Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

President Obama Live From the G-20 Summitt; More Retirees Looking for Jobs; Hollywood's New Math

Aired April 02, 2009 - 14:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And what we tried to do as much as possible was to accommodate those issues in a way that didn't -- did not hamper the effectiveness of the overall document to address what I think are the core issues related to this crisis.

Now, keep in mind, I think that this kind of coordination really is historic. I said in the meeting that if you had imagined ten years ago or 20 years ago or 30 years ago that you'd have the leaders of Germany, France, China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, a president of the United States named Obama, former adversaries, in some cases, former mortal enemies negotiating this swiftly on behalf of fixing the global economy, you would have said that's crazy. And yet it was happening, and it happened with relatively little -- relatively few hiccups. And I think that's a testimony to the great work that Gordon Brown did and his team in organizing the summit, the collective work of our teams in doing some good preparation, some good groundwork.

So I'm very proud of what's been done. This alone is not enough. And, obviously, the actions that each of us take in our individual countries are still absolutely vital. So we have a set of principles, for example, around dealing with systemic risk that I think will be very important in preventing the kinds of financial crisis that we've seen.

That does not entirely solve the problem of toxic assets that are still in U.S. banks and certain British banks and certain European banks. And how each individual nation acts to deal with that is still going to be vitally important.

How well we execute the respective stimulus programs around the world is going to be very important. The quicker they are, the more effective they are at actually boosting demand, the more all of us will benefit. The more encumbered they are by bureaucracy, mismanagement, and corruption, that will hamper our development efforts as a whole.

So this is not a panacea, but it is a critical step, and I think it lays the foundation so that should the actions that we've taken individually and collectively so far not succeed in boosting global demand and growth, should you continue to see a freezing of credit or a hemorrhaging of jobs around the world, I think we've created a good foundation for this leadership to come back together again and take additional steps until we get it right. OK. Michael Sheerer (ph)? Where's Michael?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

I wonder if you view this trip that you're on and the actions that you've taken here at the G-20 and with the bilateral meetings that you've had as representing a break from the foreign policy of your predecessor. And if so, could you describe where you see and how you see the principles that guide a different view of the world?

OBAMA: Well, you know, I did not accompany President Bush on his various summits, so I don't know how he was operating. And I won't -- you know, I won't warrant a guess on that.

I can tell you that what I've tried to do since I started running for president and since I was sworn in as president is to communicate the notion that America is a critical actor and leader on the world stage and that we shown be embarrassed about that. But that we exercise our leadership best when we are listening, when we recognize that the world is a complicated place, and that we are going to have to act in partnership with other countries, when we lead by example, when we show some element of humility and recognize that we may not always have the best answer but we can always encourage the best answer and support the best answer.

So I think that's the -- that's the approach that we've tried to take in our foreign policy since my administration came in.

Now, we come in at extraordinarily challenging times. And -- and -- and yet I actually think that that calls for this type of leadership even more.

But, you know, ultimately, you know, we won't know how effective we are until we look back a year from now, or two years from now, or three years from now, and -- and see if it worked.

And what the American people care about I suspect are the same thing that the British people care about, and that is, are you putting people back to work? Are businesses growing again? Is business -- is -- is credit flowing again? And, you know -- and that's just true with respect to this summit.

When it comes to our Afghanistan policy, you know, the question is going to be, have we made ourselves safer? Have we reduced the risks and incidents of terrorism? And so, you know, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

But, hopefully, I think at least we've set a tone internationally where people don't -- where -- where they give us the benefit of the doubt.

They're still going to have their interests, and we're going to have ours. There are going to be tough negotiations, and sometimes we're going to have to walk away from those negotiations, if -- if we can't arrive at a common accord. There are going to be real dangers that can't always be talked through and have to be addressed. But at least we can start with the notion that we're prepared to -- to listen and to work cooperatively with countries around the world.

All right. Let me -- let me sprinkle in another -- it's got to be an international person. All right, this young lady right there. Yes.

QUESTION: Mr. President, Emma Alberici from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

At the moment, in the U.S., the U.K., and in Australia, executive salaries and bonuses are decided in the boardrooms of major publicly listed companies. Who will be making those decisions on salaries and bonuses as a result of the agreement you've made here today? And if it is still the boards, will they be guided by principles or legislation?

OBAMA: The principles that we outlined, I think, put in place or move us in the direction of what I consider to be best practices, which is that there is some accountability with respect to executive compensation.

Now, theoretically, that should be the shareholders. But the way that too many corporations have operated for too long is that you have a CEO who basically selects his board. The board, in a fairly cozy relationship oftentimes with the executive, hires an executive compensation firm, which surprisingly tends to think that it's necessary to retain the best talent to pay people $20 million or $30 million a year.

And we -- we get into the kinds of habits and practices that I think have -- have not been -- have not served shareholders well, I think ultimately distort the decision-making of many CEOs.

When I was in the United States Senate, I actually worked on a piece of legislation that would make the simple proposition that executive compensation should be subject to a shareholder vote, even if it was non-binding, so that there was transparency and accountability and perhaps a shame function that would take place.

And that principle, I think, is reflected in these guidelines. What it says is, is that, you know, if -- if you get shareholders involved and those shareholders are given a set of principles and best practices by which they can judge executive compensation, then you can still have outsized rewards and success for successful business people, but it'll be based on not short-term performance, not three-month performance, not your ability to flip quick profits off products like derivatives that don't turn out to be particularly productive to the company, but based on sustained effective growth. And that's what's embodied in these documents. And I think that you're going to see a lot of countries trying to encourage that kind of transparency and accountability.

It doesn't mean the state micromanaging -- excuse me. I've been fighting this all week. It doesn't mean that we want the state dictate the salaries. We don't. We -- I strongly believe in a free-market system, and as I -- you know, as, I think, people understand in America at least, people don't recent the rich; they want to be rich. And that's good.

But we want to make sure that there's mechanisms in place that holds people accountable and produces results.

OK. Got to go back to my crew.

Jake Tapper (ph)?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

Two questions. One can you say with confidence that the steps the G-20 nations are taking today, to committing to today, will help the world or will prevent the world to avoid a depression or a deeper recession?

And, two, your friend and ally, Prime Minister Brown, said that the old Washington consensus is over; today, we have reached a new consensus. Is he right? And what do you think he meant by that?

OBAMA: In life, there are no guarantees. And in economics, there are no guarantees. The people who thought they could provide guarantees, many of them worked at AIG, and it didn't work out so well.

So there are always risks involved. I have no doubt, though, that the steps that have been taken are critical to preventing us sliding into a depression. They are bolder and more rapid than any international response that we've seen to a financial crisis in memory.

And I think that they will have a concrete effect in our ability individually, in each nation, to create jobs, save jobs that exist, grow the economy, loosen up credit, restore trust and confidence in the financial markets.

So these steps -- another way of putting it is I think the steps in the communique were necessary. Whether they're sufficient, we've got to -- we've got to wait and see. I'm actually confident, though, that given the common commitment in the United States and in the other G-20 countries to act rapidly and boldly, that if we see other inklings of panic in the marketplace or things unwinding, that this group, once again, will respond as needed.

So I guess maybe just to use an analogy that was used several times in this meeting, an analogy that I've used in the past, you've got a sick patient. I think we applied the right medicine. I think the patient is stabilized. There's still wounds that have to heal.

And, you know, there's still -- you know, there's still emergencies that could arise. But I think that you've got some pretty good care being applied.

You had a second follow-up question? Oh, the Washington consensus.

Well, the Washington consensus, as I'm sure you're aware, Jake, is sort of a term of art about a certain set of policies surrounding globalization and the application of a cookie-cutter model to economic growth, trade liberalization, deregulation that, you know, was popular and did help globalize and grow the economy and was led by some of our leading economists and -- and policymakers in Washington.

I think that there's always been a spectrum of opinion about how -- how unfettered the free market is. And along that spectrum, I think there have been some who believe in very fierce regulation and are very suspicious of globalization, and there are others who think that it's always -- that the market is always king.

And I think what we've learned here -- but if anybody had been studying history, they would have understood earlier -- is that the market is the most effective mechanism for creating wealth and distributing resources to produce goods and services that history has ever known, but that it goes off the rail sometimes, that if it's completely unregulated, that if -- if there are no thoughtful frameworks to channel the creative energy of -- of the market, that it can end up in a very bad place.

And so, in that sense, I think that we just went through a couple of decades where there was an artificial complacency about the dangers of -- of markets going off the rails.

And -- and to the crisis -- a crisis like this reminds us that we just have to put in some commonsense rules of the road, without throwing out the enormous benefits that globalization had brought, in terms of improving living standards, reducing the cost of goods, and bringing the world closer together.

All right. I've got time for just a couple more questions. I'm going to find a journalist here.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: All right. Here, I'm going to call on this gentleman right here. He's -- he's been very persistent.

QUESTION: Ray Chi Gou (ph) of China Central Television. It seems the world leaders have been talking about increasing the voice and voting rights of developing countries. I would like to ask two questions instead of just one. First one, on behalf of China...

OBAMA: I may choose which one I want to answer.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: Oh, of course.

OBAMA: That's always the danger of asking two questions. QUESTION: First one, you've had a very fruitful meeting with our president. And during the Clinton administration, U.S.-China relationship was characterized, in Clinton's words, "strategic, constructive partnership." During the Bush era it was -- the catchphrase, quote, unquote, "stakeholder." The Bush administration expects China to -- to become a responsible stakeholder in international affairs.

Have you come up with a catchphrase of your own? And, certainly, it is not the G-2, is it?

And my second question is, on behalf of the world, politics is very local, even though we've been talking about global solution, as indicated by your recent preference over American journalists and British, which is OK.

How can you make sure that you will do whatever you can so that that local politics will not trump or negatively affect good international economics?

Thank you, Mr. President.

OBAMA: Well, those -- those are excellent questions. On -- on the first question, your American counterparts will tell you I'm terrible with those little catchphrases and sound bites. So I haven't come up with anything catchy yet, but if you have any suggestions, let me know.

(LAUGHTER)

I'll be happy to use them.

In terms of local politics, look, I'm the president of the United States. I'm not the president of China; I'm not the president of Japan; I'm not the president of the other participants here.

And so I have a direct responsibility to my constituents to make their lives better. That's -- that's why they put me in there. That accounts for some of the questions here about how concretely does me being here help them find a job, pay for their home, send their kids to college, live what we call the American dream. And I will be judged by my effectiveness in meeting their needs and concerns.

But in an era of integration and interdependence, it is also my responsibility to -- to lead America into recognizing that its interests, its fate is tied up with the larger world, that if we neglect or abandoned those who are suffering in poverty, that not only are we depriving ourselves of potential opportunities for markets and economic growth, but ultimately that despair may turn to violence that turns on us, that unless we are concerned about the education of all children, and not just our children, not only may we be depriving ourselves of the next great scientist who's going to find the next new energy source that saves the planet, but we also may make people around the world much more vulnerable to anti-American propaganda.

So -- so if I'm effective as -- as America's president right now, part of that effectiveness involves holding a -- providing Americans insight into how their self-interest is tied up with yours. And -- and that's an ongoing project, because it's not always obvious.

And there are going to be times where short-term interests are going to differ; there's no doubt about it. And protectionism is the classic example. You can make arguments that if you can get away with protecting your markets as long as the other folks don't protect theirs, then, in the short term, you may benefit.

And, you know, it then becomes important not only for me to try to give people a sense of why over the long term that's counterproductive, but also it becomes important for me to put policies in place in the United States that provide a cushion, provide support for those people who may suffer local dislocations because of globalization. And that's something that I think every government has to think about.

There are individuals who will be harmed by a trade deal. There are businesses who will go out of business because of free trade. And to the extent that a government is not there to help them reshape their company or retrain for the new jobs that are -- that are being created, over time you're going to get people who see -- who rightly see their personal self-interest in very narrow terms.

OK, two more questions. Jonathan Weisman?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. During the campaign, you often spoke of a diminished power and authority of the United States over the last decade. This is your first time in an international summit like this and I'm wondering what evidence you saw of what you spoke of during the campaign. And specifically, is the declaration of the end of the Washington Consensus evidence of the diminished authority that you feared was out there?

OBAMA: Well, first of all, during the campaign, I did not say that some of that loss of authority was inevitable. I said it was traced to very specific decisions that the previous administration had made that I believed had lowered our standing in the world.

And that wasn't simply my opinion; that was, it turns out, the opinion of many people around the world.

I would like to think that, with my election and the early decisions that we've made, that you're starting to see some restoration of America's standing in the world. And although, as you know, I always mistrust polls, international polls seem to indicate that you're seeing people more hopeful about America's leadership.

Now, we remain the largest economy in the world by a pretty significant margin. We remain the most powerful military on Earth. Our production of culture, our politics, our media still have -- I didn't mean to say that with such scorn, guys.

(LAUGHTER)

You know, I'm teasing. Still have enormous influence. And so I do not buy into the notion that -- that America can't lead in the world. I wouldn't be here if I didn't think that we had important things to contribute.

I just think in a world that is as complex as it is, that it is very important for us to be able to forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions. You know, just a -- just to try crystallize the example, there's been a lot of comparison here about Bretton Woods. Oh, well, you know, last time you saw the entire international architecture being remade.

Well, if it's just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy, you know, that's a -- that's an easier negotiation.

(LAUGHTER)

But that's not the world we live in. And it shouldn't be the world that we live in. And so, you know, that's not a loss for America. It's -- it's an appreciation that, you know, Europe is now rebuilt and a powerhouse. Japan is rebuilt, is a powerhouse. China, India, these are all countries on the move. And that's good. That means there are millions of people, billions of people who are working their way out of poverty.

And over time, that potentially makes this a much more peaceful world, and that's the kind of leadership we need to show. One that helps guide that process of orderly integration without taking our eyes off the fact that it's only as good as the benefits of individual families, individual children. Is it giving them more opportunity? Is it giving them a better life?

If we judge ourselves by those standards, then I think America can continue to show leadership for a very long time.

I'm going to call one foreigner -- actually, I'm the foreigner. That's why I smiled. One correspondent not from America, and then I will...

(AUDIENCE): India.

You know, we're not doing bidding here.

(LAUGHTER)

Come on. But I also want it make sure that I'm not showing gender bias. So this young lady right here.

Not you, sir. I'm sorry.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: Hi, Mr. President.

OBAMA: How are you?

QUESTION: Thank you for choosing me. I'm very well. I'm (inaudible) from the Times of India.

OBAMA: Wonderful.

QUESTION: You met with our Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. What did you -- what are you -- what is America doing to help India battle terrorism emanating from Pakistan?

OBAMA: Well, first of all, your prime minister is a wonderful man.

QUESTION: Thank you. I agree.

(LAUGHTER)

I agree.

OBAMA: You know, did you have something to do with that?

(LAUGHTER)

You seem to kind of take credit for it a little bit there.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: We're really proud of him, so...

OBAMA: Of course. You should be proud of him. I'm teasing you.

I think he's a very wise and decent man and has done a wonderful job in guiding India, even prior to being prime minister, along a path of extraordinary economic growth that is a marvel, I think, for all the world.

We did discuss the issue of terrorism. And we discussed it not simply in terms of terrorism emanating from Pakistan, although, obviously, we are very concerned about extremists and terrorists who have made camp in the border regions of Pakistan as well as in Afghanistan.

But we spoke about it more broadly in terms of how we can coordinate effectively on issues of counterterrorism. We also spoke about the fact that in a nuclear age, at a time when perhaps the greatest enemy of both India and Pakistan should be poverty, that it may make sense to create a more effective dialogue between India and Pakistan. But, obviously, we didn't go in depth into those issues.

We talked about a whole range of other issues related to, for example, energy and how important it is for the United States to lead by example in reducing our carbon footprint so that we can help to forge agreements with countries like China and India, that on a per capita basis have a much smaller footprint and so justifiably chafe at the idea that they should have to sacrifice their development for -- for our efforts to control climate change, but also acknowledging that if China and India, with their populations, had the same energy usage as the average American, then we would have all melted by now. And so that was a very interesting conversation that I will be pursuing not just with India, but hopefully with China and with other countries around the world.

In some ways, our -- our European counterparts have moved more quickly than we have on this issue, but I think even the Europeans have recognized that it's not easy. It's even harder during times of economic downturn.

And so we're going to have to combine the low-hanging fruit of energy efficiency with rapid technological advances. And to the extent that in some cases we can get international cooperation and pool our scientific and technical knowledge around things like developing coal sequestration, for example, that can be extremely helpful.

OK, I'm going to call on my last -- last American correspondent. Chip? And, Chip, my heart goes out to you.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I appreciate that.

OBAMA: I just heard about that.

QUESTION: Certainly, there is a lot of sentiment in G-20 countries that the United States was a major cause of the global economic meltdown. To what degree did that topic come up in your discussions?

Did it make it difficult for some countries to accept advice from the United States when they blame the United States and its economic system for causing this in the first place? And how do you respond to people who do blame America?

OBAMA: Well, you know, I don't think that -- I think my colleagues in the G-20 were extraordinarily gracious about my participation. I think that they continue to express the desire to work with America, admiration about many things American.

There were occasional comments, usually wedged into some other topic, that indicated from their perspective that this started in America, or this started on Wall Street, or this started with particular banks or companies.

You know, perhaps what helped was my willingness to acknowledge that -- and it's hard to deny that some of this contagion did start on Wall Street.

And as I've said back home, as I've said in public, and as I would say in private, we had a number of firms that took wild and unjustified risks. We had regulators that were asleep at the switch. And it has taken an enormous toll on the U.S. economy and has spread to the world economy.

Now, I think that part of the reason people didn't give me too hard a time is because, if you look at European banks or Asian banks, that they've had their own issues, both in the past and in the future. And I think there was a very constructive discussion about the fact that, given global financial flows, that unless we've got much more effective coordinated regulatory strategies, supervision, standards, that these problems will appear again.

You know, money is -- you know, can move around the globe in a second. And it will seek out the highest returns. And if those highest returns end up being built on a house of cards, then we're going to be seeing another threat to the world financial system, wherever that house of cards might be.

And so, overall, I think there was an extraordinarily constructive approach among all the leaders. I was very impressed with them; I'm very grateful to them.

And -- and I'm excited about the ability not just to help heal this economy, but also to make progress on a sustainable model of economic growth that relies less on a cycle of -- of bubble and bust, something that I've spoken about back home.

All right? Thank you, everybody. Appreciate it.

(APPLAUSE)

KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: Live from the ExCel Centre there in London, England, for President Obama. It's so long G-20 though, and hello NATO.

As you just heard live, the group of 20 economic powers today drew up a blueprint for worldwide recovery. Beginning with what Obama talked about, a trillion more dollars for the International Monetary Fund, the IMF. And they also pledged to boost trade and fight protectionism. Also to regulate businesses and practices that aren't regulated right now or aren't regulated enough.

So the next stop for President Obama and many of his G-20 partners, the NATO summit that starts tomorrow in France.

First though, his take on the recession plan. CNN's Suzanne Malveaux was at the post-G-20 news conference.

You just scooted out there and got in front of the camera for us, Suzanne. What's your take? All eyes, at least here in the United States, looking forward to more regulation, especially when it comes to those big paychecks and bonuses.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: There are a couple things, Kyra, that I noticed.

In covering a lot of these summits over the years for President Bush, obviously a lot doesn't really get done. You know, you have these general statements.

You did see more concrete action coming out of this. You have the $2 trillion in economic stimulus. The president pushing for that. You did have the tripling of the IMF funding. He also had the side meetings that really produced some results. Some concrete meetings following up with leaders of Russia as well as China later in the year. So that really was something that was different.

The other thing, of course, Kyra, really was just the tone. That it was a freewheeling kind of press conference. We had not seen that kind of before. You heard the president say and acknowledge, I'm a foreigner, when he's out of the United States.

And he talked about, he was asked about how it was different in the way that President Bush dealt with some of these world leaders. He said, well, I won't discuss that or evaluate that. But then he went full throttle ahead saying, and this was really what struck me, that as a leader, that it was critical, an actor and world leader on the world stage, that he should be embarrassed by the leadership. But went on to say exercising that leadership is best when you're listening. That this is a complicated world and that you should exercise a certain sense of humility.

He addressed a lot of the things that we have heard over the years and years from these world leaders and from their populations. That they got a sense from President Bush that he was not listening to their concerns.

And Kyra, it's not surprising that we hear this kind of language from President Obama learning about it, I've been doing a documentary of back in the days at Harvard Law School. You know, he became the head of the law review because people said he had this gift and an ability to listen to people. Even if they fundamentally disagreed.

We saw a lot of body language between President Obama meeting for the first time some of those world leaders, whether pats on the back, there were thumbs up, a lot of very warm interactions.

So, it seems to me, like a beginning here, a really new sign, a new tone with some of these leaders. That is certainly the hope, Kyra.

PHILLIPS: A lot of listening, a lot of talking, now we want to see the action.

Suzanne Malveaux there live in London. Thanks, Suzanne.

More from the CNN NEWSROOM, straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PHILLIPS: All right, Dow Industrials, as we take a look at the Big Board, up 303 points. Hallelujah! We haven't seen it that that high since it - gosh, it hit like 500 almost two weeks ago.

From Wall Street to Washington, where lawmakers are digging deeper into the biggest corporate failure in U.S. history. They heard today from former AIG chief executive Maurice Greenberg. He built AIG into an insurance giant before leaving in 2005. He blames his successors for risky business deals. The government for a failed - Well, the government for a failed bailout and it seems that everybody but himself for AIG's fall.

He was also grilled about how many of the risky deals blamed for AIG's collapse known as "credit default swaps" might have happened under his watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS (D), MARYLAND: So how many of those swaps occurred under your leadership?

MAURICE GREENBERG, FORMER CEO, AIG: I can't give you the answer sitting here right now. But whatever...

CUMMINGS: Would you say - would you say, seven million?

GREENBERG: Let me finish. May I finish?

CUMMINGS: Yes, I want you to finish. But I want you to give me a straight answer.

GREENBERG: Well, I'm trying to, if you'll let me finish.

CUMMINGS: All right, I'm listening.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIPS: Well, Greenberg eventually said that, as far as he knows, none of the credit default swaps written under his watch resulted in a loss.

Well, answers like that plus the finger pointing might not fly with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. He tells CBS's Katie Couric he's looking for a lot more accountability from corporate chiefs, especially in the banking sector.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KATIE COURIC, CBS ANCHOR: Will you assert even more influence in the future if these CEOs aren't managing their businesses properly?

TIMOTHY GEITHNER, U.S. SECRETARY OF TREASURY: You know, recovery here in our economy depends on a financial system that's doing a better job of providing credit. We want banks to go back to the business of making sure they're providing the credit that, you know, families and businesses need to invest in the future.

COURIC: So you leave the option open...

GEITHNER: Of course.

COURIC: ... to actually pressure a bank CEO to resign?

GEITHNER: Of course. Of course.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIPS: When it comes to those controversial corporate bonuses, Geithner and other financial regulators may have a say in whether they're successive. That's part of a bill that passed the House yesterday. The Senate still has to take it up.

And we're hoping for some relief in the job market. But guess, well, where we're not getting it. Six hundred and sixty-nine thousand people filed first-time claims for jobless benefits last week, a 26- year high and up to 12,000 from the week before. Economists had expected new claims to drop.

And also, there's more evidence that finding a job is as tough as ever. That number of people continuing to receive jobless benefits has risen to 5.7 million. That's a tenth-straight record.

Well, some of those people looking for work thought they would be enjoying their retirement right now, but instead they have no choice but to pound the pavement.

CNN's Sandra Endo has their story.

SANDRA ENDO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kyra, a Social Security check and a pension aren't enough for many of the nation's elderly. And with millions of Americans out of work, the job market is tight. Well, now more and more Americans in their 70s and 80s are being forced to go back to work and compete for jobs in the slumping economy.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ENDO (voice-over): Juanita Wells is 76-years-old, and looking for a job.

JUANITA WELLS, JOB SEEKER: I need some extra money to try to make ends meet.

ENDO: The retired medical technician has been living by herself since her husband passed away a couple of years ago. He suffered from a number of illnesses, and Juanita battled cancer as well.

WELLS: I had paid off all his medical bills after he died. And then I found out that my salary wouldn't pay all the bills on this old house.

ENDO: With mounting bills and ceilings decimated by the economic downturn, many of the nation's elderly are overwhelmed. Now a number of retirees are going back to work in their golden years.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, people 75 years and older are the fastest growing segment in the work force. There's a 6.3 percent annual projected growth rate in that age group through 2016.

For 25 to 54-year-olds, the growth rate is 0.2 percent. Many older Americans are finding work among their peers, at senior centers like this one which is getting a flood of calls from the elderly wanting jobs.

REV. JOHN GLEASON, DIRECTOR OF ELDERLY SERVICES: If that were my mother, it would kill me. We're finding people can't afford eyeglasses. Their Social Security is limited. If they do have a pension, it's quite small. And they're trying to survive.

ENDO: Like for Miss Wells, who feels her age shouldn't stop her from getting a paycheck.

WELLS: I can go like four hours to a little job that's answering a phone or something I can handle something like that.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ENDO: The one silver lining for many of these seniors looking for jobs is that they say they would be happy to get out of the house and socialize for a bit, but while earning a paycheck - Kyra.

PHILLIPS: Sandra Endo, thanks so much.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PHILLIPS: Tornado watches piling up across the southeast as another powerful storm system sweeps through the region. Along with the drenching rain, the system is packing hail and damaging winds. Areas like West Palm Beach, Florida and Albany, Georgia are already soaked and more flooding is a serious threat.

(WEATHER REPORT)

PHILLIPS: Well, as the show "ER" pulls the plug, scripted big- budget dramas look to be in critical condition. I'm going to talk with Susan Lisovicz about TV's new economic reality.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PHILLIPS: General David Petraeus says that the battle guess al Qaeda is a burden that the entire international community must share. Petraeus in Washington testifying right now before Congress about the challenges in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. He says the ultimate defeat of terror extremists will require what he called a sustained, substantial commitment. Petraeus, of course, is the man in charge of the U.S. Central Command.

Developing story out of Mexico now. Police there have arrested one of the country's most wanted drug suspects. Thirty-two-year-old Vicente Correo Leva (ph) was nabbed while exercising in a Mexico City park. He's the son of an alleged drug king pin who died in 1997 while undergoing plastic surgery to change his appearance. His arrest marks the fourth detention of an alleged top Mexican drug cartel leader in recent weeks.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) (VIDEO CLIP, "ER")

PHILLIPS: Well, after 15 seasons, 22 Emmys, 100 gallons of fake blood and 447,000 latex gloves, the hospital drama "ER" is flat- lining. Word is, talk is cheap. So Jay Leno's filling the primetime slot. Just another sign of the economic times.

Susan Lisovicz has the story on Hollywood's new math.

So, Susan, how is this going to change what we see on TV every night?

SUSAN LISOVICZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, we've already seen, you know, really a seismic shift in what we are seeing in primetime. Think about it, Kyra, five valuable hours of primetime replaced with Jay Leno. That's a talk show.

And then we got word today that "Guiding Light," which is actually in the "Guinness Book of World Records," will be replaced after 72 years on the air with either a talk or a game show.

So, yes, we still have sitcoms, we still have dramas. You know, "24," "30 Rock," "Law & Order." But more and more reality is the way, what we're seeing in primetime. And you know, four of the five top shows last week were reality shows, Kyra.

PHILLIPS: Wow. I know people just love that inside scoop, you know? They want to see the raw human emotion. But there's other reasons behind the changes, too. A lot has to do with dollars.

LISOVICZ: Well, you know, I don't know if you remember this, but "Seinfeld" and "Friends," you remember the final season, each of the leads were making a million dollars per episode. These were 30-minute shows, so it's all about money. Production costs are up, ad revenue, as we all know, sharply down in this recession, rather. So they're going on location. They have lots of production crew. It's so much cheaper to do reality. It's as simple as that.

PHILLIPS: And big names cost big bucks as well. But the economy is creeping into various TV shows and storylines, right?

LISOVICZ: You know, Kyra, it would be hard to escape it. I understand that my namesake on "Desperate Housewives," Susan, has actually taken a part-time job to deal with the economic hard times. Imagine that.

And on "30 Rock," some former Lehman Brothers investment bankers have resorted to working as interns at "30 Rock."

There's going to be a whole bunch of new shows that take -- you know, that talk about the recession. For instance, "$2 Beers" (ph), that's the name of the show that's upcoming, about Detroit friends who are sons of laid-off auto workers. So very much news filtering into reality.

PHILLIPS: I keep thinking a reality show in this NEWSROOM would make millions of bucks, Susan.

OK, we'll let that one pass.

LISOVICZ: That's pay per view perhaps.

PHILLIPS: Exactly. R rated.

Thanks, Susan.

LISOVICZ: You're welcome.

PHILLIPS: That does it for us. We'll be back here tomorrow. Rick Sanchez takes it from here.