thank-you for watching "state of the union." i'm candy crowley in washington. congressman paul ryan is my guest next week. he says he has a solution to fix the trillion-dollar deficit. he'll share it with us. "fareed zakaria gps" starts now for our viewers in the united states. this is "gps," the global public square. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria. we've got a great show for you today. first up, what happens when you actually cut government spending? we'll ask britain's finance minister, george osborn. we'll ask him if his austerity experiment is working. then, is this the most powerful man in america? some people think so. i think down with grover norquist, the man behind the no new taxes pledge. also, actor turned activist george clooney on evidence he says he has of war crimes. and a look at what we can learn from health care around the world. a preview of a new "gps" special

that premieres tonight at 8:00 p.m. first here's my take. when he was in college in the early '80s as part of a student organization, i invited ronald reagan's defense secretary, casper weinberger, to give a speech on campus. at the time american colleges were hotbeds to the reagan administration especially to its defense policies. sure enough, as he began to speak, a series of students stood up and began to heckle. one after another, they rose and chanted a single line, "deterrence is a lie." i was reminded of that turbulent meeting because i have been listening to these debates over iran's nuclear ambitions because it highlights a strange role reversal in today's foreign policy discourse. it used to be the left that refused to accept the idea of deterrence. searching instead for options like the nuclear freeze. and it used to be people on the right who would patiently explain the practical virtues of deterrence.

the conservative thinker, charles krauthammer wrote in "the new republic" in 19834, deterrence like old age is intolerable until one considers the alternative. yet today it is the right that has decided that deterrence is a lie. kra krauthammer, the american enter surprise institute, would lead us instead on a policy path that culminates in a preventive war. it is the right's version of the nuclear freeze, a simple solution that actually doesn't solve anything. strikes on iran would probably delay its program a few years while driving up domestic support within iran for the government in tehran and for the nuclear program. it would provide a much stronger rationale for iran to pursue nuclear weapons, having been attacked. yet sophisticated conservatives insist that this route is preferable to deterrence. deterrence is a difficult concept to accept because it is

counterintuitive. the prospect of destruction produces peace. and yet its record is remarkable. great powers went to war with brutal regularity for hundreds of years. then came nuclear weapons, and there has not been a war between great powers since 1945, the longest spirit of peace between great powers in human history. the united states and the soviet union had a more intense and far-reaching rivalry than almost any two great powers ever. each told the other one to destroy its way of life. and yet this rivalry did not result in war. both sides were deterred. so also with pakistan and india which fought three wars before they had nukes and none in the 40 years since. to gain credibility with his conservative critics and with the current israeli government, president obama has gone along with them, ruled out containment, insisted that he does not bluff, and spoken of a window of opportunity for negotiations. this might prove to be a

mistake. it boxes the united states in, limits obama's options, and forces him on a path that could push the united states into an unnecessary preventive war. look, anguish over the prospect of an iranian nuclear weapon is understandable. it would be far better for israel, the united states, the middle east, the world if tehran does not acquire such weapons. and the american effort to prevent this from happening and to put tremendous pressure on tehran is the right policy. but were tehran to persist, were the regime to accept the global isolation and crippling costs that would come from that decision, then a robust policy of containment and deterrence would work toward iran as it did against stalin's soviet union, mao's china, kim jong-il's north korea and the pakistani military. let's get started.

the brits invaded washington, d.c., again this week. this occasion was much more friendly than when they did it in 1812. accompanying prime minister cameron was his chancellor, the very british title for finance minister, george osborn. he's the man behind the cameron government's bold plan to reduce its deficits. its critics say it has plunged britain into an unnecessary recession. i sat down with george osborn at the british embassy in washington, d.c. chancellor osborn, thanks for doing this again. >> my pleasure. it's good to be back. >> you have to present a budget next yeweek. there are many people not just in the labor party who say you need to cut back on the austerity, so to speak, that the british program of cutting government spending has resulted in very weak economic growth.

do you think you need to and will you relax some of the spending cuts that you have p up in place? >> well, normally budget's a secret, but it won't be any secret if i say to you no, we're for the going to do that. we are going to stick with the deficit reduction plan that i set out almost two years ago. britain had an 11% budget deficit two years ago. the plan we've put in place is bringing that deficit down and borrowing is coming down. but even with that, we still have one of the highest budget deficits in the world. we've got to keep up the pace in order to provide the stability the british economy needs and the low interest rates the british economy needs to allow the recovery to take hold. so i think it would be a big mistake if britain backed off the credibility its earned in the international markets. >> but you know there are people very serious economic commentators like martin wolf

who say you had no trouble borrowing money going into your government and that by cutting government spending, you've actually reduced economic growth which, in turn, has led to lower tax revenues which, in turn, has led to a deficit projection than you might have had. many people look at britain as a test case of too much austerity too soon. >> well, i don't agree with that analysis. i guess that wouldn't surprise you. i would say we had to earn our credibility out there in international markets when i became the chancellor. we had the same interest rates as italy and spain. you can see what's happened to those countries, actually a little better in the last few weeks, but nevertheless interest rates markedly higher than the united kingdom has. so the idea that somehow britain could have gotten away with not having a credible plan to deal with its deficit, not attacking

that 11% budget deficit i think is fanciful. and actually, the proof has been in the pudding. we've had a remarkable degree of stability. we've had lower interest rates. compared to many of our european neighbors. and if you think of the economic shocks that the european continent has suffered over the last nine months to a year, i think britain, through its credible plan, has helped to insulate itself from that. >> do you think that means the united states should move to greater austerity measures now? >> look, first the united states has more freedom and maneuver because it's a reserve currency. but also, i think if you look at the debate in the united states, there's a question of when people are going to deal with the deficit, but the question of whether to deal with the deficit has actually been answered. and i think sometimes the difference is between the profile of deficit reduction, say, between the uk and the u.s. are overstated. and you look at the profile. it's not that dissimilar. there is some differences around timing. we have different political systems and what you're capable

of doing at different times, of course, varies. but i think all western countries know they've got to deal with that question and the markets have had, which is how are you going to pay your way? >> one of the things you've said in your interviews leading up to the budget is that you will not put in place any tax cuts that are not paid for. i take it by that you mean that you do not buy the supply side argument that if you were to just cut taxes, it would unleash growth which would then pay for itself? >> i'm actually more on that sense with margaret thatcher than with ronald reagan. thatcher was ambulance the books and ronald reagan was cut taxes. she was the british prime minister, she was the president, different economies. lowering taxes creates more efficient economies, allow wealth to be -- and income and

enterprise to be promoted. but i think in the context of having public finances that are unsustainable, you've got to do something about that, and you can't just assume you cut taxes and the money pays for itself. >> what is your principal concern in terms of the obstacles to a general global recovery but also, of course, a british one? >> well, i guess the oil price would be, if i had to name one thing at the moment. i do think the risks in the eurozone have entirely dissipated even with the action of the european central bank, but they are certainly much less than they were just a couple of months ago. i look at that oil price at the moment, i'm keconcerned about tt because you saw actually the end of 2010, early 2011, how that knocked the stuffing out of the global recovery, high oil price. and that is something that would certainly be on my radar as a cause for concern at the moment.

>> georges s oosborne, pleasur have you on. we will be right back. coming up, another george, george clooney. >> we said, so what happens if like when you google earth my house, why can't we do that to, you know, to war criminals, basically? to keep big winter jobs on track, at&t provided a mobile solution that lets everyone from field workers to accounting, initiate, bill, and track work in real time. you can't live under a dome in minnesota, that's why there's guys like me. [ male announcer ] it's a network of possibilities -- helping you do what you do... even better. ♪ forty years ago, he wasn't looking for financial advice. back then, he had something more important to do. he wasn't focused on his future but fortunately, somebody else was. at usaa we provide retirement planning for our military,

veterans and their families. now more than ever, it's important to get financial advice from people who share your military values. call now for our free guide and tips on planning for your retirement this tax season. for my type 2 diabetes. me... thinking my only option was the vial and syringe dad used. and me... discovering once-daily levemir flexpen. flexpen is prefilled. doesn't need refrigeration for up to 42 days. no drawing from a vial. dial the exact dose. inject by pushing a button. flexpen is insulin delivery my way. levemir is long acting insulin used to control high blood sugar in adults and children with diabetes. do not take if your blood sugar is too low. tell your health care provider about all medicines you take and all of your medical conditions, including if you are pregnant or breastfeeding. the most common side effect is low blood sugar. other possible side effects include reactions at the injection site. get medical help right away if you experience serious allergic reactions,

body rash, trouble with breathing, fast heartbeat or sweating. with flexpen, say good night to vial and syringe. ask your doctor about levemir flexpen. covered by 90% of insurance plans, including medicare. find your co-pay at myflexpen.com.

my next guest is, according to former senator alan simpson, the most powerful man in america today. no, he's not the american president, but if he were to run for that position, simpson says, his platform would be no taxes under any situation even if your country goes to hell. i'm talking about grover norquist. he's the author of "the taxpayer protection pledge" which seeks to oppose any net tax increases. it has been signed by 95% of republican congressmen and all but one of the original 2012 republican presidential candidates. grover norquist joins me now.

>> good to be with you. >> so let me ask you -- >> sure. >> -- about the history of the last 20 or 30 years and ask you whether you feel some responsibility for this. here's how i see it. the republican party, under ronald reagan, subsequently under gingrich when confronting george bush sr., has pushed aggressively for cutting taxes, no new taxes, many of the kinds of things you've argued for. but it has been unable, for whatever reason, under republican majorities, under democratic majorities, under divided or shared government to cut spending. so what we have had is the kind of perfect expression of what the american people seem to want, which is low taxes but lots of government services, and there's only one way to square that circumstance, which is to borrow lots of money, which is what we've bohn for the past 30 years. so aren't you to blame for that? >> no because the alternative is

to tremendously raise taxes as high as spending has gone, if this is the left's analysis of how to fix the problem. no. >> isn't that -- but let me ask you -- you can characterize it as the left or right, but if you raise taxes to meet what expenditures you want to make, at least you don't have a debt bomb. at least you don't have a debt crisis. at least you don't have a financial collapse. at least your own fate's the prospect, when i assume you are facing of becoming another greece. in other words, i don't like high taxes, but the question is if you want lots of government services, you have two pgss. you can either have high taxes or you can borrow the money. >> but the american people clearly don't want high levels of government spending. >> but for the last 30 year, they've shown they don't want to cut spending. >> the congressmen and senators they send to washington are surrounded by spending interests who push them for higher levels of spending and try to push them for higher levels of taxes. when you polled the american

people, do you want more government services at a higher cost or fewer government services at a lower cost, two to one, and that is almost unchanged. >> in the abstract. >> in the abstract. >> when you go to a specific program -- >> and ask are they willing to pay additional taxes for it? the answer is no. >> they say no to cuts. >> if taxes go down, you can get that. the disconnect is when you send people who promise to cut taxes and send them to washington, i run a taxpayer group, the most powerful man in d.c., nonsense. there are buildings with thousands of eem in them all lobbying for more spending and higher levels of spending and more government commitments, and there are a handful -- a handful of groups that fight for less spending. how do we even the score? that's what the pledge has begun to do. because we make visible a candidate who says i'm going to washington, i'm not raising taxes. okay? and then people know exactly what he or she committed to because it's in writing. it's short. it's simple.

no net tax increase. >> let's talk about one way you can reform taxes which i'm assuming you agree with, but i was distressed to see your reaction to simpson-bowles. most people understand that you have these things called tax expenditures in the tax code. these are essentially lots of individual loopholes -- >> tax credits. >> -- tax credits where the government is basically making special deals for people, lowering taxes for one industry, for one group, in some cases large ones, but lots of small ones. and the idea in simpson-bowles was to basically get rid of all of them, to take away these special tax breaks that people get. and you opposed it. now, what i'm surprised by is first of all, this is terrible in terms of tax policy to having the government decide all these, you know, special benefits for people. secondly, this is precisely what encourages the kind of corruption of the tax code that you rightly abhor. >> you're misstating my position.

simpson-bowles is an outline. it's an essay. it was never put into legislative form because you can't. okay? because, again -- >> principles. >> right. >> however, one of their general principles was about a $2 trillion tax increase over -- the only one thing they were clear about was they were raising taxes, 2, paul ryon says $2 trillion over the decade. the heritage foundation says $3 trillion. they were trying to stick a tax increase and pretend it was reform. they damaged tax reform. we'll get tax reform only when the american people are convinced. it doesn't hide it. that's why the pledge makes the reform in '86 possible, makes tax reform now possible. >> to be fair to simpson-bowles, it was tax reform and it raised more revenues. so let me ask you this. we are taxing now at 14% of gdp. >> thanks to the recession. >> we're spending 23% of gdp. are you telling me that you believe you can get -- you can

close that gap entirely by cutting spending, that is by taking something on the range of 7% or 8% of gdp out of government spending? that is cutting $800 billion out of government spending every year? >> you can -- you do two things. you reduce spending and you have stronger economic growth. this is one of the weakest recoveries we've had. >> but you can, as a practical matter, this is, again, this is a wish, not a plan. i would like stronger economic growth, too, but the situation has to -- >> there's a way to get to that. the undo the regulatory burdens that obama has put in and threatened to put in. you get rid of obamacare. >> you've got a plan as a practical matter. clinton raised taxes. he got growth. bush had the biggest tax cuts in a generation, and he got the weakest growth in 30 years. all i'm saying is as a matter of practical planning for the fiscal future of the united states, you answer can't be well, we'll have stronger growth. if we grow at 6%, we don't need to do anything.

everything is solve end, but i can't wish for that. you've got to plan realistically. >> we know that if you reduce capital gains taxes, you actually get more growth. if we go to full expensing for business investment, we'll get more investment. we need to have an immigration policy that brings both talent and numbers to the country. we need to have a territorial tax system so that the trillion dollars that's overseas can come back here and create jobs and opportunities here while making the country fiscally stronger. >> two of three things, if you could wave a magic wand, what would you do? >> take the corporate and individual rates down to 20%. 25% does not make you internationally competitive because while the european average on corporate is 25 and most americans work for firms that pay at the individual level, not at the corporate, so you've got to bring them both down. obama wants to take the individual to 44% and the corporate he says down to 28% or whatever. but that really damages the small businesses, and doesn't make us competitive. you've got to take them both down to 20% because state and local corporate taxes are 5%.

so to compete with europe, we've got to be at 20% nationally. so we're at 25% to compete with the europeans. >> and you don't think that bringing taxes down that much, at least in the short run, will mean that you will lose substantial revenue? >> i think you do a number of things at once. look, we're going to have a republican house after this next election. we'll have a republican senate after this next election. 23 democrats, 10 republicans up, the democrats, half of them are in vulnerable seats. two of the republicans might lose. so you'll have a republican house and senate. the question is if you have a republican president, all of the things i'm talking about that you suggest are rhetoric. that's not rhetoric. that's the plan. >> final question. >> yeah. >> do you trust that mitt romney is a candidate who will be in favor of the agenda you have for him? or the party? >> two things. he has made the commitment both four years ago and this year he will oppose any net tax increase. he is for tax reform, against tax increases. two, he's endorsed the outlines of paul ryan's plan. ryan's plan reduces obama's

overspending by $6 trillion -- >> i'm asking you, do you trust mitt romney? >> for two reasons. one, i trust him because i've talked to him about it. i trust him because he's made the comments. but secondly, the republicans are now in a position where they will govern from the house and the senate. in the same way that the democrats did for 60 years. so the next republican president will work with the republicans in the house and senate which is why you know what the plan will be. it will be something that looks very much like the ryan plan. >> grover norquist, good to have you on. >> good to be with you. and we will be back. >> right now our gas prices go up, as the president said in his press conference, because when the chinese aren't getting their 6% from the sudan, they're getting it from somewhere else, and that raises the price for oil. ♪

oh! [ baby crying ] ♪ what started as a whisper ♪ every day, millions of people choose to do the right thing.

♪ slowly turned to a scream ♪ there's an insurance company that does that, too. liberty mutual insurance. responsibility. what's your policy? ♪ amen, omen

now for our "what in the world" segment. what caught my eye this week was a dispute between two members of a grand old european alliance. the alliance isn't nato or the eurozone or the eu. i'm talking about the annual song contest. what is it? take a look. ♪ it's cheesy, but it's a huge hit

across the pond. every year dozens of countries send their top performers to an "american idol" style music competition. more than 100 million viewers tune in to vote for their favorites. the one rule, you can't vote for your own country. >> eight points. to romania. >> the tradition has continued since the 1950s. abba won for "waterloo" in '74. celine dion made a splash in 1988 representing switzerland. but somewhere along the way, the contest became known less for big names and more for kitsch. sequinned costumes, outlandish productions, the works. ♪ let me share my song with you ♪ >> despite its name, eurovision is not just a european competition. algeria participates. so does israel. this year's host is . that's why it's in the news this week. for some background, it's long

clashed with armenia. in 1994, the two countries ended a years-long war over the separatist region. but the tensions flared up again recently when an armenian soldier was shot to death at the border. so with them as the host, eurovision is pulling out of the party. it's not new. music competitions like big sporting events are often proxies for larger disputes or trends. when moscow hosted eurovision in 2009, georgia was reluctant to take part because it had just fought a war with russia. but music can unify, too. that year an entry featured an israeli jew singing a duet with an israeli-arab. ♪ there must be another way >> for me, the fascinating thing about eurovision is not the performances of the music, it's the politics and the public psychology. here at "gps" we ploeted the

capital cities of the winning countries from the past two decades on a longitudinal graph. that's what we do in our spare time. the winners tended to be from western europe, dublin orelon done. but by the late 2000s, the winners mostly came from the east, moscow and kiev. europe's center of gravity is moving east. and these voters have interesting tendoncies. in 2003, britain got exactly zero votes. that was the year the blair government supported the war in iraq. votes aren't always conscious political choices, but you can spot trends. greeks always vote for cypriots. they return the favor. viewers from warmer warsaw-pact countries vote for the bloc. in 2007, serbia won after picking up maximum points from bosnia herzegovina, croatia, mass deana, montenegro and sloven slovenia, an interesting window

into europe. it got me thinking. we have "american idol" here in the u.s. and "the voice," but perhaps what we need is an american vision where people from red straights strategically vote for each other. will the two coasts create an alliance? will there be a north/south divide? i hope a tv executive somewhere is watching. remember to credit us with the idea and maybe send a few royalties our way. we'll be back with a segment you wouldn't want to miss. we're going to talk to george clooney about war crimes. right back. >> these are war crimes. you're not firing into a -- this isn't war. this is killing innocent civilians. i think about the future every morning when i wake up.

i care about my car because... i think it's a cool car. i think it's stylish and it makes a statement at the same time. and i've never had a car like that. people don't totally understand how the volt works. when the battery runs down the gas engine operates. i don't ever worry about running out of battery power... because it just switches over to my gas engine. i very rarely put gas in my chevy volt. i love my chevy volt and i've never loved a car. ♪

i love my chevy volt and i've never loved a car. [ whooping ] ♪ it was the best day ♪ it was the best day ♪ ♪ it was the best day ♪ 'cause of you we make a great pair. huh? progressive and the great outdoors! we make a great pair. right, totally. that's what i was thinking. all kinds of vehicles, all kinds of savings.

multi-policy discounts from progressive. call or click today. this past week washington turned its attention to hollywood. the actor george clooney was testifying in front of the senate foreign releases committee. the topic wasn't movies, it was very serious. clooney was sharing what he learned in his travels along the volatile border between sudan and south sudan. south sudan is still under threat. it has yet to resolve with sudan a dispute over oil revenues. this isn't just an african story. it impacts all of us every day. south sudan has stopped exporting oil, and that, clooney

says, is part of what's driving up oil prices. i caught up with clooney in washington. he was with john pendergast, co-founder of the enough project. >> george, john, thanks for joining me. >> thank you. >> we're all trying to figure out whether south sudan, the newest country in the world, is going to make it. there have been clashes and disputes over oil, but you raised money to put up satellites to be able to tell us what's going on when no one was looking. >> right. >> so what do the satellites tell you? >> it's an interesting thing. we went to these people, digital globe, who by the a donated this time. and expensive to do. we said what happens if, like when you google earth my house, why can't we do that to, you know, to war criminals, basically? and they said, let's see what we

can do. in the last few months, in particularly very recently the last month or so, we've been able to get photographs of mass graves. it's very hard to catch things like antinobs. yet we caught them actively dropping am bos and the blumes of smoke on villagers. not military posts. these are war crimes. this is not -- you're not firing into a -- this isn't war. this is killing innocent civilians. and we've been lucky enough, if you can use that word, to be able to catch that on satellites. i don't know what it will do except at the end of the day, we certainly have evidence at the international criminal court of crimes against humanity. >> but do you think that there's a way to mobilize pressure? because i know that one of the countries, perhaps the country that has the most influence in sudan, is china. now, presumably, you're not going to go and be able to meet

with the premier of china and get him to do something about it, so what's the strategy? >> i've tried that. i've been to china. you can't guilt them into things, you know. there is a strategy, though. and china is the key to it. we can't really do a whole lot more in terms of sanctions. there's some things we could do, but china has a $20 billion oil infrastructure in the sudan. they get 6% of their oil imported from the sudan. and the sudan, south sudan, who has the oil, and north sudan who has the refineries, and north sudan was taking that money from the oil and not giving it back and buying weapons to hurt the south. so about six weeks ago, the south said, okay, we're done. and they shut off the oil. so china suddenly is getting no return on their money. that gives us a unique position as opposed to looking to them as humanitarians or to do the right thing, we can meet with china --

not we, but a high-level government official, could meet with china and say let's work on this together because we both, economically, would benefit by a resolution, a cross-border resolution. right now our gas prices go up, as the president said in his press conference, because when the chinese aren't getting their 6% from the sudan, they're getting it from somewhere else, and that raises the price for all of us. so it's something that's mutually beneficial. >> what do you think of this approach of branding bashir as a war criminal, of indicting him to the court? because i know you want to do the right thing, but you're also a pragmatist. >> i think the icc is probably a very good thing. john and i, we're trying to find carrots and sticks, obviously, you know, the truth about any negotiation is you have to let even someone you don't care about have some way to save some face, to get out of this, right? but the truth of the matter is,

at this point, there isn't much left to do. there is no other game with this guy. you know, he and haroon and the defense minister are all three charged with war crimes against humanity for their activities in darfur are the exact same three people who are indiscriminately bombing civilians in the mountains today. we were there. we had rockets going over our heads. that was a rocket that just sailed over there. let's see if we can see what it hit. we were in villages the day after, you know, a kid got his hands blown off. these people are committing, again, the same things -- and it has the exact same look as it did in 2004 in darfur. >> let me ask you about another war criminal, kony, this video that's come out, 150 million people, even more people than watch your movies. do you think that ultimately it will make a difference because you've tried to focus your

activism in very specific, targeted ways. this feels a little more like the catch-all activism, let's do something about this. some of the things are inaccurate, that we don't have 30,000 child soldiers, but the spirit, you know, is obviously admirable. this guy is a horrible person. will it make a difference? >> i'll tell you this. unfortunately, the one thing you have to do is when you do these is you have to try to be -- if you're going to err, you have to make sure you err on the side of factual as much as you factually can. having said that, if 150 million people know his name now, that can only be good. it's only good -- you know, the first thing we have to do, the first power we have is knowledge about this. you have to know about it and understand it. and then you get involved. i didn't know anything about darfur until i read nick christoph's pieces on darfur. i then got involved. i think you have to have knowledge first. so i think it's a good thing. >> what do you think of it? >> well, you know, president

obama sent 100 special forces to the region of central africa to help craft a counterinsurgency strategy to catch joseph kony a few months ago. it's an election year. people are criticizing heavily for doing that. so this gives president obama a great deal of political support to maintain the course of trying to bring an end to this insurgency. yeah, it's not as bad as it was at the height when the sudan government, by the way, the same government that's bringing us the mountains, was supporting t the lords resistance army. so it's a decision to support this decision by the president. >> john, george, a pleasure to have you on. >> thank you. >> and we will be back. why do our kids die in greater proportion, and why don't we live as long? >> yeah. so infant mortality means death before your first birthday. now, you would think a rich, successful, innovative democracy could keep baby as live. of the 23 richest countries, we

rate last, 23rd, in keeping babies alive for one year. specialists, lots of doctors, lots of advice... and my hands were full. i couldn't sort through it all. with unitedhealthcare, it's different. we have access to great specialists, and our pediatrician gets all the information. everyone works as a team. and i only need to talk to one person about her care. we're more than 78,000 people looking out for 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare. and i really do love how... how unique it is. my friends say that it's like i'm driving a spaceship. the body style and the interior design... everything is really cool, but more than anything i love the gas mileage. i don't even know what it's like to really stop and get gas. i am probably going to the gas station about once a month. probably less. you should get a volt because it's going to save you a crap load of money. [ laughs ] ♪

america's health care system is broken. our healthy life expectenty which is the standard measurement ranks only 29th in the world behind slovenia. our infant mortality rate ranks 30th. it's more than twice that of sweden and japan.

and for this subpar care, we pay more than any nation in the world. almost one out of every $5 spent in america is spent on health care. sunday night, north american viewers can catch a brand-new "gps" special, "global lessons: a gps road map for saving health care." at 8:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. eastern and pacific. we'll take you around the world to show you how other nations manage their health care. and we'll bring the lessons back here to america. in researching the special, i met a journalist with a very interesting story. t.r. reed is a former overseas bureau chief for "the washington post." and he traveled around the world to investigate health care and tried to get his bad shoulder fixed at the same time. you took your bad shoulder -- >> yeah, it only goes this high. >> -- around the world. >> yeah. >> and where did you find that

if you had -- you know, if you could choose where you could live to deal with that bad shoulder, where would you have chosen? >> well, i would have gotten great care in the united states of america because i have very good insurance. and france, the care was fabulous. you don't wait. the cost of the procedure i needed was one-seventh as much as it would have been in america. i would have gotten it in three days. japan, i was sitting in the doctor's office, and this is the only doctor who did this, he's looking at the computer while he's talking to me. he says, well, i could do this for your shoulder. i could do that. and he says, well, maybe i'll do an operation. it would have cost about one-tenth of the price in america. and he said, i probably can't do it tomorrow, but maybe next week someday? you know. so i got very good recommendations and very good care in many countries. interestingly, in britain where the government -- that's socialized medicine, the government pays for the insurance, that doctor said to me, go home. he said, you're living a good

life. you're a successful reporter. you don't need a new shoulder. we're not going to provide it. interesting. they just do less in britain. what they do, they do fine. but they don't do all the stuff we do. >> how do you measure? they measure recovery rates for major diseases. in some areas, breast cancer, we lead the world in recovery from breast cancer. prostate cancer, we are number two. but a lot of diseases, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, we rate right at the bottom of the list. they have this measure which is called illness amenable to care. that means if you have a curable disease, do you get cured? of the 19 richest nations, the united states ranks 19th on that mesh escasur measure. so in some areas, we're fantastic. this is why arab sheikhs fly to the mayo clinic.

but overall, we're not interesting as well as the as well. >> why do we have some of the lowest rates of mortality and highest rates of infant mortality? why do our kids die in greater proportion and why don't we live as long? >> so infant mortality means death before your first birthday. you would think a rich, successful democracy could keep babies alive. we rate last, 23rd, in keeping babies alive for one year. it's not because middle class women would good insurance -- they get great care. it's all the people that don't have understand. the estimates vary but roughly 30 times a year, 600 we would save tons if we provided every

woman in america prenatal care. we would save tons of babies. but, no, that's not our way. >> we hear we're the most expensive system in the world. 6% of gdp. how does that compare with rich countries? >> it's twice as high. we spend about twice as much. we spend about three times as much as japan almost jeegermany 60 to 70%. canada is half. we're spending vastly more and the really striking thing is we leave 50 million people without coverage. >> do you think that there's a single lesson you took from your tour around the world, looking at all of these different health care systems? >> yeah. well, there are many different approaches. it's not all socialized

medicine. there are a lot of ways to provide health care. one thing that all of the other countries do, they cover everybody. my argument is, if you make a commitment, you decide we want to be a country that provides health care for everybody, then you design a system to do it. we never made that moral commitment. until we do, i don't think we'll get there. >> don't forget, "global lessons, the qps road map." international viewers can go to our website for air times. read my essay on the subject in this week's issue of "time" magazine. sleep my be important for more than just your health. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 let's talk about the cookie-cutter retirement advice

ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 you get at some places. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 they say you have to do this, have that, invest here ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 you know what? ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 you can't create a retirement plan based on ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 a predetermined script. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 to understand you and your goals... ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 ...so together we can find real-life answers for your ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 real-life retirement. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 talk to chuck ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 and let's write a script based on your life story. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 mid grade dark roast forest fresh full tank brain freeze cake donettes rolling hot dogs bag of ice anti-freeze wash and dry diesel self-serve fix a flat jumper cables 5% cashback right now, get 5% cashback at gas stations. it pays to discover. [ kareem ] i was fascinated by balsa wood airplanes since i was a kid.

[ mike ] i always wondered how did an airplane get in the air. at ge aviation, we build jet engines. we lift people up off the ground to 35 thousand feet. these engines are built by hand with very precise assembly techniques. [ mike ] it's gonna fly people around the world. safely and better than it's ever done before. it would be a real treat to hear this monster fire up. [ jaronda ] i think a lot of people, when they look at a jet engine, they see a big hunk of metal. but when i look at it, i see seth, mark, tom, and people like that who work on engines every day. [ tom ] i would love to see this thing fly. [ kareem ] it's a dream, honestly. there it is. oh, wow. that's so cool! yeah, that was awesome! [ cheering ] [ tom ] i wanna see that again. ♪ with diabetes to finish the indy 500. i live in the fast lane.

i need on-the-go insulin delivery. that's why i use novolog® flexpen®. flexpen® is prefilled with my fast-acting insulin. i dial my exact dose. inject by pressing a button. flexpen® is insulin delivery my way. novolog® is a fast-acting insulin used to control high blood sugar in adults and children with diabetes. do not inject if you do not plan to eat within 5 to 10 minutes after injection to avoid low blood sugar. tell your healthcare provider about all medicines you take, and all of your medical conditions, including if you are pregnant or breastfeeding. the most common side effect is low blood sugar. other possible side effects include reactions at the injection site. get medical help right away if you experience serious allergic reactions, body rash, trouble with breathing, fast heartbeat or sweating. flexpen® is there when i need it, just like my pit crew. ask your doctor about novolog® flexpen. covered by 90% of insurance plans, including medicare. find your co-pay at myflexpen.com.

at meineke i have options... like oil changes starting at $19.95. my money. my choice. my meineke. if somebody offered you six weeks of paid vacation every year, would you turn it down and say, no, i just need four weeks? probably not. and it brings me to my question, a minimum six weeks of vacation, was it, a, sweden, b, switzerland, d, japan, or e,

south korea? stay tuned we'll give you the answer. go to my website for more of the challenge and follow us on facebook and twitter. if you miss a show, go to itunes. you can get the audio podcast for free or buy the video version. this week's book of the week is titled republic lost, how money corrupts could be gres and how to stop it. a brilliant mind who's idea is technology on the internet has made him world famous. he brings a huge intelligence and combines it with passion and generous patriotism. every american voter should read this book. ever find yourself dosing off in the middle of a meeting and thanking your lucky stars that nobody caught you? me, too. some delegates of the national people congress of china was not

as lucky as you and i. big yawns. people blatantly napping. and it was on a controversial topic. they were secretly detaining people. one of most prominent politicians was caught in the act at the great hall of the people. now it's not because he snoozed but maybe they were all snoozing the question is b, the hardworking swiss apparently perfectly content with only four weeks of vacation and voted no on a referendum, most who

enjoyed six weeks of r and r. thanks for being part of my program this week. i will see you next week. >> hello, i'm fredricka whitfield. the lawyers representing sergeant bales intend to meet with him this week. he's a soldier accused of killing 16 men, women, and children, in kandahar, afghanistan. he remains in solitary confinement. he has not yet been formally charged. puerto rico holds it is primary today. polls closed at 4:00 eastern time. we expect to be able to call a winner i puerto rico shortly after polls close there. if you're looking to oh move o