>> it was lost in translation. republicans and democrats apparently aren't the only ones having trouble communicating these days. thanks for watching "state of the union." i'm candy crowley in washington for our international viewers "world report" is next and for everyone else fareed zakaria "gps" starts right now. this is "gps" the global public square. welcome to all our viewers in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria. this week concerns of the american economy persists, the u.s. tries to salvage health care reform and europe faces a life-threatening crisis. i speak with george soros. one of the world's most successful investors and a man who has devoted most of his life to understanding markets and change in the world, including in the united states of america.

first, a few of my own thoughts. i'm struck by how gloomy everyone is about the fortunes of the united states. i do it myself sometimes. let me offer a small corrective this week. the united states remains the world's most dynamic and productive economy by many measures. it still dominates the world of science and technology with the world's greatest universities and the best research and the most nobel prizes and the largest strobe of patents. a dynamic economy but also a dynamic society. america is the world's only large nation that will grow substanshially in population over the next 40 to 50 years. thanks to immigration, america will stay young, restless and hard working. now, we have big problems, but the biggest one by far, the one to worry about is the growing national debt. it's what is reminding ourselves, however, that this is not a fact of life that we simply have to accept. there are many simple economic measures that would correct the budgetary fix easily.

let me give you just one. a value added tax. now, this is a tax that 130 countries have. it's a tax on consumption and national sales tax, if you will. most countries have one that ranges from 5% to 25%. we have none. we need to adopt a national sales tax in the 10% to 14% range and it would allow us to eliminate the income tax for anyone earning less than $100,000, which is 90% of american households. if we went up to the highest rate, which is used in scandinavian countries, many of which have grown faster than the united states over the past two decades, we could eliminate the income tax for the vast majority of people, balance the federal budget and fund health care for all americans and slash the top income tax rate to 25%. so, the solutions are out there, we just need leadership in washington to implement some of them, stabilize the budget and thus revive the fortunes of this

country. is there anyone in washington willing to show that courage? after george soros we have a lively conversation with two of my favorite brits lionel barber and simon schama of columbia university. let's get started. joining me, the billionaire investor, financier, speculator, philanthropist and thinker, george soros. thank you for joining me, george. >> my pleasure. >> you were a great supporter of barack obama. you helped raise money. you gave a good bit of money yourself. are you satisfied with the job barack obama has done? >> no, i'm not satisfied. the solution that he found to the financial crisis which was

to effectively bail out the banks and allow them to earn their way out of the hole was, in my opinion, not the right solution. he should have compulsorily replaced the capital that was lost. >> which would have been nationalizing the banks. >> this is what they called nationalizing the banks. he made the political decision that that is un-american, will not be accepted. >> what about the broad issue of barack obama's leadership, not just the bank bailout, but dealing with the auto companies, dealing with the housing market, dealing with the economy, the stimulus. on all those issues, i think you can look at anyone by itself. but i think he's done pretty well, and i think in some ways hasn't gotten the credit for it because the crisis was averted. now the republicans can say,

there was no problem, we didn't need to spend all this money. >> that's exactly right. he's paying a very heavy price for saving the country from going into a very deep recession or depression because people don't -- haven't experienced it. he wanted to be the great uniter. he wanted to carry the country, sort of bring together. the other side had no incentive to do it. it takes two to tango. so that approach has failed. i think he in massachusetts, he got the message. and i hope that actually now he's taking the health care back to congress and overcoming the filibuster, the 60% vote requirement.

and i think that's the right reaction. so he's sort of taking a tough stance. and that may be the turning point. depends on how he follows it up. but this could -- we may have had, say last week, the deepest point of the -- of his -- you know, roosevelt in his first year was also sort of tentative and didn't take a really tough stance. and he wasn't that popular either. then he really got tough. he was threatening to increase the number of judges on the supreme court to overcome that obstacle. and eventually he succeeded, and that made him popular. >> he failed at the court backing, but he succeeded politically is what you mean. >> yes, yes.

>> one of the proposals, because banks have been making these unexpected and many think undeserved profits has been in various ways to claw back some of the money. the british and the french are talking about a tax on bonuses. obama is talking about a tax on bank size. another proposal to have a tax on financial transactions for the future. what do you think about all those proposals? >> why shouldn't those things provide revenues to make up the losses? i think it's a natural source of revenues. >> one more tax to ask you about. the tax on carried interest which is at the heart of hedge funds like yours, has tended to be the level of capital gains. should it be at the level of income taxes? >> i think that the earnings of the hedge fund managers should be capital gains -- sorry --

that's earnings. that should be treated as earned income. >> would substantially cut into your own income. >> yes. >> do you think there's some measure on financial reform that he needs to do that is not currently being proposed? >> look, i think that the financial reform is not an urgent thing. it's more important to do it right than to do it right away. because right now there's no danger of another credit boom. it's quite the opposite. look, you want to keep regulation to a minimum because financial markets are inherently unstable. but regulators are also imperfect. and actually they are worse than markets because, a, bureaucratic and they're always behind the curve. secondly, they're subject to political pressures.

so you want to keep regulation to a minimum. but you must accept a responsibility that, for instance, alan greenspan explicitly rejected which was to prevent asset bubbles from growing too big. >> bubbles like in technology, stocks or housing. greenspan said that's not the job of the fed because if the market can't detect the bubble, how can i as a regulator detect it? >> and he's right. however, knowing that he's bound to be wrong. he nevertheless, knowing that markets will not prevent excesses, has to move against it and has to take some steps which is either too little or too much. but the market provides him with feedback, and then he can see whether it's too much or do little and do more. >> there's a certain

commonsensical aspect. if you look at the canadians, when growth started growing strongly, they started raising capital requirements for banks, insisting on lower levels of leverage, greenspan seemed not to want to do anything like that. >> that's because of this false belief and this market fundamentalist belief that markets correct their own excesses. they don't. when i see a bubble, i buy that bubble because that's how i make money. you can't trust the market to correct it, you see. so that's the lesson we have to learn, and actually the chinese, you know, they increased the minimum capital requirements that banks have to hold 17 times when the market was getting overheated. and then when the crash came, then they really let it rip.

and we will be back with george soros right after this. >> i find this the most disturbing thing in the present picture. that neither side fully knows what's in the mind of the other side and things have started going wrong. hey, ask our doctor about garlique, okay?

garlique's clinically tested ingredient maintains healthy cholesterol naturally. eat right. exercise. garlique. we are back with george soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and political activist.

what does it tell us that, when looking at this last four or five years china basically handled its economic policy much more successfully, much more wisely than we did. it's not just china. even the indians and brazilians and indonesians. they all were fairly sensible. it was britain and the united states, the advanced capitalist countries that turned out to be running very weak policies. >> yes. it is effectively a bankruptcy of this market fundamentalist belief which really came in with reagan and thatcher. now, reagan is still in the panoply of saints in this country. we just have to recognize that

something went very wrong and we need to reformulate our view of the financial market is worth. >> the real challenge is that there has been a breakdown of the free market capitalist market panel. it's so prone to crises and the solving of the crises has been so expensive. states having taken on all this debt, that the one that seems to be succeeding better is the chinese model which some people called state capitalism. do you think that's a viable model, chinese capitalism for the future. i think that they will have to actually, if they want to keep on growing, they will have to modify the model. so far they've done extremely well in adjusting it to changing circumstances. but they are the emerging power.

and they must accept responsibility for the global financial system. they have to form -- enter into a partnership with the rest of the world. nobody can dictate to the world. president bush tried to do it and it cost us very dearly. you can't impose -- however powerful you are, you can't impose your will. you have to find common ground. china has to buy into, and we have to bring china in. >> some people say that the greatest distortion currently in the global marketplace is china's currency which the government is keeping artificially low. the peterson institute says the chinese currency is undervalued by 40%. the argument is they're keeping it low so the exports are cheap and everybody buys them. do you believe that china's currency is artificially low? >> there's no question about it.

and more over, since china is now overheating, for domestic purposes, raising the -- allowing the exchange rate to appreciate would be a very good way to bring the inflationary pressures under control. >> because it would allow the chinese to import cheap goods from the rest of the world. >> they need to increase their imports. we need to increase our exports. adjusting the exchange rate would be the right way to go. >> but in order to do that, you need really close cooperation between china and the united states. >> that's right. >> right now these two countries do not seem to be working as well together as they might. >> yes. i find this the most disturbing thing in the present picture. because in the last few months -- and this has come on rather suddenly, and i think is based on lack of set of mutual understands that neither side fully knows what's in the mind

of the other side. and things have started going wrong. when president obama went to china and basically said to them, you're now very successful. we offer you a partnership in working out the problems of the world. and the chinese said no, no, we're a developing country. we have plenty of problems here. our people are very, very poor. we can't take on that additional responsibility. and there was a terrible situation in copenhagen where both sides -- a lot of good people were working on trying to make it -- bring an agreement, and instead of that, you had disagreement. and then you had the visit of the dalai lama to president obama.

and unless we arrest it, you have a snowball effect. as you know, the further it goes, the bigger it gets. unless we stop it in the next few months, i think that we could yet fall back into the situation that prevailed in the it 1930s, where each country for itself, beggar thy neighbor, financial protection anymore and a breakdown of the global economy. >> so this is the thing that worries you more than anything else? >> that's right. >> in your last book you were worried about the statuseses of the dollar. but now when one looks around at the world, what you're struck by is actually the terrible weakness of the euro. do you think the euro can survive as a currency? >> euro is also being very severely tested. because in its construction, it's flawed because you have a

common central bank, but you don't have a common treasury. your exchange rate is fixed. if a country gets into difficulty, it can't depreciate its currency which would be a normal way, and it's not getting the kind of transfer payments that american states get if they happen to be doing worse than other states. >> in unemployment insurance and food stamps. >> and of course, tax collections are lower. but the federal remittances are bigger. so that helps to keep the common market together. if you have a common market, you do need a common currency. if you have a common currency, you need a common treasury as well. >> but that's where europe is. my question is, can the euro survive? >> this is now the real question. i think that greece will survive

for various reasons. but it still leaves spain and the other countries. so either europe now takes institutional measures that are needed to make up for the deficiency, or, in fact, it may not survive. >> your funds are up to managing $27 billion now. >> yes. >> most of it your own? >> well, not, but sort of -- a large part. >> a lot of people wonder what is it like to have that kind of money? does it make you feel that you have special obligations? does it make you feel -- >> yes, actually it does. i feel that it puts me in a very privileged position and, therefore, i have to use it -- it makes me more independent than most people are. so it allows me to call a spade a spade. and also, i mean most of the

money i devote -- my money to the foundation. >> you're giving away still over $500 million a year. >> yes, yes, and actually increasing it. >> what do you want to accomplish when you give this money? what is your thought? >> well, i think we are now in a position to consider the issues confronting humanity. like, for instance, climate change. taking care of the vulnerable populations because you really have not just bubbles, but you also have deep holes that people fall into and they really can't get out of those holes without outside assistance. so helping those who are in those self-reenforcing deep

holes is really i think the function of the foundation. george soros, thank you very much. >> pleasure. and we will be right back. >> sponging off populist fury is so not his style. when he has it, he probably goes and plays a round of pick-up hoop. >> he's what was described as an npr liberal, that means all things considered. (female announcer) stressless is designed to be the most comfortable line of furniture in existence. it's a motion line of furniture that conforms to your body

and supports your head, neck, and back seamlessly in any position, leaving your entire body feeling rested and rejuvenated. [upbeat jazz arrangement] ♪ right now, you'll receive a stressless accessory free of charge when you purchase one of our recliners. ♪ call now... ...featuring our entire stressless line. give yourself the gift of ultimate comfort, and where better to find it than from stressless, the innovators of comfort. call now for a free catalog and dvd featuring our entire stressless line.

every once in a while i like to have on a couple of smart people to talk about whatever is happening in the world and what is on their minds. this is one of those occasions. simon schama is a professor of history and art history at columbia university. including oxford, cambridge and the other cam bridge also known as harvard university. lionel barber is the editor of "the financial times" of london. he covered europe and the united states for the paper. both of my guests happen to be brits. i don't want you think i consider them smart just because of the accent. lionel barber, you spent many years here. you now watch the united states

from across the pond. what is your sense of the obama presidency one year in? >> i think, first of all, he has to realize that he took probably too many people from the campaign into the white house, that he's reliant on those people. he needs to have some people who are, if you like more experience in government as opposed to campaigning. secondly, he probably needs to outsource less to congress. he's been too deferential to congress. he needs to spill a little blood, flex a bit of muscle, be angry a little bit. i'm sure he believes, and he is a formidable articulate person. he believes too much in the power of rational persuasion. occasionally the irrational helps. >> he's at a crossroads in his political fortunes with the midterm coming up. does he say i've been too confrontational, my only chance is to have so sort of notional centrism. do i need to let the country

feel a sense of a presidential authority? lionel and i agree. i think if he doesn't go for that possibly tougher gamble, he's finished. >> but in a way, you're saying it's about style, not about the fact that he veered too far left? >> no. i think it's a matter of substance here, too. i think it was a mistake to push health care reform first in the middle of the most severe recession for 60 years. i think he should have been focused ton economy, on jobs. health care does not command -- reform does not command majority support in the population. people are deeply skeptical of his claims that he can save money with it. people really feel it contradicts a fundamental tenet of the american individualism. we look after ourselves. of course there is a minority in this country that believes that health care reform is necessary because there are 40 million people with no health insurance. but i suspect there are a lot -- you saw that with the massachusetts result, that people there said, you know, why should we pay for those slackers, say, in arkansas, or

the immigrants coming in? >> the irony is that massachusetts has universal health care. >> scott brown voted for it. >> because we've got it. and we don't see why it should be extended. >> one thing you can say about this particular political moment, the democrats, at least i really hope so, will never run such an appalling campaign as the known campaign in massachusetts. it was simply a case of their weakness and complacency there. i don't quite agree with you about nothing of substance happening. for example, it said there was no focus on jobs. what was the stimulus package doing if not actually providing the capital which prevented more people from being fired in public services all over the country. money went pretty quickly out of the door to some places where it started to show that -- provide the economy with a power stint. it's done an appalling job in explaining in basic terms to the

american people that the stimulus was know, oh, big brother, somehow wasting their taxes entirely on bailing out banks. it was doing something giving the economy a transfusion. >> one part of the problem they've had to deal with, they had to, i think t bank bailout to rescue the financial system. and that is what was deeply unpopular and became associated with the stimulus. people think of the bank bailout as the stimulus and say we don't want the government involved in any of that. >> who did the bank bailout? >> it was bush, but then obama extends it and continues it. >> why would obama not have the wherewithal, the intestinal fortitude to say, actually, this was a republican precedent, may he rest in peace and retirement actually who did this. >> the stimulus package was absolutely necessary. i think it could have been more imaginative in terms of what it could have done to promote jobs. it was absolutely necessary to help bailout the states, and i

think that it was certainly definitely the case that you needed a bank bailout. the problem is that this country always has a history of populism in recessions. what has happened with the obama presidency, you've got a double whammy because it's not just the recession, it's the idea, the specter of big government. obama has presented big government as a solution in these troubled times. that really has provoked a backlash. that's why you're seeing the tea party movement. and the obama presidency, the white house was very slow to pick that up. >> it's not true that it's an operational -- >> 1930s -- >> did not get in the way of roosevelt's institutionalization of the new deal one bit. >> what do you think the ideological moment is? what does it tell us? we're in this big crisis and perhaps neither left or right -- >> lionel is right in saying

that you can simultaneously have, as in the 1930s -- you're quite right about that -- you can have a kind of uprush of adrenaline-driven populist fury, a kind of animal lashing out really. scapegoa scapegoats. in father coughlin's case it was the jews among others. at the same time, if you have a shrewd, determined canny leader of true setting the bar very high like franklin roosevelt and those around him. he can actually sponge up some of that anger and say, i understand you, i hear you and the presidency and my government is not the enemy of the forgotten man, of the small man. here is what we're trying to do to make sure you and your children -- at the moment, we have to say barack obama has only, we would only give him a "b," at best, doing that.

because sponging up populist fury is so not his style. when he has it, he probably goes and plays a round of pickup hoop. >> he's what was described to me recently as an npr liberal. that means all things considered, he's somebody who really believes in the power of persuasion. and i think actually a better parallel is 1991-'02, ross perot. look how close, that election was very close. clinton in the end had to move into the center, reach out to republicans in order to get business done. and he suffered that big, big defeat in '94. >> what does the tea party movement tell us? >> i was just going to see that even though it seems extremely likely the democratic party will suffer severely, we don't know quite how much we would expect them to in better circumstances, in the midterm elections, it's much less clear of whether this is a one-term presidency for obama. it can't possibly have escaped

his attention that if there is a kind of nervous division inside the democrats about how much he is a government or how frightened to be and run away from it, what is evan bayh doing, for god's sake? contemptible cowardess i think there. where was i? yes, there is, i herm ris dad. he wouldn't have done that. balls of steel. there is a fury developing in the republican party which we'll see unfold month after month, year after year. be careful what you wish for, you know michael steele and even sarah palin. whether or not they have complete command or control over seriously, potentially violent with a very small v, but extremely angry, rather anarcic

movement on the right, whether it's ever compatible with party organization when you come to have to win an election is really a moot point. obama will never want to win an election by default, but with the excellent ross perot analogy, that may well be the case, that if the tea partiers, who will straight out of chapters from richard hofstadter's book on american politics -- it's striking, isn't it, actually how hostile they are to some republican party stalwarts right now. if they don't feel they can take control of the republican party in the name and sake of constitution, they may well-rounded the party. >> we will be back right after this. >> so, if you're thinking about a holiday and grace period.

we are back with the editor

of "the financial times" lionel barber, and simon schama, the famous historian, author, columbian professor. we have to talk about chaos in europe before we leave. what is happening in europe, lionel? it seems for all of america's problems, at least the place is hanging together. you have greece in a kind of enron-type accounting fraud that has been discovered. the germans seem to have to bail them out, are hating the prospect of doing that. if they do that, does that produce a follow-on effect for the other countries that have bad economies, spain, portugal -- >> i'll spare you the analogy with greek tragedies and all that. i would say this is the first test of european monetary union. told his fellow leaders at the brussels summit late last year,

the government has been corrupt to the bone, not just in recent years but for decades. of course, now they've got a huge deficit, more than 12% of gdp and a massive amount of debt. and the germans are looking at this and saying we told you so. they were very nervous about having a monetary rate to extend to the so-called club med countries, spain, portugal and greece. highly indebted, physically irresponsible -- and italy, and italy. it's sort of "i told you so." in the end the germans will have to bail them out, lead a bailout. they're very reluctant. mrs. merkel apparently said are you saying the german people -- how am i going to tell the german people, i've just raised the pension age from 65 to 67 in order that the greeks can retire at 55? so the price will be very high, austerity for several years. if you're thinking about a holiday in greece, fareed -- maybe second thoughts. >> i was thinking about the

blessed montesa square, believe the political cultures was determined by their climate. is it fiscal disaster happens where the orange grows? >> there's remarkable progress in countries like spain and portugal. i think greece benefited from huge financial transfers, and frankly, they have enjoyed credit cover, if you like, in the single currency zone. they've enjoyed low interest rates and they've lived beyond their means. now is the adjustment. >> doesn't this suggest the kind of unworkable nature, one currency, but all these countries with widely different standards? >> if you don't have a fiscal union as well as a monetary union, then you get into trouble. and the really worrisome thing is that the greek economy, the

greek government have got to have a severe adjustment on living standards and they don't have the flexibility of the exchange rate because they're in a monetary unit. that's the problem. all the pressure is going to come on wages, on living standards. you know, in ireland where the economy is also going like gang busters, almost a leprechaun on steroids, in the public worker some of the workers are taking a wage cut of 15 to 20%. >> what is the mood in europe? do you think there's a sense that the project is in danger? or will this just -- will people move on? >> there's a certain amount of panic in brussels, for good reasons. i sometimes hear it invoked that the good news is that the new europe and the countries formally in the soviet world have actually weathered the crisis a little better. is that right? >> i'm not sure. >> they have stronger budgetary positions. the polls, the czechs, the hungarians -- greece, spain,

italy, france, 9% of gdp. >> not just a deficit or debt problem. it's a current account problem. if you look at the countries like the baltic states, hungary, they've had to make severe adjustment. interestingly the imf came in to help them in western europe. the germans and the french don't want the imf in. why? it would be seen that they failed. president sarkozy doesn't want his socialist rival dominique strauss kahn that runs the imf take any credit whatsoever for helping to achieve a greek solution. >> before you guys go, since you're both brits, who is going to win -- i assume gordon brown will have to announce british election sometime around easter, which means they'll take place about six weeks after that. who is going to win? >> notice the very long pause which is not helpful to you.

i think it is going to be much tighter than most people think. i'm not going to bet for a hung parliament. i think david cameron will win with a majority of less than two digits. >> so tiny, which would be by historical standards very, very thin. >> yeah. >> i never make predictions about political races particularly in my own country. in case people draw the wrong conclusions. what i will say the conservatives have yet to close the deal with the public. a lot of worry about the top circle, how much experience they have. on the other hand, there's a lot of people who are just fed up with labor after 13 years. and gordon brown -- >> very tough to win after you've been in power for 13 years. >> exhausted volcanos is how someone described mr. gladstone's government. >> we are neither exhausted nor volcanos but we have to end this. thank you all very much. we'll be right back. (announcer) not just sinus headache... ahhhh! but pressure... and congestion. introducing sudafed pe® triple action™.

for more complete relief from the sinus triple threat. sudafed pe® triple action™. more complete relief.

including your skin. discover aveeno positively ageless. with shiitake complex, it helps speed... your skin's unique renewal process. 94% of women showed an improvement... in lines or wrinkles. for younger looking skin:

hello, i'm fredricka whitfield at the cnn center in atlanta. a look at the top stories. the death toll continues to soar

after chile's massive 8.8 earthquake. more than 700 people have died and a half million homes have been damaged and more than 90 aftershocks. some of them powerful continue to rattle the country. meanwhile, a tsunami warning has been canceled for the entire pacific basin. and europe, meanwhile, is dealing with its own crisis. violent storms are battling the continent and so far as many as 51 people have died. most of the victims were in western france, the country's prime minister was callishing it a national catastrophe. president barack obama's doctor said he is fit for duty. this morning the 48-year-old commander in chief underwent his first physical since taking office after the 90-minute exam the president was deemed in excellent health but he should modify his diet to bring down his cholesterol level. the president is due for another physical for august of 2011, after he turns 50. those are the headlines.

fareed zakaria "gps" continues in a moment.

now for our "what in the world" segment. what got my attention is what defense secretary robert gates warned of this week, the crisis that the united states faces with its nato allies. the north atlantic treaty organization was founded to fight the soviet threat, a threat that hasn't existed for 20 years. the new threats that we face are obviously very different and a very different kind of force is needed to defeat them. we don't need tanks to rumble across the fields of eastern europe en route to an invasion of moscow or a defense from moscow. we need drones to kill terror leaders remotely, helicopters to swiftly drop troops into unforgiving terrain.

now, here's the problem. european members of nato don't have much to offer for any of this kind of warfare. in fact, gates says that for years nato has needed more helicopters, cargo aircraft and aerial refueling tankers, but nato nations still haven't provided them. the lack of this kind of equipment is hurting operations, maybe even costing lives. and that's just part of nato's current crisis. they have money problems. just two months into the year, they already face a fiscal shortfall of hundreds of millions of euros. only four of nato's yoeuropean members have so far reached the self-set target of spending 2% of their gdp on the military. the u.s. spends the biggest percentage of the gdp among the western nations, almost 4%. for all that nato's european nations do spend, about $300 billion a year, the vast majority of their forces are defensive. they're really just welfare state jobs in many cases and are

certainly useless for conflicts like in iraq and afghanistan. by nato's own admission, only 30% of europe's land forces can ever be deployed. thanks to the need for troop rotations and similar concerns, only about 10% of the continent's soldiers can be fighting overseas at any given time. so while the u.s. has half a million fewer troops than europe, it can deploy twice as many. take a look at the war in afghanistan, which you'll remember, is a nato operation. isaf, the nato group responsible for conducting the war, says as of the beginning of february, the u.s. supplied 47,000 of the 86,000 troops in country. the u.s. is left picking up all of the slack from its partners in europe. now, european countries do not need to instantly become war fighting great powers. that's not needed, probably not desirable. been there, done that. but surely europe can put together 100,000 to 150,000 troops trained and deployable for actual fighting in war zones.

if not, europe's leaders must content themselves with merely issuing press releases and holding academic conferences on geo politics as their slide to global irrelevance will continue. we'll be right back. how do the editors of consumers digest determine if a car is a "best buy"? first, they drive it in the real world. and put it through its paces. they rate its fit and finish and the amenities inside. they factor in purchase price and operating costs. fuel economy and resale value. in short, they do what you do to test its quality. now get a low mileage lease on this 2010 malibu for around $199 a month for 39 months. call for details. see your local chevy dealer. i was just in town for a few days, and i was wondering if i could say hi to the doctor. is he in? he's in copenhagen. oh, well, that's nice. but you can still see him! you just said he was in... copenhagen. come on! that's pretty far. doc, look who's in town.

ellen! copenhagen? cool, right? vacation. but still seeing patients. oh. [ whispering ] workaholic. i heard that. she said it. i... [ female announcer ] the new office. see it. live it. share it. on the human network. cisco. what's going on? we ordered a gift online and we really need to do something with it... i'm just not sure what... what is it? oh just return it. returning gifts is easier than ever with priority mail flat rate boxes from the postal service. if it fits, it ships anywhere in the country for a low flat rate. plus i can pick it up for free. perfect because we have to get that outta this house. c'mon, it's not that... gahh, oh yeah that's gotta go... priority mail flat rate shipping starts at $4.95 only from the postal service. a simpler way to ship and return.

now for our question of the week. here is what i want to know. both george soros and simon schama talked about what president obama had done wrong. we've heard a lot of that lately. but they also made the point that president obama may finally be clawing his way back. do you think we're seeing a resurgence of the president's once vonded charisma and effectiveness? is he turning a corner? perhaps fulfilling some of his early promise? i want to find out what you think about that. as always, you can go to our website to see some great answers to last week's question. now, i also want to recommend a book, as always. it's called "the soros lectures at the central european university." i know the title may not grab you, but give it a chance. it's a compilation of five speeches soros gave in budapest just last october.

he covers the economy, politics, the u.s. and china, everything in between. it's a terrific look into the world view of one of the richest and most fascinating men in the world. and now for the "last look." >> it's great. jump in. >> this week it's literally a last look at that last great american gas guzzler, the hummer. its most famous fan, arnold schwarzenegger, may not be laughing any longer. gm announced it will shut the consumer brand down after a deal to sell it to a chinese firm fell apart. what happened? well, only 325 of the vast vehicles were sold in december. the hummer brand was hurt badly by the spike in gas prices in 2008 and by growing concerns about its carbon footprint. until recently, most models of the hummer were so heavy that