Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Tea Party Turns up Heat; Can Bad Credit Keep You From a Job?; Congo: Saving the Forest, Saving Energy

Aired March 04, 2010 - 14:00   ET

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

ALI VELSHI, CNN ANCHOR: Mark Skoda is the founder and chair Minnesota of the Memphis Tea Party.

I want to talk to you about strategy and tactics and you said you had a nationwide conference call and you shade you had a nationwide bus tour plan and I say great, because I ride around on the CNN Express so there is nothing better than a bus tour. Starting on March 27th, starting with the conference call, any thought about moving it up since the president wants to get health care passed sooner.

MARK SKODA, CHAIRMAN & FOUNDER, MEMPHIS TEA PARTY: Well, there are a lot of groups collaborating. The Tea Party tour has the tour set, and they are going to get people excited. We are doing something different to take the town halls to Washington, and go through that effort. And we have launched liberty where we are beginning to raise funds to 15 or 20 conservatives elected with longer terms for us in 2010.

VELSHI: When you say conservatives, it could be Republicans, but could they be conservative Democrats or talking about people from outside of the political system?

SKODA: I think, first of all, primarily Republicans. I haven't found too many conservative Democrats lately, and that's the problem. I think they vote Democrat as a vote for Pelosi. And the problem is she rules with a strong hand.

Now, to be fair, I'll give Bart Stupak kudos, because he is clearly opposing this bill on the basis of funding for abortion. So there are people who have independent streaks in the Democratic Party, but largely we're looking at electing 15 to 20 key congressional Senate delegates who will caucus as a Tea Party caucus as well, and we're doing that through ensuring liberty. And then immediately through -- take the town halls to Washington is we're able to go ahead and bring people to D.C., meet with their legislators from those states and districts that are represented, and begin to tell them why they should not pass this bill.

VELSHI: And who are you focusing on? Are you focusing on those legislators who are wavering? Because, really, this is a Democratic issue right now.

SKODA: Absolutely.

VELSHI: Nancy Pelosi needs the 217 members of the House of Representatives to pass the bill in the House.

SKODA: Absolutely. I mean, even here in Tennessee, you have got Gordon and Tanner, who have announced their retirements, who at this point have no dog in the hunt. You know, we hope to convince them to vote against this bill.

Certainly, when you look at roughly 60 other legislators that we're focused on, the idea is those who are wavering, those are considering because of the abortion language or, frankly, because of the cost -- it has not been determined as to what the cost of this bill is going to be. And certainly your last guest spoke, Jeanne , about the idea that the bill hasn't even been vetted by the CBO.

VELSHI: When you talk to your fellow -- and I know you continue to make the point, and it's valid, that it's not one organization. But when you have calls like you did this morning, what do you look at? Do you look at Scott Brown as the success? Do you look at the primary win by Rick Perry as a success?

I know you weren't as involved in that, but what's the success? What does success look like?

SKODA: Well, actually, I think Brown is a good issue. People saw how you can move money, move people into a district, win it, win the state senators. And, of course, he's making a difference here.

Perry is a very interesting race. I mean, I coordinated heavily and talked with the folks in Dallas. I mean, they've got 1.5 million out to vote. They haven't had that many in a primary since 1970.

So, I think the truth of the matter is the Tea Party movement is more than just sort of a monolithic conservative view. It is really about getting people animated to get their votes in, change the makeup of Congress, change the makeup of state legislatures, and ultimately vote the way you want to vote.

VELSHI: Yes. Let me ask you a question about the Texas race, where Governor Perry won his primary. What happens in a case like that? Because there was a third candidate who had more conservative support. So what do you do? Do you constantly end up splitting the vote between the mainstream Republican candidate, pushing them a little more conservative, and the candidate that might run explicitly with Tea Party support?

SKODA: You know, I think those splits will occur. Texas is a good example. But I think largely -- and I can tell you, here in Tennessee, where we're focusing on the sixth, eighth and ninth congressional districts, we're working with the folks in Arkansas against Blanche Lincoln, against districts one and three, and one in Mississippi, the truth of the matter is we're coordinating very closely with the local party and with the conservative candidate.

And I think to the extent that we cannot split this better, on the other hand, if we support a particular candidate, we're going to support that candidate regardless of whether it's the "chosen" candidate by the Republican Party. I think generally, however, people are understanding how to win elections now, and they want people to embrace these first principles I spoke about, and our pact ensuring liberty is going to be one of the ways in which we do that.

VELSHI: Mark, good to talk to you. Thank you for coming on and clearing things up. You're great about coming on and helping us at least understand this movement more clearly. So we would like to have you back on to do that.

SKODA: I'm grateful that you allow me to do that. Thanks so very much.

VELSHI: Mark Skoda is the founder and chair of the Memphis Tea Party, joining us from Memphis.

All right. Here's what I've got "On the Rundown" for this hour.

As if it isn't tough enough getting a job these days, did you know that your prospective employer, the one you are applying to for a job, can dig into your credit history and use that information against you? We're hearing from you directly on this one.

Plus, massive layoffs, canceled classes, boosted fees. It's amazing anyone can get an education these days. Students and professors across the nation are mad as heck. These are pictures of them. They are not going to take it anymore.

Plus, caffeine and bullets, it might be a bad combination. Do you really need to bring your gun to Starbucks? Well, you can. Starbucks is letting you.

I've got some things to say about that.

All right. Let's go back to a story that we have been following this afternoon. I want to go to Christine Romans right now. She is my co-host on "YOUR $$$$$," staying later than she does normally for our show, although she has a busy schedule, because we're both kind of fired up about this topic.

But not just us, Christine. Our viewers are fired up about this. We have invited our viewers to post questions and comments about this on Facebook, about the idea that you can -- your prospective employer can check your credit report and might use that against you.

Christine, let me --

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: That's absolutely right. In 18 states, Ali -- go ahead.

VELSHI: Sorry. Go ahead. In 18 states there is legislation underfoot, right?

ROMANS: That's right, underfoot in 18 states, 25 different bills in 18 states to try to limit what your prospective employer can know about your credit history. Look, they can get your driving record, your criminal history and your credit history. They'll tell you in a job interview, right, we need your written permission so that we can check out your credit history.

But now with so many people who have blown out their financial records over the past few years, they are very, very concerned that at the time when they really need a job, Ali, it might be harder to get a job, because there is a big sea of six applicants for every open position in America. They are worried that a hiring manager is going to pick the one with the best credit, and then that's going to put people who need a job at the bottom of the list.

VELSHI: Let's take a quote from Rob. He posted this on Facebook.

"It should actually be illegal to use a credit history of a determinant for hiring, just like it's illegal to use gender, race, sexual preferences, height, weight, marital status, et cetera. Credit histories are often inaccurate, they can take forever to get corrected, and they can easily misrepresent someone's actual circumstance. An employer should not be a allowed to use this kind of information as a basis for hiring."

Christine, I get why some employers need to know who they are employing. I mean, this is a big commitment, when hire one person, let alone tens or hundreds or thousands. I am concerned that credit reports are often inaccurate. You know, people, they're recommended that they get three credit scores -- three credit reports from the three credit reporting agencies. They often don't have the same information on them.

ROMANS: Right. They often don't, you're right, and it's another reason why we should all check and make sure that our information is correct, whether you are getting ready to buy a house, whether you're getting ready to go apply for a job, because you don't want something that's a mistake on there to come back and bite you.

Look, Rob makes a very good point, and I want to really quickly bring up your rights. Your rights, there is a federal law that's meant to protect you, Ali, and this information.

An employer has to notify you in writing basically if they are going to use any of these -- any of this information on a credit report to not hire you. They have to tell you what that reason is, why that it was a factor. They have to get your permission before obtaining that report, essentially notify you in writing, again, if they are not going to hire you because of it.

(CROSSTALK)

VELSHI: Are they going to do that? Are they going to tell you're not getting hired because of your credit report?

ROMANS: I know, and that's what you wonder. I mean, they're going to say, no, there was just another qualified candidate, right? Or they're going to say, no, we hired somebody from within.

Look, if it's a position of authority in business, with money, where you're running a budget, is there a reason there why you want to know if somebody has a tax lien, for example, somebody has filed for personal bankruptcy, somebody has a court judgment outstanding against them? Do you want to know that if it's a position where -- there are other studies, one study in particular --

VELSHI: Well, hold that thought for a second.

ROMANS: Go ahead.

VELSHI: Hang on, because I want to hear that and I want to hear some other -- we had some posts that were contrary to what we might be saying. So, hang on right there.

Christine Romans and I are going to continue this discussion. You can see we're pretty excited about it.

Stay with us. We're going to talk about whether your prospective employer should be able to use your credit history against you.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: Should your employer be able to use your credit history against you? Christine Romans is joining me to continue this conversation.

Sorry, Christine. I cut you off because we had to get paid.

But I want to go -- we've been getting a lot of comments on Facebook, and I would say that the Facebook comments have skewed toward, this is terrible, they have no right to do it. You've got a couple of Twitter comments that go the other way.

FlytheSky writes to you -- or tweets to you -- "When hiring employees, I found that bad credit, plus no attempt to repay was often a bad hire. So, yes, it's fair."

I want to just show you another tweet from -- I don't know who this name is. You'll see it on the screen, who says, "Two thoughts. If I were seriously trying to change credit habits, then a job would be appreciated."

Very good thought.

"The next thought, however, if financial habits are out of control, work habits may follow suit and a person would become a poor work prospect."

ROMANS: Would become.

VELSHI: "Would become a poor work prospect." You and I are a little too old for this fancy little shorthand sometimes.

ROMANS: I know. I have to use my cane to try to navigate through all of the tweets. Look, the number one reason -- you know, one survey of human resource managers found the number one reason why they do this is to prevent theft, embezzlement, other criminal activity. They mostly focus on any kind of job that comes in contact with money.

If it's a big company with a big HR department, it's more likely that they are going to have a team who are trained and know how to look at all of this information and decide how to use it. It's often just one indicator in many, but, you know, it's something interesting that -- 65 percent of large employers do look at this.

And in some states, there are actually laws that this is part of the whole -- if someone is licensed, for example -- and it depends on the state, Ali, but daycare, nursing homes, any kind of thing that has to be licensed where you really have to know who that person is, that is part of the package. But again, states are concerned about this.

They see a sea of people who are jobless. They want to make sure that there isn't a new "ism" coming out there, a new kind of form of discrimination against people in the workplace. And they are trying to shut this down, 18 states considering ways to really limit it.

VELSHI: But let's take a look at -- you took a look from the side of human resources management. You took a look at the reasons why people are not likely to get hired as a result of their employers seeing their credit report. Let's just run through those.

ROMANS: Yes, and let's bring that up, because I was interested. A lot of people on Facebook were concerned if you have had a medical bankruptcy, you've had terrible medical bills, is this going to hurt you? Actually, it's not even on the list of the top reasons.

It's judgments against you, lawsuits where you owe money, you owe big judgments and they haven't been collected. They're very concerned about that because hiring managers think that you're much more likely to maybe embezzle from them.

Big debt collection accounts, you owe people a lot of money, 49 percent of employers say they are not likely to hire you for a job if you owe a ton of money out there and they don't know you. I mean, other than this, they don't know you.

Bankruptcy, 25 percent. I thought it might be higher, but, you know, flip that number around. If you filed for bankruptcy, you've got a 75 percent chance that they don't care in the corner office. High debt to income ratio and foreclosure, 11 percent.

Remember, a lot of people have blown out their credit over the past few years. They tend to look back, Ali, six, seven, eight years. So, you would think that a big HR department would be able to look and see where you went wrong, maybe, and maybe cut you some slack.

But a lot of people said to me on Facebook and Twitter -- we're still getting your comments. Keep them coming, folks. They said credit is to borrow money. If you want to borrow money, then you need to know your credit history, not to get a job. It's just not fair. They're two different things.

VELSHI: There's a lot of very, very interesting views on this. Christine, you are so fantastic. I'm so glad. Thanks for staying a little longer for us.

You know, I'm sort of weighing the whole, I don't get to see you every day in person, but we get to be on TV every day, so I will take the win on that one.

ROMANS: I know. Seven days a week now. Isn't that awesome?

VELSHI: Seven days a week together on TV.

And by the way, we're going to continue this conversation on "YOUR $$$$$" this weekend, Saturday at 1:00, Sunday at 3:00. And Suze Orman is joining us to have this conversation. You can bet she's got something interesting to say about it.

ROMANS: She's fired up.

VELSHI: Christine, good to see you.

All right. When we come back -- here's an interesting story -- how the people of Congo are changing the way they prepare food in the name of protecting the forest.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: All right. This is a fascinating story I have been looking forward to. An African forest vanishing in the blink of an eye all because the people of Congo need the wood to cook their food. But now one simple thing is transforming the way they prepare meals. And it's saving the forest in the process.

Here's Anderson Cooper.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The Democratic Republic of Congo is home to the second largest forest in the world; 215 million acres, a land mass more than a thousand times the size of New York City, but it's being lost at a breathtaking pace. Mostly, so the Congolese people can simply survive. They need the wood the forest provides to cook their food taking nearly 1,000 tons of wood every day.

But international aid organization Mercy Corps has stepped in with a simple idea. Help the Congolese rethink the way they cook by teaching them how to make fuel efficient stoves.

They're made out of mud, clay and straw. It takes an hour to transform the dirt into a cooking machine with help from a piece of metal in the middle. The stoves use 70 percent less wood than traditional methods and so far more than 30,000 stoves have been made, protecting habitat and improving the health and safety of the cooks. There's less smoke with the new stoves and women no longer have to search for firewood in the forest still populated with rebel groups; one simple thing helping to provide for a unique culture and preserve the forest.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

VELSHI: And remember, you can catch Anderson Cooper every night on "AC 360." It starts at 10:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

(NEWSBREAK)

(WEATHER REPORT)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: OK. Last hour we talked to Jeanne Sahadi. We broke down the projected costs of President Obama's health care blueprint, the one that is likely to become a bill in some form.

Now I want to look at some equally daunting numbers, the not so simple majority required to turn that blueprint into law, into coverage for more than 31 million Americans who don't have it.

I'm joined by Shawn Tully. He's the editor-at-large at "Fortune" magazine, joining me from New York. And I'm also joined by Karen Tumulty. She is the national political correspondent for "TIME" magazine. She's in Washington.

Thank you to both of you for joining us.

Karen, let me start with you.

There are a couple of issues here -- whether or not you agree with the president's price tag, whether or not you think he's doing the right thing. But, ultimately, the president may have a bigger fight with Democrats than Republicans in just making this bill into law.

KAREN TUMULTY, NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, "TIME": That's right. It has taken -- one of the problems here are the tensions within the Democratic Party. And specifically, the tensions between the House and the Senate.

You know, there's an old joke among House Democrats that the Republicans may be the adversary, but the Senate is the enemy. And so, to sort of resolve the differences between the House and the Senate bill and still get around this filibuster problem, they have come up with a very complicated two-step process where first the House has to trust the Senate enough to pass the Senate bill, and then they work out their differences in this process that we are hearing so much about called reconciliation.

VELSHI: Right.

Shawn, earlier, I spoke to Mark Skoda. He's the chairman and founder of the Memphis Tea Party. He's part of sort of the larger Tea Party movement. And he says never mind what the president says about pushing it through without Republican support, they're going right back to the grassroots and they're going to get everybody fired up about this, calling their congressmen, going to Washington.

Is there some chance that conservatives could still get the last say on this?

SHAWN TULLY, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, "FORTUNE" MAGAZINE: Well, certainly, the Tea Party movement or any grass roots movement is going to scare a lot of democrats who are in districts that were taken by John McCain and they're very, very worried about being re-elected. So that is an issue, but also you have the abortion and immigration issues which cannot be fixed in reconciliation.

So the abortion language in the House bill is much more restrictive than the abortion language in the Senate bill. The only reason that the House bill passed at the last minute is because the Stupak faction in the House was satisfied with a major change in the abortion language that made so it restrictive. Now, because of the way that reconciliation works or the way that the two-step process works, the Senate bill has to be passed through the House without any changes, including the less restrictive abortion language.

Now, the Stupak group or Stupak speaking for the group says that he controls about 12 votes, and he will not vote for the bill. That may change, but right now, that is a major problem, because to make up 12 votes from people who voted "no" the first time and are afraid of losing this time is going to be hard.

VELSHI: Let's talk about, we really are talking about a knife's edge here, Karen. We are talking about maybe having 216 votes if nothing goes wrong and that's not enough to pass it just yet. The president said that one of the underpinnings of the new proposal is no deals for anyone in exchange for getting their support.

TUMULTY: Well, there are deals and there are deals. There will be no deals written into this legislation, but there are all kinds of things that both the leadership of the Congress and the president can offer these members. They can offer them fund-raising help. They can offer them promises of good committee assignments in the future. The president can offer to come out and campaign for them in the fall. Or, you know, there is all sorts of goodies that can be distributed from federal agencies, too, or maybe some help with some other piece of legislation that the congressman or congresswoman wants.

VELSHI: What do we think, Shawn, in terms of -- you were talking about Stupak, you were talking about votes that he may control or others, are we -- is there anything that we are likely to see in the two-step process in the final legislation that everybody has to vote on that is going to entice people who didn't vote for it the first time around?

TULLY: Well, one of the major problems is the fix to the high cost plans. The Senate bill has very heavy excise taxes on high cost insurance plans that are not indexed to inflation. So, the unions are adamantly opposed to it.

It was supposed to be fixed before Scott Brown was elected in a conference committee. Unfortunately, now, it is still in the Senate bill, so the House has to be absolutely convinced that the Senate is going to gut that provision. Under the Obama guidelines, which came out about a week ago, he recommends raising that threshold to a very, very high level so it wouldn't really affect very many people.

But I -- this is, again, the problem that the Senate bill has to be swallowed whole by the House. They have to vote for, for example, the Cornhusker Kickback, and the Louisiana Purchase. This is not something that is going to be popular, especially if it cannot be fixed.

And reconciliation is a far more complicated process than advertised. For example, even if something affects the budget, if in balance it is more about policy than the budget, the parliamentarian is going to disallow it from reconciliation.

So many, many issues have to go through it. It is a very long process, and the lawyers for both sides sit with the parliamentarian and make arguments. It can take days, it is not easy.

VELSHI: I suspect we're all going to become experts at this.

Karen, go ahead.

TUMULTY: But in terms of who they looking who they can change no votes into yeses, they will be looking at, for instance, members of Congress who are retiring this fall. There are at least a couple of liberals who voted against the bill because it was not liberal enough. They essentially went so far to the left they ended up on the right, people like Dennis Kucinich. They will be going after them.

They will also be going after some conservative House members from relatively safe districts and they'll be saying, look, you voted against this other bill, the House bill, because it was too big, too expensive. The Senate bill is smaller, it has different ways of financing it. It doesn't have things like the public option in it. You can go back to the constituents and say, hey, I improved this bill. I helped make it smaller and more modest. And this is another argument they will be using it trying to change some of the no votes to yes.

VELSHI: Very interesting. And one topic we haven't gotten into here, but I will invite you back to do this as we are going to become experts on the process in the House and the Senate. Whether you wanted to know how the sausage is made or not, I suspect we are all going to be in the course of the next three weeks experts on how the sausage is made in Washington.

Shawn, great to see you. Shawn Tully is the editor-in-large at "Fortune" magazine. Karen Tumulty is the national political correspondent at "Time" magazine. Always our pleasure to have you both here. All right, a few moments ago I was telling you about a big wave, and that wasn't a great success on my part. We're going to try that again after this. We're going to tell you about a big wave with deadly consequences. What happened in the Mediterranean that caused two people to be killed aboard a 14-deck cruise ship? What caused it and could it have been avoided? I'll tell you when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: OK, investigators are headed to Barcelona to investigate the deaths of two people on a cruise ship off of the coast of Spain yesterday in the Mediterranean. The ship was on its way from Barcelona to Genoa, Italy. It had -- here's some video from it. It had 1,350 passengers, 580 crew on board. Get this, a 26-foot wave hit the bow of the ship, two people were killed as a result of it and 14 people were injured. Now this is a big ship. It had 14 decks, 5 windows on deck five were shattered.

Let's bring Chad in. Chad, you around?

CHAR MYERS, AMS METEOROLOGIST: I am, Ali. Right here.

VELSHI: This is what I was going to talk to you about earlier, but now we got that video, we got that all. Take this away, tell us what happened here.

MYERS: What happened was that there was a large storm in the Mediterranean. This is yesterday. A large low pressure with south winds coming in here, east of Italy here, and then all of these winds coming around and circulating into this low pressure center. As the low traveled from west-to-east across the Med where it is today over to the east, the winds were crescendoing (ph) right over a buoy that we saw that had 20-foot waves.

VELSHI: Right.

MYERS: Well, the boat left Barcelona and it was traveling over toward Italy. What I believe happened is that with all of these large ocean-type swells -- because the Med is an ocean, basically -- when the water got to this shelf, all of the sudden -- I don't know if you have ever been boating in Lake Erie, compared to Lake Michigan. Lake Michigan, the waves are like this. Lake Erie, the waves are like this because it is only 30-feet deep.

When these ocean swells got into the lower or this elevation here, the shallower depth of water, the waves increased in height. All of the sudden, the captain was going right into this storm. The winds were 60 miles an hour, this was not just some rogue wave from an earthquake somewhere. This was a furious storm that the cruise ship was going into, kind of like the "Deadliest Jobs" that Mike Rowe does with all those captains up there in Alaska. That is the type of storm with 60 to 70-miles-per-hour winds that the cruise ship was driving into.

VELSHI: I don't want to get you out -- I think of you as a guy who knows everything, so I'm likely to ask you questions about everything.

MYERS: Go ahead.

VELSHI: What are the options when you are in that kind of storm on a ship that size? Driving into it? Not doing -- what do you do?

MYERS: Well, the captain could have possibly gone around it, but not saying that the winds were any less strong down here and probably the waves weren't. If the captain did get into the Sholee (ph) area where the elevation or the depth of the water was not very big and because he was trying to stay away from the storm, he actually went the wrong way.

And any boater will say, hey, let me get closer to the shore here, maybe the waves won't be so big. That is what you usually think, but when you have giant swells coming in and then they are running up the shelf, you can increase the size of this.

The captain probably should have just let this boat sit there right out of Barcelona and said, hey, everybody, cocktails on the house, we're not going to be back in a day like we thought we were. It is hard to say, these boats have a schedule. They need to be where they want to be. But those were some big breakers coming over the bow of that boat.

VELSHI: So there were people who think that this was a rogue wave. It's not that you don't believe that rogue wave exist, you just don't think this was one of them.

MYERS: This was not rogue. This was a killer wave, but this was not just one wave out there in the ocean. There were large 20- footers, this was a 25-footer. No difference. Rogue means twice as big. So, for it to be a rogue wave, it would be a 40-footer and we don't think it was that big.

VELSHI: All right, Chad, thanks very much.

Chad Myers at the Severe Weather Center.

All right, checking out some top stories now.

It is a dispute that goes back almost a century, but it is threatening relations today between the U.S. and Turkey. A congressional committee is debating a bill that would officially call the 1915 killing of more than a million ethnic Armenians inside Ottoman, Turkey genocide. Turkey's government denies that genocide ever took place and is fiercely opposed to the resolution.

The president of Chile is touring areas of her country hit hard by last weekend's earthquake. Michele Bachelet's stops included a seaport damaged by a quake0induced tsunami. Chile's death toll from the quake now 802, and the aftershocks continue. They had one early this morning that was a magnitude 4.9.

And a quick update on the housing market. Fewer Americans than expected signed contracts to buy new homes in January. The National Association of Realtors says it's Pending Home Sales Index dipped 7.6 percent from December to January. That's a bit of a jolt. Economists were expecting a 1 percent increase.

When we come back, we are going to bring you up to speed on those protests that are taking place in 33 spots around the country protesting increased tuition, costs, budget cuts and cutbacks at state universities and campuses.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: All right, walkouts, rallies and protests are in the works across the country. College students and professors on more than 100 campuses are taking a stand against what they are calling an erosion in the quality of education and limited access to a college education.

Take a look at this map. It shows dozens of states, the ones in blue where demonstrations are planned today. Now most of the protests are going to focus on cuts to state-funded colleges and universities.

Here is a breakdown of what the students and professors are protesting. Number one, budget cuts they say have resulted in canceled classes, class waiting lists doubling or tripling. Then, layoffs. Layoffs of professors, teaching assistants resulting in fewer class options and larger classes. Also, tuition increases -- this is a big one -- making a higher education very, very difficult to some people, including those whose families may have been affected by the recession and the job cuts over the last couple of years.

Here is some pictures of today's action. It started last fall when California cut a billion dollars from the state's university system and that resulted in a 32 percent tuition increase there. Now states across the country which are crippled by financial crisis and budget shortfalls, they're following California's lead.

We asked for some comments on Facebook from some of you and in other places. I want to actually start with first some comments from an iReport. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OMEKONGO DIBINGA, IREPORTER: It has been said that if you want to study what the government truly values, look at its budget and there you will see where the priorities are. And more energy and time seems to be going into the creation of prisons and other types of correctional facilities than trying to maintain or even enhance our educational system, broken as it is.

So we need to show where we really have priority and value in this country, and that is in education. And unfortunately, it is just not the case right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELSHI: All right. Interesting and informed commentary there. Larry writes on Facebook, "You can't believe everything that teachers -- you can't blame everything on teachers. Kids want to come to school and learn. I think in areas where there is high unemployment, most kids don't see any hope for a future." Larry talking more about the education system not at the college level, but at the public level.

Another comment from CNN.com says, "I'm not opposed to student aid. However, I do have a problem with today's whiny students who think they are 'entitled' to a free ride... My parents were middle- class but chose not to help my siblings and me to pay for our college education... Yet we did not qualify for student aid because of our parents' incomes." Sounds like a little sour grapes there.

Jeff writes in and says, "Given the fact that local school boards are failing (not the teachers) America and the youth of America, get rid of them... federalize the U.S. schools... so an education in Alabama is the same as in Boston." Very interesting.

OK, when we come back, we will talk to Josh Levs, he is actually focusing on education today. So we're going to talk to him about the roots of this problem, which are in California. Stay with us, we're coming right back. There he is getting ready for it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: All right. I'm back here and it is too much fun working with Josh Levs. Josh and I have always had a great relationship and now I get to see him every day.

JOSH LEVS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That is actually the reason he's at headquarters now.

VELSHI: But you are so good at these things. And I got to say, the Stimulus Desk project that you have been working on, not everybody would think you would be the life of the party as a result of it. But you are studying this, and by the way, today you are in the center of the party, because there are protests across the country about tuition and education and you have been looking into this.

LEVS: Well, here is the thing, with California is obviously where this all began so we thought we would take a look at what has been done for California. But what is so amazing, what's so stark here -- and we will get to the numbers in a minute -- is that it's this bad after. They've gotten billions of dollars from the stimulus.

I think what I'm about to show you really drives home how unbelievably horrendous it is, because if you have all of the people out there who are protesting, who are screaming, who are so upset at what's going on in California, keep in mind what if they had not gotten billions and billions of dollars in just 12 months. That is how bad our economy has gotten when it comes to education.

Take a look at these figures, I've got a couple numbers for you. We're going to start off with the first one, which is how much money the California Department of Education alone -- look at that, Ali. They are getting $7 billion.

VELSHI: Wow. This is out of stimulus? Wow.

LEVS: Yes, this is just for California, and that's only for education funds in California, forget all the other money California gets. So in general, education is the biggest recipient out of the stimulus. California education, $7 billion dollars here -- $6.8 billion, all right. They have already spent half of it.

VELSHI: And by the way, when we talked to the White House, we talked to other people about jobs saved and created, they do tend to point out that in the public service, in teaching, firefighters and police, those are a lot of the saved jobs. Those are jobs that would have been eliminated because of the budget shortfalls, so that's part of the saved.

LEVS: Right, they can say that, yes. And in general, we're looking at the huge stimulus, we told you $862 billion was how much it costs. A lot of people heard about these shovel-ready jobs. They think of it, oh, they're going to fix my roads. They don't realize the vast majority or a lot larger chunk actually went to education, way more, no comparison. Ten times more money is paying for teachers than it is for people to fix your roads.

VELSHI: Very interesting. All right, what else you got?

LEVS: So, they spent $3.2 billion, now take a look here, the last figure I have for you. All right, so after this one, this is how many teachers and other educators are being paid out of this pile, we're talking about 50,000, actually a little more than 50,000. There you go, 50,000 jobs just in that one state of California.

VELSHI: And just in that one industry, in education.

LEVS: So, imagine. So you have the stimulus, the stimulus now paying for 50,000 people to work, $3.2 billion. And still, even with all of that money pouring in they are still telling university students you're going to have the pay thousands and thousands of dollars each year, we can't afford this. They're still cutting back in schools, they're still having to get rid of teachers, which means that little propping up certainly wasn't a fix. It's just a sign of how massively huge this is.

VELSHI: Right, and the state is putting in about $500 million into the public state education system, the university system, but it does not make up for the amount that's been cut out.

One of the problems here, I mean, California is a poster child for a lot of things in the country, it's a country unto itself in a lot of ways. Don't take that the wrong way, I just mean it's big and it's diverse. But part of the issue is that it's sort of a microcosm of all of these problems.

LEVS: It is.

VELSHI: It has a very, very big and well known and largely respected public university system.

LEVS: Yes.

VELSHI: It's state college system has been thought of as one of the best and one of the cheapest in the country.

LEVS: It is one of the best and they have gotten -- they have been getting some help from the government, they've gotten some help out of the stimulus. But even still, the economy is so bad and you can look back through all of the years -- I mean, you understand the numbers and lot of you have been following this too. You can look back through the years, see where mistakes were made, see where the system started to fall apart financially and realize that even billions of dollars from the federal government cannot prop it up enough to stop those tuition hikes.

VELSHI: Well, you have been covering this for five weeks? Something like that, the Stimulus Desk. I mean, you've really been going through all those projects. The reality is is it becomes hard to understand when we talk about how many jobs have been created or saved, it becomes hard to understand how much of this was stop-gap. You know, how much of this was just there to keep us at a level. I think there are people who think that when you spend $800 billion, you should be looking around and seeing cranes and bridges and streets and all sorts of people getting job. It's hard to measure how bad things were that you had to put $800 billion in and in some places, you are still below level.

LEVS: Yes, you have that. Plus, I will also say -- and you know this -- that there are those who argue, you know, what? It's not about the infusion of money, it's about mistakes, including mistakes in spending. And there are a lot of stringent rules over how to use this money, even with the stimulus money in general. For K-12, for college, you have to use it in certain ways or else you're going to get in trouble.

And the Department of Education is cracking down on some states, saying use it the right way. So in some cases, it could be some misspending along the way. And not in a lot of cases, it's just like the big picture of what's happening to our economy playing out in a very local level.

(CROSSTALK)

VELSHI: And there are two distinct views on that. There are some people who think a lot of it was misspent and others who say you can't even properly spend $800 billion.

LEVS: Well, you know it's probably both. I mean, it had to be both.

(CROSSTALK)

VELSHI: It's probably both. I think that's what you and I both learned, I think, studying the Stimulus Desk, that everybody has got a little bit of truth in this. LEVS: Somewhere along the way.

VELSHI: Good to see you. Great work on the Stimulus Desk.

All right, stay with us. When we come back, I got to talk to you about what you need to know about carrying a gun into Starbucks. Have you carried a gun into Starbucks?

LEVS: Into Starbucks? What?

VELSHI: Starbucks, yes. Carrying a gun into Starbucks, stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: All right, time now for "The X-Y-Z of It."

This one has me puzzled. If you walk into your local Starbucks and you see someone packing heat, are you walking out? A lot of people wouldn't. In fact, a matter of fact, a lot of people are making a point of walking into Starbucks carrying guns in states where it is legal to do so in public. Now that sparked protests from gun control advocates and kudos from pro-gun groups.

Here's my question -- do you really need a gun at Starbucks? Should you really mix your caffeine with bullets?

That aside, Starbucks says it's stores simply follow state laws and it is legal to carry weapons in 43 states. But businesses still have the right to prohibit customers from carrying guns inside, and gun control advocates want Starbucks to take a stand.

Why? I mean, think it is better for businesses not to weigh into this unwinnable debate. Are we seeing a checkerboard of businesses saying, yes, bring your gun in; no, you can't bring guns in. Let's face it, taking a stand either way would invite more protesters than customers, and inviting more people to try and prove some point rather than people trying to buy your product.

And isn't it better to save the steam for the lattes and not get your customer steamed? Let's have a grand grande dose of tolerance.

Here is my good friend Don Lemon sitting in for Rick on "RICK'S LIST."