tomorrow. %-all of us will be onrs web, site no night i melissa: i'm france france an here's what's "money" tonig. forget the whistle-blower, should a journalist who leaked secret nsa documents be prosecuted? ongressman peter king says yes. joins to us explain wh us, should employers be able to reject job applicants because theye a criminal history? regulators sue two major companies over it. we'll tell you how the outcome could affect every business in eountry. "who made money today"? let'sust say they're cranking up the music and head banging in celebration. stay tuned to find out who exactly that is. even when they say it's not, it is always aut money.

lissa: starting off tonight, money is not bringing you just the headlines its making the headlines of the last night i oke with former congressman ron pau about his concern that a whistle-blower richard snowden could be the target of u.s. drone stre. >> i'm worried about somebody in our government might kill him with a cruise missile or a drone missile. i mean we live in a bad time where american citizenson't even have rights and that they can be killed. melissa:hat interview went viral with media outlets around the coury picking it up. the question is,ow far should we be going to get snowden? should other be faced with charges like "the guardian" reporterlenn greenwald who broke the story? republican congressman peter king says yes. ipoke to him just a short time ago. melissa: let me ask you. you have been hopping mad about this situation and ron paulas

heard you. as weust said he isn fact, you know, worried that edward snowden could be target o a drone attack. do you think that is tking it too far? >> yeah it is. this whole issues become so hysterical. when republica or conservatives call them spying and snooping, this is absolutely necessary program. it is somethinghat is saving american lives and something totally protected by the courts, totally constitutional and totally in conformance wh law. as far as killing people wh drones, no, i do think every efrt shoulbe made to extradit snowden, to prosecute him, to the fullest extent of the law. what he has des absolutely disgraceful. this guy is not american here remember. he is a defector and possibly a traitor. melissa: not only to be a traitor but done a service? he wanted to bring toight the ffct that many peid not know that the nsa i collecting reco on hundreds of millions of people and saving them over ti, storing them in warehouses, server facilitiein

utah, that could be used at any point in the future, just enormous dragnet i think is bigger than most americans thought, you don't think there is a value in the publi knowing that. >> absely moment. thank god thensa is doing this i'm a beneficiary of this inew york. i saw how this program saved american lives back in two thousand nine with when he attempted to blowp the n york cy subway system. everything they're doing is constitutional, monitored bit courts and in conformce of law. absolutely nothis is one of the worst services any american uld have done. he violated his oath and disclosed information that could put america lives at risk. it is helping al qaeda. how is that possibly a service to the american people? howould that possibly be in y stretch of imagination to service for the american people? melissa: i think it was shocking to te american people when they see things like what is gog on with irs the way the power, ill it leadsds to a climate of distrust. so is there a way to rencile the two things in the mds of americans? at could you say to americans that, to make them feel better

about the fact, maybe i can't trust the rs but i can trust the nsa? >> absolutely. first of all there is no reason for the media to be spreading this disust. the fact there is no comparison tween the irs and nsa. the courts not monitoring the irs. congress is not monitoring the irs the way it does the nsa. the fact is this program is set up is actually a special court to deal with ithere every 90 days the program h has to be reauthored. i have spoken with lawyers who go before this court, how difficult it is. they set very, very strict standards. this is aolutely essential to protect american lives. have people forgotten nine 1 we can not find one instance of american's rights violated. evything is entirely legal and constitional. and talk about spying and storing in secret places in utah, that is roger moore talk ofhe right. melissa: you'v taken itne step further -- >> michael moore. i don't want to besmirch. miael moore.

michael moore talk. melissa: "the guardian"'s glenn greenwald should berrested, implicated? what do you think should happen in the reporters? >> i'm talk about greenwald in particul. shou be prosecuted. an consideration provescution cause of the fact not only did he disclose classified information very damaging to th3 united states, as far as intent he also said he may well release the records of every cia agent and asset around the world which would result in americans and our assets and our sources being murdered and tortured. is is what happened before back in the 1970's when this information wa released and station chf in athens, greece, was murdered. that shows is intent it is to urt america and he disclosed classified information. are limits to every amendmeet. melissa: how do you draw the line to what was done by james rosen and ap? when you say something like that it sends chills to repters ound the world who are trying to get good information out to the public?

how do y draw the line? >> first of all,o right is absolute. we live in a world where you have to make distinctions. james rosen was not attemptin to kill americans. he was not saying he would release information that would put american les at risk. this isomething that should be done in only very,ery selective cases. i'm saying this one where you have someone who disclosed so much damaging information an then is threatening to disclose more information which can result in americans being murdered, that to me shows his intent is to harm america. and this information, again, lives could well be lost because of it. i don't want that on my conscience. melissa: do you rry the american publiis not on your side? you we flogged in effigy on the steps of the can capitol? doou worry about plic opinion with your position on this? >> those lunatics are not representative of the american people. only reason i think the majority of the american people are against te program. i don't think they are. because of hysteria put out by too manyy people in the mia and frankltoo many people in

washgton, too many piticians o never cared enoh to observe this before. who are not focused on terrorism and are fanning fmes. that iesponsib. the purpose of leadership is not rr about some whacko screaming on the steps of the capitol. it is to sa american lives. melissa: damn media. always our fault. congressman, thanks for coming on the show. uniting going on the offense since the nsa scandalroke. google release adler asking the government for permison to publish requests of data. so critics accuse google enabling spying because of their technogy. is google good or evil? remember tat is their motto, don't be evil. with m a privacy and security researcher and stephen hayes from theweekly standard." thks so both of you for joining us. steve, i want t start with you because google is trying to get out there in front of this story. they have put out a public letter to general general asking

if theydattorneyeneral eric holder to publish the transparencyeport wch is supposed to show how many times they refused the government whe the government asked to see the users data. is that compelling or convincing? will it do anything? >> it could google is showing the sco of their involvement in this. by accounts we hea frome lawys ad pple ie ske to, unow,merins wil kely be surisedhat t is notroad. t th is theas tt ogleants t ma a wts toakeliy ritnow use there is sense, there is peeption, i think i it's a misperception that you basical to the the government tacked into theervers ofou know, google and all these other tech companies when that is not i fact what was happeng. melia: let's ask sammy. is that the case? are th tap understood the servers? do they know exactly what's going on? because steve doesn't think so bui believe that the government is really tap underd google servers. i do understand the government is sending subpoenas, search

rrants and now foreign intelligence surveil rans act getting warrantless information and using gag orders to hold google, essentially shut their mouths about what informati ey're leaking to the government. however i don't believe thathe government has basically a back door into google servers or anyone else's where they can just snoop on this information messa: steve, e of the things that makes people really nervous when you loo at the lationship between eric schmidt from gooe and the relationship he had with president obama. he was a key part of the campaign, obama for ameca, designing really the internet-based campaign that reached out through social media so effective to some people. he has gone on and transformed it into sivi is analytics which will help independent and democrat candidates and it fels li use the power of google. is itrong to make all those connection

>> no, thinkhose connections are supported by fact. the tngs you just laid out are all true. i think there indisputable. the question what does that have to do wh nsa? i think there areome people conflating google's democrati activities, the fact they supported democrats, supported this presisident,ith what's happening at the nsa i think the two are separate issues. if you werere a republi stratgift or conservative activist and you had conces that google might have been providing data to the democratic party, to president obama's re-election campaig to help him win, i've talked to republican who is are concerned about that andyou know, raised questions about the extent google might have been helping totally different than iner. think whatever gooe's role is and i think a lot to learn about what it was with nsa. melia: sammy, tere is something scarier having the government in my computer than looking at my phone records. when we hear what te nsa done so far, if they knew who i

caed on what day and how many minutes, not like they're listening to call yet. maybe we'll get there. if they'y'n the computer, looking at myearch and my e-mail, they can actually see my word and tughts and what i was saying and thinking. that is what mak the google thing scarier. do you agree with that? >> absolutely. i think that is really scary. we need to understand this has been happening for long time. there is in the carnivore software fbi employed 10 o15 years ago in various isps where they were able to look at e-mails and other internet information and now who knows what they're getting. again if a gag order is given to company like google themay never, we may never know what information was actually given. only reason, we understand what the nsa's requesting these days is because of this information that was just recently leaked. melissa: yes. >> otherwise we wouldn't have known. >> the problem -- melissa: steve, go ahead. steve, you can have the las word and then we'll fet out.

go ahead. >> problem with some of the stuff theeaks we understand wasnaccurate. i talked to an intelligence official over the last couple days who said that when he first read "the washington post"'s veion of what has been called the prism story, t the one that broke last thursday and involves these internet groups, these tech companies, he said he thought there was a new program he was well are of the program that existed but because the description what was happening was so at odds and so different than the program that he was familiar with, that he had been briefed on, he didn't even recognize the program. so i tnk we've got a lot of learning too what exactly is in the program. melissa: great point. we'll end there. guys, thanks for coming on. >> thanks,elissa. >> okay. melissa: coming up onmoney," should employerse able too reject a job applicant solely based on a crimina background check? two companies are being suedy the feds for not hiring convicted criminals, not hiring criminals.

do you have a problem with that? we took to the streets to see what pple think. i think they should be able to hirehem. i don't think because you have a criminal record that you should be x'd out of

♪ melissa: whether it is on wall street or main street, here's "who made money today." anyone who owns live nation entertainment. the concert promoter scoring a huge legal viitory. a germanicket selleras seeking $900 million in damages over a contract dispute. live nation won the arbitration ruling that snt the stock soaring more than 16%, closi short after one-year high. good for them. meanwhile losing money, facebook. it is unveiling hash tags for the social network. seriously? i mean they are literly just ripping f twitter. was the asterk not available? investors are apparently unimpressed. faceok shares slid -- the hashtag. come on it, was tak! trying to stop wasting money today, espn. remember the 3-d chan they will was supposed to chae tv forever? espn is pulling the plug. there are too few viewers to

keep it running. o wod have thought bling in 3-d wouldn'tell? oh, well. this is something y may be ocked to hear, the federal governmentlapping to huge companies withiscrination suits for basically not choing to hire job applicants with criminal background. the equal employment opportunity commission is accusing dollareneral corporation and bmw america of improperly performing criminal background checks on potential hires. should employers be able to reject a possible employee if they have a cmina past? we went o the street to ask what people thought. take lten. >> if the person is professional and me things heid in his past or his professional life. >> i think any criminal rord justified for any private mpany that wants to he any employee. >> depend how serious the crime is. > i thinkt depend on the industry. i think for the financial industry there is obviouslyany sort of misdemeanors or anything involving money that is probably

a pretty good red flag. melissa: here to weigh in, is seth a business lawyer attorney d ty, the chief operations officer at take the interview. nice to have you both on the show. seth, i want to start with you, what spefically wasllegal abt what the companies did i feel like when i applied for the job it asks have a criminal record, that seems pretty standard. what did they do wrong? >>ssenally what ty did wrong they applied procedures criteria whether someone was ever convictedf a crime. for the two coanies th allegedly considered that and since they decided the didn't wa to hire anynyone convicted of a crime they have bee attacked by eeoc in two separate lawsuits in district court there are paiul ironies here. the first irony, they're not acsed o intentionally discriminang again abody. they're accused of muddled claim call diarate impact where they use criteria where the government says has effect potentially of impact on minorities.

the other irony they're between a rock and hard place. if they apply the criteria they get sued by the eeoc. if they don't apply i a allow someone convicted to come in and they create a problem or someooe gets harmed at the wor place then they could get sued for wrongful retention or hiring. >> they can wow, that is interesting. ty, that is compelling argument. i also wonder if you're hirin someone to operate a cash register it seems relevant to look to see if they evereen convicted of te crime of stealing money from someone. i don't know, you can't do that and not hire them onhat basis? >> yeah, absoluty. the employ hears every rht to screen based on whether a candidate has a criminal background right? it's cle tha if you're handling money and you're an accountatant and stolen from a past employer you shoul not handle money again and you should be able to screen based on these pretees. >> seth, what is wrong with that? why is that not okay? >> i agree with you completely. the probleme have bureaucrats

in washington, specifically at th eeoc, want to march into the hrepartment, lift up hood on employment manuals on these private e companies and tell thm what to do, to make the judgment casor the companies despite there is no dispute they never intentionally doesrime the against anybody. i think ts ase of power and i thinkases will be ultimately dismissed. melissa: ty, do you agree. >> completely. the gornment doesn't need to get involved who companies want to hire based onheir background and whether or not they hava crimina bkground. obviously when you deal with thin such as race and ethnicit sex, those are areas that the government should get involved but, with background, pertainingo ariminal, that should be a no-brainer. melissa: but, you know, seth, the equal ployment oortunity commissionust have a leg to stand onere because they have gotten this far. >> well -- melissa: seems like, if nothing else this is going to, isn it going to cast a chill so to speak on emplors as they could

go out and look ad backgrounds or do it and stay silent about ? >> you're absolutely right. it will cast a chill. ee was waiting to latch on a case like this. they had statistics they're going ck several years an trying to latch on to that feds e talking outf both side of their mouth. it is not unusual under federal law to look at old convictions. for cerin crime 10 o15 years ago someone could imported that involved a crime withotentially impsonment for over a year. you mean someone can be deporte for a certain crime or i will get sd for hiring them? that is a convoluted in my view. melia:f you he someone convicted of pedophiar atcking a child to work in a nursery school, andhen later they attack a child again without question aren't y liable then to that family, legally? >> you have negligentiring. you have neglint retention issues. you get in front after j juryith a situation like thatnd they

will absolutely crush the company. companies need to have latitude to exert reasonable policies and procedures to make hr decisions. lissa: yeah. >> you're absolutely right. it is really a big problem. this is a trend from the eeoc that we'll have to watch very closely what happens i this case. melissa: ty, what would you tell employers to do right now, look at the record or not? >> i would say, yes, obviously make sure you look at rords, make sure you document well but i think screening based on criminal background is something absoluly, should be aowed and is something that employers have the right to do. melissa: got to do it. gentlemen, thank you so much. >> you bet. meliss here is the "money" question of the day, should employers be able to reject a job applicant solely based on a criminal background check? caused quite a stir online with almost everyoneaying yes. we want to hear frommore of you. facebook.com/melissafrancisfox or twitter @melissaafrancis. coming up on "money" where the irs targeting beg. we'll find out why it is leading

t more questions thannswers. do you ever have too much meyey? ♪

♪ melissa: brandew details on one ofhe other big government scandals. the irs targeting conseative groups. aeport shows that it all arted back in 2010 when low level irs employees in cincinnati saw tea pararty protests on tvnd decided to take a harder look at their plicatns for tax-exempt atus the report al confirms that managers in washington were aware of what wasoing on. joining me now is former indiana senator and fox news contributor evan bye welcome back to the show. >> good to be back. melissa: a lot of details in the latest report. this is elizabeth saying she micromanaged to death. she say that every

correspondence had to be reviewed by washington and by ju the irsad developed this bolo list be on the lookout. they started gathering up all the information and started sending it to washington. at that point does thatean that this debunks this theory it wasewogue officers in cincinnati? soundike it,elissa. pretty clearly was a hairrained scheme. shouldt have been done. le permitting it or authorizing should be held to account. some should lose their jobs, the notion of irs applying additional scriny to groups or indidual because of their political beliefs, it is just plain wrong. melissa: seems logical first thing they sai they were watchingv and see the tea party demonstrators out there demonstrating. wa a second, they recognize one of the names of the group. i snpplication come across my desk. they were looking for tax-exempt status, saying, they werere doi social work. they were not a political group and i'm looking a scree seeing them out there demonststrating. that seems logical.

>> well this has been a gray area and source of some controversy for some time in washington where, groups are allowed to have tax-free status to engage in free speech, express themselves, pursue social causes et cetera, et cetera. what they're not allowed to do is eage in overt political campaigning for a candidate, against a candidate, that kind of thing. when one morphs into thether is really hard to know. it is very task-specific. melissa: do you belie, does it sound right to you they would target an entire group, target right wing, target tea petition as opposed to a broader net? does that sound like the washington you were a part of? >> clearly it was wron as you recall in the aermath of obamacare and smulu bill and all going on in 2009 and 2010, a great counter rction in the country. a lot of these groups began springing up. so i think if it had been one or two or three it would have been one thing but suddenly they're starting to get dozens and dozens of them. a number of political figures,

prominent, the groups are say lighting the law up to no good. whether they came up withhis on their own or people sai we should look io it, that is what we need to get to the bottom of. melia: we need to figure out what the source is that is concern for loft people now there are some scandals evy day this one guests lost and we don't ever find out what the genesis was. do you have faith we'll find out the source of ts? >> you know, i do, particularly with cgress being divided. thhouse of representatives is controlled by a party that is not, same party that conontrols the administration. they're having hearings. they took statements that serve as bases i ffr some articles you're referring to. i think we'll get to the bottom. the fbi is investigating. the fbi will not go into the tank for the admistration. i have a fair degree of confidence because of melissa, quote-unquote scandals this will have the greatest legs and resonance with american people because everybody interacts with the irs. i hate to say it politicians and reporters are not in such high favor with american people, they

don't care about us but the notion of government gog through your tax returns, using political lens that gets pele's attention. melissa: i can' believe that but i feel like more and more we foun the b apples, it is these three bad apples we'll fire the people and it is all better. i don't know that the american public would be satisfied with that would you be satisfied with answer that it started with this group of people, five or six, we've gotten rid of them and now we're better? or is it a systemically problem where there needs to be change within the laws the way the irs operates? >> that's a great question. my opinion it will be formed by whater the facts are. ther will be a thorough investigation. the house ofepresentatives controlled by republican party willnvestigate. fbi, which is a pretty credible organization will invesgate. let's see what they come up with at the end of the day statements are taken under oath. people have to tell theruth, otherwise they're perjuring themselves. th we'll know whether the la needs to be changed or whether this is all there was and we need toet to more. melissa: i he it was.

but i hope it is not buried b other scandalals. senator, thanks very much. >>reat to be here. melissa: there are plenty of little-known opportunities still out there. i think it is enough to complete transform our economy. i do. energy legend t. boone pickens is here with his newest outlook. "piles of money" and lots of oil coming up. ♪

messa: no matter what time it is money is always on the me. shares of safeway rocketing upward of a hours. it is sli canadian operations to sobe's for 5.7 billion u.s.olrs. it includes 213 safeway stores in canada. that stock is up 13%. good for you, investors. >>cod fracking be the calyst tha turns our entire economy around? some analystsay unconntional illing could create 3 million high-paying jobs in the next decade. it is clear we need to do something big to get america back to work. where are thmost promising fracking plays right now? let's ask the man who knows, t. boo pickens. so good to have you back on the show. >> thank you. melissa: so this is my theory. i think that frking could really be our tng. thatin the past when we've seen this big structural shift in the economy where all of a sudden millions of jobs

disappeared and don' appear to be coming back we' eith had r or the internet crop up.3 we had some huge shift that created a new industry. do you think fracking and shale could be that industry in the u.s. that could get us going agai >> the, you know,he industry has don a veery good job and i'm not up here stumping for the instry but at the same time recognize what's been accomplished. but you came out of the tech period an a lot of information developed in the tech period was, went over to the oil and gas industr fracing has been one of the things that we've gained from some of the computer technology and all. plus, horizonl drilling but the oil and gas industry, you sa three mlion jobs by the end of the dade, ihink that is, is doable. t could even be more than that but there are jobs there all the way upm, you know, say, up from truck drive's a good job but you've got js, rough nk,

truck drivers, y've got all kind of jobs all the way to the top. so the industry hasone, i think, a rherantastic job. melissa: absolutely. especially when you loo at @ages, we went and tried to break down what these people were making especially fol at home may be out of work from construction or oer fields ying to figure out what to do. according to the bls the average wage for all workers in the fracking industry is $51 an hour. that is the average. white-collar jobs li petroleum engineers can get 35 to $67 per hour. skilled and semiskilled workers, $20 and up. you're someone with so much experience down in texas in the field, seeing people out there. if you're an unemployed construction wker, can you make the traps significance? is it too late if you're an adult, can you retrain and find a job in the fracking andhale

industry? >> well, no, i mean there's opportunity continually. i speak to college stunts quite a bit that are majoring in geology and petroleum engineering and i was over at smu aonth ago and i said, i can tell you you have picked the right career in geology or petroleum engeering. there is so much energy, so much resources. if youook around the world, e countries that are doing the best are countries that are using their own resources and the unitedtates has ample resources to take caref o needs. so what an opportunity for all of us. but, it's, you know, if t energy industryas done o thing they probably created too many jobs someplace but you hav30 states, y have 30 states now that are producing states. and when i started in the industry years ago there were nine producing states. so that's three times as many

today producing oil and gas as there were when i started melissa: yeah, absolutely. you wer way out in front of this. iemember many years ago when you said natural gas f transportation on a show i was doing, and got a bunch much e-mail afterwards saying what? is that even possible. i thinkhe was mistaken, he met gasoline. >> i know it. melissa: y were way out in front of this. so if you are an investor right now where are there opportunities that aren't hot ye what a you looking at next i thisndustry? what, either, businses or areas orocations? wh is the thing tt people haven't discoverethat you're looking at? >> well, today, you know, people see natural gas at 3.76 cent today. asia, $15. europe, $15. thpre has to go u get on the supply side. let me tell you there is a lot of natural gas in the united states. the price will go up. it will not be a runaw price i

can tell you that. there are only 364 rigs running today on natural gas. four years ago there were 1600. those rigs all moved over. they're drilling for oil now. but when the price of natural gas gets up to $5, we' put more rigs over off the oil area to the gas area again. $6uts damn near everything back to work. but, and so, $6. -- $6. let me give awe comparison, on btu equivalency, oil at $100 a barrel, natural gas would be 16. it is 6 to 1 on a btu parity basis. so heryou are,ith, you know, with the price of natural gas, it's just a fraction. melissa: it's a tiny fraction. it's a ty, tiny fraction wt you' paying to get the same energy from oil. boone, you're so right. thanks for coming on.

we appreciate your time. >> thank you. i enjoyedt. melissa: coming up on "money," need some extra days off to take a wk-long beach vacation? oh, yeah. at one company that is no problem. employees can buy and sell time off. we talk to the compa how this idea can revutionize vacation tile everywhere. at the end of the day, it is abou vacation days. know your payeck. never mind. ♪ we went out and asked pple a simple question: how old is the oldest person you'venown? we gave people a sticker and had them show us. we learned a lot of us have known someone w's led well to their 90s. and that a great thing. bu evethough we're living longer, one thing that hasn't changed much is the official retireme age. ♪ he question is how do you make sure you have the money you need to enjoy all of these years. ♪

♪ melissa: whoays you can't buy time? want a few extra days off work to hit the beach? who doesn't? maybe you rather not take all the timeff than you're allowed. more companies give employees to buy or sell extra vacationime. it is a novel idea. kind of feel li it could bafire though on employers. chicago based manufacturing company usg is among those offering employees this option. the senior ve president of human resources brian cook and project analyst lindsey sandal join me now.e exactly how this wos. i mean it is kind of like the flex accounts, right?

a the beginng of the yr you can make a decision. es it have to be at the beginning of the year? >> itoes have to be at the beginning of the year. first of all thanks for having us on the show. we're eited to talk about this. this is something we've been doing for over 20 years. interesting see how much interest has grown in the concept ju recently but when employees enroll for their benefits on an annual basis they get the option to buy or sell a week of vacation. theyake that electioin the fall preceding the year which this is going to happen. so they can, if they, i'm sorry. melissa: yeah, no. one of the problems with flex benefit accounts sometimes you go ahead and you buy te, you buy something, whater i is like health cce expenses and then at the end of the year you haven't ud money so you lose it. is that how it works as well, and buy a week and don't spend by the end of the yr you just lost tha money >> i guess in theory but w haven't ally had that issue with employees. they schedule it like any other vacation. we make sure we work it into the schedule

melissa: the main problem that see when the economy is down, it seems like everybody would want to sell back their vacation days. all of a sudden you wwuld have given almost the whole company a raise. has that been a problem? >> t hasn't. about half of the employees elible t do this buy a week every year. may not be the same half but about 50% of the employees buy a week and that's bn conant really asong as we've hadhe program. some people sell a week but it is much fewer. that has not ally risen in the last few yea. melissa: brian, what happens if everybody decide they allant time offn a given yr? everybody wants to go to the beach at the same time so they all buy extra weeks for summer, anall of your company is a ghost town,you could roll a tumbleweed in the middle. that is a big problem. around here we need angst cos when everybody takes time off. it's a big problem. >> at that time we allowed people to buywo weeks. after a few years weehad to

restrict it with to one week. even wit one week if half employees by a week, we fit it into the schedule. it is not a major issue. melissa: lindsey is this aig benefit that makes you want to stay at this company versus others? >> absolutely. i never have a problem using my vacation. thais certainly not an iss but joining us. sg four years ago i've taken the benefitvery single year. it allows me togo on vacations t see my family scatted across the u. otherwise i migh notit in all the weddings and baby showers, 80th birthday parties. it's a great advantage. melissa: do you feel like you're basically taking more time off an yourmployer wants to you do? if you're buying extra vacion da to me it would mean i'm not at work as often when they want me t be. maybe when it is time for a new contract or deciding maybe putting someone els in my spot i've taken all the extra days off so i look like i don't

really want to be there don't you worry about that? >>ott all. ike brian said, over half of the population takes an extra vacati wee and usg is really flexible. it is definitely not seen as trimental to your career, thank goodness. melissa: okay. i don't know. you might be getting a lot much job applications after this terview. thanks for both of you coming on the show. we appreciate your time. >> great, thank you so much. melissa: coming up onmoney," when you run something on solar power youight want to think ho often it gets cloudy, right? just a thought. but apparently a thoht th was apparently lost on the guys behind city bike. how it is creating a mess for new york city's bike-aring program. that is next on spare change. you can never have too much solar power obviously. ♪

♪ melissa: it is time r a little fun with "are cnge." to their rick joined by our all-star team. thanks to both of you for joining us. that music, land. i thoht it was fabulous.

>> see nt netrk. country stars. >> i'm with you. mess fst up, my favorite mayor is at it again. bloomberg is tryyng to save the city from a climate change. this p plan and cost about 0 billion. one of the proposals is to build a sustainable island on manhattan' lower east se to shield the city from bad weather. riously? is it possible to fully protect the city fromxtme weather? you are a weather expt. by justice sam. >> first of all, $20 million. -o dr. evil. i will say to my think we have one on the west side, batte park city. it takes i all the bad weather. so, east side, take my bad weather, lower east side. >> so ridiculous and grandiose. this is delusional on the part of the mayor. this is not aimed at keeping

safe this ishe mayor's own ego. one thing i resent is this instant assumption now, almost politicay incorrect to have any doubt about climate change. did you know tha last year in 2012 u.s. carbon emissio went down to 1992 levels. the tornadoes that happened this year have nothg to do a3 climate change. i mean, they do. melissa: 99% of all sentists agree. >> well -- melissa: we were debating how lame mayor bloomberg is. i'm not debating it. >> where is your seven? this one surprisingly because on soda and big macs and salt and everything else, when is this guy leaving? >> this man wan to run for president. melissa: another o of my favorite mare's grea ideas.

no one involved thought about e downside to solar per. so the bike still work when it's cloudy out because the doctor solar powered. on gray days writers either can't get the bugs out of the teterminals or put the back a a. how was this not work done before they rolled out the program. it's not always sunny area. >> as entrepreneur did this a matter figured out, because government did it they don't bother. who ll bother. way for the losses to come in because they don't prode helmets. melissa: these tngs aren't working. so they're getting ston by the truckload. >> and getting crged. at know anyone who hasried this. everyone is complaining. >> they'relways over half full. of think anyone is even nting them. melissa: they're gone now for a

nice try, buthey're walking -- blocki all thisraffic. >> here's the thing. go to central park an get a bite the way people have been for a hundred years. melissa: saw in case you're wondering who the next steve jobs is, it's tiny west. a controversialapper actually sa in an interview ," i am undoubtey, you kw, steve of internet downtown, fashion, culture byline job. i'm not even sure what that meant. somehow peopleot out of that that he is steve jobs. tennessee even come up with this stuff? >> he is -- how low he goes. and the onehing he is right about, steve jobs for all is brilliance some people thought that he was a jerk. no he's showing that he is an incredible jerk. >> areard and st rule, if you have anything to do with the kaashian, i'd want to know you. >> accounted. the new york times interview.

he uses the word, and i was like 34 times in this interview. the new york times uses six times. melissa: we ha to go. ♪ >> in the '50s,@ ere was a new sound. >> @♪ wake up, litt sus @ ♪ wake up @ >> it had rhythms and lyrics that spoke to us. >> @♪ maybellene ♪ why can't you be true @ >> and all across america, radio statio gave us the latest hits. >> @♪ well, you can rock it,@ you caroll it ♪ ♪ do the stop and even n strollt at the hop @♪ >> there was chuck berry,@ jerry lee lewis, buddy hol,@ and of coue,he king. >> @♪ell, since my baby left me ♪ ♪ well, iound a new place to dwell ♪ ♪ well, it's down at the end of lonely street