liz: a record, all three panelists agree. thank you so much. thank you, america, for watching. appreciate it. have a good night. ♪ melissa: i'm melissa francis and here's "who made money today". shareholders of unitedhealth. regulators reversed plans to cut reimbursement payments to insurers. payments for medicare advantage will now go up. 3.3%, not down. shares of united health lept close to 5% on the news hits a 52-week high. congratulationses if you own that stock. >>if you own apple stock you made money today. apple will start production of a refreshed iphone this quarter. that is according to all things digital. new iphone could hit stores this summer but shares of apple pared most of the seion gains, selng up slightly on the day. andy enfelled, the coast of florida gulf coast basketball team netting big

bucks. he led the team to a historic cinderella run in the ncaa tournament. he is cashing in. he is leaving to coach the usc trojans. he will get paid more than a million bucks a year. he was making 157 sfwrand in florida. let's face it even when they say it's not it is always about money lissa: all right. as i mentioned, unitedhealth group's stock was a winner today and it is do in large part to major change in reimbursement costs from obamacare n a complete 180 reversal, regulators say the payment rate for medicare advantage patients is going up 3.3%. instead of t original cut of 2.2% which was announced back in february. not surprisingly health care provider stocks shot up on the news.

now maybe the time to jump in and buy shares. for more on this i'm joined by dr. sreedhar potarazu of vital spring technologies. less, a managing director at the investment firm, pollywog thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> dr. p, let me start with you. why do you think the government reversed this decision? >> a lot of lobbying money. i could have sworn that the position of the government was to try and get the insurance companies under better control and to try and real in all these ridiculous profits and a big part of obamacare in terms of tryin to cut down costs was actually reducing reimbursement to medicare advantage. what happened to all of that? all of a sudden we've turn ad new leaf. thiss amazing. >>less, do you agree with that? >> i agree with the premise. what happened along the way was a recognition if they didn't raise rates, insurance companies would probably exit some markets and that would cause

disruption to voters who vote. melissa: right. >> that was i think in the end, why there was a turnaround. melissa: dr. p, what about that? that's what a lot of people worried about. they wouldn't offer, doctors wouldn't accept medicare patients if they cut the amount of reimbursement. it wasn't worth it. many doctors came on the program and saying cutting what they were paid it wouldn't cover the cost. they wouldn't stay in business. do you not believe that? you're a doctor yourself? >> i do some doctors do believe that and for cerin procedures and services it just may not make sense. i also agree with the fact that there are a lot of politically motivated factorsn terms of the more recent decisions that are being made around the affordable care act because as i said earlier, you know, the jury is slowly coming out in terms how effective the affordable care act is really is. nightmares happening between now andoctober 1st. melissa: yeah. >> ironically they're

starting to change the tactic because i think there will be a lot of political repercussion between now and next year. melissa: let's stick to the one specific issue of these reimbursements. i'm trying to figure out is this a good thing or a bad thing? in some way it is could be a good thing if the insurance are reimbursed more, mbe premiums go down. maybe they provide more services. i don't know. les, what do you think? >> from investing point of view this is actually a good thing. i always said the philosophical differences apart but i think most investors thought there was a cut coming which is why you saw the reaction today on the market. melissa: right. >> it is also good for a lot of private companies, for whom we invest n they see the follow-on effects. they get to clean up the damage. melissa: maybe not for this in particular, a lot of coanies pay health care premiums for employees. if health care insurer are making money one way or the other maybe premiums for them go down? i don't know. a lot of complicated moving

pieces. >> it is theoretical. to your guest's point, 2014 will be a interesting year as far as premiums. i don't think anybody is really sure how premiums will shake out next year. melissa: dr. p, what your impression on this? good thing or bad thing? probably bad thing for taxpayers because that is where this money is coming from? >> that is who pays for it. good thing for insurance companies. maybe a good thing for consumers if premiums don't go up. as far as doctors are concerned, until they start receiving, you know, those bumps in terms of reimbursement, i wouldn't hold your breath. melia: okay. >> they're paying insurance companies more but not necessarily paying doctors more. we would love to see that happen. melissa: very interesting turn of events. thanks to both of you for coming on. >> thank you. melissa: u.s. auto sales surged in march with the big three posting the highest monthly car and truck sales since may of 2007. and it is not just strengthening economy that is driving sales higher. automakers are using new technology to reduce development costs and increase productivity. ford is leading the way

using three-d printing machines for rapid prototyping. they're hoping some day regular consumers could print parts for their own ford hicles? is that a amazing? have the man behind ford's 3-d plipt printing program. he is technical innovate shuns leader. this is amazing technology. what is it being used for? >> thank you. it is a real pleasure to be here. it has been used really in two stages. one for the industrial side of production where we look at 3-d printing to make rapid prototypes and examine the prototypes before we go downstream and approve the designs. it is used for creating molds like we would for example, in sort of designing a part. and so it's used on that side. it is also used by the individual employee. and that is prty exciting. i can speak to that too.

melissa: no. i mean it's incredible, because i can understand it being used as a model. but you think it can print out parts that could be used in cars? >> we can print out parts that are now used for really hobbyists and experiment with what the actual part might do and look like. and so i think getting there we are still a few steps awayfrom using 3-d printed parts directly into a product but i think there is a lot going on with hobbyists and experimenting with cars. in fact i got a little sample here. melissa: oh good. i was hoping for an illustration of some type. >> yeah. this was 3-d printed. it helped us make design decisions and helped us test things out. something like this was used to create a mold. kind of like creating a shape in a, sort of a, i would say a muffin tray, creating that form. and then, the, the uri thain

that created this shape was poured into the muffin tray like structures and came out like this. we're using 3-d printing in number of these in experimental and printing rolls if you will. melissa: how does it work? it makes layer upon layer what is being printed out or how does the functionality work? there we go. now we can see it. >> yeah. it's, you have a, you have a form that you create using a computer-aided design models on a computer. you hit a print button. taking a file that you have today on your pesee and hitting a print button to go to a printer. this is similar exceptin that as you said it adds layers after layers. it leaves grabs where it has to leave gaps. we wash this out and out comes the 3-d part. melissa: we're in the early stages and this is expensive. you thinover time this actually reduces costs? >> yeah. this makes our design decisions more accurate and

design decisions are made more rapidly. it certainly helps in terms of creating a number of different variants like this part here. we could create a number of different variants and test them out. all those add to greater efficiencies and reduced costs and acceleration. melissa: i would love it if we could see the video again to see how that comes out and how it's made. it is really incredible. maybe we can get back up on the screen but i understand, there we go. consumer grade machines cost about a thousand dollars? doesn't sound like that much for something like this. couldn't be what we're looking at here? >> no. the consumer grade machines are really desktop type 3-d printers. those are different, run in that range but affdable by say, a hobbyist or someone serious about it, more or less, you know. experimenting with their own ideas. that's the idea. kind of like where pcs were priced if you will or printers were priced some

years ago. so that's where those consumer grade printers are. melissa: in the long run you think consumers could go ahead and design and print parts for their own car. what does that mean? give me an example what the part i would design a add on to my car through this printer? >> well a couple of things. if you have an older car, you say, you want a backup camera and start, sort of have that displayed that might be an add-on capability you could think and innovate on. as a developer or someone who is a hobbyist you might create this camera in the housing and that could 3-d printed and placed in the back. you could have a display in the front. so that's really what we're doing here. in fact things like these, enable you to sort of take messages from the car to be able to allow you to display the rear view when your shifter is ineverse. so there is a number of those examples of 3-d camera. melissa: very cool. this is definitely the future. thanks for coming on tonight. >> thank you, bye-bye. melissa: here is our money

question of the day, do you think 3-d printing will be the future of heavy industry? so far almost all of you say yes and it will change every industry. one comment on facebook said it will be the end of heavy industry. very interesting. we'll want to hear from more of you. like us on facebook.co facebook.com/melissafrancisfox or follow me on twitter on melissaafrancis. next on "money," landmark victory for extreme tv startups could put your cable guy out of business. ww have a power panel to explain why you will never watch tv the same way again. plus north korea restarting a nuclear reactor to produce more nuclear weapons. how the u.s. could tighten the financial noose to stop them. more "money" coming up.

♪ . melissa: all right. it's time to turn up the dial. you may never watch tv the same way again. in a shocking move a u.s. appeals court says it won't temporarily shut down ario, a online television. broadcasters say it infringes

on their copyrights let's a people like you to stream broadcasts to computers, smartphones. networks are up in arms. fox broadcasting like fox business is owned by news corp. this could change the whole vision of television. to hear to tell us why you may never watch tv the same way again. we have jack goldman, former national association of broadcasters general counsel. fox business's own dennis kneale. thanks to all of you for joining us. dennis, start with you. huge deal >> big deal. what the courts decided broadcasters we don't think you have a chance to win your case, copyright infringement. aereo, funded by barry diller, broadcast alumni. broadcastersot free government granted airwaves

by golly their program something free. the airwaves are free. doesn't mean the content you put on the airwaves is free. that is just what the court kind of endorsed t could be devastating to the broadcasters. they can't afford this. melissa: tuna, i want to tell the audience how this works. these are little antennas paced placed and the city. i pay 12 bucks a month. streaming broadcast television to my computer or tablet or whatever. th val to me i can finally be free of my cable provider, right? cable has monopoly on your building or home in your area. you curse at them every time it doesn't work and they won't show up at your house. you can final say, screw you, i will sign up for one of the little antennas. is that right. >> theater, melissa. the concern with the court ruling but perhaps the most revolutionary aspect of th news the fact for the first time viewersre going to be able to watch, kind of live, you know, programing from a streaming provider. if you consider guys like

netflix, hulu, amazon, these are essentially library product. >> yeah. >> this is potentially one of the most revolutionary, you know, disrupt tiff forces the television industry faced in a long, long time. melissa: jack, it reminds me of when, tivo started because it really disrupts the business model. at the time we saw all said, why would anybody spend money to create content if you allowed users to skip over the ads? this is similar because it is saying, why would broadcasters invest in content if you rob them of that revenue stream? is that right? >> well, i don't think entirely because, first thing is, of course subscribers can get tv over the air right now. they just have to have an an enthat and their own antenna. melissa: but it is terrible. this is supposed to be better quality than that. >> it may or may not be. i'm not quite sure of these little downsized antennas in a warehouse in brooklyn can do better than you can do with a good digital antenna.

but what you really have is barry diller and aereo building a business on the backs of content that broadcasters create, that they pay hollywood to create. they create themselves. the sports contracts that they have. and both the copyright act of 1976 and the congress in the ninth two cable act said that if people are going to make a business off of broadcasters signals, build their business on the back of broadcasters investment, then they need to compensate broadcasters for doing so. melissa: yeah. >> and what the court did directly contradicts that congressional policy established in both act. >> i hear you. this is a show how people make money, how you might make money tomorrow. dennis, who makes money and who loses money tomorrow as a result of all this. >> that is a very short time horizon. the broadcasters all fell a little bit today. broadcasters are going to win. these shows, cable system operators, pay hundreds of millions of dollars to the broadcasters to carry these

supposedly free shows the court now says don't deserve copyright protection. networks, there have been three court rulings in this area. two of them went in favor. networks. one against them in favor of cablevisions systems, because it stored programs and let you call up later but the cable company paid for the programs. that is different from barry diller and aereo. they haven't played for a thing. they are stealing signals. it is piracy is what the broadcasters say. melissa: tuna, who is the money winner and loser in all of this? you think networks come out on top? if their stock gets hit it is opportunity? >> melissa, is hard to know how decision like this will play out over several years but what i think is interesting here it happened at a time when investors begun to get more excited about the economics of local television stations precisely because of retransmission consent, right? melissa: yeah. >> it really begs the question likes of comcast or time warner cable should continue to pay billions of dollars to the broadcasters for content essentially will

be now available for, you know over the air, over antennas. really -- >> let me --. melissa: hang on, what does it mean for the consumer? that is what people at home are wondering aell. everybody's cable bill ballooned to crazy proportions. can i get away with paying 2 a month and having the same stuff? >> you will certainly get the broadcast signals. you won't get espn. you wouldn't get this channel for example. wouldn't get fox news. melissa: forget it. >> if you want a cord cut you can get, get an antenna in most places and get a good signal and pay nothing a month. but the real deem imagine -- damage is to the cable model. to broadcasters in the long run. if broadcasters can not monetize the investment they made in programing, in the end of the quality of the programing will go down. broadcast program something still by far the most popular programing in every television outlet.

melissa: find the same way to adapt that netflix did when people didn't want to send away for the dvd anymore. they created a whole new business. that is very exciting. >> i think there are certainly a lot of issues that are going to come up but i also think this is hardly over. melissa: yes. >> the networks said they will challenge this decision to the extent that aereo said they are going to other markets. i think you can expect to see litigation in other court. >> we have to go. i'm so sorry. thanks to all of you for coming on tonight. we appreciate it. we obviously need a lot more time on this discussion. coming up on "money," north korea will restart its only nuclear reactor to produce more nuclear weapons. can the u.s. afford to call its bluff? one. region's top experts joins us. plus michael jackson's family takes on one of the world's biggest concert promoters in court. should it be blamed for jackson's wrongful death? $40 billion could be riding on the outcome. we have details on that one ahead. do you have too much money? ♪ .

melissa: so north korea amping up the verbal attacks today. the u.s. is responding by adding destroyer warships to the region. the communist nation says, it is restarting its nuclear facility to increase plutonium production for its weapons program. the reactor has been closed since 2007. it is a disturbing new development in the korean peninsula, one the united states is watching very closely. joining me is peter brookes, former deputy assistant secretary of defense and senior fellow with the heritage foundation. peter, welcome back to the show. how wrried shoulde be about this? >> well, we have to be concerned about this because north korea has the capabilities to undertake some terrible things so you can not dismiss it but there is obviously some rhetoric

here. the messages are meant for internal audiences. he is trying to develop this new leader, is trying to develop a cult of personality to burnish his credentials with his people. he is also sending a strong signal to the new government in seoul, korea, and united states and its national security team as well as to china which is one of its supporters. there is a lot of dynamics going on here. melissa: how dangerous is the restarting the facility itself? some reports early on said this was, they were just creating energy. that is why they were restarting it. others now more rhetoric saying it is more weaponry. what do you believe is really going on in there? >> well it is just the latest step for them to ratchet up the pressure. remember, melissa, my view north korea has a basic foreign policy of brinkmanship and blackmail. they push things to the edge hoping to get concessions from china, from south korea, and from the united states and unfortunately they have in the past. so there is this moral hazard where governments have rewarded bad

north korean behavior. this is the latest. they have promised them to make seoul a sea of fire, to nuke new york and washington, et cetera, et cetera. melissa: right. >> this is just the latest thing. now at the basic level you have to be concerned that they may have the ability to build more nuclear weapons but there are other things afoot i'm acally more worried about. melissa: like what? >> for instance, north korea may have a uranium based program. in fact we know they have a uranium-based program for building nuclear weapons. the pruitt tone yum plant can build one nuclear weapon a year but a rue rain yum program can produce a lot more than that also north korea is developing a mobile intercontinental ballistic missile which will increase survivability and mobility of their nuclear force. there is a lot o bad ns. melissa: we like to follow money on the show called "money". tell me why they may be producing these things or to sell them to iran? >> they do have, that's a very good point. they have a nuclear

cooperative and missile technology cooperation with iran. last fall they signed a scientific cooperation agreement. and my belief that nuclear and ballistic missile materials, technology, know ho are flowing back and forth between iran and north korea. think about it. north korea's successful ballistic missile launch in december could be based on what iran's capabilities. they were able to put a sallite into orbit a few years ago and now north korea has a nuclear weapons capability and i think iran would be interested in that as well. melissa: china, japan, south korea among our biggest trading partners. we're always talking about how the economy in china is holding up so many of our companies here in the u.s. what could be a ripple effect in the region here as this situation and the rhetoric seems to really spiral out of control? >> i mean i'm not a business person but i understand that, you know, capital is a coward and it will flee. and you have some of the largest economies in the world in northeast asia. china number two. obviously u.s. number one.

japan, number three or four. uth korea, 10 or 12. taiwan, 12 or 14. i mean there's a lot going on in at that part of the world and obviously instability wouldn't be good for business. this is something people have to be concerned about. melissa: kim jong-un is a real wildcard. we don't really know what he is capable of at this point. he is sort of a mystery. we'll have to talk about this more later. peter, thanks so much for coming on. >> thanks for having me. messa: time for today's fuel gauge report. arkansas is opening investigation into exxon's pegasus pipeline spill. it wants exxon to preserve all documents and information regarding the accident. approximately 10,000 barrels of oil were released. forecasts for rain are expected to complicate the cleanup. speaking of pipeline, the keystone xl is getting strong report in a -- support in a new poll. pew reports that 66% of americans want the pipeline approved, including 54% of the democrats. new gasoline rules from thepa will cost valero

energy dearly. valero says it will spend $400 million on upgrades and equipment construction alone. shares of the oil refiner tumbled more than 6% today on that news. all right. it is the biggest legal battle yet over michael jackson's death. his family is suing one of the world's largest concert promoters for $40 billion dollars! wow! how strong is their case? we'll talk about the details next. cutting the cord on robocalls for good. the winner of robocall they joined us with their robocall killing solution. that is coming up. "piles of money", straight ahead. ♪ . [ male announcer ] how can power conmption in china, impact wool exports from new zealand, textile producon in spain, and the use of medical technology in the u.s.?

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. twe price. invest with confidence. request a prospectus or summary prospectus with investment information, risks, fees and expenses to read and consider carefully before investing.

melissa: it doesn't matter what time it is money is always on the move. look at shares of magic jack. look at that! they're skyrocketing after-hours. the company provides local and long distance calling over internet. you've seen the ads. it reported record earnings for the fiscal fourth quarter a short time ago. wow, investors are loving it. making money. could be the biggest case of its kind. michael jackson's family is suing concert promoter aeg live for $40 billion for wrongful death. jackson claims the company negligently hired dr. conrad murray to care for jackson leadings up to his death.

she claims aeg live pushed the king of pop too hard to prepare for this is it tour. jury selection began today. the result could have big implications when it comes to liability and who pays. nicole devore is a criminal defense attorney. nicole, nice to see you again. the question we all thought when we saw the story, 40 billion. how do you get to that number? what do you think? >> i think that will be a challenge, especially considering the fact we don't really know how much longer his career was going to last or what place in his career michael jackson was at the time. really before they get the question how much money is at stake they have to get the question whether or not there was any liability on the part of the company. so, you know, really a secondary issue despite the fact we're talking about a large amount of money. melissa: that is attention-geting. the show is about money so we have to talk about money. let's get to liability as you said. that is where it feels like they maybe have a little bit stronger case because they

did hire and pay for the doctor. so in a way, i mean, aren't they responsible for what he did? >> well that is an interesting question because a lot of types when you have are these, the stars asking for certain things in their contract and, if this particular caswhat he was asking for was a particular doctor for a particular reason and the concert promoter simply just acquiesced and gave him exactly what he was after, it may not be enough to put liability onto the company. now if the company on the other hand was replacing the doctor's judgment with its own decision-making about what could and could not be done by the doctor, that may be a very different question. melissa: he is serving four years in jail for involuntary manslaughter. does that help or hurt? because it me, you know, they paid for someone who then provided service that, you know, was tantamount to manslaughter. so it seems like that does sort of change the case. >> exactly and it actually changes the case in my opinion in favor of the company in the sense that a person can't anticipate

criminal conduct of another party when there is really no reason to suggest that the doctor in this case would behave in a criminal way. and he has been found criminally responsible for this conduct and the company certainly will be saying, how would we know that he was going to commit a criminal act? we can't be held responsible for his actions when they are criminal in nature. melissa: well, are they responsible researching what kind of doctor he is? for knowing that he was so lenient he would provide someone th anything he wanted or didn't seem warranted. or he didn't have the right training. he would administer this bizarre drug in this dose? don't they have to do some background work? >> i think that certainly what jackson's team will be asserting. they did have responsibility to d some kind of due diligence. on the other hand i think that the company's lawyers are going to be saying, you know, look, we just gave mr. jackson exactly what he asked for. we didn't go into any questioning why he wanted it. we just assumed that he had done the research himself and knew what he wanted. >> i don't, you have a legal leg to stand on with that.

if he wanted cocaine and provided to him, obviously wouldn't they be liable for that? i'm not a lawyer. just say that because a star wanted something and you provided it and paid for it you're not responsible. i mean that seems like, there is a lot of holes in that? >> well, it could be if what they were asking for, what the star is asking for something clearly illegal on its face you definitely have a different issue. in this case he is asking for a doctor and having a doctor is not illegal so. may be they assumed that he was asking for this person for a safe and intelligent reason. melissa: what are the odds they think they settle for much smaller number? aeg live is saying 40 billion is in a preposterous numberause his career was in downward spiral at this point. is there some number they settle at? this he have to weigh how much it will cost the them in court. is a team of lawyers to invest in these issues. it could be on appeal for years. they have to decide how much

the legal battle will cost us and at some point we'll settle for some amount less than that in order to avoid protracted litigation. melissa: nicole, thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me. melissa: the fcc picks the winner o the robocall challenge. will robocalls be killed off for good? the winner joins us with their solution next. at the end of the day it is all about money. this is america.

we don't let frequent heartburn come between us and what we love. so if you're one othem 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: now a "money" update to a story we brought you mohs ago. so everyone hates getting robocalls and the federal trade commission actually launched a contest with a $50,000 prize to anyone who could successfully stop those annoying calls forever! well they have done it. today the ftc revealed it was a tie. two winners each get 25,000 bucks. aaron was one of the winners with his no mo robo technology. i like that. he joins me with a attorney for the ftc division of marketing practices. welcome to both of you. aaron, let me start with

you. explain how your technology works. my understanding is that it simultaneously rings in two places. how does that work and then what happens? >> sure. you know when you're a kid and your home phone would ring and everybody runs to the phone to be the first ones to answer it? melissa: yeah. >> i got that same idea. what if one. peopleun to the phone would be a computer and it would answer it if it was robocaller and hang up. that is basically the idea. melissa: how does it know a robocaller on other end and not somebody you want to talk to? >> when robocallers make the calls they send out thousands of calls for the same time. the program i wrote, looks for all the calls look where there is coming from and going to if it is a robocall it will automatically hang up. melissa: if there is real person, is there a way to do something it bypass the system in case the program makes a mistake. >> that is false-positive. in if detects robocall instead of putting on blacklist. it says you might be a robocaller and asks them to type in a random two digit

number. for human that is easy to do. the call goes through like rmal and robocaller can't do that, and automatically blacklisted at that point. melissa: that is amazing. >> katie, you got more than 800 entries. they were so good you had two tie for first place. were you surprised and how great is the other option? >> we're thrilled with the resus of this challenge. these are absolutely groundbreaking solutions to this problem. first of all, allof the solutions that we awarded they work on all kinds of phones, not just your smartphone. on a particular platform but any kind of a phone. also they had a lot of ideas that we just had never seen before at all. so we were very happy. other solution is wonderful as well. it's a complicated filter that can be applied either to telephone company switches, to smartphone applications or to devices that can go in a consumer's home. melissa: there were some entries i feel like if for some reason this doesn't work, hearing aaron i'm

positive it is going to work. but if for some reason it doesn't you have so many other options to go too here. will i never get one of those horrible robocalls again? >> well, you know our intention here was to stimulate the marketplace and we felt like this challenge worked absolutely to do that. there are really a lot of wonderful ideas circulating out there right now. melissa: yeah. >> we've heard from people who didn't participate in the challenge but said, you know what? through your other efforts i met people. i have hooked up with people. i'm bringing something to the marketplace too. melissa: yeah. >> th will help you and many other. >> aaron, i'm thinking this might have inspired you to think of other problems you could possibly solve. what else are you cooking? what else are you working on? because i have so much confidence in you? i guess i always love making things and solving interesting problems. so i don't know we'll see what the next competition is and i will throw my hat in the ring there. melissa: you're getting $25,000. what did you spend on fixing this problem and what will you do the with money. >> i'm a software developer.

freelance software developer. i do client work all the time. i didn't have to hire a developer. i was able to write all the code. building a business will be a lot of work. i'm looking as the $25,000 as seed money to go bring this solution that is really, really, the market is calling out for it. the ftc has over 200,000 complaints a month that come in about robocalls. and i want to eliminate them all. melissa: fantastic. katie, what other problems do you think you could solve with this contest? you came on the show when you were thinking about doing this. iteems like this has been a wild success. what other problems do you want to solve? >> i mean obviously crowd socing solution is not a one-size-fits-all solution to all public problems. in this case it worked extremely well. and it was a situation where, you know, there was a hard problem. there were some ideas out there that would be helpful in trying to solve it but nobody had really made all of the steps that they needed to bring something to the market. so in this case i think that

crowd sourcing, government prize was the best way to handle it. and i hope we'll see other problems like that soon. melissa: aaron, keep us post what you're doing. >> absolutely. melissa: thanks for coming on. >> thank you. >> thanks. melissa: next on "money," there are stupid taxes and then there are really stupid taxes. dance taxes? actually they still exist in some states. who knew? but critics could soon be dancing on taxes grave. we have the details. you can never have too much money or too much dance. ♪ .

♪ . melissa: all right. time for a little "spare change." today we're joined by goddess, monica crowley. and the amazing arthur aidala. you sound like a magician. >> sound like you're in a good mood. melissa: absolutely. you are amazing. amazing. there you go. that's right. plaza hotel in new york has a new sui entirely devoted to "the great gatsby". the fitzgerald suite has art deco design and features period pieces including images from the movie and author's complete works. the hotel bar will feature

great gadsby themed cocktails and they will have props and cocktails for upcoming movie for visitors to enjoy. when should we go? arthur, are you coming? >> as long as you're paying. >> i le this because the movie is coming out on may/10. it stars leonardo dicaprio and kerry mullally fan. i've seen trailers for the film. sexy and glamorous rouse for like the plaza. people will go to the suite and maybe flock to the hotel when the film comes out. melissa: i will go to the bar. arthur, you do not seem as excited about this do you not love "the great gatsby", one of my favorite novels? >> robert redford? melissa: original one. >> robert redford is hottie, up there with leonardo dicaprio no? i will defer to the ladies but a gimmick, which this is what is coming to bring people and human beings into the plaza. ups and downs in sales.

making it cannot making it, and apartment to a hotel room, the most famous menu in the building is close to. they put down this really cool food build. it was spectacular. going to get bodies in there. if monica is going to a drop down her credit card had decided all hang out. pumps money into the new york city economy. let's make it happen. melissa: now wanted taxes. residents of washington state are protesting a decades old dance tax from the 60's. the dollar was just hit with a quarter million dollars in back taxes. protesters here are dancing and support of repealing the tax. i love it. good revenue for the state? it was like half a million dollars per year, 880,000. >> i personally got caught up in this thing in new york city. licenses as a nice way to call a tax.

so that the york city club about rock-and-roll club watching a band played. the bibitter end. and while i'm watching ice of living. visa, sir, you can't dance. unlike the others the band playing. no, we don't have -- we only have a cabaret lessons. if someone from the city is year and sees you dancing we get a huge financial agrobusiness. are you kidding me? melissa: we're going to play some music. >> you always laugh when i dance. melissa: you are sitting. never mind. i don't want to risk the tax. no private plan -- dance lessons. >> economically sound advice. >> a little awkward. i am for the repeal of any and all taxes. that's cullet the footloose tax. no dancing allowed. come on.

this is such a throwback to a different age. so desperate for cash. and sure there will travel on to the tax. but the people should rise up. melissa: that's not bad. okay. >> i've got my jacket on. give me a break. i'm sitting at a desk with a suit on. i came in close. melissa: and not sure that's why they stopped you from dancing at the bitter end. no, my lord. no, my goodness. let's move on. federal workers will have to take a pay cut fixed automatic spending cuts. lawmakers will give up a single penny of their salaries. lawmakers and the president, by the way, are totally exempt from sequestered that's because of the late -- when the languages bill as written. that is shocking. >> this kind of makes my blood boil. remember when obamacare was being passed, i want to exempt themselves from socialized medicine but inflicted all on the rest of us. they pass these insane

regulations, laws, inflicted all of us, but they want to exempt themselves from it. this is crazy. the 27 amendment prevents congress from automatically giving itself pay raises. you have to do it over an extended amount of time. congress cannot just wake up and say within 24 hours we're going to get a raise. they have to submit it to public approval. the 27 demint net also prevents pay cuts to congress as well. melissa: altogether they can't. >> it really slows it down. not altogether, but the really slows down. we have to work on that ankle. melissa: greatest mayor of york city based on monica's recommendation friday night i saw tony do a one-man show. >> the first thing he did was cut his own salary in half. lead by example. that is what he did. he left office struggling financially because he was mayor for 12 years working at half salary. the bloomberg.