tv The Cycle MSNBC August 15, 2012 3:00pm-4:00pm EDT
choice. >> all that plus a scathing indictment of the banks on this wednesday, august 15th. well, just yesterday, weigh talked about how this presidential election was going to be a slash and burn affair. but we are no idea it would be like this. vice president joe biden addressing a crowd if virginia said that mitt romney if elected would decimate banking regulations. it's the way he made the case that's grabbing all the headlines today. >> romney said in the first 100 days, he's going to let the big banks once again write their own rules. unchain wall street. they're going to put you all back in chains. >> now, the obama team claims the vice president's remarks
were taken out of context and it was a reference to romney's promise to "unshackle the economy." but mitt romney pounced quickly on biden's words claiming it's further evidence that the president's team will say or do anything to win re-election. >> his campaign and surrogates have made wild and reckless allegations that disgrace the office of the presidency. this is what an angry and desperate presidency looks like. mr. president, take your campaign division, and anger and hate back to chicago. >> there's a lot to unpack here. my sort of interpretation of this is that we have seen polling all summer where there is a real gap here between president obama and mitt romney when it comes to basically who people like. mitt romney's got an image problem. we've said obama doesn't. i wonder if there's not something with the romney campaign looking for any opportunity it can find to make president obama seem unlikable when they talk about how it's an ugly campaign. maybe it's trying to make
people, i don't know if they have much to work with here, but trying to make people sour on obama in a more personal way. >> that is probably the calculation, but i think it's a little early. in fact, i don't think that was the moment to seize on. the gaffe was bad. it's an inexcusable thing to say. however, if you look back and i wrote about this today on the daily news website, if you look back to 2008, that was a nasty rhetorical campaign whether you're talking sarah palin, stuff that was said about president obama, stuff that was said about john mccain and his alleged affair. i mean, this got ugly. we have 3 days left. this is not yet scratched the surface. i'm sorry to say it, chains is really not the ugliest that we're going to see. >> put the smelling salts away. >> perhaps i didn't appreciate the comment. he puts the extra black voice on it which gives it an extra resonance. nothinging is like save slavery. either you are a slave or you
are not. i hate any reference to slavery that way. i understand when he's talking about the death of class ascension so the spirit works. we've seen racial codes thrown back and forth. romney's outrage here, he could have been outraged at newt gingrich or many other people have said similar things, but i wonder if biden was not making a mistake but was basically jumping so that now we're all talking about him and he's taking the spotlight away from potential vice president ryan. >> but you love ryan. why would you want the spotlight off ryan? you love this story. >> we do love the story. it's not going to go away. it's been all ryan all the time. and you know, now we're talking about us. >> i would like to keep it all ryan all the time. in my read on -- this is reading a lot into it. but my read on his delivery was that it was sort of an off the cuff let me make this chain thing because i had the chain --
it felt spontaneous, not planned. and it was a bad comment. it was definitely a gaffe. i think it deserves an apology. i don't think it's going to have long-term resonance you. know who i really feel bad for in all of this? the romney campaign. they so desperately want to talk about their plans and the economy. and have a high-minded campaign and they just can't quite get there. >> my sarcasm meter just perked up there. i'm not sure why. let me bring in another voice to this mix. joining us now is a little correspondent for the "new york times." nick, i want to sort of play off this controversy we're talking about here. we sort of said in the intro, this campaign's gotten ugly. i have the sense that every four years, we end up saying wow, this has gotten ugly. what's your sense? you've seen a few of these and probably read a few history books. is this a particularly ugly race or just par for the course? >> no, look, they're all ugly because politics is ugly.
you can find examples for every campaign for the last 16 years. one difference is, i feel like this campaign is the golden age of gaffes. every three or four months, it's more like every three or four weeks, we see somebody put their foot in their mouth. i think president obama doesn't want to talk about his health care bill or the economy. and mitt romney doesn't want to talk about being governor or being a mormon or being at boyne. wh -- at bain. what do you talk about? gaffes. >> you wrote an interesting article yesterday about beak, you're laying out a sort of republican counter establishment that you say emerged sort of in the middle of the bush years and it's sort of a libertarian tinged group of billionaires, very rich people and that this establishment you know, paul ryan's very close to it, particularly close to it. can you tell us a little bit about the roots of this, who is involved in it and what it is they're looking for out of potential will i an romney/ryan presidency? >> it starts back in the towels and late bush years when among
some conservatives, there was this growing distaste for the fiscal provefully gacy and drift of the bush administration. they said how can we change this. that's when these by annual retreats of donors we now hear about began. what's fascinating to me you have the network of donors that the koches basically built. it's not just them. only about a third of these donors probably show up on donor list for the party. this is really a parallel universe of people. they're very concerned with spending, taxes, freedom, not so concerned with social issues. it's really an economic movement. what's very fascinating to me is that paul ryan for a guy who is in leadership, a house budget chairman, who is kind of an establishment guy also has one foot kind of firmly planted in this other world. he's been going to events for americans for prosperity which is a coach-founded grass-roots group for years and years. he's won an award from them and one of the few elected officials
probably numbering fewer than ten who have actually been to these koch conferences always held at resorts somewhere in great secrecy. >> i've been trying to puzzle through why romney decided to make the paul ryan choice. was he getting pressure from this network that you're talking about to go with someone like paul ryan, or is it a possibility that romney picked paul ryan so he would have more of an in and be able to get more money out of this group than he has been? he seems to be doing pretty well on the money front. >> i'm not sure if he needed to pick paul ryan to get money. the koches held a fukochs held r him. they were all against president obama. the question is, how for they for romney. having ryan cements his alliance with these people and perhaps has more enthusiasm up and down their networks of grass
volunteers and donors. it is a turbo boost among this counter establishment to have a guy they can say, hey, he's definitely our guy. >> and nick, you mentioned that there were a lot of these individuals who would not be sort of on the party donor lists. is there a concerted effort for them to stay anonymous? >> well, absolutely. i mean, what's fascinating about the broad koch network, it's only partly a koch network, mostly tax exempt groups that don't disclose donors. these are not super pacs that will register and file with the fec. they operate entirely in the dark money universe of groups that raise tons and tons of money, spend it on be issue ads but don't ever show you where the cash is coming from. >> the dark money universe, that's been one of the major themes of this campaign. i'm sure we'll be returning to that. nick confessore, appreciate the
time. next up, how the electoral map is shaping up. one person disagrees with me. we roll on for wednesday, august 15th. >> what paul ryan is saying is we are trillions of dollars in debt due to what he is saying are the misguided policies of we are to assume barack obama. let's look how we went from a 1990s surplus to this enormous publicly held debt. $1.7 trillion of the debt comes from the bush tax cuts. two foreign war, that ain't cheap. medicare d plan, that was new entitlement spending. extra defense spending in there. more tax cuts. there was the t.a.r.p. bank bailout. that is a lot of debt. i mean what kind of an irresponsible lunatic would vote for every one of these misguided fiscal time bombs? i'll give you a hint. his name begins with paul ryan,
and ends with silence and this is his picture. [ barks ] ♪ [ upbeat ] [ barks ] beneful playful life is made with energy-packed wholesome grains... and real beef and egg. to help you put more play in your day. his morning starts with arthritis pain. and two pills. afternoon's overhaul starts with more pain. more pills. triple checking hydraulics. the evening brings more pain. so, back to more pills. almost done, when... hang on. stan's doctor recommended aleve. it can keep pain away all day with fewer pills than tylenol. this is rudy. who switched to aleve. and two pills for a day free of pain. ♪ and get the all day pain relief of aleve in liquid gels.
[ sneezes ] [ male announcer ] if you have yet to master the quiet sneeze... ♪ [ sneezes ] [ male announcer ] you may be an allergy muddler. try zyrtec®. it gives you powerful allergy relief. and zyrtec® is different than claritin® because zyrtec® starts working at hour 1 on the first day you take it. claritin® doesn't start working until hour 3. [ sneezes ] [ male announcer ] zyrtec®. love the air. join zyrtec® rewards. save up to $7 on zyrtec® products. nature valley trail mix bars are made with real ingredients you can see. like whole roasted nuts, chewy granola, and real fruit.
you and i, we all know david axelrod. we're good friends with david. you see him on tv. he looks -- i've never seen him look the way he looks on tv like his eyes wide open. seems very upset and very and tated. have you noticed that over the past four or five days. >> i think they're a little bit worried they're going to be buried under an avalanche of super pac spending and if they
don't have this thing in hand by the conventions they may be in some trouble. >> it's true the obama campaign and seemingly most notably campaign manager david axelrod should be feeling a little worried. it's not in the bag about the outcome in november. but i spent a little time this morning with the nbc news battleground map and right now, 237 of the 270 electoral votes needed are leaning democratic. and that means that out of the ten battleground swing states, all the president needs in his column is florida, with 29 electoral votes and a small state like new hampshire to put him at the 270 that they would need to stay in the white house. and with the selection of paul ryan, also known as mr. cut medicare, that seems to me to be increasingly achievable. let's look at the latest headlines from the sunshine state. where many older american who's depend on medicare live and who are none too pleased with the selection of paul ryan to say the least.
so, let's put my little number crunching through the spin cycle. do you think that paul ryan creates more of an will he electoral map challenge for mitt romney? >> you know, certainly in florida as you mentioned. medicare's going to be an issue. health care is going to be an issue. he's going to have to answer some tough questions to a tough audience in florida. i'm not sure that it is going to be as dangerous around the country. and this is unrelated, but i mean, there are challenges on the left on politico has a report up today from a democratic think tank third way that democratic registration is down 800,000 since 2008 in big states. including florida. north carolina. colorado. pennsylvania. battleground states. so the new democrat enthusiasm is down. will they be able to shore up existing democratic enthusiasm? probably. it's up to of course,
republicans to shore up existing republican enthusiasm. according to this report also, independents spiking way up. >> i just want to know that the two of you looked at numbers and made quality analysis sees from actually numerical data and our good friend joe scarborough who we all know and love and respect looked at the way a man looks and decided to make a political judgment based on that. >> if i knew david axelrod, i might make the same calculation. i don't know david. >> he didn't like the cut of his jib, ergo the polling they're reading is -- come on. >> david favreau might not like the cust your jib right now. in fairness, david axelrod has a very tough job right now and i'm sure is putting in many long hours and has all sorts of rights to be looking a little wild. >> david axelrod has never been a gq model. >> you are making a lot of enemies today. >> just as carl robe has never looked beautiful.
that's what "w" was there for. >> it is his job to be nervous. we could come up with a million theories why he might be nervous or upset. beat very two theories i want to say, one is about money. i honestly believe that we just had nick confessore. we miss the importance of money in a presidential race. it really isn't about altering the outcome. that is the story at senate and house level where people don't know the candidates, where polarization is -- the presidential race i just don't think that's the case. i don't think money is the issue. in the electoral college, i don't buy into the idea there's an extra challenge for romney on top of winning the marp vote. romney's down about three or four points in the popular vote right now. move that one or two or three points to romney's advantage, you'll see a lot of them
touching to tossups. again, if this thing moves five points romney's favor, other states look better. i say show me who's winning the popular vote, i will show you their path to 270. >> there has been a lot of political speculation about a clinton on the ballot. no one's been speculating about this particular clinton. former first daughter chelsea clinton gave a lengthy interview with "vogue" magazine and said she isn't ruling out a political career. her exact quote was "before my mom's campaign i would have said no. and now i don't know." so maybe chelsea clinton is looking. >> she said it a little jesse jacksonish there. >> i don't know. >> well, i mean my own personal take here from when i ran for congress, the hardest part about being in running for office like that is the way that it invades literally every aspect of your life, not just out in public but even what you're going to wear
to the grocery store when you have to run out at 9:00 p.m. or what kind of car you're going to buy or where you send your kids. every single thing, you're thinking about. if people notice this, how are they going to judge it. i think chelsea clinton has lived in that world almost her entire life. in terms of that level of preparation for public office, she has got to be an expert. >> before we talk about chelsea's political future, we have to deal with the clinton fatigue that may or may not exist after hillary becomes president in 2016 and beats chris christie. how are the family going to feel about the family that the point? >> who is the running mate on the christie ticket? >> they're going to love the clintons even more and make chelsea the very next president after hillary clinton. very successful eight years. >> it's interesting. it feels like there is a perennial, it might even be by annual effort to remind america how awesome the clintons are.
and. >> they're pretty awesome. >> this lovely "vogue" feature of chelsea as well, and i think we have the conde nast photo cover of hillary clinton as the most traveled secretary of state in the history of secretaries, i think is part of maybe that effort to annually remind us how awesome they are. whether that's for 2016 in prep for hillary or it's about chelsea or just to remind everyone how great and glossy the sheen of the democratic party is, i don't know. >> i feel sorry for nita lowey. she was going to be the next senator from new york in 2000. but hillary clinton decided she wanted to run. last year the big rumor was chelsea clinton might run for congress. and where would she run? >> all of america feels bad. >> now that they know who she is. >> we'll have to wait and see how that one turns out.
up next, the truth about the government bailout from the man charged with figuring out what happened to all that money. the inside story of how washington abandoned main street to rescue wall street. his words, not ours. neil barofsky is in the guest spot. why let constipation slow you down? try miralax. mirlax works differently than other laxatives. it draws water into your colon to unblock your system naturally. don't wait to feel great. miralax.
we show you the clip at the top of the show, but lost in today's dustup over vice president biden's use of the word chains is what he was actually saying when he invoked it. at issue, regulating america's financial system. biden and the administration pushed for a greater wall street regulation and mitt romney and the republicans say they want to get rid of it. our next guest served both presidents bush and obama and he says that when it comes to mishandling the financial crisis, both of them are to blame. in his new book "bailout," he confirms the government and leaders of both sides of the
aisle are looking out for their most important constituents and it isn't you. in the guest spot today, neil bore rof ski, the former inspector general for t.a.r.p. and author of the inside account of how washington abandoned main street while rescuing wall street. one of the mandates for the treasury department in implementing tarn was to preserve home ownership. you're saying that was basically never on anybody's radar. >> when the initial money went out under sect paulson and the bush administration, there was an opportunity to put strings to attach to it. and ultimately, t.a.r.p. never gets passed but for the promise to allow progress i bes in the house that it be used to preserve home ownership to deal the ongoing foreclosure crisis. they made the decision not to include any restrictions, not to include any conditions. that problem was compounded ultimately by the obama administration under secretary of treasury tim geithner when
they launched a program that really was never intended to fulfill what its goal was which was to help 4 million people ta in their homes. instead that program too was more about helping preserve the banks and tim geithner's word to foam the runway for them to help protect them during the financial crisis. >> okay. we had this big pot of money and blew the opportunity then to help homeowners. looking at it now, it's the summer of 2012. what do you think can realistically be done? can anything be done top provide real relief to homeowners right now? >> it's an interesting hypothetical question but almost rhetorical. because the administration had this opportunity under t.a.r.p., they had hundreds, literally hundreds of billions available to help struggling homeowners and chose not to use the money. even of the $50 billion allocated, less than $4 billion has been spent to date. the question of what we can do is completely divorced of what is going to happen. they made that decision already.
and now, having basically walked away from those hundreds of billions of dollars, of course the options are more limited. there can be some sort of principal reduction through fannie mae and freddie mac if they can persuade that regulator. but the real opportunity to address this crisis unfortunately came and went. >> kneel, i was talking to peter schweitzer yesterday about the doj's decision not to prosecute goldman sachs. he basically said right, are they too big to fail or too big to jail? i'm wondering if i could get your comment. why do you think the department of justice acted the way it did? >> i think the concept of too big to fail/jail is very much a real one. the reality is these financial institutions which were obviously too big to fail before the crisis, that's why we bailed them out have only become bigger as a result of government policy. they're 20 to 25% bigger than they were before the crisis struck. that means if anyone goes down, whether it's through their own folly or big losses or because
they were indicted, which would inevitably bring a bank down, that means they would take the entire financial system with it. so no department of justice is going to take a step that would result in that type of result. and that gives them this unfair advantage and we see that. we see them exercise that out in the scandal after scandal after scandal. if you know you're not going to be held accountable, why not try to grab as much profit as possible. >> you met with tim geithner and met with the president, all these important people. did washington really want to know what happened here, or did they want to appear to want to know what happened here? >> it was always about politics and substance. i actually never did meet either president bush or president obama although i did interact with the treasury secretaries. we were pushing for transparency, when we were pushing to try to, something as simple as getting the banks to account how they used their t.a.r.p. funds, the response we got was tremendous.
really, it was treasury officials repeating what they had heard from the banks that they dealt with on wall street telling us that it was impossible say if we insitsed on this, we could destroy the banking system and t.a.r.p. by the end of 2009, when is i confronted secretary geithner with this and the damage that was occurring by this lack of transparency rather than agree with me, he sort of exploded in this explaguetive laced tirade that i dare to suggest that he was not being transparent enough with the american people. all along it was pushback and the words the commitments of transparent sit were empty words. >> if the obama administration was so so lis tus of wall street and basically gave them everything ta they wanted and actually fought to give them what they wanted, why is it that wall street seems so firmly behind romney in the presidential race? >> look, they're going to go with whatever they think is the best deal. right now, we haven't heard a lot of the substance but it seems like romney is advocating repealing some of the good things that did come to
regulatory reform. it certainly didn't address the biggest problem of breaking up banks but there was good things for consumers and bad things for banks that increases their costs like the consumer protection bureau and other things. these bankers don't have any sense of loyalty or appreciation. they go with whatever puts them on the path to greater profit. mitt romney taking down the few modest restrictions we put up i guess they view is more beneficial to them. they're going to back that horse. >> kneel, we are short on time. if you could make a real quick answer. was it even worth having the bailout? >> i think the alternative to the bailout could have been far, far worse. we could have gone over the abyss into a great depression. the problem here was a lost opportunity. we could have done so much more than just save the banks and protect a broken status quo. we could have helped homeowners, gotten the money back into the economy, have a real economic recovery right now. instead of choosing main street at every critical juncture whether it was obama or bush,
they chose wall street. >> neil barofsky, thanks for joining us. for my segment, all about our nation's finance to too big to fail to tourry's segment too high to fail if you understood any of that, that's straight ahead on "the cycle." >> a stock market, that's why i got out of the market. i called my broker, hey, put all my known weed. -- my money in weed. the price never goes down. [ male announcer ] it's simple physics...
a body at rest tends to stay at rest... while a body in motion tends to stay in motion. staying active can actually ease arthritis symptoms. but if you have arthritis, staying active can be difficult. prescription celebrex can help relieve arthritis pain so your body can stay in motion. because just one 200mg celebrex a day can provide 24 hour relief for many with arthritis pain and inflammation. plus, in clinical studies, celebrex is proven to improve daily physical function so moving is easier. celebrex can be taken with or without food. and it's not a narcotic. you and your doctor should balance the benefits with the risks. all prescription nsaids, like celebrex, ibuprofen, naproxen, and meloxicam have the same cardiovascular warning. they all may increase the chance of heart attack or stroke, which can lead to death. this chance increases if you have heart disease or risk factors such as high blood pressure or when nsaids are taken for long periods. nsaids, including celebrex,
increase the chance of serious skin or allergic reactions or stomach and intestine problems, such as bleeding and ulcers, which can occur without warning and may cause death. patients also taking aspirin and the elderly are at increased risk for stomach bleeding and ulcers. do not take celebrex if you've had an asthma attack, hives, or other allergies to aspirin, nsaids or sulfonamides. get help right away if you have swelling of the face or throat, or trouble breathing. tell your doctor your medical history and find an arthritis treatment for you. visit celebrex.com and ask your doctor about celebrex. for a body in motion. i was skeptical at first. but after awhile even my girlfriend noticed a difference. [ male announcer ] rogaine is proven to help stop hair loss. and for 85% of guys, it regrew hair. save up to 42% now at rogaine.com. the calcium they take because they don't take it with food. switch to citracal maximum plus d. it's the only calcium supplement that can be taken with or without food. that's why my doctor recommends citracal maximum.
with real thg. very ng. >> ng? >> next generation. we're going to kill it through the roof. >> marijuana finally legal? is weeds giving us a crazy pot head dream or is it in america's future? the war on drugs is economically unsustainable and even the global commission on drug policy which included george schulze and paul volcker, former chairman of the fed concluded last year that "the global war on drugs has failed with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world." fundamental reforms in national and global drug control the policies are urgently needed. end the criminalization, marginalization and stigmaization of people who use drugs but do no harm to others. there is a small but growing movement it toward the legalization of ganga. it's cost us 1 trillion dollars and resulted in incarcerating millions over nonviolent
offenses. i a new book argues that the money the government can make legalizely this sticky icky could help us out of our economic troubles. doug, welcome to the show. >> thanks so much. >> what's your dream scenario here? is weed going to be treated like alcohol and almost anyone can buy and sell it anywhere and it's taxed? how would do you it? >> something like that. cannabis needs to get out of the controlled substances acwhere it currently resides as a schedule 1 felony whereas cocaine and methare in schedule 2. i'd like to see cannabis out of there as a father and patriot to get $30 billion a year into the legitimate economy instead of going to the cartels. >> one of the interesting things you do in your book is you say follow the money. when you follow the money, you see that the war for the war on drugs against cannabis is the pharmaceuticals industry, the private prisons, law enforcement lobby, bankings how say is making billions of dollars
laundering money, that's aig claim against who? who would be making money on the legalization of marijuana? it's a very difficult political plain there, isn't it? >> yeah, although it already is our nation's number one cash crop and so all we're -- all the sort of journally tick evidence says if you take those profits away from cartels and let american farmers grow it, the demand and supply as you mentioned hasn't gone away from 40 years of drug wars. i argue for the good of the economy, we bring that into the above board economy. as far as any of those interests that may benefit from the status quo, really, i see it as bureaucratic inertia. when you've got billions of enforcement dollars being spent, jobs are at stake. there's hard working law enforcement trying to fight this war. they're not winning and never will, but turning off the tap is the hard part. it's going to take americans deciding it's an important economic issue. >> doug, i wonder if you could
take us through what you see as your road map to legalization. we just had a map that showed states that the has legalized medical marijuana. is this something we're going to see sort of at a local or regional level and it's going to spread and become a national thing? when do you think it might happen? what is the timeline that you see and where will it happen? >> good question. so, most recent poll had he 56% of americans fully ready to end the drug war and regulate cannabis like alcohol. so just as utah and nevada's alcohol laws are different, different communities around the nation would have different laws once the federal government got out of it and let states regulate. and also, at had point, we've only been talking about the psychoactive social/medicinal cannabis. but industrial cannabis has huge potential as a biofuel and industrial product. in the heartland in north dakota, you have the agricultural commissioner
pleading for the hemp side to be legal which is now just as much of a schedule one felony. it's really time to let all parts of the country benefit from whatever side of this plant might have the most value locally. >> doug makes the economic point and the moral point in his book but se, talk about the political side of it. it is politically dangerous especially for a national candidate to try to make this point. who is the sort of politician? because i think most of us here think eventually this will happen maybe in 20 or 30 years. who is the sort of person who could lead this cause toward legalization? >> people on the edges have stood up and tried to make that case. people like gary johnson, ron paul occasionally makes it indirectly. but i think it's going to take someone who does not play into the stereotypes of what you would expect, someone who was promoting pot legalization to look like. so that would be an older well established preferably a republican, someone like a rick
santorum, you know, with impeccable family values credentials. >> but he's not. >> to make the case. >> chris christie. >> he would not but you would need someone like that. >> crist christie is in favor of a significant change in the war on drugs. >> ideally, you would want someone from the south. you would want someone who is not in an urban area. >> what if was governor cuomo? >> you don't want a new york democrat. that plays into that stereotype. you need someone from the middle of the country or the south. >> i got it, pat robertson. pat robertson, last year said he thought -- it made no sense to be going after people on marijuana. >> i promise he will not be the guy to get it done. >> yes or no. do you think you see marijuana legalization in america in your lifetime? >> oh, yeah. i do. i think sooner rather than later. before he became elected, president barack obama was vocal, i mean vocal about it. he said the drug war is an utter
failure and cannabis laws need to be decriminalizes. what i research in my book is one county in california that made the decision to just you know recognize the dinosaur in the room and save their economy by taxing the simple plant. crime went down locally. it worked for everyone. >> his most recent comments on the matter have been decriminalization is not on the table. >> that is -- that is what he said at a town hall meeting i think summer of 2011. we'll see what would happen in a second term, but -- >> maybe it's part of his secret agenda. >> thanks, krystal. doug fien, thanks so much for that. having the murnlgis is about to get pricier because america's drought will hit your wallet no matter where you are in the country. a live report up next. that's part of why i say peter tosh was right. [ male announcer ] when a major hospital wanted to provide better employee benefits
while balancing the company's bottom line, their very first word was... [ to the tune of "lullaby and good night" ] ♪ af-lac ♪ aflac [ male announcer ] find out more at... [ duck ] aflac! [ male announcer ] ...forbusiness.com. [ yawning sound ] ♪ [ male announcer ] its lightweight construction makes it nimble... ♪ its road gripping performance makes it a cadillac. introducing the all-new cadillac xts. available with advanced haldex all-wheel drive. [ engine revving ] it's bringing the future forward. [ dad ] i'm usually checking up on my kids.
i wasn't eating well. she's a dietitian and she suggested i try boost complete nutritional drink to help get the nutrition i was missing. now i drink it every day, and i love the great taste. [ female announcer ] boost has 26 essential vitamins and minerals, including calcium and vitamin d to help keep bones strong and 10 grams of protein to help maintain muscle. all with a delicious taste. your favorite patient is here! [ dad ] i choose great taste. i choose boost. as more than half the country can attest, the u.s. is experiencing the worst drought in 350 years. nearly half the corn crop in this country is bone dry. and in bad shape, pushing corn prices to an all-time high this week. as those prices soar, so too does the price of other foods. for a family of four, we're talking b 300 extra bucks at the store this year alone.
estimates are $600 next year. you don't have to live in a drought stricken area to feel the pinch. nbc's janet shamlian is in fort worth, texas with shoppers finding higher food prices pretty hard to swallow. thanks for joining us. >> people know that the price increases are copping. they're probably going to start at the end of this year, really dive into place next year. they're going to be across the board because corn is such an important component in everything from cosmetics to peanut but thor to chips. so it won't be products just like dairy, meat, poultry, eggs. those will be impacted but we'll see it across the board. as you said for a family of four next year, they could see a price increase for the same food they bought this year of some $600. >> walk me through this in basic terms. i live in manhattan. i'm not worried about a drought but i know i should be. tell me how that happens? >> the quintessential question,
how does it affect us here in manhattan. well, unless you guys have stopped eating, your grocery bill is going to be higher than last year. that gives you less discretionary income for other travel, clothes, whatever you like to do. that has further ripples on the economy at large. so what we see happen here in the grocery store will have an impact on you there in manhattan and all across the country and we're still in a struggling economy at this point. so the $600 is a big bite out of someone who is on a fixed income. you know, in a medium-paying job. >> sure. so walk me through some of the food items that we're going to see soaring the most. >> we're looking at beef, up 5%. these are somewhat conservative estimates by the usda. i talked to an economist who believes the numbers are going to be significantly higher, 5 to 10%. but the usda says 5% for beef. poultry and eggs, something like 4.5%. pork is going to be up. any of those animal perishables
you'll see and he crease on. even a box of cereal is going to cost more next year. because again, the corn product is used in that and, of course, corn itself will be much higher. the price increase will start by the end of the year. november, december. so christmas, thanksgiving we'll be impact this had year. >> janet, it's tourre. i'm very concerned about all this. i mean all politics is local. i'm a big staeak eater. beef going up more than everything else. this is extremely frightening. what can we do in. >> you know what? we talked to the economists about that. are you able to hedge this at all. you know, it's really difficult to buy meat a year out or milk or any product like that. the economist said he expects we're going to see people do things we already do, which is clip coupons and go to off brand items but beyond that, there's really not a lot you can do. i mean, for families that are struggling you may see them cut back on meat consumption but most of us will grin and bear it
and pay out for this. >> janet out in fort worth, thanks for joining us. tourre, what are you going to do if you have to pay more every day to get your steaks? >> i mean, you know, i'm just going to pay it. >> i'm going to have to pay it. i'll have to make more money at the job or something. it's a frightening prospect especially for people who have to feed four people, you have to feed three people. it's frightening. >> you are a family of four. your costs were in that statistic we put up, $300 a year. >> yeah. and we talked about the price at the pump metric. we new yorkers don't drive that much not as much as other places. this everybody feels. everybody has to go to the grocery store or whatever it may be. you can't get around this. >> speaking of prices at the pump, that is used as sort of one of the political indicators in an election year. i'm wondering if you think that this drought which is already under way, we're already feeling the effects, could be a
political election year issue if it's particularly bad around november 6th. >> i mean, i think it plays into one of those things, how do you feel about how things are going. >> absolutely. >> i don't know that people would even really particularly quantify it. but it just feeds into a range of factors about the way people are assessing how their families are doing, how -- have things gotten better. in that respect i think it could be an electoral issue. the is, too, will this bring out more of a conversation about climate change at all? there's more research as well showing that these extreme weather events we are seeing aren't just maybe part of climate change. they actually are. so i -- i'm wondering if we are going to be forced into more of a conversation about climate change this election cycle as well. >> it seems like if you want to talk about positive, what january set saying more thanksgiving, christmas and next year we are going to be feeling the price increase. i'm not sure if by election day it registers the way some people do at the gas pump, going up 40 cents or whatever.
>> it is also a national disaster. those have a way of becoming football, especially an election year. what's happened with various natural disasters. could this become a talking point, do you think? >> but again, you know, it is something that people would not blame barack obama for. it is -- an act of god, drought. he surely couldn't be the fault of that. we already know they don't blame him for the economy. >> they will blame him -- they blame him for the economy. >> no. but no -- they blame bush for the economy. barack inherit. >> you have already seen obama going around and talking about farm issues. >> this might be an issue, too, you look at, we talk about it here from manhattan. think of the middle of the country, where the farming economy is more important. the lack of a farm bill is a big issue. it is very unclear which side that is benefiting. you have now two major issues affecting the farms. >> in iowa, tell paul ryan we need a farm bill. >> it is already -- has back
political issue. >> it is already a political issue. >> you heard my take on the paul ryan pick. now it is steve's turn. [ mrs. hutchison ] friday night has always been all fun and games here at the hutchison household. but one dark stormy evening... she needed a good meal and a good family. so we gave her purina cat chow complete. it's the best because it has something for all of our cats! and after a couple of weeks she was part of the family. we're so lucky that lucy picked us. [ female announcer ] purina cat chow complete. and for a delicious way to help maintain a healthy weight, try new purina cat chow healthy weight.
i get why mitt romney picked paul ryan, i really do. or i thought i did. it seemed the idea romney wanted to be both and there was a good reason for that. until now the singular message of his campaign boiled down to. if you don't like where the economy is, don't ask questions, just vote out the guy in charge. s that that wasn't working. the unemployment rate stalled. over 8% in the most recent report. if you look at the most reliable bar amter of where the race
stands, the average of all the polls out there, romney's been running a few stubborn and critical points behind obama. choosing ryan was supposedly romney's way of saying he understood. he had to do something dramatic. yes, it was a gamble but a gold medal billion arguably worth taking. here's the part i don't get. the whole reason it is a gamble is because of ryan's budget plan. budget plan envision as wholesale restructuring of medicare and medicaid, sweeping tax cuts for the wealthy, zeroing out of the capital gains tax rate, reordering of social safety net. this is ryan's calling cord card. that's why he has gotten a lot more attention than your average member of the house. that's why he was areas bold pick. yet, romney wants nothing to do with any of it. announced the ryan pick. romney's campaign put out a statement that youj played the budget. romney stressed i have my own budget plan. he and ryan will be running on. that, by the way, would be the same detail-free budget plan romney has been running on all year and has done nothing to help close the gap with obama.
now we get to watch ryan distance himself from his own budget. romney's blasting obama for cutting $750 billion from the cost of medicare. that's the same cost -- cuts integral for ryan's plan. ryan says he wants cuts undone, too. what happen order fox news last night, ryan told brit hume he is not running on his own budget plan. he is running on romney's. how long would it take for romney's proposed budget to become balance. >> what aboutal answer? >> i don't know what the balance is because -- we hadn't run the numbers on that specific plan. >> all right. it is clear what's going on here. romney campaign knows how politically toxic ryan's ideas are if and wants to stay away from it. what's paul ryan without his ideas? well, he is just a random, ambitious congressman on offering up vague gobbley cook to sound soothing to the casual ear. they can probably do it a lot better than paul ryan. >> steve, you could say -- you could have -- people did say the
same thing about obama and biden who when they were running had serious differences on foreign policy. and then when they got together, obama suddenly had to answer for joe biden's foreign policy ideas. bring them on which was the reason they brought on joe biden for foreign policies. bring them on without taking some of biden's -- >> you don't have to own all of the ideas that the other person on the ticket has. but ryan, as you said, is the budget plan. you can't take ryan without the ryan budget plan. >> the budget plan which exists only on paper. it is not -- it is not real. proposal. >> standard that there are going -- going to be differences. running mate is never going to be the can clone of the candidate for president. >> it is okay they have differences. >> but again, i -- i feel -- >> they can. >> you could have picked another bold candidate, if you wanted to go the bold route, chris christie. he wouldn't have you a brought
to the race a plan that you would immediately have to distance yourself from and the other side would be -- you talk about foreign policy. biden. i don't remember the mccain campaign building an entire attack against barack obama around you are different than joe biden on foreign policy. there was something mentioned. it was not the -- >> foreign policy. election about the economy. >> became an bleks about medicare. >> this point i see. but i don't -- i'm not -- hysterical like everyone else seems to be over how they are going to negotiate this budget issue. >> calm down. that does it for "the cycle." karen finney is in the their. before i go to you, there is a message from all four of us. happy birthday! >> thanks very much, guys. and good afternoon. i am karen finney. i'm in for martin bashir. wednesday, august 15. here is what's happening. >> mr. president,
IN COLLECTIONSMSNBC Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on