vision expanding to a 5-inch 1080p hd display and camera. touch acquiring nfc. hearing evolving with beats audio. wireless charging activated.

introducing droid dna by htc. it's not an upgrade to your phone. it's an upgrade to yourself. thanks so much, liz and david for letting us sit in. melissa: i'm melissa francis, here's what's "money" tonight. it has now been 1351 days since congress passed a budget. but here at "money" we don't whine. we fix things. today's power panel is here to help bridge the budget divide and finally put the mess behind us. plus is slumming it apple's plan for world domination? the iphone supremacy is waning. there is word a lower end model is in the works. is it proof the phone, the iphone is finally past its sell date? we have the latest details. and you get a comeback. you get a comeback. you get a comeback. lance armstrong agrees to a tell-all interview with oprah, in case you didn't know who i was impersonating there. will this resurrect his shattered brand?

even when they say it's not it is always about money melissa: all right, first let's take a look at the day's market headlines. alcoa stronger than expected fourth quarter earnings help stocks snap a two-day losing streak. the dow gained 61 points. aig will not sue the u.s. government over its $182 billion bailout. its board of directors refused to join a $25 billion lawsuit led by former aig chief hank greenberg in its entirety. the suit alleges that the government deprived shareholders of private property without just compensation when it took control of the company. as reported by fox business's charlie gasparino, morgan stanley will slash 1600 employees from its institutional securities business. the cuts equal to 3% of morgan stanley's overall staff. its shares closed down

slightly. all right, let's get right to it. do you know it has been 3 1/2 years since our country had a budget? let me be clear, i'm not talking about a balanced budget. that would be way too much to ask. i'm talking about a simple idea of a plan, how congress outlines our tax dollars are being spent, including all the extra tax dollars we'll send the government this year. is that too much to ask? businesses have budgets. households have budgets. not our government. here at "money", it if you don't have a solution you're part of the problem so we'll help fix it with today's excellent power panel. joining us scott martin, chief market strategist for united advisors. kirsten powers, columnist for the "daily beast" and fox news political analyst and mark standrif, political analyst. kirsten, i'm sorry, i'm struggling. >> i'm used to it. don't worry. melissa: i didn't get my flu shot. i don't know we were just talking about that. i think i'm a little bit off.

>> bad girl, bad girl. melissa: just looking at trying to get our books in order here, if you compare what we take in to what we put out, i mean not that we have a plan for what it is that we're spending, we have a deficit obviously of $900 billion every year. i mean, i don't even know where to start with this. kirsten, what would you do? >> unfortunately one person really can't do anything. the reason that --. melissa: come on! that is not the way to get started. one person can't do something. give me one idea!. >> the problem is you would have to be able to get the liberals and moderate democrats to be able to negotiate with each other which is really what the holdup is. and because they don't feel any pressing need to do it because everything keeps getting resolved through these emergencies, the fiscal cliff negotiations, the debt ceiling, then they don't feel like they have to do it. i'm not going to pretend i'm a person who can go into the senate and get these people to talk to each other and

come to some kind of a conclusion and do what they're supposed to do. this is so out of control and so unacceptable that they think that they should be able to operate this way. i'm just being honest with you. i wouldn't even know where to start. melissa: mark, what do you think? what is the first step getting a budget together? >> i think the first thing we need to do is deal with the pressing problem, what are we really negotiating about? is it about talking about cutting spending or are we talking about spending more? that is where the compromise comes in and unfortunately we're at a point right now with the democrats, we have republicans trying to put the brakes on the car before it goes over the cliff and the democrats want to negotiate how fast the car should go. in my mind until we get to the point where we discuss compromise on spending and compromise on cuts we can't really get anywhere. melissa: we don't need to do that to have a balanced budget. scott, why can't we get a budget at all? that is what perplexes me. we were looking at a graphic

showing difference between the budget the president has and the house has put out. they can't even agree how much we're going to spend. the president's budget proposal is 3.8 trillion. the house is proposing 3.5 trillion. we can't even come together on a road map, much less something that is balanced. what do you think that is? >> really far apart. i guess because probably one of the best, 1351, best days of maybe president obama's career because look it. like you said in the intro, why do we keep racking it up? because the money keeps flowing in. you always have a taxpayer seems to be bottomless. so yeah you keep spending their money unlike if you're a household. here's the thing. mark brought up an interesting point. what are we debating about? i harken back to days of watching tv on my parents floor and seeing the brady kids come to an agreement how they wanted to spend this money they won in this contest. what you do, you put together a list. sounds crazy but you might like this as "little house on the prairie" girl.

we remember it. you put together list each side wants. take a tit-for-tat. come to agreement on spending cut but only if there is tax cut. you go through the list and figure out how you parse those things together soo at least something gets done. melissa: i love that idea. i will ask everybody to put something forward what they want to do. i will go first in the spirit of getting something done. i wouldn't mind getting rid of commerce department. i was struggling to figure out what they do. i looked it up. they spend $8 billion but i can't figure it out. they promote trade to help create jobs. i don't really know, that was the best i could come up with in their whole description. i would get rid of the commerce department. kirsten, you go next. what would you do? >> i mean getting rid of commerce department is that really --. melissa: okay, if you don't like mind, give me yours. >> how much money. melissa: $8 billion. >> we have to do something big. have to do something with defense spending and entitlement spending. would be happy to start with

either of those. do something on raising medicare eligibility age. i would be happy to cut money from the defense department. we have to make tough decisions. two third of our budget is defense and entitlement. everything else is just pittance. you're stalking -- talking about it i feel like it is nothing. melissa: mark, those are great points. what we do 5% across the board or do a 10% cut to defense and make some big changes to medice. what would you put on the table right out of the gate? >> well, first of all i assume we're continuing this whole "brady brunch" analogy and since you and kirsten have marcia and jan covered. melissa: we're solving the problem, damn it, if you like it or not. >> the big i will fanlt in the room if you pardon the expression is entitlement reform. melissa: okay. >> we have system basically rewards overspending and malfeasance. until we come up with reform measures that develop a market system that rewards

good behavior and lowers rates i think our long term fiscal health and budgets, we'll keep hang-gliding over the news call cliff year after year. melissa: scott, is the a way to sell that or more republicans want and give something on the other side to get democrats on the table on big entitlement reform with serious cuts in defend spending i don't know? >> the question is, melissa, just from the negotiations will democrats really ever come to the table on entitlement spending? maybe if you increase the upper income bracket to 50%, maybe they will talk about it. but, kirsten's right. entitlement spending is the place to start. i will tell you this will date me, i'm 34 years old. tell you a lot of pierce in my group are counting on, i'm getting old. this is the thing, melissa, a lot of people my age aren't looking toward social security and looking towards medicare and medicaid. you have a chance to change rules on those things now while people my age aren't

anticipating them are like people that they want votes from are. melissa: we have to leave it there. i'm not sure we solved the problem. i will send you home to do homework. we may have to do it again, i don't know. >> sound good to me. melissa: thank you so much. >> thank you. melissa: turning to oil now, an alarming study out of canada claims to have found the smoking gun that provides the development of alberta oil sands has increased level of cancer causing compound in surrounding areas. no question this would have a huge impact on the industry. with me now is the leading author of the study and professor of biology at queens university in kingston, ontario, john small. welcome, professor. let's dig right into this study because there were a couple things that stood out to me in your main findings. one of the things you point to as a huge problem is that the pollution that was found was not natural. and before was it assumed they were all natural sources? >> well, certainly there was a lot of controversy in the oil sands region. people have often argued you

couldn't argue that some of the contaminants were higher in lakes, for example. you can measure that but the argument was always made it was natural because the oil sands is very close to the surface. they were saying this is naturally always been in the area. the only way you can prove it isn't, you have to go back in time before 1960s, before the oil sand development began. that was a real problem. no one was measuring pollution levels in the 1950s, 1920s. so using methods we use, go to lake setments. lakes slowly fill with mud and a very sophisticated science you can reconstruct environmental histories going back in time. this is the 1920s and 1800's and look at past pollution levels preserved in the archive like a history book in the bottom of a lake. >> say that pollution levels right now are low, but you think they're going to go up over time but it strikes me even in the example you were just talking about and in saying they're low you're comparing them to a pristine environment that was the wilderness but the level

you're finding are lower than what we would find in most cities. >> right now, well these are wilderness lakes we should say. these lakes are anywhere from 30 kilometers or sorry, 60 miles to 60 miles away from the major source. you have to fly into e lakes typically with a helicopter or something. they're not right no the oil sand operation. what is i think important to say, if you look at our most polluted site, which is about 15 miles let's say approximately from the major operation, if you look at that, that current levels would find in a city. what is different in many cities and many areas, these pollutants, specific ones we're looking at here, hydrocarbons are decreasing. what we're seeing they're increasing and if you look at predictions just from the oil sand development people themselves, they're estimating in the next 50 years they will increase 2.5 times or 150%. if you do back of the envelope calculation if nothing else changes very

soon we'll be reaching levels that are quite more serious. that is when the real problems start. we have early warning indicator. it is not natural. they are increasing. i think we can link it specifically to the oil sands because different phs, some are natural but different phs can be linked lick fingerprinting to the oil sand operation. melissa: you also point out the contamination is covering a wider area than people thought before. and you believe that other contaminants are being released but i would ask you again, are these levels statistically significant? because you're talking about an increase what was pristine land where nothing was going on but they're still not at levels what they are in regular cities. so i don't know. you're saying you find contaminants here and there more than you thought in more places but they're at lower levels than where all of us are living right now? >> that is correct right now. if you do the projection of the expansion of the oil sand that can change quite rapidly this of course is just one of the contaminants. we should keep in mind there is probably a cocktail of

things coming out. these studies are ongoing but probably metals, mercury, all these things are part of the process. if you put it together we're opening a pandora's box of problems. i think right now this is the first study on this type of analysis and what we're saying, at least in this part of that region, and i think up until now there has been strong arguments made it was all natural. i think we can now show it is not natural. i think if you just do projections going into the future, realizing these are serious chemicals and there are other chemicals coming out as well, we have to start worrying about this to some extent. i'm not think we'll slow down the oil sand but look to technology to decrease the amount of pollution. melissa: very interesting interesting study. thanks so much for bringing it to us. we appreciate it. >> thank you very much. melissa: so is the environmental damage from canada's oil sands as bad as it seems? one of the industry's most vocal advocates is going to join us with a rebuttal to what you just heard. that is coming up next. plus, call it "survivor"

monopoly edition. one of monopoly's classic pieces is about to be tossed out of the game. how you can choose which one. coming up. more "money" straight ahead. ♪ . ♪ [ male announcer ] how do you make 70,000 trades a second... ♪ reach one customer at a time? ♪ or help doctors turn billions of bytes of shared information... ♪ into a fifth anniversary of remission? ♪ whatever your business challenge, dell has the technology and services to help you solve it.

♪ . melissa: welcome back to "money". we're talking about a disturbing study out of canada's oil sand which suggests the boom is responsible for increased carcinogen levels in surrounding areas. i was talking to professor john smol, one of the authors of the new study but not all experts agree with the new results. we have tom borelli from freedomworks. he has a ph.d in bio chemistry. we want to mention that because you're coming at this from a science perspective. >> absolutely. melissa: we're trying to take the politics out of it and analyze the study what they cam up with. what do you think?. >> unfortunately science and politics get mixed together. melissa: that's what we're saying. >> the study is find and did analytical study but where is the shock here? they have doing oil development sands 50 years. they found increased levels in the mud but no environmental impact.

the levels are not higher than the urban area. so, it's a nice study. it may scare some people. it's something to look at maybe in the future, but there should be no shock about this at all. the same as urban environment. there is a big difference between the presence of an element or a chemical and its impact. both you and i could go out to a bar, have a shot of vodka each, measure it on us but the impact we're not drunk. so there's the difference. melissa: i have to say though, i spent a lot of time at oil installations all around the world, saudi deserts to south america, whatever, i have been up to the oil sands and that black does gets all over everything. it follows you whereve you go. you see trails of it into every restaurant, into every, i mean it really flies through the air and is everywhere. i couldn't help thinking when i was there, that i'm breathing this in. that it just, i mean it was different from other ways that we are harvesting petroleum, and you know,

just from an observer's point of view it felt more dangerous. >> the visuals on all hydrocarbons, all fuel, coal is not really pretty, oil is not pretty. melissa: but this flies through the air everywhere. it really travels. >> the government there is monitoring. that is environmental safety and health issues n this study they were looking at lakes. i think you asked the right question. the baseline is wrong. when you're doing development it is no longer pristine. they're doing development because, canada actually has it right. they have a lower corporate tax rate. melissa: yeah. >> which really helps but they have fossil fuels and they're developing them. there is no free lunch in this world. there is a risk and there's a benefit but in this study the benefits of economic development, energy security in our continent far outweighs the risk. melissa: even if we do harvest this natural resource, do you think that the study shows we need to be more careful about how we're doing it? >> always. it is always a learning process. melissa: yeah. >> fact that they found it, now they can work with the

industry, find technology perhaps to reduce things. if his speculation was we do more it will get worse. that is speculation and work with industries to find the right technologies to make sure it doesn't. but at the end of the day, our economy, world runs on fossil fuels, 80%. it is notoing anywhere. do it safely. melissa: can't run the world economy without question. what impact of this study do you think? it is getting a lot of attention. that is why we're doing it. >> i saw it all over the place, and the word carcinogens. if you have a a barbecue steak, the same chemicals found deep in the mud are the same chemicals you will be eating on the barbecue. certainly this is the kind of issue that gets the media all whipped up. fuel for the environmentalist fire. gives president obama an excuse, maybe you don't need to do the keystone pipeline. president obama has a war on fossil fuels. we need to combat this to get come mop sense policy. melissa: tom borelli, always the media's fault. >> what am i doing here.

melissa: thank you so much. time for today's fuel gauge report. u.s. oil production hit a 20-year high according to new data fromhe energy department. u.s. output last week, surpassed 7 million barrels per day. that is up nearly 20% from the same period last year. venezuela's supreme court says hugo chavez can delay his gnawing race. - inauguration. he was scheduled to take the oath for his fourth term as president tomorrow but he remains in havana, cuba. he is sufficient iring severe health complications following his fourth cancer-related surgery last month. transcanada the builder of the keystone pipeline, is announcing plans for a $5 billion natural gas pipeline. it will extend to western canada to a liquified gas terminal on the pacific coast. it is expected to be operating in the year 2018 pending approval from the regulators. melissa: coming up, apple is reportedly building a lower end iphone. isn't that just like the iphone 4?

i'm sort of kidding, i'm sort of not. we'll talk about what this may mean for the smartphone market. plus one of monopoly's iconic game pieces is about to get the boot. how players can help decide which one will no longer pass go to replacements are awesome. do you ever have too much monopoly money? ♪

>> everybody wants to know what i'm on. what am i on? i'm on my bike, busting my ass six hours a day. what are you on? melissa: yikes!. remember that? mark your calendars, everyone. january 17th could be the day lance armstrong finally admits to using performance-enhancing drugs. the former cycling star will sit down with oprah winfrey

to talk about the doping scandal that cost him all of his titles his ability to compete in any competition and his beloved live strong organization after adamantly denying allegations for 15 years. can armstrong spin this to rebuild his multimillion-dollar brand and reputation? bruce turkel is my favorite marketing expert and director of turkel brands. what do you think? we've seen a lot of mea culpas in our day and where somebody came out and cried and fell on their sword. america loves to forgive those people but i'm not sure it will work this time. >> well he is going to get up in front of oprah and he has got a choice. he can either follow the steps, there are five steps, things he has to do in order to try and resuscitate his brand, or, he can double down on denial. he could be the guy you just saw in that ad talking about busting his ass and watch his brand go up in smoke. melissa: i can't imagine he will do that i can't imagine oprah will book him if he is going to do that.

she must know he will fall on his sword. what are the five things you have to do in a mea culpa to rebuild your brand? >> the first thing he has to do is he has got to confess. he still hasn't done that we're all waiting to hear the truth. he has to confess clearly and absolutely. this is what i did. then he has got to define himself. the number one rule in pr and politics is define yourself before the competition does. we've already defined him as a liar. why? live strong is now lie strong. he has to tell us who he is. melissa: what could that be? what would you tell him? what could he be? i mean is it a comeback kid? what could he be? >> no, he will have to be a person that learned from his mistakes. every hero story the hero starts out by doing something incredible. and hero gets stuck up a tree and the people throw stones at him and the story becomes wonderful if he your row can resurrect. melissa: okay. >> he has to define himself as someone who tried it, made a mistake, figured it

out and will now do good. number three, he has to act. he has to do something to fix the problem that is why recovery is prevalent when these things happen. he has to fix the problem and worth our consideration. number four, most important he needs to apologize. but it's got to be a real apology. it is followed by and if, or a but, it is not an apology. he can't say, i apologize if you thought, or i apologize but there were extenuating circumstances. we won't buy that. he has got to apologize. and finally, he has got to relate to our emotions. we have it feel for him, we have to care here. it is one thing to hear the facts here. but we have to feel it here. melissa: that is a great and convincing road map. i can almost see it. the only problem i have is, the very thing that he is known for, the thing that made him great, the thing that made him famous, was cycling, was being superhuman. the fact that he beat cancer.

it was everything physical about him. if that was entirely a fraud, i don't know what else he has to offer because there are other people, there are politicians that were great politicians or good, whether you liked them for their political works and then they had personal folly, affairs, this, that and other thing but it didn't ruin the main thing that you loved about them. in this case it destroyed like the one thing that was his calling card so what's left? >> well that depends how you look at it. let's face it. you ride a bike, i ride a bike. we could take all the drugs, we still wouldn't be winning. beating cancer didn't happen because of the steroid. he has done some pretty heroic things. thing that he did is so horrible he has broken our trust in him. he was everybody's hero. he lied about it and he demonstrated what a hypocrite he was as well. that's why he has to be contrite and he has to show us the good that came out of it. melissa: yeah. >> we have to feel like, well, it was an awful trail for him and for us but look

what's happened. look what's occurred. melissa: yeah. >> look how the hero has been rehabilitated and resuscitated and turned into something even better. melissa: real quickly, we're running out of time, on a scale of one to money what do you think are the odds he is able to make a image comeback? >> i will have to give him a four. i am absolutely amazed by americans capacity to forgive and forget but i got to tell you he really screwed the pooch on this one. a four is all i can give him. melissa: i don't know, that is four. i give him like a one or something. four, that is almost a comeback. i don't know. you're pretty convincing bruce, as always. thank you for coming on. >> well, all he needs, you know is to be honest. melissa: okay. >> and sincere. if he can fake that, the rest of it is easy. melissa: there you go. next on "money", why apple feels that a cheaper-made iphone is going to help keep them at the stop of the smartphone market. details on that next. plus forget going to

jail. one of monopoly's classic game pieces going away forever! how players will decide which one gets the axe but more importantly what will fill its place? you have to see the fill-ins, they are awesome! "piles of money" coming up. ♪ [ male announcer ] how could a luminous protein in jellyfish, impact life expectancy in the u.s., real estate in hong kong, and the optics industry in germany? at t. rowe price, we understand the connections of a complex, global economy. it's just one reason over 75% of our mutual funds beat their 10-year lipper average. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. request a prospectus or summary prospectus with investment information, risks, fees and expenses to read and consider carefully before investing.

officemax can help you drive, rissupply costs...penses down... ...and down. just use your maxperks card and get a case of x-9 paper for only 1-cent after maxperks rewards. find thousands of big deals now... ...at officemax.

♪ . melissa: so after more than 11 years and billions of

american tax dollars the white house says all u.s. troops could be leaving afghanistan by the end of 2014. at this moment afghan president hamid karzai is in washington meeting with members of the senate foreign relations committee and he is set to meet with president obama on friday but here's the question. even if we say billions, by bringing our troops home, could the strategy backfire and end up costing more than it would save? joining me, peter brookes, senior fellow at the heritage foundation. peter, welcome to the show. i want to start with the meeting they're having today, what do you think about that? is it achieving anything? is it meant for optics as they say right now? is there something real about it? >> certainly capitol hill is one of the levers of influence in washington, right? i mean, karzai is in town to meet with the president. i think he is meeting with leon panetta tomorrow at the pentagon. he is looking for allies. he is looking to stake out his position on the future of afghanistan as we move

towards some sort of troop withdrawal or lower levels of troop presence in afghanistan and he is laying, he is laying out markers right now before he meets with the president. we'll probably be reading about some of this in the papers tomorrow. melissa: we have a 66,000 troops right now on the ground there. we're talking about pulling everybody out by 2014. what do you think is the risks of that? >> well, i think when they talk about the zero option i think the white house is also laying down markers because we're having some problems negotiating the future of american troops in afghanistan. i don't want to get too technical, melissa, but there is a thing called the status of forces agreement and this protects our troops while they serve overseas in foreign countries. we have them with japan, germany, korea, places like that. we didn't get one with iraq. that is the reason there are no u.s. troops in iraq. iraq is dealing with resurgence of al qaeda. we're pressuring them as well. they're trying to pressure us. they want things. we want things. of course they will have that meeting on friday. melissa: do you think there is, everybody always makes

the case the danger is if we leave there it become as haven for al qaeda again. >> right. melissa: do you think that's a real possibility? certainly seems like they have free run in pakistan so, i don't know. is it really helping us? go ahead. >> there is reason to be concerned, melissa. i think that this is what security analysts are really worried about. if we leave there can the afghan forces deal with call died? will taliban take over the country? will al qaeda come back in as a welcome guest? will they move over from pakistan? will they use afghanistan to destablize pakistan which has nuclear arsenal of over 100 weapons? what price security? how much did 9/11 cost us? we have to remember that. we have to be careful we don't just think about dollars and we think about security. melissa: we still have to think about dollars. that is what we started the show talking about how we're spending so much more than we're taking in. everybody has to give something up. we have got to cut money somewhere. when you look at dollars, we

have 10,000 troops in there after 2014 it could cost $15 billion a year. 20,000 troops, that is $25 billion a year. the numbers become significant. a lot of americans wonder what are we getting for that? is it worth it when we're really going broke here in this country? >> well the way i see it, i don't quibble with you about getting our economic house in order coming from a conservative think tank of. i think we're in agreement there but you also have to prioritize. i mean, our military, you know, wars are, come as you are affairs. we need to be ready for wars. we need to look out for our security. and if you don't have security in my view you don't have anything. just like, you know, the military in many ways is an insurance policy. melissa: yeah. >> you may not expect to have a car accident on your way home tonight and you might have one and it is great to have that insurance. so it is an important part of protecting american interests at home and abroad. melissa: we were asking at the top of the show for everyone to give up something they care about if we were all going to try to come together to solve this

budgetroblem. is there anything in the defense department you would be willing to give up? how would you feel about a 5% cutback? is there anything to put on the table. i know this is off-the-cuff and i didn't tell i would ask this question. >> that's fair. melissa: in spirit of solving problems tonight is there anything you can put on the table? >> first of all i have to remind you, melissa, that we have cut half a trillion dollars in the defense budget already, okay? that is already happened under the obama administration. the defense budget is coming down. as we reduce the number troops in afghanistan, i think we need some presence there, for training and for counter terrorism operations but it is probably not going to be 66,000. those numbers, those dollar figures are going it come down. like i said, we've already cut half a trillion and they're talking about another half a trillion under sequester. so the defense department is also, something that is already taking a it had. we need to get entitlement and other programs under control and our spending under control. that is my view. melissa: all right. peter brookes, thanks so much. coming up on "money", we all

want to save money although i'm not sure with everyone with the answers we're getting there. would you want to spend less for an iphone if you knew it was made with cheaper parts? doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of having an iphone? i don't know. that is coming up next. plus, say good-bye to one of these monopoly pieces. how players will determine e fate of one of these classic tokens and you can't wait to see the new ones. they're so cool. that is coming up. at the end of the day it is all about money. ♪ [ lisa ] my name's lisa, and chantix helped meuit. i honestly loved smoking, and i honestly didn't think i would ever quit. [ male announcer ] along with support, chantix is proven to help people quit smoking. it reduces the urge to smoke. it put me at ease that you could smoke on the first week. [ male announcer ] some people had changes in behavior, thinking or mood, hostility, agitation, depressed mood and suicidal thoughts or actions while taking or after stopping chantix.

if you notice any of these stop taking chantix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of depression or other mental health problems, which could get worse while taking chantix. don't take chantix if you've had a serious allergic or skin reaction to it. if you develop these stop taking chantix and see your doctor right away as some can be life-threatening. if you have a history heart or blood vsel problems, tell your doctor if you have new or worse symptoms. get medical help right away if you have symptoms of a heart attack. use caution when driving or operating machinery. common side effects include nausea, trouble sleeping and unusual dreams. with chantix and with the support system it worked. it worked for me. [ male announcer ] ask your doctor if chantix is right for you.

[beep] [speaking foreign language] [heart beating] [heartbeat continues] [faint singing]

[heartbeat, music playing louder] ♪ i'm feeling better since you know me ♪ ♪ i was a lonely soul, but that's the old me... ♪ announcer: this song was created with heartbeats of children in need. find out how it can help frontline health workers bring hope to millions of children at everybeatmatters.org.

♪ . melissa: the apple rumor mill is churning once again. the "wall street journal" reporting on plans to release a cheaper version of the iphone in order to steal away customers from android growing market share. i say, hey, want inexpensive iphone, get iphone 4s. it is like 100 bucks. why would apple risk diluting the brand with a cheaper model? here is rob enderle, from the enderle group. great to have you back on the phone. what do you think about all this? doesn't seem like a great strategy to me?

do you like isn't. >> i don't like it at all. the nature after premium brand to make sure all the products are premium products. as soon as you do value product you breach the brand. cadillac did that with something called the sim maron. lincoln did it with the versailles back in the '80s. those almost killed premium brands. premium brands looked back at that this is something we didn't want to do. tim cook didn't come with the training. steve jobs was the brand marketing expert at apple. tim cook is logistics guy. we look at tim, how did he heck did he get to be ceo of anything let alone the most powerful company in tech? i think nature here, apple is looking across at samsung, competing hard with samsung and starting to adopt sam sung's policies and practices and samsung is a broadband, more of a value brand and segment. melissa: looking right now, the market share, what we've seen and it has just been a huge jump. in 2011, samsung's market

share was 22% to apple's 13. if you look what happened in 2012, samsung has jumped all the way to 31%, a huge jump. another 10%. meanwhile apple just ticked up two points, to 15. seems like samsung is really eating their lunch and apple should go back to what has worked for them, instead of trying to do this other thing, right? maybe they can't? maybe they're out of ideas? their trademark was amazing innovation. is that gone with steve jobs? >> well, what steve wozniak beliefs, when steve jobs passed a lot of people that created innovation with apple left the company and, but they were there to be with jobs. so the end result, what's left isn't capable of innovating like jobs innovated. the other issue though is recognize that porsche, doesn't compete with market share with volkswagen. they're different models. premium brand compete for margin, not for volume.

so as apple looks at samsung, says oh, my god they're taking market share, that is exactly wrong. that is the wrong battle. melissa: if they're looking at margin they're doing exactly the wrong thing all across the board because having cheaper iphone reminds me of the ipad mini. >> breaks the margin. melissa: get people buying mini, smaller, easier cheaper. then you don't go out and buy an ipad. they're cannibalizing their own market. >> exactly right. they're chasing samsung instead of forcing samsung to chase them. that is how samsung beat sony. they forced sony to chase them and lost that with television. samsung is chewing apple out and spittings them up. jobs would not have fallen for this. melissa: is it possible apple has something up their sleeve, and something new we hadn't thought of and will blow our socks off in the next year or so? are you hearing rumblings of that? >> everything i got is suggests cook is starting to panic.

he is looking at properties like twitter. he is looking at cheaper products to get his stock price back up. but he is getting to panic phase. he doesn't know what to do. i think he recognizes that he is in way over his head. recognize, running apple would be outside of the skillset of i would say 95% of the experienced ceos that are out there. cook really wasn't the right guy to begin with. melissa: rob, thanks so much for coming on. we appreciate your time. good stuff. >> pleasure. melissa: up next on "money", we've been telling you throughout the show that monopoly is retiring one of its iconic pieces. which one of these awesome new pieces would you want to play with? look at that! look at the ring. i love that! the helicopter. the robot it rocks! it is our question of the day. we want to hear what you think. like us on facebook.co facebook.com/melissafrancisfox. follow me on twitter @melissaafrancis. i have already a favorite. why can't we have all of those? they're awesome, right? i lovehem! you can't ever have too much money,

monopoly or otherwise. ♪ . ♪ [ male announcer ] how do you turn an entrepreneur's dream... ♪ into a scooter that talks to the cloud? ♪ or turn 30-million artifacts... ♪ into a high-tech masterpiece? ♪

whatever your business challenge, dell has the technology and services to help you solve it.

melissa: we are rocking now. it is time for fun with spare change with fox and news contributor to the region's ski and our republican political

strategist. you over many? clear this up. on the set is it an ignition >> one week before the election we were talking about electoral maps i predicted the new from the victory. >> tell the world she is smarter than me. [laughter] melissa: and getting rid of one of the playing pieces of monopoly replacing it with something more current. there they are. you can help choose as well as which new peace should replace it. there will be one chance to get a special edition which

one? show them again. the diamond ring. >> i am boardwalk empire with the atlantic city boardwalk. i would do the tommy gun. melissa: that is not an option. [laughter] >> look at the helicopter. >> i go with a guitar. i love music. know i will really show my age and you played it on your eye phone? they have a trader previous. but we should get rid of the thimble. >> replaced the dog with

that cat? >> what about the wheel barrow? >> these are from depression era. >> isn't the top hat the symbol of monopoly? >> they are so old. you may be unhappy with the president's election but instead of a tip he left a note that says in part "as a direct result of proposition 30 president of on the insistence on fair share taxes i find i must cut back on discretionary spending and gratuities. can you imagine? >>. [laughter] he says i will not give you

money because obama is screwing me? >> that is the hardest job ever. >> that is what he wants to stop feeding into the private economy and more dependent on the government venda waitress needs a government program. if i attract every expense. gerri:. melissa: you are a financial planner? [laughter] i spend as much per year on tips as might payroll tax increase with the fiscal cliff. >> he is not only as smart as i am the key is cheap. >>