tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC September 27, 2013 12:00am-1:01am PDT
and the 17th of october, we will know who they are. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. and at this hour, house republicans have projected a short-term spending plan that would have averted a government shutdown. the plan was expected to be pass by the senate, and now a shutdown appears more likely. and all this, all this as republicans are already gearing up for the next self-made crisis. this one, far more dangerous. >> welcome back to squawk on the street. i'm eamon javers in washington, where we've got a new letter now from secretary jack lew, john boehner updating the status of when it is, exactly, the treasury estimates the united states government will be unable to fund itself going forward. the new date estimated by treasury is october 17th.
they say, if we have insufficient cash on hand, it would be impossible for the united states of america to meet all of its obligations for the first time in our history. >> the stakes are set and for the u.s. economy, they could not be higher. house republicans have to vote to increase the debt limit to avert a historic default. and today, speaker boehner announced his negotiating position. >> on the debt limit, we're going to introduce a plan that ties important spending cuts and pro-growth reforms to a debt limit increase. now, the president says i'm not going to negotiate. well, i'm sorry, but it just doesn't work that way. >> once again, republicans will take the economy hostage. the "national review" published the gop's ransom list. in exchange for avoiding default, republicans are demanding a one-year delay in obama care. they want the president to go forward with the keystone pipeline, and they want tax reform that favors the wealthy based on the paul ryan plan. if those demands sounds
familiar, that's because it's effectively the platform that cost republicans the white house just last year. >> i will act to repeal obama care. i will build that pipeline if i have to myself! i'm very supportive of the ryan budget plan. >> republicans are blackmailing the american people with the agenda that lost the last presidential election by 3.5 million votes. it's a strategy born from the inexplicable existence to have two votes, one to spend money and another to pay for the money spent. in 1979, a democratic congressman named richard gephardt set out to change this, merging the two votes into one. but when republicans took back the house in 1995, they separated the votes again, paving the way for what is happening today. since then, democrats have never demanded concessions in direct exchange for raising the debt ceiling. as house speaker under george w. bush, nancy pelosi had the
opportunity three times to take the american economy hostage in exchange for a list of democratic priorities. and each year, she passed the debt limit increase without incident. >> i would be willing to say, don't mess with the debt limit. >> the reason democrats never tied the debt ceiling to a list of demands, a united states default would be catastrophic. >> the idea of reaching the debt limit is really unthinkable. >> it's so dumb, you know, it's disturbing. >> if you don't raise the debt limit in time, you will be opening an economic pandora's box. >> when republicans did this in 2011, the united states saw its credit rating downgraded. the house republicans are now holding the entire country, and indeed, world economy hostage. and today, obama said, unlike last time, he will not negotiate with the hostage takers. >> i will not negotiate on anything when it comes to the full faith and credit of the united states of america.
>> joining me now is republican tom cole, from oklahoma, a member of the house budget committee. congressman, i'm seeing reports that the house caucus itself does not have the required number of votes necessary to pass its own plan that has this long wish list of republican priorities. what the heck is going on down there? >> well, first of all, i have to say, that's the most remarkably misleading lead-in i've ever seen for minute after minute after minute. but -- >> wait, what is misleading -- >> let me finish my answer. >> oh, gosh, do you want me to count the ways? >> yes! >> nancy pelosi, of course she didn't want to poke the debt limit, she wanted to spend more money, not less. the reality is, the american people think we ought to be in a negotiating posture on these things. 61%, according to the bloomberg recent poll says, if we're going to raise the debt limit, which is something, by the way, i'm willing to do, and something barack obama never did when he was in the united states senate. he's asking us to do for him what he would not do for george w. bush. >> it was a symbolic vote, as
you well know. >> it was not a symbol irk -- >> of course it was a symbolic vote. was there ever any moment that you thought the debt ceiling would not go up? >> he wants me to cast a vote he wouldn't cast. i'm willing to do that. i've done that before. >> yes. >> and the president likes to talk about the deficit coming down. a big reason was, with the negotiations we had the last time, i think we're willing to try to work with him to raise the debt ceiling, but we want to do something about the debt. >> can i ask you something? >> what exactly does net neutrality have to do with the debt? >> look, i said, we put literally everything on the table. i actually think there should be some things on the table that are in the president's budget. >> what does -- what does funding the consumer -- >> the president is for -- >> what does funding the consumer financial protection bureau through the appropriations process have to do with the debt? >> first of all, we think those things have positive things in terms of future growth. but, look, we haven't said this is take it or leave it.
we said, here's a whole range of things that we're willing to talk about it. >> but you have to take it or leave it -- >> it's the president who said, i'm not willing to negotiate. you have to take it or leave it. and that's simply unacceptable. >> is it acceptable to not raise the debt ceiling? >> i actually think the debt ceiling needs to be raised. if you voted for the ryan budget -- >> wait a second -- >> -- you voted for a debt ceiling increase. let me finish my thought. but the ryan budget also contained a trajectory to bring the debt down. if the president will work with us to bring the debt down, which he did in august of 2011, to his credit, then i think we can arrive at a deal. but the idea that i'm not going to talk to anybody -- you can talk to the iranians, you can talk to the russians -- >> i've heard that talking point a lot. >> it's a good talking point. >> it is a good talking point, but that's what it is. >> it's the truth. >> what is the negotiation? this is what i fail to see. it's catastrophic not to raise the debt ceiling, as you've said and as economists say, so why not just raise the debt ceiling? what's so hard?
why do we need to negotiate? >> because you need to change the trajectory of the debt. >> the debt has changed trajectory -- >> yeah. you have to, like, what are you going to do to lower it, so you're just not automatically raising it. >> let me bring in keith ellison, co-chair of the progressive caucus, what's your reaction? >> i think that weaponizing the debt ceiling is bad economic policy, i think it's bad legislative policy, and i'm very sorry that this has happened. we can negotiate over the budget, we negotiate all the time. but to put something like the full faith and credit of the american economy on the line is just beyond pale. and americans show know. we're not asking about permission to spend future more, we're talking about permission to pay the bills we've already acquired. >> let me ask congressman cole about negotiation. everybody likes negotiation, we have a system of government that
requires it in certain circumstances. there's a budget process in which a budget gets passed by the house, a budget gets passed by the senate, and they appoint people to a conference committee, where they hash it out. and the house refuses to appoint conferrees to that conference committee, saying they won't negotiate on the budget. why not negotiate through the normal channels rather than -- >> i think there's always a pre-negotiation that took place, and frankly, that didn't work out, which is how many times do you want to be able to bring different points up on the floor. it's a technicality. but i basically agree with you. i want to negotiate with the president. i demonstrated on fiscal cliff, on sandy, on violence against women. i'm more than willing to do that. it's the president saying, i don't want to negotiate at all. >> do you think the president is saying he doesn't want to negotiate full stop, congressman ellison, or he doesn't want to negotiate under these circumstances? >> he does not want to place america's bond rating on the line.
he wants to negotiate during the normal course, which he has always done, and i don't think this is an unreasonable thing. we know that we are not going to -- we're going to ruin the american economy if we default on the debt limit and we can not do and the president is right not to negotiate on that. but he's negotiated on many other things and we've heard all these issues before. so let's talk about it. but let's not put the american and the world economy on the line as we do it. >> congressman cole, why is the normal appropriations process and funding process, congress has to authorize money and then it's got to take two votes to spend money. why is that not enough? why should there be a third thing in which you can then decline to pay the debts that you've incurred? >> the debt ceiling is there as an alarm bill. and frankly, a lot of this debt i voted against. >> a lot of your colleagues didn't. >> if you want to raise spending, you know, you're going to have to vote for it. and maybe you want to stop and think about the course that you're on.
are >> but you already had to -- >> wait a second. >> i agree with tom. tom's right about this. this is the punish of this debt ceiling this way, to do it -- to say, look, let's stop and look at what we're doing, but it's not to use as a leverage -- >> but can i say, i disagree with both of you. every cent, every cent that this government, that this government spends as a matter of the constitution of the united states must be authorized by congress. i don't understand why that vote is not enough. >> this must be a historical first that keith and i are on the same side. >> now, wait a minute. i'm saying i do believe if we authorize an appropriation for money, the debt ceiling ought to automatically be raised. >> yes. >> but i'm saying if there is a legitimate purpose for the way we do it, which i don't think is the right way to do it, which is to just stop and examine the whole fiscal situation, not to weaponize it, not the run the economy over a cliff. >> and everybody has says, nobody has any desire to, one, shut down the government, or default. that's not -- >> some of your colleagues do.
they're on the record today saying they do. >> look, the speaker has demonstrated time and again, not to do that. but he said, let's correct the path we're on. we can do that with things in the president's budget. >> we have the fastest decline in the deficit that we've seen in basically the post-war period. >> and you can thank, by the way, a lot of that -- >> two-thirds is from revenue. congressman, two-thirds. >> by the way, some of it is, some of it isn't, and i voted for that. >> congressman tom cole and congressman keith ellison. >> we need a clean debt vote. let's do it now. >> thank you both, gentleman. all right. coming up -- >> my feeling is that your office initially overcharged her in this case. this is my feeling. >> let me -- >> this is my feeling. but we can't try it here. there is no justification for 20 years. >> that was congresswoman corrine brown confronting florida state attorney angela
corey after melissa alexander was sentenced to 20 years in prison for defending herself against her abusive husband. there is good news to report tonight. that's ahead. stick around. [ thunder crashe] [ female announcer ] some people like to pretend a flood could never happen to them. and that their homeowners insurance protects them. [ thunder crashes ] it doesn't. stop pretending.
we always love hearing from you on facebook and twitter. and tonight's question has to do with private conversations. if for 30 seconds you could magically get into the house republican leaders' office to give -- for them to give you their undivided attention, what would you say? tweet your answers @allinwithchris or post at facebook.com/allinwithchris, we'll share at the end of the show. and while you're there, follow us on twitter and like us on facebook. we'll be right back.
just five days away from the dramatic rollout of obama care, the president today was in full-on, fired up, ready to go mode, speaking to a crowd of students and teachers at a campaign-style event in maryland, mr. obama came armed a very clear message. the affordable care act is here to stay, so deal with it. but as the president noted repeatedly, republicans are determined to torpedo the law, using every legislative and extra legislative tactic that they have. barack obama has learned the hard way, he cannot unilaterally force the republicans to act responsibly. what he can do is call out their rhetoric. that's exactly what he did, turning his obama care stump speech into a veritable roast of republican lawmakers, who have predicted dire consequences if the law remains in tact. according to the president, all this would be funny, if it wasn't so crazy. >> some of the tea party's biggest donors, some of the
wealthiest men in america, are funding a cynical ad campaign, trying to convince young people not to buy health care at all. but they are actually spending money on television, trying to convince young people that if you've got the choice between getting affordable health care or going without health care, you should choose not having any health care. now, do you think if you get sick or you get hurt, and you get stuff with a massive bill, these same folks, they're going to help you out? they have made such a big political issue out of this, trying to scare everybody, with lies about death panels and killing granny -- >> we should not have a government program that determines you're going to pull the plug on grandma. >> so if it actually works they'll look pretty bad. if it actually works, that will mean that everything they were
saying wasn't really true and they were just playing politics. you had a state representative somewhere say that it's as destructive to personal and individual liberty as the fugitive slave act. >> what is obama care? it is a law as destructive to personal and individual liberty as the fugitive slave act of 1850, that allows slave owners to come to new hampshire and seize african-americans and use the federal courts to take them back to federal slave states. >> these are quotes. i'm not making this stuff up. and here's one more that i've heard. i like this one. we have to, and i'm quoting here, we have to repeal this failure before it literally kills women, kills children, kills senior citizens. >> that's why we're here!
because we're saying, let's repeal this failure before it literally kills women, kills children, kills senior citizens. >> i just want to point out, we still have women, we still have children, we still have senior citizens. all this would be funny if it wasn't so crazy. and once it's working really well, i guarantee you they will not call it obama care. >> joining me now is congresswoman renee elmers, republican from north carolina, chair of the republican women's policy committee, and it's great to have you back on the show, congresswoman. are you terrified of running against obama care in 2014, when it's successful? >> you know, the problem here is that it's falling apart on its own weight. i know you just played those clips of the president, but the facts of the matter is, it's an unworkable system. >> why is it unworkable?
>> what we really need to do is put real reforms in place. >> why is it unworkable? >> insurance rates are going up across this country. in north carolina alone, for young males, quadrupling in cost -- >> congresswoman, you're aware that the rate of increase in health care year over year is at an all-time low over the last ten years or so. the rate is diminishing, we can agree on that fact? >> the increases have gone up -- >> no, they've gone down. >> -- but this is dramatic. and it is as a result of obama care going into effect. >> congresswoman, how many people in your district are uninsured? >> the issue is not how many people are uninsured. the issue is, is this a program that will work? it is not a plan that will work. it just simply is falling apart. delay after delay -- >> but congresswoman, respectfully, it is an issue for those people that are uninsured. and in fact, i think a large part of what the law is designed too, whether you agree with it or not, is to cover those who are uninsured. so i want to know how many people in you're district we're talking about. >> that is the point. those who are uninsured will
remain uninsured and those who have insurance will lose their insurance. there will be jobs that will be lost. we are changing the workweek from 40 hours a week for full-time to 30 hours a week a week -- >> congresswoman, we just said -- you just said that those who are uninsured will remain uninsured. the whole point of the bill, whether you like it or not, or you think it's too expensive, a lot of those people will get insurance. in fact, they're required under law to get insurance. that's what the individual mandate is, right? >> chris, the exchanges aren't even ready to go up. they're supposed to go in effect october 1st, and i will tell you, they are not ready. we just saw another delay from the obama administration today. delay after delay, it is not moving forward. let's talk about real reform. if we want to assure america, let's get those who can't afford health care and insurance on an affordable plan. the republican study committee -- >> that's the design of the entire law, though! here's my question to you.
if you think it's going to be a disaster, what is your hope? october 1st, you've got some folks in your district that are going to be going on to the exchange, isn't it the best thing for those people, for your district, and for america, if they have a smooth experience? i mean, aren't we -- shouldn't we all be rooting for success, whatever you think about the bill? >> it would be wonderful. the problem is, as it's moving forward, it will not be -- >> but why don't we just wait and see? >> -- in north carolina, there will be two insurance companies the they will be able to choose from. and in 39 counties, they will have two, and in 61, they will only have one. >> we should clarify, it's two companies, but much more than two plans in the state of north carolina. >> i did not say plans. >> right. >> but just so that's clear, there's going to be a bunch more plans than two. >> but this is the whole idea. >> but congresswoman, war you hoping for your constituents? what do you hope for them when they go to that exchange on october 1st, are they hoping the thing crashes? are you hoping it doesn't work? >> what i'm wanting for my
constituents, that they can keep their job, that they can actually get health care coverage, and i'm ready to do that, with the republican study committee, plan for america. >> okay. >> the american health care reform act. it is a wonderful plan that we can work with. >> we will post that plan to our website. i thank you so much for your time. >> thank you. >> joining me now is sam seder, host of the majority report, a daily political talk show. here's the thing i don't get. i find, we're having this whole -- this has this big thing, it's an actual thing. things are actually happen. thousands of civil servants are working to make it work. and i've talked to some of those people. people are working extremely hard. these are people who are not extremely well congressmen sated. they're diligent, anonymous civil servants who work in the federal bureaucracies, sweating night and day, pouring all of their talent and dedication into trying to make this thing work. why the insistence to talk about how terrible it's going to be before we actually see what happens? >> money. honestly, there really is no other explanation here.
i mean, just -- and lee fine has a great piece in the nation magazine outlining how much money is being spent. there is a massive cottage industry behind this on the right, that is just sort of generating -- >> the defund obama care fund-raising -- >> it's a fund-raising, but i think it expands lornlger than that. if congresswoman felt it was a disaster, it's going to happen on monday, she would be rather excited for it to go through, because this would redoubt to her political benefit. and then they could actually go with the reforms that she's claiming that she's interested in. you look at those ads the other day, that came out, that were sort of the, i don't -- forgive the term, rapy ads and the -- that's not going to convince anyone. >> no, that's for raising money. >> that's for raising money. and it was also for raising money for the media buyer, the guy who shot the thing -- >> it was a gift to cable news producers. >> that's true.
but you weren't the one who siphoned that money off the sort of huge machine. i think that's what a lot of it's that happening here. >> what's fascinating to me, you're getting two simultaneous arguments from republicans. they say, we have to kill this now because it's our last chance. and when it goes into effect, it will be a disaster. but those two things can't possibly be true. >> no. if you could defund it today, you can defund it in six months >> when it's terrible! >> when it's catastrophic and the buildings begin to fall -- >> and there's no more women, children -- >> yes, with everyone dies. and if there's anybody left standing, i guess you could defund it at that point. yes. their arguments make no sense, but it is really about, and this is why you saw such pushback against ted cruz from republicans themselves, because he was actually doubling down on the cravenness. they want to stay within a certain craven context. but he was actually going beyond that, because he -- >> well, he was kind of calling the bluff on the cravenness. taking you to its logical conclusion, and i think the thinking has been welcome we can
string people along, but at a certain point, we have to quietly tell them to deal. >> completely draining the tank, as it were for them, and he's leaving a lot of people holding the bag. and he's going to maintain that posture. but i think the incentive for both of them is the same. we're just stoking this for cash. >> okay. is there a part of you that's actually worried about the implementation? >> i mean, to a certain extent, yes. was this is a massive -- >> see -- >> and that's the thing. they have done a very good job in both gumming up the works in a very literal way by not making certain fixes, and by these campaigns that say, this is going to be a disaster -- >> and they've also -- the state governors have opted out, which means the federal government have had to build a lot more than these than i thought they would. and i want to believe that good policy is good politics, and this in the long run, right, if the thing works, people will like it. but in the short run, what you're going to see, every single glitch will lead a fox
news segment for four months. and that can turn people in that window, when they have to sign up before the law goes into effect, that can turn people against it. sam seder from the "majority report," thank you for your time. sorry, no danish. there's a new president in town saying no one should have nuclear weapons, acknowledges the holocaust, and tweets. it seems he wants to be seen as reasonable and practical. not that hard when your predecessor was this guy. coming up, nbc's ann curry will be here with her take on the president of iran's week at the u.n. after her exclusive interview with him. that's next.
he is denouncing nukes, acknowledging the holocaust, and tweeting, all with such rapidity that his hometown newspapers can barely keep up with him. one of those newspapers already disputing the english translation of what he really said. it's iranian leader 2.0, hasan rahani. he called on israel to declare that it possesses nuclear weapons and claims to be strongly in favor of both nonproliferation and disarmament. >> translator: no nation should possess nuclear weapons. since there are no right hands for these wrong weapons. >> today, secretary of state john kerry at the direction of president obama met with his iranian counterpart, mohammad jaza shareef along with diplomats from russia, china, and germany to begin discussions on iranian's uranium enrichment program.
an unnamed u.s. official told reuters that he offered some suggestions at the meeting, but, quote, there's a lot more to understand. there are other overtures from the iranian president. in a departure from his predecessor, rahani has acknowledged the holocaust. >> any crime that happens in history against humanity, including the crime that the gnat zis committed towards the jews is reprehensible and condemnable as far as we're concerned. whatever criminality they committed against the jews, we condemn, because genocide, the taking of the human life is condemnable, and it makes no difference whether that life is a jewish life, a christian, a muslim or what. >> it posted its own translation, saying he did not use the words reprehensible. and its new leader is already tweeting quite a bit.
for instance, instead of nuclear weapons, #nuclearweapons, invest in development in eradicating poverty, ignoranty. joining me now, ann curry, and hooman majd. today was a huge day in u.s./iranian relations, i think it's fair to say. >> huge. >> the biggest in decades, would you say? >> for the first time in 34 years that the highest ranking meeting happened. and it happened and it was a significant meeting. this is the meeting, of course, that included the secretary of state, as we just saw, and also the foreign minister of iran. in 34 years, we've not seen that kind of level of engagement and they talked about nuclear weapons and they talked about the possibility of having a conversation about nuclear weapon, and in fact, they set their next meeting, just three weeks hence, on october 15th and 16th. and they've said that they're
going to actually start talking seriously. >> substantively, in three -- right? so this is a major shift. >> this is not just a kind of, you know, occasionally, you'll see diplomatic overtures that seem designed to essentially perform some kind of talking with nothing moving forward. this is something different than that? >> well, on top of that, i agree with you, the foreign minister actually said, at the council of foreign relations tonight, when we saw rouhani, he said that there was a goal at this meeting that they would reach an agreement within a year. now, look, the chances, the hurdles against them are very high. so, in fact, this could be irrational exuberance to some degree. however, are the signs strong? is this historic? absolutely. we'll find out what happens from here. >> and the substance of what we've been talking about, in the media, it's been all about the charm offensive, the iranian propaganda, and benjamin netanyahu has been talking about that, all words and all that. and up until this, this actual
substantiative meeting that zariv had with john kerry, they both said a few words, and it was very clear that that was a real meeting, it was 30 minutes long. they were alone. we realized that toward the end that they were alone in the meeting. >> and that is extremely significant. >> that has never happened. that has not happened in 34 years. it's not been just a handshake. everybody was hoping for a handshake between the two presidents. this is actual real substance moving forward. but to have a meeting, almost two weeks away from now, on the actual details of what they're going to do about the nuclear program. >> in terms of those hurdles, we have news from john kerry saying, there will be no lifting just sanctions in the absence of a verifiable system put in place to make sure that uranium is not continuing to be enriched towards the threshold needed for weaponization. is that a -- that's the first hurdle, right? because iranians are probably going to want some kind of production of the sanctions
before they start this process. >> i think they're going to want some reduction of the sanctions after this meeting. i think -- >> right. >> i don't think -- this meeting is where the details will be worked out. the iranians have said that they're willing to put everything on the table. they're going to talk about how many centrifuges they're going to have, how much enrichment they're going to do and all of that. and if that is agreed upon, and i think ann has asked these questions last week in tehran, if that is agreed upon, i think the sanctions can be -- kerry did indicate that he was going to. >> we should mention also that zarif was very up. he was very -- and also, he bounded into this council of foreign relations event, he came in later, after -- you saw him at the united nations. and he was -- i mean, i don't want to use the word "glowing," but he was obviously excited. >> he was smiling and excited. >> i think that there was a real sense that they had a dialogue. >> i think the iranians need sanctions relief.
in order to -- and this is going to happen next. this was breaking the ice. >> and we start to talk about how we have broken the ice. they've already confirmed that kerry and ashton -- sorry, zarif and ashton are going to be at that meeting. the u.n. foreign minister. and then kerry was asked if he's going to be, he said, we'll see. i imagine that hays going to go to this. >> that's going to be the next step. so we have today, for the first time in 34 years, some actual top-level, face-to-face diplomacy before these two nations that have not been talking to each other. that's a big deal. >> that's a huge deal. >> will be on the front page tomorrow morning. >> nbc news contributor -- you got it first, nbc news contributor, hooman majd, and ann curry, great thank you to both of you. we'll be right back with click three.
there's this teeny little one line inside the house gop list of demands that would wreak havoc on anyone with a bank account and that republicans thought they could sneak past us. but i noticed it and i'm going to tell you about it. and remember the case of the florida woman who got 20 years in prison for trying to defend herself against her abusive husband? there's a great development tonight for marissa alexander. that story is coming up. but first i want to the share the three awesomest things on the internet today. we begin a long time ago when the "star wars" movies were actually good. streck director j.j. abrams is set to direct the next installment of "star wars." the latest attempt to bring balance to the force is an animated open letter, outlining four simple rules to make "star wars" great. number one, the setting is the frontier, not the imperial senate or the halls of parliament. >> amidst smugglers and bounty hunters, "star wars" is a western. and it's set in the frontier.
>> other rules from the superfan named prescott harvey, keep the future dirty, don't try to overexplain mystical platforms like the force. but the biggest new rule for abrams is this, "star wars" isn't cute. it's a rough and tumble universe out there. >> it's never cute or silly. it's not childproof. it's freaking "star wars"! and han always shoots first. >> thanks, prescott harvey. if the movie is good, a grateful galaxy is in your debt. the second awesomest thing on the internet today, a different kind of keynote address. chances you've used a pc in your life and chances are you've sometimes felt like this. a solution to your problem has been the confounding key combination of control, a lot, delete, and bill gates was put on the spot about the three-finger absolute. >> why do i need to have three fingers, control, alt, delete, whose idea was that?
>> at first, gates was quick to deflect the blame, but the nagging guilt proved to be too much were even for one of the world's richest men. >> we could have had a single button, but the guy who did the keyboard design didn't want to give us our single button,ed so we had -- we programmed a little level that you had to -- it was a mistake. >> a mistake! it's pretty refreshing whenever someone sucks it up and admits a mistake. so big ups to bill gates for doing what everyone is still waiting for george lucas today. and the third awesomest thing on the internet today, hell comes to canada. halloween is fast approaching, and the people behind a toronto haunted house are drumming up business by releasing three years worth of photographs, showing their canadian customers in absolute terror, at something just outside the frame. whether it's a bunch of bros or girlfriends out for the night, the bug-eyed frozen faces in these photos are either the best or worst possible approach from the fear factory, depending, of course, on your tolerance for
being scared. in the end, it all looks like good fun, but we had to wonder, what could possibly make all of these people recoil in horror? well, we figured it out. ♪ i came in like a rainbow ♪ i never hit so hard and low >> that's not so terrifying, that's adorable. understand, canada. you can find all the links for tonight's click three on our website, wool be right back.
life could be hectic. as a working mom of two young boys angie's list saves me a lot of time. after reading all the reviews i know i'm making the right choice. online or on the phone, we help you hire right the first time. with honest reviews on over 720 local services. keeping up with these two is more than a full time job, and i don't have time for unreliable companies. angie's list definitely saves me time and money. for over 18 years we've helped people take care of the things that matter most. join today. i've got a nice long life ahead.
big plans. so when i found out medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses, i looked at my options. then i got a medicare supplement insurance plan. [ male announcer ] if you're eligible for medicare, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call now and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, it helps pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you thousands in out-of-pocket costs. to me, relationships matter. i've been with my doctor for 12 years. now i know i'll be able to stick with him. [ male announcer ] with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and you never need a referral to see a specialist. so don't wait.
call now and request this free decision guide to help you better understand medicare... and which aarp medicare supplement plan might be best for you. there's a wide range to choose from. we love to travel -- and there's so much more to see. so we found a plan that can travel with us. anywhere in the country. [ male announcer ] join the millions of people who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. remember, all medicare supplement insurance plans help cover what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you thousands a year in out-of-pocket costs. call now to request your free decision guide. and learn more about the kinds of plans that will be here for you now -- and down the road. i have a lifetime of experience. so i know how important that is.
part of the deranged, evil genius of the gop debt ceiling ransom note we discussed earlier is that it's so breath taikingly ambitious, it's almost impossible to digest all of it. most of the focus of commentators have focused on things like, the one-year delay to obama care, tax reform, and the keystone pipeline. one item that caught my eye was this. funding to appropriations. sounds boring and reasonable, right? except, no. you might remember, the consumer financial protection bureau is the brain child of elizabeth warren, who as a harvard professor, proposed an agency whose sole task was looking out for consumers who use financial products. >> you can't buy a toaster in america that has a one in five chance of exploding. but you can buy a mortgage that has a one in five chance of exploding, and they don't even have to tell you about it. >> the idea, to prevent those
kinds of products from being sold, that idea became the cfpb, which was included as part of the dodd/frank historical reform bill. despite hysterical unrelenting opposition from republicans, and big banks who hate it and continue to hate it. but against the odds, the cfpb now exists, it employs 1,300 people, has one of the sleekest, most user-friendly websites in all of government and is doing pretty incredible work. just last week, regulators announced that jpmorgan chase, who had billed customers for identity theft protection and fraud protection services, they never received, would have to refund those customers to the tune of $309 million. you can understand why the big banks and their defenders in congress want to kill this agency. they even blocked a vote to confirm the proposed head of the cfpb, for two years, for no reason, other than they objected to their very existence. but since the they managed to get their man approved, and
since the idea of the cfpb is wildly popular, the only way for the banks and republicans to kill it now is by stealth. and that means trying to starve it of funds. luckily, the authors of dodd/frank already thought of that eventuality, and they built in dead indicated funding stream for the bureau, to regulate it from the whims of congress. so that brings us back to the ransom note. this line, this seemingly boring and bureaucratic, reasonable-sounding request, to move the cfpb funding into the normal appropriations process, that is a request to let the house republicans have control over the bureau's annual budget and therefore to gut it. the idea is to render the bureau inoperable, so that banks can go back to charging fraudulent fees, without fear of being called out for it and having to give the money back. in other words, the gop demand is this.
let the banks screw you mercilessly with no recourse or protection, or we'll blow up the world economy, which would also screw you over. that's what the ransom note reads in plain english, after you run it through the handy dandy "all in" transit later. it's a strategy fit for a bond villain. luckily for us, today's gop is less goldfinger and more dr. evil.
earlier in the show we asked you, if for 130 seconds you could get house republican leaders to give you their ear, what would you say? we've got a bunch of answers, including debora scales saying, i would tell the speaker to think about the group of people who sent them to washington. i'm a little person and this government shutdown will hurt my life savings. gloria goldman quinn says, "brevity wins. i would say, resign." we'll be right back.
20 years in florida state prison, in connection with counts one, two, and three. i adjudicate you guilty on all three of those counts. >> three months ago, as george zimmerman walked out of a florida courtroom, found not guilty in the shooting death of trayvon martin, another case in florida began to gain national attention. it's the case of an african-american woman named marissa alexander, who had been sentenced to 20 years in jail for the crime of firing a gun into the air to scare off her abusive husband. it was a tragic and maddening case, which highlighted the seemingly unequal justice of a florida judicial system in the incongruity of so-called stand your ground laws. today, some big news. marissa alexander was granted a new trial by a florida judge, because the jury instructions on self-defense in her first trial were erroneous. last may, it took a florida jury all of 12 minutes to sentence marissa alexander to 12 years for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. for firing up into the ceiling of her home during an argument with her estranged husband.
during a sworn deposition, her husband stated, "i was enraged. i told her, if i can't have you, nobody is going to have you." after alexander, who had no prior criminal record, fired the warning shot, her husband swore that, quote, i honestly think she just didn't want me to put my hands on her anymore, so she did what she felt like she had to do to make sure she wouldn't get hurt. aside from what many saw as the obvious injustice of the verdict, what drew particular attention to alexander was that she unsuccessfully sought immunity under the state's stand your ground defense, which says that a person has, quote, the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself. george zimmerman, who killed an unarmed trayvon martin, wasn't even arrested until there was a national outcry, he was able to use the logic of stand your ground to be acquitted. florida state attorney angela corey, who prosecuted both the zimmerman and alexander cases, was accused of a racial double standard. she told "the washington post," quote, i think social media is
going to be the destruction of this country. a big reason why a lot of people know marissa alexander's case is because of social media, because of bloggers and twitter and those seeking justice in the case of marissa alexander. today's news is the first step in redressing this injustice. joining me now is florida state senator dwight bulllard, a democrat who's been working to get marissa alexander pardoned. senator, what does the news today mean? >> it's tremendous -- it was probably the best news i've heard all day. and really shows you the need for a check and balance system in this country is absolutely necessary. once again, courts have prevailed where other courts or the judicial system has not. >> what does this say about the stand your ground law in florida, how it's applied, and its unequal application. what does this case say about the law and how the law should be reformed or repealed? >> it really puts in the
forefront the ambiguity of stand your ground. and more importantly, how arbitrarily it's been used in its application. we, as legislators, have been working hard for the last several years, as a matter of fact, since it was passed in 2005, different state legislators have been at the forefront of trying to make this law work better for floridians, or more importantly, just all in all, make it go away, or go back to the old model of the castle doctrine that many states have already adopted, that says you have the right to protect your home. the ambiguity and the irresponsible application of it has really been thrust to the forefront and we're glad that the court of appeals looked out for miss alexander, where legislators and the governor of this state have not. >> do you think, was the public pressure and the outcry and the
attention that has been brought to this case, in the wake of the george zimmerman verdict, do you think that that played a role here? >> absolutely. absolutely. i think when we talk about stand your ground and the application of justice, when individuals see a man set free for killing, admitting to killing a young teenager for doing nothing more than walking home, yet you see a woman who was abused, who was threatened, in fear of her life, put in jail for 20 years for firing a gun, for the common person, for the laymen, it seems like an unequal distribution of justice. and we're happy that someone saw fit, but there are still cases out there. the instance of michael giles, who's another florida person going through the same thing, is one that definitely needs to be looked at as well. >> it seems from some of the data that we've seen collected that there is empirical evidence, there's real racial disparity in the application of this law. florida state senator, dwight bullard, thank you so much for your time tonight. appreciate pit it.
>> thank you. >> that is "all in" for this evening. rachel maddow is next. >> i have to apologize, we are sharing a studio, and we just had a really loud technical -- >> i thought you were beating someone up. it seemed so out of character. >> there's another side to me i don't usually like to show on tv. i'm sorry about that. i'm sure it was very distracting. i didn't mean it. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. i'm sorry for you too. anyway. so ronald reagan had tip o'neil. when ronald reagan had confrontation with the congress and the other party about maybe shutting down the government, it was ronald reagan versus tip o'neil. when bill clinton had his confrontations with the congress and with the other party about maybe shutting down the government and, in fact, shutting down the government, he had his adversary as well, and that, of course, was newt gingrich. so it was ronald reagan versus tip o'neil, it was bill clinton versus newt gingrich, and now it is barack obama versus -- who, exactly? who is president obama negoat