>> he took a leave of absence and, in fact he ended up not going back at all and retired retroactively to february of 1999 as a result. >> that's romney campaign strategist ed gillespie giving the medicalion millionth con vo looted answer. all of this orwellian double speak is starting to get a notifying. we reached out again to the romney campaign for answers. but surprise, surprise no one got back to us. we really want governor romney or a spokesperson to be on this show. but absent that i have penned an open letter to mitt romney and i want to share it with you: dear mitt: let me begin by saying ed gillespie is not helping. retired retroactively. what does that even mean? so let's admit it. you were making untold sums working at bain during your so-called retroactive retirement. i am sure the rest of america wouldn't have minded your kind of retroactive retirement but that's beside the point. here is the latest news: today, the huffington post mitt reports that you were on the 2001 post-1999, 2001 management committees of at least a couple of bain companies. >> that's the management committee committee, not the completely uninvolved committee, not the retired committee and, mitt, you earned a salary in 19 -- post-1999 of at least $100,000 from each of four bain companies as an executive. not as an investor. as an executive, someone who executes. now, since your name and title was on the bain books between 1999 and 2002, it's only fair to ask ask, for starters: did you approve of bain's outsourcing policies? what's that? no response? >> what i thought. crickets. from the romney camp. but mitt you have made your bain experience your calling card, the reason why you should be the next president, and now that you are fleeing from bain you want us to believe that you had nothing to do with its outsourcing deals? not only is this flip-flopping costing you what little credibility you have left but really, it's very confusing to voters. the only way for us to know for sure what you did, where, with whom and for how much the only way, mitt is to release those tax returns. it's that simple. they are the same ones that you gave to john mccain when he was vetting you for vice president. remember, and by the way, it's not just democrats like me telling you to do so. >> the best thing to do is just get everything out in the open and just say, hey, i have nothing to hide, and i am going to release my tax returns. >> he should release the tax returns. he's got to release six, eight, 10 years. take the hit for a day or two. >> if governor rombley to ask me my advice, i would say get this stuff out here. let people see what it is. i can't imagine there is anything that that's problematic. >> mitt, open your books. come clean with the american people. what are you afraid to show us? every day americans reveal their tax returns when they apply for a mortgage to buy a house. aren't you willing to do the same just to get the big white house on pennsylvania avenue that you so badly want to buy? anyway i hope you have a great weekend on lake winnipesaukee. ttyo jen. so coming to us tonight from washington is a man who knows a lot about the importance of being transparent when running for office, and might have some ideas about why mitt romney is not. and that is my good fred, ted d, strickstndckthndeormer govnono of of ohoh. d,d,elelmemeack inside the war room. >> it's great to be with you this evening. >> any chance that ongoing pressure, do you think, from republicans can get governor romney, do you think, to release his tax returns? his colleagues, that might be something else. >> yeah. jennifer, i have decided that watching this unfold that there must be something in those tax returns that is so damaging that mitt romney knows it would be a deal-breaker with the american people. >> what do you think it is? >> what is he trying to hide from the american people? is it possible -- >> if you speculated i would give you my guess. >> i am speculating that there may have been years when he paid no taxes at all, although he is a very wealthy man. perhaps he found ways to avoid paying any tax at all. i think that would be a deal-breaker with the american people. >> you know what i think it is ted? let me just say, i think that if he released his tax returns and it showed that he made boo-gobs of money from bain capital as an executive in those years where he did all of that outsourcing that that is desperately what he wants to prevent the u.s. people from knowing. again, it's all speculation. but do you release your tax returns, did you when you ran for governor? >> of course, i did. of course, i did. >> me, too. >> now jennifer it was a little embarrassing for me not because of my great wealthy. because of my lack of wealth. >> i know what you are saying. >> yeah. he says -- he says that he paid all of the taxes that he was obligated to pay. we don't know that. >> right? >> we don't know if he is a tax cheat. we don't know if he is a tax avoider. and he needs to release his income tax returns before he presents himself to the american people as someone who wants to be their president. i mean, for goodness sakes, this man is being beaten by his own party for not releasing his income tax returns. >> right. >> the fact that he hasn't done it says to me there is something that he is hiding from the people. and the people have a right to know what that is before he asks them to vote for him to be the president of our country. >> right. >> and i think it's a pretty simple issue here. and the american people know that there is a problem here and he's got to deal with it. and if he doesn't, i think he is dead in the water. >> well, eats been complaining a lot about it, of course. let's listen to what chicago mayor rom emanuel had though say about mitt romney this weekend. take a license. -- take a liften. >> 1207 whining. i give him his own advicesten. >> 1207 whining. i give him his own advice. >> do you think it's a good strategy for romney to fight back about the negativity rather than defend his term at bain defend the practice of bain capital capital? >> jennifer, he is between a rock and a hard place because i think there is something in those tax returns that are so damaging that it may present him from being considered a serious candidate for president. on the other hand, he's got members of his own party saying he ought to release these tax returns. so i don't know what he is going to do but i don't think he can spend the next three and a half months withholding this information from the american people. >> yeah. >> there is something wrong with his tax returns. we don't know what that problem is. >> we can only speculate. maybe he paid no taxes whatsoever some years. maybe he got more compensation from bain after he says he retired than he is now willing to admit. we don't know. >> we don't know. >> that's the problem. we don't know. the american people deserve to know. >> they do, and it's interesting juxtaposed with his tax plan. let's take a licensesten to the police departmentto the president today. >> it would the create 800,000 jobs. there is only one problem. the jobs wouldn't be in america. >> so, ted, do non-partisan economists really believe that romney's tax policies would shift jobs overseas? >> i think they do and for this reason jennifer. mitt romney is suggesting going to a tear ter tear /* /* tertorial tax and that would eliminate taxes owed to this government by multi-national government corporations that outsource jobs overseas. their profits would be permanently relieved from paying any taxes to this country. and, of course, that's going to provide incentives to move jobs offshore and to create factories elsewhere. it's as simple as that. you couple that, jennifer with the fact that governor romney wants to reduce the corporate tax from 35 to 25%. we are talking about some 800 billion to $1 trillion in tax breaks, most of which will go to corporations and corporation that are more than willing to take jobs from our country and send them to wherever wherever maybe the cayman islands, maybe bermuda. maybe schwitzer land. maybe china. these are all places where governor romney has been involved and where he has invested his own personal wealth so this is a problem. >> it's a little interesting, though, ted, because don't a number of actually the members of the president's own council of economic advisors think a territorial tax is the right strategy to make their businesses globally competitive? >> that charge has been made. the fact is the president interacts with a lot of people and he apoints certain members and some are corporate leaders. perhaps some have a different opinion from the president. i don't think there is anything unusual or alarming about that. but the fact is that sgofr romney is proposing a tax policy that will result in jobs being outsourced he has engaged in that practice, himself, with bain capital and he now has a tax plan that he is proposing if he becomes the president of this country that will exacerbate that plan. the president has a plan top insource jobs. he wants to impose a minimum case on corporations so they can't take their profits and put them in these tax shelters like the cayman islands or switzerland and avoid paying any taxes at all. so the president wants a minimum tax placed upon all corporate profits. he also wants to give tax incentives to companies that are willing to insource jobs to bring jobs back to this country. and that's at clear difference. >> it's a good thing there is a choice between these two candidates. i think that outsourcing is a fighting word in ohio. it certainly is in michigan and i think using the tax policy to create incentives for job creation in america is what people want to hear. i appreciate you coming on, ted strickland. >> jennifer, i consider this a matter of economic patriotism. >> exactly right. a great point. a great point. thanks, ted. appreciate you coming on. coming up mitt romney isn't the only one having trouble explaining his tax situation. the washington press corps isn't doing any better. but first, dennis kucinich may be leaving congress. >> that's not going to stop him for pushing. in the war room to explain why he is backing a new political action company. >> romney bobby jindal your lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala it's go time! >>every weeknight cenk uygur calls out the mainstream media. >>overwhelming majority of the county says: "tax the rich don't go to war." i can't stand these spots. those spots are actually leftover food and detergent residue that can redeposit on your dishware during the rinse cycle. gross. jet-dry rinse agent helps wash them away so the only thing left behind is the shine. jet-dry rinses away residues for a sparkling shine. [ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> today, the senate blocked a bill that would have made it a lot harder for big money donors to operate in the shadows. the disclose act to force super p.a.c.s and non-profits to disclose funders within 24 hours. so why is that so important? here is one very good reason: there is a tiny number of people that are contributing a huge amount of the money this election. 196 americans have contributed more than 80% of all of the super p.a.c. money. >> that's .00063% of the total population giving the vast majority of money, and they operate completely in the dark no one has to know who they are it's not just individuals. companies also dump money into non-profits with political agendas, completely out of public view. for example, the health care company, aetna, gave 7 and a half million dollar to conservative non-profits committed to attacking the president's health care plan. those donations are not only anonymous. they are tax exempt. there is no government oversight. the irs audits less than 1% of non-profits every year. this is where the disclose act would come in. but it was defeated today. 51 to 44 in the democratically controlled senate. so is there another way to give the little guy a fighting chance in a political world that's dominated by money? here to talk about campaign finance and his announcement today that he is going to jump into the pack game is representative dennis kucinich, a democrat from ohio, a double ohio block at the top of the show. he is coming to us from washington. representative kucinich thank you so much for joining us inside the war room. >> governor, it's good to be with you and i appreciate the chance to be on. thank you. >> you bet. so do i. so you are proposing a way to perhaps even the playing field by maybe empowering the little guy through a pac? so how would it work? we have created kucinich action at cuss cussaction.com so people who want to support candidates who are worthy kucinich.com. to try to provide a counter balance to the individuals you just talked about, the select view who can contribute perhaps millions of dollars, one or two people contributing millions of dollars to try to change the outcome of e elections to essentially buy an election kucinichaction ends up being an opportunity for a counter balance so tens of thousands of people hundreds of thousands of people can participate in evening the score to support candidates who will stand for peace, for jobs monetary policy reform, fair trade, health care for all, a clean environment. these are the kind of things that are being frustrated by politics where everything is for sale. >> it's an unusual thing to create a pac in order to defeat the influence of money. it's a case of if you can't beat them join them? >> here is the thing. ideally and what i have proposed is under house joint resolution 100 is a con at this timestitutional money that would take all private money out of e elections. if you have publically funded e elections, there is a chance you will have public in the private interest. being as how buckley versus valaejo has created a playing field where just about anything goes, by creating an organization kucinich we can now attempt to compete and support candidates who will say, you are right, dennis. let's change the system. the only the only way you can do it right now is try to participate. i am not going to be able to compete with some of these people who are giving tens of millions of dollars but to try to create an organization and to create an organization which will give people a chance to give modest contributions that will then go to worthy candidates who are really looking at trying to go change them system and people who can't be bought. there are candidates out there. they don't get get the health they need to get elected. we are creating a vehicle that could change that. >> to combat the notion that fewer than 200 people are financing e elections and corporations -- >> that's right. >> -- can support as much money as they like. you are trying to create a democracy. we don't live in one when we have so few people controlling the outcome. you talk about a constitutional amendment. >> that's the likelihood of getting something like that through congress when the requirements to and the constitution are so high the numbers? >> this process can also start at a state level. p when government is made available to the highest bidder you lose everything that is democratic. >> that's really where we are unfortunately. dallas one party, the dollar bill party. as a result, we have a government which, you know, keeps us at war, a government where special interests are dominating. we have a lot of good people. it's the system that's bad. it's the system that's for sale. it's the system that defeats good people who want to bring about a better society. so what i am proposing in kucinichaction.com as a political organization that will serve as a means to gather the resources nationally to help candidates who will be -- who will combat singular interest groups pouring millions of dollars on behalf of individual candidates who, if they get elected, they are going to -- -- the story of whoever pays the piper calls the tune. they will be paying the piper. >> just on that, i know you are in the house. i am going to have you listen to senate minority leader mitch mcconnell today. i can take your comment afterwards. >> senate democrats want us to waste our time on the disclose act, a bill that has only two discernible purposes: to create the impression of mischief where there is none and to send a signal to unions that democrats are just as eager to do their legislative bidding as ever. think about it. >> do you think? i mean when he says stuff like that, won't allow for the disclose act that is really only for trans pieceparencytransparency, do you think it could lose them votes? >> the sad paradox is this: that you could buy e elections and cover up all of the injustices, all of the lack of responsiveness that is representative today in government at all levels. people wants to buy elections without anyone knowing where the money is coming from. >> that's how bad things are. with the citizens united case, it's possible. we have to change the constitution jennifer to stop all private money and until that time the organizations we have such as we have launched today, kucinich asks kucinichaction.com to challenge the increasingly narrow perspective that money triumphs and rules. you can't have a democracy if it's only about the voice the strongest voices belong to the people with the most money. >> you hope to train the next generation of progressive candidates. has anybody emerged from say, the okayccupy movement who might be a candidate that would receive support from this new entity you have created? >> there are a number of worthy candidates out there. to have a true democratic approach here, we will basically present to the country these are the candidates that we have noted, you know, are worthy of support. now, vote for the ones that you think should get the help and then we will make it happen for these people to have a chance have the resources to win an election. >> all right. >> this is going to be participatory democracy through a very low-dollar organization that will match the interests the american people on behalf of candidates who will bring about the kind of reforms that will help rescue our democracy, bring public financing to come pains, create peace and health care for all, jobs for all. it's possible. i believe that kind of america is possible. >> i am glad you believe and i am glad you are still working on it. i really appreciate you coming did in the war room. thank you, congressman dennis kucinich. next, you bet, tax cuts for the rich. david sirota takes us inside how the media is miss reporting the president's tax plan as we get to the bottom of how much a tax break wealthy americans could really get. plus, why the mitt romney campaign hasn't pulled -- had to pull his ad with the president doing his >>(narrator) we are the trailblazers, the truth seekers. we are the idea no one wants to hear until it grabs you and won't let go. we push, we prod until the truth reveals itself. we are fearless, independent trendsetters, problem solvers, and above all, we are politically direct. the young turks with cenk uygur at 7, viewpoint with eliot spitzer at 8, the war room with jennifer granholm at 9, the gavin newsom show fridays at 11. and there's only one place you'll find us: weeknights on current tv. and who doesn't want 50% more cash? ugh, the baby. huh! and then the baby bear said "i want 50% more cash in my bed!" phhht! 50% more cash is good ri... what's that. ♪ ♪ you can spell. [ male announcer ] the capital one cash rewards card. the card for people who want 50% more cash. what's in your wallet? ha ha. ♪ ♪ the lysol no-touch kitchen system is the only all-in-one kitchen soap that cleans hands dishes, and surfaces. try it for yourself. lysol. mission for health. hey joe, can you talk? sure. your hair -- amazing. thanks to head and shoulders for men. four shampoos that give men game-winning scalp protection, great looking hair... and confidence [ male announcer ] up to 100% flake free with head & shoulders for men. [ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> we talked a little bit about mitt romney's corporate tax plan. now, the democrats tax plan is also shaping up to be a hot issue this week. what is what does the democrat's plan do? you wouldn't be able to find out from some of the nation's biggest papers. the "new york times," "the wall street journal", the washington post and cnn all reported that families making under $250,000 a year would keep their tax cuts but that everyone above that threshold will lose them. in fact, that is not what the president's plan does. every family keeps their tax cuts on the first $250,000 of taxable income. every family only the income that's above 250,000 is taxed at the higher rate, not the entire amount, only that top 1,000 is taxed at the higher rate. how did the media get this so wrong? it might have something to do with the white house's own messaging. here is the president last week. >> i am calling on congress to extend the tax cuts for the 98% of americans who make less than $250,000 for another year. [applause.] >> now that's obviously a good pitch. but he actually might be selling his plan short. joining us via scalp is david sirota for salon.com, the author of back to our future and he co-hosts the rundown which is a radio tax talk show that premiered today on khow in denver. david, congratulations on your new show. thanks for being in the war room tonight. >> thank you for having me. >> you bet. glad you have joined us. so i wrote an interesting column about this. does the president have an incentive to downplay the fact that actually wealthy americans will get that tax brackeak, to on the first 250,000? >> absolutely. i think both parties and the media all have perverse incentives to not tell us exactly what's happening. the president subpoena he wants to pour trehen his tax policy to start dealing with economic inequality because most americans want the government to start dealing with inequality. he is pitching the tax proposal as one way to bring back fairness. the republicans want to portray him as killing supposedly small business, raising taxes in some sort of native way on the wealth. the media has age incentive i to dramtize it all. so what we end up getting is a manufactured idea that what the president is proposing is to mask maskly raise taxes on people making over $250,000 a year when, as you said are that's not what's going on. the president is proposing for somebody in the richest 1% because the tax cuts will apply to their first $250,000 of income. that person will get a 20,000 dollar tax cut because they would get that tax cut on their first quarter million dollar of income. the khan plan is to give that person in the 1% a 70,000 dollar a year tax cut. >> that's a significant difference. we should talk about the difference that would cost but to portray giving nothing to people who are wealthy and everything who are less that $250,000 is to not tell the truth, and as i said that's because everybody has a perverse incentive to create a more dramatic situationthon than what's going on. >> it seems funny with the tax phobia out there generally in the upon las that the -- populous that the president would suggest that taxes on the wealthy as opposed to giving everybody in america the same tax race they have been having. that seems odd to me that anybody running for office would suggest that, you know, hide the fact that they are giving somebody a break. the president reads the polls. the president knows that americans in the polls don't want us to give away especially in a time of deficits more money to those who are very wealthy. the president, elbows and i think he is right in terms of the politics of it to say that it's good politics to portray himself as somebody who doesn't want to give away any more money to those making so much money. the problem is in that desire to do that, he is not telling the story. it's not -- he is helping to obscure the debate a debate over whether to give people in the richest 1% $70,000, not nothing. >> there was a feelpoll out today from pew research center which somewhat corrob rates what you are saying 44% of americans think taxing the wealthy would hurt the economy 44% think it would help the economy and 22% think that it would hurt the economy so then, on the question of fairness 44% think increasing taxes on the wealthy would make the american economy more fair and just 21% think it would be less fair so clearly the president at least i know stink on this is aligned with the polls. should mitt romney be worried? >> i think he should be worried. i think the republican condition is ridiculous, to obscure the real truth. they want to portray the president as a tax increaser offering up a massive tax increase that particularly small businesses, so they have an incentive to insist that he raise taxes and it's a debate of how much in tax cuts to give them. rhetorically, it's a better position for president obama to be in a position to say, even though it's not true i am trying to raise -- i am trying to raise taxes or at least go back to clinton tax rates for those who are wealthy than for mitt romney to say we shouldn't go back and i think one thing that's important to remember, i think that people do remember, even if it's vaguely so that it's not such a idea to go back to tax rates under bill clinton when after all, the economy was so much better. >> right. i think it's a simple message he has. last question real quick, what's more important to voters? mitt romney releasing his tax returns or mitt romney's tax policies? >> in their day-to-day lives, mitt romney's tax policy is the most important thing to look at. voters, if they are voting in their own economic self interest, i think, will want to look at what the tax proposals mitt romney is doing versus what mompom would do to allow corporations have a lower tax returns on materials made overseas, that is an incentive for companies to move jobs overseas. that will not help the average voter. >> yeah. i think they are interested in both and i hope they learn about what the two sides' do for their personal interests. thank you for joining me inside the war room via skype. congrats on your new radio show. up next you will wants to see and here how the obama campaign is turning mitt romney's tune against him. relax, relax, relax. look at me, look at me. we have a big, big hour and the i.q. will go way up. how are you ever going to solve the problem if you don't look at all of the pieces? >>tv and radio talk show host stephanie miller rounds out current's morning news block. >>you're welcome current tv audience for the visual candy. >>sharp tongue, quick whit and above all, politically direct. >>you just think there is no low they won't go to. oh, no. if al gore's watching today... joining us. >> my pleasure. thanks for having me, man. enttv