ry anne shula, and i've lost 23 pounds on nutrisystem. nutrisystem silver for 2010, the weight-loss program designed for older americans to lose weight and feel great again! let's face it, the older you get, the harder it is to lose weight. not anymore, honey. it's easy with nutrisystem. for a limited time, get our best tv offer: four weeks free! that's 112 meals absolutely free. even the shipping is free. i look and feel so much better, and so does coach. i'm back to my playing weight. see how nutrisystem silver can change your life. trust me, you will lose weight. don't miss our best tv offer: order now and you can get an extra four weeks of delicious meals. that's right, you can get an extra 28 breakfasts, 28 lunches, 28 dinners, and 28 desserts, 112 meals free. call or click now. get back in the game.

well good afternoon to you. i am dylan ratigan, happy friday to you. the democratic party of this country finds itself, yes, at the crossroads, will they fight for real financial reform and resurrect lending in this country? or will they give in to the banks pushing the bogus casino system that leaves the root problems unsolved and all of us destined to bail them out as they extract our money for decades to come. plus in half an hour, arizona's governor reveals whether she'll sign the controversial immigration bill that could jump-start a national debate that we all know is coming on america's relationship with illegal immigrants. plus, a mystery mission to

space -- what exactly is the air force doing with the secret x-37 b? show starts right now. well in america today, we find ourselves amid a battle for the soul of our democratic party. the one that is in power in this country. will that party succomb to the influence and money from wall street? or will they actually work for the american people and deliver a bill that fixes the fundamentally fatal flaws that nearly took down our entire economy two years ago? and continues to rig the game in their favor against the interests of every american business to this day? those same flaws that continue to threaten our country each and every day. you and i both know that banking committee chairman chris dodd is

negotiating behind closed doors with his republican counterpart, richard shelby to reach agreement on a bill that will produce 60 votes. the intention, to rush it to the floor with no debate on the obvious and blatant flaws in the legislation that perpetrate the corrupt system that mr.s dodd and shelby seek to perpetrate. and even in they don't reach agreement. senate majority leader, harry reid, said he'll put it up for a vote anyway, just to avoid the honest debate. the movers by reid and dodd are moves intended to silence the truth-tellers in our senate. people like senator ted kaufmann, senator sharrod brown, senator blanche lincoln, dick durbin, maria can'twell, carl levin. bernie sanders. they all want an honest debate about the fundamental flaws in the bill. however, those in the leadership role are attempting to quash that debate and serve the

bankers who deliver them the money. lawmakers, actually trying to bring transparency to the shadow banks. lawmakers actually trying to stop the police and regulators for being under the employment of the crooks they're supposed to supervise. trying to fix a bill that perpetuates permanently too big to fail. it's a bill that is designed in fact deliberately to hide the next bailout so that congress never has to do it again. and meantime, all of them, the bankers and the politicians, hold you and i prisoner, to too big to fail banks that have only gotten bigger. four of them now control 60% of all the assets in our country. with leverage like that, my friends, you don't need a democracy, you own the place. the goldman sachs lawsuit finally put a spotlight on the dire need to fix the derivatives market. remember that whole -- transparency, guess what, there it is. who knew? please, send some money to a

politician so we can continue our shell game. the bankers who continue to try to keep the shadowy game of three-cup monty afoot. a game you can beat, like i said, by simply pulling back the curtain. they don't want to do it. and then there are the regulators, like the securities and exchange commission, who as the crisis developed, was being defunded by president bush. and those who were there were watching porn instead of stopping an economic armageddon being perpetrated by the very people they're paid to supervise. the dodd bill actually gives those same regulators more power. which would be fine, except our financial police are much less like the strict enforcers, think about how you look at the fbi. these guys are more like the keystone cops. bought and paid for. or just incompetent. and then there are the ratings agencies. which a senate investigation has just revealed drank the cool-aid

so to speak and now admitting they often caved to the bank's wishes to give good ratings to bad bonds nearly 90% of those bonds were later downgraded. that was of course, after they were sold to your retirement fund and then the bank placed a wager that the crappy bond that they created and just sold to your retirement fund, was going to fail. thanks to our politicians, this is all largely legal. apparently it's part of the american banking system. although it has nothing to do with lending or investing. all of these examples have us wondering which democratic party will win out in the end. the party trying to push a bad bill through for special interests and keep our country in tremendous risk as they seek to retire and go hang out on the farm or maybe get a hedge fund job? or the party of truth-tellers, who are willing to do the hard work and get their hands dirty it try to resurrect real rules-based capitalism, lending and investing and a brighter future for the american people. joining us now ezra klein, staff

writer for the "washington post" and liberal blogger cenk yuger. who wins? >> on these issues i tend to be a little pessimistic. i think you have described it exactly right. they're battling for the soul right now of the democratic party and i think probably the corporatists will win. the progressives almost never win. it would be a tremendous surprise if they pulled out the victory here. i hope they're strong and hold on. but that's not what history indicates. >> isn't truth the friend of those who would tell the truth, cenk? >> that's a good one. no, you know, i have to be honest with you. outside of this show, there aren't a lot of media shows out there that help the truth-tellers. because they don't, i mean every media report i hear is talking about how democrats and obama are fighting for strong reform and the question is whether they'll get the strong reform or not. it's not strong at all. you're the only one on tv that seems to be telling us the

truth. which is that it's actually totally weak reform. and we're having this joke between weak reform or the republican vernsion, which is n reform. i think we're in tight spot. we're in a tight spot, but you're right, the kaufmanns of the world and bernie sanders, et cetera, we hope they can put up a good battle. because they're our last hope. >> here's the thing on truth thing, on television, cenk, this show is rating really well. ezra, how do you analyze what's going on inside the democratic party right now? >> well i think it's what you see a lots, right? i think you're exactly right to say they're moving it very fast because they're worried about too much debate. i don't know if they're trying to hide something. but what they learned about health care is when they let it sit out there, when they let it drag out, the other side got their opposition together. they want to move this while the politics are on their side and quick. and in that way, this is bigger problem than people recognize, they're taking advantage of the

fact that people in general and a lot of legislators don't understand this stuff. health care reform, we had done this before, there was a whole intellectual structure devoted to understanding health care reform. these guys don't know who to call, they don't know how the deals work. they want to get on the right side of the wall street politics and get it off the table. >> what is hard to understand for a washington politician, ezra, about eliminating bank secrets, transparency, which blanche lincoln seems to get, and yet there is resistance from senator dodd to blanche lincoln's proposal. what is hard for a politician to understand, ezra, about the ratings agencies being employed by the very banks whose bonds they rate, as opposed to the pension funds, that buy those bonds? let's take the two things separately. on lincoln's proposal which is in many ways a very good proposal and the only part of the reform that is really wall street reform. the opposition, as i understand it, mainly comes to spinning off the swaps desk from the larger

banks. that is to say, the parts that do drerivatives would have to b not be part of the banks, if the banks have access to the federal reserve window. say they're worried about that because it's disruption, overkill, it would crash the derivatives market for a while. the economy is still fragile. that's the argument there. >> it is indefensivable. i don't care if you're a 4-year-old from mars, if i tell you i'm going to gin up exotic instruments and that i need to get a good housekeeping seal of approval, called a aaa rating in order to sell this concoction of bonds to the retirees that, the teachers, the policemen, et cetera. but i'm going to make it legal for those who are selling those bonds, to pay off the people who rate them -- sell them to the pension manager. and then wager with massive

leverage that that pension manager is going to take it in the gut. i don't know whether you need an intellectual infrastructure or not in washington to understand the obvious and disastrous conflict of the fact that the regulators and the ratings agencies, ezra, not that you came up with this -- but that those people work for the banks. i don't know how, do i need a think tank to figure out that that's a conflict of interest? >> we're in agreement on this part in particular. and it's why what is so weird about the bill is how weak it is on ratings agencies. there are a lot of these bits that are complicated. derivatives, i think we would agree, understanding derivatives is complicated. >> we could go all day with that but i want to stop you, ezra. >> the ratings agency should not be employed by the banks. >> this is the simplest piece of the legislation. we've been two yees, millions of people have lost their jobs. one under 25 doesn't have a job. houses are under water, retirees are getting zero percent and our

congress wants to rush a bill that keeps the ratings agencies working for the banks after all this has gone down? cenk -- it's funny. i'm going to leave it at that. i honestly, there aren't words for it, it's the stupidest thing i've ever seen in my entire life. they said this is an issue that is smart versus stupid, not left versus right. it appears that stupid is winning. coming up, a live news conference from arizona, governor jan brewer announcing her decision that the controversial immigration bill that is before her will be signed, not signed or allowed to go into law with no signature. which that would be a ballsy politician. the bill sparking debate in her state and a rebuke from the president. >> if we continue to fail to act at a federal level, we will continue to see misguided efforts opening up around the country. plus, why the tea party is awol from the debate over financial reform. if anybody was in favor of not

becoming a bank slave, you think it would be tea partiers. but apaintly they're okay with that. also a new report throwing cold water on the democrats' health care law passed last month. care for everybody, but it will cost you, because we have to maintain the special interest deals for the drug companies and insurance companies. and of course, the 1940s-based employer-based health care system. we couldn't change that. we'll be right back. [ male announcer ] fishing pole, it's been a while. you stood in the basement gathering dust while i, sneezing, itching eyes kept you from our favorite stream. the one that runs through a field where pollen floats through the air. but now, with the strength of 24-hour zyrtec® to relieve my worst allergy symptoms, indoors and outdoors... let's go before the fish stop biting. they won't wait for us. but that's okay. zyrtec® is the fastest 24-hour allergy medicine. today, we battle wits with the trout. with zyrtec® i can love the air®.

♪ somewhere in america... there's a home by the sea powered by the wind on the plains. there's a hospital where technology has a healing touch. there's a factory giving old industries new life. and there's a train that got a whole city moving again. somewhere in america, the toughest questions are answered every day. because somewhere in america, more than sixty thousand people spend every day answering them. siemens. answers. no matter how the market changes, your retirement savings need care and attention from year to year. open a t.rowe price smartchoice rollover ira, and let our professionals manage it for you. just choose the retirement fund closest to your expected retirement date. our fund managers will adjust the investment mix over time to become more conservative as your retirement date nears. all with no loads, sales charges or commissions.

visit our website, or call our investment guidance specialists at 1800-539-8115 and consider a move that could make all the difference in your retirement. the t. rowe price smartchoice rollover 1-800-539-8115 request a prospectus or summary prospectus with investment objectives, risks, fees, expenses and other information to read and consider carefully before investing. t. rowe price. invest with confidence.

when it comes to wall street and give-away reform in washington, a mixed report on the nation's new health care law. and the possible next step in global warfare. is there finally, perhaps, some sort of device that makes the nuke neutered? but next thursday, we're taking the "dr show" on the road, broadcasting live from the protests on wall street, from labor groups to student groups to veterans and retirees, anyone else fed up with being the exploited target of gaming on wall street. we'll be in attendance. however, one group who will be notably not be in attendance -- the so-called tea partiers. a movement originally sparked by anger, over bank bailouts that were paid to pay off bets like that goldman sachs cdo wager. the tea partiers are notably absent from the current debate on financial reform. in fact, a recent poll of tea party supporters shows them very

angry about health care and government spending. but the $23 trillion put at risk by our banking system and the $4 trillion used by them in bailouts? the gambling with your pension? the obliteration of your children's work? the burying of your home? it doesn't really bother them. here to mix it up, cenk uyger, who called attention to this in his column in the "huffington post." cenk, does this mean that the tea partiers are socialists? that they're in favor of a giant government takeover of the banking system? they seem fine with it. >> i actually think that the protesters themselves are honest and genuine about their feelings. an i think they really were worked up about the bailouts. but i have to be honest, i think they're suckers. i think they get easily duped by groups like americans for

prosperity and freedom works, which are corporate-sponsored groups. so instead of going to protest wall street, which is where all of their efforts should be, they go to protest in favor of health care companies. boy, do they get led around by the nose. they have to feel silly, why aren't they out there on wall street, protesting, hey, why did you take our money. do their own protest. i've been challenging them since the beginning of the year. i dare them to prove me wrong. that they're smart and that they care about this issue. go protest on wall street. i guarantee you they won't do it because their corporate sponsors don't want that. >> matt lewis, how do you spla the tea party's absence from anything having to do with wall street reform and the bailouts when that was the catalyst for their formation. am i correct in the fact that the tea partiers are secret socialists? >> it would probably feel very good for us to protest wall street. but that sort of pitchfork populism and class economic

warfare is not going to be effective. it was actually the government who gave us the bailouts. politicians work for us, hedge fund brokers, maybe they have a responsibility to us ethically. but they don't work for us. it's the politicians who gave us the bailout. it's the politicians who own the car companies. it's the politicians and the fed who kept the interest rates too low. it's the quasi-government companies like fannie and freddie who destroyed the housing market. >> isn't it wall street that sends the money to the politicians to change the rules to take the money to require the -- >> goldman sachs -- goldman sachs did give a million dollars to barack obama. so you're right about that. >> not only that, but he gave a lot to chris dodd and barney frank, too. i don't understand -- it's clear that the democrats and republicans are largely bought by the banking industry. if you're upset with the government to cenk's point, are tea partiers not intelligent enough to recognize that the government is under the employment of the banking system. that is creating the laws that's allowing the banking system to steal the tea partiers' money?

>> i think it's about being effective. if i were a strategist advising the tea party, i would say look, you can feel good and go to wall street and hold up signs or vote the bums out in 2010. that's where the action is. >> who do they work for? >> wait a minute, wait a minute. i got to regulate on this. who would they vote for, republicans? they're ten times more in the tank for wall street. they -- >> that's actually not true. wall street gives a lot moren inny to democrats. >> no, no, no. wait a minute -- >> wall street gave $1 million to barack obama. >> matt, cenk, asked him to do the bailout. who was the president when the bailout was created, matt? >> look, i can see that. i was against the bailout, it was george w. bush. >> you can't have it both ways, my man. we know the democrats are completely screwing this up and bought by the bankers. that is clear. but to argue fraudulently in public that the republicans were not directly responsible for the accommodations of wall street as much as bill clinton and bob

reuben were in the late '90s, to argue that the president of the united states at the time that the money was delivered to the banks, wasn't a man named president george w. bush is intellectually dishonest and directly manipulative of your desire to try to serve the interest of your special community, to try to accumulate power at the expense of the truth, matt. >> well i'm not arguing that, dylan. if i were -- >> so knock it off. >> if i were, you would be right. but i'm not, george w. bush gave us the bailout. and by the way, let me say, tea partiers, go look at who voted for the bailout, if you don't like it and vote them out of office. it's a lot more republicans and a lot more democrats. >> i like how he's populism when it's against wall street. isn't that convenient? i thought the tea partiers were all about populism. all of a sudden, it's no, no, protect wall street! nonsense. next, a mixed verdict from the first independent at president obama's health care overhaul. the plan does cover more people,

that's kind of the, that's how they get you in there and then it raises costs and takes care of every special interest in the pocket of the democratic party. the health department report says the plan will actually add coverage for 34 million americans, which by the way, if you spend more money and take care of all the special interests and don't mind torpedoing the deficit, isn't that hard to do. it will increase spending by about 1%, they say, all of these things are, who knows. but $311 billion over the next ten years. the report also warns that expected savings from medicare cuts might be unrealistic. surprise, surprise. and that those medicare cuts could send about 15% of hospitals into the red. republicans pouncing on the report, saying it validates their concerns about the trillion-dollar plan. and of course, don't have an alternative plan to actually do it. although paul ryan's plan, i think made the most sense to me. matt, how much fodder is this for republicans? and will they actually come up with a better plan? or are they just talking about

how democrats take care of special interests? >> the democrats had a better plan -- >> they did not have a better plan. >> they did not have a better plan. they didn't cover all the people, matt. if you don't cover all the people, it doesn't couldn't as a plan. if your plan is the rwanda plan, we don't want it and the republicans' plan was the rwanda plan. >> we've been saying all along this would happen. >> me, too. are you kidding me? the republicans, cenk, the issue is we don't have an opposition party. please, elaborate. it's a joke. >> it's exactly right. because, all three of us were in agreement that this was going to happen. i was against the health care bill, because it was half a loaf. the subsidies are happy about that. i want to fix the system, i'm more progressive than a liberal. it didn't fix the system. when you go to the opposition party, they want to fix the system less. they want to keep the insurance companies and drug companies in even bigger charge. >> the truth is, that what we should do is actually, really fundamentally tackle this

problem. and i think that right now, the part of the problem is that people get their insurance, their health insurance from their employer. i would actually get away from an employer health care system. that's a fundamental solution. >> yes, it is, i think we could all agree to that. the employer-based health care system is in the interests of the special interests who went to it and at the expense of every taxpayer, patient and doctor in this country. the obama plan does provide more coverage and that's about it. it provides a lot more bills and problems for everybody else. cenk, matt, it's always a pleasure. but matt, help us solve the problems, matt. ffrgt the republicans, forget the democrats. >> i'm a problem-sofr. >> they're all talking nan sense. >> wait until november. >> to cenk's point, who are we voting for in november? still ahead in "busted," some things musts be worse than jail. what this guy did to try to avoid arrest. but first, the pentagon launches its new secret space plane. this is fun.

this is like toys for boys. little "mission: impossible." it's a legitimate rocket, we don't know why it exists, but we know our tax dollars paid for it. girls, too. we're back, either way, whether girls like it or not. it's in our "by the numbers."

engine ignition, zero and liftoff of the united launch alliance. >> after the years of development, the air force has launched that. in today's "by the numbers," a top-secret mission that they're not at liberty to talk about. we were able to find a couple of things out. what you see there is the so-called x-37 b. it is the culmination of our

military's secretive space rocket program. the unmanned space plane is 29 feet long and 15 feet wide at the wing. it's powered by lithium batteries and solar panels and can fly for up to 270 days. although for what purpose, no one knows. the x-37 b or somebody knows, but they're not telling us. the x-37 b will return sometime in the next nine months. they won't tell us exactly when or where. but then again, we don't even know why. however, it will be landing somewhere in the united states. if that helps. of course, the cost and the mission are the most interesting parts. but then again, they tell me that if they told me and i told you -- well, they would have to kill us. so, we're not going to do that. you are officially in the loop on the space plane that you're paying for. kind of. up next here on the "dr

show" a live conference from arizona by governor brewer, to inform the media if she'll sign the bill about immigration. i'm ed whitacre, from general motors. a lot of americans didn't agree with giving gm a second chance. quite frankly, i can respect that. we want to make this a company all americans can be proud of again. that's why i'm here to announce we have repaid our government loan, in full, with interest, five years ahead of the original schedule. but there's still more to do. our goal is to exceed every expectation you've set for us. we're putting people back to work, designing, building,

and selling the best cars and trucks in the world. with our 100,000-mile, 5-year powertrain warranty to guarantee the quality. and the unmatched life-saving technology of onstar to help keep you safe. from new energy solutions. to the designs of tomorrow. we invite you to take a look at the new gm. diarrhea, constipation, gas, bloating. that's me! can i tell you what a difference phillips' colon health has made? it's the probiotics. the good bacteria. that gets your colon back in balance. i'm good to go! phillips' colon health.

every arizona citizen, and everyone here in our state lawfully. and it does so while insuring that the constitutional rights of all in arizona remain solid, stable and steadfast. i will now sign senate bill

1070. >> i need my glasses. >> thank you, thank you. >> you've been watching a live signing ceremony, the governor

of arizona signing foo law effectively a new piece of legislation that will allow local law enforcement -- let's take another listen. >> for weeks this legislation has been subject of vigorous debate and intense criticism. my decision to sign it was by no means made lightly. i have listened patiently to both sides. and i have considered the significance of this new law long into the night. i have prayed for strengths and i have prayed for our state. i've decided to sign senate bill 1070 into law because though many people disagree, i firmly believe it represents what's best for arizona. border-related violence and crime due to illegal immigration are critically important issues for the people of our state. to my administration and to me, as your governor and as a

citizen. there's no higher priority than protecting the citizens of arizona. we cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels. we cannot stand idly by as drop houses, kidnapping and violence compromise our quality of life. key with not delay while the destruction happening south of our border, our international border creeps its way north. we in arizona have been more than patient waiting for washington to act. but decades of federal inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation. yesterday i announced the steps i was taking to enhance security along our borders. today with my unwavering signature on this legislation, arizona strengthens its security within our borders. let me be clear, though. my signature today represents my

steadfast support for enforcing the law. both against illegal immigration, and against racial profiling. this legislation mirrors federal laws regarding immigration enforcement. despite erroneous and misleading statements suggesting otherwise. the new state misdemeanor crime of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document, is adopted verbatim from the same offense found in federal statute. i will not tolerate racial discrimination or racial profiling in arizona. because i feel so strongly on this subject, i have worked for weeks with legislators to amend senate bill 1070, to strengthen its civil rights protection. that effort led to new language in the bill. language prohibiting law enforcement officers from, and i

quote, solely considering race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this section. end of quote. >> we will continue to monitor again arizona governor jan brewer, who just signed into law a new piece of legislation providing further authority to local law enforcement in arizona. the most controversial aspect of it pertaining to the ability of law enforcement to effectively demand documentation from anyone that they believe to be or that is perceived to be an illegal immigrant. which of course strikes all sorts of questions about racial profiling and all the rest of it. and joining us now is democratic congresswoman from california, who sits on the homeland security committee, loretta sanchez. and with us from tucson, arizona, republican state senator, frank antinori, who represents three counties along the arizona-mexco border. frank, how do you feel? >> i feel good.

this is a long-overdue piece of legislation. and i hope that the congresswoman is listening this is also arizona's cry for help. a help cry that we've been making for about 15 years. and has been falling on deaf ears at the federal level. so since the federal government isn't helping us, we now have to step up and help ourselves. and this is bill, now a law, that will go a long way to starting to enforce the laws that the federal government should be enforcing. >> congresswoman, your reaction? >> well i would say to the senator, first and foremost, we don't have a law at the federal level that goes after people and stops them simply because we suspect that they are hispanic or that they are an illegal alien. we don't have that law. so for him to say that he is -- >> congressman -- >> for him to say that he is enforcing a federal law is completely and totally wrong. in fact, we have a partnership with local law enforcement agencies. it's called 287-g.

a piece of our, of our law that says that we train local law enforcement officials so that when they make stops for other purposes, and they're asking about a person's information, and they come across someone they suspect, does not have the right documents to be in this country. that they can in fact act as an immigration official and take them in for those purposes. >> so the distinction would be if i was pulled over for speeding or some other crime, at that point in time you could say, hey, what are your papers, mr. ratigan? >> that's when you ask for my driver's license. that's when you ask for information about who i am. but in this particular case, the law is very straightforward -- >> i promise you get a chance. >> she's misstating. >> you get a chance, okay? you get a chance when i decide, it's up to you. >> you can either walk out of here. >> that's your style, that's your style. i know. >> so the problem -- >> my style is i control the

room, it's my show. when it's named after you, you can control the room. if you're not comfortable with that, i suggest you leave now. please continue, congressman. >> to points, 287-g. the sheriff from mariposa county, his own state, is under investigation by the fbi, because they, they're lawless, they go after people regardless. they are not following the rules that are in place, even though we have given them the ability under 287-g, to take people in after having made a stop or for another reason, or catching them in another crime. >> is the senator still there, or did he decide to leave? >> no, i'm not going to leave because i'm not going to let her -- that's totally inaccurate. i know the congresswoman most likely didn't read the legislation or just listen to what the governor said. it requires a lawful encounter by a police officer. i've got the bill right here. it requires a lawful encounter by a police officer, and then after determining a reasonable

suspicion exists, he then is able to determine or make a reasonable attempt to determine where practicable, the immigration status of a person. so in other words, it is exactly as she states. first, they must be pulled over for another violation. >> let me stop you quickly. senator, let me stop you, i also have an excerpt of the bill and i'm going to read you a quote from the same bill you're reading from. different portion. a law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes that person removable from the united states. that doesn't sound like i've been pulled over for a speeding ticket. >> if you, if you rob a convenience store, he has probable cause to arrest you. >> let me read this to you again. it says that the person has committed any public offense that makes that person removable from the united states. and of course, one of the public

offenses that could make you removable from the united states would be being in the united states without paperwork, correct? >> illegally. illegally. >> so i could go up to anybody and say, do you have paperwork. and if you do not, that's a public offense. >> that's not true, mr. ratigan. >> where am i not understanding? >> there are two thresholds required by a law enforcement officer to go through before he gets to that point you're talking about. first he must have a lawful contact. he pulled someone over for a traffic violation or called to investigate a crime. then he asks them, like every other citizen is asked, for identification. if they fail to do that or unable to do that, now he has what's known as reasonable suspicion. now the law kicks in now this law says because he has reasonable suspicion, he can detain this person to determine their immigration status. and if they're here illegally, they'll be handed over to federal authorities for eventual deportation. that's all the law does. >> i got it. i think there's a bigger issue

here than this. and i think the three of us know it. and that is -- >> the bigger issue is the federal government has failed. >> i don't think you're going to like where i'm headed. we have an immigration problem in this country. there's hypocrisy from start to finish in the immigration debate on every level and there's so many claims on every side of the room that can at least be validated in some way. if nothing else, congresswoman, is this the beginning of the road to -- after health care and banks, that now we're going to bring immigration to a boil and have it out? >> well, this is a discussion that i have wanted to have, 14 years in the congress there are plenty of people in the congress who understand, we need comprehensive immigration reform. one, we need to be better about securing our borders. as a sovereign nation, we have the right to decide who comes in and who leaves. that's part of what i've done on the border security committee. secondly, people who are already here, what do we do with them? we have mixed families. we have a husband who has papers

to be here. a wife who has no papers to be in this country, but is here. and then usa-born children. >> the complexity is infinite, for sure. >> kick out the mother and break up families? we can't do that. >> but the interesting thing, senator, about this piece of legislation in arizona, regardless of how you feel about the piece of legislation, do you agree that we are now amplifying the course toward a meaningful national debate that would address all of the simple issues and the complexity that make this the issue that it is, senator? >> sure. i would agree with you on that. and, but i think the order that the congresswoman made was just slightly off. i think number one, the number one priority, particularly for the people that i represent, here on the front line of this issue, is that this border must be secured. and it has not occurred, we have people -- >> that was the first thing she said. she actually did say that first, but that's immaterial. i think what's interesting is we're getting to this debate. what else do you think is important, senator? >> i think we need, rather than

diverting resources to all of these other issues. the government's number one role is to protect the individual liberty. the federal government's number one role is national defense. both of those are covered by securing our national border. a fence was built in the congresswoman's part of the state, built along the texas border and that has channelled everyone into arizona, into the open desert and right through my legislative district. we have running gun battles, high-speed chases and i have constituents being murdered now out in the counties that i represent, because this border is wide open. and we have everybody, not just people coming here for a job. people coming here to do harm and smuggle drugs and smuggle people into the state are coming through. and we need help. so i hope she's listening, we need help. >> and i have been working on this, senator. but i will say to you, you brought up individual liberty, i didn't. individual liberty means that i should not fear going to arizona, because i am hispanic. by the way, my father is from

nogales, right across the border there. nogales is a city both in arizona and in mexico. so i'm right, my family is right from that area. i should not have to fear to go there and make sure i am carrying what, my congressional i.d. card, 14 affidavits from friends who know me in california and can attest to the fact that i'm a united states citizen? what you are doing is you are actually going after individual liberties when you have a law that, as our host said, clearly states, that you can stop someone because you believe they should not be in this country. what does that look like? does it look like me? is that what you're saying? >> no, congresswoman, i guess we're going to beat the dead horse, because again i've said twice and the governor said there are thresholds required and reasonable suspicion that has to be met. and the supreme court has weighed in on what those criteria are on about a dozen cases. you are not going to have officers just randomly pulling people over to check their i.d.s. >> they do that. they have done that in anaheim,

california, my hometown. we had a guy who used to go around, stop somebody for a traffic, not for a traffic violation. stop somebody in their car. bash in the back of their light, come up and say, your light is broken, show me your documents. no documents, put them in his car and drove them down to the immigration border in san compleme clemente and left them in the middle of the freeway for my border patrol to take them. >> let me ask you both a big question, we'll go round and round with this. at the end of the day, i'll ask both of you these questions. i'll start with you, senator. do you believe we can address the immigration issue if we don't address the labor issue and the number of people, whether it's farm workers, cleaners, construction workers or food preparation that exists in our economy, what is the number? it's 24% of all farm workers, 17% of all house cleaners. 14% of all construction workers.

12% of all food preparation. i'm not saying this is good or bad. i'm saying how do you deal with illegal immigration and not deal with those facts. and can you deal with illegal immigration and not also deal with the drug war in the violence and mexico, and the demand for drugs, 70% of the drugs that leave mexico are consumed by americans? can you address this issue and ignore those? >> no, no, no. i'm not saying that at all. i think we do need to have immigration reform. but first, we have to define the sovereign borders of this country and protect our sid sense -- >> agreed. >> right, let's do that let's secure the border. >> john mccain and jon kyle -- >> can you do is that without dealing with the drug war and wlab? >> no. >> and i would say that's what we're talking about when we talk about comprehensive immigration reform. first, decide 0 who comes in and out. secure the border. secondly -- >> well secure the border first. >> secondly, deal with the people that are inside. what are we going to do with

them? i would say -- >> we'll save that for another day. >> third, the number of visas that we give for people to come to work, you guys, as soon as we get out of this recession, we are not going to have enough workers for our future. which means, that we will have more jobs that need people. we need to look at immigration and decide what kind of paperwork, how wide do we make the gate for people to come here legally? if they have a way to get here legally, to do these jobs, they're not going to be coming in, paying some coyote to bring them in for $7,000. >> is it an actual coyote? >> no. >> it's a bad guy carrying an ak-47 that kills people, that's who's bringing them in. >> this debate is coming. we need to deal with the hypocrisy on every level. >> we look forward to the president stepping up to the plate and helping out the citizens of arizona with this issue. >> we look forward to

comprehensive immigration reform. and we want to have that passed this year, by the way. we're not afraid of it. >> isn't it fun to have so much to look forward to? we have a lot to look forward to. i have to look forward to this commercial break right now. listen, senator thank you so much. a pleasure, you guys were both great. i appreciate it. still ahead, a little bit of "busted," some outrageous comments about an ohio congresswoman. voters should put her back in the kitchen. plus, the worst hideout ever, a fugitive's desperate action to evade police.

♪ [ male announcer ] we make them beautiful. ♪ we make them tougher. ♪ we make them legendary. we make them better... ♪ to make your life better. ♪ and we've never made one... quite like this. the 100% electric nissan leaf. ♪ [ male announcer ] competition... it pushes us to work harder. to be better. to win. but sometimes even rivals realize they share a common goal. america's beverage companies have removed full-calorie soft drinks from schools, reducing beverage calories by 88%. together with schools, we're helping kids make more balanced choices every day. ♪

we're back with "busted." first up, the republican party in ohio, confusing congresswoman betty sutton with betty crocker. the gop forgetting years of social progress in order to get voters' attention, sending out a newsletter attacking the democrat with this vote, let's take betty sutton out of the house and put her back in the kitchen. it's clever. ms. sutton calls the attack an insult to all women regardless of whether they work in the home. but the gop county chairman said he hasn't received any complaints. he also claims that the line is not sexist and that type of rhetoric is very common in all elections. sutton faces re-election this

fall. the liberation of women reminds me that we can liberate our country from the banks that control the government. next an indiana man raisings quite a stink when he's finally arrested. in his attempt to evade police, thomas hobis jr. hopped into a manure pit and hid there neck-deep in hog feces for longer than an hour. the officers' reward for apprehending the smelly bandit? they were able to share an ambulance ride with the smelly man as he was suffering from hypothermia as a result of being submerged in pig manure for over an hour. in orlando bus driver making an unscheduled stop and leaving his passengers on board while he grab as cup of coffee. one of the passengers pulled out a cell phone and caught this footage of a driver coming out of a starbucks while the people on the bus sat there and waited for him. he did get suspended for the incident.

no word if he asked the passengers if they wanted anything before he went in. straight ahead here on "hardball" -- republican congressman scott garrett faces off with democrat chris van holland over the financial regulation. why dot ratings agencies still work for the bank? maybe chris can figure it out straight ahead on "hardball." f. the one that runs through a field where pollen floats through the air. but now, with the strength of 24-hour zyrtec® to relieve my worst allergy symptoms, indoors and outdoors... let's go before the fish stop biting. they won't wait for us. but that's okay. zyrtec® is the fastest 24-hour allergy medicine. today, we battle wits with the trout. with zyrtec® i can love the air®. ♪

somewhere in america... there's a home by the sea powered by the wind on the plains. there's a hospital where technology has a healing touch. there's a factory giving old industries new life. and there's a train that got a whole city moving again. somewhere in america, the toughest questions are answered every day. because somewhere in america, more than sixty thousand people spend every day answering them. siemens. answers.