Return to Transcripts main page
Campbell Brown
President Obama Targets College Loans; Torture: Truth and Consequences; End of the Road for Chrysler and General Motors?; Interview with Miss California; Proposing Term Limits on Marriage
Aired April 24, 2009 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ROLAND MARTIN, CNN ANCHOR: Folks, happy Friday.
And we have got lots to get to tonight, including an interview with Miss California you don't want to miss.
And a lot of smart folks are here of course to talk about all the issues. And they're fired up and ready to go.
But let's get to our front burner story. It's something that a lot of families are struggling with right now, college student loans. Two out of three students are deep in debt on graduation day.
And, today, President Barack Obama put a spotlight on his aggressive plan to help them.
Our chief business correspondent, Ali Velshi, is here to lay it all -- lay it out for us.
Ali, so, break it down for us in terms of the president's plan. He says, I'm going after these banks.
ALI VELSHI, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Yes. And this is an important thing, because it takes into account banks. It also takes into account the availability of loans.
Now, there are two basic kinds of federally-backed student loans. One of them involves money that goes directly to students who apply. The other ones involving money going to private lending institutions who then take a premium. They take a bit of a cut and lend it out to students.
So the president says he wants to shift it all over to direct lending from the government to students. Now, he proposes to do this. And it will save $48 billion over the next 10 years. Critics say what it is going to do is make the government the major banker for students. And that becomes inefficient.
Now, the saving, that $48 billion over 10 years, the president wants to turn a lot of that into Pell Grants, increasing Pell Grants, the availability of grants to students who qualify for -- aren't able to go to school, but aren't able to pay for it.
The other thing that the president wants to do is offer a $2,500 tax credit. This is in the stimulus bill and in the budget, a $2,500 tax credit in return for community service to students who are paying tuition.
So some major developments that could make aid a little bit cheaper to those who get loans, because you won't have a middleman in between, the banks. And it could also make more grant aid available through these Pell Grants to students. It's something the president is very keen on, making college more affordable.
MARTIN: Want to bring in our team right now, folks, CNN correspondent Erica Hill, as well as truTV anchor Lisa Bloom. They're both with us as well.
Look, you probably know many people who are facing thousands of dollars in loan debt. And we certainly didn't have to look far to find one recent graduate with the same story.
Samantha Hillstrom is a production assistant for this show. And she graduated two years ago. Take a look at the wall, folks. She has more than $114,000 in student loans to pay off. Yes, that's real. And, of course, Samantha, seriously staggering debt.
So, What kind of monthly bills are you facing for your student loans?
SAMANTHA HILLSTROM, CNN EMPLOYEE: Well, let me just say that I didn't start off with $114,000 of debt. I have accrued over $20,000 of interest.
MARTIN: In two years?
HILLSTROM: I think it starts once -- when you are in college.
MARTIN: OK. OK. OK.
HILLSTROM: So it's been five years roughly.
And as a result of the financial crisis, my lender is no longer consolidating my loans. So, I went in thinking I would have 30 years to pay them off. And I now only have 12. That brings my monthly payment to $1,200 a month, which is more than I make in a paycheck.
And as a result, the only thing I have -- the only option I have been given is to go on what they call a graduated repayment plan, where I pay interest only for four years. So, interest on $115,000 is $650 a month.
MARTIN: So you are paying $650 right now?
HILLSTROM: To avoid going into default.
MARTIN: And that's only going to interest?
HILLSTROM: Yes, I'm not touching the principal.
MARTIN: So, what happens in four years.
HILLSTROM: Well, I hope that the plan changes and that my lender can start consolidating.
(CROSSTALK)
VELSHI: And spread the loan over a longer period of time
HILLSTROM: And spread the loan, right, exactly. Otherwise, I have to find a new job that pays more money for myself.
MARTIN: Now, amazing story. Your mom took out a life insurance policy?
HILLSTROM: Yes, it was definitely one of the saddest conversations we ever had to have. I'm 23 years old. And she was like, you're a healthy 23-year-old.
Because I learned that when -- if God forbid I die, my student loans, they -- they don't go with me. She is responsible as the co- signer. So, she recently just took out a $500,000 life insurance plan on me.
MARTIN: Mainly to cover those loans?
HILLSTROM: To cover the loans.
LISA BLOOM, TRUTV ANCHOR: Samantha, do you see -- in addition to the enormous psychological stress, obviously, and the financial stress that your generation are under, do you see people making different choices, can't join the Peace Corps, for example, can't become a teacher, can't go into public service jobs, because of the crushing student debt?
HILLSTROM: Absolutely.
And I always said that I have been very honest about the fact that when I got these loans at 17, 18 years old, I was uneducated on the process and how to take out a loan, and how to understand what a student loan really means.
My mom is a single parent. And she didn't get it either. So, I hope that now students and parents can really educate themselves on -- on what it means.
ERICA HILL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I know you have also been pretty forward in your blogs, because a lot of people -- there was a lot of negative feedback as well to those blogs that you wrote. A lot of people look at you and look at other students who have this really big debt coming out of school and say, look, enough with the sense of entitlement. You took out these loans. You knew what you were getting. You didn't have to go to such an expensive school.
You have said, look, I know I made the decision to go to that school. Times have changed.
But when you do look at that, that tends to be one of the issues, too, that I know a lot of people are trying to figure out. How do you make that decision when it comes to going to school? And there may be times where you do have to make that sacrifice.
I went to a school that wasn't my first choice because they gave me a lot of money. I left school with $40,000 in loans. We accrued $100,000 when my husband went to law school.
VELSHI: Samantha and I have been talking about this for a very long time. This had been coming up because obviously Samantha had confronted me and sort of said, what can we do about this?
And I encouraged you to talk to your lender. How far did you get with them? Do they understand? Did you show them your paycheck and say, I am probably good for this?
HILLSTROM: Yes. And I have spoken to them many times, so many different people when you call. It's an automated system. And they have basically said to me, you signed the dotted line.
And I did sign the dotted line. But I didn't sign up for a 12- year repayment. I signed up for a 30-year repayment.
HILL: How is that legal to change those terms like that?
(CROSSTALK)
HILL: And, Ali, I guess you understand this best. And how is there no other option? At least with a mortgage, you could refinance.
VELSHI: In fact, the people with mortgages have more opportunities, more options than you do, although we want to encourage student loans in the same way we want to encourage good mortgages. Because a good mortgage allows you to buy a house.
But you couldn't pay for a house all at once. That's why we have mortgages. It's the same thing with an education. If you have to save up enough money to pay for your entire education, the way increases have taken place, you just wouldn't get an education. Everybody would be 56 years old before they went to college. So, that's the problem. They're not governed by the same laws when you get a private loan for a student loan.
(CROSSTALK)
BLOOM: The problem is also just our system. In Western Europe, it either is free or very low cost. Students are not 21 years old and saddled with this kind of debt. Completely changes the nature of their choices at the age.
(CROSSTALK)
MARTIN: And I certainly think one of the reasons why the president is pushing this, him and his wife just paid their loans off, what, three or four years ago.
VELSHI: From the books sales, yes.
MARTIN: Absolutely. Sam, thank you very for coming on and telling us your story.
HILLSTROM: Thank you.
MARTIN: Folks, you can read Samantha's blog and the enormous number of comments from other people in her position on CNN.com/Campbell.
And if you need expert advice on saving for college, go to CNNMoney.com and hit the personal finance tab. There, you will find everything you need to know, including a five-step plan to repay your loans.
Folks, we have been getting comments and calls all day about this next story, a proposal to change marriage from until death do us part to a five- or 10-year contract. Listen to this call from Tammy in Louisiana.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
TAMMY, LOUISIANA: Is lifelong marriage a thing of the past? I think so. But I wouldn't do a five or 10-year marriage contract. I would definitely go in thinking it is a lifelong...
(END AUDIO CLIP)
MARTIN: Give us a call, 1-877-NO-BULL-0. That's 1-877-662-8550.
You can also e-mail me or find me on Twitter and Facebook.
Now, here's tonight's rundown. We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MARTIN: Folks, the issue of torture may be coming back to haunt President Barack Obama.
In response to a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Pentagon will release hundreds of Bush era photos showing alleged abuse of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan by U.S. personnel. Hundreds of disturbing photos will be coming out in the next few weeks.
Senior White House correspondent Ed Henry joins us right now.
And, Ed, from a political standpoint, does this debate over torture and prosecutions threatens to overshadow the president's agenda?
ED HENRY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, look, the president and his top aides believe that what they're doing is turning the page on what went wrong in the Bush years.
And they think since the president has literally banned the use of torture, that they're going to succeed at that and that while there will be some lumps in the short term that in the long term this will make the country safer.
But they do face in the short term a potential big political problem here, because you will remember what happened the last time a lot of photos like this came out, the Abu Ghraib scandal. That was a big distraction for the Bush administration. Now this coming just a few days after the release of the Bush-era memos, it's only inflaming conservatives more.
You have got Republicans like John Boehner out there saying, look, these various moves by the administration are going to make the country less safe, that it's not just a political problem, but it's a policy problem.
You had the White House spokesperson, Robert Gibbs, today pushing back by saying, look these are court cases out there, lawsuits the administration didn't think they could win. These documents were going to got there eventually in the public domain. Why not just put them out there?
But there is no question that it coming out now and all these questions about what kind of potential harm it will have on the country, all the questions about whether there will be some sort of a truth commission to investigate all that, that's not what the White House wants to be talking about now as the first 100 days come up.
They want to be talking health care, education, energy. Instead, they're talking this right now -- Roland.
MARTIN: Absolutely, Ed.
And, on the left, of course, we have got demands that Bush officials should be prosecuted because of its torture policy. And on the right they say no prosecution. It's time to move on.
So, here is the question. What's the benefit to the U.S. pursuing torture prosecutions?
I will to bring back Erica Hill and Lisa Bloom, along with constitutional lawyer Michael Gross and former senior Bush administration official Brad Blakeman.
And, so, Michael, as well as Brad, what is the benefit of pursuing these prosecutions? What do we get out of it?
MICHAEL GROSS, CONSTITUTIONAL ATTORNEY: What is the benefit of pursuing justice wherever there has been a crime?
You have no society unless you are willing to investigate and reveal criminal behavior and punish it, so that it doesn't happen again. In this case, we are all the victims. The dignity of America has been struck. And it smells. And it's got to be owned up and cleaned out.
MARTIN: Brad?
BRAD BLAKEMAN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Nonsense. First of all, you are alleging crimes that don't exist. Barack Obama can change the policies of interrogation if he wants and he's done it without review. In this instance, looking back will only damage out country. It will give aid and comfort to our enemies and fodder for them to do further damage to our country.
The officials have now left. There is a new team on the field. And they have chose to conduct themselves differently than the Bush administration. But basically the Bush administration acted with what they thought to be -- and yet to be or disproven that they did not act legally. But they acted in good faith and they kept their nation safe.
And if the president were smart, he would move on and not leave it at the doorstep of the attorney general to go on a witch-hunt.
BLOOM: Michael, we are not the first country to confront the issue of potential war crimes prosecutions against our own former leaders. We have seen in South Africa the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which encouraged people to come clean and then they would be pardoned.
In Cambodia right now, the Khmer Rouge leaders are being prosecuted, just the top five, while all the foot soldiers are being exonerated.
Might a hybrid approach like that work here?
GROSS: Oh, sure.
I am not interested in revenge. I'm not interested in seeing anybody punished. I am interested in seeing the nation put back together with the dignity and honor that it used to have before this. We were lied to. We treated people without dignity. We destroyed their lives. And we need to know that this won't happen again.
All I want to do is see to it that it doesn't happen again. In order to do that, we need to know what happened.
(CROSSTALK)
MARTIN: Brad, go right ahead. Go ahead.
BLAKEMAN: Let me just tell my friend, we fight with one hand tied behind our back. We operate under a rule of law. Our enemy doesn't operate under rule of law. They have no rule of law.
We may have humiliated people at Abu Ghraib. But it was wrong. But the military dealt with them, dealt with them in a way that our enemies laugh at us. They torture, maim, rape, and behead people. We don't do that.
(CROSSTALK)
GROSS: Yes, what we are trying to do is avoid that. I agree. But by taking this woman soldier who dragged a man in the nude across the floor and jailing her because she followed orders, because she carried out the policy...
BLAKEMAN: She did not -- she did not follow orders.
(CROSSTALK)
GROSS: When you see the videos, which -- by the way, why would the CIA have destroyed evidence in a case in which they were ordered by the judge to preserve the evidence if it was legal and proper?
(CROSSTALK)
MARTIN: I want to ask you this. Has the president boxed himself into a corner when he comes out last week and says, look, put it all behind us, and move forward, then they come out Monday and say, well, we might pursue prosecution of some Bush officials, then the next day, then say, well, we are going to open it -- the door is still open?
All of a sudden, the floodgates are now open. And it's now is Congress doing one thing. Pelosi is saying one thing. Reid is saying another thing. And so now the floodgates have opened.
GROSS: You know what I am really proud of? That this attorney general says what he knows to be the truth, what he knows to be the right thing to do.
And the president is not listening to an attorney general that President Bush had when he said, you're the boss. You do anything you want to do. It is right because you do it. And nobody can ever say otherwise.
This attorney general doesn't do that.
BLAKEMAN: Nonsense.
GROSS: He says, let's investigate. Let's find out where the things fall.
(CROSSTALK)
HILL: We are getting a little tight on time. But I think there's another point that I know we all wanted to get to, all wanted to bring up.
And, Brad, I will start with you on this one.
As we look at this, everything has become -- we talked about this a little bit with Ed Henry -- it has become so political. And a lot of people looking at it, the gentlemen with us tonight, along with Lisa, maybe this should be more of a legal issue.
Does this transparency end up having a downside when it comes to the politics that have been entered in here, Brad?
(CROSSTALK)
GROSS: Bipartisan. Make it bipartisan investigation.
(CROSSTALK)
BLAKEMAN: It is selective transparency.
Look, even Christine Pelosi today in Politico stated that you have leaking of top-secret documents by unknown sources. You have the White House releasing top-secret documents that are supposed to prove a point, but are taken out of context because you don't have the release of other information, which the vice president, Vice President Cheney, wants released as well.
(CROSSTALK)
BLAKEMAN: You can't have selective transparency. If it is going to be transparent, it has got to have everything on the table, which will hurt America.
MARTIN: Michael, Michael, 15 seconds to respond. Final comment.
GROSS: Right. The CIA has been redacting and persisting in the redaction. And that's why things are out of context.
(CROSSTALK)
GROSS: We have videos here.
Seymour Hersh, the guy who discovered My Lai, you know, he is the one who said women are screaming, sending notes to their families, please come and kill me. Boys are shrieking because they are being sodomized with brooms.
This is videotape. This isn't games, fun and games here.
MARTIN: OK.
All right, Brad Blakeman, Michael Gross, we appreciate the conversation.
Folks, the president has announced a prime-time news conference for 8:00 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday, his 100th day in office. Don't be surprised if some of these issues certainly get asked in that news conference.
GROSS: A-plus. He gets an A-plus.
MARTIN: That fits in perfectly with our special prime-time event. And it starts at 7:00 Eastern that night, the CNN's national report card on the president's first 100 days. We will be giving the president grades.
I want to know -- Michael has already said he gets an A-plus -- Brad, what is your grade for the president on national security, specifically the interrogation and torture issue? Brad? OK. All right, Brad left us.
(CROSSTALK)
BLOOM: ... assume that would differ from Michael.
(CROSSTALK)
HILL: Probably not an A-plus.
MARTIN: Michael, real quick, your grade?
GROSS: A-plus. A-plus.
He -- look, he didn't want this. Politically, as you pointed out, this isn't good for his agenda. What he did was, he conducted a meeting in which both sides debated the issue and he called it. He said this is what we have got to do. It's right thing to do.
MARTIN: All right. Thanks, Michael. I appreciate it.
Folks, we got lots more coming up. At 24 past the hour, car crisis, two of the big three automakers may be down for the count. Should we just let them fail? At 39 past the hour, live and exclusive, Miss California. Sure, she lost the Miss USA crown, but could she be the new queen of conservative Republicans?
And at 51 past the hour, I do, for now -- should marriage be replaced by a five- or 10-year contract?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MARTIN: (INAUDIBLE) sign new contracts and switch teams all the times. Why not husband and wives? We're talking about fixed marriage contracts. We may have hit a nerve here with this story, folks. Tons of responses on this.
Here is Lisa from Michigan.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
LISA, MICHIGAN: Marriage is a covenant statement before God and witnesses. And it is not a thing of the past.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
MARTIN: Strong comments from Lisa there. This has been a crazy story all day. They have been blowing up on Twitter and Facebook.
HILL: It's a good talker, though, isn't it?
MARTIN: Oh, absolutely, absolutely.
BLOOM: How about fixed marriages, but only for gay people?
(CROSSTALK) HILL: Now, that will really get them talking.
BLOOM: Let's start there. It's a good inroad towards gay marriage.
MARTIN: Folks, what do you think? Give us a call, 1-877-NO- BULL-0. That's 1-877-662-8550.
Also, hit us up on Twitter and Facebook.
And a little later, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, joins us. We will ask about her newfound popularity among religious conservatives.
Back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MARTIN: Folks, are we closer to the big three automakers becoming the big one? Chrysler could be just days away from disappearing. And GM is about to pull the plug on the brand that brought America the muscle car.
Ali Velshi is here to break down what is happening with these automakers.
Ali, man, what is going on here?
ALI VELSHI, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: All right, remember this day, this Friday, because this may be the last full week that we have what we call the big three.
As of next Thursday, Chrysler had better come up with a plan for its survival. If it doesn't the government says it will cause that company to go into bankrupt. Now, what does bankruptcy mean for a company like Chrysler? Well, it could mean that it has to break itself up. It will probably end up selling the Jeep brand if it doesn't make a deal with Fiat.
But there is this looming deal with fiat. I'm not sure anybody understands exactly how that is going to fix Chrysler. So, remember that. We are about a week away from Chrysler possibly not being there anymore. Let's look at the other thing.
General Motors has received another $2 billion in loans from the government. This comes just days after General Motors announced that it may not make a billion dollar repayment on June 1. This company has until June 1, so, about five weeks away, to actually come up with a solution to its problem.
So, we have got two companies here that don't look a whole lot closer to their solutions. Now, there is something that is going on with General Motors that is worth thinking about. In order to try and trim down, in order to focus on what is strong, it's getting rid of what is weak. We have unconfirmed reports right now, but I they will expect confirmed by Monday morning, that General Motors is going to be discontinuing its Pontiac line. Now, for many of you out there, Pontiac was the beginning of the muscle car; it was the entertaining brand; it was the one that was exciting for General Motors. Well, it is just not very exciting for them right now. So Pontiac may be disappearing.
This is a bigger issue for both of these two companies. Ford did return its earnings today. They did better than was expected. But it was still a loss. But Ford may end up being the one company that remains standing.
MARTIN: And of course my dream car is a Dodge Viper. So I am really concerned.
(CROSSTALK)
MARTIN: That's my dream car. I'm serious.
Now, Ali, of course, the deadline for Chrysler is April 30, next Thursday. What is best-case/worst-case scenario?
VELSHI: OK, best-case scenario is that Chrysler comes up with a deal.
MARTIN: Yes. I don't know why you sat down, because you have got to go back to the wall.
VELSHI: I like walking around.
HILL: Your work is not done.
(LAUGHTER)
VELSHI: ... work off about half a box of...
(CROSSTALK)
VELSHI: .. I ate today.
(LAUGHTER)
VELSHI: Listen, the best-case scenario is that Chrysler makes some kind of a deal and continues to operate. That's the best-case scenario.
The worst-case scenario can be actually very dangerous. And that is that Chrysler has to shut down at least part or maybe all of its operation. That affects the suppliers to the company. Those suppliers in many cases also supply other companies, including General Motors or Ford.
If those companies can't get the parts that they need to continue to make their cars, those companies can start to suffer. Distribution centers get shut down. And entire communities get hurt when this happens.
And there's some people in the auto industry that say that failure of any one of these companies could cause a ripple effect that could cause some three million people to lose their jobs, which brings us right back to square one about whether we should be continuing to do everything we can to save these auto companies.
MARTIN: All right, you can sit down now.
VELSHI: Thank you.
MARTIN: Folks, Let's bring in Peter Schiff, the president and chief global strategist for Euro Pacific Capital. He's author of "The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear markets."
Now, Peter, look at this poll -- 76 percent of all Americans according to a CNN/Opinion Research poll think that we should simply let these car companies fail. Why do you believe they are right?
PETER SCHIFF, PRESIDENT, EURO PACIFIC CAPITAL: Well, you know failure is a part of capitalism. And sometimes we have to let companies fail.
If the government had let Chrysler fail back in the 1970s, which they should have done, and a lot of people look back at that bailout as a success, if they had let them fail back then, I'm sure that the reemerged Chrysler would have been a much stronger company. It would not be going bankrupt today.
And General Motors -- if we would have let Chrysler fail, that would have forced serious changes at General Motors. The would have been able to -- the management would have been able to get good concessions out of their labor unions. And I think General Motors would be in much better shape today and would not be on the verge of bankruptcy.
(CROSSTALK)
MARTIN: Ali, it's real easy to sit here and say, well, let them fail.
VELSHI: Yes. Yes.
MARTIN: But the reality is you have jobs, you have communities impacted, you have people who own homes. And so, this thing could have a ripple effect across the country.
VELSHI: Hey, Peter's logic often makes sense on written pages and in classrooms.
But the reality, Peter, is we have had more than five million people unemployed so far. And let's say somebody is right about this and some portion of those three million more people become unemployed. Doesn't that hurt us so much more in an economy, Peter?
SCHIFF: No. (CROSSTALK)
VELSHI: It doesn't? To have eight million people unemployed is not more damaging than not having those people unemployed?
SCHIFF: No, look, I don't think we would have more people unemployed.
I think by keeping people employed at these companies, we are destroying jobs someplace else. And I think we would have a much more vibrant automobile industry had we let Chrysler fail 30 years ago. And I think if we let Chrysler and General Motors fail right now, five years from now, we will have a better automobile industry than if we keep them in business because we are keeping money-losing companies in business, companies that are not making cars profitably.
Nobody is buying them. And now if we put the government in charge of designing cars, what, we are all going to make cars for Ed Begley Jr. and that nobody is going to buy them?
BLOOM: Peter, isn't there another alternative? And that is there used to be a time when government enforced antitrust laws. So we didn't have giant companies dominating every industry that then become too big to fail.
Wouldn't it be better if we had 30 car companies or 300 car companies? And then capitalism could work, they could fail without having five million jobs at risk.
SCHIFF: Well, nobody is too big to fail. That's the point. We have to let big companies fail, because you know what that does?
When you create the illusion of too big to fail, you put the smaller companies at a competitive disadvantage, because they can't borrow, because nobody wants to lend to them because there is risk. Everybody wants to lend to the big companies, where they perceive no risk.
MARTIN: First of all, Erica, it's interesting. We talked about this earlier in our meeting, that there is a disconnect between people who see this story, and they say, ah, that doesn't affect me.
HILL: Well, there is, because, you know, we talk about it so much, that, to us, we think, oh, yes, this could cause a huge ripple effect.
ROLAND MARTIN, CNN ANCHOR: First of all, Erica, it's interesting. We talked about this earlier in our meeting that there's a disconnect between people who see the story and they say, ah, that doesn't affect me? ERICA HILL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, there is. You know, we talk about it so much that to us we think oh, yes, this could cause a huge ripple effect.
ALI VELSHI, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Right.
HILL: But let's think about the average American, people who are worried about their jobs, who may have lost their jobs sitting at home. Most people's biggest concern is the roof over my head, not the ripple effect.
And it's interesting. There was a CNN/Opinion Research poll done earlier this month that found 55 percent say it's no problem at all if the auto industry goes bankrupt.
MARTIN: Right.
HILL: Thirty percent is only a minor problem. So you have 85 percent of respondents there who are saying really, if these companies fail it doesn't affect me and yet we are hearing studies that it does. There is a disconnect.
MARTIN: Ali, real quick, some towns that frankly disappear.
VELSHI: Absolutely, towns can disappear. Dealerships, about almost 10,000 dealerships in this country, they pay for sponsorships. They pay for teams. They pay for advertising in local papers. Those jobs disappear.
Let's just --
PETER SCHIFF, PRES. EURO PACIFIC CAPITAL: But Ali --
VELSHI: But it's fine you agree in what Peter does that that's OK, but let's just understand what it is. The jobs can go away.
SCHIFF: But Ali --
MARTIN: Peter, Peter, 10 seconds, 10 seconds.
SCHIFF: How many jobs is the government going to destroy by keeping Chrysler and General Motors in business? Think about that. Think about all the unforeseen damage behind the scenes.
MARTIN: All right. Hey, President Obama is coming up on his 100th day in office. Of course, CNN is planning a special primetime coverage next Wednesday, starting at 7:00 p.m. Eastern. So while late for his national report card, before we go, Peter, what's your grade for how the president is handling the economy?
SCHIFF: Well, you know, I don't grade on a curve and I don't believe in no president left behind. So I'm going to have to give him an F.
MARTIN: Oh, I'm shocked.
HILL: Wow.
MARTIN: I'm shocked.
VELSHI: Peter Schiff always brings it, and he swings for the fences every time.
SCHIFF: Yes. The only reason it's not an F-minus is because he hasn't started a war.
MARTIN: OK. Peter Schiff, thanks for joining us. We certainly appreciate it. Thanks a lot.
Folks, it's maverick versus maverick. McCain versus McCain. Hear what dad says about his daughter. It's interesting.
There's a rundown there on the board, folks. A lot more ahead on the show.
MARTIN: Oh, thanks God we killed that news music. Some real music.
All right. Time now for the "Political Daily Briefing." Erica Hill breaks it down for us. And, of course, we'll following this like Candy's story. New twist.
HILL: New twist indeed. It turns out we're just learning, there's a call for Governor Paterson's office to be investigated. Governor Paterson, of course, of New York.
Investigation here, why? For leaking classified information about Caroline Kennedy. Three government watchdog groups have sent a letter to the state's top ethics panel asking it to look into whether any laws were broken. The issue -- some personal information about Kennedy was leaked to the media in January when she said she didn't want to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate. The panel has not yet decided it will investigate. But an interesting tidbit here. More than half of that ethics panel has been appointed by the governor. Keep a watch on that.
Also tonight, a little family war here possibly. Senator John McCain now weighing in on his daughter's new public role in the Republican Party.
24-year-old Meghan McCain grabbing plenty of headlines lately for speaking out about the GOP. Her most recent targets Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.
Well today on CNN, a little reaction from dad.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: I love and respect my daughter, and I appreciate the fact that she brings fresh views and ideas and we need that in our party. And we don't always agree, and sometimes we have spirited discussions and that's good in families.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: Meghan McCain is currently writing a book on the future of the Republican Party.
Finally tonight for you, while President Obama may be enjoying some of the highest approval ratings of any recent president at this time in his first term, it is not looking as good for his VP.
According to a new Pew Research report, Joe Biden is actually less popular than his predecessor Dick Cheney was in his first term. Hard to believe when you look at the latest CNN poll on Dick Cheney which shows five percent having -- rather, 58 percent have an unfavorable view of him.
If you look back to 2001, 58 percent was his approval rating. So now, let's take a look at Vice President Joe Biden's, currently 51 percent, down 12 percent since January.
VELSHI: That was before we knew what Dick Cheney was like with buckshot.
(LAUGHTER)
MARTIN: All right. Leave it to Ali.
Folks, here's a rundown of what's still ahead in the show. Up next, a NO BIAS, NO BULL exclusive.
Miss California will tell us how she's dealing with her accidental role as the new face of the anti-same-sex marriage movement. And at 45 past -- 46 past the hour, sorry, no big difference. Startling new evidence in the case of the Craigslist killing.
And at 51 past the hour, I do until we don't. Folks are getting all riled up over a proposed term limits on marriage. Should couples have to renew their vows every five years?
It's burning up my Facebook and Twitter. And join us in the conversation.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MARTIN: There you go, club CNN. Hey, while you're watching, can you please order Ali a pizza. He keeps talking about food and getting on my nerves.
HILL: Ali, a man cannot subsist on pizza alone.
MARTIN: My God.
VELSHI: Pete makes you want pizza.
MARTIN: All right. I got you.
Hey, folks, even Miss California, right? She hasn't been much in the news lately.
She read a comment about same sex marriage and says that's why she didn't get the Miss USA crown on Sunday. But one crown she is wearing whether she wants to or not is that of the new face of the anti-same sex marriage movement. And Miss California, Carrie Prejean, joins us right now.
Carrie, from L.A., look, you've become the face -- I'm sorry, San Diego -- you've become the face of a movement against same-sex marriage. Is that how you see yourself?
CARRIE PREJEAN, MISS CALIFORNIA: You know what? I don't, and do not.
MARTIN: So, here you are. You are, you know, folks are talking about the issue. Last night, you were at the Dove Awards and got a standing ovation and so this tremendous response. So, how have you been dealing with this all of this outpouring of folks attacking you and supporting you at the same time?
You know what? I haven't really noticed any of the attacks. I've had so much support, and I'm just glad to be back home in San Diego. And I just feel all the love and the support of my friends and my family. And I've gotten so many fans just e-mailing me and sending me wonderful messages. And I couldn't be happier.
MARTIN: Carrie, I saw a headline on the Web site that call you "the queen of the GOP." Of course, there are Democrats out there as well who are against same-sex marriage, who believe marriage between a man and woman. President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden. So for you, is this a political issue between Republicans and Democrats?
PREJEAN: You know what? I never thought by entering in a pageant I would be answering these types of questions.
You know what? It's just a matter of opinion and I am entitled to my own opinion just as, you know, everybody else is entitled to their own opinion. So I don't think it's a battle between, you know, the Democrats and the Republicans or gays and straights. It's really just a matter of Miss California being asked a question on national television in front of millions of people and giving her honest answer.
MARTIN: You talk about your faith. And actually a former Miss California said this, who is an ordained minister, she says that citing pieces of the bible to further one's own prejudice fails to meet the bible on its own terms. How would you respond to that?
PREJEAN: You know what? I think we just really need to focus on me just answering my question to the best of my ability, staying true to my convictions, staying true to my faith, staying true to my values and my morals. And being asked a question and being put on the spot. It's a hot topic right now and I never thought that I'd be up there answering that sort of question. But, you know I went with my gut. I went with my heart, and I stood up for my Lord. So -- MARTIN: Are you talking about a hot topic. I wrote about this on CNN.com and it got about a million and one page, 1.1 million page views. So folks are still talking about it. I want to ask you this.
There's so much discussion about same-sex marriage. But what I found to be interesting is that many people who oppose same-sex marriage, you don't see the same sort of effort to confront the issue of the high divorce rate in this country. Do you believe that social conservatives or even those on the liberal side or Democratic side who are against same sex marriage should be confronting that issue as well?
PREJEAN: You know what? I think we just really need to stay on topic here and that's just about me, you know, giving my opinion at a pageant really. I mean, I'm not here. I am not running for office. I don't solve all of the problems in the world. And it's just a matter of my opinion. And so I think that's what we really just need to focus on right now.
MARTIN: Would you look to run for office one day?
PREJEAN: Excuse me?
MARTIN: Would you look to run for office one day?
PREJEAN: You know what? I've had some opportunities. I was in New York City and I've gotten a lot of opportunities just being passed by, and maybe. You never know.
MARTIN: All right, what, Republican or Democrat, or independent?
PREJEAN: You know what? I don't think that really matters at this point.
MARTIN: Well, I'm just asking. Just a question.
PREJEAN: It really doesn't matter. What are you?
MARTIN: Oh. No, I'm telling you. No, I'm telling you it's real simple. I'll snap out of this side or I'll (INAUDIBLE) out of the side. I refuse to abide by any ideology.
I voted for Democrats and Republicans. I'm my own person not tied to any kind of ideology. That's the way I've always been.
PREJEAN: Right. Right. And you know what? I think that who ever you vote for should be your own privacy, so you can keep that to yourself.
MARTIN: Well --
(LAUGHTER)
VELSHI: Now, that is not likely to happen.
MARTIN: I said who I voted for during the presidential campaign. Hey, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, we certainly appreciate it. Thanks so much.
PREJEAN: And you know what else, one more thing.
MARTIN: Yes, yes.
PREJEAN: I just want to say that Barack Obama and I, we both have the same opinion so --
MARTIN: I agree. I actually wrote about it. Well, we certainly appreciate it. Thanks so much.
PREJEAN: Thank you.
MARTIN: Thank you.
PREJEAN: Thanks for having me.
MARTIN: Thank you. And we're back to our panel right now, folks. Well, you just heard what Miss California what she thinks. Pretty interesting there.
LISA BLOOM, ANCHOR OF TRUTV'S "IN SESSION": I think like Barack Obama, Miss California sounds like an open-minded person, who's willing to hear both sides, independent thinker and perhaps her mind would change over time.
MARTIN: OK. Well we'll see.
Folks, next story, evidence seems to be mounting in the case of the Craigslist killer and the parents of suspect Philip Markoff visit him in jail. We've got the latest on the case that has gripped the nation.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MARTIN: Lisa is feeling it. (INAUDIBLE)
All right, folks, what do you think? Should marriage be a five or ten-year deal with an option to renew? Call us now at 1-877-NO- BULL-0. That's 1-877-662-8550.
But right now, time to kick it with Erica in "The Briefing."
HILL: Yes. We want to start off with a story that we've been following all week long here. The latest on the Taliban in Pakistan.
It appears now the Taliban are backing out of a strategic part of Pakistan. From all accounts though, they are actually still in control. Taliban militants made a show of pulling out of the Buner District just 60 miles from Pakistan's capital city of Islamabad. We've talked about this at length and the importance of this region. A human rights group, though, says people in Buner are reporting local Taliban are still in the district. Meantime, in Iraq, the prime minister ordering an investigation into today's deadly attack on a Shiite shrine in Baghdad. Two female suicide bombers detonated explosives hidden in their purses. Sixty people were killed. The commanders in charge of security have been suspended.
In South Carolina, a wildfire still burning near the resort area of Myrtle Beach. It has now burned some 31 square miles and is only about 40 percent contained. One hundred seventy homes are either damaged or destroyed at this point. Thousands are still evacuated. There are luckily no reported injuries.
Another case of human case of swine flu reported today in the U.S. This brings the total to eight patients all of them in either California or Texas. All of them have since recovered.
But in Mexico, swine flu has killed at least 60 and sickened another 1,000. Schools, universities and museums in Mexico City are closed there to try to contain the deadly outbreak.
Evidence continuing to mount against the Craigslist killer suspect. "The New York Times" saying bullets that killed an aspiring model at a Boston hotel matched the gun police say they found in Philip Markoff's home. Today, Markoff's parents visited him in a Boston jail where he is reportedly on suicide watch. In New Jersey, the father of Markoff's fiancee was asked how his daughter is doing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE, MEGAN MCALLISTER'S FATHER: As expected not well. She's still confident in Phil. But other than that, we're saying a lot of prayers.
We've got a lot of friends. A lot of family, friends, and it's been a big help to us. Everybody has been wonderful.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Megan McAllister's father also said his daughter had no idea Markoff might have committed any crimes, Roland.
MARTIN: All right. Erica, thanks a bunch.
Folks, we have a lot more on the Craigslist case and others like it. Coming to the top of the hour, "LARRY KING LIVE," the smoothest doctor in the land, Drew Pinsky, is in for Larry.
DR. DREW PINSKY: Thank you, Roland, I appreciate that.
A medical student and a preacher's granddaughter, both charged with murder. What's going on here? We're going to take a look at some notorious killings and we'll try to answer the question that everyone is asking. How can I tell if there's a killer among us? It's next on "LARRY KING LIVE."
MARTIN: All right, Drew, thanks a bunch. So, folks, we know politicians have term limits. How about for marriages? What if you could sign up for maybe five or 10 years? Lisa says cool.
And is it worth staying hitched? You both reapply to renew the contract. What do you think? Give us a shot. 1-877-NO-BULL-0. That's 1-877-662-8550.
Also, respond to us on e-mail, Twitter and Facebook. Back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MARTIN: Drives me crazy.
HILL: Roland says that a lot these days.
MARTIN: They drive me crazy. New song, he drives me crazy too.
Folks, we're back talking marriage but also the downside divorce. Now I want to first check with our panel.
Erica, married?
HILL: Yes.
MARTIN: How long?
HILL: Almost four years.
MARTIN: Ali?
VELSHI: No.
MARTIN: Lisa?
BLOOM: No.
MARTIN: Ever?
BLOOM: I think I was.
MARTIN: You think you were married.
VELSHI: I was, I was, oh, yes.
BLOOM: I have to remember.
MARTIN: All right.
Of course, our guest Jeff Gardere.
Jeff?
JEFF GARDERE, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: How long have I been married? MARTIN: Yes.
GARDERE: Too long.
MARTIN: Oh, OK.
GARDERE: Nineteen years, 19 years.
VELSHI: Wow.
MARTIN: All right.
GARDERE: Nineteen years.
HILL: Is your wife watching with that response?
GARDERE: Yes, she is. And I'm not getting dinner when I get home.
MARTIN: Folks, of course, me and my wife, Jackie, celebrate our 8th wedding anniversary on Tuesday. This is my second marriage, though. My first lasted six years.
Here in the U.S., one-third of all first marriages end within ten years.
VELSHI: Wow.
MARTIN: So, this interesting concept caught our eye. Some folks in Australia have this idea of what they call fixed-term marriage contracts.
Here's the deal. You sign up for five or ten years. Then if you think it's working, the partners exchange a kind of marriage report card and apply to renew their license. Crazy idea? See what our panel has to say.
Again, Jeff Gardere, a clinical psychologist joins s. He's also the author of the book "Love Prescription: Healing our Hearts Through Love."
GARDERE: By the way, that little picture between that man and woman is that contract.
MARTIN: Right.
GARDERE: Because I think that's what end up happening with this thing. It's just not -- it's just not a thought through idea.
You know, first of all, we know that the guys may be crazy about this fixed term marriage. But most women I know that I've worked with they're not having any parts of it. The same women who don't want to deal with the pre-nups unless they're the ones who are wealthier going into the marriage.
MARTIN: But what's the big deal with it? I mean, look, we have religious views on it. But looking at divorce rates, I mean, if you're able to, everything else is a business proposition, why not marriage?
VELSHI: For a guy like you who doesn't really like the idea of divorce?
MARTIN: No.
VELSHI: How is that different if the contract expires and two people go their own way and they have kids? Isn't that the same as divorce?
HILL: Exactly.
MARTIN: You sound like it to me.
BLOOM: And the hard thing is how does this work exactly? Let's say you have a five-year fixed term marriage and somebody cheats on year two.
HILL: Is there an arm?
BLOOM: So you have to stick it out for another three years.
GARDERE: Yes, right, an adjustable term marriage. Do you violate the contract by doing that?
I think the real issue is -- it's almost like leasing a car. Marriage is about love. Marriage is about commitment. It's not about, you know, we want to do this forever. It's about building a life together.
BLOOM: Right.
GARDERE: And as part of that you don't put those sorts of preconditions for better or for worse, for two years, five years, or ten years. It doesn't work.
MARTIN: But it sounds -- it sounds to me like with this crazy idea that what they're trying to do is confront the reality of all these different divorces.
BLOOM: Right.
MARTIN: Trying to get people to think beyond just one or two years like most marriages, but think in terms of five and ten years they're going longer. It could be it.
HILL: And it's interesting because it brings back to, we probably remember back 1997, 1998, Louisiana launched this covenant of marriage idea...
VELSHI: Right.
HILL: ... which basically and two other states now have it, I believe, Arkansas and Arizona, where people can sign up and say, yes, I'm getting married but I'm having this type of marriage where I agree to premarital counseling.
VELSHI: Right.
HILL: I agree to their very limited terms under which I can get divorced.
MARTIN: Right.
HILL: Adultery, somebody goes to jail. And even there, it's a little bit more difficult. But that too, I don't know. I mean, I wonder what's the point --
GARDERE: You know, the real issue is, is this about building marriages and making them last?
MARTIN: Right.
VELSHI: Right.
GARDERE: Or is this about an escape route.
VELSHI: I think that's the question.
GARDERE: In that case, then look at relaxing the divorces, how they're done.
VELSHI: Right.
GARDERE: Making them cheaper and so on.
(CROSSTALK)
BLOOM: But the real problem -- the real problem is let's work to lawyers. That's the big problem.
MARTIN: I want to go to the phone lines. Carol from Texas -- Carol
CAROL, TEXAS (via telephone): I think it's a great idea. I'm sorry, but I'm a professional woman who's been married and divorced three times. I would never ever marry again.
BLOOM: Hey.
CAROL: No. Well, but you know what, you know what? It costs so much more to get out of a marriage.
BLOOM: It's very expensive.
MARTIN: OK. All right. Carol, great comment.
Karen from Ohio. Karen, what's your comment?
KAREN, OHIO (via telephone): I think that legal age for marriage should be 30.
BLOOM: Nice. Nice.
MARTIN: All right.
HILL: Not a bad idea.
MARTIN: Are you saying legal age for marriage 30.
VELSHI: Do we think marriage that happen later last longer?
BLOOM: You know, my dad used to say to me I want to see you married in white -- white hair.
(LAUGHTER)
MARTIN: Jeff, what about that?
GARDERE: I don't know, but I do know that second marriages do last longer. So, you're doing very well.
MARTIN: I can guarantee this marriage is not going to end. I can guarantee you that.
GARDERE: Because for the simple fact that people have better practice. They're much more mature. So it might be Ali --
HILL: They know what they want. That's what they mean.
GARDERE: Exactly, exactly.
MARTIN: You know what you want. I put the stuff on the prayer list. Lord, give me this, this and this. And he answered my prayers.
Hey, folks -- yes, he did. That's right. Jackie handling the business.
All right, folks, we've got lots of folks who have been twitting on this.
Let's go to -- one thing as we preserve the sanctity of marriage, not conform it for this non-committal generation
VELSHI: I think that's interesting.
MARTIN: Steely Field (ph) said no, I don't think it's a thing of the past. If you love a person, I don't think you'd want to sign a contract. The thought disgusts me.
And Wisdom misery says lifelong marriage is still feasible as long as you get married in your late 20s and die in your early 30s.
(LAUGHTER)
BLOOM: I think the question is what are the terms? What are the terms that you put in the contract. And I came up with a couple real quick.
MARTIN: Real quick.
BLOOM: Husband would do all of the house work.
HILL: Oh, I like that.
BLOOM: Husband would do all of the cooking.
HILL: He'll take out the garbage?
BLOOM: And husband yields control of the remote.
MARTIN: All right. And, of course...
VELSHI: I'll take it.
MARTIN: ... sex is nowhere on that list.
All right. Jeff Gardere, thank you very much for joining us. Everybody else stick around. Back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MARTIN: All right, folks, welcome back.
Jeff, you made a point in the break when you have the option, divorce is not an option. That's your view?
GARDERE: I think you have much more positive energy and you work towards keeping that marriage because you do know that this is it. This is what you want to do. I think if you have that escape hatch, that escape clause, it just gives you too many options to not work on the marriage the way that you should.
MARTIN: Great point, great point.
BLOOM: You know two-thirds of marriages are started by women.
MARTIN: All right. Hey, folks, we got to go. Thanks for all of you who e-mailed and called us with your comments. And if you've got one of those marriages, deal with it this weekend. Make divorce not an option.
Your voices are very important with us. Hey, stick with CNN now.
"LARRY KING LIVE" is up next. Holler (ph).
