putting romney's odds of winning florida at 97%. no question a result of the $23 million in secret money spent by romney and pro-romney super pacs in florida alone. that's $4 for romney compared to every dollar for newt gingrich. all that money sure does buy you a pile of negative ads to destroy a man's reputation. >> while florida families lost everything in the housing crisis, newt gingrich cashed. in if e we can't trust what mitt romney says about his record, how can we trust him about anything? >> today newt gingrich admitted that he violated house rules by gi giving false information to the ethics committee. >> a great way to exchange power

is 92% negative ad run rate. maybe directly to the aspirations of the solutions our country needs. but our political process is purely about using secret money to annihilate your opponent. pro-romney groups have run 12,768 negative ads compared to 210 pro-gingrich ads. it's this kind of spending that has poisoned our political dialogue. depriving us of energy efficiency and appropriate health care. we will be talking more about the super pacs and their secret money and their flood of cash to amplify this destructive force a little later in the show. first, let's bring in peter alexander who is live on the ground in tampa. they said, peter, that the media would be most relevant in

florida because there's no retail politic there is. it's a huge market. you can't go door to door like you can in iowa and new hampshire. is that a valid analysis? >> reporter: i think it's right. when we were with mitt romney in iowa, there were people he met once or twice. and rick santorum met some of the people there twice. it's a different system here. 1.9 million republicans voted in this state four years ago. the numbers expected to be more than that as there are 200,000 more registered republicans in the state since four years ago. 600,000 folks have voted by early ballot. that was before today. obviously, the way the candidates are able to relate to most of the folks in this state is by that barrage of advertising. we had a chance to speak to mitt romney. we posed the question to him. at some point, is there an impact of the negative ads on you as if you become the nominee with the independents in the state? there's already some polls

showing that he has dropped in terms of favorability 20% in this state because of these negative ads. people associate him as a negative guy, which some would view offmessage. his answer to me was this is the system. it's the way it was built. we wish there didn't have to be negative ads. i believe people want a new president. this strategy has been working. today admitting that his surge has largely been fuelled by the negative ads. they have gone after newt gingrich in this state. that's the one big mistake they made in south carolina. by not doing that. already as we speak to you now with nevada, getting set to have their caucuses on saturday, and some of the other candidates already there over the past couple days. the negative ads have already begun in that state as well. and today romney surrogates did a conference call attacking newt

gingrich as well. >> thank you, peter, for the briefing. i want to bring in former party leader ed rendell, who has enlisted with us to really bring to light the incredible national security liability associated with adopting a decision-making process predicated on the use of secret money to destroy the reputation of your opponent. this is a remarkably effective way to exchange power between individuals. explain to us through your lens what the national security risk becomes from unemployment to energy to war as we choose to solve our problems using secret media. >> let me begin by saying i hope the supreme court is watching what's played out in the primaries and caucuses. it's embarrassing. it is embarrassing that one man can give $10 million.

it is absolutely embarrassing. we have to put a stop to it, which is why we need a constitutional amendment. i got that off my chest. now let me answer your question. it works, but it has serious consequences for us as a country. because we never have rational discussion about the issues. when negatives predominate, there's barely any attempt, other than to give insight into a background, but you never see discussion of issues on these 30-second ads or even on the longer version. we all suffer for that because we make our choices without knowing much about where the candidates stand on things that are really important. the only thing i will say is the negative ads work. sure. there's no question. we have seen it in the way the romney people have carpet bombed newt gingrich twice now. once in new hampshire and now

again in florida. but in the long run, will they help mitt romney get elected? not sure. they have driven down his negatives. he may survive the primary process. he may become the nominee. but this process will deliver a weakened nominee to face president obama. >> it would seem at ilts surface and we're going to get super pac reporting data in terms of whose money was spent where. but that's after the fact. the data we'll get is for 2011. it won't show for this month in florida or next month in nevada or whatever it may be. we talk a lot about the need for a 28th amendment to address the root of this. in the short-term, it would be legislative malpractice not to see congress step in with legislation immediately. >> they can do that. they can do transparency. they can do all sorts of reporting. they can even to some limits and test whether the supreme court will take another shot at

voiding all limits. >> the other thing that inspired me when i was in florida last week was the revelation as to how effective and cohesive the reform effort may actually be in that state. it's a state that has a lot of history of severe gerrymandering. florida is a screwed up state. it's a good microcosm for this country. we were able to see the passage of these amendments. i want you to listen to within of the attorneys who effectively has been advocating on this, on engine gerrymandering there. and we'll bring it up in a second. >> florida had one of the worst gerrymandering states anywhere. there were 430 state house and senate elections. only three incumbents lost. when elected officials get to pick who is voting for them, they become arrogant and stop listening to people. they don't fear the voters' wrath. what's more important in a

democracy than voters deciding who they want to represent them? >> and the genius of the gerrymandering is you can obey to the money. the reason i bring it up is this. the reform efforts in florida passed 63% of the vote. tea party support, liberal support, republican support, incredible support. is there an opportunity for florida to step up on the issue of electoral reform to recruit that same 63%? and can we support them as we're seeing some people in california and new york address these issues? >> i think the answer to that is yes. if there's anything that unites the tea party is they don't like the influence of special interests in the political process. the best way to curb special interests is to get the influence of money out of politics. you can minimize it. and yes, i think if a campaign is run well and florida is a

great place to start, if it can happen in florida as diverse as florida is, it can happen anywhere. i think the answer to that is, yes. let's get the coalition together. it's interesting. americans may come from different ends of the political spectrum, but they feel deeply about what's happening in terms of our process being hostage. and the rich people on either side. the unions shouldn't do it anymore than corporations should do it. >> the toxic and debotched nature of what we're witnessing now, as you and i have discussed, the best recruiting vehicle. >> absolutely. sometimes it has to bottom out before we make change. and ladies and gentlemen, if you're watching, it's bottoming out. >> ring the bell. the turkey is cooked. thank you, governor. coming up here on this florida primary day, examining the true cost to all of us of a bought government. second day of our auction 2012

special report and collaboration with "the huffington post." today's focus is on energy. plus the pac attack. ad buys by outsiders up 1600%. today we are finally getting some answers about whose money it is, but it's for last year. thanks for that. later we do have our differences here on earth, but should the u.s. be working together with china on at least one project? and is that project in outer space? a journalist making the case for a collaboration to get the two countries working together. that's coming up.

whee wheeeeeeeeeeeee! wheeeeeeeeeeee! whee whee wheeeeeeeeeeee-he-he-heeeeee! whee whee wheeeeeeeeeeee! pure adrenaline. whee whee wheeeeeeeeeeee! everything you love about geico, now mobile. download the new geico app today. whee wheeeeeeeeeeee-he-he-heeeeee! in what passes for common sense. used to be we socked money away and expected it to grow. then the world changed... and the common sense of retirement planning became anything but common. fortunately, td ameritrade's investment consultants can help you build a plan that fits your life.

take control by opening a new account or rolling over an old 401(k) today, and we'll throw in up to $600. how's that for common sense?

we continue our special auction 2012 report here. bought in collaboration with "the huffington post." yesterday we dissected the "b" in bought and the price we all pay not just through lack of investment in our country, but also through atm fees. today we are moving on to the "o" in oil. it's about the energy sector and finding power in money by breaching the integrity of our free market and preying on fear. whether it's through the subsidy process or the transfer of environmental damage for a country that proclaims a desire for free markets, i can't think

of a product that has a more rigged price. >> they are coming at it from both ways. they pay no cost for the incredible amount of pollution and damage they do to the environment. for the way they skew our national security policy. on the other hand, we're subsidizing them. they have managed to get congress not just to consider a carbon tax, but to actually consider rolling back some of the subsidies. rolling back the subsidies impossible as well. >> the united republic said the problem is a $1.9 trillion we're all spending. it's half our trade deficit. the money from oil $871 million goes to our government. that's just 2009 and 2010. the one influence mark and z the

energy bill to cut foreign dependence. and their calculation is $1,000 per american each year as a cost of u.s. reliance on foreign oil. how tightly do the dots connect between the pricing of hydrocarbons and the way the market functions and the money in the political system? what's the correlation? >> there's a lot of dots. and there's a lot of connections. the reality is that what we have done is created this industry with incredible profits. so for instance, kpron mobile came out with their total. $41 billion in profit. you add the big four oil companies, more than $100 billion in profit last year. they only have to use a tiny fraction of that to be an absolute lobbying jugger knot, which they have done in the past. now they have the added issue of the threat of using a tiny

fraction of this. which is an overwhelming amount of money to kneecap anybody who gets in their way. >> if you were to look at the ultimate cost for us, it is not only the failure to resolve the energy toxicity issue and the funding of the terrorism, but it's also the failure to recognize what you can see here. the true cost of a gallon of gas which could be applied with a national gas tax or a move in that direction. that would be too big of a jump for the economy in one shot. but if you did 5% moving in that direction, you could drive a tremendous amount of investment into job creation going to 30 million jobs. it seems like this is a place where the opportunity for job creation with the right incentives on energy independence is massive. >> there was a great controversy over the smog rule that president obama at the last minute killed. on the one hand, industry was saying it was a job killer. others were saying it's a job creator in the sense it would

create green jobs. there's a lot they can do. there's a lot of money involved. but when you have something like a trade agreement, at some point, it has to adjust that the people are pouring massive amounts of carbon into the sky and not paying anything for it. conservative estimates say the cost alone is more than $100 billion a year. there's got to be some adjustment at some point. >> not to mention $7 trillion on aircraft carriers. i'm all about the free markets, as you know, but a free market has to have price integrity or it's a sham. wonderful to see you. thank you for your reporting. thank you. the energy conversation continues now on the front of "the huffington post" with their auction 2012 series. you'll see the stuff from banking yesterday and other properties. if you want to connect the dots

on energy yourself, we invite you to check out the graphics available at greedybastards.com that lays together the dots on energy along with trade, health care, education, and politics. that available all the time. developing news right now. consider it breaking news. for the first time since super pacs burst under the presidential campaign scene, they are now set to disclose to the federal election commission the names behind the donations on a trailing basis for last year. so don't get too excited. the filing deadline is midnight tonight. we're seeing some information trickle in about the 2011 money like from the pro-huntsman super pac. his father, this is embarrassing, accounted for 70% of his donations. more details like this one expected in the hours and days to come. keep in mind, we'll learn about the money through 2011. so if you're hoping to learn who

is funding romney's assassination of gingrich, you'll get that long after it matters. so the numbers are there, but you can see what's going on. jimmy williams is here. he's been pouring through the documents with michael isikoff. we have the rest of the mega panel with us. karen and susan. we don't have all the information until midnight. what do we have? what do we know? anything about the romney money? >> no. we don't. they are waiting until the last minute to file the stuff. >> they are going to wait until midnight? >> yeah. i think they think the new cycle ends tonight at midnight. we won't realize that our country is being bought. it's kind of embarrassing. romney gave a good indicator about this. he said today that all the negative ads that he and his outside groups have been running for him have served him well. >> they have through the accumulation of power. >> served him well. and i think at our expense.

so we don't have a lot of data. >> what do we know? anything other than huntsman? we know sheldon adelson is funding gingrich. you have a casino billionaire decide he's going to fund newt gingrich and just basically hijack the whole apparatus to that end. we just found out that huntsman's money from his father, which is gossip to covort about huntsman. when it comes to the actual spending right now, when do we find out about the money that's being spent in florida today by romney in nevada tomorrow by gingrich and down the line? when do we get current data? >> we'll find it out at the end of february. >> is there any sort of value politically in the delayed disclosures?

>> in all fairness, the process is for all federal candidates who are also following the same rules. >> no, they are not, susan. >> they disclose after the fact that they have taken contributions. >> in terms of nothing rapid report on disclosing a federal candidate's campaign filings. >> but the level of disclosure, this is part of the supreme court decision. what we're really getting is actually just a snapshot. part of the problem with the way the supreme court ruling went down, the super packs have even more nefarious ways to hide the donors. we won't really know because you can still hide the money. >> i was just going to say federal candidates, there is a leg. there's no one who is showing

their filings right away. there is a big problem with the super pacs. that is addressed separately. you can basically hide who is supporting you if you so choose. adelson was open with it. given the way things are going, i think we're going to see more public demand from these and the the candidates are going to have to give in or the super pacs are going to have to give in. >> quickly, can we get a piece of legislation this year? >> yeah. in the senate, you can offer it to any bill before closure. if it passes, how do you not offer something like that in the senate and pass it? and then dare the house republicans to say, no. we don't want disclosure on the issue. >> it is the republicans issue on campaign finance. we have undisclosed and we have lost our minds. the panel stays. next, imagine a world where all super pacs did as they should. disclose their financing before they were even asked.

after this, our specialist says it will soon be social responsibility or bust not only for america's politicians, but all americans who will have to in gender trust if they are going to affect power. phillips'! we have to thank you for the advice on phillips' caplets. magnesium, right? you bet! phillips' caplets use magnesium. works more naturally than stimulant laxatives... for gentle relief of occasional constipation. can i get an autograph? [ female announcer ] live the regular life. phillips'.

[ laughs ] [ mayhem ] please continue to hold. the next available claims representative will be with you in 97 minutes. [ laughs ] ♪ and if you've got cut rate insurance, there's nothing you can do about this. so get allstate.

the only insurance company that guarantees your claim experience won't be mayhem... like me. [ dennis ] introducing the claim satisfaction guarantee. only from allstate. dollar for dollar, nobody protects you from mayhem like allstate.

you can run but you can't hide. . we just spoke about the super pac money that's flooded into the auction of power. so far $35 million. the cash that can be used to buy an election for a candidate by ie nilelating the reputation of an opponent. but social media will bring transparency and integrity that comes after the visibility to at least some aspects of our politics. david jones is the author of "who cares wins." in your book, you write about

something called radical transparency. if i had to pick one word for running a business it would be transparen transparency. businesses that are transparent will be better on every level and in a stronger position to face the third age. all things that i agree with basic to the narrative of our book "greedy bastards." there's a unique advantage in politics, however, which is because of the lack of real choice, the primary system, the gerrymander districts, the component that you depend on in the social media which is free choice by the consumer to reject the noncompliant or offensive actors have been taken away from the electorate in america because they are forced to choose between three candidates

who are bought. i'm interested in how you reconcile the natural forces you speak of here with the incredibly well-rigged system that the politicians have created for us. >> we're fundamentally living in the age of damage. what has happened is social media has given people the ability to take down the leaders or businesses that tla leave don't behave in the right way. if you look at the a rab spring, they were able to take down a regime there. if you believe that the system is not a great one and many people around the world would argue that the american system is still one of the best in the world. but if you believe it isn't a great one, what will happen is social media empowered people to ensure that the best candidate wins. you look at the super pacs. interestingly, they go against every sort of trend around the world at the moment to allow more funding. but i believe that what we'll see with that is the power of social media. the way it has empowered people

will work in that base too. we're seeing it from a business perspective. you saw verizon having to back down from charges. we're seeing it with misbehaving fashion designers. we'll see it with politicians as well. >> it's interesting. the fashion design, at least i can choose a different designer. when i'm given no choice but the prechosen candidates in the gerrymandered districts. the power to choose, telling somebody they have a choice while i rig the choice is a remarkable way to make a lot of people mad. >> i would love your thoughts on how social media would play into this. it's not just that there's a lack of transparency. but it also means if i'm a candidate, i can be nicy nice and have somebody else really go after the other candidate. i personally believe, given what

we saw with president obama and the president likening him to monkeys, we're going to see a level of racist, ugly stuff this cycle coming from super pacs, which give a level of plausible deny blt. that's our concern. where's that accountability? and even with social media -- >> but i think the key thing about it is it only works and stick if the attacks are actually true and genuine. people are not naive. people understand that the lines are quite blurred as to the extent to which these things have nothing to do with the candidates. we have seen in the campaign already. romney had a week when gingrich's wife was coming out and talking about the allegations. in fact, because he hid and ran away from the question about his tax and dodged it, it ended up being a week where he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. we saw from the other side with

gingrich and the attack on the bain capital thing, people didn't genuinely think that was such a big deal. he had to distance himself from those films. so my view is people can behave in any way they want. they can behave well or badly. what we have now is the ability for people to find out so much more about the candidates. not only that, but to act. if the last election was a case of obama using social media in a positive way, i think we'll see in this campaign what i call the age of damage. which is the people who misbehave are going to be held accountable using social media. >> susan, go ahead. >> i'm just curious. as a consultant, i tell clients everything will come out. if there's anything you're concerned about coming out, it's already out there and someone will find it. i'm curious. as you wrote your book, if you found out why they still think they can hide things. whether it's an elected official

having some discretion or business bad practices. the same story keeps coming out. but what makes people think they can get away with it? >> i think there's a few things. first, there's a generational divide. the millenniums get the fact it's an open world and transparent. i think you have people who have grown up in the command of control world who think you can do than. there's been radical change. the rules of social media are the rules of modern business. they are the rules of modern politics. you have one minute from the moment you read somebody has a piece of news on yourself to actually doing something about it. it was a good case in the uk of somebody who acted incredibly fast and was able to defend themselves. allegations that they were taking drugs in a nightclub ten years ago. she came straight out and said we all do stupid things when we're young. she was able to diffuse the situation.

if you go the other way, which is to deny and hold off, you end up in the position romney was in. after five days, there's so much pressure on you. these people grew up in a different world and think some of the old rules still apply. you have a nanosecond until it comes out and it being on every major news channel. >> david, you obviously advise the prime minister. the relationship between the media and government both abroad in your country and here is long hatched. you remember lord beaverbrook and his relationship with the government in england. the media here people talk about the liberal media versus fox news. sort of advising republicans, if you will. shouldn't there be increased transparency, and i'm talking about my own industry here. shouldn't there be an increased amount of transparency as to how

the media deals with elected officials or want-to-be elected officials? >> not only should there be, but i think there will be. i have followed both closely. look at the news international. the new scandal and the phone hacking. that came out. i'm a fundamental believer. you may be able to hide it for a week or a month. but in today's world, these things come out. it's no longer about the major media companies believing they can keep a lid on it. if you're doing things you should not be doing, someone is going to find out about it. and it will come out. i think it's a big wakeup call to the political world. it's a big wakeup to the business world. you need to behave to a higher standard and behave responsibly. the mess we're in globally is because of irresponsible leadership from both government and business. the banking sector and some of the behavior there. the political sector and running

up the debts in countries, and i think the world is being called to halt. the corporate response business behavior has been taken out of the silo and put into the pnl statement. >> and to that end, are you surprised, david, that we have not seen a political candidate go with your narrative? go with the narrative of authenticity and trust as the modern currency as opposed to watching these candidates? first gingrich with a pile of negative ads. wins south carolina. then you get romney. no one is actually trying to win the confidence of the marketplace with their authenticity. they are simply relying on their secret-rich friends to annihilate the trust wworthines of their opponent without actually feeling the need to develop their own brand because they are in a closed system with limited choice.

>> i actually am surprised. one of the things that happened is half the time, we have seen a few candidates over the years set off down that path and they get into the mud slinging and get drown in. i absolutely think it's critical and we have a big problem around the world today around young people, youth unemployment, and the issues there. if you really want to engage and get the youth vote on board, these are the new rules to how you have to behave. somebody somewhere will come along. we're also seeing the model and role of government has changed. the sopa legislation, the threatened hearing legislation. google decide to stage a protest. they are so powerful they can make something like that go away. it's a different kind of politics, but it e shows you don't necessarily have to be in a role of political power to exert influence. what happened in arab spring another example.

occupy is another example. people have the ability to create mass movements. one person can create a mass political movement. >> it's a delight. i love the theming of your book. it's the theme of our work here. proud to have the conversation with you. david jones, the book "who cares wins." ahead here is the way to make nice with the chinese on earth to first work with them on mars? we're examining the pros and cons of a space-age partnership with china as a pathway to earthside resolution when we come back. ring ring

hello, progresso. it fits! fantastic! [ woman 2] ring ring progresso. they fit! awesome thank you ring, ring [ man ] pro-gresso they fit! okay-y... okay??? you don't understand. i've been eating progresso because there's... 40 flavors 100 calories or less and now my favorite old jeans...fit. okay is there a woman i can talk to? [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup. i'm going to own my own restaurant. i want to be a volunteer firefighter. when i grow up, i want to write a novel. i want to go on a road trip. when i grow up, i'm going to go there. i want to fix up old houses. [ female announcer ] at aarp we believe you're never done growing. i want to fall in love again. [ female announcer ] discover what's next in your life.

get this free travel bag when you join at aarp.org/jointoday. ♪ you and me and the big old tree ♪ ♪ side by side, one, two, three ♪ ♪ count the birds in the big old tree ♪ ♪ la la la [ male announcer ] the inspiring story of how a shipping giant can befriend a forest may seem like the stuff of fairy tales. ♪ ♪ you and me and the big old tree side by side ♪

but if you take away the faces on the trees... take away the pixie dust. take away the singing animals, and the charming outfits. take away the sprites, and the storybook narrator... [ man ] you're left with more electric trucks. more recycled shipping materials... and a growing number of lower emissions planes... which still makes for a pretty enchanted tale. ♪ la la la whoops, forgot one... [ male announcer ] sustainable solutions. fedex. solutions that matter. close your eyes for a second and imagine. the american and the chinese flags flying side by side in a defiant and incredibly constructive alliance to explore outer space. maybe even on mars. the obama administration has hinted that the two nations

could align on "space issues" but with growing concern with cyber espionage, congress has passed legislation that would prevent nasa from pursuing any sort of intergalactic collaboration. it's not like this kind of relationship hasn't been done before at the height of the cold war. the u.s. and the soviet union worked together routinely on space missions as a cooling mechanism where the heated aspect of that it relationship. when china's space program expanding, should we be looking at this of the lens of if you can't beat them, join them. perhaps we can resolve some of our stickier earth-bound issues like trade. john madson's article appears in the issue of "scientific american." i did say that correctly?

>> you did. it's an americanized version of the chinese word for astronaut. >> we just through naut on there. >> yes. >> why is doing this a good idea? >> well, in my view, i think it should be explored because there are big challenges that no nation can tackle alone in space. one of them would be, as you mentioned, a mission to mars. no country on the planet currently has the money or resources or technical capability to even put together a serious plan for how to put people on mars. >> what are the tres te rest yell evidence? >> it's a nice area to have some cooperation and say we can work together in this area. maybe we can get some

concessions from you on human rights issues or cyber espionage. both of which are real issues. >> or trade. >> absolutely. so you say, this is an area where we are two of the three leading nations on earth. probably getting close to being the top two. russia still has a lot of capability, but isn't putting the money into it. so it would be mutually beneficial for these countries to work together. things we could do together rather than work alone. >> this wolf clause, it's a name for the person responsible. very simply, there's an argument to be made that wolf makes that there's intense concern about the possible theft of intellectual property that could be transferred from the united states to china by virtue of the collaboration.

i would imagine the chinese would muster similar concerns. how do you reconcile that? >> i think the avenue that most people would advocate, which i think is sensible, is you don't go straight into a collaboration where you're talking about a chinese astronaut and american astronaut flying to the the space station together. or sharing hugely-sensitive technologies. you talk about explorations that involve robots that don't involve astronauts that are more low-level. before this clause, there were low-level collaborative projects just to share scientific information on astronomical projects. >> who sets that threshold of the security profile for the shared technology? >> the obama administration would like to have that capacity. they have science advisors. they have a number of people within nasa to make that

assessment. >> and give us a little bit of the history of the u.s./russian relationship at the height of the cold war where there was still a culture of collaboration specifically to outer space and how you think there may be parallels and the benefits of that to what we're dealing with now. >> the really symbolic thing that happened, i think, was in 1975. it was a joint mission between the soviet union and u.s. where they docked in space. a capsule docked and they shook hands through the hatch. whether or not that really benefitted either nations scientifically is a good question, but symbolically, that's huge. you're basically demonstrating a peaceful relationship in the ultimate higher ground, which is space. >> and then when it comes to actually doing it, assuming you get through the politics. what is the state of american space exploration, not just nasa but the private space

exploration, relative to china? in other words, are we currently in the same place? is there a place to collaborate from? can we help each other? >> i don't think anyone would argue the chinese space program has surpassed the american space program. there's too much history and institutional knowledge at nasa to make that argument. but at this moment, the chinese have a capability that we don't have. it's to put astronauts in orbit. we have to pay the russians to do. we have chosen to sort of hitch our wagon to the russians because they are a partner in some ways. they are still not our closest ally in every sense, but in this way, we're fully reliant on them. we have to get people to the space station. the russians and chinese are the only people who can do that. >> how is it better to have chinese taking americans to space than russians? >> it's not necessarily.

but that's just a way of saying the chinese space program is advanced. they have a lot of resources. they are opaque about how much money they are spending. >> what's in it for china? >> our resources. we have put people on the moon. they would like to put people on the moon. they would probably prefer to do it without our help, but nasa is the only agency that has succeeded in doing that. >> you feel confident that the wolf clause and the concern that china would use us as a vehicle for intellectual property theft could be managed. >> i think so. if you started with low-level, unmanned missions in space, you could feel it out. it's like going on a first date. you try things out. if you have concerns, you back away. i don't think that just shut tig it down cold turkey is the right

way to go. >> it would be an interesting diplomatic endeavor. thank you for your time. john matson, check it out in "scientific american." coming up on "hardball," newt raging against the machine. a torrent of attacks in the final hours in florida. the prime time coverage kicking off on this primary eve at 6:00 p.m. stay with msnbc into the evening for the florida primary results. but before we go, why david goodfriend says we need to get our priorities in check. would you take it? well, there is. [ male announcer ] it's called ocuvite. a vitamin totally dedicated to your eyes, from the eye-care experts at bausch + lomb. as you age, eyes can lose vital nutrients. ocuvite helps replenish key eye nutrients. [ male announcer ] ocuvite has a unique formula not found in your multivitamin to help protect your eye health. now, that's a pill worth taking.

[ male announcer ] ocuvite. help protect your eye health. since ameriprise financial was founded back in 1894, they've been committed to putting clients first. helping generations through tough times. good times. never taking a bailout. there when you need them. helping millions of americans over the centuries. the strength of a global financial leader. the heart of a one-to-one relationship. together for your future. ♪

time for the daily rant. here's our good friend, david goodfriend. >> i was glad to hear president obama say in the state of the union address that college costs are rising too fast. the cost of a college education is increasing faster than the rate of inflation. my oldest kid is 14. even for a fancy lawyer like me, i'm starting to sweat as to whether they have saved enough to pay for him and his brother. yes, the federal government should push back on tuition hikes. federal benefits should be tied to consumer behavior. but i fear we are collectively barking up the wrong tree by focusing only on the rate hikes themselves and not some of the root causes of the hikes. let's start by asking where do

most americans go to college? by far, the overwhelming majority of students in the u.s. go to public universities. out of 15 million college students, 12 million go to public universities. right now, states are facing massive budget shortfalls. what do they do? all too often, they cut public higher education support. as states slash support for public education, schools make that up by cutting some programs, but that's often not enough. they also raise tuition. the whole vision of our public land grant universities was to offer affordable higher education to the people. an important research and development in the basic sciences. but cutting state support for higher education, we are committing economic and intellectual suicide. every economist who studied this issue concludes that education is critical to america's economic future. so what's the solution? how about for starters we remind people what we pay taxes for.

instead of pandering to the all taxes are evil crowd, i'm going to say you want an american economy that grows into the future? you want upward mobility for everybody? you want affordable college? then support a fair tax system that funds public higher education. how about an education surtax at the state level that goes directly to tuition support at public universities? i can't think of a better investment. don't tell me we're broke. we're not. but we are suffering from a deficit in public priorities. spare me the platitudes about how the free market is going to solve everything if government just gets out of the way. most college students attend public, that means government-supported, universities. the last time this nation saw a spike in the number of people getting college education was after world war ii when we created the gi bill for returning soldiers. i want to see more attention at the state level to higher education support. we have too much at stake to ignore it it. dylan?

>> i agree with that. although we should mandate all universities, post online the use of the money so the students can see which universities are blowing that money on things that are not education-related. if we had transparency for the students to see how they are spending the money, we could make better decision to make sure we're not just funding some useless things. wonderful rant. thank you so much, david. thank all of you for joining us from new york today. we're off to washington for week three of the 30 million jobs tour. we'll see you from the belly of the beast tomorrow. also hosting an event tomorrow night at the 6th and i synagogue in d.c. find out more online. "hardball" is up right now. i love that my daughter's part fish.

but when she got asthma, all i could do was worry ! specialists, lots of doctors, lots of advice... and my hands were full. i couldn't sort through it all. with unitedhealthcare, it's different. we have access to great specialists, and our pediatrician gets all the information. everyone works as a team. and i only need to talk to one person about her care. we're more than 78,000 people looking out for 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare.

you wouldn't want your doctor doing your job. so why are you doing his? only your doctor can determine if your persistent heartburn is actually something more serious... like acid reflux disease. over time, stomach acid can damage the lining of your esophagus. for many, prescription nexium not only provides 24-hour heartburn relief, but can also help heal acid related erosions in the lining of your esophagus. talk to your doctor about the risk for osteoporosis-related bone fractures and low magnesium levels with long-term use of nexium.

possible side effects include headache, diarrhea and abdominal pain. other serious stomach conditions may still exist. let your doctor do his job, and you do yours. ask if nexium is right for you. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. and it's surprising what it goes through in the course of a day. but what's even more surprising is that brushing alone isn't enough to keep it clean. fortunately, you've got listerine. unlike brushing which misses 75% of your mouth, listerine cleans virtually your entire mouth. so what are you waiting for? it's time to take your mouth to a whole new level of health. listerine... power to your mouth.