tv The Dylan Ratigan Show MSNBC November 29, 2011 1:00pm-2:00pm PST
have the mind of einstn. >> that -- listen, whatever i have to do to prove it. if i can decipher -- if i can read between the lines -- >> i think you've done a fairly good job. >> your point of view is difficult sometimes to figure out where you're going. >> i'm sorry. what's your point of view? the show starts now! >> there you go. thank you. well, today's big story is simply the middle east at a boiling point. good tuesday afternoon to you. i am dylan ratigan and demonstrations taking a violent turn in tehran today when protesters stormed the british embassy, smashing windows, throwing molotov cocktails, and even briefly holding a half dozen embassy employees hostage. the protest in response to economic sanctions against iran over recent revelations about its nuclear program. and president obama weighing in on the developments just a short time ago. >> i strongly urge the iranian
government to hold those who are responsible to task. they have a responsibility to protect diplomatic outposts. >> meanwhile, vice president joe biden arrived in iraq today as one of america's wars finally draws toward a close. this as we continue america's longest war over in afghanistan. while in neighboring pakistan, the fallout continues from this weekend's nato air strike that killed two dozen pakistani soldiers. a general in that country calling that strike a, quote, deliberate act of aggression. so as the relationship with our so-called ally, pakistan, continues to prove more foe than friend, and the situation in iran continues to crumble, can we continue to run from these elephants in the room? we get to all of it starting with nbc's tehran bureau chief, ali arouzi who joins us with the latest from the ground in iran. what do we need to know, ali?
>> reporter: good afternoon, dylan. well, the situation has finally calmed down after many, many hours of commotion hoar. two of the british compounds were raided, as you know. one of them where the six british personnel were taken hostage have been released. they were given into the custody of the police, and that premises has been vacated, but the main compound in the downtown tehran had been occupied up until about an hour ago, and it took the tehran police chief to actually physically go into the embassy and convince the basij militia members who had overtaken the embassy and looted it to leave the place. they finally listened to police chief and vacated the area after extensive damage was done to the embassy. paperwork was burned, an embassy vehicle had been set on fire, and they tore down pictures of queen elizabeth that were in the embassy. dylan? >> all right. ali, thank you so much. with us here in studio today is congressman ted deutsche, democrat from florida. he has happens to be on the
mideast subcommittee of the house foreign affairs committee. and congressman, we had you originally booked to discuss your efforts to get money out of politics, which i look forward to getting to, but what is your -- how are we to interpret the news of the day? >> well, i think what it shows is that this attack that was carried out by these militant students, i believe, shows the importance of dealing with iran in a really significant way. the fact is, we know, if there was any question at all, we know after the last iaea report that the iranians continue to move towards nuclear weapons. this latest step by great britain to ratchet up the pressure is a step that we also need to move forward on, and what we've seen by this today is that the pressure that they're starting to feel in iran, we have to continue to ratchet up the pressure. as a result of what happened today, as a result of their burning the flags in effigy and breaching the walls of the embassy, i think what you're going to see when the foreign ministers meet, they'll toughen
sanctions anymore. >> i want you to listen to lieutenant colonel shafer who was talking about the war. this was tony yesterday. >> there's no real war here. we're actually feeding into this as a process of not allowing us then to focus on the larger regional issues, which is really what we should be looking at. we've got to understand what our interests are. are our interests in forming and continuing the karzai government, which is largely corrupt? or is it to focus on what's necessary to achieve victory, which is looking against -- taking action against terrorist groups? >> and it wasn't clear which war he was referring to. he was talking about the war in afghanistan. your thoughts? >> well, he's right that we ought to be focusing on the largest regional issue. the largest regional issue is that the iranian -- the threat of an iran with nuclear weapons. the president has committed to withdraw our troops from afghanistan by 2014. we need to move as quickly as we can. it is a difficult relationship we have with the pakistanis, but we should be using every amount of leverage that we can to make
sure that they're acting -- >> do you agree with some of the assessment that our war in afghanistan and our need for coordination with pakistan to prosecute that war is what the diminishes our leverage with pakistan? in other words, if we weren't at war with afghanistan, we would have more leverage with pakistan? because we wouldn't need them to support our war in afghanistan. >> right. look -- >> fair? >> the fact is, we do need them now to make sure that the lines are open so that we can make -- so we can deliver goods to our troops, so we can keep our troops safe. that's all the more reason for us, moving as quickly as we can to end the war in afghanistan. >> and one last on the middle east and then we'll get to our own issues, in terms of how we solve our problems in this country. you talk about dealing with iran. that is a -- how do you define "dealing with"? in other words -- you understand the question. >> i think we have to deal with the iranian threat. in other words, the president by trying to use diplomacy showed
to the world that the iranians aren't committed, they aren't interested in negotiating. they're interested in developing their nuclear weapons program. that said, we have to ratchet up the pressure by passing tougher sanctions in congress, we have to work with our allies to make sure that the maximum amount of pressure is exerted. what you're seeing, i think in iran now is the result of this pressure that's building on the regime. we need to continue to push forward, support, in particular, support the democracy movement in iran that's vitally important. >> all right. i want to talk about our own democracy for a second, efforts a i broad, efforts here at home. as everybody, basically, is -- the conversation is only getting louder, which i think everybody's grateful for. you may have heard representative barney frank is leaving. i'm sure you did, but take a listen to his explanation as to why. >> look, i don't like raising money. one of the advantages to me of not running for office is, i don't even have to pretend to try to be nice to people i don't like. >> you have an amendment and you
agree with me and everybody on the petition and all the other petitions that exist on the principle of the corrupt nature of the auction of government, of the dependencefund-raising. you have introduced your own amendment that certainly has the best name. immediately out of the gate, you've got the best name. certainly in presentation with occupied. but lay out for us the principles that you believe are central to separating business and state. >> sure. first of all, the occupied amendment, it's an acronym. >> we have it right here, outlawing corporate cash, undermining the public interest in our elections and democracy. it's a great slogan. what's the amendment? >> the amendment is very clear. and the premise is clear. if you look at the protests taking place, not just on wall street, but throughout the country, there is a fundamental belief that congress isn't working for the american people. and -- >> there's evidence of it. it's not just a belief. >> there is, there is evidence to back that up.
people are frustrated. and what you see, and again, it unites -- it spans the political spectrum. whether it's the occupy movement or all across the political spectrum, everyone would agree that for far too long, corporations have really occupied our nation's capital. they spend so much money. and since citizens united, and given the continued push by mitt romney and others to make -- to twine them as persons, it makes it really difficult for the people to have control over their government. dollars, corporate dollars are f flooding -- >> we get the problem. what we'd like to know -- in other words, the way we're driving this the debate, are corporati corporations people? and then the question is, is money speech? there are two different questions and they both seem incredibly relevant. you appear to be really addressing our corporation's people more than is money speech in this. is that correct? >> we actually attempt to deal with all of them. there is an opportunity that we have right now to rally behind this effort, the one that you've worked so hard on to amend the constitution. >> there's so many of them.
>> what we do is, number one, we say that corporations aren't people. it's clear to anyone who looks at it that the framers of the constitution never intended to give them the rights that individuals have. number two, congress has the ability to regulate corporations. they can't claim constitutional defended rights to protect them against the public interest. and number three, for-profit corporations cannot spend their money in our elections. >> but what about this -- because i've seen in this large corporations where i'll pay -- so you're a big shot executive at big shot company one, two, three. i'm going to pay you $30 million, but i'm going to pay you $30 million under the understanding that you personally will spend that $30 million on politicians. it won't -- big shot corporation one, two, three will never be seen. in other words, why try to control the flow of money and who's what and why not simply say, or go with what i call the ncaa rules, which is if you take money if a private source of any kind, a union, a corporation, your mother, i don't care,
you're fired. we fire kids that play quarterback at usc if they take a hamburger from the wrong guy or gal, why don't we apply ncaa rules? >> i'll tell you why. because the problem with the system isn't the college kid who gives $20 to the obama re-election campaign -- >> but isn't it all a quid pro quo? >> no. certainly the kid -- >> so if i give you $20 as a college kid compared to the $20 who doesn't give you $20, you have no more of an obligation than the kid -- so why am i giving you $20? >> you've hit on it. it used to be that people participated in the system because they believed in it, they believed in their elected leaders. now we've got a system where corporations can spend unlimited amounts of their own money -- >> but doesn't to your thinking, then, it benefit rich people? >> no. because the last piece of the amendment says that congress has the authority to create a campaign finance system that limits the contributions from real people, from the koch brothers, from others, in the example that you gave, from ceos
who may be spending their own money, but they're spending it -- that's how we wrap this all together. >> very, very interesting. >> and at theoccupyamendment.org, we lay it out in greater detail if people are interested. >> i encourage people to go to that. it's an theoccupiedamendment.org. please check that the out. it's a pleasure to know you and i hope we can continue this conversation. >> i look forward to it. >> so do i. coming up, on the heels of that super committee super fail, governor chris christie tearing into the president, asking what the hell are we paying you for, he says. the mega panel weighs in. plus, getting more, but spending less. the congress can't figure out how to do it. but a doctor in camden, new jersey did. he saved his patients' lives in spent less for it. and science answering the vexing question, can you really trust that hot guy or gal's online profile. the story that could save you a miserable date. [ groans ] [ marge ] psst. constipated?
phillips' caplets use magnesium, an ingredient that works more naturally with your colon than stimulant laxatives, for effective relief of constipation without cramps. thanks. good morning, students. today we're gonna continue... thanks. so to save some money, i trained mathis team of guinea pigs to brrow this tiny boat. guinea pig: row...row. they generate electricity, which lets me surf the web all day. guinea pig: row...row. took me 6 months to train each one, 8 months to get the guinea pig: row...row. little chubby one to yell row! guinea pig: row...row. that's kind of strange. guinea pig: row...row. such a simple word... row. anncr: there's an easier way to save. get online. go to geico.com. get a quote. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. progresso. it fits! fantastic! [ man ] pro-gresso they fit! okay-y... okay??? i've been eating progresso and now my favorite old jeans...fit. okay is there a woman i can talk to? [ male announcer ] progresso. 40 soups 100 calories or less.
we're back. and it's a fine tuesday, which means, yes, there it is. karen, susan, and jimmy. jimmy, i want to start with you and your reaction to this occupied amendment. he, congressman deutch seems fairly aggressive in addressing a lot of the issues that we've talked about. your thoughts? >> i like it. i think it's a good amendment. i think you've got to say money is the speech, because if you don't, the court -- what's the supreme court's job? the supreme court's job is to very simply interpret, a, the constitution, interpret laws that are written by the congress, and to clear up what lower courts can't agree on.
>> yeah. >> don't say money is speech. >> but it's good stuff. >> i like it. >> this is the debate we were hoping to see. >> it's a debate. i wish congress would debate. >> i think it gets a little hotter in the kitchen, first. we developed a lot of allies through this get money out campaign, including hip hop mogul, russell simmons. take a look at this. >> the idea is that public funding, in lobbyists. lobbyists to have dialogue, yes, but not lobbyists to pay off politicians. so that illegal bribery can stop. and as people are educated, they'll force their educatlegis to act proposerlappropriately. >> russell has his own amendment. he's been remarkably aggressive and remarkably articulate in trying to focus the conversation on an agenda which they can actually do, karen, which is get money out of politics. something that everyone can agree to. what is your sense in washington, d.c. of the elevating temperature outside of
the country. is it being felt in the capital? on this issue? >> you know, it is and it isn't. i mean, i have to say, as much as people here inside washington, for example, were not surprised that the super committee failed, i think that real people outside of washington were surprised, and i was surprised that people here in washington didn't feel more of an accountability and a consequence to that. and i say that to say, similarly, when we talk about getting money out and the sort of increasing strength that that has a message and as a desire of the american people, folks here in washington are still a bit out of step, and we're still hearing the same conversations, you know, we're still hearing, we've got to cut spending. we're still hearing, we can't tax millionaires. so the conversation hasn't changed, certainly not on the conservative side, to where it should, based on what we're seeing around the country and the kinds of things we're hearing and these ideas that are coming forward. >> don't you think they also need to get to pennsylvania
avenue? >> they, who? >> meaning the occupation -- >> oh, completely. completely. >> those that russell simmons is talking to, the people who are supporting your amendment. just, until they get there, that's where the change is going to come from. >> let me ask you a question. let's say there's all these disparate communities, right, from all these different places that want to get money out of politics. for whatever their motivation is, whatever their organization may be, whether it's conservative or liberal, or whatever it is. what would be the impact -- i'll ask you this, jimmy, if those groups and all these disparate occupations, portland, new york, l.a., wherever, everybody converged on washington, d.c. so instead of occupying, you know, and disrupting the secretaries who are trying to get to work in lower manhattan or disrupting the coffee shop in portland or whatever it is, which the intention is there, but it's disruptive to people that are, you know, they're like, why is this -- why me. why not have that disruption be to every lobbyist, every
congressperson, every staffer, so that it is their walk to work, that it is their commute, that it is their reality that's being affected by this occupation, not the disparate disruption? what impact would that have? >> ask the members of congress when they were leaving their office buildings and walking to the capital during the health care debate, to vote on the health care bill, and they got spit on and called racist names and terrible things like that. >> this would be much nicer, i'm sure. >> i'm not suggesting it should or shouldn't, but what's the difference? >> glad you brought up the health care debate. yes, they should have that initially, but then they should do what they did with the health care debate. make it uncomfortable. >> karen, quickly, and we'll move on. >> as a reminder, at the time of his death, this is exactly what dr. martin luther king was talking about. that was what the poor people's campaign was all about. they were trying to do another march on washington to bring people to washington, to show the impact and breadth and depth
of the movement. i think you're on to something, dylan, and that i think could be very powerful. >> can you imagine, all these occupations, and forget the occupations, all the very different interested groups, strange bedfellows, though they may be, not disrupting, like i said, the coffee shop owner and the construction worker, just trying to do their job, but literally disrupting the congress and lobbyist people who are doing the job on us, so to speak. a new jersey governor, speaking of doing a job on people, he did a job on the president of the united states. his latest target, barack obama, sitting president for this country, who he called, quote, a bystander in the white house, but christie did not stop there. take a look. >> i was angry this weekend. listening to the spin coming out of the administration, about the failure of the super committee. and that the president news it was due for failure, so he didn't get involved. then what the hell are we paying you for? >> listen, that's good tv? i don't know from politics, but
that's very good tv -- >> he may not be running for president, but he's certainly beginning to give the president a run for his money. >> and how many people in america haven't said to any sitting president over the history of presidents, what do we pay that guy for anyway, so there's something i'm sure cathartic in that messaging, but at the end of the day, indicting the other guy, which is what this political process has become, i'm not as bad as he is, i'm not as bad as she is, or whatever it is, this lesser of two evils structure, empowers those who are not on top to say, he's worse tan han me. we watch the democrats do that with george bush. i'm not a great leader, but i'm not george w. bush. at least it's not george w. bush. at least it's not president barack obama. that, by definition, is a race to the bottom. >> yeah, but that's politics, unfortunately. and that's the way it works. that's the environment you're
in. >> but that's gerrymandered bought politics. that's gerrymandered districts sold at auction. >> i hate to break the news to the american people and to governor christie, the president of the united states spent his entire summer trying to negotiate a budget deal. he didn't succeed, but they did that. >> he failed. >> no, the congress and the government failed. they failed the american people. i'm not sure how governor christie runs his state, but for him to sit around and give this president advice, because i don't seem to recall -- >> he runs it with a -- >> i don't care what he runs with it. you don't bully it. there's a separation of powers. the congress was set up with the super committee to do its job and they failed. it's not the president's job to -- >> karen, very quickly. >> don't even get yourself worked up, jimmy. that was chris christie
campaigning or lobbying for the vp slot, that's all that was. >> i hope chris christie is the vice presidential nominee. >> the panel stays. whoever the nominee may be, next up, who treasury secretary hank paulson was really looking out for as our economy was crumbling. a secret board meeting with the goldman sachs board and hedge fund big wigs in moscow. i wonder what former new york attorney general eliot spitzer would think of that. guess who makes his return to the table. i'd race down that hill without a helmet. i took some steep risks in my teens. i'd never ride without one now. and since my doctor prescribed lipitor, i won't go without it for my high cholesterol and my risk of heart attack. why kid myself? diet and exercise weren't lowering my cholesterol enough. now i'm eating healthier, exercising more, taking lipitor. numbers don't lie. my cholesterol's stayed down. lipitor is fda approved to reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke in patients who have heart disease or risk factors for heart disease. it's backed by over 19 years of research.
[ female announcer ] lipitor is not for everyone, including people with liver problems and women who are nursing, pregnant or may become pregnant. you need simple blood tests to check for liver problems. tell your doctor if you are taking other medications, or if you have any muscle pain or weakness. this may be a sign of a rare but serious side effect. [ man ] still love that wind in my face! talk to your doctor. don't kid yourself about the risk of heart attack and stroke. if lipitor's been working for you, stay with it. lipitor may be available for as little as $4 a month with the lipitor co-pay card. terms and conditions apply. learn more at lipitorforyou.com.
well, president obama just wrapping up a meeting with the prime minister of the netherlands. on his agenda, the financial mess facing the european union, and as a result, us and pretty much the global economy. make no mistake about it, this is all the result of a massive opaque, over-leveraged system, built by our financiers in the late '90s and early 2000. it is a system that allows for, for instance, fannie and freddie, our home lenders to
lend out 75 bucks for every dollar they have. would you do that? or jon corzine's now bankrupt mf global, to put bets in the financial markets, betting $44 for every dollar they had. news today that about $200 million of the lost investor money at mf global has now turned up in britain, but that leaves another half a billion still missing. our specialist today is former new york governor and attorney general, eliot spitzer, who, by the way, was our first guest many years ago and it's a pleasure to welcome you back. >> thank you, sir, pleasure to be here. >> where shall we begin? >> too many things to -- >> let us begin by saying, not much has changed. fair? >> that is true. >> so not much has changed, leverage is still in place, there's still we haven't dealwith it. >> sure. >> what could an attorney general or anybody in the justice business, whatever that
might be, be doing or ought they be doing to address the fact that this has not been resolved? >> there was an amazing piece of journalism that came out yesterday for another network. >> no, no, no. >> which analyzed the magnitude of the loans that have been made by the feds to the banks. the six big banks in particular got over $400 billion of secret loans, most of which we had not heard about. now, at the time these banks were getting these loans, they were claiming to be in great financial shape. so why were the loans made. is there a tension between the public statements being made by the ceos of the banks -- >> let's stop there. it's very clear there's an anecdote, bank of america, we can reference all these things, where those bank ceos are saying explicitly, this is a sound financial institution, at the exact moment that they are drawing against the u.s. taxpayer at its central banks, into the hundreds of billions of dollars, now we are learning, going into the trillions. what is the answer to that question? which is, can i go out and say
that and do this? >> the answer is no. and if you or i did that, if you or i went to a bank -- >> or went to our shareholders. >> or made any public statement, knowing it to be false, we'd be in handcuffs. so the question i have is, look, we don't know a lot of these facts. let's predicate -- there are 100 uncertainties, but where is the inquiry right now about all the statements being made by the c o ceos, cfos, none of which revealed these enormous loans. >> let me ask you a question to play devil's advocate. is there integrity in my saying, as the ceo of bank of america that my financial institution is healthy, knowing that i've got, let's say $80 billion out to the federal reserve, because it is healthy, because i have $80 billion from this federal reserve? >> that's why -- it depends where and when and how those loans were made. if, at the moment you went to the fed and said, we know we've got a mortgage overhang, because
our mortgage exposure is $2 trillion, and therefore we're insolvent and we're illiquid, help. and at that very moment, you're saying, we're a stable, sound institution, yes, you're misrepresenting in a way that's fundamentally actionable and should be the subject of civil and perhaps criminal investigations. >> questions over here? >> but when you talk about, for example, civil action, or even if you're looking to prosecute, as attorney general, you went after a lot of these folks. and you settled a lot of cases. and some of them settled because they didn't even want to have the pr that you were investigating. excuse me. but now maybe in retrospect or if you were giving an attorney general advice now, would you look and say, maybe we should show that there are serious consequences. because the fines were really just a matter or a cost of doing business. would you look at it differently now? >> yes, well, we brought more cases and that's why i lost a few friends along the way on wall street, which was unfortunate, but the reality and so be it. the decision by judge rakov yesterday to throw out and reject the s.e.c. settlement,
because he said not enough facts were presented to the court, and this notion that banks will be permitted to say neither admit nor deny, as though somehow, yeah, we'll pay the fine, but really we did nothing wrong, that should come to an end. >> but it's a settlement? >> no, he rejected the settlement. judge rakov said, we're beyond the point where recidivist institutions where time and time again, and when i started doing this back in '98, we brought some big cases and said, okay, you've got a problem, are you going to learn? and they said yes. in retrospect, they haven't. no question about it. in retrospect, i wish we had put more people in handcuffs. i don't mind saying it, because the banks didn't learn the lesson. judge rakov, arguably the most important person in the capital markets right now, because he has set a new bar. he has done something critically important, to say, i won't let you just internalize as a cost of doing business through fines and other small reparations massive structural fraud. and i think what he is doing redefines the way the s.e.c. will have to operate, justifies
a lot of the aggressive stuff we did. i'm all for it. my hat goes off to judge rakov. he's a critically important guy. >> were you to be attorney general today, what would your view be of either prosecuting or investigating jon corzine or mf global relative to the blending of firm assets and customer assets? >> let me be careful here for the following reasons. john has been a friend. i've always liked him. i want that to be out there, full disclosure, which is a critically important thing in every domain. i still have a hard time believing that john ever would have sanctioned using customer segregated money, the money that is in customer accounts to cover margin calls for mf global. if that happened, people should go to jail. it is simply not acceptable. now, there may be paperwork that permitted them to dip into those funds, if it was properly collateralized. this moment of clirisis, it's hd to see how that happened. i think john is an honorable guy, it's an aggressive trader. t
leveraged 44 to 1 and be betting on sovereign debt in europe. leverage is great on the way up, not so good on the way down. i don't get it as a business model, but i think we have to wait and see how the facts come out. >> jimmy? >> so, all right. so we give these banks the money, right? and then we tell them, in t.a.r.p. -- now, there's all this other new stuff. >> t.a.r.p. was the tip. >> to the tip t.a.r.p. >> the t.a.r.p. is what we tossed them as the tip. it's what you tip them at the garage -- >> that was more money. >> that was a $700 billion -- >> with a "b." >> that was the side money so you can go to a party. >> so we gave them more. the whole point was, all right, you've got to go and go loan this money out. >> right. >> i would be -- i would be interested in knowing how much money was loaned out. >> we do know. >> we do? >> the lending was off the cliff, down. >> this is the critical point. >> so why aren't we forcing them to do refinancing of mortgages?
>> you're asking -- i know, behind that innocent question, right. >> these are very complex things, jimmy, where we -- >> i'm a redneck from south carolina, i'm just the -- >> a country lawyer. i've heard that before. you're asking the question that goes to the heart of my grievance with tim geithner from the very first moment. it was that night we needed to solve the institutions and the solvency of our nights, it was that we got nothing back. he never once said, we will save you if you agree to reform the system, solve the mortgage crisis, lend to small and medium-sized businesses that will create jobs. there was never any of the conditionality that we do. the imf has done it for 30 years with every other country in the world. tim knows that. he was there. i don't get this. >> karen, go ahead. >> so just quickly, speaking about the imf, and it makes me think of europe, and we know that, i guess my question would be, can you talk a little bit about what you see happening on the horizon with europe? and what is the exposure of the american banks and should we expect that all over again, we're going to have a crisis
should they go into crisis? >> you're asking me? i have no idea. i'll be the first one to tell you, i don't have the foggiest idea what is going to happen in europe. i see the stock market here gyrating up and down, 400 points either direction, because somebody makes an offhand comment and things are good, things are bad. >> can i ask you a specific question to that end? >> i have not been able to find a single human being in the world who can tell us what the risk is in europe, for the simple reason that the risk marketplace, which is the credit default swap market, exists in secret, and it is mathematically impossible for you or anybody else to define what the risk is! >> dylan, there was a great article by gretchen morganson about two or three sundays ago in "the times" where he digs into the swap market, and what she found is that the committee that determines whether there's been a technical default that would trigger the obligation to pay has determined that the 50% write-down isn't a default. >> oh, i know.
>> they said, oops, we don't want to pay. >> the point is the actual system by which we are managing our global risk, because it's done in secret -- >> correct. >> it is impossible for the biggest and most powerful banker in the world to be able to know what the risk is, correct? >> yes, but here's another measure. put credit default swaps aside for a moment. if you look at the actual interest rate that's now being paid by the italian government, it is poking through 7%. that's not sustainable for a government. when you begin to see italian spanish debt hitting that level, crisis is afoot. >> i am so glad that that show on cnn did not work out. >> i didn't say i'd come back here. >> listen, i was like, i hope that show doesn't work out. >> i'll take that as a compliment somehow. it's wonderful to have you here. >> thank you, sir. >> i hope to see you sooner rather than later. >> friends like that, huh? >> listen, i'm self-interested. >> i knew that. >> eliot spitzer, ladies and gentlemen. the mega panel, it's nice to see you guys as well, susan, karen, and jimmy.
♪ come see the tree ♪ there's presents underneath it ♪ ♪ and i know there's some for me ♪ ♪ get moving mom and dad ♪ wake up already please! ♪ how can you still be sleeping ♪ ♪ when it's six a.m. at least? ♪ so meet me downstairs, and make it fast ♪ ♪ 'cause christmas morning's here at last! ♪ [ male announcer ] it's our christmas price guarantee. if you find a lower price in a local print ad before christmas,
well, a word to the wise. for those of you wondering how the trilingual athletic world traveler that you met online is still possibly available for you, or worried if your student is okay after thieves broke into his house and stole his homework, a new study shows that people find it far easier to lie over the computer than face to face. the experiment was simple. subjects were split up into pairs and then told to get to know each other. either in person, using instant message or via e-mail. the experiment found two things. one, people are liars. and two, the further you get from the person you're communicating with, withe more u lie. when forced to go back over their own intersections, more than 70% of the test subjects found some form of fraudulence in their conversations.
but people lied three times more over e-mail than they do face to face. researchers blame it on the lack of realtime interaction, giving you more time to think about how you want to massage the truth. something to think about before reading the next e-mail blast from your congressman. coming up, yesterday we talked about hot-spot policing. after this, hot-spotting in health care. it's a technique that's saving cash, saving lives, and defeating greedy bastards everywhere. wouldn't use that single miles credit card. nice ring. knock it off. ignore him. with the capital one venture card you earn... double miles on every purchase. [ sharon ] 3d is so real larry. i'm right here larry. if you're not earning double miles... you're settling for half. really? a plaid tie? what, are we in prep school? [ male announcer ] get the venture card at capitalone.com and earn double miles on every purchase every day. what's in your wallet? i was gonna say that. uh huh...
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.
try bayer advanced aspirin. it's not the bayer aspirin you know. it's different. first, it's been re-engineered with micro-particles. second, it enters the bloodstream fast, and rushes relief to the site of your tough pain. the best part? it's proven to relieve pain twice as fast as before. bayer advanced aspirin. test how fast it works for you. love it, or get your money back.
well, we're breaking it down today on hot spotting. it is a problem-solving technique, a methodology, if you will, for resource allocation in anything. it's very, very good at making corrupt industries serve our interests better. taken from my upcoming book," greedy bastard$!" yesterday former new york city police commissioner bill bratton walked us through how he used hot-spotting to dramatically reduce violent crime and costs in the city by simply figuring out the neighborhoods that were producing the most crime and targeting resources specifically to those communities. another example of where the hot spotting technique is changing lives is in camden, new jersey. camden is one of the poorest cities in our country. more than 18% of its residents
live in poverty. discreet data, only available because of the 21st century miracle of the computer was able to show, again, it was compiled since '02, look at that, 1% of all the city's hospital patients, everybody goes to the hospital, 1% of them were spending or creating 30% or a third of the entire city's health care costs. dr. jeffrey brenner, who is one of the problem solvers featured in "greedy bastard$!" took this data and acted on it as a greedy bastard anecdote as you will, hot-spotting. and here to explain how it works in the context of health care is naomi wyatt who works with dr. bratton, and naomi, it's an absolute delight to have you here. as you can probably tell from my voice, i'm a great admirer of not only the work you're doing, but the way that you are working. our message yesterday was how,
not how much is what matters. explain to us what you did when you realized that 1% of the patients in the camden health care system were creating 30% of the costs and how hot-spotting helped to fix that. >> it's very nice to meet you. thanks for having us. you know, it was really quite amazing to learn just how few people were incurring so many of the costs. and not only to learn that, but to learn what was causing the costs. so in addition to finding out that it was 1% of the people, we learned that a lot of the costs were being incurred by those people, because they were going to the emergency room for very ordinary treatment. they had sore throats, they had head colds, issues like that. so with that information, we did a couple of things. basically, two different types of programs were initiated. one was an outreach program,
whereby we formed a team of folks to go out into the community and to work directly with people who were having difficulty engaging with their primary care doctor, with the health care system, in a really coherent way. the second thing we did is identify specific geographies, specific buildings, even, where locating health care providers at that spot would really help reduce costs. >> and can i interrupt you just for an anecdote there, that i've read, at some point, about the work that you all are doing, where one of your outreach people was able to go into somebody's home and see that he or she was injecting air into their arm, not insulin, for the simple reason that they didn't have glasses. >> it's amazing. i mean, you know, there's only so much that a doctor can do in a doctor's office when they have ten minutes to see you and they're running from room to room to room.
you know, they hear what you tell them, but they don't see the circumstances in which you're living and, you know, the conditions in which you're trying to take care of yourself. and the example you're talking about, there was a gentleman who was a diabetic, severe diabetic, and kept going to the doctor. the doctor kept say, take your insulin. he kept saying, i'm taking it. and it wasn't until the health team went to his house and actually said, well, can you show us, you know, where do you keep your insulin, and how do you inject it? and at that point, he, you know, took some bottles out of the refrigerator, pulled the syringe, and they noticed he was only pulling half of the insulin into the syringe. and they said, you know, what's the issue? and he said, well, i'm pulling it all right, and they said, no, and he said, maybe i should get my glasses to do this. so he had bags of half-used insulin in his refrigerator, he was doing it every day. he just wasn't getting what he needed, because he couldn't see what he was doing.
>> share with everybody the results both in the dropping costs to the camden health care system simultaneous to the improvement in health of the most acute health care users after applying this hot-spotting technique and overallocating attention to those that were clearly the super users, if you will, of the health care system. >> sure. in terms of cost, we have seen -- we've worked with a couple hundred different patients so far. we've seen cost reductions on an individual level, anywhere from 40 to 50%. i mean, if you have a person who's going to the er 115 times a year, you know, cutting that in half is a significant cost savings. in terms of population savings data, we've actually just started working with rutgers university to do some more kind of larger scale cost-savings analysis. in terms of changing people's lives, we've dealt with a number of people who are in very difficult situations, who, you
know, helping them engage with a primary care doctor who can see them on a regular basis and work with them through the multiple problems they have, you know, has really been life changing for folks. we've had folks who have gone from, you know, feeling entirely depressed and helpless to really being quite empowered and actually pretty healthy at the end of the day. they just needed help. >> and my last question to you is how threatening has the technique of running an advance outreach team into homes to try to do basically what you're talking about as preventative or ongoing lifestyle care and health coaching, how threatening is that to the profitability of the status quo health care system, its insurance -- the businesses, its health -- the hospital businesses, equipment businesses, et cetera, and how -- and how much of a barrier is that to getting more of what you're doing for health in america? >> you know, quite frankly, i
think a lot of it has to do with people are willing to pay for what's easy to do, right? it's very easy to set up a phone bank center, where you have a bunch of people from an insurance company, calling people and asking them, how are you feeling? have you, you know, taken your insulin today. that's easy work. it's very hard to go out into a neighborhood, to go into somebody's home, to sit with them, to work with them, and to get them to do what they need to do. and so i think the challenge is fundamentally transforming how we deal with the people who most need the most intimate health care that we can provide. and instead of just, you know, doing an inch deep, a mile across, really focusing in on the folks that have multiple conditions and doing the hands-on work that they need to do to treat them. >> how, not how much. i thank you, naomi, for helping myself, and i hope many others learn the difference between how and how much and how the how that is hot-spotting is really a
marvel of modern problem solving. thank you, naomi. if you want to learn more about dr. brenner and naomi's work, the camden coalition of health care providers is where you should look. also, you should understand that over at dylanratigan.com right now, we've posted two new podcasts, one with naomi's boss, dr. richard brenner, who launched the program in camden that the naomi was just sharing with us, and another with david banks, who we mentioned yesterday on the show, who is successfully conducting education hot-spotting here in new york and the bronx else and where to keep young men out of prison. both dr. brenner and mr. banks and his team with naomi and the rest of the folks involved at the eagle academy showing extraordinary results, all featured in that very book. it all comes together, january 10th, when you can get your hands on "greedy bastard$!."
hot-spotting is one of the huge hows. you want to beat the greedy bastards, hot-spotting is a great way to do it. the book for pre-sale on amazon right now. ot with us. [ ding ] oh, that's helpful! well, our company does that, too. actually, we invented that. it's like a sauna in here. helping you save, even if it's not with us -- now, that's progressive! call or click today. no mas pantalones! i opened the first sammy's back sammin 1966. box. my employees are like family. and, i want people that work for me to feel that they're sharing in my success. we purchase as much as we can on the american express open gold card. so we can accumulate as many points as possible. i pass on these points to my employees to go on trips with their families. when my employees are happy, my customers are happy.
time now for david goodfriend's daily rant. david, take t away. >> thanks, dylan. it didn't surprise me last week when the congressional super committee failed to come up with $1.2 trillion in budget cuts, deadlocked, and end in failure. after all, republicans have no interest in improving the economy before the election and only seem to start worrying about deficits once they lost the white house. they were never really going to agree to a deal. but as a result of the super failure, we now are on track for
some major budget cuts. half of the cuts, $600 billion over ten years, are slated to come out of the defense department's hide. that is significant. our base line defense budget is now roughly two times what it was prior to 9/11. we spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined. former chairman of the joint chiefs, admiral mike mullen said that the biggest threat to our national security wasn't iran, north korea, or china, but the national debt. and yet the defense budget continued merrily long its bloated path from the bush administration, through the obama administration, the longest uninterpreted period of defense spending growth since world war ii. even though i'm not convinced that massive cuts to government spending will help us recover from our current unemployment crisis, i am convinced that this might be one of the biggest opportunities in a generation, to right size military spending. which brings me to this guy. president obama's secretary of defense, leon panetta. here is a man who knows the
budget process. chairman of the house budget committee, director of the office of management and budget, white house chief of staff. if anyone in washington knows how to knock heads and trim the fat, it's leon panetta. so, is he embracing this opportunity to finally trim the bloated defense budget? n no! leon panetta apparently sees his role as defending defense. he's going around to members of congress and telling them how terrible things will be if the defense budget cuts go into effect. no less than senator john mccain has called for congress to pass a new law to prevent the defense cuts. and the president's own defense secretary seems to be sailing right along from the same hysterical hymnal. secretary panetta, you of all people should be able to pronounce the following words -- we can't afford it! instead of carrying the water for your four-star generals, why don't you give them the following order. come up with a strategic option or, two, for how to operateou