Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Another Runaway Toyota Report; Recession and Public Schools

Aired March 09, 2010 - 14:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ALI VELSHI, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Sorry about that little problem we had. It seems somebody forgot to pay the bills. But we're getting Roland and Steve back up.

But here's what I've got "On the Rundown." It's a new hour, new rundown.

Nest egg? What nest egg? Too many of you have only a tiny fraction of what you need to retire on, but I'm on the case. I'm the money guy.

Plus, a lot of you don't even know how much you need to retire on, so you wouldn't know if you didn't have enough. Don't guess and don't roll the dice.

I'm going to break down the numbers. I'm going to build up your future.

Plus, health care, it is a hot topic in Congress, in people's homes, and on the streets. And that's where the protesters are right now, on the streets of D.C., aiming their anger at insurance companies who, by the way, are meeting at the Ritz-Carlton in D.C.

I'm going to show you what's going on there.

Also, what on earth caused two whole cities to shift, to move, physically move, one of them as much as 10 feet. We will find out what's at fault.

But first, is Jim Sikes' Toyota Prius the hybrid from hell, or could this be driver error or something else? The world is watching as the Japanese carmaker Toyota responds to yesterday's troubling, fascinating incident in southern California.

Let me recap this for you.

Mr. Sikes was cruising on Interstate 8 outside of San Diego. He tried to pass a slower vehicle. He accelerated.

The pedal, he says, stuck. The car shot forward. It got to 94 miles an hour, he said. It took a California Highway Patrol car to help him slow the thing down.

It pulls up alongside him, gets on the P.A. system, helps him to slow down. And then, as you can see in the picture, pulls up in front of him to make sure that car is stopped.

Listen to this

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES SIKES, PRIUS DRIVER: And I was just holding on to the steering wheel with my left hand, and I was down at an angle trying to pull -- just tried to pull it back. I thought it was maybe stuck.

I mean, my mat was perfect. There was nothing wrong with my mat. And the pedal, it wouldn't do anything. It stayed right where it was.

He got up on the side and told me what to do. And I was standing on the pedal. I was standing on the brake pedal looking out the window at him. And he said, "Push the emergency brake too."

And I laid on both of them, and it finally started slowing down right there. It was down to, like, 55. It had been at 94, I know that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS: All right. Toyota says it has dispatched a tech specialist to look at Sikes' '08 Prius, which, by the way, was involved in a recall for a floor mat, not for accelerating pedals on its own.

We have just heard that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is sending an investigation to California as well. This, of course, is the latest in a string of unintended acceleration complaints against Toyota which, if proven, could mean a whole new problem for the company. Because if you'll recall, gas pedal issues other than getting stuck on the mat were not previously a problem on the Prius. So they would get stuck on mat, but the pedal just sticking and not coming up on its own is not a problem that we're familiar with on the Prius.

Lauren Fix is an auto analyst. She's based in Buffalo. She joins me now. Lauren and I have talked several times.

I did not realize until my earlier conversation with you today, however, that you are something of an expert on brakes. And one of things we are learning here is that the acceleration concerns, cars, when you press the gas pedal, something electronic happens to make the car go. It's not a direct relationship as it is on the brakes, whereas brakes, particularly on the Toyota Prius -- and I don't know if this widespread -- are hydraulic, which means if you apply more pressure, something very directly clamps those brakes around the car -- around the wheels.

LAUREN FIX, AUTO ANALYST: Right. Actually, how the brake system works is, when you step on the pedal, there is fluid in something called a master cylinder. This is a very basic system I am describing, and that fluid comes from that reservoir down to the brakes. And what happens is two brake pads push against the rotor, which is the part of the wheel when you look between your wheels and you see that smooth surface. That's the brake rotor. It clamps it down and slows the car down, and adds frictional heat which slows the car down.

And on a Prius, it takes that heat which is energy and regenerates it back into recharging the battery. Now, there are different systems on doing that, but that is the basics of how it works on a Prius. And on most cars, it's hydraulic brakes.

There is no cable brakes anymore. This is not the '30s. And hydraulic brakes have been out forever and they work great.

Like I was saying earlier, my concern is drive-by wire (ph), which is electronic contact, which is totally different, is not something I want to be applied to the braking systems of cars which they have tested in Europe, which we do not need in this country until we can figure out the electronic problems. So many computers could create so many electromagnetic interferences, it could cause computer glitches, and I personally don't want it on my car.

VELSHI: So, but your point in this whole thing is that Jim Sikes did what you think is correct. His car would not stop. He reached down and tried to get the pedal down. At 90 miles an hour that's got to be dodgy because you're not looking at the road. But he said he was basically standing on that brake pedal, he was applying all his weight to try and stop that car.

Do you think he was doing the right thing?

FIX: Right. It sounds like he was doing the right thing.

He was actually paying attention. Mr. Sikes did say that he looked in his mirrors and realized that there were cars behind him. That if he had shut the car off suddenly, he was afraid someone would hit him from behind, which is actually quite smart.

So he was thinking pretty clearly, that he actually reached down to pull up the pedal. He knew what was going on around him. He had the good sense to call 911 to get some direction, and he followed what that operator had told him. And I think that was really wise on his part.

One of the things that I would have always told someone to do is to put on your four-ways immediately, which it's hard to be clear in a panic situation, and let the world around you know, there's a problem. And then you can start playing around with possibly shutting the car off, looking for an escape route.

But he said there were mountains and he said there were cliffs. And the last thing he wanted to do was find his vehicle upside down in one of them. And I don't blame him. So he did the best he could and was very lucky that the police could help him.

VELSHI: Keep that escape route, call 911, put those flashers on, try and apply your emergency brake if you can. And if you're in the business of prayer, you might want to cash in on that.

FIX: Use neutral.

VELSHI: Yes, use neutral, that's right. Put the car into neutral. That's your first piece of advice.

FIX: That's always good.

VELSHI: Should you if you are not in a Prius --

FIX: Absolutely. Put the car in neutral first, disconnect.

VELSHI: And should you try to turn it off if you've got a mechanical, like the regular key that I have?

FIX: Right. Don't turn it off so that you actually pull the key out. There's an accessory mode. It's like halfway completely off and starting the engine. That's here you want it to be so you at least have a little bit of the ability to steer the wheel and the steering wheel won't lock on you. Because if it does, then you really have a problem.

VELSHI: Right.

FIX: And I'm sure you have had that happen, where you put the key in and you have to jostle the wheel a little bit to get the wheel to break loose.

But, you know, one of the things that National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is talking about doing, which I think would be a really great safety feature, because I'm really big on safety, is putting a system in that would -- an override, a brake override system, they are officially calling it. And they want to mandate that.

Now, that has not been confirmed, but Senator Rockefeller and a couple of others are really wanting to get involved in this now. It is an election year, so I expect that you will see everybody jumping on the bandwagon, because protecting consumers should always be the number one cause, not just in an election year.

VELSHI: All right. I appreciate you being on here for this. And I'm really fascinated to know how much you know about brakes.

All right. Lauren Fix, automotive analyst, in Buffalo.

FIX: It's what I do.

VELSHI: I suspect we'll be seeing a lot of Lauren. Sometimes we'll actually have her on and it won't be bad news.

All right. Lauren Fix in Buffalo.

For an in-depth look into the Toyota recall, go to CNN.com/Toyota. You can find out if your car has been recalled and what to do about it. CNN.com/Toyota. We're going to take a break. We've got Steve Perry and Roland back. We're going to talk about public education. There they are.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: OK. Sorry about the glitch there. I've got our CNN education contributor, Steve Perry, and CNN analyst Roland Martin back talking about schools and how the recession is affecting your kid's school, the quality of education, the length of the school week.

Thank you, guys, for being with us.

Roland, Steve was talking before we lost your satellite feed. Steve was talking about this shift from urban centers to magnet schools, to charter schools, to suburban areas, which is interesting and has been beneficial to a lot of students and their families. It has been particularly devastating to those left behind in those schools where they don't have charter schools and magnet schools.

ROLAND MARTIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, first of all, keep in mind, I actually went to magnet schools in elementary school, junior high, as well as in high school, and it was still a part of a the Houston school system. Also, in many states, charter schools are part of the local school system as well.

VELSHI: Right.

MARTIN: One of the fundamental problems here though is when you look at in terms of where are the numbers. In Kansas City, for instance -- and we'll talk about that a little bit later -- where they went from the '70s, some 70,000-plus students down to 18,000, the reality is, if you're still trying to service 18,000 students for the same facilities, it's simply not going to work.

But also, the political issue here, the funding and how it's done. And that is, you say the schools get money from property taxes. But also, it's also based upon those particular counties.

And so, richer school districts where you have far more dollars going, where you have people who are living in apartments in the inner city, and now homeowners, that also impacts the available dollars there. You have folks like state Senator James Meeks of Illinois. I know him well, my pastor. He has been trying to change the funding model, saying you cannot -- you have an inequity when you have it based upon property taxes and the money's going to suburban areas --

(CROSSTALK)

VELSHI: Well, that sounds like it makes sense, Roland. But Steve is giving a vigorous shake of the head.

PERRY: That's right. That's right. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but you and I, Roland, I don't know, they cut us off in midstream. But anyway, it's not entirely true that there's a great disparity between urban funding and suburban funding because, in many cases, most of the urban centers don't fund their own schools. Most of their funding comes from outside sources. That being the federal government and state property taxes.

In fact, if you look at a state like Connecticut, where you have Hartford, which gets approximately $14,000 per pupil, you can go all the way down to Greenwich, which is one of the wealthiest counties in the country. They also get $14,000 per pupil.

The populations that tend to get the least amount of money are not the urban centers, but, in fact, the rural centers. So when we talk about --

MARTIN: But remember, it varies by state.

PERRY: -- disparities in funding, we have to make sure that we're talking about it.

MARTIN: No, no. Again, though, but you used Connecticut. First of all, they tried to change the education funding in Texas with the whole Robin Hood plan, which a judge declared unconstitutional because they were taking money from rich districts and giving it to the poor districts.

That's also the problem there, Ali. Again, what you have is, you don't have really a federal system when it comes to education. You have the various state systems, then you have the county systems, and then you have in the city.

So, it is a different situation from Connecticut, from Texas, from Illinois. So it's all (ph) one.

VELSHI: Let's start with Steve then. Let's look at a solution right now.

Let's talk about how we deal with the fact that there are some schools that are working very well across this country. No question performance rates have gone up. Some of them because kids are going to charter schools, some going to magnet schools, some straight-up, normally-funded public schools are having improvements in the way they teach.

What is the solution to what we're talking about, teachers getting cut, schools getting consolidated, school hours, teaching hours getting cut?

PERRY: Well, one of the solutions is, as you mentioned -- because there's no dearth of students for the best schools. Those schools have waiting lists regardless of what type of school they are.

So, one of the things that we need to do is begin to allow those schools that have been successful to proliferate, meaning that they are allowed to replicate even within the same communities. Instead of taking the same failed large schools and pouring more money into them so that we fail more children, what we need to do is allow public and private options.

School districts such as Milwaukee allow vouchers. It's not a full-out voucher because it's not a fair amount of money --

(CROSSTALK)

PERRY: But if you have a straight voucher system, some families could home school and not have to lose their family's income because they made that decision.

VELSHI: All right. That's -- and we're going to have a separate discussion on vouchers. I think we're going to have you guys back a lot.

But Roland, what's your solution?

MARTIN: Well, I think -- again, I think what you're seeing in Kansas City is a good example, and that is, say, wait a minute. How can we continue to fund a system based upon a 1970s model?

Every single one of these school districts must make some of the hard-core business decision and not deal with the emotion of parents who are saying, oh, this is my school, I went here, don't shut it down. But if it is not helping the child today, you cannot be making decisions based upon 20, 30 years ago.

So I think applying strong business practices as to how you're organizing these schools -- if the money's not there, you simply can't pay for it. You can't -- there are $50 million shortfalls. It's not going to work.

VELSHI: All right. I can't believe it. You two are both agreeing on something.

Listen, voucher, charter schools, magnet schools, things like that, these are very specific things that you both know a lot about. And I think it's probably useful to our viewers if we bring you back and we have specific conversations about those things -- the benefits, the opposition to them, and the solutions.

Thanks very much for being with us, and especially sticking with us with this technical problem.

Steve Perry is our CNN education contributor in Hartford. Roland Martin is our CNN analyst in Chicago.

MARTIN: A shout-out to my four (ph) teachers in the family.

VELSHI: There you go. Roland is from a family of teachers.

All right. When we come back, here's an interesting story, still about schools. A preschooler gets booted from a Catholic school, not because of too many timeouts or bad grades, but because the kid has two moms.

We'll tell you about that when we come back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(WEATHER REPORT)

VELSHI: Listen, I want to update you on a story that we're following very closely. This is the story of the producer who allegedly tried to extort money from David Letterman. Our producer Julian Cummings is just outside the courtroom now; he's just come out.

Julian, what do we have?

JULIAN CUMMINGS, CNN PRODUCER (via telephone): Hi, Ali. How are you? Mr. Halderman --

(AUDIO GAP)

-- and second degree attempted grand larceny. The sentence for that will be six months and five years probation. He'll be formally sentenced on May fourth.

In court, Mr. Halderman spoke to the judge and read a statement. He admitted that in September of 2009, (INAUDIBLE) to extort $2 million from Mr. Letterman by (INAUDIBLE) to disclose personal information both true and false. He also went on to apologize and offered some remorse and the quote he said here, "I had great remorse to what I have done to Mr. Letterman and his family and to Stephanie Birkitt and her family." And Stephanie Birkitt is a former Letterman employee who was mentioned as the possible woman involved with the affairs with Mr. Letterman.

VELSHI: All right, so, Julian, it's second-degree larceny, he's got six months -- so he's six months of jail time? He's is going to jail for six months?

CUMMINGS: Yes, that appears to be the case. Once on May fourth (INAUDIBLE). He is free to go today, and he's expected to be outside of New York City Supreme Court shortly, and we are hearing he may make some statements.

VELSHI: All right, and the charge initially was grand larceny, so it does appear to be some sort of a plea arrangement or some arrangement he came to, because, as you said, he read that statement that he did extort money from or try to extort money from David Letterman.

This is a live picture. Julian, I don't know who that gentleman is, but we're going to listen in right now and you tell our who that is.

CUMMINGS: All right.

VELSHI: This is the accused's attorney, John Holliman's (sic) attorney.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Five seconds, everybody. Go ahead, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And we're up.

GERALD SHARGEL, HALDERMAN'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: OK. So this afternoon, Mr. Halderman plead guilty to grand larceny by extortion and in an effort to resolve this matter. It is now behind him.

QUESTION: Have you spoken to Mr. Letterman?

SHARGEL: No, we haven't spoken to Mr. Letterman. We have never spoken to Mr. Letterman.

QUESTION: Why chose guilty?

QUESTION: Why (OFF-MIKE) with your client? Why (OFF-MIKE) not go to trial?

SHARGEL: Well, Julia, we had a novel defense here involving complicated legal issues. I was very excited about the defense, but it was going to be a long road ahead of us. And considering the risks and the rewards and the need for Joe to put this behind him and get on with his life, these things were paramount.

QUESTION: In the beginning, you said that we would find out that it was not all that it seemed. Is that still the case in your eyes?

SHARGEL: Well, here is the point, I mean, there was never a dispute about the facts of the case, whether the demand was delivered. That wasn't the -- that wasn't the issue. The issue was -- involved the question of Mr. Halderman's legal rights.

And as I said a moment ago, it was a novel defense. We weighed the defense, we weighed the prospects of going to trial and felt it was the best way to resolve it.

Now, Mr. Halderman is going to make a statement, he's not going to take any questions, and then we will move on and give us an opportunity to walk away.

All right. OK. Here we go.

ROBERT "JOE" HALDERMAN, DEFENDANT: I just wanted to say that, again, I apologize to Mr. Letterman, his family, to Stephanie Birkitt, her family, and certainly to my friends and family. I will not be doing any interviews and I thank you all for your patience.

QUESTION: Can you at least help us to understand why you did it? Can you answer that question?

SHARGEL: We are not answering any further questions. The plea speaks for itself, the allocution is specific and clear, and we are relying on that.

Thank you very much.

VELSHI: All right, as he said, the allocution is specific and clear. This was Robert "Joe" Halderman, a former CBS News producer pleading guilty to second-degree grand larceny, given a sentence of six months in jail, five years of probation, 1,000 hours of community service -- 500 of those to be served in New York, 500 in Connecticut.

In his allocution, he says, I apologize to Mr. Letterman and his family, certainly my friends and family. He also just came to the microphone after his lawyer spoke and said once again that he apologizes to Mr. Letterman and his family. Said he will not being doing any interviews, stepped away and when asked why he did it, the lawyer responded that it speaks for itself.

He is leaving now, that is him who just got into the car now. These -- the car doors are closing. He has made the statement, it looks like he is leaving court.

Our producer Julian Cummings was there through the court proceedings. I don't know if Julian is still there --

CUMMINGS: I am, yes.

VELSHI: Julian, you there?

CUMMINGS: I am here, Ali.

VELSHI: All right, he said that the allocution spoke for itself. Tell us again what he said in court.

CUMMINGS: Well, he spoke directly, you know, admitting that he committed the extortion, it was for a million dollars. He mentioned in detail about meeting with Letterman's driver, (INAUDIBLE) the screenplay. He said again, writing the check that was exchanged (INAUDIBLE) which was the phony check that led to the initial charges against him. He basically said, I understand that I -- the charges. That I was to extort $2 million from Mr. Letterman, and it was a crime.

VELSHI: Julian Cummings, thanks very much.

Is our producer in New York, he was in the courtroom reporting on this. We will continue to bring any information -- any other information that comes out of this, but it looks like we have got the information.

Robert "Joe" Halderman pleading guilty to second-degree grand larceny. He'll spend six months in jail. As you saw, he was free to go, he will be sentenced at a later date. We'll keep you up to speed on that story. Thanks, Julian, and to Brooke Anderson, who brought us that news earlier.

OK, a lot of you are not saving nearly enough for your retirement. A lot of you don't even know how much enough will be. I'm going to break it down for you, so you want to come back after the break with a pencil and paper, because I'm going to give you something to think about.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: These attorneys representing David Letterman. Let's listen in. (JOINED IN PROGRESS)

DANIEL HOROWITZ, LETTERMAN'S ATTORNEY: -- a just and appropriate result was inevitable. On behalf of my family, I am extremely grateful for their tireless efforts. Thank you very much.

QUESTION: Not taking questions?

VELSHI: Let me read to you what those two attorneys just read. That was Dan Horowitz and John Abernathy, they are attorneys for David Letterman reading a statement that was issued by David Letterman. Let me read you that statement now, it said, "I would like to thank the district attorney of Manhattan, Cyrus R. Vance, Jr.; the former district attorney, Robert M. Morganthau; the Special Prosecution's Bureau in the DA's office; and the New York City Police Department. When they became involved with this case, I had complete faith that a just and appropriate result was inevitable. On behalf of my family, I am extremely grateful for the tireless efforts."

And you will recall, when David Letterman's driver first received the transcript of the book that was going to be published -- the transcript that was going the go out itemizing David Letterman's affairs, he then agreed to meet up with Halderman and give him a check. The check was phony. It was a set-up. It was meant to get the extortion on tape, and that is how the police became involved in this, charging Robert "Joe" Halderman, who has now pleaded guilty for -- guilty of second-degree grand larceny. He has been given six months in jail, five years probation, 1,000 hours of community service -- 500 of those in New York, 500 in Connecticut.

All right, I want to shift gears right now. I want to talk about retirement. I promised I would give you some very specific details on retirement. So many of you don't know if you have enough money or don't know how much money you should need. I want to show you a few things.

This is a new survey that is out that shows that there are a lot of Americans with just no -- not enough retirement and savings. This is from the Employees Benefit Research Institute, 66 percent of people who responded said they have less than 50,000 saved for retirement, and that's the vast majority. The second biggest group, less than 10,000; 43 percent of you have less than 10,000 saved for retirement. Eleven percent have more than 250,000 saved for retirement. And if you get some sense of how much retirement costs, this is an alarming number to know that very few people have more than 250,000 saved for retirement.

Sixteen percent of respondents said they do have confidence in their ability to save enough money for a comfortable retirement. So that's the good news. This, by the way s the second lowest number in the 20-year history of the survey.

Now, why do you not have enough money for retirement? Why are people not saved up? Let me give you the reasons there.

Seventy-nine percent say they can't afford to save, which means too much of their money is going toward other expenses. Six percent say they have other priorities; 6 percent have other priorities. I think they probably plan to marry rich or win the lottery. Five percent have not found the time. Well, what are you waiting for? Find the time. Four percent say they have plenty of time to save. So it's probably a younger generation, although it is so much easier to save money when you are young, when you start putting it altogether.

All right, finally, I want to know how you know how much money that you need for retirement? How do you know how much you need? Forty-four percent of you -- look at that -- question mark; 44 percent, guess. Folks, it is the age of the Internet, stop guessing. Twenty-six percent of you don't even bother guessing, you just come up with your own estimate. Eighteen percent use a financial adviser. Nine percent read or hear. So this is not bad. I mean, at least there are some people who are doing something. Guessing? I don't know about that.

Poppy Harlow joins me now, she is an anchor for CNNMoney.com. This is an interesting proposal from the Obama administration. They are going to change the way poverty is calculated and that's got important implications, Poppy.

POPPY HARLOW, CNNMONEY.COM CORRESPONDENT: it really does, because we wanted to know where people think the poverty line is even drawn in this country, Ali. We went out into the streets here in New York -- which, by the way, doesn't represent the masses, you're talking about an extremely expensive place to live -- but we wanted to seem from them what do they think constitutes the poverty level in this country.

Take a quick listen to some of the answers we got.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I would say anything less than $60,000 a year would be poverty for a family of four.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Income, probably $40,000, $45,000 a year.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would say 15,000 to 20,000.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think a family making $80,000 for a family of four is below poverty line.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: OK. They were all wrong -- $80,000 was very far off. This is the number, Ali, according to the 2009 federal guidelines, $22,050 a year to support a family of four. If you make any more than that, you are above the poverty line, any less you are under it. Ali, this is the number that is key for how much you get in Medicaid, welfare and food stamps.

And it's a very low number, many would argue. It has not been changed, Ali, in 40 years. And that's why you see the Obama administration coming in and announcing in just the past few days, we're going to look at changing this so that we can have a more accurate read on what and who is living beneath that poverty line in the country.

Here is why. Take another listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REBECCA BLANK, COMMERCE UNDERSECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC AFFAIRS: The administration has basically proposed to produce a supplementary poverty measure that will be produced next to the official measure and will not replace it anyway, but will give us a second lenses, another way to look at the issues.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: And, Ali, I think it's all well and good to have that second lens, but the question that I'm left with here is well, it's not going to affect how much money, at least at this point, is doled out to the people that need it. It's going to, quote/unquote, "advise policymakers," Ali.

VELSHI: All right, so what are we talking about here? What is the number?

HARLOW: When we look at this number, I want to take New York as an example, because we don't know yet what the new guidelines are going to be exactly, but let's take the example of New York. When you go by the federal guidelines in 2008 for New York, people that were making almost $22,000 or less were considered in poverty.

But if you look at New York City, they created -- this city created its own calculation to say who is living in poverty and who is not. Their limit, their threshold if you will, was over $30,000. The difference in the amount of people that affects, Ali, is 350,000 more people in one city alone were qualified as living in poverty when you go by these new guidelines that New York City has.

That is a prime example. If you multiply that across the country, the reality is we are likely facing more people living in poverty than we are acknowledging right now by the guidelines we are going with. That's why the Obama administration is taking this on. It is not getting the headlines in the wake of everything else that the administration is dealing with, but it is very important given the state of economy right now.

VELSHI: Very good. Poppy, thank you very much.

You can see Poppy on CNNMoney.com.

By the way, I promised you that I would tell you about how much you would need to retire. I gave you all that information, you can go to CNNMoney.com, by the way. They have fantastic calculators, including a retirement calculator. Again, those 44 percent of you who are guessing, don't do that.

Many financial advisers say you need to save about 10 percent of your salary in order to be successful in retirement, but that kind of depends on when you started saving, so it is a little bit different for everybody. Many people say you need about 80 percent of your pre- retirement salary to exist in retirement. So when you go into these retirements calculators, it's going to ask you how much money you want to live on.

You need to think about the fact that when you retire, you're not going to have some of the same expenses that you have while you are working, but you may have new ones. You might want to travel. You might want to have a vacation home. You might want to have a membership at a golf club. So think about that, but please don't guess. Go to CNNMoney.com, hit on the retirement calculator and find out how much you need to retire.

All right, that's me, that's the money side. Now I'm going to switch you over to our brilliant Ed Henry. He is standing by for "The Ed Henry Segment" in Washington.

Are you wearing pinstripes?

ED HENRY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, what do you think?

VELSHI: All right, we're bringing it here. We got Tony Harris, we got Roland Martin, we got Ali Velshi, and now you have Ed Henry all bringing you the stripes today. But he's got some real news. He just got out of the White House briefing. Stay with us on the other side of the break, we're going to hear from Ed Henry.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: All right, Ed Henry, there you are. I'm so concentrated on my topic list for you, Ed, because it has to do with nudity.

HENRY: Yes, well, yes.

VELSHI: Help me out here. Why are we talking about nudity? You and I talked about nudity yesterday, which was a first for "The Ed Henry Show" as I recall.

HENRY: It was a first, it may be an all-time low, and -- but we were talking about it in the context of politics. This Congressman Massa, the gift that keeps on giving, I guess, in a way, not for democrats though. And what just happened in the White House briefing room is -- it's kind of a funny behind-the-scenes moment, right before Robert Gibbs came out, several reporters, some of my colleagues from other networks and newspapers and whatnot we're saying, OK, who is going to ask the Rahm Emanuel naked in the shower question.

VELSHI: Right, so just to recast this -- Massa has announced his retirement --

HENRY: Yes, he resigns yesterday and says part of the reason he's leaving, he claims democrats pushed him out because he is a "no" on health care. He says that last year, Rahm Emanuel was naked in the House gym as was Congressman Massa and in some sort of a shower, jabbed a finger in his chest and it was some sort of naked-lobbying campaign going on.

So everybody before the briefing today -- it was our first chance to ask Robert Gibbs on camera about it, because there was no briefing yesterday-- who is going to ask the question. And I thought, you know, the person who went before me from Reuters basically asked about lobbying on health care. And I thought, OK, here's a natural transition -- Robert, I got to ask you, we are talking about lobbying, have you talked to Rahm Emanuel yet about the naked lobbying in the House gym and is this standard procedure around here. And there was a little bit of laughter. Robert sort of turned red, laughed a little bit, but basically said, I haven't asked Rahm about it, you can go e- mail him if you want, because he really didn't want to touch that.

So I followed up and asked about Massa in general. And then Robert Gibbs kind of went off a little bit, because, look, they are frustrated here that this the congressman who is now gone has basically changed his story three or four times in the last week about exactly why he's leaving. First, it was that he had cancer, then it was that there was some ethics investigation, now it's that democrats pushed him out.

So this whole naked shower thing is sort of a weird sidebar to it that maybe gives the story some leg, so-to-speak, I guess. But everyone, everyone around here wants this one to go down the drain. They think it has already gone down the drain.

VELSHI: No kidding. All right, so once you got past that, did you get a chance to talk about health care?

HENRY: You know, we got to talk about health care. It is interesting, some my colleagues were talking about the deadline. Robert Gibbs, last week, set a deadline of March 18th, before the president leaves for Indonesia and Australia.

And you've heard deadlines come and go at this White House. Let's face it, for the last year it was going to be done before July and then it was the August recess, it was Labor Day -- they have all come and gone. Robert Gibbs, last week, said, this one is for real, the House and Senate have to get it done.

My colleague Deirdre Walsh, our Capitol Hill producer today, was in a briefing with Steny Hoyer, a top democrat on the Hill, who said, Robert Gibbs is the only one who set that deadline. We haven't set that deadline, and basically said it's not going to happen.

And so some of my colleagues were just pressing Robert Gibbs about it. He insists this deadline is for real and was pretty firm about it. But I have to tell you, a lot of other democrats in the town just didn't believe it is going to get done by March 18th. So here is the president's domestic agenda still hanging in the balance.

VELSHI: Yes, I mean, one wonders whether they don't have meetings behind closed doors and say, don't anybody ever give a deadline around here.

HENRY: Well, and if the democrats can't get on the same page communications-wise about when this thing is going to get done, it sort of does raise the question about whether they can get it done.

I think the final point I'd make on it is that someone else also asked about if the president's trip to Indonesia's trip is going to get delayed. Robert Gibbs answered very carefully -- you know, to stay behind here to lobby -- and Robert Gibbs said, he is still planning to go to Indonesia -- I think it's on the 8th, 19th. That obviously leaves the door open to change. He is not saying he is changing his schedule, but if this thing is down to crunch time and they're trying to get a vote on the 18th, the 19th and can delay his trip by a week to get it done, he wants to get this thing done.

VELSHI: And if he goes, you may be going to Indonesia as well.

HENRY: The president wants to take care of business.

I understand this morning you were taking care of business. You apparently had a hat on during your morning meeting. I saw it all over Facebook.

VELSHI: Let's just take it back to Massa this morning, this whole idea of naked lobbying. You always have to be prepared for people to know what is going on. I was getting ready for my meeting and we were trying out this video system and I had a hat on and someone sent the picture.

HENRY: It's sounds like too much explanation there. I feel like you're hiding something else. There's all this like this video thing, and this --

VELSHI: Well, I was trying out video conferencing, a way of doing business. That is all it is.

HENRY: I'm just saying, maybe if you brought a hat to "The Ed Henry Segment," it would be kind of strong.

VELSHI: I have to bring something. Now that you are bringing the stripes, I must say, it's nice. Four guys now at CNN wearing the striped suits today. I will send you all a memo, you and Tony Harris and Roland about what is going on.

Ed, good to see you, as always, my friend. We do it every day, with Ed Henry. He's our senior White House correspondent, takes us inside a little bit -- although, with that whole shower thing, he took us a little too far inside -- takes us inside and tells us what is going on.

When we come back, an interesting story for you about a toddler, a little kid, who has been thrown out of school in Colorado for not the obvious reasons. Stay with me, and I will tell you what I think about that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: Time now for "The X-Y-Z of It."

By the way, I've already gotten in trouble a few times from some of our viewers about talking about gay marriage, talking about public schools, and guess what, I am about to tackle a matter of faith, religion and education, and a child in Boulder, Colorado. I don't know the child's name, I don't even know whether it is a boy or girl and I would not tell you if I did. That's because he or she is at the center of a painful controversy that you heard me talk about earlier today.

The child was enrolled in a Catholic preschool, Sacred Heart of Jesus, but isn't being allowed to reenroll for the fall, not because of anything that the child did or did not do or for a lack of space or a tuition problem, but because the child's parents are lesbians. The child is not welcomed at Sacred Heart of Jesus school because he or she is raised by a same-sex couple.

This past Sunday, protestors gathered outside mass. Here's what one of them had to say to our affiliate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLLEEN SCANLAN LYONS, PARENT: I have a daughter here that goes to school at Sacred Heart, I have had 16 years of Catholic education, and this just reached the core of my being as completely wrong and against the teachings of Jesus.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELSHI: That was outside of the mass. Inside of the mass, the Pastor Bill Breslend (ph) defended his decision. Now some accounts say the Archdiocese of Denver decided for him once officials got wind of the child's family life. The Archdiocese says, and I quote, "Parents living in open discord with Catholic teaching... choose by their actions to disqualify their children from enrollment" end quote. It also says, as does Father Breslend, that the child might be confused to learn values at school that conflict with his or her raising.

Now the Catholic Church, as everyone knows, considers homosexual conduct disordered and sinful. And this is America, Catholic schools and schools, private institutions, are fully within their rights to accept or reject anyone they choose. But believe me when I say, I am not taking sides. I do wonder how many other parents of Sacred Heart School are scrutinized for practices that conflict with Catholic teaching. How many other children are turned away for the alleged sins of their parents. And I wonder, in the case of this family, this child, what would Jesus do.

I'm Ali Velshi, time now for "RICK'S LIST."

Here is Rick Sanchez.