Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
End of the Recession?; Key Vote for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"; Should Bush Tax Cuts Be Kept?; Does Football Stress Post Dangers?
Aired September 20, 2010 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: Never quit.
CNN NEWSROOM continues right now with Ali Velshi in New York City. That's the way to start the week. Have a good one, Ali.
ALI VELSHI, CNN ANCHOR: And Tony, good to see you, man. I'm looking forward to seeing you back in person in Atlanta.
HARRIS: Yes, sir.
VELSHI: You have a great afternoon.
As Tony said, I'm Ali Velshi. For the next two hours, today and every day, I'll guide you through the maze of information coming your way. Together, we'll learn what's going on at home and around the world. You'll get access to the folks who can best explain what it means today and the impact beyond today. We'll showcase the best ideas in innovation, philanthropy and public education. My mission is to help you figure out what's going on around and how it fits into your life.
So let's get started. Here's what I've got on the "Rundown."
It is a crucial moment for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The Senate taking it up again just ahead of a crucial vote. We'll look at the policy's turbulent history and its possible outcome.
Plus, his job, his heart, or both. We'll take a closer look at what might have triggered a Big 10 coach's heart attack this weekend.
And when judges in Missouri sentence people now, they won't just look at the perpetrator; they'll also look at the price tag. Considering the cost of prison from the judge's bench. Supporters say it's about time. Critics say it has no place in the justice system.
Well, the recession is over. In fact, the National Bureau of Economic Research, the folks who decide when it starts and when it's over, says it's been over a long time: more than a year. They say it ended in June of 2009, making it the longest recession since World War II.
But a lot of Americans are probably saying, "Well, it doesn't really feel like it's over." The National Bureau of Economic Research declined to call the end of the recession when they had a chance to do it in May. They didn't feel like there was definitive enough proof at the time, but this declaration means an end to any current growth. Well, what it means, if that if there's -- if anything else turns around, it will be a separate recession. So no more talk of a double- dip recession.
By the way, the last time there was a double-dip recession, some people say, was in the early '80s. Others say that those were two separate recessions with some recovery in between.
But the bottom line is, whether or not the recession is over, it's hard to understand why, because it doesn't feel like it's over. For a lot of people, who are still out of a job, the recession feels very, very real. So let's talk about that a little bit.
Let me explain this with Lakshman Achuthan. He is the managing director of the Economic Cycle Research Institute. He's written a book called "Beating the Business Cycle," and basically his organization, it's what you do for a living.
LAKSHMAN ACHUTHAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, ECONOMIC CYCLE RESEARCH INSTITUTE: Yes.
VELSHI: You track these economic cycles.
ACHUTHAN: Recessions and recoveries.
VELSHI: You were with me before this recession started, and you told us we in recession before anybody else called it. You were with me last spring and last summer when you said the recession is over. Do you agree with, first of all, this judgment?
ACHUTHAN: Yes. In April '09, we said the recession would end in the summer of '09.
VELSHI: Right.
ACHUTHAN: And this -- so we do agree with this.
VELSHI: Right.
ACHUTHAN: And we have been saying it was June or July. I totally accept the June date. Why it's important is because the National Bureau of Economic Research is an objective -- they're using an objective methodology. We all have our feelings --
VELSHI: Right.
ACHUTHAN: -- as we're going to get to in a second.
VELSHI: Right.
ACHUTHAN: But they're use an objective scorecard for when the economy is expanding and contracting, when it's in a recovery or when it's in a recession, and it ended in June of '09.
Now, what -- let's be clear what that means. All it means is that the economy made it into the recovery room. OK? And started a process of healing. Now, anyone who has been in that situation --
VELSHI: Right.
ACHUTHAN: And made it into a recovery room knows that it still really, really, really hurts --
VELSHI: Yes.
ACHUTHAN: -- when you're in the recovery room, and we're still there. Le's be very, very clear. That's part of the reason, a big part of the reason why, you know, man on the street right now is going to say, who are these guys saying that?
VELSHI: Yes. Who made them the boss? Are they -- I mean, they take their time about this. Never tell you the recession ended last month.
ACHUTHAN: No, no, no.
VELSHI: It's always in a rearview mirror.
ACHUTHAN: Always rearview mirror.
VELSHI: Right.
ACHUTHAN: This time it took 15 months to see the end of the recession.
VELSHI: Right.
ACHUTHAN: Which, OK, that's actually faster. That's an improvement over the previous two recoveries, where it took 20 months to see it. To see it.
VELSHI: Not the length of the recession.
ACHUTHAN: Yes.
VELSHI: So it's still the longest recession since the Great Depression.
ACHUTHAN: Yes.
VELSHI: I guess let's just get back to what you said. A lot of my viewers are going to sit there and say it doesn't feel --
ACHUTHAN: No.
VELSHI: -- like we're out of a recession. How much has -- in an economy like ours, which prior to the recession was so driven by consumer spending, how much does how you have to feel, how you feel about the economy have to do with the actual state of the economy?
ACHUTHAN: It has something to do with it. And -- but your perceptions of what are going on actually lack. I mean, just the same way going into the recession, there was a lag recognition that we were in recession.
VELSHI: Yes.
ACHUTHAN: I mean it lagged by at least half a year, if not more, for most people, including the markets. So in this recovery, the objective data, you see GDP. We've recovered 70 percent of the GDP that was lost during the recession.
VELSHI: So 70 percent of our economic growth before the recession we're back to?
ACHUTHAN: Well, yes -- no. In the recession --
VELSHI: Right.
ACHUTHAN: GDP shrank.
VELSHI: Right.
ACHUTHAN: We've recovered 70 percent of that. We've recovered 50 percent of industrial production lost during the recession.
VELSHI: That's all the stuff we make? The value of everything we make?
ACHUTHAN: Yes, factory output --
VELSHI: Right.
ACHUTHAN: -- kind of stuff. Then you've recovered about 50 percent of income lost during the recession for the nation.
VELSHI: Right.
ACHUTHAN: About 40 percent of sales for the nation. So these are all --
VELSHI: All of that's in the right direction?
ACHUTHAN: All that's in the right direction. Now, here's the problem.
VELSHI: Yes.
ACHUTHAN: This is why it feels no good and like there's no recovery. Is because you've only recovered 9 percent of the private- sector jobs that were lost during the recession. It's a huge --
VELSHI: Right. And that is where most people feel it.
ACHUTHAN: Absolutely. Confidence is all about your job. I mean, if you're working, you're going to feel kind of good.
VELSHI: Right.
ACHUTHAN: And if you're not, and if you're looking for a job, not getting one, it's a depression.
VELSHI: So let's be clear. You can have economic recovery without corresponding job growth? It's hard to imagine that possible.
ACHUTHAN: Yes. And we've had that, actually, in the beginning of the last recovery. In 2002 and '03, there was a lot of fear of a double-dip recession.
VELSHI: You call it a jobless recovery.
ACHUTHAN: You call it a jobless recovery. Back when, you remember Bill Clinton campaigning against George Bush Senior, and he was going on, "It's the economy, stupid." We were in a recovery, but the jobs weren't there. It was a jobless recovery. And that really resonated.
VELSHI: Where do we go now? I mean, these guys have said if we have another downturn, it's a separate recession. It's not a "W" anymore. But the reality is, where do you think we're going? Because unlike the MBER --
ACHUTHAN: We're forecasters.
VELSHI: You're forecasters.
ACHUTHAN: Yes.
VELSHI: You actually look ahead. So you take all the data we've got right now.
ACHUTHAN: All right.
VELSHI: A month ago everybody was talking about a double-dip recession. Now there are some things that look a little bit better. Where do you think we are going with this?
ACHUTHAN: We're in the direction of this economy, it's to the down side. It's growing, but it's growing slower. OK? And we were able to see that at the beginning of the year, looking at leading indicators, where the growth rates started to turn down.
VELSHI: Leading indicators are the opposite of lagging indicators, which tell you what happened in the past?
ACHUTHAN: Correct. So you have leading. They look forward a little bit.
VELSHI: Yes.
ACHUTHAN: Coincident, which is things like GDP, or industrial production, or employment. That tells you right now --
VELSHI: Yes.
ACHUTHAN: -- outside your window. And lagging could be something like business failures, or interest rates. VELSHI: Right.
ACHUTHAN: Or things like that.
Now, leading indicators, the growth rates have been coming down since the beginning of the year. So we forecast a slowdown in the economy.
VELSHI: Yes.
ACHUTHAN: And economic growth starting by midyear. You've seen GDP start to throttle back. You've seen jobs growth start to disappoint further.
VELSHI: Right.
ACHUTHAN: It's growing but slower than you want it to.
Now, that directional call remains intact. We do not see a reacceleration in sight. However, the really important thing is we're also not forecasting a new contraction --
VELSHI: OK.
ACHUTHAN: -- a new recession yet. We don't see that yet. There's going to be one, but it's not imminent.
VELSHI: Interesting. OK. Lakshman, you often get it right. You always get it right. So we, you know -- it's good to hear from you. Thank you very much for being with us.
ACHUTHAN: Thanks for having me.
VELSHI: Lakshman Achuthan of the Economic -- Economic Cycle --
ACHUTHAN: Cycle Research --
VELSHI: Research --
ACHUTHAN: Institute.
VELSHI: Institute.
ACHUTHAN: There you go.
VELSHI: That's right. I know it by its -- by its letters.
All right. We're going to talk a little more about this recession a little later on. We're also going to talk about something that's on all of your minds. And that is those tax cuts. What are we doing with the Bush-era tax cuts? I'll talk to somebody about that very shortly.
All right. It started on a Utah National Guard shooting range and was blown off-base by high winds. The so-called Machine Gun Fire has destroyed at least four homes and forced folks out of nearly 2,000 more. The flames were apparently sparked by ammunition fired during a training exercise.
A matter-of-fact military spokesman and an emotional evacuee giving two sides of this developing story is today's "Sound Effect."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LT. COL. HANK MCINTYRE, UTAH NATIONAL GUARD: These fires are an occurrence that happen occasionally during training. That's why we have on-site equipment in order to fight the fire with pumper trucks, dipping tanks, Black Hawk helicopters, as needed. And this fire initially behaved like any other fire that we would put out internally without having to call outside authorities to assist.
JACKIE BURNS, HERRIMAN RESIDENT: Every year for years they set that mountain on fire, and it's never come that close to Herriman. But so many times over 34 years that we have watched and just waited to see fire coming over the ridge and thought we'd get out.
It finally happened. They finally did it.
And for them to say they checked the weather conditions is baloney, because it was a hot, dry wind last night. It's blown all week out here. It was blowing this morning. So they are full of baloney when they said they checked the wind conditions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELSHI: Hundreds of firefighters are battling this thing on the ground and from the sky. The last update we heard from authorities, the fire has burned about 10,000 acres in less than 24 hours. But Utah's governor says firefighters are making progress against the flames.
Well, generally, Congress tries to avoid hot-button issues in the weeks before an election. Not this year. Don't go away, because "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is heading for a pivotal vote. I'll talk about it when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: It's been 17 years since President Clinton signed a compromise on the issue of gays in the U.S. military and settled essentially nothing. Tomorrow the U.S. Senate plans a vote that could spell the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Or could just be another footnote in a long and painful controversy.
The 1993 policy allows gays to serve in all the armed forces, so long as nobody really knows they're gay. Or nobody acknowledges they're gay.
Republicans have filibustered a 2010 measure that would authorize a repeal. And it's far from clear that supporters can round up the 60 votes they need to press on.
But a mighty force is leading the charge for change. At the top, President Obama, who campaigned against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," but says it's up to Congress to end it. Defense Secretary Robert Gates asked Congress back in February to let gays serve openly. He was joined by Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen.
Today Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is rallying his members to follow the lead of the House, which voted for repeal in May.
Now, it's important to note that Capitol Hill isn't the only battleground. Less than two weeks ago, a federal judge in California declared "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to be unconstitutional. The judge says it violates the First and Fifth Amendments rights of gay and lesbian service members. She wrote, "Defendants faced -- faced the burden at trial of showing the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' act was necessary to significantly further the government's important interests in military readiness and unit cohesion. Defendants failed to meet that burden."
Nevertheless, the policy remains, pending further court action, or congressional action. That brings me to the main event. Main, by the way, as in the Maine state represented in the Senate by Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. They are considered the best hope of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" opponents to break with GOP leaders and vote for repeal.
And that is why this woman -- wait for it. There you go. Lady Gaga, plans a rally this afternoon in Portland. Ms. Gaga -- I don't know if that's what you call her -- has been quite outspoken. She's been an advocate of an all-inclusive military. She'll speak at 4 p.m. Eastern at a gathering organized by Service Members Legal Defense Network.
Now, in case this whole story couldn't get crazier in terms of the cast of characters involved, let's bring in Chris Lawrence. CNN's Chris Lawrence following all this from his post at the Pentagon.
Chris, you can talk about the upcoming Senate vote or you can talk about Lady Gaga, but let's talk about the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
CHRIS LAWRENCE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, exactly. I mean, the feeling I'm getting here at the Pentagon is the military officials aren't exactly gaga over Gaga. A couple of the senior officials were asked this morning, "Do you plan to watch this rally?" and they said, no. Not really.
But they are going ahead with their own plans, really. The Pentagon has several working groups that have been working for quite some time now, looking at all aspects of how this would be implemented. They're not saying it will be, but if it is changed, they want to have some plans in place so that it's more seamless rather than problematic.
They're looking at housing: how people would live together. Entitlements, benefits, even questions of public displays of affection. All of that's being looked at.
At the same time, a few months ago they sent out these surveys to all the troops, asking them their feeling on different questions, you know, around the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Those are now all in. They're looking at the results of those. And then they sent out more surveys to family members.
I was just told that, as of today, about 38,000 wives, husbands, family members, have sent back their surveys about their feelings on the matter.
And that really plays into this debate on Capitol Hill right now, because some senators and congressmen are saying they want to wait until these findings are in, and they want to hear what the Pentagon has found before they go ahead with a vote.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: It is a blatant message of disrespect to our men and women in uniform that Congress is unwilling to even wait to hear from the force has to say on this important matter before pushing ahead with a controversial political vote less than two months before an election.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LAWRENCE: A lot of -- obviously a lot of opposition on one hand. On the other, some of the supporters of repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" say look at other countries, such as Iran, Pakistan, North Korea. They all forbid homosexuals from serving openly in the military, while some of our staunchest allies, like Britain, Canada, Australia and Israel, allow gay people to serve openly in the military -- Ali.
VELSHI: We'll follow it -- we'll follow it closely. All the more interesting, now that Lady Gaga's involved. Chris, thanks very much for that. We'll check in with you a little later. Chris Lawrence in Washington.
Well, there's a nasty fight in Washington over extending the Bush tax cuts. We've been talking about that a lot. The bottom line is, what's better for the economy, and I guess in some circles what's better for voters? So we went out and asked a bunch of economists what they thought. You're going to hear their answers after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: All right. "Your $$$$$" today, your taxes, because that seems to be at the center of one of the most bitter fights in Washington these days, which is saying something, given all the bitter fights in Washington.
In 110 days the Bush tax cuts are set to expire. Those are the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. The White House wants to extend them for most Americans, but not for the top 2 or 3 percent.
Now, our friends at CNNmoney.com did a survey of economists and found that letting those tax cuts expire is raising some fears. Letting them expire means tax rates, personal tax rates going up. So I want to break that down a little bit with you with my good friend Jeanne Sahadi, who really studies this day in and day out and knows about this.
First of all, you've got your own studying about the affect of tax cuts on the economy, but you've spoken to some economists. What did they say?
JEANNE SAHADI, SENIOR WRITER,CNNMONEY.COM: Well, the chief economic (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Chris Isadore (ph) conducted a survey with 31 economists. Of those, 60 percent said the most important thing Congress can do to help the economy in the near term is extend all of the Bush tax cuts. Not just those for the middle class but for everybody.
Some people said -- 10 percent said just do it for the middle class. Thirteen percent, it was asked before the small business lending bill had gotten on track --
VELSHI: Right.
SAHADI: -- increase lending to small businesses.
VELSHI: Right.
SAHADI: But 60 percent is a pretty big number --
VELSHI: Right.
SAHADI: -- for people -- it's more like -- it is -- it's a fear factor. It's like let's not make things worse.
VELSHI: OK.
SAHADI: It would make things worse if we let them..
VELSHI: Tell me how -- how -- let's just explain this. How does it make things worse? Because what we're talking about is returning tax rates to what they were under the Clinton administration --
SAHADI: Right.
VELSHI: -- which, by the way, was a very prosperous period for America. So there's no correlation between those tax rates and the lack of prosperity. So what's the fear of making it worse? And I'm not -- I'm not editorializing; I'm just asking what the people say the fear is.
SAHADI: Well, it's a psychological fear, one. Two, people's resources are -- there's no wealth effect going on.
VELSHI: Right.
SAHADI: There's a non-wealth effect going on.
VELSHI: Right. SAHADI: So psychologically, to know that I'm now going to have even less money next year --
VELSHI: Right.
SAHADI: -- isn't going to do great things for people. I'm not spending a lot now. I may spend even less if I have less money to spend.
VELSHI: Got it.
SAHADI: And I was doing a story on you small business owners at the upper income tax rates, because the Republicans saying, "Oh, they're going to get hurt the most. It will kill small business if we do this."
The Democrats say that's nonsense. But in fact, neither party gets a -- gets a pass on that one, because the tax data doesn't -- doesn't prove either of them out. But I did talk to a small business owner, and she said, "We really feel under assault. There are a lot of things coming at us from all different angles, state level, local level."
VELSHI: Right.
SAHADI: There are other tax increases that have been passed not just on the income tax level.
VELSHI: But -- and I get that. So the idea is that you're going to get it from all sides. The opposite of wealth effect means that things are eroding your income or your sense of prosperity. And cities and states are going to have to increase their taxes in many cases. Many of them are just starting by cutting back services. But ultimately --
SAHADI: Yes.
VELSHI: -- they get the delayed response to the recession. But then, it's just not free. The bottom line is, if you extend tax cuts for everybody --
SAHADI: Right.
VELSHI: -- you will pay for it somewhere.
SAHADI: Sure.
VELSHI: Until the economy rebounds, right?
SAHADI: That's correct. And in fact, the CDO had an interesting study. They said it's a really mixed bag if you extend the tax cuts and continue to do stimulus. In the short term, it could help the economy. In the long term, it could actually harm economic growth.
VELSHI: Right. SAHADI: And the reason is we're going to add to our debt, which is already pretty high. And looking out ten years, 20 years, that means we're going to pay more and more interest on that debt.
VELSHI: Right.
SAHADI: And we're going to have less money to invest in things that are good for the country competitively. So it's the mixed bag picture --
VELSHI: Yes.
SAHADI: -- the CDO portrayed. You know, the estimates are all very approximate.
VELSHI: Right. And you generally have a very good handle on things. But the reality is what to do now, the next steps --
SAHADI: Right.
VELSHI: -- is very hard to get your head around. So what I get troubled by is when I'm watching TV, and I watch people who say very obviously, this is what you need to do, whether it's extend the tax cuts or not. It's just -- nothing's really that obvious right now.
SAHADI: No. And you know, an interesting thing. Deficit hawks who, in general, don't like that we're not going to pay for these extensions.
VELSHI: Yes.
SAHADI: Said look, if it's so good for stimulus for us to extend all these Bush tax cuts, why don't we put them up for competition with other deficit finance tax cuts and see what stimulates more? Now, that's not going to happen. That's a nice theoretical position. But that may be the way they should be thinking about it.
VELSHI: Right.
SAHADI: Should we pay $3 trillion over three years --
VELSHI: Yes.
SAHADI: -- to extend for the middle class? Or do we take that $3 trillion and spend it on something that we think would be even more effective?
VELSHI: Yes.
SAHADI: That's not going to happen. But I'm just saying, as a --
VELSHI: Well, after a conversation -- you and I have had several in the last few weeks, and after one of them I sort of discussed on TV the fact that it is not clear that the lack of those tax cuts is having a negative impact on the economy. And I stated --
SAHADI: Lack of -- yes, yes, yes.
VELSHI: It's not clear that, if you let it expire, it's going to have a negative effect, simply because we've not seen that prosperity effect; we've not seen that wealth effect. And a lot of people felt that it was misrepresented as me saying I'm leaning against extending the tax cuts.
SAHADI: You're just saying it's not --
VELSHI: I'm just saying, we lack a lot of evidence here.
SAHADI: Yes. We lack evidence, but we also -- I was telling Tony Harris this earlier. There is just no fiscal decision that lawmakers are going to make going forward --
VELSHI: Right.
SAHADI: -- that's not going to be extremely difficult.
VELSHI: That will be tough. Right.
SAHADI: Because you have to balance full stream (ph) economy and --
VELSHI: Right. In other words, if you extend the tax cuts, you do pay for it somewhere else. That will change when the economy starts firing on all cylinders. But for now --
SAHADI: Right.
VELSHI: -- you've got to make some decisions.
Jeanne, great to talk to you. Thanks so much.
Jeanne Sahadi, senior writer at CNNmoney.com. Listen, do yourself a favor, because this election is upon you. And if you're planning to go out and vote, read Jeanne's stuff about the impact of tax cuts. Just go in educated, so that you're not making your voting decision based on bumper stickers that sound very appealing.
Also, tune into "YOUR $$$$$," Saturdays at 1 p.m. Eastern and Sundays at 3 p.m. Easter right here on CNN. We discuss this much more than most people ever wanted to talk about taxes.
All right. Football season is here. Here. I'm always going to bring you something fun. But even football's not always fun and games. Could the stress of football cause heart attacks? We're going to ask an expert when we get back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: Over the weekend Michigan state's football team celebrated a victory in overtime by beating Notre Dame by just three points. But after the game, Spartan head coach Mark D'Antonio went to the hospital, suffering from symptoms of a heart attack. He's expected to make a full recovery, but can a down-to-the-wire game be too much for the heart?
Elizabeth Cohen joins me now in Atlanta.
Elizabeth, what's your thought on this? Could -- could that kind of stress have brought on a heart attack?
ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Ali, I've been talking to cardiologists, and they say, yes, that actually can happen. Any kind of stress, whether it's an excitement kind of stress, or a bad kind of stress, can bring on a heart attack, if there is underlying heart disease.
Now, we don't know D'Antonio's health history, but the cardiologist I talked to said, if there is any even sort of building up of plaque in the arteries, the excitement can bring on -- well, even without that blockage, an excitement brings on what's called a catecholamine surge. These are hormones that surge through your body. They make your heart race; they make your heart pump fast. And if you have any kind of underlying heart disease, that can spell a heart attack.
And we're told that D'Antonio went to the hospital. They found he had actually had a heart attack, and they need to do surgery to open up one of his arteries.
VELSHI: Look, as we learn about heart attacks, we learned that there are so many things that can cause them. Is this -- how tight is that causal relationship? I mean, I've heard that if you ingest too much fatty food at one sitting, and you're in a high-risk category, it can give you a heart attack. So is it -- is it stress or is it -- is it something else?
COHEN: I mean, it can be all sorts ever things, but certainly stress is one of the biggies. I mean, for example, if someone has underlying heart disease and plays a game of basketball. Maybe they've played basketball all they're lives, but that one game can be what puts them over the edge if they have underlying disease.
And one of the things that's interesting, Ali, about heart attacks is that they don't all feel the same.
VELSHI: Yes.
COHEN: I think we expect people to sort of fall on the floor --
VELSHI: Totally right, yes.
COHEN: -- holding their heart. Right. And what's called the Hollywood heart attack. But in fact, it's often not that way.
VELSHI: Right.
COHEN: And we actually have a terrific interactive on CNN.com, where we got real heart attack victims to very specifically describe what they felt. This is Dwayne here, and he said, Dwayne Marcus (ph). He said he just had mild pain. Wasn't a Hollywood heart attack, but he actually had had a heart attack.
VELSHI: Some people say it feels like anxiety or it feel liks a racing pulse. This coach, Antonio, he waited a while before getting treated.
Is that normal?
COHEN: Yes. Cardiologists tell me they see that quite a bit. That someone has, let's say, just a little discomfort or feels a little nauseous. They think, I'm OK. I'll take an antacid. Or, I'll just wait. If it gets worse I'll go in. So it's not unusual for someone to have the symptoms and wait before they go to the hospital.
VELSHI: You've got a documentary is coming up on your book, the Empowered Patient, which I love. It's just so usable, the information on there.
Tell me about the documentary.
COHEN: The documentary is terrific. We talked to real empowered patients who saved their own life, or saved the life of someone that they love by being an empowered smart patient and advocating for themselves under difficult circumstances. October 2nd and 3rd, 7:00 p.m. You've got to watch it. You've got to learn how to save your own life sometimes.
VELSHI: Elizabeth, thanks so much for that. Good to see you. I'll see you back in Atlanta.
Elizabeth Cohen, our senior medical correspondent.
OK. Crime. We all know that crime doesn't pay. It actually costs. But it doesn't necessarily only cost the person committing the crime. Should judges consider the cost of putting someone behind bars or on probation when sentencing criminals? Judges in Missouri are doing that now. Some people say, absolutely not. What do you say? Let's talk about it on the other side.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: Hey, this conversation caught my eye. There's a heated debate underway in Missouri right now about whether judges should consider the cost of sending someone to prison when they are sentencing someone to prison.
Judges in that state have been considering that option for the past month. According to the "New York Times," Missouri's Sentencing Advusory Commission put the practice into effect. The guidelines are not mandatory, they are simply guidelines. Now, a computer algorithm was developed to help them out. The offender's conviction code, criminal history and other background fed into the computer. The computer then spits out a range of recommended sentences and the price tag for each one of them. Information also includes a likelihood of that criminal in question being a repeat offender. The prosecuting attorney for St. Louis County Robert McCulloch, denounced the move saying quote, "Justice isn't subject to a mathematical formula." But Missouri judge Gary Oxenhandler takes as different view. He says, quote, "This is one of a thousand things we look at about the tip of a dog's tail."
Right now Missouri is the only state to have this policy, but some legal experts predict policies similar to this one are going to start showing up in other states. Missouri officials say there's no way the system would come into play if a case involved the sentence of a life in prison or a death sentence. They say the computer model does not attempt to compute the cost of capital punishment.
All right. Interesting topic. I wouldn't mind hearing what you think about that so check in with me on Facebook. Facebook.com/alivelshiCNN.
The clock is ticking on the ambitious millennium development goals. Will they be accomplished by the deadline? What are they? I'm going to tell you about them when I come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: I want to bring you up to speed on some of the top stories we're following right now on CNN.
Some top Republicans are urging Delaware Senate hopeful Christine O'Donnell to explain what she meant when she said she dabbled in witchcraft. The GOP candidate made the comment about 10 years ago on Bill Maher's show, "Politically Incorrect." After he re-aired it Friday, O'Donnell cancelled a couple of TV appearances but later joked about the whole thing. We'll talk a little more about witchcraft later on in the show.
Mixed reviews for Afghanistan's parliamentary vote this weekend. An independent watchdog group applauds what it calls a a relatively high level of voter participation. The same group however says many Afghan were denied the right to vote due to security logistical failures. Meantime, many voters just lost faith with the whole process after blatent fraud in last year's presidential election.
And pop and political colliding today in Portland, Maine. Singer Lady Gaga headlining a rally there, calling for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which is the Military's ban on openly gay troops. A showdown over the law is expected in the Senate starting tomorrow. Maine's two moderate Republicans are seen at key votes in the debate.
Time now for Globe Trekking. Today's issue is global poverty and the United Nations' effort to reduce it as never before in history. Ten years ago a U.N. summit laid down eight very ambitious steps aimed at making the world a better place to live for everybody, not just the middle class or the super rich.
Today those world leaders are back at the U.N. for a summit on what is called the Millennium Development Goals. It's really interesting stuff, it's really worth looking into. Looking at progress made and setbacks that may have set back some of those goals, making them unachievable by the deadline that is set for five years from now.
Here's how U.N. Secretary General Ban ki-Moon put it at the end of today's opening session.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BAN KI-MOON, U.N. SECRETARY GENERAL (through translator): We are here because a fight for more prosperous, stable and equitable world is at the heart. Itself, as of the mission of the United Nations. We are here because 10 years ago, meeting here at the highest level the international community promised to spare no effort to free the entire human race from want.
We have more success stories than ever before. The transformative impact of the MBG is undeniable. This is an achievement we can be proud of. But we must protect these advances, many of which are still fragile. And the clock is ticking. We have much more to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELSHI: OK. Here are the eight goals of the Millennium Development Goal. Number one, eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. Number two, achieve universal primary education. Number three, promote gender equality and empower women. Number four, reduce child mortality. Number five, improve maternal helath. Number six, combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other disease. Number seven, ensure environmental sustainability. And number eight, develop global partnerships for development.
They sound very general, but in fact, there's been a great deal of work going on at the United Nations to try and get international progress and coordination in achieving some of those goals. So far the U.N. says significant progress in reaching the goals has actually been made. For example, reducing poverty by half is actually with reach. 1.6 billion people now have access to clean water. Malaria prevention is expanding.
Now, as I said, there are serious shortfalls. Millions of children are not getting enough food and are underweight. There's been little overall progress in sub-Saharan Africa. There's also been little progress in reducing the death of mothers and infants in birth. The summit runs through Wednesday. It's connected to the opening of the U.N. General Assembly.
Turning now to France. CNN's Hala Gorani, big treat, today had an exclusive interview with Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, the somewhat controversial first lady of France. You may recall that in an unauthorized biograpahy, she was quoted as saying that Michelle Obama told her that life in the White House was hell.
Hala joins me right here in New York for more on this. You had a conversation with her. She is an interesting woman. She finds her way into controversy quite regularly. HALA GORANI, CNNI ANCHOR: She does. And when she came to New York, she came with the head of the Global Fund, the fund to fight aids, tuberculosis and malaria. So the interview was based on her work as an ambassador for the Global Fund. But, of course, with this tell-all book that came out in France last week, with all this talk about her potentially using police files to spy on rivals inside Elysses palace, it doesn't even sound like a soap opera anymore. It's like dynasty back in the '80s.
The big news in the United States is what you mentioned about something relayed in the book that she said or reportedly said about Michelle Obama. That when she met her, Michelle Obama had reportedly said life in the White House is hell.
So I asked her about that specifically, and this is how she answered.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CARLA BRUNI, FRENCH FIRST LADY: Of course, Michelle Obama never said such a thing. I'm happy to tell you very frankly that this is not an authorized book. No one -- not only one book that came out about me was authorized. I never read the book. I never knew about the book. But I do live in France, and France is a free country where anyone can you know, fantasize and print it. So, of course, I could do something legal, but first of all it gives a lot of publicity to all of those books and second of all, it's not in my principle, you know? I'm a Democrat. I believe that everyone is allowed to say and write and say what they want. But I'm happy to disassociate myself.
GORANI: Disassociate.
BRUNI: Disassociate myself. Not only from that book, from all books. And, of course, Mrs. Obama never said such a thing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELSHI: OK. I was wondering if she was going to actually outright deny that. And she waited until the end. So she disassociated herself, but she did then say that she didn't relay that Michelle Obama says life in the White House was hell.
GORANI: She said that. She also said that what was written in the book was written without her consent. Because the author of this book, called "Carla and The Ambitious."
The title makes more sense in French, by the way. Said that she was basically abusing power at the Elysee Palace, that she uncovered a blot to oust her and, therefore, used some of these powers -- secret police files and spying on text messages of people inside of the Elysee Palace who might not have wanted her there. She is denying all that and saying, "I haven't even read the book."
VELSHI: Interesting. You did talk to her about the work she's involved in at the U.N. This is a very, very important week. The whole world is descending upon New York as the world's leaders and delegates get together for the opening of the U.N. But what did she have to say about those goals that they're trying to achieve?
GORANI: Well, she's saying that this is new to her. She's not like a Lady Diana or Angolan Jolie who's been doing this for years. She said basically this is within the framework of her role as first lady of France.
She's very much concerned about the transmission, specifically the transmission of the AIDS HIV virus from mother to child, which, of course as you know, is preventable. When you mentioned those millennium development goals, interesting you underlined the fact so many of them have not been met, and that, as you know a country like China kind of skews the averages all over the world.
VELSHI: Yes.
GORANI: So, she is one of the ambassadors, one of the celebrities, of course. As you know, in the last decade of so, it's been a huge trend. Lending her name to a cause.
VELSHI: Very good. Hala, good to see you in New York. I'll see you back in Atlanta.
GORANI: Great to see you.
VELSHI: All right. Check these out, by the way. Definitely not your grandpa's stadium. We'll show you what sports arenas of the future are going to look like. This is fascinating. I'll show you that on the other side of the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: Okay. Millions of people around the country watched football this weekend. In honor of the gridiron, today's "Big I" is all about the stadiums of the future.
I love great stadiums. Let's start with these designs submitted by Albert Spear and partner as part of Qatar bid for World Cup 2022. All the World Cups before that have been decided upon. The Middle Eastern country can get well above 100 degrees in the summer when the World Cup is held. And that kind of heat challenged the designers to come up with a cooling plan. So, the stadiums presented here will be cooled using solar energy in order to guarantee optical - optical -- optimal match conditions. You can see that on the top.
All stadiums are easily accessible by public or personal transportation. Qatar is just one of the countries trying to host the 2022 FIFA World Cup. The decision as to who will host it will be coming in December.
Let's go to Barcelona, Spain. Camp New Stadium, currently the largest in Europe, getting a face lift now. These pictures are from Foster and Partners. That's the company. They plan to expand seating from 100,000 to 160,000. Right now, it's just 100,000.
The brightly colored mosaic outer skin will be wrapped around the building; it will extend to the new roof. This stadium getting new facilities, including hospitality and public areas. And on match nights, the stadium will actually glow.
OK, let's go to China. The new sports park was designed by the architecture studio Populous. It will be located in the historic center of Datong (ph) near Beijing. The park is made up of a series of titanium shells and will include a 30,000 seat stadium, and 8,000 seat arena along with some other multi-use buildings. The designers at Populous told the magazine "Evolo" that the inspiration for the design came from nearby caves that are symbolic of the rich cultural heritage of the region.
For more access to these pictures and artist renderings of stadiums - I'm really into this kind of stuff -- head to my blog, CNN.com/ali. We've posted the links and information for you there.
Mike Huckabee. You know him, he says the Republican establishment is getting spanked, and that it deserves it. We'll have that and more in our "CNN Equals Politics" update, coming right up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: It is time now for a "CNN Equals Politics" update. CNN senior congressional correspondent Dana Bash is in Washington. Dana, what is crossing the political ticker right now?
DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, Ali, I remember back at the end of 2007 and the beginning of 2008 following then relatively unknown former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee around Iowa. And he always kept things interesting with the way that he spoke, his colorful language.
Well, guess what? That has not changed. He said over the weekend, "I think the Republican establishment in D.C. is getting spanked and deserves it." You can watch that video on CNN.com/ticker.
Second item for you is somebody who has a similar feeling about the Republican establishment. May not use that same language. That is Republican Senator Jim DeMint. He has really angered some of his colleagues in the Republican establishment by supporting -- successfully supporting conservative candidates through the primaries this election year. And many Republicans say, look, if you feel this way, you've got to put your money where your mouth is. Help us get these people elected. And in the case of Delaware Christine O'Donnell, that's exactly what he's trying to do today. His political action committee has put up a new ad in Delaware to support Christine O'Donnell, saying Christine O'Donnell stands up for us and not Washington.
And last on the ticker, something that we want to tell you about that we first reported earlier this morning, Ali. That is, right here on the Ticker, the fact that the House Republicans are going to unveil their agenda on Thursday. Here in the story you can find discussions that myself and congressional producer Deirdre Walsh have had with Republican strategists who have said, look, this is one of the remaining ingredients -- missing ingredients in trying to get Republicans elected, giving voters a reason to vote for Republicans, not just against Democrats. But we're also talking to Republican strategists who say that this is fine, this is good, but they really want to focus on what some call the "80/20 strategy." What is that?
VELSHI: Interesting strategy. All right. Dana, good to see you as always. Thanks very much. We'll have another Political Ticker Update for you in the next hour.
Okay. A 3 million-year-old whale, a mass chicken dance and a 33- hour kiss. Pucker up. "Odds & Ends" up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: In today's "Odds & Ends," a three million-year-old whale has turned up at the San Diego Zoo. How lucky. A construction crew was digging up a storm water tank when it stumbled on the well- preserved fossil. The 24-foot long fossil was confirmed as authentic by a paleontologist who was already on-site. He was assigned to the project as a precautionary measure. It's a good thing, too. The skull and vertebrae are intact.
Next. OK, this one you have to listen to carefully. Two men in New Jersey have set the record for the longest continuous kiss. Matt Daly and Bobby Kent Cielo kissed for more than 33 hours in a tent on the campus of the College of New Jersey. The kiss was streamed live online. According to the "Guinness Book of World Records," you can't make this stuff up. The two guys had to be standing in a public venue. And just for the record, the guys are not a couple. They're just friends.
And just because you can't really get enough of it, video of a mass Chicken Dance. It was all part of the kickoff for the 2010 Oktoberfest in Cincinnati. UFC Fighter Rich Franklin led the dance on Fountain Square.
