is the da playing politics with marijuana all for the benefit of the government and big pharma at the expense of the average american that's of marijuana advocates arguing after a number of recent developments the da has recently reclassified t.h.c. the psycho active ingredient in marijuana to schedule three substance more than marijuana plant itself remains a schedule one substance the kind that carries the harshest criminal penalties and why would they do that all apparently sort of pharmaceutical companies can push products with naturally derived formations of t.h.c. meanwhile dr lyle a professor at the university of massachusetts has dropped his nearly decade long fight to persuade the government to allow him to grow marijuana for medical research so is the government really anti-marijuana or do they just want to keep all the money that can be made from it at the top joining me to discuss it is paul our deputy director of normal and the co-author of marijuana is safer so why are we driving people to drink thanks so much for joining us now first of all can you give us a little bit

endo pharma concentrates on pain medicine. shares jumped more than 9%. medicis makes dermatological medicine. its stock was up more than 4%. volume was heavy for both of them. while we're talking about the drug business, k.v. pharmaceuticals lost a fifth of its value today. down better than 20%. look at this move down. this is how the stock has traded since the first of the year. the food and drug administration won't go after pharmacies that create a cheaper versions of a treatment preventing pre-term labor for certain pregnant women. that k.v. pharmaceuticals makes. cloud computing firm rackspace is stretching skyward, up 8% on strong volume. it has a deal with dell and equinix to develop an open- source cloud computing platform. with this rally, there it is, shares sit at a new 52-week high. tomorrow night, we are scheduled to speak with the rackspace c.e.o. be sure to join us. and that's tonight's "market focus." >> suzanne: in his energy speech today, president obama acknowledged the u.s. depends on nuclear energy. but, he also said he's determined

big pharma big big everything can be you know protected but when it comes to the middle class who protects them. and that's exactly right peter you know we have we have people in employee unions making thirty forty fifty thousand dollars a year their wages essentially if you look at it have not gone up in thirty to forty years the people at the record the richest one percent of c.e.o.'s their income has gone a share of the pool has gone from sixty to one to two hundred fifty to one in the last forty years the middle class and the lower classes have no more disposable income left the republican model of saying it's a tax issue will give you a couple hundred dollars back and more you know a year in taxes that's not going to affect the lives of middle class americans middle class americans should be making if if we kept to the sixty to one income model of top one percent. to the average non-supervisory worker you know middle class americans should be making about two to three times what they're making now and that would make a big difference in terms of disposable income in the lives of avera

mobilized a large part of the population there chinese, indians, and families standing and working pharma lashian malaysia. >> rose: so you were crying over the anguish that what might be have been couldn't be? >> and i had to leave behind all the people that mobilized. they were left leader lest. >> rose: did you dream what it cube what it is today? >> not in the actual form it is because the forms have been... the physical landscape has been the result of technological improvements imported from outside the globalized relations allowed us the arenas and all the rey of it. but they have that we have a intermingled population one society that was planned. it's a work in progress but it should continue that work. >> rose: someone said you built a first class oasis in a third-world region and you've been praised for your efficiency and incorruptability but you've been accused by human rights groups of limiting political freedom and intimidating through libel lawsuits. >> (laughs) how can you intimidate through libel lawsuits. it's rick did louse. it's either libel and i can win the case or

plan but without passing cost controls in which the government demand certain concessions for big pharma which can still make money, charging a lot less for those drugs. if the government is going to be its biggest customer it has the right to demand a ceiling on drugs which cause, the same drugs cost so much less in every other country in the developed world. there is no solution to providing universal health care for the old. without more government cost controls. but i believe also there really is no solution to the problem of medicare for the old. the financial one without a solution to the rising cost of health care and health insurance for the young. i write in my book when i started working at the "washington post" in 1965, social security seems a lot bigger on $105 a week salary that it did later. i didn't resent it. that was for my grandparents. however, if i had good health insurance in the "washington post" and health care did not cost that much been. now for the last 20 years i have been spending 15% of after-tax income for a bad private health insurance plan. the next genera

ha pharma ha projected to do? first of all in the exchange of letters that i had done too many occasions -- >> there will be many more. >> we will make a forecast. >> i made it very clear that we are absolutely committed as a government with working with the incentive to maintaining strong inflation stocks. my personal view is the governor's speech this year set out becauses of inflation. it was a good one and i share that analysis. not everyone does. i do share that analysis. and the forecast on inflation is for it to come back. what they are tossed with doing before i arrived in the job. we are heeding the target in the medium-term. the forecast bears out -- >> the sales say's two years -- we haven't actually gotten there. a group of economists were unanimous in the view that it was too tight and monetary policy--wonder if you had given any consideration to the optimal level to the monetary policy. >> as economists you spoke to the view of the i man theory cd and the g 20 business organizations in britain. if we

i think what we need to do is allow pharma and big oil to take a hit. more people like you, marcy, here in southeast alabama. host: he mentioned the cuts. "the washington post" did a poll. they ask, do you think cuts in federal spending would do more? cut jobs, 45%. create jobs, 40%. it is pretty much even. the country is even on this idea of spending cuts and whether or not it would create jobs. guest: we need a growth economy. we need jobs in america, in order to have a robust economy that can produce the revenue to pay the bills. the key question is how do we create jobs? yes, the deficit is important and we have to deal with that, but what congress is not talking about is how we create jobs in this country. i brought some charts here that i thought we could put down. it shows how the financial sector of our country has gained such ascendancy. the big banks that took us to such a terrible point, and had manufacturing has gone way down, it is shocking. millions of jobs lost, outsourced to other locations. what you called in about is actually correct.

pharma tisch right off the river and one of the oldest steel mills -- armitage and have moved to 94thand stoney. they are remodeling and competing with the rest of the world on specialized steel. china is buying it. we cannot give up on manufacturing. we have to rethink with t echnology and training. that will create jobs. why? excess water. manufacturing needs water. the discharge is always controversial. when you use water and discharge it coming in needs to be the same of. we will not pollute our rivers, streams, or any type of water system. i did the future is bright on the four chicago but for the region. they realize, china realizes that many of the factories cambria's this and they are doing so continually. there's nothing wrong with that because it puts people back to work paying local state and federal taxes. that is part of the economy we seek. when we struggle, we struggle with the local economies. it does not matter what city you are in, what county, what state. all local governments have to balance their budget. one of the problems has historically been that the federal gove

i think what we need to do is allow pharma and big oil to take a hit.e need more people like you, marcy, here in southeast alabama. host: he mentioned the cuts. "the washington post" did a poll. they ask, do you think cuts in federal spending would do more? cut jobs, 45%. create jobs, 40%. it is pretty much even. the country is even on this idea of spending cuts and whether or not it would create jobs. guest: we need a growth economy. we need jobs in america, in order to have a robust economy that can produce the revenue to pay the bills. the key question is how do we create jobs? yes, the deficit is important and we have to deal with that, but what congress is not talking about is how we create jobs in this country. i brought some charts here that i thought we could put down. it shows how the financial sector of our country has gained such ascendancy. the big banks that took us to such a terrible point, and had manufacturing has gone way down, it is shocking. millions of jobs lost, outsourced to other locations. what you called in about is actually cor

invitation to come back here -- exactly that, in imitation where we want your counsel and whatever pharma can be provided. mr. chairman, thank you for holding the hearing, one of many in your series and taking seriously the special committee responsibilities for oversight. again, nobody is more a hero here than a great ig and we have a great ag in front of us. i yield back. >> i think the chairman and yield five minutes to the ranking member, mr. quigley and by prior agreements, he will share his time with the full committee ranking member as well. >> thank you, mr. chairman for this meeting. and again i'd like to thank our guest today, mr. barofsky for his work at t.a.r.p. we appreciate all you've done for us. one of the lessons of the crisis of the government bears to much risk and taxpayers are that huge losses. more importantly, firms pursue the taxpayers will cover losses and those firms have incentive to take you at your risk. these overleveraged firms grow inside and can become too big to fail. in fact, passing all the risk on the taxpayers who would not allow a financial collapse.

there's a range between 12 to 15 years of the time needed in by 0 pharma to bring to market needed medicine in this regard. madam secretary of like your comments regarding suggestion, reduction in fiscal year 2012 budget. from 12 to seven years. >> there is great importance in making sure. your state is renowned for being a great leader on that. if they're not profitable they will continue the research but, it continues to exist. based on information and i know there are competing experts on how long and how much evergreening should go beyond the protection. seven years would indeed accomplished, returning profit and continuing research. >> thank you for your response. the last time in this committee examined this issue in overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion the committee chose to retain the 12 years with continuing discussions with your department. regarding pdufa there's a challenge with its reauthorization. the most recent reauthorization included the risk-management and mitigation strategy. at least in some instancess it is my judgment that this has been a challenge. johnson and johnson h