figure to the country, that she could have done anything and they'd have loved her for it. >> that's piers morgan. we'll have more of him tomorrow night. we'll talk about the hazards of the job. he explains how he got punched in the head after publishing some compromising photos in england. again, "piers morgan tonight" premieres in 13 days monday january 17th at 9:00 p.m. eastern, 6:00 pacific here on eastern, 6:00 pacific here on cnn. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com tonight, republicans getting ready to take over the house, promising tough new rules to block bills that aren't paid for. yet they're also taking aim at health care reform, and that's supposed to save money and reduce the deficit. so are they giving themselves a pass on their own rules? we're keeping them honest. also, censoring "huck finn" with all the "n" words taken out. the publisher says they did it to help the book find new readers, but many say it's political correctness gone too

far. tonight all sides square off. and later, the first in our new cold case mysteries, the murder of david hartley. remember him? killed on a lake with his wife on the part of the mexican border plagued by drug violence, the lead mexican investigator later beheaded? the story has faded from the headlines but has there been any progress to report? we'll talk to john walsh. we begin as always keeping them honest. tonight lawmakers about to vote new rule that's are supposed to save taxpayers money. yet they're about to break those rules practically from day one to get rid of a program they don't like. remember, republicans pledged to cut spending in this new congress. here's what incoming house speaker john boehner said in september. >> if your intention is to create a new government program, you must also terminate or reduce an existing program of equal or greater size in the same bill. >> well, boehner's first order of business is passing those new

spending resumeules. some provide transparency but the crucial ones say members have to explain how they'll pay. their second order of business is repealing president obama's health care law. >> we'll start first by cutting our own budget. it will be one of our first votes. then we'll turn our attention to the rest of the federal budget and the job killing policies that are denying economic growth and opportunity for the american people. including killing the job-killing health care law. >> he's going to be meeting thursday with the gop caucus to weigh a vote next week repealing the law. to do that under the new spending rules you'd think republicans would have to come up with the way to pay for the $140 billion the health care law was supposed to save taxpayers over the next ten years. those figures are according to the naurn partisan congressional budget office. $140 billion over ten years. so what spending cuts have republicans come up with? well, they haven't. they've simply attacked the numbers saying they don't

believe the congressional budget office. mike pence in a tweet from the house gop conference said only in washington, d.c. can you spend $1 trillion and say you're going to save the taxpayers money. here's john boehner on fox complaining that certain costly medicare payments hadn't been included. >> it's not in there. that's why the whole so-called cbo scoring issue is a fallacy. the cbo only scores what they're given. >> in the past what's interesting when cbo supported republican positions they sure sang a different tune. listen to republican voices during the health care debate. >> do you question the work of the congressional budget office? and the joint committee on taxation? well, you shouldn't because they're like god around here. you know, when the cbo says something's going to cost something, that stands unless there's 60 votes to override it

here in the united states senate. so most everything that's a cbo-says stands. and they got respect because the intellectual honesty of their research and the nonpartisanship that they have. >> well, that was senator charles grassley back in december of '09. here's congressman pence praising the alternative, quote, the nonpartisan congressional budget office now confirms that families will see their health care premiums reduced by up to 10% and hard working taxpayers can expect deficits to decrease by $68 billion over the next decade. and here from about the same time, congressman boehner. >> the congressional budget office has estimated that our plan will lower premiums by up to 10% for small businesses, which will make health care more affordable and help create jobs in america. >> now, it's not for us to say who has better ideas for health care or how one party or another should vote on any legislation. but if you're going to praise the ump's fairness when the call goes your way, it seems

hypocritical to complain when it goes the other way. if you're going to make rules that say money saving bills are okay, you can't say they're okay except for bills you don't like. joining me to talk about, it cornell belcher, also dana loesch. dana, what about it? when the cbo says something republicans like they seem to sing its places but on this issue they say there's fuzzy math going on. are they being hypocritical? >> i don't think so in this instance because there's something kind of funny about all of this. first of all, the cbo report issued which said that the $1 trillion health control law was deficit neutral, within a week of that report being issued there was a letters-known report also issued based upon an inquiry that came from paul ryan. he asked the cbo to consider the costs of the health care law also with the doc fix, the infamous medicare reimburstment rates for doctors.

wh those two pieces of legislation added to the deficit. nancy pelosi initially had the doc fix in the health care legislation, but it was removed. so at one point it was removed before the cbo scored it. so at one point they thought these two pieces of legislation, this could be coupled together, that they were related, but those two things together do add to the deficit and that's the little known thing nobody's talking about. >> was the cbo gamed in all this? >> no. what you have is classic political gamemanship, bait and switch politics at its finest. grassley is right. the cbo is sort of god around this town, when it says something. the republicans are in danger here of really sort of, you know, being hypocritical. and that's sort of the ultimate sin in politics is looking hypocritical at something. you can't say the cbo, you foe, the congressional budget office, is right when it's favoring you, but not right when it's not favoring you. and the first piece of legislation you put up here right now is in fact legislation that you know is going to

undermine what you're saying. it's going to roll back, it's going to hurt the deficit. they came to washington saying we're going to be tough on the budget, we're going to shrink the deficit and the first piece of legislation out the box is a piece of red meat they're in fact throwing to their base. i understand throwing the meat to your base, but for the middle swath of independent voters out there, this looks hypocritical and it's going to hurt them. >> dana, is this just red meat for the base? if it passes the house, it's not going to pass in the senate, and obviously president obama wouldn't sign it. >> well, we don't know for sure it wouldn't pass in the senate but i have to ask, why is it people pay so much attention from the first report from the cbo but completely discount the second report which actually was completely contradictory to the first one. that is baiting the switch, gaming the system, absolutely. but i do think it's really premature to say this wouldn't pass the senate. i say this because we're going to have to see by how much it would pass the house. there are a lot of very vulnerable senators right now, including my own senator, claire

mccaskill. you have to think, too, with a state like missouri, a very purple state. prop c, the piece of legislation that passed into law which exempted missourians from the health care mandate, that passed like by 3-1 in every single county in missouri. a lot of democrats voted for that. that's claire mccaskill's base. we're seeing this over and over again in different states. soy think there are a lot of vulnerable senators. it could pass. >> cnn's most recent polling, have you health care reform law, pretty unpopular. 54% oppose it by standing in the way of repeal. >> two things, anderson. one is, come on. that -- it has zero chance of passing in the senate. it's not going to pass in the senate and certainly not going to get a presidential signature. so it is just political t is just political theater. the other part about this is, you know, where's this broad mandate for reforming sort of repealing health care? it wasn't in the exit polling and cnn polling, 54%, that's not a broad mandate.

gallup's last polling, when they asked should government insure coverage, 47%, yes, 50%, no. it's fairly split. quite frankly democrats should be loaning for this as an opportunity to don't mess with health care because we did such a poor job of it the first time. >> so you're saying democrats could win back independents here? >> no, i'm saying there's not a broad mandate, particularly among independents for this repeal. this is clearly political theater for the republican base. at 47-50, where is that -- >> just in august, 56% of americans, according to rasmussen, said this legislation ought to be repealed. this is one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation specifically because, for one, the mandate in there that's requiring people to purchase a product from the government simply because they live in the united states. that's hugely unpopular. and plus again, those two cbo reports, the second one contradicting the first one. i think what we're going to see,

it's going to pass the house. i don't know by how much but it's going to pass the house. by the senate, though, that's going to be i'm very anxious to see that. that's going to be theater because there's going to be a lot of people going back and forth on it. >> it's not going to pass the senate and we can argue about polling numbers but let's just take cnn's poll. cnn's poll has it at 54% which is not a broad mandate. and certainly when you look at independent voter. >> that's a majority, though. you're going to discount majority suddenly? >> and when you look at where independent voters are, there was no hunger among independent voters for repealing this act. you know what independent voters punish democrats for? for not paying enough attention to jobs and the economy. they think we spent too much time on health care and what are republicans doing the first thing out of the box? we're going to focus on health care. i'm telling you, i'm not trying to be hardcore partisan on this, i'm thinking this is hypocritical and independent voters are going to see it as h hypocritical. >> can i make a point? >> go ahead. >> cbo said this legislation will reduce the labor force by

over 700,000 jobs, couldn't digiting what nancy pelosi said. >> so now you're for the cbo? so i don't know. you're flip-flopping. >> i'm for the cbo's report too. you're ignoring are the second report which contradicts. >> all right. we've -- >> the second reporter queried by paul ryan, that's what you're not acknowledging. >> the last report said it cut the deficit. that's all i know. >> it's not deficit neutral. not with the doc fix it's not and it's included. >> let us know what you think, live chat up and running. rewriting "huckleberry finn" removing 219 uses of the "n" word. critics say it's white washing history just to get more readers. we'll talk about the uproar over new edited versions. you decide for yourself. also tonight, a murder case too cruel to go toeld cold. a husband killed right in front of his wife while jet skiing on a mexican border lake. the lead investigator beheaded. we'll talk about it with john walsh. ugh, my sinuses... the congestion...

it's your fault. naturally, blame the mucus. well, i can't breathe. did you try blowing your nose? of course. [ both ] and nothing came out. instead of blaming me, try new advil congestion relief. what you probably have is swelling due to nasal inflammation, not mucus. and this can help? it treats the real problem of your sinus symptoms, reducing swelling due to nasal inflammation. so i can breathe. [ mucus ] new advil congestion relief. the right sinus medicine for the real problem.

a battle tonight over what your kids should read in school and which words they should be exposed to. it's a battle that tonight revolves around one of the greatest american novels ever written, "huck hadle berry finn." you may have read it as a child, but schools across the country are choosing not to include it in their curriculum because of the n word. now the publisher is publishing a new edition, minus the "n" word. replacing the "n" word with the word slave, a move causing controversy. one writer compare it'd to renaming "war and peace" just "peace" because war is controversial.

jonathan turley says it was a word used widely, it is still used in literary works to say something about the people who use it. it was set in the 1840s by the time he wrote it, mark twain, had come to believe it was more than just wrong. in 1885, the year it was published, he wrote a letter to the dean of yale law school why he wanted to pay the expenses of a man named warner mcguinn, a pioneering law student. we have ground the manhood out of them and the shame is ours, not theirs and we should pay for it. that's some of the context and subtext and history behind the book and author. the question is does taking the "n" word out of "huck finn" make it more accessible to a modern audience or did it lessen it somehow or change history? joining me now, andre perry, ceo of the charter school network, also with us, boyce watkins,

professor at syracuse university and mikayla angela davis. boyce, what about this? some critics taking the "n" word is white washing a portion of the u.s. history that doesn't deserve it. >> the fundamental question i would ask is can you still make the point of this brilliant novel without using that word 219 times. and i think that you can. i think that at the end of the day the question for me also is whether or not it makes sense to force kids in school to hear this word over and over and over again in order to make that point. i think you can make the point one time. i know that when i was in high school i wouldn't have wanted to read that book, and i didn't read it in high school. i read it later. and i think that making it accessible in its rawest form to adults is appropriate. but when you talk about forcing kids to read this kind of thick, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. so i think they made the right

move. >> i'm not sure as an african-american child i would want to read some book that used the "n" word 219 times. >> well, i think this is problematic on so many levels. it's not just history, it's literature, so it's art. so when we get into really censoring art and censoring literature, i think we open up a pandora's box that i don't think we want to get into. if a teach ser not prepared to have a horrible and historical conversation and place this masterpiece in context, is she prepared to teach that text? should it be to those students? so when we get into changing words, unwriting history, rearranging art, we start to put our democracy in danger. this is -- this is not making it palpable, it's censorship. >> andre, your charter school system is made up largely of african-american kids. i mean, a lot of schools don't allow "huck finn" to be read

anymore because of this very reason. >> well, i would allow it because it's not about the word, the "n" word, it's about the portrayal of blacks and to remove that portrayal in its historical context, you're losing a valuable opportunity to teach kids how this word evolved. in fact, of all the -- i would love for kids in the hood to read "huck finn." i would love rappers to read "huck finn." because when i had to read it and i had to read it allowed, it gave me a greater appreciation, how these words hurt. so again, i don't think it's a wise move to sort of sanitize this work, because, one, they hear it all the time. but they need the historical context in order to understand how salient it is for them today. >> but to professor watkins' point, you want kids reading this book, and if the reality is that fewer and fewer schools are choosing this book for this reason, doesn't this kind of as a stop gap measure at least get the book into more kids' hands?

>> well, again, if i want a different portrayal of african-americans and other people are pressed i'll choose another book. but again, what i want from "huck finn" is to give me that historical context for the -- for that word and other words and slavery and all these other things in its progression over time. >> you know, i think that there can also be the point made that if you're arguing, and i don't disagree completely with my two colleagues here, but what i will say is forms of censorship, degrading the value of the original work, i can point to a lot of classic films made throughout history that might involve nudity or excessive profanity. but if i'm showing that film to a 17-year-old or 14-year-old, there's a good chance it's going to be an edited version. we're not going to say the nudity was an important part that the director was trying to make, we're going to show the

version we feel is appropriate for that age group, then we'll make the original version available for the child when they become an adult. if you're going to expose kids to this book, even if you exposed it in the rawest form, which again i don't completely disagree with, perhaps some sort of parental consent form might be necessary. because i can tell you personally, i can explain to my children the context of the n word and the context of that historical period without calling them the "n" word 219 times or forcing them to endure that drama over and over again. >> but it robs us of the proof we've evolved. we've evolved from being called the "n" word to mr. president. so when you take out this provocative word that opens up discourse, that's why it's there. so we are having this conversation right now. >> i was rereading parts of the book today and it is shocking and disturbing to hear -- it's used in a very violent way often in the book. in terms of other people describing african-americans. >> right. and that's what we should talk

about. we can't act like the pain didn't happen. the only way we can forgive that, i believe, anderson, if we commit to never forget. so when we take this out, we act as if it didn't happen. we act as if that word wasn't meant to dehumanize us, to place us in that time. >> andre, what about that, though? movies are edited all the time for different audiences and you have songs played on the radio one version and released in a different version with expletives in them. >> but i'm a firm believer that kids can get satire, they can get nudity, they can get a lot of things. if it's taught well. and again, this goes back to the quality of the teacher, the quality of the instructor. certainly kids hear these words. they see nudity. they need a context in which to understand it. just as if i'm going to take a group of students to the museum, i'm not going to cover up a beautiful piece of art because a woman's breast is exposed. and again, but you need some

context and quality teaching so kids can understand. and kids are more sophisticated than you think. they can get this material if -- particularly if it's taught by a quality teacher. >> we want to create social scholars, not cultural cowards. so if we start to -- when we start to remove things, where does it end? and to what end? so we want to provoke them to have discourse. we want to teach them properly. i think one of the reasons why this word became so violent and so problematic even today is because we didn't protect our history enough. we don't know our history enough. so to remove it, we -- we move that forward. >> professor? >> but i think that we can't compare the use of the "n" word 219 times in this book, the use of that word in an offensive way to a beautiful piece of art that happens to show a woman's nude body. that's a very different sort of thing. >> would you change miles

davis's master piece to mean girls brew? where do you stop taking out those words? >> if my children were being exposed to it, then i might, as a parent, expect to have that right to decide if i want my child exposed to it in school in that way. there are a lot of ways we can teach about the cruelties of slavery. i'm in agreement with you that we have watered down history much to our detriment. but i think there are many ways you can explain the context and time period without forcing them to read this book. and remember, the master piece is in the eye of the beholder. i don't consider this book to be a master piece but there are several songs and movies and other books that i might consider to be masterpieces but i don't decide what my kids are exposed to, so i want that right to consign a consent form saying i do or do not want my child exposed to this particular way of teaching history. history in an honest way is certainly very important but it doesn't have to be done through this book. >> got to leave it there. i appreciate it. thanks very much. interesting discussion.

up next, a new test that some say could revolutionize the way cancer is diagnosed and treated. the test is not available yet. we'll talk to dr. sanjay gupta about whether the reality matches the hype. plus, could a cold case last year be warming up? the victim was allegedly killed by drug cartel members on a lake, his wife, the only witness.

some interesting medical news to tell you about, what we're trying to tonight is sort the hype from the hope. a new test that can detect a single cancer cell in your blood. it's getting a lot of attention tonight. the reason it's in the news is because johnson & johnson and

boston researchers are teaming up to try to fine tune the test and bring it to market. it's reportedly a $30 million deal. a lot of experts are hopeful that this blood test could somehow or some day revolutionize cancer treatment. let's talk about it with sanjay gupta, he joins me now. the publicity surrounding this announcement, it's been huge. what can and can't this test actually do? what does it mean? >> yeah. it is a research deal so far, as you mentioned. taking something from the bench to bedside as you alluded to can take a long time. but what we're talking about here is being able to take someone's blood. what they do is take these magnetic beads essentially that have anti-bodies on them and those anti-bodies can cull out a single cancer cell. take blood from someone's arm or whatever, there's billions of cells in there. to find a single cancer cell is something a lot of people have tried to do. they've shown some success doing it in the lab. in the lab, very exciting tough.

why is it important? you could potentially tell if someone has cancer and they're getting treatment, is that treatment working. you're also potentially able to look at the specific cancer cell and say, well, what is it about this particular cancer cell we can predict how this cancer is going to behave? can we predict how it's going to spread or will it be aggressive, for example. possibly even before someone has ever had cancer could you predict sort of as a screening test that they're going to develop the disease. so this is why it's exciting. but again, it's this idea that it takes time to go from the bench to the bedside. this has happened before. we've got to make sure we can actually see the results. >> would it potentially eliminate, if it worked, would it eliminate some of the more invasive screening procedures like biopsies or mammograms even? >> yes. i'm almost surprised to hear myself say that. again, a lot of people have been thinking about this for some time but that is exactly what people are thinking about. in a it could potentially do

that. again, all the caveats in place about how long this could potentially take and trials to get there. but think about it this way. if someone develops cancer, what we now know is the time they develop cancer there are probably a few stray cancer cells that are already in the blood. even if they have cancer of the breast, the prostate, the colon, there are probably already a few cells in the blood. if those cells could be found, you could have a very early screening test. i will say the larger question for air lot of doctors is, what do you do with that information? it's a very early cancer. do you treat it aggressively? do you watch it? what is it going to mean overall. >> that could freak a lot of people out saying they have cancer cells in the blood if you can't do anything about it. >> or should they start, what might be deemed aggressive therapy for that or would those cancer cells maybe not be of any consequence in the long run. those are the answers that we don't have as of now. >> and again, in terms of timing, how long, how many years, do you think, to get this

thing into a test? >> first you've got to do the clinical testing, so do it in lots of people. but in order to really find out if the test is working, you really have to follow those people over ten years or so to answer the questions you're raising, anderson, which is, did those couple of cancer cells, did they end up being a problem? did they end up being an actual tumor of some sort or did the body dispense those on their own? to get those answers, to find out how important a test this really is in the long run i think at least ten years probably to get those answers. >> all right. sanjay. appreciate it. >> thanks, anderson. still tonight, the hottest ticket in america, the mega millions lotto. find out why we're adding it to tonight's ridiculist. but first, tom formingeman has bulletin. owen honors has been relieved of duties on the "uss enterprise" after videos of anti-gay slurs taped aboard the

ship he was second in command of at the time. three extra days to file your tax return this year, the irs is extending the deadline to april 18th. that's because on april 15th, washington, d.c., is observing emancipation day, a little known holiday that celebrates the freeing of slaves in the district of columbia. and talk about a science project, a 10-year-old girl from new brunswick, canada, discovered an exploding star. she's now the youngest person ever to discover a supernova. she shares the credit with her father who is also an amateur astronomer. for tonight's shot we found this on break.com under "awesome home made luge track" we pretty much says it all. take a look. >> ready. oh, got a way better start.

>> look at that. how awesome is that home made luge track? that's crazy. >> that's beautiful. >> how much time did that take to make that luge track? whoever posted the video didn't give away the location. we can't tell you if it was actually home made though to the untrained eye it certainly looks like it. >> you have a trained luge eye. you could spot a good luge. >> yeah. coming up, the person in our series, taking a look at the bizarre case of tiffany hartley and her husband david. she says he was shot right in front of her. his body was never found. the lead investigator in the case was found beheaded and the story has certainly faded from the headlines. tonight we'll talk to john walsh about the details of the case. also the biggest lottery jackpot in u.s. history up for grabs tonight. why it's on the ridiculist. [ slap! ]

[ slap! slap! slap! slap! slap! ] [ male announcer ] your favorite foods fighting you? fight back fast with tums. calcium rich tums goes to work in seconds. nothing works faster. ♪ tum ta tum tum tums nothing works faster. [ tires squeal ]

an accident doesn't have to slow you down. introducing "better car replacement," available only from liberty mutual insurance. if your car's totaled, we give you the money to buy a car that's one model year newer with 15,000 fewer miles on it. there's no other auto insurance product like it. better car replacement, available only from liberty mutual. it's a better policy that gets you a better car. call -- or visit one of our local offices today, and we'll provide the coverage you need at the right price. liberty mutual auto insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy?

tonight we begin a new series in some of the most notorious and intriguing unsolved criminal cases in history. the story we begin with tonight is recent history, the murder on falcon lake on the border between texas and mexico. less than four months ago, tiffany hartley says her husband david was shot in the head by mexican bandits, she tried to save him, but couldn't and escaped on her jet ski. what she hasn't been able to escape are questions about what happened that day and rumors there may be more to the story. >> we heard a sheriff say if you wanted to take a polygraph test to back up the story he'd support that. is that something you'd want to do? >> possibly, but i don't really think i need to because i know my story and i know, you know, what the story is. but if, you know, that's what

the authorities think i need to do, then that might be an option. >> sheriff in texas said tiffany did indeed offer to take the test. none was ever administered. months later, her husband's body has not been found, nor the boats or gunmen allegedly involved in the attack. drew griffin investigates. >> reporter: the sun was perfect. the water on falcon lake straddling the border between texas and mexico was calm. september 30th, the thursday. there'd be no crowds and for tiffany and david hartley, no worries. even being pulled over by the texas state patrol for an expired tag on their jet ski didn't bother them. they were moving from the border of mexico back to colorado and wanted to spend one last day on the lake. it was mid-morning. david picked up his cell phone and called his mom. >> they were excited to go have one last big ride on their jet skis before they come back to

colorado. >> are you sure that your husband got shot? >> yes, he was hit in his head. >> reporter: hours after the carefree call to colorado, a frantic tiffany hartley was calling 911, telling a story at first not everyone would believe. >> when you're in shock, you don't even remember some stuff. and simple 911 call, you didn't even remember it. >> reporter: she was telling the operator she and her husband were ambushed, attacked by mexican pirates. tiffany said she escaped racing on her jet ski but her husband was not. >> he was thrown off the jet ski and i couldn't pick him up to get him on mine. >> reporter: her account of what happened hasn't changed since that day. that she saw her husband get shot, that she jumped in the water herself to save him and when she turned her husband's body toward her, saw the hole in his forehead. when i sat down with her, she

was calm. sure that she had remembered every detail correctly. >> i'm in the water. i'm with him. i have him in my hand, my jet ski in my other hand. and the boat came around to me. i could feel the boat coming around me and saw two guys and one had a gun pointed right at me. they were about ten, 12 feet away from me. >> reporter: did you think, this is it? >> uh-huh. i told them, please don't shoot. please don't. >> reporter: since that day there has been no body. no jet ski, no sign of david hartley or the three boats involved in the attack. and rumors persist that somehow, some way, the hartleys themselves were involved. >> i think it just hasn't hit me. it just seems like how on earth

did we -- this happen? it just doesn't seem real. i mean, just -- seems like it hasn't connected in my brain. >> everything she's telling me has happened before in the other events. the other cases. >> reporter: one of those who does believe her, zapata county sheriff, ziggy gonzales. >> the shootings along the border, murders, home invasions, burglaries, rapes, all types of crime where -- that's associated with what i call spillover violence. >> reporter: gonzales says falcon lake has become a drug trafficking highway. there have been four reports of american fishermen running into mexican pirates, and he says the fishermen were told to stay off the mexican side of the lake and were sent on their way. the sheriff says tiffany and david may have been mistaken for drug dealers or simply seen as

easy robbery victims. but he says his hands are tied. but the head, the head of a mexican detective working the case, was delivered to the army in october. since then, mexican authorities have offered little information about the status of their investigation. back in colorado, tiffany hartley waits along with david's mother, for any news. >> it was like tiffany said, it still doesn't seem real. i'm still waiting for him to walk through that front door. >> reporter: have you come to grips with the fact that david's body may never be found, may not be in a condition to be found? >> it's passed my mind, but i'm not willing to accept it in my heart. >> reporter: finding david's body and the detail that's would corroborate her story is the only way tiffany has to prove

she's telling the truth. the body has been missing three months and police say it's doubtful it will ever be found. drew griffin, cnn, lasalle, colorado. >> earlier i spoke with john walsh about the falcon lake case. >> david hartley, it's not really a cold case, it happened recently, but a lot of his wife, family members, worry this is never going to get solved. that these killers across the border belong to drug cartels and disappeared. >> the tough thing about this is they haven't found the body. so you and i have talked about many times about the not knowing. she first of all would like to get her husband's body back. so that you can bury someone and you can honor them and know where they are. that was crucial to me in finding the remains of adam. we were lucky, very lucky, to find his head, severed head, after two weeks. and we have somewhere to go, somewhere to honor and put him to rest. so the not knowing is a huge

part of her pain. and the family's pain. the second part is the lack of reaction by not only american authorities, and this was legitimate criticism, and the mexican authorities. when somebody did come to saddle up to help him, a mexican detective, he was beheaded and they delivered his head. and so the theory is that the zetas, it truly is becoming a narco state. >> the zetas started out as special forces, bodyguards, who created their own cartel and they're incredibly violent. >> the billions of dollars at stake here, they're ruthlessly brutally violent. kill women, behead cops, kill politicians, et cetera, and got into a battle with the gulf cartel, which is another huge powerful, horrible cartel. and i believe the theory that he was just a victim of the zetaa protecting that end of the lake, there are pirates on that lake. there were six incidences of

american fishermen as everybody knows, part of this lake is in the united states, part is in mexico. lots of people go there for recreation, they fish and jet ski, it's a horrible case, and i really believe, having spent so much time south of the border and trying to get a handle on this incredible violence and all the guns that are sold by americas to the cartels and how this has affected american society, i think is the cartels have sent a message by beheading that cop, you're never going to get that body back, nobody's ever going to solve this crime. forget about it. forget about it, it's the cartel's tearing each other apart, and anybody that gets in the way is collateral damage. >> john walsh. we'll continue the series on cold cases all throughout this month. up next, changing gears, some of the best and funniest moments with the queens of comedy. highlights with my interview with them. and people are catching lottery fever, and also lending

their mega millions dreams or at leaf the lottery on our ridiculist tonight. what do you say we get the look we want, the softness we need, and an unbeatable lifetime stain warranty for whatever life throws at it. then let's save big on the installation. ♪ we're lowering the cost of going barefoot. more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. get exclusive martha stewart living and platinum plus installed in your whole house for only 37 bucks.

okay. not to brag, but today i talked with four of the funniest women on the planet, joan rivers, kathy griffin, joy behar and the legendary phyllis diller. i've got to say, thins got a little tense when i brought up the name of a certain other very funny lady. >> when you look at someone like betty white, who 90 years old -- >> don't talk about betty white. >> why not? >> that old bitch, i was doing so well, and from the dead she's taken all my jokes. >> your jokes or your parts. >> both. >> anderson, that's a trigger for joan. >> little bit of a sticking point there. okay. >> you know how she got it, she

slept around. >> slept with everybody. >> here's the thing about women comedians. like the kardashians, they are not ageless. pretty soon kim kardashian is going to realize she's getting older but if she were funny she wouldn't care. >> what do you think she'll do when she gets older? >> i don't know. maybe betty white's job. >> seniors sex tape. a seniors sex tape. it's going to be very hot. >> i tried that. >> and? >> i couldn't get a sailor to go into it with me. >> we're going to get brett favre to do a quadruple with the three of us and it's going to sell like hotcakes or hot buns, whatever he'll call us. >> thank you so much for being with us. >> i'm so happy to be alive. you're so white, you look like somebody put too much bleach on you. >> yes, i -- >> you are pretty white anderson. >> you might be carved out of ivory soap. >> yes.

>> and you've got a grammy award for best comedy album this year? >> i like that i've won in your mind. >> like the fat mother in law. she went to the doctor with a pain under her left breast. turned out to be a trick knee. i like to pow. i like to make sure. we don't want to mess around. >> how often are you coming up with new material? >> every day. i mean, really, that own launch, honestly, given me at least a half hour and that was like two days ago. i can just go through that lineup and then i'm off and running. not to mention my strange addiction about the woman who eats toilet paper and the guy who only eats raw meat. but that's me. >> you know what's sad? i know exactly what you're talking about. >> she's never mentioned my constipation problems. i've said keep it to yourself, kathy. >> because i'm a friend. >> you know who likes the twitter awards?

piers morgan. he likes tweet war. >> i'm going to declare one with him right now. i've had it with his crap, and it is go time, my friend. yes. i'm very -- i eagerly anticipate piers morgan's premiere, and i like the commercial where there's a lot of closeups on his left eye and then his right knuckle, and then i believe the theme song at the end is, it's about me, or it's all about me. so i'm wondering how he's going to do an interview show that's all about him. >> here's the thing with wasps, they always have the first name as someone's last name. anderson cooper. >> i'm an 18th century law firm. >> you notice jews don't do that? you'll never here girstein berstein. >> can you tell when an audience is going to be good? >> yes, yes, yes, you can tell before you go on. you stand back stage. if it's like a morgue and pretty quiet, see, they -- you better maybe take off your clothes.

>> right. >> kathy, can you -- >> every time. >> can you get an audience back? if it's a bad -- >> yes, you can reel them back in, but it's tough. that's one of the reasons i tend to go long, i always want to get them back or i take my clothes off as phyllis suggested, which is always an option. >> you're not such a bitch. >> no, you're a wonderful person. what barbara walters says about you is not so. >> there is going to be great for the christmas gag reel. >> they were all great sports to do that. time now for the ridiculist and tonight, the honor has to go to lottery fever. it is everywhere. people lining up for a shot at one of the biggest jackpots in u.s. history, $355 million. the odds of winning this thing? one in 176 million. let me repeat that. one in 176 million. so a little perspective. the odds of getting struck by lightning in your lifetime are 1 in 6,000. according to the book of odds, in any given year there's a better chance of getting killed by a vending machine than

winning this lottery. seriously. this is a warning dram from the actual vending machine in the break room. then there's what can happen if you hit the jackpot. beware of the lottery curse. hurley lived it on "lost." i wonder how many people are playing those exact numbers in the mega millions tonight. and do i have to remind you what it did to roseanne? >> we won the lottery! i can't believe it! >> they never recovered after that. the lottery curse isn't stopping people from standing in line. some people already know what they're going to do with the millions. >> i've always wanted to see europe. that would be nice. >> buy me a nice somewhere where it's a little warmer. >> got 115,000 on my car, so i could use a new car. >> lot of job openings if we win. >> i don't want to be a dream killer but can i just repeat those odds again? one?

176 million. you're statistically more likely to die in a flash flood while visiting the grand canyon. of course unlikely things happen all the time like this for instance. earlier we told you about the 10-year-old girl who became the youngest person ever to discover a supernova. bet the odds of that are pretty cool too, but of course now the floor crew is probably going to win the $355 million and i'll be all alone here tomorrow trapped under the vending machine. if that happens i'll put myself on the ridiculist. but for now, it's got to go to lottery fever. that's our report tonight. thanks for watching. "parker spitzer" is next. i'll see you tomorrow night at 9:00 and 10:00 eastern. [ male announcer ] blue-blooded. cold. [ clock ticking ]

happy anniversary. [ male announcer ] what happened to luxury? ♪ where did all the personality go? ♪ the gusto? the glamour? we believe you can have it all. luxury with lightning in its veins. ♪ charismatic. daring. derivative of nothing. ♪ this is what fuels us. the reason we're not satisfied with blue-blooded ordinary... and demand red-blooded extraordinary. this is why we don't just make luxury cars. we make cadillacs. ♪

good evening. i'm kathleen parker. >> i'm eliot spitzer. welcome to the program. tomorrow in congress, the battle over health care will reach full tilt as the republicans, kathleen, begin the effort to repeal obama care. here's the amazing thing. whenever we speak to leading republicans and i ask them what's the alternative to the individual mandate, that notion that everybody has to be part of the system, they mumble, they stumble, they say it's not a federal issue. but they don't have an answer. and there's a reason. it's a very conservative idea that says if you get health

care, you got to pay for something. you've got to have skin in the game. this is conservatism to the hilt and that's why i'm amazed that the republicans don't support it. >> got to have skin in the game, boy, that's pretty hardcore. >> this is economics. >> one of the guests tonight, senator-elect lee from utah is going to talk about that. he, of course, is one of the staunch republicans who want to repeal. we'll see what he has to say. >> it will be interesting. >> the repeal movement itself is interesting to watch because the bottom line is they're not going to be able to repeal it most likely. the house will try to defund it. the president can veto and the senate will do nothing with it. so it's really more theatrical and symbolic i think. >> look. that doesn't bother me. a lot of politics is theatrics a lot of politics are symbolism. the republicans saying we're opposed it. the more interesting symbolism is the budget where having run on a balanced budget campaign, the tea-party driven republicans will now have to go into congress and pass a budget that puts their mouths where their rhetoric was and it's going to

be interesting to see who they cut and when. are they hypocrites or begin to take a pound of flesh out of people who are really going to scream about it. >> you said that word hypocrites like you really felt it. rubber meets the road. skin in the game. >> this is governing. it is time to govern. make the tough decisions. it will be fun. >> all right. let's get to the interview. senator-elect mike lee of utah is leading the charge on this. >> called the darling of the tea party, unseated bob bennett in the party's primary. as for health care reform, the senator elect said on fox yesterday, and i quote, i'll fight to bury this thing and i'll dance on its grave. wow. fighting words. he joins us now. welcome to washington, senator-elect lee. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. it's good to be with you. >> all right, senator-elect, we quoted you a bit ago saying you'll dance on the grave of the health care but there are real problems with the health care system. i'm sure you agree and millions of people are not insured and denied coverage for preexisting conditions, so what do you do to

address these problems? >> i think we need to leave it to the states to get this done. >> i know your state has done remarkable work and is kind of a model for how states can address their own health issues, but there are certain things in that plan that are very similar to what the federal government has proposed such as the health insurance exchanges and keeping those in the private sector. why not leave those in place? >> because there are some things that need to be done on the federal level like immigration and regulating interstate and foreign trade but other things need to be left to state regulation. you know, there's a great diversity among the states in terms of geography and demographics and other factors that affect the provision of health care. in my state of utah, for example, it cost roughly half in an entire year to provide someone with complete health care from what it does to provide someone with health care in a year here in the district of columbia. and each state needs to be able to respond to its own conditions

and it needs to be left with the authority to regulate its own health care system. >> senator and i look forward to some day perhaps debating the commerce clause issues, i know you're a fan of a very narrow interpretation of the commerce clause, but i'll put that aside for a moment. i want to discuss the health care policy for a moment. in utah, there's still about 350,000 uninsured folks which is about 12%, 13% of the population. is that correct? >> i don't know that number to be correct but i'll take your word for it. >> that's the number -- i went online today. i'm sure it's in that range is the right number. when those folks show up at a hospital, federal law requires the hospital to give them the emergency care they need. i think we'd agree that's the humane thing to do. we'd agree, i hope. >> regardless of whether it's the humane thing to do, that's appropriate for state legislation, not federal legislation. >> you agree the 350,000 people get care when they go to a hospital. >> they do get care.

>> the question i have, having been a governor and confronted the issues, who should pay for the care when they don't have insurance and don't have the capacity to pay, who ends up paying that bill right now? >> well, a lot of times the the health care provider ends up eating the bill and writing a lot of it off. but again the point is these are decisions that can be made and i believe should be made on a state by state basis. we don't need a one size fits all rule out of washington, d.c. we don't need congress in its infinite wisdom telling america where to go to the doctor and how to pay for it. >> i don't think the federal bill told anyone where to go to the doctor but i'm discussing the issue -- >> told everyone they have to buy a specific type of health insurance that congress in the wisdom deems acceptable. >> what it said and this is the point i'm coming to, the provider ends up eating the bill and taxpayers cover it. we call it charity care. taxpayers pay back the hospitals and those who provided the care to cover the cost of that health care, right?

it seems that everybody from governor romney, very conservative republican on down, said the only way to cover that cost and to mitigate it is to get people to cover their own cost of the health care they get which is why getting them to buy into the system makes sense from the very conservative perspective in terms of their responsibility to pay for themselv themselves. does that concept appeal to you? >> governor romney did that at the state level. the concept itself can be appealing but it matters. it is not just a question of what is the role of government but which government, and a question to start asking ourselves in this country again and a time with a debt that's approaching $15 trillion, is which government? it's not always a federal solution. >> i'm just trying to figure out as a matter of policy whether the individual mandate which is the obligation that everybody buy into the system and pay something into it, since we all get health care, whether as a policy matter that makes sense to you. then the subsidiary question is

do the states do it or the federal government, but you seem to be saying you understand the logic for that. >> i understand the logic of it and why some states might want to do it. it needs to be decided on a state-by-state basis. as a federal legislator i'm agnostic as to the underlying policy question of whether it's a good idea because it's a state question, not a federal one. >> since you are now almost a senator, tomorrow we can call you senator rather than senator-elect. you know there's discussions about reforming the filibuster. where do you stand on that? >> well, you know, i think the current filibuster rules served us well and content with leaving them as they are. the senate was meant to be a deliberative body, and i want it to continue as such. >> can we switch gears for a moment? in your campaign literature on the blog, you said that there were too many people without skin in the game. i want to just quote if i might from something i pulled off your blog. you said with 50% of wage earners paying little or no taxes, too many voters have no

skin in the game and you continue no reason to question new government programs and et cetera. you're saying because they don't pay taxes, in fact, they don't care about an expanding government. what i want to do is put up a chart, that i apologize, i don't think you'll be able to see, but we're going to put it on our website so everybody can look at it, you included of course. on the top it says "taxes versus income." what it does is compares groups of individuals by the amount of income they receive versus the taxes they pay. and from the left, what it says is that people who receive the lowest 20% -- have the lowest 20% of income, which is in aggregate, about 4% of all income, pay about 3% of all taxes. the next 20% has about 6% of all income and pays about 5% of all taxes. and so, really, what you're showing is that people pay taxes almost directly proportionate to the income they get. so, isn't your claim that about

50% of the public don't pay taxes just flat-out dead wrong? >> well, look. the point i'm trying to make is that our federal income tax system does not result in a lot of people paying taxes. about half of americans don't really pay federal income taxes because their income flesh hold goes below that. they do pay into it. they pay a price for it. it's just that it's a hidden price. they pay for it in terms of increased prices for goods and services, sometimes they pay for it in terms of job losses. but we have a complex federal income tax system that i think needs to be reformed so that everyone edwardses the true, frank cost of the federal government. >> i'm with you in terms of reforming the federal income tax system but the folks you're talking about pay payroll taxes, don't they? >> i'm -- you lost me there. >> they pay payroll taxes?

>> i'm sure they pay taxes of one form or another. my point is simply this. when we have a complex tax system like what we do and results in a lot of people not paying federal income taxes to a significant degree or a far less significant degree than many americans it becomes lost on them there's costs to them. not just to society in general. but to them personally. >> they're paying payroll taxes, social security taxes, paying excise taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, every other tax and when you say 50% of the public isn't paying taxes and that's why they want the bigger government as though they're free riders that's -- as the chart showed you, they're paying taxes almost directly proportional to their share of income. >> i haven't seen your graph. i'm sure it's lovely. i'd love to study it when i get a chance. my point is -- >> it is lovely. i agree. >> we need to have a system that's flat, simple, easy to

understand, so that everyone understands the true cost of the federal government. >> senator lee, mike lee, thank you for coming on the show. we appreciate you coming on and i promise you if you ever come back, i'll not show you a chart. >> i will. but we appreciate it. >> eliot's in charge of charts. >> you can show me a chart but you have to actually show it to me. >> thank you for being with us. congratulations on being sworn in tomorrow. >> thank you both. >> we'll be right back. fighting terrorism is to win the hearts and minds of people. if you lose the hearts and minds' war, you have lost the war. if the terrorists are perceived as terrorists by the people from who they're operating from, then you're winning the war. if they're perceived as freedom fighters, you're losing the war. . we know it's intimidating. instant torque. top speed of 100 miles an hour. that's one serious machine. but you can do this. any socket can. the volt only needs about a buck fifty worth of charge a day.

and for longer trips, it can use gas. so get psyched. this is a big step up from the leafblower. the 2011 chevrolet volt. it's more car than electric.

just shake it. [ rattling ] [ male announcer ] need ink? this week at staples, buy any hp ink and get a second one at 40% off. that was easy. hi, may i help you? yes, i hear progressive has lots of discounts on car insurance. can i get in on that? are you a safe driver? yes. discount! do you own a home? yes. discount! are you going to buy online? yes! discount! isn't getting discounts great? yes!

there's no discount for agreeing with me. yeah, i got carried away. happens to me all the time. helping you save money -- now, that's progressive. call or click today. more turmoil in pakistan tonight even as the government appears on the verge of collapse, a top official was assassinated and now one of the leading voices in pakistan says u.s. policy in the country is

dead wrong. what's more, he says the war in afghanistan is long since lost. >> 'emron khan is a national hero in pakistan. at one time he led its cricket team, he was a politician, and joins us now from islamabad. welcome mr. khan. >> thank you. >> all right. this is the highest profile politician killed in three years. tell us what the assassination means. >> well, it's spread a feeling of panic in pakistan because of the governor of a province is not safe and the biggest province in pakistan then who is safe? and it seems as if the government is incapable of protecting the people if it can't protect its governor so there's a feeling of demoralization, a feeling of fear amongst a lot of politicians. >> well, does this mean that extremists have become more

mainstream, the fact that he was so vulnerable? >> no, what it has meant is that since 2004 when pakistan started military operations in pakistan's tribal areas, extremism has grown in pakistan. the more military operations we have had, the more militants have grown and unfortunately this war on terror has created more radicalization in our society. so, when people feel that this is a war against islam, which is the general perception amongst the masses, then there are a lot of people willing to defend the religion. >> mr. khan, this is eliot spitzer. when you talk about the war on terror, are you talking about the war on terror that's waged by the pakistani government or by the u.s. government in conjunction with the pakistani government? >> well, pakistan army is

considered as a proxy army of the u.s. it is on the behest of u.s. that pakistan army went into the pakistan tribal areas and we had no suicide bombings in pakistan. we had sectarian militants in pakistan but they were controlled by our establishment. right now, the army's being attacked. more pakistani soldiers have been killed than the u.s. soldiers killed in afghanistan and iraq put together. how many civilians we have killed? we have no accurate account but the feeling that pakistan is fighting someone else's war, bombing its own people and at the same time we have drone attacks and in the last year they've been record amount of drone attacks so all this has radicalized the young people, especially the pashtun. remember, the people who are being killed on both sides of the border in afghanistan and pakistan are the pashtuns. so that's where the major

radicalization has taken place. >> so what are you suggesting is that the u.s. policy is certainly as they're having an impact within pakistan, are being counter productive. what you're saying is the u.s. policies are generating the outbreak and we are strengthening the extremist forces within pakistan. >> absolutely. they're counterproductive. if they were productive, you should have seen a decline in terrorism. there should have been less terrorists, there should have been less groups. at the moment, 140,000 pakistani soldiers are stuck in our tribal areas and there's a military operation, the moment they come back, the militants come back. there is -- if anything, things are getting worse. >> what would you have the u.s. do? what would be an appropriate policy from your point of view? >> well, for a start, when has

aerial bombardment been a good way of fighting terrorists? and remember, the militants are living in villages with civilians. this is not an army being fought. it's guerrillas who are hiding with the civilians. now, the more collateral damage done, all it does is benefit the militants. u.s. and afghanistan each year the military actions have gone up, the more u.s. operations have increased forces have increased but is this producing results? are the people of afghanistan or the people in pakistan's tribal area, are they with the u.s. or are they with the militants? fighting terrorism is to win the hearts and minds of people. if you lose the hearts and minds war, then you lose the war. if they're perceived as freedom fighters, you're losing the war.

i'm afraid this policy of one dimensional policy of bombardment, drone attacks, military operations, they're being counterproductive. what should be done is that military operations should be part of a political settlement. they should be dialogue at the same time military operation should only aid the political settlement. at the moment we're just seeing a one dimensional military policy. and it's not succeeding. in fact, pakistan is imploding. this country is going down. i mean, we -- this country has taken more casualties, we have had over 500 bomb blasts the previous year. last year, almost the same amount. record amount of suicide attacks. there are about $40 billion, $50 billion the economy has suffered and the increased radicalization of the society, as you saw today with the assassination of the governor.

things are getting worse for this country. i think there needs to be a change of strategy. this is not a successful strategy. >> mr. khan, what would a successful strategy look like? >> for me, it should be talking to all the stakeholders. there should be an immediate cease fire. you can't have dialogue and at the same time military action. unfortunately, this policy is dictated by the security personnel, by the generals. it's not a civilian-backed or political backed policy in afghanistan. the key issue is afghanistan. if you have peace in afghanistan, if you can have a cease fire, get people around the table, talk about, you know, when there's an exit strategy, maybe have muslim forces, peacekeeping forces to have a government of consensus. it is the only way to go about in afghanistan. the way -- the current policy could just go on and on. >> if the united states wants to

have that discussion, those negotiations with the taliban, general petraeus himself said that's the right thing to do, i think there's almost universal agreement on that point, can you begin those negotiations if you are at the same time withdrawing militarily? if you show that weakness, what is the incentive then for the negotiation? >> but first of all, what is general petraeus doing? what he's trying to do is to kill as many taliban as possible. what he calls degrading the taliban means basically defeating them. i don't know what degrading means. means defeating them and then he hopes that they will come on to the negotiating table. but what -- look at the other side. what if he doesn't succeed? what if the taliban don't lose and for lose -- for them to win is not to lose. all they have to do is not confront the u.s. forces in some open battle which they're not

going to do so what happens? if this goes on for two, three years eventually there will be enough pressure for the u.s. to leave. my worry is that the longer this goes on, the more killing done, we will end up having a far more radical set-up in afghanistan than the one the u.s. replaced in 2001. because this more killing is creating more radicalization and it's clearly not working, because taliban are not -- the support for taliban is increasing. and the majority of afghan population today wants talks with taliban. in my opinion, the best way to go about it is to have a cease fire. have negotiations and if the taliban say, look, if the u.s. leaves and then only we will talk, you could have a peacekeeping force from muslim countries. but there has to be an alternative. this is not going to work. anyone who knows the history of afghanistan knows that there's going to be a lot of killing and in the end the result will not

be any different. you will still have talked to the taliban in the end. >> all right. imran khan, thank you so much for being with us. up ahead, the new congress hasn't even been sworn in yet and the new republicans vowing to repeal the health care bill. we'll go into the arena to ask if the gop can pull it off and if they do, are they ready to face the consequences. don't go away. for the last two years, democrats and liberal ideology has saddled up to the table of government and gorged. this has been the most successful legislative body in 50 years. so to sick back now with your bellies full and say it was just too hard. really, it kind of offends me. back in the 80's, it was really tough for me and my family.

i was living on welfare and supporting a family of four. after i got the job at walmart, things started changing immediately. then i wrote a letter to the food stamp office. "thank you very much, i don't need your help any more." you know now, i can actually say i bought my home. i knew that the more i dedicated... the harder i worked, the more it was going to benefit my family. this my son, mario and he now works at walmart. i believe mario is following in my footsteps. my name is noemi, and i work at walmart. ♪

congress isn't even back in session yet and already battles are underway on a number of fronts. harry reid is pushing to eliminate the filibuster in the senate. >> the house republicans are planning a vote to repeal the president's health care law next week. joining us to talk about all of the above, katrina vandenheuvel and host of the national review's off the page, will cane. thank you for being here. katrina, you made a case for reforming filibuster. >> it is not just me. you have a great coalition of fixthesenate.org. you have senator specter, republican, then democrat, leaving the senate in the farewell address blasting the body as being one of the dysfunctional body in the country. i'm for using the senate rules first day of the senate to

reform a filibuster that has let too many bills die. i think it's pro-democracy move. i don't think it's a partisan move and allow the will of the people to be better expressed and end the kind of backroom dealings. you know, frank capra, mr. smith goes to washington. that is the great symbol of a filibuster but the filibuster today doesn't call on a senator to come to the floor. and continuously debate. >> why not do that? make them stand up? >> that's part of the reform package. not allow holds on nominations. whole set of reforms. you know what? we are entering a cycle of reaction versus reform. i'm for reform. >> will, the republicans are saying this is a naked power grab by harry reid. is it? >> yeah. i think it is. katrina's right in one respect. she is not the only one calling for reform. eliot is beating the drum vigorously on the show. i've been on the show a lot and eliot and i are damn near buddies at this point. >> thanks a lot, will. >> i'm offended by the move.

for the last two years, democrats and liberal ideology has saddled up to the table of government and gorged on law making. this has been the most successful legislative body in 50 years as far as passing law. so to sit back now and with your bellies full and say, you know, it was just too hard, really, it kind of offends me. >> wait, wait, wait. >> will -- >> i have to admire you, the imagery you're using. let's go back to facts and reality for a moment. this isn't partisan. >> this is -- >> people saying democrats are likely to be in the minority after the 2012 elections and some partisan democrats saying don't do it. we'll use the filibuster. i'm with katrina. this is about democracy. this is about letting people vote. the constitution defines when you need a supermajority. treaties, overriding a veto. other super majorities, which is what you need to end debate now, are imposed by the rules of the senate and stifle democracy. >> it's not just about democracy. it is about limited government. you are right, the senate is less democratic than the house and for that matter the supreme court is less democratic than the senate. >> but it doesn't allow -- the

filibuster didn't allow the body to deliberate in real ways. now, will, history. the filibuster has been abused. you know that the filibuster was used more than 2009 than in 1950s and '60s combined? there is something wrong with that. and 400 bill that's came out of the house died in the senate. not that all should have been passed, but the deliberation that this country and people deserve is not happening. >> i agree with you on that. i have to say it. would you favor getting rid of the filibuster altogether when it comes to judicial appointments? >> no. but i think there should be -- i think a supermajority on executive appointments and judicial appointments. i think on pieces of legislation, there should be a shifting number but time -- >> supermajority so people understand. >> 51. >> right. >> 51 for executive appointments. >> should not be a super majority, then? >> i'm sorry. majority. >> that's what i thought you meant. >> the other part of the abuse of what's going on is the hold. you know, senator shelby of alabama put a hold on 70 pieces

of legislation before -- it wouldn't take it off until he got money for a military corporation in his home state. i think that's anonymous and secretive. >> hold meaning one person can hold up an entire piece of legislation. >> one person. there should be at least a coalition formed, as in the supreme court, form a coalition to dissent, to approve. >> you're right the filibuster has been used so many times over the past congress. but the government has extended itself into our lives. >> that's a different matter. that's a different matter. >> you can repeal legislation with the majority that we're talking about just as easily as pass it. this is a value-neutral process. >> you know how often that happens. >> this is a process objective to make democracy work and i'm confused by something you said. why is the supreme court less democratic than the senate? supreme court is a perfect majority. five is the magic number. >> because they're appointed and not directed. my point is that you have to

answer is this. what is the role of the senate then? if the senate should act just like the house and a simple majority rules on everything, why -- >> i'm not saying everything. executive appointments and others. you can have a sliding scale where it might be 55. but, again, history. walter mondale reformed the process in 1975. originally, it was 67 to close debate. then it moved to 60. i think you have a period of debate and after a week or two, if nothing is moving for the people's business, shift it to 55, 54. >> we want to go to the budget, but -- >> but it's so wonky and using the dysfunctionality. the dysfunctionality. this is not common sense. if a lot of people in this country seek solutions. >> constitution tells us when we need a super majority. and now you're saying you want a super majority. anyway. let's get to the budget. >> so there. yeah. exactly. you're an

anti-constitutionalist. >> that's right. >> isn't that part of the mantra now, we're all going to read the constitution on the first day. >> we've labeled you on your first day. >> i'm for reading the constitution on the first day. i really think they should treat it like the book of genesis or leviticus. >> i want to ask you this question. are the republicans, now that they have the house they're going to have to put together a budget. are they really going to cut $200 billion, $300 billion, $400 billion to balance the budget? >> they're talking about balanced budget. 100 is nothing in the context of the real deficit. you talked about being serious in terms of balanced budget. are they going to do it? >> they're going to try. the only critique i have of republicans at this point is not that the number is too aggressive but the areas in which they want to focus the cuts are too narrow. you can't balance the budget focusing on the narrow areas they are. defense and entitlements.

you can get to $100 billion by looking at social security, met care and yes, defense. >> >> so some agreement here. >> well, i'm for cutting a bloated defense budget but i think first of all, social security is a myth that it's part of a deficit problem. i think -- >> yet. >> i think the -- it is not part. i mean, we'll stay solvent until 2029. i think you lift the payroll tax. but i do think the mandate gnat republicans think they have to slash really brutally is one that will mean overreach for the party and i think it's going to expose the republicans because it will be a lot of pain around this country. 20% of domestic spending cuts is something i don't think we fully wrapped our mind around and there's -- >> you don't think that was the message sent three months ago, that we ought to look at this deficit? >> no, i don't. the polls show there's very little for cutting medicare, social security. these are the social compact

with american citizens so i think the republicans are misjudging what the american people are seeking. i do think there's a fear of the debt which has been hyped by establishment media. if i think jobs and the economy are on the minds of most americans right now. not a debt or the deficit. i think the investment deficit is the one that people would care about if it was presented in a way but the republicans don't have a mandate for what they see. >> the predicament is people do not want an ever-expanding government that spends insistently but also don't want to give up anything that comes to them directly. >> that's true. >> how do you reconcile those two opposing needs? >> there's growth budget. most industrialized countries have an operating and an investment budget. i think we are at a point for a strong recovery, we need demand in the system. that's not left/right, that's common sense. >> you make an excellent point. the answer is to be honest with the american people. you have to give up some social security, you have to give up some medicare. you can't take on new

entitlements if you care about the deficit. >> social security is not an entitlement, it's a contract with the government and employees who worked for it. >> we must move on. great to have you here. this conversation will continue. not be revolved in 24 hours. >> forever more. >> you'll come back and continue. >> thank you. coming up, as the budget edges toward the debt ceiling it's hard to separate numbers from the politics. we'll ask ben stein to help us do the math. stay with us. >> almost all of the promises coming out of the congress are not going to happen. they're not going to cut $100 billion. they're not going to be able slow the growth of federal spending, at least not within our lifetimes or my lifetime. i'm 66. it's lot of political blarney at this point. another heart attack could be lurking, waiting to strike. a heart attack that's caused by a clot, one that could be fatal. but plavix helps save lives. plavix, taken with other heart medicines, goes beyond what other heart medicines do alone,

to provide greater protection against heart attack or stroke and even death by helping to keep blood platelets from sticking together and forming dangerous clots. ask your doctor if plavix is right for you. protection that helps save lives. certain genetic factors and some medicines, such as prilosec, reduce the effect of plavix leaving you at greater risk for heart attack and stroke. your doctor may use genetic tests to determine treatment. don't stop taking plavix without talking to your doctor as your risk of heart attack or stroke may increase. people with stomach ulcers or conditions that cause bleeding should not use plavix. taking plavix alone or with some other medicines, including aspirin, may increase bleeding risk, so tell your doctor when planning surgery. tell your doctor all medicines you take, including aspirin, especially if you've had a stroke. if fever, unexplained weakness or confusion develops, tell your doctor promptly. these may be signs of ttp, a rare but potentially life-threatening condition, reported sometimes less than 2 weeks after starting plavix. other rare but serious side effects may occur.

as soon as they're sworn in tomorrow, the clock starts ticking for the new congress to do something about a rapidly growing debt. will the congress vote to raise the debt ceiling to pay the bills? >> from the heated rhetoric coming out of washington, it's clear the question will dominate much of the new session. so to make sense of it all, we turn to ben stein, he's joining us from l.a. ben, welcome. >> my pleasure. >> ben, our debt. it's almost at $14 trillion and inching mighty close to that ceiling which is nearly $14.3 trillion. so the big picture, what does all this mean? >> they're not going to be able to keep the debt from rising. congress often threatens they're not going to improve it, increasing the debt ceiling. they always approve it otherwise government comes screeching to a

halt. so that's not going to happen. almost all the promises coming out of congress aren't going to happen. they're not going to be able to cut $100 billion. they're not going to be able to drastically slow the growth of federal spending within our lifetimes or at least my lifetime. i'm 66. it's all a lot of political blarney at this point. >> ben, you know, i think that there are some republicans and i'll give them credit for this to follow through on their pledges and rapidly ratchet back some of the spending. would that be a good idea in your view just a matter of pure economics? where our economy is right now. do you think they should do that? >> no, i don't think they should be doing it right now until the recovery is stronger than it is. eliot, i've been following this for a long time. man and boy for a long time. congress always promises to cut spending, they never do. except when there's the build up of a big war, they don't do it. and we're not having a builddown

from a big war any time soon. so i just don't see where these giant cuts would come from. and the sad fact is that even if they did cut $100 billion, where -- it would still leave us with an enormous deficit. still leave us with a budget deficit growing like mad. we've gotten to the realm we're in such strat os fearic debt levels that even if it cut $100 billion, it wouldn't affect things that much. we're so far up a certain kind of creek without a paddle that drastic surgery is going to be necessary and i don't think this congress or this president has the guts to do it and i don't think the american people have the guts to face up to it. >> gosh, if nobody has the guts to do any of the things we need to be done, what are we going to do, just go belly up? >> my father, avery smart guy, said if a thing cannot go on forever, it will stop. so it will stop. there'll be some kind of drastic cuts in social security for upper and middle class and upper class people. there will be a rise in taxes once the recovery rebounds.

but we will probably keep adding to the debt for a very, very long time and at some point i would think in the far distant future we will default on the debt or else we will inflate our way out the debt. we'll create so much inflation it's easy to pay down the debt. we were bequeathed by mr. clinton a sound fiscal situation. we wrecked it. this is not mr. obama's fault. he has not been helpful but he inherited a terrible situation. mr. bush wrecked it. mr. obama inherited a bad situation and made it worse. >> we have a limited time left. there's a schizophrenia, the dow closed up today, two-year highs. rebounded powerfully since the depths of the recession and yet if you look at other numbers, what we call the crimp grim data, unemployment at 9.8%. you got 1.5 million people declaring bankruptcy last year. home sales are down. how do you explain the dichotomy

between the dow and what seems to be the reality of the core economy? >> we're having a recovery. there's almost no doubt about that. the market's responding to the fact that we're having a recovery. americans are responding to the fact that despite the grim news you just mentioned, corporate profits are extremely strong and getting stronger. so, the market -- the market doesn't really care that much. the market is a heartless beast. it doesn't care about unemployed family in flint, michigan. they don't care. the market cares about stocks and the earnings on stocks and those are doing very well. it would be nice if the market were more kind hearted but it's not. in terms of what the market cares about, the news is good. >> and the element that the market cares as you say about the earnings reflected on the corporate profit sheets and they earnings these days come from overseas which doesn't happy domestic workers or families but profits into the coffers of the companies. >> well, it is not a huge amount, first of all, eliot. but also, those profits go into the pension plans for automobile

workers, the pension plans for teachers, pension plans for police and fire. so those pension plans are not going into the hands that -- dead hands of a monopoly capital. they go into the hands of people's retirement plans. >> professor stein, on the -- even though, you know, debt or no debt, isn't it a good thing, overall a good thing when the market is doing well and work well for us? >> it's a great thing unless it gets so high it crashes but sure. we want people to feel wealthy we want them to go out and spend, we want them to feel optimistic. there is a thing called the wealth effect in which a small amount of the markets increase and translate into an increase in consumption and people feel general happier. i think that's happening. there's a lot of psychological data to be sure, most of it probably made up, that says when the market is up, people spend more money and the whole economy improves. i think that's happening right now. i think people are in a better mood because the market's up. i know i am. so we'll assume that everybody is.

>> i'm in a better mood just talking to you. >> i'm in a better mood talking to you. >> okay. ben stein, as always, great to have you with us. >> a great pleasure. >> we'll be right back. >> you must have known and seen a lot of stuff. doesn't that matter you wonder, whether there wasn't somebody -- have we read too many novels and conspiracy theories, somebody that said, this guy knows something? >> of course, it makes you wonder. and i in an e-mail to the delaware detective that's handling the case, i said, look, be very careful in looking at how this, the beating was administered to make sure there's nothing sinister here. [ male announcer ] this is steven, a busy man.

his day starts with his arthritis pain. that's breakfast with two pills. the morning is over, it's time for two more pills. the day marches on, back to more pills. and when he's finally home... but hang on; just two aleve can keep arthritis pain away all day with fewer pills than tylenol. this is steven, who chose aleve and 2 pills for a day free of pain. and get the all day pain relief of aleve in liquid gels.

i hear the market's down a million points. i freak out. i spill my large espresso. [ crash! ] the searing pain makes me slam on the brakes. uh oh. your fault. and your fifteen-minute insurance, may not cover my ninety thousand dollar car. so i sue you. cuz that's what i do. so get allstate. you could save money and be better protected from mayhem like me. [ dennis ] dollar for dollar nobody protects you from mayhem like allstate. [ male announcer ] we asked people all over america where the best potatoes come from. the best potatoes? idaho. idaho! idaho. [ male announcer ] and how do you know you're getting idaho potatoes? well, uh... um... [ male announcer ] not all potatoes come from idaho. so if you want the best, you have to do one important thing. always look for the grown in idaho seal.

i knew that. i knew that. [ male announcer ] look for the grown in idaho seal. anti-itch tion gives fast, lasting relief. got an itch? gold bond lotion. the quick fix for almost every itch. on december 31st, a garbage

truck dumped its contents into a delaware landfill and out fell a dead body. would have been a shocking story under any circumstances but the identity of the victim made it national news. john wheeler the third may not have been famous but the career was of that kind that sustains the country. graduate of west point, yale law and harvard business schools, he chose a life of public service. he worked in the pentagon for three republican presidents, he was the driving force behind the creation of the vietnam veterans memorial in washington, d.c., and served as the chairman of mothers against drunk driving. >> wheeler was last seen alive a day earlier in his hometown of wilmington. his death is ruled a homicide. little is known beyond the fact he had been involved in a dispute with a neighbor over house construction. the fbi has gotten involved. joining us now is someone who met john wheeler at west point, worked with him in vietnam, at the pentagon, and war memorial, richard radies. welcome. >> thank you.

>> so sorry about your loss. it must have been quite a shock. >> horrible shock. i mean, you just don't expect something like this to happen to somebody who's an old and dear friend. >> knew him. you served with him in vietnam. >> right. >> his resume you say my goodness, this is the epitome of what this country wants someone to be. west point, yale, harvard, worked at the pentagon. mothers against drunk driving, oversaw raising the money for the vietnam memorial. he worked for the biggest defense contractors, worked for the s.e.c. he was everything you hope for. who could have -- what explains this? do you have a theory? >> my hunch is that he may have gone into the wrong fast food outlet in wilmington. paid for whatever he bought with some money and somebody said, hey, you know, this guy looks like he might have more money in his wallet. it could be something as crazy as that. it could be he took the wrong

car service home at night, you now. that's my suspicion. >> not a man with enemies? >> no. not -- i don't think there's anything sinister about this. i think it's just -- >> you're describing a random act of violence, the horror show of anybody who's had a friend or a loved one be the victim of a crime? >> i think that's probably what it was. >> now, the other side, of course, he dealt with the most top secret situations in the world. >> that's right. >> at the pentagon, miter, very secretive entity. the s.e.c. he was involved in thing that's were at the center of potential conspiracy theories. >> 40 years ago, i would have told you it was absolutely impossible. now with the youthful age of 65, i can believe anything. so i wouldn't rule it out. >> right. >> but my hunch is that it was something completely senseless rather than sinister. >> tell us about jack wheeler. what was he like? >> the country would not have

the vietnam memorial if jack wheeler had not decided that it had to happen. he was the conductor of that orchestra. we played different parts. west pointers, lawyers in washington, other people. but jack wheeler was the man who made it happen. >> it was his idea. i think there was some opposition to the wall itself, to that architectural display. >> dear lady, some is not the right word. >> well, okay, there was a firestorm of opposition, and he said some people wanted to see soldiers rather than just a wall which looked like a headstone to them. there was a compromise sculpture of three soldiers but it was jack wheeler insisting, i think, that they represent different races. >> yeah. we knew that we had been maneuvered into a corner and that we had to undertake a compromise that we would have preferred not to have had so our way of winning the war instead of the battle was to make sure that one soldier was

african-american, one was caucasian and the third looks suspiciously hispanic. >> uh-huh. well -- >> that's a first time soldiers of color were represented on the mall in washington. >> yep. >> the loss of a true american hero. >> thank you. >> stay with us. [ beeping ] ♪ my country ♪ 'tis of thee ♪ sweet land ♪ of liberty ♪ of thee i sing [ laughs ] ♪ oh, land ♪ where my fathers died

♪ land of the pilgrims' pride ♪ from every mountainside ♪ let freedom ring ♪

before we go, an update on the story that began our program last night. we showed you those navy videos filled with anti-gay slurs and simulated sex acts. they were made aboard "uss errant prize." well, the officer responsible for those videos captain owen honors, has been relieved of duty.

here's what admiral harvey commander of the u.s. fleet forces said about the action. quote, our leaders must beyond reproach. >> admiral harvey said that the investigation into the incident is ongoing. one more thing, tomorrow night, an exclusive interview with actor, activist and get this, possible candidate alec baldwin. yep, that alec baldwin and, no, this is not a "saturday night live" skit. here's a glimpse of what's in store. >> you are passionate about this stuff. you are more multi-faceted than so many people appreciate. we think of you as jack ryan. "30 rock." "saturday night live." hosting the acamdiacamdies. you are a deeply political person so you're going do get into this game? you have answers? you have thoughts? what do you run for and when? >> i've had people approach me. >> never heard you stamper before. >> but i've had people approach me about running for jobs and moving to other locations and it's been a very difficult decision for me because i am a new yorker and i do like living here and i woul