house of representatives has authorized the air force to spend $200 million to buy three corporate jets although the air force wanted only one. the gulf stream 550 luxury jets will be used to transport top officials and members of congress. lisa sylvester has our report. >> reporter: remember this? the ceos of the big three automakers exchanged jets for cars after they were attacked for using company planes to get to congressional hearings in washington. lawmakers said it didn't look good that they were flying in style, asking for bailout money. >> couldn't y'all have downgraded to first class or jetpooled or something to get here? it would have at least sent a

message that you do get it. >> good question. a question congress might ask itself as it faces a rising budget deficit. >> lawmakers on the house appropriations committee signed off to spend nearly $200 million to buy three new gulfstream jets as part of the defense appropriations bill. those private planes are to be assigned to the air force units that about 20% of the time shuttle congressional members around the country and the world. taxpayer watchdog pete sept thinks it's ridiculous. >> apparently, congress has created its own cash for clunkers program. turn in your old jets and taxpayers will buy you new ones. >> reporter: a congressional staffer familiar with the situation defended the decision by the house appropriations committee, saying that the squadron passenger airlift planes are outdated. quote, they have to replace a bunch of them, five to six of them. the decision was made to replace three this year instead of spacing them out. but pentagon officials didn't ask for three gulfstreams.

they asked for only one. >> we make it a point of asking for those things we need and nothing more. >> reporter: the pentagon frowns upon congress adding to their inventory above what they asked for, because congress just considers the price of the plane, but not the operational costs of the crews, maintenance, and service. in addition to the three gulfstream planes, congressional house appropriators also agreed to provide the air force with five new c-04s. the military equivalent of the 737 passenger plane. the pentagon wanted only three. now, we don't know which lawmaker asked for these additional planes. with an earmark that type of information has to be disclosed, but this wasn't considered an earmark, but an expansion of an existing budget program. so, lou, we just don't know who is behind this request. lou? >> well, i think we can begin by just asking, simply, who is the speaker of the house and who is the majority leader of the senate? would that be a reasonable

starting point? >> yes, and to be completely fair, most of the rank and file members of congress are not flying in style in these luxury. but you hit it on the head. it is the elite in washington, the leaders in congress. but those are the folks who are generally flying in style here. >> lisa, thank you very much. lisa sylvester, i'm sure they're going to be reviewing all of that videotape of those auto company executives. thanks very much. up next here, another look at tonight's top stories. among those stories, the tearful homecoming of two american journalists set free by north korea. our "face-off" debate tonight, what may be turning into a summer of discontent over the president's health care agenda.

controversy continues tonight over a poster from an unknown source, turning up all around the country now, depicting president obama as the batman villain joker along with the caption, "socialism." the poster drew blistering criticism from the left, particularly in los angeles, when it first showed up. the president of the los angeles urban policy roundtable saying, quote, depicting the president as a demonic and a socialist goes beyond political sfoofery. it is mean spirited and dangerous. look at it however, alongside the same treatment of president bush from last iyear's "vanity fair," the june 2008 edition titl. and all members of congress will soon be on recess. we'll hear what their constituents think of the president's health care plans and economic policies.

will the august recess help or hurt the president's agenda? joining me now, mark tapscott, he's editorial page editor for the washington examiner. he says the august recess is a real crossroads for this administration. great to have you with us, mark. and michael crowley, senior editor for the new republic. let's start with you, mark. is it a problem? >> well, i think it's a very definite potential problem, because what we have seen here in the last two days is president obama, who presented himself to the country as a consensus builder, in fact, putting himself at crossways with what appeared to be an emerging and strong majority against his signature program. saying that people who oppose you are part of the mob is not a winning strategy. >> what do you think, michael? >> well, i don't see the emerging majority of opposition. the cnn poll that just came out

today shows that 50% of the country supports the plan, 45% opposes. 43% oppose it intensely, but about 23% support it intensely. it's definitely not a broad consensus at this point. you don't have a majority of opposition. and it's easy for opponents to shout at town halls, create drama, but i don't think that's necessarily representative of where the entire country is right now. it's still kind of up in the air. >> and being up in the air, is there any danger here, and let me turn to you again, first, milwaukee. is there any danger here for the national interest, if you will, to rush through a health care bill that is not intensely debated, that is not scrutinized, and does not have substantial public hearings, so there is a broad public education along with it and a consensus. >> yes, yes, and yes, lou. you're exactly right. it's never a good idea with any major piece of legislation to rush it through, particularly not when it effects so directly

virtually every person in the country. and i have to disagree with michael. it's very clear that in the last six weeks, something has happened in the way of a ground shift of public opinion, as people have focused on the details of this proposal, they've become very concerned about it, and they're very worried about what might happen to their insurance, their private insurance, which your own poll showed nearly 80% of people are very satisfied with it. >> is that a tremendous problem, for the administration? when i say a problem for the administration, i don't mean simply in getting through some sort of legislation. i'm talking about this moving it through in some sort of accelerated basis. there's some deadline here that has not really been explained, at least, in my opinion, adequately to say there's some reason it has to be passed within three months. could you clear that up for us? >> i do think it's been a

problem for the administration. that there's a perception out there that they are trying to rush this. although, obama can't win in some ways here, because people are saying, well, you don't have a plan yet, where are the details? then they're saying, you're trying to rush it. actually, he wanted the house and senate both to have voted on this plan by now, and couldn't get it done because this thing has slowed down. at the same time, people are saying, your rushing it. it's going to take a long time. this process has been playing out, there have been a lot of hearings. but i agree. i think that's one reason why this recess, if obama plays it right, and it will be tricky, don't get me wrong, could be a net plus. let people have their say. let people say, we went and o talked to our congressman, we yelled at him, and he knows what we think. and go back to washington with our ideas and take them back to your committee. and the public will have an opportunity to have input in this process, in these coming months. that's democracy, that's how it should work. it's just as well that it's slowed down. >> but that isn't, gentleman, what's on the table here. it's precisely the inverse of that. and it seems unclear.

you've got senator james demint, mark, saying, on one hand, this is his waterloo if he doesn't get it through. you've got the president, you're putting this in the framework of a political game, if you will, why he can't get what he wants. we're sort of getting lost in these extremes of partisan and ideological views that really have nothing to do with what in the -- what is best for this country. and neither side seems to be talking in those terms. >> lou, i think there are three basic mistakes that the administration made. number one, they tried to go for too much in terms of their agenda. number two, they tried to rush it and they still are rushing it. and number three, most important, and most immediately, they've -- anti-public sentiment. calling people an angry mob. i agree with mike. if they stepped back and listened, they probably could pull this thing out, but they clearly have made a decision that they're not.

>> you get the last word, mike. >> let me just say, the question of a political game, it's not. another way obama can save this month, bring it back to what matters to people. and the white house admits they're not bringing this home to people. why the status quo is not working for america. and why people who may be comfortable with their insurance now may not be able to count on the current system being for them, both economically, or in terms of having coverage down the road. this is a way to get it out of the process of washington, the committees, the quarreling chairman and remind people fundamentally why we have to do this. obama's been trying to do it. he hasn't broken through with a clear enough message yet. but he's out of washington, he's going to montana, campaign style, this is where he's in his element. >> and in political terms, he's in his element, and i guess the rest of us are supposed to say, hoorah, but the reality is, we still -- as you point out, we are one, two days away from when he wanted this thing packaged up and ready for signature. and the fundamental question you're posing hasn't yet been

answered. >> are we better off? i think there's a lot of evidence to say that we would be better off, departing from our current system. that the current system threatens to bankrupt the country and increase the numbers of uninsured. i think that that's the core of this. there are, of course, politics around it. that's the main thing to remember. >> thank you very much, both of you. appreciate it. more on our top stories tonight, let's turn to brooke baldwin who was the latest for us. >> the obama administration this evening saying that north korea's decision to release two american journalists is not linked to nuclear negotiations. those journalists, both laura ling and euna lee returned to a joyous welcome in north carolth. president clinton met with leader kim jong-il. it was the first top meeting with north korea in nearly a decade. new concerns tonight about the military threat to this country from russia. a senior u.s. defense official

saying two russian submarines have been cruising just off the atlantic off the coast of the united states in international waters. it's been years since russia conducted patrols near our coast. our military is fully aware of the russian navy's activities. russia has also increased long-range bomber patrols near alaska. and in virginia, a federal jury convicted william jefferson on 11 out of 16 counts of corruption. the verdict comes four years after federal agents seized $90,000 in cash from jefferson's freezer. the 62-year-old democrat was also found guilty of accepting more than $400,000 in bribes and seeking millions of dollars for brokering business deals in africa. and those are some of the headlines for us tonight. lou, back over to you. >> brooke, thank you so much. still ahead, are big families a threat to our environment? that's exactly what a new report says. we'll have a special report on

that. and as a candidate, president obama pledged not to raise taxes for most americans. >> i can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. >> is that so? we're about to find out. for clunkers program, d nh a great deal gets even better. let us recycle your older vehicle and you could qualify for an additional $3500 or $4500 cash back on a new, more fuel-efficient chevy. your chevy dealer has more eligible models to choose from. more than ford, toyota, or honda. now get an '09 silverado for under twenty eight-five after all offers. and get it for even less if you qualify for cash for clunkers program. go to chevy.com for details.

joining me now, three of the country's leading economic thinkers, and my favorite thinkers in rochester, david k. johnson, professor at the syracuse law school, also columnist for tax notes. good to see you, david. and professor adam lark, scholar at the american enterprise institute, and the chairman and managing partner of bedford oak advisers, harvey izen, good to see you as well. let me start out with you, professor, are we going to see a recovery this year?

>> probably not. and when we do see it, it's going to be very, very slow. we'll see a recovery where the economic growth will be positive, maybe 1, maybe 1.5%. but unemployment's going to continue to rise. we're not going to see a really rapid recovery, and unemployment's going to keep rising for at least another year. >> and the markets, harvey? >> you mean he's right? >> i don't know, he's giving us answer. if you want to respond to the answer and rebut, that's your -- >> you know, it's an interesting approach. the markets, as you know, are on a tear. and the markets believe that everything's wonderful and great and we're never going to have a downtick. and i'm just totally staggered and amazed by it, lou. >> and sound a little skeptical about it all, for some reason. >> well, the point is is that there's this concept now that things are okay, but they're not going to get too okay. and historically, when most people say that, they tend to get either more okay or bad. >> all right. let's go to david k. johnson.

david, this president suddenly is talking about -- you know, he's sending out a lot of signals, including his top two economic advisers, treasury secretary geithner and larry summers to say, that middle class tax cut may not be a fantasy after all. what do you think? >> yes, they've put out some feelers about that, but first of all, i think that, essentially, your first guest is right. it's going to be quite a while. we've hit a low. doesn't appear to be getting a lot worse. and when it recovers, we'll have a real problem with creating jobs, because of the issues that you and i have talked about many times on offshoring and government policies that discourage jobs. the president will have a very tough time trying to pass through any kind of a tax increase that goes to people under a quarter of a million dollars. and you'll notice he backed away when the democrats charged a small surcharge on people above

$300,000 to pay for his health care plan. >> i noticed that, but we don't, even in these responses, we don't have a clearer idea of what he's talking about. there are a number of pieces of legislation floating around. as i said to bill snyder earlier on this broadcast, we've got opinion poll after opinion poll reacting, most of them negatively, to his health care plans, but the truth is, whether you oppose or support them, we don't know, really, what they are. david? >> well, no. and they haven't laid out, clearly, what their health care plan is, except for one key feature. instead of going to the most efficient system, the kind that all of our competitors have variations of, which is universal coverage, instead, they are trying to piggy back this public option on. and if you want two systems, one, this incredibly inefficient health care system we have that's based on insurance and then a public option, a universal system, you're going to have higher costs. you're running these two parallel programs.

and clearly, they made a decision, we are not going to try to going for full-blown health care. little fact, lou -- >> full-blown universal coverage health care, right? >> say it again? >> you were talking about full-blown universal coverage, single-payer health care? >> that's correct. and in canada, the politician who got the canadian system in a poll overwhelmingly was chosen as the most important person who's ever lived in canada. >> perhaps, but as we reported tonight, they have a less satisfaction with their health care system than we do ours. health care. the president is now, professor, the president is now saying that we need to fix health care to fix the economy. had we know that, could we have avoided, simply, a stimulus package? i mean, things seem to be a bit out of sequence. >> lou, he's exactly right about that. he is spending one out of every six dollars in our economy on health care. that's like -- health care is like fixing up your car. it's diverting money from all

these other needs that we have. >> okay. >> lou, that's not accurate. health care reform, you may be in favor of it, may be opposed to it, but it's not going to stimulate the economy. what's going on now is the president is using the crisis to try to push through social choices and try to use the crisis to illuminate debate and illuminate opposition. and you may like health care reform, you may like alternative energy, but that's not going to stimulate the economy, and that's not going to raise u.s. productivity. >> and what will stimthis economy? >> well, what's going to stimulate the economy is the massive monetary expansion that we've seen over the last year and a half, and which some economists expect to continue to go on for the next 18 months. >> we're in for $2.5 trillion. we'll be up to $23.7 trillion, that isn't a total in the

taxpayer -- indeed be held accountable for all of that. that's just what's likely and possible out there. these numbers are so amazing here, harvey. what stimulus could there possibly be beyond a $2 trillion deficit, all of the money that's being spent on bailouts, all of the money that's been spent under t.a.r.p., by the federal reserve, by treasury. my god, where does it end? >> i don't know where it ends, but i know it's going to end, because i know how the movie end, i just don't know when. and right now, what you have is this enormous monetary stimulation and this enormous ease, and somewhere down the road you get rising inflation and somewhere down the road you get rising interest rates. you think $23 trillion is about. how about instead of being at 4%, it's at 14%, like it was 20

years ago? >> all right, thank you very much. david k. johnson, thank you. appreciate it, gentleman. up next, forget hybrid cars and recycling. why controlling the population may save the environment. that's a new report. we'll have that story here next.

new evidence tonight on the negative impact of overpopulation on the environment. researchers say there is a much better way to reduce our carbon footprint than driving hybrid cars, using energy-saving bulbs, and recycling. just have fewer children. casey wian with the report. >> it might be a crazy life --

>> reporter: from the tabloid exploits of "jon and kate plus 8" and octomom nadya suleman, to the wholesome image of the duggers and their 18 children, americans seem obsessed with super-sized families. but there's what some might consider a dark side beyond the allegations of infidelity and exploitation. just those 40 reality tv offspring are likely to be responsible for nearly 400,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas causing carbon dioxide emissions. a newly released oregon state university study suggests having multiple children may be the most environmentally damaging of all human activities. t >> the urge to reproduce is very strong. people react very strongly when you point out possible negative impacts of reproduction or growing population. so it is a very touchy area that really hasn't been talked about much. >> reporter: the researchers found that by making all of the

following environmentally friendly lifestyle changes, buying a car with 50% better gas mileage, driving 33% less, switching to energy-efficient light bulbs and windows, replacing an old refrigerator and recycling household trash, an american could reduce co2 emissions by 486 metric tons over a lifetime. but by having one less child over a life time, the same american could save 9,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide, 20 times the reduction of living greener. >> we do not advocate particular policies of restrictions on reproductive freedom and all we have done is fairly complicated arithmetic to quantify the impact of a person's choice to reproduce. >> reporter: such as the anticipated environmental impact of each child's future o offspring. the report concludes that the negative environmental impact of

each additional child in the united states is nearly seven times that of each child in china, because of higher u.s. birth rates an longevity and higher per capita emissions. ben zuckerman is a ucla professor and former board member of the sierra club. he says environmental groups have long ignored the threat of population growth. >> the mainstream environmental movement is entirely dropped the ball on this issue. and i think that's really been a disaster for our country. >> reporter: he points to books advocating greener living. >> they deliver hundreds of trivial ways in which one can reduce one's environmental impact on the earth, but they don't even mention population. >> reporter: the sierra club declined to speak with us about the impact of population, as did other environmental groups. the oregon state researchers say it's important to continue efforts to reduce everyone's so-called carbon footprint, but

they conclude that "clearly the potential savings from reduced preproduction are huge compared to the savings that can be achieved by changes in lifestyle." in other words, according to epa figures, having a child in the united states, over time, theoretically produces the greenhouse gas equivalent of burning more than 1 million gallons of gasoline. ucla's zuckerman says the u.s. government could and should be doing more to encourage limited preproduction and population growth, including controlling immigration, educating the public about the impact of multiple child families, and perhaps even structuring child tax credits to reduce tax breaks for larger families. lou? >> that's astonishing, casey. one child, 486 metric tons? >> actually, one child, over time, over several generations, considering the fact that that child's likely to reproduce, it's over 9,000 metric tons,

lou. it is incredible the amount of environmental impact that overpopulation is having on this planet, and these scientists are saying it's really getting close to the breaking point. it is going to take a long time to turn this around. they still need to do the recycling and all that because those are easier fixes, but for political reasons and behavioral reasons, and religious reasons, changes people's reproductive behavior is much tougher. >> that is extraordinary to think that would all add up to 486,000 tons. i mean to me, metric tons, that's insane. and then to talk about 9,000 to limit reproduction. those are extraordinary ratios. one wouldn't think either was possible. appreciate it, thank you very much, an amazing report. casey wian. at the top of the hour, campbell brown. >> hello there, lou. we're focusing on the homecoming of laura ling and euna lee. it's certainly put president bill:00 back in the rock star

spotlight. we'll look at what this may mean for clinton's future. also ahead, more of my exclusive interview with whoopi goldberg. she shares her thoughts on her career, young hollywood, on the cost of fame. that and the mash-up of all of the top stories at the top of the hour. we'll be right back in just we'll be right back in just a moment. gram,

time for some of your thoughts. gregory in texas said, thank you for at least attempting to get some answers. all i want is the truth and it seems harder and harder to get from our elected officials. thanks again. sheryl in south carolina, borrowing a couple of words from president obama -- if any member of congress votes for the health care bill without reading it, he or she is acting stupidly. we love hearing from you. send us your thoughts to loudobbstonight.com. each you can e-mail us right here receives a copy of my book "under pence d independence day.

i'll have the lou dobbs show 2:00 to 4:00