Guests: Rep. Barney Frank, Sam Stein, Dana Milbank, Jonathan Gruber,
Michelle Goldberg
LAWRENCE O‘DONNELL, HOST: House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is the most stunningly ignorant member in the history of the Congress. He actually doesn‘t know this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL: I‘m just a bill. Yes, I‘m only a bill.
Now, I go to the House of Representatives and they vote on me.
VOICE: If they vote yes, what happens?
BILL: Then I go to the Senate and the whole thing starts all over again.
CHARACTER: Oh, no!
BILL: Oh, yes!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: That‘s right. Eric Cantor revealed today in a press conference that he does not know how a bill becomes a law. Seriously. He doesn‘t. And much more seriously no one cares.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(MUSIC)
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: The bill that the Tea Party sticks with and that they‘re not budging from is extreme. And I‘ve said it before, I said it on that call, and I‘ll say it again.
O‘DONNELL (voice-over): You heard it hear. The Tea Party is holding budget negotiations hostage.
LUKE RUSSERT, NBC NEWS: Tomorrow, the Tea Party Patriots come here to Washington on Capitol Hill. They are protesting this issue, going after Republicans.
EZRA KLEIN, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: The one thing the Tea Party has been very, vey good at is wounding incumbent Republicans who compromise with Democrats.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You‘re not going to hear compromising words from Eric Cantor.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It sour leaves Boehner on the edge.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He‘s going to have to get the rest of his support from Democrats.
O‘DONNELL: Boehner needs Democrats. So, of course, he attacks them.
RUSSERT: You heard Speaker Boehner basically say, show us the damn bill.
REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Now, the Senate says we have a plan. Well, great. Pass the damn thing!
PAT BUCHANAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: There is a real story versus the Tea Party versus Boehner. (INAUDIBLE) in the box.
O‘DONNELL: The Tea Party roadblock is now threatening a government shut down.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will there be a government shut down? Ask Senator Harry Reid.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All these Tea Party people are dependent on Social Security and Medicare.
O‘DONNELL: Most of the Tea Party is focused on shutting down the government, but not Michele Bachmann.
REP. MICHELE BACHMANN ®, MINNESOTA: Under the Obama doctrine.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think it‘s important not to take this particular situation and try to project some sort of Obama doctrine.
BACHMANN: The Obama doctrine is different from any interventions that we have done in the past.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?
SARAH PALIN ®, FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR: In what respect, Charlie?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have a right of anticipatory self defense.
BACHMANN: That must be done before the United States can intervene in another nation‘s affairs.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN ®, ARIZONA: His actions were keeping both with the constitutional powers of the president.
BACHMANN: There are flickers of al Qaeda.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: More than just the flickers of al Qaeda?
JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The answer to that is no.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is Michele Bachmann the person we follow behind this issue?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I doubt it seriously.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I mean, really, come on.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
O‘DONNELL: Good evening from New York.
Congress has just nine days to find a day to continue funding the federal government. And today, the number two Republican in the House, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, shocked the world by admitting he has no idea how to solve the budget problem because he has no idea how a bill becomes law.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ERIC CANTOR (R-VA), MAJORITY LEADER: On Friday, we will bring to the floor the government prevention—excuse me, prevention of government shut down act. And that will say to the American people the Senate‘s got to act prior to the expiration of C.R. If it does not act, H.R. 1 becomes the law of the land.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: That‘s right. A Republican leader in the House of Representatives actually said a bill that passes the House can become the law of the land if the Senate does not act on it. Of course, a bill cannot become the law of the land unless passed in word-for-word, identical form by the House and the Senate, and then signed by the president of the United States. Those three things must happen—as every American child knows that has seen any version of how a bill becomes a law, animated or not.
No other Congress in its history has ever believed that a bill could become a law with only one of those three things happening.
Here is how the shock waves spread through Washington after Cantor‘s delusional statement.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOEHNER: The Senate‘s got to act prior to expiration of C.R. If it does not act, H.R.1 becomes the law of the land. And if there‘s a partial shut down, members will not get paid, simple as that.
We‘re serious. We want to take care of this problem so that we can get on about the business of this nation and get Americans back to work.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, just coming off the last week in the district, one thing was always interesting, when people would ask the question. I said, we first have to realize why we‘re here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: OK. So, it wasn‘t exactly a shock wave that hit Washington when Eric Cantor revealed he knows nothing about the workings of Congress and the workings of the American government—which tells you what the news media and the rest of Washington and the country have come to expect of congressional Republicans.
Michele Bachmann has enured them all to utter idiocy. They are impervious to it. A roomful of Washington reporters can sit there and hear a Republican leader of Congress say the stupidest thing that‘s ever said in a congressional news conference and not respond in any way.
This was no slip of the tongue by Cantor. He actually believes that this can happen. He intends to have the House vote on a bill on Friday that says, quote, “If the Senate fails to pass a measure before April 6th, 2011, providing for the appropriations of the departments and agencies of the government for the remainder of fiscal year 2011, H.R.1, as passed by the House on February 19th, 2011, becomes law.”
And Eric Cantor, who would obviously fail a citizenship test, actually believes that if the House passes that language, a law will then be enacted without any action from the Senate, and without the president‘s signature. The luckiest man in the United States House of Representatives now is Eric Cantor, lucky that rank stupidity is not an expellable offense. He is also lucky the press corps has unanimously in this era of overwhelming Tea Party idiocy has exemplified on a daily basis by Michele Bachmann and others, define idiocy down to the point where Eric Cantor is still, even after today‘s press conference, taken seriously by the political press.
Every day that Eric Cantor let‘s pass without an apology to his constituents, to the Congress, to the president, and to every high school student in America who knows more about government than he does, Eric Cantor stands as an unpardonable embarrassment to every adult in his congressional district who voted for him, and a stain on the intelligence of every Republican House member who voted for him for leader.
Joining me now is Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking member on the House Financial Services Committee, who did not vote for Eric Cantor for leader.
Thank you for joining us tonight, Congressman Frank.
REP. BARNEY FRANK (D), MASSACHUSETTS: It‘s an important night. So, I‘m glad to be here.
O‘DONNELL: Congressman Frank, I‘m absolutely stunned that Eric Cantor could stand there and say something that the House votes on on Friday will become law—will become law. That he can stand there and completely ignore the required signature by the president of the United States, completely ignore action by another body. And the most shocking thing about it, you know him better than I do—he seems to believe this is possible.
FRANK: Well, I think he is smarter or at least better informed than you‘re asserting, but less straightforward. I think he‘s playing a game here—although if you interpret it, it is possible to take him literally. And he says this will become the law of the land, you don‘t understand what land he‘s talking about.
As with Congressman Bachmann and some others, when you talk about people that sometimes inhabit cloud cuckoo land. And in cloud cuckoo land, that could be the case.
Look, here‘s the problem: the Republicans are so frightened of the Tea Party that the leadership has backed away from their effort to compromise. This is not simply about how much is going to be cut in the continuing resolution and money.
The Tea Party people have forced the Republican leadership to say this resolution, which is supposed to simply fund the budget for a few weeks or a few months, is also supposed to be now the vehicle for major policy changes. Forget committee hearings, forget rules of the house that say you don‘t put legislation in the bill about money. They want to make substantial changes in environmental law, cutting it back; in health care law, which they are entitled not to like but not to amend in this inappropriate way; and funding—dealing with abortion, dealing with other issues. So, they are insisting that their riders be included.
Now, the Republican leadership, Mr. Boehner has a pattern of saying, no, that‘s not right, but then retreating in the face of the Tea Party. But here‘s what they have. They understand that shutting the government down because everybody in the government isn‘t prepared to accept this right wing agenda that they have put forward, will be unpopular. That‘s why you get this ludicrous notion by Cantor that the House can pass a bill that says we‘re passing a bill that says if the Senate doesn‘t pass the bill, we‘re going to act as if the Senate passed the bill. I mean, it makes literally no sense.
A bill that says if the Senate doesn‘t pass the bill would require the Senate to pass it. People understand that, and I think he really does know that. He is trying desperately to avoid blame for the shut down coming.
And by the way, with regard to a shutdown, people will say, well, this is different from 1995. Sure, it‘s different. We weren‘t at war in three places in 1995.
And while it‘s true that even if there‘s a shutdown in this instance, the bullets keep getting paid for, trying to have the federal government conduct three wars—and we shouldn‘t be in three wars, but we are, as a matter of fact—while the government is shutdown, there‘s a question about which context it‘s going to be paid and which it isn‘t is insane.
You talk about lack of supports for the troops in the field, having them be under a government like this makes no sense.
And one other point, if I could, Lawrence—but the misunderstanding of the Constitution by these people is profound and it is ironic. They talk about being constitutionalists. They think they are in England—ironic for the Tea Party, of course, Michele Bachmann thinks half of Massachusetts is in New Hampshire, maybe I am not surprised about that.
But in England, on one day, they elect the House of Commons. In the next day, whichever group has majority in the House of Commons has total control. They have no checks and balances. They have a unitary government.
The Founders of the American Constitution specifically rejected that notion. Under the American Constitution, at any given time, it is people who have been elected in three elections over six-year period who have the power to govern. You have senators still who are elected in 2006, a president in 2008, and then the Congress in 2010.
The Tea Party won a big victory—I regret it, but they did, and I acknowledge it in 2010. But that‘s the British system that says whoever won the last election has total power. Under the American system, it takes at least two and sometimes three elections to have that kind of total control, and that was a conscious choice as anybody has read the Federalist Papers knows of the Founding Fathers.
Again, that‘s why in England, everybody in government has the same term—a member of parliament. In America, we have two year terms, four year terms and six year terms. And the smart people who put that together understood what that meant. That people that had two-year terms that just won the last election get a lot of influence, but they have to share power.
And it is ironic you have the most fundamental misunderstanding of the constitutional system. It‘s also, of course, very hypocritical, because if you really believe that whoever won the last election should have the power to say whatever he or she wants to govern, the fact is that the Democrats, after the 2008 election, had a bigger majority than the Republicans have in the House today. There were more Democrats in the House in 2009 than there are Republicans today, plus, we have the president and a lot of senators.
They didn‘t say that because Obama and the Democrats won the elections, that was all. They said here‘s what the Constitution says. They were right then and they are dead wrong now.
O‘DONNELL: Congressman Barney Frank, I can‘t imagine how much strength it takes getting through the day to work with those guys on the other side of the aisle. Thank you very, very much for joining us tonight.
FRANK: Thank you.
O‘DONNELL: Joining me now for more is Sam Stein, political reporter and White House correspondent for “The Huffington Post.”
Sam, thanks for joining us tonight.
SAM STEIN, THE HUFFINGTON POST: Thanks for having me.
O‘DONNELL: Sam, there‘s been some talk that John Boehner is actually the reasonable guy stuck in the middle, trying to make a deal with Senate Democrats that could actually pass something.
STEIN: Yes.
O‘DONNELL: But now comes this quote from a meeting Boehner had with some rebellious freshmen, this afternoon. And leaking out of that meeting, he is quoted as saying, “If we stick together and keep the pressure on the Democrats, we‘re going to win this fight. We‘re going to kick their ass.”
That is not the talk of a potentially compromising House leader, is it?
STEIN: No, I don‘t think so. I think your intro segment sort of personified what the speaker has as a problem here, which is that, on the one hand, yes, he has a caucus filled with rambunctious Tea Party members who want to have a fight. And, on the other hand, he has the prospect of government shut down should he not actually compromise with Democratic members in the House.
You know, bringing to Eric Cantor today, I thought—you know, obviously, it was gimmickry. And there was no way this passes, let alone fail a constitutional test here. But, you know, it‘s telling that he called it the Government Shutdown Prevention Act. These people don‘t, in the end, want to be blamed for the government being shutdown. And that is what‘s giving a lot of Democrats on the Hill some hopes tonight that while Speaker Boehner may in private settings with his fellow caucus members be talking about kicking ass, in actuality, a deal will be cut.
And we‘re reporting tonight that there‘s actually a framework for the deal to happen, they are $6 billion apart. There is a process in place whereby they can resolve that difference. And, you know, while it was doom and gloom about two days ago, there is a chance that a shutdown can be averted.
O‘DONNELL: So, $6 billion apart. Are we to take that that the Democrats have a proposal we know have a proposal that would cut $30 billion, the Republicans start at double that—does that mean that the target zone is somewhere around $36 million?
STEIN: Yes. So, the idea is that Boehner is supposed to come to the table with a proposal that will cut $36 billion. As I understand it, it hasn‘t actually been presented yet. That‘s obviously a key stipulation.
Once he‘s there, the appropriations staff from the House and from the Senate, Republicans and Democrats respectively, will meet and figure out how to resolve the difference between the $36 billion and the $30 billion. It‘s going to end up somewhere around $33 billion, which is roughly around where House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan had initially started when he offered $32 billion in cuts.
This is a victory for Republicans if they can bring themselves to claim it. The problem is they may not be able to do so because Boehner has got this Tea Party pressure, and as Luke Russert on MSNBC reported, you know, there are Tea Party protesters descending upon the Capitol as we speak. And they‘re going to be there tomorrow. And, you know, it‘s going to take a lot for GO leadership to stand up to that faction of their party.
O‘DONNELL: Sam Stein of “The Huffington Post”—thank you very much for joining me tonight.
STEIN: Hey, thanks for having me.
O‘DONNELL: It‘s the one issue that could quickly end Mitt Romney‘s White House bid. The healthcare bill Mitt Romney brought to Massachusetts. Tonight, an author of that law tells us what Romney won‘t about how it became a law.
And, as Michele Bachmann considers a presidential run, how does she respond to the latest foreign policy crisis? You can judge just how presidential she sounds.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: Rand Paul goes on FOX News, and continues to get away with his big lie about Libya and himself. That lands him back in the “Rewrite” tonight.
And does Michele Bachmann sound ready for the proverbial 3:00 a.m. wakeup call? She talked to Matt Lauer this morning about how she would handle the Libya crisis. Dana Milbank joins me to take the measure of Michele Bachmann as a potential commander-in-chief.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: NBC News and Politico have postponed what was supposed to be the first Republican presidential debate on May 2nd. The reason? Too few committed candidates. Too few as in none.
One of those toying with the idea of a run for president is
Minnesota congresswoman and Tea Party Caucus leader, Michele Bachmann. This morning, we had the chance to hear what Congresswoman Bachmann would have done if she were president facing the crisis in Libya.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MATT LAUER, “TODAY”/NBC: It was the day that Moammar Gadhafi told the people of Libya in Benghazi that his troops were on the way, they would show no mercy and they would find them in their closets. If you had been president of the United States on that day, what would you have done specifically?
BACHMANN: Based upon that criteria of humanitarian intervention which apparently is the new Obama doctrine—
LAUER: Right.
BACHMANN: -- that would be the basis for the United States to enter into one country after another. I don‘t think that‘s in the American interest for us to enter into one country after another.
LAUER: Going back to my question though, had you been president on that day, March 17th, what would you have done? Would you have done nothing?
BACHMANN: I would not have gone in.
LAUER: So, would you have called the other leaders of NATO countries and said, we support you, but we‘re not coming?
BACHMANN: Well, I think that what presidents do is they stay involved and they try to get the very best intelligence that they can.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Joining me now, “Washington Post” columnist, Dana Milbank.
Dana, thanks for joining us.
DANA MILBANK, WASHINGTON POST: Good evening, Lawrence.
O‘DONNELL: Dana, I would like to you listen to what Congresswoman Bachmann said about the Obama doctrine.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BACHMANN: In this instance, under the Obama doctrine, the president of the United States is using the United States military for the purpose of humanitarian aid. This is a marked difference from the way that the United States military has been used before. The Obama doctrine is very, very different from any interventions that we have done in the past.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Dana, it has been a long time since we heard the president speak, why, I don‘t know, a day or two. But didn‘t he specifically say there is no doctrine here?
MILBANK: He was pretty clear on that point, but that hasn‘t stopped all of us in the press and politicians as well from defining it. From the way Michele Bachmann defined it, she is making an articulate case against action in Libya. However, before the president proposed action in Libya on March 6th, Michele Bachmann said the president was being too weak and too passive in Libya. She was calling for a more aggressive action.
Now, he‘s taken action, and she‘s turned around and opposed this. We have seen it with other candidates. It is sort of whatever the president is for, she and the other would-be contenders are reflexively against.
O‘DONNELL: Now, she was very clear about not—she absolutely would not have participated in any intervention in Libya. That is uncharacteristic moment for Michele Bachmann, to be that yes or no clear.
MILBANK: Not since we have fought off the British and conquered New Hampshire have I seen such a clear articulation of American values. No, it is. I mean, give her credit.
You know, we looked at Newt sort of wavering. At least, at this point, whatever she said before, she‘s taking a firm position. Now, that same firm position would have probably ruled out participation in World War II, for example. That‘s very much what the isolationists said at the time.
But she is articulating it, and you do see a very interesting split in the Republican field. They are all against whatever it is Obama is doing, but you do see Pawlenty, for example, on the one side and Romney taking a more hawkish position. And you see Bachmann, you see Haley Barbour taking the other position.
O‘DONNELL: And we do see, finally, some consistency from John McCain who has been in the reflexive anti-Obama caucus on most things certainly up to now, where he took this on the floor yesterday and delivered a strong support of the president. Is that one of the dividing lines now, Libya policy between establishment, Republicans like McCain and the Tea Partiers?
MILBANK: Well, I think McCain is coming back to being McCain now that J.D. Hayworth is well in his rearview mirror. But you are seeing some people stand up now. “The Wall Street Journal” editorial page is saying to the Republican candidates, let‘s, look, and be responsible, saying you‘re doing exactly to President Obama what you complained about the Democrats doing to President Bush. You see other conservatives like Bill Kristol having some kinder words for the president. So, you do see some principled conservatives trying to at least be consistent here.
O‘DONNELL: Rupert Murdoch‘s “New York Post” fully supportive of the president‘s action in Libya, and you know that comes from the top.
We have polling information now indicating that the Tea Party may be losing steam. A new poll shows it‘s approval rating, it‘s the lowest it‘s ever been, at favorable of 32 percent, 47 percent having unfavorable view of the Tea Party.
Now, if there were a Bachmann candidacy, would those favorables and unfavorables transfer to her directly from the Tea Party, a 47 percent unfavorable?
MILBANK: Well, probably. But I think for the Tea Party, in a way, this is a good sign. It‘s a sign that they‘re growing up and they‘re being treated as a normal political party and that Americans detest them just as much as they detest the Democratic and Republican parties. The numbers are almost identical.
It is, of course, devastating. It makes her not a viable presidential candidate, makes her very viable, though, in the Republican electorate. Thirty-two percent are very favorable view of the Tea Party. Well, guess what? Those happen to be the people who vote in Republican primaries. And if Sarah Palin is out of the race, by all indications she is, Michele Bachmann has really got a clear line at those 32 percent.
O‘DONNELL: Is the Obama campaign hoping that Michele Bachmann runs for president?
MILBANK: Well, certainly those of us in the media are hoping that Michele Bachmann is running for her endless entertainment. But, yes, of course, they would like to see that. They have sort of an embarrassment of riches among the candidates that they see right now. But—I mean, If you can‘t have Herman Cain, then I‘m sure they‘ll be delighted with Michele Bachmann.
O‘DONNELL: Dana Milbank of “The Washington Post”—thank you very much for joining me tonight, Dana.
MILBANK: Thanks very much.
O‘DONNELL: Today, Senator Rand Paul said this about the U.S. response to Libya. “The hypocrisy is amazing.” He wasn‘t talking about himself. But if he was, hypocrisy would be too soft a word for what he‘s been up to lately. The relentless lies of Rand Paul get tonight‘s “Rewrite.”
And Mitt Romney doesn‘t have much to say about the health care law he created in his home state. But the man who crafted it for him sure does. He‘s here tonight to tell us what he thinks of the law, its effect on the nation, and on Romney himself.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: In the Spotlight tonight, if you want an easy life in this country, just be born rich, white, male, and handsome. Thanks to those four qualities, Willard M. Romney has had a very, very easy life. And he has had a relatively easy political life. He got elected governor of Massachusetts easily enough.
The first difficulty he ever encountered in life was at age 60, when he first ran for president.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MITT ROMNEY ®, FORMER GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS: So I said this: if you can afford to buy insurance, then buy it. You don‘t have to. If you don‘t want to buy it, then you have to put enough money aside that you can pay your own way. Because what we‘re not going to do is say, as we saw more and more people—
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You imposed tax penalties in Massachusetts.
ROMNEY: We said, look, if people can afford to buy it, either buy the insurance or pay your own way. Don‘t be free riders.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: That was from a 2008 Republican primary debate in New Hampshire. Romney eventually lost that state to John McCain, who won the inauguration then lost the election to President Obama, who fashioned the Affordable Care Act after Romney‘s health care law in Massachusetts. To Romney‘s horror, President Obama never misses a chance to give Romney credit.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: I agree with Mitt Romney, who recently said he‘s proud of what he accomplished on health care in Massachusetts, and supports giving states the power to determine their own health care solutions. He‘s right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: And here‘s the best Romney can do as a come back to Obama.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROMNEY: What we Republicans and Democrats did there was what the Constitution intended for states to do. We were one of the laboratories of democracy. Now, the experiment wasn‘t perfect. Some things worked. Some didn‘t. Some things I‘d change.
But one thing I would never do is usurp the constitutional power of states with a one size fits all takeover. I would repeal Obama-care.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Joining me now, one of the people that helped Romney create Romney-care, Massachusetts Institute of Technology economics professor Jonathan Gruber. He was also a consultant for the Obama administration and Congress when they developed the Affordable Care Act, known now by Republicans as Obama-care.
Thank you for joining me tonight, professor.
JONATHAN GRUBER, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: Good to be here, Lawrence.
O‘DONNELL: Professor, how would you gauge Governor Romney‘s enthusiasm for health care reform, including an individual mandate, as the Massachusetts law has it, when you were working with him?
GRUBER: It was a difficult issue that I know he struggled with. The tradeoff was the potential for an individual mandate to cause—to perhaps interfere with personal freedoms. But I think his decision was that he felt very strongly, as he said in that first clip you played, that individuals should not be free riding on the system.
Individuals who have the means to afford health insurance coverage should get it, and if they can‘t afford it, we should make it affordable so they can get it. He was a strong supporter of the mandate as a result.
O‘DONNELL: So it would be fair to say that his understanding of the market and business principles involved drove him towards the individual mandate over what could have been philosophical objections he might have as a Republican?
GRUBER: You know, I can‘t get inside his head, but I do know that he strongly believed in the value of the mandate as solving the free rider problem and making health care reform work.
O‘DONNELL: When you hear him say today that he wants to repeal Obama-care, when you hear him rail against the individual mandate in the Obama bill, which is actually a weaker mandate than the one in the Massachusetts bill, how do you react to that?
GRUBER: I think it‘s kind of sad. I mean, this is—Mitt Romney is one of the most important figures I think in health care history, in terms of making Massachusetts happen. And I think Massachusetts happening made the federal reform happen.
And I think it is sad that he‘s running away from what‘s an incredibly impressive accomplishment.
O‘DONNELL: Massachusetts was used relentlessly in hearings and in other discussions as the model for what the Democrats were trying to achieve in their federal version of health care reform. I think the quote that you just gave about Mitt Romney being an important figure historically in the health care reform movement in America is one that he fears more than anything else you could say, as he approaches this presidential campaign.
Do you think there‘s any way in a presidential—Republican presidential campaign debate he can escape, in effect, that label, which will be hurled at him as an accusation in those debates?
GRUBER: I think, quite frankly, Lawrence, it is just a sad state of politics when he would have to escape it. It is something he should be proud of. It is an amazing accomplishment. We have led the nation. We‘ve covered all our uninsured. We‘ve fixed a broken non-group insurance market.
It is something he should be proud of, not running away from.
O‘DONNELL: Listen to something else that Mitt Romney said about the Massachusetts reform.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROMNEY: Our approach next door was a state plan to address state problems in ways that were unique to Massachusetts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Now, the Democrats obviously did not look at it that way. They looked at it, as you say, as a model for federal legislation. Who was right? Is Romney right to say no one should have looked at Massachusetts and thought there was anything in it that they could use in any other of the 49 states? Or were the Democrats in Washington right to look at it and say look, this is the working model of what we should be trying to achieve?
GRUBER: He‘s wrong in the main. Basically, the fundamental structure of what he designed—we designed in Massachusetts, which is to reform insurance markets, to have an individual mandate, and to make health insurance affordable, that‘s a structure that can work anywhere. There is a unique piece in Massachusetts, which is since we had a relatively low number of uninsured, and since we were already taxing hospitals and insurers to pay for the uninsured, we could manage to cover them without raising new taxes. And that was unique.
At the federal level, you obviously have to raise the money to do it. But the basic structure, there‘s nothing unique about it. For that reason I think advisably it became the basis for the Affordable Care Act.
O‘DONNELL: I just want to get a word from you about the individual mandate in the federal bill, which is now under constitutional challenge. In fact, the mandate—the individual mandate is enforced through the tax code, but the tax penalty that was written into the bill is an unenforceable tax penalty, because the IRS is specifically instructed they are not allowed to collect the failure to pay the penalty using either criminal or civil process to collect the failure to pay the penalty.
So ultimately, the consumer may realize in the federal bill that if they don‘t pay their penalty under the individual mandate, absolutely nothing happens to them. Once that‘s realized, how effective will the health care bill be, assuming that provision survives constitutional challenge?
GRUBER: Yeah, Lawrence, I guess I take a little disagreement with that. I think that we have to remember, first of all, that Americans are, by and large, a pretty law abiding people. For example, we vastly overpay our taxes. Despite all the stuff you hear about tax cheats, we are very honest people in terms of paying our taxes.
I think people will see this as part of their obligation as citizens and they will respect the mandate, despite the fact that penalties are fairly small.
O‘DONNELL: What is the Massachusetts experience on the mandate, professor, in terms of the percent that comply with it eagerly and voluntarily?
GRUBER: Actually, the very first year we had the mandate, we had 98 percent compliance, which is astounding. Now, that doesn‘t mean 98 percent of people got insurance the first year. Some said I would rather pay the penalty. But 98 percent of taxpayers appropriately complied with the law, either getting insurance or paying the penalty.
Now, in the fourth year of operation, we actually have 98 percent health insurance coverage in the state. We‘ve got virtually universal health care coverage. And importantly—I can‘t emphasize this enough, Lawrence. An important goal in Massachusetts, that‘s a goal of the Affordable Care Act, is we fixed a broken market for non-group insurance.
We allowed individuals who don‘t get insurance from their employer to go get insurance without fear of discrimination. That‘s a critical change we will make nationally with this bill.
O‘DONNELL: A hopeful indicator for the federal bill. MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, thank you very much for joining us tonight.
GRUBER: Pleasure to be here.
O‘DONNELL: Senator Rand Paul continues attacking President Obama‘s decision to attack Libya. That‘s in tonight‘s Rewrite.
And later, the Republican war on reproductive rights. Why some states are trying new tactics in restricting a woman‘s right to choose.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: Time for tonight‘s Rewrite. Kentucky‘s Tea Party Senator Rand Paul continues to attack President Obama over his decision to join the enforcement of a no-fly zone in Libya. Here is Rand Paul on the Senate floor today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RAND PAUL ®, KENTUCKY: I am appalled that the Senate has abdicated their responsibility. The Senate has chosen not to act and to allow this power to gravitate to the president.
I think that the precedent—the precedent for allowing a president to continue to act or to initiate war without congressional review, without congressional votes, without the representatives of the people having any say is a real problem.
I told my constituents when I ran for office that the most important vote I would ever take would be on sending their men and women, the boys and girls, the young men and women in my state or anywhere else in the United States to war.
To me, it‘s an amazing thing—an amazing thing that we would do this so lightly, without any consideration by this august body, to send our young men and women to war without any congressional approval.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Rand Paul could not be more clear. The most important vote he would ever take would be to send young and women into combat. The most important vote that he would ever take. Certainly that means if he were faced with such a vote, he would be out on the Senate floor debating it and solemnly casting his vote yes or no when the Senate clerk called his name.
If it‘s the most important vote he would ever take, Rand Paul would never do it by remote control. He would never cast that vote without bothering to go to the Senate floor.
Yeah. You can do that in the Senate. You can vote without bothering to go to the floor. It‘s called voting by unanimous consent. In fact, it is the most routine way of voting in the Senate. The Senate leaders always ask for a unanimous consent vote before having to ask for a roll call vote.
But they have to go to a roll call vote if only one senator demands it, only one. On March 1st, Rand Paul and every other senator was asked to vote by unanimous consent, without leaving their offices, without going to the Senate floor, to pass Senate Resolution 85.
As described in this space last night, and worth mentioning yet again, Senate Resolution 85 was proposed by liberal senators, including Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders. Senate Resolution 85 said everything—everything President Obama has said about Libya.
The resolution, quote, “strongly condemns the gross and systemic violations of human rights in Libya, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms. Calls on Moammar Gadhafi to desist from further violence, recognize the Libyan people‘s demand for democratic change, resign his position and permit peaceful transition to democracy. And urges—urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory.”
Now, here‘s what Rand Paul could have done when he was asked to vote for that resolution by unanimous consent. He could have done what everyone does when they‘re opposed to a resolution or to a bill. They say no, no, no, I will not vote by unanimous consent. I demand unlimited debate and a roll call vote.
That‘s what everyone—everyone, every senator opposed to something does when they ask for unanimous consent. And then Rand Paul, if he did that, could have debated that resolution endlessly. No limit in the Senate. Could have debated it as long as he wanted. And he could have voted no, if the roll was ever called.
Instead, Rand Paul, like every other senator, looked at the most important vote they have faced this year and decided this one is such an easy yes that I can agree to it by unanimous consent. The fact that the Senate and especially Rand Paul voted for this resolution seems to remain top secret to the rest of the news media, especially to Fox News.
Here‘s Rand Paul getting away with lying on Fox News this morning.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL: I think this sets a very bad precedent. The president unilaterally, on his own, starting war without any consent from Congress.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Without any consent. Without any consent. Rand Paul can go on Fox News and say that the president did this without any consent, when the president had Rand Paul‘s consent before he decided to do it, when the president had the unanimous—unanimous consent of the United States Senate before he decided to do it. Let‘s look at Rand Paul one more time.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL: The president unilaterally, on his own, starting war without any consent from Congress.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Thanks, senator. Thanks a lot. Now we know what you look like when you‘re lying.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: Arizona is now the first state to criminalize abortions based on gender of a fetus or race of a fetus, after Governor Jan Brewer signed the measure into law yesterday. Doctors who perform abortions based on gender or race could now face up to seven years in jail in Arizona.
In Chicago, recent billboards by a group called Life Always, which is affiliated with Heroic Media, claim that every 21 minutes our next possible leader is aborted. They were placed in predominantly African-American neighborhoods.
In New York, billboards declaring that the most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb were taken down after the mother of the child in the stock photo demanded an apology for using her image.
Heroic Media, which is running the, quote, Planned Parenthood Aborts Americans Campaign has hosted Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin as keynote speakers at its fundraisers.
Brian Follette (ph), the owner of Heroic Media, said that 20 percent from the proceeds of an even with Sarah Palin were earmarked for African-American outreach in the inner city.
Joining me now is Michelle Goldberg, a columnist for the “Daily Beast,” and author of “The Means of Reproduction, Sex, Power and the Future of the World.”
Thanks for joining us tonight.
MICHELLE GOLDBERG, “THE DAILY BEAST”: Hi. Thanks for having me.
O‘DONNELL: Is there a linkage here in this movement of these new tactics in the anti-abortion campaign?
GOLDBERG: Well, it‘s not new, but they‘re stepping up. There‘s been a campaign by the anti-abortion movement for several years now to kind of wrap itself in the mantle of the civil rights movement, to pretend that it‘s the continuation of the civil rights movement, really, instead of the antithesis of it.
So this idea that they‘re really just concerned about black babies and they‘re really just concerned about abortion in the African-American community has come out of that—has come out of this long standing effort.
So you see it in different ways. You see this kind of farcical bill in Arizona, which is banning race-based abortion, as if either mothers are seeking out abortions because they don‘t like the race of their fetus, which is nonsensical, or doctors are preying on minority women trying to cajole them or force them into abortions, which is also just a kind of lunatic fantasy that‘s been dreamed up by the right.
But it‘s part of the same idea—
O‘DONNELL: The only way you could enforce that is that you—the mother would have to say to you, I want to do this abortion because of the gender of the fetus or because of the race of the fetus.
GOLDBERG: Well, what‘s insidious about this law is that, to a certain extent, it‘s almost like these constitutional amendments banning Sharia. It‘s one of these things that‘s banning a nonexistent problem. So who really cares? It‘s really just meant to kind of reify their own propaganda.
What is insidious is that we‘ve never before had in this country reason-based bans on abortion. When you go for an abortion, you don‘t have to tell the doctor why you‘re having it.
That‘s what‘s so sinister here.
O‘DONNELL: Where is this going? Are there more ideas in the pipeline? Are there more experiments that they‘re running out there?
GOLDBERG: Well, what usually happens is, you know, the states are the
in this case, the laboratory of extremism. So different states will kind of experiment with different kind of laws.
They‘ll see what is and isn‘t constitutionally permissible. Right now, we‘re seeing a kind of absolute barrage, probably more anti-abortion in the state legislatures right now than ever before in history. And people are trying different tactics all over the place.
You know, in South Dakota, they recently passed this law saying that if you want an abortion, you first have to meet with an anti-abortion, Christian crisis pregnancy counselor. Arizona is, again, trying this other tactic, which is based on this long standing propaganda campaign to paint family planning as some kind of assault on African Americans.
O‘DONNELL: I wish we had more time. Author and columnist for the “Daily Beast,” Michelle Goldberg, thank you very much for joining us tonight.
GOLDBERG: Thanks so much for having me.
O‘DONNELL: You can have THE LAST WORD online at our blog, TheLastWord.MSNBC.com. And you can follow my Tweets @Lawrence.
“THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW” is up next. Good evening, Rachel.
END
Copyright 2011 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