hardball with chris matthews, transcript 04/16/15 - small home appliances

Host Chris Matthews: Democrats in the war.
Let's play hard ball. Good evening.
I'm Chris Matthews from San Francisco.
For seven years, Democrats have maintained a strong position since Barack Obama and Clinton's alliance in 2008.
Neither the bad blood of the primary season of the year, nor the bad blood of the day --to-
Until now, the problems of the day have cut off its solidarity until the battle for international trade that will emerge next week.
Just like every political era, the question of how this country deals with the economies of the rest of the world has become very localized and therefore very personal.
As before, organized labor has been trying to protect the jobs of those who have these positions, without promising that bigger trade Champions will offer new jobs.
As before, like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the most recent opponents of trade expansion
As before, they found the top leaders of their party on the other side.
President Obama has promised that any new trade deal with Asia will provide the workers and the environment with the greatest possible security, but is that enough to continue the battle that begins next week?
Will he and the country find Hillary on his side?
David Axelrod is a senior advisor to President Obama and Congressman Marcy Kaptur is a Democrat from Ohio.
Let me start with Massey capt, a congressman.
Have you supported free trade?
In other words, is free trade a fundamental battle for you and the working people in your area? REP. MARCY KAPTUR (D)
Ohio: Free trade is a battle between the community I represent and the people and companies who live there.
I support the Jordan agreement.
I think this is a more powerful measure.
But I basically believe in our Constitution, which stipulates that Congress, not the executive, has the right to manage business with foreign countries.
It does not say the rubber stamp agreement negotiated by the administration or that you cannot modify it.
Congress must be able to resolve the issues of these agreements.
To be frank, Chris, in my region and the whole country, because of these
Under the fast-track process, the so-called free trade agreement has been signed and quickly passed through Congress, and China has lost 47,500,000 jobs, of which more than 5 million are in manufacturing.
The American people live in a trade deficit year after year.
The accumulation of $9.
Matthews: Yes, it's 5 trillion in the past 35 years. OK. Right.
KAPTUR :. . . . . . The equivalent is lost work on the coast.
Matthews: OK, so you're saying we have fewer staff today than we did before we started a free trade agreement.
I mean, the population has increased.
Matthews: because you said we lost 47 million jobs.
Do we have more work now?
Matthews: We have 47 million less work than we did at the time? No.
What do you mean by this number?
KAPTUR: this number, I mean those jobs that could have been created here.
Like last year, we lost 16% of our GDP and 500 billion of our economic growth because last year our trade deficit was as high as US dollars.
So if you look at what happens year after year, we never have a balanced trade account.
This means losing jobs within the borders of the country, and companies are outsourcing to others from the country. MATTHEWS: OK.
KAPTUR: look at the Huffy bike.
Matthew: Okay. KAPTUR: Mattel's.
See what happened . . . . . . (CROSSTALK)
Matthews: I know what happened to Metage.
I know the particular industry very well and it's always-David, it's always the best argument against free trade, and it's a defense of the point of view.
If you look at a specific area of Michigan City (ph)
Many Midwest cities, if they have diners, if they have blockbusters, there is only one bombshell and one diner left.
They were hollowed out. out cities.
So when you look at trade in this way, it's a hard struggle by city, by part.
If you look at the whole country and look at Silicon Valley, or 128 of Massachusetts, the country's thriving regions through high technology and other means, looks pretty good.
How to balance for you?
David Akselrod, senior political analyst at NBC: First of all, you see, I am very sympathetic to the position of Congressman Kaptur on behalf of her region, because not only because of trade, but partly because of trade, great changes have taken place in the economy, and they bear the brunt.
Chris, I live in the Midwest, so I 've seen what you're talking about.
But now it's about the trade promotion agency, whether the president will have the same power as every president except Richard Nixon, every Democratic president, Franklin Roosevelt.
Now, they have negotiated an agreement that has standards in terms of labor rights, environmental rights and human rights and has given-failed --
Security provisions that allow Congress to withdraw the power of the fast track without meeting these criteria.
So it seems to me, you know, there's an argument here that you should give the president at least that much power, given that these terms have been put at this point-we do have a problem because we-you know, Asia is an emerging market, a huge market, you know, will businesses and jobs in the United States and the United States benefit or suffer from this agreement?
I think the president has to prove that, and I think that will start doing so next week.
Matthews: Let's take a look at what Elizabeth Warren is going to say, because she is an inflammatory figure in the party on this and other issues.
Of course, da lao is with her.
Just yesterday, they held a dramatic rally on Capitol Hill against the president's trade deal.
This is the so-called TPP.
They also attacked the president's authority to pass the bill. Let`s watch. (
Start Video Editing)SEN.
Elizabeth Warren (D)
We are here today to fight.
We're here to fight.
Are you ready to fight? (YES! )
Are you ready to fight? (YES! )
Warren: Okay!
No more secret deals!
Are you ready to fight? (YES! )
Warren: no more secret deals!
No more special deals
National enterprises!
Are you ready to fight? (YES! )
Warren: Are you ready? Are you prepared to fight for some more deals that say we will help the rich get richer and leave others behind?
Are you ready? (YES! )
Unidentified male: I'm here today to say no to the fast lane, but no to the fast lane!
We stood together and opened a huge pot. ph)of whup-
To anyone, to anyone who is trying to rob us of our work! (END VIDEO CLIP)
Matthews: the rest of the Democratic Party is fighting back against Senator Warren.
Ron Wyden, a Democratic senator from Oregon, is fully supporting legislation that supports the president's fast-track authority, saying, this legislation will be based on transparency, Labor, the environment, human rights and open Internet standards.
President Obama today reiterated his goal of reaching an agreement.
Quote "my top priority in any trade negotiation is to expand opportunities for people in difficulty --
Working American
This transaction will provide fair opportunities for our workers and for the first time include strong, fully enforceable protection of workers' rights, the environment and the free and open market.
"Congressman, this question-why is the US economy so strong if our trade policy is not good?
I mean, what is it that works in America?
KAPTUR: Well, actually . . . . . . Matthews: why do we have the booming GDP that everyone in the world wants to move to live here, and everyone in the world wants to legally enter the United States.
You said there was a fundamental problem with our economic policy. Which is it?
KAPTUR: Well, if you look at the middle class, Chris, if you look at what's going on with the income of most people in our country, they're going down.
In the past 20 years, the wages of ordinary workers have been greatly reduced.
I heard what Sir said.
Akcelrod talked about Asia and so on.
The Korea free trade agreement I oppose promises us that we will have a trade surplus and more jobs.
The opposite.
We have lost more than 75,000 jobs due to South Korea's agreement, and now it's only three years.
So when you don't have a trade balance for more than 30 years, there is a problem with the basic trade agreement.
This means that the country has lost its job.
It's not just part of my country.
From coast to coast.
It's furniture.
It's textile work.
This is agricultural work.
Yes, this is an industrial position.
Household appliances.
Everywhere in this country
People's incomes are falling.
The numbers prove this. MATTHEWS: OK. OK.
Let me go-let me go to David now.
I want to come back to you with the same question.
David, if you go to the general department store in the United States, or any type of store, you have a great choice.
I mean, I grew up in a place where you have a couple of South Carolina or somewhere else that are made of different kinds of fiber and not that good.
Now you go to any store you want to go to, everything is cotton, 100% cotton.
Already there-the pants already there-what do you call it, the cuffs of your size.
There are so many consumer opportunities in any big store in the United States.
I think consumers do want free trade.
They seem to want anything they can get at the best prices and the best quality in the world.
They don't want to be told they can only buy things produced in nearby states.
Now, if you go back to protectionism, that's where you will be, where we grow up, and you can't buy things from all over the world. I don`t know.
It was a difficult decision. (CROSSTALK)
Matthews: It's a tough decision.
This is not our choice. CROSSTALK)
Not a closed market.
I think, Chris, people-you know, members of Congress are right.
People also want money in their pockets to buy products, and we have seen flat wages.
It's not just trade.
Matthews: I know.
Axelrod: There are all kinds of forces at work.
So the government's test will be to explain why people are better off.
I am not sure if we can build a moat around the United States of America in the 21 st century and think we will be competitive.
But on the other hand, you have to state the facts.
Now, my understanding of what was signed today on this fast track agreement is that, in fact, the president can't sign the agreement within 30 days or-I think, 60 days, so, everyone, including the American people, can review the agreement.
If Congress finds that it does not meet labor, environmental and human rights standards, they can revoke the fast track authority and modify it in any way they see fit.
It seems to me that this is a reasonable compromise.
Matthews: let me go back to Marcy capt and see the final view (ph)of this.
Will we have a better life? I mean, what I heard was Penn people like I grew up with, very opposed
Trade, the Democratic delegation opposed trade from the very beginning.
I understand that.
Do you think that if we close all these doors to a trade deal with Kennedy, will the US economy be healthier now?
We reached a trade deal long before Clinton.
Do you think we would be better if our economy was basically the US economy, not going to the world and the world?
Are you saying we will be healthier?
Since the establishment of the Republic, we have been a trading power.
The problem is that when you close a market like Japan, or the main market in Europe allows only 10% of the goods to come from other places, we become a dump of the world.
This came out of the hiding of our people, who have been eating for too long.
This has reached a turning point. we must solve this problem with a new trade model.
This is where we want to go.
I believe in President Obama-and I believe he can help us do that. (CROSSTALK)
Chris, can I say something?
Chris, the point is that we need good-we need-we don't need to trade, we need good deals.
The question is, will this be a good deal?
The president must do that.
Matthews: I think he will start next week.
Thank you anyway, David axrod. Thank you, U. S.
Ohio Congressman Marcy Capt.
Next, the postal worker who landed the helicopter and helicopter on the U. S. lawnS.
The Capitol opened today.
Of course, that flight yesterday may have exposed some loopholes in our security, but I think it also makes it more important for this country to make big and dark, our politics is operated by secret funds.
This is his argument.
That's why he ventured into the Capitol.
Also, as the Supreme Court prepares to start same-sex marriage, we have the wonderful story of Judge Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote of the court, about his mentor, possibly his influence.
Everyone knows that income inequality in this country is intensifying, so why does the House vote for a huge tax break for the wealthiest people in the United States? 2 percent?
They abolished the inheritance tax, a fundamental concept in the United States that helps prevent the creation of permanent nobles.
Finally, "Let me end with the Republican Party's official title and documents, the quiet pigeons of the United States ".
This is a place of politics, a hard state. (
Business break)
Matthews: that's good news for President Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Americans are more optimistic about the economy.
A new poll by Bloomberg Politics shows that 1 out of 3 Americans think the economy will get stronger, while only 1 out of 5 thinks the economy will get worse.
Compared to last June, the survey found that people were more optimistic about the prospects for employment, housing and medical expenses.
The survey also found that Americans believe President Obama's handling of the economy is the best since 2009.
It is 49% positive now and 46% disapprove.
Not so good, but definitely better than before.
We will be back soon. (
Business break)
Matthews: Welcome back to hard ball.
Angry with millions of dollars of secret money flowing legally into the United StatesS.
In the election, a postal worker in Florida
The human helicopter enters the limited air space in Washington, the buzzing Washington Monument, and then places it on the American lawn. S.
Capitol building on Wednesday
Secretary of Homeland Security Johnson said,
The craft built was not found. (
Start Video Editing)
Jeh johnson, Secretary of Homeland Security: The man apparently flew under the radar.
Question: Are you satisfied with this answer, I guess?
Johnson: Well, I want to see all the facts again.
Before I make any conclusions or judgments about yesterday's events, I want to know all the facts. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Matthews: I think we see all the facts. Anyway, 60-year-
Old Doug Hughes said the stunt was a protest against the country's campaign funding woes and, by the way, he d in advance, in an interview with his hometown newspaper, he intends to carry out this dangerous civil disobedience. Here he is. (
Start Video Editing)
Postal worker Doug Hughes: I will tie 535 letters to the landing gear in the box that will be sent to every member of Congress.
I don't believe the authorities will shoot down a 60-year-
The old postman sitting on a flying bike(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTHEWS: Well, let's talk about special delivery.
Anyway, it's America that joins me now. S.
Congressman Steve Israel, Democrat of New York, author of the great novel-I mean the great novel-"The global war on Morris ".
Ken Vogel of Politico, author of big money, is also with us.
"I want to go to the members of the state of Israel.
First of all, this guy came in with his lawn mower and didn't scare me at all. So what?
Do you think he should be prosecuted?
It looks like they let him go with his own guarantee.
It's a sign for me that they won't throw the book to this guy.
What do you think should happen? REP. STEVE ISRAEL (D)
Well, Chris, thank you for letting me play.
Look, I'm in my office, and when I heard we were invaded by something called a gyro helicopter, I thought I was watching an episode of Jetson.
"I don't even know what a gyro helicopter is.
The truth is, look, he broke the law.
There are other ways to deliver information.
But what I am worried about is that everyone is very concerned about how he delivers the message and they are not concerned about what his message is.
When the American people feel marginalized and minimized by the huge amount of money pouring into American politics, they will take such a trick.
I don't support this gimmick, but I know this person needs to prove it.
Matthews: Do you know why I'm not talking about money on TV?
Because it's a journalism problem, I want Ken to know that.
Most people don't give money to politicians. They vote.
They thought it was their sacred duty and right and they went out to vote.
They read the newspaper, and the people who read the program read the newspaper.
They read the newspaper. They keep up.
They know how to vote is important to them.
So that's what they do.
There's a small group of people who think, well, I want to go beyond that and put some money into it.
Maybe $500, maybe $50, maybe $5, maybe millions of dollars, but they don't really know the proportion of people.
Ken, I want to find you on this.
I think that's why it's hard to talk about money on TV.
The economy does not sell, especially the numbers on TV.
Print more.
But it is so strange to most people.
All they know is that they see people like Sheldon Adelson, some people-a fat cat or brother Koch who see these politicians kissing their ass, rings or toes or whatever
And they said, it makes me sick because that guy, because he's rich and has more say than me, millions of people. Your thoughts.
But no one-like them-I think that person makes sense, Doug, the guy who was driving the Gyro Helicopter the other day.
He said no one was talking about it.
They have given up fighting.
Politico ken vogel: Well, when they were asked about it, Chris, they did say, and the polls show . . . . . . Matthews: when asked about it.
When asked about it, they . . . . . . Matthews.
Vogel: Yes, they are troubled by the influx of money into political life.
So for those who have been working to reduce the role of money in politics and the flow of money into politics, the problem is to translate that sentiment into actual voting activity, because this is not the most important issue for most people.
We 've seen the effort to make it a top priority for the vote, but it seems more like a rhetoric when asked about it, and they will say they are against it, but we rarely see it as a top priority in the election.
That's why it's hard to really generate political momentum, to get Congress or state assemblies to vote to change the law and make it harder for money to flow into politics. MATTHEWS: Yes.
Let's not forget, Chris, and members of the Council of the state of Israel, these are those elected through this system, no matter how bad they think, they can still be offices on the last election day.
So even if they say they disagree, it's hard for them to vote to change the system that works for them. (CROSSTALK)MATTHEWS: OK.
Let me tell you why.
Let me tell you.
Let me go back to the member.
I want to tell you more clearly.
As long as the Supreme Court says outside that you have a personal right to hold a gun.
No, forget the reason why the militia took the gun, the core-what we all brought from childhood.
No, no, you can have a gun for any reason.
Second, you can spend all the money you want in the campaign because you have already got it.
Once the court has made such a ruling, people like Hillary Clinton and you, and all those who have to raise money, will not blame me.
We passed McCain. Feingold.
We did our part and the court dismissed our request.
I want to tell you who you can blame.
You can blame the Republican majority in Congress for not passing the disclosure bill.
When this decision of the Supreme Court undermines democracy, but when this decision is made, the Supreme Court actually says that we expect Congress to ask for disclosure of those contributions, not secrets.
House Democrats put forward in the disclosure bill, asking for transparency, asking these secret donors to tell people who they are.
Republicans voted against it, putting the bill on hold.
People have the right to know.
Let me say one more thing about Ken's point of view. He`s right.
When you look at polls, the campaign fiscal reform is not that high.
However, when you connect people's wages with the policies of special interest group domination and the ones that squeeze them, people will understand that this is true.
They think this layer is stacked together and then they want to campaign for funding reform. (CROSSTALK)
I don't realize that.
You mean, congressman, the court won't veto the requirement for full disclosure?
If there are 50 people on the mountain-
Plus the percentage of votes in both houses, you ask the President to sign-I think he will.
Israel: there is no doubt.
Matthews: Do you think the court will support it?
Will they support the full disclosure act? (CROSSTALK)ISRAEL: Yes.
If you read the citizens joint decision, I think his support for citizens has at least one assumption based on congressional requests for disclosure.
But it never happened. (CROSSTALK)
Matthews: Ken, I had a fight with another of my colleagues the other day, and I respect the fact that the media did this out of a casual nature.
They will put ads from some people-they will show an ad for free or the whole damn ad, some quick ship ads and I will say, who pays for that ad?
No one wants to wear it even if they know.
Well, they should at least say that it was dark secret funding, and the same people made quick boat ads against John Kerry, the same bad crowd.
They started acting again.
No, the casual behavior of people advertising here for free drives me crazy.
But I'm glad to see members of Congress say that, because now that everyone watching knows, you can write about your members of Congress, Democrats, liberals, or whatever, and say, say this.
I want to know where the money came from when someone was elected.
Just give me that.
Squat down for me, give me something.
Maybe you can't stop them because of this. wing court.
But I want to know who is paying for these stupid ads and I have to look at the election time.
Ken, the last thing you said?
Vogel: Yes, disclosure is just one of the miscalculations-a joint citizen complaint embedded in the Supreme Court's ruling
Federal Election Commission in 2010
Members of Congress are right.
The view was expressed that funds flowing into the process would be disclosed. It hasn`t been.
In fact, people have used, groups have used another part of the decision to allow companies to spend, using these non-Disclosure, non
Profitable companies put the money into the system.
Another false estimate is that this independent expenditure will be independent and unlimited expenditure will not be coordinated with the movement.
We see these super PACs and they are close if they don't coordinate.
Matthews: I have an idea for Congress and the congressional police.
Why don't you charge this guy on the helicopter instead of serving his community?
It may take an hour for his community service.
He should spend an hour in a joint session of Congress.
He should go in and tell them why he did it.
All this has to be watched there.
It can be his community service and we can all watch it.
If they put this guy in jail, it's a bunch of clowns. Anyway, U. S.
Member of Congress Steve Israel, thank you and good luck with your book The War on Morris worldwide.
Israel: Thank you.
Thanks Chris.
Next: when the Supreme Court heard this month's debate on constitutional rights in same-sex marriage, all eyes will be on Judge Anthony Kennedy? You know why?
I think he will vote for it.
When we came back, the story of Judge Kennedy's mentor.
It is clear that he is a closed gay man who, in his personal life and career, may have had a great impact on Judge Kennedy and the way he sees the individual, regardless of their direction or identity.
There are fascinating possibilities here.
This is a place of politics, a hard state. (
Business break)
Matthews: Welcome back to hard ball.
When the Supreme Court is ready to hear arguments about whether states can stay the same --
After a sex couple gets married, all the attention is focused on a man who may make or break a decision.
Of course, I'm talking about Judge Anthony Kennedy.
This week the Associated Press wrote-quote-"those who have known Judge Kennedy for decades, and scholars who have studied his work, say he has long stressed the importance of individuals.
In this regard, he also appears to have been influenced by the legal pillar of Sacramento, at the confirmation hearing of the High Court in Washington, D. C, A secret gay man hired Kennedy as a lecturer in law school and testified on his behalf.
"Kennedy's mentor, Gordon Sharber, testified at the Kennedy confirmation hearing on December. Here he is. (
Start Video Editing)
Judge Kennedy's mentor, Gordon Sharber: I think he will have sympathy and sympathy for all those present.
If there is no personal preference and no particular philosophical inclination, he will do so with the aim of reaching a consensus --building.
I strongly request a confirmation vote. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Matthews: Supreme Court ruling
The problem is expected to occur sometime in June.
Boy, there's news here.
Mark Sherman, the Associated Press reporter who wrote the story, is with us now.
Senior prosecutor Paul Henderson also joined us.
Let me start with Mark.
Give us a feeling.
I have always had an understanding of Judge Kennedy's court decisions, personal thoughts, and the ideas of the whole person.
Yes, sex is part of it, sex attraction is part of it, sex is part of it, but they are all part of the whole person, someone who can love others, A person who will show this love physically.
The problem is that it has always been a part of a person, not all of them.
So I think the article you wrote suggests that personal experiences with others may remind him that homosexuality and straight sex are first reminded in our lives. Your thoughts?
Mark Sherman, AP: Well, that's right.
There is no doubt that there are several factors in Judge Kennedy's opinion written by the Supreme Court in support of gay rights.
I have spoken to a lot of people in Sacramento who generally consider Dean Shabelle to be gay and they say they can't believe that Kennedy will not be influenced by his intimate friendship with Shabelle.
Matthews: this gift, I have to tell you, I don't think it's evil, but it's kind of funny.
Every year, he sends his shirt worth $400.
If it's Brooks Brothers shirt, it's up to five, maybe four.
But I always wanted to know that there were too many shirts.
What a strange gift.
It was like one night, Dean Smith offered dinner to all the people who played for him.
What is this shirt?
Do you understand?
Sherman: Well, I don't know more about it than Kennedy's financial disclosure form came out year after year and he has to submit it every year.
Matthews: Paul, tell me what you think of Kennedy-why did he become a conservative?
He's Reagan's private lawyer.
In Lawrence's case, he was the free man.
In Lawrence's case, he gave up his right to rape.
Private behavior, sexual behavior is part of an individual and part of being able to love someone, he said.
Let's use it as a ban.
But is it a free clause on this issue, the Equal Protection Act?
What will it be?
The equality Protection Act will be-what decision will the 14 Amendment give us? Go ahead.
Former prosecutor Paul Henderson: I think that's the reason for driving the train in this analysis.
This will be 14 amendments and explanations for equal protection, and find out the conflict between the state decision that has been made and the federal lower court decision that has been made is the Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee that have been done with Kentucky.
Personal Rights, and we continue to go back here to these individual rights, because I compare these arguments to past arguments in terms of race, marriage and sexual orientation.
So that's what he's going to decide, and you're absolutely right, and these jurists won't make a decision in the bubble.
They were absolutely affected.
They don't make laws.
They explain the law.
But they also explain what society is doing, what culture is doing, and who their friends are.
All these things, their value and explanation.
As he has said before, because he values individualism, these things are the lens he uses to review the law and make decisions.
So I think you are absolutely right and this article is explaining . . . . . . MATTHEWS: Well, let me go back-let me go back to the author of this article.
I know it's not what you think.
This is your report, but it's interesting-the old joke is that the Supreme Court is after the election results. I know that.
But this is true.
But if you look at a landmark decision, it's going to be a decision like Brown, school prayer, or Roe v.
Roy v. Wade
Wade, regarding the right to abortion, they came from some constitutional reading that was not there.
They found inherent value there, like when they found black kids, the students thought white dolls were more beautiful than black dolls, they said, etc, we sent the wrong values to our children.
So if the message of inequality is delivered separately but equally, we must stop doing so.
This is an inherent perception.
I do think what you write is very attractive.
Have you checked this with others who said that Judge Kennedy and the mentor's personal experience did foster his identification and sympathy for homosexuality?
Well, I think the problem is really complicated.
I didn't say it in the story, I can't say it here, only that explains it.
But I think it's perfectly reasonable that this is the idea that helps him form part of his point of view.
Matthews: By the way, in order for everyone to understand this, it is not the word straight that is used here, but to make it clear to everyone-when you are in your intimate company, especially in your family, when there is a gay person suddenly, people have different values and different explanations.
You know, all politics is local, and an old friend of mine once said, Tip O'Neill, that's true.
The place it gets-the more it gets, the more compassionate you are.
Hey Paul Henderson, sir, thank you for being in San Francisco with us, thank you Mark Sherman, you have a very interesting insight. (CROSSTALK)
Matthews: Next: The house has just voted to cancel the inheritance tax. Whoa.
This is great for some people.
By the way, the typical American philosophy prevents us from becoming permanent nobles, which is the imposition of estate tax.
So money is not just accumulated in the hands of several families.
Anyway, this is when everyone is concerned about the income gap in the country, which will make the gap bigger.
You see the hard ball of politics. (
Business break)
Page Hopkins, MSNBC reporter: this is Page Hopkins.
This is what is happening.
The NFL has restored Vikings support for Adrian Peterson.
Last year, Peterson was suspended for violating the league's personal behavior policy.
He had no objection to hitting his son with a switch.
The federation accused an Ohio man of traveling to Syria for terrorist training before returning to the United States. S.
He plans to attack police or soldiers.
WikiLeaks has published more than 300,000 documents from the devastating hacking that Sony suffered last year.
Sony has condemned the move and now we're going to take you back to the hard ball.
Matthews: Welcome back to hard ball.
Republicans have long been criticized for supporting 1% of the country's top earners.
But today they helped the two richest men a big favor.
A tenth of one person, two-
A tenth of 1%
House Republicans today passed a bill called resolution 1105, called the abolition of the Death Penalty Act, which will end the country's inheritance tax.
Of course, this reflects the Republican priorities at a time when income inequality is the most important concern of the American people, and it violates the country's long-standing basic beliefs, that is, wealth should not be inherited in the noble class, but should be earned.
That's why we have laws about books in the first place.
Howard Fenman, global editorial director of Huffington Post, White House correspondent Nedra Pickler of The Associated Press, and Republican strategist John blabend joined us.
Who among you is the beneficiary of the huge inheritance of wealth?
Because, if you are, you have to raise your hand now to tell us why we are defending the system that the Republican Party is implementing.
If you are the heir to Downton manor, raise your hand. (CROSSTALK)
John blabend, former senior adviser to Santorum's campaign: Chris, I 've given you everything. (CROSSTALK)
Matthews: Okay. OK. Let`s start. (CROSSTALK)
NBC Chief Political Correspondent Howard Fenman: remember how you talked when you were a kid with two pants? MATTHEWS: Yes.
Fenman: I have eaten twice. MATTHEWS: OK.
Let me start with you, Howard, my pink buddy.
Baby Diapers-not exactly the same in both cases.
Let's start with this.
In my opinion, this country holds this philosophy. we don't want to end up in Latin America. There are 17 families running a country, or Europe, Germany, the British, there are a few families that have all the land and all the money, because it is only accumulating over time for generations.
We basically say that you can leave a lot of money for your child, but only a ton of money and then it has to stop.
So Republicans think a ton is not enough, and more than $10 is not enough for your children.
So how did they win the case and why did 11 Democrats join them today?
This is a mystery to me.
I don't think they can win the case.
If you look at the average number of votes, we will admit two points.
First, the rich have a growing share of taxes, but their reason is that they are making more money than others.
Second, Americans do like tax cuts, but I don't think they do.
They won't like this type, as there may be up to 5,000 people a year who can benefit from it.
If they get married, more than $10 million of these people's legacy can be passed on.
No one will sympathize with them.
John may not agree, but I think the Republicans are a bit-it's kind of like a flip-flop.
It's like what you see in the movie 2001, you take out almost all the memory chips and the only one left says we have to cut taxes and we don't care what we do. MATTHEWS: Yes.
John Brabender, I think one of the mistakes that people have left so much money to their children is that they didn't spend it.
Why don't they spend money?
Why-they have time, why don't they spend money?
What are they saving it?
I'm just kidding.
I'm not kidding, of course.
John brabender, republican strategist: Yes, you're not kidding.
Matthews: but it looks like a bad value-cloth --
Cutting Republicans or 90% Republicans, or a little better than ordinary Republicans, will not benefit from such things.
BRABENDER: Well, let me say two things.
One is, it's a bad tax.
Sometimes we think it's a good tax because it's a minority problem or they're very rich.
No, it's a bad tax.
It is not fair to get rid of taxes.
But for the Republican Party, its optical system is terrible.
Especially in the presidential campaign, what we have to do is work hard.
Working families believe that we represent them and fight for them, we become Pavlovians, almost to reduce taxes on the rich, and we oppose raising the minimum wage by $1. And hard-
Those working families who are not affected by any of them just get a message that we don't understand their lives and we don't fight for them.
I think this is a real mistake.
MATTHEWS: Well, this is happening when most people in this country agree that income inequality is getting worse and worse.
According to a Bloomberg survey just conducted today, seven out of 69% of Americans said the income gap between rich and poor is widening.
Only 10% of people say the gap is getting smaller and they don't know what they're talking about.
When it comes to solutions, Americans are divided.
Catch this-it's a fascinating difference between the two parties.
There is a dime difference between the two parties. It`s a big one.
70% of Democrats believe they should implement a policy to close the income gap.
But 75% of Republicans say the government should stand by even if the income gap expands.
So, Nedra, in terms of reporting this, the party's approach is different.
Republicans say if there is a gap because inheritance tax is not there, then you can leave all the money to your children, grandchildren and great --
This increases the gap.
Well, that's how the market works, they say.
NEDRA pickling machine, AP. H.
Reporter: You can say that this is a win argument for both sides because it's all based on how they build it, right?
Republicans are talking about the death tax.
They are talking about these poor family farmers who are not poor, but they lose their land when they try to pass the land on to their children.
On the other hand, you know, Barack Obama had an event on this yesterday, just like giving him softball.
You know, he was in North Carolina and he talked about how this tax would only hit hundreds of people in the state, while he could help 44 million if he had 0. 27 billion people.
Matthews: You're right. they all work on the street.
Either way, Republican Frank Lenz, we call him Fluntz, who led an effort to change the name of the estate tax to the death penalty.
Here's how he defends the use of the word "effective words" in his book: "The concept of the word death tax is tactful, or Orwell can't even afford to review.
First, it considers the terms of inheritance tax and inheritance tax to be purely neutral.
In fact, real estate is reminiscent of the ups and downs of Castle Peak and the large amount of real estate held by JR Ewing or Donald Trump, who rubs their hands, rubs like corporate villains, or toasts with champagne glasses
"Howard, Frank Lenz admits that you have to call it death tax, not inheritance tax, because it sounds too evil. Your thoughts?
Finman: First of all, if the heritage is passed on to a generation, the word "heritage" in the inheritance tax is an old, slick word.
This does not mean a huge rolling property.
So, Frank Lenz has built a huge scarecrow so that he can intelligently try to get you to collect the tax that sounds like someone has been killed.
You know, that's what Frank Lenz is good.
But the problem here is that if you really want to get to know this in depth, I think that in that vote and other votes, independent voters are very worried about income inequality.
I don't know where they are.
I bet they are skeptical about giving low taxes to thousands of people each year.
By the way, the other thing this bill will do is eliminate the capital gains of all the things that these people have accumulated.
They also think that capital gains tax is another matter.
So, in fact, within their framework, this bill is a triple tax.
Matthews: Let's get President Obama to veto the child.
I think I 'd say if he understood.
Pickler: of course.
Don't you think?
That's what he said.
Matthews: The round table is here for us now.
Then there's George W.
In any case, Bush admitted that he was Bush's biggest problem.
But it's bigger than that.
Republicans don't want war.
This is my theory.
Ordinary Republicans, men and women, fathers and mothers, grandparents, don't want to see their children go to another W-type war.
Maybe W is right. he's wrong.
The political position is back. (
Business break)
Matthews: The Republican presidential campaign may soon be bigger.
We reported yesterday about Ohio Governor John Kasic's interest in running for president.
Well, today we understand that he is now setting up a political committee to allow him to raise money when considering running for the election.
The Ohio Republican, who won his second term last year with a landslide, could make some noise in this crowded area.
I think he should make some noise.
He's a good candidate.
We will be back soon. (
Business break)
Matthews: We're back.
It has been two months since President Obama submitted a proposal to Congress to authorize the use of military power against ISIS.
However, as the Wall Street Journal reported today, this is not a high priority for Republicans --
Lead Congress in any way.
We went back to the round tables of Howard, Nedra and John.
Howard, you know, all the hype about the Republican Partya-
As today's newspaper pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, there is no real excitement for Iran to go to a real ground war.
My theory is that the rank and rank of the Republican Party are not as tough as those with money.
Fineman: No, no, no.
No, they would say that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are weak and childish to some extent.
But they won't prove it by sending troops.
They will not do so because the painful memories of Iraq and Afghanistan by the American people are still too fresh and too strong.
I think this is a huge start for Rand Paul and I think he will be the only apartment unless I get it wrong
Criticized the entire theory of the neo-conservatives in the Republican campaign.
Matthews: John, that's one of the reasons why I see a difference in the top of the normal fabric --
Ordinary Republicans like my parents are all Republicans.
They're not rich at all, but they're Republicans and they don't -- I don't think they're Hawks.
Now, my question is: is the Republican Party at the base, the people of Pennsylvania, the people of the whole state, where both Howard and I are familiar-are they as hawkish as the big men who spoke in this presidential debate, and they all seem to be Hawks except Rand Paul?
BRABENDER: Well, it depends on your definition of hawk.
If your problem is-Matthews: It's very difficult to go to war.
As the first result, the first means, the impulse to fight.
Blabend: But look at Matthews: You always hear from these people.
This is where we have problems.
No one sat around and said, hey, you know, we haven't had a good war in a while.
Dick Cheney! Dick Cheney!
Fill all the neo-conservatives in op
Op-ed page
The ed version of the newspaper has been talking about bombing Iran.
What does it mean that no one speaks and pushes it?
BRABENDER: there are some Republicans at the base who believe that the government's priority is to protect families from people who want to hurt the United States.
Matthews: what does this have to do with bombing Iran?
What does it have to do with the war in Iraq?
BRABENDER: I believe it was Iran that made us a nuclear bomb. CROSSTALK)
Matthews: Okay, well, you're a problem-you're a big problem like those rich people.
I mean, this is ridiculous.
What I can tell you is. (CROSSTALK)
Matthews: Republicans think Iraq attacked US 9/11?
Because -(CROSSTALK)
That's not what I said.
Don't put those words in my mouth.
But with regard to the poll data, what I can tell you is that when you ask questions about national security, from the sixth issue three years ago to the second or third issue now.
Many of them are Iran, ISIS, and people in the world are now upset about the security of the United States.
Fenman: but I don't think that feeling of unease is bound to translate into the promise of the Republican candidate to deploy troops on the ground.
I think this time, they will be more cautious given the history of the Republican Party and George W. Bush`s wars.
Republican candidate Matthews: Go ahead, Nedra, because I'm looking at what's going on in two committees in Congress, and no one on the Republican side wants to authorize in this war against ISIS.
Nobody's doing it. Your thoughts?
Pickler: Well, the Republican candidates are everywhere, which reflects the position of Republican voters.
We saw them hiding from the war about a year ago.
But last month I saw a poll showing
All sides are in favor of sending troops to fight Islamic State.
So even though you have leaders in Congress asking the president to send some language of war authorization, it's very unusual.
In the midst of the terrible death of American citizens and our ally citizens, he did, and it was just sitting there.
Nothing happened.
There should have been a hearing, but they were debating Iran.
So far, they have not taken this matter very seriously.
Matthews: it's better to blow a horn in Iran than to fight ISIS.
Anyway, thank you, Howard Fenman.
Thank you, Nedra.
Thank you, John blabend.
When we get back, let me end up in the Republican rankings. and-file.
They are, I believe, the quietest pigeons in America.
You see the hard ball of politics. (
Business break)
Matthews: Let me finish tonight: I believe the average Republican voters in this country already have hawks, neo-conservatives, theorists, all the declared armchairs generals, including the chicken hawks who foolishly got us into war.
I know those who have the money, the presidential candidates need to kiss their toes, and they talk about the war with Iran, Syria or Russia. Talk is cheap.
It doesn't cost a penny to send the country's soldiers back into the desert.
But ordinary people who voted for the Republican Party for their own reasons have reduced taxes, reduced government and religious values in life, there is a price to send these soldiers to fight-this is where their sons, nieces and nephews are going.
What is worrying is their family and want to see their loved ones go home and God bless them.
If you want real proof of the Republican Partyand-
Archives, little people in the Republican party, don't like these wars if you want, just look at what happened to President Obama's proposal to authorize the fight against ISIS.
It's not going anywhere.
The reason it won't go anywhere is because the committee's Republican congressman knows that people in the country don't want us to get involved in a real war, a fight.
They can honk with presidential admirers for those who have the money, push the horn to Vegas or anywhere, and the fat cats will show their trumpet and they can accept the performing arts.
Republicans say don't talk about using our kids as cannon fodder, just to get the big guys to show off to the next fund --raiser.
Hard ball now.
Thank you for being with us.
"Everything about Chris Hayes" is starting now.
This is a report card in a hurry.
This copy may not be in final form and may be updated.
Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc.
All materials herein are protected by US copyright law and may not be copied, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call.
You may not change or delete any trademark, copyright or other notice in a copy of the content.