philosophers out there. but you right be right. bottom line, it is happening that deadline is close. maybe they wi long. > money with melissa francis is next. melissa: i'm melissa francis and here's what's "money" tonight. the irs has been doing such a great job. itits employees are getting $70 million in bonuses. waitwhat? how on earth is this possible? congressman john mica tells us if insanity can be stuff stopped >>can money be pulled out of politics forever. owner of ben & jry's will be here to tell us now. "who made money today"? not even a recall could stop him from making money. not sure who it is? stay tuned and find out. at the end of the day it is always about money.

melissa: we start with a brand new irs shocker today. reportsre out that the disgraced agency is about to pay out $70 millioin bonuses to its employees. i know, is scandal louse, piling on to the orageous stories we've been reporting one after another. here with reaction is congressman john micaho is on the oversight committee for government reform as well. welcome back to the show, congressman. >> good to be with you and bad to hear this latt nnws on the irs. melissa: yeah. $70 million. it is shocking. the irs notified the employee union n on march 20ifth it intendedo reclaim $75 million set asideor bonus. then all of a sudden there is renegotiation of at some point. now they're giving70 million? do you feel good hng saved five milli? >> we'll try to do everything we can to keep them fro going through.

both omb, the office of management and budget, had directed the agencies not to give these bonuses, parcularl when we're furloughing peopople. we're in the financial situati that we're in. then you h have an agency that s sp out of conol, whether it is targeting political groups. last week we did a hearing on spending outrageous sums on these cventions, speakers, gifts for that employees. melissa: right. >> and now they want to give $70 million which is not warranted or really required under, under their labor contract. lissa: let's dig into that a little bit. is it required? because the irs says that it is under al obligation to comply with its collective bargaining agreementhich specifies the terms by which awards areaid to bargaining unit emploes. but at the same time, you know, chuck grassley says that the fact that the original agreement allows for reappropriation of such award funding in the event

of a budgetary short fall. so which is it. are they required to give them or not? >> first of all we believe, senatorrassley and i agree, that the terms of the agreement that they were working under allowed us to take the money back. if there was a problem with finances. if we don't have a problem with finances, these folks must be on other planet. melissa: right. >> they have been quietly negotiating hyped closed doors i think to cut another deal with them and give them the money but i'm tellingou, this is causing a ruckus in congress. melissa: yeah. >> and the american people can't be happy that an agency that has spun out of control, now they're going to reward folks with bonuse >> no, i'm sur people at home are asking, is the reason why they should n get the bonuses because we have financial problems in this country and the se kester and -- sequester and people can't tour the white house or is the reason they shouldn't get the bonuses

because the irs is doing a whole lot of things wrong right now? >> right now we're debating just a few feet fromere on the floor of the house, we're debating whether to cut nutritional programs for children and elderly in the country and here theyant to give, they're negotiating behind closed doors to give 70 million in bonuses to an agency that has been a poor performer at the very best. so i think we're going to stay on this we're not going to let it happen. and it is good that it came to light at this point so we can help stop it. melia: conspiracy theorists are saying, this is all par o a larger cover-up. that these emplees were thrown under the bus and blamed for things that maybe came from higher up the food chain. and now this is hush-money. how do you feel about thoseind of accusations? it's a conspiracy theory but it is out there. >> i honestly don't know. we'll get to t bottom of it. if you think it's bad this week, next wednesdaye're going to do a hearing on procurement gone wild in irs. a contract that will shock the

american people. so, this week it's giving bonuses to poor performers and last week it was irs spending outrageous amots of money. melissa: right. >> for conferences a so the saga continu. unfortunately for the american taxpayers. melissa: it does and of course before that it was the targeting of conservative groups and their tax-exempt status. that keeps piling on. what are t chances that we see real reform hereecause the american people don't want you to get distracted by whater the latest spending scandal is and not get real reform that changes the way business is being done at the irs? >> sometimesout of bad comes some good because it certainly sparked interest in the irs and maybe some true reform. i know chairman dave camp of the ways and means committee is now getting support for looking at a complete revamping and many other countries have gone to much simpler systems rather than adding pages ad pages of tax

law to simplify. go to a fair tax. go to a tax that doesn't require this 90,000 employees we currently. melissa: right. >> adding ten to 15,000 more for obamare enforcers. lissa: it is crazy. congressman, thanks for comin on >> good to be with you, thank you. melissa: coming up o "money," the largest doctor's group in the country says obesity is now a disease. it could make your health insurance bill as whole lot chunkier. > plusolding steady doesn't always keep things calm. there are two big winners and two big losers from today's fed decision. find out who they are. stick around, more "money" straight ahead. ♪

♪ melissa: so as if health care costare not going up enough, a new obesity diagnosis could hit us all where it hurts. the american medical association just classified obesity as a disease. now insurance premiums could get even fter. here so toll us what it means and how much more we may have to pay is dr. sue dakotis. she is a medical weight loss specialist. ctor, thanks so much for coming on the show. >> thank y. melissa: what does it mn tt

it's a disease? that yo can't control it? that its inherited? what makes it different? it's not your fault? >> it is really not. there is a stigma attached to overweight and obesity. it is souch more than lifestyle or will pow. now we spend over $300 billion a year in the u.s. on health care costs. and this inclus doctors visits, surgery. but just think of absenteeism from work, decreased productivity. melissa: what does it mean that it's a disease? does it mean that you, what does that officially mean as a doctor? >> what it means is, it is a your morbidity.can really hurt can increase mortality. and its something that is very devastating for all of bottomed did i systems. and it must be treated seriously. u don't wanto just wait to treat theomplications, which is what wee been doing. we've been waiting until someone had heart disease. melissa: it is disease what followon afterward not prone

to how you are doing to get it? >> it's a combination of things. no matter what you've done you have the disease it has to be tated. >> doeshat mea things used to treat it are covered by insurance? when we say health premiums are gng up. we're wondering if it means that if it is classified as a disease insurance companies are obligated to cover lap band surgery, medical weight loss drugs, going to he gym, all those sorts of things? >> melissa, they have been covering weight loss surgery for a long time. melissa: but they don't cover di pills. i read again and again, docto have to lie or fibr stretch the truth to coveriet pills. >> they have not bn covering, they are not covering appetite suppressants. yes but if we can treat patients and keep them healthier we'll cut our costs back dramacally. melissa: what we said with obamacare. we'll add a bunch more people and add more stuff and it would cost ss because pple would be healthier and there would be more healthy people in the

system and that didn't happen. >> that is the way it was set up. but i say with these conditions, these are serious. they're not gng to go away. this is not just an administrative program. melissa: yeah. >> you have millions and millions of americans who are obese and have obesity related conditions. so we really have to focus on treating obesity, preventing it so that people don't get all these complications. melissa: where do youraw the line? how do you define who is obese? in the past body mass index has been used. there is so much criticism. >> yes. melissa: you could be certain height and weight and a lot of muscle and very healthy and by virtue what you weigh in that combinatioyou are consided obese. is bmi is good measure orrwe have to do something else? >> we he to do something else. i have a medal weight loss in manhattan, what i use a special scal to uses bio electrical impedens to improve your body fat. we sur they lose weight they're

not losing muscle or too much water, et cetera. that is very important. melissa: it is related to ow much fat you have? >> body fat percentage, absolutely. melissa: what does this mean down the road if it is classified as a disease? do you think that means there wi be more medical drug coanies that flood in to try to come up with solutions because the potential gains from surance which may go up, we're debating that here but there will be more money for them to reapf it's a diseasend they can, those kinds of things are covered, maybe we'll come up withew technology? >> yes. i think there will be a lot of growth in the prite sector just related t this disease. a lot of people are worng on hormonal treatments. they're working on science and different types of things that affect the fat sells themselves and those are really the causal agents in obesity, if you're ver 20% of your ideal weight your fat cells in your abdomen take on their own life and becomeorg bans that do a lot of bad things in your body. a lot of are we'll have big

growth. big pharma will come in to develop more medicationses. the fda will push them a little bit because of the disaster with fen-phen in 1996. melissa: thanks ry much for coming onhe show. we appreciate. >> thank you. >> it is our "money" question of the day, should obesity be considered a disease if health insurancers would pay more for treatment? everyone ss no. it got everyone reconciled up. contact on fast bo.com/melissafrancisfox or follow me on twitter, @melissaafrancis. we have thbig winners and losers from today's fed decision. see right here if you're one of them. liticians love money almost as muchs i love a huge scoop of chocolate chip ice cream. -@ben & jerry's cofounder, ben cohen, is trying to ri politics of money forever. he will tell us all about it. i hope heoesn'take my ice

cream away. we wer talking about obesity, now we're talk about ice cream. do you ever have too much money or too much ben & jerry's in no y. a big chunk of chocolate chip right there.

♪ melissa: whether it is on wall street or main street here is "who ade money today." elon musk and anyone who owns tesla. not even a recall could beat it down. tesla is recalling up to 1200 of its model s sedans saying a rear seat latch could malfunction in a crash. investororjust shrugged off the news with sharesising 1%. must la owns 22 million shares of tesla. thateans he made $35 million today. talk about a winning streak. losing money today, geor zimmerman appareny men's

wearhouse doesn't like the way he looks anymore. he has been fired from the company that he fired. simmer is the face of the ads. investors weren'happy with the news. shares fell as much as 6% today, before closing down. who wi do the commercials now? making devilishly good mon today, ozzy osbourne and black sabbath. they topped the billboard charts r the first time in 43 years. never say die guys. what has really changed. for the fifth time ben bernanke says though the economy sim proving they're stickg with the 85 billion a month bond buying program for now. but in sorting through his intentionally confusing remarks the market got worried the punchbowl would go away and all we would be left with is a hangover.

bond sold off too. there are winners and losers. we'll tell you where youit in. joining me now harvard economics professor, jeff marron. thks for coming on the show. >> nice to be here. melissa: first and foremost, i watched the whole entire thing and the press conference afterwards. my goodness, it w long and boring but the markets gyrated up and down and they got something out of it. what did you make of the whole exchange? what was your take away? >> my overall take is that the fed is saying that they see the economy gradually improving and the market data and market forecasts and all th are saying the same thing. so th means it is getting harder and harder for the markets to convince themselves that these low rates are going to last forever and everybody's own for a long time, they can't quite last forever. but that date will happen whether two years or three years away, somehow you can ignore it. maybe it's a yr away or maybe even less. when that happens there will be hugedjustments in the values

of financial assets. there will be winnersnd losers. so i think that is what got the markets upset in the second half of today. melissa: definitely isn't how he manages the does mou. so far almost no one is confident that can be done smoothly. he said they were very much holding out the unemployment threshold of 6.5%. they wouldn't do anything before that happens. he think it is will happen sometime in 2014. do you think that is optimistic? >> well, in terms of the forecast of when the unemploymmnt rate will hit that 6.5% threshold. that dsn't seem overly optimistic. that seems perfectly plausible. ihink what is optimistic believing that there's a way to undo what the fed has done that doesn't generate huge dislocations of the we jus have a fed balance sheet that is completely out of whack relative to the rest of the ecomy. when they sell, if they do sell all of those treasury bonds, all those mortgage-backed securities, something's got to give. melissa: i'm sure what you heard, what he said we can

simply hold the securities to maturity. there is nothing that says we have to sell them. don't worry, we he it under control. asa professor of economics does that work first they hold them to maturity? >> that means changes, effects on interest rates will be very slow and very gradual and that might help but market see to be dependent now on them not onlyelling off what they already have on their balance sheet but continuing to buy more, this 85 billionr month. melissa: right. >> that really can't g on forever. melissa: yeah. >> i think it is trickier than the chairman made it out to be today. melissa: absolutely. let's get t winners and losers. we promisediewers we wou do this. good news for u.s. treasury and for banks. how come? >> well, wha is happening the fed is buying assets that the treasury is sellingnd assets banks sometimes want to buy. buying those assets it bids up prices and raises value of those on the balance sheets of banks, other financial institutions. it keeps interest rates low and

the treasy can roll over its debt for now at relively low rates that isood news for those guys. melissa: when the rat go up the government has a pblem because th are borrowing money at very cheap rate so that will be tough. >> exactly. and we have a bigger and bigger debt of the despite the fact that interest costs are not contributing to huge amount to the ebt we still have a big debt gting bigger every single year. when interest rates go up there will be a big increase in interest costs and deficits will go up faster. meliss theig losers are savers. interest rates are l and you get no reward for saving your moy. that is too bad, because one of reasons we got in the whole ms in the first pla everybody was buying, buy, and leveraging and not saving. the othr big lose certificate u.s. economy. how come >> i think the u.s. enomy will likely be a loser. more we kp doing qe, whatever the bigger austment and harder it will be to get back to normal. so i think we should probably have stopped it sooner, probably

much, much sooner. longer we keedoing it i think itisk. i think it makes magnitude o the adjustmeneven harder. another way of saying, i think the size of the bubble we probably have in bond prices just keeps going up and up. melissa: professor you're so ear. >> the economy will lose. melissa: you are so clear and make so much sense. i hope you come back soon. >> i would love to, tnk you. melissa: next on "money," can you really take money out of politics? i don't know. ben cohen, the cofounder of ben & jerry's ie cream says yes. heill tell usis ambitious plan to do it. i hope it includes the americone dream. that is delicious. breaking down the cost of imgration. cbo says it will cut the deficit and boost the economy and increase jobs. really? we haveormer cbo director douglas holtz-eakin to crunc the numbers. "piles of moy" coming up. ♪

♪ melissa: no matter what time it is, "money" is always on the move. fans rejoice. microsoft just announcing that they will not require their upcoming xbox one video game system to have an internet connection to play games. this issue has caused a huge stir in the video game community. there is no doubt that news will

help microsoft sell the council. right now investors are gaming board's in don't know what to make of it, but soon there will. from makin as commander montae ending a cold hard cash in the nation's capital and n in the big apple, ben and jerry's co-founder has a new campaign to stamp money out of politics. he is giving away $1 bills stamped with phrases like not to ussd for bribing politicians. ben and jerry are no stranger to funding political causes. the details. is the ice-cream icon himself. welcome to the show. thank you for coming on. >> hi. how are you doing. melissa: what doou think -- thank you. what do you think eogy by stepping these bills and and in the not? in d.c. t irony that you are kind of spending money to influence politics while trying to get people to not have money in politics? they're is a little bit of irony there. >> no, i don't see the irony.

you know, i am kd of fix some times. you know, this is -- this is just bringing attention to the stamp stampede campaign. stamp stampede is a campaign to build public support f an amendment to get money out of politi. melissa: what does that mea you want to getorporations out. you don't want anyone to donate money. i mean, you want a federally funded political campaigns or everybody has the same amount of ney? >> well, i think there are two options. one is limiting contributions from anybody to $100. and the other is having all campaigns kamal federal campaigns publicly funded, federally fund, you know, fund is essentially at no additional taxpayer expenense by closing se corporate tax loopholes. melissa: how much money are you giving away?

at would ba success? would make you feel like it had beenith it? >> you know, i will be giving away a few hundred dlars, but the big thing, the big things that we are bringing down to new york city the amement extent mobile, which is the flagship of the stampede campaign. is a 2-foot high by 14-foot long lou goldberger tight money stamping macne, andnd what this campaign is about is getting tens of thousands of americans to get their own rubber-stamp, like this. i got a rubber-stamp here, rubber stamp here. stamp their own money with this statement, not t be used for bribing politicians. melissa: we have our own money here on "money" that ss "money." we are competing with you. and not sure if i want to stamp my dollars because -- although these are not worth twice as much as yours. i guess it depends on what the bargain i

you talk about wanting to give money and politics, but you are someone who has donated a lotf your own money to politics. you know, according to the federal election commission since 1990 you get paid $110,000 to politics. you have done in your own mey. is there a conflict? >> i don't see any conflict in the least. i mean, i would gladly, you know, limit my contributio to $100 or have -- make it so that nobody can contribute. al the campans are federally financed. but until that system is changed , you have to play according to the current system. melissa: that makes sense. you got a lot of attention for being a pa of the movent resource group which wws -- their goal was to raise $2 million to fund occupy wall street. some of that money going to administrative costs,ome going directly as stipends to people that would essentially be paid protesters tt would -- with

something like that continue? do you feel like that is money in politics? @% well, we are talking about is influencing elections, contributing mon to politicians. melissa: you don't think that influences elections to have big, loud ptesters? i walked through there for months and months going to work. it seemed like tha was influence elections and influencing politics arounthe world. do not feel at cous? >> i am talking about is the system that people call legalized bribery whereby corporations and the richest people in the counnry are donating hundreds of thousands of dollars t politicians in return for polical favors. and that is what we're talking abt in terms of campaign finance reform. melissa: so funding occupyall street would b okay, but y know wha to give money to politicians themselves?

>> absolutely. funding any kind o you know, organization doing whenever is fine. alwe're talking about is not being able to pay politicians to pass laws tha you want passed. lissa: intesting. thank you so much for coming on our show. it i is always a pleasure, and e are all picking up on y screen now for th rest of the eveng. >> tha you. melissa: all right. tuing to a different area of politics now and "money," the real cost of immigration reform, good news for supporters of the senate immigration bill. the congressional budget office estimates that it would cut the deficit, grow the economy, and increase jobs. is it all good news? here to pre a number, former cbo director. welcome back to the show. thank you for coming on. my exact number here. the cbo says that the immigration bill wouldecrease the deficit by197 billionver ten years.

i was fascinated by that precise number. can you back us into that? where does that come from? 197 billion over ten years. >> i think the basic architecture is pretty simple. it is true that if you expand legal immigration to the united states there will be more federa costs. thcbo puts that estimate at about 250 billion. it is also true though that having a larger labor force, bringing the skills and that the bill intends to bring in enhances economic growth. the cbo expects the economy to be about three and a half percentage points bigger, a that translates into more taxable iome and about for under $50 billion in revenue. 450 billn incom of 250 after the deficit down by about 200 million. melissa: a couple of pieces in there you jt said that i can hear people in the audience yelling at the television that people disagree th. number one -- >> let's yelled back. melissa: that's right. bring in skilled workers.

folks on the other side always make the argument that the workers that are coming in as a result of a n immigration would not necessarily be very skilled. so the productivity part of that is not correc. audi respond? >> well, the cbo estimates that the increased immigration will raise productivity, so you have theirstimate. think the important thing to recognize that the u.s. has never had an immigration policy built and economicbjectives. it looks that family reunification, political asylum, refugee status command in this legislation the cbo estimates that half of the increase in popopulation would be for employnt or merit based immigrion. th is a sea change in the way we think about who we bring in, thinking about as an economic issue. melissa: i no -- i appreciate all that, and you are fantastic amount but answer the direct question. if the are not skilled worrs, does it change? >> but they are. so i think they're going to get -- if you look again and find the numbers, a big chunk of the

immigration is high-skild. the high-tech industries, stling green cards, people of the 80's, silicon valley has beeny interested. it is also true -- melissa: what percentage do you thk that is? >> say again,. melissa: what percentage do you think that is to make the audience is yng and tt is a very small -- >> no. think of that as something that is 30 to 40%. think of those pillars 30 to 40% the smallest part, the part in the middle, that is the part that is the least represented in the bill. melissa: 10 llion people coming in. it would increase the population significantly. does that mean as more people come into the country they would be using a lot more services, but there would be paying more tas as well. alloy's wonder how that nets out. is that aet positive or negative in terms of cost? if you stack of how much more co tre would be in terms of

services, you know, social security, everything else the people come in to get food stamps, anything wse is how much taxes being paid because now these folks are legal, so they're payin tax. how does that number night at? >> the net is positive. as the $200 billion reduction in deficits over ten years. i think that is a nrow y to thk about this. woody to evaluate something that is good or b for america by how well t government does. melissa: we are crunching the numbers. >> and i agree with that. melissa: it is a much bigger the session, bute're just looking at the economic benefit in this particular segment. i totally appreciate the idea that it is more. >> the economic benefit -- the other money piece, the private sector money. so an economy that is bigger, buthoand dollars for every man, woman, and child in america. that is important asell. melissa: so, the 10 llion workers coming in, would ty displace current workers? i have my list of all the questions onwitter and everywhere else in 1901 to miss

them. we displacing current workers? 2 million people coming into the country hungry, eager to work. it seems like they're going to rather than been million more workers at hampton million new jobs we don really have those jobs open right now. are they going to despise current workers? >> remember that we grow all the time. 310 million americans in large part because people have babies, grow up in the jobs. the american economy has shown is tremendous -- shown a tremendous capacity to as our natural births and a restaurant history. the same thing would happen here. the important caveat is a genuine concern is we do have a @%d enomy. double-digit with real measures. now, this would take a long while to get geared up, and i shouldope that if you and i having this conversation about money five years from now wre not talking about an economy that is sitting. immigration would be the least ofur problems. we need to evaluate t approach from the perspective of

xing the short run problem and asking how we want to manage our immigration. melissa: one more mat question because i love your brain. when we are looking at interest rates, the cbo projects that interest rates wouldise. two of the interesting fact that came outf this kentuckybove the average wage falling off. that was a little bit misleading because it makes people think that their wages are going down, but actually more wkers are coming in you might be working for low-wage. i was interested in the interest-rate peace. the cbo projects that interest ratewould rise. why is that? >> again, this is all compared to the status quo. don't do anything. even wages would rise. they'reust worrying about how fast. the big insight, yes, it takes workers to reduce dust, but i also takes cital to begin the factories and equipment, ideas, all of the things that financial capital allows corporations to acquire, and if we give more workers we run into a little bit

of a capitol shortage. and when short people have to pay higher interest rates to get which is always going on. melissa: all right. i always say that ron and i apologiz i love having you on the show. i hope you will come back. >> a pleure to be here. styath ain. melissa: perfect. coming upon "money," enough is enough. broadcasting rights byending cae bills soaring and customers of time wner cable are finally rebelling. a class-action lawsuit could cut the cordn high cable bills. you will explain why because at the end of the day it is still all about ice-cream. we are still enjoying our ben and jerry. making a mess. what you doing? ♪

♪ melissa: allis this? your cable providers bins billion securi rights to air games for srts teams a you don't even watch and then charge you to recoup the money. that is exactly what is happening for time warner cle customers in california the goodews, the fight against the cable giant could be the beginning of choosing your channels.

here to explain his attorney nicole the board. thank you r coming on the show what is wrong with this? >> you know, that's the thing. i think that this lawsuit is going to be a difficult one for the plaintiffs are theeople who are suing bause the fact of the matter is if you don't like what you're paying forrom a company you can choose with your dollars to go somewhere else and choose anotherervice provider. i think if enough customer speak up, at some point time warner has to hear the message and spend some money. melissa: i myself have been a victim. the differences -- i say that jokingly, but always sort of. cable has a monopoly on whenever blocked you are on. if you want cable you have a cable provider. there is n a lot of choice. now you can do netflix and other things to meut you cannot have a different cable proder. does that factor in?

>> it absolutely can if that is the circumstae for the particular litigant. for many people there are actually choices among providers. th can get a dish, at&t, another provider. the interesting thing, it's the reverse of wt the people who are suing is saying, y cannot go to another provider to get the baseball game with a basketball game for the teams in question because their the only companies that carry those teams. melissa: that is a great point. so had you think this turns out? it snds like youhink that the plaers don't have a leg to stand on. >> you know, from where i said it looks like this is goingo be a difficult case for the plaintiff to win. that being said, the cable company is apparently spent billions of dollars to get the rise to show the games for the dodgers and the lakers. keep in mind that there will be willing to spend quite a lot of money in order to defend the practice that there currently using th the custors. on the other hand, they may see that the people who are willing

to sue are also willing to go somewhere se for cable. while they may not win the lawsuit, then they get something changed. melissa: it is without question bad pr. "would you advise them? howamaging do you think the pr is? is it worth it tohem to settle or does idid create an avalanche or open them up for other things dn the road? >> i think that they are opening themselves up for quite a lot of litigation. takes time and money and eneegy to defend. theight thing would be to settle with these folks. find a way that they don't have to get the baseball and basketball bundled into wter package they're getti. otherwise they will see possibly increase legislation and legal fees. if peoe want to buy the basketball games or the baseball games, they can simply buy that paage. i think that might be the resolution that the cable company needs to consider. melissa: assuring in new technology. you hate your cable provider, it

makes things like dish, netfl, anything else more interesting. thank you for coming on the show >> tnk you for having me. melissa: up next on "money," should the miami hea. it iss little early to put a two-time champion inside your new sho. why he is tempting,. let's get that. look csely. it is all in "spare change." you can never have too much money. i have to be honest. it's right over there. i'm giving it a second. ♪

melissa: kind of a downer. we are more excited tha that. let's have a little fun with spare change. today we are joined by julie burzynski and doug burns. >> it my pleasure. >> thank you for having me. melissa: first up, checkout the future of this jet by honda. that is right. it isa honda jet. $4.5 million. it's not for everybody, but it can be cheap. itonly takes one pilot to fly it, there is little financial release. do you want to g in o it that is the real question. think it isfabulous.

>> you get like 10 or 20 people. you can do shares. >> i don't get it. it's kind of like it's not like the jetsons thing where you commute. >> whahat is good about it is tt you can landed on a srter runway. >> well, okay. melissa: can you landed on the highway? they say tt it is like the honda civic of planes. it is more compact, butou only need one pilot of in frt. more affordable. >> i can't wait. okay, i'm going to test drive it. okay n oo basketball braggarts. the nba championship isn't over t. but lebron james making a

stunning statement with his new line of nike crosstrainers. i couldn't ma out this picture first, i was scared. but then i realized that that i3 a hand at the top of isss. the two-time champion on it. so doug, i will start with you. is this a smaove caramelize? >> remember millns offpeople wahing, that really tick everyone off. finally he earned t. you don't say that you have two chamonships when you don't. melissa: you are treating about this earlier. >> i really was.

>> guys really kindof a -- i don't really know the word. melissa: you can say anything you want, it is cable. >> if he wins, it's going to look like the best move ever. >> that's great. >> the point is that his risk and reward. if he ws on thursday night, he is good to go. melissa: i don't think he shoud have letomebody photographed okay, onto the next, this

property was for sale i 200. $370 million. do you think the auctioneers were gunning for this assignment? >> it is right there. for those of you who don't live in your comment is right nexto a hospital. you can gon and did a little facelift or whatever you need done. it is very convenient. -p>> you cannot hold it out. you ha to get th first. >> why would you spend money on art if you couldn't get yourself? >> well, in other words, you have to keep your eye on tha one. >> very interesting financial predictionor a segment that is supposed to be more joking or not. >> let's hit the rewind button. melissa: that is all the money

at we hav each night. be sure to watch tomorr. i will beat talking with jeffrey katzenberg. you know, they mak all of those movies that kids love. >> in the '50s,@ there was a new sound. >> @♪ wake up, little susie @ ♪ wake up @ >> it had rhythms and lyrics that spoke to us. >> @♪ maybellene ♪ why can't you be true @ >> and all across america, radio stations gave us the latest hits. >> @♪ well, you can rock it,@ u can roll it ♪ ♪ dthe stop and even stroll it at the hop @♪ >> there was chuck berry,@ jerry lee les, buddy holly,@ and of course, the king. >>♪ well, since my baby left m♪ ♪ well, i found a new place to dwell ♪ ♪ well, it's down at the end