i'm cenk uygur from the young turks. we have a great show for you today. you're not going to want to go anywhere. we begin with a political blockbuster. a house ethics panel finds democratic congressman charlie rangel of new york guilty on 11 of 13 counts of breaking house rules. they will conduct a hearing on the appropriate punishment for the chairman of the ways and means committee. that could include fines, reprimands or outright expulsion. cnbc's john harwood joins me live from washington. john, what rules did he break? >> cenk, these 11 counts that they found him guilty of all relate to things like improper fund raising to benefit a scepter that would bear his name, failure to disclose income. failure to pay taxes. an assortment of things called

sloppiness, but not outright corruption. i have to tell you, i don't hear anybody talking about the possibility that charlie rangel will be expelled from the house. this is more about a reprimand. >> they just say you've been a bad boy. they're calling it sloppy instead of corruption. then leaves it up to the voters if they want to reelect him next time. is that right? >> absolutely. the fact that it doesn't kick somebody out of the house and it's only a piece of paper, doesn't mean that it's not highly embarrassing and painful for the lawmaker to go through. but ultimately it is up to the voters to decide unless the ethics committee and the full house take the rather extreme step of kicking somebody out, it goes back to the voters in two years. >> yesterday we were talking about mcconnell giving into the insurgency say we're going in for a ban on earmarks.

then the president said he was supportive of that. do we have real bipartisanship here? >> well, i don't know how real it is, but we have a moment in which president obama has found common cause with republicans and found it politically in his interest to do what republicans think it is in their interest to do. mitch mcconnell was seeing the footprints behind him. he's been a historic supporter of the earmarks in the belief they make only a trivial contribution to the budget deficit. some of them are legitimate projects. the public doesn't feel that way. especially the tea party. president obama wands to respond to this that lesson. mitch mcconnell did. that's how they present some element of bipartisanship cooperation. not because they want to get along, but they feel they need to get along. >> so this is just the beginning, right? they said in their own caucus we want to ban these. but when do we find out if it's real? and how do we find out?

what do they do where we say okay, now we give them credit. >> on this subject we'll find out next year they pass legislation and see if the earmarks are added. president obama in his campaign as candidate obama promised to go after earmarks, and then he found himself when he came into office signing bills that contain ad lot of earmarks and saying, well i don't have the opportunity to end that practice now because we have to get going. next year is when the rubber is going to hit the road on the collection. these things are making a mic microscopic contribution to the budget deficit. but corruption results from these. >> i think it's a really good first step. but we'll see if it comes to fruition next year, as you say. i want to ask you about one more question also about bipartisanship. we've had rand paul, bernie sand

ers and john mccain talking about cutting the pentagon budget. boy, that would be amazing schlt that real, or sh that a pipe dream? >> well, i think to some degree, cenk, it's still a pipe dream, but i do think this is a place that over the long term, there is a possibility that just as on earmarks, you would find a political common cause from various forces, tea party people on the left, the obama administration to cut defense at a greater level than has been done in the past. >> cnbc's john har wood, thank you for joining us. >> you bet. >> on defense spending, i'm going to get back to that and tell you what i think we should do with it. remember the excitement and enthusiasm of your freshman year? take that feeling and multiply it by ten times and you have a good snapshot of the dozens of rookie republicans coming to congress in january. except you wanted to cut classes. they want to cut spending. determined to rattle the establishment, they're off to a

flying start after mr. washington establishment himself, senator mitch mcconnell isn't even waiting for them to be sworn in before conceding to the ban on earmarks that we just discussed. will these rebel freshmen avoid the mistakes of the 1994 republican class, or will they get sucked into the washington vortex and become everything they ran against? that is likely, by the way. all right. now mike is a political analyst and mark tapscott from the washington examiner. what were the mistakes of the 1994 class? >> are you starting with me, cenk? >> no, mark. >> i'm sorry. i didn't hear your question. what were the mistakes of the 1994 republican class? >> well, that's an interesting assumption that they made mistakes. there's a case they made that the mistake was not to be tough enough with president clinton on the government shutdown, but

that's an argument for another day. i don't think these guys will make that mistake. >> i'm referring to what they say. a lot of the tea party people, republicans are saying we don't want to make the mistake of the '94 guys. i'm trying to figure out what they think the mistake is. >> i my impression sh that they very much understand the importance of, as ronald reagan said f you can get 80% of what you're going for, most of the time that's a very good deal, and you ought to go for it. the risk obviously being that you get nothing if you don't. and i think they understand the importance of compromise. the issue is it compromise that simply slows down the growth of government, or is it compromise that moves government in the other direction to less spending and less government power? >> what's your sense, michael? do you get a sense they're

significantly different than the republican establishment? or are they generally similar? lower taxes, less government, we'll see what happens. >> well, they come in on a wave. they make up one-third of the gop incoming class, or one-third of the incoming gop in the majority house. so they are a significant number in that group. but what mark just said about them understanding compromise, that's a little ridiculous because the republican party is not at all talked about compromise coming in. what the republican party is going to have to do is compromise with each other. right now you had tim scott, the incoming freshman from south carolina who came in and said, you knowing we're going to embed into our platform of leadership exactly what we came out of the campaign with. so this is not about compromise. the mistakes these congressmen make always when they come in, when they're part of a freshman class big or small is getting sucked in as you said to the vortex of the way congress works. sure, it's easy to come in with

guns blazing for the first hundred days, but then they have to work within the confines of washington, and that always proves fatal. >> i think the biggest evidence that michael is wrong on that point is rand paul making it very clear very quickly that for him defense spending, for example, very much is on the table for spending reductions, and i think that in itself is a fundamental difference between this group and the '94 group. >> mark, that's a great point. michael, what do you say about that? because that seems like real change. >> yeah, that does seem real change. that goes to guns blazing. rand paul will have to work on defense spending. today john mccain said he wants to cut $100 million from defense spending. the senate is in a minority. they're going to have to appease a lot of people who are pro defense spending. a lot of people who draw the line in the sand. buck mccain who is coming in as the house armed services committee chairmans. he says he's actually going to

draw a line when it comes the to interfering with the wars. so rand paul ran on that. rand paul is saying that. some people are whispering that. even allen west, the florida congressman to be said he thinks they should cut defense spending. he's a former army guy. it remain thos be seen when it comes to time to legislate and do it if that's going to actually happen. it's a matter of the people listening and have to do it with him whether or not they're going to act that way. there's no proof it's going to happen. >> do you think there's a real chance they're going to cut defense spending? if they do, i will flip on the tea party in a second. if they stick to their guns, i'll be amazed. >> it's an unusual day when you and i agree on something. but in this particular case, there was a survey two weeks for the election and asked representative national sample of people would they prefer to vote for a candidate who promised to cut spending or a

candidate who promised to bring home the bacon, as it were? 60% of them said let's get people in who are going to cut spending. that defines why context for the defense spending debate, for example, is completely different now. people have much greater sophistication and understanding that we don't have any choice anymore. the government has spent too much. it has too much debt. it's got to cut back. that that has to include in some ways defense spending. we will see significant defense spending cuts. >> here, here. all the sudden mark and i agree! what a wonderful day in america. bipartisanship reigns. mark, i want to stay with you for the last question. john boehner is talking about getting rid of the independent ethics committee. there will still be ethics investigations, we hope. but they get rid of this committee. is that a good idea. i don't see what's wrong with

that. >> surely there must be more to the story than abolishing the ethics kmecommittee. i would think that would be something to reconsider. >> it's the one they voted against when pelosi suggested it. but it seems like it's done it's job. it's gone after democrats. i don't see the problem. >> we still have a congressional ethics problem. >> absolutely. we always will. >> yay. >> that was one -- you know, going back to what mark said earlier, that was one of the problems that the incoming house freshman had in '94. >> we'll see how they handle it this time around. thank you, both. really appreciate it. >> my pleasure. some new republican congressmen say they hate federal subsidies, except, of course, the ones they get. stunning hypocrisy on millions going to the families of so-called fiscal conservatives. that's next.

also, a u.s. state rules that illegal immigrants have to pay less for college than some u.s. citizens. a unique sea salt added to over 40 campbell's condensed soups. helps us reduce sodium, but not flavor. so do a few lifts. campbell's.® it's amazing what soup can do.™ with professional-grade research. and some of the most powerful, yet easy to use trading tools on the planet. it's investing with intelligence and cold hard conviction. e-trade. investing unleashed.

many of the incoming candidates said they were against wasteful spending and federal subsidies. are you ready to be shocked? >> a lot of them get the same exact subsidies. oh my god. i didn't see that coming. republican vicky hartzler of missouri has received more than $770,000 in farm subsidies over the last 15 years. she justified receiving this money by saying protecting farmers a national security issue. oh, please. now michele bachmann's family

has received over $215,000 for the bachmann family farm in independence, wisconsin. kristi noem has received over $3 million. and incoming congressman steven fincher's family has received $3.2 million. are these the the new welfare queens. there isn't a welfare recipient that has gotten anywhere near this money from the federal government. republicans took an important step forward today. so it was really surprising when one of the biggest advocates of pork or earmarks depending on your perspective, minority leader mitch mcconnell said this on the floor monday. >> i know the good that has come from the projects i've helped support throughout my state. i don't apologize for them, but

there is simply no doubt that the abuse of this practice has caused americans to view it as a symbol of the waste and out of control spending that every republican in washington is determined to fight. >> all right. hey, that's change we can believe in. of course, this is just the first step, we'll believe it when we see the programs get cut from the budget. our next guest is not sure this is a positive development. christopher beam is a political reporter for slate. before we get to the mitch mcconnell and earmarks, i want to go back to the farm subsidies. my god, it seems like a gigantic hypocrisy, doesn't it? >> yeah, it absolutely is. i mean, it's not the first time that we've seen republicans talk about reducing government and reducing spend, but have a huge glaring exception in farm subsidies. yet, here they are propping up an industry, farming, which is exactly what they are saying they didn't want to do with

banks, with auto industry. this will be a test of whether new incoming republicans actually do want to make the cuts they've been talking about. none of them ran on those cuts because in the states they come from, it's extremely unpopular to run against subsy days. when the welfare comes to us, we love it. >> if you want to compare it to earmarks, the last farm bill was many times the total number of earmarks they're railing against. >> how much did it cost? >> i believe it was nearedly $300 billion. >> wow. that's a lot of money going to farm subsy days among other things. you're not so convinced it's such a good thing. why sh that, chris? >> there's some strong arguments

because they encourage corruption. but talking about them as if they're going to reduce the deficit, which the context in which republicans are talking about them today is totally misleading. here marks are easy to talk about. they sound silly when you say them out loud. some of them are legitimately silly. they don't cost that much. we're talking about $16 billion last year spent on earmarks. and that's about 1% of the overall budget. the second prop is this money -- the problem with the deficit is the growth of the deficit, which the first reason for that is health care spending. the second biggest reason is social security spending. discretionary spending is low on the list, and earmarks are only a tiny part of that. and then the last reason is that just because you don't spend money on an earmark, doesn't

mean that money doesn't get spent. it still gets spent within the appropriations bill you're talking about. >> a lot of people don't know that. let's focus on that. i disagree with you. not that -- i'm not disagreeing with your numbers. but i think $16 billion here and $16 billion there, assuming we're talking real money. i don't mind they're going in that direction at all. but what do you mean it doesn't get taken out of the appropriations committee. a lot of people don't know that. >> what that means is when you have an appropriations bill, that is -- that number is set by the committee and the administration beforehand. and earmarks figure out how you're going to divvy that up. removing the earmarks doesn't reduce the overall spending in the bill. it merely reduces who gets that money. so it's perfectly legitimate to disagree with the way earmarks

allocate funds, but it's not legitimate to do it on the basis of reducing the deficit. that money would get spent elsewhere within the bill. >> i think senator coburn has a pretty good answer for that. he says you're right for the moment being. but then we could just say the appropriations bill is now $16 billion less. because we took out all the earmarks. >> that's true. you can reduce the size of the bill. but the way it works, those are two totally separate conversations. and to your point, i agree with you that $16 billion is a lot. it's just funny that we're spending so much time talking about this when the cuts that in order to reduce the deficit, you need to make much, much bigger structural cuts to entitlements, to programs that are going to grow significantly, rather than focusing on these tiny projects that some of them probably should be cut, but some of them are fairly legitimate. you may have heard michele

bachmann say the transportation projects in her districts shouldn't count as earmarks, which makes you think -- >> of course they shouldn't count. they're in her district. >> exactly. you just saw what we said about farm subsidies. she loves it when her family gets it. i want to give the republicans credit here. i want to ask you that. look, i think it was a good thing overall. when you look mcconnell. he's taken home $972 million in projects to kentucky. i hear you. some of the earmarks are good. but overall if i had to vote no, i would vote no. >> my point is it's about how you allocate the money. it's not like if he hadn't gotten the earmarks his state wouldn't have gotten money. congress allocates money using

formulas. they figure out the cause they want to give money to. ear maces are a more low to the ground process, which have become a lot more transparent over the last few years. tough send in an application. you have to meet with legislative aides to make your case. sure, there is room for corruption, but i think that you can reform the system, rather than scrapping earmarks all together, which looks good. it could be politically popular, but wouldn't actually do that much to accomplish your goal, which is reducing spending. >> chris, you made a lot of good points. not buying it. cut them and let's see how it turns out. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. some illegal immigrants are getting cheaper tuition than u.s. citizens. why is that? we'll explain ahead. and why are people renting out celebrities to pose as family members at their weddings? [ k. tyrone ] i'm an engineer.

my kids say i speak a different language. but i love math and math and science develop new ideas. we've used hydrogen in our plants for decades. the old hydrogen units were very large. recently, we've been able to reduce that. then our scientists said "what if we could make it small enough to produce and use hydrogen right on board a car, as part of a hydrogen system." this could significantly reduce emissions and increase fuel economy by as much as 80%. on our car insurance. great! at progressive, you can compare rates side by side, so you get the same coverage, often for less. wow! that is huge!

[ disco playing ] and this is to remind you that you could save hundreds! yeah, that'll certainly stick with me. we'll take it. go, big money! i mean, go. it's your break, honey. same coverage, more savings. now, that's progressive. call or click today. progresso. oh yes hi. can you please put my grandma on the phone please? thanks. excuse me a sec. another person calling for her grandmother. she thinks it's her soup huh? i'm told she's in the garden picking herbs. she is so cute. okay i'll hold. she's holding. wha? (announcer) progresso. you gotta taste this soup. old legs. p.a.d., the doctor said. p-a-d... p.a.d. isn't just poor circulation in your legs causing you pain. it more than doubles your risk of a heart attack or stroke. i was going to tell you. if you have p.a.d., plavix can help protect you from a heart attack or stroke. plavix helps keep blood platelets from sticking together and forming clots, the cause of most heart attacks and strokes. call the doctor about plavix -- please?

i will. [ male announcer ] certain genetic factors and some medicines such as prilosec reduce the effect of plavix leaving you at greater risk for heart attack and stroke. your doctor may use genetic tests to determine treatment. don't stop taking plavix without talking to your doctor as your risk of heart attack or stroke may increase. people with stomach ulcers or conditions that cause bleeding should not use plavix. taking plavix alone or with some other medicines including aspirin may increase bleeding risk, so tell your doctor when planning surgery. tell your doctor all medicines you take including aspirin especially if you've had a stroke. if fever, unexplained weakness or confusion develops, tell your doctor promptly. these may be signs of ttp, a rare but potentially life-threatening condition, reported sometimes less than two weeks after starting plavix. other rare but serious side effects may occur. [ female announcer ] talk to your doctor about plavix.

should illegal immigrants living in the u.s. be able to get cheaper tuition than some american citizens? you're going to want to hear that. vegetables have important vitamins and minerals that can really help protect you. and v8 juice gives you three of your five daily servings. powerful, right? v8. what's your number? one month, five years after you do retire? ♪ client comes in and they have a box. and inside that box is their financial life. people wake up and realize i better start doing something. we open up that box. we organize it.

and we make decisions. we really are here to help you. they look back and think, "wow. i never thought i could do this." but we've actually done it. [ male announcer ] visit ameriprise.com and put a confident retirement more within reach.

here's a look at how stocks are doing today a lot of jitters in europe waying down the market. the dow is down almost 200 points. the s&p down 21. the national association of home builders monthly index of builders' sentiment edged up in november to 16. that's the highest since june. this past summer was the worst in a decade. and the beatles go online for the first time. the fab four albums will be able for purchase on itunes. that's it from cnbc. back to you, cenk. >> thank you. when we come back, we're going

to talk about the immigration story. why are illegal immigrants paying lower tuition than some u.s. citizens? i know we teased you a lot on this, but it's a hell of a story. plus, people paying real money for virtual real estate. something wrong with your squeegee, kid? uh, i'm a little sick. sick?! you gonna let a sore throat beat you? you're fearless! ahhhhhhhhh! atta boy! [ male announcer ] halls. a pep talk in every drop.

so i've come up with some mnemonic devices to help me learn your names. hello, a "penny" saved is a "penny" earned. oh, that's 'cause fedex ground helps you save money. that's right, penny. do you know ours? heavens to betsy. dwayne the bathtub. magic wanda. yeah! what's mine? uh, you're a dan fool. oh. it's just a device, dan. you can't take it personally. yeah, i suppose. [ male announcer ] we understand. you need a partner who helps you save. fedex ground.

[ male announcer ] we understand. you need a partner who helps you save. [ malhis day starts thwith his arthritis pain.. that's breakfast with two pills. the morning is over, it's time for two more pills. the day marches on, back to more pills. and when he's finally home... but hang on; just two aleve can keep arthritis pain away all day with fewer pills than tylenol. this is steven, who chose aleve and 2 pills for a day free of pain. and get the all day pain relief of aleve in liquid gels.

if you thought the idea of republicans and democrats working together on earmarks is crazy, get a load of this. this is crazier. while foreclosures are a hot topic on the hill and across the country. real estate is booming online. one gamer virtually sold virtual real estate in an online game for $335,000. >> wow. >> in real money. >> wow. >> the property doesn't exist anywhere but online. that's mental. and it shows you why we shouldn't give tax breaks to the

rich, any my opinion. if they're going to spend it on things like that, we have better uses for it. across the world in mumbai, wealthy are shelling out big bucks to give celebrities money to pretend to be their family. if them pretending to be your aunt or hot cousin is apparently $111,000. >> wow. >> for that price i could be your uncle. the short list is the name of the show. he's here with me now. what's going on? >> i'm just chilling and maintaining. >> if you could invite any celebrity to be at your wedding, who could it be. >> this reminds me of indian weddings. i was like, i didn't know snoop doggy dog was your cousin.

i don't know if you been to aa a while. >> i'm not getting married. i don't have to do that. unless celebrities want to go to white castle. if i do get married, that's where i'm going, white castle. i'll give you sliders. >> i want to go as denzel as my celebrity cousin. >> i would go with a celebrity who is not really hot. like flava flave. >> not in my house. sf >> maybe you went to mc hammer. >> you would have to pay them to leave your house. >> now this virtual real estate nonsense. that doesn't exist. >> you know, here's hip hop

trivia. back in jay-z's first video, him and biggi smalls sat around monopoly and played with real money. that's just a ghetto thing to do to buy real estate that don't exist. it's real ghetto. >> $335,000, and it's still ghetto. >> it's still ghetto. if you're spending $335,000 on a property that don't exist, who do you take there? how do you visit? >> you know, it's on an asteroid, though. within the game it's on an asteroid. >> well, the nerd in me likes it, no. but not for real money. tell him i got a car to sell it to hem. it's just up here, but i want to sell it to him. >> i love it. seriously, it's bad ass, man. it's bumping. >> it runs like new up here. >> just give me five grand. john jacobs, he's the one

selling the real estate online. the ones that don't exist. you know how much he made? $635,000. >> $635,000. he's like the dude that invented the pet rock. it's a rock. i named it george. and some dude is like, yeah, it's george. he's from charlotte. >> but a smart one. >> and we're willing to hang. it's not a big deal. >> i'm in the wrong business. i got to invent some beach front property to myself and sell it online. just invent it up here. >> just put nit a different galaxy. >> i'm call it niami. it's going to be like miami, but not. >> but really cold. wait, that won't work. you've been awesome. >> thank you for having me. i'm going to check out your show. >> i'll be in town all week on the comic strip. i work. >> he's not playing. all right. now onto other things. now just when you thought the debate over illegal immigration couldn't get hotter, the

california supreme court has ruled that illegal immigrants are entitled to same tuition breaks as in-state high school students when it comes to public universities. students who attend three years of high school and graduate are eligible for in-state tuition while out of state student who is are united states students are not eligible. illegal immigrants are not available for state or federal financial aid. is this a fair ruling for student who is have lived here for a long time and worked hard, or is it an outrageous advantage to illegal immigrants here illegally? we have chris coback. he was elected earlier this month to serve as the secretary of state of kansas as win of the chief architects of the controversial arizona law targeted at illegal immigrants. brant willoks is from the league of the united latin-american

citizens or lula. >> we will be seeking review in the united states supreme court. the history of this is an interesting one. congress in 1996 pass ad law to say no state can give tuition to illegal aliens unless they want to give rates to every ugs citizens. they were looking at california and trying to prevent that from spreading to other states. a number of universities had started doing this. so we come to this position 14 years later where the california supreme court has misinterpreted the federal statute and says, oh, california can do this as long as they don't use the word residence in their statute. so we have a bizarre ruling yesterday where the california supreme court basically created a loophole so large in the federal statute that it swallows the entire statute. if the supreme court of the united states takes the case, i'm confident they will overturn the situation. >> chris sounds like he's got a really good case. why is that wrong.

>> well, it's wrong because these students have worked hard in california. they've lived there all their lives. they've studied hard. they've earned the right to go to college. just like every student in their class, they should have a right just like all the u.s. citizen and legal resident students studying with them. their parents may have done something wrong, but we don't blame children for what their parents have done. for example, people who are convicted of murder in california, their kids can still get in-state tuition. why shouldn't these hard working immigrants who are contributing to the economy, picking the food we eat and building the houses we live in, why shouldn't they benefit from the opportunity to go to college just like all of the residents in california have? >> kris, these kids that work really hard. i'm sure you acknowledge that. brent has an interesting point. come on, murder's kids get to go. why can't these kids go. >> well, i think he sets up a false dichotomy here. that you either have to punish

the kids for the sins of their parents or reward them. right now california is rewarding these students, their adults now, they're after the age of 18, for the sins, the illegal acts of their parents. let's not reward them. maybe let's not punish them. let's treat them like we treat other people from out of the country. cenk, i know your family were legal immigrants. came to this this country. if you had gone to a california university under current law under this statute, you would not get in-state tuition. it excludes anyone here on a legal student visa. that person has to pay out of state tuition, three or four times as much. only if you are breaking federal law do you get in-state tuition. that's a perverse incentive. we want to reward people who come theer to the country, follow the laws and do the right thing. we don't want to reward people breaking the laws. that's why this california statute is so bizarre. the point about compassion and giving these kids a chance, i understand that. but remember this has a price. education is not free.

right now california taxpayers are spending about $208 million every year subsidizing the tuition for illegal aliens, that's from a state asking the rest of us in america to help pay their debt. there suspect the money to do this right now. >> did you say that if i'm a legal alien in california, i cannot get this tuition break? >> that's correct. if you're a legal alien on a temporary visa, like any student visa or you're a dependent, you cannot get it. >> i've lived in california for all that time. >> yeah. and you lived in california all that time. >> that seems to be a knock-off punch, man. i got to be honest with you. how do you justify that? >> he's distorting this again. if you're a legal immigrant in california, you get in-state tuition. >> no, that's a green card that gets in-state tuition. >> i let you speak. let me speak. first of all, legal immigrants can get in-state tuition.

they are on green cards. citizens can get in-state tuition. the only students we're talking about right here and blocking their dream, this is what we're talking about, kicking these kids out of school, not allowing them to go to college, they've gone through school, they've done well, they've worked hard. they've got accepted into these elite schools in california, and all we feed to do is give them the same opportunity that all the other students in that class with them get, and -- >> brent! >> kris kobach wants to block their dreams. i can't believe that kris could live with himself. shame on him for -- >> that's not fair, brent. first of all. i'm going to take a point away from kris here. if you have a green card and you still get this tuition break, that's what we're talking about. if they're on a temporary visa, they wouldn't be staying in california for three years anyway. >> sure. >> green card holders already

got the tuition break. they get in-state tuition every state in the country. >> so brent is right on that one. >> no, he's not. because my point was that people who get a lawful student visa, come to america to study and do it the right way, maybe the parent got a work svisa and the want to pay and study. even if they've been in the country on a variety of visa ls. >> but overall, i'm with kris here. >> it happens all the time. there are thousands in california paying out of state tuition right now. >> let's go to the core of the question here. these people are here illegally. does that have any meaning at all? and don't get me wrong, i'm not against them. i think the parents came here for a better life. i love the dream. i love that they work hard. but doesn't it mean something to this be here illegally to give them a break on tuition? i can't get beyond that. >> they are of a status we should do something to try to

correct that. i agree. but to punish the kids, they didn't cross the border on their own, the parents braulgt them in. some of them didn't know they were undocumented. they have dreams like every other child in california. they should have that chance. we're always talking about states having the right to determine their own policies. in this case the governor signed it. they pass ad law that said the children thould have the tount go to college and get in-state tuition. the u.s. congress tried to pass a law to prevent that. they didn't do it right because they said they only applied to people who had laws tied to residency in the state. california has a system based on the number of years that you're in their high schools. that's what they're focused on. the supreme court of california has found this law has been upheld. why not let the folks go to college and get a college education, instead of trying to

kick them out. >> kris, let me ask you to-up. a lot of states do this. texas does it. new york does it. if we disagree about it, isn't it a state's right issue, which conservatives should agree with? hey, if california wants to do it, they do it. >> i will answer that question. but let me respond to something. no one is kicking these students out. they are still entitled to go to the schools by breaking federal law. but by getting rid of this california law, it wouldn't force them out of the school. it would say you stop getting the benefit at taxpayer expense. and we're not going to treat you more favorly than we treat new york citizens from kansas, from texas, from new york that come to california. the u.s. citizens who play by the rules who are citizens and entitled to a certainly higher level of legal protection than an illegal alien in the united states. they are being treated worse. as far as the states right issue, certainly one can make

the arguments that states should have control over this. when it comes to immigration the courts of the united states has said clearly that congress has the authority to make all of the rules concerning aliens in the united states. california broke the rule, tried to twist one word in the federal statute, residence, and the california supreme court went along with it in a poorly written decision. as a result, the decision has a heavy price tag. it's all about money. now california taxpayers whose backs are already being broken by this crushing debt and spending in sacramento will spend $208 million a year giving this handout to illegal aliens. most reasonable people would say, hey, make them pay out of state tuition. >> i have to say. that's another good point by kris. you're not denying them a college education.

they can still go to ucla. but they would go to ucla like i would. i pay out of state tuition. and so do they. they're illegal citizens. that doesn't seem like that bad a deal. >> we work with students that are low income. they're perhaps doing very well in school but don't have the money to go to college. this is an effective block. it may not be an absolute block, but it's an effective block. many of the students would be prevented from going to college because they couldn't afford it. the difference between in-state tuition at the uc system and the out of state could amount to tens of thousands of dollars. we say let's have the kids a chance. why are we such a mean-spirited country that we try to go around kicking kids out of college and not allowing them to this live

up to potential. if you're talking taxes -- >> first of all though -- i'm sorry. >> i hear you on that. it was a great conversation, thanks so much for joining us, guys. >> my pleasure. ing. >> thank you. all right. next we had two shocking pieces of news. i'll tell you what they were and how they may bring hope for sanity in the government. ♪

it's true. you never forget your first subaru. until the combination of three good probiotics in phillips' colon health defended against the bad gas, diarrhea and constipation. ...and? it helped balance her colon. oh, now that's the best part. i love your work. [ female announcer ] phillips' colon health. ♪ [ female announcer ] the newest seasonal flavors are here. ♪ express yourself ♪ [ female announcer ] because coffee is like the holidays. it's better when you add your flavor. coffee-mate. from nestle.

we have three specieses of shocking news today. also, we had the beginning of real bipartisanship on earmarks and possibly the defense budget and third, we're talking about the defense budget? the defense budget. do you believe in miracles? sometimes, conservatives have this funny idea that the federal government can't do anything right. it's bloated, inefficient and wasteful expect for the military.

somehow, the pentagon is exempt from the waits that other programs have swapped. the pentagon has enormous waste in it. they are motivated to create weapons programs that dwoent need and charge us more than they cost. do you think the politicians who love to give away pork to friends and supporters in their states don't do the same thing when it comes to defense contractors who give them huge campaign contributions? of course they put in a lot of pork in there so they can get the campaign contributions and defense contracts can get rich. another comical idea is that we should never cut defense spending especially in the middle of two wars.

is there any number at which you would say, let's look to see if there's waste in there. how about if the budget was $100 billion. 200 billion. 500 billion. 800 billion. it turns out the defense budget of course is even higher than that. this year, we spent an insane $895 billion in defense. that has risen from $359 in 2000. that is more than any other federal government program. social security and medicare don't really count, so defense overwhelms the budget. look at how little we spent on education. we nearly doubled the military budget of the rest of the planet earth combined. china is second and their pop lair is four times larger. are there no bounds of reason?

this is insanity and military contractors get incredibly rich over that spending. apparently neither does rand paul or bernie sanders. let's hope they can build a coalition that brings real bipartisansh bipartisanship. calm down. i know that it is not your job. what i'm saying... excuse me? alright, fine. no, you don't have to do it. ok? [ male announcer ] notre dame knows it's better for xerox to control its printing costs. so they can focus on winning on and off the field. [ manager ] are you sure i can't talk -- ok, no, i get it. [ male announcer ] with xerox, you're ready for real business.

i was living on welfare and supporting a family of four. after i got the job at walmart, things started changing immediately. then i wrote a letter to the food stamp office. "thank you very much, i don't need your help any more." you know now, i can actually say i bought my home. i knew that the more i dedicated... the harder i worked, the more it was going to benefit my family. this my son, mario and he now works at walmart. i believe mario is following in my footsteps. my name is noemi, and i work at walmart. ♪ get on e-trade. set up a real plan. frank!

oh wow, you didn't win? i wanna show you something... it's my shocked face. [ gasps ] [ male announcer ] get a retirement plan that works... at e-trade. [ male announcer ] get a retirement plan that works... whoa! that leaves lots of pieces behind. that's why there's charmin ultra strong. than the ultra rippled brand, it's no wonder charmin ultra strong holds up better for a more dependable clean. fewer pieces left behind. business is looking better. it sure is. [ female announcer ] charmin ultra strong. enjoy the go. and for an extra-clean finish, try charmin freshmates.

for constipation relief... nothing works better than miralax. it's the one. the one recommended by more doctors. only miralax is clinically proven to relieve constipation with no harsh side effects. miralax is the only one. restore your body's natural rhythm with miralax. good afternoon to you. charlie rangel, corrupt politician, house committee finding the congressman guilty of ethics violations of fund raising and financial misconduct, but is he the exception or the rule and will he face anything beyond a simple slap on the wrist? plus, earmarks, why the debate over pet projects misses the poin