change the income disparity through his latest economic band-aid, unveiled today, using the tax code. his new deficit reduction plan calls for $3 trillion in cuts. the keystone being a $1.5 trillion worth of new taxes on the rich. >> this plan cuts $2 in spending for every $1 in new revenues. middle class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires. i will veto any bill that changes benefits for those who rely on medicare, but does not raise serious revenues by asking the wealthiest americans or biggest corporations to pay their fair share. >> and all the talk this week was around the so-called buffett rule to raise the millionaire tax rate. but already today the white house calling that more of a guiding principle than a hard tax. regardless, the gop calls the whole thing class warfare. they're making it clear no such bill has even a chance of passing a republican-controlled house. and however you look at it, we're once again stuck with really a bogus debate.

both parties trading barbs during this latest round of political pro wrestling while both parties continue to ignore the obvious barriers to job creation in a flawed tax code that incentivizes the removal of money from this country, not the investment in country, rigged trade, which does exactly the same thing, and too big to fail banks that are bigger than ever, that, by the way, also help to remove money from america. no one wants to deal with that. they just want to play rich man, poor man, old man, young man, you pick it. lots of bogus debates that are great politics that don't address our problems. peter morici, msnbc contributor, and jared bernstein, an old friend of mine from the cnbc days, if you will, and also, between that point in time, and more importantly, the chief economic adviser to the vice president biden. >> i'm not sure that's more important, but go ahead. >> it is, it is. it's a great form of credibility to your career to work for the

vice president, jared, than to be friends with me. >> i've got to agree. >> although that's good. >> that's good too. >> peter, am i wrong to suggest that the way the rich versus poor tax repeal debate is a bogus debate. it does not address the underlying reason for a lack of jobs in our deficit. >> absolutely. the the reason we don't enough jobs is because there's not enough demand and that goes back to rigged trade, coddling the banks and the other things you've mentioned. and this discussion is really intended to be a campaign platform for mr. obama. and there's not a lot, even underneath the platform. for example, we already have an alternative minimum tax, so millionaires should be paying taxes. the question is, why do they manage to avoid it and how is he going to fix it? yesterday, we got little details about how the president proposes to fix things with his buffett-rule tax. >> jared, i know that you're, based on the pre-interview, a

little bit more benevolent towards this proposal. if you wouldn't mind sort of walking through the bogus aspects that meeter and i assert, if you care to knock that down, and then point out what you do like the most about this of what's here. >> let's start backwards. what i like the most, you simply can't get on a sustainable budget path without adding new revenues to the deal. and this is a balanced set of measures. and getting to your and peter's point, i mean, to some extent, when i walk to the two of you, and i like a lot of your ideas, you're playing on a completely different playing field. it may be the right playing field, but it's a different one than the current debate is taking place. the president today at some level was talking to the super committee, and the super committee, after the budget control act, actually really does have to report out over $1 trillion of new savings. and he said, if you try to come back to me with nothing but entitlement cuts and no revenues, i'm going to veto that, and i believe him. i also think that the idea that

you can somehow ignore the vast inequalities that have accumulated -- by the way, in many ways, because of the issues that you and peter very correctly raise. bad trade policy, bad financial market policy. the idea that you can ignore those when you're setting the tax code, i think you guys should both agree with me that that's wrong. i mean, the inequalities must be dealt, fundamentally. >> but shouldn't they be dealt with internally first, so you're actually creating jobs? peter, go ahead. >> i think the best thing we can do to create -- to deal with the inequality is to start to create jobs in america, and for the president to stop focusing so hard on re-election, to start focusing on the things he promised to focus on like the jobs act. >> that's the jobs act. >> no, it's not the jobs act, jared. i listened to you, please. we've already had half a trillion worth of stimulus, i doubt another half trillion is going to get us there. he needs to finally do something about trade with china. he needs to finally start developing domestic oil and gas.

if he would cut the trade initiative in half, he could create millions of new jobs over the next couple of years and be a very successful president. >> i think, jared, you made a critical point, in which peter and i indulge ourselves in a fundamental conversation based on the principle that capital or money or resources must be flowing into any nation in order for it to prosper, and that our tax code and trade policies and banking policies are no incentivizing that. you accurately, i think, point out, jared, that that simply is not the nature of the political debate between the two political parties in this country. >> right. >> but here is, i guess, my point, and really the point i make with this show and with my current journalism, which is because of the money in politics and the dependency on the funding from the institutions that benefit from tax code, trade, banking and things we don't talk about, we never get to talk about the things we have to talk about. in other words, if the media -- if somebody like me doesn't say, hey, hey, we've got to talk about this! and these guys are paid to not talk about this! and they're trying to get us to

follow this bouncing ball to nowhere. >> i think that's right. and i think you have to move on both tracks. i mean, i fundamentally disagree with peter's point that somehow the recovery act hasn't helped or that the jobs act won't help. in fact, i would argue that that's going to do a lot more to help get people back to work than anything you could realistically do on the trade deficit side. >> really?! hold on a second. >> let him finish. >> that doesn't mean that you and peter shouldn't bring up the points that you bring up. but given the hand we're dealing with right now, the best that we can do -- and actually, representative boehner actually said over the weekend that he's willing to talk about the payroll tax holiday, the unemployment insurance safety net, and perhaps even some of these more progressive tax policies can get under the radar, or they'll obviously, boehner wasn't there. >> look at the stakes, jared, and we all know what the stakes are. we, as a nation, have 50 million people in poverty. we, as a nation, have one in two

people that are unemployed. 22% of all the children in america currently live in poverty. those issues are the central to an extraction when there is a diminishing amount of available resources, the weakest people don't get that money. >> that's a great point. >> that's why you have to admit the danger of indulging in the two-party issue debate, is i don't see how any of this debate will do anything to create millions of jobs, which is what we need. we need tens of millions of jobs. >> so here's where i go with that. if you take that to be absolutely true, and you just nailed it exactly right, then what we have to do is get some revenues into this budget deal, or we will cut whatever safety net is left for all those suffering, vulnerable people. that's critical and that's what's on the table. that's one of the things we have to fight about. >> peter, go ahead. >> well, if we simply go out and get more revenues to continue where we have been going, unemployment will continue to rise, we won't create any jobs,

and we won't solve the problem. the reason we're debating on this is because if we were talking about jobs in washington, the president doesn't get re-elected. if we're talking about his overall job performance, the president doesn't get re-elected. if we talk about a millionaire's tax, the republicans reflexively accuse him of class warfare. and you know something? the polling data says that's a mistake on their part, and he does pretty well. so the president -- hold on, jared! the president is putting getting re-elected ahead of addressing the fundamental structure of problems that are keeping the economy from going. >> peter, i agree -- >> no, peter, don't do political science. let's stick to the economics here. >> when the president does nothing but political science, what are you going to do? >> that's completely phony. >> let jared respond. >> -- elected, not on creating jobs. >> go ahead, jared. >> he's put forth serious economic plans in the last week, whether it's the jobs plan or the budget deficit reduction plan today. we can argue about the details of those plans and we can very deeply argue about your points

about the structural issues that are missing here. we can argue over which poll works or what he's trying to do with his re-election. actually, most objective economists who have looked at the jobs plan have agreed it will shave a point off the unemployment rate. that's not enough, but gets you in the right direction. >> but i don't know if it will accomplish that much. because if we have to increase spending in one place by cutting it in another, reduce taxes in one place by raising them in another, you know, you studied macroeconomics just like i did. we're talking about a balanced budget multilier and all the rest of that jargon, we're not going to get that much out of this money if we have to pay for it. so my feeling is we have to find another way to boost growth. and this process is not getting us there. >> very quickly, jared, a final statement and we'll continue this conversation, which, actually, this was wonderful, i wish we did have more time. >> there are two very important conversations going on here. the pragmatic one of what can we

do right no target jobs in the near-term, deficit in the long-term, and the long-term structural issues that you, dylan, have been hammering on very importantly. >> all right. listen, thank you both for the lively debate. the cable television gods, and hopefully nothose who like smar people talking about smart things should be happy this afternoon. thank you, gentleman. from government spending to big money influence, i know it. i've read the e-mails. you know that you are mad as hell. you know that i am. to that end, and we've been working on this for a few weeks, we are going to be coming out with a string of big announcements starting tomorrow on the book "greedy bastards," and later this week and early next week, exclusively on our battle to get money out of politics, we'll reveal the constitutional amendment and we'll begin a conversation with you about how we can mobilize that effort to actually have an impact.

if you're looking to get more information about the amendment or the effort in money in politics, please send us a note at madashell@dylanratigan.com. some battle lines drawn in the middle east. palestine's leaders pushing for statehood on the world's largest state. and meanwhile, the u.s. vowing a veto. the megapanel to weigh in as world leaders converge at the u.n. here in new york. plus, what what you eat says about your politics. guess which party loves their mcdonald's french fries. and it's not easy being green. our specialist sounds off on what he says is the false promise of green energy. ♪ it's not easy being green ♪ seems you blend in with so many other ordinary things ♪ my doctor told me calcium

is best absorbed in small continuous amounts. only one calcium supplement does that in one daily dose. citracal slow release... continuously releases calcium plus d for the efficient absorption my body needs. citracal. for the efficient absorption my body needs. sun life financialrating should be famous.d bad, we're working on it. so you're seriously proposing we change our name to sun life valley. do we still get to go skiing? sooner or later, you'll know our name. sun life financial.

the palestinians will not and cannot achieve statehood through a declaration at the united nations. it is a distraction, and in fact, it's counterproductive. >> well, as we speak today, our president, barack obama, heads here to new york city for the opening session of the u.n. general assembly, as they do every fall. nuclear safety and libya's future are supposed to headline the conversation this week. however, stealing the show is the palestinian authority and their bid for full statehood recognition. no surprise, israel opposes such a bid and the u.s. is already verbally vowing a veto wiere it to come to that. the thing is, that could further

alienate our arab allies and the rest of the arab world. which, of course, is one of the last things the obama white house would like to do right now, considering everything that is currently going on. if the palestinian move does get squashed by the security council, they will still have the opportunity to go to the general assembly floor and try and win a majority vote. between here and there, there's plenty of backroom conversations going on to try to prevent this from ever getting that far. let's bring in our monday megapanel, msnbc contributor imogen weber and sam seder. at the end of the day, the criticism from the united sta s states, sam, seems to be, this endangers the peace process. so how does a peace process that intends, in theory, to create a two-state solution, which is broadly what's discussed, although the mechanics on how to do is anybody's guess, but yet a state says it wants to be a

state, how does that work? >> my answer would be, what peace process? the bottom line is the peace problem has been over for quite some time. and i don't know what other options, frankly, the palestinian authority has at this point. the peace process has completely broken down. there is no peace process. so i'm not sure that that's a valid criticism. how can you damage something that doesn't exist anymore. >> over here? >> i think letting communist china and cuba and sudan and whoever else these united nation countries are weigh in on this israeli/palestinian strife shows the absurdity of what goes on at then. the idea that these other countries should have a say on what's going on, while instead of it being negotiated between the palestinians and the israelis, highlights the absurdity of this kind of idea. >> right. and i think that that's a different conversation, which is the indictment of the overall apparatus for global decision making, but with that said, in the context of the available

apparatus for the palestinians to step in and try to engage on this level, is it something that, a, could actually lead to a two-state solution in anybody's opinion, and b, does it have -- what is the greatest risk? what is the potential blowback from -- i mean, that's kind of where we're at, right? >> but it is very tough on the u.s. at the moment. it doesn't want to weaken its position in the arab world, with the arab spring and so forth, and it will back up israel, israel will be there for its friend. all i know is the peace process has to begin again. i group in a country in the height of the terrorist bombings. margaret attacher said, we're not going to negotiate with the terrorists. peace in northern ireland happened. the peace process does have to begin again. >> but what was the key transition from the bombings and the violence in northern ireland in your childhood to that peace process? what were the watershed moments, the decisions. >> compromise, negotiation --

>> i don't need the broad principles. i'm saying, what happened? >> i think, fundamentally, the people inside those countries had enough. they sort of reached a breaking point. and what we're seeing now with the arab spring and so forth is absolutely israel is going to have to start to change its tune. >> but there's no sign from the arab spring, like, islam fundamentalism is slowing down. do we think egypt is going to be more in favor, more pro-israel, more pro-peace. >> all the more israel to be more pro-peace and moving forward. >> sam, you get the last word. >> i think if israel wants to retain its tenor as a democracy, it's going to have to go with a two-state solution and maybe this is the impetus that it needs. >> well, isn't it more -- that, i guess, was my kind of question with this. with the palestinians basically threatening to go nuclear, so to speak. saying, we're going to go to the crowd and say, we're going to get a referendum on the floor. if we get more than half of the people at the u.n. to say, we're going to have a state, is this a

catalyst to incentivize israel and the united states to come up with something -- one at a time. one at a time. >> it's unclear what else it would be. that's the bottom line. >> we've got time, we've got time. >> the problem is, currently, the government within israel, who are moving back to isolationism, and that is a problem. fundamentally -- >> the israel government is not of the view, necessarily, that the northern ireland government was or the british government was, on the eve of peace. >> but there's just as much political pressure within palestine. if any palestinian leader said -- >> to also be -- >> yes. if any palestinian leader said, we want peace, but we're going to give up some stuff. >> that's why hamas is against this move by the palestinian -- >> because that ends the war, so to speak-ish? >> because they don't want a two-state solution. they want -- >> an annihilation, or whatever it is. >> exactly. so part of the problem, the reason why the process has

broken down is because, i think, the u.s. government has, over the past -- over this administration and the prior administration, failed in its capacity as an honest broker. and i think that's why we have no peace process anymore. >> is there anybody that exists, so to that end, with let's say the palestinians say, listen, the united states is not an honest broker, we're going to the u.n. israel is saying, the united states is not an honest broker, we're battening down to hatches and getting ready for whatever comes. in other words, we're in a period of retrenchment from the parties. is there anybody that exists, either as an individual or as a nation, that could reverse the isolationism that we're seeing developing potentially in israel, and the sort of more flamboyant campaigning for statehood from palestine? >> no -- >> maybe the israeli elaeectora themselves. we're seeing discontent. >> but that would be -- >> but that's more of a function, that's more of a function of economics, frankly, and of jobs, and of

privatization. >> but again, that happened again in northern ireland. and when peace game, northern ireland blossomed as a country. >> anything before i go? >> say a prayer for the peace in israel. that's the most i got to offer. >> that's right. we will keep track of what happens at the u.n., and obviously, anything that comes out of any of the governments. the panel stays here. straight ahead, we turn our attention to the energy world. fresh off the solyndra embarrassment, our specialist questions whether a future fueled by green jobs is really such a bright idea. [ woman ] jogging stroller, you've been stuck in the garage,

while i took refuge from the pollen that made me sneeze. but with 24-hour zyrtec®, i get prescription strength relief from my worst allergy symptoms. so lily and i are back on the road again. with zyrtec®, i can love the air®. so lily and i are back on the road again. somewhere in america, a city comes to life. it moves effortlessly, breathes easily. it flows with clean water. it makes its skyline greener and its population healthier. all to become the kind of city people want to live and work in. somewhere in america, we've already answered some of the nation's toughest questions. and the over sixty thousand people of siemens are ready to do it again. siemens. answers. helps defends against occasional constipation, diarrhea,

gas and bloating. with three strains of good bacteria to help balance your colon. you had me at "probiotic." [ female announcer ] phillips' colon health.

so, does the failure of one company discredit the entire idea of a green energy economy? of course not. but, if in, let's say, 1936, you spoke about the growing

importance of air travel in front of, i don't know, the hindenburg, you'd be right about the future of air travel, but you'd still be on [ bleep ] fire! >> ah, jon stewart's take on the collapse of the failed solar company, solyndra, funded by this administration in what is perceived to have been an expedited event, and the fiercest critics would say it was purely political, but ultimately it was a government-driven decision. the administration has long hailed green jobs and clean energy as recession-proof growth industries. and this weekend, even bill clinton remained on message. >> green technology jobs have grown twice as fast as the overall job generating capacity of the economy in the last eight years, where all job growth has been anemic. >> but our next guest says the

government simply does not have enough information. and quite honestly, i don't know that any one institution has enough information, to spur innovation in this particular marketplace. centralized control of picking winners and losers in a highly changing environment is an almost impossible task, which is why our next guest says that should be left to the marketplace to decide who wins, loses, and leads the field. and joining us now is andrew morris, a the university of alabama and co-author of "the false promise of green energy." i've read your notes, professor morris, and i agree with you in the need for adapted experimentation and all the rest of us. we say the free market, and argue the free market should drive energy, but the fact of the matter is, we, you and i both know, don't have a free market for energy, because the actual cost of fossil fuel in our economy is not reflected at the pump. the military's not in there, the

environment's not in there, and there's a wide variety of differing fuel subsidies and tax treatments for all sorts of different fuel sources, depending on their relationship with our government. so how can a marketplace decide the fuel source when was fuel, particularly being gasoline and fossil fuels, have such a substantial comparative subsidy? >> right. right. well, that's a good point, but the answer to one bad subsidy is not to have two bad subsidies. >> i didn't say that. i didn't bring you on to indict the president. i'm with you, the president, that's crazy, what they're doing is crazy. let's not waste our time on it. but let's talk about the actual problem. which is the marketplace cannot function if the actual cost of what is in it is rigged. and in this case, we are not paying the actual cost of the fossil fuels, and as a result, no one wants to see $8 a gallon for anything when i get $4 a gallon and pass the military cost and all the rest of it off.

i guess my question to you is, what would the marketplace do if it was faced with paying the real cost of fossil fuel at the pump? >> well, people would use a lot less of it. and that's what we want, right? we want people to economize on scarce resources. so if you price them accurately, people will conserve. and they'll conserve in ways that people in washington can't figure out on their own. so we have a mechanism to get conservati conservation, it's worked for 100 years. we've been conserving energy and a variety of things. if you look at our book, we talk about the efficiency of refrigerators has increased enormously as the price of electricity went up. people can serve when prices go up. it's a simple thing. it's not popular with politicians, but it's a simple way to fix the problem. >> andrew, i've got a question for you. if it's the case that we subsidize oil and we've been doing carbon-based subsidies since we built the highways, since we promoted cars, since we subsidize these oil companies directly. if we have $50 billion worth of

nuclear subsidies, why write an entire book about the tiny subsidies? you can shrug off the notion of one subsidy isn't as good as the other, but we have the chance to incentivize and to create and to build an industry that will have benefits across the spectrum of society. why are you focused on that one? >> well, i'm currently writing a book attacking gasoline, so -- >> there you go. >> maybe i did it in the wrong order for you, but my next book is with yale university president called "why gasoline costs so much," and it's looking at the history of all the policies that have gone into creating our current situation with gasoline. you're right that there is a great opportunity for innovation. and not just in energy and lots of things, and we know how to do innovation. we've been doing innovation for 200 years in the country. what we don't want to do is we don't want to turn to politicized decision making. and that's what we're seeing. and so people talk green, but the green they're really talking about is the green that gets

passed under the table. >> yeah, i agree with that. can we use that line? go ahead, tim. >> i agree with you, and i also wonder, and i'll ask on behalf of the liberals who want to get off of oil, and as a conservative who doesn't like our wars and et cetera for oil, to what extent do you think these subsidies for green energy, for solar, for wind, whether it's a special tax credit or special handouts, actually get in the way of an alternative fuel developing through market processes? >> oh, absolutely. absolutely they get in the way. if you look at ethanol, ethanol is a terrible fuel. and we've been subsidizing it heavily for years, largely because of the iowa caucuses, right? >> yep. >> if you look at ethanol, ethanol's an awful fuel. there are better fuels to make out of biological fuel. we're not investing in them. you talk to soil scientists, they're all working on ethanol, because that's where the grants are. this is a crazy policy to have the government picking stuff. we should leave this to people who can read property and law statements and who understand how to invest. >> at the same time, we have to

acknowledge that following profit and loss, while denying the rigged nation of the current marketplace, it only tells have the story. >> but i'm with you on the rigged nature of the marketplace. let's unrig. it let's focus our energy on that. >> all right, we're unrigging it. go ahead, imogen. >> in that case, would you be against green taxes? we have all these green taxes the in the uk, they bring in about 8% of government revenue overall. and as a result, say our cars, light vehicles, run about 37 miles to the gallon compared to the u.s. where they run about 21. >> so you're talking about a fuel tax? like a gas tax -- like, basically a -- you want to tax green fuels? >> no -- >> so it's more expensive to use green fuels? >> we call it green taxes, like we tax things that are bad for the environment. >> got it. go ahead, professor. >> if you want people to conserve, that's exactly the way to do it. and the current gasoline tax, which is tied to road construction and turns out to be an excellent way to have a user fee on use of the roads and things like that. if you want people to conserve, raise gas taxes.

now wi now, it turns out that nobody likes higher gas taxes, so that's politically unpopular, but somebody's going to have to get out there and sell that, so to avoid tun popular thing, which is the effective thing, we instead get these subsidy schemes. and these subsidy schemes don't work. >> if we're talking about the free market, what do we do about the fact that the chinese has dumped $30,000 this year into the solar industry? can we really have a free market? is it really up to us? at this point, to compete, if we want these jobs to grow, don't we need to subsidize it to match those other type of subsidies? >> and how do you deal with other state investments in energy that have no interest or time for this debate, because they just decide they're going to do something? >> let them have the solar. >> that's what i think. >> let me start with china. china's a great example. china's dumping its money into a different technology than solyndra was doing. and the chinese technology actually works and is available at a cheap price. >> well, that was just a drop --

we have other subsidies based in silicon. we have 39 other loans out to solar programs. we have growth in this country -- >> if we're playing a mixed strategy subsidizing everybody, that seems like a foolish thing too. >> we're subsidizing the industry and covering our bases, and any investor would tell you that's exactly what you do. >> but i don't think any investor actually goes out and puts an investment in 50 different companies using different strategies. >> well, they can if they -- >> -- solyndra -- >> sure. >> professor, you get the last word. >> -- solyndra were smart enough saying, we want to be ahead of the government in getting our money back. solyndra was a bad investment, and whether it was made by stupidity or made by corruption, we don't know, and maybe we'll never know. and it doesn't really matter. the point is that if we really want to see cheap solar in this country, why don't we offer $100 million prize to the first company to deliver marketable quantities of cheap solar that

competes with the chinese. that way we don't spend any money until someone actually delivers and people have an incentive to produce. we've solved problems with this in the past. we've got ongoing examples of this with things like the x prize. we know how to endeuce technological innovation it and we're not doing it. it seem ls like we don't care. >> professor, i agree with you. if you don't have integrity in the narcotmarketplace, the marke can't function. i agree that it's almost as if we are choosing to not do that. we rather have politicians that we buy for favors than a system that solves our problems, by all appearances. although based on my audience, professor, i can assure you that there's no shortage of people that want to change that. thanks to the panel. thank you to professor morris. next, here, what you -- what did you eat for lunch? excuse me.

it could it could reveal a lot more than you think about your politics. labored breathing ] [ coughing continues ] [ gasping ] [ elevator bell dings, coughing continues ] [ female announcer ] congress can't ignore the facts: more air pollution means more childhood asthma attacks. [ coughing continues ] log on to lungusa.org and tell washington:

don't weaken the clean air act.

you'd do that for me? really? yeah, i'd like that. who are you talking to? uh, it's jake from state farm. sounds like a really good deal. jake from state farm at three in the morning. who is this? it's jake from state farm. what are you wearing, jake from state farm? [ jake ] uh... khakis. she sounds hideous. well she's a guy, so... [ male announcer ] another reason more people stay with state farm.

get to a better state. ♪ well, it turns out you are what you eat, at least when it comes to political affiliation. the taste-testing website hunch did some research and found the difference between liberal and conservative isn't just in your head, it's also in your gut. for example, everyone likes pizza, but apparently the two parties can't even agree on which kind is best. dems prefer a thin crust while republicans rather dig into a deep dish. and the food fight doesn't end there. conservatives partial to mcdonald's fries, while the other side of the aisle prefers bistro style. and to wash them down, when it comes to drinks, dems prefer beer while the gop enjoys sipping soda. liberals also prefer their veggies raw while conservatives like them cooked. so what does the website suggest for a meal we can all agree on? a slice of pepperoni pizza, a garden salad, and a glass of water ought to do it.

food for thought. next up here, a fight over the future of american science. a congressman and five-time "jeopardy!" champ, i might add, striking back at calls for our own government to get out of scientific research. ce ameripril was founded back in 1894, they've been committed to putting clients first. helping generations through tough times. good times. never taking a bailout. there when you need them. helping millions of americans over the centuries. the strength of a global financial leader. the heart of a one-to-one relationship. together for your future. ♪ i'm a dad, coach, and i was a longtime smoker. in my heart i knew for the longest time that did not want to be a smoker. and the fact that i failed before. i think i was discouraged for a very long time. ♪ knowing that i could smoke during the first week

was really important to me. [ male announcer ] chantix is a non-nicotine pill proven to help people quit smoking. [ jeff ] chantix reduced my urge to smoke, and personally that's what i knew i needed. [ male announcer ] some people had changes in behavior, thinking or mood, hostility, agitation, depressed mood and suicidal thoughts or actions while taking or after stopping chantix. if you notice any of these, stop taking chantix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of depression or other mental health problems, which could get worse while taking chantix. don't take chantix if you've had a serious allergic or skin reaction to it. if you develop these, stop taking chantix and see your doctor right away as some of these can be life-threatening. if you have a history of heart or blood vessel problems, tell your doctor if you have new or worse symptoms. get medical help right away if you have symptoms of a heart attack. dosing may be different if you have kidney problems. until you know how chantix affects you, use caution when driving or operating machinery. common side effects include nausea, trouble sleeping and unusual dreams. ♪

these are the reasons i quit smoking. [ male announcer ] ask your doctor about chantix. over 7 million people have gotten a prescription. learn how you can save money and get terms and conditions at chantix.com. setting that goal to become a principal. but, i have to support my family, so how do i go back to school? university of phoenix made it doable. i wouldn't be where i am without that degree. my name is dr. carrie buck. i helped turn an at risk school into an award winning school, and i am a phoenix. [ male announcer ] university of phoenix is proud to sponsor education nation. because we believe an educated world is a better world.

and who ordered the yummy cereal? yummy. [ woman ] lower cholesterol. [ man 2 ] yummy. i got that wrong didn't i? [ male announcer ] want great taste and whole grain oats that can help lower cholesterol? honey nut cheerios. whose non-stop day starts with back pain... and a choice. take advil now and maybe up to four in a day. or choose aleve and two pills for a day free of pain. way to go, coach. ♪ research and education, we didn't just surpass the soviets, we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new

jobs. this is our generation's sputnik moment. >> president obama's state of the union call to innovation greatness. but could scientific research, despite all the flowery retrohec rhetoric, be the next thing that actually gets cut in our budget? many, or some, i should say, are now arguing that the government should get out and leave research to the private sector. but before we get into that debate, i do want you to think, of course, about all the government science that has given us so far, including a cure for a variety of diseases, including polio, a man on the moon, and the collateral benefits of space exploration, artificial arts come to mind. that was a good one. and even those nifty water filters that you and i tend to use. with us now is representative rush holt, who has been a champion for science funding and the culture of science which is a nntiosa a five-time "jeopardy champ.

he recently wrote an article on science. congressman, it's a pleasure. what are the dueling visions? >> one is a can't-do that says there's no role for the federal government. and this is gaining some dominance in the house of representatives. there's no role for the federal government, not only in making jobs and stimulating the economy, but actually in investing in the future. and that's why, you know, when the president came, he made it a point to talk about our need to out-innovate the rest of the world. the other dueling view is this idea that you invest in the future, that there is such a thing as investment. you know, investment is a word that's kind of lost its currency in washington. and we have to recapture that. >> so, let's walk through the counterargument to government fund for research. and it's not even that i agree with it, because quite honestly,

i don't. don't freak out at home, but i'm just playing the devil for a second, okay? why would you want to have the government risking money on experimentation, whether it's in bioscience, energy science, medical -- i don't care what it is -- risking money on experimentation when a huge percentage of those experiments, you know, sir, are not going to pan out. i will lose that money. why should the government be in the business of funding scientists, a certain percentage of whom i know are going to fail? >> well, some of them will succeed, some of them will succeed big, some of them will change the quality of life for americans. that has been historically true for decades, even centuries. but why should the government do it? why not just leave it to the private sector? because we've tried that. and in basic science, they don't do it. in -- >> why not? >> in some of the bigger, more expensive things, whether it's energy or transportation, they don't do it. well, for whatever reason, they don't do it, and it must be

done, and therefore the government must -- >> why can't that be done? why can't we just use the stuff that's already been developed? >> well, take energy, for example. we cannot sustain what we've been doing. the way we produce and use energy is unsustainable for ten different reasons. who supplies us the oil? how much it costs us, what it does to our environment. we have to find new ways. that's for transportation, that's for energy. same applies in health care. you know, the pharmaceutical companies do wonderful research. in fact, they are probably the only sector in our private economy that invests almost enough in research. >> real money, anyway. they work on it. >> they really do. you won't find any other industry, hardly, that is investing enough. but even they are notsence. i mean, the kinds of things that gave us the human genome, the

kinds of things that gave us an understanding of recombinantdna and so forth, they weren't doing that. even the department of energy did some important work in human genome thinking. >> what i consider the most cutting edge thinkers, whether it's nick negroponte at m.i.t., there are a whole string of folks that are very good on this. and they emphasize a few points, one, you solve problems much better in a group, solving a problem, one. two, you should expect mastery and you should expect failure. that that principle is the only way you actually solve problems. is it lost on your colleagues in the house of representatives on the republican side that there is nothing more american than investing in experimentation in

pursuit of mastery, such that you can do something better? >> you hit it absolutely right. it's an american characteristic, it goes back centuries. you know, every farmer, every shopkeeper, every factory worker fought like a scientist. they were always thinking about how things work and how they can make them better. what worries me right now, in this cutting frenzy in washington, science is going to take more than the hit it deserves, it deserves no hit. it should be increased. it's going to take a heavy hit, and our future economy will have nothing to grow on, because our productivity growth has come from past innovation, from past investments in research. if we don't make those, you know, talk about a 9% unemployment rate, you know, that might look good. >> there's a broader issue that is frustrating myself, and i think, a lot of people when they watch the political debate, that is brought out by the debate about funding for science in

general. it is this. there appears to be both in the political debate itself and in the political media around the political debate, an abandonment of anything that smells, acts, or walks like a fact of any mathematical eevaluation of any kind. the benefit of suspending facts and mathematics, you can then engage in visceral fearmongering, hopemongering, all sorts of emotional things. what would happen to science and our society if we just completely abandoned math altogether? it's kind of hard anyway. >> it's kind of hard. ion you know, i don't want to get into problems in concepts in washington. creationism, climate change -- >> i'm talking about facts, like the ocean is higher than it used to be. >> i'm just talking about the need to sustain a sense of investment, to sustain actually investment. and you know, not everybody in america has to be a ma

mathematici mathematician. not everybody has to wear a lab coat. but everybody in america should understand what it gets them. they should understand what it does for their quality of life. >> what does it get them? >> for their quality of life and the quality of life for the next generation. not just our economic well-being, as i was saying a moment ago, a lot of our productivity growth, i mean, economists will argue about whether it's 40% or 60% of our economic growth has come from previous developments in science. so not only economically, but also, their ability to live longer, more fulfilling lives. the quality of life. the cleanliness of our water and our air. i mean, all of these things have come from work that you didn't quite know where it was leading at the moment, and it would have been easy to do away with any one of these pieces of the

research projects, because, you know, it looks like this might be a blind alley. >> who could afford -- >> but put altogether, that is what has made america. >> well, i could not more asoundingly agree with you. i am glad to know you are serving in our congress on this particular issue, especially. thanks for your efforts and let us know what we can do to help you. >> thanks. rush holt out of new jersey. coming up on "hardball" tonight, chris matthews with more on the president's deficit speech today. but first, keli goff's here with a rant on why models on the catwalk may be more important than america's politicians. just one phillips' colon health probiotic cap a day helps defends against occasional constipation, diarrhea, gas and bloating. with three strains of good bacteria to help balance your colon. you had me at "probiotic." [ female announcer ] phillips' colon health. you had me at "probiotic." do you have an irregular heartbeat called atrial fibrillation, or afib, that's not caused by a heart valve problem?

are you taking warfarin to reduce your risk of stroke caused by a clot? you should know about pradaxa. an important study showed that pradaxa 150mg reduced stroke risk 35% more than warfarin. and with pradaxa, there's no need for those regular blood tests. pradaxa is progress. pradaxa can cause serious, sometimes fatal, bleeding. don't take pradaxa if you have abnormal bleeding, and seek immediate medical care for unexpected signs of bleeding like unusual bruising. pradaxa may increase your bleeding risk if you're 75 or older, have kidney problems or a bleeding condition, like stomach ulcers. or if you take aspirin products, nsaids, or blood thinners. tell your doctor about all medicines you take, any planned medical or dental procedures, and don't stop taking pradaxa without your doctors approval, as stopping may increase your stroke risk. other side effects include indigestion,stomach pain, upset, or burning. if you have afib not caused by a heart valve problem, ask your doctor if pradaxa can reduce your risk of a stroke.

for more information or help paying for pradaxa, visit pradaxa.com.

well, it's monday, which means it's time for keli goff's daily rant. hello, keli. >> hey, dylan. new york fashion week, or what i like to call the week where we are all reminded we will never be tall enough or thin enough, just concluded. in addition to the shows and parties and overall fabulousness the week brings, it also brought something new to the big apple this year, more models of color. a year ago, i appeared on this very program to discuss whether or not the fashion industry was experiencing an obama effect. at the time, i noted that more women of color were appearing on the covers of and inside fashion magazines after president obama took off. halle berry was on the cover of 2010's "vogue." unfortunately, this obama effect appeared to be limited to print. this despite the fact that black women spend approximately $20 billion a year on clothes. according to a report compiled by loop21.com, a site for which

i am a contributing editor, last year of 144 shows, 25 featured no black models, while 19 featured no asian models. now, there are those that have argued that when we have real problems from poverty to more serious forms of discrimination, why does an issue like diversity in fashion matter? well, i'll tell you why it matters. if you do a google search for the cosby show and the election of barack obama, you'll get over 100,000 hits. the reason, because from academics to political consultants, there are countless experts who believe that the impact that "the cosby show" had on popular culture paved the way for the election of president obama. this subject seems to be one of the few points that karl rove and "the new york times" actually agree on. my point is that pop culture often has a much greater impact on subjects like race than politics or the law. so what we see on television, in magazines, and yes, on runways, matters. which is why i'm so pleased to report that this year there has been an uptick in the number of models of color appearing on

runways. now, there were a few designers who could use some improvement, the labels supreme and caroline charles didn't feature a single model of color in their shows. that means no one of black, hispanic, or asian decent. you can read the full report at loop21.com, where you can also read my conversation with supermodel beverly johnson, vivian tamm, wendy williams, and the head of new york fashion week, fennrn malice on the subjt of diversity and fashion. >> i agree with you that anything, whether -- that only when you infect pop cultural, is it real, effectively. in terms of how it is practiced. in an actual better or even a visceral political battle may be useful short-term, but it does not fundamentally alter reality or the reflections of reality. i guess the question is, doesn't pop culture ultimately change based on -- how much -- i guess, i don't know.

how much is pop culture changed based on how people behave and the demand and what they're into on youtube and all that, which is just the nature of the wave, and how much of it is influenced by strategic decisions of the powerful and famous people you referred to before? >> i know we're almost out of time, but it's sort of like the chicken and the egg debate. we needed laws to end segregation so we would all be forced to interact, but at the end of the day, it came down to us. so that is always going to be the reality on these issues. we try to call attention to it, hopefully it will help inform the point of view like we did last year and the numbers got better this year, but at the end of the day, people want to do it. >> keli goff, you can check her out at the loop21. that'll do it for us today. i'm dylan ratigan. right now, "hardball with chris matthews." obama draus the line. let's play "hardball."