>> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> ifill: it was a record day for wall street today as the dow jones industrial average climbed to its highest levels ever. the dow-- made up of 30 blue- chip stocks-- gained nearly 126 points to close at 14,253. the previous closing record was set in october, 2007, at 14,164. then came the housing crash and the financial crisis, sending the dow spiraling to 6,547 by march, 2009, before its long road back.

several other indexes are also rebounding. the s&p 500 was up 14 points to finish at 1539, within striking distance of its record of 1565, set in 2007. we look behind the rally and these numbers with barry ritholtz, a market strategist, author and c.e.o. of fusion iq, an online research firm. he blogs at the big picture. and matt phillips, who writes for quartz, a digital news site that covers the global economy for atlantic media. is welcome to you both. starting with you barry ritholtz, what's behind this sudden rise? >> well, it's a combination of a number of factors. first and fore most going to be really good earnings that we've seen over the past couple of quarters, past couple of years and a lot of this has to do with the massive intervention of the federal reserve. they kept rates so low it's made it very inexpensive for

corporations to borrow and invest and it's created a lot of liquidity which drives equity prices higher. >> ifill: matt phillips, because of the intervention of the federal reserve, some people are calling this rebound a sugar high. >> well they might have a point but the one thing i would add to what barry said that another reason the markets seem to be catching a tail wind here is that the housing market seemed to be showing real improvement and one way you can see that is as some of the fruit of the fed policy, low interest rates are stimulating people to get back in the housing market. >> ifill: let me stay with you for a minute, there are people who are picking up their 401(k) statements and celebrating and people are back on the computer looking for a job not celebrating, who don't feel like this has anything to do with them at all. do we have two economies here now? >> the stock market does skew towards older wealthier americans and there is a big

difference between the stock market and the balance sheet of most americans. median household income, which is one of the broadest gauges of how households are doing in terms of income is down about 8% from its 2007 peak. so americans have good reason to feel that they're still trying to catch their breath after they blow they suffered during the financial crisis. >> ifill: barry ritholtz, is there a disconnect underway here? >> well, there are two economies but it's not the stock market and the broader economy, it's the global economy and the u.s. economy if you look around the world, europe seems to have stabilized, south america is doing well, asia is actually improving and when we talk about a major index like the dow, a bunch of multinationals or the s&p 500, the biggest market cap stocks, they derive more than half their profits from overseas activities. so even if the u.s. economy is a little soft and, let's be blunt, this has been a mediocre

recovery, this is not by any stretch of the imagination a robust economic recovery, but corporations are very lean and getting profits and revenues from around the world so there is a little bit of a disconnect because the global nature of business today. >> ifill: domestically, is keeping unemployment rates relatively high, or at least not low, is that helping the corporate bottom line? >> there's certainly been lots and lots of layoffs in the middle of the crisis. they cut with an ax not a scalpel, but the flip side of that is that the productivity gains and the deployment of technology has allowed companies to do more with less of a head count so that efficiency factor is definitely an element and labor costs are much lower than they used to be. >> ifill: matt phillips and barry ritholtz, everyone was saying that the sequester debate

that happened in washington was about cutting with an ax, not a scalpel. so if the sequester was supposed to be so harm to feel the economy, ben bernanke said it was going to put a drag on the economy, why aren't we seeing it here? >> well that is a concerned when coupled with rising gasoline prices that could put something of a damper on u.s. consumers but i think we can simplify things. the u.s. economy is mostly consumption and the biggest things that americans buy are houses and cars. there are signs that they're buying houses again and cars because interest rates are low so if you try to boil it down to the simplest terms, the u.s. economy looks decent. the sqeser is on the horizon, there's dark clouds but for the data that we're seeing things look okay. >> ifill: you heard barry ritholtz call this a mediocre recovery. have people gained the losses from 2007? >> well, it depends on what you're looking at. overall house prices are still about 25% below their peak. so that is still having a

negative impact on household balance sheets but house prices have been showing decent gains lately so that's going to help people feel a little bit wealthier. i think that's an important point. part of the reason why the federal reserve has been pumping so much cash into the economy is to try to shore up asset prices and stock markets are one of those assets. as you mentioned, people looking at their 401(k) statements, that's important for keeping people willing to open their wallets and spend. after the japanese financial crisis, we're about 23 years after japanese stocks peaked. there's still about 70% lower than they were in january, 1990. if you wanted to feel bad you would go back in time and look at your 401(k) statement in about march, 2009, and you wouldn't feel too good about spending. >> ifill: barry ritholtz, what about this idea of consumer confidence as a driver in all of this? >> you know, i don't pay a whole lot of attention to consumer confidence except when it looks

at extreme levels. we saw income come out recently and it was as bad as it's ever been and yet at the same day we saw consumer spending pick up. i'm fond of saying the countryside is littered with the bodies of economists who bet against the u.s. consumers so even though we have an 8% unemployment rate, 92% of the labor force is working and they're out spending money, i think that's going to continue until we see the next significant downturn. remember, these things are cyclical, there's always a downturn three, five, seven years off in the future. >> ifill: let me ask you folks a question starting with you, matt phillips. how much good news should we take from a day like today breaking new records, we love empirical measures, we had one today. can everyone sigh now? >> i don't think so. >> ifill: we'll start with matt then i'll come to you, barry.

>> i think it might be good for everyone's morale to sit back and take in the view but you should be pretty cautious about trying to extrapolate where the economy is going to go from the stock market. there are two different things. the stock market can runway ahead. the optimism in the stock market can runway ahead whereof the economy is. so it's true that the economy is still showing signs of improvement but it's threw the stock market might be getting a little bit too optimistic. so it really depends. if i knew i would be sitting in a different chair. >> ifill: (laughs) barry ritholtz, i think i heard the you say it's not time to exhale yet. >> typically i'll give you a little more empirical data. typically when we see a market crash like in '08/' 909, the average snapback is about 70% and here we are, we're 136% so this is gone a good long way and that's where a lot of the credit or blame has to be given to the feds. the question that i think a lot of people are thinking about

longer term is when the fed finally begins to remove this accommodation, what might that do for stocks. and the expectation is unless it's a really robust economy, once the fed starts throttling back, it might become tougher sledding for equities. but in the meantime it's a pretty positive development to set new highs. >> ifill: barry ritholtz of fusion i.q. and matt phillips of atlantic media, thank you very much. >> our pleasure. >> thank you. >> suarez: still to come on the newshour, venezuela after chavez; heading off a government shutdown; leading the charge for states' rights; and a declining life span for some women. but first, the other news of the day. here's hari sreenivasan. >> sreenivasan: the u.s. and china joined today in pushing for fresh u.n. sanctions on north korea. the aim is to punish pyongyang for conducting another nuclear test last month. u.s. ambassador susan rice said the proposal will target what she called "illicit" activities

by north korean diplomats and banking operations. >> reporter: north korea will be facing some of the toughest sanctions by the qlags. the breadth and scope of these sanctions is exceptional and demonstrates the strength of the international community ice commitment to do -- to du nuclearization and the demand that north korea comply with its international obligation. >> sreenivasan: north korea angrily rejected the proposed sanctions, and it denounced ongoing new war games by the u.s. and south korea. the country's military talked of canceling the cease-fire that ended the korean war in 1953. >> ( translated ): the korean people's army supreme command will declare invalid the korean arms agreement as of march 11 the day when the war maneuvers enter into a full dressed stage.

the democratic republic of korea will make a stand at time it pleases without limit and achieve the great cause of the country's reunification. >> sreenivasan: the u.n. security council may vote on the sanctions resolution on thursday. john brennan is one step closer to becoming c.i.a. director. the senate intelligence committee approved his nomination today, 12-3, and sent it to the full senate. that came after white house officials provided classified legal opinions justifying drone attacks on terror suspects overseas. later, nbc news reported attorney general eric holder has ruled out drone attacks inside the u.s., except in an "extraordinary circumstance," such as pearl harbor or 9/11. u.s. officials are saying the c.i.a. was not involved in the latest drone strikes in pakistan. pakistani authorities have said the attacks in early february killed two senior al-qaeda commanders and several others in remote tribal areas. the "new york times" today cited unnamed american sources who said the c.i.a. hasn't attacked any targets in those areas since january. the officials suggested

pakistan's military may have carried out the strikes. china's communist party rulers laid out their plans for the future today, and they conceded the need to address environmental damage and political corruption. margaret warner has the story. >> warner: in his final address to china's national people's congress, outgoing prime minister wen jiaboao touted his country's economic leap forward in the face of the 2008 global downturn. >> ( translated ): in the last five years we have moved beyond the serious blow dealt by the international financial crisis. this crisis hit hard and expanded quickly. its impact was deep and seen once in a hundred years. we have faced it with a clear head. >> warner: in fact, china's g.d.p. nearly doubled between 2007 and 2012. but this year's growth rate target was set today at 7.5% which, if not exceeded, would be china's slowest since 1990.

and when, warned the country's communist leaders, that they must deal with the growing gap between rich and poor and the quality of life issues affecting all citizens. >> ( translated ): we should resolutely solve problems of serious air, water, and soil pollution that affect people's vital interests, improve environmental qualities, safeguard people's health and give people hope to our concrete action. >> warner: beijing in particular is choked by smog and there is widespread contamination of china's water and soil. there's also mounting ang interofficial corruption, as wen acknowledged. the most public one is bo xilai who fell from power last year. >> ( translated ): we should combat corruption, establish institutions to end the excessive concentration of power and lack of checks on power. >> warner: these challenges will largely fall to shi jinping who

takes over as president. he'll take the reign reins at a time of rising chinese assertiveness in the region and territorial disputes with japan and other neighbors. all that bolster bade defense budget that it was announced today will expand by more than 10% again this year. yet spending on internal security will top defense spending for the third straight year. >> sreenivasan: a late winter storm in the u.s. roared across the upper midwest today, bringing a load of heavy wet snow. the storm blanketed wisconsin and illinois, making for treacherous travel conditions and shutting down schools. chicago was expecting ten inches of snow, forcing the city's airports to cancel more than 1,100 flights. the system was on track to strike the washington, d.c., area overnight where more than 800 flights are already canceled. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to ray. >> suarez: venezuelan president hugo chavez is dead. the 58-year-old leader succumbed to cancer this afternoon. margaret warner has our story.

>> warner: the announcement of the venezuelan leader's death came late this afternoon by the country's vice president. the 58-year-old chavez has shown remarkable staying power, surviving a coup that briefly deposed him, a constitution that term-limited him out of office, and for more than a year, his battle with cancer, all while openly antagonizing the united states, as he's cozied up to the world's most isolated regimes. for more on his death and what it means to the future of venezuela, i'm joined by michael shifter, president of the inter-american dialogue and carl meacham, head of the americas program at the center for strategic and international studies and welcome to you both. michael shifter, hugo chavez is gone. what does he leave behind? >> well, he leaves behind a

country that's very, very polarized, very divided, there's tremendous police trust. a lot of people had a lot of hopes and expectations. there's going to be a lot of sadness and general wife grief in venezuela. he was somebody who put his finger on the legitimate grievances, social injustice and social inequality in venezuela, but in the end he couldn't solve the problems because he concentrate it had power in his own hands. there was only one person who made decisions for 14 years and that was hugo chavez and that doesn't work in this day in age so it's a country that has high rates of inflation, tremendous crime, scarcity of goods fiscal deficit. it's not good shape. decaying infrastructure. so whoever takes over, whatever happens it's going to be very, very difficult. >> warner: it's fair to say, carl meacham, he transformed the country more than most leaders in the modern era can or do. >> sure, you can say that he led -- his personality was larger

than life. there's no doubt about that and he was able to push through some reforms that were very helpful to a lot of folks that needed them. he was able to speak for folks that hadn't been respected in venezuela before. on the other hand, there's the autocratic leadership. there's questions with regards to his commitment to be a democratic leader. there's question with regards to his ability to be a rational actor and an economic -- in a capitalist world and the views that folks have regarding the economy now in venezuela are very, i would say -- there's in his wake he leaves a lot of destruction in areas that before his leadership or before his tenure weren't as bad. >> warner: like the oil industry for example have >> correct. >> warner: so can chavismo survive his death? he called it 21st century

socialism. is it unsustainable? >> i think it will survive in some form. there are a lot of people that have benefit add lot from this regime over 14 years. they benefit in tomorrows of power, in terms of money. it's a regime that spent a lot of money. oil was $10 a barrel when he came in in 1999 and it's gone up to over a hundred. so there are a lot of people that have benefited from this regime and it's going to survive. he is a figure that generates enormous passions. nobody is neutral about hugo chavez and you look at other countries like argentina, peronism survived many, many years after peron. so this will survive but nobody can match his charisma and nobody can have his ability to hold things together. he had enormous leadership and money. >> woodruff:. >> warner: do you think this economic approach in particular can survive him? >> i think the questions are out there with regard to the

survival of chavismo. as you've seen in places like argentina with peron, they might survive in name but the actual implementation of these models, there's no such thing as chavismo, there's patronage, there's not a model for strength in government institutions within ca chavezmo, so i think there are a lot of questions with regard to this way of governing going forward. >> warner: do either of the at least main candidates or likely candidates in the next election, do they share this vision that he so relentlessly pursued? >> first of all, we don't know if there's going to be an election any time soon. there's been a funny interpret daigs station of the constitution of venezuela. is. >> warner:. >> warner: which calls for an

election within 20 days. >> and there's been having the vice president succeed him. when the constitution says that the head of the assembly would take over for 30 days and there would be an election. so there's questions in that regard. but is there going to be a model of cahvismo going forward? we don't know if it's going to survive the events coming up during the next month. >> woodruff: did he, michael shifter, nurture a new generation of leaders that shared his vision or was it quite particular to him? >> well, i think -- nobody the -- he has a vision, he thought he was simon bolivar. his independence here and of south america and he was very, very -- the other leaders that are there, the most probable candidate, his successor, nicholas maduro doesn't have his vision. he's been a loyalist, a yes man, they've been part of this machine, this apparatus that he's built up but they don't'm bold di what he has. >> woodruff: what about his

anti-americanism. that was one of his signature issues, maduro today accused the united states of being behind his illness. expeople it had air force attache. >> well, ma dur roe needs to shore up support, rally the base. i disagree with carl, i'd be surprised if there weren't elections frankly. i think there are going to be elections because the government is in a very strong position. they're going win. there's a lot of compassion and sympathy, hugo chavez's death will mobilize that. so they're in a strong position. the opposition is very disoriented. very, very demoralized so there will be elections that gives them legitimacy. so that will happen. >> warner: back to the u.s. interests here. do you think this anti-americanism is somehow really embedded in the political culture? >> i think within chavismo it is. before the tenure of president

chavez you had a much more mixed view of the united states. i would disagree with what peter's saying about the elections in support within chavismo. chavismo is split. we'll also see what's going to happen within the military support of whatever model emerges out of c chavismo and the opposition might even benefit from a split. so we don't know. >> warner: very complicated. thank you very much. carl me shupl and michael shifter. >> thank you. >> ifill: online we have a slideshow that highlights chavez's political career. that's on our home page. >> suarez: lawmakers missed last week's deadline on the sequester. today they moved forward on laying the groundwork for averting a government shutdown later this month. with the sequester now reality. house republicans turned to a

new issue, a spending bill toll fund the federal government through september. house speaker john boehner. >> the house will pass a bill there week to keep the government open through the end of the fiscal year. spending is the problem here in washington and our goal is to cut spending. not to shut the government down. >> suarez: the bill would leave the overall sequester cuts of $85 billion in place but it would also make adjustments, increasing pentagon funding for military readiness and allowing border patrols to maintain current staff members without furloughs. other changes will protect funding for federal prisons and for firefighting programs in the west and ensure new funding for embassy security. all of that have in a continuing resolution or "c.r." senate minority leader mitch mcconnell. >> we are optimistic that we'll be able to pass a c.r. through

the house and the senate. at the sequester level. and thereby not have a huge dispute over the continued operation of the government for the rest of the year. there seems to be no interest on either side and having a kind of confrontational government shut down scenario. >> suarez: still, democrats will want some changes. for one thing, the republican bill denice funding for implementing health care reform and overhauling financial regulation. senate majority leader harry reid. >> so what remains to be seen is whether this move is truly a shift in strategy for republicans or just a short break from extremism. they're going to have make a decision soon as what they're going to do.

>> indeed, current funding for federal operations march 27 so congress will have to act by then to prevent a government shutdown and less than two months later on may 19 the nation will again reach the debt ceiling, its borrowing limit. in the meantime the republican funding bill is set to advance through the house as soon as tomorrow. for for more on the upcoming debate over the republican spending measure and the potential hurdles, we are joined by todd zwillich. he's washington correspondent for "the takeaway" on public radio international. welcome. >> good to be with you. >> suarez: as we just heard, there's more than one clock and more than one deadline. what's job one for congress right now >> preventing the government shutdown as you mentioned in the piece is job one. and you heard a lot of nice talk there from the leaders about how they intend to avoid this crisis. and they do intend to avoid it, whether they can is an open question. there are some land mines here as they try to pass this

continuing resolution with the sequestration cuts lingering in the background and policy differences between the house and senate. you see the house protecting some of their priorities. you mentioned defense spending and homeland security, border protection. the senate democrats want to do the same thing. and what's really going on here is what you see is lawmakers getting their authority back, authority that they've lost with all the budget cutting going on the last two years in washington. sequestration cuts takes away their authority, earmarks are banned, being a lawmaker now under article i of the constitution, being an appropriateor isn't what it used to be. it's now presiding over cuts by making these changes that you mentioned there in the piece to the c.r. which holds spending levels constant, they're taking back some of their own authority to say, yes, we're going to continue at the same levels, yes sequestration is still the law of the land but we're not going to rely on these broad -- they

call them meat ax cuts. troop levels get this much funding, border security gets this much funding, democrats want to say we're going to put money into head start. we're going to put some money into education programs or transportation. grabbing their authority back from what they see as the broad cuts of sequestration. >> suarez: people may be sitting at home listening to what you just said and think "i've seen this movie before." there's just over three weeks until the sand runs through the hour glass and the republicans in the house and the democrats and the senate look like they're going to come up with different versions of that continuing resolution. then what? >> it's a game of ping-pong is what we call it on capitol hill. the old idea of the house passes a version, the senate passes a version, they gate conversation committee together and work it out. that's dead for now. there's no capacity for a conference. what's going to happen is the house is going to pass its bill likely tomorrow. we have a snowstorm coming. it was going to be on thursday, they moved that up to tomorrow. you have to watch that closely. how many republicans does john

boehner get to vote for this bill? there are some conservative groups already, ray, freedom works, tea party group, important tea party group is said to members when we're watching this vote, vote no, it doesn't cut spending enough. there are conservative house republicans who say this bill is a great opportunity to repeal the contraception mandate under obamacare. democrats were l revolt if that happens. boehner pass this is bill tomorrow, sends it to the senate. senate democrats then, as mitch mcconnell so graciously said today, get to put their stamp on it. once that's done, no conference it goes back to the house. now the conservative house republicans have to stomach a bill that senate democrats-- some of them liberals-- harry reid, barbara mikulski, the chairman of the appropriations committee, have their fingerprints all over it. that means a probable repeat of a dynamic we've seen with every tough vote. there may not be -- in fact there likely won't be-- a majority of republicans to prevent a government shutdown. john boehner thereof rely on

nancy pelosi to provide the votes. she has more say than she used to. >> suarez: unlike these other deadlines, is the thought of a government shutdown so frightening for political reasons some of the players near they may have to bend in order to avoid the clock running out on march 27? >> well, that's exactly what you see here, the leaders on both sides appear to have decided that a showdown over a shutdown is not in their interests. there have been bloody fights in the past, everybody knows that, there a couple more to come in the future. everybody decided that the polls are telling them that the shutdown won't be in their interest. it's uncouraging in that that house is going to acting with a three week window before time runs out. if this were a situation where they were backing each other up against the wall and it were a real showdown they tend to back those things up five days to go, four days to go, time to make decisions, this three-week window helps to get an agreement but there are land mines on john

boehner's right with the house conservatives and then sending that bill back if they have to get an agreement in if senate between republicans and democrats to get that magical 60 votes. then it goes back and how many republicans actually vote for it? how many votes does john baner have to go to nancy pelosi to provide to make sure the government doesn't shut down? not clear yet. >> suarez:ed to zwillich of the take away, thank you for joining us. >> pleasure. >> suarez: next tonight, the debate over the role of the federal government. the issue was a central focus of last year's presidential campaign, and it is at the heart of a new book by ken cuccinelli, virginia's attorney general and a candidate for governor. judy woodruff talked with him recently. >> woodruff: attorney general ken cuccinelli, thank you very much for talking with us. >> my pleasure. the. >> woodruff: so the book is "the last line of defense, the new fight for american liberty." your main theme is about how the federal government has overtened

its authority. that it's taken liberty, it's taken from the american people and you say that goes back over a long time. so who's responsible? >> well, you can't lay this on one person. this has been a growing process and we've reached a point in this particular administration where it's happening faster and more brazenly than in my lifetime and your lifetime ever before across the administration but it isn't new and we point out republican have done this, other democrats have done this. it's a continual tension between the federal government, typically executive branch of the federal government, though with health care you have them all engaged and everybody else typically represented by the states but also if you look at something like the first m.l.r.b. case with boeing, that's -- >> international label relations board. >> that's right, between an agency and company and they have to fight for themselves. >> woodruff: you go back to the founding fathers and write about

how they struggled about this balance between power at the center, the federal government versus the power of the states. the people. you make a case for how they didn't quite get it right. sfrukd gone back and looked over their shoulder, what would you have had them do differently? the beginning? >> i was having similar conversation yesterday and the this two things i would do differently or the founders would do differently, i think, put more accurately, if they could have looked ahead were they wouldn't have done lifetime tenure for judges, and i think they would have done term limits. but those sorts of things --. >> woodruff: you mean for members of congress? >> those sorts of things are fundamental and they're not going to happen now or at least they're unlikely. but the kinds of balance of power we're talking about was much more gradual.

if you look at one of those two changes it's the lifetime judges actually. because gradually in the end of the 19th century as we moved into the 20th century the court in the new deal era opened up the power of the federal government relative to what it had been perceived to be for 150 years before. and that opened the door to much more expansive executive power and we've seen that continue to happen and grow and what we talk about in the the book is example after example where they're breaking the law or where they're trampling the constitution. and the states have a role to play and i'm obviously an attorney general, i respect a state and we push back and the founders expected us to do that. that part is working. >> woodruff: you mentioned health care just now. you spent a lot of time in the book on health care. you as the attorney general of virginia were the very first to sue the obama administration over health care reform. fast forward a couple of years. a number of republican governors

around the country are saying they are going to go along with the administration medicaid expansion. how do you see that? >> well, first of all it's worth remembering that in that health care case there were four constitutional arguments. the smaller government side won three of them. we won three of them. the only treason law is till standing is because the chief justice read the taxing power what was considered by any of us to be incredibly expansive and upheld this law with four other votes. >> in fact, you say he may have done irreparable harm to the independence of the court. >> i think he did. i suspect-- and i'm speculating and not applying motives-- i think he was very concerned about the view of america of the supreme court and in his desire to have the court be viewed favorably by america and americans he overthought where this ought to end up.

because what a judge ought to do is work through a process of how to analyze it is it constitutional or isn't it on any number of basis and i think what he ended up doing was doing great damage to the view of americans of the court. >> woodruff: global warming, though. you say in the book you believe there is such a thing as global warming you just question how it's being addressed. >> i have serious concerns about how it's being addressed. the proposed reactions-- and by that i mean government policies-- are phenomenally expensive. they're phenomenally restrictive of opportunities in the economy. they make poor people poorer and if you go down to southwest virginia with me you will find one industry-- the coal industry. it's a lash yashgs it's part of the poorest part of america. this administration is attacking that industry and that region of virginia. those are the poorest people in

virginia and when enough kind of incredible cost-- and there are times when huge regulatory costs properly should be absorbed, but we need to be sure before we do that because these have crushing effects in real people's lives and they're not rich people, they're poor people. poor people are hurt first and worst by this sort of regulatory onslaught. those are the people i'm fighting for. the. >> woodruff: a number of mainstream republicans have looked at the results of last year's election and have said the party has got to focus on expand expanding its appeal for-to-voters who did not vote republican last year. minorities, women. they say extreme views are not the views that are going to appeal. how do you look at that argument. what do you say? >> well, what i've done in the context of attorney general and what i've most known for,

whether it's mental health or protecting the elderly, what i'm known for as attorney general is pushing back on the federal government and and because that's a confrontational undertaking there are people who view that uncomfortably in the republican party some of the folks you mentioned. but the fact of the matter is of our three lawsuits with the federal government, two of them have had democrat co-plaintiffs, we just won one last month with fairfax county, the largest county in virginia run by democrats, saved them about $250 million --. >> woodruff: so you're saying you're not out of the main freedom? >> pew research the end of january have that are first ever poll with the majority of americans saying they thought the federal government was a serious threat to their rights and liberties. now, that means we're righting in the mainstream. that's not just republicans, that -- independents in a majority and almost 40% of democrats said that. so i think there's a serious concern that americans have

woken up to in terms of the role of government and how far it should go and how far it shouldn't go and i've been active in pushing back on an expansionive federal government, that's being more favorably viewed today than it has in recent years. >> woodruff: we are going to continue this interview online for now. attorney general cuccinelli. >> ifill: as judy mentioned, you can find more of that conversation on our web site, including cuccinelli's views on medicaid expansion. also online, a different perspective, courtesy of former vice president al gore, who joined us recently to discuss his new book, "the future: six drivers of global change." >> suarez: we'll be back shortly with a look at new research on life expectancy for women. but first, this is pledge week on pbs. this break allows your public television station to ask for your support.

>> ifill: and we close about with new findings about declining lifespans for some women. those come from a pair of studies released yesterday. the first reported that in 43% of the nation's counties, women 75 and younger are dying at higher rates than before, many of them living in the south and west. the second found mortality for americans under 50, particularly women, is more pronounced in the u.s. than other high-income countries. both were published in the journal "health affairs." its editor-in-chief and a newshour regular susan dentzer joins me now. susan, hello. >> nice to be with you, gwen. >> ifill: so the first question is why. why are we seeing these increased mortality rates at younger ages? >> this is an unfortunate stew of unpleasant circumstances. chronic des is driving a lot of this early death in women. a lot of this is death before the age of 50, believe it or not. so it's issues like obesity correlated with heart disease,

diabetes, smoking. we know that one in five u.s. adults are still smoking, a lot of that smoking is going on in this population. unintentional injuries, traffic accidents and drug overdoses, particularly prescription drug abuse emerging now on the data as another big cause of mortal any this population. >> at least in one of these studies, one was from the university of wisconsin, one was from the university of washington, at least through one they said male mortality figures were holding steady. why aren't men more affected? >> it's been true over time female life expectancy is longer than male life expectancy anyway. so it's not phase the situation is completely rosy for men. it is true in a study from the university of wisconsin that in 3% of u.s. counties, male mortality also is rising so the

men aren't held harmless. we've been expecting women's life expectancy to be longer but what we now see is that four women in particular with less than 12 years of education, so women who did not make it out of high school their life expectancy has fallen by four years since 1990 and it's part of the equation that the --. >> ifill: is there a regional way of pinpointing this or demographics? >> yes, if you look at a map it's concentrateed in, say, kentucky, tennessee, west virginia down to what's known as the stroke belt, louisiana, texas. not so much california interest >> i. one interesting aspect of the story is is that this is not a situation that is driven -- it's not cropping up in the hispanic population, for example, it's really more white lower income

populations in the southern part of the country in particular. >> and we say 43%. what number? system there a way to say how many women are affected? >> not necessarily in this study but in you think about it we have about 3,000 -- 3,100 u.s. counties or parishes or the equivalent and so it's a hefty portion. it's not the most populous counties. the more populous counties tend to be say in the northeast or in california. these are less populous areas of the country that are still very, very hard hit by these pham that. >> ifill: are there trend lines we should be watching? whether it's comparing to what happens what's happening here to other countries to what's happening doe midwest sdpli >> what we know is our situation continues to worsen relative to all the other rich countries. the institute of medicine published a study in january, u.s. health and international perspective that show our life expectancy is worse, that our mortality before age 50 is

particularly driving the problem that was emphasized also by jessica hoe's study. again, if you look -- compare the years of life americans lose before the age of 50 relative to the average of all the other rich countries we're double. we lose double the amount of life. is. >> ifill: is there a way to pinpoint where this slide besghan is this something we've been able to document over time? >> we've been seeing this crop up da in the data in the late '80s and 1990s. one of the interesting factors that one of the awe or thats suggested is we need to go back and look at these data and see if they're correlated with our economic cataclysms we've had. is that the driving any of this or it is independent of economic portions, independent of unemployment rates for example? that could be a driver. we also know, of course, these are areas of the country there's been any wage growth to speak of for many years and we need to start to tease it across all of

these economic and social factors that are driving this. >> ifill: there's an assumption somewhere in this that the reason why it happens in certain counties and not in others is that these people who don't have the resources may be eating a worse diet, may be engaged in behaviors that you might not if they were more prosperous. >> we know these social and economic determinants of health are extremely powerful and usually are driving differences in health status and it's most like that's the case here. what that means is that to tackle this is much more complicated than, for example, giving people access to health care. that really isn't going to be the fix. it will be efforts to raise educational levels, create more economic growth and communities, a secure access to high-wage jobs. create a healthy food environment. more activity for individuals. all of those things. a much broader agenda.

>> ifill: susan dentzer of health affairs, thank you so much. >> great to be with you, gwen. >> ifill: again, the major developments of the day. the dow industrials gained 126 to finish at an all-time high of 14,253. it's now recovered all the losses suffered in the crash of 2008. and venezuelan president hugo chavez died at the age of 58, after a long battle with cancer. during his 14 years in power, he championed socialist revolution and challenged u.s. influence in latin america. tonight president obama released a statement saying the u.s. wants to start a new constructive relationship with venezuela. >> suarez: and online, what does the sequester mean for scientific research? hari sreenivasan has the details. >> sreenivasan: policymakers aren't the only ones hit by automatic federal spending cuts.

non-defense agencies like the national institutes of health and the national science foundation are feeling the pinch. read more on our science page. plus, on this week's "ask the headhunter," forget fancy explanations and complex jargon on your resume. focus instead on what you can bring to the company. read more tips on our making sense page. all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. gwen? >> suarez: and that's the newshour for tonight. on wednesday, we'll look at the lessons learned during the u.s. reconstruction efforts in iraq ten years after the war began. i'm ray suarez. >> ifill: and i'm gwen ifill. we'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening. thank you, and good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> bnsf railway. >> and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century.

>> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

at an all time high. breaking the previous record set nearly 5 1/2 years ago. the question now where do stocks go from here and what should you do to be ready, whichever way they turn. and laying the foundation as stocks hit new highs, the housing market shows strength of its own in tonight's in focus, housing's rebound. good evening, everyone and welcome to our public television viewers. i'm tyler mathison. susie gharib is off tonight. she's receiving the eliot v. bell award from the new york financial writer's association

for her lifetime contributions to financial journalism. it's a great night for her and nbr and we congratulate her. our top story aside from that, of course, is the dow. it surged to a record high close today, rolling past the previous highs setback in october of 2007. now for its part the broader s&p 500 closed at a fresh 5 1/2 year high and the nasdaq finished the session at get this a 12 year high, reached just before the tech bubble burst back in the year 2000. all in all a day for the record books. the dow more than doubling since its bear market low almost exactly four years ago but the question is why? why so high? and why now? so why is the dow so high when the economy is so cool? gas prices so high. and consumers still smarting from tighter take home pay. well one reason is this man,