people need to make a decision after having all the decision there. >> it is helpful, but saying it is valuable, accurate information is valuable. it isn't of the same value to everyone. why not let the market operate the way they want to, those who care and are willing to pay for accurate information can. those who don't care don't want to payor it don't have to. rather than forcing everyone, businesses and consumers into a one-size-fits-all solution that doesn't really satisfy anyone. neil: where is this all going to go, peter? >> while we're talking about that, if you require businesses to post calorie information, it doesn't actually seem to cause people to make better decisions. in some cases some studies found calorie counts, mandatory calorie posting results in people gaining weight slightly.

neil: has anybody ever walked away and not ordered it? >> at the end of the day obesity is a public health care catastrophe. neil: you don't have to post calories. >> so for the public health system has been so effective. neil: obesity is a problem, is it not? >> i'm sandra smith in for melissa francis. here's what's money tonight. it is a simpson-bowles sequel. they roll out a new pla to slash the deficit.

this time with more spending cuts and less tax hikes. it sounds great. but does it have a snowball's chance in congress? today' power panel breaks it down. health insurers get nauseous over medicare advantage cuts. the government may reimburse them less than thought which could bring a crushing blow to seniors and access to care. aetna health's former ceo is here to explain. elizabeth warren taking a battering ram to banks and their regulators in congress and her assault is just beginning. we have a top bank industry expert with the inside scoop whether war can inflict big damage to our financial institutions. even when they say it's not it is always about money sandra: we start tonight with big news from alan simpson and erskin bowles.

they used their new plan for deficit reduction. here it is in a nutshell. it calls for overhauling the tax code and implementing the tax cuts. it cuts the federal deficit by 2.4 doll trillion over the ten years. this is more of the white house goal of 1.5 trillion. but the bottom line no one will be really happy because it hurts both ways. we have an all-star money power panel to break it down. diana further got roth. she is with the formerly with the u.s. department of labor. joining us tonight, former massachusetts senator scott brown and fox news contributor. welcome to all of you tonight. >> great to be with you. >> thank you. sandra: senator brown, i want to start with you first. this is your first time on the program so welcome. >> thank you. sandra: when we look at this new plan we say, well, everybody's got to give. everybody is going to be upset in some way. even erskin bowles, they're asking for the left to give even more here.

i guess the big question, do you think this even has a fighting chance? >> well, first of all i think it is important to reference their involvement. that they're trying to re-engage congress, they're on hiatus. not only literally on hiatus with a vacation but they checked out when it comes to address the real issue. we need obviously to get our debt and did he sit under control as we all know. there is no effort to work in a truly bipartisan manner. the president has not reached out to the moderates on the republican side. i commend them for re-engaging. they're working with save the debt or reduce the debt committee. this is a n group that's been formed. so there are some things certainly i think we can find common ground. but i'm not hopeful that anyone is going to throw away their arrows yet and get together and hammer things out. it is very, very frustrating down there. sandra: senator, as you were speaking we were looking over some of the guidenes of this new plan. it cuts $600 billion from medicare and medicaid. it adds $600 billion in new revenue from ending

exemptions and tax breaks. it cuts $1.2 trillion in discretionary spending. kevin, i put it to you, also the first time for you on this program, what do you ke of that plan? >> i think the interesting thing is they moved very dramatically since the original plan in the republican direction, which i think reflects disappointment amongst the two gentleman with the fact that president obama abandoned them. he released their report and pretended it never happened. president obama has talked a good game about deficit reduction but he doesn't seem to be seriously interested in it. a sign of that his own guys are abandoning ship from him and they're going much more in the direction of the republicans than the democrats. sandra: diana, isn't that part of the problem, we're not seeing any interest whatsoever from washington? >> i think we're seeing interest from washington. house republicans passed a bill that would cut 5 trillion over ten years. the problem with simpson-bowles is that 1.2 trillion in cuts over ten years, congress can't even

deal with 85 billion this year and is resorting to the sequester. the cuts in medicare, physician reimbursements, right now, we just had the doc fix. we have this in the law, every year physician reimbursement is supposed to be cut. every year congress puts money back. 600 billion in tax reform. it is not tax reform if you raise tax rates. it is only tax reform if you keep it revenue neutral, broaden the base, get rid of expenditures. this will not work. they have clearly not been mugged by reality. sandra: senator brown, i want you to respond to this. we'll roll sound of erskine bowles. he appeared on "happening now" on fox news erlier today. why he thinks this new plan is important. listen. >> we're asking the republicans to do some revenues. we're asking democrats to do more in the area of health care reform and to make social security sustainably solvent. that pushes them both out of their comfort zone but it is

enough to actually put our fiscal house in order and that's what we think is important. sandra: senator brown, your response? >> well, listen, once again, i think they're certainly very hopeful and they're not giving up and they're re-engaging congress but i agree with what diana said actually. when you're looking at broading the base you, if you're going to lower corporate tax rates, sorry, if you're going to eliminate loopholes without lowering corporate tax rates it is a nonstarter. we need to do a whole host of things that are going to be not crushing the economy at a time when it is very fragile as it is. so there are certain things i think we can agree upon but right now, there is act absolute gridlock. washington is a mess. we need to work together in a truly bipartisan manner as americans first with our backs against the economic wall. we need to do it together and i don't see anything like that happening anytime soon. sandra: so, kevin, senator brown sounds very doubtful right now. maybe the timing is a little

bit different this time around? we're days from the deadline of the sequester on march 1st. maybe now the pssure will help something get done and maybe they will take a second look at the simpson-bowles plan number two? >> we can hope so i think really what is going on here that bowles and simpson are tired of, you know, basically being a front for president obama's inaction and so they have come out with a proposal that, you know, sure there is 600 billion more in tax revenues than republicans would like, but it is not that bad of a proposal compared to certainly what the democrats are proposing. it is radically different from the kind of things president obama has been talking about. what it means is, the fact that the democrats, as diana said they have not been serious about this problem. they pointed to bowles and simpson with great virtue and ignored what they're saying. now bowles and simpson are clearly aligning much more closely with the republicans. they cut their tax increase proposal by a trillion dollars over ten. they increased their spending cut proposal at the same amount.

that kind movement means it will put a lot of pressure on democrats to try to do something, to stop ignoring the proble like the senator i think they will continue to ignore the problem. sandra: diana, i see you're chomping at the bit. >> i think we need economic growth. that means realtax reform but there is also a lot of waste in the system. there is mass transit expenditures. 20% of the highway trust fund when only 2% of americans ride mass transit there is high-speed rail. there is 12 billion a year spent on green energy programs. there is the military has to spend $27.50 a gallon on biofuels when they could be fueling their ships with diesel at $3.50 a gallon. there are places to cut. sandra: senator brown, i cut you off there. >> no, no. sandra: this is reason for you to come back and join us on the show again. we've got to leave it there. >> all great points. all great points by everybody. a lot of work to do. sandra: excellent panel. thank you all for joining us tonight. the other major money

problem our government's dealing with right now is the dreaded sequester. of course that deadline is many looking. those automatic spending cuts are set to kick in just ten days from now. president obama is out pushing his platform. just today he warned the cuts are like taking a meat cleaver to the economy. listen to what he said. >> so ese cuts are not smart, they are not fair, they will hurt our economy. they will add hundreds of thousands of americans to the unemployment roles. this is not an be a instruction. people will lose their jobs -- abstraction. sandra: critics say the president is resortg pure threats and our next guest agrees. economist peter morici managed part of the federal budget and knows first-hand,000 this gets done. weome back to the show, peter. >> nice to be with you. sandra: you wrote an article today, very controversial article, saying president obama is blackmailing taxpayers. explain. >> well, he simply singling out things that frighten taxpayers. long lines at airports. absence of meat inspectors

and so forth. take meat inspectors. we can keep all the meat inspectors on the job and cut the department of agriculture by 10%. the department of agriculture has the largest cadre of research economists in the world. i think the world could use fewer economists short term so we can get chicken at the safeway. >> and i read throug our article here and, you're saying that this is such a big threat that you're saying whether a second recession occurs is already baked in the cake. is that directly a result of sequestration if indeed this happens? >> absolutely not. there has been real science that the economy is slowing in the fourth quarter and will continue into the first quarter. whether we go negative or not, remns to be seen. but you know the tax increases, that the president pushed through, are at least as larg as these dreaded spending cuts. why were the tax increases not recessionary but these spending cuts are? what you've got here is a president that simply can't let go of the last nickel of big government. he has to have every last

penny. what he is going to do is extort outf the american people those pennies by saying i'm taking your food inspectors away, i will take your policeman away, take your teachers today. heck, teachers are paid for by state and local government. >> you're hitting on a lot of great points. one of the problems, we faced the fiscal cliff at end of last year, a lott of folks didn't really know how that would affect their wallet. how that would affect their life as far as every day living. we went through and found some specific points of pain as a result of this sequestration. one in fact, is that weakens our military. our brain room, pulled together some facts showing this reduces readiness by 2/3 of active brigade combat teams and most air force flying units, among other areas of our defense that would be cut, peter. >> i don't believe that, flat-out. now you may reduce readiness a bit because the when the military is not fighting it

is training but how do you measure one-third, 2/3. sandra: training too, peter. they say there will be less training. >> i understand that. i understand that. how does a 10% reduction in that nufrs cause a one-third or 2/3 loss in readiness that is absolutely silly. over a long period of time, if we had these cuts and we tried to maintain our present force structure we would have problems. but over the long term there are real changes members of the military would endorse. for example, keeping officers in uniform longer, instead of colonels retiring at 32 years. they retire at 35. instead of minimum retirement at 20. make it 22 years. you have to inhale fewer officers and smaller pension burden. sandra: talk another area near and dear to my heart, oil and gas on federal water. that would slowsdownin development would be a possible affect of sequestration. >> the department of energy and department of interior process licenses. if the president wants to shut down that process, to

punish themerican people and to punish oil companies, something he loveso do, then he can do it but he could also move that money out of the very extensive research programs that those two department or for example, out of solar energy. you know, and those transportation projects that, you know, railroads from nowhere to no place in illinois. high-speed rail was mentioned earlier in the show. there are other places to take the money. granted you have to balance the budget in each specific accot. sandra: not to mention unemployment benefits, et cetera. we can't even get into all of it. >> unemployment benefits? okay. sandra: we have to leave it there, peter. >> all right. >> thank you for joining us. it was a great article and one i think a the are of folks should read if they can get ahold he would of it. >> it is on fox news. sandra: turn to latest deal-making be a activity on wall street between officemax and office deboat along with solid investor data out of germany gave a boost to stocks. the dow closed ave 14,000 for the third time this

month with the s&p 500 hitting a fresh five-year high. the nasdaq gained 21 points. next on "money", brutal proposed medicare cuts sucker-punched health insurers today. the former ceo of aetna is here with the details and the potential fallout for seniors and getting care. plus some of the most sophisticated cyber attacks ever committed against u.s. businesses are uncovered and the chinese military is allegedly behind them. which companies are next in their sights? a top cybersecurity analyst plains. more "money" coming up. ♪ .

♪ . sandra: here is more on the nation's fiscal woes. the government is now proposing cutting the amount it contributes to its health care plan for seniors called medicare advantage in 2014. it's not a done deal just yet but it took everyone by surprise today including wall street. the health insurance industryook a huge hit. stocks were down across the board. four insurance companies lost $1.8 billion in market value just today.

look how this breaks out. human's market value dropped by whopping $788 million today. unitedhealth group down $660 million. cignay 186 million and eta by about 164 million. if this rate cut does happen there could be a big impact on the industry and overall health care. we have the former chairman and ceo of aetna. you're the guy to talk to on this and you've given me special privilege to call you dick and we'll have a conversation first of all how this is going to affect health care that is offered? >> well it is going to have an impact. it will not radically change the way health care is delivered in this country but it will have an impact on one segment particularly with seniors and seniors seeking the medicare advantage program, which is really what this is about. and, the market expected no

particular increase but they didn't expect a cut. sandra: dick, they were really cght off-guard. >> they were. sandra: when we looked at the fall in the stocks today, this was significant news and this was just the large health care insurers that are publicly-traded and publicly-traded on the open markets. >> right. sandra: what about the smaller guys, how does this affe them? >> well i think the smaller guys, it is a wide diversity. some smaller guys don't do medicare at all. wouldn't affect them a bit. but some target it and it is a major part of their siness. for them, it would be a big hit. even with the big four, as u noticed and as you quoted, the hits were quite different. sandra: yes. >> humana, concentrates a great deal on medicare. humana really took a beating. you united and aetna, hey, not painless but they weren't anywhere near as affected. >> still sgnificant cuts there. >> definitely. sandra: but if you were still the ceo, how would you

have handled this? or would this have even happened? would you have negotiated a different rate? >> i would cry. you don't negotiate with the government, at least not very effectively. i think that the industry is trying to get the government to consider not cutting anywhere near as much or maybe not cutting any at all. this as you said is not a done deal. sandra: no. >> it is open for comment. sandra: the market sees it as a real risk and that's why we have to address it as a real risk. >> of course. and it is. sandra: one of your big points right now that doctors are practicing defensive medicine. >> sure. sandraare you worried about the overall health industry and the direction it's headed? >> to me you're touching on what is the real root problem. the u.s. spends more than twice as much per capita for health care as any developed country in the world. i'm talking about sweden, holland, england, germany.

why? what is it so different? is our water different or, no. it is that we have a different way of practicing medicine. number one, doctors do practice defensive medicine. why? because we have a whole system of ambulance-chasing lawyers who anytime somebody has a outcome that isn't exactly the way they hoped, they sue. so, well, if, i better cover my you know what, so let's order another battery of test. >> that contributes to the problem. >> and that costs money. sandra: your best guess, because we don't have much time left, does this cut happen, this proposed cut, medicare advantage? >> there will be some, some modification, about you i suspect there will be a cut and it will hurt. sandra: the market is certainly bracing for it. thank you so much for joining you tonight. dick hubert, former aetna chairman and ceo.

great guy to have on a serious topic. >> my pleasure. sandra: the chinese military launched cyber strikes against u.s. businesses. a top security analyst explains who china may target next and what can be done to stop them. the shale oil boom is hot right now but is it enough to slash 50 bucks off a barrel of oil? a bullish new call makes the case for that. we have the details. do you have ever have too much money? ♪

♪ . sandra: well you likely heard about a number of cyber attacks on banks and other companies recently but now's the time to listen up because cyber hacking could be coming to a new head. a new report out by computer security firm mandiant actually traces thousands of

attacks on u.s. companies to the chinese army and straight from their headquarters. this map shows one base of the peoples liberation army and the report says more than 100 ber attacks on u.s. firms came straight from this building. here's what the mandiant ceo told our own dennis kneale earlier today. >> the fact that it is a sustained effort for seven years using thousands of computers, led us to the conclusion that is just unavoidable. it is in fact the government performing these intrusions. sandra: china is vehemently denying these allegations but my next guest says there is better chance of life on mars than these attacks not originating in china. morgan wright is a top cybersecurity anast. morgan, thanks for joining us. >> you bet, sandra. sandra: morn, is not the smallest, slightest, teeniest chance these not coming from at stack. >> you have a better chance of kim kardashian becoming a

nun than china not being involved in it and i would believe that story. the, it has been too sustained too long. level of sophistication to attack. in some of the these attacks the average attack lasted for a year. one went almost five years. you don't get that without state sponsorship. all we'reoing is stating the obvious what everybody has known for a long time that china has been behind this for a long time. sandra: so what would their goal be then? because we've seen it is not one specific industry. they're attacking an arr of industries here in this country. fkof 1,000 grains of sand. you collect lots and lots of information from different places but three primary things they're trying to affect, political, economic and military. from a political standpoint a lot of government agencies have been compromised. they want to know polic positions what people say in e-mail. technology, they're trying to beat the r&d curve. they're stealing r&d from our companies to advance knowledge. it has be proven in court

several times. a couple of chinese companies have ties to the pla which have found to violated intellectual property rights. they have dne ecomic espionage. you have got military. the communications satellites being targeted a lot of defense and military industrial base being targeted. this is part of china's strategic pran for growth. they're attacking quite frankly where we're the weakest in some areas. sandra: morgan, for those that think airplanes or the government is the biggest target of these attacks they're wrong. it is really i-t that has been the most popular targets of attacks. >> yes. sandra: followed by aerospace, public administration, satellites, telecom. i-t is really a threat here and one big example i wanted to bring up chinese hackers targeting televent last september, which has access to 60% of the north america's gas and oil pipelines. this is significant and poses a very serious.

>> they an attacked the brains that runs a lot of these different things. if you go after the money, you go after energy. if you want shut a nation down, you don't necessarily have to drop a bomb. you cut off the oil supply. you make things difficult. you disrupt power and electricity. you saw what happens on the cruise line, right? if you lose power things get bad. imagine a nation orentire region without power, there is hospitals, transportation, public finance, banking, you name it a lot of things can happen. sandra: what do you do? private business it seems like it is almost impossible to protect themselves. they're paying gazillions of dollars to protect their company, but the chinese, if this is the case seem to be walking through the front door. >> in a prior life i was a detective. i taught interview and interrogation. i went through behavior and analysis training the fbi gave. one of the things they're doing, not just attacking. there are three type of wares. software, hardware and wet

wear. the humans are the weakest link. they worked for identity fraud and spearfishing. spear phishing is targeti em sending a message because it personalized and having an attachment too good sandra: a bull call coming from one big study.

but is it wishful thinking? steven schork, author of the schork report joins to us respond. elizabeth warren putting on the brass knuckles to take down banks and their regulators. should they be running for the hills? a top industry expert weighs in. "piles of money" coming up. ♪ .

sandra: an energy revolution could change the global economic landscape. a new report by pricewaterhousecoopers find the shale oil boom could add $2.7 trillion to the global economy, and, cut the price of crude by $50 a barrel. this is by 2035 by the way. the energy information administration says america is sitting on nearly 24 billion barrels of recoverable shale oil. so will we be able to cash in on this boom? here for a more on this one is steven schork, editor of the schork report. something, steven, you and i talked extensively about. do you think that this is a realistic report by pwc? >> let's just say this, sandra. this is a report that goes out and looks into the future 22 years from now. the only reason why they created 22-year-old forecasts to make astrology

look respectable. this is a fast-moving product righnow. that said, the report is building oa sound thesis, one that we've seen take hold in the natural gas market. so, ten years ago, in the natural gas market, all the smartest guys in the market were saying hey, north america is running out of natural gas. what happened? north american natural gas prices went up to 70, 80, $90 a barrel oil equivalent. today because of revolution in shale oil gas, the natural gas is down to $20 a barrel oil equivalent. the thesis of price waterhouse, building on a theme we have here in north america abundance of natural gas and oil sitting beneath our feet. sandra: let me play the critics part here for a second. >> yes. sandra: that is, they say you will pull out it of the ground and shi it overseas and it won't even be used here in the u.s.. >> that is absolutely legitimate argument and certainly with retail natural, excuse me, retail gasoline prices now headed

above $4 a gallon over the next couple of months there are certainly going to be cries because the united states is now a net exporter of things like gasoline and diesel fuel. but we have to keep in mind if we do want to see this product ev get to the market can the guys who are prospecting for it, the guys who are pulling it out of the ground and pulling it to market they have to be allowed to get a legitimate return on their investment. there is so much oil and gas that can be consumed in this country. we have an abundance of it. sandra: that is my next point, steven. >> yes. >> critics will say, well, we don't even have the capacity to refine this into gasoline. could this even effectively lower gasoline prices? it would be great if we could lower the price of oil, wonderful, but if we can't turn that into gasoline into our carswell, what good is all this oil? >> that is just it. we spent the last couple years, and dra, solving one side of the equation and that is the access to cheap product, cheap oil, the stuff you put into a

refinery. you have to keep in mind a refinery is nothing but a big fancy t kettle. you put the oil in and boil it and rip off the vapor and turn it into gasoline and diesel fuel. why gasoline prices are where they are because we have an abundance of oil but we do not have an abundance of ability to turn that oil into what we need, gasoline. so now that the next area we have to address is not the oil. that situation has been addressedaccordingly. sandra: it is refining capacity. >> it is the dearth of refining capacity which is really driving up gasoline prices in this current market. sandra: but, so, just based on the report that are in hand and numbers in hand, is it role listic it brings oil prices down in this country by 50 bucks? >> there is certainly potential. i can not put it and no one can really put a number on it. sandra: come on, steven. we look to you for th? >> no. all we can do is extrapolate out and certainly the

picture from a price standpoint is we are certainly in the position not to be paying more today than we were a generation ago. for a commodity that is supposedly sarce in supply, with ever increasing demand that is a pretty great proposition for the next generation. sandra: it would be a wonderful thing. guess what? 22 years is not that far away. something we definitely have to start thinking about. steven schork, of the schork report. thanks for joining us tonight. >> thank you, sandra. sandra: time for today's fuel gauge report. bp is prepared to go to court in civil trial next week. it has been unable to settle civil liability charges over the 2010 oil spill. they face up to $20 billion of civil fines under the u.s. clean water act. gas prices are up for their 33rd straight day. the price of a regular gallon of gas climbing another two cents overnight, hitting $3.5 per gallon. gas prices were $3.29 when the rally began on january

17th. natural gas futures saw their biggest gain in five weeks. forecasters are predicting late winter cold-snap forr3 the southern u.s. the outlook raised prospects for higher natural gas demand. next on "money", elizabeth warren breaks out the long knives for banks and their regulators. we'll have her all-out assault go too far? or will they get what is coming to them. a top bank expert is here with the details. at the end of the day it is all about money. ♪ . ♪

[ male announcer ] from the way the bristles move to the way they clean, once you try an oral-b deep sweep power brush, you'll never go back to a regular manual brush. its three cleaning zones with dynamic power bristles reach between teeth with more brush movements to remove up to 100% more plaque than a regular manual brush. and even 76% more plaque than sonicare flexcare in hard to reach areas. oral-b deep sweep 5000 power brush.

life opens up when you do.

>> there are district attorneys and u.s. attorneys out there every day squeezing ordinary citizens on sometimes very thin grounds and taking them to trial in order to make an example as they put it. i'm really concerned that too big to fail has become too big for trial. that just seems wrong to me. sandra: that was senator elizabeth warren taking financial regulators to task for not being tough enough on large banks. she has taken a lot of criticism for her tough questions but warren also received a lot of support for finally cracking down on the banks. so is she getting too tough

for her own good? joining me now for more on this is a professor of finance and economics at stanford's graduate school of business and author of, the bankers new clothes. thank you for joining us tonight. is she going too far -- >> good to be here. sandra: she was really chiding those regulators. you're not being tough enough. we hear a lot of that from elizabeth warren. here she is is back and doing the same thing. >> she is asking what everybody is asking. every day we have scandals with the banks and there seems to being some kind of a double-standard especially when we hear somebody from the justice department saying they worry about weakening the banks or being too big to fail give somebody immunity? sandra: rightly so, our financial institutions are very important and essential to the success of this countr we don't want to overregulate banks. we don't want to overrestrict them to the point where they can't be successful. i think the concern that you

do hear, i don't tnk everybody is asking are we tough enough on the banks. the concern is are we being too tough? >> well, i don't think so, not in every way. there is one way which we're being completely lenient on the bank and that is the way most businesses in the economy have to face up to which is who bears the loes when you lose? the banks are availableo borrow at subsidized rates and they don't have to own up to the full consequences of what they do. so there is no business in the economy that, even without regulation at all, borrows more than 70% of their assets. most of them borrow, especially large corporations a lot less than that. what about banks? single digits and they complain. they don't like to have to face equity investors. they just want to complain to the regulators they can borrow cheaply. that is the problem. sandra: remember we depend on the banks to turn around and issue loans to the american people and outside this country as well. >> yes. sandra: so it is very

important. but listening to you right now, i guess, i'm wondering if you think that they are still today getting eferential treatment as much as the laws have cracked down on them? >> oh completely. on this one issue we write about in the book they're getting preferential treatment not just here but in europe as well and that is very bad for the economy. we want as much business as possible on their own. the banks are way too dependent on guaranties and subsy dis. that makes the industry very unhealthy. when you get someone highly indebted you don't making business loans. you like to go play elsewhere. the question is why are not banks not lending their earnings like every other company? they want to pay them out but --. sandra: so, bottom line, remember, banks are, they're private institutions. they're in it t make money. they need to find ways to be profitable. one bking analyst, dick bove, probably familiar with

his name, he is a very well-reknown analyst, he recently said, her suppters, refering to elizabeth warren put up some $30 million to buy her senate seat. she owes her constituents an awful lot so she has to take a strident position against the banks. you say what to that? >> i say she has been completely consistent. if her supporters supported her they knew what they were getting. she is doing exactly what she did before, is to ask tough questions about whether we're getting the best banking systems we can. i think most of those who are elected get supported by people and often from the industry too. sandra: all right. >> so --. sandra: i think we presented both side of this story. thanks for joining us tonight. >> okay, thank you. sandra: coming up on "money", george clooney has nothing on these guys. thieves pull off one of the st daring diamond heists in history at brussels airport.

the latest on the international manhunt to find them coming up. you can never have too much money or too many diamond. ♪

♪ . sandra: well it is time for some "spare change". we have the fabulous monica

cowley and celebrity journalist david cap plan. he is also fabulous. i just met him so i will be the decider. this was the scene at brussels airport in belgium. eight heavily armed thieves stole $50 million in uncut diamonds from the cargo hold of a plane on the runway. the damonds were delivered in a armored brinks truck and the robbers are believed to have cut a hole through a security fence and then held the brinks and airport staff at gunpoint while they ransacked the cargo compartment to steal the diamonds. it only took three minutes. do you think they will catch these guys? that is not the question. i want to know these guys. they are movie stars. >> this is very "ocean's 11". can you picture george clooney and go in with the heist. these guys are real pros. they would like nightvision goggles. they had laser sights.

they were exactly what they were doing. i have a feeling the dime monday are no longer in their possession. >> where is the jason bourne app. this is the best detail bit, the guns with the laser sights. you hear that totally envision one of those action movies. i think it is funny after the fact because it was so sort of cinematic. luckily no one w hurt. they didn't cut a hole but drove through the fence. you wonder where the security is. sandra: the whole four seasons thing. >> this wasn't child's play. sandra: child's play. nobody was hurt. it is important to mention that but they did hold the folks at gunpoint so this is pretty serious. they're on the run. moving on. you remember the famed ad for grey poupon mustard? grey poupon is coming back for a revival during the academy awards. kraft is hoping to put the fancy mustard into the spotlight to boost sales. it is airing a 30 second $1.7 million commercial during oscar night. they put a spin on the old

classic. this time the borrower speeds away with the mustard setting off a wild car chase complete with explosion via like an action movie. i turn to you. you dothink this will help boost sales of the spicy mustard? >> it may not boost sales but a great buzz. great to have a tv comercial and enlists sort of movies action film drama to it because it is the oscars. brief for the super bowl. i don't know if that will be people to give more mustard. for. melissa: french's. >> but i think that if they aired this during the super bowl it would have gun laws because they're so many great ads. running during the oscars at -- oscars has a great twist to it. i just want to see the latest die hard. not such a great movie, but this commercial looks fantastic. melissa: by the way, not familiar with the old commercial , it used to be built window rolled down and he said

excuse me, sir, would you like any great coupo >> very english, very proper. melissa: maybe this means luxury is back. next applicable says the mirror has haunted them for years. in between them. they put it up for sale on ebay. they had enough. theyut it up with full disclosure. the couple says his son in the mirror they have had bad luck including financial problems and even health issues. they did receive a bid for the asking price of $155. first of all, i'm wondering how they pinpointed to the mirror. it was causing all these problems. >> maybe that was the only new thing that they introduced into their environment. >> before they go asleep. they said when they wake up all these weird scratches. i woke up with thisyridium. drinking. hallucinogenic. >> what you want is on to the mayor. why bring discipline yourself? >> why share with the world? you a good person for doing that?