in 2000, bob mackenzie lookedded at the significance -- looked at the significance of that change. >> reporter: maneuvering your horse and buggy down market street was not easy. of course you had to be rich to own an automobile which didn't add to their popularity with everyone else. as the second decade took place, the auto owned the streets but it was still only the rich that owned them. henry ford changed all that. instead of making cars one at a time, the ford factory mass produced them with an idea called the assembly line. each worker did the same job over and over enabled the plant tocrank out a new car every 15 minutes. at last, the ford could take the roads. northern californians could climb the mountain to yosemite. people who did not have a week to hike up the hills could weekend in a natural paradise. getting wheels was almost like getting wings. the more cars we did, the more business we did and the more business we did. the more cars we could buy. and in the roaring 1920s they did. but outside city limits there were no paveed road and no road signs. the cloud of dust rai

thing that's rely and interesting, other than the fun drama aspect of this is whether hannity's lookeddingis power. now connect this to the rush limbaugh story on the radio, it wasn't just rush being kicked off the second most powerful radio network, it was also sean hannity. if you see him getting kicked off the radio and getting moved down on fox news, maybe that's fox news saying in a way because hannity is known for being a republican party operative, right? it's kind of a funny thing, because the whole station is republican party operatives, but they have different characters and hannity's most associated with the republican party talking points, maybe thinking let's deemphasize that and go in a different conservative direction. >> i would like it to be fox and friends and hannity. that would be an awesome move. i don't think he deserves to stay in prime time. the reason he is losing spots on the radio and being shuffled around and probably demoted on fox is he might have good numbers. i'm sure it's fine, but dropping a little bit one to 3% have his and you had jens dies of old age, b

you, but say in the end, after they are done with j pmorgan and hundreds of millions of dollars lookeddedr this and god knows what other infractions, and where did that money go? who does that rest constitute? >> probably to fund the government ridiculous party. unfortunately, it ends up in a black hole. i don't know that any of us know, i'm sure in that huge book that's 50,000 pages thick, it says where the money's supposed to go, but lord only knows if it gets there, and because taxes are continuing to go up, it ain't going to reduce the tax load. neil: so five years after the meltdown, right, a couple weeks from that, and i i think to myself, granted, you know, why now? is it because of the five-year anniversary is upon us and they want to look like they have done something? to me, it's more than coincidental this happened and all this drum beating on all the big brokerage guys is happening at the same time. >> well, again, great question. it would be one thing if the government were talking about real reform. if they wanted to go in, sit down with the banks, and come up with this solu

once the fact of the programs became public, we lookedded at the details surrounding the program like the orders released today and the number you mentioned there, and we're making an assessment to each one of them whether it's in the public interest to release that particular fact which is previously declassified. >> i think that i -- i don't want the public to take our word for it always, and i think there's a balance here an transparency is part of the balance, and i don't want a situation where the government is transparent only when it's convenient for the government. >> i -- >> an hour ago, odni declassified a court order under 215. that's a good thing, but odni has known for weeks that this hearing was coming, and, yet, odni released the material just a few minutes before the hearing began. again, a step forward, but you get the feeling with the ad hoc transparency, that does not gender trust, i don't think. >> i couldn't agree with you more. i think we have an obligation to go through and look at the bad as well as the good, and declassify what can be declassified without dang