his decision to lift covid restrictions in connecticut. "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. as the biden administration, the democratic congress, and the country as a whole try to claw our way out of an unprecedented set of national crises, the republican party coast to coast has found its mission for the year 2021 -- make it harder for americans to vote. right now we're on track to see the largest rescue bill in recent memory signed into law by president biden this week. it would provide direct relief to americans, billions for vaccination programs, money to reopen schools, keep restaurants open, and not a single republican in either house or the senate has voted for it. instead, after losing the popular vote in seven of the last eight presidential elections going all the way back to 1992, republicans are laser focused on restricting voting access. brennan center's tracking all the state bills aimed at restricting access to the polls. their list includes 253 bills introduced, prefiled or carried over this year in 43 states. in georgia, of course, already notorious for having absurdly long lines to vote with residents waiting up to 11 hours to cast their ballots last fall, republican governor brian kemp has waged a long battle to make the voting process even more difficult. in his previous role as georgia's secretary of state, he oversaw the closing of polling places and the purging of hundreds of thousands of registered voters from the polls. thanks, in part, to the efforts of stacey abrams and other activists on the ground registering hundreds of thousands of new voters, turnout in 2020 in georgia in the election was unbelievably high, smashing records and, of course, also helping to propel joe biden to the white house. georgia's election last november was also just about the most scrutinized and audited of any state in the nation. remember this, they counted the votes three times in that state. they did a hand recount of 5 million ballots. there is zero doubt whatsoever the results in georgia were accurate and that more georgians than ever before made their voices heard. so, what did state republicans do? just yesterday, the state senate passed a bill limiting no-excuse absentee voting, which is how 1.3 million georgians, including 450,000 republicans, voted in 2020. just last week, republicans in the statehouse passed a sweeping piece of legislation cutting weekend days from early voting, restricting the use of ballot drop boxes, adding new i.d. requirements for absentee voting, restricting the amount of time elections officials had to send out mail ballots and voters have to return them, and prohibiting the distribution of food and water to voters waiting in line. in fact, making it a misdemeanor. that's right. no handing out food or drink to voters waiting in the longest lines in the country. that's not because there are any actual problems with the administration of elections in georgia. it's because the republicans lost. it's because they lost and they think these things will make it easier for them to win next time. but keep in mind, this is not just happening in georgia, which is, of course, the center of a lot of attention, as the swing state with the closest election last cycle. take a look at how crazy things are in iowa. not a state where republicans had disappointing results last year, okay? in fact, iowa republicans did great in 2020. they flipped two house seats, held onto a third. and you know what, loads of iowans voted, breaking the all-time general election turnout record, and they had, you know, pretty expansive voter access, including early voting, absentee voting, and same-day registration. and in iowa, keep in mind, again, all of that worked in republicans' favor. donald trump carried the state. joni ernst was re-elected. they flipped two house seats. so, what is the problem? well, the problem is that the republican party is radicalizing against democracy almost as a guiding principle. they fear voter access. they want to shut it down. they are using the cover of the big lie, the wildly insidious and poisonous lie the election was stolen, propagated by the former president and his party and written media to just make it harder to vote. and not only harder for specifically disfavored groups like african-americans or democrats more generally, although these measures will disproportionately hurt them -- it's a major part of all this -- but just harder to vote in general. like as an ideological fixation. there are a lot of white republicans in iowa who will have a harder time voting, thanks to the measures signed into law today by republican governor kim reynolds. the new law cuts the state's early voting period down by nine days. it tightens the timeline for when absentee ballots must be received in order to be counted. it strips county auditors of much of their discretion in running elections, including establishing satellite in-person early voting sites, which are useful, and mailing absentee ballot request forms to voters who didn't specifically ask for one. it limits who can return a voter's absentee ballot. and get this, it closes polls an hour earlier on election day. think about that. sit with that for a second. what conceivable argument is there to close the polls an hour earlier? like, the fraudsters always show up in the last hour of the day to do their fraud? no. no. there is no argument. there is not even a pretense of an argument. what possible coherence is there to this entire project, other than we just want fewer people voting? we want to make it harder. we want to weed out and thin out the electorate. we want to choose who votes as opposed to the voters choosing us. two people who are following the situation in georgia very closely are nick, "the new york times" domestic correspondent who wrote about the effect the new legislation would have on black voters in the state, particularly black churches roles in those elections. and georgia state representative rhonita shannon, who spoke up on the floor of the georgia house of representatives as republicans proposed new restrictive voter legislation. representative, let me start with you. your state has been famous for this. it has been the site of these sort of ethic battles. what's different now? what's new now? what do you want to say to americans about what's happening in the state right now? >> well, you're correct, georgia has been doing this year after year. when i was first elected, i served on the governmental affairs committee which deals with election law. and every year, i've seen nothing but bills come through to make it harder for everyone to vote. what's different now is that what's happening in georgia has been happening across the country, and it's very well coordinated. this year in particular, republicans are going after black and brown voters with targeted precision to make sure that they cannot show up in the ways that they did in november and the u.s. senate races. they want to make sure that turnout never happens again. >> nick, you wrote a great piece about one of the specific aspects of the proposed legislations targeting, really, voter mobilization efforts by black churches. what's going on there? >> well, one of the provisions in the omnibus bill that was passed by the house severely limits weekend voting. it allows only one sunday per election cycle for the polls to be open, and even that's up to the local registrar in the biggest counties. and traditionally, voting on sundays has been very popular in black communities and black churches take a kind of central role in making sure communities are engaged, that their voting rights are protected. they'll help them register to vote. they'll help them get their absentee ballots, if that's how they choose. and they'll also help with simple things like transportation. the phrase souls to the polls has been very popular, you know, pretty much since the 1990s. and what this bill does is, by removing that, it starts a kind of, you know, systemic way of trying to suppress the votes of the black community, and by taking away sunday voting and then making it harder to vote absentee as well, they're then going to create lines and make that even harder some of these communities. so when you take away the role of the black church by taking away voting on sundays, it's just going to kind of have a real trickle-down effect. >> representative, you know, there is, obviously, a bill, a national bill, hr-1, that democrats would like to see passed that would set some minimum standards. and i thought it was interesting. senator bill cassidy of louisiana said this about that piece of legislation -- "democrats are selling out their own voters in a brazen attempt to permanently solidify their majority. states may their own voting laws, not the federal government. this power grab is shameful." i mean, you know, the history here is -- you know, we have the 15th amendment and the voting rights act precisely because states like georgia and others chose to make their own voting laws in obviously discriminatory ways. >> and what's really interesting -- it's so rich that senator cassidy would even say that, because even in georgia, when you look at hb-531, the omnibus bill you were just referring to, that bill specifically takes away local control. republicans have railed forever about how important local control is. that bill moves local control away from the counties who have historically had the responsibility of deciding, what is the best way to facilitate voting for their residents? that bill takes that power away, gives a lot of it to the state, so there's a state takeover committee that's in that bill. then it also puts a lot of onus on the registrars. so, they can't have it both ways. >> right. >> you can't rail for local consistently and then negate those principles. so you see how far they're willing to go, just to make sure black and brown voters don't show up the way they did in the previous elections. >> brad raffensperger, who is, of course, secretary of state, nick, republican who has both sided with state republicans on some fights over voter restriction, he's been very critical of new voter project group that was started by stacey abrams, but also pushed back against trump. he said this, which i think is interesting. "at the end of the day, many of these bills are reactionary to a three-month disinformation campaign that could have been prevented." in your reporting, have you heard georgian politicians invoke the lie of the election being stolen as justification for these measures? >> yes, it's almost the sole justification. the two things that you hear repeatedly are that there are concerns about the election, there's a lack of confidence in the november election and that we need to restore the confidence of our voters or constituents who have concerns about the election. and as you mentioned earlier, there was no issues in georgia, no major issues whatsoever there were three different audits that all affirmed the results and there was no issues in the runoffs, either. so, kind of what you're seeing and in other states as well -- you mentioned iowa earlier -- is that some of these voting laws are almost becoming a way to appease some of the more conservative parts of the republican base, people who are very loyal to former president trump. they want to see changes just because they're unhappy, and they have doubts due to all of the lies and the disinformation that was spread online and coming from the former president, himself. so, i think when you look at the justification that you hear a lot of, there's talk of securing the vote after an election that was very secure and talk of rebuilding confidence for some voters when it was a very safe, secure, and smooth election, given all the circumstances. >> and quickly, representative, i mean, both in iowa and in georgia, right? very different states, very different makeups, demographically, and very different results. like, republicans did very well in iowa. but in both states, you've got a state gop that doesn't look and say, hey, that was a really high turnout election, we crushed it. in both states, regardless of the outcome, saying the same thing of, like, we cannot let that happen again. >> well, and what's interesting is, so, brad raffensperger, secretary of state, and gabriel sterling, have been hailed as heroes for standing up to trump. but to your point, states across the country, whether trump did well or not, are moving forward with these same tactics, and that's because all of them, including the secretary of state and gabriel sterling, have been telling the big -- they were all telling the big lie before the president was. >> right. >> republicans have been talking about voter fraud, this mysterious voter fraud that they never can come up with any evidence to support, but they've been talking about it forever. and finally, what has happened is, they have lost a major election, their voters don't like it, and they are having to enact policies now to satisfy these voters because they've been lying to them for decades about voter fraud that does not exist. >> all right. nick of "the new york times," representative renita shannon down there in georgia. thank you both. really appreciate that. >> thank you for having me. the one thing, the one thing that donald trump is unquestionably good at is once in a generation, maybe once in a lifetime talent, is raising money off republican donors. and even in exile, he wants to make sure he is controlling all that money. a fight between donald trump and the republican party about who gets the checks from the maga heads is next. checks from the heads is next. as carla wonders if she can retire sooner, she'll revisit her plan with fidelity. and with a scenario that makes it a possibility, she'll enjoy her dream right now. that's the planning effect, from fidelity. here you go, let me help you. she'll enjoy her dream right now. hi mr. charles, we made you dinner. ahh, thank you! ready to eat? yes i am! i've always focused on my career. but when we found out our son had autism, his future became my focus. lavender baths always calmed him. so we turned bath time into a business. and building it with my son has been my dream job. at northwestern mutual, our version of financial planning helps you live your dreams today. find a northwestern mutual advisor at nm.com donald trump does not have many super promising sources of traditional business revenue right now, right? i mean, the trump brand is tarnished, the trump properties have lost a ton of value. what donald trump does have, though, is a very loyal maga base that is willing to give him money. and he doesn't seem to want that money going to anyone but donald trump. you see, many republican organizations, including the national party, often use images of trump in their fund-raising appeals. that money goes to state parties or the republican national committee, instead of trump, himself. and it could even help some of the republicans who voted to impeach trump. so, on friday, attorneys for trump sent cease and desist letters to three republican organizations, asking them to stop using the former president's name and likeness in fund-raising appeals and merchandise. there's just one big problem -- trump's a public figure. public figure can't stop an organization from using their likenesses. if they could, you know, congresswoman ilhan omar, among others, would almost certainly stop republicans from using her to raise money. trump is the biggest name in the gop, by far, and the rnc really is counting on that maga money, and so, it rejected the cease and desist demand from trump to stop using his image. the institutional republican party also really wants to try to keep trump happy, so now they're paying tribute. we learned yesterday the rnc is moving a portion of its spring donor retreat to mar-a-lago and will be paying trump's club for the use of the facilities. that was not nearly enough for donald trump last night. he explicitly told his supporters not to give money to anyone but him, telling the faithful to donate through his save america pac. that's s.a.p., for short. "no more money for rinos. they do nothing but hurt the republican party and our great voting base. they will never lead us to greatness. send your donation to save america pac at donaldjtrump.com. we will bring it back stronger than ever before." and then "i fully support the republican party and gop committees, but i do not support rhinos and fools, and it is not their right to use my likeness to raise image to raise funds. so much money is being raised and completely wasted by people who do not have the gop's best interests in mind." trump goes on to tell people to give directly to him. tim o'brien is author of "trump nation" which results in a $5 billion lawsuit from trump over o'brien's estimate of his net worth. that lawsuit was dismissed. also with me, "washington post" opinion columnist and devoted never trumper, jennifer rubin. let's start on the business angle here. it does strike me that this is the best business donald trump has at this moment, is small-dollar fund-raising of loyalists, way better than any revenue streams from anything else he has. what do you think? >> for a short time, but you know, his money is going to be in real estate. he has around $2 billion in assets, about $1 billion in debt against those. he's not going broke any time soon, but he's got a real debt, a possible debt squeeze on his hands, so he is looking frantically around to siphon crash from wherever he can so he doesn't have to sell things off and watch his portfolio shrink. i think the larger thing informing this, actually, chris, is that trump is just a profound grifter. and any time he sees an ability to make coin, he will try to do it. you know, he came into the white house a profoundly ignorant person about the presidency and public policy-making. i think he thought article one was a clothing store or a magazine, and he couldn't have found iran on a map. and he learned through all of these crises that he could try to bend the office to his will. he survived mueller's investigation and two impeachments, and then the 2020 election happens and he discovers, i think for the first time, that he can use the big lie grift to actually raise scads of money. he raised millions for his legal defense fund, of which only $14 million went to legal defense. and i think the light went off in his head then. i think it was another thing that he learned in the presidency was, you know what, i can monetize the trump cult. and all of these working-class people and small donors who i have actually done nothing to help in my presidency but still believe i will, i can continue to scam them when i leave. and i think that's what's informing, you know, these fisticuffs now with the gop. >> well, and jennifer, i mean, the -- you know, not to defend donald trump here, but he's not wrong in the sense of he is the one motivating the donating, and the rnc really does want to appropriate that motivation to their own ends, and he's basically saying, like, no, you don't -- like, you don't get to do that. they're only giving you money because they like me. i'm the one that matters here. >> yeah, it really is a co-dependent relationship. >> yep. >> and the republican party can't quit donald trump. they need him. they fear him. and yet, they are going to be forever saddled with, if not this battle, then it will be some other battle. donald trump is what has kept the republican party from complete oblivion over the last four years, but it's also what's going to prevent them from any kind of recovery, any kind of expansion into any kind of governing majority, and that's why you say, as you pointed out in your previous segment, them resort to voter suppression and to jim crow laws in essence. this is a dilemma of the republicans and it's made of their own making. and i don't think the democrats could possibly come up with anything as brilliant as this to have donald trump and the republican party pointing fingers saying, no, send the money to me, no, send the money to me. and we haven't even gotten to the primary season yet. wait until that hits. so, this is the dilemma of dealing with donald trump. to quote my friend, rick boesen, everything he touches dies. and the republican party right now doesn't look too good. >> yeah, i mean, this idea that, i mean, tim, to your point, too, that you know, he's both greedy, he wants money, but he also -- we know this about him -- just hates the notion anyone's making money off of him and he's not getting cut in. that is a huge, like, nurs you are inosis of his. he's not going to let that happen. he's not going to sit back. there won't be an arrangement or truce here. i think this is going to be a constant source of tension for the rnc. >> you know, you and i are both chicago cubs fans, and leo derosa had a line that i love where he said, if i'm running down to second base and i'm setting up a double play, i don't care if it's my grandmother on second, she's going down. anything that gets between donald trump and a pile of money is going to go down. and these notes he's sending that he cares about the future of the party? he doesn't care about the party. he doesn't care about the party's values. what he cares about is continuing to foster this cult of personality that he can monetize. and this whole debate is about him seeing a huge pile of cash on the horizon. and if the gop gets in between him and the cash, he's going to try to make it go down. >> and there's another aspect to this, jennifer, which is that two things happened that made the parties less powerful. mccain feingold banned soft money so they couldn't raise it, and then they were kept from raising superfunds. all of a sudden, the party, itself, which used to control candidates and recruiting all this through its ability to get its hands on money has been weakened. and now trump is coming in to sort of, like, put the final stake in. it's like, why do you need this party organ if he's the one that really raises the money for you? >> that's absolutely right. political parties were on their death bed before donald trump, and he certainly isn't helping any matters, for all the reasons that you describe. and that's why you get people who are essentially engaged in performance art. >> right. >> that's how they establish their name and their identity and their fund-raising, by essentially becoming fox news performance clowns. they don't have a fate, a political fate that is in any way tied to the party. >> right. >> and that's a problem for american politics in general, because the political parties, believe it or not, used to play a positive role in sort of smoothing out candidates, getting good ones, getting qualified ones, making sure extremists didn't get into office. they don't do that anymore. and because of that, you have a gangster and a con man who's come in and said, okay, i'm going to run this show, and he does it like he always do, by extorting people. and you know, the notion that now the gop has to go to mar-a-lago -- >> right. >> max flap, you know, mowing his lawn for him? mcconnell washing his car. these people are completely in his spell. and as much as they would like to conveniently set him aside when it becomes uncomfortable, they absolutely cannot do this because without him, they don't have money and they don't have this link to this ferocious maga base that he's developed. >> yeah. them sort of caving and paying tribute by moving it to mar-a-lago is so deeply pathetic and revealing. tim o'brien, jennifer rubin, thank you both for being with me tonight. >> thank you, chris. next, vaccines are going up, cases are going down, but is it still too soon for states to reopen it all up? connecticut governor ned lamont on his decision to loosen restrictions, next. lamont on his decision to loosen restrictions, next are you packed yet? our flight is early tomorrow. and it's a long flight too. once we get there, we will need... buttercup! ♪ effective next wednesday, all businesses of any type are allowed to open 100%. [ applause ] also, i am ending the statewide mask mandate. [ cheers and applause ] >> this new order removes all of our county mask mandates and allows businesses to operate at full capacity without state-imposed rules or restrictions. >> last week, we were all, i think, taken a little aback when governors greg abbott of texas and tate reeves of mississippi announced they were fully opening businesses and repealing mask mandates, a move president biden referred to as neanderthal thinking, but two days later, connecticut, a blue state that's had around 7,700 covid deaths -- sorry about that -- announced the lifting of many business restrictions as of march 19th. now, connecticut is keeping the mask mandate in place, has been doing far better against the virus than other states, but how is what the state's doing any different than what texas or mississippi is doing? here to discuss that with me, the governor of connecticut, democrat ned lamont. let's start there. why is this different than what texas and mississippi are doing? >> i think it's pretty different, chris. here in connecticut, we're twice as likely to wear a mask as they are in texas, we're twice as likely to be vaccinated, we're half as likely to be infected, and as you point out, if i'm a neanderthal, i'm a neanderthal with a mask. we have everybody wearing the masks. it's really important. it's the one thing that we know works and makes an enormous difference, and it's held our infection rate very low for many months. >> so, then take me through the process here. i mean, look, these are difficult policy decisions, no matter who you are, tate reeves, governor greg abbott. i don't envy this for any governor or policymaker. and there's no, like, the science says this, because you're dealing with trade-offs. what is your process? what metrics are you using in this when you decided to announce that date? >> because on march 19th, about ten days, we're going to have the overwhelming majority of our people over the age of 55 vaccinated, at least with one shot. that means that's where 99% of the complications and the fatalities are. i could have gone from 50% to 75% to 85%, not really very enforceable, you know? instead, we said you're going to be open at 100%, you're going to wear the mask, and you're going to close at 11:00, because after 11:00, a lot of our restaurants turn into bars, and we don't allow bars. >> wait, so, are bars -- what's the story with bars, then, post march 19th? >> we've closed our bars for the entire year. we haven't opened them yet. so, we'll see what happens later on this spring, but right now our bars stay closed. >> and that's because there's a specific, based on the science we've seen, the cdc, there's a specific issue with bars, right, particularly bars and nightclubs in terms of people, you know, having something to drink, speaking very loudly, very close to each other. that is a real vector in a way that you've identified that's different to your mind than a bunch of other businesses. >> the whole purpose of a bar is the opposite of social distancing. and you're not wearing a mask and you're getting louder. so, right, we're going to hold that off. look, texas, they opened their bars, then they closed them again, then they opened them. we've been pretty steady. we've kept them closed and we've slowly opened up our restaurants and retail, so now we'll be at 100% starting in ten days. >> how much, in your experience, is mask compliance a question of behavior, and how much is a question of state mandates? because one of the things i've seen in the aftermath of the mississippi and texas decisions is, look, the mandate is kind of an after thought, right? this is the thing people are going to do or not do. there's going to be a kind of social norm or not. the government mandate is a little beside the point. what's been your experience in connecticut? >> yeah, that's a really good question, chris. look, it's overwhelmingly, it's guidance. it sends a signal. i mean, i can't arrest you or fine you about the mask. we tell you wear the mask, it's the right thing to do for yourself and it's the right thing to do for the people you come into contact with. we're not rushing to get back into restaurants. i think it's going to take a few months, but they can see a restaurant where people are wearing masks, you've got six feet of distance between tables, people are taking it more seriously, then some of that caution, people will start coming back in again. we're pretty good about wearing the mask here in connecticut. >> that's part of a broader question, which i think all of us have been wrestling with throughout the last year and i think is pretty germane right now, which is, how much policy is leading behavior and how much policy is tailing behavior, right? so, we have seen in places, even states next to each other, when you look at the mobility data, one with one policy rejaem, one with the other. they're fairly similar, right? people are responding to the messages, they're responding to the levels of community transmission. is this -- i guess my question is, were you looking at data showing people moving in a certain direction in terms of their patterns of behavior that was part of this consideration? >> yeah, i like to have laws that people follow. i like to have roles that people understand. so, my job is really to explain. look, i'm not doing this by dictate. i'm not doing this because i'm a dictator. i'm doing this because i think it's in the best interests of you and your family. i've got to convince you to do it because it's the right thing. and i think you'll find that 80%-plus of people comply here voluntarily in the state of connecticut with the mask mandate. and you go into our restaurants, people keep the distance and the tables are very clean and people are wearing the masks. >> so, then the question becomes, is there some kind of switch at which point you reconsider, right? and what the kind of testing, surveillance, infrastructure and public health infrastructure is such that, should there be some new variant that is incredibly contagious, should there be, for whatever reason, a real bad outbreak in connecticut because of people, you know, no longer social distancing, how you evaluate that and how you get ahead of what might happen if that goes on too long? >> yeah, we are very nervous about the variant. that was the wild card in the deck. we saw it down in miami. we saw it in san diego. that was eight weeks ago. i thought it might be exponential growth, but it seems to be pretty linear. so, i think we will have time if we see the variant really taking off to do everything we can to, you know, turn the clock back. but more importantly, focus on our hospitals and make sure we have the capacity there. we're watching that carefully. but so far, our infection rate has stayed pretty constant, which is low. >> yeah, you mentioned the hospitals. and i wonder as we move into the next phase, that has always been in some ways the real focus of policymakers, right? the one thing you can't allow is the hospitals to melt down. you can't overwhelm them. we saw what happened last a year ago in your state, new york and new jersey, when some of that did happen. and i wonder if the, basically, vaccinating at the rates that we are and increasingly among the populations most threatened to be hospitalized really does change the calculus? >> it does change the calculus, chris. i mean, we got everybody in our nursing homes vaccinated with two shots well over a month ago, and hospitalizations and fatalities have almost stopped in our nursing homes. and as you know, we were hit there really hard. as i said, you know, right now, people 55 and above are overwhelmingly vaccinated, and i'm sure they will be over the next ten days. and that means we have a lot of capacity in our hospitals. so, look, i saw what was going on in italy. i saw other places in queens where the hospitals were getting close to over flowing. that didn't happen in connecticut and that is the metric that's going to make sure that we keep safe. >> all right, connecticut governor ned lamont. like everyone, i wish you good luck, and hopefully, you can come back in a month -- >> thanks, chris. >> -- and go like this and say, see, it all worked out. but either way, let's check back in. >> we'll check back in. thank you, sir. this thursday, it will be exactly one year since the world health organization declared the coronavirus a pandemic. to mark the date, we will be live from the lincoln memorial. a special show along with president biden's first prime time national address. we'll look back on this incredible and awful year and look forward to vaccinations and that light at the end of the tunnel. still ahead, why the covid relief package could mean more money in the bank for parents every month, cutting child poverty in half. i'll explain why that's such a big deal, next. i'll explain why that's such a big deal, next on it. you may think you're doing all you can to manage type 2 diabetes and heart disease but could your medication do more to lower your heart risk? jardiance can reduce the risk of cardiovascular death for adults who also have known heart disease. so, it could help save your life from a heart attack or stroke. and jardiance lowers a1c. jardiance can cause serious side effects including dehydration, genital yeast or urinary tract infections, and sudden kidney problems. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. a rare but life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this bacterial infection, ketoacidosis or an allergic reaction, and don't take it if you're on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. lower a1c and lower risk of a fatal heart attack? on it with jardiance. we are committed to making jardiance available and affordable. with our savings card, eligible patients pay as little as $10. ♪ ♪ be right back. with moderate to severe crohn's disease, i was there, just not always where i needed to be. is she alright? i hope so. so i talked to my doctor about humira. i learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of crohn's disease after trying other medications. the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief in as little as 4 weeks. and many achieved remission that can last. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores . don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible. ♪ got my hair ♪ ask your gastroenterologist about humira. ♪ got my head ♪ ♪ got my brains ♪ ♪ got my ears ♪ ♪ got my heart ♪ ♪ got my soul ♪ ♪ got my mouth ♪ ♪ i got life ♪ opportunities are all about timing. so if you're turning 65 or retiring soon, it's time to take advantage of a plan that gives you more for your medicare dollar: an aarp medicare advantage plan from unitedhealthcare. call unitedhealthcare today to get $0 copays for all primary care doctor visits, $0 copays on preventive dental, and $0 copays on hundreds of prescriptions. in 2019, members saved an average of $7,200 on prescriptions. you'll even get free annual eye exams, and free designer frames. don't miss your shot. if you're turning 65 or retiring soon, learn about our wide choice of plans, including ppo options, call unitedhealthcare today. we'll walk you through your choices and find the right plan for you. catching a good opportunity is all about timing. so, enroll today, before the moment slips away. it's time to take advantage. taken all together, this plan is going to make it possible to cut child poverty in half. let me say it again. this is significant, historic, will cut child poverty in half. >> president biden and congressional democrats have understandably been touting the fact that their covid rescue package will, projected to, cut child poverty in half. but in the abstract, it's kind of hard to wrap your head around how huge that is, and i think people might not understand the scope we're talking about, okay? to begin with, if you were watching this right now and you have one or more children and you make less than $150,000 a year in combined household income, which is, you know, the overwhelming majority of parents, you can get money from the government on a monthly basis to help with the expenses of having a child. you won't have to wait for a tax refund at the end of the year because the bill increases the child tax credit to $3,000 per child ages 6 to 17, and $3,600 annually for children under 6 for the tax year 2021. but then, importantly, parents of children under 6 will start receiving $300 monthly payments via direct deposit or through the mail starting around july. parents with kids ages 7 to 17 will receive $250 a month and then claim the rest of the year's tax credit when they file in 2021 taxes. remember, this credit, right, which is actually a check in certain circumstances, it's per child. so, right now, if you have a 10-year-old, a 7-year-old, and a 4-year-old, the government is going to give you an extra $800 every month. the u.s. has not really had a program anything like this before. i mean, some european countries and canada have experimented with different versions of what's called child allowances, and those experiments have been very, very popular. people really like them. this will essentially be the closest thing we have to a universal cash benefit. or here's another way to think about this, which i think is helpful. think of it as social security for kids, right? the reason we have social security is because in a market-driven capitalist society, no matter how low unemployment is, there's always going to be two big age categories of people that can't earn market income. they can't work. very old people and very young people. now, before social security, a huge percentage of elderly people were just grindingly poor. it was the poorest demographic in america because the very oldest people usually don't have wage income, right? traditional social security helped alleviate that problem. in fact, by one estimate, in 2018, quote, without social security benefits, 37.8% of elderly americans would have incomes below the official poverty line, all else being equity. with social security benefits, only 9.7% do. in other words, these benefits lift 14.8 million elderly americans above the poverty line. but the same problem exists for the youngest people, for kids. first of all, kids are expensive, but they usually do not and should not have to bring any money into a household, right? we count on the custodians of those kids, their parents or guardians, to bring the money in, but they're still just an expense on the ledger, at least from an income perspective. and the way we solve the problem for old people was to create a universal pension for everyone once they reach a certain age, once they get to the age where they're not going to be earning a market income. that's social security. so, think about it on the other end. the way to solve this problem for kids is to create a universal child allowance that says, raising a kid is a good thing for our society. we, as americans, collectively through the government, are going to help you with that expense. we're going to subsidize that expense. and that's what is in the covid rescue bill. it's revolutionary. now, these changes are only supposed to be for this next year but as democratic congressman richie neal, chair of the house ways and means committee explained, some things are hard to undo once they are set in motion. >> one thing that you should know about the tax code, getting something out of the code is oftentimes harder than getting something in the code. so, i've already had some thoughts about how we're going to expand it and make it permanent, and i intend to share those in the near future. but what we did is unlikely to go away. >> keep your eyes on that. that's going to be a big fight. now, obviously, president joe biden would not be in place to sign the rescue bill with this provision, had he not won his party's primary, and the man who arguably did more than any other to put him on the path to victory joins me next. n the pat victory joins me next. if you ask suzie about the future, she'll say she's got goals. and since she's got goals, she might need help reaching them, and so she'll get some help from fidelity, and at fidelity, someone will help her create a plan for all her goals, which means suzie will be feeling so good about that plan, she can just enjoy right now. that's the planning effect, from fidelity. if you smell gas, you're too close. leave the structure, call 911, keep people away, and call pg&e right after so we can both respond out and keep the public safe. if you see wires down, treat them all as if they're hot and energized. stay away from any downed wire, call 911, and call pg&e right after so we can both respond out and keep the public safe. it's been a good week for most importantly the country but politically for the democratic party. senate approved a $1.9 trillion relief bill. we're averaging around 2 million vaccination as day. 2.2, in fact. 68% approve the way president biden is handling the virus. just a little over a year ago, party leaders were very anxious, not just about the virus. that had not really hit us yet. but about a democratic primary. and then came one of the biggest turning points. year. >> i've known for a long time who to vote for but i have decided not to share it with the public. i want the public to know that i'm voting for joe biden, south carolina should be voting for joe biden. >> without the endorsement of the third ranking in the house, biden might not have won south carolina. a victory which helped propel him ultimately to the presidency. now congressman clyburn is speaking out again, trying to ensure the house passes the covid relief bill tomorrow so the president can sign hit the weekend and arguing that democrats must pass hr 1, the sweeping bill, or lose control of congress. and the house majority whip jim clyburn joins me. at first i want to get your sense of someone who has been legislating a while, and battles over many bills. where do you put this rescue bill the house is poised to pass, probably tomorrow, and get signed shortly there after? >> i put it way up on my list of the best things that i've seen happen since i've been here in the congress. i thought we were really at the highest point we could get when we passed the affordable care act. having studied history for as long as i have, i knew how long that issue had been around. more than 100 years. theodore roosevelt first entered it as subject and here is obama getting it done. this time in more than 100 years, we have not had this kind of a pandemic to contend with. and the economy in tail spins. and here comes joe biden's $1.9 trillion program. doing things that nobody thought could get done. you just talked about the child tax credit and what that will do for children in this country. i saw a hit line in the "washington post" this morning saying, what this bill does for black farmers is more than has been done, maybe the best thing since the 1964 civil rights act. we can go into rural communities and see what we're doing for rural hospitals. this bill is huge. and that is why i think we've got to pass it. because i think that when you see 76% of american people saying they are for something, 60% of republicans support this bill. 71% of independents support this bill. i have not seen anything like that since i've been here. so i believe this is a big, big deal. >> yeah. it's funny, you note that. i think that democrats have a tendency to look over their shoulder a little more about these things. and i imagine if donald trump's first big legislative initiative in 2017 was some massively popular bill that was polling at 75%, you would have had a very different conversation inside your caucus in terms of holding democrats together. people would have been a little freaked out by that. >> that's true. absolutely true. that's why i think we are going to, when we did this bill in the house, we only had two democrats vote against it. i think we're going to cut that number in half by tomorrow morning. there may be one person voting against it. but everybody will be for it. the republicans will probably vote against it. in spite of all the support from republicans around the country, they are maintaining political partisanship. that's what they're doing. they're putting their politics into the country. we have got to get people back on their feet. we've got to get people out of hospital rooms and book the job. we've got to get our children back in school. we've got to get these shots in the arms of people all over this country. and that's what this legislation will do. this to me is as transformative as anything that i've seen since i've been here. and democrats ought to be going from one side of this country to the other, singing the praises of joe biden's commitment to do as much for the people who voted against him as the people who voted for him. he is keeping that commitment with this legislation. >> let's talk about hr 1 which would create a whole bunch of minimum standards for the administration of elections, democratic access and free and fair elections. i know you're a very, very committed supporter to it. you've said that you don't want to see the filibuster in the senate be the thing that defeats this because we agree there are not ten republican votes for it in the united states senate. probably zero. what are those conversations like inside the democratic party? you're a very well respected member of the democratic party. i don't think anyone thinks you're an impet with us hot head. you think this calls for changes the way the senate works? >> yes. it's not just hr 1 that i'm concerned about. remember, it has a lot to do with financing campaigns. that's got nothing to do with voting rights and civil rights. hr 4 that we have renamed the john r. lewis voting rights act is coming forward. we hope it would be ready by the 4th, the 6th of august. the anniversary of the 1965 voting rights act. so that we can get that out. i don't think these things should be subjective to the filibuster. i think it is very clear, if we can make an exception to the filibuster rules for budgets, we ought to be able to make it for any other civil or voting right that exists. protected classes are treated especially, is that ought to not, the filibuster ought not to apply to benefits and other issues surrounding protective classes. so that's what i think we should do. i'm not saying get rid of the filibuster. if the president wants to keep the filibuster, fine. let do it for civil rights and voting rights. >> congressman jim clyburn, thank you so much for making time. really appreciate it. that's "all in" on this tuesday night. the rachel maddow show starts right now. good evening. >> good evening, chris. thank you for being on my show last night. it was great. you really are a very, very, very critical, strong thinker on policy in general but on covid stuff in march. and i feel like you are doing absolutely fantastic work right now, explaining how these policy changes will impact people's lives. and you're firing on all