Guests: Rev. Jesse Jackson, Matt Cooper; Rep. Barney Frank, Richard Wolffe,
Robert Reich
RACHEL MADDOW, HOST: Last of our three live shows here in 92nd Street Y here in New York City is tomorrow night. We are so looking forward to it.
THE LAST WORD with Lawrence O‘Donnell starts right now.
(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)
LAWRENCE O‘DONNELL, HOST: The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. That line appears in a profile of Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour in the conservative “Weekly Standard.” It turns out the main thing that‘s come from that piece is Haley Barbour trying to escape Haley Barbour.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, NBC NEWS: Which prominent political was once voted “Mr. Yazoo High School”?
CHRIS CILLIZZA, WASHINGTON POST: He seemed to essentially say, oh, sure, the civil rights movement, that was fine.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is going to be really bad news for the Mississippi governor.
O‘DONNELL (voice-over): Governor of Mississippi, outgoing chair of the Republican Governors Association, potential contender for president, Haley Barbour, caught in a lie about his state‘s racist history.
EUGENE ROBINSON, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: The thesis is that, oh, you know, we had (INAUDIBLE) civil rights, in Yazoo City, it wasn‘t that bad.
JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC HOST: How could anybody say about the civil rights era I just don‘t remember it being that bad?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It wasn‘t that bad for Haley Barbour because he was a white guy.
Well, if you happened to be black, well, that was a different story.
(MUSIC)
O‘DONNELL: One day, the governor is trying to explain what he meant when he defended a segregationist group and ignored the violence that happened around him.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He clarified his statements saying
ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC NEWS: “Vehicle, called the ‘Citizens Council‘ is totally indefensible, as is segregation.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was a difficult and painful era for Mississippi, the rest country and especially African Americans.
MITCHELL: “My point was that my town rejected the Ku Klux Klan, but nobody should construe that to mean that I think the town leadership were saints.”
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I‘m glad that just occurred to him in the year 2010. thanks for catching up. We appreciate it.
O‘DONNELL: Once considered a contender for 2012, the governor‘s gaffe has him desperately scrambling to keep hope alive—his hope for the presidency.
MITCHELL: It‘s going to make it very difficult for him to be a national candidate.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Even some Republicans are now saying Haley‘s Barbour‘s run at the White House might already be over.
ROBINSON: Re-litigating the civil rights movement is not the way to do that.
SCARBOROUGH: He‘s a smart guy. What‘s he thinking?
(MUSIC)
(END VIDEOTAPE)
O‘DONNELL: Good evening from Los Angeles. I‘m Lawrence O‘Donnell.
Former Mississippi governor and aspiring 2012 Republican presidential candidate Haley Barbour knows he‘s in trouble, measured in the amount of time that took him to go from his original statement praising segregationists to the flip-flop of that statement. It didn‘t take long at all. We‘re talking about 24 hours here.
In a new “Weekly Standard” article entitled “The Boy from Yazoo City,” Barbour gives credit to the white citizens councils for keeping the peace in his town in the 1960s. Quote, “You heard of the citizens councils? Up north, they think it was like the KKK. Where I come from, it was an organization of town leaders. In Yazoo City, they passed a resolution that said anybody who started a chapter of the Klan would get their ass run out of town. If you had a job, you‘d lose it. If you had a store, they‘d see nobody shopped there. We didn‘t have a problem with the Klan in Yazoo City,” end quote.
Yes, the citizens council did take those steps against the leading black citizens of Yazoo City, Mississippi, who had signed an NAACP petition calling for integration.
Barbour also says in the article that he went to see Martin Luther King, Jr. speak, but he didn‘t hear what Reverend King was saying, because Barbour was distracted by girls. His overall take on segregation in Yazoo City in Mississippi, quote, “I just don‘t remember it as being that bad.”
Joining me now are the Reverend Jesse Jackson, founder and president of the Rainbow Push Coalition; and Matt Cooper, White House managing editor for “The National Journal.”
Here‘s Haley Barbour‘s statement today where he tries to walk back his original remarks. “When asked why my hometown in Mississippi did not suffer the same racial violence when I was a young man that accompanied other towns‘ integration efforts, I accurately said the community leadership wouldn‘t tolerate it and helped prevent violence there. My point was my town rejected the Ku Klux Klan, but nobody should construe that to mean I think the town leadership were saints, either. Their vehicle called the “Citizens Council,” is totally indefensible, as is segregation. It was a difficult and painful era for Mississippi, the rest of the country, and especially African-Americans who were persecuted in that time.”
So, Reverend Jackson, in his new statement, not that bad becomes difficult and painful. And the citizens council goes from being praised to suddenly being totally indefensible.
Now, you were there, you were in Mississippi in those years. Which view of history is right?
REV. JESSE JACKSON, RAINBOW PUSH COALITION: Well, actually it was called the “White Citizens Council.” That‘s what it was really called.
And this is what happened when you trivialize racial terrorism and you have selective memory of history. It was not really that painful for whites. It was painful to blacks who were the objects of the venom.
They never asked Dr. King or Rabbi Heschel (INAUDIBLE) to come speak at one of their rallies, for example. They believed in secession, segregation, sedition and states‘ rights. They were really a violent group. We knew them as really those who were white sheets by night, the Klan, and those who have black robes and blue suits by day. It was a painful era, and absolute white segregation and it was again the great American dream we are now are closer to.
O‘DONNELL: Matt Cooper, we dismantled this statement of his on this program, showing his, as Reverend Jackson says, it was the “White Citizens Council.” They changed their name to Citizens Council as they moved into the ‘60s, but they didn‘t change their objectives.
What do you see in a potential candidate for the Republican nomination going into this territory? Is this—was this deliberate? Was this a gaffe? Was this his way of trying to win the South Carolina primary? What is this?
MATT COOPER, NATIONAL JOURNAL: Well, you know, it‘s hard to look into his mind, Lawrence, but, look, I think any Southern politician in the last 30, 40 years who‘s had national ambitions has recognized that they have to say something profound and serious about civil rights, whether it was Jimmy Carter or Mike Huckabee in Arkansas or Bill Clinton or Al Gore, you had to sort of acknowledge your region‘s painful history, acknowledge it with seriousness and move on from there. And he clearly has not been in that new South tradition.
You know, to sort of liken the Citizens Counsel to kind of forward-thinking business leaders who wanted to ease their communities into desegregation is absurd. Just as weight watchers was formed to help people lose weight, Citizens Councils were formed to fight integration. That‘s why they were formed in the mid-‘50s. So, he is kind of trivialize the serious history.
JACKSON: You know, Lawrence
O‘DONNELL: Go ahead, Reverend Jackson.
JACKSON: Lawrence, I was saying the largest single industry in Yazoo City today is a federal penitentiary. That state today is 36 percent black; in prison, 76 percent black. And so just beneath the kind of new layer of racial relations in that state, the depth of the institution racism remains very much in place today.
One would think that one—to think about the role that Bill Clinton played, or even George Bush to a more civil state, it seems that Haley Barbour is stuck in the past and I think that trivializing the racial agony then and now puts him in a really awkward position to speak of being America‘s national or international leader.
O‘DONNELL: Reverend Jackson, you‘re the only lucky one in this group of us tonight who was ever at a Martin Luther King speech. You got to hear him speak. Haley Barbour, in trying to make light of how difficult the conditions were in Mississippi at the time, says that he attended a Martin Luther King speech, and has no memory of what Dr. King said. He trivializes himself in the effort to say that things in Yazoo City were smoother than they were.
Can you imagine him going out onto the presidential campaign trail with his witness to Dr. Martin Luther King being, yes, I went to one of his speeches, but I didn‘t really listen to it?
JACKSON: Well, to come to the speech and not listen to it (INAUDIBLE) is another reason. One gets the impression here when Dr. King spoke in the ‘63 speech about Southern governors lips dripping with notification into position, that‘s what he was talking about, where these states rights believed that the fellow government demanding public accommodations for all citizens, the right to vote for all the citizens, those are the people who thought that they were inter (INAUDILBE) and thought that (INAUDIBLE) were stepping out of line.
There was no—there was no rebellion against that system by those that wore white sheets by night and those who wore blue suits and black robes by day. And I would think that the governor, given his exposure today, would not send that signal. You know, there‘s a lot of code going on now, whether you try to marginalize an African-American president, he‘s a lawyer, he‘s not Christian, he‘s not one of us, he was not born here, this reopens up the whole question of what kind of coding words are being used today to make the same message.
O‘DONNELL: Matt Cooper, I for one never thought Haley Barbour had any real chance at the nomination, but if he were to enter the Republican field, it‘s kind of unimaginable that he would be in a debate with Republican candidates where a reporter would not be asking about this. Do you think he could ever get to the point in the campaign where this just became old news? And in the next debate, he wouldn‘t be asked about it?
COOPER: I don‘t know, Lawrence. You know, it‘s a—it‘s a very forgiving country, and I think, you know—I can‘t predict, but I think, you know, if he went out, talked about the issues a lot, you know, it might seem—it might seem insincere, but, you know, he may also approach them with the kind of seriousness that they demand.
You know, what‘s striking to me, though, you mentioned the Republican Party. You know, if you look at what Rand Paul said when he was running for Senate in Kentucky, you know, questioning whether he would have supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act, first he said he wouldn‘t, then he said he would. Now, you have a lot of Republicans talking about amending the 14th Amendment so that illegal immigrants who were born here wouldn‘t be American citizens. We‘re seeing a lot of issues that we thought were settled that no one wanted to revisit suddenly being opened up.
I‘m fascinated about this beyond Haley Barbour.
O‘DONNELL: Reverend Jackson, do you think the president has a role in a controversy like this? And I don‘t mean necessarily in some kind of immediate response, but in the general public education that is included in this kind of discussion.
And by public education, I‘m not limiting us to classrooms. I‘m thinking about a population where very large numbers of respondents in polls can say that they believe things that are absolutely untrue, never happened, and believe different conspiracy theories. It seems to me that it is sadly not that difficult in the public education of this country to mis-educate people with the notion that segregation wasn‘t so bad, and in some places segregation was livable and the dismantling of segregation was something that made sense, happened in a smooth way and was easily achieved.
Do you worry that our public education over time can be degraded by these kinds of comments? And do we need someone at the presidential level to counter this kind much thinking?
JACKSON: You know, my father came from World War II a veteran and had, as a soldier, had to sit behind white Nazi POWs that laughed at them in military bases in the South.
I was jailed in 1960, jailed trying to use a public library. I was 25 years old before we had the right to vote. I watch people like (INAUDIBLE) being rushed off to grave yards by this kind of terrorism. And so, it‘s very—it is very real in my life.
But I would think that the president should not make the error of coming down to Haley Barbour‘s level interpreting history, but keep affirming the higher ground. That is to say this, that today, most poor people or white female and young -- 59 million Americans without health insurance and 49 million in poverty, and 41 million looking for food stamps, keep embracing the bigger, broad America and don‘t come down to this level. I think that would be an error.
O‘DONNELL: Reverend Jesse Jackson and Matt Cooper of “The National Journal—thank you both for helping keep history alive on this program tonight. Thank you, both.
COOPER: Thank you.
JACKSON: Thank you.
O‘DONNELL: The lame-duck session of Congress continues. Congressman Barney Frank is with us for an update.
And later, Sarah Palin‘s food fight with the first lady. Why is Palin bucking many in her party to criticize Michelle Obama for trying to tackle the problem of childhood obesity?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: The Wall Street round around continues. Bonuses down, but the cash is still getting to the executives. Congressman Barney Frank joins me next.
And later, actor and comedian Larry David thanks the Republicans for his huge tax cut.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: Two years after the near-collapse of the American finance system, Wall Street bonuses are said to be way down—as much as 28 percent, according to “The Wall Street Journal.” Did the new financial reform law really take a bite out of the greed and excess?
Well, not so fast. “The New York Times” found those in the executive suites have nothing to fear, and those much further down the food chain—it‘s those much farther down the food chain who are losing their bonuses. They will not face a financial crisis of their own either. That‘s because they‘re trading those bonuses for big fat raises. Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse doubled the salary for their managing directors.
And “The Times” says Wall Street‘s biggest firms are still paying out bonuses this year to the tune of $90 billion.
Democratic Congressman Barney Frank chairs the Financial Services Committee and was one of the chief authors of the financial reform law.
Congressman Frank, what if anything has changed when it comes to those bonuses now that year law is in effect?
REP. BARNEY FRANK (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Nothing yet because it‘s not in effect yet. The law only passed and was signed into law this summer, and the regulations are being implemented. There are two aspects to this that are relevant.
One, for all companies, not just financial companies, if it‘s a publicly-owned company with shareholders, we mandate that once a year, there be a vote by the shareholders on the proxy form in which they can say that they think the compensation should be rejected. Now, in England, that‘s had a good effect in a couple cases. It hasn‘t making effect yet in the United States, because there has not been a round of proxy voting yet. But yes, there will be, and frankly, it ought to be up to the shareholders.
If the shareholders want to allow this level of excessive compensation, it‘s their company. We did get a lot of resistance from the executives and directors. They don‘t think the shareholders can do this. The shareholders, remember, are often pension funds and other institutional investors. So, we do expect there to be some good influence there, but it hasn‘t taken effect yet.
Secondly, there‘s another piece which deals only with financial companies. And here, frankly, the problem was not simply the amount but the incentive structure. The problem was that they had a bonus structure which basically said, heads I win, tails I break even. That is—that it was very clear that they were given an incentive to takes risks. If the risk paid off, they got extra money.
Now, both of those are in the bill. What we were focusing on with the regulators is not the amount they pay. That‘s up to the shareholders, (INAUDIBLE) to the legislation. But we don‘t want it to be so structured as to give them an incentive to take risks. And we do get some reports now in anticipation that more of the money being paid is being paid in shares that don‘t vest or don‘t get paid off for a couple years.
But the other point, though, is that also hasn‘t taken effect. We mandated every regulator of a financial institution, the banks, the SEC and (INAUDIBLE) to put rules in place that prohibit the kind of bonus structure that gives an incentive to take a risk, because you get—you make money if it pays off and not if you don‘t. We include in that a mandate that there be call-backs, if people get a bonus and it turns out to be risky, they get it back.
So, the answer is, in neither case have those yet taken effect.
(CROSSTALK)
FRANK: Let me throw in one other thing and that‘s one reason why I did not like the tax deal the president negotiated with the Republicans because much of the—you know, we were being told if we went from 36 percent to 39 percent, what a terrible thing that would be for the small businessman. And if the numbers you had (ph) made clear, the great bulk of the money that‘s going to go on to the deficit, because we‘re keeping the rate at 36 percent rather than 39 percent at the very top is in these very large amounts.
O‘DONNELL: Congressman Frank, what interests me in what you were saying about the new law is that what you seem to be saying is that really what that was about was empowering shareholders—whereas it‘s portrayed by Republican critics as being some oppressive regulatory regime that will somehow kill financial services businesses in this country when what you seem to be saying is you‘re not making the decisions about how these companies should run themselves. You‘re trying to invest the shareholders with a newfound power of enforcement.
FRANK: Absolutely, Lawrence. It turns out—there‘s a lot of right-wing rhetoric, it turns out they don‘t really mean it. All this concern about the deficit evaporated overnight when they were able to give large tax reductions from what current law will offer to the richest people in the country. And when it comes to helping very wealthy people with large tax breaks, their philosophy appears to be deficit-schmeficit.
And here, you heard a lot about shareholders democracy. Well, it turns out they don‘t really believe in it. That‘s all we do with most corporations. In terms of the level, what we do is to say the shareholders get the vote once a year, it doesn‘t cost any more money, there‘s an annual proxy form, and they get to vote on it.
Now, we do get more intrusive with regard to financial companies because there isn‘t any question that the structure of bonuses had people taking risks. Ben Bernanke has said that, the head of the British foreign services has already said that. So, we have said, no, you can pay them as much as you want.
Here‘s the thing—if the shareholders want to pay them millions of dollars, that‘s the shareholders‘ money, they‘ll decide. We think they‘ll be a restraining influence.
But the way in which you pay them cannot a way in which they are given an incentive to take big risks because they know if the risk pays well, they‘ll get extra money and if the risk blows up, they don‘t lose a nickel.
O‘DONNELL: Congressman, tomorrow, the president will sign the repeal of “don‘t ask, don‘t tell.” Put that in perspective for us—in the lame-duck session, and in fact in this full session of Congress, with all the wins and the losses that the Democrats have had legislatively, how big a win is that?
FRANK: Oh, it‘s enormous. It is comparable to what happened, obviously there are a lot of differences in this situation, but it‘s comparable to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It is an overwhelming national statement. A very large vote in the House and the Senate and supported by the president that discriminating based on sexual orientation is wrong.
Now, I do—I am intrigued, Lawrence, and I hope I live long enough to hear Haley Barbour‘s reinterpretation of this 40 years down the road when we learned how good this was for all the happy gay people.
But it is an enormous move forward. What we‘re saying is this: if you are competent to defend this country, to go into battle, to do the most difficult, challenging jobs possible, then you‘re competent to do anything. It‘s an enormous step forward and it was very proud day today.
Speaker Pelosi had an enrolment ceremony. She and the majority leader, Steny Hoyer, were great and some others were great, at the end, with hundreds of people there, including these young people, who only wanted to be able to defend their country. We sang “God Bless America” and it was a very moving moment. It reminded me of the singing that was so much a part of the civil rights movement that I participated in.
O‘DONNELL: Congressman Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, it‘s an honor for me, Congressman, at this moment to be able to congratulate you personally on getting “don‘t ask, don‘t tell” passed. Thank you very much for joining us tonight.
FRANK: Thank you very much.
O‘DONNELL: Sarah Palin uses s‘mores of all things to attack the first lady‘s attempt to get Americans healthier. Is Palin‘s pro-obesity stance further proof she will never run for president?
And an update of the generosity of our viewers who have contributed to the KIND Fund, Kids in Need of Desks. I‘ll share an email from a teacher who altered his lesson plan to illustrate the urgency of Kids in Need of Desks in Africa.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: Your response to this program‘s Kids in Needs of Desk partnership with UNICEF that we launched last Thursday has been—well, no word seems adequate. Our goal is to get desks to school students in the African country of Malawi. And a little later, we‘re going to show you just how generous you have been so far.
But first, I want to share with you something sent to THE LAST WORD blog from R. Ellison, a high school teacher, who watched my original report -- my original report on Malawi schools.
R. Ellison writes, “after watching the program on Thursday, I knew I wanted to help. On Monday morning, my high school classes walked into my room and discovered that all of the desks and chairs were missing, including my own chair. My desk was too heavy to move easily. After doing some review work and other class business, I showed them the segment. Many were as taken by the story as I was. Several students are now planning a fund-raiser at my school. I told them I would match 25 percent of what they raise, up to the first 1,000 dollars they collect. I think they are looking forward to me chipping in 250 dollars. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.”
That‘s just one of the inspiring stories we have collected since this drive began last week last week. We will continue to bring you such stories. And later, we‘ll update you on the latest tally of contributions Unicef has processed. Hint, Unicef has never seen anything like your response.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: In the Spotlight tonight, on Sunday‘s episode of “Sarah Palin‘s Alaska,” the most recent losing vice presidential candidate who will never be president was hungry for some S‘Mores, and some attention for attacking the First Lady of the United States.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SARAH PALIN, FORMER GOVERNOR OF ALASKA: Where‘s the S‘Mores ingredients? This is in honor of Michelle Obama, who said the other day we should not have dessert.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Sarah Palin‘s comment was a response to something the First Lady said last July while promoting her Let‘s Move campaign to curb childhood obesity.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHELLE OBAMA, FIRST LADY: Kids won‘t like it at first, trust me. But they‘ll grow to like it. Or deciding that they don‘t get dessert with every meal. As I tell my kids, dessert is not a right. Or they don‘t get it every day.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Palin‘s criticism with the First Lady‘s campaign puts her out of step with Senate Republicans. Last week, with the support of Let‘s Move, the president signed the 4.5 billion dollars Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act. The bill passed the Senate unanimously. That‘s right, not a single Republican voted against it.
It gives the USDA the authority to set nutritional standards for foods sold in schools and increases federal reimbursement for free school lunches, so schools can afford to serve healthier options.
Joining me now, MSNBC political analyst Richard Wolffe, the author of “Revival, The Struggle for Survival Inside the Obama White House.”
Richard, this isn‘t the first time Palin has brought this up. Let‘s listen to her on Laura Ingraham‘s radio show.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PALIN: What she is telling us is she cannot trust parents to make decision for their own children, for their families in what we should eat. And I know I‘m going to be again criticized for bringing this up, but instead of a government thinking they need to take over, make decisions for us, according to some politician or politician‘s wife‘s priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back, and allow us as individuals to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions. Then our country gets back on the right track.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Richard, Sarah Palin, I‘m not sure we can quite figure out how wise she is or thoughtful she is. But what she is is calculating. She is an extremely calculating politician. What is the calculation here on deciding to attack the First Lady?
RICHARD WOLFFE, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, she‘s built up a caricature. Or other people have built it up, and she‘s enjoying in sort of exploiting it, tearing it apart. It‘s sensationalist. It‘s also, of course wrong. It‘s plain wrong. Her characterization of Mrs. Obama‘s policy, of the legislation, none of that is true.
The interesting thing is, look, if this is her philosophical position, fine. But at least try to be a little consistent, because there was this great interview in the seminal publication called “Runner‘s World” in August of ‘09 with one Sarah Palin. There she talks not only about the inspirational example of her own father training for a Boston Marathon and, by the way, eating healthy, she says, but also she talks at length about how grateful she is for Title IX.
What is Title IX except government interference in how parents raise their children. Only, she says she benefited from it. She said it thing for girls to get into sports. That was the result of federal policy, of federal dollars being exercised, by the way, at the state level?
So, you know, there‘s no consistency here. It‘s attention grabbing. It‘s sensationalist. It might make for great talk radio or TV, but it doesn‘t make for a good presidential candidate.
O‘DONNELL: Do you think that Sarah Palin feels there‘s some sort of audacity that‘s now necessary for her to be quoted by us, that if she were actually to say something reasonable that maybe it would just fall quietly and people wouldn‘t pick it up, that the way for her to get noticed is to get more and more audacious and outrageous in these kinds of comments?
WOLFFE: I‘m sure she can get more audacious and outrageous than this. This is pretty mild for her. Look, what is her signature move? When you think about how Barack Obama burst on the national stage in 2004, it was about bringing the country together.
How did she burst onto the stage? Be taking a swipe at Barack Obama. So this is her move. She actually lands punches and takes swipes, even though, let‘s face it, the kind of politics she laments, people attacking her own family, is exactly what she‘s doing here.
Now Mrs. Obama obviously has moved into a policy field, but she knows. She says a politician‘s wife. What is she doing? She‘s playing into that there‘s no limits into what you can say about this family, about their principles, about their patriotism, and you can caricature what they‘re trying to do, no matter what, just to get that point, that punch in.
O‘DONNELL: Is there something about the simplicity of the subject, that Sarah Palin would rather talk about S‘Mores and desserts than the Salt Treaty, for example?
WOLFFE: I think there‘s something about the caricature about the president being sort of socialist that they‘re really tapping into here. It‘s not about complexity. It‘s about playing on people‘s fears, that they‘re trying to tell you what do . Remember how modest the First Lady‘s proposals are; 4.5 billion dollars is actually really just about the Child Nutrition Reauthorization. It‘s about re-funding school meals for the poorest kids in America.
By the way, what kind of Christian principles do you espouse if you‘re not helping the poorest in the country, unhealthy, and the kids of this country? This is about not telling anyone what to do. It‘s about children who cannot make their own food choices.
O‘DONNELL: Richard Wolffe, author of “Revival,” thanks for joining us tonight.
WOLFFE: Thank you, Lawrence.
O‘DONNELL: Top tax bracketeer Larry David is very grateful to Republicans for giving him a tax cut, or is he? That‘s coming up.
And in the Rewrite, Ann Coulter says liberals aren‘t as generous as conservatives. Let‘s see what she says when she hears tonight‘s update on the amount of money you have donated to African schools.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: Time for tonight‘s Rewrite. It all started with a column by Bill O‘Reilly which included a reference to Jesus Christ‘s attitude towards charity. Then Comedy Central‘s theologian in chief Stephen Colbert got involved.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN COLBERT, “THE COLBERT REPORT”: So is Papa Bear Bill O‘Reilly. In his weekly column, he wrote “every fair-minded person should support government safety nets for people who need assistance through no fault of their own. But guys like McDermott don‘t make distinctions like that. For them, the Baby Jesus wants us to provide no matter the circumstance. But being a Christian, I know that while Jesus promoted charity at the highest level, he was not self-destructive.”
Good point, Bill. Jesus said we only have to love those who deserve it.
What I like best about Bill‘s argument is its complete factual inaccuracy, because it would be inconvenient to guys like us to repeat what Jesus actually said. For instance, “if someone wants your coat, give them your cloak as well.” Rich people should sell all their possessions and give the money to the poor.
Plus, the fact is Jesus was way beyond self-destructive. He was self-sacrificial. I mean, the guy is God. He could have floated off that cross like Chris Angel, Mindfreak.
I love how Bill closes with “the lord helps those who help themselves.” Kind of implying that Jesus said that, when it was actually Ben Franklin, who I believe belched out that proverb between mouthfuls of French whores.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Of course, there was no chance of Colbert going unanswered on “The O‘Reilly Factor,” where Bill turned for theological guidance to, who else, Ann Coulter.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANN COULTER, CONSERVATIVE COLUMNIST: The fundamental problem is liberals think sending a check to the IRS constitutes charity. That is not charity. Christians understand that, when you say Americans are the most generous people on Earth—no, conservatives are, as has been demonstrated time and time again.
Liberals are the least charitable with their money. Conservatives, and especially Christians, the most charitable. And Nancy Pelosi considers it charitable giving to contribute to the San Francisco Ballet. Whereas Christians are actually giving to poor people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: “Liberals are the least charitable with their money.” Really, Ann? Consider the response of this program‘s audience, which surely has some liberals in it, to my plea for donations to the KIND Fund, Kids in Need of Desks.
Last week, I announced this unique partnership between MSNBC and Unicef to raise money for desks for school children in Africa who now sit on dirt floors or cement floors. The desks we are supplying to these schools are made in Malawi, so the contribution to buy a desk also helps stimulate the Malawi economy, provide jobs for the workers who will make those desks, and enable them to feed their families.
The response to my announcement, as I reported last night, has been more than we could have ever reasonably expected. As of last night, Unicef had processed over 600,000 dollars in contributions to the KIND Fund. In the last 24 hours, we‘ve raised even more.
So far, Unicef has processed contributions in the amount of 727,991 dollars. So the video I showed last week of me delivering just 30 desks to one classroom in Malawi has begotten another 15,166 desks. The desks are designed to Unicef specifications to seat two children. At the school I delivered desks to, three children easily squeezed onto that little bench.
So in five days, the charitable outpouring of the audience of this show will be supplying desks this year to over 30,000 students. And over the life span of those desks, they will probably be used by a couple of hundred thousand students who were otherwise going to be sitting on the floor in the dirt every day of their school lives.
These desks, by the way, are the perfect last-minute Christmas gift for people who have everything, or people who have just about enough. For 48 dollars, you can donate a desk in the name of the recipient of your choice, and the recipient will get an e-mail notification from Unicef that you have made this gift in his or her name. For only 24 dollars, you can get one student off the floor.
To donate, go to our website LastWordDesks.MSNBC.com, or call 1-800-
FOR-KIDS.
Unicef has never seen a response like this to any of their charitable programs. We are well on our way for provides desks for three of the four districts in Malawi that we have targeted for our initial delivery of desks. But the desk problem is virtually unlimited in Africa, and it will be many years before African students can come to expect to see desks in their classrooms.
So, Ann, I‘m not going to fight with you about who is more charitable. I‘m going to allow the astonishing kindness and generosity of my audience to serve as the response to your statement that liberals are the least charitable with their money. And I beg you, Ann, to now show us just how charitable conservatives can be with their money.
Forty eight dollars a desk; 720 dollars for a classroom. Come on, Ann, you can afford a classroom. And, hey, if you can get Rush involved, he can buy desks for every kid in Malawi.
And Ann, that e-mail from Unicef, that‘s not Spam. I just bought you a desk for Christmas. Merry Christmas, Ann.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: The extension of the Bush era tax rates are already being celebrated by one high-profile member of the highest tax bracket. “Seinfeld” co-creator and creator and star of HBO‘s “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” the one and only Larry David, wrote an op-ed in today‘s “New York Times” called “Thanks For The Tax Cut.”
Larry David is the first supporter of Barack Obama and other liberal Democrats to thank the GOP for his tax cut. He writes, “this is a life changer. I tell you, a life changer. I was planning a try to Cabo with my kids for Christmas vacation. We were going to fly coach. But now with the money I‘m saving in taxes, I‘m going to splurge and bump myself up to first class. First class.
“Somebody told me they serve warm nuts up there and call you mister.
I might not get off the plane.”
Joining me now to consider what the super rich really will do with their tax cuts is former Secretary of Labor for the Clinton administration and Professor of public policy for the University of California Berkeley, Robert Reich. His new book is called “Aftershock, The Next Economy and America‘s Future.”
Robert Reich, I‘m a little worried about what the top bracket is going to do with that money, the super-rich especially. Most analysis indicates that there won‘t be very much stimulative activity from what they do. But don‘t we run the risk now of forever having Republicans claiming that whatever stimulative effect occurs next year in the economy is all due to that top tax bracket going first class, and getting better hotel rooms?
ROBERT REICH, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-BERKELEY:
Absolutely, Lawrence. In fact, the average millionaire and above in this country is going to be getting next year 100,000 dollars that he or she never should have expected, never had any right to expect, that the Bush tax cut never included.
And that hundred thousand dollars could buy a lot of desks in Malawi. It could do a lot of good things if that hundred thousand dollars were put back into actual revenues, taxes, it could shrink the federal deficit. But instead, it‘s going to be doing a lot of other things for the very rich, including being put into savings that find their way around the world to their highest return.
O‘DONNELL: I think the real point of Larry‘s piece is he is not going to do anything different, in fact. Nothing will change in his life. He won‘t spend any more money. There won‘t be any stimulative effect of letting him keep another four percent on his taxes. Isn‘t that really the truth of that high income?
REICH: Yes, Lawrence. That‘s exactly the point. There is not a stimulative effect, because the rich, paradoxically, they don‘t really spend a large percentage of their income, nearly as large as the middle class, because, frankly, they‘re rich. And being reach means, you know, you already have most of what you want and most of what you need.
So there‘s not very much stimulus. Every dollar of extra tax break that the rich get is not turned around in their jobs in the United States. Again, it‘s turned around more likely into savings that go everywhere around the world, to wherever they can get the highest return.
O‘DONNELL: Now there‘s the package that—the Obama compromise includes a bunch of different items, some of which have much greater stimulative effect than the others. Yet it‘s all going to be thrown together politically as whatever—however the economy picks up next year in 2011, will each party—or each arguer in politics will assign to whatever piece of that compromise he wants the stimulative effect. Isn‘t that one of the great sort of theoretical losses.
REICH: It‘s not just a theoretical loss, I think it‘s a very practical political loss. Because by the time 2012 comes around, the economy is likely to be doing at least a little better than it‘s doing now. Let‘s face it, everything that goes down eventually comes up. There hopefully will be a better recovery than we‘re having now.
And it‘s going to be very easy for Republicans, particularly Republicans who control the House of Representatives, to say it was all because we extended the Bush tax cut for everybody, including the super-rich. Now try in an election year, 2012, to raise taxes on the super rich. If you can‘t do it this year, well, it‘s going to be much, much harder to do it in 2012.
O‘DONNELL: Don‘t they have to specifically start targeting the super rich in their future arguments, and think about brackets way above 250,000 dollars? How about 250 million dollars having its own tax bracket?
REICH: I would be in favor of that. I‘ll tell you why, because we haven‘t seen in this country, Lawrence, concentration of income nearly to the extent we have now. The top one percent of Americans is now pocketing almost a quarter of all national income. You haven‘t seen anything historically like that since 1928.
We know what happened in 1929. The great crash occurred largely because people in the middle class didn‘t have enough money to spend.
O‘DONNELL: We‘re going to have to leave it there for tonight. Robert Reich, author of “Aftershock,” thank you very much.
REICH: Thanks, Lawrence.
O‘DONNELL: That‘s THE LAST WORD from Los Angeles. You can follow the show on our webpage, LastWord.MSNBC.com. And once you‘re there, you can find all the information you need to donate money to the KIND Fund, Kids in Need of Desks, for school children in Africa.
“COUNTDOWN” is up next.
END
Copyright 2010 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>
PASTE THE TRANSCRIPT HERE, LEAVE THE LINK
