captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> lehrer: good evening. i'm jim lehrer. a boost in retail sales raises hopes of a recovery. >> woodruff: and i'm judy woodruff. on the newshour tonight, the positive signs come alongside continued worries about home foreclosures. we get an update from economist diane swonk. >> lehrer: then, ray suarez reports on the flare-up over settlements in israel. >> woodruff: paul solman talks to m.i.t. economist andrew lo. he is calling for an investigation into the financial meltdown.

>> in the case of an airplane crash everybody wants to know what happened. when a financial firm crashes, or when there's a major systemic fault, there are certain parties that do not want to know what the answer is. >> lehrer: mark shields and david brooks present their weekly analysis. >> woodruff: and some reflections on a remarkable week for women shattering ceilings, including one on a high school football field. >> what coach doesn't want to win. i want to win. we all want to win. i think that's universal. i think that has nothing to do with whether i'm a woman or they're a man. >> lehrer: that's all ahead on tonight's newshour. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: bank of america

monsanto. producing more. conserving more. improving farmers' lives. that's sustainable agriculture. more at producemoreconservemore.com. >> this is the engine that connects abundant grain from the american heartland to haran's best selling whole wheat, while keeping 60 billion pounds of carbon out of the atmosphere every year. bnsf, the engine that connects us. this is the power of human energy. >> we are intel, sponsors of tomorrow.

grant thornton. and the william and flora hewlett foundation, working to solve social and environmental problems at home and around the world. and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> lehrer: there were new signs today that the great recession may be over. the most encouraging was about retail sales for february. economists had been expecting a dip, but sales actually were up three-tenths of a percent overall, despite the major snowstorms. but other data showed the effects of the financial crisis linger on. >> woodruff: in fact, a monthly survey showed consumer confidence slipped.

and while a private report this week found new home foreclosures are slowing, more than 300,000 households were put on notice last month, and three million homes are expected to face foreclosure this year. meanwhile, the federal reserve reported that total u.s. household debt fell last year for the first time since 1945. much of that was due to a wave of defaults-- people walking away from their obligations. to help us unravel these varied economic signals, we turn to diane swonk, chief economist and senior managing director at mesirow financial, a diversified financial services firm based in chicago. diane swonk, good to see you again. we seem to have arrows pointing in a lot of different directions. let's start with these retail sales number. up better than people expected. but so is this something, does this is a the economy is stronger than we thought?

>> well, it's nothing to pop champagne bottles over. we are popping beers at best out there. what we seeing is the level of consumer spending fell to such a low level there is almost nowhere to go but up. we are seeing a lot of pent-up demand. a lot of the spending is coming from transfer income which is everything from social security to unemployment insurance being continued it. a lot of spending on not just spending on discretionary but on the subsidies out there. we are seeing repair and replacement of things that we just postponed for so long. there is nothing else we can do. so the level of spending is extremely low but the momentum in the right direction. that said, the data for january will revise down and so even though we are moving up it is sort of two-steps forward, one step back. and we could still see this data get revised down as well. so it really is that level versus momentum it kind of feels like we're moving forward in a traffic jam. >> how do you square those retail sales numbers with consumer confidence being down. >> well, that's exactly it. we're to the getting enough growth to feel good about it

we are still at a low level of economic activity. we are talking about recession lows. on the consumer confidence data we are not at the lowest levels of the height of the crisis during the fall of 2008 but we are back at levels consistent with the 1980s recession which was very, very bad economy. people still feel terrible about an economy with 10% or more real unemployment in the income. and it's a very frustrating economy because we're not moving anywhere rapidly. and it's hard to see a lot of light on the horizon. this is an economy that is still a lot of troubles in it. a lot of pothole as long the road. we are in a very rocky road to recovery. but it's not a very easy road and it's going to remain that way for some time to come. >> ten you also have the report that consumers are shedding debt the fastest rate since the depression. but mainly due to defaults. they will just walking away from the bills that they owe. so is this a good sign or a bad sign? >> well, deleveraging is part of the process of going into too much debt but it is a bad thing when you have to walk away from it i think moving forward what we going to have to see is we now see

a lot of households that put 20% down. they are underwater on their mortgage and they lost their job. the only way they can stay in the house is not just to renegotiate the terms of the loan, they going to need some principal forgiven and that si controversial issue but it is the only way to deleverage and move forward. and frankly i think everybody knows now is better to keep their neighbors in their home even if it means forgiving some of that debt, then leting that home go vacant and be vandalized over the next year and destroy the value of your home. >> woodruff: what about the foreclosure numbers. it did slow a bit as we said but overall we are told million its more this year. so how do you factor that? >> you know, what is bad is good news. the rate of deterioration in the foreclosures is slowing. but they're still up and they are still going to a record high. i think we will see another record high. in addition to three million expected we have 4.6 million homes. 90 days or more delinquent. the only good news out there is that the shorter term delinquencies, have slowed down quite dramatically.

that could be good news for 2011. but i think we are still going to see a peak in 2010 of foreclosures or at least of these loans needing help in restructuring. that said, it's also one of the reasons why you are seeing so many banks, over 400 banks on the troubled bank list right now by the fdic. and are you going to see a lot more bank failure its this year as well. >> woodruff: so foreclosure is it being to hold back a more robust recovery. >> you know, and this is what we always see, is we tend to see the legacy. we saw the first part of the crisis was the sub prime minister crisis which is something structural that happened that shook us up. the result of that is a rescission -- recession and now we are having the residual affects and foreclosure of the recession. people actually lost a lot of jobs and they simply are in a worse economic situation that forces the credit card they took on, they are now just defaulting on it because they can't keep up the payments on the other three or four that they are keeping up the payments on. >> finally is the story sort of the same mixed economy story we have been telling for the last few months or

is there something positive we can hang on to underneath all these statistics? >> the one thing that i think is positive out there is we are seeing a new technology investment boom. and it's not just in the investment-- consumers are training technology as well. i think we are on the precipice of another technological revolution which is really finally the fruition of the internet boom or dotcom boom which was the false tart in the 1990s that is the one piece of good news. consumer electronic sales are robust. people are renewing their technology. they skipped vista, moved into 2070, buying lap stops and flat screen tvs so hopefully they are watching you in high definition. >> woodruff: we will take every bit of good news where we can find it. diane swonk, thanks very much. >> thanks, judy. >> lehrer: now, the other news of the day. here's hari sreenivasan in our newsroom. >> sreenivasan: a federal judge today considered a sweeping settlement for those who worked at the world trade center site in new york after 9/11.

it amounts to more than $650 million to cover claims of illness caused by exposure to toxic dust and debris. newshour correspondent kwame holman has the story. >> holman: when the towers came down, rescue workers rushed in. they spent weeks scrambling over a hellish landscape. many said later they fell ill from inhaling dust and smoke from burning chemicals. and today, some claimed victory with news of the settlement. >> it made me so happy. >> holman: more than 10,000 police, firefighter and construction workers may be eligible to collect part of the $657 million settlement. individual payments will range from a few thousand dollars to upwards of a million, depending on the injuries involved. claimants must submit medical records, and prove they were at the world trade center site or at other facilities that handled debris. the settlement becomes available only if up 95% of those making

claims agree to be bound by its terms. a special insurance fund, paid with federal tax dollars, would cover workers who develop cancer in the future. in his weekly radio show, new york city mayor michael bloomberg called it a good settlement. >> i think it's fair and reasonable, given the circumstances. and we've been working on this for a long time. >> holman: long island iron worker jon sferazo spent about a month at the site. he says he now suffers from a reactive airway disease. >> it was very difficult to breathe. anything you put over your face restricted volume of some kind going into your lungs. >> holman: federal officials initially insisted the air was safe. >> everything we've tested for-- which includes asbestos, lead, and v.o.c.s-- have been below any level of concern for the general public health. >> holman: but in short order, the lawsuits began, as hundreds of workers reported falling ill.

>> i'm 52 years old, and they told me i've got lungs of a 90- year-old man. >> holman: the first cases had been set to go to trial in two months. workers will have 90 days to decide whether to take the deal. >> sreenivasan: on wall street today, stocks mostly marked time. the dow jones industrial average gained more than 12 points to close at 10,624. the nasdaq fell just under a point to close at 2,367. for the week, the dow gained half a percent; the nasdaq rose nearly 2%. president obama has delayed a trip to indonesia, guam and australia by three days to push health care reform to a final vote. the white house announced today the president will leave on sunday the 21, instead of thursday the 18. press secretary robert gibbs said congressional leaders asked the president to put off his departure. >> i think everybody believed that him being here was more important. we didn't postpone the trip for any image's sake.

this is not done for anything other than a few extra days to getting health care reform through the process, as well as keeping that important trip. >> sreenivasan: house speaker nancy pelosi today predicted final passage of the overhaul within days. she suggested congress might delay its easter break, scheduled to begin on march 26. >> we stand ready to stay as long as it takes to pass the bill. i think members are eager to pass the bill. and again, it won't be long before we'll be making a real difference in the lives of the american people. >> sreenivasan: pelosi and other house leaders continued trying to round up enough democratic votes. republicans are strongly opposed to the bill. a vaccine preservative does not cause autism. the courts say families failed to show any connection. more than 5500 claims are pending with a federal compensation program and today's decision ruling can still be appealed in federal district court. the perk ree-based additive has already been removed

from most u.s. vaccines. in pakistan, the city of lahore was rocked by explosions today. two suicide bombers killed at least 43 people in a near simultaneous attack. the target was a group of army vehicles, in a part of the city that houses security agencies. it was the fourth major attack in pakistan this week. nearly 60 people are dead in the capital of somalia, amid the heaviest fighting in more than a year. for three days now, islamic insurgents have attacked government positions near the presidential palace. the government, with the assistance of african union troops, plans a major counter- offensive. the mayor of mogadishu warned residents today to flee the battle zones. those are some of the day's main stories. i'll be back at the end of the program with a preview of what you'll find tonight on the newshour's web site. but for now, back to judy. >> woodruff: secretary of state clinton rebuked the israelis today over expanding jewish settlements on lands the palestinians claim. and street clashes broke out between the two sides. ray suarez has our report.

>> suarez: the day began with palestinians confronting israeli police in jerusalem. trouble erupted despite a 48- hour israeli lockdown of the west bank, and barricades and checkpoints to restrict access to jerusalem's old city, site of revered shrines for three religions. the protesters were enraged by this week's announcements that israel would expand settlements on bitterly-disputed land in east jerusalem, and on the west bank. the u.s. also confronted the israelis today. >> the united states considered the announcement a deeply negative signal about israel's approach to the bilateral relationship and counter to the spirit of the vice-president's trip. >> suarez: state department spokesman p.j. crowley said secretary of state hillary clinton complained directly to israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu in a telephone call. the source of clinton's complaint came tuesday as vice- president biden was visiting

jerusalem, and shortly after he had reaffirmed u.s.-israel solidarity. >> progress occurs in the middle east when everyone knows there is simply no space between the united states and israel. >> suarez: the vice-president's middle east tour had begun hopefully enough following the announcement of new, indirect talks between israel and the palestinians after 16 months with no talks. but the israeli move to expand settlements threatened to turn a delicate diplomatic moment into an outright debacle. late tuesday, the vice-president denounced the decision himself in a statement, and he pointedly arrived nearly two hours late for dinner with netanyahu. the next day, on the west bank, mr. biden again criticized the israelis. >> as we move forward, the united states will hold both sides accountable for any statements or actions that inflame tensions or prejudice the outcome of talks, as this decision did. >> suarez: the palestinians, backed by washington, have

demanded israel freeze settlement expansion. thus far, the netanyahu government has agreed only to slow the growth of that building. still, the israeli prime minister said he had not known of the pending announcement, and a spokesman apologized for the timing, if not the substance. >> but we have to be clear-- the west bank is the west bank and jerusalem is jerusalem. jerusalem is our capital and will remain as such. >> suarez: back in tel aviv yesterday, vice-president biden sounded more conciliatory. he said, "sometimes only a friend can deliver the hardest truth". and he argued both sides stand to gain from talking >> building peace and security between a jewish democratic state of israel and a viable independent palestinian state is profoundly in israel's interest, if you will forgive me for suggesting that... ( applause )

i have learned never to tell another man or another country what is in their own interest, but is seems self evident. it is also profoundly in the interest of palestinians. >> suarez: the palestinians sounded less than sure about the next step. after meeting with mr. biden on wednesday, president mahmoud abbas said the israeli announcement might endanger talks. palestinian negotiator saeb erekat said there's been no final decision, but he warned more damage had been done. >> this israeli decision is not only an obstacle to peace, this is an attempt to undermine the american efforts to revive the peace process. >> suarez: back in washington, state department spokesman crowley said clinton made much the same argument to netanyahu. >> the secretary said she could not understand how this happened, particularly in light of the united states' strong commitment to israel's security. and she de clear that the israeli government needed to demonstrate, not just through words but through specific actions, that they are committed to this relationship and to the

peace process. >> suarez: the palestinians said today they will urge u.s. officials to pressure israel into revoking the settlement plans. >> lehrer: now, another of our conversations on the future of wall street. it comes as chris dodd, the chairman of the senate banking committee, prepares for a monday unveiling of his proposals for reforming the financial system. tonight, newshour economics correspondent paul solman talks to someone who has studied the system for years. it's all part of paul's ongoing reporting, "making sense of financial news." >> mit finance professor andrew lo whose expertise ranges from math to the medula researching how we humans make economic decisions. >> pushing the risk out here. >> reporter: including the disastrous ones that lead to the great recession. >> a situation like aig. >> reporter: lo things we don't yet know what went wrong. and has been pushing in

congress and elsewhere a proposal to find out. >> the first thing i think we ought to do is to create an independent agency whose sole function is to sift through the recognizeage of every financial disaster and to be able to produce publicly available reports as to what happened, why it happened, and what may need to be done in order to prevent it from happening again. in other words, the national transportation safety board equivalent for financial markets. after say the equivalent of an airplane disas trer. >> that's right. >> you really think there is an exact analogy between the part the failure of an airplane, the wing, an icing situation app an financial criess. >> i do. think how complicated a boeing 747 is and then ask the question do you think the global financial system is even more complicated? i would argue it is. many, many more times more complicated. >> reporter: but we're not going to find the frozen o-rings in the rocket that failed, are we?

>> i think we are. for example, the case of the space shuttle challenger. it turns out that the o-ring was the cause. that was the actual reason on the day of the disaster that the explosion occurred. but the more important question is did nasa know beforehand that this was a systemic fraility that they needed to be careful about? and going through the evidence, the answer seems to be yes. they knew. at least some engineers knew. now to me that's the really interesting and important question. why and how does an organization fail so spectacularly despite the fact that they have the information. >> are we on the verge of creating a national financial safety board? i mean you testified about such a thing in congress more than a year ago. >> unfortunately, i think that we're still pretty far away from that. in the case of an airplane crash, everybody wants to know what happened and everybody wants to know how to prevent it, perhaps with the exception of some

undertakers. because nobody, nobody benefits from airplanes crashing out of the sky. however, it's been argued that when a financial firm crashes, or when there's a major systemic fault there are certain parties that do not want to know what the answer is. >> reporter: to pursue your cynicism for a moment, who benefits? >> well, for one, the individuals that have profited from the disaster. in the case of the recent financial crisis, there are a number of hedge funds, homeowners, mortgage brokers that have taken the money and have run. and are perfectly satisfied with the outcome. obviously those homeowners that have been foreclosed upon, the investors that invested in these kinds of mortgage instruments, they're left holding the bag. but there are winners and there are losers. and so we have to keep that in mind. >> and the winners have their wings to influence the system to keep the

regulators at bay. >> that's certainly one aspect of it. another aspect is regulators, there is an argument that a certain degree of regulatory forebaerns may have exacerbated if not directly caused this crisis. and certainly those regulators have an interest in not sifting through the recognizeage because it will potentially undermine their authority going forward. i would argue that regulation project-- protects people from themselves. and the federal reserve and other regulatory organizations are really there to help us deal with human frailities. human behavior coupled with technology. >> reporter: and you think human fraility is a big part of this story? >> i think it's by far the most important feature of financial crisis. it's really the combination of human behavior coupled with technological advances. we develop technologies that allow us to engage in a variety of pursuits that we wouldn't otherwise be able to accomplish. and sometimes those

technologies are more powerful than our ability to manage them effectively. neuroscientists have documented that the component of the brain that gets stimulated when we engage in financial rewards is really the same component that stimulated by cocaine. the sdop mean system. and-- the dopamine system. and over time as we engage in more and more financial gains we will become desensitized to risks; we will become complacent; we will become much less able to engage in the kind of proper risk management of our portfolios than-- that we should. >> . >> reporter: are human beings like those rats in the famous experiment that kept taking the cocaine instead of eating until they died? >> absolutely. all mammals have that aspect to their behavior. because of our prefrontal cortex we have other behaviors that we can engage in like regulations that prevent us from doing the

things that rats can't prevent themselves from doing. but we do have some common components to our decision-making processes with other mammals. >> reporter: there was a last piece to this interview that we just can't resist including, though it may seem a bit far afield it has to do with another side of andy lo who grew up a practicing catholic but now describes himself as an agnostic with an interest in buddhism. he thinks both it and brain science have insights for financial regulation. >> buddhists often say that to live is to suffer. and at first when i heard it i thought that this was one of these end paradoxs that we were not really meant to understand. but it finally dawned on me that it actually is a very simple idea. the idea is that the will to live involves engaging in activities. and those activities are not necessarily happy activities.

they're not associated with pleasure. more often than not they're associated with avoiding pain. so for example, you need enough money in order to eat. well, why is that? because when you don't eat, are you hungry. and when you're hungry, it doesn't feel good. so you work in order to earn enough money to make that kind of suffering go away. in fact, all of life can be viewed as a way to avoid pain. so in other words, it is suffering. and this is a very deep insight because what it suggests about us, about the human condition, is that there is a certain degree of hard-wired behavior that all of us engage in. and in order for us to really understand how not only we behave but how we as a society behave and what kind of regulations we need to deal with those kinds of behaviors, we have to develop what i think the zen

buddhist was call a higher level of consciousness. and what i call a mehtamodel for human behavior. >> reporter: which is why andy lo has been meditating long and hard these days on how to prevent another financial meltdown >> woodruff: still to come on the newshour: shields and brooks; and the only woman coaching a high school football team. but first, this is pledge week on public television. we're taking a short break now so your public television station can ask for your support. that s >> good evening i'm paul anthony here i'm here with joe bruns. chief operating officer with weta. we're taking just a moment to invite you to become a supporting member of weta. it's our singular purpose to deliver television programs that enlighten and educate our shared community. and we're able to do that thanks to our members who are the very backbone of this organization.

please consider becoming a part of what public television does best. delivering television programs with impact with your call of financial support to the number on your screen and do it right now. during this break, there is a two for one match on pledges of $100 or more thanks to current members of weta. so please call the number on your screen now and take advantage of this very special opportunity to double your pledge at $100 level. with a small investment of time and money you'll support a year of informati station today. thank you. >> joe, if you had to choose

three words to describe the pbs "the newshour," what would be that be? >> the three words that come to mind is integrity, stability, and depth, i think. integrity because "the newshour" exists only to serve the public. there are no outside corporate interests involved. every decision that's made is made to bring the best of news, the most comprehensive news and the most balanced and accurate news. civility because if you see people who appear on "the newshour," whether it's shields & brooks or people representing different points of view on a particular issue, there's a certain calmness that prevails at the table in which people can actually have the time to express their point of view and give their best view on each issue and let the viewer decide what the strongest arguments are and affect their thinking. and i think depth because there

is no news program on television today that provides enough time to actually explore the issues and explore the news to the depth that that "the newshour" is able to do. >> well, you're absolutely right about that. and it substantiates what it really does. >> it's nice to get that kind of feedback from the public what we're doing is the best. >> indeed it is. please call us at the number on the screen. let us know how much you appreciate weta's programs especially the pbs "the newshour." we receive emails and mail from viewers. and for its thoughtful perspective on events and issues. it's the kind of television weta is dedicated to bringing you but we cannot do it alone. become the next supporting viewer of "the newshour" by

dialing the number on your screen right now. joe, you have a prop there with you. >> yes, i do. >> what is that? >> well, i think a large number of our audience will know what this is. this is a slide roll. the other day i was talking to a young lady in her 20s, and i happened to mention a slide roll. and she's a very bright woman. but she had no clue what a slide roll was. well, of course, as you know, the slide roll which is kind of an elegant instrument was completely replaced by changing technology when, i think, texas instruments it was came out with their first scientific calculator but there was a time when a lot of us carried one of these thing around, around in a belt loop on our jeans. the point is that the technology changes. and people don't use the slide roll anymore. and technology has changed in public broadcasting and "the newshour" also. you can now get "the newshour" on the radio, on 90.9 fm. you can get it on your website. you can get it on youtube.

you can get it a lot of different ways. but what's important the content is still the shame. -- the same. it's what drives "the newshour" and not the technology and it always will. >> good analogy with this little slide roll here. we're just about ready to return to "the newshour." if you called us during this break, thank you. if you haven't yet called with your investment, then do it right now. call the number on your screen or log on to weta.org and thank you very >> lehrer: and to the analysis of shields and brooks-- syndicated columnist mark shields and "new york times" columnist david brooks. >> lehrer: david, the president is delaying his trip to asia and australia in order to get health-care reform done. does he now really have to do it? >> he better, yeah. no, this is sort of a fascinating moment just for political junkies. first the stakes are huge as they say inside the white

house these days, we are all in. sort of the whole fate of the presidency rests on this. but will they get it passed. you know, right now they're short. that's why he's to the going. they're short. and if you look at the house it's all in the house. you see these blocs of democratic congressman who are against there is a group very interested in abortion. some in their district t is just the killer. some interested in cost, some reforms. so there are these blocs. so who voted against who probably won't switch for t some who voted for it who now wish they could vote no. you can logically see well they're not going to get it. but then nancy pelosi is quite good at this, rahm emmanuel is pretty good at this, barack obama is pretty smart. you would think they wouldn't go ahead unless they had a realistic chance. they wouldn't risk the presidency on this. it is hard to he is how they do it but they must be having conversations to get that majority and they must get it down to like five or six so they are close and then they can go to those guys and say are you really going to blow up my presidency. i don't see how they do it but i assume they are really

good at this so they must be close. but i know they think they're going to win by the slimist of majorities. i don't see how they do it, but i assume they can. >> lehrer: the presidency is at risk on this do you agree with david? >> i do. i don't think he has any options. i mean he spent 14 months. he's now in the last month to put his entire presidency. >> lehrer: entire presidency. >> well, i think you have to say that, jim. this is the signature item of his presidential agenda. he said that getting this more important to him than winning a secretary term. he is publicly on the record on that. it is only in the last month that they are all in. before that there was sort of a sense of distance, president came in with 70% approval. and he turned over the writing of this to an institution that's best day has 30% approval. >> like congress. >> we watch ed-- being paid for the past 4 months. they want to have some product.

i don't disagree with david's assessment. i do think it's very tough. they are sort of statements of optimism. a little exaggerated optimism on the part of the leadership and the white house about being on the cusp of getting the vote . >> lehrer: if they stay optimistic, does that mean -- >> if you come over you are joining a winning side at this point. but it is a very, very tough fight. and mitch mcconnell, the republican leader, man not known for his wit had a great comment yesterday. he was quoting to tom foley, former democratic house speaker. tom foley allegedly said to a new member of the house, a democrat, the op civil is the republicans. the enemy is the senate. and there is great skepticism, distrust on the part of the house institutionally and democrats in the house in particular, towards the senate. they have to jump first.

they have to hold hands and jump off. they are not sure right now if the senate is going to be there. >> joy of npr was on this program last night and said the same thing, david. the mistrust between the house and the senate he is enormous. is it just about health-care reform or does it go beyond. >> historically if you ask senator, if you ask you are just shooting the breeze, this thing in the house, what do you make of that? they don't know, they aren't paying any attention to that body and the same in the house. they just don't pay a lot of attention to each other. and then there are different interests. but then it is magazine need over the past year. the parliamentarian rule this week that they have to-- obama actually has to sign the law before they can do the second reconciliation process to make the house happy. so the house has to take this uncomfortable vote. and then hope the senate after they sign the law and have the signing ceremony is going to come back and fix it. so that's the element of distrust. a couple of things i'm mystified by. after scott brown won the white house said okay we're

going to pivot to jobs. but then they didn't. they stuck on with health care. i would love to know how that decision happs. and the second is what do you actually offer in the house members who you are trying to win over, presumably you can't give them special deals because ben nelson and all the other special deals. >> everybody will know and it's now deligeity myed. so you can threaten to cake away the committee chairmanship bus that only goes so far. what are they offering to win over these people. i don't see what leverage they have. >> if you are a great leader you take them up to the top and then you tell them what they are going to do and how america is going to be a better place. and how if we don't do it, costs are to the going to be contained and fewer and fewer people are going to have health insurance. it is going to be priced out and there will be children who get sick and die without coverage. you've got to at some point be able to do that. and then about that brother-in-law of yours that doesn't have a job, he may be assistant.

>> become a federal judge. >> lehrer: okay. mark, the flap over chief justice roberts in the state of the union address there are a couple of sides on this. where would you come down on this, do you believe there are two sides to it and which side dow come down on if they are. >> i come down squarely on both sides. come down squarely, i mean obviously chief justice roberts six weeks after the thing happened decided to bring it back up. he could have ducked the question. >> lehrer: he was asked about it by a law student at the university of alabama. >> and he chose to answer it. >> lehrer: you mean he had to answer that. >> he could have seen his colleague justice scalia handle the price from time to time and tell them basically to go to hell and justice rob zrts not that sort of a personality but he could have ducked it and said i'm not going to discuss this. frequently there have been tensions between the president and the supreme court. very rarely as open as this was. the

president was responding, i think, rightly so to a supreme court decision that does for a court that said it was so respectful and deferential a precedent did effectively overturn a hundred years of precedent on the subject of campaign finance. >> but the issue of whether or not the supreme court justices should even be there ask what this-- where it has now settled in. >> that's right. and i guess, i think they should be there. >> should be there. >> should be there. i think justice roberts is absolutely right about the state of the union address. it has become a pep rally. >> doesn't matter who des des. >> whose jumps up, who doesn't. i think this would be a great opportunity for somebody like president obama to say there aren't going to be any applause lines, this a serious time. we have 10% unemployment, financial crisis in the country it a dangerous world. i'm here to give you a state of the union. but i think there is a value to have all of institutions of government in one room. the only other times is the inauguration and we don't

see it to have the supreme court and military and investigate toreial court. >> i would tell them not to come. i think it has nothing to do with them any more. maybe it never did. but now that it has become an act of tv theatre, i just think they look awkward sitting there not applauding. and then if they get attacked, i thought it was unbecoming at the moment, with them right in front w no venue to respond, especially getting sort of factually inaccurate as the president did, i thought it was unbecoming to do it. i just think it a no-win situation from which you get nothing. >> i don't know where the president was factually inaccurate. the controversy is over whether or not international companies, given the foreign companies contribute, given the globalization of the american economy and the world economy, rather, the idea that there are discreet institutions that are geographically limited, you are inviting money coming from -- >> i mean, one of the crises we have in these country,

the 9,000 crises is the crisis of authority, of institutions, of faith in institutions. and the way we build up the faith is publicly and in a communal fashion show deference to the wisdom of those institutions. and i just think while the supreme court is sitting there, which is a great institution, by the way, you can criticize, to criticize it in that venue is not the right way to address that. >> lehrer: just don't do it at the state of union. >> yeah. >> well, i think the pep rally aspect of it. but it is a dred scott decision. does the president then stand up. the supreme court wasn't there because presidents did not deliver state of the union addresses then. it was-- woodrow wilson was the first president to deliver one in person. but i would hope that when the dred scott decision came down that a president would upraise the court. >> lehrer: let's go to another disagreement. the so-called al qaeda 7. this chain-- the group has criticized justice department lawyers because they once represented some guantanamo detainees. where do you come down on that?

>> i think the ad which sort of accused whose values do they have, do they have taliban values, i thought that was tremendously unfortunate. it's just part of a long-range of corrosive language. and to be fair to liz cheney if you google taliban and liz cheney, millions of people have called her a member of the taliban and made similar charges. but it's a series of steps away from, you know, the normal way any of us should be talking to each other. >> the idea that the al qaeda 7, i mean there are those of us who are old enough to remember the chicago 7 when insightment to riot and the seven protest, militants, whatever you want to call them, disrupted . i just thought it was more than unfortunate. i thought it was offensive. and i thought it was frankly unamerican in the true sense of the word. >> lehrer: unamerican. >> unamerican in the true sense of the word that is a

great american tradition. lindsay graham, the republican senator from south carolina defended it very well. he said i owe it to my country and to the legal system in my country to be sure that everybody gets a good defense, the best defense possible. >> lehrer: david, in fact, they modelled the hot words about this whole dispute has been among conservatives, between conservatives, how do you read that? >> a lot of people who like liz cheney and my friend bill crystal who is also involved thought this was a step over the line. and they agreed with him on the principles or on the substance which they thought discussion should take place in a certain respectable venue showing respect. and it stepped over the line so there has been criticism from fellow conservatives towards this. but again i would say if you look at the words that were hurled at dick cheney who i am no fan of, but believe me, he has been the subject o of-- worse and maybe that was part of the emotional.

>> these were people who were practicing their profession as lawyers. they weren't cab datas for high national office. i mean when somebody does run for high national office they come to expect this. when somebody volunteers his or her timing aa fulfillment of what is the american constitutional dream to be attacked in a paid television advertising to me is -- >> well, if are you calling people evil and members of the taliban and members of al qaeda or members of the evil conspiracys, that is the corrosive factor here, regardless of who you are talking to, which public servant are you talking to. there is ways to talk and ways no the to talk. >> lehrer: i have bad news. i was about to ask you about the eric mahsa case but we're out of time. >> ticklish subject. >> lehrer: exactly. >> woodruff: finally tonight, a week that recognized some remarkable accomplishments by women.

from today onward, march 12 will be "natalie randolph day" in washington, d.c. the city's mayor made the decision to honor the new varsity football coach of calvin coolidge high school. 29 years old, an athlete, a science teacher, and the only woman leading boys on the gridiron in any high school in the nation. >> thank you, thank you, thank you. >> woodruff: randolph says she just wants to get on with it, coaching the game she loves to play and loves to coach. but the season's start is months away. so today is about handling an unexpected amount of attention. >> as for the players, my main concern is to make sure they are not overshadowed. i do know its so new, i'll make sure the focus is not on me, i want to make sure they shine, make sure they get where they need to be.

>> woodruff: this week saw other woman making history, too. it started last sunday when kathryn bigelow became the first woman ever to win an oscar for directing. >> this is a moment of a lifetime... >> woodruff: two days later, women were shattering records, as the university of connecticut women's basketball team topped its own winning streak, with a run of 72 games. ( cheers and applause ) then, the courageous women who flew for the air force in world war ii-- their surviving members were honored wednesday with the congressional gold medal, 60 years after their service to the country. deanie parrish is one of them. >> thank you for this award. with humility, yet with a great sense of pride, over 65 years ago, we each served our country

without any expectation or glory, and we did it with out compromising values that we were taught as we grew up. >> woodruff: the achievements of women was also being marked today at the united nations by secretary of state hillary clinton on the 15th anniversary of the world conference on women. >> i know there are those, hard to believe, who still dispute the importance of women to progress. when women are free to develop their talents, all people benefit-- women and men. we must declare with one voice that women's progress is human progress and human progress is women's progress, once and for all. ( applause ) >> woodruff: when it comes to progress on the football field, natalie randolph sees no difference between herself and all the other coaches across the

country. >> what coach doesn't want to win? i want to win, we all want to win. i think that's universal. i think that has nothing to do with whether i'm a woman or they're a man. >> woodruff: she said she does hope the attention she gets will inspire others to keep breaking new ground. >> lehrer: again, the major developments of the day: the u.s. economy showed signs of recovery and also continued problems. retail sales rose in february, but consumer confidence fell. and secretary of state clinton rebuked israeli prime minister netanhayu over plans to expand jewish housing in east jerusalem. in a phone call, she called it "a deeply negative signal." the newshour is always online. hari sreenivasan, in our newsroom, previews what's there. hari. >> sreenivasan: there's an online dispatch from margaret warner on a reporting trip to yemen. she's filed her first impressions of that poverty- stricken nation, a hotbed for al qaeda terrorists. there's more from economist andrew lo about why people need religion and faith. that's on paul solman's "making sense" page.

squirrels, disgraced congressmen and the movie "up"-- what do they have in common? find out on gwen ifill's blog. and on "art beat," explore a new exhibit called "size does matter. the host-- who else? nba superstar shaquille o'neal. here's a preview. >> i like this piece because it makes me feel small. see i'm 7, 1, 350. it makes me feel small, plus it's beautiful. >> there is an old saying, less is more. so i wanted to sort of bring that to this exhi business. it took me seven weeks to complete. the painting was very difficult because i had to pull out one of the fine eye lashs from the corner of my eye and place it on the end of a needwell a little piece of superglue. i have to work -- slow my heartbeat to do it and then i had to paint so gently without making a mistake. >> when i first saw it, he

told me how he did it, i thought there is no way he did that. so he made me a different one and the one he made is the one of obama, obama's lovely wife and their two beautiful children and he made one for me. that's art. because if you think about a little pin, a little pin is very small. so a lot of people, that is hard right there >> sreenivasan: all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. judy. >> woodruff: and that's the newshour for tonight. i'm judy woodruff. >> lehrer: and i'm jim lehrer. "washington week" can be seen later this evening on most pbs stations. we'll see you online, and again here monday evening. have a nice weekend. thank you and good night. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> what the world needs now is energy. the energy to get the economy humming again. the energy to tackle challenges like climate change.

what if that energy came from an energy company? every day, chevron invests in people, in ideas-- seeking, teaching, building. fueling growth around the world to move us all ahead. this is the power of human energy. chevron. earth grains. monsanto. and by grant thornton. and the national science foundation. supporting education and research across all fields of science and engineering.

and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org >> thank you for joining us for

another "pbs newshour" is here i'm paul anthony here with chief operating operator. we're we encourage you to call us in support of "the newshour." you always know when you tune in the "pbs newshour" you'll receive your news in an intelligent and respectful way and we're proud to produce the very best news and public affairs programs right here on weta. but to do this member support is critical. and you can become a supporting member by dialing the number on your screen right now. >> when you watch pbs, the world comes to your doorstep. history comes to life. mysteries unfold. and the arts come home. when you support pbs, your gift helps everyone from all walks of life explore the wonders of the world. simply call the number on your screen. you can give by check or credit card. it's that easy. so please support your pbs station today. thank you.

>> when we talk about "the newshour" on quality and respect a poll came out about a week or so ago and had some good things to say about public television and "the newshour" too. >> it certainly did. in fact for the seventh straight year the poll has found public broadcasting is the most trusted media institute in the united states. and we're very proud of that. but we also understand that's something that's tested every day and it's tested with programs like "the newshour" and we try to provide quality programming that will be trusted by the american people. and it's gratifying that, in fact, they do trust us. >> indeed, indeed. we've talked about the civility and other times that prevail on this program even when people have opposite persuasions. the best is your and my favorite program is brooks & shields program which is done under british rules. >> i don't know if it's british rules or not, paul, but it certainly is.

and unlike a lot of other television programs where they have people with opposing points of view and all they do is shout at each other and you really can't understand their points of view, with brooks & shields and everything that's on "the newshour" it's done with a certain intelligence and civility where people really can understand the variety of points of view around a particular issue. >> yeah. absolutely. programs like "the newshour" reflect the values that weta holds in high esteem. programs like this are honest and of high quality. programs like this enrich lives. and programs like this elevate the impact television can have in our communities. programs like this can provide and re-enforce the value of lifelong learning. if a community resource like public television fits in with your values, then help make sure that it continues to grow and thrive. you can do that by dialing the number on your screen and becoming a member right now. joe, this program has endured for more than 30 years now. to what do you owe the success

over the years besides the issues we've already talked about already. >> the reason for its success is twofold. first of all, it has maintained the kind of quality that we were talking about before. and i think that's the essential element in spite of the fact that technology has changed, it at its core remains the same. and the second is that its gotten this wonderful support from members of local stations like members of weta who give us the means to keep the program going. >> let's talk about the operating budget here. how important are individual contributions to the operating budget of both this program and the overall stang itself? -- station itself. >> people don't know that the individual donations is the single most important element. we do receive a relatively amount of money from corporations and foundations. we do receive a grant every year from the corporation of public broadcasting. but by far and away the most

important and the largest portion of contributions comes from individuals who make the decision to write a check or go to the internet and pledge online which is sort of our favorite way to get it now. but we'll take it any way they can deliver it. >> uh-huh. people have said to me, why are you pledging for "the newshour" when all those corporate sponsors are there? >> well, these corporate sponsors are very important. putting together a nightly news program is an expensive proposition and requires a lot of resources. but the corporations only provide about 40% of the support for "the newshour," which is broadcast every night on public broadcasting. the remaining funds come from pbs and from local viewers >> thanks, joe for being here. >> thank you paul. and thank you to all of our members. >> indeed. all the people who called in, we hope. thank you so much if you called in during this brief break. we'd also like to take this

chance to thank you if you're already a supporting member of weta. we appreciate all you've done to keep a program like "the neur" the very best in its class. vo:geico, committed to providing service to its auto insurance customers for over 70 years. more information on auto insurance at geico.com or 1-800-947-auto any time of the day or night.