percentage po >> it is safe to say thatee >> it is safe to say that at agold looking t is safe to fivers six years say ago the biggest atf in the world as the coldas atf the asset inma the people's porfolio ite could be over. neil: if gold is not it is ae safe haven the united states? >> what is the safe haven? >> commercial property is

undervalued in a lot of markets. real-estate. >> the u.s. green -- greenback it is a fun shorting the dollar we say the dollar is terrible but it is strengthening right now. >> that is interesting. that is so interesting what jonathan just said. the safe haven issue does not have a look at its. your bank is a safe haven. a the put the money into the d mattress. monday we have the social security coemmissioner whoissi warned it is broke.rybody. fix it now.now. they said no." wth he is here on monday. onight, cashing in on prescription drugs. really looks like a breeding ground for fraud and abuse.

a new report says some hospitals and clinics get discounts on drugs. they are then getting reimbursed for the full price of the drug and pocketing the difference. why suspect anybody talking about this? we have the details. plus, cutting off the hand that feeds iran. the u.s. shuts dwn the gas for gold trade between iran and turkey, which we saw here on "money," by the way, and a top former cry official joins us to explain the new step to choke off iran' cash. are you kidding me? a ten-ton meteor explodes over the earth. what we had the eyes on the other asteroid, i knew something like this would happen. nasa facing cut, and for once, i wonder if we should be spending. when they say it's not, it's always about "money." ♪

all right, starting off tonight with the plan to push off the sequester and save us all, senate democrats announced the new alternative to a $110 billion bill to replace the spending cuts until january 2 of 20 # 14, and there's already a lot of criticism, surprise, surprise, but as it stands, we are just 14 days away from when the deep across the board cuts are set to take effect. with me, now, is today's austin power panel. we have gretchen, better market ceo, dennis, and rich, "forbes" contributor. what do you think the democrats planned? >> look, it's the beginning, a negotiating appointment, dead on arrival, will never happen, but elements of it are interesting. melissa: like what? what do yolike? >> i like the scaled down cuts to defense. i like the fact that we're timely maybe starting to talk about cutting farm subsidies. i think at the end of the day

there's no chance that we're going to see more tax increases, but i'd like to see them get to maybe some loopholes. melissa: i don't know. griffinnen, i feel like there's more taxes coming. it seems like everybody in washington loves taxes right now. they are talking about closing the loophole for the oil industry to the tune of $2 billion. you know who pays for that what you raise taxes on the oil industry; right? they pass it to the consumer, all of us, yeah. >> so, i mean, taxes are the easy way out; right? raise tax, and the legislators, and they don't have to make the hard choices. of course, that's something they want to automatically go to, but this bill has to be dead on arrival. they are saying it's 50%, you know, taxes, 50% spending cuts, and those cuts are flout even in the near term, but over the course of the next ten years. we've seen that time and time again. these folks have no credibility when it has cuts happen over ten years. they can't have cuts happen now. this bill is just not acceptable. melissa: dennis, anything in the

democrats' plan you liked? trying to be constructive and saw the problem. what did you like? >> it's important that there's pinnal finally a plan out there. you can disagree about the ku9s, the -- cuts, revenue raises, and whether it should be 1-to-1, but there's writing on the table to talk about, and i think rick made a good point. maybe you don't agree agriculture should be cut by $30 some odd billion dollars, but have the discussion. it is about i don't want to raise revenue or cut. melissa: point to something they like. i don't think i heard it. anything in the democrats' plan you would accept? >> well, on march 1st, and a few days from today, the defense budget, which this year's $530 billion will be cut by $45 # billion. that has to stop, and this bill would stop that. melissa: that is not smething in there that you like. >> it is something i like.

melissa: i feel you didn't hear the question. gretchen, point to something in here that you like. >> hey, i say take the cuts, bu the cuts have to be made in a short termnd not in the long term because there's no commitment there. melissa: okay. i don't know, rick, what did you like? >> there's a lot i liked as you expect. i like the 50/50. it's the right idea. i like the farm subsidy look. that's smart. i like the scaled down defense budget cuts. i got to tell you, though, the idea of doing it sooner rather than later, it may sound good. terrible move for the economy. you do have to lock it in. going with you there. don't do the work and reverse it later on. let's look at the loopholes. the loopholes is the answer in terms of revenue. melissa: gretchen, the loopholes the end in terms of revenue? i don't know there's enough there -- there's never enough revenue to support the spending we do. >> no. if you're going to look at the loopholes, look at the whole tax code. reform the whole code, go after it, do the whole thing. >> good. >> to the point to talk about short term versus long term, how

often do we get stuck in this and they reverse the decision every single time. >> lock it in. >> leaders have no celt -- credibility on the long term cuts. cuts committed that was the white house's idea, they all voted for, now trying to reverse it. that was two years ago. give me a break. melissa: dennis, have you thought of anything you liked in the plan,this is for the third ti. you had a lot of time to work on your homework assignment, so i'm sure you have something right now. go. >> i think i should get partial credit for the last answer. i'll leave it alone. the reality is talk short term or long term all you want, and in a few days, starting phasing in $85 billion in cuts. half of that is defense and domestic discretionary spending. what do you do? there's a plan. this is a credsble plan, and very importantly, it's balanced on revenue and cuts, and they are real just like the $1.5 trillion in cuts put in place in 2011 were real, just like the $700 billion in revenue increases in 2012 were real.

liz: gretchen, last word. >> if it was real, they wouldn't go on vacation in ten days. >> as if that tells us anything. melissa: simpson-bowles out there, op-ed, trying to get back to the table with a plan. what about that plan? hate to go to dennis first because i feel he never turned on the last one. what do you like about simpson-dolls, dennis? >> they actually spelled out what they would cut and exactly what revenues they would increase. that's what people don't do. the problem is that most people, democrats and republicans, like what the spending is on, and that's why simpson-bowles, last march got 38 votes in the republican controlled house. they should get credit, though. if more people spelled out what they cut and raise, they'd be talking about reality rather than smoke. melissa: rick, they talked about, same thing, comprehensive tax reform, broaden the base, lower the rats.

everyone says that. does it exist? will we do it? is can one of those things? >> these guys, i wish they would write the op-ed once a week. melissa: it's not doing any go. nobody listens. the president appointed them and never talked them again. he threw them out. >> he said the other night he would. >> three years later. >> he has the right ideas. they are the referees in the dysfunctional game played in shington. these are the peole we should be paying attention to. melissa: okay, all right, guys. i don't know that we solved it, but we give it a shot. changing gears a bit. a shocking new report alleges that hospitals and clinics around the country are literally cashing in on discount prescription drug programs. have you heard about it? listen to this. the program known as 340b requires pharmaceutical companies to allow hospitals and complainics -- clinics to buy drugs as a discounts which is fine, but some are getting reimbursed the full price for these drugs from insurance companies a

enmedicare. they are pocketing the difference. joining me for more is dr. freeland, director of pharmacy at the columbia regional health care system in georgia. thanyou so much for joining us. you know, when i hear about this program, and i hear about going and getting reimbursed from insurance companies and from medicare and from the government for the full price, when you paid a discounted price, it sounds like fraud to me. is this fraud? >> no. really it's the 340b program, as it's known as, is a great program that really helps federal clinics and federally supported programs and the disportionalled share of hospitals that care for the underserved and needy patients. there's not a wind fall profits in the program at all. the lower drug costs incurred with the 340b program help us reduce losses incurred in

treating patients. we're safety net hospitals meaning we catch the parents who fall through the cracks. what the savings we get from the 340b go back into the care of the patients who reimbursed services we provide. melissa: yourself the directer, and you are doing this, you are getting drugs for discounted rate and getting reimbursed? >> we do -- are able to purchase medications throughout the program for outefficients only at reducedpricing, but, boy, what we save on those just goes so far in meeting the needs and the costs of care for the underserved parties. there's no wind fall. there's no profits being made on this whatsoever. melissa: i understand that you use the difference in the money, you know, to help really ill people who would not be served in other ways -- >> right. melissa: -- at the same time, do

you worry about the insurance coming camming after you saying you are getting reimbursed for something you didn't pay for, and that's fraud. >> not at all. congress established the program back in 1992. it's been in existence for 20 years. the intent of the program then was very clearly to help entities, covered enfits to cover the costs for unreimbursed care. for institutions like ours, it is critical we recognize the savings because it helps us just be able to keep our doors open, to be able to serve cancer parents, multiple slower -- multiple sclerosis patients, stoke patients, we cover parents who can pay and who cannot pay. this helps us meet the unreimbursed care. melissa: do you worry that others abuse it? >> there are good -- the program

is very complex. certainly, but there are guidelines in the program. we -- all the hospitals try to do our best to absolutely adhere to those programs. we support the integrity provisions of the program. we want it to be skell. we need it to take care of parties. there's needy patients, diabetics without insulin, heart patients without medications they need, and we help bring the care to the patients, these needy patients, the ones who can't get care other places. it's a good program. there's guidelines in there, and we support oversight, and very muchment it to be successful, and we want to work with all the entities, the federal government, the manufacturers, to be sure we do the right thing so that we can continue to meet the needs. melissa: does it raise the prices of drugs overall f it's sold to you as a discount? >> good question, good question. it does not. this whole 340b program makes up $6 billion around the country of

about a $32 # 0 billion drug industry in the united states. we're talking 2% of the drugs spent. it's -- it's a great program that congress is wise to implement, and we want oversight. we welcome congress' right to oversee it, to ask questions, show that we're doing what we're supposed to be doing, but it's a great program for us. melissa: i think you are facing questions as it comes to people's attention, but doctor, thank you for coming on the show. we appreciate it. >> right you're quite welcome, thank you for the opportunity. mel meme time for the market moment. mixed economic data led to a choppy session for stocks. dow gained eight points, and nasdaq and s&p closed down slightly. gold may have had the biggest beating. it tumbled to a six-month low. regulatory filings showed big hedge funds cut back on holdings, and the commodity, wonder if it's an opportunity, though? look at that. guess what?

solar power is not green after all. i'm stunned! stunned! it is proving far dirtier than anyone thought. you have to hear this. i'm in shock. more "money" coming up. ♪

melissa: surprise, surprise, new evidence that solar energy is not as green as you think. the associated press reports transporting the hazardous waste created in the manufacturing process actually adds significantly to the carbon footprint. who knew there was hazardous waste; right? that offsets green benefits solar is supposed to offer. michael of the cato institute is here to explain. tad, i'm in shock. tell me more. >> well, there's liquid waste that occurs from the production of solar panels, a lot of them use galium arsenic. remember when president bush was excougated because he wanted to poisen us putting arsenic in

the water supply. you want to know how green they are? not very. anybody who invests in them loses money. melissa: if you look at this specifically, this report, i thought, was amazing because, you know, they had a university professor who was talking in environmental studies talking about how it takes three months to generate enough electricity to pay off the energy it costs to transport the hazardous waste away from the one project. it's like you make these things, and then it creates so much had arkansasous waste in make them that you can't through it anywhere. you have to take it to a specific site, and in doing that, you burn gasoline, driving and driving pounds of hazardous waste, but low and behold when they calculate hw fantastic they are, they don't take that into account. >> nobody seems to remember that some of the solar panel producers go bankrupt like

solyndra. you know, $500 million. they were bragging that they produced enough solar panels for 100,000 homes. that's, you know, with overhead, probably about $100 a home out of the taxpayers, and who is going to cart away the junk when the company's bankrupt? melissa: that's one of the things most people have not herd about with solyndra. they know the name and that it took taxpayer dollars with it. they don't know it prodced 12.5 million pounds of hazardous waste while spending and losing our money. >> well, yeah. then there's the largest picture of just losing money in general. you know, if you really wanted to lose money, like, say, 95 of the investment, you could have invested in a basket of solar energy stocks a few years ago. there's a solar energy fund solar trust at $30 a share, sounds good, but they had a one for ten share split because it was so low.

melissa: you know, i wonder if we need to create some sort of standard where at least accounting for t things in the same way. you know, talking about wind energy or solar or natural gas or coal or nuclear where you're forced to calculate the total carbon foot print and wind turbine z as well. do you take into account how much energy was spent, and to move it to work the life span. do we need to establish a standard where we take it into account to quantity my how much emissions are saved by them. >> melissa, you know how to stop e pollution? stop subsidizing it. the president's there in the state of the union message talking about, you know, oh, yeah, solar's cheaper than it was. wind, ect.. if you took the federal money away, thrdz be no pollution from the things because they wouldn't exist.

they'd go bankrupt. you know what we use? natural gas, which produces half the carbon dioxide that coal does in producing electricity, and we would explore it. we would exploit it. we wouldn't have the pollution. melissa: people need the fats. >> exactly. remember what kermit the frog said, "it ain't easy being green." melissa: chank so much for coming on. have a great weekend. >> bye. melissa: today's fuel gauge, the first photos of chavez in more than two months. look at that. speculation about his health furled recently, the fourth cancer surgery in cuba. he's holding up the newspaper so you know it's today. the government still says chavez is suffering from respiratory problems and forced to breathe through a tracheal tube. huh. oil futures tumble following an unexpected dip in u.s.

industrial production. crude settled down about 1.5% at 95.86 a barrel ending at a slight gain of 14 cents. in an unclear weather outlook and concerns about high stockpiles weight on natural gas futures again falling to a five week low. look at that. next on "money," illicit gold for gas scheme between iran and turkey is no more. how a u.s. crackdown has iran scrambng for cash. plus, if there's one thing the government shouldn't spend more money on, or should spend more money on, it could be making sure meteors like this don't wipe out the earth. makes sense. details on why nasa needs a raise, i think, maybe, maybe i lost it. i don't know. can you ever ve too much "money"? ♪

melissa: iran's illicit trade gold for gas is taking a huge hit by new u.s. sanctions. could this be the step to timely choke off cash needed by iran's regime? my next guest knows about this. he's the former cia operative that spent the career turning iranians into spies for the u.s.. joining me now from the foundation of defense of democracy, thanks so much for coming on the show. let me ask you, do you think we've really put a choke on their cash here with this move? >> i think we diminished the ability to turn gold into hard currency or avoid spending hard currency through using gold in a barter system. i don't think it's going to be

sufficient to make the iranian regime cry "uncle," i think that's unlikely. melissa: why? what else are they depending on? >> well, they are still selling a lot of oil, and the sanctions that came into play on february 6th are going to make their lives more difficult, lock up currency in places like turkey and korea and japan and india, and they are going to be restricted op what they can use that locked up currency. we're talking billions of dollars her, but the iranians still, you know, have the ability -- they have lots of oil, so even though it's probably been cut by nearly 50% from 18 months ago, we're still talking a fair amount of cash that they have at their disposal. melissa: i mean, one of the things they do with this banned money we learned about was, you know, trying to buy magnets for the nuclear sites from china. obviously, they need the cash. they are out there trying to use

it. how successful are they in doing things like that? >> well, i mean, the chinese purchase, which if it, in fact, ppened, it disconcerning showing how important china is -- melissa: do you think it didn't happen? >> no, i suspect it did. i mean, i have not seen confirmation 100% they got all the magnets, but i suspect they got the magnets. we know that they certainly have said they want to significantly increase their centerfuge production, an and they need foreign suppliers to get it done. melissa: are they hurting for cash? >> no doubt about it. they hurt for cash. they need hard currency reserves to keep their own currency from collapsing. we've seen significant declines in the currency. they are hurting. the issue is are they hurting enough to detour them from completing the nuclear program, and that -- that's, i think, a

more difficult question to answer. melissa: as we said in the introduction, you have a lot of experience in iran as a cia operative. do you think there's anything to do so stop them from getting a nuclear weapon at this point? >> economically i'm very skeptical. i think that the supreme leader is quite stubborn and intends to get a nuclear weapon. i'm skeptical that economically we can stop it, whether militarily we can is a different issue. melissa: that's what it takes at this point? what's the recommendation to the president? >> i have to confess, i was in favor of military preemption in 2005. i think we have probably -- i fear waited too long that the longer they go, the more advanced they become, the better they come. they become at hiding enriched uranium, the more advanced they become. i think we're -- we are literally running out of time here. melissa: thanks for coming on the show. >> my pleasure.

melissa: uke next -- up next on "money," where's nays is a when you need it? a meteor comes out of nowhre and explodes ver russia. you know how little nasa spends to predict these things? why it may be time to increase nasa's budget. i know you are skeptical, but wait until you hear this. plus, who wants to get on a cruise ship after this? can carnival and the cruise industry save reputations from drowning? a top marketing expert joins us on how to stay afloat. piles of "money" coming up. this is america.

we don't let frequent heartburn come between us and what we love. so if you're one of them people who gets heartburn and then treats day afr day... block the acid with prilosec otc and don't get heartburn in the first place! [ male announcer ] e pill eachmorning. 24 hours. zero heartbur

melissa: the story everybody is talking about. it explodes in the sky by russia. a thousand people injured, and the shock wave caused major cay yows blowing out windows, damaging buildings. this was just a little guy, by the way, theize of an suv, nothing compared to the apartment buildings sized astero that flew by just 17,000 miles away earlier this afternoon. if it was just a little closer, it could seriously have leveled the city which brings us to nasa. are they doing enough to prevent a giant space rock from hitting us? do you wonder about that now? it is now the time to strip away funding. here with more on this is

terice, managing directorof space.com. first of all, a lot of people wonder if there's a connection between the two events? dpl that was the first question we had, too. the answer right now is no. nasa says that the two -- the asteroids, the one that flew by this afternoon, the big one, they came from completely different directions meaning they are not from the same object, and they say that fairly conclusively. melissa: a coincidence. >> pardon the pun, a cosmic coincidence. amazing it happened in the same day. melissa: makes you feel vulnerable. we watch one, and we get hit from the other side. you say the key to protect ourselves 1 -- is not helmets, but early detection. >> yeah, you can't protect yourself from asteroids if you don't know they are out there. that's something nasa, they have a program in place to look for

the big ones, the ones that could destroy everything, but the smaller ones we saw today will slip through the cracks. you know -- melissa: so to speak. >> exactly. shortly after the meteor explosion this morning, there was a call from the house, congress wants to have meetings in the next week to see, do we needore mone. melissa: oh, yeah, they'll fix the problem. >> yeah. melissa: the funding for it, a near earth observation project called neo. everywhere we spend $20 million on this. >> yeah. melissa: $20 million to protect ourselves from flying rock, you know, that could level entire cities. we spend all the money on solar and a million others thing we burn money on. this seems like it's worthwhile. i care if there's something the size of a football field hurdling for my head. i care about that. >> yeah, and it's something that i think is going to get much more discussion now when we had one that people were ignoring

because they knew the asteroid this afternoon was not going to hit earth, just a scientific kind of adventure, and then this one almost flattened a city. i think that that will really kind of spark inteest. melissa: i don't want to make light of what happened in russia. there's a lot of people injured, but i was telling everybody we had to watch out for a giant asteroid today, but i was looking at the wrong one at the time, but, still, i mean, something huge happened. so spending more money, what's that mean? what are we doing now? what will we need to do? how many more scientists? could we be more successful with more money or good money after bad? >> what nasa is doing now is understanding what the asteroids are made of. you don't want to blow it up in space if your missiles won't do any good. melissa: that's the solution, by the way, that huge one we saw if it was hurdling towards us and would hit us, we were going to blow it up in space? >> that was an option.

you don't want to create more debris. melissa: what's the other option? >> if detected earlier, send a mission there to push it away a little bit and miss the planet or fall into the ocean where it wouldn't do as much damage. there's several things on the table they could do. whether or not we have the technology to do it, that's what we want to see. melissa: i don't know. all the things we're wasting money on. i feel like this is a thing to spend a few bucks on. >> in 2016, nasa launches a probe to an asteroid to learn what it's made of and learn how to break it apart. mel meme seems like a long time from now. appreciate your time. >> thank you. melissa: next, the world watching the carnival cruise nightmare in horror; right? can they get people excited about heading out to sea again? a top marketing expert gives us the cold hard truth. at the end of the day, it is all about "money," and onion sandwiches. ew.

♪

melissa: triumph at last, the 4,000 passengers stuck on the

carnival cruise ship finally on dry land after being marooned in the middle of the gulf of mexico for four days. to get an idea what it was like, take a listen not reactions. >> every time the boat lifted or leaned, the sewage would spill over. >> it got smelly, filthy, and really bad. >> disgusting. we tried not to eat. >> it was not a vacation anymore. it was, like, survival mode. melissa: oh, oh, oh, after hearing that, would you ever consider taking a cruise again? how could carnival possibly sal vamg their brand after this? joining me now is marketing guru and executive creative director of tukel brands, bruce. how would you save this company? >> hi, melissa. well, i think there's a little bit of hyperbole going on here. this is not going to be a problem -- melissa: what! >> it's a blip!

melissa: you are crazy. you are insane. >> nobody will remember this a week from now. melissa: a week from now? bruce, you're crazy. >> everybody knows -- everybody knows ship happens -- melissa: ha-ha! >> it's not going to be an issue. we pay attention because of the interviews you saw with the sewage and all of that. nobody died. nobody was hurt. it's unfortunate. carnival's doing a lot of things to make up for it. it's not an issue. it's over. melissa: damn media's fault again, of course. wait, i have to tell you, the reality of the situation, not joking around. my family's trying to convince me to go on a great cruise with the kids. going to be great, this was over christmas, and half the group said, you know issue every time you hear about a cruise, they are stuck at sea, they have the neurovirus, they run out of food, you know, there's germs everywhere, there's a problem. they get stuck at sea, this, that, and the other thing. we argued about it.

i said, watch, weal hear about it again. sure enough, here we go. it's not just this one time. it's that we're always hearing stories like this. >> look at the number of people that cruise -- look at the number of ships that go out there and the 3143 pages, too bad for them. i feel for them, but it's insignificant compared to the number of people who cruise. if you believe that thing, why get in the car? the -- melissa: because i have to go somewhere in order to get to work. i have to get in the car to get around. i don't have to get on a cruise ship. the response was just go to disney and see mickey there. i don't need to be trapped on a ship with him. i don't have to go on a cruise. >> how many times to we talk about it? you might not be the market. people say i'm not going to cruise because i'll be bored, nothing to do, but a lot of people like it. this happened, and it's too bad, and carnival is doing all kinds of reparations. could they have done something better? of course, you can always do things better; however, it's not going to matter. i promise you.

melissa: okay, yeah, i think you're crazy, but i want to know so if you were in charge of their marketing campaign from here, what would you do? like, steps one, two, and three to turn this around. >> okay. step one. you need to have a plan in place. i know they have disaster plans. again, nohing horrible happened. the crew worked very hard to make it as good as possible, as good as possible for the people on the ship. melissa: onion sandwiches? >> well, listen, if you like onons are not terrible, but here's the point. if you look at interviews, people said they could not communicate or talk with the families. why not have a phone, satellite phonesbject ship to communicate. you can call home and say, look, we're okay, bored, but we're okay. we have to talk about the emotional benefits of cruising, which you mentioned. being together with your family, spending time together, the smiles. the hugs, the opportunities, and, by the way, cruising is right in the sweet spot of what

most american tourists want. we work for cruise companies, and it's clear. people don't want to unpack, go to the destinations b #u the -- but the comforts of home. this trip companied, that's what they get. i'll reenforce those things. i wouldn't mention the issue -- melissa: my home doesn't look like that. yeah, okay, sorry, i just can't help it, before we go, on a scale of 1 to money, a how unmoney is this for their image? >> one being the best, five the worst, i said, as i told you, it's a bli, i think it's a 2. melissa: wow! >> they could grasp the sea out of the jaws of victory. the ship could hit the fan again, but it's a two. it's over, melissa. it's a blip. forget about it. melissa: okay, all right. couldn't drag me on a ship if my life depended on it. bruce, that was fun. have a great weekend. >> good to see you, bye-bye.

melissa: money question of the day, the carnival cruise nightmare and the stories, would you consider a cruise? i was surprised there were a lot ever you who said yes, but i especially love the comment one of you said. we're sure just like i continue to vote after the 2012 nightmare. we want to hear from more of you, like us on facebook.com or follow me on dwitter. see what was in my office this afternoon. look on twitter. coming up, when a university designs new book bags with its name on it, this is the last guy they probably want to hire. >> i am so smart, i am so smart. i am so smart. melissa: one university may have used homer simpson. we'll explaithat. you can never have too much "money."

♪ melissa: before we get to "spare change," we want to give you a quick update on a big story we have been covering. it is the war of words between the law and must, ceo of tesla motors, and the new york times which has reached new heights. the fight started after a w york times reporter slammed tesla's new sedan in a review. during a test run for more 70's

see to boston he says the car ran at veggies far quicker than advertised. the car ultitely had to be towed, but he struck back claiming his review was totally false and on tuesday he came on our show. i asked him to explain why. >> we have the vehicle, he did not realize. this is at tesla own vehicle. and the log shows that when he says he was doing 54 miles-an-hour he was actually doing 80 miles-an-hour. when he says he's turned the heat off, he is actually has the blasting at 74 degrees. so it's just -- reporting things that are flat wrong. melissa: so he later released to the test car blocks that he was talking about and says they show that the battery never ran out of energy at any time. but now there has been a rebuttal issue against the data saying, the cars displays

dreamed said the car with shutting down, and it did. it did not have enough power to move or even enough to release the electrically operated parking brake. so who is really right? a goes bk and forth. we asked both to appear on today's show and they will decline the invitation today. we hope to have the monsoon. it is time for a little friday fund with "spare change," joined by an awesome fd in pair. thanks to both of you for coming on. so starting out on a pot valentine's day note, apparently love is worth a lot. experts say couples to get and stay married, and that is the key, of course, stay married, are four times wealthier than those who are single or divorced it all has to do with the economies of scale like being able to rely on more than one thing like health insurance and combining salaries and share expenses. four times wealthier. i'll let you go first teeseven i

don't know if you do this, but today is my wedding anniversary. the 24 years we have been married. i think we're pretty wealthy. [laughter] i'm happy out it. i'm a proud, healthy, wealthy, broadcast. >> at ecb to propose? we can. >> it's exactly the opposite. you just finding that out. you get more money. it's funny, my single friends, and i still have some friends or single at my a, they just never seem to have enough "spare change." melissa: i'm a pretty expensive white. i cannot imagine this. >> you add to this. you throw money in. melissa: i don't know. i spend a lot. >> health-insurance, the dishwasher,. melissa: i guess. i can see how divorcing could really dream your coffers, but being single, i don't know.

>> something existential. you add up all the expenses of being married and having kids and is testing to make sense, but their is a wealth creation aspect to being married and staying married. melissa: staying married because divorce expensive. anyway, moving on. when universities cost. look closely. do you guys see the spelling error? >> i had to litigable of times. >> i saw it right away. melissa: the university misspelled the word university of more than 8,000 bags. unbelievable. the mistake cost the scho more than 9,000. the you think the printer would have at least noticed it when they got the -- they made up the litter when everett is before you send it to print? >> they checked it twice and is still went to print. then they noticed it and decided ted give some of the bags of regardless. melissa: de think homer simpson was there? who was there looking at t