that ended during the reagan administration it stockholder equity tripled it we may have seen some powers positive outcome in the past of putting these artificial legal restraints into the marketplace but by and large using the and i sure as

oberstar: but even a decade after it was enacted, the reagan administration came in and cut the grant program to a loan program. and funding diminished over a period of time. now, we still have 1/3 or more of the nation's streams and lakes that don't meet the standards of the clean water act. we have to advance the cause. that is the big challenge ahead of us. you just don't think of raw sewage in waterways in a developed country, and yet, that's what we have, and not just in pittsburgh, but all over. narrator: pittsburgh is situated at the confluence of the allegheny, monongahela, and ohio rivers. these three rivers are vital for industry, recreation, and drinking water. and each year, billions of gallons of combined sewer overflows discharge directly into those rivers. hecht: we're now having to face the consequences of the choice that was made to put in combined sewer systems. narrator: in 1994, the government adopted a combined sewer overflow policy to reduce csos nationwide. cities with combined sewer overflows now face an enforcement action called a consent decree. under a conse

with that yes but i think the problem that republicans and conservatives got into is in the reagan administration the early days of the reagan administration there was this effort to create tax benefits for married couples and i think i've always been taxed and i think that and i think that the problem is how dozens of marriage i would be comfortable with government out of marriage altogether can't get government how do i mean you've got inheritance you've got very high sure but you know what i mean it's some governments but a marriage from from from back and you know they found the republican way before you larry was a whopper he of their husbands we we we understand that divorce can be a brutal thing to children we do know you should eat. and ten so i remember in one nine hundred seventy four when no fault divorce was passed in the shore and it was passed because so many that so many women were finding themselves in abusive situations that they couldn't get out of and their husbands were refusing to allow out of a divorce and you want to go back to that. i among comfortable being associated wit

the secret relationship between khomeini his son ahmed and the islamic republican party in the reagan administration body solder lays it out although others have been trying to tell us about reagan's illegitimate presidency and by extension bush senior's illegitimate presidency for decades as he points out the reagan campaign in the ayatollah worked against the will of the iranian people and president bonnie saw you work he wrote i openly oppose the hostage taking throughout the election campaign telling students that occupying an embassy in the heart of tehran was a sign of cowardice rather than courage i won the election with over seventy six percent of the vote in part on that platform other candidates also were openly against hostage taking and overall ninety six percent of the votes in that election were given to candidates who were against it. the bottom line here is that ronald reagan manipulated the american people and used the iran hostage crisis to steal the one nine hundred eighty election now joining me to talk more about republican election faffed is robert perry editor consortium is th

the most transparent administration in history, jim. >> right, it's interesting to see the reaction to it beyond a few, you know, clucks here and there, but i remember my former colleague in the reagan administration larry speaks, who resigned from the white house in good graces in 1987 went to a big job at merrill-lynch up at wall street and then wrote a book the following here 1988 says he fabricated the grand total of two quotes. and no one knew he was going to publish the book and fired within a week of his big job on wall street because of two quotes. seems as if robert gibbs was at least fabricating the truth for lack of a better phrase, for two years. >> i don't think he was fabricating, he just didn't tell all the truth. maybe they were saving the-- >> now he gave it away now by saying he was told not to do it. >> maybe they were saving the secrets to be leaked to the new york times or wikileaks. >> well, the issue is now they tell us. now he tells us that he's gone over to the other side, i'm not going to call it the dark side, but you kn, this is a guy who's joined msnbc and he wants to make some news and demonstrate his distance from the white house, so the way you do thi

even the reagan administration was urging the fed to relent. volcker and the fed board, determined to bring inflation down, held tight. finally, in late 1982, the fed saw inflation drop substantially and eased the money supply. this last week, the federal reserve bank decided to lower its discount rate to 9.5%, the first time this key interest rate has gone below two digits since 1979 and the fifth reduction in just four months. this demonstrates the fed's confidence that inflation and market rates will continue coming down and its confidence that we can work together for a healthy, non-inflationary recovery. schoumacher: throughout the recovery that followed, inflation held at 4%. though inflation had been substantially reduced, the monetarists criticized the fed for not adhering to a strict growth rate of the money supply. in my opinion, the actions of the federal reserve have added to the uncertainty, have added to the instability of the economy rather than reduced it. and let me emphasize, stable monetary growth is not a guarantee of a stab

have good power that have good roads that basically have good infrastructure ever since the reagan administration basically the federal government and many of the states have stopped building infrastructure we haven't built schools or hospitals very in this in any kind of big way since the seventy's really and isn't it time we got a two trillion dollar infrastructure deficit in the united states and conservatives agree with that that's not a number that's in dispute isn't it time we do something about it i think the best way to do something about that is lower the corporate tax rate and because i think that's the thing that's choking business from getting back into the area you have one hundred sixty six billion dollars that was moved offshore in the last tax year that we know of so that would have been this is twenty thirty twenty eleven zero sure and the two thousand and eleven tax year that was moved offshore by american companies who do no business offshore like you know like big banks for example the bank of america has over one hundred foreign subsidiaries.

you supply this is why so the whole this whole concept of supply side economics when when the reagan administration rolled this thing out the one nine hundred eighty s. as a rationale for saying we've got to cut taxes for the really rich people we've got to redo our economic policies of the really rich people benefit and you know this stuff will trickle down eventually to and they literally use that phrase trickle down economics a little trickle down everybody else and it was just crazy i mean it was a rationalization for going back to eighteenth century european economic models of basically peonage of you know serfdom so who are the real job creators they're not the rich people they're the people who buy things because everything starts when somebody buys something. so you are the job creators if you're a consumer. and when the job creators the consumers can't buy things because they lose their wages their entire jobs then you've got a really serious problem this is called a demand collapse when the demand for things in an economy falls apart when people no longer want things or need things which

it forward it is that this and but in one thousand i think was eighty two in the early in the reagan administration. actually stopped in force in the sherman act eight hundred he had been broken up and his his directive to the justice department led to this explosion of acquisitions it was the m.n.a. frenzy of the early eighty's and michael milken all these guys rose up and they became the you know the master of the universe and in a masters mergers and acquisitions masters. and really we haven't significantly reinforced the sherman act since then and my in my telling history was some accuracy here and if so. what do we do about this. you've told the right story it's not just a trusts activity though that that's relevant here because it might be that the local cable monopolies would never compete with each other i mean they didn't divide up the country back in the mid ninety's you take sacramento all take san francisco you take minneapolis so comcast controls the market in boston and philadelphia and chicago time warner has its own territories it might have been that those guys never would have com

that ended during the reagan administration it stockholder equity tripled it we may have seen some powers positive outcome in the past of putting these artificial legal restraints into the marketplace but by and large using the and i sure as sherman antitrust act has had disasters all to another calm context and i think if you see it here what you'll see is you'll see the government picking winners and losing losers using it as a tool to favor their friends and and go against their enemies if you had an absolutely uniform in force one of it may have some positive results possibly but you'll never see that it's a monster of a bill and if you go out and start using it i think the results will be bad for the free market not a good small businesses function in america for seventy years yeah when i think what is interesting about the mexico bell is that it allows for a greater or an investment so you may impact the american cup. moving into the mexican market which would be really interesting and it also allows. carlos slim himself it's not that opposed to this bill because he in exchange will

boom their normal called the business cycle in the george washington a ministration of the ronald reagan administration when the business cycle is in decline. we increase government spending to fill in the holes created by the loss of private sector revenues a government spending during times of declines in the business cycle is not only softens the blow for businesses and for average working people but it also stimulates the economy and gets it back on track on the other hand government behavior should be very different at the high points of the business cycle that's when there's nearly full employment and lots of money sloshing around in the private sector so it's the right time for government to dial back spending and to raise enough revenue through taxes to pay off the money spent during the business cycle downturn got it just a balancing act president harry truman for example knew that during times of prosperity when the business cycle was on the upswing as it was after world war two less government spending was needed and modest increases in taxation would help to reduce the national debt and as

minus basically we haven't been maintaining our infrastructure since the reagan administration i mean that was when we stopped where we build a lot of schools water hospitals before that you know jack kennedy famously talked about a fifty percent of the cost of all the hospitals in america been paid for by the federal government up at that point sixty two now we have a recent gallup poll that shows that seventy seven percent of americans support government programs to put people back to work on infrastructure and that that would create jobs i mean you know isn't this isn't this this is not rocket science what i brought you know you were just where you are in the world did you just have your previous segment was about how you're going to have a duty to get america from honduras or something but we're it's really the literature that they should already have trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see you know let's go after government ways even the reader's digest said we waste a trillion dollars a year would not be a great downpayment on infrastructure the amount of waste in cou

food programs and things that became wic, and that's the real safety net program today, the reagan administration came in, massive budget cuts, and we began to go backwards. we knew how to solve hunger. and here we are in 2011 and hunger has resurged, homelessness is everywhere, poverty has grown. when dr. king was dying, calling for a poor people's campaign, we had 11 million poor children. today, we have 15 1/2 million poor children. a majority live in working families struggling to make ends meet. and the gap between the rich and poor is higher than it's ever been. the country, despite the progress in many ways, despite a black president in the white house, which is a miracle, despite the body of laws that we have been instrumental in working with others and helping achieve, things are going backwards. our generation of children and grandchildren may not do as well as we did. and the whole premise of the american dream and of the civil rights movement: we wanted our children to have a better life. and here we are, eating the seed corn of the future and children poorer than they've ever been. y

serving as an economic policy advisor to the reagan administration. wonderful to have you joining us off the top. it seems we are racking up cord again, a parade of analysts tripping over themselves, warning of massive pullbacks. perhaps run for the exit, we have seen all of the games we will see in this cycle. how long are the legs of this rall if you will? >> i don't know how long they are, but going back to march of 2000 in real terms the s&p has been down 2.2, 2.3% compounded for 12 years. so when you talk about all-time highs come you're talking about all-time highs in nominal terms, not real terms. it has plenty of room to go up, i am not saying it will, but it has plenty of room to go up. lori: last week en the dow hit its peak all-time high, there was criticism driven by the federal reserve and easy money policies, right? keeping interest rates at record lows. and then we had a surprisingly low payroll data. it was fantastic, but it kind of calm but some skeptics. maybe it is supportive of this rally. >> it is not a test of our economy by any m

let's turn to deputy assistant secretary of defense during the reagan administration k.t. farland. good to see you. we do know that pyongyang is trying to get a long range missile that could reach the united states or at least hawaii. how serious is the threat? >> you have to look at rhetoric but what are the capabilities. you need three things for a nuclear weapon that could reach the united states. one en reached uranium. we know they've got that. you need to have a missile capable of delivering it and getting all the way to the united states. we know they have tested that. we know they are not yet there but they are working on that capability. the third thing as you pointed out make that weapon small enough that could fit on the top of a warhead and be delivered to the united states. we know they are working on all three things and we know they are getting close. now, i think if you do ask most americans, do you realize if north korea or russia or china launched a nuclear attack against the united states, we might be able to fake out one or five of those weapons but we c

the reagan administration had been accused of being slow to recognize the epidemic, but when he joined the fight, dr. koop pulled no punches. >> just by his bully pulpit approach to two of the great killers in this world, tobacco and hiv, i believe he's responsible for saving many, many, many lives. >> you can't ask more of a doctor than that. dr. koop was the first surgeon general to officially warn about the dangers of passive smoking. he was a vigorous opponent of big tobacco, as you probably know. and there's something i always like to tell people who want to quit smoking. you don't have to wait years to see the benefits. take a look. just 20 minutes after your last cigarette, your heart rate and blood pressure will drop. in 24 hours, your heart disease risk goes down. two weeks later, your lung function improves. after five years, your cancer risks declines. in fact, at 20 years, your overall risk is about the same as a nonsmoker. any tools or tips to help you kick the habit, go to smokefree.gov. good luck. that will wrap things up. time to send it back to atlanta for a check of y

i kept him out during the reagan administration. >> sean: billy cunningham used the term, gave birth to bin laden. >> the man was a total phony and one of the biggest mistakes we made, goes back starting a little with the end of the bush administration, completely in the clinton administration, they bought into the phoniness of yasser arafat. the man was not a guy who was a terrorist who turned around. he was a terrorist who turned into a big thief. his wife is sitting in the south of france with hundreds of millions of dollars. that's the hundreds of millions through arafat, hillary clint--. >> major thief. the reason it's in the shape it's in, arafat stole the money going to the palestinian authority. >> sean: given by the united states. and to me when the president of the united states stands there with this guy's picture in back of him, it says to me, does this man have any sense of history? does he know what the heck he's dealing with? this is a man who's murdered at least 27 americans, those are the tip of the iceberg, that's i can count. one of the people who invented modern i

grover norquist worked for the reagan administration. or the obama administration. not much difference there. but there is a difference. there's a big difference. if van jones had ever said our goal is to inflict pain, it's not enough to win, it has to be a painful, devastating defeat, like when the king would take his opponent's head and spike it on a pole for everyone to see, what would o'reilly say that night? what would sean hannity do that night? sean would devote the entire hour of his show to condemnation of van jones which i believe he has done from time to time. he would call van jones a revolutionary. those guys demonized van jones for nothing and they cheer on the revolutionary, the enemy of the government, grover norquist. and now we know how an american revolutionary company championed by the right wing media and welcomed into the halls of power by republicans in congress. two things are necessary. first of all, be white, be very, very white. and second, pretend to be a conservative. acceler-rental. at a hertz expressrent kio

and electronics communication in the daily lives is vastly different than it was during the reagan administration ended needed reforms to better protect privacy, to allow the growth of electronic communications without compromising the needs of law enforcement. 1986, therafted in same year that fox news was and president reagan launched a strike of khadafi. marcus unterberg was one year old. the world was a different place and we can all agree on that. governing the internet is like having a national highway policy drafted in the 19th century. the is the first of hearings that the subcommittee will have, and we will explore the needs of government, to access the contents of stohr electronic communications and the level of judicial review required to obtain them. this was a necessary response to the rapid development of wireless communication services and electronic communications in the digital era. at that time, electronic mail was -- pagers were in their infancy. to voicebeen limited communications and addressed an area of communications for which there is a fourth amendment right to privacy. e

130 signers other than you, people like tom ridge, ken duberstein, chief of staff during the reagan administrationthese are named people, but i have a question for you. you mentioned, this is a conservative principle, this is about freedom. and yet the republican party platform is that marriage is between a man and a woman. will that change? i've been asking everybody this. i can't get away from the politics of it because it's a big political issue. will that change? in 2016, will one of the people running for the presidential nomination on the republican side, who has a chance to win be pro gay marriage, do you think? >> i don't know the answer to that. but you and i are probably only two of the people in the political in other words class who have covered political conventions, that's a lagging indicator but i think you will start to see republican politicians at a state and hopefully national level who really no one pays much attention to their stance on marriage equality. because it will over time become a nonissue. if you're running for office and you're trying to court the vote of anyone you

so what we had if you want to set a date since the beginning of the reagan administration in 1981 and the late 1970's you have to read the decline of the idea that the government policy should be focused around achieving full employment and the emergence of the idea that the market knows best if the government tries to do something they are going to mess it up so the government should worry about keeping inflation down and let the market decide everything else so the market decides how the financial operations take place and deregulating financial markets and that is what happened to the speculative bubble and crash that created the great recession. that is the background to what my book goes through on some of that background. and very briefly, again, very short book. so, i try to compress things a lot. but that is the basic background. now, how do we think about where we are today? well, first again as fred said and i reiterate it is important to realize how severe the problem is. and it's not just that we think about jobs or no jobs. when i say fall in planet, i mean full employmen

the reagan administration had been accused of being slow to recognize the epidemic. when he joined the fight he pulled no punches. >> his bully approach to great killers in this world, tobacco and hiv, i believe he's responsible for saving many, many lives. >> you can't ask more of a doctor than that. dr. koop was the first surgeon general to officially warn about the dangers of passive smoking. he was a vigorous opponent of big tobacco as you probably know. something i always like to tell people who want to quit smoking. you don't have to wait years to see the benefits. take a look. just 20 minutes after your last cigarette, your heart rate and blood pressure will drop. in 24 hours, your heart disease risk goes down. two weeks later your lung function improves. after five years your cancer risk declines. in fact, in 20 years, your overall risk is the same as a nonsmoker. tools or tricks to help you kick the habit, go to smokefree.gov. that will wrap things up here, time to send it back to atlanta for your top stories right now. >>> the mission has changed because we

boom their normal called the business cycle in the george washington a ministration of the ronald reagan administration when the business cycle is in decline. we increase government spending to fill in the holes created by the loss of private sector revenues a government spending during times of declines in the business cycle is not only softens the blow for businesses and for average working people but it also stimulates the economy and gets it back on track on the other hand government behavior should be very different at the high points of the business cycle that's when there's nearly full employment and lots of money sloshing around in the private sector so it's the right time for government to dial back spending and to raise enough revenue through taxes to pay off the money spent during the business cycle downturn got it system balancing act president harry truman for example knew that during times of prosperity when the business cycle was on the upswing as it was after world war two less government spending was needed and modest increases in taxation would help to reduce the national debt and as

i mean, since the reagan administration. n fact, we don't really have any good evidence that it has worked, that low taxes do stimulate higher economic growth. i would suggest the evidence does not really support the lieutenant governor. >> i'm going to guess you disagree with that. >> yeah. do low taxes lead to economic growth? let me ask you this, and i'll ask you, eduardo. if we add a top marginal tax rate of 98%, would it have a negative economic impact? >> if you were not going to keep any of the money you make by work. >> by that same logic, lower taxes lead to economic growth. you suggest you node the exact pinpoi place to diminish your effort and moving from 35 to 40%, that will have a lot of import in your decisions. >> not only do we agree taxes have some impact we can go into the things the lieutenant governor talked about and look at difference states and who is benefitting now. >> has certain other advantages. they have oil. it is also benefitting from the fact the state doesn't need to collect the state taxes be

i mean, since the reagan administration. e any good evidence that it has worked, that low taxes do stimulate higher economic growth. i would suggest the evidence does not really support the >> by that same logic, lower taxes lead to economic growth. you suggest you node the exact place to pinpoint that where it diminishes. >> at 100%, it will probably diminish your effort, but moving from 35% to 40%, that will have a lot of impact on your decision to work, not to work. >> we can then go into the things the lieutenant governor talked about and look at the different state and who is benefitting from economic growth. >> texas has certain other advantages. they have oil. it is also benefitting from the fact the state doesn't need to collect those state taxes because they get money from the local government, and cities have high property taxes. >> that's true. i read an article -- >> called the blessing of low taxes. >> that's right, and other countries across the world, but if you look at this at a more domestic level, democracy

legalizing it could save the government 13 point* $7 billion per year are first guest today from the reagan administration thank you for joining us. really get the economic possibilities of the discussion with the legalization but you say it is too big of a health risk. cigarettes and the alcohol are legal -- legal wisner one a different? >> to thinks he will save money is a psychotropic drug jute impairs the ability to make sure decisions and impairs the immune system with 45,000 young people going into the emergency room every year and it is growing. you have no way to you determine the impairment "on the road" or measure or enforce it increases more accidents. connell: you did not mention the name of their product you were talking about i think i could have said maybe you are talking about alcohol. that is a huge business so what is the difference? >> alcohol is water soluble our body disposes of it but marijuana is in the fat cells the mammary glands, the brain, the fat cells you can measure impairment 48 hours after smoking one joint. by walking in with the hangover you can pick it up to cannot pick

but one problem with the immigration reform, the amnesty that we did under the reagan administration ot take advantage it, because the fees were too high. when we talk about the undocumented, we are talking about people, the great majority of people who are living below subsistence level. so to say that they might have to pay, say, a $1,000 fine or even $2,000, that's going to be out of reach for many. however, what we're seeing so far, the framework is looking good. >> and real quickly, what do you see the president's role as in all of this? i know they called the arizona republican, jeff flake yesterday, he's one of the gang of eight. how does president obama fit into these negotiations? >> i think president obama, with so far, is wisely staying out of it. he's over seeing it, maybe, as the god father, if you will, but i think he understands that he cannot get too involved at this point, because that would poison the atmosphere among many of the house republicans, who, they're the sticking point in this debate. we all these their support for immigration reform. and i think the presi

it worked from the george washington administration until the reagan administration and then it all changed as soon as reagan became president the era of deregulation in america began. within a few years of taking office reagan's assault on small business was in full gear as he essentially stopped in force of the sherman act m n a artists an l.b.o. guys and all manner of mergers acquisitions and leveraged buyout hustlers rose to prominence talmud in the headlines throughout the one nine hundred eighty s. as a result all across the country local businesses were being put out of business is large corporations took over and dominated industry after industry giant megastores like wal-mart and target replaced local convenience stores and hardware stores the local malt shop in the burger joint replaced by a n.w. and mcdonalds larger companies got even larger main street usa begin a thirty year process of disintegration. capitalism without competition always leads to monopolies and oligarchy and thanks to reagan's refusal to maintain competition in our markets by enforcing the sherman act these fo

the people of el salvador, i worked with them for a few months, but then i thought since the reagan administration was taking a regional approach to south america, i thought their approach should be regional and they disagreed. >> where did the money come from? >> i wasn't paid. >> but for the organization? >> i think it was all donations. but i'm not sure, i was just a volunteer. >> who cared about el salvador back then? >> reagan, if you remember, was drawing the line against communism anywhere he could and in his view, nicaragua was a communist state, cuba is a never-ending thorn in the side of american politics and salvador, the revolutionary movement had a rhythm after several elections in a row were overthrown and on the reagan side they wanted to draw the line against communism and it was in central america. i was a hippie out of the 1960's and 1970's, as i said, my first protest was vietnam. when i learned again that the u.s. was intervening in the internal politics of countries that should not matter to the united states in those terms, it brought up my frustrations about the vietnam war

so what we have, if you want to set a date, really since the beginning of the reagan administration in 1981 and the late 1970s, you have the really decline of the idea that government policy should be focused around achieving full employment and the emergence of the idea that if government tries to do something they're just going to mess it up. so government should worry about keeping inflation down despite everything else in and along with that was the idea that let the market decide how financial operations take place and deregulate the financial markets. that is what led to the speculative bubble and crash which in turn created the great recession. so that is kind of the background to what my book goes through in some of that background. very briefly, a very short book so i tried to compress things a lot. but that is the basic background. now, how do we think about where we are today? first as fred said and i reiterated its very important to realize how severe the problem is and it's not just that we can think about jobs or no jobs. when i say full employment nine mean full employme

he was with the reagan administration -- >> i was in the bush administration. >> excuse me.ot that old. the first case i will talk about is the one that will be argued tomorrow. it is called hollingsworth against perry. it began with the california supreme court ruling that as a matter of california state lot of laws banning same-sex marriages were unconstitutional with the california constitution. immediate become a process was begun in november, 2008, and the voters in california passed an initiative, an amendment to the constitution that says marriage shall only be between persons of the opposite sex, one man and one woman from outlying same-sex marriage. at the same time, california high already in place well before the first decision statutes that created domestic partnerships that provide all of the legal rights to same-sex partners as marriage did, but they could not call themselves married. the reaction was fairly prompt. the case was filed in federal court after an unsuccessful case in state court, challenging constitutionality this time under the federal constituti