a public commons air space and how we regulate it and control it i think. but i'll tell you what's going to happen one of these days. something really grave is going to happen when one of these things runs in to an airliner or something and you have a monstrous tragedy and it will be at that point that we really focus on what we have to do with them. >> eleanor. >> i think it's going to be sorted out through the courts and various levels of government will impose bans and they'll fight it out and eventually get to the supreme court. we're endering the age of drones. at some point in the very near future, 1 in 5 people are going to have one of these things. you want to send a flash drive to a friend of yours, you put it in your little drone and send it out. you want to check the traffic instead of using the app on your phone, you send your

drone out there. the average drone that will be used for these kind of uses are about 2 pounds. they're not weaponized. this is a communications future that we're looking at. and i think if you want to tell people what area of the law they should specialize in, drone legal work is going to be very promising. these things are going to be very common. >> the faa documented 15 near collisions with aircraft over the past 24 months. two separate airliners at los angeles international airport, close calls with drones the size of a trash can. what are you views on this, guy? >> obviously there are going to be issues with commercial airlines and the possibility of crashes but i don't necessarily agree with eleanor that we're moving quickly toward this space where the masses are going to have miniaturized drones. i think where we're at right now is a place where this is still

very much a hobby-type of thing. it's a little bit of a weird hobby. but we do have this question as you showed with the clip, are these drones with cameras on them? if they are drones with cameras, i can tell you i certainly don't want my neighbor flying a done over my property to take pictures of my own children without my permission, just like the woman in the video didn't want to be taken photographed, trying to relax on a beach somewhere. it opens up a kind of pandora's box of privacy issues very quickly. as far as protecting the skies and commercial space, it's an issue for the faa and i think they should be very heavily regulated. >> but luring at the beach is nothing new. >> we're talking about now the opportunity to go up with a helicopter and high definition camera and possibly stream the video live on to some website somewhere. this is kind of a common sense issue. is that something we really want as americans, as human beings to do that?

>> it's going to be litigated and regulated. >> it's going to be the new version of model aircraft which we used to do in unbelievable numbers when we were growing up. i don't know how you're going to be able to stop it. it's going to be a very, very difficult, very challenging thing to do. we're going have to get used to a different kind of privacy. >> ultimate weapon of the peeping tom. they can put these things right up to people's windows and things like that. >> but there are going to be laws against that. if someone is doing that, then the person who's being spied on reports it to the police. we do have some laws, we have some laws in place and there will be many more laws and regulations. conservatives will be screaming for regulation. bring in the government. >> the technogy is going to be such that you're going to be able to have cameras from little model airplanes that are going to be fairly far away and you won't even be aware of them on some level. it's going to

change everything simply because of the absolute explosion of technology. >> let talk about the identification of the drone manipulator. do you remember the taser? we can now trace the taser. are we going to be able to put traces on the drone? >> i don't know yet. it all depends on what it is we're going to be tracing. if it's going to be an issue of whether you're tracing cameras, i think that's going to be very, very difficult. if they're going to be communicating some kind of message -- >> i'm talking about identification technology. >> i don't know. might want to look in to that. might be a buck to be made. >> doing very well. thank you very much. >> you're going to have item -- immense social conflict on this with people flying over beaches and just sort of delinquent activity with these drones. >> part of the backlash right now is very similar to what you're seeing with google glass. there are people that have pushed back against it both in

social commentary but also with fighting and what not that are very upset if somebody wears a computer on their eyeglasses in to, say, a bar or something. >> you're going to see some of those drones shot down. >> do you think the faa should require licenses for droners? users of drones? >> i'm for licensing drones. i'm for licensing guns. how are they going to feel about that? >> have you been skeet shooting? the drones are very easy. >> the drone needs a pilot, right? >> it needs an operator on the ground. >> pilots have to get licenses. therefore the manipulators of drones -- >> when we were kids we had these model airplanes that sent them up and now it's got a camera. >> if you're at the beach or swimming pool this weekend, are you going to consider it a, harmless diversion, b a minor

annoyance, c a major invasion of privacy, d a safety hazard, or e a compliment. pat buchanan? >> if it's over my swimming pool and i've got a shotgun, i think you shoot the thing right down. >> all right then, you probably got a suit against you for damaging property. so again, the lawyers will win in this. i'm between a and b, harmless diversion or annoying diversion. >> what do you think, guy? >> annoying, pesty thing that i wouldn't -- i'd want to find out who is operating it and ask them what the heck they were doing. >> was it a threat to your peace of mind? >> i think it is a threat to my peace of mind. it makes me think what is the point of this? if you want to know what's going on in my swimming pool, come over and introduce yourself and possibly i'll pour you a glass of lemonade and maybe we can go

for a swim. why do you have to take a video? >> what do you have in mind for that? is this a gender question? >> in the first place i think it's inevitable. we'll have to figure out some way to cope with it. i don't think we're going to have a massive legislation to deal with every bit of it. but we're going to have to find some way to get some of it under control because it can be really disruptive and intrusive. >> the answer is d and e. it's a comp liment but also a hazard. >> issue 2, four months from now, charlie cook, veteran political campaign analyst and publisher of the cook political report says that prospects are dimming for the democrats to prevent republicans from taking over the senate in the 2014 midterm elections four months from now. cook sites three factors that have soured voters on democratic incumbents. quote, this three steps forward,

two steps back recovery means few voters are in the mood to hand obama or had democrats trophies. attitudes toward the affordable care act have not significantly changed and are unlikely to between now and november. obamacare overshadows any other specific issue. still another problem that seems to be growing for democrats is the general perception whether someone agrees or disagrees with this administration on policy that obama officials lack competence. unquote. this predicted un favorable zeitgeist is reflected already in president obama's anemic approval rating, now harboring around 41% in the latest wall street journal nbc poll showing 54% of the public do not think mr. obama is up to the challenges of the next two years. okay, more data. the latest tally of vulnerable

senate incumbent, note the party affilulations. mark begch, democrat. mark pryor, democrat. mark udall, democrat. mary landrieu, democrat . cay hagen, democrat. mitch mcconnell, republican. all vulnerable. there are also five states where there are open senate seats and two long shot races with vulnerable democrats. that makes 14 potentially competitive races with democrats on the defensive in most of them. compounding democrats' problem is this, says diagnostician barack obama, quote, democrats have a congenital defect when it comes to our politics, and that is we like voting during presidential years. and during midterms, we don't vote. and so you already have lower voting

totals during the midterm and it's our folks that stay at home. question, is a gop senate takeover inevitable? >> i don't think it's inevitable. i think it looks like it's a very real possibility at this point, john. but what we have to remember is that as bad as things look for the democrats, as easy as it has become to criticize the democratic leadership in the executive, the republicans nationally have not really rallied around or together in a specific direction. so this is going to come down to local races, local issues in places, and this divide between this sort of extreme tea party and the more moderate sides of the party continues to be there. i think it's a mixed bag and i don't know how it's going to come out. >> and in the dozen states with the competitive senate races, obama's popularity is even lower than it is nationally. it's at 38%. but the pollsters find

that democrats are really energized in those states. normally and in midterm, the republicans have the edge. so that alters the landscape a little bit. and you look at the red state senators, you pictured some of them, landrieu, pryor, they're all leading in the polls right now. it's not as though they've all collapsed. at least not yet. you have two opportunities where democratic women could pull off some real upsets and that's in kentucky with allison grimes and in georgia, michelle nun is doing very well. i think the republicans certainly have a better than even chance of taking control but it's not inevitable by any means. >> no, it's not inevitable but the underlying issue, two underlying issues. i don't think there's any great deal of confidence in the administration. and that sort of prevades and spreads all over the party because nobody has that much confidence in obama and he's the symbol of the

democratic party. but the other side which nobody has yet mentioned it seems to me is how weak the economy is. we have a huge number of people underemployed or unemployed and it's not getting better and people know it out there. they sense it in terms of the lives their leading, the problems they're having in terms of jobs, and they know the economy is weak and of course hold the democrats responsible. >> we had minus 3% growth the 1st quarter. you've got people sort of a malaise on the economy. secondly, you've got the scandals breaking, the irs and the va and the obamacare issue of confidence, you've got the preside's polls are sinking like a stone and especially in foreign policy and it looks like this mess in iraq and syria is going to get worse. what does a democrat -- why would h go to the polls and say i only want to go out and vote except to say i don't want to republicans to get control of senate and that's not good enough. >> not wanting republicans is big in the minds of a lot of

democrats. the way the senate race in mississippi was settled has a lot of conservative republicans angry. sarah palin talking about a third party. you've got the popularity of republicans and tea party kind of equated, much lower than obama's, so you can't beat someone with no one. >> but you're not running the presidency. you're running statewide elections. on that basis you are beating somebody with somebody. >> the republicans want to nationalize it, make it sound like you're really voting against obama but i agree with you, it is individual and democrats are not doing as badly as you would think when you look race by race. >> give me the names of the democrat senators who have problems. take your time. i'm showing here landrieu is in

trouble in louisiana. >> but she's not lost it at all. neither has pryor lost it in arkansas. >> more important piece here -- >> these are the ones that are exhibiting some weakness. hagen is in trouble in north carolina and mark pryor is in trouble in arkansas. that adds up to a 6-point seat gain for the gop. >> they're all close. where are the open seats now? >> the open seats, one of them i guess is in georgia. >> i don't think georgia is open. south dakota, west virginia and montana. >> i think oklahoma but john, they're all very close. if you get a wave, a six-year wave that rolls over them, they'll all go under. if there's no wave, then i think you can get splits up and down. >> that means if the gop takes over the senate. >> i think they're going to win it. >> you do? >> but the wave hasn't materialized yet. >> how about al franken?

or ron wyden? >> ron wyden is going to win. he's got an interesting competitor, monica weeby, a pediatric neurologist. she looked very powerful coming out of the gate. she's had some difficulties. >> how about franken? he works hard at his job. >> that gal in iowa said she used to castrate hogs and she's perfectly positioned to come to washington and deal with the pork barrels. she could win in iowa. she could win. >> it's a competitive race in iowa. it's a competitive race -- we have a lot of competitive races here. >> can we talk about the house for a minute? the house is dominantly republican, inconceivable it could go democratic. >> no one thinks it's going to go democratic. >> but will it lose its largest majority when 63 democrats --

let's see, the gop largest majority in 2010 with 63 democrats lost the house seats. this is because most of the vulnerable democrats and competitors have already been booted from office. >> most of the seats that are republican, the republicans already have. the upside potential for republicans is fairly small but there's some potential. >> the big picture on the republican primaries this year. national tea party backed candidates lost to main street republicans. gop house and senate candidates in mississippi, oklahoma, colorado, kentucky, south carolina, texas, georgia, montana, north carolina, and west virginia beat challenges backed by the national tea party groups. what do you conclude from that? >> that's true, the tea party has not had a good year overall. >> is the tea party in decline? >> it's certainly not dominant. take a look at the 7th district in virginia and eric cantor. >> the tea party still has the rest of the republican party terrorized. people are

terrified to do anything that looks moderate. >> quick question to you, is the tea party monolithic? is it monoolitic? >> it's spread out by where the money goes. that's a problem to begin with, the leadership of the republican party needs to decide where to put the money in these races. it's very hard because there's so many different races with different issues at the very local level to decide where to put the money. >> they have a ton of money. >> i'm going to go back to the point i made before. there's so many districts where the unemployment rates are very, very high, relative to where they used to be, where the sense of economic optimistic has virtually evaporated and this is going to affect family after family and affect the voting. >> let me get in with this exit

question, if the midterm elections were held today? which way would the senate go? democratic, republican, or is it still a coin toss? pat buchanan. >> republicans would win the united states senate early. >> if it were held today i think democrats would hold on. and black democrats came out in mississippi for a republican. if they come out and see their self-interest it's up to the democrats to show them. >> exact 50/50 split but the democrats take it because biden has the deciding vote. >> i think the republicans are going to take the senate by probably larger margins than you all think because there are several states hurting economically. this is still going to drive the voters. they're going to blame incumbents and democratic administration. >> 18 weeks to go. narrowly republican. issue 3. gross criminal product.

>> about 10 billion in total. 5 and a half of that prostitution, 4 and a half drug stealing. that's how we get to the $10 billion. just in context, that's about 3/4s percent size of the rest of the economy. >> crime counts at least in the european union. starting in september, eu governments will begin adding the tally of consensual criminal transactions like drug dealing and prostitution to official government statistics on gross domestic product. britain estimates a 3/4ths of 1% boost to its gdp. 10 billion pounds. $16.8 billion. italy calculates 8.9% of its total gdp stems from illicit sex and drugs.

so a preliminary estimate of the total for the 28-member european union is 18.6% of the eu's 17 trillion gdp. not everyone is pleased by the eu's gdp change. quote, prostitution is not a voluntary commercial activity. unquote. french minister for women's rights wrote in protest to the european commission, calling the change, quote, an insult to the millions of victims of sexual exploitation worldwide. unquote. others see accounting shenanigans. with euro's own growth flat, the change will give an overnight boost to gdp. that makes it easier for member states to meet the eu spending caps of 3% of gdp, thus easing pressure on government to control spending. if adopted in the united states, the accounting changes could boost our gdp by as much as 3%

overnight. >> what do you think of those stats? is it a good idea or a bad idea to include illicit activity in counting the size of gross domestic product? >> i think it's nonsense to be honest with you. if you think there is a product that comes out of what we used to call prostitution, i don't know what it's going to be called in the government categories, or in gambling where there's nothing that comes out of it other than what that activity is, and frankly it gives the credibility to both of those activities that i don't think should be apart. >> gambling is legal in certain places and prostitution is legal in certain places. >> i don't disagree with that. not to expand its reach and spread. >> what about las vegas? are you happy that vegas is taxed? >> you're taxing earnings. you're not tax ing gambling winnings. >> you tax gambling winnings.

you deduct gambling losses against gambling winnings. i hope you're paying yours. [ laughter ] >> i've only lost. i've never had the problem with winning. >> if you're going to say you have to produce a worthy product in order to be included in the gross domestic problem, what about all the people that put together those derivatives based on packaging phony securities? seems to me they fueled our economy for a big long time then it was a big crash. i'm not really moralistic about this. i think economic activity is economic activity. it counts in nevada. prostitution is part of their industry there. in colorado where marijuana is legal and part of the tax space. >> i agree with the mathematics but that lady has got a good point on the morality. when you start consideration prostitution and drugs as commercial legitimate enterprises it tells you of the crime and culture of

your country. >> this is not legitimizing, it's about making up fake numbers to hide their debt to gdp ratio. how are you going to prove how much gray economy or black market economy is actually going on other than having a group of despectable academics claim they know how many drug dealers there are? >> no product. >> it's a total made up number. >> i would agree it's a service industry. >> prediction, the economy will snap back in the 2nd quarter. true or false? >> modestly. >> yes, 4 to 5%. >> false because of gas prices. >> the answer is yes. happy july 4th weekend. bye-bye. er

this week on moyers & company, organized people against organized money. the spirit of '76 lives on. >> there is a greater power that is building up in the countryside, simmering, bubbling in different places and that's going to come together because you can't hold the middle class down. that's a lot of people to hold down. they're beginning to rebel, that's what i'm saying. >> announcer: funding is provided by -- anne gumowitz, encouraging the renewal of democracy. carnegie corporation of new york, supporting innovations in education, democratic engagement, and the advancement of international peace and security at carnegie.org. the ford foundation, working with visionaries on the front lines of social change worldwide. the herb alpert foundation, supporting organizations whose mission is to promote compassion