the big story, caucus ruckus. it's friday. i'm matt miller in for dylan ratigan. can any republican candidate feel secure in these last hundred hours before the iowa caucuses? here's the latest leaderboard from nbc news and marist. mitt romney until up to a few weeks ago wasn't even focused on the state is now polling on top. ron paul in a strong second. and in third, rick santorum, up from single digits last month, mirroring the "time" poll we brought to you wednesday. and newt gingrich officially collapsed from first to fifth behind rick perry, proving once again that negative ads work, which is sadly why we have them. i don't know about you, but the lightning speed of these candidates' rise and fall in iowa is giving me whiplash. not to mention how it must feel to that small group of special americans we've somehow given the power to decide for the rest of us. i'm talking about those 120,000 likely iowa caucusgoers. remember, that's only 0.0004% of

the nation. this is how we're picking a president. it's crazy! at least we make iowans pay for their power by having to endure an endless barrage of negative ads. most are coming from the super pacs, and now there's new evidence that the super pacs are being super sneaky, using loopholes to avoid disclosure rules on their unlimited spending. we start with ken vogel with politico who wrote today's piece on those sneaky super pacs. start with the money trail that you have been following. i thought they had to disclose something, but now it looks like they're all able to put it off. explain to folks how that works. >> that was a core tenant of the supreme court's decision in citizened united and an earlier lower court decision that really spawned the growth of these super pacs. and they have exploded, but they were supposed to, a, disclose all their donors as well as their expenses, and, b, not

coordinate with the campaigns. well, we're seeing loopholes that kind of call into question whether they're abiding by those two central tenants of the court's decision and the court's reasoning. they've been able to take advantage of these two loopholes that we found. one was a bureaucratic filing change, that allowed them to switch their filing status, so they don't have to file these pre-primary reports that would otherwise be required, if they aired ads in the run-up to a primary election, like the new hampshire primary, south carolina primary, where we're seeing a ton of super pac ads. well, they switched their filing in the last week or two, several of them have, and now they won't have to report until january 31st. that's well after the iowa caucus, new hampshire primary, south carolina primary, even the florida primary will have already seen votes cast and probably gone a long way to deciding who is going to be the gop nominee, which raises the possibility of the nomination having been decided in large part as a result of these super pac ads without ever knowing who funded them.

>> this is what's crazy to me. to me, there's two fundamental problems with what you're describing. first, the transparency point that you raised. the idea that, at least, the if we're going to allow unlimited spending, which is a big question mark anyway, but if that's going to be the case, you have to have instant disclosure so at least people know who's behind these ads. but then, second, which is also a little weird, you've got these entities. and they may be kind of tacitly affiliated with candidates, pu i've talked to candidates who say that the way this happens in the waning weeks of the campaign, because their own campaign spending is so small compared to what these outside forces are, they lose total control of the actual message that's being sent on their behalf to voters. that also seems -- how do we end up in a democracy, in a situation like this? >> well, that's part of the problem, when you have that rule that says that you cannot coordinate between the super pac and the campaigns. on the one hand, it gives the candidates plausible deniability when all these vicious ads are attacking their opponents on their behalf. they could say, i had nothing to do with it.

on the other hand, there's the risk that if the message is slightly different from that which the campaign or the candidate would prefer to see advance on their behalf, then they're not going to be able to say, hey, guys, would you please hold off or would you please get with the program and go with the message that's more consistent with our own, because, again, you can't coordinate. now, the candidates kind of get around this a little bit, or at least the critics say that they get around it by having folks who are close allies of theirs either currently or in the past, who are running these super pacs who, you have to think, probably know what the campaign and the candidates are thinking, because they previously work with them. and this goes not just for mitt romney and his super pac, restore our future, or the super pac that is supporting newt gingrich, but also with the super pac that is supporting president obama, which are being run by bill burton, a former white house spokesman, and sean sweeney, another former white house aide. so that really raises questions about whether these coordination restrictions are actually being evaded with sort of a wink and a nod. >> it's all like a lawyer's full

employment act. and you know, jon huntsman, there's even nepotism involved. i think it was your great reporting today that talks about huntsman's got his daddy, maybe the one behind the super pac that he's going to be funneling ads into iowa with. at least back in 1960, jfk was transparent about how his daddy was funding his campaign. they would make great jokes. you know, kennedy famously said, he got a telegram from his father saying, don't buy one more vote than is absolutely necessary. i'll be damned if i'll pay for a left side. n it's enough to make you a little bit sick. but let's move on to the actual race itself. what's going to happen? who's going to emerge out of this? is it going to be romney and paul? and will anyone else come out of iowa? what's your take? >> well, it certainly looks like they are going to have the top two spots. but there's the possibility that a rick santorum or even a rick perry could make a surge and have a surprisingly strong third place finish that could carry them further. now, it's important to note here that rick santorum also has a

sup super pac that's supporting him, and that's important because rick santorum hasn't done a very good job phrasinging for himself, so the fact that a super pac has emerged out of nowhere to support him and is airing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of ads to support him is key. because if he finishes in a strong third place or even in second, that could give him a bounce going into new hampshire and south carolina, but only if he has some infrastructure supporting him, which were it left to his own campaign, he would not have. >> i'm sort of torn between two visions of what's going to happen on tuesday. either this is going to be romney on the top, or so close that it looks like a lockup after new hampshire and everyone else fades away, or you could have a lot of folks decide to limp on. because if you look at guys like newt or santorum, as long as there are debates coming up, which there are going to be before south carolina and florida, even if they don't have the money to be competitive on the air, they've got name recognition, and what's the downside to them to staying in, you know, for another month or

six weeks or eight weeks? >> that's exactly right, matt. and it benefits mitt romney to have these candidates limping on. and really making it a contest to be the non-mitt romney. let's say that it was only, you know, ron paul and rick santorum who ended up out of iowa having the hope of sustaining a campaign and all the other candidates either dropped away or de facto dropped away. that would benefit, you know -- that would hurt mitt romney, to have fewer competitors in it. so the more competitors there are for mitt romney's perspective, the better. so he would like to see that scenario that you just arti articulated play out where a bunch of these candidates continue to limp on and continue to divide the vote for the sort of anyone but mitt romney spot. >> it seems to me, the other interesting campaign that started today is chris christie has descended on iowa, in what seems to be the kind of new, very bald campaign for him to be the vp. our own andrea mitchell asked him about whether he would be

accepting a potential nomination, if it's mitt romney, to be the vp. give a listen to what he said. >> all those decisions are going to be up to the nominee of the party. he's going to be the nominee of the party. >> but you're not ruling it out? >> well, why would you? the fact of the matter is it's extraordinarily presumptuous to do something like that. i wouldn't rule anything out, but the fact of the matter is, i'm just here to help him, as i have been since october. >> so this is not a denial, obviously, ken. and it seems to contradict a little bit, i thought when he made his -- you know, when there was a little flurry of whether he was going to, himself, throw his hat in the ring for the presidential nomination, when he made his little talk that day about why he was not going to do that, it was because he had to finish the business in new jersey, that voters had elected him for. it sounds like that story's changing a little bit. and even since that day, i think he's been campaigning hard to show that he's got the kind of juice and attack dogness that mitt romney would value in a number two. what's your take? >> even as there has been that ambiguity about whether he was

seriously considering a presidential run and when he withdrew whether he would consider the vice presidential nomination, one thing's been clear. he has loved the attention. and now he's going to be the subject of another flurry of attention as to whether he would accept the vice presidential nomination and who might offer it to him. mitt romney, i mean, for all these candidates, frankly, any nominee, it might make sense to have a chris christie on the ticket. he brings, certainly, sort of new life and he brings strong fiscal conservative credentials, but for a candidate like mitt romney, he doesn't necessarily balance out the deficiency that mitt romney has with social conservatives, religious conservatives, evangelicals. that's not really chris christie's base. mitt romney, if he's the nominee, might be better served to have someone who appeals directly to those people, who aren't too enthusiastic about mitt romney's candidacy right now. >> all right. we're going to be watching all of that. ken vogel, politico, thanks for the great work and great reporting. i know we'll be back to you. up ahead, unfinished business. the u.s. and europe have kicked the can into 2012.

but could next year be when all that procrastination finally backfires? our specialist with an economic reality check. plus, the highs and lows in politics this year. and when we say "low," we're not just talking about congress' approval rating. then, china's space program is taking off, just as america's is in retreat. we'll talk about beijing's moon shot and its challenge to the u.s. with the mega panel. and speaking of the moon, as we head to break, a little fun on this friday. take a listen to these classic renditions of "moon river" and tweet us which artist does it best. ♪ i'm crossing you in style some day ♪ ♪ moon river, wider than the mind ♪ ♪ i'm crossing you in style some day ♪ ♪ he was a 21st century global nomad ♪

♪ home was an airport lounge and an ipad ♪ ♪ made sure his credit score did not go bad ♪ ♪ with a free-credit-score-dot-com ♪ ♪ app that he had ♪ downloaded it in the himalayas ♪ ♪ while meditating like a true playa ♪ ♪ now when he's surfing down in chile'a ♪ ♪ he can see when his score is in danger ♪ ♪ if you're a mobile type on the go ♪ ♪ i suggest you take a tip from my bro ♪ ♪ and download the app that lets you know ♪ ♪ at free-credit-score-dot-com now let's go. ♪ vo: offer applies with enrollment in freecreditscore.com™.

with the new year closing in, many of us look back over the year that's passed and took stock of what we've done. for me, it's the usual big questions. did i play enough good tennis, read enough good books? have i been a good enough father, husband, and guest host? what will the republicans look back at? something like this. >> the president isn't leading. he didn't lead on last year's budget and isn't leading on this year's budget. >> i hope republicans will wake up and start leading instead of just walking away. >> that's why the president's not serious. we are. >> senate republicans have so far chosen to block these bills and these proposals.

they've had three chances to do the right things. three times they've said no. >> ah, there's 2012 in a nutshell. just leaders of goodwill coming together to move the country forward, right? republicans blocked every idea to help the economy in order to keep obama on the ropes. and the president along with democrats acting timid and clueless. no wonder the public is sick of the whole bunch. with congressional approval falling off the table and the president's approval not far behind. but if america's down on d.c., there's one intriguing thing at year end that people have a positive view of. apparently the president's take on progressivism is up. according to the pew research center, the public now prefers the term progressive to the term conservative. is it just branding or could 2012 be the year that the majority of americans come around to progressive ideas? let's bring in the mega panel and take a look back at the year that was. joining us is david goodfriend, krystal ball, and michael gerson. welcome to all of you, my mega

panel. david, let me start with you. you look great. kind of holidayish and cheery as we end the year. david, let me start with you. highs and lows for you in 2011? >> well, i would have to give as my high point this last go-around on the payroll tax fight. it really laid bare what the house republicans really stand for. they would rather stop relief for the middle class and give tax relief to the millionaires. that's who they really are and they were finally exposed. as for a low point, i think when the entire field of republican presidential candidates and the entire leadership in congress failed to say a word about the end of the iraq war, a war that president bush started, that just proved to me that their hatred for president obama is greater than their love for the troops. and that is the bottom line. they want this man out and they will stop at nothing. so that was, for me, the biggest low point. >> i get to render a verdict on each of these now before i pass the baton. i love it, although the idea

that the payroll tax extension is a high point when it's a two-month thing will mean very little at the end of the day for the economy, although a lot, $1,500 for the average family. i understand it, but it's pretty small compared to the size of the problem. krystal ball, your highs and lows for 2011? >> first, matt, i wanted to say, as i reflect on 2011, i ask myself, was i good enough mega panelist. that's one thing that's been weighing on my mind as i consider new year's resolutions. but in terms of my political highs, i think up there on the list has to be the killing of osama bin laden, which was certainly a really important healing moment for the nation. also, a bit of a confidence boost for a country that's been a little bit down on its luck lately. but also, from the president's perspective, while it didn't give him a lasting approval rating overall bump, it did really under cut a republican narrative about his lack of leadership, and it gave him a very significant and lasting approval bump in terms of his reign policy. you know, specifically, gallup

just did a poll and 60% of americans approve of the president's handling of the terrorism. which is quite dramatic, considering republicans tend to be the party that's more trusted as being tough on terrorists, et cetera, et cetera. so that was a very, very important moment. just for the president and the country. i think the low of the year had to be the debt ceiling hostage taking by the republicans, where the country was held hostage over the most ridiculous of things. and what was really troubling about this is we've had the government and the country taken hostage for political purposes before. we, of course, had the government shutdown in the 90s. but never before have we really seen the routinization of hostage taking as a political weapon, as we've seen. i kind of liken it to the overuse of the filibuster now. we've always had the filibuster, but it used to be used quite judiciously, when the minority was particularly egrieved and it was critical to the nation's

importance. now we have the filibuster used all the time. and in the same way, since that moment, we've seen hostage taking and threats of shutdown, time and time again, to the point that the nation now just kind of yawns. they're used to it. it's become business as usual. >> and a terrible thing to become used to. and no one will say that krystal ball is not tough on terror. i applaud both your highs and lows. and you've been an outstanding mega panelist. >> oh, thank, matt. >> michael gerson, new to the mega panel, your highs and lows for 2011? >> well, you know, i think whatever the situation in the country, progressivism is pretty popular on this panel. so i will say as a high, paul ryan's courage. here's a guy who took on the central fiscal issue in american politics, which is long-term future entitlement commitments on health care. when even his own party didn't really want to take it on. and that's now become really the orthodoxy within his party, and people may well look back on

ryan as the only serious leader on these fiscal issues of this period of american history. i think as a low, i would just say the weakness of the republican presidential field. this was a chance to get ahead of a fairly, comparatively weak american president. but instead, we've seen a series of bubble candidacies by fundamentally unserious candidates, all the way from donald trump to herman cain. the republican establishment complains about this, but they didn't really do much to solve the problem. i mean, there was no mitch daniels. there was no jeb bush. there was no mike huckabee in the race. so what could have been one of the strongest republican fields of recent time has turned out to be one of the weakest. and i think it's helped the president. >> one bone i have to pick with you there, michael, is i think paul ryan is half serious. and as you know, i've sort of stepped out and taken a lot of criticism from democrats in

saying the medicare stuff he's talking about, we have to be open to if it's done in an intelligent way, like ron wyden is trying to talk about. but the idea that he will not say that as we double the number of seniors on social security and medicare, taxes have to go up, to me disqualifies him from being called courageous. because courageous is when you tell your political base something they don't want to hear. so i hope in 2012 we'll see something that would at least, in my view, qualify him as courageous. i do want us to get to china, though, before we leave the mega panel today. because while we've diddeled in washington, china has shown once again has soaring ambitions. china has announced big plans of their own, front page of the "financial times" today, to put a man on the moon. something chinese scientists say they could accomplish by 2020. that's the feat last accomplished by apollo 11 almost 40 years ago. and it was five months ago that we gave up our space shuttle

program. if we give up on space just as china takes to the skies, what does that say about space race? >> there's something a little bit comical about the chinese striving to achieve something that america achieved in 1969, in the first term of the nixon administration. but there is some symbolism here. just as the chinese are expressing their ambition, their belief that they own the future in many ways, and with europe declining, america now is, you know, for the first time since 1962, doesn't even have the ability to put a human being in orbit. and that, i think, is a symbol of something. it's a symbol that the united states is really examining whether it's on the forefront of these issues or not. >> crystal? what's your take on that? >> well, it is symbolic, but it's not substantiative. i mean, as michael points out, this is something we accomplished in the 60s. and, by the way, they're not

there yet. and so, of course, china's trying to assert itself as an international power, as a competitor to the u.s. but the reality of the fact is, we should be much more concerned about, you know, things like our trade policy with china and also, we actually should be concerned about china's economy right now. there are some reports that they may be facing a housing bubble and be on the verge of the sort of financial collapse we faced back in 2009, which is a scary thing for us, because we can't really handle anymore international financial shock. so i think that's the more important concerns about china rather than them trying to keep us and show that they can play with the big boys in space. >> david? deep thoughts on china's moon shot? >> sure. well, to me, it really calls into question whether we in the united states can allow the government to play its best role, which is setting awe dishes, big goals. and then having the will to follow through. that's what president kennedy did with saying he wanted to put a man on the moon.

china right now, whether it's renewable energy or transportation or infrastructure, they have the philosophy that they're going to allow the government to set an audacious goal, whereas here in the united states, we keep fighting over what the role of government ought to be. i grew up, in the business world, anyway, i grew up in the satellite tv communications sector. all of that technology, you can trace back to the american space program, the defense department, things that government initiated that led to huge investments in the private sector. to me, that is the right way to go. and i think china is saying to us, with their actions, government can set big goals that will benefit the entire economy, including the private sector. and i think we ought to pay attention. >> good points. the panel stays. straight ahead, enough with kicking the can down the road in tiny two-month increments. the enormous economic issues our specialist says world leaders must tackle in 2012. well that's like checking on your burgers after they're burnt! [ male announcer ] treat your frequent heartburn by blocking the acid with prilosec otc. and don't get heartburn in the first place!

[ male announcer ] one pill a day. 24 hours. zero heartburn. yeah, our low prices are even lower. we need to teach her how to walk. she is taking up valuable cart space. aren't you, honey? [ male announcer ] it's our biggest clearance event of the year where our prices are even lower. save money. live better. walmart. you walk into a conventional mattress store, it's really not about you. they say, "well, if you want a firm bed you can lie on one of those. we provide the exact individualization that your body needs. it's really shaping to my body. once they get our bed, they're like, "why didn't i do this sooner?" at our year-end closeout event, save up to $800 on selected 2011 bed sets. and through saturday, receive 24-month financing. only at the sleep number store, where queen bed sets now start at just $899.

2011 may go down as the year our fearless leaders once again

passed the buck on the biggest economic threats we face. especially when it comes to the bogus, inadequate reforms in the dodd/frank bill and the bank and sovereign debt mess in europe. our specialist today is a rare breed. a longtime money manager who knows finance from the inside, who says that wall street's failings are dragging the country down. that's right. a financier with a social conscious. he's the perfect man to give our definitive "d.r. show" year-end briefing on the unfinished business of financial reform. michael lewit writes "the death of capital." the mega panel is also still here. welcome, michael. >> thanks for having me. >> so start us off, your analysis is so acute of all of this, what's the unfinished work, when you look at the u.s., banking and wall street situation, i know that when you look at what dodd/frank did and didn't accomplish, you've got a lot of unfinished business you would say has to be addressed. let folks know. >> well, i think the most

important thing that's been overlooked is that the overall policy regime has still not been corrected to limit the amount of capital that's devoted to speculative activities, and trying to channel the capital to productive activities. there's derivatives reform, there's, you know, capital requirements for banks and so on. but at the end of the day, nothing has been done to revamp the way capital is used in this economy productively. as a result, we have an economy where too much money is in the form of debt and not equity, and where toomp of the money goes to speculative activities that the banks are engaging in and that the taxpayers are paying for. >> and david goodfriend, i want to get you in, but just to put a punctuation on michael's point, that means we're still at risk of another potential financial meltdown and taxpayer bailout when you've got so little capital with so much of this fancy derivative, you know, naked credit default swap trading going on. david, got a question?

>> yeah. well, listen, i will say this as a former clinton white house staffer, because i think a lot of this can be traced back to ending the glass-steagall separation between commercial banking and investment banking. would you agree that simply bringing back that wall, which is something dodd/frank didn't do, but would bringing back that wall that worked so well for so many decades address a lot of what you're talking about? >> it would go a long way to making sure that taxpayers aren't on the hook for what are basically trading speculations, which are what these banks have been doing. i think glass-steagall served a purpose and it was something that when it came apart, you saw the system starting to get much less -- much more out of control, and it needs to be brought back in some form. i don't think the volcker rule itself is sufficient. although it's -- will at least limit the ability of firms to just trade with taxpayer dollars. >> and even paul volcker,

krystal, is saying the volcker rule is too complicated -- they turned a rule into 300 pages of incomprehensible regulations that will keep lawyers for the banks occupied for years. but krystal, ask your question. >> yeah. i want to thank you first, michael, for being out there and putting your voice out there, which i think is really powerful. and i wanted to ask you about something that is quite timely. congress established the consumer financial protection bureau and elizabeth warren spent a lot of time setting it up. and now republicans have blocked the president's nominee, richard cordray, to that agency, and there's some talk of potentially the president forcing a recess appointment in january. i just wanted to hear your perspective on how critical the work of that agency is. is that an important part of the picture when you're talking about things like simplifying credit card applications, mortgage applications, providing financial education, et cetera. >> i think it's important, but i think that, honestly, the threats to the system are much broader and in some ways,

they're much more hidden. i think that right now that the consumer protection agency is, of course it's important. it's important that banks not be able to mistreat customers, but there's a much, you know, darker scenario involving massivemen amounts of leverage, for example, that are built up between banks, and it's not just in the u.s., it's u.s. and europe, and you're seeing that's part of what's affecting the funding of banks in europe. i think that that's really where regulators just haven't even begun to really focus on the risks. there's a massive superstructure of debt that has been built up at every level of this economy, and that's really what puts us at risk. so, you know, consumers are at risk from forces they really don't even know exist. and as those forces come to light, when you start to see strains in the system, when banks can't fund themselves in

europe, that's when the sort of hidden risks that are so large become much more pronounced. i mean, if that system blows, you know, consumers are beginning to be the least of our problems. >> michael gerson's got a question. >> i do. the european crisis that we're seeing is not just a sovereign debt crisis, but a financial crisis. their financial industry. i'm just curious about what exposure the u.s. has to what's going on there and whether the europeans in the new year are going to be able to just bump along with minimal solutions, time after time, without some kind of reckoning? >> well, the reckoning will come once the refinancings start next year. there are massive amounts of refinancings, rollovers of their existing debt that some of the weaker countries over there have to do. italy is still borrowing at just under 7%. that is not sustainable. the european central bank has been, on occasion, including this week, had to come in and

support bond auctions of italy in order to make sure they run smoothly. so the rubber can meet the road on that point. i think in terms of their ability to just keep bungling forward on a reactive basis, the european central bank is going to keep printing money until their printing presses run out of ink. that's their policy. every possible scheme you've seen to deal with the sovereign debt crisis has been involving the massive printing of additional debt to deal with the debt crisis. in the end, it's going to have a bad end. it's just a matter of how long it's going to take. and i think some of that, at least, will come to -- will come to a -- will come to a culmination when these troubled companies have to go out to market, and they find that they can no longer even borrow at 7%, that it goes higher. that's just not sustainable. >> well, we're going to have to leave it there on a kind of grim note. but i think the hopeful part for the year ahead is that if we

face the facts and if we can get our european colleagues to face the fact, we have at least a chance of trying to move forward. thank you, michael lewit for sharing those sober but really important thoughts. and happy new year to you. happy new year to the mega panel, as we wish you guys off into a great 2012. david goodfriend will be around later. he'll be here for the rant. don't miss that. next up, 30 days as september, april, june, and november -- or maybe not. how two professors want to change the 2012 calendar to save us all some headaches.

we're less than two days away from 2012. and for those who didn't realize it, it's a leap year. that is unless two johns hopkins professors get their way and end leap years forever. they say the current gregorian calendar we've been using is

just too confusing. notice how january 1st of this year fell on a sunday while january 1st of this year will be on a sunday. the professors want to change it so the same dates will always fall on the same day of the week. january 1st would be on sunday forever. and the need for leap year days would cease to exist. their calendar would follow a pattern of two 30-day months followed by one 31-day-longmont. the pair admits it's not as accurate as the current calendar, but say it would be more convenient and the day/date consistency would be business-friendly too. still, this would be really bad news for those who are superstitious. the new calendar would include four friday the 13ths every year. and the other catch, about every five years, to keep everything in sync, we'd have to have a leap week. see you on december 36th, my friends. so, wait, no leap year or leap day, but we need leap weeks? explain to me how exactly this is simpler again? next, why it might just be

worth it to adopt that new calendar and stick new year's forever on a thursday. our resident skeptic that holidays on weekends stink. my name's jeff. i'm a dad, coach... and i quit smoking with chantix. knowing that i could smoke during the first week was really important to me. [ male announcer ] along with support, chantix is proven to help people quit smoking. 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 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. 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 if chantix is right for you. her morning begins with arthritis pain. that's a coffee and two pills. the afternoon tour begins with more pain and more pills. the evening guests arrive. back to sore knees. back to more pills. the day is done but hang on... her doctor recommended aleve. just 2 pills can keep arthritis pain away all day with fewer pills than tylenol. this is lara who chose 2 aleve and fewer pills for a day free of pain. [ female announcer ] get an aleve coupon in this sunday's paper.

we may be in the middle of the 2011 holidays, but here at "the d.r. show," we've got a pressing question we'd like to

ask you, the viewer. are you feeled gypped this holiday season with back-to-back weekend holidays? this year, both christmas and this weekend's new year's celebrations take place on the weekend. and while the holidays -- the mondays and fridays may technically be holidays, many of us don't get extra days off, or for that matter, extra recovery time. and the travesty doesn't stop there. this year's rose bowl, the famous parade and the gridiron battle royal between the oregon duction and wisconsin badgers will be held on a monday. the tournament of roses on january 2nd? with us now michael shimmrmer, founder of "skeptic" magazine. what should we make of the sense of being gypped by these weekend holidays? >> right. well, basically, we categorize time -- we categorize everything in our world. for most of us, monday through friday is work time, saturday through sunday is play time, and the occasional holiday we get

when it falls in the middle of the week, we feel like we get a bonus. a free play day we weren't anticipating. it's almost like found money or a bonus check that surprises you. and if you anticipate it, you can build that into your play time and it feels great, and you expect it. but then when it falls on a regular play day, then it doesn't feel like you're getting that bonus time. and so we feel gypped in that sense. so if i were somebody working on a -- on this weekend, i would demand overtime or something to make up for my lost play time. >> now, what do you think -- i mean, the calendar idea from the johns hopkins professor we just talked about in the last segment, that might leave us with all these holidays being on weekends. it would be like being gypped in perpetuity. i think that kills that idea right out of the box. >> yes, you're right. it sure does. well, okay, there's other problems, though. first of all, this is never going to happen. but, may, it's a fun idea, but this was already done in the late 18th century, in the shift from the julian calendar to the gregorian calendar. october 10th was followed by

october 20th. they had to make that correction when they made that change. ben franklin wrote about this in one of his books, about going to to bed on midnight on october 10th and waked up on october 20th. these kind of corrections has to happen, because the earth takes 365.24 days to go around the earth. not even a quarter days, slightly less than that. so every hundred years, you skip the leap day, except for every 400 years, you add it back. there's numerous little corrections. even nasa has to add a second back, i think it's leeevery 12 years or something like that. >> i think people will need an advanced degree just to do your -- >> oh, it's crazy. >> go ahead. >> you know, there's a committee that works for nasa, the committee of the second.

like, how long is a second. it has to do with the vibration of a cesium atom. so you have a committee to vote on how many vibrations constitute one second. we think of time as a hard and fast thing. it really is. it's completely, totally subjective. so the professor's alternative is actually really no better. as long as we make the little corrections, and i think it's really fun to have a little extra variation there. >> we're having fun with this, obviously, but it's true that over the centuries, our whole notion of the workweek itself has changed. i know we've got a graphic we can put up. in the roman empire, there were 175 holidays in a year. you know, obviously, there were some downsides, depending on who you were in the roman empire, but that sounds pretty attractive. in the middle ages, there were six-day workweeks. in america's industrial revolution, my god, the 14-hour work day. you needed a whole revolt and a

labor movement to modernize that. and then the fair labor law in 1938, that really ushered in the modern workweek. what's your sense of where we are in the evolution of work and time? >> we're totally spoiled compared to pretty much everybody that came before us. we have to remember that 99% of everybody before, about 250 years ago, were farmers. and the people in the roman empire that got all those holidays, that wasn't the average joe. you know, that wasn't joe the plumber. that was the elitists. so the fact that we get so much free time and the amount of flexibility and autonomy we have. think about the number of careers you can choose from now. 200 years ago, you know, basically, you worked in the fields, you were a farmer, or maybe you were a horseshoe industrialist type person or you were in the clergy or the law. there was pretty much it. and you were raised and told by your parents what you were going to be. so we have so much more freedom, flexibility, wealth, and prosperity, and time. lots of free time. the autonomy we have is just

startling. so we have to take the long perspective. you know, we think we're getting gypped, but, in fact, life is pretty good. >> you know, it's interesting, because it is kind of a paradox. because when you put it that way, obviously, it sounds pretty good compared to what has been the kind of grind for most of human history. and even folks back in the '30s were writing famous essays about what we would do once the prosperity problem had been solved. how would people use their time. but at the same time, with the rise of china and india, the sense that these rising countries really do pose a threat to our standard of living, even though what you say is true in the broad historical sweep, we do have this need to kind of double down on our work ethic in some ways, don't we? >> we do. right. no, people like to work and be productive. and if you think about how wealthy we are, just think about louis xiv, just before napoleon. he had several hundred servants that waited on him hand and foot. you and i each have far more

servants than that. if you walk down to the starbucks, there's a barista waiting for you to make your latte. or at the bank. you have hundreds and hundreds of servants. that's the value of a market economy versus a medieval system that they had. it's not only more free time, more prosperity and more wealth and all of that, but think about how many conveniences we have that we just take for granted. we don't even think about the starbucks barista waiting for you. but if you think about it like that, it's like, wow, i am more powerful -- you and i are more powerful than any king in history. >> you know, just building on that thought, in the same breath that we acknowledge that there's this huge income equality in the united states and in other advanced countries, the whole 1% and the 99%, and there's real truth to that, when you look at the historical sweep, it's kind of fascinating. there are people who observe that even though income inequality is rising, consumption inequality is

actually decreasing. 100 years ago, the wealthiest man in the world was on a horse and the poor folks were walking in the mud. today, bill gates may be in a rolls royce, but somebody else is in a, you know, is in a honda civic. you're still driving. in other words, the -- and you've still got refrigerated food. so the difference between the very top and the very bottom, though it's expanding in some ways, historically, is a little closer than we may think. >> yeah. the 99% today are wealthier than the 1% of anybody in the past. i mean, we always forget that. and even today, that so-called genie index that measures the disparity and wealth, internationally, in fact, it's closing. if you count china and india, those dirt-poor people are becoming very wealthy very rapidly. they are catching up with us. so we can't just say we wealthy american s and those poor chinese. no, that's changing rapidly. the whole idea of -- and the other problem with that is the fixed pie. it's like the 1% are stealing more and more of our pie. no, the pie's getting bigger. think, again, china and india.

they're not taking anything away from us. they're adding to the bigger and bigger pie. >> michael shermer, you're a fascinating guest, and start reading "skeptic" magazine, you can consider the metaphysics of calendar to the historic sweep of our economic fate. so thanks for sharing that and happy new year to you. >> you're welcome. and now to the results from our very unscientific poll. louis armstrong's rendition of "moon river" seems to be the overwhelming viewer favorite. mike clark says, "nothing beats louis armstrong. he made a cover into his own song." but the andy williams fans were passionate. "the best moon river? of course, andy williams. a big period. you can't ignore the baby boomers." but so far, our best write-in vote came from bob winchester, "best moon river? dumb question -- obviously, kim

jong-il." coming up on "hardball," chris matthews conversations. and since this is according to a cheesehead, we're guessing the packers may get a mention. stay with us. ok! who gets occasional constipation, diarrhea, gas or bloating? get ahead of it! one phillips' colon health probiotic cap a day helps defend against digestive issues with three strains of good bacteria. hit me! [ female announcer ] live the regular life. phillips'. yeah, our low prices are even lower. we need to teach her how to walk. she is taking up valuable cart space. aren't you, honey? [ male announcer ] it's our biggest clearance event of the year where our prices are even lower. save money. live better. walmart. when we resolve to stop snacking and slacking. resolve to start reading and running. ♪ this year, resolve to help someone else, too. resolve to give to the american red cross.

because the red cross provides hope, help and compassion, not only during disasters, but every day. donate to the red cross and give something that means something, before the new year. visit redcross.org today.

and now, david goodfriend takes a look back at the year that was, 2011. take it away, david. >> thank you, matt. you know, as we near new year's eve, i wanted to take a goodfriend rant retrospective. so here are my top ten. first, occupy wall street. a simple message.

we are the 99% electrified americans from all walks of life and put into context the income disparity plaguing our nation. i love these guys. second, 2011 witnessed the re-awakening of labor. the same year we had nfl and nba lockouts also had people fighting back in wisconsin and ohio against conservatives' union-busting legislation. in 2011, people started thinking again about what it means to all of us when working people have a strong voice. third, osama bin laden and the end of the iraq war. 2011 brought in a stark contrast that the iraq war was about the worst possible answer to 9/11. what it really took to get bin laden was good intel and s.e.a.l. team 6. war is not the answer in the fight against terrorism. fourth, the u.s. credit downgrade. for the first time in our nation's history, a financial ratings agency downgraded financial treasuries. the right-wing nuts claim that it's because government was too big.

i thought it was proof that we should end the bush tax cuts! either way, i have a hard time taking seriously the very same rating agencies that gave subprime mortgages the highest possible credit rating. isn't there someone else we can look to for financial truth?! fifth, the packers won the super bowl! hey, this is my rant and the packers are my team, so i'm saying it. sixth, 2011 must go down as the year of oops for the republican party. not just governor rick perry forgetting what he stands for, or former pizza ceo unable to answer foreign policy questions, but in a year when they should have a strong nominee, the republican presidential hopefuls ended up looking like a posse of pygmies! good luck next week in iowa, guys. seventh, congressman anthony weiner, ehh. eighth, the unemployment rate fell to 8.6%, the lowest rate in 2 1/2 years. but unemployment is likely still to be the highest during a presidential election since the end of world war ii.

ninth, 2011 was john boehner's first year as speaker of the house. he threatened a government shutdown over allowing the u.s. government to pay its bills, opposed a tax cut for 160 million families and payroll tax relief. hey, could he end up as the shortest serving republican speaker since bob livingston's pick a dillos led him to resign. finally, 2011 saw the last harry potter movie released. i don't know how she did it, but j.k. rolliwling inspired my 7-year-old son to read thousands of pages and watch every one of these movies. no wonder j.k. rowling is a billionaire. personally, i would have liked to see an inside the beltway harry potter version, maybe eric cantor as the evil lord voldmort. and as we, the american people, somehow cast as the prepubescent