care act. a panel of judges in new orleans hearing arguments right now from republican-led states seeking to have the 2010 law declared unconstitutional, as well as democrats trying to save the law. the case focuses on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, which has been described as the linchpin of the law. house speaker nancy pelosi says the stakes of this couldn't be higher. >> every family in america is one phone call, one diagnosis, one accident away from being pre-existing conditions. the costs that they incur and the health on family members. it is important the court honors the precedence when it rules in favor of the affordable care act. >> let's take a look at how we got to this point. the affordable care act required that most americans have health

insurance or pay a penalty. opponents challenge the law arguing that the mandate to have health insurance was unconstitutional. now, in 2012, you'll remember the u.s. supreme court ruled that the mandate was constitutional because the penalty was a tax and, therefore, was appropriate under congress' power to levee taxes. in 2017, the republican tax cut plan eliminated the penalty for failing to comply with the individual mandate. in early 2018, a group of republican-led states filed a lawsuit arguing that since congress took the penalty away, the entire law was therefore unconstitutional. 21 democratic state attorneys general intervened in the case to defend the affordable care act. last december a federal judge in texas agreed with the plaintiffs and declared the entire law to be invalid. the judge stayed his ruling while it was appealed to the fifth circuit court of appeals where arguments are being held right now in new orleans.

let's begin our coverage with nbc news justice correspondent pete williams. pete, what is the goal here? depending on which side prevails with this court, what happens next? >> well, the laws future is in question. the texas judge said the entire law is unconstitutional because all of it is interconnected and you just can't take parts of it. take any part of it away, it collapses. the only thing i would point out about the history here is that the supreme court upheld the law as a legitimate use of congress' taxing power so the red states are saying when congress set the tax at zero, that took away the saving grace of the law. the states defending the law, though, say without a tax penalty, there is not a mandate. you don't have to buy insurance if you don't want to. the individual mandate is nothing more than just sort of an encouragement for you to buy health insurance. that's issue one.

is it unconstitutional? question two. the other question we were talking about. can the rest of the law be safe even if the mandate part is pulled out? the pre-existing condition coverage and young people up to 26 stay on their parents coverage and the exchanges and all those things. will they collapse, too? the texas judge said yes. this is where the trump administration switched sides. initially it said some parts of the states could be salvaged. >> so, here's -- this is one of those tricky thi y things becau president celebrated this ruling after it was announced in december, but it is a federal law. it's still in place and the trump administration has to enforce the law. so, where does the justice department stand on this? >> it stands with one foot on both sides. this sometimes happens in the weird situation wheres the government is, the law right now, the status of the law is that the government must enforce obama care because the texas judge who ordered it struck down

put his own ruling. the government must abide by the law and continue to enforce it. but at the same time it tells the judge that it, too, believes that obamacare is unconstitutional. so, whatever the fifth circuit decides. i think the ruling could come out by november or december. if it does, that will be in time for it to be heard by the supreme court in its coming term, which would make the decision on this very important thing. the third time it ruled on obamacare by june of 2020 right smack in the middle of the presidential campaign. >> pete, thanks for making very, very complicated things easy for us to understand. pete williams. joining me to take a closer look at the impact of this case. former health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius who was responsible for implementing the affordable care act and currently the president and ceo of strategic advice firm sebelius resources. governor and secretary, thank you for being with us. as pete said, this may not be

resolved until almost a year from now, which, again, contributes to the uncertainty that so many people who defend on the affordable care act require. what is your sense of where we are right now with this case? >> well, ali, i never like to predict what courts may or may not do. been wrong way too many times. but i would tell you that virtually everyone conservative and more progressive, judicial watchers were really shocked by the decision out of texas. the fact that a texas judge said if, indeed, the individual mandate doesn't stand, if congress, in fact, and, frankly, they didn't eliminate it. they took the penalty to zero but mandate is still part of the framework of the law. congress could change that at any point. what he said is the whole law goes. nothing should stand. i think that ruling seems to be way outside the main stream.

and we mean 33 states and the district of columbia, who have expended medicaid would lose that funding, which would blow up every state budget in the country. as well as 17 million people who rely on that insurance. it would mean that since the, that congressional act to take the penalty to zero, the marketplace eventually remain pretty steady over 11.5 million people signed up in 2019. just a few less than signed up in 2018. no indication that taking the penalty to zero have, in fact, undermined the law. but pre-existing condition protection that is enjoyed by millions of americans would go, people's out of pocket expenses that now have a limitation would be struck down. medicare seniors who pay a lot less for prescription drugs, that would go out the window. so, this has ramifications for

well beyond the marketplaces with health insurance throughout the country. >> let's take a broader view of this. i understand all of the protections and we listed some of them that people would lose that are crucial to people who currently have those kind of policies. people who don't get it through their employer and people under obama were able to. >> actually, a lot of the protections that we're talking about, preventive care without co-pays, pre-existing conditions apply across the board to the individual market. but the small -- you bet. >> people like me who get insurance through their employer who, in many cases, will have a higher quality of insurance than they would have before obama care because of the requirements. however, in the current conversation we're having about universality or medicare for all or some version of everyone getting health care like every other developed nation in the

world has, ultimately the idea that everyone participates and the risk pool gets spread out is an underpinning of every other health care system in the world. without that, let's say the court says that it could continue. we still have to fix our health care system so that we get back towards universality because the elimination of the mandate or the elimination of the tax means it's hard to support. >> well, i think that's absolutely right. the republicans tried their best with a republican house and republican senate and a republican president. work for a full year in 2017 to try and repeal the entire law. they failed at doing that. they couldn't get it through a republican congress and get it to a republican president who promised to get rid of the law. so, they decided to go after the mandate, the penalty and took that to zero. that hasn't effectively undermined the law.

stow th so they continue to try. they are now allowing junk policies to be sold, again. broadly to people who may not need broader coverage to keep those people out of the marketplace. they continue to write rules and regulations that make it more difficult. they've canceled all the advertisements about open enrollment. they got rid of people on the ground who helped folks sign up. what amazes me is that we just had the fifth congressional election since president obama signed this law. the law is still very much in tact. it's still serving lots of people. but hopefully some time we can fix the pieces of the law, that you say, still block aid getting to more individual coverage. >> kathleen sebelius, always a pleasure to talk to you. former health and human services secretary under president obama and the former governor of texas. i want to bring in

democratic senator from wisconsin tammy. labor and pensions known as the health committee. senator, this is a perfect place to pick up on that conversation because regardless of what happens in this court and when it gets into the supreme court and maybe we don't have a judgment until about a year from now. it's really going to be up to those people running for office and keeping this discussion alive to determine what it looks like in the future. but in the meanwhile, you have introduced legislation to try and protect americans who have pre-existing conditions. >> absolutely. and to try to force the trump administration to reverse this stance in court so that instead they go in defending an existing law rather than asking the court to strike it down. let's just look at the context here. the trump administration is asking the court to rip away private health insurance from approximately 20 million people. that would be the result if the

court were to strike down the affordable care act in its entirety. that is just outrageous. we need to be clear they tried not only to do that legislatively and by executive order but now trying to do it in court. we've seen their plan. we've seen it when we had the debate in the senate about repeal and replace. we've seen it with the president's executive order on junk insurance plans that don't have to cover people with pre-existing conditions. we've seen the curtailment of the open enrollment period to a much shorter period with very little public information going out. so, this is clearly a strategy to take away private health insurance to about 20 million people. and it's ridiculous. we don't need to put the insurance companies back in charge. the way they were before where families had to face potential bankruptcy in order to pay for a

loved one's care. we cannot go back to these days where we put the insurance companies back in charge, again. >> this is an interesting point that kathleen sebelius just made to me. before the affordable care act, people could buy junk policy. this fixation we have on premiums, there's a really easy way to lower premiums. allow people to sell policies that don't cover anything. the trump administration has allowed for. so, when we get fixated on premiums, we forget that premiums cover certain things that the affordable care act made sure that they covered, made sure my insurance policies cover it and yours and people who buy private insurance. >> we talked about some of them. make sure that essential benefits are covered. preventative care. we also got rid of annual limits and lifetime limits, caps that after which the insurance companies wouldn't pay any more. and, you know, earlier today i had the chance to share the story of one of my constituents.

his name is elon lock and he had cancer diagnosis when he was 16. rare bone cancer. just the month that he was diagnosed, the affordable care act was implemented so that they had to get rid of the lifetime and annual caps and his mother, kay, said there is no question that he would have exceeded the annual and lifetime caps with the treatment that he needed for his rare bone cancer. he is in remission. he is still on mom's health insurance because he's not yet 26. but she's terrified about what could happen if the court rules the wrong way or if the trump administration continues to erode and sabotage the affordable care act. we have to move forward not backwards. things that need fixing in the affordable care act. but let's tstop, stop, stop wit this inhumane effort to try to

take people's health care away. >> senator, i want to just ask you before you go about the role that the labor secretary played in what we are now watching in the new arrest of jeffrey epstein. what do you think should happen to the labor secretary? >> i did not vote for his confirmation originally. i believe he gave this sweetheart deal to mr. epstein in florida before he became labor secretary. and there is a part of the labor department that has some oversight responsibilities for human trafficking. i have lost my faith. and i think that as secretary acosta should reside and if he doesn't, i think president trump should fire him. >> thank you for joiningi me. we'll have more on that next. president trump is defending the labor secretary as a growing number of top democrats call on him to resign immediately.

all of this has to do with convicted sex offender jeffrey epstein. remembering ross perot. garnered an incredible 19% of the popular vote in the 1992 election. among the best showing by an independent candidate in the last century. we're going to look at his legacy and how the issues he advocated for are resonating today. you're watching msnbc it? there's two of them. they're multiplying. no, guys, its me. see, i'm real. i'm real! he thinks he's real. geico. over 75 years of savings and service.

who used expedia to book the vacation rental that led to the ride ♪ which took them to the place where they discovered that sometimes a little down time can lift you right up. ♪ flights, hotels, cars, activities, vacation rentals. expedia. everything you need to go. expedia. and i don't add trup the years.s. but what i do count on... is boost® delicious boost® high protein nutritional drink has 20 grams of protein, along with 26 essential vitamins and minerals. boost® high protein. be up for life.

. ross perot, billionaire and

two-time presidential candidate died this morning after a five-month battle with leukemia. he was 89 years old. perot ran as a third-party candidate against bill clinton and incumbent george h.w. bush earning 19% of the popular vote. the texas independent ran again in 1996 against clinton and bob dole as the nominee of the reform party and was less successful that time around. still got 8% of the vote. perot ran on fiscal responsibility and protectionism capturing many americans distrust of the system in washington. also the first independent candidate to ever share the presidential debate stage with both major party candidates. >> as i've said before, the party's over and it's time for the clean-up crew. and we do have to have change and people who never take responsibility for anything when it happens on their watch and people who are in charge.

>> your time is up. >> time is up. >> time is up. >> all right. joining me now kelly o'donnell. i think has covered everything in the entire world. she covered perot's campaign and national political correspondent steve cornack kornacki who is tr of "red and the blue." in which you chronicle some of the effect that ross perot had on the changing face of politics. not only is he one of the most successful independent candidates, but he was a har binger of what we're dealing with today in some ways. >> david remnick referred to him as the most populous billionaire. you heard a little bit of it in the clip from the debate you played there. that texas twang and he was very quick with the one liner and he was asked one of the famous lines was, you don't have experience in government.

do you have any experience to be president. he said, you're right. i don't have any experience running up a $4 trillion debt. it is much larger now. perot showed a couple thing physical you plas if you placed that campaign in history. the first after the cold war and the fall of the berlin wall and we were starting to have new anxieties emerge and the other thing that perot showed in '92, the power of the national media that had kind of emerged. cable news. cnn was the only show in town. he went on a cnn show in 1992, "larry king live." if you want me to run for president, put my name on the ballot in all 50 states and i'll do it. an uprising was set up by that and they did get him on the ballot. >> kelly, this is interesting. when you look at the world today. this global economic divide that we see in the united states and you think people finally had it.

back in 1992 he was running on the basis that people finally had it. he had implications about these insiders and the parties that control everything. tell us what the move was like in 1992 that allowed ross perot to get in to it. >> he was able to tap in to a dissatisfaction and a distrust and a frustration with government. and what he brought was accomplishment in a populous pack n package. he created jobs that paid well in texas and his company was wildly successful for many years. later sold off. he was one of the tech billionaires. a bit of credibility in that way and also an academy graduate and served in the armed forces and very devoted to the p.o.w. community. he had that sort of a connection to voters. and it's hard to underestimate the power of his folksy charm wrapped in his accomplishments. because that is a way he broke

through and spoke to people who didn't see him as the billionaire. this was a guy who was very much of texas. and he really threw that race into a whole different level. in 1980, of course, we had an independent candidate john anderson who ran in that race. but a different time and he didn't have the kind of sort of fire that perot brought. there was a voting bloc that wanted to go to someone different. and, of course, you had the incumbent president george h.w. bush who probably lost the most support with the ross perot and then the newcomer bill clinton, the arkansas governor at the time who had his own kind of charisma. that debate stage was an extraordinary sort of breath of political thought at the time. in '86 he was running as the reform party candidate and it was incumbent bill clinton and then republican bob dole who was the nominee for the party and

was really trying to shut down ross perot because of that draw away from those voters who would be more likely to vote republican. so, i think the mark that ross perot made was not only in his business career and his devotion to veterans and p.o.w.s, but he changed the way people engaged in politics and made a pathway for people to see that if they did do all the things that steve talked about, get him on the ballot, that he would then run. i think that opened the door to a kind of populism that had echoes in years since, to say the least. >> if you were going to tell me you were covering to cover the 1980 election, i was going to call you out on that. kelly, thank you. steve kornacki, thank you for your perspective. ross perot 89 years old passed away. alex acosta breaks his silence. you are watching msnbc. hing msnc

most people think a button is just a button. ♪ that a speaker is just a speaker. ♪ or - that the journey can't be the destination. most people haven't driven a lincoln. discover the lincoln approach to craftsmanship at the lincoln summer invitation. right now, get 0% apr on all 2019 lincoln vehicles plus no payments for up to 90 days. only at your lincoln dealer.

i'veand still goingazed for ubfor my best,t. even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin... i want that too. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin.

eliquis is fda-approved and has both. what's next? reeling in a nice one. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily... ...and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor if eliquis is what's next for you.

>> the president is going to have to make that decision, as well as the secretary. make a decision if he wants to resign or not. i'm not calling for that today

but the new information, as well as the old information, continues to be troubling. >> i am calling on secretary acosta to resign. if he refuses to resign, president trump should fire him. >> growing number of democrats are demanding that alex acosta resign over his 2008 plea deal with jeffrey epstein. republicans at the white house are keeping a close eye on the details of epstein's latest indi indictment. a vast network of underage girls with victims as young as 14 years old. he faced similar federal allegations of similar exploitation at his palm beach residence, but in that case he struck a deal that was signed off on by acosta who now oversees among other things sex trafficking in the united states. the deal allowed epstein to plead guilty to state charges

and serve 13 months in a county facility, but he got to leave six days a week to work from his office. a note that was not highlighted by the president after this latest unsealed indictment. >> what i do know is that he has been a great, really great secretary of labor. the rest of it we'll have to look at. we'll have to look at it very carefully. we are talking about a long time ago. it was a decision made be him and a lot of people and we'll look at it very carefully. >> interesting wording. sometimes the president doesn't even say that. the labor secretary also weighed in tweeting the crimes committed by epstein are horrific and i'm pleased new york prosecutors are moving forward with new evidence. with the evidence available more than a decade ago federal prosecutors insisted that epstein go to jail and now that additional testimony is available, the new york prosecution offers an

opportunity to bring him to justice. with me from the white house is hans nichols. i have to say, this is not as full throated a defense as president trump often gives of people accused of things. what is the white house looking for before completely coming down on one side or the other? >> appears they are doing some sort of review. that's what the president is hinting at there. acosta was part of the plea agreement which allowed epstein to spent 13 months in prison, in the county prison. cross currents, number one, it's clear he wants to run on the re-election and he thinks acosta is doing a good job. he wants to run on the jobs and economy and it's difficult to fire your secretary of labor if that is the main stay of your election. also something we've seen with numerous trump cabinet officials and that is the president likes to bunker down. they get in this bunker mentality and try to defend

whoever it is that is being attacked because that is their first instinct. now, we have seen some sectors eventually part ways with the president, but not after a long, drawn out period. when i asked kellyanne conway earlier this morning about how much confidence the president has, have a listen to her answer. >> you said he's doing a great job. the economy is hot. does the labor secretary have the president's confidence at this point? >> what i said is the president said he met alex acosta two and a half year ago and happy to give him the job at the department of labor and we have a big jobs boom and i do know when alex acosta was up for senate confirmation, i believed this particular matter was discussed. and was -- he answered questions under oath about it. >> again, again. hold the phone here for a second, hans. you and i spent way more time

than we should in public on government statistic sites and things like that. a jobs boom has nothing to do with the labor secretary. the department of labor measures, evaluates and officiates and that's just a weird connection to make. >> that's the one they're making, right? this is a white house that wants to play defense when they're attacked, even though strategically it might not make sense for them down the line. what you heard from kellyanne, we will hear throughout the entire re-election campaign. they always want to come back to the jobs number. sometimes you'll see the secretary of labor as defending the jobs numbers and talking about or cheerleading about them. the bureau of labor statistics has some role in defining that data, as you well know. it's commerce and tax and everything. but, look, the president likes to take victory laps on the economy and do it on the stock market. that's when you listen to what he really cares about. that's what he thinks, apparently, is going to determine the election.

that's why you hear him talk about china in unique ways because a recognition from the president's senior advisors that you need to get the china deal right if you want to keep the economy on track. >> a few democrats who voted in support of acosta's nomination. one of them was senator manchin and here's what he said about it. let me read it to you. the things that i'm hearing and the things that i know that have come out, this was after the fact when he made the deal. it would have been a different hearing. i'm not even sure it would have come before us and if he would have come before us knowing what we know now, this would have been basically proven to be accurate. no, i would not have voted knowing that. but this didn't come out. i think the deep dive didn't happen until after his hearing here. i'm not sure about the timing on this because acosta was, tim kaine spoke about it in his confirmation hearing. >> the broad outlines of what acosta had done to broker this

plea agreement were known. the details came to light a little bit later through the reporting from "miami herald" and others and a lot more detail came out. but you have to recall that the actual vote for acosta. he sails through with 60 to 38. this was not exactly a nailbiter vote and you have a fair amount of democratic support. senator manchin can say that now. that is his defense. we have to know what was revealed in the notes in the congressional hearing because the view from the white house is very much asked and answered. they think this has been litigated and they think he's already been cleared. but as you heard the president say later in the afternoon, there's a suggestion of reviews going on here. i think you're right to point out we haven't heard the hesitancy in the past from the president. >> hans nichols, sorry for outing you for spending time on government statistical websites. it's a small club.

officials across most of new mexico are refusing to enforce a new gun law that they view as unconstitutional. we're going to explain after the break. you're watching msnbc. you're wa. with the freestyle libre 14 day system, a continuous glucose monitor, you can check your glucose levels any time, without fingersticks. ask your doctor to write a prescription for the freestyle libre 14 day system. you can do it without fingersticks. learn more at freestylelibre.us you can do it without fingersticks. tto the doctor's office migjust for a shot.ack but why go back there... when you can stay home... with neulasta onpro? strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. in a key study neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1% a 94% decrease. neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta the day after chemo and is used by most patients today.

neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to it or neupogen (filgrastim). an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems allergic reactions, kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. if you'd rather be home ask your doctor about neulasta onpro. pay no more than $5 per dose with copay card.

sweeping new gun control policy in the state of new mexico is reigniting gun control across the country. the new law requires background checks for nearly all gun sales, including private sales like those from a friend. the bill was signed in march

saying we all have a constitutional right to be safe in our homes and communities. but the new law is already causing local governments to push back. nbc's news gadi schwartz talk about the new state law. >> reporter: over the weekend across the new mexico desert, the sound of gunfire is nothing out of the ordinary. in fact, for 16-year-old competitive shooter christina and her twin brother, wyatt, this is any given sunday. >> not everybody is a football player or volleyballplayer and not everyone is a competition baker. some of these kids, that is their thing. they want to be involved in a shooting sport. >> reporter: that's one reason why sheriff tony mass is drawing a line in the sand like universal background checks that are taking effect. declaring his region a second amendment sanctuary. >> why choose the word sanctuary? >> basically say, hey, we're

going to ignore federal immigration laws, right. why not have a second amendment sanctuary county that is going to protect people's constitutional rights. >> he is not alone. in the blue state of new mexico, 29 of the 33 county sheriffs have declared their turf sanctuary counties gun laws recently passed by the state. and the trend is spreading across the country. those who wrote the background check asays it's a loophole. >> we do have a second amendment right which is something that is celebrated in our constitutional and we take that very seriously. >> reporter: but in rural areas, skepticism is high. >> we think the background check legislation is going to lead to a gun registry. and then that leads to gun confiscation. and i'm sorry, you're not going to come into my house and take

my firearms for any reason. >> despite politicians over and over and over again on the far left saying no one is coming after your guns. >> they are. you don't believe it. >> they absolutely are. >> reporter: they are talking about a wave of red flag laws mostly in response to school shootings. those laws allow police with court order to take people's guns if families members or officers or mental health profepr professionals could take their gun. >> once they responded they were respondent and they were taking his guns. he became irate and went back in the house and grabbed the gun. >> reporter: the red tape law is already saving lives. >> at least five of them have been school-related threats. >> reporter: but back in new mexico, mesa is standing up to any law he says encroaches on the second amendment. >> it's hard to say that, even if they're bad people, they have constitutional rights that need to be protected. as the sheriff and a law enfo e enforcement officer, that is my

job to protect those rights. good, bad or indifferent. >> gadi schwartz joins me now. even if the politicians on the left say they're not coming for your guns, any red flag law and any kind of control whatsoever leads to a gun registry which leads to confiscation of guns, how common is that in a place like new mexico? >> they get a lot of their news from social media. what they're seeing are those outlayer cases where they try to take somebody's guns in states that if was decided if somebody is claimed a threat the police can go in and try to remove those guns and then there is a shootout and somebody dies in their own home without going before a judge and without ever having due process. those are the types of cases they see on social media and they cling to saying this is where the slippery slope begins

and they don't want to see law enforcement coming into their homes because somebody may say that they're crazy to take their guns. that's kind of where their argument begins. but those debates just go on and on and it's really interesting to hear these conversations because it really shows us this divide between rural america and some of the urban areas that we've seen. >> so, the sheriff that you were riding along with was saying even if there are bad people who own guns, it is their constitutional right to have a gun. an interesting constitutional discussion to have because the constitution guarantees everybody rights in the united states. but when you, you know, the constitution is silent as to what to do if you're a potential threat, that's left to states to come up with laws. how, how does he then reconcile theioid that bad people have guns and do bad things with them? >> that is their main argument. bad people have guns and do bad things. good people and then if you

follow that law they say good people will not have guns. these types of laws, they say, don't necessarily prevent bad people from getting guns because they say they won't follow the law. they won't do this and get universal background check and go get a gun wherever they can. so, their perspective is that this is only really targeting the law-abiding citizens and putting more burdens on them. when you think about it, you have urban areas and rural areas. and in those rural areas, they don't see as much gun violence as they do in the cities and, yet, in a lot of those cases, law enforcement is sometimes 45 minutes away. the sheriff is telling us, that is the average response time in his county. it could go a lot further than that. so, in those types of situations, he says his constituents feel like they should have a gun just in case something happens. and, again, this is 29 out of 33 sheriffs. most of them are democrats.

>> but most of those areas rural? >> yeah, absolutely. >> thank you, gadi, i appreciate the nuance of the story. gadi schwartz in los angeles. now coal miners are reaching out to the 2020 democratic candidates. the role that the u.s. government played in developing silicon valley and its reluctance to regulate it. you're watching msnbc.u' re watc. hmm. exactly. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. nice. but, uh...

what's up with your... partner? not again. limu that's your reflection. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ for people as experienced as you and me, all that experience should be worth something. and it is, with the aarp auto insurance program from the hartford. switching saved me hundreds. in fact, many drivers age 50 and over save hundreds when they switch. - with the hartford, not only did i get a better policy and better coverage, but i got a better rate as well. hundreds in savings. - [matt] four out of five aarp members who switched to the hartford from companies like allstate, state farm, and geico got a lower rate with the hartford. not an aarp member? the hartford can help you join in minutes. - try the hartford. if you don't, you're missing out. - [announcer] to get your free no-obligation quote and see how much you could save, call the hartford at

the number on your screen. or go to the website on your screen. the buck's got your back.

booking.com offers free so bookers can book now... and ask their boss later. [do you want breakfast or no?] free cancellations! [definitely breakfast.] how good is that? be a booker at booking.com. hi. maria ramirez! mom! maria! maria ramirez... mcdonald's is committing 150 million dollars in tuition assistance, education, and career advising programs... prof: maria ramirez mom and dad: maria ramirez!!! to help more employees achieve their dreams.

for the first time in its near li 130-year history, the united mine workers of america sin viegt every democratic presidential candidate to tour a local coal mine and share their thoughts on the future of coal mining. the union president wrote that miners feel estranged from the democratic party and want to start a conversation about their place in a nation increasingly pivoting toward renewable energy solutions. coal miners are very concerned about their future and their family's futures. they have a right to be heard. trump campaigned on the face of the forgotten man and he takes credit for what he calls a coal

come back after he rolled back regulations. however, the reality is very different. accord to the u.s. energy administration, coal production is on target to hit a record low this year and fewer permanent employed by mine contractors and operators now than there were when president obama was in office. it remains unknown how democrats and miners will agree on a plan to transform our energy's future, john kerry is the last presidential candidate to tour a mine with coal workers and that was back in 2004. while the democratic candidates haven't said much about coal, many of them have been talking about big tech. silicon valley make up four of the five valuable companies in america but they find themselves under fire from data privacy practices and critics who want to see them broken up. silicon valleynd at tech industry in general have seen huge changes over the past few decades. in her new book out today, the

code, silicon valley and the remaking of america, margaret shows you the transformation to market disrupting and world changing companies. thank you very much for a remarkably timely book. i think what you write about in here is the degree to which the government had a hand in building what become the technology infrastructure that we all take for granted and use all the time. >> this is the secret history of silicon valley. this is the story of how the flywheel of the valley got its start, which was in the cold war with government spending a lot of it defense spending, and also spending on the space race, here we are the 55th anniversary of the moon landing, really important to tech. >> an interesting analogy with space. because sweechb twe've seen the what the government did, and now with virgin la georgia lactic

joining a private company, we've seen how private enterprise has taken it over, most people think it's for the good. that's not the opinion everybody has about silicon valley and tech generally. >> i think silicon valley isn't just a stouffer big government and free entrepreneurship, it's both, both working together there the of. there's been this partnership between entrepreneurial business people and investigators in the valley and washington, d.c. for all of its modern history. i start the book in world war ii during the manhattan project. i follow it through the '50s and '60s, the silicon conduit that gives silicon valley its name. on and on. >> had is from an opinion piece you wrote in the "new york times" because the question people have is can government have a role in regulating? you write the rules made sense in the dot-com era. when the government opened up

the internet to commercial activity and wrote rules governing its infrastructure. wash's handoff approach prevantd marvelous explosion of content on social media and other platforms but people designing the rules of the internet didn't reckon with the ways that bad actors could exploit the system. the people building those tools had little inkling how exploitable their creations have become. >> you don't know what the future's going to look like. but you can listen to technologists who maybe have some partial expertise to try to have informed policy. yes, regulations, some rules of the road are needed. silicon valley's history has showed those guardrails have encouraged innovation but you have to do it with privacy in

mind. google and facebook didn't exist when specifically the laws governing free speech on social media were established. >> things like the communications dee sensesy act. >> exactly. >> but putting guardrails around microsoft may have contributed to the emergence of some of these companies we see now. do you think that the guardrails or whatever you want to call them suggested by somebody like elizabeth warren, do they make sen sense? is that a good starting point? >> i think the antitrust enforcement, we have antitrust laws for a reason and they're the product of another era when there were really big companies that were seen as growing too powerful and squashing competition and hurting consumers. you know, the technology is different, the company's are different, but antitrust enforcement, even without breaking up companies, you know, there are a lot of steps along the way before we break someone up. how can you encourage innovation and the dissemination of great technology and keep the economic engine of these, you know, of

silicon valley intact while still encouraging the next generation? >> that's the secret that we are looking for a solution to. because i don't think anybody who complains about technology doesn't want it or wants it to go away. >> absolutely have some thank you for joining us. the code, silicon valley and the remake of america. it is out today and it's a good read. the congressional budget office has released projections on a house bill that would increase federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025. the cbo says it would increase the pave 17 million people but it says an estimated 1.3 million americans would be out of work. it has been ten years since the minimum wage has been raise dollars. the cbo writes the $15 option on wages could would -- it would place it at the 20th percentile of projected hourly wages by 2025, higher in the wage distribution than it has been at any time since 1973. joining me now is heidi, senior economist and director of the policy at the economic policy

institute. heidi, some people are going to lose their jobs, 17 million people are going to make more. i'd like to remind people $15 an hour roughly comes out to $31,000 a year in the is not socialist take over of plerk. net/net good or bad? >> it's good. cbo did what they do, they weighed the cost against a propose policy and they found that the benefits to low-wage workers vastly outweigh the cost. you talk about wage increases for millions of workers, low income families would see an increase of $22 billion, poverty would go down by 1.3 million, and around half of that 1.3 million decline in poverty would be kids because their parents get a raise. this would be a good policy. >> the argument that people often make who support a higher minimum wage if people make more money they'll have more non spend but it seems like they've taken that into account and still says a whole lot of people will be put ow of work? >> the cbo overstates the cost. they find a large number of job

loss. it's true that even if you take their findings at face value, they find the benefits of this policy outweigh the costs. i don't think they did a very good job of assessing this vast literature, economic literature on the employment effects of the minimum wage by weighting the highest quality studies higher. because the highest quality studies show that minimum wage increases have caused little to no job loss. i think -- but even if you take their estimates at face value, the key is they still find that the benefits of this policy vastly outweigh the costs. >> all right. and is there -- i mean, did they just peg it to $15 or did they talk about is the number different at $14 or $13? in the last election we were still discussing $12.50? is it a sliding scale issue? >> the interestingly enough, they didn't just do $15, they also look at the effect of $12 in 2025, the effect of $10 in 2025. but those results sort of scale down the impact sort of scales

down as you would expect for a less boldin creases. >> heidi, good to talk to you. she is the senior economist and direct for of policy at the economic policy institute. she knows of which she speaks, she was a former chief economist at the department of labor from 2014 to 2017. that's it for me. i'll see you back here tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. eastern and 3:00 p.m. eastern. i want to talk to you about the market for a second. i want to ask my control room to you the up a pick you are too of the dow. had is three days in a row we're seeing a loss on the dow. it's very small. it's off 11 points. one might argue that's flat. if you look at the top right of your screen you can see it shot up to a very small loss at this home. who knows what happens the next minute or so. it's not a massive loss but this is three days of losses on the market. as always, you know i'm go to keep you up to speed on what's happening in markets. there have been some discussion of markets weakening in the face of a slowing global economy. you can find me on social media,

twitter that's where some of you had pointed out that i had moved kathleen from being the former governor the kansas to the former governor of texas, which i'm going to stand by for a little while longer. you can always find me on facebook, instagram, snapchat and linkedin. thanks for watching. deadline with nicole wallace starts right now. hi, everyone, it's 4:00 in washington, d.c. where today two men are in damage control mode over their ties to jeffrey epstein. the billionaire who is indicted yesterday on sex trafficking charges. donald trump doubling down today in such his secretary of labor. >> i can tell you that for 2 1/2 years he's been just an excellent secretary of labor. he's done a fantastic job. what happened 12 or 15 years ago with respect to when he was a u.s. attorney i think many miami -- is it miami? >> yes.