jeanne moos, cnn, new york. >> i love that story. i love that little girl. love the reaction. thanks very much, jeanne moos. remember, i'm on twitter right now. wolf blitzer cnn. i'm wolf blitzer in "the situation room." tonight democrats may be self-destructing. the new senate health care plan has the party divided. not about what was actually in the plan. but rather, what's not in it. the must discussed public option. also, if you don't agree with president obama, you may be a racist. that's what former president jimmy carter says. just one more outrageous statement by the former president. and you call this a post-racial america? we'll have a special report. and some republicans say this administration is countless, czars that severely undermine the constitution. americans need to know, who are these czars? what do they do? why do we have them to begin

why do we have them to begin with? -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com good evening, everybody. democrats don't like it much, neither do republicans. in fact, the only one who seems to be rallying around the sweeping health care overhaul proposed today by democratic senator max baucus is senator baucus. a ten-year $80065 billion proposal, generally reflects the president's vision with a glaring omission, the so-called public option that liberals have been infatuated with. it's nowhere to be found. and that could prove to be fatal for divided democrats. as lawmakers enter what is the final hour of the health care debate, senator baucus says his plan may be the last best hope to pass any kind of health care legislation.

dana bash reports from capitol hill. >> reporter: after months of intense negotiations with republicans in search of a bipartisan health care agreement, the democratic finance chairman made his big announcement alone. but still declared -- >> this is a good bill. this is a balanced bill. it can pass the senate. >> reporter: what senator max baucus means by that is his much anticipated health care proposal is more moderate than other democratic bills. the starkest example -- it does not include a government-run insurance option that many democrats called critical to increasing competition and lowering costs. instead, it proposes nonprofit insurance cooperatives. the congressional budget office says baucus' plan cost $774 billion, considerably less than the $1 trillion democratic house plan. baucus insists it will be paid for with hundreds of billions of

dollars in cut with government programs. mostly medicare, as well as new taxes and fees. senator baucus insists it will be paid for with more than $500 billion in cuts and savings, to government health care programs, mostly medicare. and nearly $350 billion in new taxes and fees. that includes a 35% tax on insurance companies for high-end so-called cadillac plans that cost over $21,000. baucus' proposal would ban discrimination based on presifting conditions. and it would require all americans to have health coverage. those who don't would be penalized with a fine. up to $3,800 for a family of four making $66,000 a year. but low-income americans would get help from the government to pay for their coverage. either through expanded medicaid or tax credits, to lower the cost plan, though, baucus offers fewer subsidies that the house

bill. >> there are some who think i've not gone far enough. there are some on both sides of the aisle think i've gone too far. >> reporter: some of the harshest criticism is coming from baucus' fellow democrats. >> how can we give all the new consumers to the health insurance industry with no accountability, no competition, and no real challenge for them to honor the reforms that we have? >> now, the three republicans in the senate who baucus spent hundreds of hours negotiating with, they're not supporting this right now because they say it still spends too much. on the other side, there are some democrats on his finance committee who say they're not supporting it right now because they say it doesn't spend enough. especially on making insurance more affordable. faux what we'll see for sure, lou, next week when they start voting is vigorous attempts to change this. >> $350 billion of new taxes

when an economy as weak as ours is struggling to reach recovery. you know, senator rockefeller says no deal. >> that's right. well, you know, this tax proposal that he has is less than and actually more acceptable to republicans than what the house it. of course, you remember, the house had an excise tax. sort of a blanket excise tax on wealthy americans. this specifically is targeted at health insurance companies and more specifically targeted at other plans. actually when you talk to republicans they were okay with this. they thought not only was it a revenue-raiser so to speak, but they thought it would bend the health cost, we've heard that term. but it's also what the president endorsed when they spoke last week, lou. >> again, senator rockefeller says no deal. >> senate rockefeller says no deal. other democrats say no deal. i think the most difficult thing that senator baucus has to deal with, that means that the white

house has to deal with, ultimately, this is what the president has as his top priority. you talk to any dem, just like republicans, any democrat, and they will have a different idea of how they think this will be changed to make it better. and that is going to be a huge challenge, especially next week as this committee really starts to take votes and formulate this proposal. >> as if they don't have challenges already. thank you very much, dana. dana bash from capitol hill. the white house rejecting former president jimmy carter's charge that most of president obama's critics are racist. carter is saying many americans do not simply disagree with the president on public policy. they are just uncomfortable with a black man in the white house. candy crowley has our report. >> reporter: race and politics is a combustible combo. and it explodes into headlines awhen an ex-president lights the fuse as jimmy carter did on nbc. >> an overwhelming portion of

the intensely demonstrated animosity toward president barack obama is based on the fact that he is a black man. >> reporter: it's the sort of thing that tenses to raise people's defenses. in particular, it tends to turn off independents who by nature hate the heart aches of politics. that makes the conversation a political loser for a president with an ambitious agenda. the white house wants no part of this. >> the president does not believe that criticism comes based on the color of his skin. >> reporter: as a candidate, barack obama understood the political danger in letting his race become a major topic. he avoided it when he could, but race was always a subtext as it is in his presidency. >> i have a feeling that barack obama to be president. with respect. >> reporter: framing criticism

as racism cropped up several times during the campaign, always leaving bitter feelings. when geraldine ferraro, a clinton supporter saying obama 0 wouldn't have gotten as far as he had had he not been black, candidate obama left race out of it. >> i think that her comments were ridiculous. >> reporter: but ferraro blamed obama supporters for her hate mail. >> i've been called all kinds of names. and the attacks are aged, they're sexed, they're racist. >> reporter: and the topic of race even came to haunt bill clinton, the so-called first black president. >> there's no difference in your voting record and hillaries ever since. give me break. this whole thing is the biggest fairy tale i've ever seen. >> reporter: bill clinton's fierce attacks on obama's states

about iraq caused grumblings in the african-american community that clinton was being dismissive. it prompted accusations that the former president was playing the race card. now, michael steele, as you know, lou, is the african-american who is now chairman of the republican national committee says that he believes former president jimmy carter is dead wrong. not only that, steele says, listen, he's taking away from cases of real racism. he said no one's denying racism is gone. it's just what you make these blanket assertions that almost all protest is based in racism, you take away from what's really important in the battle against racism. so we're hearing the same sorts of things as i'm sure you are, lou, around the watercooler, as they say. this is one of those topics that telling us both that is no post-racial america right now. >> yes, and it's also important to put into context, whatever news organization reports on this, that the president who made this statement, that is, former president jimmy carter,

was one of the most criticized and unpopular presidents of the last quarter century. and in the criticisms of president carter certainly didn't have anything to do with his race. candy, thank you very much. great reporting as always. candy crowley. well, president carter not the only one crying raceively. congressman hank johnson had a strong reaction to congressman joe wilson's accusation that the president lied. congressman johnson actually compared the president's critics to the likes of the ku klux klan. >> if i'm a bidding man, i would say it instigated more racist sentiment feeling that it's okay, you don't have to -- you don't have to bury it now. you can bring it out and talk about it fully. and, so, i guess we'll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again.

and riding through the countryside intimidating people. >> congressman hank jackson. coming up in the face-off debate here tonight, some people said the president's election was proof positive that america has turned the corner on the issue of race. but now, the issue is back. and in a big way, the debate over a post racial meamerica coming up later in the broadcast. this is not the first time that president carter has made controversial comments. his claims of attacks that the president's politics are racial seems familiar. all too expected. kitty pilgrim with the report. >> reporter: president jimmy carter left office a relatively young man in his 50s and since then has been a visible figure on the world stage. no one questions his

humanitarian work. working with habitat for humanity. in 2002, carter won the nobel peace prize. but it's also generated controversy by inserting the former president into difficult situations, often at the discomfort of the administration in power. for example, last april, carter met with a senior hamas leader, generating outcry from congress and the state department. the official u.s. policy was to shun the group. two months later, after a meeting with syrian president hasan. >> i do not believe there's any possibility to have peace between palestinians and israel. unless hamas is involved directly. >> reporter: carter also generated controversy by writing a book comparing the treatment of palestinians to south african apartheid. the book was endorsed in an auto tape reportedly to be osama bin laden. in 1994, during the clinton

administration, carter also went to north korea as a so-called private citizen. carter was feted and treated as a head of state. declaring success on his return, carter remarked i don't see they're an outlaw nation. people in north korea were friendly and open.carter center also monitored and certified the venezuelan election. last week, carter seemed at odds with president obama's policy in afghanistan saying america has turned against the war, just as u.s. commanders said they need more troops. carter said rather than sending troops, i quote, would negotiate with the locals, lou? >> kitty, thank you very much. well, race and politics, supposed to be past all of that with barack obama in the white house. maybe the claims were just a little premature. we'll be examining that. also tonight, some difficult questions being asked about the

white house's powerful czars. why so many. they make big important decisions, yet you and i know almost nothing about them. and who are they? the fed mays making a move against the left-wing activists a.c.o.r.n. what took so long? (announcer) take your time to find the right time with cialis for daily use... a clinically proven, low-dose tablet for erectile dysfunction you take every day

so you can be ready anytime the moment is right. tell your doctor about your medical condition and all medications and ask if you're healthy enough for sexual activity. don't take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. don't drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long term injury seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision stop taking cialis and call your doctor right away. (announcer) 36-hour cialis. or cialis for daily use. ask your doctor about cialis today, so when the moment is right, you can be ready.

the left-wing activist group a.c.o.r.n. could soon be facing a federal investigation. at a senate hearing today, fbi director robert mueller was asked about the questions raised in a series of video take in a.c.o.r.n. offices. >> the first i heard of this

incident to which you refer was last evening. and beyond that, i do not know where we are. clearly given what you said, it's something in consultation with the department of justice that we'll look at. >> a.c.o.r.n. today said it's taking steps on issues raised in those video, including sending employees to sensitivity training. a.c.o.r.n. in the videos seen and heard. there are calls in the senate for an investigation of a.c.o.r.n., house republicans funding the legislation to bar a.c.o.r.n. from receiving any federal money whatsoever. a.c.o.r.n. now receives an estimated 40% of its funding from the federal taxpayers. president obama has faced a sharp round of criticism for the unprecedented number of czars he's appointed. president obama has named over

30 czars, so far, many of them to top policy making positions. but known of those advisers are subject to senate hearings or vetting. now, many in congress are demanding far more accountability and testimony from the so-called czars. lisa sylvester has our report. >> reporter: there are about 30 so-called czars watching over everything from afghanistan to the economy. some lawmakers complain these advisers have bypassed senate confirmation process, answering only to the president and can be forced to testify before congress. >> this formation of a shadow cabinet that in fact is more than twice the size of the real cabinet, is a danger to the very question of who's advising the president and on what basis. >> reporter: representative frank wolf says the czars have not been put through full security screenings, unlike

cabinet members who had to go through a lengthy vetting process. >> investigators say they go through a background check, just like the interns at the white house. >> reporter: he stepped down after controversial statements he made surfaced. and steven rattner resigned. the white house defended itself saying the practice of appointing czars is nothing new. >> these are positions that date back at least to, you know, many, many administrations. where there may be policy coordination. between many different departments, in order to make governmental responses more efficient. >> reporter: the democratic national committee followed up saying, quote, most telling of the credibility of these attacks is that they come from the same republican party that didn't utter a peep about the 47 documented czars in the bush

administration. but it's not just republicans bothered by the czars. this week, democratic senator russ feingold who chairs the senate constitution subcommittee asked the white house to disclose more information. who are the individuals? what are their responsibilities? and whether and how these positions are consistent with the appointments clause of the constitution. and lawmakers are continuing to press the issue, introducing legislation to withhold funding from any czars calling for congressional hearings. and today, a policy of approval was introduced in the house, lou? >> we should be clear that that number, in the bush administration, the number of czars, point of fact, the highest number of czars that we were able to document in our own reporting on this broadcast, for the number of czars previous to the 34, 35 czars appointed by president obama, in his first eight months in office, was during the clinton administration. and he had only 10 czars.

a remarkable change of emphasis on czardom, if you will. >> yes. you know, if you take a look at the numbers that the dnc put out, one of the things that they do is they count all of the czars that president obama had, as opposed to counting the positions. so if you really want to compare apples to apples here. if president obama is start wig 30 czar positions, think how many can float in and out of those positions. you could well as over 60. >> in other words, they were counting the number of people that rotated in over two terms? >> exactly. over eight years. that's exactly what they were doing, as opposed to the positions. >> how open and transparent the dnc. thank you very much, lisa. lisa sylvester. up next here, is criticism of president obama, is it racist, or is it political? or is it all about public policy

perhaps? that's the subject of our "face-off debate" tonight. and a new wave of drugly cartel violence along the border with mexico. it seems unending. perhaps worsening. we'll be right back. half the h. - thank you. - her little brother has nothing. but then just like that, caitlin helps him out. i don't need a wall and a piece of chalk to mark the growth of my kids. we can just play monopoly. family moments cost less at walmart. monopoly championship edition and other hasbro games at unbeatable prices. save money. live better. walmart.

mexican drug cartel violence is exploding along our southern border. so far this year, more than 600 people in the city of juarez, just across the u.s. border, have been killed in drug cartel violence. that violence is on the rise, despite promises from mexico's president to rein in the cartels. more cartel violence is spilling as well over to this side of the border. casey wian with the report from the u.s./mexico border. >> reporter: just across the border from san diego, six bodies were found inside of a burning car in tijuana monday night. two were in the trunk, a sign that they're among the latest victims. across the border from el paso, ten people were gunned down in two separate incidents tuesday. 1,647 people have been killed in the city so far this year. already surpassing the total for all of 2008. it's the result of a vicious

turf battle between two cartels, and local authorities seem powerless to stop. >> we have been able to get most of the crime rates down. bank robberies are down 80%. car thefts are down 50%. commercial thefts are down 60%. so most of the statistics are down. we still need work a lot on murder rates which are very difficult. >> reporter: it's not for lack of trying president felipe calderon has agreed to extend the stay of 7500 troops in the city at the mayor's request. 700 police officers left after an anti-corruption sweep. authorities are even running public service ads dramatizing cartel killings with images that mirror real life. in and a message to the city's youth to stay away from the drug traffickers. but it's a hard sell, monday, police officers were arrested

nor allegedly collaborating with carteling. and a convoy was ambushed in broad daylight. >> every time you bash down on one of these creatures that is a cartel or a cartel leader, another one pops up. and so i see the violence escalating. >> reporter: evidence of that including two attacks this month in drug treatment facilities in mexico, where a total of 28 people were killed. authorities suspect some of the victims were cartel members hiding out in the facilities. and the violence continues to spill over to this side of the border. in recent weeks, federal authorities have arrested several suspects in texas and california. accused of working for mexican drug cartels. charges they face include murder, kidnapping, narcotics and weapons trafficking. lou? >> casey, thank you very much. casey wian reporting. up next, what took so long? the fbi finally saying it may be time to take a hard look at the leftist activist group

a.c.o.r.n., democrats turning on one another over the issue of health care. the fight over the so-called public option. could it destroy any chance of legislation and passing it? and everyone talking about a post-racial america when president obama was elected. now, those claims are being questioned, profoundly. hat? the interior "positively oozes class," raves "car magazine." "slick and sensuous," boasts "the washington times." "the most striking vw in recent memory," declares-- okay, i get it already. i think we were in a car commercial. ♪ yeah ♪ yeah.

>> announcer: here again, mr. independent, lou dobbs. the election of president barack obama was seen by many as ushering in the post-racial era of this country. that hope, however, may be premature. former president jimmy carter last night saying much of the criticism of the president's policy is racist. are we in a post-racial america? is vocal criticism of the president racism? or is it based on public policy differences? that's the subject of our face-off debate. joining me now is robert thompson ford, professor of law at stanford university. and dalo, she is a specialist,

we thank you for being with us. thank you so much. let's turn to the first issue. let's start, if i may with you, president carter making these states, do you agree, disagree, what? >> i think there's a sentiment throughout the country that there's an incivility to the tone of the political debate. much like when colin powell stepped in at the end of the 2008 campaign and said this is enough. we need to have someone say something. and i think that was what motivated president carter's comments. he knows of which he speaks. he's a southern democrat who ran in georgia in the 1960s and '70s. knows very well the political climate down there and the ways which race plays into voting patterns and discourse. >> richard, your thoughts. do you agree? >> well, there's no doubt that there are racism in the united states.

i have no doubt at that first black president, president obama, experiences some extra degree of hostility, as a result of that element of the american population. now, that having been said, i think that racism is at an all-time low. and it's also important to note that our political debates in this country have been characterized by rank or hostility for quite a long time. president clinton and president bush didn't receive an easy free ride. a lot of what's going on with obama really isn't that much different than what's happened to other presidents. >> now, president bush isn't exactly a daffodil. you mentioned civility, dayo. this goes beyond civility issues. there's no question that congressman joe wilson insulted the office of president obama, as well as president obama. >> that's right. >> he apologized. the president graciously accepted that apology.

now, we move to another level, at which the first black president of america, has either those who would like to support him, or surrogates saying when you criticize a black president's policies that that in and of itself is racism. does that not -- that strains creduli credulity, does it not? >> the question is whether or not this is a racial moment is sort of beside the point. this is about politics. we're in washington. it's a town where there are agendas on the right and left. by any means possible, we've seen individuals pushing it. and we've seen joe wilson, his primary opponent, raising money off his -- >> millions of dollars. >> right. in so far as the racial issue can motivate, a small proportion at rallies, like the rally we saw at the mall on saturday,

republicans can use that tool if they can. i think that's lamentable but that's politics, more than race. >> dayo seems to be, rich, boxing in a few folks, if i may, putting us in a position of a body politic. if it's not racism, perhaps implying rather forcefully that racism is a motivation, if not the expression. what do you make of that? >> well, i think that it's in politics, often politicians will latch on to you anything that they can. unfortunately, sometimes that includes racism. but my concern is that we wind up with a debate of whether or not this person or that person is a racism. joe wilson, what have you. now, already, we see his son has come out to say my father is not a racist. and it distracts from the real issues. both from the racial inequity.

i could go on to the criminal justice system and also the issues of health care. instead, we have kind of a predictable debate about racism, a lot of what he has yearn rated. >> dayo, is the choice of jimmy carter, hank johnson and others, who should be, one would think, the support offed president's advocac advocacy, and his own agenda. >> i think it might speak to a lack of communication between jimmy carter and the white house. he's a former president. he's entitled to do whatever he'd like. again, the white house is not pushing this. i was at the briefing today where press secretary robert gibbs was asked over and over again to speak about jimmy carter. didn't want to get into. the jeremiah wright incident in

2008, the skip gates incident earlier this summer, were all incidents where something was happening politically that forced his hand. i think the president in the white house would much be rather talking about health care. you've called that to be an abuse of health care. but i think the white house is trying to focus on this. i think they're very much directed in several different directions from which they're being pulled from a policy perspective. >> richard, you get the last word. >> i never said that the president talking about the skip gates incident was an abusive incident of the race card. i do think that the white house has been very careful to stay on message and not to get distracted by kind of unresolvable debate about whether that person or this person's a racist. that's to their credit. >> thank you both for being with us. >> dayo, thank you. professor, thank you very much. up next, we'll have more on the issue of race and politics,

and a possible fallout for the president's agenda. more problems for the left-wing activist group a.c.o.r.n., is a federal investigation next? and a battle over the pledge of allegiance in our schools. should our students be given a miranda warning before pledging allegiance to the flag of the united states? we'll be right back. anyone can prove they're strong once. the real question is can they prove it again and again. ♪ at northwestern mutual, we've answered that question compellingly... for over 150 years. northwestern mutual. consistency counts. put our strength to work for you. learn how at northwesternmutual.com. this is humiliating. stand still so we can get an accurate reading. okay...um...eighteen pounds and a smidge. a smidge? y'know, there's really no need to weigh packages under 70 pounds. with priority mail flat rate boxes from the postal service,

if it fits, it ships anywhere in the country for a low flat rate. cool. you know this scale is off by a good 7, 8 pounds. maybe five. priority mail flat rate boxes only from the postal service. a simpler way to ship.

millions of our school children all around the country

beginning their day, reciting the pledge of allegiance. courts have ruled that students have the right not to recite the pledge. but now an activist group wants schools to have, if you will, miranda warning for the pledge. an adviser to students they can remain silent during the pledge. bill tucker with our story. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america. >> reporter: that's the sound of the start of a school day in classrooms across america. >> for which it stands -- >> reporter: and it has been since presidential candidate barry goldwater used it in his campaign ads. >> it's fundamentally american and uniquely american. i don't know any nation that has that statement which ties us together in our declaration, and the pledge picking up on those ideas. >> reporter: 37 states have laws requiring that their schools

begin the school day with the pledge of allegiance. while 13 have no law or have an option to recite the pledge. almost as ubiquitous is the controversy that comes along with. the group of the united states for separation of church and state, has issued a statement that it wants schools to reminder parents and kids that they have no obligation to recite the pledge of allegiance. >> we're not saying that the teacher has to get up in a bull horn and scream, you don't have to participate if you don't want to. >> reporter: they do want schools to incorporate the right of refusal into school policy and notify parents of the policy. legally, they're on sound footing with the supreme court decision from 1943, that came as a result of a lawsuit brought by a family of jehovah's witnesses who said that the pledge put country above god, therefore, they could not and will not say the pledge. the court sided with them. lou, that was 66 years ago,

right smack when we were involved in world war ii. true to form, as you would guess, it was not a popular decision. lou. >> thank you very much, bill tucker. joining me republican strategist, cnn contributor ed rollins. and president of christy strategies, former assistant to george w. bush, ron christy. and robert zimmerman. glad to have you here. let's start with the pledge. talk about looking for trouble, isn't that just looking for trouble? >> the not just looking for trouble. you have to wonder what in the world do these people have to do with the time on their hands. and when we have enough wedges in our country without trying to create a new one. >> you use the expression, this is just another effort -- whatever the intentions whether they be from the heart or whatever? why? >> you got me. i agree with robert. i think there's so many issues around the country right now, if

children want to say the pledge of allegiance, let them say it. to suggest they have tour mirandized before they go in the classroom, it's absurd. >> far too absurd. let's move on to serious topics. let's talk about jimmy carter. this man has decided if you criticize a black president policies, his public policies, then you are, by definition, a racist. >> jimmy carter by my definition having been in the white house who fold him was the worst president in history and probably the worst ex-president in history. he can't stand to be out of the lime light. i think this is an idiotic statement. i think this president has gone a great deal both in his election and campaign to put racism behind us. there's also freedom of speech and what's been practiced on this critical issue of health care, a lot of americans being very concerned and expressing concerns. for him to put racism into this as an excuse or nonexcuse is absurd. >> now, ed, he did help put you

in the white house, that's something that we can appreciate when you were a ronald reagan political director saand senior adviser. >> the bottom line is, based on the last election, jimmy carter is factually correct, it's a divisive statement. and it's counterproductive to having a serious discussion about important issues. and i give the white house great credit for separating themselves from the statement, as i do the house leaders who spoke up today. my problem is, when i see democrats to their crediti comig out, we've seen one state after another, rush limbaugh, newt gingrich. or this guy phillips who is ladying the tea bag express, and i've not seen one president step up and take on the divisive statements. >> surely, robert, you don't want to go through the list of left-wing comment taators who h

not expressed them either eloquently or critically. >> i certainly do, i want to talk about 75 senators more than half the democrats voted to condemn moveon.org when it took on general petraeus. i think there is an issue where we can have civility, william f. buckley, drove out the republican society. >> what wow have the republicans drive out now? >> i would have the republican leadership step up and say -- even though it's a small minority, the point is it's dominating the airwaves with newt gingrich and rush limbaugh -- >> let me inject in this, it's a very sad commentary in america where people can disagree with the president of the united states. it's the toughest job in the world, if you disagree with the president of the united states, because you're african-american, suddenly, you're racist.

i disagree with a lot of his policies, but i think it's helpful to this country to suggest if you disagree with the president, you can have an honest dialogue. >> how about, ron, when members of your party don't step up and take on people like mark williams who called barack obama an indonesian welfare or thug. >> i don't want to go down that road? >> why not. why don't we take on newt gingrich. >> we had the first member of the ku klux klan in the united states senate. let's not get derailed. the point of the matter, the president of the united states ran for this office, he sought this office, he in my opinion should come out very strongly and say, enough is enough. the 39th president of the united states is wrong. i have a record. the president of the united states can put this behind us. we do not need another discussion of race. this is going to hurt the white house. >> ron, i wish you would have

been more intense when the majority leader of the united states senate called george bush a liar. we just reprimanded a member of congress for the first time in hist for calling the president a liar. >> for shouting out at a joint session. >> you don't think they've called the president a liar and never apologized? >> based upon the lies that we heard from this administration over the iraq war, i justify it. i accept what -- >> i'm sitting here trying to decide which is the purest. the republican -- >> mr. rollins is the purest. >> the republican party or the democratic party. we're going take a break and try to assess where the greatest amount of purity resides, republican or democratic leadership. we'll assess that. coming up at the top of the hour, rick sanchez sitting in for campbell brown. rick? >> the woman who runs a.c.o.r.n., the ceo. he's going to try to explain to

me, notice the keyword there is "try" to explain to me what happened with the videotapes that everyone has been seeing that detail everything from an explanation to how to do prostitution. i mean, we're talking about several illegal acts. we've got the videos. we've got the explanations. we've got the ramifications. and she's going to come on and tell us what they are doing now in the midst of this scandalous controversy. here's what else we're going to do today, lou. we're also talking about the situation at yale. this young lady was found there a couple days before he was scheduled to get married in a wall. apparently police are saying she was strangled, lou. you know what's interesting. a american is taken away, handcuffed. the police got him, checking his dna, they've been in his house. but he's not a suspect, they say. they say he's not under arrest. that's puzzling. lou, back to you. >> there's a lot puzzling these days, including the fact that

the response initially on the investigation into the a.c.o.r.n. group is they're going to have sensitivity training. and the amount is staggering. we'll have that report next. we'll be right back with the panel. we'll assess, democrats or republicans? before i started this job, i admit, i had some doubts. probably a lot like you. but i like what i found. i think you will too. car for car, when compared to the competition, we win. simple as that. i just know if you get into one of our cars, you're gonna like what you see. so we're putting our money where our mouth is. buy a new chevy, buick, gmc or cadillac and if you are not 100% happy, return it. we'll take it back. that's our new 60-day satisfaction guarantee. and as always you'll get our 100,000-mile, 5-year powertrain warranty on every vehicle.

that's how strongly we feel about our cars. and how committed we are to you. so put us to the test-- put us up against anyone and may the best car win. sfwhen you own a business,g saving sounds good. so put us to the test-- so hear this: regions makes it simple to save money and time with lifegreen checking and savings for business, free convenient e-services and regions quick deposit, so you can deposit checks right from your desk. so switch to regions and start saving. plus, get a business financial review through a regions cashcor analysis. it's how business gets into the rhythm of saving. regions - it's time to expect more.

we're back with our panel. we've got time just enough for concluding thoughts on the state of the union, if you will. your thoughts about the day. >> the baucus proposal's not anyone's first choice, but it's clearly emerging as a breakthrough in being the second choice. the preliminary reports from the cbo show over ten years, this could be a savings up to $49 billion. >> it's amazing we don't have even more of these. the money we could make on these health care proposals. >> exactly. >> i think the race we've talked about with jimmy carter is going to be a short-term distraction for the president, but in the long-term, i think it's going to anger and embolden a lot of people who have strong disagreements with this president to say, we should not every tell you if you disagree with us, we're racist. it's going to portend for the

2010 races. >> the president think he's in a war now. with a speaker that's always been anti-military. you saw it yesterday before they even put up the afghan plan, there's a lot of objections, very serious democrats. so that's going to be the real fight. >> all right. ed, thank you very much. ron, thank you very much. robert, thank you. up next, the real cost of welfare in this country. it's a hidden cost, but you can't imagine how big it really is. we'll have that for you, next. gecko vo: geico's the third-largest

car insurance company in the nation. but, it's not like we're kicking back, now, havin' a cuppa tea. gecko vo: takes lots of sweat to become that big. gecko vo: 'course, geckos don't literally sweat... it's just not our thing... gecko vo: ...but i do work hard, mind you. gecko vo: first rule of "hard work equals success." gecko vo: that's why geico is consistently rated excellent or better in terms of financial strength. gecko vo: second rule: "don't steal a coworker's egg salad, 'specially if it's marked "the gecko." come on people. a new heritage foundation study finds that the obama administration will spend more than $10 trillion on welfare programs over the next decade. the heritage foundation's robert

recktor, the co-author of the study, calls the president's approach a plan for bankruptcy. robert recktor joins us now. robert, good to have you with us. this is an extraordinary amount of money and why is it not in plain view as we look at the budget numbers and what is being proposed? >> this spending is largely hidden, because when you deal with similar programs like medicare and social security, they are a single item in the federal budget. but when you look at aid to the poor, and that's cash, food, housing and medical care for poor and very low income people, it's spread out among 71 different programs and 14 different departments and agencies. so you have to literally go through thousands of pages in the budget to uncover how much we spend on poor people. but when you do that exercise, what you find is that this year, we're going to spend about $800 billion on poor and low-income

people. and it's about 5% of the gross domestic product. it's the third largest category of government spending. social security and medicare come first, then public education, then comes aid to the poor or means tested welfare. and we're now at a record level. obama is going to increase it by about $300 billion over the next two years. but the increase isn't temporary. it just goes on and on and on. >> did you say $300 billion over two years? >> yes, that's the increase over the next two years alone. but then it doesn't go down after the recession. it continues to remain high. within a few years, we're going to be spending $1 trillion a year on this stuff. and i'm not making these numbers up. they come right out of obama's budgets. and it's an astonishing thing. we are marching towards national bankruptcy. he's piling on $500 trillion of debt a year for the foreseeable future. we're basically mortgaging our children's future in order to spread the wealth today.

and spreading the wealth might be a good idea, but we ought to at least be honest before we start doing even more of it about how much we're currently spending on the poor. our current spending amounts to about $18,000 on assistance to the poor for every single poor person in the united states, every single year. >> say that number again. how much per person? >> it's $18,000 for each poor person. that's the total amount of spending on means tested welfare. you could even look at it more broadly, because some of the spending goes to people that are low income, but not necessarily poor. but even if you were to take that, if you were to take this money and spread it out through the bottom one-third of the u.s. population, everybody in the bottom third gets part of this money. it comes to $28,000 for each family of four down in that bottom third of the population. it's a huge amount of expenditure and it's largely untouched, undescribed. when the census bureau talks about inequality or measures poverty, guess what?

of this $800 billion of spending, not a -- virtually none of it is counted. when we talk about how much the poor have and how much the rich have, we don't count the welfare state. they pretend that this doesn't exist. that's an insane way to conduct a discussion about public policy. >> insane and insane that we don't have a discussion of what is being spent in total. $10.3 trillion over the next decade. that is absolutely staggering. $28,000 per family in the lower third of income in this country per year. again, staggering. and yet, poverty persists. and as you say, there is no acknowledgement of the money that is being redistributed by the federal government to these low-income people in this country. >> what you find when you really examine the living standards of lower income people is that they're doing much better than normal