Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Republican Party Leader?; Senate Truth Commission?
Aired March 04, 2009 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Here's what else we're fact-checking: wasteful spending, pork, earmarks. Is that true about the budget he will sign?
Is Michael Steele's job on the line? And who will be the next Republican to make nice to the leader of the Obama opposition? And why is he jumping?
ROBIN WILLIAMS, ACTOR: And if you find any other nonsense you would like to talk about, I will be glad to discuss it.
SANCHEZ: Say it ain't so about Robin Williams. What's going on with one of the funniest guys ever? We will tell you.
The newscast where America talks on the air and on the Net, your national conversation, begins right now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ: OK. Hello again, everybody. I'm Rick Sanchez. You are going to be involved in this conversation in just a little bit, whether you're on Facebook or MySpace or Twitter.
This is what a lot of people in this country, Democrats and Republicans, want to know. Is this presidency, the Obama administration, bloating spending just as much or worse even than the Bush administration did? It's a very important question.
Here's John McCain talking about this very thing. Let's hear him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: So much for the promise of change, Mr. President. So much for the promise of change. This may be -- in all the years I have been coming to this floor to complain about the earmark pork barrel corruption that this system has bred, this may be probably the worst, probably the worst.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Pork. It's what everyone seems to be talking about. Pork is what many Republicans are accusing the Obama administration of. Pork is now what Claire McCaskill is talking about -- 15 minutes ago, she went on the floor and started complaining that some people are being hypocritical about this. We have got that turned around. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CLAIRE MCCASKILL (D), MISSOURI: No fewer than 17 different Republican senators stood up and absolutely with righteous indignation talked about the pet projects in the stimulus bill. And guess what? Every single one of them has earmarks in this bill.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: All right. McCain is a Republican. McCaskill is a Democrat. So, we want to talk to somebody who's neither a Republican nor a difficult, all right, somebody who's bipartisan?
This is a committee that's very respected. It is in fact the Taxpayers for Common Sense. And we're joined now by Ryan Alexander.
Thanks so much for being with us.
RYAN ALEXANDER, PRESIDENT, TAXPAYERS FOR COMMON SENSE: Thanks for having me.
SANCHEZ: All right. Let's start with this, a working definition of an earmark, because I think, if we don't get that, Americans and those watching this newscast are going to be confused as to what Mr. McCain was talking about. What's yours?
ALEXANDER: Our definition is that an earmark is a line item in a spending bill, usually a spending bill, that identifies a specific project in a specific place for a specific amount, not programmatic spending. It's basically a specific sometimes small, sometimes large project that an individual or set of members of Congress have identified.
SANCHEZ: Are they good, bad, always good, always bad, indifferent? How do you define them?
ALEXANDER: They're not always good or bad. What's bad is the process. We don't know why certain projects get earmark funds and why other projects don't. Some of them may be good. But that could be just as well by accident as it is by design, because we have no idea why these projects are funded and why other projects aren't.
SANCHEZ: All right, here's the money question. You ready?
ALEXANDER: Yes.
SANCHEZ: Are the earmarks under this supplementary budget or ombudsman budget or whatever it's being called that is being -- that Obama says he is going to sign, are those any bigger than the ones we have seen in previous budgets, for example, in the budget that was approved by President Bush in 2006?
ALEXANDER: To do an apples-to-apples comparison, if you take the omnibus that they're about to vote on now and the defense bills that they passed in the fall, it is about half-a-billion dollars less in terms of earmarks.
SANCHEZ: Five hundred million dollars -- Obama's is $500 million less than the last one that Mr. Bush signed? That's what you just said?
ALEXANDER: That's right. That's right, if you take all of the bills together, yes.
SANCHEZ: That's significant, isn't it? So -- but we hear Republicans...
ALEXANDER: It's an improvement.
SANCHEZ: We just heard McCain say this is the worst ever. That wasn't true.
ALEXANDER: It's not the worst ever. It's some improvement. It's not as significant as we would like to see, but it's some improvement.
SANCHEZ: Well, how much is it in earmarks? I have got here a number, and tell me if it's right, $7.7 billion; is that right?
ALEXANDER: Sure, $7.7 billion in the omnibus that is being considered right now. If it passes in its current form, as we basically expect it will, there will have been a total of $14.3 billion in this bill and the bills that passed in the fall.
SANCHEZ: How big were earmarks in the past? Give us the biggest, any president, Clinton, Carter, Reagan, Bush. What was the biggest?
ALEXANDER: You know, off the top of my head, I believe the biggest year was a year under President Bush, and it was I think $18.2 billion.
So, we have seen some reduction. But we aren't -- we're not seeing the kind of reduction we would like to see. We support President Obama's pledge that he's going to reduce them back to 1994 levels. But we -- we're seeing slow progress, not the kind of speedy progress we would like to see.
SANCHEZ: I want to show you something now, because now this goes to the ear -- right to the heart of the issue of the problem with the earmarks.
This is McCain's information that we're using here, by the way, earmark examples. And let me go through a couple of them here, $1.7 million for honeybee factory in Texas, $1.7 million for pig odor -- pig odor research in Iowa, $1 million for cricket control in Utah, $952,000 for sustainable Las Vegas, whatever that means.
Are those the kind that we could look at and say, that doesn't sound like something that's needed?
ALEXANDER: Well, that's absolutely the kind -- that's the problem with the process. What do we know about those projects, other than their name? And if you see $1.7 million for pig odor research, it's impossible not to say, really? We're going to spend $1.7 million to find out whether or not pigs smell? Because I think I can answer that without spending a dime.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
ALEXANDER: That said, is there a big problem with factory farms full of thousands and thousands of hogs? There might be. But then why isn't the industry paying to figure out how to solve that problem?
SANCHEZ: But, before we let you go, just to be fair, let's go back to that one point we made...
ALEXANDER: Sure.
SANCHEZ: ... because if we wanted nothing else out of this conversation that I was going to have with you today, and that the viewers wanted to hear, we are hearing Republicans say that these are record-setting earmarks, that there's more pork here that they have seen in a long time, that this is absolutely out of control. It sounds like it's no different, in fact maybe less, than the same -- than what they agreed to two, three years ago?
ALEXANDER: Essentially, that's right.
It is not the case that these are the most earmarks we have ever seen. This is a little bit of a reduction from last year. We definitely want to see more progress. But earmarks escalated at a record pace for most of the last 10 years. So, this is -- any improvement is good. This is a little less than we saw last year. That's not as much of an improvement as we would like to see. There's still a lot of room for progress. We need the leadership of the president.
And, first of all, we need Congress to get some discipline and be very, very judicious about what they add to these bills.
SANCHEZ: Ryan Alexander, Taxpayers for Common Sense, I'm glad we got you. It's important to be able to break this information down, set the record straight. And you guys are there to do that for us. Thank you so much.
ALEXANDER: Thanks.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE PENCE (R), INDIANA: I fought my president on education spending. I fought my president, was one of the 25 Republicans that opposed the prescription drug entitlement. And I'm going to keep fighting it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: This goes right to the heart of the matter of what we were just talking about. That's what Congressman Mike Pence told me yesterday. Was he telling the truth? Well, we're going to do some fact-checking on that conversation.
Also, we all know that Countrywide was a leading player in the mortgage meltdown, right? Well, now some of the former executives from Countrywide -- you're not going to believe this -- are working the other side of the market, and actually buying foreclosures for pennies on the dollars. Are they some of the same mortgages they sold that they're now buying back, double-dipping? And is this good business? Is this dastardly, or is this brilliant?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "LATE NIGHT WITH JIMMY FALLON")
JIMMY FALLON, HOST, "LATE NIGHT WITH JIMMY FALLON": The economy is not looking good. It's not looking good. Everybody's cutting back. I don't know if you heard this. Today, the Jonas Brothers fired Nick.
(LAUGHTER)
FALLON: He's laid off. He's gone.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. We have been reading some of your comments. I'm going to get to those in just a little bit.
Let me do this, though. I want to switch gears here. I want to talk about this. Is what I'm about to tell you dastardly or brilliant? Follow along, because I want to get your input on this and let us know on any one of the applications that we use, either MySpace or Facebook or Twitter.
Listen to this. The leaders and lenders, the officials for a company called Countrywide Mortgage -- Remember them? -- the former president among them, have now formed a new corporation. It's a corporation that's called PennyMac. And what they're doing is buying back some of the mortgages -- we don't know -- possibly even some of the mortgages that they sold.
It almost seems entirely wrong.
Joining us now is Eric Lipton. He's done some research on this story and he's good enough to join us to help us make sense of this.
I guess, look, first question, what these guys are doing -- I'm not sure I know -- is it brilliant or is it dastardly?
ERIC LIPTON, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": It's clearly smart. And they clearly look like they're going to profit considerably from this.
And they're -- across the economy, while a lot of people are suffering right now, there are also people who are figuring out a way to profit through the misery. And they're among them.
SANCHEZ: Yes, but here's a problem. I know you guys have been following the stories at "The New York Times." And I'm thankful that you're sharing some of this information with us.
Do we know if any of the loans that they're buying now were written by them, any of these officials, to begin with?
LIPTON: So far, that's not the case. They have primarily gotten their loans from two sources, one from a failed bank in Nevada that was taken over by the FDIC, the First National Bank of Nevada. They got about $600 million worth of mostly delinquent loans from there.
And they also got a bunch of loans from Lehman Brothers, another troubled company. And that's the source, the primary source of their approximately $800 million worth of loans that they are now trying to collect from the borrowers on.
SANCHEZ: But if they didn't originally sign off on the loans or call the loans when they thought they were going to be delinquent or payments hadn't been made on them, then legally nor ethically, is there really a problem for them until they do that, right?
LIPTON: No. I mean, the question that some people, critics have raised is that here are the same guys who introduced some of the riskier mechanisms, the pay option ARM, which are -- that popularized -- helped popularize subprime lending and some of the things that sort of created the meltdown of the housing market.
And now they're going in and they're buying up delinquent mortgages and they're sort of profiting from the kind of trouble that this company helped create.
SANCHEZ: But they're -- but, you know, what's funny? I know you -- guys like you and I look at this every day and study this and write about this, but are they really the problem or the person who failed to check them to say, hey, that's a great idea, but you know what, we have got a serious problem with that?
They're smart guys who came up with a system that made money for them. If there's nobody there to check them or call them on it, good for them.
LIPTON: Well, clearly, they look at if they're part of the solution, that they're helping these borrowers work through their loans and start paying again and stay in their homes. So, they see themselves as not being dastardly at all, but as being part of the solution that the federal government needs to try to get the credit markets working again.
SANCHEZ: Eric Lipton, "New York Times," thanks so much for being with us. Thanks for taking us through that story. We appreciate it.
LIPTON: Thank you.
Here's what else we're going to be following for you. You're not going to believe this video. A guy goes in to rob a convenience store. And needless to say, it didn't turn out exactly as he planned, yes, locked the door behind him. The story behind this video is next.
And then later, is Rush Limbaugh leading the Republican Party really a trap that's being set by Democrats? We're find out?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART")
RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: What you're saying, Mr. Limbaugh, is that you want the president to fail.
ANN COULTER, AUTHOR, "GODLESS: THE CHURCH OF LIBERALISM": Even Jesus had more executive experience than Obama.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
JONATHAN KROHN, 13-YEAR-OLD CONSERVATIVE AUTHOR: I define conserve and I -- as I believe it is fit, upon four categories of principle.
(LAUGHTER)
JON STEWART, HOST, "THE DAILY SHOW": The last kid was Jon Krohn. And I'm not sure there's a nurple purple enough.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Boy, we're getting a lot of comments on the stuff that we have been talking about thus far.
Let's go over to Francis Webber, if we can, first. Francis Webber says: "The market is the lowest since it's been since Clinton. The Dems want to concern yourself with what the radio deejay is saying, so you won't see a colossal deficit Obama is fixing to set us up for when he leaves office. The budget deficit, $1.7 trillion." Now go to the last line. "Impeach Obama now, before it's too late."
Now, let's go over, if we possibly can, over here to the other side. Here we go. This is the Twitter board. "We need an earmark Web site that exposes the Congress members and explain each project. I suggest earmarks.gov."
All right, good.
Now let's go to P.J. Tibbs above that. "Good report on earmarks," he says. "Keep hammering on those, and they will disappear. Suggest you interview McConnell about his own earmarks." Must be referring to Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Something else to take note of at this point: "A suspect pulls a gun on the clerk at a convenience store in Ohio. The would-be robber looks away to see a car pulling into the parking lot, and, wham. the clerk goes over the counter, and in a wrestling move -- watch this one more time -- yes -- that would make the late Gordon Solie proud, he tosses the gunman out and locks the door behind.
And the suspect fled, likely with a bruised ego and maybe a few bruised ribs to boot.
And then this is this video. This is out of the Ukraine. Watch this. These are armed masked men, part of the Ukraine security force, and they are controlled by that country's president. They descended on Ukraine's state-run gas company overseen by the Ukraine's prime minister.
Security forces were looking for a contract signed with Russia's gas company. Russia has accused the Ukraine of diverting nearly $900 million worth of gas shipments to other European countries. Many say this incident is just another sign of flaring tensions within Ukraine's government. There you go. There's the action. Boy, it got late.
Up next, are we one step closer to prosecuting former President Bush?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez here in the world headquarters of CNN.
We're now learning that the Bush administration was actually once considering upending the Constitution of the United States, declaring martial law at some points, doing away in one instance with the First Amendment of the United States.
Consider what would have happened if they actually would have gone through with some of that, considering what we now know eight or nine years later.
There's some video I want to show you. This is the Senate Judiciary Committee. They're having hearings now to consider establishing something called a truth commission, a truth commission. What the truth commission would do is to try and investigate abuses of power during the Bush and Cheney years, abuses of presidential power.
Here's Senator Patrick Leahy. Here's the chairman -- he's the chairman of the committee. Here's what he had to say today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: How did we get to a point where the White House could say, if we tell you to do it, even if it breaks the law, it's all right, because we're above the law? I want to make sure it never happens again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Is that what it's about, making sure it never happens again?
Joining us is Patricia Murphy from CitizenJanePolitics.com.
How close did we -- I mean, this part, being a journalist, you and I, we're kind of struck by the idea that they were thinking about dissolving the First Amendment, perhaps temporarily. But how close did that come to happening?
PATRICIA MURPHY, EDITOR, CITIZENJANEPOLITICS.COM: The Justice Department under President Bush did issue several legal opinions that said to the administration, if you need to disregard the First Amendment, if you need to disregard existing laws that limit the role of military on the U.S. soil, if you need to disregard Americans' rights not to be -- for example, have a wiretap on their phone, a U.S. citizen, you can do that if you need to do it to protect the country.
This was done after September 11, a massive panic going on, obviously. But some administration officials actually came in at the end of the administration and said that those went too far, and those have been rescinded now.
SANCHEZ: But what's really scary about that is, given what we have learned about some of the White House lawyers that would have signed off on just about anything that that White House was telling them they wanted signed off on, they would have actually gone along with something like this. So, was it kind of lack a backbone amongst those folks? And I don't think I'm the only one saying that.
(CROSSTALK)
MURPHY: Right.
Well, there is now a Justice Department investigation into who made those decisions. Why did they make those decisions? Was it for political purposes? Was it to defend the country?
It was a time where a lot of these laws were unconstitutional. And the Supreme Court has said that they were unconstitutional. And now there's the question coming up in the administration, in the Justice Department, and in Congress, who made those decisions, why, and how are we going to prevent it in the future?
SANCHEZ: Maybe we should find out who made those decisions.
But let me ask you this. And I think it's a question that a lot of folks watching at home probably would want to know, too. Do we really need to go there? Do we really need to go to the past, given all the problems we have looking ahead? What's the argument for it?
MURPHY: The argument for it, and this is what Senator Leahy said in the hearing earlier today, is that we can't turn the page until we read the page. We need to know what happened, why it happened, and who did it, until we can prevent that in the future.
That's the argument for it. There are arguments against it.
SANCHEZ: Well, you would almost think, as well, you could make an argument that the GOP would want the air cleared. You know, hey, we want to separate ourselves from everything that happened during the Bush administration and start over.
But John Cornyn seems to be saying no. He thinks this is very political. Let's listen to what he has to say today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R), TEXAS: To me, the idea that this so-called truth commission would somehow resolve the good-faith disagreements that I think many of us have had and have divided the country over this subject is, I think, just asking us to believe in the Tooth Fairy, that somehow this is going to settle the score.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Now, it's funny. He calls them good-faith disagreements. Other people would call them illegalities. I guess it's for somebody with a much higher rank than you and I to figure out what those are.
So, let's talk about what can happen. Can't Barack Obama just release all the documents? He's the president of the United States. Everything from the last eight years, can he?
MURPHY: Yes. He can -- well, he can release a lot of these documents if they're not classified and if he chooses to do so. Right now, his administration and Justice Department are reviewing the documents to see which documents they want to release, which ones do they want to keep secret. There's really no decision that's been made on that.
SANCHEZ: And he kind of wants people looking forward, right? Doesn't he keep saying that?
MURPHY: Yes. He's been asked specifically asked about this inquiry and this commission, a truth commission. And he has said and his spokesperson said yesterday that he's more interested in looking forward, not looking back.
It puts him in a really awkward position in terms of giving away potential executive powers in the future. And there's a fear that this will become a partisan witch-hunt.
SANCHEZ: Final question, Murph. Is there enough support to get this passed, that there will be a truth commission and they will look into the Bush administration?
MURPHY: That's not clear. Republicans are dead-set against it. Some Democrats don't want it to be held out in public. They want this to be -- if there is a commission, or if it's even an investigation in Congress, they want it to be behind closed doors and classified.
SANCHEZ: Patricia Murphy, CitizenJanePolitics.com, good stuff.
MURPHY: Thanks.
SANCHEZ: Appreciate it.
One of the funniest people in the world, there he is, Robin Williams. But why is he now canceling shows left and right? There's something going on here, and we're going to find out for you. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PENCE: I fought the earmarking culture and runaway spending under Republican control. And I'm going to keep fighting it as Democrats take us further down the road of deficit spending and debts. I really believe the American people fired Republicans largely because of runaway federal spending. They sure didn't want the Democrats to do more of it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: That's an interesting argument that he makes. That's a conversation that I had with Congressman Mike Pence yesterday. He told me that he took on the Bush administration over pork barrel spending. Was he telling the truth, as he might expect? We're going to fact-check him today.
And then judges on the take sending kids to jail for money, sending kids to jail for money, they're getting kickbacks. They're getting paid off. How sick is that? I'll tell you how sick it is.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: All right, here we go once again. I know we have got a lot of comments coming in from many of you on both the left and the right. And we're going to be sharing those with you in just a little bit.
But here's something we have been trying to get at for awhile now. And I think it's a perfectly legitimate question. Why are Republicans feigning so much outrage now after essentially rubber- stamping so much of the spending that went on during the Bush-Cheney years? It's a legitimate question, whether you're a Republican or Democrat, because it's going on right now and it's in the news.
I want you to listen. I ask this question of almost every Republican I talk to on this show. And I asked it yesterday of Mike Pence when he was on talking to us. Here's the exchange that we had. Let's listen to it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: To quote, Congressman, one of your own, you spent like drunken sailors for eight years in this country.
Why weren't you making these arguments then? Why weren't you holding the throat of these guys who wanted to spend a lot of your money, AKA -- let's see -- I think the names were Bush and Cheney?
PENCE: Well, you know...
SANCHEZ: Did you know them?
PENCE: Yes, Rick, I knew them well. And you don't know me very well if you don't know I fought my president on education spending, I fought my president -- was one of the 25 Republicans that opposed the prescription drug entitlement. I fought the earmarking culture and runaway spending under Republican control. And I'm going to keep fighting it. As Democrats take us further down the road of deficit spending and debts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Eric Burns is joining us now.
He's with Media Matters. His organization does the following.
You know what they do?
They basically check to see if what politicians and people like me say on the air is truthful, it's accurate. When we make mistakes, they call us on it. I've been called.
Let's -- let's be fair to him. He was on our air yesterday. I asked him that question directly. And he said, you know what, you don't know me very well, Mr. Sanchez, because I did challenge President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
Is he telling the truth?
ERIC BURNS, PRESIDENT, MEDIA MATTERS: Well, thanks, Rick, for having me on.
You know, I'll tell you, it's a little bit of a half truth there. We do know Congressman Pence. And he certainly did vote, you know, against education funding, as he said. You know, he voted against SCHIP funding. And...
SANCHEZ: So he was telling the -- so he's right?
BURNS: Well, on...
SANCHEZ: He did challenge a Republican administration, albeit as a Republican?
BURNS: On just a few things. But I'll tell you the part that you didn't hear is that he voted for Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut that actually destroyed the surplus that we had coming out of the Clinton years. He also voted to make those tax cuts permanent, helping to create the largest deficit in American history. And...
SANCHEZ: So he went along with the gang -- which, by the way, the gang included just about everybody back then, Democrats and Republicans, to be fair. But he did tend to go along with the gang back then, but he wasn't a leader.
BURNS: Well, no, he wasn't a leader back then. But he certainly went along with the gang. And I do know that -- that he joined Jeff Flake in opposing a few earmarks -- in opposing some earmarks from others. But in this recent transportation bill that came through the House, he got two earmarks of his own. So to suggest that he's out there championing the fight against earmarks I don't think is really -- is really accurate or genuine. SANCHEZ: Well, you know, I was watching -- in fact, just before talking to you, I went on the Web site and I read his speech that he gave at CPAC -- a strong very pro-capitalism speech.
BURNS: Sure.
SANCHEZ: In fact, I'm going to quote him here. He said: "They're writing the obituary on capitalism." I mean that sounds like a guy who's outraged about what's going on in our government now.
Did he ever show signs he was that outraged before...
BURNS: Abso...
SANCHEZ: ...when some of these decisions were being made that, as I said earlier in this newscast, were even bigger earmark totals?
BURNS: No, absolutely not. I mean this is -- this is pandemic of the entire conservative establishment and the Republican Party. I don't know if, you know, if they've got amnesia or if they're schizophrenic now -- possibly both. But I was working in Congress for much of the Bush presidency and under Tom DeLay. And, you know, there was a lot of spending going on. And there was a lot of Enron accounting -- hiding war, you know, wartime expenditures (INAUDIBLE) out of budget.
There was a -- you know, the worst ethics and corruption scandal we saw since Watergate. And so this notion that there's some sort of accountability that's going to be brought to bear by Chairman Pence and other Republicans, I just don't think holds water.
SANCHEZ: Here...
BURNS: And I think it's, also, Rick, worth noting that, as the chairman of the House Conference, you know, Mr. Pence does have some influence in these matters. In this omnibus spending bill that the House just passed, 40 percent of the earmarks were put in by Republicans.
SANCHEZ: Let's go to the Twitter board real quick, just before I let you go.
Here's Jen Grassey (ph). She says, as she watches our newscast: "Pence's shameful expression says it all. He should just sit down and get out of the way. Why pretend to be innocent?"
I'm not sure that's fair.
Let's go to the one at the very top there, Robert. You see it, the one that says (INAUDIBLE) or something like that, whatever: "I want to see the line item veto put in place. I hope this can get some real legs on it."
Is that a good comment?
Is that -- let me ask you, is that something that we should do, the line item veto?
BURNS: A line item veto?
Well, I'll tell you what, I'll leave that to Congress to decide. You know, I thought -- I, personally, before going to Media Matters, fought for ethics reform in Congress. And so I support anything to clean up the process.
But I'll tell you, Rick, I want to congratulate you for being one of the few folks in the media that is actually willing to do these fact check segments, to challenge folks on this stuff. Because this national economic crisis we're facing, it affects every American. It affects every American family.
We just recently did a study at Media Matters showing that, you know, during the stimulus debate, over 700 interviews had on cable television and Sunday talk shows, only 6 percent of the guests were actually economists. And I think Americans have a right to know what's going on.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
BURNS: You know, and the media is their town hall meeting every day. It's how they get their information.
SANCHEZ: Well, if ours -- if there's a town hall meeting, I think ours is, because we don't use a teleprompter and we don't read to you. We're basically just having a consideration as we go with people on MySpace, Twitter, Facebook. And people...
BURNS: And you're doing a great job.
SANCHEZ: And people like yourself.
BURNS: You're doing a good job.
SANCHEZ: Eric Burns, we'll keep trying to do as best we can.
Thanks.
BURNS: Thank you, Rick.
SANCHEZ: The truth wins out in the end.
BURNS: Thank you, Rick.
SANCHEZ: We appreciate it.
BURNS: Thank you.
SANCHEZ: All right. Here's what else we're going to be talking about when we come back, the very latest on what's going on with Rush Limbaugh. And we'll have that for you.
Stay with us.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back.
I'm Rick Sanchez here in the World Headquarters of CNN.
We're getting information that there's been a -- that there's been a prison riot in Mexico. And there could be as many as 20 people dead.
Let's go to our CNN Espanol bureau here.
Glenda Umana is joining us.
I know you've got information on this. And you're also following a story about problems of Americans going down there for spring break.
I guess the two stories are kind of tied together, aren't they?
GLENDA UMANA, CNN EN ESPANOL: Exactly. Well, kind of. Today, this just happened. Twenty inmates died in Mexican prison fights. It's a prison at Ciudad Juarez. It's the border city of Ciudad Juarez.
But, Rick, on the other hand, it's a tradition for a lot of high school or college students in the United States to spend spring break in some of the most popular beaches in Mexico. Like Cancun or Puerto Vallarta.
But as we are seeing, Mexico rising violence and drug-related crimes do present a very serious security challenge to the United States. And authorities have warned students to take special precautions.
But, on the other hand, Mexican authorities believe all of these to be an exaggeration. What they are -- what are they saying?
They say that the problems of violence are mainly in the border, as we are just reporting, this city, Ciudad Juarez, is one of the most violent cities. They say it is mainly in the border, but the tourist areas are safe for visitors.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
UMANA: That's what they're saying, the authorities (INAUDIBLE)...
SANCHEZ: In other words, don't cancel your diving or snorkeling trip to Cancun or Cozumel just because of what you're hearing that's going on on the border.
UMANA: Exactly. But of course...
SANCHEZ: I get it.
UMANA: Of course, Rick, common sense, you know? SANCHEZ: Yes.
UMANA: They have to watch, you know what they eat, what they drink, to -- you know, to take care of their purse, not just leave it anywhere, you know?
SANCHEZ: Well, I'll tell you what, the pictures kind of tell the story when you see what's going on. I mean there are definite battles going on in the streets between some of the drug lords and some of the police.
UMANA: Definitely.
SANCHEZ: Glenda, mucha gracias.
UMANA: Chiao.
SANCHEZ: Chiao. (INAUDIBLE).
UMANA: Buenos tardes.
SANCHEZ: Something else to take note of now. Two guys in Pennsylvania -- two county judges took millions of dollars in kickbacks from privately run juvenile detention facilities.
Did you get that?
Are you ready for this again?
Let me say it again. These guys -- these, these, these guys -- judges, Mark Ciavarella and Michael Cohanan -- Conahan, pardon me. He pocketed millions from these centers in exchange for sending them kids who possibly didn't even belong there -- shouldn't even have been in jail. But the judges were getting kickbacks, so they sent them there anyway. That's what happens when you put a profit incentive on freedom. Think about it. If there's money to be made in locking people up, more people are going to be locked up.
How hard is that to figure out?
You want proof?
In this country over the last 25 years, when we began to privatize correctness, the number of prisons has almost -- the number of prisoners has almost tripled -- tripled, if you can believe that.
And it continues to get, you know, even worse. We now have more of our people in prison than Russia and China combined. Twenty-five percent of all the world's prisoners are in American jails -- 25 percent.
Did it happen because there are more people in the last 25 years that have been committing some very serious crimes?
No. To the contrary. More people are being arrested for minimal offenses. As a society, we're spending billions of dollars locking people up and we're spending, by comparison, a paltry sum on schools and on parks for our kids.
It's almost as if -- you know, it's almost as if as a society, one might say that we derive more value from them as criminals -- children as criminals than as productive citizens. And that's crazy.
What I find -- what you will find when you drive around America these days, is that many of our parks are empty. Empty. And yet our jails are full.
Isn't there something wrong with that?
What do you think?
Let me know at CNN.com/ricksanchez.
I'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: The leader of the Republican Party -- question mark, of course. This Rush Limbaugh story is taking on new heights. Of course, as you might expect, the Republicans are trying to douse the fire.
The Democrats?
They're trying to throw as much gasoline on it as they possibly can. They seem to be sitting in the stands chuckling and enjoying what's going on.
That's not too Machiavellian, is it?
As a matter of fact, you want to know what the Democrats are doing with this Rush Limbaugh story?
Take a look at this Web site the DNC has put out. Go to it guys. Go ahead. Flip that camera around.
Johnny B. Good and Robert, are you on it?
Here we go. Look at this. This is a form letter on the DNC Web site. It says: "Dear rush, I'm so sorry I called you." And then you go over here and you can click an opportunistic brick thrower or ugly or an idiot: "My comments were -- what I meant to say is that you are "either inspiring or thought provoking or worthy of enormous respect. Yes, sometimes everyone we know, Republicans."
And then it goes on to say: "Yes, sometimes I put my foot in my mouth, say words that I'm not thinking, speak generically."
So -- and on and on -- a form letter that apparently can be used by any Republican after they insult Rush Limbaugh and then they can apologize to him.
That's Machiavellian. Joining us is Mark Preston. He's our CNN political editor. He's been writing about this.
And, also, of course, Murph's joining us, as well, Patricia Murphy from CitizenJanePolitics.com -- Mark, what do you make of this?
I mean, you know what it looks like. It looks like Republicans have fallen for a trap here of some set -- some form, that may have been set by Democrats, maybe even the White House, who knows, right?
MARK PRESTON, CNN POLITICAL EDITOR: Well, Rick, let me put it in the words of a very trusted source here of mine here in Washington, D.C. . He said there's a right way to deal with Rush Limbaugh and there's a wrong way and we've been handling it the wrong way. And that trusted source is a Republican operative here in town.
And the reason is, Rick, is when you anger Rush Limbaugh, he is going to use his megaphone to attack you. His megaphone is over 600 radio stations. He has a weekly listenership of 14 million people. So instead of Rush Limbaugh going out and attacking Democrats and Democratic policies, we've seen him this past week attack Republicans.
SANCHEZ: By the way, my producer just told me I misspoke. That Web site was not put out by the DNC, it was put out by the DCCC, which is the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Am I right?
MURPHY: DCCC, yes.
SANCHEZ: DCCC.
MURPHY: That's what they call it.
SANCHEZ: Oh. You know about those cool things, don't you?
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: What's going on here?
Is this -- is this -- is this Rahm Emanuel?
Because he's got, I'm told -- I'm not a Chicago politician follower, but I'm told he's got a history of being smart enough to do stuff like this.
MURPHY: He's got a history of being smart enough to do this. He has a history of having a lot of friends in Washington, a lot of friends on Capitol Hill, a lot of friends at these Democratic think tanks, a lot of friends who go on TV and say things.
So this is, I think, a very coordinated campaign by the White House or other powerful people to tag Rush Limbaugh as the head of the Republican Party. And it's worked for them brilliantly. They are giddy at this point. And that's -- to me, that's a warning sign, whenever Democrats are just uniformly giddy. It's going to blow up in their faces pretty soon.
SANCHEZ: Yes. They'll be the ones who will be crying in their milk in just a little bit.
MURPHY: Yes.
SANCHEZ: I want you guys, Mark, listen to this. You, too. This is Eric Cantor. He disagreed with Rush Limbaugh.
Let's listen to him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ERIC CANTOR (R), VIRGINIA: Nobody -- no Republican, no Democrat wants this president to fail nor do they want this country to fail or the economy to fail.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Well, he's disagreeing with Rush there. He says nobody wants everybody to fail -- Mark, let's start with you.
Are we going to be seeing an apology coming next from Mr. Cantor?
PRESTON: No, I don't think so. Look, Eric Cantor is very well respected in conservative circles. He said those comments several days ago and Rush Limbaugh hasn't come out and attacked him at all.
But, you know, to the point, Rick, of Democrats really doing well on this and this being a coordinated effort, in fact, it is a coordinated effort, Rick. But they've got to be careful.
You know, I was talking to a Democrat (INAUDIBLE)...
SANCHEZ: You just said -- by the way, let me just stop you.
You said in fact it is a coordinated effort.
PRESTON: Oh, it is a...
SANCHEZ: Your sources are telling you no doubt now?
PRESTON: No doubt. And we can just tick through some examples. They had the Democratic National Committee chairman out yesterday, Rick, talking about this. We had Barack Obama's president -- Barack Obama's campaign manager in "The Washington Post" today wrote an op-ed really ringing home this tune. And we saw this Web site out from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
This is being done at the highest levels of the Democratic Party. But they have to be careful because at some point, it might, you know, boomerang back on them. So the Democrats have got to be careful about really pushing this too far. SANCHEZ: But, you know, it seems to me that Washington is all about -- guys, I guess you'll agree or disagree with me. Washington is all about what are people talking about. We want to make sure Rick Sanchez today or, you know, Wolf Blitzer, or whoever -- or, you know, Anderson's talking about this subject.
MURPHY: Oh, yes.
SANCHEZ: And it's worked, because that's what we're talking about.
MURPHY: Oh, yes.
SANCHEZ: And it seems like the Republicans have fed into it.
MURPHY: Yes. Well, it's the daily press cycle -- who wins at the end of the day. The hourly press cycle, who wins at the end of the hour.
But here -- to Mark's point, here's the danger for Democrats. Right now, Rush Limbaugh is talking about issues that are very important to Independent voters. He is talking about the size of these tax increases. He's talking about the growing size of the federal government.
There are moderates who are very uncomfortable with the direction that this budget process is going in.
So if they are driving huge numbers of listeners to Rush Limbaugh, maybe for the first time, and he says something they agree with, that is how it backfires.
SANCHEZ: You wonder, though, does Rush Limbaugh have the credibility?
I know that's a question you can't answer. I'm just asking it, I guess, out there. It's not for you to say.
MURPHY: Yes.
SANCHEZ: It's not for you to say, either, Mark. But you wonder, given the fact that he is on the record -- I was sent -- I was sent some information last night by several Web sites who said he's on the record criticizing Barack Obama before Barack Obama established any of these policies. So it's not a surprise that he would be criticizing him now. So he...
MURPHY: Well, you know, his campaign was very clear that this would be what he did when he became president. And Limbaugh's been hammering him the entire time. And it's certainly working for him.
SANCHEZ: I'll tell you, it's a -- it's a heck of a story, isn't it, Mark?
PRESTON: Yes, it is. And, look, what we -- if we could just tie it up with this, Rick. The fact is Rush Limbaugh is a brilliant marketer. That Web site that you just showed, he is linking off of his own Web site to that.
(LAUGHTER)
PRESTON: In fact, he loves it. He pushes it. And today, Rick, he dared President Obama to come onto his show to debate him on the issues. Rush Limbaugh is playing this very beautifully right now.
SANCHEZ: Mano a mano, baby.
MURPHY: Genius.
SANCHEZ: But what's good for Rush Limbaugh may not be good for the Republican Party.
PRESTON: That...
MURPHY: And he's the first to say it.
SANCHEZ: That's what may be the problem.
We'll watch it. We'll watch it.
My thanks to both of you.
MURPHY: Thanks.
SANCHEZ: No laughing matter for comedian Robin Williams, who postpones four scheduled appearances, including tonight's show in South Florida. And we want to know what's going on.
Is there is really doctor's orders?
We're checking on this and we'll be joining A.J. With this in just -- A.J. Hammer in just a little bit.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: We've got somebody chiming in for Rush Limbaugh.
Let's go to the Twitter board, if we possibly can.
Go ahead, Robert.
A citizen soldier is watching right now. He says: "Rush is the de facto GOP leader, whether anybody wants to admit it or not. He gives a voice to all those who don't have one."
We thank you for your comment.
Now listen to this story. Robin Williams -- who doesn't love Robin Williams?
Who doesn't think Robin Williams is extraordinarily talented and funny? But there's a problem with Robin Williams. He's canceled his last four shows, some of them in Florida. There's a lot of information coming out. We're trying to nail this down, what's actually going on with this funny man.
A.J. Hammer, as you know, is the host of "SHOWBIZ TONIGHT" at 11:00 a.m. -- 11:00 p.m. I should say...
A.J. HAMMER, HOST, "SHOWBIZ TONIGHT": Both.
SANCHEZ: Both?
There you go. There you go.
What's going on, man?
HAMMER: Well, doctors are saying a shortness of breath is what is the cause for the fact that he has canceled these shows, Rick. He's been on tour now since last September. It's a year long tour, 80 cities. And he's a hardworking man. He hasn't done a tour like this for about seven years now.
But he apparently was diagnosed with a shortness of breath -- he was experiencing shortness of breath. They said, you know what, rest up, let's evaluate the situation. They recommended bed rest for a week.
He is expected, however, Rick, to be back on stage Monday in Jacksonville.
SANCHEZ: But there's something strange about this. I mean if you or I called our bosses at CNN and said our doctors they want us -- they want us to rest.
They want us to rest?
What does that mean?
I mean we know he's 57 years old. We know he's had a problem with substance abuse.
HAMMER: Right.
SANCHEZ: What are we finding out?
Is there something connected to this here?
HAMMER: Well, here's the thing. You know, he has been very open about his struggles with drug and alcohol abuse back in the '80s. He relapsed into rehab after 20 years of sobriety just a couple of years ago.
But I want to be clear, Rick, nobody is making that connection at all.
SANCHEZ: Yes. No, no, I get it. I get it. HAMMER: The information we have, based on a press release that came out, we contact Robin Williams' publicist and they're sticking with the story shortness of breath.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
HAMMER: Look, it can be a pretty rigorous schedule when you're going night after night, 57 years old.
SANCHEZ: Oh...
HAMMER: And, again, it's been a while since he's done this.
SANCHEZ: You know what, whatever it is, we wish him well, because the guy is fantastic.
HAMMER: As you said, who doesn't love him?
I saw him out when the writers strike happened last year and certainly he's got to be bummed out by this, Rick...
SANCHEZ: Oh, sure.
HAMMER: ...because you're talking about a guy with a strong work ethic who doesn't want to let his family down.
SANCHEZ: Let's go to another guy with a strong work ethic. In fact, people talk about this guy's work ethic.
Wolf Blitzer is standing by now to tell us what's going on in "THE SITUATION ROOM" today.
What have you got -- Wolf?
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Hey, Rick. We're all working hard.
President Obama vows to slash wasteful government spending. But some wonder why he isn't doing more to clean up the spending bill in Congress right now. We'll talk about it with a key member of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Russ Feingold.
Also, an official from Switzerland's largest bank admits to helping tens of thousands of Americans hide assets from the U.S. government. The IRS wants names.
But will UBS give them up?
Plus, Gary Condit's affair with Chandra Levy ended his political career and he went from the United States Congress to scooping ice cream.
What is Condit saying now that police have finally named a suspect in Chandra Levy's murder?
All that and a lot more, Rick, coming up right there in "THE SITUATION ROOM". SANCHEZ: Wow! Scooping ice cream. That's incredible.
Thanks so much, Wolf.
We'll be right back with your comments.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: All right, Susan Lisovicz is standing by to let us know that things are up on Wall Street.
What a surprise!
SUSAN LISOVICZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Rick, stocks are cheap, the sun will rise again. Stocks are snapping a five session losing streak. And, you know, a gain of 145 points may not sound like a lot for the Dow, but that's a gain of more than 2 percent. That's how far we've fallen. Prices at levels that we last saw when Titanic was playing in movie theatres. That is perhaps what brought investors out today.
Also, reports that China will increase spending to revive its economy.
Whatever the case, nice gains. And we'll see if we have follow- through tomorrow.
See you then -- Rick.
SANCHEZ: Look at all that applause. We haven't seen people happy there in quite a while.
Thanks so much, Susan Lisovicz.
LISOVICZ: You're welcome.
SANCHEZ: And let's go back to the hardest working man in television, Wolf Blitzer in "THE SITUATION ROOM".
